Audi A3 E-tron

Sandra

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Audi Main Dealer
Platinum Supporter
Audi A3 Sportback e-tron Review | Autocar

Having read a few articles on the new A3 E-tron, i really like it and its something i may consider in the future. I hope and would really appreciate if you could all give me a few minutes of your time to share your thoughts and personal opinions on what you think. We all lead our lives as we choose and we are all aware of the consequences of global warming and carbon emissions, so i thought i would like some input in what you think of this new addition to the A3 range. The design and technology of this latest model is very inspiring to say the least.

Would you consider buying one of these as your next A3?
What do you think about the new technology?
Do you see yourself driving one of these in the future?
I look forward to your input.
Thanks in advance.
Sandra. :)
 

a3_phil

Registered User
If it'd been out a few years to work the kinks out first I'd have certainly considered one today.

When my current lease term is up I'll definitely be giving it a look as my commute (28 miles each way, with electricity available at work) could be done entirely on battery.
 

h5djr

Registered User
VCDS Map User
Gold Supporter
My biggest problem with the A3 e-tron at the moment is not the car itself but getting some meaningful mpg figures. Fine if you are only doing 30 miles the mpg will be very good. Audi quote 176mpg and Autocar got 123mpg for 50 mile journey. But what figure would you get for say a 100 or 200 mile journey. Most of this would be using the 1.4 TFSI engine and it would be carry the extra weight of the electric motors and batteries when compared with a normal 1.4. I've not seen any figures yet based on longer journeys.
 

steeve

Registered User
Global warning? There's certainly climate change but latest information shows that the Antarctic ice is bigger than its been for centuries.

However the idea that either electric cars or hybrids are green is a huge myth. They are from cradle to grave the most polluting vehicles
(size for size) on the planet. The batteries are a real problem to deal with and the amount of damage done in obtaining the rare earths used in these cars is a scandal.

So any one with these cars cant feel smug about saving the planet.

And don't get me going about the STOR policy.
 

Pulp84

Registered User
I'd get the E-tron in a heartbeat as a daily commuter and company car. I think its a fantastic thing.

My commute is 25 miles each way from home to my office. Currently I have a BMW 320d company car and at 55 mpg it's costing me approx £5 a day in diesel.

I can can see a major benefit for me personally by having a car like this with the expected low company car rates and potentially cutting most of my commuting costs (which equates to 75% of my monthly fuel bill). Approx £150 a month in my pocket on saved fuel costs all in a "normal" car package (compared to i3, Prius etc) - it's an exciting proposition. I just have to hope my company let me have it!

You will note I only talk about the E-tron in company car terms. It does not appeal to me what so ever as a car I spend my hard earned dosh on for enjoyment. My S3 fulfills that........the E-tron could never do that I bet
 

cemerson

Registered User
Global warning? There's certainly climate change but latest information shows that the Antarctic ice is bigger than its been for centuries.

However the idea that either electric cars or hybrids are green is a huge myth. They are from cradle to grave the most polluting vehicles
(size for size) on the planet. The batteries are a real problem to deal with and the amount of damage done in obtaining the rare earths used in these cars is a scandal.

So any one with these cars cant feel smug about saving the planet.

And don't get me going about the STOR policy.

There's no doubt that building it costs carbon, as does an oil car, but the batteries are 99% recyclable, and even can be put to other uses after their range degrades (if it does - there's no evidence to suggest this will happen at the moment). It's certainly nonsense to say that they are the most polluting vehicle cradle to grave! Audi actually put a lot of effort into offsetting the carbon they produce anyway, so the manufacture costs less than you think.

And please don't peddle 'global warming conspiracy' nonsense. The weight of scientific evidence behind anthropomorphic global warming is more than enough for any reasonable person to accept it is happening. Denying it these days would be like denying gravity or evolution.

As for the car, I love the idea, from the reviews I've read and the videos I've seen it looks great. I'd be after one myself if I had somewhere to charge it at home - I live in flats with communal parking at the moment, never have the same space twice, and 2nd floor flat means I can't really run a cable out the window either! I would also like a fully electric car rather than just a hybrid - I'm looking at the Tesla Model 3 next if Audi don't do an all-electric A3 by the time I want to change (and have moved somewhere more appropriate for charging!)

Electric motors give you 100% of the max torque from 0rpm all the way up the range and so are pretty fun to drive (I have a Tesla Model S test drive in a couple of weeks, looking forward to it!), perfect for towing, actually pretty fast, and very low maintenance (though obviously being a hybrid at the moment this will be different... I'm guessing it would actually increase maintenance, but at least you make some decent fuel savings).
 

cemerson

Registered User
I'm really hoping Robert Llewellyn will review one on his youtube channel 'Fully Charged' - which is a fantastic channel all about energy usage & future, and particularly about electric cars. He has driven and reviewed rather a lot of electric cars and hybrids, and is a Nissan Leaf owner himself (and owned other EVs before that, so is pretty experienced in their use).
 

Vertigo1

Registered User
As a hybrid I think it's a brilliant concept. It's a full petrol car without any compromise but has a small electric motor and battery pack for short urban trips. Rather than trying to cram in a large electric system with decent range, which costs a fortune, adds lots of weight and takes forever to charge, they've accepted that a standard internal combustion engine is the best bet for longer journeys and that a small electric system with a limited range is ideally suited for short urban journeys where a petrol or diesel engine is at its worst. As 90% of my journeys are short trips of just a few miles, it makes perfect sense for me and would save me a shedload on fuel.

Alas it's not available yet. My next company car has been ordered already but, when I heard the e-tron was being launched this year, I was very interested in it for my next car. Unfortunately it hasn't come soon enough.

The other issues I have with it at present are the cost and the total lack of customisation. I do like speccing my cars up with the options I want and the inability to do so with the e-tron is a major stumbling block.

Still, I love the concept and hope it matures so, in a few years when I'm ordering my next car, it's a viable option for me.
 

cemerson

Registered User
Oh yes, the total lack of available options needs to be sorted before I'll order one too, good point! Not sure why they would do that really.
 

MrLapou

Registered User
Having driven one, it does a fine job. Many economy option settings. Not as fast as figures suggest.
With it being so new, I'd wait a few years for bugs to be ironed out. Even the preproduction car had software bugs.
 

TheFiftheElement

Registered User
I'll be interested in the E-tron for my next car change only if there is a version that is, I suppose, sporty.

Ideally I'd like a car I can use on full electric power for my 2 mile drive to work a couple of times a week (usually walk/run/bike - but I pick my daughter up 2 days a week so need the car) but also has the capability to thrill.

I guess I'd be looking for a P1/918 sort of E-tron, an S3 that will do @50 miles or so on electric, but then would be 300 BHP from the petrol motor + 100 odd from the electric when I have the hoof firmly down :laugh:

I'm sure it won't be too long before that type of car filters down to a hot hatch level :sly:
 

Pulp84

Registered User
I've said it a few times before - the next generation MQB platform A3 / Golf I strongly beileve will add this technology either as standard or at a premium. 6 to 7 years before the next generation is due? That's a VERY long time in the car industry.

In could see an electrically boosted S3 being on the cards. I'm sure that VW already has shown of an electrically boosted "sporty" Golf? Il try and find the link.....
 

Pulp84

Registered User

Tommy Q

Registered User
Its the future. I fully expect my next car to be a petrol/electric hybrid. S3/s4 hybrid would be nice.
 

monkeyhanger

Registered User
Its the future. I fully expect my next car to be a petrol/electric hybrid. S3/s4 hybrid would be nice.

There are plenty of things VAG could be doing right now but are holding back on, maybe to do in the future. Cylinder on demand on the sportier engines they could do pretty much immediately to give us a 50mpg S3. While electricity is reliant on fossil fuels to generate, it isn't all that clean.
 

arad85

Registered User
And please don't peddle 'global warming conspiracy' nonsense. The weight of scientific evidence behind anthropomorphic global warming is more than enough for any reasonable person to accept it is happening. Denying it these days would be like denying gravity or evolution.
There are far too many cracks in theories, unanswered questions, self-interested parties and cover-ups for it to be a foregone conclusion. The level of absolution in statements from those in the scientific communities are backing off year by year and I think will continue to do so as theories are proved wrong year after year.

What is true is climate is changing - but then it always has. To link the disaster scenarios so prominently with CO2 from mankind is at best misguided IMHO. Whilst I think we should do what we can to leave the planet as we entered it, I think there are too many self-interested people (from politicians, through energy companies down to those researching the subject) as well as too much doubt in figures and trends to make it scientific fact.
 

cemerson

Registered User
There are far too many cracks in theories, unanswered questions, self-interested parties and cover-ups for it to be a foregone conclusion. The level of absolution in statements from those in the scientific communities are backing off year by year and I think will continue to do so as theories are proved wrong year after year.

Just total rubbish. Each report from the IPCC concludes that it is happening with more and more certainty each time.

Which theories have cracks? Which questions are unanswered, and why does this matter to the final conclusion (evolution has unanswered questions too you know...), which parties are self interested and what exactly do they have to gain, and what cover ups are you talking about?

Most importantly, exactly what basis or expertise do you have do disagree with the vast majority of scientists working on the issue who DO know what they are talking about? I don't really want to derail the thread, but I stand by my statement - denying anthropomorphic climate change is equivalent to denying evolution these days. The sooner people work out that not everything has to be a conspiracy and that actually, the experts probably know more than they do, the better off humanity will be when we can focus on the problem.
 

cemerson

Registered User
Back on topic - there is a fully electric Golf now, I hope this will make it to the A3 as well.
 

wuta3

Registered User
Back on topic - there is a fully electric Golf now, I hope this will make it to the A3 as well.

Don't interact with people who don't understand what evidence is. I'll be interested in an electric A3 when the power output is bonkers, but you can put it in 80mpg mode ;)
 

arad85

Registered User
Just total rubbish.
Well... that's me told then!

If you don't feel there is enough to be doubtful of with AGW, you really are not looking very far. But it's not my job to point you in the right direction.

As for me, I'll continue to pay my green tax, and continue to use my polluting car whilst I can still afford to. I'll be interested in an electric car when 1) it is performant and practical enough compared to what else is available, 2) charging stations are easy to come by, and 3) is significantly cheaper to run than what I drive now. Does the thought excite me? Not unless it's quicker than the 184...
 

cemerson

Registered User
But it's not my job to point you in the right direction.

If you are going to disagree with the 98% scientific census, it sort of is! Or at least, not the right direction, but 'your' direction. If you are the one making extraordinary claims, then it's incumbent upon you to back that up with evidence, or your opinion is worthless. If you can't back up your opinion with data & peer reviewed studies (multiple & independent), it's not worth the paper (or monitor...) it's written on, simple as that!
 
Last edited:

arad85

Registered User
If you can't back up your opinion with data & peer reviewed studies (multiple & independent), !
They are there - they are just not widely reported by the media. Go and look. :)
 

cemerson

Registered User
They are there - they are just not widely reported by the media. Go and look. :)

No, you point them out to me.

Unbelievable how some people will cling on to their pet theories against the weight of mountains of evidence and support for the opposing side. Just reminds me of this:

"Plot idea: 98% of the world's scientists contrive an environmental crisis, but are exposed by a plucky band of billionaires & oil companies."

Laughable really!

I'm done on this topic now, will contribute more about the e-Tron if I have anything :)
 

leosayer1

Registered User
If the E-tron was available a year ago then I would probably have one now because the majority of our driving is 30 miles a day through suburban London. On paper, it seems to be perfect for that use.

The only things that put me off is the loss of some boot space and the impact of the extra 300kg (!!!) on the ride and handling, if any.
 

arad85

Registered User

h5djr

Registered User
VCDS Map User
Gold Supporter
Personally I'm not sure what I believe in connection with Global Warming. Is it true or is it another way for governments to raise money with "Green taxes etc". If it is true I don't think a change to electric or hybrid cars is going to make very much difference. For a start the electricity used has to be generated somewhere and with the small contribution made by wind farms and, with some other European countries saying they will not be investing in any more because they are so inefficient, that leaves us with fossil fuels or nuclear. We are already being told that we may run out of generating capacity if we continue using electricity at the rate we are at the moment. Also the contribution of cars doing less than 30 miles a day on electric power compared with lorries, coaches, ships and aircraft using vastly more fossil fuel for many more miles will not be very much. I don't think we are anywhere near an electric powered jumbo jet at this stage which much use a lot more fossil fuel in one trip across the Atlantic than many hundreds, if not thousands of car journeys.

