Prove to me that CO2 increase is causing global warming and I just might give a damn.

Even if CO2 levels are rising it is impossible to prove that they are solely responsible for an increase in global temperature.
You might as well say it is because there are less elephants.

That is providing that global temperatures are rising - doesn't seem that warm in Manchester even in the summer.

In my opinion it is just another ruse to collect more taxes. Tangiers Orange - gone, missing her
Replaced by Ewok what a mistake - now a happy Disco Sport owner

Electric certainly has it's shortfalls, not only with the short distances they are capable of at the present time, but with pollution.
I'll explain. Manufacturing batteries is an extremely hazardous business and puts lots of pollution into the atmosphere. Once they are used in the vehicle, they have to be charged and the power has to come from somewhere. More pollution
But the sting in the tail is getting rid of the things once they've past their usefulness.
If we all had electric now, what a mess we'd be in.
I guess it's often a case of 'not in my back garden'. Another member of the failed FL2 clutch/DMF club, twice.

A useless piece of info on CO2 emissions.
The CO2 emitted producing the concrete for the base of 1 wind turbine pylon takes 25 years of the turbines production (assuming 75% efficiency) to recoup.
The life of a turbine is estimated at 25 years and we are still left with tons of concrete in the ground. All FL2's (3) Gone
2011 Mercedes C180 CGI Gone
FL2 GS Auto SD with heated leather, factory tints, alloy spare and a few other bits.

Andy131... Oh dear... not another CO2 ludite.

Read the HUGE body of science-based evidence. It is indisputable and there are very, very few climate scientists that dispute that the global climate change we are observing is caused primarily by CO2 increase. There is almost universal agreement amongst the experts on this. Who are you or I to question their conclusions? They may be wrong, even they accept that... they are scientists and science is based on the premise of scepticism. But unless you are a climate scientist and have evidence to contradict the body of evidence put forward by other climate scientists, then you cannot dispute their conclusions with any confidence of being right given the general agreement.

I do agree though that there is a lot less concensus that the CO2 increase is human generated. That is where the doubt is... not that CO2 causes climate change and not that climate change is occuring.

Which part of "Global Climate Change" don't you understand? Manchester? Manchester has nothing to do with it? This is global changes that are happening... some places will get generally warmer, some colder, some wetter and some drier. You cannot look at any single location or any single country and make any kind of judgement about what is happening globally.

If you had read anything of reputation on the subject then you would not be making such broad-sweeping and incorrect statements. Why not actually educate yourself a little bit before jumping in with such misleading and incorrerct propaganda.

druand wrote:

A useless piece of info on CO2 emissions.
The CO2 emitted producing the concrete for the base of 1 wind turbine pylon takes 25 years of the turbines production (assuming 75% efficiency) to recoup.
The life of a turbine is estimated at 25 years and we are still left with tons of concrete in the ground.

athelstan wrote:

christian138

I am aware of the very beneficial work of the Plain English Society - its output has help many.

Its work also helps to clearly understand the difference between a commentary and observation i.e my previous post, and with that of a critique. I did not criticize anyone - I refer directly to the subject matter as clearly stated in the first sentence.

I wasn't accusing you of criticism, merely pointing out that if you chose a more generally understood venacular you might find a wider audience for your point of view. (which was a criticism, hence the reference to criticism by way of a joke)

I hope that clears up the misunderstanding  

Andy131 wrote:

Prove to me that CO2 increase is causing global warming and I just might give a damn.

Even if CO2 levels are rising it is impossible to prove that they are solely responsible for an increase in global temperature.
You might as well say it is because there are less elephants.

That is providing that global temperatures are rising - doesn't seem that warm in Manchester even in the summer.

In my opinion it is just another ruse to collect more taxes.

Shouldn't you have put one of these --- --- after that statement.

Bravo all of you - the to and fro of input into this discussion has certainly livened up since I posted this morning. Some very interesting positions being taken. Grand - keep'em rolling in.

So we've had vegetarianism, concrete, electric, sandals, caravans, Greenpeace, over population, rare minerals, CO2 Ludites and eternal damnation. Just like I said this morning: "This controversial subject is so contentious that rationality and objectivity are almost always suffocated by luxuriant irrationality and subjectivity".

So how about Steam Engines - the railway engine kind or rather the demise of and the paradox thereof:

Steam railway engines burned low grade fossil fuels (black & brown coal)and filled the air with soot and smoke; their "cleaner" electric and diesel replacements were praised for their efficiency and cleanliness - but:
a) their production involves far more complexity (i.e. resources) in manufacture and
b) their power systems' supply chain (i.e. raw material to energy) deliver more pollution than that old dirty smokey steam engine.
Progress - that's open to debate.

christian138 wrote:

if you chose a more generally understood venacular you might find a wider audience for your point of view.

I never complain when I do not understand the meaning of words written by others. I look upon it as an opportunity to expand my otherwise limited knowledge of English.

Geology has shown the world gets hotter AND colder over time, Im not worried about it, I'll be dead in 40 or 50 years, maybe I should worry about what my son and daughter will be left with, but then they'll be also dead in X years, the offspring might come along and maybe theirs too but I'll be ash blowing in the wind or spread on the ground, though I might be in urn in the loft

Live for now, not tomorrow as tomorrow may be your last day and if my kids, their kids or their kids have kids I'm sure they put on their warm coats or factor 100, but most likely they'll put on their radioactive monitors as some terrorist will have blown a country to pieces with a nuclear bomb  Former Mod/Member, with the most post & Chicken George Arch nemesis

Interesting point of view npinks. I for one am thankful that our predecessors didn't have your attitude to life or else we all might not be here at all.

A similar thing could be said by a burglar as he steals from an empty house because he believes he won't get caught... or by a driver who drives through a red light just because he thinks it is safe to do so. You might say that these examples are different. Well, IMO they are not different, just extreme examples of the same thing... selfishness. I don't mean to insult you I promise and I am sorry if you feel insulted... that is not my intention.

I believe there will come a time in the not too distant future when cars with high CO2 emissions will be banned in law. Indeed, it is already starting to happen. Cars with high particulates or NOX emissions are already banned via the MOT system and high CO2 emissions are discouraged by higher road fund licence. It is but a short step to banning cars with high CO2 emissions and it will come. Eventually of course the burning of any fossil fuels will be banned but that is a long way off.

Just because the things we do now won't affect us personally does not give us the right to do what we like. As a society we have joint moral obligation to pass this world on to the next generation in a better condition that when we took over its custody. Unfortunately that is not happening because, in part, in doing so we will have to fore go something and make an effort. That can be because ignorance, poverty or selfishness... which one is your excuse?

Part of the problem must lie with the need for personal transport at all. If we had a bus service that was efficient and ran from close to your house, regardless of your location, and a train service that was reliable, did not cost the earth to use and was safe at all hours, then I for one would use it in preference to a car. But, as my work is a good 30 minute drive away, or 1 hour if your lucky by a very poor and very expensive public transport system involving a train and then a bus ride, neither of which are timed to connect, then I am forced to use a car. If the government really are serious about tackling the issue of global warming, then this matter must be addressed. Other countries, Switzerland for example, have very effective public transport networks compared with our own, and you don't have to share them with generally anti-social buffoons. Until we have good public transport, I will be sticking with my car, which we need to get the kids to school as there is no school bus service, and to get to our jobs because public transport is lacking. Our choice of a Freelander 2 is environmentally better than the equivalent people carrier, which is the only other thing we could fit 2 kids and a dog in, and enables me and my wife to get to work when others cannot, thereby keeping the country and economy moving. Finally, people need cars to get to work as local employment is being killed off and people are forced to travel further to earn a living that pays enough to live comfortably in this country. This is again part of the reason our roads are so very badly congested which in turn leads to more pollution from regular long traffic jams in and around densely populated areas.

The world was as soon as the caveman found fire and evolved

They became stronger, they built countries over time, often expelling that lands occupiers, then became interested in power and found oil, it doesn't matter IMO how much co2 is cut down now, but that struggle for power and world domination is more if an issue, as you see in the news everyday, man kills another man, that will end this world as we know it before co2 levels

What I basically saying is the co2 levels and the enviroment will become least of the next generations to come worried, dirty bombs or worse is more likely to cause the ireparable damage that will nit be able to fixed

Mans quest for Power over others, not it's quest for a clean world will be our making

And Yep I agree they force me into a little electric car before I die, but I believe the good they are trying to force on us is second place to what they are also fighting to prevent, I hope both prevail, it's nothing to do with been selfish it's looking at the bigger picture Former Mod/Member, with the most post & Chicken George Arch nemesis

Hmmm I have been watching this topic and I think everyone, even the magicians er sorry scientists have missed something.

One good volcanic eruption will put more contaminants, CO2, minerals, toxins etc into the atmosphere in 1 day than the whole of mankind can in 1 year.

Good old mother nature has the ability to repair itself with remarkable ease and rapidity, just look at how the environment recovers after a major disaster like the the leaking of heavy oil into the gulf of mexico. I am sure we are not helping, but come on chaps, lets not get all upset about some weirdy beardy thinking he is the only one who understands this wonderful planet.

We all contribute to the good and the bad, we share everything in this world. The water you put into your early morning cuppa most likely came out of some bodily orifice some time ago.....

Lets not be so arrogant to think we can change the nature of our planet. It has survived long before we were created and no doubt it will survive after we are long gone.  MY2014 SD4 XS
Ipanema Sand

MY10 TD4-e GS Manual
Lago Grey Now retired after 8 trouble free years