Tony Seba’s Prediction

Can we please have a description of the content, Is it just me who gets totally p***ed off at people who just post links to things without any description. I have absolutely no idea who Tony Seba is and what he predicted and don’t click on links without a bit of information.

You're not alone, I don't click on orphan links.

Well I did watch it, I don’t have time to fact check it but like the gentleman’s other videos I think he has combined some statistics to present the result he wants. There are other factors in play that he fails to mention.

Paul.

I’m in agreement with Baz and Duncan.

Not watched it and no intention at the present time. From what Paul wrote it may well just be clickbait.

Describes himself as a world renowned thought leader, so it's not for me.

With Baz and Duncan in not wanting to someting unkown.

Winston Churchill said "There are liars, damn liars and statisticians"

Statistics can be presented in any way that supports the view that you wish to promote.

At work, we described such tactics as "weasel words"

"Have you stopped beating your wife"? Either you used to, or that you still do.

Howard

The video makes uncomfortable viewing for those who disbelieve in Climate Change or think fossil fuels are the only way of meeting energy needs. What they said 19 years ago about renewables is now clearly wrong.

Wrong about climate too. Since Kyoto in 1992, no evidence has emerged suggesting Climate Change isn't happening, or that Fossil fuels are innocent. And in the same period no significantly large new sources of fossil fuels have been identified anywhere in the world. Instead, all the evidence that has emerged - lots of it - is consistent with man-made climate change. Including a build up of temperature readings showing that global heating is proceeding faster than predicted.

Putting it bluntly, the figures strongly suggest the scientific consensus is right and climate deniers are wrong, wrong, wrong.

I'm afraid announcing 'Winston Churchill said "There are liars, damn liars and statisticians"' won't wash. Even if Churchill had said it, and he didn't, then the premise is wrong. Whilst true that false claims supported by massaged numbers are popular with advertisers and politicians, this does not mean that all statistics are false or misleading. Far from it!

Statistics is a branch of mathematics where both working and data can be, and should be, checked. Although rarely done by shoppers or voters, checking is a routine part of the scientific process. When science agrees statistics are valid, they are much more trustworthy than man-in-pub assessments.

The statistics relating to climate change can't be dismissed with a catch-phrase. Not good enough. When statistics are suspected of being wrong, the mistakes in the data, and/or logic have identified. In contrast, opinion, beliefs, conspiracy theories, previous experience and 'common sense' that don't bother with evidence, or make it up, are all valueless. Dismissing statistics as an entire discipline is wrong.

Why do people chose to believe nonsense in the face of evidence? Many reasons, none of 'em good I fear: Ignorance, embarrassment, lack of imagination, vested interest, stubbornness, pride, short-term advantage, wishful thinking, consequences too big or scary to comprehend, or small-c conservatism.

Maybe deniers just haven't twigged that energy policy that made sense in 1970 won't work in 2070. History suggests change is ongoing, whatever grandad thinks: energy in 1970 was very different to energy in 1870, and 1870 was nothing like 1770.

Truth is mankind has always had to face challenges and adapt to circumstances. We are no different and the game will be going on long after we are dead, and all our notions dust. In the meantime, the best moves in the game are made after identifying trends, not by fighting change on the assumption that nothing needs fixing.

If anyone wants to disagree with me, please explain what's actually wrong with the data and logic of a specific climate change statistic. No points awarded for claiming all statistics are untrustworthy because statistics are sometime deliberately used to mislead. It's the liars who can't be trusted, not a checkable scientific endeavour supported by checkable mathematics.

I vote for following the evidence, not fact-free opinion.

Dave

Edited By SillyOldDuffer on 23/07/2023 17:06:20

Is that even English?

SOD, my point was on the evidence and nothing to do with any debate on climate change being real or otherwise. There were a lot of figures quoted but no reference or source data provided for a critical reader to check. The cost reductions for solar - may be true but the 1000’s of per cent, where to check that? 1/3 of global energy coming from renewables may also be true, if it is why is this achievement not being acknowledged in green circles where most speculation is renewable targets are being missed? You say yourself fact based verifiable evidence is king, where do the numbers this guy is quoting come from? If he put some verifiable references into his presentation it would add credibility, otherwise it’s just a story you might see in the tabloids. I do hope the predictions on electricity cost to the consumer are true though, I hope I am around long enough to see it!

Paul.

My point with climate change ideology(Digitally medium based), is that whatever the future power supply should be, if it ends up expensive and digital is already super expensive, it will exponentially destroy any monetary system based on Money as a medium of control, and its link to Resources, no Resources from wherevever you get it, money has no value, you starve to death literally. In the mean time your house becomes your jail until you cannot afford that anymore. The money(Our main control system, every body, every ideology, every culture wants it) is not a resource, its a medium, money cannot be wasted, it just flow from most accounts to fewer accounts in cycles and circles taxes included, but Resources can be wasted or driven deeper undeground etc.

So in my opinion, there are life rules basic/simple, not talked about normally, because we get borned into a system and our lifespan for most is too short to learn and carry over from this to next generation.

This 4th/5th industrial revolution cannot at all be compared tomprevious ones:Previous ones grew with population growth......
1-Its digital and based from the binary code, we never had this abstract before-poorly understood.
2-its prone to modern abstract corruption.
3-Applying a new industrial revolution by destroyting the previous one that brought you here in the 1st place, at a population of 8 Billion, is way different that at 2-3 Billionion in the same closed system which is called planet earth.
4-Its a huge risk for most, maybe not seen by a few.
5-As we can see the monetary cycles has gone shorter and shorter as more and more real jobs are replaced by more and more parasitic jobs........Something is going to give.

After SOD's polemic, I looked at the vid, and quite accept - as I have done through most of my adult life - that renewable electricity will need to form the bulk of energy use in the near future.

What it doesn't appear to do is address the enormous issue of power distribution infrastructure - where every household with vehicle(s) is going to load the grid with an extra order of magnitude in kWh per day.

Or the waste of energy entailed by trashing usable vehicles in order to replace the whole inventory in less than a decade.

Or the additional space needed for service stations where even fast recharge requires an order of magnitude more time than pumping a tankful of fossil fuel.

Or whether we actually can deliver the materials or production capacity to achieve this switch in transport technology.

The very layout and extent of our communities has for a century or so entailed levels of personal mobility that mean restricitons on this would cause real hardship to very many. The '15-minute city' is only a really practical idea for relatively few communities. I happen to live in a place where it might work, but I've also lived in places where it never could.

It's very fine for speakers to evangelise the need to make changes - but without any obvious appreciation of the magnitude of the project or the way to achieve it without causing hardship and (even worse) social breakdown turns it into empty prophesy. Not worth the description of 'Genius'.

Mick, a couple of of points:-

1:- the grid won't need Massive improvement. Average car milage tends to be about 12,000 per year. Average EV energy consumption tends to be .3kWh per mile. That works out at 14kWh per night assuming only 5 days per week and only night time charging. If people charge during the day and/or use installed solar capacity for charging, the load is that much less. That is about a 75% increase based on my, relatively small consumption and will mostly occur during off-peak times, when the grid is under-utilised.

2:- 2030 isn't the cutoff date for use of IC engined vehicles, it's the cutoff date for sale of them. There will be IC engined vehicles on the road for one or two decades after that. OK, one might have to buy fuel at the local chemist's shop, but that's happened before .

It's an intruiging period to live through, especially since I thought we'd left it all behind in our technology driven modern society

A belief argument

"Does Global Warming God exist?"

And with all these conundrums there is only one fact

Neither side will ever prove anything one way or the other way, no matter how loudly they shout

But there will be lots of self appointed theologians, heretics, and shed loads of money for whichever belief the ruling monarchy decide to back

plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose

I can't decide whether to be killed by global warming, Covid, Putin, AI, Super Volcano or stagnation of the Gulf stream.

So many to choose from my head is spinning.

I would buy a ticket to Mars from that nice Mr Musk if only dogs were allowed

Don't forget to take some potatoes with you.

Clickbait - sounds more like it, every post!

The book I linked to is actually an extremely good SF yarn. which should appeal to most-all of those with an gengineering mindset. I certainly enjoyed it .

In further Interweb related adventures, I've just finished watching a Panorama program about EVs. It was quite interesting, even if dumbed down like all television programs are. In it, they say that National Grid reckon that EVs will increase overall electricity consumption by 10%, which is fairly trivial. They also say that the end date for sale of hybrid vehickes will be 2035. I like that, since plug-in hybrids seem to tick all the boxes if the price can be competitive.

They say that, but there's service station with 20 Tesla chargers installed now that won't be connected till the Autumn + the odd windfarm in the same boat. So it's all trivial and also 10% missing.

140,000,000 miles of zero-gravity travel with dogs....what's not to like..? ..a few big tins of Butcher's Tripe Mix to keep 'em going on the way, should be fun..