What's the point? These people will never believe in climate change, they will always think it's a hoax or over-exaggerated. Best to ignore them and move on.
You need "these people" because they are the solution. Setting up an "us" and "them" is the route to failure.
I do not have the energy, others can fight, I admitted defeat long ago. We are doomed.
No we're not. But here's a tip: stop telling people they can never fly again, travel again except by bike, and must have cold homes and eat mung beans forevermore and pay more for the privilege.
They'll tell you to Foxtrot Oscar and ignore you.
I've never said any of those things on here, you're putting words in my mouth there mate. We are doomed and I accept that. Good day.
At any given point in time, there are people saying: "We are doomed". In retrospect it always turns out to be nonsense.
Remarkable headline in The Guardian. Sweden apparently has “extraordinarily liberal free speech laws” - because they allow people to burn the Koran. No, what they have is the freedom to mock and criticise religion. It’s called “the Enlightenment”. We used to do it, too
The Guardian are such wankers.
For those who keep asking what WOKE is: it's horseshit like this.
You can tell the Tories are not serious about finding out about how to win again when they think ULEZ is the solution.
As has been pointed out many times, this is not an issue which the voters the Tories need to win back, care about.
ULEZ was the catalyst to a much wider debate about climate change and the impact on ordinary peoples ability to adapt and indeed afford the costs
The problem the climate change enthusiasts have is taking the country with them at the speed they want, evidenced by the ridiculous proposition by the Greens in Scotland that gas boilers are not acceptable in the sale of Scottish homes from 2025
Indeed one of the Greens former leaders has defected to labour
As for labour, they have already cancelled the 28 billion annual green spend commitment and accept the granting of the new North Sea licences by Sunak
I believe this is a subject that requires mature discussions across politics and the public, rather than suggesting because the transition period, or more specifically the speed of it, means that those questioning it do not accept climate change which is obvious
It's a *consultation* to and proposal to *include the type of boiler* in the overall energy performance rating. As advised by the advisory committee to the Scottish Government. Not what you are saying.
Remember when the Torties actually put it in a bill to make it law to bang up RNLI and similar folk for rescuing people? That was well on from a proposal. But you wouldn't believe me and RP when we pointed this out to you.
Why the difference here? I can't possibly imagine why.
Even you are now admitting it is a consultation so by the very nature of it being a consulting it is on the Greeen SNP agenda
As far as the RNLI are concerned that wasn't a consultation, just a scare story which was never going to happen
You were stating something else, so your excuse cuts no ice.
As for the RNLI, *that was what the intended law said*. You should be bloody grateful they didn't pass it! What the hell do you think would happen the first lifeboat rescue? Hundreds of informers would be ringing up the police demanding that the crew, branch secretary, fundraisers and station cat be arrested.
You are so defensive on this when it is clearly being reported in Scotland
It is understandable as it would be far worse than the poll tax in political terms for the Greens/SNP who are already dropping quite considerably in the polls
You were saying that tthe SGs proposed to stop any houses for sale having gas boilers. That's a gross exaggeration.
You've perhaps muddled it with *UKG* banning any new houses fromk having gas boilers at all.
This from Harvie
One of the biggest challenges is replacing fossil fuel gas boilers in homes with climate-friendly heating-systems such as heat pumps, with Mr Harvie previously admitting the costs could total £33bn.
From 2025, certain trigger points such as the sale of a home, will mean properties will need to meet EPC band C energy efficiency standards, while new fossil fuel boilers will be banned in new buildings from next April.
Ahead of the shake-up, Mr Harvie is set to reform EPC standards so they are more appropriate for driving the improvements needed to reach net zero.
It is understood that this could include taking account of the type of heating system, raising the possibility of those with an old fossil fuel boilers receiving a lower rating than those who have installed a heat pump.
That's what I said! But not what you said! Argh. You claimed that the sale of houses with gas boilers would be banned.
You said "ridiculous proposition by the Greens in Scotland that gas boilers are not acceptable in the sale of Scottish homes from 2025"
That means, you thought they want to ban houses from being sold with gas boilers. That's quite different from "acting as a mark down as part of the overall EPC".
This is the salient point
From 2025, certain trigger points such as the sale of a home, will mean properties will need to meet EPC band C energy efficiency standards, while new fossil fuel boilers will be banned in new buildings from next April.
As gas boilers will be outside EPC band C under these proposals, then is seems a defacto ban is being proposed
Do you have a citation that gas boilers will be outside band C?
Just because they're banned from new homes, doesn't mean they'll be below C for existing ones. It could be eg [and I'm making this up] A = Heat Pump powered by Renewables, B = Heat Pump powered by Grid, C = Gas with insulation, D and below Gas without insulation.
As far as I understand it Harvie is determined to outlaw fossil fuel burning gas boilers and as such they will not feature in an EPC C rating
If he is suggesting mitigating this effect then I have not read it nor have I read a a denial
Given you were making things up earlier, now you are saying "what I made up because I hate Harvie because he's not a Tory might be true so there".
*and look at MattW's post on the matter*
I do not hate politicians though I do disagree with them
Harvie is unequivocally opposed to gas boilers and is seeking to eradicate them in Scotland by using EPC ratings
Discourage them for the future, yes, like UKG. What the hell are you complaining about? He's only following UKG policy.
What's the point? These people will never believe in climate change, they will always think it's a hoax or over-exaggerated. Best to ignore them and move on.
You need "these people" because they are the solution. Setting up an "us" and "them" is the route to failure.
I do not have the energy, others can fight, I admitted defeat long ago. We are doomed.
No we're not. But here's a tip: stop telling people they can never fly again, travel again except by bike, and must have cold homes and eat mung beans forevermore and pay more for the privilege.
They'll tell you to Foxtrot Oscar and ignore you.
I've never said any of those things on here, you're putting words in my mouth there mate. We are doomed and I accept that. Good day.
And I'm not saying you said them either. It was a response to the us and them dichotomy, and a solution to it.
Sometimes I respond to a post just to put forth an argument. Not everything is about you personally. You seem to have some sort of narcissistic personality disorder where you put yourself at the centre of everything, and then are disappointed and hurt when others don't do the same. This also makes you very sensitive to how others engage with you.
You need to accept to stop doing this and that you (like me) just aren't that important, even though you still have a valuable contribution to make.
Once you do, you will have your inner peace.
I wonder if narcissism is genuinely on the increase these days, or whether it was somehow disguised before.
I think Western cultures have, in general, overshot into hyperindividualism.
There isn't a climate emergency. The change in terminology could have been predicted, though. Less so the change from global warming to climate change. Next the line is bound to be do this or go extinct.
To try to stop the climate changing is to be a Cnut. (In the monarchist sense.)
At least we have got to the stage where people accept it is happening, and will continue to do so.
All you have left is arguments over semantics.
The positive externalities of mitigation are worth it, even if they don't have a big impact on global emissions and the rate at which temperature increases.
Investment in adaptation is almost certainly worth it, particularly for flooding on the east coast and air conditioning in hospitals.
Yes. We need to invest in mitigation AND reduce CO2 output AND improve energy efficiency AND investigate carbon capture AND reduce methane output AND… We’re past simple solutions. We need all the solutions.
There are no solutions that will be acceptable in a democracy because people will not accept a mandated decline in living standard. Therefore there will be no solutions
How about the solutions that do not require a decline in living standards?
- More renewables in energy generation -> less dependence on (suddenly very expensive) gas from dodgy places - More efficient appliances -> lower costs of running those appliances - Better insulation -> warmer homes at lower heating cost (plus removal of cold patches with mould etc) - EVs -> better cars with lower running costs
Someone the other day mentioned LED lighting. Well, it's just better than incandescent, isn't it? Many more colour options, cooler running*, lasts longer, obsolescence of even worse stuff like flurorescent tubes...
*I once burned my foot on a halogen bulb in a bedside lamp when reading in bed turned into something more energetic
I am not against any of those but we both know the climate change zealots want more than that
They demand an end to personal transportation for one They demand we all go vegan for two
But climate change zealots are nowhere near power.
Neither of those two things are going to happen before the climate apocalypse* and then it's too late and pointless anyway.
*by which I mean they are election losers right up until the point where (if it ever happens) the effects of climate change are so severe that people, in general, would actually want these things
I should state at this point I am absolutely relaxed about climate change, purely because by the time it becomes critical I will be dead as will be my family. I doubt I am alone in that.
Which on the one hand means that the rhetoric can be ramped up and no one will be any the wiser, while on the other as you say no one *really* is invested.
It comes down to will no one think of the children which is always a tricky ask.
Like many my son and his wife have decided to be childfree. Given he they are in their 30's by the time he dies will likely be 2080 at the latest. What is being asked therefore is "think of other peoples children"
I expect things to be pretty shit by 2050
Give us some f'rinstances.
Hot summers wet winters fires everywhere
Oh no!!!
Sounds like a pretty normal year to me if I am honest
Ahem
Never trust a chart that lacks a scale.
It is like a Lib Dem "winning here" bar chart.
You can almost here Kay burley screaming that Edinburgh is literally ablaze!
It's Met Office data, graphic put together by National Centre for Atmospheric Science, Reading Uni.
But I appreciate you lot don't have much time for experts.
The choice of colour is deliberately designed to alarm idiots like you. I have zero time for 'experts' who produce a graph without a scale.
The late chap in a house round the back from me (not a million miles from Edinburgh) was a keen met person. He kept continuous records for decades. I remember seeing his graph of the running average for the last few years about 10-12 years ago. It was a near perfect hockey stick in shape.
1850, low point of the Dalton minimum. There's a reason they start the chart here.
That's why I was talking about the hockey stick graph, which relies solely on the last few years' runnign average. Flat for decades then up as one would expect from CO2 levels.
Where did the Co2 come from in the Early Middle Ages when the Vikings were growing Barley in Southern Greenland and Europes wine growing region extended 500 kms further north than today?
Europe's wine growing region ends at - about - London today. 500 km further North takes you well into Scotland.
If you look at Germany today, we get wine produced from about half way up. If you stretch 500 km North of there, you get meaningfully above Oslo and Stockholm.
I'm sure Europe's wine growing region stretched further North than previously during the Medieval Warm Period, but I'd be staggered if it was anywhere near 500km more than now.
500km north of Derbyshire gets you to somewhere north of Stirling.
I'm confident they never made wine that far north in Roman times.
Edit - there is evidence of Roman viticulture in North Thoresby, Lincs (there is a modern vineyard not far away at Sowerby). That's the most northern one I know of.
There can be a major difference between gas and gas.
Christmas last year we moved from a rental accommodation where we needed to keep our gas boiler on pretty much 24/7 through the deep winter, with fixed via the boiler's toggles on-off times in milder winter/autumn, to a modern new build home. The new home is well insulated and comes with digital thermostatic controls that can be controlled via an app too. The thermostat target lowers at times of the day when you don't need the temperature to be as high either (eg overnight, or mid afternoon) peaking at only morning and early evening.
Even in deep midwinter the boiler was normally off. When the temperature dipped low enough to trigger it to turn back on, you can hear it start and then not long later it would be off again.
The amount of gas consumed is far, far lower now than it was. Even with a new, gas, boiler.
I would be extremely shocked if this home were not rated at least C.
What's the point? These people will never believe in climate change, they will always think it's a hoax or over-exaggerated. Best to ignore them and move on.
You need "these people" because they are the solution. Setting up an "us" and "them" is the route to failure.
I do not have the energy, others can fight, I admitted defeat long ago. We are doomed.
No we're not. But here's a tip: stop telling people they can never fly again, travel again except by bike, and must have cold homes and eat mung beans forevermore and pay more for the privilege.
They'll tell you to Foxtrot Oscar and ignore you.
I've never said any of those things on here, you're putting words in my mouth there mate. We are doomed and I accept that. Good day.
At any given point in time, there are people saying: "We are doomed". In retrospect it always turns out to be nonsense.
Er, PB pedantry, but there is a logic fail there. Anthropic Fallacy.
Nothing wrong with new houses having heat pumps. They work great, provided that the heating system is designed and sized for the lower flow temperature of a heat pump rather than a gas boiler.
Simple stuff.
Bit of a problem if you have a pre-war house and don't want to spend £10,000+ on exterior cladding before the same again on a new heating system...
My understanding is that the proposals in England only apply to new homes. Retrofitting heatpumps isn't very viable in much of our older housing.
Though us (and the Dutch) are unusual in using Gas CH so much. In Scandinavian countries it is fairly unusual.
The mention of a new kind of heat pump designed to suit preexisting gas CH systems, albeit at a lower efficiency, was very interesting.
The wider issue is in a way how far UK homes can be insulated. And, more generallyt, one of capital investment to save. That's not specific to heat pumps, though many folk think it is.
Any old heat pump will work with any gas heating system, it is just that to get the flow temperature up to 60 deg C or so it will need to use a lot of direct electricity to top up the refrigerant cycle, destroying the efficiency benefits. At that point you're just heating water with electricity like a kettle.
That's a little bit glossed imo, in that efficient normal running temperatures are a little different. Condensing gas boilers need a flow temp of below 55C (or they stop condensing and drop by about 10% in efficiency), whilst aiui heat pumps like to be as low as possible - which is why it is sometimes wise eg to replace radiators with double radiators the same size if trying to control costs. My boiler runs at 45C, but can modulate down to 35C - but whilst my house is OK it is not the best in the world for EPC, at just I think a mid B for the EPC.
Happy to be questioned, as its not my utter specialism.
A B rating is very good
These are the ratings
EPC rating A = 92-100 SAP points (most efficient) EPC rating B = 81-91 SAP points. EPC rating C = 69-80 SAP points. EPC rating D = 55-68 SAP points. EPC rating E = 39-54 SAP points. EPC rating F = 21-38 SAP points. EPC rating G = 1-20 SAP points (least efficient)
My house is a B also having been built in 2018 and all. It has a gas combi boiler...
Mine is C having been built in 1973 and has a gas combi boiler
Mind you it has been fully insulated throughout, is double glazed, and has solar panels
What's the point? These people will never believe in climate change, they will always think it's a hoax or over-exaggerated. Best to ignore them and move on.
You need "these people" because they are the solution. Setting up an "us" and "them" is the route to failure.
I do not have the energy, others can fight, I admitted defeat long ago. We are doomed.
No we're not. But here's a tip: stop telling people they can never fly again, travel again except by bike, and must have cold homes and eat mung beans forevermore and pay more for the privilege.
They'll tell you to Foxtrot Oscar and ignore you.
I've never said any of those things on here, you're putting words in my mouth there mate. We are doomed and I accept that. Good day.
At any given point in time, there are people saying: "We are doomed". In retrospect it always turns out to be nonsense.
Like, what, those scaredy cat jews in 1930s Germany?
What if it's not possible to increase the standard of living of 8 billion people while reducing the global impact of humanity on the environment?
It is.
Don't underestimate human ingenuity. The one thing worse than Luddites is Malthusians.
How many more cars than today are we talking about? How many more flights? How much more meat will be consumed? How much more food will we have to take out of the oceans?
Who gives a damn?
Cars are not a problem. If they're electric they don't cause any emissions.
Flights of the future will be clean, so won't cause any emissions.
Etc, etc
There is a wonderful thing in Mathematics that any number times zero equals zero. If you get net zero production, as we must to resolve this, then production can scale as high as you want and the output for emissions is still zero.
Net zero production for 6 billion people = net 0 emissions. Net zero production for 8 billion people = net 0 emissions. Net zero production for 12 billion people = net 0 emissions.
This is where the hairshirts get things wrong. I'm not giving up my car, or my flights, or my meat, or my dairy, or my fish. Instead what I want is them to be produced using sustainable, clean technology. Achieve that, problem resolves, climate survives, production can scale up not down.
How much mining will need to take place for 8 billion people to have access to electric cars? Pretending that there are no resource constraints is just a way of avoiding the issue.
Nothing wrong with new houses having heat pumps. They work great, provided that the heating system is designed and sized for the lower flow temperature of a heat pump rather than a gas boiler.
Simple stuff.
Bit of a problem if you have a pre-war house and don't want to spend £10,000+ on exterior cladding before the same again on a new heating system...
My understanding is that the proposals in England only apply to new homes. Retrofitting heatpumps isn't very viable in much of our older housing.
Though us (and the Dutch) are unusual in using Gas CH so much. In Scandinavian countries it is fairly unusual.
The mention of a new kind of heat pump designed to suit preexisting gas CH systems, albeit at a lower efficiency, was very interesting.
The wider issue is in a way how far UK homes can be insulated. And, more generallyt, one of capital investment to save. That's not specific to heat pumps, though many folk think it is.
Any old heat pump will work with any gas heating system, it is just that to get the flow temperature up to 60 deg C or so it will need to use a lot of direct electricity to top up the refrigerant cycle, destroying the efficiency benefits. At that point you're just heating water with electricity like a kettle.
That's a little bit glossed imo, in that efficient normal running temperatures are a little different. Condensing gas boilers need a flow temp of below 55C (or they stop condensing and drop by about 10% in efficiency), whilst aiui heat pumps like to be as low as possible - which is why it is sometimes wise eg to replace radiators with double radiators the same size if trying to control costs. My boiler runs at 45C, but can modulate down to 35C - but whilst my house is OK it is not the best in the world for EPC, at just I think a mid B for the EPC.
Happy to be questioned, as its not my utter specialism.
A B rating is very good
These are the ratings
EPC rating A = 92-100 SAP points (most efficient) EPC rating B = 81-91 SAP points. EPC rating C = 69-80 SAP points. EPC rating D = 55-68 SAP points. EPC rating E = 39-54 SAP points. EPC rating F = 21-38 SAP points. EPC rating G = 1-20 SAP points (least efficient)
My house is a B also having been built in 2018 and all. It has a gas combi boiler...
Mine is C having been built in 1973 and has a gas combi boiler
Mind you it has been fully insulated throughout, is double glazed, and has solar panels
It's all bollocks though because my EPC will have been rated assuming my house was built in perfect compliance with building regs. I highly doubt that is the case.
When I finally qualify as a solicitor (1 year to go...) and have some disposable income (assuming my mortgage isn't even more ridiculous then) I intend to start ripping it apart to make sure it is better than building regs...
What's the point? These people will never believe in climate change, they will always think it's a hoax or over-exaggerated. Best to ignore them and move on.
You need "these people" because they are the solution. Setting up an "us" and "them" is the route to failure.
I do not have the energy, others can fight, I admitted defeat long ago. We are doomed.
No we're not. But here's a tip: stop telling people they can never fly again, travel again except by bike, and must have cold homes and eat mung beans forevermore and pay more for the privilege.
They'll tell you to Foxtrot Oscar and ignore you.
I've never said any of those things on here, you're putting words in my mouth there mate. We are doomed and I accept that. Good day.
At any given point in time, there are people saying: "We are doomed". In retrospect it always turns out to be nonsense.
Like, what, those scaredy cat jews in 1930s Germany?
What's the point? These people will never believe in climate change, they will always think it's a hoax or over-exaggerated. Best to ignore them and move on.
You need "these people" because they are the solution. Setting up an "us" and "them" is the route to failure.
I do not have the energy, others can fight, I admitted defeat long ago. We are doomed.
No we're not. But here's a tip: stop telling people they can never fly again, travel again except by bike, and must have cold homes and eat mung beans forevermore and pay more for the privilege.
They'll tell you to Foxtrot Oscar and ignore you.
I've never said any of those things on here, you're putting words into my mouth there mate. We are doomed and I accept that. Good day.
We are not doomed.
I'm very optimistic about the future. Acid rain and the hole in the Ozone Layer used to be huge environmental challenges. Solved both. Also, the UN agreed a charter to protect 1/3rd of the world's oceans earlier this year.
We will crack this one too. Don't worry.
Long term, yes, we will find a way - the capitalist model will evolve and adapt to changing circumstances as it always has.
I fear in the short term we are facing some very bad days - one day our luck will run out and we'll have to endure a 10-14 day heatwave with temperatures in the low 40s celsius. As we currently stand, that will kill thousands - we can and must prepare for such eventualities, both individually and collectively.
There will be other catastrophes - some close, many a long way away but no less deleterious to the human souls involved.
There's no excuse for doing nothing - I'm very much of the view Britain can again lead the way, set the example, be at the leading edge of sustainability and of technological advance to mitigate the impact of what we've already done and look for alternative forms of power generation which don't literally cost the Earth.
Christ. Service in Ukraine needs a bit of polishing
Service in Eastern Europe is renowned for being shit.
Again, probably dates from Communism era when you were told your job, flat and had limited choices of what to buy and an entirely nominal income. Everyone was in the same boat and you just accepted it. Concepts of customer service in a market totally alien.
Even today, if you complain, they can look totally bamboozled as if you are the one that doesn't get it, and are the unreasonable one.
When I was in Latvia and Lithuania about 10 years ago I was shocked by the way that people working in shops would slam the change down on the counter as if they were furious with you. I realised after a bit that this was their normal way of returning change to the customer.
It seems on my street almost all of the houses are B but some of my neighbours are A, those are the numbers with solar panels which we didn't get on ours. Even with gas boilers, they're A.
Nothing wrong with new houses having heat pumps. They work great, provided that the heating system is designed and sized for the lower flow temperature of a heat pump rather than a gas boiler.
Simple stuff.
Indeed, the comments from such as Benpointer and Malmesbury have been very interesting when beginning to think about the pros and cons of adding them to an older house, too.
As have the comments from those in manufacturing and industry who supply and fit them that they're simply not good enough yet for most homes, and people shouldn't be sold a dud.
I used to design domestic heat pump systems... "Most" homes is disingenuous.
Any home built since 2010 should be perfectly capable of being comfortably heated by a heat hump without extra insulation (you might need new radiators).
Any home built between 2000-2010 is likely to be able to be heated by a heat pump also with the same caveat (although maybe not as comfortably).
What proportion of our housing stock is built after 2010?
I'm not going to swear to this, and please feel free to point and laugh, but IIUC we haven'tt exceeded 100K houses pa built during that period, so the most that could have been added is 1.3million. IIRC there are approx 27million households in E&W. So that's 1.3/27 = 4.8%. Rounding to prevent spurious accuracy gives us "around 5% ish"
It seems on my street almost all of the houses are B but some of my neighbours are A, those are the numbers with solar panels which we didn't get on ours. Even with gas boilers, they're A.
You gotta love the arbitrary formula...
I personally think solar panels should have no bearing on an EPC because they only impact electricity usage and that is personal anyway. It should be heat/cooling based only.
I'm very optimistic about the future. Acid rain and the hole in the Ozone Layer used to be huge environmental challenges. Solved both. Also, the UN agreed a charter to protect 1/3rd of the world's oceans earlier this year.
We will crack this one too. Don't worry.
I think we absolutely are doomed but you can be the hopeful one out of the two of us. I hope you are proven correct.
By doomed, what do you mean, exactly? We will have challenges for sure, but humans have got where they are today by overcoming challenges.
It seems on my street almost all of the houses are B but some of my neighbours are A, those are the numbers with solar panels which we didn't get on ours. Even with gas boilers, they're A.
You gotta love the arbitrary formula...
I personally think solar panels should have no bearing on an EPC because they only impact electricity usage and that is personal anyway. It should be heat/cooling based only.
Don't some heat water, though?
I've never been very sure of them in the Scttish climate, even with antifreeze, around here. A bottle of airbrush acrylic paint thinner - basically dilute antifreeze - froze solid in my shed at least one winter.
There isn't a climate emergency. The change in terminology could have been predicted, though. Less so the change from global warming to climate change. Next the line is bound to be do this or go extinct.
To try to stop the climate changing is to be a Cnut. (In the monarchist sense.)
At least we have got to the stage where people accept it is happening, and will continue to do so.
All you have left is arguments over semantics.
The positive externalities of mitigation are worth it, even if they don't have a big impact on global emissions and the rate at which temperature increases.
Investment in adaptation is almost certainly worth it, particularly for flooding on the east coast and air conditioning in hospitals.
Yes. We need to invest in mitigation AND reduce CO2 output AND improve energy efficiency AND investigate carbon capture AND reduce methane output AND… We’re past simple solutions. We need all the solutions.
There are no solutions that will be acceptable in a democracy because people will not accept a mandated decline in living standard. Therefore there will be no solutions
How about the solutions that do not require a decline in living standards?
- More renewables in energy generation -> less dependence on (suddenly very expensive) gas from dodgy places - More efficient appliances -> lower costs of running those appliances - Better insulation -> warmer homes at lower heating cost (plus removal of cold patches with mould etc) - EVs -> better cars with lower running costs
Someone the other day mentioned LED lighting. Well, it's just better than incandescent, isn't it? Many more colour options, cooler running*, lasts longer, obsolescence of even worse stuff like flurorescent tubes...
*I once burned my foot on a halogen bulb in a bedside lamp when reading in bed turned into something more energetic
I am not against any of those but we both know the climate change zealots want more than that
They demand an end to personal transportation for one They demand we all go vegan for two
But climate change zealots are nowhere near power.
Neither of those two things are going to happen before the climate apocalypse* and then it's too late and pointless anyway.
*by which I mean they are election losers right up until the point where (if it ever happens) the effects of climate change are so severe that people, in general, would actually want these things
I should state at this point I am absolutely relaxed about climate change, purely because by the time it becomes critical I will be dead as will be my family. I doubt I am alone in that.
Which on the one hand means that the rhetoric can be ramped up and no one will be any the wiser, while on the other as you say no one *really* is invested.
It comes down to will no one think of the children which is always a tricky ask.
Like many my son and his wife have decided to be childfree. Given he they are in their 30's by the time he dies will likely be 2080 at the latest. What is being asked therefore is "think of other peoples children"
I expect things to be pretty shit by 2050
Give us some f'rinstances.
Hot summers wet winters fires everywhere
Oh no!!!
Sounds like a pretty normal year to me if I am honest
Ahem
Never trust a chart that lacks a scale.
It is like a Lib Dem "winning here" bar chart.
You can almost here Kay burley screaming that Edinburgh is literally ablaze!
It's Met Office data, graphic put together by National Centre for Atmospheric Science, Reading Uni.
But I appreciate you lot don't have much time for experts.
The choice of colour is deliberately designed to alarm idiots like you. I have zero time for 'experts' who produce a graph without a scale.
The late chap in a house round the back from me (not a million miles from Edinburgh) was a keen met person. He kept continuous records for decades. I remember seeing his graph of the running average for the last few years about 10-12 years ago. It was a near perfect hockey stick in shape.
1850, low point of the Dalton minimum. There's a reason they start the chart here.
That's why I was talking about the hockey stick graph, which relies solely on the last few years' runnign average. Flat for decades then up as one would expect from CO2 levels.
Where did the Co2 come from in the Early Middle Ages when the Vikings were growing Barley in Southern Greenland and Europes wine growing region extended 500 kms further north than today?
Europe's wine growing region ends at - about - London today. 500 km further North takes you well into Scotland.
If you look at Germany today, we get wine produced from about half way up. If you stretch 500 km North of there, you get meaningfully above Oslo and Stockholm.
I'm sure Europe's wine growing region stretched further North than previously during the Medieval Warm Period, but I'd be staggered if it was anywhere near 500km more than now.
500km north of Derbyshire gets you to somewhere north of Stirling.
I'm confident they never made wine that far north in Roman times.
Edit - there is evidence of Roman viticulture in North Thoresby, Lincs (there is a modern vineyard not far away at Sowerby). That's the most northern one I know of.
"Meet our latest pride and joy, the Elsa Pink 2022. It's more than a wine – it's a tribute to our bright and sparky daughter, capturing her vibrant spirit and enthusiasm in every drop. Each bottle radiates the same charming, magnetic energy she exudes, making it a celebration of family, love, and laughter."
Also I am not convinced they have got the hang of the whole viticulture thang, all their wine pages show a top-fruit (prob apple but it's out of focus) orchard in blossom. Avoid.
There's a vineyard just north of Doncaster (Summerhouse, I think), and one further north at Nun Monkton. https://yorkshireheart.com/
Also one in Holmfirth, but I think that's really just for the lolz.
Nothing wrong with new houses having heat pumps. They work great, provided that the heating system is designed and sized for the lower flow temperature of a heat pump rather than a gas boiler.
Simple stuff.
Bit of a problem if you have a pre-war house and don't want to spend £10,000+ on exterior cladding before the same again on a new heating system...
My understanding is that the proposals in England only apply to new homes. Retrofitting heatpumps isn't very viable in much of our older housing.
Though us (and the Dutch) are unusual in using Gas CH so much. In Scandinavian countries it is fairly unusual.
The mention of a new kind of heat pump designed to suit preexisting gas CH systems, albeit at a lower efficiency, was very interesting.
The wider issue is in a way how far UK homes can be insulated. And, more generallyt, one of capital investment to save. That's not specific to heat pumps, though many folk think it is.
Christ. Service in Ukraine needs a bit of polishing
Service in Eastern Europe is renowned for being shit.
Again, probably dates from Communism era when you were told your job, flat and had limited choices of what to buy and an entirely nominal income. Everyone was in the same boat and you just accepted it. Concepts of customer service in a market totally alien.
Even today, if you complain, they can look totally bamboozled as if you are the one that doesn't get it, and are the unreasonable one.
When I was in Latvia and Lithuania about 10 years ago I was shocked by the way that people working in shops would slam the change down on the counter as if they were furious with you. I realised after a bit that this was their normal way of returning change to the customer.
What's the point? These people will never believe in climate change, they will always think it's a hoax or over-exaggerated. Best to ignore them and move on.
You need "these people" because they are the solution. Setting up an "us" and "them" is the route to failure.
I do not have the energy, others can fight, I admitted defeat long ago. We are doomed.
No we're not. But here's a tip: stop telling people they can never fly again, travel again except by bike, and must have cold homes and eat mung beans forevermore and pay more for the privilege.
They'll tell you to Foxtrot Oscar and ignore you.
I've never said any of those things on here, you're putting words in my mouth there mate. We are doomed and I accept that. Good day.
At any given point in time, there are people saying: "We are doomed". In retrospect it always turns out to be nonsense.
[narrator: if it had, we wouldn't be here to observe it]
Nothing wrong with new houses having heat pumps. They work great, provided that the heating system is designed and sized for the lower flow temperature of a heat pump rather than a gas boiler.
Simple stuff.
Bit of a problem if you have a pre-war house and don't want to spend £10,000+ on exterior cladding before the same again on a new heating system...
My understanding is that the proposals in England only apply to new homes. Retrofitting heatpumps isn't very viable in much of our older housing.
Though us (and the Dutch) are unusual in using Gas CH so much. In Scandinavian countries it is fairly unusual.
The mention of a new kind of heat pump designed to suit preexisting gas CH systems, albeit at a lower efficiency, was very interesting.
The wider issue is in a way how far UK homes can be insulated. And, more generallyt, one of capital investment to save. That's not specific to heat pumps, though many folk think it is.
Nothing wrong with new houses having heat pumps. They work great, provided that the heating system is designed and sized for the lower flow temperature of a heat pump rather than a gas boiler.
Simple stuff.
Bit of a problem if you have a pre-war house and don't want to spend £10,000+ on exterior cladding before the same again on a new heating system...
My understanding is that the proposals in England only apply to new homes. Retrofitting heatpumps isn't very viable in much of our older housing.
Though us (and the Dutch) are unusual in using Gas CH so much. In Scandinavian countries it is fairly unusual.
The mention of a new kind of heat pump designed to suit preexisting gas CH systems, albeit at a lower efficiency, was very interesting.
The wider issue is in a way how far UK homes can be insulated. And, more generallyt, one of capital investment to save. That's not specific to heat pumps, though many folk think it is.
Any old heat pump will work with any gas heating system, it is just that to get the flow temperature up to 60 deg C or so it will need to use a lot of direct electricity to top up the refrigerant cycle, destroying the efficiency benefits. At that point you're just heating water with electricity like a kettle.
Which is why they're not good enough yet.
I’m told that if was to retrofit a heat pump in my home, a 3 bed detached built in 1990, as the pipework is only 10mm dia then I would probably need to replace pipe work and possibly radiators.
I'm very optimistic about the future. Acid rain and the hole in the Ozone Layer used to be huge environmental challenges. Solved both. Also, the UN agreed a charter to protect 1/3rd of the world's oceans earlier this year.
We will crack this one too. Don't worry.
I think we absolutely are doomed but you can be the hopeful one out of the two of us. I hope you are proven correct.
By doomed, what do you mean, exactly? We will have challenges for sure, but humans have got where they are today by overcoming challenges.
Fallacy central on here this evening. When you say I am going to die what do you mean, exactly? I will have challenges for sure, but I have got where I am today by overcoming challenges, including severe illness and serious accidents, and I have no doubt I will continue to do so indefinitely.
Nothing wrong with new houses having heat pumps. They work great, provided that the heating system is designed and sized for the lower flow temperature of a heat pump rather than a gas boiler.
Simple stuff.
Bit of a problem if you have a pre-war house and don't want to spend £10,000+ on exterior cladding before the same again on a new heating system...
My understanding is that the proposals in England only apply to new homes. Retrofitting heatpumps isn't very viable in much of our older housing.
Though us (and the Dutch) are unusual in using Gas CH so much. In Scandinavian countries it is fairly unusual.
The mention of a new kind of heat pump designed to suit preexisting gas CH systems, albeit at a lower efficiency, was very interesting.
The wider issue is in a way how far UK homes can be insulated. And, more generallyt, one of capital investment to save. That's not specific to heat pumps, though many folk think it is.
Any old heat pump will work with any gas heating system, it is just that to get the flow temperature up to 60 deg C or so it will need to use a lot of direct electricity to top up the refrigerant cycle, destroying the efficiency benefits. At that point you're just heating water with electricity like a kettle.
Which is why they're not good enough yet.
I’m told that if was to retrofit a heat pump in my home, a 3 bed detached built in 1990, as the pipework is only 10mm dia then I would probably need to replace pipe work and possibly radiators.
Remarkable headline in The Guardian. Sweden apparently has “extraordinarily liberal free speech laws” - because they allow people to burn the Koran. No, what they have is the freedom to mock and criticise religion. It’s called “the Enlightenment”. We used to do it, too
The Guardian are such wankers.
For those who keep asking what WOKE is: it's horseshit like this.
When did you last publicly burn one ?
Jesus fucking Christ what an insultingly stupid question
Nothing wrong with new houses having heat pumps. They work great, provided that the heating system is designed and sized for the lower flow temperature of a heat pump rather than a gas boiler.
Simple stuff.
Bit of a problem if you have a pre-war house and don't want to spend £10,000+ on exterior cladding before the same again on a new heating system...
My understanding is that the proposals in England only apply to new homes. Retrofitting heatpumps isn't very viable in much of our older housing.
Though us (and the Dutch) are unusual in using Gas CH so much. In Scandinavian countries it is fairly unusual.
The mention of a new kind of heat pump designed to suit preexisting gas CH systems, albeit at a lower efficiency, was very interesting.
The wider issue is in a way how far UK homes can be insulated. And, more generallyt, one of capital investment to save. That's not specific to heat pumps, though many folk think it is.
I'm very optimistic about the future. Acid rain and the hole in the Ozone Layer used to be huge environmental challenges. Solved both. Also, the UN agreed a charter to protect 1/3rd of the world's oceans earlier this year.
We will crack this one too. Don't worry.
I think we absolutely are doomed but you can be the hopeful one out of the two of us. I hope you are proven correct.
By doomed, what do you mean, exactly? We will have challenges for sure, but humans have got where they are today by overcoming challenges.
Fallacy central on here this evening. When you say I am going to die what do you mean, exactly? I will have challenges for sure, but I have got where I am today by overcoming challenges, including severe illness and serious accidents, and I have no doubt I will continue to do so indefinitely.
I am genuinely curious by what people mean when they say we are doomed. Do they believe that the human race will die out? That civilisation will collapse? Or what? I don’t think it’s an unfair question to ask, nor does it require some sixth form debating club snark.
There isn't a climate emergency. The change in terminology could have been predicted, though. Less so the change from global warming to climate change. Next the line is bound to be do this or go extinct.
To try to stop the climate changing is to be a Cnut. (In the monarchist sense.)
At least we have got to the stage where people accept it is happening, and will continue to do so.
All you have left is arguments over semantics.
The positive externalities of mitigation are worth it, even if they don't have a big impact on global emissions and the rate at which temperature increases.
Investment in adaptation is almost certainly worth it, particularly for flooding on the east coast and air conditioning in hospitals.
Yes. We need to invest in mitigation AND reduce CO2 output AND improve energy efficiency AND investigate carbon capture AND reduce methane output AND… We’re past simple solutions. We need all the solutions.
There are no solutions that will be acceptable in a democracy because people will not accept a mandated decline in living standard. Therefore there will be no solutions
How about the solutions that do not require a decline in living standards?
