Should scientists be entrusted with the care of our planet ?

Running diesel cars was trumpeted as a cleaner mode of transport. Following the 1997 Kyoto climate change treaty, four in 10 cars on British roads run on diesel, almost 12 million. However it has since emerged that diesel produces four times more nitrogen dioxide and 22 times more particulates, both major risks to health.

As result under Conservative plan, UK diesel drivers will receive compensation to encourage them to scrap or "retrofit" highly polluting vehicles.

Speed bumps are also being scrutinized to determine whether the slowing down/accelerating process they produce also contributes to greater harmful emissions.

If science and research is so all-wise and all-knowing, why were these toxic measures introduced in the first place?

If man can't get something like this right, what hope is there for the environmental success of other major decisions?

Totally agree mate. Mistakes should never be acknowledged or rectified.

https://i.imgur.com/0MCRLC9.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colonel Cærdiffi

https://i.imgur.com/0MCRLC9.jpg

---

"Why make a trillion when we could make... billions?"

Does no-one realize or even care that
WE ARE ALL DOOMED?

Personally I don't think we should trust them at all.

Their very existence relies upon them finding out important and scary stuff so it's in their interest to discover things.

If I spent 20 years funding scientists to discover the impact of diesel cars on the environment and then after 20 years they told me "Dunno really, we've found a few minor things but nothing conclusive" then I'm not going to keep throwing money at it am I?

Also, these are the same experts that, back in the 80s, told us that by the year 2000 1 in 4 people would die of AIDS. Now I've known hundreds of people over the years and I only (vaguely) know one person personally that contracted HIV so I'll take what these people say with a huge pinch of salt.

Sadly a lot of these have an agenda and find what they want to find.

No. Trump should be though.

A United States Academy of Science report in 1981 said diesel was damaging to humans but they didn't have enough data to draw firm conclusions about how damaging it was. The global warming scammers have been promoting diesel because it produces less carbon. They don't care if we all end up with lungs covered with black slime as long as they can make a few bob by scaring us with their half-baked predictions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dr Lecter

Personally I don't think we should trust them at all.

Their very existence relies upon them finding out important and scary stuff so it's in their interest to discover things.

If I spent 20 years funding scientists to discover the impact of diesel cars on the environment and then after 20 years they told me "Dunno really, we've found a few minor things but nothing conclusive" then I'm not going to keep throwing money at it am I?

Also, these are the same experts that, back in the 80s, told us that by the year 2000 1 in 4 people would die of AIDS. Now I've known hundreds of people over the years and I only (vaguely) know one person personally that contracted HIV so I'll take what these people say with a huge pinch of salt.

Sadly a lot of these have an agenda and find what they want to find.

---

They're probably not the same experts, no.

Maybe we should count ourselves lucky we live in a country, well a continent, where communities aren't hit by incurable viruses and you don't blow your nose to find black gunk coming out.

If the price of this is a few people looking out their window and saying 'I don't see a problem, what a load of rubbish' then that's probably worth paying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lardy

Maybe we should count ourselves lucky we live in a country, well a continent, where communities aren't hit by incurable viruses and you don't blow your nose to find black gunk coming out.

If the price of this is a few people looking out their window and saying 'I don't see a problem, what a load of rubbish' then that's probably worth paying.

---

You have obviously never lived in London.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Vincent

You have obviously never lived in London.

---

You have obviously never been to Asia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cyclops

Running diesel cars was trumpeted as a cleaner mode of transport. Following the 1997 Kyoto climate change treaty, four in 10 cars on British roads run on diesel, almost 12 million. However it has since emerged that diesel produces four times more nitrogen dioxide and 22 times more particulates, both major risks to health.

As result under Conservative plan, UK diesel drivers will receive compensation to encourage them to scrap or "retrofit" highly polluting vehicles.

Speed bumps are also being scrutinized to determine whether the slowing down/accelerating process they produce also contributes to greater harmful emissions.

If science and research is so all-wise and all-knowing, why were these toxic measures introduced in the first place?

If man can't get something like this right, what hope is there for the environmental success of other major decisions?

---

The policy makers certainly seem to have been turned very much against diesel in recent years.
Some of the data is very headline grabbing, but when they say things like "4 times as many particulates as a petrol car" they don't point out that a petrol car built only a few years ago probably pumped out even higher levels. The emissions standards have been aggressively reduced over the years.
Also there is some debate on whether the particulates that diesel engines produce are as harmful, even though there are more of them, as they tend to be a lot smaller.

There seems to be a general consensus that diesel isn't as good as we first thought, but it is also not as profitable for oil companies so perhaps they are buying doubt.

People do die from air pollution though so we should endeavour to keep it moving in the right direction I suppose

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cyclops

Does no-one realize or even care that
WE ARE ALL DOOMED?

---

:hehe:

People are driven by money, not cars, if money was taken out of the equation I think ideas would change dramatically.

I think we a year left. Two tops.

Pointless going for promotion next year if I'm honest.

Actually, and in all seriousness, we are fücked as a planet. The stock markets and capitalists are more interested in short term profit.

We need a serious nuclear episode or an oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, or some horrendous weather for anyone in charge to do something.

The problem is, people breed geometrically whilst food production is at best increasing arithmetically. Humans are a cancer on the planet for sure, you bet I'm not going to change as like 99.999% of the population, when it boils down to it my stupid monkey brain tells me that I can't.

We need to smoke more weed and take more trips to expand our minds, just like the first hominids did on the plains of Africa a few million years ago. Ask yourself why natural drugs like these are illegal...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cyclops

Running diesel cars was trumpeted as a cleaner mode of transport. Following the 1997 Kyoto climate change treaty, four in 10 cars on British roads run on diesel, almost 12 million. However it has since emerged that diesel produces four times more nitrogen dioxide and 22 times more particulates, both major risks to health.

As result under Conservative plan, UK diesel drivers will receive compensation to encourage them to scrap or "retrofit" highly polluting vehicles.

Speed bumps are also being scrutinized to determine whether the slowing down/accelerating process they produce also contributes to greater harmful emissions.

If science and research is so all-wise and all-knowing, why were these toxic measures introduced in the first place?

If man can't get something like this right, what hope is there for the environmental success of other major decisions?

---

Who's claimed that then?

Well now I'm depressed

No, it should be up to the politicians. After all, they work for the people and have our best interests at heart.

Scientists just talk in riddles. Who can even understand them?

The scientists want to do a U-turn re: the use of diesel - but the extra fuel burned would be environmentally harmful

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lardy

You have obviously never been to Asia.

---

If he's lived in London then he probably doesn't need to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NYCBlue

No, it should be up to the politicians. After all, they work for the people and have our best interests at heart.

Scientists just talk in riddles. Who can even understand them?

---

:hehe:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NYCBlue

No, it should be up to the politicians. After all, they work for the people and have our best interests at heart.

Scientists just talk in riddles. Who can even understand them?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mrs Steve R

:hehe:

---

Diane Abbott :hehe:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BLUETIT

Diane Abbott :hehe:

---

There are three types of politicians in this world..those who can count and those who can't ~ Diane Abbott

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mrs Steve R

There are three types of politicians in this world..those who can count and those who can't ~ Diane Abbott

---

Mrs R's had a mare here that's only two types of politician

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lardy

Maybe we should count ourselves lucky we live in a country, well a continent, where communities aren't hit by incurable viruses and you don't blow your nose to find black gunk coming out.

If the price of this is a few people looking out their window and saying 'I don't see a problem, what a load of rubbish' then that's probably worth paying.

---

Plenty of white coming out of people's noses in this country