On 19/09/2013 15:05, Terry Fields wrote:

snip


It is clear that climate science is in its infancy.


Not according to the fanatics it isn't.. its proven and absolutely
correct to the point where they can just shout down anyone that says
otherwise.

On 19/09/13 16:25, dennis@home wrote:
On 19/09/2013 15:05, Terry Fields wrote:

snip


It is clear that climate science is in its infancy.


Not according to the fanatics it isn't.. its proven and absolutely
correct to the point where they can just shout down anyone that says
otherwise.
That is why that book is so delicious. It cites THOUSANDS of (peer
reviewed) works on climate change by hundreds of proper qualified
climate scientists, ALL of which cast (some) doubt on the IPCCs core
assumptions.

If someone asks you 'what is causing climate change then?', you merely
need cite the book and say 'pick any one, (or indeed several) of the
competing (or indeed, in many cases complementary) theories in there'.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

dennis@home wrote:

On 19/09/2013 15:05, Terry Fields wrote:

snip

It is clear that climate science is in its infancy.

Not according to the fanatics it isn't.. its proven and absolutely
correct to the point where they can just shout down anyone that says
otherwise.

A reading of scientific history more than suggests that anyone at any
time that says 'the science is settled' is, well, bonkers.
--
Terry Fields

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 19/09/13 16:25, dennis@home wrote:
On 19/09/2013 15:05, Terry Fields wrote:

snip

It is clear that climate science is in its infancy.

Not according to the fanatics it isn't.. its proven and absolutely
correct to the point where they can just shout down anyone that says
otherwise.
That is why that book is so delicious. It cites THOUSANDS of (peer
reviewed) works on climate change by hundreds of proper qualified
climate scientists, ALL of which cast (some) doubt on the IPCCs core
assumptions.

If someone asks you 'what is causing climate change then?', you merely
need cite the book and say 'pick any one, (or indeed several) of the
competing (or indeed, in many cases complementary) theories in there'.

I love this part:

"If public policy to address global warming is to
be made rationally, it must be based on scientific
forecasts of (1) substantial global warming, the
effects of which are (2) on balance seriously harmful,
and for which (3) cost-effective policies can be
implemented. Armstrong, Green, and Soon (2011)
refer to these logical requirements of policymaking as
´the 3-legged stool¡ of global warming policy. A
failure of any leg would invalidate policies. To date,
there are no evidence-based forecasts to support any
of the legs."

--
Terry Fields

On 19/09/13 15:05, Terry Fields wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 19/09/13 09:08, Terry Fields wrote:
Java Jive wrote:
Nothing of interest.

For those of you who enjoy reading seriously scientific books, this lik
will provide much joy

http://heartland.org/media-library/p...CR-II-Full.pdf

The book should have been subttled 'Why the science has never been less
settled: the 1001 things the IPCC forgot to consider, written by the
1,000 or so scientists who have evidence that disagrees with the IPCCs
conclusions for the 100,000 scientists and intelleigent people who
actrually care about science and truth'

(Cue ad homimen from JJ to 'discredit it completely').
He can start here, perhaps:

"The IPCCs confidence in the models, however,
is likely considerably overstated. The magnitude of
the range of projected temperature responses to a
doubling of atmospheric CO2 itself suggests there are
large errors and limitations in the models that must be
overcome. To have any validity in terms of future
projections, GCMs must incorporate not only the
many physical processes described above but also the
chemical and biological processes that influence
climate over long time periods. In addition, current
computational errors resulting from finite grid
resolution must be overcome so as not to introduceent
growing biases. And as a final step, model output
must be compared with and evaluated against real-
world observations"

I said to JJ perhaps only yesterday, that the models credibility
would be enhanced if they could predict a past event, such as the
icing of Greenland or the Little Ice Age - and here we have a
heavyweight scientific publication saying much the same thing.

The best fit on geolgical scales comes via solar and galactic
periodicities: I.e. great coolings are associaited with the earth
crossing the galactic plane, with the inference that the increase in
comsic rays tends to increase cloudiness - lots of people working on
that inc. Svensmark, and the receint warm and cold periods assocaited
with solar variations in irradiance and in magnetic feld, which likewise
modulate the comsic ray field.

Some nice neo-astrology from IIRC scarfetta, showng how the tidal
effects of planets on the sun may coincide with solar activity
modulation, and this how interference between orbitng planets and ther
orbital harmonics can provide the periodicity and the irregulariy behind
such events.

