Is it the death knell for the combustion engine?

[Deleted member 72907]

Excuse me 97% of scientists believe in global warming

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1show 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.
taken from

Scientific Consensus - NASA Science

It’s important to remember that scientists always focus on the evidence, not on opinions. Scientific evidence continues to show that human activities (primarily the human burning of fossil fuels) have warmed Earth’s surface and its ocean basins, which in turn have continued to impact Earth’s...

climate.nasa.gov

Note this is from nasa from a country who no longer are signed up to the Paris accord.

I think that 97% headline figure is a little misleading. I don’t claim to be an expert or a mathematician but this is my take.
The 97% comes from http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002 by J. Cook. The salient quote is on page 6:-

"The number of papers rejecting AGW [Anthropogenic, or human-caused, Global Warming] is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.”

If you stop reading there it all seems cut and dried BUT… if you dig a little deeper you can find how the number was arrived at. The key phrase is ‘among papers expressing a position’.


‘Following a similar methodology, C13 analysed the abstracts of 11 944 peer-reviewed papers published between 1991 and 2011 that matched the search terms 'global climate change' or 'global warming' in the ISI Web of Science search engine. Among the 4014 abstracts stating a position on human-caused global warming, 97.1% were judged as having implicitly or explicitly endorsed the consensus. In addition, the study authors were invited to rate their own papers, based on the contents of the full paper, not just the abstract. Amongst 1381 papers self-rated by their authors as stating a position on human-caused global warming, 97.2% endorsed the consensus.’


So the numbers are based on an original 11,944 peer-reviewed abstracts but of that number only 4014 ‘stated a position’ on AGW. Further, when the original authors were asked to rate their own papers only 1381 papers were rated as stating a position, of which 97.2% endorsed the consensus.

Working backwards from that we get 1342 papers (97.2% of 1381) endorsed the consensus of AGW.

Which means that of the original 11,944 papers only 1342 endorsed AGW - which is 11.24%. A good bit shy of 97%.

I am definitely not a climate-change denier but it does seem to me that the facts are being presented in such a way as to lead people to a certain conclusion.

I would be very happy if somebody would point out any errors in maths or logic I may have made - I’d hate to be one of the people adding to the mis-information!

 

[mark61]

It’s some scientist, those scientist that get their funding from dodgy politicians who are in turn responding to dodgy lobbyists.

Scientist that don't go along with the agenda get deplatformed, kicked off the BBC (other media too) and have to work hard for a living.

 

[Fazerloz]

Like the world this thread is going round and round and round and actually going nowhere.

 

[runnach]

Sorry Andrew but its scientists that are pushing this agenda not dodgy politicians and their crooked advisers like Johnson and Cummings. Politicians have spent decades resisting their conclusions.
And nobody is screaming.
And people believe in the possibility of global warming, because they have looked carefully at it and have concluded that we cannot sit back and do nothing.

Bill Rob above has given a set of stats in addition to an earlier video clip , that Fazerloz shared that clearly shows the figure are massaged and the 97 % message is flawed. I also explained how the United States were still looking and investing in reducing gw ,gym modification of animal feed to reduce methane gasses , trump will not simply let an industry out to dry ...

If global warming is as bad as some are suggesting why are they insulting our intelligence with flawed statistics i can only surmise there is an hidden agenda to railroad people into believing half truths .

All this and not withstanding common sense dictates we concentrate on more environmentally friendly solutions for as you say there is a possibility but that’s what it is a possibility there seems little to say cast in stone

 

[izwozral]

Lets get onto something that we can all agree on.








******: Discuss

 

[mariesnowgoose]

Pontificate about 'statistics' 'til you're all blue in the face.

As a seasoned gardener I don't need anyone - scientists, statistics, or otherwise - to tell me what's been going on right outside my door for the last 20 years.

Whether it's 'climate change' or general pollution caused by humans - and no doubt there will be some skewed stats somewhere arguing full pelt that we are all whiter than white and the planet's eco-systems are NOT being affected by our activity at all, no siree! - the evidence, as far as I'm concerned, is right there as plain as the noses on your faces.

Ergo: whether it's EV or hydrogen or whatever, it is a GOOD thing that people are at least (and at last!!!) starting to talk and argue about it all with some degree of seriousness, imho.

As you were...

 

[landoboguy]

Modern diesel engines with Adblue and Selective Catalytic Reduction technology reduces nitrous oxides by 80 -95%, and carbonmonoxide and hydrocarbons by 50-90% just emitting harmless nitrogen, steam and beneficial carbon dioxide. Euro 6 engines produce minute amounts of particulates. There is no logical reason for their banning. It is about control and to restrict private car ownership to the rich only.

Dave, that doesnt change the fact that diesel/petrol emissions are a class 1 carcinogen, let alone the soot and minute particles that clog the lung areola
when it comes to combusted fuels there is not a filter around that can make it harmless and keep performance, simple.
I can list you 10-20 of the components remaining in diesel after filtering that are all listed as carcinogenic, some highly and some not so.

I suppose by your rational, the government were hasty in shutting down the asbestos industry.
or another analogy "my gran smoked 40 fags a a day and lived to be 100" oh yeah but every fag the gran smoked increased her chances of death, which is just like saying lets cross the road blindfold 40 times a day and see if we get lucky. ONLY THIS morning a report found extremely high levels of emissions damaging to health of "drive through" workers with all the vehicles stood belching out soot.

Give our children the best chance, i dont see what the problem is myself.

 

[izwozral]

Pontificate about 'statistics' 'til you're all blue in the face.

As a seasoned gardener I don't need anyone - scientists, statistics, or otherwise - to tell me what's been going on right outside my door for the last 20 years.

Whether it's 'climate change' or general pollution caused by humans - and no doubt there will be some skewed stats somewhere arguing full pelt that we are all whiter than white and the planet's eco-systems are NOT being affected by our activity at all, no siree! - the evidence, as far as I'm concerned, is right there as plain as the noses on your faces.

Ergo: whether it's EV or hydrogen or whatever, it is a GOOD thing that people are at least (and at last!!!) starting to talk and argue about it all with some degree of seriousness, imho.

As you were...

Wild garlic growing at the end of January is a plus, I just wouldn't stand too close to me if you want to discuss it - unless you wish to partake too.

 

[Eriba]

My view is that electric vehicles are not wholly the answer, however Hydrogen pumps are beginning to appear and Gas Networks are looking at Hydrogen boilers as are gas boiler makers.
Quite interesting challenges as Hydrogen burns with an invisible flame, however its highly possible to achieve an alternative interlock system.
Cars are likely to follow suit, major Super markets are using Hydrogen propulsion.
Remember Betamax was going to be the answer, shadows on the wall!!

 

[Fisherman]

Lets get onto something that we can all agree on.








******: Discuss

Sadist

 

[Nabsim]

Will obviously see where we are up to by then and if I am still here but my next car in around 30 months will be hydrogen if they are more widespread and can get fuelled locally. Failing that probably hybrid of some sort, I was very tempted with a Hyundai hybrid this time but when we went to have a look it was very nice but neither of us felt we wanted it

 

[Asterix]

Will obviously see where we are up to by then and if I am still here but my next car in around 30 months will be hydrogen if they are more widespread and can get fuelled locally. Failing that probably hybrid of some sort, I was very tempted with a Hyundai hybrid this time but when we went to have a look it was very nice but neither of us felt we wanted it

If you go hybrid be sure to research insurance first, catalytic converter thefts have massively upped premiums on hybrids,and there are cases of insurers refusing to insure at all because of repeated thefts from the same vehicle.

 

[Nabsim]

If you go hybrid be sure to research insurance first, catalytic converter thefts have massively upped premiums on hybrids,and there are cases of insurers refusing to insure at all because of repeated thefts from the same vehicle.

I have a mobility car Asterix and insurance and servicing is included in the 3 year lease. All I have to do is put fuel in it. All that said if we have moved somewhere with offroad parking then it would be possible to have an EV also

 

[runnach]

In London there are the electric bikes,sometimes not practical if out as a family or needing to carry goods,but what about electric tuck tuks could be rented adhoc and at quiet times charged and valeted ,,,,Sri Lanka is well down the road of making the tuk tuks practical

 

[Nabsim]

In London there are the electric bikes,sometimes not practical if out as a family or needing to carry goods,but what about electric tuck tuks could be rented adhoc and at quiet times charged and valeted ,,,,Sri Lanka is well down the road of making the tuk tuks practical

They just need to ban all vehicles from city centres Andrew, solutions would spring up overnight, See how many rickshaws pop up

 

[Jayg]

I find with all the arguments about GW on this platform along with Britexit, is that you will all be long dead before we feel the full effects.
So you can all argue all you want.
But what would tell you great grand children if you were alive?
In my humble opinion, it’s a win win situation.
We stop polluting our plant, invest in clean energy, what do we loose?

 

[trevskoda]

I have a mobility car Asterix and insurance and servicing is included in the 3 year lease. All I have to do is put fuel in it. All that said if we have moved somewhere with offroad parking then it would be possible to have an EV also

The fuel is free with electric. Free car free fuel cannot beat that.

 

[mark61]

I find with all the arguments about GW on this platform along with Britexit, is that you will all be long dead before we feel the full effects.
So you can all argue all you want.
But what would tell you great grand children if you were alive?
In my humble opinion, it’s a win win situation.
We stop polluting our plant, invest in clean energy, what do we loose?

I’d tell them about the funny old days where far too many people fell for a climate catastrophe hoax. Sorted.

 

[davef]

It is easy to think that whats the harm in taking all these measures if there is a chance it will make the world a bit cleaner. But there is a cost. Teresa May's evil parting gift to the nation passed unthinkingly by parliament of " Net Zero" by 2050 and being accelerated by Boris as per the diesel and petrol ban, has been costed by Andrew Montford of the Global Warming Foundation. The cost to the nation, us, £3 trillion - that's £100,000 for every household. That will certainly mess up our grand and great grand children's lives.... and will presumably mean no use of cars, planes, ships, trains, motor bikes, motor homes ...... except for work.
I do think we have the responsibility to protect the environment and there are many things to worry about, like plastic pollution that seems to have got everywhere, and that grain growing land is rapidly loosing its nutrients and may soon be infertile, and all the various additives going into our food and out into the eco-system. What is not a problem is CO2, and it is utterly immoral for governments to make out it is in order to further their agendas.

 

[Asterix]

It is easy to think that whats the harm in taking all these measures if there is a chance it will make the world a bit cleaner. But there is a cost. Teresa May's evil parting gift to the nation passed unthinkingly by parliament of " Net Zero" by 2050 and being accelerated by Boris as per the diesel and petrol ban, has been costed by Andrew Montford of the Global Warming Foundation. The cost to the nation, us, £3 trillion - that's £100,000 for every household. That will certainly mess up our grand and great grand children's lives.... and will presumably mean no use of cars, planes, ships, trains, motor bikes, motor homes ...... except for work.
I do think we have the responsibility to protect the environment and there are many things to worry about, like plastic pollution that seems to have got everywhere, and that grain growing land is rapidly loosing its nutrients and may soon be infertile, and all the various additives going into our food and out into the eco-system. What is not a problem is CO2, and it is utterly immoral for governments to make out it is in order to further their agendas.

The trouble with these sort of cost measurements is that they just pull the figures out their arses,what you've failed to mention is the cost of doing nothing,that has the potential to massively exceeed three trillion,there's also no mention of the costs that will be offset with new industries starting up. To my mind no one can truly come up with figures for any of these things,too many variables,too many unknowns and new research and development leading to new innovations in energy,recycling,transport constantly being added to the mix.
Ultimately the best solution is really having a couple of billion people drop dead, I had high hopes for coronavirus but unfortunately it doesn't seem like it's up to the job.