# 'Greenies' .. The "Prius Polluter" truths



## Jenx (7 Apr 2009)

Having heard it rumoured many times.. was doing a bit of research...
The so-called 'green' car, the Toyota Prius ... is a fraud.

You'd be more 'green' buying a Hummer.

"Typical" details that you can find documented everywhere, if you care to look, are as per the following : 

_The Toyota Prius has become the flagship car for those in our society so environmentally conscious that they are willing to spend a premium to show the world how much they care. Unfortunately for them, their ultimate "green car" is the source of some of the worst pollution in North America; it takes more combined energy per Prius to produce than a Hummer.
Before we delve into the seedy underworld of hybrids, you must first understand how a hybrid works. For this, we will use the most popular hybrid on the market, the Toyota Prius.

The Prius is powered by not one, but two engines: a standard 76 horsepower, 1.5-liter gas engine found in most cars today and a battery- powered engine that deals out 67 horsepower and a whooping 295ft/lbs of torque, below 2000 revolutions per minute. Essentially, the Toyota Synergy Drive system, as it is so called, propels the car from a dead stop to up to 30mph. This is where the largest percent of gas is consumed. As any physics major can tell you, it takes more energy to get an object moving than to keep it moving. The battery is recharged through the braking system, as well as when the gasoline engine takes over anywhere north of 30mph. It seems like a great energy efficient and environmentally sound car, right? 

You would be right if you went by the old government EPA estimates, which netted the Prius an incredible 60 miles per gallon in the city and 51 miles per gallon on the highway. Unfortunately for Toyota, the government realized how unrealistic their EPA tests were, which consisted of highway speeds limited to 55mph and acceleration of only 3.3 mph per second. The new tests which affect all 2008 models give a much more realistic rating with highway speeds of 80mph and acceleration of 8mph per second. This has dropped the Prius EPA down by 25 percent to an average of 45mpg. This now puts the Toyota within spitting distance of cars like the Chevy Aveo, which costs less then half what the Prius costs. 

However, if that was the only issue with the Prius, I wouldn't be writing this article. It gets much worse. 

Building a Toyota Prius causes more environmental damage than a Hummer that is on the road for three times longer than a Prius. As already noted, the Prius is partly driven by a battery which contains nickel. The nickel is mined and smelted at a plant in Sudbury, Ontario. This plant has caused so much environmental damage to the surrounding environment that NASA has used the dead zone around the plant to test moon rovers. The area around the plant is devoid of any life for miles. 

The plant is the source of all the nickel found in a Prius battery and Toyota purchases 1,000 tons annually. Dubbed the Superstack, the plague-factory has spread sulfur dioxide across northern Ontario, becoming every environmentalists nightmare. 

The acid rain around Sudbury was so bad it destroyed all the plants and the soil slid down off the hillside, said Canadian Greenpeace energy-coordinator David Martin during an interview with Mail, a British-based newspaper. 

All of this would be bad enough in and of itself; however, the journey to make a hybrid doesn't end there. The nickel produced by this disastrous plant is shipped via massive container ship to the largest nickel refinery in Europe. From there, the nickel hops over to China to produce nickel foam. From there, it goes to Japan. Finally, the completed batteries are shipped to the United States, finalizing the around-the-world trip required to produce a single Prius battery. Are these not sounding less and less like environmentally sound cars and more like a farce? 

Wait, I haven't even got to the best part yet. 

When you pool together all the combined energy it takes to drive and build a Toyota Prius, the flagship car of energy fanatics, it takes almost 50 percent more energy than a Hummer - the Prius's arch nemesis. 

Through a study by CNW Marketing called “Dust to Dust," the total combined energy is taken from all the electrical, fuel, transportation, materials (metal, plastic, etc) and hundreds of other factors over the expected lifetime of a vehicle. The Prius costs an average of $3.25 per mile driven over a lifetime of 100,000 miles - the expected lifespan of the Hybrid. 

The Hummer, on the other hand, costs a more fiscal $1.95 per mile to put on the road over an expected lifetime of 300,000 miles. That means the Hummer will last three times longer than a Prius and use less combined energy doing it. 

So, if you are really an environmentalist - ditch the Prius. Instead, buy one of the most economical cars available - a Toyota Scion xB. The Scion only costs a paltry $0.48 per mile to put on the road. If you are still obsessed over gas mileage - buy a Chevy Aveo and fix that lead foot. 

One last fun fact for you: it takes five years to offset the premium price of a Prius. Meaning, you have to wait 60 months to save any money over a non-hybrid car because of lower gas expenses._


These accounts are documented all over the net.
and as one who is very much behind the whole 'global warming is an utter crock of nonsense' school of thought ... I love finding this sort of stuff out, and making mention of it everywhere possible.
 
Fantastic.


----------



## bugbear (7 Apr 2009)

Jenx":10omc3ka said:


> Through a * study by CNW Marketing called “Dust to Dust,"



You forgot to insert "extensively refuted" where I've put the asterisk 

BugBear


----------



## Jenx (7 Apr 2009)

:lol: No, checked the article again ... no mention of "extensively refuted" ... and I promise.. i looked really hard :wink: :lol: 

"Refuted" by whom ? owners of Priuses no doubt :wink:


----------



## lurker (7 Apr 2009)

Always seemed a con to me.
The tree huggers somehow ignore the energy used in making & envirionmental dumping aspects.

And whilst we are on about it, we have the same con with "windmills" trouble is most tree huggers have poor science backgrounds.

In the next few years the lights will go out in the UK (we came very very close in early Dec 2008). The "blame" will be down to Porrit, that failed USA president bloke and their ilk selling their untruths (based on general ignorance) about Nuclear power.


----------



## MikeG. (7 Apr 2009)

Right guys........

...."tree huggers" have never made any claims about the Prius. These are claims that are made by a car company that is trying to sell cars. There are no such things as "green" cars. Just about the only thing that can be said in the Prius' defence is that at least it is trying , a little.......

.........but some of the mindless, , conspiracy-theory, flat-earth statements associated with these threads drives me absolutely nuts.

Lurker, you should be ashamed of the thoughtless assignation of blame you have made. If the lights go out, it will have nothing whatsoever to do with Al Gore, or wind turbines, or Jonathon Porrit. However, if your grandchildren are just about saved by the skin of their teeth from a world running out of land capable of growing crops, or running out of water, or from losing most of their major coastal cities to floodwater, then I trust you will roll over in your grave and thank those you have just blamed.

If you had any sort of understanding of science, you really wouldn't make such moronic assertions as "the tree huggers always ignore the energy used in making........" etc. Look at any scientific account of any of the problems associated with the emission of greenhouse gases, and dozens of associated topics, and look for the words "embodied energy". They are everywhere. If you don't understand them, look them up. You might also check anything I have written on here about photovoltaics, for instance, and find the embodied energy argument used to argue against them.......and I am the biggest greenie you have obviously ever come into contact with.

Whilst we're at it, please explain to me how we can have chuffed out tens of millions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere over 300 plus years without making a difference. 

Now, for goodness sake, if you can't do anything other than rehearse your thoughtless prejudices why don't you just keep quiet?

Mike


----------



## MikeG. (7 Apr 2009)

........oh, I nearly forgot.........

Jenx,

justify your baseless claim that we would be more green buying a Hummer.

The claim that the embodied energy may be higher in the Prius would only be of relevence if you bought a car then stuck it in the garage and never used it. 

To make any sort of claim about lifetime energy use you would have to compare figures for total energy consumption over the lifetime of the 2 vehicles........which of course you haven't. If you ran both vehicles for, say, 10 years, doing the same mileage in each, are you really telling me that the Hummer would have consumed less energy overall than the Prius? What sort of percentage of its total lifetime energy consumption do you think the embodied energy of a Hummer is?

If you think global warming is a "crock of nonsense", this can only be becasue you don't/ won't understand the science behind it. Go and read some reputable scientific journals.........go and ask university geography professors..........go and read anything on the subject that has been published in a peer reviewed journal, and see if you can pick any holes in that sort of stuff. Good luck. In the meantime, I hope that when you go on holiday that you don't fall off the edge of the world.....

Mike


----------



## Gill (7 Apr 2009)

Hi Mike

Although I've spent a long time hunting for scientific evidence to substantiate claims that global warming is taking place, it seems to be very scarce. I have, however, encountered works by sceptics such as Nigel Lawson which examine data and are persuasive.

I want scientific data as opposed to scientific opinions so I can make up my own mind about what is going on. The likes of the IPCC and Stern seem to simply spout the inadequate line, "Trust us, we're the world's leading scientists and you'd be stupid not to take us at our word". Yet there is some evidence out there, primarily relating to acidification of the seas, which cannot be denied. James Lovelock's writings are particularly intriguing, especially since he believes that the wise course of action is for humanity to adapt to climate change rather than seeking to prevent it. Ironically, this is the same course of action that Lawson endorses.

Can you help me form my own opinion by pointing out other online sources of data which support the notion of global warming? I'm not really interested in debating the subject because passions often become aroused and it's all too easy for reason and logic to be shunned. However, I would like to feel I was better informed.

Gill


----------



## Jenx (7 Apr 2009)

:lol: 
Have you got one then ? :wink: 


The scientific journals that explain that the expanding ball of gas ( sun )
which, by expanding ( i.e. getting that wee bit closer to us ) and increasing in its temperature as it does so.. is all the scientific journals I need to know what makes the world heat up.

As long as I don't "fall off the edge at Exeter", I should be ok this year .. it seemed "blunt enough" last time I was down :wink: :lol:





Mike Garnham":1ulgam4s said:


> Right guys........
> 
> ...."tree huggers" have never made any claims about the Prius.



Oh I think they very much have done :wink: 
Touted as the GREEN vehicle ? ... don't sound so green now   
The 'claim' is anything but baseless, Mike... thats what the article is saying. That ( and the countless others like it ) ARE the basis.

To promote a counter argument by calling my point baseless, well isn't a counter argument at all, is it :wink: 




> Now, for goodness sake, if you can't do anything other than rehearse your thoughtless prejudices why don't you just keep quiet?


But you see, they are not thoughtless predjudicies.. they are views based on a lot of reading, thinking logically and are well-considered.
Because they may conflict with yours, does not mean that yours have more creedence does it ? or am I lesser of an individual and therefore not permitted to speak my mind ? Hmm.. not too convinced there, either.
I arrive at my conclusions on the matter by considering multiple viewpoints from all camps.. yours included. 
And I will arrive at the same conclusion 100 times from 100.
Even if i didn't want to.

If What i presented was utter bunkum from generated from my own ( sometimes simple ) mentality, then you would have a point by calling them thoughtless predjucices, but they indeed are not.. 
They, equally come from the learned minds of the professors to whom which you refer, every bit as much.

:wink:


----------



## xraymtb (7 Apr 2009)

Just to add some fuel to the fire...

http://www.crichton-official.com/speech-ourenvironmentalfuture.html

It's amazing what you can do with statistics and figures when you present them in the correct light. Whilst I don't believe we are having no effect on the planets climate, I don't believe its as bad as some people make out.


----------



## Peter T (7 Apr 2009)

I have to say that I find MMCC very difficult to believe in. 

The problem I have is that all the prominent supporters has a vested interest in it being real.

Parasitic politicians love it because it's something else they can use to justify separating the long suffering taxpayer from more of their hard earned income. 

The scientists love it because it's providing them with billions in research funds. 

It's completely impossible to get an unbiased view on the subject. 

And as for the Prius; I find the entire hybrid vehicle concept ill conceived. Here we have a small car with a small engine and it can only do 40 odd mpg. I wonder why? Maybe it's something to do with having to drag around a big, heavy electric motor plus all its control gear, just to capture a bit of regenerated energy when the driver puts the brakes on!


----------



## Jenx (7 Apr 2009)

Indeed Peter.

Thats why when Mike says " Its at least trying ", its a ridiculous statement. Becuase even if it _is_... its failing miserably by all accounts and is therefore an ill-concieved and pointless exercise in the first place.

And to deny that its touted as the Greenie-Machine somewhat beggars belief... borne out by rushing of 'celebs' to get their hands on one and clarion from the rooftops about 'look what I'm doing for the environment'.


I think that its an admirable thing to attempt to conserve energy or utilise it in as economical and efficient way as possible, and ( although it may surprise Mike ), I would support this wherever possible.
Of course it makes sense to do so ... what doesn't, is to blindly follow everything one is told, and not to "question."
And when one sees a very plausible case being put against something that is in many respects, 'pushed at us', when the reality behind it is clearly at the very least 'questionable', if not down-right flawed,
then we are in a sorry state.


----------



## filsgreen (7 Apr 2009)

I will admit that I am not too clued up on this topic, so I can't really comment. However, the amount of greenhouse gases that this tiny island produces is a drop in the ocean compared to China, India, Russia and the USA.

Whilst we get fleeced by the Government in so called "Green" taxes, these other countries make all the right sounds but do nothing. As someone pointed out recently, "we have had our Industrial Revolution, who are we to deny others theirs?"

And you will rightly point out that their industrial revolution will result in killing the planet, won't stop them though. Most of the posters on this site encourage them by buying the cheap products they produce.


----------



## MikeG. (7 Apr 2009)

Gill":2fkcvzsh said:


> Although I've spent a long time hunting for scientific evidence to substantiate claims that global warming is taking place, it seems to be very scarce.
> 
> Can you help me form my own opinion by pointing out other online sources of data which support the notion of global warming?
> Gill



Gill,

for the base data you need to be reading peer-reviewed scientific papers published in science journals, which are heavy going. For assessments of the contents of these, summaries in readable English etc., you might try The New Scientist, but I can't point you to individual editions..........there are 25 years worth of articles to read. 

Incidentally, the New Scientist did a count-up of published works on global climate change, and found over a thousand papers supporting the premise, and not a single one proclaiming the opposite in recognised peer-reviewed scientific journals. Of course, if you read the common press, you would think there was some sort of debate about this going on amongst scientists. There isn't. That all got dealt with 20 years ago. Now, the main discussions are about how to get a stubborn political class and populace to understand the urgency.

I'm afraid I can't help with web based stuff.......that isn't where I go for my information. Incidentally, my first degree was in Environmental Science........I was persuaded over 25 years ago, and have seen nothing since that in any way leads me to any conclusion other than being scared to death of what we are leaving for our kids.

Someone mentioned Lovelock, the genius who foresaw all this years before anybody else.........his thesis that humans have to adapt to man made climate change is because his calculations lead him to think that there is nothing we can do to avoid it now. His notion of adaption is to plan for a planet capable of supporting only one eigth of the number of humans that it currently does........in less than 100 years time.

Mike


----------



## Jenx (7 Apr 2009)

Did any of the scientists mention the expanding gas giant of the sun ? 

As it expands.. it gets closer to us.
that means we get a wee bitty more cosy.

I learnt that from me mum, when she told me to keep away from the fire.

and the physics behind it still works, I think.


Sun gets closer.
we get hotter

Meerkats
Simples :wink:


No counter-counter argument to put ?
 
( remember though.. always with good cheer in the heart :wink:  )


----------



## MikeG. (7 Apr 2009)

Jenx":32c8oylt said:


> Did any of the scientists mention the expanding gas giant of the sun ?
> 
> As it expands.. it gets closer to us.
> that means we get a wee bitty more cosy.
> ...



I have never seen a scientist anywhere publish an article on why the moon isn't made of cheese. Just about as relevant.........and if that is what this thread is sinking to........fine........and enjoy yourselves without me.


----------



## Jenx (7 Apr 2009)

Mike...
The sun is exapnding - Fact.

Just because you dont agree with a premise or a theory, doesn't automatically condemn it as unacceptable or wrong, you know :wink: 

Can any of the scientists Prove, beyond any doubt, conclusively that Golbal warming exists because of CO2 emissions.. no.

keep the toys in the cot.. enjoy the debate, and maybe you can convince someone to change their mind.. I'm not above doing so, given the right convincing. :wink: 
But you can't just _'no thats wrong about the prius.. cause I dont want to hear it'_ - the thing is flawed, as a concept. 'Questionable' at the very least ... 
The evidence stacked up against it is huge !

Nobody is saying 'don't strive for energy efficiency' or 'dont attempt to be conservative in your use of natural resources' etc etc.. its very good to be that way... basic economics would dictate that, one would imagine.. before you go near any other reasons for doing so. It makes sense !

but don't shoot down the thoughts of people who choose to look beyond what they're told to believe and go rooting around to try to find answers... that isn't right either.

For a clearly well-educated lad, you don't half come out the block with the guns blazing.. and If you were doing so, becuase of 'conclusive absolute undeniable proof, then fine.. but you cant do that, because it ISNT conclusive undeniable proof.
I'm giving YOU proof that that Car is a joke.. every bit as much as you are, in trying to substantiate your theories.

I can accept you having yours... theories and views, i mean ... where's the difficulty in accepting that others may have views that conflict with yours ?
That, if I didn't know better, is the action of a 'Sheep', and I don't believe for a minute that you spend half your life bleating.

There are, without any doubt, areas of very very strong evidence to support what I say here... every bit as much as what you promote as the 'truth'.
Pick up the ted's .. climb back in, and debate the matter with the decorum befitting of a gentleman of your (clear) standing.. and don't run off with a 'its my ball and i'm no' playing' outlook. -- just because you don't agree with whats said.

I'm sure, certain in fact, that as a confirmed 'green thinker', you'd have probably more than most to contribute in a constructive and happy-demeanoured manner to a fascinating and intriguing discussion.

Agreed ?

:lol: :lol: :lol: Keep smilin too.. always discuss with a smile..even if you are diametrically opposed to the subject., yes ? :lol: :lol:


----------



## Gill (7 Apr 2009)

So it looks as if I'll have to pay a visit to the library and scour back copies of the New Scientist ](*,) . Thanks anyway, Mike  .

These scientists who espouse global warming are rotten communicators. If they made their data more readily accessible to the public, this debate might not be taking place.

Gill


----------



## Doctor (7 Apr 2009)




----------



## Jenx (7 Apr 2009)

Mike Garnham":2w8jsatx said:


> I have never seen a scientist anywhere publish an article on why the moon isn't made of cheese. Just about as relevant.........and if that is what this thread is sinking to........fine........and enjoy yourselves without me.



And as an extra.. thats a classic diversionary tactic... you introduce the "Moon/Cheese" scenario, like it has any relevance to anything, which of course it does not .. and yet, by doing so, to the casual observer, this can have the effect of debunking the view opposed to the 'introducer' of such a nonsense. 
Why do that ? ... If i didn't know better, - that gives me the impression that your viewpoint is running out of puff. .. for that is how such a diversionary tactic appears.
Why don't we stick to where science and theorists perhaps arrive at the right conclusion eventually.. wouldnt that be better ?

So no .. scientists have yet, as far as I am aware, not spending any tax-resourced research grants on establishing if any cheese is lunar in origin.
To save them the trouble.. I think we can reasonably safely assume that it isn't.


:wink:


----------



## Argee (7 Apr 2009)

Reminds me of Eddie Izzard taking the rise out of the "Time Team" and their pontifications. He was fed up with so-called experts claiming to know, for certain, that "this pile of stone used to be a wall around a local shop" and (Eddie) _"over there a man sat playing a banjo and eating a jam sandwich."_ What he implied was that you could claim pretty much anything, because there was no-one around from the time (nor definitive records) to refute it. 

The same thing is true of trying to predict the future, or to offer an opinion on it, because the current crop of pundits will not be around later on to say _"I told you so,"_ or _"I got that wrong."_ OK, so there will be records and articles in archives somewhere, but that doesn't help today and for the immediate future. I try to understand the vehemence (sometimes even anger) with which some put their point across, but in all honesty it adds nothing to the matter - quite the opposite. Statistics do not always help when trying to add credence to an opinion, however honestly formed and held.

Like *Gill*, I looked for definitive, plausible, accurate statements, until I realised that no-one has a crystal ball. No-one predicted the Tsunami, if I recall correctly. We still can't predict earthquakes with any certainty, as Italy will attest, yet it is the simplest thing to blame *anything *that has happened on _"global warming"_ and/or_ "climate change_."

Do I use a plastic bag at the supermarket, or take my own? What possible effect would that have on climate change? Up come the prophets, talking about landfill, re-cycling, attitude, etc., whilst China and others continue to expand their engineering and consequently-polluting industries. I am neither stupid or naive enough to believe that *my *not using a plastic bag will have any effect compared to China's output, nor would the entire UK stopping their use make any difference either, as far as I can see. Projecting the "amount saved" by stopping such use cannot take into account the possible increase in the output from around the globe, yet I see many proclaiming it as a definitive statistic in which I'm expected to place my trust.

Of course it makes sense to re-cycle, but not if the subsequent detritus is then shipped off overseas at considerable cost to this country. "Carbon offsetting" is another flawed concept that is both patronising and irritating in equal amounts, but what is really irksome about this topic is the way it is used to justify all sorts of increased prices, taxes etc. Have you passed by Harrods lately? For a man once desperate to gain UK citizenship, he's not doing himself any favours by leaving all the Christmas lights ablaze every evening, or does he think it wouldn't make a difference too? How can the lighting of, for example, the London Eye, be justified, if every little saving was so important.

Has anyone thought to try and calculate the amount of "slack" in the Earth's ability to absorb the increased CO2 output, I wonder? I recall the horror expressed about the hole in the ozone layer many years ago, but I think the latest I heard on that was that it was closing. Excuse the length of this post, please, especially as it's probably "worthless," depending upon your viewpoint! 

Ray


----------



## MikeG. (7 Apr 2009)

The sun is expanding.....agreed. But it has been for 14 billion years, through countless ice ages. Over the hundred year time scale we are now talking about it is utterly irrelevant.

If you actually read what I said about the Prius I agreed with you that it isn't the answer. It isn't as bad as the Hummer, but it is just a sideshow.........a bit of greenwash. 

The nature of science is that it is never complete, certain and un-nuanceable.......there is no such thing as "scientific fact"........that is an oxymoron. Thus the religious extremists keep calling darwinism a "theory" as if that weakens the argument........you are doing the same thing here.

And no, I am not dignifying this thread with my presence anymore.......indeed, this forum seems to attract this sort of nonsense too often for my liking, and I might just keep myself to myself for a while.

Mike


----------



## Jenx (7 Apr 2009)

You said that a minute ago, but then came back...

and I am glad you did... you should do... you have much of relevance to say on the subject.
and That, I sincerely mean.

Don't disappear off, man. -- debate's healthy, well it is with me anyway.. and nobody gets all huffed up or anything.. its educational to debate stuff, surely. 8) 

We've gone off the original point a bit.. ( dont they always ).. but that in itself is all part of the raision d'etre.. 

And Ray, that was extremely valid.. a good post 8) 

Don't do a runner Mike.. stick with it.
I may not agree with the camp your foot is in, but its a well-informed camp, and thats undeniable. Cool ? :wink: :lol:

I do have to ask though ... why is it 'nonsense' ? ... its a discussion about a perfectly plausible and legiitimate viewpoint that the Prius car is not what it is purposted to be.
I can't for the life of me see where that is 'nonsense'. :?:


----------



## Doctor (7 Apr 2009)

Is it possible to be taken seriously when you finish a sentence with, cool.
and stop calling Mike, Shirley. :lol:


----------



## Argee (7 Apr 2009)

Doctor":i5imz95o said:


> Is it possible to be taken seriously when you finish a sentence with, cool.


I had the same thought when I read _*"I am not dignifying this thread with my presence anymore."*_ Jeez. :roll: 

Ray.


----------



## Jenx (7 Apr 2009)

Doctor":2xrt3hcf said:


> Is it possible to be taken seriously when you finish a sentence with, cool.



Evidently, yes. :wink: 
Seriously enough for a "huff" to be taken, possibly ? :wink: 

I'm of the view that the "loss of being taken seriously" would be a result of an intolerance of views conflicting with ones own, rather than possible or perceived inappropriate use of a colloquialism.
But then, I've no real education.. so perhaps I wouldn't know. :wink: :lol: :lol:


----------



## jlawrence (7 Apr 2009)

Whilst we're on the topic of environmental BS, you are aware that all these CFL's (low energy lights) need to be disposed of as hazardous waste (for those that have them in the business premises) - apparently home owners can get away with just putting them in the rubbish.

As for global warming. I have no doubt that we (humans) are having an effect - to what extent I'm not sure.
I do have issues with the so called scientists. The whole GW debate seems to involved consensus of opinion - WTF, sorry but science isn't supposed to be based on consensus it's supposed to be fact based.

I have absolutely no faith at all in any of the so called scientific models - any model that needs human intervention to correct the input data is seriously flawed.

I do have serious doubts as to whether we can do anything about the CO2 levels etc or indeed whether we actually should attempt to - nature will balance things itself. As things stand there are too many humans living on the planet for it to be sustainable long term - nature will sort that problem for us with the next ice age. So by continuing to live the way we currently are we are aiding nature in solving what would likely be an unsolvable problem for humanity.

What really bugs me are all the idiots that say we're killing the planet - no we're not. We could well be contributing to making it uninhabitable for humans but we sure ain't killing it - the planet will remain.


----------



## gatesmr2 (7 Apr 2009)

With the prius :?: 

Surely it is one of the first of a new breed, not sure who makes it but in the USA they now have a new car running on (don't shoot me if i get this wrong) hydrogen.
I am not saying its right or wrong but as its the first, do you remember the old computers back in the 80's i can remember putting in loads of data to play what today would be considered a joke of a game.

And as for Global Warming :? 
Like many i am undecided on this, i think there may indeed be a problem but not sure who or what is causing it. 
Yes all the governments are making loads of money of us with taxes etc, but the same governments still launch rockets into space, run tanks and planes kicking out more CO2 than us normal people could comprehend.

I think we are at the beginning of this and like with most scientific idea's it will need time to work out, its just that it has been made into more than it actually is. I was not around when galilao was rubbished for his idea's.
Galilao discovered that the sun stood still and the planets revolved around it. It took 500 years before the Catholic Church acknowledged that he was not guilty of heresy for so stating.

Hope this does not add fuel to the fire but these are just my views and i think we need to understand more about it by this i mean facts not different groups giving us statistics which if you look at any governments ideas can be made to look anyway you would like them to look to add what used to be credence to the argument.

Martin


----------



## Jenx (7 Apr 2009)

And "good views" they are too  

But there's no 'fire' ... 8) :lol:


----------



## Maia28 (7 Apr 2009)

jlawrence":q0fup51p said:


> Whilst we're on the topic of environmental BS, you are aware that all these CFL's (low energy lights) need to be disposed of as hazardous waste (for those that have them in the business premises) - apparently home owners can get away with just putting them in the rubbish.
> 
> As for global warming. I have no doubt that we (humans) are having an effect - to what extent I'm not sure.
> I do have issues with the so called scientists. The whole GW debate seems to involved consensus of opinion - WTF, sorry but science isn't supposed to be based on consensus it's supposed to be fact based.
> ...


