PDA

View Full Version : How are we going to save the planet?


Naughty Nigel
8th October 2018, 06:36 PM
Todays report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) makes chilling reading. We have been kicking this into the long grass for far too long now and pretending that it isn't happening.

BBC Report - Final call to save the world from 'climate catastrophe' (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-45775309)

I really do wonder what we can do both individually and collectively to avert this threatened disaster? Weather patterns and the seasons have undoubtedly changed in my lifetime, which is a mere pin prick in the history of our planet.

Aside from climate change deniers there are far too many people with vested interests at stake. It also seems the climate scientists had very tough negotiations with politicians more concerned with economies and living standards.

Whether we like it or not it seems to me that we will very soon have to make significant changes to our lifestyles, and may no longer be able to take travel and food from far flung countries for granted.

Or will we just carry on as normal and hope it doesn't happen?

Keith-369
8th October 2018, 07:19 PM
But it always seems to be our very little (by comparison) country which seems to want to charge the heck out of us for everything not green or 'dirty' whilst the enormous countries of the world use cars/trucks with massive engines, coal fired plants etc. etc. etc. without doing anything at all and they are the ones who are so big that they can actually make a difference.

Sorry if that's not very eloquent but you know what I mean.

Beagletorque
8th October 2018, 08:01 PM
Go vegan and pray.

TimP
8th October 2018, 08:23 PM
What Keith said!

The climate change experts seem to want to fly all over the place to have their conferences yet try to tell the rest of us to ride bikes and walk. The rich Americans think driving their Prius (pious??) is doing their bit to save the planet, while the rest of them pollute the hell out of the country. Trump is just making things worse with some of his actions.
I wonder if all the people going to the Green Party conference will be cycling?

wornish
8th October 2018, 08:25 PM
Global warming, or more recently renamed as its actually stopped to Climate Change IS happening (it never stops ), BUT its caused mainly by variations in the Suns output and other natural events, like volcanic eruptions.

All the scientists who support the fact that its caused by us humans are simply protecting their jobs and towing the correct line. They are a disgrace to the scientific community, no peer reviews apart from others on the payroll.

It's a scam. The political elite are behind it to make more money for themselves

Wally
8th October 2018, 08:41 PM
As was mentioned in the article, loss of ice etc., makes it more economical to get what the few want. Thus enabling the rich to get easier picking at lesser cost whilst the planet goes to hell in a hand-cart.

There are times when I wonder if Sci-Fi writers have a time machine. The elite living on floating cities in absolute luxury whilst the rest, struggle along in the mire of cities chock-filled with discarded rubbish... so much for fining litter louts. Then there is the ultimate. the planet earth encased in a steel shell with humanity out in space continuing the process and moving on...

Still... nothing to worry about as according to a very highly sourced individual who likes to trumpet forth his views ... it's ALL FAKE NEWS!

pdk42
8th October 2018, 08:43 PM
Global warming, or more recently renamed as its actually stopped to Climate Change IS happening (it never stops ), BUT its caused mainly by variations in the Suns output and other natural events, like volcanic eruptions.

All the scientists who support the fact that its caused by us humans are simply protecting their jobs and towing the correct line. They are a disgrace to the scientific community, no peer reviews apart from others on the payroll.

It's a scam. The political elite are behind it to make more money for themselves
I can't believe just how wrong you can be.

wornish
8th October 2018, 08:45 PM
I can't believe just how wrong you can be.

Well prove it-

Produce your evidence that wasn't paid for by some or other conspiracy to get more money out us dummies.

pdk42
8th October 2018, 08:47 PM
Well prove it-

Produce your evidence that wasn't paid for by some or other conspiracy to get more money out us dummies.

I can't believe this level of ignorance. What qualifications do your have to assert these opinions?

wornish
8th October 2018, 08:48 PM
As was mentioned in the article, loss of ice etc., makes it more economical to get what the few want. Thus enabling the rich to get easier picking at lesser cost whilst the planet goes to hell in a hand-cart.

There are times when I wonder if Sci-Fi writers have a time machine. The elite living on floating cities in absolute luxury whilst the rest, struggle along in the mire of cities chock-filled with discarded rubbish... so much for fining litter louts. Then there is the ultimate. the planet earth encased in a steel shell with humanity out in space continuing the process and moving on...

Still... nothing to worry about as according to a very highly sourced individual who likes to trumpet forth his views ... it's ALL FAKE NEWS!




Who is this individual that the whole planet listens to ?

Where is this ICE loss has it never happened before ?

Does the sun never change its output?

wornish
8th October 2018, 08:54 PM
I can't believe this level of ignorance. What qualifications do your have to assert these opinions?



My qualification is not accepting bought and paid for propaganda, its called looking at ALL the facts not just going with the flow, that so easy, and lazy.

As expected you can't answer the question I raised in my earlier post. Does the Suns output never change, do volcanic eruption not happen, do climate change scientists choose not to look back further than 100 years?

Attacking the person not the point doesn't work sorry.

pdk42
8th October 2018, 09:07 PM
For goodness sake - the evidence is overwhelming. It's as proven as the fact that smoking causes lung cancer or that obesity causes diebetes.

Please watch this video carefully and listen to the points and the EVIDENCE. Human global warming is not a theory, it's a fact. No other factors could possibly account for all the evidence we observe. People have invested tens of thousands of hours of their time to properly understanding climate change, usually for very little reward or recognition,
and yet for some reason we want to believe ignoramuses like Nigel Lawson who have almost zero expertise.

https://youtu.be/5LvaGAEwxYs

Jim Ford
8th October 2018, 09:19 PM
In centuries to come an alien race will visit the Earth, which will be a hothouse with many species extinct - including our own.

They'll find plenty of money though!

Jim

pdk42
8th October 2018, 09:19 PM
Along with climate change, it seems that deniers want to believe all sorts of nonsense. Pick from any of:

- NASA never went to the Moon
- The earth is flat
- 9/11 was a conspiracy by the US government
- Trump is a good President
- White people are smarter
- Megan Markle is a robot
- Various secret groups are controlling the world
- Lizards are controlling the world
- The Holocaust didn't happen
- Princess Diana was murdered by the Royal Family
- Brexit is a good idea

;)

Jim Ford
8th October 2018, 09:22 PM
Along with climate change, it seems that deniers want to believe all sorts of nonsense. Pick from any of:

- NASA never went to the Moon
- The earth is flat
- 9/11 was a conspiracy by the US government
- Trump is a good President
- White people are smarter
- Megan Markle is a robot
- Various secret groups are controlling the world
- Lizards are controlling the world
- The Holocaust didn't happen
- Princess Diana was murdered by the Royal Family
- Brexit is a good idea

;)

I guess that's a 'tick list' for 'Wornish'!

;)

Jim

Graham_of_Rainham
8th October 2018, 09:39 PM
The planet worked well with 2 Billion people on it... :eek:

pdk42
8th October 2018, 09:43 PM
Actually I was sceptical about anthropogenic global warming (AGW) at first but I spent a lot of time looking at the evidence and the research and bit by bit my view changed. The conclusion isn't one single "proof", but lots and lots of corroborating evidence that together makes an undeniable case.

The trouble with the deniers is that they cherry pick specific points (often based on " facts" that are demonstrably wrong) and then work it up into a case, the single truth of which is said to prove conclusively that AGW is wrong. Sun spots, Sun variability, natural cycles etc. They've all been debunked and yet they keep coming up in the deniers' protestations. And even if there is one anomalous point it's seized upon as the final argument rather than a balanced piece of evidence to consider in the round. And anomalies are to be expected given how complex atmospheric science is.

Even Trump's government recognises AGW as a fact, as this article explains very well:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/oct/08/the-trump-administration-has-entered-stage-5-climate-denial

Naughty Nigel
8th October 2018, 09:51 PM
For goodness sake - the evidence is overwhelming. It's as proven as the fact that smoking causes lung cancer or that obesity causes diebetes.

Please watch this video carefully and listen to the points and the EVIDENCE. Human global warming is not a theory, it's a fact. No other factors could possibly account for all the evidence we observe. People have invested tens of thousands of hours of their time to properly understanding climate change, usually for very little reward or recognition,
and yet for some reason we want to believe ignoramuses who have almost zero expertise.

https://youtu.be/5LvaGAEwxYs

There is no doubt in my mind that climate change is real. Even in my lifetime the seasons and weather patterns have changed noticeably. I work in science and engineering but I don't need a PhD to see climate change with my own eyes. Farmers too have had to change when and how they sow and harvest their crops so it isn't just our imagination.

Meteorologists are keen to stress that no individual weather event can be attributed to global climate change; but climate related disasters around the world such as the deadly fires in Australia, Greece and California and the almost total lack of rainfall for several years in previously fertile areas all point to the same cause.

The question is, what do we do about it? We cannot simply 'carry on as normal.'

For too long we have taken energy and cheap travel for granted. We complain about taxes on energy and air travel but they are about the only means that governments have of curbing our use of natural resources.

The IPCC report says that switching to electric cars will help to save the planet but I am not so sure. Would it not be better to find ways of traveling less and reducing our reliance on road transport?

I have travelled extensively in my work and have often wished that I didn't. In truth many of these journeys were not really necessary, but were undertaken to cover somebody's butt. So much can be done by videoconferencing, Skype and Facetime, but there remains pressure 'to be there and be seen'. Will that ever change I wonder?

The expectation of year on year growth also seems unsustainable whilst the wisdom of buying cheap imports from the other side of the world must also be questioned.

There are so many things that we could and should be doing but I wonder what will have to happen for us to take it all seriously? Making pollution cleaner or moving it further away cannot be the answer.

wornish
9th October 2018, 07:28 AM
Along with climate change, it seems that deniers want to believe all sorts of nonsense. Pick from any of:

- NASA never went to the Moon
- The earth is flat
- 9/11 was a conspiracy by the US government
- Trump is a good President
- White people are smarter
- Megan Markle is a robot
- Various secret groups are controlling the world
- Lizards are controlling the world
- The Holocaust didn't happen
- Princess Diana was murdered by the Royal Family
- Brexit is a good idea

;)

Actually I do think that #4 and #11 on your list are true but the rest are garbage. Thanks.

I don't believe man made climate change is making as big a difference as is claimed. Worrying ourselves sick over it won't stop all the other natural cycles from continuing to happen.

I will leave the personal insults to those that cant make valid arguments.

Wally
9th October 2018, 07:35 AM
There are always believers and dis-believers in any argument / discussion as proven in another thread.

I'm sure that the earth has it's own seasons similar to the four we all experience in a yearly cycle. The planet may takes untold eons to change from one cycle to another and they too might alter over time?. Given that our research goes back roughly 100 years or so gives both side room to argue the toss.

I've been watching a series called 'Frozen Planet.' Not saying it is the answer to the problem, but it does give room for thought. One particular episode goes back in time - 100 years - using photographic evidence to show the variation(s) as things are now.

As for pollution, my own experience is quite recent. Two years ago I spent 10 days in a very remote part of Germany - Lower Saxony - where traffic was almost non-existent. On my return to Essen, stepping out of the main train station, into the main road, I nearly choked on the fumes. The stench, was unbelievable.

I never noticed the change when in Saxony, but it hit me like a hammer when I returned to the city and, perhaps this too is part of the argument. Perhaps we have become so inured to the amount of pollution that surrounds us in our cities and their outskirts, that it goes unnoticed?

MJ224
9th October 2018, 07:49 AM
https://www.quora.com/How-many-airplanes-are-in-flight-on-average-at-any-given-time-worldwide

6000 planes in the air at any one time...

5 litres of fuel per second each...

5x60x6000 litres per minute..nearly 2 million litres per minute. In rough terms that is 1800 tonnes of fuel per minute, and that is only the tip. Fuel exploration, refining and transporting fuel around the world/country...

*****, whatever the climate patterns are doing, as they do, we are not helping it at all, are we...………..:(

wornish
9th October 2018, 07:52 AM
I do agree that overall pollution especially plastics is way out of control. I too hate going in to most large cities due to the stench.

If these areas got 1/10th the airtime that climate change gets we might get them fixed, and they are certainly man made.

MJ224
9th October 2018, 07:52 AM
I'm sure that the earth has it's own seasons similar to the four we all experience in a yearly cycle. The planet may takes untold eons to change from one cycle to another and they too might alter over time?. Given that our research goes back roughly 100 years or so gives both side room to argue the toss.


We DO know that there was an ice age only 20,000 years ago, and many other before that. Climate does change with out us ******* it up as well...……….*chr

Naughty Nigel
9th October 2018, 07:54 AM
Actually I do think that #4 and #12 on your list are true but the rest are garbage. Thanks.

I don't believe man made climate change is making as big a difference as is claimed. Worrying ourselves sick over it won't stop all the other natural cycles from continuing to happen.

I will leave the personal insults to those that cant make valid arguments.

There is no #12!

It is not a case of 'worrying ourselves sick' but actually doing something positive to help the environment rather than taking it from granted that our skies, seas and land can be used as dustbins ad infinitum.

That might mean making sacrifices, but modern consumerism has made us so wasteful that I a sure most of us could make changes to our lifestyle without noticeable hardship.

Unfortunately our track record to date is a not a good one, and all of our efforts to tackle pollution have actually made matters worse in the great scheme of things; but by moving pollution elsewhere we are happy to believe that it has gone away. Coal fires and steam engines gave way to gas, electric and diesel power, which seemed cleaner, but actually generated more CO2 and created fine particulates and nitrous oxides which have been proved to be harmful to our respiratory systems.

Catalytic converters on petrol engines did a god job of cleaning up unburnt hydrocarbons, CO and nitrous oxides but significantly increased CO2 output and fuel consumption. Diesel particulate filters have helped reduce smoky diesel exhausts but the fine particulates remain. I have a horrible feeling that electric cars will simply add to these problems, and will create a mountain of chemical waste when their batteries are exhausted. Lithium production is also a nasty business.

I accept that our planet does go through natural cycles but these things take thousands of years if not longer. I simply cannot believe that the extreme rate of change that we have witnessed over the past thirty years or so isn't caused by mankind.

DerekW
9th October 2018, 08:23 AM
The biggest generator of pollution is the human being - they drive, consume, fly etc so do not have one extra human being for luck or for a spare.

If you have bred and your offspring have not bred then encourage them not to breed, if they have bred then encourage them not to have an extra one because the first 1, 2 or 5 etc were so much fun.

Remember it is people that are the cause of the problem.

Phill D
9th October 2018, 08:43 AM
Don't usually comment on threads such as these but having watched the videos in the links I have to admit to being somewhat concerned by some of the arguments and so called evidence on both sides. Real evidence and data is what's needed from rigorously controlled experiments not regurgitated opinion. One thing is for sure if things don't change then it will be a worse world to live in for everyone, plant animal or human. Surely that ought to be enough of a catalyst to get everyone to change something and make this world a better place to live in in the future.

Naughty Nigel
9th October 2018, 09:00 AM
.....I have to admit to being somewhat concerned by some of the arguments and so called evidence on both sides. Real evidence and data is what's needed from rigorously controlled experiments not regurgitated opinion. ]

We have been saying that and waiting for 'real evidence' for the past thirty years or more and as a result have done absolutely nothing other than procrastinate and move the problem elsewhere.


.....One thing is for sure if things don't change then it will be a worse world to live in for everyone, plant animal or human. Surely that ought to be enough of a catalyst to get everyone to change something and make this world a better place to live in in the future.

You would think so wouldn't you?

How about starting with supermarket food waste, which is a disgrace in my view, the fashion industry and the perceived need to buy a new mobile phone every year? We might even be better off as a result. :rolleyes:

MJ224
9th October 2018, 09:27 AM
Single use plastic is an abomination. How can we squander such a valuable resource. Our Kids and their Kids and their Kids are gonna have all the problems we are making, if humanity survives that long...……...:(

Graham_of_Rainham
9th October 2018, 09:45 AM
The entire history of the planet is full of extinctions. Why should humans be any different from what’s gone before.

One way of helping the environment are the many reforestation programs and all the other green projects. Reducing waste of any kind can only be good for all of us. While individuals are not going to offset the huge emissions of industrial production and energy production, the sum of small efforts will go some way to slowing the process. And, if it is all natural cycles etc., at least the place will look better with out all the plastic waste and we could just save a bit money.

TimP
9th October 2018, 09:50 AM
There is no #12!


That might mean making sacrifices, but modern consumerism has made us so wasteful that I a sure most of us could make changes to our lifestyle without noticeable hardship.


Agreed, and I think for the most part a lot of us are, particularly in Europe but the problem is a lot worse elsewhere, particularly places like India where there are billions of people who simply don’t care and have no pride in their surroundings. Let’s be honest it’s pretty bad in the UK compared with France. Rural roads there are pretty clear of rubbish yet get back to the UK and literally leaving the ferry port you are surrounded by litter. Whilst as I said were pretty good in the West, there is still a sub culture of moronic people that don’t think twice about hurling litter from their cars.
We can clean up pollution all we like but until someone instills some pride in everyone to care about their surroundings then it’ll be a never ending task to clear it all up.
We send containers full of crap back to the Far East, do we seriously believe they deal with is responsibly? I certainly don’t but hey, it’s solved our immediate problem of what to do with it. I’m as guilty as the next man of just buying something new when whatever it is fails, unlike 40 years ago when stuff got repaired. Nowadays stuff just isn’t repairable unless you’ve got specialist kit. Gone are the days when you could repair a car radio, say, with the previously mentioned scope and an AVO. Now I see a failed item as an excuse to buy something new and shiny yet fully accept that’s not good or sustainable in the longer term.

Jim Ford
9th October 2018, 09:57 AM
Actually I do think that #4 and #11 on your list are true but the rest are garbage. Thanks.

<snort!>

Jim

Gate Keeper
9th October 2018, 10:46 AM
Single use plastic is an abomination. How can we squander such a valuable resource. Our Kids and their Kids and their Kids are gonna have all the problems we are making, if humanity survives that long...……...:(

Mark, if you come to Kenya, don't have any plastic bags in your luggage. If caught carrying a plastic bag, it is a serious offence. It is a step in the right direction https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/aug/28/kenya-brings-in-worlds-toughest-plastic-bag-ban-four-years-jail-or-40000-fine

The Technician
9th October 2018, 10:55 AM
Mark, if you come to Kenya, don't have any plastic bags in your luggage. If caught carrying a plastic bag, it is a serious offence. It is a step in the right direction https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/aug/28/kenya-brings-in-worlds-toughest-plastic-bag-ban-four-years-jail-or-40000-fine

How do you get round that you have to have any liquids in a clear plastic bag when you board the plane :rolleyes:

TimP
9th October 2018, 10:59 AM
The Kenya thing, would it include zip-lock bags and the like?
Often carry a plastic bag or two, just to put things like shoes and dirty washing in.

Gate Keeper
9th October 2018, 11:29 AM
The Kenya thing, would it include zip-lock bags and the like?
Often carry a plastic bag or two, just to put things like shoes and dirty washing in.

I have not tested the authorities with a zip lock bag.

I must have a sign on my forehead which says "Mug-search me" ...

Most of the time, customs at the airport ask if I have anything to declare and when I do, they say 'have you a list of what it is and do you have the receipts'. Import tax is 40% tax. We then come to an agreement, without my bags being searched (usually).

In Feb this year it was my wife's birthday and a nephew in the UK who works for Dyson, asked if I could take her a Dyson Hairdryer, worth £349.

At customs, I was stopped and they asked me if I had anything to declare. I told the guy, I had a hair dryer in my hand luggage for my wife. He said 'Oh it can't be worth anymore than £10, he laughed and without seeing it, he said its not as though its $1000, then he said, there is nothing VAT'ble here' and told me to be on my way.

I think what they would be looking for a supermarket carrier bag, moreso than a little zip-lock bag that you will keep and not throw away. Last year at a police road block in Nairobi when my car was searched, I was caught by the police for having a black plastic bag in the boot. I pleaded ignorance and was let off with a small fine. From that, I learned to keep my car things in a cardboard box and never to carry any plastic bag.

Gate Keeper
9th October 2018, 11:32 AM
How do you get round that you have to have any liquids in a clear plastic bag when you board the plane :rolleyes:

So far, I have not been challenged over a 100ml bottle of Listerine I carry in the hand luggage. I never throw it away and use it as a refill for the mouthwash.

Jim Ford
9th October 2018, 03:06 PM
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/10/07/michael-gove-let-homeowners-scavenge-waste-council-dumps/

But as usual, Newsthump has a better take on it:

http://newsthump.com/2018/10/09/pensioners-rummaging-through-scrapheaps-is-what-brexit-is-all-about-says-michael-gove/

Jim

TimP
9th October 2018, 03:09 PM
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/10/07/michael-gove-let-homeowners-scavenge-waste-council-dumps/

But as usual, Newsthump has a better take on it:

http://newsthump.com/2018/10/09/pensioners-rummaging-through-scrapheaps-is-what-brexit-is-all-about-says-michael-gove/

Jim

But you’ll only get sloppy seconds after the tip nazis have had their rummage first.

Jim Ford
9th October 2018, 03:09 PM
Along with climate change, it seems that deniers want to believe all sorts of nonsense. Pick from any of:

- NASA never went to the Moon
- The earth is flat
- 9/11 was a conspiracy by the US government
- Trump is a good President
- White people are smarter
- Megan Markle is a robot
- Various secret groups are controlling the world
- Lizards are controlling the world
- The Holocaust didn't happen
- Princess Diana was murdered by the Royal Family
- Brexit is a good idea


Re. number 4. Newsthump spot-on as usual:

http://newsthump.com/2018/10/05/toilet-paper-boards-air-force-one-still-attached-to-massive-turd/

Jim

TimP
9th October 2018, 03:13 PM
How can anyone think Trump is a good idea. I asked an American couple if there was anywhere, anywhere at all, to read any positive articles about him and his clowns, the answer was ‘well, yes, but it’s always buried on page 3 or 4 of the Washington Post’
So unless you’re reading the Redneck Weekly (incorporating The Racist and Misogony Times) you’re unlikely to come across any pro Trump propaganda.

Naughty Nigel
9th October 2018, 03:54 PM
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/10/07/michael-gove-let-homeowners-scavenge-waste-council-dumps/

But as usual, Newsthump has a better take on it:

http://newsthump.com/2018/10/09/pensioners-rummaging-through-scrapheaps-is-what-brexit-is-all-about-says-michael-gove/

Jim

Ah well, I have already done that!

I rescued a perfectly good Coutant 35V 5A power supply that was about to go into the skip because it wasn't regulating properly. A pair of new 2N3055's fixed that.

I rescued more than a dozen reams of very nice 100 gram paper from the back of a Range Rover that were about to be recycled because of a small logo at the bottom right of each sheet. (I think the business had either ceased trading or had changed their corporate logo.)

Best of all, shortly after we were married we bought a new Hoover from the electric light showrooms in Durham using a £30 trade in allowance - except we had nothing to trade in. The Saleswoman didn't seem bothered as long as she made a sale but a few weeks later we received a stroppy letter from the Electricity Board warning that if they didn't receive our old vacuum cleaner within two weeks they would add £30 to our electricity bill!

Following a trip to the tip and a £2 backhander I took great pleasure in visiting the electric light showrooms with the scruffiest, dirtiest Hoover you have ever seen. The expression on the Saleswoman's face when I handed it to her with gloved hands was priceless. :D

('Like a princess holding a Navvies dick' came to mind.) *yes

TimP
9th October 2018, 05:03 PM
('Like a princess holding a Navvies dick' came to mind.) *yes

Well that’s an expression I’ve never heard before, and a good one too.

Rebecca
9th October 2018, 05:25 PM
('Like a princess holding a Navvies dick' came to mind.) *yes

Nigel, are you commenting from personal experience or merely covert observation ? :D

Rebecca

Naughty Nigel
9th October 2018, 05:29 PM
Nigel, are you commenting from personal experience or merely covert observation ? :D

Rebecca

Well definitely not from personal experience Rebecca because I am not a navvy, and I don't think I know any real princesses. :D

It was a term often used by one of my colleagues in the Lab; a broad Geordie and a real character who always reminded me of the actor Tim Healy. As you can imagine it always cracked me up! :D

Zuiko
9th October 2018, 05:33 PM
The truth is we are NOT going to save the planet because the biggest single driver of human endeavour is greed and greed trumps everything else, however noble, however truthful, however sensible. It is like a built in obsolescence hard-wired to our brains.

Way back in 1989 Ben Elton's first novel, "Stark" was published, a brilliantly funny satire of this very problem that has proven to be more prophetic than anyone could have known.

In many ways we are wasting our time trying to fight the problem; because of greed and self-interest on an individual, national and global scale, whatever we do will always be too little, too late. Rather than prolong the misery we might as well get it over quickly, in the hope that a few surviving species of other animals might adapt and prosper in a new and very different world as humanity becomes marginalised or even extinct. Sorry to depress every one, but we might as well face up to it now rather than be surprised when it actually happens and much sooner than we think. But don't worry, it's in our DNA.

Rebecca
9th October 2018, 05:38 PM
Well definitely not from personal experience Rebecca because I am not a navvy, and I don't think I know any real princesses. :D

I can't honestly say I know any Princesses either Nigel, but as a receptionist I've certainly met a few Queens :D

Rebecca

TimP
9th October 2018, 05:39 PM
“Greed trumps”. I see what you did there!

Zuiko
9th October 2018, 05:51 PM
“greed trumps”. I see what you did there!

;) ;) ;) ;)

pdk42
9th October 2018, 06:36 PM
Actually I do think that #4 and #11 on your list are true but the rest are garbage. Thanks.

I don't believe man made climate change is making as big a difference as is claimed. Worrying ourselves sick over it won't stop all the other natural cycles from continuing to happen.

I will leave the personal insults to those that cant make valid arguments.
So you don't believe it's making such a big difference. But people who have studied it MUCH more than you believe it IS making a big difference. They believe it because of the weight of evidence. Have you watched the video I posted?

Opinions from the ignorant should not weigh as heavily as evidence and opinion from the informed. If someone who knew nothing about photography suggested that the best results are obtained by shooting everything at ISO 12800 because they'd seen great shots at that speed would you accept it? If an Olympus visionary suggested it was nonsense would that make the opinions balanced?

Big policy issues like this have to be informed by evidence and expert opinion. Views from populists who want to appease the masses will not do. There is no conspiracy - the problem is that kicking the carbon habit will be painful to our way of life and denial is the easy option.

As to natural cycles - sure there have been climate changes in the past, but they've occurred over millenia. We're changing the climate in a century or less. That's a really critical point that's seldom made when deniers make these" natural cycles" arguments.

I made the analogy to smoking and cancer earlier. It's instructive to look back at the science of this during the 50s and 60s. You see exactly the same pattern of deniers pushing a whole range of arguments to confuse the issue, whilst the balance of informed opinion was clearly on the side of the causal link. There was no clinching argument - just informed opinion and evidence pointing inexorably to the conclusion which we all now accept.

I'm sure the same will happen with AGW - but unlike smoking & cancer the consequences if we leave it too long will be horrendous.

Beagletorque
9th October 2018, 07:59 PM
If the non believers are right and we do nothing then that's just fine.
If they are wrong and we do nothing then we are all in the sh1te.

Same with Brexit, but who will take responsibility and if they did what difference would it make. It's all too little too late.

Basically we are all f--ked as Zuiko says.:eek:

It is the history of civilisation, make the most of it while you can you'll be dead soon enough anyways.:rolleyes:

Jim Ford
9th October 2018, 09:46 PM
The truth is we are NOT going to save the planet because the biggest single driver of human endeavour is greed and greed trumps everything else, however noble, however truthful, however sensible. It is like a built in obsolescence hard-wired to our brains.

Way back in 1989 Ben Elton's first novel, "Stark" was published, a brilliantly funny satire of this very problem that has proven to be more prophetic than anyone could have known.

In many ways we are wasting our time trying to fight the problem; because of greed and self-interest on an individual, national and global scale, whatever we do will always be too little, too late. Rather than prolong the misery we might as well get it over quickly, in the hope that a few surviving species of other animals might adapt and prosper in a new and very different world as humanity becomes marginalised or even extinct. Sorry to depress every one, but we might as well face up to it now rather than be surprised when it actually happens and much sooner than we think. But don't worry, it's in our DNA.

All pretty much my thoughts, John!

Jim

MJ224
10th October 2018, 07:42 AM
Sounds like party time then John, mines a double....*chr

Beagletorque
10th October 2018, 07:55 AM
And Australia with the largest coral reef in the world backs coal.

Jim Ford
10th October 2018, 09:36 AM
And Australia with the largest coral reef in the world backs coal.

Presumably they've done the costing, and coal brings in more money than the Great Barrier Reef tourists.

Jim

TimP
10th October 2018, 09:52 AM
But when the coal is outlawed and it’s too late for the GBR then what happens?
Maybe they need to speak to Trump as he’s got access to something called ‘clean coal’ amazing huh!

Idiots. Can’t see beyond their bottom line.

Naughty Nigel
11th October 2018, 09:08 AM
I couldn't help but notice the irony of two top news stories on the BBC website this morning.

"Record-breaking 'hell' storm" and "Countdown on for world's longest non-stop flight."

I wonder if there might be a connection? :(



http://e-group.uk.net/gallery/data/500/BBC_News_Screenshot_131018.jpg (http://e-group.uk.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/100558)

TimP
11th October 2018, 09:23 AM
I couldn't help but notice the irony of two top news stories on the BBC website this morning.

"Record-breaking 'hell' storm" and "Countdown on for world's longest non-stop flight."

I wonder if there might be a connection? :(


Possibly but what do you suggest we do?
Price flying out of the reach of ordinary people and it becomes the preserve of the rich. Travel is a good thing, it broadens the mind, makes you realise that in the main, people are all the same and wanting one thing, to get on with life.

Naughty Nigel
11th October 2018, 09:29 AM
.... people are all the same and wanting one thing, to get on with life.

But at what cost? Where do you draw the line?

TimP
11th October 2018, 09:47 AM
If I knew the answer I wouldn’t be sat here with a bad back typing this stuff!
Whatever the answer it will probably negatively impact the ‘ordinary man or woman’ and I don’t really want to live in a world where the rich are even more privileged than they deserve.
I thinking flying is far more beneficial than, say, motor sport or plastic toys(!)
Actually I’ve lost the plot here, blame industrial strength co-codamols and naproxen!
Maybe air travel will naturally decrease as non-drinking millennials have no reason to go to Magaluf for a pi55 up!

pdk42
11th October 2018, 10:42 AM
I think if we are to cut CO2 emissions to the levels we need then aviation will need to play a part. The only lever we have to control anything really is economics. The cost of flying needs to go up so that we do less of it. That will mean flying becomes the preserve of the rich - just like it was in its early days.

Maybe better internet bandwidth and latency along with better conference facilities will replace some of the need for travel - especially for business.

A great example of all this is that two of my colleagues are making a trip this coming weekend to Seattle for a 1 day meeting and a dinner - a three day trip in total with about 18 hours in the air. It'll probably cost £10k when all is considered but given the prize it's deemed money well spent. If it were £100k then we'd find an alternative. Economics is a blunt instrument but I think it's one of the few things that history has shown to be an effective tool to change behaviours.

Of course the only way to make this sort of change is for concerted action by all the major economic blocks - which of course is what the IPCC is trying to make happen. Things like Brexit and Trump only make these sort of initiatives harder.

Gate Keeper
11th October 2018, 11:53 AM
I think if we are to cut CO2 emissions to the levels we need then aviation will need to play a part. The only lever we have to control anything really is economics. The cost of flying needs to go up so that we do less of it. That will mean flying becomes the preserve of the rich - just like it was in its early days.

Maybe better internet bandwidth and latency along with better conference facilities will replace some of the need for travel - especially for business.

A great example of all this is that two of my colleagues are making a trip this coming weekend to Seattle for a 1 day meeting and a dinner - a three day trip in total with about 18 hours in the air. It'll probably cost £10k when all is considered but given the prize it's deemed money well spent. If it were £100k then we'd find an alternative. Economics is a blunt instrument but I think it's one of the few things that history has shown to be an effective tool to change behaviours.

Of course the only way to make this sort of change is for concerted action by all the major economic blocks - which of course is what the IPCC is trying to make happen. Things like Brexit and Trump only make these sort of initiatives harder.

Since the Brexiteers won the vote, I have seen my airfare from London to Nairobi escalate by as much as £200 more than it was before the vote. Air travel for people like myself is essential and we are not rich. When I worked in Medi-Vacs, a typical flight from London to Tokyo would cost £4000 pp in business class and its the insurance companies who picks up the cost and of course its really the public who are paying for the service via their premiums. Company policy was any flight over 5 hours, its a seat in business class and if business class is full, it is first class. I had to do a flight with an anaesthetist from Jamaica to London, a stretcher case which took up 12 seats (economy). There will always be people who have to fly for work, pleasure or in an emergency. I don't think that putting up the price of flying is going to be the complete answer.

Zuiko
11th October 2018, 12:11 PM
One way to restrict damage to the environment and climate without the greatest burden falling on the poor rather than the rich would be for each of us, and every business and corporation, to be issued with an annual damage allowance which cannot be exceeded. That way, we would have to choose which activities were most important to us.

wornish
11th October 2018, 12:23 PM
One way to restrict damage to the environment and climate without the greatest burden falling on the poor rather than the rich would be for each of us, and every business and corporation, to be issued with an annual damage allowance which cannot be exceeded. That way, we would have to choose which activities were most important to us.

This idea has merits. Isn't it what the current carbon trading scheme for large corporations tries to achieve.

TimP
11th October 2018, 12:39 PM
The likes of any of us on here are not going to save the planet, that job falls to the politicians and corporates of this world. I’m sure we all do our bit (I know we try our best) but until something is mooted / done properly at a much higher level all we are doing is pi55ing into a very strong wind. It all feels a bit pointless when you hear the next world congress on climate change is to be held in yet another high profile city with all the delegates and their ever expanding entourages, along with the news agencies etc, are all flying off to the aforementioned cities to spout their advice that the ordinary man needs to do much more. How about they lead the way and video conference the crap instead of adding extra pollution by their very act. Us making soup out of spare tomatoes ain’t gonna save the world any time soon. Stop the rich buying multiple homes, stop the Russian and Arab ‘elite’ buying up half of London and then not living there. Start at the top before you hammer the rest of us, we’ve had the burden enough already. Grrrrr!

Naughty Nigel
11th October 2018, 01:33 PM
Possibly but what do you suggest we do?
Price flying out of the reach of ordinary people and it becomes the preserve of the rich. Travel is a good thing, it broadens the mind, makes you realise that in the main, people are all the same and wanting one thing, to get on with life.

You could use those arguments to justify anything though. We have laws to protect the public against direct risks, (i.e. speed limits, H&S, employment law, etc.), but we neglect indirect or secondary risks, especially where the environment is concerned.

I am not suggesting that we should all stop flying or that flying should again be the preserve of the rich, but I would counter that a great many fights are totally unnecessary. I would happily fly less than I do now, (I already use the train wherever possible to visit Europe), but it has become "expected" that everyone will fly.

What about the Olympics and major Football events. Why are these so often held in faraway places so that competitors and fans have to fly vast distances to get there?

But air passengers account for just a fraction of air travel. How much air freight is there in the sky at one time, including bottled water being shipped from France and Italy to the UK? Never mind the plastic bottles, can we not make our own water?

Bodies for the new high speed trains being built in Newton Aycliffe are air freighted from Japan. Perhaps we should learn how to weld aluminium in the UK?

The 'Just in Time' industry is also a huge problem. There was an item on the BBC news recently about Toyota and Brexit, where it was explained that every car was ordered individually, and that parts of each vehicle must be delivered on the day of manufacture for their production schedules to work. Given that many of these components come from all around Europe and beyond might it not be possible to make weekly rather than daily deliveries?

Nissan, who have a big factory at Sunderland, actually stopped Sunderland Football Club from building a new stadium close to their works because it would interrupt their just in time deliveries. Is it really so hard to keep enough supplies for two or three day's work? :(

wornish
11th October 2018, 01:40 PM
You could use those arguments to justify anything though. We have laws to protect the public against direct risks, (i.e. speed limits, H&S, employment law, etc.), but we neglect indirect or secondary risks, especially where the environment is concerned.

...............

But air passengers account for just a fraction of air travel. How much air freight is there in the sky at one time, including bottled water being shipped from France and Italy to the UK? Never mind the plastic bottles, can we not make our own water?

Bodies for the new high speed trains being built in Newton Aycliffe are air freighted from Japan. Perhaps we should learn how to weld aluminium in the UK?

The 'Just in Time' industry is also a huge problem. There was an item on the BBC news recently about Toyota and Brexit, where it was explained that every car was ordered individually, and that parts of each vehicle must be delivered on the day of manufacture for their production schedules to work. Given that many of these components come from all around Europe and beyond might it not be possible to make weekly rather than daily deliveries?

Nissan, who have a big factory at Sunderland, actually stopped Sunderland Football Club from building a new stadium close to their works because it would interrupt their just in time deliveries. Is it really so hard to keep enough supplies for two or three day's work? :(

Totally agree, car manufacturers are just making excuses for being lazy.

I really would like to know what the extra cost of using weekly or even monthly deliveries vs daily deliveries actually is. The Car manufacturer might save a tiny amount on storage but the suppliers take the hit. Bet you the car manufacturers don't pay their suppliers on a daily basis!

pdk42
11th October 2018, 02:47 PM
Totally agree, car manufacturers are just making excuses for being lazy.

I really would like to know what the extra cost of using weekly or even monthly deliveries vs daily deliveries actually is. The Car manufacturer might save a tiny amount on storage but the suppliers take the hit. Bet you the car manufacturers don't pay their suppliers on a daily basis!
You don't understand Dave. JIT manufacturing saves an enormous amount in terms of wasted production and it reduces inefficiencies in the manufacturing process. It also makes companies more able to respond quickly to changing customer needs. There may be more costs in transport, but the saving in not manufacturing things that aren't needed and significantly reducing warehouse facilities more than makes up for it.

Of course there are always some things that don't work with JIT (small suppliers, long supply chains etc), but they are usually only at the margin. If too much cannot be sourced via JIT then you become uncompetitive. That is why the car manufacturers are against Brexit btw.

wornish
11th October 2018, 02:57 PM
Your don't understand Dave. JIT manufacturing saves an enormous amount in terms of wasted production and it reduces inefficiencies in the manufacturing process. It also makes companies more able to respond quickly to changing customer needs. There may be more costs in transport, but the saving in not manufacturing things that aren't needed and significantly reducing warehouse facilities more than makes up for it.

I do understand, but if it takes 1 - 6+ months to get your new car delivered to your spec from order time what mis forecasting is there? Its not as if the car manufacturers don't have a backlog.

As I said I would really like to see the actual savings in £ terms (or as a percentage of total cost.)

For a product that is constantly changing due to customer demand then yes more frequent JIT deliveries are important.

TimP
11th October 2018, 02:58 PM
Of course there are always some things that don't work with JIT (small suppliers, long supply chains etc), but they are usually only at the margin. If too much cannot be sourced via JIT then you become uncompetitive. That is why the car manufacturers are against Brexit btw.
I thought the main reason car companies were against Brexit was due to the fact that significant numbers of major components have to cross and recross borders many times for a complete car to be produced. Add in any customs / paperwork delays at those borders and it all becomes ridiculous.

wornish
11th October 2018, 03:00 PM
I thought the main reason car companies were against Brexit was due to the fact that significant numbers of major components have to cross and recross borders many times for a complete car to be produced. Add in any customs / paperwork delays at those borders and it all becomes ridiculous.

Non-EU based manufacturers seem to compete - funny that.

TimP
11th October 2018, 03:10 PM
Non-EU based manufacturers seem to compete - funny that.

Presumably because they are not pissing about sending engines from one country to another, then back again etc. I’d presume that something like a High-and-Dry starts life in Korea and all its component parts, for the most part, remain within Korea’s borders before they get loaded onto a ship as a complete vehicle to go to the country of sale.

Walti
11th October 2018, 04:20 PM
Well I'm trying to do my bit, just assisting in putting together a technology proposal to reduce carbon emissions from a system by 92%....

can't quite make it 100% but am trying!

TimP
11th October 2018, 04:33 PM
You could make it 100% if the system wasn’t necessary in the first place, like HS2 for example!

pdk42
11th October 2018, 07:46 PM
Presumably because they are not pissing about sending engines from one country to another, then back again etc. I’d presume that something like a High-and-Dry starts life in Korea and all its component parts, for the most part, remain within Korea’s borders before they get loaded onto a ship as a complete vehicle to go to the country of sale.

Quite. And that's the whole reason why Brexit is a dumb idea economically. European car manufacturing has become tightly integrated with suppliers working across many countries. The UK can't just grow a whole industry of component manufacturers overnight.

Naughty Nigel
12th October 2018, 07:22 AM
You don't understand Dave. JIT manufacturing saves an enormous amount in terms of wasted production and it reduces inefficiencies in the manufacturing process. It also makes companies more able to respond quickly to changing customer needs. There may be more costs in transport, but the saving in not manufacturing things that aren't needed and significantly reducing warehouse facilities more than makes up for it.

Of course there are always some things that don't work with JIT (small suppliers, long supply chains etc), but they are usually only at the margin. If too much cannot be sourced via JIT then you become uncompetitive. That is why the car manufacturers are against Brexit btw.

I can see the advantages of JIT - when it works - but all too often it seems to be used as an alternative to any kind of advance planning.

As others have said, you have to wait at least a month for a new car, so there is no reason why a week's supply cannot be bought in. The majority of components are common to all models in the range anyway so why do they have to be delivered by the day? Surely the cost of a delay in the supply chain on one minor but crucial component far outweighs any savings?

TimP
12th October 2018, 07:56 AM
The UK can't just grow a whole industry of component manufacturers overnight.

Oh I think we could, think back to the heady days of British Leyland.....oh! Wait!

Beagletorque
12th October 2018, 08:09 AM
JIT does not save anything overall, just makes the big companies life easier.
The small companies still have to make, store and then deliver in the exact moment.

DerekW
12th October 2018, 10:33 AM
JIT is better than having thousands of completed expensive items wairting for customers.

Naughty Nigel
12th October 2018, 10:39 AM
JIT is better than having thousands of completed expensive items waiting for customers.

That is true; but then the British motor industry has hundreds of thousands of 'pre-registered' vehicles standing rotting in fields around the UK ordered only so that dealers can keep their franchises and possibly to maintain their discounts.

What is JIT about that? :(

DerekW
12th October 2018, 10:51 AM
But the pre regs are not the responsibility of the manufacturer but of the retailer and can provide a bargain for the customer who is not critical of the spec of the vehicle.

Also the manufacturers create hi spec low mileage cars for the used trade to encourage the customer into the dealership and to provide a lower entry price into buying the vehicles.

They also enable the distributor to provide a perq car to relatively junior staff to offset salary.

Naughty Nigel
13th October 2018, 02:42 PM
But the pre regs are not the responsibility of the manufacturer but of the retailer and can provide a bargain for the customer who is not critical of the spec of the vehicle.

Also the manufacturers create hi spec low mileage cars for the used trade to encourage the customer into the dealership and to provide a lower entry price into buying the vehicles.

