Walkers damage the planet

Quoted message said:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article2195538.ece

Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk

All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident.
-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

Self evident, all humans damage the planet. Those "Greenpeace" type et
al should make sure they don't reproduce, or better still exit the world
and reduce pollution.

On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 10:47:33 +0100, Broadback <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article2195538.ece

Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk

All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident.
-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

Self evident, all humans damage the planet. Those "Greenpeace" type et
al should make sure they don't reproduce, or better still exit the world
and reduce pollution.

Only self evident if you miss the point :-))

Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk

All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident.
-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] writes

Quoted message said:

On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 10:47:33 +0100, Broadback <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article2195538.ece

Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk

All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident.
-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

Self evident, all humans damage the planet. Those "Greenpeace" type et
al should make sure they don't reproduce, or better still exit the world
and reduce pollution.

Only self evident if you miss the point :-))

The only "point" being that you drive a Range Rover.

--
Malcolm

Malcolm said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] writes

Quoted message said:

On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 10:47:33 +0100, Broadback <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] wrote:
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article2195538.ece
>
>
> Angus Macmillan
> www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
> www.killhunting.org
> www.con-servation.org.uk
>
> All truth passes through three stages:
> First, it is ridiculed;
> Second, it is violently opposed; and
> Third, it is accepted as self-evident.
> -- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)
Self evident, all humans damage the planet. Those "Greenpeace" type et
al should make sure they don't reproduce, or better still exit the world
and reduce pollution.

Only self evident if you miss the point :-))

The only "point" being that you drive a Range Rover.

But as you know Malcolm, I'm not a conservationist.

It's the fake conservationists that bang on about leaving your car at
home and using public transport. Seems they are even more fake than I
thought.

Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk

All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident.
-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

Quoted message said:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article2195538.ece

Angus Macmillanwww.roots-of-blood.org.ukwww.killhunting.orgwww.con-servation.org.uk

All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident.
-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

Shoddy journalism, 100g of beef.....?

David
--
Last fell: The Nab
http://www.fenrunfellwalk.co.uk

On Tue, 7 Aug 2007 21:55:30 +0100, Chris Street wrote...

Quoted message said:

But it's not. The comparision is incorrect - it compares the transport and
production costs of food vs the combustion products of the fuel. It
neglects the extraction, refining and transport costs of the fuel. Unless
you have an oil well in the back garden that is self refining it's a
worthless comparison.

It's what us proper scientists call "bad science" at best and
"apologeticism" at worst.

Here's a further reason why it is bad science.

The TimesOnline article is picking this up from the author Chris
Goodall, and cites a New Scientist article as the source of his figures.
Here's the New Scientist article: <http://tinyurl.com/yv7jbl>.

Goodall's figures are based on the assumption that the walker gets all
his calories from beef produced by industrial methods, from cows fed
intensively on concentrated feed. Apparently producing and transporting
the feed is a major part of the environmental cost.

So you'd get more favourable answers if the cows wandered about in a
field and ate grass. You'd get more favourable answers still if the
walker ate a more balanced diet, rather than just beef and nothing else.
Which is of course exactly what real people do.

Furthermore, Goodall himself is quoted as saying "Of course, this
doesn’t mean we should always choose to use air or car travel instead of
walking. It means we need urgently to work out how to reduce the
greenhouse gas intensity of our foodstuffs."

So not even the author of this bad science supports Angus's view that
it's better to drive than to walk.

--
Tim Jackson
[email hidden]
(Change '.invalid' to '.com' to reply direct)

On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 00:11:25 +0100, Roy wrote...

Quoted message said:

I eat organic grass fed beef. Does that still qualify as intensive
production?

"A Swedish study in 2003 suggested that organic beef, raised on grass
rather than concentrated feed, emits 40 per cent less greenhouse gases
and consumes 85 per cent less energy."
<http://tinyurl.com/yv7jbl>

--
Tim Jackson
[email hidden]
(Change '.invalid' to '.com' to reply direct)

Tim Jackson said:

On Tue, 7 Aug 2007 21:55:30 +0100, Chris Street wrote...

Quoted message said:

But it's not. The comparision is incorrect - it compares the transport and
production costs of food vs the combustion products of the fuel. It
neglects the extraction, refining and transport costs of the fuel. Unless
you have an oil well in the back garden that is self refining it's a
worthless comparison.

It's what us proper scientists call "bad science" at best and
"apologeticism" at worst.

