Climate change - the POLITICAL debate.
Discussion
I don’t know how other’s think, but to be honest, I feel ‘betrayed’ by these ‘scientists’ and policy makers. Why? I, like many others work 10-12 hours a day, sometimes 7 days a week when very busy, so I do not really have the time to ‘fact check’ everything I am told. In an ideal world, I should rely on what we’re told by the people we vote for and the people we help fund to, what I used to think was ‘progression’ – making our lives better via research.
But it is now obvious that everyone involved in this are getting a lot of money to advance lies and misinformation – this is very unhealthy. Hell, in Australia, there are even calls to muzzle the press, internet and even blogs from speaking out against CAGW – in essence, making it a criminal offence to expose lies and to speak out about how these liars are spending tax payer’s money!
These are very sad and scary times, and I sincerely hope those involved in lies and misinformation, just to further their own ideologies (or, more importantly to them, their own fortune) are brought to book very soon – otherwise, forget Orwell, that would be a utopian dream compared to where we’re heading. As I said, I feel we have been betrayed, and feel strongly that our future well-being and security is very much in danger, based on short term greed and stupidity.
But it is now obvious that everyone involved in this are getting a lot of money to advance lies and misinformation – this is very unhealthy. Hell, in Australia, there are even calls to muzzle the press, internet and even blogs from speaking out against CAGW – in essence, making it a criminal offence to expose lies and to speak out about how these liars are spending tax payer’s money!
These are very sad and scary times, and I sincerely hope those involved in lies and misinformation, just to further their own ideologies (or, more importantly to them, their own fortune) are brought to book very soon – otherwise, forget Orwell, that would be a utopian dream compared to where we’re heading. As I said, I feel we have been betrayed, and feel strongly that our future well-being and security is very much in danger, based on short term greed and stupidity.
Personally, I believe that we in the UK are living at the very epicentre of this storm. The UEA has led this insanity and has many powerful supporters in politics and science in the UK, The Royal Society for example.
Others, notably in Russia, China, Canada, Australia and in the US are raising their concerns. In fact, the Canadian government is going on the offensive against green groups.
Here, we're assailed from all sides, with no one of true stature standing up for this side of the debate.
There is hope out there. It just may take some time to reach us.
Others, notably in Russia, China, Canada, Australia and in the US are raising their concerns. In fact, the Canadian government is going on the offensive against green groups.
Here, we're assailed from all sides, with no one of true stature standing up for this side of the debate.
There is hope out there. It just may take some time to reach us.
http://www.thegwpf.org/opinion-pros-a-cons/5128-ma...
Matt Ridley: The Beginning Of The End Of Wind
Sunday 04 March 2012 23:36
The government has finally seen through the wind-farm scam - but why
did it take them so long?
To the nearest whole number, the percentage of the world's energy that
comes from wind turbines today is: zero. Despite the regressive
subsidy (pushing pensioners into fuel poverty while improving the wine
cellars of grand estates), despite tearing rural communities apart,
killing jobs, despoiling views, erecting pylons, felling forests,
killing bats and eagles, causing industrial accidents, clogging
motorways, polluting lakes in Inner Mongolia with the toxic and
radioactive tailings from refining neodymium, a ton of which is in the
average turbine ~ despite all this, the total energy generated each
day by wind has yet to reach half a per cent worldwide.
If wind power was going to work, it would have done so by now. The
people of Britain see this quite clearly, though politicians are often
wilfully deaf. The good news though is that if you look closely, you
can see David Cameron's government coming to its senses about the
whole fiasco. The biggest investors in offshore wind ~ Mitsubishi,
Gamesa and Siemens ~ are starting to worry that the government's heart
is not in wind energy any more. Vestas, which has plans for a factory
in Kent, wants reassurance from the Prime Minister that there is the
political will to put up turbines before it builds its factory.
