FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Electric cars...
Electric cars...
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
Id imagine either a bump in car tax or just a bit more in another tax in theory we're all saving money and so can afford a bit more income tax say. | |||
"So, in the not too distant future, when our houses have super efficient solar panels on their roofs, charging the batteries that will in turn charge our E cars when we return from work. How will the government recoup the loss on fuel tax cash? " Vehicle excise duty on electric and all hybrid vehicles, most motorways now have the infrastructure to auto-toll, with money being taken directly from your bank account, additional duties on electricity and other utilities, taxing service station charging points, battery renewal and disposal tax...and probably a dozen other 'clever' ways of raising revenue. | |||
"So, in the not too distant future, when our houses have super efficient solar panels on their roofs, " What about all those in flats that don't have drives and roofs? "most motorways now have the infrastructure to auto-toll, with money being taken directly from your bank account" All those roadworks to 'upgrade to smart motorway' aren't just to tell you it's 10 minutes to the next junction that's for sure | |||
"So, in the not too distant future, when our houses have super efficient solar panels on their roofs, charging the batteries that will in turn charge our E cars when we return from work. How will the government recoup the loss on fuel tax cash? Vehicle excise duty on electric and all hybrid vehicles, most motorways now have the infrastructure to auto-toll, with money being taken directly from your bank account, additional duties on electricity and other utilities, taxing service station charging points, battery renewal and disposal tax...and probably a dozen other 'clever' ways of raising revenue." The real problem with electric cars is going to be the disposal of the batteries. Another potential environmental catastrophe in the making. This could be worse than the rush to diesel in the 00s. | |||
"So, in the not too distant future, when our houses have super efficient solar panels on their roofs, charging the batteries that will in turn charge our E cars when we return from work. How will the government recoup the loss on fuel tax cash? Vehicle excise duty on electric and all hybrid vehicles, most motorways now have the infrastructure to auto-toll, with money being taken directly from your bank account, additional duties on electricity and other utilities, taxing service station charging points, battery renewal and disposal tax...and probably a dozen other 'clever' ways of raising revenue. The real problem with electric cars is going to be the disposal of the batteries. Another potential environmental catastrophe in the making. This could be worse than the rush to diesel in the 00s. " Not to mention the trawling of the sea bed in the first place to get the material needed to make the batteries .. | |||
 | |||
"So, in the not too distant future, when our houses have super efficient solar panels on their roofs, What about all those in flats that don't have drives and roofs? most motorways now have the infrastructure to auto-toll, with money being taken directly from your bank account All those roadworks to 'upgrade to smart motorway' aren't just to tell you it's 10 minutes to the next junction that's for sure" But we were assured by the government of the day that the 'purple pipes' and data cabling was not big enough to ever be used for road tolling..... | |||
"So, in the not too distant future, when our houses have super efficient solar panels on their roofs, charging the batteries that will in turn charge our E cars when we return from work. How will the government recoup the loss on fuel tax cash? Vehicle excise duty on electric and all hybrid vehicles, most motorways now have the infrastructure to auto-toll, with money being taken directly from your bank account, additional duties on electricity and other utilities, taxing service station charging points, battery renewal and disposal tax...and probably a dozen other 'clever' ways of raising revenue. The real problem with electric cars is going to be the disposal of the batteries. Another potential environmental catastrophe in the making. This could be worse than the rush to diesel in the 00s. " Yep, extortionate battery disposal tax, which will lead to more flytipping... | |||
| |||
But I would buy a micra over a leaf any day. At least you don't have to wait several hours to fill the tank | |||
"So, in the not too distant future, when our houses have super efficient solar panels on their roofs, charging the batteries that will in turn charge our E cars when we return from work. How will the government recoup the loss on fuel tax cash? Vehicle excise duty on electric and all hybrid vehicles, most motorways now have the infrastructure to auto-toll, with money being taken directly from your bank account, additional duties on electricity and other utilities, taxing service station charging points, battery renewal and disposal tax...and probably a dozen other 'clever' ways of raising revenue. The real problem with electric cars is going to be the disposal of the batteries. Another potential environmental catastrophe in the making. This could be worse than the rush to diesel in the 00s. Yep, extortionate battery disposal tax, which will lead to more flytipping..." Surely battery removal on a modern E car can't be that simple can it? | |||
| |||
 | |||
| |||
| |||
"So, in the not too distant future, when our houses have super efficient solar panels on their roofs, charging the batteries that will in turn charge our E cars when we return from work. How will the government recoup the loss on fuel tax cash? " The government could actually start to collect Corporation tax from multinationals. Current Tory plan to cut all taxes on everything though. | |||
| |||
"Again and again. Can't be done. The old technology spewing toxins into our faces is perfectly fine. Pumping crap out of the ground and transporting it across the planet is perfectly sensible. There will never be new technology. Batteries will never develop. You cannot store daytime solar energy or wind or wave power. There will never be developments in nuclear power generation. Hydrogen fuel cells do not exist and aren't being developed for any purpose. Technology development has ended for all history. Why? Because you don't want to change." No I'm just being realistic. Our way of life is supported by consuming the earth's resources. Most of which are being polluted, eroded, exhausted and depleted. If you choose to believe what you are being told is the answer.... ie buy more products from the above resources and then buy a solar panel on your roof and that will solve, attempt, alleviate the basic problem in any way, you are very easily led, who will believe almost anything you are told by people who want to sell you stuff. Lol. Africa, India, China are growing at 6% per year. By 2030 Africa, India, and China will be consuming twice the resources they do today. With present and predicted population levels, the world/life is totally fucked.  | |||
"There is much in this thread that reminds me of the ‘Great Horse Manure Crisis of 1894’. It was predicted in 1894 that within 50 years London and new York would be buried under 9ft of horse shit. However, necessity is the mother of invention, and the invention in this case was that of motor transport. Problem solved and the horse shit apocalypse was averted... "And this is the problem in a nutshell. When only a few 100 of thousands of people are doing something it's not a problem and any negatives can be managed. If millions of people are doing something it doesn't really matter how small the individual negatives are the total accumulation of those negatives is a massive problem. And so it will be for electronic cars. I can see a good case for encouraging them in large cities even if it only moved the pollution problem from the heavily populated city to less densely populated areas near the power generation source or even just changed the pollution problem from one of air pollution in those cities to one of disposal pollution else where. But could not electric cars be creating more problems than they solve in smaller towns and rural communities, and long distance haulage? Would we not be better looking at a bit of a mix of all the possible solutions. We don't have to necessarily go for a completely zero carbon solution, after all we have been burning and producing CO2 since before the stone age with little effect on the environment up to the last 150 years. And this is before we even touch on the ozone emissions problem that all electrical appliances have. We have to stop dashing at what looks like simple solutions to the environment problem and start really thinking about any proposed solutions and what negative impacts, some of which could actually be worse than what we currently face, before rushing off blindly in a new direction. | |||
"There is much in this thread that reminds me of the ‘Great Horse Manure Crisis of 1894’. It was predicted in 1894 that within 50 years London and new York would be buried under 9ft of horse shit. However, necessity is the mother of invention, and the invention in this case was that of motor transport. Problem solved and the horse shit apocalypse was averted... "Its now called the great bullshit crisis bob. | |||
"Again and again. Can't be done. The old technology spewing toxins into our faces is perfectly fine. Pumping crap out of the ground and transporting it across the planet is perfectly sensible. There will never be new technology. Batteries will never develop. You cannot store daytime solar energy or wind or wave power. There will never be developments in nuclear power generation. Hydrogen fuel cells do not exist and aren't being developed for any purpose. Technology development has ended for all history. Why? Because you don't want to change. No I'm just being realistic. Our way of life is supported by consuming the earth's resources. Most of which are being polluted, eroded, exhausted and depleted. If you choose to believe what you are being told is the answer.... ie buy more products from the above resources and then buy a solar panel on your roof and that will solve, attempt, alleviate the basic problem in any way, you are very easily led, who will believe almost anything you are told by people who want to sell you stuff. Lol. Africa, India, China are growing at 6% per year. By 2030 Africa, India, and China will be consuming twice the resources they do today. With present and predicted population levels, the world/life is totally fucked. "So your realism is that we have to continue consuming the planet's resources in exactly the same way? I hear that phrase a lot: "if you choose to believe". All that means is that you are "choosing not to believe". Of course, that presents a false choice which suits many people. Why? Because you are smarter and better informed than everyone else? Due to what? A secret source of information? Where does this exists? Where are the research papers? What is the analysis? Your solution is excellent though. We are fucked so give up | |||
"There is much in this thread that reminds me of the ‘Great Horse Manure Crisis of 1894’. It was predicted in 1894 that within 50 years London and new York would be buried under 9ft of horse shit. However, necessity is the mother of invention, and the invention in this case was that of motor transport. Problem solved and the horse shit apocalypse was averted...
And this is the problem in a nutshell. When only a few 100 of thousands of people are doing something it's not a problem and any negatives can be managed. If millions of people are doing something it doesn't really matter how small the individual negatives are the total accumulation of those negatives is a massive problem. And so it will be for electronic cars. I can see a good case for encouraging them in large cities even if it only moved the pollution problem from the heavily populated city to less densely populated areas near the power generation source or even just changed the pollution problem from one of air pollution in those cities to one of disposal pollution else where. But could not electric cars be creating more problems than they solve in smaller towns and rural communities, and long distance haulage? Would we not be better looking at a bit of a mix of all the possible solutions. We don't have to necessarily go for a completely zero carbon solution, after all we have been burning and producing CO2 since before the stone age with little effect on the environment up to the last 150 years.
And this is before we even touch on the ozone emissions problem that all electrical appliances have.
We have to stop dashing at what looks like simple solutions to the environment problem and start really thinking about any proposed solutions and what negative impacts, some of which could actually be worse than what we currently face, before rushing off blindly in a new direction.
"Simple solutions? Not even slightly. Everything is required from nuclear power to hydrogen fuel cells. However, continued use of fossil fuels on a large scale is not acceptable. So much is being used globally. It's the accumulation that is a problem and the rate of addition is now incredibly high. The economics mean that as substitutes are found and demand drops the cost per unit ramps up which increases the rate of change. The reluctance to start drives the problem. | |||
"There is much in this thread that reminds me of the ‘Great Horse Manure Crisis of 1894’. It was predicted in 1894 that within 50 years London and new York would be buried under 9ft of horse shit. However, necessity is the mother of invention, and the invention in this case was that of motor transport. Problem solved and the horse shit apocalypse was averted...
And this is the problem in a nutshell. When only a few 100 of thousands of people are doing something it's not a problem and any negatives can be managed. If millions of people are doing something it doesn't really matter how small the individual negatives are the total accumulation of those negatives is a massive problem. And so it will be for electronic cars. I can see a good case for encouraging them in large cities even if it only moved the pollution problem from the heavily populated city to less densely populated areas near the power generation source or even just changed the pollution problem from one of air pollution in those cities to one of disposal pollution else where. But could not electric cars be creating more problems than they solve in smaller towns and rural communities, and long distance haulage? Would we not be better looking at a bit of a mix of all the possible solutions. We don't have to necessarily go for a completely zero carbon solution, after all we have been burning and producing CO2 since before the stone age with little effect on the environment up to the last 150 years.
And this is before we even touch on the ozone emissions problem that all electrical appliances have.
We have to stop dashing at what looks like simple solutions to the environment problem and start really thinking about any proposed solutions and what negative impacts, some of which could actually be worse than what we currently face, before rushing off blindly in a new direction.
Simple solutions?
Not even slightly.
Everything is required from nuclear power to hydrogen fuel cells.
However, continued use of fossil fuels on a large scale is not acceptable. So much is being used globally. It's the accumulation that is a problem and the rate of addition is now incredibly high.
The economics mean that as substitutes are found and demand drops the cost per unit ramps up which increases the rate of change.
The reluctance to start drives the problem."yeah bit like brexit. | |||
| |||
"There is much in this thread that reminds me of the ‘Great Horse Manure Crisis of 1894’. It was predicted in 1894 that within 50 years London and new York would be buried under 9ft of horse shit. However, necessity is the mother of invention, and the invention in this case was that of motor transport. Problem solved and the horse shit apocalypse was averted...
And this is the problem in a nutshell. When only a few 100 of thousands of people are doing something it's not a problem and any negatives can be managed. If millions of people are doing something it doesn't really matter how small the individual negatives are the total accumulation of those negatives is a massive problem. And so it will be for electronic cars. I can see a good case for encouraging them in large cities even if it only moved the pollution problem from the heavily populated city to less densely populated areas near the power generation source or even just changed the pollution problem from one of air pollution in those cities to one of disposal pollution else where. But could not electric cars be creating more problems than they solve in smaller towns and rural communities, and long distance haulage? Would we not be better looking at a bit of a mix of all the possible solutions. We don't have to necessarily go for a completely zero carbon solution, after all we have been burning and producing CO2 since before the stone age with little effect on the environment up to the last 150 years.
And this is before we even touch on the ozone emissions problem that all electrical appliances have.
We have to stop dashing at what looks like simple solutions to the environment problem and start really thinking about any proposed solutions and what negative impacts, some of which could actually be worse than what we currently face, before rushing off blindly in a new direction.
Simple solutions?
Not even slightly.
Everything is required from nuclear power to hydrogen fuel cells.
However, continued use of fossil fuels on a large scale is not acceptable. So much is being used globally. It's the accumulation that is a problem and the rate of addition is now incredibly high.
