There isn't a climate emergency. The change in terminology could have been predicted, though. Less so the change from global warming to climate change. Next the line is bound to be do this or go extinct.
To try to stop the climate changing is to be a Cnut. (In the monarchist sense.)
At least we have got to the stage where people accept it is happening, and will continue to do so.
All you have left is arguments over semantics.
The positive externalities of mitigation are worth it, even if they don't have a big impact on global emissions and the rate at which temperature increases.
Investment in adaptation is almost certainly worth it, particularly for flooding on the east coast and air conditioning in hospitals.
Yes. We need to invest in mitigation AND reduce CO2 output AND improve energy efficiency AND investigate carbon capture AND reduce methane output AND… We’re past simple solutions. We need all the solutions.
There are no solutions that will be acceptable in a democracy because people will not accept a mandated decline in living standard. Therefore there will be no solutions
How about the solutions that do not require a decline in living standards?
- More renewables in energy generation -> less dependence on (suddenly very expensive) gas from dodgy places - More efficient appliances -> lower costs of running those appliances - Better insulation -> warmer homes at lower heating cost (plus removal of cold patches with mould etc) - EVs -> better cars with lower running costs
Someone the other day mentioned LED lighting. Well, it's just better than incandescent, isn't it? Many more colour options, cooler running*, lasts longer, obsolescence of even worse stuff like flurorescent tubes...
*I once burned my foot on a halogen bulb in a bedside lamp when reading in bed turned into something more energetic
I am not against any of those but we both know the climate change zealots want more than that
They demand an end to personal transportation for one They demand we all go vegan for two
But climate change zealots are nowhere near power.
Neither of those two things are going to happen before the climate apocalypse* and then it's too late and pointless anyway.
*by which I mean they are election losers right up until the point where (if it ever happens) the effects of climate change are so severe that people, in general, would actually want these things
I should state at this point I am absolutely relaxed about climate change, purely because by the time it becomes critical I will be dead as will be my family. I doubt I am alone in that.
Which on the one hand means that the rhetoric can be ramped up and no one will be any the wiser, while on the other as you say no one *really* is invested.
It comes down to will no one think of the children which is always a tricky ask.
Like many my son and his wife have decided to be childfree. Given he they are in their 30's by the time he dies will likely be 2080 at the latest. What is being asked therefore is "think of other peoples children"
I expect things to be pretty shit by 2050
Give us some f'rinstances.
Hot summers wet winters fires everywhere
Oh no!!!
Sounds like a pretty normal year to me if I am honest
Ahem
Never trust a chart that lacks a scale.
It is like a Lib Dem "winning here" bar chart.
You can almost here Kay burley screaming that Edinburgh is literally ablaze!
It's Met Office data, graphic put together by National Centre for Atmospheric Science, Reading Uni.
But I appreciate you lot don't have much time for experts.
The choice of colour is deliberately designed to alarm idiots like you. I have zero time for 'experts' who produce a graph without a scale.
The late chap in a house round the back from me (not a million miles from Edinburgh) was a keen met person. He kept continuous records for decades. I remember seeing his graph of the running average for the last few years about 10-12 years ago. It was a near perfect hockey stick in shape.
1850, low point of the Dalton minimum. There's a reason they start the chart here.
Pandemic - Catastrophic, 5-25% chance over 5yrs (5% in 5yrs is a once a century event, so once in a couple of decades to a century
Large scale CBRN attack - Catastrophic, 1-5% (measured over 2 years for malicious events)
Failure of NETS (national grid): Catastrophic, 1-5% over 5 yrs
Conventional Infra attack, severe space weather, low temperatures and snow, emerging infectious disease, nuclear miscalculation between other states - Severe, 5-25%
Terrorist attacks on public spaces, tech failure of financial market infra, disaster in an Overseas Territory, article 5 invocation or similar - 25%+, Moderate
I'd love to see a Betfair market on those.
First question - which disasters are large enough to be interesting, but small enough to allow Betfair to continue operating?
Betfair will always continue operating. And even if not, there should be a market on that too.
What's so funny about some of those (in a rather black macabre way) is that they're significantly shorter odds than RFK becoming President, which I'd say is more unlikely than any of them.
I've got a mortgage on a £640K property that's fixed at 1.3% until 2026, I don't know what interest rates will be then but significantly higher than that. I hope our salaries can keep up but not confident at this stage
"Our" - who are you shacked up with?
Is it a 640K mortgage or a 640K property with a 10K mortgage though.
I thought he's about 26 years old and lives with his mum, or something.
His property is worth more than mine if that's true, and I have a four-bed detached in Hants.
You can tell the Tories are not serious about finding out about how to win again when they think ULEZ is the solution.
As has been pointed out many times, this is not an issue which the voters the Tories need to win back, care about.
ULEZ was the catalyst to a much wider debate about climate change and the impact on ordinary peoples ability to adapt and indeed afford the costs
The problem the climate change enthusiasts have is taking the country with them at the speed they want, evidenced by the ridiculous proposition by the Greens in Scotland that gas boilers are not acceptable in the sale of Scottish homes from 2025
Indeed one of the Greens former leaders has defected to labour
As for labour, they have already cancelled the 28 billion annual green spend commitment and accept the granting of the new North Sea licences by Sunak
I believe this is a subject that requires mature discussions across politics and the public, rather than suggesting because the transition period, or more specifically the speed of it, means that those questioning it do not accept climate change which is obvious
It's a *consultation* to and proposal to *include the type of boiler* in the overall energy performance rating. As advised by the advisory committee to the Scottish Government. Not what you are saying.
Remember when the Torties actually put it in a bill to make it law to bang up RNLI and similar folk for rescuing people? That was well on from a proposal. But you wouldn't believe me and RP when we pointed this out to you.
Why the difference here? I can't possibly imagine why.
Even you are now admitting it is a consultation so by the very nature of it being a consultation it is on the Greeen SNP agenda
As far as the RNLI are concerned that wasn't a consultation, just a scare story which was never going to happen
Remarkable headline in The Guardian. Sweden apparently has “extraordinarily liberal free speech laws” - because they allow people to burn the Koran. No, what they have is the freedom to mock and criticise religion. It’s called “the Enlightenment”. We used to do it, too
This video is a video from a guy who does DCS videos (dogfighting games transposed to video with a narrative). The commentary is computer-generated by an AI set to mimic the actor Michael Ironside's voice. Have a listen, see if you can distinguish it from the real person.
Which is why writers and actors are currently on strike. They’re worried that film and TV producers are going to start doing the same.
Which seems like Luddism to me.
If the writers and actors can do a better job than automation, then they should be paid for it.
If automation and efficiency does a better job than people, then sorry but that's progress.
The bigger issue is that the AI is being trained on the outputs of writers and actors, often without permission. The studios have also been training their own AI models by hiring actors for a day, at union minimum wage, to scan them and record an example of speech, without making clear what it was really for.
Tom Cruise is still going to get paid if a studio uses his likeness in a movie. It’s the rest of the industry that’s going to get screwed, and the median SAG member actor earns $26k in the US, not much above minimum wage because it’s all short-term contracts.
Yes, you can argue that they’re buggy drivers as Ford introduced the Model T, but can also argue that they’re right to withhold their labour in the meantime.
As I think Leon mentioned in the past, while all eyes are on Hollywood, the damage might come first in translating and dubbing programmes in foreign markets. Although I suppose it might make it viable to translate into very small languages.
Yes, I know people who work in translation services, and they’re getting totally screwed at the moment. Google is good enough for anything that’s not a legal document requiring a certified translation. Even in-person meetings are now being translated by software in real-time.
I’ve mentioned here before about the Russian-language TV pirate sites my wife frequents. They would have pretty much any American TV show dubbed into Russian within 24 hours. My best guess as to how they were doing it, was that it was a bunch of students in language, drama, and production schools. The language school and the drama school would watch the content from a live pirate stream, the linguists writing or dictating the script as they did, and the actors making notes on attitude and emotion. The language school would then translate the content, and write out a script for the actors to read, the production school would set up a studio with microphones and a screening of the original content, and the dialogue would be dubbed over the original soundtrack. There are several groups of people doing this, reminiscent of the hackers and pirates of the early internet, and they compete on speed and quality.
With AI, that whole process happens in almost real time. No humans involved at all.
I still have one personal memory of using a human translator, when I wanted to send my now father-in-law *that* letter. He cried, and so did my wife when I told her what I’d done. The letter is now framed in our house, in both languages.
There isn't a climate emergency. The change in terminology could have been predicted, though. Less so the change from global warming to climate change. Next the line is bound to be do this or go extinct.
To try to stop the climate changing is to be a Cnut. (In the monarchist sense.)
At least we have got to the stage where people accept it is happening, and will continue to do so.
All you have left is arguments over semantics.
The positive externalities of mitigation are worth it, even if they don't have a big impact on global emissions and the rate at which temperature increases.
Investment in adaptation is almost certainly worth it, particularly for flooding on the east coast and air conditioning in hospitals.
Yes. We need to invest in mitigation AND reduce CO2 output AND improve energy efficiency AND investigate carbon capture AND reduce methane output AND… We’re past simple solutions. We need all the solutions.
There are no solutions that will be acceptable in a democracy because people will not accept a mandated decline in living standard. Therefore there will be no solutions
How about the solutions that do not require a decline in living standards?
- More renewables in energy generation -> less dependence on (suddenly very expensive) gas from dodgy places - More efficient appliances -> lower costs of running those appliances - Better insulation -> warmer homes at lower heating cost (plus removal of cold patches with mould etc) - EVs -> better cars with lower running costs
Someone the other day mentioned LED lighting. Well, it's just better than incandescent, isn't it? Many more colour options, cooler running*, lasts longer, obsolescence of even worse stuff like flurorescent tubes...
*I once burned my foot on a halogen bulb in a bedside lamp when reading in bed turned into something more energetic
I am not against any of those but we both know the climate change zealots want more than that
They demand an end to personal transportation for one They demand we all go vegan for two
But climate change zealots are nowhere near power.
Neither of those two things are going to happen before the climate apocalypse* and then it's too late and pointless anyway.
*by which I mean they are election losers right up until the point where (if it ever happens) the effects of climate change are so severe that people, in general, would actually want these things
I should state at this point I am absolutely relaxed about climate change, purely because by the time it becomes critical I will be dead as will be my family. I doubt I am alone in that.
Which on the one hand means that the rhetoric can be ramped up and no one will be any the wiser, while on the other as you say no one *really* is invested.
It comes down to will no one think of the children which is always a tricky ask.
Like many my son and his wife have decided to be childfree. Given he they are in their 30's by the time he dies will likely be 2080 at the latest. What is being asked therefore is "think of other peoples children"
I expect things to be pretty shit by 2050
Give us some f'rinstances.
Hot summers wet winters fires everywhere
Oh no!!!
Sounds like a pretty normal year to me if I am honest
Ahem
Never trust a chart that lacks a scale.
It is like a Lib Dem "winning here" bar chart.
You can almost here Kay burley screaming that Edinburgh is literally ablaze!
It's Met Office data, graphic put together by National Centre for Atmospheric Science, Reading Uni.
But I appreciate you lot don't have much time for experts.
The choice of colour is deliberately designed to alarm idiots like you. I have zero time for 'experts' who produce a graph without a scale.
The late chap in a house round the back from me (not a million miles from Edinburgh) was a keen met person. He kept continuous records for decades. I remember seeing his graph of the running average for the last few years about 10-12 years ago. It was a near perfect hockey stick in shape.
1850, low point of the Dalton minimum. There's a reason they start the chart here.
Is that when Timothy Dalton started his career?
The guy is timeless.
He started early, but was then put in Bond for a few years so he could have time off and stay fresh.
Christ. Service in Ukraine needs a bit of polishing
Service in Eastern Europe is renowned for being shit.
Again, probably dates from Communism era when you were told your job, flat and had limited choices of what to buy and an entirely nominal income. Everyone was in the same boat and you just accepted it. Concepts of customer service in a market totally alien.
Even today, if you complain, they can look totally bamboozled as if you are the one that doesn't get it, and are the unreasonable one.
I was referring to the scene in The Cruel Sea where Lockhart, having survived the rest of the ships crew dying of exposure, slowly, on the life rafts, is confronted by dust in the water. At a posh London Hotel.
I've got a mortgage on a £640K property that's fixed at 1.3% until 2026, I don't know what interest rates will be then but significantly higher than that. I hope our salaries can keep up but not confident at this stage
"Our" - who are you shacked up with?
Is it a 640K mortgage or a 640K property with a 10K mortgage though.
I thought he's about 26 years old and lives with his mum, or something.
His property is worth more than mine if that's true, and I have a four-bed detached in Hants.
It is worth far more than mine which is a 5 bed detached in a very desirable location looking out to the Irish Sea and Mountains
In simple terms I could never have afforded to buy a home of any kind in London
Remarkable headline in The Guardian. Sweden apparently has “extraordinarily liberal free speech laws” - because they allow people to burn the Koran. No, what they have is the freedom to mock and criticise religion. It’s called “the Enlightenment”. We used to do it, too
The Guardian are such wankers.
For those who keep asking what WOKE is: it's horseshit like this.
You can tell the Tories are not serious about finding out about how to win again when they think ULEZ is the solution.
As has been pointed out many times, this is not an issue which the voters the Tories need to win back, care about.
ULEZ was the catalyst to a much wider debate about climate change and the impact on ordinary peoples ability to adapt and indeed afford the costs
The problem the climate change enthusiasts have is taking the country with them at the speed they want, evidenced by the ridiculous proposition by the Greens in Scotland that gas boilers are not acceptable in the sale of Scottish homes from 2025
Indeed one of the Greens former leaders has defected to labour
As for labour, they have already cancelled the 28 billion annual green spend commitment and accept the granting of the new North Sea licences by Sunak
I believe this is a subject that requires mature discussions across politics and the public, rather than suggesting because the transition period, or more specifically the speed of it, means that those questioning it do not accept climate change which is obvious
It's a *consultation* to and proposal to *include the type of boiler* in the overall energy performance rating. As advised by the advisory committee to the Scottish Government. Not what you are saying.
Remember when the Torties actually put it in a bill to make it law to bang up RNLI and similar folk for rescuing people? That was well on from a proposal. But you wouldn't believe me and RP when we pointed this out to you.
Why the difference here? I can't possibly imagine why.
Even you are now admitting it is a consultation so by the very nature of it being a consulting it is on the Greeen SNP agenda
As far as the RNLI are concerned that wasn't a consultation, just a scare story which was never going to happen
You were stating something else, so your excuse cuts no ice.
As for the RNLI, *that was what the intended law said*. You should be bloody grateful they didn't pass it! What the hell do you think would happen the first lifeboat rescue? Hundreds of informers would be ringing up the police demanding that the crew, branch secretary, fundraisers and station cat be arrested.
Christ. Service in Ukraine needs a bit of polishing
It's not as if there is a war on!
Oh, wait...
Was there dust in the water for the pink gin?
This whole “there’s a war on” shtick wears a bit thin after a while. Tbh. Yes ok everyone in your family is dead and your friends have been kidnapped and sent to Yakutsk, DOES THAT ACTUALLY STOP YOU PUTTING FRESH LIME IN MY COTSWOLD DRY GIN?
You can tell the Tories are not serious about finding out about how to win again when they think ULEZ is the solution.
As has been pointed out many times, this is not an issue which the voters the Tories need to win back, care about.
ULEZ was the catalyst to a much wider debate about climate change and the impact on ordinary peoples ability to adapt and indeed afford the costs
The problem the climate change enthusiasts have is taking the country with them at the speed they want, evidenced by the ridiculous proposition by the Greens in Scotland that gas boilers are not acceptable in the sale of Scottish homes from 2025
Indeed one of the Greens former leaders has defected to labour
As for labour, they have already cancelled the 28 billion annual green spend commitment and accept the granting of the new North Sea licences by Sunak
I believe this is a subject that requires mature discussions across politics and the public, rather than suggesting because the transition period, or more specifically the speed of it, means that those questioning it do not accept climate change which is obvious
It's a *consultation* to and proposal to *include the type of boiler* in the overall energy performance rating. As advised by the advisory committee to the Scottish Government. Not what you are saying.
Remember when the Torties actually put it in a bill to make it law to bang up RNLI and similar folk for rescuing people? That was well on from a proposal. But you wouldn't believe me and RP when we pointed this out to you.
Why the difference here? I can't possibly imagine why.
Even you are now admitting it is a consultation so by the very nature of it being a consulting it is on the Greeen SNP agenda
As far as the RNLI are concerned that wasn't a consultation, just a scare story which was never going to happen
You were stating something else, so your excuse cuts no ice.
As for the RNLI, *that was what the intended law said*. You should be bloody grateful they didn't pass it! What the hell do you think would happen the first lifeboat rescue? Hundreds of informers would be ringing up the police demanding that the crew, branch secretary, fundraisers and station cat be arrested.
You are so defensive on this when it is clearly being reported in Scotland
It is understandable as it would be far worse than the poll tax in political terms for the Greens/SNP who are already dropping quite considerably in the polls
There isn't a climate emergency. The change in terminology could have been predicted, though. Less so the change from global warming to climate change. Next the line is bound to be do this or go extinct.
To try to stop the climate changing is to be a Cnut. (In the monarchist sense.)
At least we have got to the stage where people accept it is happening, and will continue to do so.
All you have left is arguments over semantics.
The positive externalities of mitigation are worth it, even if they don't have a big impact on global emissions and the rate at which temperature increases.
Investment in adaptation is almost certainly worth it, particularly for flooding on the east coast and air conditioning in hospitals.
Yes. We need to invest in mitigation AND reduce CO2 output AND improve energy efficiency AND investigate carbon capture AND reduce methane output AND… We’re past simple solutions. We need all the solutions.
There are no solutions that will be acceptable in a democracy because people will not accept a mandated decline in living standard. Therefore there will be no solutions
How about the solutions that do not require a decline in living standards?
- More renewables in energy generation -> less dependence on (suddenly very expensive) gas from dodgy places - More efficient appliances -> lower costs of running those appliances - Better insulation -> warmer homes at lower heating cost (plus removal of cold patches with mould etc) - EVs -> better cars with lower running costs
Someone the other day mentioned LED lighting. Well, it's just better than incandescent, isn't it? Many more colour options, cooler running*, lasts longer, obsolescence of even worse stuff like flurorescent tubes...
*I once burned my foot on a halogen bulb in a bedside lamp when reading in bed turned into something more energetic
I am not against any of those but we both know the climate change zealots want more than that
They demand an end to personal transportation for one They demand we all go vegan for two
But climate change zealots are nowhere near power.
Neither of those two things are going to happen before the climate apocalypse* and then it's too late and pointless anyway.
*by which I mean they are election losers right up until the point where (if it ever happens) the effects of climate change are so severe that people, in general, would actually want these things
I should state at this point I am absolutely relaxed about climate change, purely because by the time it becomes critical I will be dead as will be my family. I doubt I am alone in that.
Which on the one hand means that the rhetoric can be ramped up and no one will be any the wiser, while on the other as you say no one *really* is invested.
It comes down to will no one think of the children which is always a tricky ask.
Like many my son and his wife have decided to be childfree. Given he they are in their 30's by the time he dies will likely be 2080 at the latest. What is being asked therefore is "think of other peoples children"
I expect things to be pretty shit by 2050
Give us some f'rinstances.
Hot summers wet winters fires everywhere
Oh no!!!
Sounds like a pretty normal year to me if I am honest
Ahem
Never trust a chart that lacks a scale.
It is like a Lib Dem "winning here" bar chart.
You can almost here Kay burley screaming that Edinburgh is literally ablaze!
It's Met Office data, graphic put together by National Centre for Atmospheric Science, Reading Uni.
But I appreciate you lot don't have much time for experts.
The choice of colour is deliberately designed to alarm idiots like you. I have zero time for 'experts' who produce a graph without a scale.
So extreme dark red is +1 Deg c. Right. And in no way chosen to deliberately scare, and what is the yearly temperature range? (I'd guess -5 to 28 Dec C for Edinburgh). Climate change is real, there is no need to use such scare tactics to try to make a point.
How else would you do it? Red to blue is a standard spectrum for graphs, and red is warm. blue is cool. You're bashing the special pleading a bit here.
Consider sowing blue to red over the range of temps seen each year in Edinburgh? Would make the actual change a bit more realistic.
Doesn't work. You need to do the time average over a few years to reduce year on year variance, which swamps it.
The graph is clearly labelled.
The graph is clearly labelled but the scaling is super zoomed in to make small variances seem dramatic.
Same as you sometimes see on dodgy financial reports that show a 0.1% rise in value being a massive increase.
You could make the exact same chart but with a variance scale set at say -5C to 5C and you'd then see small changes and pale colour changes.
Not to forget of course that Edinburgh is about one of the worst places to measure temperature changes due to the "island" effect that putting hundreds of thousands of millions of people into a confined space raises the temperature even without climate change. Population growth over time means Edinburgh's temperature should be rising even if the climate isn't changing, and even with zero pollution.
Climate change is real. It doesn't need such dodgy charts to say so.
You can tell the Tories are not serious about finding out about how to win again when they think ULEZ is the solution.
As has been pointed out many times, this is not an issue which the voters the Tories need to win back, care about.
ULEZ was the catalyst to a much wider debate about climate change and the impact on ordinary peoples ability to adapt and indeed afford the costs
The problem the climate change enthusiasts have is taking the country with them at the speed they want, evidenced by the ridiculous proposition by the Greens in Scotland that gas boilers are not acceptable in the sale of Scottish homes from 2025
Indeed one of the Greens former leaders has defected to labour
As for labour, they have already cancelled the 28 billion annual green spend commitment and accept the granting of the new North Sea licences by Sunak
I believe this is a subject that requires mature discussions across politics and the public, rather than suggesting because the transition period, or more specifically the speed of it, means that those questioning it do not accept climate change which is obvious
It's a *consultation* to and proposal to *include the type of boiler* in the overall energy performance rating. As advised by the advisory committee to the Scottish Government. Not what you are saying.
Remember when the Torties actually put it in a bill to make it law to bang up RNLI and similar folk for rescuing people? That was well on from a proposal. But you wouldn't believe me and RP when we pointed this out to you.
Why the difference here? I can't possibly imagine why.
Even you are now admitting it is a consultation so by the very nature of it being a consulting it is on the Greeen SNP agenda
As far as the RNLI are concerned that wasn't a consultation, just a scare story which was never going to happen
You were stating something else, so your excuse cuts no ice.
As for the RNLI, *that was what the intended law said*. You should be bloody grateful they didn't pass it! What the hell do you think would happen the first lifeboat rescue? Hundreds of informers would be ringing up the police demanding that the crew, branch secretary, fundraisers and station cat be arrested.
You are so defensive on this when it is clearly being reported in Scotland
It is understandable as it would be far worse than the poll tax in political terms for the Greens/SNP who are already dropping quite considerably in the polls
You were saying that tthe SGs proposed to stop any houses for sale having gas boilers. That's a gross exaggeration.
You've perhaps muddled it with *UKG* banning any new houses fromk having gas boilers at all.
Christ. Service in Ukraine needs a bit of polishing
It's not as if there is a war on!
Oh, wait...
Was there dust in the water for the pink gin?
This whole “there’s a war on” shtick wears a bit thin after a while. Tbh. Yes ok everyone in your family is dead and your friends have been kidnapped and sent to Yakutsk, DOES THAT ACTUALLY STOP YOU PUTTING FRESH LIME IN MY COTSWOLD DRY GIN?
Nothing wrong with new houses having heat pumps. They work great, provided that the heating system is designed and sized for the lower flow temperature of a heat pump rather than a gas boiler.
Christ. Service in Ukraine needs a bit of polishing
It's not as if there is a war on!
Oh, wait...
Was there dust in the water for the pink gin?
This whole “there’s a war on” shtick wears a bit thin after a while. Tbh. Yes ok everyone in your family is dead and your friends have been kidnapped and sent to Yakutsk, DOES THAT ACTUALLY STOP YOU PUTTING FRESH LIME IN MY COTSWOLD DRY GIN?
Remarkable headline in The Guardian. Sweden apparently has “extraordinarily liberal free speech laws” - because they allow people to burn the Koran. No, what they have is the freedom to mock and criticise religion. It’s called “the Enlightenment”. We used to do it, too
At least the Grauniad is recognising that Enlightenment is liberalism.
Too many want to turn the word liberal into something completely different.
As long as it does not stray into direct incitement to violent (and this does not) we absolutely should have the right to mock all religions and all beliefs. Whether that be Islam, Christianity, Sunnism (is that the right word?), Catholism, Scientologists, Vegans, conservatives or liberals.
There isn't a climate emergency. The change in terminology could have been predicted, though. Less so the change from global warming to climate change. Next the line is bound to be do this or go extinct.
To try to stop the climate changing is to be a Cnut. (In the monarchist sense.)
At least we have got to the stage where people accept it is happening, and will continue to do so.
All you have left is arguments over semantics.
The positive externalities of mitigation are worth it, even if they don't have a big impact on global emissions and the rate at which temperature increases.
Investment in adaptation is almost certainly worth it, particularly for flooding on the east coast and air conditioning in hospitals.
Yes. We need to invest in mitigation AND reduce CO2 output AND improve energy efficiency AND investigate carbon capture AND reduce methane output AND… We’re past simple solutions. We need all the solutions.
There are no solutions that will be acceptable in a democracy because people will not accept a mandated decline in living standard. Therefore there will be no solutions
How about the solutions that do not require a decline in living standards?
- More renewables in energy generation -> less dependence on (suddenly very expensive) gas from dodgy places - More efficient appliances -> lower costs of running those appliances - Better insulation -> warmer homes at lower heating cost (plus removal of cold patches with mould etc) - EVs -> better cars with lower running costs
Someone the other day mentioned LED lighting. Well, it's just better than incandescent, isn't it? Many more colour options, cooler running*, lasts longer, obsolescence of even worse stuff like flurorescent tubes...
*I once burned my foot on a halogen bulb in a bedside lamp when reading in bed turned into something more energetic
I am not against any of those but we both know the climate change zealots want more than that
They demand an end to personal transportation for one They demand we all go vegan for two
But climate change zealots are nowhere near power.
Neither of those two things are going to happen before the climate apocalypse* and then it's too late and pointless anyway.
*by which I mean they are election losers right up until the point where (if it ever happens) the effects of climate change are so severe that people, in general, would actually want these things
I should state at this point I am absolutely relaxed about climate change, purely because by the time it becomes critical I will be dead as will be my family. I doubt I am alone in that.
Which on the one hand means that the rhetoric can be ramped up and no one will be any the wiser, while on the other as you say no one *really* is invested.
It comes down to will no one think of the children which is always a tricky ask.
Like many my son and his wife have decided to be childfree. Given he they are in their 30's by the time he dies will likely be 2080 at the latest. What is being asked therefore is "think of other peoples children"
I expect things to be pretty shit by 2050
Give us some f'rinstances.
Hot summers wet winters fires everywhere
Oh no!!!
Sounds like a pretty normal year to me if I am honest
Ahem
Never trust a chart that lacks a scale.
It is like a Lib Dem "winning here" bar chart.
You can almost here Kay burley screaming that Edinburgh is literally ablaze!
It's Met Office data, graphic put together by National Centre for Atmospheric Science, Reading Uni.
But I appreciate you lot don't have much time for experts.
The choice of colour is deliberately designed to alarm idiots like you. I have zero time for 'experts' who produce a graph without a scale.
So extreme dark red is +1 Deg c. Right. And in no way chosen to deliberately scare, and what is the yearly temperature range? (I'd guess -5 to 28 Dec C for Edinburgh). Climate change is real, there is no need to use such scare tactics to try to make a point.
How else would you do it? Red to blue is a standard spectrum for graphs, and red is warm. blue is cool. You're bashing the special pleading a bit here.
Consider sowing blue to red over the range of temps seen each year in Edinburgh? Would make the actual change a bit more realistic.
Doesn't work. You need to do the time average over a few years to reduce year on year variance, which swamps it.
The graph is clearly labelled.
The graph is clearly labelled but the scaling is super zoomed in to make small variances seem dramatic.
Same as you sometimes see on dodgy financial reports that show a 0.1% rise in value being a massive increase.
You could make the exact same chart but with a variance scale set at say -5C to 5C and you'd then see small changes and pale colour changes.
Not to forget of course that Edinburgh is about one of the worst places to measure temperature changes due to the "island" effect that putting hundreds of thousands of millions of people into a confined space raises the temperature even without climate change. Population growth over time means Edinburgh's temperature should be rising even if the climate isn't changing, and even with zero pollution.
Climate change is real. It doesn't need such dodgy charts to say so.
Edinburgh has hundreds of thousands of millions of people?!
You get the same graph from well outside the city, as I remarked earlier.
On thread. You don't need a poll to realise that 2/3rds of Tory members don't think that there's a climate emergency. You just need to read the posts from the Tories on here.
Christ. Service in Ukraine needs a bit of polishing
It's not as if there is a war on!
Oh, wait...
Was there dust in the water for the pink gin?
This whole “there’s a war on” shtick wears a bit thin after a while. Tbh. Yes ok everyone in your family is dead and your friends have been kidnapped and sent to Yakutsk, DOES THAT ACTUALLY STOP YOU PUTTING FRESH LIME IN MY COTSWOLD DRY GIN?
Yes, it does.
Man up and offer to slice some limes.
And wonder at the fact that that there’ limes in Ukraine.
Nothing wrong with new houses having heat pumps. They work great, provided that the heating system is designed and sized for the lower flow temperature of a heat pump rather than a gas boiler.
Simple stuff.
Indeed, the comments from such as Benpointer and Malmesbury have been very interesting when beginning to think about the pros and cons of adding them to an older house, too.
Nothing wrong with new houses having heat pumps. They work great, provided that the heating system is designed and sized for the lower flow temperature of a heat pump rather than a gas boiler.
Simple stuff.
Bit of a problem if you have a pre-war house and don't want to spend £10,000+ on exterior cladding before the same again on a new heating system...
BP changed the language from global warming to climate change precisely because people would be less afraid of it and so they'd be less inclined to make BP change how it was polluting the planet
No, they didn’t
Yes, they did.
No, opposite. It wasn't Big Oil, it was Big Warmism because they got fed up with the endless hur hur hur doesn't look like warming to me whenever there was a ground frost.
When is this supposed to have happened? The IPCC was formed in 1988.
Nothing wrong with new houses having heat pumps. They work great, provided that the heating system is designed and sized for the lower flow temperature of a heat pump rather than a gas boiler.
Simple stuff.
Bit of a problem if you have a pre-war house and don't want to spend £10,000+ on exterior cladding before the same again on a new heating system...
Nothing wrong with new houses having heat pumps. They work great, provided that the heating system is designed and sized for the lower flow temperature of a heat pump rather than a gas boiler.
Simple stuff.
EDF has emailed this week about the benefits of (and subsidies for) heat pumps.
There isn't a climate emergency. The change in terminology could have been predicted, though. Less so the change from global warming to climate change. Next the line is bound to be do this or go extinct.
To try to stop the climate changing is to be a Cnut. (In the monarchist sense.)
At least we have got to the stage where people accept it is happening, and will continue to do so.
All you have left is arguments over semantics.
The positive externalities of mitigation are worth it, even if they don't have a big impact on global emissions and the rate at which temperature increases.
Investment in adaptation is almost certainly worth it, particularly for flooding on the east coast and air conditioning in hospitals.
Yes. We need to invest in mitigation AND reduce CO2 output AND improve energy efficiency AND investigate carbon capture AND reduce methane output AND… We’re past simple solutions. We need all the solutions.
There are no solutions that will be acceptable in a democracy because people will not accept a mandated decline in living standard. Therefore there will be no solutions
How about the solutions that do not require a decline in living standards?
- More renewables in energy generation -> less dependence on (suddenly very expensive) gas from dodgy places - More efficient appliances -> lower costs of running those appliances - Better insulation -> warmer homes at lower heating cost (plus removal of cold patches with mould etc) - EVs -> better cars with lower running costs
Someone the other day mentioned LED lighting. Well, it's just better than incandescent, isn't it? Many more colour options, cooler running*, lasts longer, obsolescence of even worse stuff like flurorescent tubes...
*I once burned my foot on a halogen bulb in a bedside lamp when reading in bed turned into something more energetic
I am not against any of those but we both know the climate change zealots want more than that
They demand an end to personal transportation for one They demand we all go vegan for two
But climate change zealots are nowhere near power.
Neither of those two things are going to happen before the climate apocalypse* and then it's too late and pointless anyway.
*by which I mean they are election losers right up until the point where (if it ever happens) the effects of climate change are so severe that people, in general, would actually want these things
I should state at this point I am absolutely relaxed about climate change, purely because by the time it becomes critical I will be dead as will be my family. I doubt I am alone in that.
Which on the one hand means that the rhetoric can be ramped up and no one will be any the wiser, while on the other as you say no one *really* is invested.
It comes down to will no one think of the children which is always a tricky ask.
Like many my son and his wife have decided to be childfree. Given he they are in their 30's by the time he dies will likely be 2080 at the latest. What is being asked therefore is "think of other peoples children"
I expect things to be pretty shit by 2050
Give us some f'rinstances.
Hot summers wet winters fires everywhere
Oh no!!!
Sounds like a pretty normal year to me if I am honest
Ahem
Never trust a chart that lacks a scale.
It is like a Lib Dem "winning here" bar chart.
You can almost here Kay burley screaming that Edinburgh is literally ablaze!
It's Met Office data, graphic put together by National Centre for Atmospheric Science, Reading Uni.
But I appreciate you lot don't have much time for experts.
The choice of colour is deliberately designed to alarm idiots like you. I have zero time for 'experts' who produce a graph without a scale.
So extreme dark red is +1 Deg c. Right. And in no way chosen to deliberately scare, and what is the yearly temperature range? (I'd guess -5 to 28 Dec C for Edinburgh). Climate change is real, there is no need to use such scare tactics to try to make a point.
How else would you do it? Red to blue is a standard spectrum for graphs, and red is warm. blue is cool. You're bashing the special pleading a bit here.
Consider sowing blue to red over the range of temps seen each year in Edinburgh? Would make the actual change a bit more realistic.
Doesn't work. You need to do the time average over a few years to reduce year on year variance, which swamps it.
The graph is clearly labelled.
The graph is clearly labelled but the scaling is super zoomed in to make small variances seem dramatic.
Same as you sometimes see on dodgy financial reports that show a 0.1% rise in value being a massive increase.
You could make the exact same chart but with a variance scale set at say -5C to 5C and you'd then see small changes and pale colour changes.
Not to forget of course that Edinburgh is about one of the worst places to measure temperature changes due to the "island" effect that putting hundreds of thousands of millions of people into a confined space raises the temperature even without climate change. Population growth over time means Edinburgh's temperature should be rising even if the climate isn't changing, and even with zero pollution.
Climate change is real. It doesn't need such dodgy charts to say so.
Edinburgh has hundreds of thousands of millions of people?!
You get the same graph from well outside the city, as I remarked earlier.
Lol clear typo. Obviously meant to be hundreds of thousands OR millions of people lol. A quick Google says 526k people which is about 3-4x what it was at the start of the chart which would explain a temperature rise even without climate change. And since the scaling has been min maxed to the actual change, you could get that colour scale even without any climate change at all.
Getting graphs away from population centres is absolutely far superior and shows climate change is real without this BS. I'm curious if that site has a fixed colour scale regardless of location or if it zooms in with a min max colour scale for each location?
On thread. You don't need a poll to realise that 2/3rds of Tory members don't think that there's a climate emergency. You just need to read the posts from the Tories on here.
It's a little bit Wokespeak though. The term irritated me when launched in 2019, and it still grates a bit now.
The "Emergency", such as it is, might last 40-80 years and over that timescale an "emergency" is utterly meaningless.
What others say upfront is right: it's designed to shake people into taking immediate actions for progressive activist politics, and not building strong cross-party support for sustained action on technology and infrastructure for the medium-term, as it should be.
There isn't a climate emergency. The change in terminology could have been predicted, though. Less so the change from global warming to climate change. Next the line is bound to be do this or go extinct.
To try to stop the climate changing is to be a Cnut. (In the monarchist sense.)
At least we have got to the stage where people accept it is happening, and will continue to do so.
All you have left is arguments over semantics.
The positive externalities of mitigation are worth it, even if they don't have a big impact on global emissions and the rate at which temperature increases.
Investment in adaptation is almost certainly worth it, particularly for flooding on the east coast and air conditioning in hospitals.
Yes. We need to invest in mitigation AND reduce CO2 output AND improve energy efficiency AND investigate carbon capture AND reduce methane output AND… We’re past simple solutions. We need all the solutions.
There are no solutions that will be acceptable in a democracy because people will not accept a mandated decline in living standard. Therefore there will be no solutions
How about the solutions that do not require a decline in living standards?
- More renewables in energy generation -> less dependence on (suddenly very expensive) gas from dodgy places - More efficient appliances -> lower costs of running those appliances - Better insulation -> warmer homes at lower heating cost (plus removal of cold patches with mould etc) - EVs -> better cars with lower running costs
Someone the other day mentioned LED lighting. Well, it's just better than incandescent, isn't it? Many more colour options, cooler running*, lasts longer, obsolescence of even worse stuff like flurorescent tubes...
*I once burned my foot on a halogen bulb in a bedside lamp when reading in bed turned into something more energetic
I am not against any of those but we both know the climate change zealots want more than that
They demand an end to personal transportation for one They demand we all go vegan for two
But climate change zealots are nowhere near power.
Neither of those two things are going to happen before the climate apocalypse* and then it's too late and pointless anyway.
*by which I mean they are election losers right up until the point where (if it ever happens) the effects of climate change are so severe that people, in general, would actually want these things
I should state at this point I am absolutely relaxed about climate change, purely because by the time it becomes critical I will be dead as will be my family. I doubt I am alone in that.
Which on the one hand means that the rhetoric can be ramped up and no one will be any the wiser, while on the other as you say no one *really* is invested.
It comes down to will no one think of the children which is always a tricky ask.
Like many my son and his wife have decided to be childfree. Given he they are in their 30's by the time he dies will likely be 2080 at the latest. What is being asked therefore is "think of other peoples children"
I expect things to be pretty shit by 2050
Give us some f'rinstances.
Hot summers wet winters fires everywhere
Oh no!!!
Sounds like a pretty normal year to me if I am honest
Ahem
Never trust a chart that lacks a scale.
It is like a Lib Dem "winning here" bar chart.
You can almost here Kay burley screaming that Edinburgh is literally ablaze!
It's Met Office data, graphic put together by National Centre for Atmospheric Science, Reading Uni.
But I appreciate you lot don't have much time for experts.
The choice of colour is deliberately designed to alarm idiots like you. I have zero time for 'experts' who produce a graph without a scale.
The late chap in a house round the back from me (not a million miles from Edinburgh) was a keen met person. He kept continuous records for decades. I remember seeing his graph of the running average for the last few years about 10-12 years ago. It was a near perfect hockey stick in shape.
1850, low point of the Dalton minimum. There's a reason they start the chart here.
That's why I was talking about the hockey stick graph, which relies solely on the last few years' runnign average. Flat for decades then up as one would expect from CO2 levels.
Where did the Co2 come from in the Early Middle Ages when the Vikings were growing Barley in Southern Greenland and Europes wine growing region extended 500 kms further north than today?
Europe's wine growing region ends at - about - London today. 500 km further North takes you well into Scotland.
If you look at Germany today, we get wine produced from about half way up. If you stretch 500 km North of there, you get meaningfully above Oslo and Stockholm.
I'm sure Europe's wine growing region stretched further North than previously during the Medieval Warm Period, but I'd be staggered if it was anywhere near 500km more than now.
On thread. You don't need a poll to realise that 2/3rds of Tory members don't think that there's a climate emergency. You just need to read the posts from the Tories on here.
It's a little bit Wokespeak though. The term irritated me when launched in 2019, and it still grates a bit now.
The "Emergency", such as it is, might last 40-80 years and over that timescale an "emergency" is utterly meaningless.
What others say upfront is right: it's designed to shake people into taking immediate actions for progressive activist politics, and not building strong cross-party support for sustained action on technology and infrastructure for the medium-term, as it should be.
Nothing wrong with new houses having heat pumps. They work great, provided that the heating system is designed and sized for the lower flow temperature of a heat pump rather than a gas boiler.
Simple stuff.
Indeed, the comments from such as Benpointer and Malmesbury have been very interesting when beginning to think about the pros and cons of adding them to an older house, too.
As have the comments from those in manufacturing and industry who supply and fit them that they're simply not good enough yet for most homes, and people shouldn't be sold a dud.
Nothing wrong with new houses having heat pumps. They work great, provided that the heating system is designed and sized for the lower flow temperature of a heat pump rather than a gas boiler.
Simple stuff.
EDF has emailed this week about the benefits of (and subsidies for) heat pumps.
Interesting. Basically you buy a bit more leccy and screw their biggest competitor, the gas firms; not as much as going for electric central heating in the old style, butt that was never going to happen (and they'd need to up their game too), so why worry?
Nothing wrong with new houses having heat pumps. They work great, provided that the heating system is designed and sized for the lower flow temperature of a heat pump rather than a gas boiler.
Simple stuff.
Bit of a problem if you have a pre-war house and don't want to spend £10,000+ on exterior cladding before the same again on a new heating system...
My understanding is that the proposals in England only apply to new homes. Retrofitting heatpumps isn't very viable in much of our older housing.
Though us (and the Dutch) are unusual in using Gas CH so much. In Scandinavian countries it is fairly unusual.
On thread. You don't need a poll to realise that 2/3rds of Tory members don't think that there's a climate emergency. You just need to read the posts from the Tories on here.
It's a little bit Wokespeak though. The term irritated me when launched in 2019, and it still grates a bit now.
The "Emergency", such as it is, might last 40-80 years and over that timescale an "emergency" is utterly meaningless.
What others say upfront is right: it's designed to shake people into taking immediate actions for progressive activist politics, and not building strong cross-party support for sustained action on technology and infrastructure for the medium-term, as it should be.
The term irritates me too and I am woke as fuck
I'm not so sure.
I actually rate you as far more sensible than you give yourself credence for.
This video is a video from a guy who does DCS videos (dogfighting games transposed to video with a narrative). The commentary is computer-generated by an AI set to mimic the actor Michael Ironside's voice. Have a listen, see if you can distinguish it from the real person.
Which is why writers and actors are currently on strike. They’re worried that film and TV producers are going to start doing the same.
Which seems like Luddism to me.
If the writers and actors can do a better job than automation, then they should be paid for it.
If automation and efficiency does a better job than people, then sorry but that's progress.
The bigger issue is that the AI is being trained on the outputs of writers and actors, often without permission. The studios have also been training their own AI models by hiring actors for a day, at union minimum wage, to scan them and record an example of speech, without making clear what it was really for.
Tom Cruise is still going to get paid if a studio uses his likeness in a movie. It’s the rest of the industry that’s going to get screwed, and the median SAG member actor earns $26k in the US, not much above minimum wage because it’s all short-term contracts.
Yes, you can argue that they’re buggy drivers as Ford introduced the Model T, but can also argue that they’re right to withhold their labour in the meantime.
As I think Leon mentioned in the past, while all eyes are on Hollywood, the damage might come first in translating and dubbing programmes in foreign markets. Although I suppose it might make it viable to translate into very small languages.
That's not damage! That's a tangible consumer benefit.
Even more amazing, AI will be able to subtly change the images, solving the issue of lipsync so you won't even be able to tell it's dubbed.
There isn't a climate emergency. The change in terminology could have been predicted, though. Less so the change from global warming to climate change. Next the line is bound to be do this or go extinct.
To try to stop the climate changing is to be a Cnut. (In the monarchist sense.)
At least we have got to the stage where people accept it is happening, and will continue to do so.
All you have left is arguments over semantics.
The positive externalities of mitigation are worth it, even if they don't have a big impact on global emissions and the rate at which temperature increases.
Investment in adaptation is almost certainly worth it, particularly for flooding on the east coast and air conditioning in hospitals.
Yes. We need to invest in mitigation AND reduce CO2 output AND improve energy efficiency AND investigate carbon capture AND reduce methane output AND… We’re past simple solutions. We need all the solutions.
There are no solutions that will be acceptable in a democracy because people will not accept a mandated decline in living standard. Therefore there will be no solutions
How about the solutions that do not require a decline in living standards?
- More renewables in energy generation -> less dependence on (suddenly very expensive) gas from dodgy places - More efficient appliances -> lower costs of running those appliances - Better insulation -> warmer homes at lower heating cost (plus removal of cold patches with mould etc) - EVs -> better cars with lower running costs
Someone the other day mentioned LED lighting. Well, it's just better than incandescent, isn't it? Many more colour options, cooler running*, lasts longer, obsolescence of even worse stuff like flurorescent tubes...
*I once burned my foot on a halogen bulb in a bedside lamp when reading in bed turned into something more energetic
I am not against any of those but we both know the climate change zealots want more than that
They demand an end to personal transportation for one They demand we all go vegan for two
But climate change zealots are nowhere near power.
Neither of those two things are going to happen before the climate apocalypse* and then it's too late and pointless anyway.
*by which I mean they are election losers right up until the point where (if it ever happens) the effects of climate change are so severe that people, in general, would actually want these things
I should state at this point I am absolutely relaxed about climate change, purely because by the time it becomes critical I will be dead as will be my family. I doubt I am alone in that.
Which on the one hand means that the rhetoric can be ramped up and no one will be any the wiser, while on the other as you say no one *really* is invested.
It comes down to will no one think of the children which is always a tricky ask.
Like many my son and his wife have decided to be childfree. Given he they are in their 30's by the time he dies will likely be 2080 at the latest. What is being asked therefore is "think of other peoples children"
I expect things to be pretty shit by 2050
Give us some f'rinstances.
Hot summers wet winters fires everywhere
Oh no!!!
Sounds like a pretty normal year to me if I am honest
Ahem
Never trust a chart that lacks a scale.
It is like a Lib Dem "winning here" bar chart.
You can almost here Kay burley screaming that Edinburgh is literally ablaze!
It's Met Office data, graphic put together by National Centre for Atmospheric Science, Reading Uni.
But I appreciate you lot don't have much time for experts.
The choice of colour is deliberately designed to alarm idiots like you. I have zero time for 'experts' who produce a graph without a scale.
So extreme dark red is +1 Deg c. Right. And in no way chosen to deliberately scare, and what is the yearly temperature range? (I'd guess -5 to 28 Dec C for Edinburgh). Climate change is real, there is no need to use such scare tactics to try to make a point.
How else would you do it? Red to blue is a standard spectrum for graphs, and red is warm. blue is cool. You're bashing the special pleading a bit here.
Consider sowing blue to red over the range of temps seen each year in Edinburgh? Would make the actual change a bit more realistic.
Doesn't work. You need to do the time average over a few years to reduce year on year variance, which swamps it.
The graph is clearly labelled.
The graph is clearly labelled but the scaling is super zoomed in to make small variances seem dramatic.
Same as you sometimes see on dodgy financial reports that show a 0.1% rise in value being a massive increase.
You could make the exact same chart but with a variance scale set at say -5C to 5C and you'd then see small changes and pale colour changes.
Not to forget of course that Edinburgh is about one of the worst places to measure temperature changes due to the "island" effect that putting hundreds of thousands of millions of people into a confined space raises the temperature even without climate change. Population growth over time means Edinburgh's temperature should be rising even if the climate isn't changing, and even with zero pollution.
Climate change is real. It doesn't need such dodgy charts to say so.
Edinburgh has hundreds of thousands of millions of people?!
You get the same graph from well outside the city, as I remarked earlier.
Lol clear typo. Obviously meant to be hundreds of thousands OR millions of people lol. A quick Google says 526k people which is about 3-4x what it was at the start of the chart which would explain a temperature rise even without climate change. And since the scaling has been min maxed to the actual change, you could get that colour scale even without any climate change at all.
Getting graphs away from population centres is absolutely far superior and shows climate change is real without this BS. I'm curious if that site has a fixed colour scale regardless of location or if it zooms in with a min max colour scale for each location?
To be fair, Edinburgh was picked onlfy because someone was making a sarky comment or assumption earlier on!
That scale is actually about right, given the concerns over average temperature - a change of 1-3 units is seriously worrying.
Nothing wrong with new houses having heat pumps. They work great, provided that the heating system is designed and sized for the lower flow temperature of a heat pump rather than a gas boiler.
Simple stuff.
Indeed, the comments from such as Benpointer and Malmesbury have been very interesting when beginning to think about the pros and cons of adding them to an older house, too.
As have the comments from those in manufacturing and industry who supply and fit them that they're simply not good enough yet for most homes, and people shouldn't be sold a dud.
I used to design domestic heat pump systems... "Most" homes is disingenuous.
Any home built since 2010 should be perfectly capable of being comfortably heated by a heat hump without extra insulation (you might need new radiators).
Any home built between 2000-2010 is likely to be able to be heated by a heat pump also with the same caveat (although maybe not as comfortably).
Remarkable headline in The Guardian. Sweden apparently has “extraordinarily liberal free speech laws” - because they allow people to burn the Koran. No, what they have is the freedom to mock and criticise religion. It’s called “the Enlightenment”. We used to do it, too
You can tell the Tories are not serious about finding out about how to win again when they think ULEZ is the solution.
As has been pointed out many times, this is not an issue which the voters the Tories need to win back, care about.
ULEZ was the catalyst to a much wider debate about climate change and the impact on ordinary peoples ability to adapt and indeed afford the costs
The problem the climate change enthusiasts have is taking the country with them at the speed they want, evidenced by the ridiculous proposition by the Greens in Scotland that gas boilers are not acceptable in the sale of Scottish homes from 2025
Indeed one of the Greens former leaders has defected to labour
As for labour, they have already cancelled the 28 billion annual green spend commitment and accept the granting of the new North Sea licences by Sunak
I believe this is a subject that requires mature discussions across politics and the public, rather than suggesting because the transition period, or more specifically the speed of it, means that those questioning it do not accept climate change which is obvious
It's a *consultation* to and proposal to *include the type of boiler* in the overall energy performance rating. As advised by the advisory committee to the Scottish Government. Not what you are saying.
Remember when the Torties actually put it in a bill to make it law to bang up RNLI and similar folk for rescuing people? That was well on from a proposal. But you wouldn't believe me and RP when we pointed this out to you.
Why the difference here? I can't possibly imagine why.
Even you are now admitting it is a consultation so by the very nature of it being a consulting it is on the Greeen SNP agenda
As far as the RNLI are concerned that wasn't a consultation, just a scare story which was never going to happen
You were stating something else, so your excuse cuts no ice.
As for the RNLI, *that was what the intended law said*. You should be bloody grateful they didn't pass it! What the hell do you think would happen the first lifeboat rescue? Hundreds of informers would be ringing up the police demanding that the crew, branch secretary, fundraisers and station cat be arrested.
You are so defensive on this when it is clearly being reported in Scotland
It is understandable as it would be far worse than the poll tax in political terms for the Greens/SNP who are already dropping quite considerably in the polls
You were saying that tthe SGs proposed to stop any houses for sale having gas boilers. That's a gross exaggeration.
You've perhaps muddled it with *UKG* banning any new houses fromk having gas boilers at all.
This from Harvie
One of the biggest challenges is replacing fossil fuel gas boilers in homes with climate-friendly heating-systems such as heat pumps, with Mr Harvie previously admitting the costs could total £33bn.
From 2025, certain trigger points such as the sale of a home, will mean properties will need to meet EPC band C energy efficiency standards, while new fossil fuel boilers will be banned in new buildings from next April.
Ahead of the shake-up, Mr Harvie is set to reform EPC standards so they are more appropriate for driving the improvements needed to reach net zero.
It is understood that this could include taking account of the type of heating system, raising the possibility of those with an old fossil fuel boilers receiving a lower rating than those who have installed a heat pump.
Nothing wrong with new houses having heat pumps. They work great, provided that the heating system is designed and sized for the lower flow temperature of a heat pump rather than a gas boiler.
Simple stuff.
Bit of a problem if you have a pre-war house and don't want to spend £10,000+ on exterior cladding before the same again on a new heating system...
My understanding is that the proposals in England only apply to new homes. Retrofitting heatpumps isn't very viable in much of our older housing.
Though us (and the Dutch) are unusual in using Gas CH so much. In Scandinavian countries it is fairly unusual.
The mention of a new kind of heat pump designed to suit preexisting gas CH systems, albeit at a lower efficiency, was very interesting.
The wider issue is in a way how far UK homes can be insulated. And, more generallyt, one of capital investment to save. That's not specific to heat pumps, though many folk think it is.
You can tell the Tories are not serious about finding out about how to win again when they think ULEZ is the solution.
As has been pointed out many times, this is not an issue which the voters the Tories need to win back, care about.
ULEZ was the catalyst to a much wider debate about climate change and the impact on ordinary peoples ability to adapt and indeed afford the costs
The problem the climate change enthusiasts have is taking the country with them at the speed they want, evidenced by the ridiculous proposition by the Greens in Scotland that gas boilers are not acceptable in the sale of Scottish homes from 2025
Indeed one of the Greens former leaders has defected to labour
As for labour, they have already cancelled the 28 billion annual green spend commitment and accept the granting of the new North Sea licences by Sunak
I believe this is a subject that requires mature discussions across politics and the public, rather than suggesting because the transition period, or more specifically the speed of it, means that those questioning it do not accept climate change which is obvious
It's a *consultation* to and proposal to *include the type of boiler* in the overall energy performance rating. As advised by the advisory committee to the Scottish Government. Not what you are saying.
Remember when the Torties actually put it in a bill to make it law to bang up RNLI and similar folk for rescuing people? That was well on from a proposal. But you wouldn't believe me and RP when we pointed this out to you.
Why the difference here? I can't possibly imagine why.
Even you are now admitting it is a consultation so by the very nature of it being a consulting it is on the Greeen SNP agenda
As far as the RNLI are concerned that wasn't a consultation, just a scare story which was never going to happen
You were stating something else, so your excuse cuts no ice.
As for the RNLI, *that was what the intended law said*. You should be bloody grateful they didn't pass it! What the hell do you think would happen the first lifeboat rescue? Hundreds of informers would be ringing up the police demanding that the crew, branch secretary, fundraisers and station cat be arrested.
You are so defensive on this when it is clearly being reported in Scotland
It is understandable as it would be far worse than the poll tax in political terms for the Greens/SNP who are already dropping quite considerably in the polls
You were saying that tthe SGs proposed to stop any houses for sale having gas boilers. That's a gross exaggeration.
You've perhaps muddled it with *UKG* banning any new houses fromk having gas boilers at all.
This from Harvie
One of the biggest challenges is replacing fossil fuel gas boilers in homes with climate-friendly heating-systems such as heat pumps, with Mr Harvie previously admitting the costs could total £33bn.
From 2025, certain trigger points such as the sale of a home, will mean properties will need to meet EPC band C energy efficiency standards, while new fossil fuel boilers will be banned in new buildings from next April.
Ahead of the shake-up, Mr Harvie is set to reform EPC standards so they are more appropriate for driving the improvements needed to reach net zero.
It is understood that this could include taking account of the type of heating system, raising the possibility of those with an old fossil fuel boilers receiving a lower rating than those who have installed a heat pump.
EPCs are total horseshit. The inspector goes into the house looks around a bit if you're lucky, and then makes a series of assumptions about pretty much everything and then bills you.
There isn't a climate emergency. The change in terminology could have been predicted, though. Less so the change from global warming to climate change. Next the line is bound to be do this or go extinct.
To try to stop the climate changing is to be a Cnut. (In the monarchist sense.)
At least we have got to the stage where people accept it is happening, and will continue to do so.
All you have left is arguments over semantics.
The positive externalities of mitigation are worth it, even if they don't have a big impact on global emissions and the rate at which temperature increases.
Investment in adaptation is almost certainly worth it, particularly for flooding on the east coast and air conditioning in hospitals.
Yes. We need to invest in mitigation AND reduce CO2 output AND improve energy efficiency AND investigate carbon capture AND reduce methane output AND… We’re past simple solutions. We need all the solutions.
There are no solutions that will be acceptable in a democracy because people will not accept a mandated decline in living standard. Therefore there will be no solutions
How about the solutions that do not require a decline in living standards?
- More renewables in energy generation -> less dependence on (suddenly very expensive) gas from dodgy places - More efficient appliances -> lower costs of running those appliances - Better insulation -> warmer homes at lower heating cost (plus removal of cold patches with mould etc) - EVs -> better cars with lower running costs
Someone the other day mentioned LED lighting. Well, it's just better than incandescent, isn't it? Many more colour options, cooler running*, lasts longer, obsolescence of even worse stuff like flurorescent tubes...
*I once burned my foot on a halogen bulb in a bedside lamp when reading in bed turned into something more energetic
I am not against any of those but we both know the climate change zealots want more than that
They demand an end to personal transportation for one They demand we all go vegan for two
But climate change zealots are nowhere near power.
Neither of those two things are going to happen before the climate apocalypse* and then it's too late and pointless anyway.
*by which I mean they are election losers right up until the point where (if it ever happens) the effects of climate change are so severe that people, in general, would actually want these things
I should state at this point I am absolutely relaxed about climate change, purely because by the time it becomes critical I will be dead as will be my family. I doubt I am alone in that.
Which on the one hand means that the rhetoric can be ramped up and no one will be any the wiser, while on the other as you say no one *really* is invested.
It comes down to will no one think of the children which is always a tricky ask.
Like many my son and his wife have decided to be childfree. Given he they are in their 30's by the time he dies will likely be 2080 at the latest. What is being asked therefore is "think of other peoples children"
I expect things to be pretty shit by 2050
Give us some f'rinstances.
Hot summers wet winters fires everywhere
Oh no!!!
Sounds like a pretty normal year to me if I am honest
Ahem
Never trust a chart that lacks a scale.
It is like a Lib Dem "winning here" bar chart.
You can almost here Kay burley screaming that Edinburgh is literally ablaze!
It's Met Office data, graphic put together by National Centre for Atmospheric Science, Reading Uni.
But I appreciate you lot don't have much time for experts.
The choice of colour is deliberately designed to alarm idiots like you. I have zero time for 'experts' who produce a graph without a scale.
The late chap in a house round the back from me (not a million miles from Edinburgh) was a keen met person. He kept continuous records for decades. I remember seeing his graph of the running average for the last few years about 10-12 years ago. It was a near perfect hockey stick in shape.
1850, low point of the Dalton minimum. There's a reason they start the chart here.
That's why I was talking about the hockey stick graph, which relies solely on the last few years' runnign average. Flat for decades then up as one would expect from CO2 levels.
Where did the Co2 come from in the Early Middle Ages when the Vikings were growing Barley in Southern Greenland and Europes wine growing region extended 500 kms further north than today?
Europe's wine growing region ends at - about - London today. 500 km further North takes you well into Scotland.
If you look at Germany today, we get wine produced from about half way up. If you stretch 500 km North of there, you get meaningfully above Oslo and Stockholm.
I'm sure Europe's wine growing region stretched further North than previously during the Medieval Warm Period, but I'd be staggered if it was anywhere near 500km more than now.
500km north of Derbyshire gets you to somewhere north of Stirling.
I'm confident they never made wine that far north in Roman times.
Edit - there is evidence of Roman viticulture in North Thoresby, Lincs (there is a modern vineyard not far away at Sowerby). That's the most northern one I know of.
Nothing wrong with new houses having heat pumps. They work great, provided that the heating system is designed and sized for the lower flow temperature of a heat pump rather than a gas boiler.
Simple stuff.
Bit of a problem if you have a pre-war house and don't want to spend £10,000+ on exterior cladding before the same again on a new heating system...
My understanding is that the proposals in England only apply to new homes. Retrofitting heatpumps isn't very viable in much of our older housing.
Though us (and the Dutch) are unusual in using Gas CH so much. In Scandinavian countries it is fairly unusual.
As I pointed out earlier this week in Scandinavian the heat pumps they use are borehole ground pumps.
And currently the plan is no new gas boilers to be sold post 2035.. I'm. scheduling replacing ours in 2033 at the latest
This video is a video from a guy who does DCS videos (dogfighting games transposed to video with a narrative). The commentary is computer-generated by an AI set to mimic the actor Michael Ironside's voice. Have a listen, see if you can distinguish it from the real person.
Which is why writers and actors are currently on strike. They’re worried that film and TV producers are going to start doing the same.
Which seems like Luddism to me.
If the writers and actors can do a better job than automation, then they should be paid for it.
If automation and efficiency does a better job than people, then sorry but that's progress.
The bigger issue is that the AI is being trained on the outputs of writers and actors, often without permission. The studios have also been training their own AI models by hiring actors for a day, at union minimum wage, to scan them and record an example of speech, without making clear what it was really for.
Tom Cruise is still going to get paid if a studio uses his likeness in a movie. It’s the rest of the industry that’s going to get screwed, and the median SAG member actor earns $26k in the US, not much above minimum wage because it’s all short-term contracts.
Yes, you can argue that they’re buggy drivers as Ford introduced the Model T, but can also argue that they’re right to withhold their labour in the meantime.
As I think Leon mentioned in the past, while all eyes are on Hollywood, the damage might come first in translating and dubbing programmes in foreign markets. Although I suppose it might make it viable to translate into very small languages.
That's not damage! That's a tangible consumer benefit.
Even more amazing, AI will be able to subtly change the images, solving the issue of lipsync so you won't even be able to tell it's dubbed.
How great is that?
Yes, and fixing the lipsync can be applied to politicians too. If Keir Starmer makes an interesting speech, it will be dirty tricks from the CCHQ cyberwarfare team. If not here, putting words into the mouths of political opponents (with perfect voice and lipsync) will happen abroad.
Nothing wrong with new houses having heat pumps. They work great, provided that the heating system is designed and sized for the lower flow temperature of a heat pump rather than a gas boiler.
Simple stuff.
Bit of a problem if you have a pre-war house and don't want to spend £10,000+ on exterior cladding before the same again on a new heating system...
My understanding is that the proposals in England only apply to new homes. Retrofitting heatpumps isn't very viable in much of our older housing.
Though us (and the Dutch) are unusual in using Gas CH so much. In Scandinavian countries it is fairly unusual.
The mention of a new kind of heat pump designed to suit preexisting gas CH systems, albeit at a lower efficiency, was very interesting.
The wider issue is in a way how far UK homes can be insulated. And, more generallyt, one of capital investment to save. That's not specific to heat pumps, though many folk think it is.
Any old heat pump will work with any gas heating system, it is just that to get the flow temperature up to 60 deg C or so it will need to use a lot of direct electricity to top up the refrigerant cycle, destroying the efficiency benefits. At that point you're just heating water with electricity like a kettle.
You can tell the Tories are not serious about finding out about how to win again when they think ULEZ is the solution.
As has been pointed out many times, this is not an issue which the voters the Tories need to win back, care about.
ULEZ was the catalyst to a much wider debate about climate change and the impact on ordinary peoples ability to adapt and indeed afford the costs
The problem the climate change enthusiasts have is taking the country with them at the speed they want, evidenced by the ridiculous proposition by the Greens in Scotland that gas boilers are not acceptable in the sale of Scottish homes from 2025
Indeed one of the Greens former leaders has defected to labour
As for labour, they have already cancelled the 28 billion annual green spend commitment and accept the granting of the new North Sea licences by Sunak
I believe this is a subject that requires mature discussions across politics and the public, rather than suggesting because the transition period, or more specifically the speed of it, means that those questioning it do not accept climate change which is obvious
It's a *consultation* to and proposal to *include the type of boiler* in the overall energy performance rating. As advised by the advisory committee to the Scottish Government. Not what you are saying.
Remember when the Torties actually put it in a bill to make it law to bang up RNLI and similar folk for rescuing people? That was well on from a proposal. But you wouldn't believe me and RP when we pointed this out to you.
Why the difference here? I can't possibly imagine why.
Even you are now admitting it is a consultation so by the very nature of it being a consulting it is on the Greeen SNP agenda
As far as the RNLI are concerned that wasn't a consultation, just a scare story which was never going to happen
You were stating something else, so your excuse cuts no ice.
As for the RNLI, *that was what the intended law said*. You should be bloody grateful they didn't pass it! What the hell do you think would happen the first lifeboat rescue? Hundreds of informers would be ringing up the police demanding that the crew, branch secretary, fundraisers and station cat be arrested.
You are so defensive on this when it is clearly being reported in Scotland
It is understandable as it would be far worse than the poll tax in political terms for the Greens/SNP who are already dropping quite considerably in the polls
You were saying that tthe SGs proposed to stop any houses for sale having gas boilers. That's a gross exaggeration.
You've perhaps muddled it with *UKG* banning any new houses fromk having gas boilers at all.
This from Harvie
One of the biggest challenges is replacing fossil fuel gas boilers in homes with climate-friendly heating-systems such as heat pumps, with Mr Harvie previously admitting the costs could total £33bn.
From 2025, certain trigger points such as the sale of a home, will mean properties will need to meet EPC band C energy efficiency standards, while new fossil fuel boilers will be banned in new buildings from next April.
Ahead of the shake-up, Mr Harvie is set to reform EPC standards so they are more appropriate for driving the improvements needed to reach net zero.
It is understood that this could include taking account of the type of heating system, raising the possibility of those with an old fossil fuel boilers receiving a lower rating than those who have installed a heat pump.
That's what I said! But not what you said! Argh. You claimed that the sale of houses with gas boilers would be banned.
You said "ridiculous proposition by the Greens in Scotland that gas boilers are not acceptable in the sale of Scottish homes from 2025"
That means, you thought they want to ban houses from being sold with gas boilers. That's quite different from "acting as a mark down as part of the overall EPC".
Yes, I know people who work in translation services, and they’re getting totally screwed at the moment. Google is good enough for anything that’s not a legal document requiring a certified translation. Even in-person meetings are now being translated by software in real-time.
I still have one personal memory of using a human translator, when I wanted to send my now father-in-law *that* letter. He cried, and so did my wife when I told her what I’d done. The letter is now framed in our house, in both languages.
That sounds very touching, and very human.
As I've said here before, at present translation my sector of translation has been radically affected by AI, but in a helpful way. Everything gets an initial AI translation, and humans are paid 66% of what we used to get to tidy it up in less than 50% of the time. My main client is the European Commission, having national laws translated so that companies in other countries can follow them, and they are keen to get the meaning 99% accurate, which the AI doesn't and perhaps can't.
A typical issue is consistency of terminology. The AI takes its transations from context and past usage, so it knows the difference between a gas pipe and a pipe that you smoke. However, the same word may translate as "tube" or "connection" or "line". In different parts of the text, the surrounding sentences will differ, and the AI may dig out different translations accordingly. So the AI version will have regulations relating to gas pipes and gas connections, and the British firm trying to decide if they meet the requirements can't be sure if these relate to the same thing or subtly different things. The USP of us humans is that we can read the context across several pages, look up similar past regulations, and come to an intelligent conclusion, probably using "pipe" in every case. The issue only pops up for 1 in 5 sentences, so it's much faster for me, but I'm still doing something that the AI can't. It's a few hours each weekend and earns me £1500 or so per month; it's also quite fun, like solving crosswords.
None of that is needed if one merely wants to get the gist, so there are sectors of translation that really have got hammered, as you say. And maybe mine will too, eventually. But for now it's a genuine productivity enhancement benefiting all concerned.
Nothing wrong with new houses having heat pumps. They work great, provided that the heating system is designed and sized for the lower flow temperature of a heat pump rather than a gas boiler.
Simple stuff.
Bit of a problem if you have a pre-war house and don't want to spend £10,000+ on exterior cladding before the same again on a new heating system...
My understanding is that the proposals in England only apply to new homes. Retrofitting heatpumps isn't very viable in much of our older housing.
Though us (and the Dutch) are unusual in using Gas CH so much. In Scandinavian countries it is fairly unusual.
As I pointed out earlier this week in Scandinavian the heat pumps they use are borehole ground pumps.
And currently the plan is no new gas boilers to be sold post 2035.. I'm. scheduling replacing ours in 2033 at the latest
You can tell the Tories are not serious about finding out about how to win again when they think ULEZ is the solution.
As has been pointed out many times, this is not an issue which the voters the Tories need to win back, care about.
ULEZ was the catalyst to a much wider debate about climate change and the impact on ordinary peoples ability to adapt and indeed afford the costs
The problem the climate change enthusiasts have is taking the country with them at the speed they want, evidenced by the ridiculous proposition by the Greens in Scotland that gas boilers are not acceptable in the sale of Scottish homes from 2025
Indeed one of the Greens former leaders has defected to labour
As for labour, they have already cancelled the 28 billion annual green spend commitment and accept the granting of the new North Sea licences by Sunak
I believe this is a subject that requires mature discussions across politics and the public, rather than suggesting because the transition period, or more specifically the speed of it, means that those questioning it do not accept climate change which is obvious
It's a *consultation* to and proposal to *include the type of boiler* in the overall energy performance rating. As advised by the advisory committee to the Scottish Government. Not what you are saying.
Remember when the Torties actually put it in a bill to make it law to bang up RNLI and similar folk for rescuing people? That was well on from a proposal. But you wouldn't believe me and RP when we pointed this out to you.
Why the difference here? I can't possibly imagine why.
The type of boiler is already in the overall Energy Performance Rating, since 1st August 2007 when they were introduced. AFAICS the Telegraph is scaremongering.
AIUI what is changing is it being made more prominent, including whether the heating system meets a new standard for heating systems.
I can't see any proposal to ban sale of houses with gas boilers, but under separate measures the Scottish Gov have been talking about insisting on decent energy efficiency standards for owner occupied dwellings for some years.
The point of sale is the one time it can surely be afforded and enforced. The seller has money around in X years of tax free price appreciation, or the buyer can get a quote and offer a slightly lower price.at the point of sale. There is now a positive motivation to invest.
The definition is reviewed every few years as the carbon efficiency of Primary Energy Supplies varies. 10 years ago Electric Boilers or Electric Heating were poison in the calculations, but when renewable energy started decarbonising our electricity supply the definition was updated.
It would be churlish not to recognise that there is a political element in these definitions. There always has been. There's a big element of "not like England" in this, as ever.
The detail of the proposals are more complex than at present but they are proposing public EPC data to be available via an API, which is great. Transparency.
I think it's some of what I have been calling for (including on PB) for a number of years. In general, good (if 5 years later than I would like) for the Scottish Government.
If anyone wants to retain a gas boiler, adding a small solar installation will get umpteen extra points - perhaps a whole rating band for a 4kWp install. Or if it only needs one or two points, install a shower waste water heat recovery device.
There isn't a climate emergency. The change in terminology could have been predicted, though. Less so the change from global warming to climate change. Next the line is bound to be do this or go extinct.
To try to stop the climate changing is to be a Cnut. (In the monarchist sense.)
At least we have got to the stage where people accept it is happening, and will continue to do so.
All you have left is arguments over semantics.
The positive externalities of mitigation are worth it, even if they don't have a big impact on global emissions and the rate at which temperature increases.
Investment in adaptation is almost certainly worth it, particularly for flooding on the east coast and air conditioning in hospitals.
Yes. We need to invest in mitigation AND reduce CO2 output AND improve energy efficiency AND investigate carbon capture AND reduce methane output AND… We’re past simple solutions. We need all the solutions.
There are no solutions that will be acceptable in a democracy because people will not accept a mandated decline in living standard. Therefore there will be no solutions
How about the solutions that do not require a decline in living standards?
- More renewables in energy generation -> less dependence on (suddenly very expensive) gas from dodgy places - More efficient appliances -> lower costs of running those appliances - Better insulation -> warmer homes at lower heating cost (plus removal of cold patches with mould etc) - EVs -> better cars with lower running costs
Someone the other day mentioned LED lighting. Well, it's just better than incandescent, isn't it? Many more colour options, cooler running*, lasts longer, obsolescence of even worse stuff like flurorescent tubes...
*I once burned my foot on a halogen bulb in a bedside lamp when reading in bed turned into something more energetic
I am not against any of those but we both know the climate change zealots want more than that
They demand an end to personal transportation for one They demand we all go vegan for two
But climate change zealots are nowhere near power.
Neither of those two things are going to happen before the climate apocalypse* and then it's too late and pointless anyway.
*by which I mean they are election losers right up until the point where (if it ever happens) the effects of climate change are so severe that people, in general, would actually want these things
I should state at this point I am absolutely relaxed about climate change, purely because by the time it becomes critical I will be dead as will be my family. I doubt I am alone in that.
Which on the one hand means that the rhetoric can be ramped up and no one will be any the wiser, while on the other as you say no one *really* is invested.
It comes down to will no one think of the children which is always a tricky ask.
Like many my son and his wife have decided to be childfree. Given he they are in their 30's by the time he dies will likely be 2080 at the latest. What is being asked therefore is "think of other peoples children"
I expect things to be pretty shit by 2050
Give us some f'rinstances.
Hot summers wet winters fires everywhere
Oh no!!!
Sounds like a pretty normal year to me if I am honest
Ahem
Never trust a chart that lacks a scale.
It is like a Lib Dem "winning here" bar chart.
You can almost here Kay burley screaming that Edinburgh is literally ablaze!
It's Met Office data, graphic put together by National Centre for Atmospheric Science, Reading Uni.
But I appreciate you lot don't have much time for experts.
The choice of colour is deliberately designed to alarm idiots like you. I have zero time for 'experts' who produce a graph without a scale.
So extreme dark red is +1 Deg c. Right. And in no way chosen to deliberately scare, and what is the yearly temperature range? (I'd guess -5 to 28 Dec C for Edinburgh). Climate change is real, there is no need to use such scare tactics to try to make a point.
How else would you do it? Red to blue is a standard spectrum for graphs, and red is warm. blue is cool. You're bashing the special pleading a bit here.
Consider sowing blue to red over the range of temps seen each year in Edinburgh? Would make the actual change a bit more realistic.
Doesn't work. You need to do the time average over a few years to reduce year on year variance, which swamps it.
The graph is clearly labelled.
The graph is clearly labelled but the scaling is super zoomed in to make small variances seem dramatic.
Same as you sometimes see on dodgy financial reports that show a 0.1% rise in value being a massive increase.
You could make the exact same chart but with a variance scale set at say -5C to 5C and you'd then see small changes and pale colour changes.
Not to forget of course that Edinburgh is about one of the worst places to measure temperature changes due to the "island" effect that putting hundreds of thousands of millions of people into a confined space raises the temperature even without climate change. Population growth over time means Edinburgh's temperature should be rising even if the climate isn't changing, and even with zero pollution.
Climate change is real. It doesn't need such dodgy charts to say so.
Edinburgh has hundreds of thousands of millions of people?!
You get the same graph from well outside the city, as I remarked earlier.
Lol clear typo. Obviously meant to be hundreds of thousands OR millions of people lol. A quick Google says 526k people which is about 3-4x what it was at the start of the chart which would explain a temperature rise even without climate change. And since the scaling has been min maxed to the actual change, you could get that colour scale even without any climate change at all.
Getting graphs away from population centres is absolutely far superior and shows climate change is real without this BS. I'm curious if that site has a fixed colour scale regardless of location or if it zooms in with a min max colour scale for each location?
To be fair, Edinburgh was picked onlfy because someone was making a sarky comment or assumption earlier on!
That scale is actually about right, given the concerns over average temperature - a change of 1-3 units is seriously worrying.
No that scale isn't about right, since a change of 1C is well within expectations, well within normal variances and the target is to keep change within 1.5C as "acceptable" (indeed the target used to be to keep within 2C).
3C as you say would be seriously worrying, and 2C is what will probably happen.
So lets take 3C as the scale. If you go from -3C to +3C then we'd be showing outside the range of normal variances as the scale, which is what climate change should be demonstrated as on a scale, but then the colours would be much more pale - as they should be as climate change hasn't all happened yet.
Indeed its worth noting that if you look back millions of years are current "warmer" climate would still be recorded as one of the lowest temperatures recorded in our planets history. However we don't want to go back to the arid deserts our planet was mostly covered in, in dinosaur times.
Nothing wrong with new houses having heat pumps. They work great, provided that the heating system is designed and sized for the lower flow temperature of a heat pump rather than a gas boiler.
Simple stuff.
Bit of a problem if you have a pre-war house and don't want to spend £10,000+ on exterior cladding before the same again on a new heating system...
My understanding is that the proposals in England only apply to new homes. Retrofitting heatpumps isn't very viable in much of our older housing.
Though us (and the Dutch) are unusual in using Gas CH so much. In Scandinavian countries it is fairly unusual.
The mention of a new kind of heat pump designed to suit preexisting gas CH systems, albeit at a lower efficiency, was very interesting.
The wider issue is in a way how far UK homes can be insulated. And, more generallyt, one of capital investment to save. That's not specific to heat pumps, though many folk think it is.
Any old heat pump will work with any gas heating system, it is just that to get the flow temperature up to 60 deg C or so it will need to use a lot of direct electricity to top up the refrigerant cycle, destroying the efficiency benefits. At that point you're just heating water with electricity like a kettle.
Though if the price difference between heating water with gas converges with that of electric (by movement of either or both) that isn't particularly a problem.
Nothing wrong with new houses having heat pumps. They work great, provided that the heating system is designed and sized for the lower flow temperature of a heat pump rather than a gas boiler.
Simple stuff.
Indeed, the comments from such as Benpointer and Malmesbury have been very interesting when beginning to think about the pros and cons of adding them to an older house, too.
As have the comments from those in manufacturing and industry who supply and fit them that they're simply not good enough yet for most homes, and people shouldn't be sold a dud.
I used to design domestic heat pump systems... "Most" homes is disingenuous.
Any home built since 2010 should be perfectly capable of being comfortably heated by a heat hump without extra insulation (you might need new radiators).
Any home built between 2000-2010 is likely to be able to be heated by a heat pump also with the same caveat (although maybe not as comfortably).
That's exactly the sort of helpful comment we need in our discussion. At the moment some of us regard heat pumps with the same horror a third nipple would cause 400 years ago,.
Nothing wrong with new houses having heat pumps. They work great, provided that the heating system is designed and sized for the lower flow temperature of a heat pump rather than a gas boiler.
Simple stuff.
Indeed, the comments from such as Benpointer and Malmesbury have been very interesting when beginning to think about the pros and cons of adding them to an older house, too.
As have the comments from those in manufacturing and industry who supply and fit them that they're simply not good enough yet for most homes, and people shouldn't be sold a dud.
I used to design domestic heat pump systems... "Most" homes is disingenuous.
Any home built since 2010 should be perfectly capable of being comfortably heated by a heat hump without extra insulation (you might need new radiators).
Any home built between 2000-2010 is likely to be able to be heated by a heat pump also with the same caveat (although maybe not as comfortably).
What proportion of our housing stock is built after 2010?
You can tell the Tories are not serious about finding out about how to win again when they think ULEZ is the solution.
As has been pointed out many times, this is not an issue which the voters the Tories need to win back, care about.
ULEZ was the catalyst to a much wider debate about climate change and the impact on ordinary peoples ability to adapt and indeed afford the costs
The problem the climate change enthusiasts have is taking the country with them at the speed they want, evidenced by the ridiculous proposition by the Greens in Scotland that gas boilers are not acceptable in the sale of Scottish homes from 2025
Indeed one of the Greens former leaders has defected to labour
As for labour, they have already cancelled the 28 billion annual green spend commitment and accept the granting of the new North Sea licences by Sunak
I believe this is a subject that requires mature discussions across politics and the public, rather than suggesting because the transition period, or more specifically the speed of it, means that those questioning it do not accept climate change which is obvious
It's a *consultation* to and proposal to *include the type of boiler* in the overall energy performance rating. As advised by the advisory committee to the Scottish Government. Not what you are saying.
Remember when the Torties actually put it in a bill to make it law to bang up RNLI and similar folk for rescuing people? That was well on from a proposal. But you wouldn't believe me and RP when we pointed this out to you.
Why the difference here? I can't possibly imagine why.
Even you are now admitting it is a consultation so by the very nature of it being a consulting it is on the Greeen SNP agenda
As far as the RNLI are concerned that wasn't a consultation, just a scare story which was never going to happen
You were stating something else, so your excuse cuts no ice.
As for the RNLI, *that was what the intended law said*. You should be bloody grateful they didn't pass it! What the hell do you think would happen the first lifeboat rescue? Hundreds of informers would be ringing up the police demanding that the crew, branch secretary, fundraisers and station cat be arrested.
You are so defensive on this when it is clearly being reported in Scotland
It is understandable as it would be far worse than the poll tax in political terms for the Greens/SNP who are already dropping quite considerably in the polls
You were saying that tthe SGs proposed to stop any houses for sale having gas boilers. That's a gross exaggeration.
You've perhaps muddled it with *UKG* banning any new houses fromk having gas boilers at all.
This from Harvie
One of the biggest challenges is replacing fossil fuel gas boilers in homes with climate-friendly heating-systems such as heat pumps, with Mr Harvie previously admitting the costs could total £33bn.
From 2025, certain trigger points such as the sale of a home, will mean properties will need to meet EPC band C energy efficiency standards, while new fossil fuel boilers will be banned in new buildings from next April.
Ahead of the shake-up, Mr Harvie is set to reform EPC standards so they are more appropriate for driving the improvements needed to reach net zero.
It is understood that this could include taking account of the type of heating system, raising the possibility of those with an old fossil fuel boilers receiving a lower rating than those who have installed a heat pump.
That's what I said! But not what you said! Argh. You claimed that the sale of houses with gas boilers would be banned.
You said "ridiculous proposition by the Greens in Scotland that gas boilers are not acceptable in the sale of Scottish homes from 2025"
That means, you thought they want to ban houses from being sold with gas boilers. That's quite different from "acting as a mark down as part of the overall EPC".
This is the salient point
From 2025, certain trigger points such as the sale of a home, will mean properties will need to meet EPC band C energy efficiency standards, while new fossil fuel boilers will be banned in new buildings from next April.
As gas boilers will be outside EPC band C under these proposals, then is seems a defacto ban is being proposed
Nothing wrong with new houses having heat pumps. They work great, provided that the heating system is designed and sized for the lower flow temperature of a heat pump rather than a gas boiler.
Simple stuff.
Bit of a problem if you have a pre-war house and don't want to spend £10,000+ on exterior cladding before the same again on a new heating system...
My understanding is that the proposals in England only apply to new homes. Retrofitting heatpumps isn't very viable in much of our older housing.
Though us (and the Dutch) are unusual in using Gas CH so much. In Scandinavian countries it is fairly unusual.
The mention of a new kind of heat pump designed to suit preexisting gas CH systems, albeit at a lower efficiency, was very interesting.
The wider issue is in a way how far UK homes can be insulated. And, more generallyt, one of capital investment to save. That's not specific to heat pumps, though many folk think it is.
Any old heat pump will work with any gas heating system, it is just that to get the flow temperature up to 60 deg C or so it will need to use a lot of direct electricity to top up the refrigerant cycle, destroying the efficiency benefits. At that point you're just heating water with electricity like a kettle.
What's the point? These people will never believe in climate change, they will always think it's a hoax or over-exaggerated. Best to ignore them and move on.
You need "these people" because they are the solution. Setting up an "us" and "them" is the route to failure.
I do not have the energy, others can fight, I admitted defeat long ago. We are doomed.
No we're not. But here's a tip: stop telling people they can never fly again, travel again except by bike, and must have cold homes and eat mung beans forevermore and pay more for the privilege.
They'll tell you to Foxtrot Oscar and ignore you.
I've never said any of those things on here, you're putting words in my mouth there mate. We are doomed and I accept that. Good day.
You can tell the Tories are not serious about finding out about how to win again when they think ULEZ is the solution.
As has been pointed out many times, this is not an issue which the voters the Tories need to win back, care about.
ULEZ was the catalyst to a much wider debate about climate change and the impact on ordinary peoples ability to adapt and indeed afford the costs
The problem the climate change enthusiasts have is taking the country with them at the speed they want, evidenced by the ridiculous proposition by the Greens in Scotland that gas boilers are not acceptable in the sale of Scottish homes from 2025
Indeed one of the Greens former leaders has defected to labour
As for labour, they have already cancelled the 28 billion annual green spend commitment and accept the granting of the new North Sea licences by Sunak
I believe this is a subject that requires mature discussions across politics and the public, rather than suggesting because the transition period, or more specifically the speed of it, means that those questioning it do not accept climate change which is obvious
It's a *consultation* to and proposal to *include the type of boiler* in the overall energy performance rating. As advised by the advisory committee to the Scottish Government. Not what you are saying.
Remember when the Torties actually put it in a bill to make it law to bang up RNLI and similar folk for rescuing people? That was well on from a proposal. But you wouldn't believe me and RP when we pointed this out to you.
Why the difference here? I can't possibly imagine why.
The type of boiler is already in the overall Energy Performance Rating, since 1st August 2007 when they were introduced. AFAICS the Telegraph is scaremongering.
AIUI what is changing is it being made more prominent, including whether the heating system meets a new standard for heating systems.
I can't see any proposal to ban sale of houses with gas boilers, but under separate measures the Scottish Gov have been talking about insisting on decent energy efficiency standards for owner occupied dwellings for some years.
The point of sale is the one time it can surely be afforded and enforced. The seller has money around in X years of tax free price appreciation, or the buyer can get a quote and offer a slightly lower price.at the point of sale. There is now a positive motivation to invest.
The definition is reviewed every few years as the carbon efficiency of Primary Energy Supplies varies. 10 years ago Electric Boilers or Electric Heating were poison in the calculations, but when renewable energy started decarbonising our electricity supply the definition was updated.
It would be churlish not to recognise that there is a political element in these definitions. There always has been. There's a big element of "not like England" in this, as ever.
The detail of the proposals are more complex than at present but they are proposing public EPC data to be available via an API, which is great. Transparency.
I think it's some of what I have been calling for (including on PB) for a number of years. In general, good (if 5 years later than I would like) for the Scottish Government.
If anyone wants to retain a gas boiler, adding a small solar installation will get umpteen extra points - perhaps a whole rating band for a 4kWp install. Or if it only needs one or two points, install a shower waste water heat recovery device.
The other point is - from my recent experience we don't need to pay for a separate inspector in Scotland IIRC: the surveyor does it as part of the Home Report that the seller commissions and which goes to all interested potential buyers on request.
So if you have £40k-odd then you are laughing because you can buy a Tesla Model 3 and depreciation is negligible.
I think this proves the point about you needing to be well off to start with to reap the undoubted benefits of all this new technology and also to stay green.
Meanwhile the family tootling around in a 10-yr old diesel car can only dream of paying 50 grand for a car.
You're assuming that depreciation remains negligible - which is wrong. The market will be vastly different in five years time.
"Donald Trump is stronger now than ever The former president is in a better political position now than in 2015 or 2019 – for four big reasons Tim Stanley"
Nothing wrong with new houses having heat pumps. They work great, provided that the heating system is designed and sized for the lower flow temperature of a heat pump rather than a gas boiler.
Simple stuff.
Bit of a problem if you have a pre-war house and don't want to spend £10,000+ on exterior cladding before the same again on a new heating system...
My understanding is that the proposals in England only apply to new homes. Retrofitting heatpumps isn't very viable in much of our older housing.
Though us (and the Dutch) are unusual in using Gas CH so much. In Scandinavian countries it is fairly unusual.
The mention of a new kind of heat pump designed to suit preexisting gas CH systems, albeit at a lower efficiency, was very interesting.
The wider issue is in a way how far UK homes can be insulated. And, more generallyt, one of capital investment to save. That's not specific to heat pumps, though many folk think it is.
Any old heat pump will work with any gas heating system, it is just that to get the flow temperature up to 60 deg C or so it will need to use a lot of direct electricity to top up the refrigerant cycle, destroying the efficiency benefits. At that point you're just heating water with electricity like a kettle.
Though if the price difference between heating water with gas converges with that of electric (by movement of either or both) that isn't particularly a problem.
What is the differential cost at the moment?
I don't know the answer to your specific question, but I agree with your point, efficiency for efficiency's sake isn't required if electricity is plentiful.
In the extreme, if we can produce enough clean electricity so that it is cheaper than natural gas, then we could all use direct electric water heaters for all it matters.
Honestly I think the above is the long-term best solution even if it isn't particularly "woke".
Heat pumps are great and all but they have lots of moving parts, are liable to go wrong, and require expensive servicing. The refrigerant gases are also greenhouse gases as far as I am aware, so if you get a leak....
Cheap green electricity solves this problem entirely.
I've got a mortgage on a £640K property that's fixed at 1.3% until 2026, I don't know what interest rates will be then but significantly higher than that. I hope our salaries can keep up but not confident at this stage
"Our" - who are you shacked up with?
Is it a 640K mortgage or a 640K property with a 10K mortgage though.
I thought he's about 26 years old and lives with his mum, or something.
His property is worth more than mine if that's true, and I have a four-bed detached in Hants.
Nothing wrong with new houses having heat pumps. They work great, provided that the heating system is designed and sized for the lower flow temperature of a heat pump rather than a gas boiler.
Simple stuff.
Indeed, the comments from such as Benpointer and Malmesbury have been very interesting when beginning to think about the pros and cons of adding them to an older house, too.
As have the comments from those in manufacturing and industry who supply and fit them that they're simply not good enough yet for most homes, and people shouldn't be sold a dud.
I used to design domestic heat pump systems... "Most" homes is disingenuous.
Any home built since 2010 should be perfectly capable of being comfortably heated by a heat hump without extra insulation (you might need new radiators).
Any home built between 2000-2010 is likely to be able to be heated by a heat pump also with the same caveat (although maybe not as comfortably).
Yes.
Part of our problem as a country though is we have too many homes not built this century. And we cling on to crappy homes built in the past, and object to new homes being built in the present.
In countries like Japan etc where homes are essentially disposable and replaced every few decades then ever increasing standards of living (as well as much lower costs) are easily achieved.
In this country we have decrepit substandard homes built generations ago that aren't properly insulated and many will struggle ever to be.
Building more new homes to modern standards would certainly help. How to deal with substandard old homes is not something I have a solution for.
Nothing wrong with new houses having heat pumps. They work great, provided that the heating system is designed and sized for the lower flow temperature of a heat pump rather than a gas boiler.
Simple stuff.
Indeed, the comments from such as Benpointer and Malmesbury have been very interesting when beginning to think about the pros and cons of adding them to an older house, too.
As have the comments from those in manufacturing and industry who supply and fit them that they're simply not good enough yet for most homes, and people shouldn't be sold a dud.
I used to design domestic heat pump systems... "Most" homes is disingenuous.
Any home built since 2010 should be perfectly capable of being comfortably heated by a heat hump without extra insulation (you might need new radiators).
Any home built between 2000-2010 is likely to be able to be heated by a heat pump also with the same caveat (although maybe not as comfortably).
What proportion of our housing stock is built after 2010?
This video is a video from a guy who does DCS videos (dogfighting games transposed to video with a narrative). The commentary is computer-generated by an AI set to mimic the actor Michael Ironside's voice. Have a listen, see if you can distinguish it from the real person.
Which is why writers and actors are currently on strike. They’re worried that film and TV producers are going to start doing the same.
Which seems like Luddism to me.
If the writers and actors can do a better job than automation, then they should be paid for it.
If automation and efficiency does a better job than people, then sorry but that's progress.
This is an industry that usually struggles to see the opportunities new technology presents. Home taping and video recorders were seen as a threat. Napster and downloads were seen as a threat. Just two examples that when embraced they became a revenue stream.
All those innovations benefitted the writers and actors, though. This is different.
What's the point? These people will never believe in climate change, they will always think it's a hoax or over-exaggerated. Best to ignore them and move on.
You need "these people" because they are the solution. Setting up an "us" and "them" is the route to failure.
I do not have the energy, others can fight, I admitted defeat long ago. We are doomed.
No we're not. But here's a tip: stop telling people they can never fly again, travel again except by bike, and must have cold homes and eat mung beans forevermore and pay more for the privilege.
They'll tell you to Foxtrot Oscar and ignore you.
I've never said any of those things on here, you're putting words in my mouth there mate. We are doomed and I accept that. Good day.
We are not doomed.
I'm very optimistic about the future. Acid rain and the hole in the Ozone Layer used to be huge environmental challenges. Solved both. Also, the UN agreed a charter to protect 1/3rd of the world's oceans earlier this year.
Nothing wrong with new houses having heat pumps. They work great, provided that the heating system is designed and sized for the lower flow temperature of a heat pump rather than a gas boiler.
Simple stuff.
Bit of a problem if you have a pre-war house and don't want to spend £10,000+ on exterior cladding before the same again on a new heating system...
My understanding is that the proposals in England only apply to new homes. Retrofitting heatpumps isn't very viable in much of our older housing.
Though us (and the Dutch) are unusual in using Gas CH so much. In Scandinavian countries it is fairly unusual.
The mention of a new kind of heat pump designed to suit preexisting gas CH systems, albeit at a lower efficiency, was very interesting.
The wider issue is in a way how far UK homes can be insulated. And, more generallyt, one of capital investment to save. That's not specific to heat pumps, though many folk think it is.
Any old heat pump will work with any gas heating system, it is just that to get the flow temperature up to 60 deg C or so it will need to use a lot of direct electricity to top up the refrigerant cycle, destroying the efficiency benefits. At that point you're just heating water with electricity like a kettle.
Which is why they're not good enough yet.
I think this is an example of the Silver Bullet Fallacy: until this is good enough to solve all problems, for all people, it is of no use.
For many people, in many places, a heat pump is a great option.
For others, it is not.
If I was building or renovating a home today (especially if it had decent insulation), I would definitely look into it. It would give me a capability I don't have today (cooling on hot days), combined with saving me money through the year.
Nothing wrong with new houses having heat pumps. They work great, provided that the heating system is designed and sized for the lower flow temperature of a heat pump rather than a gas boiler.
Simple stuff.
Bit of a problem if you have a pre-war house and don't want to spend £10,000+ on exterior cladding before the same again on a new heating system...
My understanding is that the proposals in England only apply to new homes. Retrofitting heatpumps isn't very viable in much of our older housing.
Though us (and the Dutch) are unusual in using Gas CH so much. In Scandinavian countries it is fairly unusual.
The mention of a new kind of heat pump designed to suit preexisting gas CH systems, albeit at a lower efficiency, was very interesting.
The wider issue is in a way how far UK homes can be insulated. And, more generallyt, one of capital investment to save. That's not specific to heat pumps, though many folk think it is.
Any old heat pump will work with any gas heating system, it is just that to get the flow temperature up to 60 deg C or so it will need to use a lot of direct electricity to top up the refrigerant cycle, destroying the efficiency benefits. At that point you're just heating water with electricity like a kettle.
That's a little bit glossed imo, in that efficient normal running temperatures are a little different. Condensing gas boilers need a flow temp of below 55C (or they stop condensing and drop by about 10% in efficiency), whilst aiui heat pumps like to be as low as possible - which is why it is sometimes wise eg to replace radiators with double radiators the same size if trying to control costs. My boiler runs at 45C, but can modulate down to 35C - but whilst my house is OK it is not the best in the world for EPC, at just I think a mid B for the EPC.
Happy to be questioned, as its not my utter specialism.
There isn't a climate emergency. The change in terminology could have been predicted, though. Less so the change from global warming to climate change. Next the line is bound to be do this or go extinct.
To try to stop the climate changing is to be a Cnut. (In the monarchist sense.)
At least we have got to the stage where people accept it is happening, and will continue to do so.
All you have left is arguments over semantics.
The positive externalities of mitigation are worth it, even if they don't have a big impact on global emissions and the rate at which temperature increases.
Investment in adaptation is almost certainly worth it, particularly for flooding on the east coast and air conditioning in hospitals.
Yes. We need to invest in mitigation AND reduce CO2 output AND improve energy efficiency AND investigate carbon capture AND reduce methane output AND… We’re past simple solutions. We need all the solutions.
There are no solutions that will be acceptable in a democracy because people will not accept a mandated decline in living standard. Therefore there will be no solutions
How about the solutions that do not require a decline in living standards?
- More renewables in energy generation -> less dependence on (suddenly very expensive) gas from dodgy places - More efficient appliances -> lower costs of running those appliances - Better insulation -> warmer homes at lower heating cost (plus removal of cold patches with mould etc) - EVs -> better cars with lower running costs
Someone the other day mentioned LED lighting. Well, it's just better than incandescent, isn't it? Many more colour options, cooler running*, lasts longer, obsolescence of even worse stuff like flurorescent tubes...
*I once burned my foot on a halogen bulb in a bedside lamp when reading in bed turned into something more energetic
I am not against any of those but we both know the climate change zealots want more than that
They demand an end to personal transportation for one They demand we all go vegan for two
But climate change zealots are nowhere near power.
Neither of those two things are going to happen before the climate apocalypse* and then it's too late and pointless anyway.
*by which I mean they are election losers right up until the point where (if it ever happens) the effects of climate change are so severe that people, in general, would actually want these things
I should state at this point I am absolutely relaxed about climate change, purely because by the time it becomes critical I will be dead as will be my family. I doubt I am alone in that.
Which on the one hand means that the rhetoric can be ramped up and no one will be any the wiser, while on the other as you say no one *really* is invested.
It comes down to will no one think of the children which is always a tricky ask.
Like many my son and his wife have decided to be childfree. Given he they are in their 30's by the time he dies will likely be 2080 at the latest. What is being asked therefore is "think of other peoples children"
I expect things to be pretty shit by 2050
Give us some f'rinstances.
Hot summers wet winters fires everywhere
Oh no!!!
Sounds like a pretty normal year to me if I am honest
Ahem
Never trust a chart that lacks a scale.
It is like a Lib Dem "winning here" bar chart.
You can almost here Kay burley screaming that Edinburgh is literally ablaze!
It's Met Office data, graphic put together by National Centre for Atmospheric Science, Reading Uni.
But I appreciate you lot don't have much time for experts.
The choice of colour is deliberately designed to alarm idiots like you. I have zero time for 'experts' who produce a graph without a scale.
The late chap in a house round the back from me (not a million miles from Edinburgh) was a keen met person. He kept continuous records for decades. I remember seeing his graph of the running average for the last few years about 10-12 years ago. It was a near perfect hockey stick in shape.
1850, low point of the Dalton minimum. There's a reason they start the chart here.
That's why I was talking about the hockey stick graph, which relies solely on the last few years' runnign average. Flat for decades then up as one would expect from CO2 levels.
Where did the Co2 come from in the Early Middle Ages when the Vikings were growing Barley in Southern Greenland and Europes wine growing region extended 500 kms further north than today?
Europe's wine growing region ends at - about - London today. 500 km further North takes you well into Scotland.
If you look at Germany today, we get wine produced from about half way up. If you stretch 500 km North of there, you get meaningfully above Oslo and Stockholm.
I'm sure Europe's wine growing region stretched further North than previously during the Medieval Warm Period, but I'd be staggered if it was anywhere near 500km more than now.
500km north of Derbyshire gets you to somewhere north of Stirling.
I'm confident they never made wine that far north in Roman times.
Edit - there is evidence of Roman viticulture in North Thoresby, Lincs (there is a modern vineyard not far away at Sowerby). That's the most northern one I know of.
"Meet our latest pride and joy, the Elsa Pink 2022. It's more than a wine – it's a tribute to our bright and sparky daughter, capturing her vibrant spirit and enthusiasm in every drop. Each bottle radiates the same charming, magnetic energy she exudes, making it a celebration of family, love, and laughter."
Also I am not convinced they have got the hang of the whole viticulture thang, all their wine pages show a top-fruit (prob apple but it's out of focus) orchard in blossom. Avoid.
There isn't a climate emergency. The change in terminology could have been predicted, though. Less so the change from global warming to climate change. Next the line is bound to be do this or go extinct.
To try to stop the climate changing is to be a Cnut. (In the monarchist sense.)
At least we have got to the stage where people accept it is happening, and will continue to do so.
All you have left is arguments over semantics.
The positive externalities of mitigation are worth it, even if they don't have a big impact on global emissions and the rate at which temperature increases.
Investment in adaptation is almost certainly worth it, particularly for flooding on the east coast and air conditioning in hospitals.
Yes. We need to invest in mitigation AND reduce CO2 output AND improve energy efficiency AND investigate carbon capture AND reduce methane output AND… We’re past simple solutions. We need all the solutions.
There are no solutions that will be acceptable in a democracy because people will not accept a mandated decline in living standard. Therefore there will be no solutions
How about the solutions that do not require a decline in living standards?
- More renewables in energy generation -> less dependence on (suddenly very expensive) gas from dodgy places - More efficient appliances -> lower costs of running those appliances - Better insulation -> warmer homes at lower heating cost (plus removal of cold patches with mould etc) - EVs -> better cars with lower running costs
Someone the other day mentioned LED lighting. Well, it's just better than incandescent, isn't it? Many more colour options, cooler running*, lasts longer, obsolescence of even worse stuff like flurorescent tubes...
*I once burned my foot on a halogen bulb in a bedside lamp when reading in bed turned into something more energetic
I am not against any of those but we both know the climate change zealots want more than that
They demand an end to personal transportation for one They demand we all go vegan for two
But climate change zealots are nowhere near power.
Neither of those two things are going to happen before the climate apocalypse* and then it's too late and pointless anyway.
*by which I mean they are election losers right up until the point where (if it ever happens) the effects of climate change are so severe that people, in general, would actually want these things
I should state at this point I am absolutely relaxed about climate change, purely because by the time it becomes critical I will be dead as will be my family. I doubt I am alone in that.
Which on the one hand means that the rhetoric can be ramped up and no one will be any the wiser, while on the other as you say no one *really* is invested.
It comes down to will no one think of the children which is always a tricky ask.
Like many my son and his wife have decided to be childfree. Given he they are in their 30's by the time he dies will likely be 2080 at the latest. What is being asked therefore is "think of other peoples children"
I expect things to be pretty shit by 2050
Give us some f'rinstances.
Hot summers wet winters fires everywhere
Oh no!!!
Sounds like a pretty normal year to me if I am honest
Ahem
Never trust a chart that lacks a scale.
It is like a Lib Dem "winning here" bar chart.
You can almost here Kay burley screaming that Edinburgh is literally ablaze!
It's Met Office data, graphic put together by National Centre for Atmospheric Science, Reading Uni.
But I appreciate you lot don't have much time for experts.
The choice of colour is deliberately designed to alarm idiots like you. I have zero time for 'experts' who produce a graph without a scale.
So extreme dark red is +1 Deg c. Right. And in no way chosen to deliberately scare, and what is the yearly temperature range? (I'd guess -5 to 28 Dec C for Edinburgh). Climate change is real, there is no need to use such scare tactics to try to make a point.
There are plenty of very sober people who are very alarmed about rising average temperatures where the increase in those temperatures are in low single digits. You could do the data stripes in lukewarm colours, don't alarm anyone, but it would be no more "truthful".
My main issue with using data stripes is sort of the opposite problem. They seem to suggest we have hit peak temperatures when we actually have a trend. They could get a lot hotter again very quickly. On the plus side the charts do show convincingly how recent the increases have been.
There isn't a climate emergency. The change in terminology could have been predicted, though. Less so the change from global warming to climate change. Next the line is bound to be do this or go extinct.
To try to stop the climate changing is to be a Cnut. (In the monarchist sense.)
At least we have got to the stage where people accept it is happening, and will continue to do so.
All you have left is arguments over semantics.
The positive externalities of mitigation are worth it, even if they don't have a big impact on global emissions and the rate at which temperature increases.
Investment in adaptation is almost certainly worth it, particularly for flooding on the east coast and air conditioning in hospitals.
Yes. We need to invest in mitigation AND reduce CO2 output AND improve energy efficiency AND investigate carbon capture AND reduce methane output AND… We’re past simple solutions. We need all the solutions.
There are no solutions that will be acceptable in a democracy because people will not accept a mandated decline in living standard. Therefore there will be no solutions
How about the solutions that do not require a decline in living standards?
- More renewables in energy generation -> less dependence on (suddenly very expensive) gas from dodgy places - More efficient appliances -> lower costs of running those appliances - Better insulation -> warmer homes at lower heating cost (plus removal of cold patches with mould etc) - EVs -> better cars with lower running costs
Someone the other day mentioned LED lighting. Well, it's just better than incandescent, isn't it? Many more colour options, cooler running*, lasts longer, obsolescence of even worse stuff like flurorescent tubes...
*I once burned my foot on a halogen bulb in a bedside lamp when reading in bed turned into something more energetic
I am not against any of those but we both know the climate change zealots want more than that
They demand an end to personal transportation for one They demand we all go vegan for two
But climate change zealots are nowhere near power.
Neither of those two things are going to happen before the climate apocalypse* and then it's too late and pointless anyway.
*by which I mean they are election losers right up until the point where (if it ever happens) the effects of climate change are so severe that people, in general, would actually want these things
I should state at this point I am absolutely relaxed about climate change, purely because by the time it becomes critical I will be dead as will be my family. I doubt I am alone in that.
Which on the one hand means that the rhetoric can be ramped up and no one will be any the wiser, while on the other as you say no one *really* is invested.
It comes down to will no one think of the children which is always a tricky ask.
Like many my son and his wife have decided to be childfree. Given he they are in their 30's by the time he dies will likely be 2080 at the latest. What is being asked therefore is "think of other peoples children"
I expect things to be pretty shit by 2050
Give us some f'rinstances.
Hot summers wet winters fires everywhere
Oh no!!!
Sounds like a pretty normal year to me if I am honest
Ahem
Never trust a chart that lacks a scale.
It is like a Lib Dem "winning here" bar chart.
You can almost here Kay burley screaming that Edinburgh is literally ablaze!
It's Met Office data, graphic put together by National Centre for Atmospheric Science, Reading Uni.
But I appreciate you lot don't have much time for experts.
The choice of colour is deliberately designed to alarm idiots like you. I have zero time for 'experts' who produce a graph without a scale.
The late chap in a house round the back from me (not a million miles from Edinburgh) was a keen met person. He kept continuous records for decades. I remember seeing his graph of the running average for the last few years about 10-12 years ago. It was a near perfect hockey stick in shape.
1850, low point of the Dalton minimum. There's a reason they start the chart here.
That's why I was talking about the hockey stick graph, which relies solely on the last few years' runnign average. Flat for decades then up as one would expect from CO2 levels.
Where did the Co2 come from in the Early Middle Ages when the Vikings were growing Barley in Southern Greenland and Europes wine growing region extended 500 kms further north than today?
Europe's wine growing region ends at - about - London today. 500 km further North takes you well into Scotland.
If you look at Germany today, we get wine produced from about half way up. If you stretch 500 km North of there, you get meaningfully above Oslo and Stockholm.
I'm sure Europe's wine growing region stretched further North than previously during the Medieval Warm Period, but I'd be staggered if it was anywhere near 500km more than now.
500km north of Derbyshire gets you to somewhere north of Stirling.
I'm confident they never made wine that far north in Roman times.
Edit - there is evidence of Roman viticulture in North Thoresby, Lincs (there is a modern vineyard not far away at Sowerby). That's the most northern one I know of.
You can tell the Tories are not serious about finding out about how to win again when they think ULEZ is the solution.
As has been pointed out many times, this is not an issue which the voters the Tories need to win back, care about.
ULEZ was the catalyst to a much wider debate about climate change and the impact on ordinary peoples ability to adapt and indeed afford the costs
The problem the climate change enthusiasts have is taking the country with them at the speed they want, evidenced by the ridiculous proposition by the Greens in Scotland that gas boilers are not acceptable in the sale of Scottish homes from 2025
Indeed one of the Greens former leaders has defected to labour
As for labour, they have already cancelled the 28 billion annual green spend commitment and accept the granting of the new North Sea licences by Sunak
I believe this is a subject that requires mature discussions across politics and the public, rather than suggesting because the transition period, or more specifically the speed of it, means that those questioning it do not accept climate change which is obvious
It's a *consultation* to and proposal to *include the type of boiler* in the overall energy performance rating. As advised by the advisory committee to the Scottish Government. Not what you are saying.
Remember when the Torties actually put it in a bill to make it law to bang up RNLI and similar folk for rescuing people? That was well on from a proposal. But you wouldn't believe me and RP when we pointed this out to you.
Why the difference here? I can't possibly imagine why.
Even you are now admitting it is a consultation so by the very nature of it being a consulting it is on the Greeen SNP agenda
As far as the RNLI are concerned that wasn't a consultation, just a scare story which was never going to happen
You were stating something else, so your excuse cuts no ice.
As for the RNLI, *that was what the intended law said*. You should be bloody grateful they didn't pass it! What the hell do you think would happen the first lifeboat rescue? Hundreds of informers would be ringing up the police demanding that the crew, branch secretary, fundraisers and station cat be arrested.
You are so defensive on this when it is clearly being reported in Scotland
It is understandable as it would be far worse than the poll tax in political terms for the Greens/SNP who are already dropping quite considerably in the polls
You were saying that tthe SGs proposed to stop any houses for sale having gas boilers. That's a gross exaggeration.
You've perhaps muddled it with *UKG* banning any new houses fromk having gas boilers at all.
This from Harvie
One of the biggest challenges is replacing fossil fuel gas boilers in homes with climate-friendly heating-systems such as heat pumps, with Mr Harvie previously admitting the costs could total £33bn.
From 2025, certain trigger points such as the sale of a home, will mean properties will need to meet EPC band C energy efficiency standards, while new fossil fuel boilers will be banned in new buildings from next April.
Ahead of the shake-up, Mr Harvie is set to reform EPC standards so they are more appropriate for driving the improvements needed to reach net zero.
It is understood that this could include taking account of the type of heating system, raising the possibility of those with an old fossil fuel boilers receiving a lower rating than those who have installed a heat pump.
That's what I said! But not what you said! Argh. You claimed that the sale of houses with gas boilers would be banned.
You said "ridiculous proposition by the Greens in Scotland that gas boilers are not acceptable in the sale of Scottish homes from 2025"
That means, you thought they want to ban houses from being sold with gas boilers. That's quite different from "acting as a mark down as part of the overall EPC".
This is the salient point
From 2025, certain trigger points such as the sale of a home, will mean properties will need to meet EPC band C energy efficiency standards, while new fossil fuel boilers will be banned in new buildings from next April.
As gas boilers will be outside EPC band C under these proposals, then is seems a defacto ban is being proposed
Do you have a citation that gas boilers will be outside band C?
Just because they're banned from new homes, doesn't mean they'll be below C for existing ones. It could be eg [and I'm making this up] A = Heat Pump powered by Renewables, B = Heat Pump powered by Grid, C = Gas with insulation, D and below Gas without insulation.
I'm very optimistic about the future. Acid rain and the hole in the Ozone Layer used to be huge environmental challenges. Solved both. Also, the UN agreed a charter to protect 1/3rd of the world's oceans earlier this year.
We will crack this one too. Don't worry.
I think we absolutely are doomed but you can be the hopeful one out of the two of us. I hope you are proven correct.
Nothing wrong with new houses having heat pumps. They work great, provided that the heating system is designed and sized for the lower flow temperature of a heat pump rather than a gas boiler.
Simple stuff.
Bit of a problem if you have a pre-war house and don't want to spend £10,000+ on exterior cladding before the same again on a new heating system...
My understanding is that the proposals in England only apply to new homes. Retrofitting heatpumps isn't very viable in much of our older housing.
Though us (and the Dutch) are unusual in using Gas CH so much. In Scandinavian countries it is fairly unusual.
The mention of a new kind of heat pump designed to suit preexisting gas CH systems, albeit at a lower efficiency, was very interesting.
The wider issue is in a way how far UK homes can be insulated. And, more generallyt, one of capital investment to save. That's not specific to heat pumps, though many folk think it is.
Any old heat pump will work with any gas heating system, it is just that to get the flow temperature up to 60 deg C or so it will need to use a lot of direct electricity to top up the refrigerant cycle, destroying the efficiency benefits. At that point you're just heating water with electricity like a kettle.
That's a little bit glossed imo, in that efficient normal running temperatures are a little different. Condensing gas boilers need a temp of below 55C (or they stop condensing), whilst aiui heat pumps like to be as low as possible - which is why it is sometimes wise eg to replace radiators with double radiators the same size if trying to control costs. My boiler runs at 45C, but can modulate down to 35C - but whilst my house is OK it is not the best in the world for EPC, at just I think a B.
Happy to be corrected if I have that wrong.
I doubt the kind of homes that people use to demonstrate heat pump unsuitability are running their gas boilers at less than 55C flow temp!
If their gas boiler is running at 45C (or less) and its comfortable, then they could definitely use a heat pump without any further insulation or radiator change anyway!
As you all know I have been out of this industry for a while so I have no idea what the figures of gas vs heat pumps look like these days in terms of payback...
This video is a video from a guy who does DCS videos (dogfighting games transposed to video with a narrative). The commentary is computer-generated by an AI set to mimic the actor Michael Ironside's voice. Have a listen, see if you can distinguish it from the real person.
Which is why writers and actors are currently on strike. They’re worried that film and TV producers are going to start doing the same.
Which seems like Luddism to me.
If the writers and actors can do a better job than automation, then they should be paid for it.
If automation and efficiency does a better job than people, then sorry but that's progress.
This is an industry that usually struggles to see the opportunities new technology presents. Home taping and video recorders were seen as a threat. Napster and downloads were seen as a threat. Just two examples that when embraced they became a revenue stream.
All those innovations benefitted the writers and actors, though. This is different.
But, Mr Ford, advances in turnpike construction and carriage building benefited the horses and coachmen. This is different.
You can tell the Tories are not serious about finding out about how to win again when they think ULEZ is the solution.
As has been pointed out many times, this is not an issue which the voters the Tories need to win back, care about.
ULEZ was the catalyst to a much wider debate about climate change and the impact on ordinary peoples ability to adapt and indeed afford the costs
The problem the climate change enthusiasts have is taking the country with them at the speed they want, evidenced by the ridiculous proposition by the Greens in Scotland that gas boilers are not acceptable in the sale of Scottish homes from 2025
Indeed one of the Greens former leaders has defected to labour
As for labour, they have already cancelled the 28 billion annual green spend commitment and accept the granting of the new North Sea licences by Sunak
I believe this is a subject that requires mature discussions across politics and the public, rather than suggesting because the transition period, or more specifically the speed of it, means that those questioning it do not accept climate change which is obvious
It's a *consultation* to and proposal to *include the type of boiler* in the overall energy performance rating. As advised by the advisory committee to the Scottish Government. Not what you are saying.
Remember when the Torties actually put it in a bill to make it law to bang up RNLI and similar folk for rescuing people? That was well on from a proposal. But you wouldn't believe me and RP when we pointed this out to you.
Why the difference here? I can't possibly imagine why.
Even you are now admitting it is a consultation so by the very nature of it being a consulting it is on the Greeen SNP agenda
As far as the RNLI are concerned that wasn't a consultation, just a scare story which was never going to happen
You were stating something else, so your excuse cuts no ice.
As for the RNLI, *that was what the intended law said*. You should be bloody grateful they didn't pass it! What the hell do you think would happen the first lifeboat rescue? Hundreds of informers would be ringing up the police demanding that the crew, branch secretary, fundraisers and station cat be arrested.
You are so defensive on this when it is clearly being reported in Scotland
It is understandable as it would be far worse than the poll tax in political terms for the Greens/SNP who are already dropping quite considerably in the polls
You were saying that tthe SGs proposed to stop any houses for sale having gas boilers. That's a gross exaggeration.
You've perhaps muddled it with *UKG* banning any new houses fromk having gas boilers at all.
This from Harvie
One of the biggest challenges is replacing fossil fuel gas boilers in homes with climate-friendly heating-systems such as heat pumps, with Mr Harvie previously admitting the costs could total £33bn.
From 2025, certain trigger points such as the sale of a home, will mean properties will need to meet EPC band C energy efficiency standards, while new fossil fuel boilers will be banned in new buildings from next April.
Ahead of the shake-up, Mr Harvie is set to reform EPC standards so they are more appropriate for driving the improvements needed to reach net zero.
It is understood that this could include taking account of the type of heating system, raising the possibility of those with an old fossil fuel boilers receiving a lower rating than those who have installed a heat pump.
That's what I said! But not what you said! Argh. You claimed that the sale of houses with gas boilers would be banned.
You said "ridiculous proposition by the Greens in Scotland that gas boilers are not acceptable in the sale of Scottish homes from 2025"
That means, you thought they want to ban houses from being sold with gas boilers. That's quite different from "acting as a mark down as part of the overall EPC".
This is the salient point
From 2025, certain trigger points such as the sale of a home, will mean properties will need to meet EPC band C energy efficiency standards, while new fossil fuel boilers will be banned in new buildings from next April.
As gas boilers will be outside EPC band C under these proposals, then is seems a defacto ban is being proposed
Have a look at what those nice Tories in London are doing.
And have a look at the other posts today. You can do other things to get your house up the band scale, even if you retain a gas boiler.
What's the point? These people will never believe in climate change, they will always think it's a hoax or over-exaggerated. Best to ignore them and move on.
You need "these people" because they are the solution. Setting up an "us" and "them" is the route to failure.
I do not have the energy, others can fight, I admitted defeat long ago. We are doomed.
No we're not. But here's a tip: stop telling people they can never fly again, travel again except by bike, and must have cold homes and eat mung beans forevermore and pay more for the privilege.
They'll tell you to Foxtrot Oscar and ignore you.
I've never said any of those things on here, you're putting words in my mouth there mate. We are doomed and I accept that. Good day.
And I'm not saying you said them either. It was a response to the us and them dichotomy, and a solution to it.
Sometimes I respond to a post just to put forth an argument. Not everything is about you personally. You seem to have some sort of narcissistic personality disorder where you put yourself at the centre of everything, and then are disappointed and hurt when others don't do the same. This also makes you very sensitive to how others engage with you.
You need to accept to stop doing this and that you (like me) just aren't that important, even though you still have a valuable contribution to make.
You can tell the Tories are not serious about finding out about how to win again when they think ULEZ is the solution.
As has been pointed out many times, this is not an issue which the voters the Tories need to win back, care about.
ULEZ was the catalyst to a much wider debate about climate change and the impact on ordinary peoples ability to adapt and indeed afford the costs
The problem the climate change enthusiasts have is taking the country with them at the speed they want, evidenced by the ridiculous proposition by the Greens in Scotland that gas boilers are not acceptable in the sale of Scottish homes from 2025
Indeed one of the Greens former leaders has defected to labour
As for labour, they have already cancelled the 28 billion annual green spend commitment and accept the granting of the new North Sea licences by Sunak
I believe this is a subject that requires mature discussions across politics and the public, rather than suggesting because the transition period, or more specifically the speed of it, means that those questioning it do not accept climate change which is obvious
It's a *consultation* to and proposal to *include the type of boiler* in the overall energy performance rating. As advised by the advisory committee to the Scottish Government. Not what you are saying.
Remember when the Torties actually put it in a bill to make it law to bang up RNLI and similar folk for rescuing people? That was well on from a proposal. But you wouldn't believe me and RP when we pointed this out to you.
Why the difference here? I can't possibly imagine why.
Even you are now admitting it is a consultation so by the very nature of it being a consulting it is on the Greeen SNP agenda
As far as the RNLI are concerned that wasn't a consultation, just a scare story which was never going to happen
You were stating something else, so your excuse cuts no ice.
As for the RNLI, *that was what the intended law said*. You should be bloody grateful they didn't pass it! What the hell do you think would happen the first lifeboat rescue? Hundreds of informers would be ringing up the police demanding that the crew, branch secretary, fundraisers and station cat be arrested.
You are so defensive on this when it is clearly being reported in Scotland
It is understandable as it would be far worse than the poll tax in political terms for the Greens/SNP who are already dropping quite considerably in the polls
You were saying that tthe SGs proposed to stop any houses for sale having gas boilers. That's a gross exaggeration.
You've perhaps muddled it with *UKG* banning any new houses fromk having gas boilers at all.
This from Harvie
One of the biggest challenges is replacing fossil fuel gas boilers in homes with climate-friendly heating-systems such as heat pumps, with Mr Harvie previously admitting the costs could total £33bn.
From 2025, certain trigger points such as the sale of a home, will mean properties will need to meet EPC band C energy efficiency standards, while new fossil fuel boilers will be banned in new buildings from next April.
Ahead of the shake-up, Mr Harvie is set to reform EPC standards so they are more appropriate for driving the improvements needed to reach net zero.
It is understood that this could include taking account of the type of heating system, raising the possibility of those with an old fossil fuel boilers receiving a lower rating than those who have installed a heat pump.
That's what I said! But not what you said! Argh. You claimed that the sale of houses with gas boilers would be banned.
You said "ridiculous proposition by the Greens in Scotland that gas boilers are not acceptable in the sale of Scottish homes from 2025"
That means, you thought they want to ban houses from being sold with gas boilers. That's quite different from "acting as a mark down as part of the overall EPC".
This is the salient point
From 2025, certain trigger points such as the sale of a home, will mean properties will need to meet EPC band C energy efficiency standards, while new fossil fuel boilers will be banned in new buildings from next April.
As gas boilers will be outside EPC band C under these proposals, then is seems a defacto ban is being proposed
Do you have a citation that gas boilers will be outside band C?
Just because they're banned from new homes, doesn't mean they'll be below C for existing ones. It could be eg [and I'm making this up] A = Heat Pump powered by Renewables, B = Heat Pump powered by Grid, C = Gas with insulation, D and below Gas without insulation.
As far as I understand it Harvie is determined to outlaw fossil fuel burning gas boilers and as such they will not feature in an EPC C rating
If he is suggesting mitigating this effect then I have not read it nor have I read a a denial
What if it's not possible to increase the standard of living of 8 billion people while reducing the global impact of humanity on the environment?
It is.
Don't underestimate human ingenuity. The one thing worse than Luddites is Malthusians.
How many more cars than today are we talking about? How many more flights? How much more meat will be consumed? How much more food will we have to take out of the oceans?
You can tell the Tories are not serious about finding out about how to win again when they think ULEZ is the solution.
As has been pointed out many times, this is not an issue which the voters the Tories need to win back, care about.
ULEZ was the catalyst to a much wider debate about climate change and the impact on ordinary peoples ability to adapt and indeed afford the costs
The problem the climate change enthusiasts have is taking the country with them at the speed they want, evidenced by the ridiculous proposition by the Greens in Scotland that gas boilers are not acceptable in the sale of Scottish homes from 2025
Indeed one of the Greens former leaders has defected to labour
As for labour, they have already cancelled the 28 billion annual green spend commitment and accept the granting of the new North Sea licences by Sunak
I believe this is a subject that requires mature discussions across politics and the public, rather than suggesting because the transition period, or more specifically the speed of it, means that those questioning it do not accept climate change which is obvious
It's a *consultation* to and proposal to *include the type of boiler* in the overall energy performance rating. As advised by the advisory committee to the Scottish Government. Not what you are saying.
Remember when the Torties actually put it in a bill to make it law to bang up RNLI and similar folk for rescuing people? That was well on from a proposal. But you wouldn't believe me and RP when we pointed this out to you.
Why the difference here? I can't possibly imagine why.
Even you are now admitting it is a consultation so by the very nature of it being a consulting it is on the Greeen SNP agenda
As far as the RNLI are concerned that wasn't a consultation, just a scare story which was never going to happen
You were stating something else, so your excuse cuts no ice.
As for the RNLI, *that was what the intended law said*. You should be bloody grateful they didn't pass it! What the hell do you think would happen the first lifeboat rescue? Hundreds of informers would be ringing up the police demanding that the crew, branch secretary, fundraisers and station cat be arrested.
You are so defensive on this when it is clearly being reported in Scotland
It is understandable as it would be far worse than the poll tax in political terms for the Greens/SNP who are already dropping quite considerably in the polls
You were saying that tthe SGs proposed to stop any houses for sale having gas boilers. That's a gross exaggeration.
You've perhaps muddled it with *UKG* banning any new houses fromk having gas boilers at all.
This from Harvie
One of the biggest challenges is replacing fossil fuel gas boilers in homes with climate-friendly heating-systems such as heat pumps, with Mr Harvie previously admitting the costs could total £33bn.
From 2025, certain trigger points such as the sale of a home, will mean properties will need to meet EPC band C energy efficiency standards, while new fossil fuel boilers will be banned in new buildings from next April.
Ahead of the shake-up, Mr Harvie is set to reform EPC standards so they are more appropriate for driving the improvements needed to reach net zero.
It is understood that this could include taking account of the type of heating system, raising the possibility of those with an old fossil fuel boilers receiving a lower rating than those who have installed a heat pump.
That's what I said! But not what you said! Argh. You claimed that the sale of houses with gas boilers would be banned.
You said "ridiculous proposition by the Greens in Scotland that gas boilers are not acceptable in the sale of Scottish homes from 2025"
That means, you thought they want to ban houses from being sold with gas boilers. That's quite different from "acting as a mark down as part of the overall EPC".
This is the salient point
From 2025, certain trigger points such as the sale of a home, will mean properties will need to meet EPC band C energy efficiency standards, while new fossil fuel boilers will be banned in new buildings from next April.
As gas boilers will be outside EPC band C under these proposals, then is seems a defacto ban is being proposed
Do you have a citation that gas boilers will be outside band C?
Just because they're banned from new homes, doesn't mean they'll be below C for existing ones. It could be eg [and I'm making this up] A = Heat Pump powered by Renewables, B = Heat Pump powered by Grid, C = Gas with insulation, D and below Gas without insulation.
As far as I understand it Harvie is determined to outlaw fossil fuel burning gas boilers and as such they will not feature in an EPC C rating
If he is suggesting mitigating this effect then I have not read it nor have I read a a denial
Given you were making things up earlier, now you are saying "what I made up because I hate Harvie because he's not a Tory might be true so there".
Nothing wrong with new houses having heat pumps. They work great, provided that the heating system is designed and sized for the lower flow temperature of a heat pump rather than a gas boiler.
Simple stuff.
Bit of a problem if you have a pre-war house and don't want to spend £10,000+ on exterior cladding before the same again on a new heating system...
My understanding is that the proposals in England only apply to new homes. Retrofitting heatpumps isn't very viable in much of our older housing.
Though us (and the Dutch) are unusual in using Gas CH so much. In Scandinavian countries it is fairly unusual.
The mention of a new kind of heat pump designed to suit preexisting gas CH systems, albeit at a lower efficiency, was very interesting.
The wider issue is in a way how far UK homes can be insulated. And, more generallyt, one of capital investment to save. That's not specific to heat pumps, though many folk think it is.
Any old heat pump will work with any gas heating system, it is just that to get the flow temperature up to 60 deg C or so it will need to use a lot of direct electricity to top up the refrigerant cycle, destroying the efficiency benefits. At that point you're just heating water with electricity like a kettle.
Which is why they're not good enough yet.
I think this is an example of the Silver Bullet Fallacy: until this is good enough to solve all problems, for all people, it is of no use.
For many people, in many places, a heat pump is a great option.
For others, it is not.
If I was building or renovating a home today (especially if it had decent insulation), I would definitely look into it. It would give me a capability I don't have today (cooling on hot days), combined with saving me money through the year.
The kind of heat pumps usually on offer or being discussed in the UK don't tend to offer cooling - they are primarily air-to-water heating only heat pumps - not heat/cool air-to-air.
Nothing wrong with new houses having heat pumps. They work great, provided that the heating system is designed and sized for the lower flow temperature of a heat pump rather than a gas boiler.
Simple stuff.
Bit of a problem if you have a pre-war house and don't want to spend £10,000+ on exterior cladding before the same again on a new heating system...
My understanding is that the proposals in England only apply to new homes. Retrofitting heatpumps isn't very viable in much of our older housing.
Though us (and the Dutch) are unusual in using Gas CH so much. In Scandinavian countries it is fairly unusual.
The mention of a new kind of heat pump designed to suit preexisting gas CH systems, albeit at a lower efficiency, was very interesting.
The wider issue is in a way how far UK homes can be insulated. And, more generallyt, one of capital investment to save. That's not specific to heat pumps, though many folk think it is.
Any old heat pump will work with any gas heating system, it is just that to get the flow temperature up to 60 deg C or so it will need to use a lot of direct electricity to top up the refrigerant cycle, destroying the efficiency benefits. At that point you're just heating water with electricity like a kettle.
That's a little bit glossed imo, in that efficient normal running temperatures are a little different. Condensing gas boilers need a flow temp of below 55C (or they stop condensing and drop by about 10% in efficiency), whilst aiui heat pumps like to be as low as possible - which is why it is sometimes wise eg to replace radiators with double radiators the same size if trying to control costs. My boiler runs at 45C, but can modulate down to 35C - but whilst my house is OK it is not the best in the world for EPC, at just I think a mid B for the EPC.
Happy to be questioned, as its not my utter specialism.
A B rating is very good
These are the ratings
EPC rating A = 92-100 SAP points (most efficient) EPC rating B = 81-91 SAP points. EPC rating C = 69-80 SAP points. EPC rating D = 55-68 SAP points. EPC rating E = 39-54 SAP points. EPC rating F = 21-38 SAP points. EPC rating G = 1-20 SAP points (least efficient)
There can be a major difference between gas and gas.
Christmas last year we moved from a rental accommodation where we needed to keep our gas boiler on pretty much 24/7 through the deep winter, with fixed via the boiler's toggles on-off times in milder winter/autumn, to a modern new build home. The new home is well insulated and comes with digital thermostatic controls that can be controlled via an app too. The thermostat target lowers at times of the day when you don't need the temperature to be as high either (eg overnight, or mid afternoon) peaking at only morning and early evening.
Even in deep midwinter the boiler was normally off. When the temperature dipped low enough to trigger it to turn back on, you can hear it start and then not long later it would be off again.
The amount of gas consumed is far, far lower now than it was. Even with a new, gas, boiler.
I would be extremely shocked if this home were not rated at least C.
Nothing wrong with new houses having heat pumps. They work great, provided that the heating system is designed and sized for the lower flow temperature of a heat pump rather than a gas boiler.
Simple stuff.
Bit of a problem if you have a pre-war house and don't want to spend £10,000+ on exterior cladding before the same again on a new heating system...
My understanding is that the proposals in England only apply to new homes. Retrofitting heatpumps isn't very viable in much of our older housing.
Though us (and the Dutch) are unusual in using Gas CH so much. In Scandinavian countries it is fairly unusual.
The mention of a new kind of heat pump designed to suit preexisting gas CH systems, albeit at a lower efficiency, was very interesting.
The wider issue is in a way how far UK homes can be insulated. And, more generallyt, one of capital investment to save. That's not specific to heat pumps, though many folk think it is.
Any old heat pump will work with any gas heating system, it is just that to get the flow temperature up to 60 deg C or so it will need to use a lot of direct electricity to top up the refrigerant cycle, destroying the efficiency benefits. At that point you're just heating water with electricity like a kettle.
That's a little bit glossed imo, in that efficient normal running temperatures are a little different. Condensing gas boilers need a flow temp of below 55C (or they stop condensing and drop by about 10% in efficiency), whilst aiui heat pumps like to be as low as possible - which is why it is sometimes wise eg to replace radiators with double radiators the same size if trying to control costs. My boiler runs at 45C, but can modulate down to 35C - but whilst my house is OK it is not the best in the world for EPC, at just I think a mid B for the EPC.
Happy to be questioned, as its not my utter specialism.
A B rating is very good
These are the ratings
EPC rating A = 92-100 SAP points (most efficient) EPC rating B = 81-91 SAP points. EPC rating C = 69-80 SAP points. EPC rating D = 55-68 SAP points. EPC rating E = 39-54 SAP points. EPC rating F = 21-38 SAP points. EPC rating G = 1-20 SAP points (least efficient)
My house is a B also having been built in 2018 and all. It has a gas combi boiler...
Nothing wrong with new houses having heat pumps. They work great, provided that the heating system is designed and sized for the lower flow temperature of a heat pump rather than a gas boiler.
Simple stuff.
Bit of a problem if you have a pre-war house and don't want to spend £10,000+ on exterior cladding before the same again on a new heating system...
My understanding is that the proposals in England only apply to new homes. Retrofitting heatpumps isn't very viable in much of our older housing.
Though us (and the Dutch) are unusual in using Gas CH so much. In Scandinavian countries it is fairly unusual.
The mention of a new kind of heat pump designed to suit preexisting gas CH systems, albeit at a lower efficiency, was very interesting.
The wider issue is in a way how far UK homes can be insulated. And, more generallyt, one of capital investment to save. That's not specific to heat pumps, though many folk think it is.
Any old heat pump will work with any gas heating system, it is just that to get the flow temperature up to 60 deg C or so it will need to use a lot of direct electricity to top up the refrigerant cycle, destroying the efficiency benefits. At that point you're just heating water with electricity like a kettle.
Which is why they're not good enough yet.
I think this is an example of the Silver Bullet Fallacy: until this is good enough to solve all problems, for all people, it is of no use.
For many people, in many places, a heat pump is a great option.
For others, it is not.
If I was building or renovating a home today (especially if it had decent insulation), I would definitely look into it. It would give me a capability I don't have today (cooling on hot days), combined with saving me money through the year.
Not only would I look into it but I'd say it's the rational thing to do as a consumer. Why wouldn't you do that?
I just see it as important to qualify and challenge, realistically, their relative capabilities today and the sorts of property they are suited to because there's an awful lot of hype around them and I wouldn't want to see people feel pressured or duped into them, and then have a problem with energy bills and keeping their families warm.
The product needs to get cheaper and better for most to benefit from it.
Nothing wrong with new houses having heat pumps. They work great, provided that the heating system is designed and sized for the lower flow temperature of a heat pump rather than a gas boiler.
Simple stuff.
Bit of a problem if you have a pre-war house and don't want to spend £10,000+ on exterior cladding before the same again on a new heating system...
My understanding is that the proposals in England only apply to new homes. Retrofitting heatpumps isn't very viable in much of our older housing.
Though us (and the Dutch) are unusual in using Gas CH so much. In Scandinavian countries it is fairly unusual.
The mention of a new kind of heat pump designed to suit preexisting gas CH systems, albeit at a lower efficiency, was very interesting.
The wider issue is in a way how far UK homes can be insulated. And, more generallyt, one of capital investment to save. That's not specific to heat pumps, though many folk think it is.
Any old heat pump will work with any gas heating system, it is just that to get the flow temperature up to 60 deg C or so it will need to use a lot of direct electricity to top up the refrigerant cycle, destroying the efficiency benefits. At that point you're just heating water with electricity like a kettle.
Which is why they're not good enough yet.
I think this is an example of the Silver Bullet Fallacy: until this is good enough to solve all problems, for all people, it is of no use.
For many people, in many places, a heat pump is a great option.
For others, it is not.
If I was building or renovating a home today (especially if it had decent insulation), I would definitely look into it. It would give me a capability I don't have today (cooling on hot days), combined with saving me money through the year.
The kind of heat pumps usually on offer or being discussed in the UK don't tend to offer cooling - they are primarily air-to-water heating only heat pumps - not heat/cool air-to-air.
With the right design of underfloor heating, running it in reverse to regulate the amount of heat in the floor slab is surprisingly effective to avoid overheating in summer.
What's the point? These people will never believe in climate change, they will always think it's a hoax or over-exaggerated. Best to ignore them and move on.
You need "these people" because they are the solution. Setting up an "us" and "them" is the route to failure.
I do not have the energy, others can fight, I admitted defeat long ago. We are doomed.
No we're not. But here's a tip: stop telling people they can never fly again, travel again except by bike, and must have cold homes and eat mung beans forevermore and pay more for the privilege.
They'll tell you to Foxtrot Oscar and ignore you.
I've never said any of those things on here, you're putting words in my mouth there mate. We are doomed and I accept that. Good day.
And I'm not saying you said them either. It was a response to the us and them dichotomy, and a solution to it.
Sometimes I respond to a post just to put forth an argument. Not everything is about you personally. You seem to have some sort of narcissistic personality disorder where you put yourself at the centre of everything, and then are disappointed and hurt when others don't do the same. This also makes you very sensitive to how others engage with you.
You need to accept to stop doing this and that you (like me) just aren't that important, even though you still have a valuable contribution to make.
Once you do, you will have your inner peace.
I wonder if narcissism is genuinely on the increase these days, or whether it was somehow disguised before.
Nothing wrong with new houses having heat pumps. They work great, provided that the heating system is designed and sized for the lower flow temperature of a heat pump rather than a gas boiler.
Simple stuff.
Bit of a problem if you have a pre-war house and don't want to spend £10,000+ on exterior cladding before the same again on a new heating system...
My understanding is that the proposals in England only apply to new homes. Retrofitting heatpumps isn't very viable in much of our older housing.
Though us (and the Dutch) are unusual in using Gas CH so much. In Scandinavian countries it is fairly unusual.
The mention of a new kind of heat pump designed to suit preexisting gas CH systems, albeit at a lower efficiency, was very interesting.
The wider issue is in a way how far UK homes can be insulated. And, more generallyt, one of capital investment to save. That's not specific to heat pumps, though many folk think it is.
Any old heat pump will work with any gas heating system, it is just that to get the flow temperature up to 60 deg C or so it will need to use a lot of direct electricity to top up the refrigerant cycle, destroying the efficiency benefits. At that point you're just heating water with electricity like a kettle.
Which is why they're not good enough yet.
I think this is an example of the Silver Bullet Fallacy: until this is good enough to solve all problems, for all people, it is of no use.
For many people, in many places, a heat pump is a great option.
For others, it is not.
If I was building or renovating a home today (especially if it had decent insulation), I would definitely look into it. It would give me a capability I don't have today (cooling on hot days), combined with saving me money through the year.
The kind of heat pumps usually on offer or being discussed in the UK don't tend to offer cooling - they are primarily air-to-water heating only heat pumps - not heat/cool air-to-air.
With the right design of underfloor heating, running it in reverse to regulate the amount of heat in the floor slab is surprisingly effective to avoid overheating in summer.
You can tell the Tories are not serious about finding out about how to win again when they think ULEZ is the solution.
As has been pointed out many times, this is not an issue which the voters the Tories need to win back, care about.
ULEZ was the catalyst to a much wider debate about climate change and the impact on ordinary peoples ability to adapt and indeed afford the costs
The problem the climate change enthusiasts have is taking the country with them at the speed they want, evidenced by the ridiculous proposition by the Greens in Scotland that gas boilers are not acceptable in the sale of Scottish homes from 2025
Indeed one of the Greens former leaders has defected to labour
As for labour, they have already cancelled the 28 billion annual green spend commitment and accept the granting of the new North Sea licences by Sunak
I believe this is a subject that requires mature discussions across politics and the public, rather than suggesting because the transition period, or more specifically the speed of it, means that those questioning it do not accept climate change which is obvious
It's a *consultation* to and proposal to *include the type of boiler* in the overall energy performance rating. As advised by the advisory committee to the Scottish Government. Not what you are saying.
Remember when the Torties actually put it in a bill to make it law to bang up RNLI and similar folk for rescuing people? That was well on from a proposal. But you wouldn't believe me and RP when we pointed this out to you.
Why the difference here? I can't possibly imagine why.
Even you are now admitting it is a consultation so by the very nature of it being a consulting it is on the Greeen SNP agenda
As far as the RNLI are concerned that wasn't a consultation, just a scare story which was never going to happen
You were stating something else, so your excuse cuts no ice.
As for the RNLI, *that was what the intended law said*. You should be bloody grateful they didn't pass it! What the hell do you think would happen the first lifeboat rescue? Hundreds of informers would be ringing up the police demanding that the crew, branch secretary, fundraisers and station cat be arrested.
You are so defensive on this when it is clearly being reported in Scotland
It is understandable as it would be far worse than the poll tax in political terms for the Greens/SNP who are already dropping quite considerably in the polls
You were saying that tthe SGs proposed to stop any houses for sale having gas boilers. That's a gross exaggeration.
You've perhaps muddled it with *UKG* banning any new houses fromk having gas boilers at all.
This from Harvie
One of the biggest challenges is replacing fossil fuel gas boilers in homes with climate-friendly heating-systems such as heat pumps, with Mr Harvie previously admitting the costs could total £33bn.
From 2025, certain trigger points such as the sale of a home, will mean properties will need to meet EPC band C energy efficiency standards, while new fossil fuel boilers will be banned in new buildings from next April.
Ahead of the shake-up, Mr Harvie is set to reform EPC standards so they are more appropriate for driving the improvements needed to reach net zero.
It is understood that this could include taking account of the type of heating system, raising the possibility of those with an old fossil fuel boilers receiving a lower rating than those who have installed a heat pump.
That's what I said! But not what you said! Argh. You claimed that the sale of houses with gas boilers would be banned.
You said "ridiculous proposition by the Greens in Scotland that gas boilers are not acceptable in the sale of Scottish homes from 2025"
That means, you thought they want to ban houses from being sold with gas boilers. That's quite different from "acting as a mark down as part of the overall EPC".
This is the salient point
From 2025, certain trigger points such as the sale of a home, will mean properties will need to meet EPC band C energy efficiency standards, while new fossil fuel boilers will be banned in new buildings from next April.
As gas boilers will be outside EPC band C under these proposals, then is seems a defacto ban is being proposed
Do you have a citation that gas boilers will be outside band C?
Just because they're banned from new homes, doesn't mean they'll be below C for existing ones. It could be eg [and I'm making this up] A = Heat Pump powered by Renewables, B = Heat Pump powered by Grid, C = Gas with insulation, D and below Gas without insulation.
As far as I understand it Harvie is determined to outlaw fossil fuel burning gas boilers and as such they will not feature in an EPC C rating
If he is suggesting mitigating this effect then I have not read it nor have I read a a denial
Given you were making things up earlier, now you are saying "what I made up because I hate Harvie because he's not a Tory might be true so there".
*and look at MattW's post on the matter*
I do not hate politicians though I do disagree with them
Harvie is unequivocally opposed to gas boilers and is seeking to eradicate them in Scotland by using EPC ratings
What if it's not possible to increase the standard of living of 8 billion people while reducing the global impact of humanity on the environment?
Human population is now close to peaking, and soon will start to diminish, so the problems will quickly shift to economic ones from shrinking demographics.
There can be a major difference between gas and gas.
Christmas last year we moved from a rental accommodation where we needed to keep our gas boiler on pretty much 24/7 through the deep winter, with fixed via the boiler's toggles on-off times in milder winter/autumn, to a modern new build home. The new home is well insulated and comes with digital thermostatic controls that can be controlled via an app too. The thermostat target lowers at times of the day when you don't need the temperature to be as high either (eg overnight, or mid afternoon) peaking at only morning and early evening.
Even in deep midwinter the boiler was normally off. When the temperature dipped low enough to trigger it to turn back on, you can hear it start and then not long later it would be off again.
The amount of gas consumed is far, far lower now than it was. Even with a new, gas, boiler.
I would be extremely shocked if this home were not rated at least C.
What if it's not possible to increase the standard of living of 8 billion people while reducing the global impact of humanity on the environment?
It is.
Don't underestimate human ingenuity. The one thing worse than Luddites is Malthusians.
How many more cars than today are we talking about? How many more flights? How much more meat will be consumed? How much more food will we have to take out of the oceans?
Who gives a damn?
Cars are not a problem. If they're electric they don't cause any emissions.
Flights of the future will be clean, so won't cause any emissions.
Etc, etc
There is a wonderful thing in Mathematics that any number times zero equals zero. If you get net zero production, as we must to resolve this, then production can scale as high as you want and the output for emissions is still zero.
Net zero production for 6 billion people = net 0 emissions. Net zero production for 8 billion people = net 0 emissions. Net zero production for 12 billion people = net 0 emissions.
This is where the hairshirts get things wrong. I'm not giving up my car, or my flights, or my meat, or my dairy, or my fish. Instead what I want is them to be produced using sustainable, clean technology. Achieve that, problem resolves, climate survives, production can scale up not down.
Comments
The guy is timeless.
What's so funny about some of those (in a rather black macabre way) is that they're significantly shorter odds than RFK becoming President, which I'd say is more unlikely than any of them.
His property is worth more than mine if that's true, and I have a four-bed detached in Hants.
https://twitter.com/MichaelWarbur17/status/1592589477901631488
As far as the RNLI are concerned that wasn't a consultation, just a scare story which was never going to happen
I’ve mentioned here before about the Russian-language TV pirate sites my wife frequents. They would have pretty much any American TV show dubbed into Russian within 24 hours. My best guess as to how they were doing it, was that it was a bunch of students in language, drama, and production schools. The language school and the drama school would watch the content from a live pirate stream, the linguists writing or dictating the script as they did, and the actors making notes on attitude and emotion. The language school would then translate the content, and write out a script for the actors to read, the production school would set up a studio with microphones and a screening of the original content, and the dialogue would be dubbed over the original soundtrack. There are several groups of people doing this, reminiscent of the hackers and pirates of the early internet, and they compete on speed and quality.
With AI, that whole process happens in almost real time. No humans involved at all.
I still have one personal memory of using a human translator, when I wanted to send my now father-in-law *that* letter. He cried, and so did my wife when I told her what I’d done. The letter is now framed in our house, in both languages.
Again, probably dates from Communism era when you were told your job, flat and had limited choices of what to buy and an entirely nominal income. Everyone was in the same boat and you just accepted it. Concepts of customer service in a market totally alien.
Even today, if you complain, they can look totally bamboozled as if you are the one that doesn't get it, and are the unreasonable one.
In simple terms I could never have afforded to buy a home of any kind in London
For those who keep asking what WOKE is: it's horseshit like this.
As for the RNLI, *that was what the intended law said*. You should be bloody grateful they didn't pass it! What the hell do you think would happen the first lifeboat rescue? Hundreds of informers would be ringing up the police demanding that the crew, branch secretary, fundraisers and station cat be arrested.
It is understandable as it would be far worse than the poll tax in political terms for the Greens/SNP who are already dropping quite considerably in the polls
Same as you sometimes see on dodgy financial reports that show a 0.1% rise in value being a massive increase.
You could make the exact same chart but with a variance scale set at say -5C to 5C and you'd then see small changes and pale colour changes.
Not to forget of course that Edinburgh is about one of the worst places to measure temperature changes due to the "island" effect that putting hundreds of thousands of millions of people into a confined space raises the temperature even without climate change. Population growth over time means Edinburgh's temperature should be rising even if the climate isn't changing, and even with zero pollution.
Climate change is real. It doesn't need such dodgy charts to say so.
You've perhaps muddled it with *UKG* banning any new houses fromk having gas boilers at all.
Man up and offer to slice some limes.
Simple stuff.
Too many want to turn the word liberal into something completely different.
As long as it does not stray into direct incitement to violent (and this does not) we absolutely should have the right to mock all religions and all beliefs. Whether that be Islam, Christianity, Sunnism (is that the right word?), Catholism, Scientologists, Vegans, conservatives or liberals.
Free speech is paramount to a free society.
You get the same graph from well outside the city, as I remarked earlier.
Here is a 2008 NASA article on the 2 terms:
https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/climate_by_any_other_name.html
Getting graphs away from population centres is absolutely far superior and shows climate change is real without this BS. I'm curious if that site has a fixed colour scale regardless of location or if it zooms in with a min max colour scale for each location?
The "Emergency", such as it is, might last 40-80 years and over that timescale an "emergency" is utterly meaningless.
What others say upfront is right: it's designed to shake people into taking immediate actions for progressive activist politics, and not building strong cross-party support for sustained action on technology and infrastructure for the medium-term, as it should be.
If you look at Germany today, we get wine produced from about half way up. If you stretch 500 km North of there, you get meaningfully above Oslo and Stockholm.
I'm sure Europe's wine growing region stretched further North than previously during the Medieval Warm Period, but I'd be staggered if it was anywhere near 500km more than now.
Could we have a source please?
Though us (and the Dutch) are unusual in using Gas CH so much. In Scandinavian countries it is fairly unusual.
I actually rate you as far more sensible than you give yourself credence for.
Even more amazing, AI will be able to subtly change the images, solving the issue of lipsync so you won't even be able to tell it's dubbed.
How great is that?
That scale is actually about right, given the concerns over average temperature - a change of 1-3 units is seriously worrying.
Any home built since 2010 should be perfectly capable of being comfortably heated by a heat hump without extra insulation (you might need new radiators).
Any home built between 2000-2010 is likely to be able to be heated by a heat pump also with the same caveat (although maybe not as comfortably).
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/7/20/protesters-storm-swedish-embassy-in-baghdad-over-quran-burning
https://www.wionews.com/world/turkish-staff-member-seriously-wounded-after-shooting-attack-at-swedish-consulate-in-izmir-reports-621499
A Muslim man also planned to burn a Torah and Bible before pulling back after the Israeli government and Rabbis protested
https://apnews.com/article/sweden-israel-embassy-burning-holy-books-0215c44ea483aec1227a6b9f592a7ab7
One of the biggest challenges is replacing fossil fuel gas boilers in homes with climate-friendly heating-systems such as heat pumps, with Mr Harvie previously admitting the costs could total £33bn.
From 2025, certain trigger points such as the sale of a home, will mean properties will need to meet EPC band C energy efficiency standards, while new fossil fuel boilers will be banned in new buildings from next April.
Ahead of the shake-up, Mr Harvie is set to reform EPC standards so they are more appropriate for driving the improvements needed to reach net zero.
It is understood that this could include taking account of the type of heating system, raising the possibility of those with an old fossil fuel boilers receiving a lower rating than those who have installed a heat pump.
The wider issue is in a way how far UK homes can be insulated. And, more generallyt, one of capital investment to save. That's not specific to heat pumps, though many folk think it is.
https://www.ambervalleyvineyards.co.uk/
500km north of Derbyshire gets you to somewhere north of Stirling.
I'm confident they never made wine that far north in Roman times.
Edit - there is evidence of Roman viticulture in North Thoresby, Lincs (there is a modern vineyard not far away at Sowerby). That's the most northern one I know of.
https://romanlincolnshire.wordpress.com/2017/08/18/possible-roman-vineyard-north-thoresby/
And currently the plan is no new gas boilers to be sold post 2035.. I'm. scheduling replacing ours in 2033 at the latest
You said "ridiculous proposition by the Greens in Scotland that gas boilers are not acceptable in the sale of Scottish homes from 2025"
That means, you thought they want to ban houses from being sold with gas boilers. That's quite different from "acting as a mark down as part of the overall EPC".
As I've said here before, at present translation my sector of translation has been radically affected by AI, but in a helpful way. Everything gets an initial AI translation, and humans are paid 66% of what we used to get to tidy it up in less than 50% of the time. My main client is the European Commission, having national laws translated so that companies in other countries can follow them, and they are keen to get the meaning 99% accurate, which the AI doesn't and perhaps can't.
A typical issue is consistency of terminology. The AI takes its transations from context and past usage, so it knows the difference between a gas pipe and a pipe that you smoke. However, the same word may translate as "tube" or "connection" or "line". In different parts of the text, the surrounding sentences will differ, and the AI may dig out different translations accordingly. So the AI version will have regulations relating to gas pipes and gas connections, and the British firm trying to decide if they meet the requirements can't be sure if these relate to the same thing or subtly different things. The USP of us humans is that we can read the context across several pages, look up similar past regulations, and come to an intelligent conclusion, probably using "pipe" in every case. The issue only pops up for 1 in 5 sentences, so it's much faster for me, but I'm still doing something that the AI can't. It's a few hours each weekend and earns me £1500 or so per month; it's also quite fun, like solving crosswords.
None of that is needed if one merely wants to get the gist, so there are sectors of translation that really have got hammered, as you say. And maybe mine will too, eventually. But for now it's a genuine productivity enhancement benefiting all concerned.
AIUI what is changing is it being made more prominent, including whether the heating system meets a new standard for heating systems.
I can't see any proposal to ban sale of houses with gas boilers, but under separate measures the Scottish Gov have been talking about insisting on decent energy efficiency standards for owner occupied dwellings for some years.
The point of sale is the one time it can surely be afforded and enforced. The seller has money around in X years of tax free price appreciation, or the buyer can get a quote and offer a slightly lower price.at the point of sale. There is now a positive motivation to invest.
The definition is reviewed every few years as the carbon efficiency of Primary Energy Supplies varies. 10 years ago Electric Boilers or Electric Heating were poison in the calculations, but when renewable energy started decarbonising our electricity supply the definition was updated.
It would be churlish not to recognise that there is a political element in these definitions. There always has been. There's a big element of "not like England" in this, as ever.
The detail of the proposals are more complex than at present but they are proposing public EPC data to be available via an API, which is great. Transparency.
I think it's some of what I have been calling for (including on PB) for a number of years. In general, good (if 5 years later than I would like) for the Scottish Government.
If anyone wants to retain a gas boiler, adding a small solar installation will get umpteen extra points - perhaps a whole rating band for a 4kWp install. Or if it only needs one or two points, install a shower waste water heat recovery device.
The consultation is here:
https://www.gov.scot/publications/energy-performance-certificate-epc-reform-consultation/
3C as you say would be seriously worrying, and 2C is what will probably happen.
So lets take 3C as the scale. If you go from -3C to +3C then we'd be showing outside the range of normal variances as the scale, which is what climate change should be demonstrated as on a scale, but then the colours would be much more pale - as they should be as climate change hasn't all happened yet.
Indeed its worth noting that if you look back millions of years are current "warmer" climate would still be recorded as one of the lowest temperatures recorded in our planets history. However we don't want to go back to the arid deserts our planet was mostly covered in, in dinosaur times.
What is the differential cost at the moment?
From 2025, certain trigger points such as the sale of a home, will mean properties will need to meet EPC band C energy efficiency standards, while new fossil fuel boilers will be banned in new buildings from next April.
As gas boilers will be outside EPC band C under these proposals, then is seems a defacto ban is being proposed
The other point is - from my recent experience we don't need to pay for a separate inspector in Scotland IIRC: the surveyor does it as part of the Home Report that the seller commissions and which goes to all interested potential buyers on request.
The market will be vastly different in five years time.
In the extreme, if we can produce enough clean electricity so that it is cheaper than natural gas, then we could all use direct electric water heaters for all it matters.
Honestly I think the above is the long-term best solution even if it isn't particularly "woke".
Heat pumps are great and all but they have lots of moving parts, are liable to go wrong, and require expensive servicing. The refrigerant gases are also greenhouse gases as far as I am aware, so if you get a leak....
Cheap green electricity solves this problem entirely.
Part of our problem as a country though is we have too many homes not built this century. And we cling on to crappy homes built in the past, and object to new homes being built in the present.
In countries like Japan etc where homes are essentially disposable and replaced every few decades then ever increasing standards of living (as well as much lower costs) are easily achieved.
In this country we have decrepit substandard homes built generations ago that aren't properly insulated and many will struggle ever to be.
Building more new homes to modern standards would certainly help. How to deal with substandard old homes is not something I have a solution for.
Shane Warne Tribute - Bowled Shane!
Hugely missed, got me into cricket watching that series as a young 'un
This is different.
I'm very optimistic about the future. Acid rain and the hole in the Ozone Layer used to be huge environmental challenges. Solved both. Also, the UN agreed a charter to protect 1/3rd of the world's oceans earlier this year.
We will crack this one too. Don't worry.
For many people, in many places, a heat pump is a great option.
For others, it is not.
If I was building or renovating a home today (especially if it had decent insulation), I would definitely look into it. It would give me a capability I don't have today (cooling on hot days), combined with saving me money through the year.
Happy to be questioned, as its not my utter specialism.
"Meet our latest pride and joy, the Elsa Pink 2022. It's more than a wine – it's a tribute to our bright and sparky daughter, capturing her vibrant spirit and enthusiasm in every drop. Each bottle radiates the same charming, magnetic energy she exudes, making it a celebration of family, love, and laughter."
Also I am not convinced they have got the hang of the whole viticulture thang, all their wine pages show a top-fruit (prob apple but it's out of focus) orchard in blossom. Avoid.
My main issue with using data stripes is sort of the opposite problem. They seem to suggest we have hit peak temperatures when we actually have a trend. They could get a lot hotter again very quickly. On the plus side the charts do show convincingly how recent the increases have been.
Just because they're banned from new homes, doesn't mean they'll be below C for existing ones. It could be eg [and I'm making this up] A = Heat Pump powered by Renewables, B = Heat Pump powered by Grid, C = Gas with insulation, D and below Gas without insulation.
Don't underestimate human ingenuity. The one thing worse than Luddites is Malthusians.
If their gas boiler is running at 45C (or less) and its comfortable, then they could definitely use a heat pump without any further insulation or radiator change anyway!
As you all know I have been out of this industry for a while so I have no idea what the figures of gas vs heat pumps look like these days in terms of payback...
This is different.
And have a look at the other posts today. You can do other things to get your house up the band scale, even if you retain a gas boiler.
Sometimes I respond to a post just to put forth an argument. Not everything is about you personally. You seem to have some sort of narcissistic personality disorder where you put yourself at the centre of everything, and then are disappointed and hurt when others don't do the same. This also makes you very sensitive to how others engage with you.
You need to accept to stop doing this and that you (like me) just aren't that important, even though you still have a valuable contribution to make.
Once you do, you will have your inner peace.
If he is suggesting mitigating this effect then I have not read it nor have I read a a denial
*and look at MattW's post on the matter*
These are the ratings
EPC rating A = 92-100 SAP points (most efficient)
EPC rating B = 81-91 SAP points.
EPC rating C = 69-80 SAP points.
EPC rating D = 55-68 SAP points.
EPC rating E = 39-54 SAP points.
EPC rating F = 21-38 SAP points.
EPC rating G = 1-20 SAP points (least efficient)
Christmas last year we moved from a rental accommodation where we needed to keep our gas boiler on pretty much 24/7 through the deep winter, with fixed via the boiler's toggles on-off times in milder winter/autumn, to a modern new build home. The new home is well insulated and comes with digital thermostatic controls that can be controlled via an app too. The thermostat target lowers at times of the day when you don't need the temperature to be as high either (eg overnight, or mid afternoon) peaking at only morning and early evening.
Even in deep midwinter the boiler was normally off. When the temperature dipped low enough to trigger it to turn back on, you can hear it start and then not long later it would be off again.
The amount of gas consumed is far, far lower now than it was. Even with a new, gas, boiler.
I would be extremely shocked if this home were not rated at least C.
I just see it as important to qualify and challenge, realistically, their relative capabilities today and the sorts of property they are suited to because there's an awful lot of hype around them and I wouldn't want to see people feel pressured or duped into them, and then have a problem with energy bills and keeping their families warm.
The product needs to get cheaper and better for most to benefit from it.
Harvie is unequivocally opposed to gas boilers and is seeking to eradicate them in Scotland by using EPC ratings
Cars are not a problem. If they're electric they don't cause any emissions.
Flights of the future will be clean, so won't cause any emissions.
Etc, etc
There is a wonderful thing in Mathematics that any number times zero equals zero. If you get net zero production, as we must to resolve this, then production can scale as high as you want and the output for emissions is still zero.
Net zero production for 6 billion people = net 0 emissions.
Net zero production for 8 billion people = net 0 emissions.
Net zero production for 12 billion people = net 0 emissions.
This is where the hairshirts get things wrong. I'm not giving up my car, or my flights, or my meat, or my dairy, or my fish. Instead what I want is them to be produced using sustainable, clean technology. Achieve that, problem resolves, climate survives, production can scale up not down.