This forces a decision from Cameron ~ will he reassure the turbine
magnates that he plans to keep subsidising wind energy, or will he
retreat? The political wind has certainly changed direction. George
Osborne is dead set against wind farms, because it has become all too
clear to him how much they cost. The Chancellor's team quietly
encouraged MPs to sign a letter to No. 10 a few weeks ago saying that
in these financially straitened times, we think it is unwise to make
consumers pay, through taxpayer subsidy, for inefficient and
intermittent energy production that typifies onshore wind turbines'.
Putting the things offshore may avoid objections from the neighbours,
but (Chancellor, beware!) it makes even less sense, because it costs
you and me ~ the taxpayers ~ double. I have it on good authority from
a marine engineer that keeping wind turbines upright in the gravel,
tides and storms of the North Sea for 25 years is a near hopeless
quest, so the repair bill is going to be horrific and the output
disappointing. Already the grouting in the foundations of hundreds of
turbines off Kent, Denmark and the Dogger Bank has failed,
necessitating costly repairs.
In Britain the percentage of total energy that comes from wind is only
0.6 per cent. According to the Renewable Energy Foundation, policies
intended to meet the EU Renewables Directive in 2020 will impose extra
consumer costs of approximately £15 billion per annum' or £670 per
household. It is difficult to see what value will be got for this
money. The total carbon emissions saved by the great wind rush is
probably below 1 per cent, because of the need to keep fossil fuels
burning as back-up when the wind does not blow. It may even be a
negative number.
America is having far better luck. Carbon emissions in the United
States fell by 7 per cent in 2009, according to a Harvard study. But
the study concluded that this owes less to the recession that year
than the falling price of natural gas ~ caused by the shale gas
revolution. (Burning gas emits less than half as much carbon dioxide
as coal for the same energy output.) The gas price has fallen even
further since, making coal seem increasingly pricey by comparison. All
over America, from Utah to West Virginia, coal mines are being closed
and coal plants idled or cancelled. (The US Energy Information
Administration calculates that every $4 spent on shale purchases the
same energy as $25 spent on oil: at this rate, more and more vehicles
will switch to gas.)
So even if you accept the most alarming predictions of climate change,
those turbines that have ruined your favourite view are doing nothing
to help. The shale gas revolution has not only shamed the wind
industry by showing how to decarbonise for real, but has blown away
its last feeble argument ~ that diminishing supplies of fossil fuels
will cause their prices to rise so high that wind eventually becomes
competitive even without a subsidy. Even if oil stays dear, cheap gas
is now likely to last many decades.
Though they may not admit it for a while, most ministers have realised
that the sums for wind power just don't add up and never will. The
discovery of shale gas near Blackpool has profound implications for
the future of British energy supply, which the government has seemed
sheepishly reluctant to explore. It has a massive subsidy programme in
place for wind farms, which now seem obsolete both as a means of
energy production and decarbonisation. It is almost impossible to see
what function they serve, other than making a fortune from those who
profit from the subsidy scam.
Even in a boom, wind farms would have been unaffordable ~ with their
economic and ecological rationale blown away. In an era of austerity,
the policy is doomed, though so many contracts have been signed that
the expansion of wind farms may continue, for a while. But the scam
has ended. And as we survey the economic and environmental damage, the
obvious question is how the delusion was maintained for so long. There
has been no mystery about wind's futility as a source of affordable
and abundant electricity ~ so how did the wind-farm scam fool so many
policymakers?
One answer is money. There were too many people with snouts in the
trough. Not just the manufacturers, operators and landlords of the
wind farms, but financiers: wind-farm venture capital trusts were all
the rage a few years ago ~ guaranteed income streams are what
capitalists like best; they even get paid to switch the monsters off
on very windy days so as not to overload the grid. Even the military
took the money. Wind companies are paying for a new £20 million
military radar at Brizlee Wood in Northumberland so as to enable the
Ministry of Defence to lift its objection to the 48-turbine Fallago
Rig wind farm in Berwickshire.
