Re: Climate Change
 

Re: Climate Change
 

The last cycle is measured around a 20,000-year timespan. 150 years is not a relevant measurement. It's not like the earth schedules a warming period in for 2173 but we've brought it forward ahead of schedule.

You also ignore the rate of warming which is nothing like the last one which, again, is measured over 20,000 is not precise to a year because they get it from geological evidence and not someone recording a mean temperature into a spreadsheet 125,000 years ago.

The current warming period is not like the last one:

We don't everything about how this pans out but we do know this is an unnatural rate of warming. This isn't normal or expected.

Look beyond the graph.

This is a good explanation that I understood: https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Re: Climate Change
 

To be fair, I can go onto Google and find any amount of graphs, charts and papers to suit any argument I want on this subject.

I can point to hundreds of social media posts by someone who knows nothing about what they’re posting, but like a good picture. I dismiss them all.

I much rather listen to people, you can get a sense of whether they’re bullshitting or not, especially in long form interviews we’re they can be challenged on their claims.

Personally I’ve found Bjorn Lomborg, to come across as most sensible. He does not deny Climate Change, but argues our efforts could better directed and money better spent.

Re: Climate Change
 

An interesting read, yes it's published by a group that could be described as pro climate change but an interesting read all the same.

Re: Climate Change
 

Well the cynic in me would say you immediately Googled “Bjorn Lomborg - fossil fuel funded”, or something similar, after reading my post.

And the best you could come up with is an 8 year old article, regarding a “donation” that was 10yrs ago.

That said, nothing in your link, disproves or discredits, Lomborg’s argument on the matter.

Better luck next time.

Re: Climate Change
 

Good try at deflecting. I just googled Bjorn Lomborg, then chose the Who Pays Bjorn Lomborg. To be fair it's a reasonable question to ask, and while it disproves or discredits nothing it does raise (legitimate?) questions about who is pulling his strings and why.

I normally do a quick check in to people before I blindly recommend them but maybe you don't?

Re: Climate Change
 

Re: Climate Change
 

Re: Climate Change
 

I see my sarcasm wasn't lost on you.

Re: Climate Change
 

Your reality, maybe, Mr K, and honestly, I don't blame you for jumping to that conclusion. You believe what you read in the 'respected' media, and why shouldn't you?

But look at one fact we all know, and that you discount - ths mini-ice age. It was sudden, and clearly nothing to do with mankind.

There are other worries I've had over time, including the infinitely small 0.04% amount of carbon in the atmosphere, because our emissions are not all absorbed by the atmosphere, and the solar maximus, but take a look at this.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-66331558

[EXTRACT]

Researchers at the IBS Centre for Climate Physics in Busan, in South Korea, ran computer model simulations using data from the sediments. They found that average winter temperatures plummeted in many areas in Europe well below freezing, even in the otherwise milder Mediterranean.


Many of us sceptics are saying that while a warming trend may be happening, we may have got the wrong end of the stick. Does item this not give you pause for thought?

And what about the FACT that the Earth has previously been much warmer than we are now, and THAT was not 'irreversible'?

I think we need to question more what we are being told by the so-called 'experts'.

So many posters on here are on some kind of loop. I hope you are not one of them and are able to question the information that we are being fed.

Re: Climate Change
 

It was much warmer, but under one million humans lived on the planet…

I know, why listen to the 97% of Climate Scientists- what do they know….

You are Michael Gove, and I claim my five pounds!

btw, they are not "so called " experts, they are tens of thousands of scientists who put their findings up for peer review, criticism, and feedback, rather than ‘I did my own research*"…

*I watched a non-scientist’s YouTube video

Re: Climate Change
 

Re: Climate Change
 

Re: Climate Change
 

Why is the Conservative Party an organisation exempt from your natural scepticism? They wouldn’t feed you false information now, would they? :rofl:

Re: Climate Change
 

And then you actually confirm you did exactly what I accused you of

quite


Before you try to disprove or discredit anyone, why not listen to what they have to say first?

