Tobes it was TIC😉. I think it’s time we all lightened up a bit and accept with the current energy problems going fully green may take a little longer than hoped. Back to my caravan
It’s not even close Buckman. The fact that an EV will offset its build cost carbon deficit in as little as 30K km of driving compared to an ICE car demonstrates how much CO2 is in exhaust fumes. Clean is a scale. ICE engines are at one end of it. And it’s not the clean end.DD did say pretty clean so probably close on par with EVs taking in to consideration way EVs are built, but lets not go down that route.
My good friend is an airline pilot working for HMG studying Meteorological patterns and the alleged effects of global warming. Their plane carries 60 boffins and is loaded with hi tec measuring equipment.
He pointed us to https://thebestschools.org/magazine/william-happer-on-global-warming/.
I have no wish to get involved in another Green discussion but hope if you choose to read this you may be surprised at some of the conclusions.
He pointed us to https://thebestschools.org/magazine/william-happer-on-global-warming/.
I have no wish to get involved in another Green discussion but hope if you choose to read this you may be surprised at some of the conclusions.
Thats hard going, almost like an autobiography. His lectures on YouTube are worth watching…. but be prepared to spend an hour or so. Below is a summary of his views but the disparaging comments about the ozone hole makes me wonder about the impartiality and objectivity of some of the publications that issue his work. Viz:
“He was dismissed from the Department of Energy in 1993 by the Clinton Administration for not bowing to the trendy lies concerning the ozone hole.”
Prof. Happer (Princeton ) explains CO2 - ingenuousness
William Happer explains the error of climate hysteria (that the human contribution to carbon dioxide causes the raise of the global temperature)
ingenuousness.org
Last edited:
What I glean from a quick read of the pointed document is how William Happer does not agree that CO2 is the bad agent its painted in terms of "global warming" but he does accept the other pollutants normally created by burning fossil fuels are a still a concern.
He believes the world can survive a slightly raised CO2 content, and it could benefit the growth of plants, but it doesn't go against the widely accepted notion that human activity is having a negative impact on the environment.
Its an alternative take on the subject. A point of note I no longer use the term global warming, becasue whilst some parts of the world may experience and average increase in temperature others may actually see and drop in average temperatures, so climate change is a better term to use.
The reference to CO2emmisions as being the primary criteria on which to base the condition of the environment, may not be technically perfect, but the reality is the vast majority of human consumption of energy that releases the truly harmful pollutants almost always also release vast quantities of CO2. So I take it as the convenient means of expressing or indication the success or failure of pollution control and climate change measures.
He believes the world can survive a slightly raised CO2 content, and it could benefit the growth of plants, but it doesn't go against the widely accepted notion that human activity is having a negative impact on the environment.
Its an alternative take on the subject. A point of note I no longer use the term global warming, becasue whilst some parts of the world may experience and average increase in temperature others may actually see and drop in average temperatures, so climate change is a better term to use.
The reference to CO2emmisions as being the primary criteria on which to base the condition of the environment, may not be technically perfect, but the reality is the vast majority of human consumption of energy that releases the truly harmful pollutants almost always also release vast quantities of CO2. So I take it as the convenient means of expressing or indication the success or failure of pollution control and climate change measures.
Thank you both. It is an interesting take and gives another perspective. I make no more comment other than I hope you enjoy his spiel. The more views and ideas we all hear the more we learn 👍Back to the Funeral. What a magnificent spectacle to see in our life time. Proud to be British 👏👏👏
Thank you for a very interesting link. A long read, but worth it as I agree with William Happer. We know that some universities have been falsifying data to obtain government grants i.e wasn't it East Anglia univerisity that got caught out a few years ago?
East Anglia university, and more specifically Prof Phil Jones, were not "caught out". They were hacked and their communication material and data was systematically leaked in an attempt to discredit their findings.
For the truth about that story, have a look here.
The true story behind The Trick
Twelve years ago UEA’s Climatic Research Unit was hacked. A global media storm, which came to be known as Climategate, focused its attention on one man. This is the story behind the events now depicted in BBC drama The Trick
stories.uea.ac.uk
In the meantime, if Happer wants his material to be accepted, maybe it needs publishing in a reputable scientific paper for peer review, rather than on a commercial site funded by advertising and sponsorship.
No, a subsequent investigation by independent scientists cleared the University of East Anglia. There was an excellent BBC programme on it too.
I think he quoted the reasons why it will never be published as it goes against every governments reasons for taxing us more. he does not refute global warming but explains why CO2 is necessary for life on earth and it seems to make sense.East Anglia university, and more specifically Prof Phil Jones, were not "caught out". They were hacked and their communication material and data was systematically leaked in an attempt to discredit their findings.
For the truth about that story, have a look here.
The true story behind The Trick
Twelve years ago UEA’s Climatic Research Unit was hacked. A global media storm, which came to be known as Climategate, focused its attention on one man. This is the story behind the events now depicted in BBC drama The Trick
In the meantime, if Happer wants his material to be accepted, maybe it needs publishing in a reputable scientific paper for peer review, rather than on a commercial site funded by advertising and sponsorship.
After all many years ago there were a lot of active volcanoes pumping huge volumes of CO2 into the atmosphere and humans survived. I agree 100% that pollutants need to be contained as they do far more damage than CO2.
I was not aware of that, but who believes scientists nowadays as many are now bad as politicians?
Given that both of my parents are, my grandfather was one, my brother is one, and I am one, I take that as a personal slur.
Politics are not a reason to not be published in a scientific journal. Not wanting to submit for peer review, or having flawed science is. There are still active volcanos. The point about greenhouse effect, man made climate change and CO2 release is not about pure volume, its about balance.
TBH I think you are well aware that my post was very much tongue in cheek so not sure why you decided it was a personal attack. Just in case you missed it, I did say "many" and not all however in hindsight maybe I should have said "some".
Parksy
Moderator
Grow up both of you.
If this constant bickering continues this thread will disappear.
You may find this report by the House of Commons that exonerated Professor Phil Jones an interesting read.
I could find the original but Huff Post is pretty genuine in its output. But it’s at the bottom as a link.
Climate Scientist Phil Jones Exonerated by British House of Commons
The British House of Commons today issued a report exonerating Professor Phil Jones, the director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.
May be I shouldn’t have offered another scientific view that trashed Climate Change Theories?
Apologies now.
I did say I did NOT want to get involved in another Green discussion.
Scientists are often wrong as proven in history. The British Head of Science during WW2 would not accept the Germans had developed and made the V2 bomb. The scientific advice during the Foot and Mouth disaster was wrong in hindsight. But equally a lot of very good stuff comes from science. We just need to accept there are always two sides to a coin.
I know this thread is quite old but rather than. creating new one, recent announcements on energy sufficiency seem to have set the country back. I think most accept that IF we can generate more of our energy from non fossil sources then the price of that energy can be detached from the price of oil which governs much of the fossil energy prices. So the route to lower independent supplies is electric, or derivatives produced from cheaper "home grown" electric.
Introducing a windfall tax on the energy companies led to a cut back in planned investments ad jobs, and even the proposal to offer more offshore licences hasn't recovered the situation. But all more oil and gas does is increase Treasury coffers and its impact on world prices is next to nothing.
The planned auction of new offshore licences has resulted in no bids being received as the max price offered against which to bid lower was way below company costs. Surely the Dept of Energy can finder contract cost estimators to give advice on setting maximum prices for licence bids. I also don't think the recent announcement wrt on shore wind will make much difference as it requires community support to go ahead.
So in two moves the plans for cheaper energy and energy security have moved backwards. The good news though is that on street charging points have made a really good advance. Pity the electricity to supply them hasn't done the same.
www.theguardian.com
Introducing a windfall tax on the energy companies led to a cut back in planned investments ad jobs, and even the proposal to offer more offshore licences hasn't recovered the situation. But all more oil and gas does is increase Treasury coffers and its impact on world prices is next to nothing.
The planned auction of new offshore licences has resulted in no bids being received as the max price offered against which to bid lower was way below company costs. Surely the Dept of Energy can finder contract cost estimators to give advice on setting maximum prices for licence bids. I also don't think the recent announcement wrt on shore wind will make much difference as it requires community support to go ahead.
So in two moves the plans for cheaper energy and energy security have moved backwards. The good news though is that on street charging points have made a really good advance. Pity the electricity to supply them hasn't done the same.
UK interest rates now expected to peak at 5.5%; offshore wind power auction flops – as it happened
Government criticised as Britain’s latest subsidy auction to help support new renewable energy projects awarded no contracts for offshore wind projects
In one way I am glad that they got no bids at the auction so no more monstrosities being erected.
Don’t wind me up Clive but full marks for restarting an older thread which contains lots of useful discussion.
IMO all the Utilities should never have been privatised. Millions have been paid in dividends , bonuses yet three of out largest water suppliers regularly polite our rivers killing all the wildlife! Yet next to nothing invested in the infrastructure
IMO all the Utilities should never have been privatised. Millions have been paid in dividends , bonuses yet three of out largest water suppliers regularly polite our rivers killing all the wildlife! Yet next to nothing invested in the infrastructure
I agree that in many cases privatisation of utilities was a bad thing especially when they prefer to pay shareholders and themselves with huge bonuses instead of investing in the infrastructure.
However those shareholders are probably the ones that fund our private pensions etc.
A few years ago we reported a severe leak with water running across the road. This mixed with mud from the adjoining field made it dangerous. It took about several months and an accident before they did something about it.
Wasn’t my intention to wind anybody up, just what I thought was an interesting and relevant update. Wrt water companies they are a national scandal and the fines don’t address the “crime”.
Facebook
Twitter