Ratings show how polluting cars are.
do...@zing.icom43.net
"A new scheme is being launched to tell drivers and car buyers how
environmentally-friendly vehicles are.
Cars will be rated on a scale from A to F, based on their carbon
dioxide (CO2) emissions - the same system already used for fridges.
Only electric vehicles get an A grade. Smaller cars score a C while 4x4
vehicles, such as Land Rovers and Range Rovers, score an F grade.
However, some motoring experts say the government scheme is flawed.
Under the Department for Transport's new rating system, no petrol or
diesel car gains the A grade for being environmentally-friendly.
Some smaller cars, such as the Ford Focus or Golf, gained a C grade.
'Bowing to pressure'
Most large saloon cars are graded as "E".
Motoring journalist Steve Berry told the BBC there is a basic flaw in
the scheme.
"I wonder if an internal combustion passenger car can ever been truly
green," he said.
"I think it might just be a way of bowing to the pc lobby that seems to
be intent on demonising 4X4s and the people that buy them and drive
them."
He said if the industry was going to really help the environment, it
needed to "move away from diesel and petrol" and "think seriously"
about hydrogen-fuelled technology.
However, he added that all the elements that went into building a car
caused more environmental damage than the car did during its whole
working life. "The most damage to the environment that's ever done by a
motor car is in its creation," he said."
Mike Barnes
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4252359.stm
>
>"A new scheme is being launched to tell drivers and car buyers how
>environmentally-friendly vehicles are.
>
>Cars will be rated on a scale from A to F, based on their carbon
>dioxide (CO2) emissions - the same system already used for fridges.
Doesn't miles-per-gallon measure the same thing, more or less?
--
Mike Barnes
Adrian
much like they were saying :
>>Cars will be rated on a scale from A to F, based on their carbon
>>dioxide (CO2) emissions - the same system already used for fridges.
> Doesn't miles-per-gallon measure the same thing, more or less?
Not quite.
g/km of CO2 does - but this is simply putting it into nicely labelled
bands. Sort of like the company car and VED bands do already...
Brimstone
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4252359.stm
>
> "A new scheme is being launched to tell drivers and car buyers how
> environmentally-friendly vehicles are.
<snipped>
> However, he added that all the elements that went into building a car
> caused more environmental damage than the car did during its whole
> working life. "The most damage to the environment that's ever done by
> a motor car is in its creation," he said."
Which is an aspect never properly considered. Just how much pollution does
arise from extracting the ores and crude oil and conveying them to the
foundr/refinery/whatever turning them in to the manufacturer's basic
materials, transporting them to the factory and making the componenet
concerned and so on through the process untill the finished vehicle reaches
the showroom?
The Caretaker ...
> "I think it might just be a way of bowing to the pc lobby that seems
> to be intent on demonising 4X4s and the people that buy them and drive
> them."
That's what it looks like.
> However, he added that all the elements that went into building a car
> caused more environmental damage than the car did during its whole
> working life. "The most damage to the environment that's ever done by
> a motor car is in its creation," he said."
If this is so, and I can't see why it wouldn't be, then similar must
also be said for almost any manufactured article, from kettles to
fridges, to warships.
In which case, to be truly 'green' one must go back to living in caves
and not ever manufacture anything again.
hmmmm, think I'll stick with what I already do. :)
--
The Caretaker.
www.4x4prejudice.org
A balanced argument.
njf>badger<
do...@zing.icom43.net wrote:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4252359.stm
>
> "A new scheme is being launched to tell drivers and car buyers how
> environmentally-friendly vehicles are.
>
> Cars will be rated on a scale from A to F, based on their carbon
> dioxide (CO2) emissions - the same system already used for fridges.
>
> Only electric vehicles get an A grade. Smaller cars score a C while 4x4
> vehicles, such as Land Rovers and Range Rovers, score an F grade.
> Some smaller cars, such as the Ford Focus or Golf, gained a C grade.
>
> 'Bowing to pressure'
>
> Most large saloon cars are graded as "E".
A 1.6 petrol Audi in F, perhaps small petrol engines aren't so clean
after all, a large 4x4 running on gas is a LOT cleaner than that! Ah but
isn't that "moving the goal posts"?
Nick Finnigan
news:II5yylHj...@g52lk5g23lkgk3lk345g.invalid...
