Jump to content
  • Welcome to Whats Up Austraila!

    Intuitive, Social, Engaging...Registration is FREE.
    Register Log in
Phil Perry

The climate change debate continues.

Recommended Posts

The increasingly unwatchable and slavishly woke BBC plumbed new depths last night. It gave a prime time slot to a piece of environmental propaganda so blatant, shameless, and dishonest it might just as well have been a political broadcast on behalf of Extinction Rebellion.

Even the programme’s title was a lie.

 

Climate Change: The Facts was a farrago of alarmist cliches, exaggerations, and untruths which have been debunked on numerous occasions.

 

It lied about the cause of wildfires; it lied about heatwaves; it lied about storms and floods; it lied about polar melting; it lied about sea levels; it lied about coral reefs; it lied about droughts.

 

Yet many viewers may well have been taken in because the programme was presented with breathy earnestness and apparent authority by the doyen of TV wildlife ‘experts’ Sir David Attenborough. And accompanied by the kind of dramatic footage and stirring music guaranteed to bypass the brain and appeal directly to the emotions — as all the most effective propaganda does.

 

“If you liked Triumph of the Will then you’re going to love Our Planet,” I wrote recently of Attenborough’s new Netflix series, which uses exactly the same techniques: amazing nature photography; manipulative music; a trembly voiceover making all manner of scientifically dubious assertions in order to scare the viewer into the appropriate state of climate fear.

 

But Climate Change: the Facts was more unscrupulous and dishonest still.

 

What I found particularly objectionable was its use of emotive trickery to help deceive the viewer into buying its specious arguments.

 

For example, on the subject of heatwaves, we were shown heartbreaking footage of thousands of flying foxes (giant fruit bats) in Australia which had dropped dead out of the trees during a particularly hot spell last November in Queensland.

 

“There was a deafening sound of babies crying,” said the voiceover of a distraught Australian conservationist, over images of piles of dead bats, and an orphaned baby bat being hand fed some milk from a bottle.

 

“This is climate change in action,” muttered an unnamed Australian.

 

“We need to wake up!” said another.

 

The unwary viewer might easily have been gulled into drawing two erroneous conclusions from this.

 

First, that the bats really had been killed by “climate change”. (Which they hadn’t. This was an extreme weather event of the kind which, no doubt, has killed many thousands of flying foxes on previous occasions in history — only without the presence of camera crews to record the incidents.)

 

Second, that the world divides into two kinds of people: those who love the planet and cute baby bats and who consequently believe in the urgency of combating climate change; those who don’t give a damn. (Which is another entirely false premise. It is quite possible to care very much about the natural world without buying into the false claims of green-ideology driven, anti-growth, anti-human environmental activists.)

 

Paul Homewood has been through its various claims with a fine-tooth comb and found many to be misleading and inaccurate.

 

Among his criticisms:

 

  • Attenborough shows a surface temperature chart of dramatically rising temperatures but a) fails to mention that the more accurate satellite temperature data shows no increase since 1998; b) fails to explain why temperatures rose sharply in the early 20th century, long before CO2 emissions began to rise significantly; c) fails to mention that since the 19th century, Earth has been emerging from the Little Ice Age — probably the coldest period since the end of the Ice Age.
  • The extreme weather bogeyman. Various talking head ‘experts’ assure us that heat waves are getting more intense. But last summer’s heatwave in the UK — cited as evidence of this — was no hotter than the summer of 1976; nor was the recent one in Queensland when temperatures reached 42 degrees C — also cited — anywhere near as bad as the one in 1972 when temperatures reached 49.5 degrees C. In fact, Homewood notes, there is considerable evidence that heatwaves are actually becoming less common.
  • Michael Mann (quoted as an expert witness): “You’re going to get more rainfall, more superstorms, worse flooding. We’re seeing the effects of climate change now play out in real time” Homewood: Maybe one of the most dishonest parts of the programme. Even the IPCC can’t find any long term trends in tropical cyclone activity or flooding. And severe tornadoes are have become much less common in the US.
  • Attenborough: “Rising seas are already displacing hundreds of thousands of people from already vulnerable coastal areas.” Homewood: Pure hyperbole. Where is the evidence to support this claim? Sea levels have been rising steadily since the mid 19th century.
  • On polar ice caps, it is claimed that ice loss from Antarctica and Greenland is “worse than expected”. Homewood: In fact, according to NASA, the Antarctic is actually gaining ice. It is symptomatic of the whole programme, that Attenborough does not mention this inconvenient fact. As for Greenland, I’m not sure what the experts were “expecting”, has any relevance at all. What we do know though, is that temperatures in Greenland are no higher now than they were in the 1930s.
  • Attenborough: “In the last three years, repeated heat stress has caused a third of the world’s corals to first bleach and then die.” Homewood: There is absolutely no evidence for this, and I have not even seen that claimed about the Great Barrier Reef. And as we now know, the death of GBR corals was drastically overstated. Indeed, as scientists like Peter Ridd and local reef experts have long maintained, corals quickly recover from bleaching, which was just as bad in the 18thC.

