Green Issues

[John Sims]

ORIGINAL: pauljmcnulty

.......The best analogy I've heard so far was from the only man grumpier than John Sims - Marcus Brigstock. It went along the lines of "if the room you're in is too smoky, lighting up another cigarette won't help the situation". []

He sounds like a very astute chappie. I'd like to meet him.

 

[Robert Edwards]

I don't think you would; Brigstock cannot even see a bandwagon without jumping aboard. He styles himself as a leftie satirist (and thus is to be heard ad nauseam on Radio 4) and he fits somewhere between John Pilger and George Galloway on what passes for the political spectrum these days. Just another guilt-ridden public schoolboy...

 

[Neil Haughey]

ORIGINAL: Hilux

Watch the C4 film re global warming. During the largest industrial expansion the world has ever seen (post war boom) the Co2 levels DROPPED

The C4 film said a lot of interesting things, however after spending about a month trawling through scientific literature I came to the conclusion that the programme was extreme and very one sided in its production. The stuff about CO2 levels dropping for example in the post war period is not supported by any peer reviewed data I have seen and leads one to assume that many of the graphs used on the programme where made up for maximum effect. The accepted data sets do show a continual and increasing rate of increase in global atmospheric CO2 concentration.

I am a sceptic purely in terms of the spin put on all this stuff by ppl pushing a semi-communist agenda, and some of the hysteria related to what IMHO is very scetchy science (to much based on circumstantial evidence). However like I said before I don't see how this is likely to ever be proved one way or the other so IMHO it is better to do something reasonable about it. Unfortunately sensible reasonable policy is not ever likely to come from politicians (because ppl that are idealogicaly driven never do sensible and reasonable)

 

[Hilux]

It is fact that Co2 during the post war period was lower and dropped during that period. Based upon ice samples tested by independent reseearch facilities.

I wonder also what happened to the ozone layer scare, that seems to have gone away?

 

[sawood12]

The biggest 'fact' I took away from the C4 programme was not about the CO2 levels at all but about the activity of the sun. The sun is the one and only thing that drives our climate so it is obvious to me that whatever happens to the sun will directly influence our climate, and because the sun is nothing but a huge nuclear fusion explosion it is a very active and dynamic thing just like all explosions. I'm quite comfortable with the fact that if the suns surface temperature changes from 3,000,000 degs C to 3,000,001 degs C then it is very likely the Earths average climate will raise by 1 degs C.

In any case it is irrelavent what has happened to CO2 levels in the past 80yrs or so. The fact is that historical evidence shows that the CO2 levels have always fluctuated and that the fluctuations in the climates temperature correlates inversly. During Medievel times the climate was much warmer than it currently is at a time of low CO2 levels (according to the C4 programme at least) and you cannot blame cars and the burning of fossil fuels for that. Also 25,000 years ago the Ice Age ended without one turn of an internal combustion engine, so the Earths climatic past has shown there has been much much more severe swings in the cliamate that has nothing to do with the burning of fossil fuels. We should embrace Global Warming as a natural climatic cycle, rather than fight against it. Nature will survive quite well, it might change, a few species might become extinct but in their place new species will evolve - that's nature. 99.9% of all the species that have ever existed are now extinct and 99.8% of those were extinct long before man turned up.

There are alot of so called facts and counter facts on both sides of this argument therefore I like to revert to logic and common sense and when you apply common sense it is very difficult to see the case for man-made CO2 causing global warming against the weight evidence of the Earths climatic history long before Man came along. Unless of course you believe in the theory that there was some other technologically advanced civilisation that pre-dated Man that also burned fossil fuels and emitted millions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere!

 

[Robert Edwards]

It would be interesting to invert the argument; I wonder what the rec'd lefty opinion would be if it were the case that vehicle emissions had a cooling effect on the global temperature level? Lest we forget, 30 years ago this was exactly what was being forecast.

