Dear all,
After what has happened over the past two years and the obvious failings of government appointed scientists, bogus modelling, bad advice, censorship of discussion, and the catastrophic government policies that resulted: The time has surely come to address the structural flaws in the relationship between governments and science. The roles of failed incentive structures, activists, vested interests, and dubious global bodies such as the WHO, must all form part of the analysis.
Our democracy, freedoms, and way of life absolutely depend on us learning from these manifest errors, and making the necessary changes. This brings me to the so called climate science, where the same patterns of thinking and behaviour are quite obvious. Indeed, it seems even more extreme.
Wouldn't a better way to consider such scientific / public policy matters be to subject them to rigorous cross examination in a judicial or quasi-judicial setting? We know that there are highly qualified climate scientists who are sceptical, to say the least, about the extremist claims being made. But they receive no media attention and are effectively silenced. What if all sides in the debate could be given a forum to contribute to a better, more truthful understanding of the situation? A judge or former judge, somebody like Jonathan Sumption, might referee the proceedings and each side would be represented by a barrister.
The claims being made would be subject to rigorous cross examination and the event could be fully televised, or shown online anyway. All of the contributions and findings would be recorded.
How do we make this happen? How can Toby and this website help? Even if the government is too afraid to get on board (although Boris might help save himself if he committed to this and showed a desire to learn and improve from mistakes), then create such an event as a private enterprise.
I think this would show a real commitment to truth and science that the UK could be proud of if it were brave enough to host it. Changing the way such matters are considered and communicated to the public. We might get a more clear and truthful idea of "the science" and what a proportionate response to it should be.
Thoughts?
what a proportionate response to it should be.
Thoughts?
It's obvious, we want to have our our cake and to eat it. The proportionate response is to build 10 3 gw nuclear power stations, or 30 one GW reactors, take your pick, starting right away.They will be financed, initially, by bonds, halting hs2, nuclear deterrence, and the £350m per week we saved on our EU subscriptions. Once they are operating and making profits, those activities can be resumed if we wish.So it;s a no brainer, have it all.
proportionate response to it should be.
Thoughts?
the energy we need is locked inside the Cigar Lake Mines in Saskatchewan.
we just need to set up the apparatus to use it.That's it, job done, get Greta off our backs.
So you would like to put opposing scientific points of view to the test in a court, using non-scientific people as spokespeople and judges? Who would be the jury? The viewing public, the vast majority of which will be prejudiced from the start.
Is that your plan?
@rational Are you suggesting that judges and lawyers cannot have scientific acumen? Or that such skills cannot be developed - so technical details can be assessed as in criminal trials? I would say that it is essential we move in this direction, rather than rely on bent, commie appointees to give bad advice to grifting politicians.
In short, the climate emergency fanatics would be put on trial. That is a good thing.
Of course.
Lawyers train on the law. This involves understanding the use of language in legislation and the history of how it has been interpreted in the past. This takes years of education along these lines.
Meanwhile, scientists have been undergoing education for years in scientific disciplines. Very specialised, using maths. They end up having a knowledge that is inaccessible to the vast majority of people, including lawyers.
Now if a lawyer happened to do sciences and maths at school, then abandon their law career and go back into higher education they could learn science. That would require leaving a high paid career and starting again for a less well paid career.
So go and tell us how many have done this.
Please present your proof that climate change is not real.
Your comment would illustrates your unsuitability to be on the jury for the trial you suggest.
@rational I haven't stated that climate change isn't real. Your inability to read would suggest you are unsuitable to be on any kind of jury.
@rational I haven't stated that climate change isn't real. Your inability to read would suggest you are unsuitable to be on any kind of jury.
"In short, the climate emergency fanatics would be put on trial."
This is a direct quote from your post.
i.e. your own words used against you.
@rational I haven't stated that climate change isn't real. Your inability to read would suggest you are unsuitable to be on any kind of jury.
"This brings me to the so called climate science, where the same patterns of thinking and behaviour are quite obvious. Indeed, it seems even more extreme. "
Again ... your words..
Many clearly believe that the climate change emergency doesn't exist, but just don't know why they believe that.
You just want to believe it, because it would be convenient. So you seek out others that agree with you and feel happier in a bunch. Eventually such people convince each other there is a conspiracy acting against their view. Now they have an enemy to focus their energy on and it amplifies their commitment.
There is hope for such people, if they are smart enough to look at actual data and take the effort to understand.
Mif they are smart enough to look at actual data and take the effort to understand.
The fact is that all plants evolved as they are in climates with far more C02, than we have today, and C02, is the best fertilizer on earth, hence, globally crop yields are much higher and deserts are coming green.
https://earthsky.org/science-wire/elevated-carbon-dioxide-making-arid-regions-greener/
So plants like CO2, not a surprise.
Does that mean you are a climate change denier?
I didn't get that impression.
So plants like CO2, not a surprise.
Does that mean you are a climate change denier?
The change is of benefit to farmers and plants.
Unless they live in the areas that will have permanent drought, or low lying areas, which will be under water.
At least the farmers will have plenty of immigrant labour when the mass migration from these regions starts.
Are you suggesting that judges and lawyers cannot have scientific acumen?
Did you watch the dramatisation of the trial of OJ Simpson? One of the main reasons they got him off was by completely bamboozling everyone with the technicalities of DNA testing. Cleverly, they realised it wasn't necessary to win the argument. Merely casting doubt was enough.This is the tactic of climate deniers, and covid sceptics, and for that matter 9/11 conspiracy theorists.
Most of these deniers are enthusiastic victims of the tactics... Add to the list the QAnon believers.
Too poorly educated to have the tools to assess information properly or realise they don't understand.
QAnon believers...
... are right about one thing, if it feels wrong it probably is wrong.
the technicalities of DNA testing.
Well they were right, OJ turned out to be innocent (he was acquitted in court) you cannot prove guilt with dna, only, at best, high probability.
@lordsnooty I didn't think there was anyone left who still thought he was innocent.
@lordsnooty I didn't think there was anyone left who still thought he was innocent.
that's the law, innocent until proved guilty, last step not done, end of story.
Merely casting doubt was enough.This is the tactic of climate deniers, and covid sceptics, and for that matter 9/11 conspiracy theorists.
That is correct, it must be beyond reasonable doubt, so is it unreasonable to ask greta thunberg to explain the global warming hiatus during the period 1998–2013 before we start policies which will reduce global crop yields if they succeed.
Ah yes, someone who believes what the saw on the telly. In a "dramatization" no less.
Well as someone who not only knows LA really well since the 1980's and watched the "chase" live on TV in a local electronics store in California in 1994 once the racial make up of the jury and alternates became known the outcomes was a foregone conclusion. There was no way the blacks on that jury were going to find OJ guilty. The situation on the ground was even more toxic after the 1991 Riots. The Roof Koreans fighting back was not an isolated incident. And the blacks knew it. The OJ trial was payback time for perceived slights. The fact that a rich white woman was murdered by a guy who grew up in the projects just sealed the deal for the LA jury.
OJ was from the Potrero Hill projects in San Francisco. Horrible WW2 blocks houses which have been finally knocked down and replaced by something better. Most of the people who lived there are pretty nice people. Not much love for OJ locally.
The only people surprised by the not guilty verdict in 1995 were those who had not a clue about the race politics of SoCal. I was not surprised. And I dont know anyone living in Cal at the time who was surprised either. At least those who had direct experience of the various 'hoods. Like knowing which areas to avoid due to risk of drive-by's. A world which I am sure you know nothing about.
Thats just how black majority juries work when it comes to black perps. No matter how guilty.
The outcome of the OJ trial had nothing to do with expert witnesses or their testimony. No matter what you saw on the telly. I've been involved with court cases where we had first rate judges who had no problem following the expert witness testimony. And others where the judges were ignorant of basic principals of law. Very much the luck of the draw.
Are you saying jurys can be unreliable and subject to bias?
That was the point fingal was making.
She doesn't need to... the upward trend is undeniable. Cherry picking a few years is a weak argument. You must know that.
Cherry picking a few years is a weak argument. You must know that.
That's rich! The world had higher proportion of CO2, for all the vast sweep of all evolutionary history, if anyone is cherry picking, it is you, the fossil record shows that C02 was much richer over the great span of history, it is only recently that humanity has stupidly shackled itself to a temporarily slightly lower level, you are thinking only of yourself. I expect you live in a flood plane.
That's a pretty common climate change denier argument. It's in the playbook.
For the vast majority of evolutionary history, you would have found conditions quite difficult to exist in.
I promise to let you know if i deny anything.
She doesn't need to... the upward trend is undeniable. Cherry picking a few years is a weak argument. You must know that.
If you believed it yourself, you'd be fighting tooth and nail to get ten 4gw nuclear power stations set up. without that ; What you are asking to do is impossible.Let's look just at the extra energy we'll need to charge our ecars we would need another 10bn x 40 kwh per year, i,.e. 396,000 gwh of energy to be produced, above what we make today.
it would take the current grid 9,900 hours to generate the yearly demand for the cars alone , but there are only 8766 hours in a year! So it cannot be done. So not only are you screaming about a problem that may very well never arise, you are turning a blind eye to the only solution, while playing with windmills and solar cells.
It's good that you are trying to look at the practicalities.
A couple is issues for you to deal with.. In looking up the calorific value of a gallon of petrol you made a good start. The next step is to consider the relative efficiency of a Internal combustion drive train, vs and electric drive train.
An EV is between 60 and 75% efficient, whereas an IC car is between 25 and 40%. So wastes much more power.
That roughly halves the total power additional power requirement.
Then look at 32e6 cars @7400miles/year @40MPG @40kWh.
So 6 Billion gallons @ 40kWh = 236GWh (60% of your guess)
Consider the relative efficiency of production and distribution and you'll start to see the picture.
If this were the only issue, it would actually be easy. The real challenge is infrastructure to cope with charging, both physical and temporal issues. Where do you plug in, how to cope with the additional peak current (generation and distribution) requirement.
It's quite difficult and the problems will arrive before the solution.
EVs are probably the wrong approach to transport (Hydrogen fuel cells are much better). High energy density, plentiful elements, speed of refuel, refuelling infrastructure....
It's a big problem and road transport is only a small issue. I can see why you would be motivated to stick your head in the sand and hope it never happens.
By the time we find you are wrong, there is nothing to be done.
Love to know what your solution is that you think I am turning a blind eye to is.
@rational
the grid needs to be tripled in size to deal with cars hgvs, heating etc.
It's hard, but better than your "ostrich solution".
There is absolutely no reason to think a retreat from civilised life might have any good outcome. The only policy that might work is too mitigate any negative effects of a slight rise in sea level, at present, extra CO2 is giving better crops in many poor regions. Any other interpretation is suspicious, I expect you live in a floodplain and wish to influence events to perchance improve your personal circumstances. Why should I believe or feel sorry for you, when I live above 1,000 feet above see level like most people in north America, try your lowlander sob story on somebody who cares or gives a hoot?As far as I can see global warming (if it is even a thing) improves my lot up here. If a few rats in the valley get drowned out, good for me, you live and die by the decisions you make. Good riddance to bad rubbish.
Interesting that you are resorting to personal attacks, rather than using reasoning.
Your CO2 is good argument is somewhat irrelevant. Pathetic really..
While you think you will be fine on your hill, you will need to share it with all the people from the coastal regions, plus the all the migrants from uninhabitable parts of the globe.
You better start growing those vegetables is a major way.
@rational
you'll be the first I tell if I do make personal attacks on you.
Did you know that windmills account for ~25% of UK electricity generation capacity?
Did you know that windmills account for ~25% of UK electricity generation capacity?
wind is presently 5.88 %. And the grid is a third of the size it must be to support electric cars, home heating, so call it 2% of what we need.
Did you know that windmills account for ~25% of UK electricity generation capacity?
that's a lie, I check each day. you should tell the truth.
Please present your proof that climate change is not real.
Your comment would illustrates your unsuitability to be on the jury for the trial you suggest.
@jacksonmichael1 Instead, I'll demonstrate that what you are asking to do is utterly impossible, and here's why.
Let's look just at the extra energy we'll need to charge our ecars. We won't menion the rest of the world or even talk about HGVs, or home heating etc. etc. There are 33m cars on the UK's roads, and the average mileage is assumed to be 12,000 per year,at 40 mpg, this means cars use 10bn gallon of petrol per year. a gallon of petrol contains 40kwh of energy, so each year we will need another 10bn x 40 kwh per year, i,.e. 396,000 gwh of extra energy to be produced, above what we make today.That's just to charge them up.
The grid kicks out 40 gw at peak capacity.so we would need to run the whole grid for 396000/40 =9,900 hours to generate enough the yearly demand for the cars alone , but there are only 8766 hours in a year! So it cannot be done, we need to at least double the grid with, for example. Ten new 4gw nuclear power stations. What you and Greta are asking for is impossible since there is no sign enough new stations will ever be built.
Ergo, your demands are impossible, what is possible is to research viable ideas. Who knows maybe the Tokamaks might come online, but you are not going to stop CO2, no way no how.
We would have to go back to the horse and cart.
Actual mean mileage in UK is 7400miles.
Electric cars are have an efficiency about 2.5x higher than IC.
70%, cf. 25%
DO your sums again.
Actual mean mileage in UK is 7400miles.
Electric cars are have an efficiency about 2.5x higher than IC.
ok, so we can get about 30% of the way there with the grid as it is, maybe. but what about heating old folks homes? or should they shiver?
Yes it is a big problem to solve the whole problem. Home heating is a large proportion of the problem.
So..insulation, hydrogen used in boilers, heat pumps...
Again, it is a multi faceted issue, which will be a major challenge. That's why it needs to get moving.
@lordsnooty Again, it is a multi faceted issue, which will be a major challenge. That's why it needs to get moving.
it only has one facet, it cannot be done! which rather spoils your plan, wind is currently on 3gw, only 70 more gw to go! you have plenty of hot air, why not use that?
let me know when you can efficiently separate hydrogen, and we can talk about it, until them, we are stuck with natural gas.
Yes it takes energy to separate hydrogen.. It least you are asking the right question. Use renewables, when viable and you have a high density storable fuel.
Since you mention natural gas, it's not an all or nothing situation. There's talk of mixing some in gas supplies, to reduce CO2 emissions.
https://www.energynetworks.org/newsroom/hydrogen-blending-what-is-it-and-why-does-it-matter.
@rational it's a pie in the sky answer, until we get sufficient nuclear and tidal. And there is no sign of that, I'll tell you how this will play out, Physics stooped WW2, with the detonation of atomic bombs, Physics can stop the rise in CO2, if it turns out to be detrimental, but we have to funf tidal and nuclear. Later when we agree to green e.g. the sahara, we will have to burn fossil fuel intentionally, to increase food production.
@rational it's a pie in the sky answer, until we get sufficient nuclear and tidal. And there is no sign of that, I'll tell you how this will play out, Physics stooped WW2, with the detonation of atomic bombs, Physics can stop the rise in CO2, if it turns out to be detrimental, but we have to funf tidal and nuclear. Later when we agree to green e.g. the sahara, we will have to burn fossil fuel intentionally, to increase food production.
I think the physicists may disagree with you on physics stopping.
As a single example, what about the device scientists, who develop the 13nm CMOS process you rely on for your PC and mobile phone?
Yes it is a big problem to solve the whole problem. Home heating is a large proportion of the problem.
So..insulation, hydrogen used in boilers, heat pumps...
Again, it is a multi faceted issue, which will be a major challenge. That's why it needs to get moving.
do you drive a car, btw? i do not, i use this instead:
