In France there used to be a warning on E10 pumps about its use in older cars.

Main point is that using farmland for fuel is not environmentally sound.

It makes me angry when people feel our country is not an open democracy, Britain has honest political parties and no corruption. There is no conspiracy going on. Our honest media are the envy of the world and so is our politics. How anyone can think people are in Britain are brainwashed makes no sense.

Britain has honest political parties and no corruption. There is no conspiracy going on.

In view of that statement it is case closed then, nothing to worry about.

Show some concrete evidence of things to worry about then rather than skirting round the issue....show us some proof.

There is evidence abound however if brainwashed people's idea of evidence is for it to be reported by the very controlled media that is part of the problem then it will not happen. If your view of the world and society is the same size as a postage stamp then anything outside that stamped size object will not be possible.

If you dedicated two hours to listening to the many interviews by Pier Corbyn that has done decades of research into this you will see it makes far more sense that the repeated mainstream media global warming lies. It will no doubt by all too much though for a brainwashed and conditioned mind to accept sadly.

I want you to show some proprer reasearched and published research - should be very easy to point me in the right direction. It does not need to be in the 'media' just some proper evidence.

Waste of time. There is none..

The idea that reseacrh should be published and available for review - so holes can be picked in it if there are any - has been around for decades- even centuries.

Non publication means only one thing. It's rubbish.Incapable of standing up for review. So appeals only to the fringe who believe what tehy want to believe irrespective of thr lack of evidence to support it.

(Piers Corbyn may very well be right .. I have no idea . But his rambling style and lack of papers on the subject fill me with a total lack of conviction. I have a scientific traiining and have read too many claims unsubstantiated by any evidence to take his claims seriously)

Corruption in the sense of backhanders whether 'backsheesh' for petty officaldom or massive backhanders for public contracts is pretty well absent and where discoverd is properly dealt with. There is thouigh a more insidious form ranging from lobbying to insider tip offs and mutual backscrathing.

I wouldn't be so sure about that - 'backhanders' don't always come in the form of money directly, it can be from future job offers after the politician or civil servant leaves office/the job in government or via third parties (i.e. not working for the firm/country who you've been dealing with on a project) but another one who has 'common interests' with the former and who regularly 'work together' etc.

Its amazing how many ex cabinet ministers (most of who have little to no experience in business of any note) and/or civil servants end up as very nicely paid directors of various sorts on the boards of multinationals and in the pay of foreign governments that they gained the favour of in the past (even if not in the last year or so) by making a decision in their favour or such-n-such.

Even those devoted socialists of the Hard Left have their own form of this, though they prefer to try and ruin everyone else because they weren't very adept at their jobs, and lie just as much as the Blairite and Cameroon generation. Our lot might not be so obviously corrupt as politicians and civil servants/bureaucrats from the Middle East, Africa and South America, but many (mostly in the higher positions) vlaue power (even when retired) just as much as money, but rarely are not rich after their 'original' career ends.

I know you don't normally read the Telegraph, but there's a decent article from Juliet Samuel today that shows a way how to make government (including all our gravy train quangos that seem to only benefit those who work for them) and the corporates more accountable and relevant to the average person in the street:

www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/09/07/rather-try.../

This isn't the same as just demonising such people and just changing power from them into the hands of a small number of Hard Leftist activists via the back door, as Corbyn is proposing.

The problem with the debate about use of fossil fuels in cars and its variants and EVs etc is that so many people in positions of power on all sides have their own agendas, which 99% of the time run contrary to the public good, or at vest are just naive because they have no experience in the real world, living in the 'Westminster Bubble' all their adult lives.

Forgive me, but given you are/were a civil servant, that means you have some bias towards it and how it works. And there's a whole world of difference between academic know-how, especially if its PPE, Classics or Law, given many parts of government now require technical expertise and significant business acumen.

Most civil servants in non technical roles (i.e. management), including those in senior positions, will not have had much, if at any experience in real private sector jobs of note, many seemingly going from one civil service position to another from university, then onto the quangos (working very little for nice pay and perks) with a guarantee of a nice directorship for doing diddly squat at the end of their 'career'.

I'm sure you'll disagree, but I've worked on many large scale building projects with many high rnaked civil servants and have not been impressed. Its all self serving, even if they're not in it for £Ms like some in the PFI and the like are from the private sector multinationals/big business. Its more about getting power for people who, if they were in a REAL meritoracy (you admited its who you know, not how good you are at your job - the 'old boys' network), they would be sacked in no time - I've actually seen it happen - they're all bluff and bluster, covering up for their lack of ability in the real world.

The system is broken, and Sir Humphrey doesn't mind one bit - it suits his agenda to control the politicians and the masses. The problem is that the masses are slowly getting wise to this, and eventually there will be a reckoning for the establishment that REALLY runs the country, including the civil service and quangos.

The problem I have with your arguments is that there are too many civil servants who believe their own hype as 'experts', or that all those other perks and old boys (and now girls) network to keep their careers alive mean that we waste money hand over fist and problems, like that one about the trans 'woman' occur - how would any intelligent person authorise that or make that 'standard policy'? Experts? I don't think so.

If you really want examples of bad practice, just look at numerous examples of 'interpreting and implementing policy' badly (incompetence) by the NHS and especially the Home Office and MOD on a daily basis in the media, locally and nationally. Commentators/poster on the right (even moderates like myself) get fed up with endlessly repeating themselves because the left have very dodgy memories. Its why, when faced with really good debaters, the Left don't want to discuss the issues or they deflect or shut down the debate with cries of racism, etc etc.

You repeat ad nauseam phrases like "controlled media".

That is all these conspiracy people can do, I see more and more of them they are growing in numbers. As I already have said our politics and media are open and faultless in my opinion for reporting the truth. We live in a country where news agencies such as the BBC are known for being neutral and honest. To think people that believe the news and do not do their own research are brainwashed and lazy makes no sense.

If you really want to do your own research you do a first degree, then a Master's and then a PhD, which you will not be awarded until you have defended your work in front of at least two of your academic equals or betters

You do not understand how the world works and it comes back again to your postage stamp conscious view that I highlighted earlier. In the world of accademia saying and 'proving' certain viewpoints does lead to loss of job and certainly reduced funding. You are expecting a corrupt pathetic system to display evidence of what is really going on using the same outlets it uses to control brainwashed people like yourself.

Putting people like Piers Corbyn to one side look at David Bellamy ever questioned why he is not on TV these days? He was a mainstray some years past, the reason is something he said regarding climate change! He did an interview back in 2013 and states 'I was shunned' you could read about it in detail if your postage stamp view would allow such information to be reviewed. Anyway no time to type any further need to get back to the BBC and see what neutral news they have this morning.

verified and independently assessed. That is, rightly, 'how the world works'.

That is the question what is independent assessment? David Bellamy was shunned read about what actually occured in this case and that is one small example. The Accademia funding will soon dry up if you have a different opinion with the global warming, renamed climate change scam. Feel free to close the thread as needed....

Bolt, they'll be sending you for re-education following a common sense post like that :-)

You are quite right, this is an ongoing quandry and no one knows all the answers, the problems arise when one camp makes it clear that anyone who questions their view (which is the only one currently allowed), or worse still actually disagrees, is branded as some sort of heretic, and the clarion call against such heretics seems to attract followers like flies round a rotting carcase.

This isn't just in the climate industry of course, we see this in universities which were once places of open question debate and learning, where now those with the wrong (in whos eyes) views have been no platformed, ie Germaine Greer for crying out loud, one of the original feminists before that cause was hijacked.

Having the wrong (again in whos eyes) views on climate, immgration, gender, the EU, equality or a whole host of subjects can be dangeous to ones career/ livelihood and even ones life if certain groups and their msm affiliates take exception, some of those groups failing dismally to see the irony of trying to silence an alternative view to theirs by calling them fascists and sometimes physically attacking them

Carl,

David Bellamy is a chemist and botanist with a gift for TV presentation and explaining scientific concepts in everyday language. His broadcast career was built on that.

Quite why he dedided to go public in opposition to the concept of 'man made' climate change is a bit of a puzzle; he'd previously gone with the scientific consensus. Some of what he said in attempting to refute glacial melting was from an innaccurate/non-existent source. Working in that way undermines his credibility as a scientist. That probably goes some way to account for why we see and hear much less of him now though fact he's 85 and perhaps less able to leap around may have something to do with it too.....

If there was sustainable consistent scientific evidence to rebut climate change theory there'd be funding to support it - the oil industry would be all over it like a rash!!

It wasn`t a puzzle at all, he didn`t believe global warming was our fault, which he did say, problem was, because he spoke out not many liked it, which was nothing unusual back then and I think still the case now with certain people

some it is ingrained into the head we are causing global warming, I do not have a problem with those that think it is, as long as they keep discussions peacefull, there are far too many that get worked up over something that we are going to find it hard to do something about,- IF- it`s true we are, I`m keeping an open mind as everyone so far is all over the place with what they think is happening, but as I said before, no one will object to better air assuming cleaner cars will give us cleaner air

personaly I`m not so sure?

The puzzle for me is why he changed his mind about CO2/climate

Just my opinion, but I am not sure he agreed with it in the first place, as I read a comment (how true I do not know) that he dissagreed with global warming in that we were the cause, but agreed to mention it was our fault to keep his job.

again I have no idea how true this was and could be wrong, but after he said he didn`t believe in it, the jobs he had were lost because of the strenght of feeling he had towards it.

you may find his comments through google, via a tv company he worked for!

The problem I've always found with 'climate science' is that it, like meteorology, is still very much a work in progress and is includes rather a lot of 'best educated guesses'.

I actually believe in the dangers of pollutants like CO2 and others, but as we've recently seen, it isn't just about 'global warming' - because the system is very dynamic, perhaps even chaotic, it appears as though much of the worst effects of the 'warming' in the 'early years/decades' are actually much more severe and changeable weather patterns.

We need to be careful though just to believe without questioning scientists (as an engineer, I prefer dealing in hard facts than theories that aren't yet proved across the board) - what doesn't help are the pronouncements, on each side of the argument, by people with agendas and huge egos - crackpot pundits, journos and celebs, politicians grandstanding, businesses (and governments) using their power through their contacts and the media, often to gain more power, influence and money, plus a lot of unsubstantiated claims from the 'green lobby' and related firms pushing tech which is extortionately expensive and often which has little benefit other than to those pushing/selling it.

Former Vice President Al Gore's publicising the now discredited 'hockey stick' graph did a great deal (not helped that was and still is an establishment figure) of damage in my view to the growing concensus aorund climate change, similarly Mr Trump's rather (how can I be polite here) 'stance' on climate change (for political reasons and nothing more) is just as bad.

Science doesn't always advance (but it mostly does) around concensuses - breakthroughs can happen when people think against the grain - what most scientist tend to do is follow the concensus (like the polsters have done at recent elections, to their cost) because its safer as they don't like being on the side that was wrong (egos again).

Sometimes I dispair at the lack of confidence by fellow engineers in coming into such debates because they think people won't listen to them - ironically, they are often trusted far more than scientists becuase we rely solely on hard facts. Many of the 'out there' conspiracy theories have been easily debunked by rational engineers and scientists, but I think they need to push on the other side as well so that the climate scientists behave in a more honourable way and not giving ordinary people the finger or talking down to them when asked to prove or explain in laymans terms what is going on.

Indeed - a good scientist (and engineer) should be only too happy to explain (in as simple terms as is required) their findings and theories to the lay person.

Sadly, many scientists today seem to think they are above the person in the street, similarly you find LOT of 'ordinary' people who think being uninformed and stupid is a GOOD thing, believing ANYTHING that anti-establishment figures say (even when its complete fabrications, often to suit their agenda) because its the opposite of what 'the establishment' says.

This isn't some rant from some inetlligencia from the metropolis, given my views have changed towards the anti-establishment viewpoint after working alongside 'the establishment' in much of my career as an engineer (nearly 20 years). Too many people seem completely blinkered and set in their ways for ideological reasons - I tend to keep a sceptical, investigative eye open on all issues, and that means sometimes questioning people in positions of authority or influence in certain disciplines (and has, from time to time, meant that my career hasn't been as smooth sailing as it might if I just kept quiet and accepted everything such people said).

One of things that really saddens me is the serious decline in serious journalism, partly precipitated by 'citizen journalism' on the spot with their smart phone via social media, but also because society itself has moved towards an 'instant gratification' ethos that means in depth, serious (even if well done and in terms everyone can understand) articles are considered not worth the expense and not sensational enough to bring in readers/viewers.

This means that both sides of issues like this one, including climate change and pollution from cars, EVs etc are only looked at from polar opposites of the argument and rarely with the scientific and forensic rigour that can get to the bottom of the issue. Its probably why we continue to debate it and other issues without really resolving much.

The problem with comments made by FP and I see it every single day in this society people want to be told something. Do not listen to others until you have conducted your own research. Many people have simply no understanding how the world works and from such a postage stamp view they cannot possibly come close to what really does go on to control and manipulate and climate change along with agenda 21 and agenda 30 are big areas. Think for yourselves and come to your own conclusion instead of a corrupt media and clueless experts doing all the thinking for you.

Never mind postage stamp view (whatever that means).

Can you share the evidence which has convinced you that CO2 Climate Change theory is wrong?

Many people have simply no understanding how the world works and from such a postage stamp view they cannot possibly come close to what really does go on to control and manipulate and climate change along with agenda 21 and agenda 30 are big areas.

No one really knows how the world works. No one has ever been or will be here long enough. It would be ridiculous as a mortal human being to say that you do understand it, you can only try to.

Absolutely but people should not listen to me they must do their own research.

I have done and you are just talking nonsense.

I have done and you are just talking nonsense.

Good for you that is your truth and you should stick to that view, if your research brings you to that conclusion then you are on the right track. I hope it serves you well to understanding not just the media facade but the world that we are all part of in one way or another.

I've been reading all your posts on here Carl233 and I must say that you're an absolute legend! I'm a climate change sceptic myself and have been hit back by the same people on here as you have for expressing my views about it and just decided not to bother arguing with them anymore. The way that you reply to them is genius and I share your views and agree with your posts on here 100%.

"You don't like to argue yoy point as you have nothing to back it up with. As Carl has shown he is not able to show any kind of proof to show climate change is not partly man made."

Really, the problem is that Carl has no intention actually to engage in an articulate discussion.

"The problem with comments made by FP and I see it every single day in this society people want to be told something."

Sorry - exactly what is the problem with my comments? I keep re-reading your post and I have absolutely no idea what you mean.

Sorry - exactly what is the problem with my comments? I keep re-reading your post and I have absolutely no idea what you mean.

I mean no offence but my opinion is if you want to be told something e.g. the media (of which nearly all are part of no more than two organisations if you follow the money) then you will be furnished with a postage stamp view.

If people do their own research looking at all available information making informed decisions based on that information connecting the dots as such then they are on the right track. We live in a world that is full of deceit and lies and there is an agenda at work to control, the control strategies are agenda 21 and agenda 30 and global warming is a useful tool to move towards those agendas. We do not understand the sun or its cycles it controls the heat of the planet and yet humans are causing the problem!!! If it was not so real and tragic it would be laughable that adults, yes adults believe such a fairy tale.

The truth is not going to come from the media it will only come from you if you are prepared to do your own research.

"If people do their own research looking at all available information making informed decisions based on that information connecting the dots as such then they are on the right track. We live in a world that is full of deceit and lies and there is an agenda at work to control, the control strategies are agenda 21 and agenda 30 and global warming is a useful tool to move towards those agendas."

If I did my research "using all available information" I would spend the rest of my life- day and night - reading the millions of words written on the subject. To write that and imply you have done so is quite unbelieveable. SO you have made your decision on part information.

"We live in a world that is full of deceit and lies and there is an agenda at work to control, the control strategies are agenda 21 and agenda 30 and global warming is a useful tool to move towards those agendas."

So you know the agenda 21 and 30, Please tell us what they are.. with some references tso we know it is true.. which should be easy as you have done your researxh to prove it is true... oh no I forget you cannot have done so..(see above)

Talk about going nowhere fast. ????

I had to Google this. Apparently Agenda 21 and Agenda 30 are references to United Nations action plans, which are the focus of conspiracy nutjobs.

Really, there is absolutely no point in trying to reason with these people.

There is probably little point in yet again pointing out to Carl that he's not presenting any evidence, just repeating dubious claims - unless you think the fact that houses are getting smaller is proof of anything.

"The evidence is in many places sometimes at the end of our nose but do we have the capacity and open mind to really see it, or does our conditioning dismiss it by reflex action?" What evidence, please?

"Again as long as you have done the work you will be on the right track..." Presumably you have done the work. Please tell us about it.

"...even a free thinking child looking at the situation should be able to see that global warming, sorry I mean its repackaged release title of climate change is the story of fairly tales." Leaving aside the poor expression, this is yet another example of a vacuous claim with nothing to back it up.

You take the condescending line that you have a better insight into climate change than the rest of us. You throw out criticism of our small-minded way of thinking. You claim we are duped by lying media and/or by some great conspiracy. Yet you have produced not a scrap of evidence or of reasoned argument to support your position.

I put it to you that you are driven by some strange wish to appear to be superior to the rest of us because you think you are party to important insights, but you don't have the ability to think critically about what you have chosen to believe - nor do you even understand why you believe it.

You take the condescending line that you have a better insight into climate change than the rest of us. You throw out criticism of our small-minded way of thinking. You claim we are duped by lying media and/or by some great conspiracy. Yet you have produced not a scrap of evidence or of reasoned argument to support your position.

I have no better insight to climate change although I do not pollute myself with mainstream corrupt agenda news, at least for a number of years. Talking of evidence even the most simple human with a small number of brain cells on active duty would know that the sun is connected to the temp of the planet. Can you fully explain based on your research how humans have a major impact within this situation? Based on the global warming hoax, sorry climate change mantra that has no idea how the sun works. How can it be discounted that the sun does not work through cycles lasting many hundreds of years?

What occured in the ice age were the dinosours running too many polluting vehicles? The way some adults believe the mainstream corrupt narrative is quite amazing but certainly not good for future generations. After all it is future generations that will live in the agenda 30 type world that is being being contructed. Since when has the ability to 'think critically' been connected with repating the mainstream version?!

I suggest you spned 10 years learning some basic physics, basic geology and chemistry and then you will realise how utterly ignoranat you currently are.

Since when has the ability to 'think critically' been connected with repeating conspiracy theories without producing a scintilla of evidence. You act like a 7 year old schollboy who knows nothing but thinks he knows everything.

I give up.

Bellamy is indeed a qualified scientist and entitled to his point of view.

That is a long way from saying that the alternative, mainstream view is wrong. Bellamy is one of very few people actually qualified to take the position he does who disagree that climate change is influenced by human activity; the majority disagree.

It may be unfortunate or not, but those who think that the idea of human-influenced climate change is wrong (whether they are qualified to take that position or not) nearly all seem to think that a global conspiracy is at work, which immediately makes their position very difficult to take seriously.

Edited by FP on 14/09/2018 at 01:08

"I have no better insight to climate change..." Then what are we arguing about? You're saying your view is no better than anyone else's, it seems.

"...I do not pollute myself with mainstream corrupt agenda news..." Why are you concerned about this? How do you know it's corrupt? So you do have a special insight after all?

"Based on the global warming hoax, sorry climate change mantra that has no idea how the sun works." I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.

I assume the general drift of your post is that, with the exception of people like yourself, the rest of us are being duped. That sounds condescending to me.

"Going back at old media reporting the following statements have been made by 'experts': In 1970 it was thought we will be in an ice age by the year 2000. Then in 1989 global warming (yes it was not renamed climate change back then) will wipe out entire nations by the year 2000. in 1999 it was mentioned the himalayan glaciers will be gone in 10 years. Then in 2000 it mentioned snow could be a thing of the past!"

Can we have the references for these, please, unless it's the usual rubbish from the Daily Express, Daily Mail and their ilk, in which case it's not respected journalism and no-one can take it seriously.

"How people cannot see through it really paints a very sorry picture of society in my opinion." We can't "see through it" because people like yourself are not presenting any credible case to the contrary.

"Looking at what David Ballamy and Piers Corbyn have raised makes far more sense (to me at least) than what the left brain academic mind prisoners (that do not understand the sun) feel is going on." Leaving aside the virtual unintelligibility of the sentence, presumably you disparagingly refer to "left brain" people because you don't value analytical, logical thinking. So that's why what you believe is based on blind faith and some kind of misplaced intuition. Neither of those has contributed much to human advancement.

The real "sorry picture" is of people trying to argue a case when they have nothing to say beyond repeating vacuous phrases, mentioning names of people who they claim think like them and who seek to show they have some kind of superior insight to the rest of us, all done in language which is barely articulate.

Edited by FP on 14/09/2018 at 15:05

It all comes down to what is evidence? Is it being read on the main evening news? Having clueless 'experts' that are brainwashed with the official version of global warming sorry I mean climate change changing their 'informed' view?

Is there no evidence already that just might indicate the sun plays a part in the temp of the planet?! I know it sounds far out there and

extreme but the sun might actually play a key role in this. Let's of course ignore the way it fits into agenda 30 etc. It is your children that live in this world as agenda 30 gathers pace.