Unfortunately, as the actual temperature falls out of the lower band
of the predicted levels, such an event has become a mere curiosity as
the models prove increasingly inadequate.
No: playing devils advocate here, the politicians need something to
justify U turns on policy such as Australia has undertaken (essentially
sacking their whole climate change unit and shutting it down)

This is the sort of heavyweight stuff that seems impressive enough to be
useful IF THEY DECIDE IT IS POLITICALLY EXPEDIENT to to that.

AS far as politics is concerned, what counts is getting elected, and if
people are bored with climate change and green taxes, they dont actually
care whether AGW is true or not, they just need an excuse to dump it.

This is over a 1000 pages of excellent excuses. Littered with citations,
research summaries and the like.

All they have to do is say

1/. Renewable energy is not a successeful strategy to combat CO2
emissions, and if people care, they should support nuclear, which is.

2/. Even if it were, without the co-operation of the East, any attempts
to reduce emissions the West makes are simply cutting off our noses to
spite our faces for no tangible benefits and a lot of cost

3/. The science does not uniltaerrally support the contention that CO2
is a major driver of climate anyway.

4/. Climate change POLICY response would therefore better be 'be
prepared' that 'take specific precautions'.

Australia, and I suspect Canada will be the first to break ranks - we
shaclled to Europe, simplyy have to support UKIP as the main (politcal)
force advocatiing the above views, till they become mainstream enough
for it not to matter.

I suspect, and its a gut feeling, that by 2015, either climate change
will be simply not on anyones manifesto at all, or the main parties
will be more or less echoing UKIPs existing postion, or if not, they
will take a drubbing at the booths.

The Liberal Dimwits have already made friendly noises towards nuclear.
They dont mean it of course, but they have felt it necessary to make
those noises.


It is clear that climate science is in its infancy.



--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

On 19/09/13 16:42, Terry Fields wrote:
dennis@home wrote:

On 19/09/2013 15:05, Terry Fields wrote:

snip

It is clear that climate science is in its infancy.
Not according to the fanatics it isn't.. its proven and absolutely
correct to the point where they can just shout down anyone that says
otherwise.
A reading of scientific history more than suggests that anyone at any
time that says 'the science is settled' is, well, bonkers.
That is exactly why people who are not scientists should at least read
up on teh philosphy of science - Popper chiefly, and Kuhn and so on, so
they at least understand that all that science is, is a MODEL of the
world, which invents things that explain why things are the way they
are, and predicts the way they will be, in certain limited cases.

Science is not 'the Truth' : at best it is a useful approximation to
what the truth actually is, with no certanity that the entities it
formulates - its 'natural laws' and things like 'gravity' - have eny
existence beyond mere descriptive terms used to describe 'that way
things behave', given that you have a language at all, that understands
and defines what 'things' and 'behaviour' actually are.

At worst it is a false model that either just happens to work, or in the
case of pseudo science - which is what AGW is increasingly becoming -
doesn't actually work AT ALL in terms of predictions. Like religion.
Which holds as true that whatever happens is god's will, which is a
functionally empty statement because it nowhere tells you what god's
will actually intends.

Likewise AGW is the 'sin' of emitting CO2 for which we will be
'punished' by any one of an alarming number of local and global
catastrophes, of Sodom and Gomorrah like magnitude, unless we offer
sacrifices, in the form of green taxes, to the priests of Gaia, and
their 'pardoners' like Java Jive and harry,

who are only to ready to sell you 'indulgences' in th eform of windmills
and solar panels. .

It all has a suitably medieaval feel to it, so beloved of the bearded
be-sandalled unwashed...junk all this complicated technology that they
simply dont understand and which scares them,. and get back to beer and
a shag, and windmills and donkeys and a populations of 2 million..and
pray at the altar of Gaia, whose fairy lights will come on when the wind
blows, as a natural windmill constricted out of bamboo and hessian, will
be the only technology allowed.



--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

In message , at 17:12:29 on Thu, 19 Sep
2013, The Natural Philosopher remarked:

Australia, and I suspect Canada will be the first to break ranks

I think Australia might already have done, if postings from friends
there are to be taken literally (eg stuff like 'Australia's
post-election climate-change policy is to issue citizens with a bucket
of sand to put their heads in").
--
Roland Perry

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Likewise AGW is the 'sin' of emitting CO2 for which we will be
'punished' by any one of an alarming number of local and global
catastrophes, of Sodom and Gomorrah like magnitude, unless we offer
sacrifices, in the form of green taxes, to the priests of Gaia, and
their 'pardoners' like Java Jive and harry, who are only to ready to sell
you 'indulgences' in th eform of windmills and solar panels. .

It all has a suitably medieaval feel to it, so beloved of the bearded
be-sandalled unwashed...junk all this complicated technology that they
simply dont understand and which scares them,. and get back to beer and
a shag, and windmills and donkeys and a populations of 2 million..and
pray at the altar of Gaia, whose fairy lights will come on when the wind
blows, as a natural windmill constricted out of bamboo and hessian, will
be the only technology allowed.