The big conservation organisations have been disgracefully silent on
the subject, like the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, which
until last year took generous contributions from the wind industry
through a venture called RSPB Energy. Even journalists: at a time when
advertising is in short supply, British newspapers have been crammed
full of specious but lucrative debates' and supplements on renewable
energy sponsored by advertising from a cohort of interest groups.
And just as the scam dies, I find I am now part of it. A family trust
has signed a deal to receive £8,500 a year from a wind company, which
is building a turbine on land that once belonged to my grandfather. He
was canny enough not to sell the mineral rights, and the foundations
of the turbine disturbs those mineral rights, so the trustees are owed
compensation. I will not get the money, because I am not a beneficiary
of the trust. Nonetheless, the idea of any part of my family receiving
wind-gelt' is so abhorrent that I have decided to act. The real enemy
is not wind farms per se, but groupthink and hysteria which allowed
such a flawed idea to progress ~ with a minimum of intellectual
opposition. So I shall be writing a cheque for £8,500, which The
Spectator will give as a prize to the best article devoted to
rational, fact-based environmental journalism.
It will be called the Matt Ridley prize for environmental heresy.
Barring bankruptcy, I shall donate the money as long as the wind-gelt
flows ~ so the quicker Dave cancels the subsidy altogether, the sooner
he will have me and the prizewinners off his back.
Entrants are invited forthwith, and a panel of judges will reward the
most brilliant and rational argument ~ that uses reason and evidence ~
to gore a sacred cow of the environmental movement. There are many to
choose from: the idea that wind power is good for the climate, or that
biofuels are good for the rain forest, or that organic farming is good
for the planet, or that climate change is a bigger extinction threat
than invasive species, or that the most sustainable thing we can do is
de-industrialise.
My donation, though significant for me, is a drop in the ocean
compared with the money that pours into the green movement every hour.
Jeremy Grantham, a hedge-fund plutocrat, wrote a cheque for £12
million to the London School of Economics to found an institute named
after him, which has since become notorious for its aggressive stance
and extreme green statements. Between them, Greenpeace and Worldwide
Fund for Nature (WWF) spend nearly a billion a year. WWF spends $68
million a year on public education' alone. All of this is judged
uncontroversial: a matter of education, not propaganda.
By contrast, a storm of protest broke recently over the news that one
small conservative think-tank called Heartland was proposing to spend
just $200,000 in a year on influencing education against climate
alarmism. A day later, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, with
assets of $7.2 billion, gave a grant of $100 million to something
called the ClimateWorks Foundation, a pro-wind power organisation, on
top of $481 million it gave to the same recipient in 2008. The deep
green Sierra Club recently admitted that it took $26 million from the
gas industry to lobby against coal. But money is not the only reason
that the entire political establishment came to believe in wind
fairies. Psychologists have a term for the wishful thinking by which
we accept any means if the end seems virtuous: noble-cause
corruption'. The phrase was first used by the Chief Inspector of
Constabulary Sir John Woodcock in 1992 to explain miscarriages of
justice. It is better that some innocent men remain in jail than the
integrity of the English judicial system be impugned,' said the late
Lord Denning, referring to the Birmingham Six.
Politicians are especially susceptible to this condition. In a wish to
be seen as modern, they will embrace all manner of fashionable causes.
When this sets in ~ groupthink grips political parties, and the media
therefore decide there is no debate ~ the gravest of errors can take
root. The subsidising of useless wind turbines was born of a deep
intellectual error, one incubated by failure to challenge conventional
wisdom.
It is precisely this consensus-worshipping, heretic-hunting
environment where the greatest errors can be made. There are some
3,500 wind turbines in Britain, with hundreds more under construction.
It would be a shame for them all to be dismantled. The biggest one
should remain, like a crane on an abandoned quay, for future
generations to marvel at. They will never be an efficient way to
generate power. But there can be no better monument to the folly of
mankind.
The Matt Ridley Prize for Environmental Heresy
Rules for the Matt Ridley prize can be found at
www.spectator.co.uk/ridleyaward. Entries close on 30 June 2012.
Matt Ridley: The Beginning Of The End Of Wind
Sunday 04 March 2012 23:36
The government has finally seen through the wind-farm scam - but why
did it take them so long?
