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
Living in the south west I expect climate change to be rather pleasant by 2050
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.
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
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
Which is why Elon Musk insisted that the first Tesla be a sub 4 second car.
1) Build sports car Tesla Roadster 2) Use that money to build an affordable car Model S 3) Use that money to build an even more affordable car Model 3 4) While doing above, also provide zero emission electric power generation options
My bold, added in
Tesla are currently looking at the next price bracket down from the Model 3 - as are the other manufacturers.
EDIT: The point of the sub 4 second Roadster was to make electric cars desirable. Not hair shirts.
The Tesla Model 3 "from £42,000" you mean? Smacks of the "working man's Porsche", the 924.
It's about working down the ladder.
The first idea is to realise that you can build an electric car that isn't a hairshirt car. Instead of building to a cost - Build, refine, build for lower cost, refine.
This started with custom conversions, by high end auto shops - for $250K they would rebuild your ICE car as electric. See the Minis converted for the rubbish remake of the Italian Job.
The next stage was companies (such as Tesla) realising that you could reduce costs and improve the performance with a limited run. The original Roadster. This was a modified Lotus Elise chassis (in the end very modified), with a power train installed. Still a 6 figure car, but cheaper and better.
The Model S was a proper mass production car, but still expensive.
The Model 3 was about reducing that cost.
The next model on will be about a car that sells for 30K or less. This is what all the manufacturers are working on, now.
As the HPA guy said recently, we are at the stage where a used Tesla costs the same as a new Ford Focus (and the same for ICE luxury cars, of course).
Let's flip that around for a second. That means that there has been extraordinarily little depreciation on Tesla Model 3s.
People have bought Model 3s for about £50k (which includes £8k of VAT), so £42k pre-tax. And those same cars are selling for £30-35k five years later. That's depreciation of only £2-3k (pre-tax) per year.
That means that owning a Tesla Model 3 costs you less than an equivalent new petrol car, because your vehicle depreciates so much less over the period.
To flip that around, it means that they’re further away from ownership for a lot more people than might have been expected.
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; it's actually more correct. Covers things like the collapse of the Gulf Stream and local cooling, even if globally the world is getting hotter on average. Stops idiots saying "it's cold and wet today so global warming isn't a thing!".
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
wrt the AI and the actors' strike. Presumably they have rights to their image (do they?) so if A N Other Studios makes Top Gun 3 using an AI Tom Cruise he can claim for image, etc rights?
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.
12 grand for my second hand Zoe. Also minimal depreciation.
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
So what problem is it causing in edinborough exactly?
Actually, due to the financial arrangements between SG and HMG, as long as England gets screwed harder than we do, our fiscal position improves.
All those additional spending consequentials as England tries to prevent itself from sinking/burning.
Well till you either have a yes in indepence refs or we revoke the barnett which we absolutely should do
You mean give us a decent amount of our own money back rather than gouging us and pretending we borrow all the money used in England.
Why are Slavs so unsmiling? They don’t help themselves
The young women are beautiful but they either pout or scowl. Older women just scowl
And it’s not simply a Ukrainian thing. You see it across all of Eastern Europe. Russians are a bit jollier. Odd.
At the risk of being impolite, is this something you have observed them doing to other people or to you personally? You do have a distinct style which may not be appreciated by all.
It's called being an arsehole, I am sure English women scowl at Leon too if he's anything like he is on here
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.
Human beings are trained on the output of actors and writers.
That's what we do. We watch something and imitate it. We read something and learn from it.
Why should the fact that it's a machine doing the learning and imitating change anything?
---
I am reminded of something Mrs Thatcher said: "I am always hearing people say 'think of the producers', why is it no-one says 'think of the consumers'?"
And I find it funny how middle class people who cheered the automation of manual jobs now seem to be up in arms about the automation of middle class jobs.
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
Which is why Elon Musk insisted that the first Tesla be a sub 4 second car.
1) Build sports car Tesla Roadster 2) Use that money to build an affordable car Model S 3) Use that money to build an even more affordable car Model 3 4) While doing above, also provide zero emission electric power generation options
My bold, added in
Tesla are currently looking at the next price bracket down from the Model 3 - as are the other manufacturers.
EDIT: The point of the sub 4 second Roadster was to make electric cars desirable. Not hair shirts.
The Tesla Model 3 "from £42,000" you mean? Smacks of the "working man's Porsche", the 924.
It's about working down the ladder.
The first idea is to realise that you can build an electric car that isn't a hairshirt car. Instead of building to a cost - Build, refine, build for lower cost, refine.
This started with custom conversions, by high end auto shops - for $250K they would rebuild your ICE car as electric. See the Minis converted for the rubbish remake of the Italian Job.
The next stage was companies (such as Tesla) realising that you could reduce costs and improve the performance with a limited run. The original Roadster. This was a modified Lotus Elise chassis (in the end very modified), with a power train installed. Still a 6 figure car, but cheaper and better.
The Model S was a proper mass production car, but still expensive.
The Model 3 was about reducing that cost.
The next model on will be about a car that sells for 30K or less. This is what all the manufacturers are working on, now.
As the HPA guy said recently, we are at the stage where a used Tesla costs the same as a new Ford Focus (and the same for ICE luxury cars, of course).
Let's flip that around for a second. That means that there has been extraordinarily little depreciation on Tesla Model 3s.
People have bought Model 3s for about £50k (which includes £8k of VAT), so £42k pre-tax. And those same cars are selling for £30-35k five years later. That's depreciation of only £2-3k (pre-tax) per year.
That means that owning a Tesla Model 3 costs you less than an equivalent new petrol car, because your vehicle depreciates so much less over the period.
To flip that around, it means that they’re further away from ownership for a lot more people than might have been expected.
Why are Slavs so unsmiling? They don’t help themselves
The young women are beautiful but they either pout or scowl. Older women just scowl
And it’s not simply a Ukrainian thing. You see it across all of Eastern Europe. Russians are a bit jollier. Odd.
At the risk of being impolite, is this something you have observed them doing to other people or to you personally? You do have a distinct style which may not be appreciated by all.
No, it’s definitely a cultural thing
@Casino_Royale mentioned it a couple of days ago. He’s married to a Bulgarian and is right now in Bulgaria. And we are hardly the first to notice it
Think of Novak Djokovic
So the question is: why? Is it centuries of bloodshed, war and angst, or something else?
Yes, it's true.
Possibly developed under Communism. Self-control of your emotions was essential and you only showed them in private.
They can be very friendly, but you really have to get to know them first- they don't appear "inviting".
To be more serious a bit of googling says this is a centuries old thing. But communism surely made it worse
The Montenegrins are a notable exception. I’ve no idea why
I think this is why Slavic women aren’t as attractive as they “should” be. They are textbook beautiful. But they all look like they’ve just swallowed an unpleasantly vinegary pickle. It’s off putting
I am sure they are swooning over you in droves as well.
So from February 2024 my mortgage is now going up to £370 per month… it’s absolutely crushing
Do you mean 'by' ? Unless you have a very small mortgage.
I do mean ‘by’
I think I'll not be in a disimilar position in mid 2025. If only it was going up "to" £370/mth
Your post and Gallowgate’s post convinces me the Tories are getting pounded like a dockside hooker at the next GE.
Mine is going up by £635/mth
My daughter has a £1.8m mortgage fixed at 2% until October. It's likely to roll over at 6%. That's an extra £72K a year or £6,000 a month. She thinking of letting out rooms - it's a six bedroom house, all ensuite, in Barnes.
Wow, and ouch!
Sounds like a very nice house though, hope they can work something out. There’s going to be a lot of distressed sales, especially in London, where the coming rises are going to be unaffordable for many.
My brother and his wife have a £500k mortgage from last year, and will need to find another grand a month in two years’ time, which they’re saving for already. I thought they were in a bad place.
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
If you live in the UK surely climate change is more threatening language than global warming. We would love it to be a bit warmer. Although given our moaning about the weather generally possibly we are happy to take a lucky dip with a new climate as well.
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
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!
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.
12 grand for my second hand Zoe. Also minimal depreciation.
wrt the AI and the actors' strike. Presumably they have rights to their image (do they?) so if A N Other Studios makes Top Gun 3 using an AI Tom Cruise he can claim for image, etc rights?
Yes, for the top 0.1% of actors, who have gone through a process to formally register their likeness as a trademark of their company. Not so for the other 99.9%.
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
If you live in the UK surely climate change is more threatening language than global warming. We would love it to be a bit warmer. Although given our moaning about the weather generally possibly we are happy to take a lucky dip with a new climate as well.
Wasn't the BBC told off recently by Greta types for saying that hot sunny days constituted "good" weather.
My sympathies for @Barnesian’s daughter are limited, it must be said
If you’re gonna take on a £1.8 MILLION mortgage you need to be 1. Filthy rich in the first place and 2. Smart enough to work out that if interest rates change you’ll be in pain
Well quite. Zero sympathy here. You'd have to pretty dense to think super -low rates would last for ever or rely on the LDs to bail you out if the country is ever dumb enough to elect them.
wrt the AI and the actors' strike. Presumably they have rights to their image (do they?) so if A N Other Studios makes Top Gun 3 using an AI Tom Cruise he can claim for image, etc rights?
That (AI imagery and compensation for use) is the subject of the strike. I'll post a link later.
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!
Plus that chart is bollocks. Where's the it's always raining overlay?
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
Which is why Elon Musk insisted that the first Tesla be a sub 4 second car.
1) Build sports car Tesla Roadster 2) Use that money to build an affordable car Model S 3) Use that money to build an even more affordable car Model 3 4) While doing above, also provide zero emission electric power generation options
My bold, added in
Tesla are currently looking at the next price bracket down from the Model 3 - as are the other manufacturers.
EDIT: The point of the sub 4 second Roadster was to make electric cars desirable. Not hair shirts.
The Tesla Model 3 "from £42,000" you mean? Smacks of the "working man's Porsche", the 924.
It's about working down the ladder.
The first idea is to realise that you can build an electric car that isn't a hairshirt car. Instead of building to a cost - Build, refine, build for lower cost, refine.
This started with custom conversions, by high end auto shops - for $250K they would rebuild your ICE car as electric. See the Minis converted for the rubbish remake of the Italian Job.
The next stage was companies (such as Tesla) realising that you could reduce costs and improve the performance with a limited run. The original Roadster. This was a modified Lotus Elise chassis (in the end very modified), with a power train installed. Still a 6 figure car, but cheaper and better.
The Model S was a proper mass production car, but still expensive.
The Model 3 was about reducing that cost.
The next model on will be about a car that sells for 30K or less. This is what all the manufacturers are working on, now.
As the HPA guy said recently, we are at the stage where a used Tesla costs the same as a new Ford Focus (and the same for ICE luxury cars, of course).
Let's flip that around for a second. That means that there has been extraordinarily little depreciation on Tesla Model 3s.
People have bought Model 3s for about £50k (which includes £8k of VAT), so £42k pre-tax. And those same cars are selling for £30-35k five years later. That's depreciation of only £2-3k (pre-tax) per year.
That means that owning a Tesla Model 3 costs you less than an equivalent new petrol car, because your vehicle depreciates so much less over the period.
To flip that around, it means that they’re further away from ownership for a lot more people than might have been expected.
Although the article does explain the main reason is that second hand Tesla values dropped earlier - at the end of last year. If you take a 12 month view the drops are more similar.
I would say if you are in the market for an electric vehicle there are some really good bargains on the second hand market. There's no reason why the car shouldn't last you for years.
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.
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; it's actually more correct. Covers things like the collapse of the Gulf Stream and local cooling, even if globally the world is getting hotter on average. Stops idiots saying "it's cold and wet today so global warming isn't a thing!".
Cold and wet weather is just weather and nothing to do with climate.
Warm and sunny weather is A CLIMATE EMERGENCY that means we all need to stop flying and driving. Well not quite all, just the bottom nine deciles. Al Gore still flies private.
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
If you live in the UK surely climate change is more threatening language than global warming. We would love it to be a bit warmer. Although given our moaning about the weather generally possibly we are happy to take a lucky dip with a new climate as well.
Wasn't the BBC told off recently by Greta types for saying that hot sunny days constituted "good" weather.
The BBC is always told off by someone for something.
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.
wrt the AI and the actors' strike. Presumably they have rights to their image (do they?) so if A N Other Studios makes Top Gun 3 using an AI Tom Cruise he can claim for image, etc rights?
Yes, for the top 0.1% of actors, who have gone through a process to formally register their likeness as a trademark of their company. Not so for the other 99.9%.
So the actors with a part time job at Starbucks getting hit at both ends.....
wrt the AI and the actors' strike. Presumably they have rights to their image (do they?) so if A N Other Studios makes Top Gun 3 using an AI Tom Cruise he can claim for image, etc rights?
That (AI imagery and compensation for use) is the subject of the strike. I'll post a link later.
All the studios will do is use AI generated likenesses in the future. Why tie a character in a movie or TV series to an ageing actor or actress, anyway? What's the benefit?
After all, said "talent" can destroy the brand after a cocaine fuelled binge.
Includes the line: "Transgender athletes who were born female and are not undergoing hormone treatment can still enter female races." So presumably ftm transitioning.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Citation required. I need evidence that BP
1. “Personally” intervened to get us all to say climate change rather than global warming and
2. They did this so they could carry on in their evil ways
Otherwise I’m calling bullshit on your endless bullshit
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.
I think it's important enough to try.
You've more strength than me. I gave up long ago, people like my Dad who are otherwise intelligent simply will not have their minds changed.
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.
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.
Citation required. I need evidence that BP
1. “Personally” intervened to get us all to say climate change rather than global warming and
2. They did this so they could carry on in their evil ways
Otherwise I’m calling bullshit on your endless bullshit
Yes, I am starting to see why everyone scowls at you.
And to be called out on bullshit by you is a huge compliment, thanks!
wrt the AI and the actors' strike. Presumably they have rights to their image (do they?) so if A N Other Studios makes Top Gun 3 using an AI Tom Cruise he can claim for image, etc rights?
That (AI imagery and compensation for use) is the subject of the strike. I'll post a link later.
All the studios will do is use AI generated likenesses in the future. Why tie a character in a movie or TV series to an ageing actor or actress, anyway? What's the benefit?
After all, said "talent" can destroy the brand after a cocaine fuelled binge.
Likenesses of actual human beings is so 2022.
That really IS the future
Look at how a famous actor like Kevin Spacey or a celebrity like Lizzo can trash their personal brand. Why risk that?
Get a perfect AI replacement. Give them a personality. Let them stay ageless and beautiful and funny and scandal free
Warhol was wrong. In the future NO ONE will be famous, not even for 15 minutes. AI will do it all
The Uxbridge election does seem to have been quite a moment as the controversy over ULEZ has opened up the wider debate thar climate change is happening, but the transition to net zero has largely been accepted without much debate, and the cost of this transition puts it in the wealthy class who can afford evs, heat pumps, and expensive adaptations
I have no idea how this plays out politically but I expect it is like tax, approved as long as someone else pays
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.
Citation required. I need evidence that BP
1. “Personally” intervened to get us all to say climate change rather than global warming and
2. They did this so they could carry on in their evil ways
Otherwise I’m calling bullshit on your endless bullshit
Yes, I am starting to see why everyone scowls at you.
And to be called out on bullshit by you is a huge compliment, thanks!
So, no evidence. As expected, you weird depressive freakaloid dwarf-stroker
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.
Any chart is by definition selective and unless it's a regular monitoring report it will also have been chosen to illustrate a particular point.
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 automation is reliant on real stuff in the first place. It manipulates and combines what it picks off the internet and what real people have put hours into producing. There are a number of cases in the US currently where artists are suing. Usually the AI isn't original but based upon human produced stuff which they are going to sell without paying the people who produced the original material.
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.
Climate change is real, we have done what we can to mitigate it, and we need to encourage others to mitigate it too. Now we need to put our efforts into adaptation and ensuring others mitigate it.
Others will only mitigate it and follow our already excellent lead, if our standard of living and quality of life improves.
Hairshirt zealots are anti-mitigation because in wanting us to hurt ourselves/abandon proper private transportation, they are advocating policies the rest of the world won't copy. And the rest of the world are the ones causing the emissions.
Anti-mitigation? What are you talking about?
Mitigation = reducing emissions Adaptation = getting ready Damage = what we don't manage to get ready for
Yes.
Mitigation = Reducing emissions.
To reduce emissions we need to get the Rest of the World to copy our lead.
The Rest of the World will only copy our lead if they see us successfully grow, be happy and have a good standard of living while living cleanly.
Hairshirt zealots want to harm our standard of living, therefore if we do what they want then the rest of the world will not follow our lead, therefore the rest of the world won't reduce emissions, therefore there will be less mitigation.
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.
The Uxbridge election does seem to have been quite a moment as the controversy over ULEZ has opened up the wider debate thar climate change is happening, but the transition to net zero has largely been accepted without much debate, and the cost of this transition puts it in the wealthy class who can afford evs, heat pumps, and expensive adaptations
I have no idea how this plays out politically but I expect it is like tax, approved as long as someone else pays
It’s a combination of the increasing number of major changes that people are being expected to make to their lifestyles, and the changes becoming being massively regressive in nature, as people see a global problem that the vast majority of the globe intends to pay no more than lip service.
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.
Citation required. I need evidence that BP
1. “Personally” intervened to get us all to say climate change rather than global warming and
2. They did this so they could carry on in their evil ways
Otherwise I’m calling bullshit on your endless bullshit
Yes, I am starting to see why everyone scowls at you.
And to be called out on bullshit by you is a huge compliment, thanks!
So, no evidence. As expected, you weird depressive freakaloid dwarf-stroker
wrt the AI and the actors' strike. Presumably they have rights to their image (do they?) so if A N Other Studios makes Top Gun 3 using an AI Tom Cruise he can claim for image, etc rights?
That (AI imagery and compensation for use) is the subject of the strike. I'll post a link later.
All the studios will do is use AI generated likenesses in the future. Why tie a character in a movie or TV series to an ageing actor or actress, anyway? What's the benefit?
After all, said "talent" can destroy the brand after a cocaine fuelled binge.
Likenesses of actual human beings is so 2022.
There is a good Black Mirror on this (e1 of the new series).
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.
The Uxbridge election does seem to have been quite a moment as the controversy over ULEZ has opened up the wider debate thar climate change is happening, but the transition to net zero has largely been accepted without much debate, and the cost of this transition puts it in the wealthy class who can afford evs, heat pumps, and expensive adaptations
I have no idea how this plays out politically but I expect it is like tax, approved as long as someone else pays
The Tories have found something better than Trans issues to isolate and secure their core vote - older people with no mortgage.
This comes after a series of wildfires and floods in Europe, and UK record temperatures last year, that have given huge traction to concerns over the climate.
Unable to seize the initiative on this, interest rates or the cost of living more generally, they have retreated to the reactionary, conservative vote that was going to vote for them anyway.
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.
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
Which is why Elon Musk insisted that the first Tesla be a sub 4 second car.
1) Build sports car Tesla Roadster 2) Use that money to build an affordable car Model S 3) Use that money to build an even more affordable car Model 3 4) While doing above, also provide zero emission electric power generation options
My bold, added in
Tesla are currently looking at the next price bracket down from the Model 3 - as are the other manufacturers.
EDIT: The point of the sub 4 second Roadster was to make electric cars desirable. Not hair shirts.
The Tesla Model 3 "from £42,000" you mean? Smacks of the "working man's Porsche", the 924.
It's about working down the ladder.
The first idea is to realise that you can build an electric car that isn't a hairshirt car. Instead of building to a cost - Build, refine, build for lower cost, refine.
This started with custom conversions, by high end auto shops - for $250K they would rebuild your ICE car as electric. See the Minis converted for the rubbish remake of the Italian Job.
The next stage was companies (such as Tesla) realising that you could reduce costs and improve the performance with a limited run. The original Roadster. This was a modified Lotus Elise chassis (in the end very modified), with a power train installed. Still a 6 figure car, but cheaper and better.
The Model S was a proper mass production car, but still expensive.
The Model 3 was about reducing that cost.
The next model on will be about a car that sells for 30K or less. This is what all the manufacturers are working on, now.
As the HPA guy said recently, we are at the stage where a used Tesla costs the same as a new Ford Focus (and the same for ICE luxury cars, of course).
Let's flip that around for a second. That means that there has been extraordinarily little depreciation on Tesla Model 3s.
People have bought Model 3s for about £50k (which includes £8k of VAT), so £42k pre-tax. And those same cars are selling for £30-35k five years later. That's depreciation of only £2-3k (pre-tax) per year.
That means that owning a Tesla Model 3 costs you less than an equivalent new petrol car, because your vehicle depreciates so much less over the period.
To flip that around, it means that they’re further away from ownership for a lot more people than might have been expected.
That report left out the fact that the fall in used EV prices was from astonishing levels of resale price. For a while, used EVs (some) were the same price as new. This was caused by supply constraints.
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.
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.
Citation required. I need evidence that BP
1. “Personally” intervened to get us all to say climate change rather than global warming and
2. They did this so they could carry on in their evil ways
Otherwise I’m calling bullshit on your endless bullshit
Yes, I am starting to see why everyone scowls at you.
And to be called out on bullshit by you is a huge compliment, thanks!
So, no evidence. As expected, you weird depressive freakaloid dwarf-stroker
You're a very strange chap. Good day.
You’ve admitted that during your most depressive episodes you sometimes approach midgets from behind, in W H Smiths, and secretly try and “caress” them. You’ve probably forgotten you told us all that coz you were whacked out of your gourd on Prozac
wrt the AI and the actors' strike. Presumably they have rights to their image (do they?) so if A N Other Studios makes Top Gun 3 using an AI Tom Cruise he can claim for image, etc rights?
That (AI imagery and compensation for use) is the subject of the strike. I'll post a link later.
All the studios will do is use AI generated likenesses in the future. Why tie a character in a movie or TV series to an ageing actor or actress, anyway? What's the benefit?
After all, said "talent" can destroy the brand after a cocaine fuelled binge.
Likenesses of actual human beings is so 2022.
There is a good Black Mirror on this (e1 of the new series).
The Uxbridge election does seem to have been quite a moment as the controversy over ULEZ has opened up the wider debate thar climate change is happening, but the transition to net zero has largely been accepted without much debate, and the cost of this transition puts it in the wealthy class who can afford evs, heat pumps, and expensive adaptations
I have no idea how this plays out politically but I expect it is like tax, approved as long as someone else pays
It’s a combination of the increasing number of major changes that people are being expected to make to their lifestyles, and the changes becoming being massively regressive in nature, as people see a global problem that the vast majority of the globe intends to pay no more than lip service.
The problem is that climate change will harm the poorest parts of the world the most.
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.
Citation required. I need evidence that BP
1. “Personally” intervened to get us all to say climate change rather than global warming and
2. They did this so they could carry on in their evil ways
Otherwise I’m calling bullshit on your endless bullshit
Yes, I am starting to see why everyone scowls at you.
And to be called out on bullshit by you is a huge compliment, thanks!
So, no evidence. As expected, you weird depressive freakaloid dwarf-stroker
You're a very strange chap. Good day.
You’ve admitted that during your most depressive episodes you sometimes approach midgets from behind, in W H Smiths, and secretly try and “caress” them. You’ve probably forgotten you told us all that coz you were whacked out of your gourd on Prozac
"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"
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
If you live in the UK surely climate change is more threatening language than global warming. We would love it to be a bit warmer. Although given our moaning about the weather generally possibly we are happy to take a lucky dip with a new climate as well.
Wasn't the BBC told off recently by Greta types for saying that hot sunny days constituted "good" weather.
I've been complaining about this for years. If the presenter doing three hours work a day thinks 30 degrees C is glorious weather, turn the studio air conditioning off.
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
If you live in the UK surely climate change is more threatening language than global warming. We would love it to be a bit warmer. Although given our moaning about the weather generally possibly we are happy to take a lucky dip with a new climate as well.
Wasn't the BBC told off recently by Greta types for saying that hot sunny days constituted "good" weather.
I've been complaining about this for years. If the presenter doing three hours work a day thinks 30 degrees C is glorious weather, turn the studio air conditioning off.
And bring in the UV lamps. And turn off the taps and lock them.
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?
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
Which is why Elon Musk insisted that the first Tesla be a sub 4 second car.
1) Build sports car Tesla Roadster 2) Use that money to build an affordable car Model S 3) Use that money to build an even more affordable car Model 3 4) While doing above, also provide zero emission electric power generation options
My bold, added in
Tesla are currently looking at the next price bracket down from the Model 3 - as are the other manufacturers.
EDIT: The point of the sub 4 second Roadster was to make electric cars desirable. Not hair shirts.
The Tesla Model 3 "from £42,000" you mean? Smacks of the "working man's Porsche", the 924.
It's about working down the ladder.
The first idea is to realise that you can build an electric car that isn't a hairshirt car. Instead of building to a cost - Build, refine, build for lower cost, refine.
This started with custom conversions, by high end auto shops - for $250K they would rebuild your ICE car as electric. See the Minis converted for the rubbish remake of the Italian Job.
The next stage was companies (such as Tesla) realising that you could reduce costs and improve the performance with a limited run. The original Roadster. This was a modified Lotus Elise chassis (in the end very modified), with a power train installed. Still a 6 figure car, but cheaper and better.
The Model S was a proper mass production car, but still expensive.
The Model 3 was about reducing that cost.
The next model on will be about a car that sells for 30K or less. This is what all the manufacturers are working on, now.
As the HPA guy said recently, we are at the stage where a used Tesla costs the same as a new Ford Focus (and the same for ICE luxury cars, of course).
Let's flip that around for a second. That means that there has been extraordinarily little depreciation on Tesla Model 3s.
People have bought Model 3s for about £50k (which includes £8k of VAT), so £42k pre-tax. And those same cars are selling for £30-35k five years later. That's depreciation of only £2-3k (pre-tax) per year.
That means that owning a Tesla Model 3 costs you less than an equivalent new petrol car, because your vehicle depreciates so much less over the period.
To flip that around, it means that they’re further away from ownership for a lot more people than might have been expected.
That report left out the fact that the fall in used EV prices was from astonishing levels of resale price. For a while, used EVs (some) were the same price as new. This was caused by supply constraints.
Yes, the used car market has been all over the place since the start of the pandemic. Many used cars were going for way over new prices last year, as there simply wasn’t the supply of new cars. Something usually seen with the latest limited-edition Porsche or Ferrari, was suddenly a feature of all sorts of average cars.
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?
Who says there was any? Solar changes, current changes, all sorts of things.
Right now is what we are concerned about the considerable changes in CO2 over very recent decades. whcih any fool has known, for decades, indeed almost two centuries, would cause warming in an d of itself. And lo and behold, it has got warmer on about the right scale, on average.
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.
If temperatures in Edinburgh ever increased to 'mildly warm', goodness knows what colour they'd choose.
wrt the AI and the actors' strike. Presumably they have rights to their image (do they?) so if A N Other Studios makes Top Gun 3 using an AI Tom Cruise he can claim for image, etc rights?
That (AI imagery and compensation for use) is the subject of the strike. I'll post a link later.
All the studios will do is use AI generated likenesses in the future. Why tie a character in a movie or TV series to an ageing actor or actress, anyway? What's the benefit?
After all, said "talent" can destroy the brand after a cocaine fuelled binge.
Likenesses of actual human beings is so 2022.
There is a good Black Mirror on this (e1 of the new series).
The new series is absolute rubbish.
It is certainly (I'm only two episodes in) not 1/1,000th as powerful as the previous series but maybe they are slow burners in your mind. That said that first episode, the one on A1 was more a jaunty opinion piece on whither AI than a genuinely disturbing, dystopian vision of the future as previous series have been.
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.
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.
If temperatures in Edinburgh ever increased to 'mildly warm', goodness knows what colour they'd choose.
As\ much to the point, what would it be like in London?
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.
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
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
Which is why Elon Musk insisted that the first Tesla be a sub 4 second car.
1) Build sports car Tesla Roadster 2) Use that money to build an affordable car Model S 3) Use that money to build an even more affordable car Model 3 4) While doing above, also provide zero emission electric power generation options
My bold, added in
Tesla are currently looking at the next price bracket down from the Model 3 - as are the other manufacturers.
EDIT: The point of the sub 4 second Roadster was to make electric cars desirable. Not hair shirts.
The Tesla Model 3 "from £42,000" you mean? Smacks of the "working man's Porsche", the 924.
It's about working down the ladder.
The first idea is to realise that you can build an electric car that isn't a hairshirt car. Instead of building to a cost - Build, refine, build for lower cost, refine.
This started with custom conversions, by high end auto shops - for $250K they would rebuild your ICE car as electric. See the Minis converted for the rubbish remake of the Italian Job.
The next stage was companies (such as Tesla) realising that you could reduce costs and improve the performance with a limited run. The original Roadster. This was a modified Lotus Elise chassis (in the end very modified), with a power train installed. Still a 6 figure car, but cheaper and better.
The Model S was a proper mass production car, but still expensive.
The Model 3 was about reducing that cost.
The next model on will be about a car that sells for 30K or less. This is what all the manufacturers are working on, now.
As the HPA guy said recently, we are at the stage where a used Tesla costs the same as a new Ford Focus (and the same for ICE luxury cars, of course).
Let's flip that around for a second. That means that there has been extraordinarily little depreciation on Tesla Model 3s.
People have bought Model 3s for about £50k (which includes £8k of VAT), so £42k pre-tax. And those same cars are selling for £30-35k five years later. That's depreciation of only £2-3k (pre-tax) per year.
That means that owning a Tesla Model 3 costs you less than an equivalent new petrol car, because your vehicle depreciates so much less over the period.
To flip that around, it means that they’re further away from ownership for a lot more people than might have been expected.
That report left out the fact that the fall in used EV prices was from astonishing levels of resale price. For a while, used EVs (some) were the same price as new. This was caused by supply constraints.
About every ten years we replace one of our cars. I buy a 6m old car to get a near new car for a good price. Earlier this year we needed to replace our 13 year old car. It was becoming unreliable and also needed a timing chain replacement as we had pushed this back by a couple of services. The cost of everything was several times more than the car was worth.
This time our new 6m old car was more than an identical new one, except an identical new one didn't exist and wouldn't for 6 months. Rubbish timing.
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
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
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.
The Uxbridge election does seem to have been quite a moment as the controversy over ULEZ has opened up the wider debate thar climate change is happening, but the transition to net zero has largely been accepted without much debate, and the cost of this transition puts it in the wealthy class who can afford evs, heat pumps, and expensive adaptations
I have no idea how this plays out politically but I expect it is like tax, approved as long as someone else pays
It’s a combination of the increasing number of major changes that people are being expected to make to their lifestyles, and the changes becoming being massively regressive in nature, as people see a global problem that the vast majority of the globe intends to pay no more than lip service.
The problem is that climate change will harm the poorest parts of the world the most.
Yes and the developed north hasn't had a great record in helping that part of the world for the past several decades so what makes you think we will sit upright and start doing so moreso now.
In fact, what has transformed the poorest parts of the world to date has been development. Big dollops of it and you know what horrible things development is going to use, now, don't you.
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
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
Which is why Elon Musk insisted that the first Tesla be a sub 4 second car.
1) Build sports car Tesla Roadster 2) Use that money to build an affordable car Model S 3) Use that money to build an even more affordable car Model 3 4) While doing above, also provide zero emission electric power generation options
My bold, added in
Tesla are currently looking at the next price bracket down from the Model 3 - as are the other manufacturers.
EDIT: The point of the sub 4 second Roadster was to make electric cars desirable. Not hair shirts.
The Tesla Model 3 "from £42,000" you mean? Smacks of the "working man's Porsche", the 924.
It's about working down the ladder.
The first idea is to realise that you can build an electric car that isn't a hairshirt car. Instead of building to a cost - Build, refine, build for lower cost, refine.
This started with custom conversions, by high end auto shops - for $250K they would rebuild your ICE car as electric. See the Minis converted for the rubbish remake of the Italian Job.
The next stage was companies (such as Tesla) realising that you could reduce costs and improve the performance with a limited run. The original Roadster. This was a modified Lotus Elise chassis (in the end very modified), with a power train installed. Still a 6 figure car, but cheaper and better.
The Model S was a proper mass production car, but still expensive.
The Model 3 was about reducing that cost.
The next model on will be about a car that sells for 30K or less. This is what all the manufacturers are working on, now.
As the HPA guy said recently, we are at the stage where a used Tesla costs the same as a new Ford Focus (and the same for ICE luxury cars, of course).
Let's flip that around for a second. That means that there has been extraordinarily little depreciation on Tesla Model 3s.
People have bought Model 3s for about £50k (which includes £8k of VAT), so £42k pre-tax. And those same cars are selling for £30-35k five years later. That's depreciation of only £2-3k (pre-tax) per year.
That means that owning a Tesla Model 3 costs you less than an equivalent new petrol car, because your vehicle depreciates so much less over the period.
To flip that around, it means that they’re further away from ownership for a lot more people than might have been expected.
Although the article does explain the main reason is that second hand Tesla values dropped earlier - at the end of last year. If you take a 12 month view the drops are more similar.
I would say if you are in the market for an electric vehicle there are some really good bargains on the second hand market. There's no reason why the car shouldn't last you for years.
+1 just started looking at the moment as prices are starting to make sense given that this car will have Mrs Eek putting 20k+ miles a year on it...
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.
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
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.
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.
I wish you'd show the same concern over climate change as you do the Uni of Reading's colour scale.
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.
wrt the AI and the actors' strike. Presumably they have rights to their image (do they?) so if A N Other Studios makes Top Gun 3 using an AI Tom Cruise he can claim for image, etc rights?
That (AI imagery and compensation for use) is the subject of the strike. I'll post a link later.
All the studios will do is use AI generated likenesses in the future. Why tie a character in a movie or TV series to an ageing actor or actress, anyway? What's the benefit?
After all, said "talent" can destroy the brand after a cocaine fuelled binge.
Likenesses of actual human beings is so 2022.
That really IS the future
Look at how a famous actor like Kevin Spacey or a celebrity like Lizzo can trash their personal brand. Why risk that?
Get a perfect AI replacement. Give them a personality. Let them stay ageless and beautiful and funny and scandal free
Warhol was wrong. In the future NO ONE will be famous, not even for 15 minutes. AI will do it all
I don't think they will because, fundamentally, human connections matter and that's what people want.
People can't connect emotionally to a drama that's just "AI" even if they could do it perfectly.
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
Which is why Elon Musk insisted that the first Tesla be a sub 4 second car.
1) Build sports car Tesla Roadster 2) Use that money to build an affordable car Model S 3) Use that money to build an even more affordable car Model 3 4) While doing above, also provide zero emission electric power generation options
My bold, added in
Tesla are currently looking at the next price bracket down from the Model 3 - as are the other manufacturers.
EDIT: The point of the sub 4 second Roadster was to make electric cars desirable. Not hair shirts.
The Tesla Model 3 "from £42,000" you mean? Smacks of the "working man's Porsche", the 924.
It's about working down the ladder.
The first idea is to realise that you can build an electric car that isn't a hairshirt car. Instead of building to a cost - Build, refine, build for lower cost, refine.
This started with custom conversions, by high end auto shops - for $250K they would rebuild your ICE car as electric. See the Minis converted for the rubbish remake of the Italian Job.
The next stage was companies (such as Tesla) realising that you could reduce costs and improve the performance with a limited run. The original Roadster. This was a modified Lotus Elise chassis (in the end very modified), with a power train installed. Still a 6 figure car, but cheaper and better.
The Model S was a proper mass production car, but still expensive.
The Model 3 was about reducing that cost.
The next model on will be about a car that sells for 30K or less. This is what all the manufacturers are working on, now.
As the HPA guy said recently, we are at the stage where a used Tesla costs the same as a new Ford Focus (and the same for ICE luxury cars, of course).
Let's flip that around for a second. That means that there has been extraordinarily little depreciation on Tesla Model 3s.
People have bought Model 3s for about £50k (which includes £8k of VAT), so £42k pre-tax. And those same cars are selling for £30-35k five years later. That's depreciation of only £2-3k (pre-tax) per year.
That means that owning a Tesla Model 3 costs you less than an equivalent new petrol car, because your vehicle depreciates so much less over the period.
To flip that around, it means that they’re further away from ownership for a lot more people than might have been expected.
That report left out the fact that the fall in used EV prices was from astonishing levels of resale price. For a while, used EVs (some) were the same price as new. This was caused by supply constraints.
And also that the steep rise in the cost of electricity over the winter shifted the economics a bit.
Some of those, like the Kia eniro, will look a bargain when electricity prices normalise.
Cheap enough for older diesel owners in ULEZ to buy up too...
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?
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.
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?
Good point I'll give odds of ten million to one that there will be a global cataclysm which wipes out mankind within the next ten years
Conservative Party members are idiots. But they have already demonstrated that on multiple occasions over the last few years. They need to be kept away from power at all costs.
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.
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.
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.
Comments
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.
Think about that for a second.
That's what we do. We watch something and imitate it. We read something and learn from it.
Why should the fact that it's a machine doing the learning and imitating change anything?
---
I am reminded of something Mrs Thatcher said: "I am always hearing people say 'think of the producers', why is it no-one says 'think of the consumers'?"
And I find it funny how middle class people who cheered the automation of manual jobs now seem to be up in arms about the automation of middle class jobs.
Sounds like a very nice house though, hope they can work something out. There’s going to be a lot of distressed sales, especially in London, where the coming rises are going to be unaffordable for many.
My brother and his wife have a £500k mortgage from last year, and will need to find another grand a month in two years’ time, which they’re saving for already. I thought they were in a bad place.
I would say if you are in the market for an electric vehicle there are some really good bargains on the second hand market. There's no reason why the car shouldn't last you for years.
But I appreciate you lot don't have much time for experts.
Warm and sunny weather is A CLIMATE EMERGENCY that means we all need to stop flying and driving. Well not quite all, just the bottom nine deciles. Al Gore still flies private.
From our campsite; posting entirely to troll/trigger PB’s Cashless Hezbollah.
After all, said "talent" can destroy the brand after a cocaine fuelled binge.
Likenesses of actual human beings is so 2022.
Includes the line: "Transgender athletes who were born female and are not undergoing hormone treatment can still enter female races." So presumably ftm transitioning.
https://showyourstripes.info/c
1. “Personally” intervened to get us all to say climate change rather than global warming and
2. They did this so they could carry on in their evil ways
Otherwise I’m calling bullshit on your endless bullshit
And to be called out on bullshit by you is a huge compliment, thanks!
Look at how a famous actor like Kevin Spacey or a celebrity like Lizzo can trash their personal brand. Why risk that?
Get a perfect AI replacement. Give them a personality. Let them stay ageless and beautiful and funny and scandal free
Warhol was wrong. In the future NO ONE will be famous, not even for 15 minutes. AI will do it all
The Uxbridge election does seem to have been quite a moment as the controversy over ULEZ has opened up the wider debate thar climate change is happening, but the transition to net zero has largely been accepted without much debate, and the cost of this transition puts it in the wealthy class who can afford evs, heat pumps, and expensive adaptations
I have no idea how this plays out politically but I expect it is like tax, approved as long as someone else pays
Intelligent people can handle this.
Mitigation = Reducing emissions.
To reduce emissions we need to get the Rest of the World to copy our lead.
The Rest of the World will only copy our lead if they see us successfully grow, be happy and have a good standard of living while living cleanly.
Hairshirt zealots want to harm our standard of living, therefore if we do what they want then the rest of the world will not follow our lead, therefore the rest of the world won't reduce emissions, therefore there will be less mitigation.
QED Hairshirt zealots are anti-mitigation.
There's a reason they start the chart here.
As has been pointed out many times, this is not an issue which the voters the Tories need to win back, care about.
This comes after a series of wildfires and floods in Europe, and UK record temperatures last year, that have given huge traction to concerns over the climate.
Unable to seize the initiative on this, interest rates or the cost of living more generally, they have retreated to the reactionary, conservative vote that was going to vote for them anyway.
I’m just stating facts
The former president is in a better political position now than in 2015 or 2019 – for four big reasons
Tim Stanley"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/08/03/donald-trump-is-stronger-now-than-ever/
I entirely agree.
Right now is what we are concerned about the considerable changes in CO2 over very recent decades. whcih any fool has known, for decades, indeed almost two centuries, would cause warming in an d of itself. And lo and behold, it has got warmer on about the right scale, on average.
Oh, wait...
This time our new 6m old car was more than an identical new one, except an identical new one didn't exist and wouldn't for 6 months. Rubbish timing.
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
Climate change is real, there is no need to use such scare tactics to try to make a point.
In fact, what has transformed the poorest parts of the world to date has been development. Big dollops of it and you know what horrible things development is going to use, now, don't you.
People can't connect emotionally to a drama that's just "AI" even if they could do it perfectly.
Some of those, like the Kia eniro, will look a bargain when electricity prices normalise.
Cheap enough for older diesel owners in ULEZ to buy up too...
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 graph is clearly labelled.
They'll tell you to Foxtrot Oscar and ignore you.