I am not worried about Climate Change

I checked it out and over the 8 years it was running the global thermometer went up and down by over 1.5 degrees (over 8 years)

I can see that society is changing towards being greener.

I can see that progress continues to bring more efficiency.

My only beef is that "Climate Change" is being used as the justification for new Nuclear Power.

When Climate Protesters protest that nothing is being done (for society to become greener) this is a lie and colossal changes are underway in renewable's of Wind and Solar and pumped storage is back on the agenda

Right now in the UK no coal power stations are running.
On days with a breeze 12GW of power - equivalent to 10 nuclear Power Stations output- is created. We Generate over 8GW of metered Solar Power on a good day even here in cloudy UK. Nuclear Powers contribution to the UK's electricity mix continues to decline as our 40 year old Nuclear Power Stations reach the end of their lives

I worry about the Children of this World. Not that they will inherit an imaginary Climate Disaster, but that they are fed on a diet of lies of foreboding doom. This cannot be healthy for their mental well-being. Children should be curious and explore new possibilities and are a positive not a negative contribution to our World - they need to be told this more often.

I have nothing more to say on "Climate Change". Life giving CO2 amounts to 0.041526% from which every carbon molecule in your living being is derived. Without it nothing living exists. If you think there is a problem with the trace gas plant more trees (don't burn them in powers stations like Drax) and everyone will win.

I am now living in an RV I am surrounded by trees on the site that I'm on and all I can hear is bird song.

We are not living through a Climate Disaster - this can only be seen in well meaning Movies that peddle the fictional nightmare.

We live on a beautiful Planet that should be called Water. Water which in it's many forms stabilises the extremes we would experience if every fluctuation of our local enormous gravity powered fusion reactor was felt in full. This is the major mechanism of climate control - those fluffy clouds.

I'm off now. I will be getting my solar panels installed on payday to keep my Leisure Batteries topped up.

Be happy

Dave

Business Insider: The Trump administration is reportedly stepping up its war against climate science by forcing scientists to omit key details from a major report.
https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-adminis...st-climate-science-2019-5

I don't think so...

Reality is that most EVs emit less CO2 than petrol cars over their lifetimes https://www.ft.com/content/d14b6c8a-c61e-11e7-b2bb-322b2cb39656 via @financialtimes

From Jessika Trancik, Geoffrey Supran and Marco Miotti — Last week’s most read letter
Sir, We are dismayed by how your Big Read article “ Green driving’s dirty secret” (November 9) turns the fundamental conclusions of our research at Massachusetts Institute of Technology on their head, giving the public a misleading perspective on electric vehicles.

The article makes a legitimate argument about vehicle policy: that emissions regulations should differentiate vehicle models by their full lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions (emissions accruing from both the tailpipe and the production of the vehicle and fuel).

But rather than make this simple point by showing the spread of lifecycle emissions from a representative sample of different electric and petrol car models — data that we made readily available — it instead uses a cherry-picked example. The electric vehicle industry faces a “wake-up call”, the article reads, because the emissions of one petrol car (Mitsubishi Mirage) are slightly lower than the emissions of one electric car (Tesla Model S P100D), in one region of the US. On the basis of this single case, the article broadly critiques policy in Europe, America, and China: “The idea that some combustion engine cars can be greener than some ‘zero-emission’ electric vehicles simply does not make sense in the current regulatory environment [of Europe, America and China] . . . As things stand, a small car like the Mirage could be illegal to drive in cities across Europe, the UK and China by 2030 . . . ”.

There are three fallacies here. First, Tesla-versus-Mirage is an apples-to-oranges comparison, pitting a luxury, high-power electric model against a subcompact, low-power petrol one. (The article glosses over a fairer comparison — between the Tesla and a BMW 7-series — that shows the Tesla has significantly lower carbon emissions.) Second, even if we entertain this comparison, our research shows that the Mirage’s emissions are lower than the Tesla’s only in carbon-intensive electricity grids like the US Midwest, where electricity production emits roughly 40 per cent more CO2 than the US average, and more than twice as much as many European countries (including the UK). The Tesla/Mirage example is attention grabbing, but belies the reality that most electric cars emit considerably less CO2 over their lifetimes than petrol cars. Third, the article assesses policies “as things stand”. This overlooks the main advantage of replacing petrol with electricity: not only do electric cars usually emit less than petrol ones already, but over time, as the carbon footprint of electricity continues to fall, that gap will widen. Electric cars have the potential to reach climate change mitigation targets that petrol cars simply do not.
Deeper in, the article acknowledges some of these conclusions, and focuses instead on distinguishing between electric models. But by this point the damage had been done. As the FT’s second most-read online article of the day, the article’s headline, standfirst and intro spawned grossly misleading reporting in news outlets and auto magazines internationally.

As researchers working to uncover and share accurate information, we are saddened to see our results used in this way.

Jessika Trancik, Geoffrey Supran and Marco Miotti
Trancik Lab, MIT, US

What they fail to mention is the energy needed to mine(not eco friendly) the rare earth minerals to build the batteries, the energy needed to manufacture the batteries, the energy needed to charge the batteries(what powers most electricity generating plants)and the energy or resources needed to dispose of highly toxic lithium batteries when they reach EOL. All that adds up to electric cars are not even remotely green and probably never will be. P.T. Barnum said it be best.

Most? Seriously? Reality is that is as bogus as a $3 bill for all the reasons stated in my previous post. Hope all the suckers that bought electric cars are prepared for sticker shock when they have to replace the batteries. Why do you think Chevy quit making the Volt and Tesla is bleeding money faster that a stuck pig?