I suppose with the current way of taxing cars and the current company car tax system the A3 e-tron may make financial sense to some drivers who do just a short journey to and from work each day, as long as the government continue to spend other tax payers money subsidising them but I'm quite sure that will not last if they become at all popular.

Personally as I'm now retired, and all my driving is purely for pleasure and enjoyment, I would much rather be driving a 184 quattro than an e-tron.
 

cemerson

Registered User
Sorry, but other people's views are not equal when they fly in the face of evidence and scientific consensus. It's nonsense to suggest that. It's like saying we have to respect the views of people who claim that 1 + 1 = 3. No I don't!
 

arad85

Registered User
Sorry, but other people's views are not equal when they fly in the face of evidence and scientific consensus.
No need to be sorry, but you do seemingly have a lot to learn...

People once thought the Earth was flat, the Sun orbited the Earth and that Phlogiston was the 5th "element" that had to be present in an object for it to burn (no... really... look it up - yourself this time ;)). Time, understanding and a better theories helped disprove all of those.

Just because we have instruments capable of the greatest precision and computers capable of billions of calculations a second doesn't mean we are even close to understanding how our climate works. We can't even predict 5 days ahead, let alone 5 months or even 5 years - the system is completely chaotic and unmodellable beyond thracking this weeks' low pressure system. Despite man's need to fit theories to data (or is it the other way around....), there are just too many variables for it to be undeniable fact that AGW is going to ruin the planet. If you think otherwise, you have been suckered and lost all ability to reason and question what is going on based on ALL the data around you.

As far as I can see, the weather we are having now may be more extreme than we have had within living memory, but it is not outside the bounds of that we know about over the last few hundred, let alone the few thousand before that (there were glaciers down to Bristol 10000 years ago and the Sahara was fertile around 6000-10000 years ago). What we have to understand is that the climate is changing, simply because it does. Mankind needs to adapt, not try and stop it like Canute on the sea shore.

Now if you really want something to tackle that will cause problems in the next 50 or so years - try global population explosion. Generally pushed under the carpet as the only real way to do something about it is draconian edicts that you can only have one child. And that just doesn't elect those in power, so simply is not on the agenda. Unfortunately, no amount of green tax/electric cars/wind farms is going to solve that problem, but it is coming.....
 

0B1001001

Registered User
No need to be sorry, but you do seemingly have a lot to learn...

People once thought the Earth was flat, the Sun orbited the Earth and that Phlogiston was the 5th "element" that had to be present in an object for it to burn (no... really... look it up - yourself this time ;)). Time, understanding and a better theories helped disprove all of those.

Just because we have instruments capable of the greatest precision and computers capable of billions of calculations a second doesn't mean we are even close to understanding how our climate works. We can't even predict 5 days ahead, let alone 5 months or even 5 years - the system is completely chaotic and unmodellable beyond thracking this weeks' low pressure system. Despite man's need to fit theories to data (or is it the other way around....), there are just too many variables for it to be undeniable fact that AGW is going to ruin the planet. If you think otherwise, you have been suckered and lost all ability to reason and question what is going on based on ALL the data around you.

As far as I can see, the weather we are having now may be more extreme than we have had within living memory, but it is not outside the bounds of that we know about over the last few hundred, let alone the few thousand before that (there were glaciers down to Bristol 10000 years ago and the Sahara was fertile around 6000-10000 years ago). What we have to understand is that the climate is changing, simply because it does. Mankind needs to adapt, not try and stop it like Canute on the sea shore.

Now if you really want something to tackle that will cause problems in the next 50 or so years - try global population explosion. Generally pushed under the carpet as the only real way to do something about it is draconian edicts that you can only have one child. And that just doesn't elect those in power, so simply is not on the agenda. Unfortunately, no amount of green tax/electric cars/wind farms is going to solve that problem, but it is coming.....

One feels we are slipping off topic here but here's some points:

  1. Don't confuse climate and weather - they are very different
  2. The scientific consensus is that the climate is altering due to mankind's actions. You may not agree but I doubt you're qualified to prove otherwise
  3. Human population is the problem but very few are willing to hear this (let alone do anything about) - Utopia last night, anyone :)

Back on topic, I think this car is looking very interesting and when I come to change the S3, I'm sure something like it will be on the table. Or it'll be a horse, as the world's gone to pot ;)
 

a3_phil

Registered User
Back on topic, I think this car is looking very interesting and when I come to change the S3, I'm sure something like it will be on the table. Or it'll be a horse, as the world's gone to pot ;)

Could be worse, I hear that you do get quattro as standard with a horse and the diff is leaps and bounds ahead of Haldex as it can apply 100% torque to any corner at any time.

Only problem is the ride quality is terrible, especially given how high it rides on standard suspension.
 

arad85

Registered User
Interesting that you feel conversation about one of the main causes of the development of a car such as the e-tron should be deemed as off topic. But...

The scientific consensus is that the climate is altering due to mankind's actions. You may not agree but I doubt you're qualified to prove otherwise
The consensus at the moment may be that it is altering due to mankind, but whether you feel the science is real science is another matter. You only have to look at how the theories have subtly changed over the years - 20 or so years ago, when global warming was first suggested, significant parts of the low lying land would be under water by now. Hasn't happened and the theories have changed to predict a different and less alarmist view. IMHO, that trend is going to continue.

Science only becomes fact when predicted data match observation. For example, the discovery of something like the Higgs-Boson particle @ CERN turned a theory into fact (and that needed a 6 sigma certainty before they claimed it as fact which is way beyond the 1.something sigma 95% "proof" the IPCC are now claiming). Whether those who think AGW is real are ultimately right or not, there is a debate to be had because nothing has been proven. Saying otherwise is akin to religious zealotism (and, yes, I'm looking at you cemerson :)).

As to the question you posed - no, I am not directly qualified (although I am a scientist and have to deal with theories and proof on a daily basis) to rebut the (possibly pseudo) science behind AGW theories... but then I suspect no one commenting on this thread has the knowledge or background to comment with any authority either way. But that doesn't stop us. :)
 

cemerson

Registered User
I said I wasn't going to post further... but I changed my mind!

No need to be sorry, but you do seemingly have a lot to learn...

The irony of you telling me I have a lot to learn when it's you who is incapable of interpreting evidence is not lost on me. But anyway...

People once thought the Earth was flat, the Sun orbited the Earth and that Phlogiston was the 5th "element" that had to be present in an object for it to burn (no... really... look it up - yourself this time ;)). Time, understanding and a better theories helped disprove all of those.

I don't need to look this up, I know all this. Do you know what disproved all these theories in the end? The scientific method. So why are you so distrusting of it now? It was a LONG time ago when people thought the Earth was flat anyway...

It's a very common fallacy to think that because scientific thinking has changed in the past, everything we know now is wrong and will be replaced. These things weren't 'wrong' - they were right at the time for what was needed. It's common to think that there were these huge sweeping changes where opinion suddenly flipped one way or the other, but for the most part that's wrong - what happens is that a better model came along and augmented the first one. Phlogiston wasn't "wrong" at the time - it was a perfectly adequate model that describes what happens and could even predict what would happen when you burned something, but as you get into the details, the model breaks down and a better one appears. They weren't opposing ideas. The same thing happened with Netwon's model of gravity - F = (G m1 m2)/r^2 isn't wrong, it works perfectly well to work out the force between 2 objects due to gravity. It just breaks down at certain boundaries, and Einstein's model of gravity works better in these cases. We may find an even more precise model in the future as we measure things in ever more detail, who knows?

The point is that it's a logical fallacy to assume that just because scientific thinking has shifted (slightly) in the past, it's justification for disagreeing with current models and theories - it just isn't. Similar to scientific figures in history having been 'mavericks' and proven right against thinking at the past, people think that because these people existed, they could be one of them and it justifies holding views against the current thinking. Wrong - you need some damned good evidence, AND rebuttals of all the evidence pointing towards the current model!

Just because we have instruments capable of the greatest precision and computers capable of billions of calculations a second doesn't mean we are even close to understanding how our climate works. We can't even predict 5 days ahead, let alone 5 months or even 5 years - the system is completely chaotic and unmodellable beyond thracking this weeks' low pressure system. Despite man's need to fit theories to data (or is it the other way around....), there are just too many variables for it to be undeniable fact that AGW is going to ruin the planet. If you think otherwise, you have been suckered and lost all ability to reason and question what is going on based on ALL the data around you.

As someone above pointed out, you are mixing up weather and climate. A common mistake, but trust me - it's not me who has been 'suckered'! What do you think is more likely - that 97% of scientists are wrong/part of some conspiracy, or whatever nutjob bonkers conspiracy website you have read has made up some pseudo-science countering climate change because it's inconvenient for it to be true?

It's undoubtedly a complex subject, which is why a very small minority of papers do suggest other possibilities (as per the site you have posted). I think you need to understand


  1. How small this list is compared to the mountain of material and papers out there on the subject
  2. How the list of 'rebuttals' they posted is clearly hypocritical given that they claim criticism doesn't mean something is wrong, yet somehow say that you aren't allowed to criticise them because they have a list of rebuttals (seriously?)
  3. How a lot of the papers there actually have not a lot to do with the subject, and some are even about the debate, not about the science itself

I tried to read some of the papers (rather than just acknowledge the existence of a list, why not try reading some actual evidence?) - every one I tried required you to be registered with some journal or website. So, they can pretty much claim what they like about what these papers say and noone can disagree unless they pay or have access in some other way. The very definition of dogma! "Just trust us, these papers say this" - what a waste of time.

As far as I can see, the weather we are having now may be more extreme than we have had within living memory, but it is not outside the bounds of that we know about over the last few hundred, let alone the few thousand before that (there were glaciers down to Bristol 10000 years ago and the Sahara was fertile around 6000-10000 years ago). What we have to understand is that the climate is changing, simply because it does. Mankind needs to adapt, not try and stop it like Canute on the sea shore.

Don't you think the scientists have taken climate variation into account? Yes, the climate varies over time - the point is that it's happening much much faster now than it ever has done before, due to human influences, and it's too fast for the planet or the species on it to cope with. All well and good saying "We'll just adapt" - I don't think you realise the scale of the change that is happening or what is required!

Now if you really want something to tackle that will cause problems in the next 50 or so years - try global population explosion. Generally pushed under the carpet as the only real way to do something about it is draconian edicts that you can only have one child. And that just doesn't elect those in power, so simply is not on the agenda. Unfortunately, no amount of green tax/electric cars/wind farms is going to solve that problem, but it is coming.....

I won't disagree that this is a problem, but it does seem like you are trying to distract the attention away from the discussion in hand!

I suspect no one commenting on this thread has the knowledge or background to comment with any authority either way. But that doesn't stop us. :)

The difference being that most people are commenting in line with the scientific consensus, you are commenting against it. It's you who needs to back up their claims. If you are going to post against what is current thinking, you had better have a damn good reason. As far as I can tell, all you've managed to do so far is point out that a tiny list of papers exist that may or may not refute climate change. And this is enough for you to base your beliefs on the subject on? You REALLY need to learn how to interpret and disseminate evidence!
 

arad85

Registered User
As I said in one of my first posts, I'm not interested in arguing with you whether AGW exists. I won't change your mind, you won't change mine, and there are enough cracks, cover-ups, interested parties on both sides that there is no right or wrong. My "problem" is that you categorically dismiss views that don't line up with yours, when your views are based on other peoples theories and NOT proved facts. That's just as bad as saying categorically that the climate is not changing (which I am not saying by the way).

I will make one comment though on this:

It's a very common fallacy to think that because scientific thinking has changed in the past, everything we know now is wrong and will be replaced. These things weren't 'wrong' - they were right at the time for what was needed.

Yes, exactly, we agree. They did believe them at the time, but they ultimately weren't right. I sit AGW firmly in this camp. It's what a lot of people believe today, but what actually turns out will be reasonably different. It will take time and will probably only be fully understood long after we are gone. IMHO of course :)
 

a3_phil

Registered User
Yes, exactly, we agree. They did believe them at the time, but they ultimately weren't right. I sit AGW firmly in this camp. It's what a lot of people believe today, but what actually turns out will be reasonably different. It will take time and will probably only be fully understood long after we are gone. IMHO of course :)

I think you're missing the point here. It's not about 'right' or 'wrong' it's about fitting the theory to the observations and using the theory to make predictions about the future. Right and wrong don't even come into it.

