4 X 4's popular again!

[Guest]

Germany has a pretty large share of the 4x4 and gas guzzler market. If it has so many Greens why not cull them and do us all a favour?

A veggie do gooder must be pumping out far more unwanted gases than a modern 4x4 and how many people can a green carry up a muddy slope?

 

[colin-yorkshire1]

Father-in-law had the same 45years driving experience, from Ploughing with horses to 8 wheel tankers and 42 ton artics, told me the other day the safest car on the road under you in this weather has got to be 4x4 no amount of years driving experience can beat a vehicle that's designed for off road or on snow.

Disagree with you both Colin and Lutz

yer right thats why 5 of the 15 people who stayed at home yesterday from our street drive 4x4s another red herring.

 

[colin-yorkshire1]

I have my 4X4 because I like it. I've had cars and I had 4X4 before they became popular with the "masses", and last year returned to the 4X4. I'm perhaps lucky because I can afford it owing to the fact that it's a second vehicle so don't do that many miles.

Therefore I don't feel that I have to justify it in any other way.

you dont thats the point.

 

[colin-yorkshire1]

Germany has a pretty large share of the 4x4 and gas guzzler market. If it has so many Greens why not cull them and do us all a favour?

A veggie do gooder must be pumping out far more unwanted gases than a modern 4x4 and how many people can a green carry up a muddy slope?

another red herring

 

[Parksy]

Euro

One would hope that your most recent offering was tongue in cheek because it's not really adding anything to the discussion

 

[Guest]

Euro

One would hope that your most recent offering was tongue in cheek because it's not really adding anything to the discussion

:0)

So Parksy you can do 'Sharp'

But come on, give it some credibility. How many times do 4x4's come to the rescue compared to Green Numpties?

Or would you fancy the chances of a battery powered Mini coming to your rescue through 50 miles of snow choked roads or a nice warm diesel 4x4?

 

[Guest]

:0)

So Parksy you can do 'Sharp'

But come on, give it some credibility. How many times do 4x4's come to the rescue compared to Green Numpties?

Or would you fancy the chances of a battery powered Mini coming to your rescue through 50 miles of snow choked roads or a nice warm diesel 4x4?

 

[Parksy]

No flies on me Euro (you can see where they've been though)

As the proud possessor of a 'nice warm diesel 4x4' the chances of an electric powered steam chicken ever coming to my rescue are somewhat less than those of Tony Blair being re appointed Prime Minister due to popular demand :0)

 

[colin-yorkshire1]

hey come on parksy that last comment was political and we dont do politics do we :O)

euros last comment comes under the we have 4x4s to help others red herring in my experience neither would help judging by the curtain twiching of the 4x4 fraternity the last time I saw anyone stuck on wet grass.

in fact the only time I ever needed any help came in the form of a man in a whit transit pick up with green flag written on the side and the last time I looked they were 2 wheel drive only not counting the twin back axel :O)

 

[Lutz]

German TV news was countering with comments on how incapable the UK was to keep its roads clear of snow so that "normal" cars can get through, simply because the proper equipment was not available in large enough numbers.

 

[xtrailman]

Maybe, but as you like to say, why buy in equipment for the TWO weeks of snow we may have?

The same goes for grit. How anyone has the cheek to complain about the pavements not being clear is risible.

 

[Lord Braykewynde]

I'm sure the German people would like the UK to buy German high tech snow clearers but I'm sure our taxes could be better spent just for putting up with the snow for a couple of weeks.

That is unless this global warming gets worse and our winters get longer and colder ;O)

As an afterthought maybe if our summers are going to get wetter and colder like 2009 maybe I ought to go back to boating :O)

 

[Pat_374304630]

Back to topic

Our local Council in Northampton has put out an appeal for 4 x 4 drivers to help them out.

Yippeeeeeeeeeeee Approved by the local council !!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Dustydog]

How is it all this alleged "Global Warming" has caused mega snow and temperatures of Minus 10 deg C etc??

Seems a bit of a contradiction in terms to me???

No doubt some Green bod will put me right.

Cheers

Dustydog

 

[S_374382905]

Yes - you are right.

Chap on the BBC (who are currently being investigated for alleged bias in reporting the whole issue of Global Warming)yesterday said that the world is still getting warmer in spite of the recent 'cold snap'.

He rather snearingly said that the current situation is 'just weather' and that 'this is typical of the variability of weather in the UK'. Sadly, he did not mention - China, most of the rest of Europe, including Spain, North america etc. So - no bias at all!

 

[Lutz]

There is no contradiction.

When talking about global warming one is referring to climate change, not the weather. Weather is something experienced in the short term, in the course of a year, climate change is much longer term, like decades.

Also, weather is local, but global warming is, as its name implies, on a global scale. It may well be that parts of the world get colder while others get warmer. Global warming refers to an average throughout the world, not just in the UK and not just during the last couple of weeks.

 

[ShadySadie]

What Global warming?

The worlds climates have changed before. My friend has -30c in Canada this morning, colder there than normal. My cousin and her husband moved to another part of Canada last year and the local tell them it is far colder and has more snow than normal.

Ice age must be coming.

 

[S_374382905]

Actually there is a massive contradiction. Global warming does not need to be distinguished from 'weather'. It needs to be distinguished from 'man made' Global warming.(properly called Anthropogenic Global warming - AGW)

The debate is not whether the world is getting warmer, but the extent to which man is causing it. It is the latter than has been subject of the biggest scandal ever to hit the scientific community.

There is an ever growing objectively based set of data to show that the world average temperature has in fact remained stable, or has even cooled slightly over the past ten years. The issue is without doubt now a 'Political' rather than scientific one anyway.

As one critic of the whole scam said recently:

"Global temperatures range from about -70C at the poles to 50C in the tropics. With this much variation, not to mention seasonal changes and day-to-day noise, how can anyone justify the use of the "global average temperature" as a meaningful number?

A result of increasing greenhouse gas concentrations is that there will be more energy trapped in our atmosphere. However, no one can say exactly how this energy will be distributed. For example, if that energy were used to maintain higher extremes - some places getting hotter, others getting colder - this would have disastrous consequences, but "global average temperature" might not change.

People should stop talking of a "two degree rise in global temperature": our planetary system is too complicated to be adequately described by one number."

 

[Lutz]

You're right that the issue is a lot more complex, but I don't think anyone is denying that the ice cap around the North Pole is receding, as are many glaciers in the Alps, not to mention melting of the permanent frost in Siberia, causing their railway lines to sink into the ground. If global warming is not responsible for that, what is?

 

[ShadySadie]

Changes in weather patterns have happened many times.

The only difference now is that money can be made from buying in to global warming.

I'm sure from my school day memories that Britains landscape was created by glacial movement, so where did the glaciers go?

Global warming, I bet.

 

[S_374382905]

Changes in weather patterns have happened many times.

The only difference now is that money can be made from buying in to global warming.

I'm sure from my school day memories that Britains landscape was created by glacial movement, so where did the glaciers go?

Global warming, I bet.

Actually there is a massive contradiction. Global warming does not need to be distinguished from 'weather'. It needs to be distinguished from 'man made' Global warming.(properly called Anthropogenic Global warming - AGW)

The debate is not whether the world is getting warmer, but the extent to which man is causing it. It is the latter than has been subject of the biggest scandal ever to hit the scientific community.

There is an ever growing objectively based set of data to show that the world average temperature has in fact remained stable, or has even cooled slightly over the past ten years. The issue is without doubt now a 'Political' rather than scientific one anyway.

As one critic of the whole scam said recently:

"Global temperatures range from about -70C at the poles to 50C in the tropics. With this much variation, not to mention seasonal changes and day-to-day noise, how can anyone justify the use of the "global average temperature" as a meaningful number?

A result of increasing greenhouse gas concentrations is that there will be more energy trapped in our atmosphere. However, no one can say exactly how this energy will be distributed. For example, if that energy were used to maintain higher extremes - some places getting hotter, others getting colder - this would have disastrous consequences, but "global average temperature" might not change.

People should stop talking of a "two degree rise in global temperature": our planetary system is too complicated to be adequately described by one number."

 

[S_374382905]

The problem though is that in other areas, the ice is growing. The land-mass around Bangladesh has actually increased significantly over the past few years, and there has also been a slight reduction in sea levels around the Maldives.

Of course, the only thing which gets reported are the ones similar to those Lutz has mentioned.

I am not 'knocking' Lutz - but I have become increasingly interested in the whole issue of AGW over a number of years and have read extensively on the subject As time has gone by I have become extremely angry at the politically derived scam that AGW represents.

Anyone who challenges AGW is dismissed as a 'flat earther' and sceptical scientists have been forced to keep quiet for fear of their funding streams being cut. The real victims in all of this scam are the tax payers and the main benefactors of perpetuating it all are big business organisations trading in carbon Credits and the like.

So I would challenge what Lutz says about Global warming having the impact he describes - or at least his implicit 'certainty' that this is the case. Yes, the climate is changing in parts of the world - as Sadie says, it always has. The reality though is that the most objective scientists will state that they do not really know if things are getting warmer or colder as a trend, or if it is just a 'blip'.

One thing is for certain though - one day this will all be exposed for the corrupt fiasco that it is.

 

[Lutz]

Over thousands of years there have been numerous periods of natural recession of glaciers, but they never did much harm because the Earth's population was so small and anyone who might have been threatened by rising water could easily move to higher ground. However, what we are experiencing now is much faster than in the past, because natural causes are being amplified by man-made ones (to which degree is highly controversial). On top of that there are now millions of people on this planet living in low lying coastal or arid regions and it would impossible to relocate them all elsewhere.

 

[S_374382905]

But, Lutz, you are again surmising that there WILL be some kind of apocalyptic event. There is NO evidence that this is the likely or inevitable outcome.

'Warming' is NOT accelerating (or at least there is no objective proof that it is). There are equal amounts of evidence that the world temperatures have been stable for at least the past ten years.

The so called 'Hockey Stick' graph which is used by 'warmists' to show the sudden and speedy rise in temperatures at around the period of the industrial revolution (ie things suddenly got warmer when industry started) has been totally discredited, but was still used in Copenhagen to justify the IPCC's stance. The data was manipulated to remove what is called the 'mediaeval warm period) and thereby show an upward trend.

We could 'to and fro' on this issue for ever and a day - I just wish that people would stop relying on the increasingly discredited science of the warmists and start asking their MP's to look at 'the other side of the debate'.

 

[ProfJohnL]

"Global Warming" was perhaps a rather narrow perspective on the wider issue of 'Climate change'

I have absolutely no doubt that the worlds climate is changing; it has continued to change for the last 4 billion years, and based solely on historical evidence of cyclical changes, I see no reason to expect the changes to stop occurring now and in the future.

The only factor that has been put forward to convince us we are to blame is the rate of change, which appears to be quicker, and it also appears that this acceleration coincides with the increase in fossil fuels. This is not conclusive, because there have been other historical events that suggest rapid climate change has occurred before.

What I don't see yet is any conclusive evidence that human activity has caused climate change, Now don't go away thinking I'm dismissing the possibility, but as yet there is no irrefutable evidence.

I find a grater possibility that human activity may be accelerating climate change, but even that is not conclusive.

Not withstanding the above, I don't think we can afford to ignore matter. Regardless of the cause, if we can become more responsible energy users then that will definitely make the diminishing supplies of fuel go further and it may possibly reduce the effects of climate change- not to mention that using less fuel costs us less - seems like a win win situation.

We all have choices, and whilst we need to ensure our needs for fuel burning are met we should all consider and mitigate the wider implications of fuelling a desire rather than a need.

Trying to justify the ownership of an unnecessarily high consumption car by hiding behind the excesses of others (China, USA) is a questionable moral stance.