Climate change scepticism - its sources and strategies

[WhiteD3]

Have a listen. A good explanation of how and why there is still debate on the subject of climate change.

Climate change scepticism - its sources and strategies - Science Show - 3 April 2010 (http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2010/2859986.htm)

[willem]

Have a listen. A good explanation of how and why there is still debate on the subject of climate change.

Climate change scepticism - its sources and strategies - Science Show - 3 April 2010 (http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2010/2859986.htm)

I couldn't listen - the audio caused my browser to crash! :( I took the time to read thru some of the transcript. The transcript, plus the introduction and the comments were instructive.

They noted that the methods used by climate change sceptics are similar to those used by the tobacco industry when arguing against the health risks of tobacco. That may be true, but that does not make climate change scepticism invalid. It is not a valid argument to imply that it is - it is an invalid attempt at guilt by association.

The transcript itself, what I read of it (I couldn't read it all, I don't have the time) was very one sided. There was no real debate, no real challenge to the rather derogatory nature of the comments about climate change sceptics.

The only real challenge came in the comments, where some of the respondents actually made some real and well considered comments about the science that should be the foundation of any theory of climate change.

What is often seen is people claiming that many scientists say this or that, but ignore what other scientists say. That's why debate is necessary. This 'Science' show was noticeably lacking in any real debate. That is why it has little credibility.

Willem

[WhiteD3]

Then Willem, no offence intended, but you've missed the point. The podcast was about what defines a true, balanced debate and the difference between scepticism and denial.

It was not a show about the pros and cons of climate change.

[willem]

Then Willem, no offence intended, but you've missed the point. The podcast was about what defines a true, balanced debate and the difference between scepticism and denial.

It was not a show about the pros and cons of climate change.

I just read the gist of what three contributors said, and they were all about, and I quote:

'some of the reasons why it seems to be that the scientific community has not been so effectual in countering some of these sceptical, contrarian, denialist claims.'
This seems to me to pretty well in the basket of having made up their minds and don't really want to consider the evidence from others. Look at the terminology used - contrarian, denialist' - They're pejorative, derogatory terms. They don't even want to consider other points of view.

The first contributor, Riley Dunlap, has the usual snobbery about people needing a PhD before they can enter the discussion, or make a meaningful contribution.

All three are totally convinced they are right in their approach. Everyone else is a 'contrarian sceptic' who does not have a valid method. The American Association for the Advancement of Science had no-one of a different point of view to challenge them.

I am not here arguing for or against anthropogenic climate change. I am saying that by making this a one sided presentation the American Association for the Advancement of Science has left it wide open to being regarded as having little credibility.The only real debate, with different points of view, some of which were well considered, was in the comments afterward.

I could go on, but its time to knock off and go to bed.

Willem

[ADMIRAL]

More science less politics required.........and if the general public don't get the science, whose fault is that ?

[bee utey]

The people who write most about climate change denial seem to be those who don't wish it to be true, therefore it can't be true. I was earbashed once by a bloke who said climate change wasn't happening because weather records had been kept at his family farm for over 100 years, and no change was apparent. With that kind of scientific rigour he must be right.:o

[abaddonxi]

I just read the gist of what three contributors said, and they were all about, and I quote:
'some of the reasons why it seems to be that the scientific community has not been so effectual in countering some of these sceptical, contrarian, denialist claims.'
This seems to me to pretty well in the basket of having made up their minds and don't really want to consider the evidence from others. Look at the terminology used - contrarian, denialist' - They're pejorative, derogatory terms. They don't even want to consider other points of view.

The first contributor, Riley Dunlap, has the usual snobbery about people needing a PhD before they can enter the discussion, or make a meaningful contribution.

All three are totally convinced they are right in their approach. Everyone else is a 'contrarian sceptic' who does not have a valid method. The American Association for the Advancement of Science had no-one of a different point of view to challenge them.

I am not here arguing for or against anthropogenic climate change. I am saying that by making this a one sided presentation the American Association for the Advancement of Science has left it wide open to being regarded as having little credibility.The only real debate, with different points of view, some of which were well considered, was in the comments afterward.

I could go on, but its time to knock off and go to bed.

Willem

Sorry Willem, I don't get it. A PhD is just another way of saying that someone has put in the time and the effort to show everyone else that they probably know what they are talking about. Same as a plumber or an electrician having done their apprenticeship.

And same as a plumber or an electrician some are brilliant, some are less so.

And, when you have plumbing problems you don't call an electrician to sort them for you. If you want a qualified opinion about climate change, call a scientist with a PhD in climate change, not one in creative writing.

[Chucaro]

...... If you want a qualified opinion about climate change, call a scientist with a PhD in climate change, not one in creative writing.

No, not me, I would ask the opinion of the indigenous people which know very well the ecosystem, look after it better than any graduate with a grant from a big corporation, etc.

Just because the "elite" graduated form some university and come with a special theory that does not mean that they are correct.
Remember that in the universities from the first day the students have to write and say what the lecturer of professor like to hear and from then on they follow that rule.

The arrogance and the strict formation in the universities do not allow to value the opinion of other people which do not have the "qualifications" that the scientific community believe that it is acceptable.

Give me the Australian aborigine’s knowledge to look after the Australian ecosystem any time before some of the blind graduates from some universities.

[willem]

Sorry Willem, I don't get it. A PhD is just another way of saying that someone has put in the time and the effort to show everyone else that they probably know what they are talking about. Same as a plumber or an electrician having done their apprenticeship.

And same as a plumber or an electrician some are brilliant, some are less so.

And, when you have plumbing problems you don't call an electrician to sort them for you. If you want a qualified opinion about climate change, call a scientist with a PhD in climate change, not one in creative writing.

My point is that just because one doesn't have a qualification in the field doesn't mean that one can't make a useful contribution. This whole AULRO site is living proof of that! How many of the guys here, though they have no formal training in mechanics, have, through observation and experience, learned a whole lot about their Landys. In some areas they will know more that the trained mechanics, because they focus on their cars and not on many cars.

I know a guy who runs a business as a Jag mechanic. Now he has no formal qualifications in the field at all. But he has learned over the years, and he is always learning. Now sometimes the dealer mechanics come and ask him how something on a Jag works!

So it is with climate change or anything else. Someone with their eyes and mind open who carefully observes and reads can form just as valid an opinion as someone who happens to have a PhD! It might be a bit more limited in some ways, but it might also have a greater depth of insight in others. It is worth remembering that the scientific method is not the only way of acquiring knowledge!

And don't forget that PhDs have their biases just as much as anyone else. A greater level of education does not necessarily translate into a greater wisdom in how the knowledge is applied.

As I said in my previous post, it is an intellectual snobbery to pretend that only those who have been educated by the system can have anything valid to say.

None of this is to say that an education is in itself a bad thing. I know myself it is a very useful thing. But it is not a necessary qualification to make an informed observation on things.

Willem

[Frenchie]

Well, as someone who does work in a closely related field, I have a healthy skepticism because I'm trained as a scientist to look for other possibilities until something is 100% proven. Those that say there is no doubt on the subject and refuse to listen to alternative views annoy me. It seems to be impossible to have a balanced argument.

Trouble is there are vested interests on both sides and once $ become involved you have to be very careful. You only have to look at the chairman of the IPCC who is making a lot of money out of pushing the climate change message.

Also, at some stage, you have to do a cost benefit analysis. Is it cheaper to adapt to climate change or try to prevent it (which may not even be possible)? I agree we should at the very least attempt mitigation but there's no point in bankrupting the planet! (And making a few people very very rich).

I watched Britain From Above on ABC last night and they showed a town in Norfolk which was built on reclaimed land slowly being re-reclaimed by the sea. No doubt with the injection of billions of $ the town could be saved but the government had decided to let it go (and hopefully pay to relocate the residents although that wasn't made clear :eek: ).

And as for:


As I said in my previous post, it is an intellectual snobbery to pretend that only those who have been educated by the system can have anything valid to say.

I agree 100%. :cool:

[Mick_Marsh]

The Science Show - an excellent program that gives an accurate view from both sides of the fence.
As a regular listener, I have heard the shows that argue there is no climate change. Unfortunately that view does not stack up as there has been little peer reviewed data and research and the climate change sceptics are beginning to sound like a cracked record (or several people reading the same article from the tabloids).

I would ask the opinion of the indigenous people which know very well the ecosystem, look after it better than any graduate with a grant from a big corporation, etc.

Give me the Australian aborigine’s knowledge to look after the Australian ecosystem any time before some of the blind graduates from some universities.
Don't forget they're the ones who killed off all the megafauna and totally changed the ecology of the land with their burning off practices to scare the megafauna and then the little critters out of the bush to be knocked on the head with a big lump of wood and eaten over the burning embers of what once was bush. (Not to say we are any better with our environmentally damaging agricultural practices etc.)

[Chucaro]

............
Don't forget they're the ones who killed off all the megafauna and totally changed the ecology of the land with their burning off practices to scare the megafauna and then the little critters out of the bush to be knocked on the head with a big lump of wood and eaten over the burning embers of what once was bush. (Not to say we are any better with our environmentally damaging agricultural practices etc.)

