RE: TDI the new PPI
Discussion
I have bought 5 new TDi Passats from VW since 2002, but had no intention of making any claim until I clicked on this PH story a few minutes ago.
Imagine my outrage when I realised from the PH photograph that none other than that awful Nazi Hr Robert Kilroy-Silk was behind all this!
Needless to say I'll be claiming for the shirt off his back now!
Imagine my outrage when I realised from the PH photograph that none other than that awful Nazi Hr Robert Kilroy-Silk was behind all this!
Needless to say I'll be claiming for the shirt off his back now!
spaximus said:
Over here what has changed, the cars still work fine, polar bears aren't dying and all this b
ks about ashmatics, yes sad, but trucks busses etc are worse polluters and don't foget it was the green lobby that forced government to push clean diesel cars with better tax rates etc.
Actually they're not. Cars are far worse than HGV's and busses etc. ks about ashmatics, yes sad, but trucks busses etc are worse polluters and don't foget it was the green lobby that forced government to push clean diesel cars with better tax rates etc.Here you go, have a source as well. Seems it's 10x worse.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jan/0...
heebeegeetee said:
Has this been debated on PH yet? "Petrol cars allowed to exceed pollution limits by 50% under draft EU laws"
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/oct/2...
Ah the good old using percentages to make shocking headlines. I'd rather like to see actual numbers first because 150% of fhttps://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/oct/2...
k all is still fk all.It's also worth taking into consideration that this is for non-GDI cars which previously had no limits at all so can only be "good" in that there is now (potentially due to be) a limit
Devil2575 said:
Manta A said:
Exactly...
"Science" the new religion for controlling the masses!
Science is simply the word used to describe the mechanism by which humans expand their knowledge. "Science" the new religion for controlling the masses!
If you think it is anyway similar to religion then you need to go and study science.
An attack on science is normally because the facts don't agree with people's ideology so they feel threatened and so try to discredit it. When ever someone tries to do so you don't have to look very hard to spot the problematic ideology.
It is never science that causes a problem, it is the misrepresentation of it.
The fact remains that both CO2 and NOx cause a problem and need reducing. Governments thought they could help to meet CO2 targets by encouraging the wholesale switch to diesel and imagined that the NOx issue could be dealth with through emission control. The problem is that the latter hasn't really happened. This situation doesn't alter the validity of the science or the fact that both need addressing.
Edited by Devil2575 on Monday 16th January 12:32
.Fastdruid said:
Actually they're not. Cars are far worse than HGV's and busses etc.
Here you go, have a source as well. Seems it's 10x worse.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jan/0...
I think you would do better to find a link to a credible source ....Here you go, have a source as well. Seems it's 10x worse.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jan/0...
powerstroke said:
Fastdruid said:
Actually they're not. Cars are far worse than HGV's and busses etc.
Here you go, have a source as well. Seems it's 10x worse.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jan/0...
I think you would do better to find a link to a credible source ....Here you go, have a source as well. Seems it's 10x worse.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jan/0...
George111 said:
Devil2575 said:
George111 said:
There is no fact that supports CO2 being a problem - you're not quoting science 
Don't be stupid.Climate change deniers, antivaxxers, anti GMO, flatearthers...
There's a long list of science denying clowns in this world.
Edit: Just in case you're just mistaken, rather than a complete idiot, then this is a good starting point.
https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4549
Edited by Devil2575 on Tuesday 17th January 12:06
Manta A said:
Devil2575 said:
Manta A said:
Exactly...
"Science" the new religion for controlling the masses!
Science is simply the word used to describe the mechanism by which humans expand their knowledge. "Science" the new religion for controlling the masses!
If you think it is anyway similar to religion then you need to go and study science.
An attack on science is normally because the facts don't agree with people's ideology so they feel threatened and so try to discredit it. When ever someone tries to do so you don't have to look very hard to spot the problematic ideology.
It is never science that causes a problem, it is the misrepresentation of it.
The fact remains that both CO2 and NOx cause a problem and need reducing. Governments thought they could help to meet CO2 targets by encouraging the wholesale switch to diesel and imagined that the NOx issue could be dealth with through emission control. The problem is that the latter hasn't really happened. This situation doesn't alter the validity of the science or the fact that both need addressing.