In sum, where in reality there is increasing doubt and debate among scientists on the issue of ‘climate change’, this #fakenews documentary pretended the opposite: that the weight of evidence points unquestionably to an imminent climate catastrophe which can only be averted if we take concerted global action now.

 

“It may sound frightening but the scientific evidence is that if we have not taken dramatic action in the next decade we could face irreversible damage to the natural world — and the collapse of our societies,” said Attenborough. [Fact check: there is not a single piece of scientific evidence which suggests anything of the kind. Perhaps that’s why he covered himself with the word “could.”]

 

“What is happening now in the next few years will profoundly affect the next thousand years,” he declared elsewhere. [Fact check: no it won’t; barely in the slightest. The planet is 4.5 billion years old. It’s perfectly capable of taking care of itself, regardless of our ludicrous delusions otherwise.]

 

This isn’t science. This is the purest political activism — and it’s quite extraordinary that the BBC, theoretically committed by its charter obligations to fair and accurate broadcasting, should have allowed itself to be used as a platform for such blatant fearmongering, misinformation, and propagandising.

 

The BBC supposedly represents the entire viewing population. (Otherwise, why should we all be forced to fund it with our compulsory annual £154.50 per household licence fee?) Yet here it is speaking on behalf of a narrow clique of mostly metropolitan, left-liberal types who pay lip service to the green religion because it’s such an easy way of publicly signalling their virtue. Those many of us — perhaps the majority of the population — who, with good reason, are sceptical about the global warming scare are treated with utter contempt, as if our opinions don’t matter.

 

Anyone with an even rudimentary grasp of the climate debate knows, for example, that Michael Mann, James Hansen, and Naomi Oreskes are key members of the climate industrial complex with a long track record of aggressive political activism on behalf of the environmental movement. Yet here they were being presented by the BBC — and by Attenborough — as if they were dispassionate, wholly trustworthy climate experts.

 

Even by the BBC’s abysmal standards, this programme was a disgrace: an insult to the intelligence, a betrayal of the Reithian principles on which the BBC was founded, and a shameless piece of propaganda on behalf of the watermelons who would destroy our civilisation.

 

As for Sir David Attenborough, it’s time this whispery voiced, gorilla hugging, walrus scaring Malthusian was recognised for what he is: not as a national treasure but as a national embarrassment long, long past his sell-by date.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Homewood: In fact, according to NASA, the Antarctic is actually gaining ice.

 

Let me just pick one point out of the many because frankly I can't be bothered debating fringe beliefs and let's face it the denier side has lost and will increasingly look more ridiculous as time goes by.

 

By the way, you neglected to attribute this article which was by James Delingpole who amongst other things is the executive editor of Breitbart London and is a journalist with no scientific qualifications as far as I can see. James Delingpole - Wikipedia The criticisms are by Paul Homewood. There does not seem to be any information about Homewood's qualifications but I would assume if he had any he would be keen to quote them.

 

You may think it foolish of me but I am going with NASA, you know the folks who can send a probe past Pluto with pinpoint accuracy as well as just about every other reputable scientific organisation.

 

The study referred to above is from 2015 and must be read carefully. What does NASA say in more recent studies

 

The decline has slowed lately but never the less still a decline.

 

The author of this paper Jay Zwally also says this "Zwally said the ice sheets are reacting to climate warming, the question is when receding started and how far it would go."

 

This paper is one of many papers, the question is where does the scientific consensus lay.

 

 

Wintertime Arctic sea ice growth slows long-term decline: NASA – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet (2018)

 

UW glaciologist gets first look at NASA’s new measurements of ice sheet elevation

 

Arctic Sea Ice Is Growing Faster Than Before, But There's A Catch

 

Is Antarctica losing or gaining ice?

 

The BBC are not a scientific organisation the best they can do is quote the science. I think it is reasonable to quote NASA so what does NASA say? Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet If you want to convince me you will first have to discredit the weight of NASA evidence, can you do that?

 

Phil, you are entitled to your opinion but that is all it is an opinion. I am not a physicist or an atmospheric scientist. I am sceptical by nature in fact in the 80s and 90s I was an active member of the NSW Skeptics society. For me, it is not about politics it is about the weight of evidence.

 

What if certain gases do not behave in the atmosphere as physicists expect. We will have moved on to new technologies slightly earlier than strictly needed, so what.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Climate change is no doubt happening, nothing stays the same for ever. It may even be boosted by our behaviour and then again it may not. Who knows. I am certain that our going to renewable energy will not make climate change worse and it would be nice to live in a land without the massive scarring of coal mines. I see in NSW that the col miners are putting up big earth banks covered with trees, to hide the massive scarring.

I would not believe a word that any of the so called scientists say. We hear that science depends upon its sayings being provable and repeatable. that doesn't happen, but the goal posts keep moving. It used to be we could expect more cyclones here in Qld, but that isn't happening so now it is worse cyclones that are predicted. This year we have only had one and really it was a rain depression.

The flooding in a lot of places is caused by manmade structures, rather than the climate. Railway lines are laid on big dams. The bushfires are caused by excess fuel build up. We cannot burn excess fuel off when it is safe, but have to get some petty bureaucrat to give us a permit. On top of all that government loves to be seen to be doing something, even if it is evacuating 8000 people from a grass fire that back burning could have controlled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...Even by the BBC’s abysmal standards, this programme was a disgrace: an insult to the intelligence, a betrayal of the Reithian principles on which the BBC was founded, and a shameless piece of propaganda on behalf of the watermelons who would destroy our civilisation.

 

As for Sir David Attenborough, it’s time this whispery voiced, gorilla hugging, walrus scaring Malthusian was recognised for what he is: not as a national treasure but as a national embarrassment long, long past his sell-by date.

 

Did you get that off your chest, Phil?

 

You quote a few bits of evidence that seem inconsistent with the general climate change theory.

This issue is far too complex to cover in even a one-hour doco. Concerned scientists have long since learned that they have to be brief, cut to the chase, and gloss over minor details if they are to get people's attention and counter the decades of heavily-funded obfuscation by the fossil fuel industry and other vested interests.

 

Let's compare sources: Your critics and their questionable qualifications and even more questionable backers-

or David Attenborough, who pretty much invented nature docos and has given his life to the service of science and humankind.

 

Compare the climate change debate with ozone depletion. Nearly forty years ago, when scientists warned the world that some of our chemical waste is destroying the ozone layer, how did the nations of the world react?

 

Was there an orchestrated campaign to undermine the credibility of scientist? Did we carry on as normal for decades without doing anything about the threat to our civilization?

No. Within a few short years, almost every nation on earth agreed to phase out the offending chemicals- even though this cost lots of money and caused lots of short-term economic pain. A generation later, this great success story of international cooperation has halted the damage and the ozone layer is recovering.

First Direct Proof of Ozone Hole Recovery Due to Chemicals Ban

 

Why can't we do the same for green house gas pollution? Some are, but it's the richest nations that are holding us back. Rapidly phasing out fossil fuels will not only help the environment, it will stimulate an economic boom like we haven't seen since the Marshal Plan.

 

It might be more comforting to just stick to Fox News and the rest of the fantasy that we've been brought up with, but the world is changing and we are a big cause of it. It's time we took responsibility for our actions and did the right thing for our children.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The jury is no longer out. The problem is deniers will never accept the facts and love to cherry pick specifics and when a little scrutiny is applied to their arguments those melt into oblivion as do their poorly researched "facts that are really just opinions".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Follow the money trail. That's where the denier impetus comes from. The motivation and the MONEY. They want to keep making profits regardless of the real consequences. There's NO glaciers growing (They are ALL receding) The CO2 in the atmosphere is where it is (over 400 ppm) verified at that figure anywhere. The greenhouse effects of CO2 and methane etc are undisputed. It stops heat escaping. 97% of Scientists involved with it are convinced of it. The oceans have been absorbing the excess CO2 till now they are becoming too acid for crustaceans to survive so basic sea life is threatened (Plankton)

Just WHY would all the carbon (Coal) and oil since the Industrial revolution be burned and with NO consequences to the environment?. It's a huge amount and the atmosphere is quite finite. Half of the total number of molecules is below 18,000 feet, (6 kms) and the world's population has exploded in the last 3000 years and we destroy trees like there's no tomorrow. We are tipping the balance and permafrost melting will create a new cycle . Time is running out to stop reaching this point of no return. Farmers are now becoming convinced as they have been now keeping records for a few generations. Tropical fish are at higher latitudes and frosts not happening where they used to.

