• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Not As Environmentally Friendly As Promised

Light bulbs really pee me off. Here in the UK they made us go over to so cold long life light bulbs which were supposed to be better for the planet. They aren't long life they don't last any longer than the old bulbs in my experience and they cost five times as much. Also the stuff in them is awful to get rid of. I can't help but think we've been Edison screwed by the bulb manufacturers. Oh yes and as light bulbs they are pants as they take ages to light up.

And don't get me started on cars that have their lights permanently on even in bright daylight. Pound shops sell garden lights that come on when it's dark. Are you seriously telling me they can't do that with thousands of pounds of car?

Sorry if any of this is spelt wrong or doesn't make sense, I had to get it off my chest before work.

I traded over to LEDs. They last 13.7 years. They cost a LOT more, around $100 each. These ones have been going since 2012 without a hiccup. I use them a bit more than 10 hours a day so I figure I will be replacing them around 2024. On the other hand I used to replace a busted bulb every couple of months or so with the old lights and that came to a lot of money. The statistics say this will put me a long way ahead.
 
When I left school in 1973 it suited the great and good to tell me that, based on 4,500,000,000 years' evidence, Earth's temperature was plummeting and that we were headed for a new Ice Age.

Now, based on 4,500,000,044 years' evidence, we're all going to burn.

Burning? All I detect is the rich aroma of books cooking, as politically-motivated scientists chase research grants by torturing numbers until they show the (politically-) correct conclusion.

In centuries to come, scholars will look on the Global Warming - sorry "Climate Change" - sorry "Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming" - scam as the greatest mass delusion ever to infect the human mind.

Nothing is happening at the moment that hasn't happened multiple times in the past, faster and more severely, yet try to find a platform to express that view!

I remember years ago seeing a po-faced BBC presenter in Greenland (IIRC), earnestly intoning that the retreat of the glacier behind him, revealing the remains of a Viking-era farm, was yet more evidence of CAGW. No-one apparently was available to ask the obvious question: "Why had the glaciers retreated far enough in Viking times for the farm to have been viable in the first place?" Had Erik Thorvaldsson left his car's engine running to warm it up, or forgotten to switch his LED telly to Standby?

The synchronicity of the collapse of the Soviet Union and the ascendancy of the "Watermelon" Green movement has apparently escaped the attention of TV documentary makers.

:rolleyes:

maximus otter
 
It's like the so called eco friendly paint the stuff they use on road signs, after about 3 years
it goes a brown color and they need replacing old type was good after 20 and it's not
just the repainting but fuel used to remove and replace them all the knock on polution
same with white lines after a few years they now brake up into granules and need redoing
old stuff was often good till the road needed resurfacing.
It's like the offshore wind farm off Walney Island, last time I counted there were at least
16 decent sized ships and boats connected with it in the area.

But on a better note have a look at Walney seal cam, all say hawww, the waves you see
now n then are often from the Wind farm boats coming out of Barrow.

http://www.cumbriawildlifetrust.org.uk/wildlife/seal-cam
 
Now, based on 4,500,000,044 years' evidence, we're all going to burn.
It's more like 200 years of recorded data that they're actually using.
That's such a small blip in the life of this planet that it is statistically insignificant and not suitable for making extrapolations about climate.
I'm frankly amazed that no famous statistician has come forth to dispute the methodology used.
 
I traded over to LEDs. They last 13.7 years. They cost a LOT more, around $100 each. These ones have been going since 2012 without a hiccup. I use them a bit more than 10 hours a day so I figure I will be replacing them around 2024. On the other hand I used to replace a busted bulb every couple of months or so with the old lights and that came to a lot of money. The statistics say this will put me a long way ahead.

But most of the bulbs on offer aren’t LED they are full of all sorts of chemicals that cause a headache to get rid of and don’t last any where near as long as they should.
 
When I left school in 1973 it suited the great and good to tell me that, based on 4,500,000,000 years' evidence, Earth's temperature was plummeting and that we were headed for a new Ice Age.

Now, based on 4,500,000,044 years' evidence, we're all going to burn.

Burning? All I detect is the rich aroma of books cooking, as politically-motivated scientists chase research grants by torturing numbers until they show the (politically-) correct conclusion.

In centuries to come, scholars will look on the Global Warming - sorry "Climate Change" - sorry "Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming" - scam as the greatest mass delusion ever to infect the human mind.

Nothing is happening at the moment that hasn't happened multiple times in the past, faster and more severely, yet try to find a platform to express that view!

I remember years ago seeing a po-faced BBC presenter in Greenland (IIRC), earnestly intoning that the retreat of the glacier behind him, revealing the remains of a Viking-era farm, was yet more evidence of CAGW. No-one apparently was available to ask the obvious question: "Why had the glaciers retreated far enough in Viking times for the farm to have been viable in the first place?" Had Erik Thorvaldsson left his car's engine running to warm it up, or forgotten to switch his LED telly to Standby?

