tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8212152.post3406901944365865188..comments2007-09-08T19:06:54.948+01:00Guido Fawkeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15091277669318213298noreply@blogger.comBlogger67125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8212152.post-32052989985576789452007-09-08T19:06:00.000+01:002007-09-08T19:06:00.000+01:00I love trains and hate driving and I am willing to accept the scientific consensus with regard to mans impact on the climate.<BR/><BR/>That said I loathe your average green liberal they are a bunch of politico elitist wankers, who are the same people that were cheering on the soviet union during the cold war, call themselves socialists but have nothing but contempt for the working class.<BR/><BR/>Their opposition to nuclear power illustrates there position is based on faith rather than logic.<BR/><BR/>Their silence with regard to overpopulation illustrates innability to think.<BR/><BR/>Their ignorance with regard to the pernicious effect of our system of credit based money creation, on human economic activity and the fact that as long this continues we will never be able to live in a sustainable way, demonstrates they have nothing useful to say.<BR/><BR/>http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-515319560256183936&q=the+money+masters&total=561&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0 <BR/> <BR/> <BR/>http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-9050474362583451279&q=money+as+debt&total=1141&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0 <BR/><BR/>One thing that does make trains less efficient is that after the train companies have run them in to London in the morning they then have to run them back out empty and run them back in again empty because there is nowhere for them to put them for the day in the city.zoomrakerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11203789967883540604noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8212152.post-73316562721468187872007-09-02T18:13:00.000+01:002007-09-02T18:13:00.000+01:00FUck off Guido you stupid dickhead. <BR/><BR/>It is nothing to do with bollocks like 'ideological opposition' you thick, ignorant cretin. It is to do with the fact that if we don't stupid creating greenhouse gases the ratio of CO2 in the atmosphere is going to rise to 700+ parts per million and the planet is going to fry. <BR/><BR/>You can try and bury your head in the sand, and hanker after your penis-extending motor [and I bet you bloody need it] till you are blue in the face. But the truth is cars are a twentieth century mode of transport which is fucked in the twenty first. Selective choice of data just shows how badly misleading your arguments are, and how desperately you are pissing in the wind. <BR/><BR/>Rather than pursue crap like this, why don't you try and come up with some bright, capitalist ideas of your own for reducing CO2 pollution - like photovoltaic cells or Severn barrage, or an increase in the no of wind farms. Oh, I forgot. <BR/><BR/>You are one of that rare band of brigands, the man-made global warming is a myth flat-earthers who will be smoking your 6-litre V12 manhood substitutes because you are too fucking thick to see that we are doomed without an alternative. <BR/><BR/>And what 'hard-of-thinking' idiots like you fail to realise is that it is not only 'greens' who realise this - there are some people even within our Tory party who are bright enough to have woken up and smelled the coffee. Too bad you aren't one of them - but then being intellectual isn't your long suit.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8212152.post-38688968205589782332007-08-31T16:21:00.000+01:002007-08-31T16:21:00.000+01:00Great to see the Global Warming Fascists discomforted. They are about to given a worse shafting by SurfaceStations.org. <BR/><BR/>You heard it here first!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8212152.post-92165060032948539842007-08-31T08:59:00.000+01:002007-08-31T08:59:00.000+01:00Chris Paul said... <BR/>"Sadly by the time Boris gets in to work after a 60 mile pedal it is time for him to turn round and go home. That is the best place for him."<BR/><BR/>Boris lives in Islington. His return journey to work in Westminster is about 6 miles.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8212152.post-83038315061720193722007-08-31T01:46:00.000+01:002007-08-31T01:46:00.000+01:00Perhaps Europeans ought to just focus on their Kyoto obligations. To date, despite widespread chest thumping, the Germans, French, Italians, Brits and a few other countries are well in excess of their Kyoto CO2 emissions promises. Additionally, I read somewhere lately that the Americans (i.e. anti-Kyoto Bush people) halve outperfromed Europe in CO2 emission in since 2001. Say it ain't so.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8212152.post-1720912250466344342007-08-30T17:19:00.000+01:002007-08-30T17:19:00.000+01:00Well you couldn't make it up. Just read about this 1000 mile "Cut the Carbon" Christian Aid march, finishing in London on October 2nd. And of course they are hiring coaches to take people to the final rally.<BR/><BR/>Begs the question what is the carbon footprint of all this? and since just about all legislation financially adversely affects poor people that they are supposed to help WTF has this got to do with Christian Aid?Travis Bicklehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12445624135697167219noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8212152.post-43918896319794763592007-08-30T16:07:00.000+01:002007-08-30T16:07:00.000+01:00Posted on CommentIsFree: British Airline Pilots Association fail to read Professor Kemp's work correctly.<BR/><BR/>I'm sure no one here has made the mistake of confusing engine efficiency (miles per gallon) with CO2 efficiency (emissions per mile)...<BR/><BR/><B>It's hard to think of an interest group with more to lose from curtailing flights than the British Airline Pilots' Association (Balpa). So it wasn't surprising that during the recent Camp for Climate Action Balpa called for "peace talks" with the environmentalists, claiming that "most flights, compared with other transport modes, are green".</B><BR/><BR/>Having a declared interest shouldn't disqualify you from voicing your opinion - provided your argument is grounded in fact. Unfortunately, Balpa's recent report, Aviation and the Environment is anything but. Despite claims from Balpa's chairman, Captain Mervyn Granshaw that "we were determined from the outset to concern ourselves only with the facts", the report makes some very basic mistakes which could leave readers confused.<BR/><BR/>The first rule of comparison is to use a standard measurement. For green issues, it's carbon dioxide, and when comparing aviation emissions with surface transport, calculations need to include the mix of other gases and the height at which they're emitted. This is known as radiative forcing, and Defra and the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recommend using a multiplier of 2.7 to calculate a "carbon equivalence" (CO2e).<BR/><BR/>So it's odd that Balpa chose to use the volume of fuel burned to compare the efficiency of planes, trains and cars. Unlike other scientific studies, Balpa is judging efficiency on the number of miles per gallon - despite different fuels producing different quantities of greenhouse gases. This method also ignores radiative forcing, so the report's calculations cover only about a third of the damage planes are doing to the atmosphere.<BR/><BR/>Leaving out radiative forcing puts the rest of the report on to very shaky ground, but it isn't the only error. Central to Balpa's argument is a graph comparing efficiency per passenger when the three modes of transport - cars, trains and planes - are a quarter full, half full and totally full.<BR/><BR/>Balpa sourced the graph from an energy consumption discussion paper by Professor Roger Kemp of Lancaster University, which covers the amount of fuel used to propel different vehicles - and therefore also excludes radiative forcing. Professor Kemp looks at a typical aircraft, a car, and two forms of train: one which travels at 225km/h and another at 350km/h. Notice, however, that the two graphs are surprisingly different: the first is taken from the original source document and the second from the Balpa report.<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/graphleft.jpg" REL="nofollow">Professor Kemp's graph.</A><BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/graphleft2.jpg" REL="nofollow">Graph from the Balpa report.</A><BR/><BR/>While Kemp's graph (top) shows the expected linear decrease in emissions as occupancy rises (so that two people in a car is twice as efficient per person as single occupancy), the pilots' version (base) implies that both the VW Passat and the "conventional GNER train" are only marginally more efficient per person at 50% occupancy than they were at 25% - an odd conclusion which conveniently makes the plane the most efficient mode at 50% occupancy. Also, notice that Balpa has swapped the 100% load figures for the conventional GNER train and the high-speed "TGV style train" - with the result that the conventional train appears less efficient than the plane.<BR/><BR/>Balpa describes Kemp's 225 km/h train as a "conventional GNER train", but GNER trains don't travel at more than 200km/h for fear of missing trackside signals. More seriously, in the text of the report Balpa compares the plane to "a standard high-speed train traveling at roughly 350 km/h", even though there are no 350km/h trains in the UK and even French TGV trains have a maximum operating speed of 320km/h.<BR/><BR/>So what are the real figures? In a more recent paper Prof Kemp reveals that on a London-Edinburgh route an Airbus A321 would actually emit 210gms CO2e/passenger km - more that five times as much as the 40gms emitted by a conventional GNER train on the same route (based on the appropriate occupancy rates of 70% and 31% respectively). By 2020, when the electricity generating mix has a higher renewable content, the figure for the GNER train should drop to 30gms/passenger km, and as trains become fuller, so their efficiency increases.<BR/><BR/>This isn't the first time the aviation industry has got its figures muddled. In January Ryanair admitted misleading customers when it claimed to have reduced its CO2 emissions by 50%. Closer examination showed that while the airline had reduced emissions per passenger by 50%, its overall emissions had shot up by 800% between 1998 and 2006.<BR/><BR/>Ryanair has since been chastised by the Avertising Standards Agency for claiming that aviation accounts for only 2% of emissions. The ASA said it breached rules on truthfulness by not explaining the figure was based on global rather than UK emissions (which according to the British government are closer to 13%).<BR/><BR/>Balpa has invited the environmental movement to debate the "real effects" of flying, but first I'd like Balpa to think a little harder about what these real effects might be. In the meantime we'll continue planning direct action against an industry which seems reluctant to acknowledge the true damage it is causing.Plane Crazynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8212152.post-78559266863425405502007-08-30T14:36:00.000+01:002007-08-30T14:36:00.000+01:00Unlike the Grapefruit (green outside / red on the inside) on this blog, I thought I would read the report before commenting! ;)<BR/><BR/>So, 2 people driving a VW Passat which does 48 mpg from London to Edinburgh works our more economical than doing the same trip in a totally full Train doing 350 kph all the way.<BR/><BR/>However, looking a few graphs down and you'll spot that a slower train doing 225 kph works out about the same fuel cost per passenger so the figures are a little confusing ... until you realise that all you need to do is to put someone in the back of the VW and suddenly its the most environmentally friendly way to get around bar none!! <BR/><BR/>Shame my V8 doesn't do 48 mpg! I wonder if the fact I use LPG will grant me the pardon of the green god Gaia?Vhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00109905814981958633noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8212152.post-27032282957297930442007-08-30T12:13:00.000+01:002007-08-30T12:13:00.000+01:00The main problem with this presentation is that poor Professor Kemp is being quoted by salivating climate change deniers in a very broad way, when his research, even taken at face value, is focussed on a narrow issue. He states that he meant to highlight ways to make rail travel more efficient.<BR/><BR/>He is also on record as saying there are no easy quick fixes to reducing carbon levels, small efficient cars will have to become the norm if carbon reduction levels are to be met and seems to be calling for a massive investment in the rail infrastructure, which I can only assume would come from public money (Search for his 17th May article in the independent 'no quick fix..' for more on this.<BR/><BR/>None of this fits in with the ethos of this blog, but Guido is obviously so desperate for someone to justify his petrol yearnings that he'll jump in with some very strange bedfellows. Stick to the funnies!<BR/><BR/>Blog readerships are very good at checking facts, and bollocks on stilts will quickly be knocked over.Liam22noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8212152.post-65646224835783904102007-08-30T12:03:00.000+01:002007-08-30T12:03:00.000+01:00You know, I've always wondered why the English flee their country at every three-day opportunity. Can someone tell me just why it's so hateful?raincoasterhttp://raincoaster.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8212152.post-73573915012412790132007-08-30T09:11:00.000+01:002007-08-30T09:11:00.000+01:00Guido, does the report say which car was used for comparison purposes? I bet my left testicle that the result would vary hugely on this.<BR/>For what its worth, I think its the indulgent element of the car market that gives the car a bad name. Not content with getting you from A to B comfortably, economically & enviromentally as friendly as possible, the manufacturers build the 4x4s, used mainly by urban drivers who's only ever have to negotiate a pot hole or speed bump, and cars that can reach over 150 mph when the legal maximum is 70 mph.<BR/>But this sells cars, with a higher profit margin, by appealing to our self indulgence. And yes, before you ask, if I had the money I would buy one of those. I whip myself nightly with the guilt.fair point, but...noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8212152.post-8880784876450441312007-08-30T08:51:00.000+01:002007-08-30T08:51:00.000+01:00engdem 8:00am<BR/><BR/><I>Life is not all about politics you know!</I><BR/><BR/>It is if you are a state nappy wearing socialist.Tuscan Tonyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11196343713837375340noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8212152.post-76846364976876520202007-08-30T08:00:00.000+01:002007-08-30T08:00:00.000+01:00The Handwringers are out in force today! Green is the new red I think!<BR/>A question for the greenie common sense deniers here, How do you get to the train station? and how do you get from the train station to your destination? add the extra travel at both ends and you then have the increased costs over private cars!<BR/>You idiot common sense deniers still cling to your failed "CO2 bogeyman" theory like your pathetic lives depend on it? Let me clue you fucking sad muppets in a bit here There is NO global warming because temperatures have been falling since 1998 and when you delete the false temperature data from surface based sensors and replace it with TRUE data from sattelite based sensors then what you have is is a picture of natural cyclic variation that can easily be handled by humanity with a capitalist outlook! In short you fucking socialist/leftist jerkoffs couldnt run a piss up in a brewery!<BR/>You have been wrong about everything because you make the basic error of looking at things with political goggles on! Life is not all about politics you know!english democratnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8212152.post-24895087798984345602007-08-30T04:14:00.000+01:002007-08-30T04:14:00.000+01:00anonymous 1.38pm..<BR/><BR/>I look forward to you voting Tory. John Redwood is proposing electric trains and double deckers! Even running on rubber tyres!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8212152.post-79643821104162076282007-08-30T01:49:00.000+01:002007-08-30T01:49:00.000+01:00"Guido, stop with the anti-green stuff, it makes you look like a massive dick."<BR/><BR/>Guido, keep up the anti-green stuff, it will <B>give</B> you a massive dick......Lord Cashcroftwww.conservatives.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8212152.post-24188574532933189762007-08-29T23:23:00.000+01:002007-08-29T23:23:00.000+01:00Anonymous 11:10<BR/><BR/>Even if this man-made global warming thing exists, the UK only produces 2% of the world's CO2 output. So to say that we would be responsible for droughts, flooding, food shortages and extinctions in other countries because we drive cars instead of taking trains is total bollocks.<BR/><BR/>You are the massive wanker and I claim my five pounds.Astro-Turf Lawnmowerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09131914904410009882noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8212152.post-21478021017499488342007-08-29T23:10:00.000+01:002007-08-29T23:10:00.000+01:00"no longer anonymous", from what you say, presumably you regard the benefits you imagine coming to the UK as all we should care about? If we are collectively responsible for massive droughts, flooding, food shortages, extinctions etc. in other countries, are you saying we shouldn't care? I can only agree with anon 10:50: You are a massive wanker.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8212152.post-425337006704152012007-08-29T22:50:00.000+01:002007-08-29T22:50:00.000+01:00actually "no longer anonymous" you are a total idiot. Global warming would not make the UK warmer, but would freeze it. Haven't you wondered why the UK has a moderate climate despite its latitude? That is because of ocean currents, which when the polar ice cap melts you will no longer have and the UK will freeze. Wanker.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8212152.post-65368954724528296812007-08-29T22:38:00.000+01:002007-08-29T22:38:00.000+01:00"Guido, stop with the anti-green stuff, it makes you look like a massive dick."<BR/><BR/>Only to the minority of car-haters. Fact is that most people in this country (rightly) don't give a stuff about global warming and do not see why their comfortable lifestyles should be destroyed just to keep a bunch of unwashed loser-hippies happy. Global warming will mean a warmer climate in the UK - something I rather look forward to.no longer anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8212152.post-58720446268140949802007-08-29T22:22:00.000+01:002007-08-29T22:22:00.000+01:00How ridiculous: The Professors "assumptions" are laughably refuted by his own graphs. The assumed fuel consumption for the car (a VW something or other) is 5.8 L/100km. A few slides later, we see the actual average (as in all the vehicles used, not just one randomly picked for outstanding fuel efficiency) is close to 8 L/100km. This simple math of changing his assumed number to the actual, factual number means the car consumes 30L/passenger to the trains 22L. That's just one example of why this "academic" study is total rubbish. I could continue about trains being able to use lower carbon alternative energies where cars cannot, the fact that the numbers are based on a 350km/hr train, etc.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8212152.post-30098420635958612852007-08-29T22:19:00.000+01:002007-08-29T22:19:00.000+01:00hitch 6:18pm<BR/><BR/>Who needs globalwarnist scientology when we got you ducks!what's an ice age between friendsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8212152.post-82729148930966074502007-08-29T22:10:00.000+01:002007-08-29T22:10:00.000+01:00anon 3:47 PM<BR/><BR/>I make a good strong cuppa and prefer making it to working anytime. ex civil servant. refs available if req.teasmaid services inc.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8212152.post-13297281429816768462007-08-29T21:27:00.000+01:002007-08-29T21:27:00.000+01:00cynic 12:24pm<BR/><BR/><I>Can a Green explain how a heavy train is greener than a lightweight car?</I><BR/><BR/>Only if you stick one upside-down in a tin of lime-green emulsion and use the long-haired cunt to redecorate the entire length of an intercity express.jeremy bristlesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8212152.post-34307257558454770902007-08-29T21:24:00.000+01:002007-08-29T21:24:00.000+01:001. The trains run anyway so everytime you take a train journey you not only don't produce the carbon you would have done in the car but you reduce the 'carbon footprint' of every person on that train.<BR/><BR/>2. Investing in trains is another matter entirely and of course we should. The problem being that the government is afraid to invest the real money needed to make a fast, cheap and low carbon emissions system. If Japan, Germany, and France can do it we can to.Daffy Ducknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8212152.post-65620411562989915722007-08-29T21:17:00.000+01:002007-08-29T21:17:00.000+01:00Thanks for this interesting item; the penultimate slide sets out the solution:<BR/><BR/>'A “green” high-speed line ? <BR/>• Modest top speed, 200 –250 km/h <BR/>• Non-carbon energy sources: renewables, nuclear <BR/>• High capacity, wide bodied, double deck EMUs <BR/>• Lightweight, low drag (articulated, smooth, aerodynamic) <BR/>• High passenger utilisation: serves major population centres <BR/>• Targets “1 person/car” market, in preference to groups <BR/>• Discourages travel growth (e.g. longer commuting distances) <BR/>• Provides capacity for parcels, mail and similar services <BR/>• Frees-up other lines to allow modal transfer of freight'rob's unclenoreply@blogger.com