ROFL

--
Terry Fields

On 19/09/2013 16:08, Huge wrote:
On 2013-09-19, Nightjar wrote:

Perhaps you are confusing tax with vehicle excise duty.

Vehicle excise duty *is* a tax.


Taken out of context and the differences have become blurred,
particularly since the agencies merged, but historically Customs and
Revenue collected duties while Inland Revenue collected taxes.

Colin Bignell

On 19/09/2013 15:15, The Other Mike wrote:
On Thu, 19 Sep 2013 00:48:15 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:

On 18/09/2013 20:15, Adrian wrote:
On Wed, 18 Sep 2013 20:12:39 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

There is no tax on small cars.

I must be imagining paying VED for a 600cc car and an 1100cc car, then...

There are petrol and diesel cars with zero ved.
I frequently drive a smart with zero ved.

What 600 cc car has ved on it, some old thing that doesn't qualify
because of its age?

A Smart first registered before 1st March 2001

12 months VED is £140.00

https://www.gov.uk/vehicle-tax-rate-tables



New smarts are zero.
Its because Mercedes haven't done the required tests and submitted the
results.

It was the same with my wife astra, it did more mpg and had less
emissions than ones on half the VED.

On 19/09/2013 14:44, Nightjar wrote:
On 18/09/2013 20:12, dennis@home wrote:
...
There is no tax on small cars....

There is if it is a company car and there is benefit in kind, except for
electric vehicles, which are currently at zero%. That is the tax the OP
was referring to. Perhaps you are confusing tax with vehicle excise duty.

Colin Bignell




I think you will find everyone else is talking VED, its even mentioned
in the post I replied too which you half quoted.

On 19 Sep 2013 15:09:05 GMT, Terry Fields
wrote:

Java Jive wrote:

You reveal yet again that you cannot be a senior academic.

The review process compares a submission with what is already known
and for internal logical and experimental consistency. To do that
will often involve referring back to previous papers or results.

First wriggle...."...will often..."

Will often does not mean "will always", but equally it doesn't mean
"will never", and you have never posted a creditable link yet.

Your first wriggle, as you note.

You always need to justify what you claim, but in fact rarely bother.
In recent threads where we have notably clashed, you have not seen fit
to support a single argument with a link:

No. when I am deconstructing the internal logic of your contributions,
I need no links, which is what I have been claiming all along. but
thanks for confirming that for me.

You wouldn't know internal logic if it hit you in the face. Witness
the mess you've made by constantly moving the goalposts in this
subthread. You seem to have an attention span of about 10 seconds or
less.

Thread Title TF JJ
=========================
Lies ! Lies ! It's all lies ... 0 6
BBC's Scientific Experts ... 0 11
The true cost of wind... 1/2 24 1/2 *

* The 1/2 points are for where you actually bothered to look something
up, for once, but then left it to others to find your source.

This is a consistent pattern of behaviour of yours. I've given such
statistics before.

Others here are free to make up their own minds, but I do not believe
the above is the behaviour of a senior academic. It seems to me the
behaviour of a common-or-garden internet troll.

Well, while I'm loathe to enter a popularity contest, the others on
here are free to note that the other person on here with appropriate
credentials, takes the same view of your postings as I do. Either he
and I have the same blinkers on, or you have a problem.

I think most of us can see that you both have the same blinkers on.

It is you who keeps moving the goalposts ...

Second wriggle.

Your second wriggle, as you note.

In response to my accusation of partiality by the Daily Mail, you
said:

On 17 Sep 2013 17:54:24 GMT, Terry Fields
wrote:

Tell that to the BBC

Then, when the discussion had moved on the BBC, you said:

On 18 Sep 2013 07:46:59 GMT, Terry Fields
wrote:

So you also have no radio, no internet, no newspapers, and never
visit your local library.

Then, when the discussion had moved back to the bias of newspapers,
which at least was getting the subthread just about back on topic at
last, you said:

On 19 Sep 2013 08:08:24 GMT, Terry Fields
wrote:

You have now introduced the concept
(otherwise known as moving the goalposts) of 'too biased'.

But that was actually the start of the whole subthread in the first
place!

FXShakes head in disbelief/FX

It was *you* that wanted the BBC's output on the topic.

How many times must I remind you that it was YOU who first mentioned
the BBC?!

Third wriggle.

Your third wriggle, as you note.

How many times do I have to remind you that is was YOU that chose to
wait for the BBC's take on the IPCC report, and how many times do I
have to tell you that it was YOU who chose to ignore other channels of
information?

How many times must I remind you that it was you who first mentioned
the BBC???!!!

... and all this ****ing in the wind since trying to twist logic on
your part is merely a smokescreen to enable you to escape with as much
dignity as you can scrape together. But hey, I'll be generous and let
it go, if you will, after all, it's hardly important.

I rather thought it was the BBC's twisted logic you were interested
in.

How many times must I remind you that it was YOU who first mentioned
the BBC??!!

Fourth wriggle. See 'third wriggle' above.

Your fourth wriggle, as you note.

But reading your posts in this sub-thread, you choose your output
according to their bias. That is unscientific.

I choose my output for impartiality, credibility, and trustworthiness.
Judging by the worthlessness of your contributions here, you would be
well-advised to do the same. In particular, it might have helped you
avoid the notable egg that you have recently had on your face.

You might think you choose so, but the fact that you limit yourself
to the BBC's output suggests otherwise.

False assumption. I never said that I limited myself to the BBC's
output.

Most of them are available at your local library, and most households
have a radio of some sort. If you don't have one, you might like to
consider getting one. BBC radio (among several thousand others) is
easily available over 3G. You could listen to the car radio, perhaps.

I don't need your advice about how to listen to the radio, watch TV,
or use a local library.

But it seems you do.

Advice from you about any subject under the sun would likely to be so
biased as to make it worthless.

This is getting to be like a converation with someone mentally
impaired

Oh, I quite agree, and I'm hoping for early improvement in your
behaviour, probably a triumph of hope over expectation on my part.

It's really very simple. All you've got to do is stop behaving like a
jerk yourself, so saving others from having to stoop to your level.
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

Java Jive wrote:

On 19 Sep 2013 15:09:05 GMT, Terry Fields
wrote:

Java Jive wrote:

You reveal yet again that you cannot be a senior academic.

The review process compares a submission with what is already known
and for internal logical and experimental consistency. To do that
will often involve referring back to previous papers or results.

First wriggle...."...will often..."

Will often does not mean "will always", but equally it doesn't mean
"will never", and you have never posted a creditable link yet.

Your first wriggle, as you note.

You always need to justify what you claim, but in fact rarely bother.
In recent threads where we have notably clashed, you have not seen fit
to support a single argument with a link:

No. when I am deconstructing the internal logic of your contributions,
I need no links, which is what I have been claiming all along. but
thanks for confirming that for me.

You wouldn't know internal logic if it hit you in the face. Witness
the mess you've made by constantly moving the goalposts in this
subthread. You seem to have an attention span of about 10 seconds or
less.

Thread Title TF JJ
=========================
Lies ! Lies ! It's all lies ... 0 6
BBC's Scientific Experts ... 0 11
The true cost of wind... 1/2 24 1/2 *

* The 1/2 points are for where you actually bothered to look something
up, for once, but then left it to others to find your source.

This is a consistent pattern of behaviour of yours. I've given such
statistics before.

Others here are free to make up their own minds, but I do not believe
the above is the behaviour of a senior academic. It seems to me the
behaviour of a common-or-garden internet troll.

Well, while I'm loathe to enter a popularity contest, the others on
here are free to note that the other person on here with appropriate
credentials, takes the same view of your postings as I do. Either he
and I have the same blinkers on, or you have a problem.

I think most of us can see that you both have the same blinkers on.

It is you who keeps moving the goalposts ...

Second wriggle.

Your second wriggle, as you note.

In response to my accusation of partiality by the Daily Mail, you
said:

On 17 Sep 2013 17:54:24 GMT, Terry Fields
wrote:

Tell that to the BBC

Then, when the discussion had moved on the BBC, you said:

On 18 Sep 2013 07:46:59 GMT, Terry Fields
wrote:

So you also have no radio, no internet, no newspapers, and never
visit your local library.

Then, when the discussion had moved back to the bias of newspapers,
which at least was getting the subthread just about back on topic at
last, you said:

On 19 Sep 2013 08:08:24 GMT, Terry Fields
wrote:

You have now introduced the concept
(otherwise known as moving the goalposts) of 'too biased'.

But that was actually the start of the whole subthread in the first
place!

FXShakes head in disbelief/FX

It was *you* that wanted the BBC's output on the topic.

How many times must I remind you that it was YOU who first mentioned
the BBC?!

Third wriggle.

Your third wriggle, as you note.

How many times do I have to remind you that is was YOU that chose to
wait for the BBC's take on the IPCC report, and how many times do I
have to tell you that it was YOU who chose to ignore other channels of
information?

How many times must I remind you that it was you who first mentioned
the BBC???!!!