Here's a further reason why it is bad science.

But what you have missed is the Chris Street expanded the argument
into food in general - see above. He is then condemning the
comparison between production of food and oil without giving any
figures to support his claim. I'd say that's sloppy science.

Beef aside. Many foods are transported halfway round the world to our
tables so if he's going back to source for the production of oil he
should do the same for the food we eat - otherwise he's engaging in a
"worthless comparison" of which he accuses others.

Quoted message said:

The TimesOnline article is picking this up from the author Chris
Goodall, and cites a New Scientist article as the source of his figures.
Here's the New Scientist article: <http://tinyurl.com/yv7jbl>.

Goodall's figures are based on the assumption that the walker gets all
his calories from beef produced by industrial methods, from cows fed
intensively on concentrated feed. Apparently producing and transporting
the feed is a major part of the environmental cost.

So you'd get more favourable answers if the cows wandered about in a
field and ate grass. You'd get more favourable answers still if the
walker ate a more balanced diet, rather than just beef and nothing else.
Which is of course exactly what real people do.

Furthermore, Goodall himself is quoted as saying "Of course, this
doesn’t mean we should always choose to use air or car travel instead of
walking. It means we need urgently to work out how to reduce the
greenhouse gas intensity of our foodstuffs."

So not even the author of this bad science supports Angus's view that
it's better to drive than to walk.

So you're using the views of the author you condemn for "bad science"
to support your views.

Typical :-))

Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk

All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident.
-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

Tim Jackson said:

On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 00:11:25 +0100, Roy wrote...

Quoted message said:

I eat organic grass fed beef. Does that still qualify as intensive
production?

"A Swedish study in 2003 suggested that organic beef, raised on grass
rather than concentrated feed, emits 40 per cent less greenhouse gases
and consumes 85 per cent less energy."
<http://tinyurl.com/yv7jbl>

Great stuff. So I can offset my drives to the butchers?

Roy.

On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 09:27:11 +0100, [email hidden] wrote...

Quoted message said:

Tim Jackson said:

Here's a further reason why it is bad science.

But what you have missed is the Chris Street expanded the argument
into food in general - see above.

The point you missed is that these are two entirely separate reasons why
it is bad science. They are not connected. Hint: I said "Here's a
**further** reason".

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So not even the author of this bad science supports Angus's view that
it's better to drive than to walk.

So you're using the views of the author you condemn for "bad science"
to support your views.

No, he doesn't support my views, and I didn't say he did. I merely
pointed out that he doesn't support **your** view. Hint: I said "not
even the author of this bad science supports Angus's view".

Quoted message said:

Typical :-))

It is indeed typical that you don't read what has been written. :-((

--
Tim Jackson
[email hidden]
(Change '.invalid' to '.com' to reply direct)

Tim Jackson said:

On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 09:27:11 +0100, [email hidden] wrote...

Quoted message said:

Tim Jackson said:

Here's a further reason why it is bad science.

But what you have missed is the Chris Street expanded the argument
into food in general - see above.

The point you missed is that these are two entirely separate reasons why
it is bad science. They are not connected. Hint: I said "Here's a
**further** reason".

Nonsense. It's the reason it's not a reason.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So not even the author of this bad science supports Angus's view that
it's better to drive than to walk.

So you're using the views of the author you condemn for "bad science"
to support your views.

No, he doesn't support my views, and I didn't say he did. I merely
pointed out that he doesn't support **your** view. Hint: I said "not
even the author of this bad science supports Angus's view".

You're confused. The author wasn't the bad scientist, he was the
writer of the article. The environmentalist did say it was better to
drive than walk in terms of CO2 emissions. "Walking does more than
driving to cause global warming, a leading environmentalist has
calculated."

So when you said "So not even the author of this bad science supports
Angus's view that it's better to drive than to walk", you were getting
your mind in a knot

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Typical :-))

It is indeed typical that you don't read what has been written. :-((

Little wonder there's so many sloppy scientists around.

Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk

All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident.
-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

Quoted message said:

Tim Jackson said:

On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 09:27:11 +0100, [email hidden] wrote...

Quoted message said:

On Thu, 9 Aug 2007 01:22:44 +0100, Tim Jackson
<[email hidden]> wrote:

>Here's a further reason why it is bad science.

But what you have missed is the Chris Street expanded the argument
into food in general - see above.

The point you missed is that these are two entirely separate reasons why
it is bad science. They are not connected. Hint: I said "Here's a
**further** reason".

Nonsense. It's the reason it's not a reason.

No it was *a* reason. There are others.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>So not even the author of this bad science supports Angus's view that
>it's better to drive than to walk.

So you're using the views of the author you condemn for "bad science"
to support your views.

No, he doesn't support my views, and I didn't say he did. I merely
pointed out that he doesn't support **your** view. Hint: I said "not
even the author of this bad science supports Angus's view".

You're confused. The author wasn't the bad scientist, he was the
writer of the article. The environmentalist did say it was better to
drive than walk in terms of CO2 emissions. "Walking does more than
driving to cause global warming, a leading environmentalist has
calculated."

Here is what was said.

based on the greenhouse gases created by intensive beef production.
´Driving a typical UK car for 3 miles [4.8km] adds about 0.9 kg [2lb] of
CO2 to the atmosphere,¡ he said, a calculation based on the Governmentÿs
official fuel emission figures. ´If you walked instead, it would use about
180 calories. Youÿd need about 100g of beef to replace those calories,
resulting in 3.6kg of emissions, or four times as much as driving.

Now here is why it is wrong.

The comparison is between the CO2 emissions for a car, and the CO2
emissions in the production of beef leading to the conclusion that a car
emits less CO2 than a walker. There are a deal of things wrong with this
approach.

Firstly the CO2 production of the walker is not considered. Increased
calory consumption results in increased respiration and CO2 emission.

The article compares the cost of producing the beef. Part of this beef
production cost is due to energy and therefore fossil fuel usage and CO2
emissions. It is fair to consider that. It does not consider the same type
of energy consumption involved in the extraction and transport of the
vehicle fuel.

It can be seen that there are two large and important types of emission
that are not considered. As such the article states figures that are not
representative of the true picture.

Furthermore it presumes that the walker will derive all his/her calories
from beef. Proteins are a poor source of energy for walking. Furthermore
animal protein production is the most inefficient means of food production
possible. Dare I suggest it was picked for that reason? Animals consume and
waste large amounts of plants to produce meat. Ditto dairy. (the other
comparison that was made - again suspicious). If you wanted to walk then a
carbohydrate such as cereals, pulses, etc would serve you better, be more
likely to be chosen and would require dramatically less CO2 in production
terms.

Quoted message said:

So when you said "So not even the author of this bad science supports
Angus's view that it's better to drive than to walk", you were getting
your mind in a knot

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Typical :-))

It is indeed typical that you don't read what has been written. :-((

You may like to go back and have a look then. The comparison above has been
poorly chosen and gives a misleading result due to the erroneous
comparisons that were drawn.

Tim Jackson said:

It is indeed typical that you don't read what has been written. :-((

Oh he reads it alright. Then translates it into Angus.

Roy.

In message <[email hidden]>

Chris Street said:

Now here is why it is wrong.

Quoted message said:

The comparison is between the CO2 emissions for a car, and the CO2
emissions in the production of beef leading to the conclusion that a car
emits less CO2 than a walker. There are a deal of things wrong with this
approach.

Another thing I've not seen mentioned (admittedly without having read
the original piece) is are we talking about the excess energy usage of
the walker, or are we ignoring the fact that the car driver is still
having to eat as well, and burns up a few calories even when sat
behind the wheel?

This may have been addressed already, I could easily have missed it,
what with having killfiled Angus some time back.

--
Simon Challands

"Simon Challands" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Another thing I've not seen mentioned (admittedly without having read
the original piece) is are we talking about the excess energy usage of
the walker, or are we ignoring the fact that the car driver is still
having to eat as well, and burns up a few calories even when sat
behind the wheel?

This may have been addressed already, I could easily have missed it,
what with having killfiled Angus some time back.

Yes, I think the concensus is that both walker and driver eat the same
amount of food, but the walker gets healthy burning off the calories and the
4x4 driver turns into a lard [censored] as he drives down to the corner shop :-)

Graham

"Simon Challands" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In message <[email hidden]>

Chris Street said:

Now here is why it is wrong.

Quoted message said:

The comparison is between the CO2 emissions for a car, and the CO2
emissions in the production of beef leading to the conclusion that a car
emits less CO2 than a walker. There are a deal of things wrong with this
approach.

Another thing I've not seen mentioned (admittedly without having read
the original piece) is are we talking about the excess energy usage of
the walker, or are we ignoring the fact that the car driver is still
having to eat as well, and burns up a few calories even when sat
behind the wheel?

This may have been addressed already, I could easily have missed it,
what with having killfiled Angus some time back.

What we should be talking about is how much more food should someone who
walks regularly have to buy compared to someone who mostly drives. It is the
purchasing of food which creates the demand which creates the supply which
creates the emissions. Unless you can demonstrate that a walker (or cyclist)
actually buys more food on days in which they walk/cycle than on days which
they drive then the whole issue of including food production in human
powered transport is wrong.

I don't eat any more food when I cycle to work than when I drive to work. I
have, however, lost over 1 1/2 stone in bodyweight (which requires less
energy to move about doing general activities) and probably have a more
efficient cardiovascular system (which again will reduce respiratory CO2
emissions slightly).

Finally, since the preferred energy source for walking/cycling comes from
carbohydrates and carbohydrates come from plants, is the fact that the
plants absorb CO2 from the air whilst they are growing taken into account?

Adam

On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 22:37:56 +0100, Roy <roy@somedomainsomewhere>

Quoted message said:

Tim Jackson said:

It is indeed typical that you don't read what has been written. :-((

Oh he reads it alright. Then translates it into Angus.

Roy.

Better than gobbledegook :-)

Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk

All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident.
-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

Quoted message said:

Chris Street said:

Quoted message said:

On Thu, 9 Aug 2007 20:40:27 +0100, Tim Jackson
<[email hidden]> wrote:

>On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 09:27:11 +0100, [email hidden] wrote...
>> On Thu, 9 Aug 2007 01:22:44 +0100, Tim Jackson
>> <[email hidden]> wrote:
>>
>> >Here's a further reason why it is bad science.
>>
>> But what you have missed is the Chris Street expanded the argument
>> into food in general - see above.
>
>The point you missed is that these are two entirely separate reasons why
>it is bad science. They are not connected. Hint: I said "Here's a
>**further** reason".

Nonsense. It's the reason it's not a reason.

No it was *a* reason. There are others.

You haven't given a reason.

That you understand anyway...

Quoted message said:

I agree that's what was said.

Glad to hear it

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Now here is why it is wrong.

The comparison is between the CO2 emissions for a car, and the CO2
emissions in the production of beef leading to the conclusion that a car
emits less CO2 than a walker. There are a deal of things wrong with this
approach.

Don't forget he's using beef because it is a factor of four increase.

So you think he's selecting data to fit his conclusion. Nuff said

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Firstly the CO2 production of the walker is not considered. Increased
calory consumption results in increased respiration and CO2 emission.

Contradiction.

I'm sorry it confuses you.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The article compares the cost of producing the beef.
Part of this beef
production cost is due to energy and therefore fossil fuel usage and CO2
emissions.
It is fair to consider that. It does not consider the same type
of energy consumption involved in the extraction and transport of the
vehicle fuel.

It can be seen that there are two large and important types of emission
that are not considered. As such the article states figures that are not
representative of the true picture.

But the true picture is that you're doing what you're accusing the
other side of doing by not taking into consideration the full picture
from both sides.

In what way? I am merely point out that the article takes two dissimilar
sources of CO2 production, fails to include large *unknown* amounts of
production and then reachs a conclusion that cannot be supported due to
these errors

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Furthermore it presumes that the walker will derive all his/her calories
from beef. Proteins are a poor source of energy for walking. Furthermore
animal protein production is the most inefficient means of food production
possible. Dare I suggest it was picked for that reason? Animals consume and
waste large amounts of plants to produce meat. Ditto dairy. (the other
comparison that was made - again suspicious). If you wanted to walk then a
carbohydrate such as cereals, pulses, etc would serve you better, be more
likely to be chosen and would require dramatically less CO2 in production
terms.

I think the author has implied that. However, food production is
energy intensive and you have not given any figures backed by evidence
that you are right. So how about it?

My professional qualifications and charges are available if you wish me to
do your donkey work. I do not deny that food production is energy intensive
but I do know that the article reeks of bad science and poor methodology.
IF you cannot see that there are plenty of good courses that are run by
such illustrius and well thought of places as the OU - cheap to access and
even free if you are financially disadvantaged. It does require you to
think and have an open mind so I think you may fall down though

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So when you said "So not even the author of this bad science supports
Angus's view that it's better to drive than to walk", you were getting
your mind in a knot

>> Typical :-))
>
>It is indeed typical that you don't read what has been written. :-((

You may like to go back and have a look then. The comparison above has been
poorly chosen and gives a misleading result due to the erroneous
comparisons that were drawn.

How about evidence to the contrary?

Not just vague opinions.

I leave those you someone far more able than me at handwaving.

*plonk*

Quoted message said:

Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk

All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident.
-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

=][

Chris Street said:

Quoted message said:

Chris Street said:

On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 21:53:34 +0100, [email hidden] wrote:

> On Thu, 9 Aug 2007 20:40:27 +0100, Tim Jackson
> <[email hidden]> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 09:27:11 +0100, [email hidden] wrote...
>>> On Thu, 9 Aug 2007 01:22:44 +0100, Tim Jackson
>>> <[email hidden]> wrote:
>>>
>>> >Here's a further reason why it is bad science.
>>>
>>> But what you have missed is the Chris Street expanded the argument
>>> into food in general - see above.
>>
>>The point you missed is that these are two entirely separate reasons why
>>it is bad science. They are not connected. Hint: I said "Here's a
>>**further** reason".
>
> Nonsense. It's the reason it's not a reason.

No it was *a* reason. There are others.

You haven't given a reason.

That you understand anyway...

I understand perfectly. You given an opinion and not backed by any
evidence.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I agree that's what was said.

Glad to hear it

Good.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Now here is why it is wrong.

The comparison is between the CO2 emissions for a car, and the CO2
emissions in the production of beef leading to the conclusion that a car
emits less CO2 than a walker. There are a deal of things wrong with this
approach.

Don't forget he's using beef because it is a factor of four increase.

So you think he's selecting data to fit his conclusion. Nuff said

Not at all. He's given one example.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Firstly the CO2 production of the walker is not considered. Increased
calory consumption results in increased respiration and CO2 emission.

Contradiction.

I'm sorry it confuses you.

It's you who's confused.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The article compares the cost of producing the beef.
Part of this beef
production cost is due to energy and therefore fossil fuel usage and CO2
emissions.
It is fair to consider that. It does not consider the same type
of energy consumption involved in the extraction and transport of the
vehicle fuel.

It can be seen that there are two large and important types of emission
that are not considered. As such the article states figures that are not
representative of the true picture.

But the true picture is that you're doing what you're accusing the
other side of doing by not taking into consideration the full picture
from both sides.

In what way? I am merely point out that the article takes two dissimilar
sources of CO2 production, fails to include large *unknown* amounts of
production and then reachs a conclusion that cannot be supported due to
these errors

If you think that provide your own alternative. Not just a biased
opinion.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Furthermore it presumes that the walker will derive all his/her calories
from beef. Proteins are a poor source of energy for walking. Furthermore
animal protein production is the most inefficient means of food production
possible. Dare I suggest it was picked for that reason? Animals consume and
waste large amounts of plants to produce meat. Ditto dairy. (the other
comparison that was made - again suspicious). If you wanted to walk then a
carbohydrate such as cereals, pulses, etc would serve you better, be more
likely to be chosen and would require dramatically less CO2 in production
terms.

I think the author has implied that. However, food production is
energy intensive and you have not given any figures backed by evidence
that you are right. So how about it?

My professional qualifications and charges are available if you wish me to
do your donkey work.

You professional qualifications can't be worth much if what you've
shown already is an example.

Quoted message said:

I do not deny that food production is energy intensive

Gosh. You're getting there :-))

Quoted message said:

but I do know that the article reeks of bad science and poor methodology.

But can you show yours is better? IMO, opinions dressed up as fact is
sloppy science.

Quoted message said:

IF you cannot see that there are plenty of good courses that are run by
such illustrius and well thought of places as the OU - cheap to access and
even free if you are financially disadvantaged.

Perhaps you should enlist in one.

:It does require you to

Quoted message said:

think and have an open mind so I think you may fall down though

You probably would.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>
> So when you said "So not even the author of this bad science supports
> Angus's view that it's better to drive than to walk", you were getting
> your mind in a knot
>
>>> Typical :-))
>>
>>It is indeed typical that you don't read what has been written. :-((

You may like to go back and have a look then. The comparison above has been
poorly chosen and gives a misleading result due to the erroneous
comparisons that were drawn.

How about evidence to the contrary?

Not just vague opinions.

I leave those you someone far more able than me at handwaving.

*plonk*

Gibberish. I think you've lost your marbles :-)

Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk

All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident.
-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)