Conservatives going Green?
Discussion
AOL newsfeed says the new boy has appointed Zac Goldsmith to head up some sort of think tank policy group looking at how to achieve a sustainable future. 60% CO2 reduction by 2050 apparently. No idea why.
Why not just do a reverse merger into Greenpeace? And then tack WWF on to the deal?
If this is an "I can be Greener than my idol Tony" play the man needs educating, quickly.
Why not just do a reverse merger into Greenpeace? And then tack WWF on to the deal?
If this is an "I can be Greener than my idol Tony" play the man needs educating, quickly.
I will wait and see what policy proposals he comes up with before passing judgement.
Labour's approach has been to use 'green' arguments to justify a campaign against cars whilst building a few token windmills.
Cameron’s approach might be to move beyond token policies and build Nuclear power stations, tax aviation fuel at an environmentally sustainable rate and study a way of making fossil fuel power stations carbon neutral through carbon sequestration.
Labour's approach has been to use 'green' arguments to justify a campaign against cars whilst building a few token windmills.
Cameron’s approach might be to move beyond token policies and build Nuclear power stations, tax aviation fuel at an environmentally sustainable rate and study a way of making fossil fuel power stations carbon neutral through carbon sequestration.
Jaglover said:
Cameron’s approach might be to move beyond token policies and build Nuclear power stations, tax aviation fuel at an environmentally sustainable rate and study a way of making fossil fuel power stations carbon neutral through carbon sequestration.
Or it might be something else.
But the question really is "How do we know whether carbon neutral is the right thing?"
CO2 is great for plant life - the more the merrier. Just watch those Tropical forests grow. And all the crops to feed the humans.
What sort of convservation policy is it that would aim to prevent that happening? And if it is policy based on miniscule changes of something which is believed, but not convincingly proven, to have some sort of influence on temperatures, which in turn are believed to have the potential to cause other problems (for humans at least), how should we see the influence of such beliefs, rather than facts, when used for making policy that will almopst certainly have very significant economic and social effects in just a small part of the world?
I really dont think anyone has got a bloody clue anymore.
Just watched the TV news report on this, and the presenter was actually taking the piss that Cameron turned up in a car when the train station was nearby, thereby, claimed the reporter, missing an opportunity to set an environmental example.
Just watched the TV news report on this, and the presenter was actually taking the piss that Cameron turned up in a car when the train station was nearby, thereby, claimed the reporter, missing an opportunity to set an environmental example.
Balmoral Green said:
Just watched the TV news report on this,
These TV people are just desperate this days. Clutch at any passing straw to get an angle on a non-story and appear smart.
Am I the only one who finds it worrying the the output from our best attempts at education seem to be so moronically dim?
I think there must be more than flouride added to the water.
Which reminds me, did anyone else see all the public announcement ads in the papers today about all the areas of the various water companies (they're nearly all French you know!) where the water quality will fail to meet prescribed levels?
What on earth was that all about? Are they now being forced to tell us that the water is crap? If so, why? It's been known for years without the need to pay the papers to run ads to remind us. What difference is it going to make anyway? (Except maybe increase sales of bottled water - a market dominated by ... the French!
) yertis said:
Given they're called the conservatives it's about time. Conservation of environment and resources should always have been high up their agenda.
Yes I do not see why they should be incompatible with a right wing party.
I am a member of the National Trust and believe in conserving Britain’s landscape and historic buildings.
mojocvh said:
tax aviation fuel at an environmentally sustainable rate
Here we go again
Return Stanstead/Prestwick fare (booked 4 weeks in advance) £0.02-After Fees AND TAXES total cost £37.98. You do the maths and work out the % rise.
MoJo.
If you believe in restricting carbon dioxide emmissions, or even reducing them, constraining the growth of the airline industry through taxing aviation fuel at a proper rate is vital.
With current taxes Air travel is expected to dramatically expand from it's already high level.
Labour has made no effort to tackle this issue because they don't really give a damn about the enviroment except where it can be used as an excuse to attack the motorist.
What we should do is raise the tax on aviation fuel, as an EU wide measure, to the current level of tax on petrol.
That should end the £10 return flight to wherever.
Jaglover said:
That should end the £10 return flight to wherever.
Uh huh!
So what is it you have against cheap air fares (absent taxes and airport charges at least) that makes you wish to terminate this commercial operation which, judging by the numbers of travellers, seems popular and benefits many?
The second part of the question is
"And what makes your view any different the views of those who wish to curtail people's freedom of movement by eliminating the option of using a car?"
Too many Chavs on your favourite beaches?
LongQ said:
"And what makes your view any different the views of those who wish to curtail people's freedom of movement by eliminating the option of using a car?"
A tax on aviation fuel will not directly constrain people's freedom of movement, it will simply make flights more expensive to reflect the environmental damage they cause.
In the same way tax on petrol has now reached an appropriate level in order to encourage people to minimise unnecessary journeys and to buy fuel efficient cars if they are not willing to make the financial sacrifice of a less fuel efficient one.
I do not believe that people's freedom of movement should be constrained only that the price they pay for that movement reflects any environmental damage they may do.
Jaglover said:
I do not believe that people's freedom of movement should be constrained only that the price they pay for that movement reflects any environmental damage they may do.
Semantics.
First prove the environmental damage caused by the thing you object to. (I note that you included "MAY DO" in your reply. If you take all the steps and it has not effect or the MAY do turns out to eb a "DOES NOT" then what do you say?)
Then weigh up the balance of benefit to proven costs.
Fianlly, explain to the people of the world who have not yet had an opportunity to experience the benefits (directly at least) of fossil fuel availability and tell them that for the sake of the planet (that treats them so badly they may think) all the potential energy from fossil fuels is to be abandoned where it is deep underground and they will have to continue to burn camel dung or whatever to heat their food and their night time shelter.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4512202.stm
More here - he suggests use of biofuels to cut car pollution - like the idea since they make cars 20% more powerful. Don't like the fact that the greens whip up hysteria re. their production as seen here:
www.monbiot.com/archives/2005/12/06/worse-than-fossil-fuel/
>> Edited by jw on Friday 9th December 21:54
>> Edited by jw on Friday 9th December 21:55
More here - he suggests use of biofuels to cut car pollution - like the idea since they make cars 20% more powerful. Don't like the fact that the greens whip up hysteria re. their production as seen here:
www.monbiot.com/archives/2005/12/06/worse-than-fossil-fuel/
>> Edited by jw on Friday 9th December 21:54
>> Edited by jw on Friday 9th December 21:55
Interesting article in today's Economist
The fact that the world is warming up is becoming more certain and the link with human activity even more likely.
I am aware that this might not find favour with the many climatologists on PH's, but at least read it first before posting THE graph.
Changing science
Dec 7th 2005
From The Economist print edition
As delegates from around the world meet in Montreal to discuss climate change, what science should inform their deliberations?
SPL
THE climate changes. It always has done and it always will. In the past 2m years the temperature has gone up and down like a yo-yo as ice ages have alternated with warmer interglacial periods. Reflecting this on a smaller scale, the 10,000 years or so since the glaciers last went into full-scale retreat have seen periods of relative cooling and warmth lasting from decades to centuries. Against such a noisy background, it is hard to detect the signal from any changes caused by humanity’s increased economic activity, and consequent release of atmosphere-warming greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide.
Detection is, nevertheless, important, because the climate seems particularly changeable at the moment. Moreover, forming sensible policies towards climate change, as this week’s United Nations Climate Change Conference in Montreal aspires to do, depends on knowing what is going on. Fortunately, the past year has seen the publication of a series of results that help to disentangle signal and noise.
Advertisement
The first, and most basic, is the continuation of the warming trend at the Earth’s surface that has been happening since the early 20th century. The first chart below, assembled by Britain’s Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research and the University of East Anglia, shows that the ten years to 2004 were the warmest decade since reliable measurements began in the early 19th century. Estimates of earlier temperatures made from data such as ice cores and tree rings, though not as reliable as thermometers, suggest the decade may have been the warmest in the past millennium.
The second result is that the Arctic, a place where any warming trend would be amplified by changes in local absorption of heat as the ice melts, does, indeed, show signs of rapid warming. A report published this year as part of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, which synthesised the work of 300 researchers, showed that the amount of sea ice has fallen by 8% in the past 30 years, and also found signs that Greenland’s ice cap is melting more rapidly than in the past.
