Extinction Rebellion

[kwackers]

from a couple of thousand to install highly configurable room-by-room controls of heating to tens or even hundreds of thousands for a windmill at the bottom of the (very long) garden. No subsidy on most, as the house had already had it via the previous owner when he first installed the ground-source tech and solar.

Room by room central heating is reasonably cheap, I fitted it myself using Honeywell gear. If you've got radiators and thermostatic valves it's a doddle since you simply swap the valve head (I didn't so had to do some actual plumbing).
Moderately cheap and good savings to be had.

With ground source heating and presumably underfloor heating you can do the same thing at the manifold although that's outside my experience other than knowing it's possible.

I looked at ground source heating but for me and as a retrofit I'll be dead by the time it starts to make a profit - either in monetary or carbon terms.
I also think that when my house gets sold it'll be demolished and several other houses built on the land making it overall less of a good thing.
OTOH in a few years gas boilers will be banned which presumably means that 'straight' gas boilers will be banned but hybrid 'air' heat exchanging boilers will be ok so I suspect my boiler (which is due for replacement) will end up being a heat exchanging boiler - just of the crappier variety.

As for solar, my roof will need replacing in a few years so I'm toying with hanging on and getting flush fit panels (they replace the tiles too so save a bit there). In the meantime I'm thinking I'll temporarily fit a couple to provide the tick over cost for the house. They're so cheap now I'm happy to forgo the FIT tariffs and do it myself.
Eventually when I get a proper system fitted (and a 'lecky car) I'll shift them elsewhere and plumb them in to other stuff.

Modern houses should be mandated to be fitted with solar (and possibly storage) along with solar water heating and grey water systems for loos etc.
This of course requires government intervention, as an optional extra builders would charge so much most folk wouldn't bother but as a mandated extra they'll simply absorb the costs because ultimately the price of houses is set by market conditions not what they actually cost.

[kwackers]

Face it, you can't get a good messenger for something that's so mainstream accepted it can't be undermined by the far right conspiracy merchants. It isn't a good thing.

Why can't we get respected climate research scientists doing the spokesperson role instead of these activists? Giving quality information out instead of drivel about not being able to have kids because the planet will die in their lifetime.

Point one, it is being undermined by the far right and there's no sign it's going away - although it's generally changed from "it isn't happening" to "it's happening but there's nothing we can do".

As for respected climate research scientists; plenty of stuff out there - in fact a lifetimes reading. But the sorts of people doing this research aren't famous and probably not even that good as public faces plus more importantly they're not newsworthy in the same way that school children or big demonstrations are.
Remove the schoolchildren and the big demonstrations and CC simply drops back off the radar popping up every now and again as a reason for this weeks big weather event.

The other point is just how bad is it?
Well if you listen to climate scientists most think it's pretty bad, although they're a bit more measured publicly so as to avoid scaring folk.
But basically the tipping point is approaching fairly quickly but it'll only be something we can confidently put numbers on after it's happened.
Combine it with the avalanche of other stuff that we're putting the planet through and it makes for depressing reading - for humans at any rate.

[Tangled Metal]

Are you telling me there are no UK climate change researchers with the ability to present the argument to the masses via the media of TV? I do not believe you. I know of people at the beginning of their research careers getting media training just to deal with a few minor radio interviews in case they had to go on them. They're not even in a field as high profile as climate change neither.

Secondly you can quote all the research papers you like it's a human face that can be trusted that gets converts to a cause. People might not understand science but they can pick up on when someone is a bit of a clown spouting hyperbole and exaggerations as fact. Time for quality not quantity with climate change activism perhaps?

Thirdly the fact the fat right conspiracy merchants have gone from disputing there is climate change surely means they've accepted it. A win there. They are unable to undermine the science behind the climate change theory. So are now arguing it's not possible to change it. They've lost the argument. No longer undermining the science just the actions we need to make as a planet / species.

Well put simply that's a win for the science and scientists presenting their research. It isn't a bunch of street messengers and activists that got the win in the first battle. We need the same community to win the second battle which is the actions of our species to correct or minimise our impact on the climate. The scientists and good presentation of the science is the real way to affect a change.

[reohn2]

There is no serious push by government or anyone else to establish these technologies everywhere. Part of the problem is that the current energy producers want to make a profit more than they want to provide a service. High gas and electricity bills, from suppliers that have a virtual monopoly via their various syndicates and cabals for fixing prices, make them loads. They seem to have government on their side.

Cugel

Nail,head,on!

[Freddie]

Maybe an extinction level event is needed for the planet to get back to a sustainable population level. It wouldn't be pretty, but what can you say? All the concern in the world from Europeans (including those taking unnecessary flights in planes) will not account for the other 90% of the World's population. How do you educate people living in slums not to dump their waste where they stand or into rivers (90% of the plastic in the ocean comes from just 10 rivers)

https://www.dw.com/cda/en/almost-all-pl ... a-41581484

How do you encourage their governments to provide proper recycling and refuse collection or to be concerned about clean energy? I somehow doubt creating a song and dance in London will have much effect. This is an gargantuan task and no amount of solar panels, electric cars, recycling or protests by people in the West will change what happens elsewhere.

You can feel good that you're doing your small part, but in the totality of things, it will achieve rather little, even if every European became an ecologically aware overnight, it requires effort on a world scale and it isn't forthcoming.

[kwackers]

Are you telling me there are no UK climate change researchers with the ability to present the argument to the masses via the media of TV? I do not believe you. I know of people at the beginning of their research careers getting media training just to deal with a few minor radio interviews in case they had to go on them. They're not even in a field as high profile as climate change neither.

No, I'm telling you the media isn't interested.
Those few "minor" radio interviews are on the back of the high profile kids and mass demo stuff.
Without them scientists would be lucky to get the occasional spot on breakfast TV to say whether the latest freak weather event was CC related ("yes or no is all we need").

Secondly you can quote all the research papers you like it's a human face that can be trusted that gets converts to a cause. People might not understand science but they can pick up on when someone is a bit of a clown spouting hyperbole and exaggerations as fact. Time for quality not quantity with climate change activism perhaps?

Plenty of quality research out there. As I said folk aren't interested.

I railed at work for years because they buy in plastic cups to go next to the water dispenser. I told them the problems, showed the pictures of birds that had died after eating plastic etc etc.
Made no difference.
Then along comes Attenborough and they haven't bought any since.

I bet that schoolgirl will do more for climate change than any number of middle aged men regardless of their scientific credentials.

Thirdly the fact the fat right conspiracy merchants have gone from disputing there is climate change surely means they've accepted it. A win there. They are unable to undermine the science behind the climate change theory. So are now arguing it's not possible to change it. They've lost the argument. No longer undermining the science just the actions we need to make as a planet / species.

And yet we have Trump and other right wing leaders denouncing climate change and trying to out compete each other in the economic growth stakes.
So I'm not sure it's a win. Paris was a fairly modest attempt compared to what's really needed but even that now looks out of reach.

[Psamathe]

Are you telling me there are no UK climate change researchers with the ability to present the argument to the masses via the media of TV? I do not believe you. I know of people at the beginning of their research careers getting media training just to deal with a few minor radio interviews in case they had to go on them. They're not even in a field as high profile as climate change neither.

No, I'm telling you the media isn't interested.
Those few "minor" radio interviews are on the back of the high profile kids and mass demo stuff.
Without them scientists would be lucky to get the occasional spot on breakfast TV to say whether the latest freak weather event was CC related ("yes or no is all we need")......

And even if they do get to be interviewed by the BBC the daft policies (or the daft way they are implemented by the BBC) means that give a respected scientist 10 mins to discuss scientific peer reviewed work and they give 10 mins to some complete nutter who regards their garden thermometer as part of a conspiracy plot.

An excellent quote I often use from the Guardian

We know already that denying climate science has become part of the Republican psyche in the United States, but every once in a while it’s worth pausing to remind ourselves just how nuts this situation has become.

These are people who fancy themselves as the leader of the “free world” but think every science academy in the world together with the world’s thermometers, tide gauges and glaciers are all engaged in an elaborate hoax.

Ian

[Freddie]

Science isn't infallible and science is swayed by the whims and culture of the time as anything else. In the 1940s someone got a Nobel Prize for pioneering frontal lobotomies of schizophrenics:

https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/medic ... z/article/

In the 1960s doctors backed by the best (the latest) 'science' were giving schizophrenics electroshock therapy.

In a hundred years from now people will look back and consider us ignorant in the same way we would consider those pioneering doctors who, with the best of intentions, gave frontal lobotomies to schizophrenics ignorant, and perhaps savage.

Science is never settled and science is not scripture. We shouldn't treat science as if we already know everything there is to know, when we know so very little.

[100%JR]

Don't have time to read 24 pages but I will say this about the OP.
Chris Packham is involved....that alone is enough to make me dislike Extinction Rebellion.The man has turned into a complete idiot (not the word I wanted to use but at least this shouldn't get clipped)

[Lance Dopestrong]

Does Chris Packham also fly everywhere to preach about the climate? Strewth, imaging being stuck on a flight with him!

[Psamathe]

Science isn't infallible and science is swayed by the whims and culture of the time as anything else. In the 1940s someone got a Nobel Prize for pioneering frontal lobotomies of schizophrenics:

https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/medic ... z/article/

In the 1960s doctors backed by the best (the latest) 'science' were giving schizophrenics electroshock therapy.

In a hundred years from now people will look back and consider us ignorant in the same way we would consider those pioneering doctors who, with the best of intentions, gave frontal lobotomies to schizophrenics ignorant, and perhaps savage.

Science is never settled and science is not scripture. We shouldn't treat science as if we already know everything there is to know, when we know so very little.

So are you saying that we should ignore science because there is the possibility that it might be wrong, that we not worry and do nothing because by the time we establish that it was not wrong we will have destroyed our climate, devastated human (and animal) populations, etc.

People used to think you could turn base metals into gold, that the Earth was flat, etc. So should we ignore all and any scientific finding on the basis that "it might be wrong".

I don't see how pointing out historical misunderstandings helps the debate in any way. You can see the impact of Climate Change. You can measure our emissions of pollutants and can demonstrate that these pollutants cause Climate Change.

To me one either accepts that it is likely the Climate Scientists are broadly right and take a cautions approach and actually do something or you can ignore the qualified experts, ignore their expert opinion, ignore their research and instead maintain that there is the possibility they might be wrong so we'll plough on with our pollution and keep our fingers crossed.

Scientists are in broad general agreement on this and those arguing they are wrong are those with no expertise, no knowledge on the issue, who have not spent any time investigating and don't understand it anyway but do have vested and financial interests in continuing the pollution.

Should somebody diagnosed with cancer ignore their Consultant's recommended treatment because somebody down the pub thinks not eating beetroot will cure everything. And lest face it, Drs and consultants have got it wrong before.

Ian

[Mike Sales]

]The Book of the week on Radio 4 at 9:45 a.m. this week is well worth listening to.
It is called Losing Earth
C.C. was hypothesised in the 19th.C but fifty years ago the science was already very clear.
Politicians were briefed and oil companies asked their scientists to investigate. The scientists found what they always have, so the fossil fuel companies began a campaign of propaganda to preserve their profits.
If we had begun a drive to stop using fossil fuels then, the damage now would be much less and the economic disruption much less.

Edited to add the book title!

[pwa]

Don't have time to read 24 pages but I will say this about the OP.
Chris Packham is involved....that alone is enough to make me dislike Extinction Rebellion.The man has turned into a complete idiot (not the word I wanted to use but at least this shouldn't get clipped)

I don't mind him, and I admire his passion for wildlife. He has a certain way of putting things across but you must remember that he has Asperger's. (Not a joke)

[100%JR]

Don't have time to read 24 pages but I will say this about the OP.
Chris Packham is involved....that alone is enough to make me dislike Extinction Rebellion.The man has turned into a complete idiot (not the word I wanted to use but at least this shouldn't get clipped)

I don't mind him, and I admire his passion for wildlife. He has a certain way of putting things across but you must remember that he has Asperger's. (Not a joke)

I used to like him from years ago(Really Wild Club) but of late he seems to be going over the edge.I think he sees himself as the natural successor to David Attenborough but I don’t think he’s as widely liked as DA.He is definitely getting more preachy.

[Psamathe]

Don't have time to read 24 pages but I will say this about the OP.
Chris Packham is involved....that alone is enough to make me dislike Extinction Rebellion.The man has turned into a complete idiot :| (not the word I wanted to use but at least this shouldn't get clipped)

I don't mind him, and I admire his passion for wildlife. He has a certain way of putting things across but you must remember that he has Asperger's. (Not a joke)

He also has another condition that to me make much of what he does particularly amazing - I'm aware of it as at one point my GP suspected I might have the condition and if I had, it would have been pretty devastating (fortunately it turned-out I didn't have it).

But I appreciate he is a bit of a Marmite character (my parents can't take much of him on TV). But he does manage to explain often quite complex subjects in a very clear and accessible way. I suspect a lot of TV presenter types are similar in that some really appreciate their style whilst others really don't e.g. I really can't tolerate the Hughes-Games person (but I would argue "with good reason" because of the stupid things he's done, but others would probably say the same about Packham).

Ian