JC's global warming denial...

Y'see, I would assume that an unqualified statement (such as the one made on TG) was accounting for all factors and was based on average figures. If they're cherry-picking the facts, and I hope that's not the case, that's not good.

Maybe I place too much trust in the Beeb.
i think you can trust the beeb, but certainly not jeremy clarkson. ;)

as a matter of fact, he does cherry pick the facts.

according to the beep, the average amount of co2 emitted by a car in 2005 was 165g/km. since most cars are only occupied by one person, we can roughly say that per passenger an average car emitted around 80g of CO2 per passenger and km.

source:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6903301.stm


regarding the emissions of trains i found some information from the department of transport on the website of the uk parliament.

according to that data the average amount of CO2 emitted per passenger kilometer by a train in the UK is 63g. thats diesel and electric trains in the UK and if i may say that, the uk railways are a bit shabby compared to other european railways like the french or german ones.
thus an intercity 125 with with 33% occupancy puts out 96g per passenger and kilometer, which is a lot for a train. in contrast, a class 357 electric commuter train only emits 34g per passenger and kilometer at 33% occupancy and only 17g per passenger and kilometer at an occupancy of 66%.

source:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmhansrd/vo040715/text/40715w13.htm
(near the end of the page)


now bear in mind that the uk railways are still using more inefficient diesel engines instead of electric engines than most other railways and that still 2/3 the electricity for the electric engines is produced by burning fossil fuels.
that still leaves a lot of potential to make trains even more environmentally friendly.
more so than the car's petrol or diesel engine, because that will always be relatively inefficient and will always burn something, while an efficient electric train powered by environmentally friendly sources will only have extremely little emissions.
 
Do we really need yet another thread discussing Global friggin' Warming?


Not Global Warming per se, moreso the show's content pertaining to GW. And the damage the show might do to itself if it bangs on in the way that it is, i.e. constantly saying that it's a myth in the face of a ton of evidence to the contrary. I really would prefer to think that it's a myth, believe me...

I'm just puzzled with the stance it takes. Wouldn't an extremely powerful yet fuel efficient car be something of a holy grail of motoring? I'm interested to know what they will make of the new electric-powered Tesla. I'm guessing a verdict resembling the following:

"The love child of a Lotus Exige and a milkfloat"

...or how about...

"The Duracell Doorstop"

I just can't see the show favourably reviewing an electric car.
 
Top Gear magazine and whatever the Times motoring section is called this week love it. The boys also love Lotus, I reckon they might like it.

But then of course, there is that superfast Bio-power Exige, which will the the reason for Clarkson saying '...errr, no.' when asked if you should buy a Tesla.
 
I don't see a single sign that the planet is doomed. But they say it is.

Fair enough, I suppose... They point at the hurricanes and the floods and heat-waves... Tho I'm sure these things have been happening all along. Ooooh, but they're worse now than ever before! Fine, they're worse. So what? I don't care.

So OK, fine, the planet is warming. So what? That's happened before, too. So you say we have something to do with it? Again; So what? What if the planet warms because of our activities? What's the worst that could happen? Wait. We know already. That's all we ever hear. 'The worst that will happen'. Whatever the worst possible outcome is, that's what we're told to expect. What's likely to happen? Again; I don't even care. I doubt anything will happen. Historically that's been the case in these 'the end of the world' scenarios.

Just a few years ago 'the end was nigh'. We were told that everything made since the industrial revolution was going to reset to its default 'crush, kill, destroy' setting. Don't travel by air. Don't drive a car. Don't ride in a car. Don't fucking roll. Stand clear of your toaster coz it's gonna whip yo' ass when it becomes self-aware.

We're all going to have to live like cavemen. Death is imminent. Run for the fucking hills.


Stuff's gonna 'splode.



Then nothing happened at all.



People who speak of an impending Apocalypse are wrong 100% of the time.
 
I don't see a single sign that the planet is doomed. But they say it is.

Fair enough, I suppose... They point at the hurricanes and the floods and heat-waves... Tho I'm sure these things have been happening all along. Ooooh, but they're worse now than ever before! Fine, they're worse. So what? I don't care.