Edited by Devil2575 on Monday 16th January 12:32
.I was just addressing your misunderstanding of what science is.
Gary29 said:
There should be no personal claims.
The Government should claim against VW (and all the other manufacturers most likely) for lost vehicle excise duty revenue.
'TDI' owners are actually up on the deal as they haven't paid the same VED rates as the rest of us.
I thought the issue did not affect C02 and therefore would not affect VED rates.The Government should claim against VW (and all the other manufacturers most likely) for lost vehicle excise duty revenue.
'TDI' owners are actually up on the deal as they haven't paid the same VED rates as the rest of us.
Mr2Mike said:
Devil2575 said:
You didn't.
I was just addressing your misunderstanding of what science is.
You seem to be confusing what science ideally should be, compared to how it actually is in many cases.I was just addressing your misunderstanding of what science is.
Individual scientists make mistakes and suffer from the same frailties as the rest of us, but no established science is ever based on the work of a single person.
Devil2575 said:
George111 said:
Devil2575 said:
George111 said:
There is no fact that supports CO2 being a problem - you're not quoting science
Don't be stupid.Climate change deniers, antivaxxers, anti GMO, flatearthers...
There's a long list of science denying clowns in this world.
Edit: Just in case you're just mistaken, rather than a complete idiot, then this is a good starting point.
https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4549
Edited by Devil2575 on Tuesday 17th January 12:06
Fastdruid said:
Actually they're not. Cars are far worse than HGV's and busses etc.
Here you go, have a source as well. Seems it's 10x worse.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jan/0...
That is a bit selective to be honest. That compares new trucks against new diesel cars. In the real world in the UK we have a huge amount of trucks and busses that are old technology and do not meet the latest standards. Here you go, have a source as well. Seems it's 10x worse.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jan/0...
London has the lez outside that you can still chug around with any old truck, follow any older HGV or bus to see that.
In the pursuit of "green" ways we have been sent down a dead end and now it would appear that many other manufacturers have been economical with various things. It has always been that way and should come as no surprise.
The VW thing has been driven by the US wanting to teach them a lesson. Jumping on that bandwagon owners see a chance for easy money, to me it is that simple.
Devil2575 said:
Manta A said:
Devil2575 said:
Manta A said:
Exactly...
"Science" the new religion for controlling the masses!
Science is simply the word used to describe the mechanism by which humans expand their knowledge. "Science" the new religion for controlling the masses!
If you think it is anyway similar to religion then you need to go and study science.
An attack on science is normally because the facts don't agree with people's ideology so they feel threatened and so try to discredit it. When ever someone tries to do so you don't have to look very hard to spot the problematic ideology.
It is never science that causes a problem, it is the misrepresentation of it.
The fact remains that both CO2 and NOx cause a problem and need reducing. Governments thought they could help to meet CO2 targets by encouraging the wholesale switch to diesel and imagined that the NOx issue could be dealth with through emission control. The problem is that the latter hasn't really happened. This situation doesn't alter the validity of the science or the fact that both need addressing.
Edited by Devil2575 on Monday 16th January 12:32
.I was just addressing your misunderstanding of what science is.
On the other hand your obvious attachment to the concept of science only helps prove my point. Bias only makes us susceptible to manipulation. It was priests in the day, and now it is "experts" that behold the truth to control and tax us. You understand the issue.
I really respect your concerns for your fellow man however. We are both fighting on the same side
Manta A said:
Not really. I suppose I was just pointing out the dangers of technocracies. Not very well it seems.
On the other hand your obvious attachment to the concept of science only helps prove my point. Bias only makes us susceptible to manipulation. It was priests in the day, and now it is "experts" that behold the truth to control and tax us. You understand the issue.
The massive diffeence between priests and scientists is that science is transparent and supported by evidence. If it wasn't supported by evidence then it simply wouldn't work and it isn't science. Science may influence public policy in some areas but in other respects science shapes our lives from the medicines we take to the smart phones we use to post on PH. If science was like religion then we wouldn't have smart phones, we wouldn't have antibiotics and millions of people would still be dying every year from things like smallpox. There wouldn't be carbon fibre, there wouldn't be X-ray machines, there wouldn't be satalites, there wouldn't be DVD players.Every aspect of our modern lives is like it is because science works.On the other hand your obvious attachment to the concept of science only helps prove my point. Bias only makes us susceptible to manipulation. It was priests in the day, and now it is "experts" that behold the truth to control and tax us. You understand the issue.
The fact that on an individual level a scientist may not do proper science and may falsify data isn't really a massive issue, because through the scientific process they will be found out. Problems will be picked up through peer review or ultimately when another scientist tries to replicate the work and find that they get different results. However when multiple independant scientists replicate a piece of work you then start to get a concensus. Multiple independant studies that back each other up and also build on each other to create a clearer picture of the facts. In this respect science is self correcting. It also never claims to be right, in fact it's frequently wrong, but at any point in time it represents our best understanding of a subjectand is less wrong that anything else.
The real problems start when a single study is reported in the media in a way that suggests it is fact (see Andrew wakefield and autism) This study was counter to the concensus but both sides were reported on as if they were equal which they weren't. Also political and media distortion of science is an issue, but you can avoid this if you know where to go to read the actual science itself, rather than the reporting of it.
My final point on this is that there is never a sound basis with which to oppose a scientific view unless you are involved in that specific science. Two astro physiscists can disagree on a subject within astrophysics, but how can a layperson possibly form an opinion as to which side of the argument to take? Science get's very complicated very quickly and unless you are really immersed in a subject you can't possibly hope to know more than someone who is. I don't know what your line of work is but I am a chemist and a chemical engineer. Even after 20+ years in industry there is still lots I don't know and I regularly have cause to call upon experts in specific areas. We have two experts on rotating equipment for example who are both respected in the industry as a whole, they know things that you could only hope to know if you had spent your career focused on this very specific area. Sometimes they disagree, both can privide a very convincing argument to support their view but there is no strong basis for me to side with either.
It is no different in science. So when there is a general concensus with the scientists working in a specific care there is no sound basis for anyone to oppose this. You can oppose the politics of what to do with this information however.
Manta A said:
I really respect your concerns for your fellow man however. We are both fighting on the same side
Thank you. I appreciate that. Edited by Devil2575 on Wednesday 18th January 13:08
George111 said:
Devil2575 said:
George111 said:
Devil2575 said:
George111 said:
There is no fact that supports CO2 being a problem - you're not quoting science
Don't be stupid.Climate change deniers, antivaxxers, anti GMO, flatearthers...
There's a long list of science denying clowns in this world.
Edit: Just in case you're just mistaken, rather than a complete idiot, then this is a good starting point.
https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4549
Edited by Devil2575 on Tuesday 17th January 12:06
That's aside from the ludicrous notion that laypeople people have the understanding and the knowledge to challenge the scientific concensus on any subject.
Spemnding a while reading internet blogs by other people who also don't know what they're talking about while at the same time ingnoring the wealth of published science out there does not make anyone an expert, it makes them an idiot. I don't think a single person contributing to that thread for example has a subscription to any of the journals where the latest research on the subject is published.
Edited by Devil2575 on Wednesday 18th January 13:03
Devil2575 said:
There is and it's largely dominated by people who don't know what they're talking about.
That's aside from the ludicrous notion that laypeople people have the understanding and the knowledge to challenge the scientific concensus on any subject.
Spemnding a while reading internet blogs by other people who also don't know what they're talking about while at the same time ingnoring the wealth of published science out there does not make anyone an expert, it makes them an idiot. I don't think a single person contributing to that thread for example has a subscription to any of the journals where the latest research on the subject is published.
Right, go post that on the climate change science thread where the scientists live . . . I'll give you an hour before your bare ass is handed to you on a plate, spanked and red raw That's aside from the ludicrous notion that laypeople people have the understanding and the knowledge to challenge the scientific concensus on any subject.
Spemnding a while reading internet blogs by other people who also don't know what they're talking about while at the same time ingnoring the wealth of published science out there does not make anyone an expert, it makes them an idiot. I don't think a single person contributing to that thread for example has a subscription to any of the journals where the latest research on the subject is published.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff