UK to end hydrocarbon-fuelled cars in 2040

[Tommy Cookers]

hasn't there been plenty of evidence that temperature drives CO2 level and not vice versa ?

[strad]

Amount of plant life will also drive up CO2 levels. And didn't all those herbivore dinosaurs fart?
If you want the truth the first thing you have to do is ignore mass media.
News people have long since abandoned the Who, What, Where, When, model and decided it's all so complex that they need to guide and teach us because we aren't smart enough to figure things out for ourselves.
That has also been documented out of their own mouths.
They now push their own agendas and biases rather than just report the news. Reporters themselves have said that because of the 24/7 news cycle if necessary the must create stories.

[Just_a_fan]

Ignoring the mass media and looking to a specific source that gives the answer you want doesn't give "the truth" either. It gives "a truth". the Non-mass media are no better than the mass media in this regard.

If one wants "the truth" one has to do some work. And that is where the problem lies - be it AGW, domestic politics, foreign policy etc.

[strad]

Oh I totally agree with that and is why I encourage people to dig, do the research and not just accept what some mass media echo chamber says. There is no substitute for reading and looking at sources that don't agree.
I started out believing, until things they said didn't make sense and their models didn't play out like they said. They said the temps would be way up that the seas would have risen not inches but feet by now. That NYC would be flooded by now. And when their prediction repeatedly didn't come to pass I started looking. They always no matter what happens come up with some ever changing excuse for why or why not. It was then that I found the IPCC e-mails where they exposed themselves and sent me digging deeper.
I don't just watch new that supports my preconceived ideas. I didn't wear blinders then and still don't.
I think most of the believers look for stories and graphs that fit with what I would call the mass hypnosis.
Anybody that can read about Benays' ideas and see how they have been used and are continuing to be used not just in this but in almost all advertising and not see the clear connection, I just don't understand.
He convinced women to smoke to curb their appetites and that they should desire to be skinny at a time when most men wanted more full figured women and sold them on the idea cigarettes were "torches of freedom ".
From what I have found out it's just that the global warming advocates just have a much better ad campaign.

[strad]

I have said I don't mind that some people don't change their minds or agree, but it does rankle me that they deride anyone who has an opinion other that theirs. I haven't called anyone an idiot or any of the other insults slung at me let alone downvoted them. That's just more of the Benays game plan. Deride , insult and belittle the opposition. They may not change their mind but they will slink away to avoid the conflict and name calling and you can win by default.
Since I believe we're all entitled to our opinions I don't think I'd have pushed this as I'm have but not about to be run off by insults and bullying.

[roon]

Deride , insult and belittle the opposition.

Funny, you were using these same tactics in the FE thread for some time. Seems you were a disciple of Bernays before you even heard of him, this guy whom you seem to think invented mocking and slander sometime in the early 20th c.

viewtopic.php?p=832805#p832805

[AngusF1]

I can't comment on whether using a Gaussian distribution is appropriate or not, having no exposure to the data.

However, if he'd used a non-Gaussian distribution, in all likelihood the distribution would be positively skewed, meaning the worst case temperature scenario would probably have a delta higher than 8 degrees for the same level of significance.

The level of significance must have been fairly small to obtain that "worst case" right-tail event, considering the values for mean warming I am aware of (1.5C - 2C by the latter half / end of this century).

The point is IMO, if you are ignorant of a phenomenon, you can't just say "suppose it's statistical according to this specific model which I pulled out of my backside and can take any value I want!", which is precisely what the professor is doing.

If you are ignorant of a phenomenon you get to say... nothing, and stick to what you are certain of, ie the 1.2 degrees directly caused by CO2. Anything further is pure speculation.

"Suppose" is a pretty well worn phrase in statistical analysis. You make an assumption, run tests, reach conclusions about your original assumption. It does not imply he is ignorant.

I am not claiming that the professor's use of statistics and "suppose that..." reasoning makes him ignorant. I am taking him at his own word that he is ignorant, then criticising his use of an unjustifiable and inapplicable statistical distribution to claim that the real model (which he admits to not knowing) could be anything, especially his particular emphasis on alarmist worst-case scenarios made possible at the extreme end of his unjustified application of a arbitrary statistical distribution.

On the ability to accurately predict the actual real-world temperature change due to a doubling of CO2, the professor states "...it's still really not possible today, and it may not be possible any time soon. Probably not, probably, actually, to really make a definitive statement on this." So, he openly and readily admits ignorance, which is good of him and perfectly fine. He then goes on to explain the reasons for the difficulty, mainly revolving around the non-linear feedbacks in the climate system which make it so difficult to model.

What I'm criticising is his subsequent application of a Gaussian distribution to the known expected rise due to CO2 alone, to represent the range of possible models. This is a total abuse of statistics, because the "real climate model" is not a statistical phenomenon at all. It's a concrete mathematical model played out in real time all over the earth every day, which we happen to be ignorant of.

To illustrate my point, why a Gaussian distribution? What about the range of possible climate models is normally distributed? (Nothing, it doesn't even make sense to say this, it's a completely non-applicable concept.) Could they logically follow a Guassian distribution, which has a nonzero likelihood of any possible outcome? (No.) If a Gaussian distribution is applied, what should the standard deviation be?* (No ability to sensibly determine, all possible values make zero sense.)

*[The Standard Deviation is one of two statistical parameters which describe a normal distribution. It determines how wide the variation is. The professor places the other parameter, the mean, at the amount of warming caused by CO2 alone.]

Like others have said, there is a high price for being wrong (under prediction). I can understand the pressure scientists must feel to have some estimate for 'worst case scenarios'.

Certainly. This is where scientists need to stand firm, resist the pressure to engage in alarmism and present what they know for sure instead of engaging in speculation. Speculation is fun. It costs nothing, you can say whatever you like, and there is no skin in the game or responsibility for being wrong. After all, I only said it "could" happen, not that it "would".

By contrast, scientists seem to be relatively quiet in speculating about planet-killing asteroids, alien invasion or exotic super-viruses. They know these scenarios are possible but are hardly urging us to immediately develop an interstellar Space Force, or ban most international travel with a 1-month quarantine before entry. I wonder what the difference is.

Like you said, if you're ignorant, perhaps its best to not comment.

I know nothing about statistical mechanics, quantum mechanics and absorption spectrums, so I leave it up to the scientists to determine the warming caused directly by increasing the CO2. They say it's 1.2 degrees and I believe them because it's validated by experiment and fundamental physics. This is real science as it's a closed loop process: hypothesise, experiment, validate, repeat.

What I can do, is spot the difference between genuine science and speculation. Currently the climate models have no predictive ability and are not backed up by experiment (ie, they are all wrong), which is readily admitted by the scientists themselves. So, I categorise them as speculation. This is fine as an academic pursuit, but they are not suitable as a trigger for action in the real world, much less for turning our civilisation on its head.

[AngusF1]

Very interesting article about how there's little time to act

https://www.apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0

According to the U.N. entire nations could get wiped off the face of the earth through rising sea levels creating a huge number of climate refugees if the global warming trend isn't reversed and that there's only little time left to save the planet ...

But ... whoopsie ... that article is from 1989 ... so they've been painting the same horror scenario for decades and if there was any truth to it then i would have a beach close by instead of the netherlands, most island states would be gone, large parts of various countries flooded and the average temperature should now be 7°C higher than it was back then ...

Absolute gold. The sky is falling!

[Andres125sx]

I am not claiming that the professor's use of statistics and "suppose that..." reasoning makes him ignorant. I am taking him at his own word that he is ignorant, then criticising his use of an unjustifiable and inapplicable statistical distribution to claim that the real model (which he admits to not knowing) could be anything, especially his particular emphasis on alarmist worst-case scenarios made possible at the extreme end of his unjustified application of a arbitrary statistical distribution.

On the ability to accurately predict the actual real-world temperature change due to a doubling of CO2, the professor states "...it's still really not possible today, and it may not be possible any time soon. Probably not, probably, actually, to really make a definitive statement on this." So, he openly and readily admits ignorance, which is good of him and perfectly fine. He then goes on to explain the reasons for the difficulty, mainly revolving around the non-linear feedbacks in the climate system which make it so difficult to model.

What I'm criticising is his subsequent application of a Gaussian distribution to the known expected rise due to CO2 alone, to represent the range of possible models. This is a total abuse of statistics, because the "real climate model" is not a statistical phenomenon at all. It's a concrete mathematical model played out in real time all over the earth every day, which we happen to be ignorant of.

To illustrate my point, why a Gaussian distribution? What about the range of possible climate models is normally distributed? (Nothing, it doesn't even make sense to say this, it's a completely non-applicable concept.) Could they logically follow a Guassian distribution, which has a nonzero likelihood of any possible outcome? (No.) If a Gaussian distribution is applied, what should the standard deviation be?* (No ability to sensibly determine, all possible values make zero sense.)

*[The Standard Deviation is one of two statistical parameters which describe a normal distribution. It determines how wide the variation is. The professor places the other parameter, the mean, at the amount of warming caused by CO2 alone.]

Like others have said, there is a high price for being wrong (under prediction). I can understand the pressure scientists must feel to have some estimate for 'worst case scenarios'.

Certainly. This is where scientists need to stand firm, resist the pressure to engage in alarmism and present what they know for sure instead of engaging in speculation. Speculation is fun. It costs nothing, you can say whatever you like, and there is no skin in the game or responsibility for being wrong. After all, I only said it "could" happen, not that it "would".

By contrast, scientists seem to be relatively quiet in speculating about planet-killing asteroids, alien invasion or exotic super-viruses. They know these scenarios are possible but are hardly urging us to immediately develop an interstellar Space Force, or ban most international travel with a 1-month quarantine before entry. I wonder what the difference is.

Like you said, if you're ignorant, perhaps its best to not comment.

I know nothing about statistical mechanics, quantum mechanics and absorption spectrums, so I leave it up to the scientists to determine the warming caused directly by increasing the CO2. They say it's 1.2 degrees and I believe them because it's validated by experiment and fundamental physics. This is real science as it's a closed loop process: hypothesise, experiment, validate, repeat.

What I can do, is spot the difference between genuine science and speculation. Currently the climate models have no predictive ability and are not backed up by experiment (ie, they are all wrong), which is readily admitted by the scientists themselves. So, I categorise them as speculation. This is fine as an academic pursuit, but they are not suitable as a trigger for action in the real world, much less for turning our civilisation on its head.

I guess then you don´t believe radiation is harmful either, as none can predict how much it will affect you after being exposed, right? If they can´t predict what exact problems it will cause in your case, it´s because they know nothing so we shouldn´t rely on his word when they say radiation is harmful...

Scientifics are scientics, not sheers, we don´t fully understand global climate with its thousands parameters affecting it so we can´t predict it accurately, but we surely know some parameters wich have a direct impact as CO2 concentration, methane concentration, forests density, sea currentsrr...

[Andres125sx]

I see this debate similar to this:

-Scientific comunity: we should reconsider our co2 emissions, that´s a greenhouse gas and we´re emitting way too much
-World: but what will be the problem? I need to know what´re the problems we´ll face to justify such a big change as you´re suggesting
-SC: I´m not sure, climate is too complex to make an accurate prediction
- W: Then I can´t believe you, and even if I do, we´re talking about a change wich will cost thousands millions, so no government will accept it without some sort of report about what will be the consequences if we don´t change
- SC: Ok I´ll try....
- SC: I think consequences will be these
- W: hey you failed in your prediction, you know nothing, you´re not a reliable source, I will ignore any of your advices
- SC: I told you global climate is way too complex to make accurate predictions, but we know increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere at a rate much higher than any previous increase (so animals and plants don´t have enough time to adapt) will have huge consequences
- W: Ignorant! You know nothing about climate! You´re trying to fool me! I will continue polluting!


IMHO, this is current situation. We live in a world based on economics and anything wich goes against economics is seen as a threat and the whole system will fight it, governments, companies, normal people wich usually is quite skeptical... and IMHO this is pretty sad if we consider economics as the only important parameter in our lifes. Don´t get me wrong, I defend capitalism, I said the only important parameter, economics are obviously very very important, but should not be the only parameter motivating all of our decisions. But on a capitalist world any decision in this regard will face numerous and ruthless adversaries who will drag a lot of people with them, and IMHO this is pretty sad and speaks volumes about how immature we humans are

[strad]

n. Currently the climate models have no predictive ability and are not backed up by experiment (ie, they are all wrong), which is readily admitted by the scientists themselves. So, I categorise them as speculation. This is fine as an academic pursuit, but they are not suitable as a trigger for action in the real world, much less for turning our civilisation on its head.

[RZS10]

no point in leaving this up when you can't even have a discussion here

[RZS10]

no point in leaving this up when you can't even have a discussion here

[roon]

some years ago they pushed for diesels
now diesels are the devil
now they push for electric cars

Technological development. Ten to fifteen years ago there were few if any compelling EVs in existence. Thus diesel engines were commonly considered as the more efficient alternative to gasoline engines. Now that the capabilities of electric storage and drive are being unlocked, we see shifts in perceptions and expectations.

[Jolle]

IMHO, this is current situation. We live in a world based on economics and anything wich goes against economics is seen as a threat and the whole system will fight it, governments, companies, normal people wich usually is quite skeptical... and IMHO this is pretty sad if we consider economics as the only important parameter in our lifes. Don´t get me wrong, I defend capitalism, I said the only important parameter, economics are obviously very very important, but should not be the only parameter motivating all of our decisions. But on a capitalist world any decision in this regard will face numerous and ruthless adversaries who will drag a lot of people with them, and IMHO this is pretty sad and speaks volumes about how immature we humans are

you know ... the irony in this is that a large majority of political decisions are 'economic' in nature pushed for by lobbyists (some say that western politics are entirely driven by economic interests)
some years ago they pushed for diesels
now diesels are the devil
now they push for electric cars
you know they will claim that those are bad for the environment, actually, once they've sold enough

it doesn't make any sense whatsoever to force people to buy electric now when they drive a relatively modern car because the damages the production of the new cars does to the environment outweigh any reduction in emission over the forseeable future by far

i drive a ten year old diesel car with a particulate filter and manage roughly 5L/100km on average doing maybe 4000km per year - so i will produce just above 2tonnes of CO2 over the next 5 years

even the tiniest electric car's battery will have a worse impact on the environment than my car usage, yet i might not be able to use it anymore soon-ish because of diesel bans ... the government expects me to buy a new car, if not electric than at least something with a more efficient engine because they will get taxes and the car manufacturers make their money

I can’t recall a time that the gouvernement pushed for diesel cars... in my recollection it was the high pressure direct injection from Bosch that caused a small diesel revolution, while gouvernements tried to regulate with emissions rules (and some car companies cheated).

The UK gouvernement now does something gouvernements rarely do, making regulation for many cabinets away. This 20-25 timeframe gives the manufacturers plenty of time to divert their investments to EV developments.

With this timeframe we don’t have to throw good cars (like your 10 y/o diesel) away, and your next car, in ten years time might not even be a EV.

To blame economics for a push to EV, they would demand it in a few years, not in 20 years. Shareholders don’t care in 20 years, politicians don’t get elected for over 20 years. This timeframe is set so to make the transition with as less strain on companies and consumers as possible.