If you had actually listened to one of his interviews (which are widely available) formed an opinion, then done your 10 sec deep internet trawl.

And come back with a coherent, informed objective, post. ……………well wouldn’t the world be a better place if we all did that.

Re: Climate Change
 

I would not matter if everyone agreed the planet was getting warmer due to humans.

There would still be no agreement on what to actually do about it ...

Re: Climate Change
 

This is almost certainly sadly true.

Too many people, companies and states would be stuck with outdated late 20th century economic models considering only their own short term interests.

The private sector is incapable of innovating or providing high quality public services at any meaningful scale. It doesn’t matter what companies or countries - they routinely fail at large scale infrastructure projects leaving the brainwashed taxpayer, believing countries have to manage their budgets like households, questioning the short term value and unable to comprehend that Governments could (and should) plough trillions into long term solutions.

Very long term economic stagnation might focus the minds but we are some distance from that.

Re: Climate Change
 

Erm, so we had global warmth, but no man-made influence?

Come on, old chap, join the dots.

And I’ve told you previously that sceptical meteorologists were advised in no uncertain terms some years back that if they continued to question the man-made climate change fantasy, it would ruin their careers. I know one of those meteorologists who despairs at the manipulation involved which goes way beyond the COVID coercion that we all experienced and which only now are more mainstream people starting to question.

So guess what the sceptic meteorologists did next? They folded. Join the dots.

And you do know that Greenland used to be ice free, don’t you?

And you do know that the mini-ice age coincided with the solar minimus, don’t you, and that we are currently experiencing the solar maximus?

Look, I could go on, but I’m not asking anyone to just blindly believe what I say either. I’m just saying, think for yourself and have a more open mind on these things. Those 3% of scientists who still continue to put their heads above the parapet might just be onto something.

Remember how people on here scoffed at anyone questioning the need for COVID lockdowns at the time? How did you and others respond to us at the time? With contempt, that’s how.

What amazes me is that this is a discussion forum where nobody (apart from a few of us diehards) want to discuss anything. You just use this as a place to rant and spew your spleens at anyone who disagrees.

I’m not applying that to you, Hugh, you are nicer than that. You just ridicule and post put downs.

It’s a shame, because with the range of knowledge available on this forum, this could become a well respected depository of information.

I’m afraid I have given up on it for now. But I still hope that things will change over time.

Re: Climate Change
 

Phew, I thought buying into being an utterly deranged fantasist might have been obligatory at the point I felt like scratching my eyeballs out reading it.

Hear me out but I’ve got a conspiracy theory that big oil are using conspiracy theories to convince the sheeple to keep consuming oil based energy thus generating massive profits. It requires a small but critical mass - say 3% - of scientists to just throw enough shit around. Then social media does the rest.

What say you to that Mr Sceptic man. Think for yourself.

Re: Climate Change
 

There you go, never actually answering the points actually made. The only way you ever think you’ve won an argument is through ridicule. We see through you, jfman.

Now what about actually addressing the points I have made?

Re: Climate Change
 

Where did you actually make any?

Who are this collective “we” you speak of? The voices in your head?

Re: Climate Change
 

More deflection…

Re: Climate Change
 

You’ve offered nothing but speculation. No evidence. Only the ludicrous implication that you, and a tiny minority of scientists, are capable of establishing “facts” against long standing despite being unable to evidence them.

Who to believe you - who in a mere three threads is denying science, supporting the criminal destruction of traditional buildings and wanting to steamroller pay and conditions for the working people of this great nation. Or the 97% of scientists who think man made climate change is a thing.

Tough one.

Re: Climate Change
 

And you are denying the wealth of posts that went before this. You are all hot air and you never answer the actual points made. How do you get satisfaction out of this?

Re: Climate Change
 

Quote some. I’ll wait...

Re: Climate Change
 

Re: Climate Change
 

All we're doing on here is citing other sources because none of us have first-hand information or are climate scientists. The argument comes down to who you believe and where you get that information.

I didn't study geology, the numbers I posted earlier I got from Wikipedia and NASA's website. I trust scientists who studied these things more than I trust people with degrees in humanities who write books on it.

There are two different debates to be had.

Is man-made global warming happening? I think this is a scientific debate that will have a factual answer made as accurate as possible given the information we have. I don't think people who aren't scientists can add much new information to that.

and

What do Governments do about it? This is a political debate where scientists are part of the discussion but not the authorities on it.

Re: Climate Change
 

Re: Climate Change
 

It appears you haven’t the faintest idea how heat pumps work, despite the information being freely available for personal research. As you haven’t bothered to fact check yourself on this I see no reason to value your opinions on the rest of it.

And, incidentally, that is the entire problem with this debate in the public square. It’s actually fairly technical and those who have trained in the relevant disciplines and studied the relevant data are all consistently saying the same thing. There are vanishingly few dissenters amongst those with relevant expertise. Yet the space is being crowded by people with no relevant skills, loudly demanding they be allowed to ‘debate’ the issue with those who have.

There’s more to this than having a GCSE in geography and thinking you know how to do graphs. And opinions are like anuses. Everybody has one - so what?

Re: Climate Change
 

Ah but is it Old Seph? He would provided objective proof and reasoned argument why Climate Change is not a clear and present danger.

This prompts the wider, more fundamental question: why is it that intelligent people do not agree with the overwhelming scientific consensus? Is it that:

a) the overwhelming scientific consensus is wrong. In this case, the evidence that persuaded them he consensus is wrong is easily put forward. Of course, the next question is that why this clear, authoritative evidence has not convinced the people who dedicated their lives to this science?

b) they are fearful of being personally less wealthy if we address the issue

c) <insert excuse here>

Re: Climate Change
 

You missed out

d) Own the Libs...

e) someone else's problem...

https://www.cableforum.uk/images/local/2023/08/2.jpg

Re: Climate Change
 

Because intelligent people are sceptical and if the message is all one way traffic, debate is shut down, the MSM obviously pushing a narrative. Then intelligent people will do their own due diligence.

Of course.

Do you know who isn’t having this discussion? Africa, India and much of Asia, South America. Because they aim to have our standard of living and our level wealth.

To attain that they need cheap energy, as we have enjoyed for decades.

Proposals for net-zero will make us less wealthy and prevent developing countries from attaining wealth.

Re: Climate Change
 

Au contraire. The climate change is a clear & present danger. It was going to happen anyway

Btw, your second paragraph is irrelevant political dogma.
.

Re: Climate Change
 

You seem to be proving my point. You make an assertion that is contrary to the overwhelming mass of climate scientists yet do not provide any objective, scientific evidence to disprove said consensus.

"It's my reality and I will cry if I want to" ...

---------- Post added at 14:20 ---------- Previous post was at 14:16 ----------

You said the quiet bit out loud :D "I am too intelligent to listen to scientific consensus so I will disregard it" So, having intelligently done your "due diligence", where is the evidence that the consensus is wrong?

Again, thank you. You have also confirmed that, at least for you, it is all about the money.

Re: Climate Change
 

Re: Climate Change
 

Oh dear Lord. I suppose we all only hear (or read) what we want to……..

“Scientific consensus? There is no consensus, there very rarely is in “science”. Because unlike many people on this forum, scientists know they don’t know everything and that there’s a better than average chance they’re wrong.

I also don’t disregard anything. I just seek as much information as I can, from as many sources as I can, and then form my own opinion.

As opposed to having my opinion given to me.

Well you’ll have to tell me exactly what the “consensus” is?

If you mean, is the climate changing? I’ve never disputed that.

If it’s more than that, then tell me what it is

Absolutely it is, and when you have to pay £12,000 for heat pump equipment that doesn’t heat your house properly and change all your radiators, and probably have spend a further few grand to insulate your house, when you’re paying more than you’re paying now for your energy. When you have to pay £15 a day to drive out the street you live in, when your summer holiday is prohibitively expensive. I could go on and on.

Or maybe you’re so fabulously wealthy non of this matter to you.

But do you know who it does matter to?

