So Ken Livingstone has introduced a £200 per day fee for lorries over 12 tonnes that do not meet required pollution standards and that need to deliver goods within the Greater London area. He is also introducing the same standard in 2010 for all goods vehicles of any weight, minibuses, taxis etc. I don't really agree with his City Congestion Charge but this time he has got it spot on.
This of course brings me to the Old Car Movement. In these days where Global Warming and everything associated with it include the melting of the ice caps, rising sea water levels, extreme weather conditions including hurricanes, flooding, non-migration of birds, non-hibernation of animals to name but a few. Also more and more people are suffering from Asthma, a direct result of the burning of petrol and diesel fuels. I find it indefensible that selfish people should still continue to use outdated, outmoded Co2 and particulate spewing old cars and vehicles. They are as enviromentally acceptable as steam trains and traction engines, and they disappeared decades ago.
The sooner the EU insists that the British Government bans cars being used on the public roads that are older than say 10 years old, the better I will like it. It's in the pipeline I believe, so let's hope they don't drag there feet this time.
Keep the old vehicles by all means, but don't allow them on the roads. They can be trailered to events and shows and when that's over, trailered home again. It is after all a rich man's hobby, so the extra costs involved will hardly be painful.
Just my 2 pence worth.

Nice one Dicky!

Just off to roll in me gold coin collection!

Lots of love

Ruairidhxxx

Location: deleted

Well ,I think I will get my open toed sandals out ,hop into the 2cv ,hug a couple of trees on my way to save a few whales

3 words..........Bolloxs to Brussels



Steve ( a poor gardener who has no money but likes trees)

p.s I believe one of our contributors has a steam engine and a Austin Seven

Is the original poster serious??

If so perhaps he is missing the bigger picture.

Lets list a few factors he should include:

- The environmental impact of original manufacture (including steel production etc) spread out over the lifetime of the vehicle remembering that your average modern car is only designed to last 6 years.
- That many small classic cars have respectable fuel economy, improved by the gentle acceleration/braking style of their drivers who wish to preserve their treasured automobile.
- The majority of classic car drivers are not driving at peak times nor on major routes and so spend little time churning out fumes stuck in traffic.
- The suggestion that it it is more environmentally friendly to own a vehicle powerful enough to tow a tonne or more of trailer and classic car (remember that this towing vehicle will also have to be replaced every six years or so - see above) and use this to travel to events etc. rather than to gently drive your classic their under its own steam is laughable.

I could go on, and there are several studies that support the green credentials of well maintained well driven classics, but I think you get my point.

So I hope the original post was tongue in cheek, that I am having a humour crisis and have simply missed the joke.

Looking at the long view (and the bigger picture).

Ru

Seeing as the question has been asked, what is the carbon footprint of an 750cc sidevalve relative to, say, a modern 2000cc?

Ru,

well said, as ever!

R

Location: deleted

Then we have Honda claiming zero CO2 emmissions for it's hydrogen car, but where does the hydrogen come from?
10,000 delegates and experts from almost 190 countries attend 12 day climate change conference in Bali at an estimated cost of £35m and 50,000 tonnes of CO2 says it all.

That'll be me then. However I believe my Steam Roller is exempt from Red Ken's ludicrous charges.

Actually went to work in the 7 today, wifes Pug appears to have developed a terminal knock.

As it's some time before April 1st, I assume the original correspondent is serious. It's a sad thing that these fanatics don't get their facts right before espousing their views (ie with some of them it's a pity their brain wasn't as big as their mouth).
One look at my bank balance at any time of my life would quickly show old-car collecting is not a rich man's hobby and the same goes for most of my acquaintances. With pollution, the real problem is in the big Cities and much of that comes from un-synchronised traffic lights. If the contributor had read the right books he'd know that when a car is travelling at a constant speed the emissions are so low that they are hardly measurable. But, according to research by SAAB, a single car idling at traffic lights for one minute produces as much emission as 50 cars driving at a constant 50km/hour. You won't see any vintage or classic cars clogging the streets of Cities in UK or elsewhere, only those cars which are less than 10 years old. On the other hand, if the original correspondent was merely having a lend of us, he certainly got me !! Cheers, Bill in Oz

Ha! they still have puffa trains in India!

Rupert,

Spot on!! I have seen an article claiming that due to the vast quantity of plastics used in the construction of the supposedly environmentally friendly Toyota Prius the carbon footprint over the typical life of the vehicle is worse than that of a 60s mini!!!

If that is true then any modern car must have a worse carbon footprint than vintage cars due to the plastics used in the interior / exterior panels / wire insulation / fuel tank / bumpers ..... everything!!


Richard,

I do hope you post back to tell us what you drive.

FYI i am a skint engineering student.

I have to confess i cut down a tree to get the ash timber to make the seat / bodywork for my car. Infact i even had the tree cut up using a steam traction engine powered saw. HAHAHAHAHA

Regards

Rob

Can I have my pennyworth?
Was it not the Environment Agency themselves, whose research some time ago concluded; That if every Classic, and Vintage vehicle were to be used simultaneously on the roads of britain for a whole day; collectively they would produce less pollution than one jumbo jet talking off from Heathrow!
Just a thought.

Sad really that I have to defend myself about being 'serious' in reference to my opening topic, but with all the irrefutable evidence about the Global Warming effect, it's obvious that the only method of defence by most of the contributors to this is to try and treat me as some kind of half baked idiot or a joker who isn't serious.
Maybe your grandchildren and great grand children will look back on you with much the same view as we now do regarding the slave trade to America - Disgust, embarrassment and utter disbelief that such things were acceptable and allowed to happen, especially as we all know the facts to be true, even if some prefer not to admit it.
In reply to the question about what transport I own and use, I have a Peugeot.
A Peugeot bicyle.
Where I can't reach on that stays out of reach. Simple.

Richard,

Do you have some facts? You talk of irrefutable evidence. What is that evidence.

The irony is that the Austin 7 engine is tiny, and will return 45 mpg and classic car journies must account for about 0.001% of all car journies in the country. If you really want to make a difference we would all be better off turning our computers off 10 minutes earlier.

Also if cars over 10 years old cannot be used, (as you suggested above) what happens to the old ones? I believe that most of the environmental damage occurs in the manufacturing process rather than the actual use.

Mr Harris,
I outlined the 'irrefutable evidence about the Global Warming effect' in my first post.
i.e. Melting of the ice caps, higher sea water levels, extremme weather conditions, hurricanes etc. Also the non-migration and non-hibernation of several species of animals and the raised incidence of Asthma due to the burning of petrol and diesel fuels. I do not think there is one claim there that is in dispute.
If you want to know the evidence that this is caused to a fair extent by the human use of motor vehicles, I am not a scientist and am personally unable to list facts and figures about it. I am however prepared to accept the findings of the many others who are far better equiped to research the evidence, and unlike the denialists like yourself, am prepared to accept what they find. It may not suit us what those findings are, but do they have an axe to grind over this ? No, they do not.
Only Governments do that, and prefer to introduce Green Taxes to line the coffers. Whilst Ken Livingstone is doing that to some extent, he obviously is sincere in his belief and is not afraid of being unpopular by introducing his measures.
Money taken from polluters will not stop Global Warming. The nettle should be grasped and all vehicles more than 10 years old banned from the road. Then we would all take Global Warming seriously.

Welcome to the forum, Richard, but I'm intrigued as to how you chose this specific site to air your views. Is it the case that you are engaging with all single marque fora or are we lucky that you found us first?

And do you think trailering vehicles to events is any less environmentally sensitive? Think of your SUV towing a trailer with classic car on board and the carbon footprint of that.
While there is evidence the earth is warming the evidence of its causation is certainly a lot less tenuous and debatable.
The carbon footprint of any modern with all its electronics, plastics (made from petroleum oil), lead, and other contaminants not mentioning all the land fill the older than 10 year old vehicles will consume when scrapped is far worse than the carbon footprint of a 70 something year old "mini car". Stop being such a gullible victim of the hype.

Richard,

I don’t (along with, I suspect, most of the people who have responded to you), disagree with your sentiments concerning environmental issues and the need to change our ways. However your approach and advice to convincing us is flawed.

I urge to you to read and ingest Rupert’s (and others), comments concerning your instruction for us all to rush out and buy large towing vehicles with trailers…

You state that must all be rich, this simply isn’t the case, hence my sarcastic comments concerning going to “roll in my gold coin collection”. When you make such sweeping accusations (the tone of your comments certainly indicated an “accusation” of wealth), you must understand that you are going to be met with disbelief from the people who don’t fit into what “your” perception of an Austin Seven driver is. Similarly you will become the brunt of (understandably), similarly sweeping generalisations of open-toed sandals, 2CV’s, tree huggingand the like...Rupert, it appears as though our holiday photos from last year have been posted on the internet somehow!

I too cycle to work, and spearheaded a campaign for the children I teach to do the same, you are targeting (and generalising, always dangerous), the wrong people in an aggressive way Richard. If you want to convince people of your worthy cause you need to change your approach, research all the aspects of your advice for change, and then debate the issue taken into consideration the thoughts of others, which may well be just as worthy as yours.

Ruairidh

That may be the global warming effect but I haven't seen the facts that say this is caused by cars in your post anywhere.

When you say all vehicles over 10 years old I assume you include taxis, buses, ambulances, fire engines and ambulances?
Who is going to be paying for this?
Will that be us?
So we get taxed more on our job (as there will be far fewer cars on the road as they will be to expensive to own so a large drop in government income), if we can get there as we now can't get in a car as it is to expensive and the trains either don't go there are to expensive and are packed to the rafters - and are also over 10 years old...

I would love to hear how you think this proposal would work.

Ah - That line. "I am not a scientist"...

I for one find your attack offensive an ill judged.
Yes, I have an old car. I don't use it every day. The impact it makes is negligible when compared to most other fuel using activities. My main car is an "environmetally sensitive" one that runs on compressed natural gas or petrol. I'm a cynic about "greenwashing" but all my daily mileage is offset.

When you have evidence on the true impact of a 70 year old car - a "dust to dust" judgement - versus a new car then please come back and share your finding. Until then please don't assume that we are a bunch of luddites who couldn't care about our children's future.

Charles

Mac.Can't you delete this post and block RC out ? Crackpots like Dick (Very appropriate!)come on here spouting their green issues without a hint of evidence and rightly upset all the members of our special group. We love our cars, we love owning and using them and are not prepared to be lectured by the likes of this. The contribution we make to global warming is so small as not to matter.
Richard. For C*****'s sake leave us alone and go back to live in the mountains in Scotland. I guess that is where you are from. I hope you will not post any more of your nonsense on here should it not be deleted Clive

Richard, this problem you refer to is "global warming" is it not? Have you looked at a globe recently? Go and find one, then work out the percentage of the surface which the British Isles covers. Then think about the number of vintage cars likely to be used within that small space and the frequency of their use.I think you would do better to point the finger at industry and manufacturing perhaps in China or the U.S.?

Richard,
You are obviously very disturbed, about global warming so thought you might be interested in the following article:-

www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article2195538.ece

Time to recycle the bicycle and buy a car?

Dave Griffith

Clive,

please don't send him up to my neck of the woods, I enjoy the peaceful atmosphere too much!

Ruairidh
(Loch and Glens, S.W. Scotland)

Everyone is entitled to their views albeit that those views run contrary to most of the users of this site,but surely that is the place to air those views,no point in preaching to the converted.We don't want to be compared with book burners in Berlin prewar.Let everyone have their say whilst they still can in this ever oppressive society we live in.

Stop eating beef, stop drinking milk and kill all the cows, are they not the biggest polluters of all

I don't doubt we have global warming Richard but as I said 10000 delegates at the Bali conference and they never mentioned the main cause of global warming.

Perhaps it should be obligatory for all posters to display a valid email address.
I notice that RC prefers to remain anonymous in this respect. Why am I not surprised.
If I were you Richard, I would start taking the medication again.
Cheers, Dave

I (like most here) fundamentally agree with the basic argument that we all need to look at our carbon footprint and do what we can to reduce our personal contribution to environmental damage.
I have just installed solar water heating at home, increased my insulation, changed all my bulbs for low energy and installed 2 log burners and have an arrangement with a local builder who drops off wood from his work to avoid it going to landfill and reduce my heating costs, and my regular car is a Renault Clio diesel which aveages 60mpg. I do about 500 miles a year in my A7, a car with almost zero footprint and for which I paid £4000 having saved up for years and which I maintain myself with the help of members of this forum.

The thing that most agrieves ne is the bad press that ill informed idiots like Richard give the rest of us who care about the environment. Most of us appreciate that if we take one flight then we are worse than one person driving around in a 4x4. So we try not to fly more than we have to on business and holiday in the UK.

one idiot like Richard undoes all the good trickle work others do to encourage people to reduce their footprint. scrapping cars over 10 years old will result in the requirement to build a few million new cars with their massive carbon footprint...how can any half sensible person see that as good. He has fallen into the marking ploy of Vauxhall, who are spearheading this as a CSR publicity exercise.

For god sake Richard, you are so right to be concerned but so fundamentally stupid in your belief of the solutions. Paradoxically it is stupid people like you who will actually delay the implementation of strong well thought our envoironmental protection practices, because you will just make people wavering in the middle ground turn their backs on environmental issues as being the world of 'crackpots'.

Go away, read up on your subject, maintain your principles and then do the planet a favour by making a positive difference with sensible suggestions.

Think of the consequences to the huge industry employing thousands of people who's work it is supporting the 'old cars'. Forgotten now how many tens of millions of pounds this industry contributes to the general economy. Lord help us with people like Richard trying to influence others.

WOW!!!!!!! I wish I could write like Andy B (well done mate)
Jon.

Richard - I hope you will find what follows useful.

You are of course to be applauded for your own actions in attempting to reduce your own carbon footprint and by holding our planet's health in high regard.

I see your need to do more but going after classic car owners is certainly a poor choice - we are such a soft target. Touring our classics at home rather than flying abroad etc. etc. - much of this has already been said in previous posts.

I should declare an interest at this point: I have a BA in Environmental Science (grad 1995) and have just completed an IEMA accredited course in Environmental Auditing so I guess that makes me a "realistic tree-hugger". I agree with you - we are in fairly serious trouble and a lot more needs to be done to get us out of the mire - but choose yourself a target where any influence you have will actually make a difference.

You can really make a difference beyond your managing your own carbon footprint, that is if you really are serious and it is not just a blast winding up a load of old car nuts. Read up on an area of UK manufacturing and get to really understand the materials and processes involved. Research on the inputs and outputs involved and whether any have significant environmental aspects attached. Having done this, use this knowledge to politely apply pressure on local companies to encourage them to improve the way they operate but from a position of expertise rather than just personal opinion. Look out for organisations that display the ISO14001 standard as they have integrated an environmental management system into the core of their business - use them as examples in your campaign against the less environmentally considerate manufacturers. Ask every time you make a significant purchase if the supplier is ISO14001 accredited - a surprising number of UK companies are heading down this route. If you are really committed, and can afford it, go and do the IEMA associates course - having the letters after your name does help when talking to bigwigs in business.

You clearly do give a monkeys so don't waste your time arguing from a point of weakness (you must have solid evidence to back up any campaign) against a soft target like us lot.

I will add my Email address so you can let me know if you want any more info on any of the above.

Yours - as ever trying to focus people on the bigger picture - Rupert

I like where you put the comma in the first line - accidentally on purpose.

Heavens,I just pop out for a lovely days drive in the Chummy,and this is what you all get up to.

Would that I could Mr D.

Presumably it was your cleverly modified engine removed downhill only model. This particular car really blazed the trail - green years before the rest.

Ru (but HP reminded me about this!!)

Richard, you say ..."I outlined the 'irrefutable evidence about the Global Warming effect' in my first post.
i.e. Melting of the ice caps, higher sea water levels, extreme weather conditions, hurricanes etc. Also the non-migration and non-hibernation of several species of animals and the raised incidence of Asthma due to the burning of petrol and diesel fuels. I do not think there is one claim there that is in dispute.".

I agree, but I thought it was partially due to Sun spot activity and the natural process's of the earth, agreed possibly helped a little bit by the last 200 years of Industrial activity.

The biggest problem seems to be the ridiculous idea of scrapping cars after 10 years, apart form the energy required to extract the base materials and the manufacturing process to produce more cars (one is tempted to believe this is an auto industry led initiative) what will happen to the materialistic cash flows, imagine the depreciation panic, and then there's the environmental disposal charges......

There is an element of quick depreciation already if the modern car is in a crash and the air bags 'blow', it seems the minimum replacement charge is around £2.5k - £3k just for the bags and surrounding panels. So add that into a body shops cost's and certainly down here in Cornwall (were the average car age is something like 12 years) the number of accident 'write-off' cars that are sent to the crusher as un-repairable is incredible.

Bike owners, yes we have a few down here, incredible how they come round seeking a car lift up to the main (only) County hospital when the loved one is in for a few weeks and they need to visit daily - it would take all day and at least 3 different buses to get there, and 3 to get back (oh, and we do seem to suffer from bus staff shortages down here as well.....).

On yer bike, mate.

BTW I noted that my crisp's in the pub have a carbon footprint of 70, but took 125 to produce (thrown the packet away so not sure what the post production 70 is - down the toilet!).

Sandy - West Cornwall

Oh, I knew it would come to this.

Well Richard
You certainly have got us all taping the keys on our keyboards.
Your reserch into the leading post certainly needs to be studied and corrected, yes we are all aware of global warming but why target such a minute miniscule group of us who own and more so use these fantastic cars. Please do us all a favour and crawl back under you rock and wait untill the world ends. Must go the Bently, Ferrari and the Austins need a polish.

To be fair Rupert, I only removed the engine, it was Jen who had the brilliant idea of removing the car.

Dear Richard,

It is an interesting fact that most of the vehicles, removed from the streets of London by Ken Livingston ( Good on him! ) were in fact less than 10 years old !!!!!

Most people who drive in London ( or used to ) were those with money and oversized cars, those without money use the bus and tube. ( See we can all make sweeping statements ! )

I certainly agree with you regarding global warming and the effect that it is having on our planet. Several of your arguments may well have merit. However, I can not see your reasoning that cars over 10 years old should be banned. Are you trying to say that cars under 10 years old produce the least toxic emissions? Are you really trying to say that a modern 'Gas Guzzler' used daily on the school run, twice a day, has less impact on Global Warming than an elderly car that may be used once or twice a month?
The age of the car is totally irelevant if your aguement is based on the effect of the motor car to global warming. All motor vehicles should be banned if we are to follow your drift.

I guess that you don't buy food that is not grown locally and delivered by delivery bike ( not many around now ! ) I presume that your bike does not have tyres that are made in China from some form of plastic rather than genuine rubber. I guess you walked to France to buy your bike and then cycled home. I presume that you never go to the movies, or eat out, so ensure that no 'food miles' are involved in your life. I presume that now you have made your point your computer will be switched off and all the components recycled. I am sure you would never be so wasteful as to watch television or listen to a radio as these are most likely made in China as well and as China is one of the worst poluters, along with America who no doubt had a hand in your computer somewhere, you would never involve yourself in 'dirty' products.

It is so easy to pick on individual areas of polution and single them out as the cause of global warming but really there are some simple steps that we could all take and achieve a drastic reduction in polution without having to wear 'sack cloth and ashes'.

For example, why don't we all look out for those damaging 'food miles' and buy local seasonal produce instead. Why don't we all refuse to buy products in the shops that have packaging that can not be recycled economically. Why don't we walk ( or cycle ) to school with our children.

Our yearly consumption of unnecessary energy in food miles and packaging is far greater than we use in our cars.

Please look at the whole picture and bend the ears of the major companies that polute our world rather than picking on a small minority who questionably cause any real polution in relative terms.

Rupert hit the nail on the head when he suggested Richard go away and read up properly on the subject before targeting a group that does nothing towards global warming. Dick's "irrefutable facts" are not facts at all. There's a whole lot of scientists around the world who point out that history going back to Biblical times (supported by ring growths in trees) shows the same conditions occuring in fairly regular (almost predictable) cycles (and not Peugots either). It wasn't Austin Sevens or other motor vehicles that caused the dinasours to disappear. Awhile back I wrote on Hubert Wilkins' trips to the Antarctic including one in late 1929 when his plane and Austin Seven were almost lost when the ice under them melted. It was 51 degrees, the highest known until then in the South Pole region. Even the penguins were standing around panting. The (now late) Ray Stevens told me that when a youth in London during WW2, the use of cars were drastically reduced, bringing the return of the horse. The latter's droppings were ground up by the vehicles' wheels, causing a sea of chaff etc to float above the ground, causing considerable eye and lung problems, mainly Asthma. In all the instances above it's a bit hard to blame factories or cars? I'm not saying they they don't contribute to the overall pollution problem, but are they the cause of global warming? As one involved with the Asthma Research Foundation going back 35 years I've yet to see a Survey that attributes the higher incidence solely to motor vehicles, contrary to Dick's inference. In older times peoples' deaths with lung problems were put down to many causes, even the vapours. It's only in recent times Asthma appears to to be on the increase, but has it? Perhaps it's just the name given to what's been going on for centuries under other titles? Australia has the highest incidence of Asthma in the world and the main causes are always attributed to pollen from native shrubs & trees, grasses etc. None of these are man-made and not one survey blames a single Austin Seven. Richard is entitled to his views and opinions but they're only just that, not facts. He seems to assume that none of us are interested or involved in helping the pollution problem. Wrong. Richard may be a friend of the Earth, but he's not an Austinsevenfriend, let's scrub all this correspondence and allow us to get on with enjoying life and our Sevens. Cheers, Bill in Oz

Of course!!!! Malcolms right, the answer was staring us in the face!

Scrap all cars UNDER 10 years old, ban the production of new ones and hey presto the answer to all our problems. The cars that are left will be over 10 years old, so most of them will be suitable for DIY repair and scrapyards will allow us to recycle the parts to keep them going.

How about nuclear powered steam cars? We could come full circle, just using a cleaner way of generating the heat to boil the water..........?

steve

p.s I have no car at the moment so am using a bicycle!

Brilliant,I've only just realised, Richard Coultard [or Dicky as we have all come to think of you], you ARE the Arch.Bish.of Cant. and I claim my £5.00.

I smell a Troll.

I've studied every post here very carefully and reached some conclusions about those who contribute to this Forum.
1. Most members are in denial that Global Warming exists and all members refute that the burning of fossil fuels (Petrol) could have anything to do with the effect - After all, Global Warming isn't recognised by the majority.
2. As ever, the strongest argument put forward is that I should be able to prove and detail that the burning of fossil fuels causes this 'Global Warming' effect. As I have previously said, I am not a scientist BUT I am prepared to accept the findings of those who are able to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that their findings are correct. The denialists won't accept evidence from any source no matter how legitimate. Why is this ?
Because it does not suit them or their chosen lifestyle.
3. Very personal insults against me seem to be the order of the day on this site. I have been called an idiot and stupid twice in one post, told to crawl back under a rock in another, and many sarcastic and nasty remarks made in several others. You will notice I have not named names - That is not my way of conducting myself.
The only ray of hope came from a Mr Howe, who welcomed my views and thought that it would be good to allow me to air them on this Forum for discussion. Sadly, he seems alone.
Those with whom I could probably hold a meaningful debate with appear to be Rupert and Mr Harris who have structured arguments.
Finally in this post, as 'offensive' as most of you will find this, do you want the world to be a worthwhile place to live in once you are gone ?
That future is in your hands right now. You claim that the contribution your car makes to Global Warming (If you even accept secretly that it exists) is minimal. No matter how minimal, every one can change their life in order that there is a future for the generations ahead.

Taking your minimalist view into account Richard, if you stopped blowing off hot air on the subject there'd be sizeable contribution to reducing the effects of global warming.

Do us all a favour and go and bother someone else. You obviously don't like us much and I must say, I'm beginning to go off you myself.

Perhaps before you go off pontificating any more on a subject you admittedly know sod all about, have a look at this programme and then give it some thought.:

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=7465382282878341187&q=global+warming+swindle&total=201&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=5

(I would recommend everyone to have a look at this alternative viewpoint... take the time to watch it all if you've not seen it already)

Well Richard,I thought I would cheer myself up by having a look at "Austin Seven Friends" as a bit of light hearted entertainment. So it's back to reading the Guardian obituary column for me.

Richard,

I notice you have not made any comment on the thoughts I posed re steps YOU could be taking with respect to 'food miles' or importing your bicycle tyres from China. I presume as food is not powered by fossil food you find it acceptable that Cauliflowers from Cornwall are transported to London, then to Hertfordshire and finally back to Cornwall and into the supermarkets.

I challenge you to explain how you live without involving fossil fuels somewhere along the line, and in far greater quantity than a humble 750cc motor car.

In case you have been misled by my comments, I do agree about Global warming, I am not in denial !

Please let us all into the secret of 'clean living' !

Richard, My credentials are that I'm a Chartered Environmentalist owning 2 Austin 7s and several pushbikes.

As you seem to have all the answers, perhaps you can explain how activities on earth are causing the icecaps on Mars to melt.

One thing that I've learnt, is that only propaganda and its proponents, ever say that they are the only ones who have the answers and understanding of such complex phenomema as the global climate.

If you are willing to learn and take a more balanced view, you might like to follow this link and take note of the views of many highly qualified scientists who do not accept propoganda so readily.
http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/archives/001682.html


Why are you so certain that the current fashion of believing in anthropogenic(manmade)climate influence is not just another example of following the crowd?

P.S.

I'm also a grandfather