... and all this ****ing in the wind since trying to twist logic on
your part is merely a smokescreen to enable you to escape with as much
dignity as you can scrape together. But hey, I'll be generous and let
it go, if you will, after all, it's hardly important.

I rather thought it was the BBC's twisted logic you were interested
in.

How many times must I remind you that it was YOU who first mentioned
the BBC??!!

Fourth wriggle. See 'third wriggle' above.

Your fourth wriggle, as you note.

But reading your posts in this sub-thread, you choose your output
according to their bias. That is unscientific.

I choose my output for impartiality, credibility, and trustworthiness.
Judging by the worthlessness of your contributions here, you would be
well-advised to do the same. In particular, it might have helped you
avoid the notable egg that you have recently had on your face.

You might think you choose so, but the fact that you limit yourself
to the BBC's output suggests otherwise.

False assumption. I never said that I limited myself to the BBC's
output.

Most of them are available at your local library, and most households
have a radio of some sort. If you don't have one, you might like to
consider getting one. BBC radio (among several thousand others) is
easily available over 3G. You could listen to the car radio, perhaps.

I don't need your advice about how to listen to the radio, watch TV,
or use a local library.

But it seems you do.

Advice from you about any subject under the sun would likely to be so
biased as to make it worthless.

This is getting to be like a converation with someone mentally
impaired

Oh, I quite agree, and I'm hoping for early improvement in your
behaviour, probably a triumph of hope over expectation on my part.

It's really very simple. All you've got to do is stop behaving like a
jerk yourself, so saving others from having to stoop to your level.

It seems to be a general tactic of those on shaky ground whereby they
accuse others of the very things they do themselves. Hence, I can see
this is going to be a long job.
--
Terry Fields

On 19/09/13 22:25, Terry Fields wrote:
It seems to be a general tactic of those on shaky ground whereby they
accuse others of the very things they do themselves. Hence, I can see
this is going to be a long job.
I thnk yuou need to know that AGW was designed from the ground up as one
huge BIg Lie.

Ther is no pont in telling its proponents its false: they know that
already. They are simply using words, ides, memes - anything that comes
to hand up and including threats bribes and blackamial to saturate the
media with one on message meme. Even wikipedia is saturated. They
command nearly all the communitcations chanbels, because the whole idea
is to make a lot of money out of gullible greens and plebby voters by
creating massive market momentum for anything 'green', gettng it
legislated into a de jure monopoly, and cleaning up.

its got nothing to do with science, or cliamate change, and java jive
knows this perfectly well.

He is not interested in the truth,. merely in preserving the illusions
that 'everybody believes in AGW' and 'anyone who doesn't is a Nazi
concentration camp guard with his hand on the gas tap'

Ad hominens, Big Lies, FUD, the precautionary principle, appeal to
authority, appeal to morality, peer group pressure, circular logic,
anecdotal evidence, spin, blackmail, these swine haven't missed a
single trick.

It is, when all is said and done, a complete tissue of lies.

Long gone are the times when you felt these protagonists were merely
deluded, and in denial. It is now absolutely clear that they are nothing
of the kind: They are fighting a war to save their faces, their careers,
and their jobs, and their profits and there is no farthing so low they
won't stoop to pick it up. And nothing they won't stoop to in terms of
dsihonourable tacticsm, deceptions lies and evasions.

The big green spin machine has had a good run, and they have bilked us
for trillions.

Because we were too busy to examine their arguments in detail.

But the truth can't remain hidden forever,

--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

On 19/09/2013 19:37, dennis@home wrote:
On 19/09/2013 14:44, Nightjar wrote:
On 18/09/2013 20:12, dennis@home wrote:
...
There is no tax on small cars....

There is if it is a company car and there is benefit in kind, except for
electric vehicles, which are currently at zero%. That is the tax the OP
was referring to. Perhaps you are confusing tax with vehicle excise duty.

Colin Bignell




I think you will find everyone else is talking VED, its even mentioned
in the post I replied too which you half quoted.

To quote from the original post that started this part of the thread:

'It happened c.2001 when company car tax was changed to be CO2 based.'

VED is also emissions based, but it is clearly not what the OP was
talking about.

Colin Bignell

On Thu, 19 Sep 2013 18:10:23 +0100 Roland Perry wrote :
I think Australia might already have done, if postings from friends
there are to be taken literally (eg stuff like 'Australia's
post-election climate-change policy is to issue citizens with a
bucket of sand to put their heads in").

Yes, as of this week climate change no longer exists here.

http://www.theage.com.au/federal-pol...919-2u2mg.html

--
Tony Bryer, Greentram: 'Software to build on',
Melbourne, Australia www.greentram.com

On Thu, 19 Sep 2013 17:12:29 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

The Liberal Dimwits have already made friendly noises towards nuclear.
They dont mean it of course, but they have felt it necessary to make
those noises.

They also said that tuition fees would not go up. It is very easy for them to
promise anything when they are not in power, or if they fall into a coalition,
'blame the other lot'

--

On Thu, 19 Sep 2013 19:36:03 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:

On 19/09/2013 15:15, The Other Mike wrote:
On Thu, 19 Sep 2013 00:48:15 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:

On 18/09/2013 20:15, Adrian wrote:
On Wed, 18 Sep 2013 20:12:39 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

There is no tax on small cars.

I must be imagining paying VED for a 600cc car and an 1100cc car, then...

There are petrol and diesel cars with zero ved.
I frequently drive a smart with zero ved.

What 600 cc car has ved on it, some old thing that doesn't qualify
because of its age?

A Smart first registered before 1st March 2001

12 months VED is £140.00

https://www.gov.uk/vehicle-tax-rate-tables



New smarts are zero.

So are 221 other new cars available in the UK that have up to 100g/km CO2
emissions.

http://carfueldata.direct.gov.uk/sea...?step=2&band=A

Its because Mercedes haven't done the required tests and submitted the
results.

Type approval where emissions such as CO2 were deteremined was in place way
before the Smart ever appeared, so it will have been tested.

The UK legislation on VED only differentiated by engine size before the 1st
March 2001

It was the same with my wife astra, it did more mpg and had less
emissions than ones on half the VED.

A car driven half as far over the course of an entire year has half the
emissions, it doesn't change the level of VED payable.

--

In article , Tony Bryer
scribeth thus
On Wed, 18 Sep 2013 15:00:21 +0100 Tony sayer wrote :
In article , Tony Bryer
scribeth thus
On Wed, 18 Sep 2013 11:40:05 +0100 Tony sayer wrote :
Yep almost the same here with a car we hardly use but need on the odd
occasion..

I own a Prius compact, but on the rare occasions I need something larger


I can use the local carshare Nissan XTrail wagon

Interesting, what's that work like?..

http://flexicar.com.au/how-it-works

The real beauty of it is that once you're a member there's no paperwork and
you hire by the hour, so if I want a wagon for two hours on Sunday
afternoon that's what I pay for. Cost on the light user plan is A$15.50
(about £9) per hour including fuel.


Right thats very much like the streetcar system here in the UK..
--
Tony Sayer

On 19/09/2013 00:49, dennis@home wrote:
On 18/09/2013 22:25, Alan Braggins wrote:
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

(concerning laws of nature)

Nowhere in its constitution is any truth content implied, and
nowhere in
its constitution is there any guarantee that measurements taken outside
the limits of previous limits, will continue to support its fundamental
precepts. As proved the case with Newton versus Einstein.

It's worth noting that physicists already know that Einstein's
Relativity is not the last word either, as it doesn't include quantum
effects.

But they aren't saying "it's just a theory, the science isn't settled,
maybe the planets really are carried around on giant crystal spheres
after all".


But they don't have circular orbits so that can't be true.

Bendy crystal

SteveW

In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes
On 19/09/13 15:05, Terry Fields wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 19/09/13 09:08, Terry Fields wrote:
Java Jive wrote:
Nothing of interest.

For those of you who enjoy reading seriously scientific books, this lik
will provide much joy

http://heartland.org/media-library/p...CR-II-Full.pdf

The book should have been subttled 'Why the science has never been less
settled: the 1001 things the IPCC forgot to consider, written by the
1,000 or so scientists who have evidence that disagrees with the IPCCs
conclusions for the 100,000 scientists and intelleigent people who
actrually care about science and truth'

(Cue ad homimen from JJ to 'discredit it completely').
He can start here, perhaps:

"The IPCCs confidence in the models, however,
is likely considerably overstated. The magnitude of
the range of projected temperature responses to a
doubling of atmospheric CO2 itself suggests there are
large errors and limitations in the models that must be
overcome. To have any validity in terms of future
projections, GCMs must incorporate not only the
many physical processes described above but also the
chemical and biological processes that influence
climate over long time periods. In addition, current
computational errors resulting from finite grid
resolution must be overcome so as not to introduceent
growing biases. And as a final step, model output
must be compared with and evaluated against real-
world observations"

I said to JJ perhaps only yesterday, that the models credibility
would be enhanced if they could predict a past event, such as the
icing of Greenland or the Little Ice Age - and here we have a
heavyweight scientific publication saying much the same thing.

The best fit on geolgical scales comes via solar and galactic
periodicities: I.e. great coolings are associaited with the earth
crossing the galactic plane, with the inference that the increase in
comsic rays tends to increase cloudiness - lots of people working on
that inc. Svensmark, and the receint warm and cold periods assocaited
with solar variations in irradiance and in magnetic feld, which
likewise modulate the comsic ray field.

Some nice neo-astrology from IIRC scarfetta, showng how the tidal
effects of planets on the sun may coincide with solar activity
modulation, and this how interference between orbitng planets and ther
orbital harmonics can provide the periodicity and the irregulariy
behind such events.

Unfortunately, as the actual temperature falls out of the lower band
of the predicted levels, such an event has become a mere curiosity as
the models prove increasingly inadequate.
No: playing devils advocate here, the politicians need something to
justify U turns on policy such as Australia has undertaken (essentially
sacking their whole climate change unit and shutting it down)

This is the sort of heavyweight stuff that seems impressive enough to
be useful IF THEY DECIDE IT IS POLITICALLY EXPEDIENT to to that.

AS far as politics is concerned, what counts is getting elected, and if
people are bored with climate change and green taxes, they dont
actually care whether AGW is true or not, they just need an excuse to
dump it.

This is over a 1000 pages of excellent excuses. Littered with
citations, research summaries and the like.

All they have to do is say

1/. Renewable energy is not a successeful strategy to combat CO2
emissions, and if people care, they should support nuclear, which is.

2/. Even if it were, without the co-operation of the East, any attempts
to reduce emissions the West makes are simply cutting off our noses to
spite our faces for no tangible benefits and a lot of cost

3/. The science does not uniltaerrally support the contention that CO2
is a major driver of climate anyway.

4/. Climate change POLICY response would therefore better be 'be
prepared' that 'take specific precautions'.

Australia, and I suspect Canada will be the first to break ranks - we
shaclled to Europe, simplyy have to support UKIP as the main (politcal)
force advocatiing the above views, till they become mainstream enough
for it not to matter.

I suspect, and its a gut feeling, that by 2015, either climate change
will be simply not on anyones manifesto at all, or the main parties
will be more or less echoing UKIPs existing postion, or if not, they
will take a drubbing at the booths.

The Liberal Dimwits have already made friendly noises towards nuclear.
They dont mean it of course, but they have felt it necessary to make
those noises.


It is clear that climate science is in its infancy.



JJs gone very quiet. Perhaps he's reading the book
--
bert

On 20/09/13 21:41, bert wrote:


JJs gone very quiet. Perhaps he's reading the book

you think he can read (anything beyond the Guardian and the Beano)?


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

As you reveal about yourself with almost every post you make.

On 19 Sep 2013 21:25:52 GMT, Terry Fields
wrote:

It seems to be a general tactic of those on shaky ground whereby they
accuse others of the very things they do themselves.
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

Swap all that crap around replacing greens, etc with AGW denialists,
and it then becomes pretty close to the actual truth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial

On Thu, 19 Sep 2013 22:44:06 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

[snip a load of typical unsubstantiated paranoia]
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 20/09/13 21:41, bert wrote:

JJs gone very quiet. Perhaps he's reading the book

you think he can read (anything beyond the Guardian and the Beano)?

Perhaps his TV is working again and giving him the news he wants to
hear.

--
Terry Fields

In message , at 13:03:00 on Fri, 20 Sep
2013, tony sayer remarked:
http://flexicar.com.au/how-it-works

The real beauty of it is that once you're a member there's no paperwork and
you hire by the hour, so if I want a wagon for two hours on Sunday
afternoon that's what I pay for. Cost on the light user plan is A$15.50
(about £9) per hour including fuel.

Right thats very much like the streetcar system here in the UK..

The only problem with that is they have cars in only five UK cities.
--
Roland Perry

On 21/09/13 08:52, Terry Fields wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 20/09/13 21:41, bert wrote:

JJs gone very quiet. Perhaps he's reading the book

you think he can read (anything beyond the Guardian and the Beano)?

Perhaps his TV is working again and giving him the news he wants to
hear.

harrynomics doesnt work on Earth.

--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

I noted that it is over 1000 pages long, and therefore had to put it
aside for the time being.

On Fri, 20 Sep 2013 21:41:54 +0100, bert ] wrote:

JJs gone very quiet. Perhaps he's reading the book
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

On 21/09/2013 10:30, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 21/09/13 08:52, Terry Fields wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 20/09/13 21:41, bert wrote:

JJs gone very quiet. Perhaps he's reading the book

you think he can read (anything beyond the Guardian and the Beano)?

Perhaps his TV is working again and giving him the news he wants to
hear.

harrynomics doesnt work on Earth.