The third finding is the resolution of an inconsistency that called into question whether the atmosphere was really warming. This was a disagreement between the temperature trend on the ground, which appeared to be rising, and that further up in the atmosphere, which did not. Now, both are known to be rising in parallel.
The fourth is a study by researchers at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, in California, into changes in the way the world’s oceans have warmed up at different depths over the past 65 years. These match climate models’ predictions of what happens when warming is induced by greenhouse gases better than it matches predictions of the result of changes in the sun’s activity, the main alternative hypothesis for what might be causing the climate to change.
The fifth is the observation in reality of a predicted link between increased sea-surface temperatures and the frequency of the most intense categories of hurricane, typhoon and tropical storm.
And the sixth, as reported in last week’s Economist, is an observation that ocean currents in the North Atlantic are faltering in ways that computer models of the climate previously suggested would happen in response to increased temperatures.
The signal, in other words, looks strong. That said, there are still a number of uncertainties. For instance, the solar hypothesis is not yet dead. A few researchers who look at the data and agree they show a warming trend nevertheless argue that this may be caused not by man but by nature, in the form of minute increases in the sun’s heat output. That output is known to vary during the course of the 11-year sunspot cycle, as well as over the longer term, and although such changes have not been matched to temperature changes in the way that rises in the level of greenhouse gases have been, they may still be making a contribution.
Another issue is that a second type of pollutant, aerosols such as the minute sulphate particles that form when sulphurous fuel is burned, promote the formation of clouds. These reflect sunlight away from Earth and thus oppose the effect of greenhouse gases. Some have seen this as a possible counterbalance and, indeed, such “dimming” has been noticed in several parts of the world. However, yet another study published this year suggests it is going away as anti-sulphur pollution-control measures kick in.
Perhaps the most important uncertainty, though, is that caused by a lack of enough good-quality, long-term, internally consistent data. Even the industrialised parts of the world, Europe and North America and their adjacent seas, have been well studied for only a century and a half. Too much climate science relies on drawing conclusions from patchy information. It is therefore a nice irony that only under the presidency of George Bush, the bête-noir-in-chief of many environmentalists, has a unified Earth Observation System of satellites, ocean buoys, terrestrial weather stations, balloons and aircraft started to take shape. Though the system involves some 60 countries, the moving spirit is America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Watcha gonna do about it?
That the climate is warming now seems certain. And though the magnitude of any future warming remains unclear, human activity seems the most likely cause. The question is what, if anything, can or should be done.
One option, of course, is to do nothing—or, at least nothing beyond eliminating the sort of economic nonsense, such as subsidising coal mining, that not only encourages global warming (because coal is the most carbon-rich fuel around), but wastes money. Indeed, it is often forgotten that parts of the world would benefit from a hotter climate. In particular, the warming of the Arctic is opening sea lanes that early European navigators avidly sought but were unable to penetrate. The clearing of sea ice will also permit oil-drilling in places hitherto off limits. And a gentle warming should extend the growing season in places such as Canada and Russia.
Too rapid or too great a warming, though, risks serious, unpleasant and in some cases irreversible changes, such as the melting of large parts of the Greenland and Antarctic ice caps. There is, to put it politely, a lively debate about how far the temperature can rise before things get really nasty and how much carbon dioxide would be needed to drive the process. Unfortunately, existing models of the climate are not accurate enough to resolve this dispute with the precision that policymakers would like.
If greenhouse-gas emissions are to be capped, however, a mixture of political will and technological fixes will be needed. Political will is the subject of the Montreal meeting, which is seeing the opening shots about what, if anything, will replace the Kyoto climate-change protocol after 2012. But a good way to think about the technology is called “stabilisation wedges” and was invented by Rob Socolow of Princeton University.
Dr Socolow observes that on current trends the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by human activity will double over the next 50 years. He calls the space on the graph below between the trend line and the line representing stability at current levels the stabilisation triangle. That triangle can, in turn, be divided into a number of wedges, each of which represents a way that carbon dioxide emissions might be curbed. This way of looking at things, he observes wryly, decomposes a heroic challenge (eliminating the emissions in the stabilisation triangle) into a limited set of monumental tasks.
What constitutes a wedge is, to a certain extent, a matter of taste. Dr Socolow lists six: greater efficiency, decarbonised electricity, decarbonised fuels, fuel displacement by low-carbon electricity, methane management (methane is a more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide) and natural carbon sinks. Each wedge then breaks down into sub-wedges (for example, decarbonised electricity includes nuclear power, renewable energy, substituting coal with less carbon-intensive natural gas, and capturing and storing carbon dioxide from power stations).
As can be seen from this list, a lot of Dr Socolow’s subwedges rely on the wider deployment and sharpening up of existing technologies, such as ways of generating electricity from renewable energy sources. They also rely on building what might be called “emissions awareness” into a huge range of things that either generate or consume power—a fact that some firms see as a new business opportunity (see article).
The wedge approach also lubricates conceptual shifts. The more hair-shirt sort of environmentalism has emphasised the idea of moving away from fossil-fuel use (though not, heaven forfend, towards nuclear power). Wedge theory, if it may so be described, balances that with thinking about ways to continue burning fossil fuels while keeping the carbon dioxide that generates out of the atmosphere.
One way to do this is to extract it at the power station and inject it into porous rocks deep underground, from which it cannot easily escape. Some oil firms do this already to carbon dioxide that forms part of raw natural gas. Statoil, Norway’s national oil company, has had such a “carbon sequestration” project in the North Sea for almost a decade, and BP now has a similar plant in Algeria.
Power-station extraction could either use the exhaust gases or be pre-emptive, by reacting the fuel with water in a process called steam reformation that yields hydrogen (which is then burned to make the electricity) and carbon dioxide. America’s Department of Energy is sponsoring a series of projects designed to see if either of these techniques can succeed without raising costs too much.
Then comes Dr Socolow’s last wedge. One other carbon-sequestration technology exists, and it is a tried and tested one—photosynthesis. Plants form themselves literally out of thin air, combining carbon dioxide, water and the energy of sunlight to give themselves substance. Photosynthetic carbon sequestration is a game that anyone, rich or poor, can play.
According to David Kaimowitz of the Centre for International Forestry Research, an intergovernmental organisation, 15-20% of greenhouse-gas emissions caused by human activity are the result of the degradation and destruction of forests. Simply replanting the equivalent of what is being lost would thus make a useful subwedge. Indeed, an annex to the Kyoto agreement allows rich countries to pay poor ones to do just that, instead of cutting their own emissions. Not every good idea has to be a new one.
The fact that the world is warming up is becoming more certain and the link with human activity even more likely.
I am aware that this might not find favour with the many climatologists on PH's, but at least read it first before posting THE graph.
Changing science
Dec 7th 2005
From The Economist print edition
As delegates from around the world meet in Montreal to discuss climate change, what science should inform their deliberations?
SPL
THE climate changes. It always has done and it always will. In the past 2m years the temperature has gone up and down like a yo-yo as ice ages have alternated with warmer interglacial periods. Reflecting this on a smaller scale, the 10,000 years or so since the glaciers last went into full-scale retreat have seen periods of relative cooling and warmth lasting from decades to centuries. Against such a noisy background, it is hard to detect the signal from any changes caused by humanity’s increased economic activity, and consequent release of atmosphere-warming greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide.
Detection is, nevertheless, important, because the climate seems particularly changeable at the moment. Moreover, forming sensible policies towards climate change, as this week’s United Nations Climate Change Conference in Montreal aspires to do, depends on knowing what is going on. Fortunately, the past year has seen the publication of a series of results that help to disentangle signal and noise.
Advertisement
The first, and most basic, is the continuation of the warming trend at the Earth’s surface that has been happening since the early 20th century. The first chart below, assembled by Britain’s Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research and the University of East Anglia, shows that the ten years to 2004 were the warmest decade since reliable measurements began in the early 19th century. Estimates of earlier temperatures made from data such as ice cores and tree rings, though not as reliable as thermometers, suggest the decade may have been the warmest in the past millennium.
The second result is that the Arctic, a place where any warming trend would be amplified by changes in local absorption of heat as the ice melts, does, indeed, show signs of rapid warming. A report published this year as part of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, which synthesised the work of 300 researchers, showed that the amount of sea ice has fallen by 8% in the past 30 years, and also found signs that Greenland’s ice cap is melting more rapidly than in the past.
The third finding is the resolution of an inconsistency that called into question whether the atmosphere was really warming. This was a disagreement between the temperature trend on the ground, which appeared to be rising, and that further up in the atmosphere, which did not. Now, both are known to be rising in parallel.
