Re: quiet?

On 21 Apr, 17:55, "Falcon" <fal...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
jl wrote:
In article <755p05F16kep...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
  Falcon <fal...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

eugene wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8008473.stm

Is it me, or is this a highly confusing article?

I have always felt that much of the climate debate is hyped up
unscientific nonsense. We just don't know enough of the long term
behaviour of our sun and our planet to make any firm predictions at all..

All these windmills and green fashions are just that: fashions and tricks
to control people and get more money out of them.

Manns 'Hockey Stick' is a prime example of the lengths some scientists seem
to be willing to go to flog the climate change scam. Despite being torn to
shreds by McIntyre and McKitrick et.al. over six years ago, it still found
it's way into the IPCC doomsday book, not to mention an Inconveniently
Untruthful film.

Frankly, the more I learn, the worse it gets. Recent doomsday scenarios are
full of the same sort of bad science as MBH98 and its so-called 'updates':
unjustified data truncation which just happens to leave out inconvenient
data; copying of values from one data series into another with no
justification; displacement of series data by a year or so here and there
for effect; unjustified extrapolations to cover missing data; geographical
mislocations; inconsistent mixing of seasonal data were annual data is
available; unlisted proxies - and even the apparently deliberate (or
incredibly shoddy) miscalculation of tree ring data.

But hell, why not? Climate hysterical is the 21st Century's pot of gold for
developers and renewable 'entrepreneurs'.

It is fun watching it all though.

Not when it's threatening to destroy your own environment, it isn't. Local
residents have had to raise an incredible £80K to fund the case against
developers at the forthcoming public inquiry.

--
Falcon:
fide, sed cui vide. (L)
NIABY [Not In *Anybody's* Back Yard]

Something that's bothering me is that much of the 'environmental'
legislation being brought in or proposed doesn't even achieve the
carbon or the over-all pollution gains that they are supposed to be
premised on.
For example, the recent London Low Emission Zone legislation
pulls a huge number of workable commercial vehicles off the road and,
while fitting particulate filters is one compliance option, the
leaflets distributed by Transport for London specifically promote
renewing your truck fleet with new vehicles built to newer emission
standards as a compliance option.
As the Lib Dem mayoral candidate pointed out, the expected
reduction in diesel particulate pollution from the LEZ is extremely
low (1 or 2 percent ?, i forget precisely, a gain which will for sure
be achieved anyway in due course when vehicles are replaced for newer
models), while nobody seems to have copped on that a huge percentage
of the carbon and other pollution footprint of any vehicle is caused
during the *production of new vehicles* (some estimates put as high as
third of the entire pollution output of the vehicle lifetime).
I've not done the maths, but if all this compliance hassle
causes, say, 20 or 30 % of operators to bring forward purchase of new
vehicles, I very much doubt the minute gain in regards to particulate
pollution (which will occur for sure anyway with due to ordinary
scrappage/renewal) is outweighed by the other carbon pollution factors
arising from bringing forward construction of new vehicles. Perhaps
this circus actually creates net environmental damage - i would like
to read a proper 'carbon audit' taking in all the factors.
It doesn't sound like joined-up environmental policy to
me. But it creates a stupendous bureaucratic roundabout, as well as an
instant exhaust modification and testing industry, as well as lots of
fining opportunities for TfL, and another big headache for road
haulage operators. Though this doesn't seem to stop the LEZ being
proposed now for a number of other cities.
The very same factor severely compromises the proposed trade-
in money for renewing to 'greener' vehicles mooted by the UK
chancellor.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: quiet?
    ... carbon or the over-all pollution gains that they are supposed to be ... pulls a huge number of workable commercial vehicles off the road and, ... while fitting particulate filters is one compliance option, ... of the carbon and other pollution footprint of any vehicle is caused ...
    (soc.culture.irish)
  • Re: IPCC models wrong
    ... CO2 is contributing to the warming up. ... of population growth alone. ... pollution from motorized traffic. ... than the number of vehicles can increase. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Tap Water VS Bottled Water
    ... to being motivated to explore the idea of cranking out gas free cars. ... mean "zero emission vehicles" which rules out diesel as well. ... cargo ships to the point that prices don't skyrocket. ... produce about as much pollution each day as an oil refinery. ...
    (rec.food.drink.tea)
  • Re: LEZ London
    ... for charity-owned vehicles would have been a good idea... ... policy on pollution, send our waste to Africa and South America, ship ... kids about in beaten up old minibuses or do we want to offer a shiny ... most of us will do in our older cars. ...
    (uk.rec.scouting)
  • Re: Making ALL Roads Into TOLL Roads
    ... >>cited has a very high pollution growth rate due to excessive development, ... Look what happened to the CAFE standards. ... Would you rather have had GM and Ford follow Chrysler (and Ford was also in ... both the EU and Japan allow sales of micro-mini vehicles (which are ...
    (sci.geo.satellite-nav)