September 30, 20232 yr I don't mind 20mph zones at all but I hate road bumps. Useless things. Perhap if they stopped making road bumps they could use the material to fill the pot holes? Win Win TTFN John.
September 30, 20232 yr Perhap if they stopped making road bumps they could use the material to fill the pot holes? Win Win TTFN John. Or cut out the middleman and describe the potholes as a traffic calming measure - concave speed humps anyone?
October 1, 20232 yr 20mph certainly has it's place, but the blanket application we have here in Wales is a totally confusing mess. We have been told that if you see street lights assume 20mph unless there are signs to the contrary. Fair enough in the city. Here, in rural village land, we have the spectacle of 30 signs followed by newly installed 20 signs followed by prexisting 30 repeater signs. All in areas where street lamps are, at best, intermittant and in no way regular. There are also areas where the 30 signs are all fully in place (inc repeaters) yet the led flashing signs are indicating 20. There are areas with regular street lamps still fully signed as 30. Many 20 signs have either been painted over or even cut down altogether. Of course it's there to save life and reduce injury despite this being in areas where you could wait all day and not see a pedestrian. Confusion reigns supreme and all utterances from the senedd only serve to make it worse. Ridicule is rife.
October 1, 20232 yr 20mph certainly has it's place, but the blanket application we have here in Wales is a totally confusing mess. We have been told that if you see street lights assume 20mph unless there are signs to the contrary. Fair enough in the city. Here, in rural village land, we have the spectacle of 30 signs followed by newly installed 20 signs followed by prexisting 30 repeater signs. All in areas where street lamps are, at best, intermittant and in no way regular. There are also areas where the 30 signs are all fully in place (inc repeaters) yet the led flashing signs are indicating 20. There are areas with regular street lamps still fully signed as 30. Many 20 signs have either been painted over or even cut down altogether. Of course it's there to save life and reduce injury despite this being in areas where you could wait all day and not see a pedestrian. Confusion reigns supreme and all utterances from the senedd only serve to make it worse. Ridicule is rife. I hate to say it, but you are becoming more English each year.
October 3, 20232 yr We have, as others do, a 20 mph school zone on a long(300m) stretch near a sketchy area of town, parked with high-end cars contrasted with half burnt bangers every so yards. I travel this road to reach the discount shops, it is the best route to cross town as it has recently been resurfaced. It has the normal UK traffic calming measures; parked cars either side and bollards/chicanes to slow cars down. People speed down there, dare I say over 35 mph, with (adult) pedestrians running across the road (mostly) for their daily fix in and out or parked cars. Luckily at school time the traffic density slows most to a crawl. Isn't it time we looked at the Netherlands [road/cycle/pedestrian separation] even just for the slightly raised junctions and mid road raisers instead of full on speed bumps, these have been proven to encourage drivers subconsciously to slow for every junction and slow down in general. Imo 20 mph is not going to slow those who do not wish to.
October 27, 20232 yr Windmill company demands extra 70% subsidy to continue.. coz its so "sustainable"! :-) I like the quote in the comments: "Only the most incompetent Gov could transform an island made of coal and surrounded by fish, into one with industries in neither" (paraphrased from Aneurin Bevan)
October 27, 20232 yr Since we all use electricity to charge our e-bikes, I thought I'd post this here as well: Something very close to home, FUEL PRICES. For those of you what dont yet know the new prices from April 1st, I've received mine: I'm electricity only and my current month bill for this 20th January to 20th February is £196.19 including VAT. Exactly the same bill after the 1st April increase will be £306.87 including VAT. That's up 56.41%. I'm one of the fortunate few who won't be bothered in any way by this, but I'm well aware that these sort of costs will be disastrous for many. I can foresee many elderly and vulnerable people dying of hypothermia next winter if the government doesn't do something far more drastic than their present inadequate relief plans. . I do NOT use a bike to save money on petrol, I use a bike for fun, BUT... since converting my bikes to E bikes I am rarely not out weekly, going up to 80 miles, and it saves me a fortune in what would have been a car day out
October 29, 20232 yr " there is the issue of EU tariffs that are standing in the way of European car makers exporting their goods to the UK, making the vehicles vastly more expensive. " Tenfold electric vehicles on 2030 roads could be a shock to the system Robust policies for renewables needed to increase energy mix to nearly 50% https://www.theregister.com/2023/10/27/electric_vehicles_2030/
October 29, 20232 yr Informative but he's not as funny as he thinks he is. So maybe watch at 125% speed to avoid yawns! :-)
November 4, 20232 yr Uranium Demand Hits Decade High As Nuclear Renaissance Gains Traction https://oilprice.com/The-Environment/Global-Warming/Uranium-Demand-Hits-Decade-High-As-Nuclear-Renaissance-Gains-Traction.html
November 4, 20232 yr Uranium Demand I am sure if we all go we might just get a half price cup of Uranium from Mr Putin with collective bargaining. or we could arrange a bus trip and head cross West African Plains to dig some up in Niger, we might see some French picking scraps up form the desert floor
November 4, 20232 yr I am sure if we all go we might just get a half price cup of Uranium from Mr Putin with collective bargaining Even with aggressive leverage exerted on Putin's dream of becoming Tsar of the world, I fear Uranium will be too rich for my blood. I might afford solar? Community-led initiative returns with group-buying solar power for Bedford Borough residents https://www.bedford.gov.uk/SolarTogether https://solartogether.co.uk
November 5, 20232 yr Uranium will be too rich for my blood. I might afford solar? Oh I assumed, by now you would of extracted several grams of americium-241 from 1970's smoke detectors and aliexpress-ed a self build DIY reactor by now.
November 9, 20232 yr Can solar and wind power Britain? An update of David MacKay’s numbers These technologies have developed a lot since 2008. Should we be any more optimistic about their potential to power Britain? https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/can-solar-and-wind-power-britain
November 10, 20232 yr Interesting economic analysis of renewables vs traditional re electricity prices from a PhD economist, from 10:00 at Myth no.3. Does US really have 7, 8, 9c/kwh juice, or is that wholesale? Eh, if only! :-)
November 10, 20232 yr Interesting economic analysis of renewables vs traditional re electricity prices from a PhD economist, from 10:00 at Myth no.3. Does US really have 7, 8, 9c/kwh juice, or is that wholesale? Eh, if only! https://www.desmog.com/bruce-everett/ He just seems to parrot contrarian talking points that have been answered a million times “Climate activists, including President Obama, now erroneously call carbon dioxide (CO2) a “pollutant,” akin to poisons like lead and mercury. […] Greenhouses routinely set carbon dioxide levels at 1,000-1,500 ppm to boost photosynthesis and grow crops faster. A better term for carbon dioxide is ‘plant food.’ ” (See SkepticalScience here and here) “Recent changes in temperature, CO2 concentration and sea level are very small on a geological time scale.” (See SkepticalScience) “Computer models that generate apocalyptic warming scenarios still can’t make any correct predictions.” (See SkepticalScience) “90 percent of the greenhouse effect that keeps the Earth livable comes from water vapor, mainly in the form of clouds. Although carbon dioxide does have a warming impact, observations suggest that doubling CO2 concentrations would raise temperatures only 1-2 degrees Fahrenheit.” (See SkepticalScience) “The U.S. Energy Information Administration projects global carbon dioxide emissions of about 370 billion metric tons between now and 2025. President Obama’s climate program (characterized as “bold” and “ambitious” by some media outlets) would reduce those emissions by less than 2 percent. […] our politicians try to placate climate activists with expensive subsidies, burdensome regulations and vague promises — an “all pain, no gain” policy.” (See SkepticalScience here and here) Edited November 10, 20232 yr by Peter.Bridge
November 10, 20232 yr https://www.desmog.com/bruce-everett/ He just seems to parrot contrarian talking points that have been answered a million times “Climate activists, including President Obama, now erroneously call carbon dioxide (CO2) a “pollutant,” akin to poisons like lead and mercury. […] Greenhouses routinely set carbon dioxide levels at 1,000-1,500 ppm to boost photosynthesis and grow crops faster. A better term for carbon dioxide is ‘plant food.’ ” (See SkepticalScience here and here) “Recent changes in temperature, CO2 concentration and sea level are very small on a geological time scale.” (See SkepticalScience) “Computer models that generate apocalyptic warming scenarios still can’t make any correct predictions.” (See SkepticalScience) “90 percent of the greenhouse effect that keeps the Earth livable comes from water vapor, mainly in the form of clouds. Although carbon dioxide does have a warming impact, observations suggest that doubling CO2 concentrations would raise temperatures only 1-2 degrees Fahrenheit.” (See SkepticalScience) “The U.S. Energy Information Administration projects global carbon dioxide emissions of about 370 billion metric tons between now and 2025. President Obama’s climate program (characterized as “bold” and “ambitious” by some media outlets) would reduce those emissions by less than 2 percent. […] our politicians try to placate climate activists with expensive subsidies, burdensome regulations and vague promises — an “all pain, no gain” policy.” (See SkepticalScience here and here) You have to understand that there's virtually no money to be made by going against the climate change narrative. It's often career suicide. On the other hand, if you promote the agenda, your work gets promoted. It's the same with the doctors, who speak against the vaccine. Some of them even had their licences revoked for it. You have to ask yourself why these guys would want to commit career suicide? What are they going to achieve from it? Another interesting point is why these guys are never invited onto the BBC to have a fair debate about these matters so that people can make up their own minds. Incidentally, did you see Andrew Bridgen's last speech in Parliament. It's the first time I've ever seen the BBC put captions saying contrary things on just about every point he made. La5er on, they were forced to make an apology, but they had already achieved their misinformation goal. Edited November 10, 20232 yr by saneagle
November 10, 20232 yr "Skeptical Science is a climate science blog and information resource created in 2007 by Australian blogger and cognitive scientist John Cook..funded by 'donations'". "Adviser to Facebook", need one say more? Who is John Cook? https://wattsupwiththat.com/?s=John+Cook Oh dear. :-( "My old geology books frequently mention how the Earth’s climate has changed over 4.5 billion years either warming or cooling!!! My personal view is that it is caused by that huge fusion generator in the sky, although here in the UK we don’t tend to see too much of it but when we do, it’s glorious!!!" (Random YT comment that's more accurate than JC!)
November 10, 20232 yr You have to understand that there's virtually no money to be made by going against the climate change narrative. It's often career suicide. On the other hand, if you promote the agenda, your work gets promoted. It's the same with the doctors, who speak against the vaccine. Some of them even had their licences revoked for it. You have to ask yourself why these guys would want to commit career suicide? What are they going to achieve from it? It has been extremely profitable lobbying against climate change and delaying action. see Naomi Oreskes "Merchants of Doubt". Unfortunately it's human nature - those that got fooled/brainwashed are unable to admit it to themselves irrespective of the evidence. "Science progresses one funeral at time" Again anti-vaxxers have a long history - it plays to our fears https://historyofvaccines.org/vaccines-101/misconceptions-about-vaccines/history-anti-vaccination-movements Another interesting point is why these guys are never invited onto the BBC to have a fair debate about these matters so that people can make up their own minds. Not any more - https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmsctech/254/254.pdf They were very guilty of "false balance", inviting a contrarian guest onto every program to give their view, irrespective of the weight of scientific opinion and then unable to challenge it. False balance Submissions to our inquiry commented on a tendency for the media to approach climate science as an argument about two equally valid points of view, rather than discussion about scientific facts, and on the false balance of views being presented as a consequence. Professor Pidgeon questioned whether the “norm of ensuring balanced reporting [...] is appropriate where the scientific evidence is so overwhelming”.68When questioned about the balance of views in the media, Sir Mark Walport told us that climate change “is not a matter for opinion or belief. It is a matter of fact whether humans are altering the climate or not. There is a correct answer to this question”. 35. In his Review of impartiality and accuracy of the BBC's coverage of science commissioned by the BBC trust and published in July 2011, Professor Steve Jones, concluded with regard to science coverage: “in general, its output is of high quality”. 69 However, he also stated that the BBC “must accept that it is impossible to produce a balance between fact and opinion” and recommended that it take into account “the need to avoid giving undue attention to marginal opinion”. 70 Professor Jones highlighted the recent efforts made by the BBC to find a climate sceptic scientists to comment on the publication on the Physical Science Basis for IPCC Fifth Assessment Report as an example of false balance: The producers of the recent Today Programme piece on the new IPCC report tried, we are told, more than a dozen qualified climate scientists willing to give an opposing view but could not find a single one (a hint, perhaps, that there is indeed a scientific consensus on global warming). Instead, they gave equal time to a well-known expert and to Australian retired geologist with no background in the field: in my view a classic of “false balance”. They did change policy, although the BBCs scientific competence hasn't really improved Incidentally, did you see Andrew Bridgen's last speech in Parliament I didn't - could you summarise what you think was his strongest argument Edited November 10, 20232 yr by Peter.Bridge
November 10, 20232 yr It has been extremely profitable lobbying against climate change and delaying action. not just against climate change, also against nuclear power, wind farms, solar farms etc. It is a lot more profitable to dig or pump stuff out of the ground.
