Is it the death knell for the combustion engine?

Fisherman said:
Korky folk still think we never landed on the moon, American gun laws make perfect sense, bush set up 911, aliens landed in Area 51, the jews were not massacred in the holocaust, Trump is innocent, and global warming is not happening. :)
Click to expand...
Or to quote Mr Orwell-"In a time of deceit,telling the truth is a revolutionary act."or "We have now sunk to a depth at which restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men."He's got so many more,many so appropriate to these saddest of times.
 
The thing about science and data is you need to dig real deep to find out exactly who is doing the funding for a study because the results will always be slanted to those doing the funding. There are really very few truly independent studies done. As with most things those with the most money wins.
 
Fazerloz said:
The thing about science and data is you need to dig real deep to find out exactly who is doing the funding for a study because the results will always be slanted to those doing the funding. There are really very few truly independent studies done. As with most things those with the most money wins.
Click to expand...

Like say,Esso, BP, Texaco, shell.
Tobacco companies are still denying that smoking kills people.
The evidence for global warming is overwhelming.
The consequences for us if correct are catastrophic.
To simply deny the possibility and carry on as we are is not an option.
 
trevskoda said:
The earth goes through cycles of hot/cold as proven from the ice field bore holes,fact is we are making some of it faster than we did in times past.
Click to expand...

Trev you are talking just like I was three years ago.
So you are three years behind me.
we should have a wee chat in three years
when you catch up :)

Jokin Trev he he he :)
 
Fisherman said:
Like say,Esso, BP, Texaco, shell.
Tobacco companies are still denying that smoking kills people.
The evidence for global warming is overwhelming.
The consequences for us if correct are catastrophic.
To simply deny the possibility and carry on as we are is not an option.
Click to expand...

Exactly Like say World Nature Organization, the International Union for Conservation of Nature, the Global Environment Facility, and the Earth System Governance Project.
All have there own view on it. For every argument there is a counter argument and to carry on as we are is a option whether you like it or not. Once those in control of money find a way of making more money out of change, then it will happen. Just like our own government trying to control things by using tax.
 
Fazerloz said:
Exactly Like say World Nature Organization, the International Union for Conservation of Nature, the Global Environment Facility, and the Earth System Governance Project.
All have there own view on it. For every argument there is a counter argument and to carry on as we are is a option whether you like it or not. Once those in control of money find a way of making more money out of change, then it will happen. Just like our own government trying to control things by using tax.
Click to expand...

All of these bodies you quote are legitimate organisations who have an interest in preserving our planet for future generations. Unlike the companies I quoted none of them have a financial or business interest in their campaigns for a better environment.
As for those in control of money, I think you are referring to our government.
Its estimated that the cost to this country reaching its zero emissions target by 2050 is between 1-1.5 TRILLION pounds.
Money they will have to generate, not a way for them to make money.

www.ft.com

UK net zero emissions target will ‘cost more than £1tn’

Chancellor warns May's ambitious emissions plans will hurt public spending
www.ft.com www.ft.com

You state that doing nothing is an option, then you have to be 100% certain that you are right, I am not 100% certain I am right. Because if you are wrong, we are doomed.

As for wether I like this or not, sorry but that’s irrelevant.
Personally speaking I would much prefer that you are right and I am wrong.
Thats what I would like.
 
Last edited:
Fisherman said:
Like say,Esso, BP, Texaco, shell.
Tobacco companies are still denying that smoking kills people.
The evidence for global warming is overwhelming.
The consequences for us if correct are catastrophic.
To simply deny the possibility and carry on as we are is not an option.
Click to expand...
You're a little behind with your thinking. Oil companies going green
 
if you take climate change as a fact, theres no actual proof that its due to man.
even if you accept its due to man , taxing him to carry on isnt actually going to help.

the blunt truth is to stop man made climate change you need fundemental changes to society worldwide, which just aint going to happen till the £$%^ really hits the fan .
 
ricc said:
if you take climate change as a fact, theres no actual proof that its due to man.
even if you accept its due to man , taxing him to carry on isnt actually going to help.

the blunt truth is to stop man made climate change you need fundemental changes to society worldwide, which just aint going to happen till the £$%^ really hits the fan .
Click to expand...

Tax has a great affect, as witnessed by the shift to deisel when the gov brought in tax based on co2 output.
 
colinmd said:
Tax has a great affect, as witnessed by the shift to deisel when the gov brought in tax based on co2 output.
Click to expand...
And also as witnessed by the slump in new motorhome sales in the UK with Euro 6d engines. The rest of Europe is very likely not suffering a motorhome sales slump in the same way. So yet again the UK government has implemented legislation to hurt UK manufacturing.
 
Personally, I think it will prove to be another 'fad' that turns out to cause more problems than it solves. How do they expect to produce enough electricity to power all vehicles when they're soon going to have enough trouble supplying homes, businesses etc.? (due to no new power stations being built.)

Surely, to have any chance they would have to cover just about EVERY tract of land with wind farms, solar panels and leave nothing left for wildlife, trees etc. And the supply would only be intermittent & weather dependant, as the logistics for energy storage have yet to be overcome. Just how does anyone imagine it can work? The only viable option that many environmentalists are now coming round to is to go NUCLEAR - & we would have to start building them right now!

Seems a bit of a joke to see how they can achieve this - just another 'soundbite'. Most attempts to deal with 'climate emergency' will turn out to do more harm than good.
 
It is well known that broadleaf trees absorb and store CO2. Nature programmes bombard us with the loss of the South American rainforests. So why doesn't the clever Old World do something about it. Why don't we stop aid to China, India etc and provide machinery, seeds and knowhow so New World farmers can continue to use their land as opposed to continually clearing forest to obtain one time use barely fertile soil. Seems simple to me - would at least be doing something about things together with other projects.
 
bobj808 said:
It is well known that broadleaf trees absorb and store CO2. Nature programmes bombard us with the loss of the South American rainforests. So why doesn't the clever Old World do something about it. Why don't we stop aid to China, India etc and provide machinery, seeds and knowhow so New World farmers can continue to use their land as opposed to continually clearing forest to obtain one time use barely fertile soil. Seems simple to me - would at least be doing something about things together with other projects.
Click to expand...

I think that plankton are the true lungs of the earth, so protecting the oceans is equally important.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who viewed this discussion (Total:0)

Back
Top