The economics mean that as substitutes are found and demand drops the cost per unit ramps up which increases the rate of change.
The reluctance to start drives the problem.yeah bit like brexit."There is a difference between a reluctance to start doing something positive because it is difficult and something negative because it's crap  | |||
"We are one of the cleanest countries in the G20 apparently, so anything we do to make a difference will be dwarfed by other countries output of greenhouse gases and other pollution. The Chinese are talking about opening up a new coal-fired power station every two weeks until 2030.... so go ahead and use paper straws at your local McDonalds! Wind, wave, solar and nuclear are the way forward, but batteries for cars are a terrible idea, the environmental cost of the raw materials is too high, plus they need replacing every 5 years!" Ace. Let's do nothing ever. Let's not take any control over our futures. Let's not lead an industry which could sell to the huge Chinese market which you claim is so awful despite being the biggest driver of green technology. Look back. Always look back. This attitude and then accusing me of negativity | |||
"There is much in this thread that reminds me of the ‘Great Horse Manure Crisis of 1894’. It was predicted in 1894 that within 50 years London and new York would be buried under 9ft of horse shit. However, necessity is the mother of invention, and the invention in this case was that of motor transport. Problem solved and the horse shit apocalypse was averted...
And this is the problem in a nutshell. When only a few 100 of thousands of people are doing something it's not a problem and any negatives can be managed. If millions of people are doing something it doesn't really matter how small the individual negatives are the total accumulation of those negatives is a massive problem. And so it will be for electronic cars. I can see a good case for encouraging them in large cities even if it only moved the pollution problem from the heavily populated city to less densely populated areas near the power generation source or even just changed the pollution problem from one of air pollution in those cities to one of disposal pollution else where. But could not electric cars be creating more problems than they solve in smaller towns and rural communities, and long distance haulage? Would we not be better looking at a bit of a mix of all the possible solutions. We don't have to necessarily go for a completely zero carbon solution, after all we have been burning and producing CO2 since before the stone age with little effect on the environment up to the last 150 years.
And this is before we even touch on the ozone emissions problem that all electrical appliances have.
We have to stop dashing at what looks like simple solutions to the environment problem and start really thinking about any proposed solutions and what negative impacts, some of which could actually be worse than what we currently face, before rushing off blindly in a new direction.
Simple solutions?
Not even slightly.
Everything is required from nuclear power to hydrogen fuel cells.
However, continued use of fossil fuels on a large scale is not acceptable. So much is being used globally. It's the accumulation that is a problem and the rate of addition is now incredibly high.
The economics mean that as substitutes are found and demand drops the cost per unit ramps up which increases the rate of change.
The reluctance to start drives the problem."With the exception of the reluctance to start bit I think the broad thrust of what you're saying here is not too dissimilar to what I was trying to say. | |||
| |||
"We are one of the cleanest countries in the G20 apparently, so anything we do to make a difference will be dwarfed by other countries output of greenhouse gases and other pollution. The Chinese are talking about opening up a new coal-fired power station every two weeks until 2030.... so go ahead and use paper straws at your local McDonalds! Wind, wave, solar and nuclear are the way forward, but batteries for cars are a terrible idea, the environmental cost of the raw materials is too high, plus they need replacing every 5 years! Ace. Let's do nothing ever. Let's not take any control over our futures. Let's not lead an industry which could sell to the huge Chinese market which you claim is so awful despite being the biggest driver of green technology. Look back. Always look back. This attitude and then accusing me of negativity "Well is that not what you are doing with brexit looking back instead of looking forward? glad to see you are taking it onboard and developing a positive attitude. | |||
| |||
"We are one of the cleanest countries in the G20 apparently, so anything we do to make a difference will be dwarfed by other countries output of greenhouse gases and other pollution. The Chinese are talking about opening up a new coal-fired power station every two weeks until 2030.... so go ahead and use paper straws at your local McDonalds! Wind, wave, solar and nuclear are the way forward, but batteries for cars are a terrible idea, the environmental cost of the raw materials is too high, plus they need replacing every 5 years! Ace. Let's do nothing ever. Let's not take any control over our futures. Let's not lead an industry which could sell to the huge Chinese market which you claim is so awful despite being the biggest driver of green technology. Look back. Always look back. This attitude and then accusing me of negativity "No, that's not what I said. I said renewables and nuclear are the answer, get away from fossil fuels. However, nothing we do is any use without the likes of China, India and Africa being dragged along, even if we have to give them free technology in order to help them skip past the "dirty fuel" period of their development. | |||
"The good news this week is that we could help to alleviate incredible volumes of Carbon via planting trees. I think it was something like 10 times the volume of Carbon that could be removed via trees, compared to vehicle fuel type changes. Though it's important to recognise that these buy the earth time, as they delay the still huge potential future increases to atmospheric Carbon and more catastrophic global heating. It's not an either/or, it's about pursuing many achievable changes and there will always be a cost of course, both to achieve them, or to ignore the problem. The world certainly has to end its reliance upon fossil fuels. What a state, such as the UK, has to do in order to rebalance its tax income and expenditure, to still deliver appropriate services to its citizens, whilst moving towards a zero Carbon economy, is partly dependent upon its citizens and our needs. Obviously the status quo, with a fairly slow progress towards this, isn't fast enough, to help to mitigate the ever-nearing of the tipping point, where we currently have about 11 years left, before we will be beyond the position where global heating will be around 1.5°C, leading to even more extreme weather events, fuel/water shortages, populaton displacement, poverty etc. " Reforestation would be the easiest and quickest solution to the climate change problem. | |||
"Actually, I reckon we still need crude oil extraction to make plastics, synthetic rubber etc... So whst do we do with unwanted products when the oil is refined? " I am pretty sure we have enough plastic and rubber hanging around the planet that can be re purposed to keep us going for a while. Not so popular with the industry that wants to keep pumping the shite out. | |||
"We are one of the cleanest countries in the G20 apparently, so anything we do to make a difference will be dwarfed by other countries output of greenhouse gases and other pollution. The Chinese are talking about opening up a new coal-fired power station every two weeks until 2030.... so go ahead and use paper straws at your local McDonalds! Wind, wave, solar and nuclear are the way forward, but batteries for cars are a terrible idea, the environmental cost of the raw materials is too high, plus they need replacing every 5 years! Ace. Let's do nothing ever. Let's not take any control over our futures. Let's not lead an industry which could sell to the huge Chinese market which you claim is so awful despite being the biggest driver of green technology. Look back. Always look back. This attitude and then accusing me of negativity Well is that not what you are doing with brexit looking back instead of looking forward? glad to see you are taking it onboard and developing a positive attitude. "Nope. I'm looking at the existing data and projected data not hoping for the best. Honesty about Brexit is only now. Economic damage and the break-up of the UK all acceptable. It will be great being replaced by it won't be a disaster with it doesn't matter if it is. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Technology is rubbish and can't solve anything. Except Brexit. Got it. " | |||
"Technology is rubbish and can't solve anything. Except Brexit. Got it. ". I'm a huge believer in technology, it can solve every problem you think you can't solve, of course you need a free market and inventives to bring the best out of it. | |||
| |||
| |||
"I have no doubt that in a few decades time we will have mastered nuclear fusion and be using it to generate limitless clean energy. Then we will be looking at all these rusting windmills littering the countryside and wondering whose stupid idea it was to waste our money on them and whose going to pay to clear them up." Rusty windmills..... Sounds like a blues slide guitarist from Chicago | |||
| |||
"I have no doubt that in a few decades time we will have mastered nuclear fusion and be using it to generate limitless clean energy. Then we will be looking at all these rusting windmills littering the countryside and wondering whose stupid idea it was to waste our money on them and whose going to pay to clear them up." We don't have a few decades to wait unfortunately. We need to cut carbon now. | |||
"One thing is for certain, we will be paying through the nose to drive cleaner cars and when they ban all gas boilers and we are forced to use electric ones the cost will go sky high to heat you’re home and water " It's the long term Tory plan to bring back Victorian values. That includes compulsory cold showers for perverts like us! | |||
"So, in the not too distant future, when our houses have super efficient solar panels on their roofs, charging the batteries that will in turn charge our E cars when we return from work. How will the government recoup the loss on fuel tax cash? Vehicle excise duty on electric and all hybrid vehicles, most motorways now have the infrastructure to auto-toll, with money being taken directly from your bank account, additional duties on electricity and other utilities, taxing service station charging points, battery renewal and disposal tax...and probably a dozen other 'clever' ways of raising revenue. The real problem with electric cars is going to be the disposal of the batteries. Another potential environmental catastrophe in the making. This could be worse than the rush to diesel in the 00s. Yep, extortionate battery disposal tax, which will lead to more flytipping..." Batteries have value as scrap with about 50% of them being valuable recoverable materials... You don't see piles of high value scrap (copper, lead, aluminium, brass, catalytic converters etc etc) fly tipped do you? You won't see it with batteries either, they are more likely to be stolen for their intrinsic value than fly tipped. Like catalytic converters and various other scrap metals... | |||
"I have no doubt that in a few decades time we will have mastered nuclear fusion and be using it to generate limitless clean energy. Then we will be looking at all these rusting windmills littering the countryside and wondering whose stupid idea it was to waste our money on them and whose going to pay to clear them up. We don't have a few decades to wait unfortunately. We need to cut carbon now. " If you think back over the last thirty years of global warming scare mongering, wouldn't you agree that life is better than it was back then? What makes you think that it won't be better still in another thirty years in ways you can't even imagine yet? | |||
"I have no doubt that in a few decades time we will have mastered nuclear fusion and be using it to generate limitless clean energy. Then we will be looking at all these rusting windmills littering the countryside and wondering whose stupid idea it was to waste our money on them and whose going to pay to clear them up. We don't have a few decades to wait unfortunately. We need to cut carbon now. If you think back over the last thirty years of global warming scare mongering, wouldn't you agree that life is better than it was back then? What makes you think that it won't be better still in another thirty years in ways you can't even imagine yet?" By scare mongering do you mean every credible scientist on the planet? | |||
"Technology is rubbish and can't solve anything. Except Brexit. Got it. " | |||
| |||
| |||
"Every credible scientist... Pmsl. 1.21 giggawatts!!! So how many are credible and how many are incredible? " It's spelt giga | |||
"Every credible scientist... Pmsl. 1.21 giggawatts!!! So how many are credible and how many are incredible? It's spelt giga " Wot evahh... You didn't answer the question | |||
"I have no doubt that in a few decades time we will have mastered nuclear fusion and be using it to generate limitless clean energy. Then we will be looking at all these rusting windmills littering the countryside and wondering whose stupid idea it was to waste our money on them and whose going to pay to clear them up. We don't have a few decades to wait unfortunately. We need to cut carbon now. If you think back over the last thirty years of global warming scare mongering, wouldn't you agree that life is better than it was back then? What makes you think that it won't be better still in another thirty years in ways you can't even imagine yet?" Life is better. What has that to do with if there isanade climate change or not? It is an accelerating change. Small effect to start with but becoming progressively larger. The invention of the mobile phone or the development of better medical treatments aren't related to a deterioration of the climate. Are you saying that if you see a problem it doesn't need to be fixed? It's scaremongering and everything will automatically get better. Sure | |||
"Every credible scientist... Pmsl. 1.21 giggawatts!!! So how many are credible and how many are incredible? It's spelt giga Wot evahh... You didn't answer the question " That's because you need a basic level of understanding to effectively engage on this issue. | |||
"Every credible scientist... Pmsl. 1.21 giggawatts!!! So how many are credible and how many are incredible? It's spelt giga Wot evahh... You didn't answer the question That's because you need a basic level of understanding to effectively engage on this issue." Oh I see.... So you didn't answer the question because you lack a basic understanding of the issue. Fair enough.... At least you are honest | |||
| |||
| |||
"Popper you won't like back to the future 4 it's going to be climate change focused If the "Doc " has his way and he's one of those proper science guys. White coat and all." I suspect he'll have to go back in time to grab something fossil fuelled to help him out in the year 2030 after the world has ended. | |||
"Anyway, back to the point. Enjoy making your own energy for free while it lasts, because it can't last. " What can't last ?? Free energy? | |||
"Popper you won't like back to the future 4 it's going to be climate change focused If the "Doc " has his way and he's one of those proper science guys. White coat and all. I suspect he'll have to go back in time to grab something fossil fuelled to help him out in the year 2030 after the world has ended. "The world ends in 2030 ?? That's my retirement plans fucked.. Cheers for the heads up. | |||
| |||
"In 1982 the UN environmental program said we had twenty years to save the planet or by the turn of the century there would be an environmental catastrophe as bad as a nuclear war. In 1989 the UN said we had 10 years to reverse global warming or entire nations would be wiped off the earth. Prince Charles said in 2009 we had 100 months to save the planet or it would be too late. In 2015 he changed his mind and decided we had 35 years to save the planet, phew. Al Gore said we had 10 year from 2006. Then 10 years from 2008. Basically they have been telling us we have just a few years to save ourselves since the eighties. That's what I call scare mongering. " Blasphemy!!! Total heathen!! Extra carbon tax for you my boy  | |||
"In 1982 the UN environmental program said we had twenty years to save the planet or by the turn of the century there would be an environmental catastrophe as bad as a nuclear war. In 1989 the UN said we had 10 years to reverse global warming or entire nations would be wiped off the earth. Prince Charles said in 2009 we had 100 months to save the planet or it would be too late. In 2015 he changed his mind and decided we had 35 years to save the planet, phew. Al Gore said we had 10 year from 2006. Then 10 years from 2008. Basically they have been telling us we have just a few years to save ourselves since the eighties. That's what I call scare mongering. Blasphemy!!! Total heathen!! Extra carbon tax for you my boy "They would burn me at the stake if it didn't produce so much CO2 | |||
| |||
"In 1982 the UN environmental program said we had twenty years to save the planet or by the turn of the century there would be an environmental catastrophe as bad as a nuclear war. In 1989 the UN said we had 10 years to reverse global warming or entire nations would be wiped off the earth. Prince Charles said in 2009 we had 100 months to save the planet or it would be too late. In 2015 he changed his mind and decided we had 35 years to save the planet, phew. Al Gore said we had 10 year from 2006. Then 10 years from 2008. Basically they have been telling us we have just a few years to save ourselves since the eighties. That's what I call scare mongering. " How precise would you like them to be? Can a doctor tell you how soon you will die if you are diagnosed with terminal cancer? Are they scaremongering? Any estimate is just that. An estimate. Pretending that because the exact date was wrong means that it isn't happening is an interesting conclusion to reach | |||
| |||
"In 1982 the UN environmental program said we had twenty years to save the planet or by the turn of the century there would be an environmental catastrophe as bad as a nuclear war. In 1989 the UN said we had 10 years to reverse global warming or entire nations would be wiped off the earth. Prince Charles said in 2009 we had 100 months to save the planet or it would be too late. In 2015 he changed his mind and decided we had 35 years to save the planet, phew. Al Gore said we had 10 year from 2006. Then 10 years from 2008. Basically they have been telling us we have just a few years to save ourselves since the eighties. That's what I call scare mongering. How precise would you like them to be? Can a doctor tell you how soon you will die if you are diagnosed with terminal cancer? Are they scaremongering? Any estimate is just that. An estimate. Pretending that because the exact date was wrong means that it isn't happening is an interesting conclusion to reach ". What a silly statement, of course timescale matters, if you've got terminal cancer but 50 years it's a different outcome than 5 months. Climate is going to alter regardless of whether we're here or not, it's always been altering and always will so if anthropogenic change is 20 years or 500 years it matters. The little ice age followed the medieval warm period by a few hundred years, 10,000 years ago there was a glacier on my house 2 miles thick and nobody knows for sure why it melted. Climate alarmists are as bad as climate deniers and usually for both there real motives lie elsewhere. | |||
"Anyway, back to the point. Enjoy making your own energy for free while it lasts, because it can't last. What can't last ?? Free energy?" Un-taxed home produced energy. | |||
"So, in the not too distant future, when our houses have super efficient solar panels on their roofs, charging the batteries that will in turn charge our E cars when we return from work. How will the government recoup the loss on fuel tax cash? " I want everything to be capitalist apart from schools and healthcare. I want less government. | |||
"In 1982 the UN environmental program said we had twenty years to save the planet or by the turn of the century there would be an environmental catastrophe as bad as a nuclear war. In 1989 the UN said we had 10 years to reverse global warming or entire nations would be wiped off the earth. Prince Charles said in 2009 we had 100 months to save the planet or it would be too late. In 2015 he changed his mind and decided we had 35 years to save the planet, phew. Al Gore said we had 10 year from 2006. Then 10 years from 2008. Basically they have been telling us we have just a few years to save ourselves since the eighties. That's what I call scare mongering. How precise would you like them to be? Can a doctor tell you how soon you will die if you are diagnosed with terminal cancer? Are they scaremongering? Any estimate is just that. An estimate. Pretending that because the exact date was wrong means that it isn't happening is an interesting conclusion to reach .
What a silly statement, of course timescale matters, if you've got terminal cancer but 50 years it's a different outcome than 5 months.
Climate is going to alter regardless of whether we're here or not, it's always been altering and always will so if anthropogenic change is 20 years or 500 years it matters.
The little ice age followed the medieval warm period by a few hundred years, 10,000 years ago there was a glacier on my house 2 miles thick and nobody knows for sure why it melted.
Climate alarmists are as bad as climate deniers and usually for both there real motives lie elsewhere."That's a slightly different position now. So anthropomorphic climate change might be changing the climate at a highly accelerated rate. The bulk of current research indicates that it is and at a certain critical point the theory is that we top into a negative, accelerating feedback loop. How exact do you think this is considering we are talking about planetary simulations? You still haven't addressed the fundamental question of doing nothing because it's happened before but in a completely different way. The economic and social and mortality risk is extremely high regardless of date. On the basis that the cost is monetary and is offset by the creation of new technologies which are less polluting regardless of CO2 generation then what's your opposition to taking precautionary steps? Too inconvenient? | |||
"A few people I knew were given X number of months by their oncologist and in almost all cases they were correct to within a month or two. And I dare say that 97% of other oncologists would've predicted the same. As for the global warming alarmists.... I'd like to think they could be right to within a decade or 4. Along with Al gore, jug-ears prince (mate of Jimmy Savile) Charles and every other bullshitter that gave the earth X number of years.... I would want to see evidence of it happening before shitting my trunks. Time life magazine 1972....nasa scientists tell nixon that most of the northern hemisphere will be under a thick layer of ice by the turn of the cenury.... Aaarrrrggghhhh we're all gonna die! " How many data points do we have for cancer mortality and how many for planetary climate change? Perhaps we can cure ourselves with positive thinking and yogic flying rather than chemotherapy. Perhaps we aren't even I'll. However, we are patient zero so we have to work on the best information available. | |||
| |||
"In 1982 the UN environmental program said we had twenty years to save the planet or by the turn of the century there would be an environmental catastrophe as bad as a nuclear war. In 1989 the UN said we had 10 years to reverse global warming or entire nations would be wiped off the earth. Prince Charles said in 2009 we had 100 months to save the planet or it would be too late. In 2015 he changed his mind and decided we had 35 years to save the planet, phew. Al Gore said we had 10 year from 2006. Then 10 years from 2008. Basically they have been telling us we have just a few years to save ourselves since the eighties. That's what I call scare mongering. How precise would you like them to be? Can a doctor tell you how soon you will die if you are diagnosed with terminal cancer? Are they scaremongering? Any estimate is just that. An estimate. Pretending that because the exact date was wrong means that it isn't happening is an interesting conclusion to reach .
What a silly statement, of course timescale matters, if you've got terminal cancer but 50 years it's a different outcome than 5 months.
Climate is going to alter regardless of whether we're here or not, it's always been altering and always will so if anthropogenic change is 20 years or 500 years it matters.
The little ice age followed the medieval warm period by a few hundred years, 10,000 years ago there was a glacier on my house 2 miles thick and nobody knows for sure why it melted.
Climate alarmists are as bad as climate deniers and usually for both there real motives lie elsewhere.
That's a slightly different position now.
So anthropomorphic climate change might be changing the climate at a highly accelerated rate.
The bulk of current research indicates that it is and at a certain critical point the theory is that we top into a negative, accelerating feedback loop.
How exact do you think this is considering we are talking about planetary simulations?
You still haven't addressed the fundamental question of doing nothing because it's happened before but in a completely different way.
The economic and social and mortality risk is extremely high regardless of date. On the basis that the cost is monetary and is offset by the creation of new technologies which are less polluting regardless of CO2 generation then what's your opposition to taking precautionary steps?
Too inconvenient?". I'm all for precautionary steps, I'm all for doing what's reasonably possible, I'm all for cheaper and cleaner forms of energy. Ice core samples from Antarctica and Greenland show huge amounts of variance in climate over hundreds of thousands of years and the vast vast majority of those variances were NOT slow ups and downs but volatile swings from hot to cold, cold to very cold, hot to bloody sweltering, in fact the history of climate is very volatile and nobody has any definite proof that warming were seeing today is from Anthropogenic or just normal swings, the only thing we know for definite is that the last 10,000 years has been an unusually quiet period in earth's climate changing life. Evolution requires death and rebirth, eventually homosapiens will go the way of the dinosaurs just like 99% of all species have done in the past. The religion of climate change apocalypse is just that, a religion, one of Doom and gloom, woe betide the sinner and redemption into the afterlife!. I gave up religion years ago, it's full of shit. | |||
"In 1982 the UN environmental program said we had twenty years to save the planet or by the turn of the century there would be an environmental catastrophe as bad as a nuclear war. In 1989 the UN said we had 10 years to reverse global warming or entire nations would be wiped off the earth. Prince Charles said in 2009 we had 100 months to save the planet or it would be too late. In 2015 he changed his mind and decided we had 35 years to save the planet, phew. Al Gore said we had 10 year from 2006. Then 10 years from 2008. Basically they have been telling us we have just a few years to save ourselves since the eighties. That's what I call scare mongering. How precise would you like them to be? Can a doctor tell you how soon you will die if you are diagnosed with terminal cancer? Are they scaremongering? Any estimate is just that. An estimate. Pretending that because the exact date was wrong means that it isn't happening is an interesting conclusion to reach .
What a silly statement, of course timescale matters, if you've got terminal cancer but 50 years it's a different outcome than 5 months.
Climate is going to alter regardless of whether we're here or not, it's always been altering and always will so if anthropogenic change is 20 years or 500 years it matters.
The little ice age followed the medieval warm period by a few hundred years, 10,000 years ago there was a glacier on my house 2 miles thick and nobody knows for sure why it melted.
Climate alarmists are as bad as climate deniers and usually for both there real motives lie elsewhere.
That's a slightly different position now.
So anthropomorphic climate change might be changing the climate at a highly accelerated rate.
The bulk of current research indicates that it is and at a certain critical point the theory is that we top into a negative, accelerating feedback loop.
How exact do you think this is considering we are talking about planetary simulations?
You still haven't addressed the fundamental question of doing nothing because it's happened before but in a completely different way.
The economic and social and mortality risk is extremely high regardless of date. On the basis that the cost is monetary and is offset by the creation of new technologies which are less polluting regardless of CO2 generation then what's your opposition to taking precautionary steps?
Too inconvenient?"Two things 1 If there was a tipping point beyond which there was run away thermal armageddon, then we wouldn't exist. The planet is naturally stable. We have had co2 levels of 8000ppm in the past, which is 20 times what it is today and the planet didn't burn up. There is no sign impending catastrophe, just unproven computer models. 2. There will be new forms of energy generation discovered which will take over from fossil fuels but it is not the government's job to champion any particular solution, they have a terrible record of picking the wrong ones. | |||
"In 1982 the UN environmental program said we had twenty years to save the planet or by the turn of the century there would be an environmental catastrophe as bad as a nuclear war. In 1989 the UN said we had 10 years to reverse global warming or entire nations would be wiped off the earth. Prince Charles said in 2009 we had 100 months to save the planet or it would be too late. In 2015 he changed his mind and decided we had 35 years to save the planet, phew. Al Gore said we had 10 year from 2006. Then 10 years from 2008. Basically they have been telling us we have just a few years to save ourselves since the eighties. That's what I call scare mongering. How precise would you like them to be? Can a doctor tell you how soon you will die if you are diagnosed with terminal cancer? Are they scaremongering? Any estimate is just that. An estimate. Pretending that because the exact date was wrong means that it isn't happening is an interesting conclusion to reach .
What a silly statement, of course timescale matters, if you've got terminal cancer but 50 years it's a different outcome than 5 months.
Climate is going to alter regardless of whether we're here or not, it's always been altering and always will so if anthropogenic change is 20 years or 500 years it matters.
The little ice age followed the medieval warm period by a few hundred years, 10,000 years ago there was a glacier on my house 2 miles thick and nobody knows for sure why it melted.
Climate alarmists are as bad as climate deniers and usually for both there real motives lie elsewhere.
That's a slightly different position now.
So anthropomorphic climate change might be changing the climate at a highly accelerated rate.
The bulk of current research indicates that it is and at a certain critical point the theory is that we top into a negative, accelerating feedback loop.
How exact do you think this is considering we are talking about planetary simulations?
You still haven't addressed the fundamental question of doing nothing because it's happened before but in a completely different way.
The economic and social and mortality risk is extremely high regardless of date. On the basis that the cost is monetary and is offset by the creation of new technologies which are less polluting regardless of CO2 generation then what's your opposition to taking precautionary steps?
Too inconvenient?
Two things
1 If there was a tipping point beyond which there was run away thermal armageddon, then we wouldn't exist. The planet is naturally stable. We have had co2 levels of 8000ppm in the past, which is 20 times what it is today and the planet didn't burn up. There is no sign impending catastrophe, just unproven computer models.
2. There will be new forms of energy generation discovered which will take over from fossil fuels but it is not the government's job to champion any particular solution, they have a terrible record of picking the wrong ones."But you forgot to factor in the amount of green forest has now been destroyed the rain forest ect so not as much co2 conversion going in as before | |||
"In 1982 the UN environmental program said we had twenty years to save the planet or by the turn of the century there would be an environmental catastrophe as bad as a nuclear war. In 1989 the UN said we had 10 years to reverse global warming or entire nations would be wiped off the earth. Prince Charles said in 2009 we had 100 months to save the planet or it would be too late. In 2015 he changed his mind and decided we had 35 years to save the planet, phew. Al Gore said we had 10 year from 2006. Then 10 years from 2008. Basically they have been telling us we have just a few years to save ourselves since the eighties. That's what I call scare mongering. How precise would you like them to be? Can a doctor tell you how soon you will die if you are diagnosed with terminal cancer? Are they scaremongering? Any estimate is just that. An estimate. Pretending that because the exact date was wrong means that it isn't happening is an interesting conclusion to reach .
