Stevextc i think you have misread Covert’s post. He’s asked what was wrong with the definition of a motorhome and you seem to be responding by questioning the survey’s motives. Two different things

I have no intention of “validating” their survey by taking it so I’m taking…what El Shalmino posted.

Motorhome: A motor vehicle designed and purpose built on a truck or bus chassis (‘coach built’), to serve as self-contained living quarters for recreational travel.

Seems from that like they are already trying to divide and conquer… (didn’t read the survey itself) because

tillydog

FWIW, Gwynedd (N Wales) did a similar survey regarding the provision of ‘Aires’ (last year?). I don’t know the outome.

Be it trails, aires or anything else public bodies don’t usually consult to do anything but say they “consulted”.
By taking part you are just giving them the only public real data they will ever share “people consulted”.

because .. to some extent there isn’t an everyone will be happy on something like this … so they just want to validate they “consulted”

Not sure of it extends into Gwynedd but a lot of villages in Powys seem quite happy to encourage overnights if you spend some money locally but this seems quite local and individual parish/village rather than county level.

But it is if I have something to get back to. It means my ride will have to be 1:40 and not 2 hours. So less riding, less of the good stuff. It means 1/6 of the riding time is spent in a car park waiting.

This is what the late people don’t seem to get. Like TJ says, if it’s 7pm meet for a 7:30 start that’s fine. I’ll be there, ready to ride at 7:30pm.

It means either EVERYONE else who turned up on time will only get 1:40 .. and it also means any planned route might need to be replanned so noone does the planned route.

If someone has to leave at a firm time it means either splitting the ride or them potentially being late.

All because someone can’t be arsed to do as they said they were going to do.

convert

?????? Sorry, makes zero sense.

It doesn’t make sense to you… but your job isn’t to get validation for something you already got the back hander for.

It’s like our speedbumps locally… I know no-one that wanted them (I’m sure someone did but overwhelmingly they make the road more dangerous in combination with the parking and other stuff) but they did a consultation .. binned the results or we never got to see them and awarded the contract to the contractor that had already paid them their bribes…

For those that still used the road in one direction (most of us don’t anymore) they put a right turn box at the top… (to the sports centre) but also on the disabled/elderly bus route… you can’t fit one of the busses in the right turn… again, I don’t know anyone asked for this but a sham consultation .. results binned and contractor that paid the bribe gets their contract.

In the first example I’d already been told by a mate in the trade who had paid the bribe and there was no point even taking part in the survey. The second I only suspect bribery but why else would they make it impossible for the disabled/elderly busses?

Edukator

My son persuaded me to replace the battery in my old phone rather than replace, I did, two years on it’s still going. Then he asked me to drive him to the airport for a gig. Kids/teenagers/young adults seem really good on the small stuff: litter, recycling, reusing, repairing, buying second-hand, low/no meat diets and really bad on the big stuff: home heating/hot water, flying, transport, holidays.

This isn’t just kids … this is people responding to conflation of climate change and wider environmental issues.
On one side of this we have “how do we make money out of this” … so we have Richi flying to Scotland on a private jet justifying this by “we are making sustainable jet fuel”. Note use of buzzword.. “sustainable” .. I’m sure they’ll sell organic versions as well… and stick a big “eco sticker” and “plant based” etc.

They are of course still going to burn it.. so basically capture some CO2 so we can release it again.

Running parallel to this we have for example the RSBP trying to link unrelated things to preventing climate change because they know more people “care about showing they care about climate change” than lapwings.

What this results in is the vast majority of people believing or half believing some initiative that either has no effect or a negative effect on climate change (driving their recycled plastic shampoo bottle can’t be recycled locally for example) to the local recycling centre in an ULEZ zone where they had to swap for petrol (that won’t even allow people on foot/bikies inside) so now they did their bit. That bottle is plant based, vegan and made from sustainable bollox and they donate 0.001pence/cent to saving lapwings but they get a whole load of meaningless badges and hey if the lapwings move that will cause global climate change.

Wait a year and ask the residents of ULEZ zones what they are doing to reduce greenhouse gas and a VERY high percentage will tell you “they are doing ULEZ”…

If that was Wales they would look at all the survey responses and then ban motorhomes/campers

doesn’t matter which nation, these types of survey’s are only ever done because they want to validate what they already decided and know it will be unpopular with one segment or another.

In what way? If I was going to describe a campervan vs motorhome that does not seem too poor a start.

Because they are starting off with a plan and looking for validation and “we consulted”. You can be sure after they have done this they will extrapolate it to camper vans if it meets their objectives and not if it doesn’t or extrapolate when it suits them and not when it doesn’t.

I’d like to see these stats.

Just my experience but I’ve lost faith in the Met Office forecasts in the last few years for rainfall prediction. I’ve started using other forecasters and found them to be much more useful.

I find them amazing in context… depending on granularity and prediction window.
I tend to be most concerned in areas that tend to be hilly.. and it may not rain exactly where I am but the next valley but taking that geographic granularity into account if it says 80% chance of rain in a bigger area it seems very close to 80% of the time its correct.

There is a lot of bias in our perception though. If it says 20% chance of rain and it does rain more people will remember that than 80% chance of rain and it does… even though they are more or less the same thing.

For any reasonable sized group ride there are those who need to leave by a certain time.

We have seperate threads for group rides and chat… so of you end up delayed you’re meant to inform the ride planning chat.
This allows everyone the same courtesy, we know who’s meant to turn up and who just changed their mind etc. … and allows other planning if needed. It used to be “does anyone know if xxx is actually coming or not”… then after waiting 1/2 hour after wheels rolling they had changed there mind…

Strangely perhaps?? the habitually late ones refuse to use the Ride Planning Chat… then complain when we leave without them.

Bunnyhop

We’ve had some speakers at our local RSPB group talking about climate change, some who are scientists, but most are experts with years of experience coming from the nature end of things.

There are 2 ways to look at this…
One way is in terms of the audience so your local RSPB group is likely to focus on birds because everyone in the group loves birds (presumably). The same thing could be said for bat’s or pretty much anything else.

In the real world though most humans care more about humans…and in that scenario we need to act now whereas whether a specific species of bird exists in the same area or not is pretty irrelevant other than if you want to see that bird in that particular location.

Birds mostly have the ability to fly elsewhere… but even as someone who actually likes birds I find the idea that preserving a few species, short term rather than preventing millions of human deaths is a completely different priority.

If asked how can we get people to realise that this is happening and they need to change their lifestyles, the answer is always – it’ll come from their children. But I’m not really seeing this, yet.
Has anyone else been educated by their children, or your children started to change the way you think about the environment?

In the continued existence of bird species then the timescale of “their children” is fine. It’s something can be fixed later by our children IF we get the climate under some semblance of control.

I’m certainly not against preserving avian diversity but it’s not in the same ballpark of mitigating climate change on humans.

Enrielynch

I don’t claim to be an expert on any subject, beyond possibly how to swing a hammer! And yes my understanding of science is probably typically average. But that doesn’t mean that I can be fooled into believing that there is a connection between ulez expansion and tackling the causes of climate change.

Which is something that some people both sides of the argument seem to want to exploit.

The climate change deniers want to link ulez expansion with net zero, urging people to reject both, and some supporters of ulez expansion claim that if you don’t support it you don’t care about anthropogenic climate change.

Because you are arguing religious dogma.

In importance of tackling the causes of climate change cannot be overstated imo, something which even a 15 year old schoolchild with no scientific qualifications can understand. One of the greatest obstacles we are faced with when dealing with the issue is a widespread public lack of trust in politicians. The problem isn’t helped by attempting to mislead already possibly sceptical people.

This is part of the problem but when those politicians and activists start using pseudo-science or claiming “we are following the science” this also erodes your trust in science.

Who is going to trust anything from Stanford ever again with the uncovering of Marc Tessier-Lavigne the president?
That on the back of Francesca Gino at Harvard

Cougar

The point in its entirety is that the vast majority of Muslims (globally and I’ve shown my working) tend to be of a more swarthy complexion and thus arguing that Islamophobia is unrelated to racism is blatantly nonsense. They’re two cheeks of the same EDL arse.

You are so so far out globally… a quick look at best part of 1.5 billion people…
and the “swarthiest” get swarthier away from the North.

What underlies racsism is the normal homo sapien tribalism and xenophobia and “how different” someone else is in a myriad ways. Obviously skin colour is a easy spot… but most white “christians” (lower case) don’t want a scientology temple and its adherents either… a fairly large percentage of white “Christians” (upper case) would far prefer some black afrocaribean christians

and you can look from the other side at many Arab dominated Islamic nations where being a white “christian” is far far more preferable in most circumstances to being a black or asian muslim. (something I have I not only personally experienced on many occasions but has been explained to me by muslims)

The (or certainly one of) major factor(s) in all this “difference” that manifests itself as racism is religion and to some extent the lower case semi-adherents who don’t REALLY believe in the supernatural side but (and this is not a pop at nickc) see their agnostic value system threated by weird (to them) culture and fanatical (to them) adherence to supernatural philosophy.

That’s not saying racism doesn’t exist, it does of course but the hijacking of race is often facilitated by religion.

nickc

Without religion you have to ignore the spiritual origin of our own thoroughly liberal Unitarianism.

You can say the same for all the bad things it brought …
To look at it differently we could thank war for the jet engine (just one random thing of a long list) but this totally misses the point that we would have probably got to the same place anyway and it might not have been such a good idea in terms of climate change anyway..

If we only looked at the “good things” (defined through a lens of “our own thoroughly liberal Unitarianism”) the vast majority of these are anachronistic and what might have been “progress” at the time isn’t necessarily today and they have been intertwined with the bad things BUT most importantly for today based on what we know beyond any reasonable doubt are lies based on some vengeful alien being(s) with super powers to punish us if we don’t do as some group of people have determined is what this mysterious being wants.

Some bikes won’t take a piggy back… (like my old T-130)

Otherwise quite a few pre-metric frames though perhaps the question is how much will someone pay for a frame of that age?
As it happens I had a CC DB Coil on my Bird Aeris MK1.5 when I was riding it but my 45lkg son has stolen the frame and it’s back on a airshock (CC DB coil)

Again I don’t have problems with most of what you write there, Stevextc. You think I’m a decade out of date but the solutions haven’t really changed, it’s just that nor enough has been has been done.

Yes, that’s the point I’m making. Though the detail of the solutions has changed the real issue is 15 years ago “they will take too long so lets do nothing” .. then climate change got worse and 10 yrs ago “they will take too long so lets do nothing” .. then climate change got worse and 5 years ago… then going back to Germany and today we are taking a step back to coal FFS!!!!

Now we’re here and now it’s very much a case of better late than never. Even if you start building nuclear reactors today you can still make more difference faster by insulating and adding renewable generation.

The Flamenville reactor project started in 2004, was originally supposed to start producing in 2012 and still isn’t working. Even if the new 2024 deadline is reached that’ll be 20 years. Now look how much wind capacity the UK and Spain have added in the last ten years, and consider how many homes a year can be insulated if there are real incentives to do so.

Japan has a 5yr lead window… South Korea not far behind (again this delay is misleading information that gets foistered by the anti-nuclear lobby) that has been funded by .. Big Oil. (more irony)

Indeed a good read here: https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/nuclear-construction-time

The renewable, energy transition and energy saving options are fastest ways to reduce CO2 emissions.

Timelines are not that different… I could cherry pick long lead time windfarms for example. Ironically these are usually due to environmental objections!!!

That doesn’t mean I’m saying don’t build them… but they still need baseload and each nuclear reactor supplies orders of magnitude more than “an average windfarm”.

Nor am I knocking better insulation but we have building regs that specifically prevent us doing this. (My 1920’s house I can’t legally insulate under the floor because I can’t get the minimum thickness without blocking airflow so the regs say I’m not allowed – I did of course and the (hydrocarbon based) kingspan is probably more efficient than some old rockwool of the required depth)

Edukator

Reading between the lines you are critical of anti-nuclear environmentalists.

Amongst others… my issue is with what is an existential threat and what is being added on or not done because of non-factual beliefs.

I actually individually actually like a lot of the add on stuff even though I’ve never been anti-nuclear for the sake of it. The problem is twofold anti-nuclear environmentalists spread FUD about nuclear but they also tend to be the same ones spreading FUD about climate change (in terms of trying to make it wider)

I like larks and red squirrels but I’m not pretending that if they disappeared from the UK there will be mass deaths of millions.

In a theoretical world (bear with this please) where we could flick a magic button that on one hand eradicates every red squirrel from the UK and reverses greenhouse gases I’m going to flick that switch without even a seconds remorse.

So IF you bore with me in the theoretical world then thank you… my issue is that in the real world we are making very similar decisions but they are being muddied AND the general public are being misled where the two are being deliberately conflated.

What would be the effect of losing every red squirrel in the UK? Well a bit sad but their ecological niche would just be filled by grey’s. That isn’t something that is going to kill millions of people in the next decade or so. It’s not on my list of desirable things but comparing it to climate change is trivialising climate change by a huge amount.

So you can add “environmentalists that try to blame the reduction of red squirrels (I’m just trying to stick with one thing) for climate change” to that list. Even trying to say the reduction of red squirrels has anything to do with climate change is mostly rubbish and the fact we imported grey’s along with squirrel pox virus is regrettable but sod all to do with the bloody huge existential threat of climate change. (Red squirrels probably have a different opinion but I’m a homo sapien)

The BIG issue here is not the squirrels or any other placeholder BUT the public’s perception and lying to them both directly and through omission and through conflation be that ULEZ or any other conflation.

You can add “environmentalists against windfarms” to the list of “anti-nuclear environmentalists” where they object on “environmental grounds”.

We need to do everything we can to move the greenhouse emissions … including switching wood and coal for gas or even oil in some places. Objecting to gas just because it’s a hydrocarbon and just because the oil companies are “the enemy” or because fracking is NOT doing everything we can… it’s not even doing nothing it’s making things worse right now.

If you have some time go and look what Japan and India are doing on new gen fission reactors… Japan going for direct industrial heat for steel making etc. and direct hydrogen generation.
Then you will get someone coming along saying about Fukishima and why we should “do nothing”.
Try a google on how many people died of radiation in Fukishima .. just to confirm it currently stands at ZERO. Thousands below the people died as a result of being evacuated from radiations levels considered safe as natural background (near you). It may increase slightly over the years…
I don’t think I need to explain to you why we won’t have a subduction zone related tsunami in the UK but there are those who keep using it as FUD and why we should “do nothing” that doesn’t meet their ideal.

