Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4
Discussion
gadgetmac said:
LongQ said:
Jinx said:
HairyPoppins said:
I earn more and more money each year (I could draw an equivalent graph to the above) but if you do something that affects my potential future earnings I'll be on your case.
Nuclear is both controversial politically and usually needs long development schedules so is not responsive in the marketplace. Not a real competitor in the predictable future.
Moreover the massive investment that will be required, useful or not, to change stuff offers so many opportunities for short term business that most threats to business really should be some way into the future. Problems, should they ever arise, that the next generation of management may have to deal with.
In any case, from their business perspective the Oil and Gas operations have ways and means to influence the things they need to influence without having to rely on the (often dubious) decisions of courts of law.
This is interesting.
https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/en/corporate/pdf...
Jinx tells us that the Gulf States aren’t complaining because they’re invested in renewables (they’ve effectively future-proofed themselves) whilst LongQ tells us that renewables won’t last (they’ll plateau) and that they’re not complaining because they have “ways and means” to get their own way without using the courts.
It’s not exactly a united front on this. Moreover it appears that all roads lead to denialism.
Ideally with an open mind.
You seem to want everything in black and white terms when in reality "the world" operates in shades of grey and copious amounts of pragmatism.
Look at the graph of predicted energy sources for 20+ years ahead.
Bear in mind that many business plans will only have planned new commitment signed up for 5 years ahead at most.
Large cash flow rich businesses position themselves for present, medium term and long term opportunities and, if the decision makers get it right, they thrive even if their product mix varies a lot during that time. If you are an "Energy" company at the moment is makes business sense to have at least a position in everything - or almost everything. Great for picking up the the pieces when the early movers fail. Also for ensuring they have the right licences and accreditations and whatever other regulatory needs there may on order to be able to move rapidly when a good opportunity appears at a bargain price.
Energy, like food, is something that, in one for or another, humanity relies upon - more and more in the case of energy.
It would be very naive to think it would be any different.
First of all, try to be a little less condenscending with your answers or you’ll only get the same back or no reply at all.
Renewables make up sweet FA as a proportion of income for the Oil states. They may do in the future but they’ll be competeing against almost the entire industrialised world in that market. They have a monopoly on Oil and massive reserves of the stuff with almost zero competition (bar the USA).
Why are they not trying to defend their main asset values when according to the people on here it is such an easy thing to do?
Renewables are the future exactly because there is no challenge to the global consensus.
It makes no sense and there’s yet to be an answer on this that isn’t mere opinion.
LongQ said:
Large cash flow rich businesses position themselves for present, medium term and long term opportunities and, if the decision makers get it right, they thrive even if their product mix varies a lot during that time
Whilst true it does not explain the question thats been asked.Renewables make up sweet FA as a proportion of income for the Oil states. They may do in the future but they’ll be competeing against almost the entire industrialised world in that market. They have a monopoly on Oil and massive reserves of the stuff with almost zero competition (bar the USA).
Why are they not trying to defend their main asset values when according to the people on here it is such an easy thing to do?
Renewables are the future exactly because there is no challenge to the global consensus.
It makes no sense and there’s yet to be an answer on this that isn’t mere opinion.
gadgetmac said:
You chaps appear to want it all ways.
Jinx tells us that the Gulf States aren’t complaining because they’re invested in renewables (they’ve effectively future-proofed themselves) whilst LongQ tells us that renewables won’t last (they’ll plateau) and that they’re not complaining because they have “ways and means” to get their own way without using the courts.
It’s not exactly a united front on this. Moreover it appears that all roads lead to denialism.
i forgot to ask at the time, what were your thoughts on the reply i had from the bbc regarding the nonscience from the good professor ?Jinx tells us that the Gulf States aren’t complaining because they’re invested in renewables (they’ve effectively future-proofed themselves) whilst LongQ tells us that renewables won’t last (they’ll plateau) and that they’re not complaining because they have “ways and means” to get their own way without using the courts.
It’s not exactly a united front on this. Moreover it appears that all roads lead to denialism.
El Guapo said:
zygalski said:
...the global scientific community...
