Climate change - the POLITICAL debate.
Discussion
hairykrishna said:
Are you going to defend 'intelligent design' next? The man talks a lot of s
te.
He is still more or less right about wind turbines though.
Prefer to play the ball, not the man. He is probably right about windfarms and passive smoking, probably wrong on loads of other things.te.He is still more or less right about wind turbines though.
Bedazzled said:
Good grief, try telling that to Roy Castle's family. So climate sceptics also believe there was a swindle to put tax on ciggies, rather than trying to relieve the burden on the NHS and improve people's quality of life? 
Nope, merely that the best statistical analysis indicated that the risk is tiny. The problem I have with CC being a conspiracy is why would ‘the government’ ‘the greens’ ‘the scientists’ create an elaborate conspiracy when they have other perfectly valid reasons to tax the use of natural resources? The grand challenge of integrating greater conservation and more efficient resource utilisation is going to lead to reduced GHG emissions anyway I.e. fossil fuel resources are finite so we need to be smarter with how we manage them, use them, and consider alternatives.
Whilst I think there is overemphasise on carbon reduction I don’t subscribe to it being such a big waste of time and money. Forget about CC and the vast majority of policy would be in place anyway and you’d still pay more to run your V8.
Whilst I think there is overemphasise on carbon reduction I don’t subscribe to it being such a big waste of time and money. Forget about CC and the vast majority of policy would be in place anyway and you’d still pay more to run your V8.
newestie said:
The problem I have with CC being a conspiracy is why would ‘the government’ ‘the greens’ ‘the scientists’ create an elaborate conspiracy when they have other perfectly valid reasons to tax the use of natural resources?
They do not have to "create" anything. They each have various goals that they would like to reach. It just so happens that this latest scare is perfect for each group to achieve their own aims.No need for secret meetings behind the woodshed or furtive phone calls. They each see the direction that this whole thing is moving and they each jump on the part of the bandwagon that suits them.
Not exactly rocket science to work that out.
newestie said:
The problem I have with CC being a conspiracy is why would ‘the government’ ‘the greens’ ‘the scientists’ create an elaborate conspiracy when they have other perfectly valid reasons to tax the use of natural resources? The grand challenge of integrating greater conservation and more efficient resource utilisation is going to lead to reduced GHG emissions anyway I.e. fossil fuel resources are finite so we need to be smarter with how we manage them, use them, and consider alternatives.
Whilst I think there is overemphasise on carbon reduction I don’t subscribe to it being such a big waste of time and money. Forget about CC and the vast majority of policy would be in place anyway and you’d still pay more to run your V8.
The way I see it is not so much of a conspiracy as an evolution of an unprovable but convincing argument brought about by a politicians need for credability. It created a runaway, self sustaining monster. Google MMGW/ThatcherWhilst I think there is overemphasise on carbon reduction I don’t subscribe to it being such a big waste of time and money. Forget about CC and the vast majority of policy would be in place anyway and you’d still pay more to run your V8.
Blib said:
They do not have to "create" anything. They each have various goals that they would like to reach. It just so happens that this latest scare is perfect for each group to achieve their own aims.
No need for secret meetings behind the woodshed or furtive phone calls. They each see the direction that this whole thing is moving and they each jump on the part of the bandwagon that suits them.
Not exactly rocket science to work that out.
So ‘they’ are all independently going along with ‘scares’ in order to meet their efficiency goals. Despite the fact that the need to meet efficiency goals is something no one sane would argue with?No need for secret meetings behind the woodshed or furtive phone calls. They each see the direction that this whole thing is moving and they each jump on the part of the bandwagon that suits them.
Not exactly rocket science to work that out.
If that were true they need to have a rethink. Sounds like they’re creating a lot of unnecessary angst for themselves.
The real Apache said:
The way I see it is not so much of a conspiracy as an evolution of an unprovable but convincing argument brought about by a politicians need for credability. It created a runaway, self sustaining monster. Google MMGW/Thatcher
I think you’re underestimating both academic and political independence.newestie said:
The real Apache said:
The way I see it is not so much of a conspiracy as an evolution of an unprovable but convincing argument brought about by a politicians need for credability. It created a runaway, self sustaining monster. Google MMGW/Thatcher
I think you’re underestimating both academic and political independence.The real Apache said:
newestie said:
The real Apache said:
The way I see it is not so much of a conspiracy as an evolution of an unprovable but convincing argument brought about by a politicians need for credability. It created a runaway, self sustaining monster. Google MMGW/Thatcher
I think you’re underestimating both academic and political independence.I have far less faith politicians but government policy is drawn out of expert views/ focus groups/ external knowledge etc etc. Yes they can (and do) add a large amount of spin but fundamentally they follow advice of experts in any particular field.
Guam said:
newestie said:
I just don’t buy that academics are the kind of people to go along with something just because it’s mutually beneficial. We’re talking about people with an interest in research and discovery. Why would they go along with a theory they thought incorrect if they could just as easily be researching the same issues but from a resource utilisation angle? Acting out research day in day out for money alone with no belief in what they were doing? I just can’t see that academics are that unprincipled, or see the motivation.
