back to article German plod defend Tesla gigafactory from eco-warriors

Attempts by climate protesters to storm Tesla's Berlin gigafactory were foiled by German police on Friday, with 16 arrests made. The protest started on Monday as demonstrators gathered in a camp near the electric vehicle factory in response to plans to expand the plant into a nearby forest. That expansion would destroy 250 …

  1. Pascal Monett Silver badge
    WTF?

    Could someone please explain ?

    It's a factory for making batteries for the EVs we are supposed to be buying in droves to prove our green credentials. Why try to destroy it, and not the coal power plants that are in use and actually pollute our atmosphere ?

    What is it with Germans ? They were against nuclear power plants, now they're against EV factories ?

    Do they just want us all to go live in caves ?

    1. Jellied Eel Silver badge

      Re: Could someone please explain ?

      What is it with Germans ? They were against nuclear power plants, now they're against EV factories ?

      Won't someone think of the forests? I guess people in the UK should be glad they're not protesting outside Drax, which probably burns more than 250 acres of forest a week. Kinda suprised Musk doesn't just buy another 300 acres of Germany and plant trees. Could probably make money from offsets doing that.

      Do they just want us all to go live in caves ?

      Probably. Pro-celebritty activist/protestors like Greta Thunberg are wealthy enough to live in luxury caves though.

      1. blackcat Silver badge

        Re: Could someone please explain ?

        Sadly Greta is just a pawn in this game.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Could someone please explain ?

          Greta humbly apologizes for aspiring to live a normal life on what's left of the planet destroyed by your generation of uneducated egocentric ranters well passed their prime.

          1. blackcat Silver badge

            Re: Could someone please explain ?

            Ah you're back. What inconsistencies will we see today? :)

            Greta comes from a very wealthy family so was never going to live a normal life. She was always going to have a life of luxury and privilege and not just because of her skin colour and birth country.

            The eco lobby of which she is a face in reality has zero real proposals, zero plan, zero idea about how to 'solve' climate change other than tax and spend. In the last 10 years we have seen a massive shift in wealth from the average people to the elites in the name of 'solving the problem' while these elites fly around the world on their private jets (or in the case of John Kerry its his wife's) and get paid vast sums to lecture people on how using an un-recyclable waxed (or even plastic lined) paper straw in a plastic wrapper is going to save the planet from certain doom.

            We have a German minister proposing to ban weekend driving

            https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-climate-cars-volker-wissing-minister-suggests-indefinite-driving-bans-on-weekends/

            The UK govt thinks that putting flower boxes in the middle of roads will somehow solve the problem of traffic but fails to comprehend that most people actually drive places for a reason and don't just drive around for shits and giggles. London is still one of the most congested cities in the world yet has one of the best public transport systems and the highest congestion charge.

            Or suggestions that AI will save the planet only if you ignore the huge power consumption needed.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              We do not inherit the Earth from our ancestors; we borrow It from our children

              Hum, another uneducated rant about flowers, John Kerry, and weekend driving? So, I was right then?

              Just as you're supposed to leave the toilets as clean as you found them, you're supposed to leave the planet as livable as you found it when it was bequeathed to you. It's a matter of respect to others and to your own self.

              1. blackcat Silver badge

                Re: We do not inherit the Earth from our ancestors; we borrow It from our children

                No, you are still just as wrong as you were in the other thread. Maybe you need to have a salad?

              2. Persona Silver badge

                Re: We do not inherit the Earth from our ancestors; we borrow It from our children

                you're supposed to leave the planet as livable as you found it when it was bequeathed to you

                The world population was 770 million in 1760 when the industrial revolution started. When I was born it was less than 3 billion. Now it's over 8 billion. Clearly what we have been doing is making the the world much more livable.

                1. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: We do not inherit the Earth from our ancestors; we borrow It from our children

                  “So far so good... so far so good... so far so good!" says the guy falling off a skyscraper, on his way down past each floor.

                  1. Jellied Eel Silver badge

                    Re: We do not inherit the Earth from our ancestors; we load debt onto our children

                    ...says the guy falling off a skyscraper, on his way down past each floor.

                    Franz Reichelt? Many 'environmentalists' are much like him. Nice idea, fail on execution. Others are just opportunist scumbags out to transfer wealth from us to themselves. But Reichelt had the right idea. Make a parachute out of a lightweight material like silk. Sadly, his demonstration jump didn't exactly end well. But he made progress. Now, lives are saved using lightweight materials like nylons. Which of course the neo-luddites want to ban. Won't someone think of the mulberry trees?

                    Then again, I might pay good money to watch the Greenpeace formation skydiving team doing a demonstration jump using their sustainable hemp chutes. Greenpeace would probably propose pogosticks instead of parachutes, which would also be entertaining to watch.

                2. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

                  Re: We do not inherit the Earth from our ancestors; we borrow It from our children

                  >Clearly what we have been doing is making the the world much more livable.

                  Again, blame the Germans - specifically Fritz Haber

                3. Jellied Eel Silver badge

                  Re: We do not inherit the Earth from our ancestors; we borrow It from our children

                  Clearly what we have been doing is making the the world much more livable.

                  Some see that as progress, some a problem. Unsuprisingly many of the neo-luddites are part of eugenics movements like this one-

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

                  The group promotes ethical, choice-based solutions through lobbying, campaigning and awareness-raising.

                  Although their lobbying generally has an unusual definition of 'choice'. But in that respect they're little different to eugenics adherents from the late 19th and early 20th Century. One wrote about many ideas the Greens are still following in his book, Mein Kampf. But 'Population Matters' were also inspired by this book-

                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Population_Bomb#Predictions

                  By Paul Erlich. Like a lot of climate 'scientists', pretty much all his predictions have been falsified. Reality is inconvenient like that. He also predicted that 'Global Warming' would case people to literally explode into 'blue steam'*. I've previously asked our dear anonymong to explain the physics, chemistry or biology behind that claim, but like a lot of climate 'experts', he's never been able to explain the physical basis..

                  *Preserved for posterity, or just sh*ts and giggles here-

                  https://realclimate.science/2011/02/10/paul-ehrlich-1972-everybody-will-disappear-in-a-cloud-of-blue-steam-in-20-years/

                  1992 came and went without many bangs.. Then again, was also while I was at uni, so there were.. some.

                4. CowHorseFrog Silver badge

                  Re: We do not inherit the Earth from our ancestors; we borrow It from our children

                  When does the world become FULL ?

                  Theres a cost of living crisis in most western countries, simply because they are all full.

                  People might not be hungry but they are wasting their lives in traffic or office pretending to do work like powerpoint or sending reports.

                  They might live more years than ever but they are hardly living, their time is being wasted by stupid traditions like the office and commuting.

                  1. Jou (Mxyzptlk) Silver badge

                    Re: We do not inherit the Earth from our ancestors; we borrow It from our children

                    Or waste time online arguing with strangers from all over the world.

                    1. CowHorseFrog Silver badge

                      Re: We do not inherit the Earth from our ancestors; we borrow It from our children

                      So you enjoy spending 10 - 20 hours a week in a car or train commuting ?

                      WOuldnt you rather be spending that time doing something else ?

                5. Grogan Silver badge

                  Re: We do not inherit the Earth from our ancestors; we borrow It from our children

                  Yeah, semantics :-)

                  I don't care what anybody says though, we're here, we're not going to get smaller, and we're going to keep on doing what we do until we can't do it anymore. To think that we're going to keep the planet as livable as it was, is like trying to fight the wind. We can try, but people come first. Conservation means that you'll pay more for less, and it will just keep the racket going a bit longer before the inevitable. All you'll change is who profits from it, and for how long.

                  People aren't going to do without things to preserve trees and as the population grows, so will its needs. The planet will probably become one big urban sprawl and we'll be eating nutrient paste produced from vats of recycled human waste eventually. Grim, but there's the future of humanity if there's no way to branch out and find more planets to ruin.

                  Non linear population increases aside, another reason this is going to happen is that humans will never cooperate. We're too greedy, selfish, feudal and tribal and I don't see that changing soon enough.

                  1. Anonymous Coward
                    Anonymous Coward

                    Re: We do not inherit the Earth from our ancestors; we borrow It from our children

                    Another one talking without knowing.

                    > I don't care what anybody says though, we're here, we're not going to get smaller

                    - Wrong. Populations peak. Japan population is already decreasing from its 2010 peak of 128 millions and is forecast to shrink to 63 million, about half the current level, around 2100.

                    > We're too greedy, selfish, feudal and tribal

                    - Empathy is a mandatory social instinct in all social primate species (and beyond). It upregulates in times of plenty.

                    - As borders fade away and the melting pot expands, younger generations feel there is only one tribe.

              3. SundogUK Silver badge

                Re: We do not inherit the Earth from our ancestors; we borrow It from our children

                "Just as you're supposed to leave the toilets as clean as you found them, you're supposed to leave the planet as livable as you found it when it was bequeathed to you."

                No one bequeathed this planet to anyone. That we are here at all is a cosmic accident and we can do whatever we choose to do.

                1. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: We do not inherit the Earth from our ancestors; we borrow It from our children

                  Uneducated white male talking. The kind of proud simpleton sawing off the branch he is sitting on. Funny on tiktok, pathetic IRL.

            2. CowHorseFrog Silver badge

              Re: Could someone please explain ?

              the answer is not evs the real answer is too simplify...

              At least half of all jobs are totally fake, marketting is unnecessary, most office jobs are also fake, people making powerpoints, managers pretending to manage, office workers having coffee... Most of these jobs can go, and most can be done from home.

              Thank you i just saved at least 30% of all cars on the road.

              1. Persona Silver badge

                Re: Could someone please explain ?

                Marketing is not unnecessary it is vitally important. Driven by marketing, research and development or R&D comes up with the right products that can be sold to a target market. Without that guidance R&D is not going to be heading in the right direction so the research would best be described as academic.

                1. LybsterRoy Silver badge

                  Re: Could someone please explain ?

                  You are using a very obsolete definition of "marketing". Its not looking for what people require or need, its what the company can shove down peoples throats to make money.

                  1. CowHorseFrog Silver badge

                    Re: Could someone please explain ?

                    Our friend has been brainwashed by social media where bullshitters who bullshit take the credit for everything but dont actually make anything.

                2. CowHorseFrog Silver badge

                  Re: Could someone please explain ?

                  Persona: Marketing is not unnecessary it is vitally important.

                  cow: the only person w/ this opinion is someone who works in marketting.

                  Persona: Driven by marketing, research and development or R&D comes up with the right products that can be sold to a target market

                  cow:

                  Bullshit.

                  Stop lying anyone can pretend, life is a bit more complex than pretending we need a CPU that is 1000x faster and uses half the watts.

                  R&D dont need marketting to tell them how to do their job, a dingbat who makes powerpoint cant tell R&D how to make a new cancer drug or how to build a new car.

            3. claimed Silver badge

              Re: Could someone please explain ?

              Minor point but what’s the alternative to tax and spend? No tax, no spend?

              The climate if a problem caused by lots of people, probably does need intervention to solve

              1. Chet Mannly

                Re: Could someone please explain ?

                The alternative to tax and spend Comrade is people keeping more of the money they earned and spending it in their own best interests.

                Would have thought that was pretty obvious...

              2. SundogUK Silver badge

                Re: Could someone please explain ?

                The climate is not a problem. The climate just IS.

            4. LybsterRoy Silver badge

              Re: Could someone please explain ?

              Wonderful link.

              Whilst AI may not save the planet maybe it could be used to backfill the shortfall in RI (real intelligence), especially among politicians!

          2. Jellied Eel Silver badge

            Re: 82613.. +1?

            Greta humbly apologizes for aspiring to live a normal life on what's left of the planet destroyed by your generation of uneducated egocentric ranters well passed their prime.

            There's nothing humble about Greta, or many of her cult followers. Can you see CO2 belching from cooling towers, as she once claimed?

            Sadly, many egocentric environuts take the My Lai approach to environmenalism, like Drax. Or Scotland-

            https://www.wind-watch.org/news/2024/05/10/more-than-1-million-trees-cut-down-for-wind-turbines-last-year-17-million-over-24-years/

            In a freedom of information request, the Scottish Government estimated that 17.05 million trees had been cut down since 2000 in areas that are currently managed by public agency Forestry and Land Scotland (FLS). This is based on a figure of 8,503 hectares, using an average number of trees per hectare of 2,000.

            Ah, Greens and the 'renewables' mob. Destroying the environment in order to 'save' it.. But kinda puts Tesla's deforestation into context..

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Climate change? What climate change?

              Speaking of ranters, here comes the climate skeptic on call... Any link to your friend Paul Homewood's disinformation blog?

              1. Jellied Eel Silver badge

                Re: Climate change? What climate change?

                Any link to your friend Paul Homewood's disinformation blog?

                Can do!

                https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2024/05/11/eco-friendly-brake-cables-eaten-by-foxes-after-switch-to-soy-insulation/

                Since 2000, peanut and soy-based oils and waxes have been used on car parts including gearbox insulation, primer bulbs and diesel injector wires, instead of petroleum-based coverings.

                I guess it's 'sustainable' in the sense it's helping sustain fox and rodent populations..

                But why are you citing a hit piece from a blog funded by the fossil fuel industry? Dear'ol Jim Hoggan, part of the Canadian cabal along with fruit-fly botherer David Suzuki. Also previously a trustee of the Dalai Lama Center for Peace and Education. More on him here-

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgs6Z-MRF-A

            2. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

              Re: 82613.. +1?

              > Scottish Government estimated that 17.05 million trees had been cut down since 2000 in areas that are currently managed by public agency Forestry and Land Scotland (FLS).

              Managed forests (ie tree farms) cut down trees

              In other news, the DFA estimate that 'lots and lots' of wheat plants are cut down each year to make bread and calls on people to recycle their crusts

              1. Jellied Eel Silver badge

                Re: 82613.. +1?

                Managed forests (ie tree farms) cut down trees

                Maybe. But also why I suggested Musk solve the problem by just planting 300 acres of trees somewhere else, and claim the offsets. Scotland's tree farmers have been busily doing this to make money from offset scams.

                But it's all part of the environmentalists fun & games. Many 'ancient' forests they're trying to preserve were artificial and planted to support the military. You can often easily see this by straight rows and even spacing compared to true 'ancient' or wild forests. Then there are boring little details like trees turning from carbon sinks to carbon sources on maturity, so they really should be harvested when they reach that age. Turn that into buildings or decent furniture and it does a far better job of sequestration than most CCS scams. And then of course there's all the carbon emitted by forest mismanagement, ie allowing fuel levels to build up and the inevitable wildfires. Which eco-freaks like the Bbc then blame on 'global warming' rather than incompetence.

                1. tiggity Silver badge

                  Re: 82613.. +1?

                  Whether a forest was "artificial" or not, does not stop it being old. e.g. New Forest one of the oldest large* UK forests, but was "artificially" planted - does not stop it now supporting lots of wildlife.

                  An accountants approach to just look at trees in terms of Carbon capture - some wildlife is generalist, but many species have quite specific needs, young trees typically support less species than mature / post mature ones - trees (& other vegetation in a forest) need to be considered in terms of the wildlife they support, not just as a carbon capture tool. So older forests generally have more wildlife value (though some species specialize in immature woodland so still want some areas of those woods too).. And forests can help support wildlife "beyond the forest", e.g. many ducks nest in tree holes so a forest with mature trees may allow ducks to breed even though the parents are feeding elsewhere (many cases where ducks nests are a considerable distance from nearest significant water body where they feed), similarly with owls, some owls are adapted to hunt in forests, but many hunt best over grasslands (that may not be that near their woodland hole), yet will nest in forest tree hole. Beyond nesting, many birds roost in trees as slightly safer overnight than a low level roost.

                  * UK has a major deforestation problem, many "large for UK" forests would not be regarded as large in other countries.

                  1. Jellied Eel Silver badge

                    Re: 82613.. +1?

                    An accountants approach to just look at trees in terms of Carbon capture - some wildlife is generalist, but many species have quite specific needs, young trees typically support less species than mature / post mature ones - trees (& other vegetation in a forest) need to be considered in terms of the wildlife they support, not just as a carbon capture tool.

                    Eco-terrorists have similar problems. So this forest was new, and destined to be harvested for pulp anyway. Or maybe it was destined for feeding the insatiable maw of Drax, which has just had it's subisidies increased for deforesting thousands of acres of trees. Mainly because UK government has realised it's become dependent on Drax to keep the lights on, even though it's a collosally expensive environmental disaster.

                    Then thousands of acres of trees are being felled to make way for windmills. Those kill birds, bats and the insects wildlife depends on. Plus other environmental damage, like this-

                    https://www.wind-watch.org/news/2024/05/09/sse-stops-work-after-landslide-near-windfarm-site/

                    Or in Ireland, bog slides. Or just altering the hydrology of the land by running roads or massive foundations. Oh, and the downwind drying effect due to vertical mixing when the windmill's blades are spinning. And of course the general industrialisation of our landscape by covering it with highly visible windmills, solar panels, or just factories. And then there's ducks. If one lands in a settling pond and gets covered in oil, there can be large fines. If one tries to land on a solar farm thinking it's water, nothing happens. It's odd that supposed 'environmentalists' are unconcerned about the far greater environmental impact from 'renewables'. But when groups like the RSPB make money from 'renewables', why would they bite the hand that feeds it?

                    Compare that to nuclear, and the environmental benefits are obvious. NPPs occupy far less space and generally have fairly large exclusion areas around them leading to wildlife reserves.. Unless of course DC operators decide to collocate there. But 'environmentalists' have been conditioned by decades of nuclear-FUD, so despite the obvious environmental benefits, continue to support the destruction caused by 'renewables'.

              2. LybsterRoy Silver badge

                Re: 82613.. +1?

                As often the case with climate change enthusiasts you miss a bit out. Trees cut down in managed forests followed by planting new trees. Wheat harvested followed by planing new crop. Windmills planted followed by rain runoff, loss of habitat etc, and probably after they are no longer profitable - abandonment and contamination.

                1. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: 82613.. +1?

                  As often the case with "Windmill" haters, you miss a bit out. Please look up the word "repowering" and educate yourself.

            3. LybsterRoy Silver badge

              Re: 82613.. +1?

              There was a wonderful video on the Beeb news site recently of a landslide in Shetland . Wind turbines in the background. I'm not sure how much the tonnes of concrete diverting rain down to where the landslide occurred contributed to the event.

      2. aerogems Silver badge

        Re: Could someone please explain ?

        Back to your cell, inmate.

      3. brisalta

        Re: Could someone please explain ?

        It is my understanding that the forest in question is an artificial woodland on an old brown field site. It was planted with trees that were selected for the purpose of being suitable for making pulp for the paper making process.

    2. Jou (Mxyzptlk) Silver badge

      Re: Could someone please explain ?

      > What is it with Germans ? They were against nuclear power plants, now they're against EV factories ?

      Just that 0.001% of my people (pretty close to the exact 0.0009493224952348% funnily, 800 from all over German had to come there) are maniacs to destroy things "for the environment" when fixing the stuff hurts the environment even more, including their use of non environmental friendly paint, does not mean "all Germans" as you suggest or over generalize.

      Just as Texas is not all USA, Bavarian is not all Germany. Not all Americans are insane gun fanatics, as you should know, but it looks like that from the outside. Not all Germans are proud Nazi, even though we are often presented that way in the USA. Just because Cruze and Trump are insane egomaniac idiots and have loud maniacs followers does not mean all Americans are (followers (or maniacs (loud though in comparison to Germans))).

      Hasty over generalization is a weapon of mass destruction, to add a line to a famous music track from Faithless.

      I am happy that the police prevented more problems. Oh, and don't compare the German Police with American Cops, the difference is bigger than you think.

      1. Jellied Eel Silver badge

        Re: Could someone please explain ?

        Just that 0.001% of my people (pretty close to the exact 0.0009493224952348% funnily..

        You were better off sticking to 0.001% because you've just demonstrated one of the problems with climate 'science'-

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

        False precision commonly arises when high-precision and low-precision data are combined, when using an electronic calculator, and in conversion of units.

        Or in most climate models. You probably don't know the exact German population at the point in time you made that calculation, so 0.001% is good enough for government work. Often climate 'science' doesn't publish the margin for error, or when it does, you have to search hard for it. It's much like the good'ol 97% meme, or if you want a more gross example, look at NOAA's weather data for the US. You'll see a lot of their data has an 'E' next to it. That means they're estimates, either because the weather station no longer exists, or the accuracy is very low due to location being waaay below WMO standards.

        1. Jou (Mxyzptlk) Silver badge

          Re: Could someone please explain ?

          > You probably don't know the exact German population at the point in time you made that calculation, so 0.001% is good enough for government work.

          https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demografie_Deutschlands, 2022 (the 2023 numbers are not final yet). If you cannot read German: Your problem, you're the nonsense talker here.

          800 / 84 270 625 * 100 = Well, you know how to use a calculator, don't you? But I can help you:

          For Windows Calculator since Windows NT 4.0: 9,4932249523484606884071406851438e-4

          For Windows Calculator of Windows NT 3.51 (which works in Windows 11 without hacks): 0,0009493224952348

          For Windows Powershell (just enter 800/84270625*100) into the shell: 0.000949322495234846

          For Precise Calculator: 0.000949322495234846068840714068514384460777406124613410663561591005169357etc

          For exactly 0.001% we would have needed 842.70625 people.

          And yes, we do not have an exact head count there, 800 people is an estimate by the police. An exact headcount would have required encirclement tactics, which does not meet the de-escalation guideline which German police learns throughout their 2.5 year qualification. And not even one gun shot.

          1. Jellied Eel Silver badge

            Re: Could someone please explain ?

            Your problem, you're the nonsense talker here.

            Your problem is once again, you are. And again demonstrate you don't understand precision by demonstrating false precision. A rough head count of protestors and rough estimate of total population is close enough for the point you were trying to make, ie only 0.001% of Germans turned up to that particular protest.

            And again, false precision is rife in climate science. So for an example, what is the total anthropogenic CO2 emission per annum? What is Germany's contribution? What difference would Germany hitting 'Net Zero' make?

            And of course the big one, what difference would it make to 'Global Warming', ie the global temperature increase?

            If you even attempt to try this, you'll find huge uncertainties for every step of the calculation, thus compounding those uncertainties and resulting in huge error margins. But again that's climate 'science' in a nutshell. False precision supported by falsehoods. It's also why statisticians frequently debunk climate 'scientists' because stats is hard(ish) and 'experts' like Mann and his (in)famous Hockey Stick don't understand the basics, like CI.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              you're the nonsense talker here

              Thanks for confirming.

            2. Jou (Mxyzptlk) Silver badge

              Re: Could someone please explain ?

              > What difference would Germany hitting 'Net Zero' make?

              There are loudmouths which do nothing, and there are other who do. The difference of CO² change if Germany hits the net-zero is within the 1% to 2% region world wide, closer to 1% though. Nothing new, known for decades. Yet this is a case where Germany indeed is more the the "do" side. It does have some local effects as well, but more on the air pollution side than CO².

              > don't understand the basics

              It has been known for over 100 years. Yes, even before the year 1900. The first measurements which gas absorbs or reflects how much was done by John Tydall 1859, expanding Fourier's base from the 1820's. Yes THAT Math-Fourier genius all our music, video and picture compression is based upon, and quite a few other things like soft-radio, computerized audio filter, in other areas like high frequency computer communication where his math is applied as well etc etc etc.

              Though I refer to 1896, where the first greenhouse gas calculation was published by TWO AMERICANS! Their calculation was doubling CO² would increase earth atmosphere temperature by about 5°C to 6°C (9 to 11 F°).

              Now who does not understand the basics, including the basics of reading?

              1. Jellied Eel Silver badge

                Re: Could someone please explain ?

                Though I refer to 1896, where the first greenhouse gas calculation was published by TWO AMERICANS! Their calculation was doubling CO² would increase earth atmosphere temperature by about 5°C to 6°C (9 to 11 F°).

                Now who does not understand the basics, including the basics of reading?

                Well, ermm.. Again, that would be you. You also missed the opportunity to throw in other famous names that have been climate sceptics (or deniers in modern parlance) like Angstrom or even Einstein. Or the way some of those early discussions helped stimulate ideas like quanta.. But this is also where some German Greens suffer the same problem as that dear'ol Austrian house painter and dismissed quantum physics because he hated the people that pioneered it. Also much like the way anyone who disagrees with the dogma gets called a 'denier'.

                But you also jumped straight from Langley & Very's observations to Arrhenius's theory of the 5-6C warming, which is where that spawned the arguments with Angstrom. Your link conveniently glosses over that part, but then wiki is dominated by reality deniers. You could read about that here-

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius#Greenhouse_effect

                Arrhenius's absorption values for CO2 and his conclusions met criticism by Knut Ångström in 1900, who published the first modern infrared absorption spectrum of CO2 with two absorption bands, and published experimental results that seemed to show that absorption of infrared radiation by the gas in the atmosphere was already "saturated" so that adding more could make no difference.

                But science moves on. Obviously Arrhenius's 5-6C theory has already been disproven. Angstrom was more likely correct, and we now know CO2 has four absorption bands, three of which overlap with H2O leaving only a very narrow 'atmospheric window' for CO2 to directly influence temperatures. And we have more sophisticated spectrometers that can measure IR in that waveband from surface up, and space down. It's basically how the orbiting carbon observatories work.

                So based on those observations, physics and other theories, it's more likely the saturation effect is real, H2O dominates, and CO2 is a very weak GHG due to both it's quantity, and it's phsyical properties. It's generally assumed the relationship between CO2 and temperature is logarithmic, not linear, so most of the effects have already happened, and the next doubling is pretty much impossible to achieve given we don't have enough carbon. Pretty much all of this is also confirmed by the IPCC in it's WG1 docs, but you have to read those carefully. The SPMs are political docs and gloss over the details, for obvious reasons.

                It's also a pretty interesting time to test theories regarding CO2 & H2O contributions given the eruption of Hunga Tonga. Massive underwater volcano that chucked err.. all the olympic swimming pools of water into the atmosphere-

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Hunga_Tonga%E2%80%93Hunga_Ha%CA%BBapai_eruption_and_tsunami

                Much like Krakatoa and 'the year without summer', it's been predicted that the additional water vapor kicked high into the atmosphere, and could lead to transient warming lasting 2-3yrs. We can measure atmospheric H2O, we can measure temperatures. H2O has been falling, as predicted & expected.. So if it cools off the next few years, it's even more evidence that CO2 isn't really the problem.

                1. Jou (Mxyzptlk) Silver badge

                  Re: Could someone please explain ?

                  Well, if you really want to know how the CO² causes the warming, take a look in here - the ACTUAL "how does it work" is a lot more complex. Science is no dogma, but the result is the same even if it works a bit different in detail. Your Knut Ångström article mentions measurements of absorption, which excludes other effects. And Knut was proven wrong on the warming effect later, which you skipped of course.

                  > volcano

                  Oh yeah, we had and have them for more than ten million years now, they are part of the balance. Their dust had global cooling effect, their CO² not much. And drill core data of ice which has been examined countless times for CO² and dust concentration show that.

                  The only thing that changed in the last ~150 years are humans, with their constant CO² on top which changes it all much faster. And Hunga Tonga had no measurable effect on that. But COVID had a measurable effect on CO² though, due to the shutdowns during that time. Which proves the point of humans and their needs being the imbalance here.

                  1. Jellied Eel Silver badge

                    Re: Could someone please explain ?

                    Well, if you really want to know how the CO² causes the warming, take a look in here - the ACTUAL "how does it work" is a lot more complex.

                    Yes and no. So I looked, and oh dear..

                    Correction to what I say at 7 mins 13: The major reason air pressure decreases is that the gravitational pressure from the air above it decreases. The gravitational force itself also decreases but that's a rather minor contribution. Sorry about that, a rather stupid brain-fart.

                    Indeed.. Gravity? Really? This-

                    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boyle%27s_law

                    has been the law since 1662. Although there were attempts to deny it-

                    Daniel Bernoulli (in 1737–1738) derived Boyle's law by applying Newton's laws of motion at the molecular level. It remained ignored until around 1845, when John Waterston published a paper building the main precepts of kinetic theory; this was rejected by the Royal Society of England. Later works of James Prescott Joule, Rudolf Clausius and in particular Ludwig Boltzmann firmly established the kinetic theory of gases and brought attention to both the theories of Bernoulli and Waterston.

                    Which also shows that science denial is nothing new, even from august bodies like the Royal Society. Normally science corrects itself when evidence for/against a theory becomes overwhelming. For climate 'science', the misinformation being pumped out by idiots like this dominates, even though the evidence should have lead to corrections already. Oh, and before anyone tries to jump on this bit-

                    an empirical gas law that describes the relationship between pressure and volume of a confined gas.

                    Our atmosphere, ie the confined gas is confined by our magnetosphere, so Boyle's Law remains in force. Ok, and gravity, but one is a variable, the other is constant.

                    And drill core data of ice which has been examined countless times for CO² and dust concentration show that

                    .. rain follows the plow? Ice core data has it's own issues, but then-

                    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vostok_Station#/media/File:Vostok_420ky_4curves_insolation.jpg

                    shows 420ka of climate change. It also shows CO2 following temperature. Which is Schmidt's 'control knob' problem. If effect precedes cause, how can CO2 be the control/driver? Temperatures rise, CO2 rises follow. All easily explained by science, including other bits of NASA, ie the 'greening of the Earth' as a result of warming leading to higher natural CO2 and methane/CH4 emissions.. And of course CH4 disassociates in atmosphere into CO2. And if you look at the science/data, natural emissions massively dominate anthropomorphic ones, both with huge uncertainties..

                    The only thing that changed in the last ~150 years are humans, with their constant CO² on top which changes it all much faster. And Hunga Tonga had no measurable effect on that. But COVID had a measurable effect on CO² though, due to the shutdowns during that time.

                    Wrong. But this is how climate denial works. So the gish-gallop usually follows the same plough, demonstrating the power of misinformation and propaganda, with a pile of reductio ad absurdum thrown in for good measure. So..

                    Start with the previously mentioned Stefan Boltzmann, and the source of much climate misinformation-

                    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law#Effective_temperature_of_the_Earth

                    Similarly we can calculate the effective temperature of the Earth T⊕ by equating the energy received from the Sun and the energy radiated by the Earth, under the black-body approximation (Earth's own production of energy being small enough to be negligible).

                    Problem is the Earth obviously isn't a black-body. It's an oblate spheroid with a blue-green finish, with a bi-annual variation (winter/summer) on a variable orbit around an inconstant Sun. But that gives us an extremely crude approximation of what the Earth's temperature might be, if you completely ignore reality. Then add an atmosphere, which is a mixed gas containing trace amounts of CO2. And then claim CO2 alone drives temperatures. Which is, of course utter bollocks.

                    And if you reduce it to it's absolute absurdity, it also highlights the homeopathic nature of climate 'science'. We know that temperatures have been higher in the past. We're told present CO2 levels are higher than ever before. So.. how is it that much lower amounts of CO2 can have much greater effects on temperature? This is also the problem with assumption wrt the logarithmic nature of TΔCO2 and doubliing CO2. Much smaller amounts of CO2 create equal or greater amounts of warming. This defies all known physics, but is a perfect fit for homeopathic beliefs.

                    But wait, there's more! So you think there's a 'measurable effect on CO2' during the great panicdemic. So where is it?

                    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeling_Curve#/media/File:Mauna_Loa_CO2_monthly_mean_concentration.svg

                    I.. don't see it. But then anthropomorphic emissions are tiny compared to natural, so it gets lost in the noise. Plus that data only goes back to 1960. So then we get more denial to support the CO2 meme. So that's garbage like MBH98 and the infamous Hockey Stick. That was intended to help 'present the tidy story' that the Industrial Revolution and anthropomorphic CO2 exclusively drove temperatures. Basics of that are pretty simple. Take tree cores, measure the density of the wood for each growth ring and assume that the only factor affecting tree growth is temperature.

                    Any arborist, botanist or biologist will tell you that this is also bollocks. There could be many factors affecting tree growth. But if you ignore that, ignore samples from damaged trees and pre-screen to only use samples that produce the result you want, you produce a Hockey Stick. Then win tenure, millions of dollars, fame, and a Nobel Prize.. ish. Of course you also have to 'hide the decline'. And pesky reality strikes again. So dendrophrenology uses a calibration interval. So that uses actual temperature data to assume the relationship between temperature and wood density. For a lot of samples, eg Yamal, that wasn't available so was just made up. For others, the historical temperature records have been 'adjusted', so the calibration is wrong, and thus the entire model.

                    Luckily, reality is still real, except of course in climate 'science'. So another reason for pushing the Hockey Stick(s) was to erase the well-documented MWP and LIA. Those, along with other well documented, protracted warmer or colder intervals clearly demonstrate that climate change is real, only CO2 cannot have provided causation. But if you're looking to make billions from CO2, you have to get rid of those and deny them. Which is still ongoing. Otherwise, warming following the LIA is normal, expected and nothing to do with CO2. CO2 levels rising are, like the Vostok core demonstrated, a natural consquence of warming.

                    But that's also where the real climate science is fun. We don't really know what causes events like the LIA or MWP. We also know of large events, ie Ice Ages, but can't really explain those either. CO2 certainly can't. There are theories like Milankovitch Cycles, but those have the same problem with effect exceeding cause. On the long term, we were in an Ice Age, we aren't any more so many of the effects currently attributed to anthropomorphism and used to flog carbon credits are just the consequences of leaving the last Ice Age or being in an interglacial. But that's also climate 'science' all over. Use an abitary baseline of 1860 to artificially create a correlation with the Industrial Revolution. Ignore all the evidence that that was the end of the LIA. Start with a cold year, and you can show an exagerated warming trend. Start with say, 1922 and you can show a cooling trend instead.

                    And Hunga Tonga had no measurable effect on that.

                    You can't know that. It's been theorised that it will have had a transient warming effect. That can be observed, measured and quantified. That's how science is supposed to work. It's rare that we get geo-scale events like that, and obviously climate scientists can't tweak planetary events like that on demand outside their models. But those observations may allow models to be tweaked to better reflect the relationship between atmospheric H2O and temperature. There's also shorter duration events like the current CME. That's a crapton of energy that hit our atmosphere generating plasmas, heating, air showers and more, as well as stripping some of it away. Again one of those pesky multi-variate events that help deny CO2 dogma, especially as our magnetic field has also been declining, which in itself will be contributing to climate change.

    3. Alf Garnett

      Re: Could someone please explain ?

      The environmentalist extremists that get the headlines are not concerned about the environment. If they were, they'd attack factories that make fuel burning cars. These thugs just enjoy destroying things.

      1. CowHorseFrog Silver badge

        Re: Could someone please explain ?

        Wow a real thinker, ... what makes you think EV cars are green in anyway ?

        Batteries are made from the most toxic things on earth. Those mines are all run on OIL...

        The real problem is morons who repeat what they hear without actually doing any research of any kind.

        THose batteries will ALL goto the environment, nobody will want them in 10 years simply because there will be better batteries of different components....Thats right trillions of tons of lithium now spread everywhere and turning all these other places into deadzones just like the dead salt plains the salts were taken from.

        Today basically ZERO EV batteries are recycled. Most countries dont even have a single recycling center.

        1. Jou (Mxyzptlk) Silver badge

          Re: Could someone please explain ?

          > Today basically ZERO EV batteries are recycled. Most countries dont even have a single recycling center.

          That is about to change. As soon as the number of EV cars to recycle, which are replaced due to old age or repair not worth it for example, rises the market will act. Does not happen yet, those cars live longer than expected.

          1. Missing Semicolon Silver badge

            Re: Could someone please explain ?

            It's always "about to change". Just like fusion is "about to work".

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              If only we could recycle old useless ranters into young positive and productive people

              Source: Statista

              With widespread application in electronic devices, electric vehicles, and large-scale grid storage, lithium-ion batteries have become ubiquitous in modern society. Growth projections for this market show no signs of slowing, particularly for segments within the energy transition. A new industry is now developing around the recovery of valuable minerals from spent lithium-ion batteries. Though still in its infancy, the battery recycling market is projected to see considerable growth over the next decade, reaching a value of 35 billion U.S. dollars by 2031.

              1. Jellied Eel Silver badge

                Re: If only we could recycle old useless ranters into young positive and productive people

                Though still in its infancy, the battery recycling market is projected to see considerable growth over the next decade, reaching a value of 35 billion U.S. dollars by 2031.

                My proposal for unicorn power is also in it's infancy and could be worth billions. So invest now! But such is economics. A lot depends on the definitions of 'worth and 'value'. So there's regulatory capture requiring battery recycling. Currently, this is pretty much a cost. So the cost of collecting, storing and paying the fire service to put out the inevitable fires. Then there's the cost of actually trying to recycle lithium from batteries. Without those pesky fires. People are throwing money at this problem, but sadly a lot of those people are us, ie government grants.

                But then it has the same problem as the mythical hydrogen economy. So after much cost, you produce a tonne of lithium. Then this happens-

                https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/lithium

                Sure, it's showing price in CNY, but the problem will be the difference in cost of recycled vs virgin lithium. There are of course attempts to rig this, as usual with anything Green by mandating 'recycled' lithium or restricting lithium mining. But unless that problem is solved, ie really cheap recycling that makes it cheaper to recycle than mine, there is no economic value, only increased costs to consumers.

                1. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: If only we could recycle old useless ranters into young positive and productive people

                  Start your own "Statista", my friend. We'll see what market share you get and who people trust: you or the experts.

                  The hilarious aspect of your post is that it comes from the same guy who keeps writing in all relevant (and less relevant) threads that EVs are a bad solution because of the lack of Lithium resources.

              2. CowHorseFrog Silver badge

                Re: If only we could recycle old useless ranters into young positive and productive people

                Oh yes those famous estimates about the future.

                Why talk about reality when we can pretend about the future.

                How many plastic recycling companies are there today and how much plastic is not recycled ?

                Plastic is nothing compared to forever toxic chemicals in batteries

              3. CowHorseFrog Silver badge

                Re: If only we could recycle old useless ranters into young positive and productive people

                Tesla has sold a few million cars, where are the stats of how many of those have been retired and how many of those batteries have been recycled ?

            2. Jou (Mxyzptlk) Silver badge

              Re: Could someone please explain ?

              > Just like fusion is "about to work".

              Well, you missed the last big Wendelstein experiment, where they kept a steady fusion plasma going for eight minutes, producing 1.3 GigaJoule. And they only stopped 'cause they planned to do so, checking the components and measurements afterwards where they need to optimize to minimize wear. They could have gone 30 minutes and plan to do so next time, but didn't dare to.

            3. Someone Else Silver badge

              Re: Could someone please explain ?

              Just like fusion is "about to work".

              Or Flying Cars. Or, "It is estimated that no underware will be worn by the year twenty-twenty."*

              *Those Firesign Theater guys were not real good at prognosticating, so maybe we won't count that last one...

          2. CowHorseFrog Silver badge

            Re: Could someone please explain ?

            Jou: That is about to change. As soon as the number of EV cars to recycle, which are replaced due to old age or repair not worth it for example, rises the market will act.

            cow: can you read ?

            Battery tech is constantly changing. they are constantly switching the raw components used in the battery.

            WHy would anybody want the stuf in todays battery when in 10 years time there will be a battery that is 10x better ?

            Your lies are the same lies they said about recuycling plastic, and TODAY 3/4 o f all plastic is NOT recycled, and the 1/4 they pretend to recycle, well most of that goes into landfill anyway. Go ask your local council how much from your local recycling truck actually gets recycled.

    4. CowHorseFrog Silver badge

      Re: Could someone please explain ?

      Who exactly said EV's are green ?

      Are you just repeating what zillions of fakes like Musk have been saying or do you actually have real studies that proove EVs are green.

      There are three choices to reduce carbon

      - pretend EVs are green

      - stop/reduce using iCE

      - or reduce ALL the stupid car and plane travel...

      which is the SMART choice ?

      THe one that is REAL with REAL scientific evidene or pretend that EVs are a solution.

    5. CowHorseFrog Silver badge

      Re: Could someone please explain ?

      What makes you think driving EVs instead of ICe is green ?

      You do realise for example EVs are hardly green at all, the metal and plastic dont grow on trees.

      Roads are not green, bitumen is just thick oil etc and more cars means more bitumen... etc

    6. Charlie Clark Silver badge

      Re: Could someone please explain ?

      The plant woulnd't have been built at all except for massive government subsidies. There were concerns from the start about the environmental impact because the plant uses a lot of water, and Brandenburg has been in a state of drought for several years, which has temporarily abated recently due to unusally heavy rainfall all winter, but which meteorologists expect to return. The same criticisms can and should be applied to the proposed Intel factory in Magdeburg. Just as Silicon Valley likes to waste money by "buying" customers, governments love to waste it by "buying" jobs. It would be much, much cheaper paying the people concerned to drive cheap Chinese EVs.

      Additonally, the generation and distribution problems associated with EVs are starting to make people think whether the headlong charge is such a good idea. Personally, I'd prefer to see a shift in the drive train towards electric motors powered by generators, as in the new Nissan Qasqai, as a first step. But that's probably a discussion for another time.

      1. CowHorseFrog Silver badge

        Re: Could someone please explain ?

        And without gov subsidies we would not have 99% of all roads.

        Far less roads, far less cars, far less people wasting time driving eveyrwhere and most importantly far less carbon and far MORE tax payers money saved.

        1. Charlie Clark Silver badge
          Stop

          Re: Could someone please explain ?

          Governments don't usually subsidise roads themselves except, say, in hard to reach places. What they do do is subsidise road use through tax incentives. Road building and maintenance are paid for by various means, including private finance, depending on the country. The US has consistently underfunded highway maintenance.

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    A policeman's lot is not a happy one

    When an Elon's not engaged in his employment,

    Or maturing his Elonious little plans ...

    1. Winkypop Silver badge
      Thumb Up

      Re: A policeman's lot is not a happy one

      Tyrant-ula Tyrant-ula !!

      (Brilliant post BTW)

  3. Wiretrip

    Maybe it is because Musk's alleged eco credentials are actually not that great. For example, he flies *everywhere* all the time in his private jet. He hates trains and actively blocked the creation of the HS train between San Francisco and LA by lying about hyper loop and spends a great deal of time blowing up millions of litres of hydrogen in his rockets as well as littering low earth orbit with space junk.

    1. vekkq

      Burning hydrogen would be harmless. His rockets burn kerosene however.

      1. Wiretrip

        Ha true. They mostly also burn themselves.

        1. John Robson Silver badge

          Tell me you don't understand rockets ...

    2. CowHorseFrog Silver badge

      Like all of the bullshitters, the truth is basically the opposite of what they claim or what they are supposedly championing.

      EV cars are not green, just like ICE cars are not green. The real answer is too cut down on both.

  4. Bebu
    Windows

    "Elon Musk wonders why so many sour Krauts"

    Elon Musk wonders why so many sour Krauts

    Really Mr Heinz? Sauerkraut? [channelling the late Robert Morely]

    One of the public broadcasters here, perhaps more even handedly, reported that one of the grievances of the protesters was Tesla's treatment of employees/workers in jurisdictions Iacking the labour protections found in DE and EU generally. Meaning third world* nations like the US I imagine.

    So not all nimby greenies. :)

    What was fascinating was that most of the protesters (filmed) wore sky blue forage caps. Clearly the Germans take their protesting seriously - probably have to enrol in a eight week course for your certificates in Protest I-II and Civil Disobedience I before being issued with a permit to object.

    Taking the piss. I have a lot more respect for the health of civil society in Germany today that I have for the sorry stale of civil society in much of the Anglosphere.

    *Yes I know as Stephen Fry once pointed out third world meant non-aligned and that Eire was the closest third world nation to London (at that time.)

    1. Jou (Mxyzptlk) Silver badge

      Re: "Elon Musk wonders why so many sour Krauts"

      Please say from which country you are from. Neither Germany and USA I'd say.

      > probably have to enrol in a eight week course for your certificates

      No, but all protests are expected to be announced ahead. That is true for Germany, and as far as many "German living in USA for 10+ years, how is it really over there?" say: You have to do the same in the USA. Nearly all protests get an OK. Except for Pro-Nazi stuff in Germany for obvious reasons, and similar No-No exist for USA.

      If you don't inform ahead you will have problem in both directions for both countries: Things can escalate with an Anti-faction of your protest and then you really NEED police protection. The other way around: The police can choose (not by will, there are rules, in USA and Germany) that your unannounced protest is deemed dangerous, for example 'cause you'd be blocking a busy street, of you infer too much with the life's of normal people by preventing them to get to work and so on - albeit "I've been told" than some states in the US have a much lower tolerance compared to Germany, some have a lot more tolerance.

      So I repeat: Which country you are from telling such nonsense? Neither Germany and USA I'd say.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: "Elon Musk wonders why so many sour Krauts"

        I'm guessing: baguette/camembert.

    2. katrinab Silver badge
      Trollface

      Re: "Elon Musk wonders why so many sour Krauts"

      Whereas now England is the closest third world nation to London.

      1. Snowy Silver badge
        Alert

        Re: "Elon Musk wonders why so many sour Krauts"

        No!! you mean France!!, no one is crossing the English channel to get to France, but they do risk their lives to come to England.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: "Elon Musk wonders why so many sour Krauts"

        Although the devolved government in Wales are trying to make up for not being quite as close by being even more batshit crazy

  5. Henry Wertz 1 Gold badge

    Mush.. what a dumb statement

    Must is such an ass... what a dumb statement...

    "The SpaceX tycoon also voiced suspicions over why protesters would focus on his Berlin factory rather than those operated by Volkswagen, which a decade ago was caught cheating on emissions tests. "Something fishy about this," Musk said. "They be *that* dumb!""

    Umm, because that was 10 years ago and VW is not doing it any more? Admittedly they'd probably STILL be doing it if they hadn't been caught. But they were caught and they quit doing this like 8-9 years ago (and at least in the US recalled or actually bought back their vehicles that violated emissions so there's not even the remaining 10+ year old VWs here shooting out high NoX emissions.)

    (To be honest, I'd love it if they did keep making their vehicles -- high NoX emissions are not ideal, but those 60-70MPG diesels? Lovely.) Kind of a shame, in the US there is no seperate gasoline versus diesel emissions for cars, so there are NO diesel cars available (there are monster trucks, and like some monster SUVs like Cadillac Escalade. Gross.) As of like 2018, it was a few BMWs, the Chevy Cruze Diesel, a Jaguar sedan, and to list even 11 "cars" they mislisted some Range Rover and Jaguar SUVs as "cars" even though they aren't. I think the 2019 Cruze Diesel was the last diesel car on the market here.

    Man who'd have thought environmentalism was such a hot issue? To be honest I'm staying out of that one -- 250 acres is a drop in the bucket anyway.

    But in the larger sense, climate scientists themselves are not biased. But, they just run climate models, usually a range showing a "best case" to "worst case" scenario. Not deciding if a wind farm offsets the trees cut down to place the wind turbines; not deciding what policies would be best. That is not what climate science does. But people will use claims of climate science to support whatever environmental policies they want to. You have environmentalists that'll take the worst-case scenario models, assume that's inevitable, "select" stats that support their case; and people who either work for oil companies etc., or just follow the (in the US Republican) anti-environmental stance where they pick the best-case scenario, assume THAT is fudged to be worse than reality (they LOVE to claim that science is biased when it doesn't agree with the policies they want), cherry pick numbers saying you can do whatever and it'll have little effect on the environment. Given the lack of objectivity on this topic I really would assume the reality is somewhere in between, but it's difficult to even get any real numbers to suggest a best course of action.

    Any way... Given it's Musk, I do have to wonder if there isn't a blasted out field there already ready to put warehouses and a depot on, and he's just tearing into the forest to troll environmentalists? I doubt it, but it is Musk after all. Probably not. Perhaps they should take a middle ground, make sure the trees are cut into firewood, or lumber for building, or something if they are going to be cut down anyway?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Mush.. what a dumb statement

      > You have environmentalists that'll take the worst-case scenario models, assume that's inevitable, "select" stats that support their case;

      Problem is... worst case scenarios seem to have been underestimated.

      1. Jellied Eel Silver badge

        Re: Mush.. what a dumb statement

        Problem is... worst case scenarios seem to have been underestimated.

        Obviously not, ie current predictions for Global Warming are much lower than those from Arrhenius. And certainly much lower than those from Paul Erlich and Mark Lynas.. But I had to look-

        ...freak blip or whether “there's something more systematic afoot,” as NASA climate scientist Gavin Schmidt put it

        I might have guessed. One of the comp.sci guys (along with Wiki's Billy Connolly) who didn't know how to set up a website, so instead needed Al Gore's astroturfers, Fenton Communications to register 'RealClimate' for them, which included Michael Mann and Bradley of the infamous Hockey Stick/MBH98 fame. Funny how that all happened around the time Al Gore was flogging his 'Inconvenient Truth' disaster movie, and setting up his VC fund to profit from the hype.

        One of Schmidt's greatest work was a paper explaining how CO2 was the world's climate 'control nob'.. yet oddly, there is no strong correlation between CO2 and temperatures. Now back to watching for plasma physics. Been fairly disappointing so far, but have booze, bbq, good company and a data connection..

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Oddly, Russia is to benefit most from global warming

          > yet oddly, there is no strong correlation between CO2 and temperatures.

          Yeah, everybody's wrong. JE is right (says JE).

          >but have booze,

          Oh, that explains it (nope).

          > good company and a data connection..

          Why don't you just log off and get the "good company" bored with your pedantic batshit nonsense?

          1. Spazturtle Silver badge

            Re: Oddly, Russia is to benefit most from global warming

            Nah, Russians only thinks they will benefit, but we can already see what happens when permafrost melts. The soil just turns into liquid mud and drains away into the ocean. Vast areas of Russia will be lost to the Arctic ocean.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Oddly, Russia is to benefit most from global warming

              Moreover, methane release will speed up runaway effect. Venus scenario. But this is too hard to understand for Putin and his clique.

            2. CowHorseFrog Silver badge

              Re: Oddly, Russia is to benefit most from global warming

              Russia wont benefit, thats bogus.

              Russia is a bog for half the year because the warmer temps turn all that snow into slush.

              If anything they will be worse off, simply because there will be more melted ice, which means more marsh land, and far less hard permafrost earth.

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: Oddly, Russia is to benefit most from global warming

                Ever heard about the Artic Passage? Ever heard of the Yamal natural Gas resources?

        2. CowHorseFrog Silver badge

          Re: Mush.. what a dumb statement

          @Jellied

          Lets forget the question of carbon and climate change and turn to something more personal.

          Do you enjoy wasting 10 - 20 hours a week commuting ?

          Wouldnt you like to get those hours every day back and actually do something else with them ?

          A big reason why people are commuting in cars, trains etc, is because transport exists..

          A lot of this waste can be cut back and everyone wins.

          Less cars on the road, so the peple who do need to drive can get there faster.

          Gov spends less money on roads and hospitals again, that means tax savings for everyone.

          There really is no win in commuting.

          1. blackcat Silver badge

            Re: Mush.. what a dumb statement

            "A big reason why people are commuting in cars, trains etc, is because transport exists"

            What such transport allowed was for people to live away from where they worked, ie outside of a big city, away from industrial areas, away from overcrowding. The coming of the railways in UK/Europe allowed for a fairly good increase in the standard of living for a lot of people. Oddly people don't want a return to such conditions.

          2. Jellied Eel Silver badge

            Re: Mush.. what a dumb statement

            Do you enjoy wasting 10 - 20 hours a week commuting ?

            Wouldnt you like to get those hours every day back and actually do something else with them ?

            Nope, and I used to waste more. Then I decided to go freelance and now mostly retired. But many of us are fortunate, and shouldn't really need to commute. It always frustrated me that I had to leave my home PC setup with 3x30" monitors and be far less productive in an office with a laptop and 15" monitor. But most of my work has always been design & documentation, with some meetings and presentations thrown in. When I've employed statff, I've actively discouraged people travelling if they don't need to because that wastes time and money. I don't really care how or where staff work, as long as the work gets done. Some employers have been similarly enlightened, others still insist on bums on seats.

            There really is no win in commuting.

            Nope, but then for many people, there's currently no alternatve. We had the whole 'clap for nurses' during the panicdemic, but I also clapped (virtually) for shop staff and everyone else who couldn't work from home, or pretend to. And sadly many of those people aren't the best paid, so most affected by high transport costs whether that's public or private.. And probably can't afford a Tesla, or have the ability to charge them easily.

            1. Jou (Mxyzptlk) Silver badge

              Re: Mush.. what a dumb statement

              I don't get the down vote here... You must have accumulated hate followers like me, who vote down no matter what you write.

              I love working on my large 4k screen at home, + 15" laptop screen. Windows zoom to 100%, efficient space usage.

              Commuting to the office (less than 15 minutes) is mostly for social reasons. You have to see your coworker a few times per week. But I am not expected to. But I have 2*27" at work, both with 2560x1600, they are good too.

              1. Jellied Eel Silver badge

                Re: Mush.. what a dumb statement

                I don't get the down vote here... You must have accumulated hate followers like me, who vote down no matter what you write.

                Yep, it happens. There are a few posters who seem to enjoy abusing the system, ie my regular anonymong. You can click on a registered poster's name, see all their posts and then they remove thumb from rectum and downvote them all. Of course it's not possible to return the favor, even though I think the downvotes will count for anonymong's registered accounts. El Reg also seems extremely selective about how and who they moderate, so some posts vanish, some say they're removed by a moderator.

                I never used to use the down thumbs and prefer to respond if I disagree, but have started downvoting the worst trolls. And have an upvote for balance.

                I love working on my large 4k screen at home, + 15" laptop screen. Windows zoom to 100%, efficient space usage.

                Yep. IMHO, screen space and memory are the biggest productivity improvements, especially as the number of apps staff might be expected to use increase. So much less time alt-tabbing between windows, with the risk of accidently closing them. Or crashing. Just being able to have 2 documents side by side and being able to see messages/alerts/emails easily makes it a lot easier to get work done.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Mush.. what a dumb statement

        Indeed. One factor is that most discussion and publicity is around what is expected to happen in 50-100 years. Which is when the chickens have just started squawking because their feet are wet. Unfortunately they come home to roost at more like 3-400 years, and the consequences look a hell of a lot worse then.

        Even back when I was doing the number crunching work on analytical models ('80s, before big climate models) we would go back trying to reduce the numbers to something less scary, and more likely to be believed by other scientists who hadn't worked the numbers themselves. My boss quite presciently foresaw the pushback from a bunch of commentariat scientists.

        1. LybsterRoy Silver badge

          Re: Mush.. what a dumb statement

          How many of your models could accurately predict the past where everything was known? Only when that is 100% should you start predicting the future!

  6. Will Godfrey Silver badge
    Unhappy

    El Reg really seems to be getting more and more Americanised

    We are getting more and more of these aggressive school playground style rants.

  7. aerogems Silver badge

    Hey look! Over there! A bear!

    Imagine that... A CEO tossing out a conspiracy theory about a rival in an attempt to shift focus away from their own numerous failings both as a person and a company executive.

    I mean, as I recall, a number of people resigned or were fired at VW over the emissions cheating scandal and no doubt the company is still getting the aggressive prostate exam treatment from regulators all over the world. If Xitler wants to fall on his sword (please let it be literally) for Tesla factories violating California air regulations, the violations of California and US labor laws, and just being a general twat, maybe we can think about rehabbing his image a little... posthumously.

  8. CowHorseFrog Silver badge

    Why cant anyone say the REAL choice is not EV but to cut down all the stupid driving everyone is doing.

    1. Jou (Mxyzptlk) Silver badge

      > Why cant anyone say the REAL choice is not EV but to cut down all the stupid driving everyone is doing.

      That depends on the country you live in. Most of USA cities are not walkable, bike and public transport are "not recommended", the exceptions are rare. Thanks to the car-lobby puhsing weird regulations and their buy-rail-and-kill-it tactics nearly 100 years ago. Most European countries are bike friendly and well walkable with good public transport. Some asian countries are well walkable, bike friendly and have good public transport too.

      1. Missing Semicolon Silver badge

        I think you mean "cities" not "countries". I'd suggest that the UK is not the only country where public transport is vestigal .

  9. Sceptic Tank Silver badge
    Headmaster

    Call the Gestapo

    I was a little bit appalled the other day to see how woke people on this forum are, so it surprises me that nobody has complained about the use of derogatory terms like "Kraut" in articles. Or is that because the term describes a bunch of white people? Just wondering. (I'm not of German descent).

    1. Jellied Eel Silver badge

      Re: Call the Gestapo

      I was a little bit appalled the other day to see how woke people on this forum are, so it surprises me that nobody has complained about the use of derogatory terms like "Kraut" in articles.

      Sadly, it's all depressingly normal, especially when the topicals are at all political. I've said it before and I'll say it again, it's mainly from people who never read or understood Popper's Paradox of Tolerance. People may consider themselves liberal or 'woke', but when they can't construct a rational argument or debate, the ad homs start to fly.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Look who's talking!

        > but when they can't construct a rational argument or debate, the ad homs start to fly.

        Correct. JE is the best example to follow when it comes to the best ways to "construct a rational argument or debate" and avoid ad hominem. The epitome of rationality. Zero trolling added.

        1. Jellied Eel Silver badge

          Re: Look who's trolling.. again.

          Correct. JE is the best example to follow when it comes to the best ways to "construct a rational argument or debate" and avoid ad hominem. The epitome of rationality. Zero trolling added.

          Projecting, again. You flounced off from the 'woke' topic when I pointed out you were one of the most obvious, and worst examples. Now you're at it again, adding nothing substantive to the debate other than more ad homs.

          And just to avoid your waste of space. I'm not sure what you mean by your lithium comment. The resource, environmental and energy costs of lithium and other materials that go into EVs, along with the energy requirements to run them and short battery life are some of the reasons why EVs are currently unsustainable. But like wind power, our ancestors already knew that, hence why electric vehicles were obsoleted by ICEs. It's a lot easier, cheaper and more environmentally friendly to use an energy dense, easily stored and transported fuel like petrol or diesel than electricity.

    2. Jou (Mxyzptlk) Silver badge

      Re: Call the Gestapo

      No, that is just the normal abuse we Germans have to live with. And if we speak up about it the world starts to scream "The Krauts are going to war again!". Like Putin did about a year ago. 79 yeaars after WW2, and we are still closely watched. There is a reason why Germany has the highest number of US bases outside of USA.

      On the other hand: 79 years after WW2 we still find several unexploded US/British/Russian/etc WW2 bombs in our ground each day, still over 1000 per year. So we have enough reminders of war directly below our feet, decaying and ever ready to explode without warning.

      1. Jellied Eel Silver badge

        Re: Call the Gestapo

        No, that is just the normal abuse we Germans have to live with.

        Only a subset of Germans. Problem is it's once again the German leadership. It's mostly the whole 'never forget' thing, and the way your leaders are copying the past. So there's the way your Greens are copying from Mein Kampf. Once again, your leaders are allied with Ukraine, just as they were during WW2. Canada also forgot this when they gave a standing ovation to a Ukrainian SS volunteer. If Ukraine manages to survive, Germany may get Ukraine at last for it's libensraum and Ukraine's farmlands. Providing German agribusinesses survive current German economic policies that is. Regardless, Ukraine is destined to follow the Greek debt model and be asset stripped by the West. Just as in WW2, there's also the policy of fighting to the last Ukrainian and allowing them to be used as cannon fodder in a desire to finally defeat Russia.

        Oh, and there's also the belief that 'wunderwaffe' will turn the tide. Examples of those, and the way they haven't are currently on display in Moscow. Some of those 'wunderwaffe' also ended up being painted with WW2 German insignia, and of course dear'ol Azov borrowed it's insignia from your 2nd SS Panzer division, and one specifically designed for theSS and their Wewelsburg Castle. Which is possibly why Germany was reluctant to committ initially because.. here we go again. Ukraine's 'Right Sector' pretty much mirrored NSDAP's rise to power. We ignore this because we still want to break up and asset strip the Russian Federation. But that really isn't going very well, and Germany is suffering for it. Germany used to trade extensively with Russia, now, it can't. The US never did, so the sanctions have mostly just benefitted them, along with crippling the EU. But that's just geopolitics for you. Prior to the conflict, the EU economy was larger than the US, and closer ties with Russia would only have accelerated this. So the US acted in it's own interests, as nations should and greatly weakened the EU, along with it's economic powerhouse, Germany.

        And sadly, your/our leaders have gone along willingly with this. Even to the extent where your government is now handing over it's military to NATO command. It's like WW1 and Germany's humiliation under the Treaty of Versaille never happened.. Except of course your far-right groups are busily exploiting Germany's mismanagement and surrender of sovereignty & national identity, just as the NSDAP did all those years ago. But history is littered with examples of how external threats have been used to start wars, and distract the masses from domestic problems like those caused by Germany's energewiende policy. Don't blame us for high cost of living, unemployement and business failures. Blame Russia!

        Except as we drift ever closer to WW3, we're much less likely to survive this one. Especially if we decide to have a go at China as well.. Luckily the EU and other countries have elections coming up, so there's the chance to replace the current shower of shite and fix some of the problems they've created. Some light is appearing at the end of the tunnel, like COP28's announcement to triple nuclear generation. Build nuclear, don't go nuclear.. But of course Germany's Greens think there's a tsunami risk and hate nuclear energy.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Call the Gestapo

          Isn't the BBC to blame for all of this? Any insights?

        2. Casca Silver badge

          Re: Call the Gestapo

          Still being a shill for russia I see. When are you moving there?

          1. Jellied Eel Silver badge

            Re: Call the Whambulance

            Still being a shill for russia I see. When are you moving there?

            Do you ever have anything constructive to add? But there are plenty of bridges in Ukraine you could be hiding under..

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Call the Gestapo

      I guess the pun in the subtitle is a good enough excuse.

      In any case, as seen from the outside, from Hengist and Horsa to the Hanover Georges, to the Saxe-Coburg Gotha rebranded as "Windsor", to King Charles being perfectly fluent in German, watching the Brits calling the Germans "Kraut" is as entertaining as watching the Habsburgs calling each others inbred. As the Tsarevich Alexei could have testified, barring the Bolshevik's endeavour to erect their own version of an earthly paradise.

      Also bear in mind that when someone calls you "woke", the information is not that you are "woke", whatever that's supposed to mean, but rather that they are part of the conservative fringe bitterly resenting their loss of dominance on a society becoming more inclusive. Which is also a bit of a jubilation in itself.

    4. WilliamBurke
      Devil

      Re: Call the Gestapo

      Context is everything. As a born and bred, and in my old age increasingly sour, citizen of that country marooned on this island, I generally recognise when things are meant as a ribbing and when there is real malice involved. El Reg has a big bonus on that front, because it's their general tone and they do it to everybody. And to those who think other skin colours have an easier ride: ask the "Lads from Lagos" for their opinion next time you get an email from them!

  10. TimMaher Silver badge
    Trollface

    The Great Register Bridge

    Just been there.

    A beautifully constructed, 14th century structure built from hand crafted granite by the finest stone masons.

    It is wide enough for a horse drawn vehicle to cross and has a small staircase at each end.

    The staircase allows a visitor to step down towards the clear, fast flowing river and look underneath the arches.

    I took a look.

    Yup. It’s awash with trolls.

    1. Neil Barnes Silver badge

      Re: The Great Register Bridge

      Well obviously. It's a troll bridge.

  11. Cliffwilliams44 Silver badge

    Those who live in a fairy land!

    "We want electric cars, but we want them to sprout out of Unicorn's asses!"

    When will all these people realize this has nothing to do with the planet and everything to so with "transformative change", as the Marxist call it!

    The want you to be bonded to the land like surfs so the New Nobility can keep you under control. How dare you think you can buy a vehicle and move yourself away from their oppression!

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like