A rant against 'Drive' & enviro correctness

[swapper]

Actually the scientific community is still well divided on the issue.
http://www.oism.org/pproject/ 31,000 US scientists so far have signed a petition against the Kyoto treaty. There have also been petitions to the UN secretary general about the bad science coming out of the IPCC. The only people who are sure about this, are the Media. Disaster movies sell for a reason.

there is not one major scientific study or organization that has concluded that global warming isn't human caused, its only to which degree we have caused it, and to how big the effects will be, that they are divided.

the IPCC might not be perfect, just through their high profile work they are always going to get criticism, but the fact remains, he scientific community still generally rates them as the most knowledgeable organization on the issue of global warming, they are hardly a shoddy operation, they have also won a Nobel peace prize for their work

It doesnt cost the government 1 CENT. It costs us the tax payers the money, and Labour was voted in on a platform of eco-happytreefriends, so the mob has spoken and they are only now realizing what the bill is for services rendered.

using that argument, nothing costs the government a cent, because they pay for everything through taxes.
in the coming years they will pay out more $$$ than they get directly through "carbon taxes" etc
it costs them through pressures that the issue puts on the economy, which was Howard's 2nd big argument for not signing the Kyoto agreement.

anyway like i said, im not trying to start an argument about the issue, its been done to death, i was just merely correcting 2 comments

the 1st being "governments around the world are pushing this crap down our throats and scientists and geologists are saying the opposite." as i said every national scienific acadamy from the industrialised world has supported the theory of human caused global warming

And the 2nd being the fact that the average temperature on earth in the Jurassic period was 50 degrees.

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by sourbastard

It doesnt cost the government 1 CENT. It costs us the tax payers the money, and Labour was voted in on a platform of eco-happytreefriends, so the mob has spoken and they are only now realizing what the bill is for services rendered.

.

I froth at the mouth about this.. the last election was determined on a campaign of attracting green votes and angst about work choice reforms.. so far green/kyoto has turned out to be damn expensive and without any solid basis to justify cost or reason, there was a damn good reason why it wasnt signed by the previous govt....., the second reason has quietly been swept under the rug without even a hint of action.... and will probably eventually get wheeled out in a very watered down version.

[AuFairlaneV8]

Originally Posted by Brent

Disclaimer: This is an unashamed rant, so switch off now if you don't like reading these sort of posts.

I was waiting for a coffee at a shop outside my place of work this morning and I quickly flicked through the 'Drive' section of The Age newspaper. Anyway, there was a short snippet on the XR6 Turbo. In a nutshell, whilst the writer was quite pleased with the car itself, the comment was made that he doesn't really like "muscle cars" and every time they review a car like this, they get bombarded with emails expressing outrage that Drive would test such a car. He finished of fby saying he wouldn't own one because its just too politically incorrect nowadays.

Now, is this guy for real? Is 'Drive' seriously happy to print this sort of crap? The article read exactly like they were apologetic to the general populace to text a 'performance' car. I assume that the usual global warming thing is pushing this attitude. So, the agenda of the writer in question is now going to be dictated by the emails he receives from cretins and nimrods who have nothing better to do but whinge and push their own political agenda onto everyone else. If these guys are so limp-wristed, then they should stick to test driving Honda Prius and 4 cylinder Camry's or better still, stop printing "Drive" each week full stop which will save countless tonnes of C02 emmissions and paper wasteage. Now THAT would actually be good for the environment, rather than virtually apologising for testing a performance car.

On a wider scale, I've just about had a gutful of the way the global warming issue has morphed from scientific analysis into a new religious cult. Don't get me wrong, I have deep concerns about the effects of climate change on our planet, but in traditional Australian fashion, its turned into a trendy political bandwagon. If you're on it, its a soul cleansing experience, letting you take the moral high ground and point fingers at others. If you're not, then you're an enviro-vandal of the worst kind, a non-believer, and you're given the socially equivalent punishment of being burned at the stake. All perspective has been lost. China builds a coal fired power station every 10 days. Australia's carbon emmissions equate to 1.5% of total world output, yet we have people and governments running around here trying to tell you what car you can drive, or proposing to levy V8s and 4WDs with more tax due to their carbon footprint. We're luanching into a carbon trading scheme where nobody knows how it'll work, and even less people know how much it will cost our economy. Honestly, we've lost the plot here. People in general (pushed by the media) are going hysterical. The moral lecturing and grandstanding around this issue is getting out of hand, and I for one, have just about had enough.

Rant over.

:

Sounds like the sunday telegraph cars section (actually it might be called drive not sure) nearly every week no matter what car is reviewed a negative comment about large aussie cars is thrown in. Usually about them being too big and too thirsty, poor technology or no one cares about rwd no more, the usual things aussie cars get bagged out for. I get a laugh out if it as I think he is just trolling people who are passionate about aussie cars, probably enjoys hateful letters he is sent.

[Sourbastard]

Originally Posted by swapper

there is not one major scientific study or organization that has concluded that global warming isn't human caused, its only to which degree we have caused it, and to how big the effects will be, that they are divided.

So even though we dont know if this is a climate shift, or an aberration, you have somehow concluded we are to blame? So what caused the last climate shift which occurred pre-industry which was far higher in the same period? Co2 is the poorest excuse ive heard, especially as water vapour is a far more powerful greenhouse gas, yet you cant measure that through an ice core can you? So lets blame Co2.

And this, all based on 50 - 100 years of temperature rise, which isnt as high as other periods in the past. You cant make climatic predictions on 100 years of data, short of the ground catching on fire every time the sun hits it. We are making economic decisions based on 45 seconds of a blip in climate change. Funnily enough, every time a study finds destruction on the horizon, there seems to be cash to fund the next expedition. Its a nice little business that employs many and pays well.

31,000 scientists have reviewed the same findings, and disagree, thats an impressive amount of disagreement.

the IPCC might not be perfect, just through their high profile work they are always going to get criticism, but the fact remains, he scientific community still generally rates them as the most knowledgeable organization on the issue of global warming, they are hardly a shoddy operation, they have also won a Nobel peace prize for their work

And yet the scientific community still disputes their findings, regardless of their popularity contest achievements. http://co2sceptics.com/news.php?id=1551

Its a theory, it hasnt had enough peer review, yet its reported by the media as fact without any thought, and most people dont have enough knowledge to question the reports. This is my issue.

[US kills Falcon]

I stopped buying The Age because the Drive section has become lifestyle supplement rather than a proper motoring section with credible articles.

[swapper]

you have somehow concluded we are to blame?

I havent concluded this, every major scientific academy has, i base my opinions on what i read (scientific journals, not media) and the resounding consensus is it is human caused, at least to a large degree.

i wouldnt take that 31000 too seriously they are just names on an online petition.....which is worth a grain of salt.

dont forget there are also plenty of people employed to try and dismiss the theories

i understand your issue with the media reporting it as fact, but thats the media, hey have always been like that, and always will.

but i really didn't want to start up this argument again, i was just trying to correct those 2 points

[uranium_death]

Originally Posted by sourbastard

Everything he said

I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

Really enjoyed it.

On another level, I am not convinced that humans are going to destroy the planet yet. Although it is our everyday job to not purposely pollute by littering or dumping poisons etc., but this doomsday mentality that has been placed upon our shoulders as consumers is a joke.

I will say pretty loudly that I didn't vote Rudd because I didn't feel he had a basis for many of his policies, other than to appeal to the masses, which I know is naive, but I just didn't like what he offered.

While in gesture (his speciality it seems) signing the Kyoto agreement was a good thing, I don't think it's going to help us much, placing more strain on "working families".

[drew`SEVNT5]

Originally Posted by swapper

I havent concluded this, every major scientific academy has, i base my opinions on what i read (scientific journals, not media) and the resounding consensus is it is human caused, at least to a large degree.

Because none of those scientists producing those reports have a vested interest in continuing to pump out doom and gloom?

"Hey guys, chillax, nothing to worry about.....oh whats that, no more funding?



Shizen."

[swapper]

Originally Posted by drew`SEVNT5

Because none of those scientists producing those reports have a vested interest in continuing to pump out doom and gloom?

"Hey guys, chillax, nothing to worry about.....oh whats that, no more funding?



Shizen."

its not that simple, and again there are also plenty of people that get funding and have a vested interest in disproving the 1st group of scientists

[JMO]

Originally Posted by sourbastard

...water vapour is a far more powerful greenhouse gas...

I'm no science boffin, but if that's true, the hydrogen engine could be more of a problem than a solution.

[desGT]

swapper, I am with you. I just deleted a lot of what I was going to say, but suffice it to say I also read the science mags and they have convinced me that WE have caused a problem (yes, I drive a V8). Try buying a couple of New Scientist for a while and check out another considered opinion.

[russellw]

As a New Scientist subscriber and an avid reader of the debate that this topic has generated during the last couple of years, I am somewhat reminded of the hype that surrounded the pollution issues of the 70's where it was widely predicted that we'd all be unable to breathe the air around us by the latter part of the 1980's - air quality being the issue most likely to achieve government funding at that particular time.

As far as I am aware this actually didn't kill us all (if it did I'm a better ghost writer than I realised) and while some actions were taken on these issues, there are countries that didn't adopt them (try China and Taiwan for current air quality) yet we still continue to inhabit the planet.

No doubt there are some real issues that need to be addressed in all of the hype but weeding out the truth from the hype is not a task for us poor average laymen but we can hardly rely on the media for unbiased reporting - or indeed (and much worse) the scientific community who have divided views as well.

History has been littered with doomsayers predicting the end of the world for one reason or another - all that has changed is the size of their audience.

Cheers
Russ

[Work Horse]

Well said Russ

Originally Posted by russellw

- all that has changed is the size of their audience.

Cheers
Russ

If there is a problem on the horizon, it's the ever increasing size of that audience .

IMHO

[Hunter]

Originally Posted by russellw

As a New Scientist subscriber and an avid reader of the debate that this topic has generated during the last couple of years, I am somewhat reminded of the hype that surrounded the pollution issues of the 70's where it was widely predicted that we'd all be unable to breathe the air around us by the latter part of the 1980's - air quality being the issue most likely to achieve government funding at that particular time.

As far as I am aware this actually didn't kill us all (if it did I'm a better ghost writer than I realised) and while some actions were taken on these issues, there are countries that didn't adopt them (try China and Taiwan for current air quality) yet we still continue to inhabit the planet.

No doubt there are some real issues that need to be addressed in all of the hype but weeding out the truth from the hype is not a task for us poor average laymen but we can hardly rely on the media for unbiased reporting - or indeed (and much worse) the scientific community who have divided views as well.

History has been littered with doomsayers predicting the end of the world for one reason or another - all that has changed is the size of their audience.

Cheers
Russ

Well actually the pollution problems in those days are different to what is being talked about today but largely those problems WERE avoided because things like catalytic converters, leaner combustion etc were implemented by manufacturers to try and cleanup motor vehicles... residents of places like LA and large sections of Asia are all too familiar with how dangerous smog and other pollutants can be. California has strict emissions rules for a very very good reason and its not because some 'greenies' have hijacked the place. The governator is a big proponent of emissions laws - and he's a republican who drives or drove a hummer!

My partner spent 2 1/2 weeks in Thailand and came home early because her asthma had gotten so bad due to all the pollution in places like Bangkok.

[ltd]

Originally Posted by swapper

I havent concluded this, every major scientific academy has, i base my opinions on what i read (scientific journals, not media) and the resounding consensus is it is human caused, at least to a large degree.

i wouldnt take that 31000 too seriously they are just names on an online petition.....which is worth a grain of salt.

dont forget there are also plenty of people employed to try and dismiss the theories

i understand your issue with the media reporting it as fact, but thats the media, hey have always been like that, and always will.

but i really didn't want to start up this argument again, i was just trying to correct those 2 points

You are an ignoramus.
One scientific community populated with scientists non climate related are the ones pushing this barrow. Idiots like Tim Flannery a paleantologist (bones) are pushing this crap for tenure and financial reasons, yet of the 1500 signatures that were on the IPCC report over 500 are requesting removal after reviewing the flawed model that this supposition is based on. Furthermore, blanket remarks such as "Everyone agrees" doesn't make this true at all; if you were in a court room, you would be laughed out. Your opinion is subjective but seldom factual. If yo uwish to be an alarmist whom bases his information on Wikipedia, then expect to be challenged on your dubious and scandalous assertions.
As SourBastard has said, over 31000 scientists have put to signature that they disagree with the whole global warming farce (read global government new world order) and the UN has pushed it to gain respect amongst the west after being proven time and time again that they are useless. The reason Krudd is doing this is to suck up to the UN as he wishes to become a senior diplomat.
Historically, we were hotter in the 1930's than now and even the IPCC agrees. Furthermore, Mars has gotten hotter and cooler throughout the solar cycle phenomonon that occurred 20 years ago, and temperatures on earth have cooled 2 degrees celsius since 1998.
The whole global scare campaign is for leftist, socialist and communist losers who have no desire for individual prosperity when they can instead dictate how others should live. Here's a veritable fact for you though; those who vote with left intentions as well as subscribe to the climate farce have on average an IQ 10-20 points lower than average.
Look it up, you'll be amazed as to how dumb your lot really are.

[NIK516]

lets say you are right, and this is all a shame is it such a bad idea to try and cut down toxins and use free power ?

i mean i love it how people fight so hard to just sit on there butts , but when they need to do something no one wants to put up there hand.

i really dont care what you all do but im going to try and make a difference even if global warming is right or wrong.

if you feel that pollution from a car exhaust is fine with you go live in china for a year and see how good you feel ?

[Sourbastard]

Originally Posted by NIK516

lets say you are right, and this is all a shame is it such a bad idea to try and cut down toxins and use free power ?

i mean i love it how people fight so hard to just sit on there butts , but when they need to do something no one wants to put up there hand.

i really don't care what you all do but i'm going to try and make a difference even if global warming is right or wrong.

if you feel that pollution from a car exhaust is fine with you go live in china for a year and see how good you feel ?

I'm not completely apathetic, I just rarely see a reason to save most of humanity. Procrastination is birth control.

[King Nothing]

Originally Posted by NIK516

lets say you are right, and this is all a shame is it such a bad idea to try and cut down toxins and use free power ?

i mean i love it how people fight so hard to just sit on there butts , but when they need to do something no one wants to put up there hand.

i really dont care what you all do but im going to try and make a difference even if global warming is right or wrong.

if you feel that pollution from a car exhaust is fine with you go live in china for a year and see how good you feel ?

Now see this is the excuse that comes out when the argument starts to run thin. Sure, it might be true, but were going to be paying through the nose for it now. It almost reminds me of the "coalition of the willing", where the excuse was WMDs. When nothing was found, it turned into "we have liberated the people of iraq from a dictator". Really, that was the reason?

Australia has next to no manufacturing, and very small in financial/retail figures. We make some money from tourism (which is on the decline), but by far the main reason for this countries wealth in recent times is our natural resources. Uranium, various ores, some fossil fuel and importantly coal. Australia needs coal, among other natural resources, to maintain wealth.

As much as I didn't like Howard, he was right when it came to protecting our coal industry, and investing money in the continued sustainable development of the coal industry. Not only does it supply us with huge export income, it provides a very large portion of our electricity.

There will never be such a thing as free power. Even if it could in theory happen, the government would tax us on it. Look at what some local governments are doing with water tanks. Some farmers have to pay tax depending upon how much water is in their own dams. Trust me, we will always pay for energy. Someone is going to be making a lot of money out of this soon.

[Rob993]

A fantastic quote from the high priest of the new global warming religion!

"Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous (global warming) is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are..."

former Vice President Al Gore


seriously this angers me due to the implication of our stupidity.
I guess their argument is that it is for our own good , unfortunately i prefer evidence based science not "over-representation" to then make a true informed decision as to appropriate remedies/actions .
Rob

[ltd]

Originally Posted by NIK516

lets say you are right, and this is all a shame is it such a bad idea to try and cut down toxins and use free power ?

i mean i love it how people fight so hard to just sit on there butts , but when they need to do something no one wants to put up there hand.

i really dont care what you all do but im going to try and make a difference even if global warming is right or wrong.

if you feel that pollution from a car exhaust is fine with you go live in china for a year and see how good you feel ?

When you are going to kill and yes I mean kill a nations prosperity based on some fairy tale that in all probability is not true, then questions must be raised. The facts are simple; no correlation has been found between CO2 and global warming, no correlation has been found upon the small input man has on the atmosphere or the earth especially when we inhabit a miniscule percentile of it. Whatsmore, the alarmists have decided to tax all and sundry and have provided an economic model that states that carbon credits for carbon dioxide will be $20.00/tonne and a global commodity; having approx $500.00 per person per annum inpact. Problem here is, that carbon credits are trading at $60.00/tonne globally which would be $1500.00 pp pa and growing should it hedge like the oil futures. A family of 4 would be 6K worse off a year, can you afford that? Krudd is a dud and he can shove his Kevy Levy up his well used and worn out proverbial.

[ltd]

Originally Posted by Rob993

A fantastic quote from the high priest of the new global warming religion!

"Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous (global warming) is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are..."

former Vice President Al Gore


seriously this angers me due to the implication of our stupidity.
I guess their argument is that it is for our own good , unfortunately i prefer evidence based science not "over-representation" to then make a true informed decision as to appropriate remedies/actions .
Rob

Al gore is nothing but a fat tard snake oil salesman who has duped the world with his BS. He literally is now a billionaire thanks to this crap, knowing full well that the socialists would jump on his cause in their pursuit of a one world government. It simply beggars belief that such a fat chunk of crap has been allowed to spread mistruths and lies unabated; perhaps we should sue his fat flabby ***. As I read somewhere else today, Al Gore can far-cough.

[LOCO XP]

I disagree LTD, Al Gore is being "serial", in his pursuit for Manbearpig (a creature that is half man, half bear and half pig). His credibility for climate change is similar. And believe me he is being serial

[King Nothing]

Originally Posted by LOCO XP

I disagree LTD, Al Gore is being "serial", in his pursuit for Manbearpig (a creature that is half man, half bear and half pig). His credibility for climate change is similar. And believe me he is being serial

Super serial! EXCELSIOR!!

[LOCO XP]

You don't believe me?, I saw a documentary on TV!







I'm not an expert on climate change. But I feel there is merit to both sides of the argument. I think it's naive to completely dismiss either side. But then again, I'm no expert, so my opinion counts for squat. What I know is there are a lot of people with little knowledge spurting out information and professing to know the whole truth on the issue, when the jury hasn't spoken, no definate conclusions reached, and the possibility of one never being reached quite possible. So until somebody presents evidence of a sound nature and, I'm staying out of this all together.

[swapper]

You are an ignoramus.

Great now that's a really sharp comment, whilst myself and sourbastard have very opposing views, at least he can obviously keep an open mind and see another side to the argument, I actually do see merit in both sides of the debate, I still choose to believe my side, and there is nothing wrong with that.

One scientific community populated with scientists non climate related are the ones pushing this barrow. Idiots like Tim Flannery a paleantologist (bones) are pushing this crap for tenure and financial reasons

Now your just being stupid, whilst I don't really like him, he is undoubtedly qualified to express his views on the matter.
He is on the Copenhagen Climate Council, has done a lot of work on the issue, he is an adviser to the federal government on environmental issues, so i think its fair to say his opinion carries some weight. If th federal government listens to him, i think we should all at least respect his opinion, we don't have have to agree with them, but just dismissing him as an idiot is pretty daft.

And whilst i understand that some scientists can be biased due to financial reasons (this argument works for both sides, plenty of scientists who were nobodies have got a lot of work and publicity for going against popular opinion on climate change) its also worth noting many don't gain from the issue.

Now you have been quick to slam the IPCC, but you do know that the scientists for the IPCC don't get paid from the IPCC don you? the scientists regular organizations donate the time to the IPCC.

Furthermore, blanket remarks such as "Everyone agrees" doesn't make this true at all; if you were in a court room, you would be laughed out. Your opinion is subjective but seldom factual. If yo uwish to be an alarmist whom bases his information on Wikipedia, then expect to be challenged on your dubious and scandalous assertions.

1st of all, I'm sorry but this is fordforums.com.au, not court, of course my wording would be different in a different environment.

Now I used 1 wikipedia link, immediately followed by "wikipedia isn't a good source of info, but it serves the purpose here" or something like that.

As I have said, I have based my opinion on scientific journals etc, but i still stand by my statement of "every national academy of science from the industrialized world supports the theory of global warming" that is just true, I'm happy to be proven wrong, so go ahead if you can find a major scientific organization concludes that global warming isnt human caused, i would honestly love to have a read.

i do love it that you had a crack at me for using a wikipedia link, then immediately following you make reference to an ONLINE PETITION hahahhah.

The reason Krudd is doing this is to suck up to the UN as he wishes to become a senior diplomat.

The whole global scare campaign is for leftist, socialist and communist losers who have no desire for individual prosperity when they can instead dictate how others should live

hahah and you accused me of making "dubious and scandalous assertions" hahahha good work captain contradiction.

Look it up, you'll be amazed as to how dumb your lot really are.

Now dont make assumptions, if you really must know, my political views are far from left wing, i am just able to support theories and opinions that might be out of my usual political scope, its called having an open mind, you should try it!

now ill say it one last time i did not want to spark up a debate on the issue, none of us are experts on the matter, i have my opinion, others have theirs, my original post still stands, i corrected 2 statements, both of which are pretty hard to argue against.

anyway I'm sorry that was long winded and im sure it was a boring read but i really felt the need to reply.

cheers