What a silly statement, of course timescale matters, if you've got terminal cancer but 50 years it's a different outcome than 5 months.
Climate is going to alter regardless of whether we're here or not, it's always been altering and always will so if anthropogenic change is 20 years or 500 years it matters.
The little ice age followed the medieval warm period by a few hundred years, 10,000 years ago there was a glacier on my house 2 miles thick and nobody knows for sure why it melted.
Climate alarmists are as bad as climate deniers and usually for both there real motives lie elsewhere.
That's a slightly different position now.
So anthropomorphic climate change might be changing the climate at a highly accelerated rate.
The bulk of current research indicates that it is and at a certain critical point the theory is that we top into a negative, accelerating feedback loop.
How exact do you think this is considering we are talking about planetary simulations?
You still haven't addressed the fundamental question of doing nothing because it's happened before but in a completely different way.
The economic and social and mortality risk is extremely high regardless of date. On the basis that the cost is monetary and is offset by the creation of new technologies which are less polluting regardless of CO2 generation then what's your opposition to taking precautionary steps?
Too inconvenient?.
I'm all for precautionary steps, I'm all for doing what's reasonably possible, I'm all for cheaper and cleaner forms of energy.
Ice core samples from Antarctica and Greenland show huge amounts of variance in climate over hundreds of thousands of years and the vast vast majority of those variances were NOT slow ups and downs but volatile swings from hot to cold, cold to very cold, hot to bloody sweltering, in fact the history of climate is very volatile and nobody has any definite proof that warming were seeing today is from Anthropogenic or just normal swings, the only thing we know for definite is that the last 10,000 years has been an unusually quiet period in earth's climate changing life.
Evolution requires death and rebirth, eventually homosapiens will go the way of the dinosaurs just like 99% of all species have done in the past.
The religion of climate change apocalypse is just that, a religion, one of Doom and gloom, woe betide the sinner and redemption into the afterlife!.
I gave up religion years ago, it's full of shit."The British Antarctic Survey. The people who take ice core samples. This is there summary on Ice Cores and Climate Change. Clearly full of shit. "Ice cores provide direct information about how greenhouse gas concentrations have changed in the past, and they also provide direct evidence that the climate can change abruptly under some circumstances. However, they provide no direct analogue for the future because the ice core era contains no periods with concentrations of CO2 comparable to those of the next century." I personally don't believe that you have to read everything down and suffer to progress. Definite proof is a bullshit standard. You don't even need that for murder. All I'm saying is that if you know there's a problem or have a pretty good indication that there is, then do something about it. | |||
"In 1982 the UN environmental program said we had twenty years to save the planet or by the turn of the century there would be an environmental catastrophe as bad as a nuclear war. In 1989 the UN said we had 10 years to reverse global warming or entire nations would be wiped off the earth. Prince Charles said in 2009 we had 100 months to save the planet or it would be too late. In 2015 he changed his mind and decided we had 35 years to save the planet, phew. Al Gore said we had 10 year from 2006. Then 10 years from 2008. Basically they have been telling us we have just a few years to save ourselves since the eighties. That's what I call scare mongering. How precise would you like them to be? Can a doctor tell you how soon you will die if you are diagnosed with terminal cancer? Are they scaremongering? Any estimate is just that. An estimate. Pretending that because the exact date was wrong means that it isn't happening is an interesting conclusion to reach .
What a silly statement, of course timescale matters, if you've got terminal cancer but 50 years it's a different outcome than 5 months.
Climate is going to alter regardless of whether we're here or not, it's always been altering and always will so if anthropogenic change is 20 years or 500 years it matters.
The little ice age followed the medieval warm period by a few hundred years, 10,000 years ago there was a glacier on my house 2 miles thick and nobody knows for sure why it melted.
Climate alarmists are as bad as climate deniers and usually for both there real motives lie elsewhere.
That's a slightly different position now.
So anthropomorphic climate change might be changing the climate at a highly accelerated rate.
The bulk of current research indicates that it is and at a certain critical point the theory is that we top into a negative, accelerating feedback loop.
How exact do you think this is considering we are talking about planetary simulations?
You still haven't addressed the fundamental question of doing nothing because it's happened before but in a completely different way.
The economic and social and mortality risk is extremely high regardless of date. On the basis that the cost is monetary and is offset by the creation of new technologies which are less polluting regardless of CO2 generation then what's your opposition to taking precautionary steps?
Too inconvenient?
Two things
1 If there was a tipping point beyond which there was run away thermal armageddon, then we wouldn't exist. The planet is naturally stable. We have had co2 levels of 8000ppm in the past, which is 20 times what it is today and the planet didn't burn up. There is no sign impending catastrophe, just unproven computer models.
2. There will be new forms of energy generation discovered which will take over from fossil fuels but it is not the government's job to champion any particular solution, they have a terrible record of picking the wrong ones."See above. | |||
"Every credible scientist... Pmsl. 1.21 giggawatts!!! So how many are credible and how many are incredible? It's spelt giga Wot evahh... You didn't answer the question That's because you need a basic level of understanding to effectively engage on this issue. Oh I see.... So you didn't answer the question because you lack a basic understanding of the issue. Fair enough.... At least you are honest "Other way round chief. | |||
"Every credible scientist... Pmsl. 1.21 giggawatts!!! So how many are credible and how many are incredible? It's spelt giga Wot evahh... You didn't answer the question That's because you need a basic level of understanding to effectively engage on this issue. Oh I see.... So you didn't answer the question because you lack a basic understanding of the issue. Fair enough.... At least you are honest
Other way round chief.
"You still haven't answered my question. Is it because your understanding is flawed? Maybe you're so deep into your religion that you dare not try and escape | |||
"Every credible scientist... Pmsl. 1.21 giggawatts!!! So how many are credible and how many are incredible? It's spelt giga Wot evahh... You didn't answer the question That's because you need a basic level of understanding to effectively engage on this issue. Oh I see.... So you didn't answer the question because you lack a basic understanding of the issue. Fair enough.... At least you are honest
Other way round chief.
You still haven't answered my question. Is it because your understanding is flawed? Maybe you're so deep into your religion that you dare not try and escape "You confuse religion and science. | |||
| |||
"I'm really interested to know whether the people on this forum who believe in impending climate catastrophe have sold their car and walk everywhere, stopped using air travel, stopped heating their houses and rejected consumer society. That would be the logical thing for them to do so they would be doing their best to save the planet. Anything less would be hypocritical. " I'm sure they have | |||
"I'm really interested to know whether the people on this forum who believe in impending climate catastrophe have sold their car and walk everywhere, stopped using air travel, stopped heating their houses and rejected consumer society. That would be the logical thing for them to do so they would be doing their best to save the planet. Anything less would be hypocritical. " Nope. Reducing my use of all of them. Happy? Unlikely | |||
"I'm really interested to know whether the people on this forum who believe in impending climate catastrophe have sold their car and walk everywhere, stopped using air travel, stopped heating their houses and rejected consumer society. That would be the logical thing for them to do so they would be doing their best to save the planet. Anything less would be hypocritical. Nope. Reducing my use of all of them. Happy? Unlikely "So it's not a serious enough emergency to stop using them altogether? | |||
"I'm really interested to know whether the people on this forum who believe in impending climate catastrophe have sold their car and walk everywhere, stopped using air travel, stopped heating their houses and rejected consumer society. That would be the logical thing for them to do so they would be doing their best to save the planet. Anything less would be hypocritical. Nope. Reducing my use of all of them. Happy? Unlikely "Nah he wouldn't be happy unless you drank from a muddy Stream were a vegan and walked everywhere or sailed using renewable wind and of course you need a rainbow jumper made of hemp and you must live off grid in a tent and never ever washed . Otherwise your a hypocritical green cunt...
| |||
"I'm really interested to know whether the people on this forum who believe in impending climate catastrophe have sold their car and walk everywhere, stopped using air travel, stopped heating their houses and rejected consumer society. That would be the logical thing for them to do so they would be doing their best to save the planet. Anything less would be hypocritical. Nope. Reducing my use of all of them. Happy? Unlikely
Nah he wouldn't be happy unless you drank from a muddy Stream were a vegan and walked everywhere or sailed using renewable wind and of course you need a rainbow jumper made of hemp and you must live off grid in a tent and never ever washed .
Otherwise your a hypocritical green cunt...
"plants have feelings too. | |||
"I'm really interested to know whether the people on this forum who believe in impending climate catastrophe have sold their car and walk everywhere, stopped using air travel, stopped heating their houses and rejected consumer society. That would be the logical thing for them to do so they would be doing their best to save the planet. Anything less would be hypocritical. Nope. Reducing my use of all of them. Happy? Unlikely
So it's not a serious enough emergency to stop using them altogether?"Yes, the natural conclusion for every situation is to take an extreme position 
That's why global climate change agreements are necessary to make changes at scale.
I'm doing something, which isn't enough for you. Except you're, apparently, doing nothing which is fine because it will fix itself somehow.
Why they to achieve a larger goal by making some contribution and working together to support more when you can do nothing and achieve nothing? | |||
"I'm really interested to know whether the people on this forum who believe in impending climate catastrophe have sold their car and walk everywhere, stopped using air travel, stopped heating their houses and rejected consumer society. That would be the logical thing for them to do so they would be doing their best to save the planet. Anything less would be hypocritical. Nope. Reducing my use of all of them. Happy? Unlikely
So it's not a serious enough emergency to stop using them altogether?
Yes, the natural conclusion for every situation is to take an extreme position
That's why global climate change agreements are necessary to make changes at scale.
I'm doing something, which isn't enough for you. Except you're, apparently, doing nothing which is fine because it will fix itself somehow.
Why they to achieve a larger goal by making some contribution and working together to support more when you can do nothing and achieve nothing? "What I am saying is there is mild warming going on which in part is caused by human activity. Human ingenuity will cope with this, for most it would simply mean fitting air conditioning. It may mean that in a hundred years we have a climate as warm as Paris, which wouldn't be a bad thing. If you still fly or drive then you presumably have decided that you don't want to reduce your quality of life if other people aren't willing to do the same. So then, in the same vein, why should the UK reduce the quality of life of its citizens when countries like China and India continue to increase their emissions without limits? For all this posturing by a few zealots I see it for what it is when I fly to Mexico and see the plane fully of people flying thousands of miles from the uk for a beach holiday that they could take a train to in Europe. | |||
"I'm really interested to know whether the people on this forum who believe in impending climate catastrophe have sold their car and walk everywhere, stopped using air travel, stopped heating their houses and rejected consumer society. That would be the logical thing for them to do so they would be doing their best to save the planet. Anything less would be hypocritical. Nope. Reducing my use of all of them. Happy? Unlikely
So it's not a serious enough emergency to stop using them altogether?
Yes, the natural conclusion for every situation is to take an extreme position
That's why global climate change agreements are necessary to make changes at scale.
I'm doing something, which isn't enough for you. Except you're, apparently, doing nothing which is fine because it will fix itself somehow.
Why they to achieve a larger goal by making some contribution and working together to support more when you can do nothing and achieve nothing?
What I am saying is there is mild warming going on which in part is caused by human activity. Human ingenuity will cope with this, for most it would simply mean fitting air conditioning. It may mean that in a hundred years we have a climate as warm as Paris, which wouldn't be a bad thing.
If you still fly or drive then you presumably have decided that you don't want to reduce your quality of life if other people aren't willing to do the same. So then, in the same vein, why should the UK reduce the quality of life of its citizens when countries like China and India continue to increase their emissions without limits?
For all this posturing by a few zealots I see it for what it is when I fly to Mexico and see the plane fully of people flying thousands of miles from the uk for a beach holiday that they could take a train to in Europe.
"Wow. Are you also Pat? If sea levels rise, where do the people who live by the coasts go to live? If the UK gets a bit warmer then so does everywhere else. Deserts expand. Crops fail. Where do those people go to live? More air conditioning and using more power does not "fix" the problem. It adds to it. There is an actual solution which is all of the forms of renewable energy available and in development. Fusion maybe. Until then, reducing energy use is a good thing to do just from the basis that it costs less and is more efficient. Burning less fossil fuel also generates fewer pollutants in cities particularly. Blown at people's faces. China and India have signed up to the Paris climate agreement. They are the largest initiators of renewable energy projects on the planet. It will take time though. We had centuries and have caused the greatest damage. It's not a few zealots. Go and have a look at what fossil fuel companies say about climate change. You seem to be from a dinosaur generation talking about technological solutions but pretending that nothing will change. You are Pat | |||
"I'm really interested to know whether the people on this forum who believe in impending climate catastrophe have sold their car and walk everywhere, stopped using air travel, stopped heating their houses and rejected consumer society. That would be the logical thing for them to do so they would be doing their best to save the planet. Anything less would be hypocritical. Nope. Reducing my use of all of them. Happy? Unlikely
So it's not a serious enough emergency to stop using them altogether?
Yes, the natural conclusion for every situation is to take an extreme position
That's why global climate change agreements are necessary to make changes at scale.
I'm doing something, which isn't enough for you. Except you're, apparently, doing nothing which is fine because it will fix itself somehow.
Why they to achieve a larger goal by making some contribution and working together to support more when you can do nothing and achieve nothing?
What I am saying is there is mild warming going on which in part is caused by human activity. Human ingenuity will cope with this, for most it would simply mean fitting air conditioning. It may mean that in a hundred years we have a climate as warm as Paris, which wouldn't be a bad thing.
If you still fly or drive then you presumably have decided that you don't want to reduce your quality of life if other people aren't willing to do the same. So then, in the same vein, why should the UK reduce the quality of life of its citizens when countries like China and India continue to increase their emissions without limits?
For all this posturing by a few zealots I see it for what it is when I fly to Mexico and see the plane fully of people flying thousands of miles from the uk for a beach holiday that they could take a train to in Europe.
Wow. Are you also Pat?
If sea levels rise, where do the people who live by the coasts go to live?
If the UK gets a bit warmer then so does everywhere else.
Deserts expand. Crops fail.
Where do those people go to live?
More air conditioning and using more power does not "fix" the problem. It adds to it.
There is an actual solution which is all of the forms of renewable energy available and in development.
Fusion maybe.
Until then, reducing energy use is a good thing to do just from the basis that it costs less and is more efficient.
Burning less fossil fuel also generates fewer pollutants in cities particularly. Blown at people's faces.
China and India have signed up to the Paris climate agreement. They are the largest initiators of renewable energy projects on the planet. It will take time though. We had centuries and have caused the greatest damage.
It's not a few zealots.
Go and have a look at what fossil fuel companies say about climate change.
You seem to be from a dinosaur generation talking about technological solutions but pretending that nothing will change.
You are Pat "ok, I'll deal with the points one by one. Sea level rise is running at between 1.8mm and 3mm per year and has been since about 1800. So 1ft in 100 years. Big deal. Do you see deserts expanding, crops failing? We are producing ever more food and over-feeding billions more people than just a few decades ago. I absolutely agree that there no good reason to waste energy. Insulating your loft makes economic sense. A lot of what the zealots recommend does not. I can also see why having hybrid cars that switch to electric only mode when in the centre of cities to reduce pollution hotspots makes sense. As for China and India signing up to the Paris accord, they have no short term obligations and can carry on as normal whilst watch us hamstring our economy limiting our growth. China has nearly 1000 gigawatts of coal burning power stations and is currently building another 260 gigawatts of coal burning capacity. The are also making $36 billion available as lending to allow other countries to build coal burning power stations. China consume half the concrete and a third of the steel produced in the world. Of course we don't make steel anymore because our 'organic' electricity is too expense to make smelting economically viable, so we buy it from China, who burn coal to make it. I don't pretend nothing will change, things continually change. Whilst the climate alarmists have been saying the world is going to end, it has actually got better. Our lives have got better and will continue to get better, cheer up and enjoy yourself. | |||
| |||
| |||
"“Data from WeatherEnergy shows that Scottish wind turbines generated just over 9.8 million megawatt-hours of electricity between January and June, or enough to power roughly 4.47 million homes -- nearly twice as many homes as there are in Scotland. The operators theoretically have enough excess wind energy to power a large chunk of northern England.” "And to achieve this we have spent billions installing 65m high pylons across the Scottish unspoilt wilderness to transmit intermittent wind energy from where it isn't needed down to England, when we could have built a few natural gas power stations next to where the electricity is required that produce dispatchable electricity when its needed. Those billions come from our electricity Bills. Wind might be free but everything to use it cost a fortune. | |||
"I'm really interested to know whether the people on this forum who believe in impending climate catastrophe have sold their car and walk everywhere, stopped using air travel, stopped heating their houses and rejected consumer society. That would be the logical thing for them to do so they would be doing their best to save the planet. Anything less would be hypocritical. Nope. Reducing my use of all of them. Happy? Unlikely
So it's not a serious enough emergency to stop using them altogether?
Yes, the natural conclusion for every situation is to take an extreme position
That's why global climate change agreements are necessary to make changes at scale.
I'm doing something, which isn't enough for you. Except you're, apparently, doing nothing which is fine because it will fix itself somehow.
Why they to achieve a larger goal by making some contribution and working together to support more when you can do nothing and achieve nothing?
What I am saying is there is mild warming going on which in part is caused by human activity. Human ingenuity will cope with this, for most it would simply mean fitting air conditioning. It may mean that in a hundred years we have a climate as warm as Paris, which wouldn't be a bad thing.
If you still fly or drive then you presumably have decided that you don't want to reduce your quality of life if other people aren't willing to do the same. So then, in the same vein, why should the UK reduce the quality of life of its citizens when countries like China and India continue to increase their emissions without limits?
For all this posturing by a few zealots I see it for what it is when I fly to Mexico and see the plane fully of people flying thousands of miles from the uk for a beach holiday that they could take a train to in Europe.
Wow. Are you also Pat?
If sea levels rise, where do the people who live by the coasts go to live?
If the UK gets a bit warmer then so does everywhere else.
Deserts expand. Crops fail.
Where do those people go to live?
More air conditioning and using more power does not "fix" the problem. It adds to it.
There is an actual solution which is all of the forms of renewable energy available and in development.
Fusion maybe.
Until then, reducing energy use is a good thing to do just from the basis that it costs less and is more efficient.
Burning less fossil fuel also generates fewer pollutants in cities particularly. Blown at people's faces.
China and India have signed up to the Paris climate agreement. They are the largest initiators of renewable energy projects on the planet. It will take time though. We had centuries and have caused the greatest damage.
It's not a few zealots.
Go and have a look at what fossil fuel companies say about climate change.
You seem to be from a dinosaur generation talking about technological solutions but pretending that nothing will change.
You are Pat
ok, I'll deal with the points one by one.
Sea level rise is running at between 1.8mm and 3mm per year and has been since about 1800. So 1ft in 100 years. Big deal.
Do you see deserts expanding, crops failing? We are producing ever more food and over-feeding billions more people than just a few decades ago.
I absolutely agree that there no good reason to waste energy. Insulating your loft makes economic sense. A lot of what the zealots recommend does not.
I can also see why having hybrid cars that switch to electric only mode when in the centre of cities to reduce pollution hotspots makes sense.
As for China and India signing up to the Paris accord, they have no short term obligations and can carry on as normal whilst watch us hamstring our economy limiting our growth. China has nearly 1000 gigawatts of coal burning power stations and is currently building another 260 gigawatts of coal burning capacity. The are also making $36 billion available as lending to allow other countries to build coal burning power stations. China consume half the concrete and a third of the steel produced in the world. Of course we don't make steel anymore because our 'organic' electricity is too expense to make smelting economically viable, so we buy it from China, who burn coal to make it.
I don't pretend nothing will change, things continually change. Whilst the climate alarmists have been saying the world is going to end, it has actually got better. Our lives have got better and will continue to get better, cheer up and enjoy yourself.
"Confidently stating something untrue may work for Bodge, but it's still untrue. Mean sea level rise was between 1.2 and 1.7mm up to 1990. By 2000 3.2mm. Average not range. The rate is rising. Deserts are expanding and crops are failing. I, like you, don't see them because we live in a temperate zone. We are producing more food by clearing more land and fertilizer. Yay. China and India are not carrying on "as normal" regardless of their obligations. They are building more coal powered stations because that is what they have. They are also the biggest investors in renewable energy because they want to be. China makes an excess of cheap steal in part due to energy costs, in part due to cheap labour and in part due to massive government overinvestment. A proper carbon trading market would fix this as would tariffs which were vetoed in the EU by the UK. Nobody has said that the world will end. Dramatic much? The actual data indicates significant climate change in a compressed period that will make adaption difficult. Humanity is terrible at dealing with crises. We usually ignore and then panic when they happen. On average most people's lives have got better. That is independent of climate change. How are you conceivably link the two? Enough with the pretence that anybody not claiming the world is lovely needs to "cheer up". Patronising nonsense. You are Pat. Your "facts" are from an article or web page. Which one Pat? | |||
"I'm really interested to know whether the people on this forum who believe in impending climate catastrophe have sold their car and walk everywhere, stopped using air travel, stopped heating their houses and rejected consumer society. That would be the logical thing for them to do so they would be doing their best to save the planet. Anything less would be hypocritical. Nope. Reducing my use of all of them. Happy? Unlikely
So it's not a serious enough emergency to stop using them altogether?
Yes, the natural conclusion for every situation is to take an extreme position
That's why global climate change agreements are necessary to make changes at scale.
I'm doing something, which isn't enough for you. Except you're, apparently, doing nothing which is fine because it will fix itself somehow.
Why they to achieve a larger goal by making some contribution and working together to support more when you can do nothing and achieve nothing?
What I am saying is there is mild warming going on which in part is caused by human activity. Human ingenuity will cope with this, for most it would simply mean fitting air conditioning. It may mean that in a hundred years we have a climate as warm as Paris, which wouldn't be a bad thing.
If you still fly or drive then you presumably have decided that you don't want to reduce your quality of life if other people aren't willing to do the same. So then, in the same vein, why should the UK reduce the quality of life of its citizens when countries like China and India continue to increase their emissions without limits?
For all this posturing by a few zealots I see it for what it is when I fly to Mexico and see the plane fully of people flying thousands of miles from the uk for a beach holiday that they could take a train to in Europe.
Wow. Are you also Pat?
If sea levels rise, where do the people who live by the coasts go to live?
If the UK gets a bit warmer then so does everywhere else.
Deserts expand. Crops fail.
Where do those people go to live?
More air conditioning and using more power does not "fix" the problem. It adds to it.
There is an actual solution which is all of the forms of renewable energy available and in development.
Fusion maybe.
Until then, reducing energy use is a good thing to do just from the basis that it costs less and is more efficient.
Burning less fossil fuel also generates fewer pollutants in cities particularly. Blown at people's faces.
China and India have signed up to the Paris climate agreement. They are the largest initiators of renewable energy projects on the planet. It will take time though. We had centuries and have caused the greatest damage.
It's not a few zealots.
Go and have a look at what fossil fuel companies say about climate change.
You seem to be from a dinosaur generation talking about technological solutions but pretending that nothing will change.
You are Pat
ok, I'll deal with the points one by one.
Sea level rise is running at between 1.8mm and 3mm per year and has been since about 1800. So 1ft in 100 years. Big deal.
Do you see deserts expanding, crops failing? We are producing ever more food and over-feeding billions more people than just a few decades ago.
I absolutely agree that there no good reason to waste energy. Insulating your loft makes economic sense. A lot of what the zealots recommend does not.
I can also see why having hybrid cars that switch to electric only mode when in the centre of cities to reduce pollution hotspots makes sense.
As for China and India signing up to the Paris accord, they have no short term obligations and can carry on as normal whilst watch us hamstring our economy limiting our growth. China has nearly 1000 gigawatts of coal burning power stations and is currently building another 260 gigawatts of coal burning capacity. The are also making $36 billion available as lending to allow other countries to build coal burning power stations. China consume half the concrete and a third of the steel produced in the world. Of course we don't make steel anymore because our 'organic' electricity is too expense to make smelting economically viable, so we buy it from China, who burn coal to make it.
I don't pretend nothing will change, things continually change. Whilst the climate alarmists have been saying the world is going to end, it has actually got better. Our lives have got better and will continue to get better, cheer up and enjoy yourself.
Confidently stating something untrue may work for Bodge, but it's still untrue.
Mean sea level rise was between 1.2 and 1.7mm up to 1990. By 2000 3.2mm.
Average not range. The rate is rising.
Deserts are expanding and crops are failing. I, like you, don't see them because we live in a temperate zone.
We are producing more food by clearing more land and fertilizer. Yay.
China and India are not carrying on "as normal" regardless of their obligations. They are building more coal powered stations because that is what they have. They are also the biggest investors in renewable energy because they want to be.
China makes an excess of cheap steal in part due to energy costs, in part due to cheap labour and in part due to massive government overinvestment. A proper carbon trading market would fix this as would tariffs which were vetoed in the EU by the UK.
Nobody has said that the world will end. Dramatic much?
The actual data indicates significant climate change in a compressed period that will make adaption difficult. Humanity is terrible at dealing with crises.
We usually ignore and then panic when they happen.
On average most people's lives have got better. That is independent of climate change. How are you conceivably link the two?
Enough with the pretence that anybody not claiming the world is lovely needs to "cheer up". Patronising nonsense.
You are Pat. Your "facts" are from an article or web page. Which one Pat?"You do need to cheer up though. | |||
"I'm really interested to know whether the people on this forum who believe in impending climate catastrophe have sold their car and walk everywhere, stopped using air travel, stopped heating their houses and rejected consumer society. That would be the logical thing for them to do so they would be doing their best to save the planet. Anything less would be hypocritical. Nope. Reducing my use of all of them. Happy? Unlikely
So it's not a serious enough emergency to stop using them altogether?
Yes, the natural conclusion for every situation is to take an extreme position
That's why global climate change agreements are necessary to make changes at scale.
I'm doing something, which isn't enough for you. Except you're, apparently, doing nothing which is fine because it will fix itself somehow.
Why they to achieve a larger goal by making some contribution and working together to support more when you can do nothing and achieve nothing?
What I am saying is there is mild warming going on which in part is caused by human activity. Human ingenuity will cope with this, for most it would simply mean fitting air conditioning. It may mean that in a hundred years we have a climate as warm as Paris, which wouldn't be a bad thing.
If you still fly or drive then you presumably have decided that you don't want to reduce your quality of life if other people aren't willing to do the same. So then, in the same vein, why should the UK reduce the quality of life of its citizens when countries like China and India continue to increase their emissions without limits?
For all this posturing by a few zealots I see it for what it is when I fly to Mexico and see the plane fully of people flying thousands of miles from the uk for a beach holiday that they could take a train to in Europe.
Wow. Are you also Pat?
If sea levels rise, where do the people who live by the coasts go to live?
If the UK gets a bit warmer then so does everywhere else.
Deserts expand. Crops fail.
Where do those people go to live?
More air conditioning and using more power does not "fix" the problem. It adds to it.
There is an actual solution which is all of the forms of renewable energy available and in development.
Fusion maybe.
Until then, reducing energy use is a good thing to do just from the basis that it costs less and is more efficient.
Burning less fossil fuel also generates fewer pollutants in cities particularly. Blown at people's faces.
China and India have signed up to the Paris climate agreement. They are the largest initiators of renewable energy projects on the planet. It will take time though. We had centuries and have caused the greatest damage.
It's not a few zealots.
Go and have a look at what fossil fuel companies say about climate change.
You seem to be from a dinosaur generation talking about technological solutions but pretending that nothing will change.
You are Pat
ok, I'll deal with the points one by one.
Sea level rise is running at between 1.8mm and 3mm per year and has been since about 1800. So 1ft in 100 years. Big deal.
Do you see deserts expanding, crops failing? We are producing ever more food and over-feeding billions more people than just a few decades ago.
I absolutely agree that there no good reason to waste energy. Insulating your loft makes economic sense. A lot of what the zealots recommend does not.
I can also see why having hybrid cars that switch to electric only mode when in the centre of cities to reduce pollution hotspots makes sense.
As for China and India signing up to the Paris accord, they have no short term obligations and can carry on as normal whilst watch us hamstring our economy limiting our growth. China has nearly 1000 gigawatts of coal burning power stations and is currently building another 260 gigawatts of coal burning capacity. The are also making $36 billion available as lending to allow other countries to build coal burning power stations. China consume half the concrete and a third of the steel produced in the world. Of course we don't make steel anymore because our 'organic' electricity is too expense to make smelting economically viable, so we buy it from China, who burn coal to make it.
I don't pretend nothing will change, things continually change. Whilst the climate alarmists have been saying the world is going to end, it has actually got better. Our lives have got better and will continue to get better, cheer up and enjoy yourself.
Confidently stating something untrue may work for Bodge, but it's still untrue.
Mean sea level rise was between 1.2 and 1.7mm up to 1990. By 2000 3.2mm.
Average not range. The rate is rising.
Deserts are expanding and crops are failing. I, like you, don't see them because we live in a temperate zone.
We are producing more food by clearing more land and fertilizer. Yay.
China and India are not carrying on "as normal" regardless of their obligations. They are building more coal powered stations because that is what they have. They are also the biggest investors in renewable energy because they want to be.
China makes an excess of cheap steal in part due to energy costs, in part due to cheap labour and in part due to massive government overinvestment. A proper carbon trading market would fix this as would tariffs which were vetoed in the EU by the UK.
Nobody has said that the world will end. Dramatic much?
The actual data indicates significant climate change in a compressed period that will make adaption difficult. Humanity is terrible at dealing with crises.
We usually ignore and then panic when they happen.
On average most people's lives have got better. That is independent of climate change. How are you conceivably link the two?
Enough with the pretence that anybody not claiming the world is lovely needs to "cheer up". Patronising nonsense.
You are Pat. Your "facts" are from an article or web page. Which one Pat?"Interesting that they started including satellite sea level measurements in 1993. Two satellites that orbit at 1336km above the earth's surface but are trying to measure distance to the surface of the ocean to an accuracy of less than a millimetre through a constantly changing atmosphere. Take out the satellite measurements and you don't see the same acceleration. Data doesn't show significant climate change, just a gentle warming, UN computer models suggest there may be significant climate change depending on which scenario is chosen (if their models are correct). I admit you are right, China is investing a lot in renewable energy, although it is important to remember that when they quote solar or wind capacity you have to divide it by about three to compare its contribution to an equivalent conventional generation source. On average most people's lives have got better despite climate change so why can't that carry on? It shows that the wealth we create lifts 100s of millions of people out subsistence living and outstrips minor adaption problems. They won't be building the next iPhone factory in Zaire powered by wind up torches. Building proper power stations to produce cheap energy is what they need to allow real wealth creation that creates the wealth for a country to raise its GDP and provide it's people with health care, education and a modern way of life. Agricultural land use has stayed pretty static over the last few decades (according to the world bank) but fertilizers are absolutely the key to feeding everyone. If food wasn't so cheap and plentiful perhaps the western world wouldn't throw half of it away. Of course it would help if we didn't burn a large amount of food crop in the form of bio ethanol. Another green idea with unintended consequences. | |||
"I'm really interested to know whether the people on this forum who believe in impending climate catastrophe have sold their car and walk everywhere, stopped using air travel, stopped heating their houses and rejected consumer society. That would be the logical thing for them to do so they would be doing their best to save the planet. Anything less would be hypocritical. Nope. Reducing my use of all of them. Happy? Unlikely
So it's not a serious enough emergency to stop using them altogether?
Yes, the natural conclusion for every situation is to take an extreme position
That's why global climate change agreements are necessary to make changes at scale.
I'm doing something, which isn't enough for you. Except you're, apparently, doing nothing which is fine because it will fix itself somehow.
Why they to achieve a larger goal by making some contribution and working together to support more when you can do nothing and achieve nothing?
What I am saying is there is mild warming going on which in part is caused by human activity. Human ingenuity will cope with this, for most it would simply mean fitting air conditioning. It may mean that in a hundred years we have a climate as warm as Paris, which wouldn't be a bad thing.
If you still fly or drive then you presumably have decided that you don't want to reduce your quality of life if other people aren't willing to do the same. So then, in the same vein, why should the UK reduce the quality of life of its citizens when countries like China and India continue to increase their emissions without limits?
For all this posturing by a few zealots I see it for what it is when I fly to Mexico and see the plane fully of people flying thousands of miles from the uk for a beach holiday that they could take a train to in Europe.
Wow. Are you also Pat?
If sea levels rise, where do the people who live by the coasts go to live?
If the UK gets a bit warmer then so does everywhere else.
Deserts expand. Crops fail.
Where do those people go to live?
More air conditioning and using more power does not "fix" the problem. It adds to it.
There is an actual solution which is all of the forms of renewable energy available and in development.
Fusion maybe.
Until then, reducing energy use is a good thing to do just from the basis that it costs less and is more efficient.
Burning less fossil fuel also generates fewer pollutants in cities particularly. Blown at people's faces.
China and India have signed up to the Paris climate agreement. They are the largest initiators of renewable energy projects on the planet. It will take time though. We had centuries and have caused the greatest damage.
It's not a few zealots.
Go and have a look at what fossil fuel companies say about climate change.
You seem to be from a dinosaur generation talking about technological solutions but pretending that nothing will change.
You are Pat
ok, I'll deal with the points one by one.
Sea level rise is running at between 1.8mm and 3mm per year and has been since about 1800. So 1ft in 100 years. Big deal.
Do you see deserts expanding, crops failing? We are producing ever more food and over-feeding billions more people than just a few decades ago.
I absolutely agree that there no good reason to waste energy. Insulating your loft makes economic sense. A lot of what the zealots recommend does not.
I can also see why having hybrid cars that switch to electric only mode when in the centre of cities to reduce pollution hotspots makes sense.
As for China and India signing up to the Paris accord, they have no short term obligations and can carry on as normal whilst watch us hamstring our economy limiting our growth. China has nearly 1000 gigawatts of coal burning power stations and is currently building another 260 gigawatts of coal burning capacity. The are also making $36 billion available as lending to allow other countries to build coal burning power stations. China consume half the concrete and a third of the steel produced in the world. Of course we don't make steel anymore because our 'organic' electricity is too expense to make smelting economically viable, so we buy it from China, who burn coal to make it.
I don't pretend nothing will change, things continually change. Whilst the climate alarmists have been saying the world is going to end, it has actually got better. Our lives have got better and will continue to get better, cheer up and enjoy yourself.
Confidently stating something untrue may work for Bodge, but it's still untrue.
Mean sea level rise was between 1.2 and 1.7mm up to 1990. By 2000 3.2mm.
Average not range. The rate is rising.
Deserts are expanding and crops are failing. I, like you, don't see them because we live in a temperate zone.
We are producing more food by clearing more land and fertilizer. Yay.
China and India are not carrying on "as normal" regardless of their obligations. They are building more coal powered stations because that is what they have. They are also the biggest investors in renewable energy because they want to be.
China makes an excess of cheap steal in part due to energy costs, in part due to cheap labour and in part due to massive government overinvestment. A proper carbon trading market would fix this as would tariffs which were vetoed in the EU by the UK.
Nobody has said that the world will end. Dramatic much?
The actual data indicates significant climate change in a compressed period that will make adaption difficult. Humanity is terrible at dealing with crises.
We usually ignore and then panic when they happen.
On average most people's lives have got better. That is independent of climate change. How are you conceivably link the two?
Enough with the pretence that anybody not claiming the world is lovely needs to "cheer up". Patronising nonsense.
You are Pat. Your "facts" are from an article or web page. Which one Pat?You do need to cheer up though. "I'm perfectly cheery. What makes you think that what I write here in reaction to bad information and often quite unpleasant attitudes reflects on the rest of my life? Does it affect yours?  | |||
| |||
"All new-build homes in England must be fitted with electric car charging points under new building regs announced yesterday. "Wow the future is here already .. The green revolution is unstoppable. | |||
| |||
"I'm really interested to know whether the people on this forum who believe in impending climate catastrophe have sold their car and walk everywhere, stopped using air travel, stopped heating their houses and rejected consumer society. That would be the logical thing for them to do so they would be doing their best to save the planet. Anything less would be hypocritical. Nope. Reducing my use of all of them. Happy? Unlikely
So it's not a serious enough emergency to stop using them altogether?
Yes, the natural conclusion for every situation is to take an extreme position
That's why global climate change agreements are necessary to make changes at scale.
I'm doing something, which isn't enough for you. Except you're, apparently, doing nothing which is fine because it will fix itself somehow.
Why they to achieve a larger goal by making some contribution and working together to support more when you can do nothing and achieve nothing?
What I am saying is there is mild warming going on which in part is caused by human activity. Human ingenuity will cope with this, for most it would simply mean fitting air conditioning. It may mean that in a hundred years we have a climate as warm as Paris, which wouldn't be a bad thing.
If you still fly or drive then you presumably have decided that you don't want to reduce your quality of life if other people aren't willing to do the same. So then, in the same vein, why should the UK reduce the quality of life of its citizens when countries like China and India continue to increase their emissions without limits?
For all this posturing by a few zealots I see it for what it is when I fly to Mexico and see the plane fully of people flying thousands of miles from the uk for a beach holiday that they could take a train to in Europe.
Wow. Are you also Pat?
If sea levels rise, where do the people who live by the coasts go to live?
If the UK gets a bit warmer then so does everywhere else.
Deserts expand. Crops fail.
Where do those people go to live?
More air conditioning and using more power does not "fix" the problem. It adds to it.
There is an actual solution which is all of the forms of renewable energy available and in development.
Fusion maybe.
Until then, reducing energy use is a good thing to do just from the basis that it costs less and is more efficient.
Burning less fossil fuel also generates fewer pollutants in cities particularly. Blown at people's faces.
China and India have signed up to the Paris climate agreement. They are the largest initiators of renewable energy projects on the planet. It will take time though. We had centuries and have caused the greatest damage.
It's not a few zealots.
Go and have a look at what fossil fuel companies say about climate change.
You seem to be from a dinosaur generation talking about technological solutions but pretending that nothing will change.
You are Pat
ok, I'll deal with the points one by one.
Sea level rise is running at between 1.8mm and 3mm per year and has been since about 1800. So 1ft in 100 years. Big deal.
Do you see deserts expanding, crops failing? We are producing ever more food and over-feeding billions more people than just a few decades ago.
I absolutely agree that there no good reason to waste energy. Insulating your loft makes economic sense. A lot of what the zealots recommend does not.
I can also see why having hybrid cars that switch to electric only mode when in the centre of cities to reduce pollution hotspots makes sense.
As for China and India signing up to the Paris accord, they have no short term obligations and can carry on as normal whilst watch us hamstring our economy limiting our growth. China has nearly 1000 gigawatts of coal burning power stations and is currently building another 260 gigawatts of coal burning capacity. The are also making $36 billion available as lending to allow other countries to build coal burning power stations. China consume half the concrete and a third of the steel produced in the world. Of course we don't make steel anymore because our 'organic' electricity is too expense to make smelting economically viable, so we buy it from China, who burn coal to make it.
I don't pretend nothing will change, things continually change. Whilst the climate alarmists have been saying the world is going to end, it has actually got better. Our lives have got better and will continue to get better, cheer up and enjoy yourself.
Confidently stating something untrue may work for Bodge, but it's still untrue.
Mean sea level rise was between 1.2 and 1.7mm up to 1990. By 2000 3.2mm.
Average not range. The rate is rising.
Deserts are expanding and crops are failing. I, like you, don't see them because we live in a temperate zone.
We are producing more food by clearing more land and fertilizer. Yay.
China and India are not carrying on "as normal" regardless of their obligations. They are building more coal powered stations because that is what they have. They are also the biggest investors in renewable energy because they want to be.