To the nearest whole number, the percentage of the world's energy that
comes from wind turbines today is: zero. Despite the regressive
subsidy (pushing pensioners into fuel poverty while improving the wine
cellars of grand estates), despite tearing rural communities apart,
killing jobs, despoiling views, erecting pylons, felling forests,
killing bats and eagles, causing industrial accidents, clogging
motorways, polluting lakes in Inner Mongolia with the toxic and
radioactive tailings from refining neodymium, a ton of which is in the
average turbine ~ despite all this, the total energy generated each
day by wind has yet to reach half a per cent worldwide.
If wind power was going to work, it would have done so by now. The
people of Britain see this quite clearly, though politicians are often
wilfully deaf. The good news though is that if you look closely, you
can see David Cameron's government coming to its senses about the
whole fiasco. The biggest investors in offshore wind ~ Mitsubishi,
Gamesa and Siemens ~ are starting to worry that the government's heart
is not in wind energy any more. Vestas, which has plans for a factory
in Kent, wants reassurance from the Prime Minister that there is the
political will to put up turbines before it builds its factory.
This forces a decision from Cameron ~ will he reassure the turbine
magnates that he plans to keep subsidising wind energy, or will he
retreat? The political wind has certainly changed direction. George
Osborne is dead set against wind farms, because it has become all too
clear to him how much they cost. The Chancellor's team quietly
encouraged MPs to sign a letter to No. 10 a few weeks ago saying that
in these financially straitened times, we think it is unwise to make
consumers pay, through taxpayer subsidy, for inefficient and
intermittent energy production that typifies onshore wind turbines'.
Putting the things offshore may avoid objections from the neighbours,
but (Chancellor, beware!) it makes even less sense, because it costs
you and me ~ the taxpayers ~ double. I have it on good authority from
a marine engineer that keeping wind turbines upright in the gravel,
tides and storms of the North Sea for 25 years is a near hopeless
quest, so the repair bill is going to be horrific and the output
disappointing. Already the grouting in the foundations of hundreds of
turbines off Kent, Denmark and the Dogger Bank has failed,
necessitating costly repairs.
In Britain the percentage of total energy that comes from wind is only
0.6 per cent. According to the Renewable Energy Foundation, policies
intended to meet the EU Renewables Directive in 2020 will impose extra
consumer costs of approximately £15 billion per annum' or £670 per
household. It is difficult to see what value will be got for this
money. The total carbon emissions saved by the great wind rush is
probably below 1 per cent, because of the need to keep fossil fuels
burning as back-up when the wind does not blow. It may even be a
negative number.
America is having far better luck. Carbon emissions in the United
States fell by 7 per cent in 2009, according to a Harvard study. But
the study concluded that this owes less to the recession that year
than the falling price of natural gas ~ caused by the shale gas
revolution. (Burning gas emits less than half as much carbon dioxide
as coal for the same energy output.) The gas price has fallen even
further since, making coal seem increasingly pricey by comparison. All
over America, from Utah to West Virginia, coal mines are being closed
and coal plants idled or cancelled. (The US Energy Information
Administration calculates that every $4 spent on shale purchases the
same energy as $25 spent on oil: at this rate, more and more vehicles
will switch to gas.)
So even if you accept the most alarming predictions of climate change,
those turbines that have ruined your favourite view are doing nothing
to help. The shale gas revolution has not only shamed the wind
industry by showing how to decarbonise for real, but has blown away
its last feeble argument ~ that diminishing supplies of fossil fuels
will cause their prices to rise so high that wind eventually becomes
competitive even without a subsidy. Even if oil stays dear, cheap gas
is now likely to last many decades.
Though they may not admit it for a while, most ministers have realised
that the sums for wind power just don't add up and never will. The
discovery of shale gas near Blackpool has profound implications for
the future of British energy supply, which the government has seemed
sheepishly reluctant to explore. It has a massive subsidy programme in
place for wind farms, which now seem obsolete both as a means of
energy production and decarbonisation. It is almost impossible to see
what function they serve, other than making a fortune from those who
profit from the subsidy scam.
Even in a boom, wind farms would have been unaffordable ~ with their
economic and ecological rationale blown away. In an era of austerity,
the policy is doomed, though so many contracts have been signed that
the expansion of wind farms may continue, for a while. But the scam
has ended. And as we survey the economic and environmental damage, the
obvious question is how the delusion was maintained for so long. There
has been no mystery about wind's futility as a source of affordable
and abundant electricity ~ so how did the wind-farm scam fool so many
policymakers?
One answer is money. There were too many people with snouts in the
trough. Not just the manufacturers, operators and landlords of the
wind farms, but financiers: wind-farm venture capital trusts were all
the rage a few years ago ~ guaranteed income streams are what
capitalists like best; they even get paid to switch the monsters off
on very windy days so as not to overload the grid. Even the military
took the money. Wind companies are paying for a new £20 million
military radar at Brizlee Wood in Northumberland so as to enable the
Ministry of Defence to lift its objection to the 48-turbine Fallago
Rig wind farm in Berwickshire.
The big conservation organisations have been disgracefully silent on
the subject, like the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, which
until last year took generous contributions from the wind industry
through a venture called RSPB Energy. Even journalists: at a time when
advertising is in short supply, British newspapers have been crammed
full of specious but lucrative debates' and supplements on renewable
energy sponsored by advertising from a cohort of interest groups.
And just as the scam dies, I find I am now part of it. A family trust
has signed a deal to receive £8,500 a year from a wind company, which
is building a turbine on land that once belonged to my grandfather. He
was canny enough not to sell the mineral rights, and the foundations
of the turbine disturbs those mineral rights, so the trustees are owed
compensation. I will not get the money, because I am not a beneficiary
of the trust. Nonetheless, the idea of any part of my family receiving
wind-gelt' is so abhorrent that I have decided to act. The real enemy
is not wind farms per se, but groupthink and hysteria which allowed
such a flawed idea to progress ~ with a minimum of intellectual
opposition. So I shall be writing a cheque for £8,500, which The
Spectator will give as a prize to the best article devoted to
rational, fact-based environmental journalism.
It will be called the Matt Ridley prize for environmental heresy.
Barring bankruptcy, I shall donate the money as long as the wind-gelt
flows ~ so the quicker Dave cancels the subsidy altogether, the sooner
he will have me and the prizewinners off his back.
Entrants are invited forthwith, and a panel of judges will reward the
most brilliant and rational argument ~ that uses reason and evidence ~
to gore a sacred cow of the environmental movement. There are many to
choose from: the idea that wind power is good for the climate, or that
biofuels are good for the rain forest, or that organic farming is good
for the planet, or that climate change is a bigger extinction threat
than invasive species, or that the most sustainable thing we can do is
de-industrialise.
My donation, though significant for me, is a drop in the ocean
compared with the money that pours into the green movement every hour.
Jeremy Grantham, a hedge-fund plutocrat, wrote a cheque for £12
million to the London School of Economics to found an institute named
after him, which has since become notorious for its aggressive stance
and extreme green statements. Between them, Greenpeace and Worldwide
Fund for Nature (WWF) spend nearly a billion a year. WWF spends $68
million a year on public education' alone. All of this is judged
uncontroversial: a matter of education, not propaganda.
By contrast, a storm of protest broke recently over the news that one
small conservative think-tank called Heartland was proposing to spend
just $200,000 in a year on influencing education against climate
alarmism. A day later, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, with
assets of $7.2 billion, gave a grant of $100 million to something
called the ClimateWorks Foundation, a pro-wind power organisation, on
top of $481 million it gave to the same recipient in 2008. The deep
green Sierra Club recently admitted that it took $26 million from the
gas industry to lobby against coal. But money is not the only reason
that the entire political establishment came to believe in wind
fairies. Psychologists have a term for the wishful thinking by which
we accept any means if the end seems virtuous: noble-cause
corruption'. The phrase was first used by the Chief Inspector of
Constabulary Sir John Woodcock in 1992 to explain miscarriages of
justice. It is better that some innocent men remain in jail than the
integrity of the English judicial system be impugned,' said the late
Lord Denning, referring to the Birmingham Six.
Politicians are especially susceptible to this condition. In a wish to
be seen as modern, they will embrace all manner of fashionable causes.
When this sets in ~ groupthink grips political parties, and the media
therefore decide there is no debate ~ the gravest of errors can take
root. The subsidising of useless wind turbines was born of a deep
intellectual error, one incubated by failure to challenge conventional
wisdom.
It is precisely this consensus-worshipping, heretic-hunting
environment where the greatest errors can be made. There are some
3,500 wind turbines in Britain, with hundreds more under construction.
It would be a shame for them all to be dismantled. The biggest one
should remain, like a crane on an abandoned quay, for future
generations to marvel at. They will never be an efficient way to
generate power. But there can be no better monument to the folly of
mankind.
The Matt Ridley Prize for Environmental Heresy
Rules for the Matt Ridley prize can be found at
www.spectator.co.uk/ridleyaward. Entries close on 30 June 2012.
turbobloke said:
Climate realist. More apt and no spelling dilemma.
Leave the skeptic or sceptic and denier labels for those who deny data and doubt sound science. This always was one of the more obvious ironies in the mostly political and quasi-religious aspects of manmadeup warming.
Climate skeptic is good. Skeptisism is healthy and causes us to question and challenge on the basis of science.Leave the skeptic or sceptic and denier labels for those who deny data and doubt sound science. This always was one of the more obvious ironies in the mostly political and quasi-religious aspects of manmadeup warming.
The genuine scientific opposition to MMGW consider themselves to be skeptics.
I'd say the realists are really the deniers.
Devil2575 said:
turbobloke said:
Climate realist. More apt and no spelling dilemma.
Leave the skeptic or sceptic and denier labels for those who deny data and doubt sound science. This always was one of the more obvious ironies in the mostly political and quasi-religious aspects of manmadeup warming.
Climate skeptic is good. Skeptisism is healthy and causes us to question and challenge on the basis of science.Leave the skeptic or sceptic and denier labels for those who deny data and doubt sound science. This always was one of the more obvious ironies in the mostly political and quasi-religious aspects of manmadeup warming.
The genuine scientific opposition to MMGW consider themselves to be skeptics.
I'd say the realists are really the deniers.
Fairly meaningless semantics. The reason offered for using realist was that it removes the spelling issue and that's very realistic.
Yes skepticism (or scepticism) is the hallmark of somebody following the scientific method, showing how far away certain establishment organisations and individuals have moved from where they should be.
However, since you mention it, those who deny the data and sound science - and in terms of the political angle, the economics - are the deniers in this game, as already indicated many times. It's undeniably so
If anybody relates realism to anything bad it may show how far they're prepared to go to fail to score a point. Not much else.
jurbie said:
Devil2575 said:
Such a shame the argument was won both scientifically and Politically by the other side some time ago.
Feel free to explain how it was won scientifically in the relevant science thread. In here we are all ears to find out exactly how the argument was won politically. Do you measure it by how many more pensioners die each winter?It might be easier to list those that don't to be fair.
It matters not how it was won, what matters is that no one who means anything politically is currently listening to you. Once the politicians have made up their mind then the arguement is won or lost depending on which side of the debate you are on.
Devil2575 said:
How many UK Political parties sunscribe to the theory of MMGW?
The three main parties base policies on it but that's not the same as buying the entire theory, most couldn't explain how it's all meant to work if it were needed to save their lives. What you refer to is mere political expediency.Devil2575 said:
It might be easier to list those that don't to be fair.
Correct, two of the minor parties compared to three main players.Devil2575 said:
It matters not how it was won, what matters is that no one who means anything politically is currently listening to you.
That's not correct. I have been and remain in touch with several politicians in the House of Commons, the House of Lords and the EU Parliament. Many are listening, and more intently than ever.Devil2575 said:
Once the politicians have made up their mind then the arguement is won or lost depending on which side of the debate you are on.
Muppet minds are changed depending on what will get politicians re-elected. Suddenly people - including you apparently unless you're a troll - find themselves on the wrong side of the debate after years of complacency. HAve a chat with solar energy zealots in the USA, Germany and the UK. Have another with the wind power people who are getting distinctly windy at the mo as they know which way it's blowing.These days, cheaper energy bills are a must-have tick on the list for political policy makers. Have another read of the Chancellor's recent statements about UK carbon reduction. As to the USA perhaps you could point us to the bits of Barack Obama's State of the Union address that re-emphasised climate change policy as a priority, and while you're at it, take a look at where it is on the priority list of Americans...and Brits for that matter.
"Obama made no mention of climate change in his SotU address"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jan/26/...
This year "there was only one menetion of climate change" (defeatist at that)
The differences in this chamber may be too deep right now to pass a comprehensive plan to fight climate change
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jan/25/...
Political animals like BO are constantly manoeuvring to be sure they get on the 'right' side of the debate - though such mobility will always suggest a fundamental lack of understanding and a willingness to sell out at a certain price. Ignorant self-serving mendacity, in effect.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jan/26/...
This year "there was only one menetion of climate change" (defeatist at that)
The differences in this chamber may be too deep right now to pass a comprehensive plan to fight climate change
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jan/25/...
Political animals like BO are constantly manoeuvring to be sure they get on the 'right' side of the debate - though such mobility will always suggest a fundamental lack of understanding and a willingness to sell out at a certain price. Ignorant self-serving mendacity, in effect.
Devil2575 said:
turbobloke said:
If anybody relates realism to anything bad it may show how far they're prepared to go to fail to score a point. Not much else.
In my experience realism is a word used by people to justify a consitently negative point of view.Andy Zarse said:
Devil2575 said:
turbobloke said:
If anybody relates realism to anything bad it may show how far they're prepared to go to fail to score a point. Not much else.
In my experience realism is a word used by people to justify a consitently negative point of view.
mybrainhurts said:
Devil2575 said:
turbobloke said:
That's not correct. I have been and remain in touch with several politicians in the House of Commons, the House of Lords and the EU Parliament. Many are listening, and more intently than ever.
So who exactly are you then?
Having just checked, I am indeed TB. Not that TB as in Iraq War, bankrupting the nation etc, this one.
Phew.
National Climate Week is coming up soon.
I know this because someone at the university is organising a 'bring your old electric stuff' recycling day, and they mentioned it.
They now really know how pissed off I am about this AGW scam, and the emphasis on recycling instead of re-use.
They can stick National f
king Climate fking Week up their fking arse.
Luckily I'm cool or I'd tell them how I really feel.
I know this because someone at the university is organising a 'bring your old electric stuff' recycling day, and they mentioned it.
They now really know how pissed off I am about this AGW scam, and the emphasis on recycling instead of re-use.
They can stick National f
king Climate fking Week up their fking arse.Luckily I'm cool or I'd tell them how I really feel.
mybrainhurts said:
Devil2575 said:
turbobloke said:
That's not correct. I have been and remain in touch with several politicians in the House of Commons, the House of Lords and the EU Parliament. Many are listening, and more intently than ever.
So who exactly are you then?From what he says he has the ear of politicians so I'd like to know who I am talking too. No names just his background and current position.
I'm quite happy to tell you who I am.
I am a chemical engineer working for a Petrochemical business based in the UK. I have a degree in Chemistry and a degree in Chemical engineering. I have no political connections.
Devil2575 said:
mybrainhurts said:
Devil2575 said:
turbobloke said:
That's not correct. I have been and remain in touch with several politicians in the House of Commons, the House of Lords and the EU Parliament. Many are listening, and more intently than ever.
So who exactly are you then?Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff