Diesel and petrol car ban: Plan for 2040

[Ken Gargett]

7 hours ago, JamesKPolkEsq said:

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? 

many years ago, i was flying to the states and in those days, we'd stop in orcland before heading to hawaii. i was lucky enough to be next to a kiwi who decided i needed three hours on the all blacks. he kept telling me about what great mates they were, how he knew them all, how they came around to his place and on and on - i was much more tolerant in those days.

anyway, we arrive in orcland and get put into the transit lounge and, lo and behold, the all blacks are all there, on their way to a test in argentina. look, i said, you can introduce me. never seen a bloke take off quicker. and he actually asked to be moved for the next leg. never have i loved the all blacks. never. but that day, i didn't detest them quite so much.

[clutch5150]

9 hours 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.  

I talked no sense into nobody, just stating facts. As for Middle School Science covering that...Well that's what ya get at Berkley along with free speech with violence of fires and breaking windows when the Libs don't get their own way. Have a nice day wabashcr....Thank God you came in here to save the day and attempting to say this was made up?  Pound sand Mate.

[JamesKPolkEsq]

8 minutes ago, clutch5150 said:

I talked no sense into nobody, just stating facts. As for Middle School Science covering that...Well that's what ya get at Berkley along with free speech with violence of fires and breaking windows when the Libs don't get their own way. Have a nice day wabashcr....Thank God you came in here to save the day and attempting to say this was made up?  Pound sand Mate.

Um, literally the top public research institution in the world?

That produced the atom bomb courtesy of noted liberal professor J. Robert Oppenheimer?

And discovered 16 elements?

That Berkeley?

Obviously nothing to learn there

 

[Ken Gargett]

35 minutes ago, clutch5150 said:

I talked no sense into nobody, just stating facts. As for Middle School Science covering that...Well that's what ya get at Berkley along with free speech with violence of fires and breaking windows when the Libs don't get their own way. Have a nice day wabashcr....Thank God you came in here to save the day and attempting to say this was made up?  Pound sand Mate.

pound sand? seriously.

try and keep things vaguely civil, no matter how much you might disagree. or don't waste the mods time asking where your post went or why you are suspended.

plenty of threads on this forum have extremely wide-ranging views from all spectra but, and this applies to everyone, do not have to descend into that. argue your views as forcefully as you like and if you really have to have a go at some someone, perhaps the very minimum requirement should be a degree of wit. pound sand does not qualify.

[clutch5150]

30 minutes ago, Ken Gargett said:

pound sand? seriously.

try and keep things vaguely civil, no matter how much you might disagree. or don't waste the mods time asking where your post went or why you are suspended.

plenty of threads on this forum have extremely wide-ranging views from all spectra but, and this applies to everyone, do not have to descend into that. argue your views as forcefully as you like and if you really have to have a go at some someone, perhaps the very minimum requirement should be a degree of wit. pound sand does not qualify.

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

 

But I see that does not apply to others that basically call you a liar? I see that is allowed that is "vaguely civil"? Copy on all.

[Ken Gargett]

Just now, clutch5150 said:

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

 

But I see that does not apply to others that basically call you a liar? I see that is allowed that is "vaguely civil"? Copy on all.

or perhaps it is simply difficult to see things from way up there on your high horse. the post you have quoted actually says "and this applies to everyone". what more did you want?

if you can't argue your views properly, it would be best to keep quiet.

[PigFish]

....

...

..

.

 

-LOL

[Ken Gargett]

1 minute ago, PigFish said:

....

...

..

.

 

-LOL

one of your best, ray.

[gweilgi]

1 hour ago, Warren said:

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.

My problem is not with the science.  To be honest, I do not understand it and I do not really care.

I do like some of the changes that have come about as a result of environmental activism.  On general principle, I approve of more efficient use of resources -- it makes for better engineering -- and of ways and means that reduce waste and pollution.  To me, the old ways of pumping poison into the air we breathe, the water we drink and the soil we grow our food in was pure insanity.

My problem is that activists have taken science and turned it into a religion -- and that is precisely what environmentalism is, at the sharp end.  There are saints and sinners.  There is virtuous behaviour and sin.  There is salvation and apocalypse.  There is holy screed and dogma, and there are heretics and unbelievers to be condemned and shouted down.  There are fanatics, lay congregations, tithing, and really all the trappings of a religious movement.  And that really puts my back up.  I do not care whether it's idiots standing around on the footpath with signs warning us to repent because the end is nigh or shouting at women for being seen in public with their hair uncovered ... or the green warriors keying cars because they pump out CO2 and harassing me on own door-step because my failure to put solar panels  on the roof puts me at the same moral level as a seal-clubbing paedophile who likes to snack on whale sashimi for lunch.  It is religious, and it is fanaticism -- and that, I cannot abide.  

Science is good.  So let us stick with science.  Let's accept that the global climate is the single most insanely complex system we can possibly investigate and that we cannot ever get 100% confirmation.  Let's make policy on the basis of science, not on the basis of well-funded scaremongering by doomsday prophets.  And by all means, let us be ambitious -- reaching for the stars is part of the human condition -- but not turn inward into the sort of self-denial and abrogation of dreams that are (see above) the hallmark of religion.  

 

[Hayden]

3 hours ago, Warren said:

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.

Statistics without context are made up. Statistics with context, sample size, distributions and errors give lots of great information. Lots of good science still happens. Any good scientist that has serious discussions on other works and look at it with a lens of scepticism. 

[PigFish]

1 hour ago, gweilgi said:

My problem is not with the science.  To be honest, I do not understand it and I do not really care.

I do like some of the changes that have come about as a result of environmental activism.  On general principle, I approve of more efficient use of resources -- it makes for better engineering -- and of ways and means that reduce waste and pollution.  To me, the old ways of pumping poison into the air we breathe, the water we drink and the soil we grow our food in was pure insanity.

My problem is that activists have taken science and turned it into a religion -- and that is precisely what environmentalism is, at the sharp end.  There are saints and sinners.  There is virtuous behaviour and sin.  There is salvation and apocalypse.  There is holy screed and dogma, and there are heretics and unbelievers to be condemned and shouted down.  There are fanatics, lay congregations, tithing, and really all the trappings of a religious movement.  And that really puts my back up.  I do not care whether it's idiots standing around on the footpath with signs warning us to repent because the end is nigh or shouting at women for being seen in public with their hair uncovered ... or the green warriors keying cars because they pump out CO2 and harassing me on own door-step because my failure to put solar panels  on the roof puts me at the same moral level as a seal-clubbing paedophile who likes to snack on whale sashimi for lunch.  It is religious, and it is fanaticism -- and that, I cannot abide.  

Science is good.  So let us stick with science.  Let's accept that the global climate is the single most insanely complex system we can possibly investigate and that we cannot ever get 100% confirmation.  Let's make policy on the basis of science, not on the basis of well-funded scaremongering by doomsday prophets.  And by all means, let us be ambitious -- reaching for the stars is part of the human condition -- but not turn inward into the sort of self-denial and abrogation of dreams that are (see above) the hallmark of religion.  

 

You know mate, I enjoyed reading that. I think that is a very thoughtful post.

The only thing that i can add, to make it my own... is that reaching for market solutions is best left to the private sector. I just don't see anything coming from government that is not an 'insider trading' scheme between crony capitalists. I don't think it ever works, not anymore!

Let the policy follow the market and deal with problems that arise. This constant attempt to 'be ahead' of the market to push the market and shape society is proven time and time again to lower the standard of living, cost jobs, make connected people rich and put hard working people in the welfare line.

Yes, I have strayed, but I liked your post!

Cheers! -tP

[wabashcr]

9 hours ago, PigFish said:

You know mate, I enjoyed reading that. I think that is a very thoughtful post.

The only thing that i can add, to make it my own... is that reaching for market solutions is best left to the private sector. I just don't see anything coming from government that is not an 'insider trading' scheme between crony capitalists. I don't think it ever works, not anymore!

Let the policy follow the market and deal with problems that arise. This constant attempt to 'be ahead' of the market to push the market and shape society is proven time and time again to lower the standard of living, cost jobs, make connected people rich and put hard working people in the welfare line.

Yes, I have strayed, but I liked your post!

Cheers! -tP

Ok, I'll bite.  What is the market incentive for companies to reduce pollution?  How would the market lead us to cleaner energy and electric cars when the supply of fossil fuels is still so abundant?  The market may get us there eventually, but the market doesn't care about the damage that occurs in the meantime.  Considering the significant barriers to entry into the energy market, it's every bit as susceptible to abuse and corruption as any government scheme.  

[JamesKPolkEsq]

https://techcrunch.com/2017/08/02/tesla-averaging-1800-model-3-reservations-per-day-since-last-weeks-event/amp/

https://techcrunch.com/2017/08/02/tesla-did-quite-a-bit-better-than-wall-street-expected-and-the-stock-is-getting-a-nice-bump/

 

[PigFish]

3 hours ago, wabashcr said:

Ok, I'll bite.  What is the market incentive for companies to reduce pollution?  How would the market lead us to cleaner energy and electric cars when the supply of fossil fuels is still so abundant?  The market may get us there eventually, but the market doesn't care about the damage that occurs in the meantime.  Considering the significant barriers to entry into the energy market, it's every bit as susceptible to abuse and corruption as any government scheme.  

What pollution? You will laugh but you are likely a city dweller. Ever seen the view outside a cubicle?

You have confused 'reasonable' regulation with societal change! They are not the same. Regulation follows (or should trail) a problem. If it does not, then it actually becomes an impediment to progress. Centralization defies progress. Please look any State that is overly centralized. Was the Soviet Union the best at making cars??? Does China protect the environment???

The market has actually given you every luxury item that you use today... from the automobile to the air conditioner... Why would you think that suddenly, in your (ones) short life that it has stopped working...? Perfect? Nope! Proven to work? Yep! By denying history and embracing blind ideology your going backward not forward.

Do you own a Tesla or electric vehicle? Please answer honestly. If not, then sell what you have and support the market you believe in... Do you use machinery that 'damages' the environment? If yes, quit and live by example... Why then? Does someone need to take you by the hand?

You are apart of the the cursed market you seem to hate... Change it! Do you use solar on your home? Well you should... Do you walk everywhere, take the stairs and use only public transit when you need to get around? If not, change your life first before you ask government to compel others to do it for you!!!

Frankly mate your argument is circular. First you blame people (the market) for problems. Then you expect people (the government, comprised of the same imperfect people that comprise the market) to fix it. In doing so, you create actual barriers to the very solutions that you seek.

Barriers to the market... That is laughable, really! Who put the barriers there? The taxes, the lobbyists, the red tape, the protection from competition, the tariffs, the unions, the protectionists... The market did not put those barriers in place! Someone who thinks like you do, that every aspect of mans endeavor needs to meet with an ideal datum did that... Look in the mirror for the causes of these problems, not at me (the market)...

Do you own your own business? I think if you did you would likely see who is and who is and who is not responsible for the lack of job creation and advancement of new ideas...

Mate, I like your post anyway and it was not at all baiting.

Cheers! -Piggy

[wabashcr]

I knew better, and I bit anyway.  I can only blame myself.  Enjoy your day, Ray.

[leftimatic]

A little bit of brain food. Read a few of his books and other work. Pretty interesting I think. Do with as you see fit. Sorry if it starts half way through.

 

[gweilgi]

8 hours ago, PigFish said:

What pollution? You will laugh but you are likely a city dweller. Ever seen the view outside a cubicle?

I have.  

I get problems with asthma, and the severity of my problems directly correlates to air quality.  The levels of ozone, small particulate matter and other by-products of internal combustion are immediately reflected in my need for inhalers.

Out in the countryside, I have also seen what pollution can do.  Try angling in rivers downstream of industry.  I have.  Or take acid rain: we have taken steps to address this issue, but visiting the Black Triangle (in the border region between Germany, Poland and Czechoslovakia) is a very vivid memory of mile after mile of dead trees, killed by the sulphur dioxide pumped into the air by coal-fired power stations.

 

8 hours ago, PigFish said:

You have confused 'reasonable' regulation with societal change! They are not the same. Regulation follows (or should trail) a problem. If it does not, then it actually becomes an impediment to progress. Centralization defies progress. Please look any State that is overly centralized. Was the Soviet Union the best at making cars??? Does China protect the environment???

Regulation should trail a problem.  Sounds fine in principle ... but who wants to stand up in front of a bunch of thalidomide survivors or victims of blood transfusions tainted with hepatitis or HIV to explain that?

Perhaps more importantly, how do we approach problems where regulation cannot work because the damage is fatal?  What use is trailing regulation if over-fishing or slash-and-burn farming renders entire species and habitats extinct?  

 

8 hours ago, PigFish said:

The market has actually given you every luxury item that you use today... from the automobile to the air conditioner... Why would you think that suddenly, in your (ones) short life that it has stopped working...? Perfect? Nope! Proven to work? Yep! By denying history and embracing blind ideology your going backward not forward.

The market has given us luxuries and necessities, true.  It has wrought massive good on every level of society and in every corner of the world, true.  But does this invalidate the case for government intervention?  Without government, we would not have 'flu vaccines -- it's simply not worth the investment for private enterprise.  Hell, tropical diseases kill literally millions of people every year .... and the market is not interested.  No profit.

So the question is: what do we do when the market fails to deliver?  

 

8 hours ago, PigFish said:

Do you own a Tesla or electric vehicle? Please answer honestly. If not, then sell what you have and support the market you believe in... Do you use machinery that 'damages' the environment? If yes, quit and live by example... Why then? Does someone need to take you by the hand?

Germany introduced incentives to encourage people to switch to electric cars: discounts, tax rebates, the like.  The stated goal was to have 1 million electric vehicles on the road by 2020.  At the end of 2016, there were fewer than 80,000 such vehicles registered in the country.  

Now: is this a failure of government intervention?  Or is it a failure of the market?  

 

8 hours ago, PigFish said:

You are apart of the the cursed market you seem to hate... Change it! Do you use solar on your home? Well you should... Do you walk everywhere, take the stairs and use only public transit when you need to get around? If not, change your life first before you ask government to compel others to do it for you!!!

Frankly mate your argument is circular. First you blame people (the market) for problems. Then you expect people (the government, comprised of the same imperfect people that comprise the market) to fix it. In doing so, you create actual barriers to the very solutions that you seek.

Barriers to the market... That is laughable, really! Who put the barriers there? The taxes, the lobbyists, the red tape, the protection from competition, the tariffs, the unions, the protectionists... The market did not put those barriers in place! Someone who thinks like you do, that every aspect of mans endeavor needs to meet with an ideal datum did that... Look in the mirror for the causes of these problems, not at me (the market)...

Be fair.

Even without any government actions, barriers into the energy market would be very considerable.  Power stations are hugely expensive and a very long-term investment besides ... and grids to deliver the power to the consumer even more so.  ABC plc might build a power station, but would they really lay a second set of power lines to every household and factory to compete with DEF Inc?  It's even more so the case with mass transit: which company in their right mind would build a second motorway or lay a second set of tracks from A to B?

Or take pharmaceuticals: which company would invest a billion dollars in developing a drug if they did not have patent protection to allow it to recoup their investment and make a reasonable profit?  And once they have patent protection (government-defined and enforced by government institutions), of course they will try to use this to protect this investment and revenue source by denying others entry into that market...

 

[Hayden]

4 hours ago, leftimatic said:

A little bit of brain food. Read a few of his books and other work. Pretty interesting I think. Do with as you see fit. Sorry if it starts half way through.

 

A but of a quack imo. Not at all well respected in the science community. 

A article I read about him in the past put it best : 

You don’t need to consider industry influence, though, to reject Ball’s positions. I’ve read many of his articles and watched his interviews. I’m always left with a simple question: Where is Ball’s evidence? He questions the mainstream science and data, but his own presentation of data is incredibly limited (which perhaps explains his paucity of recent peer-reviewed publications). A real skeptic makes his own case. Ball never does.

Edited August 4, 2017 by Hayden
Realized I missed something.

[Dave O)))]

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.

I was sceptical about it initially, but later learned that the desal plant at Kurnell could be used strategically to mitigate flooding in Western Sydney. Instead it is politically expedient to spend even more money to raise the wall at Warragamba!

[PigFish]

5 hours ago, gweilgi said:

I have.  

I get problems with asthma, and the severity of my problems directly correlates to air quality.  The levels of ozone, small particulate matter and other by-products of internal combustion are immediately reflected in my need for inhalers.

Out in the countryside, I have also seen what pollution can do.  Try angling in rivers downstream of industry.  I have.  Or take acid rain: we have taken steps to address this issue, but visiting the Black Triangle (in the border region between Germany, Poland and Czechoslovakia) is a very vivid memory of mile after mile of dead trees, killed by the sulphur dioxide pumped into the air by coal-fired power stations.

 

Regulation should trail a problem.  Sounds fine in principle ... but who wants to stand up in front of a bunch of thalidomide survivors or victims of blood transfusions tainted with hepatitis or HIV to explain that?

Perhaps more importantly, how do we approach problems where regulation cannot work because the damage is fatal?  What use is trailing regulation if over-fishing or slash-and-burn farming renders entire species and habitats extinct?  

 

The market has given us luxuries and necessities, true.  It has wrought massive good on every level of society and in every corner of the world, true.  But does this invalidate the case for government intervention?  Without government, we would not have 'flu vaccines -- it's simply not worth the investment for private enterprise.  Hell, tropical diseases kill literally millions of people every year .... and the market is not interested.  No profit.

So the question is: what do we do when the market fails to deliver?  

 

Germany introduced incentives to encourage people to switch to electric cars: discounts, tax rebates, the like.  The stated goal was to have 1 million electric vehicles on the road by 2020.  At the end of 2016, there were fewer than 80,000 such vehicles registered in the country.  

Now: is this a failure of government intervention?  Or is it a failure of the market?  

 

Be fair.

Even without any government actions, barriers into the energy market would be very considerable.  Power stations are hugely expensive and a very long-term investment besides ... and grids to deliver the power to the consumer even more so.  ABC plc might build a power station, but would they really lay a second set of power lines to every household and factory to compete with DEF Inc?  It's even more so the case with mass transit: which company in their right mind would build a second motorway or lay a second set of tracks from A to B?

Or take pharmaceuticals: which company would invest a billion dollars in developing a drug if they did not have patent protection to allow it to recoup their investment and make a reasonable profit?  And once they have patent protection (government-defined and enforced by government institutions), of course they will try to use this to protect this investment and revenue source by denying others entry into that market...

 

Do you even know a guy how owns patents? It is private property... Is a lock on the front door a foreign idea to you? So while government should do everything it should not protect private property one of its only legitimate functions?

You can create any catastrophe that your mind and imagination allow and brew up any one of a number of miraculous government fixes. My government cannot set up a website!

What did all that regulation do to save that power plant in Japan from a tsunami? Did we all die in the meld down...? I am still here so are you. The world did not end.

Ozone depletion did not get me, neither did BHA and BHT... Nuclear winter never happened, nor did mutual nuclear destruction. Giant spiders never came out of nuclear tests... Mercury in fish did not poison all the worlds sea food. Offshore drilling did not kill all sea life... Margarine did not save me from having a heart attack. GMO's have not killed all the natural seeds such that there is no harvest next year. All the topsoil did not blow away... Acid rain did not poison the water supply nor all the trees, but lack of ash from forrest fires has killed plenty of mountain lake fish. I am not wading in my living room as Al Gore predicted 15 years ago.

Sorry guys, I have a high index for filtering bullshit.

Even the Bible does not paint as bleak a picture as the bishops of enviro worship! (That is meant to be funny...) 

I wonder, how did we all survive before all the rules from government? People had babies and they brought them home without child safety seats. People rode in cars without air bags... Gas had lead in it... so did paint. How did we survive? 

I don't shun technology, I love it. But technology has a time and place. Spend some time with some truly visionary scientists and you will learn this. I spent my whole youth with one!!!

While the government is paying out large sums on electric cars (or other people's money), can you see that this centralized view and group think might mean that they could miss something totally different that may be on the drawing board tomorrow that will obsolete it? No, of course not... That is because instead of following technology you are already married to something that as of yet does not work! This is called closed mindedness people! Technology my friends is not predictable, that is the unholy fun of it. The next major move in transportation may be something not heard of yet today. I say people betting on electric cars may in fact really be wed to ideas already obsolete.

So I have a question. Would you rather have a computer that was twice as fast that worked only half the time, or the one you have now (presuming it works well for you)? It is that simple...

Many of you are married to the idea that you (we) are killing the planet. Maybe we are and maybe we are not. So what have you concocted with your master mind plan so far? How about solar cells? We live on one planet right? We demand their use and subsidize it, and offshore the jobs to China, FACT. So does the pollution that China causes just not count? Why then have them built in dirtier plants that pollute the same planet we wish to save at a higher rate than here at home? So, it is just okay to pollute Asia, so you feel good about saving the planet in the suburbs, or did you forget that the great wall does not contain all that pollution? If global warming is a net sum gain, what are we benefiting from supporting the major polluters to produce our feel good junk? This is what is being done! I would say that is pretty short sighted.

Do any of you really look past your cubicles?

If it is the planet that is at stake, what makes you think that it is wise to poison it in China at twice the rate, verses your own country? This is a sign, poisoning the planet, that a product must go, not be created... right? What then makes the this feel good green energy any different?

Lets carry this forward to technology. Frankly you are not really talking technology when you are attempting to force a non-viable product on the market. Viable products sell themselves. The point is, when technology is ready for the consumer, it is unstoppable. Naysayers be damned... They get run over by it. Products don't need to be forced. That is called a free market! Ideology that is forced (what you are think is necessary) is called tyranny...

Won't you look silly if the next version of the fossil fuel automobile gets 200 or 300 miles per gallon of fuel? While you (rhetorically) are betting my tax dollars that it is not, I have a car that gets 50mpg already... At the same time my electricity largely comes from natural gas... It burns, pollutes, heats the environment and suffers transmission losses. Just how efficient is that? Hell, we have power stations that run giant diesel engines to make power when necessary.

It is pretty funny that up in this thread there are some genuine insults to those that think that gas and diesel are the last word in transportation. I find it ironic that the very same people will claim that something that runs on a battery is! How do you know? You don't. You are picking winners and losers based on only on ideology, not truly on science, just the science you want to empower and recognize by force of government. How do you know that the next truly imaginative and great idea was the company that did not get the subsidy and is actually bought up or mowed down by the idealist invested in batteries for cars? You don't! You might well be smashing the next great idea with subsidies spent to support the inferior ones...

No one in government or academics is ever wrong! This is of course why heads of governments are always meeting to solve a problem. Typically a problem that they caused by meddling with things that don't an cannot understand.

Sorry! Your science is not pure, it is tainted, your ideas are as landlocked in ideology as the guy who loves gas! You apparently think that all that exists in technology is what you see.

Perhaps I am wasting my pixels by suggesting that when the market get limited by blind ideology it stagnates. You seem to see it in fossil fuels, how about your batteries? Pease explain why the other guys idea is obsolete while yours is not.

The person that limits himself to the internal combustion engine is stuck there and that appears to be generally agreed upon by many in this thread. The person that limits himself to the battery vehicle thinks he is visionary, but is he not in a bigger rut because that technology does not even work to replace that of the gas vehicle? We are still burning fossil fuels to make the electricity are we not? That being the case, you are not moving forward, you are still stuck in the past...

Frankly, I think that neither view represents a progressive thinker! Both the gas believer and the battery believer are both stuck in the same rut when you actually think outside the ideology box. Some of you should try it sometime, actually being open to new ideas and thinking out of the box... I have seen little of it here, except by the member who brought up fuel cells.

I guess it boils down to this. Lets run a poll and see who thinks that governments (overall) are responsive to the people and they run things well. Who amongst you thinks that you would have a computer in the palm of your hand if it was left to the government to develop it? How many of you really believe that the government (anywhere) has the talent to tell the world what the next generation of transportation will look like? I would love a show of hands.

Me, I think if the government is behind electric cars, it is about 5 to 1 against just based on their track record of winners and losers... Damn, do you guys have faith... You think just because a guy beat some lady by 5500 votes, he is smart enough to pick the next wave in transportation. If that is what you call having faith in science, as you can see I have plenty of arguments against you!

Alas, we live in a world of charlatans and victims of same!

To me, the guy stuck in the battery car rut is worse off than the guy stuck in the gas car rut... Both are inside the box thinkers. One guy gets to work on time and the other guy, well when the world is going wireless, he still needs to plug in!

Lets just say the guy with the gas, got the 'new' wireless option! Plugging it in is so yesterday!!! -LOL iPhone ear buds are going wireless, but you gotta' plug in your car! What does that tell you about your tech?

Lastly, I would like to answer your question about Germany. The market worked... It always does. It bought what it wanted, wise or unwise. The goal was not met because the market worked as it should and as usual the government failed! Furthermore, resources were wasted by the government if the cars were subsidized. Any accountant will tell you that automobiles are bad investments. Yet governments certainly want to give some people, some other person's money to buy one! Ideological bribery! That money is gone and there will be no payback on the investment. Personally I would get a major laugh if Benz or BMW said the hell with the mother land to make their gas cars were they were wanted...! I hope it happens. Ideologues often get blindsided by their dumb-ass ideas. What then, make a law that a car maker cannot leave! More tyranny...

More laws and greater tyranny... It is always the governments answer to a problem. More regulation and less personal freedom!

Here is one for you... Trump decided to tariff Canadian lumber due to a claim of bad business practices and a 5 to 7% spread on the wholesale cost of lumber. A feud that has been ongoing for decades! Lumber apparently has risen 20% here in the past few months as lumber companies are now gouging builders! So how did that help the consumer... or ultimately the housing market when lesser expensive homes cost more or cannot be built? More stupid ideas from the ideology of protectionism.

The more politicians try to protect something, the more they damage it.

Cheers! -Piggy

 

 

[leftimatic]

14 hours ago, Hayden said:

A but of a quack imo. Not at all well respected in the science community. 

A article I read about him in the past put it best : 

You don’t need to consider industry influence, though, to reject Ball’s positions. I’ve read many of his articles and watched his interviews. I’m always left with a simple question: Where is Ball’s evidence? He questions the mainstream science and data, but his own presentation of data is incredibly limited (which perhaps explains his paucity of recent peer-reviewed publications). A real skeptic makes his own case. Ball never does.

One could ask where the IPCC gets their data. They don't like to share either. Where does anyone's data come from? I would suggest Tim Ball's come from 48 yrs of study and research in climatology, climate history, and meteorology. Drawing from historical writings and recent findings alike. He actually did a huge study on Art and it's depiction of climate through history.  Plus all the years he spent in the arctic with the Canadian armed forces. Spending immense amount of time with aboriginals and the Inuit people. Ones who have a good idea of the way things are supposed to be.  It takes more than computer modeling to make a thesis. If one took the time to read his books and or watch the clip I posted you would get a bigger picture of his knowledge. Similar in length to a slowly smoked Partagas Lusitania. A recent study I embarked upon. I have no data to back it up though, so perhaps it's best to see for one's self. 

 I am not exactly sure what science community you speak of but if it includes Bill Nye or David Suzuki then yah he doesn't really require their respect anyhow. There are enough real scientists that could back him up. Funny enough it was David Suzuki who cleared my head and changed my views. I lapped the drivel and barked the rhetoric until I watched him say the climate debate is basically closed anyone who doesn't believe in Global warming should go to prison. I think Al Gore and Bill Nye and Neil Degrasse Tyson all said similar things also. Yah, I  don't know. But things like that make me say, " what"?  Where does a scientist or anyone in a democratic society or any society for that matter have the right to tell me if I don't believe what they believe I will go to jail? Of course, it made me look into things. And I was quite surprised by what I found.  In the religion of climate change I am a proud dissident.  And like any religion you risk condemnation when you turn your back on the flock. But, whatever. As long as I am free to think for myself I will do my best to do just that.

[Hayden]

1 hour ago, leftimatic said:

One could ask where the IPCC gets their data. They don't like to share either. Where does anyone's data come from? I would suggest Tim Ball's come from 48 yrs of study and research in climatology, climate history, and meteorology. Drawing from historical writings and recent findings alike. He actually did a huge study on Art and it's depiction of climate through history.  Plus all the years he spent in the arctic with the Canadian armed forces. Spending immense amount of time with aboriginals and the Inuit people. Ones who have a good idea of the way things are supposed to be.  It takes more than computer modeling to make a thesis. If one took the time to read his books and or watch the clip I posted you would get a bigger picture of his knowledge. Similar in length to a slowly smoked Partagas Lusitania. A recent study I embarked upon. I have no data to back it up though, so perhaps it's best to see for one's self. 

 I am not exactly sure what science community you speak of but if it includes Bill Nye or David Suzuki then yah he doesn't really require their respect anyhow. There are enough real scientists that could back him up. Funny enough it was David Suzuki who cleared my head and changed my views. I lapped the drivel and barked the rhetoric until I watched him say the climate debate is basically closed anyone who doesn't believe in Global warming should go to prison. I think Al Gore and Bill Nye and Neil Degrasse Tyson all said similar things also. Yah, I  don't know. But things like that make me say, " what"?  Where does a scientist or anyone in a democratic society or any society for that matter have the right to tell me if I don't believe what they believe I will go to jail? Of course, it made me look into things. And I was quite surprised by what I found.  In the religion of climate change I am a proud convert. And like any religion you risk condemnation when you turn your back on the flock. But, whatever. As long as I am free to think for myself I will do my best to do just that.

I'm talking about real scientific community. Professor's I have met through my studies and climate scientists that have given thorough breakdowns of why certain climate change sceptics arguments are flawed.. I haven't seen any convincing statistical data or evidence from any climate change denialists. If you can't produced good data and/or show serious flaw in other scientist methods or data that show climate change is happening of course you will be shut out from the discussion. I don't believe people who don't believe climate change is false should go to jail. Only people who don't understand the source material and the science behind it treat climate changes as a religion (that goes for people on both sides of the argument though and I have met people who support climate change that fall into this category too). 

[leftimatic]

3 minutes ago, Hayden said:

I'm talking about real scientific community. Professor's I have met through my studies and climate scientists that have given thorough breakdowns of why certain climate change sceptics arguments are flawed.. I haven't seen any convincing statistical data or evidence from any climate change denialists. If you can't produced good data and/or show serious flaw in other scientist methods or data that show climate change is happening of course you will be shut out from the discussion. I don't believe people who don't believe climate change is false should go to jail. Only people who don't understand the source material and the science behind it treat climate changes as a religion (that goes for people on both sides of the argument though and I have met people who support climate change that fall into this category too). 

It's funny how both sides can find flaws in the other. And that's where one needs to start thinking for themselves.  So it all comes down to who believes who. I won't deny climate change it happens all the time. I don't know anyone who does deny it. I will be skeptical of human caused global warming though. My decision and a lot of other peoples on this matter goes far beyond science. I see the political and money driven reasons to promote global warming. The money being raked in by environment groups is truly staggering. How about the government funding of such a popular subject as this. I can't call it climate change. Like I said climate change happens all the time and as far as I know from my years in school and every book or documentary I have read or watched has told me this. As you may have guessed I am no scientist. So like most people in the world we have to believe someone who is.  And we should  take the info in from all sides, digest it and make a decision. As far as I can tell it's just a theory. A thin one, at least until absolute proof that the whole world can see and understand not computer generated graphs and cherry pick stats. And I am talking about both sides here not just one.. History shows huge amounts of climate change long before fossil fuels were being exploited for human gain.  Several times over as a matter of fact. Colossal changes. Volcanoes in Russia that spewed fo over 1500 years straight. Ice ages lots of them. Floods and droughts that lasted for years and years. To think all that ended when man showed up is a rather hard one to swallow. Sorry but as a non-scientist I have to take what I have been taught and use good old common sense instead. It just seems rather vain of mankind to think we could alter an entire world climate in just 100 years or less. Especially propping the whole theory on C02, a gas that we are still taught to this day is necessary to all life on the planet. Give me a definitive date  that we will all die and the planet will overflow, and fire will consume the land, stick to it and stop moving the goal posts when it doesn't happen and I promise as I cower in a cave and my toes start to burn I will repent.  Until then let us agree to disagree.

[Ken Gargett]

8 hours ago, leftimatic said:

It's funny how both sides can find flaws in the other. And that's where one needs to start thinking for themselves.  So it all comes down to who believes who. I won't deny climate change it happens all the time. I don't know anyone who does deny it. I will be skeptical of human caused global warming though. My decision and a lot of other peoples on this matter goes far beyond science. I see the political and money driven reasons to promote global warming. The money being raked in by environment groups is truly staggering. How about the government funding of such a popular subject as this. I can't call it climate change. Like I said climate change happens all the time and as far as I know from my years in school and every book or documentary I have read or watched has told me this. As you may have guessed I am no scientist. So like most people in the world we have to believe someone who is.  And we should  take the info in from all sides, digest it and make a decision. As far as I can tell it's just a theory. A thin one, at least until absolute proof that the whole world can see and understand not computer generated graphs and cherry pick stats. And I am talking about both sides here not just one.. History shows huge amounts of climate change long before fossil fuels were being exploited for human gain.  Several times over as a matter of fact. Colossal changes. Volcanoes in Russia that spewed fo over 1500 years straight. Ice ages lots of them. Floods and droughts that lasted for years and years. To think all that ended when man showed up is a rather hard one to swallow. Sorry but as a non-scientist I have to take what I have been taught and use good old common sense instead. It just seems rather vain of mankind to think we could alter an entire world climate in just 100 years or less. Especially propping the whole theory on C02, a gas that we are still taught to this day is necessary to all life on the planet. Give me a definitive date  that we will all die and the planet will overflow, and fire will consume the land, stick to it and stop moving the goal posts when it doesn't happen and I promise as I cower in a cave and my toes start to burn I will repent.  Until then let us agree to disagree.

 

Quote

One could ask where the IPCC gets their data. They don't like to share either. Where does anyone's data come from? I would suggest Tim Ball's come from 48 yrs of study and research in climatology, climate history, and meteorology. Drawing from historical writings and recent findings alike. He actually did a huge study on Art and it's depiction of climate through history.  Plus all the years he spent in the arctic with the Canadian armed forces. Spending immense amount of time with aboriginals and the Inuit people. Ones who have a good idea of the way things are supposed to be.  It takes more than computer modeling to make a thesis. If one took the time to read his books and or watch the clip I posted you would get a bigger picture of his knowledge. Similar in length to a slowly smoked Partagas Lusitania. A recent study I embarked upon. I have no data to back it up though, so perhaps it's best to see for one's self. 

 I am not exactly sure what science community you speak of but if it includes Bill Nye or David Suzuki then yah he doesn't really require their respect anyhow. There are enough real scientists that could back him up. Funny enough it was David Suzuki who cleared my head and changed my views. I lapped the drivel and barked the rhetoric until I watched him say the climate debate is basically closed anyone who doesn't believe in Global warming should go to prison. I think Al Gore and Bill Nye and Neil Degrasse Tyson all said similar things also. Yah, I  don't know. But things like that make me say, " what"?  Where does a scientist or anyone in a democratic society or any society for that matter have the right to tell me if I don't believe what they believe I will go to jail? Of course, it made me look into things. And I was quite surprised by what I found.  In the religion of climate change I am a proud dissident.  And like any religion you risk condemnation when you turn your back on the flock. But, whatever. As long as I am free to think for myself I will do my best to do just that.

i'm trying to deal with both of these together so forgive me if i get a smidge twisted.

the problem with 'let's agree to disagree' is that it is another way to say let's do nothing. 'absolute proof that the whole world can see and understand'. wow! when has that ever happened? nor will it here. we wait for that and the world is stuffed.

you suggest common sense. to me, common sense screams that humans are having a massive impact on the climate. sure, other factors are relevant and as i said previously may well have a much greater impact at some future stage. but it is simply inconceivable that anthropogenic climate change is not occurring. to me, to suggest otherwise is tooth fairy stuff, but i understand that there are plenty who do see it differently. i can't fathom how but leave that aside. i also would not jail them (tied down naked in the desert, perhaps). more seriously, far better to show them the error of their ways (and give them the opportunity to do likewise if they can).

it is not being vain. that suggests we take pride in it. surely, quite the contrary. there are 7 billion of us. our use of fossil fuels. the massive devastation to the forests of the planet, waste, so many more examples.

CO2 - first, to suggest that it is the "whole theory" is so utterly and deliberately misleading that it suggests, with respect, that you have an entrenched position and care not one iota for facts or indeed common sense or that you simply have not bothered to do as you claim and investigate the issue, but let's assume i am wrong on that.  i am also not a scientist but my understanding is that yes, CO2 is vital but it is/was a smallish component of the gases in the atmosphere. but you wanted, not unreasonably, information from the scientific community. so i went to the NASA site (i know that malcolm roberts insists that NASA is complicit in falsifying evidence, despite no evidence to back that up that whatsoever, but leaving him aside). hopefully they satisfy your requirements (if not, then we are not likely to get far or would you suggest that Ball is a greater authority?). "Humans have increased atmospheric CO2 concentration by more than a third since the Industrial Revolution began. This is the most important long-lived "forcing" of climate change.".

there is a heap of good stuff on their site. this bit was interesting.

"On Earth, human activities are changing the natural greenhouse. Over the last century the burning of fossil fuels like coal and oil has increased the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2). This happens because the coal or oil burning process combines carbon with oxygen in the air to make CO2. To a lesser extent, the clearing of land for agriculture, industry, and other human activities has increased concentrations of greenhouse gases.

The consequences of changing the natural atmospheric greenhouse are difficult to predict, but certain effects seem likely:

On average, Earth will become warmer. Some regions may welcome warmer temperatures, but others may not.

Warmer conditions will probably lead to more evaporation and precipitation overall, but individual regions will vary, some becoming wetter and others dryer.

A stronger greenhouse effect will warm the oceans and partially melt glaciers and other ice, increasing sea level. Ocean water also will expand if it warms, contributing further to sea level rise.

Meanwhile, some crops and other plants may respond favorably to increased atmospheric CO2, growing more vigorously and using water more efficiently. At the same time, higher temperatures and shifting climate patterns may change the areas where crops grow best and affect the makeup of natural plant communities."

you ask where the IPCC gets their data. i thought that was addressed previously but, again from the NASA site (and i think you will find that you can access all of the info you require on sources for the IPCC through their site, if you really are interested),

"In its Fifth Assessment Report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group of 1,300 independent scientific experts from countries all over the world under the auspices of the United Nations, concluded there's a more than 95 percent probability that human activities over the past 50 years have warmed our planet.

The industrial activities that our modern civilization depends upon have raised atmospheric carbon dioxide levels from 280 parts per million to 400 parts per million in the last 150 years. The panel also concluded there's a better than 95 percent probability that human-produced greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have caused much of the observed increase in Earth's temperatures over the past 50 years."

what about the sun? again from NASA - "How do we know that changes in the sun aren’t to blame for current global warming trends? Since 1978, a series of satellite instruments have measured the energy output of the sun directly. The satellite data show a very slight drop in solar irradiance (which is a measure of the amount of energy the sun gives off) over this time period. So the sun doesn't appear to be responsible for the warming trend observed over the past several decades. Longer-term estimates of solar irradiance have been made using sunspot records and other so-called “proxy indicators,” such as the amount of carbon in tree rings. The most recent analyses of these proxies indicate that solar irradiance changes cannot plausibly account for more than 10 percent of the 20th century’s warming."

so we do have some evidence/agreement from the scientific community - where is any evidence from Ball? and what is it?

ball has spent time with aboriginal people. good for him. but what on earth has that got to do with anything? or are the inuit experts on fossil fuels and destruction of forests, et al? it is completely irrelevant to any worthwhile contribution to the debate. though, bizarrely, everything i have seen and read suggests that these very people are extremely concerned, far more than most communities, as to the effect of global warming because of the impact it is having on their lifestyle and hunting.

'give me a definite date'. now it becomes obvious that either this is all a pisstake or you have no interest in genuine debate on this issue. what a really silly thing to say. that is doomsday cult stuff.

no one doubts that there are other factors which can cause these issues, aside from man, but it always reminds me of a mate of mine on a fishing trip. left his car doors open. we pointed it out to him and he told us not to worry because his battery would last for weeks. next morning, car battery was stone motherless flat. i can understand him being wrong about the length of life in a battery but why the hell not shut the doors. i can understand (well, not really but i'm trying) people being wrong about climate change and its causes but why the hell not get on board if it does something to protect the planet, life, communities?

the planet is warming. the overall impact is adverse to human life in so many ways. if you (and 'you' here is used throughout this to denote any and all deniers, not just our friend to whom i respond) really must be a denier, do so, but isn't it in everyone's interests to do what we can, whatever we believe the cause to be?

 

 

[PigFish]

... Move over here boys the diesel thread is still open!!! -LOL

-Piggy