World Meteorological Organization: Carbon Dioxide hits 400ppm, 'Time is running out'

Well, I'm sorry you feel that way. I have tried to be consistent, presenting the same Co2 figures, showing my sources, explaining the calculation of percentages. I've presented data for both the US and the UK to indicate CO2 emissions in developed countries.
You continuously try to discard the facts to sort your opinion.
I have never said that industry or power are not significant contributors, merely pointed out that road transportation is comparable to industrial ouput.
 
D.P. said:
I have never said that industry or power are not significant contributors, merely pointed out that road transportation is comparable to industrial ouput.
Click to expand...

Which includes All Road Transport of all types and sectors so is irrelevant when comparing the relatively small percentage of people who maintain and own Classic Cars which is the original point. It is also significantly lower overall than total industrial output, you just try to obfuscate that by dismissing one of the largest contributors to industrial figures, inflating those attributable to private car ownership and dismissing the impact of other GHG's as insignificant. Your own figures show that overall private car ownership (that's all privately owned cars, not only classic cars) has significantly lower GHG output than other significant contributory sectors and is only a tenth of the overall output even in heavily industrialised nations such as the UK.

Like I said you've failed to convince me, if anything you have only reinforced my scepticism of the claims often made to support specific action on climate change when dealing with the individual.
 
Last edited:
Just to be clear, I wasn't arguing that owners of classic cars should drive them because they add significantly to GHGs, they don't because they aren't driven much. My argument is simply that all road users together add up to significant GHG emissions that is comparable to what is belched out by industry.

People seem to have an attitude that whatever they do doesn't have any influence since some factories produce a lot. This is flawed logic because there are hundreds of millions of people in the west contributing huge amount of pollution, especially when much of industrial and power generation emissions is used to support lavish lifestyles.


I'm just glad that at least many of the worlds government don't share your unfounded skepticism when the facts are quite blatant.
 
D.P. said:
Just to be clear, I wasn't arguing that owners of classic cars should drive them because they add significantly to GHGs, they don't because they aren't driven much. My argument is simply that all road users together add up to significant GHG emissions that is comparable to what is belched out by industry.
Click to expand...

Which was not how you began this, you specifically stated that my argument that classic car ownership was a very tiny part of overall GHG output and that to focus on that was counterproductive was flawed...that is what you said and then proceeded to misrepresent that using an argument that you now admit had little significance to what I was stating.

You'll be glad to know that my Eco credentials are pretty much above average, I live in an Eco-friendly house, use renewable power, recycle (although I hate doing it) and have changed both our family vehicles for more Eco friendly ones...(going from a Range Rover to an Audi A6 2.0 and a Golf 2.0 to a little VW Up! In recent months)...we are also in the process of installing the facility to run an electric car between my home and my wife's business. So I am open to all kinds of suggestions as long as they are both objective and relevant and not simply focusing on an individual and his classic car, as was happening earlier in the thread.
 
swapping over to a Prius or Insight would result in a five-six tonne saving in CO2 emissions. That's broadly equivalent to the amount of CO2 produced by one passenger flying Heathrow to Sydney return.
Click to expand...

I think I know where the emissions problem lies in this picture and it's not with the daily driver at all. Air travel and sea freight are the areas that need tackling more urgently.
 
Amp34 said:
Fairly, considering each of those countries have over a billion people, the vast majority living significantly less carbon intense lives than us.

Yes, there are some nasty factories in China and India. China itself is cracking down significantly on those within its borders, unfortunately they have far more than us due to the size of the country and population (not to mention they manufacture vast amounts for you and me...) so overall production is obviously going to be much higher.

The point still stands that we as individuals in the west produce far more CO2 than people in China, even when factories are factored in, so the idea there is no point in us reducing our consumption (which would incidentally affect the emissions in China....) is a fallacy. Don't recycle or try and reduce your carbon footprint if you want, just don't suggest you've taken a "measured" decision because "it isn't going to make any difference". If we all produced as "much" CO2 per capita as the Chinese or Indians we wouldnt be in this mess in the first place!

Note I haven't mentioned India much as I don't actually know much about their environmental policy. China on the other hand is very pro carbon/pollution reduction and has very strict rules regarding it (admittedly many fairly recently introduced), the biggest problem they have is corruption which makes policing them difficult. Something the government is also taking seriously.
Click to expand...


no the point is regulations are completely ignored in those countries how on earth are you verifying the statistics your using. look at the wiki pages source they're pretty poor.

you just said corruption is a problem they're "cracking down" and the figures are dropping despite the huge increase in coal plant production and massive construction of new nuclear sites and massive building construction in general (Concrete and co2 go hand in hand).


really trusting the figures?

besides the IPCC say its too late, trying to cut carbon production at the cost of productivity atm is silly its wasted money according to climate scientist buying simply a few years not preventing anything just fractionally slowing it down.

so the money and resources should be being spent in preparation for the consequences. after all all the windfarms in the world ain't going to prepare us for increased flooding, unlike say a well thought out and implemented set of flood defenses designed to handle significantly extra capacity for future proofing.
 
LateX'Dog said:
Same could be said about voting. Your 1 individual vote wont change the course of the election, but it contributes. Same can be said in this case.
Click to expand...


except it doesnt according to your own evidence its too late.


it's like turning up to vote the day after the polls close.
 
Tefal said:
except it doesnt according to your own evidence its too late.


it's like turning up to vote the day after the polls close.
Click to expand...

No, it's like ignoring the candle on the side table. It may be too late to stop it scorching the carpet, but it's not too late to stop it burning the house down.
 
Burnsy2023 said:
No, it's like ignoring the candle on the side table. It may be too late to stop it scorching the carpet, but it's not too late to stop it burning the house down.
Click to expand...

not according to the ipcc.


the house is already ablaze question is do you stay in and try to blow it out or run like **** and deal with the clean up afterwards.

LateX'Dog said:
Sorry my evidence? I haven't done anything other then post information and a link! :D
Click to expand...

you really are even more retarded than I previously thought. Congratulations, that's impressive.
 
Burnsy2023 said:
No, it's like ignoring the candle on the side table. It may be too late to stop it scorching the carpet, but it's not too late to stop it burning the house down.
Click to expand...

That's not what some are saying however, the IPCC for example are pretty much saying its virtually too late...Professor Gavin Schmidt of The Goddard Institute said that the 400ppm isn't that important as far as climate change is concerned, it's just emblematic, also it wasn't the first time measurements have reached 400ppm, just that it was for an entire month across the Northern Hemisphere.

"Four hundred ppm is not in and of itself particularly important physically," says Schmidt, "but it is emblematic of the fact that we are pushing the climate system into territory that is uncharted."

He notes that environmental groups have been talking up the 400-ppm threshold because "humans like big round numbers."
Click to expand...
 
We are pushing it into unchartered territory? Erm.

The planet has done this cycle many times over, it just so happens this one has come around a little earlier than first predicted.

What do they (scientist think-tank) want to achieve?
STOP the meteorological cycle? (bit like playing God?)
Reverse it? (God once again)
Slow it? (it's reached this point, and it's likely other less obvious effects have commenced that we won't know about yet)

If it is happening and it's too late, let's just adapt to it. That's what we're good at right?
 
“Daniel B. Botkin, a world-renowned ecologist, is Professor (Emeritus), Department of Ecology, Evolution and Marine Biology, UC Santa Barbara, and President of The Center for The Study of The Environment, which provides independent, science-based analyses of complex environmental issues. The New York Times said his book, *Discordant Harmonies: A New Ecology for the 21st Century* is considered by many ecologists to be the classic text of the [environmental] movement.” His Environmental Science, now in its Sixth Edition, was named 2004′s best textbook by the Textbook and Academic Authors Association.”

He dismantles the IPCC 2014 report for the US Congress.
A coherent breakdown of a skeptical viewpoint.
Good reading for the believers in CAGW who worry about plant food, it may make you more relaxed.

http://science.house.gov/sites/repu...ments/HHRG-113-SY-WState-DBotkin-20140529.pdf
 
I'm happy finally we might get the climate change weirdos have been doom mongering for twenty years.
If I end up in London it will be warmer and I live on a hill so not bothered about flooding.
If I stay in Sweden it might warm up the winter which was a bit chilly for my liking.
 
Stop developing countries develop - problem solved.

No more factories that pumping out pollution, no more cars.

:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom