That a nice looking catamaran IMO! 

15 hours ago, martin-w said:

Lets make this the last such post.

 

Lol. Come on, in lots of those articles, scientists are quoted predicting doom and gloom in the course of a few years. And this has been going on for 50 years.

Edited September 26, 20205 yr by n4gix
Removed unnecessary long quote!

Oh, by the way, think about this, while you drive your Tesla feeling more morally just than the others:

https://theirworld.org/news/drc-children-dig-for-cobalt-to-power-electric-cars-phones

Edited September 25, 20205 yr by Murmur

Now THAT is an interesting revelation. Can ANY manufacturer of batteries for electric cars be certain that the cobalt sourced for their batteries has not come from DRC child labour?

Guess I might be more morally just going back to muscle car made 50 years ago, (no need to fire up the factories to produce me a new one) and lobbying for a planet-wide RE-forestation program.

Back to that electric boat concept (no I don't mean GE Electric Boat in Groton!) I wonder if they can eventually develop a hydrogen power pack good enough to give us offshore powerboat levels of performance - 160 mph+ ?? Back to playing the "green" hooligan again , although the military may be interested in larger boats with "adequate" performance, say 50 knots plus for something like a destroyer?

9 hours ago, Murmur said:

Lol. Come on, in lots of those articles, scientists are quoted predicting doom and gloom in the course of a few years. And this has been going on for 50 years.

 

Did you read anything I typed above or are you just trolling?

Of course we will have SOME scientists that occasionally predict doom and gloom and turn out to be wrong. That is why CONCENSUS, and research being REPLICATED is important to the scientific method. 

NONE of those 50 cheery picked articles, often from individuals, so not forming any kind of consensus... is the equivalent of literally THOUSANDS of peer reviewed scientific papers telling us we are warming the planet and that the consequences will be severe. For example, those putting forward the  hypothesis of a future ice age back in 1970 were outnumber 6 to 1.

We also have research going back to the 1800's. Not to mention of course definitive empirical evidence.

Those 50 cheery picked predictions are not the equivalent of the current huge consensus. Does that make sense now? 

1 hour ago, HighBypass said:

Now THAT is an interesting revelation. Can ANY manufacturer of batteries for electric cars be certain that the cobalt sourced for their batteries has not come from DRC child labour?

 

 

The cobalt issue isn't any kind of "revelation".  It is a well known issue. In fact in was discussed at the Tesla battery day a few days ago. And of course manufactures are attempting to find a solution.

Tesla batteries use nickel rich cobalt aluminium technology which has very low cobalt content. And Tesla announced at the battery day, that they 

Will be eliminating the use of cobalt entirely.

https://www.energy-storage.news/blogs/tesla-battery-day-bigger-form-factor-cells-massive-cost-reductions-and-elim

 

 

4 hours ago, martin-w said:

 

Did you read anything I typed above or are you just trolling?

Of course we will have SOME scientists that occasionally predict doom and gloom and turn out to be wrong. That is why CONCENSUS, and research being REPLICATED is important to the scientific method. 

NONE of those 50 cheery picked articles, often from individuals, so not forming any kind of consensus... is the equivalent of literally THOUSANDS of peer reviewed scientific papers telling us we are warming the planet and that the consequences will be severe. For example, those putting forward the  hypothesis of a future ice age back in 1970 were outnumber 6 to 1.

We also have research going back to the 1800's. Not to mention of course definitive empirical evidence.

Those 50 cheery picked predictions are not the equivalent of the current huge consensus. Does that make sense now? 

The trouble with your assertion is that there is no real "consensus" among the world's scientists about the cause of global warming.  This is pure propaganda.  There are many climate scientists who do not agree that there is an alarming increase in CO2 levels and atmospheric warming, nor do they agree that man-made activity alone has caused the increases.  The "97% of climate scientists agree that blah blah blah" argument is garbage.  The 97% figure is entirely made up.

There is not more severe weather now than there was in the past.  I've done the research, looked at the statistics.  There are not more destructive hurricanes and tornadoes now than there were 60 years ago.  Yes, from what I've found the average global temperature and CO2 levels have increased slightly over the past 40 or so years, but it is not anything to get alarmed about.  The climate has always had warming and cooling cycles, most of those long before man started spewing hydrocarbons into the atmosphere.  There is no certainty that the increase in temperature and CO2 levels will continue.  Some scientists create models that *assume* that those levels will continue to rise and/or rise at the same rate.  They make other assumptions as well and then point to their models as being the absolute truth when they are not.

It wasn't too long ago that the climate alarmists predicted that by now the sea levels would have risen several feet and inundated many coastal cities, or the ice caps would be gone.  That hasn't happened.  The claims were exaggerated then, just like the claims they are making lately.

You can post articles, papers, graphs, etc. that support your contention that there is a climate emergency, and I can post just as many that support my contention that there is no climate emergency.

IMO, many governments support the climate change agenda because they need an excuse to raise taxes.  Most governments are broke, and are borrowing and creating money at unprecedented levels, so they desperately need a new source of revenue.  What better excuse than to say that they need more taxes to save the planet, when we all know, or should know, that they will spend most of the money on themselves and their cronies.

What we can all agree on, I hope, is that 1)pollution is bad and should be reduced as much as possible, 2)we need to transition away from fossil fuels to more sustainable forms of energy, and 3)we need to conserve our natural resources and reduce waste as best we can.  There are ways to accomplish both those things without surrendering our rights, ruining our economies, and greatly increasing our cost of living.  Govt. financial incentives for purchasing electric vehicles, installing solar panels, EV charging infrastructure, wind, solar, and nuclear power plants, and recycling would probably be enough.

Dave

3 minutes ago, dave2013 said:

...Govt. financial incentives for purchasing electric vehicles, installing solar panels, EV charging infrastructure,....

Oi !! Boris! Give me a free Zero SR/F motorcycle would you? Yes, AND its charging infrastructure whilst you're at it.

Alas this thread is now somewhat political, BUT I'm OK that things had to be said - EV usage, production thereof.. it's all tied in to Govt.s along the line..IMHO.

NOW something which isn't political , but purely GEOLOGICAL. Just say several of the Earth's active volcanoes decided to erupt at the same time... bugger all we humans can do about that! Nature is a motherf....... sometimes... All the scientific papers and activists in the world would mean naught.

13 hours ago, HighBypass said:

Just say several of the Earth's active volcanoes decided to erupt at the same time... bugger all we humans can do about that! 

By the above argument holding a gun to your own head might as well be triggered, because there is a chance (better in some places, true) that someone might shoot you.

Sure Mother Nature does things from time to time... and they most certainly affect the biosphere.
The ongoing survival of a particular species often may not actually feature.

We most certainly are doing things to our biosphere, and they most certainly have an effect which the human race might find difficult to deal with. We could stop doing this if we choose.
Why not make the choice while we can, and show that it is in all ways - including economically - better?

 

Ive if learnt one thing from Covid its Scientists can be and are wrong sometimes about things.  

But like religion and politics youre damned if you ever question their theories your in trouble.

whats also apprent is they can also be "bought and coaxed whether that is money, revearment, a promise of a next job or a place in the house of lords.  

 

Back to topic.  

A couple of mates of mine (ex virgin drivers) are working on a project with a group of  investors that have bought some cheap 747s and have converted to run on biofuel. 

From what i hear they have gone to Africa and found a supplier there who can supply a more of less unlimted supply of very very cheap biofuel and will provide it to them.   It could be ground breaking.

One of the main investers I believe is one Mr Rubens Barrichello.  🙂 

Once I get made redundent I might end up working for them. ha 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 27, 20205 yr by fluffyflops

5 hours ago, fluffyflops said:

.... investors that have bought some cheap 747s and have converted to run on biofuel. ...

Any future chemtrail conspiritards will be complaining tht the trails now actually smell... of old chip fat! (Fries in the USA)  🍻

On 9/26/2020 at 4:23 PM, dave2013 said:

The trouble with your assertion is that there is no real "consensus" among the world's scientists about the cause of global warming.  This is pure propaganda. 

Dave

 

Wrong! The consensus is huge.

Frome NASA...

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

 

Quote

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals¹ show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.

 

Here is a list of TWO HUNDRED worldwide scientific organisations that hold the position that Climate Change has been caused by human action:

https://www.opr.ca.gov/facts/list-of-scientific-organizations.html

 

I was tempted to copy and paste all 200 but that would have been silly. 😉 

 

On 9/26/2020 at 4:23 PM, dave2013 said:

 There are many climate scientists who do not agree that there is an alarming increase in CO2 levels and atmospheric warming, nor do they agree that man-made activity alone has caused the increases. 

Dave

 

No Dave! There aren't "many" at all. There are very few. There was a bogus list published a while back by a well known climate change denying organisation that included numerous individuals who either weren't climatologists, or were TV weather men etc.  The true climatologists they did include didn't at all disagree with the consensus, they simply had an issue with certain aspects of the science but they all agreed with the consensus.  the list was funded by an organisation with connections to the fossil fuel industry. Sadly, there were many who were fooled by the scam. 

 

Quote

There is not more severe weather now than there was in the past. 

 

Yes there is, in fact records are being brocken year after year. Increased flooding, droughts etc. Greenland is losing ice at a phenomenal rate. Would you like a list? The issue of course  is LONG TERM -  AVERAGE - GLOBAL temperature. The temperature  for the entire planet over greater than 30 years is looked at  as an average.  It's the trend that's important. This is done to eliminate natural variability, like short term weather events, ocean current variability solar activity, volcanism etc. That global warming is responsible for climate change. 

 

 

Quote

I've done the research, looked at the statistics. 

 

Yes Dave but as demonstrated by your comments, you aren't qualified to draw a valid conclusion from your amateur research. Climatologists aren't idiots, they go to university and get degree's, masters degrees and PhD's. It's their expertise, they know what they are doing better than you. You have zero qualifications in this field.

 

Quote

There are not more destructive hurricanes and tornadoes now than there were 60 years ago.

 

Yes there are. We are experiencing higher storm surges and record rainfall during hurricane season. But even if we weren't, that still doesn't change the fact that the planet is warming in terms of the average trend world wide over the long term. There have been so many storms over the Atlantic this year that for only the second time in history, the National Hurricane Centre has ran out of names for them. 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/19/hurricane-season-names-atlantic-us-tropical-storm-beta#:~:text=So many powerful storms have,21 names available each year.

 

 

Quote

Yes, from what I've found the average global temperature and CO2 levels have increased slightly over the past 40 or so years,

 

Sorry but again you are demonstrating a lack of understanding of climate change. You are looking at temp increases on the order of single digits, one degree, 1.5 degrees, 2 degrees and assuming that this is a small increase of little significance. This is wrong! Wrong because that small increase is an average, it includes very cold arctic regions as well as warmer regions.

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2458/why-a-half-degree-temperature-rise-is-a-big-deal/

 

 

Quote

The climate has always had warming and cooling cycles, most of those long before man started spewing hydrocarbons into the atmosphere.

 

Don't mean to be rude or anything Dave but that's more ignorance of climate science. Yes, absolutely has the planet warmed and cooled in the past, and we know, or have a very good idea, what the causal factors were for those historic changes in temperature. However... none of those causal factors are present now, except  our CO2 emissions. And we know its our CO2 responsible due to the fact it has the radioactive signature of fossil fuels.   In addition, its the RATE of warming thats unprecedented. Again, climatologist are not idiots, they are actually qualified to do this. 

 

Quote

There is no certainty that the increase in temperature and CO2 levels will continue.  

 

Yes there is, absolutely there is if we keep emitting CO2. And we have known this from right back to the 18th century. I've already posted the names of the rather clever scientists who discovered this in the 1800's. The green house effect is well understood, I was taught about it in school. I'm surprised you weren't. It's basic. 

Edited September 27, 20205 yr by martin-w

8 hours ago, fluffyflops said:

Ive if learnt one thing from Covid its Scientists can be and are wrong sometimes about things.  

But like religion and politics youre damned if you ever question their theories your in trouble.

 

 

Well yes, scientists have been wrong about some aspects of Covid. But that's understandable, it's a "novel" virus, Scientists were trying to learn about the virus as fast as possible. Inevitable that they would get some aspects of the illness wrong. Most research I saw made that absolutely clear. It was also made clear in terms of many aspects of the illness that more research was required.

Dealing with a new, novel virus that's only just arisen is clearly different to well studied, replicated research. 

Aaaaaaand... More failed predictions:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/10/30/some-failed-climate-predictions/