Climate change - the POLITICAL debate (Vol 6)
Discussion
Overheard a little of the local news last night with a roving reporter adding to everyone's problems by going out to report from a flood area.
He started his piece with a comment about Climate change causing flooding befoe going on to describe the problems.
Locally a small community, based riverside and canalside with properties built to take variatoins in water levels into account, have been flooded to a level not experienced in recent times. As one of the chaps pointed out, his property is 300 years old and has never flooded before in the way it has this time.
Now the community os in an area known to be a flood plain. Indeed there is a local quarry (in fact 2) that has long been part of the flood management plan and some extensive work about 20 years ago alleviated even the limited but regular flooding that was disruptive to travel but rarely excessively damaging to property.
However in recent times a large former power station area next to the river has finally been significantly developed with several large distribution centres so what would once have been a natural marshy flood plain in now concrete and tarmac.
Nearby, less than half a mile away, a large field that has never been more than grass has also been developed into a distribution centre and about 2 miles away is another significant distribution centre development on what was farm land with a run off down to lower levels of pnds and streams that will eventually feed to the river.
Add in some extensive new roadworks for which the drainage goes who knows where and one might start to wonder at the wisdom of the planners.
Meanwhile, just up the hillside from the former power station site and it masses of giant sheds, are some extensive housing estates, some just built, some being built. And a new road that offers a nice watercourse to the bottom of the hill replacing fields and woodland.
At the bottom of the hill is a new roundabout - exactly where there used to be a wet area soakaway.. The soakaway was obliterated but has now been re-instated in the centre of the roundabout.
The victims of the flooding are mostly the other side of the river and, possibly, in a different county.
No one locally seems to have been consulted about the most recent giant shed construction - which seems to have been a speculative development.
No doubt the local council, gleefully rubbing its hands at the thought of the potential rates revenue and the new trumpet blowing opportunities, cares not a jot for the havoc it seems to be causing.
But no doubt they will find "Climate Change" and deploy it as an excuse for their decisions.
Given that it will be people like that who will also be responsible for "humanity's" efforts to "manage" climate in coming decades it seems fairly obvious that Great and the other school strikers are not doing themselves any favours at all by making "Climate Change" the excuse or reason for anything and everything.
By the time they work that out they will be the ones bearing the cost burdens.
Then they will understand.
He started his piece with a comment about Climate change causing flooding befoe going on to describe the problems.
Locally a small community, based riverside and canalside with properties built to take variatoins in water levels into account, have been flooded to a level not experienced in recent times. As one of the chaps pointed out, his property is 300 years old and has never flooded before in the way it has this time.
Now the community os in an area known to be a flood plain. Indeed there is a local quarry (in fact 2) that has long been part of the flood management plan and some extensive work about 20 years ago alleviated even the limited but regular flooding that was disruptive to travel but rarely excessively damaging to property.
However in recent times a large former power station area next to the river has finally been significantly developed with several large distribution centres so what would once have been a natural marshy flood plain in now concrete and tarmac.
Nearby, less than half a mile away, a large field that has never been more than grass has also been developed into a distribution centre and about 2 miles away is another significant distribution centre development on what was farm land with a run off down to lower levels of pnds and streams that will eventually feed to the river.
Add in some extensive new roadworks for which the drainage goes who knows where and one might start to wonder at the wisdom of the planners.
Meanwhile, just up the hillside from the former power station site and it masses of giant sheds, are some extensive housing estates, some just built, some being built. And a new road that offers a nice watercourse to the bottom of the hill replacing fields and woodland.
At the bottom of the hill is a new roundabout - exactly where there used to be a wet area soakaway.. The soakaway was obliterated but has now been re-instated in the centre of the roundabout.
The victims of the flooding are mostly the other side of the river and, possibly, in a different county.
No one locally seems to have been consulted about the most recent giant shed construction - which seems to have been a speculative development.
No doubt the local council, gleefully rubbing its hands at the thought of the potential rates revenue and the new trumpet blowing opportunities, cares not a jot for the havoc it seems to be causing.
But no doubt they will find "Climate Change" and deploy it as an excuse for their decisions.
Given that it will be people like that who will also be responsible for "humanity's" efforts to "manage" climate in coming decades it seems fairly obvious that Great and the other school strikers are not doing themselves any favours at all by making "Climate Change" the excuse or reason for anything and everything.
By the time they work that out they will be the ones bearing the cost burdens.
Then they will understand.
LongQ said:
Overheard a little of the local news last night with a roving reporter adding to everyone's problems by going out to report from a flood area.
He started his piece with a comment about Climate change causing flooding befoe going on to describe the problems.
Locally a small community, based riverside and canalside with properties built to take variatoins in water levels into account, have been flooded to a level not experienced in recent times. As one of the chaps pointed out, his property is 300 years old and has never flooded before in the way it has this time.
Now the community os in an area known to be a flood plain. Indeed there is a local quarry (in fact 2) that has long been part of the flood management plan and some extensive work about 20 years ago alleviated even the limited but regular flooding that was disruptive to travel but rarely excessively damaging to property.
However in recent times a large former power station area next to the river has finally been significantly developed with several large distribution centres so what would once have been a natural marshy flood plain in now concrete and tarmac.
Nearby, less than half a mile away, a large field that has never been more than grass has also been developed into a distribution centre and about 2 miles away is another significant distribution centre development on what was farm land with a run off down to lower levels of pnds and streams that will eventually feed to the river.
Add in some extensive new roadworks for which the drainage goes who knows where and one might start to wonder at the wisdom of the planners.
Meanwhile, just up the hillside from the former power station site and it masses of giant sheds, are some extensive housing estates, some just built, some being built. And a new road that offers a nice watercourse to the bottom of the hill replacing fields and woodland.
At the bottom of the hill is a new roundabout - exactly where there used to be a wet area soakaway.. The soakaway was obliterated but has now been re-instated in the centre of the roundabout.
The victims of the flooding are mostly the other side of the river and, possibly, in a different county.
No one locally seems to have been consulted about the most recent giant shed construction - which seems to have been a speculative development.
No doubt the local council, gleefully rubbing its hands at the thought of the potential rates revenue and the new trumpet blowing opportunities, cares not a jot for the havoc it seems to be causing.
But no doubt they will find "Climate Change" and deploy it as an excuse for their decisions.
Given that it will be people like that who will also be responsible for "humanity's" efforts to "manage" climate in coming decades it seems fairly obvious that Great and the other school strikers are not doing themselves any favours at all by making "Climate Change" the excuse or reason for anything and everything.
By the time they work that out they will be the ones bearing the cost burdens.
Then they will understand.
Its almost used like a get out of jail card, surely what should be asked back is how long have you known about the effects of climate change ?He started his piece with a comment about Climate change causing flooding befoe going on to describe the problems.
Locally a small community, based riverside and canalside with properties built to take variatoins in water levels into account, have been flooded to a level not experienced in recent times. As one of the chaps pointed out, his property is 300 years old and has never flooded before in the way it has this time.
Now the community os in an area known to be a flood plain. Indeed there is a local quarry (in fact 2) that has long been part of the flood management plan and some extensive work about 20 years ago alleviated even the limited but regular flooding that was disruptive to travel but rarely excessively damaging to property.
However in recent times a large former power station area next to the river has finally been significantly developed with several large distribution centres so what would once have been a natural marshy flood plain in now concrete and tarmac.
Nearby, less than half a mile away, a large field that has never been more than grass has also been developed into a distribution centre and about 2 miles away is another significant distribution centre development on what was farm land with a run off down to lower levels of pnds and streams that will eventually feed to the river.
Add in some extensive new roadworks for which the drainage goes who knows where and one might start to wonder at the wisdom of the planners.
Meanwhile, just up the hillside from the former power station site and it masses of giant sheds, are some extensive housing estates, some just built, some being built. And a new road that offers a nice watercourse to the bottom of the hill replacing fields and woodland.
At the bottom of the hill is a new roundabout - exactly where there used to be a wet area soakaway.. The soakaway was obliterated but has now been re-instated in the centre of the roundabout.
