Eco madness!

[DM]

You just cant beat a girl in glasses, now that, is a fact.

 

[ubersonic]

Yeah but its nice to see they would rather go on a march to campaign about something that has no actual scientific proof behind it than actually do something positive like cleaning up an area of beauty that's been used as a fly tip site or something. They scary thing is that this country has proved time and time again that the government is more likely to make policy based on an unsilent minority than on the silent majority, nobody ever campaigns for the status quo.

And lets be honest, in the 1970's the was a theory around called the peak oil theory which has now been disproven yet at the time people thought it was scientifically sound, the "hockey sticks" theory of climate change has now been disproven too yet still people go on about it, and actually reference it. At the end of the day the is no evidence to say that swapping a 4x4 for a Prius will have any impact whatsoever on our climate yet idiots like this will parade down he street and vandalise them just to get a message across just because they believe in it and their sad that other people wont believe it just because there's no proof >.>

 

[Cosimo]

You just cant beat a girl in glasses, now that, is a fact.

But you sure can take her for a ride (in your 4x4).


Nice comment in No32:

as an aside, my 4×4’s dont compensate for my tiny penis, I have a 911 turbo that I use for that purpose.

 

[Skeeter]

Something interesting to work out:

If a Range Rover Sport driver scrapped his RR (cant sell it, as then its carbon footprint would still exist) and replaced it with a brand new Toyota Prius, how long would it take for the reduction in CO2 produced by driving the Prius instead of the RR to cancel out the CO2 produced in the complete production and delivery of the Prius?

 

[TS7]

Something interesting to work out:

If a Range Rover Sport driver scrapped his RR (cant sell it, as then its carbon footprint would still exist) and replaced it with a brand new Toyota Prius, how long would it take for the reduction in CO2 produced by driving the Prius instead of the RR to cancel out the CO2 produced in the complete production and delivery of the Prius?

Even if the owner sold it, someone else would be driving it. The problem doesn't get solved. Unless these eco warriors think these stickers would make people scrap their cars!

 

[Vonhelmet]

Yes but water expands when it forms ice and ice will displace its own weight of water when floating. an iceberg will not add to the overall sea level upon melting even if it toweres ou of the water,

That's what I said

but the poles aren't icebergs however they are not all ice either the are hollow sections, debris/etc.

The North Pole is a floating ice cap, so we'll disregard that, but the South Pole is proper land, so any ice melting from there has the capacity to raise the sea level, as does any other ice located on a land mass.

Actually lets just forget it, we'll both be long dead before anything ever comes of global warming/climate change anyway

Arguably true and

 

[phi1]

They wouldn't be to impressed with our dodge then! 8-10mpg everwhere you go!

 

[Skeeter]

Even if the owner sold it, someone else would be driving it. The problem doesn't get solved. Unless these eco warriors think these stickers would make people scrap their cars!

But thats my point. If they did scrap their Range Rovers, how long would they have to drive the Prius for to offset its manufacturing CO2 cost in reduced CO2 emitted?

Does anyone have a figure for the CO2 cost (weight) of producing a Prius?

EDIT:

Ok, I have an internet gathered figure of 7,200lbs of CO2 to produce a Prius (so likely completely wrong, but hey ho).

That means it costs 3,265,865 grams of CO2 to produce a Prius.
A V8 Petrol Supercharged Range Rover produces 348g/km CO2, compared to 104g/km for a 1.5l Prius.
This means a reduction of 244g/km CO2 produced.

3,265,865 / 244 = 13,384

So you would have to destroy the Range Rover with zero CO2 expelled in the proccess, and then drive the Prius for over 13,000km before you start making a net CO2 reduction to having just kept the RR and stopped the Prius for existing.

 

[clv101]

It's really interesting to see stuff like this written:

And lets be honest, yet at the time people thought it was scientifically sound, the "hockey sticks" theory of climate change has now been disproven too yet still people go on about it, and actually reference it. At the end of the day the is no evidence to say that swapping a 4x4 for a Prius will have any impact whatsoever on our climate yet idiots like this will parade down he street and vandalise them just to get a message across just because they believe in it and their sad that other people wont believe it just because there's no proof >.>

In my opinion it's pretty much wrong. This isn't a personal attack on you, I'm just curious how two people can have such different opinions of the same thing. For example:

in the 1970's the was a theory around called the peak oil theory which has now been disproven

Can we unpack that? What theory? Whos? 1970s, what date? The in the 1970s there were two oil shocks, both political and neither anything to do with the peak oil theory first published by Hubbert in 1956. You say the peak oil theory has now been disprove? When, how and by whom? I'm not having a go or anything, I am really interested in the specifics underpinning this.

Here's another:

the "hockey sticks" theory of climate change has now been disproven too yet still people go on about it, and actually reference it

I guess you're talking about Mann's 1999 temperature reconstruction, included in the Third IPCC report? There was controversy surrounding it, in 2006 US Congress got the National Research Council to investigate. They concluded that Mann's findings were basically right (the temperature time series is a 'hockey stick' shape), they also that there were some statistical failings but these had little effect on the result. So again, you say "disproven" yet I just don't see it. What do you mean by "disproven"? In what way, by whom? What does the temperature record actually look like if different from the hockey stick?

Wikipedia suggests: "More than twelve subsequent scientific papers, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records, produced reconstructions broadly similar to the original MBH hockey-stick graph..."

 

[clv101]

Something interesting to work out:

If a Range Rover Sport driver scrapped his RR (cant sell it, as then its carbon footprint would still exist) and replaced it with a brand new Toyota Prius, how long would it take for the reduction in CO2 produced by driving the Prius instead of the RR to cancel out the CO2 produced in the complete production and delivery of the Prius?

This is the wrong question in my opinion - I expect what the protesters are aiming for is a long term cultural swing away from large, high consumption vehicles. 50 years ago smoking was cool, now it's not. 30 years ago, driving home from the pub after a few pints was accepted by many, now it's not.

Today, big, fast, powerful cars are cool. Are status symbols. I expect the protesters are hoping that in a decade or two they just aren't. They will have negative connotations, will become as socially unacceptable real fur for example.

 

[snowdog]

Bunch of ****ers, I hope they do it to the wrong person who breaks all their bones...

CO2 kills? Yeah right... Let's kill the climate rush people then, less CO2 emission .


Just noticed, those eco hippies are nearly all women, bah, of course they do not understand how nice it is to drive a big engined car with a high driving position . Aren't these the same ****** that pood Clackson or Hammonds garden?

 

[Jonnycoupe]

Noman says:
February 8, 2011 at 4:38 pm
Anyone who things that hybrid cars are good for the environment needs a serious rethink. The amount of CO2 and other toxins produced in the production of a hybrid car are greater than a normal car will produce in production and fuel consumption in years. I agree with many of your ideas and think that Chelsea tractors are for the dumb hair dressers who just don’t know any better (not to be confused with 4×4 being used properly) but to promote hybrid cars as the answer is very short sighted. Hybrid cars also have some very expensive parts to replace that actually form the hybrid engine, these parts are some of the worst things that can go into land fills and due to their expense render a hybrid car worthless and scrapped way before a normal car would be.

Norman is a pleb.

Some heads are going to go bang when the Hybrid Range Rover comes out

 

[BigglesPiP]

Climate Rush Driving Authority? CRDA Official?

What authority? What official?

 

[ubersonic]

In my opinion it's pretty much wrong. This isn't a personal attack on you, I'm just curious how two people can have such different opinions of the same thing.

That's the politest introduction to an opposing viewpoint ive ever seen and ive been using the internet since 1994, thank you

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Can we unpack that? What theory? Whos? 1970s, what date? The in the 1970s there were two oil shocks, both political and neither anything to do with the peak oil theory first published by Hubbert in 1956. You say the peak oil theory has now been disprove? When, how and by whom? I'm not having a go or anything, I am really interested in the specifics underpinning this.

The peak oil theory was quite popular in the 70's however its lost a lot of believers now because of a number of reasons but a main one being it was supposed to occur in the 90's, then it changed to the year 2000 when it didn't happen, then the year 2010 when it didn't happen then either, and I guess thieve moved it to 2020 now, the following quote from Cambridge pretty much sums up the flaws in Hubbert's theory

“Despite his valuable contribution, M. King Hubbert's methodology falls down because it does not consider likely resource growth, application of new technology, basic commercial factors, or the impact of geopolitics on production.”

You see his theory wasn't a conclusion, he came up with the graph on the back of an envelope, and then tried to fit data around it, rather than the accepted scientific method of gathering the data, then designing a model to fit it. This is an even more informative quote:

In a more basic sense, there are some who question Hubbert’s basic assumption that oil is a finite resource. In Russia and the Ukraine, many scientists subscribe to the abiogenic petroleum origin theory. This rejects the notion that oil comes from compressed plant and animal fossils, and postulates that oil is produced on a constant basis from chemical reactions among carbon deposits in the earth’s crust. Although this theory only held any sway in the former Soviet block, it is now beginning to find a serious audience in the west. In their book Black Gold Stranglehold: The myth of scarcity and the politics of oil Craig Smith and Jerome Corsi, two distinguished American academics, come out in favour of abiogenic production. They note that Russia and the Ukraine, where the theory has been most influential, has been transformed from a relatively oil-poor area to one of the most oil rich areas of the world, second only to the Middle-East.

Corsi also criticises Hubbert’s methodology. According to friends, Hubbert came up with the graph on the back of an envelope, and then tried to fit data around it, rather than the accepted scientific method of gathering the data, then designing a model to fit it. He also points out that subscribers to the theory have repeatedly made predictions as to when global peak oil would occur, only to revise them. Predictions have been made for 2000, 2005 and 2010. The theory’s subscribers point to the fact that new reserves have been discovered, increasing the ‘total recoverable volume’. Corsi claims that this is a weak defence, saying ‘If a theory’s predictions are wrong, then the theory is wrong.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here's another:

I guess you're talking about Mann's 1999 temperature reconstruction, included in the Third IPCC report? There was controversy surrounding it, in 2006 US Congress got the National Research Council to investigate. They concluded that Mann's findings were basically right (the temperature time series is a 'hockey stick' shape), they also that there were some statistical failings but these had little effect on the result. So again, you say "disproven" yet I just don't see it. What do you mean by "disproven"? In what way, by whom? What does the temperature record actually look like if different from the hockey stick?

Wikipedia suggests: "More than twelve subsequent scientific papers, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records, produced reconstructions broadly similar to the original MBH hockey-stick graph..."

Im going to be completely and utterly honest with you here, I cannot explain it because I don't actually understand the data, typing this may make me look stupid for believing in something when I don't understand its underlying data but meh, all I know is that the data originally collected my Mann for the hockey sticks theory has been proven by multiple sources to be invalid, if you google something like "disproving hockey sticks" im sure youll find lots of sites with info, but I dont understand it.

What I do know is he claimed we were living in the warmest period in 2000 years (which isnt really a long period in terms of the planet) when in actual fact this has been global temperatures since 900AD:

 

[Duke]

What a bunch of loons!