China makes an excess of cheap steal in part due to energy costs, in part due to cheap labour and in part due to massive government overinvestment. A proper carbon trading market would fix this as would tariffs which were vetoed in the EU by the UK.
Nobody has said that the world will end. Dramatic much?
The actual data indicates significant climate change in a compressed period that will make adaption difficult. Humanity is terrible at dealing with crises.
We usually ignore and then panic when they happen.
On average most people's lives have got better. That is independent of climate change. How are you conceivably link the two?
Enough with the pretence that anybody not claiming the world is lovely needs to "cheer up". Patronising nonsense.
You are Pat. Your "facts" are from an article or web page. Which one Pat?You do need to cheer up though.
I'm perfectly cheery. What makes you think that what I write here in reaction to bad information and often quite unpleasant attitudes reflects on the rest of my life?
Does it affect yours? "not at all im cheery all the time. | |||
"Everyone should calm the fuck down about this. I may be wrong about this but to my mind i've never heard of anyone on their death bed saying 'i wish i had used more solar power' or 'i wish i had used less petrol' ....apart from hitler when he said 'i wish i used less gas' "You get away with murder in here ,with a comment like that.Much like the Israeli government... | |||
"Everyone should calm the fuck down about this. I may be wrong about this but to my mind i've never heard of anyone on their death bed saying 'i wish i had used more solar power' or 'i wish i had used less petrol' ....apart from hitler when he said 'i wish i used less gas' "The emoji doesn't make that OK. | |||
"Everyone should calm the fuck down about this. I may be wrong about this but to my mind i've never heard of anyone on their death bed saying 'i wish i had used more solar power' or 'i wish i had used less petrol' ....apart from hitler when he said 'i wish i used less gas'
The emoji doesn't make that OK."They don't have a swastika emoji. If they did just imagine how triggered you would be  | |||
"Everyone should calm the fuck down about this. I may be wrong about this but to my mind i've never heard of anyone on their death bed saying 'i wish i had used more solar power' or 'i wish i had used less petrol' ....apart from hitler when he said 'i wish i used less gas'
You get away with murder in here ,with a comment like that.Much like the Israeli government... "Much more dangerous to comment on the actions of the Israel government Bob. The ones who rule over you are the ones you can't criticise... | |||
| |||
| |||
"Everyone should calm the fuck down about this. I may be wrong about this but to my mind i've never heard of anyone on their death bed saying 'i wish i had used more solar power' or 'i wish i had used less petrol' ....apart from hitler when he said 'i wish i used less gas'
The emoji doesn't make that OK.
They don't have a swastika emoji. If they did just imagine how triggered you would be "I'm not "triggered". You are just lazy wheeling out a meaningless phrase. So many of you in here make assumptions. I am calling you out for being a dick. You either want to get attention or you are racist. You are still being a dick. You could try an explain that you were actually being really clever or ironic. Actually, you are just being a dick. | |||
"I'm really interested to know whether the people on this forum who believe in impending climate catastrophe have sold their car and walk everywhere, stopped using air travel, stopped heating their houses and rejected consumer society. That would be the logical thing for them to do so they would be doing their best to save the planet. Anything less would be hypocritical. Nope. Reducing my use of all of them. Happy? Unlikely
So it's not a serious enough emergency to stop using them altogether?
Yes, the natural conclusion for every situation is to take an extreme position
That's why global climate change agreements are necessary to make changes at scale.
I'm doing something, which isn't enough for you. Except you're, apparently, doing nothing which is fine because it will fix itself somehow.
Why they to achieve a larger goal by making some contribution and working together to support more when you can do nothing and achieve nothing?
What I am saying is there is mild warming going on which in part is caused by human activity. Human ingenuity will cope with this, for most it would simply mean fitting air conditioning. It may mean that in a hundred years we have a climate as warm as Paris, which wouldn't be a bad thing.
If you still fly or drive then you presumably have decided that you don't want to reduce your quality of life if other people aren't willing to do the same. So then, in the same vein, why should the UK reduce the quality of life of its citizens when countries like China and India continue to increase their emissions without limits?
For all this posturing by a few zealots I see it for what it is when I fly to Mexico and see the plane fully of people flying thousands of miles from the uk for a beach holiday that they could take a train to in Europe.
Wow. Are you also Pat?
If sea levels rise, where do the people who live by the coasts go to live?
If the UK gets a bit warmer then so does everywhere else.
Deserts expand. Crops fail.
Where do those people go to live?
More air conditioning and using more power does not "fix" the problem. It adds to it.
There is an actual solution which is all of the forms of renewable energy available and in development.
Fusion maybe.
Until then, reducing energy use is a good thing to do just from the basis that it costs less and is more efficient.
Burning less fossil fuel also generates fewer pollutants in cities particularly. Blown at people's faces.
China and India have signed up to the Paris climate agreement. They are the largest initiators of renewable energy projects on the planet. It will take time though. We had centuries and have caused the greatest damage.
It's not a few zealots.
Go and have a look at what fossil fuel companies say about climate change.
You seem to be from a dinosaur generation talking about technological solutions but pretending that nothing will change.
You are Pat
ok, I'll deal with the points one by one.
Sea level rise is running at between 1.8mm and 3mm per year and has been since about 1800. So 1ft in 100 years. Big deal.
Do you see deserts expanding, crops failing? We are producing ever more food and over-feeding billions more people than just a few decades ago.
I absolutely agree that there no good reason to waste energy. Insulating your loft makes economic sense. A lot of what the zealots recommend does not.
I can also see why having hybrid cars that switch to electric only mode when in the centre of cities to reduce pollution hotspots makes sense.
As for China and India signing up to the Paris accord, they have no short term obligations and can carry on as normal whilst watch us hamstring our economy limiting our growth. China has nearly 1000 gigawatts of coal burning power stations and is currently building another 260 gigawatts of coal burning capacity. The are also making $36 billion available as lending to allow other countries to build coal burning power stations. China consume half the concrete and a third of the steel produced in the world. Of course we don't make steel anymore because our 'organic' electricity is too expense to make smelting economically viable, so we buy it from China, who burn coal to make it.
I don't pretend nothing will change, things continually change. Whilst the climate alarmists have been saying the world is going to end, it has actually got better. Our lives have got better and will continue to get better, cheer up and enjoy yourself.
Confidently stating something untrue may work for Bodge, but it's still untrue.
Mean sea level rise was between 1.2 and 1.7mm up to 1990. By 2000 3.2mm.
Average not range. The rate is rising.
Deserts are expanding and crops are failing. I, like you, don't see them because we live in a temperate zone.
We are producing more food by clearing more land and fertilizer. Yay.
China and India are not carrying on "as normal" regardless of their obligations. They are building more coal powered stations because that is what they have. They are also the biggest investors in renewable energy because they want to be.
China makes an excess of cheap steal in part due to energy costs, in part due to cheap labour and in part due to massive government overinvestment. A proper carbon trading market would fix this as would tariffs which were vetoed in the EU by the UK.
Nobody has said that the world will end. Dramatic much?
The actual data indicates significant climate change in a compressed period that will make adaption difficult. Humanity is terrible at dealing with crises.
We usually ignore and then panic when they happen.
On average most people's lives have got better. That is independent of climate change. How are you conceivably link the two?
Enough with the pretence that anybody not claiming the world is lovely needs to "cheer up". Patronising nonsense.
You are Pat. Your "facts" are from an article or web page. Which one Pat?You do need to cheer up though.
I'm perfectly cheery. What makes you think that what I write here in reaction to bad information and often quite unpleasant attitudes reflects on the rest of my life?
Does it affect yours? not at all im cheery all the time. "So no point to make
The emoji means that I'm happy so you needn't worry | |||
"brexit you mean we might not have to pay the EU 36ppl of fuel tariff. on petrol" 64p of every £1 we spend on petrol goes straight to HM Treasury. The rest goes to the retailer and the supply chain. If you seriously believe the UK is going to reduce or eliminate Fuel Duty or VAT on petrol once the UK leaves the EU . . . well, I'll just add that to my list of Brexit delusions. | |||
"Everyone should calm the fuck down about this. I may be wrong about this but to my mind i've never heard of anyone on their death bed saying 'i wish i had used more solar power' or 'i wish i had used less petrol' ....apart from hitler when he said 'i wish i used less gas'
You get away with murder in here ,with a comment like that.Much like the Israeli government...
Much more dangerous to comment on the actions of the Israel government Bob. The ones who rule over you are the ones you can't criticise... "Bloody hell popper your sailing close to the wind today... I have feeling some are afraid to comment..Not me though... | |||
"brexit you mean we might not have to pay the EU 36ppl of fuel tariff. on petrol 64p of every £1 we spend on petrol goes straight to HM Treasury. The rest goes to the retailer and the supply chain. If you seriously believe the UK is going to reduce or eliminate Fuel Duty or VAT on petrol once the UK leaves the EU . . . well, I'll just add that to my list of Brexit delusions." Of course once there is serious uptake of electric vehicles the government will put fuel duty on the electricity used to charge them and raise the vat rate to 20%. This would probably double the cost of electricity used for driving. | |||
| |||
"There is much in this thread that reminds me of the ‘Great Horse Manure Crisis of 1894’. It was predicted in 1894 that within 50 years London and new York would be buried under 9ft of horse shit. However, necessity is the mother of invention, and the invention in this case was that of motor transport. Problem solved and the horse shit apocalypse was averted... "What about the bullshit apocalypse in the forums??!!?? (Specifically the politics) | |||
"I'm really interested to know whether the people on this forum who believe in impending climate catastrophe have sold their car and walk everywhere, stopped using air travel, stopped heating their houses and rejected consumer society. That would be the logical thing for them to do so they would be doing their best to save the planet. Anything less would be hypocritical. Nope. Reducing my use of all of them. Happy? Unlikely
So it's not a serious enough emergency to stop using them altogether?
Yes, the natural conclusion for every situation is to take an extreme position
That's why global climate change agreements are necessary to make changes at scale.
I'm doing something, which isn't enough for you. Except you're, apparently, doing nothing which is fine because it will fix itself somehow.
Why they to achieve a larger goal by making some contribution and working together to support more when you can do nothing and achieve nothing?
What I am saying is there is mild warming going on which in part is caused by human activity. Human ingenuity will cope with this, for most it would simply mean fitting air conditioning. It may mean that in a hundred years we have a climate as warm as Paris, which wouldn't be a bad thing.
If you still fly or drive then you presumably have decided that you don't want to reduce your quality of life if other people aren't willing to do the same. So then, in the same vein, why should the UK reduce the quality of life of its citizens when countries like China and India continue to increase their emissions without limits?
For all this posturing by a few zealots I see it for what it is when I fly to Mexico and see the plane fully of people flying thousands of miles from the uk for a beach holiday that they could take a train to in Europe.
Wow. Are you also Pat?
If sea levels rise, where do the people who live by the coasts go to live?
If the UK gets a bit warmer then so does everywhere else.
Deserts expand. Crops fail.
Where do those people go to live?
More air conditioning and using more power does not "fix" the problem. It adds to it.
There is an actual solution which is all of the forms of renewable energy available and in development.
Fusion maybe.
Until then, reducing energy use is a good thing to do just from the basis that it costs less and is more efficient.
Burning less fossil fuel also generates fewer pollutants in cities particularly. Blown at people's faces.
China and India have signed up to the Paris climate agreement. They are the largest initiators of renewable energy projects on the planet. It will take time though. We had centuries and have caused the greatest damage.
It's not a few zealots.
Go and have a look at what fossil fuel companies say about climate change.
You seem to be from a dinosaur generation talking about technological solutions but pretending that nothing will change.
You are Pat
ok, I'll deal with the points one by one.
Sea level rise is running at between 1.8mm and 3mm per year and has been since about 1800. So 1ft in 100 years. Big deal.
Do you see deserts expanding, crops failing? We are producing ever more food and over-feeding billions more people than just a few decades ago.
I absolutely agree that there no good reason to waste energy. Insulating your loft makes economic sense. A lot of what the zealots recommend does not.
I can also see why having hybrid cars that switch to electric only mode when in the centre of cities to reduce pollution hotspots makes sense.
As for China and India signing up to the Paris accord, they have no short term obligations and can carry on as normal whilst watch us hamstring our economy limiting our growth. China has nearly 1000 gigawatts of coal burning power stations and is currently building another 260 gigawatts of coal burning capacity. The are also making $36 billion available as lending to allow other countries to build coal burning power stations. China consume half the concrete and a third of the steel produced in the world. Of course we don't make steel anymore because our 'organic' electricity is too expense to make smelting economically viable, so we buy it from China, who burn coal to make it.
I don't pretend nothing will change, things continually change. Whilst the climate alarmists have been saying the world is going to end, it has actually got better. Our lives have got better and will continue to get better, cheer up and enjoy yourself.
Confidently stating something untrue may work for Bodge, but it's still untrue.
Mean sea level rise was between 1.2 and 1.7mm up to 1990. By 2000 3.2mm.
Average not range. The rate is rising.
Deserts are expanding and crops are failing. I, like you, don't see them because we live in a temperate zone.
We are producing more food by clearing more land and fertilizer. Yay.
China and India are not carrying on "as normal" regardless of their obligations. They are building more coal powered stations because that is what they have. They are also the biggest investors in renewable energy because they want to be.
China makes an excess of cheap steal in part due to energy costs, in part due to cheap labour and in part due to massive government overinvestment. A proper carbon trading market would fix this as would tariffs which were vetoed in the EU by the UK.
Nobody has said that the world will end. Dramatic much?
The actual data indicates significant climate change in a compressed period that will make adaption difficult. Humanity is terrible at dealing with crises.
We usually ignore and then panic when they happen.
On average most people's lives have got better. That is independent of climate change. How are you conceivably link the two?
Enough with the pretence that anybody not claiming the world is lovely needs to "cheer up". Patronising nonsense.
You are Pat. Your "facts" are from an article or web page. Which one Pat?
Interesting that they started including satellite sea level measurements in 1993. Two satellites that orbit at 1336km above the earth's surface but are trying to measure distance to the surface of the ocean to an accuracy of less than a millimetre through a constantly changing atmosphere. Take out the satellite measurements and you don't see the same acceleration.
Data doesn't show significant climate change, just a gentle warming, UN computer models suggest there may be significant climate change depending on which scenario is chosen (if their models are correct).
I admit you are right, China is investing a lot in renewable energy, although it is important to remember that when they quote solar or wind capacity you have to divide it by about three to compare its contribution to an equivalent conventional generation source.
On average most people's lives have got better despite climate change so why can't that carry on? It shows that the wealth we create lifts 100s of millions of people out subsistence living and outstrips minor adaption problems.
They won't be building the next iPhone factory in Zaire powered by wind up torches. Building proper power stations to produce cheap energy is what they need to allow real wealth creation that creates the wealth for a country to raise its GDP and provide it's people with health care, education and a modern way of life.
Agricultural land use has stayed pretty static over the last few decades (according to the world bank) but fertilizers are absolutely the key to feeding everyone. If food wasn't so cheap and plentiful perhaps the western world wouldn't throw half of it away.
Of course it would help if we didn't burn a large amount of food crop in the form of bio ethanol. Another green idea with unintended consequences. "This approach of at least responding directly to counterpoints is at least more constructive. Your source of information or understanding of it remains suspect though. You seem to be saying that the scientists and engineers designing satellites and instrumentation and analysing data are incompetent. That they have spent millions and don't know what they're doing. Alternatively you are saying that because it is complicated and you don't understand it then it can't be real. Yet you are prepared to believe that the GPS system that you use is fine. The satellite data on its own shows the rate of rise having increased from 2.5mm to 3.4mm per year (NASA). How do you think they measured sea level before? A ruler in the water? They still gather the same data. The tide gauge trend is the same. Shall we go with the IPCC on that? 0.8degC global temperature rise since 1880 of which two thirds is since 1970 (NASA). How much energy do think is required to raise the temperature of the entire atmosphere by that much? That is not gentle. That is sharp on a global scale. Unsubsidised renewable energy generation costs are lower now than fossil fuel sources. Chinese and Indian coal plant opening is matched by closures globally. Regrettable, but as you said, they need to ramp up fast. It's what we did historically. They are, however, committing to renewables as fast as possible. There is no reason not to. What you choose to multiply by doesn't matter. Renewables together represent 27.4% of power generation (IEA). Not nominal capacity. Generation. The same as Gas which is the biggest non renewable. If Zaire builds a large solar facility, they absolutely will be able to build iPhones as long as they also build infrastructure and educate their workforce. The fact that it hasn't happened is down to history and politics. Agricultural land use has risen incredibly quickly in the last few decades. 20% since 1991 according to...The World Bank. Fertilizers should not be necessary. They use resources unnecessarily and ass cost and reliance on industry. Only a small part of the world is overfed. The majority is not. Waste is avoidable and should be better managed regardless of any other effects. It's more efficient and will make food cheaper. Biofuels were supposed to be a stop-gap but turned into a way to subsidise farming. That's politics. So, which denial websites did you crib this from? | |||
"Has anyone get an electric car ?" Still too expensive. Prices will fall as production ramps up. Just like everything else. It's taken hundreds of years for current engines and fuel infrastructure to be established. They were also extremely expensive to start with. I have driven a lot of them though and they are generally pretty amazing to drive. I want one. Personally I haven't found range anxiety to be a problem as I don't generally drive more than 100 miles in one stint. Very few people do. | |||
"Everyone should calm the fuck down about this. I may be wrong about this but to my mind i've never heard of anyone on their death bed saying 'i wish i had used more solar power' or 'i wish i had used less petrol' ....apart from hitler when he said 'i wish i used less gas'
You get away with murder in here ,with a comment like that.Much like the Israeli government...
Much more dangerous to comment on the actions of the Israel government Bob. The ones who rule over you are the ones you can't criticise...
Bloody hell popper your sailing close to the wind today...
I have feeling some are afraid to comment..Not me though... "Never be frightened to upset people with words Bob. Free speech rules! Just because there's an aspect of something you don't like, doesn't mean you hate everything about the whole thing. eg... I hate Whitney Houston.... Doesn't mean I hate pop music! | |||
"Everyone should calm the fuck down about this. I may be wrong about this but to my mind i've never heard of anyone on their death bed saying 'i wish i had used more solar power' or 'i wish i had used less petrol' ....apart from hitler when he said 'i wish i used less gas'
The emoji doesn't make that OK.
They don't have a swastika emoji. If they did just imagine how triggered you would be
I'm not "triggered". You are just lazy wheeling out a meaningless phrase.
So many of you in here make assumptions.
I am calling you out for being a dick.
You either want to get attention or you are racist.
You are still being a dick.
You could try an explain that you were actually being really clever or ironic.
Actually, you are just being a dick."You're always the first to fire out personal insults here whenever someone either disagrees with you or holds alternative views from you. Some might think you're a bully or something but I don't.... I just love to tap your hair trigger and watch as you shit your thong over words on an Internet fuck site. BTW... Zero point zero fucks given about your opinion of me. You don't know shit about me or who I am. Sending hugs your way xxx | |||
"Everyone should calm the fuck down about this. I may be wrong about this but to my mind i've never heard of anyone on their death bed saying 'i wish i had used more solar power' or 'i wish i had used less petrol' ....apart from hitler when he said 'i wish i used less gas'
The emoji doesn't make that OK.
They don't have a swastika emoji. If they did just imagine how triggered you would be
I'm not "triggered". You are just lazy wheeling out a meaningless phrase.
So many of you in here make assumptions.
I am calling you out for being a dick.
You either want to get attention or you are racist.
You are still being a dick.
You could try an explain that you were actually being really clever or ironic.
Actually, you are just being a dick.
You're always the first to fire out personal insults here whenever someone either disagrees with you or holds alternative views from you. Some might think you're a bully or something but I don't.... I just love to tap your hair trigger and watch as you shit your thong over words on an Internet fuck site.
BTW... Zero point zero fucks given about your opinion of me. You don't know shit about me or who I am.
Sending hugs your way xxx "No. I'm very late to the personal insult party unless it's warranted. It's warranted for that comment. You wrote an awfullot for someone who gives zero fucks eh? In fact, you said that you went out to provoke and get attention. So dick you are
All the best | |||
 | |||
"Has anyone get an electric car ? Still too expensive. Prices will fall as production ramps up. Just like everything else. It's taken hundreds of years for current engines and fuel infrastructure to be established. They were also extremely expensive to start with. I have driven a lot of them though and they are generally pretty amazing to drive. I want one. Personally I haven't found range anxiety to be a problem as I don't generally drive more than 100 miles in one stint. Very few people do." I’m planning on a new car next year and electric seems like a good plan I do quite a lot of miles | |||
"Has anyone get an electric car ? Still too expensive. Prices will fall as production ramps up. Just like everything else. It's taken hundreds of years for current engines and fuel infrastructure to be established. They were also extremely expensive to start with. I have driven a lot of them though and they are generally pretty amazing to drive. I want one. Personally I haven't found range anxiety to be a problem as I don't generally drive more than 100 miles in one stint. Very few people do. I’m planning on a new car next year and electric seems like a good plan I do quite a lot of miles " Depends what "quite a lot" means per day Having your own drive will help a lot for charging. | |||
| |||
"Has anyone get an electric car ?" I did not have a car for several years. Went to local two-wheels shop last year to buy a scooter. They had a stand promoting an electric one (made in Spain, I think). I was intrigued, so started reading the marketing spiel. It left me with an impression it was still in the experimental phase, so my confidence was lacking. I bought a petrol one instead. I do not use it very much. I prefer to walk. Electric and hybrid cars often spook me out when crossing the road because I cannot hear them coming. I almost walked out into the path of one. I read somewhere the EU is going to mandate manufacturers to give them some noise for dottery old souls like me. | |||
"The Tesla S has a 100kwh battery. 2kw of solar (thats around 9/10 panels will produce around 12/20 kwh on a good day in the UK )so if you are lucky 5 days to fully recharge your tesla from home solar. If everybody wants to go electric cars from solar we had better start putting panels everywhere. " Why does it only have to be solar? | |||
"Has anyone get an electric car ? I did not have a car for several years. Went to local two-wheels shop last year to buy a scooter. They had a stand promoting an electric one (made in Spain, I think). I was intrigued, so started reading the marketing spiel. It left me with an impression it was still in the experimental phase, so my confidence was lacking. I bought a petrol one instead. I do not use it very much. I prefer to walk. Electric and hybrid cars often spook me out when crossing the road because I cannot hear them coming. I almost walked out into the path of one. I read somewhere the EU is going to mandate manufacturers to give them some noise for dottery old souls like me. "There are worldwide regulations being introduced. You can hear the Jaguar I-Pace and Mercedes EQV online if you look. | |||
| |||
"Has anyone get an electric car ? Still too expensive. Prices will fall as production ramps up. Just like everything else. It's taken hundreds of years for current engines and fuel infrastructure to be established. They were also extremely expensive to start with. I have driven a lot of them though and they are generally pretty amazing to drive. I want one. Personally I haven't found range anxiety to be a problem as I don't generally drive more than 100 miles in one stint. Very few people do. I’m planning on a new car next year and electric seems like a good plan I do quite a lot of miles Depends what "quite a lot" means per day Having your own drive will help a lot for charging."I do 60-80 a day | |||
| |||
"Has anyone get an electric car ? Still too expensive. Prices will fall as production ramps up. Just like everything else. It's taken hundreds of years for current engines and fuel infrastructure to be established. They were also extremely expensive to start with. I have driven a lot of them though and they are generally pretty amazing to drive. I want one. Personally I haven't found range anxiety to be a problem as I don't generally drive more than 100 miles in one stint. Very few people do. I’m planning on a new car next year and electric seems like a good plan I do quite a lot of miles Depends what "quite a lot" means per day Having your own drive will help a lot for charging.
I do 60-80 a day"Then you're on
Most electric cars will manage about 200 now so even if you have full aircon or heating you should have zero anxiety too. | |||
"It's at zebra crossings I want to hear them lol" | |||
"only electric car im likely to have is a mobility scooter. "You know you can still be done for being d*unk in charge of one of those | |||
"only electric car im likely to have is a mobility scooter.
You know you can still be done for being d*unk in charge of one of those " | |||
"Has anyone get an electric car ? Still too expensive. Prices will fall as production ramps up. Just like everything else. It's taken hundreds of years for current engines and fuel infrastructure to be established. They were also extremely expensive to start with. I have driven a lot of them though and they are generally pretty amazing to drive. I want one. Personally I haven't found range anxiety to be a problem as I don't generally drive more than 100 miles in one stint. Very few people do. I’m planning on a new car next year and electric seems like a good plan I do quite a lot of miles Depends what "quite a lot" means per day Having your own drive will help a lot for charging.
I do 60-80 a day"I rented a Jaguar I Pace for three days from Frankfurt a couple months ago. An amazing car to drive, about 450hp. However they said it had a range of 350km but it was not fully charged when they handed to me so only about 250km available. The hotel I was staying at didn't have any charging so after two days I was worried about having the range to get back to the airport. Went to a services with a 50kw fast charger which in reality added about 60km of range per hour. That meant eating in the services whilst I waited. When I came back out there was another guy waiting to use the only charger. Summary: if you can charge at home every night and don't need to go on long journeys it could work. If you need to go on long journeys then currently only Tesla have decent fast chargers. | |||
"only electric car im likely to have is a mobility scooter.
You know you can still be done for being d*unk in charge of one of those ". Technically you can be d*unk in charge of a lawnmower or anything, if your walking and cause an accident your still liable via d*unk and disorderly in a public place. | |||
"Has anyone get an electric car ? Still too expensive. Prices will fall as production ramps up. Just like everything else. It's taken hundreds of years for current engines and fuel infrastructure to be established. They were also extremely expensive to start with. I have driven a lot of them though and they are generally pretty amazing to drive. I want one. Personally I haven't found range anxiety to be a problem as I don't generally drive more than 100 miles in one stint. Very few people do. I’m planning on a new car next year and electric seems like a good plan I do quite a lot of miles Depends what "quite a lot" means per day Having your own drive will help a lot for charging.
I do 60-80 a day
I rented a Jaguar I Pace for three days from Frankfurt a couple months ago. An amazing car to drive, about 450hp. However they said it had a range of 350km but it was not fully charged when they handed to me so only about 250km available. The hotel I was staying at didn't have any charging so after two days I was worried about having the range to get back to the airport. Went to a services with a 50kw fast charger which in reality added about 60km of range per hour. That meant eating in the services whilst I waited. When I came back out there was another guy waiting to use the only charger.
Summary: if you can charge at home every night and don't need to go on long journeys it could work. If you need to go on long journeys then currently only Tesla have decent fast chargers."That’s interesting thanks yes I can charge overnight  | |||
