Lots of hot air

[hairy]

I believe a lot of EVs have AWD, which, while probably not as good as FWD, should help on slippery roads.

And cost how much? And the battery will last how long? And can tow my trailer with how many kgs on it?

 

[John Brown]

And cost how much? And the battery will last how long? And can tow my trailer with how many kgs on it?

I was specifically addressing your icy roads/4x4 concern. You obviously have access to the internet, so I politely suggest you can look up the answers to your other questions yourself.

 

[Spectric]

On the subject of meat and flesh eaters, yes it is not good for the planet but at the same time why be so wastefull with the comodity. Cannot apply to all these types of adverts but in the case of donkeys you can, we all see the adverts to adopt this or that but with donkeys why don't they just put them in the food chain and feed the nations suffering food poverty rather than people in the west adopting one, meat is meat so don't waste.

 

[John Brown]

On the subject of meat and flesh eaters, yes it is not good for the planet but at the same time why be so wastefull with the comodity. Cannot apply to all these types of adverts but in the case of donkeys you can, we all see the adverts to adopt this or that but with donkeys why don't they just put them in the food chain and feed the nations suffering food poverty rather than people in the west adopting one, meat is meat so don't waste.

Why stop at donkeys? There are almost a million pet birds(budgies etc.) in the UK, way more than there are rescued donkeys. We could train them to fly to the hungry nations and save money on shipping.

 

[Spectric]

Whilst having a sort out through a pile of stuff that we have just ignored for too long I came across some interesting books, one pile are a load of books covering ferromagnetics and switch mode power supplies from the days I was involved in their design which need to go and the other was a copy of Al Gores an inconvenient truth which I had forgotten I even had. It dates from 2006, thats fifteen years ago and back then the USA was the top polluter at 30% but now it is China which produces more than the rest of the worlds developed nations combined.

It covers the destruction of the Amazon for logging and farming, the consequences of sea level rises, the issues with the perma frost, flooding and so many more topics we are still talking about but are still not addressing, so how bad in another fifteen years and how many still think we will all come together and actually do something?

 

[Spectric]

Why stop at donkeys?

Donkeys are in the same line as horses, cows and sheep so if they all get eaten then why not donkeys!

 

[Rorschach]

Donkeys are in the same line as horses, cows and sheep so if they all get eaten then why not donkeys!

They do, just not here.

 

[John Brown]

Donkeys are in the same line as horses, cows and sheep so if they all get eaten then why not donkeys!

Budgerigars are in the same line as chickens, turkeys, ducks etc.
I'm not arguing with donkeys, just proposing budgies. Even hungry people need a bit of variety in their diet.

 

[TominDales]

I moved to a quiet little corner where I could actually afford a couple of acres to grow my own food and firewood which, with some with more land nearby who have sheep and cows, we could actually do. Especially as many of those still cut peat.
The road to me was gritted three times the winter before last, once last year, 4x4 needed. The cheapest EV will not get me to the food shops and back in winter. Shoe shop, goodness me no.
I may be a bit further away from things than most but land cost pushed me here.
The green lobby will still say in the near future I must buy an EV and increase my electric bill with adding a heat pump. A neighbour was just given a heat pump by the govt, maybe we can get that too even if we don't want it or need it.

It seems that the only way for the human population to be supported in the future is for everyone to live so closely together that transport is only by foot. Food is bought to you "grown" whereever and however is cheapest. When I was a kid I read Judge Dredd, Megacity 1 where real meat was illegal.

I don't see it so starkly. We don't need to treat everyone with one draconian solution.

The vast majority of the car owning population live in cities where EVs make sense and soon will be the most cost effective form of travel. For those like you and others who live remotely other solutions are acceptable such as keeping ICE for a while. Eventually affordable long range low emissions vehicles will become available, maybe hydrogen or a solid state battery.
The fastest way to reduce CO2 is to EV the cities where the effect will be great and the cost lowest. Sweeping up the rest of transport can come later.