RECORD temps are just that (HIGHER than anything yet recorded) and we get more of them with an inevitable trend (hotter). ALL the predicted effects of 30 years ago are happening. Weather has always been changeable? Doesn't really cover it does it? The melting Antarctic ice thing is a CON. It's two different forms of ice. Ice ain't Ice. The big high stuff us going and won't be replaced as it took ages to form. Nev

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

oh sheeeet out hear you just sack the persons that disagree with you take peter ridd for instance

the reef aint dead

what modelling are they using as to so called climate change kg wheather patterns are changing and have for millions of years that is a fact

as for me in ten years I will still be here to piss you scare mongering sheep off

when you have people adjusting the tempeture to read lower temps to make a case for warming shore make sence for a hotter area

how about Canada getting on the climate change band wagon and burning it thank you oh no that's not on for the sheep

bloody 97% of scientists prove what that weather patterns are changing waky do i have noticed it

so it has never been 47 degrees in burke until now neil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We all know that the biggest plant eating animals that ever existed were the herbivorous dinosaurs. One of the products of a large intake of vegetable matter is gas

 

 

and this gas is methane, a Greenhouse gas. Plant-eating dinosaurs were, in all likelihood, champion farters! Plants are hard to digest, requiring a lot of time and plenty of bacteria to break them down. One ‘end’ product of this is the gas methane. Could the digestion wastes of dinosaur meals have fueled the post-asteroid fires?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
when you have people adjusting the tempeture to read lower temps to make a case for warming shore make sence for a hotter area

 

 

Neil, this video explains in great detail how and why it is done, it presents the raw data before adjustment and even gives you links so that you can download the raw data.

 

 

You may dismiss this and choose to accept other sources of information but this explanation does not just make statements, it supports its assertions with links to the raw data.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...There's NO glaciers growing (They are ALL receding)..

Nev that's just the sort of talk that will give ammunition to the deniers! Some of them do like to point out the rare exceptions to the overwhelming trend. I believe I've read that a couple of Antarctic glaciers have been found to be growing, due to local increase in snow accumulation.

 

...Just WHY would all the carbon (Coal) and oil since the Industrial revolution be burned and with NO consequences to the environment?...

That's what I've been saying for decades; the oil and coal we burn each day are equivalent to the flow of a quite large river. Not only has it been burning for a couple of centuries, it's growing, releasing carbon that natural systems took millions of years to remove from the atmosphere. All without any effect?

 

...Time is running out to stop reaching this point of no return. Farmers are now becoming convinced as they have been now keeping records...

 

So true, Nev. The sad fact is that the coming federal election may be our last chance to change this county's direction. Our current government seems hell-bent on favouring coal over renewables. Many rural electorates want to toss out the tossers who want to subsidise dirty old industries. Sadly there is a shortage of candidates to choose from.

'There's no sugar-coating it': Why Shooters Party will be firing blanks in the federal election

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with the deniers is that they have the support of some of the wealthy who rely on fossil industries. As I said before the jury is no longer out. We are 100% on the steady slide into a failed earth. Support for action has been slow to get going and at an international level with the Kyoto, Copenhagen and Paris agreements being undermined by individual governments is not advancing as fast as it deserves to be.

 

The real change though is from the people of this planet despite their leaders failures. This includes numerous businesses involved in renewable energy, the exponential growth in electric cars, battery technologies etc, the list is endless. School children know without a doubt that their future is being destroyed by current governments with their "Growth and Jobs" attitude that has only one long term disastrous result. The polls here even show that the issue that worries the majority is no longer the economy but the environment. I think we are nearly at the point of "Critical Mass" & if we can get there soon there is still hope for humanity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is frustrating to try and post on this subject. You get howled down. It’s like the Salem witch hunts. All I can say is that, whenever I try to track down the facts I find that they have been misrepresented by the alarmists. I am a geoscientist by profession though not a “ climate scientist” whatever that may mean, but on every measure of temperature, sea level, glaciers and so on I find that the facts are different than the numbers presented by alarmists. I know there is no point debating this, I just want to express my frustration. I wish I could jump forward a century and see how they explain the current hysteria.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most 3rd world countries cannot afford"renewables" and as for electric cars they will never have one , most cannot afford a petrol or diesil car, and they will still depend on coal fired generation, so who will bear the brunt of the changes,oh wait a minute that will be US in the richer countries, so that will mean we as older Aussies will get poorer , I for one am glad that I will be gone long before this all comes to fruition, and no I am not a naysayer, facts are the western counties will PAY the most( go on say its all our own fault)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Warmer temperatures, rainfall pattern changes, etc are the symptoms of a changing climate. The fact seem to speak for themselves. What we have in the discussion are many theories to explain the facts. So it's not so much a matter of whether or not the averages calculated from the data are drifting from a universal mean, but it's "my theory is better than your theory". Since theories are often cast aside as research leads us to the correct one, no one can really say at this stage, who's theory is the correct.

 

It seem to me that in the climate debate and the squeaky wheel (ie the radicals) get their opinions publicised more often than the quiet achievers. I reckon that the radicals are generally people who refuse to learn much from history. They seem to ignore the facts that explain the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and subsequent Little Ice Age. No one can claim that the initiator of the MWP was Man's use of fossil fuels. Possible causes of the Medieval Warm Period include increased solar activity, decreased volcanic activity, and changes to ocean circulation. Of these, ocean circulation would be the best option.

 

Wouldn't we all laugh if we could travel into the future and find our descendants shivering around coal fires in a post-Information Age Ice age?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is frustrating to try and post on this subject. You get howled down. It’s like the Salem witch hunts.

 

Not howled down but is it not reasonable to question statements made by Breitbart editors etc? If I was to suggest that smoking was not detrimental to health it would be fair enough for people to question what evidence I am relying on. To simply say that the majority of scientists are making it up is a proposition that requires evidence and explanation. It is not howling down to ask what evidence someone is relying upon to support their assertions. I always watch or read everything that anyone post if I am going to comment yet I do not suppose people read or watch what I post, that is fair enough but it does not make for a reasonable dialogue.

 

but on every measure of temperature, sea level, glaciers and so on I find that the facts are different than the numbers presented by alarmists.

 

 

It is quite right to be sceptical of some pronouncements and some are prone to presenting the worst-case scenarios however the data is available. In the video, I posted the link was provided to the raw data as well as the homogenised data and the software used to analyse it.

 

I don't personally care what any individual thinks however I get rather annoyed at the notion that the theory is just a foolish notion that has no evidence. The point in Phil's article that I questioned (and I only chose one point) was that it cited 1 study from 2015 to suggest that real scientist like the NASA folk have disproved it, this is misleading. I did read a summary of the study and it most definitely does not say what the author thinks it says. There is also a paragraph which foresees the deliberate misuse of the study. The fact is NASA believes it has sufficient evidence as does as far I can see pretty much every reputable scientific organisation. You know who else has studied it? The petrochemical industry.

 

1988 Shell Confidential Report “The Greenhouse Effect”

 

ExxonMobil climate change controversy - Wikipedia

 

It seems very unlikely (although not impossible) that just about every scientific organisation in the world plus the petrochemical industry would all have it so very wrong. So what if they are wrong? Petrol is going to run out sooner or later, we could wait until oil does start to run out before we start developing new technologies to drive our vehicles and to make our petrochemicals. Digging up coal and sending around the world in huge ships cannot, in the long run, be the most efficient to create electricity.

 

The notion that all of those who accept the evidence are people who want to bring down capitalism is a little hard to believe, whilst those kinds of people do exist (and they piss me off) I don't think that the folks at NASA are a bunch of hippies trying to bring down society. Another group who takes climate change seriously are the US military

 

UPDATE: Chronology of U.S. Military Statements and Actions on Climate Change and Security: 2017-2019

 

As to where I stand on this, I believe the evidence is overwhelming. I do not think we need to dismantle our way of life but to modify it in ways that hopefully do not create too much disruption. Consider electric vehicles. Whilst I would not say that they are the total solution, they do make sense even if you ignore the pollutants they produce. The model for private transport we have at the moment is that we buy our vehicle from overseas and we power them with petrol. Petrol starts its a journey from the drill site to the tanker ship. After it arrives in Australia we refine it and stick it in a truck and drive it to a distribution point where us motorist buys it. A petrol station is the only option for the purchase of petrol. An EV whilst it is also imported sources its fuel locally. It can be refuelled at home. The electricity can come from renewables, coal, nuclear, hydro etc . It is extremely versatile. I recently read that Australia has 22 days worth of crude oil stockpile at any one time. This is roughly how long it would take for things to break down if supply was cut.

 

I don't want to live a life without modern conveniences but what is required is to not cling to old ways of doing things but rather forge ahead to the next era. Fossil fuels have been good but that does not mean that we cannot continue to advance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It seem to me that in the climate debate and the squeaky wheel (ie the radicals)

 

I have no interest in radical opinion and I think it is a red herring. I think the problem on both sides is getting information filtered through popular media. If someone suggests that the data is flawed because it has been adjusted, that as a proposition is interesting but requires evidence. I posted an admittedly long and dry video about how the data is altered and why and the fact that it is very often altered downwards. The link is provided to the raw data which by the way without being altered still shows warming. I don't expect to change anyone's mind and really it doesn't matter what some individuals think, the science is accepted by most. Of course, the nature of science is that as we measure more data we come closer to the real situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Octave, thank you for taking a researched, logical stance. My personal opinion (and disappointment) is that some deniers seem to become quite reactive when confronted by respected research results. But they generally fail to back up their opinions with any trails of verifiable research.

 

Some of the oft quoted anti climate change 'research' can be easily debunked by a few minutes websearching and cross checking of the origins (or credentials) of data.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Most 3rd world countries cannot afford"renewables" and as for electric cars they will never have one...

Gareth that statement is just silly. Until a century or so ago, most third world countries used renewable energy exclusively, only adopting fossil fuels relatively recently.

 

You are quite right to say they will continue to use lots of coal and oil, etc, but the price of renewables is falling fast. Many innovative renewable technologies are being developed for or by developing countries.

 

They will never have electric cars? Bunk! The mass-production of EVs spreading fast and their price will fall rapidly. I predict EVs will be far cheaper than conventional cars and spread around the planet far faster than you could imagine.

 

Not so long ago people predicted that Africa could never develop because of the lack of phone and power infrastructure. They hadn't anticipated technological change. Africa leap-frogged traditional land line phone technolgy; a decade ago Africa already had enough mobile phones for every second person.

The same may happen with energy sources and transport.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is frustrating to try and post on this subject. You get howled down. It’s like the Salem witch hunts...

I hear you, PM, and hope you feel you can make a contribution. Any thoughtful, evidence-based post should be treated with respect.

 

...on every measure of temperature, sea level, glaciers and so on I find that the facts are different than the numbers presented by alarmists...

 

Please share this info with us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"the atmosphere is quite finite. Half of the total number of molecules is below 18,000 feet, (6 kms)"

Yet we burn our atmosphere, for any excuse, every time I see a rocket launch I wonder how much air gets burnt at the same time.

Every Jumbo takeoff see's a ton of fuel burnt, with it's huge plume of pollution trailing behind, !.

The EV car's hopefully will save a little of the air (we breath) by Not burning it, & exhaust gas wont "GAS" us.

So bring on EV's, they're Just too pricey for me.

Any loan or gift EV will be very appreciated.

I wont hold my breath. LoL

spacesailor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"the atmosphere is quite finite. Half of the total number of molecules is below 18,000 feet, (6 kms)"

Yet we burn our atmosphere, for any excuse, every time I see a rocket launch I wonder how much air gets burnt at the same time.

Every Jumbo takeoff see's a ton of fuel burnt, with it's huge plume of pollution trailing behind, !.

The EV car's hopefully will save a little of the air (we breath) by Not burning it, & exhaust gas wont "GAS" us.

So bring on EV's, they're Just too pricey for me.

Any loan or gift EV will be very appreciated.

I wont hold my breath. LoL

spacesailor

 

Space prices are dropping and it is predicted that they will fall more rapidly in the near future.

 

Electric cars cheaper than petrol/diesel from 2022, as battery costs plummet | The Driven

 

At the moment I would not buy one (but I have never spent more the$8000 on a car)

 

Consider the first mobile phone in Australia which cost $5000 in 1981. I thought it was cool but assumed I would never own one. My first PC cost me $1200 in 1982 16k of RAM and programs loaded by cassette tape and it did bugger all.

 

There is no reason not to believe that the price of EVs technology will not follow a similar trajectory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At $8,000,!

Same for me even though my Delica was $20,000, Only $12,000 with trade-in.

The wife's Pajero was about the $12,000 mark, but still prefer the Deli.

How long to get the new EV's down to the level we the public could afford to pay, without the Business rort's that let the others get away with such a lot.

spacesailor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
At $8,000,!

Same for me even though my Delica was $20,000, Only $12,000 with trade-in.

The wife's Pajero was about the $12,000 mark, but still prefer the Deli.

How long to get the new EV's down to the level we the public could afford to pay, without the Business rort's that let the others get away with such a lot.

spacesailor

 

Depends what you mean by the public. Many people buy more expensive cars than you or I. my son bought a 4-year-old BMWI3 for around 30K. Whilst this may seem like big money for you or me it is cheaper than at 60k to 80k Sure you or I might not be able to afford either of those vehicles this does not mean that a car over 20K is too expensive to be viable. My son uses this EV as a daily drive to work and it costs him between $3 and $4 a week to charge. My son is quite a petrol head and does motorsport but the rational choice for him to drive to work is an EV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of the built world is made of steel and concrete. Steel requires metallurgical coal in a furnace to convert the iron ore. Cement requires cooking the limestone using coal or gas. Sure, there are electrical alternatives but they cannot deliver the quantities and need a source of electricity which in turn would be coal or gas, we don’t have an abundance of high-density renewable sources. Aluminium smelting has the same problem.

 

These are real issue that cannot be resolved in ten or twenty years. Philosophically we can stop building things, but that’s no going to happen. Making cars out of plastic would help on the demand side, but it needs a vibrant petrochemical industry, which justifies its exploration and investment on the demand for fossil fuels.

 

There are no simplistic green answers to the problem, so you need to be very sure that there actually is a problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue with carbon about the rate at which we take from the ground and transfer to the atmosphere. The Earth and ocean can re-absorb carbon but the problem is the rate is just too high. The carbon in coal and oil we burn took millions of years to form and we are burning in just a few hundred years. I am not suggesting that we should stop all activities that release carbon but rather to use other methods where they exist and to develop new ways.

 

At the moment there are no alternatives to airline travel on the horizon. I am not suggesting we ban all air travel, but doesn't it makes sense that the carbon balance would be more favourable if we could decarbonise road transport and save that precious carbon output for the things that at the moment can only be done that way. Likewise, as you rightly point out petrochemicals are extremely useful to us and will be for the foreseeable future. Oil is also a finite resource. Should we really continue to burn vast quantities of the raw material for plastics drugs etc?

 

It is not all or nothing

 

There are no simplistic green answers to the problem, so you need to be very sure that there actually is a problem.

 

Yes, it is a complicated problem. In terms of being very sure that there actually is a problem, I think the weight of evidence says there is. There may be disagreement with the severity of the problem but the physics is well understood. What I am suggesting is not that we go back to the way we lived in the 1700s but that we fast track the new technologies that are coming anyway. I am sure that you would agree that we will not be driving petrol or diesel vehicles in 50 years time, so why wait until the oil runs out to develop new ways of powering vehicles (and making plastic)

 

Just like maintaining a healthy weight is most easily achieved by tackling the problem early rather than waiting until health problems become totally obvious. Putting on too much weight causes chain reaction of health problems which become harder to fix. If too much ice melts we change the albedo of the planet which then allows more heat to be absorbed. There is a huge amount of co2 and methane trapped in permafrost which could be released as the permafrost melts.

 

How do we ever get to a stage where everybody accepts the evidence? There are still some that do not believe that smoking has any health problems associated with it. There are companies whose main concern is profit for the shareholders.

 

My question is other than a few individuals, who is it that does not accept the evidence. ExxonMobil seems to accept the evidence.

 

Some seem to suggest that if the evidence is correct then we must stop all activities that release greenhouse gasses. This to me is nonsense. To go back to weight, the answer is not to cease eating but to balance eating with energy expenditure. We need to balance carbon release with carbon storage.

 

It may surprise you to hear that I am an optimist. I believe once humans recognize the need they will do what needs to be done but the earlier we do this the less disruptive it will be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...