Two thirds of CON members don’t think there’s a climate emergency – politicalbetting.com

Carnyx said:

Pagan2 said:

Miklosvar said:

Pagan2 said:

TOPPING said:

Pagan2 said:

Selebian said:

Pagan2 said:

Selebian said:

Pagan2 said:

bondegezou said:

Eabhal said:

Peck said:

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

Dartmoor Dustbowl?

NerysHughes said:

rcs1000 said:

Sandpit said:

rcs1000 said:

Sandpit said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Malmesbury said:

TOPPING said:

Malmesbury said:

Pagan2 said:

Malmesbury said:

Pagan2 said:

bondegezou said:

Eabhal said:

Peck said:

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.

And most people cant afford a tesla

https://www.tesla.com/blog/secret-tesla-motors-master-plan-just-between-you-and-me


So, in short, the master plan is:

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).

Used Tesla Model 3s now start around £23-25k on Autotrader.
https://www.autotrader.co.uk/car-search?advertising-location=at_cars&include-delivery-option=on&make=Tesla&model=Model 3&postcode=Sw1a1aa&price-to=25000&sort=relevance

Getting there, but still priced out for many.

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.

Cheapest new Model 3 is now £42k in the UK.
https://www.tesla.com/en_gb/model3/design#overview

Your cost of owning a car is depreciation + finance + maintenance*. That means a £42k Tesla Model 3 is cheaper than a £50 or £55k ICE.

I do realise that most people don't think that way, but that low depreciation is a massive boon to purchasers; it's like an additional subsidy.

* Plus fuel and tax - and of course, both of these are cheaper on the Tesla.

This report begs to differ

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cars/article-12160659/Used-electric-cars-nosedived-value-2023.html

CorrectHorseBat said:

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

TOPPING said:

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.

viewcode said:

Leon said:

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.

rcs1000 said:

NerysHughes said:

rcs1000 said:

Sandpit said:

rcs1000 said:

Sandpit said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Malmesbury said:

TOPPING said:

Malmesbury said:

Pagan2 said:

Malmesbury said:

Pagan2 said:

bondegezou said:

Eabhal said:

Peck said:

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.

And most people cant afford a tesla

https://www.tesla.com/blog/secret-tesla-motors-master-plan-just-between-you-and-me


So, in short, the master plan is:

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).

Used Tesla Model 3s now start around £23-25k on Autotrader.
https://www.autotrader.co.uk/car-search?advertising-location=at_cars&include-delivery-option=on&make=Tesla&model=Model 3&postcode=Sw1a1aa&price-to=25000&sort=relevance

Getting there, but still priced out for many.

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.

Cheapest new Model 3 is now £42k in the UK.
https://www.tesla.com/en_gb/model3/design#overview

Your cost of owning a car is depreciation + finance + maintenance*. That means a £42k Tesla Model 3 is cheaper than a £50 or £55k ICE.

I do realise that most people don't think that way, but that low depreciation is a massive boon to purchasers; it's like an additional subsidy.

* Plus fuel and tax - and of course, both of these are cheaper on the Tesla.

This report begs to differ

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cars/article-12160659/Used-electric-cars-nosedived-value-2023.html

None of those cars are Teslas.

Think about that for a second.

Barnesian said:

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Pulpstar said:

Gallowgate said:

Pulpstar said:

Gallowgate said:

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.

TimS said:

TOPPING said:

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.

noneoftheabove said:

CorrectHorseBat said:

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.

TOPPING said:

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?

rcs1000 said:

NerysHughes said:

rcs1000 said:

Sandpit said:

rcs1000 said:

Sandpit said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Malmesbury said:

TOPPING said:

Malmesbury said:

Pagan2 said:

Malmesbury said:

Pagan2 said:

bondegezou said:

Eabhal said:

Peck said:

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.

And most people cant afford a tesla

https://www.tesla.com/blog/secret-tesla-motors-master-plan-just-between-you-and-me


So, in short, the master plan is:

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).

Used Tesla Model 3s now start around £23-25k on Autotrader.
https://www.autotrader.co.uk/car-search?advertising-location=at_cars&include-delivery-option=on&make=Tesla&model=Model 3&postcode=Sw1a1aa&price-to=25000&sort=relevance

Getting there, but still priced out for many.

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.

Cheapest new Model 3 is now £42k in the UK.
https://www.tesla.com/en_gb/model3/design#overview

Your cost of owning a car is depreciation + finance + maintenance*. That means a £42k Tesla Model 3 is cheaper than a £50 or £55k ICE.

I do realise that most people don't think that way, but that low depreciation is a massive boon to purchasers; it's like an additional subsidy.

* Plus fuel and tax - and of course, both of these are cheaper on the Tesla.

This report begs to differ

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cars/article-12160659/Used-electric-cars-nosedived-value-2023.html

None of those cars are Teslas.

Think about that for a second.

Carnyx said:

CorrectHorseBat said:

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!".

TOPPING said:

noneoftheabove said:

CorrectHorseBat said:

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.

viewcode said:

TOPPING said:

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.

felix said:

Eabhal said:

felix said:

Taz said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

Pagan2 said:

TOPPING said:

Miklosvar said:

TOPPING said:

Miklosvar said:

Pagan2 said:

TOPPING said:

Pagan2 said:

Selebian said:

Pagan2 said:

Selebian said:

Pagan2 said:

bondegezou said:

Eabhal said:

Peck said:

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.

Eabhal said:

Satisfied?



https://showyourstripes.info/c

CorrectHorseBat said:

Leon said:

CorrectHorseBat said:

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.

Eabhal said:

felix said:

Eabhal said:

felix said:

Taz said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

Pagan2 said:

TOPPING said:

Miklosvar said:

TOPPING said:

Miklosvar said:

Pagan2 said:

TOPPING said:

Pagan2 said:

Selebian said:

Pagan2 said:

Selebian said:

Pagan2 said:

bondegezou said:

Eabhal said:

Peck said:

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.

Satisfied?



https://showyourstripes.info/c

Ghedebrav said:

From our campsite; posting entirely to troll/trigger PB’s Cashless Hezbollah.

felix said:

Eabhal said:

felix said:

Taz said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

Pagan2 said:

TOPPING said:

Miklosvar said:

TOPPING said:

Miklosvar said:

Pagan2 said:

TOPPING said:

Pagan2 said:

Selebian said:

Pagan2 said:

Selebian said:

Pagan2 said:

bondegezou said:

Eabhal said:

Peck said:

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.

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

Pagan2 said:

TOPPING said:

Miklosvar said:

TOPPING said:

Miklosvar said:

Pagan2 said:

TOPPING said:

Pagan2 said:

Selebian said:

Pagan2 said:

Selebian said:

Pagan2 said:

bondegezou said:

Eabhal said:

Peck said:

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

Leon said:

CorrectHorseBat said:

Leon said:

CorrectHorseBat said:

Leon said:

CorrectHorseBat said:

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

Eastwinger said:

Carnyx said:

Eabhal said:

felix said:

Eabhal said:

felix said:

Taz said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

Pagan2 said:

TOPPING said:

Miklosvar said:

TOPPING said:

Miklosvar said:

Pagan2 said:

TOPPING said:

Pagan2 said:

Selebian said:

Pagan2 said:

Selebian said:

Pagan2 said:

bondegezou said:

Eabhal said:

Peck said:

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.

Satisfied?



https://showyourstripes.info/c

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.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Good evening

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

NerysHughes said:

rcs1000 said:

Sandpit said:

rcs1000 said:

Sandpit said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Malmesbury said:

TOPPING said:

Malmesbury said:

Pagan2 said:

Malmesbury said:

Pagan2 said:

bondegezou said:

Eabhal said:

Peck said:

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.

And most people cant afford a tesla

https://www.tesla.com/blog/secret-tesla-motors-master-plan-just-between-you-and-me


So, in short, the master plan is:

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).

Used Tesla Model 3s now start around £23-25k on Autotrader.
https://www.autotrader.co.uk/car-search?advertising-location=at_cars&include-delivery-option=on&make=Tesla&model=Model 3&postcode=Sw1a1aa&price-to=25000&sort=relevance

Getting there, but still priced out for many.

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.

Cheapest new Model 3 is now £42k in the UK.
https://www.tesla.com/en_gb/model3/design#overview

Your cost of owning a car is depreciation + finance + maintenance*. That means a £42k Tesla Model 3 is cheaper than a £50 or £55k ICE.

I do realise that most people don't think that way, but that low depreciation is a massive boon to purchasers; it's like an additional subsidy.

* Plus fuel and tax - and of course, both of these are cheaper on the Tesla.

This report begs to differ

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cars/article-12160659/Used-electric-cars-nosedived-value-2023.html

CorrectHorseBat said:

Leon said:

CorrectHorseBat said:

Leon said:

CorrectHorseBat said:

Leon said:

CorrectHorseBat said:

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.

Sandpit said:

.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Good evening

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.

Carnyx said:

Eastwinger said:

Carnyx said:

Eabhal said:

felix said:

Eabhal said:

felix said:

Taz said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

Pagan2 said:

TOPPING said:

Miklosvar said:

TOPPING said:

Miklosvar said:

Pagan2 said:

TOPPING said:

Pagan2 said:

Selebian said:

Pagan2 said:

Selebian said:

Pagan2 said:

bondegezou said:

Eabhal said:

Peck said:

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.

Satisfied?



https://showyourstripes.info/c

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.

Eastwinger said:

Carnyx said:

Eastwinger said:

Carnyx said:

Eabhal said:

felix said:

Eabhal said:

felix said:

Taz said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

Pagan2 said:

TOPPING said:

Miklosvar said:

TOPPING said:

Miklosvar said:

Pagan2 said:

TOPPING said:

Pagan2 said:

Selebian said:

Pagan2 said:

Selebian said:

Pagan2 said:

bondegezou said:

Eabhal said:

Peck said:

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.

Satisfied?



https://showyourstripes.info/c

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?

felix said:

Eabhal said:

felix said:

Taz said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

Pagan2 said:

TOPPING said:

Miklosvar said:

TOPPING said:

Miklosvar said:

Pagan2 said:

TOPPING said:

Pagan2 said:

Selebian said:

Pagan2 said:

Selebian said:

Pagan2 said:

bondegezou said:

Eabhal said:

Peck said:

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.

Sandpit said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Sandpit said:

viewcode said:

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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0kbNDaenjk

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.

Casino_Royale said:

.

Pro_Rata said:

UK highest risks per diagonal read off:

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.

Eabhal said:

felix said:

Eabhal said:

felix said:

Taz said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

Pagan2 said:

TOPPING said:

Miklosvar said:

TOPPING said:

Miklosvar said:

Pagan2 said:

TOPPING said:

Pagan2 said:

Selebian said:

Pagan2 said:

Selebian said:

Pagan2 said:

bondegezou said:

Eabhal said:

Peck said:

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.

Satisfied?



https://showyourstripes.info/c

CorrectHorseBat said:

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

Eabhal said:

felix said:

Eabhal said:

felix said:

Taz said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

Pagan2 said:

TOPPING said:

Miklosvar said:

TOPPING said:

Miklosvar said:

Pagan2 said:

TOPPING said:

Pagan2 said:

Selebian said:

Pagan2 said:

Selebian said:

Pagan2 said:

bondegezou said:

Eabhal said:

Peck said:

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.

Satisfied?



https://showyourstripes.info/c

turbotubbs said:

Eabhal said:

felix said:

Eabhal said:

felix said:

Taz said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

Pagan2 said:

TOPPING said:

Miklosvar said:

TOPPING said:

Miklosvar said:

Pagan2 said:

TOPPING said:

Pagan2 said:

Selebian said:

Pagan2 said:

Selebian said:

Pagan2 said:

bondegezou said:

Eabhal said:

Peck said:

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.

Satisfied?



https://showyourstripes.info/c

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.

Casino_Royale said:

CorrectHorseBat said:

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?

Malmesbury said:

NerysHughes said:

rcs1000 said:

Sandpit said:

rcs1000 said:

Sandpit said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Malmesbury said:

TOPPING said:

Malmesbury said:

Pagan2 said:

Malmesbury said:

Pagan2 said:

bondegezou said:

Eabhal said:

Peck said:

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.

And most people cant afford a tesla

https://www.tesla.com/blog/secret-tesla-motors-master-plan-just-between-you-and-me


So, in short, the master plan is:

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).

Used Tesla Model 3s now start around £23-25k on Autotrader.
https://www.autotrader.co.uk/car-search?advertising-location=at_cars&include-delivery-option=on&make=Tesla&model=Model 3&postcode=Sw1a1aa&price-to=25000&sort=relevance

Getting there, but still priced out for many.

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.

Cheapest new Model 3 is now £42k in the UK.
https://www.tesla.com/en_gb/model3/design#overview

Your cost of owning a car is depreciation + finance + maintenance*. That means a £42k Tesla Model 3 is cheaper than a £50 or £55k ICE.

I do realise that most people don't think that way, but that low depreciation is a massive boon to purchasers; it's like an additional subsidy.

* Plus fuel and tax - and of course, both of these are cheaper on the Tesla.

This report begs to differ

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cars/article-12160659/Used-electric-cars-nosedived-value-2023.html

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.

Carnyx said:

turbotubbs said:

Eabhal said:

felix said:

Eabhal said:

felix said:

Taz said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

Pagan2 said:

TOPPING said:

Miklosvar said:

TOPPING said:

Miklosvar said:

Pagan2 said:

TOPPING said:

Pagan2 said:

Selebian said:

Pagan2 said:

Selebian said:

Pagan2 said:

bondegezou said:

Eabhal said:

Peck said:

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.

Satisfied?



https://showyourstripes.info/c

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.

turbotubbs said:

Carnyx said:

turbotubbs said:

Eabhal said:

felix said:

Eabhal said:

felix said:

Taz said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

Pagan2 said:

TOPPING said:

Miklosvar said:

TOPPING said:

Miklosvar said:

Pagan2 said:

TOPPING said:

Pagan2 said:

Selebian said:

Pagan2 said:

Selebian said:

Pagan2 said:

bondegezou said:

Eabhal said:

Peck said:

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.

Satisfied?



https://showyourstripes.info/c

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.