The Scottish government has a track record of subsidising travel to remote places such as the islands, so they may come up with a scheme.
I agree with your eelier comment that the best thing for us all to do is conserve resources sensibly. The only way to get climate change addressed is for sensible policies that the public can adopt quickly. Extreme measures proposed by the green lobby will get ignored. I suspect they put them forward to try to get the issue front of mind - but nevertheless cause unnecessary angst and probably give the anti-politicians scope to sound reasonable.
I've been surprised at the cost of heat pumps and at that rate they will need to be subsidised or they will remain out of reach for ordinary people.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

I struggle to think of an instance when the world has come together to jointly solve an international crisis. Climate change is no different. The following is a generalisation, but no less relevant for that.

The most recent example is covid - genuinely global with the capacity to affect every nation (and person) on the planet. Countries initially responded individually - lockdowns (Europe), denial (US, Brazil), shut borders completely (Oz, NZ), autocratic crisis management (China).

Then a vaccine is developed. Developed wealthy countries get the first supplies. Poorer nations are left to struggle - definitely second class citizens in the vaccine race.

In the context of climate change it is naive to assume that the community of nations will somehow see and act upon the mutual benefit of responding collectively and constructively.

Richer nations who consume more can afford to adapt and understand the benefits of so doing. Poorer nations cannot afford to adapt, fortunately they create low levels of greenhouse gas.

Wealthier nations will have tensions over how costs of adaptation and transition are funded. It will no doubt follow the approach taken for other societal stresses from a genuine "we are all in this together" through to "it's up to everyone to make their own arrangements".

Assuming climate change response will herald a new age of collaborative endeavour to solve a global problem is IMHO sadly misplaced. Whilst supporting cooperative efforts, we should prepare our own response if/when this proves ineffectual.

 

[TominDales]

Nothing to do with the fact that if you come out against man made climate change or even just the severity of the effects then your funding will be cut and you will be ridiculed by the establishment? Course not.

That is simply not the case.
As Chaoticbob said earlier, science loves scientist who prove anomalies. If a scientist came up with persuasive evidence against climate change they would be lauded, especially if that gave the oil industry and governments a cheap way out from climate change. I've tried as has my company.
I've worked for the chemical industry for 35 years and we have spent billions in this area, researching ways to make cheap hydrogen and ameliorate climate change. Climate change has been known for over 100 years. Shell published serous articles about it in the 1960s. So far nothing has emerged to questions the central IPCC model. If someone came up with a way out they would get the nobel prize.

The so called scientist that get defunded are those that through poor science or unscrupulous means are getting there institutions a bad press by publicising poor work. Every case I've examined the guys were peddling untruths or were self deluded. Science is quite conservative it tends to fund those with a reputation and it questions anomalous work, but that is its virtue as its these mechanisms that filter out rubbish. That does not mean that contrary work, based on good evidence wont get through, but it gets tested on its way through. And its the way to make your career in science. Unfortunalty there are people tempted by the fame to take short cuts and publish rubbish.

 

[Spectric]

Since when has a budgerigar been classed as poultry, not much meat either so I suppose it would be a healthy option.

 

[TominDales]

If you go looking there are a number of scientists coming out to say there is minimal real research today because free thinking doesn't get funding. Industry will offer research into a tiny fraction of a tiny thing they are interested in, your interest and motives can't come into it. Some elder statesmen have wondered why, regarding covid in the instance I was most recently reading about, their pupils who know they know better still toe the official line despite it being nonsense. The head of the US tree in this respect supposedly has a very wide control on what gets paid for, therefore actually done and therefore said. If your funding, career, home, pension, community standing all depend on the source of that funding you will not be putting your head above the parapet if you disagree.

Any science saying we must literally throw away all our bad (in their opinion, other opinions are available) stuff and buy all new, equally dense with the earths precious resources, Things, is not believeable or sensible. This is true, I am awake.

If a fact isn't trustworthy then is it science?

That really is not my experience.
There has never been more funded science than today. Just look at the blistering pace of understanding about fundamental issue of space, dark matter, origin of the universe, observation of gravitons, understanding of the basis of genetic disease as well as infectious ones, Earth science etc. virtually every scientific field is expanding exponentially.
In the UK most academic science is still funded to the Haldane principle - that is scientists decide on what to research, this is a fundamental safeguard against politically driven science and is protected by the powerful science community in the UK. Only a fraction of work is directed at industrial or societal problems, almost to a fault as other countries are more focussed on translating research into innovation/commercialisation.

All the science led companies I've worked for have encouraged their researchers to think bold, big and ambitious, even though there is a financial imperative to find incremental solutions, most breakthroughs have come from thinking outside the box. however science is expensive and the UK faces completion from emerging economies, China, Korea, etc so makes relatively less headway than in the past. But that underestimates the global advances.

There are lots of cases of anomalous science that defied its community becoming mainstream quickly. A new eye receptor, revolutionary medicines, the ozone hole etc. Just look how things have progressed with these examples.

500 years ago Galileo was made to recant the Copernican system by the inquisition. It took 30 or more years before his theories became accepted.
Only 150 years ago Ignaz Semmelweis was drummed into an asylum, and beaten into an early death by the medical procession having proved that hand washing prevented infection and child bed fervour, he challenged the accepted norm that gentlemen doctors could have dirty hands.
However when Einstein published work in 1915 contradicting Newtons theory of gravity, it was British scientists, Arthur Eddington and Frank Dyson who despite WW1 went on an expedition in 1919 to get the data that proved a German scientists general theory was correct.

Moderns science has learnt from the past dogmatism about experiential science and the example of Semmelweis is taught in university courses.
(later Sir) James Black was supported by ICI to experiment on what was considered the absolutely wrong thing to do for people with heart disease (slow the heart down), and he got the Nobel prize for discovering b blockers.
Similarly Sanko and Merck had to tread carefully using good evidence for statins because of a raging cholesterol controversy stoked by a UK scientist with a famous reputation pushing his outdated theories, but good clinical evidence prevailed within 3 to 5 years and clinical data they quickly licenced by the FDA.

Marshal and Warren's discovery in 1982 that Hpylori caused stomach cancer was disputed because the accepted view was that bacteria were killed in the acid stomach. They were proposing a heretical view of medicine against 75 years of studies that could not find bacterial in the stomach. Within 5 years an international group was formed to specifically study this new field and Nobel prizes followed in due course.

Russel Foster proposed a new light sensitive cell in the eye in the mid 1990s contradicting 150 years of accepted understanding of vision, furthermore he wasn't an eye specialist but a circadian neuroscientist. He was openly laughed at by some of the ophthalmic community when he first presented his results. But his evidence was tested and a whole new areas of eye science emerged quickly.
When good evidence is presented even to sceptical scientists, it gets evaluated and adopted. The problem with anti climate science is that it has not stood up to rigorous examination. This past examples show the tide turns after about 2 years and within 5 years old theories are universally discarded/updated. I have no doubt he same would happen with climate change as we would wish it away if we could.

 

[Selwyn]

On the subject of meat and flesh eaters, yes it is not good for the planet but at the same time why be so wastefull with the comodity. Cannot apply to all these types of adverts but in the case of donkeys you can, we all see the adverts to adopt this or that but with donkeys why don't they just put them in the food chain and feed the nations suffering food poverty rather than people in the west adopting one, meat is meat so don't waste.

What are we going to do with peoples pet dogs? Shoot them? After all they are a waste of planetary resources are are horses

 

[Jacob]

What are we going to do with peoples pet dogs? Shoot them? After all they are a waste of planetary resources are are horses

No they'll go feral and be good for clearing corpses from the streets.