They also enable the distributor to provide a perq car to relatively junior staff to offset salary.

But it isn't 'JIT' is it? :)

Jim Ford
16th October 2018, 06:40 PM
Perhaps they could set aside lanes of motorways adjacent to car plants for storage of parts - y'know like they're doing for lorries on the M20 and M26

Jim

Graham_of_Rainham
16th October 2018, 09:08 PM
I can't help but wonder how much electricity is used by people posting pictures of "funny" cats, dogs, kids, etc., on FaceBook, Twitter, Instagram, etc..

Then there are all the commuters, locked into their smartphones...

wornish
16th October 2018, 09:12 PM
If car manufacturers can't plan their requirements 1 week in advance they deserve to fail.
Or . Get some decent management who can.

Total non issue.

Naughty Nigel
16th October 2018, 09:19 PM
I can't help but wonder how much electricity is used by people posting pictures of "funny" cats, dogs, kids, etc., on FaceBook, Twitter, Instagram, etc..

Then there are all the commuters, locked into their smartphones...

Well it will double when smartphones all get wireless charging. :rolleyes:

I wonder how much energy is wasted by householders leaving their houses looking like Blackpool illuminations whenever they go out so that burglars think somebody is in? Then there are CCTV and alarm systems that have to be bought and powered on, not to mention those who are too afraid to walk out at night and so take a taxi or the car.

Maybe it would save energy if burglary and violent crime was dealt with more effectively at an early stage?

TimP
17th October 2018, 06:19 AM
Well it will double when smartphones all get wireless charging. :rolleyes:

I wonder how much energy is wasted by householders leaving their houses looking like Blackpool illuminations whenever they go out so that burglars think somebody is in? Then there are CCTV and alarm systems that have to be bought and powered on, not to mention those who are too afraid to walk out at night and so take a taxi or the car.

Maybe it would save energy if burglary and violent crime was dealt with more effectively at an early stage?
Why will it double with wireless charging? It’s great, use it for mine, just need to get a compatible phone for the wife to be able to use one.
Houses with modern led lights shouldn’t be anything like they would have been with power hungry incandescent bulbs of the past.

Maybe the police should just do their jobs properly and no that doesn’t mean simply phoning through a ‘crime number’ for insurance purposes if you’ve been burgled. Catching the worthless scrotes would be a good start.

Naughty Nigel
17th October 2018, 07:55 AM
Why will it double with wireless charging? It’s great, use it for mine, just need to get a compatible phone for the wife to be able to use one.

Wireless charging is convenient but not very efficient. It is a bit like a transformer except that the windings are a long way apart from each other. It is only accepted because the power involved is quite low.

Keep any form of magnetic media well away too!



Houses with modern led lights shouldn’t be anything like they would have been with power hungry incandescent bulbs of the past.

Maybe the police should just do their jobs properly and no that doesn’t mean simply phoning through a ‘crime number’ for insurance purposes if you’ve been burgled. Catching the worthless scrotes would be a good start.

LED lights are more efficient but they still need power as do CCTV systems. And there are still many thousands of cheapo halogen security lights around, all using 500 Watts apiece!

TimP
17th October 2018, 08:08 AM
Magnetic media? What’s that then?
(seriously, I’m struggling to think of any in the house anymore. Might be some old cassettes somewhere plus some really old 8”, 5.25” and 3.5” floppies in a box somewhere!)

It’s scary to think of those 50w halogens, eating up juice like there’s not tomorrow. We’ve not got a single non-led bulb in the place, except for a 60w lead lamp that gets plugged in for loft occasional excursions and even that I’m thinking of popping an led in next time I’m up there.
Shops are truly wasteful, especially the one who, at this time of year, have heaters blasting away above the doors, that must wate colossal amounts.
I’m not going to worry about my little waitress charging pad as I reckon it uses a fraction of what charging my camera batteries use!
Now, if only the sun would make an appearance so I could get warmer for free!

Jim Ford
17th October 2018, 09:05 AM
If car manufacturers can't plan their requirements 1 week in advance they deserve to fail.
Or . Get some decent management who can.

Total non issue.

What, like many posters on this forum?

Reminds me of a George Burns saying 'The problem with this country is that the people that know how to run it are all cutting hair or driving taxis!'

Jim

DerekW
17th October 2018, 10:54 AM
The car manufacturers do plan their requirements down to the last second as to when the specific order is travelling down the assembly line.

wornish
17th October 2018, 11:37 AM
The car manufacturers do plan their requirements down to the last second as to when the specific order is travelling down the assembly line.

Exactly, my point. but they claim can't plan what deliveries they need to cover 1 week lead time if we leave the EU.

As I said its just them being lazy.

Jim Ford
17th October 2018, 12:56 PM
Exactly, my point. but they claim can't plan what deliveries they need to cover 1 week lead time if we leave the EU.

As I said its just them being lazy.

I'm sure the car manufacturers CEOs would appreciate your input!

;)

Jim

wornish
17th October 2018, 02:00 PM
I'm sure the car manufacturers CEOs would appreciate your input!

;)

Jim

No they won't. They have their hands over their eyes and their thumbs in their ears. Talk about playing politics, and our pathetic MP's just fall for it.

Otto
17th October 2018, 05:02 PM
If they're falling for it, why are they proceeding with Brexit, the polar opposite of what manufacturing industry is telling them? These companies are multi-national, if we make life difficult for them they'll do what any sensible company would do - leave and move production to their other facilities that don't have the problems. They most certainly do not have their eyes and ears closed.

Naughty Nigel
30th October 2018, 11:06 AM
I am not an avid Grauniad reader or George Monbiot fan but once in a while they come up with a gem that should be shared.

"The Gift of Death

Pathological consumption has become so normalised that we scarcely notice it.


By George Monbiot, published in the Guardian 11th December 2012

There’s nothing they need, nothing they don’t own already, nothing they even want. So you buy them a solar-powered waving queen; a belly button brush; a silver-plated ice cream tub holder; a “hilarious” inflatable zimmer frame; a confection of plastic and electronics called Terry the Swearing Turtle; or – and somehow I find this significant – a Scratch Off World wall map.

They seem amusing on the first day of Christmas, daft on the second, embarrassing on the third. By the twelfth they’re in landfill. For thirty seconds of dubious entertainment, or a hedonic stimulus that lasts no longer than a nicotine hit, we commission the use of materials whose impacts will ramify for generations.

Researching her film The Story of Stuff, Annie Leonard discovered that of the materials flowing through the consumer economy, only 1% remain in use six months after sale(1). Even the goods we might have expected to hold onto are soon condemned to destruction through either planned obsolescence (breaking quickly) or perceived obsolesence (becoming unfashionable).

But many of the products we buy, especially for Christmas, cannot become obsolescent. The term implies a loss of utility, but they had no utility in the first place. An electronic drum-machine t-shirt; a Darth Vader talking piggy bank; an ear-shaped i-phone case; an individual beer can chiller; an electronic wine breather; a sonic screwdriver remote control; bacon toothpaste; a dancing dog: no one is expected to use them, or even look at them, after Christmas Day. They are designed to elicit thanks, perhaps a snigger or two, and then be thrown away.

The fatuity of the products is matched by the profundity of the impacts. Rare materials, complex electronics, the energy needed for manufacture and transport are extracted and refined and combined into compounds of utter pointlessness. When you take account of the fossil fuels whose use we commission in other countries, manufacturing and consumption are responsible for more than half of our carbon dioxide production(2). We are screwing the planet to make solar-powered bath thermometers and desktop crazy golfers.

People in eastern Congo are massacred to facilitate smart phone upgrades of ever diminishing marginal utility(3). Forests are felled to make “personalised heart-shaped wooden cheese board sets”. Rivers are poisoned to manufacture talking fish. This is pathological consumption: a world-consuming epidemic of collective madness, rendered so normal by advertising and the media that we scarcely notice what has happened to us.

In 2007, the journalist Adam Welz records, 13 rhinos were killed by poachers in South Africa. This year, so far, 585 have been shot(4). No one is entirely sure why. But one answer is that very rich people in Vietnam are now sprinkling ground rhino horn on their food or snorting it like cocaine to display their wealth. It’s grotesque, but it scarcely differs from what almost everyone in industrialised nations is doing: trashing the living world through pointless consumption.

This boom has not happened by accident. Our lives have been corralled and shaped in order to encourage it. World trade rules force countries to participate in the festival of junk. Governments cut taxes, deregulate business, manipulate interest rates to stimulate spending. But seldom do the engineers of these policies stop and ask “spending on what?”. When every conceivable want and need has been met (among those who have disposable money), growth depends on selling the utterly useless. The solemnity of the state, its might and majesty, are harnessed to the task of delivering Terry the Swearing Turtle to our doors.

Grown men and women devote their lives to manufacturing and marketing this rubbish, and dissing the idea of living without it. “I always knit my gifts”, says a woman in a television ad for an electronics outlet. “Well you shouldn’t,” replies the narrator(5). An advertisement for Google’s latest tablet shows a father and son camping in the woods. Their enjoyment depends on the Nexus 7’s special features(6). The best things in life are free, but we’ve found a way of selling them to you.

The growth of inequality that has accompanied the consumer boom ensures that the rising economic tide no longer lifts all boats. In the US in 2010 a remarkable 93% of the growth in incomes accrued to the top 1% of the population(7). The old excuse, that we must trash the planet to help the poor, simply does not wash. For a few decades of extra enrichment for those who already possess more money than they know how to spend, the prospects of everyone else who will live on this earth are diminished.

So effectively have governments, the media and advertisers associated consumption with prosperity and happiness that to say these things is to expose yourself to opprobrium and ridicule. Witness last week’s Moral Maze programme, in which most of the panel lined up to decry the idea of consuming less, and to associate it, somehow, with authoritarianism(8). When the world goes mad, those who resist are denounced as lunatics.

Bake them a cake, write them a poem, give them a kiss, tell them a joke, but for god’s sake stop trashing the planet to tell someone you care. All it shows is that you don’t.

www.monbiot.com



1. http://www.storyofstuff.org/movies-all/story-of-stuff/

2. It’s 57%. See https://www.monbiot.com/2010/05/05/carbon-graveyard/

3. See the film Blood in the Mobile. http://bloodinthemobile.org/

4. http://e360.yale.edu/feature/the_dirty_war_against_africas_remaining_rhinos/2595/

5. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7VE2wlDkr8&list=UU25QbTq58EYBGf2_PDTqzFQ&index=9

6. http://www.ubergizmo.com/2012/07/commercial-for-googles-nexus-7-tablet-revealed/

7. Emmanuel Saez, 2nd March 2012. Striking it Richer: the Evolution of Top Incomes in the United States (Updated with 2009 and 2010 estimates). http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/saez-UStopincomes-2010.pdf

8. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01p424r

Otto
30th October 2018, 11:25 AM
Unfortunately with the current system the fact is that the world needs pointless consumption so that people have jobs and income. That's how it works. "The solemnity of the state, its might and majesty, are harnessed to the task of delivering Terry the Swearing Turtle to our doors." How true! But how can it be stopped?

TimP
30th October 2018, 11:47 AM
Unfortunately with the current system the fact is that the world needs pointless consumption so that people have jobs and income. That's how it works. "The solemnity of the state, its might and majesty, are harnessed to the task of delivering Terry the Swearing Turtle to our doors." How true! But how can it be stopped?

Hopefully slowly but surely. Trouble is if we, the west, see sense and stop buying Terry the Swearing Turtle, all those upcoming economies will rightly say they want to have him too, we did so why can’t they?
Education will be key, as perhaps will financial disincentives / incentives. Idiots like Trump and his meddling with things like the EPA are likely to set everything back by years (but hey, Trump and his mates will be richer, so meh!!). We’ve got to see the demonization of plastic as a good start but it needs to build up huge momentum to actually do any good longer term.

Jim Ford
30th October 2018, 12:50 PM
Is 'Terry the Swearing Turtle' a thing? If so, I want one and I want it now - Amazon next day delivery at the latest!

Otto
30th October 2018, 01:11 PM
He is a thing. Available from a number of sources which your favourite search engine will find easily!

TimP
30th October 2018, 01:14 PM
Joking aside, it’d be ironic if the article is the driving force behind selling more of the things!

pdk42
30th October 2018, 03:54 PM
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/30/canada-glaciers-yukon-shrinking

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/30/humanity-wiped-out-animals-since-1970-major-report-finds

Otto
30th October 2018, 04:17 PM
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/30/migrant-caravan-causes-climate-change-central-america

pdk42
30th October 2018, 04:36 PM
This sums up the challenge we face very well:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/30/climate-change-action-effective-ipcc-report-fossil-fuels

Naughty Nigel
30th October 2018, 06:09 PM
Unfortunately with the current system the fact is that the world needs pointless consumption so that people have jobs and income. That's how it works. "The solemnity of the state, its might and majesty, are harnessed to the task of delivering Terry the Swearing Turtle to our doors." How true! But how can it be stopped?


Whether we like it or not we have to make some big changes to our lifestyles if we are to survive as a species. I really don't think 'jobs' and 'income' should be allowed to stand in the way as that argument could be used to justify just about anything from slavery to the use of asbestos, PCP's, CFC's along with anything else that it would be convenient to keep using.

In any case, just how many worthwhile UK jobs rely on sales of Terry the Swearing Turtle, and could the efforts of those concerned not be put to better use elsewhere?

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that led me to start this thread said that we should change our diets to reduce the amount CO2 and methane created by meat production amongst others. That is fairly fundamental stuff, so if we have to adopt a mainly vegetarian diet to help the planet I am sure that giving up Terry the Swearing Turtle will be a minor inconvenience.

Even without cutting meat from our diets how can we justify the amount of perfectly good food which is thrown away because it isn't the right shape, or because it has reached its sell by date? And do we really need to import soft fruit from the other side of the planet 363 days of the year?

Our current obsession with consumerism is a fairly recent phenomenon which seemed to start with the digital age in the 1990's. Before then most people were happy to use what they had until it broke or was no longer repairable. Maybe rather than breeding a generation of van drivers to deliver this worthless crap we should one again build things to last, perhaps using more people than machines, and teaching our young people how to repair things instead of simply choosing the right recycling bin to put them in?

It would also help if we manufactured more in the UK and Europe rather than importing almost everything we buy from China and the Far East.

We also need to change attitudes. The fact that 'somebody else' is paying for the energy that we are wasting should never justify such waste.

Jax
30th October 2018, 06:31 PM
How are we going to save the planet? We can't, it's already too late. The only savior would be the giant asteroid they keep talking about where a collision gets rid of 90% of the human race and we start all over again and hopefully do better next time.

Jax

Zuiko
30th October 2018, 07:10 PM
It would also help if we manufactured more in the UK and Europe rather than importing almost everything we buy from China and the Far East.



Bang goes our post Brexit strategy..... :rolleyes:

Jax
30th October 2018, 07:55 PM
It would also help if we manufactured more in the UK and Europe rather than importing almost everything we buy from China and the Far East.


Bang goes our post Brexit strategy..... :rolleyes:


Bang goes 90% of ebay and Amazon sellers too. Brilliant result Nigel *chr

Jax

Keith-369
30th October 2018, 08:50 PM
Why is it always "We" need to save the planet. "We" are such a small country and whatever "We" do will have very little affect at all.

Why are the "Big" countries not suffering as we seem to do, USA is still in love with 6ltr engines to do the school run, China ......

It always seems to be the UK who taxes everything to 'encourage' us to be greener like using non existent buses etc. etc.

Sorry guys for not being as lucid as many of you are about these things ... but I'm sure you know what I'm getting at.

wornish
30th October 2018, 09:21 PM
How are we going to save the planet? We can't, it's already too late. The only savior would be the giant asteroid they keep talking about where a collision gets rid of 90% of the human race and we start all over again and hopefully do better next time.

Jax

So you would like 6 Billion people to die and it would make you feel better. ?????

WHAT ? *crazy*crazy*crazy*crazy

Jax
30th October 2018, 10:00 PM
So you would like 6 Billion people to die and it would make you feel better. ?????

WHAT ? *crazy*crazy*crazy*crazy

Where did I express that opinion ? :confused:

If you expect to make any headway with your attempts at keeping the Remoaners under control, you really need to read, and more importantly comprehend what's being posted. *yes

I merely stated IMHO it is too late to save the planet.

Countries and governments don't seem to care and nobody seems to take matters seriously. The mighty dollar is far more important than climate change, pollution, melting of the ice at the poles etc. etc. etc.

If there were to be an earth changing catastrophe it would probably mean those who survived would have to start again from basics, learn from our past mistakes, and hopefully not make another monumental mess of the planet as we have done so far and seem determined to continue doing.

I did not suggest I relished the possibility of a catastrophe but nor do I relish the thoughts of the earth in 50 or 100 years time. One thing IS certain however, I won't be around to see it. :)

Jax

Naughty Nigel
30th October 2018, 10:12 PM
I don't think it is too late Jax, but we are running out of time fast and will have to accept major changes to our lifestyles. If nothing else, our attitudes about our use of energy and natural resources will certainly have to change.

I was listening to an interesting debate yesterday about rural A-roads being upgraded to motorways to improve traffic flow. The downside would be that tractors and agricultural vehicles would no longer be able to use the routes they have used almost since the advent of motorised transport.

There seemed to be a never ending queue of listeners ringing to complain about tractors holding them up and making them late for the gym or some other vital meeting. A few callers even suggested that tractors should only be allowed on the roads during off-peak periods. Very few seemed to grasp the concept that agricultural vehicles might just be going about something more important than their own pointless journeys. :(

Jax
30th October 2018, 10:31 PM
Probably the same breed of individual as those who complain about Emergency Ambulances blocking driveways.

Jax

wornish
30th October 2018, 10:37 PM
Where did I express that opinion ? :confused:

If you expect to make any headway with your attempts at keeping the Remoaners under control, you really need to read, and more importantly comprehend what's being posted. *yes

I merely stated IMHO it is too late to save the planet.

Countries and governments don't seem to care and nobody seems to take matters seriously. The mighty dollar is far more important than climate change, pollution, melting of the ice at the poles etc. etc. etc.

If there were to be an earth changing catastrophe it would probably mean those who survived would have to start again from basics, learn from our past mistakes, and hopefully not make another monumental mess of the planet as we have done so far and seem determined to continue doing.

I did not suggest I relished the possibility of a catastrophe but nor do I relish the thoughts of the earth in 50 or 100 years time. One thing IS certain however, I won't be around to see it. :)

Jax

Do you read your own post before posting ? Read it again, it's copied here

"The only savior would be the giant asteroid they keep talking about where a collision gets rid of 90% of the human race and we start all over again and hopefully do better next time."

Your words!

Hence my reply ?

This has nothing to do with Brexit so not sure what your point is ?

Naughty Nigel
30th October 2018, 10:41 PM
Why is it always "We" need to save the planet. "We" are such a small country and whatever "We" do will have very little affect at all.

Why are the "Big" countries not suffering as we seem to do, USA is still in love with 6ltr engines to do the school run, China ......

It always seems to be the UK who taxes everything to 'encourage' us to be greener like using non existent buses etc. etc.

Sorry guys for not being as lucid as many of you are about these things ... but I'm sure you know what I'm getting at.


As a small island on the edge of the Atlantic Ocean we have a vested interest in slowing down global warming because of the risk of coastal erosion, coastal flooding and so forth. But it isn't just the UK that is taking climate change seriously.

The Dutch are particularly worried because a large proportion of the Netherlands is always below sea level, so any further increase in sea levels along with violent storms could result in millions of people being drowned and displaced. Holland is also a major food producer.

The Americans do seem to be taking climate change more seriously, and I am sure recent fires, floods and mudslides will have focused minds to some degree. Just so long as environmental controls don't hit the bottom line. :rolleyes:

China seems to be one of the worst offenders, but don't expect them to change anything whilst we in the west continue to send all of our manufacturing there just to save a few Bob. :(

Jax
30th October 2018, 10:45 PM
This has nothing to do with Brexit so not sure what your point is ?

Once again you appear to be unable to understand a simple comment. :confused:

I rest my case and consider this discussion closed in the interest of forum harmony.

Jax

wornish
30th October 2018, 10:53 PM
Oh dear I seem to have exposed a raw nerve.

Wishing an asteroid to hit the planet, these were your words but I am at fault for calling them out?



Interesting and balanced view.

Jim Ford
30th October 2018, 11:20 PM
I was listening to an interesting debate yesterday about rural A-roads being upgraded to motorways to improve traffic flow. The downside would be that tractors and agricultural vehicles would no longer be able to use the routes they have used almost since the advent of motorised transport.

So will that mean that The Great North Road in your neck of the woods Nigel, won't have Great Tractor Tailbacks of 15 miles plus, if it comes off?

Jim

Naughty Nigel
31st October 2018, 12:45 AM
So will that mean that The Great North Road in your neck of the woods Nigel, won't have Great Tractor Tailbacks of 15 miles plus, if it comes off?

Jim

The Great North Road south of Newcastle has been the A1M motorway for some time now Jim. The final section between Leeming and Scotch Corner was finally completed about a year ago whilst our local section from Scotch Corner to Washington was built in the 1970's. The old, proper Great North Road still survives as the A167 locally but that follows a rather different course.

The A1M was built with proper relief roads to allow non-motorway traffic to travel freely. This was essential in what is primarily an agricultural area. However, I understand the proposed upgrades would have been low cost affairs in which dual carriageways would gain motorway status, minor junctions would be closed and a limited number of strategic junctions built with proper slip roads.

TimP
31st October 2018, 07:18 AM
There seemed to be a never ending queue of listeners ringing to complain about tractors holding them up and making them late for the gym or some other vital meeting. A few callers even suggested that tractors should only be allowed on the roads during off-peak periods. Very few seemed to grasp the concept that agricultural vehicles might just be going about something more important than their own pointless journeys. :(

Tractors never used to be a problem, even here in deepest, darkest Dorset but with the advent of biomass plants springing up everywhere there are definitely a lot more of the things. Farmers around here seem to have jumped on the biomass bandwagon, stopped growing crops for human consumption and are making an absolute killing from the subsidies paid for biomass energy.
The plants that have been there for a few years now are expanding every year which is bringing more tractors. So while they are tractors they’re not Farmer Giles taking a load of hay to his fields they are far more likely to be Farmer Tristan lining his pockets and buying more and more tractors to meet the demand. So I can sympathize with the moaners in this case..

Wally
31st October 2018, 08:22 AM
How to save the planet... by thinking outside the box.

Don't know about anyone else, but I get wound up by having to replace whole itemss because more damage results from attempts to fix a simple part that is unavailable .:( Modular reolacement items that are easy to replace. :tup -->https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-45969676

Good thinking Boo Boo --> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35094050

TimP
31st October 2018, 09:01 AM
When I did my apprenticeship a huge part of the learning process was fixing other people’s bust kit, basic things like kettles could all be repaired (Russell Hobbs certainly with all parts available), brushes for car dynamos, diode packs for alternators, we fixed car stereos, home stereos, I repaired and modified CB radios, you name it we pretty much fixed it. Computer kit used to be easily repairable (some still is) but people often see it as a reason to get something new when one item fails - I’d certainly put myself in that camp it’s fair to say nowadays. I think it’s safe to say that most consumer kit isn’t repairable nowadays, mainly because people want the lowest cost item which in turn means production costs need to be low, so automation does away with all the things that made kit repairable in the past. Our camera kit isn’t really user serviceable any more (was it ever?) but in the past I’ve repaired many flashguns. I don’t buy extended warranties as in my experience most stuff lasts long enough to take you down the upgrade route when it does expire (I appreciate not everyone can afford to do this but when a white good repair can cost around a third of the replacement cost it feels like throwing good money after bad to repair it. Yes, I completely agree this is contributing to waste going into landfill etc but maybe we need to get better at decent recycling, not thinking we are by having a child in Pakistan tearing into an old CRT and claiming we’re saving the planet - tell that to the child’s parents (there is an argument that says that without that child’s work his family themselves wouldn’t be viable but that’s a much bigger and different argument). Too many people, too much crap, too many rich people wanting more riches.

TimP
31st October 2018, 09:06 AM
How to save the planet... by thinking outside the box.

Don't know about anyone else, but I get wound up by having to replace whole itemss because more damage results from attempts to fix a simple part that is unavailable .:( Modular reolacement items that are easy to replace. :tup -->https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-45969676

Good thinking Boo Boo --> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35094050

Taking just one example from the BBC article, the Dualit toaster, yes it may be repairable but the purchase price is beyond the means of your average punter, who given the option of an expensive (>£60) Dualit or a Alcock one from Amazon is unlikely to pick Dualit as the cost of the new elements would probably buy him an entire new toaster.

Otto
31st October 2018, 09:11 AM
Hear hear Wally. The remote control for my Panasonic TV has a couple of buttons that have gone intermittent. This is usually caused by dirt ingress and would be an easy fix if I could get into the thing. Undoing the four screws that hold it together doesn't help because the two halves of the plastic case are snapped together. Somewhere inside there'll be clips that can be pushed open to release them but can I find them? Nope. Complete replacement is the only option unless I'm prepared to damage the thing significantly trying to get into it. Modern stuff might be very reliable, efficient and capable, but if it goes wrong it's seldom easily fixed. A similar fault occurred on my old JVC VCR and I've been able to fix that on more than one occasion.

An item on Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/NorthYorkshireWeatherUpdates/photos/pcb.1895381110581410/1895380650581456/?type=3&theater) yesterday showed a large pile of old computer keyboards dumped by the side of the road near here - flly tipping, in a National Park. The culprit(s) must have gone to some effort to get them to where they dumped them.

TimP
31st October 2018, 09:16 AM
Hear hear Wally. The remote control for my Panasonic TV has a couple of buttons that have gone intermittent.

An item on Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/NorthYorkshireWeatherUpdates/photos/pcb.1895381110581410/1895380650581456/?type=3&theater) yesterday showed a large pile of old computer keyboards dumped by the side of the road near here - flly tipping, in a National Park. The culprit(s) must have gone to some effort to get them to where they dumped them.

Try a universal remote, usually works unless the dodgy buttons do something fancy and you use them a lot. We rarely use our supplied remotes as we find the Sky one does all we need, plus thinking about it there is a Panasonic smartphone app that does the remote duties.

Don’t get me started on fly tippers - utter scum! Same for people who drop litter.

DerekW
31st October 2018, 09:27 AM
Otto

Does thhis company give you any help?

https://www.remotefixer.co.uk/

Actually quite a few websites on Panasonic remote controller repairs

Otto
31st October 2018, 09:46 AM
Thanks Tim and Derek. I see a fix costs £20 or more whereas a new one can be had on eBay for under a tenner including postage! That says it all really. I already tried the iOS app for the TV but it only does the basic functions.


EDIT: Just bought one on eBay for £5.75 post free. It doesn't say "Panasonic" on it but in other respects it appears identical.

Naughty Nigel
31st October 2018, 12:12 PM
I am happy to be a dinosaur.

We still have our Panasonic 26" CRT telly which works as well as it ever did, and has much better sound quality than any of the modern flat screen replacements. If I had my way we would do away with television altogether but I would be outvoted by the women in this household. *yes

Audio is an altogether more serious matter, but here again I am very happy to be using 60 year old equipment which in my view has never been bettered. Better still, the manufacturers in Huntington continue to service and repair all of their equipment, and supply spare parts.

http://e-group.uk.net/gallery/data/500/Quad2.jpg (http://e-group.uk.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/12222)

As for furniture we fully expect to pass it on to our children when the time comes. Quality and comfort only go out of date if and when we want them to. We can buy replacement cushions and cushion covers if we need to, but there is no reason why the wooden frames should not last 100 years or more.

If there is to be a revolution to save the planet it will have to be driven by us, the consumers, and perhaps a handful of forward thinking businesses. The mass market has no interest in doing anything other than producing yet more landfill.

TimP
31st October 2018, 12:25 PM
Is that Quad, as in the makers of those ‘electrostatic’ speakers, back in the 70s, hideous gold colour and looked like electric fires? I can’t recall if they sounded good but probably would have done by the standards of the day.

Must go, off to listen to some .mp3s......

Zuiko
31st October 2018, 12:38 PM
Is that Quad, as in the makers of those ‘electrostatic’ speakers, back in the 70s, hideous gold colour and looked like electric fires? I can’t recall if they sounded good but probably would have done by the standards of the day.

Must go, off to listen to some .mp3s......

Whether or not they sound good depends heavily upon what type of cables are used to connect them to the amplifier..... or is that a discussion for another time and another place? :D

TimP
31st October 2018, 12:57 PM
Whether or not they sound good depends heavily upon what type of cables are used to connect them to the amplifier..... or is that a discussion for another time and another place? :D

Wanna buy a bridge?

Naughty Nigel
31st October 2018, 01:25 PM
Whether or not they sound good depends heavily upon what type of cables are used to connect them to the amplifier..... or is that a discussion for another time and another place? :D

Definitely! *yes

If you think the "Are we doomed?" thread causes bad tempered argument you should try rationalising with real HiFi anoraks on the subject of loudspeaker cables. :D

Naughty Nigel
31st October 2018, 01:28 PM
Is that Quad, as in the makers of those ‘electrostatic’ speakers, back in the 70s, hideous gold colour and looked like electric fires? I can’t recall if they sounded good but probably would have done by the standards of the day.

Must go, off to listen to some .mp3s......

Sounded good? :eek:

Even to this day Quad electrostatics are the standard by which other loudspeakers are judged.

The gold coloured ESL's that you refer to were built in the 1950's and 60's, but the later models are more, shall we say, 'home friendly'.

Otto
1st November 2018, 09:50 AM
The remote control arrived this morning, not 24 hours from ordering. It's a clone, not an original, and needed a small trim of some excess plastic to get the battery in, but it works fine.

Nigel - can you still buy Quad ESLs? A mate of mine's dad had a pair back in the 1960s, they were huge, weighed a ton and looked like radiators but they did sound good. As for CRT tellies, I kept my B&O 28" until about five years ago when I bought the Panasonic. The Beovision cost a fortune but sound and picture quality were superb. It was one of very few 28" TVs that used a 110 degree tube rather than the usual 90 degrees so it was much slimmer, a big advantage to me at the time. The picture on the Panny is far better (brighter, sharper, bigger and more detailed) though I grant you the sound was much better on the B&O! I solve that simply by piping the TV sound into the hi-fi if there's something on that deserves decent sound.

Naughty Nigel
1st November 2018, 09:59 AM
Yes, the ESL's are still made I believe, and look much more like furniture these days, but they are very pricey at around £10,000 a pair.

Loudspeaker cables are extra, and (if you are foolish)* could cost you at least as much again. ;)



* Just as well this isn't an audiophile forum. :D

TimP
1st November 2018, 11:16 AM
Since buying my first decent flat screen (40in Panny plasma many years ago I’ve always used a Panny sound bar to improve the sound, works well enough but not up to a decent proper sound system. That said, I’m more than happy with the results for relatively low cost and nothing we watch on TV deserves much more anyway!

Otto
1st November 2018, 11:18 AM
I believe Dynaudio's top models at £77,000 a pair so the ESLs are comparatively cheap! I have a pair of Dynaudio's "entry level" Emits which were rather less than that - and decent cables. But don't worry, I don't paint the edges of my CDs green, nor have I fallen for gold-plated TOSlink cables :D.

DerekW
1st November 2018, 11:19 AM
apart from cables you have to ensure that they do not touch the ground and you may have to use cable supports to hold them from the ground.

Re TV sound - it has to be sent through the audio system, also the TV room has to be arranged such that the TV screen is between the speakers and possibly be behind the speakers.

TimP
1st November 2018, 11:41 AM
apart from cables you have to ensure that they do not touch the ground and you may have to use cable supports to hold them from the ground.

Re TV sound - it has to be sent through the audio system, also the TV room has to be arranged such that the TV screen is between the speakers and possibly be behind the speakers.

But don’t the cable supports themselves have a terrible adverse effect on the sound?
Problem with the TV sound requirements is that if one doesn’t have an audio system then one can’t comply. One had a rather average Technics system back in the dim and distant and somewhere there is still one of those parallel tracking turntables gathering dust somewhere, but the days of me even bothering to get out ancient, crappy, crackly vinyl have long gone. Vive le empee trois!

DerekW
1st November 2018, 11:44 AM
everything alters the sound - you can spend a lifetime experimenting to get to your ideal sound presentation.

Otto
1st November 2018, 11:54 AM
Dynaudio have that problem fixed - its posher models adjust themselves depending on location! Allegedly ...

Jim Ford
1st November 2018, 11:55 AM
everything alters the sound - you can spend a lifetime experimenting to get to your ideal sound presentation.

But then it's a waste of time for many of us!

I have tinnitus and also my perception of high frequencies is curtailed.

Over ten years ago when I worked at a secondary school, I was recruited into a lesson where hearing frequencies were being tested. There was a loudspeaker connected to a frequency generator, The frequency was started low and gradually increased. We were told to put our hand up when we couldn't hear the tone any more. Mine went up at 8kHz, much to the surprise of the pupils. I guess it's deteriorated since.

Jim

Otto
1st November 2018, 12:04 PM
Mine used to go well past 12kHz when I was younger but I don't think it will now. I also have tinnitus thought it's not usually too annoying. My father had poor high frequency hearing, he claimed he couldn't tell the difference between AM and FM radio and had no idea what I was talking about when I complained about the line whistle from our old 405-line TV!

Keith-369
1st November 2018, 02:06 PM
I also have tinnitus ... and it's very annoying. Hearing loss too, but I still enjoy music by using a good quality MP3 player and earbuds which may be 'bright' to others but help with my HF loss. Telly etc I just stick my hearing aids in so that I can listen to programs instead of SWMBO shouting that it's too loud :D

Jim Ford
1st November 2018, 02:20 PM
I still enjoy music by using a good quality MP3 player

I find MP3 seems to reduce a full orchestra to 'mush'. My feeling is that ogg files are a bit better, whereas FLAC files definitely are.

Jim

Ricoh
1st November 2018, 02:47 PM
Todays report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) makes chilling reading. We have been kicking this into the long grass for far too long now and pretending that it isn't happening.

BBC Report - Final call to save the world from 'climate catastrophe' (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-45775309)

I really do wonder what we can do both individually and collectively to avert this threatened disaster? Weather patterns and the seasons have undoubtedly changed in my lifetime, which is a mere pin prick in the history of our planet.

Aside from climate change deniers there are far too many people with vested interests at stake. It also seems the climate scientists had very tough negotiations with politicians more concerned with economies and living standards.

Whether we like it or not it seems to me that we will very soon have to make significant changes to our lifestyles, and may no longer be able to take travel and food from far flung countries for granted.

Or will we just carry on as normal and hope it doesn't happen?
Regarding the question in the title, the planet doesn't need saving. It will survive until the sun starts running out of fuel, or earlier when the moon has moved too far away to offers adequate stabilisation.

It's life on Earth as we know it Jim, that's the question.

Keith-369
1st November 2018, 06:41 PM
I find MP3 seems to reduce a full orchestra to 'mush'. My feeling is that ogg files are a bit better, whereas FLAC files definitely are.

Jim

Yes, Jim you are definitely right,FLAC is definitely supreme, but it does take a lot of space.

I very rarely listen to orchestral works in this way though, it's all sorts of other music I like from country through world music, soft rock, ballads etc. to Collins, Gabriel, Oldfield, Genesis, Floyd, and the list goes on. (Not Rap or grunge or garage etc. though :eek:). I do everything at 320mps on MP3 which is the best you can get in that format and means I can get lots more on my player. It pleases me and that's what it's all about really.

Jim Ford
1st November 2018, 07:01 PM
I do everything at 320mps on MP3 which is the best you can get in that format and means I can get lots more on my player. It pleases me and that's what it's all about really.

I was interested to read the other day that ogg files are smaller because silence doesn't take up any space, whereas silence in MP3s does.

Jim

Otto
1st November 2018, 07:06 PM
I believe AAC is a more efficient codec than mp3 so should sound better at the same bit rate. The BBC use 320k AAC for their “hi definition “ radio streams, and Radio 3 certainly sounds pretty good. Most MP3 players should play AAC as well.

wornish
1st November 2018, 09:04 PM
Have I joined the wrong thread ?

Speaker cables that cost £10,000 - ?

Keith-369
1st November 2018, 09:07 PM
I was interested to read the other day that ogg files are smaller because silence doesn't take up any space, whereas silence in MP3s doesn't.

Jim

Just how much silence can there be between album tracks to make that much difference. Yes, I know that every second counts and over, say, one album you could save maybe 30 seconds or so but ....

Otto. Thanks for the input. AAC sounds good but again, does it take much more room as against MP3 at 320?

In all fairness, I can't see myself re-encoding all the albums and tracks I have on my player in order to get that little extra which, knowing my ears, I'd have trouble hearing enough difference to make it all worthwhile. (some of the sixties and early stuff I have are recorded well below 320 anyway *yes)

As I said, it's not Classical music I mainly listen to (although I do have my moments and when I do listen to some of my favorite classical pieces I really enjoy it), and whilst I do appreciate that classical does need the best possible codec, for the music I listen to I'll probably stick to what I have now ..... and when I've finished listening, I stick both my hearing aids in again :D

I hope others will gain from the advice given by Jim and Otto regarding codecs . *chr both of you

TimP
1st November 2018, 09:08 PM
I was interested to read the other day that ogg files are smaller because silence doesn't take up any space, whereas silence in MP3s doesn't.

Jim

Eh? Are you sure that’s right or just repeating yourself again? Rebecca, quick, he’s doing it again!

Otto
1st November 2018, 10:17 PM
AAC files are comparable in size to mp3 I think, but don’t throw away so much information. It’s a more efficient compressor.

Jim Ford
1st November 2018, 10:26 PM
Eh? Are you sure that’s right or just repeating yourself again? Rebecca, quick, he’s doing it again!

Don't know what you're talking about, but I've given you a 'Like' anyway because you're obviously seeking approval!

Jim

TimP
2nd November 2018, 08:24 AM
Jim, here’s what I was highlighting: “I was interested to read the other day that ogg files are smaller because silence doesn't take up any space, whereas silence in MP3s doesn't.”

It might be me but you repeat yourself here, saying that silence in .ogg files takes no space, nor does it in .mp3s.
Well that’s how it reads to me!

TimP
2nd November 2018, 08:29 AM
Don't know what you're talking about, but I've given you a 'Like' anyway because you're obviously seeking approval!

Jim

Approval is certainly not what I’m seeking, it doesn’t bother me a jot, but thanks anyway!
I was merely highlighting what looked to be a contradiction in your posting, so I’m none the wiser about whether silence takes space in .ogg and / or .mp3s.

It doesn’t matter as storage is so cheap a few bytes of silence is neither here nor there. If anyone wants to save a few kB then reduce the sampling rate from a pretty good 320 to something like 192 which to all intents and purposes is perfectly adequate for most people of our ages I’m sure.

Naughty Nigel
2nd November 2018, 09:18 AM
Never mind the file format. I do wish radio stations, and commercial stations in particular would turn off their wretched 'dynamic range compression'.

I enjoy listening to mainly classical and choral music, which has a naturally wide dynamic range. That is all part of the joy of this music, unlike most of the current crap. Classic FM in particular compresses the hell out of music, but I have noticed that even BBC R3 has started doing it. Why? :mad:

I was listening in the car the other day and the compression became so annoying that I switched the radio off and listened to a couple of CD's that I have stored on the system. Bliss, and no adverts! :)

Naughty Nigel
2nd November 2018, 09:20 AM
My father had poor high frequency hearing, he claimed he couldn't tell the difference between AM and FM radio and had no idea what I was talking about when I complained about the line whistle from our old 405-line TV!

I had a holiday job in an electrical shop when I were a lad. And there were whistling television sets on everywhere! *yes

DerekW
2nd November 2018, 09:24 AM
Cost of transmission, more compression, more stations can be broacast in a given "space" also stereo programs can be broadcast in mono to increase the density of output - my tercnical terms are inccurate as I am not a sound storage and transmision person.

Naughty Nigel
2nd November 2018, 09:32 AM
Cost of transmission, more compression, more stations can be broacast in a given "space" also stereo programs can be broadcast in mono to increase the density of output - my tercnical terms are inccurate as I am not a sound storage and transmision person.

I don't think that is the real reason Derek as it seems to vary during the day. Classic FM used to apply heavy compression during their 'Drive Time' programmes for some reason, but now they do it all the time. :(

Otto
2nd November 2018, 09:39 AM
Classic FM used to apply heavy compression during their 'Drive Time' programmes for some reason, but now they do it all the time. :(


The clue's in the programme name - Drive Time. It means you hear more of the music in the noisy environment of a vehicle. I hadn't noticed R3 using compression but I agree CFM is awful, especially on DAB. The Beeb's hi-def sound via the internet is very good indeed, but the sound on digital telly is a big step backwards from the old NICAM stereo even when played through a hi-fi. Compare them at next year's Last Night of the Proms - chalk and cheese!

Naughty Nigel
2nd November 2018, 10:19 AM
The clue's in the programme name - Drive Time. It means you hear more of the music in the noisy environment of a vehicle.

I thought that might be the case, but I find the excessive compression really unpleasant even when driving a car.

As for DAB and digital television sound, we really do seem to have traded quality for quantity, which I suppose is where this thread started.

Jim Ford
2nd November 2018, 10:44 AM
Jim, here’s what I was highlighting: “I was interested to read the other day that ogg files are smaller because silence doesn't take up any space, whereas silence in MP3s doesn't.”

It might be me but you repeat yourself here, saying that silence in .ogg files takes no space, nor does it in .mp3s.
Well that’s how it reads to me!

'Typo' - fixed.

Better not make any typos yourself in future eh, 'Timbo'?

;)

Jim

Otto
2nd November 2018, 10:52 AM
As for DAB and digital television sound, we really do seem to have traded quality for quantity, which I suppose is where this thread started.

Absolutely, yes. But on the other hand the advent of digital music as computer files means we can save on all the plastic used to make CDs and their packaging - I have a couple of 1TB USB hard drives which are just 4.5" x 3.2" x 0.5" so use a fraction of the raw materials needed to make the couple of thousand CDs they could replace!

FLAC files are as accurate as CDs but take up roughly half the storage space but, at least according to the BBC, most people can't tell the difference between FLAC and 320kb/s AAC.

Gate Keeper
2nd November 2018, 11:20 AM
Absolutely, yes. But on the other hand the advent of digital music as computer files means we can save on all the plastic used to make CDs and their packaging - I have a couple of 1TB USB hard drives which are just 4.5" x 3.2" x 0.5" so use a fraction of the raw materials needed to make the couple of thousand CDs they could replace!

FLAC files are as accurate as CDs but take up roughly half the storage space but, at least according to the BBC, most people can't tell the difference between FLAC and 320kb/s AAC.

I have a USB hard drive, CD/DVD and SD reader in the car’s hi fi. I have never got round to downloading music for driving. For listening to music in the car, which is best? SD/CD/USB, or it does not matter?

Naughty Nigel
2nd November 2018, 11:33 AM
I have a USB hard drive, CD/DVD and SD reader in the car’s hi fi. I have never got round to downloading music for driving. For listening to music in the car, which is best? SD/CD/USB, or it does not matter?

It probably depends how quiet your car is, and how good the sound system is.

Mine allows me to upload ten CD's to the on-board hard drive, so you get CD sound quality without the hassle of changing CD's.

There is also the option to connect an iPod or similar via USB and/or Bluetooth. One of the advantages of the iPod is that you can set it so that all tracks play at the same maximum volume, but without compressing the music.

All of the above allow you to play CD quality sound which I find best. Better still the music is uncompressed! :)

The other options (SD Card, USB stick, etc.) can be good if you convert or download your music to high bit rate MP3's, (320 KB/Sec), but your options will probably be limited by the supported file formats.

I recently downloaded some high bit rate MP3's provided free when I bought a couple of new LP's from the HMV store. The sound quality is really very good, but the file names and paths are too long to play in the car unless you shorten them manually. :rolleyes:

TimP
2nd November 2018, 01:13 PM
'Typo' - fixed.

Better not make any typos yourself in future eh, 'Timbo'?

;)

Jim

Glad we bottomed that one out! (But I did have a point!)

I’m terrible with typos, you could put the most world changing, controversial official document on a screen in front of me and all I’d do would be look for typos.

DerekW
2nd November 2018, 01:37 PM
Never mind the file format. I do wish radio stations, and commercial stations in particular would turn off their wretched 'dynamic range compression'.




This so that when played back the "low" notes and quiet sections can be heard on all types of kit, HiFi kit is not all that common so it is not part of the quality decision for broadcasters and sound recording engineers.

This is why I no longer buy music as the recording quality can be bad.

Otto
2nd November 2018, 01:51 PM
With a lot of popular music you can hear the compression working - on every bass thump the mid and treble tones almost disappear as if someone's turned the volume down, returning shortly afterwards. Horrible. I find most classical music CDs are well recorded though, even if the engineers' trouble is wasted when broadcast on commercial radio!

There are some good classical internet radio stations though as we discussed not long ago in another thread. Even at least one dedicated to organ music (https://www.organlive.com/) Nigel :).

OM USer
2nd November 2018, 05:06 PM
I remember hearing a good exposition of adjusting the dynamic range of rock music to give it more impact and that "particular sound". In this case it was deliberately done to enhance the listeming experience. I suspect that all such stuff these days is just to enhance the bottom line (and I don't mean on the score).

TimP
2nd November 2018, 07:37 PM
This so that when played back the "low" notes and quiet sections can be heard on all types of kit, HiFi kit is not all that common so it is not part of the quality decision for broadcasters and sound recording engineers.

This is why I no longer buy music as the recording quality can be bad.

So are you suggesting that modern sound engineers work to the lowest common denominator rather than the direct opposite? They should be ashamed!
(But I’m sure you’re right!)

DerekW
2nd November 2018, 08:42 PM
yes along with all public services in th UK

TimP
3rd November 2018, 07:36 AM
I think the public services side is mainly down to ever reducing funding from central government and as the Tories seem intent on wiping out local government then that explains the dire situation in recent years.

Naughty Nigel
3rd November 2018, 11:01 PM
I think the public services side is mainly down to ever reducing funding from central government and as the Tories seem intent on wiping out local government then that explains the dire situation in recent years.

Local government seems to find money when it wants to, for projects and services which fit their political agenda.

Some councils deliberately target services which are most visible to the public in an effort to sway voters towards whichever government will be most profligate with our cash.

Our county council is always bleating about shortage of cash and central government cuts yet they can still afford to throw away money on a monumental scale.

TimP
4th November 2018, 07:42 AM
Local government seems to find money when it wants to, for projects and services which fit their political agenda.

Some councils deliberately target services which are most visible to the public in an effort to sway voters towards whichever government will be most profligate with our cash.

Our county council is always bleating about shortage of cash and central government cuts yet they can still afford to throw away money on a monumental scale.

A lot of the money that is so called thrown away is often only available on condition it’s spent on the specific project ( scale monuments??)
You’re partly right though as it’s the local politicians who call the shots, not the council officers themselves. Much of the perceived waste is centrally directed and is often given alongside smaller sums that are much less wasteful but not seen as a flagship project ( these are the money wasters)
Within LG there are numerous high maintenance individuals who cost vast sums to support, who frankly shouldn’t be employed at all, let alone in lofty positions.
Devolve local power back to central government if you want to see how to properly piss money away!!

Wally
4th November 2018, 09:03 AM
... Devolve local power back to central government if you want to see how to properly piss money away!!


*yes AH! So you also have seen the 'parliamentary bars bills'. ;)

TimP
4th November 2018, 09:10 AM
*yes AH! So you also have seen the 'parliamentary bars bills'. ;)

Wonderful to think that they are all there looking after our best interests (yeah, right!) whilst actually getting sozzled on public subsidised quality wine. In addition to their £400 monthly allowance. You gotta feel for these poor people and thank them for their duty.....oh.....wait.

Naughty Nigel
6th November 2018, 10:00 AM
Yet more evidence against powering everything with electricity.

BBC Report - Large hydropower dams 'not sustainable' in the developing world (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-46098118)

Ricoh
6th November 2018, 10:40 AM
What else are you going to use? Maybe ferrets on a Ferris wheel harnessed to machines to churn water fast enough for heat water. I guess anything to do with Faraday is out of the question.

TimP
6th November 2018, 10:41 AM
Yet more evidence against powering everything with electricity.

BBC Report - Large hydropower dams 'not sustainable' in the developing world (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-46098118)

Gas fridge - that’s a thing.
Gas cooker - same
Gas heating - yep, same, but not pumped central heating then.

I think we’re stuck with it for a long time to come. Increase solar and wind and battery storage / load balancing. Sod the damage caused by making same. What other choices do we have? Hydro is surely OK if you can tap it in situ but not when it involves dams which destroy habitat and peoples housing / welfare.

Naughty Nigel
6th November 2018, 11:02 AM
Gas fridge - that’s a thing.
Gas cooker - same
Gas heating - yep, same, but not pumped central heating then.

I think we’re stuck with it for a long time to come. Increase solar and wind and battery storage / load balancing. Sod the damage caused by making same. What other choices do we have? Hydro is surely OK if you can tap it in situ but not when it involves dams which destroy habitat and peoples housing / welfare.

Gas fridges were very efficient and didn't use CFC's.

Central heating systems used to work fairly well without electric pumps but needed careful design and large diameter pipework. I don't think these old 'gravity' systems were ever very efficient though.

Modern 'circulators' make life a lot easier (lazier) for plumbers and allow the use of much smaller bore pipework.

If we go back 100 or more years, before electricity was widely available, hot water heating systems involved some fairly major engineering work. As an example the heating system in our parish church was first installed in 1888 and involved digging a big hole under the Vestry to install the boiler, and then raising the floor in the church by about 15" to provide sufficient flow. The pipework is all 4" cast iron, and holds several hundred gallons of water!

An electric pump was installed in the 1950's when a new boiler was fitted. The original cast iron pipework is still in use 130 years later!

Naughty Nigel
6th November 2018, 11:03 AM
What else are you going to use? Maybe ferrets on a Ferris wheel harnessed to machines to churn water fast enough for heat water. I guess anything to do with Faraday is out of the question.

I would suggest that we go back to living in caves but they weren't very energy efficient! ;)

wornish
6th November 2018, 12:05 PM
We are all supposed to move to Electric cars to save the planet.

One question :- Is the range quoted for electric cars the range in Summer, with no air conditioning running?

I guess it will be a lot shorter in Winter when the cars heaters and are on.
Do they even have heaters?

Naughty Nigel
6th November 2018, 12:16 PM
We are all supposed to move to Electric cars to save the planet.

One question :- Is the range quoted for electric cars the range in Summer, with no air conditioning running?

I guess it will be a lot shorter in Winter when the cars heaters and are on.
Do they even have heaters?

Electric cars do have air conditioning, and I think use the heat pump for both heating and cooling to maximise efficiency. (Waste heat is 'free' from internal combustion engines but must be paid for in electric vehicles.)

I have no idea how much heating or aircon affects battery range, but I would expect it to be significant. The energy needed to heat or cool the cabin is probably greater than driving the car at 30 MPH on a level road.

TimP
6th November 2018, 12:25 PM
We are all supposed to move to Electric cars to save the planet.

One question :- Is the range quoted for electric cars the range in Summer, with no air conditioning running?

I guess it will be a lot shorter in Winter when the cars heaters and are on.
Do they even have heaters?

The range is probably pure fantasy, in the same way manufacturer quoted mpg figures are.

They do have heaters etc, but it’s all going to add to the range anxiety felt by the drivers, many I’ve followed don’t usually bother to indicate and seem to leave putting their lights until it’s near pitch black out there.

Otto
6th November 2018, 04:21 PM
The range issue is an interesting one. We've become so used to petrol and diesel cars having ranges of 400 miles or more that huge numbers of filling stations have disappeared over the last few years without many people noticing, especially in rural areas. Forty years ago I was lucky to get 25mpg and 200 miles out of a tankful! Electric cars are still at the Bullnose Morris stage really and ranges will doubtless improve, as will the availabilitgy of charging points. Where the charging points will get their electricity from is quite another matter! There is a lot of R&D going into methods of storing electricity though, vital if intermittent sources like wind and solar are to be of much use.

TimP
6th November 2018, 06:30 PM
Range anxiety would be fine if you knew you could pull up to a charge point and be on your way again in 30 minutes, say. I doubt it’s quite as simple as that though, what with occupied chargers, slow chargers and frankly it’s going to take a bit of persuasion for the average driver to want to add 30 minutes minimum to a longish journey. The idea of an auxiliary charger ICE ‘module’ seems to have died a death whereas it surely solves a problem.

DerekW
6th November 2018, 08:23 PM
Perhaps the electric car could tow a trailor with a diesel powered generator on it charging a high capacity battery, the battery could be connected to the car to recharge the car battery when required

The diesel engine would be running at a constant speed (when needed) and so would be very efficient and the pollution minimized as it would be running at a stable state.

Otto
6th November 2018, 08:45 PM
That’s pretty much what a hybrid car is now but without the trailer. A friend of mine has a Vauxhall Ampera hybrid which is pretty impressive but no longer made. It uses a small petrol engine to recharge the batteries and also regenerative braking. He reckons he can get 90mpg out of it! I couldn’t tell when the petrol engine was running, it’s so quiet, but the acceleration was that of a much larger engined conventional car.

TimP
6th November 2018, 09:30 PM
So what’s the logic behind this tech falling out of favour, wasn’t it an option on the BMW i3 but now discontinued? Must be a reason.

wornish
7th November 2018, 10:16 PM
Global Warming - surprise surprise.
Seems some one cant do maths.

Must be wrong they are experts.


https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-11-07/major-math-error-puts-widely-cited-global-warming-study-ice

TimP
8th November 2018, 09:31 AM
I would suggest that we go back to living in caves but they weren't very energy efficient! ;)

Oh I dunno, at least they generally are a constant temperature, so you know what you’re working with. We recently stayed in a small ‘chateau’ (I use the term loosely!) where the bathroom was actually a cave, very nice it was too.

Otto
8th November 2018, 09:47 AM
Global Warming - surprise surprise.
Seems some one cant do maths.



Good science would usually mean that a result that's significantly at odds with the norm is investigated for mistakes by peer review before publication. An error in one piece of work doesn't mean other work in the whole subject area is also wrong. However it does indicate the value of the peer review process which all science should be (and usually is) subject to prior to publication.

Otto
8th November 2018, 09:50 AM
So what’s the logic behind this tech falling out of favour, wasn’t it an option on the BMW i3 but now discontinued? Must be a reason.


Presumably it's because hybrid vehicles still incorporate an infernal combustion engine. Even if a hybrid produces half the pollution of a normal petrol or diesel vehicle it is still polluting, and such engines are to be banned anyway. The generation of electricity also has polluting side-effects but that's another story :).

wornish
8th November 2018, 09:50 AM
Good science would usually mean that a result that's significantly at odds with the norm is investigated for mistakes by peer review before publication. An error in one piece of work doesn't mean other work in the whole subject area is also wrong. However it does indicate the value of the peer review process which all science should be (and usually is) subject to prior to publication.

Probably reviewed by Dianne Abbott ;)

TimP
8th November 2018, 01:01 PM
Probably reviewed by Dianne Abbott ;)

When I read this earlier I was about to comment that I’d love to chat to anyone that provides her IT support, but then didn’t post it. Now I’ve just read this!

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/11/08/abbott_pc_support_scam_confession/

Naughty Nigel
8th November 2018, 09:41 PM
When I read this earlier I was about to comment that I’d love to chat to anyone that provides her IT support, but then didn’t post it. Now I’ve just read this!

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/11/08/abbott_pc_support_scam_confession/

Wasn't there another prominent politician who used an insecure email account for her official business? Maybe not in the UK but near enough.

wornish
30th November 2018, 03:22 PM
Is this the fix for global warming ?

Research published in Environmental Research Letters, suggests stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) is a workable solution. Dr. Gernot Wagner, from Harvard University’s John A. Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, co-author of the study, says: “Solar geoengineering is often described as ‘fast, cheap, and imperfect’… would be technically possible strictly from an engineering perspective. It would also be remarkably inexpensive, at an average of around $2 to 2.5 billion per year over the first 15 years.” He argues that “the ‘incredible economics’ of solar geoengineering” means a few countries could easily “fund such a program, and the required technology is not particularly exotic.”

https://phys.org/news/2018-11-anti-global-atmospheric.html#jCp

Jim Ford
30th November 2018, 07:26 PM
Is this the fix for global warming ?

Research published in Environmental Research Letters, suggests stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) is a workable solution. Dr. Gernot Wagner, from Harvard University’s John A. Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, co-author of the study, says: “Solar geoengineering is often described as ‘fast, cheap, and imperfect’… would be technically possible strictly from an engineering perspective.
<snip>


The 'Chemtrail' loons maintain that this is already happening for more sinister purposes.

Jim

Wally
30th November 2018, 09:03 PM
Wasn't there another prominent politician who used an insecure email account for her official business? Maybe not in the UK but near enough.


Which one? The one from a decade or so ago? Or the more recent wife of the one who castigated the previous wife of?

Naughty Nigel
1st December 2018, 11:17 PM
The 'Chemtrail' loons maintain that this is already happening for more sinister purposes.

Jim

There is another loon who not only reckons that global warming isn't happening, he actually reckons that we need more CO2, and not less. He also claims that there are far too many polar bears and that numbers need to be cut.

His name is Corbyn, Piers Corbyn. ;)

Otto
2nd December 2018, 10:17 AM
Ah yes, Piers was cited as a reference by that grand master of the hyperbole, Nathan Rao, in the Express the other day.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/weather/1051722/uk-weather-forecast-met-office-forecast-storm-diana-accuweather-uk-storm

"A DEADLY double-vortex super-tempest born from the union of Storm Diana and a second Atlantic cyclone will unleash days of hurricane winds and torrential rainfall."

And a storm called Diana - I bet the Express editors were ecstatic, two of their biggest obsessions in the same story :D.

Jim Ford
2nd December 2018, 11:45 AM
Ah yes, Piers was cited as a reference by that grand master of the hyperbole, Nathan Rao, in the Express the other day.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/weather/1051722/uk-weather-forecast-met-office-forecast-storm-diana-accuweather-uk-storm

"A DEADLY double-vortex super-tempest born from the union of Storm Diana and a second Atlantic cyclone will unleash days of hurricane winds and torrential rainfall."

And a storm called Diana - I bet the Express editors were ecstatic, two of their biggest obsessions in the same story :D.

Gosh - "biblical downpours", "colossal waves", "brutally powerful", "diabolical weather" - there's enough material in the article for a Hollywood disaster movie!

Jim

Otto
2nd December 2018, 12:05 PM
Nathan Rao's articles about the weather are all like that. If it isn't a biblical downpour or an artic freeze, it's a six-week tropical drought! They're worth reading for the laughs alone, but I wouldn't take them any more seriously than anything else in the Express :).

Naughty Nigel
2nd December 2018, 12:09 PM
Gosh - "biblical downpours", "colossal waves", "brutally powerful", "diabolical weather" - there's enough material in the article for a Hollywood disaster movie!

Jim

Not just that but "hurled at the UK by a brutally powerful jet stream".

I thought the jet stream was always brutally powerful? Isn't that why aircraft use it to give them a helping hand across the Atlantic?

Ricoh
11th December 2018, 12:59 PM
At this time of year it is my opinion that Christmas Lights and Christmas Cards are destroying the planet.

Fear not for planet earth, it will survive. Normality in the sense of a balance will be restored one humans have gone.

Otto
11th December 2018, 01:11 PM
As I sit here trying to avoid starting on my Xmas cards I agree with you Steve. A few years ago I included with each card a suggestion of sending e-cards for energy and resource savings; I would donate the money saved to a homeless charity. About 5% of my card recipients thought that was a good idea so I still send the wretched things!

Jax
11th December 2018, 01:26 PM
As I sit here trying to avoid starting on my Xmas cards I agree with you Steve. A few years ago I included with each card a suggestion of sending e-cards for energy and resource savings; I would donate the money saved to a homeless charity. About 5% of my card recipients thought that was a good idea so I still send the wretched things!

SWMBO sends out over 200 every year, local and international, mostly via Royal Mail :eek:

Jax

Ricoh
11th December 2018, 01:35 PM
In addition, there's also all the junk people purchase (needlessly in my opinion) and give each other as Christmas presents. Stuff you don't need or want.

Eg "...oh thanks, we were getting short on cheese boards, we're down to the last three! In future if you're devoid of ideas, just get me a brick of Tmax 3200, you stupid bugger." :)

Naughty Nigel
11th December 2018, 05:48 PM
In addition, there's also all the junk people purchase (needlessly in my opinion) and give each other as Christmas presents. Stuff you don't need or want.

Most of it shipped all the way from China.

China now says it plans to build another four-hundred airports over the next twenty years, so f*** the environment. :mad:

Out only response is to keep buying yet more crap from them to fund their planet-destroying projects. :(

Jim Ford
11th December 2018, 08:20 PM
As I sit here trying to avoid starting on my Xmas cards I agree with you Steve. A few years ago I included with each card a suggestion of sending e-cards for energy and resource savings; I would donate the money saved to a homeless charity. About 5% of my card recipients thought that was a good idea so I still send the wretched things!

"Theresa May urged not to sign any more Christmas cards ‘from the Prime Minister’"

https://newsthump.com/2018/12/09/theresa-may-urged-not-to-sign-any-more-christmas-cards-from-the-prime-minister/

Jim

TimP
11th December 2018, 08:23 PM
I was hoping she’d stand up and say ‘sod the lot of you, if you think you can do any better, be my guest, I’m off’. At which point she storms off. I bet there isn’t anyone, particularly JC, who’d have stuck it as long as she has.

Naughty Nigel
12th December 2018, 09:08 AM
I bet there isn’t anyone, particularly JC, who’d have stuck it as long as she has.

Oh I don't know. I think there is a very real danger that if Jeremy did ever get into No. 10 we would never get him out again. Just look at Russian, Chinese and North Korean leaders and their 'democratic elections'.

There again, you would need to be a madman to want the top job right now. Any takers? ;)

drmarkf
12th December 2018, 07:50 PM
As has been said before, anyone who wants it should inevitably be excluded because they're demonstrably mad or criminal or both.

Gate Keeper
12th December 2018, 10:01 PM
"Theresa May urged not to sign any more Christmas cards ‘from the Prime Minister’"

https://newsthump.com/2018/12/09/theresa-may-urged-not-to-sign-any-more-christmas-cards-from-the-prime-minister/

Jim

I received this card, thanking me for my support. A nice touch :D

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c43/GateKeeper_/Centre%20of%20Attraction/05987CF9-5F91-4647-87DE-35D754FC1109.jpg (http://s24.photobucket.com/user/GateKeeper_/media/Centre%20of%20Attraction/05987CF9-5F91-4647-87DE-35D754FC1109.jpg.html)

Naughty Nigel
21st December 2018, 08:28 AM
I was interested to read this morning that the concrete industry creates more CO2 then aviation fuel.

This BBC report is an interesting read.

The massive CO2 emitter you may not know about (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-46455844)

TimP
21st December 2018, 08:34 AM
I was interested to read this morning that the concrete industry creates more CO2 then aviation fuel.

This BBC report is an interesting read.

The massive CO2 emitter you may not know about (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-46455844)

But a heck of a lot of that is in constructing airport runways! Two birds perhaps?

Naughty Nigel
21st December 2018, 09:37 AM
But a heck of a lot of that is in constructing airport runways! Two birds perhaps?

And roads too. Three birds perhaps?

Dare I mention that the bases for wind turbine towers also use quite a lot of concrete, as do hydro-electric dams. *ohwell

Otto
21st December 2018, 11:12 AM
Whichever way you look at it, we're doomed, let's face it. The planet will survive and, like Dr Who, regenerate, but I fear we are close to next great extinction. If any of humankind survives I hope it learns from all this that endless economic and population growth cannot be sustained.

TimP
21st December 2018, 04:47 PM
I truly think we’re too stupid to learn that sensible lesson I’m afraid.

wornish
10th January 2019, 05:31 PM
Is Global Warning a Pseudoscience?

I came across this video done some time ago. The Nobel Laureate made some very valid points back then and they are still true now.

Nobel Laureate in Physics; "Global Warming is Pseudoscience" - YouTube

mack100
15th January 2019, 12:08 PM
^^
He's not a climate scientist and yet purports to have intimate knowledge of climate science, he is in fact a climate pseudoscientist much loved by the American right. Apart from that he's great:)




https://www.skepticalscience.com/ivar-giaever-nobel-physicist-climate-pseudoscientist.html

wornish
15th January 2019, 12:14 PM
^^
He's not a climate scientist and yet purports to have intimate knowledge of climate science, he is in fact a climate pseudoscientist much loved by the American right. Apart from that he's great:)




https://www.skepticalscience.com/ivar-giaever-nobel-physicist-climate-pseudoscientist.html

Good try. He is a Nobel Laureate in Physics and has done real science.

mack100
15th January 2019, 12:17 PM
Good try. He is a Nobel Laureate in Physics and has done real science.
So he is a climate scientist then?

wornish
15th January 2019, 12:33 PM
So he is a climate scientist then?

No, he is a physicist who understands how to do real science. If you watched the video he starts by saying he was invited to speak. The scientific method has been corrupted by the "global warming" oops now renamed "Climate change" crowd.

mack100
15th January 2019, 12:34 PM
No, he is a physicist who understands how to do real science. If you watched the video he starts by saying he was invited to speak. The scientific method has been corrupted by the "global warming" oops now renamed "Climate change" crowd.
Yep, it's all a Chinese hoax <yawn>

Otto
15th January 2019, 01:03 PM
Dave, would you like to summarise what he says as I don't have time to listen to him drone on for over half an hour. There will always be climate change deniers just as there's still a Flat Earth Society (which incidentally once claimed to have members all over the globe!). Why should anyone believe him over the actual climate scientists who study actual climate science?

"Giaever's share of the prize was specifically for his "experimental discoveries regarding tunnelling phenomena in superconductors (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconductivity)" (Wikipedia) which hardly qualifies him as a climate expert.

wornish
15th January 2019, 01:19 PM
Dave, would you like to summarise what he says as I don't have time to listen to him drone on for over half an hour. There will always be climate change deniers just as there's still a Flat Earth Society (which incidentally once claimed to have members all over the globe!). Why should anyone believe him over the actual climate scientists who study actual climate science?

"Giaever's share of the prize was specifically for his "experimental discoveries regarding tunnelling phenomena in superconductors (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconductivity)" (Wikipedia) which hardly qualifies him as a climate expert.

I first should declare that I believe the climate IS changing BUT the impact of mankind on this is not as big as is being claimed.

He was asked to speak at the climate change meeting I guess to give an independent view of the claims made over recent years. He states up front he had not previously done any work on climate change but had simply looked at the claims made and their supporting evidence for him to make his speech.

The main thrust of his argument was that the scientific method has been consciously ignored and in fact abused by many of the claims made.
He is, in fact, quite humorous and makes his case very well, all be it a little slowly.

He gives examples of what was claimed and simply exposes the absence of a true scientific method in the interpretation of the data.

Its a simple as that.

His audience listened and even applauded his speech.

Otto
15th January 2019, 01:39 PM
Thanks. He may well be scientifically trained but that doesn't qualify him to pose as an "expert" on a field which he has not specialised. I was trained in engineering, but in electronics so I wouldn't claim to be an expert on bridge design. Apart from maybe Wien Bridges ;). Climate is an immensely complex subject and there are doubtless studies which are flawed but the concensus seems to be that the recent more rapid changes coincide with the rise in industrialisation. Diet is another area open to misinterpretation, remember all the fuss about animal fats being bad for us? That has been proven to be untrue and even the guy who first published the work admits the conclusion was flawed. I never stopped eating butter anyway!

As for the applause at the end, audiences are generally polite :).

wornish
15th January 2019, 01:46 PM
Thanks. He may well be scientifically trained but that doesn't qualify him to pose as an "expert" on a field which he has not specialised. I was trained in engineering, but in electronics so I wouldn't claim to be an expert on bridge design. Apart from maybe Wien Bridges ;). Climate is an immensely complex subject and there are doubtless studies which are flawed but the concensus seems to be that the recent more rapid changes coincide with the rise in industrialisation. Diet is another area open to misinterpretation, remember all the fuss about animal fats being bad for us? That has been proven to be untrue and even the guy who first published the work admits the conclusion was flawed. I never stopped eating butter anyway!

As for the applause at the end, audiences are generally polite :).

He never claimed to be an expert, in fact exactly the opposite.

He started by saying

Global warming has become a new religion because you can't discuss it.
Examples of that are seen even on this thread


His overall message was that

"Science" comes in many forms

* Real Science -
* Pathological science - people fool themselves because one experiment shows their theory is correct.
* Fraudulent Science - people who cheat on purpose
* Junk Science - eg in medical field claims based on tests on only a few people.

* Pseudoscience - begins with a hypothesis usually one which is appealing emotionally, and then looks only for items which appear to support it.

He leaves the audience with this question - Is global warming a Pseudoscience?

Otto
15th January 2019, 03:51 PM
To answer the question - no, I don't think it is fundamentally, though there may well be a lot of people with agendas trying to prove otherwise. Oil companies for example. The problem with all these things is there is usually a political agenda somewhere trying to prove a result one way or the other and science based on statistics is always going to be open to, well, interpretation. The diesel vehicles debacle is one such. As someone who used to do a lot of driving back in the good (smelly!) old days it was pretty obvious that the exhaust emissions were liable to be unhealthy. I visited Oxford some 20 years or so ago and couldn't believe the level of smog in the city centre from the buses and taxis. My father, who smoked quite heavily and lived to be 93, was convinced there was nowt wrong with tobacco and it was diesel smoke causing all the lung cancer! After all, the tobacco companies said smoking tobacco was good for you.


That climate change is a thing is undeniable, the causes open to a degree of conjecture. Up here in the Dales where they used to dig the sheep out of the snowdrifts almost every year we seldom get much snow nowadays. I don't think the sun has changed much so something else must be causing the change. This simply doesn't happen now:


https://youtu.be/-ugIoMD495E


:).

Zuiko
15th January 2019, 04:23 PM
A general flaw with humans is that we tend to believe what we want to be true. Why else would there be so many frankly implausible religions that attract millions of fervent believers, when there is absolutely no hard evidence that any of them are based upon even a grain of truth. Conversely we are often all too eager to reject a mountain of indisputable proof if it doesn't conform to what we want to hear.

wornish
15th January 2019, 04:30 PM
A general flaw with humans is that we tend to believe what we want to be true. Why else would there be so many frankly implausible religions that attract millions of fervent believers, when there is absolutely no hard evidence that any of them are based upon even a grain of truth. Conversely we are often all too eager to reject a mountain of indisputable proof if it doesn't conform to what we want to hear.

Very true.

Otto
15th January 2019, 04:46 PM
It's called "confirmation bias (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias)" I think.

Jim Ford
15th January 2019, 04:59 PM
It seems to me that if global warming isn't caused by human activity, there isn't any harm in behaving if it is and increasing the use or renewable energy sources. Conversely, if global warming is caused by human activity and we unwittingly ignore it, the cost to the environment could be catastrophic.

Can we take afford to take a 'calculated risk', where the 'calculations' are made by inexpert scientists, politicians and businessmen, but the whole World takes 'the risk'?

Jim

wornish
16th January 2019, 09:36 AM
Seems they are all flying to Davos next week to warn us about the impact of climate change.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jan/16/global-tensions-holding-back-climate-change-fight-says-wef

TimP
16th January 2019, 10:03 AM
Seems they are all flying to Davos next week to warn us about the impact of climate change.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jan/16/global-tensions-holding-back-climate-change-fight-says-wef

That does seem to be a trait of all those seeking to get us to reduce our consumption of the planets resources while they frantically gobble them up themselves. How about they carried on like they expect us to? (and miss an all expenses paid trip to Davos? Not going to happen is it!)