Colleagues & other scientists totally disagree with the assumption that EV's as promoted are any so called 'Greener' than Diesel & Petrol, as they need vast mining of minerals which in turn need HydroCarbons (aka incorrectly demonised as 'FossilFuels' these days). They are heavier & produce more brake & tyre dust; up to 100k miles are needed to equate EV to ICEs. There is NOT enough Lithium/Cobalt etc. known reserves to just replace UK 32 million vehicles, let alone other countries! Carbon Dioxide is a minimal GHG and H2O covers all absorption wavelengths. CO2 is also the source of food via C3,C4 &CAM photosynthesis & is only 0.04% atmospheric (trace gas), even less than Argon. The whole premise is debatable & is leading the UK at the head of this Non-Science to an Energy Dead End of so called 'renewables' (Sun & Wind are but not the extraction process, that again requires a lot of mineral mining).
Try these books if interested (some free PDFs if search):
1. Not For Greens by Prof. Ian Plimer
2. ApocalypseNever by Michael Shellenberger
3. False Alarm by Bjorn Lomborg
4. Fossil Future by Alex Epstein
5. The Great Global Warming Blunder by Roy W. Spencer.
6. Challenging "Net Zero" with Science by RichardLindzen&WilliamHapper CO2 Coalition
7. AnAssessmentOfTheConventionalGlobalWarmingNarrative by RichardLindzen, comments by Nic Lewis
8. Realism or Utopianism. A proposal for reform of the Net Zero policy by John Constable & Capell Aris
9. Fake Invisible Catastrophes and Threats of Doom by Patrick Moore
10. Climate Basics Nothing to Fear by Rod Martin Jr.
11. Climate at a Glance for teachers & students by Anthony Watts & James Taylor.
12. The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels by Alex Epstein
13. Human caused Global Warming (the biggest deception in history) by Tim Ball.
14. Doubt and Certainty in Climate Science, by Alan Longhurst
15. Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years by Fred Singer & Dennis T. Avery
16. The Hockey Stick Illusion (Climategate & the Corruption of Science) by A.W. Montford
17. Global Warming Skepticism for Busy people by Roy W. Spencer
18. The Miracle Molecule Carbon Dioxide The Gas of Life by Paul Driessen
19. Watermelons - The Green Movement’s True Colours by James Delingpole
"Truth doesn't mind being questioned.
A lie doesn't like being challenged.” Nietzsche.
“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” Sagan.
Science works in incremental steps some setbacks & small steps forward.
"All Models are Wrong, Some are useful" Box.
Every man needs exactly 3 hobbies. A physical one (lifting, martial arts, team sports...) A cerebral one (reading, chess, mathematics...) And a creative one (music, writing, painting...) Commit to one of each and you will never feel lost again.
----------
https://www.biologyonline.com/dictionary/photosynthesis
https://www.britannica.com/summary/photosynthesis
https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/cam-plants/
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/03/15/climate-crisis-what-climate-crisis-part-one-the-evidence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/
https://yourbias.is/
To cut a long re-confabulation short of mine (my Sunday Soap Box time - we all have them - LOL):
The Green agenda seems to suite both Politicized Scientists and dare I say 'Lefties', and that includes a lots of 'us': 'New Ageies', 'Buddhists', STPBs (Save The Planet Brigade) etc etc., in that it's a joint cause BUT both sides have a different motivation.
Government-over control of all we do, for the politicians and sycophantic scientists 'Following the Money' that could well be leading to a Carbon lifetime allowance for all as implied by the video. Saving the Planet for 'us'
Think about it fellow 'Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, Muslims' only so many trips to your favourite retreat per lifetime, or holiday makers 10 European trips & 1 long haul per lifetime per person!
Now obviously I hate wasting resources and having closely studied this man-made 'problem' of Global Warming which was cooling before that in the 70's, it seems that it's grossly exaggeration in the extreme. Also there may have been data normalization as pointed out by other non-CAGW scientists may be biased to suite a story - it happens and have witnessed it first hand. This shows a warming trend in our modern human's extremely brief moment on the planet of maybe 0.85 degC in 250 years - bid f'ing deal. Models can be and are manipulated to suite a RAC (Required Agenda Conclusion.
However pointing this out to friends is as bad as saying you voted to 'Remain' to a 'Leaver'; you get shut down and shunned for pointing out a possible error in science.
I'm a scientist by trade and member of the IoP & IET and they both also pander to the CAGW story with no cushioned words - it's happening or your not one of us view. and even my company make money from this story so have to be careful what I say.
Humans are part of the carbon cycle, Earth decreases in mass over time die to loss of H & He from up atmosphere that is a larger mass than accretion of meteorites falling in. We are small fry enjoying a Utopian lifestyle compared to previous species (our ancestors killed off the 18 or so similar homo species, although most non-Africans have up to 5% Neanderthal DNA within) and yet we still create samsara.
Enjoy it while we can, I doubt whether the bird choppers or solar cell technology will be as efficient and reliable as fossil fuels so the only hope to continue our deluxe lifestyle is nuclear (don't like and avoided when leaving University).
A glimmer of hope in Trump era is that he may do some good by stopping waste of clever scientists on this 'joint cause' when that money could be spend elsewhere. Btw the 97% figure is a gross statistical fabrication!
https://extension.okstate.edu/fact-sheets/greenhouse-carbon-dioxide-supplementation.html
https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/advice/emissions/vehicle-exhaust-emissions-what-comes-out-of-your-cars-exhaust/
A DIY Guide To Demystifying “Greenhouse Gas” Claims…The Science That Cuts Corners
https://www.spectator.com.au/2022/07/climate-scientists-have-lost-their-minds/
The AGW mob completely refuse to recognise Earth's own very dynamic geophysics as a ClimateDeterminant. Solids & to a lesser degree, liquids are far more able to transfer & retain any heat as opposed to a gas (0.04%CO2) with limited quantum mechanical ability & our minute cont
Models are over estimating affects of CO2 forcing because that is the main believed cause
Many people are mixing ClimateChange & Weather
Thanks for you honesty as many still don't understand this area fully & its got too political leading to polarised Alarmists vs. Deniers Ad Hominens, revealing ConfirmationBias of either . However what is the solution to a degree over a century warming, so called 'Renewables' (yes Sun & Wind are but not the extraction process of the weak energy) require FossilFuels all the way through from Mining to Decommissioning & CarpertBaggers push the un-equivalence of to the two which may well lead us to Energy Dead Ends if we are to prematurely renounce FF's before any equivalent way forward is proved
https://www.unitedutilities.com/help-and-support/your-water-supply/your-reservoirs/reservoir-levels/
Here are TEN facts that climate activists don't want you to know:
➊ Just because something is published in a journal does not necessarily guarantee the research findings are correct. Recall when an ocean acidification study was retracted for containing fraudulent data?
➋ Consensus is the business of politics, not science. Science advances by questioning our current state of knowledge and expanding upon it with new ideas. If everyone is thinking the same, someone isn't thinking.
➌ Observations trump models every time. You can't establish fact from modeling alone. If no observations back it up, nothing was studied.
➍ If Big Oil can fund scientists to push climate denial, then you can be darn sure there are scientists funded by environmental groups and green energy pundits to push alarmist rhetoric.
➎ Many academics with a lower public profile enjoy conducting valuable research, but it is increasingly difficult to do so. To get funded, you have to come up with a predetermined conclusion that appeases the activist mob, then work backwards to “find” science to agree with it.
➏ Dozens of treaties and billions of dollars spent, it hasn't made a dent in the atmospheric carbon dioxide level. Why? Until China takes steps to decarbonize, whatever the U.S. does will have little to no impact.
➐ Regardless of what the climate does, quality of life is projected to increase in just about every possible metric (e.g., share of population nourished, not living in poverty, access to electricity and water, educated, life expectancy, etc.).
➑ It is a lie to say that “We are in the middle of a green energy transition.” In reality, it has barely even begun. Like it or not, fossil fuels will dominate the fuel mix for decades to come. To be clear, I'd personally be glad to explore clean alternatives, but they must be both cheap and sustainable. Wind and solar are not. Hydro and geothermal are limited and also take up a lot of land.
➒ Humans contribute to climate change in a variety of ways, but it is much more significant at the local level through deforestation, land use and urbanization. The fix to this does not involve decarbonization.
⦿ If we were serious about lessening our dependence on fossil fuels, nuclear power would be embraced. Instead, it's opposed by fossil fuel lobbyists and green activists alike. Neither have our best interest in mind. A typical 1,000 MW nuclear facility requires 1.3 sq. mi (832 acres) of land. One 2 MW turbine occupies 50 acres of land. On a good day, you'd need at minimum 500 turbines (25,000 acres = 39 sq. mi) to match the output of one nuclear plant. Being pro-solar ≠ being pro-environment.
CONFABULATIONS
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/08/19/confusion-about-confabulations/
The problem for ModernCivilisation is NOT the use of FossilFuels but when they dwindle & then run out!
NationalGrid 'Renewables' & Nuclear all require FF's
Maybe between 2070 & 2175, assuming below is worst case & not regenerated (bar coal) by Earth's mantle (in Abiotic theory).
