Global warming? No, actually we're cooling, claim scientists

[wilcopops]

Thaibeachlover:

I think you pretty much the nail on the head. I think the consensus and common sense belief is that we are fuc_king things up pretty bad, but no one cares enough to do what really needs to be done to make a difference. I am not giving up air travel anytime soon, at least not before my trips to Vegas and Hawaii between no and end of year . . . So I do suck. Perhaps one day I won't be so selfish and I hope that others won't be either.

Ruckbradford:

Dude, you are just an outlier that will never let go even if you were standing in thick smog frying in 125 degree heat. The issue is not whether CO2 and pollution are causing serious issues and destroying our oceans, the issue is whether mankind cares enough to make any sufficient sacrifices to make an impact. I suppose it is easier for people like you to rationalize their behavior by denying there is a problem.

At one time consensus thought the earth was flat and you could sail off the edge.

Trouble with consensus, is most of it's members are fools.

CHINA!, they ain't playing your game, and nobody else counts.

Guess it's easier for you to just ignore any post that includes the word 'China', because it doesn't suit your agenda.

Yet again a display of ignorance - that was NEVER the consensus!

[FiftyTwo]

Yet again a display of ignorance - that was NEVER the consensus!

Yet again, your reply is an insult with no other content.

Funny how most of the alarmists resort to insults.

Guess they don't like me pointing out China is the biggest player, and China won't play their game.

[F430murci]

Thaibeachlover:

I think you pretty much the nail on the head. I think the consensus and common sense belief is that we are fuc_king things up pretty bad, but no one cares enough to do what really needs to be done to make a difference. I am not giving up air travel anytime soon, at least not before my trips to Vegas and Hawaii between no and end of year . . . So I do suck. Perhaps one day I won't be so selfish and I hope that others won't be either.

Ruckbradford:

Dude, you are just an outlier that will never let go even if you were standing in thick smog frying in 125 degree heat. The issue is not whether CO2 and pollution are causing serious issues and destroying our oceans, the issue is whether mankind cares enough to make any sufficient sacrifices to make an impact. I suppose it is easier for people like you to rationalize their behavior by denying there is a problem.

At one time consensus thought the earth was flat and you could sail off the edge.

Trouble with consensus, is most of it's members are fools.

CHINA!, they ain't playing your game, and nobody else counts.

Guess it's easier for you to just ignore any post that includes the word 'China', because it doesn't suit your agenda.

I actually don't have an agenda, but I do think it is a chicken <deleted> way out to knowingly do something wrong or continue doing something you believe damaging because everyone else is doing it or because you tell yourself it does not matter.

I have to believe that people should lead by example.

I also disagree China wont do anything. The Harbin issue recently along with their recent study showing 1.2 million people died premature deaths last year is an indication that they may be seeing problems and forced to do things differently for self preservation in the not too distant future. How many people are Harbin? Was it not like 11 million and they had to completely shut it down because smog was so bad you could not see someone standing directly in front if you.

Edited October 29, 2013 by F430murci

[F430murci]

The issue is not whether CO2 and pollution are causing serious issues and destroying our oceans, the issue is whether mankind cares enough to make any sufficient sacrifices to make an impact.

The issue is actually whether mankind is smart and rational enough to quantify the risks and apply appropriate remedies where necessary, or whether we are going to ruin our collective future by running around full of hysterical and blind emotionalism seeing man-made bogeymen and demons at every turn, and demanding a return to some mythical Eden.

Time was, people who stood around with sandwich boards stating "Repent! The end is nigh!", would be taken away and cared for in private. Now they're running large NGOs and UN organisations, or writing for the legacy media.

As is typical with you, you selectively focus on and address one sentence and cut out and ignore the rest. Kind of like how you completely ignore and refuse to acknowledge 99% of the objective or quantifiable scientific proof and resort to spinning the remaining one percent that can be spun. Nothing surprising here!

[RickBradford]

You're the one who said it was "the issue", not me. And by ignoring the rest, I was doing you a favour.

Moving on, FiftyTwo is saying that China is going to do nothing about climate change, for the simple reason that it hasn't fallen for the shrill hand-wringing rhetoric coming out of the West.

In 2010, a Chinese government body published a book called 'Low-Carbon Plot', which described how official Chinese thinking sees the hysteria of Western green groups and organisations. There's plenty of good stuff, here's a couple of typical (translated) excerpts:

The Developed Countries [EU,USA+etc.] are attempting to use the Greenhouse Effect to lock up the development of the Developing world with Morality Manacles. This is what Developed Countries are most afraid of, the development of the Developing Countries poses an enormous threat to their way of lives.

In the eyes of some Westerners, the many developing countries have absolutely no right to enjoy the same standard of life as them. Underneath the flag of environmental protection, everything must stand to one side; anything with an opposing voice, quickly gets drowned in moralistic phlegm.

No, the Chinese are not going to do anything about climate change. Except sit happily back and watch the West commit economic suicide for no reason whatsoever.

[F430murci]

You're the one who said it was "the issue", not me. And by ignoring the rest, I was doing you a favour.

Moving on, FiftyTwo is saying that China is going to do nothing about climate change, for the simple reason that it hasn't fallen for the shrill hand-wringing rhetoric coming out of the West.

In 2010, a Chinese government body published a book called 'Low-Carbon Plot', which described how official Chinese thinking sees the hysteria of Western green groups and organisations. There's plenty of good stuff, here's a couple of typical (translated) excerpts:

The Developed Countries [EU,USA+etc.] are attempting to use the Greenhouse Effect to lock up the development of the Developing world with Morality Manacles. This is what Developed Countries are most afraid of, the development of the Developing Countries poses an enormous threat to their way of lives.

In the eyes of some Westerners, the many developing countries have absolutely no right to enjoy the same standard of life as them. Underneath the flag of environmental protection, everything must stand to one side; anything with an opposing voice, quickly gets drowned in moralistic phlegm.

No, the Chinese are not going to do anything about climate change. Except sit happily back and watch the West commit economic suicide for no reason whatsoever.

Wow. This is so far out there. Nuf said.

[wilcopops]

Yet again a display of ignorance - that was NEVER the consensus!

Yet again, your reply is an insult with no other content.

Funny how most of the alarmists resort to insults.

Guess they don't like me pointing out China is the biggest player, and China won't play their game.

You are the one insulting us by posting ignorant and untrue statements! That is FACT.

Ignorant in that you clearly don't know the truth about "flat world"

Untrue as you then post it as fact which it isn't.

Edited October 29, 2013 by wilcopops

[wilcopops]

"No, the Chinese are not going to do anything about climate change. Except sit happily back and watch the West commit economic suicide for no reason whatsoever." - completely misleading they ARE doing lots of stuff.....just not enough

[RickBradford]

"No, the Chinese are not going to do anything about climate change. Except sit happily back and watch the West commit economic suicide for no reason whatsoever." - completely misleading they ARE doing lots of stuff.....just not enough

Right.

As of July 2012, China’s government planned 363 coal-fired power plants for construction across China, with a combined generating capacity exceeding 557 gigawatts (for reference, installed capacity at the end of 2012 was 758 GW). This amounts to an almost 75 percent increase in coal-fired generating capacity. (World Resources Institute)

[Scott]

I strongly suggest you stay on the topic. Continued off-topic argumentative posts will result in posts being deleted and warnings issued.

Address the topic, not the poster.

[Scott]

I strongly suggest you stay on the topic. Continued off-topic argumentative posts will result in posts being deleted and warnings issued.

Address the topic, not the poster.

[Scott]

An inflammatory post has been removed.

[FiftyTwo]

I have to believe that people should lead by example.

I do lead by example, drive a Honda click 45Km/l, my last month electricity bill 750bht (200units), no heating.

Only made 1 internal flight in the last 5 years.

But my example is about not wasting my money, not some CO2 footprint silliness.

What's your example? (higher than mine I'm betting)

Edited October 29, 2013 by FiftyTwo

[MJP]

I have to believe that people should lead by example.

I do lead by example, drive a Honda click 45Km/l, my last month electricity bill 750bht (200units), no heating.

Only made 1 internal flight in the last 5 years.

But my example is about not wasting my money, not some CO2 footprint silliness.

What's your example? (higher than mine I'm betting)

I fully support Fifty's position on this.

Just because someone isn't sold on global warming doesn't mean they have to have a dozen air cons going all day and drive a V8 SUV.

I'm the same, but I keep an open mind on global warming (meaning I haven't a clue to be honest).

Edited October 29, 2013 by MJP

[wilcopops]

Pekople overlook their vehicles contribution to MMCC in many ways - just citing your fuel consumption is not nearly enough.

a vehicle uses energy and resources in 3 phases...

1 - in manufacture - from mining and extraction of raw materials through transportation and assembly into the finished article - all requires energy and the burring of fuels.