- More renewables in energy generation -> less dependence on (suddenly very expensive) gas from dodgy places - More efficient appliances -> lower costs of running those appliances - Better insulation -> warmer homes at lower heating cost (plus removal of cold patches with mould etc) - EVs -> better cars with lower running costs
Someone the other day mentioned LED lighting. Well, it's just better than incandescent, isn't it? Many more colour options, cooler running*, lasts longer, obsolescence of even worse stuff like flurorescent tubes...
*I once burned my foot on a halogen bulb in a bedside lamp when reading in bed turned into something more energetic
I am not against any of those but we both know the climate change zealots want more than that
They demand an end to personal transportation for one They demand we all go vegan for two
But climate change zealots are nowhere near power.
Neither of those two things are going to happen before the climate apocalypse* and then it's too late and pointless anyway.
*by which I mean they are election losers right up until the point where (if it ever happens) the effects of climate change are so severe that people, in general, would actually want these things
I should state at this point I am absolutely relaxed about climate change, purely because by the time it becomes critical I will be dead as will be my family. I doubt I am alone in that.
Which on the one hand means that the rhetoric can be ramped up and no one will be any the wiser, while on the other as you say no one *really* is invested.
It comes down to will no one think of the children which is always a tricky ask.
Like many my son and his wife have decided to be childfree. Given he they are in their 30's by the time he dies will likely be 2080 at the latest. What is being asked therefore is "think of other peoples children"
I expect things to be pretty shit by 2050
Give us some f'rinstances.
Hot summers wet winters fires everywhere
Oh no!!!
Sounds like a pretty normal year to me if I am honest
Ahem
Never trust a chart that lacks a scale.
It is like a Lib Dem "winning here" bar chart.
You can almost here Kay burley screaming that Edinburgh is literally ablaze!
It's Met Office data, graphic put together by National Centre for Atmospheric Science, Reading Uni.
But I appreciate you lot don't have much time for experts.
The choice of colour is deliberately designed to alarm idiots like you. I have zero time for 'experts' who produce a graph without a scale.
The late chap in a house round the back from me (not a million miles from Edinburgh) was a keen met person. He kept continuous records for decades. I remember seeing his graph of the running average for the last few years about 10-12 years ago. It was a near perfect hockey stick in shape.
1850, low point of the Dalton minimum. There's a reason they start the chart here.
That's why I was talking about the hockey stick graph, which relies solely on the last few years' runnign average. Flat for decades then up as one would expect from CO2 levels.
Where did the Co2 come from in the Early Middle Ages when the Vikings were growing Barley in Southern Greenland and Europes wine growing region extended 500 kms further north than today?
Europe's wine growing region ends at - about - London today. 500 km further North takes you well into Scotland.
If you look at Germany today, we get wine produced from about half way up. If you stretch 500 km North of there, you get meaningfully above Oslo and Stockholm.
I'm sure Europe's wine growing region stretched further North than previously during the Medieval Warm Period, but I'd be staggered if it was anywhere near 500km more than now.
500km north of Derbyshire gets you to somewhere north of Stirling.
I'm confident they never made wine that far north in Roman times.
Edit - there is evidence of Roman viticulture in North Thoresby, Lincs (there is a modern vineyard not far away at Sowerby). That's the most northern one I know of.
"Meet our latest pride and joy, the Elsa Pink 2022. It's more than a wine – it's a tribute to our bright and sparky daughter, capturing her vibrant spirit and enthusiasm in every drop. Each bottle radiates the same charming, magnetic energy she exudes, making it a celebration of family, love, and laughter."
Also I am not convinced they have got the hang of the whole viticulture thang, all their wine pages show a top-fruit (prob apple but it's out of focus) orchard in blossom. Avoid.
There's a vineyard just north of Doncaster (Summerhouse, I think), and one further north at Nun Monkton. https://yorkshireheart.com/
Also one in Holmfirth, but I think that's really just for the lolz.
Yes, but you have to try their output to know whether to take them seriously. I had some madeleine angevin white from Dartmouth the other day which took me back to the early 1980s, it was so disgusting.
What's the point? These people will never believe in climate change, they will always think it's a hoax or over-exaggerated. Best to ignore them and move on.
You need "these people" because they are the solution. Setting up an "us" and "them" is the route to failure.
I do not have the energy, others can fight, I admitted defeat long ago. We are doomed.
No we're not. But here's a tip: stop telling people they can never fly again, travel again except by bike, and must have cold homes and eat mung beans forevermore and pay more for the privilege.
They'll tell you to Foxtrot Oscar and ignore you.
I've never said any of those things on here, you're putting words in my mouth there mate. We are doomed and I accept that. Good day.
At any given point in time, there are people saying: "We are doomed". In retrospect it always turns out to be nonsense.
It is until it isn't. You are not able to say we got that right after we are all dead so it only works when we are wrong. Eventually we will all be doomed whether that be the bomb or running out of oil as predicted in the 60s or climate change as predicted now, or Yellowstone exploding or an asteroid hitting or eventually the sun exploding. Whatever it is going to happen. Sorry to be so depressing
Nothing wrong with new houses having heat pumps. They work great, provided that the heating system is designed and sized for the lower flow temperature of a heat pump rather than a gas boiler.
Simple stuff.
Bit of a problem if you have a pre-war house and don't want to spend £10,000+ on exterior cladding before the same again on a new heating system...
My understanding is that the proposals in England only apply to new homes. Retrofitting heatpumps isn't very viable in much of our older housing.
Though us (and the Dutch) are unusual in using Gas CH so much. In Scandinavian countries it is fairly unusual.
The mention of a new kind of heat pump designed to suit preexisting gas CH systems, albeit at a lower efficiency, was very interesting.
The wider issue is in a way how far UK homes can be insulated. And, more generallyt, one of capital investment to save. That's not specific to heat pumps, though many folk think it is.
Any old heat pump will work with any gas heating system, it is just that to get the flow temperature up to 60 deg C or so it will need to use a lot of direct electricity to top up the refrigerant cycle, destroying the efficiency benefits. At that point you're just heating water with electricity like a kettle.
Which is why they're not good enough yet.
I’m told that if was to retrofit a heat pump in my home, a 3 bed detached built in 1990, as the pipework is only 10mm dia then I would probably need to replace pipe work and possibly radiators.
Sorry if this has already been covered below, but I've been out all day. Do we have the equivalent figures for the other parties? I'd *expect* them to be more green and eco-focused than the Conservatives, but it'd be interesting to see.
There isn't a climate emergency. The change in terminology could have been predicted, though. Less so the change from global warming to climate change. Next the line is bound to be do this or go extinct.
To try to stop the climate changing is to be a Cnut. (In the monarchist sense.)
At least we have got to the stage where people accept it is happening, and will continue to do so.
All you have left is arguments over semantics.
The positive externalities of mitigation are worth it, even if they don't have a big impact on global emissions and the rate at which temperature increases.
Investment in adaptation is almost certainly worth it, particularly for flooding on the east coast and air conditioning in hospitals.
Yes. We need to invest in mitigation AND reduce CO2 output AND improve energy efficiency AND investigate carbon capture AND reduce methane output AND… We’re past simple solutions. We need all the solutions.
There are no solutions that will be acceptable in a democracy because people will not accept a mandated decline in living standard. Therefore there will be no solutions
How about the solutions that do not require a decline in living standards?
- More renewables in energy generation -> less dependence on (suddenly very expensive) gas from dodgy places - More efficient appliances -> lower costs of running those appliances - Better insulation -> warmer homes at lower heating cost (plus removal of cold patches with mould etc) - EVs -> better cars with lower running costs
Someone the other day mentioned LED lighting. Well, it's just better than incandescent, isn't it? Many more colour options, cooler running*, lasts longer, obsolescence of even worse stuff like flurorescent tubes...
*I once burned my foot on a halogen bulb in a bedside lamp when reading in bed turned into something more energetic
I am not against any of those but we both know the climate change zealots want more than that
They demand an end to personal transportation for one They demand we all go vegan for two
But climate change zealots are nowhere near power.
Neither of those two things are going to happen before the climate apocalypse* and then it's too late and pointless anyway.
*by which I mean they are election losers right up until the point where (if it ever happens) the effects of climate change are so severe that people, in general, would actually want these things
I should state at this point I am absolutely relaxed about climate change, purely because by the time it becomes critical I will be dead as will be my family. I doubt I am alone in that.
Which on the one hand means that the rhetoric can be ramped up and no one will be any the wiser, while on the other as you say no one *really* is invested.
It comes down to will no one think of the children which is always a tricky ask.
Like many my son and his wife have decided to be childfree. Given he they are in their 30's by the time he dies will likely be 2080 at the latest. What is being asked therefore is "think of other peoples children"
I expect things to be pretty shit by 2050
Give us some f'rinstances.
Hot summers wet winters fires everywhere
Oh no!!!
Sounds like a pretty normal year to me if I am honest
Ahem
Never trust a chart that lacks a scale.
It is like a Lib Dem "winning here" bar chart.
You can almost here Kay burley screaming that Edinburgh is literally ablaze!
It's Met Office data, graphic put together by National Centre for Atmospheric Science, Reading Uni.
But I appreciate you lot don't have much time for experts.
The choice of colour is deliberately designed to alarm idiots like you. I have zero time for 'experts' who produce a graph without a scale.
The late chap in a house round the back from me (not a million miles from Edinburgh) was a keen met person. He kept continuous records for decades. I remember seeing his graph of the running average for the last few years about 10-12 years ago. It was a near perfect hockey stick in shape.
1850, low point of the Dalton minimum. There's a reason they start the chart here.
That's why I was talking about the hockey stick graph, which relies solely on the last few years' runnign average. Flat for decades then up as one would expect from CO2 levels.
Where did the Co2 come from in the Early Middle Ages when the Vikings were growing Barley in Southern Greenland and Europes wine growing region extended 500 kms further north than today?
Europe's wine growing region ends at - about - London today. 500 km further North takes you well into Scotland.
If you look at Germany today, we get wine produced from about half way up. If you stretch 500 km North of there, you get meaningfully above Oslo and Stockholm.
I'm sure Europe's wine growing region stretched further North than previously during the Medieval Warm Period, but I'd be staggered if it was anywhere near 500km more than now.
500km north of Derbyshire gets you to somewhere north of Stirling.
I'm confident they never made wine that far north in Roman times.
Edit - there is evidence of Roman viticulture in North Thoresby, Lincs (there is a modern vineyard not far away at Sowerby). That's the most northern one I know of.
"Meet our latest pride and joy, the Elsa Pink 2022. It's more than a wine – it's a tribute to our bright and sparky daughter, capturing her vibrant spirit and enthusiasm in every drop. Each bottle radiates the same charming, magnetic energy she exudes, making it a celebration of family, love, and laughter."
Also I am not convinced they have got the hang of the whole viticulture thang, all their wine pages show a top-fruit (prob apple but it's out of focus) orchard in blossom. Avoid.
There's a vineyard just north of Doncaster (Summerhouse, I think), and one further north at Nun Monkton. https://yorkshireheart.com/
Also one in Holmfirth, but I think that's really just for the lolz.
Ryedale Vineyard is not far from Malton and their wine is nice. They also do a nice range of coder.
Nothing wrong with new houses having heat pumps. They work great, provided that the heating system is designed and sized for the lower flow temperature of a heat pump rather than a gas boiler.
Simple stuff.
Bit of a problem if you have a pre-war house and don't want to spend £10,000+ on exterior cladding before the same again on a new heating system...
My understanding is that the proposals in England only apply to new homes. Retrofitting heatpumps isn't very viable in much of our older housing.
Though us (and the Dutch) are unusual in using Gas CH so much. In Scandinavian countries it is fairly unusual.
The mention of a new kind of heat pump designed to suit preexisting gas CH systems, albeit at a lower efficiency, was very interesting.
The wider issue is in a way how far UK homes can be insulated. And, more generallyt, one of capital investment to save. That's not specific to heat pumps, though many folk think it is.
Any old heat pump will work with any gas heating system, it is just that to get the flow temperature up to 60 deg C or so it will need to use a lot of direct electricity to top up the refrigerant cycle, destroying the efficiency benefits. At that point you're just heating water with electricity like a kettle.
That's a little bit glossed imo, in that efficient normal running temperatures are a little different. Condensing gas boilers need a flow temp of below 55C (or they stop condensing and drop by about 10% in efficiency), whilst aiui heat pumps like to be as low as possible - which is why it is sometimes wise eg to replace radiators with double radiators the same size if trying to control costs. My boiler runs at 45C, but can modulate down to 35C - but whilst my house is OK it is not the best in the world for EPC, at just I think a mid B for the EPC.
Happy to be questioned, as its not my utter specialism.
A B rating is very good
These are the ratings
EPC rating A = 92-100 SAP points (most efficient) EPC rating B = 81-91 SAP points. EPC rating C = 69-80 SAP points. EPC rating D = 55-68 SAP points. EPC rating E = 39-54 SAP points. EPC rating F = 21-38 SAP points. EPC rating G = 1-20 SAP points (least efficient)
My house is a B also having been built in 2018 and all. It has a gas combi boiler...
Mine is C having been built in 1973 and has a gas combi boiler
Mind you it has been fully insulated throughout, is double glazed, and has solar panels
I want a rating of 100, which crudely can mean one version of zero energy.
But I'll have to do it with more solar and maybe a battery / heat pump as this place was massively restored before we moved and it would all have to be redone to insert more insulation, and I have done most easy savings. The solar export doesn't cover the bills yet.
The median level for all properties in England is now a 67D (2022 number), which is up about 15-20 points since it started. The average figure for new homes is 8x, and for older stock 6x.
I'm very optimistic about the future. Acid rain and the hole in the Ozone Layer used to be huge environmental challenges. Solved both. Also, the UN agreed a charter to protect 1/3rd of the world's oceans earlier this year.
We will crack this one too. Don't worry.
I think we absolutely are doomed but you can be the hopeful one out of the two of us. I hope you are proven correct.
By doomed, what do you mean, exactly? We will have challenges for sure, but humans have got where they are today by overcoming challenges.
Fallacy central on here this evening. When you say I am going to die what do you mean, exactly? I will have challenges for sure, but I have got where I am today by overcoming challenges, including severe illness and serious accidents, and I have no doubt I will continue to do so indefinitely.
I am genuinely curious by what people mean when they say we are doomed. Do they believe that the human race will die out? That civilisation will collapse? Or what? I don’t think it’s an unfair question to ask, nor does it require some sixth form debating club snark.
Most people don't think we are "doomed".
We are just worried about human welfare over the next 50 years or so, and wish to maximise it in the face of a changing climate. That means mitigating emissions as far as possible and adapting for the change that has already been set in motion.
There were 66 years between flight and the moon, including two world wars and the Great Depression. I'm optimistic
I'm very optimistic about the future. Acid rain and the hole in the Ozone Layer used to be huge environmental challenges. Solved both. Also, the UN agreed a charter to protect 1/3rd of the world's oceans earlier this year.
We will crack this one too. Don't worry.
I think we absolutely are doomed but you can be the hopeful one out of the two of us. I hope you are proven correct.
By doomed, what do you mean, exactly? We will have challenges for sure, but humans have got where they are today by overcoming challenges.
Fallacy central on here this evening. When you say I am going to die what do you mean, exactly? I will have challenges for sure, but I have got where I am today by overcoming challenges, including severe illness and serious accidents, and I have no doubt I will continue to do so indefinitely.
I am genuinely curious by what people mean when they say we are doomed. Do they believe that the human race will die out? That civilisation will collapse? Or what? I don’t think it’s an unfair question to ask, nor does it require some sixth form debating club snark.
I think if a point is made against you, your choice is to refute it or concede it. Characterising it as "sixth form debating club snark" strikes me as a graceless way of doing the latter.
Substantively: the earth is a complex system. So is a lorry. If you have a lorry and carry out zero maintenance on it, while loading it and loading it and then loading it some more, it is very difficult to predict the exact failure mode, but very easy indeed to predict eventual failure. To revert to the sixth form snark, if I say to the lorry driver at Tebay services that I don't fancy his chances of getting to Glasgow, his reply that he has made it all the way from Dover to here is not a knockdown argument.
I'm very optimistic about the future. Acid rain and the hole in the Ozone Layer used to be huge environmental challenges. Solved both. Also, the UN agreed a charter to protect 1/3rd of the world's oceans earlier this year.
We will crack this one too. Don't worry.
I think we absolutely are doomed but you can be the hopeful one out of the two of us. I hope you are proven correct.
By doomed, what do you mean, exactly? We will have challenges for sure, but humans have got where they are today by overcoming challenges.
Fallacy central on here this evening. When you say I am going to die what do you mean, exactly? I will have challenges for sure, but I have got where I am today by overcoming challenges, including severe illness and serious accidents, and I have no doubt I will continue to do so indefinitely.
I am genuinely curious by what people mean when they say we are doomed. Do they believe that the human race will die out? That civilisation will collapse? Or what? I don’t think it’s an unfair question to ask, nor does it require some sixth form debating club snark.
There would have been Romans in about 380AD who would have scoffed, in their togas, over their fine Falernian wine, at the idea their entire empire could be rolled up in about two generations and humanity - in the west at least - set back by 1000 years. To the extent that the average western human would only regain the same quality of life in about 1700-1800AD, and even later for some things (like reliable heating)
"In 2020, Biden won only 500 or so counties, but together they are responsible for 71 percent of the American economy. Trump won over 2,500 counties, responsible for only 29 percent."
Nothing wrong with new houses having heat pumps. They work great, provided that the heating system is designed and sized for the lower flow temperature of a heat pump rather than a gas boiler.
Simple stuff.
Bit of a problem if you have a pre-war house and don't want to spend £10,000+ on exterior cladding before the same again on a new heating system...
My understanding is that the proposals in England only apply to new homes. Retrofitting heatpumps isn't very viable in much of our older housing.
Though us (and the Dutch) are unusual in using Gas CH so much. In Scandinavian countries it is fairly unusual.
The mention of a new kind of heat pump designed to suit preexisting gas CH systems, albeit at a lower efficiency, was very interesting.
The wider issue is in a way how far UK homes can be insulated. And, more generallyt, one of capital investment to save. That's not specific to heat pumps, though many folk think it is.
Any old heat pump will work with any gas heating system, it is just that to get the flow temperature up to 60 deg C or so it will need to use a lot of direct electricity to top up the refrigerant cycle, destroying the efficiency benefits. At that point you're just heating water with electricity like a kettle.
Which is why they're not good enough yet.
I’m told that if was to retrofit a heat pump in my home, a 3 bed detached built in 1990, as the pipework is only 10mm dia then I would probably need to replace pipe work and possibly radiators.
See my post.
Thanks. Useful information.
In my experience replacing radiators and pipework is inexpensive - the last one I did was because it was only £250 more than a powerflush.
There isn't a climate emergency. The change in terminology could have been predicted, though. Less so the change from global warming to climate change. Next the line is bound to be do this or go extinct.
To try to stop the climate changing is to be a Cnut. (In the monarchist sense.)
At least we have got to the stage where people accept it is happening, and will continue to do so.
All you have left is arguments over semantics.
The positive externalities of mitigation are worth it, even if they don't have a big impact on global emissions and the rate at which temperature increases.
Investment in adaptation is almost certainly worth it, particularly for flooding on the east coast and air conditioning in hospitals.
Yes. We need to invest in mitigation AND reduce CO2 output AND improve energy efficiency AND investigate carbon capture AND reduce methane output AND… We’re past simple solutions. We need all the solutions.
There are no solutions that will be acceptable in a democracy because people will not accept a mandated decline in living standard. Therefore there will be no solutions
How about the solutions that do not require a decline in living standards?
- More renewables in energy generation -> less dependence on (suddenly very expensive) gas from dodgy places - More efficient appliances -> lower costs of running those appliances - Better insulation -> warmer homes at lower heating cost (plus removal of cold patches with mould etc) - EVs -> better cars with lower running costs
Someone the other day mentioned LED lighting. Well, it's just better than incandescent, isn't it? Many more colour options, cooler running*, lasts longer, obsolescence of even worse stuff like flurorescent tubes...
*I once burned my foot on a halogen bulb in a bedside lamp when reading in bed turned into something more energetic
I am not against any of those but we both know the climate change zealots want more than that
They demand an end to personal transportation for one They demand we all go vegan for two
But climate change zealots are nowhere near power.
Neither of those two things are going to happen before the climate apocalypse* and then it's too late and pointless anyway.
*by which I mean they are election losers right up until the point where (if it ever happens) the effects of climate change are so severe that people, in general, would actually want these things
I should state at this point I am absolutely relaxed about climate change, purely because by the time it becomes critical I will be dead as will be my family. I doubt I am alone in that.
Which on the one hand means that the rhetoric can be ramped up and no one will be any the wiser, while on the other as you say no one *really* is invested.
It comes down to will no one think of the children which is always a tricky ask.
Like many my son and his wife have decided to be childfree. Given he they are in their 30's by the time he dies will likely be 2080 at the latest. What is being asked therefore is "think of other peoples children"
I expect things to be pretty shit by 2050
Give us some f'rinstances.
Hot summers wet winters fires everywhere
Oh no!!!
Sounds like a pretty normal year to me if I am honest
Ahem
Never trust a chart that lacks a scale.
It is like a Lib Dem "winning here" bar chart.
You can almost here Kay burley screaming that Edinburgh is literally ablaze!
It's Met Office data, graphic put together by National Centre for Atmospheric Science, Reading Uni.
But I appreciate you lot don't have much time for experts.
The choice of colour is deliberately designed to alarm idiots like you. I have zero time for 'experts' who produce a graph without a scale.
The late chap in a house round the back from me (not a million miles from Edinburgh) was a keen met person. He kept continuous records for decades. I remember seeing his graph of the running average for the last few years about 10-12 years ago. It was a near perfect hockey stick in shape.
1850, low point of the Dalton minimum. There's a reason they start the chart here.
That's why I was talking about the hockey stick graph, which relies solely on the last few years' runnign average. Flat for decades then up as one would expect from CO2 levels.
Where did the Co2 come from in the Early Middle Ages when the Vikings were growing Barley in Southern Greenland and Europes wine growing region extended 500 kms further north than today?
Europe's wine growing region ends at - about - London today. 500 km further North takes you well into Scotland.
If you look at Germany today, we get wine produced from about half way up. If you stretch 500 km North of there, you get meaningfully above Oslo and Stockholm.
I'm sure Europe's wine growing region stretched further North than previously during the Medieval Warm Period, but I'd be staggered if it was anywhere near 500km more than now.
500km north of Derbyshire gets you to somewhere north of Stirling.
I'm confident they never made wine that far north in Roman times.
Edit - there is evidence of Roman viticulture in North Thoresby, Lincs (there is a modern vineyard not far away at Sowerby). That's the most northern one I know of.
"Meet our latest pride and joy, the Elsa Pink 2022. It's more than a wine – it's a tribute to our bright and sparky daughter, capturing her vibrant spirit and enthusiasm in every drop. Each bottle radiates the same charming, magnetic energy she exudes, making it a celebration of family, love, and laughter."
Also I am not convinced they have got the hang of the whole viticulture thang, all their wine pages show a top-fruit (prob apple but it's out of focus) orchard in blossom. Avoid.
There's a vineyard just north of Doncaster (Summerhouse, I think), and one further north at Nun Monkton. https://yorkshireheart.com/
Also one in Holmfirth, but I think that's really just for the lolz.
Yes, but you have to try their output to know whether to take them seriously. I had some madeleine angevin white from Dartmouth the other day which took me back to the early 1980s, it was so disgusting.
How "serious" were the alleged vineyards in the Medieval Warm Period, given that transporting the finest Chilean produce wasn't exactly that easy at the time?
Remarkable headline in The Guardian. Sweden apparently has “extraordinarily liberal free speech laws” - because they allow people to burn the Koran. No, what they have is the freedom to mock and criticise religion. It’s called “the Enlightenment”. We used to do it, too
The Guardian are such wankers.
For those who keep asking what WOKE is: it's horseshit like this.
When did you last publicly burn one ?
Jesus fucking Christ what an insultingly stupid question
Not at all. Casino could have said the people publicly burning the Koran purely to make others unhappy are wankers. But he didn't.
Personally I can't think of anything more wankist than what those guys are doing.
It seems on my street almost all of the houses are B but some of my neighbours are A, those are the numbers with solar panels which we didn't get on ours. Even with gas boilers, they're A.
You gotta love the arbitrary formula...
I personally think solar panels should have no bearing on an EPC because they only impact electricity usage and that is personal anyway. It should be heat/cooling based only.
Don't some heat water, though?
I've never been very sure of them in the Scttish climate, even with antifreeze, around here. A bottle of airbrush acrylic paint thinner - basically dilute antifreeze - froze solid in my shed at least one winter.
If they impact electricity usage (either by reducing demand or exporting) then they impact carbon emissions since they reduce the need for production, or supply energy to the neighbourhood.
And EPC is generally all based around emissions, of which fabric efficiency / energy usage is one aspect. The new Scottish proposals break out the different elements some more.
Remarkable headline in The Guardian. Sweden apparently has “extraordinarily liberal free speech laws” - because they allow people to burn the Koran. No, what they have is the freedom to mock and criticise religion. It’s called “the Enlightenment”. We used to do it, too
The Guardian are such wankers.
For those who keep asking what WOKE is: it's horseshit like this.
When did you last publicly burn one ?
Jesus fucking Christ what an insultingly stupid question
I don't think it is. As someone who believe in free speech I think you should be able to do so, but here is the counter argument: I am also an atheist yet I find the idea of burning a Bible of Koran in public unreasonably insulting to those who hold those religious views no matter how barking I think they are, even though I think I have the right to do so.
There isn't a climate emergency. The change in terminology could have been predicted, though. Less so the change from global warming to climate change. Next the line is bound to be do this or go extinct.
To try to stop the climate changing is to be a Cnut. (In the monarchist sense.)
At least we have got to the stage where people accept it is happening, and will continue to do so.
All you have left is arguments over semantics.
The positive externalities of mitigation are worth it, even if they don't have a big impact on global emissions and the rate at which temperature increases.
Investment in adaptation is almost certainly worth it, particularly for flooding on the east coast and air conditioning in hospitals.
Yes. We need to invest in mitigation AND reduce CO2 output AND improve energy efficiency AND investigate carbon capture AND reduce methane output AND… We’re past simple solutions. We need all the solutions.
There are no solutions that will be acceptable in a democracy because people will not accept a mandated decline in living standard. Therefore there will be no solutions
How about the solutions that do not require a decline in living standards?
- More renewables in energy generation -> less dependence on (suddenly very expensive) gas from dodgy places - More efficient appliances -> lower costs of running those appliances - Better insulation -> warmer homes at lower heating cost (plus removal of cold patches with mould etc) - EVs -> better cars with lower running costs
Someone the other day mentioned LED lighting. Well, it's just better than incandescent, isn't it? Many more colour options, cooler running*, lasts longer, obsolescence of even worse stuff like flurorescent tubes...
*I once burned my foot on a halogen bulb in a bedside lamp when reading in bed turned into something more energetic
I am not against any of those but we both know the climate change zealots want more than that
They demand an end to personal transportation for one They demand we all go vegan for two
But climate change zealots are nowhere near power.
Neither of those two things are going to happen before the climate apocalypse* and then it's too late and pointless anyway.
*by which I mean they are election losers right up until the point where (if it ever happens) the effects of climate change are so severe that people, in general, would actually want these things
I should state at this point I am absolutely relaxed about climate change, purely because by the time it becomes critical I will be dead as will be my family. I doubt I am alone in that.
Which on the one hand means that the rhetoric can be ramped up and no one will be any the wiser, while on the other as you say no one *really* is invested.
It comes down to will no one think of the children which is always a tricky ask.
Like many my son and his wife have decided to be childfree. Given he they are in their 30's by the time he dies will likely be 2080 at the latest. What is being asked therefore is "think of other peoples children"
I expect things to be pretty shit by 2050
Give us some f'rinstances.
Hot summers wet winters fires everywhere
Oh no!!!
Sounds like a pretty normal year to me if I am honest
Ahem
Never trust a chart that lacks a scale.
It is like a Lib Dem "winning here" bar chart.
You can almost here Kay burley screaming that Edinburgh is literally ablaze!
It's Met Office data, graphic put together by National Centre for Atmospheric Science, Reading Uni.
But I appreciate you lot don't have much time for experts.
The choice of colour is deliberately designed to alarm idiots like you. I have zero time for 'experts' who produce a graph without a scale.
The late chap in a house round the back from me (not a million miles from Edinburgh) was a keen met person. He kept continuous records for decades. I remember seeing his graph of the running average for the last few years about 10-12 years ago. It was a near perfect hockey stick in shape.
1850, low point of the Dalton minimum. There's a reason they start the chart here.
That's why I was talking about the hockey stick graph, which relies solely on the last few years' runnign average. Flat for decades then up as one would expect from CO2 levels.
Where did the Co2 come from in the Early Middle Ages when the Vikings were growing Barley in Southern Greenland and Europes wine growing region extended 500 kms further north than today?
Europe's wine growing region ends at - about - London today. 500 km further North takes you well into Scotland.
If you look at Germany today, we get wine produced from about half way up. If you stretch 500 km North of there, you get meaningfully above Oslo and Stockholm.
I'm sure Europe's wine growing region stretched further North than previously during the Medieval Warm Period, but I'd be staggered if it was anywhere near 500km more than now.
500km north of Derbyshire gets you to somewhere north of Stirling.
I'm confident they never made wine that far north in Roman times.
Edit - there is evidence of Roman viticulture in North Thoresby, Lincs (there is a modern vineyard not far away at Sowerby). That's the most northern one I know of.
"Meet our latest pride and joy, the Elsa Pink 2022. It's more than a wine – it's a tribute to our bright and sparky daughter, capturing her vibrant spirit and enthusiasm in every drop. Each bottle radiates the same charming, magnetic energy she exudes, making it a celebration of family, love, and laughter."
Also I am not convinced they have got the hang of the whole viticulture thang, all their wine pages show a top-fruit (prob apple but it's out of focus) orchard in blossom. Avoid.
There's a vineyard just north of Doncaster (Summerhouse, I think), and one further north at Nun Monkton. https://yorkshireheart.com/
Also one in Holmfirth, but I think that's really just for the lolz.
Yes, but you have to try their output to know whether to take them seriously. I had some madeleine angevin white from Dartmouth the other day which took me back to the early 1980s, it was so disgusting.
How "serious" were the alleged vineyards in the Medieval Warm Period, given that transporting the finest Chilean produce wasn't exactly that easy at the time?
Dunno about quality of wine but there is ample evidence that Dartmoor - which @miklosvar might know - was farmed all the way up to the topmost tors in the medieval warm period
It was that warm. These days farming begins much further down
So yeah it was warm. This does not of course “disprove” AGW
Remarkable headline in The Guardian. Sweden apparently has “extraordinarily liberal free speech laws” - because they allow people to burn the Koran. No, what they have is the freedom to mock and criticise religion. It’s called “the Enlightenment”. We used to do it, too
The Guardian are such wankers.
For those who keep asking what WOKE is: it's horseshit like this.
When did you last publicly burn one ?
Jesus fucking Christ what an insultingly stupid question
I don't think it is. As someone who believe in free speech I think you should be able to do so, but here is the counter argument: I am also an atheist yet I find the idea of burning a Bible of Koran in public unreasonably insulting to those who hold those religious views no matter how barking I think they are even though I think they have the right to do so.
No no no no no. Because once you allow the threat of religious violence to infringe free speech then when do you stop?
Now Sweden is about to buckle and forbid Koran burning. Then it will be cartoons of the prophet. Than any criticism of the prophet. Then anything that remotely incites any of these bearded fuckers
Ffs we’ve seen this unfold in the uk and France. Teachers beheaded and in hiding So you end up with full on medieval blasphemy laws that only protect one religion - because that religion is so aggressive and violent
How much more evidence do you need? You people are pathetic.
I'm very optimistic about the future. Acid rain and the hole in the Ozone Layer used to be huge environmental challenges. Solved both. Also, the UN agreed a charter to protect 1/3rd of the world's oceans earlier this year.
We will crack this one too. Don't worry.
I think we absolutely are doomed but you can be the hopeful one out of the two of us. I hope you are proven correct.
By doomed, what do you mean, exactly? We will have challenges for sure, but humans have got where they are today by overcoming challenges.
Fallacy central on here this evening. When you say I am going to die what do you mean, exactly? I will have challenges for sure, but I have got where I am today by overcoming challenges, including severe illness and serious accidents, and I have no doubt I will continue to do so indefinitely.
I am genuinely curious by what people mean when they say we are doomed. Do they believe that the human race will die out? That civilisation will collapse? Or what? I don’t think it’s an unfair question to ask, nor does it require some sixth form debating club snark.
I think if a point is made against you, your choice is to refute it or concede it. Characterising it as "sixth form debating club snark" strikes me as a graceless way of doing the latter.
Substantively: the earth is a complex system. So is a lorry. If you have a lorry and carry out zero maintenance on it, while loading it and loading it and then loading it some more, it is very difficult to predict the exact failure mode, but very easy indeed to predict eventual failure. To revert to the sixth form snark, if I say to the lorry driver at Tebay services that I don't fancy his chances of getting to Glasgow, his reply that he has made it all the way from Dover to here is not a knockdown argument.
I don’t disagree with your logic, just I asked about what people mean by doomed? Your answer is nothing to do with that, and more concerned with playing logic games.
Remarkable headline in The Guardian. Sweden apparently has “extraordinarily liberal free speech laws” - because they allow people to burn the Koran. No, what they have is the freedom to mock and criticise religion. It’s called “the Enlightenment”. We used to do it, too
The Guardian are such wankers.
For those who keep asking what WOKE is: it's horseshit like this.
When did you last publicly burn one ?
Jesus fucking Christ what an insultingly stupid question
Not at all. Casino could have said the people publicly burning the Koran purely to make others unhappy are wankers. But he didn't.
Personally I can't think of anything more wankist than what those guys are doing.
It is extremely rude, disrespectful and provocative to burn a religious text, as it is a flag - and I wouldn't do it.
Nevertheless, I would defend someone's right to do so and I'd certainly like to call out some of Islam's central tenets as bollocks, politely so, as far as possible, because I think they are.
There isn't a climate emergency. The change in terminology could have been predicted, though. Less so the change from global warming to climate change. Next the line is bound to be do this or go extinct.
To try to stop the climate changing is to be a Cnut. (In the monarchist sense.)
At least we have got to the stage where people accept it is happening, and will continue to do so.
All you have left is arguments over semantics.
The positive externalities of mitigation are worth it, even if they don't have a big impact on global emissions and the rate at which temperature increases.
Investment in adaptation is almost certainly worth it, particularly for flooding on the east coast and air conditioning in hospitals.
Yes. We need to invest in mitigation AND reduce CO2 output AND improve energy efficiency AND investigate carbon capture AND reduce methane output AND… We’re past simple solutions. We need all the solutions.
There are no solutions that will be acceptable in a democracy because people will not accept a mandated decline in living standard. Therefore there will be no solutions
How about the solutions that do not require a decline in living standards?
- More renewables in energy generation -> less dependence on (suddenly very expensive) gas from dodgy places - More efficient appliances -> lower costs of running those appliances - Better insulation -> warmer homes at lower heating cost (plus removal of cold patches with mould etc) - EVs -> better cars with lower running costs
Someone the other day mentioned LED lighting. Well, it's just better than incandescent, isn't it? Many more colour options, cooler running*, lasts longer, obsolescence of even worse stuff like flurorescent tubes...
*I once burned my foot on a halogen bulb in a bedside lamp when reading in bed turned into something more energetic
I am not against any of those but we both know the climate change zealots want more than that
They demand an end to personal transportation for one They demand we all go vegan for two
But climate change zealots are nowhere near power.
Neither of those two things are going to happen before the climate apocalypse* and then it's too late and pointless anyway.
*by which I mean they are election losers right up until the point where (if it ever happens) the effects of climate change are so severe that people, in general, would actually want these things
I should state at this point I am absolutely relaxed about climate change, purely because by the time it becomes critical I will be dead as will be my family. I doubt I am alone in that.
Which on the one hand means that the rhetoric can be ramped up and no one will be any the wiser, while on the other as you say no one *really* is invested.
It comes down to will no one think of the children which is always a tricky ask.
Like many my son and his wife have decided to be childfree. Given he they are in their 30's by the time he dies will likely be 2080 at the latest. What is being asked therefore is "think of other peoples children"
I expect things to be pretty shit by 2050
Give us some f'rinstances.
Hot summers wet winters fires everywhere
Oh no!!!
Sounds like a pretty normal year to me if I am honest
Ahem
Never trust a chart that lacks a scale.
It is like a Lib Dem "winning here" bar chart.
You can almost here Kay burley screaming that Edinburgh is literally ablaze!
It's Met Office data, graphic put together by National Centre for Atmospheric Science, Reading Uni.
But I appreciate you lot don't have much time for experts.
The choice of colour is deliberately designed to alarm idiots like you. I have zero time for 'experts' who produce a graph without a scale.
The late chap in a house round the back from me (not a million miles from Edinburgh) was a keen met person. He kept continuous records for decades. I remember seeing his graph of the running average for the last few years about 10-12 years ago. It was a near perfect hockey stick in shape.
1850, low point of the Dalton minimum. There's a reason they start the chart here.
That's why I was talking about the hockey stick graph, which relies solely on the last few years' runnign average. Flat for decades then up as one would expect from CO2 levels.
Where did the Co2 come from in the Early Middle Ages when the Vikings were growing Barley in Southern Greenland and Europes wine growing region extended 500 kms further north than today?
Europe's wine growing region ends at - about - London today. 500 km further North takes you well into Scotland.
If you look at Germany today, we get wine produced from about half way up. If you stretch 500 km North of there, you get meaningfully above Oslo and Stockholm.
I'm sure Europe's wine growing region stretched further North than previously during the Medieval Warm Period, but I'd be staggered if it was anywhere near 500km more than now.
500km north of Derbyshire gets you to somewhere north of Stirling.
I'm confident they never made wine that far north in Roman times.
Edit - there is evidence of Roman viticulture in North Thoresby, Lincs (there is a modern vineyard not far away at Sowerby). That's the most northern one I know of.
"Meet our latest pride and joy, the Elsa Pink 2022. It's more than a wine – it's a tribute to our bright and sparky daughter, capturing her vibrant spirit and enthusiasm in every drop. Each bottle radiates the same charming, magnetic energy she exudes, making it a celebration of family, love, and laughter."
Also I am not convinced they have got the hang of the whole viticulture thang, all their wine pages show a top-fruit (prob apple but it's out of focus) orchard in blossom. Avoid.
There's a vineyard just north of Doncaster (Summerhouse, I think), and one further north at Nun Monkton. https://yorkshireheart.com/
Also one in Holmfirth, but I think that's really just for the lolz.
Yes, but you have to try their output to know whether to take them seriously. I had some madeleine angevin white from Dartmouth the other day which took me back to the early 1980s, it was so disgusting.
How "serious" were the alleged vineyards in the Medieval Warm Period, given that transporting the finest Chilean produce wasn't exactly that easy at the time?
Well, the English virtually invented the international wine trade at around that time, what with claret and malmsey and port and so on. As you say, why bother if their home brew was so delicious?
I'm very optimistic about the future. Acid rain and the hole in the Ozone Layer used to be huge environmental challenges. Solved both. Also, the UN agreed a charter to protect 1/3rd of the world's oceans earlier this year.
We will crack this one too. Don't worry.
I think we absolutely are doomed but you can be the hopeful one out of the two of us. I hope you are proven correct.
By doomed, what do you mean, exactly? We will have challenges for sure, but humans have got where they are today by overcoming challenges.
Fallacy central on here this evening. When you say I am going to die what do you mean, exactly? I will have challenges for sure, but I have got where I am today by overcoming challenges, including severe illness and serious accidents, and I have no doubt I will continue to do so indefinitely.
I am genuinely curious by what people mean when they say we are doomed. Do they believe that the human race will die out? That civilisation will collapse? Or what? I don’t think it’s an unfair question to ask, nor does it require some sixth form debating club snark.
There would have been Romans in about 380AD who would have scoffed, in their togas, over their fine Falernian wine, at the idea their entire empire could be rolled up in about two generations and humanity - in the west at least - set back by 1000 years. To the extent that the average western human would only regain the same quality of life in about 1700-1800AD, and even later for some things (like reliable heating)
The doomsayers were right, back then
I’m not entirely sure that the average Roman enjoyed the lifestyle you are implying. The elites lived in the swanky villas, and the best parts of Rome. The rest, not so much.
And yes, doom came to Rome, but I stand by my original question, what do people who say we are doomed by climate change actually mean?
Nothing wrong with new houses having heat pumps. They work great, provided that the heating system is designed and sized for the lower flow temperature of a heat pump rather than a gas boiler.
Simple stuff.
Bit of a problem if you have a pre-war house and don't want to spend £10,000+ on exterior cladding before the same again on a new heating system...
My understanding is that the proposals in England only apply to new homes. Retrofitting heatpumps isn't very viable in much of our older housing.
Though us (and the Dutch) are unusual in using Gas CH so much. In Scandinavian countries it is fairly unusual.
The mention of a new kind of heat pump designed to suit preexisting gas CH systems, albeit at a lower efficiency, was very interesting.
The wider issue is in a way how far UK homes can be insulated. And, more generallyt, one of capital investment to save. That's not specific to heat pumps, though many folk think it is.
Any old heat pump will work with any gas heating system, it is just that to get the flow temperature up to 60 deg C or so it will need to use a lot of direct electricity to top up the refrigerant cycle, destroying the efficiency benefits. At that point you're just heating water with electricity like a kettle.
Which is why they're not good enough yet.
I’m told that if was to retrofit a heat pump in my home, a 3 bed detached built in 1990, as the pipework is only 10mm dia then I would probably need to replace pipe work and possibly radiators.
See my post.
Thanks. Useful information.
In my experience replacing radiators and pipework is inexpensive - the last one I did was because it was only £250 more than a powerflush.
It may be inexpensive in your view but it’s still potentially an additional expense if I had to move to a heat pump.
It may also be inexpensive to you but it may not be to many other people. Especially in a cost of living crisis.
There can be a major difference between gas and gas.
Christmas last year we moved from a rental accommodation where we needed to keep our gas boiler on pretty much 24/7 through the deep winter, with fixed via the boiler's toggles on-off times in milder winter/autumn, to a modern new build home. The new home is well insulated and comes with digital thermostatic controls that can be controlled via an app too. The thermostat target lowers at times of the day when you don't need the temperature to be as high either (eg overnight, or mid afternoon) peaking at only morning and early evening.
Even in deep midwinter the boiler was normally off. When the temperature dipped low enough to trigger it to turn back on, you can hear it start and then not long later it would be off again.
The amount of gas consumed is far, far lower now than it was. Even with a new, gas, boiler.
I would be extremely shocked if this home were not rated at least C.
Indeed - it is normal in some well done ("near passive") houses to have no upstairs heating except maybe an electric towel radiator in case the calcs were slightly wrong. Heating costs can be cut by 90% over an average house, and can even be measured humorously in "cats"* or "huskies". and then things like cooking become important items.
The biggest challenge is always water heating, which is why hot water tanks have come back over instant mains supply via a combi boiler.
Remarkable headline in The Guardian. Sweden apparently has “extraordinarily liberal free speech laws” - because they allow people to burn the Koran. No, what they have is the freedom to mock and criticise religion. It’s called “the Enlightenment”. We used to do it, too
The Guardian are such wankers.
For those who keep asking what WOKE is: it's horseshit like this.
When did you last publicly burn one ?
Jesus fucking Christ what an insultingly stupid question
Not at all. Casino could have said the people publicly burning the Koran purely to make others unhappy are wankers. But he didn't.
Personally I can't think of anything more wankist than what those guys are doing.
It is extremely rude, disrespectful and provocative to burn a religious text, as it is a flag - and I wouldn't do it.
Nevertheless, I would defend someone's right to do so and I'd certainly like to call out some of Islam's central tenets as bollocks, politely so, as far as possible, because I think they are.
Would I go to the barricades to fight to the death for the right of people of people to insult others and sow division just because they can?
No I wouldn't. Those guys can look after themselves.
Nothing wrong with new houses having heat pumps. They work great, provided that the heating system is designed and sized for the lower flow temperature of a heat pump rather than a gas boiler.
Simple stuff.
Bit of a problem if you have a pre-war house and don't want to spend £10,000+ on exterior cladding before the same again on a new heating system...
My understanding is that the proposals in England only apply to new homes. Retrofitting heatpumps isn't very viable in much of our older housing.
Though us (and the Dutch) are unusual in using Gas CH so much. In Scandinavian countries it is fairly unusual.
The mention of a new kind of heat pump designed to suit preexisting gas CH systems, albeit at a lower efficiency, was very interesting.
The wider issue is in a way how far UK homes can be insulated. And, more generallyt, one of capital investment to save. That's not specific to heat pumps, though many folk think it is.
Any old heat pump will work with any gas heating system, it is just that to get the flow temperature up to 60 deg C or so it will need to use a lot of direct electricity to top up the refrigerant cycle, destroying the efficiency benefits. At that point you're just heating water with electricity like a kettle.
Which is why they're not good enough yet.
I’m told that if was to retrofit a heat pump in my home, a 3 bed detached built in 1990, as the pipework is only 10mm dia then I would probably need to replace pipe work and possibly radiators.
See my post.
Thanks. Useful information.
In my experience replacing radiators and pipework is inexpensive - the last one I did was because it was only £250 more than a powerflush.
It may be inexpensive in your view but it’s still potentially an additional expense if I had to move to a heat pump.
It may also be inexpensive to you but it may not be to many other people. Especially in a cost of living crisis.
Correct, but compared to an ASHP it is a small percentage. In that case it was £600 for a powerflush of an existing system, or £850 for a full set of new rads and pipework including fitting, at the time a new boiler was required. Slightly smaller than average house - 6-7 radiators. Leaving old rads in could have filled the new boiler with gunge.
In an ASHP install, the greater emitter surface may permit a lower running temperature which will boost efficiency and may pay for itself quite quickly.
It's why we need a strong skills base to force out the bad advice. I'm ASHP ready (from the big rads installed by the previous owner, but I'll wait a few years).
You can tell the Tories are not serious about finding out about how to win again when they think ULEZ is the solution.
As has been pointed out many times, this is not an issue which the voters the Tories need to win back, care about.
ULEZ was the catalyst to a much wider debate about climate change and the impact on ordinary peoples ability to adapt and indeed afford the costs
The problem the climate change enthusiasts have is taking the country with them at the speed they want, evidenced by the ridiculous proposition by the Greens in Scotland that gas boilers are not acceptable in the sale of Scottish homes from 2025
Indeed one of the Greens former leaders has defected to labour
As for labour, they have already cancelled the 28 billion annual green spend commitment and accept the granting of the new North Sea licences by Sunak
I believe this is a subject that requires mature discussions across politics and the public, rather than suggesting because the transition period, or more specifically the speed of it, means that those questioning it do not accept climate change which is obvious
It's a *consultation* to and proposal to *include the type of boiler* in the overall energy performance rating. As advised by the advisory committee to the Scottish Government. Not what you are saying.
Remember when the Torties actually put it in a bill to make it law to bang up RNLI and similar folk for rescuing people? That was well on from a proposal. But you wouldn't believe me and RP when we pointed this out to you.
Why the difference here? I can't possibly imagine why.
Even you are now admitting it is a consultation so by the very nature of it being a consulting it is on the Greeen SNP agenda
As far as the RNLI are concerned that wasn't a consultation, just a scare story which was never going to happen
You were stating something else, so your excuse cuts no ice.
As for the RNLI, *that was what the intended law said*. You should be bloody grateful they didn't pass it! What the hell do you think would happen the first lifeboat rescue? Hundreds of informers would be ringing up the police demanding that the crew, branch secretary, fundraisers and station cat be arrested.
You are so defensive on this when it is clearly being reported in Scotland
It is understandable as it would be far worse than the poll tax in political terms for the Greens/SNP who are already dropping quite considerably in the polls
You were saying that tthe SGs proposed to stop any houses for sale having gas boilers. That's a gross exaggeration.
You've perhaps muddled it with *UKG* banning any new houses fromk having gas boilers at all.
This from Harvie
One of the biggest challenges is replacing fossil fuel gas boilers in homes with climate-friendly heating-systems such as heat pumps, with Mr Harvie previously admitting the costs could total £33bn.
From 2025, certain trigger points such as the sale of a home, will mean properties will need to meet EPC band C energy efficiency standards, while new fossil fuel boilers will be banned in new buildings from next April.
Ahead of the shake-up, Mr Harvie is set to reform EPC standards so they are more appropriate for driving the improvements needed to reach net zero.
It is understood that this could include taking account of the type of heating system, raising the possibility of those with an old fossil fuel boilers receiving a lower rating than those who have installed a heat pump.
That's what I said! But not what you said! Argh. You claimed that the sale of houses with gas boilers would be banned.
You said "ridiculous proposition by the Greens in Scotland that gas boilers are not acceptable in the sale of Scottish homes from 2025"
That means, you thought they want to ban houses from being sold with gas boilers. That's quite different from "acting as a mark down as part of the overall EPC".
This is the salient point
From 2025, certain trigger points such as the sale of a home, will mean properties will need to meet EPC band C energy efficiency standards, while new fossil fuel boilers will be banned in new buildings from next April.
As gas boilers will be outside EPC band C under these proposals, then is seems a defacto ban is being proposed
Do you have a citation that gas boilers will be outside band C?
Just because they're banned from new homes, doesn't mean they'll be below C for existing ones. It could be eg [and I'm making this up] A = Heat Pump powered by Renewables, B = Heat Pump powered by Grid, C = Gas with insulation, D and below Gas without insulation.
AFAIK, the EOC regs regarding the rating calculations have recently been modified to further penalise gas.
Remarkable headline in The Guardian. Sweden apparently has “extraordinarily liberal free speech laws” - because they allow people to burn the Koran. No, what they have is the freedom to mock and criticise religion. It’s called “the Enlightenment”. We used to do it, too
The Guardian are such wankers.
For those who keep asking what WOKE is: it's horseshit like this.
When did you last publicly burn one ?
Jesus fucking Christ what an insultingly stupid question
I don't think it is. As someone who believe in free speech I think you should be able to do so, but here is the counter argument: I am also an atheist yet I find the idea of burning a Bible of Koran in public unreasonably insulting to those who hold those religious views no matter how barking I think they are even though I think they have the right to do so.
No no no no no. Because once you allow the threat of religious violence to infringe free speech then when do you stop?
Now Sweden is about to buckle and forbid Koran burning. Then it will be cartoons of the prophet. Than any criticism of the prophet. Then anything that remotely incites any of these bearded fuckers
Ffs we’ve seen this unfold in the uk and France. Teachers beheaded and in hiding So you end up with full on medieval blasphemy laws that only protect one religion - because that religion is so aggressive and violent
How much more evidence do you need? You people are pathetic.
Oh I don't think we are necessarily disagreeing. I agree it shouldn't be outlawed. I agree with you. I think @Casino_Royale last post expressed my views better than I did. He got it spot on. I defend the right to burn the Koran. It is exceedingly stupid and insulting to do so.
I'm very optimistic about the future. Acid rain and the hole in the Ozone Layer used to be huge environmental challenges. Solved both. Also, the UN agreed a charter to protect 1/3rd of the world's oceans earlier this year.
We will crack this one too. Don't worry.
I think we absolutely are doomed but you can be the hopeful one out of the two of us. I hope you are proven correct.
By doomed, what do you mean, exactly? We will have challenges for sure, but humans have got where they are today by overcoming challenges.
Fallacy central on here this evening. When you say I am going to die what do you mean, exactly? I will have challenges for sure, but I have got where I am today by overcoming challenges, including severe illness and serious accidents, and I have no doubt I will continue to do so indefinitely.
I am genuinely curious by what people mean when they say we are doomed. Do they believe that the human race will die out? That civilisation will collapse? Or what? I don’t think it’s an unfair question to ask, nor does it require some sixth form debating club snark.
I think if a point is made against you, your choice is to refute it or concede it. Characterising it as "sixth form debating club snark" strikes me as a graceless way of doing the latter.
Substantively: the earth is a complex system. So is a lorry. If you have a lorry and carry out zero maintenance on it, while loading it and loading it and then loading it some more, it is very difficult to predict the exact failure mode, but very easy indeed to predict eventual failure. To revert to the sixth form snark, if I say to the lorry driver at Tebay services that I don't fancy his chances of getting to Glasgow, his reply that he has made it all the way from Dover to here is not a knockdown argument.
I don’t disagree with your logic, just I asked about what people mean by doomed? Your answer is nothing to do with that, and more concerned with playing logic games.
I don't regard logic as "games," it's a bit more serious than that.
And I have answered your question: we are overloading and not maintaining a complex system which is currently sort-of in equilibrium, and will cease to be. Exactly how it fails is unpredictable, but famine, flooding, mass migration leading to war, leading to tactical then strategic nuclear war, is my best guess.
Remarkable headline in The Guardian. Sweden apparently has “extraordinarily liberal free speech laws” - because they allow people to burn the Koran. No, what they have is the freedom to mock and criticise religion. It’s called “the Enlightenment”. We used to do it, too
The Guardian are such wankers.
For those who keep asking what WOKE is: it's horseshit like this.
When did you last publicly burn one ?
Jesus fucking Christ what an insultingly stupid question
Not at all. Casino could have said the people publicly burning the Koran purely to make others unhappy are wankers. But he didn't.
Personally I can't think of anything more wankist than what those guys are doing.
It is extremely rude, disrespectful and provocative to burn a religious text, as it is a flag - and I wouldn't do it.
Nevertheless, I would defend someone's right to do so and I'd certainly like to call out some of Islam's central tenets as bollocks, politely so, as far as possible, because I think they are.
Would I go to the barricades to fight to the death for the right of people of people to insult others and sow division just because they can?
No I wouldn't. Those guys can look after themselves.
Yes, I would.
You wouldn't because you're scared.
The right is important because otherwise we are accepting there are some objects and subjects that are off limits, and none should be.
Remarkable headline in The Guardian. Sweden apparently has “extraordinarily liberal free speech laws” - because they allow people to burn the Koran. No, what they have is the freedom to mock and criticise religion. It’s called “the Enlightenment”. We used to do it, too
The Guardian are such wankers.
For those who keep asking what WOKE is: it's horseshit like this.
When did you last publicly burn one ?
Jesus fucking Christ what an insultingly stupid question
I don't think it is. As someone who believe in free speech I think you should be able to do so, but here is the counter argument: I am also an atheist yet I find the idea of burning a Bible of Koran in public unreasonably insulting to those who hold those religious views no matter how barking I think they are, even though I think I have the right to do so.
It isn't even about "mocking religion" . People burning Korans are arseholes who want to stir up trouble - in fact they are on the same side as Isis. I'm an atheist and I don't have any problem with a law banning burning religious texts.
Besides, there are all kinds of things we aren't allowed to do. I live in a country (there are many) where desecrating flags is illegal. Is that woke madness too?
Remarkable headline in The Guardian. Sweden apparently has “extraordinarily liberal free speech laws” - because they allow people to burn the Koran. No, what they have is the freedom to mock and criticise religion. It’s called “the Enlightenment”. We used to do it, too
The Guardian are such wankers.
For those who keep asking what WOKE is: it's horseshit like this.
When did you last publicly burn one ?
Jesus fucking Christ what an insultingly stupid question
I don't think it is. As someone who believe in free speech I think you should be able to do so, but here is the counter argument: I am also an atheist yet I find the idea of burning a Bible of Koran in public unreasonably insulting to those who hold those religious views no matter how barking I think they are even though I think they have the right to do so.
No no no no no. Because once you allow the threat of religious violence to infringe free speech then when do you stop?
Now Sweden is about to buckle and forbid Koran burning. Then it will be cartoons of the prophet. Than any criticism of the prophet. Then anything that remotely incites any of these bearded fuckers
Ffs we’ve seen this unfold in the uk and France. Teachers beheaded and in hiding So you end up with full on medieval blasphemy laws that only protect one religion - because that religion is so aggressive and violent
How much more evidence do you need? You people are pathetic.
Oh I don't think we are necessarily disagreeing. I agree it shouldn't be outlawed. I agree with you. I think @Casino_Royale last post expressed my views better than I did. He got it spot on. I defend the right to burn the Koran. It is exceedingly stupid and insulting to do so.
Do you defend* the right to burn effigies of the Pope in the Falls Road?
The point being that some actions are viewed by their targets as threatening as well as insulting.
* "Assert" would be a better word, because there is no first amendment to any constitution in Britain, so it's not as if a right to carry out such an action actually exists. A right is kind o'thing that is pronounced into existence by the state.
Remarkable headline in The Guardian. Sweden apparently has “extraordinarily liberal free speech laws” - because they allow people to burn the Koran. No, what they have is the freedom to mock and criticise religion. It’s called “the Enlightenment”. We used to do it, too
The Guardian are such wankers.
For those who keep asking what WOKE is: it's horseshit like this.
When did you last publicly burn one ?
Jesus fucking Christ what an insultingly stupid question
Not at all. Casino could have said the people publicly burning the Koran purely to make others unhappy are wankers. But he didn't.
Personally I can't think of anything more wankist than what those guys are doing.
It is extremely rude, disrespectful and provocative to burn a religious text, as it is a flag - and I wouldn't do it.
Nevertheless, I would defend someone's right to do so and I'd certainly like to call out some of Islam's central tenets as bollocks, politely so, as far as possible, because I think they are.
Would I go to the barricades to fight to the death for the right of people of people to insult others and sow division just because they can?
No I wouldn't. Those guys can look after themselves.
Yes, I would.
You wouldn't because you're scared.
The right is important because otherwise we are accepting there are some objects and subjects that are off limits, and none should be.
No. It's because I think with rights comes with responsibilities. If people don't accept that, I'm not going to bother with them. There are plenty of genuinely oppressed people that should get my attention instead.
There isn't a climate emergency. The change in terminology could have been predicted, though. Less so the change from global warming to climate change. Next the line is bound to be do this or go extinct.
To try to stop the climate changing is to be a Cnut. (In the monarchist sense.)
At least we have got to the stage where people accept it is happening, and will continue to do so.
All you have left is arguments over semantics.
The positive externalities of mitigation are worth it, even if they don't have a big impact on global emissions and the rate at which temperature increases.
Investment in adaptation is almost certainly worth it, particularly for flooding on the east coast and air conditioning in hospitals.
Yes. We need to invest in mitigation AND reduce CO2 output AND improve energy efficiency AND investigate carbon capture AND reduce methane output AND… We’re past simple solutions. We need all the solutions.
There are no solutions that will be acceptable in a democracy because people will not accept a mandated decline in living standard. Therefore there will be no solutions
How about the solutions that do not require a decline in living standards?
- More renewables in energy generation -> less dependence on (suddenly very expensive) gas from dodgy places - More efficient appliances -> lower costs of running those appliances - Better insulation -> warmer homes at lower heating cost (plus removal of cold patches with mould etc) - EVs -> better cars with lower running costs
Someone the other day mentioned LED lighting. Well, it's just better than incandescent, isn't it? Many more colour options, cooler running*, lasts longer, obsolescence of even worse stuff like flurorescent tubes...
*I once burned my foot on a halogen bulb in a bedside lamp when reading in bed turned into something more energetic
I am not against any of those but we both know the climate change zealots want more than that
They demand an end to personal transportation for one They demand we all go vegan for two
But climate change zealots are nowhere near power.
Neither of those two things are going to happen before the climate apocalypse* and then it's too late and pointless anyway.
*by which I mean they are election losers right up until the point where (if it ever happens) the effects of climate change are so severe that people, in general, would actually want these things
I should state at this point I am absolutely relaxed about climate change, purely because by the time it becomes critical I will be dead as will be my family. I doubt I am alone in that.
Which on the one hand means that the rhetoric can be ramped up and no one will be any the wiser, while on the other as you say no one *really* is invested.
It comes down to will no one think of the children which is always a tricky ask.
Like many my son and his wife have decided to be childfree. Given he they are in their 30's by the time he dies will likely be 2080 at the latest. What is being asked therefore is "think of other peoples children"
I expect things to be pretty shit by 2050
Give us some f'rinstances.
Hot summers wet winters fires everywhere
Oh no!!!
Sounds like a pretty normal year to me if I am honest
Ahem
Never trust a chart that lacks a scale.
It is like a Lib Dem "winning here" bar chart.
You can almost here Kay burley screaming that Edinburgh is literally ablaze!
It's Met Office data, graphic put together by National Centre for Atmospheric Science, Reading Uni.
But I appreciate you lot don't have much time for experts.
The choice of colour is deliberately designed to alarm idiots like you. I have zero time for 'experts' who produce a graph without a scale.
The late chap in a house round the back from me (not a million miles from Edinburgh) was a keen met person. He kept continuous records for decades. I remember seeing his graph of the running average for the last few years about 10-12 years ago. It was a near perfect hockey stick in shape.
1850, low point of the Dalton minimum. There's a reason they start the chart here.
That's why I was talking about the hockey stick graph, which relies solely on the last few years' runnign average. Flat for decades then up as one would expect from CO2 levels.
Where did the Co2 come from in the Early Middle Ages when the Vikings were growing Barley in Southern Greenland and Europes wine growing region extended 500 kms further north than today?
Europe's wine growing region ends at - about - London today. 500 km further North takes you well into Scotland.
If you look at Germany today, we get wine produced from about half way up. If you stretch 500 km North of there, you get meaningfully above Oslo and Stockholm.
I'm sure Europe's wine growing region stretched further North than previously during the Medieval Warm Period, but I'd be staggered if it was anywhere near 500km more than now.
500km north of Derbyshire gets you to somewhere north of Stirling.
I'm confident they never made wine that far north in Roman times.
Edit - there is evidence of Roman viticulture in North Thoresby, Lincs (there is a modern vineyard not far away at Sowerby). That's the most northern one I know of.
"Meet our latest pride and joy, the Elsa Pink 2022. It's more than a wine – it's a tribute to our bright and sparky daughter, capturing her vibrant spirit and enthusiasm in every drop. Each bottle radiates the same charming, magnetic energy she exudes, making it a celebration of family, love, and laughter."
Also I am not convinced they have got the hang of the whole viticulture thang, all their wine pages show a top-fruit (prob apple but it's out of focus) orchard in blossom. Avoid.
There's a vineyard just north of Doncaster (Summerhouse, I think), and one further north at Nun Monkton. https://yorkshireheart.com/
Also one in Holmfirth, but I think that's really just for the lolz.
Yes, but you have to try their output to know whether to take them seriously. I had some madeleine angevin white from Dartmouth the other day which took me back to the early 1980s, it was so disgusting.
How "serious" were the alleged vineyards in the Medieval Warm Period, given that transporting the finest Chilean produce wasn't exactly that easy at the time?
Dunno about quality of wine but there is ample evidence that Dartmoor - which @miklosvar might know - was farmed all the way up to the topmost tors in the medieval warm period
It was that warm. These days farming begins much further down
So yeah it was warm. This does not of course “disprove” AGW
From my purely theoretical knowledge of Dartmoor, I don't think that is right. People were never growing wheat and grapes up there, they lived there because people did in those days (look at the brochs in highland Scotland). In high places you could see the enemy coming and defend against him cos he was knackered with climbing, lower down was scary impenetrable woods.
Remarkable headline in The Guardian. Sweden apparently has “extraordinarily liberal free speech laws” - because they allow people to burn the Koran. No, what they have is the freedom to mock and criticise religion. It’s called “the Enlightenment”. We used to do it, too
The Guardian are such wankers.
For those who keep asking what WOKE is: it's horseshit like this.
When did you last publicly burn one ?
Jesus fucking Christ what an insultingly stupid question
I don't think it is. As someone who believe in free speech I think you should be able to do so, but here is the counter argument: I am also an atheist yet I find the idea of burning a Bible of Koran in public unreasonably insulting to those who hold those religious views no matter how barking I think they are, even though I think I have the right to do so.
It isn't even about "mocking religion" . People burning Korans are arseholes who want to stir up trouble - in fact they are on the same side as Isis. I'm an atheist and I don't have any problem with a law banning burning religious texts.
Besides, there are all kinds of things we aren't allowed to do. I live in a country (there are many) where desecrating flags is illegal. Is that woke madness too?
I think banning burning books/religious texts and banning desecrating flags are equally ridiculous.
The absence of the above shite is one of the things Britain does right.
Remarkable headline in The Guardian. Sweden apparently has “extraordinarily liberal free speech laws” - because they allow people to burn the Koran. No, what they have is the freedom to mock and criticise religion. It’s called “the Enlightenment”. We used to do it, too
The Guardian are such wankers.
For those who keep asking what WOKE is: it's horseshit like this.
When did you last publicly burn one ?
Jesus fucking Christ what an insultingly stupid question
I don't think it is. As someone who believe in free speech I think you should be able to do so, but here is the counter argument: I am also an atheist yet I find the idea of burning a Bible of Koran in public unreasonably insulting to those who hold those religious views no matter how barking I think they are, even though I think I have the right to do so.
It isn't even about "mocking religion" . People burning Korans are arseholes who want to stir up trouble - in fact they are on the same side as Isis. I'm an atheist and I don't have any problem with a law banning burning religious texts.
Besides, there are all kinds of things we aren't allowed to do. I live in a country (there are many) where desecrating flags is illegal. Is that woke madness too?
Remarkable headline in The Guardian. Sweden apparently has “extraordinarily liberal free speech laws” - because they allow people to burn the Koran. No, what they have is the freedom to mock and criticise religion. It’s called “the Enlightenment”. We used to do it, too
The Guardian are such wankers.
For those who keep asking what WOKE is: it's horseshit like this.
When did you last publicly burn one ?
Jesus fucking Christ what an insultingly stupid question
I don't think it is. As someone who believe in free speech I think you should be able to do so, but here is the counter argument: I am also an atheist yet I find the idea of burning a Bible of Koran in public unreasonably insulting to those who hold those religious views no matter how barking I think they are, even though I think I have the right to do so.
It isn't even about "mocking religion" . People burning Korans are arseholes who want to stir up trouble - in fact they are on the same side as Isis. I'm an atheist and I don't have any problem with a law banning burning religious texts.
Besides, there are all kinds of things we aren't allowed to do. I live in a country (there are many) where desecrating flags is illegal. Is that woke madness too?
I think banning burning books/religious texts and banning desecrating flags are equally ridiculous.
The absence of the above shite is one of the things Britain does right.
Yep, we need to call out the Americans for their creepy pledge of allegiance stuff too.
Remarkable headline in The Guardian. Sweden apparently has “extraordinarily liberal free speech laws” - because they allow people to burn the Koran. No, what they have is the freedom to mock and criticise religion. It’s called “the Enlightenment”. We used to do it, too
The Guardian are such wankers.
For those who keep asking what WOKE is: it's horseshit like this.
When did you last publicly burn one ?
Jesus fucking Christ what an insultingly stupid question
Not at all. Casino could have said the people publicly burning the Koran purely to make others unhappy are wankers. But he didn't.
Personally I can't think of anything more wankist than what those guys are doing.
It is extremely rude, disrespectful and provocative to burn a religious text, as it is a flag - and I wouldn't do it.
Nevertheless, I would defend someone's right to do so and I'd certainly like to call out some of Islam's central tenets as bollocks, politely so, as far as possible, because I think they are.
Would I go to the barricades to fight to the death for the right of people of people to insult others and sow division just because they can?
No I wouldn't. Those guys can look after themselves.
Yes, I would.
You wouldn't because you're scared.
The right is important because otherwise we are accepting there are some objects and subjects that are off limits, and none should be.
No. It's because I think with rights comes with responsibilities. If people don't accept that, I'm not going to bother with them. There are plenty of genuinely oppressed people that should get my attention instead.
Remarkable headline in The Guardian. Sweden apparently has “extraordinarily liberal free speech laws” - because they allow people to burn the Koran. No, what they have is the freedom to mock and criticise religion. It’s called “the Enlightenment”. We used to do it, too
The Guardian are such wankers.
For those who keep asking what WOKE is: it's horseshit like this.
When did you last publicly burn one ?
Jesus fucking Christ what an insultingly stupid question
I don't think it is. As someone who believe in free speech I think you should be able to do so, but here is the counter argument: I am also an atheist yet I find the idea of burning a Bible of Koran in public unreasonably insulting to those who hold those religious views no matter how barking I think they are, even though I think I have the right to do so.
It isn't even about "mocking religion" . People burning Korans are arseholes who want to stir up trouble - in fact they are on the same side as Isis. I'm an atheist and I don't have any problem with a law banning burning religious texts.
Besides, there are all kinds of things we aren't allowed to do. I live in a country (there are many) where desecrating flags is illegal. Is that woke madness too?
This is interesting. You and @leon have taken the exact opposite positions and (possibly) perceive me to be on the opposite side of the argument to both of you. Oxymoron.
I am with @Casino_Royale with this one for a change and in the middle. I'm for free speech. You can burn bibles, burn flags, but accept there are consequences for for insulting people.
I'm glad we've moved on from the emotive cycling debate to the much more relaxed Koran burning discussion.
How about burning a koran whilst cycling on a pavement that is hanging from the bottom of Rishi's helicopter whilst it is on its way to a meeting about Starmer's pledges on trans rights on HS2 travel?
There isn't a climate emergency. The change in terminology could have been predicted, though. Less so the change from global warming to climate change. Next the line is bound to be do this or go extinct.
To try to stop the climate changing is to be a Cnut. (In the monarchist sense.)
At least we have got to the stage where people accept it is happening, and will continue to do so.
All you have left is arguments over semantics.
The positive externalities of mitigation are worth it, even if they don't have a big impact on global emissions and the rate at which temperature increases.
Investment in adaptation is almost certainly worth it, particularly for flooding on the east coast and air conditioning in hospitals.
Yes. We need to invest in mitigation AND reduce CO2 output AND improve energy efficiency AND investigate carbon capture AND reduce methane output AND… We’re past simple solutions. We need all the solutions.
There are no solutions that will be acceptable in a democracy because people will not accept a mandated decline in living standard. Therefore there will be no solutions
How about the solutions that do not require a decline in living standards?
- More renewables in energy generation -> less dependence on (suddenly very expensive) gas from dodgy places - More efficient appliances -> lower costs of running those appliances - Better insulation -> warmer homes at lower heating cost (plus removal of cold patches with mould etc) - EVs -> better cars with lower running costs
Someone the other day mentioned LED lighting. Well, it's just better than incandescent, isn't it? Many more colour options, cooler running*, lasts longer, obsolescence of even worse stuff like flurorescent tubes...
*I once burned my foot on a halogen bulb in a bedside lamp when reading in bed turned into something more energetic
I am not against any of those but we both know the climate change zealots want more than that
They demand an end to personal transportation for one They demand we all go vegan for two
But climate change zealots are nowhere near power.
Neither of those two things are going to happen before the climate apocalypse* and then it's too late and pointless anyway.
*by which I mean they are election losers right up until the point where (if it ever happens) the effects of climate change are so severe that people, in general, would actually want these things
I should state at this point I am absolutely relaxed about climate change, purely because by the time it becomes critical I will be dead as will be my family. I doubt I am alone in that.
Which on the one hand means that the rhetoric can be ramped up and no one will be any the wiser, while on the other as you say no one *really* is invested.
It comes down to will no one think of the children which is always a tricky ask.
Like many my son and his wife have decided to be childfree. Given he they are in their 30's by the time he dies will likely be 2080 at the latest. What is being asked therefore is "think of other peoples children"
I expect things to be pretty shit by 2050
Give us some f'rinstances.
Hot summers wet winters fires everywhere
Oh no!!!
Sounds like a pretty normal year to me if I am honest
Ahem
Never trust a chart that lacks a scale.
It is like a Lib Dem "winning here" bar chart.
You can almost here Kay burley screaming that Edinburgh is literally ablaze!
It's Met Office data, graphic put together by National Centre for Atmospheric Science, Reading Uni.
But I appreciate you lot don't have much time for experts.
The choice of colour is deliberately designed to alarm idiots like you. I have zero time for 'experts' who produce a graph without a scale.
The late chap in a house round the back from me (not a million miles from Edinburgh) was a keen met person. He kept continuous records for decades. I remember seeing his graph of the running average for the last few years about 10-12 years ago. It was a near perfect hockey stick in shape.
1850, low point of the Dalton minimum. There's a reason they start the chart here.
That's why I was talking about the hockey stick graph, which relies solely on the last few years' runnign average. Flat for decades then up as one would expect from CO2 levels.
Where did the Co2 come from in the Early Middle Ages when the Vikings were growing Barley in Southern Greenland and Europes wine growing region extended 500 kms further north than today?
Europe's wine growing region ends at - about - London today. 500 km further North takes you well into Scotland.
If you look at Germany today, we get wine produced from about half way up. If you stretch 500 km North of there, you get meaningfully above Oslo and Stockholm.
I'm sure Europe's wine growing region stretched further North than previously during the Medieval Warm Period, but I'd be staggered if it was anywhere near 500km more than now.
500km north of Derbyshire gets you to somewhere north of Stirling.
I'm confident they never made wine that far north in Roman times.
Edit - there is evidence of Roman viticulture in North Thoresby, Lincs (there is a modern vineyard not far away at Sowerby). That's the most northern one I know of.
"Meet our latest pride and joy, the Elsa Pink 2022. It's more than a wine – it's a tribute to our bright and sparky daughter, capturing her vibrant spirit and enthusiasm in every drop. Each bottle radiates the same charming, magnetic energy she exudes, making it a celebration of family, love, and laughter."
Also I am not convinced they have got the hang of the whole viticulture thang, all their wine pages show a top-fruit (prob apple but it's out of focus) orchard in blossom. Avoid.
There's a vineyard just north of Doncaster (Summerhouse, I think), and one further north at Nun Monkton. https://yorkshireheart.com/
Also one in Holmfirth, but I think that's really just for the lolz.
Yes, but you have to try their output to know whether to take them seriously. I had some madeleine angevin white from Dartmouth the other day which took me back to the early 1980s, it was so disgusting.
How "serious" were the alleged vineyards in the Medieval Warm Period, given that transporting the finest Chilean produce wasn't exactly that easy at the time?
Dunno about quality of wine but there is ample evidence that Dartmoor - which @miklosvar might know - was farmed all the way up to the topmost tors in the medieval warm period
It was that warm. These days farming begins much further down
So yeah it was warm. This does not of course “disprove” AGW
It does suggest it's a load of c*ck, though.
That's unless someone can explain the detailed reasons why the climate has always changed so much, and why those reasons don't explain why it's changing now and therefore we are led to the conclusion that it MUST be something DIFFERENT between then and now that explains why it's changing now. That's how logic works.
Remarkable headline in The Guardian. Sweden apparently has “extraordinarily liberal free speech laws” - because they allow people to burn the Koran. No, what they have is the freedom to mock and criticise religion. It’s called “the Enlightenment”. We used to do it, too
The Guardian are such wankers.
For those who keep asking what WOKE is: it's horseshit like this.
When did you last publicly burn one ?
Jesus fucking Christ what an insultingly stupid question
I don't think it is. As someone who believe in free speech I think you should be able to do so, but here is the counter argument: I am also an atheist yet I find the idea of burning a Bible of Koran in public unreasonably insulting to those who hold those religious views no matter how barking I think they are, even though I think I have the right to do so.
It isn't even about "mocking religion" . People burning Korans are arseholes who want to stir up trouble - in fact they are on the same side as Isis. I'm an atheist and I don't have any problem with a law banning burning religious texts.
Besides, there are all kinds of things we aren't allowed to do. I live in a country (there are many) where desecrating flags is illegal. Is that woke madness too?
Yes, Koran-burners are JUST LIKE ISIS because burning a book is the same as mass gang-rape of sex slaves and live televised beheadings
"In 2020, Biden won only 500 or so counties, but together they are responsible for 71 percent of the American economy. Trump won over 2,500 counties, responsible for only 29 percent."
I'm glad we've moved on from the emotive cycling debate to the much more relaxed Koran burning discussion.
How about burning a koran whilst cycling on a pavement that is hanging from the bottom of Rishi's helicopter whilst it is on its way to a meeting about Starmer's pledges on trans rights on HS2 travel?
I'm bringing some Hawaiian pizza to the meeting. Venison burgers for any vegans.
There isn't a climate emergency. The change in terminology could have been predicted, though. Less so the change from global warming to climate change. Next the line is bound to be do this or go extinct.
To try to stop the climate changing is to be a Cnut. (In the monarchist sense.)
At least we have got to the stage where people accept it is happening, and will continue to do so.
All you have left is arguments over semantics.
The positive externalities of mitigation are worth it, even if they don't have a big impact on global emissions and the rate at which temperature increases.
Investment in adaptation is almost certainly worth it, particularly for flooding on the east coast and air conditioning in hospitals.
Yes. We need to invest in mitigation AND reduce CO2 output AND improve energy efficiency AND investigate carbon capture AND reduce methane output AND… We’re past simple solutions. We need all the solutions.
There are no solutions that will be acceptable in a democracy because people will not accept a mandated decline in living standard. Therefore there will be no solutions
How about the solutions that do not require a decline in living standards?
- More renewables in energy generation -> less dependence on (suddenly very expensive) gas from dodgy places - More efficient appliances -> lower costs of running those appliances - Better insulation -> warmer homes at lower heating cost (plus removal of cold patches with mould etc) - EVs -> better cars with lower running costs
Someone the other day mentioned LED lighting. Well, it's just better than incandescent, isn't it? Many more colour options, cooler running*, lasts longer, obsolescence of even worse stuff like flurorescent tubes...
*I once burned my foot on a halogen bulb in a bedside lamp when reading in bed turned into something more energetic
I am not against any of those but we both know the climate change zealots want more than that
They demand an end to personal transportation for one They demand we all go vegan for two
But climate change zealots are nowhere near power.
Neither of those two things are going to happen before the climate apocalypse* and then it's too late and pointless anyway.
*by which I mean they are election losers right up until the point where (if it ever happens) the effects of climate change are so severe that people, in general, would actually want these things
I should state at this point I am absolutely relaxed about climate change, purely because by the time it becomes critical I will be dead as will be my family. I doubt I am alone in that.
Which on the one hand means that the rhetoric can be ramped up and no one will be any the wiser, while on the other as you say no one *really* is invested.
It comes down to will no one think of the children which is always a tricky ask.
Like many my son and his wife have decided to be childfree. Given he they are in their 30's by the time he dies will likely be 2080 at the latest. What is being asked therefore is "think of other peoples children"
I expect things to be pretty shit by 2050
Give us some f'rinstances.
Hot summers wet winters fires everywhere
Oh no!!!
Sounds like a pretty normal year to me if I am honest
Ahem
Never trust a chart that lacks a scale.
It is like a Lib Dem "winning here" bar chart.
You can almost here Kay burley screaming that Edinburgh is literally ablaze!
It's Met Office data, graphic put together by National Centre for Atmospheric Science, Reading Uni.
But I appreciate you lot don't have much time for experts.
The choice of colour is deliberately designed to alarm idiots like you. I have zero time for 'experts' who produce a graph without a scale.
The late chap in a house round the back from me (not a million miles from Edinburgh) was a keen met person. He kept continuous records for decades. I remember seeing his graph of the running average for the last few years about 10-12 years ago. It was a near perfect hockey stick in shape.
1850, low point of the Dalton minimum. There's a reason they start the chart here.
That's why I was talking about the hockey stick graph, which relies solely on the last few years' runnign average. Flat for decades then up as one would expect from CO2 levels.
Where did the Co2 come from in the Early Middle Ages when the Vikings were growing Barley in Southern Greenland and Europes wine growing region extended 500 kms further north than today?
Europe's wine growing region ends at - about - London today. 500 km further North takes you well into Scotland.
If you look at Germany today, we get wine produced from about half way up. If you stretch 500 km North of there, you get meaningfully above Oslo and Stockholm.
I'm sure Europe's wine growing region stretched further North than previously during the Medieval Warm Period, but I'd be staggered if it was anywhere near 500km more than now.
500km north of Derbyshire gets you to somewhere north of Stirling.
I'm confident they never made wine that far north in Roman times.
Edit - there is evidence of Roman viticulture in North Thoresby, Lincs (there is a modern vineyard not far away at Sowerby). That's the most northern one I know of.
"Meet our latest pride and joy, the Elsa Pink 2022. It's more than a wine – it's a tribute to our bright and sparky daughter, capturing her vibrant spirit and enthusiasm in every drop. Each bottle radiates the same charming, magnetic energy she exudes, making it a celebration of family, love, and laughter."
Also I am not convinced they have got the hang of the whole viticulture thang, all their wine pages show a top-fruit (prob apple but it's out of focus) orchard in blossom. Avoid.
There's a vineyard just north of Doncaster (Summerhouse, I think), and one further north at Nun Monkton. https://yorkshireheart.com/
Also one in Holmfirth, but I think that's really just for the lolz.
Yes, but you have to try their output to know whether to take them seriously. I had some madeleine angevin white from Dartmouth the other day which took me back to the early 1980s, it was so disgusting.
How "serious" were the alleged vineyards in the Medieval Warm Period, given that transporting the finest Chilean produce wasn't exactly that easy at the time?
I don’t think they were alleged, there is archeological and historical evidence of their existence. It shouldn’t matter that the Roman warm period and medieval warm periods happened - the current rise in temps is very different.
Remarkable headline in The Guardian. Sweden apparently has “extraordinarily liberal free speech laws” - because they allow people to burn the Koran. No, what they have is the freedom to mock and criticise religion. It’s called “the Enlightenment”. We used to do it, too
The Guardian are such wankers.
For those who keep asking what WOKE is: it's horseshit like this.
When did you last publicly burn one ?
Jesus fucking Christ what an insultingly stupid question
I don't think it is. As someone who believe in free speech I think you should be able to do so, but here is the counter argument: I am also an atheist yet I find the idea of burning a Bible of Koran in public unreasonably insulting to those who hold those religious views no matter how barking I think they are, even though I think I have the right to do so.
It isn't even about "mocking religion" . People burning Korans are arseholes who want to stir up trouble - in fact they are on the same side as Isis. I'm an atheist and I don't have any problem with a law banning burning religious texts.
Besides, there are all kinds of things we aren't allowed to do. I live in a country (there are many) where desecrating flags is illegal. Is that woke madness too?
I think banning burning books/religious texts and banning desecrating flags are equally ridiculous.
The absence of the above shite is one of the things Britain does right.
OK last time I was in Britain it wasn't allowed to walk down the street naked - which is an infringement on people's freedom of expression that has far less justification than banning burning holy books, but not many of you are manning barricades about it.
There isn't a climate emergency. The change in terminology could have been predicted, though. Less so the change from global warming to climate change. Next the line is bound to be do this or go extinct.
To try to stop the climate changing is to be a Cnut. (In the monarchist sense.)
At least we have got to the stage where people accept it is happening, and will continue to do so.
All you have left is arguments over semantics.
The positive externalities of mitigation are worth it, even if they don't have a big impact on global emissions and the rate at which temperature increases.
Investment in adaptation is almost certainly worth it, particularly for flooding on the east coast and air conditioning in hospitals.
Yes. We need to invest in mitigation AND reduce CO2 output AND improve energy efficiency AND investigate carbon capture AND reduce methane output AND… We’re past simple solutions. We need all the solutions.
There are no solutions that will be acceptable in a democracy because people will not accept a mandated decline in living standard. Therefore there will be no solutions
How about the solutions that do not require a decline in living standards?
- More renewables in energy generation -> less dependence on (suddenly very expensive) gas from dodgy places - More efficient appliances -> lower costs of running those appliances - Better insulation -> warmer homes at lower heating cost (plus removal of cold patches with mould etc) - EVs -> better cars with lower running costs
Someone the other day mentioned LED lighting. Well, it's just better than incandescent, isn't it? Many more colour options, cooler running*, lasts longer, obsolescence of even worse stuff like flurorescent tubes...
*I once burned my foot on a halogen bulb in a bedside lamp when reading in bed turned into something more energetic
I am not against any of those but we both know the climate change zealots want more than that
They demand an end to personal transportation for one They demand we all go vegan for two
But climate change zealots are nowhere near power.
Neither of those two things are going to happen before the climate apocalypse* and then it's too late and pointless anyway.
*by which I mean they are election losers right up until the point where (if it ever happens) the effects of climate change are so severe that people, in general, would actually want these things
I should state at this point I am absolutely relaxed about climate change, purely because by the time it becomes critical I will be dead as will be my family. I doubt I am alone in that.
Which on the one hand means that the rhetoric can be ramped up and no one will be any the wiser, while on the other as you say no one *really* is invested.
It comes down to will no one think of the children which is always a tricky ask.
Like many my son and his wife have decided to be childfree. Given he they are in their 30's by the time he dies will likely be 2080 at the latest. What is being asked therefore is "think of other peoples children"
I expect things to be pretty shit by 2050
Give us some f'rinstances.
Hot summers wet winters fires everywhere
Oh no!!!
Sounds like a pretty normal year to me if I am honest
Ahem
Never trust a chart that lacks a scale.
It is like a Lib Dem "winning here" bar chart.
You can almost here Kay burley screaming that Edinburgh is literally ablaze!
It's Met Office data, graphic put together by National Centre for Atmospheric Science, Reading Uni.
But I appreciate you lot don't have much time for experts.
The choice of colour is deliberately designed to alarm idiots like you. I have zero time for 'experts' who produce a graph without a scale.
The late chap in a house round the back from me (not a million miles from Edinburgh) was a keen met person. He kept continuous records for decades. I remember seeing his graph of the running average for the last few years about 10-12 years ago. It was a near perfect hockey stick in shape.
1850, low point of the Dalton minimum. There's a reason they start the chart here.
That's why I was talking about the hockey stick graph, which relies solely on the last few years' runnign average. Flat for decades then up as one would expect from CO2 levels.
Where did the Co2 come from in the Early Middle Ages when the Vikings were growing Barley in Southern Greenland and Europes wine growing region extended 500 kms further north than today?
Europe's wine growing region ends at - about - London today. 500 km further North takes you well into Scotland.
If you look at Germany today, we get wine produced from about half way up. If you stretch 500 km North of there, you get meaningfully above Oslo and Stockholm.
I'm sure Europe's wine growing region stretched further North than previously during the Medieval Warm Period, but I'd be staggered if it was anywhere near 500km more than now.
500km north of Derbyshire gets you to somewhere north of Stirling.
I'm confident they never made wine that far north in Roman times.
Edit - there is evidence of Roman viticulture in North Thoresby, Lincs (there is a modern vineyard not far away at Sowerby). That's the most northern one I know of.
"Meet our latest pride and joy, the Elsa Pink 2022. It's more than a wine – it's a tribute to our bright and sparky daughter, capturing her vibrant spirit and enthusiasm in every drop. Each bottle radiates the same charming, magnetic energy she exudes, making it a celebration of family, love, and laughter."
Also I am not convinced they have got the hang of the whole viticulture thang, all their wine pages show a top-fruit (prob apple but it's out of focus) orchard in blossom. Avoid.
There's a vineyard just north of Doncaster (Summerhouse, I think), and one further north at Nun Monkton. https://yorkshireheart.com/
Also one in Holmfirth, but I think that's really just for the lolz.
Yes, but you have to try their output to know whether to take them seriously. I had some madeleine angevin white from Dartmouth the other day which took me back to the early 1980s, it was so disgusting.
How "serious" were the alleged vineyards in the Medieval Warm Period, given that transporting the finest Chilean produce wasn't exactly that easy at the time?
Dunno about quality of wine but there is ample evidence that Dartmoor - which @miklosvar might know - was farmed all the way up to the topmost tors in the medieval warm period
It was that warm. These days farming begins much further down
So yeah it was warm. This does not of course “disprove” AGW
From my purely theoretical knowledge of Dartmoor, I don't think that is right. People were never growing wheat and grapes up there, they lived there because people did in those days (look at the brochs in highland Scotland). In high places you could see the enemy coming and defend against him cos he was knackered with climbing, lower down was scary impenetrable woods.
I know Dartmoor. Go look at one of the really high abandoned villages. They were abandoned partly because the climate got considerably worse after the medieval warmth
Remarkable headline in The Guardian. Sweden apparently has “extraordinarily liberal free speech laws” - because they allow people to burn the Koran. No, what they have is the freedom to mock and criticise religion. It’s called “the Enlightenment”. We used to do it, too
The Guardian are such wankers.
For those who keep asking what WOKE is: it's horseshit like this.
When did you last publicly burn one ?
Jesus fucking Christ what an insultingly stupid question
I don't think it is. As someone who believe in free speech I think you should be able to do so, but here is the counter argument: I am also an atheist yet I find the idea of burning a Bible of Koran in public unreasonably insulting to those who hold those religious views no matter how barking I think they are, even though I think I have the right to do so.
It isn't even about "mocking religion" . People burning Korans are arseholes who want to stir up trouble - in fact they are on the same side as Isis. I'm an atheist and I don't have any problem with a law banning burning religious texts.
Besides, there are all kinds of things we aren't allowed to do. I live in a country (there are many) where desecrating flags is illegal. Is that woke madness too?
I think banning burning books/religious texts and banning desecrating flags are equally ridiculous.
The absence of the above shite is one of the things Britain does right.
OK last time I was in Britain it wasn't allowed to walk down the street naked - which is an infringement on people's freedom of expression that has far less justification than banning burning holy books, but not many of you are manning barricades about it.
There isn't a climate emergency. The change in terminology could have been predicted, though. Less so the change from global warming to climate change. Next the line is bound to be do this or go extinct.
To try to stop the climate changing is to be a Cnut. (In the monarchist sense.)
At least we have got to the stage where people accept it is happening, and will continue to do so.
All you have left is arguments over semantics.
The positive externalities of mitigation are worth it, even if they don't have a big impact on global emissions and the rate at which temperature increases.
Investment in adaptation is almost certainly worth it, particularly for flooding on the east coast and air conditioning in hospitals.
Yes. We need to invest in mitigation AND reduce CO2 output AND improve energy efficiency AND investigate carbon capture AND reduce methane output AND… We’re past simple solutions. We need all the solutions.
There are no solutions that will be acceptable in a democracy because people will not accept a mandated decline in living standard. Therefore there will be no solutions
How about the solutions that do not require a decline in living standards?
- More renewables in energy generation -> less dependence on (suddenly very expensive) gas from dodgy places - More efficient appliances -> lower costs of running those appliances - Better insulation -> warmer homes at lower heating cost (plus removal of cold patches with mould etc) - EVs -> better cars with lower running costs
Someone the other day mentioned LED lighting. Well, it's just better than incandescent, isn't it? Many more colour options, cooler running*, lasts longer, obsolescence of even worse stuff like flurorescent tubes...
*I once burned my foot on a halogen bulb in a bedside lamp when reading in bed turned into something more energetic
I am not against any of those but we both know the climate change zealots want more than that
They demand an end to personal transportation for one They demand we all go vegan for two
But climate change zealots are nowhere near power.
Neither of those two things are going to happen before the climate apocalypse* and then it's too late and pointless anyway.
*by which I mean they are election losers right up until the point where (if it ever happens) the effects of climate change are so severe that people, in general, would actually want these things
I should state at this point I am absolutely relaxed about climate change, purely because by the time it becomes critical I will be dead as will be my family. I doubt I am alone in that.
Which on the one hand means that the rhetoric can be ramped up and no one will be any the wiser, while on the other as you say no one *really* is invested.
It comes down to will no one think of the children which is always a tricky ask.
Like many my son and his wife have decided to be childfree. Given he they are in their 30's by the time he dies will likely be 2080 at the latest. What is being asked therefore is "think of other peoples children"
I expect things to be pretty shit by 2050
Give us some f'rinstances.
Hot summers wet winters fires everywhere
Oh no!!!
Sounds like a pretty normal year to me if I am honest
Ahem
Never trust a chart that lacks a scale.
It is like a Lib Dem "winning here" bar chart.
You can almost here Kay burley screaming that Edinburgh is literally ablaze!
It's Met Office data, graphic put together by National Centre for Atmospheric Science, Reading Uni.
But I appreciate you lot don't have much time for experts.
The choice of colour is deliberately designed to alarm idiots like you. I have zero time for 'experts' who produce a graph without a scale.
The late chap in a house round the back from me (not a million miles from Edinburgh) was a keen met person. He kept continuous records for decades. I remember seeing his graph of the running average for the last few years about 10-12 years ago. It was a near perfect hockey stick in shape.
1850, low point of the Dalton minimum. There's a reason they start the chart here.
That's why I was talking about the hockey stick graph, which relies solely on the last few years' runnign average. Flat for decades then up as one would expect from CO2 levels.
Where did the Co2 come from in the Early Middle Ages when the Vikings were growing Barley in Southern Greenland and Europes wine growing region extended 500 kms further north than today?
Europe's wine growing region ends at - about - London today. 500 km further North takes you well into Scotland.
If you look at Germany today, we get wine produced from about half way up. If you stretch 500 km North of there, you get meaningfully above Oslo and Stockholm.
I'm sure Europe's wine growing region stretched further North than previously during the Medieval Warm Period, but I'd be staggered if it was anywhere near 500km more than now.
500km north of Derbyshire gets you to somewhere north of Stirling.
I'm confident they never made wine that far north in Roman times.
Edit - there is evidence of Roman viticulture in North Thoresby, Lincs (there is a modern vineyard not far away at Sowerby). That's the most northern one I know of.
"Meet our latest pride and joy, the Elsa Pink 2022. It's more than a wine – it's a tribute to our bright and sparky daughter, capturing her vibrant spirit and enthusiasm in every drop. Each bottle radiates the same charming, magnetic energy she exudes, making it a celebration of family, love, and laughter."
Also I am not convinced they have got the hang of the whole viticulture thang, all their wine pages show a top-fruit (prob apple but it's out of focus) orchard in blossom. Avoid.
There's a vineyard just north of Doncaster (Summerhouse, I think), and one further north at Nun Monkton. https://yorkshireheart.com/
Also one in Holmfirth, but I think that's really just for the lolz.
Yes, but you have to try their output to know whether to take them seriously. I had some madeleine angevin white from Dartmouth the other day which took me back to the early 1980s, it was so disgusting.
How "serious" were the alleged vineyards in the Medieval Warm Period, given that transporting the finest Chilean produce wasn't exactly that easy at the time?
Dunno about quality of wine but there is ample evidence that Dartmoor - which @miklosvar might know - was farmed all the way up to the topmost tors in the medieval warm period
It was that warm. These days farming begins much further down
So yeah it was warm. This does not of course “disprove” AGW
It does suggest it's a load of c*ck, though.
That's unless someone can explain the detailed reasons why the climate has always changed so much, and why those reasons don't explain why it's changing now and therefore we are led to the conclusion that it MUST be something DIFFERENT between then and now that explains why it's changing now. That's how logic works.
You just have to depend on the IPCC reports. A bit like I got the bike mechanic to sort out my front derailleur after I broke it with a kitchen knife. Gotta trust the experts.
Remarkable headline in The Guardian. Sweden apparently has “extraordinarily liberal free speech laws” - because they allow people to burn the Koran. No, what they have is the freedom to mock and criticise religion. It’s called “the Enlightenment”. We used to do it, too
The Guardian are such wankers.
For those who keep asking what WOKE is: it's horseshit like this.
When did you last publicly burn one ?
Jesus fucking Christ what an insultingly stupid question
I don't think it is. As someone who believe in free speech I think you should be able to do so, but here is the counter argument: I am also an atheist yet I find the idea of burning a Bible of Koran in public unreasonably insulting to those who hold those religious views no matter how barking I think they are even though I think they have the right to do so.
No no no no no. Because once you allow the threat of religious violence to infringe free speech then when do you stop?
Now Sweden is about to buckle and forbid Koran burning. Then it will be cartoons of the prophet. Than any criticism of the prophet. Then anything that remotely incites any of these bearded fuckers
Ffs we’ve seen this unfold in the uk and France. Teachers beheaded and in hiding So you end up with full on medieval blasphemy laws that only protect one religion - because that religion is so aggressive and violent
How much more evidence do you need? You people are pathetic.
Oh I don't think we are necessarily disagreeing. I agree it shouldn't be outlawed. I agree with you. I think @Casino_Royale last post expressed my views better than I did. He got it spot on. I defend the right to burn the Koran. It is exceedingly stupid and insulting to do so.
Do you defend* the right to burn effigies of the Pope in the Falls Road?
The point being that some actions are viewed by their targets as threatening as well as insulting.
* "Assert" would be a better word, because there is no first amendment to any constitution in Britain, so it's not as if a right to carry out such an action actually exists. A right is kind o'thing that is pronounced into existence by the state.
Yes but you might be arrested for inciting violence. There is a time and a place. Falls Road, no. Lewes bonfire society where it is done every year, yes. A perfect example where outlawing it is stupid.
Remarkable headline in The Guardian. Sweden apparently has “extraordinarily liberal free speech laws” - because they allow people to burn the Koran. No, what they have is the freedom to mock and criticise religion. It’s called “the Enlightenment”. We used to do it, too
The Guardian are such wankers.
For those who keep asking what WOKE is: it's horseshit like this.
When did you last publicly burn one ?
Jesus fucking Christ what an insultingly stupid question
I don't think it is. As someone who believe in free speech I think you should be able to do so, but here is the counter argument: I am also an atheist yet I find the idea of burning a Bible of Koran in public unreasonably insulting to those who hold those religious views no matter how barking I think they are, even though I think I have the right to do so.
It isn't even about "mocking religion" . People burning Korans are arseholes who want to stir up trouble - in fact they are on the same side as Isis. I'm an atheist and I don't have any problem with a law banning burning religious texts.
Besides, there are all kinds of things we aren't allowed to do. I live in a country (there are many) where desecrating flags is illegal. Is that woke madness too?
This is interesting. You and @leon have taken the exact opposite positions and (possibly) perceive me to be on the opposite side of the argument to both of you. Oxymoron.
I am with @Casino_Royale with this one for a change and in the middle. I'm for free speech. You can burn bibles, burn flags, but accept there are consequences for for insulting people.
Thanks. My only modification to that would be that those consequences cannot include violence and the threat of that violence cannot be used to blackmail against the action in the first place.
I'm very optimistic about the future. Acid rain and the hole in the Ozone Layer used to be huge environmental challenges. Solved both. Also, the UN agreed a charter to protect 1/3rd of the world's oceans earlier this year.
We will crack this one too. Don't worry.
I think we absolutely are doomed but you can be the hopeful one out of the two of us. I hope you are proven correct.
By doomed, what do you mean, exactly? We will have challenges for sure, but humans have got where they are today by overcoming challenges.
Fallacy central on here this evening. When you say I am going to die what do you mean, exactly? I will have challenges for sure, but I have got where I am today by overcoming challenges, including severe illness and serious accidents, and I have no doubt I will continue to do so indefinitely.
I am genuinely curious by what people mean when they say we are doomed. Do they believe that the human race will die out? That civilisation will collapse? Or what? I don’t think it’s an unfair question to ask, nor does it require some sixth form debating club snark.
I think if a point is made against you, your choice is to refute it or concede it. Characterising it as "sixth form debating club snark" strikes me as a graceless way of doing the latter.
Substantively: the earth is a complex system. So is a lorry. If you have a lorry and carry out zero maintenance on it, while loading it and loading it and then loading it some more, it is very difficult to predict the exact failure mode, but very easy indeed to predict eventual failure. To revert to the sixth form snark, if I say to the lorry driver at Tebay services that I don't fancy his chances of getting to Glasgow, his reply that he has made it all the way from Dover to here is not a knockdown argument.
I don’t disagree with your logic, just I asked about what people mean by doomed? Your answer is nothing to do with that, and more concerned with playing logic games.
I don't regard logic as "games," it's a bit more serious than that.
And I have answered your question: we are overloading and not maintaining a complex system which is currently sort-of in equilibrium, and will cease to be. Exactly how it fails is unpredictable, but famine, flooding, mass migration leading to war, leading to tactical then strategic nuclear war, is my best guess.
The planet has been at higher global temps before. I believe the equilibrium position can be changed to different levels. Lots of feedback loops, both positive and negative in the system. One, more heat, more water vapour, more clouds, more energy reflected back into space. Or do you think we are heading down the Venus route (not what the evidence of hotter past temperatures suggests)?
"In 2020, Biden won only 500 or so counties, but together they are responsible for 71 percent of the American economy. Trump won over 2,500 counties, responsible for only 29 percent."
Remarkable headline in The Guardian. Sweden apparently has “extraordinarily liberal free speech laws” - because they allow people to burn the Koran. No, what they have is the freedom to mock and criticise religion. It’s called “the Enlightenment”. We used to do it, too
The Guardian are such wankers.
For those who keep asking what WOKE is: it's horseshit like this.
When did you last publicly burn one ?
Jesus fucking Christ what an insultingly stupid question
I don't think it is. As someone who believe in free speech I think you should be able to do so, but here is the counter argument: I am also an atheist yet I find the idea of burning a Bible of Koran in public unreasonably insulting to those who hold those religious views no matter how barking I think they are, even though I think I have the right to do so.
It isn't even about "mocking religion" . People burning Korans are arseholes who want to stir up trouble - in fact they are on the same side as Isis. I'm an atheist and I don't have any problem with a law banning burning religious texts.
Besides, there are all kinds of things we aren't allowed to do. I live in a country (there are many) where desecrating flags is illegal. Is that woke madness too?
I think banning burning books/religious texts and banning desecrating flags are equally ridiculous.
The absence of the above shite is one of the things Britain does right.
Britain does lots of things right (despite Gardenwalker coming on here daily to say we're more broken than Southern Sudan) and we have much to be both proud of and grateful for.
Remarkable headline in The Guardian. Sweden apparently has “extraordinarily liberal free speech laws” - because they allow people to burn the Koran. No, what they have is the freedom to mock and criticise religion. It’s called “the Enlightenment”. We used to do it, too
The Guardian are such wankers.
For those who keep asking what WOKE is: it's horseshit like this.
When did you last publicly burn one ?
Jesus fucking Christ what an insultingly stupid question
Remarkable headline in The Guardian. Sweden apparently has “extraordinarily liberal free speech laws” - because they allow people to burn the Koran. No, what they have is the freedom to mock and criticise religion. It’s called “the Enlightenment”. We used to do it, too
The Guardian are such wankers.
For those who keep asking what WOKE is: it's horseshit like this.
When did you last publicly burn one ?
Jesus fucking Christ what an insultingly stupid question
I don't think it is. As someone who believe in free speech I think you should be able to do so, but here is the counter argument: I am also an atheist yet I find the idea of burning a Bible of Koran in public unreasonably insulting to those who hold those religious views no matter how barking I think they are, even though I think I have the right to do so.
It isn't even about "mocking religion" . People burning Korans are arseholes who want to stir up trouble - in fact they are on the same side as Isis. I'm an atheist and I don't have any problem with a law banning burning religious texts.
Besides, there are all kinds of things we aren't allowed to do. I live in a country (there are many) where desecrating flags is illegal. Is that woke madness too?
I think banning burning books/religious texts and banning desecrating flags are equally ridiculous.
The absence of the above shite is one of the things Britain does right.
OK last time I was in Britain it wasn't allowed to walk down the street naked - which is an infringement on people's freedom of expression that has far less justification than banning burning holy books, but not many of you are manning barricades about it.
You are allowed to walk down the street naked
You're not. A charge of offending public decency would usually stick. Look what happened to this bloke:
Comments
Lookl at MattW's post.
https://renishaw-hall.co.uk/vineyard-tours/
https://www.google.com/maps/search/renishaw+hall+vineyard/@53.3017715,-1.3513615,264m/data=!3m1!1e3?entry=ttu
There's also one at Hope Valley in the Peak District, just below Stanage Edge. At 900ft of elevation.
http://www.hopevalleyvineyard.co.uk/Home.aspx
Even if the standards change, I doubt it will fall below C.
Mind you it has been fully insulated throughout, is double glazed, and has solar panels
When I finally qualify as a solicitor (1 year to go...) and have some disposable income (assuming my mortgage isn't even more ridiculous then) I intend to start ripping it apart to make sure it is better than building regs...
Quite ...
I fear in the short term we are facing some very bad days - one day our luck will run out and we'll have to endure a 10-14 day heatwave with temperatures in the low 40s celsius. As we currently stand, that will kill thousands - we can and must prepare for such eventualities, both individually and collectively.
There will be other catastrophes - some close, many a long way away but no less deleterious to the human souls involved.
There's no excuse for doing nothing - I'm very much of the view Britain can again lead the way, set the example, be at the leading edge of sustainability and of technological advance to mitigate the impact of what we've already done and look for alternative forms of power generation which don't literally cost the Earth.
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/01/18/china/china-population-drop-explainer-intl-hnk/index.html
I personally think solar panels should have no bearing on an EPC because they only impact electricity usage and that is personal anyway. It should be heat/cooling based only.
I've never been very sure of them in the Scttish climate, even with antifreeze, around here. A bottle of airbrush acrylic paint thinner - basically dilute antifreeze - froze solid in my shed at least one winter.
https://yorkshireheart.com/
Also one in Holmfirth, but I think that's really just for the lolz.
https://www.daikin.co.uk/en_gb/residential/products-and-advice/product-categories/heat-pumps/air-to-water-heat-pumps/daikin-altherma-3-h-ht-f.html
However there are others coming including one from Octopus (RED). I think these will mean you can keep existing radiators in most cases.
Octopus have 'Heat pump myth busters' here https://octopus.energy/heat-pump-FAQ/
Looks like a good product though all things considered.
But I'll have to do it with more solar and maybe a battery / heat pump as this place was massively restored before we moved and it would all have to be redone to insert more insulation, and I have done most easy savings. The solar export doesn't cover the bills yet.
The median level for all properties in England is now a 67D (2022 number), which is up about 15-20 points since it started. The average figure for new homes is 8x, and for older stock 6x.
We are just worried about human welfare over the next 50 years or so, and wish to maximise it in the face of a changing climate. That means mitigating emissions as far as possible and adapting for the change that has already been set in motion.
There were 66 years between flight and the moon, including two world wars and the Great Depression. I'm optimistic
38% of Americans polled don’t think Biden legitimately won the last election .
Quite astonishing what’s happening to the USA.
As a democracy it’s on life support.
Substantively: the earth is a complex system. So is a lorry. If you have a lorry and carry out zero maintenance on it, while loading it and loading it and then loading it some more, it is very difficult to predict the exact failure mode, but very easy indeed to predict eventual failure. To revert to the sixth form snark, if I say to the lorry driver at Tebay services that I don't fancy his chances of getting to Glasgow, his reply that he has made it all the way from Dover to here is not a knockdown argument.
about 1700-1800AD, and even later for some things (like reliable heating)
The doomsayers were right, back then
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/02/opinion/trump-meritocracy-educated.html
Personally I can't think of anything more wankist than what those guys are doing.
And EPC is generally all based around emissions, of which fabric efficiency / energy usage is one aspect. The new Scottish proposals break out the different elements some more.
It was that warm. These days farming begins much further down
So yeah it was warm. This does not of course “disprove” AGW
Now Sweden is about to buckle and forbid Koran burning. Then it will be cartoons of the prophet. Than any criticism of the prophet. Then anything that remotely incites any of these bearded fuckers
Ffs we’ve seen this unfold in the uk and France. Teachers beheaded and in hiding So you end up with full on medieval blasphemy laws that only protect one religion - because that religion is so aggressive and violent
How much more evidence do you need? You people are pathetic.
https://twitter.com/RpsAgainstTrump/status/1687172611011186689/photo/1
Nevertheless, I would defend someone's right to do so and I'd certainly like to call out some of Islam's central tenets as bollocks, politely so, as far as possible, because I think they are.
And yes, doom came to Rome, but I stand by my original question, what do people who say we are doomed by climate change actually mean?
It may also be inexpensive to you but it may not be to many other people. Especially in a cost of living crisis.
The biggest challenge is always water heating, which is why hot water tanks have come back over instant mains supply via a combi boiler.
* A normal cat puts out 25-30W.
No I wouldn't. Those guys can look after themselves.
In an ASHP install, the greater emitter surface may permit a lower running temperature which will boost efficiency and may pay for itself quite quickly.
It's why we need a strong skills base to force out the bad advice. I'm ASHP ready (from the big rads installed by the previous owner, but I'll wait a few years).
And I have answered your question: we are overloading and not maintaining a complex system which is currently sort-of in equilibrium, and will cease to be. Exactly how it fails is unpredictable, but famine, flooding, mass migration leading to war, leading to tactical then strategic nuclear war, is my best guess.
You wouldn't because you're scared.
The right is important because otherwise we are accepting there are some objects and subjects that are off limits, and none should be.
Besides, there are all kinds of things we aren't allowed to do. I live in a country (there are many) where desecrating flags is illegal. Is that woke madness too?
The point being that some actions are viewed by their targets as threatening as well as insulting.
* "Assert" would be a better word, because there is no first amendment to any constitution in Britain, so it's not as if a right to carry out such an action actually exists. A right is kind o'thing that is pronounced into existence by the state.
Sorry.
The absence of the above shite is one of the things Britain does right.
Sorry.
I am with @Casino_Royale with this one for a change and in the middle. I'm for free speech. You can burn bibles, burn flags, but accept there are consequences for for insulting people.
That's unless someone can explain the detailed reasons why the climate has always changed so much, and why those reasons don't explain why it's changing now and therefore we are led to the conclusion that it MUST be something DIFFERENT between then and now that explains why it's changing now. That's how logic works.
My god, the level of Stupid on here tonight
[sets to work building VR masks for cats]
That is where the line must be drawn.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/naked-rambler-finishes-trek-after-900-miles-and-16-arrests-74964.html