|
|
Post by jonksy on Feb 23, 2024 22:40:51 GMT
Biden like all politicians knows damned well that net zero is a vote loser. That's why Starmer avoids any discussion on the subject and if he's cornered he is very careful not to let anything slip, until after the election. You make him sound like zany mate....LOL... |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Feb 23, 2024 22:45:17 GMT
Wise words and warnings from engaging Renault boss Luca de Meo about several unintended consequences of Western politicians' drive to go 'green'. Red-tape regulation results in bigger, heavier and more expensive electric cars from European manufacturers that customers find too costly, while China aggressively mops up the market with cheap imports...... Writing in respected motor magazine Autocar, he said the industry faced its most profound change in 150 years. He said: 'The urge to reduce our environmental impact, the phasing out of the internal combustion engine by 2035 and the ever-increasing safety and cybersecurity requirements for our cars are making them heavier and more expensive. 'All these constraints add up.'
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Feb 23, 2024 22:54:08 GMT
Biden like all politicians knows damned well that net zero is a vote loser. That's why Starmer avoids any discussion on the subject and if he's cornered he is very careful not to let anything slip, until after the election. You make him sound like zany mate....LOL... Hey maybe ZG should run for office. As long as he has party frock and slingbacks in his locker he'll be a shoo-in for the local LibDem parliamentary candidate. |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Feb 23, 2024 22:55:01 GMT
You make him sound like zany mate....LOL... Hey maybe ZG should run for office. As long as he has party frock and slingbacks in his locker he'll be a shoo-in for the local LibDem parliamentary candidate. LOL... |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Feb 23, 2024 22:55:50 GMT
New entry-level Renault Scenic cuts price to £37,495...... Renault has added a new entry-level version of the Scenic E-Tech Electric, slashing the family SUV's price by £3500 to £37,495. Named the Comfort Range, it uses a 60kWh battery for a claimed range of 260 miles (compared with 385 miles in the higher-spec Scenic) and a 167bhp motor for a 0-62mph time of 8.6sec. Its starting price makes it one of the cheapest cars in its class, undercutting key rivals like the £44,000 Tesla Model Y and £42,665....
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Feb 23, 2024 23:05:24 GMT
You said scientists, you didn't ask about eco mentalists. Frankly Red I don't think you're qualified to judge. LOL, I'd like to say good try, but I think we both know it wasn't.  I say again 'ZG, you know as well as I do that eco mentalists worship science they agree with, and rubbish science they disagree with. See google ffs'. So what. I don't care what the Eco mentalists think (whoever they are) I care what the scientists think. Why did you bother to ask me for my thoughts about scientists who disagree that global warming is happening? |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Feb 23, 2024 23:12:54 GMT
LOL, I'd like to say good try, but I think we both know it wasn't. I say again 'ZG, you know as well as I do that eco mentalists worship science they agree with, and rubbish science they disagree with. See google ffs'. So what. I don't care what the Eco mentalists think (whoever they are) I care what the scientists think. Why did you bother to ask me for my thoughts about scientists who disagree that global warming is happening? ZG, you're being intentionally obtuse, now stop it and buck your ideas up. You claim to care what scientists think, but you're being very disingenuous. Do you agree with scientists who 'disagree' with climate change? |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Feb 23, 2024 23:16:10 GMT
So what. I don't care what the Eco mentalists think (whoever they are) I care what the scientists think. Why did you bother to ask me for my thoughts about scientists who disagree that global warming is happening? ZG, you're being intentionally obtuse, now stop it and buck your ideas up. You claim to care what scientists think, but you're being very disingenuous. Do you agree with scientists who 'disagree' with climate change? Depends what they say. give an example. Do you agree with scientists who disagree with climate change whatever they say? |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Feb 23, 2024 23:58:16 GMT
ZG, you're being intentionally obtuse, now stop it and buck your ideas up. You claim to care what scientists think, but you're being very disingenuous. Do you agree with scientists who 'disagree' with climate change? Depends what they say. give an example. Do you agree with scientists who disagree with climate change whatever they say? As you may have sussed, I'm not a scientist. So I have to believe people, experts and scientists who claim to know what they're talking about. And I'm open to that. For most of my life I've been listening to experts and scientists who since the 1970's have been warning us of imminent global disaster, of some sort. For the past 50 years we have been fed a constant stream of doomsday eco-pocalyptic predictions and thus far, every single one has proved to be a load of alarmist nonsense. Not one has come true. So tell me, why should anyone take the latest eco alarmist predictions of imminent global disaster seriously? |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Feb 24, 2024 2:14:46 GMT
Kinda defeats the object don't it.....This just about sums up the mentality of those who beleive the doom goblin...Electric car drivers keep a second petrol or diesel vehicle over fears that EVs can't handle long distances..... Over half of electric car drivers have a second vehicle powered by petrol or diesel for long-haul travel as they remain unsure of the durability of an EV. While confidence in EVs seems to primarily be for short trips consisting of less than 30 miles, drivers remain cautious when deciding to travel long distance.....
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Feb 24, 2024 8:00:46 GMT
Depends what they say. give an example. Do you agree with scientists who disagree with climate change whatever they say? As you may have sussed, I'm not a scientist. So I have to believe people, experts and scientists who claim to know what they're talking about. And I'm open to that. For most of my life I've been listening to experts and scientists who since the 1970's have been warning us of imminent global disaster, of some sort. For the past 50 years we have been fed a constant stream of doomsday eco-pocalyptic predictions and thus far, every single one has proved to be a load of alarmist nonsense. Not one has come true. So tell me, why should anyone take the latest eco alarmist predictions of imminent global disaster seriously? I think you have swallowed a narrative you've been fed on this forum. There have been no doomsday eco-pocalyptic predictions made by scientists, that have not been listened to and mitigated. You are living in the age of conspiracy theories and have swallowed some of their pseudo science and believed their claims. If you believe the blogger claims that any scientist who speaks against climate change is ostracised and has their funding cut, then that gives you the excuse to claim they are all lying. For myself, when a single scientist claims that the MMR jab gives you Autism and every other scientist says that's not true, I tend to believe the majority. If a single scientist claims America faces famine due to overpopulation, but the rest of the scientific community remain silent then I tend to dismiss the apocalyptic claim even if the press run with it. (That was in 1975) When a few scientists say climate change is not happening and the vast majority from every corner of the planet say it is and that man is causing it, I tend to believe them. Apart from that I try to read as much as I can about the theories and evidence that supports them. |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Feb 24, 2024 8:03:14 GMT
As you may have sussed, I'm not a scientist. So I have to believe people, experts and scientists who claim to know what they're talking about. And I'm open to that. For most of my life I've been listening to experts and scientists who since the 1970's have been warning us of imminent global disaster, of some sort. For the past 50 years we have been fed a constant stream of doomsday eco-pocalyptic predictions and thus far, every single one has proved to be a load of alarmist nonsense. Not one has come true. So tell me, why should anyone take the latest eco alarmist predictions of imminent global disaster seriously? I think you have swallowed a narrative you've been fed on this forum. There have been no doomsday eco-pocalyptic predictions made by scientists, that have not been listened to and mitigated. You are living in the age of conspiracy theories and have swallowed some of their pseudo science and believed their claims. If you believe the blogger claims that any scientist who speaks against climate change is ostracised and has their funding cut, then that gives you the excuse to claim they are all lying. For myself, when a single scientist claims that the MMR jab gives you Autism and every other scientist says that's not true, I tend to believe the majority. If a single scientist claims America faces famine due to overpopulation, but the rest of the scientific community remain silent then I tend to dismiss the apocalyptic claim even if the press run with it. (That was in 1975) When a few scientists say climate change is not happening and the vast majority from every corner of the planet say it is and that man is causing it, I tend to believe them. Apart from that I try to read as much as I can about the theories and evidence that supports them. Reading them and understanding them are two seperate concepts.....But good try zany in trying to divert the thread YET AGAIN... |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Feb 24, 2024 8:40:56 GMT
Everything in this post is wrong zany. Your "facts" are just assumptions for which you have no proof. And "attribution" - where scientists identify all the factors and measure their contribution - is most certainly done. If you have a system which is affected by many factors it's essential to try to measure the contribution of each one before you can draw any definite conclusions. Until you've done this you can't say that any one factor is the predominant one. As I said there is no correlation between CO2 and temperature (except those that occur by manipulation of data) and no proof even that CO2 causes warming at the kind of trace concentrations that we currently have. And that's a FACT - and you haven't found any evidence whatsoever to the contrary. No they don't. THey constantly make real life decisions based on body of evidence. Scientists base their decisions on both facts and evidence. Facts are objective pieces of information that are observable and verifiable, while evidence is the collection of facts that support or refute a particular hypothesis, theory, or claim. In the scientific method, evidence is gathered through observation, experimentation, and analysis. Scientists use evidence to formulate hypotheses, make predictions, and draw conclusions about the natural world. They critically evaluate the evidence to determine its reliability and relevance to their research questions. While facts provide the foundation of scientific knowledge, evidence helps scientists to interpret and understand those facts within the context of their research. Therefore, scientists rely on both facts and evidence to make informed decisions and advance scientific understanding. Says the person who has obviously never studied science in his life. This is utter nonsense zany. Science is based on data (observations) and theories (which attempt to "explain" the observations). That's all - it's very simple. It's very dangerous to talk about "facts". I suppose you mean observations (data) but they're not necessarily "facts" because their accuracy is dependent on how good your equipment is. For example our observations of the world have changed radically since the invention of telescopes and the electron microscope etc. I've no idea what you mean by "evidence" - it seems to be a mixture of theory and data. It's just nonsense. You need to stop talking about things that take years of study to understand. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Feb 24, 2024 15:08:13 GMT
No they don't. THey constantly make real life decisions based on body of evidence. Scientists base their decisions on both facts and evidence. Facts are objective pieces of information that are observable and verifiable, while evidence is the collection of facts that support or refute a particular hypothesis, theory, or claim. In the scientific method, evidence is gathered through observation, experimentation, and analysis. Scientists use evidence to formulate hypotheses, make predictions, and draw conclusions about the natural world. They critically evaluate the evidence to determine its reliability and relevance to their research questions. While facts provide the foundation of scientific knowledge, evidence helps scientists to interpret and understand those facts within the context of their research. Therefore, scientists rely on both facts and evidence to make informed decisions and advance scientific understanding. Science is based on data (observations) and theories (which attempt to "explain" the observations). That's all - it's very simple. It's very dangerous to talk about "facts". I suppose you mean observations (data) but they're not necessarily "facts" because their accuracy is dependent on how good your equipment is. For example our observations of the world have changed radically since the invention of telescopes and the electron microscope etc. I've no idea what you mean by "evidence" - it seems to be a mixture of theory and data. It's just nonsense. You need to stop talking about things that take years of study to understand. Tell that to chatGBT that's where those words came from. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Feb 25, 2024 8:17:22 GMT
Says the person who has obviously never studied science in his life. This is utter nonsense zany. Science is based on data (observations) and theories (which attempt to "explain" the observations). That's all - it's very simple. It's very dangerous to talk about "facts". I suppose you mean observations (data) but they're not necessarily "facts" because their accuracy is dependent on how good your equipment is. For example our observations of the world have changed radically since the invention of telescopes and the electron microscope etc. I've no idea what you mean by "evidence" - it seems to be a mixture of theory and data. It's just nonsense. You need to stop talking about things that take years of study to understand. Tell that to chatGBT that's where those words came from. I've warned you before about trying to cobble together some understanding of things by using the internet. This is why you never learn. It's still quite worrying that AI gets it so wrong. The pity is that you now still don't have a clue how science works because you've read a lot of nonsense from a chatbot. It doesn't even understand what a hypothesis is. In the climate models the hypothesis is that CO2 causes warming - it's an assumption (like the velocity of light being constant) to be tested. The theories are all the (tested) equations that are used to represent the behaviour of the factors that are understood. |
|