All the parts of the world in my previous post, who don’t give a toss what you think, they’ll burn their coal, use their oil, burn their gas and will use their internal combustion engines. Because it’s cheap.

So can have a cheap dig me, my pleasure. But it doesn’t matter what I think. Or what you think.

Re: Climate Change
 

It is strange that when you assert that there is no consensus, I have to do the work to prove there is. Anyway, here goes:

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-s...limate-change/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scient...climate_change

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/1...48-9326/ac2966

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10....70467619886266

https://news.cnrs.fr/articles/long-s...global-warming

https://bonpote.com/en/did-the-scien...nge-reach-100/

https://leadstories.com/hoax-alert/2...ctivities.html

At this point, I got bored.

However, I did find some interesting articles on Climate Change Denial:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial

https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2...mate-emergency

So for you, yes it just about the money. Not a problem if this was just you but we have people who think like you, who will stop or slow down the changes needed to mitigate Climate Change. You, and people like you, will be the reason why change will not be achieved in time.

Re: Climate Change
 

Well what a waste of time that was….for you.

I don’t intend to waste mine, I’ve already done my own research. My research showed the climate is changing..duh.

My research also showed me that there is no “emergency”, there is no climate “boiling” and that money spent on hair brained schemes like “net-zero” would be better spent lifting people out of poverty globally. So that they think less about how they can feed their family, to not thinking about that, and being able to think about the environment.



Sorry Paul, Hugh, infractions accepted……..Ian, on this matter……… you are a gigantic cockhead.

Ian, are you going to advise the people of: Africa, India and much of Asia, South America this revelation? Otherwise it’s you and your virtue signalling mates against 7 billion people………I already know who wins.

Re: Climate Change
 

You said there was no consensus, you lied.

So you have determined:

"My research also showed me that there is no “emergency”"

This must be compelling research, can you share it here?

---------- Post added at 18:05 ---------- Previous post was at 17:59 ----------

Thanks for the insults, much appreciated.

I am not sure how proving you are lying is virtue signalling? Seems more of a public service to me :D

Again, for lazy amongst us:

https://theconversation.com/a-tale-o...matters-188865

Re: Climate Change
 

Re: Climate Change
 

You do know what consensus means …..don’t you.

The “whole” scientific community does not agree, and you have to posit the question in any event.


I have been clear from the outset, I have not ever denied that the climate is changing. I have, however, refuted that there is an emergency and believe net-zero is a folly.

Well read these, then we can talk.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/False-Alarm...c=1&th=1&psc=1

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Apocalypse-...a-919059650281

and at no extra charge!

You’ve ignored/ deflected the question at least three times now. So I’ll try again, not holding my breath:

(PS your link about India, isn’t what you think it is, if you actually read it)

Again: Ian, are you going to advise the people of: Africa, India and much of Asia, South America this revelation? Otherwise it’s you and your virtue signalling mates against 7 billion people………I already know who wins.

And by the above, I mean that all those nations and parts of the planet, must……..by your measure…….also participate in net zero. Otherwise what’s the point?

Re: Climate Change
 

Do you mean those people whose entire academic career has been spent investigating all the causes and peer-reviewed research on these subjects?

Pretty sure "yes" is the answer to your question…

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...2&d=1691951020

Re: Climate Change
 

Re: Climate Change
 

Well, if you can't deny their science, might as well use an ad-hominem attack, eh?

Re: Climate Change
 

Happy News only allowed? Or should they tell it how it is? Evidence based scientists, or self interested politicians/ money men/GB news bigots, ? Your choice.

The thing you need to ask yourself is, what is the 'deniers' motivation? ( clue, it doesn't last longer than their own lifetime/ bank balances). Scientists tend to get paid the same whatever.

Re: Climate Change
 

Again, "virtue signalling" .. you are obsessed with it. Think what you like, I clearly can't stop you. I gave you a clear definition of the overwhelming scientific consensus and it clearly winds you up. I really can't help that.

You are right (sort of a stopped clock moment), all the nations need to address net zero. Sort of obvious really. I know you won't because they won't - sort of a childish reaction to something that will affect your grandchildren. But hey, takes all sorts I guess.

Remember .. don't look up! :D

Re: Climate Change
 

Re: Climate Change
 

Re: Climate Change
 

I’m sure you’re just about to qualify that post with a relevant point.

Re: Climate Change
 

Re: Climate Change
 

Why don't you ask all of them? You are the expert and they are not.

Re: Climate Change
 

tbf, he does have a graph that tens of thousands of climate scientists have missed…

"group thinkers" aka "the scientific method"…

No, no, you’re right, with your extensive climatology experience and your multiple peer-reviewed papers…

Re: Climate Change
 

I thought one benefit of Brexit was that the UK could move with agility to take the lead on matters like addressing climate change, without the need to reach a consensus with fellow EU members.

First of all you're sceptical of the UK's ability to take a global lead. Then you ask what a global lead is. This second statement contradicts your first.

Hundreds of £millions is not virtue-signalling.

Re: Climate Change
 

Taking your points one by one:

Quote:

I thought one benefit of Brexit was that the UK could move with agility to take the lead on matters like addressing climate change, without the need to reach a consensus with fellow EU members.

I prefer the "Old Andrew"! Why didn't you address the point that I made? ... Which was why on earth should we take any lead? It's economically and socially unaffordable. Your Brexit point was gratuitous and irrelevant.

Quote:

First of all you're sceptical of the UK's ability to take a global lead. Then you ask what a global lead is. This second statement contradicts your first.

You must have misread/misunderstood what I wrote. I merely asked what the definition of "take a global lead" meant in terms of the article. It's a piece of string stuff. What would be the boundaries of a "global lead" and who would struggle as a result?

Quote:

Hundreds of £millions is not virtue-signalling.

Where did I mention money? This "global lead" cobblers is the virtue signalling. The money that you've mentioned would be better spent making heating/cooling solutions cheaper, inclusing energy.

Re: Climate Change
 

I ain't no expert by any stretch (neither is anyone else here), but just my own ignorant opinon here. ....

I'm on the fence. What this Government wants is stupid. Electric cars, heat pumps, to take the global lead etc etc. We don't have the resources or the infrastructure. To achieve what they want we need to go back in time at least 25-30 years to start it. Their targets will never be met as they are impossible.

It's like Covid all over again, or the war in the Ukraine.. The UK has to be a key player and lead and all for what exactly? Its just willy waving to the rest of the world, apart from that we can't afford it. The people / public can't afford it either for what they are planning, but it sure as hell looks and sounds good for the politicians to score their points.

Where are we in the table of polluters? What we do or try to will surely be wiped out by the real culprits, yet what are they (other countries) actually doing?

To me it's all a bit of a con but at our expense.

As for the actual global warming / climate change, there's for and against on either sides. To pick one only to me is like tossing a coin. Experts are paid etc to suit agendas etc, but now I sound like a conspiracy theorist so will leave it there.

Re: Climate Change
 

You’re wasting your time, Seph. Whatever the influencers on social media say, the same old loyal CF band of followers follow, pied-piper-like, and refuse to discuss other possibilities or any faults in the arguments they peddle.

I’ve pretty well given up arguing much on here because I have concluded that it’s utterly pointless.

Of course we all agree there is climate change is happening, but I think the jury is out on whether the causes are man made for all the reasons that have been debated above. The reason that there is scientific ‘consensus’ is because those who question it have been silenced, with threats to their careers.

The scientists are not always right. They were wrong to say 30 years ago that butter was bad for you, and they were wrong to claim we were heading for another ice age in the 1960s.

But I’m afraid you’ll never get to have a sensible discussion on here about other possible causes that may be triggering climate change. The usual suspects would prefer to laugh at you, ridicule you and claim that they know more than you do, selecting snippets from stuff they find on their selected websites that happen to be taken as proof they are right. And when you do the same to prove them wrong, they will ridicule the source of the news item, the author, or whatever they choose to satisfy themselves they are right. If all else fails, they will twist your words to mean something else or subtlety change the subject.

I’m sure that a lot of people watching the posts on this forum stay quiet rather than disagree because they don’t want to get shot down in flames for disagreeing.

What a waste of what could have been a really good debating site. Climate change is a really big issue for the planet, which is why it’s difficult to understand why people don’t want to discuss it, or even consider how unacceptable the population will find it when the power runs out and when they realise that they can’t afford all the rushed changes the politicians want to make to get to where they want to be.

They will find out soon enough. The sale of new petrol and diesel cars will be banned in 2030 under current plans and duel fuel cars from 2035. After seeing the public reaction to the extension of the ULEZ scheme in London, can you imagine the reaction from the public when these bans come into force? And that will be nothing compared to the rush to ban gas boilers in favour of heat pumps!

I’d just sit back and watch if I were you, Seph. It will be amusing to observe all the backtracking that will result.

Re: Climate Change
 

Said without irony in a few hundred word diatribe insulting most of us.

Dare I remind you that your beloved Conservative Government is mostly responsible for what you criticise here, far more than forum members or “social media influencers”.

Is there any evidence for this or is it just scaremongering nonsense?

One single constituency of Tory voters voted Tory.

Re: Climate Change
 

You mean like the threat of power cuts due to not having enough generation power ?
Having to keep old coal powered stations on standby for shortages instead of closing them down ?

This all happened last year, and atm, electric car usage is still only about 10-15%.

The UK was aiming for 2040, and then for no obvious reason changed that to 2030.
It will make almost no practical difference to the world as a whole, we are just too small.
Plus a little know fact is that HGVs and Buses will still be 2040, and Hybrids will still be 2035

Most of the world is either 2035 or 2040, including the huge users like the USA & China. Some countries are 2050.
I could not find a date for Russia, but the choice of actual cars for them to buy would be very limited by the year 2040.

Re: Climate Change
 

You got this from one graph and you keep ignoring the other context I have asked you to explain, such as the speed of the change.

Can you at least answer that?

If you want crude graphs, this is also a fun way of visualising why it's different: https://xkcd.com/1732/

Re: Climate Change
 

Re: Climate Change
 

Are you OK, OB?

You didn’t use "lefties" or "woke" in your diatribe…

btw, it’s obvious you’ve never worked with scientific researchers/professors - they never shut up about what they are doing, and they thrive on pointing out where previous research got things wrong/incorrectly interpreted; it’s how the scientific method works

Now you’re talking absolute bolleaux - you are stating that every government in the world is suppressing information that shows Climate Change isn’t happening the way the established consensus shows.

Even the Scientists in the Oil companies got the same results as Academic researchers - are you saying the Oil companies suppressed them?

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/sto...ence.%E2%80%9D

You’ve moved on from the Telegraph to UnHerd & Spiked, haven’t you?

Re: Climate Change
 

Specifically OB said though “when the power runs out”. There’s no actual evidence a Government would be so complacent to let that happen. Last year was also a situation where much of Europe were at short notice chasing the same gas supplies - I don’t think it’s accurate to present it as the demand side being the problem.

Nobody is claiming that the transition will happen overnight. The idea that the (any) Government will sit back and let power cuts become a routine experience as presented is preposterous. They’d very quickly find themselves out on their ear if they did.

I do agree though that our (any) Government are unlikely to go through with being at the front. As we approach those dates I’d expect them to slide. The technologies won’t reach economies of scale to drive down prices until the big players are on board.

Re: Climate Change
 

The warming period you refer to 'the bit on the graph' took 15,000 - 20,000 years. The only other times the temperature has increased as quickly as it is now is when natural, epic, extinction-level disasters happened.

Your graph is not precise enough to show hundreds of years. You can't know where we are on that graph is so broad. 150 years won't show up on it.

Re: Climate Change
 

I'm pretty sure power cuts are a definition of power running out.

Wow, when did your faith in our government suddenly change. :D

Re: Climate Change
 

It was OB’s presentation that it was inevitable and implication it’d be somehow regular or routine (my local area had a four hour power cut and we didn’t spark a revolution last winter). Sure, it’s always a risk and in particular the energy crisis linked to everyone not buying Russian gas and the blown up pipeline didn’t help.

A Government that can’t keep the lights on while our neighbours can wouldn’t last long. Regardless of incompetence they can’t be that bad. Surely.

Very quickly they’d roll back targets or rebrand some not very green sources. :D

Re: Climate Change
 

Well it didnt take long for them to realise how unrealistic the dates were.

The date for cars is apparently set to roll back 5 years now - to 2035, the same with Gas boilers I believe.

Re: Climate Change
 

Business wants certainty to invest. Flip-flopping on commitments however well-intended could have side effects on investment and jobs.

Re: Climate Change
 

Ford along with others is leading a furious business backlash against Rishi Sunak’s plans to water down some of Britain’s key climate pledges.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-b2414879.html

Re: Climate Change
 

Well Ford geared up their production and investment for it, they're obviously going to be upset they were lied too.

Re: Climate Change
 

The only reason the government is backtracking on Net Zero is to gain electorally right up to next years General Election.

Re: Climate Change
 

Vote winner, and in 2030, they move it back again.

---------- Post added at 12:15 ---------- Previous post was at 12:11 ----------

Well Ford can concentrate on manufacturing its electric cars cheaper, and making their range greater, whilst the government increases charge points.

The way to make people move to electric is to make them want to, not by force.

Re: Climate Change
 

Not sure it will win them many votes, it equally lose them votes. Many tories are outraged by it. https://news.sky.com/story/tory-back...edges-12965229

Putting a few votes before the future of the planet is desperate and irresponsible stuff from a dying Government.

Re: Climate Change
 

Sunak statement

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...2&d=1695243468



DEFRA advice sent to businesses after the speech.

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...3&d=1695243468

Also, I can’t find any evidence that "compulsory car-sharing" was going to become law…

Re: Climate Change
 

Given their desperate party polling for a considerable period now and that now includes Sunaks personal ratings it is the last throw of the dice as CHQ think this is a wedge issue that might play well with their base but as with so much of their recent initiatives its likely to go down like a lead balloon with many voters apart from their base.

Re: Climate Change
 

I am looking forward to having less bins and cheaper meat due to no meat tax…

This is a pure knee jerk reaction to the election result in Uxbridge where ULEZ was a big issue. Suddenly there’s a feeling that dropping green policies is a vote winner. This may well be the case for older, more traditionally conservative voters but not so much for younger voters.

Re: Climate Change
 

He had no choice other than to put it back. Until they start building the nuclear power stations which won't happen because we can't afford them. Then they need to upgrade the national grid to cope with the power needed which also won't happen. All this will take decades if they start now which isn't going to happen also. All these policies they offer will just not happen. What they offer is all just for the votes.

Still, won't stop the idiots blocking the roads wanting change and there has to be change but whatever they do will just be political wanting to be 'world leaders' at a cost we can't afford. But it'll all be meaningless regardless.

Re: Climate Change
 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-p...ost_type=share

So, it appears three out of the five measures being cancelled never were going to happen anyway…

Re: Climate Change
 

Mini heatwave coming this weekend, 20C+ for about 5 days (23C on Sat/Sun). :Sun:

Re: Climate Change
 

I don’t think people would have taken kindly to having to pay thousands of pounds for a new boiler before they needed one. I think when the electorate wakes up to what was going to happen under previous proposals, which Starmer is still committed to, they will vote for what’s best for their pockets.

---------- Post added at 20:04 ---------- Previous post was at 20:01 ----------

He’s not backtracking, just setting out an alternative way of getting there.

We are still ahead of everyone else, so what’s your point? Were you happy to be replacing your stuff earlier than you had to in order to meet these targets? If so, you must be rolling in it, and nice to see you’re all right, Jack.

What about the many working class people who can’t afford to do that?

Re: Climate Change
 

Existing working gas boilers were not needing to be replaced.

From 2020.

https://www.theheatinghub.co.uk/arti...20gas%20boiler.

From August 2023

https://www.moneysupermarket.com/new...20are%20faulty.

From the Conservative Government policy.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/p...-of-clean-heat

Re: Climate Change
 

All very well today, OB, what about tomorrow? Politicians are short termists. 27c this weekend, is that normal in October? It's coming sooner than we think, no ice left at the poles, the SE under water , economic and human carnage. The chances of doing anything about it are diminishing. Delaying because its politically convenient could be the tipping point. . How is that good for anyone's pocket?

Yes the Govt needs to help those that can't afford to change, and pressurise other countries. It's their job. The only thing they can think of is the next election.

Re: Climate Change
 

Re: Climate Change
 

The 140 000 year cycle that's now occurred within the last 60 years and is acclerating exponentially away? We are outside the broken cycle.

Rich or broke its irrelevant if the country is flooded / invaded by climate migrants. This selfish generation can't think further than its own demise.

Re: Climate Change
 

Why would anyone not consider their own demise ?

The UK accounts for less than 1% of global greenhouse emissions, so we should absolutely consider if its really worth all the pain and cost for something that will have very little effect overall.

Re: Climate Change
 

You forgot :

a disaster of biblical proportions, Old Testament, real wrath of God type stuff. Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling! Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes. The dead rising from the grave! Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... MASS HYSTERIA!

If your going to go, go big.

Re: Climate Change
 

You are being silly

---------- Post added at 19:33 ---------- Previous post was at 19:30 ----------

This may help?

https://eciu.net/insights/2021/why-t...-is-a-big-deal



---------- Post added at 19:35 ---------- Previous post was at 19:33 ----------

There are also cumulative emissions to consider:

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis...limate-change/

Re: Climate Change
 

Obviously not a movie fan, I’m sure others here get the reference.

Re: Climate Change
 

Nope, just a lot blustering whch doesnt change the simple fact we contribute < 1%, so insignificant, no matter how they try and spin it.

Re: Climate Change
 

If we followed the 1% is insignificant logic, we would divide bigger countries into many smaller ones so each contributed only1% to global warming which is insignificant so no action is required by anyone.

Re: Climate Change
 

Re: Climate Change
 

Don’t Look Up!

Re: Climate Change
 

They'd be better looking at the 2050 flood map which might give some pause for thought.
https://www.countryliving.com/uk/new...ng-sea-levels/

Re: Climate Change
 

HHGTTG SEP

Don’t forget your towel…

Re: Climate Change
 

Complete and utter nonsense, if thats your best argument, give up. :dozey:

---------- Post added at 15:36 ---------- Previous post was at 15:33 ----------

All the sea defences Ive seen on the east coast are more than 35 cm high.

Still, I'm sure its not that hard to build an 18 inch wall (10cm to spare). ;)

---------- Post added at 15:37 ---------- Previous post was at 15:36 ----------

Huh :confused:

Re: Climate Change
 

https://www.bernsteincrisismanagemen...0that%20it%27s

HHGTTG - Hitchikers Guide To The Galaxy
SEP - Somebody Else’s Problem

Re: Climate Change
 

On another point in the last week have seen one and heard about another ( on news report) + the Venice bus of ev catching fire when in a crash , perhaps they are not such a great idea. Having second thoughts about the one I have ordered. Time to go and eat . Cheers

Re: Climate Change
 

Crashing through the guardrail and the 15 metre fall onto electricity lines were probably contributing factors as well…

Re: Climate Change
 

I'm pretty sure petrol/diesel vehicles can catch fire in a crash as well.

Re: Climate Change
 

The problem with sea/flood defences is that water has a habit of going round the sides, its sneaky like that. Plus there's the little problem of tides, waves, and the increasing regularity of storms. An 18 inch wall even if it could cover the 11,073 miles of UK coastline, might not be much help.

Re: Climate Change
 

You know they only build sea defences on the bits that are low lying or susceptible to storm surges, right? :dozey:

There’s not much of a call for a sea wall (of any height) around Dover.