Jump to content
Due to a large amount of spamers, accounts will now have to be approved by the Admins so please be patient. ×
IGNORED

My bet to a workmate over the future of cars


danny_galaga

Recommended Posts

Something I've been thinking about, and others have expressed the same thought I'd that not too far in the future, most people won't own cars. One, because owning one won't be as convenient as they used to be. But two, this sort of shit may drive customers away (whether it's electric or not)

https://www.thedrive.com/news/car-buyers-expected-to-pay-extra-135-monthly-for-subscriptions-gm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was a report out last week by some Australian Institute of Studys, something like that, Australian institute of something. There study was to see what it would actually cost this country to become totally carbon neutral by 2050 as promised by both major political parties as neither party has actually priced it.

Neither party asked for this study, this institute took it upon themselves to find an answer.

There conclusion was it is actually impossible to ever achive net zero for Australia and the quicker a government realises, the bigger the saving of wasted money trying to achieve the unachievable.

Seeing as it is unachivable we are just better to pay the penalities for non compliance rather than backrupt the country trying and still be paying for non complience.

I heard this story on the radio in the middle of the night partially asleep so don't crucify me for not knowing the exact details of this report. Believe me, no one is as pissed off as I am at myself for not finding out because I have spend days trying to find this report. I would really like to read exactly what they found.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there is quite a focus on EVs because

1) it's a fairly easy thing to start to change (as compared to say shipping or farting cows)

2) pollution from cars is exactly where people are, so even forgetting about climate change, it is a good thing to strive for just so we aren't breathing all that noxious crap (especially diesel vehicles)

3) what we learn from developing EVs can help in developing technologies of other industries. For instance, EV development has directly helped development in electric aircraft.

That video you posted is one of millions that intends to give you some sort of impression that climate change isn't happening, but actually says nothing. As he says right at the beginning, he's not a scientist.

 

Edited by danny_galaga
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, danny_galaga said:

 As he says right at the beginning, he's not a scientist.

Al Gore, Greta Funbags and all those inner city climate change protestors in rich western nations are?

What about you, did you sneak in a Uni course to get indoctrinated?

So that goes to show those doing all the protesting and persecuting others that are not convinced have all at one stage been convinced by someone that again, was probably not a scientist.

If you silence all those non scientists from voicing there opinion, no government will act will they?

If those protesting is representative to how strong demands for such change are, what about the majority of the nation's population that don't attend those protests?. They are by far the larger number yet there vastly bigger numbers are often ignored exactly as demonstrated when voting on the subject actually happens.

What I did like what that guy said was his believe it should be up to the individual with no penalties for those that don't or can't.. Some lifestyles suit EV use better than others but this factor is often forgotten or not taken into concideration.

The views of a person with a house in Sydney override those of a person with a house in say, Coober Pedy in South Australia or Broome, Western Australia?. One could possibly live with minimal lifestyle changes as opposed to one that would need to totally change there lifestyle and location they choose to live.

I often wonder how views on climate change and demands for actions on such changes would vary if it was region based legislation rather than national legislation.

If those in the inner city areas of the nation had to use EVs or be penalised, (being the largest CO2 emiting areas of the nation), and those outside these areas did not have to comply

I think views would also change if there was a carbon limit to what each person in a household could use.

Each person in a house has a "carbon limit", and the household goes over that, you pay more much like the old "excess water bill" system worked.

I somehow think such a scheme wouldn't be liked by those "rich doctor's wifes" as they call them in the inner city green belts with every light and air conditioning on in there 3 story houses going 24/7.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve, the only thing that can refute science is better science. He isn't doing science, therefore it's just an opinion. Opinion is not science. I feel I have to say this over and over again. Science says man made climate change is real. The only thing that will say it's not real is better science. But every bit of research (by non fossil fuel groups) just strengthens the position. 

I'll say it one more time- opinion cannot make climate change go away. Opinion is not science.

 

Dunno if I ever mentioned it, but my mate who I made the bet with is not a climate change denier. He just thinks my timeline is too short.

Also, u should stop with this 'it's just latte sipping City slickers who want change'. MANY farmers are pushing for change and trying to lower their carbon footprint  also, remember that most of the farmers customers aren't just other farmers, but mostly City slickers 😉

Edited by danny_galaga
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Science is the name given when something is proven beyond doubt and not speculated and until that day it remains just a theory.

This theory of what may happen is based on modelling predictions as it hasn't happened yet so to call this a science is quite ignorant isn't it.

To destroy a whole nations future prosperty based on a theory is also quite careless but to still go ahead knowing the majority of the planet is doing nothing is just stupidity. Self sacrifice is the ultimate form of stupidity and one I want no part of like most Australians.

I'm sure some scientists of the past would have loved some of there theorys being listed as science fact such as Albert Einstein but to this day, many are still only theorys.

Adding prophecies of doom and gloom still does not make a theroy a scientific fact either. It just scares the hell out of our children for no gain.

I remember as a kid being told of impending nuclear armageddon and what good did that do other than scare the hell out of a couple of generations of kids?.

Such a cruel way to force an opinion upon others by using children but that doesn't seem to matter when "we are out to save the planet".

So much for harbouring our children from the cruel realitys of life when many use them to argue there point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Autosteve said:

Science is the name given when something is proven beyond doubt and not speculated and until that day it remains just a theory.

This theory of what may happen is based on modelling predictions as it hasn't happened yet so to call this a science is quite ignorant isn't it.

To destroy a whole nations future prosperty based on a theory is also quite careless but to still go ahead knowing the majority of the planet is doing nothing is just stupidity. Self sacrifice is the ultimate form of stupidity and one I want no part of like most Australians.

I'm sure some scientists of the past would have loved some of there theorys being listed as science fact such as Albert Einstein but to this day, many are still only theorys.

Adding prophecies of doom and gloom still does not make a theroy a scientific fact either. It just scares the hell out of our children for no gain.

I remember as a kid being told of impending nuclear armageddon and what good did that do other than scare the hell out of a couple of generations of kids?.

Such a cruel way to force an opinion upon others by using children but that doesn't seem to matter when "we are out to save the planet".

So much for harbouring our children from the cruel realitys of life when many use them to argue there point.

For all the arguments the deniers have come up with, see here.

Plenty of scope to attack the peer reviewed science of man made climate change - although this has been live for a decade or more so deniers arguments have been shot down again and again.  Maybe start with the myths section and you can view millions of posts of deniers attacking the science - all to no avail, Plenty of scope to post comments if you think you have something to add, however like all good science these people are specialists, so if you have a Phd in relevant field, you'll understand the advanced section otherwise you can read the simplified version which is the dumbed down version for the likes of me

 

Edited by peely
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Earth was once stuck in a ice age some 350,000 years ago lasting 70,000 years. Had it not been for Volcanoes spewing CO2, ash & other gases, that big freeze would have never ended as warming Sun light was being reflected back into space. What I'm saying is, It was global warming that gave us a nice moderate planet with liquid water so life could be everywhere. We will have another ice age in time as it is a natural cycle.

iceage.jpeg

Earth frozen.jpeg

Edited by Gemini2544
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Gemini2544 said:

The Earth was once stuck in a ice age some 350,000 years ago lasting 70,000 years. Had it not been for Volcanoes spewing CO2, ash & other gases, that big freeze would have never ended as warming Sun light was being reflected back into space. What I'm saying is, It was global warming that gave us a nice moderate planet with liquid water so life could be everywhere. We will have another ice age in time as it is a natural cycle.

iceage.jpeg

Earth frozen.jpeg

    

Sure, however humans today are emitting prodigious quantities of CO2, at a rate faster than even the most destructive climate changes in earth's past.

Its all on the website, don't post here. hundreds before you  over the last 15 years have posted all the "arguments" in hundreds of pages, simply read up and get educated...

Edited by peely
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, peely said:

    Its all on the website, don't post here. hundreds before you have posted all the arguments, simply read up and get educated...

Typical attack response when facts are in front of you. Your not helping your argument with an attack response like yours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, peely said:

    

Sure, however humans today are emitting prodigious quantities of CO2, at a rate faster than even the most destructive climate changes in earth's past.

Its all on the website, don't post here. hundreds before you  over the last 15 years have posted all the "arguments" in hundreds of pages, simply read up and get educated...

Would be interesting to see how we would be today if the ICE was never invented, beasts of burden create hi levels of methane, this is much worse than CO2, also we would be metres deep in manure.

The real problem is the earth is not suitable to sustain the "human plague" no matter what we do.

Eventually nature finds a way to reset like it did with the dinosaurs, the last "plague". 😁

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Gemini2544 said:

Typical attack response when facts are in front of you. Your not helping your argument with an attack response like yours.

Typical ignorant response when the facts are in front of you 🙂

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't want to focus on climate change TOO much, but something the fossil fuel stooges bang on about is that the earth has had higher levels of CO2 in the past. This is true, but at those times, there were no humans, and of course no complicated infrastructure that is so prone to wild weather that a balmier earth entails. 

Wild weather plus higher sea levels is ok for stone age people, but not us.

I'm inclined to agree with Boots. We are a disease on the face of the earth. It will probably get worse and worse for us until we once again are stone age people 

Edited by danny_galaga
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, peely said:

Sure, however humans today are emitting prodigious quantities of CO2, at a rate faster than even the most destructive climate changes in earth's past.

Wow that is interesting. That statement right there demonstrates you yourself have not fully read your science as it states quite clearly and has for over 2 decades now "man may or may not be responsible for only 2% of the Co2 in the atmosphere". Ingnoring the may or may not part, it is still only 2%.

All the rest is good old mother nature's creation.

That aside I trust history rather than "modern new age Science"...

History shows us the planet has been colder, hotter, more rainfall, less rainfall, more Co2, less Co2, higher ocean levels , lower ocean levels all in the past and you know what, man is still here.

The important factor here is no one makes money out of history as it is only recording "what has happened" so no need to alter any figures or adjusting modelling to get results your after unlike this new version of science that has only been around since the advent of computers and also makes a lot of people very rich and employed.

Have you also noticed how the richest on the planet are all attracted to this "new age science"?

I ask myself why is this so. Could it have something to do with money can get you clensed of guilt and responsibility?. Seems to work with the likes of All Gore and the inner city green voters and the other highest footprint emitters in society.

Look, I really couldn't care less as my family's footprints are more than adiquilty being clensed by the actions we do ourselves and unless everyone does there bit, it just makes it harder for everyone else plus I really hate seeing waste especially when nature supplys all the raw materials and these materials are usually made into one human use products never to be used again.

 To me the biggest threat is our throw away society. We over consume in our actions like replacing cars, white goods and just about everything we buy. When I was a kid a fridge could last 20-30 years and if it broke it could be fixed and you could buy spare parts. Cars were the same. TVs lasted over 10 years and 20 years was not unusual as some of you guys using CRTs can testify.

We make absolute rubbish these days designed not to last or be repaired with no spare parts suitable to keep them going. We just throw them out and buy a new one which no one considers the carbon footprint of manufacture.

We are to busy trying to offload our problem for others to deal using excuses like, "I bought a new car because this one emits less Co2" but the truth is to produce a new car from scratch creates more Co2 than an old car blowing smoke for 10 years and the real reason is I bought a new car because I wanted one because it made me feel good.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Autosteve said:

Wow that is interesting. That statement right there demonstrates you yourself have not fully read your science as it states quite clearly and has for over 2 decades now "man may or may not be responsible for only 2% of the Co2 in the atmosphere". Ingnoring the may or may not part, it is still only 2%.

All the rest is good old mother nature's creation.

That aside I trust history rather than "modern new age Science"...

History shows us the planet has been colder, hotter, more rainfall, less rainfall, more Co2, less Co2, higher ocean levels , lower ocean levels all in the past and you know what, man is still here.

The important factor here is no one makes money out of history as it is only recording "what has happened" so no need to alter any figures or adjusting modelling to get results your after unlike this new version of science that has only been around since the advent of computers and also makes a lot of people very rich and employed.

Have you also noticed how the richest on the planet are all attracted to this "new age science"?

I ask myself why is this so. Could it have something to do with money can get you clensed of guilt and responsibility?. Seems to work with the likes of All Gore and the inner city green voters and the other highest footprint emitters in society.

Look, I really couldn't care less as my family's footprints are more than adiquilty being clensed by the actions we do ourselves and unless everyone does there bit, it just makes it harder for everyone else plus I really hate seeing waste especially when nature supplys all the raw materials and these materials are usually made into one human use products never to be used again.

 To me the biggest threat is our throw away society. We over consume in our actions like replacing cars, white goods and just about everything we buy. When I was a kid a fridge could last 20-30 years and if it broke it could be fixed and you could buy spare parts. Cars were the same. TVs lasted over 10 years and 20 years was not unusual as some of you guys using CRTs can testify.

We make absolute rubbish these days designed not to last or be repaired with no spare parts suitable to keep them going. We just throw them out and buy a new one which no one considers the carbon footprint of manufacture.

We are to busy trying to offload our problem for others to deal using excuses like, "I bought a new car because this one emits less Co2" but the truth is to produce a new car from scratch creates more Co2 than an old car blowing smoke for 10 years and the real reason is I bought a new car because I wanted one because it made me feel good.

You’re obviously a smart guy rufus

maybe with your brilliant unique hypothesis you can lead the world out of this mess

Edited by peely
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, danny_galaga said:

I don't want to focus on climate change TOO much, but something the fossil fuel stooges bang on about is that the earth has had higher levels of CO2 in the past. This is true, but at those times, there were no humans, and of course no complicated infrastructure that is so prone to wild weather that a balmier earth entails. 

Wild weather plus higher sea levels is ok for stone age people, but not us.

I'm inclined to agree with Boots. We are a disease on the face of the earth. It will probably get worse and worse for us until we once again are stone age people 

What you write here is so true and I agree with every aspect of it except the part regarding no humans. Greenland is called green land because it was green and they grew crops on a land that is now ice and snow. There solution was move. Many Australian towns flooded regularly so they moved. Parts of the Great Sandy Desert in Australia were seas and as a result, sea shells and aquatic fossils are found today. The middle east was tropical forests but today is sand.

To say without man there would be no problems is incorrect as we in Australia often see nature itself is quite capable of exploiting the land. A rabbit plague stops only when they eat absolutely everything and they starve along with every other animal that lives there. An area that has multiple bushfires in a short period of time kills all the life in that area and turns to desert. A part of a river infested with European carp will kill out every species in that river and will die out themselves and in turn kill the river. All natures doing that shapes the land.

The problem is our generation of humans now thinks they can actually control nature. Nature you have to work with and around it, not try and control it or change it.

 Every time man thinks it can be controlled, he is quickly made a fool of or does more damage till nature itself decides to repair it.

We now with all our technology and complicated infrastructure are mere specks in the timeline of this planet and nothing we do is going to alter that. Oceans will rise and fall at nature's timeline and if you think we can understand how to control that, she may decide to hit the coastal parts of the nation with a sunami with no warning as being discovered right now with evidence of an ancient sunami that hit Australia's east coast going inland to the Great Dividing Range.

History says we are right in the timeline for another mini iceage. The timeline is between 2000 and 2060 using ice core records as the data source. Nature does have a habit of repeating itself and if this "ice core prediction" is correct, maybe we should be using these high Co2 levels to our advantage, ( working with nature), and be storing and growing excess food we at present are setting world record food production levels for a potential low sunlight period of time nature may have install for us.

You think predictions of man made Co2 will effect the planet's human population, you should give some thought to a planet right now being effected by another ice age.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...