17 minutes ago, wyx087 said:

The lobby group with biggest amount of financial clout was the fossil fuel industry.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt

It would be helpful if you cite your sources.

Which lobby group (or industry backing the said lobby group) are you referring to? Where are their funding sources?

99% scientist v luddites / those with financial interest in Status Quo (not the pop group)

Edited 5 August, 20255 Aug by lol-lol

4 minutes ago, lol-lol said:

99% scientist v luddites

Remember there have been many examples in history where scientists have been accused (wrongly) of being the Luddites.

Credibility in scientific reports comes from independence, and there have been so many cases where scientists have failed to get funding for research projects offering an unbiased study into climate change consequences and causes. Why is there such a problem with getting funding for independent reports without a foregone conclusion? Because there is virtually no independent funding available, it all comes from companies, quangos, lobby groups, etc. with a defined agenda who don't want questions raised about the validity of their public statements.

That doesn't make me a climate denier or a Luddite, just someone with a scientific background of nearly 3/4 of a century who has read so many reports that have proven to be inaccurate because they started out with a foregone conclusion, that in the fullness of time turned out to be inaccurate or in extreme cases just plain wrong.

6 minutes ago, PetrolDave said:

Credibility in scientific reports comes from independence, and there have been so many cases where scientists have failed to get funding for research projects offering an unbiased study into climate change consequences and causes. Why is there such a problem with getting funding for independent reports without a foregone conclusion? Because there is virtually no independent funding available, it all comes from companies, quangos, lobby groups, etc. with a defined agenda who don't want questions raised about the validity of their public statements.

That doesn't make me a climate denier or a Luddite, just someone with a scientific background of nearly 3/4 of a century who has read so many reports that have proven to be inaccurate because they started out with a foregone conclusion, that in the fullness of time turned out to be inaccurate or in extreme cases just plain wrong.

What you've said is exactly this, where small number of scientist getting funding by fossil fuel industry to fit paper their foregone conclusion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt

As result of fossil fuel industry's efforts. There's now huge amount of donations funding unbiased research and education campaign.

Union of Concerned Scientists

Funding & Financials

We're funded by members and partner foundations, enabling our independent voice.

@PetrolDave This is so true, and you only have to look at the structures of any government these days, they are all made from largely career politicians with no actual skills in any other walk of life. Relying on guidance from other "experts" who are in the employ of someone with a vested interest in a particular outcome.

?

Why in any gods name would a private individual who has to buy and pay to run their vehicle with their earning after tax then run a BEV bought or leased new or used if they have to pay 65 pence or more a kWh to public charging because that is the only way they have to charge a BEV?

50 kWh @ 65 pence is £33.25,

if getting 4 miles to a kWh then 200 miles.

140 pence a litre, = £6.37 ish a gallon. near enough.

5 gallons £31.85 & 45 mpg = 225 miles.

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

Maybe because you like EV,s, are getting cheaper vehicles you want size wise and actually lower maintenance and running cost, insurance / VED.

Maybe just because!

The Business / Commercial driver & Home / Work charging and BIK or HMRC tax breaks are not anything to do with the question posed.

8 minutes ago, Ootohere said:

?

Why in any gods name would a private individual who has to buy and pay to run their vehicle with their earning after tax then run a BEV bought or leased new or used if they have to pay 65 pence or more a kWh to public charging because that is the only way they have to charge a BEV?

50 kWh @ 65 pence is £33.25,

if getting 4 miles to a kWh then 200 miles.

140 pence a litre, = £6.37 ish a gallon. near enough.

5 gallons £31.85 & 45 mpg = 225 miles.

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

Maybe because you like EV,s, are getting cheaper vehicles you want size wise and actually lower maintenance and running cost, insurance / VED.

Maybe just because!

The Business / Commercial driver & Home / Work charging and BIK or HMRC tax breaks are not anything to do with the question posed.

That is why many people are advocating the dropping of enforcing all "new" cars will be electric by 2030 and allowing people the free choice, so that they can purchase the right car for them and their own circumstances, rather than 1 size fits all.

Plunge pricing of 40% off public charging between 1200 and 1500 presumably due to abundance of cheap/ free/ paid to take electricity on Instavolt, Ionity, Osprey and several other networks using the Electroverse card from Octopus...

Edited 5 August, 20255 Aug by lol-lol

Forcing a proper emissions test and introducing Euro 7 emissions by 2028 would make a big change to what manufacturers actually build and sell.

The current fining or not fining them for not meeting Average fleet C02 emissions is a joke.

Then people buying / leasing so First Registering cars might be lighter and more efficient & less polluting.

Allowing the current kidology is ridiculous.

Plenty cars built now and within the next 5 years and going on the roads to satisfy the needs of UK drivers if they do not want to be buying anything from 2030.

1 hour ago, wyx087 said:

What you've said is exactly this, where small number of scientist getting funding by fossil fuel industry to fit paper their foregone conclusion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt

As result of fossil fuel industry's efforts. There's now huge amount of donations funding unbiased research and education campaign.

Union of Concerned Scientists

Funding & Financials

We're funded by members and partner foundations, enabling our independent voice.

That graph says nothing about the source of the funding so I don't see how you can use it to support your assertion that the funding is unbiased?

13 hours ago, lol-lol said:

Not meant to be funny.

Sone of us who have already transitioned to EVs wonder when the lydites are going to get up with the program.

ICE vehicles are poisoning the world and contribution to climate change.

Temperature here in Worcestershire of almost 35c are no laughing matter and it will cause hundreds of deaths this summer in the UK and tens of thousands across Euope.

EVs are generally very cheap to run as well not progressing human extinction at anything like the rate as ICE vehicle Mr Dieselgate.

Next step heat pump instead of gas boiler now an all EV family.

The Fall of Because - Killing Joke.

For clarity, my comment had nothing to do with climate change and everything to do with you repeating something that is getting tiresome.

25 minutes ago, Ootohere said:

Forcing a proper emissions test and introducing Euro 7 emissions by 2028 would make a big change to what manufacturers actually build and sell.

The current fining or not fining them for not meeting Average fleet C02 emissions is a joke.

Then people buying / leasing so First Registering cars might be lighter and more efficient & less polluting.

Allowing the current kidology is ridiculous.

Plenty cars built now and within the next 5 years and going on the roads to satisfy the needs of UK drivers if they do not want to be buying anything from 2030.

Likewise, basing things on the CO2 emissions is a joke, the actual amount produced by cars is minute when compared to the natural production of it via all the natural things that have been happening for centuries without any influence from man kind. If we think about it, CO2 is a vital gas for plant growth, and yes, the population of the planet is growing but equally so to is the amount of food that needs to be grown to produce the food. so as the population grows, the CO2 grows, but the plants being grown also consume that gas in ever increasing volumes. It does not help when huge forests get chopped down without new ones being developed to replace them. Wild fires that are created by irresponsible people having a BBQ etc in the wrong location, or even as has been proven in many cases, started deliberately.

Also, I expect that many of those who are shouting the loudest about all polluting ICE cars that are polluting the air that we all beath etc, are also possibly the largest proportion of those that are jetting of to overseas holidays, annually and more frequently even, or taking sea cruises etc.

Personally, I cannot afford to do such things so the miles that I drive year in my lower than average emission car is not making that much CO2 when compared to a overseas flight or cruise, especially when, many of those doing so, will continue to add salt to the wound by either having a place where they are going to, with a car or cars, or will be hiring one when they arrive, which may not be an electric one even. I have friends who holiday in the states and will always hire out a thumping great 5 litre V8 Ford Mustang and drive the route 66.😮

58 minutes ago, Graham Butcher said:

That is why many people are advocating the dropping of enforcing all "new" cars will be electric by 2030 and allowing people the free choice, so that they can purchase the right car for them and their own circumstances, rather than 1 size fits all.

Not all new cars must be electric by 2030.

20% are still allowed to be ICE powered.

24 minutes ago, PetrolDave said:

That graph says nothing about the source of the funding so I don't see how you can use it to support your assertion that the funding is unbiased?

It's a link to the funding sources page, forum happen to pick that graph.

On that page, it says 65% of revenue comes from 100,000 individual donors (eg. not big corporations pushing a narrative).

That's one of many non-profit organisations.

What you say is true and still happens today, case in point the orange tit US administration. But it doesn't invalidate overwhelming consensus from scientists. It goes back to the question, who is paying off every single scientists in order to reach consensus?

Of course, there is also the argument that individuals could be considered as luddites for raising new ideas within the consensus. It is totally true that science is always changing as more discoveries are made. But we've been down this road in late 1900's, unless there's totally new discoveries, every single re-hash of previously known ideas against climate change drumming fear, uncertainty and doubts (FUD) should be ignored.

Again, see the book Merchants of Doubt.

It is ICE hybrids allowed to be First Registered in the UK 2030-2035 is it not.

Keeping up with rumours, kite flying and actual Government proposals is not simple.

As it is JLR are Woke according to the President of the USA.

BP has just make it biggest find of Oil & Gas in a long long time.

Off South America.

Not going to do much for Energy Security in the UK.

The Scotland Part of the UK,s energy customers can expect an increase in annual costs because the National Grid infrastucture needs upgrading, with more and bigger pylons.

Obviously where so much energy is being generated those nearest it need to pay more get it to their homes and exported to the RofUK for there to be Plunge Pricing and cheap tariffs for those furthest from 'eye sores' and anything to spoil their neighbourhoods.

Then there is the A1 centres, heat pumps & EV,s in Scotland to be powered.

Edited 5 August, 20255 Aug by Ootohere

It is unfortunate electricity zonal pricing has been dropped.

Too many vested interest by old players scared of change.

2 hours ago, wyx087 said:

But it doesn't invalidate overwhelming consensus from scientists.

One example, before Copernicus the overwhelming consensus was that the Sun, Moon and planets orbited around the Earth - so consensus is not a good basis on which to completely change any significant factor of society such as our methods of personal transport.

Very often history shows that it was the outcasts and pariahs who the long term has proved to be closer to the truth, not saying that's the case here but it's a good reason not to discard the views of the scientific minority.

1 hour ago, PetrolDave said:

One example, before Copernicus the overwhelming consensus was that the Sun, Moon and planets orbited around the Earth - so consensus is not a good basis on which to completely change any significant factor of society such as our methods of personal transport.

Very often history shows that it was the outcasts and pariahs who the long term has proved to be closer to the truth, not saying that's the case here but it's a good reason not to discard the views of the scientific minority.

The case with Copernicus is that he made an observation and discovery that was never previously considered or observed. The "consensus" at the time was deep rooted in religion, which are resistant to change.

Climate change consensus is very different. There is no resistance to change. The growing evidence for climate change is there to be challenged within the scientific peers.

The only thing today's "outcasts and pariahs" can muster are rehashed old data trying to stir up FUD in general public.

6 hours ago, PetrolDave said:

That doesn't make me a climate denier or a Luddite, just someone with a scientific background of nearly 3/4 of a century

As someone who has a scientific background. You must know the scientific method and the rigour required to publish peer reviewed papers.

Based on that knowledge, can you really call those "outcasts and pariahs" credible if they are publishing in non-scientific papers not requiring peer review?

@Ootohere That is the problem, regardless where in the world the oil reserves or any other commodity is discovered, it does little to help the natives closest to the discovery, other then maybe create new jobs for the locals, is that the price of that commodity is always going to be directly linked to the global price for that commodity per unit of whatever it is measured in?

8 hours ago, Ootohere said:

?

Why in any gods name would a private individual who has to buy and pay to run their vehicle with their earning after tax then run a BEV bought or leased new or used if they have to pay 65 pence or more a kWh to public charging because that is the only way they have to charge a BEV?

50 kWh @ 65 pence is £33.25,

if getting 4 miles to a kWh then 200 miles.

140 pence a litre, = £6.37 ish a gallon. near enough.

5 gallons £31.85 & 45 mpg = 225 miles.

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

Maybe because you like EV,s, are getting cheaper vehicles you want size wise and actually lower maintenance and running cost, insurance / VED.

Maybe just because!

The Business / Commercial driver & Home / Work charging and BIK or HMRC tax breaks are not anything to do with the question posed.

Absolutely right, in that case, they are being penalised for not being in the right wealth bracket and location of the country to be able to afford off street parking/driveway etc so once again it would be case of the upper and middle classes who stand to benefit the most from running an electric on terms of pure running costs alone. Ignore the alleged environmental benefits of such, as they have not been proven beyond any doubt, it is way too early for that. Yes it is true that at the actual point of them being used, the environment will benefit. But what about the sheer devastation and the high toxicity of the environment at the locations where the raw minerals etc are actually mined and the health effects on those doing the hard graft mining them? There is a cost to be paid there in the future for sure, which may be worse then the damage done by fossil fuels, only time will actually prove which side was most correct. Future generations could either praise or curse us once the real truth is known.

Edited 5 August, 20255 Aug by Graham Butcher

Re Raw Minerals.

Lets not forget the mining at the same places for the same materials for aeroplanes and weapons, the electronics and whatever.

Look at how Gazza has been flattened, and all the death and destruction in the Ukraine and everyplace else around the world where there are wars.

Wars for Oil, Gas, Minerals /rare earths.

7 hours ago, wyx087 said:

It is unfortunate electricity zonal pricing has been dropped.

Too many vested interest by old players scared of change.

Think UK government is most concerned about the division it would cause though we already gave different standing charges by region.

Some states in the US have multiple tariffs through the day which make some sense. So the night time would be very low and many places have and then a medium tariff through much of the day when solar is feeding in lots of energy as well as wind but then a higher rate at the tea time period to try and avoid those Peaker plants coming on stream and charging some $5 per kwh.

Nobody wants people sitting in the cold waiting for 7 or 8 pm for the cheaper electricity to become available but this is already a reality in California I gather and it is really just the power companies passing on higher prices at peak times or lower prices when electricity is plentiful and companies can and do give it atway. Market forces, supply and demand.

Both macro level battery packs at the 40 foot container size that Tesla do with their Megapacks and we do with our home battery packs or portable solar generators that include solar invertors, batteries with AC and DC outputs.

I keep a look out for a home battery unit with say 7 kw output or even 11 to 22 kw 3 phase would be great, a few years off. Best I have at the moment is 2.4 kw output but always looking for the next step up which can save money by shifting when I download power in to the house and consume it later as well as having resilience for power cuts as Portugal and Spain had recently.

Edited 5 August, 20255 Aug by lol-lol

Waiting in anticipation of what qualifies for a reduction (grant) of £3,750...

1 hour ago, Ootohere said:

Waiting in anticipation of what qualifies for a reduction (grant) of £3,750...

Six Citreons confirmed getting the lower £1500 grant incl the Berlingo-e, had a Berlingo petrol many years ago. Presumably could not prove the low carbon production which i think Renault will be much better placed to do to get the £3750 or closer to it. Hoping to get that off a red R4 in the next few weeks.

17 hours ago, wyx087 said:

As someone who has a scientific background. You must know the scientific method and the rigour required to publish peer reviewed papers.

Peer review relies on the peers being independent, but since the majority of the peers are themselves receiving funding from "interested bodies" they cannot be seen to be independent. So the peer review process has, by pressure from the same lobbying bodies, become untrustworthy.

My Professor at university was deeply concerned about this starting to happen back in the late 1970's so this is not a new problem, and one which there is no desire to tackle because of this "funding dependent on the correct conclusions" effect.

The EV Brag.....

Not the biggest fan of "Dave Takes it on" but I think he does sum up things well in this YouTube vid......

44 minutes ago, PetrolDave said:

Peer review relies on the peers being independent, but since the majority of the peers are themselves receiving funding from "interested bodies" they cannot be seen to be independent. So the peer review process has, by pressure from the same lobbying bodies, become untrustworthy.

My Professor at university was deeply concerned about this starting to happen back in the late 1970's so this is not a new problem, and one which there is no desire to tackle because of this "funding dependent on the correct conclusions" effect.

So in order to get an analysis paper like this published. Not only need to fund every single person at top (10+ people). Also the journal itself and every person who had reviewed it.

2024 state of the climate report: Perilous times on planet Earth | BioScience | Oxford Academic

The publishing journal is said to date back to 1964. So who was funding them for 60 years?

BioScience - Wikipedia

In contrast to this paper by Singer, who is now well known to have been receiving fossil fuel money. A single person wrote it.

04-singerSanter

The publishing journal for Singer's paper is not only a lot shorter, it is well known to "publishing papers that could not have passed any reasonable peer review process"

Energy & Environment - Wikipedia

So, yes of course what you say is a problem in accedemia. As evident by the latter paper. To receive fossil fuel funding requires "correct conclusion", there's many records of such shady behaviour.

But to reach consensus of opposite, how many people must be paid off? Where does so much funding come from?