Autocar - First for car news and reviews

Are you gullible?

Were you taken in on Iraq/WMD or did you smell somethings not quite right here! The Govt and media messages were a bit hysterical, the 'facts' were missing, the thesis not quite believeable, too many plastic press conferences, generalised meaningless sentances, scare-tactics, sound-bites, language loaded with spin rather than underscored with truth!

Climate change is a natural process that has been going on for 4.5 billion years. Data from ice cores and ocean sediments for example suggest 11,650 years ago the climate in Greenland switched from ice-age conditions to current relatively warm conditions (a warming of 5 to 10 degrees Celsius on average) in only 40 years.

Climate change is normal, abrupt climate change is normal. Earth's climate involves a non-linear coupled chaotic ocean-atmosphere system. It cannot be micro-managed by politicians via taxation.

But Government under a 'cloak of greenary' is simply massively increasing taxation on cars, petrol, airlines, electricity and rubbish collection on a gullible public.. are we gullible? ... tax on household heating fuel is 5% while the tax on petrol is 300% yet buildings emit twice as much CO2 as transport. Does that add up in the green column to you? 

Overall mankind is responsible for 3.4% of total annually cycled CO2 (according to the IPCC). Cars are responsible for only 0.01% of emissions. CO2 is a natural life gas essential to plants. It is neither a pollutant nor a 'greenhouse gas'.  

The Government case doesn't stack up. But their taxes are!

CO2 is essential for plant growth as it is absorbed by green plants during photosynthesis, the carbon being converted to plant mass, and the oxygen released back into the atmosphere. CO2 occurs naturally in the atmosphere at concentrations of about 0.0379% or 379 parts per million.

Atmospheric CO2 concentration profiles from Vostok ice core samples covering 420,000 years, concluding that during glaciation "the CO2 decrease lags the temperature decrease by several thousand years" and "the same sequence of climate forcing operated during each termination."

Using sections of ice core records from the last three inter-glacial transitions decided that "the time lag of the rise in CO2 concentrations with respect to temperature change is on the order of 400 to 1000 years during all three glacial-interglacial transitions."

Further On the basis of atmospheric carbon dioxide data obtained from Antarctic Taylor Dome ice core samples, and temperature data obtained from the Vostok ice core looked at the relationship between these two variables over the period 60,000-20,000 years BP (Before Present). A statistical test on the data showed that movement in the air's CO2 content lagged behind shifts in air temperature by approximately 900 years, while a second statistical test yielded a mean lag-time of 1200 years. Similarly, in a study of air temperature and CO2 data obtained from high time resolution samples at the Antarctic Concordia Dome site, for the period 22,000-9,000 BP, which covers the last glacial-to-interglacial transition that the start of the CO2 increase lagged the start of the temperature increase by 800 years. In yet another study of the 420,000-year Vostok ice-cores concluded that variations in atmospheric CO2 concentration lagged behind variations in air temperature by 1,300 to 5,000 years. Proving once again that the greens have put effect before cause.

In other words, an increase in carbon dioxide levels, the much hyped 'cause' of global warming, actually happens long after the warming has started, demonstrating clearly that CO2 cannot possibly be the cause of global warming.

Financial Times (April 2007)

Companies and individuals rushing to go green have been spending millions on “carbon credit” projects that yield few if any environmental benefits. A Financial Times investigation has uncovered widespread failings in the new markets for greenhouse gases, suggesting some organisations are paying for emissions reductions that do not take place.

Others are meanwhile making big profits from carbon trading for very small expenditure and in some cases for clean-ups that they would have made anyway.

The growing political salience of environmental politics has sparked a “green gold rush”, which has seen a dramatic expansion in the number of businesses offering both companies and individuals the chance to go “carbon neutral”, offsetting their own energy use by buying carbon credits that cancel out their contribution to global warming.

The FT investigation found: 

■ Widespread instances of people and organisations buying worthless credits that do not yield any reductions in carbon emissions.

■ Industrial companies profiting from doing very little – or from gaining carbon credits on the basis of efficiency gains from which they have already benefited substantially.

■ Brokers providing services of questionable or no value.

■ A shortage of verification, making it difficult for buyers to assess the true value of carbon credits.

■ Companies and individuals being charged over the odds for the private purchase of European Union carbon permits that have plummeted in value because they do not result in emissions cuts.

“The police, the fraud squad and trading standards need to be looking into this. Otherwise people will lose faith in it,” said an HSBC spokesman. These concerns led the bank to ignore the market and fund its own carbon reduction projects directly.

Some companies are benefiting by asking “green” consumers to pay them for cleaning up their own pollution. For instance, DuPont, the chemicals company, invites consumers to pay $4 to eliminate a tonne of carbon dioxide from its plant in Kentucky that produces a potent greenhouse gas called HFC-23. But the equipment required to reduce such gases is relatively cheap. DuPont refused to comment and declined to specify its earnings from the project, saying it was at too early a stage to discuss.