Edit: crossed post but no problem, Stevextc. Ernie on the other hand I’ll do my best to ignore and sometimes fail.

I think we all hold strong views and Ernie is more on pure politics (and I agree with a lot) but I don’t think science is his forte but that is not unrepresentative.

What I’m trying to get across OVERALL is for those of us not specifically educated in and practicing related sciences conflating climate change with “nice to have’s” is only leading one place and that is the mistrust of science and associated mistrust of climate change (and guess what this then leads to distrust of vaccines/covid etc.).

I equally understand where crosshair is coming from…

I consider a reduction in demand should be strategy #1 followed by renewable and storage development. I’ve reduced the energy needs of a 1930s house by six, if everybody can be incentivised to do that it wil make more difference than new nuclear plants. So I suspect we have the same geological history steered views but different priorities in terms of how to reduce emissions.

I think you are at least a decade out of date to address the existential threat.
We passed that point where we had all the nice options… not that I’m against reducing demand or renewable sources and energy storage it’s a matter of timing and urgency.

Again I’d urge you to look at Japan… they are already looking at storage in hydrogen and already considering reducing electric demand albeit into producing “carbon light” steel.. similar to Norway produces “carbon light aluminium”. If you just forget that “nuclear” as a dirty word that is!

Whilst I’ll live with nuclear because it would daft to turn it off (and I really think Germany shut down viable plants too quickly forcing France to keep open ageing ones more of a threat to the German population)

It’s worse than that… Germany was so anti-nuclear it was burning the dirtiest** gas from Russia before Ukraine and madce civil nuclear power illegal in the constitution.
**Based on methane leakage and overall contribution to climate change

and it’s response to that gas not being available is to step backwards to coal. Without the FUD over the years Germany would have been in an ideal situation of bringing in the latest NextGen reactors but is instead going back to coal.

Ernielynch

Oh FFS have a day off from your personal attacks. If you disagree with my point just try to do it without dragging it down to a personal level, if you can manage it, most people can.

The underlying issue is you are offending a belief system.
To quote a film title seems appropriate you are questioning an “inconvenient truth” like pointing out the age of the earth to a young earth creationist.

Edukator

I think you need to be more specific about which organisations should STFU and which ones are lying, Stevextc.

There’s a Bund magazine (Friends of the Earth Germany) on the sofa behind me, it’s objective, balanced, measured and reasonable. What do you want them to be? I’ve fact checked their articles and there’s nothing in there I’d call a lie. And they’re doing positive things not just lobbying.

Any organisation conflating climate change and wider environmental issue is lying…
Do Bund support the current German Green party’s initiatives to bring back coal mining and coal powered electricity generation ??
Haven’t they spent the decades we had where we could have had Germany using nuclear baseloads capaigning against nuclear?

Ernie lynch

I thought it was increased levels of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxides? And if you could find a way of trashing the environment without increasing the levels of those gases it wouldn’t cause climate change?

To a large extent but mainly it’s a matter of timescales and what NEEDS doing right now vs nice to have if we ever come out the other side.

We have stuff that if we could cut right now would mitigate climate change or if we had done a decade or two ago might have avoided it and we have some other stuff that might eventually lead to climate change in decades we have time to solve.

We also have stuff that has little or no effect on climate change and even trashing the planet with will reverse climate change. (A nuclear winter as an extreme example)

In a perfect world, or even a few decades ago we had the options of looking long term at climate change and the environment but that time is well and truly gone.
The next decade and even the next year will be critical to climate change and it is the most existential threat by far.

We have a LOT of tough decisions and people are not going to like most of them so we need to focus on ones that make a real difference in the short term not the “wouldn’t it be nice” stuff.

If you regard climate change as the disease that is killing the patient then no amount of diet lifestyle change is going to stop an aggressive but still operable cancer. Indeed we might have to flood the patient with toxins and radiation just to get them through the next year despite the side effects being pretty horrible.

The world as a place for human habitation is essentially in ICU… it’s on life support and unless the focus is on climate change non of the other nice to have stuff really matters. I’m not suggesting a deliberate nuclear winter .. but anything that doesn’t kill the patient in the next decade has to be on the cards.

TJagain

Environmental impact is what is driving climate change

Nothing will change for climate change until the environmental lobby STFU and stop lying
Either it is the existential threat or it isn’t…

As a geologist I firmly believe it is but the environmental lobby obviously don’t believe that.

once you’re past your mid-thirties, there’s a reason that most people are on an online dating site and they’re not suitable for a long term relationship

You’re doing better than a friend of my wife, who matched with her controlling ex.