2 - The use - the economy of a vehicle depends on the amount of people or goods in carries per unit of distance per unit of energy consumed. One or two on a bike may seem good, but a double decker bus is both bigger and more efficient. One also has to point out that most small bike are also pretty "low-tech" and they are collectively prone to burning fuel inefficiently and thus contributing more than their fair share to carbon emissions and other pollutants. (don't even mention two-stoke engines!!!)

3 - disposal - On small bikes, one can also argue that an excessive amount or non-reclable items are used. - in Germany all new vehicles have to be 90% recyclable. Computer components, batteries, plastics etc are presenting a huge problem when it comes to disposing of old vehicles and with 22 million bikes against 6 million cars in Thailand this is a big problem.

PS - and remember too that in general diesel engines produce less CO2 than gasoline. So all of this chips away at the "saintliness' of riding a bike, especially with a family of 4 where several bikes are needed and then there is all the stuff you can't transport on your bike so you have to hire a truck and driver to take it....

Edited October 29, 2013 by wilcopops

[Thaddeus]

Most vehicles are parked, not moving, for most of the day, in the UK it's currently about 96% of it.

And please stop banging on about CO2, it was getting old a long time ago, now it is a weak argument.

Edited October 29, 2013 by Thaddeus

[F430murci]

This is such a crazy topic. I totally get the I am not willing to not drive, travel or use any resources mentality. I also respect the I am not sure if there is a problem, but I willing to conserve approach fostered by 52 and MILP. I get the I dunno if there is anything that can be done to help. I don't get the we don't have a problem so leave oil company's alone bs.

[FiftyTwo]

Pekople overlook their vehicles contribution to MMCC in many ways - just citing your fuel consumption is not nearly enough.

a vehicle uses energy and resources in 3 phases...

1 - in manufacture - from mining and extraction of raw materials through transportation and assembly into the finished article - all requires energy and the burring of fuels.

2 - The use - the economy of a vehicle depends on the amount of people or goods in carries per unit of distance per unit of energy consumed. One or two on a bike may seem good, but a double decker bus is both bigger and more efficient. One also has to point out that most small bike are also pretty "low-tech" and they are collectively prone to burning fuel inefficiently and thus contributing more than their fair share to carbon emissions and other pollutants. (don't even mention two-stoke engines!!!)

3 - disposal - On small bikes, one can also argue that an excessive amount or non-reclable items are used. - in Germany all new vehicles have to be 90% recyclable. Computer components, batteries, plastics etc are presenting a huge problem when it comes to disposing of old vehicles and with 22 million bikes against 6 million cars in Thailand this is a big problem.

PS - and remember too that in general diesel engines produce less CO2 than gasoline. So all of this chips away at the "saintliness' of riding a bike, especially with a family of 4 where several bikes are needed and then there is all the stuff you can't transport on your bike so you have to hire a truck and driver to take it....

Made in Thailand, purchased and used in Thailand.

The very latest fuel injection, uses E20 petrol, stops and starts on idle, accel.

Most of the scooters in Thailand are still working after 20 years.

Disposal is a western car problem, in Asia they aren't rusted and chucked after 5-10 years.

Your post makes me think you don't live in Asia, and have probably never been here.

Where do you live?

[boomerangutang]

Most vehicles are parked, not moving, for most of the day, in the UK it's currently about 96% of it.

And please stop banging on about CO2, it was getting old a long time ago, now it is a weak argument.

I want to bang on about CO2. It's a greenhouse gas and is being emitted in large quantities by people and their machines - mostly via fossil fuels and coal. CO2 has been produced since the Earth first formed, but it has been spiking in recent decades due to human activities.

[canuckamuck]

First you should go after something with much stronger greenhouse properties. Perhaps a ban on HOH?

[wilcopops]

Pekople overlook their vehicles contribution to MMCC in many ways - just citing your fuel consumption is not nearly enough.

a vehicle uses energy and resources in 3 phases...

1 - in manufacture - from mining and extraction of raw materials through transportation and assembly into the finished article - all requires energy and the burring of fuels.

2 - The use - the economy of a vehicle depends on the amount of people or goods in carries per unit of distance per unit of energy consumed. One or two on a bike may seem good, but a double decker bus is both bigger and more efficient. One also has to point out that most small bike are also pretty "low-tech" and they are collectively prone to burning fuel inefficiently and thus contributing more than their fair share to carbon emissions and other pollutants. (don't even mention two-stoke engines!!!)

3 - disposal - On small bikes, one can also argue that an excessive amount or non-reclable items are used. - in Germany all new vehicles have to be 90% recyclable. Computer components, batteries, plastics etc are presenting a huge problem when it comes to disposing of old vehicles and with 22 million bikes against 6 million cars in Thailand this is a big problem.

PS - and remember too that in general diesel engines produce less CO2 than gasoline. So all of this chips away at the "saintliness' of riding a bike, especially with a family of 4 where several bikes are needed and then there is all the stuff you can't transport on your bike so you have to hire a truck and driver to take it....

Made in Thailand, purchased and used in Thailand.

The very latest fuel injection, uses E20 petrol, stops and starts on idle, accel.

Most of the scooters in Thailand are still working after 20 years.

Disposal is a western car problem, in Asia they aren't rusted and chucked after 5-10 years.

Your post makes me think you don't live in Asia, and have probably never been here.

Where do you live?

√A little bit of thought on motorcycles in Thailand.

If global warming is linked to our carbon footprint, then we need to know what factors are actually the contributing to this.

20 years lifespan? Actually that is pretty much irrelevant as production has increased dramatically.........

In the early 1980s there were 2 million vehicles in TOTAL in Thailand, now there are over 27.5 million - 22 million are motorcycles.

The majority of those that are over 20 years old are not only worn out but also 2-strokes - probably the worst form of internal combustion engine there is.

Cars and bikes have about the same lifespan. As they get older they burn fuel less and less efficiently. Thailand has no emissions testing to speak of unlike the west and therefore it is safe to assume that the vehicles in general get less and less good at burning fuel cleanly..

The amount of vehicles being disposed of in Thailand has risen exponentially in the last 3 decades.

Motorcycles are particularly bad at consuming spare parts too - their tyres wear out faster than on cars and items such as chains have to be replaced far more often than prop shafts and elements of car transmissions. The manufacture of motorcycles is much lower tech than most cars, which means in turn the production processes are less energy efficient. And as said as they are cheaply made they contain a much higher proportion of non-recyclable parts

(Of course there is also the element of safety on motorcycles, which cost the Thai nation billions of baht in healthcare disablement and lost workers. It is estimated that if the wearing of helmets were enforced it would save 3000 lives per annum).

Reading the letters and numbers on the sides of motorcycles to get their spec is all very well, but in actual fact many on the market here cannot be sold in Europe in the form they are sold here because they don’t conform to emissions and safety standards stipulated by such places as the EU.

So I think on closer scrutiny you will find that any “eco” or “green” claims for motorcycles are rather over-stated

[FiftyTwo]

So I think on closer scrutiny you will find that any eco or green claims for motorcycles are rather over-stated

Picking fault with the number 1, eco friendly scooter in the world, damages your credibility.

Especially as you avoid any mention of your own carbon footprint.

[chuckd]

When will you people wake up? Global warming doesn't have anything to do with driving a car. Let F430murci drive his Ferrari and Lamborghini without fear of backlash from some greenie.

The real problem is...WHALES.

Whales are mammals and as such emit methane gas. When a whale passes gas, so to speak, it becomes a problem for the environment to handle. When you add the whales to all the humans, cows, sheep, deer, elephants and other wild animals passing of gas, it combines into a deadly force that is wrecking our ozone layer. It is a combination of all these factors that are dumping untold millions of tons of methane gas into the atmosphere and I am really surprised some of you, and Al Gore, didn't pick up on it sooner.

Forget carbon taxes, study groups, government grants and everything else. Spend $1 Billion a day on controlling whale farts and the problem will be solved for our children and grand-children.

Remember, you heard it here first.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To prove my point...it has happened before. The science is settled.

Dinosaurs' Gaseous Emissions Warmed Earth?

Giant sauropods produced huge amounts of greenhouse gases, study suggests.

Charles Choi

for National Geographic News

Published May 7, 2012

Dinosaurs may have helped warm ancient Earth via their own natural gaseous emissions, a new study says.

Like modern-day ruminants, giant plant-eating dinosaurs likely had microbes in their guts that gave off large amounts of methane—a potent greenhouse gas even more effective at trapping heat than carbon dioxide. (Read about the greenhouse gas effect.)

Today cows, goats, sheep, giraffes, and other ruminants contribute to global warming by releasing as much as 50 million to 100 million metric tons of methane per year—a significant chunk of the 500 million to 600 million metric tons emitted annually, mostly due to human activity, according to the World Meteorological Organization.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/05/120507-dinosaurs-methane-farts-burps-global-warming-environment-science-flatulence/

[MJP]

Pekople overlook their vehicles contribution to MMCC in many ways - just citing your fuel consumption is not nearly enough.

a vehicle uses energy and resources in 3 phases...

1 - in manufacture - from mining and extraction of raw materials through transportation and assembly into the finished article - all requires energy and the burring of fuels.

2 - The use - the economy of a vehicle depends on the amount of people or goods in carries per unit of distance per unit of energy consumed. One or two on a bike may seem good, but a double decker bus is both bigger and more efficient. One also has to point out that most small bike are also pretty "low-tech" and they are collectively prone to burning fuel inefficiently and thus contributing more than their fair share to carbon emissions and other pollutants. (don't even mention two-stoke engines!!!)

3 - disposal - On small bikes, one can also argue that an excessive amount or non-reclable items are used. - in Germany all new vehicles have to be 90% recyclable. Computer components, batteries, plastics etc are presenting a huge problem when it comes to disposing of old vehicles and with 22 million bikes against 6 million cars in Thailand this is a big problem.

PS - and remember too that in general diesel engines produce less CO2 than gasoline. So all of this chips away at the "saintliness' of riding a bike, especially with a family of 4 where several bikes are needed and then there is all the stuff you can't transport on your bike so you have to hire a truck and driver to take it....

Made in Thailand, purchased and used in Thailand.

The very latest fuel injection, uses E20 petrol, stops and starts on idle, accel.

Most of the scooters in Thailand are still working after 20 years.

Disposal is a western car problem, in Asia they aren't rusted and chucked after 5-10 years.

Your post makes me think you don't live in Asia, and have probably never been here.

Where do you live?

√A little bit of thought on motorcycles in Thailand.

If global warming is linked to our carbon footprint, then we need to know what factors are actually the contributing to this.

20 years lifespan? Actually that is pretty much irrelevant as production has increased dramatically.........

In the early 1980s there were 2 million vehicles in TOTAL in Thailand, now there are over 27.5 million - 22 million are motorcycles.

The majority of those that are over 20 years old are not only worn out but also 2-strokes - probably the worst form of internal combustion engine there is.

Cars and bikes have about the same lifespan. As they get older they burn fuel less and less efficiently. Thailand has no emissions testing to speak of unlike the west and therefore it is safe to assume that the vehicles in general get less and less good at burning fuel cleanly..

The amount of vehicles being disposed of in Thailand has risen exponentially in the last 3 decades.

Motorcycles are particularly bad at consuming spare parts too - their tyres wear out faster than on cars and items such as chains have to be replaced far more often than prop shafts and elements of car transmissions. The manufacture of motorcycles is much lower tech than most cars, which means in turn the production processes are less energy efficient. And as said as they are cheaply made they contain a much higher proportion of non-recyclable parts

(Of course there is also the element of safety on motorcycles, which cost the Thai nation billions of baht in healthcare disablement and lost workers. It is estimated that if the wearing of helmets were enforced it would save 3000 lives per annum).

Reading the letters and numbers on the sides of motorcycles to get their spec is all very well, but in actual fact many on the market here cannot be sold in Europe in the form they are sold here because they don’t conform to emissions and safety standards stipulated by such places as the EU.

So I think on closer scrutiny you will find that any “eco” or “green” claims for motorcycles are rather over-stated

Although there's no MOT testing (vehicle annual safety check and emissions monitoring) I thought Thailand had brought in very stringent emissions regulations for new scooters.

I have found this . . .

http://www.dieselnet.com/standards/th/

and this . . .

http://www.pcd.go.th/info_serv/en_reg_std_airsnd02.html

[wilcopops]

So I think on closer scrutiny you will find that any eco or green claims for motorcycles are rather over-stated

Picking fault with the number 1, eco friendly scooter in the world, damages your credibility.

Especially as you avoid any mention of your own carbon footprint.

Show me where!

[wilcopops]

Pekople overlook their vehicles contribution to MMCC in many ways - just citing your fuel consumption is not nearly enough.

a vehicle uses energy and resources in 3 phases...

1 - in manufacture - from mining and extraction of raw materials through transportation and assembly into the finished article - all requires energy and the burring of fuels.

2 - The use - the economy of a vehicle depends on the amount of people or goods in carries per unit of distance per unit of energy consumed. One or two on a bike may seem good, but a double decker bus is both bigger and more efficient. One also has to point out that most small bike are also pretty "low-tech" and they are collectively prone to burning fuel inefficiently and thus contributing more than their fair share to carbon emissions and other pollutants. (don't even mention two-stoke engines!!!)

3 - disposal - On small bikes, one can also argue that an excessive amount or non-reclable items are used. - in Germany all new vehicles have to be 90% recyclable. Computer components, batteries, plastics etc are presenting a huge problem when it comes to disposing of old vehicles and with 22 million bikes against 6 million cars in Thailand this is a big problem.

PS - and remember too that in general diesel engines produce less CO2 than gasoline. So all of this chips away at the "saintliness' of riding a bike, especially with a family of 4 where several bikes are needed and then there is all the stuff you can't transport on your bike so you have to hire a truck and driver to take it....

Made in Thailand, purchased and used in Thailand.

The very latest fuel injection, uses E20 petrol, stops and starts on idle, accel.

Most of the scooters in Thailand are still working after 20 years.

Disposal is a western car problem, in Asia they aren't rusted and chucked after 5-10 years.

Your post makes me think you don't live in Asia, and have probably never been here.

Where do you live?

√A little bit of thought on motorcycles in Thailand.

If global warming is linked to our carbon footprint, then we need to know what factors are actually the contributing to this.

20 years lifespan? Actually that is pretty much irrelevant as production has increased dramatically.........

In the early 1980s there were 2 million vehicles in TOTAL in Thailand, now there are over 27.5 million - 22 million are motorcycles.

The majority of those that are over 20 years old are not only worn out but also 2-strokes - probably the worst form of internal combustion engine there is.

Cars and bikes have about the same lifespan. As they get older they burn fuel less and less efficiently. Thailand has no emissions testing to speak of unlike the west and therefore it is safe to assume that the vehicles in general get less and less good at burning fuel cleanly..

The amount of vehicles being disposed of in Thailand has risen exponentially in the last 3 decades.

Motorcycles are particularly bad at consuming spare parts too - their tyres wear out faster than on cars and items such as chains have to be replaced far more often than prop shafts and elements of car transmissions. The manufacture of motorcycles is much lower tech than most cars, which means in turn the production processes are less energy efficient. And as said as they are cheaply made they contain a much higher proportion of non-recyclable parts

(Of course there is also the element of safety on motorcycles, which cost the Thai nation billions of baht in healthcare disablement and lost workers. It is estimated that if the wearing of helmets were enforced it would save 3000 lives per annum).

Reading the letters and numbers on the sides of motorcycles to get their spec is all very well, but in actual fact many on the market here cannot be sold in Europe in the form they are sold here because they don’t conform to emissions and safety standards stipulated by such places as the EU.

So I think on closer scrutiny you will find that any “eco” or “green” claims for motorcycles are rather over-stated

Although there's no MOT testing (vehicle annual safety check and emissions monitoring) I thought Thailand had brought in very stringent emissions regulations for new scooters.

I have found this . . .

http://www.dieselnet.com/standards/th/

and this . . .

http://www.pcd.go.th/info_serv/en_reg_std_airsnd02.html

I would have thought it would be fairly obvious to the most unobservant that with no vehicle testing of any worth, any emission regulations aren't worth the paper they were ill-conceived upon.

[Scott]

Please stay on topic. Some posters are starting to snipe at other posters. If you have nothing to say, then you do not need to continue to post.

[MJP]

In reply to Wilcopops.

Of course, that's why I mentioned the lack of testing.

But at least there's more stringent emissions requirements for new vehicles. That's a start at least.

[boomerangutang]

First you should go after something with much stronger greenhouse properties.

Are you saying; If CO2 isn't as effective a 'greenhouse gas' as, let's say methane, then CO2 should be discounted as unimportant in the GW equation? It's like saying; if a petrol bomb is less powerful than a comparable amount of TNT, then the petrol bomb should be discounted as non-explosive.

[Thaddeus]

First you should go after something with much stronger greenhouse properties.

Are you saying; If CO2 isn't as effective a 'greenhouse gas' as, let's say methane, then CO2 should be discounted as unimportant in the GW equation?

Methane is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2, I doubt that anyone would dispute that.

How much of it is there in the upper atmosphere though, you do of course know that methane is much heavier than air and it takes an almost magical set of circumstances to get any up there in any quantity that is likely to have any effect at all.

Typical goal post shift, the Global Warming strategy has proved to be false so it was renamed as Climate Change (like it has never done that on this planet before) the CO2 Argument isn't working, so it's methane then, of course it is, not.

Charts, figures and scientific papers are needed, real scientific papers mind..... and not just ones of a limited time-scale, the whole time of this planets existence would be best.