Climate Change

[XFool]

Does it? I'm afraid I think facts trump "values" every time. I believe the universe is on my side on this...

The universe is fine by me. Science is a valid input to the debate. It is not the deciding factor when it comes to decision making however.

If a decision really is purely a matter of human "values", then science has little or nothing to do with it. If it is a matter of the physical world, then human "values" are irrelevant. The physical world doesn't share or even have human values.

You can vote an overwhelming majority for the waves to receded: but they won't.

(Of course, in practice, many human matters are a question of both, to a greater or lesser extent.)

[XFool]

Does it? I'm afraid I think facts trump "values" every time. I believe the universe is on my side on this...

You don't think it a fact that many people don't want to pay more for their heating?

Obviously it's a fact that they don't. But the 'world' doesn't care.

[Lootman]

The universe is fine by me. Science is a valid input to the debate. It is not the deciding factor when it comes to decision making however.

If a matter really is purely a matter of human "values", then science has little or nothing to do with it. If it is a matter of the physical world, then human "values" are irrelevant. The physical world doesn't share or even have human values.

You can vote an overwhelming majority for the waves to receded: but they won't.

(Of course, in practice, many human matters are a question of both, to a greater or lesser extent.)

But where the two meet, both matter.

So present your findings and then let me decide what if anything I want to do about them. Because I was elected to make decisions and you were not.

[tjh290633]

Coke -- the fuel, not the drink or the drug! Pretty much everyone that was burning coal at home just changed to burning coke when domestic coal was withdrawn. We used it well into the '60s.

I remember that. But wasn't coke more expensive than coal, since it was more processed?

It was a byproduct of making town's gas. My recollection is that it was comparable in price but was far more controllable.

We had an underfloor draught fire (Dunsley) with the whole of the fireback a boiler. That ran 4 radiators. I could bank the fire up with the air flow turned down, and the fire would stay in overnight and while we were away at work during the day. The downside was that a strong wind could melt the ash, rather than let it fall into the ash box.

I used to get my coke from the landsale bunkers at Neepsend Gasworks in Sheffield.

Coal would not have worked so well. I think it was more expensive.

TJH

TJH

[odysseus2000]

Coke -- the fuel, not the drink or the drug! Pretty much everyone that was burning coal at home just changed to burning coke when domestic coal was withdrawn. We used it well into the '60s.

I remember that. But wasn't coke more expensive than coal, since it was more processed?

Coke was once an unwanted by product of making coal gas & was given away. Then marketers redefined it as a manufactured fuel & the price shot up.

There are problem with coke. It forms clinker, a mass of melted together metals & slag that cuts off the bottom air draft & has to be taken out to get the fire going, also coke is very dependent on the coal it was made from & can burn hot enough to damage grates or not burn if there is insufficient air flow.

Most domestic solid fuel burners use a manufactured smokeless fuel or anthracite which is a naturally occurring smokeless fuel.

Blacksmiths, as far as I know, can still burn forging coke, but not coal,although propane gas, either directly or with ceramics & induction forges are also popular depending upon the size of the job. In my case I mostly use propane as I am mostly forging small things that easily fit into my one burner propane forge. For bigger jobs charcoal is another option which is somewhat co2 neutral.

Regards,

[odysseus2000]

If a matter really is purely a matter of human "values", then science has little or nothing to do with it. If it is a matter of the physical world, then human "values" are irrelevant. The physical world doesn't share or even have human values.

You can vote an overwhelming majority for the waves to receded: but they won't.

(Of course, in practice, many human matters are a question of both, to a greater or lesser extent.)

But where the two meet, both matter.

So present your findings and then let me decide what if anything I want to do about them. Because I was elected to make decisions and you were not.

The usual method is that the findings go to civil servants who create a greatly simplified & précis breakdown that the politician might be able to understand along with recommendations. If the politician is conscientious he/she may then discuss things with the lobby group that created the findings as this gives context to the civil service analysis & lets the lobbyists present clarifications etc. or the politician might be too lazy for all of that & simply go with the civil service recommendations, hoping that this course will not bring forth a back bench revolt & that the whips have dealt with the trouble makers etc.

Regards,

[XFool]

We had an underfloor draught fire (Dunsley) with the whole of the fireback a boiler. That ran 4 radiators. I could bank the fire up with the air flow turned down, and the fire would stay in overnight and while we were away at work during the day. The downside was that a strong wind could melt the ash, rather than let it fall into the ash box.

There are problem with coke. It forms clinker, a mass of melted together metals & slag that cuts off the bottom air draft & has to be taken out to get the fire going

Buried in here is an old mystery solved. (Actually I had thought of it previously)

At my primary school in the 1950s there used to be a kind of margin, or border, around the perimeter of the school grounds. This consisted of some loose, hard, black seemingly fused substance, rather like pieces of misshapen black glass. I remember looking closely at it and wondering what it was - perhaps meteorites from outer space?

I now realise it must have been slag from the school hot water boiler system that was heated by coke.

[dealtn]

You don't think it a fact that many people don't want to pay more for their heating?

Obviously it's a fact that they don't. But the 'world' doesn't care.

So you are then down to deciding which "facts" matter, and which "facts" don't when determining actions on what to do. Like it or not, but that is "politics" not "science".

[scotview]

So you are then down to deciding which "facts" matter, and which "facts" don't when determining actions on what to do. Like it or not, but that is "politics" not "science".

I personally think that opposing views/analysis/solutions to the current climate group think are not being given enough open and equal exposure, for such a potentially existential event. Now, whether politicians or the population have the ability to rationalise open debate is another matter. Looking at climate change from a country or even continent perspective is a futile exercise.

[odysseus2000]

So you are then down to deciding which "facts" matter, and which "facts" don't when determining actions on what to do. Like it or not, but that is "politics" not "science".

I personally think that opposing views/analysis/solutions to the current climate group think are not being given enough open and equal exposure, for such a potentially existential event. Now, whether politicians or the population have the ability to rationalise open debate is another matter. Looking at climate change from a country or even continent perspective is a futile exercise.

Correct scientists do not make decisions, politicians do and for the most part politicians do not understand the science and selectively take what they want, the only checks to such law maker behaviour is other politicians who can refuse to vote for something they don't like, not necessarily for the better but until some kind of consensus is reached it is difficult and sometimes impossible to make laws.

If one adopts the attitude that because any country, or even a continent, is small so it can not have any influence on a global problem is false. Adopting of things in one nation/continent can be a catalyst for others and by imposing import duties on goods from nations not doing these things one can influence their policies.

Regards,

[XFool]

So you are then down to deciding which "facts" matter, and which "facts" don't when determining actions on what to do. Like it or not, but that is "politics" not "science".

Ultimately, what are "facts" (about the physical world) will be definitively decided for us (not by us) - by the physical world.

Prudent populations can recognise this and act accordingly. Or not...

[mc2fool]

So you are then down to deciding which "facts" matter, and which "facts" don't when determining actions on what to do. Like it or not, but that is "politics" not "science".

I personally think that opposing views/analysis/solutions to the current climate group think are not being given enough open and equal exposure, for such a potentially existential event. Now, whether politicians or the population have the ability to rationalise open debate is another matter. Looking at climate change from a country or even continent perspective is a futile exercise.

Not clear which opposing views/analysis/solutions you are referring to, but I'd say that "opposing" views re climate change in general have held sway for a good chunk of the last 50 years, and that the current wrangling over whether to even mention a reduction, less alone a phase out, of the use of fossil fuels, for the first time in 28 years of COPs, belies the idea of there being a universal group think! (COP26 referred to reducing and ending just coal use.)

[CliffEdge]

What are the facts about climate change?

[scrumpyjack]

An example of how expensive and misguided it can be when politicians and civil servants jump on a bandwagon, is the issue of Solar Panels and Feed in Tariffs.

HMG encouraged homeowners to put solar panel on their homes at a time when we did not manufacture any solar panels and they were a very expensive way of generating electricity. So the Feed In Tariff scheme was introduced. Not being one to look a gift horse in the mouth, I happily took up the offer and installed a 4kw system in 2011. It cost about £10,600. I get an RPI linked payment per kwh (now about 68.3p) for 25 years, plus I use the electricity. This is paid for by a levy on all electricity users so pushing up energy prices for all. I recovered the full cost in about 6 years and carry on with an RPI linked tax free payment until 2036. Currently the net benefit to me is about £3,000 pa

The effect of this scheme was to provide a subsidy to Chinese manufacturers at the expense of UK consumers. Temporarily it provided some employment in this country for installers, but of course that was ‘boom and bust’ as they went out of business when the scheme ended.
Utterly crazy. If we had waited 5 years we have installed hugely more solar systems for a much lower subsidy.

There may be some argument in subsidizing the early stages of a British industry but we were never going to make solar panels! Perhaps help Rolls Royce with small nuclear reactors? But I see we are giving £32 million to a US company to help them develop these – on the face of it not a good idea?

All this goes back to my earlier post about not blindly pushing all this climate change stuff in this country ahead of the rest of the world.

Incidentally I have just increased my solar array to 9kwh and put in 20kwh of batteries. Makes me feel a bit greener!

[ursaminortaur]

An example of how expensive and misguided it can be when politicians and civil servants jump on a bandwagon, is the issue of Solar Panels and Feed in Tariffs.

HMG encouraged homeowners to put solar panel on their homes at a time when we did not manufacture any solar panels and they were a very expensive way of generating electricity. So the Feed In Tariff scheme was introduced. Not being one to look a gift horse in the mouth, I happily took up the offer and installed a 4kw system in 2011. It cost about £10,600. I get an RPI linked payment per kwh (now about 68.3p) for 25 years, plus I use the electricity. This is paid for by a levy on all electricity users so pushing up energy prices for all. I recovered the full cost in about 6 years and carry on with an RPI linked tax free payment until 2036. Currently the net benefit to me is about £3,000 pa

The effect of this scheme was to provide a subsidy to Chinese manufacturers at the expense of UK consumers. Temporarily it provided some employment in this country for installers, but of course that was ‘boom and bust’ as they went out of business when the scheme ended.
Utterly crazy. If we had waited 5 years we have installed hugely more solar systems for a much lower subsidy.

There may be some argument in subsidizing the early stages of a British industry but we were never going to make solar panels! Perhaps help Rolls Royce with small nuclear reactors? But I see we are giving £32 million to a US company to help them develop these – on the face of it not a good idea?

All this goes back to my earlier post about not blindly pushing all this climate change stuff in this country ahead of the rest of the world.

Incidentally I have just increased my solar array to 9kwh and put in 20kwh of batteries. Makes me feel a bit greener!

There have been UK solar panel manufacturers since at least 1999 though it appears only one currently survives

https://www.gb-sol.co.uk/faqs/generalsolarpvquestions/default.htm

Q. Do you really manufacture in the UK?
A.
Yes. GB-Sol is the only manufacturer of conventional solar panels in the UK and we have been manufacturing solar panels in Soth Wales since 1999. Romag & Sharp were other notable solar panel factories in the UK, but their manufacturing operations are now sadly closed.

[MuddyBoots]

The mention of 1950s smogs also brings to mind that it was the decade when nuclear power got started, together with the infamous quote that it'll be 'too cheap to meter'. Obviously that didn't come true, tho the current climate narratives have revived the debate about nuclear, together with geopolitical considerations about getting foreign interests involved like China.

[XFool]

Could there be a gold rush for buried hydrogen?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-67541581

Earlier this year Professor Jacques Pironon was searching for methane in the Lorraine Basin, northeast France, when his team made an unexpected discovery.

"Around 3,000m underground they found a very large deposit of hydrogen.

"It is what we call serendipity," says Prof Pironon, research director at France's Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS) at the University of Lorraine."

[XFool]

Too cheap to meter

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

"The statement was contentious from the start. The U.S. Atomic Energy Commission itself, in testimony to the U.S. Congress only months before, lowered the expectations for fission power, projecting only that the costs of reactors could be brought down to about the same as those for conventional sources. A later survey found dozens of statements from the period that suggested it was widely believed that nuclear energy would be more expensive than coal, at least in the foreseeable future. James T. Ramey, who would later become an AEC Commissioner, noted: "Nobody took Strauss' statement very seriously."

The phrase has also been attributed to Walter Marshall, a pioneer of nuclear power in the United Kingdom. There is no documentary evidence that he invented or used the term."

[Lootman]

So you are then down to deciding which "facts" matter, and which "facts" don't when determining actions on what to do. Like it or not, but that is "politics" not "science".

Ultimately, what are "facts" (about the physical world) will be definitively decided for us (not by us) - by the physical world.

Prudent populations can recognise this and act accordingly. Or not...

But some are claiming that changes in our climate are being caused by us and our decisions. And so not by the world.

So where we stand on the matter depends on which side we believe more. And how much we care either way.

For my part I start to get suspicious when someone tries to tell me there is only side to the debate. Because then warning bells go off about cult members and conspiracy theorists.

[XFool]

Ultimately, what are "facts" (about the physical world) will be definitively decided for us (not by us) - by the physical world.

Prudent populations can recognise this and act accordingly. Or not...

But some are claiming that changes in our climate are being caused by us and our decisions. And so not by the world.

That's the point! What ultimately happens will be decided by the world because that is the way 'the world' works. NOT by voting.
You can't change physical reality by voting *. (Why do I need to labour this so much?)

Our (un-voted for) actions may be the causes of climate changes, but the consequences of climate change are not freely determined by us - other than we can elect to try and mitigate them.

So where we stand on the matter depends on which side we believe more. And how much we care either way.

Sure. But the world doesn't care, either way. It's going to do what it is going to do - voting can't and won't change that. What we do or do not do - faced with reality - is up to us and our voting etc.

For my part I start to get suspicious when someone tries to tell me there is only side to the debate. Because then warning bells go off about cult members and conspiracy theorists.

Sigh...

Again: The physical world neither knows nor cares what you "think". The physical world doesn't do "debate", it just is. What is "the other side" of this "debate"?


* As opposed to "Should life mean life?" or "Should we leave the EU?" etc.