Global Warming - Eliminating all U.S. gasoline powered vehicles would reduce...

[Mr Jack]

I dont need to Ive seen IPCC graphs that show otherwise which is why they happen to chop the graph where they do. There had been a pretty much constant drop till around 1880 so they took it at the lowest point to accentuate the rise as if its never been that hot before.

Again that is not true.

 

[Sankari]

I guess my issue is taxes are being raised in effect to try and force us out of our cars.

Except... it's not. The government has actually reduced tax on fuel efficient vehicles, which in turn provides an incentive to buy them. (Buy a Smart car and you won't even pay the London congestion charge!)

In short: we are not being forced out of our cars; we are being encouraged to purchase fuel efficient models that will cost us less in fuel, tax and insurance.

I honestly can't see why people think this is a problem.

 

[Dave M]

Global warming or climate change may be debatable, but what is not debatable and is fact is the rate at which human activity is literally destroying hundreds of species each week, hundreds of kilometres of rainforest cut down that will most likely never grow back again, seas lakes and rivers polluted with mercury.. The list doesn't stop.

Soon there will be no tigers, there will be no birds, there will be no more marine life that hasn't been poisoned with mercury, or there may just be none at all. Rather than now all these animals becoming extinct may only affect those that are animal lovers, one day if it carries on it will effect absolutely everyone. The world population won't stop increasing, and soon countries like India and China will be demanding to eat meat on a regular basis. There will be a food shortage.

Rainforests destroyed to grow biofuel and delicate (and beautiful) marine and upland environments laid waste for wind turbines.

It's for the greater good you understand, climate change is the biggest challenge facing the human race, don't forget that, we'll keep telling you so you won't forget that.

 

[Sankari]

I don't know of any marine and upland environments laid waste for wind turbines.

Aren't they usually built in places where nobody wants to go anyway, like Skegness and certain remote corners of Wales?

 

[RDM]

I don't know of any marine and upland environments laid waste for wind turbines.

Aren't they usually built in places where nobody wants to go anyway, like Skegness and certain remote corners of Wales?

Quite a few in the peninnes too. Just build a nuke facility for gods sake!

 

[Sankari]

Yep, nuclear is the way to go right now. The current focus on renewables is timely, but unjustifiably narrow. Nuclear offers the best option.

 

[Bear]

Again that is not true.

I see you're one of these funny chaps that like to blank out all of the info you dont like to see. I can see a few of the lines on that graph that show a minima at around 1880 to maximise the effect of the temperature rise, where virtually everything left of that is on a steady increase.

 

[Mr Jack]

I see you're one of these funny chaps that like to blank out all of the info you dont like to see. I can see a few of the lines on that graph that show a minima at around 1880 to maximise the effect of the temperature rise, where virtually everything left of that is on a steady increase.

Look at the data between 1500 and 1880. Most of the lines are below the level of 1880, even the light green line that is the highest shows an approximately even temperature. Those showing the Little Ice Age (now thought to have been an effect isolated over Europe and not global) show it much below the 1880 level. Look at just the black line (that taken from direct measurement of known method): if you were trying to mislead wouldn't have have picked the minima at 1910 to start from?

There is a slight fall between 1100 and 1400, yes, but it's much smaller in magnitude than the the 1880-2000 change anyway.

The accusation that the 1880-present graph is selective data use is simply false.