No, because it is going to follow the Dutch proposal of normalising by
plan area of the car (length x width), i.e. kg per 100km per sq metre.
But that would be double Dutch to most people, so they are splitting
it into bands, with the current average defining the E/F boundary.
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_roads/documents/page/dft_roads_506821.
hcsp
Steve Walker
<tooma...@gmail.com> writes
>Mike Barnes (februa...@mikebarnes.fsnet.co.uk) gurgled happily, sounding
>much like they were saying :
>
>>>Cars will be rated on a scale from A to F, based on their carbon
>>>dioxide (CO2) emissions - the same system already used for fridges.
>
>> Doesn't miles-per-gallon measure the same thing, more or less?
>
>Not quite.
>
>g/km of CO2 does
Should be pretty close, unless the car is putting out massively
excessive amounts of particulates / hydrocarbons / carbon monoxide.
>- but this is simply putting it into nicely labelled
>bands.
Assistance for the innumerate.
--
Steve Walker
Adrian
like they were saying :
>> Most large saloon cars are graded as "E".
> A 1.6 petrol Audi in F, perhaps small petrol engines aren't so clean
> after all
Or perhaps that particular car is vastly underpowered for it's bulk, so
needs kicking bloody hard to persuade it to move at all?
There's a good clue that the A4's too lardy for a 100bhp 1.6 when you look
at the fact that the various other four-pot versions (1.8T, 2.0, 2.0T
engines going up to 200bhp) are all around the same CO2 emissions - 187-
199g/km.
> a large 4x4 running on gas is a LOT cleaner than that! Ah but
> isn't that "moving the goal posts"?
Not at all. However, how many large 4x4s are running on gas out of the
showroom?
Even small diseasel soft-roaders are over the 185g/km "Band F" breakpoint.
BTW - You do realise this is all a load of PR puff over nothing, don't you?
The bands have EXACTLY the same breakpoints as the VED bands have been for
the last four years.
Adrian
like they were saying :
>>- but this is simply putting it into nicely labelled
>>bands.
> Assistance for the innumerate.
Dumbing-down for the hard-of-thinking.
Ian
So keeping a car for as long as possible is far better for the environment
than changing for a new less polluting model. I wonder how little pollution
a new car would need to produce to make it worth while changing from a
pre-Euro or Euro 1 model. Until I know the answer I'll stick to my Euro 1
4x4.
Ian
Clive Coleman
<brim...@hotmail.com> writes
>Which is an aspect never properly considered. Just how much pollution
>does arise from extracting the ores and crude oil and conveying them to
>the foundr/refinery/whatever turning them in to the manufacturer's
>basic materials, transporting them to the factory and making the
>componenet concerned and so on through the process untill the finished
>vehicle reaches the showroom?
factored in constructing them.
--
Clive.
Adrian
like they were saying :
> If I were you I'd take this back now as Doug has fridges
"Step back - I've got a fridge, and I'm afraid to use it"
mma...@my-deja.com
> Cars will be rated on a scale from A to F, based on their carbon
> dioxide (CO2) emissions - the same system already used for fridges.
But CO2 is not 'pollution', at least at levels lower than several
percent. It's an essential component of the atmosphere without which
we'd die.
> Only electric vehicles get an A grade.
Which is, of course, uttlerly bogus, unless the electricity is coming
from nuclear plants or other sources that don't produce CO2.
> He said if the industry was going to really help the environment, it
> needed to "move away from diesel and petrol" and "think seriously"
> about hydrogen-fuelled technology.
Showing he has absolutely no clue, and probably thinks we can just suck
hydrogen out of the atmosphere and stick it into cars for fuel, rather
than create it from burning hydrocarbons or electrolysing water.
Mark
Martin Brown
The relationship is reciprocal high mpg means low CO2 emissions and vice
versa. But I don't see any sense in adding this new level of complexity.
Focussing attention on miles per gallon is much more meaningful to
consumers than CO2 g/km. Too few people buy gas powered cars to worry
about them.
It is also really dumb to put only unattainable exotic electric vehicles
in the A category. When you factor in the environmental cost of making
their huge battery systems the true cost equation is no where near as
flattering.
Anyone else remember the Audi ad claiming it did 0mpg at 60mph ?
Regards,
Martin Brown
Nathaniel Porter
"Brimstone" <brim...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cuff3d$ke4$1...@hercules.btinternet.com...
True of absolutely everything.
Adrian
> But I don't see any sense in adding this new level of complexity.
It's hardly new. It's the EXACT same basis that VED is calculated on for
all cars first registered since 1/3/01. It's also the exact same basis that
company car tax is levied on.
> Focussing attention on miles per gallon is much more meaningful to
> consumers than CO2 g/km.
To many "consumers" the badge and the colour are the only meaningful
factors in their new car choice. If this gets 'em thinking slightly, is
that a bad thing?
> It is also really dumb to put only unattainable exotic electric vehicles
> in the A category.
Currently. Perhaps this will be a good way to get some in production. The
Toyota Prius only *just* fails to get into A.
Besides - how about there being quite a few small diseasel hatches in "B",
then? Oh, and Band "C" gets some diseasel cars up to "junior-exec"-sized.
> Anyone else remember the Audi ad claiming it did 0mpg at 60mph ?
No. I didn't think even ad agency staff were *that* stupid.
mma...@my-deja.com
> To many "consumers" the badge and the colour are the only meaningful
> factors in their new car choice.
So you're seriously saying that many people don't even consider fuel
consumption when buying a car?
> If this gets 'em thinking slightly, is
> that a bad thing?
Thinking about what, exactly? Government BS about the evils of CO2?
Mark
Brimstone
But it's motor vehicles we're discussing.
Adrian
:
>> To many "consumers" the badge and the colour are the only meaningful
>> factors in their new car choice.
> So you're seriously saying that many people don't even consider fuel
> consumption when buying a car?
Yes.
If you're only doing 5,000 miles per year, the difference between 25mpg and
35mpg is less than a couple of hundred quid in fuel costs. If you're buying
a £20,000 car to do those 5,000 miles in, that's irrelevant.
>> If this gets 'em thinking slightly, is that a bad thing?
> Thinking about what, exactly? Government BS about the evils of CO2?
Thinking. Full stop.
But I'm interested - why do you think you know better than pretty much the
entire scientific establishment?
do...@zing.icom43.net
By buying a car you are guilty of all the damage that its construction
caused and you add to that when you use the car. A double whammy.
--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
"Democracy is just another way of controlling and exploiting people".
Adrian
saying :
> By buying a car you are guilty of all the damage that its construction
> caused and you add to that when you use the car. A double whammy.
What if I don't buy the car new?
Nathaniel Porter
<do...@zing.icom43.net> wrote in message
news:1108046041.7...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> The Caretaker ... wrote:
> > do...@zing.icom43.net composed the following;:
> >
> > > "I think it might just be a way of bowing to the pc lobby that
> seems
> > > to be intent on demonising 4X4s and the people that buy them and
> drive
> > > them."
> >
> > That's what it looks like.
> >
> > > However, he added that all the elements that went into building a
> car
> > > caused more environmental damage than the car did during its whole
> > > working life. "The most damage to the environment that's ever done
> by
> > > a motor car is in its creation," he said."
> >
> > If this is so, and I can't see why it wouldn't be, then similar must
> > also be said for almost any manufactured article, from kettles to
> > fridges, to warships.
> >
> > In which case, to be truly 'green' one must go back to living in
> caves
> > and not ever manufacture anything again.
> >
> > hmmmm, think I'll stick with what I already do. :)
>
> By buying a car you are guilty of all the damage that its construction
> caused and you add to that when you use the car. A double whammy.
>
True of everything, like, oh I don't know, let's say - fridges
Nathaniel Porter
Indeed. I was merely pointing out that motor vehicles aren't unusual in the
regard that the manufacturing process is ignored when assessing
environmental impact
mma...@my-deja.com
> If you're only doing 5,000 miles per year, the difference between
25mpg and
> 35mpg is less than a couple of hundred quid in fuel costs. If you're
buying
> a £20,000 car to do those 5,000 miles in, that's irrelevant.
True, but how many people are buying 20,000 pound cars to drive 5,000
miles a year?
> But I'm interested - why do you think you know better than pretty
much the
> entire scientific establishment?
Because I've looked at the original data rather than BS
government-funded computer models? And because 'the entire scientific
establishment' is hardly supportive of 'Global Warming' nonsense.
Pretty much every scientist promoting 'Global Warming' makes a living
from doing so: why would anyone in their right mind believe anything
they say without checking the data for themselves? That's like
listening to McDonalds'-funded scientist telling you how great
mass-produced hamburgers are for you and believing everything they say.
Mark
gazzafield
news:cufru8$8ka$1...@wisteria.csv.warwick.ac.uk...
But Doug wouldn't have a fridge because that would damage the environment
and make his life easier. Do you not know this mortal coil is meant to be a
struggle man?!
mma...@my-deja.com
> Do you not know this mortal coil is meant to be a
> struggle man?!
Certainly must be a struggle chucking all those fridges in his back
garden: those things are heavy!
Mark
nightjar
A point that is also conveniently overlooked when people make claims for how
environmentally friendly wind generators are.
Colin Bignell
nightjar
<do...@zing.icom43.net> wrote in message
news:1108026987....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4252359.stm
>
> "A new scheme is being launched to tell drivers and car buyers how
> environmentally-friendly vehicles are.
>
> dioxide (CO2) emissions - the same system already used for fridges.
>
> vehicles, such as Land Rovers and Range Rovers, score an F grade.
>
Yep. Electric vehicles produce about three times as much pollution as an
internal combustion engine. They just don't do it near the vehicle.
Colin Bignell
Brimstone
Compared to what other methods of generating electricity?
Depresion
"Nathaniel Porter" <csu...@warwick.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:cufru8$8ka$1...@wisteria.csv.warwick.ac.uk...
>
Or computers, think about all those components that were made in different
countries (often where labour is cheap and pollution control lax) then shipped
or flown around the world to be assembled then driven to warehouses from there
to shops then to your house where you finally complete the assembly. Lot of
pollution there, then think about the number of computers it takes to connect
you to the internet and run web, ftp gofer, telnet, Usenet, pop & SMTP servers.
Nathaniel Porter
"Depresion" <depr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:371friF...@individual.net...
Then theres the construction and launch of satelites into space which carry
internet traffic for some legs of some journeys. After all, in Duhg-world
space travel must be the ultimate hypermobility
Adrian
:
> Adrian wrote:
>> If you're only doing 5,000 miles per year, the difference between
>> 25mpg and 35mpg is less than a couple of hundred quid in fuel costs. If
>> you're buying a £20,000 car to do those 5,000 miles in, that's
>> irrelevant.
> True, but how many people are buying 20,000 pound cars to drive 5,000
> miles a year?
Plenty round here.
>> But I'm interested - why do you think you know better than pretty
>> much the entire scientific establishment?
> Because I've looked at the original data rather than BS
> government-funded computer models? And because 'the entire scientific
> establishment' is hardly supportive of 'Global Warming' nonsense.
True. There's a reasonable body of opinion in the US denying it...
> Pretty much every scientist promoting 'Global Warming' makes a living
> from doing so: why would anyone in their right mind believe anything
> they say without checking the data for themselves? That's like
> listening to McDonalds'-funded scientist telling you how great
> mass-produced hamburgers are for you and believing everything they say.
... but they're largely funded by the oil companies and/or in bed with the
Reshrublican party.
Brimstone
> "Depresion" <depr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:371friF...@individual.net...
>> Or computers, think about all those components that were made in
>> different countries (often where labour is cheap and pollution
>> control lax) then shipped or flown around the world to be assembled
>> then driven to warehouses from there to shops then to your house
>> where you finally complete the assembly. Lot of pollution there,
>> then think about the number of computers it takes to connect you to
>> the internet and run web, ftp gofer, telnet, Usenet, pop & SMTP
>> servers.
>>
>
> Then theres the construction and launch of satelites into space which
> carry internet traffic for some legs of some journeys. After all, in
> Duhg-world space travel must be the ultimate hypermobility
Frivolity as well wouldn't you say?
Martin Brown
> Adrian wrote:
>
>>But I'm interested - why do you think you know better than pretty
>> much the
>>entire scientific establishment?
>
> Because I've looked at the original data rather than BS
> government-funded computer models? And because 'the entire scientific
> establishment' is hardly supportive of 'Global Warming' nonsense.
The science is pretty well determined to the satisfaction of the vast
majority of scientists. A few genuine sceptics have minor quibbles with
the model but everyone agrees on most of the basics.
The handful of professional sceptics are mostly in the pay of Exxon. And
many of them are not even climate scientists. New Scientist 10th Feb has
an interesting review article on the science and how the consensus
approach of the IPCC may be a bad thing because models producing
outliers tend to be ignored in favour of more modest answers.
http://www.newscientist.com/contents.ns?articleQuery.queryString=issue:2486
(you need to be a subscriber to access the article)
The scientific evidence for global warming is now undeniable no matter
what the paranoid ultra-right might say. The politics of what to do
about GW are entirely a different matter and largely unresolved.
>
> Pretty much every scientist promoting 'Global Warming' makes a living
> from doing so: why would anyone in their right mind believe anything
> they say without checking the data for themselves?
Scientists don't get rich doing basic research.
Which data have you examined that convinced you GW is a fraud?
> That's like
> listening to McDonalds'-funded scientist telling you how great
> mass-produced hamburgers are for you and believing everything they say.
Or in this case listening to the stooges funded by Exxon and the US
fossil fuel lobby. Keep guzzling that oil - screw the environment!!
I have yet to meet a poor oil man. YMMV.
Regards,
Martin Brown
The Caretaker ...
Only if the journey is un-necessary.
--
The Caretaker.
www.4x4prejudice.org
A balanced argument.
mma...@my-deja.com
> The science is pretty well determined to the satisfaction of the vast
> majority of scientists. A few genuine sceptics have minor quibbles
with
> the model but everyone agrees on most of the basics.
Um, no they don't.
> New Scientist 10th Feb has
> an interesting review article on the science
Who believes anything that 'New Scientist' publishes these days?
> The scientific evidence for global warming is now undeniable
Only if by 'global warming' you're referring to the planet warming
since the end of the little ice age. If by 'global warming' you're
referring to significant warming due to human release of CO2, it's far,
far from undeniable. In fact, if anything, it's the opposite... there
is no evidence for significant warming caused by human CO2 emissions.
> Scientists don't get rich doing basic research.
They sure won't get rich in the dole queue. Let's face it, the kind of
people who go into 'climate science' are mostly other zealots or
rejects from more glamorous areas of Physics, they're not going to find
many better jobs elsewhere.
'Global Warming' is a multi-billion dollar a year international
industry: the regular scare stories keep the pork funneling in. Why
should anyone trust 'Global Warming' proponents in the slightest?
> Which data have you examined that convinced you GW is a fraud?
The, like, temperature records of the planet?
The entire 'Global Warming' scam is based on poor-quality surface
temperature records -- records which are quite simply garbage over most
of the planet -- and claimed positive feedback systems which no-one has
ever found in the real world, and which would have killed us long ago
if they did exist. It's a load of old bollocks which would only be of
interest to a small group of scientists if there weren't billions of
dollars and huge politicial power-grabs at stake.
As for the IPCC, no-one of clue should believe anything they say. For
example, just their most recent scandal:
Mark
Peter
Does the original data that you've looked at tell you, as a
percentage, how much CO2 is produced by motor vehicles in the UK?
Does it also tell you how much CO2, as a percentage, is produced by
Coal, Gas and Oil fired power stations in the UK?
Does it also tell you by how much CO2 production would be reduced in
the UK for each new nuclear power station that is brought on-line?
--
Cheers
Peter
Remove the INVALID to reply
nightjar
Conventional fuel power stations with full exhuast gas treatment are
currently being touted as the best overall solution, with nuclear power
stations similarly being promoted as the best long-term answer to global
warming.
Colin Bignell
Adrian
were saying :
> I've launched a scheme to tell consumers how environmentally-friendly
> people are. Under the new rating system no Duhg gets an A grade, only
> Steve Firth manages that. Duhg scores an F grade.
>
> This is in fact rather similar to "O" level and "A" level scores for
> each of those individuals.
I think it's his modesty that I like most about Firthy.
Taz
"Adrian" <tooma...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95F9CDF59B4C1ad...@130.133.1.4...
I just like the way he calls a spade a fucking shovel, instead of an
environmentally friendly earth displacer, like some here would; and remember
that an F is a fail, not just a namby pamby way of saying you didn't quite
do as well as you could, but it doesn't matter; same as an E and a D. A,B
and C are passes, but B's and C's are sneered at. That's what thickos get. I
do wonder what Buhg Dollen got though.
Stuart.
Taz
Hyper-frivolity. Definately.
nightjar
"Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1grsbr4.1mfd3qgrs4drbN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...
> "nightjar" <nightjar@<insert_my_surname_here> wrote:
>
>> Conventional fuel power stations with full exhuast gas treatment are
>> currently being touted
>
You prefer a device that spends most of its working life repaying the energy
debt involved in making it and kills wildfowl while it does so?
Colin Bignell
do...@zing.icom43.net
You are still contributing to its construction.
--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
Don't vote, it only encourages them.
If voting changed anything it would be banned.
do...@zing.icom43.net
What about volunteers?
do...@zing.icom43.net
Although I doubt your numbers I agree with the premise. Obviously, the
only way to cut pollution is to cut consumption. The easiest way of
doing this is to reduce hypermobility and insulate homes.
Fod
internet generation. Those packets probably travel the world you know!
Fod
Adrian
saying :
>> > By buying a car you are guilty of all the damage that its
>> > construction caused and you add to that when you use the car. A double
>> > whammy.
>> What if I don't buy the car new?
> You are still contributing to its construction.
How?
The newest car I've ever bought was 4.5 years old and had two previous
owners. How did I contribute to it's construction?
Martin Brown
> Martin Brown wrote:
>
>>The science is pretty well determined to the satisfaction of the vast
>>majority of scientists. A few genuine sceptics have minor quibbles
>> with
>>the model but everyone agrees on most of the basics.
>
> Um, no they don't.
Yes. They do apart from a handful *paid* by Exxon to spread confusion.
>>New Scientist 10th Feb has
>>an interesting review article on the science
>
> Who believes anything that 'New Scientist' publishes these days?
You could go to the primary literature then. Baliunas & Soon will do.
And they are greenhouse warming sceptics. The reasonable doubt defence
has pretty much time expired as far as honest scientists are concerned.
Evidence is now overwhelming. It is a pity that the human race is just
too stupid to understand what is happening to their planet. Perhaps we
deserve to go the way of the dinosaurs...
>>The scientific evidence for global warming is now undeniable
>
> Only if by 'global warming' you're referring to the planet warming
> since the end of the little ice age. If by 'global warming' you're
> referring to significant warming due to human release of CO2, it's far,
> far from undeniable. In fact, if anything, it's the opposite... there
> is no evidence for significant warming caused by human CO2 emissions.
No. I mean that there is no way even for the liars employed by Exxon and
US coal to pretend any more that greenhouse gasses are not having any
effect. The satellite data from 1970 onwards rules out any hand waving
about the sun magically getting brighter etc etc.
>>Scientists don't get rich doing basic research.
>
> They sure won't get rich in the dole queue. Let's face it, the kind of
> people who go into 'climate science' are mostly other zealots or
> rejects from more glamorous areas of Physics, they're not going to find
> many better jobs elsewhere.
Lets face it the main people claiming there is no global warming are in
bed with US oil companies. They will still be denying GW even when the
sea is lapping at the steps of the White House.
>
> 'Global Warming' is a multi-billion dollar a year international
> industry: the regular scare stories keep the pork funneling in. Why
> should anyone trust 'Global Warming' proponents in the slightest?
I doubt they even get a billion all up. And compared to the oil company
budgets it is negligible. Government science is not particularly lucrative.
>>Which data have you examined that convinced you GW is a fraud?
>
> The, like, temperature records of the planet?
>
> The entire 'Global Warming' scam is based on poor-quality surface
> temperature records -- records which are quite simply garbage over most
> of the planet -- and claimed positive feedback systems which no-one has
> ever found in the real world, and which would have killed us long ago
> if they did exist. It's a load of old bollocks
My! What a cogent argument. Get it off one of the dittohead sites then?
> As for the IPCC, no-one of clue should believe anything they say. For
> example, just their most recent scandal:
>
> http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/science_policy_general/000318chris_landsea_leaves.html
I think that is rather regrettable he was a good scientist. Recent
storms might or might not be indicators of GW there is no way to tell at
this stage. Climate is a long term average of weather.
Regards,
Martin Brown
mma...@my-deja.com
> Yes. They do apart from a handful *paid* by Exxon to spread
confusion.
Not they don't.
> You could go to the primary literature then.
I don't need to go to the 'primary literature' when I can go to the
original data. And there's nothing in the original data showing
evidence of significant warming due to humans.
> No. I mean that there is no way even for the liars employed by Exxon
and
> US coal to pretend any more that greenhouse gasses are not having any
> effect.
Of course they're having some effect. But the effect is minimal.
> The satellite data from 1970 onwards rules out any hand waving
> about the sun magically getting brighter etc etc.
How? The satellite data shows about 1/3 of the warming claimed by the
'Global Warming' fanatics based on the surface data, and is largely
consistent with solar changes.
Worse yet, the satellite record pretty much agrees with the surface
record in areas where the surface record is most accurate (e.g. America
and Europe), largely disagrees over the oceans, where the surface
record has been proven to be mostly garbage, and otherwise only
disagrees substantially in a few areas like Siberia, Brazil and Central
Africa.
The most likely conclusion from that is that the satellites are correct
and the surface record is garbage. Using ocean data from the satellites
removes about 1/3 of the supposed warming, and using satellite data in
the other areas where there's significant disagreement removes about
another third. And without that claimed 3x increase in temperature
changes since 1979 over the satellite data, the computer model
predictions are junk.
> Lets face it the main people claiming there is no global warming are
in
> bed with US oil companies.
Who would care, even if they were? Why do you keep trying to drag
'experts' into this, when the data is readily available? Science isn't
about 'experts', it's about theories and data.
> I doubt they even get a billion all up.
Then you're wrong. And 'even a billion' may not seem like much money to
you, but I'd sure like a billion dollars in my bank account.
> > The, like, temperature records of the planet?
> > The entire 'Global Warming' scam is based on poor-quality surface
> > temperature records -- records which are quite simply garbage over
most
> > of the planet -- and claimed positive feedback systems which no-one
has
> > ever found in the real world, and which would have killed us long
ago
> > if they did exist. It's a load of old bollocks
> My! What a cogent argument. Get it off one of the dittohead sites
then?
No, I got it from looking at the data. Why do you prefer to ignore the
actual, real-world data in favor of arguments by 'experts' who make
money from promoting scare stories? I don't know about you, but I have
a Physics degree from Oxford, and am more than capable of judging
reality without 'experts' from either side telling me what to do.
And the reality is that the 'Global Warming' computer models use
garbage data from the surface record, and have an implicit assumption
that CO2 increase will cause more evaporation from the oceans which
will give about a 10x boost in the greenhouse effect from the CO2
alone. It's _impossible_ for us to create the kind of scare story
temperature increases they're claiming just by releasing CO2, and in
the real world there's no evidence for the positive feedback systems
they're relying on to create those scare story scenarios. They feed
garbage into their computer models and garbage comes out. Why should
anyone take them seriously, let alone trash our economy on their
say-so?
Mark
mma...@my-deja.com
> Does the original data that you've looked at tell you, as a
> percentage, how much CO2 is produced by motor vehicles in the UK?
CO2 is irrelevant. We could burn all the fossil fuels in the world
tomorrow in a big bonfire, and still not cause the scare-story warming
levels that the 'Global Warming' fanatics are claiming... the amount of
CO2 in fossil fuels is simply unable to cause that level of warming
without positive feedback systems that dont appear to exist in the real
world. And, if they did exist, we'd have had a runaway greenhouse
effect millions of years ago: so that's rather strong evidence that
they don't.
Mark
njf>badger<
Ian wrote:
>>
>>Which is an aspect never properly considered. Just how much pollution does
>>arise from extracting the ores and crude oil and conveying them to the
>>foundr/refinery/whatever turning them in to the manufacturer's basic
>>materials, transporting them to the factory and making the componenet
>>concerned and so on through the process untill the finished vehicle
>>reaches the showroom?
>>
>
> So keeping a car for as long as possible is far better for the environment
> than changing for a new less polluting model. I wonder how little pollution
> a new car would need to produce to make it worth while changing from a
> pre-Euro or Euro 1 model. Until I know the answer I'll stick to my Euro 1
> 4x4.
>
> Ian
Makes me wish I'd kept my series 1 land-rover, '58 diesel, slow at 55
mph flat out, 25 mpg down hill with a trailing wind, but how many cars
had not been built by its continued use? And when/IF its finally of no
more use the parts can help keep others going and as it had little
plastics it was almost entirely recyclable metals too!
However its now in the USA and helping surpress the building of yet more
monster 4x4s.....
Niel.
do...@zing.icom43.net
By paying towards its initial cost. If, for example, you bought a 'one
previous owner' car that owner would then use your money towards a new
car.
--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
Don't vote, it only encourages them.
If voting changed anything they'd make it illegal.
Adrian
>> >> What if I don't buy the car new?
>> > You are still contributing to its construction.
>> How?
>>
>> The newest car I've ever bought was 4.5 years old and had two previous
>> owners. How did I contribute to it's construction?
> By paying towards its initial cost.
I didn't. The first owner was a leasing company, so it would have been sold
at three years old regardless of any other factor.
> If, for example, you bought a 'one previous owner' car that owner would
> then use your money towards a new car.
I didn't buy a "one previous owner" car. Nor - if I had - would the owner
have "used the money towards a new car" - it had been a corporate lease car.
Nor did I buy it direct from the second owner. It'd taken several months to
go through at least two traders and an auction between him and me. I've
never bought a new car, nor have I ever bought a car direct off the "one
previous owner". In fact, I don't think I've ever bought a "one previous
owner" car. So how have I contributed to the construction of a new car?
do...@zing.icom43.net
Adrian wrote:
> do...@zing.icom43.net gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:
>
> >> >> What if I don't buy the car new?
>
> >> > You are still contributing to its construction.
>
> >> How?
> >>
> >> The newest car I've ever bought was 4.5 years old and had two
previous
> >> owners. How did I contribute to it's construction?
>
> > By paying towards its initial cost.
>
> I didn't. The first owner was a leasing company, so it would have
been sold
> at three years old regardless of any other factor.
Your money still contributes towards the cost of a newer replacement
vehicle.
> > If, for example, you bought a 'one previous owner' car that owner
would
> > then use your money towards a new car.
>
> I didn't buy a "one previous owner" car.
>
> Nor - if I had - would the owner
> have "used the money towards a new car" - it had been a corporate
lease car.
> Nor did I buy it direct from the second owner. It'd taken several
months to
> go through at least two traders and an auction between him and me.
I've
> never bought a new car, nor have I ever bought a car direct off the
"one
> previous owner". In fact, I don't think I've ever bought a "one
previous
> owner" car. So how have I contributed to the construction of a new
car?
Do you not understand 'for example'? I am trying to make it as simple
as possible for you but you still don't get it. At whatever stage you
buy a car your money goes towards the previous owners replacement and
so on upwards. Therefore, you are contributing in part to the pollution
caused during a new car's construction.
Adrian
saying :
> Do you not understand 'for example'? I am trying to make it as simple
> as possible for you but you still don't get it. At whatever stage you
> buy a car your money goes towards the previous owners replacement and
> so on upwards. Therefore, you are contributing in part to the pollution
> caused during a new car's construction.
Only in the same way that every pound spent in the modern economy
contributes to somebody's pay allowing them to buy a new car.
do...@zing.icom43.net
But not with the same intent.
Adrian
saying :
>> > Do you not understand 'for example'? I am trying to make it as
>> > simple as possible for you but you still don't get it. At whatever
>> > stage you buy a car your money goes towards the previous owners
>> > replacement and so on upwards. Therefore, you are contributing in part
>> > to the pollution caused during a new car's construction.
>> Only in the same way that every pound spent in the modern economy
>> contributes to somebody's pay allowing them to buy a new car.
> But not with the same intent.
Bollocks.
If I give somebody a couple of thousand pounds, it's *their* choice, not
mine, as to what they spend it on.
Or did you firmly instruct the salessprog in Dixons not to spend the money
from your last computer purchase on his chavved-up Nova?
do...@zing.icom43.net
A person decides what their pay is spent on - intent- and their pay is
for work done, it is not a generous contribution from the general
public. So Joe Bloggs intentionally buys a new car partly with the
money he has earned and partly with the money he got from his old car.
If you bought that old car you would be partly responsible for the
contribution to the new car, and so on down the line. End of story.
Alistair J Murray
[...]
> "The most damage to the environment that's ever done by a
> motor car is in its creation," he said.
I'm going to run my 1994 4l V8 until I can find a older car with a
bigger motor, 'coz I'm green :)
A
--
Trade Oil in €