The advantages of using fossil fuels

1961Nick

ABrass wrote: »

Anyone who doubts that global warming is real and caused by humans and is posting on this forum must really struggle to explain why they aren't a troll. How on earth this thread in particular counts as anything other than naked trolling is beyond me. But it does add to the list of names that aren't worth listening to.

Nobody on here disputes that AGW exists...even the Ape.

However, there's plenty of discussion about the effects of GW & how we deal with it.

ABrass

I don't believe you're right on that. We of the lines I've seen in the last week on the forum definitely cross that line.

But even if you were right anyone who's in the diet-denier range of 'oh it won't be a bad thing anyway' may not be a troll but isn't worth listening to either. I'm fine with wasting my time reading stupid stuff on the internet but if someone's that wrong on one topic then why bother trying to find any glimmer of sense in the ****pile of their opinions?

1961Nick

ABrass wrote: »

I don't believe you're right on that. We of the lines I've seen in the last week on the forum definitely cross that line.

But even if you were right anyone who's in the diet-denier range of 'oh it won't be a bad thing anyway' may not be a troll but isn't worth listening to either. I'm fine with wasting my time reading stupid stuff on the internet but if someone's that wrong on one topic then why bother trying to find any glimmer of sense in the ****pile of their opinions?

There is the occasional diamond amongst plenty of nonsense....an example of which is the miles/kWh thread. That's started a discussion on different vehicles, owners actual experiences, & ways to improve consumption/range.

Even this thread with it's provocative title - no doubt chosen to make Mart choke on his cornflakes - has it's merits. The supposition that !!!!!! have enabled the world to cope with change has some basis - accepting that shouldn't be a problem because renewables will take over that role in the future.

Martyn1981

1961Nick wrote: »

For those of us that are fortunate enough to be able to afford one of the latest BEVs, the news is very good indeed. I'm frankly astounded at how much the tables have turned on ICE vehicles in the past 30 months.

In the UK the financial benefits are even better for BEV Company cars with the virtual elimination of BIK. This really is a game changer imo, and will launch used vehicles onto the market in 2, 3 & 4 years time. It'll be interesting to see the SMMT figures for the second quarter 2020.

In fact, the news is all so positive that I've followed your lead & bought some Tesla shares.:cool:

Of the charts good news as you say.

Hope I haven't misled you/anyone on TSLA. They dropped 10% in one day this week, which is a disaster, but over the next few days put most of it back on. That's not normal and makes no sense. In the medium term say 2023+ (short term even), some analysts suggest a doubling of the price if the robo-taxis do absolutely nothing, and perhaps 20x if they are a success. No sane person should invest in these.

JKenH

ABrass wrote: »

I don't believe you're right on that. We of the lines I've seen in the last week on the forum definitely cross that line.

But even if you were right anyone who's in the diet-denier range of 'oh it won't be a bad thing anyway' may not be a troll but isn't worth listening to either. I'm fine with wasting my time reading stupid stuff on the internet but if someone's that wrong on one topic then why bother trying to find any glimmer of sense in the ****pile of their opinions?

Someone else who thinks profanity (with asterisks) is a suitable form of discourse. Aren’t you the big man (or girl)!

What is the point of a green and ethical forum if we can’t discuss AGW and measures to deal with it?

As Nick says we aren’t denying AGW on this forum but not even the scientists know exactly how it will pan out - the science is based on computer modelling so there is no certainty the models will be correct. Look at what has happened to sea ice in the Arctic - the models didn’t predict it disappearing so quickly, so how much can we rely on them? What I am saying is the science is not exact - it is a best guess - so we have to consider it might be wrong and we might all be doomed whatever we do (or we might not).

Nick has been arguing that we need to also consider mitigation measures as we cannot rely on the rest of the world to deliver on its obligations even if we do but as that does not fit with the message it is derided.

There is a misguided belief that we can just go to 100% renewables (in fact the religious dogma dictates there is no alternative) but there will be days when the sun doesn’t shine and more importantly the wind doesn’t blow very much so we need some back up. Now some assume the battery technology will be there by when we need it but until then we are reliant on interconnects, nasty nuclear or evil !!!!!!. That ‘then’ may be quite a way away and the cost may be prohibitive - battery storage isn’t going to fall in cost as quickly as computer memory and if GA is correct the amount of storage needed will cost £trillions.

That is reality but anyone who points out practical or economic difficulties in reaching RE nirvana is labelled an AGW denier. Blind faith is not healthy so I would suggest maybe you should open your mind and contribute to the debate if you have something constructive to add rather than denying others the right to make their point.

Martyn1981

1961Nick wrote: »

I accept your apology & I'll tender mine in advance.....

Actually Mart, the only areas that we disagree on is what we can do about AGW ... and particularly what we will do about it. The second area is very subjective & your conclusion will depend on whether you are an optimist, pessimist or just a realist.

I don't think you can face the prospect that GW targets could be missed by a huge margin and therefore won't entertain early measures for dealing with the likely consequences.

My belief is not extreme, I think. We have all the tools today, and as a growing number of studies conclude, they are economical today, so we'd be better off changing leccy generation, transport, heating etc and have more jobs.

But, on to your second point, yes, I think we won't do enough, fast enough, but I really don't want to be a downer on folk here. Hence why I chat about what works, how it works economically, and why it seems fun and exciting.

Yes, again, I can't face the prospect that AGW targets will be missed by a large margin, as that would be terrifying. The 1.5/2C+ target is still bad, we will see ever worse storms, flooding and areas of already hot countries where crops and people will no longer be able to live permanently.

So ...... continued in the next post ......

Martyn1981

ABrass wrote: »

I don't believe you're right on that. We of the lines I've seen in the last week on the forum definitely cross that line.

But even if you were right anyone who's in the diet-denier range of 'oh it won't be a bad thing anyway' may not be a troll but isn't worth listening to either. I'm fine with wasting my time reading stupid stuff on the internet but if someone's that wrong on one topic then why bother trying to find any glimmer of sense in the ****pile of their opinions?

...... diet-denier is a good term.

Anything that undermines the seriousness of the situation, or the amount of action needed, is actually helping to make the problem far, far worse.

Now, on a thread/board like this, does it really matter, no I suppose, though it is extremely rude and inconsiderate.

But on a national basis, or international, the harm can be vast.

And is ..... the FF's companies successfully ran a campaign of mis-information, that delayed serious action by around 30yrs. We could have rolled out the wind and PV then, and each of those deployments would have removed that 30yr share. We would have less CO2, better technology, better prices, and a better chance of avoiding runaway GW.

I appreciate that you think I'm way too serious, or a nutter, but all I'm doing is regurgitating the scientific facts. If you don't agree with me, then as I say, don't shoot the messenger, look at this thread and the pointless discussions on crops - the science says one thing, so making excuses (to me) is pointless, prove them wrong, or let it go.


Perhaps, just for a second, put yourself in my shoes. It may look like 'it's just me', but I could argue that it's just you three, and on this subject I will stand my ground, I will pushback ....... but we can all conclude right now that it's a waste of time for all.

Have fun.

Martyn1981

JKenH wrote: »

Someone else who thinks profanity (with asterisks) is a suitable form of discourse. Aren’t you the big man (or girl)!

What is the point of a green and ethical forum if we can’t discuss AGW and measures to deal with it?

As Nick says we aren’t denying AGW on this forum but not even the scientists know exactly how it will pan out - the science is based on computer modelling so there is no certainty the models will be correct. Look at what has happened to sea ice in the Arctic - the models didn’t predict it disappearing so quickly, so how much can we rely on them? What I am saying is the science is not exact - it is a best guess - so we have to consider it might be wrong and we might all be doomed whatever we do (or we might not).

Nick has been arguing that we need to also consider mitigation measures as we cannot rely on the rest of the world to deliver on its obligations even if we do but as that does not fit with the message it is derided.

There is a misguided belief that we can just go to 100% renewables (in fact the religious dogma dictates there is no alternative) but there will be days when the sun doesn’t shine and more importantly the wind doesn’t blow very much so we need some back up. Now some assume the battery technology will be there by when we need it but until then we are reliant on interconnects, nasty nuclear or evil !!!!!!. That ‘then’ may be quite a way away and the cost may be prohibitive - battery storage isn’t going to fall in cost as quickly as computer memory and if GA is correct the amount of storage needed will cost £trillions.

That is reality but anyone who points out practical or economic difficulties in reaching RE nirvana is labelled an AGW denier. Blind faith is not healthy so I would suggest maybe you should open your mind and contribute to the debate if you have something constructive to add rather than denying others the right to make their point.

And yet another rude, insulting, mocking and untrue post from Ken.

Regarding mitigation, Perhaps you could put some meat on the bones and explain what we should do.

I would point out that spending on flood defences etc already takes place, and that we will need far more.

But, if you are suggesting removing funds from RE, or EV rollout etc, then you will only make the matter worse. Globally, CO2 will be combated slower, resulting in far more funds needed for flood defence etc later on.

If you are suggesting we take some of the money and pop it in a fund for later, then again I would suggest it's growth in value will be far less than the rise in monies needed to combat the then greater impacts of AGW.

I suspect this 'argument' is just words, but would be open to hearing how it would work, but right now, the single most important thing we can do regarding the total cost of AGW, is to reduce GHG's as fast as possible, our house is on fire, we should spend money on the fire service, not establish a fund for a new house instead.

JKenH

Martyn1981 wrote: »

And yet another rude, insulting, mocking and untrue post from Ken.

I apologise to those offended by my post.

JKenH

Martyn1981 wrote: »

I suspect this 'argument' is just words, but would be open to hearing how it would work, but right now, the single most important thing we can do regarding the total cost of AGW, is to reduce GHG's as fast as possible, our house is on fire, we should spend money on the fire service, not establish a fund for a new house instead.

Our house isn’t on fire yet but we can see the fire coming so if our neighbours aren’t going to help stop it reaching us then we need to take action to minimise the fire when it does get here.

If we only account for 1%of current GHG production how can we stop AGW on our own? I am not saying we shouldn’t do our bit particularly as you point out RE will save us money but we may as well be prepared.

As an example let’s roll out more ASHPs (aircon units) so people (the elderly in particular) can keep cool in a heatwave. This could save ‘000s of lives. (This could be linked to solar panel installations thus reducing CO2 emissions as well when they are used for heating.) Old people’s homes and hospitals would be an obvious place to target.