The cane toad, the DDT and the Dieldrin among other thins including deforestation have damaged our ecosystem thousands times more than the burning which it is proven to regenerate the flora in Australia and a system which it is very close look by the scientist now for implenting it in the future.

[Jamo]

A PhD is just another way of saying that someone has put in the time and the effort to show everyone else that they probably know what they are talking about..

(Without getting into the climate change debate) I disagree! I know lots of people who've done PhD's and IMHO most of them were professional students and their PhD theses (or should that be thesii) belong on the toilet wall.

There is, I grant you, some very important work being undertaking by some very brilliant PhDs' whose theses and continuing work are very valuable, but overall I reckon that these are in the minority.

Go and check Uni records one day and see the sorts of things some do the theses on.

As to needing one to participate in a debate;

“If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough”

“Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods.”

Albert Einstein

[JohnF]

The volcanic eruption in Iceland is going to do more for climate change that every car in Australia.

As far as blaming Aborigines for extinction of Mega Fauna, the Maoris killed of the Mao in NZ, not talking of the elephant Bird, the Dodo and so on around the whole world with many other large and small animals hunted to extinction.

The Aboriginals were no different to other nations in this.

So become a vegetarian like me :D:D:D.

[Chucaro]

Here is one more Jamo :D


• "Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited, whereas imagination embraces the entire world, stimulating progress, giving birth to evolution."
Albert Einstein

[Tombie]

PhD in climate change... An expert in a field that has only existed in the last few centuries...

Right up there isnt it :cool:


Climate has always changed on this planet... We know this...
Have we effected its rate of change? Likely...
Can we stop it in a capitalist world? Unlikely...

The human species is no different to dinosaurs, when our time is up, it will be up... And the Earth will go on in one form or another - with or without us.

[clean32]

, the Maoris killed of the Mao in NZ, :D:D:D.

Absolute rubbish
Mao died of natural causes which let to the remaining 3 members of the Gang of 4 being imprisoned.

If you are referring to the Melanesian Moriori of new Zealand being exterminated by the Polynesian Maori of new Zealand, again a load of bullocks. I think the last full blooded Moriori died in about 1950? (with out checking) but there are many in New Zealand who claim to be descendants of Moriori/ Maori and European decent.

[stevo68]

No, not me, I would ask the opinion of the indigenous people which know very well the ecosystem, look after it better than any graduate with a grant from a big corporation, etc.

Just because the "elite" graduated form some university and come with a special theory that does not mean that they are correct.
Remember that in the universities from the first day the students have to write and say what the lecturer of professor like to hear and from then on they follow that rule.

The arrogance and the strict formation in the universities do not allow to value the opinion of other people which do not have the "qualifications" that the scientific community believe that it is acceptable.

Give me the Australian aborigine’s knowledge to look after the Australian ecosystem any time before some of the blind graduates from some universities. Quite clearly you have never been to University, as that is the biggest load of bollocks I have read for some time. I would also assume you have never been to a doctor, used an accountant or engaged lawyer.

Now in terms of the subject matter......the layman as in many fields of thought will outnumber the knowledgable 10-1. If I had an interest in the whole climate change debate.....I would be looking to those that had years and years of experience, training and knowledge....not a bystander with their own theories.

As for the comment on Aborigines as being a source of information.......those that are still out bush are more interested in their own ecosystem/resources and protecting that....not unlike the average person,

Regards

Stevo

[isuzurover]

PhD in climate change... An expert in a field that has only existed in the last few centuries...

Right up there isnt it :cool:

Electrical engineering, electronics, automotive engineering, chemical engineering, nanotechnology have all only been around for a short time, but plenty of people do PhDs in those areas.

There is an old saying that "a turkey with a degree is still a turkey" and the same holds for a PhD.

As has been said though, I wouldn't ask someone with a PhD in humanities to design a bridge.

That said though, a large proportion of the people who designed the land rovers you drive - and all the ancillary components, have PhDs. That goes for just about any product you can name.

Whilst a "lay" person can of course acquire a similar depth of knowledge on a topic, a PhD graduate has spent a minimum of 3 years full time conducting research on a particular topic, which has then been reviewed by a group of experts around the world. So they should at least know what they are talking about on their topic of expertise. They have also been trained to be objective, and to critically analyse any new results/findings.

Climate science is a very complex issue. Most people don't fully understand the whole of it, whether they have a PhD or not.

[JohnF]

Absolute rubbish
Mao died of natural causes which let to the remaining 3 members of the Gang of 4 being imprisoned.

If you are referring to the Melanesian Moriori of new Zealand being exterminated by the Polynesian Maori of new Zealand, again a load of bullocks. I think the last full blooded Moriori died in about 1950? (with out checking) but there are many in New Zealand who claim to be descendants of Moriori/ Maori and European decent.

Moa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Okay I cannot spell correctly.

[willem]

Quite clearly you have never been to University, as that is the biggest load of bollocks I have read for some time. I would also assume you have never been to a doctor, used an accountant or engaged lawyer.

Now in terms of the subject matter......the layman as in many fields of thought will outnumber the knowledgable 10-1. If I had an interest in the whole climate change debate.....I would be looking to those that had years and years of experience, training and knowledge....not a bystander with their own theories.
As for the comment on Aborigines as being a source of information.......those that are still out bush are more interested in their own ecosystem/resources and protecting that....not unlike the average person,

Regards

Stevo

I would agree with that, but that does not require a PhD. My gripe with the original contributor to the Science Show was that he wouldn't accept any comment from someone who wasn't a PhD. And if you look an my post, it isn't a bystander I am talking about ... it is someone who has observed and read and thought about the issues of concern..

I am not trying to denigrate guys who have Phds. What I am trying to do is to broaden the discussion to include all who have a useful contribution to make.

The higher education system has its own dogmas and biases which can blind people who have been trained by it. Those who are not a part of that system can often see those things. To then insist, as these guys do, that only those who have been trained by the system can comment is to perpetuate the blindnesses that they create.

I have no doubt that many here will say that scientists are trained to be objective and will therefore make allowances for their own biases. With the best will in the world - and there are many scientists who are aware of the problem, and who genuinely do try to make allowances - if you cannot see your own biases you can't make allowances for them. And not everyone - including scientists - wants to. We - all of us - are finite, flawed human beings, and no-one has a mortgage on the truth. That is why debate is so important. Different points of view have to be aired. Dogmas have to be challenged. Conventions have to be questioned. Trying to suppress dissent by ridiculing it, as this Science Show episode did, is unhealthy and leads to the establishments of scientific dogmas which may or may not be true. Or only partially true.

Trying to limit the debate to PhDs only is an intellectual snobbery that does nobody any good.

Willem

[Chenz]

The people who write most about climate change denial seem to be those who don't wish it to be true, therefore it can't be true. I was earbashed once by a bloke who said climate change wasn't happening because weather records had been kept at his family farm for over 100 years, and no change was apparent. With that kind of scientific rigour he must be right.:o

It is almost the same as using the available data the climate change scientists have and using it to describe the climate change over millions of years. The statistical basis for the hypothesis on climate change is equally floored. Funny how they don't say global warming anymore. It is now climate change.

If you say the history of the world is 1 day. The statistics they are using are about the last minute. Hardly a credible basis on which to predict the doom and gloom they are pedalling.

There is no doubt that our activities are having an effect but not to the level that some of those saying that Katoomba will be a seaside suburb in 50 years are banging on about.

Anyone who says otherwise is howled down as some non-believer and heretic. They are even brainwashing the kids in primary school who now spout this stuff like nursery rhymes.

[PhilipA]

What an entertaining thread. Mutual insults passing back and forth.

I have a problem with the entire argument.

Firstly The scientists are saying if I am correct that the " deniers" have influenced the majority of populations in most Western countries to not believe that climate change was happening.

How successful of them and how naive the "unwashed (non PHD) masses".

Only one problem.
How many non smokers and logical smokers ever believed that smoking was not harmful and nicotine was non addictive or in fact that coal does not pollute.
I think very few, so the scientists are suggesting that climate deniers are vastly more successful regarding climate than they were with smoking .

I believe that the general populations have very refined BS filters.

I routinely talk to many old codgers with a lot of life experience and many point to the fact that they cannot yet see any say changes in sea level despite scientists claiming that this will be one of the first signs.

I have yet to see a scientific analysis on what the major icelandic eruption will do to climate change. Yet if their models are so accurate surely it would only be a matter of inputting the data and out it comes. I reckon that none will have such an event in their models.

Every low probablity storm is claimed by some scientist ( or pseudo scientist) as "proof" of climate change while some of us with a longer experience are saying " I wonder when the next cyclone will hit Brisbane. It is overdue."

IMHO scientists have done themselves and science a major disservice by taking the attitudes expressed in the show.

The issue of scientific "group think" is a different one which I would be happy to discuss as I have some experience in funding and tasking some scientists in some fields not involved with climate.
Regards Philip A
BA Arts/Ec Psych. ( no Phd)

[ATH]

While I believe climate change may well be happening I'm not sure I believe we're the root cause of it.
I'm also made even more sceptical when I see the head of the IPCC making mega millions from something which hasn't been proven and which many countries including India, his own country, are still producing huge amounts of pollution and will be for many years.
This apparently is allowed as they are "emerging" nations and need to catch up to the first World nations.
I'm also very dubious of the motives of many of the true believers whose research is totally funded by grants from gullible governments who haven't the faintest idea one way or the other!
Will they be taking into account the huge amount of pollution from the volcanic activity of late? Or huge forest fires started by lightning?
How will they stop nature from doing what it's always done?
I suspect that all this will be shown to be the fault of greedy white western nations and there'll be a great transfer of wealth from us to the third world with KRUDD and his fellow travellers still jetting around on jollies every few months to exotic locations to talk about how well things are going.
Never ever trust anything a pollie is enthusiastic about.:D
Alan.

[isuzurover]

the majority of populations in most Western countries to not believe that climate change was happening.

Oh really???
http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=tj7Whdjms22mo0hOwaiSxLg (then click on "government priority, hoped for")

[akelly]

I just read the gist of what three contributors said, and they were all about, and I quote:

'some of the reasons why it seems to be that the scientific community has not been so effectual in countering some of these sceptical, contrarian, denialist claims.'
This seems to me to pretty well in the basket of having made up their minds and don't really want to consider the evidence from others. Look at the terminology used - contrarian, denialist' - They're pejorative, derogatory terms. They don't even want to consider other points of view.

The first contributor, Riley Dunlap, has the usual snobbery about people needing a PhD before they can enter the discussion, or make a meaningful contribution.

All three are totally convinced they are right in their approach. Everyone else is a 'contrarian sceptic' who does not have a valid method. The American Association for the Advancement of Science had no-one of a different point of view to challenge them.

I am not here arguing for or against anthropogenic climate change. I am saying that by making this a one sided presentation the American Association for the Advancement of Science has left it wide open to being regarded as having little credibility.The only real debate, with different points of view, some of which were well considered, was in the comments afterward.

I could go on, but its time to knock off and go to bed.

Willem

Mate, you should have spent the time it took typing this to read more of the transcript or work your media player. You have totally misrepresented the point of the show and the points being made by the presenters. For your benefit - the point of the show was (IMHO) "why are there so many sceptics and how can we better explain the science to the public to counter the sceptics?".

To suggest that Riley Dunlap was using "the usual snobbery about people needing a PhD before they can enter the discussion, or make a meaningful contribution" (pejorative comment anyone?) is total rubbish. Dunlap was trying to demonstrate that there is a tendency towards books denouncing anthropogenic climate change being published by "conservative think tanks" and non-PhD or non-relevant PhD authors. In short - the sceptical literature is either published by groups with an agenda or by non-experts.

You make the comment that "All three are totally convinced they are right in their approach. Everyone else is a 'contrarian sceptic' who does not have a valid method. The American Association for the Advancement of Science had no-one of a different point of view to challenge them." I have to call bull**** on that - you have obviously not read the transcript properly or have decided to try and mislead the people who will only read the comments here and not listen to the show themselves. The whole idea of presenting a speech or paper at a conference is to explain your ideas. No one gets up to the podium and says, "well, I think that energy may be a function of mass and velocity, but here's 10 minutes about why I may be wrong". In the world of climate science there is a war of competing ideas - one side is not going to spend time espousing the virtues of the other. Get real man.

Basically you have missed the point entirely. This was not a debate, it was a discussion for like minded people. I assume from your comments that you expect to read "Red Hot Lies" and find half the book dedicated to a discussion on why the author could be wrong. You are in for a disappointing read.

Cheers,

Adam

[Rosscoe68]

I just read the gist of what three contributors said, and they were all about, and I quote:

'some of the reasons why it seems to be that the scientific community has not been so effectual in countering some of these sceptical, contrarian, denialist claims.'
This seems to me to pretty well in the basket of having made up their minds and don't really want to consider the evidence from others. Look at the terminology used - contrarian, denialist' - They're pejorative, derogatory terms. They don't even want to consider other points of view.

Fair Comment there.



The first contributor, Riley Dunlap, has the usual snobbery about people needing a PhD before they can enter the discussion, or make a meaningful contribution.

umm, isnt that a ( i will quote someting i just read somewhere very recently, i am sure it will come to me where i read it sometime soon) "pejorative, derogatory term"
what's that old saying about don't throw stones ?

[PhilipA]

Oh really???



Well what are the scientists on about?

I would also put forward that the questions and answers do not directly ask the question.

By Inference one can suggest that people believe its happening but their answers may not have meant that.

But that was hardly the point. Maybe I should have said "an obviously influential minority". the message was that the "deniers" seem far more successful on climate change than for smoking or coal.

BTW speaking from my Psychology days 791 US citizens on an internet survey I do not believe would be statistically significant so I doubt the whole basis of the survey. I do not know the statistical significance of the rest of the survey but UK 600?, France 600?
I also like the Chinese sample that the government has a very high priority on climate change . REALLY????
And the other high scorers who have bought the average up
Nigeria,Egypt,Turkey,Hong Kong,Mexico and Chile.
I can understand the motivations of many of the respondents who live in countries with particular problems eg Mexico City pollution, Nigeria -desire for western nations to give them money maybe?'

But where is the survey from?
I did a Google search and could not find it. I found lots more that say the opposite. If you want to debate topics please give the references so that they can be checked.
Regards Philip A

[Chucaro]

Quite clearly you have never been to University, as that is the biggest load of bollocks I have read for some time. I would also assume you have never been to a doctor, used an accountant or engaged lawyer.

Stevo

It is a shame that your confrontative post is a reflection of your naivity.
Yes! I have been in 2 universities one here and one overseas and yes I have 2 qualifications and yes the one from overseas was enough to have 2 years credit in a course here limited for 20 students Australian wide.
Ah! and they appreciate my qualifications on the University here and in the private industry even with my poor english.
Bevery careful what you write or you can be a fool ;)

[isuzurover]

Well what are the scientists on about?

I would also put forward that the questions and answers do not directly ask the question.

By Inference one can suggest that people believe its happening but their answers may not have meant that.

But that was hardly the point. Maybe I should have said "an obviously influential minority". the message was that the "deniers" seem far more successful on climate change than for smoking or coal.

BTW speaking from my Psychology days 791 US citizens on an internet survey I do not believe would be statistically significant so I doubt the whole basis of the survey. I do not know the statistical significance of the rest of the survey but UK 600?, France 600?
I also like the Chinese sample that the government has a very high priority on climate change . REALLY????
And the other high scorers who have bought the average up
Nigeria,Egypt,Turkey,Hong Kong,Mexico and Chile.
I can understand the motivations of many of the respondents who live in countries with particular problems eg Mexico City pollution, Nigeria -desire for western nations to give them money maybe?'

But where is the survey from?
I did a Google search and could not find it. I found lots more that say the opposite. If you want to debate topics please give the references so that they can be checked.
Regards Philip A

I found the poll here:
World Public Opinion (http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/about.php?nid=&id=)


WorldPublicOpinion.org

WorldPublicOpinion.org is an international collaborative project whose aim is to give voice to public opinion around the world on international issues. As the world becomes increasingly integrated, problems have become increasingly global, pointing to a greater need for understanding between nations and for elucidating global norms. With the growth of democracy in the world, public opinion has come to play a greater role in the foreign policy process. WorldPublicOpinion.org seeks to reveal the values and views of publics in specific nations around the world as well as global patterns of world public opinion.

WorldPublicOpinion.org was initiated by and is managed by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland.

Here is another:
Developed and Developing Countries Agree: Action Needed on Global Warming - World Public Opinion (http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/btenvironmentra/412.php?lb=bte&pnt=412&nid=&id=)

I agree - the sample sizes are small - it was the first poll I came across. However all polls I have seen are in general agreement. I would be interested in seeing any (independant) polls you have found that show otherwise.

[stevo68]

It is a shame that your confrontative post is a reflection of your naivity.
Yes! I have been in 2 universities one here and one overseas and yes I have 2 qualifications and yes the one from overseas was enough to have 2 years credit in a course here limited for 20 students Australian wide.
Ah! and they appreciate my qualifications on the University here and in the private industry even with my poor english.
Bevery careful what you write or you can be a fool ;) There's no shame....and my comments were not confrontative......more a case I call a spade a spade. As much as my missus would like me to be able to sugar coat things...it aint gunna happen any time soon.

Now from what you have now written...it beggars further belief that having been to University that you make those comments.....it makes you a hypocrite to make those judgement calls.

By making those comments in regards to a) Universities and b) those that graduate from them....you in fact look like nothing but an educated fool. In case you need to refresh...please allow me:


Just because the "elite" graduated form (from) some university and come with a special theory that does not mean that they are correct. I nor many people I know who have been to Uni consider themselves elite...what twallop. I graduated from Uni due to bloody hard work, long hours and whilst going through a divorce with 2 very young children....I think that trumps the "poor english" card. Seriously what a crock of a comment.


Remember that in the universities from the first day the students have to write and say what the lecturer of professor like to hear and from then on they follow that rule. What bloody Uni did you go to. My lecturers wanted us to apply what we were taught and use our own experiences/ knowledge whether for assignments/ group work etc. In many subjects we would debate the content.


The arrogance and the strict formation in the universities do not allow to value the opinion of other people which do not have the "qualifications" that the scientific community believe that it is acceptable. Not once did I find an arrogance or strict formation and I went to one of the top rated Uni's in the country.