What do you mean by this?Academia Chilena de Ciencias, Chile
Academia das Ciencias de Lisboa, Portugal
Academia de Ciencias de la República Dominicana
Academia de Ciencias Físicas, Matemáticas y Naturales de Venezuela
Academia de Ciencias Medicas, Fisicas y Naturales de Guatemala
Academia Mexicana de Ciencias,Mexico
Academia Nacional de Ciencias de Bolivia
Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru
Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
Académie des Sciences, France
Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada
Academy of Athens
Academy of Science of Mozambique
Academy of Science of South Africa
Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS)
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy of Sciences of Moldova
Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic
Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran
Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt
Academy of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy
Africa Centre for Climate and Earth Systems Science
African Academy of Sciences
Albanian Academy of Sciences
Amazon Environmental Research Institute
American Academy of Pediatrics
American Anthropological Association
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Association of State Climatologists (AASC)
American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians
American Astronomical Society
American Chemical Society
American College of Preventive Medicine
American Fisheries Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Biological Sciences
American Institute of Physics
American Meteorological Society
American Physical Society
American Public Health Association
American Quaternary Association
American Society for Microbiology
American Society of Agronomy
American Society of Civil Engineers
American Society of Plant Biologists
American Statistical Association
Association of Ecosystem Research Centers
Australian Academy of Science
Australian Bureau of Meteorology
Australian Coral Reef Society
Australian Institute of Marine Science
Australian Institute of Physics
Australian Marine Sciences Association
Australian Medical Association
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Bangladesh Academy of Sciences
Botanical Society of America
Brazilian Academy of Sciences
British Antarctic Survey
Bulgarian Academy of Sciences
California Academy of Sciences
Cameroon Academy of Sciences
Canadian Association of Physicists
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Geophysical Union
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Society of Soil Science
Canadian Society of Zoologists
Caribbean Academy of Sciences views
Center for International Forestry Research
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) (Australia)
Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences
Crop Science Society of America
Cuban Academy of Sciences
Delegation of the Finnish Academies of Science and Letters
Ecological Society of America
Ecological Society of Australia
Environmental Protection Agency
European Academy of Sciences and Arts
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
European Physical Society
European Science Foundation
Federation of American Scientists
French Academy of Sciences
Geological Society of America
Geological Society of Australia
Geological Society of London
Georgian Academy of Sciences
German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina
Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
Indian National Science Academy
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management
Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology
Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand
Institution of Mechanical Engineers, UK
InterAcademy Council
International Alliance of Research Universities
International Arctic Science Committee
International Association for Great Lakes Research
International Council for Science
International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
International Research Institute for Climate and Society
International Union for Quaternary Research
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
International Union of Pure and Applied Physics
Islamic World Academy of Sciences
Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities
Kenya National Academy of Sciences
Korean Academy of Science and Technology
Kosovo Academy of Sciences and Arts
l'Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
Latin American Academy of Sciences
Latvian Academy of Sciences
Lithuanian Academy of Sciences
Madagascar National Academy of Arts, Letters, and Sciences
Mauritius Academy of Science and Technology
Montenegrin Academy of Sciences and Arts
National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Argentina
National Academy of Sciences of Armenia
National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic
National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka
National Academy of Sciences, United States of America
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
National Association of Geoscience Teachers
National Association of State Foresters
National Center for Atmospheric Research
National Council of Engineers Australia
National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research, New Zealand