The fourth is a study by researchers at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, in California, into changes in the way the world’s oceans have warmed up at different depths over the past 65 years. These match climate models’ predictions of what happens when warming is induced by greenhouse gases better than it matches predictions of the result of changes in the sun’s activity, the main alternative hypothesis for what might be causing the climate to change.
The fifth is the observation in reality of a predicted link between increased sea-surface temperatures and the frequency of the most intense categories of hurricane, typhoon and tropical storm.
And the sixth, as reported in last week’s Economist, is an observation that ocean currents in the North Atlantic are faltering in ways that computer models of the climate previously suggested would happen in response to increased temperatures.
The signal, in other words, looks strong. That said, there are still a number of uncertainties. For instance, the solar hypothesis is not yet dead. A few researchers who look at the data and agree they show a warming trend nevertheless argue that this may be caused not by man but by nature, in the form of minute increases in the sun’s heat output. That output is known to vary during the course of the 11-year sunspot cycle, as well as over the longer term, and although such changes have not been matched to temperature changes in the way that rises in the level of greenhouse gases have been, they may still be making a contribution.
Another issue is that a second type of pollutant, aerosols such as the minute sulphate particles that form when sulphurous fuel is burned, promote the formation of clouds. These reflect sunlight away from Earth and thus oppose the effect of greenhouse gases. Some have seen this as a possible counterbalance and, indeed, such “dimming” has been noticed in several parts of the world. However, yet another study published this year suggests it is going away as anti-sulphur pollution-control measures kick in.
Perhaps the most important uncertainty, though, is that caused by a lack of enough good-quality, long-term, internally consistent data. Even the industrialised parts of the world, Europe and North America and their adjacent seas, have been well studied for only a century and a half. Too much climate science relies on drawing conclusions from patchy information. It is therefore a nice irony that only under the presidency of George Bush, the bête-noir-in-chief of many environmentalists, has a unified Earth Observation System of satellites, ocean buoys, terrestrial weather stations, balloons and aircraft started to take shape. Though the system involves some 60 countries, the moving spirit is America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Watcha gonna do about it?
That the climate is warming now seems certain. And though the magnitude of any future warming remains unclear, human activity seems the most likely cause. The question is what, if anything, can or should be done.
One option, of course, is to do nothing—or, at least nothing beyond eliminating the sort of economic nonsense, such as subsidising coal mining, that not only encourages global warming (because coal is the most carbon-rich fuel around), but wastes money. Indeed, it is often forgotten that parts of the world would benefit from a hotter climate. In particular, the warming of the Arctic is opening sea lanes that early European navigators avidly sought but were unable to penetrate. The clearing of sea ice will also permit oil-drilling in places hitherto off limits. And a gentle warming should extend the growing season in places such as Canada and Russia.
Too rapid or too great a warming, though, risks serious, unpleasant and in some cases irreversible changes, such as the melting of large parts of the Greenland and Antarctic ice caps. There is, to put it politely, a lively debate about how far the temperature can rise before things get really nasty and how much carbon dioxide would be needed to drive the process. Unfortunately, existing models of the climate are not accurate enough to resolve this dispute with the precision that policymakers would like.
If greenhouse-gas emissions are to be capped, however, a mixture of political will and technological fixes will be needed. Political will is the subject of the Montreal meeting, which is seeing the opening shots about what, if anything, will replace the Kyoto climate-change protocol after 2012. But a good way to think about the technology is called “stabilisation wedges” and was invented by Rob Socolow of Princeton University.
Dr Socolow observes that on current trends the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by human activity will double over the next 50 years. He calls the space on the graph below between the trend line and the line representing stability at current levels the stabilisation triangle. That triangle can, in turn, be divided into a number of wedges, each of which represents a way that carbon dioxide emissions might be curbed. This way of looking at things, he observes wryly, decomposes a heroic challenge (eliminating the emissions in the stabilisation triangle) into a limited set of monumental tasks.
What constitutes a wedge is, to a certain extent, a matter of taste. Dr Socolow lists six: greater efficiency, decarbonised electricity, decarbonised fuels, fuel displacement by low-carbon electricity, methane management (methane is a more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide) and natural carbon sinks. Each wedge then breaks down into sub-wedges (for example, decarbonised electricity includes nuclear power, renewable energy, substituting coal with less carbon-intensive natural gas, and capturing and storing carbon dioxide from power stations).
As can be seen from this list, a lot of Dr Socolow’s subwedges rely on the wider deployment and sharpening up of existing technologies, such as ways of generating electricity from renewable energy sources. They also rely on building what might be called “emissions awareness” into a huge range of things that either generate or consume power—a fact that some firms see as a new business opportunity (see article).
The wedge approach also lubricates conceptual shifts. The more hair-shirt sort of environmentalism has emphasised the idea of moving away from fossil-fuel use (though not, heaven forfend, towards nuclear power). Wedge theory, if it may so be described, balances that with thinking about ways to continue burning fossil fuels while keeping the carbon dioxide that generates out of the atmosphere.
One way to do this is to extract it at the power station and inject it into porous rocks deep underground, from which it cannot easily escape. Some oil firms do this already to carbon dioxide that forms part of raw natural gas. Statoil, Norway’s national oil company, has had such a “carbon sequestration” project in the North Sea for almost a decade, and BP now has a similar plant in Algeria.
Power-station extraction could either use the exhaust gases or be pre-emptive, by reacting the fuel with water in a process called steam reformation that yields hydrogen (which is then burned to make the electricity) and carbon dioxide. America’s Department of Energy is sponsoring a series of projects designed to see if either of these techniques can succeed without raising costs too much.
Then comes Dr Socolow’s last wedge. One other carbon-sequestration technology exists, and it is a tried and tested one—photosynthesis. Plants form themselves literally out of thin air, combining carbon dioxide, water and the energy of sunlight to give themselves substance. Photosynthetic carbon sequestration is a game that anyone, rich or poor, can play.
According to David Kaimowitz of the Centre for International Forestry Research, an intergovernmental organisation, 15-20% of greenhouse-gas emissions caused by human activity are the result of the degradation and destruction of forests. Simply replanting the equivalent of what is being lost would thus make a useful subwedge. Indeed, an annex to the Kyoto agreement allows rich countries to pay poor ones to do just that, instead of cutting their own emissions. Not every good idea has to be a new one.
jw said:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4512202.stm
More here - he suggests use of biofuels to cut car pollution - like the idea since they make cars 20% more powerful. Don't like the fact that the greens whip up hysteria re. their production as seen here:
www.monbiot.com/archives/2005/12/06/worse-than-fossil-fuel/
Ah yes, the good old 'Rule of unintended consequences'.
Rears up all the time but still people don't think much about it in their planning phase.
The Governmental excuses Monbiot reports really do sound like a cop out. But then he is also relying to some extend on some numbers that may or may not be valid about growth and production required.
Could be a severe shortage fo CO2 in the atmosphere at this rate - better burn some more 'fossil' fuels boost the current levels.
He kind of makes my point about the need to educate the 'leader', either version, quickly before they set policy off on a gloriously contrary path and then feel too embarrassed to change tack.
LONG Q said
"minuscule changes of something which is believed, but not convincingly proven, to have some sort of influence on temperatures"
In the 250 years up to 1996 the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere increased from about 275 ppm to about 360 ppm (a large, not minuscule increase) and most of that increase happened in the last 50 years. The ability of CO2 to absorb long wave radiation is well understood and is a function of its molecular structure.
"minuscule changes of something which is believed, but not convincingly proven, to have some sort of influence on temperatures"
In the 250 years up to 1996 the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere increased from about 275 ppm to about 360 ppm (a large, not minuscule increase) and most of that increase happened in the last 50 years. The ability of CO2 to absorb long wave radiation is well understood and is a function of its molecular structure.
These CO2 morons STILL trying to link man to Global warming. We just are not that significant! Turbobloke wrote the definitive rely in this thread. Not only debunks CO2 as a theory but exposes the "terrorism" of the Green movement. When Dr David Bellamy and the co-founder of greenpeace (Dr Moore who resigned over this), cannot support the "Global Warmng" theory how can anybody else???
www.pistonheads.co.uk/gassing/topic.asp?p=2&f=&t=135062&h=0
>> Edited by telecat on Friday 9th December 23:02
www.pistonheads.co.uk/gassing/topic.asp?p=2&f=&t=135062&h=0
>> Edited by telecat on Friday 9th December 23:02
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff