Excelllent ! Pretty sure i have encountered some of these things on the pavements !
Another nice try mad-as/craig, Now looking forwad to those other 'critics' doing the same.....
PS: Is Tasmania near to Botany Bay ?....
That was my point Richard; "Some venicles can be converted" but why bother?; The main 'concession' here is to convert diesel cabs to petrol/LPG to extend their allowed 'lifetime' back to 15 years. This simply allows them to say they 'make concessions' but it is impractical and/or costly and thus esssentially meaningless of course. https://www.london.gov.uk/questions/2018/0784
You are probably also aware that the Mayor's Transport Statregy is aimed at 'encouraging' Londoners to "walk, cycle and use public transport".....
Describing this as "unrealistic" does not even begin to cover it of course.
Yes, Morat, The motor industry is definitely a major 'lobby' here; Same with the Government's ideas about 'Driverless Cars'....
Describing those as 'unrealistic' is another 'understatement'
Similarly I strongly believe they _don't _actually want us to change fron ICE too rapidly, they want to tax us heavily for using it ! Some London boroughs are charging more for Parking Permits for Diesels ... or considering it; Motorists are 'easy pickings'. (Surprise Surprise)
eg. My local borough has numerous sneaky cameras (coupled with bad signage) that typically generate £500K per annum. Other Boroughs do the same too.... Similalry the latest 'craze' here is selling off the Tube Car-Parks to Developers.... but this and ULEZ etc is much more about raisng revenues than dealing with pollution of course
(Incidentally in 'the interests of fairness and transparency' I have been posting up details of these 'sneaky' cameras up on local SM site and may end up transported to Botany Bay myself....)
Ah, not quite; this is part of their (convoluted) ULEZ stipulations..
(but TfL are well known for their 'inconsistencies' in this area ):-
https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/ultra-low-emission-zone/vans-minibuses-and-more
As you will know Richard there are also TfL exceptions (if only for for vans/minibuses) if converted to LPG, but when I was reading this I noted it stated:
" Convert to Liquid Petroleum Gas (LPG)
If your vehicle has been converted to run on LPG you may meet the emissions standards. However, the emissions standard of the engine will be considered to be the same as it was before it was converted. "
... and I have no idea how that is actually supposed to be interpreted ! eg. "LPG may allow you to meet the emissions standards but why bother ?"
As you will know Ricahrd there are TfL exceptions (for vans/minibuses) if converted to LPG, but when I was reading this I noted it stated:
" Convert to Liquid Petroleum Gas (LPG)
If your vehicle has been converted to run on LPG you may meet the emissions standards. However, the emissions standard of the engine will be considered to be the same as it was before it was converted. "
... and I have no idea how that is actually supposed to be interpreted ! eg. "LPG may allow you to meet the standards but why bother ?"
And now I'm p'd off having wasted a few minutes reading your pub. allegory Lpgc...
Take it from me though that not everyone reading this is p'd off; Some agree !
And accept that your provocative "zero carbon emissions from the UK by 2030" caused it all in the first case !!
Yes, this "CC Debate" is your fault: In factwWhy did'nt you go in the pub next door where TFOTE have their meetings ? (It's the one with the bicycles)
Yes, maybe it It is full of ideological kids but they ARE The Future ...... listen to them, they 'think differently' !
EDIT: Jeez I just read Morat's post below and agree with a lot of it !! Thank you (seriously !); The (less polluting) Lpg issue has me puzzled too .....
we can't see much push (yet) for conversions to electric but there should be subsidies for Lpg ones as it's certainly a step in the right direction ...
Lpgc: a Chinese what ?
Back on topic I chatted with a the driver of a Hybrid 'Black Cab' this morning (although confusingly it was dark blue...); With the petrol turned off he was typically getting a range of 60m (with a £3 overnight charge) and so it was "absolutely ideal for the kinds of short trips around town he usually does - with the option/benefit of petrol if he suddenly had a long trip to an airport etc ..."
-Some of his mates had been considering all-electric cabs but were put off by claims of "182 miles range" (!!) which they all thought would mean nearer to 140. Some of them were not so concerned about the need to replace the battery packs at 4-5 years (!!) as it was a 'deductable' though....
Great inside, panorarmic roof, holds 6 passengers etc, and looking under the bonnet etc I would say that the running gear was probably suitable for a P38 too.....
Relax....
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cars/features/new-london-black-cab-driven-electric/
Morat wrote:
Votes to ban the troll? I'm bored of him now. His noise to signal ratio is off the chart.
Well Morat (if that is your Real Name) wouldn't that entail banning yourself ?
After all, other than your aforementioned brief burst of wishy-washy contribution (#154), many of your posts have also just been snidey one-liner digs !!
Not sure why you do this (and don't much care why either) but I can guarantee you - 100% - that you would not say these things to me in person....
Nice try mad-as: Tell you what, i will answer that when all those on here it applies to (and have also asked that question) start to use their Real Names too ! After all, what are they 'hiding', criminal records, fear of litigation ?..... blah blah blan (and other irrelevant spectulations) !!
No problem, mad-as - but it was a bit 'inappropriate' to open with accusations of "cr@p, manipulations and dishonesty" !) Now you have explained your rationale better I understand better (and also realise I am merely acting as a focus for all the ICE-Angst on here !).
First I absolutely agree that we should 'question everything' (-but fairly politely if/wnen possible !....-), and that is a great philosophy to have, particularly in the face of propaganda and actual data-manipulation ! FWIW I was actual rather scepitcal to begin with too so I sought out some of the sources of CC 'concerns' and challenged them too (and in some cases not very politely either....). Vis subsequent further research I eventually realised much of the stuff being stated was not 'alarmist' but factual. You are spot on that one of the issues is that the pollution can't be seen -as it is 'invisible' gases and/or tiny particles etc- but that is one of the key issues with 'deniers' (but then I visited Bejing on a smoggy day... and was suddenly back in the city fog I recalled as a kid ). I also agree that some of this is simply a 'distraction. from the 'Real Issues' but many polictians use CC as part of their propganda too (as I may have already mentioned .... "Look what we are doing, charging 25p for plastic bags and saving the whale" and other nonsense.... ).. You are also correct that there have been times when experts have 'overstated the case' (or mistated it), but many are concerned so much they believe they have to do that in Order to Save The Planet. Yes there are 'fibs' on both sides but the overall trends in the face of sound-bite anecdotes are also leading to that General Concensus you referrred to.
Lots more stories but overall I am now reasonably convinced (and believe me I am a 'tough audience'...) that CC is real enough - and that we do need to start to address it. We really should not just pass this on to our Kid's kids when they find the waves are lapping up at their toes...
Back on recycling I am not sure if you misunderstood what I was saying about that as I was not advocating that we all buy new cars, anything but ! It is obviosly a myth that these are designed to be more easily recycled too, They are simply designed to be recycled sooner . And folks here are appalled that an old P38 Road Tax is less than half of their latest BMW whatever 9and if that is not bad enough there is the depreciation factor too, ours are too old now for that and have 'bottomed out' of course. Cars should be made to last 20 years (as I mentioned a 'few' posts back I think), That should help .... but of course Car Manufacturers (and their 'lobby') will tell us that is 'not economically viable'... but that's the point - we are now (at least theoretically so far) moving towards what is evironmentally viable. (?)
Incidentally I had a dialogue with an ex-JLR chap who told me that a P38 back bumper would never be recycled as "1) Too much metal in the construction 2) It only cost £40 to make anway" ! Plenty of other parts though... better stop there or else i will get into 'Plastics' (again) !
Richard would that be the 'rantings' where I keep having to repeat myself or is that the 'rantings' where people insulted me, or both ???
Either way even if they were p'd off they should still show more courtesy..... however nasty or passive agressive their remarks have been !
Anyway, back on topic
in your reply you say 'we' would that be all of rrpub or _all of the world _or just a selected few ?? I ask because there are some who may beg to differ with this
"....we are all aware that the emissions from motor vehicles have such a minuscule effect on climate change compared with other sources of greenhouse gases, we are also aware that even if a tiny country like the UK stopped all greenhouse gas emissions it would have absolutely no effect whatsoever........"
Notably:
https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/car-emissions-global-warming
https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/each-countrys-share-co2-emissions
On that basis I can, for example, assure you I have suggested that folks don't buy Chinese stuff !
Morat: And I think you 'have to accept' that i was not actually trying to do that (but then again you have not read my PMs either....)
And just what 'point of view' exactly do you mean ? That it is OK to pick on some young swedish kid or that it is actually all about what i drive myself ?
-We did not really get far into CC because folks were simply too keen to 'purge' negatively and personally, and that is not going to persuade anyone either: You actually had a reasonable crack at it -#154- but were rather inconclusive; Why not read what all the experts are saying and then decide (because what you wrote so far was woefully 'unpersuasive' !)
In case you did not realise I am really unconcerned by what you think about my views - and how little you have actually 'added' to the 'debate' - but, and for for the last time, it is NOT ABOUT ME !! ... It seems the the world is full of people who will say 'you are wrong' and then fail miserably with their attempts to prove that....
Read some of the links, do some proper research and then try to come back with something meaningful and constructive (and not personal) !
There is really no point in taking 'pops' at me just because you actually don't have the answers to what the experts are saying....
(and, as even you will have noted, I'll retaliate ! )
Anyway, your awareness starts here ! ........
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
You see I sincerely believe (other than due to all the unecessary insults) 'it goes quiet' because folks actually don't have the answers to these particular kind of independent, science-based facts....and we are not going to change/save the planet with a few vague anecdotes.....
and even the kids know that now too; History will refer to this as the 'Trump Tweet Bounce' !
(And incidentally Morat I fully realise you will read all this, lean back in your chair. and state
"see how easy it is for me to wind Dave up with one of my 'clever' one-liners ?" !)
Meanwhile back on Earth.....
In fact many conversations with neighbours arise from my 'tinkering with my toys' on the drive Lgpc; Quite a lot start up as the type we all know about :: "My garage (usually main stealer) told me when the car was being serviced that the whuffle-flutter was knarled and so the flonge plate needs replacing"...... You know the rest. Not sure what it is like where you live but it seems there are less 'tinkerers' than there used to be. Some of my neighbours can't even do a '5-minute job' - replace a basic bulb or a windscreen wiper etc - but will happily drive 5 miles to Halfords so they can do it....
As for your boats Lpgc/Morat I had a think about it and decided to ask 'Extinction Rebellion' to research it further, such as introducing mandatory Emissions Tests ..... In fact, come to think of it, there are some of my neighbours with petrol strimmers and the like that are pretty good at making clouds of smoke too..... might report them to the eco-warriors too.... !
"maybe mad-as can explain why someone that speaks out is attacked and belittled because they do believe or have different views".....?
Did you actually read what I wrote (or what you wrote for that matter) ? Just staggered in from the pub and needed a rant did we ?
Ok, I thought we were ‘back on track’ but apparently not mad-as……and first no - it is really not 'like Religion' either !
Accordingly: WTF does MY lifestyle and/or religion etc etc actually have to do with YOU; As previously stated: "WTF does that prove" ??
‘Thanks' for your load of rude rambling and incoherent rubbish and personal insults “mad-as”: Like the Bible, If you don’t like it don’t read it !
Some light reading for you when you sober up:
And do feel free to contact the authors and ask then what they drive, because clearly that's really the most important issue here !
(Oh and if they won;t tell you don't accuse them of being dishonest either !)
JULY 2019
“The scientific consensus that humans are causing global warming is likely to have passed 99%, according to the lead author of the most authoritative study on the subject, and could rise further after separate research that clears up some of the remaining doubts.
Three studies published in Nature and Nature Geoscience use extensive historical data to show there has never been a period in the last 2,000 years when temperature changes have been as fast and extensive as in recent decades.
It had previously been thought that similarly dramatic peaks and troughs might have occurred in the past, including in periods dubbed the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Climate Anomaly. But the three studies use reconstructions based on 700 proxy records of temperature change, such as trees, ice and sediment, from all continents that indicate none of these shifts took place in more than half the globe at any one time.
The Little Ice Age, for example, reached its extreme point in the 15th century in the Pacific Ocean, the 17th century in Europe and the 19th century elsewhere, says one of the studies. This localisation is markedly different from the trend since the late 20th century when records are being broken year after year over almost the entire globe, including this summer’s European heatwave.
Major temperature shifts in the distant past are also likely to have been primarily caused by volcanic eruptions, according to another of the studies, which helps to explain the strong global fluctuations in the first half of the 18th century as the world started to move from a volcanically cooled era to a climate warmed by human emissions. This has become particularly pronounced since the late 20th century, when temperature rises over two decades or longer have been the most rapid in the past two millennia, notes the third.
The authors say this highlights how unusual warming has become in recent years as a result of industrial emissions.
“There is no doubt left – as has been shown extensively in many other studies addressing many different aspects of the climate system using different methods and data sets,” said Stefan Brönnimann, from the University of Bern and the Pages 2K consortium of climate scientists.
Commenting on the study, other scientists said it was an important breakthrough in the “fingerprinting” task of proving how human responsibility has changed the climate in ways not seen in the past.
“This paper should finally stop climate change deniers claiming that the recent observed coherent global warming is part of a natural climate cycle. This paper shows the truly stark difference between regional and localised changes in climate of the past and the truly global effect of anthropogenic greenhouse emissions,” said Mark Maslin, professor of climatology at University College London.
Previous studies have shown near unanimity among climate scientists that human factors – car exhausts, factory chimneys, forest clearance and other sources of greenhouse gases – are responsible for the exceptional level of global warming.
A 2013 study in Environmental Research Letters found 97% of climate scientists agreed with this link in 12,000 academic papers that contained the words “global warming” or “global climate change” from 1991 to 2011. Last week, that paper hit 1m downloads, making it the most accessed paper ever among the 80+ journals published by the Institute of Physics, according to the authors.
The pushback has been political rather than scientific. In the US, the rightwing thinktank the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) is reportedly putting pressure on Nasa to remove a reference to the 97% study from its webpage. The CEI has received event funding from the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers and Charles Koch Institute, which have much to lose from a transition to a low-carbon economy.
But among academics who study the climate, the convergence of opinion is probably strengthening, according to John Cook, the lead author of the original consensus paper and a follow-up study on the “consensus about consensus” that looked at a range of similar estimates by other academics.
He said that at the end of his 20-year study period there was more agreement than at the beginning: “There was 99% scientific consensus in 2011 that humans are causing global warming.” With ever stronger research since then and increasing heatwaves and extreme weather, Cook believes this is likely to have risen further and is now working on an update.
“As expertise in climate science increases, so too does agreement with human-caused global warming,” Cook wrote on the Skeptical Science blog. “The good news is public understanding of the scientific consensus is increasing. The bad news is there is still a lot of work to do yet as climate deniers continue to persistently attack the scientific consensus.”
PPS: Know all about this too but don't misleadingly misquote it:
https://www.coralcoe.org.au/for-managers/coral-bleaching-and-the-great-barrier-reef
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11852-017-0531-7
Well at their school I could always finish the "Long Story Short" I mentioned above:
Some of these kids mentioned it ('a million Baked Bean tins' etc) to their parents who disputed it.... this developed into a further statement I made whereby I indicated that over the years "I had estimated that - and with a view to Global Warming - by repairing/restoring/rescuing all my old cars over the years i was most probably personally responsible for saving the life of a baby Polar Bear" !!
Whilst this clearly struck a chord with the kids their parents were definitely less impressed (and often like to mention it when they see me fiddling with one of my cars on my drive (eg. "Isn't that what garages are for Dave ?" ... "Saving a baby Polar Bear Dave" ?)....
Politicians can do quite a lot whether in power or not (via Parliament of course) but come the pending Revolution oops, Election... at least in the UK there is unlikely to be any single Party with an overall Majority... and in part that is due to Brexit (obviously) but, and more broadly, a realisation that there has been too much 'shortermism' (and you might be surprised how many are aware of the folly of that too).
Not sure that what Chrchill said 70 years ago compared to what the Greens might say is partlicularly useful..... although BoJo does like to quote Aristotle of course....
As for the old cars/ICE issues etc the Vehicle Manufacturers and Oil Lobbies etc were behind the dire 'scrappage' schemes of course; If you take a trip to any scrapyard you will see a plethora of (relatively) recent cars of course and many were not just 'written off' in accidents either (and that does not take much these days...)
May be mistaken but I don't think I have seen any EV with a tow ball.... pehaps that's the answer though, they need to tow huge battery packs to increase their range ?!
The schools on my list are all within walking distance; Don't be too offended Lpgc but i don't think Greta would expect your vote either...
but she may be impressed that you have a boat....
Didn't bother watching the clip OldShep but (and hopefully this is the last time I say this...) it is not about ME answering questions it is about the Politicians replying and responding to CC with something other than lies and/or platitudes and/or empty promises.....
(As for Piers there is somebody who really should 'grow up' of course)
Yes romanrob, apt mixed metaphors too ! I suppose when the insults started I wondered if these same remarks had been made about their daughters (and/or grandaughters) if a 'scuffle' might ensue; Happy to get back on track and Reduce My (Invective) Emissions too if it helps the discussion !
Fair points Bolt; But I suspect, as you mentioned a while back, that as yet none of us have (or can face) 'the answers'; I genuinely wonder what we have done for our Children's Children's futures.... and they wonder too of course (and so we really should expect their wrath to an extent). It is not just ICE either of course... (better stop there before I start on plastics !!)
-Anyway, yes indeed, let's just 'agree to disagree' - if it helps - so you get the drinks in and I will get some crisps (chips !) ;
Oh dear.... and the 'idle speculations' are back... this time accompanied with 'subtle sarcasms' ! Sorry Bolt but I am really not going to take (unduly lengthly) advice on how to conduct myself in pubic - and/or talk to kids - from someone who seems to think it appropriate to suggest an activist perishes in a storm......
As for your 'old scientists on bikes' nonsense etc I suggest you refer to those David Attenborough links I provided above !
Oh and did I previously mention that CC was not about ME, and it is bigger than YOU !?...... and indeed ALL of us ?
At least your "petrol guzzling, nox spewing dinosaur" epitaph for a P38 was accurate though; Well done, Greta would be impressed !
Good Grief romanrob/Morat ...... How Dare You inject some common sense into this discussion ? .....
.
romanrob; Know what you mean, including her Wiki entry (and also talked to someone German who had read the book Greta's mother wrote too)
"Right Side Of History" is an apt phrase too..... (and yes you have missed some 'fun' !)
Morat; (Assuming you are not just taking a pop at romanrob "There is one in every pub?" / Is that a reference to dartboards ....?)
No, wrong again, I don't want to get into politics.... and I am not going to fall into your trap/s either !!
I know.... how about you ask me about CC instead of just spouting off about it ?!
Frankly.... as at no point have any of you said 'you are entitled to your own views Dave" there would probably be no point in replying to those either !!
That's an interesting thing about the "freedom of speech' as sometimes it seems to only mean "freedom to agree with the masses"...... Go Greta !
Talked to any of those kids yet ??....... and note it may help if you don't call them 'bitches' too !