Newton's laws of motion and gravity were (and indeed still are) sufficient to make accurate predictions about the motion of objects at relatively low speeds and masses. If I want to know how objects will move on the earth's surface these rules are entirely applicable and will give useful results. If you stand there and say 'Ah, but relativity proves that Newton was wrong' then you're being the worst kind of pedant.

Sure, in the future we'll refine the climate models and have longer reaching projections with higher confidence and more fine-grained predictions. I very much doubt that we'll reverse our position on whether:

a) AGW is real (hint, it is)
or
b) whether AGW is pushing the climate into a state where the current population will be untenable

Claiming that we should ignore the predictions of the current models because we will have more accurate ones in the future is a nonsense.

PS We only ever have theories in the physical sciences, nothing is ever 'fact' but that doesn't detract from the usefulness of a theory and the word theory means something very different in the sciences when compared to its more colloquial use.
 

cemerson

Registered User
My "problem" is that you categorically dismiss views that don't line up with yours

I'm not dismissing them, I'm just saying they hold no weight without evidence.

when your views are based on other peoples theories and NOT proved facts

I've never claimed they were proved facts... just extremely likely predictions and outcomes based on years of observations and study. That's what science is!

I will make one comment though on this:

Yes, exactly, we agree. They did believe them at the time, but they ultimately weren't right.

I don't think we do agree. They WERE "right". A model of the world can't be right or wrong, it is always right for the things which it models, and wrong for things that lie outside certain boundaries. The models we have in science today aren't "right" or "wrong", they are just useful for what we are using them for to predict the behaviour on the scales and precisions we are capable of today. That doesn't mean that won't change in the future.

A model doesn't try and exactly copy a phenomenon, it just captures the bits of it that are important for the observations you want to make. This is why it's a model, and not the actual object in question.

For Phlogiston, what they wanted was a model to explain why things burned, and why they stopped burning after a while, and even to predict how long something might burn - and Phlogiston was a perfectly good model for this. It's only when we delve into more details and ask more questions that the model becomes inaccurate and a new one is required to explain the new findings. It may be that we find some detail about the way things burn that our current model doesn't cover in the future, and we'll need a new model. That doesn't make our current understanding "wrong", it just makes in inadequate at the scales and precisions we may use in the future. The same applies to Phlogiston.

I sit AGW firmly in this camp. It's what a lot of people believe today, but what actually turns out will be reasonably different. It will take time and will probably only be fully understood long after we are gone. IMHO of course :)

Only the effects are observable today, right now, and are happening, the IPCC reports show that it's happening, and the models show that it's going to get worse. It is understood. It's you who won't accept this because it won't line up with your pet theory (or more likely someone else's pet theory that you read on some website) that flies against the weight of evidence and thinking.

I really do wonder what goes in in the mind of someone who holds a view that is counter to the vast majority of evidence. Why do you think 97/98% of science disagrees with you? Do you think they are ALL in on the conspiracy or something? What on earth will it take to get you to change your mind? Evidence doesn't seem to be doing it, so what do you want?!

What do you think is more likely - that 97% of scientists are in on some kind of conspiracy for no motive at all (seriously, what is their motive for making it up if you say it's all wrong?), or that oil companies and the like, whose profits will be affected by the changes that are needed to combat climate change, have successfully convinced the 2% of scientists and a lot of the general public that it isn't happening so that they can continue to make money out of them all? I literally do not understand how you come to the conclusions you have!
 

cemerson

Registered User
Ha, a3_phil posted a perfect copy of what I wanted to say with my post while I was typing it!
 

a3_phil

Registered User

arad85

Registered User
Simply put, I just don't see the theories that people put forward as actually being borne out based on the last 10 or so years of measurements. The result is that the predictions are changing (when was the last time Mann's hockey stick graph was paraded as the future) and as they do, so does the certainty of AGW.

I used to be a believer, but as time goes by and more scandals, cover ups and disproofs get presented, and the more the theories get changed, the more sceptical I am of the people involved in climate science.
 

coddy85

Registered User
I am always sceptical of the scientists anyway, they seem to be able to bend the theory to suit what hypothesis they started with.
 
Top