Hard to justify Climate Change so let's move on

[HD Adam]

Ok, we all know that Man-Made Climate Change is a abit of a busted flush, so to speak.
If you are in power, it's hard to justify extra taxes on motorists when it seems that the world is cooling and the baby Polar Bears aren't really dying, so what's an honest politician to do?

Aha

The Daily Wail said:

Air pollution in the UK 'killing 50,000 people a year', warn MPs

Britain's filthy air kills 50,000 people a year – more than obesity, passive smoking or traffic accidents, a damning report by MPs has said.

Ministers have been rebuked for failing to tackle the lethal problem, risking millions of pounds in fines for failing to meet EU quality standards.

In towns and cities, 70 per cent of pollution was caused by transport, which linked to the most health problems.

During the 2003 heat wave, 21 to 38 per cent of excess deaths were attributed to air pollution.

The committee called for the Government to make air quality a much higher priority, to raise awareness and educate the public on the dangers and how to minimise their exposure to pollution.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1259592/Br...

You bds. Killing all those poor people with your cars. Won't somebody think of the children etc etc?

I know? Extra taxes to cut your motoring down. Mwa ha ha ha ha.


You saw it here first.

FFS

[Mojocvh]

What filthy air. Try going back to the 60's and check that out!

[Dave Angel]

I was at school in the sixties and well remember the smog and crap from the coal fires in every home, what we have today is nothing in comparison. There were far fewer vehicles on the roads also but most of those had a blue haze following them, it wasn't unusual to need a top-end de-coke every 15-20,000 miles, what are de-coke intervals nowadays?

[turbobloke]

Sure thing - air quality in London highest for ~ 400 years (Lomborg). The Indy wouldn't print that as there's no scaremongering angle to take and any detrimental side to urban air quality is down to public transport, buses mostly.

The excess deaths nonsense has been trotted out before. What happened then is that anybody who died a few hours or days ahead of their doctor's prognosis was deemed a premature death and if there was no particularly obvious reason then air pollution or global warming or not having a 'Y' in the month was given the blame. The idea that a doc actually has no ability to make such accurate predictions is lost on these green fools, and no credit was given for extra longevity as caused by global cooling. What a surprise.

As to the heatwave comments and taking an emotive angle, cold is far more lethal.

Click

"Fuel bills blamed for 50% rise in winter deaths...Almost 37,000 people died during last cold spell, new figures reveal"

Yet climate voodoo zombie automatons keep harping on about 2000 so-called excess deaths in the heatwave of 2003 with a finger-in-the-air 30% (or whatever the latest PR figure happens to be) claimed due to junkscience notions.

ho ho ho

[heebeegeetee]

HD Adam said:

You saw it here first.

Er, I don't think so. This sort of stuff has been going on for years.

For instance, many years ago a study of six industrial cities in America was carried out, and it found that those on death's door in hospital and who were about to die, were more likely to die on a day when air quality (measured by particulate levels amongst others) was worse (for whatever reason).

This study was used by persons unknown in the UK, the information on particulate levels was changed to refer to diesel particulates, the population figures were extrapolated to reflect UK figures, and then one day all the newspapers carried the headline that diesel emissions kill 100,000 people a year.

This happened about ten years ago or so IIRC, and it was an absolute lie, but in the weekly anti-diesel debates here on PH, such mis-information is still widely used which shows that these scare stories do work.

The interesting thing about the headline(s) referred to by the OP is that the people being 'killed' by poor air quality, are people who are terminally ill and who are about to die anyway. In contrast, it is believed that hospitals are killing people at a level that also might be in the region of tens of thousands a year. These deaths though are of a cause other than that which the patient went into hospital for in the first place.

I struggle to understand why there is so little fuss about these killings.

[DSM2]

Dave Angel said:

I was at school in the sixties and well remember the smog and crap from the coal fires in every home, what we have today is nothing in comparison. There were far fewer vehicles on the roads also but most of those had a blue haze following them, it wasn't unusual to need a top-end de-coke every 15-20,000 miles, what are de-coke intervals nowadays?

+1 When it snowed, which it did often where I was, in 24 hours the stuff was black from the coal fires.

[Dave Angel]

DSM2 said:

Dave Angel said:

I was at school in the sixties and well remember the smog and crap from the coal fires in every home, what we have today is nothing in comparison. There were far fewer vehicles on the roads also but most of those had a blue haze following them, it wasn't unusual to need a top-end de-coke every 15-20,000 miles, what are de-coke intervals nowadays?

+1 When it snowed, which it did often where I was, in 24 hours the stuff was black from the coal fires.

Yep, forgot about the black snow

[turbobloke]

heebeegeetee said:

This happened about ten years ago or so IIRC, and it was an absolute lie, but in the weekly anti-diesel debates here on PH, such mis-information is still widely used which shows that these scare stories do work.

It's not anti-diesel debating, it's factual anti-pollution debates in the form of concern over the two most mutagenic carcinogens known to science - produced by large diesel engines particularly when under load. So car engines aren't implicated, nor HGVs to the same extent as public transport and buses in particular since they stop and start frequently in populated urban areas putting the engine under load every time they pull away from a bus stop. As this is seemingly too embarrassing for officialdom to get busy with, there are no measures easily available to show levels of 3-NBA and 1,8-DNP from emissions tests.

To most audiences the results would be enough to kill off instantly the ludicrious idea that public transport is environmentally friendly. You have to say most audiences since a lot of greens are anti-human and merely concern themselves with the non-existent impacts of tax gas on an inanimate object. The train vs car debate (trains lost) was also the cause of much green merriment when the results of research on relative energy consumption were published...according to Roger Ford, the ironically named Editor of 'Modern Railways' magazine, commenting on research by Professor Kemp on transport modes and energy consumption: "At present a family of four going by car is about as environmentally friendly as you can get."

It's almost enough to get sandalistas choking on their lentils

[HD Adam]

heebeegeetee said:

HD Adam said:

You saw it here first.

Er, I don't think so. This sort of stuff has been going on for years.

I know this has been going on for years. My point was that the latest announcement will be used as justification for tax rises on the motorist for Winky/Vince/CMD/whoever to continue to spunk up the wall, rather than the "We're putting up petrol by 2p/Litre to save the baby penguins"

[Jasandjules]

HD Adam said:

I know this has been going on for years. My point was that the latest announcement will be used as justification for tax rises on the motorist for Winky/Vince/CMD/whoever to continue to spunk up the wall, rather than the "We're putting up petrol by 2p/Litre to save the baby penguins"

More than likely.

As the AGW/Co2 bubble bursts, then they will have to find another way to "justify" that £40 billion they nick from the motorist.

[andy_s]

More people died putting up Xmas tree lights in the past few years than died during terrorism incidents in the UK - but the Xmas tree makes for a poor bogey-man.

[Asterix]

Again - cars are the standard villain.

Funnily enough - the Porsche 997 Turbo, when driving in the world's most populated cities puts out cleaner stuff from the exhausts than it takes in.

Must be true as Clarkson said so...

[JagLover]

turbobloke said:

It's not anti-diesel debating, it's factual anti-pollution debates in the form of concern over the two most mutagenic carcinogens known to science - produced by large diesel engines particularly when under load. So car engines aren't implicated, nor HGVs to the same extent as public transport and buses in particular since they stop and start frequently in populated urban areas putting the engine under load every time they pull away from a bus stop. As this is seemingly too embarrassing for officialdom to get busy with, there are no measures easily available to show levels of 3-NBA and 1,8-DNP from emissions tests.

To most audiences the results would be enough to kill off instantly the ludicrious idea that public transport is environmentally friendly. You have to say most audiences since a lot of greens are anti-human and merely concern themselves with the non-existent impacts of tax gas on an inanimate object. The train vs car debate (trains lost) was also the cause of much green merriment when the results of research on relative energy consumption were published...according to Roger Ford, the ironically named Editor of 'Modern Railways' magazine, commenting on research by Professor Kemp on transport modes and energy consumption: "At present a family of four going by car is about as environmentally friendly as you can get."

It's almost enough to get sandalistas choking on their lentils

Agreed Turbobloke

Hence why all these studies refer to 'Transport' to be used to justify hammering the cars which aren't the problem and subsidising the buses which are.

[heebeegeetee]

turbobloke said:

heebeegeetee said:

This happened about ten years ago or so IIRC, and it was an absolute lie, but in the weekly anti-diesel debates here on PH, such mis-information is still widely used which shows that these scare stories do work.

It's not anti-diesel debating, it's factual anti-pollution debates in the form of concern over the two most mutagenic carcinogens known to science - produced by large diesel engines particularly when under load. So car engines aren't implicated, nor HGVs to the same extent as public transport and buses in particular since they stop and start frequently in populated urban areas putting the engine under load every time they pull away from a bus stop. As this is seemingly too embarrassing for officialdom to get busy with, there are no measures easily available to show levels of 3-NBA and 1,8-DNP from emissions tests.

Didn't that story 'go away', along with a lot of other scare stories? I remember that story about diesel engines producing the most carcinogenic substance known to man, but i *think* the engines were those used in heavy locomotive freight trains, and not from anything that would be used on the road.

CARB (California Air Research Board) have been trying to have diesel fumes classified as carcinogenic for decades, but i understand the best they can do ishave them classified as 'likely' to be carcinogenic. This is as opposed to petrol which has known carcinogens added to the fuel.

Interestingly, whilst trying to find something about this on google, i've come across a holocaust denier http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/dth/fndieselgc.html#ft... who says the holocaust couldn't have happened because the nazis were supposed to have gassed millions with the exhaust from diesel trucks, and he's saying you can't kill anyone in that way.