The synchronicity of the collapse of the Soviet Union and the ascendancy of the "Watermelon" Green movement has apparently escaped the attention of TV documentary makers.

:rolleyes:

maximus otter

Well done for keeping an open mind on these things. I'm sure Charles Fort would be proud.
 
Scientists: "There's no need to worry about an Ebola outbreak, as long as you wash your hands regularly it won't spread far"
Public: "OH MY GOD WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE OF EBOLA!!!"

Scientists: "We have discovered undeniable evidence that global warming is not only happening, but needs extreme measures to prevent it. This is urgent."
Public: "Yeah, right, pull the other one."
 
It's more like 200 years of recorded data that they're actually using.
That's such a small blip in the life of this planet that it is statistically insignificant and not suitable for making extrapolations about climate.
I'm frankly amazed that no famous statistician has come forth to dispute the methodology used.

I'm not famous. But I've been disputing the statistics for 20 years.

The question is not 'is there climate change?'. There is. And there always has been if geology, anthropology and history are to be believed.

The question is 'how much (if at all) has human activity contributed to the rate of climate change?' .

The lack of clear understanding of the distinction is why the debate has gone on so long.

I don't think this is the place to start yet another branch of the debate. all I'd say that once science becomes the subject of political dogma then all rationality goes out of the window.

And the diesel car nonsense - it's been known scientifically that diesel engines produce some particularly unpleasant microscopic particles since the 60's, and diesel engines on the railways have been fitted with massive scrubbers to catch them since the 70's. So the government push to diesel cars was in complete ignorance of scientific evidence already acted on in other industries. The particles microscopically apparently look like tiny sticky burrs and get trapped in the lungs - i don't know whether they are a proven source of asthma but it would certainly seem worth investigating.
 
Last edited:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-41778089
"The rapid increase in methane since 2007, especially in 2014, 2015, and 2016, is different. This was not expected in the Paris agreement. Methane growth is strongest in the tropics and sub-tropics. The carbon isotopes in the methane show that growth is not being driven by fossil fuels. We do not understand why methane is rising. It may be a climate change feedback. It is very worrying."
 
'It is very worrying'

Why? It may be the planet self-regulating. For most of the planet's existence, it has been either somewhat hotter or substantially colder than it has been for the last few thousand years - we are probably at an interstice, but whether we should be expecting the last kick of the most recent ice age or whether we are heading back to the warmer state the planet has been in for the majority of its existence is unknown.

It's hubris to imagine we can control it when we don't yet understand how it works. It's like being transported to a starship and randomly pressing buttons to try and discover how to fly it.
 
The bit that really interested me was this:
The carbon isotopes in the methane show that growth is not being driven by fossil fuels.
I'd say that most of the methane being released into the atmosphere is from clathrates melting, permafrost melting and releasing gas.
Climate change scientists think that the CO2 causes the warming. However, in reality, warming may be causing the release of CO2 and methane.
Mars is warming too: https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
So, some outside factor is what is causing global warming. It's beyond our control.
 
How about the push for electric cars when most power stations are still making power the old fashioned way. So you are just moving the pollution.

You're not only moving the pollution in that way... Batteries, of any kind, including lithium, are not 'green' things to produce. Lithium isn't 'nice green' stuff and there are serious questions to explore over the environmental impact of acquiring it. - My personal opinion is that in 15-20 years time it will pose one of the biggest third-world environmental scandals the world has ever seen.

Short service life is another factor... If we were seriously concerned about the environment we'd be building cars (and other things) with ever-lengthening service lives, focusing on retrofit improvement and seeking alternative fuels. - Instead industries such as vehicle manufacturing and electronics are producing items with ever-shorter life spans, made to be uneconomic or even impossible to repair; the main objective being to bind western consumers to a never-ending credit cycle

As an example; take the 'banning' of lead-based solder in electronic goods. It's notable that this ban doesn't apply to things like military equipment, medical equipment and avionics... Why? Most people (the honest/competent ones at least) who work with and can repair electronics will tell you that lead-free solder is pretty duff; and directly responsible for many early failures in goods that are typically sent straight to landfill without so much as a stab at repairing them! - Because in terms of raw cash, they're not worth the time - even if the (often unnecessarily proprietary) parts can be sourced and the manufacturers will release service information and software.

In other words, this is one (and there are a few more ) aspect of ROHS which contributes to the INCREASE in e-waste and hazardous substances being dumped.Far from reducing the amount of hazardous material sent to landfill, we have a growing issue with electronic waste (e-waste) much of which winds up in the hands of the world's poorest and most vulnerable...


Our politicians are (to a body) stuffed shirts obsessed with the manipulation of vacuous statistics. - and all the greenwashing in the world doesn't change a thing of the reality you'll see in that film above; nor for that matter does it progress anything here in the west.

And there's another rub... Some time ago, we looked at acquiring a Renault Twizzy as both an advertising gimmick and a means of obviating the use of a big old 4x4 we had for just moving one or two people around between jobs. The way the batteries are 'leased' on these things means that the per mile 'fuel' costs were around 5% higher than the mid-90s diesel 4x4 we were hoping to semi-retire. - What's more, the Twizzy would be effectively worthless and unserviceable after six years... Whereas the old 4x4, now 23 years old and with over 100,000 miles on it is 'barely run-in' and in everyday hard use with a new (rural) owner.

And just for gits and shiggles... The old gel was perfectly capable of running on straight, unmodified rapeseed oil; as sold in 20l drums for cooking. Modern diesels aren't.

You may imagine you're saving the planet with your shiny new e-vehicle or other piece of 'latest technology'; but reality speaks of something else. For those lucky enough to live in the west it's economic enslavement - in the third world it's raw poisoning.

- At least King Canute was honest enough to admit he couldn't fight nature.
 
Last edited:
I seem to remember that the Sun is getting hotter and has
been getting hotter faster over the last 150 years or so it
is now hotter than at any time in the last 1000 years,
 
I am looking forward to global warming. I won't have to get up early on cold January morning to shovel sunshine from my driveway.
 
I am looking forward to global warming. I won't have to get up early on cold January morning to shovel sunshine from my driveway.
Global warming will mean more rain. Sorry.
 
I am looking forward to global warming. I won't have to get up early on cold January morning to shovel sunshine from my driveway.

Actually, 'Global Warming' was cancelled about a decade ago and they've rebranded it as 'Climate Change'; something to do with it still bloody snowing despite all their PR efforts.
 
You're not only moving the pollution in that way... Batteries, of any kind, including lithium, are not 'green' things to produce. Lithium isn't 'nice green' stuff and there are serious questions to explore over the environmental impact of acquiring it. - My personal opinion is that in 15-20 years time it will pose one of the biggest third-world environmental scandals the world has ever seen.

Short service life is another factor... If we were seriously concerned about the environment we'd be building cars (and other things) with ever-lengthening service lives, focusing on retrofit improvement and seeking alternative fuels. - Instead industries such as vehicle manufacturing and electronics are producing items with ever-shorter life spans, made to be uneconomic or even impossible to repair; the main objective being to bind western consumers to a never-ending credit cycle

This is all so blindingly clear, I cannot understand how so many seemingly intelligent people are sucked into almost cultish behaviour. It's known that cars create more pollution through their manufacture than they do throughout their life. It's also known that modern cars are designed to last no longer than 7-10 years, during which time they will need the same consumable service parts as older cars (actually more electronic parts will likely fail and need replacing), and upon 'death' they'll yield a similar amount of recyclable material as older cars - oh, and some pretty lethal extra stuff to dispose of. But apparently I'm an irresponsible planet-raper for continuing to run well-maintained and reliable cars which happen to be 20-30 years old.

And just for gits and shiggles... The old gel was perfectly capable of running on straight, unmodified rapeseed oil; as sold in 20l drums for cooking. Modern diesels aren't.

Oh yes, you've got to love the way that the most environmentally-friendly combustion fuel of all was just brushed aside and ignored by everyone. I've even had 'green' types suggest to me that using locally-sourced and renewable 'food' as fuel in my old Citroen diesel was somehow less ethical than ripping dino-juice out of the earth, refining it and transporting it a few thousand miles before burning it. I long ago gave up trying to explain (to almost everyone) why it wasn't illegal to use....
 
The question is not 'is there climate change?'. There is. And there always has been if geology, anthropology and history are to be believed.

The question is 'how much (if at all) has human activity contributed to the rate of climate change?' .

This is a crucial point, no, The Crucial Point.

I am absolutely certain that I have seen tv documentaries broadcast in the late 20th century, and read scholarly articles written in the same era, that were able to categorically-explain that although the human use of fossil fuels has an effect upon climate systems, it is not (and cannot be) the primary change mechanism. And this is simply down to scale.

If we're bending any curves on the chart, they were shaping that way anyway.

The geological processes that existed during the creation of the Earth are vastly more influential upon our climate than any of our collective little contribution. Humanity, and all it's futile outputs, are barely a half-mist upon a stone apple.

If people maintain their objectivity, and temporarily shut their ears to the shrill political screams of the unjolly green giant and seriously ask themselves even just this one question: if a single eruption of volcanic gases from Mount St Helens is considered to have ejected more sulphur / carbon compounds in one event, than collective humanity has done in total since the invention of fire-starting, what precise significant additional influence is being imparted as a consequence of humanity's current actions?

There are varieties of differing facts at play here, from all sorts of conflicting sources. And agendas as well.

And please: nobody should cite the special defences of absolute scientific certainty and indisputable fact. These are (and have always been, in matters of such scale and durations) mere contemporary conclusions and bestimated projecting.

There is much less (and much more) to this story than we can currently understand. But the levels of hypocracy and confirmation bias (underpinned by selective blindness) that are displayed by many parts of the global eco-industry is nothing short of breathtaking.
 
Last edited:
Not taking the accepted narrative at face value is, I guess, what we're all here for. And cui bono? is always a useful question to ask. It's also true that researchers in many disciplines are forced to apply for research grants in order to sustain their employment. But raising this as a refutation of anthropogenic climate change seems plain fatuous to me. The available pot of research funding is tiny in comparison with the profits made by the fossil fuel industry. Who has more to lose?
 
Not taking the accepted narrative at face value is, I guess, what we're all here for. And cui bono? is always a useful question to ask. It's also true that researchers in many disciplines are forced to apply for research grants in order to sustain their employment. But raising this as a refutation of anthropogenic climate change seems plain fatuous to me. The available pot of research funding is tiny in comparison with the profits made by the fossil fuel industry. Who has more to lose?

And the 'eco-friendly' firms make vast profits as well. Aided by government subsidies. It's all got too big just to be an oil company conspiracy - there are huge fortunes invested in convincing us all we are changing the climate.

Two other points :

The oil companies know the oil is going to run out eventually anyway regardless of the AGW scare, so they are probably looking for alternatives that will keep the profits rolling in. If they can spend someone else's money to find such alternatives on the basis that it is 'environmentally friendly', they will.

And the Russians, who would benefit greatly from some global warming, do not agree with the alleged science behind AGW. In fact they are predicting a cooling phase.
 
And the Russians, who would benefit greatly from some global warming, do not agree with the alleged science behind AGW. In fact they are predicting a cooling phase.
Generally speaking, the Russians have kept their scientific objectivity.
 
Who has more to lose?

The public. You and me.

l like what the fossil fuel industry has done for us: Power to heat my home and stop me from dying of exposure in the winter. The car l used to take my wife and me to the tea room for a sandwich this lunchtime. The HGVs that bring fresh, nourishing produce to my local shops.

Try to imagine the ghastliness of life with only intermittent, hideously expensive, unreliable “renewables”. Computer forums? Sorry, comrade: you’ve had your four hours of electricity for today. Antibiotics so that your loved one doesn’t die from infection caused by that tiny cut? Sorry, the fridge used too much power and the regime used the smart meter to cut it off...

maximus otter
 
This reminds me of a similar problem with certain makes of electric vehicles. In very cold weather, you can either:
  1. Defrost the windscreen (with the as-supplied modified hairdrier thing), or;
  2. Drive somewhere.
(But unfortunately not both).

And the comments made above by @Old Master Q regarding the potential future eco-timebomb surrounding battery disposal problems (especially in parts of the Third World / Far East / Eastern Europe) are very frightning, and very possible

Especially when you consider how many Get Out Of Jail eco-tickets appear to have been made available to those involved in the build of renewables....certainly, we all must accept that major changes can only be achieved via massive disruption (and certain levels of collateral damage). But it's fascinating to see that there can be tolerance & acceptance of all sorts of messy means, sometimes to attain just marginal ends...not always because it makes absolute technical/ecological or financial sense...but because it has become a fashionable compliance.
 
This is all so blindingly clear, I cannot understand how so many seemingly intelligent people are sucked into almost cultish behaviour. It's known that cars create more pollution through their manufacture than they do throughout their life. It's also known that modern cars are designed to last no longer than 7-10 years, during which time they will need the same consumable service parts as older cars (actually more electronic parts will likely fail and need replacing), and upon 'death' they'll yield a similar amount of recyclable material as older cars - oh, and some pretty lethal extra stuff to dispose of. But apparently I'm an irresponsible planet-raper for continuing to run well-maintained and reliable cars which happen to be 20-30 years old.



Oh yes, you've got to love the way that the most environmentally-friendly combustion fuel of all was just brushed aside and ignored by everyone. I've even had 'green' types suggest to me that using locally-sourced and renewable 'food' as fuel in my old Citroen diesel was somehow less ethical than ripping dino-juice out of the earth, refining it and transporting it a few thousand miles before burning it. I long ago gave up trying to explain (to almost everyone) why it wasn't illegal to use....

Well no one seemed to notice that diesel cars weren’t anywhere near as environmentally friendly as they claimed. The fact that you don’t take the crap out at the source that it’s got to go somewhere, never occurred to them.
 
Back
Top