As he swings between the guardian and the Beano, I guess that some sort
of Simple harrynomic motion...

--
Rod

In article , The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 18/09/13 15:13, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
(Alan Braggins) wrote:
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
"The science is settled" is of course an oxymoron. Science is
*never* settled - anything that claims to be "settled" is not science.

Any scientific theory, no matter how well supported by the evidence,
is capable of being falsified, as many have been over the centuries.
Very often, as for instance with Newton's Laws, the newer theory
(General Relativity IIRC) can be shown to contain the older theory
and reduce to it under particular circumstances. In the case of
Newton and Relativity, it's when the gravitational field is not too
strong.

But at the same time, anyone who uses "the science of gravity is not
settled" as an excuse for building a structure that calculations show
can't support it's own weight is an idiot, and you should not stand
underneath anything they build.

Of course, because so far, over the last 400 years, the only examples
of Newton failing come in regions of extreme gravitational field, such
as near a massive body like the Sun. The orbit of Mercury is an
example. Elsewhere, such as the rest of the Solar System, you can get
away with just using Newton, which is what NASA does for sending
probes into space.

NB the science of gravity is still not settled.

You can say that again..

Another example, from, as it happens, an opinion piece on renewable energy:
"For example a physicist confronted with the proposition that it is possible
to build a perpetual motion machine, can, without actually having to
investigate the detail of the proposed project, declare with complete
certainty that it is impossible, since it would necessarily violate the
laws of known physics. The physicist does not need to build it and test
it in order to make that statement."
http://www.templar.co.uk/downloads/R...imitations.pdf

Now the author might be wrong to say "complete" certainty, since given
sufficient evidence the right answer really is to change the laws of known
physics. But surely you would agree that the laws of thermodynamics really
are settled, and the onus is on anyone claiming to break them to provide
that evidence?

On 26/09/13 10:30, Alan Braggins wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 18/09/13 15:13, Tim Streater wrote:

NB the science of gravity is still not settled.

You can say that again..

Another example, from, as it happens, an opinion piece on renewable energy:
"For example a physicist confronted with the proposition that it is possible
to build a perpetual motion machine, can, without actually having to
investigate the detail of the proposed project, declare with complete
certainty that it is impossible, since it would necessarily violate the
laws of known physics. The physicist does not need to build it and test
it in order to make that statement."
http://www.templar.co.uk/downloads/R...imitations.pdf

Now the author might be wrong to say "complete" certainty, since given
sufficient evidence the right answer really is to change the laws of known
physics. But surely you would agree that the laws of thermodynamics really
are settled, and the onus is on anyone claiming to break them to provide
that evidence?


There is an important philosophical point that really has extreme
practical implications.

We cannot in all honesty say we know the truth about anything in
absolute terms, truth is always interpreted according to the minds of
those discovering it, and is therefore culturally malleable to an
extent. Hence the statement 'the truth is what people believe it to be
in the terms in which they believe it'

BUT there are two massively important additional things.

1/. Either we are massively impressively overwhelmingly good at self
deception and are in fact Gods whose whims form reality except we don't
know we are doing it, or there is a reality beyond - and a truth beyond
- what we may conceive and believe it to be. That is, whilst our local
human truths and natural laws are totally human inventions they are
inventions that are NOT WHOLLY INCONSISTENT with whatever is the case -
what reality 'really is'.

2/. If we then say that such laws as we have invented appear to be
wholly consistent with a given worldview up to the point of predicting
with alarming accuracy and 100% repeatability certain results, we have
arrived at a CONTEXT in which that law is 'true'. And if we then WITHIN
that context attempt to say 'well its all context-dependent, therefore
perpetual machines could work because no law is inviolate' etc etc, then
we have stepped outside of the context in which that law - and indeed
the discussion itself was framed.


And that is where I get alarmed by the total hypocrisy - and its
seemingly unwitting hypocrisy - of those who claim to step into the
scientific context to use some basic physics to 'prove' that global
warming is happening, but then step completely outside the laws of
physics to claim that 'what counts is how many people believe global
warming is happening' and then 'saying perpetual motion - or renewable
energy - machines wont work is just something you BELIEVE and has no
substance in reality'.


You can't have it both ways. Either you are operating on faith, or
within a rational context, and in a rational context there are truths,
and you can't use them to both demonstrate a problem and then ignore
them to create a solution, IN THAT CONTEXT.

If on the other hand global warming is simply a faith, then its
perfectly well countered by another faith - that solar panels and
windmills will magically fix it.

Which is fine provided its adherents pay for it themselves. Its not fine
when it is rammed down my throat like Sharia Law.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.