Green Vs Car - dan
Ho hum,

This car lobby Vs government/green business is starting to sound like some paranoid anti-semitic conspiracy theory. It seems sad that if you like driving cars then you have to view the green movement and the government as evil arch-nemeses, and similarly the blinkered view that anyone who has an interest in the environment wants to curtail the freedom of the individual etc...

Environmental/Greenhouse 'con' threads have come up on a regularly frequent basis and l find they contain near 100% agreement (a rarity amongst forum topics), notable only by a conspicuous absence of dissenters or some of the regulars who l guess don't want to get involved.

From these threads l get the impression from some of the resentment manifesting, that the efforts of green interests is perilously close to alienating some of you from the natural environment entirely. i.e. Go for a drive, deliberately crushing flora and fauna under the wheels without so much as a twitch, maybe get out and stamp on the head of a particularly endangered specimen - that'll show them pesky greenies etc.. l digress.

I really don't want to get into an arguement about the truth of the greenhouse theory other than to state the following fact (oh go on then): Global temperatures and CO2 (and other gg) levels have historically gone hand in hand. Therefore we can empirically surmise that a future rise in CO2 will cause a ~proportional rise in future global temperatures (On AVERAGE, some areas could well get colder as ocean current and atmosphere flow patterns alter. One excellent example of this is the possibility that the UK will endure Moscow winters should the Gulf stream move south.)

I am assuming that much of this rankling is to do with just how quick or how much the temperatures will alter. Who knows, the environment cannot be modelled accurately using reductionist science. But consider this: Ecological systems tend to have buffers which can absorb a great deal before collapsing causing sudden shifts to new equilibriums and showing few signs prior.

Whatever happened to precaution (as in the Precautionary Principle) ? In short, we don't know/understand the consequence of our actions, therefore we act prudently, not 'blow yer' load and worry about pregnancy when the hangover wears off' if you'll excuse the expression.

Quick footnote on the definition of pollution: Another thing that comes up is "how can CO2 be a pollutant if we produce it/it naturally occurs" etc.. This line of logic normally ends with it being another green/gov conspiracy.

Pollution is truly defined as a concentration of a substance(s) in a location where it is not normally/naturally found OR in a higher concentration than normally/naturally found where it HAS the ability to affect other functions of that system.
For example, Oxygen can be a pollutant and is terminally toxic at high concentrations, but at normal levels it is essential for aerobic life. Similarly CO2 is essential for life on this planet. Without it temperatures would be sub-zero, no liquid water, no life end of story (apart from suplhur metabolising bacteria blah blah...)
CO2 is our friend but not in ever increasing concentrations, check out a bit of planetologyif you want to see how CO2 levels affect the atmospheric characteristics of a planet.

Thanks for reading, cheersbye.
dan
Re: Green Vs Car - mybrainhurts
dan.......

How do you handle the fact that recent ice core research shows past increases in atmospheric temperatures were FOLLOWED by rising levels of CO2, not CAUSED by them ?
Re: Green Vs Car - dan
I am dreading getting into this but:

Research prior showed the opposite, and maybe some other research shows something else entirely. People have always been very able to prove their own point by bias-selectivity of the evidence they present. (Hence you can find research that says seatbelts cause more deaths than no seatbelt at all) Some people can even convince themselves to the point of dogmatism by the same method.

I'm sure that this research exists, and l wouldn't mind a link to it if at all possible. Bear in mind that you have to reason that hypothesis. i.e. what caused the initial rise in temperature and why did CO2 levels rise in response?

Do you agree with the rest of what l said then?

regards,
dan
Re: Green Vs Car - dan
Doh l forgot to mention:
Regardless of which way round the cause and effect operate, if we increase the quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere and global temperatures do NOT increase (before/after/simultaneously depending on what research you use) it will be the FIRST time in this planets life that it hasn't done so!

*Runs for hills*
Re: Green Vs Car - ChrisR
I think the point is that we have used vast amounts of the earth's resources over the last century or so. Motoring is a significant part of our energy and materials usage. In effect we have made a major change to a very complex system on which our lives depend. It will react, and probably quite quickly. How it will change is unknown. The question is, do we feel lucky?

Chris
Re: Green Vs Car - THe Growler
Your points are well taken and illustrate the frustration and exasperation lots of us feel with junk science and political bandwagon jnumpers prophesying doom for future generations. For the uninitiated like me there are so many proselytizers and so many rebutters that the average Joe Six-Pack is left with the clear feeling that nobody really has a clue. The abiding take-out I see is the greenies are using their platform as a vehicle to gain political clout for other more insidious command and control agendas, and the antis are just plain and simple mad at having neo-Nazi style interference with their civil liberties.

Let 'em go bang their heads together, I'll just keep flooring my V-8 every chance I get. Whatever the outcome, future generations will have found a way to fix it. Mankind's weathered worse. Life's too short to agonize about what hasn't been proven, can't be substantiated, and comes from mouths with axes to grind anyway.
Re: Green Vs Car - Brian
Today (Wednesday) the Transport Select Committee of MPs is considering a proposal that cars be fitted with a 70 mph speed limiter.
Re: Green Vs Car - Flat in Fifth
Brian,
I thought it was the GPS limiter which applies the appropriate limit according to position and a map in the limiter memory, eg 20, 30 etc limits applied.

All this means that people would drive like they do in the dodgems in the fairground, foot to the floor, brain in neutral. Well it must be safe because I'm at the limit!

And as for that smug madam on Breakfast TV.......................
Re: Green Vs Car - The Real Bogush
Sun gets hotter -> earth gets hotter -> CO2 released from earth -> we must stop driving cars.

CO2 stops planet turning into an icy waste (the greenhouse effect) -> other complex factors stop greenhouse effect turning planet into a fiery waste (including fact that CO2 only absorbs certain kinds of heat enery, and there's none of that left to absorb regardless of how much more CO2 you have) -> CO2 from cars is a tiny proportion of manmade CO2 and banning cars totally wouldn't make any difference -> man made CO2 is only tiny proportion of natural CO2 -> which is only tiny proportion of greenhouse gases -> which is insignificant compared to water vapor (which technically isn't a gas, but is the main contributor to the greenhouse effect) -> we shouldn't drive our cars, but SHOULD pay lots of Greenhouse Taxes on them.

Oh yes: and if putting out CO2 MIGHT warm up the planet, and we want to play safe, on the Precautionary Principle, we shouild put more out, not less, as we are due another ice age anytime now.

And the argument against cars and for taxes was, again?;-)
Re: Green Vs Car - Alwyn
Dan,

It seems you are not up to date on the science.

My recent post (below) confirms that the scientist who helped kick off this "CO2 is a pollutant and fossil fuel burning will cause the planet to warm by up to 10 degrees" myth has now admitted he was wrong.

He says any increase in temperature is likely to be no more than 0.7 degrees C and any effects on the planet from enhanced CO2 will be "benign to benificial"

If you believed him when he said we were warming, why not believe him when he now says " No problem"

BTW, ice core research tells us that CO2 levels have been many times higher in the past and have always "followed" warming by up to 800 years, not preceded and therefore "caused" it

Also we now learn that, for the last 35 years, Antarctica has been cooling and the overall ice mass increasing.

This from CO2 Science.

Thirty-Five Years of Climate Change in Antarctica
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reference
Doran, P.T., Priscu, J.C., Lyons, W.B., Walsh, J.E., Fountain, A.G., McKnight, D.M., Moorhead, D.L., Virginia, R.A., Wall, D.H., Clow, G.D., Fritsen, C.H., McKay, C.P. and Parsons, A.N. 2002. Antarctic climate cooling and terrestrial ecosystem response. Nature advance online publication, 13 January 2002 (DOI 10.1038/nature710).
What was done
Between 1986 and 2000, the authors measured a number of meteorological parameters in the McMurdo Dry Valleys of Antarctica, while they simultaneously measured various characteristics of the region's indigenous life forms. They also compared what they learned about climate change over this period with what happened concurrently over the rest of the continent, the climatic record of which stretches two additional decades back in time.

What was learned
Over the 14 years of the authors' intensive measurements, the McMurdo Dry valleys cooled - that's right, cooled - and at the phenomenal rate of approximately 0.7°C per decade. This dramatic cooling, in the words of the authors, "reflects longer term continental Antarctic cooling between 1966 and 2000." In addition to sharing the same cooling trend, most of the 14-year cooling in the dry valleys occurred in the summer and autumn, just as most of the 35-year cooling over the continent as a whole (which did not include any data from the dry valleys) also occurred in the summer and autumn. The authors note that this multi-faceted "compatibility with the dry valley data increases the validity of the analysis."

Ecosystem response to the observed cooling was not good. In fact, it was - for lack of a better word - bad. Since the thickness of ice on the perennially ice-covered lakes in the McMurdo Dry Valleys increased by an average of 1.5 meters over the 14-year period, underwater irradiance declined so much that the primary productivities of the region's lakes decreased at rates of 6-9% per year. Likewise, on the adjacent land, soil moisture gradually dropped - from 2.2% by weight to 1.4% by weight - between 1993 and 1999, which decline is equivalent to a relative drop of 6% per year. Hence, it was not surprising that the group of scientists determined that the numbers of soil invertebrates (the largest animals around) simultaneously declined by "more than 10% per year."

What it means
In the words of the authors, the continental Antarctic cooling documented in their paper "poses challenges to models of climate and ecosystem change." Climate models, as they note, not only predict that global warming should have been occurring over the period of their study, but that there should have been "amplified warming in polar regions." To instead find dramatic cooling - which is about as different from amplified warming as one can get - especially in one of the two places on earth where the climate models are thought to be most correct, represents about as clear-cut a refutation of the predictions of the climate models as one can imagine. Likewise, we keep hearing how bad global warming will be for the biosphere, when for Antarctica it is cooling that is decimating its meager ecosystems.

Yes, there's nothing like a reality check now and then to set the record straight. And what the real-world record tells us about the future of this part of the world, in the words of the authors, is that "prolonged summer cooling will diminish aquatic and soil biological assemblages throughout the valleys, and possibly in other terrestrial Antarctic ecosystems."

So where are the placard-carrying activists who will march on behalf of Antarctic tardigrades and nematodes? Who will protest in the name of Scottnema lindsayae, which could well disappear from the realm of the living if current trends continue? Don't strain your eyes, because you simply won't see them. They are blinded to the truth by the political Juggernaut that paints white black and black white with respect to CO2 and its impacts on climate and biology.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reviewed 30 January 2002
Copyright © 2002. Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change (www.co2science
Re: Green Vs Car - Tim Guymer
Well there are certainly some areas that we can improve on... for instance where do the major tyre companies have their head office and produce most of their tyres? India etc The environmental constraints on what factories can polute their is minimal and as a result they don't bother with any. The resultant increase in sulphuric pollutants is causing great swathes of the forests of Nepal and other countries to disappear which can't be good for anyone. Maybe we should lobby for greener tyre production if that's possible?
Re: Green Vs Car - James S
I generally agree with your sentiments but surely the humble axe/chainsaw is doing more harm the forests of Neoal/Bangledesh/India than any amount of acid rain?
Re: Green Vs Car - ian (cape town)
The principle amongst most people is "Sod the grandchildren - I'm doing ok now!"
But let's go back to OUR grandparent's days ...

Peasouper fogs.
Coal burning cities.
Un-economical and polluting vehicles...

and where have we ended up?

First Worlders should perform the old mote/log trick, and see what else is happening around the world. Where I live, we have a famous landmark. On winter's days, it is invisible, as the whole of the peninsula is covered with smog - mostly from wood and coal fires.

My finely-tuned motor vehicle produces a fraction of a single percentage of a coal fire. Yet I get nailed (tax-wise) for it...

If our new Green politico's wish to find the real culprits, they should look at the companies which de-forest vast areas, to farm hamburger cattle, or produce squeaky clean emissions in the first world, whilst their 3rd world operations pour filth into the atmosphere (Yes, you know exactly which major oil-company political-party contributors I'm talking about...) and prop up dodgy regimes so they can reap the benefits.

So next time you see some smarmy git, ponsing off on TV about global warming, remember who's paying his salary/backhander/kid's university fees, and think about what HIS/HER corporate links...


Re: Green Vs Car - Brian
Go to www.news.bbc.co.uk to cast your vote and comment on speed limiters.
Re: Bl***y BBC - Rod Maxwell
They've published some of my comments but cut out the stuff about why speed limiters are a bad idea. They left in the stuff about active cruise control in (which is fair enough) but it makes it sound like I'm in favour of speed limiters.

It's not the first time they've done this to me - I should learn! I think they were so short of pro's on this that they put in anything remotely positive.
Re: Green Vs Car - Andy
So far (as of 18:40 Weds) 78% against.
Re: Green Vs Car - Pete
Knowing our luck with this lot 78% against means that it will be law by Xmas!
Re: Green Vs Car - THe Growler
Excuse my idiot question, if such it be, but surely bunches of governed vehicles all traveling at 70mph are likely to be more dangerous than ungoverned ones with the ability to power out of potentially hazardous situations. And why 70? Why not make it 25 while they're at it. Doubtless some ethically sound Islington-ic nanny environmental pronouncement can be written by those who have elevated the writing of such things to an art form, to make anyone who raises a whimper both feeling guilty and beyond the pale? Or bring back the man with the red flag? Give the Guardian something to write about.

From a distance UK is increasingly the capital of Daft
Re: BBC Talking point - Flat in Fifth
I see quite a few backroomers got their two pennorth in on this one which must be quite a good hit rate, better than normal methinks.