5394
Post by: reds8n
From Warseer :
Hey all. Just posted a topic on The Miniatures Page and B&C regarding a new, DUMB law about public safety that the US Federal government is enacting on February 10th that will effect retailers, manufacturors and consumers of products that are sold to or have the potential of being sold to those 12 years old and under. In this regards, it affects us with our miniatures. Posting here in hopes of getting more people aware of the new law.
My wife found some news that is making the rounds amongst the home based/small business and toy manufacturing groups. Evidently, some new legislation was passed into law(424 votes to 1) to protect children from unsafe toys after last year’s widely publicized recalls (by the way, recalls have actually decreased by 46%). Sounds good, until you look into the details and read in this assinine legislation that retailers as well as manufacturors and those selling second hand are required to obtain third party testing on all the products they sell directly or indirectly to children 12 years old and under. A vendor, even you selling online or at a flea market wont be able to place the "Not a Toy" label on your product, that definition will be made by a legislator, they will define what is a toy etc.
Thought the wife went off the deep end until I did a little digging around and found a Wall Street Journal article about it http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122696993087535701.html
One German toy company called Selecta has already refused to ship to the US because of this Amazon blog regarding Selecta http://www.amazon.com/gp/blog/post/PLNK3CAM978F92K94. This thing came out of left field, didnt even see it in the news until she brought it to my attention. They are saying that ebay and craigslist will refuse to resell items that fall under this category (so much for our second hand miniatures market in the US)because each seller will have to show proof of testing the product for lead, and places like Goodwill might shut down because they will not be able to legally sell things.
Here's another article that puts it in laymans terms http://www.zrecommends.com/detail/breaking-news-selecta-to-cease-us-distribution-due-to-cspia/
WTH is going on!?!?
Thanks to Mr. Vic for the spot.
Any thoughts ?
I'm thinking most (all ?) GW stuff should be alright as they got rid of the lead a few years back, but I have no idea as to whether they'll have to/be able to pay for these new tests etc.
4918
Post by: tkdarktrooper
The issue here is this: is the "third party" going to consider GW minis a toy? As far as I am concerned, it is not a toy. It is a model. I work in a hobby shop and 12 years can buy model planes, ships, and tanks and these are not considered toys, since they have to be assembled and painted. The real issue is what is the definition of a toy. Star Wars Minis would be a toy [nothing to assemble or paint].
221
Post by: Frazzled
Moving to Discussions
5636
Post by: warpcrafter
This is the most stupid law I've ever heard of. All those toys that were recalled were made in communist china. They are the ones who need to have some scrutiny directed at them, not the retailers.
5394
Post by: reds8n
@ Our benevolent mods : Ta 
I guess the GW stuff should be alright, but they do sell tehir stuff to kids, and I'm unsure about other manufacturers and their stuff. I can't say I've any real idea as whetehr this will have any impact, but figured just in case.....
and we've got a few legal eagles on here right ?
226
Post by: blue loki
My biggest concern regarding this is Consignment Shops. We (and many others) buy a large percentage of our son's clothes and toys from consignment shops because its so much cheaper than buying new. Plus, we can sell back stuff that our son outgrows or shows no interest in. I can see many of these shops closing due to legislature like this. Way to help the economy DC!
221
Post by: Frazzled
Thats nothing. Wait until you see the gas tax increases coming our way. Its change we can believe in!
6641
Post by: Typeline
America is pretty good at doing stuff like this. Three parents write to their senators all pissed off, and you know when your a senator for every letter you get it equals one million outraged people. So they pass a law to make it look like they care and their doing something to make you all safe and snuggly warm. Somewhere along the way when they are writing this BS bill they accidentally destroy part of the free market economy by legally removing the second hand market. Eventually 4 people will write their senators and they will remove this law plus add something that says anyone can buy anything and 6 year old kids will be hitting stuff up with graffiti again. Hey then the cycle starts over! But in a different area and we'll have to wait for it to roll around to screw us over specifically. Then we will have to roll the ball to some other group of people etc, etc, etc.
465
Post by: Redbeard
Frazzled wrote:Thats nothing. Wait until you see the gas tax increases coming our way. Its change we can believe in!
I'm all in favour of any tax that gets SUVs off the roads.
3934
Post by: grizgrin
I wish no ill to any child out there, however we are working hard on safety regulating ourselves to the ash heap of history.
7361
Post by: Howard A Treesong
Frazzled wrote:Thats nothing. Wait until you see the gas tax increases coming our way. Its change we can believe in!
If you want scary fuel costs come to the UK. The US has had it easy for years. 
4918
Post by: tkdarktrooper
Redbeard wrote:Frazzled wrote:Thats nothing. Wait until you see the gas tax increases coming our way. Its change we can believe in!
I'm all in favour of any tax that gets SUVs off the roads.
What about the people who have legitimate reasons for owning an SUV? You know, like people who own their own business and it is more economical for them to get an SUV rather than a truck. The SUV has more cargo room than a car and some have better gas mileage than a freakin' truck.
I am all for getting rid of SUVs that are a waste and are nothing but a status symbol [Hummer, Escalades, etc.], but I am not about to go and require someone to git rid of a vehicle that is part of the way they make money.
6641
Post by: Typeline
No one has a legitimate reason to own an SUV. Cars have the same amount of cargo space. And if you own your own business and need to haul a lot of equipment a work van will do far better than an SUV.
221
Post by: Frazzled
You're not thinking logically. All those fuel taxes will be passed on to the consumer-THAT MEANS YOU- for everything transported or manufactured in the US. That includes food.
YOu may tax the SUV but you're taxing everyone, richa and poor alike on food and clothing, not to mention higher costs for even small cars. You think someone on social security, can afford an artificially created price jump because you like don't like SUVs? How about all the newly unemployed?
3934
Post by: grizgrin
Typeline, what cars are you talking about? That have the same internal space as an SUV? Come on. Especially when you take into consideration that the majority of SUV's are designed for carry space on the roof (not just "capable", but designed as in a roof rack and everything!).
I've got a wife, two kids. With the booster and the car seat in the back for the boys, that takes available butt-space down to nothing in our Civic. The Camry is little better, really the only thing it would do is give us a little more leg room for the boys for a couple more years, and I mean a couple.
Typeline, baby; I just don't see it. What vehicle models are you comparing here? I'd love to hear it.
3486
Post by: Shotgun
First off, I'm not a lawyer, so this is just my opinion.
Here is the rule in question:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpsia.pdf
This is my take on this, but it seems that this article has blow it out of proportion.
Section 102 seems to indicate that it is the requirement of the manufacturer or private labeler (if a private label is used) to do the testing. Not the retailer.
For toys, Section 105 seems to indicate that it is the responsibility of the manufacturer/distributor, etc., to inform the retailer if a cautionary label is required. If the retailer writes the manufacturer/distrubutor, documents such, and is not informed by the manufacturer of any requirements, they can't be held liable for failure to display.
Yeah, this does blow for the small mom-and-pop level manufacturer. I would like to think that, and my work experience has indicated that this will probably work this way, but if testing can be done on the various components...paint, plastics, metals, and those pass testing, then all the final products will pass as well without needing to be individually tested.
"Joe's Friendly Local Game Shop" should be okay with a few letters sent out to GW/Alliance/etc. asking for clarifications. The eBay market in early 80's mini's won't dry up and die, even if they are toys.
181
Post by: gorgon
grizgrin wrote:Typeline, what cars are you talking about? That have the same internal space as an SUV? Come on. Especially when you take into consideration that the majority of SUV's are designed for carry space on the roof (not just "capable", but designed as in a roof rack and everything!).
I've got a wife, two kids. With the booster and the car seat in the back for the boys, that takes available butt-space down to nothing in our Civic. The Camry is little better, really the only thing it would do is give us a little more leg room for the boys for a couple more years, and I mean a couple.
Typeline, baby; I just don't see it. What vehicle models are you comparing here? I'd love to hear it.
Typeline may be overstating things, but there is a point there. I grew up in a 4-member family. We never owned a truck or SUV, and we never had any issues -- including our road trips. Many Americans *think* they need SUVs because they've been conditioned to think so. Part of that is relentless marketing from car manufacturers, and part of it is the "Joneses" factor.
Many people in other parts of the world manage to have families and cope without SUVs. That alone raises some questions as to why Americans act like they can't function without them. There are legitimate reasons for owning a truck, but I'm not sure one or two children is one of them.
171
Post by: Lorek
Let's keep it on-topic, folks. None of this "SUV" (whatever THAT is) talk.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
A. Lead free casting alloy has been available for years if it becomes necessary to use it by law.
B. This law only applies to toys for the under-12s. GW market their models as suitable for 12+.
4786
Post by: legoburner
I wonder what will happen to the paints... as I understand it, the foundation paints already have the legal maximum amount of lead for sale in the EU, but I wonder if they will still be able to sell if they are deemed acceptable for under 12s. A lot of us started GW at the start of senior school in the UK aged 10-11 (myself included), so it seems reasonable to think that they could be subject to these new rules. As I understand it though, it will just be an extra cost to the manufacturer, not the retailer, and the recent change in USD-GBP exchange rates will have increased profit from US sales for GW by 20-25% anyway which should comfortably cover any testing fees that they might have to endure.
7361
Post by: Howard A Treesong
legoburner wrote:I wonder what will happen to the paints... as I understand it, the foundation paints already have the legal maximum amount of lead for sale in the EU, but I wonder if they will still be able to sell if they are deemed acceptable for under 12s.
What are the rules on glue and knives?
5394
Post by: reds8n
Kilkrazy wrote:A. Lead free casting alloy has been available for years if it becomes necessary to use it by law.
B. This law only applies to toys for the under-12s. GW market their models as suitable for 12+.
My understanding is that this actually applies to pretty much anything that migh be provided to children/under 12s.
See the article here
from said article
As currently written, the act would require all products aimed at children 12 and under to be tested for lead and phthalates starting Feb. 10. Phthalates are chemicals used to make plastics more pliable.
Large manufacturers and retailers say the cost of testing will not be a burden. But small businesses such as handmade-toy shops and thrift stores say the requirement would force them to spend tens of thousands of dollars to test products such as clothing, in which the threat of lead is almost nonexistent. Many thrift stores said they would be forced to stop selling children's clothing or close altogether.
I know the models GW make are lead free-- I remember that glorious sale -- but that'll cane the 2nd hand market, and smaller manufacturers will have to show their models aren't contaminated either.
If the article is right and they don't change the wording then in GW alone we've got : The paints, the brushes, the books,the scenary bits like hills, glues etc etc.
I'm wondering if certain manufacturers-- like the Infinity model guys-- miht hvae troble getting import licenses for example.
411
Post by: whitedragon
Eh, I forsee a very large glossy "12 and up" label to begin featuring prominently on alot of things.
171
Post by: Lorek
Reminds me of getting carded to purchase model rockets or spray paint.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
It's illegal to sell spray paints to under-16s in the UK.
752
Post by: Polonius
I've gotten carded for both spray paint and super glue here in Ohio. It might just be store policy, but there is precedent there.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
reds8n wrote:Kilkrazy wrote:A. Lead free casting alloy has been available for years if it becomes necessary to use it by law.
B. This law only applies to toys for the under-12s. GW market their models as suitable for 12+.
My understanding is that this actually applies to pretty much anything that migh be provided to children/under 12s.
See the article here
from said article
As currently written, the act would require all products aimed at children 12 and under to be tested for lead and phthalates starting Feb. 10. Phthalates are chemicals used to make plastics more pliable.
...
...
It says products aimed at children under 12. GW only have to put a "For 12 Years and Up" sticker on the box and they are in the clear.
Without checking I don't know, but it's fairly likely GW already comply with lead limits and testing thanks to European legislation.
465
Post by: Redbeard
Do the foundation paints contain lead? I thought they did not.
4786
Post by: legoburner
Redbeard wrote:Do the foundation paints contain lead? I thought they did not.