November 10, 20232 yr It has been extremely profitable lobbying against climate change and delaying action. see Naomi Oreskes "Merchants of Doubt". Unfortunately it's human nature - those that got fooled/brainwashed are unable to admit it to themselves irrespective of the evidence. "Science progresses one funeral at time" Again anti-vaxxers have a long history - it plays to our fears https://historyofvaccines.org/vaccines-101/misconceptions-about-vaccines/history-anti-vaccination-movements Not any more - https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmsctech/254/254.pdf They were very guilty of "false balance", inviting a contrarian guest onto every program to give their view, irrespective of the weight of scientific opinion and then unable to challenge it. False balance Submissions to our inquiry commented on a tendency for the media to approach climate science as an argument about two equally valid points of view, rather than discussion about scientific facts, and on the false balance of views being presented as a consequence. Professor Pidgeon questioned whether the “norm of ensuring balanced reporting [...] is appropriate where the scientific evidence is so overwhelming”.68When questioned about the balance of views in the media, Sir Mark Walport told us that climate change “is not a matter for opinion or belief. It is a matter of fact whether humans are altering the climate or not. There is a correct answer to this question”. 35. In his Review of impartiality and accuracy of the BBC's coverage of science commissioned by the BBC trust and published in July 2011, Professor Steve Jones, concluded with regard to science coverage: “in general, its output is of high quality”. 69 However, he also stated that the BBC “must accept that it is impossible to produce a balance between fact and opinion” and recommended that it take into account “the need to avoid giving undue attention to marginal opinion”. 70 Professor Jones highlighted the recent efforts made by the BBC to find a climate sceptic scientists to comment on the publication on the Physical Science Basis for IPCC Fifth Assessment Report as an example of false balance: The producers of the recent Today Programme piece on the new IPCC report tried, we are told, more than a dozen qualified climate scientists willing to give an opposing view but could not find a single one (a hint, perhaps, that there is indeed a scientific consensus on global warming). Instead, they gave equal time to a well-known expert and to Australian retired geologist with no background in the field: in my view a classic of “false balance”. They did change policy, although the BBCs scientific competence hasn't really improved I didn't - could you summarise what you think was his strongest argument Are you following the law suit against Asta Zeneca in the High Court? I only heard this from a third party, but the claim was that it has been confirmed as only 2% effective, 81 people have been confirmed as died directly from it and countless others have all sorts of other serious disabilities due to blood clots and neurological problems. You might note that this "100% safe and effective" vaccine has now been banned in many countries and restricted in others. I personally know someone who got severely injured as a direct result of it, so she's watching this with interest. In case you don't know, I was hospitalised with lungs full of blood clots in 2020, which put me out of action for about 6 months, so I know what it's like. I bet a whole load of people had them and didn't even know. I only knew that something was wrong when I ran out of breath every time I tried to walk. That's because the blood vesels in my lungs were completely blocked. Apart from that, I felt fine. If only half my blood vessels were blocked, I'd probably have just felt a bit unfit and would never have known. It's a bit weird that there was no logical reason to get them. I haven't changed anything, and I haven't had them since, so there must have been a temperal cause. It's going to be interesting to see how this case plays out. There's a lot of money at stake. pundits say that if the claimants win, it will open up the flood gates. Whichever way it goes, a lot of useful information should come from it unless AZ can find a way to persuade the cout to make it private somehow.
November 10, 20232 yr Are you following the law suit against Asta Zeneca in the High Court? I only heard this from a third party, but the claim was that it has been confirmed as only 2% effective, 81 people have been confirmed as died directly from it and countless others have all sorts of other serious disabilities due to blood clots and neurological problems. You might note that this "100% safe and effective" vaccine has now been banned in many countries and restricted in others. I personally know someone who got severely injured as a direct result of it, so she's watching this with interest. In case you don't know, I was hospitalised with lungs full of blood clots in 2020, which put me out of action for about 6 months, so I know what it's like. I bet a whole load of people had them and didn't even know. I only knew that something was wrong when I ran out of breath every time I tried to walk. That's because the blood vesels in my lungs were completely blocked. Apart from that, I felt fine. If only half my blood vessels were blocked, I'd probably have just felt a bit unfit and would never have known. It's a bit weird that there was no logical reason to get them. I haven't changed anything, and I haven't had them since, so there must have been a temperal cause. It's going to be interesting to see how this case plays out. There's a lot of money at stake. pundits say that if the claimants win, it will open up the flood gates. Whichever way it goes, a lot of useful information should come from it unless AZ can find a way to persuade the cout to make it private somehow. No I didn't know - hope you are feeling better - yes, as it was rolled out the monitoring discovered a (very rare) problem with the AZ vaccine which led to the guidance on its use being changed - seems pretty well explained here https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-67370454 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56665517 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-57021738
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.