RE: Final EU vote on 2035 engine phaseout delayed
Discussion
500TORQUES said:
What's more concrete than saying the public domain narrative is political and financial spin of the science.
We all know thats always been the situation where power and money is more important than anything else. If you really do think CO2 will be the end of us, then you have already lost, despite all the COP meetings bugger all really changes, it only does if there is money to be made.
We always lurch from one big issue to the next, in my lifetime it's been the cold war, the coming ice age, the coming global warming, acid rain, the ozone layer, the energy crisis, famine in Africa, the war on drugs, the war on terror, the Iran revolution, Iraq war, Afghanistan war, Ukraine war, Falklands war, the poll tax, aids, covid, zeka, butter mountains, too hot in 76 for water supplies, too wet now for the infrastructure, usually due to some f
kwit stopping dredging to save a toad.......
Concrete would be countering some part of the science, with facts.We all know thats always been the situation where power and money is more important than anything else. If you really do think CO2 will be the end of us, then you have already lost, despite all the COP meetings bugger all really changes, it only does if there is money to be made.
We always lurch from one big issue to the next, in my lifetime it's been the cold war, the coming ice age, the coming global warming, acid rain, the ozone layer, the energy crisis, famine in Africa, the war on drugs, the war on terror, the Iran revolution, Iraq war, Afghanistan war, Ukraine war, Falklands war, the poll tax, aids, covid, zeka, butter mountains, too hot in 76 for water supplies, too wet now for the infrastructure, usually due to some f
kwit stopping dredging to save a toad.......If you to attack the accepted scientific view, you need to do more than just rant.
You need detail and scientific reasoning.
Just ranting doesn't work.
Edited by 911hope on Sunday 26th March 18:12
Pepperpots said:
Since graduating with an environmental science degree in 1997 I have kept an eye on various environmental issues and the reporting has highlighted a lot of legitimate concerns. However, the issue of 'global warming', now 'climate change' has become such a political football, a vote winner and the reporting and data that's been presented has been so distorted and corrupted because funding/votes that I just don't believe a word. None of it.
Just watch some of the crap that the BBC climate editor comes out with. Shameful, 'tax' funded dross. Even the reporters who introduce him can't keep a straight face, it's laughable. But it keeps the little people all glassy eyed I suppose.
Then people come along and say things like 'only reasonable people would believe' as if those that are sceptical are unreasonable? The insults will start, the belittling crap and the comparisons with certain voter types or angry white men with red faces, ad infinitum. Or they'll just say I'm 'thick'.
Well, good luck believing what you want, I respect your opinion. It's nuts but it's your nuts.
Peace.
I'm not sure you can know what any beliefs are but i do believe that man is impacting the climate over and above natural variations and the trends seem to indicate the changes are more rapid than natural variation.Just watch some of the crap that the BBC climate editor comes out with. Shameful, 'tax' funded dross. Even the reporters who introduce him can't keep a straight face, it's laughable. But it keeps the little people all glassy eyed I suppose.
Then people come along and say things like 'only reasonable people would believe' as if those that are sceptical are unreasonable? The insults will start, the belittling crap and the comparisons with certain voter types or angry white men with red faces, ad infinitum. Or they'll just say I'm 'thick'.
Well, good luck believing what you want, I respect your opinion. It's nuts but it's your nuts.
Peace.
Edited by Pepperpots on Sunday 26th March 17:03
I take this from the majority scientific consensus together with chats with my good mate who I've known for nearly 40 years has Physics and Meteorology degrees. Personally I studied Mech eng so profess no expertise in the field.
I could go on about the sea defences where I live being breeched fairly regularly where 50years go there were none and the flooding less than it is now but really that's just seasonal weather. It is odd though the regularity with which it occurs now. We better get used to increasing our sea defence budgets pretty spectacularly over the next few decades and seeing many more migrants arriving on our shores.
Pepperpots said:
Nomme de Plum said:
Pepperpots said:
911hope said:
But the physics of climate change are undeniable, to reasonable people.
So... larger and larger parts of the globe will become uninhabitable. Those people are going to migrate to those regions which are not.
.
I'm a reasonable person and I think it's a load of guff.So... larger and larger parts of the globe will become uninhabitable. Those people are going to migrate to those regions which are not.
.
Out of interest, what have you done in the field since 1997?
I ask as I graduated with a maths degree in 1996, yet have used almost none of it in my career since, and couldn't tell you if anything fundamental has changed in any of the specialisms.
Conversely, a good friend did a computer science degree at the same time and (perhaps unsurprisingly) has remained in that profession his whole career, and (unlike some peers) actually tried to stay abreast of some of the key developments in what is a quite fast-moving field...
Strangely Brown said:
911hope said:
swisstoni said:
Well this is awkward. Someone with a degree in environmental science not convinced.
Yet dispute this claimed qualification, there is no actual substance to the post.You really would expect a scientist to have something concrete to say, would you not?
It would be sad if it wasn't so laughable.FTAOD: I refer to the insult by 911hope that was so clearly predicted by Pepperpots.
Edited by Strangely Brown on Sunday 26th March 17:54
I guess not!
Pepperpots said:
Seems this has side tracked a bit.
2035 engine phaseout was the subject, sorry about that.
Fair doos we all got sidetracked. 2035 engine phaseout was the subject, sorry about that.
I suppose the question could be which European manufactures will be spending R&D on developing ICE engines?
I don't see the UK backtracking on the 2030 sales ban. The USA is a very odd market as outside the big East and West coast cities the truck is amazingly common place. My Iowa based Daughter's Buick does 15mpAg on a good day!!
Strangely Brown said:
It's all getting more than a bit EVangelistic.
Don’t worry, once you’re past the denial and anger, it gradually gets better. Especially when you realise that you’re probably going to be able to keep driving ICEs for fun as long as you want to, there just won’t be millions of boring white goods ICEs being manufactured. otolith said:
Don’t worry, once you’re past the denial and anger, it gradually gets better. Especially when you realise that you’re probably going to be able to keep driving ICEs for fun as long as you want to, there just won’t be millions of boring white goods ICEs being manufactured.
My one worry is that BEVs will be a godsend to Road Captains.They do 40 everywhere because they're "being safe" and saving their battery and whatever else is their excuse for being an obnoxious a
hole. You find an overtaking opportunity, indicate, pull-out, at which point they wake up, see you in their mirror, and their abundant torque hits the horizon before your ageing wheezy ICE* has found its breath...* Well, mine anyway. I have this strange penchant for cars with revvy n/a engines.
otolith said:
Strangely Brown said:
It's all getting more than a bit EVangelistic.
Don’t worry, once you’re past the denial and anger, it gradually gets better. Especially when you realise that you’re probably going to be able to keep driving ICEs for fun as long as you want to, there just won’t be millions of boring white goods ICEs being manufactured. 
bigothunter said:
So can I assume that questioning climate change 'facts' is permissible? Or would that be classed as denial and heresy?
Whether it’s correct or not is neither here nor there. You can deny that or not. The reality you can’t deny is that the mainstream scientific community doesn’t deny it, and almost everyone of any power, influence, or importance takes their lead from them (because who else would they ask?). The people denying it are seen as cranks or shills, as the likes of Piers Corbyn or the creatures of billionaire funded right wing lobby groups, not actually doing any original scientific research but happily throwing FUD at the topic. The reality you can’t deny is that whether anthropogenic climate change is a real problem or not, policy will be based on the principle that it is, and that means that fossil fuel burning cars are going to be phased out. otolith said:
bigothunter said:
So can I assume that questioning climate change 'facts' is permissible? Or would that be classed as denial and heresy?
Whether it’s correct or not is neither here nor there. You can deny that or not.otolith said:
The reality you can’t deny is that people have been convinced that the mainstream scientific community doesn’t deny it, and almost everyone of any power, influence, or importance takes their lead from them (because who else would they ask?). The people denyingquestioning it are seenpainted as cranks or shills, as the likes of Piers Corbyn or the creatures of billionaire funded right wing lobby groups, not actually doing any original scientific research - except those that did and had exceptional careers in the field - but happily throwing FUDquestioningat the topic narrative.
That's better.otolith said:
The reality you can’t deny is that whether anthropogenic climate change is a real problem or not, policy will be based on the principle that it is, and that means that fossil fuel burning cars are going to be phased out.
True. Sadly.Edited by Strangely Brown on Monday 27th March 07:52
havoc said:
My one worry is that BEVs will be a godsend to Road Captains.
They do 40 everywhere because they're "being safe" and saving their battery and whatever else is their excuse for being an obnoxious ahole. You find an overtaking opportunity, indicate, pull-out, at which point they wake up, see you in their mirror, and their abundant torque hits the horizon before your ageing wheezy ICE* has found its breath...
* Well, mine anyway. I have this strange penchant for cars with revvy n/a engines.
An absolute risk. We've all had to live with the weaponising of bellends in annuity spec BMWs or their bearded chopper offspring in MINIs by the arrival of the super thrust leased turbo diesel and once these specialists get EVs one will have to adapt one's passing style yet again to compensate. They do 40 everywhere because they're "being safe" and saving their battery and whatever else is their excuse for being an obnoxious a
hole. You find an overtaking opportunity, indicate, pull-out, at which point they wake up, see you in their mirror, and their abundant torque hits the horizon before your ageing wheezy ICE* has found its breath...* Well, mine anyway. I have this strange penchant for cars with revvy n/a engines.
otolith said:
bigothunter said:
So can I assume that questioning climate change 'facts' is permissible? Or would that be classed as denial and heresy?
Whether it’s correct or not is neither here nor there. You can deny that or not. The reality you can’t deny is that the mainstream scientific community doesn’t deny it, and almost everyone of any power, influence, or importance takes their lead from them (because who else would they ask?). The people denying it are seen as cranks or shills, as the likes of Piers Corbyn or the creatures of billionaire funded right wing lobby groups, not actually doing any original scientific research but happily throwing FUD at the topic. The reality you can’t deny is that whether anthropogenic climate change is a real problem or not, policy will be based on the principle that it is, and that means that fossil fuel burning cars are going to be phased out. I'm not a denier but I am open minded. I question what I'm being told as 'fact' rather than accept it without consideration. Seems sensible to me...
bigothunter said:
otolith said:
bigothunter said:
So can I assume that questioning climate change 'facts' is permissible? Or would that be classed as denial and heresy?
Whether it’s correct or not is neither here nor there. You can deny that or not. The reality you can’t deny is that the mainstream scientific community doesn’t deny it, and almost everyone of any power, influence, or importance takes their lead from them (because who else would they ask?). The people denying it are seen as cranks or shills, as the likes of Piers Corbyn or the creatures of billionaire funded right wing lobby groups, not actually doing any original scientific research but happily throwing FUD at the topic. The reality you can’t deny is that whether anthropogenic climate change is a real problem or not, policy will be based on the principle that it is, and that means that fossil fuel burning cars are going to be phased out. I'm not a denier but I am open minded. I question what I'm being told as 'fact' rather than accept it without consideration. Seems sensible to me...
GT9 said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
The CO2 emissions coming directly from global computer manufacture and use, exceed those coming directly from global aviation manufacture and use, Does this mean we will all have to give up using our computers to `save the planet?'
What the eco loons love doing, is to focus on the things `they' dont like, such as private cars, whilst ignoring other issues, which are a far greater problem for the planet, like the fact that we are adding billions more resource consuming, waste producing, CO2 emitting numbers of MAN (The very thing that the eco loons keep telling us is destroying the planet and its climate) at NET global rates above one hundred thousand per DAY.
That is the equivalent of discovering, and shouting about the smoke coming from a from a `fire'. but doing, and saying nothing about the fact that we are adding hundreds of thousands more gallons of fuel to the `fire', and even worse wondering why that `fire' is getting worse and not better.
A few day go you were getting very animated because you thought that EVs consume more energy than ICEs, simply because they are heavier, which suggests you do care which type of car has less environment impact.What the eco loons love doing, is to focus on the things `they' dont like, such as private cars, whilst ignoring other issues, which are a far greater problem for the planet, like the fact that we are adding billions more resource consuming, waste producing, CO2 emitting numbers of MAN (The very thing that the eco loons keep telling us is destroying the planet and its climate) at NET global rates above one hundred thousand per DAY.
That is the equivalent of discovering, and shouting about the smoke coming from a from a `fire'. but doing, and saying nothing about the fact that we are adding hundreds of thousands more gallons of fuel to the `fire', and even worse wondering why that `fire' is getting worse and not better.
Now that you've learnt how regenerative braking works and that EVs have a vastly lower lifetime energy/carbon footprint due to their high efficiency, it no longer matters, and it's all about computers.
Yet everyone else is either an ecoloon or a zealot....
Do you know what happens when you try to put too much power into a battery in too short a period of time? the regenerative braking system may be excellent at producing electrical energy `instantaneously' but it still cannot put all that energy back into a battery `instantaneously'. Unless of course you know that such a battery exists. If it does please, tell us all, how it is able to be recharged `instantaneously'.
And by the way, 300 tons of material must be mined to create the materials to form one Tesla battery.
Pan Pan Pan said:
Please explain how batteries, which everyone knows take time to recharge, can be `instantaneously' recharged by regenerative braking.
Do you know what happens when you try to put too much power into a battery in too short a period of time? the regenerative braking system may be excellent at producing electrical energy `instantaneously' but it still cannot put all that energy back into a battery `instantaneously'. Unless of course you know that such a battery exists. If it does please, tell us all, how it is able to be recharged `instantaneously'.
And by the way, 300 tons of material must be mined to create the materials to form one Tesla battery.
Have you considered reappraising your beliefs about battery technology in the face of the fact that there are millions of cars on the road demonstrably doing exactly what you believe isn't possible?Do you know what happens when you try to put too much power into a battery in too short a period of time? the regenerative braking system may be excellent at producing electrical energy `instantaneously' but it still cannot put all that energy back into a battery `instantaneously'. Unless of course you know that such a battery exists. If it does please, tell us all, how it is able to be recharged `instantaneously'.
And by the way, 300 tons of material must be mined to create the materials to form one Tesla battery.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff