Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4
Discussion
LongQ said:
Recommended reading.
Although perhaps not much that is new to readers here the matter is handled nicely and is currently a good and concise reference.
Agreed, thanks for the link.Although perhaps not much that is new to readers here the matter is handled nicely and is currently a good and concise reference.
As to the final question:
Link said:
So where does the truth lie? If we believe the data, and there are good reasons for not doing so, we can say that anthropogenic PM2.5 in the UK reduces life expectancy in the UK by between 1 month and 1 year. 6% of this can be attributed to diesel cars from which I surmise that PM2.5 from diesel cars reduces life expectancy by between 2 and 22 days. How does this get turned into PM2.5 pollution from diesel cars killing 29,000 / year?
The answer is here - it's the epidemiological fallacy, aka the ecological fallacy.http://wmbriggs.com/post/13029/
Also not new to regulars, and also worth a read anyway.
Another question from the linik...is it young people keeling over outdoors or already-ill elderly folk indoors passing on a bit sooner than their medics thought...we know which.
Indoor pollution is on average x10 worse than outdoor urban air (UK BRE, US EPA) and politicians are so desperate to solve this problem with taxes and lifestyle control freakery that they're doing a four call job on it
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
turbobloke said:
robinessex said:
Er, aren’t around 40,000 persons killed each year by mistakes by the medical profession, I seem to recall !!
Those mistakes will doubtless be due to global warming 
https://atlasofscience.org/global-warming-implicat...
Durbster is worried about natural coral life cycle events, and now because of the deluded fools of his ilk, oceans life is to be drowned under silt and poisoned by toxins released by pursuing deep sea mining to get the rare earths etc. required to make the windmills and PV arrays that won't solve the cause of the problem that doesn't exist.
It's hard not to conclude that the actual aim of the greens is not just the oh so evident wish to destroy mankind, but total planetcide.
It's hard not to conclude that the actual aim of the greens is not just the oh so evident wish to destroy mankind, but total planetcide.
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
turbobloke said:
robinessex said:
Er, aren’t around 40,000 persons killed each year by mistakes by the medical profession, I seem to recall !!
Those mistakes will doubtless be due to global warming The précis description reads:
"Columnist for The Times and bestselling author of Bounce: The Myth of Talent and the Power of Practice Matthew Syed argues that the key to success is a positive attitude to failure."
This has for some decades been a principle of American success. Indeed several (British) training courses I attended many years ago made a point about America believing that one was unlikely to be a true success unless one had previous experience of failure, thereby attaining some level of understanding about how to deal with it.
I had no problem with the idea then and still don't today - on a personal basis.
However serial failures of institutions and the people appointed to run them or represent them are a different matter.
And when those Institutions adopt a "collective responsibility" so that no one is to be held culpable for policy failures they, and the people who admire and defend them, are ducking their personal moral responsibilities.
If the result affect a small number of insiders it does not matter much.
If the main impact is upon a lot of people who have no control over the ego games being played - then it matters.
When the "headlines" are, yet again, being "economical" with the reality in order to persuade opinions without presenting the real meaning the potential for unexpected responses and unpredicted long term harm is great.
Bliar went down that path over Saddam.
Iraq lost whatever stability it had, the whole area is a mess decades later and the problems that it has recently supported seem to be ready to spread around the world in various forms. Could we imagine Russia and the US moving beyond sabre rattling?
Where would "Europe" stand in that situation? How would things look if Russia turned off the gas supply?
More to the point, having been lied to so often by Peter the shepherd boy crying "Wolf", who really believes anything they are told these days?
I don't mean "Who accepts things" on the basis it doesn't matter to their lives and they feel they cannot influence matters anyway. (A very common situation I think from conversations I have had with representatives of upcoming generations.)
I mean who really BELIEVES what they are told, on a regular basis, about all or most subjects?
Playing ping-pong with opinions on a web forum is somewhat enlightening from time to time but rather pointless when people who are offered and accept advisory positions of responsibility to the elected representatives of the population can bat away criticism by saying they were hoodwinked. They may have made a mistake. They were supposed to have been appointed because they had been through that experience. How many chances do they want and who were the sorry people who felt themselves to be good enough assessors to make the flawed appointments in the first place?
The aforementioned Mr. Brailsford apparently wrote this:
"An extraordinary, inspirational book which reveals how great performers and teams are driven by an insatiable curiosity for marginal gains, together with the intellectual courage to challenge their most cherished assumptions (Dave Brailsford, General Manager, Team Sky)"
"Insatiable curiosity for marginal gains" may not always be a competent approach outside a game playing environment and "the intellectual courage to challenge their most cherished assumptions" hardly fits with anything that might be considered acceptable criticism by the alleged 97% of (Climate) Scientists that we are told have no doubts about the cause of Climate Change being solely influenced by human activity.
Day after day for many years we have read of people and organisations saying they will "learn lessons" from major mistakes - just as another of the review comments suggests about the book's guidance.
Who here feels that responsible institutions with their collective wisdom and whatever checks an balances they deploy are in fact being successful following that concept? Not just finding ways to avoid being caught out, but being really and truly successful? Preferably with some matter of widespread importance most likely not in a sporting arena.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/04/11/malibu-clim...
USrich and famous inane and gullible head for the hills...
Beach side property soon to be as cheap as burgers....
Al Gore will be snapping it up like there's no tomorrow.
Up, this, you could not make...
US
Beach side property soon to be as cheap as burgers....
Al Gore will be snapping it up like there's no tomorrow.
Up, this, you could not make...
Unplanned consequences.
Part of the Green "solution" to de-carbonisation is Smart Metering which, we are told, will work on several levels to encourage people to "manage" their energy consumption.
What we are told less often is that another part of the strategy, at least in theory, allows authorities to manage consumption for us as and when they wish to do so. Often the Internet of Things (IoT) is mentioned in the same paragraph.
This article suggests that the only long term result we can expect is a high and repeating cost of installation, ever increasing bills, meter manufacturer's being potentially good investments as their market self perpetuates its own growth and, finally, coming to the clear understanding that politicians and the Civil Servants who run them are utterly incompetent and never ever "learn lessons from mistakes".
http://euanmearns.com/uk-smart-meters-a-ghastly-me...
For those aiming missiles at the (guest) author before reading the piece it's worth checking the cv details offered.
Part of the Green "solution" to de-carbonisation is Smart Metering which, we are told, will work on several levels to encourage people to "manage" their energy consumption.
What we are told less often is that another part of the strategy, at least in theory, allows authorities to manage consumption for us as and when they wish to do so. Often the Internet of Things (IoT) is mentioned in the same paragraph.
This article suggests that the only long term result we can expect is a high and repeating cost of installation, ever increasing bills, meter manufacturer's being potentially good investments as their market self perpetuates its own growth and, finally, coming to the clear understanding that politicians and the Civil Servants who run them are utterly incompetent and never ever "learn lessons from mistakes".
http://euanmearns.com/uk-smart-meters-a-ghastly-me...
For those aiming missiles at the (guest) author before reading the piece it's worth checking the cv details offered.
This made my Friday really Good ...............
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/solar-pow...
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/solar-pow...
dickymint said:
This made my Friday really Good ...............
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/solar-pow...
Why are these people always so hung up on "creates a lot of jobs"?http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/solar-pow...
Why do they not also recognise "which makes it very expensive ...".
steveT350C said:
Here's hoping it happens asap after Brexit. Everyone benefits with no downside worthy of consideration.
LongQ said:
Unplanned consequences.
Part of the Green "solution" to de-carbonisation is Smart Metering which, we are told, will work on several levels to encourage people to "manage" their energy consumption.
What we are told less often is that another part of the strategy, at least in theory, allows authorities to manage consumption for us as and when they wish to do so. Often the Internet of Things (IoT) is mentioned in the same paragraph.
This article suggests that the only long term result we can expect is a high and repeating cost of installation, ever increasing bills, meter manufacturer's being potentially good investments as their market self perpetuates its own growth and, finally, coming to the clear understanding that politicians and the Civil Servants who run them are utterly incompetent and never ever "learn lessons from mistakes".
http://euanmearns.com/uk-smart-meters-a-ghastly-me...
For those aiming missiles at the (guest) author before reading the piece it's worth checking the cv details offered.
the incompetence of the civil service should never be underestimated . i wonder how much energy we could save by reducing bureaucratic consumption by a few thousand individuals ?Part of the Green "solution" to de-carbonisation is Smart Metering which, we are told, will work on several levels to encourage people to "manage" their energy consumption.
What we are told less often is that another part of the strategy, at least in theory, allows authorities to manage consumption for us as and when they wish to do so. Often the Internet of Things (IoT) is mentioned in the same paragraph.
This article suggests that the only long term result we can expect is a high and repeating cost of installation, ever increasing bills, meter manufacturer's being potentially good investments as their market self perpetuates its own growth and, finally, coming to the clear understanding that politicians and the Civil Servants who run them are utterly incompetent and never ever "learn lessons from mistakes".
http://euanmearns.com/uk-smart-meters-a-ghastly-me...
For those aiming missiles at the (guest) author before reading the piece it's worth checking the cv details offered.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff