Diesel and petrol car ban: Plan for 2040

[Ken Gargett]

4 hours ago, clutch5150 said:

Uh ok Ken, thought I would get a better thinking reply than this, but here's another one for ya to pounder on down under.  Was on a plane about 15 years ago sitting next to a younger grad student from Berkley.  You know the University that allows (cough) free speech and other freedoms (cough) for all. Anyhoot we struck up a conversation she was doing her dissertation on the subject of Global warming. (Mind you this was 15 years ago).  She went on and on about how human intervention was the sole cause of a planet in chaos etc. etc. etc.  I smiled and let her talk for about 15min. I then politely asked her, does she think that another large portion of the warming trend was the earth was simply coming out of its "ice age"?   She looked at me with a deer in headlights look and told me she never thought about that....

At least she was honest, and could think and it appeared as an old friend of mine, the late Pat Rogers used to say, "learning has occurred".  Have at it Ken, you subtle sarcasm never ceases to amaze me around here, but I surely don't dislike this site for your narrow minded views most times. It's the cigars and not you for sure.  Have a good day Mate.

perhaps i simply had better things to do but how fortunate we are that we have the self-appointed font of all wisdom on the site. someone disagrees with you and they are immediately deemed narrow minded. wow, how thoroughly tolerant of you. so you might understand if i would rather clean the garage than waste any more time on this thread. though i am curious, well not really, to know what possible relevance a conversation with a dimwitted student on flight in the long distant past has to this or have you decided she speaks for the scientific community? you know, that would be the community that almost unanimously believes in.. oh why bother. i leave you to lecture some other poor student.

 

[Dave O)))]

I'm not talking about the ability to power your TV and toaster. How do you keep producing Steel, aluminum and other such products on a calm dark day.

Oh that's right, we can import it from India and China, they are the ones with all the power stations and jobs these days. 

Factories have large rooves and farms and mines have plenty of land. It doesn't take a genius to work out how energy might be produced in these spaces, and Tesla's super battery is the pointy end of the storage wedge. Watch and learn.

[gweilgi]

9 hours ago, JamesKPolkEsq said:

Setting aside the rather contentious topic of global warming, what about the non contentious topic of air pollution in the form of NOx, CO, O3, Sulfur, VOCs and particulate matter?

http://geographical.co.uk/places/cities/item/2340-dossier-the-air-that-we-breath

If for no other reason than the drastic reduction in total harmful emissions from tailpipes, we have a strong public interest in moving away from internal combustion vehicles for the collective health benefits alone.

On a historical side note, the advent of internal combustion was hailed as a major improvement to the quality of air and life in the big cities.  Before then, what we had was horses ... and horses produce manure and urine in LARGE quantities.  In New York City alone, 100,000 horses produced 2.5 million pounds of manure and 100,000 litres of urine every single day.  Sydney and London had the same problem.  The first international urban planning conference in 1898 disbanded after three days without any result because the one topic on the agenda was how to cope with all this crap ... and they could not see any solution.  And then, a couple of decades later, the problem had simply resolved itself.  

For me, the lesson here is twofold: first, read history -- chances are that whatever our problem, it has happened before.  Second, solutions will arrive and we should not be so arrogant to think that just because *we* cannot think of one, it is not out there ... 

 

[Dave O)))]

I see how all this looks like a new tax on industry, and Australia manufacturing has practically been reduced to "cottage" status on the global scale. But if it doesn't invest in generating its own power to some degree, I can't see a lot of businesses coping well with the rising costs on energy. Bring that full circle if you like and blame the global warming cult for all this, but the science and business reasoning is sound in my opinion.

You can argue the business and social sides of this discussion until the cows come home if you like, but there is nothing more objective on this planet than science. If you disagree with 99.9% of climate scientists, you're an idiot. Nothing personal

[Warren]

49 minutes ago, rehabit said:

Factories have large rooves and farms and mines have plenty of land. It doesn't take a genius to work out how energy might be produced in these spaces, and Tesla's super battery is the pointy end of the storage wedge. Watch and learn.

You clearly have no idea how steel is made. You can't just shut the plant down at night

[Warren]

23 minutes ago, rehabit said:

I see how all this looks like a new tax on industry, and Australia manufacturing has practically been reduced to "cottage" status on the global scale. But if it doesn't invest in generating its own power to some degree, I can't see a lot of businesses coping well with the rising costs on energy. Bring that full circle if you like and blame the global warming cult for all this, but the science and business reasoning is sound in my opinion.

You can argue the business and social sides of this discussion until the cows come home if you like, but there is nothing more objective on this planet than science. If you disagree with 99.9% of climate scientists, you're an idiot. Nothing personal

This has not been based on real science and how the hell can you sit there and suggest that any kind of objectivity has been used in this process. Facts and figures have been fabricated all along to suit the green agenda. This is fact.

[Ken Gargett]

27 minutes ago, gweilgi said:

On a historical side note, the advent of internal combustion was hailed as a major improvement to the quality of air and life in the big cities.  Before then, what we had was horses ... and horses produce manure and urine in LARGE quantities.  In New York City alone, 100,000 horses produced 2.5 million pounds of manure and 100,000 litres of urine every single day.  Sydney and London had the same problem.  The first international urban planning conference in 1898 disbanded after three days without any result because the one topic on the agenda was how to cope with all this crap ... and they could not see any solution.  And then, a couple of decades later, the problem had simply resolved itself.  

For me, the lesson here is twofold: first, read history -- chances are that whatever our problem, it has happened before.  Second, solutions will arrive and we should not be so arrogant to think that just because *we* cannot think of one, it is not out there ... 

 

agree with the last para.

one of the problems seems to be that people think that there must be a simple answer. we just have to think of it. but history has two sides - cigarettes were originally endorsed by doctors and advertised as actually being good for sore throats. i know that there are differences but hopefully, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, we slowly move to a better world.

[Ken Gargett]

3 minutes ago, Warren said:

This has not been based on real science and how the hell can you sit there and suggest that any kind of objectivity has been used in this process. Facts and figures have been fabricated all along to suit the green agenda. This is fact.

warren, you and i agree on a lot of things, and overdue for a balcony session so if you are around at some stage, but on this we are opposite ends.

i suspect we have a similar opinion of the greens in australia. for me, the greens' worst enemy, at least in australia, is themselves. a bigger bunch of truly imbecilic stupid useless people, it is hard to imagine (there are presumably exceptions, though certainly not in the parliament). but to suggest that almost every respected scientist on the planet has colluded to fabricate climate change figures beggars belief. for me, it is flat earth/they staged the moon landing stuff. although given we have one politician (not the stupidest we have, sadly - sarah h-b, anyone?) who believes that NASA is behind it all, perhaps that was where they started.

[Ken Gargett]

38 minutes ago, rehabit said:

You can argue the business and social sides of this discussion until the cows come home if you like, but there is nothing more objective on this planet than science. If you disagree with 99.9% of climate scientists, you're an idiot. Nothing personal

as a fellow member, may i take this opportunity to welcome you to the narrow-minded club. see if you can squeeze in next to all the world's scientists.

[gweilgi]

12 minutes ago, Ken Gargett said:

agree with the last para.

one of the problems seems to be that people think that there must be a simple answer. we just have to think of it. but history has two sides - cigarettes were originally endorsed by doctors and advertised as actually being good for sore throats. i know that there are differences but hopefully, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, we slowly move to a better world.

Actually, I think our problem is not evidence but perception.

There are problems and challenges, to be sure -- there always are.  But on the whole, we are doing amazingly well.

By just about any measure, our world today is a far better place than fifty or 100 years ago.  We live longer.  We are wealthier.  We are more secure -- in our persons, in our possessions, in our basic needs.  We are healthier.  We have more options, more travel, more cultural exchange, more education.  We have solved problems that even a generation ago were unsurmountable.  And these advances and improvements are not restricted to the rich, or to the blessed few in the industrialised world: they have positively affected just about everyone on the planet.  The problem we have is that this good news has not filtered through to our collective consciousness.  It is being drowned out by the media that delights in reporting all the misery they can find ("If it bleeds, it leads") and by rabble-rousers of all stripe from local community activists to the religious zealots of environmentalism to the preening pin-striped politicians of our governments who see power and profit for themselves in stoking our fears with their incessant shouting about doom and gloom.  

[Dave O)))]

This has not been based on real science and how the hell can you sit there and suggest that any kind of objectivity has been used in this process. Facts and figures have been fabricated all along to suit the green agenda. This is fact.

Your opinion is equally as subjective as mine and neither of us have anything concrete to back up our argument. I suppose we can agree to disagree.

[Ken Gargett]

1 minute ago, gweilgi said:

Actually, I think our problem is not evidence but perception.

There are problems and challenges, to be sure -- there always are.  But on the whole, we are doing amazingly well.

By just about any measure, our world today is a far better place than fifty or 100 years ago.  We live longer.  We are wealthier.  We are more secure -- in our persons, in our possessions, in our basic needs.  We are healthier.  We have more options, more travel, more cultural exchange, more education.  We have solved problems that even a generation ago were unsurmountable.  And these advances and improvements are not restricted to the rich, or to the blessed few in the industrialised world: they have positively affected just about everyone on the planet.  The problem we have is that this good news has not filtered through to our collective consciousness.  It is being drowned out by the media that delights in reporting all the misery they can find ("If it bleeds, it leads") and by rabble-rousers of all stripe from local community activists to the religious zealots of environmentalism to the preening pin-striped politicians of our governments who see power and profit for themselves in stoking our fears with their incessant shouting about doom and gloom.  

i agree re the state of "being human", for want of a better way of putting it but i would also say that aside from pigeons, rats, raccoons and seagulls (and no doubt a few others), the rest of the species on earth may feel differently. and the planet itself. sadly, that trend is likely to continue until such time as the seesaw tips and we join the rest in a dire cesspool from which there is no escape.

[Dave O)))]

as a fellow member, may i take this opportunity to welcome you to the narrow-minded club. see if you can squeeze in next to all the world's scientists.

 

 

You are very quick to judge, Ken. My remark was not directed at anyone in particular. I apologize for my forthright expression, happy to withdraw it.

 

Edit I have to point out I think your conception of scientists is a bit off, however.

[Ken Gargett]

1 minute ago, rehabit said:

 

You are very quick to judge, Ken. My remark was not directed at anyone in particular. I apologize for my forthright expression, happy to withdraw it.

not a problem at all. sorry if i misled you.

the thoughts behind the comment were not directed at you - i think we are very much in agreement (it is beyond me how anyone can fail to see what is happening). it was simply that earlier in this thread i was labelled narrow-minded for believing in climate change (and sarcastic - and i did not want to disappoint). you just provided the window.

please do not stop or amend your expression in any way, at least as far as i am concerned.

[Dave O)))]

Understood mate, totally over my pea sized head!

[SignalJoe]

2 hours ago, Ken Gargett said:

 you know, that would be the community that almost unanimously believes in..

 

1 hour ago, rehabit said:

You can argue the business and social sides of this discussion until the cows come home if you like, but there is nothing more objective on this planet than science. If you disagree with 99.9% of climate scientists, you're an idiot. Nothing personal

I would like to interject one thing before I bow out of this conversation; When did science become a democracy?  Meaning what happened to the scientific method of forming a hypothesis, conducting an experiment using controls and variables and using the data derived from the experiment to form a conclusion?   

Apparently the scientific community now votes on issues and if a simple majority agree it is deemed " settled science" and all must agree.  Also who happens to have a directory with the name of EVERY climate scientist world wide with a total number so that we can verify that 99.9% agree or even a simple majority for that matter.  Surely such a directory exists as I continuously see numbers thrown about declaring that X percentage of climate scientists agree.  I am certain that those who believe in science wouldn't haphazardly throw about numbers without a verifiable source.      

In summation 

• No one denies climate change has or is occurring
• No one is against progress/new technology 
• No one is in favor of excess/unnecessary pollution

The issue is reality.  Until the technology is created to replace what works writing legislation with arbitrary dates neither helps nor magically produces said technology.  When the technology for power production and transportation is equivalent to what it is replacing, affordable to purchase and profitable to manufacture it will be embraced.  At that stage we are dealing with reality and the morons we have elected to represent us can write legislation regulating it rather than writing fiction.   

[Dave O)))]

You clearly have no idea how steel is made. You can't just shut the plant down at night

I reckon some genius is working on an answer to this predicament right now. Anyway until the technology develops installing solar etc is a method of offsetting the cost of carbon. That's why it's a transition. It all takes time. We'll get there, stay positive ️

[Ken Gargett]

9 minutes ago, SignalJoe said:

 

I would like to interject one thing before I bow out of this conversation; When did science become a democracy?  Meaning what happened to the scientific method of forming a hypothesis, conducting an experiment using controls and variables and using the data derived from the experiment to form a conclusion?   

Apparently the scientific community now votes on issues and if a simple majority agree it is deemed " settled science" and all must agree.  Also who happens to have a directory with the name of EVERY climate scientist world wide with a total number so that we can verify that 99.9% agree or even a simple majority for that matter.  Surely such a directory exists as I continuously see numbers thrown about declaring that X percentage of climate scientists agree.  I am certain that those who believe in science wouldn't haphazardly throw about numbers without a verifiable source.      

In summation 

• No one denies climate change has or is occurring
• No one is against progress/new technology 
• No one is in favor of excess/unnecessary pollution

The issue is reality.  Until the technology is created to replace what works writing legislation with arbitrary dates neither helps nor magically produces said technology.  When the technology for power production and transportation is equivalent to what it is replacing, affordable to purchase and profitable to manufacture it will be embraced.  At that stage we are dealing with reality and the morons we have elected to represent us can write legislation regulating it rather than writing fiction.   

i suspect we are closer on this than might appear. agree re the concept of democracy/science and while i did not put a specific figure on it, report after report after report suggests that it is, at the very least, an overwhelming majority of scientists who do support this concept. it does not make them right but at the moment, to me, the evidence is beyond doubt.

as for your summary, i wish the first point were true but there are plenty of deniers/skeptics/call them what you will, out there. i suspect our differences are a matter of degree. your second point, again, one would hope not, but the problem is that getting people to agree on what is progress is another complete mess.

a further problem is that waiting for the technology is all very well but it may be too late. one would like to think that the human race would have the sense to realise a massive problem is upon us and act accordingly but both of us know that is no chance.

as for the morons who represent us, we could sit and drink till the world was free of all alcohol and not disagree about that.

[Fugu]

11 hours ago, Warren said:

You clearly have no idea how steel is made. You can't just shut the plant down at night

Steel is made from ore and coking coal of course, true. There will always coal be needed for this process, since much less than a sole energetic one it is more so a chemical, a redox issue of the reactions involved. You need an oxygen acceptor - which cannot simply be provided by electric power (like e.g. is being done in aluminium prod. where this is an electrolytic process (still there - graphite electrodes are needed...). By the way - there are aluminium plants that are using hydroelectric power)). But all this still doesn't make considerations obsolete how to get away from fossil energy. In the medium to long term, coal and crude oil are just too precious a ressource as a production raw material than for simply being burned.

On another note, I am with you, Warren, with your critique of batteries as a form of large-scale energy storage. Not efficient! Can only be an interim-solution. Also, carrying 200 kg (Hybrids) or even up to 600 kg (Tesla Model S and X: 750 kg!) worth of "dead" payload with your car just for energy storage is basically nuts. Other forms of energy supply to vehicles and/or storage are needed - and they will come.

[wabashcr]

14 hours ago, Ken Gargett said:

perhaps i simply had better things to do but how fortunate we are that we have the self-appointed font of all wisdom on the site. someone disagrees with you and they are immediately deemed narrow minded. wow, how thoroughly tolerant of you. so you might understand if i would rather clean the garage than waste any more time on this thread. though i am curious, well not really, to know what possible relevance a conversation with a dimwitted student on flight in the long distant past has to this or have you decided she speaks for the scientific community? you know, that would be the community that almost unanimously believes in.. oh why bother. i leave you to lecture some other poor student.

 

I love this notion that a grad student at Berkeley giving a dissertation on "Global Warming" (because grad-level dissertations at prestigious institutions on the cutting edge of climate research are ever this broad in scope) hasn't even considered the notion of naturally occurring global temperature changes, something a middle school science course would cover in sufficient detail.  Thankfully @clutch5150 was there to talk some sense into that libruhl do-gooder and set her straight.  I'm imagining shockwaves were felt through the entire UC Berkeley Energy and Climate Institute as a result.  Back to square one, everybody!

As a side note, if this whole scenario weren't entirely made up, I'd love to have heard her account of the conversation.  

[Hayden]

I think a lot of people get mixed up the politicisation of climate change. People tend to think " I don't like the solution people put forward to deal with climate change so I must discredit climate change". The reality is there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that shows climate change is happening and human activity is a large part of it. I haven't seen anyone truly go through the data (while also understanding it) and give a strong argument that isn't true. I have seen smart people who obviously were either influenced by corporate money or who for religious reason couldn't believe that humans could that drastically influence God's work put up convincing (to the layman) but flawed arguments against it. There is significant scientific consensus that human influenced climate change makes the best sense. I've read scientific articles that show that the chance this trend is a giant natural fluctuation are almost zero. To quote the author : “We’ve had a fluctuation in average temperature that’s just huge since 1880 – on the order of about 0.9 degrees Celsius,” Lovejoy says. “This study shows that the odds of that being caused by natural fluctuations are less than one in a hundred and are likely to be less than one in a thousand.

[JamesKPolkEsq]

57 minutes ago, wabashcr said:

I love this notion that a grad student at Berkeley giving a dissertation on "Global Warming" (because grad-level dissertations at prestigious institutions on the cutting edge of climate research are ever this broad in scope) hasn't even considered the notion of naturally occurring global temperature changes, something a middle school science course would cover in sufficient detail.  Thankfully @clutch5150 was there to talk some sense into that libruhl do-gooder and set her straight.  I'm imagining shockwaves were felt through the entire UC Berkeley Energy and Climate Institute as a result.  Back to square one, everybody!

As a side note, if this whole scenario weren't entirely made up, I'd love to have heard her account of the conversation.  

If one were a Ph.D. student in ANY subject sitting next to someone on an airplane who starts trying to teach you about your field of expertise, I would expect the Ph.D. student to end the conversation as soon as possible.

Uh, yeah random person, you definitely know more than me about this subject...  How long is this flight again? 

[PigFish]

16 hours ago, Ken Gargett said:

warren, you and i agree on a lot of things, and overdue for a balcony session so if you are around at some stage, but on this we are opposite ends.

i suspect we have a similar opinion of the greens in australia. for me, the greens' worst enemy, at least in australia, is themselves. a bigger bunch of truly imbecilic stupid useless people, it is hard to imagine (there are presumably exceptions, though certainly not in the parliament). but to suggest that almost every respected scientist on the planet has colluded to fabricate climate change figures beggars belief. for me, it is flat earth/they staged the moon landing stuff. although given we have one politician (not the stupidest we have, sadly - sarah h-b, anyone?) who believes that NASA is behind it all, perhaps that was where they started.

I have a lot that I could add to this thread but I don't think it will further it much. Most of us are entrenched!

I do understand some about science. I come from a family of physicists (my old man was a famous one). I would say almost everyone on this board uses one or more of his inventions everyday! It was my field of study in college as well.

I quoted you Ken to point something out. Science is not pure! You only need spend some time in it or around industry and academics to know it. Industry scientists get paid (a profit motive) for results. Academic scientists are exactly the same. They get paid for grants and publishing, school recognition. This is all interrelated and money-centric. Science and scientists are often egomaniacs and are highly resistant to change, very closed minded individuals. Some of these folks would rather throw themselves off a building than 'get a bad grade.' Bunche Hall (UCLA) was a prime jumping spot!

Rather than argue the point this is an article about one of the goals of NASA under Obama. This has noting to do with climate science but should give the reader an indication about how government institutions and GSE's are utilized by the political activist.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/space/7875584/Barack-Obama-Nasa-must-try-to-make-Muslims-feel-good.html

Cheers! -Ray

[PigFish]

... a bit more about my old 'haunt' and open-mindedness!

https://www.thecollegefix.com/post/34028/

Enjoy the read! -Piggy

[Warren]

3 hours ago, PigFish said:

... a bit more about my old 'haunt' and open-mindedness!

https://www.thecollegefix.com/post/34028/

Enjoy the read! -Piggy

The problem with Universities and schools for that matter these days is that they are intent on only fostering one avenue of thinking. It must be of the left and it must toe the line. The was a teacher at one of the schools here the other day who told the girls in his class that they would never be able to have children because of climate change. He should have been sacked for but I'm sure he was encouraged to say these kind of things.

The word Sceptic is used in the same tones as pedophile or murderer. If it wasn't for the sceptic we would still believe that the earth is flat and that the planets, sun, and stars revolved around us. Science should never be a case of getting an idea and proving that it is right and thereafter shutting down all discussion.

True science used to be about working on an idea to prove or disprove the theory. You don't make up data and skew it to prove your theory.

Some of the most vocal so called scientists have not been experts on climate. Our most vocal local expert was a clown by the name of Tim Flannery. He wrote books about Skippy the bush kangaroo and told us that even the rains that fall would never again fill our dams. He advised our government that we would need desalination plants so we built them. We have never needed them. Our dams are full and our pockets are empty because they cost billions to maintain and provide us with exactly zero benefit.

So excuse me if I don't have the time or the patience for the 90% of all scientists argument.

Experts agree that 90% of statistics are made up. 90 % of a focus group is exactly that. A percentage of a focus group. It's as valid as saying that I spoke to 10 people yesterday and 90% of them agreed with me therefor everyone must agree with me.

 

Ken I was in your area yesterday, I should have dropped in to say gday.