OBSERVATIONAL SCIENCE   v  THEORETICAL SCIENCE 

Observational science also debunks the IPCC claims about CO2 causes warming. All ice-core records show CO2 follows previous global warmings with 400 to 1,400 year lags behind warming events. Namely warming (cause) creates CO2 levels (effect) 400+ years after. CO2 does not cause global warming.

Film – ‘Doomsday Called Off’  (1st of 5 films) watch past first 4mins for ice-core data

Over 400 Prominent Scientists Dispute Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007 Senate Report Debunks "Consensus"  

Excellent Resource website for people suffering from Climate 'Hysteria' 

Ah another rant from your party, anyone with any intelligence knows global warming is happening, there are those who want to do something about it and those that are lazy and selfish.  Tell me, what is the downside of using less electricity or petrol?  Even if its all a big scam, its the wrong way round, getting people to use less energy is bad for business.

If you'd read my post you'd see there is no global warming. Please re-read the part about the IPCC using ground temperature measurements and getting their facts wrong. Geologists and Climatologists agree the worlds temperature peeked in 1940 and there is no 'steep curve' in recent global temperatures. 

Secondly resources are there to be used. Plants use the resources around them, in the soil, the atmosphere and the energy from the sun. There is no scientific 'end-game' in leaving resources in the ground or your enviroment. Resources 'want' to be used. To be more than the sum of their parts. They want to be made into plants, humans, cars, jet planes. There is no natural, scientific/biological merit in being tin, copper, water, CO2, oxygen or oil lying around in the ground or atmosphere doing sweet f.a.

Do you leave cash in your bank until your death or would you prefer to use it?

Does a blue whale eating 20 tons of plankton a day have any less right to exist than a salmon eating 2 grams of plankton a day?

You are 80litres of water and 2 teapsoons of base elements. Would you prefer those 'resources' being left lying around or put to productive use? 

It's pretty mind-numbing being on a forum with people who don't look at the facts or can't disseminate trash information and junk-science from substantial information and swallow spin and ignorant propoganda like gullible school children!! 

Stupidity Vs Muppetry.....

Lets face it JJ, your a moron.  You can get facts to prove just about anything, like i keep saying a good example is people who are pro-smoking.  Go on the forest website and they will prove smoking wont kill you, if you beleive everything you read.  I dont need facts to tell me we havent had proper snow for decades, and that shipping lane near canada is now open all year round.

 you didnt answer my question (as is your style)

Whats the harm in us all using less energy?  Nobody profits from it, except the planet itself.

If someone's idea of a robust discussion is to call them a moron then I'm glad he's written a note to the forum (in another thread) informing of his intention to leave it. He's not needed here.

I think its refreshing that someone has stood up to the government's view on this. It seems entirely reasonable that the sun is responsible for global warming. I think the world is warming up (I am not a scientist and I am afraid that I don't have the time to research my case as meticulously as JJ) but I don't think that mankind is responsible for it to anywhere near the extent as the government would have you believe. This, maybe, is why the USA under its current Republican government does not sign up to Kyoto and other protocols as readily as our own "tax and spend" Labour Government.

 I am sorry but it really is not fair that one is dealt with as a heretic just because one goes against someone else's belief. It almost feels like one is accused of not caring about the planet !

I would also like to say that I have been reading this magazine since I have been able to read and it is something in my life that I truly enjoy. Well done guys.

Dradus - I 'can get facts to prove just about anything' because I deal in facts not fiction or ignorance. You have opinions but opinion is not fact. I have opinions and check out the facts. You're struggling to make a case for your opinions because you don't have a grasp of the facts... and you don't change your opinion based on facts, you struggle and mess about with your deeply ingrained assumptions even when they don't stack up to reality. 

My advise is when you're presented with facts don't ignore them. Consider them. Think them through.. thoughfully.

Please let me know about the Canadian shipping lane and I'll do some research and try to find out some facts about it ok.

In answer to your question about using less resources. My answers a question. Where do you see resources being used excessively?

As I've explained, and you've again failed to think about, resources are there to be used and are used as demand err demands! We don't dig holes for no reason. The EEC grew too much food. America still produces too much food. That is excess production (which no system can support for long viably) but where does using less resources come into it?!!

And resources are remarkably 'resilient'. The UK had total oil reserves in the 1960's quoted as lasting/running out in 5yrs. Out comes the Greens with a "End is Nigh' banner wanting to raise taxes on fuel and ban cars. But UK oil reserves 'remarkably' were the same 5yr reserve figures in the 70's and 80's in fact for every single year for the past 40 years! 

What's the difference between a man in Oxford Hight Street saying the end of the world every day and a Greeny saying it? The only difference I see today is the politicians use the Greeny to raise more tax and he hasn't (yet) found an excuse how to use the guy in Oxford High Street!!

Tax. Politicians. Greens. Smoke and Mirrors..... Wake up, smell the roses (bullsh*t) you're being taken for a fool and being made poorer by the day, your quality of life is being destroyed.

Give it up JJ - IP addresses and all that.

Really, I am not JJ ! Please check my IP address if you don't believe me !