bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-34763036
So, global warning, sorry, climate change is in the news again. What new measures will our glorious leaders adopt to protect us from this self inflicted armageddon? My money is on increased and imaginative taxes for those planet destroying automobiles! How long until private car use is purely for the priveliged? And how will the haulage industry survive yet more taxation?
It WAS voted for! And more countries across Europe are voting the same way. Enjoy what you can whilst ‘they’ allow you to!
And the tree hugging left wing bias BBC always are right i supose, what a crock of sheeite
All based on the belief that it was the CO2 that makes up the atmosphere of Venus that cooked the planet not the amount and weight of that atmosphere and it being ‘a bit’ closer to the Sun.
Which probably explains why if you asked the believers to show a direct proportional link between temperatures and CO2 they wouldn’t be able to.Let alone be able to show any link in the case of an atmosphere made up of such a small proportion of the stuff as on Earth even if there was such a link.
As for the minimal localised increase that they are moaning about as usual the CO2 balance in the atmosphere is all about plant life and the more trees they cut down and more areas of green are covered in concrete and buildings the more CO2 and less oxygen we’ll get.
Where did I read recently that in the next couple or three decades we are in for another mini ice-age ? (and not referring to the film !)
Great, another laugh a minute thread for the glass half empty crew. 
There’s me thinking those scientists & professors that spend years studying these things knew what they’re talking about, when all the time the real “experts” are on TNUK! Who’d a thunk. All hail Google, turning even the dimmest loon into another armchair warrior.
My information came from the Sun or the BBC so must be correct 
And who on earth here on Truck Net get all their info from Google, I cant imagine ?
BillyHunt:
Great, another laugh a minute thread for the glass half empty crew.
There’s me thinking those scientists & professors that spend years studying these things knew what they’re talking about, when all the time the real “experts” are on TNUK! Who’d a thunk. All hail Google, turning even the dimmest loon into another armchair warrior.
Maybe the ‘scientists’ could explain what the temperature would be at an air pressure of 92 bar even with a CO2 level of less than 350 ppm. 
That I need to know so I can sleep tonight
Carryfast:
All based on the belief that it was the CO2 that makes up the atmosphere of Venus that cooked the planet not the amount and weight of that atmosphere and it being ‘a bit’ closer to the Sun.Which probably explains why if you asked the believers to show a direct proportional link between temperatures and CO2 they wouldn’t be able to.Let alone be able to show any link in the case of an atmosphere made up of such a small proportion of the stuff as on Earth even if there was such a link.
As for the minimal localised increase that they are moaning about as usual the CO2 balance in the atmosphere is all about plant life and the more trees they cut down and more areas of green are covered in concrete and buildings the more CO2 and less oxygen we’ll get.
Isn’t this the pure elephant in the room,the archontic corporations are felling our forests so that middle class arses can take a dump on tropical hardwood bog seats,and gorge on palm oil produce and they have the gall to suggest were all guilty of the crime of being alive.
It’s a little known fact that the entire population of earth could inhabit the state of Texas and enjoy around 6 acres of land to spare but the power ‘elite’ need the populace coralled in artificial,sterile enclosures called cities,all the better for controlling purposes.
BillyHunt:
Great, another laugh a minute thread for the glass half empty crew.
There’s me thinking those scientists & professors that spend years studying these things knew what they’re talking about, when all the time the real “experts” are on TNUK! DWho’d a thunk. All hail Google, turning even the dimmest loon into another armchair warrior.
Pretty big assumption there mate, I wasn’t always a lorry driver you know.
The thing about scientists and experts, they’ll say whatever the person paying them wants them to say.
My gripe is: if climate change is such a big issue, why isn’t this government (and those before it) doing something about it. All that happens is the introduction of various “green” taxes. I’ll take climate change seriously when they do.
manalishi:
Carryfast:
All based on the belief that it was the CO2 that makes up the atmosphere of Venus that cooked the planet not the amount and weight of that atmosphere and it being ‘a bit’ closer to the Sun.Which probably explains why if you asked the believers to show a direct proportional link between temperatures and CO2 they wouldn’t be able to.Let alone be able to show any link in the case of an atmosphere made up of such a small proportion of the stuff as on Earth even if there was such a link.
As for the minimal localised increase that they are moaning about as usual the CO2 balance in the atmosphere is all about plant life and the more trees they cut down and more areas of green are covered in concrete and buildings the more CO2 and less oxygen we’ll get.
Isn’t this the pure elephant in the room,the archontic corporations are felling our forests
They are using the bs diversion of fossil fuel use and non existent supposed CO2 caused green house effect to shift attention from the real issue. 
Captain Caveman 76:
Warming set to breach 1C threshold - BBC NewsSo, global warning, sorry, climate change is in the news again. What new measures will our glorious leaders adopt to protect us from this self inflicted armageddon? My money is on increased and imaginative taxes for those planet destroying automobiles! How long until private car use is purely for the priveliged? And how will the haulage industry survive yet more taxation?
Why do you think heavier fuel taxation would destroy the haulage industry ?
The need to move goods throughout the country will still exist. Hauliers would need to charge more and the consumer would have to foot the bill. There would be more money flowing through the hauliers books, and as inexplicable as it may be, companies with the highest turn overs often pay the most. So from a drivers perspective, very high fuel taxation could be a good thing, more pay and quieter roads. win win.
But if the umpteen million car drivers buying fuel were no longer there I think the big fuel producers might have something to say about that and the car makers, not all the world revolves around trucks you know …
Bluey Circles:
Captain Caveman 76:
Warming set to breach 1C threshold - BBC NewsSo, global warning, sorry, climate change is in the news again. What new measures will our glorious leaders adopt to protect us from this self inflicted armageddon? My money is on increased and imaginative taxes for those planet destroying automobiles! How long until private car use is purely for the priveliged? And how will the haulage industry survive yet more taxation?
Why do you think heavier fuel taxation would destroy the haulage industry ?
The need to move goods throughout the country will still exist. Hauliers would need to charge more and the consumer would have to foot the bill. There would be more money flowing through the hauliers books, and as inexplicable as it may be, companies with the highest turn overs often pay the most. So from a drivers perspective, very high fuel taxation could be a good thing, more pay and quieter roads. win win.
Why do think we need heavier road fuel taxation ?.
Why/how do you think the ‘consumer’ will foot the bill if incomes don’t increase to cover the cost ?.While if they do then what has been acheived except increasing inflation ?.
How does tax paid to the exchequer equate to turnover on the balance sheet and money available for wages ?.
Do your ideas on fuel taxation also apply to air and rail transport operators,if not why not ?.
All this bollox has come from the Met Office who haven’t even figured out how to predict the weather accurately yet
Carryfast:
Bluey Circles:
Captain Caveman 76:
Warming set to breach 1C threshold - BBC NewsSo, global warning, sorry, climate change is in the news again. What new measures will our glorious leaders adopt to protect us from this self inflicted armageddon? My money is on increased and imaginative taxes for those planet destroying automobiles! How long until private car use is purely for the priveliged? And how will the haulage industry survive yet more taxation?
Why do you think heavier fuel taxation would destroy the haulage industry ?
The need to move goods throughout the country will still exist. Hauliers would need to charge more and the consumer would have to foot the bill. There would be more money flowing through the hauliers books, and as inexplicable as it may be, companies with the highest turn overs often pay the most. So from a drivers perspective, very high fuel taxation could be a good thing, more pay and quieter roads. win win.Why do think we need heavier road fuel taxation ?.
Why/how do you think the ‘consumer’ will foot the bill if incomes don’t increase to cover the cost ?.While if they do then what has been acheived except increasing inflation ?.
How does tax paid to the exchequer equate to turnover on the balance sheet and money available for wages ?.
Do your ideas on fuel taxation also apply to air and rail transport operators,if not why not ?.
I never suggested we need heavier road fuel taxation; I was simply addressing the issue of “would the haulage industry be able to survive if there was?” I see no effective competition to lorries, rail and air are fixated on passengers and even if they wanted freight they could never compete with 99% of what the lorry does. I guess higher fuel costs may make society more efficient in what we are moving, thus very marginally reducing our use, but greater efficiency and less waste are always to be welcomed.
If the money raised in taxation was spent wisely (LOL) by our government then there is no real cost to society, may be the extra revenue would help to reduce the swinging cuts being levied upon us to reduce the deficit, the high deficit levels are the long term greater threat to inflation and economic downturn.
Carryfast:
All based on the belief that it was the CO2 that makes up the atmosphere of Venus that cooked the planet not the amount and weight of that atmosphere and it being ‘a bit’ closer to the Sun.Which probably explains why if you asked the believers to show a direct proportional link between temperatures and CO2 they wouldn’t be able to.Let alone be able to show any link in the case of an atmosphere made up of such a small proportion of the stuff as on Earth even if there was such a link.
As for the minimal localised increase that they are moaning about as usual the CO2 balance in the atmosphere is all about plant life and the more trees they cut down and more areas of green are covered in concrete and buildings the more CO2 and less oxygen we’ll get.
What has Venus to do with the price of fish ? the science is based on the understanding of how various gases convert radiation energy into heat, CO2 is a very efficient greenhouse gas, the more we pump into the atmosphere the warmer the planet will become. It really is that simple. 99% of scientist agree.
From records going back over the last few hundred thousand years, we can establish that we are seeing the most rapid increase ever in CO2 and at the same time we are also seeing the most rapid changes in global temperatures. Even if you are correct and there is no direct link between the two … would it not be prudent to stop pumping as much CO2 into the atmosphere until we can confirm 100% that there is no relationship. You are also mistaken that small proportions of gases / chemicals can not make a sufficient contribution to change, 400 parts per million does seem a negligible amount, 400parts per million of alcohol in your bloodstream would loose you your driving licence (in scotland).
Bluey Circles:
Carryfast:
All based on the belief that it was the CO2 that makes up the atmosphere of Venus that cooked the planet not the amount and weight of that atmosphere and it being ‘a bit’ closer to the Sun.Which probably explains why if you asked the believers to show a direct proportional link between temperatures and CO2 they wouldn’t be able to.Let alone be able to show any link in the case of an atmosphere made up of such a small proportion of the stuff as on Earth even if there was such a link.
As for the minimal localised increase that they are moaning about as usual the CO2 balance in the atmosphere is all about plant life and the more trees they cut down and more areas of green are covered in concrete and buildings the more CO2 and less oxygen we’ll get.
What has Venus to do with the price of fish ? the science is based on the understanding of how various gases convert radiation energy into heat, CO2 is a very efficient greenhouse gas, the more we pump into the atmosphere the warmer the planet will become. It really is that simple. 99% of scientist agree.
From records going back over the last few hundred thousand years, we can establish that we are seeing the most rapid increase ever in CO2 and at the same time we are also seeing the most rapid changes in global temperatures. Even if you are correct and there is no direct link between the two … would it not be prudent to stop pumping as much CO2 into the atmosphere until we can confirm 100% that there is no relationship. You are also mistaken that small proportions of gases / chemicals can not make a sufficient contribution to change, 400 parts per million does seem a negligible amount, 400parts per million of alcohol in your bloodstream would loose you your driving licence (in scotland).
Firstly it seems obvious that you’re a believer in the bs scam and everything which you say is obviously based on that.If you’re now trying to say that Sagan’s drug fuelled observations of Venus are now irrelevant then exactly what evidence would actually show that CO2 is even a supposed ‘Green House’ gas.Bearing in mind that’s where the theory was supposedly ‘confirmed’.
While if it was then what is the exact direct mathematical link between temperature and CO2 ?.On that note how hot would ordinary Earth type atmospheric air be at 92 bar pressure compared to the temperatures seen on Venus with its massive relative CO2 content ?.Let me guess you can’t provide any real difference because Venus was cooked by atmospheric pressure not Sagan’s bs claims that CO2 is a ‘green house’ gas.
Bluey Circles:
Carryfast:
Bluey Circles:
Captain Caveman 76:
Warming set to breach 1C threshold - BBC NewsSo, global warning, sorry, climate change is in the news again. What new measures will our glorious leaders adopt to protect us from this self inflicted armageddon? My money is on increased and imaginative taxes for those planet destroying automobiles! How long until private car use is purely for the priveliged? And how will the haulage industry survive yet more taxation?
Why do you think heavier fuel taxation would destroy the haulage industry ?
The need to move goods throughout the country will still exist. Hauliers would need to charge more and the consumer would have to foot the bill. There would be more money flowing through the hauliers books, and as inexplicable as it may be, companies with the highest turn overs often pay the most. So from a drivers perspective, very high fuel taxation could be a good thing, more pay and quieter roads. win win.Why do think we need heavier road fuel taxation ?.
Why/how do you think the ‘consumer’ will foot the bill if incomes don’t increase to cover the cost ?.While if they do then what has been acheived except increasing inflation ?.
How does tax paid to the exchequer equate to turnover on the balance sheet and money available for wages ?.
Do your ideas on fuel taxation also apply to air and rail transport operators,if not why not ?.
I never suggested we need heavier road fuel taxation; I was simply addressing the issue of “would the haulage industry be able to survive if there was?” I see no effective competition to lorries, rail and air are fixated on passengers and even if they wanted freight they could never compete with 99% of what the lorry does. I guess higher fuel costs may make society more efficient in what we are moving, thus very marginally reducing our use, but greater efficiency and less waste are always to be welcomed.
If the money raised in taxation was spent wisely (LOL) by our government then there is no real cost to society, may be the extra revenue would help to reduce the swinging cuts being levied upon us to reduce the deficit, the high deficit levels are the long term greater threat to inflation and economic downturn.
Blimey Labour Party economics in action.Under their bs ideas and propaganda tax isn’t a net burden/cost on the economy and higher road fuel taxation doesn’t make road transport less competitive in the transport market.So even at £1 per litre by road,let alone £2 per litre,how would you send that container load from Felixstowe to Glasgow ?.Bearing in mind the relative fuel taxation advantage enjoyed by rail freight and even the government admit to an economic and transport policy based on transferring freight from road to rail.