 

[Spectric]

I think people will accept donkey and horse but dog will take some convincing, but on the other hand I bet many people have already eaten dog without realising it, lots in chinese takeaways. Actually some countries have a problem with lots of stray dogs, so another source of food for countries with food poverty.

 

[Rorschach]

I'll try anything once. I am told the meat of carnivores though isn't generally pleasant to eat and has to be cooked carefully as it is prone to parasites. Eaten plenty of wild animals here and some eat badger and fox, hedgehog etc, not had those personally.

 

[John Brown]

No

That really is not my experience.
There has never been more funded science than today. Just look at the blistering pace of understanding about fundamental issue of space, dark matter, origin of the universe, observation of gravitons, understanding of the basis of genetic disease as well as infectious ones, Earth science etc. virtually every scientific field is expanding exponentially.
In the UK most academic science is still funded to the Haldane principle - that is scientists decide on what to research, this is a fundamental safeguard against politically driven science and is protected by the powerful science community in the UK. Only a fraction of work is directed at industrial or societal problems, almost to a fault as other countries are more focussed on translating research into innovation/commercialisation.

All the science led companies I've worked for have encouraged their researchers to think bold, big and ambitious, even though there is a financial imperative to find incremental solutions, most breakthroughs have come from thinking outside the box. however science is expensive and the UK faces completion from emerging economies, China, Korea, etc so makes relatively less headway than in the past. But that underestimates the global advances.

There are lots of cases of anomalous science that defied its community becoming mainstream quickly. A new eye receptor, revolutionary medicines, the ozone hole etc. Just look how things have progressed with these examples.

500 years ago Galileo was made to recant the Copernican system by the inquisition. It took 30 or more years before his theories became accepted.
Only 150 years ago Ignaz Semmelweis was drummed into an asylum, and beaten into an early death by the medical procession having proved that hand washing prevented infection and child bed fervour, he challenged the accepted norm that gentlemen doctors could have dirty hands.
However when Einstein published work in 1915 contradicting Newtons theory of gravity, it was British scientists, Arthur Eddington and Frank Dyson who despite WW1 went on an expedition in 1919 to get the data that proved a German scientists general theory was correct.

Moderns science has learnt from the past dogmatism about experiential science and the example of Semmelweis is taught in university courses.
(later Sir) James Black was supported by ICI to experiment on what was considered the absolutely wrong thing to do for people with heart disease (slow the heart down), and he got the Nobel prize for discovering b blockers.
Similarly Sanko and Merck had to tread carefully using good evidence for statins because of a raging cholesterol controversy stoked by a UK scientist with a famous reputation pushing his outdated theories, but good clinical evidence prevailed within 3 to 5 years and clinical data they quickly licenced by the FDA.

Marshal and Warren's discovery in 1982 that Hpylori caused stomach cancer was disputed because the accepted view was that bacteria were killed in the acid stomach. They were proposing a heretical view of medicine against 75 years of studies that could not find bacterial in the stomach. Within 5 years an international group was formed to specifically study this new field and Nobel prizes followed in due course.

Russel Foster proposed a new light sensitive cell in the eye in the mid 1990s contradicting 150 years of accepted understanding of vision, furthermore he wasn't an eye specialist but a circadian neuroscientist. He was openly laughed at by some of the ophthalmic community when he first presented his results. But his evidence was tested and a whole new areas of eye science emerged quickly.
When good evidence is presented even to sceptical scientists, it gets evaluated and adopted. The problem with anti climate science is that it has not stood up to rigorous examination. This past examples show the tide turns after about 2 years and within 5 years old theories are universally discarded/updated. I have no doubt he same would happen with climate change as we would wish it away if we could.

Thanks, Tom, for your usual calm and rational post. Unfortunately, it won't make any difference to the sceptics, or the eff you Jack, I'm all right crowd.

Must rush - .I've got a donkey and parrot casserole in the oven, and I can smell burning fur and feathers.

 

[Chris152]

That really is not my experience.
There has never been more funded science than today. Just look at the blistering pace of understanding about fundamental issue of space, dark matter, origin of the universe, observation of gravitons, understanding of the basis of genetic disease as well as infectious ones, Earth science etc. virtually every scientific field is expanding exponentially.
In the UK most academic science is still funded to the Haldane principle - that is scientists decide on what to research, this is a fundamental safeguard against politically driven science and is protected by the powerful science community in the UK. Only a fraction of work is directed at industrial or societal problems, almost to a fault as other countries are more focussed on translating research into innovation/commercialisation.

All the science led companies I've worked for have encouraged their researchers to think bold, big and ambitious, even though there is a financial imperative to find incremental solutions, most breakthroughs have come from thinking outside the box. however science is expensive and the UK faces completion from emerging economies, China, Korea, etc so makes relatively less headway than in the past. But that underestimates the global advances.

There are lots of cases of anomalous science that defied its community becoming mainstream quickly. A new eye receptor, revolutionary medicines, the ozone hole etc. Just look how things have progressed with these examples.

500 years ago Galileo was made to recant the Copernican system by the inquisition. It took 30 or more years before his theories became accepted.
Only 150 years ago Ignaz Semmelweis was drummed into an asylum, and beaten into an early death by the medical procession having proved that hand washing prevented infection and child bed fervour, he challenged the accepted norm that gentlemen doctors could have dirty hands.
However when Einstein published work in 1915 contradicting Newtons theory of gravity, it was British scientists, Arthur Eddington and Frank Dyson who despite WW1 went on an expedition in 1919 to get the data that proved a German scientists general theory was correct.

Moderns science has learnt from the past dogmatism about experiential science and the example of Semmelweis is taught in university courses.
(later Sir) James Black was supported by ICI to experiment on what was considered the absolutely wrong thing to do for people with heart disease (slow the heart down), and he got the Nobel prize for discovering b blockers.
Similarly Sanko and Merck had to tread carefully using good evidence for statins because of a raging cholesterol controversy stoked by a UK scientist with a famous reputation pushing his outdated theories, but good clinical evidence prevailed within 3 to 5 years and clinical data they quickly licenced by the FDA.

Marshal and Warren's discovery in 1982 that Hpylori caused stomach cancer was disputed because the accepted view was that bacteria were killed in the acid stomach. They were proposing a heretical view of medicine against 75 years of studies that could not find bacterial in the stomach. Within 5 years an international group was formed to specifically study this new field and Nobel prizes followed in due course.

Russel Foster proposed a new light sensitive cell in the eye in the mid 1990s contradicting 150 years of accepted understanding of vision, furthermore he wasn't an eye specialist but a circadian neuroscientist. He was openly laughed at by some of the ophthalmic community when he first presented his results. But his evidence was tested and a whole new areas of eye science emerged quickly.
When good evidence is presented even to sceptical scientists, it gets evaluated and adopted. The problem with anti climate science is that it has not stood up to rigorous examination. This past examples show the tide turns after about 2 years and within 5 years old theories are universally discarded/updated. I have no doubt he same would happen with climate change as we would wish it away if we could.

Your problem here, Tom, is that you seem to know what you're talking about; that counts for little on the interweb, where many are prepared to ignore knowledge if it doesn't fit their uninformed opinions/ desires/ wishes. To learn, there has to be the will to learn. Definitely admire your perseverance, though.

 

[RobinBHM]

I struggle to think of an instance when the world has come together to jointly solve an international crisis

covid: scientists have shared information and collaborated globally.

healthcare professionals have shared knowledge of treating Covid patients.


but we live in a world of capitalism and vested self interest….so collaboration naturally gives way to greed, political greed or monetary. It is also the reason there’s zero chance of any global reset spouted by conspiracists.