These seem to be far more connected than they might be?
I think there are a lot of people who are attracted to “like my ex except …”

TJagain

Everything in my life is viewed thru this lens – from buying bike bits to holidays to the food I eat. It doesn’t mean never doing or buying anything. It means considering the environmental impact of all aspects of your life

But this thread is about climate change… seriously sod the environment and deal with a real existential threat.

ernielynch

There isn’t much mention of climate change in the article that you linked.

It talks of safety benefits of 20mph limits to pedestrians and cyclists though.

And it emphasizes the success of the Tories in the Uxbridge by-election due to the apparent unpopularity of Sadiq Khan’s ulez expansion during a cost of living crisis, which has nothing to do with climate change.

and yet a CH4 or CH5 news segment led by saying ULEZ is for climate change (or words to that effect) .. it was the first thing they mentioned.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not AGAINST cleaner air but …
1) What will be the greenhouse gas impact of people driving 1/2 way round the M25 instead of through?
If this has been assessed I’ve missed it … but I find it hard to believe it has a positive impact on greenhouse gas – and if it is negative then not only does that need to be assessed BUT we need to be HONEST.

2) Related to the above but why is anything “eco” continually lied about and lied directly or implied to be climate change and who really expects people to believe it?

Don’t look at this as an isolated thing… there will be a bunch of people from Uxbridge who travel and they are going to realise they are using more fuel one way or another. Probably a percentage of them got told to get rid of their diesel cars they were encouraged to buy and probably another load have been victim to other green scams in the past.

There seems to be an assumption people are so dumb they can be continually lied to and they are never going to twig… and sure some people STILL don’t believe Boris lied but its a vanishingly small number. (Perhaps just him and Nadine at this point)

This is where support for fighting (now mitigating is all we can do) climate change is being lost.
On one hand we have people who finally twig .. “but that’s not climate change” and on the other we have the blissfully unaware buying their Dolphin friendly eco palm oil to save Panda’s doing their bit when they put the “recyclable but not in your borough” in their car to drive to the recycling centre.

dazh

Follow your own advice then and have a look at the billions/trillions that oil companies and countries will lose if we stop using fossil fuels, and then ask yourself where the money comes from to fund the anti-climate change propaganda which you’ve fallen for.

Or take a look at ‘just stop oil’ which would be better renamed as “just stop the cleanest production and instead give it to dirty producers”

Take the top 21 producers (just to include the UK with 1%) and of those that JSO can even have a presence 74% of production is China, Russia and OPEC. It’s not rocket science to see who will benefit from the USA, Canada, Norway and the UK ceasing new developments.

Come on Steve, you’re a geologist, you know that in eroding areas there’s a limit to how much biomass will accumulate if man does nothing.

my experience trail-building tells me that you can build up a cover of 1/2 meter or so but my experience as a geologist tells me that it also compacts so 1cm of peat bog represents about a year during which time most of that carbon is being locked into the soil/peat. We have a good 50cm of decayed wood and vegetation in the corners of our garden and thats just the bigger stuff as we have a huge compost heap where the stuff can be shredded goes and ends up in the vegetables we eat.

Managed woodland produces a carbon neutral fuel, timber that will act as a carbon store for far longer than if left to rot when incorporated into buildings or whatever.

It depends on what you mean by “left to rot” and the exact fungal mix involved but rotting in buildings is certainly not the best BUT it also delays the whole thing 25 yrs or so at least giving us more time to get the rest of the shit in order. The best by far is leaving it to become fungus food that then becomes more generally bio-available.

In terms of my wood supply my neighbours won’t leave the wood from trimming trees to rot to fungi, they just want shot. At best it’ll be composted but more probably chipped for pellets with all the asociated transport.

That’s a completely different case to saying we should be encouraging the developing world to burn wood and dung because it’s carbon neutral. I’m complete with this being better than chipped pellets … but that is separate to saying leaving it to be buried is better than burning some gas.

Managed woodland for fuel and timber is better in CO2 terms than doing nothing.

I’m totally with you… but equally moving from coal to gas or nuclear isn’t “doing nothing” and moving developing nations from wood that would otherwise be used instead of fuel to gas isn’t doing nothing… they are both very meaningful steps in the right direction.

My neighbours don’t want dangerous trees untrimmed trees falling on their houses and a load of rotting wood for a garden.

Again, totally get this .. sadly the best thing would be them having a load of rotting wood in their garden with an active myco-culture but if they won’t do this then sure its better than chipping.

crosshair

But I don’t doubt climate change is real- I’m just sick of the lies about its effects.
(If anything, it seems like a net-benefit 🤷🏻‍♂️)

That is perfectly understandable whilst the separation of “green” and “climate change” isn’t unlinked.
Be that Joe Pub on the beach or your maize yield increasing.

In order to achieve side objectives the causality between “eco” and “climate change” is localised because that is what people “should be able to see” in an idealistic way but the reality is far more complex and global.

It’s like Edukator not caring about releasing trapped CO2 that is held in trees that will be otherwise captured by funghi because “it’s carbon neutral” when the global climate doesn’t care if any specific CO2 is a result of a locally carbon neutral process or my local council building concrete and steel skyscrapers sticking a green wall on and saying its carbon negative as our borough doesn’t produce cement or iron. On the good side we benefit from marginally cleaner air in the town centre… on the bad side we just created a shedload of CO2 indirectly by buying the cement to make concreate and iron to make steel.. and when asked the councillor responsible (portfolio holder) “has no idea how much CO2” was produced because “it doesn’t matter because its outside our borough”.

What matters is a global picture and to take your maize crop is globally insignificant feeding the entire world.

As a geologist by profession I can see the evidence of previous climate changes and their effects globally but as a amateur historian a better idea of how this will affect humans is to look at every migration and its effects over the last 3000yrs and the major driving force behind that. In almost every case be it the vandals and goths or huns the driving force has been climate change in the east affecting the yields so each desperate “people” has been pushed westwards. In some of the cases this is made more poignant by the fact those same climatic changes may well have increased yields to the West (certainly in specific areas) but not globally.

crosshair

That’s the thing- I’m looking at real stuff. Birds that have apparently migrated due to the climate that are still here. Eggs that should be hatching earlier that are still bang on time.
Late springs that are supposed to be early.
A windscreen splattered with insects that don’t exist. Dusk motorbike rides dodging bats hunting moths that shouldn’t be there.

and that is the issue, you like many are mixing the two things up because they are being told 1 + 1 = 3.
The entire evidence for climate change is being buried in words like “eco” or “green” and “renewables” that have no tangible connection to climate change.

If it’s that urgent- I’d have hoped to see at least some evidence by now

In order to see the evidence you need to look bigger than a field or two or what specifically happens in Antarctica or any specific place (global mean temp for example) but because there are other agendas what you see is what fits an extended agenda rather than reality.

Crosshair

Quite. The political reaction isn’t that of terrified people.
Just like Covid. They’re partying whilst locking us down. Almost like it’s about control- not a rational response to a tangible threat.

I obviously don’t disagree with your observations but as a geologist and having had access to primary data previously I am 100% convinced it is real and that this is far more about them “partying” being more important than anything else.

The issue here is that there is an overlap in what the “people who want to party” and think they will be unaffected due to their wealth on one hand and people blinded by idealism on the other fed by misinformation by often well meaning media (or as close as they get).

You can interpret Boris’s apparent lack of giving a shit in different ways.
1) He has access to the best medical advice and facilities and doesn’t really care “if bodies pile up in their thousands” and he’s had it once
or
2) He wasn’t concerned when he was hospitalised because he thought the whole thing was a fake.

Every other bit of evidence suggests Boris just doesn’t give a shit about anyone or anything but Boris.

The most insightful part of the video is where he say’s something like “if shock manufacturers designed bikes”

The fundamental issue seems to be more that frame manufacturers can blame the shock manufacturers for poor design that leads to shock failure and that trunnions and yokes exasperate this.

Only knuckle draggers would now deny human induced climate change, as per singletrackmind
ahsat well done for such a useful post, but you’ll still get deniers!

Of course you get deniers because considerable circumstantial evidence shows that governments, councils and “green organisations” don’t actually BELIEVE it.

Crosshair

Surely all that bottom graph shows is that a near doubling of co2 hasn’t lead to a correlatory increase in temperature

If what you mean is temperature is increasing more quickly than CO2 that is both scale dependent of the axes BUT more importantly it illustrates the tipping effect of a runaway process where to use one example albedo increases as ice and snow cover decreases.

Edukator

You’ve misquoted me, I said “neutral”, which it is because there has been no change in biomass for 20 years, and people don’t want more because they want managed gardens. I suggested you read more thoroughly.

Yep you still don’t get it do you.
You are choosing to release CO2 based on some buzzwords and idealism.

Climate change really doesn’t care at all if your energy is “carbon neutral” in a micro/local way … or for that matter if the USA has a higher per-capita carbon footprint than China … all it cares about are absolute values of greenhouse gases.

In cold periods France uses gas at the margin, if I increase demand I consume gas-generated electricity with its CO2 production and associated methane leaks.

And it STILL has a much lower CO2 and overall greenhouse gas production than burning wood from most** sources of gas. (**gas being transported across Russia to Europe being a possible exception)

Whether a micro process is itself “carbon neutral” or “renewable” or other buzzwords has no bearing on climate change, only the absolutes.

jimmy

But there are YouTube videos saying it’s a swindle, so it must be all fake.

That is because there is so much circumstantial evidence that is is a fake.

On one side most reasonable people might think that if the German government actually believed in anthropomorphic climate change they wouldn’t be opening new coal mines and coal powered generation and GreenPeace wouldn’t still be trying to say nuclear isn’t the short term answer.

Your average joe isn’t able to see the primary data nor interpret it so they are going to view what governments do and organisations like Greenpeace as indicative as to if the crisis is real. It is then very easy to debunk because these organisations are blinded by their hatred of the solutions

On the other side there are those that are convinced but being mislead that if they for example drive their kilo’s of package waste to a recycling centre they just “did their bit”.

funkmasterp

Citing David Bellamy is class too. He claimed 555 of the worlds 625 major glaciers were growing, not shrinking. The team who monitor them for a living gave the rather curt reply of “bullshit” Bellamy was a great botanist and full of energy and passion. Something went awry though. He didn’t even have any evidence to back up his ascertains. Just unfounded claims with nothing behind them. All rather sad really.

This is typical of the movement popularised amongst others by Funtowicz & Ravetz where fact and evidence no longer apply in what they termed ‘post-normal’ science.

Silvio O. Funtowicz, Jerome R. Ravetz,
Science for the post-normal age,
Futures,
Volume 25, Issue 7,
1993,
Pages 739-755,
ISSN 0016-3287,
https://doi.org/10.1016/0016-3287(93)90022-L.
(https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/001632879390022L)
Abstract: In response to the challenges of policy issues of risk and the environment, a new type of science-‘post-normal’-is emerging. This is analysed in contrast to traditional problem-solving strategies, including core science, applied science, and professional consultancy. We use the two attributes of systems uncertainties and decision stakes to distinguish among these. Postnormal science is appropriate when either attribute is high; then the traditional methodologies are ineffective. In those circumstances, the quality assurance of scientific inputs to the policy process requires an ‘extended peer community’, consisting of all those with a stake in the dialogue on the issue. Post-normal science can provide a path to the democratization of science, and also a response to the current tendencies to post-modernity.

Edukator

I have a couple of suggestions for you, Stevexctc. Read other people’s posts more carefully and thoroughly before replying to them. Then reread your own replies equally carefully and thoroughly before hitting return.

You’ve clearly misread mine and I’m sure everyone else is reading your replies and shaking their heads at the same points as me so there’s no need to elaborate.

My wood burner is fueled with wood from trimming/felling trees in my neighbours gardens. There are just as many trees growing in those gardens as twenty years ago – no change in stored carbon. The trees get trimmed/felled with an electric chain saw, split with a hydraulic splitter (collectively owned) and transported in a whell barrow. That’s about as close to carbon neutral fuel as you’ll get.

You seem to completely miss the entire point that you are releasing sequestered CO2 and trying to say that’s actually a good thing for climate change because “it’s natural” (stick in green buzzwords of choice)

It’s not that you personally are releasing a significant amount of CO2/greenhouse gas, it’s the green bullshit that is being wrapped up into climate change when it is actually making the situation worse or suggesting this is what people in rural India should be doing to boil their drinking water and cook rice.

The atmosphere doesn’t care one iota about if the source of the carbon is sustainable or not nor if you used a wheel barrow because the whole process is releasing more CO2 than you using gas or electricity from any source available.

When the local electricty mix is 100% renewable even in mid Winter I’ll use electricity, till then I believe reducing CO2 emisions is more important than improving local air quality.

This is a complete oxymoron… you are using the dirtiest source of energy available to you from a climate perspective whilst ignoring the cleanest. (Given you have access to nuclear generated electricity)

This is my entire point, the time we had to have “nice” energy has passed. You might not like nuclear but not using it and choosing the dirtiest form you can in terms of CO2 is just ignoring the actual facts and mixing apples and oranges.

It’s the people creating the demand that are the problem. If you drink, smoke dope or snort coke take your part of the responsibilty for the resulting social issues, crime and violence rather than blaming the government, the police, the drug cartels and dealers, social services… .

So I can see where you are coming from with this but you seem to be applying this very selectively to energy. I don’t completely agree but that is a matter of interpretation not fact like burning high carbon fuels contributes to the amount of CO2.

Moreover, if this is scaled then we get countries like Germany reopening coal mines and coal generated power.. which is then the perfect excuse for countries like China and India to point to.

Equally this affects public perception as well, as a Geologist I have absolutely no doubts about greenhouse gasses and climate change.. it’s as proven as evolution however I can easily see why when countries like Germany re-adopt coal or someone promotes burning wood why many people increasingly believe it to be a hoax.

till then I believe reducing CO2 emisions is more important than improving local air quality

Again people aren’t idiots. Trying to pretend ULEZ zones and cleaner air are somehow “climate change” is unproductive when someone knows they need to drive multiple times the distance to get from A to B.

I saw a CH4 or CH5 news item the other day about ULEZ that led with “climate change” as the justification for example.
Personally I think cleaner air is great BUT we don’t have that luxury.

The time passed and we no longer have the option of avoiding catastrophic climate change, only the degree of catastrophe.

greentricky

Who is doing that?

It’s in this thread a page or so previous.

I think the point is how much carbon does wood and dung lock in during its lifetime versus how much is released when burnt. Is it about the same?

Can you say the same about LPG usage?

That’s the quasi science approach again… you want to compare apples and oranges.

The amount of CO2 captured by dung or wood will be EXACTLY the same regardless of it it’s burned or not.
Burning gas instead will not affect how much wood or dung is produced nor how much carbon it sequesters but it will reduce the CO2 released into the atmosphere significantly.

This is the same old arguments of “it’s natural so it must be better so lets look elsewhere.

Edukator

Renewable and carbon neutral dung and wood versus CO2 and methane emitting LPG – the higher the LPG price for 1.5 BILLION people the better.

Renewables, stevextc, renewables and reducing consumption, anythjing else will exacerbate the mess we’re in. More storms and landslides here in areas stable since the last ice age last night in places we’d cycled through hours before but kept moving. Those alertes on the phone sure are persistent.

Help me understand this… you want to increase the amount of CO2 released because “anythjing else will exacerbate the mess we’re in”

Do you deny anthropomorphic climate change ?
Do you think it has nothing to do with CO2 emissions ?
Do you just not care about climate change or think it’s not that important compared to using something “organic” and if millions die that’s fine?
Do you think the word “renewables” is magic along with anything labelled “eco” or “green”?

Are you unaware that dung and wood release more CO2 than LPG or do you just deny that dung and wood release more CO2 than LPG?

Burning wood efficiently results in 2.5 times higher CO2 than natural gas (used in a stove with smokestack) but gathering wood and just burning it loose to boil your drinking water is worse.

5lab

How hard is it to drill deore cranks..

If you can keep them perpendicular not too difficult then tapping/steel inserts is a doddle.
It helps to find the right length to cut though for your desired length… you want to drill through where there is plenty of meat and you need 13mm (9/16) plus some meat below where you drill

IHN

It won’t be the climate change that’ll get us, it’ll be the war(s) over water and arable land that’ll do it.

It might not affect us in the same way as places that become completely unliveable but it will still affect us badly.

However: The a great deal of the history of Europe for the last 3000+ yrs can be put into a context of Westward migrations from climate change at the fringes of the Gobi… and desperate peoples displacing others at least in terms of major changes

Explain further for those not as clever as you.

It’s nothing to do with being clever or not…
In science you follow a scientific method, you don’t get to make stuff up and manipulate results or extrapolate them to meet an agenda.

There is a simple example in this thread .. on skylarks. If you have an agenda to measure the skylark population you don’t get to extrapolate their moving their nesting from location 1 to “skylarks have decreased in the UK”.

In the same way you can’t extrapolate red squirrels being replaced by grey squirrels as “devastating the entire ecosystem” without proving how grey squirrels are not filling the same niche and affecting “the entire ecosystem”.

Nor can you then claim without any proof that grey squirrels or skylark nests are CAUSING climate change.

TJagain

I love the idea that those of us who have been fighting climate change are to blame for climate change.

It’s not fighting climate change that has caused the crisis it’s the rest of the stuff that gets tagged on.
Most people don’t give a flying **** about the numbers of skylarks, red squirrels or whales any more than any other obscure remote subject – it’s simply not on their radar and trying to connect the two is doing no good for perception and whilst we have lying organisations like Greenpeace full of grubby people its more negative than good.

Disclaimer … I actually do care and I’m grubby… but at this juncture, faced with an existential threat all that goes into the “nice to have box”.

Greenpeace are STILL anti-nuclear… faced with a climate crisis they just continue spreading the lies and drivel.
The German green party is opening coal mines and coal powered stations .. in the last years we have to mitigate the climate crisis… because they are anti-nuclear and they realised renewables don’t work alone…

I’m left with a limited number of interconnected explanations…
Greenpeace/Green Party do not BELIEVE in anthropomorphic climate change?
They think it’s more important not to use nuclear and if millions die that is a good thing?
They are so used to lying they don’t know any other way?
They think they can get their other agenda’s pushed forwards using a proven scientific fact as to how it is going to kill millions and think they can latch on and if a few million of the worlds excess population die it’s worth it.

or combinations of the above ???

Anyway, the other issue is populist government exploiting this apathy and ignorance leaving the electorate thinking that they are helping the existential threat by doing stuff that is “green” or “eco”.
I’ve mentioned before the concrete and steel tower blocks … that aren’t needed and after all concerned made money they stuck in a green wall and called them carbon negative.

When Joe Bloggs buys his “eco” shampoo driving to the supermarket just round the corner in his “eco” car he’s been convinced he’s fighting climate change.

At the other end we in the west exploit this by outbidding developing nations on CLEANER energy… when we import LPG for example it puts up LPG prices in India for 1.5 BILLION people many of whom will then burn wood and dung to cook.

This completely undermines the Indian governments attempts to reduce their carbon emissions and brings us full circle in that as a developed nation we shouldn’t be using gas power stations in 2023 because we should have a nuclear base load but thanks to fear mongering by the environmentalists we don’t.