So OK, fine, the planet is warming. So what? That's happened before, too. So you say we have something to do with it? Again; So what? What if the planet warms because of our activities? What's the worst that could happen? Wait. We know already. That's all we ever hear. 'The worst that will happen'. Whatever the worst possible outcome is, that's what we're told to expect. What's likely to happen? Again; I don't even care. I doubt anything will happen. Historically that's been the case in these 'the end of the world' scenarios.

Just a few years ago 'the end was nigh'. We were told that everything made since the industrial revolution was going to reset to its default 'crush, kill, destroy' setting. Don't travel by air. Don't drive a car. Don't ride in a car. Don't fucking roll. Stand clear of your toaster coz it's gonna whip yo' ass when it becomes self-aware.

We're all going to have to live like cavemen. Death is imminent. Run for the fucking hills.


Stuff's gonna 'splode.



Then nothing happened at all.



People who speak of an impending Apocalypse are wrong 100% of the time.

I really hope you're 100% correct and the people warning us of rapid climate change are 100% wrong... really, I do.

The truth is though, that people that live directly alongside the environment - most often, the poorest - will tell you that things are bad and are getting worse. That's very much the case in Australia, of course.

Sure, the huge amounts of evidence gathered could all be wrong and everything coincidental, or it could be natural phenomena that would have happened regardless. Or, it may not.

What I'm saying is that TG isn't qualified to say one or the other as an absolute certainty, as they did on the Polar Special. What I'm also saying is that a show about high performance and practical cars that are fuel efficient is still interesting - the Polar special virtually had nothing in it about cars at all. TG is now more about the presenters than cars that you or I are ever likely to drive.

So it seems pointless for the show to uphold the view that global warming is a myth. If they're right then people who also hold that view can feel smug, rightfully so perhaps. If they're wrong, then a lot of people will be misinformed and the consequences are bad.

In other words - it could change from being "Top Gear" to "Top Global Warming Denial", a show for people who don't accept the idea... the viewing figures are probably going to be a lot smaller. They share that view with GW Bush, let's not forget.

I'm not saying that they should become tree-hugging, beardy sandal wearers. I'm just saying that I don't get why they're not neutral on the view.

Branding people who give a monkeys whether or not the environment is clean, species other than us have somewhere to live and that the poorest communities don't pay the price for rampant capitalism as "environmentals" is really starting to get old, and I wish JC would knock it on the head. I think that he's a good bloke in reality and isn't as selfish as that view would imply.
 
clarkson likes to wind idiots up, thats what he does best.

hes nt particularly winding those up who think global warming is happening, hes winding up the nut jobs who think a 4x4 is the symbol of all capitalism and meat eating and evil. the hippies who'll sensationalise whats happenening, telling the world the polar ice cap is but a few shrivelled ice cubes bobbing in the sea.

the same people who'll resort to violence to get their point across and show how uneducated they are by dressing up 2 of germany's greenest cars as pigs in an effort to mark them out as the devil polluters of the world. in other words the people who have nothing better to do than have a knee jerk reaction to whatever spews out his mouth

and he loves it..... hes on the telly, 100s of millions of people are gonna hear what hes saying, he's doing the equivalent of pulling his kecks down an mooning at the greenies while hes saying it....knowing full well that its 99% a one way conversation and that theres nothing they can do about it because its already aired.

millions will have heard clarkson saying "up yours greenpeace" but only a handful of us will ever hear about a complaint about it, and even then we wont care much for whoever made the complaint.

its a one way conversation, he can say whatever he wants and theres not alot anyone can do about it.... you cant really undo television...and he likes that. i like that.
 
clarkson likes to wind idiots up, thats what he does best.

hes nt particularly winding those up who think global warming is happening, hes winding up the nut jobs who think a 4x4 is the symbol of all capitalism and meat eating and evil. the hippies who'll sensationalise whats happenening, telling the world the polar ice cap is but a few shrivelled ice cubes bobbing in the sea.

the same people who'll resort to violence to get their point across and show how uneducated they are by dressing up 2 of germany's greenest cars as pigs in an effort to mark them out as the devil polluters of the world. in other words the people who have nothing better to do than have a knee jerk reaction to whatever spews out his mouth

and he loves it..... hes on the telly, 100s of millions of people are gonna hear what hes saying, he's doing the equivalent of pulling his kecks down an mooning at the greenies while hes saying it....knowing full well that its 99% a one way conversation and that theres nothing they can do about it because its already aired.

millions will have heard clarkson saying "up yours greenpeace" but only a handful of us will ever hear about a complaint about it, and even then we wont care much for whoever made the complaint.

its a one way conversation, he can say whatever he wants and theres not alot anyone can do about it.... you cant really undo television...and he likes that. i like that.

I have no doubt that a lot of it, almost all of it, is agit-comedy. I also know that he's a birdwatcher... if not a beardy pursuit then certainly there's a bit of stubble there. I'm just bored with the knocking of anyone with even a remotely environmentalist stance. In the words of Morrissey, that joke isn't funny any more. Agit it may be, comedy it isn't.... not because it's offensive, it's just tedious.

I completely agree with Clarkson, as I've said, about tabloid sensationalism creating social devils out of anyone who drives a performance car when it's a small part of a big equation.

That's definitely is a point worth hammering home while doing powerslides in a Monaro.
 
I don't disagree that cars contribute to global warming, but they only scratch the surface. Kinda like me skating on an ice rink and telling me I'm destroying the whole thing.

Besides, if you think global warming's anything to worry about, you should check out http://www.exitmundi.nl/. That might open your eyes a bit!
 
So it seems pointless for the show to uphold the view that global warming is a myth. If they're right then people who also hold that view can feel smug, rightfully so perhaps. If they're wrong, then a lot of people will be misinformed and the consequences are bad.

In other words - it could change from being "Top Gear" to "Top Global Warming Denial", a show for people who don't accept the idea... the viewing figures are probably going to be a lot smaller.

Either they're right or they're wrong. They're either stroking group A's ego or they're stroking group B's ego. They're either misinforming group A or they're misinforming group B. The point being, we just don't know.
 
Either they're right or they're wrong. They're either stroking group A's ego or they're stroking group B's ego. They're either misinforming group A or they're misinforming group B. The point being, we just don't know.

but what about group C:think:
 
The truth is though, that people that live directly alongside the environment - most often, the poorest - will tell you that things are bad and are getting worse.
I'm poor. And i'll go you one better: I don't just live alongside the environment; I live *in* it. And so far i've seen absolutely nothing of concern.

Sure we're going through the worst drought in 100 years but we had a drought that was almost this bad about 100 years ago. Sure we're all running out of drinking water but that's because (in my state at least) we've done nothing to catch more water in over 40 years and since then the population has increased considerably and our lifestyles have changed in such a way that we each use more water than ever. Maybe if we lynched every farmer that has the gall to grow rice or cotton in the middle of a desert we'd have enough water to drink. But people in this country seem a bit against the whole lynching scene.

It's not the apocalypse. It's a normal, cyclical drought combined with a short-sighted, cheapskate government. Build a desalination plant! I don't care! Just don't not piss on my head and tell me it's not raining.

Sure, the huge amounts of evidence gathered could all be wrong and everything coincidental, or it could be natural phenomena that would have happened regardless.
The projected calculations and computer simulation models put together by crazed loons that are looking far too closely and holding on way, way too tight aren't worth the recycled paper they're illegibly scrawled on. I've listened to these people before and that's how I know not to listen to them anymore.

I'm just saying that I don't get why they're not neutral on the view.
What if they held the belief that Global Warming is real? Would you still be calling for neutrality if then? Or should they only be neutral because they don't believe the popular consensus?

What I'm saying is that TG isn't qualified to say one or the other as an absolute certainty, as they did on the Polar Special.
They didn't say it as an "absolute certainty"! But Ok, I'll make you a deal: I'll admit that Clarkson shouldn't be allowed to say anything that hasn't been proven to be true by 'expert scientists' when the water reaches my ankles.
 
I'm poor. And i'll go you one better: I don't just live alongside the environment; I live *in* it. And so far i've seen absolutely nothing of concern.

Errmm, well, I was thinking of people a lot poorer than yourself - in global relative terms, owning a computer, a house and a Merc isn't poor... sorry if I was unclear on what I meant by poor.

The projected calculations and computer simulation models put together by crazed loons that are looking far too closely and holding on way, way too tight aren't worth the recycled paper they're illegibly scrawled on. I've listened to these people before and that's how I know not to listen to them anymore.

I think that the techniques employed are far more sophisticated than that. Infinitely more. But anyway, that's way off topic. Which brings me to the sweet spot of your response!! At last....

What if they held the belief that Global Warming is real? Would you still be calling for neutrality if then? Or should they only be neutral because they don't believe the popular consensus?

I would say exactly the same, and that's my entire point. It's a motoring show and not a lobbying show for/against Environmental concerns. They want to protest against road charging, totally fine. But this is way off topic, in either direction. For them to support Global Warming as a fact would be equally as weird.
 
Errmm, well, I was thinking of people a lot poorer than yourself - in global relative terms, owning a computer, a house and a Merc isn't poor... sorry if I was unclear on what I meant by poor.
So only people who are dirt poor are feeling the effects? I don't understand that at all. What does your socio-economic status have to do with anything? Are the people with non-HD televisions drowning in melted ice caps?

I would say exactly the same, and that's my entire point. It's a motoring show and not a lobbying show for/against Environmental concerns. They want to protest against road charging, totally fine. But this is way off topic, in either direction. For them to support Global Warming as a fact would be equally as weird.
It's not off topic at all. If the extreme fundamentalist anti-civilisation lunatics are left unchecked we could potentially end up with dicky little electric cars that give great mileage and shitty performance. They've already planned to ban the lightglobe in favour of these awful 'Energy Saver' lights that burn your eyes, make you look like shit, give off no light etc.... If the same sort of thing happened to The Car - to any degree - I'd be more than upset. Because, as I've said before; The Car has absolutely nothing at all to do with Global Warming.

"They" pick on the car to no end and it's Clarkson's job to go :tease: "neener, neener, neener! I've got a Range-Rover!" :tease:.
 
It's not off topic at all. If the extreme fundamentalist anti-civilisation lunatics are left unchecked we could potentially end up with dicky little electric cars that give great mileage and shitty performance. They've already planned to ban the lightglobe in favour of these awful 'Energy Saver' lights that burn your eyes, make you look like shit, give off no light etc.... If the same sort of thing happened to The Car - to any degree - I'd be more than upset. Because, as I've said before; The Car has absolutely nothing at all to do with Global Warming.

"They" pick on the car to no end and it's Clarkson's job to go :tease: "neener, neener, neener! I've got a Range-Rover!" :tease:.


Well, that's my whole point. He's free to do that of course, but I'm just questioning, for the sake of the show (and it IS the sake of the show I'm talking about, whether or not GW is reality is a side topic - what I think is of no interest to anyone, I know) whether it's wise for TG to go too far down that road. The closing comments of the Polar special kind of left me with a feeling that GW denial was the overriding point of the show. And I'm only asking the question. If you, Andy Milman, Mark Thompson, Bill Oddie and Uncle Tom Cobbleigh don't agree with me and it carries on for another 10 seasons, fine, I had no point... whatever. But if they plough that furrow much more deeply and for too much longer, the show might back itself into a corner that it could turn out to be not a good position for it to be in. Why would it do that? That's what I'm asking. Not preaching, telling, commanding... just asking. And if you don't agree, fine by me.

I am fully aware that most people on this board, and you in particular, are less concerned about climate change than me. But what I think we're probably all more concerned with, is if the show is on the screen for another 10 seasons, making us laugh and informing us about cars, rather than being a propagandist tool for wider environmental concerns - in either direction.

I think I've said this three times now, but to be sure that I'm not misunderstood, here goes again. If JC wants to say that cars (bearing in mind that this is a show about cars) don't impact climate change as much as the scare-mongerers try to make us believe, I 100% agree with him. There are far, far bigger issues. Where he's taking a big risk, I think, is by saying climate change (in general, not just related to cars) is not happening. I think it's pointless for the show to have a view on climate change (in general, again, not related to cars) at all.

I'm not posting to try to convince anyone about climate change, or whether we should be worried about it (any more than we should be worried about a meteor slamming into the planet), I'm simply asking... is the show overstepping a bit.

Hope that's clear.
 
is the show overstepping a bit.
No. Not in my opinion. It's said that Global Warming could be a catastrophic disaster the likes of which we have never seen. It could end all life on this planet and plunge us into an ice age. It's in the news every day, and on the tip of everyones tongue. Everyone in every country knows about it regardless of race or religion or financial status. It's the biggest thing in the world right now. It would be odd not to mention it.
 
No. Not in my opinion. It's said that Global Warming could be a catastrophic disaster the likes of which we have never seen. It could end all life on this planet and plunge us into an ice age. It's in the news every day, and on the tip of everyones tongue. Everyone in every country knows about it regardless of race or religion or financial status. It's the biggest thing in the world right now. It would be odd not to mention it.

In a light entertainment show about cars? Well I guess we'll see. Bearing in mind it's on the Beeb which is under the kosh right now about the content of it's programs. If they keep on about it, let's hope you're right.
 
You've also got to remember that Clarkson really doesn't like these people. They write him letters of complaint that he considers a waste of his time, they mention him by name at their protests, they even throw pies at him.

Apparently he received dozens of complaints when he drove a Land Rover up a hill because it damaged the moss and he was nearly sued because he injured a tree when he drove a Toyota Hilux into it.

He really can't stand these people and he'll never miss an opportunity to rile them up or piss them off. I'm sure this is half his motivation for making these remarks.
 
You've also got to remember that Clarkson really doesn't like these people. They write him letters of complaint that he considers a waste of his time, they mention him by name at their protests, they even throw pies at him.

Apparently he received dozens of complaints when he drove a Land Rover up a hill because it damaged the moss and he was nearly sued because he injured a tree when he drove a Toyota Hilux into it.

He really can't stand these people and he'll never miss an opportunity to rile them up or piss them off. I'm sure this is half his motivation for making these remarks.

Oh absolutely, and I find it funny, even when it's people like me in the firing line. I know he's all about being contrary and it's all in the name of humour. But this didn't appear to be. Maybe it's me, but it seems to signal a big shift in what kind of program it's going to be. I for one, know that if they do that all the time in the future, week in week out, I'll be switching off at some point. Not everyone who watches Top Gear devotedly and unquestioningly accepts everything JC says. I'm married to an American and live in an American city with people who tick none of the boxes that JC stereotypes Americans as. But I know what he's up to, that's alright. He talks crap in the name of humour, fine. That's nothing new.

I'm just wondering what the half a million homeowners whose houses have been turned into millponds in the UK would make of JC's insistance that climate change isn't anything that we need to think about. At all. Sh*t happens, so suck it up. Some might share that view, but I'm sensing that a large amount of people will not. And the Beeb, being a publicly owned corporation, will not be deaf to that.

Maybe there's nothing to worry about. TG will get canned off the BBC and go to Sky.

Just like Harry Enfield did.
 
They'll probably keep watching anyway. Season 9 of Top Gear had little in the way of car reviews and tons of comedy sketches that weren't funny and pointless filler that wasn't worth watching but people still tuned-in. In higher numbers than ever! People will watch anything. People are idiots. Even I kept watching even tho I wasn't enjoying it in the slightest.

It would take a total shift from a 'motoring themed light-humour program' to 'Jeremy Clarkson denies Global Warming for a full 60 minutes' to have much effect on the ratings and I can't see it doing that. It's more likely that, if anything, he'll just keep making the occasional jab or do the occasional show with a 'climate theme' like the Polar Challenge kinda had.

I think that whichever side of the fence people sit on in regards the Global Warming thing, deep down most people don't really care. Not enough to feel slighted or offended to the point of changing stations if he starts making light of it anyways. People feel uptight about it during the day but at night, when they're at home, with no shoes on, watching TV and they hear Clarkson make light of it it's like a catharsis. It just unwinds you a little bit.

But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe, as you suggest, the recent floods will turn people against his attitude.
 
Top