| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Dgethin
Guest
|
 Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2007 3:02 pm Post subject: Gas Guzzlers |
 |
|
I have heard they are going to double the road tax in the budget for our 4 x
4's.
I have a Suzuki Grand Vitara 2.0 TD, and I do 38 mpg.
I don't think that is much gas guzzling
What do you all think |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Ian Rawlings
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2007 3:25 pm Post subject: Re: Gas Guzzlers |
|
|
On 2007-03-19, Dgethin <david.gethin1@ntlworld.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
I have heard they are going to double the road tax in the budget for
our 4x4's.
|
Nothing to do with 4x4s, just what emissions band you are in. This
change was introduced some time ago, e.g. the highest band being band
"G" IIRC, which had something like 22 4x4s and 130 other cars in it.
Chances are it'll be this band that gets the £400 rate that the papers
are waffling on about, and that band only applies to the dirtiest of
cars bought recently.
I don't think it's going to be much of a change for those of us who
don't buy new cars or drive powerful road-going 4x4s.
--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Stephen Firth
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2007 3:45 pm Post subject: Re: Gas Guzzlers |
|
|
Dgethin <david.gethin1@ntlworld.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
I have heard they are going to double the road tax in the budget for our 4 x
4's.
|
That is the usual media hysterical mis-reporting of facts. Brown ius
proposing to increase the highest VED band to £210 a year. This will
affect all owners of large engined vehicles, not just 4x4 owners.
| Quote: |
I have a Suzuki Grand Vitara 2.0 TD, and I do 38 mpg.
I don't think that is much gas guzzling
What do you all think
|
I think the "green" lobby are a bunch of fucking liars. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Lurkio
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2007 7:03 pm Post subject: Re: Gas Guzzlers |
|
|
Stephen Firth wrote:
| Quote: |
I think the "green" lobby are a bunch of fucking liars.
|
I think we need to start writing and complaining to the papers and the Media
about this "Global warming" issue - OK it may be happening but look back and
you'll find vinyards in the UK in Roman Times (and I'm guessing they did
not have 4x4s)
30years ago we had global cooling panic in the papers - Its just a natural
cycle and anyway humans produce only a very small % of co2 emmissions
cows fart more greenhouse gasses, sheep were blamed for the hole in the
ozone layer a few years ago and now Its my fault because I have an old
fashioned lightbulb ? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Stephen Firth
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2007 7:34 pm Post subject: Re: Gas Guzzlers |
|
|
Lurkio <Lurkio@gwragedd.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
I think we need to start writing and complaining to the papers and the Media
about this "Global warming" issue - OK it may be happening but look back and
you'll find vinyards in the UK in Roman Times (and I'm guessing they did
not have 4x4s)
|
A little over 120,000 years ago and there were olive trees in the
Channel and hippopotami, lions, panther, hyaena and elephants roaming
around Trafalgar Square.
The tactics of the "greens" seem to be to argue that the earth has
suddenly warmed or that such warming is unsual, however in an
interglacial period (which we are in at present) rapid warming and
cooling are expected events. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Ian Rawlings
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2007 7:52 pm Post subject: Re: Gas Guzzlers |
|
|
On 2007-03-19, Stephen Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
| Quote: |
The tactics of the "greens" seem to be to argue that the earth has
suddenly warmed or that such warming is unsual, however in an
interglacial period (which we are in at present) rapid warming and
cooling are expected events.
|
If I had 100 people from different housing trades round to inspect a
house I was going to buy and 85 of them said it was suffering from bad
subsidence and would fall down within 10 years, two of them stood in
the corner with pillows on their heads screaming "WE'RE ALL GOING TO
DIE!", two of them said "it's fine, carry on!" but they appeared to be
the estate agents wearing groucho marks masks, four of them were
standing in front of TV cameras saying "everyone's wrong, listen to
me, what about galileo!" and the rest just shrugged their shoulders, I
don't think I'd buy that house.
--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Lerkio
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2007 8:27 pm Post subject: Re: Gas Guzzlers |
|
|
Ian Rawlings wrote:
| Quote: |
On 2007-03-19, Stephen Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
The tactics of the "greens" seem to be to argue that the earth has
suddenly warmed or that such warming is unsual, however in an
interglacial period (which we are in at present) rapid warming and
cooling are expected events.
If I had 100 people from different housing trades round to inspect a
house I was going to buy and 85 of them said it was suffering from bad
subsidence and would fall down within 10 years, two of them stood in
the corner with pillows on their heads screaming "WE'RE ALL GOING TO
DIE!", two of them said "it's fine, carry on!" but they appeared to be
the estate agents wearing groucho marks masks, four of them were
standing in front of TV cameras saying "everyone's wrong, listen to
me, what about galileo!" and the rest just shrugged their shoulders, I
don't think I'd buy that house.
The IBCC and their 2500 top scientists is bolloix |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Ian Rawlings
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2007 11:16 pm Post subject: Re: Gas Guzzlers |
|
|
On 2007-03-19, Lerkio <Lerkio@gwragedd.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
The IBCC and their 2500 top scientists is bolloix
|
Be sure to tell them that "Lerkio", wot cannot speel his insluts, says so!
--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Stephen Firth
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2007 11:38 pm Post subject: Re: Gas Guzzlers |
|
|
Ian Rawlings <news06@tarcus.org.uk> wrote:
| Quote: |
On 2007-03-19, Stephen Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
The tactics of the "greens" seem to be to argue that the earth has
suddenly warmed or that such warming is unsual, however in an
interglacial period (which we are in at present) rapid warming and
cooling are expected events.
If I had 100 people from different housing trades round to inspect a
house I was going to buy and 85 of them said it was suffering from bad
subsidence and would fall down within 10 years, two of them stood in
the corner with pillows on their heads screaming "WE'RE ALL GOING TO
DIE!", two of them said "it's fine, carry on!" but they appeared to be
the estate agents wearing groucho marks masks, four of them were
standing in front of TV cameras saying "everyone's wrong, listen to
me, what about galileo!" and the rest just shrugged their shoulders, I
don't think I'd buy that house.
|
Which could be condensed to "Eat shit! A million flies can't be wrong."
I dont understand why relatively intelligent people imagine that science
is based on a majority vote. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Ian Rawlings
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2007 12:18 am Post subject: Re: Gas Guzzlers |
|
|
On 2007-03-19, Stephen Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
| Quote: |
Which could be condensed to "Eat shit! A million flies can't be wrong."
|
While your approach can be condensed to "believe the cranks, they have
to be right *sometimes*".
| Quote: |
I dont understand why relatively intelligent people imagine that
science is based on a majority vote.
|
It's not, but when the majority in a growing field are finding the
same thing, pinning your hopes to the minority tends to make you look
a tad desperate.
Note that the majority of scientists in the field are not responsible
for the daft hysteria behind the more outlandish bunny-hugging, the
scientific consensus is quite modest, something like a few degrees
change over a couple of hundred years. *that* is the consensus, the
rest is just media panic-mongering and opportunist politics.
--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Stephen Firth
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2007 1:00 am Post subject: Re: Gas Guzzlers |
|
|
Ian Rawlings <news06@tarcus.org.uk> wrote:
| Quote: |
On 2007-03-19, Stephen Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
Which could be condensed to "Eat shit! A million flies can't be wrong."
While your approach can be condensed to "believe the cranks, they have
to be right *sometimes*".
|
Umm no, it's my view that the evidence should be evaluated and that root
causes should be demonstrated, not assumed. Also that evidence that
counters a hypothesis should not be ignored simply because it is
convenient to do so.
| Quote: |
I dont understand why relatively intelligent people imagine that
science is based on a majority vote.
It's not, but when the majority in a growing field are finding the
same thing, pinning your hopes to the minority tends to make you look
a tad desperate.
|
I have no doubt that the earth has warmed. You seem to be trying to
paint me into a corner that I have not stood in.
| Quote: |
Note that the majority of scientists in the field are not responsible
|
You could have stopped there.
| Quote: |
for the daft hysteria behind the more outlandish bunny-hugging, the
scientific consensus is quite modest, something like a few degrees
change over a couple of hundred years. *that* is the consensus, the
rest is just media panic-mongering and opportunist politics.
|
Indeed, and any suggestion that global warming has been proved to be
man-made is also without real foundation. Remember there's a closer
inverse correlation between the numbers of pirates and global warming
than there is between industrial activity and global warming.
And in order to believe in man-made global warming one has to ignore the
warming of other planets in the solar system.
One also wonders why we have frequent claims that the rate of climate
change is faster than it has ever been when this statement is a flat
lie. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Lurch
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2007 1:14 am Post subject: Re: Re: Gas Guzzlers |
|
|
On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 15:03:39 GMT, "Lurkio" <Lurkio@gwragedd.com>
mused:
| Quote: |
Stephen Firth wrote:
I think the "green" lobby are a bunch of fucking liars.
I think we need to start writing and complaining to the papers and the Media
about this "Global warming" issue - OK it may be happening but look back and
you'll find vinyards in the UK in Roman Times (and I'm guessing they did
not have 4x4s)
|
I was thinking about this on the way home from work. It costs me
enough to keep a van on the road, and the odd car for non-work. I'm
not against paying for things I use, or paying towards things that may
benefit me, but paying more out just for the sake of paying more is a
bit too much. I can't do any less miles, jobs are at fixed locations,
I can't very easily get shopping centres and business parks Fed-Exed
to me so I can fit stuff to them, I have to drive to them.
But, if it benefits us, then it means we're not being robbed blind so
someone loses out, so I can't see anything happening.
| Quote: |
30years ago we had global cooling panic in the papers - Its just a natural
cycle and anyway humans produce only a very small % of co2 emmissions
cows fart more greenhouse gasses, sheep were blamed for the hole in the
ozone layer a few years ago and now Its my fault because I have an old
fashioned lightbulb ?
-- |
Regards,
Stuart. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Ian Rawlings
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2007 1:38 am Post subject: Re: Gas Guzzlers |
|
|
On 2007-03-19, Stephen Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
| Quote: |
Umm no, it's my view that the evidence should be evaluated and that root
causes should be demonstrated, not assumed. Also that evidence that
counters a hypothesis should not be ignored simply because it is
convenient to do so.
|
And you're capable of doing so?
--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Stephen Firth
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2007 2:31 am Post subject: Re: Gas Guzzlers |
|
|
Ian Rawlings <news06@tarcus.org.uk> wrote:
| Quote: |
On 2007-03-19, Stephen Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
Umm no, it's my view that the evidence should be evaluated and that root
causes should be demonstrated, not assumed. Also that evidence that
counters a hypothesis should not be ignored simply because it is
convenient to do so.
And you're capable of doing so?
|
There are two statements above, to which do you refer? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Ian Rawlings
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2007 2:59 am Post subject: Re: Gas Guzzlers |
|
|
On 2007-03-19, Stephen Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
| Quote: |
Ian Rawlings <news06@tarcus.org.uk> wrote:
On 2007-03-19, Stephen Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
Umm no, it's my view that the evidence should be evaluated and that root
causes should be demonstrated, not assumed. Also that evidence that
counters a hypothesis should not be ignored simply because it is
convenient to do so.
And you're capable of doing so?
There are two statements above, to which do you refer?
|
Yep sorry ;-)
It was the evaluation of the evidence.
What I see is people dismissing the viewpoint of experts in the field
who are actually at the coal face, but the people doing the dismissing
aren't experts in any of the relevant fields. I know that I can't mix
it with physicists, geologists, chemists, zoologists and so on as the
disciplines are so refined that no-one can be an expert in them all.
What people seem to be doing is to listen to evidence and pick the
stuff that seems to fit what they want, and then cling to it. That
daft channel 4 documentary that people are lining up behind is a good
example, some were hailing it as the "most important contribution to
the climate debate" in ages. In reality much of the evidence was
heavily twisted, according to people who were presented on the
programme as *supporters* of the programme's point of view. Some of
it was proven wrong and withdrawn a long time ago by some other
"supporters" featured on the programme, and the rest was dubious at
best.
However people lined up behind it as it supported their view that the
whole climate change thing was stuff and nonsense. But they've never
seen any of the proper arguments put forward by those who are actually
at the coal face. An example is the relative mix of carbon isotopes
in the atmosphere, a short extract from a paper on this was somewhat
mind-numbing to a non-physicist like myself, and how can I be expected
to evaluate such evidence. And if I was a physicist, how can I
evaluate evidence put forward by a geologist.
It's this impenetrable, complex work that is defining the current
understanding of the situation re climate change, and the current
consensus is that we're not helping at all as a species. You or I
can't sit here and say that we don't believe any of it unless we're
prepared to say that it's a matter of faith, and I for one do not like
matters of faith.
--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
106 Attacks blocked
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