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Research Council
National Science Foundation
Natural England
Natural Environment Research Council, UK
Natural Science Collections Alliance
Network of African Science Academies
New York Academy of Sciences
Nicaraguan Academy of Sciences
Nigerian Academy of Sciences
Norwegian Academy of Sciences and Letters
Oklahoma Climatological Survey
Organization of Biological Field Stations
Pakistan Academy of Sciences
Palestine Academy for Science and Technology
Pew Center on Global Climate Change
Polish Academy of Sciences
Romanian Academy
Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium
Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences of Spain
Royal Astronomical Society, UK
Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters
Royal Irish Academy
Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences
Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research
Royal Scientific Society of Jordan
Royal Society of Canada
Royal Society of Chemistry, UK
Royal Society of the United Kingdom
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
Russian Academy of Sciences
Science and Technology, Australia
Science Council of Japan
Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research
Scientific Committee on Solar-Terrestrial Physics
Scripps Institution of Oceanography
Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts
Slovak Academy of Sciences
Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts
Society for Ecological Restoration International
Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
Society of American Foresters
Society of Biology (UK)
Society of Systematic Biologists
Soil Science Society of America
Sudan Academy of Sciences
Sudanese National Academy of Science
Tanzania Academy of Sciences
The Wildlife Society (international)
Turkish Academy of Sciences
Uganda National Academy of Sciences
Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities
United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
Woods Hole Research Center
World Association of Zoos and Aquariums
World Federation of Public Health Associations
World Forestry Congress
World Health Organization
World Meteorological Organization
Zambia Academy of Sciences
Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences
Paris agreement signatories as of April 20th, 2016
1. Afghanistan
2. Albania
3. Algeria
4. Andorra
5. Angola
6. Antigua and Barbuda
7. Argentina
8. Australia
9. Austria
10. Azerbaijan
11. Bahamas
12. Bahrain
13. Bangladesh
14. Barbados
15. Belarus
16. Belgium
17. Belize
18. Benin
19. Bhutan
20. Bolivia (Plurinational State of)
21. Bosnia and Herzegovina
22. Botswana
23. Brazil
24. Brunei Darussalam
25. Bulgaria
26. Burkina Faso
27. Burundi
28. Cabo Verde
29. Cambodia
30. Cameroon
31. Canada
32. Central African Republic
33. Chad
34. China
35. Colombia
36. Comoros
37. Congo
38. Costa Rica
39. Cote d’Ivoire
40. Croatia
41. Cuba
42. Cyprus
43. Czech Republic
44. Democratic People’s Republic of Korea
45. Democratic Republic of Congo
46. Denmark
47. Djibouti
48. Dominica
49. Dominican Republic
50. Egypt
51. El Salvador
52. Equatorial Guinea
53. Eritrea
54. Estonia
55. Ethiopia
56. European Union
57. Fiji
58. Finland
59. France
60. Gabon
61. Georgia
62. Germany
63. Ghana
64. Greece
65. Grenada
66. Guatemala
67. Guinea
68. Guinea Bissau
69. Guyana
70. Haiti
71. Honduras
72. Hungary
73. Iceland
74. India
75. Indonesia
76. Iran (Islamic Republic of)
77. Ireland
78. Israel
79. Italy
80. Jamaica
81. Japan
82. Jordan
83. Kenya
84. Kiribati
85. Kuwait
86. Lao People’s Democratic Republic
87. Latvia
88. Lebanon
89. Lesotho
90. Liberia
91. Libya
92. Liechtenstein
93. Lithuania
94. Luxembourg
95. Madagascar
96. Malaysia
97. Maldives
98. Mali
99. Malta
100. Marshall Islands
101. Mauritius
102. Mauritania
103. Mexico
104. Micronesia (Federated States of)
105. Monaco
106. mongolia
107. Montenegro
108. Morocco
109. Mozambique
110. Myanmar
111. Namibia
112. Nauru
113. Nepal
114. Netherlands
115. New Zealand
116. Niger
117. Norway
118. Oman
119. Pakistan
120. Palau
121. Panama
122. Papua New Guinea
123. Paraguay
124. Peru
125. Philippines
126. Poland
127. Portugal
128. Qatar
129. Republic of Korea
130. Romania
131. Russian Federation
132. Rwanda
133. Saint Kitts and Nevis
134. Saint Lucia
135. Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
136. Samoa
137. San Marino
138. Sao Tome and Principe
139. Senegal
140. Serbia
141. Singapore
142. Slovakia
143. Slovenia
144. Solomon Islands
145. Somalia
146. South Africa
147. South Sudan
148. Spain
149. Sri Lanka
150. State of Palestine
151. Sudan
152. Suriname
153. Swaziland
154. Sweden
155. Switzerland
156. Tajikistan
157. Thailand
158. The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
159. Timor-Leste
160. Tonga
161. Trinidad and Tobago
162. Tunisia
163. Turkey
164. Tuvalu
165. Uganda
166. Ukraine
167. United Arab Emirates
168. United Kingdom
169. United Republic of Tanzania
170. United States of America
171. Uruguay
172. Vanuatu
173. Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)
174. Viet Nam
175. Zimbabwe
Today’s Beeb cc scare story
How worried should we be about melting ice caps?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/science-environment-4...
b
ks scary video, with so many wrong 'facts', it a bloody disgrace the Beeb is allowed to put these out.
How worried should we be about melting ice caps?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/science-environment-4...
b
ks scary video, with so many wrong 'facts', it a bloody disgrace the Beeb is allowed to put these out.wc98 said:
gadgetmac said:
You chaps appear to want it all ways.
Jinx tells us that the Gulf States aren’t complaining because they’re invested in renewables (they’ve effectively future-proofed themselves) whilst LongQ tells us that renewables won’t last (they’ll plateau) and that they’re not complaining because they have “ways and means” to get their own way without using the courts.
It’s not exactly a united front on this. Moreover it appears that all roads lead to denialism.
i forgot to ask at the time, what were your thoughts on the reply i had from the bbc regarding the nonscience from the good professor ?Jinx tells us that the Gulf States aren’t complaining because they’re invested in renewables (they’ve effectively future-proofed themselves) whilst LongQ tells us that renewables won’t last (they’ll plateau) and that they’re not complaining because they have “ways and means” to get their own way without using the courts.
It’s not exactly a united front on this. Moreover it appears that all roads lead to denialism.
I have time on my hands at the moment to watch video clips if you have a link.
zygalski said:
Diverse membership? Really?
Let's look at that.
How many females make up the N,P & E forum contributors do you think? Very few I would say. A tiny minority.
That's 50% of the population pretty much gone right there.
How about politically liberal/left wing people? They probably make up over 50% of the voting population.
I'd be amazed if more than 10% of regular contributors to this forum would describe themselves as centrist or leftist.
How many non-white, non-right wing, men and women under the age of 30 do you think we have here?
Hardly a cosmopolitan kaleidoscope of views expressed.
One person says something vaguely leftist and 10 other people shout them down.
Liberal (with a small l) is a dirty word here.
I'm just amazed at the cheek you have saying that there's a diverse membership.
It's massively skewed towards the low-rent wannabe Clarksons - grumpy, right wing, over 40 white males, openly xenophobic, openly misogynistic and with a foot firmly in the past, just click on any topic at random - there they all are...
You seem to have confused diversity with equal representation.Let's look at that.
How many females make up the N,P & E forum contributors do you think? Very few I would say. A tiny minority.
That's 50% of the population pretty much gone right there.
How about politically liberal/left wing people? They probably make up over 50% of the voting population.
I'd be amazed if more than 10% of regular contributors to this forum would describe themselves as centrist or leftist.
How many non-white, non-right wing, men and women under the age of 30 do you think we have here?
Hardly a cosmopolitan kaleidoscope of views expressed.
One person says something vaguely leftist and 10 other people shout them down.
Liberal (with a small l) is a dirty word here.
I'm just amazed at the cheek you have saying that there's a diverse membership.
It's massively skewed towards the low-rent wannabe Clarksons - grumpy, right wing, over 40 white males, openly xenophobic, openly misogynistic and with a foot firmly in the past, just click on any topic at random - there they all are...
Edited by zygalski on Tuesday 21st November 18:01
gadgetmac said:
First of all, try to be a little less condenscending with your answers or you’ll only get the same back or no reply at all.
Another example of where you should listen to your own advice.No reply would be fine, thanks. It would be of no consequence to me personally or to the content of the thread.
The Gulf states / OPEC cartel could 'do something' about the AGW fad, but wisely stay out of it.
Why do they need to bother? To help Turbobloke?
The amount of oil consumed over the last centruy is well known, they have reserves to last a while yet, and - as we know - this AGW meme is a political exercise. Those oil states know that developing nations will - almost inevitably - choose to allow their citizens to move around, and the chosen method for powering that is ICE tech. For now...
In the meantime the developed economies are supposed to be ponying up $100 billion a year to the other nations to support adaptation and mitigation (although COP 23 does carry a note asking for proof of payments...). At the same time we're inundated with images of smokestacks and polar bears so we can accept ridiculous energy price inflation.
So if you were running one of those oil rich states, seeing the potential in all those growing populations in Asia/Africa/Sth America would you be overly vexed about little old UK in-house problems (a country where oil consumption is, apparently, static or declining)? Or America where shale gas is providing a growing energy percentage? Your eye is on the long game, no?
Then there's the question of suing who and what. Those IPCC reports are carefully worded, and there's the (amusing) difference between the summary and the detail (one carries all the headline grabbing scare stories, the other will often cite the real doubts over the projections etc etc). Who sues a political statement?
Why do they need to bother? To help Turbobloke?
The amount of oil consumed over the last centruy is well known, they have reserves to last a while yet, and - as we know - this AGW meme is a political exercise. Those oil states know that developing nations will - almost inevitably - choose to allow their citizens to move around, and the chosen method for powering that is ICE tech. For now...
In the meantime the developed economies are supposed to be ponying up $100 billion a year to the other nations to support adaptation and mitigation (although COP 23 does carry a note asking for proof of payments...). At the same time we're inundated with images of smokestacks and polar bears so we can accept ridiculous energy price inflation.
So if you were running one of those oil rich states, seeing the potential in all those growing populations in Asia/Africa/Sth America would you be overly vexed about little old UK in-house problems (a country where oil consumption is, apparently, static or declining)? Or America where shale gas is providing a growing energy percentage? Your eye is on the long game, no?
Then there's the question of suing who and what. Those IPCC reports are carefully worded, and there's the (amusing) difference between the summary and the detail (one carries all the headline grabbing scare stories, the other will often cite the real doubts over the projections etc etc). Who sues a political statement?
gadgetmac said:
Why are they not trying to defend their main asset values when according to the people on here it is such an easy thing to do?
Against what? All the NGO's, the IPCC, all the wailing of the econuts what exactly is the threat to oil production in the middle east? None. A big fat zero. All of the afore mentioned are merely impacting the western world's ability to exploit their own resources. The need for oil has barely shifted (and including China and India only increased) - so what do they need to defend? Surely letting the CAGW meme force up the price of oil can only benefit the middle east?Napoleon Bonaparte said:
Never Interfere With an Enemy While He’s in the Process of Destroying Himself
Jinx said:
gadgetmac said:
Why are they not trying to defend their main asset values when according to the people on here it is such an easy thing to do?
Against what? All the NGO's, the IPCC, all the wailing of the econuts what exactly is the threat to oil production in the middle east? None. A big fat zero. All of the afore mentioned are merely impacting the western world's ability to exploit their own resources. The need for oil has barely shifted (and including China and India only increased) - so what do they need to defend? Surely letting the CAGW meme force up the price of oil can only benefit the middle east?Napoleon Bonaparte said:
Never Interfere With an Enemy While He’s in the Process of Destroying Himself
They apparently are looking for 10% energy supply. That frees up oil assets for export or extends oil field life.
Meanwhile they are, reportedly, buying shale oil and gas assets in the States and large oil refineries too.I expect that the depressed oil price is not so bad for the middle east where extraction costs are generally low compared to offshore rigs in more difficult locations so despite the social funding overhead they probably have more business direction options open to them than most. One way of beating off competition and gaining extended influence is to own the competition and spread the geographic base, right?
If I remember correctly they are also building some Nuclear generation.
No doubt their cost bases will be much lower building today than Europe will be enjoying from the past 20 years of higher priced in vestment and guaranteed high prices for electricity generated.
Oil, and to some extent coal, as an industry of extraction can play a long game when it chooses to.
Waiting for a generation or so to see how well the new boys on the block perform - maybe buy a few of the early player who, as is always the case, start to struggle or just become exposed to the possibility of having to sell themselves on the cheap.
Those examples would be merely the obvious major diversification. There are no doubt many more if one was to dig deep enough. (Actually maybe not that deep.)
Then of course there is the MIddle East's diversification into property ownership (and business ownership) in "first world" economies. The Chinese have been faster off the blocks in recent times in that regard but oil rich states are not far behind.
gadgetmac said:
Hi. I'm sorry, I will get back to you on this but I'm in hospital for a short stay and your post deserves more than a flippant or ill thought out reply. Do you have a link to the interview concerned as context is all when judging these things? I appreciate that your not fibbing but would like to see the interview to form an opinion on both that, your comment and their reply. People give opinions on tv all the time and I can see how their reply to you would be perfectly reasonable depending on the time and context of the broadcast. I can also see how it wouldn't be. For instance, on Newsnight an interviewee would be expected to give his slant on a topic and be cross questioned on it. On the 6pm news you'd just get a few opinions from people with very little cross questioning due to time constraints.
I have time on my hands at the moment to watch video clips if you have a link.
Whilst you are in hospital and have some time on your hands, see if you can find this program to watchI have time on my hands at the moment to watch video clips if you have a link.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06csy8c
That should give you some perspective on why the oil companies just shrug and carry on as normal. They need do nothing else.
Zygy you should watch it too.
gadgetmac said:
Hi. I'm sorry, I will get back to you on this but I'm in hospital for a short stay and your post deserves more than a flippant or ill thought out reply. Do you have a link to the interview concerned as context is all when judging these things? I appreciate that your not fibbing but would like to see the interview to form an opinion on both that, your comment and their reply. People give opinions on tv all the time and I can see how their reply to you would be perfectly reasonable depending on the time and context of the broadcast. I can also see how it wouldn't be. For instance, on Newsnight an interviewee would be expected to give his slant on a topic and be cross questioned on it. On the 6pm news you'd just get a few opinions from people with very little cross questioning due to time constraints.
I have time on my hands at the moment to watch video clips if you have a link.
just had a look on the bbc website , unfortunately cannot seem to find it. if it helps the comment i disagreed with was an increase in extreme weather events when all the data sets referring to such show no discernible trend .I have time on my hands at the moment to watch video clips if you have a link.
voyds9 said:
zygalski said:
Diverse membership? Really?
Let's look at that.
How many females make up the N,P & E forum contributors do you think? Very few I would say. A tiny minority.
That's 50% of the population pretty much gone right there.
How about politically liberal/left wing people? They probably make up over 50% of the voting population.
I'd be amazed if more than 10% of regular contributors to this forum would describe themselves as centrist or leftist.
How many non-white, non-right wing, men and women under the age of 30 do you think we have here?
Hardly a cosmopolitan kaleidoscope of views expressed.
One person says something vaguely leftist and 10 other people shout them down.
Liberal (with a small l) is a dirty word here.
I'm just amazed at the cheek you have saying that there's a diverse membership.
It's massively skewed towards the low-rent wannabe Clarksons - grumpy, right wing, over 40 white males, openly xenophobic, openly misogynistic and with a foot firmly in the past, just click on any topic at random - there they all are...
You seem to have confused diversity with equal representation.Let's look at that.
How many females make up the N,P & E forum contributors do you think? Very few I would say. A tiny minority.
That's 50% of the population pretty much gone right there.
How about politically liberal/left wing people? They probably make up over 50% of the voting population.
I'd be amazed if more than 10% of regular contributors to this forum would describe themselves as centrist or leftist.
How many non-white, non-right wing, men and women under the age of 30 do you think we have here?
Hardly a cosmopolitan kaleidoscope of views expressed.
One person says something vaguely leftist and 10 other people shout them down.
Liberal (with a small l) is a dirty word here.
I'm just amazed at the cheek you have saying that there's a diverse membership.
It's massively skewed towards the low-rent wannabe Clarksons - grumpy, right wing, over 40 white males, openly xenophobic, openly misogynistic and with a foot firmly in the past, just click on any topic at random - there they all are...
Edited by zygalski on Tuesday 21st November 18:01
robinessex said:
Er, doesn't oil also produce lubricants? And plastic stuff. Think we'll still need it for a long, long while.
You see, at least you get it!How do I get the following from renewables?
- Tarmac
- Heavy Fuel Oil
- Lubricants
- Fertilisers
- Pharmaceuticals
- Plastics
- Aviation fuels
- Domestic heating
- Fast reacting power generation
- Polymers
- etc, etc, etc
this is what the green lobby forget. Almost everything we own that is not stone, glass or wood comes from crude oil.
The don't WANT to get it.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff