I'm sorry - in what possible way does the title of this thread relate to this news item?
Only politicians and scientists with a political (/financial) agenda would say that.The science is settled.
I believe that a revolution in personal mobility will change habits far more than an obstinate fantasy that the Science is settled.The science is settled. Only Tony Abbott questions that, and he's a failed politician and failed boxer, not a climatologist. However it's not environmental realities that will sink ICE cars. It's complexity. Like camera/imaging film and their cameras, ICEs are fantastically complex precision instruments with innumerable finely engineered moving parts that would be almost unthinkable in any other mass market consumer product. In an era when the only way the lay person could record images was on film, the sheer economies of scale meant these chemical and engineering wonders were incredibly cheap and abundant. However, as soon as a cheaper, simpler solution presented itself, the decline was swift and irreversible. Film isn't dead, but it's definitely a niche sector and it will never again be truly mainstream. ICEs will likely face the same utlimate scenario. They won't disappear entirely, but they won't survive as a mainstream option, as EVs are simpler to build and operate - and ultimately cheaper.
Ummmm. So your in the hydrogen fuel cell camp?They are the future of course...was that the question?
Well actually if you want my idea of the actual future it's at best starvation and massive loss of life, war, anarchy, and at worst extinction of the human race entirely. Neither of these look very EVish because dead people don't drive cars.
That's my depressing thought for the day.
Surely EV cars are the future. This is not due to climate change be it true or false. It will happen because of pollution from ice cars. In addition it will happen because of car automation emerging.
To me the only question is the timeframe. I believe it will happen very rapidly, taking off at a high rate during the 2020s.
Many ice supporters are in self denial on the issue I feel.
With battery improvement happening very quickly, range will soon pass the tipping point of 250 plus miles, making them much more acceptable.
You might well be right, but I hadn't accommodated accountants in the set of people I was thinking about...I would have thought that the bean-counters at the major manufacturers would prefer us to burn fuel than use EVs because it throws all their hard earned knowledge and business processes up in the air.
I do not believe there is an ounce of any intelligent, thinking person that does not want to achieve exactly the same result ....
You claim that its untrue that some scientists are unable to get their message over. Have you asked them ? Have you watched the many videos in alternative media where they complain bitterly about that? And to claim that the mainstream media seeks balance on this is provably false by their very same failure to allow those complaining of being sidelined to present their own evidence. And as the general public prefer to watch entertainment TV that evidence is never seen.Well that is patently untrue, and in any case they've got the internet. The media seems to demand 'balance' whenever climate change is discussed and troop out a complete loon to put the denier case.
Funnily enough, I've followed up the links you've posted and found them to be mainly written by people with no credibility whatsoever and not by serious climate scientists - see the previous exchanges on the issue. No matter what issue you want to discuss, you'll find an 'expert' who disagrees - vaccination is a recent good example. What matters is what the bulk of the scientists tell us, because there is a consensus - and it clearly indicates that taking very serious action is a wise move and that the consequences of not doing so are likely to be catastrophic. In addition, the actions we need to take are of long term benefit too - in that they give us cheaper energy and independence from the likes of the Saudis and the Russians.
I think that this is the key point. And that 'part' will increase to the point where it finds it's own level. I can see that increase become a rapid growth to reach that level too. Probably much like now where EV's are mostly used for local commutes and domestic travel. But many more people able to make that work. And just as now, anyone needing to travel well away from home on a daily basis will use a car with a built in 500 miles range. What may change is the present need to have two cars to cover odd away days. In future people may be persuaded to just own one car and use that domestic EV for the odd longer trip once they see a reliable infrastructure at 50 mile intervals. But overall, as you say, EV's will be part of the future - not the entire future.EV's are part of the future, they have been with us since the horseless carriage was first invented and if the ICE hadn't been developed all cars would have probably been electric or steam now.
![]()
It is well justified - Nigel Lawson has been trooped out on a number of occasions and he knows absolutely nothing about it. But he claims to do. Many of these people - typically journalists - are already well known as holding fringe views on a whole number of issues. But, to maintain 'balance' in the media, they have to find someone - and, when you can't find a credible scientist, that inevitably means fielding someone with fringe views. Sadly, unless they check, the public can't know.Name calling doesn't move the debate forward & weakens an argument.
It's because many scientists resent being labelled as 'deniers' and told that the science is settled, and not open to debate. You seem to agree that all debate must end. Being staggered that scientists wish to question the data is an odd position to take. I would have thought that a rational stance would be to examine their claims and be in a position to make an informed decision rather than be staggered that they want to explain it to you.To be honest I'm staggered that we are still debating climate change.
That stance is a very common one. Much like the religious one known as 'Pascal's Wager'. Basically where an athiest on his deathbed suddenly repents - just in case. He sees no downside to it. The risk of repenting and compromising his entire life's convictions are minimal and - who knows.Now you may want to bury your heads in the sand and say. Well it might not be true science sometimes gets it wrong but as far as I can see that is a pretty irresponsible and risky position to take. There may be negative feedback loops we haven't considered and you may end up being right but I would rather not risk humanity in a hunch.
I agree with much of this. I see no downside to a strategic move away from fossil fuel as much as possible - certainly for passenger transport. But as most is used for other essential services it will prove to be massively damaging to try to cut back from those. This will be a long term plan - many decades. Your last sentence is where I take issue.Actually as a civilisation we are more than capable of living well without fossil fuels etc. They are going to run out anyway at some point so I really see no reason why we should not move as quickly as we can away from them. We have the technology and innovation now. Let's just get on with it and accept that not doing so is at best risky, at worst completely reckless and irresponsible.
I agree with this. Pretty soon the benefits of EV's will be seen by many people in the prime market of commutes up to 75 miles per day. With the ability to charge at home this will soon become a no brainer. I am less optimistic about a larger market than this though - absent some huge changes in the away from home charging infrastructure.Well, at the moment a combination of fossil fuels, nuclear and renewable, but I see this moving more and more to renewables over time. There is no reason why with the right investment we cannot be fully renewable in say 30 years time. So for me EVs are most definitely the future, I'm supporting them now (B250e, Outlander PHEV) and will continue to do so.
I'm not making any assumptions about sceptic funding, what it is used for and whether it is huge or not. Neither am I handwaving away government funding. I said I found lots of stories about sceptic funding existing and asked for more information.The only funding that climate science centres receive is from public funds allocated by the Gov't. If they go native and suggest that perhaps the case is being overstated that funding is withdrawn. That is a fact discussed and explained by numerous emeritus professors once they are free to say such things.
The Koch brothers do not replace those funds while those climate science professors are in post and have access to all the facilities. The vested interest funds are used for political lobbying. You assume that the deep pockets of industry makes funding available to universities to fund alternative research. It doesn't. It is almost entirely used to fund propaganda to influence politicians.
Donald's point was that you automatically assume that there is huge funding to 'heretic' climate experts but handwave away the inherent funding to Gov't influenced centres as if that isn't a factor.
In effect scientists like Dr Curry, and there are dozens like her, state clearly that funding is withdrawn and not replaced by other vested interests.
And by the way, your use of 'hysterical' is itself hysterical. I see no evidence of Donald being so emotional. His post was a sober observation of the way people are able to spin events. But that tactic is just another example of the way anyone daring to question the official line is denigrated. Even the term 'climate denier' was deliberately coined to suggest a link to another distasteful topic.
Both groups are saying the same thing - just in different ways. And when the first group is totally ignored and can't get its message out to the general public then the second group are forced to become more strident. You say that you know which group you will listen to - but don't listen to either.Group 1 says "we have different data", or "we've interpreted the data differently" and "we think you've overestimated the effect". Group 2 says "you've fiddled the data" or "this is the biggest hoax in history".
I have no time for the general fear agenda that the politics of the day seems to thrive. However carbon taxation does provide a convenient way to tax given its corollary to pollution; some individuals / organisations will always seek to benefit their own ends in some way or another by lobbying policy.What you have just stated is that the 'evidence' given to you is sufficient to allow you take a position. And go on to add that the fear of not accepting that is also a factor in your decision. The problem is that the 'evidence' on which you base your opinion is subject to much debate. That evidence is hotly disputed by many climate scientists. But they are labelled 'deniers' and shunned by their profession. They are unable to obtain funding for their facilities as their views run contrary to what is desired by the politics involved. That doesn't mean that their views are incorrect. Just that they are not able to even air them in mainstream media.
Even a cursory amount of research will show that the 'evidence' on which you rely is deeply flawed. Coupled with the fear campaign it is no wonder that many people concur with your own opinion. The argument that says " what if you are wrong' is also powerful. That triple whammy causes many people to go along with the Gov't tax takes. But it doesn't mean that it is right. And having looked very closely into this whole subject I am not sure that it is right either. But, as I say, at present it is causing a move way from oil for car transport and as such I won't argue against it. But not because it may save the planet. Because it will reduce particulates in the air we breath which is a welcome benefit.
I'm not sure I get your point. I agree that science should always be challenging itself. I don't know where you are getting your information but you are acting as if science backs your stance rather than the likelihood of catastrophic climate change.The overwhelming majority of scientific research and observed trends supports the likelihood of human induced climate change. Of course this should be challenged but to date there is not any strong evidence that this is not the case. I respect your opinion and I'm more than happy for you to continue your quest to try and disprove recognised climate change theory. However, I would rather you didn't risk the future of my children and grandchildren as well as the future of humanity just because you believe that one day we may find strong evidence that climate change is not linked to human activity.It's because many scientists resent being labelled as 'deniers' and told that the science is settled, and not open to debate. You seem to agree that all debate must end. Being staggered that scientists wish to question the data is an odd position to take. I would have thought that a rational stance would be to examine their claims and be in a position to make an informed decision rather than be staggered that they want to explain it to you.
We all agree that the earth is warming again. The key word is 'again'. The planet has been colder, and warmer, in its past. At present it is warming. There is nothing sinister in that and in fact the temperature has been remarkably stable for as far as records go back. The issue is over the scare stories that man made CO2 is entirely responsible for the warming this time around. There is a huge amount of data to show that natural global warming causes CO2 rise, and not the other way round. Being told that scientists are not allowed to say that and that the science is settled - debate is over - isn't helpful.
All climate models over the last 20 years have been shown to be woefully inaccurate. And serious political decisions were taken based on those models predictions. The climate simply refuses to play the modellers game and stubbornly goes on it's way not warming as required. They even tried to go back to the original models knowing the results now and to tweak the parameters to learn where they went wrong. Every time they micro managed any one parameter it produced an unexpected consequence somewhere else and they were unable to make any changes to cause the model to replicate what actually happened. Eventually they gave up - saying the system was far too chaotic for a model to predict outcomes beyond a month. Despite this admission they are still paid millions to model the future and the Gov't still uses those known unreliable models to make future policy. Despite this they still chant the mantra that the science is settled and that all debate is over.
That stance is a very common one. Much like the religious one known as 'Pascal's Wager'. Basically where an athiest on his deathbed suddenly repents - just in case. He sees no downside to it. The risk of repenting and compromising his entire life's convictions are minimal and - who knows.
The problem is that the draconian measures being taken by governments - just in case - are very damaging to areas of the world where they desperately need energy to claw themselves out of their third world life. And it also enables a few to become very rich by their carbon trading schemes. Look up how much that highly vocal scare merchant Al Gore has made from such schemes.
I agree with much of this. I see no downside to a strategic move away from fossil fuel as much as possible - certainly for passenger transport. But as most is used for other essential services it will prove to be massively damaging to try to cut back from those. This will be a long term plan - many decades. Your last sentence is where I take issue.
DlTo be honest I'm staggered that we are still debating climate change. Sure theories can never be proven 100% but that is no reason to ignore it.
What we do know is this based on actual measurements so unless you are saying the people taking these measurements are lying are facts.
The earth's temperature is going up.
Our oceans have absorbed a lot of heat and are warming.
CO2 emissions are rising.
We know that CO2 and Methane are greenhouse gases.
We know that less ice, melting of permafrost and more forest fires will act as positive feedback mechanisms increasing the greenhouse gas emissions and temperatures that go with it.
We know that burning fossil fuels is releasing carbon stored over millions of years.
Now you may want to bury your heads in the sand I say. Well it might not be true science sometimes gets it wrong but as far as I can see that is a pretty irresponsible and risky position to take. There may be negative feedback loops we haven't considered and you may end up being right but I would rather not risk humanity in a hunch.
Actually as a civilisation we are more than capable of living well without fossil fuels etc. They are going to run out anyway at some point so I really see no reason why we should not move as quickly as we can away from them. We have the technology and innovation now. Let's just get on with it and accept that not doing so is at best risky, at worst completely wreck less and irresponsible.
It's because many scientists resent being labelled as 'deniers' and told that the science is settled, and not open to debate. You seem to agree that all debate must end. Being staggered that scientists wish to question the data is an odd position to take. I would have thought that a rational stance would be to examine their claims and be in a position to make an informed decision rather than be staggered that they want to explain it to you.
We all agree that the earth is warming again. The key word is 'again'. The planet has been colder, and warmer, in its past. At present it is warming. There is nothing sinister in that and in fact the temperature has been remarkably stable for as far as records go back. The issue is over the scare stories that man made CO2 is entirely responsible for the warming this time around. There is a huge amount of data to show that natural global warming causes CO2 rise, and not the other way round. Being told that scientists are not allowed to say that and that the science is settled - debate is over - isn't helpful.
All climate models over the last 20 years have been shown to be woefully inaccurate. And serious political decisions were taken based on those models predictions. The climate simply refuses to play the modellers game and stubbornly goes on it's way not warming as required. They even tried to go back to the original models knowing the results now and to tweak the parameters to learn where they went wrong. Every time they micro managed any one parameter it produced an unexpected consequence somewhere else and they were unable to make any changes to cause the model to replicate what actually happened. Eventually they gave up - saying the system was far too chaotic for a model to predict outcomes beyond a month. Despite this admission they are still paid millions to model the future and the Gov't still uses those known unreliable models to make future policy. Despite this they still chant the mantra that the science is settled and that all debate is over.
That stance is a very common one. Much like the religious one known as 'Pascal's Wager'. Basically where an athiest on his deathbed suddenly repents - just in case. He sees no downside to it. The risk of repenting and compromising his entire life's convictions are minimal and - who knows.
The problem is that the draconian measures being taken by governments - just in case - are very damaging to areas of the world where they desperately need energy to claw themselves out of their third world life. And it also enables a few to become very rich by their carbon trading schemes. Look up how much that highly vocal scare merchant Al Gore has made from such schemes.
I agree with much of this. I see no downside to a strategic move away from fossil fuel as much as possible - certainly for passenger transport. But as most is used for other essential services it will prove to be massively damaging to try to cut back from those. This will be a long term plan - many decades. Your last sentence is where I take issue.