"Green" policies are destroying this country

Well the argument for all hybrids is obvious enough, if the efficiency curve for them meets quite a narrow usage pattern. And that does eat into the most basic tenet of private motoring, flexibility.

However, alternatives are coming. Mazda and Nissan have both recently released a new iteration of the self-charging hybrid, where rather than the engine and e-motor combining to drive the wheels, the petrol engine will remain at a constant and most efficient setting to continuously recharge the electric system which in turn will then be the only drive motor. Due to this, the engine will remain off most of the time, especially for urban driving.

As I've said, awareness is widening of the whole life environmental impact of full EVs, especially regarding the mass extraction, usage and recovery of lithium, cobalt, manganese, silicon and graphite. The human impact regarding industrial labour in underdeveloped countries is also concerning.

And so I feel there may be a few slips twixt cup and lip, when it comes to the 2030 deadline.

I mean it's not as if ICE engine development is going to fall off a cliff in the meantime. The internal and associated electronic technology for combustion engines will continue to progress in industrial settings and it will take many years longer than 2030 or even 2050 for conventional ICE cars to disappear in the developing world. So you may take it that makers like Geely, Tata, GWM, BYD and SAIC will be investing in them for a long while yet.

I wouldn't agree with the tactics employed by the "vandals" but I certainly agree with their point of view. Curtaining people's movement and freedom is never a good look.

Im back after a hiatus just to see if there are any new developments on this thread. The usual green suspects are still trying to live their pipe dream and act like the 3 monkies. Never mind, i just dont bother reading their posts and put them on ignore (an amazing amount of nice blank pages from the beligerent green advocates).It saves a lot of irritation.

It is always interesting to witness how the 'renewable' proponents crunch the numbers to have their dream realized. Just like the climate modelers (of the IPCC etc) they are aiming at their goal and manipulate (cherry pick) data to show what needs to be done to reach that goal and what is supposed to happen when it doesnt. If polar bears, coral reefs etc can no longer be used (because they are both doing fine) they move on to unknowns like future 'climate victims' in which they can simply make up the numbers to suit their purpose. Like countless George Lees they spout out alarm every day. Too cold, too warm, too wet, too dry..climate change caused by humans. Acidification of oceans (another fallacy) and massive species extinction just about to happen..

Maybe one should stop once in a while to realize it is ALL based on the unproven theory that Co2 emissions cause temperature rises (with the caveat of agricultural runoff in the ocean acidification argument ).There is zero, as in 0% evidence that it does in any significant way and is in fact drowned out by other factors. Models dont count as they come after scientific facts which are assumed but never established as they cannot be tested. They cannot be as the 'climate' or better said series of climates are the result of a non linear, chaotic interactive system in which only long term trends can be established and humans simply play a tiny role in all this but we are arrogant enough to state that we do control the thermostat. There was no such thing as a climate scientist before the 1980s because scientists knew the basics of their (limited) field and usually didnt have the nerve to state anything in general. Too uncertain (and still is)and would receive heavy pushback for obvious reasons. But politicians got the UN (set up BY politicians btw) to form the (eventual) IPCC and simply started the whole madness which became progressively worse over time. They managed to manipulate and infiltrate publications and politized them to suit their needs, like Nature and other once dependable sources (like NASA) with overall green policies supported with mass amounts of funding completely drowning out anything from the hydrocarbon industry and moved power to the (undemocratic) big players in form of ESG , Carbon trading etc.

I know fine well people will call me a 'climate denier' whatever that means. That's ok by me. 'THE climate doesnt exist anyway. It is also interesting to spot the total self hate the greens have about human beings. This a (post) modern idea that has taken hold of a lot of people and is directly related to the fact that people still go along with green policies but only up to the point where it starts to hurt. It starts to sink in now. The truth can only be witheld for so long. That is the reason those in power tried to quickly put every green policy in law, mostly by undemocratic means so that any opponents can be sued and punished if targets were/are not met. Our leaders have signed up for that but the people are pushing back. Eventually electable politicians will face reality and then judges will likely change their stance. The wall forces the ship back. That is reality. And outside the west the world just moves in a different direction. They are realists and no longer want to be lectured by their former masters.

In 20 years time we will all look back at the Green madness. Just another moment in history when things got off the rails..The world is changing, 'climate' is changing (it always is), systems are collapsing (political, economical, financial). But going Green is the wrong focus UNLESS you are aiming to destroy human prosperity. I am really worried that many in the west in fact like to see that happen and would use any means to achieve this. They are rightfully called: the enemy of the people..

When you dig into the climate sceptics side, many of them are just retired men with time on their hands and they are slowly dying off due to age. They are not doing it for much money and compared to walls of money in the climate alarm industry, they are punching above their weight, because most of the population remains skeptical as well.

Why don't you tell us who founded the smear site desmogblog and who funded it? Hoggan Public relations and the David Suzuki foundation.

Who funds the climate-NGO-government-industrial complex? There are NGOs popping up all over the place like toadstools, ultimately they all lead to a few major backers when you you keep digging, redirection of tax funds are a major component, it's not just tax efficient trusts run by the descendants of big oil money or current billionaires. There is an entire industry built up that promotes climate alarm 24x7. There are even companies that provide consultancy services to the climate NGOs, business is very good. There are loads of front web sites soliciting your monthly donations, that funnel funds into the the larger NGOs like 350.org. Fridays for Future is one of those, its business model is to collect names, then you get solicitations for monthly donations.

Long before Greta Thunberg at the UN, there was Severn Cullis-Suzuki, daughter of Canadian multi-millionaire environmentalist David Suzuki. Here is an example from a Christmas fundraising campaign using children as the hook to get their parents money.

In the UK both the Guardian and Telegraph receive money from these foundations to promote climate alarm, and its the same story with wire services such as Reuters, AFP and others. RTE has signed up with the shadowy Covering Climate Now (CCNow), the funding of this organisation is masked, it operates under cover of The Fund for Constitutional Government (FCG). It is hard to "follow the money" with an unincorporated group that hides behind the fiscal sponsorship of a larger charitable organisation.

Alarmists like to point at big oil, they don't like highlighting the torrent of money gushing into their cause.

For once you have posted a link that is informative.

It shows the absolute hypocrisy of greens. Up in arms over biofuels while at the same time happy to ignore that all their reasons for doing so are exactly the same when applied to biomass which they have been championing that makes up 60% of the so called EU "green" energy.

Gretta Thunberg nominated for the freedom of Dublin City. Wtf 😂

You can look at the climate debate as a rigged courtroom in which the prosecution have picked the jury and where the judge has been bribed. Where useful evidence is cherry picked, where witnesses for the defense are attacked and character assassinated, their views ridiculed and silenced.

In the film 12 angry men the consensus was quickly reached and the man found guilty of murder. But an older jury member had doubts and proposed to take a second look at the data. He was ridiculed, verbally attacked for a long time until one by one the jury members had to admit the levels of uncertainty around the case, that certain evidence did not match up, that in the end it did not make logical sense to reach a verdict of guilty. In 20 years time many will feel shame about their current position.At least i hope so. Or collective amnesia as in the Covid period.

When we talk about 'the climate' we are really talking about long timespans in a general way, 100-1000-10.000-100.000-millions of years with some rough trends. We use 'global temperature' which is just a statistical number that does not mean anything. Earth's temperature variability runs roughly from minus to plus 50 degrees Celsius. In that light 1 or 2 degrees difference is well within the parameters of natural variability. There is simply no way to make a solid equation in which a trace gas like Co2 causes global differences, no matter how you present it. In fact it is SO uncertain and doubtful that proponents go ape **** if this is being put forward. They know they are on shakey ground, like a hog on ice. They need to double down or the whole thing falls apart. If it was so selfevident they wouldnt need all the strongarm tactics. Still, the true believers need dictatorial power to make people comply. Hence they never stop. But reality will stop them just the same. We bare witness..

That word vomit doesn't in fact advance any argument.

In the real world predictions were made on the impact of CO2 on global temperatures before impacts were observed. And what do you know the data on temperature impacts is now following the predictions. That is science.

What is not science is stating that "There is simply no way to make a solid equation in which a trace gas like Co2 causes global differences, no matter how you present it." as fact when in fact the mechanism by which CO2 concentration impacts temperature is well understood, and was so well before any anthropocentric theories of climate change were advanced. Stating something as being true does not make it so.

What you have done is taken a simple conclusion out of context. An equation which fully describes the impact of CO2 fully and completely as part of a complex system does not exist. This does not mean it does not have an impact. Becuase something cannot be boiled down to a simple A+B=C does not mean that conclusions cannot be drawn based on observation and data.

Also, the attempt to characterise atmospheric CO2 as as "trace" gas is disingenuous at best. The well established science that predated climate change tells us that without atmospheric greenhouse gases the temperature of the planet would be about 30deg colder than it is. The use of "trace" is designed the hoodwink the feeble mined by using an isolated fact, the proportion of CO2 in air is low, to obscure that fact that the impact is massive. Without thinking someone might say what impact could 0.04% have. But the open and rational mind will understand that there are many examples of even smaller concentrations having a large impact. Trying seeing out you get on without the 0.005% Iron in your body. And try seeing how you get on if the that concentration was to increase significantly.

Does the scientific community agree with the political community, the religious community, the traveler community, the business community?

Are you a spokesperson on behalf of the scientific community? What do you believe to be true? we are talking about your religious convictions.