1 hour ago, wyx087 said:

from reputable sources

You've just opened a whole new can of worms.

 

Is a source that's funded by a commercial organisation dependent on oil/gas reputable?

 

Is a source that's funded by a commercial organisation dependent on renewal power reputable?

 

Both of those will tend to fund only research that produces the "right answer" for their commercial interests, so some would say any research they fund is NOT independent and hence could be argued not to be "reputable".

 

Truly independently funded research which will report what they found without bias is incredibly hard to find now that most Governments have abolished or drastically cut back on non-commercial funding.

I suppose they are all At IT. 

 Sponsored by Oil & Gas corporations or Renewables.   Lefties or Righties or who gives ****ee?

 

@EnterName no doubt can see the Elephant in the room, the rest of us are blind. 

2 hours ago, PetrolDave said:

Both of those will tend to fund only research that produces the "right answer" for their commercial interests, so some would say any research they fund is NOT independent and hence could be argued not to be "reputable".

It always pays when ever possible to follow the money as well as look for linkages to other organisations as all too often they all have vested interests in taking the viewer/listener/reader down a particular path to get to a desired conclusion.

 

For instance, is this one not looking for a favourable outcome from their research, being funded by a foundation for the protection of the environment?

 

 

Edited 14 January, 20251 yr by Graham Butcher

Or where the UK spys get enrolled.

 

How cares about the research or the results, you are getting what you are getting. 

Even if Donald Trump is the President for 4 years.   Climate change will happen. 

 

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

Staying at Trump Turnberry.    Likely looking at more spending in Scotland. 

Edited 14 January, 20251 yr by Ootohere

5 minutes ago, Ootohere said:

Or where the UK spys get enrolled.

 

How cares about the research or the results, you are getting what you are getting. 

Even if Donald Trump is the President for 4 years.   Climate change will happen. 

But if you look at the historical facts, climate change has been happening for thousands of years, so it is a natural thing anyway. At one time, there was no English Channel, but there is now, was also that the result of global warming brought about by massive CO2 emissions from ICE? 

Edited 14 January, 20251 yr by Graham Butcher

Yes, there was an ice age.  Hurrying it up makes no difference then. 

Fire up the coal fired power stations again, burn peat & just get on with fracking.   In the south of the UK.

 

PS.

To the French there is no English Channel, just the Channel. / La Manche.

Edited 14 January, 20251 yr by Ootohere

Did anyone happen to see this or any other reference to the topic?

 

 

3 hours ago, EnterName said:

Okay, I'm happy to play by those rules, if you are.

Please list the sources that you would accept evidence from.

First, not social media. Not for news, certainly not for scientific topics.

 

It's simple really, you have a large selection:

General news from any news outlet (they all have their biases), as long as their sources are verifiable to be considered expert in the relevant area, not likes of "anonymous sources" or "member of public".

Scientific related (includes climate change) must be from scientific journals, papers that had gone through peer review process. Meta analysis papers are better.

  

1 hour ago, Graham Butcher said:

But if you look at the historical facts, climate change has been happening for thousands of years, so it is a natural thing anyway. At one time, there was no English Channel, but there is now, was also that the result of global warming brought about by massive CO2 emissions from ICE? 

Climate change in the context of EV's is for man-made climate change. Just because the climate is always changing does not mean we can forego any responsibility.

 

 

It's funny, people who are against (include raising issue after issue without making an effort to understand) a small change of car powertrain are the biggest proponents of a much bigger global change.

"I'm all right Jack"

Climate change is real - that's an observable fact which has scientific concensus. 
Record temperatures, shrinking ice sheets and receding glaciers, a rise in sea levels and more acidic oceans. We're seeing more extreme weather (storm after storm in the UK alone)
What there is is scepticism about the cause of climate change - man made Vs natural but, like it or not, it's 100% real.
Fossil fuel companies have known about it for decades but buried their findings IIRC.

Edited 15 January, 20251 yr by Lee01

14 minutes ago, Lee01 said:

What there is is scepticism about the cause of climate change - man made Vs natural but, like it or not, it's 100% real.

Climate change has happened over the millenia (as can be measured by e.g. CO2 concentrations in rock samples, radio carbon dating of organic samples, etc.) and historical records of e.g. Romans growing Mediterranean grape varieties at Hadrians Wall forts and the Middle Ages mini Ice Age.

 

CO2 levels are not at their highest in Earth's history, during the period of the dinosaurs there is some evidence that CO2 was at around 6% - hence the huge vegetation growth and large vegetarian dinosaurs.

 

What's still debated by some is the relative effects of natural cycles vs human activity.

We really do get very very far from 'The truth about electric cars',   or Electric road vehicles'. 

At times we get 'The truth about ICE vehicles and hybrid vehicles'. 

 

'MGUY' videos seem to be about what is in the Media, press releases etc and takes his fancy. 

 As far as The Truth about EV,s, well only as far as he brings up selectively from the media available to him. 

 

There are for's and against's and those that have ev,s or not & these videos but persuade some with EV,s to move on from them and might have many more without an EV not to get one.

As to Climate change, global warming or Governments and emissions legislation then surely that is a Roadside Hotel type subject as very much a Global subject and as much about Fossil Fuels & Ice vehicles as it is Batteries, generating electricity and then using it. 

 

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

Just a week to go and we will see what Executive Orders Donald Trump signs and what Mandates he can cancel and then what Elon Musk thinks about them. 

 

My selected look at published pages about EV,s and from the USA. 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited 15 January, 20251 yr by Ootohere

1 hour ago, PetrolDave said:

What's still debated by some is the relative effects of natural cycles vs human activity.

The "debate" on effects of human activity is not conducted with scientific methods.

 

Within the scientific community, where the experts on this matter reside, they have reached consensus: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change

Quote

Nearly all actively publishing climate scientists say humans are causing climate change.

 

 

The only topic we, the public, are qualified to have a debate and can be politicised is level of government involvement and ways to meet their climate obligations.

Well these new beasties EVs.

 

The old nutshells of range and a charging infrastructure not where it should be.

 

I needed to do a mega journey yesterday from Felixstowe back to Worcester.  Got to my brothers on Monday using up 60% of my traction battery going from Worcester to Cambridgeshire. He kindly allowed me to use one of his 3 pin sockets, charged it for 12 hours or so, he is on Octopus Cosy tariff so 13p per kWh for much of the night so 90% charge when off to Felixstowe in the morning. Got there is about 66% left. After my day in Felixstowe office headed out of the 200 mile home to Worcester.  Got to Cambridge services but the place was a building site around the EV chargers. Looked they were installing additional new rows of chargers and some existing ones were also not working. Drove on.

 

Stopped at Kettering and Corby to use Shell and BP EV chargers, either blocked or simply would not authorize.  I hear loads of complaints about these two, as massive companies they should do better but they appear clueless.  Only choice was to cruise on to the massive Rugby services where there are 50 or so ultra rapid chargers but it was 12 miles out of my range.  Having seen videos that many EVs will drive well beyond zero range and 0% battery I decided to keep going.  I know ICE cars can also drive beyond zero miles, did it in my Fabia petrol VRS some 15 miles or so, don't know if there was any pump cavitation damage but al seemed OK.

 

Well the award winning Scenic kept going only giving the "limited performance" warning after 11 miles past zero miles range ie with only 1 mile to go.  Rocked up to the Gridserve Ultras Rapid charger, plugged in, presented my Am EX card (TESLA did not accept AM EX when I tried a few weeks ago, what is that about ?).  Charge started, ramped up to 130 kWs in seconds. ten minutes later had 30% battery, was still charging at 105 kWs when unplugged but a 79p per kWh was just ketting what I needed plus a margin ie 18 Kw so about £14 charge to get me the 60 miles home, drove quickly as wanted to get home for the footie. 

 

So well done Gridserve and the Rugby Services, what a place, well done Scenic.  Thumbs down to Cambridge services, BP and Shell, you are a disgrace. 

 

Edited 15 January, 20251 yr by lol-lol

3 hours ago, wyx087 said:

Nearly all actively publishing climate scientists say humans are causing climate change.

 

3 hours ago, wyx087 said:

Within the scientific community, where the experts on this matter reside, they have reached consensus: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change

"Nearly all" is not the same as "consensus".

 

Surely you're not suggesting that wikipedia is a reliable source?

@lol-lol Thank you for at least acknowledging that the charging did not quite go as planned, I hear so many times that the chargers are always accessible, no problems in getting them to work and no waiting for one to be free etc, but in the real world we all know that is not the reality. You broke the journey up with a stop-over and a 12 hour charge at your brothers in Cambridge, many would not have that luxury, they would have to get on Monday and drive to Felixstowe, do whatever they had to do there and back again on the same day.

 

Hardly a walk in the park then was it, but that hopefully will improve one day with more range and plentiful charger locations, its not currently anywhere near as good fossil fuel stations, even if one is out of order due to construction work, there is normally in towns, another within a mile or so away so that last stretch to Rugby should happen with an ICE but hey, as I said that will get better, and well done for not glossing over the problems you encountered.

20 minutes ago, PetrolDave said:

Surely you're not suggesting that wikipedia is a reliable source?

Normally it is what ever supports the particular claim, at the time 🙄

Great minds think alike, fools seldom differ. 

 

Drill baby drill, as long as you can and you have a vested interest in it financially. 

 

 

59 minutes ago, PetrolDave said:

"Nearly all" is not the same as "consensus".

 

Surely you're not suggesting that wikipedia is a reliable source?

Consensus: "a generally accepted opinion or decision among a group of people"

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/consensus

 

Definition of consensus is exactly "nearly all" in agreement.

 

On this page, Wikipedia is written in the style of meta analysis with lots of very valid and verifiable references. Therefore I think it is sufficiently reliable source.

Meta-analysis: https://guides.himmelfarb.gwu.edu/studydesign101/metaanalysis

 

But here is a fully published meta analysis paper:

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0270467619886266

Quote

Abstract

The consensus among research scientists on anthropogenic global warming has grown to 100%, based on a review of 11,602 peer-reviewed articles on “climate change” and “global warming” published in the first 7 months of 2019.

 

Those two deserve each other. 

Lobby groups need to be banned there are way to many of them and whatever they are pushing is always going to more beneficial for certain groups of people who are going to be making millions at the expense of the country and majority of the British population.  

Just watched this video about Chinese BEVs, and it made me doubt the so-called better Chinese more affordable EV's that are coming on stream and it also shows my concerns about the extra enhanced speed and acceleration available from these electric cars with their instant torque that some people love to brag about there ability to show up ICE cars at traffic light starts for example. There are loads of other things that happen with their self drive systems and many other issues and also alleged fake safety tests etc.

 

 

Another video I just watched about a Tesla Model 3, and it's good and bad in equal parts and the video was I felt totally unbiased and other car manufacturers should be worried by what they have got right, but I'll leave it there, and let you if you feel inclined to watch the video, discover more for yourselves.

 

What is going on this forum, or at least this thread seems to be pretty dead today?

 

 

20 hours ago, Lee01 said:

Climate change is real - that's an observable fact which has scientific concensus. 
Record temperatures, shrinking ice sheets and receding glaciers, a rise in sea levels and more acidic oceans. We're seeing more extreme weather (storm after storm in the UK alone)
What there is is scepticism about the cause of climate change - man made Vs natural but, like it or not, it's 100% real.

So what? 🤷‍♂️

 

On 14/01/2025 at 20:51, wyx087 said:

General news from any news outlet (they all have their biases), as long as their sources are verifiable to be considered expert in the relevant area, not likes of "anonymous sources" or "member of public".

Scientific related (includes climate change) must be from scientific journals, papers that had gone through peer review process. Meta analysis papers are better.

Hmmm. So no mainstream media outlets as a rule then, who almost invariably fail to provide links to peer-reviewed papers.

Okay, what are the scientific journals that would meet with your approval?

 

14 hours ago, wyx087 said:

Consensus: "a generally accepted opinion or decision among a group of people"

Enforced consensus is no consensus at all.

Ugh! 🙄

Look, if there's to be a climate change "consensus" enforced on Briskoda, then fine.

You're not going to force me to do anything IRL, but if that's how this place is going to be run, then so be it.

We had the COVID vaccine "consensus" enforced on here, so it won't be the first time a "consensus" has been imposed on Briskoda.

If that's how it is going to be, so be it. Let's just have a clear ruling on it.

Any chance the debate or discussions or even arguments about terms, words and understandings can be taken elsewhere rather than here where the subject is BEVS?

55 minutes ago, EnterName said:

Okay, what are the scientific journals that would meet with your approval?

All of them, as long as the published paper has been through peer review. 

 

56 minutes ago, EnterName said:

Enforced consensus is no consensus at all.

There is no enforcement. Only we are not qualified to comment on this matter just as we are not qualified to comment on effectiveness of COVID vaccine. 

 

However, the way certain things are run by the government (eg. ZEV mandate, lockdown, require vaccine for working) is a political matter and we are fully entitled to our opinions on how things should be run.  Opinions of what count as political matter differs greatly, that's where situations like this thread arise and your sentiment arise. 

 

 

 

 

I personally think adoption of EV is linked to climate change, due to government mandates and their gaol of net-zero. But I'm happy to start a new thread called climate change if people want to move the discussion?