 
Pretty much agree with all of that. If you accept the climate change fantasists consensus opinion, the only logical conclusion is to remove or reduce the human population. 

The models are pure bunkum IMO and do reflect anywhere like the complexity or interactions that exist in the real world and never will do. It is quite possible to make a "model" of climate change say anything that you want it to. 

As for the Prius, is just another ugly car that has been hyped beyond reason. I don't even accept that it is a useful step along the way to producing environmentally lower impact vehicles. 

For a good counter too the "scientific" literature I recommend Bjorn Ljumberg's Sceptical Environmentalist. Perhaps a little out of date now, but provides a very good narrative to the claims made in the literature. 

Andy


----------



## Digit (7 Apr 2009)

> The nature of science is that it is never complete, certain and un-nuanceable.......there is no such thing as "scientific fact"....



Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear!
Could do with you on another forum I subscribe to Mike.
I was 'lectured' by a New Age type that the speed of light as a 'constant' was rubbish 'cos he had read of an experiment where the results were then averaged.
I patiently explained that was normal to reduce experimental errors and that no one would publish 'one shot' results.
Don't think he believed a word I said though, trouble is Mike there is a gulf in understanding in what a scientists mean and what Joe Public thinks they mean.

Roy.


----------



## jlawrence (7 Apr 2009)

The prius is a first step - and that's all it is.
It was the start of breaking the oil companies strangle hold on practically everything we do on the roads - I say it was the start because although there have been other attempts it was really the first hybrid that was actually usable in the real world.
I believe the hydrogen car was/is made by honda (not certain though) and I believe it's only available in California.

The MAJOR problem with global warming is that us 'normal' people can't sit and read the peer reviewed documents and make head nor tail of what they say - we rely on interpreted texts (for many people what they read in the press) which can easily be slanted in whatever direction the press want.
Since we can't even accurately predict weather patterns for next week I have no faith at all that we could predict what things will be like in 10 years time let alone 50 or 100.

One question - perhaps Mike may know the answer.
How much of the polar ice caps need to melt, to cause a big enough desalination of the oceans, to seriously affect the freezing point of the oceans enough to bring on yet another cycle (of massively lowering temperatures) driving us in to the next ice age.


----------



## Jenx (7 Apr 2009)

Interesting point ! 

Perhaps that is how 'balance' is maintained, to counteract the increase caused by the expanding sun ?

Its a thought ! 8)


----------



## Digit (7 Apr 2009)

> How much of the polar ice caps need to melt, to cause a big enough desalination of the oceans, to seriously affect the freezing point of the oceans enough to bring on yet another cycle (of massively lowering temperatures) driving us in to the next ice age.



First you would need to establish that that would happen, if the scenario is realistic then it would be difficult to suggest a manner in which the last ice age came to an end as the amount of ice that melted at that time is FAR in excess of that which is currently available.
The evidence suggests that the ice at that time melted very quickly.

Roy.


----------



## matt (7 Apr 2009)

jlawrence":chif1rkr said:


> The prius is a first step - and that's all it is.
> It was the start of breaking the oil companies strangle hold on practically everything we do on the roads - I say it was the start because although there have been other attempts it was really the first hybrid that was actually usable in the real world.
> I believe the hydrogen car was/is made by honda (not certain though) and I believe it's only available in California.



Apparently the EV1 by GM was the start. However, as soon as the US Govt announced that they were backing (spending money on...) hydorgen, GM buried the car. They'd had over 100 on the roads being driven on a lease basis. When the leases expired they refused to renew them, took all the cars back, and crushed them - as if they'd never existed. Claims are that the EV1 was too viable as an alternative to petrol/diesel. That and the $$$ available to car makers R&D for hydrogen.

As for the CO2 argument... It's easier to do my bit (recycle, avoid unnecessary landfill etc) than to try and make sense of the science. Whilst I accept that some people are sceptical it really is very easy to tow the line regardless of whether you're convinced or not. And, to the best of my (limited) knowledge, it's doing no harm?


----------



## StevieB (7 Apr 2009)

For Gill and other interested parties, try the link:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez

This is a scientific database of peer reviewed published scientific papers. It is primarily science based rather than humanities based but has over 7800 hits for a search of 'climate change' and 5000 for 'global warming'. Search until your eyeballs bleed :lol: 

The database is mainly used by academia who subscribe to the vast majority of the titles. Without this subscription ability you will get an abstract of each manuscript if there is one but you are unlikely to get the full article unless the journal in question has a free access policy (usually on older content). It is not exhaustive by any means, but is the primary source literature to which Mike referred and Gill requested further details on. Enjoy!

Steve.


----------



## jlawrence (7 Apr 2009)

Digit, I've really no idea whether it is actually feasible or not.

Here's my thoughts though:
1) ice caps melt allowing the oceans to freeze at a lower temperature, resulting in more of the suns rays being reflected rather than absorbed, leading to a lowering of the temperatures until such a point that the ice gets so thick over the winter that it simply doesn't fully melt in the summer. Perhaps as there is at times lots more ice and thus bigger cold fronts to be hit by whatever warm air there is, we could end up with one of those big storms as seen in 'day after tomorrow' bringing the ice age in faster.

2) Without the 'human' element screwing things up (and barring any natural phenomenon) the CO2 levels lower during the ice age - thus the cycle we help accelerate comes to an end.

3) Something happens to move things the other way - increasing the co2 levels to such an amount that the ice melts. If enough of the ice melts then a warming cycle begins again. The poles remain frozen and so the salination levels are balanced again - until such a time as the poles melt again.

Sounded plausible until I put it into words - now I'm not so sure


----------



## jlawrence (7 Apr 2009)

The ice melting at the end of the ice age might not be such a problem. The ice melting would allow the earth to warm again (by less reflection) and so the increased desalination might not be a problem.
It's a fascinating cycle - but that's all it is a cycle.
Global warming (IMHO) isn't killing the world it's just accelerating the current phase of the cycle. Of course by accelerating the cycle we are making the world less hospitable to man.


----------



## Jake (7 Apr 2009)

StevieB":s3umcifx said:


> For Gill and other interested parties, try the link:
> 
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez
> 
> ...



They won't. It's more rewarding to pontificate about how there is no evidence, how science is rubbish and scientists are worse, and its allmade up.

It's all a peculiar emotional reaction to not understanding, but then we are a strange species - as believing in gods proves beyond doubt.


----------



## andycktm (7 Apr 2009)

As life goes on and you get older and wizer,you kinda realise that money comes before EVERTHING
life, death ,war,health,global warming the lot


----------



## Jenx (7 Apr 2009)

Sad as it is, there is a lot of truth in that Andy.


----------



## yo_chuci (7 Apr 2009)

Jenx":1pt2tq8s said:


> Pick up the ted's .. climb back in,



pure genius...

not having any real knowledge in this area the 1st post of the prius was an eye opener... is it true? I personally don't know. is it a lie? again I do not know...
it wouldn't surprise me 1 bit if to make a green car they polluted more than to make a hummer and then told us how economical the car is etc and that we should all be driving one...
trouble is our gov (at least) don't want us driving them cos 
a) they make alot less from car tax. 
b) we (should) be using less fuel so again they lose money. 
c) we aint going quick enough for speeding tickets lol

i had a discussion with the chekout girl at asda (other shops are available) about why i hadn't brought my 'Bag for life' (she was at home putting the tea on).
i tried to explain to her that until the US or China slow down on killing the planet that me using plastic bags aint really gonna make a difference. she argued her point about if everyone did a little bit etc. i agree'd with her basic idea was sound and then asked if she drove to work today? and how far was the journey? and how much in asda was wrapped in plastic?
i think she got the point.

is the words of harry hill...

i like hummers... and i like prius'... but which is better. there's only 1 way to find out.....


FIGHT!!!


----------



## Jenx (7 Apr 2009)

Yo, Yo !

Well there is a whole pile of info available to read that says thats the case with the prius, yes.

Loads.


----------



## yo_chuci (7 Apr 2009)

when it comes to our govt its common sense... tell the public its better for their pockets/the environment/their health and slowly the people buy into it...
only for govt to realise they are losing out so up goes the cost of something...
just look and diesel in the last 20yrs and lpg in the last 10...
diesel has double in price (roughly) and so has lpg (nearly) and with lpg they put up grants for people to get it fitted and promise not to put the cost of lpg up for 5 years... wow 5years... 
i have noticed this and i've only been driving for 15 odd years. 
and it'll be the same with tax, change all the banding so people either pay a fortune or get a smaller more eco car and pay very little tax. when we all have smaller cars it'll just get bumped back up again cos of the enviroment... 
or you'll be charged to sell or part ex or scrap your car after 10yrs cos it won't be friendly enough


----------



## yo_chuci (7 Apr 2009)

oh and a quick thought.... 

when they start making the body panels for cars out of more plastics will that eat into our plastic bag allowance?

when are they gonna start making them OUT OF WOOD?


----------



## Jenx (7 Apr 2009)

Jake":3cwyv6jb said:


> They won't. It's more rewarding to pontificate about how there is no evidence, how science is rubbish and scientists are worse, and its allmade up.



Not sure that that claim would be entirely representative or accurate, Jake .. 
We'd all be in a bit of schtook without the fantastic work of the research scientists over the years, would we not ?

Looks like a good site StevieB ... I initially thought that the 'hit numbers' were relatively low, given the high profile of the subject discussed, but then on looking at the site - its predominantly 'Medical' based, and that would explain why the perceived low number (relatively speaking) of hits for those searches .
Looks good. I would like to explore that further.  8)


Yo Chui ----> remember ? !




:wink: :lol:


----------



## Gill (7 Apr 2009)

Thanks for the link, Steve. Let's see what light it casts...  .



Jake":1vbexis8 said:


> StevieB":1vbexis8 said:
> 
> 
> > For Gill and other interested parties, try the link:
> ...



What a bizarre thing to write. Please refer me to any post I've made where I "pontificate about how there is no evidence, how science is rubbish and scientists are worse, and its allmade up." All I've ever done is ask that the scientific evidence should be produced, and I don't think that's an unreasonable question. Indeed, earlier in this thread I stated that in support of global warming "there is some evidence out there, primarily relating to acidification of the seas, which cannot be denied." I fail to understand how your assertion can be valid. 

I cannot fathom how you see this as a "peculiar emotional reaction to not understanding". Surely it is completely reasonable that anyone who wishes to be better informed on a subject should seek clarification of issues that they find to be obfuscating? The reference to "believing in gods" is totally baffling because it implies a knowledge of either my views on religion or a knowledge of the views on religion of everyone else who is asking similar questions to those I have asked. This is knowledge which you either do not or cannot have.


----------



## yo_chuci (7 Apr 2009)

yup... didn't it have a sand down and revarnish as part of a main service lol...
granddad had a triumph dolomite sprint (yellow)
that was good on fuel... it was so heavy he just let it roll everywhere...
which was to the pub and back at the bottom of the village.
he could drive from pub up the gentle hill, the moment it went flat it could roll 2miles to the base of the next gentle hill and same again up to the peak and then all the way home and into the garage on tickover...
he was ahead of his time lol... i think it was 24years ago...


----------



## Jake (7 Apr 2009)

Gill":2gd7up5s said:


> Thanks for the link, Steve. Let's see what light it casts...  .
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Erm, why is it all about you, Gill?


----------



## Jenx (7 Apr 2009)

It may be a wild stab in the dark, but I'd guess where it says 

"For Gill and other interested parties "

Possibly :wink:


----------



## Digit (7 Apr 2009)

Desalinating sea water RAISES the temp at which it will freeze jl, not lowers it.
The last ice age, according to researchers, ended in as little as fifty years. 
This would have dumped far more fresh water into the oceans than is currently the case. From your scenario this would have resulted in more ice forming, so logically the melting would have ceased.
In addition the temp must have risen first to melt the ice, which would seem to have been impossible if the ice reflecting the sunlight was the primary cause of the ice in the first place!
Science stands on the premise that effect follows cause. For the ice to have melted the temp MUST have risen.

Roy.


----------



## Jenx (8 Apr 2009)

For anyone who may be thus inclined ....

To read very well informed writings of a very well educated man, may I perhaps suggest having a read of the theories of 

Professor Philip Stott, Professor Emeritus of Biogeography.

He appeared on the Channel 4 documentary entitled
" The Great Global Warming Swindle "

( For initial info - see here ~~~> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_ ... ng_Swindle )
Wikipedia isn't THE most reliable source of info in the world, granted .. but the link would suffice in getting you started, if you were interested in the subject.

Here is Professor Stott's Weblog --> 

http://web.mac.com/sinfonia1/Global_War ... _Blog.html

( takes a second or two to load.. :wink: )


and here... a Podcast from the Prof
http://web.mac.com/sinfonia1/Music_%26_ ... ews_6.html

You may be quite surprised how compelling the case is.
:wink: :lol:


----------



## Digit (8 Apr 2009)

I am reminded of this Jenx...

_Goebells adopted the phrase: Tell a Lie That is Big Enough, and Repeat it Often Enough, and the Whole World Will Believe It._

seems to work as well now as then I fear.
Al Bore's Nobel prize should have been for literature!

Roy.


----------



## Jenx (8 Apr 2009)

:lol: :lol: :lol: Exactly, Roy ....
very similar to what I've been shot down for, on this very forum, a few times previously ....

_"Invent a scenario / convince the popultion it exists / offer a solution and sit back & take the plaudits "_

Its not in my nature to 'blindly accept' .... 
I'm not the brightest bulb in the chandelier, thats for sure.... but I know when to "question" hopefully :wink: 8)

However, not to embark on another conspiracy rant ...
the initial subject of the topic just astounded me... *that car*, which has clearly been irrefutably promoted to us as the 'environmentally friendly option' ( ask anyone in the UK .. " Whats the 'green' car ? , and without question, they will answer PRIUS.. so the earlier attempt to refute that the thing had been promoted in this way, was little short of astonishing ..) would appear to be _anything but_ what its promoted as being. 
These things have an 'inverse duty' to be brought to the wider attention.
:lol: 8) :lol:


----------



## Doctor (8 Apr 2009)

Global warming my buttocks, what next "the world is round"
Its flat and always will be.


----------



## bugbear (8 Apr 2009)

Gill":3k4ykrem said:


> So it looks as if I'll have to pay a visit to the library and scour back copies of the New Scientist ](*,) . Thanks anyway, Mike  .
> 
> These scientists who espouse global warming are rotten communicators. If they made their data more readily accessible to the public, this debate might not be taking place.
> 
> Gill



Inconveniently, the data is absolutely incomprehensible without rather a lot of background scientific training.

What exactly is "the public" meant to do with (e.g.) gigabytes of ocean temperature data?

The answer to this conundrum is "peer reviewed journals".

It sort of like a court jury, only for science.

BugBear


----------



## studders (8 Apr 2009)

Doctor":od6u1dir said:


> Global warming my ****, what next "the world is round"
> Its flat and always will be.



I scientificly tested your assertion that the world is flat.
I placed a Ball on my lawn,
It did not move.
I conclude you are right. :wink:


----------



## jlawrence (8 Apr 2009)

Digit, I believe the ice melted last time due to increases in deep water temperatures - ie the sea under the ice started the melting process.
Yes, you're right it raises the temperature - ie desalinated water freezes quicker. Don't know why I put lowers.

Obviously I'm only having wild stabs in the dark as to what might of happen / might happen. Who knows - we might be right.


----------



## Jenx (8 Apr 2009)

studders":1uww1smk said:


> Doctor":1uww1smk said:
> 
> 
> > Global warming my ****, what next "the world is round"
> ...



Not too shabby, lads... not too shabby at all :lol: :lol: :lol: :wink:


----------



## Jenx (8 Apr 2009)

bugbear":2wvfb2ak said:


> Gill":2wvfb2ak said:
> 
> 
> > So it looks as if I'll have to pay a visit to the library and scour back copies of the New Scientist ](*,) . Thanks anyway, Mike  .
> ...




Professor Stott's stuff is very 'plain english', and much easier for the layman to understand.
He doesn't 'cloak' anything in incomprehensible babble,
which definately adds to the appeal
8)


----------



## Digit (8 Apr 2009)

> deep water temperatures



Which simply shifts the matter one place to the left. What caused the sea temp to rise?

Roy.


----------



## RogerM (8 Apr 2009)

I've kept out of this debate because it always seems to sink into a slanging match.

I am not a climate change sceptic. The data is overwhelming. On the most simplistic level, 40 years ago we had lying snow every winter in south Devon, now it's very rare - it's happened just twice in the last 20 years, and then only for couple of days. But to establish averages you need periods when temperatures are above average and equally below average - that's the nature of averages! Climate changes - always has, always will. Human activity may even be a contributing factor, but not, I suspect, the over riding one.

At the end of the Cretaceous period which marked the end of the dinosaurs, 65 million years ago, global temperatures were significantly higher than they are now, and CO2 content of the atmosphere significantly greater. If you think this was all a very long time ago and that things are different now, it is very recent in geological terms. The earth was 98.5% of its current age, or to use the 24 hour clock analogy, the Cretaceous period (and the end of the dinosaurs) came at 20 mins to midnight. So not so very long ago really!

CO2 content of the atomosphere reached an all time low about 1,000 years ago and has risen significantly in the last century. It is now the highest that it has been for 600,000 years. That means that 600,001 years ago CO2 content was higher than it is now. Why? We don't know, but I don't think it was down to early Neanderthal man's campfires. There are natural cycles at work here that we still don't fully understand. There are also plenty of examples of early civilisations being obliterated through climate change - especially drought. This is nothing new.

My personal view is that since the end of the last ice age 10,000 years ago we have had a period of unprecedented climate stability which may have been a contributary factor in the rise of civilisation and turning us from being nomadic hunter-gatherers to farmers and city dwellers. It may just be that this period of climatic stability is coming to an end and normal service is being resumed - i.e. that of climate change. Discuss!

So do we do nothing? Absolutely not. We have no moral right to consume the planets entire reserves of oil in just a few generations. Our descendants will curse us for our profligacy. Nor can reducing pollution be a "bad thing". In the event that we are responsible for climate change it will be tackling the problem, and at the very worst we will be making the world a cleaner and more pleasant place in which to live, both for ourselves and the millions of species with which we share it..

From a climate change perspective, plastic bags are a red herring, but as a global pollution and litter problem they are a nightmare. They will take centuries to breakdown. I first went trekking in the Moroccan desert in 1972. I returned a couple of years ago, and the biggest difference was that out in the middle of the desert, miles from anywhere, the desert was covered by thousands of black plastic bags blowing in the wind for mile after mile. It was so depressing. Likewise, there are ocean eddies in the Pacific that have gathered millions of plastic bags to form a "plastic bag soup" that is decimating the wildlife. It's so unnecessary and we should be deeply ashamed. A partial answer may simply be to use reusable string bags and to tax non biodegradable plastic wrapping heavily. Maybe even ban the use of non- biodegradable plastic bags. It's in all our power to stop using plastic bags and if there is no demand the supply will dry up. And it will have absolutely no detrimental effect on our standard of living. We just need to stop being so apathetically lazy. 

I could go on but I won't. We really do need to clean up our act for environmental reasons - but I remain to be convinced that we can actually do anything to control the climate, regardless of whether we are responsible or not. But we can stop wrecking our only inhabitable planet, for ourselves and for all the creatures with which we have to share it.


----------



## Digit (8 Apr 2009)

Absolutely agree Roger, a pretty good synopsis based on known facts.

Roy.


----------



## Anonymous (8 Apr 2009)

Jenx":2681k7u7 said:


> These accounts are documented all over the net.
> .




Indeed. Well that makes them accurate, peer assessed, written by experts in their field and with a firm scientific basis :^o 

Only a complete ignoramus would believe rants posted on the web by unsubstantiated (not on other websites) sources :roll: 

As has been written before, look at peer reviewed scientific journals if you are looking for believable and accurate information


----------



## Jenx (8 Apr 2009)

RogerM":39uanr2w said:


> I've kept out of this debate because it always seems to sink into a slanging match.
> .



Excellent that you would then feel that this one hasn't, and the discussion is all good humoured and taken as friendly, Roger. :lol: 
And neither should a discussion descend into such realms .. we're all relatively sensible people, with the ability to convey our point, view or opinion, without getting hot under the collar.
The points you highlight, would appear to be very soundly based. 
I find myself agreeing with what you say there.
:lol: 8) 

To reply to Tony ... the irrefutable evidence concerning the Ontario Nickel plant isn't 'peer assessed' then ? :wink: 
To hark back to the original subject matter... the evidence that the Prius car is not what it is promoted as being, would appear to me to be completely substantiated, beyond any question.

I grant you however, that on the wider subject concerning the whole issue of the questions around global warming in general... the opinions are 'divided' to say the least.
I would hesitate at calling the works of the learned Professor Stott into question too far though... it would be folly to dismiss those such as he as anything less than credible.
As someone has already mentioned ... ( Argee I think.. ), we aren't going to be afforded the grace of being around long enough as individuals, to fully learn who is right and who is wrong, sadly.
Of course, if I am to say that - then equally, I have to concede that the research of those learned men who's views are in the opposing camp, must be given equal creedence and consideration.
To fail to do so would be wholly incorrect. -- Fair point. :wink: 

The crux of the issue is... despite whatever flowery language we wish to use, regarding 'peer-assessed' credentials ( which in reality doesn't count as particularly all that much.. it 'concievably could mean a wider group of equally misguided individuals', couldn't it.. :wink: ) -- the fact of the matter is, we really do not *conclusively* know anything , that is completely and irrefutably cast into stone on the matter.

What I will add that I find disappointing, is where someone cannot remain emotionally detatched from the discussion - and because viewpoints are conveyed, in a very acceptable fashion, I hasten to add.. that conflict with their own, they 'pick up the ball and run off'.
That, I'm afraid, is poor.

However, the debate could run and run ...
The fact that we're having it at all is healthy, and will, at the very least, serve to perhaps facilitate individuals to do a bit more reading and research, which will hopefully be all to the ultimate good of one and all.

Would you concur ?

8) 8) :lol:


----------



## PowerTool (8 Apr 2009)

Jenx":139uzqu1 said:


> The crux of the issue is... despite whatever flowery language we wish to use, regarding 'peer-assessed' credentials ( which in reality doesn't count as particularly all that much.. it 'concievably could mean a wider group of equally misguided individuals', couldn't it.. :wink: )



Indeed it could - as a converation I heard several years ago summed up:-
"But I've got 30 years experience"
"yes,but is that 30 years of doing it _right_ or doing it _wrong_ ?"

:lol: :lol: :lol: 

Andrew


----------



## Jenx (8 Apr 2009)

Precisely the point Andrew.
Well put :wink: 8)


----------



## RogerM (8 Apr 2009)

PowerTool":21kud8q5 said:


> .......... - as a converation I heard several years ago summed up:-
> "But I've got 30 years experience"
> "yes,but is that 30 years of doing it _right_ or doing it _wrong_ ?"
> 
> ...



... or perhaps he had 1 years experience 30 times!


----------



## Jenx (8 Apr 2009)

.... and got it wrong on each of the occasions ! 

Same end result :wink: :lol:


----------



## Jenx (8 Apr 2009)

RogerM":1m093b2z said:


> 40 years ago we had lying snow every winter in south Devon, now it's very rare .



Can I pick up on this .... ?

40 years ago - I lived in Bristol.
Not all that far from devon
From 1965, to 1976 it snowed -- once.
The gentle rolling hills of S.Devon are slightly different of course,
But I will bet in the most recent 11 years, its snowed in Bristol a lot more than once.
In fact, I know for sure it has. :wink: 
This would appear to conflict directly with what you say regarding the snow, Rog.
Any thoughts ?

:lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Digit (8 Apr 2009)

> Only a complete ignoramus would believe rants posted on the web by unsubstantiated



Or rants by Al Gore who dropped out of two university courses before majoring in Government studies.

Roy.


----------



## StevieB (8 Apr 2009)

Jenx wrote:



> I would hesitate at calling the works of the learned Professor Stott into question too far though... it would be folly to dismiss those such as he as anything less than credible.



Why? In particular why is he credible? And even if he is credible, why should we believe him? I take it you are using the term credible to mean the same thing as believeable - if not please explain your interpretation of the term. 

Being credible is not the same as being right. I sincerely hope you are not calling him credible because he has the title 'Professor' in front of his name or a pretty website? You can range up any number of Professors on both sides of pretty much any scietific debate who will both passionately believe and credibly explain their side of an argument. Doesn't make the right or mean we should believe everything they say. Before Darwin it was credible to beleive the teachings of the church on creationism. Now people tend to believe in evolution. Is it credible to believe in space men? To some yes, who argue passionately about the number of planets, the size of the cosmos and so on. Entirely credible to some. To others not, they argue about a god or the improbability of life evolving twice independently.

I have no idea what Professor Stotts views are, but making a blanket statement that we should not dismiss him because he is credible is just a throwaway comment that is meaningless in the wider context of any scientific debate. 

Steve.


----------



## RogerM (8 Apr 2009)

Jenx":3loxbcvj said:


> RogerM":3loxbcvj said:
> 
> 
> > 40 years ago we had lying snow every winter in south Devon, now it's very rare .
> ...


Jenx - this was a purely an admittedly poor anecdotal example to illustrate a point. I spent most of my childhood in South Devon, and returned 20 years ago to the same area. Between 1960 and 1974 it snowed most years, and that's not just 1962/63 when the snow lay for 3 months. Most winteres involved aerial drops of hay to animals on Dartmoor. To the disgust of my children, in the last 20 years, we have had snow laying in our garden only twice, once for 1 day and then for 2. Also heavy frosts were the norm in winter, whereas now they are rare. 

We are in danger of confusing weather with climate here. There is more to snow than low temperature. Wind direction, humidity, and strength and position of the jet streams to name just a few. A slight move in a jetstream can shepherd weather systems away from or over us, as was the case last summer. That's why I tend to refer to climate change rather than global warming.


----------



## Jenx (8 Apr 2009)

Thanks Roger, ... very fair comment in your reply. :wink:  

StevieB --- why would you wish to single out this one professor as any less credible as an individual source
He, by the nature of being a Professor, is about as 'credible' as credible gets.
By the same token, in absolutely every respect, so are those who would put the case 'for' global warming.

Your thinking would lead the 'layman' ( and I appreciate that as a scientist, you're not a layman yourself, by any stretch of the imagination ) to believe' " That bloke jenx referred to, is some sort of "Mickey Mouse professor", which of course is wholly incorrect.
The man is an Emiritus Professor of Biogeography for heavens sake ! How 'credible' a person would you LIKE me to find for you ? ... If He's not qualified to make an educated assessment or comment, then I am at a loss to understand who you believe _would_ be .

To use a layman's analogy ... would you go to the ironmongers to buy your fish ? no...

I believe that an Emiritus Professor of Biogeography has ample qualifications to be taking the standpoint that he does.

Your counter-argument is a little bizarre... its like arguing the point for the sake of arguing it... as you say, you don't know the man's work...
Why not reasearch it, and then call his credibility into question, once you are armed with some details... wouldn't that be a more sensible route to take ?

:wink: :lol:


----------



## Digit (8 Apr 2009)

> You can range up any number of Professors on both sides of pretty much any scietific debate who will both passionately believe and credibly explain their side of an argument.



How very true!

Roy.


----------



## Jenx (8 Apr 2009)

Which is indeed. what I wholeheartedly agree with. :wink: 

To call one Prof 'less than credible'... however, is bizarre.

Unless of course, he's on the side that you dont agree with...
then of course, it becomes another 'smokescreen diversionary tactic', but I'm sure Steve's above trying that one on. :wink:


The 'peer assesed' credentials referred to by some above, are 'peer assessed' by the well eductaed, 'qualified' people of the world, I assume ?

people like PROFESSORS and the like ?

Chaps, thou aren't proposing to argue with double-standards here, art thou ?
:wink: 8) :lol: 

Philip Stott has all the credentials necessary to argue his corner.
no doubt about it. 8) 8) 8)


----------



## StevieB (8 Apr 2009)

You don't seem to get my point Jenx and I have no wish to take this into a slanging match. However... 

I didn't single him out, you did. You said we shouldn't dismiss the views of such a credible individual. I merely asked why not and stated that credible does not mean the same thing as right.



> The man is an Emiritus Professor of Biogeography for heavens sake ! How 'credible' a person would you LIKE me to find for you ?



Why does a title make you credible? I work with a number of professors. Some are extremely dedicated, some I wouldn't trust to boil an egg. Within 3 - 5 years I will be applying for professorships myself but that certainly doesn't mean I know the answers to everything in my field of study, far from it in fact.



> Your counter-argument is a little bizarre... its like arguing the point for the sake of arguing it... as you say, you don't know the man's work...
> Why not reasearch it, and then call his credibility into question, once you are armed with some details... wouldn't that be a more sensible route to take ?



My counter argument is not a counter argument. It is an example of why credible doesn't mean right. I am not calling his credibility into question, I am asking why you feel we should believe his viewpoint because of his title? I prefer to draw my own conclusions from a personal study of the available evidence from a number of sources. I have not made any claims for or against global warming / climate change, nor do I intend to. I have not said I believe or disbelieve Professor Stott. Again, nor do I intend to. As stated earlier in the thread, this topic tends to instantly polarise opinion with entrenched views on both sides using selective evidence to support their theory. Neither side stand any chance of converting the other and exasperation ensues.

I am commenting in this particular thread because it is veering into science and scientific methodology and is incorrect in some of its understanding of scientific process. I put a link to scientific data earlier in the thread and I then corrected a statement you made concerning scientific evidence and credibility. I am making no claim to be in one camp or the other, nor to believe or disbelieve the evidence cited by one camp or the other. I am merely making the point that credible does not mean right.

Steve.


----------



## Digit (8 Apr 2009)

> and is incorrect in some of its understanding of scientific process.



A pet hate of mine and so often apparent in the popular press.
One I especially like is references to rising sea levels without any reference to sinking land levels.
Sells papers I imagine.

Roy.


----------



## Jenx (8 Apr 2009)

StevieB":1xxorrmo said:


> You don't seem to get my point Jenx and I have no wish to take this into a slanging match. However...
> 
> .



Absolutely no danger of that, Steve ... not in a million years :wink: :lol: 

Hey.. before going _any_ further -- all the best wishes in the world to you, when you go for your professorship, that will be a wonderful achievement.. thats brilliant to hear about. 8) 8) 

Yes, I take your point, Credible doesn't necessarily mean 'correct' ... on either side of the discussion, thats very true.
8) 

What "Credible" does mean... i think ... is having at the very least, some recognised background to a reasonably high standard which would qualify and quantify the individual concerned, as having the competency, not _exclusively_ relating to the subject matter per se, but in respect of a _competency of ability _ to comment, asses, assimilate , conclude and then advise on a specific subject.

If my appraisal of 'credibility' is anything like accurate there, then the credibility of Prof Stott, is absolutely intact.

As it would be for a person in a similar position on the 'other side of the fence' so to speak.

Would you take that as fair ?
:wink: 8) :wink: :lol:


----------



## Jake (8 Apr 2009)

Jenx":1qw3qka6 said:


> It may be a wild stab in the dark, but I'd guess where it says
> 
> "For Gill and other interested parties "
> 
> Possibly :wink:



Ah fair enough, I didn't read that sentence, or at least think about it when writing my response. It was just a general observation. I certainly intended no offence to Gill, who seems to be interested in evidence-based views.


----------



## Jake (8 Apr 2009)

Jenx":12erifvf said:


> StevieB":12erifvf said:
> 
> 
> > You don't seem to get my point Jenx and I have no wish to take this into a slanging match. However...
> ...



The point is that the vast preponderance of seemingly-credible-by-their-titles-and-qualifications people are on one side of the line, and a few seemingly-credible-by-their-titles-and-qualifications are the other side of the line. 

It is therefore a reasonable working hypothesis that the vast preponderance are right and the others are wrong, irrespective of their respective claims to said titles and qualifications.


----------



## Digit (8 Apr 2009)

Look up Piltdown Man Jake! That is just one example of many when that rule came unglued.

Roy.


----------



## Jake (8 Apr 2009)

I don't know enough about the Piltdown example to know whether there really was concensus, or how peer-reviewed etc it was. Assuming in your favour it was, though, are you saying that Piltdown man proves we should always take the opposite side of every point of scientific concensus because a concensus on one thing was once wrong?


----------



## duncanh (8 Apr 2009)

Before I write anything else I should state that I own a Prius. Now that's out in the open...

Back to the original post from Jenx, and not getting involved in the global warming debate...



Jenx":2b2dwjoc said:


> Having heard it rumoured many times.. was doing a bit of research...
> 
> "The Prius is powered by not one, but two engines: a standard 76 horsepower, 1.5-liter gas engine found in most cars today and a battery- powered engine that deals out 67 horsepower and a whooping 295ft/lbs of torque, below 2000 revolutions per minute. "


It has a standard engine and an electric motor, but that's not hugely relevant.



Jenx":2b2dwjoc said:


> Essentially, the Toyota Synergy Drive system, as it is so called, propels the car from a dead stop to up to 30mph.


Not necessarily true - it depends entirely on the driving conditions. You can get up to more than 30 on electric, sometimes the engine comes on sooner.



Jenx":2b2dwjoc said:


> The battery is recharged through the braking system, as well as when the gasoline engine takes over anywhere north of 30mph.


The battery is also recharged when coasting into a junction and when travelling down hill.
It isn't always charged when the engine takes over - again, it varies according to conditions and driving style.



Jenx":2b2dwjoc said:


> You would be right if you went by the old government EPA estimates, which netted the Prius an incredible 60 miles per gallon in the city and 51 miles per gallon on the highway. Unfortunately for Toyota, the government realized how unrealistic their EPA tests were, which consisted of highway speeds limited to 55mph and acceleration of only 3.3 mph per second. The new tests which affect all 2008 models give a much more realistic rating with highway speeds of 80mph and acceleration of 8mph per second. This has dropped the Prius EPA down by 25 percent to an average of 45mpg. This now puts the Toyota within spitting distance of cars like the Chevy Aveo, which costs less then half what the Prius costs.


My usual mpg is around 55, and I know that is lower than a lot of people who drive Priuses. Occasionally I get mid 60s. The car is not designed to drive at 80mph and shouldn't be going over 70. I find that my most economic speed is around 50 mph.



Jenx":2b2dwjoc said:


> However, if that was the only issue with the Prius, I wouldn't be writing this article. It gets much worse.
> 
> Building a Toyota Prius causes more environmental damage than a Hummer that is on the road for three times longer than a Prius. As already noted, the Prius is partly driven by a battery which contains nickel. The nickel is mined and smelted at a plant in Sudbury, Ontario. This plant has caused so much environmental damage to the surrounding environment that NASA has used the dead zone around the plant to test moon rovers. The area around the plant is devoid of any life for miles.


NASA hasn't actually used Sudbury for training since the early 70s and when it did it was because of the rock formations caused by an ancient meteor strike, not because of mining destruction.



Jenx":2b2dwjoc said:


> The plant is the source of all the nickel found in a Prius battery and Toyota purchases 1,000 tons annually. Dubbed the Superstack, the plague-factory has spread sulfur dioxide across northern Ontario, becoming every environmentalists nightmare.
> 
> The acid rain around Sudbury was so bad it destroyed all the plants and the soil slid down off the hillside, said Canadian Greenpeace energy-coordinator David Martin during an interview with Mail, a British-based newspaper.


There are several sources online (eg. here and here) which shed a little more light on the nickel issue. One quote is 
"Out of the Inco mine’s 174,800-ton output in 2004, Toyota purchased 1000 tons, just over a half-percent of its output".
Both links which I gave report that the article describes Sudbury in the 1970s, before Toyota was making the Prius and before large clean-up operations.




Jenx":2b2dwjoc said:


> All of this would be bad enough in and of itself; however, the journey to make a hybrid doesn't end there. The nickel produced by this disastrous plant is shipped via massive container ship to the largest nickel refinery in Europe. From there, the nickel hops over to China to produce nickel foam. From there, it goes to Japan. Finally, the completed batteries are shipped to the United States, finalizing the around-the-world trip required to produce a single Prius battery.


Yes, this is crazy.



Jenx":2b2dwjoc said:


> Through a study by CNW Marketing called “Dust to Dust," the total combined energy is taken from all the electrical, fuel, transportation, materials (metal, plastic, etc) and hundreds of other factors over the expected lifetime of a vehicle. The Prius costs an average of $3.25 per mile driven over a lifetime of 100,000 miles - the expected lifespan of the Hybrid.


Having just skimmed through the "Dust to Dust" document I found the following statement 

One thing is clear. The typical hybrid small vehicle such as the Prius is driven far fewer miles
each year than a comparably sized budget car. And for good reason. Like Upper Premium Sports
cars, these are generally secondary vehicles in a household OR they are driven in restricted or
short range environments such as college campuses or retirement neighborhoods. Clearly both of
those are generalizations and there are exceptions, but nonetheless this is a reality of automotive
use.
This is a ridiculous assumption and I would suggest that this is actually the exception to the norm. The original report is from the US though, so maybe their Prius ownership is that much different from ours.




Jenx":2b2dwjoc said:


> Through a study by CNW Marketing called “Dust to Dust," the total combined energy is taken from all the electrical, fuel, transportation, materials (metal, plastic, etc) and hundreds of other factors over the expected lifetime of a vehicle. The Prius costs an average of $3.25 per mile driven over a lifetime of 100,000 miles - the expected lifespan of the Hybrid.The Hummer, on the other hand, costs a more fiscal $1.95 per mile to put on the road over an expected lifetime of 300,000 miles. That means the Hummer will last three times longer than a Prius and use less combined energy doing it.


The "Dust to Dust" report assumes that the Prius and other hybrids will have an expected lifetime of 10 years. The first Prius was launched in 1997 and according to Wikipedia this model is now being exported and sold second hand. (admittedly this could be false data, but there is a link to completed sales for 1997 models)
This suggests a reliable vehicle. 

Of course, the information that I found against the original "Dust to Dust" report is all online and I can't say for sure that they weren't written by either hybrid owners or people with a green agenda.

When it comes down to it, I didn't buy a Prius because I thought it was greener, although it was a small factor, and I didn't buy because of the fuel economy, although that was a larger factor. The main reason was that I went for a test drive just out of interest and loved the driving experience.

Right, you can now carry on discussing global warming ;-)

Duncan


----------



## Jenx (8 Apr 2009)

Edited to maintain clarity by including what Jake says...



Jake":3nkdodn2 said:


> The point is that the vast preponderance of seemingly-credible-by-their-titles-and-qualifications people are on one side of the line, and a few seemingly-credible-by-their-titles-and-qualifications are the other side of the line.
> 
> It is therefore a reasonable working hypothesis that the vast preponderance are right and the others are wrong, irrespective of their respective claims to said titles and qualifications.



Fair comment too Jake, thats a definate given :wink: :lol: 

Where does one draw the line ? -- I honestly don't know the right answer to that.

Effectively, any tom, dick or harry can pop out of the woodwork and 'claim' expertise.. thats true.
And in certain cases, make a reasonable fist of a convincing argument, into the bargain.

What appears to be evident is that there are two sides to this ( like any ) story, and possibly, the 'real' truth may lie some way in between the two opposing ends of the pendulum's arc. History would perhaps indicate that this is possibly the most likely reality.

From a personal perspective, I think that ( as mentioned much earlier ), an effort to 'clean up our act' can't be a bad thing.. regardless of whether its a contributory factor to changes in climate or not.
Yes, I agree that the economies of other places in the world are far more guilty than we in the UK are... however, to take the standpoint of "I can't make a difference, and therefore why should I try" , isn't perhaps the most responsible course to take.
A case of 'every little helps', if you will.
It certainly cannot do any harm.

Nice to see the whole thing 'unfolding' without descending into the 'expected slanging match' ... there is never a need for that, in my humblest of opinions - and points have been conveyed in an eloquent and considered manner.
If for no other reason.. we should take heart from that.

There will always be divided views and opinions on almost every subject under the sun, and that, again in my humble view, is a very good thing indeed.

As I mentioned earlier - I'm not an educated fella.. and I also believe that I understand and accept the limits of my intelligence.... to obtain the views and input of others, serves as another source of 'education'... and for that, I would thank the contributors to the topic unreservedly.
A most enjoyable and informative discussion ( so far )... who knows, there may yet be more ! 

Good stuff, people..
:wink: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Digit (8 Apr 2009)

Agreed Jake, but that was just one example. I could damn near fill a page with others if you so desire.
Scientists are just as fallible as the rest of us, even the mighty Einstein was dismissive of quantum physics. I wasn't suggesting that something should be dismissed because of support by a majority, simply that that does not prove it to be correct. Newton's gravity laws is just another example, some theories take on a life of their own and develop legs.
Very very few theories of my childhood have stood the test of the intervening years, science moves on.

Roy.


----------



## Jenx (8 Apr 2009)

Hi Duncan ... sorry, I was replying to Jake, just as you posted. 8) :lol: 

Thats great input...
The article used is of course but one of many many similar on the same subject.
There is, as always, lots to choose from, from many many sources.
And as ever.. an argument to counter each previous one, and to counter-counter that.
On first reading, I thought Duncan's points blow holes in the point i was making, second reading.. not so much.
Who drives at 50mph for example ? .... not many people.

However... to get an account of someone who owns the Prius, ( which I have never done ), is as good a bit of background as one can hope for,
Much appreciated 8) :lol:


----------



## Jenx (8 Apr 2009)

Digit":2q6t2mxg said:


> test of the intervening years, science moves on.
> 
> Roy.



Yes, thats very true.
Its off the subject entirely, but at 16.. I was treated ( for a good few subsequent years too ) for a stomach ulcer, in the 'traditional manner'

Only after the reaserch of two medical Scientists, who were, I believe Aussies, was the true cause to be eventually found.. a viral thing called Helicobacter.

Without the advancement of 'science moving on'.. I'd never have got better.  

Maybe a poor example.. but it does highlight the point Roy makes. :lol: :lol:


----------



## Digit (8 Apr 2009)

Not really Jenx, it had more validity for you than the knowledge that Piltdown Man was a fraud.

Roy.


----------



## Jenx (8 Apr 2009)

I'm thinking about suggesting Piltdown drove a prius.
:wink: 
But that will probably result in my being shot. :wink: :lol: :lol: :lol: 

Fraud-in-a-fraud so to speak

A Fraudian Slip perhaps :wink: :lol: :lol: :lol: 

On that note.. I think that indicates its Teatime for me ! :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## TrimTheKing (8 Apr 2009)

Jenx":3q6r14yi said:


> ...The man is an Emiritus Professor of Biogeography ...


I must have read this 20 times and every time thought 'I was with him for a while, but what the hell has a bl00dy professor who spends his whole time writing about other people's lives got to do with anything?', then I realised it said Bio-Geography and not Biography  



Cheers

Mark


----------



## Digit (8 Apr 2009)

> I'm thinking about suggesting Piltdown drove a prius.



:lol: :lol: 

Roy.


----------



## jlawrence (8 Apr 2009)

digit - I'm better late than never I suppose. I've no idea what supposedly caused the deep water temperatures to rise - the only thing I've found online so far is that the warmer deep water supposedly originated in Antarctica. WHY ? I've no idea.
I don't really have a problem with either side of the gw discussion - though to my neither side makes any sense at times.

Just out of interest, what does peer reviewed actually mean. Is it that their peers reviewed the material to check that it was factually correct and thus the conclusions could be deemed sensible, or does it mean that they reviewed it to actually be correct - I'm don't think the two things are necessarily the same.


----------



## StevieB (8 Apr 2009)

Peer review means that it has been reviewed by your peers or contempories in the field. They are supposed to ensure scientific methodolgy is correct and appropriate and that any claims you make are valid based on your methodology. It doesnt mean it is correct as such, but that the interpretation is valid given the known state of play.

Steve.


----------



## Digit (8 Apr 2009)

That about sums it up jl. The system has been is use for many years and works pretty well to prevent 'Nature' for example from publishing rubbish.
But like most systems the it isn't perfect, there have been complaints in recent years that you can only get Nature to publish that which follows the 'official' line.
The argument that GW is caused by CO2 got to the press before those who disagree, logically as they would not be disagree till somebody had made the opposite case.
So when Nature puts your paper out to peer review it is likely to be reviewed by someone who disagrees with what you say, as a result Nature has been accused of censorship and a lot of other nasty names.
Forget the open scientific mind jl, it don't exist, opponents have been known to slag each other off in the most insulting of terms.

Roy.


----------



## jlawrence (8 Apr 2009)

A fully open mind is a very very rare thing in any field.
Also (as with many fields in life) money can play a massive part as to which side of the fence you sit on. I'm not saying that all scientists have been swayed by who is funding the research they're doing, but some will have been.


----------