I have far less faith politicians but government policy is drawn out of expert views/ focus groups/ external knowledge etc etc. Yes they can (and do) add a large amount of spin but fundamentally they follow advice of experts in any particular field.
Sorry basic misunderstanding of Politicians they do NOT run things Civil servants do, most ministers are pretty damned clueless on just about anything. The PPS tell them what to think in the main (Yes minister was funny precisely because it was true).I have far less faith politicians but government policy is drawn out of expert views/ focus groups/ external knowledge etc etc. Yes they can (and do) add a large amount of spin but fundamentally they follow advice of experts in any particular field.
Civil servants select experts tha THEY would like the Politicians to hear
Invariably to suit THEIR agenda (good luck in figuring out what the mandarins agendas are). The ONLY exception to this is in trying to adhere to manifesto commitments (except where the civil servants block them).
Or maybe I am being cynical
NAH!!!!
Personally I’m convinced a lot of this anti CC ranting is because people think if you disprove CC we’ll be back to cheap fuel, new roads, lower taxes, rose tinted utopia! The fact is we won’t. CC and carbon have a hugely elevated status. But in the research world other issues will (and in fact already have) lead to many of the same outcomes and the impact for the future isn’t fundamentally any different.
newestie said:
The real Apache said:
newestie said:
The real Apache said:
The way I see it is not so much of a conspiracy as an evolution of an unprovable but convincing argument brought about by a politicians need for credability. It created a runaway, self sustaining monster. Google MMGW/Thatcher
I think you’re underestimating both academic and political independence.I have far less faith politicians but government policy is drawn out of expert views/ focus groups/ external knowledge etc etc. Yes they can (and do) add a large amount of spin but fundamentally they follow advice of experts in any particular field.
newestie said:
Blib said:
They do not have to "create" anything. They each have various goals that they would like to reach. It just so happens that this latest scare is perfect for each group to achieve their own aims.
No need for secret meetings behind the woodshed or furtive phone calls. They each see the direction that this whole thing is moving and they each jump on the part of the bandwagon that suits them.
Not exactly rocket science to work that out.
So ‘they’ are all independently going along with ‘scares’ in order to meet their efficiency goals. Despite the fact that the need to meet efficiency goals is something no one sane would argue with?No need for secret meetings behind the woodshed or furtive phone calls. They each see the direction that this whole thing is moving and they each jump on the part of the bandwagon that suits them.
Not exactly rocket science to work that out.
If that were true they need to have a rethink. Sounds like they’re creating a lot of unnecessary angst for themselves.
newestie said:
I just don’t buy that academics are the kind of people to go along with something just because it’s mutually beneficial. We’re talking about people with an interest in research and discovery. Why would they go along with a theory they thought incorrect if they could just as easily be researching the same issues but from a resource utilisation angle? Acting out research day in day out for money alone with no belief in what they were doing? I just can’t see that academics are that unprincipled, or see the motivation.
Not a question of principle but of survival and ultimately putting bread on the table. Funding is a seriously competitive process even in the gloopal wombling field. Universities demand that their staff are research active because their income from the govt. mostly depends on it and the University's status as an institution is measured by it. As the Climategate fiasco demonstrates perfectly, the quality of research processes can leave a lot to be desired (understatement of the century), as long as the output is deemed 'significant' by the RAE panel that assesses it. Diderot said:
newestie said:
I just don’t buy that academics are the kind of people to go along with something just because it’s mutually beneficial. We’re talking about people with an interest in research and discovery. Why would they go along with a theory they thought incorrect if they could just as easily be researching the same issues but from a resource utilisation angle? Acting out research day in day out for money alone with no belief in what they were doing? I just can’t see that academics are that unprincipled, or see the motivation.
Not a question of principle but of survival and ultimately putting bread on the table. Funding is a seriously competitive process even in the gloopal wombling field. Universities demand that their staff are research active because their income from the govt. mostly depends on it and the University's status as an institution is measured by it. As the Climategate fiasco demonstrates perfectly, the quality of research processes can leave a lot to be desired (understatement of the century), as long as the output is deemed 'significant' by the RAE panel that assesses it. 
along with how do they get out of this mess? impossible, they have to keep on with the lie, there is no alternative,so many questions would be asked and the people in question would have no answers, leaving them discredited, the bandwagon has to keep rolling, and I think they will do anything to keep it going. PRTVR said:
along with how do they get out of this mess? impossible, they have to keep on with the lie, there is no alternative,so many questions would be asked and the people in question would have no answers, leaving them discredited, the bandwagon has to keep rolling, and I think they will do anything to keep it going. Bedazzled said:
tank slapper said:
Spiritual_Beggar said:
Bedazzled said:
Good grief, try telling that to Roy Castle's family.
Roy Castle smoked Cigars.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff