 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / UK Car Forums / 4x4 Cars (UK group) / March 2007Gas Guzzlers
I have heard they are going to double the road tax in the budget for our 4 x 4's. I have a Suzuki Grand Vitara 2.0 TD, and I do 38 mpg. I don't think that is much gas guzzling What do you all think > I have heard they are going to double the road tax in the budget for > our 4x4's. Nothing to do with 4x4s, just what emissions band you are in. This change was introduced some time ago, e.g. the highest band being band "G" IIRC, which had something like 22 4x4s and 130 other cars in it. Chances are it'll be this band that gets the £400 rate that the papers are waffling on about, and that band only applies to the dirtiest of cars bought recently. I don't think it's going to be much of a change for those of us who don't buy new cars or drive powerful road-going 4x4s.  SignatureBlast off and strike the evil Bydo empire! > I have heard they are going to double the road tax in the budget for our 4 x > 4's. That is the usual media hysterical mis-reporting of facts. Brown ius proposing to increase the highest VED band to £210 a year. This will affect all owners of large engined vehicles, not just 4x4 owners. > I have a Suzuki Grand Vitara 2.0 TD, and I do 38 mpg. > I don't think that is much gas guzzling > What do you all think I think the "green" lobby are a bunch of f.cking liars. > I think the "green" lobby are a bunch of f.cking liars. I think we need to start writing and complaining to the papers and the Media about this "Global warming" issue - OK it may be happening but look back and you'll find vinyards in the UK in Roman Times (and I'm guessing they did not have 4x4s) 30years ago we had global cooling panic in the papers - Its just a natural cycle and anyway humans produce only a very small % of co2 emmissions cows fart more greenhouse gasses, sheep were blamed for the hole in the ozone layer a few years ago and now Its my fault because I have an old fashioned lightbulb ? > I think we need to start writing and complaining to the papers and the Media > about this "Global warming" issue - OK it may be happening but look back and > you'll find vinyards in the UK in Roman Times (and I'm guessing they did > not have 4x4s) A little over 120,000 years ago and there were olive trees in the Channel and hippopotami, lions, panther, hyaena and elephants roaming around Trafalgar Square. The tactics of the "greens" seem to be to argue that the earth has suddenly warmed or that such warming is unsual, however in an interglacial period (which we are in at present) rapid warming and cooling are expected events. > The tactics of the "greens" seem to be to argue that the earth has > suddenly warmed or that such warming is unsual, however in an > interglacial period (which we are in at present) rapid warming and > cooling are expected events. If I had 100 people from different housing trades round to inspect a house I was going to buy and 85 of them said it was suffering from bad subsidence and would fall down within 10 years, two of them stood in the corner with pillows on their heads screaming "WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE!", two of them said "it's fine, carry on!" but they appeared to be the estate agents wearing groucho marks masks, four of them were standing in front of TV cameras saying "everyone's wrong, listen to me, what about galileo!" and the rest just shrugged their shoulders, I don't think I'd buy that house. SignatureBlast off and strike the evil Bydo empire! >> The tactics of the "greens" seem to be to argue that the earth has >> suddenly warmed or that such warming is unsual, however in an [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > me, what about galileo!" and the rest just shrugged their shoulders, I > don't think I'd buy that house. The IBCC and their 2500 top scientists is bolloix > The IBCC and their 2500 top scientists is bolloix Be sure to tell them that "Lerkio", wot cannot speel his insluts, says so! SignatureBlast off and strike the evil Bydo empire! > > The tactics of the "greens" seem to be to argue that the earth has > > suddenly warmed or that such warming is unsual, however in an [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > me, what about galileo!" and the rest just shrugged their shoulders, I > don't think I'd buy that house. Which could be condensed to "Eat sh.t! A million flies can't be wrong." I dont understand why relatively intelligent people imagine that science is based on a majority vote. > Which could be condensed to "Eat sh.t! A million flies can't be wrong." While your approach can be condensed to "believe the cranks, they have to be right *sometimes*". > I dont understand why relatively intelligent people imagine that > science is based on a majority vote. It's not, but when the majority in a growing field are finding the same thing, pinning your hopes to the minority tends to make you look a tad desperate. Note that the majority of scientists in the field are not responsible for the daft hysteria behind the more outlandish bunny-hugging, the scientific consensus is quite modest, something like a few degrees change over a couple of hundred years. *that* is the consensus, the rest is just media panic-mongering and opportunist politics. SignatureBlast off and strike the evil Bydo empire! > > Which could be condensed to "Eat sh.t! A million flies can't be wrong." > > While your approach can be condensed to "believe the cranks, they have > to be right *sometimes*". Umm no, it's my view that the evidence should be evaluated and that root causes should be demonstrated, not assumed. Also that evidence that counters a hypothesis should not be ignored simply because it is convenient to do so. > > I dont understand why relatively intelligent people imagine that > > science is based on a majority vote. > > It's not, but when the majority in a growing field are finding the > same thing, pinning your hopes to the minority tends to make you look > a tad desperate. I have no doubt that the earth has warmed. You seem to be trying to paint me into a corner that I have not stood in. > Note that the majority of scientists in the field are not responsible You could have stopped there. > for the daft hysteria behind the more outlandish bunny-hugging, the > scientific consensus is quite modest, something like a few degrees > change over a couple of hundred years. *that* is the consensus, the > rest is just media panic-mongering and opportunist politics. Indeed, and any suggestion that global warming has been proved to be man-made is also without real foundation. Remember there's a closer inverse correlation between the numbers of pirates and global warming than there is between industrial activity and global warming. And in order to believe in man-made global warming one has to ignore the warming of other planets in the solar system. One also wonders why we have frequent claims that the rate of climate change is faster than it has ever been when this statement is a flat lie. > Umm no, it's my view that the evidence should be evaluated and that root > causes should be demonstrated, not assumed. Also that evidence that > counters a hypothesis should not be ignored simply because it is > convenient to do so. And you're capable of doing so? SignatureBlast off and strike the evil Bydo empire! > > Umm no, it's my view that the evidence should be evaluated and that root > > causes should be demonstrated, not assumed. Also that evidence that > > counters a hypothesis should not be ignored simply because it is > > convenient to do so. > > And you're capable of doing so? There are two statements above, to which do you refer? >> > Umm no, it's my view that the evidence should be evaluated and that root >> > causes should be demonstrated, not assumed. Also that evidence that [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > There are two statements above, to which do you refer? Yep sorry ;-) It was the evaluation of the evidence. What I see is people dismissing the viewpoint of experts in the field who are actually at the coal face, but the people doing the dismissing aren't experts in any of the relevant fields. I know that I can't mix it with physicists, geologists, chemists, zoologists and so on as the disciplines are so refined that no-one can be an expert in them all. What people seem to be doing is to listen to evidence and pick the stuff that seems to fit what they want, and then cling to it. That daft channel 4 documentary that people are lining up behind is a good example, some were hailing it as the "most important contribution to the climate debate" in ages. In reality much of the evidence was heavily twisted, according to people who were presented on the programme as *supporters* of the programme's point of view. Some of it was proven wrong and withdrawn a long time ago by some other "supporters" featured on the programme, and the rest was dubious at best. However people lined up behind it as it supported their view that the whole climate change thing was stuff and nonsense. But they've never seen any of the proper arguments put forward by those who are actually at the coal face. An example is the relative mix of carbon isotopes in the atmosphere, a short extract from a paper on this was somewhat mind-numbing to a non-physicist like myself, and how can I be expected to evaluate such evidence. And if I was a physicist, how can I evaluate evidence put forward by a geologist. It's this impenetrable, complex work that is defining the current understanding of the situation re climate change, and the current consensus is that we're not helping at all as a species. You or I can't sit here and say that we don't believe any of it unless we're prepared to say that it's a matter of faith, and I for one do not like matters of faith. SignatureBlast off and strike the evil Bydo empire! > You or I can't sit here and say that we don't believe any of it unless > we're prepared to say that it's a matter of faith You may not be able to, but since I've been a scientist for many years, with an interest in Geology which formed part of my degree as well as Biochemistry which was the major subject of my degree and with a long track record in scientific trials and evaluations I'm qualified to evaluate scientific evidence. It's a mistake to think that one has to be one of the "in crowd" in order to evaluate the work in a particular field. Richard Feynman, one of the few Nobel prizewinners I have ever met was a Physicist, yet NASA called him in to evaluate the causes of the first shuttle disaster and he did a first rate job. Not because he was an expert in rocket engineering but because he knew how to ask difficult questions. Man made global warming is not the done deal that you seem to think it is. Also you have the concept of scientific proof completely arse about face. One does not accept the hypothesis made by a group of scientists until one can prove that it is false. The null hypothesis is that there is no effect and it is up to those supporting the hypothesis to demonstrate an effect. To date those proposing that global warming is man made have shown an association with human activity, but associations at the same or similar levels of confidence can be shown with other variable which are unlikely to be causes of global warming. Therefore the case remains unproved. You say you don't like matters of faith, but belief in man made global warming remains just that, a declaration of faith. > You may not be able to, but since I've been a scientist for many years, > with an interest in Geology which formed part of my degree as well as > Biochemistry which was the major subject of my degree and with a long > track record in scientific trials and evaluations I'm qualified to > evaluate scientific evidence. Somehow I just knew that you'd reckon you were up to the job... You're not. You might think you are but you can't claim that you can hold your own against the thousands of people who have actually been involved directly with the research, across many different disciplines, no one person can. > It's a mistake to think that one has to be one of the "in crowd" in > order to evaluate the work in a particular field. So you can tell if there's bias in any particular measuring or collecting technique, and are immersed in each discipline enough to know if a given technique has an inherent bias or is no longer considered accurate enough? Across all the disciplines involved? I don't reckon so. > Richard Feynman, one of the few Nobel prizewinners I have ever met > was a Physicist, yet NASA called him in to evaluate the causes of > the first shuttle disaster and he did a first rate job. Not because > he was an expert in rocket engineering but because he knew how to > ask difficult questions. So he was asked to do a job and did it? Great. Not really relevant in this case though, because we're talking about thousands of people doing their different jobs to come to a rough consensus, versus you! > Man made global warming is not the done deal that you seem to think > it is. I might seem to think it's a done deal to you, but I don't, it's a rough consensus at the moment, and the atmospheric modelling isn't accurate yet, no-one claims it is but it's prudent to use what we have if it's pointing somewhere we don't want to go. The probability is with the relatively mild predictions, the more bonkers predictions seem to be about as probable as the "nothing will happen" predictions. > Also you have the concept of scientific proof completely arse about > face. One does not accept the hypothesis made by a group of > scientists until one can prove that it is false. Waiting for undisputed proof (if there is such a thing) is too slow however, it's not totally proven yet but it's looking bloody likely, and therefore it's prudent to act now. It's not prudent to go to the excesses of some of the greenies of course. It's certainly not prudent to dismiss the whole thing out of hand and say "I know all the scientists working on this are wrong", as you see in newsgroups day after day. It's also prudent to try and stop pouring so much carbon into the atmosphere when we're at the stage of realising it's likely to have an effect, but we're not 100% sure what that will be. SignatureBlast off and strike the evil Bydo empire! >> You may not be able to, but since I've been a scientist for many years, >> with an interest in Geology which formed part of my degree as well as [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] >atmosphere when we're at the stage of realising it's likely to have an >effect, but we're not 100% sure what that will be. Whether there is Global warming or not there is one thing that is patently clear. The drive attacking "gas guzzlers" and Edison light bulbs etc is just window dressing. The simple reality is that the elements under attack are a drop in the ocean compared to the vast resources consumed (and therefore effluent produced) by every industry that operates a designed obsolecence policy, or which operates as a consequence of fashion. Every day we dispose of millions of perfectly useful items simply because they are no longer fashionable. Go to you local amenity tip and sit and watch perfectly good puschairs, bicycles, and other household goods being dumped. Go to you local scrapyard and look at the quality of th vehicles that are being scrapped today - some scrapyards look exactly like second-hand showrooms with vehicles with perfectly good bodies being scrapped becaue their engines fail to meet emissions regulations - what a waste of resources. My Austin Champ may only do about 10mpg and wouldn't meet modern emissions requirements but, its carbon cost across its lifetime will be far less than anything built and run today. Ewan Scott > Go to you local scrapyard and look at the quality of th vehicles > that are being scrapped today - some scrapyards look exactly like > second-hand showrooms with vehicles with perfectly good bodies being > scrapped becaue their engines fail to meet emissions regulations - > what a waste of resources. Hybrid cars appear to be far worse than even current modern cars, due to their extremely expensive manufacturing costs. The best approach is to keep the car you've got, but I doubt that's going to go down well!! > My Austin Champ may only do about 10mpg and wouldn't meet modern > emissions requirements but, its carbon cost across its lifetime will > be far less than anything built and run today. I've got a 1973 Steyr-Puch Pinzgauer 712M 6x6, it does 13 MPG but in its 33 years of life it's done less than 27,000 miles. I wouldn't suggest using it as an everyday car, it's a bitch to park, but there's a fair few euroboxes that have done worse harm than that. Ditto my old Defender and my audi diesel, the audi does 47MPG measured, the current crop of hybrids aren't supposed to be much better in real world figures. Adding 10-15MPG to the figures of an old audi doesn't justify the expense of buying a new car, and one that's supposed to be extremely costly to make. SignatureBlast off and strike the evil Bydo empire! > Every day we dispose of millions of perfectly useful items simply > because they are no longer fashionable. Go to you local amenity tip > and sit and watch perfectly good puschairs, bicycles, and other > household goods being dumped. BTW you should try your local "freecycle" list if you've not already done so, they can be quite good and are very popular, I put some stuff up and it was all gone by the next day. At the very least it saves a trip to the dump! SignatureBlast off and strike the evil Bydo empire! > Not really relevant in this case though, because we're talking about > thousands of people doing their different jobs to come to a rough > consensus, versus you! I tell you what, go away and come back when you know how science works. > I tell you what, go away and come back when you know how science works. And you see if you can keep your ego in check! SignatureBlast off and strike the evil Bydo empire! > > I tell you what, go away and come back when you know how science works. > > And you see if you can keep your ego in check! <sigh> You really, really don't understand how science works do you? Nothing in science is the preserve of an elect priesthood, although that is how the current generation of climatologists act, they are wrong to do so. No knowledge in the scientific domain is unique to any one type of scientist and not only can but must be questioned by every other researcher where the claims made do not seem to be a complete or even adequate fit to the facts. Here's a clue about the universality of science. Over my career I have worked as a university lecturer in my field of study, in several medical diagnostic and pharmaceutical companies, in aerospace, biotechnology, robotics and in forensic science and computing and latterly in highway engineering. Nor am I unusual in this, my colleagues who tend to be most physicists have worked across their subject, in engineering and in biotechnology as well as data recovery and <gasp> climate research. We can do this because the fundamentals of science are not confined to one particular discipline. And you by your own admission no nothing about science, so whereas I speak from a basis of both knowledge and achievement you are admitting that you speak on a basis of faith and ignorance. What you care to term egotism is simply confidence born from experience. > You really, really don't understand how science works do you? What I'm talking about steve, is that you can't state with any confidence that the people who have reached and contributed to the consensus are wrong, only that they have not proven anything without a doubt, which is common knowledge. > We can do this because the fundamentals of science are not confined to > one particular discipline. And you by your own admission no nothing > about science, so whereas I speak from a basis of both knowledge and > achievement you are admitting that you speak on a basis of faith and > ignorance. Have you looked into the work done by those thousands of scientists in great detail? And decided it's wrong? If not, then how is your position of faith and ignorance any different? > What you care to term egotism is simply confidence born from experience. No, it was you stating that you can evaluate all the evidence from across all the disciplines.. Would you think it's a good idea to have peer reviews of medical work done by geologists for example? SignatureBlast off and strike the evil Bydo empire! >> You really, really don't understand how science works do you? > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > across all the disciplines.. Would you think it's a good idea to have > peer reviews of medical work done by geologists for example? I'm with Steve on this. They have made a hypothesis and it for them to prove it is mainly caused by human activity or can now be influenced to a meaningful degree by human intervention or further activity. Up to now they have failed to do so in scientific terms but have succeeded hugely on an emotional level. The reason that their [the man-made global warming congregations'] hypothesis is becoming accepted has more to do with politics and funding than with scientific results that provide proof. This is not proof specifically of 'warming' that I am talking about here, warming and cooling trends occur naturally over periods of time, but that the warming is predominantly influenced by man and further, that anything we can do will effectively stop and reverse this trend. They are on an obvious winner here because if it continues to warm they can claim that they were right all along and we didn't do enough to stop the warming, and if it starts cooling again then they claim that what they did do stopped warming in its tracks but further research would be needed in case it was a short term blip. Either way they are playing on fear of the unknown and of an uncertain and perilous future and they can play this card indefinitely whatever happens and whether it is a natural phenomenon or not, as people have done since I can remember, which is back as far as the 30 years of cooling that occurred until the late 1970's during a time of huge industrial expansion, dating back at least a hundred years previously and greatly accelerated during the early 20th Century. Huw > > You really, really don't understand how science works do you? > > What I'm talking about steve, is that you can't state with any > confidence that the people who have reached and contributed to the > consensus are wrong, A strawman, I'm saying no such thing. > only that they have not proven anything without a > doubt, which is common knowledge. And that's not what I'm saying. I have said that the evidence for global warming is convincing. The evidence for a man-made element is neither convincing nor compelling. > > We can do this because the fundamentals of science are not confined to > > one particular discipline. And you by your own admission no nothing [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > great detail? And decided it's wrong? If not, then how is your > position of faith and ignorance any different? <sigh><again> You are still trying to persist with your line that the number of people in agreement is somehow to be taken as the compelling aspect of the research. By your argument phrenology was a valid science as was Weimar Eugenics. After all thousands of scientists agreed in great detail with both, and I haven't read every paper that was written on the subject. Indeed by yoru argument I know nothing about anything since I have not, to date, read every paper ever publsihed even within the fields where I do practice. Nor indeed do any of those climate scientists since not one of them will have read all the papers in the field. Do you start to see the small flaw in your argument? > > What you care to term egotism is simply confidence born from experience. > > No, it was you stating that you can evaluate all the evidence from > across all the disciplines.. Another strawman, I didn't say that. > Would you think it's a good idea to have > peer reviews of medical work done by geologists for example? I'm not doing peer review. I'm giving my opinion and any geologist is perfectly capable of giving an opininion on medical research. That opinion will also tend to be rather better informed than the man on the street. > You are still trying to persist with your line that the number of > people in agreement is somehow to be taken as the compelling aspect > of the research. It's not totally compelling, but can't be totally dismissed in a situation where there's no agreement. If those people have worked on the subject and are of a reasonable standard, then their agreement is worthwhile. I'm not saying that the argument is cut and dried, I know that it's not over and there is doubt, it's just that the pro side has the edge by a considerable margin, at the moment. Just writing it off isn't prudent. > By your argument phrenology was a valid science as was Weimar > Eugenics. After all thousands of scientists agreed in great detail > with both, and I haven't read every paper that was written on the > subject. Those two were small storms in individual, very early disciplines, this is a cross-discipline storm, and with more mature knowledge of the underlying subjects than was available to the physicians of the time. Phrenology was around pretty much before modern science had really come about, the brain's overall function wasn't really agreed on at the time for example. > Indeed by yoru argument I know nothing about anything since I have > not, to date, read every paper ever publsihed even within the fields > where I do practice. No, that's not what I said. However you certainly can't dismiss what anyone else is saying without even looking at what they did, which is what you are trying to do. >> No, it was you stating that you can evaluate all the evidence from >> across all the disciplines.. > > Another strawman, I didn't say that. You're quite happy to say that global warming isn't down to mankind though, which requires the dismissal of the majority of your peers who say otherwise. Surely you've evaluated all the evidence across all the disciplines in order to be sure about this? Or are you just guessing, like everyone else? > I'm not doing peer review. I'm giving my opinion and any geologist > is perfectly capable of giving an opininion on medical > research. That opinion will also tend to be rather better informed > than the man on the street. Neither are well informed opinions though. SignatureBlast off and strike the evil Bydo empire! > > You are still trying to persist with your line that the number of > > people in agreement is somehow to be taken as the compelling aspect [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > the subject and are of a reasonable standard, then their agreement is > worthwhile. And on that you are completely and utterly wrong. > I'm not saying that the argument is cut and dried, I know that it's > not over and there is doubt, it's just that the pro side has the > edge by a considerable margin, at the moment. Just writing it off > isn't prudent. No one is just writing it off. I'm prepared to accept some of the argument, and I'm pointing out that part of it is not only not proven, it's tenuous. > > By your argument phrenology was a valid science as was Weimar > > Eugenics. After all thousands of scientists agreed in great detail > > with both, and I haven't read every paper that was written on the > > subject. > > Those two were small storms in individual, very early disciplines, Do you need a canonical list of every case of consensus that has been overthrown? Do you believe in epicycles and deferents because there was once universal agreement that the movement of the spheres predicted the course of hte heavens? Does the universal agreement that the DNA in the nucleus did not represent sufficient information to code for a new cell mean that those scientists in agreement were correct? You are persisting in this belief that consenus means truth not only does it not, it never has. > this is a cross-discipline storm, and with more mature knowledge of > the underlying subjects than was available to the physicians of the > time. Phrenology was around pretty much before modern science had > really come about, the brain's overall function wasn't really agreed > on at the time for example. And you are missing the point by a mile. > > Indeed by yoru argument I know nothing about anything since I have > > not, to date, read every paper ever publsihed even within the fields [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > anyone else is saying without even looking at what they did, which is > what you are trying to do. That's untrue, and I read papers in climatology as avidly as I read other work that interests me. Some of it is interesting, some of it downright bad science. I also read review papers and I still want to know why if global warming is man made why is Mars warming? > >> No, it was you stating that you can evaluate all the evidence from > >> across all the disciplines.. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > You're quite happy to say that global warming isn't down to mankind > though, No, again you're not reading what I write. The case isn't compelling and much of climate research is junk science. That isn't the same as saying something as definite as global warming is not down to mankind. However we can point at the geological rcord and say "it's happened before" and "in the (geologically recent) past the changes were more profound than we anticipate at present and happened over a remarkably short time." This tends to make the current claims made by some climatologists dubious. I've seen otherwise sensible people make claims such as "climate change is happenign faster than it ever has" that's pure bollocks. Also claims that the changes could (with implications of will) cause a catastrophic change in weather don't seem to have the support of the geological record. > which requires the dismissal of the majority of your peers who > say otherwise. Surely you've evaluated all the evidence across all > the disciplines in order to be sure about this? Or are you just > guessing, like everyone else? Once again you are implying that one has to read every single paper in able to form an opinion. This is a stupid argument. > > I'm not doing peer review. I'm giving my opinion and any geologist > > is perfectly capable of giving an opininion on medical > > research. That opinion will also tend to be rather better informed > > than the man on the street. > > Neither are well informed opinions though. That's just a stupid attempt to be insulting. > No one is just writing it off. I'm prepared to accept some of the > argument, and I'm pointing out that part of it is not only not proven, > it's tenuous. You don't need to point that out to me. Everyone's guessing, and when people are guessing, those who are closest to the metal stand a better chance of being right, and when the majority of them are coming up with the same thing, it's probably best to begrudginly prepare to do something if something needs doing, and hope that they are wrong. > You are persisting in this belief that consenus means truth not only > does it not, it never has. Funny, I don't remember saying that... > And you are missing the point by a mile. How can you say that when you think that I believe consensus means correct? Everyone's indulging in guessing, guided by varying degrees of knowledge, and when the majority of the guesses fall the same way then it's worth paying some attention. It's certainly not game over though, until the guessing stops. I've just been through this blasted argument in alt.fan.landrover, as I said over there, no one person can say whether global warming is down to man or not, and I certainly don't think I'm an exception there. What pisses me off is those who dismiss this argument or that argument to fit their either green obsession or to try and scrub away their perceived guilt about driving a "dirty" car, or watch crap documentaries and cling to them like they were gospel without an agenda to push. You see people who can barely tie their own shoelaces stating with certainty that global warming is rubbish because this study showed something, a study they've never read and wouldn't understand if it was tattooed onto their brains. You do of course get the bunny huggers doing the same to justify throwing eggs at 4x4s etc. We all make up our minds based on what we know, and as I don't do any of the work myself, my best bet is to watch what those at the coal face are thinking and follow the majority of them. If they change their minds, then fine, I can hardly criticise, but I won't dismiss them all out of hand because I'm not qualified to do so. Neither are you, although you're closer than I am. > That's untrue, and I read papers in climatology as avidly as I read > other work that interests me. Some of it is interesting, some of it > downright bad science. I also read review papers and I still want to > know why if global warming is man made why is Mars warming? And that's relevant how exactly? Surely you can see that's too simplistic to have any real significance? > No, again you're not reading what I write. And you're not reading what I write, at least we're reaching a consensus on that ;-) > The case isn't compelling and much of climate research is junk > science. Both ways of course, after all there's money to be made! > However we can point at the geological rcord and say "it's happened > before" and "in the (geologically recent) past the changes were more [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > implications of will) cause a catastrophic change in weather don't > seem to have the support of the geological record. The problem here is that all the above have been countered, I've seen them before and with counters put up against them, and it's devilishly hard to decide who's right until things have moved forward some more. > Once again you are implying that one has to read every single paper in > able to form an opinion. This is a stupid argument. Not to form an opinion, one has to read and understand all of them to dismiss all of them and state with certainty that the argument has no merit, but if you're not doing that then we can drop that point. >> Neither are well informed opinions though. > > That's just a stupid attempt to be insulting. Not really, although it certainly looks like one. SignatureBlast off and strike the evil Bydo empire! >> No one is just writing it off. I'm prepared to accept some of the >> argument, and I'm pointing out that part of it is not only not proven, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > with the same thing, it's probably best to begrudginly prepare to do > something if something needs doing, and hope that they are wrong. A good guess is still just a guess. People once believed in a flat Earth. People still believe in their particular God with absolute faith, in this case with a complete absence of any real evidence even though believers can find 'evidence' to suit their faith quite easily. It is no more real evidence than so far produced to prove that human influence in producing a little extra CO2 is responsible for global climate change, which incidentally has always occurred throughout history. Like Steven Firth though, I am not saying that human influence does not have an effect, just that the hypothesis is far from being proven. It might turn out to have some influence and it might not. As illustrated, just because a few, even the majority of people, including scientists, believe it to be so, it does not make it so. Proof is what is needed not the present bullshit skewed or at least sensationalised to generate research funding. So much has been admitted by even prominent and respected supporters of the hypothesis. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/6460635.stm This particular statement is particularly interesting "Professor Hardaker also believes that overblown statements play into the hands of those who say that scientists are wrong on climate change - that global warming is a myth. " The interesting point about this is that it assumes or implies that there is only either 'black or white'. Either one does not believe there is global warming or one does, in which case it is given that it is caused by human activity. Of course this is nonsense. There is no doubt that climate has warmed on average over the last twenty years, just as it cooled during the previous thirty. The question that they try to avoid like the plague is "where is the evidence that the warming is not predominantly natural but caused by the action of man"? So far there is no convincing evidence. In an era of uncertain security for oil production and declining reserves, it certainly suits the powers that be to use the most acceptable arguments possible to 'persuade' Joe publicto reduce our dependency on the stuff and to encourage alternatives, even if the alternatives are expensive and inconvenient or unpalatable [like nuclear]. If it takes the shear fear of global catastrophe to make this palatable then politicians [who are our 'leaders'] will be more than happy to go along with it for the ride and to raise taxes to perpetuate their power based on fear of the unknown. Huw > A good guess is still just a guess. All guesses are not equal.. > People once believed in a flat Earth. They also once believed in a globe-shaped earth... > Proof is what is needed not the present bullshit skewed or at least > sensationalised to generate research funding. Proof is a long way off, and don't forget that the bullshit flows from both sides. The consensus is quite a mild prediction, and the more wild-eyed "look at me" type stuff is probably best ignored, although bear in mind that too could be right. It just doesn't look like it will be. > The interesting point about this is that it assumes or implies that there is > only either 'black or white'. Either one does not believe there is global > warming or one does I don't think it implies that at all, there's precious little in life that's certain, other than taxes and death of course... > "where is the evidence that the warming is not predominantly natural but > caused by the action of man"? So far there is no convincing evidence. How would you know Huw, and how would you know that there is any evidence the other way? This is one of my pet hates in this whole GW "debate", people waving "evidence" about that might be sweet wrappers for all they know. I don't know, you don't know, Steve doesn't know, we don't know. Let's not go on about "evidence" until it turns up. SignatureBlast off and strike the evil Bydo empire! > The consensus is quite a mild prediction And you know that because you read 16,000 papers do you? >> The consensus is quite a mild prediction > > And you know that because you read 16,000 papers do you? OK, the *reported* consensus, squished together by assorted governments. SignatureBlast off and strike the evil Bydo empire! > >> The consensus is quite a mild prediction > > > > And you know that because you read 16,000 papers do you? > > OK, the *reported* consensus, squished together by assorted > governments. One rule for you... >> OK, the *reported* consensus, squished together by assorted >> governments. > > One rule for you... What rule would that be? SignatureBlast off and strike the evil Bydo empire! > >> OK, the *reported* consensus, squished together by assorted > >> governments. > > > > One rule for you... > > What rule would that be? That you can get away with opinion formed from tenuous sources not backed up by a complete and painstaking review of every paper ever published in the field. Others are not permitted the same luxury. By your standards, or rather the standard you apply to others, your own argument is "ill informed". > That you can get away with opinion formed from tenuous sources not > backed up by a complete and painstaking review of every paper ever > published in the field. Others are not permitted the same luxury. I guessed that's what you were referring to, shows your observational skills need some polishing ;-) I said that if someone was to state with *certainty* that experts in a field were without doubt wrong, then in order to do that then the person would have to know everything. If there's one thing I've repeatedly stated throughout, is that even mighty old you doesn't have anything even approaching certainty, and you seem to be aware of that. So quite how you think that I claim to have total certainty and therefore fall into my own trap, I don't quite see. I'm not 100% certain, never am, and never will be. That goes for everyone else too BTW, the world would be a much more boring place if it could be pinned down with precision. SignatureBlast off and strike the evil Bydo empire! > If there's one thing I've repeatedly stated throughout, is that even > mighty old you doesn't have anything even approaching certainty, and > you seem to be aware of that. And I've never claimed to have certainty, nor have I claimed the experts in the field were, with certainty, wrong. Your own observational powers need a lot of tidying up. Because it was you that informed me that in order to comment at all that I must read every paper in the subject (yes you did) whereas now you apply different standards to yourself. There's a word for that behaviour. > And I've never claimed to have certainty, nor have I claimed the experts > in the field were, with certainty, wrong. Well, you implied earlier on in the thread but stated the opposite later which is fair enough, a straight statement overrides an implication, I said later that if that wasn't what you were claiming then we could drop that point. > Your own observational powers need a lot of tidying up. Because it was > you that informed me that in order to comment at all that I must read > every paper in the subject (yes you did) whereas now you apply different > standards to yourself. Ah, there you go again, getting yourself mixed up! That's not what I said, at all. And as for my observational powers, I've never been that impressed with them myself, but I'm not impressed with yours either. SignatureBlast off and strike the evil Bydo empire! > > And I've never claimed to have certainty, nor have I claimed the experts > > in the field were, with certainty, wrong. > > Well, you implied earlier on in the thread No I didn't, I stated very clearly that my comment was directed at the hysterical greens. To which yiou replied with a load of old rambling bollocks about houses. > but stated the opposite > later which is fair enough, a straight statement overrides an > implication, There never was an implication. > I said later that if that wasn't what you were claiming > then we could drop that point. How big of you. > > Your own observational powers need a lot of tidying up. Because it was > > you that informed me that in order to comment at all that I must read [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Ah, there you go again, getting yourself mixed up! That's not what I > said, at all. You clearly told me I was in no position to comment because I was not familiar with every paper published ont he subject. > And as for my observational powers, I've never been > that impressed with them myself, but I'm not impressed with yours > either. Good oh, you can be as unimpressed as you like, but until you actually manage to recall what you have said consistently I'll remain even less impressed with your remembery. > No I didn't, I stated very clearly that my comment was directed at the > hysterical greens. To which yiou replied with a load of old rambling > bollocks about houses. It was after that, here's the bit; >> You or I can't sit here and say that we don't believe any of it unless >> we're prepared to say that it's a matter of faith [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >track record in scientific trials and evaluations I'm qualified to >evaluate scientific evidence. So I said that you or I weren't up to saying that the evidence was wrong, but you said that you were a scientist and were up to evaluating scientific evidence. That's where I was somewhat surprised as the "evidence" we were talking about was so wide-ranging crossing so many fields. You then went on to invoke Richard Feynman in a spurious (and egotistical) support role. > There never was an implication. Oh there was. > You clearly told me I was in no position to comment because I was not > familiar with every paper published ont he subject. As I've said time after time now, I said you were in no position to be *certain*. You really do find that hard to grasp. It's written in black and white in the thread, repeatedly, but you still can't see it. > Good oh, you can be as unimpressed as you like, but until you actually > manage to recall what you have said consistently I'll remain even less > impressed with your remembery. Don't need to remember, the computer's got records. SignatureBlast off and strike the evil Bydo empire! > > No I didn't, I stated very clearly that my comment was directed at the > > hysterical greens. To which yiou replied with a load of old rambling [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Oh there was. No, there wasn't. You self seleced for being unable to evaluate scientific evidence. I pointed out why I can and do exactly that. You appear to have a reading problem, I did not say that every scientist in the world except me was wrong, I did say that I'm qualified to evaluate that evidence. You keep building your house on quicksand. [snip] > No, there wasn't. You self seleced for being unable to evaluate > scientific evidence. I pointed out why I can and do exactly that. All the evidence you reckoned. Anyway, this is as dull as ditchwater. SignatureBlast off and strike the evil Bydo empire! Thankfully, my 4x4 doesn't fall into the new "high band" but I can see a time when old Gordon's successor will get greedy again. So, I was thinking on ways to avoid this tax and wondered if it was practical to register your car aboard (in the EU) and use it here all the time- with the number plate of the "host" country? You'd still need UK insurance but would probably not need an annual MOT (although your car would have to be road worthy etc.) Thoughts? Brian > Thoughts? It would have to be *really* worth it to try and wriggle that hard, and a few hundred a year isn't going to be worth the hassle unless you're really up against the wall, and if you were you'd be better off getting a less expensive car anyway. SignatureBlast off and strike the evil Bydo empire! >> Thoughts? > > It would have to be *really* worth it to try and wriggle that hard, > and a few hundred a year isn't going to be worth the hassle unless > you're really up against the wall, and if you were you'd be better off > getting a less expensive car anyway. The money isn't the issue I really just object to the swinging tax. We often "stock up" on wine etc. on day trips to France and half the fun is denying Gordon of his cut! Brian > The money isn't the issue I really just object to the swinging tax. He's put a tax on swinging? The man's a prude! There'll be a dogging tax next. Or a license. SignatureBlast off and strike the evil Bydo empire! > Thankfully, my 4x4 doesn't fall into the new "high band" but I can see a > time when old Gordon's successor will get greedy again. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Thoughts? Most EU countries charge more than £400 pa in car tax for cars with engines over 2 litres. >> A good guess is still just a guess. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Proof is a long way off, How do you know this? What scale do you base your "long" on? and don't forget that the bullshit flows from > both sides. The consensus is quite a mild prediction, and the more > wild-eyed "look at me" type stuff is probably best ignored, although > bear in mind that too could be right. It just doesn't look like it > will be. No the bullshit is mostly one sided. The sceptics generally take broadly the same line as I and Steve do, and that is that warming might or might not be influenced to an unknown extent by the actions of human industry in burning fossil fuel or it might be in combination with natural change or even exclusively a natural change as as happened at intervals in the past. >> The interesting point about this is that it assumes or implies that there >> is [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > "debate", people waving "evidence" about that might be sweet wrappers > for all they know. But I am making no claims. Neither is Steven. I only claim not to know and observe that there is no convincing evidence one way or another. All we can say is that there was a thirty year period of cooling now followed by a statistically rather insignificant period of some twenty years of mild warming in some areas of the Earth. > I don't know, you don't know, Steve doesn't know, we don't know. > Let's not go on about "evidence" until it turns up. At last you have hit the nail on the head. Nobody yet knows. Yet what could be a natural global cycle is treated and increasingly accepted as man-made and as something which can be influenced to a significant extent by the intervention of man, who is a mere recent and transient presence on the face of the Earth. If the current situation with regard to human activity has caused an accelerated warming, as claimed by some and repeated by many, then given that CO2 emissions on a global scale will certainly not lessen and probably increase in the medium term [next 30 years], and that things like air transport continue to be forecast to increase substantially in the medium to long term, I do think people who should know better are deluded or possibly cunning [depending on their intelligence and/or agenda] or even dishonest as to our current and future influence on the global climate. Huw > How do you know this? What scale do you base your "long" on? It's a rather complicated subject from the look of it, widely open to interpretation and a lot of infighting, I don't see that settling down for a fair few years! > No the bullshit is mostly one sided. Hmm, not so sure on that, if it is, it's because the "opposing team" has so many members. > The sceptics generally take broadly the same line as I and Steve do, > and that is that warming might or might not be influenced to an > unknown extent by the actions of human industry in burning fossil > fuel or it might be in combination with natural change or even > exclusively a natural change as as happened at intervals in the > past. And what line do I take that differs from that? Read what you wrote, it says "maybe, maybe not", if we differ it's on an emphasis on the maybe over the maybe not. I've not seen any broad scientific certainty either, so you've pretty much summed up everyone's position other than the wand-waving loonies ;-) > But I am making no claims. Neither is Steven. I only claim not to know and > observe that there is no convincing evidence one way or another. That's odd, I seem to remember saying that! > All we can say is that there was a thirty year period of cooling now > followed by a statistically rather insignificant period of some > twenty years of mild warming in some areas of the Earth. Hey I can't even say that as I can't be sure that there's not someone credible saying "no that's wrong", well done for being certain... > At last you have hit the nail on the head. Nobody yet knows. That's a nail I've been hitting for some time now... SignatureBlast off and strike the evil Bydo empire! > What pisses me off is those who dismiss this argument or that > argument to fit their either green obsession or to try and scrub away [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > understand if it was tattooed onto their brains. You do of course get > the bunny huggers doing the same to justify throwing eggs at 4x4s etc. None of which has anything to do with me. >> I think the "green" lobby are a bunch of f.cking liars. > >I think we need to start writing and complaining to the papers and the Media >about this "Global warming" issue - OK it may be happening but look back and >you'll find vinyards in the UK in Roman Times (and I'm guessing they did >not have 4x4s) I was thinking about this on the way home from work. It costs me enough to keep a van on the road, and the odd car for non-work. I'm not against paying for things I use, or paying towards things that may benefit me, but paying more out just for the sake of paying more is a bit too much. I can't do any less miles, jobs are at fixed locations, I can't very easily get shopping centres and business parks Fed-Exed to me so I can fit stuff to them, I have to drive to them. But, if it benefits us, then it means we're not being robbed blind so someone loses out, so I can't see anything happening. >30years ago we had global cooling panic in the papers - Its just a natural >cycle and anyway humans produce only a very small % of co2 emmissions >cows fart more greenhouse gasses, sheep were blamed for the hole in the >ozone layer a few years ago and now Its my fault because I have an old >fashioned lightbulb ? > SignatureRegards, Stuart. Ian Rawlings wrote: >> At last you have hit the nail on the head. Nobody yet knows. > > That's a nail I've been hitting for some time now... Why spend huge amounts of cost to mitigate something that cannot be avoided? All the cost that everyone is being forced to bear, especially in the UK who seem to be taking a lead in this, is possibly wasted when a lesser effort could save millions of lives by, for instance, eradicating or vaccinating against malaria. You may say "but what if they are right"? They could well be proven to be right in the long term but you have to ask whether the costly measures proposed and starting to be acted on will be effective to any effective degree. Indeed whether anything we can do will make a jot of difference. But most of all you have to ask whether any action or cost is justified until there is real certainty of both the cause and of the result of any counter action. If a counter action is not effective or not cost effective then it is plainly not worth doing in the same way that if someone got a bandwagon going that gained popular support claiming that the moon was made of green cheese. I would certainly not think the expense of preparing and instigating a green cheese harvesting operation could be justified unless the operation could be proven to harvest adequate green cheese and be cost effective compared to making green cheese domestically. A poor comparison perhaps, but the 'precautionary principle' is just as inadequate and discredited as a reason for doing things. Huw > Why spend huge amounts of cost to mitigate something that cannot be > avoided? That's like saying "if I'm going to spend £20 more than I earned this month, then I might as well splurge out £1,000 on a new toy, after all I'm going to make a loss this month anyway"... > All the cost that everyone is being forced to bear, especially in > the UK who seem to be taking a lead in this, is possibly wasted when > a lesser effort could save millions of lives by, for instance, > eradicating or vaccinating against malaria. They've been trying quite hard to eradicate malaria for a long time, their latest wheeze is to breed GM mosquitos that can't harbour the parasite. The worrying thing about this is that apparently while the GM mosquitos are weaker than the non-GM ones, the malaria parasite weakens the non-GM ones so that they become weaker than the GM ones so the GM ones out-breed the non-GM ones. The net effect of this will be to have a whole shitload of stronger mosqitoes, free to find a new disease to spread.. I hope they know what they are doing! > You may say "but what if they are right"? They could well be proven > to be right in the long term but you have to ask whether the costly > measures proposed and starting to be acted on will be effective to > any effective degree. Indeed whether anything we can do will make a > jot of difference. Appropriate measures should be taken just in case, but unfortunately that doesn't seem to be what's being taken! > A poor comparison perhaps, but the 'precautionary principle' is just > as inadequate and discredited as a reason for doing things. No it's not, it's only discredited because politicians and pressure groups use it to latch their pet hates onto. We all take precautionary measures on a regular basis to guard against an outcome we don't want that seems likely. This is no different, it's just that as usual every loony in the bin is jumping up and down demanding attention, obscuring the most realistic estimates and demanding inappropriate action. SignatureBlast off and strike the evil Bydo empire! > We all take precautionary measures on a regular basis to guard against > an outcome we don't want that seems likely. This is no different, > it's just that as usual every loony in the bin is jumping up and down > demanding attention, obscuring the most realistic estimates and > demanding inappropriate action. The major difference in this case is that it is not known whether warming is caused by CO2 emmissions, only conjecture whatever they would like you to think. Even if it eventually proved to be so, it is certain that the current proposed targets for the UK and the Western World will not make the slightest difference to warming in any way shape or form. Any decrease in Western emmisions will be dwarfed by huge growth in Asia. If todays existing emissions have the serious implications and real demonstrable linked effect [with warming climate] which some claim then we are all already doomed. I will make a prediction that barring war or pandemic, we [humans] will still be here bleating about the weather in another hundred years. We will worry about the weather until something more important and immediate worries us and after that, when our cosy life is restored, we will revert to our weather obsession and worry just a bit more. That is human nature. Huw > I will make a prediction that barring war or pandemic, we [humans] will > still be here bleating about the weather in another hundred years. Oh so do I, for two reasons, first, no-one's predicting the demise of the human race, just a change in our environment that might at the worst screw up our current way of life to a degree, e.g. some parts of the world becoming less fertile, disease hotspots moving around, some areas underwater. Second, the world's too big and people are too versatile and numerous for it to be likely that anything other than a major global pant-filling catastrophe of hollwyood proportions will come close to scrubbing us off the face of the world. And none of this is likely to happen until I'm totally and completely dead, so heigh-ho ;-) SignatureBlast off and strike the evil Bydo empire! |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.