From what I understand, the yellow and red have very high lead content. Even the standard GW paints have nasties in them - if you look at the most recent paint pots, they no longer say 'non toxic' on them like they used to.
5376
Post by: two_heads_talking
this is another case of some Dumb arse who drinks coffee and isn't smart enough to realise it's hot and if it spills in their lap, it will burn.
When will people realize that parents and guardians are required to determine if something is not appropriate for their children? And if their children get hurt from something, the parents should take the burden, and not pass it on to a toy manufacterer..
I swear, the more things change, the more I realize I'd like to live in the 1800's where I can carry my sidearm with me and if my kid chokes on a toy, then it's my fault for not supervising them..
5610
Post by: Noisy_Marine
Government officials shouldn't be in charge of determining what a "toy" is. They can't even balance the checkbook.
465
Post by: Redbeard
legoburner wrote:
From what I understand, the yellow and red have very high lead content. Even the standard GW paints have nasties in them - if you look at the most recent paint pots, they no longer say 'non toxic' on them like they used to.
Non-toxic and containing Lead are very different. I cannot imagine they would have gone out of their way to make metal figures without lead, only to release paints to a community known for licking brushes that contain lead. When you consider the potential lawsuits involved if they do contain lead, compared with the near negligible cost of saying "lead-based paint" on the pot, I cannot believe that they'd opt for the former.
Edit: I just called their customer support, and was told in no uncertain terms that all citadel paints, including the foundation paints, are non-toxic.
752
Post by: Polonius
two_heads_talking wrote:this is another case of some Dumb arse who drinks coffee and isn't smart enough to realise it's hot and if it spills in their lap, it will burn.
When will people realize that parents and guardians are required to determine if something is not appropriate for their children? And if their children get hurt from something, the parents should take the burden, and not pass it on to a toy manufacterer..
I swear, the more things change, the more I realize I'd like to live in the 1800's where I can carry my sidearm with me and if my kid chokes on a toy, then it's my fault for not supervising them..
Product liability law has gotten a little out of hand, but I really don't think anybody wants to return to the 1800's in terms of protections. I'll leave it at that.
As for the infamous coffee case, the plaintiff actually won on a really sound argument. It's not that the coffee was hot (which is an assumed risk), it's that at the time McDonald's coffee was served 20 degrees hotter than industry standard. The plaintiff was wearing sweatpants, and they could show that if the coffee was served at the standard temp, she could have avoided the burns by removing her clothing. It's also worth pointing out that the plaintiff originally offered to settle for like $20k.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald%27s_coffee_case
It's still a pretty extreme case, but it's not nearly as silly as the many commentators make it out to be.
8016
Post by: ChaosDave
Redbeard wrote:Frazzled wrote:Thats nothing. Wait until you see the gas tax increases coming our way. Its change we can believe in!
I'm all in favour of any tax that gets SUVs off the roads.
and so the tyranny begins. What other freedoms are you willing to throw away?
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
tkdarktrooper wrote:Redbeard wrote:Frazzled wrote:Thats nothing. Wait until you see the gas tax increases coming our way. Its change we can believe in!
I'm all in favour of any tax that gets SUVs off the roads.
What about the people who have legitimate reasons for owning an SUV? You know, like people who own their own business and it is more economical for them to get an SUV rather than a truck. The SUV has more cargo room than a car and some have better gas mileage than a freakin' truck. I am all for getting rid of SUVs that are a waste and are nothing but a status symbol [Hummer, Escalades, etc.], but I am not about to go and require someone to git rid of a vehicle that is part of the way they make money.
Get a van. Most SUV's can't clear offroad surfaces and are little more than highchairs for road rage and soccer moms. If you don't offroad regularly with your transported goods, and if you're SUV can't handle harsh dirt roads then you shouldn't own it. Its wasteful and serves as little more than a status symbold.
this is another case of some Dumb arse who drinks coffee and isn't smart enough to realise it's hot and if it spills in their lap, it will burn.
Learn the specifics of that court case then come back. Restaurants are not allowed to serve food that is going to physically harm the people that will consume it. And that coffee was hot enough to cause third degree burns through clothing. The decision was also overturned and a much smaller amount was rewarded then was televised. But hey yeah, lets just go with the talk show hosts, no reason to actually know what we're talking about. This law is a pretty harsh reactionary measure. Red phobia is an annoying phenom that follows any sort of issue stemming from china. It's not too harsh of a law though, I doubt it will effect much. It's already virtually impossible to police ebay auctions and startups will only be required to "test" their products for unsafe chemicles and toxins. Something they should have already been doing if they were considering their products toys.
and so the tyranny begins. What other freedoms are you willing to throw away?
It's not throwing away a freedom to tax gas. Its a tax levied on gas. People will still get to buy their giant phallic cars, they will just get to pay more for them proportionally (Something they were doing before gas prices plummeted due to the collapse of productivity in the world).
7632
Post by: Ghost in the Darkness
Sorry to go off topic, but my dad is required by his job to drive a work paid for SUV because it has to hold all the stock of medical supplies he sells, which a truck couldn't do and he pays the company a certain amount of money a month for personal use, so that rules out a work van, and we use it to haul our boat on the trailer which a car and a good bunch of other vehicles would be to small to pull the boat.
So people will always drive SUVs, always, always, always, there will be people who drive SUVs. Last time I checked this was a free country, and if people want to drive them they will. Just raising gas prices won't force SUV drivers to sell. Less people may buy new SUVs. But people will still drive them.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Polonius wrote:two_heads_talking wrote:this is another case of some Dumb arse who drinks coffee and isn't smart enough to realise it's hot and if it spills in their lap, it will burn.
When will people realize that parents and guardians are required to determine if something is not appropriate for their children? And if their children get hurt from something, the parents should take the burden, and not pass it on to a toy manufacterer..
I swear, the more things change, the more I realize I'd like to live in the 1800's where I can carry my sidearm with me and if my kid chokes on a toy, then it's my fault for not supervising them..
Product liability law has gotten a little out of hand, but I really don't think anybody wants to return to the 1800's in terms of protections. I'll leave it at that.
As for the infamous coffee case, the plaintiff actually won on a really sound argument. It's not that the coffee was hot (which is an assumed risk), it's that at the time McDonald's coffee was served 20 degrees hotter than industry standard. The plaintiff was wearing sweatpants, and they could show that if the coffee was served at the standard temp, she could have avoided the burns by removing her clothing. It's also worth pointing out that the plaintiff originally offered to settle for like $20k.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald%27s_coffee_case
It's still a pretty extreme case, but it's not nearly as silly as the many commentators make it out to be.
No thats still violently silly. Only in a world of plaintiff bloodsucking ambulance chasers gone amok is this in any not silly.
The coffee was advertised by MCD as being hotter than the competition. Knowledge and thus assumption.
Define industry standard for coffee.
Assumption of risk. If you're that stupid you deserve what you get.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Modquisition powers re-activate.
Partly my fault, but this thread is meandering considerably off topic. As Such moving to the OFF TOPIC forum which has more leeway in discussions.
Abandon all hope ye who enter here!
9401
Post by: whatwhat
In response to the Americans in this thread whining about higher taxes on gas guzzlers...
Average mpg on US vehicles...27.5
Average mpg on European vehicles...45
Price of Petrol in US...1.6 to 2 dollars per gallon
Price of petrol in Uk...eq. of 1.5 dollar per litre
And your wondering why your government wants to do something about it? Honestly, quit taking the piss.
752
Post by: Polonius
Oh, it's still silly. It's also just the way it is. Keep in mind that this was a jury trial, so average people (the same type that consistently deride these cases) found McDonald's liable.
What's silly is that McDonald's didn't settle this. She would have taken $20k, an arbitrator said it shoudl have been like $200k. If you put a Grandmother on the stand with third degree burns to her crotch, you're going to look bad. McDonald's should have settled, but they wanted to prove a point, and lost.
The coffee was advertised by MCD as being hotter than the competition. Knowledge and thus assumption.
Was it advertised as hotter than competition? Was that made clear to the consumer? McDonald's also had 700 reports of people scalded by their coffee, that's knowledge of a hazard.
Define industry standard for coffee.
I don't know, but they showed it to the jury and the jury believed it. They are the finder of fact, not me. They were able to show the Franchises were required to serve coffee at 180-190F, and that other restaurants typically served there's cooler. I think that it'd be harder to show now, and no further cases on this line have really succeeded.
Assumption of risk. If you're that stupid you deserve what you get.
Well, I agree that a person that assumes a risk is liable for what happens. I think that given 1) the plaintiffs lack of knowledge that the coffee was hotter than most people serve, and 2) McDonald's own awareness of the hazards, the case becomes less clear cut. I also don't think most people think that spilled coffee would result in third degree burns, skin grafts, etc. I also doubt that people realized at the time that coffee from drive thru would be hotter than coffee out of the pot at home.
The case is a flashpoint for a lot of people, but it's really just a case of bad litigation strategy by McDonalds, an incredibly sympathetic plaintiff, and a jury that bought the story. It's a flukey case. Nothing more, nothing less. There was no legal precedent, and if nothing else it did dramatically increase the awareness of the danger of drive through coffee.
Finally, I think it's overreaching in the extreme to call the lady stupid. Clumsy, maybe, but stupid? Probably not.
4042
Post by: Da Boss
The debate isn't that simple obviously (vast areas of the states don't have adequate public transport).
But more fuel efficient cars in the US would be a much better thing, and most SUVs are far from fuel efficient.
9401
Post by: whatwhat
Fair enough on the public transport point. But the cost of running a car in america would have to get a lot higher before it even comes close to what we spend in Europe. Complaining about prices over there is comparable to marlon brando telling an ethiopian he's hungry.
Da Boss wrote:But more fuel efficient cars in the US would be a much better thing, and most SUVs are far from fuel efficient.
and isn't that the whole idea of putting higher tax on fuel deficient cars?
4042
Post by: Da Boss
If I lived in the States I'd probably be in favour of the tax hikes. I'm a dirty socialist.
But I recognise there are reasons why fuel couldn't be as expensive over there as it is over here.
I'm actually pretty okay with fuel prices here, or I was when I drove my tiny car. There are workarounds available to me. I could walk to the shop, or whatever.
I'd point out that a raised tax is hardly tyranny, people are still allowed to drive their SUVs, it's just more expensive.
9401
Post by: whatwhat
The only way the law becomes unacceptable is if they don't reward drivers for driving more fuel efficient cars, like they do here in the UK (theres cars you can get taxed for free over here now). It needs to go both ways.
The argument "I need my suv for work" is fairly ignorant. What part of your suv is necessary for your work? Is it the size of the engine? Because there are vehicles with as much space as an suv which are far more fuel efficient.
465
Post by: Redbeard
My dislike of SUVs has nothing to do with their gas consumption, but rather, the fact that they make roads considerably more dangerous for the rest of us, especially us bikers.
Most SUVs I've ever seen have tinted windows. So, they obstruct the view of everyone else on the road. Personally, I think tinted windows should be illegal. They teach you, in all defensive driving classes, to look through the windows of other cars on the road to see potential hazzards further in advance. Tinted windows means you cannot do that. If the government is allowed to tell me that I have to wear a helmet when I'm on my bike, something that protects only me, they should be able to outlaw tinted windows, which increase the risk for everyone on the road.
Secondly, SUVs are more unsable than other cars. They're more likely to flip or roll when cornering. They have a greater braking distance, which is simply a factor of how much they weigh.
Third, SUVs don't have their bumpers in the right place. There is a mandated height for bumpers on all passenger cars. This ensures that, in most collisions, bumper meets bumper, and much of the energy of the collision is disapated into these devices that are designed for just that purpose.
SUVs don't count as 'passenger cars'. Their bumpers are higher than most car bumpers. This means that in a SUV/Car collsiion, the Car's bumper is useless, and the SUVs bumper connects with the hood of the car - a part of the car not designed to withstand this sort of impact. A head-on collision between a car and a car at 10MPH is unlikely to do much more than cosmetic damage. A head-on colliision between a car and an SUV at 10MPH is going to inflict signficant damage on the car, and probably injure the car's driver. And that's at only 10MPH.
When I was growing up, we had a station wagon. It had a luggage rack. It fit all four of us kids, and our parents, with no problem. And it didn't have tinted windows and it didn't weigh more than the other vehicles on the road, and it didn't have a high center of gravity and it didn't pose a serious threat to other vehicles in minor collisions. Mini-vans are still passenger cars. There's nothing you can get in an SUV that you cannot get in a mini-van that consumes less gas and poses less of a threat to other drivers.
SUVs are not necessary, for anyone. Somehow the US managed to survive for eighty years with automobiles before SUVs were introduced They're ego-boosting tools for people feel that they're better than everyone else, and damn the consequences for society as a whole. They're just another sign of the me-first culture promoted in the US.
4042
Post by: Da Boss
Redbeard: I agree with you on all those issues actually. But I'd be uncomfortable with banning them entirely. But my tosser radar shows SUV drivers as blips more often than not. It's especially annoying in Dublin, with it's narrow, twisty streets that can barely handle normal cars.
I'd ban smoking before I'd ban SUVs any day.
5470
Post by: sebster
Ghost in the Darkness wrote:Sorry to go off topic, but my dad is required by his job to drive a work paid for SUV because it has to hold all the stock of medical supplies he sells, which a truck couldn't do and he pays the company a certain amount of money a month for personal use, so that rules out a work van, and we use it to haul our boat on the trailer which a car and a good bunch of other vehicles would be to small to pull the boat.
So people will always drive SUVs, always, always, always, there will be people who drive SUVs. Last time I checked this was a free country, and if people want to drive them they will. Just raising gas prices won't force SUV drivers to sell. Less people may buy new SUVs. But people will still drive them.
So people with a need to own them can still buy them and drive them. People who don’t need their offroad abilities will be encouraged to buy something more practical.
In Australia we pay a lot more for our petrol because govt taxes it. It discourages people from buying cars with poor fuel efficiency for personal use (business can claim a fuel rebate). It really isn’t that bad an idea.
Frazzled wrote:
No thats still violently silly. Only in a world of plaintiff bloodsucking ambulance chasers gone amok is this in any not silly.
The coffee was advertised by MCD as being hotter than the competition. Knowledge and thus assumption.
Define industry standard for coffee.
Assumption of risk. If you're that stupid you deserve what you get.
Thing is, it’s reasonable to expect that coffee will burn you. It isn’t reasonable to expect that you’ll need skin grafts after around 30 seconds of contact, through clothes. That’s outrageously hot coffee and well beyond what you’d expect, even from coffee marketed as hotter than the competition.
Now, the final payout seemed excessive, and probably had a lot to do with the reported arrogance of the McDonald’s lawyers, but the case itself is not that unreasonable. Why people keep bringing up this one as a case of law gone mad is beyond, when there are so many cases out there that seem much more dubious. Probably because it can be reduced to ‘plaintiff sued for coffee being hot, hurr hurr’…
8016
Post by: ChaosDave
Da Boss wrote:The debate isn't that simple obviously (vast areas of the states don't have adequate public transport).
But more fuel efficient cars in the US would be a much better thing, and most SUVs are far from fuel efficient.
Here is a question, why do you care if some one drives a vehicle that isn't fuel efficient? They have to pay for the gas so what does it matter to you?
465
Post by: Redbeard
ChaosDave wrote:
Here is a question, why do you care if some one drives a vehicle that isn't fuel efficient? They have to pay for the gas so what does it matter to you?
I can either repost what I said a few posts back, or you can scroll back and read it, your choice... It's not about the gas, it's about the safety risk they pose to the rest of us.
5470
Post by: sebster
ChaosDave wrote:Here is a question, why do you care if some one drives a vehicle that isn't fuel efficient? They have to pay for the gas so what does it matter to you?
Oil is a diminishing resource and needs to be conserved. Fuel emissions are also a cause of global warming, and a general source of poor air in built up areas. Discouraging people from driving cars with poor fuel efficiency cars is one step towards conserving oil and improving air quality.
And also, like Redbeard said, 4WDs are more likely to kill the occupants of the other car in the event of collision.
9401
Post by: whatwhat
sebster wrote:ChaosDave wrote:Here is a question, why do you care if some one drives a vehicle that isn't fuel efficient? They have to pay for the gas so what does it matter to you?
Oil is a diminishing resource and needs to be conserved. Fuel emissions are also a cause of global warming, and a general source of poor air in built up areas. Discouraging people from driving cars with poor fuel efficiency cars is one step towards conserving oil and improving air quality.
And also, like Redbeard said, 4WDs are more likely to kill the occupants of the other car in the event of collision.
It's true, and even if you don't agree with global warming issues for whatever reason, it really does make everyone else in the world annoyed and angry when they have to put up with high fuel prices/taxes etc. when america self rightously, greedily and selfishly just throw all their efforts to s*** in their 4X4 run around.
1941
Post by: Wolfstan
It's you're own fault, you obviously need central government to stop you hurting yourselves with dangerous products and reckless store owners. Obviously too many gamers were eating the lead figures, so you needed to be protected from that temptation as well as that damn hot water that people keep sticking in your coffee's, sneaky buggers! 
4042
Post by: Da Boss
Chaos Dave: More oil for everyone, less greenhouse gasses and dioxins for everyone. Sorta win win.
I was able to run a national livestock survey out of the back of a nissan micra, I reckon most cars have more space than people realise most of the time.
That said there are places and situations where a 4WD is needed. But urban areas are not it.
181
Post by: gorgon
Ghost in the Darkness wrote:Sorry to go off topic, but my dad is required by his job to drive a work paid for SUV because it has to hold all the stock of medical supplies he sells, which a truck couldn't do and he pays the company a certain amount of money a month for personal use, so that rules out a work van, and we use it to haul our boat on the trailer which a car and a good bunch of other vehicles would be to small to pull the boat.
So that excuses basically every family living in the very wealthy suburb in which I work for having one or two of them -- for their one or two kids and those terrible .5 mile trips to their high-end supermarket, right?
I'd wager that 60% of people driving SUVs would be just fine without them. There are some people who like to go off-roading...that's fine. The remainder would mostly be fine with either pickups (because they're hauling stuff around) or minivans (because they have more than 2 kids). But the car companies figured out suburban women (one of the major target demographics for SUVs) wanted something sexier than a minivan but less blue-collar than a pickup.
Thus began a lot of marketing and sales pitches that told us SUVs were something you "really need to have if you have a family." Oh, and don't forget about the "safety" angle. "I mean, you do care about your kids, right?"
I have zero problems with pickups. And that's because in my experience most of the people driving them actually use the bed now and then. The majority of SUVs I see on the road don't haul anything heavier than a few bags of groceries, and usually have one person in the vehicle...maybe one child. That's *wasteful*.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Suporters of a higher gas tax do realize a tax on gasoline affects everyone correct? It doesn't just effect those evil SUV drivers.
You do realize that taxes on gasoline will increase the cost of transport of everything? Where do you think those costs are going to go?
You do realize this tax is highly regressive? The evil jaguar drivers can afford it, whilst the increased costs are a hammer to poor people and those on fixed incomes. Frankly the thought of supporting this is just batty. On the positive if passed, it will help insure that the Presidency and Congressional seats will continue to be in flux, as incumbents are thrown out faster than you can spit.
As incumbents are EVIL in a Darth Vader sort of way, this can only be a good thing.
9401
Post by: whatwhat
The Uk has lower gnp per capita, lower wages and yet we can manage fuel prices three times the price of yours. You can handle it.
Whoever it effects you need to come in line with the rest of the world and get off your high horse.
3934
Post by: grizgrin
This is funny. There are people in this thread who actually have the sheer, unadulterated gall to think that they know what's best for everyone in a country of 300 million people. To think that they know what everyone needs, and what everyone warrants.
I actually can see gorgon's point of view. There is sense and thought going into the opinions there, and I say that because he does not apply his logic to "everyone". But for those who are saying that "everyone" should do this, or "no one" needs that? Wow. The arrogance is straight out of an Imperial slogan.
I will CERTAINLY concede that not everyone needs an SUV. Absolutely. But to say that no one needs one is to presume to know the needs of everyone. If you can do that, m'fren, you should be in the world domination business; you'd do ok.
But by all means, continue. I can use the laugh.
3934
Post by: grizgrin
Whatwhat: maybe you need to get off YOUR high horse and consider that people living in other places have different needs, in some cases dictated by immutables like locations of cities. Britain is much smaller, and laid out MUCH differently.
Now, I must agree with you in that I don't enjoy hearing people cry about high gas prices. But that doesn't mean there isn't some truth in the tears.
221
Post by: Frazzled
whatwhat wrote:The Uk has lower gnp per capita, lower wages and yet we can manage fuel prices three times the price of yours. You can handle it.
Whoever it effects you need to come in line with the rest of the world and get off your high horse.
We can handle it. If we wanted England could be our 51st state too. Neither of these is desired. Whats your point?
9401
Post by: whatwhat
Yeh.
Like me and everyone else in europe putting up with high fuel prices, only being able to afford small engined cars, paying higher taxes on fuel deficient cars. All for the sake of global warming and lowering fuel consumption only to find that american mothers are just throwing all the effort away by doing the school run in an suv. Their not arrogant at all are they?
Honestly, your taking the piss. Why should I have to put up with higher taxes if america doesn't bother? What the hell does my contribution to the fuel issue do when 300million people across the pond dont even care.
Frazzled wrote:whatwhat wrote:The Uk has lower gnp per capita, lower wages and yet we can manage fuel prices three times the price of yours. You can handle it.
Whoever it effects you need to come in line with the rest of the world and get off your high horse.
We can handle it. If we wanted England could be our 51st state too. Neither of these is desired. Whats your point?
And that's not arrogant either right?
221
Post by: Frazzled
whatwhat wrote:Yeh.
Like me and everyone else in europe putting up with high fuel prices, only being able to afford small engined cars, paying higher taxes on fuel deficient cars. All for the sake of global warming and lowering fuel consumption only to find that american mothers are just throwing all the effort away by doing the school run in an suv. Their not arrogant at all are they?
Honestly, your taking the piss. Why should I have to put up with higher taxes if america doesn't bother? What the hell does my contribution to the fuel issue do when 300million people across the pond dont even care.
Frazzled wrote:whatwhat wrote:The Uk has lower gnp per capita, lower wages and yet we can manage fuel prices three times the price of yours. You can handle it.
Whoever it effects you need to come in line with the rest of the world and get off your high horse.
We can handle it. If we wanted England could be our 51st state too. Neither of these is desired. Whats your point?
And that's not arrogant either right?
We kicked you to the curb to get you to quit telling us what to do. Why should I care what you do now? My state is larger than your country. My commute is 84 miles daily. What you do and whether or not you are blindly stupid enough to tax yourselves to death is not my concern. Its a regressive tax and its stupid.
Edit: time for some of my favorite images
9401
Post by: whatwhat
Frazzled wrote:whatwhat wrote:Yeh.
Like me and everyone else in europe putting up with high fuel prices, only being able to afford small engined cars, paying higher taxes on fuel deficient cars. All for the sake of global warming and lowering fuel consumption only to find that american mothers are just throwing all the effort away by doing the school run in an suv. Their not arrogant at all are they?
Honestly, your taking the piss. Why should I have to put up with higher taxes if america doesn't bother? What the hell does my contribution to the fuel issue do when 300million people across the pond dont even care.
Frazzled wrote:whatwhat wrote:The Uk has lower gnp per capita, lower wages and yet we can manage fuel prices three times the price of yours. You can handle it.
Whoever it effects you need to come in line with the rest of the world and get off your high horse.
We can handle it. If we wanted England could be our 51st state too. Neither of these is desired. Whats your point?
And that's not arrogant either right?
We kicked you to the curb to get you to tell us what to do. Why should I care what you do now? My state is larger than your country. My commute is 84 miles daily. What you do and whether or not you are blindly stupid enough to tax yourselves to death is not my concern.
Grizgrin, perhaps you might want to reserve the shouts of arrogant to posts like that.
4042
Post by: Da Boss
grizgrin wrote:This is funny. There are people in this thread who actually have the sheer, unadulterated gall to think that they know what's best for everyone in a country of 300 million people. To think that they know what everyone needs, and what everyone warrants.
I actually can see gorgon's point of view. There is sense and thought going into the opinions there, and I say that because he does not apply his logic to "everyone". But for those who are saying that "everyone" should do this, or "no one" needs that? Wow. The arrogance is straight out of an Imperial slogan.
I will CERTAINLY concede that not everyone needs an SUV. Absolutely. But to say that no one needs one is to presume to know the needs of everyone. If you can do that, m'fren, you should be in the world domination business; you'd do ok.
But by all means, continue. I can use the laugh.
I reckon it's just whatwhat that has the extreme opinions. And he may just be being imprecise with his language.
Cars contribute less to global warming than cows though. It's interesting that farmers aren't required to feed their cows in a way that causes less methane emissins.
221
Post by: Frazzled
You missed it. The EPA has let out regulations for hearing that would tax bovines due to their impact on the environment. Fart tax here we come!
9401
Post by: whatwhat
January 20th.
Can't wait.
465
Post by: Redbeard
Frazzled wrote:Suporters of a higher gas tax do realize a tax on gasoline affects everyone correct? It doesn't just effect those evil SUV drivers.
You do realize that taxes on gasoline will increase the cost of transport of everything? Where do you think those costs are going to go?
You do realize that the government can craft laws and taxes with clauses in them, right. They don't have to say, "gas tax, $10". They can add clauses that allow tax credits to transportation companies. They can add clauses that add rebates where necessary. They could only add the tax to unleaded gasoline, and not diesels, which would exempt most vehicles (trains, trucks) that are used in our transportation infrastructure.
Besides, it isn't like poor people are paying for their food anyway. Green Stamps and Food Cards are already handed out by the government for those who cannot afford the essentials.
The government should be in the business of creating incentives for behaviours that they want to encourage, and disincentives for behaviours that they wish to discourage. Why are taxes on cigarettes so high? Because the government wants to discourage smoking, to avoid the costs of the health risks that cigarettes lead to. Why are there helmet and seatbelt laws? To discourage risky behaviours that incur health care costs for the public.
Well, rewarding those with efficient, safe vehicles, and discouraging those with wasteful, dangerous vehicles fits that approach. I came up with three ways to prevent this from being a regressive tax in five minutes, I would hope that the professional lawmakers would be able to figure this out.
5394
Post by: reds8n
Frazzled wrote: If we wanted England could be our 51st state too.
As if. Two weeks here with our weather and unbelievable lack of customer service and yuou'll be running home again.Crying.
4042
Post by: Da Boss
Oh sweet!
There should be some interesting research on bovine intestinal micro ecology now, it's a great subject.
Hmmmmm....wonder if they'd give me a job doing that?
(Guess what? The feed to reduce methane produces tastier beef too!)
221
Post by: Frazzled
reds8n wrote:Frazzled wrote: If we wanted England could be our 51st state too.
As if. Two weeks here with our weather and unbelievable lack of customer service and yuou'll be running home again.Crying.
I am sure. Any country that puts beans on their eggs is a country that would be a tough nut to crack. Respect.
221
Post by: Frazzled
[quote=]
You do realize that the government can craft laws and taxes with clauses in them, right. They don't have to say, "gas tax, $10". They can add clauses that allow tax credits to transportation companies. They can add clauses that add rebates where necessary. They could only add the tax to unleaded gasoline, and not diesels, which would exempt most vehicles (trains, trucks) that are used in our transportation infrastructure.
You do realize that they WON'T do that right? Do they do it now?
Further, last I saw there is no rebate on my tax form for gas taxes if you're poor.
Face it. No matter how you cut a gas tax will disproportionately harm the poor.
We're nationalizing the auto industries. Lets just completely take them over and say they can only make electric cars, or, more realistically, increase the CAFE standards and cut out the loophole for trucks and SUVs.
4786
Post by: legoburner
I think both options are acceptable. It is not all about fuel efficiency/ecology as that was not really a factor when fuel taxes were first bought into the UK. The UK has higher taxes but is much more resistant to fuel price shocks - the cost of fuel went up by about 30% here as oil reached crazy prices, but in the states it more than doubled (well over 100% increase). The taxes can always be repealed giving power to the national governments over the oil companies and giving a buffer similar to an additional oil reserve. Farming and transport costs can be kept down by allowing fuel tax rebates, or (in the case of farming in the UK), selling tax free fuel which is dyed so that it can be tracked if resold to consumers. There are naturally still costs for everything that cant claim back rebates from pizza delivery to travelling salesmen so there is an increased cost to everyone, but it is not as bad as it would be if there was not the agricultural rebate.
On the other hand, there is a lot to be said for minimal taxes and a free market on fuel in that the cost of everything is reduced and people can get around much easier and in much more comfort. This is fine until there is a price shock like in the 70s and 2007/2008. I doubt fuel in the US will ever go higher than $6.00 per gallon though as at that price (with no tax), it is reasonable to synthesize fuel from pretty much anything, at a great cost to ecology. With the structural layout of large chunks of the US, around $4.00 per gallon I saw a lot of people start carpooling, driving less, buying more efficient cars and a massive surge in interest for public transport and general ecological technologies, all of which are desirable on a social scale but often not for an individual. It seems logical that as demand recovers, oil will shoot back up in price as a fairly safe speculative good, and so there will be surges in inflation for low fuel tax countries once again.
221
Post by: Frazzled
That is correct-hence the market solves the problem. But again no addresses the regressive nature of the tax.
As an OT, the concept of government reducing a non-income based tax is great, but like the unicorn, although often talked about, I've never seen a real body.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Frazzled wrote:whatwhat wrote:The Uk has lower gnp per capita, lower wages and yet we can manage fuel prices three times the price of yours. You can handle it.
Whoever it effects you need to come in line with the rest of the world and get off your high horse.
We can handle it. If we wanted England could be our 51st state too. Neither of these is desired. Whats your point?
I wish the UK could become the 51st state. We would immediately become the most populous and wealthy state in the US.
4042
Post by: Da Boss
It would make common travel agreements between Ireland and the UK sticky. Imagine the sudden tightening of security at the border in the North?
221
Post by: Frazzled
Kilkrazy wrote:Frazzled wrote:whatwhat wrote:The Uk has lower gnp per capita, lower wages and yet we can manage fuel prices three times the price of yours. You can handle it.
Whoever it effects you need to come in line with the rest of the world and get off your high horse.
We can handle it. If we wanted England could be our 51st state too. Neither of these is desired. Whats your point?
I wish the UK could become the 51st state. We would immediately become the most populous and wealthy state in the US.
And thus subject to even more taxes 
9401
Post by: whatwhat
Da Boss wrote:It would make common travel agreements between Ireland and the UK sticky. Imagine the sudden tightening of security at the border in the North?
Sounds good, I'll move to ireland then.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
whatwhat wrote:Da Boss wrote:It would make common travel agreements between Ireland and the UK sticky. Imagine the sudden tightening of security at the border in the North?
Sounds good, I'll move to ireland then.
Travel between the USA and Canada isn't hard.
9401
Post by: whatwhat
Your right, france is a better option. Who would have thought it.
8016
Post by: ChaosDave
Da Boss wrote:Chaos Dave: More oil for everyone, less greenhouse gasses and dioxins for everyone. Sorta win win.
I was able to run a national livestock survey out of the back of a nissan micra, I reckon most cars have more space than people realise most of the time.
That said there are places and situations where a 4WD is needed. But urban areas are not it.
Well the sooner we burn through the oil the sooner we will be forced to use alternative fuels. Isn't that a win win for everyone? Also more green house gasses cause plants to grow faster, more c02 means better crops and more food for everyone, faster tree growth and forest replacement etc etc. Aren't these win wins also?
Oh I know you are concerned about the new global warming religion. The fact is it's just a method of control, its a scheme to advance global socialism by forcing people to pay more for energy, food and other necessities. Lets look at the "indicators" of global warming: First its average global temperature, one would think that it would be going up correct? Not true, in fact it hasn't increased in over a decade. http://www.newstatesman.com/scitech/2007/12/global-warming-temperature . Oh then its got to be ice melt cooling right? Oh noes the Polar bears are running out of ice. Not true again, the amount of polar ice is the same as it was in 1979 http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834 . Oh I know it's the IPCC model ( the standard by which the UN and everyone is basing the entire global warming myth on) that we need to look at to predict what global warming does. Oops Lord Monckton debunks that http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-bin/blogs/voices.php/2008/08/22/p28023. So whats left? In the absence of actual fact the only thing left is faith in Global warming, therefore it's Global warming is a religion and you have to have faith to believe in it.
9401
Post by: whatwhat
ChaosDave wrote: Lets look at the "indicators" of global warming.
Nah, lets not.
221
Post by: Frazzled
ChaosDave you are a heretic. Report to your local purging office immediately, for your "re-education."
4042
Post by: Da Boss
Chaos Dave: Save your breath. I think global warming is a fact. My training and education lead me to conclude that it is probably happening. I can't predict what it will lead to, but I don't feel it is a good thing.
If you cherry pick your information you end up believing all sorts of rubbish.
Edit: I could get more into the argument but I get the distinct impression you've made up your mind.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Lets assume global warning is correct. What does that have to do with taxing the poor? Wouldn't our efforts be better spent on developing a hydrogen based economy with reactors/hydroelectric power? If its really a big deal we should be daming every waterway in the world to generate power and using that power for electric/hydrogen transport. Oil would be reserved for petchems only.
8016
Post by: ChaosDave
Da Boss wrote:Chaos Dave: Save your breath. I think global warming is a fact. My training and education lead me to conclude that it is probably happening. I can't predict what it will lead to, but I don't feel it is a good thing.
If you cherry pick your information you end up believing all sorts of rubbish.
Edit: I could get more into the argument but I get the distinct impression you've made up your mind.
Everything you just said can be said about the argument for global warming. The entire premise of man made global warming is based on a "cherry picking" of just a few published papers. There are just as many or even more published papers that contradict it and actually have indicators that back the thesis. Yet you choose to "cherry pick" what you want to believe instead of real facts.
4042
Post by: Da Boss
Frazzled: I agree entirely with what you said. I'm totally on board with that.
My argument is mostly about efficient cars being better, which hasn't much to do with the tax issue.
I'd be alright with the tax increases too, probably. But I can see the arguments against it. I'd prefer to see proper action by the governments of the world instead of yet another way to get money, but the tax is at least a nod towards the existence of the issue.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Da Boss wrote:another way to get money, but the tax is at least a nod towards the existence of the issue.
I see it solely as a scam by Big Brother to get more money under any guise possible.
9401
Post by: whatwhat
Haven't you already made your views on that clear enough?
221
Post by: Frazzled
You're free not to read the thread any further whatwhat.
9401
Post by: whatwhat
I know that.
5394
Post by: reds8n
ChaosDave wrote:. There are just as many or even more published papers that contradict it and actually have indicators that back the thesis. Yet you choose to "cherry pick" what you want to believe instead of real facts.
Actually I don't think there are as man y or even more papers etc arguing against climate change ( not global warming). I appreciate there are scientists out there who don't agree, but from all I've read and seen the majority of scientists do believe that the climate is changing and mankind is, at least a partial, cause of this.
I am highly intertained by your definition of "real facts" as well.
Every paper/similar I've seen put forward de-bunking or arguing against climate change/ozone layer holes/cause of the week, has been just as easily debunked or refuted back.
What I do find highly interesting-- and this isn't directed at anyone who has posted here I hasten to add-- is the cries of martydom or greater insight those who profess to disbelieve display. Frequently to the point of daftness if not outright stupidity.
Just to clarify a few achingly obvious points : No, greenhouse gases don't help plants grow as plants also need water which tends to be lost in hot areas, and of course many plants don't grow well in high temperatures.
More CO2 does not mean better planmts and food for everyone, any more than floding helps plants grow as they like water.
And regardless how fast trees grow, we 're still cutting them down faster. Just look at the pictures of the Amazon rainforest from satellites.
With regards to the above links:
1. The one from Newstatesman : An intersting article, that's quite famous (in the UK anyway).
I notice you didn't link to the follow up article in the same publication which pretty much demolishes the entire thing
Please note the quote
Every qualified scientific body in the world, from the American Association for the Advancement of Science to the Royal Society, agrees unequivocally that global warming is both a reality, and caused by man-made greenhouse gas emissions.
All that said, yes, I am sure Govts. across the world will/do use this as an excuse to raise more tax revenue. Perhaps if we didn't waste so much on bloated military budgets and pointless wars in countries where we're not wanted or needed they wouldn't ned to. But I'm sure people have never ben harassed or hounded for, say, speaking up against a war that has ben proven to be a financially ridiculous and has failed to achieve many of the (many) stated aims.
A tax on gas does unfairly penalise many poorer people, for example tehy frequently can't live close to where they work or lack public transport facilities. I don't see a huge movement to raise income tax instead though. 
10832
Post by: davidjones
Except in the 1800's the kid would be in the mill so would not have time to play with toys ;-)
4042
Post by: Da Boss
I'm feeling a bit better after my dinner so I'll come back with some facts.
Plants do need CO2 to grow; unfortunately for us, the ones that can utilize it the easiest to grow the fastest are weeds, as they are characterised by their ability to utilize resources quickly. See also algal blooms due to nitrogen polluction.
This isn't really the big deal actually, but nice try at muddying the waters.
My job used to be as an agricultural ecologist and risk analyst. I used to do population surveys on parasites of cattle. And what we found was that gradually increasing temperatures were changing the propogation cycle of these parasites- rather than having two phases of reproduction they were just reproducing constantly. It was interesting to me as on the ground indication of the influence of global warming on food production in a negative way.
Other interesting examples are the growth of malaria zones into regions previously free of the disease.
I'm not saying the sky is falling. I'm not saying Global Warming is going to destroy the world. But I am saying that it is happening, as far as I can see.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Your use of bugs is just...buggy!
How did you conclude that was temperature related?
4042
Post by: Da Boss
The main restriction on their breeding was the temperature. And our weather data showed that it was warmer than it had been in previous years.
I must point out that my study was nowhere near long enough to conclude more than that for those two years the winters had been mild. I'm not trying to claim it as proof of man made climate change- more that warmer winters doesn't mean more food all the time. So assuming global warming is happening, which I believe it is, it would be good for the bugs but not so much for us.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
The argument is no longer whether global warming is happening, the evidence for that is incontrovertible.
It is whether it is caused by human activity, and what can be done about it.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Actually there is quite a bit of dissension on that. When the former head hurricane guy, who I believe more than all the combined "genius" of the UN, has doubts, then its most certainly not settled.
To state its incontrovertible begs the question-why is it colder now?
Edit: I should say I'm a global warming agniostic so am going to back away from the arguments on the actual subject.
8016
Post by: ChaosDave
reds8n wrote:ChaosDave wrote:. There are just as many or even more published papers that contradict it and actually have indicators that back the thesis. Yet you choose to "cherry pick" what you want to believe instead of real facts.
Actually I don't think there are as man y or even more papers etc arguing against climate change ( not global warming). I appreciate there are scientists out there who don't agree, but from all I've read and seen the majority of scientists do believe that the climate is changing and mankind is, at least a partial, cause of this.
I am highly intertained by your definition of "real facts" as well.
Every paper/similar I've seen put forward de-bunking or arguing against climate change/ozone layer holes/cause of the week, has been just as easily debunked or refuted back.
What I do find highly interesting-- and this isn't directed at anyone who has posted here I hasten to add-- is the cries of martydom or greater insight those who profess to disbelieve display. Frequently to the point of daftness if not outright stupidity.
Just to clarify a few achingly obvious points : No, greenhouse gases don't help plants grow as plants also need water which tends to be lost in hot areas, and of course many plants don't grow well in high temperatures.
More CO2 does not mean better planmts and food for everyone, any more than floding helps plants grow as they like water.
And regardless how fast trees grow, we 're still cutting them down faster. Just look at the pictures of the Amazon rainforest from satellites.
With regards to the above links:
1. The one from Newstatesman : An intersting article, that's quite famous (in the UK anyway).
I notice you didn't link to the follow up article in the same publication which pretty much demolishes the entire thing
Please note the quote
Every qualified scientific body in the world, from the American Association for the Advancement of Science to the Royal Society, agrees unequivocally that global warming is both a reality, and caused by man-made greenhouse gas emissions.
All that said, yes, I am sure Govts. across the world will/do use this as an excuse to raise more tax revenue. Perhaps if we didn't waste so much on bloated military budgets and pointless wars in countries where we're not wanted or needed they wouldn't ned to. But I'm sure people have never ben harassed or hounded for, say, speaking up against a war that has ben proven to be a financially ridiculous and has failed to achieve many of the (many) stated aims.
A tax on gas does unfairly penalise many poorer people, for example tehy frequently can't live close to where they work or lack public transport facilities. I don't see a huge movement to raise income tax instead though.
I find it amusing how you completely glossed over Lord Moncktons debunking of the IPCC model. The IPCC model is the holy grail of the Global warming movement. It's what everything is based on and Lord Monckton shows how the model was skewed to provide an "Armageddon atmosphere" to further their political agenda. One key thing stemming from that report is "CO2 enrichment will add little more than 1 °F (0.6 °C) to global mean surface temperature by 2100". A 1 °F change over a 90 year period is within the margin of error for the calculations by the way. How about the fact that Mars, Jupiter, Neptune’s largest moon, and Pluto warmed at the same time as Earth warmed? Is this also caused by man made global warming? Are a bunch of people puttering around Jupiter in SUVs? Or perhaps something else is causing all these temperature fluctuations that aren't fluctuating for the past 10 years.
As far as CO2 and plant growth, well you are completely wrong. Here is an article that discusses plant growth in green houses and the effects of higher CO2 levels.
http://www.oxygentimerelease.com/A/ScienceOxygen/p8.htm
As far as "water which tends to be lost in hot areas", this is an assumption that heat only causes deserts to occur. This is completely untrue. More heat causes more water to evaporate and can actually increase rainfall. This is why we have so many equatorial rain forests. But this is all moot since Average global temp isn't increasing at any appreciable rate.
I can't wait until 20 years from now when global temps haven't changed and this idiocy of man made global climate change garbage can be put to rest. Just like the global cooling scare in the 1970s was put to rest and the first global warming scare in the 1920s was put to rest. I for one am sick of Media induced scare tactics like y2k, ozone layer holes, global warming, planets aligning causing massive earth quakes and the myriad of other junk news that you are so eager to believe. Hopefully people like you will wake up and start thinking for themselves instead of jumping at anything the sensationalist and politically biased main stream media throws at you.
4042
Post by: Da Boss
Wait wait wait.
You don't believe in the holes in the ozone layer?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA!
AAWWWW MAN
You are funny.
181
Post by: gorgon
ChaosDave wrote:I can't wait until 20 years from now when global temps haven't changed and this idiocy of man made global climate change garbage can be put to rest. Just like the global cooling scare in the 1970s was put to rest and the first global warming scare in the 1920s was put to rest. I for one am sick of Media induced scare tactics like y2k, ozone layer holes, global warming, planets aligning causing massive earth quakes and the myriad of other junk news that you are so eager to believe. Hopefully people like you will wake up and start thinking for themselves instead of jumping at anything the sensationalist and politically biased main stream media throws at you.
Dave, your particular political bent comes through loud and clear in your posts. If I were you, I'd hesitate to say others aren't thinking for themselves when you seem to be picking up the conservative talking points verbatim.
reds8n wrote:As if. Two weeks here with our weather and unbelievable lack of customer service and yuou'll be running home again. Crying.
Bah. I used to live in Pittsburgh. A study done there at the time said the city averaged 60 sunny days a year. Overcast and drizzly don't scare me. Your food might.
5394
Post by: reds8n
ChaosDave wrote:
I find it amusing how you completely glossed over Lord Moncktons debunking of the IPCC model. The IPCC model is the holy grail of the Global warming movement. It's what everything is based on and Lord Monckton shows how the model was skewed to provide an "Armageddon atmosphere" to further their political agenda. One key thing stemming from that report is "CO2 enrichment will add little more than 1 °F (0.6 °C) to global mean surface temperature by 2100". A 1 °F change over a 90 year period is within the margin of error for the calculations by the way. How about the fact that Mars, Jupiter, Neptune’s largest moon, and Pluto warmed at the same time as Earth warmed? Is this also caused by man made global warming? Are a bunch of people puttering around Jupiter in SUVs? Or perhaps something else is causing all these temperature fluctuations that aren't fluctuating for the past 10 years.
To be honest with you I assumed you wre more aware of the man's reputation. In the UK-- and I assumed seeing as you are so well versed in this argument clearly -- he's regarded as a joke. One who's arguments don't actually stand up to any actual analysis at all.
see here
As far as CO2 and plant growth, well you are completely wrong. Here is an article that discusses plant growth in green houses and the effects of higher CO2 levels.
http://www.oxygentimerelease.com/A/ScienceOxygen/p8.htm
As far as "water which tends to be lost in hot areas", this is an assumption that heat only causes deserts to occur. This is completely untrue. More heat causes more water to evaporate and can actually increase rainfall. This is why we have so many equatorial rain forests. But this is all moot since Average global temp isn't increasing at any appreciable rate.
Hopefully people like you will wake up and start thinking for themselves instead of jumping at anything the sensationalist and politically biased main stream media throws at you.
You appear to be labouring under several misaprehensions. Firstly there is a difference between carefully controlled "fed" extra CO2 for plants and widespread enviromental damage which is what I/we(?) are actually talking about. To paraphrase, it is possible to have too much of a good thing.
I'm not assuming heat "only causes deserts to occur" at all. I'd prefer it if you didn't put lies in my mouth. More heat can indeed help with rainfall, but voften not in the right areas. I don't really have to tell you about the "Dust Bowl" or the "Dirty Thirties" do I ?
I am highly entertained that you accuse "people like you (me)" of jumping at what the media throws us. After all you're the one who just linked to a site that sells "alternative" cancer treatments and recommends books by L.Ron Hubbard.
I'm sure we can get you de-programmed if we all chip in.
I'm being accused of being a stooge by someone who vomits back rightwing talkshow "science" ? Really ?
Wow. Quick ! You best run out and buy something like a good little capatalist consumer !
@ Mr. Gorgon : 60 days ? Good god, you must all have skin cancer. Oh, hnag on, apparebtly there's no hole in the ozone layer.
We don't get 60 minutes of sunshine
If the food didn't get you then the roundabouts and the public transport will !
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
This topic makes my head hurt with indignance and anger. Can we get back to the SUV argument, which was at least an argument of personal preference and need, and not one of two people shouting as loud as they can at scientific evidence so prolific it could fill an ocean?
ctually there is quite a bit of dissension on that.
I'm going to trust the millions of scientific personnel in every country planetwide and my own knowledge of chemistry, physics, and climate over the armchair climatologists worldwide.
I'm not assuming heat "only causes deserts to occur" at all. I'd prefer it if you didn't put lies in my mouth. More heat can indeed help with rainfall, but voften not in the right areas. I don't really have to tell you about the "Dust Bowl" or the "Dirty Thirties" do I ?
Heat doesn't cause deserts, ground level heat is a side effect of the climate which deserts propagate. Unkempt soil erosion and draught cause deserts, which is why near every desert on the planet is hugging right up against a mountain range which denies it an aggregate amount of rainfall. Whenever you have systemic draught you end up with a desert climate (dry tundras are also desert climates).
221
Post by: Frazzled
ShumaGorath wrote:
I'm going to trust the millions of scientific personnel in every country planetwide and my own knowledge of chemistry, physics, and climate over the armchair climatologists worldwide.
Well thats convinced the skeptic in me. I agree and will tow the line as soon as China and India do. Nuclear reactors and dams all around-hurray!
You know it really does fit with the new policy of "investing in infrastructure." Lets build 250 dams! Time to invest in concrete companies and pronto
EDIT: but ayah back to the SUV debate. No one's going to win the global warming fight when everyone is powered by the intranets warp power.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
Well thats convinced the skeptic in me. I agree and will tow the line as soon as China and India do. Nuclear reactors and dams all around-hurray!
You realize thats a game of chicken that all three countries will lose. Good luck with your dyeing in a car accident.
You know it really does fit with the new policy of "investing in infrastructure." Lets build 250 dams! Time to invest in concrete companies and pronto
Dam power has been used about as much as it's going to work already. Nuclear power would be the best stopgap measure until solar towers, wind farms, solar panels, and wave engines get worked out and up and running.
but ayah back to the SUV debate. No one's going to win the global warming fight when everyone is powered by the intranets warp power.
SUVs have a use, it's just not one that 80% of SUV owners utilize. Offroad cargo carrying with the capacity of seating multiple persons is quite rare. I live in Maine USA. Three quarters of the people living here who own SUVs don't need them. If you don't need them in this frozen snowburied hellscape then you don't need them in california. It's not a vehicle for suburban use, which is it's largest vector of sales. Gas taxes also do not solely impact SUV owners, and an overall tax increase (rather than an at the pump tax which would likely include exceptions for freight) would cause a slowing in many of the sectors which saw slowing when gas was at its record prices before.
3934
Post by: grizgrin
Oh Shuma, the guru of all on 4 wheels! Please, more; I beg you! Of COURSE your life-experiences in Maine give you expertise in what is required in the other 49.
8016
Post by: ChaosDave
reds8n wrote:
To be honest with you I assumed you wre more aware of the man's reputation. In the UK-- and I assumed seeing as you are so well versed in this argument clearly -- he's regarded as a joke. One who's arguments don't actually stand up to any actual analysis at all.
see here
That article refers to Gavin Schmidt who works for Dr Hansen at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies and whose methods are questionable at best. He is Al Gores right hand man in the Global warming religion. In fact your little article calling Moncktons methodology questionable by quoting people whose own methodology is in question is quite ironic don't you think?
reds8n wrote:
You appear to be labouring under several misaprehensions. Firstly there is a difference between carefully controlled "fed" extra CO2 for plants and widespread enviromental damage which is what I/we(?) are actually talking about. To paraphrase, it is possible to have too much of a good thing.
Really? too much of a good thing? So millions of years ago when CO2 levels were as much as 20 times higher than today it didn't cause rapid growth in plants that allowed other animals to grow very large? Strange I was always taught that the dinosaurs did exist. I guess I'm wrong according to you.
reds8n wrote:
I'm not assuming heat "only causes deserts to occur" at all. I'd prefer it if you didn't put lies in my mouth. More heat can indeed help with rainfall, but voften not in the right areas. I don't really have to tell you about the "Dust Bowl" or the "Dirty Thirties" do I ?
See there you go off on a tangent again, you quote something then allude to a reference that has nothing to do with the subject. The Dust bowl of the 30's was caused by a drought whose cause you claim to be heat. There is no evidence that the 1930s drought was caused by some sort of decade long heat wave.
reds8n wrote:
I am highly entertained that you accuse "people like you (me)" of jumping at what the media throws us. After all you're the one who just linked to a site that sells "alternative" cancer treatments and recommends books by L.Ron Hubbard.
Everyone has some sort of political agenda, at least I acknowledge it. You however think that everything the media feeds you is the gospel truth. Hear no evil see no evil speak no evil.
reds8n wrote:
I'm sure we can get you de-programmed if we all chip in.
Right, in one of your newly commissioned reeducation camps no doubt. I'm sure you could brain wash many people if you really spend the time and money on it. Let all hold hands and embrace your Orwellian society.
reds8n wrote:
I'm being accused of being a stooge by someone who vomits back rightwing talkshow "science" ? Really ?
Truth is truth no matter the source. You spit out left wing talking points then turn around and accuse the same thing of me. How does it feel to be a hypocrite?
reds8n wrote:
Wow. Quick ! You best run out and buy something like a good little capatalist consumer !
I'm proud of the freedom that capitalism provides. In fact it has even given me a decent education and I can even spell Capitalist correctly. Unlike the conformist socialist system you seem so fond of.
5534
Post by: dogma
ChaosDave wrote:
Really? too much of a good thing? So millions of years ago when CO2 levels were as much as 20 times higher than today it didn't cause rapid growth in plants that allowed other animals to grow very large? Strange I was always taught that the dinosaurs did exist. I guess I'm wrong according to you.
Are you really going to try and compare the physiology of dinosaurs, which we know next to nothing about, to that of human beings and other contemporary critters? Sure, high levels of CO2 can cause rapid plant growth...once the plants in question have evolved to adapt to the environment.
ChaosDave wrote:
I'm proud of the freedom that capitalism provides. In fact it has even given me a decent education and I can even spell Capitalist correctly. Unlike the conformist socialist system you seem so fond of.
Where did he advocate socialism? With a gas tax? Dude, seriously, real socialist states don't tax luxuries, they seize them. The 'socialism' being discussed in the course of any credible, modern debate is simply a subset of the larger capitalist economy.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
grizgrin wrote:Oh Shuma, the guru of all on 4 wheels! Please, more; I beg you! Of COURSE your life-experiences in Maine give you expertise in what is required in the other 49.
I live in the ideal environment in which SUVs would be required over minvans or transport vans. But sure, if you want to hear me type some more just give me a topic. It's good to hear that I could bring a sliver of happiness to your presumably horrible and sad life (am I doing this sarcasm thing right?).
5470
Post by: sebster
grizgrin wrote:This is funny. There are people in this thread who actually have the sheer, unadulterated gall to think that they know what's best for everyone in a country of 300 million people. To think that they know what everyone needs, and what everyone warrants.
I actually can see gorgon's point of view. There is sense and thought going into the opinions there, and I say that because he does not apply his logic to "everyone". But for those who are saying that "everyone" should do this, or "no one" needs that? Wow. The arrogance is straight out of an Imperial slogan.
I will CERTAINLY concede that not everyone needs an SUV. Absolutely. But to say that no one needs one is to presume to know the needs of everyone. If you can do that, m'fren, you should be in the world domination business; you'd do ok.
But by all means, continue. I can use the laugh.
You are right that it is wrong to say no-one needs an SUV. Fortunately that argument isn't needed to justify higher petrol taxes. Remember it isn't just about SUVs, but also improved fuel economy in small and medium cars.
grizgrin wrote:Whatwhat: maybe you need to get off YOUR high horse and consider that people living in other places have different needs, in some cases dictated by immutables like locations of cities. Britain is much smaller, and laid out MUCH differently.
Try looking at Australia then. We pay taxes almost as high as Britain, and yet our population density is around one tenth of yours (the US with 31 people per km2, Australia with 3 per km2).
Frazzled wrote:That is correct-hence the market solves the problem. But again no addresses the regressive nature of the tax.
As an OT, the concept of government reducing a non-income based tax is great, but like the unicorn, although often talked about, I've never seen a real body.
You might want to look into the government of other countries before deciding what government can do. Australia introduced a national sales tax, which is a lot larger than a fuel tax, but once tax rate adjustments and welfare changes were made the overall package was progressive. I think the US is smart enough to manage something similar.
I'm also left scratching my head how you've suddenly become so concerned over regressive taxation... it didn't seem to be such an issue when comparing the McCain and Obama tax packages.
ChaosDave wrote:Well the sooner we burn through the oil the sooner we will be forced to use alternative fuels. Isn't that a win win for everyone? Also more green house gasses cause plants to grow faster, more c02 means better crops and more food for everyone, faster tree growth and forest replacement etc etc. Aren't these win wins also?
Sbuh? The reason we don't want to use them is because they're doing damage. If we use them up then we'll have already done the damage.
Oh I know you are concerned about the new global warming religion. The fact is it's just a method of control, its a scheme to advance global socialism by forcing people to pay more for energy, food and other necessities.
Socialism does not work that way. Please explain the connections between climatologists and this socialist organisation set to conquer the world with its fuel tax.
5470
Post by: sebster
dogma wrote:Where did he advocate socialism? With a gas tax? Dude, seriously, real socialist states don't tax luxuries, they seize them. The 'socialism' being discussed in the course of any credible, modern debate is simply a subset of the larger capitalist economy.
In his first post ChaosDave linked fuel tax to some new socialist world government. No, I don't understand it either.
5030
Post by: Grignard
dogma wrote:ChaosDave wrote:
Really? too much of a good thing? So millions of years ago when CO2 levels were as much as 20 times higher than today it didn't cause rapid growth in plants that allowed other animals to grow very large? Strange I was always taught that the dinosaurs did exist. I guess I'm wrong according to you.
Are you really going to try and compare the physiology of dinosaurs, which we know next to nothing about, to that of human beings and other contemporary critters? Sure, high levels of CO2 can cause rapid plant growth...once the plants in question have evolved to adapt to the environment.
ChaosDave wrote:
I'm proud of the freedom that capitalism provides. In fact it has even given me a decent education and I can even spell Capitalist correctly. Unlike the conformist socialist system you seem so fond of.
Where did he advocate socialism? With a gas tax? Dude, seriously, real socialist states don't tax luxuries, they seize them. The 'socialism' being discussed in the course of any credible, modern debate is simply a subset of the larger capitalist economy.
Great Christ, here is another example where I agree with Dogma almost completely, there is something wrong here. Seriously Dogma, argue about how my guns need to be taken away or something so we can fight, this just isn't right.
The fact is that most people who know what they are talking about agree that there is an anthropogenic component to climate change, and it is very real.
The question is " Do I really care?". Well, considering I'm working as an environmental chemist in a state lab you better hope I do. When I hear everyone's self righteous, hypocritical statements about SUVs, it makes me want to dump motor oil in the creek just to spite you. As someone who is a conservationist and outdoorsman I won't do that, but my ideals are in serious competition with my desire to be uncooperative.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
Sbuh? The reason we don't want to use them is because they're doing damage. If we use them up then we'll have already done the damage.
The environment can screw itself, the reason we need to move away from them is so that we aren't screwed when we run out. It's not a technological issue, its an infrastructure issue. We need to have oil in order to make the infrastructural changes that will allow us to survive without it. This is not a change the free market will make alone, capitalism chases bubbles, and it will ride the oil bubble all the way to the ground. Its the nature of the system itself to look into the present, without care for the future. The human condition is a short lifespan, and we've modeled out economic basis off of it. You can't make a forty year planetary infrastructure changeover if your global economic system has crashed. Thats like swerving out of the way of the other car after it's hit you. Not gonna help much. Oh, and plants aren't going to pick up the slack of our Carbon production WHEN WE CUT THEM ALL DOWN AND MAKE HOUSES OUT OF THEM. An enormous part of the carbon problem is the biospheres vastly diminished ability to deal with it.
5534
Post by: dogma
Grignard wrote:
Great Christ, here is another example where I agree with Dogma almost completely, there is something wrong here. Seriously Dogma, argue about how my guns need to be taken away or something so we can fight, this just isn't right.
Well, now that you mention it, there has been an awful lot of uppity gun nuttery going on...I kid, I kid.
Grignard wrote:
The fact is that most people who know what they are talking about agree that there is an anthropogenic component to climate change, and it is very real.
The question is " Do I really care?". Well, considering I'm working as an environmental chemist in a state lab you better hope I do. When I hear everyone's self righteous, hypocritical statements about SUVs, it makes me want to dump motor oil in the creek just to spite you. As someone who is a conservationist and outdoorsman I won't do that, but my ideals are in serious competition with my desire to be uncooperative.
In all honesty, while there is a human component to climate change, it also has to be pointed out that there is almost certainly a natural one as well. What this means is that, while we may be accelerating the problem, we are also incapable of stopping it completely. Which is fine really as most of the (non-sensationalist) climate reports I've read seem to indicate that the time scale for real debilitating affects (as defined by the current concentration of the global population) is likely beyond the scope of the lifetime of the United States.
That said, the happy fact that converting to a renewable energy economy (whatever that may entail) is a superior decision with respect to foreign policy, long term planning, and economic potential means that I almost always come down on the side of environmentalists.
Of course, dating one for a while doesn't hurt the opinion bias either.
5394
Post by: reds8n
Grignard wrote:
ChaosDave wrote:
I'm proud of the freedom that capitalism provides. In fact it has even given me a decent education and I can even spell Capitalist correctly. Unlike the conformist socialist system you seem so fond of.
Where did he advocate socialism? With a gas tax? Dude, seriously, real socialist states don't tax luxuries, they seize them. The 'socialism' being discussed in the course of any credible, modern debate is simply a subset of the larger capitalist economy.
The fact is that most people who know what they are talking about agree that there is an anthropogenic component to climate change, and it is very real.
The question is " Do I really care?". Well, considering I'm working as an environmental chemist in a state lab you better hope I do. When I hear everyone's self righteous, hypocritical statements about SUVs, it makes me want to dump motor oil in the creek just to spite you. As someone who is a conservationist and outdoorsman I won't do that, but my ideals are in serious competition with my desire to be uncooperative.
I welcome you to the ranks of the New World Order on behalf of my socialist masters.
I do indeed think that using unqualified fringe lunatics with no actual scientific training to critique the work of actual scientists is ironic. Perhaps we should take up his cunning idea for compulsory blood screenings of the entire population followed by imprisonment of those carrying the HIV virus.
I heartily relieved to see that you believe in dinosaurs, I am somewhat baffled as to how environmental conditions in which mankind did not exist is viewed as being suitable or possibly even ideal for the future of our world.
I made no claim about decade long heat waves. The point was raised as you falsely claimed I made somewhat vague statements about deserts occurring "only due to heat". If you really don't see how an example of an environmental disaster made worse by man is of relevance in a discussion about the environment, then perhaps you should sue your education board. They've clearly failed you.
Everyone has some sort of political agenda, at least I acknowledge it. You however think that everything the media feeds you is the gospel truth. Hear no evil see no evil speak no evil.
Except you didn't admit it. Ever. But now it is revealed that you don't care about "truth", merely political ideology. I don't think everything the media tells me is the truth. For example when sections of the media tell me there is no climate change I don't believe it ! I don't believe in the claims of Scientology either.
I'm building camps now ? No wonder I'm always broke. This is an obvious lie, as anyone who's tried to get planning permission for anything of late in the UK can tell you.
I don't know, how does it feel to be a hypocrite ?
Sorry about the spelling, typing in a hurry whilst cooking dinner.
Yes, as I think climate change is real and at least partially caused by humans I am a socialist. For some reason. Joining all those other infamous socialist organisations such as NASA ,US Climate Change Science Program, the US National of Sciences and the Royal Society of the UK and Commonwealth.
First we'll come for your housing market, then your banks, and then we're going to blindside you by taking your porn industry.
Viva la Revolution !
That said.... %^&* polar bears, I've never trusted them. Them and the Pandas. They're up to something.
4042
Post by: Da Boss
I just can't get over the idea of a worldwide socialist conspiracy. This guy has obviously never met that many proper socialists- they're more facticious than Orks on a bad day.
And obviously the way to force our agenda is....climate...change?
What?
Also, dude. I live in Ireland. We don't have MSM the way you do. I actually learned most of what I know about global warming in university and through reading scientific journals. Unless those have been infiltrated by my sharing is caring brothers too...*gasp*
Normally I wouldn't be this scathing, but your freedom being threatened over your widdle SUV when people all over the world are feeling the real effects of this issue is just freakin' laughable. I'd always thought the stereotype californian conservative didn't exist. But here you are! It's like finding bigfoot.
221
Post by: Frazzled
The Canadians would absolutely love global warming. I'm just saying, there's always a bright side.
4042
Post by: Da Boss
Well, apart from those indigenous cultures who live part of the year on the ice. They're apparently finding it a bit more difficult these days.
But who cares about them!
They're practically POLAR BEARS!
5394
Post by: reds8n
Indeed. We keep being told over here that the changes will result in large parts of France being under water and balmy tropical weather in the UK. As arguments against climate change they are in severe need of a rethink.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Yea, the argument that global warming might turn the UK into a new Tahiti probably doesn't work that well.
5394
Post by: reds8n
It only works when you remember that our natural skin tone is a kind of pale blue. And we don't tan, we go from pasty to lobster with no inbetween. The only tans we display are on our teeth, and that is of course entirely the fault of the great dental wars of the late 70s/early 80s depleting the ranks of our enamel controlling overlords. Never have so few flossed for so many.
4042
Post by: Da Boss
All that tea has a staining effect too.
181
Post by: gorgon
Frazzled wrote:EDIT: but ayah back to the SUV debate. No one's going to win the global warming fight when everyone is powered by the intranets warp power.
Warp power? WARP power? Warp power leads to dangerous mutations and daemonic incursions! Have you learned NOTHING?
221
Post by: Frazzled
Exactly.
8016
Post by: ChaosDave
Da Boss wrote:I just can't get over the idea of a worldwide socialist conspiracy. This guy has obviously never met that many proper socialists- they're more facticious than Orks on a bad day.
And obviously the way to force our agenda is....climate...change?
What?
Also, dude. I live in Ireland. We don't have MSM the way you do. I actually learned most of what I know about global warming in university and through reading scientific journals. Unless those have been infiltrated by my sharing is caring brothers too...*gasp*
Normally I wouldn't be this scathing, but your freedom being threatened over your widdle SUV when people all over the world are feeling the real effects of this issue is just freakin' laughable. I'd always thought the stereotype californian conservative didn't exist. But here you are! It's like finding bigfoot.
Firstly it's not a conspiracy, it's an Agenda. There actually is a new agenda for the left, it's called socialism and redistribution of wealth through taxation. You can be completely factitious and still take advantage of it, just like orks can come together in a Waaagh to use your example. Every day there is some new tax or tax increase that legislators propose or even try to sneak through. Heck just recently here in California Democrats tried an end run around the constitution by calling new taxes fees so they wouldn't need a 2/3rds vote to pass the bill. Global warming is just a tool in this agenda, it provides all sorts of new tax and wealth redistribution opportunities. This includes things like the fun new SUV Taxes as mentioned earlier, Cap and trade, a new tax on beef producers because cows produce CO2 and methane. Hell there is even efforts to prevent 3rd world countries from developing to "stop global warming". Oh and how about one of my personal favorites the biofuel fiasco where congress mandated using biofuels and drove the price of food way up, how "laughable" is that to low income families?
Lets talk about "people all over the world are feeling the real effects of this issue", what effects are we talking about here? Cap and trade causing increased energy prices? Biofuel mandates causing increased food prices? Industrialized nations preventing 3rd world countries from development and keeping people impoverished? Or are we talking about some nefarious random event that you want to associate with global warming. I really do love the "OMG its a hurricane it must be global warming" attitude so often depicted in the media these days. Please list these "real effects" and state the proof you have linking them to global warming.
I do admit that CO2 does have some effect on global temperature however that effect is no where near any sort of crisis level. We actually have hundreds of years before anything even resembling a crisis will occur and it's absolutely irresponsible to create the panic that activists have created with regards to Global climate change. Do we need to change, yes. We need to slowly and gradually transition into other forms of fuels and energy production, but we should not shoot ourselves in the foot in a panic to do it.
4042
Post by: Da Boss
Okay.
I'm going to come back after my d'n'd game and reply.
But I just wanted to say.
The redistribution of wealth through taxation is not a new idea.
And I'm a socialist. Like, for real. This is not a new political philosophy, and it has been shown to work quite well in various areas, such as my own country.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Ireland right? Didn't your economy only start growing you dropped taxes to the lowest level in the EU?
4042
Post by: Da Boss
Corporate taxes.
We have incredibly high income taxes, and VAT.
752
Post by: Polonius
Ah, taxes... now the ball is in Polonius's court!
First off, while gas taxes have worked well in other countries, the American economy is built around nearly everybody using a car for transport. Until more options are put into place, any gas tax would be highly regressive (meaning lower income taxpayers pay a higher percentage of their total income on taxes), much like nearly all excise taxes (those taxes that are placed on things, not on income). I'm not saying it's an unworkable solution, just one that would devastate the lower middle class and the working poor.
By the same token, a luxury tax on SUV's themselves would be a body blow to the already embattled american auto industry. Luxury taxes never work, they just kill whatever industry they target, or are frought with loopholes.
By the way, income taxes don't redistribute wealth, they redistribute income. Those are dramatically different concepts in taxation, and get radically different treatment. The only time wealth is really taxes is on real property annually by local government, and at death for highly wealthy people. Government as a mechanism for redistribution of wealth is frought with many concerns. Our country is doing a good job, ironically the subprime mortgages that lead to the collapse also allowed many people to own homes for a first time.
8016
Post by: ChaosDave
Da Boss wrote:Okay.
I'm going to come back after my d'n'd game and reply.
But I just wanted to say.
The redistribution of wealth through taxation is not a new idea.
And I'm a socialist. Like, for real. This is not a new political philosophy, and it has been shown to work quite well in various areas, such as my own country.
Hmm quite well eh? How are those health care waiting lists coming along? Are they as bad as say Canadian 10 month Maternity ward waiting lists yet? If not just give it some time you'll there soon enough.
5534
Post by: dogma
ChaosDave wrote:
Firstly it's not a conspiracy, it's an Agenda. There actually is a new agenda for the left, it's called socialism and redistribution of wealth through taxation. You can be completely factitious and still take advantage of it, just like orks can come together in a Waaagh to use your example. Every day there is some new tax or tax increase that legislators propose or even try to sneak through. Heck just recently here in California Democrats tried an end run around the constitution by calling new taxes fees so they wouldn't need a 2/3rds vote to pass the bill.
No, its called the use of taxes as an incentive structure to prioritize investments in small corporations, and start-up businesses. That's the origin of all this 'redistribution' business.
In all of modern history the Federal tax revenue has never deviated from 20% of GDP by more than 1-2%. The differences are not in the overall amount of taxes, but who pays them.
ChaosDave wrote:
Global warming is just a tool in this agenda, it provides all sorts of new tax and wealth redistribution opportunities. This includes things like the fun new SUV Taxes as mentioned earlier, Cap and trade, a new tax on beef producers because cows produce CO2 and methane. Hell there is even efforts to prevent 3rd world countries from developing to "stop global warming". Oh and how about one of my personal favorites the biofuel fiasco where congress mandated using biofuels and drove the price of food way up, how "laughable" is that to low income families?
The price of food had less to do with biofuels than it does with issues of aggregate demand in places like China, India, and Indonesia. As well as matters concerning the overall cost of transport, and the manner in which commodities are traded.
ChaosDave wrote:
Lets talk about "people all over the world are feeling the real effects of this issue", what effects are we talking about here? Cap and trade causing increased energy prices? Biofuel mandates causing increased food prices? Industrialized nations preventing 3rd world countries from development and keeping people impoverished? Or are we talking about some nefarious random event that you want to associate with global warming. I really do love the "OMG its a hurricane it must be global warming" attitude so often depicted in the media these days. Please list these "real effects" and state the proof you have linking them to global warming.
You mean besides the obvious one that an increase in nominal temperature in the oceans has lead to the formation of larger, and longer lasting, tropical storms and, therefore, hurricanes?
ChaosDave wrote:
I do admit that CO2 does have some effect on global temperature however that effect is no where near any sort of crisis level. We actually have hundreds of years before anything even resembling a crisis will occur and it's absolutely irresponsible to create the panic that activists have created with regards to Global climate change. Do we need to change, yes. We need to slowly and gradually transition into other forms of fuels and energy production, but we should not shoot ourselves in the foot in a panic to do it.
I agree. But I suspect that your idea of shooting ourselves in the foot is very different from mine.
5394
Post by: reds8n
ChaosDave wrote:Hmm quite well eh? How are those health care waiting lists coming along? Are they as bad as say Canadian 10 month Maternity ward waiting lists yet? If not just give it some time you'll there soon enough.
Dropping by the day. In England 9 out of 10 patients are sen for non emergency treatment like cataracts, hernies etc are treated within 18 weeks, with most people seen much quicker than that. My nan waited just over a week for her eye op. It's astonishing what happens when things are funded correctly.
I agree that there is no THEWORLDENDSTOMORROW , but that isn't what most proponents of climate change are saying. Syre there's a lunatic fringe who want us all picking brries and living in caves, just as there's people who refute that there is any change going on whatsoever. Both extremes are equally deluded.
I think the hundreds of years timeline you appear to (now) be proposing is wrong- sooner than that, but we're not looking at a Day after tomorrow nonsense affair either.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
Did he double post and quote himself? Someone shoot this man.
8016
Post by: ChaosDave
dogma wrote:
No, its called the use of taxes as an incentive structure to prioritize investments in small corporations, and start-up businesses. That's the origin of all this 'redistribution' business.
In all of modern history the Federal tax revenue has never deviated from 20% of GDP by more than 1-2%. The differences are not in the overall amount of taxes, but who pays them.
For now, but the CBO(Congressional Budget Office) projects that it will most likely increase to as much as 40% by 2075 See here. This is just federal taxes, not including the ever increasing State and local taxes.
The price of food had less to do with biofuels than it does with issues of aggregate demand in places like China, India, and Indonesia. As well as matters concerning the overall cost of transport, and the manner in which commodities are traded.
Really? Then why has biofuel production been frozen to 2007 levels. Since the 2005 mandate food prices have risen as much as 40%. When you divert 20-30% of your total crop away from food what did you think would happen? Supply going down has just as much affect on price as demand going up.
I agree. But I suspect that your idea of shooting ourselves in the foot is very different from mine.
Would you consider causing the entire coal industry to collapse over night, putting hundreds of thousands out of work from it and related industries shooting ourselves in the foot. I would, especially since it provide 45% of the US energy not to mention what it would do world wide. In fact Obama has gone on record saying that he intends to do just that using cap and trade.
8016
Post by: ChaosDave
reds8n wrote:
Dropping by the day. In England 9 out of 10 patients are sen for non emergency treatment like cataracts, hernies etc are treated within 18 weeks, with most people seen much quicker than that. My nan waited just over a week for her eye op. It's astonishing what happens when things are funded correctly.
Wow then all those reports of elderly people having to pull out their own teeth must be absolute lies.
8194
Post by: CorporateLogo
ChaosDave wrote:reds8n wrote:
Dropping by the day. In England 9 out of 10 patients are sen for non emergency treatment like cataracts, hernies etc are treated within 18 weeks, with most people seen much quicker than that. My nan waited just over a week for her eye op. It's astonishing what happens when things are funded correctly.
Wow then all those reports of elderly people having to pull out their own teeth must be absolute lies.
So you've held onto that link for a year then?
While that situation is a crying shame, it isn't fair to throw that up like it's the typical result. Or you can just ignore me and carry on fighting the godless liberal scum. How's the War on Christmas going?
5534
Post by: dogma
ChaosDave wrote:
For now, but the CBO(Congressional Budget Office) projects that it will most likely increase to as much as 40% by 2075 See here. This is just federal taxes, not including the ever increasing State and local taxes.
Yeah, it probably will. That's what happens when the state debt spends for 30 years.
ChaosDave wrote:
Really? Then why has biofuel production been frozen to 2007 levels. Since the 2005 mandate food prices have risen as much as 40%. When you divert 20-30% of your total crop away from food what did you think would happen? Supply going down has just as much affect on price as demand going up.
Because biofuel has been proven to be worthless as an alternative to oil, and it worsens the much larger problem of increasing global demand for all consumables.
Incidentally, the US produces massive surpluses of most foodstuffs. As such, to say that a contraction in domestically produced supply of those few crops usable in the production of biofuel is responsible for the huge upswing in prices is fairly inaccurate as much of the remaining crop was sold via export to begin with.
ChaosDave wrote:
Would you consider causing the entire coal industry to collapse over night, putting hundreds of thousands out of work from it and related industries shooting ourselves in the foot. I would, especially since it provide 45% of the US energy not to mention what it would do world wide. In fact Obama has gone on record saying that he intends to do just that using cap and trade.
Actually, he went on record as saying that he planned to do that in the event that they wouldn't utilize emissions scrubbers. Nice try though.
5534
Post by: dogma
Yes, far better to have health care costs as the number one cause of bankruptcy.
8044
Post by: Arctik_Firangi
Socialism FTW. The Age of Reagan is coming to an end!
5470
Post by: sebster
Polonius wrote:Ah, taxes... now the ball is in Polonius's court!
First off, while gas taxes have worked well in other countries, the American economy is built around nearly everybody using a car for transport. Until more options are put into place, any gas tax would be highly regressive (meaning lower income taxpayers pay a higher percentage of their total income on taxes), much like nearly all excise taxes (those taxes that are placed on things, not on income). I'm not saying it's an unworkable solution, just one that would devastate the lower middle class and the working poor.
I pointed out earlier, though, that you shouldn’t just look at a fuel tax in isolation. It can be put in place in conjunction with progressive tax and welfare measures to maintain the tax burden. For instance, if you expected to raise $500 per year per taxpayer, you could increase the tax free threshold by an equivalent amount. The policy would be revenue neutral and wouldn’t effect the tax burden.
By the same token, a luxury tax on SUV's themselves would be a body blow to the already embattled american auto industry. Luxury taxes never work, they just kill whatever industry they target, or are frought with loopholes.
Sort of. Luxury taxes are really only used for two things. Raising easy money from a market that doesn’t really care about the bottom line for their product (custom built mega-yachts, for instance, are generally bought by people who don’t care if the boat costs an extra $20,000). The second is to tax something out of existence, and is basically an excise, but is called a luxury tax for political purposes.
4WDs don’t belong in the first category. While they’re a status symbol, they’re a status symbol of the middle class and for the middle class cost really matters. 4WDs definitely don’t belong in the second category, not with the US car industry in its current position.
So yeah, luxury taxes would be a big mistake. A better plan would be a steady, measured increase in fuel tax offset by tax breaks and welfare changes.
By the way, income taxes don't redistribute wealth, they redistribute income. Those are dramatically different concepts in taxation, and get radically different treatment. The only time wealth is really taxes is on real property annually by local government, and at death for highly wealthy people. Government as a mechanism for redistribution of wealth is frought with many concerns. Our country is doing a good job, ironically the subprime mortgages that lead to the collapse also allowed many people to own homes for a first time.
You’re absolutely right, and the ignorance of the distinction is used all the time for political gain (witness all the socialists who always talk about the concentration of wealth among the top few percent, ignoring that the primary determinant of living standard is income).
5470
Post by: sebster
ChaosDave wrote:Firstly it's not a conspiracy, it's an Agenda. There actually is a new agenda for the left, it's called socialism and redistribution of wealth through taxation.
That’s not new. 200 years ago Henry George, a powerful figure among classical economists (the source of most policy in conservative or right wing economics) outlined the four canons of tax, and included redistribution. That’s right, the redistribution effect of tax has been a fundamental tenant of right wing economics for more than 200 years. The socialists differed in that they wanted the state to control wages and productive assets, but no-one was ever debating that some redistribution was to take place.
No democracy currently has flat taxes, they are all progressive. A few South American countries tried flat taxes, but they all went bankrupt very quickly (if you set the flat tax rate low enough so that the poor can still afford to eat, you can’t raise enough revenue to pay for roads and soldiers).
You can be completely factitious and still take advantage of it, just like orks can come together in a Waaagh to use your example. Every day there is some new tax or tax increase that legislators propose or even try to sneak through. Heck just recently here in California Democrats tried an end run around the constitution by calling new taxes fees so they wouldn't need a 2/3rds vote to pass the bill.
US Democrats are socialists now? Heh.
I’m sorry, you obviously have a lot of passion and interest in politics, but you really need to read more. I agree with your concluding statement that we need to approach the transition to new energy sources in a sensible and measured approach (though I’d likely disagree on how slow ‘measured’ is).
But that gets drowned out in the reactionary rhetoric, especially when there are so many basic errors in your political understanding. Your comment later in this post about the socialist agenda aiming to prevent economic growth in the third world is, well, bizarre. I’m honestly not having a go, I just think you probably need to start reading some foundational material, or else you’re not going to do anything but provide some mild chuckles for people on the internet.
That sounds harsh, but I’m just being honest with you.
5394
Post by: reds8n
That is indeed a sad story. And yes, we do still need more NHS dentists. You're not actually claiming that's representative of Britain as a whole are you ?
Note from the article "Where NHS dental services are available, people are happy with the quality of treatment provided but many find the NHS fee system confusing and expensive, with some patients taking out loans to pay for treatment or more worryingly taking matters into their own hands."
So, all we really need to is sort out the funding and we're sorted. We could stop wasting money on illegal wars for example.
From the Right wing Times newspaper Ten years ago it was NHS waiting times that were the main driver for people turning to the private sector, but delays have plummeted. In the Nineties patients of mine were regularly waiting up to 18 months to have a cataract operation; today some of them are operated on within a fortnight.
Perfect ? No, of course not. But it's better than the system that you've got.
And what you do offer people aint sounding all that either
If you like I can pull links up and make tabloid sounding titles for them as well. How about the babies are dying !111
You've got what ? Around 47 million people with no insurance and another 15-20 million with inadequate insurance. That's about a fifth of your population. That's terrible. In a civilised nation you don't just let people rot away from cancer
Things like that embarrass you as a nation.
5030
Post by: Grignard
[quote=reds8n You've got what ? Around 47 million people with no insurance and another 15-20 million with inadequate insurance. That's about a fifth of your population. That's terrible. In a civilised nation you don't just let people rot away from cancer
Things like that embarrass you as a nation.
Why? Sure, from a human point of view, most people want everyone to have access to the best healthcare. But what reasoning is there to do so? What rational reason do you have to provide healthcare to someone who can't repay in kind.
Sure, i'd benefit from that concept, because I'm not exactly wealthy, but if I was, why would I care? I don't believe in God, so I don't feel he's going to punish me or something like that.
I'm not saying this is how I feel, but I am saying that it would be a lot easier to feel that way if I wouldn't benefit from some sort of universal healthcare scheme. In other words, I think that universal healthcare exists because many more people benefit from it than not, therefore in a democracy it usually pops up.
edit: I've always assumed that "burning food for fuel" is a bad idea, but has anyone quantified how much the increased usage of biofuel actually affects food prices?
221
Post by: Frazzled
Once we start talking about letting people die from cancer in the streets the thread has moved beyond its useful date.
|
|