IMHO it would go like this - the same lobby would Morris dance about making threatening noises about a new ice age and that In Their (far from humble) Opinion then the selfish bloated plutocrats who drive 4X4s, sports cars etc., were guilty of a collective act of mass murder unprecedented in human history etc., etc., and whoever denied this was guilty of the environmental equivalent of holocaust denial. Pure Spart.

If we are agreed that the long-term purpose of all this is to roll back the extraordinary changes in personal freedom which the motor car has given us, and reduce us to a state of lobotomised servitude dependent upon a drab centrally-planned transport infrastructure based upon the cattle truck, then the 'spy in the sky' agenda, which never really goes away, is clear and starts to make political sense, for there is a persistent lobby which demands to know exactly where any of us are, at any given moment, and the 'green'/speeding/safety issues are merely a cover for that.

In short, my friends, if you drive a machine which some might define as 'aspirational' then you are committing a sin. This sinister new puritanism has conveniently forgotten all those Citroen 2 CVs which could be seen lurching about all over the place with Nuclear Power - No Thanks! stickers on the back. That was before people realised that these truly terrible devices were about as PC as betting someone else's pension fund on the outcome of a bullfight.

And I'm not talking about the power stations...

 

[Neil Haughey]

ORIGINAL: sawood12

There are alot of so called facts and counter facts on both sides of this argument therefore I like to revert to logic and common sense and when you apply common sense it is very difficult to see the case for man-made CO2 causing global warming against the weight evidence of the Earths climatic history long before Man came along.

Actually that is not quite true and TBH it is hardly surprising that on a motoring group ppl will tend to move towards the stance that supports their own outlook. Some of you guys on here really need to spend some time doing the background research. I know most of you guys have some form of engineering/technical education so you can read the stuff and come to an informed conclusion. I have and to describe the journey I have been on I would say I started as a complete believer (why would I question other scientists when I spent 7 years of my own life training to be one!), then became a complete sceptic when I witnessed how sketchy and circumstantial this stuff is (it is a million miles from the certainty of lab physics/engineering), but have now moved to a position whereby I am a bit worried about how all this may turn out. A scientist a while back labelled global warming "the biggest scientific experiment in the history of mankind". I don't think a fairer or truer thing has been said on any side of the arguement.

 

[Neil Haughey]

ORIGINAL: Hilux

It is fact that Co2 during the post war period was lower and dropped during that period. Based upon ice samples tested by independent reseearch facilities.

I wonder also what happened to the ozone layer scare, that seems to have gone away?

Ice core sampling is known for being very dodgy, however during the same period atmoshperic CO2 concentration has been measured directly which does show a continual increase that in recent years has actually increased faster. Unfortunately the climate evangelists for a long time have tended to use the same dodgy technique to bolster their position, making all sorts of claims about what the atmosphere was like hundreds and thousands of years ago. History has always shown that if you use bad science to bolster an arguement eventually the same bad science will jump back and kick you in the nuts.

Further, tests on carbon radioisotopes in the atmosphere has demonstrated that a large proportion of this excess CO2 (compared to earlier levels) is derived from burnt fossil fuels not natural sources.

Why am I taking the counter position here I am supposed to be a sceptic like you guys!

 

[Robert Edwards]

I take your point regarding motoring ppl, but to be candid, I'd be quite happy saddling up a nag every day, even if I was threatened with the prospect of committing some other sin or other, the total of which are now only starting to be revealed now...

You obviously know your stuff, Neil; my own background is all about interpretation of numbers and stats (money markets) and I learned very early on that if you have dirty data (corrupted numbers from the statistical point of view) then any outcome at which you arrive from even a stochastic point of view is less than useless and probably harmful.

This is where I have a problem - not with the people who are trying to get at the truth of the situation (for that is always noble), but those who seize upon a snapshot and run with it, along the lines of 'give me half the facts - I want to make a quick decision'.

Lies, damned lies, etc...

 

[Peter Empson]

I'm very sceptical about man made global warming, but what really irritates me is how hypocritical the Goverment are, and how the media seem to be allowing them to get away with it.

Take taxing of motorists, already at a ludicrously high level in my opinion, which they clearly plan to raise further one way or another in the near future (with the green excuse being used as justification of course). But this tax will simply be added to the increasing pile they are fleecing us for. Now if they were promising to spend all of the money on green "˜solutions' then I might have more respect for their beliefs, at least they'd be practising what they preach. It doesn't matter how they'd spend the money, as long as it all went towards 'neutralising' carbon production or funding schemes/research to offset it. I may not agree with it, but at least they'd be true to their word.

Why the media haven't protested for this I really don't understand [>:]

I'll stop ranting now, and instead go and burn a few litres of over priced super unleaded on my way home...[]

Best regards,
Peter

 

[Hilux]

it is hardly surprising that on a motoring group ppl will tend to move towards the stance that supports their own outlook. Some of you guys on here really need to spend some time doing the background research.

A bit of a low blow Neil if you dont mind me saying so. I bow to your expertise but consider that the arguments on here have not biased themselves wholly to justify cars or consumption of carbon/fossil fuels.

We are all concerned if there is an issue but its been taken on board by this bl**dy govt without proper thought, research, consultation with the public and mis-managed action to date.

It is clear that there is no proved corellation with co2 and global warming. The scientific community is completely divided. Both sides have good arguments. The ice caps have melted before and the av earth temp was much higher in the past. Warmer seas emit most of the co2. Human kind emit a paltry amount in comparison. The argument is that "has the small (relatively) increase in co2 affected anything?" and I still believe the jury is out.

One of the benefits is that we now consider conserving reserves more (or using them less) which can only be a good thing.

What I want to know (regardless of all the arguments) is where the green taxes go?

Does the govt plant trees or invest in hydroelectric power in China or elsewhere so as to offset co2 emmissions..............................

Where are Richmond council banking the massive increase in borough parking permits for 4x4`s.

if the funds are not used to offset co2 then its a national scandal.

I think we should set up a website asking where all the green taxes go cos its my opinion that its like the RFL. We pay more but they do nothing constructive with it.

 

[Robert Edwards]

But this is the trap, isn't it? If you accept that man-made CO2 is the problem (two separate issues here) then the tax point has force.

If you regard the matter as 'unproven' then the direction of the tax take is neither here nor there, and even to accept as fair the addressing of totally bogus CO2 'offset' projects with the revenue derived from screwing the motorist (point v.well taken, by the way) is to accept the propaganda.

But consider this - the next Prime Minister has never driven a car!

 

[sawood12]

Ultimately you cannot believe any scientific research you read unless you do at least as much scientific research to understand the assumptions and basic theory's being tested- and all scientific research begins with a set of initial assumptions. Comparing one scientific report to another is meaninless unless you do this research, you are in all probability comparing apples with oranges. The basis of scientific research is to prove or disprove an initial specific hypothesis therefore the approach you take to the research and the assumpitons made will be highly influenced by that initial hypothesis. It's just like statistics - you can take the results of any given survey and depending upon which statistical model you apply it is possible to come up with vastly differing conclusions from the same set of data. Each conclusion is just as correct as the other but it all depends upon the context of the initial hypothesis you are testing.

The climate is an extraordinary complex mechanism and despite the millions of giga bytes of computing power they throw at climatic models they are invariably wrong and ultimately no-one really knows the actual cause of global warming past present or future. Politicians are simply using this as a big excuse to score political points and raise tax revenues and pander to the PC liberal lefties who used to camp out at Greenham Common but have become a bit lazy in their campaigning methods in their later years.

For all the pro-man made CO2 causing global warming propoganda around not one shred of it can explain climatic cycles before man turned up - and to me this is the most damaging thing to the man-made CO2 global warming theory. If it is true then the basic assumption has got to be that the historic climate should have remained constant and it is scientific fact that it has been far from constant and has generally been much more dynamic than it has over the past 100 yrs or so. If you can't explain the far greater weight of historical climate change how on earth can your explanations of the current cycle of global warming be credible?

