TelBoy

Olly i'm not sure i've heard many beneficial effects of global warming, unless of course you're including the "ooh i wouldn't mind if we had sunnier summers" brigade? And as i said, action on both sides with regards resource management. We know now what we didn't know then. Sure it seems unfair to "deny" newly developing countries those same fossil resources, if it were possible of course, but we have become so populated now that the goalposts have changed, permanently.

TelBoy

Jesus, you really can find whatever you want;


Special Report: Global Warming Benefits May Exceed Risks - by Thomas Gale Moore Ph.D. - The Heartland Institute

warrenm2

amazing what you find out if you dig a little deeper!

TelBoy

As i say, Warren, you have your views, i have mine. I've avoided the insults, shame you weren't also able to. Let's just leave it there. This won't be the last time it will be discussed.

OllyK

I didn't ask for benefits of global warming, I asked what you were defining as "a problem"

So how far do you take it? If some of the models are to believed, unless we (world wide) stop using cars and burning fossil fuels in the next few years then it will be too late to do anything. Are you prepared to see the world economy collapse and do with out gas, petrol and electricity with no alternatives being available? What do you think the world would be like if we did that? Is this better than doing nothing?

RedFive

I think I lost touch of the way one is supposed to argue on Scoobynet

Your main beef is with people who don't care anyway ? OK, I can understand that. It's rather easy to not care and call everything a "scam".

However, I think the discussion goes a little further than your typical Britisch Scooby driver, don't you agree ?

The weather comes, indeed. Like snow in Tenerife last month. Or the decimation of a lot of crops in the US because of the cold and the silly snow storms. Weather comes in many different forms.

I am not saying there might not be a problem, I'm saying that believing in Co2 induced AGW is, erm, not what I think is sensible at all, to put it mildly. But as I'm not a scientist, and my opinion doesn't count for much anyway, I don't think that is important.

What is important though is that people keep their cool.

As an example:

I'm not sure if I should be for or "against" CFL lightbulbs, but I'm pretty sure it's almost criminal to promote those without a serious waste disposal plan. Speaking from my neck of the woods, people are urged to buy them. Let's say about 1 million have been sold. Problem is, they do die eventually (and rather fast if you put them in the wrong enclosure), and their disposal is non-trivial. Mercury and all that, and electronical components.

I'll bet you that less than 1 % of the people in my neck of the woods know this, and will (or already) throw them into their glass bin, feeling all comfy green about it. The discussion is not "for or against" but: do we have the total realistical plan to make their use benificiary rather than another environmental cockup waiting to happen ?

That, Tel, is what I worry about. Seemingly being greener than the next guy, but actually *damaging* our environment.

Why are we so sure that "climate change" is our biggest problem ? Why not still NOX pollution ? Deforestation ? Malaria ? Why not give incentives to people to actually buy new (more environment friendly) cars and scrap their still working but rather polluting older cars ? Why not make manufacturer fitted particle filters mandatory - or free - on diesel engines (unless your ECU knows what it's doing, aftermarket filters do more damage than good... you may want to read up on this...)

This will do 10 times more for the environment than just scaring the bejeezus out of people, telling them "they are doomed".

Now, you'll probably dismiss me as well, as an Evo driving denier, but I think the focus on "climate change" is bordering on being criminal.

Let's take on the real issues.

MrRA

Exactly. It's propaganda.

Flatcapdriver

Olly, I'm quoting you to illustrate a point not to debate your point of view here so take it as its intended. If I'm reading Tel correctly, essentially what he's saying is that 6 billion people simply cannot avoid having an impact on the environment especially when you consider the explosion in man made emissions over the last century or so. Walk up your garden, crush some grass, kill a few insects - you're having an impact.

We now have cars, aircraft, central heating, power generation, shipping and various other activities that emit a whole range of gases from CO2 to NOx, particulates, VOCs and an entire gambit of other by-products that impact on the environment. There is no way anyone can sensibly say that man made emissions do not have some negative effect - it could be 1% or it could be 80% but whatever the figure there will be some impact and a knock on effect towards climate change.

However, if you take pragmatic environmentalism (I've just made that phrase up - copywrited) as a course of action it starts to make a lot of sense, particularly if you distill it down to smaller examples such as fuel for vehicles which we all need. There is no suggestion that we the whole world should stop turning to protect the environment and reduce climate change but with some alternatives, it can work.

So, let's assume we're stuck with the internal combustion engine for this example and think of ways that we can perpetuate its use.

Hybrids

They have a useful part to play in reducing emissions from IC vehicles, particularly under partial loads in urban environments where the combustion element isn't always neccessary. The down side is the difficulty of recycling the batteries and there is a strong argument relating to their life cycles compared to say, a Land Rover.

LPG

A straightforward solution that simply involves an additional tank, vapouriser and gas that immediately reduces the CO2 output, eliminates particulates and is generally cleaner than other direct fuels needed for IC engines. The flipside is that an infrastructure is required that has a negative environmental impact in terms of transportation.

Biofuels

An increase in their use leads to cleaner burning fuel and a reduction in oil exploration etc etc, however they can lead to an increase in deforestation and probably an increase in food costs as it competes as a revenue generator for farmers the world over.

I've only taken three solutions here and none of them are the panacea for our future but they are viable alternatives that can help prolong our use of the internal combustion engine and prolong the exising oil reserves that we covet so badly.

The point I'm making here is that 'environmentalism' is the driving force here and is forcing mankind to focus on ways to fuel our planet and that can only be a good thing.

This whole debate about whether Global Warming exists or not is superfluous because the politicians have decided (for good or bad) that it exists and that we are going to do something about it. In the same way that Ozone Depletion was debated for long after the Montreal Protocol came into being and wasted a lot of people's time - we're doing the same now.

The difference is that we, as an electorate/body of people can ensure that the politicians and vested interests don't force us down a route that we needn't go down. The chemical companies (ICI, Du Pont etc) led us down the garden path with refrigerants such as R134a which, although they had zero ODP were significant global warmers which they knew about despite Greenpeace pointing this out time and time again. Eventually, it was Greenpeace that came up with 'Greenfreeze' technology (simply exchanging HC gases such as isobutane - natural refrigerants) and as time has shown the majority of domestic fridges use this now.

There is no perfect solution but the environment can be the catalyst for improving the way we operate as a species in future, whilst minimising our impact to preserve what we've got left.

War and Peace over.

51st state

51st state

why is pollution and co emissions put down cars all the time,

what comes out of a gas central heating boiler
and they are running when nobody is at home, or even when there on holiday,
how many buses do you see driving round empty, ??
talking of pollution, speed humps
people slow down and speed up, !!, then i here lots of cars tyres are being thrown away because of tracking being knocked out on them , so good tyres with a bald edge in tips, plus a new needed, all unnecessary !!!!!, and then they cause traffic build up, so longer journey times,
in london the ambulance service says lives are lost because of increased times

carbon actually only lasts 25years in the atmosphere!!!!!!!!!!!!

and if there wasn't climate change we would have zoo's with T-rex's in them!!!

and the scientists seem to have different opinions on climate, depending on who is paying there wages!!!!

david bellamy didn't have the same opinion as the goverment !!, so was dissmissed as nutty!!!!!!!!!

getting a bit p*ssed off with all the green crap, very boring!!!
and if we all give up everything polluting what we going to do to earn money?????
we live in a service economy!!!
and were will the labour sh*ts get there taxes from?????
4x4's will never be outlawed they need them to guzzle gas for the revenue, !!!!!, the green arguement is a good excuse to drag more money out of owners pockets

Flatcapdriver

Its not. Probably more a case of your exposure and interest in cars noticing it more. You should see what HMG is trying to force through in terms of legislation for new housing. Madness.

MrRA

Cows are apparently one of the biggest contributors to this so called 'global warming' with all the methane they output.

DocJock

Another significant methane contribution comes from all these econutters frantically composting everything they can.