Global Warming, Bali And Cars

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

hawk20

MB Enthusiast
Joined
Jul 15, 2006
Messages
4,344
Location
Lymington, Hampshire
Car
ML250 BlueTEC Sport Jan 2013
CARS AND GLOBAL WARMING
The biggest threat to all of us who love cars is the reaction of politicians to the threat from global warming. BALI became a damp squib but more will follow and the belief that mankind’s emissions are a major part of the problem is the real threat to cars.

Lots of publicity for BALI talks but hardly any for the 100 reputable scientists who wrote to the UN Secretary General saying that the case that man’s CO2 was a major problem had not been made. Rising temperatures are well within the range of variation expected in earth’s climate. And despite large increases in CO” there has bee NO GLOBAL WARMING AT ALL SINCE 1998. Very, very odd.

As it is so important not just for motoring but for life on earth in general, here’s the letter: -

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164004

http://theweatheroutlook.com/twocommunity/forums/t/14654.aspx
Signatories of an open letter on the UN climate-conference
Open Letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations Dec. 13, 2007
His Excellency Ban Ki-Moon Secretary-General, United Nations New York, N.Y.
Dear Mr. Secretary-General,
Re: UN climate conference taking the World in entirely the wrong direction
It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages. Geological, archaeological, oral and written histories all attest to the dramatic challenges posed to past societies from unanticipated changes in temperature, precipitation, winds and other climatic variables. We therefore need to equip nations to become resilient to the full range of these natural phenomena by promoting economic growth and wealth generation.
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued increasingly alarming conclusions about the climatic influences of human-produced carbon dioxide (CO2), a non-polluting gas that is essential to plant photosynthesis. While we understand the evidence that has led them to view CO2 emissions as harmful, the IPCC's conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity. In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions. On top of which, because attempts to cut emissions will slow development, the current UN approach of CO2 reduction is likely to increase human suffering from future climate change rather than to decrease it.
The IPCC Summaries for Policy Makers are the most widely read IPCC reports amongst politicians and non-scientists and are the basis for most climate change policy formulation. Yet these Summaries are prepared by a relatively small core writing team with the final drafts approved line-by-line by ­government ­representatives. The great ­majority of IPCC contributors and ­reviewers, and the tens of thousands of other scientists who are qualified to comment on these matters, are not involved in the preparation of these documents. The summaries therefore cannot properly be represented as a consensus view among experts.
Contrary to the impression left by the IPCC Summary reports:
z Recent observations of phenomena such as glacial retreats, sea-level rise and the migration of temperature-sensitive species are not evidence for abnormal climate change, for none of these changes has been shown to lie outside the bounds of known natural variability.
z The average rate of warming of 0.1 to 0. 2 degrees Celsius per decade recorded by satellites during the late 20th century falls within known natural rates of warming and cooling over the last 10,000 years.
z Leading scientists, including some senior IPCC representatives, acknowledge that today's computer models cannot predict climate. Consistent with this, and despite computer projections of temperature rises, there has been no net global warming since 1998. That the current temperature plateau follows a late 20th-century period of warming is consistent with the continuation today of natural multi-decadal or millennial climate cycling.
In stark contrast to the often repeated assertion that the science of climate change is "settled," significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming. But because IPCC working groups were generally instructed (see http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/wg1_timetable_2006-08-14.pdf) to consider work published only through May, 2005, these important findings are not included in their reports; i.e., the IPCC assessment reports are already materially outdated.
The UN climate conference in Bali has been planned to take the world along a path of severe CO2 restrictions, ignoring the lessons apparent from the failure of the Kyoto Protocol, the chaotic nature of the European CO2 trading market, and the ineffectiveness of other costly initiatives to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Balanced cost/benefit analyses provide no support for the introduction of global measures to cap and reduce energy consumption for the purpose of restricting CO2 emissions. Furthermore, it is irrational to apply the "precautionary principle" because many scientists recognize that both climatic coolings and warmings are realistic possibilities over the medium-term future.
The current UN focus on "fighting climate change," as illustrated in the Nov. 27 UN Development Programme's Human Development Report, is distracting governments from adapting to the threat of inevitable natural climate changes, whatever forms they may take. National and international planning for such changes is needed, with a focus on helping our most vulnerable citizens adapt to conditions that lie ahead. Attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity's real and pressing problems.
Yours faithfully,
[List of signatories]
 
And just how many politicians do you think are going to let the voice of 100 reputable scientists get in the way of the mother of all taxation opportunities ?
 
as you can see america and canada are not even interested , so continue to tax us to death in our little insignificant cars and see how that will save global warming.
We have been taxed heavily in the last 10years and the temperatures are still rising and the cars are getting cleaner. me thinks it is time to find another route.
right now with the amount i am paying for gas bills, global warming may not seem such a bad idea.
 
Last edited:
It seems the words of the week, this week are "damp Squib"


Now the question! What is a "Damp Squib"? Does it increase the price of fuel, emit exessive greenhouse gases, drive it inappropriate speed, kidnap stuff toys.


And while I am on it, does a Rhetorical Question need an answer?
 
And just how many politicians do you think are going to let the voice of 100 reputable scientists get in the way of the mother of all taxation opportunities ?
Probably right. What is also alarmimg is that all politicians in all UK parties have bought the argument that it is humans that cause of much global warming; and most European ones too. And most of the media. Will we ever hear the counter arguments above all the brain washing we are getting?
 
It seems the words of the week, this week are "damp Squib"


Now the question! What is a "Damp Squib"?


I have always presumed that it is like a squid but slightly different, maybe a land based squid but obviously spelt slightly differently:confused:

Funnily enough after a couple of bottles of my best rioja I feel like a Damp Squib.:D
 
It seems the words of the week, this week are "damp Squib"


Now the question! What is a "Damp Squib"?
Not sure if your question is serious or humourous. But if serious a Squib was a firework that if I remember rightly fizzed for a while and then went bang. But if damp, of course, it merely spluttered and never went off properly. Hence the saying, I guess. No idea if they are still made today. Tend to go to organised displays now the children have grown up.
 
Can't help wondering how we are all going to feel if these hundred scientists turn out to be right; but by then we shall have wasted a fortune on wind vanes and solar panels and other expensive sources of energy and probably clobbered anyone who buys almost any luxury car.
 
FWIW I see view the latest round of lunatics jumping onto the CO2 = global warming = disaster (mea culpa for being still alive) bandwagon as just another incarnation of the End-is-Nigh Millenarians of yesteryear; driven by fear and invoking science just as their forefathers invoked the scriptures, in order to sustain an irrational, deeply held pre-existing belief that they are unworthy to live and certainly ought not to enjoy themselves. It goes under the name of Miserabilism and they've got it. All I can say is: If it makes tham happy....:confused:

But I can't go along with it.:)
 
FWIW I see view the latest round of lunatics jumping onto the CO2 = global warming = disaster (mea culpa for being still alive) bandwagon as just another incarnation of the End-is-Nigh Millenarians of yesteryear; driven by fear and invoking science just as their forefathers invoked the scriptures, in order to sustain an irrational, deeply held pre-existing belief that they are unworthy to live and certainly ought not to enjoy themselves. It goes under the name of Miserabilism and they've got it. All I can say is: If it makes tham happy....:confused:

But I can't go along with it.:)

Of course it wasn't that long ago that scientists were worried about global cooling and thought we were going into a new ice age. Time will tell I guess.
 
Hi,

Unfortunately science (often) doesn't deal in absolutes....it is based on testing hypotheses, which, by definition, cannot be proved absolutely.

Thus the current hypothesis is that a process called global warming is occurring and that (part of) the cause of this is due to human activities (anthropomorphic). This hypothesis cannot be tested directly so there will always be a (large) degree of uncertainty.

So all one can do is to examine the scientific concensus, the balance of which currently supports the above (hypothesis).

However this hypothesis raises a more fundamental moral problem because if we are the cause of global warming then we will decrease the future quality of life for all life forms including our descendants (obviously). Can we take this risk?

A separate question is how should we (the global population) react to this? Frankly I can't see ever see there being a global concensus (in the near future) so it's not surprising that there's resentment at the apparent over emphasis on this problem in the UK (as our current contribution to anthropomorphic warming, though significant, is not critical i.e. is unilateral action by UK a waste of time and money? though it may set an 'example').

Unfortunately I don't really see a viable solution as this 'problem' ultimately reflects the inexorable rise in the population of the planet so perhaps the conclusion from the '100' (scientists) that

"Attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity's real and pressing problems"

is a valid pragmatic solution, even though it's based on a minority viewpoint.

Merry Xmas,
 
I don't see why climate change would necessarily lead to a reduction in living standards.

It costs an economy far more to limit co2 emissions than it does to spend the same money dealing with the consequences.

There's nothing in history to suggest our current climate is the normal quiescent climate of the planet.

Global average temperatures don't appear to have changed much in the last 7 years. Local average temperatures cannot be taken in isolation as a measure of global warming. And the temperature of the troposphere shows no signs of doing anything - which is where surely one would expect the most warming to occur.

BTW a damp squib is a damp explosive charge. Squibs are used in television to simulate bullet impacts.
 
BTW a damp squib is a damp explosive charge. Squibs are used in television to simulate bullet impacts.

Damp squib from the Oxford Dictionary: - noun Brit. something that turns out to be much less impressive than expected.

And as for the origin as I posted before –also from the Oxford Dictionary- defining ‘squib’ as: -
noun 1 a small firework that hisses before exploding.
 
I was interested in one of the interesting side effects of the decision to hold this conference in Bali. Apparently, the airport was not big enough to store the aircraft of all the visiting dignitaries so the planes were flown out empty. At the end of the conference, the planes flew in empty to pick up said dignitaries. So much for carbon footprints.

Of course the above might have been published by cynical members of the media. I did my bit for the planet by not flying to Bali to verify the facts. :D
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom