Blah blah waffle..Another budget, or should that be revenue raising excersise thinly disguised as sound economic policy to help the economy and fight a no wiin battle with mother nature, sorry, "climate change"
Higher tax on alcopops and strong beer to curb "binge drinking" ? WRONG..
I had a pub and the ones who like to go out of a weekend and get merry after a hard working week are not knocking back Tennents super at 9% proof, most don't like it and leave it to the park bench crowd, they drink little more than Carling or the like at a far lower alcohol content, around 4%? please feel free to correct, it's been a while since I needed to take note
Hit the motorist cause thats an easy target and waffle on about road pricing, emissions and gas guzzlers..
Bang on about carbon - did you know the MOT test doesn't test for carbon?
How far is it from no10 to parliament? WALK, instead of jumping in to a ministerial - tax payer funded Jag.
Want cars off the road? provide a half reasonable public transport structure and people might consider using it. I could buy a cheap car, drive me and a friend to Scotland from Somerset and back and scrap the car for less than a train ticket.
Dont call it road fund license now do they..they realised we cottoned on to the fact that it goes nowhere near the road..call it Vehicle excise duty instead, take all mention of ROAD out of it.
One thing struck me when reading the summary of the budget,
When it comes to increasing the amount WE have to fork out, it's imposed with almost immediate effect, however, when the Gov't says it's going to increase ITS outlay it won't be for a year or so, for instance..
CHILD BENEFIT RISES TO £20 A WEEK (whoopee I hear low income families on a tight budget cry, how very generous) BUT NOT UNTIL 2009....Why is this?
I cannot think of a single reason why it should not be from next weeks payment of benefit, but clearly Mr Darling can.
If anyone in Gov't is reading this..
The budget has become all too predictable, dont bother telling us unless you have some good news that might interest us.
Start off by giving OAP's a £50 a week rise, increasing the minimum wage to £8 an hour and knocking 50p 0ff the ridiculous amount you steel of us in fuel duty - you'll still make a fortune out of it, and NO it won't make people use their cars more.
Budget
Budget
dom;801155 wrote: Blah blah waffle..Another budget, or should that be revenue raising excersise thinly disguised as sound economic policy to help the economy and fight a no wiin battle with mother nature, sorry, "climate change"
Higher tax on alcopops and strong beer to curb "binge drinking" ? WRONG..
I had a pub and the ones who like to go out of a weekend and get merry after a hard working week are not knocking back Tennents super at 9% proof, most don't like it and leave it to the park bench crowd, they drink little more than Carling or the like at a far lower alcohol content, around 4%? please feel free to correct, it's been a while since I needed to take note
Hit the motorist cause thats an easy target and waffle on about road pricing, emissions and gas guzzlers..
Bang on about carbon - did you know the MOT test doesn't test for carbon?
How far is it from no10 to parliament? WALK, instead of jumping in to a ministerial - tax payer funded Jag.
Want cars off the road? provide a half reasonable public transport structure and people might consider using it. I could buy a cheap car, drive me and a friend to Scotland from Somerset and back and scrap the car for less than a train ticket.
Dont call it road fund license now do they..they realised we cottoned on to the fact that it goes nowhere near the road..call it Vehicle excise duty instead, take all mention of ROAD out of it.
One thing struck me when reading the summary of the budget,
When it comes to increasing the amount WE have to fork out, it's imposed with almost immediate effect, however, when the Gov't says it's going to increase ITS outlay it won't be for a year or so, for instance..
CHILD BENEFIT RISES TO £20 A WEEK (whoopee I hear low income families on a tight budget cry, how very generous) BUT NOT UNTIL 2009....Why is this?
I cannot think of a single reason why it should not be from next weeks payment of benefit, but clearly Mr Darling can.
If anyone in Gov't is reading this..
The budget has become all too predictable, dont bother telling us unless you have some good news that might interest us.
Start off by giving OAP's a £50 a week rise, increasing the minimum wage to £8 an hour and knocking 50p 0ff the ridiculous amount you steel of us in fuel duty - you'll still make a fortune out of it, and NO it won't make people use their cars more.
But isn't there a required emissions test?
Higher tax on alcopops and strong beer to curb "binge drinking" ? WRONG..
I had a pub and the ones who like to go out of a weekend and get merry after a hard working week are not knocking back Tennents super at 9% proof, most don't like it and leave it to the park bench crowd, they drink little more than Carling or the like at a far lower alcohol content, around 4%? please feel free to correct, it's been a while since I needed to take note
Hit the motorist cause thats an easy target and waffle on about road pricing, emissions and gas guzzlers..
Bang on about carbon - did you know the MOT test doesn't test for carbon?
How far is it from no10 to parliament? WALK, instead of jumping in to a ministerial - tax payer funded Jag.
Want cars off the road? provide a half reasonable public transport structure and people might consider using it. I could buy a cheap car, drive me and a friend to Scotland from Somerset and back and scrap the car for less than a train ticket.
Dont call it road fund license now do they..they realised we cottoned on to the fact that it goes nowhere near the road..call it Vehicle excise duty instead, take all mention of ROAD out of it.
One thing struck me when reading the summary of the budget,
When it comes to increasing the amount WE have to fork out, it's imposed with almost immediate effect, however, when the Gov't says it's going to increase ITS outlay it won't be for a year or so, for instance..
CHILD BENEFIT RISES TO £20 A WEEK (whoopee I hear low income families on a tight budget cry, how very generous) BUT NOT UNTIL 2009....Why is this?
I cannot think of a single reason why it should not be from next weeks payment of benefit, but clearly Mr Darling can.
If anyone in Gov't is reading this..
The budget has become all too predictable, dont bother telling us unless you have some good news that might interest us.
Start off by giving OAP's a £50 a week rise, increasing the minimum wage to £8 an hour and knocking 50p 0ff the ridiculous amount you steel of us in fuel duty - you'll still make a fortune out of it, and NO it won't make people use their cars more.
But isn't there a required emissions test?
-
chrisb84uk
- Posts: 11634
- Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 6:29 am
Budget
dom;801155 wrote:
Want cars off the road? provide a half reasonable public transport structure and people might consider using it. I could buy a cheap car, drive me and a friend to Scotland from Somerset and back and scrap the car for less than a train ticket.
That's quite true. Where I live we have an awful public transport service that is more like a joke than anything else. I mean the price of bus and rail travel has really gone up a lot over the last year, and yet you are lucky to get a seat on the bus, let alone the train, which certainly is no value for money at all!
Want cars off the road? provide a half reasonable public transport structure and people might consider using it. I could buy a cheap car, drive me and a friend to Scotland from Somerset and back and scrap the car for less than a train ticket.
That's quite true. Where I live we have an awful public transport service that is more like a joke than anything else. I mean the price of bus and rail travel has really gone up a lot over the last year, and yet you are lucky to get a seat on the bus, let alone the train, which certainly is no value for money at all!
Budget
Cow 'emissions' are more damaging to the planet than CO2
http://www.independent.co.uk/environmen ... 27843.html
Most new vehicles are low emissions these days, however id rather drive a big car than a poxy nissan micra that has more chance of saving mine and my families life in a crash than a paper bag has.
Most CO2 from vehicles doesnt rise it goes down and gets evapurated through plants and grasses.
Its all a load of b0110cks to get more money out of us, im even starting to wonder if global warming even exists tbh...
http://www.independent.co.uk/environmen ... 27843.html
Most new vehicles are low emissions these days, however id rather drive a big car than a poxy nissan micra that has more chance of saving mine and my families life in a crash than a paper bag has.
Most CO2 from vehicles doesnt rise it goes down and gets evapurated through plants and grasses.
Its all a load of b0110cks to get more money out of us, im even starting to wonder if global warming even exists tbh...
Budget
Dom - I like you, you talk sense, in a Mr Angry type of way!!:wah:
:driving:(do our smilies have low emissions??)
:driving:(do our smilies have low emissions??)
Originally Posted by spot
She is one fit bitch innit, that Immy
Don't worry; it only seems kinky the first time
She is one fit bitch innit, that Immy
Don't worry; it only seems kinky the first time
Budget
Yes pheasent there is an emissions test, but carbon is not tested oddly enough. also, you see cars that have obvious engine wear bellowing blue smoke (burning oil) stinking the place out but these will probably pass the test as there is no test for that.
I prefer to drive a large car too, i drive a fair bit and the mpg isn't good, but I like the comfort and the car runs fine and the emissions are well within limits so I have no quarms about a five litre merc !!
And yes global warming seems to be all B******S to get money out of us..damn clever roose though you must admit..
I prefer to drive a large car too, i drive a fair bit and the mpg isn't good, but I like the comfort and the car runs fine and the emissions are well within limits so I have no quarms about a five litre merc !!
And yes global warming seems to be all B******S to get money out of us..damn clever roose though you must admit..
Budget
yep I agree with ya Dom...Post more...You talk sense and in a fashion I understand. nice to have you in the Garden:-6 ( not literally :sneaky: hah hah...oh me bad lol)
Budget
dom;801259 wrote: Yes pheasent there is an emissions test, but carbon is not tested oddly enough. also, you see cars that have obvious engine wear bellowing blue smoke (burning oil) stinking the place out but these will probably pass the test as there is no test for that.
I prefer to drive a large car too, i drive a fair bit and the mpg isn't good, but I like the comfort and the car runs fine and the emissions are well within limits so I have no quarms about a five litre merc !!
And yes global warming seems to be all B******S to get money out of us..damn clever roose though you must admit..
The emissions test is a test of carbon monoxide and unburnt hydrocarbon output, for diesels there is also a test for particulate carbon emission - in what way is the not testing carbon?
As for global warming being b******s, would you care to justify that 'cos from where I'm sitting it's a stone cold certainty.
I prefer to drive a large car too, i drive a fair bit and the mpg isn't good, but I like the comfort and the car runs fine and the emissions are well within limits so I have no quarms about a five litre merc !!
And yes global warming seems to be all B******S to get money out of us..damn clever roose though you must admit..
The emissions test is a test of carbon monoxide and unburnt hydrocarbon output, for diesels there is also a test for particulate carbon emission - in what way is the not testing carbon?
As for global warming being b******s, would you care to justify that 'cos from where I'm sitting it's a stone cold certainty.
Budget
From an historical perspective, global warming has saved us, at least temporarily, from an Icehouse Climate, although humans can hardly take the credit.
Science is clear on what controls cycles of climate change. Global warming (and cooling) cycles are controlled primarily by:
1) Cyclical variations in the sun's energy output
2) Eccentricities in Earth's orbit
3) The influence of plate tectonics on the distribution of continents and oceans
4) The so-called "greenhouse effect," caused by atmospheric gases such as gaseous water vapor (not droplets), carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxides, which help to trap radiant heat which might otherwise escape into space.
The "greenhouse effect" actually is a bit player in global climate (although without it's benefits the average temperature of the Earth would be minus 18° C).
Human's did not cause the greenhouse effect, but critics maintain human additions to atmospheric greenhouse gases may cause global temperatures to rise too much.
Generally understood, but rarely publicized is the fact that 95% of the greenhouse effect is due solely to natural water vapor. Of the remaining 5%, only 0.2% to 0.3% of the greenhouse effect (depending on whose numbers you use) is due to emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases from human sources. If we are in fact in a global warming crisis, even the most aggressive and costly proposals for limiting industrial carbon dioxide emissions would have an undetectable effect on global climate.
yes I copy and pasted cos they speak cleverer than myself but we both mean the same thing.:-6
Science is clear on what controls cycles of climate change. Global warming (and cooling) cycles are controlled primarily by:
1) Cyclical variations in the sun's energy output
2) Eccentricities in Earth's orbit
3) The influence of plate tectonics on the distribution of continents and oceans
4) The so-called "greenhouse effect," caused by atmospheric gases such as gaseous water vapor (not droplets), carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxides, which help to trap radiant heat which might otherwise escape into space.
The "greenhouse effect" actually is a bit player in global climate (although without it's benefits the average temperature of the Earth would be minus 18° C).
Human's did not cause the greenhouse effect, but critics maintain human additions to atmospheric greenhouse gases may cause global temperatures to rise too much.
Generally understood, but rarely publicized is the fact that 95% of the greenhouse effect is due solely to natural water vapor. Of the remaining 5%, only 0.2% to 0.3% of the greenhouse effect (depending on whose numbers you use) is due to emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases from human sources. If we are in fact in a global warming crisis, even the most aggressive and costly proposals for limiting industrial carbon dioxide emissions would have an undetectable effect on global climate.
yes I copy and pasted cos they speak cleverer than myself but we both mean the same thing.:-6
Budget
I think chezzie has adequatly answered the question on climate change/ warming, seems the gov't thinks it has the right to and capability to control nature.
As for the MOT and carbon testing, I recently read from a reliable source which i am trying to locate that actual carbon is not tested and there are no plans to introduce it.
Whats tested is..
Smoke
CO2
HC - HYDROCARBONS - HYDRO = WATER doesn't it?
And is very much a lottery, how can it be so accurate if a tester finds a fail, tells you to blast up the road then tests it again and it passes ? the following day it would fail again - a test pass is valid at the time it passes, after that it's not worth the paper it's printed on. it's a joke.
As for CATS they don't do their job 100% of the time, generally when the engine is cold or used only for short distances it's not doing a thing.
As for the MOT and carbon testing, I recently read from a reliable source which i am trying to locate that actual carbon is not tested and there are no plans to introduce it.
Whats tested is..
Smoke
CO2
HC - HYDROCARBONS - HYDRO = WATER doesn't it?
And is very much a lottery, how can it be so accurate if a tester finds a fail, tells you to blast up the road then tests it again and it passes ? the following day it would fail again - a test pass is valid at the time it passes, after that it's not worth the paper it's printed on. it's a joke.
As for CATS they don't do their job 100% of the time, generally when the engine is cold or used only for short distances it's not doing a thing.
Budget
Chezzie;801302 wrote: From an historical perspective, global warming has saved us, at least temporarily, from an Icehouse Climate, although humans can hardly take the credit.
Science is clear on what controls cycles of climate change. Global warming (and cooling) cycles are controlled primarily by:
1) Cyclical variations in the sun's energy output
2) Eccentricities in Earth's orbit
3) The influence of plate tectonics on the distribution of continents and oceans
4) The so-called "greenhouse effect," caused by atmospheric gases such as gaseous water vapor (not droplets), carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxides, which help to trap radiant heat which might otherwise escape into space.
The "greenhouse effect" actually is a bit player in global climate (although without it's benefits the average temperature of the Earth would be minus 18° C).
Human's did not cause the greenhouse effect, but critics maintain human additions to atmospheric greenhouse gases may cause global temperatures to rise too much.
Generally understood, but rarely publicized is the fact that 95% of the greenhouse effect is due solely to natural water vapor. Of the remaining 5%, only 0.2% to 0.3% of the greenhouse effect (depending on whose numbers you use) is due to emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases from human sources. If we are in fact in a global warming crisis, even the most aggressive and costly proposals for limiting industrial carbon dioxide emissions would have an undetectable effect on global climate.
yes I copy and pasted cos they speak cleverer than myself but we both mean the same thing.:-6
Saved is a curious word to use as the Earth is actually more productive at lower temperatures.
The rest of the data presented, whilst reasonable, does not give the whole story.
The Earth is an extremely complex system where temperature is self regulating within a large range of input energy values using various negative feedback loops - BTW, your list of control factors is missing some of the major players. Go outside of this range and the negative feedback loops break down and switch to a positive feedback mode. An example? As it gets warmer and as the CO2 levels rise conditions for the rain forests improve increasing their capacity to draw down CO2 from the atmosphere and fix it within both the trees and in the soil. If the temperature rises too far, however, the rain forest can no longer thrive and then start to die back and the hotter it gets the quicker this happens - not only do they cease to draw down CO2 but the trees die and, by either rotting or burning they release their carbon back into the atmosphere as CO2 so raising the temperature even faster.
As you say, we are currently in an interglacial period with the Earth towards the top end of her natural range.
If this system has the capacity to for example self regulate within a range of 700,000 to 1,000,000 "units" of energy input and, under the prevailing natural conditions, is experiencing 999,000 units then not only will the temperature not rise but it could well fall due to the negative feedback.
Take that same system to an input of 1,001,000 units, a 0.2% increase, and the situation is totally different. Not only is the temperature now rising but it will rise at an ever increasing rate. It's the old Mr Micawber position.
Science is clear on what controls cycles of climate change. Global warming (and cooling) cycles are controlled primarily by:
1) Cyclical variations in the sun's energy output
2) Eccentricities in Earth's orbit
3) The influence of plate tectonics on the distribution of continents and oceans
4) The so-called "greenhouse effect," caused by atmospheric gases such as gaseous water vapor (not droplets), carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxides, which help to trap radiant heat which might otherwise escape into space.
The "greenhouse effect" actually is a bit player in global climate (although without it's benefits the average temperature of the Earth would be minus 18° C).
Human's did not cause the greenhouse effect, but critics maintain human additions to atmospheric greenhouse gases may cause global temperatures to rise too much.
Generally understood, but rarely publicized is the fact that 95% of the greenhouse effect is due solely to natural water vapor. Of the remaining 5%, only 0.2% to 0.3% of the greenhouse effect (depending on whose numbers you use) is due to emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases from human sources. If we are in fact in a global warming crisis, even the most aggressive and costly proposals for limiting industrial carbon dioxide emissions would have an undetectable effect on global climate.
yes I copy and pasted cos they speak cleverer than myself but we both mean the same thing.:-6
Saved is a curious word to use as the Earth is actually more productive at lower temperatures.
The rest of the data presented, whilst reasonable, does not give the whole story.
The Earth is an extremely complex system where temperature is self regulating within a large range of input energy values using various negative feedback loops - BTW, your list of control factors is missing some of the major players. Go outside of this range and the negative feedback loops break down and switch to a positive feedback mode. An example? As it gets warmer and as the CO2 levels rise conditions for the rain forests improve increasing their capacity to draw down CO2 from the atmosphere and fix it within both the trees and in the soil. If the temperature rises too far, however, the rain forest can no longer thrive and then start to die back and the hotter it gets the quicker this happens - not only do they cease to draw down CO2 but the trees die and, by either rotting or burning they release their carbon back into the atmosphere as CO2 so raising the temperature even faster.
As you say, we are currently in an interglacial period with the Earth towards the top end of her natural range.
If this system has the capacity to for example self regulate within a range of 700,000 to 1,000,000 "units" of energy input and, under the prevailing natural conditions, is experiencing 999,000 units then not only will the temperature not rise but it could well fall due to the negative feedback.
Take that same system to an input of 1,001,000 units, a 0.2% increase, and the situation is totally different. Not only is the temperature now rising but it will rise at an ever increasing rate. It's the old Mr Micawber position.
Budget
Course you do know we're going to be hit by an asteroid thus rendering the whole debate somewhat academic.
Actually the real aim is to force everybody out their cars and get them walking thereby saving the NHS a fortune in keeping all the fat bastards alive. just as banning smoking saves the NHS a fortune. Except then we'll have a bigger pension bill so he increases child benefit so there are enough sprogs to finance it all. Quite logical really. Whatever you do don't mention the war and how much it's costing us.
I like our politicians. It's like watching one of these reality shows where they all compete to be the biggest numpty.
Actually the real aim is to force everybody out their cars and get them walking thereby saving the NHS a fortune in keeping all the fat bastards alive. just as banning smoking saves the NHS a fortune. Except then we'll have a bigger pension bill so he increases child benefit so there are enough sprogs to finance it all. Quite logical really. Whatever you do don't mention the war and how much it's costing us.
I like our politicians. It's like watching one of these reality shows where they all compete to be the biggest numpty.
Budget
gmc;801466 wrote: Course you do know we're going to be hit by an asteroid thus rendering the whole debate somewhat academic.
Actually the real aim is to force everybody out their cars and get them walking thereby saving the NHS a fortune in keeping all the fat bastards alive. just as banning smoking saves the NHS a fortune. Except then we'll have a bigger pension bill so he increases child benefit so there are enough sprogs to finance it all. Quite logical really. Whatever you do don't mention the war and how much it's costing us.
I like our politicians. It's like watching one of these reality shows where they all compete to be the biggest numpty.
PMSL - who's winning!!!!:wah:
Actually the real aim is to force everybody out their cars and get them walking thereby saving the NHS a fortune in keeping all the fat bastards alive. just as banning smoking saves the NHS a fortune. Except then we'll have a bigger pension bill so he increases child benefit so there are enough sprogs to finance it all. Quite logical really. Whatever you do don't mention the war and how much it's costing us.
I like our politicians. It's like watching one of these reality shows where they all compete to be the biggest numpty.
PMSL - who's winning!!!!:wah:
Originally Posted by spot
She is one fit bitch innit, that Immy
Don't worry; it only seems kinky the first time
She is one fit bitch innit, that Immy
Don't worry; it only seems kinky the first time
Budget
Imladris;802468 wrote: PMSL - who's winning!!!!:wah:
It's neck and neck.imo
It's neck and neck.imo
Budget
Ooohh..I think I've set fire to some **** here !!..it was only a general observation after the budget..never mind, interesting all the same..
When all's said and done, the politicians who, WE, god help us put there are in it for their own gains (god, don't start me off again, see daily mail friday) and to provide jobs for their mates, they have eroded every single part of our culture and individuality as British subjects, every last drop of what used to be considered repect and sought to control every single action and thought we entertain, they hold us in utter contempt, think we are not capable of seeing to what used to be OUR business, blame US because society has gone down the pan after their meddling, attempt to fool us with total rubbish about the economy by fiddling with numbers to make it look better and try and tell us we've not had it so good, take us to war with a pack of lies, bow to the whims of minorities who chose to live here but don't have a shread of respect for our country or our ways, dream up ridiculous methods of screwing more money from us, new laws to protect the perpetrators of crime (human rights act? oh my god, what a joke repeal it AT ONCE) treat public servants like Police and Nurses more like public slaves saying they can't afford public sector pay rises...need i go on?
All they care about is what they can fiddle out of it for themselves while trying to justify their existance.
£67000 salary for an MP? pay them £18000 max, let them make ends meet like the rest of us.
£22000 expenses to furnish a second home? scrap it now. they chose to take a job that involves travelling to London, thats their problem.
Multiply the salary and expenses by 650 MP's, thats a lot of cash for far better uses.
Council leaders on up to £200,000? in the name of jammie dodgers WHY!.The PM doesn't even get that !
Sorry if i've got off the point but it makes me furious, it is just unbelieveable, you truly could not make it up.
I'll end with a quote I heard recently..
"Our Government and it's bureaucrats doesn't care WHAT it does, it only cares about what it gets CAUGHT doing"
They've been rumbled long ago, it's time to rip the lot up and start again.
When all's said and done, the politicians who, WE, god help us put there are in it for their own gains (god, don't start me off again, see daily mail friday) and to provide jobs for their mates, they have eroded every single part of our culture and individuality as British subjects, every last drop of what used to be considered repect and sought to control every single action and thought we entertain, they hold us in utter contempt, think we are not capable of seeing to what used to be OUR business, blame US because society has gone down the pan after their meddling, attempt to fool us with total rubbish about the economy by fiddling with numbers to make it look better and try and tell us we've not had it so good, take us to war with a pack of lies, bow to the whims of minorities who chose to live here but don't have a shread of respect for our country or our ways, dream up ridiculous methods of screwing more money from us, new laws to protect the perpetrators of crime (human rights act? oh my god, what a joke repeal it AT ONCE) treat public servants like Police and Nurses more like public slaves saying they can't afford public sector pay rises...need i go on?
All they care about is what they can fiddle out of it for themselves while trying to justify their existance.
£67000 salary for an MP? pay them £18000 max, let them make ends meet like the rest of us.
£22000 expenses to furnish a second home? scrap it now. they chose to take a job that involves travelling to London, thats their problem.
Multiply the salary and expenses by 650 MP's, thats a lot of cash for far better uses.
Council leaders on up to £200,000? in the name of jammie dodgers WHY!.The PM doesn't even get that !
Sorry if i've got off the point but it makes me furious, it is just unbelieveable, you truly could not make it up.
I'll end with a quote I heard recently..
"Our Government and it's bureaucrats doesn't care WHAT it does, it only cares about what it gets CAUGHT doing"
They've been rumbled long ago, it's time to rip the lot up and start again.