I know lawyers, doctors/ brain surgeons, multi millionaires, accountants, engineers, scientists and the list goes on.....who would refute the inane comments you made. To be careful of what you write is to think about what you write and ideally not come off as a complete pillock by the end of it,

Regards

Stevo.....not so naive :mad:

[Scallops]

Just for the record, "Scientists" don't all agree that humans have caused "climate change". Geologists for example, who have a very good understanding of ancient climates, along with periodic changes in climates over the millennia, largely discount it. True story.

[ramblingboy42]

go and speak with our nearby pacific island nations and ask them if the oceans arent rising.......only 20-50mm or so but they can show you on the coral deposits where the sea used to wash and where it now washes. I have seen it myself in and around the Fiji islands recently......i should have taken photos, but it is very visible.....if youre going to fiji or vanuatu or similar islands, ask the local natives.....they'll tell you

[Chucaro]

There's no shame....and my comments were not confrontative......more a case I call a spade a spade. As much as my missus would like me to be able to sugar coat things...it aint gunna happen any time soon.

Now from what you have now written...it beggars further belief that having been to University that you make those comments.....it makes you a hypocrite to make those judgement calls.

By making those comments in regards to a) Universities and b) those that graduate from them....you in fact look like nothing but an educated fool. In case you need to refresh...please allow me:

I nor many people I know who have been to Uni consider themselves elite...what twallop. I graduated from Uni due to bloody hard work, long hours and whilst going through a divorce with 2 very young children....I think that trumps the "poor english" card. Seriously what a crock of a comment.

What bloody Uni did you go to. My lecturers wanted us to apply what we were taught and use our own experiences/ knowledge whether for assignments/ group work etc. In many subjects we would debate the content.

Not once did I find an arrogance or strict formation and I went to one of the top rated Uni's in the country.

I know lawyers, doctors/ brain surgeons, multi millionaires, accountants, engineers, scientists and the list goes on.....who would refute the inane comments you made. To be careful of what you write is to think about what you write and ideally not come off as a complete pillock by the end of it,

Regards

Stevo.....not so naive :mad:

It is because I being there that I can form an opinion, it is my right to have my point of view as you have yours.

You have failed to respect the opinions of others based perhaps that only you can be right and the others which opossed to your opinion only deserve aperson atack.

Yes, in the future just put your point of view with out insult others.

Perhaps a refreshing course in manners will be in order :D

Daniel J. Boorstin:
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance -- it is the illusion of knowledge.


regards

[PhilipA]

go and speak with our nearby pacific island nations and ask them if the oceans arent rising.......only 20-50mm


Have a look at this . Scientific measurement beats anecdotes. Remember they would love to come to OZ.
AND it is the same ocean. It is also possible that the islands are sinking but the ocean is not rising much.

www.theaustralian.com.au/...change...level.../story-e6frg6nf-1225795202916 (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/...change...level.../story-e6frg6nf-1225795202916)

Regards Philip A

[akelly]

Phillip - the Australian is one of the leading media outlets in Climate Change denial! I'd hardly take their spin on a study as fact in this case... they are massively right wing and skewed towards big business.

[JDNSW]

The use of the term "denial" in my view shows just how uncertain the proponents are of their results.

For the record, in my view, it is almost certain that climate is changing (it always has), and it is very likely that present human activities are significantly influencing it. It is much less certain that computer models used by the climate change industry accurately or even approximately model this.

When using the word "denial", this would be much more appropriately used for the careful avoidance by almost everybody involved of the largest single factor in anthropogenic climate change - the rapidly increasing population of the world.

If the present federal government was serious about reducing Australia's emissions, it would be imposing a simple carbon tax (replacing other taxes) that penalises those making emissions rather than a complex and costly trading scheme wide open to rorts and evasion while compensating nearly everyone affected and replacing coal fired power with nuclear instead of encouraging massive expansion of coal mining, while at the same time stopping population growth. But on a world scale, Australia's emissions are pretty insignificant, so any action by Australia except as part of a worldwide plan is almost irrelevant, and would only export emissions while severely damaging the local economy. The simple fact is that unless the largest emitters (China, US, India, Europe) make changes, there is little point in anyone else doing so - especially if, as would be likely in Australia, their emissions are simply transferred to China.

Since the major reason for Australia having high per capita emissions is our reliance on coal for power generation, all Australians need to relaise that reducing emissions here will mean much higher power bills.

In my view, worldwide agreement on effective emissions reduction is quite unlikely, so that continued anthropogenic climate change is the most likely result, and perhaps we ought to be planning to live with this rather than spending money in a futile attempt to stave it off, while at the same time encouraging emissions reduction, perhaps by a very gradual change to a carbon tax in place of other taxes.

John

[one_iota]

The biggest challenge for scientists is that their output: complex, varied and conflicting as it should be... ends up in the hands of "spin doctors"

While the clever people are researching, attending conferences, publishing papers after peer review and arguing the detail the cunning peolple are "cherry picking" the bits they need to garner votes, power or influence. They then publish opinion (without rigour) as fact.

A lot is lost in translation and or distorted for less than good motive.

Who do and what can you believe?

Belief in this case should be based on intellectual effort not on blind faith and weasel words.

That was the point of the Science Show's program..and beyond debate I would have thought after much consideration.

We are all encouraged to be sceptics.

[willem]

Mate, you should have spent the time it took typing this to read more of the transcript or work your media player. You have totally misrepresented the point of the show and the points being made by the presenters. For your benefit - the point of the show was (IMHO) "why are there so many sceptics and how can we better explain the science to the public to counter the sceptics?".

To suggest that Riley Dunlap was using "the usual snobbery about people needing a PhD before they can enter the discussion, or make a meaningful contribution" (pejorative comment anyone?) is total rubbish. Dunlap was trying to demonstrate that there is a tendency towards books denouncing anthropogenic climate change being published by "conservative think tanks" and non-PhD or non-relevant PhD authors. In short - the sceptical literature is either published by groups with an agenda or by non-experts.

You make the comment that "All three are totally convinced they are right in their approach. Everyone else is a 'contrarian sceptic' who does not have a valid method. The American Association for the Advancement of Science had no-one of a different point of view to challenge them." I have to call bull**** on that - you have obviously not read the transcript properly or have decided to try and mislead the people who will only read the comments here and not listen to the show themselves. The whole idea of presenting a speech or paper at a conference is to explain your ideas. No one gets up to the podium and says, "well, I think that energy may be a function of mass and velocity, but here's 10 minutes about why I may be wrong". In the world of climate science there is a war of competing ideas - one side is not going to spend time espousing the virtues of the other. Get real man.

Basically you have missed the point entirely. This was not a debate, it was a discussion for like minded people. I assume from your comments that you expect to read "Red Hot Lies" and find half the book dedicated to a discussion on why the author could be wrong. You are in for a disappointing read.

Cheers,

Adam

Oh dear, what have I said?

Actually, I have not missed the point at all. All these guys were trying to do is put down those who don't agree with them as 'contrarians, deniers'. They must be part of a right wing conspiracy, they must be creative writers, they mustn't be properly qualified, all because they don't agree with us. But we better get a more effective PR campaign going so we can convince the public that we are right.

There is no attempt to consider other points of view at all. They, not only in their understanding of climate change, but also in their methodology, are wrong.

That might be all right for a class at uni or something, but putting a view like that across in a publicly aired forum is nothing more than propaganda. Which is fair enough, people are free to do that. But it doesn't mean we should accept it uncritically. I want to hear both sides of the story! We are free to say that because of its one sided nature it lacks credibility. Which it does.

Willem

[incisor]

it is my right to have my point of view as you have yours.

for what it is worth, my point of view is

personally i think you are both as bad as each other in this particular instance. you both started playing the man and not the ball.

i expected better of both of you to be frank.

[akelly]

Willem - you continue to miss the point. How does a person putting forward their own point of view result in them lacking credibility?

Again, it was not a debate. If you want both sides of the story dont listen to a programme that is about only one side.

Again, I dont think you have listened/read the entire programme - I can only assume that you are one of the people that so violently disagree with this point of view that you cannot bring yourself to hear it.

Cheers,

Adam

[drivesafe]

Want indisputable proof of global warming

http://www.traxide.com.au/pics/GB Warming Proof.jpg

[B92 8NW]

^^^

Roll on 2020:D

[incisor]

^^^

Roll on 2020:D

be careful what you wish for!

they say fashion goes in cycles.. :angel::D:D:D

[JamesH]

Our future will be more about living with climate change than it will be about stopping the human derived part of it. What's more dangerous than human made climate change? Human made poverty. And nobody makes poverty like a lefty.

There is no way I'm going to waste my time tuning in to a bunch of scientists handpicked by the ABC trying to figure out why the ignorant unwashed won't roll over and be pushed around. Quick answer, nerds, is they're not so stupid as you want them to be.

[ADMIRAL]

Perhaps we can get the debate into an area a large proportion of forum participants are interested in. This forum is after all an automotive interest based site.
What about comment on the real cost to the environment of producing a Prius, or any of the other so called 'green' vehicles.
What a cynical exercise in political pandering. Why else would they make them. Almost as good as the solar propaganda one of our larger petrol manufacturer/retailer's has plastered all over their outlets.
The perception certainly to me, is they have to have something out there to satisfy the populace, with a ' look at me, aren't I good'.

As I have already said, the arguments for climate change are not being articulated to the population in a fashion we can understand, and the science is being lost in point scoring battles for political reasons, which only adds to the cynicism of the population at large to any facts or data so presented.

Let the debate continue !

[Jamo]

I've already decided to get a Hybrid for my next car

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2010/04/567.jpg

[ghillie]

So, what is the real cost to the environment of producing a Prius and how is it different from other cars?

And who's carrying out the cynical exercise in political pandering and why are they doing it?

Your complaint about point scoring for political reasons sounds like "the pot calling the kettle black" to me.

[abaddonxi]

be careful what you wish for!

they say fashion goes in cycles.. :angel::D:D:D

Bicycle shorts!

[dullbird]

Bicycle shorts!

well bring on the velour track suit!!..oh wait I think that has just been in hasn't it:D

[bee utey]

Friends of mine bought a Prius in '02, managed to trade it last year just before "warning, transmission fault" became pemanent on the dash. All in all, a mostly useless car, no towbar allowed, cost more to run than their previous Corolla on gas. They were quoted $8K minimum for a fix. They ended up trading on a new Liberty and are tickled with it as it will take a bike beak for the kids. HIS car BTW is a '87 RR 4.2 stroker so he is welcome at my place any time.:D:D:D

[ghillie]

No doubt mostly useless if you want to tow something a lot. For most of us that's not a requirement - especially with a Land Rover out front:cool:

An 02 Prius would be an early one (not the hatch) - your friends would have had to be determined early adopters with money to boot. Their car wouldn't have been a used Japanese import would it?

I don't get the Prius hate. The 03 on hatch is a brilliantly packaged, roomy, practical, reliable, nippy, fuel efficient city/suburban, family run-about. What's there to hate? Hopeless off road though.

[drivesafe]

For the life of me I can’t understand how anybody with the slightest bit of intelligence would by a Prius.

If you do a bit of research you’ll find the Prius is nowhere near as environmentally sound as the advertising makes out and a stock standard VW Golf diesel gets better fuel economy, has a better range and speed on the open road and won’t destroy the environment when it’s time to scrap it.

The Prius is the end result of some very extensive advertising, not because ti’s any real help for the environment.

[PhilipA]

Phillip - the Australian is one of the leading media outlets in Climate Change denial! I'd hardly take their spin on a study as fact in this case... they are massively right wing and skewed towards big business.


Mr Kelly , I am disappointed in your response to my advice to a poster to believe a scientific study rather than anecdotal evidence .

This appears to contradict your whole proposition that scientists know the answers and "denialists" are uneducated yobbos.

It appears from your response that you discard ANY information from sources you do not "like" even though it appears to be straight reporting of a Government research agency report. Any later "spin" would appear to upset you because it disagrees with your preconceptions. AND that sir is what offends many in the population about the Climate Change debate.

So you prefer to believe that sea levels in Fiji have risen 20-50 CM in recent memory of the islanders without further corroboration??



According to the most recent report by the Bureau of Meteorology's National Tidal Centre, issued in June, there has been an average yearly increase of 1.9mm in the combined net rate of relative sea level at Port Kembla, south of Sydney, since the station was installed in 1991.

Start of sidebar.

This is consistent with historical analysis showing that, throughout the 20th century, there was a modest rise in global sea levels of about 20cm, or 1.7mm per year on average.










Regards Philip A

[bee utey]

No doubt mostly useless if you want to tow something a lot. For most of us that's not a requirement - especially with a Land Rover out front:cool:

An 02 Prius would be an early one (not the hatch) - your friends would have had to be determined early adopters with money to boot. Their car wouldn't have been a used Japanese import would it?

I don't get the Prius hate. The 03 on hatch is a brilliantly packaged, roomy, practical, reliable, nippy, fuel efficient city/suburban, family run-about. What's there to hate? Hopeless off road though.

It wasn't a hate relationship, I mean they bought it new and kept it for seven years. It was quite reliable in that time but on an overall cost/benefit basis they decided it wasn't worth the fuss. When the RR turned up his wife usually pinched that for taking the kids out and left him the Prius. Now they both have cars sensible for all their needs.:) The Prius simply didn't cut the mustard for a 2+2 family.

[Chucaro]

Climate Institute article
OCEANS & SEA LEVEL RISE (http://www.climate.org/topics/sea-level/index.html)
Consequences of Climate Change on the Oceans

Good reading I guess.........

[isuzurover]

For the life of me I can’t understand how anybody with the slightest bit of intelligence would by a Prius.

If you do a bit of research you’ll find the Prius is nowhere near as environmentally sound as the advertising makes out and a stock standard VW Golf diesel gets better fuel economy, has a better range and speed on the open road and won’t destroy the environment when it’s time to scrap it.

The Prius is the end result of some very extensive advertising, not because ti’s any real help for the environment.

I assume you are talking about the batteries here? Any proof of this?

If most of your driving is in the city then a prius is quite economical.

In cairns they have a lot of prius taxis. I spoke to the driver of one and he said he saved at least $20/day on fuel compared to his previous car (a camry on LPG).

I doubt I would ever buy one though.

[WhiteD3]

I wonder how many of you who have posted here have actually listened to the podcast?

What it was about was a forum at the AAAS on the failure of the scientific community to counter the arguments of climate change sceptics. How the opposition market their views and get air play, etc and what the science community needs to do to make themselves heard.

Its not about climate change. It's about communication. Oh, and the conspiracy theorist out there can wonder why those conspiring are doing this in public:wasntme:

[willem]

Willem - you continue to miss the point. How does a person putting forward their own point of view result in them lacking credibility?

Again, it was not a debate. If you want both sides of the story dont listen to a programme that is about only one side.

Again, I dont think you have listened/read the entire programme - I can only assume that you are one of the people that so violently disagree with this point of view that you cannot bring yourself to hear it.

Cheers,

Adam

Adam, it may well have been a symposium designed to put only one side of a story, a group of people voicing their concern about something or other. that is entirely valid! But just because it is only one side of a story it lacks credibility - if you want to get a real picture of what is going on you at least have to listen to the other side! You can't make a decision on the matter by only listening to them, especially given the negative view they have of anyone differing with them.

The point under discussion in the symposium is not climate change ... its not even methodology ... its how to best influence public opinion. Their mind on climate change and methodology is made up. All they are really concerned about is why they have been unsuccessful in influencing public opinion and what to do about it. They actively disparge those who have a different view on both climate change and methodology.

Willem

[PhilipA]

This is probably the most active thread in the forum!

It goes to show what a hot issue it is.

I found this report on Google BY A SCIENTIST.Please note

IMHO the scientist has "2 bob each way" and then takes the alarmist "worst case scenario " to paint a picture.

I note he aso uses satellite data to support his case. This appears to be the same satellite data that is being discreditted in the script that started this thread.

This article goes to the nub of the COMMUNICATION problem. Here is a renowned scientist who appears to leap to conclusions that support his proposition while there is little empirical evidence to support it and none supported by the darling of modelling, just that it is assumed that this will happen..

Gauging rising sea level impact - News & Media @ UOW (http://media.uow.edu.au/opinions/UOW069929.html)

[ghillie]

For the life of me I can’t understand how anybody with the slightest bit of intelligence would by a Prius.

If you do a bit of research you’ll find the Prius is nowhere near as environmentally sound as the advertising makes out and a stock standard VW Golf diesel gets better fuel economy, has a better range and speed on the open road and won’t destroy the environment when it’s time to scrap it.

The Prius is the end result of some very extensive advertising, not because ti’s any real help for the environment.

The usual FUD. No references, unsubstantiated assertions, personal insults towards anyone with a different view. Blah, blah, blah - movin' on.

[vnx205]

Am I the only one who thinks that the Prius was never intended to be the solution to automotive emissions?

I had always believed that it was just a research platform to develop some of the technology like regenerative braking.

Selling Priuses (Prii or whatever the plural is), was just a way of funding research and testing technology.

It was never intended to be anything more than a step towards a solution, It was not intended to be a solution in itself.

If that is the case, then all this criticism of the Prius is really irrelevant.

[isuzurover]

Am I the only one who thinks that the Prius was never intended to be the solution to automotive emissions?

I had always believed that it was just a research platform to develop some of the technology like regenerative braking.

Selling Priuses (Prii or whatever the plural is), was just a way of funding research and testing technology.

It was never intended to be anything more than a step towards a solution, It was not intended to be a solution in itself.

If that is the case, then all this criticism of the Prius is really irrelevant.

Exactly. It is basically a stopgap until we can develop something better. Already we have seen some technologies being applied to other vehicles - like non-hybrid minis which seamlessly stop and restart the engine at traffic lights to save fuel.

However, the current priuses are extremely economical for city driving (see my previous post).

[drivesafe]

The usual FUD. No references, unsubstantiated assertions, personal insults towards anyone with a different view. Blah, blah, blah - movin' on.

Yep ghillie, I just made it all up.

Thats like the mob in the USA that do the Dust To Dust analysis of different vehicle.

They examine every aspect of a given vehicle, from it’s inception through the development stage, on through production and then the fuel consumption while in use, then right through to the way the vehicles have to be handled when they are scrapped.

Their findings were that a Hummer has a more environmentally sound life span than the Prius does.

But what the hell, they must have made that up, because you say so.

Get your head out of the sand, the Prius is the end result of a very good PR con job.

[PhilipA]

Well, the market gives it's verdict.
There is/was one for sale in the Central Coast .
2006-or 7 low ks $17K or about 40% of the new price.
ORIX also had a low K one up here for AFAIR 21.9 down from 23.9 a while ago.

It seems to me that few private people buy them new except for the inner city "early adopters" and there will be lots around as the ex Government ones run out of lease.

They may be a good deal second hand but you would have to be very confident that the batteries are OK.

You should have seen the look I received when I suggested to the DG of DPI that he should use one to be driven around in in the city instead of his V8 Fairlane. You know, leading by example. He was happy for some of the scientists to drive them in the country though, and they were not happy,Jan.
Regard sPhilip A

[isuzurover]

Thats like the mob in the USA that do the Dust To Dust analysis of different vehicle.

They examine every aspect of a given vehicle, from it’s inception through the development stage, on through production and then the fuel consumption while in use, then right through to the way the vehicles have to be handled when they are scrapped.

Their findings were that a Hummer has a more environmentally sound life span than the Prius does.

But what the hell, they must have made that up,

Yes, actually they did make it up.

I assume you are talking about the work by "CNW Marketing Research"

The study was later repeated by the Rocky Mountain Institute - a nonprofit education and research foundation (among others). All the independant studies have found that the CNW study was a load of BS and PR/marketing spin.


When the Rocky Mountains Institute did a life cycle analysis using the Hummer/Prius figures, they couldn't get the Prius to come out worse than the Hummer no matter how hard they jimmied the figures. Even when they made the energy to manufacture a Prius three times that to make a Hummer, the hybrid still came out ahead.

CSIRO's Chief Advisor Automotive Technology & Strategy, David Lamb, is a leader in hybrid technology, and his gripe with the CNW report is simple - "there's no explanation for their silly assertions". Their assumption that Hummers have much longer lifetimes and higher mileages than high-tech hybrids means CNW's results will always be skewed against the Prius.

In reality, says Lamb, "over their lifetimes hybrids are 20-30% more energy efficient than standard vehicles" - and significantly more efficient than uber-SUVs. They do take more energy to make, but they more than make up for that with energy savings during their low-fuel lifetimes.

So that's it for the energy side of things. And while the nickel mine in Canada they mentioned in the show really is your basic dead zone, that damage was done during the great acid rain era pre-1990s - now it should be as clean as any EPA abiding mine in North America.

Is a Hummer really better than a Prius??? - ABC Green at Work (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2008/07/09/2299169.htm)


Maybe it is you who should take the blinkers off??? (With all respect of course Tim ;) )

[isuzurover]

Well, the market gives it's verdict.
There is/was one for sale in the Central Coast .
2006-or 7 low ks $17K or about 40% of the new price.
ORIX also had a low K one up here for AFAIR 21.9 down from 23.9 a while ago.

It seems to me that few private people buy them new except for the inner city "early adopters" and there will be lots around as the ex Government ones run out of lease.

They may be a good deal second hand but you would have to be very confident that the batteries are OK.

You should have seen the look I received when I suggested to the DG of DPI that he should use one to be driven around in in the city instead of his V8 Fairlane. You know, leading by example. He was happy for some of the scientists to drive them in the country though, and they were not happy,Jan.
Regard sPhilip A

I believe the battery pack has a 160000 km / 8 year warranty. A new battery pack is ~US$3000. (about the same cost as 1-2 new unit injectors for a newer landie).

[JohnF]

Friends of mine bought a Prius in '02, managed to trade it last year just before "warning, transmission fault" became pemanent on the dash. All in all, a mostly useless car, no towbar allowed, cost more to run than their previous Corolla on gas. They were quoted $8K minimum for a fix. They ended up trading on a new Liberty and are tickled with it as it will take a bike beak for the kids. HIS car BTW is a '87 RR 4.2 stroker so he is welcome at my place any time.:D:D:D

My RFS brigade has been told if a Prius is in an accident we are not to rescue any trapped people but to stand 200 meters away and let it burn, because the fumes are so toxic that they will kill fire brigade members if we try to rescue people in it.

Like many rural brigades, our brigade does not carry breathing gear, if we did and had members trained to use it, we could rescue them, but like most rural brigades we cannot.

But similar for many other cars. If they have Dupont Viton products--many fan belts, suspension rubbers, etc. we must not go near them, and must not touch the burnt out wreck. When burnt and mixed with water this Viton turns to Hydrofluoric acid which will burn through glass. Get it on your arm and amputation of the arm is the cure.

So our brigade members must not go near Modern Burning Cars. But with Viton we can get near enough to hose the burning car, as long as we do not breath the fumes or have skin contact.

That is our brigades instruction from the Group Captain.

We need a few coroners inquests as to why we did not attempt to save the people, and then perhaps the use of these environmentally dangerous products will be remedied.

[isuzurover]

My RFS brigade has been told if a Prius is in an accident we are not to rescue any trapped people but to stand 200 meters away and let it burn, because the fumes are so toxic that they will kill fire brigade members if we try to rescue people in it.

Like many rural brigades, our brigade does not carry breathing gear, if we did and had members trained to use it, we could rescue them, but like most rural brigades we cannot.

But similar for many other cars. If they have Dupont Viton products--many fan belts, suspension rubbers, etc. we must not go near them, and must not touch the burnt out wreck. When burnt and mixed with water this Viton turns to Hydrofluoric acid which will burn through glass. Get it on your arm and amputation is the cure.

So our brigade members must not go near Modern Burning Cars. But with Viton we can get near enough to hose the burning car, as long as we do not breath the fumes or have skin contact.

That is our brigades instruction.

We need a few coroners inquests as to why we did not attempt to save the people, and then perhaps the situation will be remedied.

More BS and misinformation... (not on your behalf but the person who wrote the training manual)

If you come in contact with HF (hydrofluoric acid), the treatment is calcium gluconate gel. By the tyme you could ampurtate the affected body part, the person would probably be well on the way to kidney failure (as happened in a famous case in SA, but the person spilled 70% HF on themselves, and did not have CG gel handy. Nothing was amputated.)

Viton seals may produce HF at temperatures above 315oC, however viton seals are usually only used in things like injector pumps, automatic transmissions and arb lockers. We are talking tiny quantities in sealed components. the chance of getting close enough to a burning car to inhale HF would be infinitesimally small.

John - you know you could put some of the time you put into researching conspiracy theories to better use... ;)

[Hardchina]

So whats better for the enviroment...,.

keeping my 25 year old v8 county that's on gas for another 25+ years

or buying a new prius now, then another one in 8 years, then another one, then another one + all the toxic batteries etc..

I reckon if people were really concerned about the planet we'd all be driving old land rovers. (gas converted of course)

[isuzurover]

So whats better for the enviroment...,.

keeping my 25 year old v8 county that's on gas for another 25+ years

or buying a new prius now, then another one in 8 years, then another one, then another one + all the toxic batteries etc..

I reckon if people were really concerned about the planet we'd all be driving old land rovers. (gas converted of course)


The "embodied energy" (energy to produce a car) is about 10-25% of the energy consumption during use (there are a large number of studies to show this). These figures are usually based on an average lifespan of 8-12 years. The longer you drive your car or the more fuel it uses, the embodied energy becomes less significant.

If you rarely drive your old car, it makes no sense to change it. But if it is your daily driver, after ~10 years the improvements in economy and emissions in the new model have usually offset the energy and emissions for manufacturing a new vehicle.

Another example are light bulbs. The energy required to manufacture a light bulb is less than 1% of the energy consumption during use. So environmentally, it is better to replace all your incandescent bulbs with compact fluorescents ASAP, rather than waiting till they burn out (though it may not be better economically).

All of that said, my newest vehicle is 19 years old ;) but I usually ride a mountain bike to work :p

[Hardchina]

The "embodied energy" (energy to produce a car) is about 10-25% of the energy consumption during use (there are a large number of studies to show this). These figures are usually based on an average lifespan of 8-12 years. The longer you drive your car or the more fuel it uses, the embodied energy becomes less significant.

If you rarely drive your old car, it makes no sense to change it. But if it is your daily driver, after ~10 years the improvements in economy and emissions in the new model have usually offset the energy and emissions for manufacturing a new vehicle.

Another example are light bulbs. The energy required to manufacture a light bulb is less than 1% of the energy consumption during use. So environmentally, it is better to replace all your incandescent bulbs with compact fluorescents ASAP, rather than waiting till they burn out (though it may not be better economically).

All of that said, my newest vehicle is 19 years old ;) but I usually ride a mountain bike to work :p


I'll kind of give you that in a way, but its only really valid when you compare apples with turtles. So yes, if I trade in the county and buy a prius, then maybe after ten years the co2 emissions may start to get a little better (i'd be bankrupt though from all the freakin batteries and servicing)

But apples with apples

I've got a heap of kids so would need something bigger than a prius
How would the figures work out if i bought a new model Hilux or Rangie or territory?

Most new cars are bloated disposable crap


fuel consumption -

what about a '67 mini compared to the latest mini?

'67 monaro compared to the new monaro?

Cars (generally) aren't really getting more fuel effiecient - for every prius sold how many Big boys toys do toyota sell?

at least most other car companies aren't so pretentious about their enviromental credentials. :)

[drivesafe]

Yes, actually they did make it up.

I assume you are talking about the work by "CNW Marketing Research"

The study was later repeated by the Rocky Mountain Institute - a nonprofit education and research foundation (among others). All the independant studies have found that the CNW study was a load of BS and PR/marketing spin.

Hi Ben, i hadn’t seen the other reports so I’m happy to take you at your word.

But this still does not remove the fact that the VW gets better fuel figures than the Prius and correct me if I’m ( again ) but I think they are peddling the Ford Focus on the basis that it too gets better fuel economy and it's a fraction of the cost.

[isuzurover]

I'll kind of give you that in a way, but its only really valid when you compare apples with turtles. So yes, if I trade in the county and buy a prius, then maybe after ten years the co2 emissions may start to get a little better (i'd be bankrupt though from all the freakin batteries and servicing)

But apples with apples

I've got a heap of kids so would need something bigger than a prius
How would the figures work out if i bought a new model Hilux or Rangie or territory?

Most new cars are bloated disposable crap


fuel consumption -

what about a '67 mini compared to the latest mini?

'67 monaro compared to the new monaro?

Cars (generally) aren't really getting more fuel effiecient - for every prius sold how many Big boys toys do toyota sell?

at least most other car companies aren't so pretentious about their enviromental credentials. :)

The best like for like example would be trading your county on a puma (since it is the new version of the same vehicle).

Assuming you did the same number of km per year as before, you would go from using 20-25L/100km to 10-15L/100km. Now the energy and CO2 content of both fuels needs to be considered, which would narrow the gap a bit. However the emissions need to be considered as well - a carb V8 would emit several orders of magnitude more emissions per km than a Euro IV diesel. Another factor is that the Puma now has a lot more steel and a lot less Al. Unfortunately, the production of a kg of Al requires LOTS more energy than steel. So although you often save weight, it is usually better for the environment to make things out of steel than Al.

[isuzurover]

Hi Ben, i hadn’t seen the other reports so I’m happy to take you at your word.

But this still does not remove the fact that the VW gets better fuel figures than the Prius and correct me if I’m ( again ) but I think they are peddling the Ford Focus on the basis that it too gets better fuel economy and it's a fraction of the cost.

You are right that there are a bunch of cars in the same size class or smaller size classes that get better economy than the Prius or other similar hybrids. However this is measured on the standard city/highway combined cycle.

The prius has been optimised for driving in city stop/start traffic. That said, the prius needs to use extra fuel to drag the weight of the batteries around.

The best option for an all-round vehicle would be something like a diesel golf - as you suggest. If you only ever drove in the city, however, the prius may get better economy - unless the golf now has the same stop-start feature as the mini.

It has been shown that priuses start to drink fuel on the highway - and are only about the same as a camry - so anyone who does mostly highway driving should probably buy a camry instead.

We are comparing apples to apples here - however lots of fleet buyers have been switching from falcons and commodores to priuses and the like - which is a significant improvement - whether you drive on the highway or not.

EDIT - btw - here is the RMI study:
www.evworld.com/library/rmi_hummerVprius.pdf

[Hardchina]

The best like for like example would be trading your county on a puma (since it is the new version of the same vehicle).

Assuming you did the same number of km per year as before, you would go from using 20-25L/100km to 10-15L/100km. Now the energy and CO2 content of both fuels needs to be considered, which would narrow the gap a bit. However the emissions need to be considered as well - a carb V8 would emit several orders of magnitude more emissions per km than a Euro IV diesel. Another factor is that the Puma now has a lot more steel and a lot less Al. Unfortunately, the production of a kg of Al requires LOTS more energy than steel. So although you often save weight, it is usually better for the environment to make things out of steel than Al.

I'd never buy a diesel :o , so was left of the list :) I'm on gas as well, I don't know the co2 / emmision figures for lpg but must be quite a bit less than petrol - maybe on par with diesel ?:)

The beauty of alloy is that whilst it may cost more (unless sourced from recycled beer cans, which is a less energy requiring option to produce than recycled steel), is that in 100 years time, you still have a functional automobile. The biggest demise to older cars is the body - (after fashion / w@nk factor) mechanical issues can be fixed quite easily.

Anyway if the gov were serious about co2 emmisions they would scrap registration and licencing for small cc motor bikes - we could all get around asian style. would be a good thing.
I tried riding a pushie to work.... stuff that :)

[vnx205]

.. ... ... ... .. ..

You should have seen the look I received when I suggested to the DG of DPI that he should use one to be driven around in in the city instead of his V8 Fairlane. You know, leading by example. He was happy for some of the scientists to drive them in the country though, and they were not happy,Jan.
Regard sPhilip A

As you suggested, the Prius should be used where the V8 is currently being driven and a carefully driven V8 might even match the Prius where the scientists are forced to use the Prius.

Of course people will be disappointed if they insist on using a vehicle in an environment for which it was not designed.

Driving a Prius on the highway makes about as much sense as trying to fit a Defender with 2" lift in a suburban underground car park. They just were not really designed to go there.

[ghillie]

Yep ghillie, I just made it all up.

Thats like the mob in the USA that do the Dust To Dust analysis of different vehicle.

They examine every aspect of a given vehicle, from it’s inception through the development stage, on through production and then the fuel consumption while in use, then right through to the way the vehicles have to be handled when they are scrapped.

Their findings were that a Hummer has a more environmentally sound life span than the Prius does.

But what the hell, they must have made that up, because you say so.

Get your head out of the sand, the Prius is the end result of a very good PR con job.

More FUD Drivesafe. I didn't say you'd made anything up or that anyone else had. What I did say was that you had not given any substantiation for your claims or any references. Both of which were true.

I also said that your comments about others being stupid were just rude. Your above post has more of that. You should calm down. Taking time to edit your posts before submitting them would also be a good idea.:angel:

[Hardchina]

Driving a Prius on the highway makes about as much sense as trying to fit a Defender with 2" lift in a suburban underground car park. They just were not really designed to go there.

Good point - so why does the government financialy discourage owning more than one car? If we could pay for plates and transfer them between cars, then alot of people could afford to have two or more cars - each suited to a purpose.

The government isn't really serious about the problem

[drivesafe]

We are comparing apples to apples here - however lots of fleet buyers have been switching from falcons and commodores to priuses and the like - which is a significant improvement - whether you drive on the highway or not.

Yep, heaps of Prius taxies around here now but they will do the city driving miles so will get a fair return.

Personally, I would rather we paid no annual rego and paid rego at the fuel bowser, then the big guzzlers would be paying a fair price.

It wouldn’t matter then whether you drove a Prius or Hummer. The choice you make would rule what you paid.

[JDNSW]

Good point - so why does the government financialy discourage owning more than one car? If we could pay for plates and transfer them between cars, then alot of people could afford to have two or more cars - each suited to a purpose.

The government isn't really serious about the problem

I think this is a very good point - it varies a bit according to the type of car, but few cars have the fuel cost more than 20-30% of the total running cost. And there is usually over 50% fixed costs that are there whether you drive it or not, depending on mileage and age, but this proportion increases if you drive the vehicle less - if you split your driving between two vehicles, it may well be as high as 75% of total costs.

These fixed costs comprise:- capital cost (either interest paid or interest foregone), depreciation, insurance, registration, annual inspections, roadside service, and, if you are doing low mileages, the time dependent part of servicing costs.

If the government was serious about reducing emissions by making it simpler to own special purpose cars, they could reduce these costs by, for example, transferring sales taxes, registration and insurance to fuel taxes (OK, I know there are administrative and State/Federal problems). This is very unlikely to happen however, since fuel price is politically sensitive.

John

[JDNSW]

The best like for like example would be trading your county on a puma (since it is the new version of the same vehicle).

Assuming you did the same number of km per year as before, you would go from using 20-25L/100km to 10-15L/100km. Now the energy and CO2 content of both fuels needs to be considered, which would narrow the gap a bit. However the emissions need to be considered as well - a carb V8 would emit several orders of magnitude more emissions per km than a Euro IV diesel. Another factor is that the Puma now has a lot more steel and a lot less Al. Unfortunately, the production of a kg of Al requires LOTS more energy than steel. So although you often save weight, it is usually better for the environment to make things out of steel than Al.

Aluminium takes a lot more energy to produce from raw materials than does steel - but not only does recycling aluminium take a lot less energy than does recycling steel, but a far larger proportion of aluminium is actually recycled.

As with any "dust to dust" energy or emissions calculation, there are many assumptions required in the calculation, and what is assumed has a major influence on the result. Consequently, almost all such calculations have the assumptions made adjusted to achieve the desired result. And you can just about guarantee that none apply to any specific example.

Taking your suggestion in the first paragraph - if I trade my County on a new Puma, I probably achieve about a 10% decrease in carbon emissions compared to the Isuzu. This is offset to some extent by the extra mileage needed to take it to a dealer for service instead of doing it myself. For the manufacturing emissions to drop as low as those for the County, I would need to keep it for a similar length of time (24 years), and I seriously doubt that it will be maintainable that long due to parts shortages. As far as I can see, from a carbon emissions point of view, I would do better to continue with the County.

Similarly, only more so, for the 2a ute. While it emits a lot more carbon per kilometre than a new Puma, it only does about 5,000km/year, so the payback time would correspondingly be longer, even taking the increase per kilometre into account. And to bring the per kilometre manufacturing carbon cost down to the same the Puma would have to last 40 years - which seems a bit unlikely (and anyway by then I would be well over 100, and unlikely to be driving)

John

[abaddonxi]

I'll kind of give you that in a way, but its only really valid when you compare apples with turtles. So yes, if I trade in the county and buy a prius, then maybe after ten years the co2 emissions may start to get a little better (i'd be bankrupt though from all the freakin batteries and servicing)

But apples with apples

I've got a heap of kids so would need something bigger than a prius
How would the figures work out if i bought a new model Hilux or Rangie or territory?

Most new cars are bloated disposable crap


fuel consumption -

what about a '67 mini compared to the latest mini?

'67 monaro compared to the new monaro?

Cars (generally) aren't really getting more fuel effiecient - for every prius sold how many Big boys toys do toyota sell?

at least most other car companies aren't so pretentious about their enviromental credentials. :)

2002 VW Caravelle Diesel tdi 7.9litres per hundred.


And it looks even more like a brick than a Defender.:D

[akelly]

Mr Kelly , I am disappointed in your response to my advice to a poster to believe a scientific study rather than anecdotal evidence .

This appears to contradict your whole proposition that scientists know the answers and "denialists" are uneducated yobbos.

It appears from your response that you discard ANY information from sources you do not "like" even though it appears to be straight reporting of a Government research agency report. Any later "spin" would appear to upset you because it disagrees with your preconceptions. AND that sir is what offends many in the population about the Climate Change debate.

So you prefer to believe that sea levels in Fiji have risen 20-50 CM in recent memory of the islanders without further corroboration??

Regards Philip A

A couple of things here Phillip:

1. I have put no propositions forward. You are projecting something onto me that I did not say. I made no claims about scientists being the only ones with answers. The point I was making is that the podcast was one viewpoint being explored by multiple people, focused on how the "sceptics" used publishing of books to push their angle. It is/was not a debate. I was simply trying to convince another poster that the fact it is one side of the story does not make it lack credibility. I have since come to the decision that my understanding of the meaning of the word "credibility" must be significantly different to that of the other poster since I can not follow his logic in this case.

2. If you think that a newspaper is a place to get a balanced view I apologise for wasting my time in trying to convince you of anything that you have not read in the Daily Telegraph. As you seem to be smarter than that, I will simply say - my point to you was that finding a study in the paper that confirms the core belief of that media outlet is hardly useful.

3. I have no preconceptions about the "climate debate" - I despise junk science and rubbish thinking wherever it is found.

4. I have no idea about the sea levels in Fiji - cant even be bothered reading about it.

5. I doubt that most of the posters in this thread have listened to the podcast.

6. Mr Kelly is my Dad.

Hope that clears up some of the issues.

Thanks for the interesting discourse....:)

Cheers,

Adam

[ADMIRAL]

More FUD Drivesafe. I didn't say you'd made anything up or that anyone else had. What I did say was that you had not given any substantiation for your claims or any references. Both of which were true.

I also said that your comments about others being stupid were just rude. Your above post has more of that. You should calm down. Taking time to edit your posts before submitting them would also be a good idea.:angel:

Who is the pot calling the kettle black ?

[isuzurover]

Personally, I would rather we paid no annual rego and paid rego at the fuel bowser, then the big guzzlers would be paying a fair price.


I agree.

In Germany, you pay no rego for the first 3 years on a new vehicle, and no rego on an "oldtimer" (>25 yo), as long as it is in good condition and not your only vehicle.

[isuzurover]

Personally, I would rather we paid no annual rego and paid rego at the fuel bowser, then the big guzzlers would be paying a fair price.


I agree.

In Germany, you pay no rego for the first 3 years on a new vehicle, and no rego on an "oldtimer" (>25 yo), as long as it is in good condition and not your only vehicle.



Aluminium takes a lot more energy to produce from raw materials than does steel - but not only does recycling aluminium take a lot less energy than does recycling steel, but a far larger proportion of aluminium is actually recycled.

As with any "dust to dust" energy or emissions calculation, there are many assumptions required in the calculation, and what is assumed has a major influence on the result. Consequently, almost all such calculations have the assumptions made adjusted to achieve the desired result. And you can just about guarantee that none apply to any specific example.

Taking your suggestion in the first paragraph - if I trade my County on a new Puma, I probably achieve about a 10% decrease in carbon emissions compared to the Isuzu. This is offset to some extent by the extra mileage needed to take it to a dealer for service instead of doing it myself. For the manufacturing emissions to drop as low as those for the County, I would need to keep it for a similar length of time (24 years), and I seriously doubt that it will be maintainable that long due to parts shortages. As far as I can see, from a carbon emissions pointFSDA of view, I would do better to continue with the County.

Similarly, only more so, for the 2a ute. While it emits a lot more carbon per kilometre than a new Puma, it only does about 5,000km/year, so the payback time would correspondingly be longer, even taking the increase per kilometre into account. And to bring the per kilometre manufacturing carbon cost down to the same the Puma would have to last 40 years - which seems a bit unlikely (and anyway by then I would be well over 100, and unlikely to be driving)

John

In your, (atypical) case, you would probably be best off hanging onto the county and recycling the IIa (much as it would be a shame).

However, you must admit you are somewhat of an "outlier" statistically.

[JohnF]

More BS and misinformation... (not on your behalf but the person who wrote the training manual)

If you come in contact with HF (hydrofluoric acid), the treatment is calcium gluconate gel. By the tyme you could ampurtate the affected body part, the person would probably be well on the way to kidney failure (as happened in a famous case in SA, but the person spilled 70% HF on themselves, and did not have CG gel handy. Nothing was amputated.)

Viton seals may produce HF at temperatures above 315oC, however viton seals are usually only used in things like injector pumps, automatic transmissions and arb lockers. We are talking tiny quantities in sealed components. the chance of getting close enough to a burning car to inhale HF would be infinitesimally small.

John - you know you could put some of the time you put into researching conspiracy theories to better use... ;)

I was just repeating what our area group captain told us about Viton. The group captain bought it up at a meeting a month ago. I do not claim to be an expert in this area. We discussed it last Wednesday night at our brigade meeting.

Are we right about the Prius? We have a clip board on our Fire Brigade's shed wall instructing us about Prius fires.

[ghillie]

Who is the pot calling the kettle black ?


I don't understand your point. You'll have to say it plainly.

[JDNSW]

In your, (atypical) case, you would probably be best off hanging onto the county and recycling the IIa (much as it would be a shame).

However, you must admit you are somewhat of an "outlier" statistically.

My case might be atypical, but it is (to me at least) a clear indication of the direction we ought to be moving. There is no technical reason why an efficient diesel car cannot be made to last many years (in fact indefinitely, particularly if it is built similarly to the Landrover). The advances in automotive technology are really very slow - the fact that the Defender still sells is a clear enough indication of this.

I am not clear why I should recycle the 2a - a replacement would have to last me a long time to reach a breakeven on the manufacturing emissions, and since the mileage is low, the emissions from use are also low (which points out the fact that the most direct and cheapest way of reducing transport emissions is to reduce the number of trips)

Perhaps you do not appreciate that the 2a is a farm vehicle and has Primary Producer registration? It just does not do a lot of mileage. Same would apply to my tractor, which is over 40 years old, but probably does less than 50hrs a year.

John

[isuzurover]

My case might be atypical, but it is (to me at least) a clear indication of the direction we ought to be moving. There is no technical reason why an efficient diesel car cannot be made to last many years (in fact indefinitely, particularly if it is built similarly to the Landrover). The advances in automotive technology are really very slow - the fact that the Defender still sells is a clear enough indication of this.

I am not clear why I should recycle the 2a - a replacement would have to last me a long time to reach a breakeven on the manufacturing emissions, and since the mileage is low, the emissions from use are also low (which points out the fact that the most direct and cheapest way of reducing transport emissions is to reduce the number of trips)

Perhaps you do not appreciate that the 2a is a farm vehicle and has Primary Producer registration? It just does not do a lot of mileage. Same would apply to my tractor, which is over 40 years old, but probably does less than 50hrs a year.

John

Actually you are quite wrong on the advancement of automotive technology (and fuels). In a short space of time we have gone from 5000 to 10 ppm in diesel. Commonrail high pressure direct injection efi diesels are much more efficient and have orders of magnitude lower emissions than the typical indirect mechanical injection diesel that was the norm in the typical nissota until a few years ago. Not to mention oxy-cats and DPFs.

My point was that the county could do about the same job as the IIA already does, with less emissions - i.e. I was assuming that it could do the job of two vehicles, and the metal in the IIA could be recycled.