 

[Robert Edwards]

I couldn't agree more. Time and time again I have seen examples of instinctive bias being built into the number crunching process, the purpose of which is to 'convert' the peer group, but the result of which is to wreck the data set for any serious reference later on.

It seems to me almost impossible to get to a state of true objectivity, which is why I get so cross when so-called 'Greens' claim no political bias. Of course, I have a political bias, too...

I claim my right to whoop with joy when I 'change down (with a quite unnecessary double declutch and dive down into Zigzag Hill on the B3081 near Shaftsbury and, having ascertained that the road is clear ahead of me, apply a tiny touch of opposite lock at the bottom. Whee!

But I fully expect the door to be kicked in at 3 in the morning one day, to be told, by some humourless Commissar, that I am an Enemy Of The People.

 

[pauljmcnulty]

What I want to know (regardless of all the arguments)

Sorry to pick out a phrase and misquote you, Paul....

Doesn't this sum up the whole argument? We actually DON'T KNOW!

Therefore, we could do "ostrich" and pretend that it will all go away. Or, we could play safe.

Again, I'll repeat that I don't have kids, so I could honestly care less if the planet implodes in 50 years. But, it won't. The likely senario is that the Earth will continue as it always has.

So, the problem has never been about the survival of the planet as the greenhouse gasses increase, or the sunspots become more active, or the con-trails of the Easy-Jet planes reflect heat outwards. The problem is that the Planet is changing and it is unlikely to continue to support a population of 6, 7 ,10, whatever, billion humans indefinately.

Ok, so we accept that. But, as we live in a country that will become more attractive as other areas of the world warm up, cool down, sink under water or become deserts, we will have to accept that our lifestyles will change. How much we act positively now may well affect the way our country looks in the future. Or not. Either way, at least we can't complain that we didn't try.....

 

[Neil Haughey]

Guys, I pretty much agree with all the stuff you have added above, especially what Scott has said about how complicated the global carbon cycle is, this is why I said that I don't believe we will ever get conclusive proof. My own hunch is that the truth of the matter is likely a combination of many factors probably including the man made. The problem with this is that it is an outcome none of the protaganists are likely to be happy with, but IMHO is the most likely one of you feel like putting a bet on.

OK a I did throw a couple of low punches, sorry.

The thing that angers me more then anything is that motoring and green issues always end up becoming a wedge to drive ppl to one of the ends of the dinosaur political spectrum in this country. Both sides are as relevant to the 21st century as an ash tray on a motorbike and watching their pathetic attempts to be hip and now is the worst sitcom on telly.

 

[sawood12]

Nothing to apologise for at all Neil. I love the free and open debate we can enjoy on this forum because you certainly don't get the opportunity to express such diverse and differing opinions elsewhere in society without being branded some sort of 'ist' and considered some sort of 2nd class citizen. I'm starting to feel more and more opressed in this country with laws for every little misdomenour in society replacing basic common sense and respect for our fellow man (sorry, maybe I should say person) and that we are slowly but surely being eaten up by the ultra PC brigade in true Invasion of the Body Snatchers style.

 

[Neil Haughey]

Well this is what happens when a bunch of 20th rate lawyers get elected into power. Some prog on the telly a while back said something like 4500 new laws since 1997. I know it is often called the legislature but I though that maybe at some point in between making new laws it would be a good idea to manage the country.

 

[Hilux]

My most important `green` issue is still

"Where do all the green taxes go"

[&o][&o]

 

[DivineE]

...and it all comes down to taxation, control of peoples freedom and money. You can see it even in this thread. They say hitting people in the pocket has the biggest effect (see increase in muppets buying diesel cars for proof -me included-) but first they have to find a good enough excuse to justify it..

"We're taking more of your money than ever before for your own good because .....(insert relevent bull***t here).....and you should thank us and re-elect us for it."

Enter Global Warming.