# Major cities banning diesel vehicles



## AdamC (Jan 31, 2013)

Story here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-38170794

So it looks like it's happening and diesel vehicles will be banned from major cities around the world due to emissions with 4 majors signing up already.

Currently 10 years away but it does show a clear move away from diesel use in the future.

Can't imagine it will be long before the UK commits to this as well.


----------



## donfresh (Feb 23, 2016)

great for the environment i guess but it wont bother me! Never liked diesels anyways, sound like tractors, never found the engines exciting, black soot everywhere... for what, a few extra mpg's


----------



## millns84 (Jul 5, 2009)

Bizarre how they pushed them for years due to lower CO2 levels (marginally) and now the truth's out regarding just how bad they are for the environment.


----------



## J306TD (May 19, 2008)

I'm surprised it's taken so long. We have known for a number of years about the gasses emitted by them are far worse than petrol 

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S7


----------



## PugIain (Jun 28, 2006)

So that's my road tax going up and up then.


----------



## BillyT (Jun 22, 2008)

All buses in Belfast are Diesel with most delivery lorries the same how will they ban them all


----------



## fatdazza (Dec 29, 2010)

Foul polluting tractors, the lot of them.

Ban them all


----------



## DrEskimo (Jan 7, 2016)

donfresh said:


> great for the environment i guess but it wont bother me! Never liked diesels anyways, sound like tractors, never found the engines exciting, black soot everywhere... for what, a few extra mpg's


Yea I'm the same. Disliked them for these reasons long before I found out how much of a health risk they are... although I do small mileage so it's less of an issue anyway.

I do think it's massively unfair on the consumers that bought them on the false pretence that they were the green alternative though. Now they will have to foot the likely devaluation of their cars because they bought a car with the good intention to reduce the impact to the environment...

Not sure why I'm surprised...it's always us that have to pay for others mistakes...


----------



## Soul boy 68 (Sep 8, 2013)

Diesel's will inevitably be phased out by all major car makers and we will have petrol and hybrid power trains only as well as electric. At least that is my belief.


----------



## PugIain (Jun 28, 2006)

Aren't there still diesel trains? Will they be banned?
Also, diesel powered ships. Will those be banned too?
Diesel powered delivery trucks?
That will be the p&p on detailing supplies up then...


----------



## President Swirl (Oct 23, 2011)

Most town centres will be like 28 days later if they ban diesels. I'm no massive fan of Diesels. But, they need to start looking beyond the all-out war on the motorist. I wouldn't be surprised if an earthquake in Sao Paulo was attributed to diesel emissions. Global-warming is an inescapable fact. But our obsession with concreting the world needs to be fuelled by something. I love a V8 as much as the next guy, but time's running out.


----------



## millns84 (Jul 5, 2009)

President Swirl said:


> Global-warming is an inescapable fact.


Is it? I thought it was just a way of introducing new taxes to make our otherwise comfortable lives just a little more difficult?

To quote Lenin "the middle classes need to be ground between the mill stones of taxation and inflation". It just seems to me like it's another tool at their disposal, balanced on fairly rocky science with really quite strong opposing views once you've read into it a bit.


----------



## DrEskimo (Jan 7, 2016)

millns84 said:


> Is it? I thought it was just a way of introducing new taxes to make our otherwise comfortable lives just a little more difficult?
> 
> To quote Lenin "the middle classes need to be ground between the mill stones of taxation and inflation". It just seems to me like it's another tool at their disposal, balanced on fairly rocky science with really quite strong opposing views once you've read into it a bit.


It's as much as a scientific fact as evolution or gravity...Im not sure why you have the perception that the science it is based on is 'rocky'...?

You can find strong opposing views to any scientific claim, but they are just that...claims. Mostly from bloggers and people with no scientific background spouting emotional fuelled nonsense because they don't understand it.

There is a very sound theoretical ground for global warming, and all the data collected all points to human activity from the industrial revolution being a route cause. Many independents academic depts with large data collected from different sources coming to the same conclusions. These have then been meta-analysed and again, come to the same conclusion...pretty high level science if you ask me...

You can have your conspiracies, but if you doubt the science with global warming, you have to have the same reservations for all science. You can't cherry pick the theories you disagree with just because you have an emotional reason to not want to believe it....


----------



## millns84 (Jul 5, 2009)

DrEskimo said:


> It's as much as a scientific fact as evolution or gravity...Im not sure why you have the perception that the science it is based on is 'rocky'...?
> 
> You can find strong opposing views to any scientific claim, but they are just that...claims. Mostly from bloggers and people with no scientific background spouting emotional fuelled nonsense because they don't understand it.
> 
> ...


:thumb::lol:

Sorry for holding a belief contrary to yours.


----------



## Kerr (Mar 27, 2012)

A few boroughs in London already charge diesel cars more money for a parking permit. All these bans have been planned for a long time now as well as charging diesel cars extra fees before the ban comes into place.

The average motorist is slow to react to change, but I wouldn't be buying an expensive diesel car in the future as the market will drop off.


----------



## DrEskimo (Jan 7, 2016)

millns84 said:


> :thumb::lol:
> 
> Sorry for holding a belief contrary to yours.


Science isn't about belief!

Basic science tells you that CO2 in the atmosphere causes warming, and that if there is excess CO2 this will lead to increases in global temperature.
There isn't room for opinions or beliefs here, just objective evidence to either prove or disprove a hypothesis through science.

Your claims of 'rocky science' are completely unsubstantiated, so your belief is completely illogical and irrational.


----------



## millns84 (Jul 5, 2009)

DrEskimo said:


> Science isn't about belief!
> 
> Basic science tells you that CO2 in the atmosphere causes warming, and that if there is excess CO2 this will lead to increases in global temperature.
> There isn't room for opinions or beliefs here, just objective evidence to either prove or disprove a hypothesis through science.
> ...


Now who's being emotional? Think you might want to take a deep breath and grab some play doh or something.

I believe what I believe from what I've seen on the topic... I've read it all before. Al Gore's hyperbole on this back in 2007 was brilliant... no ice caps by 2013 :lol:

What kind of scientist flies off the wall because someone doesn't agree with them? The consensus on this topic is reminiscent of Soviet scientists coming to convenient conclusions that favoured the source of their funding.

Obviously cutting a small part of our tiny island's emissions will save the World. Our children will thank us for paying even more tax.


----------



## DrEskimo (Jan 7, 2016)

millns84 said:


> Now who's being emotional? Think you might want to take a deep breath and grab some play doh or something.
> 
> I believe what I believe from what I've seen on the topic... I've read it all before. Al Gore's hyperbole on this back in 2007 was brilliant... no ice caps by 2013 :lol:
> 
> ...


Don't flatter yourself, I'm hardly flying off the wall....

I'm just pointing out you posted complete nonsense and don't know what you're talking about.

I'm not a climate scientist...I didn't postulate these hypotheses and I didn't publish papers on the subject. You are disagreeing with a large amount of highly qualified scientist who have worked in the field and know something about it. Because you read something on the internet...again completely irrational and illogical.

As a scientist I am informing you that the science isn't rocky and that everyone makes claims on the internet. It's no worse that the evidence for evolution, yet I doubt you think that is a conspiracy..? There are plenty of people making claims against that too...again you can't cherry pick what parts of science you like and dislike because it doesn't fit some narrative of yours about government control and taxes....


----------



## millns84 (Jul 5, 2009)

DrEskimo said:


> Don't flatter yourself, I'm hardly flying off the wall....
> 
> I'm just pointing out you posted complete nonsense and don't know what you're talking about.
> 
> ...


So basically I have to agree with your opinion or you say mean things?

There are no fully qualified climate scientists questioning man made climate change and no studies, predictions and mass hysteria on the subject have ever been inaccurate or plain wrong?

Seriously, I don't see why someone else's opinion bothers you so much.


----------



## DrEskimo (Jan 7, 2016)

millns84 said:


> So basically I have to agree with your opinion or you say mean things?
> 
> There are no fully qualified climate scientists questioning man made climate change and no studies, predictions and mass hysteria on the subject have ever been inaccurate or plain wrong?
> 
> Seriously, I don't see why someone else's opinion bothers you so much.


Of course there all of those things. Fundamentally though, there are no high quality, peer reviewed, published studies with large data that refute global warming. Only those that accept the hypothesis that man made carbon has led to the increase in global temperatures, which is having a damaging impact on the planet.

I don't have an opinion on global warming any more than I have an opinion on gravity, or how cars work or that evolution occurs. It is a scientific fact I have learnt.

There is absolutely no question that government legislation and corporate manipulation about global warming should be debated and is at times completely non sensical. I'm not debating that though. I'm debating that you doubt the fundamental scientific basis that global warming is a thing...


----------



## millns84 (Jul 5, 2009)

DrEskimo said:


> Of course there all of those things. Fundamentally though, there are no high quality, peer reviewed, published studies with large data that refute global warming. Only those that accept the hypothesis that man made carbon has led to the increase in global temperatures, which is having a damaging impact on the planet.
> 
> I don't have an opinion on global warming any more than I have an opinion on gravity, or how cars work or that evolution occurs. It is a scientific fact I have learnt.
> 
> There is absolutely no question that government legislation and corporate manipulation about global warming should be debated and is at times completely non sensical. I'm not debating that though. I'm debating that you doubt the fundamental scientific basis that global warming is a thing...


Oh don't get me wrong, I believe that climate change is occurring, always has and always will as a natural process. My issue is our supposed responsibility and huge exaggerations left, right and centre.

If you're looking to understand where I'm coming from, Professor Judith Curry is a fully qualified climatologist who takes a similar stance.


----------



## uggski (Jun 29, 2016)

I'm not convinced either. I believe that the world is warming, Fact. Not convinced it is entirely man made though.

And no amount of scientists who seem to twist the evidence to suit their conclusions will convince me. I still remember the same people predicting the next ice age.


----------



## DrEskimo (Jan 7, 2016)

millns84 said:


> Oh don't get me wrong, I believe that climate change is occurring, always has and always will as a natural process. My issue is our supposed responsibility and huge exaggerations left, right and centre.
> 
> If you're looking to understand where I'm coming from, Professor Judith Curry is a fully qualified climatologist who takes a similar stance.


A climate scientist blogger that hasn't published anything since 2011, let alone anything that provides evidence that global warming is just a natural cycle...

I'm sure there is plenty of meaningful debate around the methods, data and statistical analysis used, but trust me, if the general message is that global warming is highly likely to be caused by man made carbon, and the vast majority of climate scientists agree, its not because they have just overlooked a blog by Judith Curry...Its because they have accumulated vast amounts of data and journals that all support the hypothesis that anthropomorphic activity is likely to be the main cause.


----------



## DrEskimo (Jan 7, 2016)

uggski said:


> I'm not convinced either. I believe that the world is warming, Fact. Not convinced it is entirely man made though.
> 
> And no amount of scientists who seem to twist the evidence to suit their conclusions will convince me. I still remember the same people predicting the next ice age.


Again...completely illogical and unsubstantiated claims...who's been twisting evidence and why does the conclusion suit them?

If anything, if they found contrary results, they would be massive! They would be heralded as making a major breakthrough in the field of climate science.

Do you know how science publication works? Do you know who reviews things before anything is published? Other scientists! I review for a few papers and it is my job to pull apart any paper I review. It's a heartless process. My job is to find anything wrong with the study and make sure it is of good quality. If it isn't, I won't recommend it for publication.

The vast majority of scientists are independent. We do it because we are passionate about the area and we are knowledgeable about the subject matter.

There is such massive misconceptions about science in the public domain and the results are so worrying...


----------



## millns84 (Jul 5, 2009)

DrEskimo said:


> A climate scientist blogger that hasn't published anything since 2011, let alone anything that provides evidence that global warming is just a natural cycle...
> 
> I'm sure there is plenty of meaningful debate around the methods, data and statistical analysis used, but trust me, if the general message is that global warming is highly likely to be caused by man made carbon, and the vast majority of climate scientists agree, its not because they have just overlooked a blog by Judith Curry...Its because they have accumulated vast amounts of data and journals that all support the hypothesis that anthropomorphic activity is likely to be the main cause.


Oh come on, it's a huge disservice to refer to her as a blogger. How about (from Wiki):-

"Curry is a Professor and former Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology; she held the latter position from 2002 to 2013.[6] Curry serves on NASA Advisory Council Earth Science Subcommittee whose mission is to provide advice and recommendations to NASA on issues of program priorities and policy. She is a recent member of the NOAA Climate Working Group[6][7] and a former member of the National Academies Space Studies Board and Climate Research Group.[6][8]

Curry is a former professor of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences at the University of Colorado-Boulder and has held faculty positions at Penn State University, Purdue, and the University of Wisconsin-Madison.[6][8] Curry has been active in researching possible connections between hurricane intensity and global warming.[9][10] Her research group has also done research linking the size of hurricanes and resulting damage that showed that, among other things, the size of the hurricanes was an important factor in determining the number of tornadoes spawned by the system.[11]

Curry is the co-author of Thermodynamics of Atmospheres and Oceans (1999),[12] and co-editor of Encyclopedia of Atmospheric Sciences (2002).[13] Curry has published over 130 scientific peer reviewed papers.[14] Among her awards is the Henry G. Houghton Research Award from the American Meteorological Society in 1992.[14]"

... but you chose "blogger"??

Didn't the Met Office publish some figures a few years ago showing that there hadn't been any global warming for 15+ years?


----------



## uggski (Jun 29, 2016)

The problem is that any one who questions it is shouted down as a heretic. Burn them at the stake. 

You're entitled to your opinion and as I am to mine. No matter how misguided and wrong you think I am. Pretty much like the opposing sides for Brexit. I know we will never agree on this so lets just agree to disagree. :thumb:


----------



## bigmac3161 (Jul 24, 2013)

As above if u disagree with global warming ur a blogger but everybody who backs it is scientific genius. Funny that.


----------



## DrEskimo (Jan 7, 2016)

uggski said:


> The problem is that any one who questions it is shouted down as a heretic. Burn them at the stake.
> 
> You're entitled to your opinion and as I am to mine. No matter how misguided and wrong you think I am. Pretty much like the opposing sides for Brexit. I know we will never agree on this so lets just agree to disagree. :thumb:


Again, science is not an opinion. It is nothing like Brexit, which involved idealisms and political opinions about how things should operate.

Science is about objective evidence. That is all. The only people I've seen being shouted down are people who don't present evidence in peer-reviewed journals that provide an alternative hypothesis. That is how science works. Scientists don't have an opinion, then go and test it to see if it right. They collect data, analyse it then come up with a theory to explain it.

Thats what global warming is. A-level physics tells you that CO2 in the atmosphere is a green house gas. It causes the planet to warm. This was proven in the 1800s. This physicist hypothesised that if the atmosphere had excess CO2, then the global temperatures would rise as a consequence.

Data clearly shows that there has been a rapid rise in global temperatures since 1950. This spike is far steeper than anything in the recorded history. What has also spiked massively since 1950...with the industrial revolution? CO2. So we know the basic physics that CO2 causes warming, and now we see a massive correlation between steep rises in CO2 and global temperatures.

My simple question to you is this...if its not CO2, what it is? So far all theories about solar flares, volcanoes and natural cycles have not been as predictive as CO2. There is every reason to believe it is CO2, and until someone presents results that show something else, the theory is pretty convincing...


----------



## DrEskimo (Jan 7, 2016)

millns84 said:


> Oh come on, it's a huge disservice to refer to her as a blogger. How about (from Wiki):-
> 
> "Curry is a Professor and former Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology; she held the latter position from 2002 to 2013.[6] Curry serves on NASA Advisory Council Earth Science Subcommittee whose mission is to provide advice and recommendations to NASA on issues of program priorities and policy. She is a recent member of the NOAA Climate Working Group[6][7] and a former member of the National Academies Space Studies Board and Climate Research Group.[6][8]
> 
> ...


Yea fair point. I take that back she is clearly more qualified than a blogger.

I still cant find any reference to a paper that shows that global warming can be explained purely by natural cycles, and that the correlation between CO2 increases and rises in global temperatures is not causal.

Again, she hasn't published anything on this either, as far as I can see? Doesn't that strike you as odd?


----------



## millns84 (Jul 5, 2009)

DrEskimo said:


> Yea fair point. I take that back she is clearly more qualified than a blogger.
> 
> I still cant find any reference to a paper that shows that global warming can be explained purely by natural cycles, and that the correlation between CO2 increases and rises in global temperatures is not causal.
> 
> Again, she hasn't published anything on this either, as far as I can see? Doesn't that strike you as odd?


Well she actually believes in man made global warming (as far as I've seen) but has voiced concerns about exaggeration as well as the lack of diversity of opinion in that area. She's quite critical of the mass hysteria surrounding the whole topic also.

I can't remember the figures but there was something I read a couple of years ago and her findings/estimates re. global warming were minimal and in comparison with the "general consensus" didn't even correlate.


----------



## uggski (Jun 29, 2016)

Data clearly shows that there has been a rapid rise in global temperatures since 1950. This spike is far steeper than anything in the recorded history. 


And this is the point a lot of people are trying to make. RECORDED HISTORY.
Which only goes back a minute amount of time.

I don't dispute the fact that the worlds climate is changing. Just that it is entirely man made. Anyway enough.


----------



## DrEskimo (Jan 7, 2016)

millns84 said:


> Well she actually believes in man made global warming (as far as I've seen) but has voiced concerns about exaggeration as well as the lack of diversity of opinion in that area. She's quite critical of the mass hysteria surrounding the whole topic also.
> 
> I can't remember the figures but there was something I read a couple of years ago and her findings/estimates re. global warming were minimal and in comparison with the "general consensus" didn't even correlate.


Well thats hardly anything groundbreaking...Of course we a cautious about predictive modelling. The idea is we collect data and evaluate the accuracy of those models based on the current theory. If they fit, we can be more sure of the theory, if they don't, the theory is adapted. This is common in all fields of science. In fact, its what I do for a living. I'm a medical statistician and my PhD was about modelling data from Rheumatoid Arthritis patients. I won't bore you with the technical parts, but model development is a long and complicated process which always includes a measure of variation to account for uncertainty.

I mean I am more than happy to look for this paper, but I don't work in this field, so I don't follow much of it. My immediate thought is that if a range of studies all find a similar trend, and one study finds something different, its highly likely that the one study has something going on to explain its difference. Different method of data collection, different measure, etc etc. If no one can replicate that result, then its findings are questioned. If no one can explain it, then it can be used to adapt the theory, but i would hazard a guess that it has been explained and there is a very good reason why it doesn't agree with other studies.


----------



## NeilG40 (Jan 1, 2009)

If you agree with climate change or not I think it would be hard to argue against the fact that something needs doing about this:-

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/lond...-as-pollution-hits-twice-normal-a3411041.html


----------



## DrEskimo (Jan 7, 2016)

uggski said:


> Data clearly shows that there has been a rapid rise in global temperatures since 1950. This spike is far steeper than anything in the recorded history.
> 
> And this is the point a lot of people are trying to make. RECORDED HISTORY.
> Which only goes back a minute amount of time.
> ...


So how do you explain the fact that CO2 has risen directly in line with the rise in temperatures? Just a coincidence...? Despite the fact that basic physics tells us that CO2 can cause warming....?

So again, if CO2 is not the causal factor, what is?


----------



## DrEskimo (Jan 7, 2016)

NeilG40 said:


> If you agree with climate change or not I think it would be hard to argue against the fact that something needs doing about this:-
> 
> http://www.standard.co.uk/news/lond...-as-pollution-hits-twice-normal-a3411041.html


Ha...whats rather funny is that climate change has nothing to do with the diesel ban...diesels are bad for producing other toxic gases which are a public health concern, not a greenhouse gas...

So yes, I don't think anyone can argue that banning diesels from cities is a bad thing...issue is how do you do it without crippling the industry. Im sure its all the old taxis and lorries that contribute the largest amount...


----------



## dholdi (Oct 1, 2008)

Prior to RECORDED HISTORY what are the likely sources of CO2 production ?


----------



## millns84 (Jul 5, 2009)

DrEskimo said:


> Well thats hardly anything groundbreaking...Of course we a cautious about predictive modelling. The idea is we collect data and evaluate the accuracy of those models based on the current theory. If they fit, we can be more sure of the theory, if they don't, the theory is adapted. This is common in all fields of science. In fact, its what I do for a living. I'm a medical statistician and my PhD was about modelling data from Rheumatoid Arthritis patients. I won't bore you with the technical parts, but model development is a long and complicated process which always includes a measure of variation to account for uncertainty.
> 
> I mean I am more than happy to look for this paper, but I don't work in this field, so I don't follow much of it. My immediate thought is that if a range of studies all find a similar trend, and one study finds something different, its highly likely that the one study has something going on to explain its difference. Different method of data collection, different measure, etc etc. If no one can replicate that result, then its findings are questioned. If no one can explain it, then it can be used to adapt the theory, but i would hazard a guess that it has been explained and there is a very good reason why it doesn't agree with other studies.


I know where you're coming from, but it also has to taken into account that it isn't a case of one study or even one climate change sceptic vs the whole scientific community. I thought Judith Curry was a good example to give as she's voiced concerns over the sort of quasi-religion climate change inspired doomsday apocalypses that are envisaged by much of the research have become as well as how "non-believers" are treated.

400 years ago we could very well have been having the same conversation as to whether the Earth is flat. As most priests would say so at the time with reference to their research into religious scripts, did that make it the case?

You touched on conspiracy theories earlier and I've come to my own conclusions about the political landscape, who funds much of the research and the reason for the same. I'm not particularly fixed in my views but I have formed them over quite some time having dipped in and out of the debate for years.


----------



## DrEskimo (Jan 7, 2016)

millns84 said:


> I know where you're coming from, but it also has to taken into account that it isn't a case of one study or even one climate change sceptic vs the whole scientific community. I thought Judith Curry was a good example to give as she's voiced concerns over the sort of quasi-religion climate change inspired doomsday apocalypses that are envisaged by much of the research have become as well as how "non-believers" are treated.
> 
> 400 years ago we could very well have been having the same conversation as to whether the Earth is flat. As most priests would say so at the time with reference to their research into religious scripts, did that make it the case?
> 
> You touched on conspiracy theories earlier and I've come to my own conclusions about the political landscape, who funds much of the research and the reason for the same. I'm not particularly fixed in my views but I have formed them over quite some time having dipped in and out of the debate for years.


Yea I know where you are coming from, but my issue is that a lot of these conspiracist theories are born from misconception and ignorance about how science and any of this actually works.

Many of the large studies that have released the data are independent academic institutes. I mean to have upwards of three massive independent research teams using large data collected from 3 different sources on global temperatures, all doing their own modelling techniques and all coming to the same conclusion is a large indication to me that manipulation and corruption is highly highly unlikely, and that the science is strongly supportive of the hypothesis. I worked on many studies funded form the NHS (NIHR) and there is no involvement of the funders on the actual content. And if there was...surely you would have whistle blowers by now given the scale it would have to be based on!

Honestly, corruption and deception on this sort of world wide scale is just impossible...if you saw the process and how it works, you would agree.

Certainly remain skeptical, there is plenty of dodgy stuff going on. For example, I can see how pharmacy companies get away with a lot of manipulation (not so much nowadays), so of course remain open, just bare in mind that hard science does a lot to ensure objectivity and impartiality on a fundamental level.


----------



## DrEskimo (Jan 7, 2016)

dholdi said:


> Prior to RECORDED HISTORY what are the likely sources of CO2 production ?


I don't know, I'm not a climate scientist.


----------



## fatdazza (Dec 29, 2010)

Love the way this thread has moved from a proposal by cities to ban diesels because of air pollution to a full on debate about climate change :lol:


----------



## millns84 (Jul 5, 2009)

DrEskimo said:


> Yea I know where you are coming from, but my issue is that a lot of these conspiracist theories are born from misconception and ignorance about how science and any of this actually works.
> 
> Many of the large studies that have released the data are independent academic institutes. I mean to have upwards of three massive independent research teams using large data collected from 3 different sources on global temperatures, all doing their own modelling techniques and all coming to the same conclusion is a large indication to me that manipulation and corruption is highly highly unlikely, and that the science is strongly supportive of the hypothesis. I worked on many studies funded form the NHS (NIHR) and there is no involvement of the funders on the actual content. And if there was...surely you would have whistle blowers by now given the scale it would have to be based on!
> 
> ...


I suppose it depends how much thought you want to put behind a conspiracy theory. My view on this particular one is that I don't have to do much leg work when there are such respected scientists in this area who have been quite vocal about it (not that you'd know, it's barely reported... Is that more evidence in itself?).

I realise that you'll have a better understanding of how research is undertaken than I do. Perhaps I'm overly sceptical given that I work in the most bent profession in the country (law) and see such an onus regarding integrity, professionalism and public trust flipped on its head behind closed doors on a daily basis.

I suppose we'll be the generation to see what happens (either way).


----------



## uggski (Jun 29, 2016)

fatdazza said:


> Love the way this thread has moved from a proposal by cities to ban diesels because of air pollution to a full on debate about climate change :lol:


True but I enjoy these sort of discussions. As long as everyone remains civil and keeps cool.


----------



## dholdi (Oct 1, 2008)

DrEskimo said:


> I don't know, I'm not a climate scientist.


No, me neither, I was just chucking the question in.
There are the natural producers that I know off such as humans, animals etc breathing, but there must be others ?
Does vegetation give off CO2, I thought it countered it ?
Would a volcano give it off ?
I guess the point I am trying to get to is that prior to records being kept we didn't burn the vast amounts of fossil fuels that we do now, the natural sources would be similar to what they are now so what we do must be a contributory factor to CO2 levels rising.

Not directed at anyone in particular, just adding points of discussion.


----------



## millns84 (Jul 5, 2009)

dholdi said:


> Does vegetation give off CO2, I thought it countered it ?
> Would a volcano give it off ?


As far as I'm aware, plants absorb it and release O2. I saw something a while back suggesting that vegetation in arid regions is growing more because of increased CO2 levels.

And yes, volcanoes do give off a lot. It's actually a debunked anti-climate change theory that volcano's release more CO2 than mankind. They do release it, but nowhere near as much as we do. Better stop anyway as I'm helping DrEskimo


----------



## DrEskimo (Jan 7, 2016)

millns84 said:


> I suppose it depends how much thought you want to put behind a conspiracy theory. My view on this particular one is that I don't have to do much leg work when there are such respected scientists in this area who have been quite vocal about it (not that you'd know, it's barely reported... Is that more evidence in itself?).
> 
> I realise that you'll have a better understanding of how research is undertaken than I do. Perhaps I'm overly sceptical given that I work in the most bent profession in the country (law) and see such an onus regarding integrity, professionalism and public trust flipped on its head behind closed doors on a daily basis.
> 
> I suppose we'll be the generation to see what happens (either way).


My problem with these vocal scientists denying the theory, is that they aren't publishing their own evidence to prove it. They are writing blogs. That is the direct opposite of how science works. Anyone can spout whatever they want in blogs. The whole purpose of peer-review journals is that it vets the quality of any studies, and ensures that not just anything is published. If they have data to prove otherwise, publish it. The theory is then adapted if the data is found to be correct.

Now usually this is where the conspiracy comes in, and its suggested that contradictory papers aren't published because its not part of the status quo, but that doesn't hold any water with me because its just so unbelievable. Why haven't the other studies found this contradictory result? Are all the journals in on the conspiracy to not publish contradictory results? I mean literally any scientist can review papers, is the entire community in on it? As you can see, once you realise how the process works, the theory very quickly falls apart and becomes daft...

Now perhaps these people suggest the predictive aspects are wrong, and when more data is collected, they will be proven right and the theory will be adapted. That is far enough. Science works on the pretence of falsification, so in a sense, every scientist is looking for the same thing! This is possibly where your remarks about ice caps melting by 2013 and so forth. I tend to think those sensationalist remarks are misinterpretation of the actual scientific literature though...from tabloids not understanding it or from people who profit from its result, etc. The science isn't to blame though...

As you can see, trying to explain why anything other than what the general scientific literature is telling us, is actually going on, becomes very very difficult...


----------



## DLGWRX02 (Apr 6, 2010)

Wow, ide just like to add. I love my oil burner.

Now, let's throw me to the lions and stone me on the way...lol


----------



## dholdi (Oct 1, 2008)

DLGWRX02 said:


> Wow, ide just like to add. I love my oil burner.
> 
> Now, let's throw me to the lions and stone me on the way...lol


Haha, me too, although to get back on the original topic by the time these bans are in place , mine at least will be history.


----------



## DrEskimo (Jan 7, 2016)

dholdi said:


> No, me neither, I was just chucking the question in.
> There are the natural producers that I know off such as humans, animals etc breathing, but there must be others ?
> Does vegetation give off CO2, I thought it countered it ?
> Would a volcano give it off ?
> ...


Yea sorry I really don't know much about the science behind all this.

While I am usually loathed to point towards youtubers and bloggers for your source of scientific knowledge, I appreciate reading through dry, difficult to read scientific journals on climate change is hardly how most people want to spend their Friday nights...

So... I would recommend this guy and his videos:






Namely, because he just talks about the science, and he references all the theories and papers he talks about directly.

If you can be bothered, he explains the concepts well and provides a good overview of the objections to the CO2 theory and why they have been largely disproved.

It helps that he is pretty hilarious in some videos!


----------



## Mugwump (Feb 17, 2008)

DrEskimo said:


> It's as much as a scientific fact as evolution or gravity...Im not sure why you have the perception that the science it is based on is 'rocky'...?


Probably because it has been shown on more than one occassion that the global temperature figures have been carefully massaged - conveniently leaving out some data that doesn't fit the populist theory of climate change, and leaving out temperature data from more remote areas which was previously included and where average temperatures were consistenly cooler than elsewhere. There was also the case of the fabulous 'hockey stick' graph of predicted future temperature rises, which was very effectively debunked when it was shown that the algorithm used in compiling the probable temperature change was shown to result in a similar shaped graph regardless of the initial data.

Whilst there is no doubt that climate change is taking place (and always has done), there is an obsession amongst some with 'Global Warming' - a term which immediately raises the suspicion that the person using it doesn't actually understand how climate is changing and there is plenty of doubt that has been cast on the way that some of the temperature predictions have been arrived at, but as uggski and bigmac have said, anyone who raises any doubts is immediately denounced and shouted down (as indeed, has been the case on this thread), and even when climatologists are presenting scientifically researched evidence for their view (it doesn't require a full scientific paper to be published to point out that temperature data from certain areas previously included has subsequently been missed out!).

As for the assertion that there has been a direct correlation between CO2 levels and temperature rises, there is considerable evidence that this has not been entirely the case in the last decade.

It is also the case that some of the ways in which we are being conned into believing that energy provision is being switched to more climate friendly sources, the reality is that some of these sources are not actually reducing CO2 emissions by much at all - the environmental cost of manufacturing such things as wind turbines, transporting them and installing them is all very CO2 heavy; and the recent proliferation of anaerobic digester electricity generating plants using crops that are often being grown on land some distance from the digester (local to where I am, there are several digesters where the maize feedstock is being transported from anything up to 25 miles away).


----------



## DrEskimo (Jan 7, 2016)

Mugwump said:


> Probably because it has been shown on more than one occassion that the global temperature figures have been carefully massaged - conveniently leaving out some data that doesn't fit the populist theory of climate change, and leaving out temperature data from more remote areas which was previously included and where average temperatures were consistenly cooler than elsewhere. There was also the case of the fabulous 'hockey stick' graph of predicted future temperature rises, which was very effectively debunked when it was shown that the algorithm used in compiling the probable temperature change was shown to result in a similar shaped graph regardless of the initial data.
> 
> Whilst there is no doubt that climate change is taking place (and always has done), there is an obsession amongst some with 'Global Warming' - a term which immediately raises the suspicion that the person using it doesn't actually understand how climate is changing and there is plenty of doubt that has been cast on the way that some of the temperature predictions have been arrived at, but as uggski and bigmac have said, anyone who raises any doubts is immediately denounced and shouted down (as indeed, has been the case on this thread), and even when climatologists are presenting scientifically researched evidence for their view (it doesn't require a full scientific paper to be published to point out that temperature data from certain areas previously included has subsequently been missed out!).
> 
> ...


Scientific theories can be updated. New ways of measuring data, new data, new ways to analyse data can all be incorporated. The point is, if this new data still conforms to the overall theory, the theory still stands. Its only when the new information which completely contradicts the existing theory does a new theory that can explain everything is proposed. Of course there are still unknowns, and still data that has components that may not fit 100%, but that doesn't mean the entire theory is debunked. Its just not fully developed yet. One study with a slight variation in their results does not supersede the 100s of studies that do fit the theory.

Of course there are also theories and data that are presented that aren't published that may contradict the theory. No, its not because there is a massive conspiracy to suppress this information, as if somehow the entire scientific community is funded by these massive rich green energy companies...its because the science is probably complete garbage! I've read my fair share of it, and rejected a large amount of papers for publications as a referee. Im not getting back handers....

The problem is, you (and indeed I) are not climate scientists. We cannot contribute meaningfully into the scientific debate because we don't know what we are talking about. Do you go around saying the current theories around quantum mechanics are all rubbish and its a conspiracy? What about the use of chemotherapy for treating cancers? Of course not, you or I don't understand the science behind it. Its complex and requires many hours of studying. Why do you think climate science is any easier? Just because it happens to be a subject you vaguely have some understanding of?

The difference is I listen and learn from what the published scientific literature tells me. I understand that opinion blogs that challenge these theories are not credible, because the science published in the scientific literature is of the highest quality. These bloggers hang tightly on these notions of conspiracies, and if they had any idea of how science actually work, they would realise they are nonsense. Its ignorance feeding ignorance.

Go study climate science. Go get a PhD studying aspects of global warming. I guarantee you will not hold the above opinions once you have.

In case it hasn't been clear from this post and my previous post: "(it doesn't require a full scientific paper to be published to point out that temperature data from certain areas previously included has subsequently been missed out!)." 
YES IT DOES!!!!! The ONLY sources of your scientific information should be peer-reviewed scientific journals. I repeat, ONLY source.

And just to clarify, I am only debating the science. The policies and methods for addressing global warming are very questionable and your final paragraph could indeed be accurate. Thats a completely different point though.

Hope that helps :thumb:


----------



## Yaro V (Oct 8, 2016)

Interesting discussion...back to diesels, has anyone heard about direct injection petrol engines causing soot? It looks like we are still learning about direct injection gasoline engines and they aren't as great as we thought. Perhaps soot has something to do with high compression ratios which have been creeping up with direct injection....

http://phys.org/news/2016-07-gasoline-direct-green-choice.html


----------



## Kerr (Mar 27, 2012)

That's another campaign to ban diesels in London.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-38274792

I didn't know the plan was to get diesel buses out so soon.


----------



## should_do_more (Apr 30, 2008)

Good. The smell from the buses and cabs actually makes you gag it's so bad. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## PugIain (Jun 28, 2006)

So diesel is evil.
What's the replacement?

We will need to supply engines to
Shipping
Road transport
The military
Agriculture
Construction industry.

Anyone?
Petrol? 
How much petrol would a container ship need to circumvent the earth if ran on petrol?

Electric?
Imagine needing to plug your armoured personnel carrier in to the wall while being shot at. Hmm.

So as much as some people think it's now trendy to slate diesel (proven facts or not)
We are no way near a viable replacement for it.


Sent from my Vodafone Smart ultra 6


----------



## DrEskimo (Jan 7, 2016)

PugIain said:


> So diesel is evil.
> What's the replacement?
> 
> We will need to supply engines to
> ...


Well internal combustion engines as a whole will need to be replaced at some point, but agree there isn't really a solution yet. I don't think anyone is proposing to replace diesel in ships, agriculture or even trains. While they have problems with noxious gases and air pollution, they are as you say 'greener' in terms of green house gases with lower CO2 and more MPG (is that used for ships...? Lol).

So the specific issue is the high use of diesels in cities since it has such a detrimental impact on public health. High concentrations of people breathing in known carcinogenic material. Diesels in the middle of the sea are less of an issue...

My problem is pinning this on the average motorist. Not their fault they were sold a lie. I believe EU6 diesels have much reduced NOx now anyway, so it's the older EU5 and older diesels, mainly from taxi and buses and trucks that are the issue. Replacing those without crippling the business they support is the tricky bit.


----------



## Kerr (Mar 27, 2012)

Electric trains are already replacing diesel trains. The service between Edinburgh and Glasgow is so much better than diesel trains. 

The main concern is the build up in cities. 

The first effort that should be made is to stop selling diesel cars to the wrong customer. So many people own diesel cars who live in cities and don't cover the mileage to even justify a diesel.


----------



## DrEskimo (Jan 7, 2016)

Kerr said:


> Electric trains are already replacing diesel trains. The service between Edinburgh and Glasgow is so much better than diesel trains.
> 
> The main concern is the build up in cities.
> 
> The first effort that should be made is to stop selling diesel cars to the wrong customer. So many people own diesel cars who live in cities and don't cover the mileage to even justify a diesel.


Indeed!

I also think the government should do more to incorporate all pollution in the VED, not just CO2. Petrol owners having been paying higher VED for years due to higher CO2, yet diesel owners have been paying nothing for the high NOX. If that was accounted for as well, there wouldn't be such an incentive to own a diesel for cheaper VED.

Instead, they have added an additional charge for cars worth over £40k...as if that has anything to do with pollution....now a V8 truck that costs £38k pays far less in VED than a electric car worth £40k...should be subsiding them, not making them more expensive!!


----------



## Exotica (Feb 27, 2006)

You can't stop people buying diesel cars if it doesn't suit their needs. 

Only way to do that is ban people from doing it or put higher tax on them like cigs, Coca Cola and fatty foods.

In 20 years driving a diesel while eating McDonald's, drinking coke and 
Smoking then leaving the car park will be seen as anti social as drink driving 😃


----------



## Andyg_TSi (Sep 6, 2013)

DrEskimo said:


> Indeed!
> 
> I also think the government should do more to incorporate all pollution in the VED, not just CO2. Petrol owners having been paying higher VED for years due to higher CO2, yet diesel owners have been paying nothing for the high NOX. If that was accounted for as well, there wouldn't be such an incentive to own a diesel for cheaper VED.
> 
> Instead, they have added an additional charge for cars worth over £40k...as if that has anything to do with pollution....now a V8 truck that costs £38k pays far less in VED than a electric car worth £40k...should be subsiding them, not making them more expensive!!


Scrap VED altogether & add it to the cost of a litre of fuel. Therefore, the more you drive/consume fuel/produce Co2 or Nox the more tax you pay by virtue of actually using the vehicle

VED is unfair, so someone buys a V8 car thats deemed a high polluter & pays an arbitary high charge by virtue of the vehicles potential to pollute. But the car is only used for less than 4k miles per year

Someone else buys a so called 'green' car pays low VED but drives it 20k miles per year and because of that, the car has actually polluted more than the V8 by the fact its been used more on the roads & driven more.

If, by physical use, the so called 'green' car has polluted more than the V8, then surely that should have been taxed more as its polluted more by its use??

It makes sense to me but im sure others would disagree

It'd be interesting to know just how much a litre of fuel would have to go up by to incorporate the current levels of VED


----------



## should_do_more (Apr 30, 2008)

^ this...I totally agree it should be use based.

My previous comment is in regards to diesel in cities. In London there's no need to have big engine stinking taxis or buses that chuck out those horrible chlorine smells. Electric or hybrid should be the immediate public transport approach.

For people who own diesels privately, it's a shame as they have been led down the garden path a bit on economy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## PugIain (Jun 28, 2006)

Not everyone who bought a diesel bought it for low running costs.
My last 3 cars have been diesel because I liked a car that had a diesel engine.
In fact, I'll pay £50 to the first person that posts a link to a petrol 508 GT 

Sent from my Vodafone Smart ultra 6


----------



## nick_mcuk (Jan 4, 2008)

PugIain said:


> Not everyone who bought a diesel bought it for low running costs.
> My last 3 cars have been diesel because I liked a car that had a diesel engine.
> In fact, I'll pay £50 to the first person that posts a link to a petrol 508 GT
> 
> Sent from my Vodafone Smart ultra 6


That's impossible as they don't exist. In fact I think they only do one petrol engine in the 508 range and that is only on the Allure version I believe.

We only have petrol cars now and we can get similar mpg out of them as the various derv cars we had. You may like derv cars but they are still dirty polluting things yeah the CO levels might be lower but the conveniently forget to look at all the other nasty crap they chuck out.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## graham1970 (Oct 7, 2012)

The death of the combustion engine?
http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/car-ne...new-government-funding-for-fuel-cell-vehicles

Sent from my D5803 using Tapatalk


----------



## should_do_more (Apr 30, 2008)

PugIain said:


> Not everyone who bought a diesel bought it for low running costs.
> My last 3 cars have been diesel because I liked a car that had a diesel engine.
> In fact, I'll pay £50 to the first person that posts a link to a petrol 508 GT
> 
> Sent from my Vodafone Smart ultra 6


You're right, a lot of cars have been available only as diesels (unless you get the 'fast' versions).

Have you asked for professional help to get you over this though? Diesels anonymous? 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## DrEskimo (Jan 7, 2016)

Andyg_TSi said:


> Scrap VED altogether & add it to the cost of a litre of fuel. Therefore, the more you drive/consume fuel/produce Co2 or Nox the more tax you pay by virtue of actually using the vehicle
> 
> VED is unfair, so someone buys a V8 car thats deemed a high polluter & pays an arbitary high charge by virtue of the vehicles potential to pollute. But the car is only used for less than 4k miles per year
> 
> ...


Nah makes a lot of sense to me. Great point!


----------



## PugIain (Jun 28, 2006)

nick_mcuk said:


> That's impossible as they don't exist. In fact I think they only do one petrol engine in the 508 range and that is only on the Allure version I believe.


Correct, 1.6thp. Although I like to think somebody somewhere hurriedly loaded up the auto trader website for a look  


should_do_more said:


> You're right, a lot of cars have been available only as diesels (unless you get the 'fast' versions).
> 
> Have you asked for professional help to get you over this though? Diesels anonymous?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I could start a support group.
Cement mixer engine anonymous.


----------



## DrEskimo (Jan 7, 2016)

Andyg_TSi said:


> Scrap VED altogether & add it to the cost of a litre of fuel. Therefore, the more you drive/consume fuel/produce Co2 or Nox the more tax you pay by virtue of actually using the vehicle
> 
> VED is unfair, so someone buys a V8 car thats deemed a high polluter & pays an arbitary high charge by virtue of the vehicles potential to pollute. But the car is only used for less than 4k miles per year
> 
> ...


Although...actually thinking about it this assumes all diesels and petrols are created equal. A V8 may only travel 4k miles, but if it's CO2 per mile is 5 times that of a hybrid, it doesn't matter that the hybrid has done 20k miles. But I still see you point as their 'net impact' is the same, yet the hybrid pays considerably less. I guess the VED rates have to assume equal mileage otherwise it becomes impossible to implement. Unless it's like insurance and you factor in your annual mileage when you pay?

Tricky one...need something that factors in the CO2 per mile and actual miles done.


----------



## Starbuck88 (Nov 12, 2013)

Actually love this thread and especially the climate talk. Well done guys  I'm not getting involved, I'm not a Scientist.

So if this is banning in Major cities to begin with, I wonder when/if it'll ever filter outwards?

For example, we have 2 dirty diesels a 206 2.0HDi ECO (ECO Funny that, £30 Tax) and a Focus 1.8TDCi.

I agree one of them isn't needed, the 206 does the commute in the morning and returns 60mpg on average. Trips up country we don't need to worry about fuel cost. Honestly what petrol can do that without it being some gutless, slow and thirsty? I say this as the Turbo Diesels have a lovely amount of torque, hills, motorway driving etc.

Example we had a petrol 1.4 C4. Same journey we get around 60mpg in the 206, we got 34mpg if we were lucky.

I would be up for changing to Electric but I don't want to have to schedule a whole day to be able to complete long journeys to have to stop to keep charging.

Maybe the 1.4TSi in VAG with Active Cylinder Technology are the way forward? Then however you get the next argument, Direct Injection creating more soot in petrol engines....

Nobody can seem to win.


----------



## millns84 (Jul 5, 2009)

If they're going to be getting rid of diesel, they'll need to do something about tax on petrol (if that's the stop gap pending better electric technology)... Otherwise, the added cost due to increased consumption would be pretty tough for the general public, and even more so for transport, logistics etc which again will just hurt the public through increased costs.

That said, if they cut the tax on petrol... Where do they make up the loss in revenue? I suspect it'd just be pushed on to other forms of taxation which AGAIN will impact on the public.

Also, if more people move on to petrol, that'll invariably create more CO2 (looking at the general emissions from current petrol vs diesel engines) which means we're all doomed anyway.

What a mess... It'll be interesting to see what's happened in 10-15 years though.


----------



## nick_mcuk (Jan 4, 2008)

PugIain said:


> Correct, 1.6thp. Although I like to think somebody somewhere hurriedly loaded up the auto trader website for a look


Not at all you seem to forget I have been into my Peugeots for quite a while...hence why I have the 208GTI.

Would have gotten the wife into a 508 if they did the better specs in petrol....hence why she ended up with the top of the line Mazda 6 Sport Nav 2.0 Petrol!

*EDIT*

Actually Peugeot have completely dropped the petrol engines from the 508 now...you can only get them with the BlueHDI engines....thats gonna be great when the govt starts taxing the S**t out of dervs because they are filthy smelly b'***rds


----------



## organgrinder (Jan 20, 2008)

So much of what is said about diesels being dirty is based on the emissions of black cabs and buses. Modern Euro V1 diesels are massively cleaner than those from only 3 or 4 years ago. On the BBC, one of the roads in London was quoted as having some of the highest NOx readings in the world but that road is largely restricted to buses and taxis.

I have looked at the V5 documents for my car and my wife's. Mine is a 3 litre diesel and hers is a 2 litre petrol. Her NOx emissions are about half mine but in real life her car gets about half the mpg of the official figure whereas mine gets about 4/5ths. If you extrapolate that, the two figures are pretty close to each other for NOx emissions but my CO2 emissions are much lower and my car consumes about half the physical quantity of fuel that hers does.

A blanket ban on diesel is the typical Politicians attempt at a cheap shot without the facts and at everyone else's expense. I will be more than a bit upset if this has a major impact on the resale value of my car: they need to do real testing on real cars before they go spouting anymore propaganda.


----------



## Kerr (Mar 27, 2012)

organgrinder said:


> So much of what is said about diesels being dirty is based on the emissions of black cabs and buses. Modern Euro V1 diesels are massively cleaner than those from only 3 or 4 years ago. On the BBC, one of the roads in London was quoted as having some of the highest NOx readings in the world but that road is largely restricted to buses and taxis.
> 
> I have looked at the V5 documents for my car and my wife's. Mine is a 3 litre diesel and hers is a 2 litre petrol. Her NOx emissions are about half mine but in real life her car gets about half the mpg of the official figure whereas mine gets about 4/5ths. If you extrapolate that, the two figures are pretty close to each other for NOx emissions but my CO2 emissions are much lower and my car consumes about half the physical quantity of fuel that hers does.
> 
> A blanket ban on diesel is the typical Politicians attempt at a cheap shot without the facts and at everyone else's expense. I will be more than a bit upset if this has a major impact on the resale value of my car: they need to do real testing on real cars before they go spouting anymore propaganda.


MPG is very personal though. If you're driving in optimum conditions then your true MPG will be closer to official figures. If the wife drives in town then her figures will be hindered.

As for the NOx figures on the V5, dieselgate showed us that the vast majority of diesel cars failed to meet NOx limits and many were out by huge margins. Cars were as bad as 15 times out from their claimed figures.

This will hit the values of diesel cars. I wouldn't want to sit on a high value diesel car as in a couple if years people are going to be put off buying them.


----------



## organgrinder (Jan 20, 2008)

The best my wife's 2 litre Audi will do to the gallon is about 35mpg on an A road, 31mpg on the motorway and 20mpg around town.

Mine will do 50mpg on an A road, 41/42 on the motorway and about 33mpg around town. And it does 0-60 in 4.6s which I tend to use more than I should.

I do a few longer trips but my average is 39.6mpg at the moment and my wife averages 21mpg although the last tankful was 17mpg!

Surely dieselgate was VW/Audi and not the vast majority of diesels. If BMW had been caught in USA I am sure they would also be getting hauled over the coals.

Anyway my next car will almost certainly be petrol but it would need to be something like a 440i or C63 which I am sure will similarly be legislated out of existence before long. Everything will probably need to have an electric motor.


----------



## Kerr (Mar 27, 2012)

It wasn't just VAG that failed the tests. They only became the focal point as it was proven they installed cheats to defeat the tests. Most other diesel cars failed and even worse than VAG.


----------



## DrEskimo (Jan 7, 2016)

organgrinder said:


> The best my wife's 2 litre Audi will do to the gallon is about 35mpg on an A road, 31mpg on the motorway and 20mpg around town.
> 
> Mine will do 50mpg on an A road, 41/42 on the motorway and about 33mpg around town. And it does 0-60 in 4.6s which I tend to use more than I should.
> 
> ...


Yea its worth remembering how those figures are obtained.

I might be wrong on the finer details, but the car is put on a rolling road and accelerates slowly to a speed (50MPH?), and then drives at this constant speed with some minor turns left and right. These are done within very tight parameters to ensure that each car is subject to very similar conditions. As a result the actual MPG, CO2 and NOX figures rarely reflect the real world figures.

So whats the point? Well because all these figures are so sensitive to changes in acceleration, braking, tyres, temperature, etc, etc, this is the only way to ensure the figures can be compared across different models and manufacturers reliably. What this does let you do is compare cars and know what the likely difference will be. Therefore its not the actual figure, but rather the differential between two cars. Assuming you drive them in roughly the same way, you should see roughly the same differential in figures between the two cars in real world driving.

So just as you mention with MPG, the CO2 and NOX figures are likely to be vastly different to the claimed figures, and they are subject to change in every journey. As a result, independent bodies have found the actual real world CO2 and NOX to be vastly higher than the claimed figures, much like how the real world MPG is vastly lower than the claimed figures.

The reason VW have been singled out is because the EU regulations only require the car to produce a figure below a certain threshold during the testing procedure. Nothing about real world figures. Most of the cars can do this with the use of DPFs and other downstream exhaust systems like AdBlue. The fact that the real world figures are much higher is neither here nor there to them, as long as the figures were low enough during the test. VW however, where using a software cheat device. This allowed the car to detect that the car was in the testing procedure and could dramatically reduce its engine output. This meant that even in the test condition, the cars were only able to achieve the figures needed to pass the regulations with the software cheat enabled. Without it, the cars would not pass. As far as we know, no other car manufacturer has done this.

I think this is all right...someone please correct me if I have got anything wrong!

I agree, electric cars are looking like the only long-term answer, but how we get there is the difficult part. The technology needs to improve dramatically, and be affordable, with the appropriate infrastructure to make them suitable to all types of drivers.


----------



## organgrinder (Jan 20, 2008)

I have a friend with a Tesla P85D and it is mentally quick off the line but he is quite honest when he says that 200 miles is the most he would expect out of a full charge and he can drop that significantly if he has too much fun. It also cost nearly £90K which is fantasy land for 99% of drivers.

For me that range is no use perhaps once a month unless there are fast charging points everywhere, so technology needs to move on a bit before I go down the electric route.


----------



## DrEskimo (Jan 7, 2016)

organgrinder said:


> I have a friend with a Tesla P85D and it is mentally quick off the line but he is quite honest when he says that 200 miles is the most he would expect out of a full charge and he can drop that significantly if he has too much fun. It also cost nearly £90K which is fantasy land for 99% of drivers.
> 
> For me that range is no use perhaps once a month unless there are fast charging points everywhere, so technology needs to move on a bit before I go down the electric route.


Yea I would very happily have a Tesla Model S, but the price is ridiculous. I guess that's why the Model 3 is proving to be popular since it is much more affordable.

Yea the range will be an issue for some, but the average motorist rarely does 200miles in one day. The ability to charge over night will mean that a range of 150-200 would be more than sufficient for the vast majority of people.

Of course there is the issue of being able to charge at home! One of the reasons I can't get one is because I live in a terraced house without even the ability to park outside my front door. Charging from home is impossible


----------