The victims of the flooding are mostly the other side of the river and, possibly, in a different county.
No one locally seems to have been consulted about the most recent giant shed construction - which seems to have been a speculative development.
No doubt the local council, gleefully rubbing its hands at the thought of the potential rates revenue and the new trumpet blowing opportunities, cares not a jot for the havoc it seems to be causing.
But no doubt they will find "Climate Change" and deploy it as an excuse for their decisions.
Given that it will be people like that who will also be responsible for "humanity's" efforts to "manage" climate in coming decades it seems fairly obvious that Great and the other school strikers are not doing themselves any favours at all by making "Climate Change" the excuse or reason for anything and everything.
By the time they work that out they will be the ones bearing the cost burdens.
Then they will understand.
then what have you done to mitigate the results and why are we witnessing flooding?
It's known as "Unintended Consequences', or 'Sods Law.' One is also justified in calling it stupid I suppose. When, in 1957, we moved out of London to a small estate in a small town, the road(s) local to my mother's house were named after local features, Pondfield Lane, and Running Waters. Yes, you've guessed it, 4 weeks after moving in, torrential rain reverted the roads to their namesake, house flooding included. Locals shook their heads, and said 'we told them so'. Eventually, a 3ft diameter pipe was installed to prevent this from happening again.
Going back to some basics on the topic,
Why is global warming a 'bad' thing?
As opposed obviously to global cooling, which I presume would kill many more people - especially the elderly.
(Along with more outbreaks of viruses etc. that come with the colder weather).
I remember some discussions on other forums (not PH) way back just before the 2008 financial crisis where even then I think the science was stated as "settled"
, but was just wondering if even the notion of a cooling planet and its dangers are given a platform for discussion in 2020?
Why is global warming a 'bad' thing?
As opposed obviously to global cooling, which I presume would kill many more people - especially the elderly.
(Along with more outbreaks of viruses etc. that come with the colder weather).
I remember some discussions on other forums (not PH) way back just before the 2008 financial crisis where even then I think the science was stated as "settled"
, but was just wondering if even the notion of a cooling planet and its dangers are given a platform for discussion in 2020?As a mechanical engineer, by trade and qualification, what concerns me greatly about 'climate' is the politicisation of science. It seems there is a need for climate scientists to sing for their supper - to use hyperbole to justify their funding - when, in fact, on a broader picture, we should all accept climate research is of huge value, whatever the findings.
When governments and politicians 'force' science and technology, the results are generally poor. Just look a the flip-flop legislation from petrol, to diesel, to the emissions scandals, and to huge numbers of the latest diesel vehicles being fitted with untested particulate filters which either clog up with their own condensation on a regular basis, or otherwise drop condensation into the engine and wreck it through oil dilution. Just that there is a catalogue of f
k ups, driven by legislation and poor government.
When governments and politicians 'force' science and technology, the results are generally poor. Just look a the flip-flop legislation from petrol, to diesel, to the emissions scandals, and to huge numbers of the latest diesel vehicles being fitted with untested particulate filters which either clog up with their own condensation on a regular basis, or otherwise drop condensation into the engine and wreck it through oil dilution. Just that there is a catalogue of f
k ups, driven by legislation and poor government.Digga said:
As a mechanical engineer, by trade and qualification, what concerns me greatly about 'climate' is the politicisation of science. It seems there is a need for climate scientists to sing for their supper - to use hyperbole to justify their funding - when, in fact, on a broader picture, we should all accept climate research is of huge value, whatever the findings.
When governments and politicians 'force' science and technology, the results are generally poor. Just look a the flip-flop legislation from petrol, to diesel, to the emissions scandals, and to huge numbers of the latest diesel vehicles being fitted with untested particulate filters which either clog up with their own condensation on a regular basis, or otherwise drop condensation into the engine and wreck it through oil dilution. Just that there is a catalogue of fk ups, driven by legislation and poor government.
Agreed. It's patently obvious that what's happening isn't science but politics. Scientists involved in furthering science exchange data freely (some agw scientists do not) discuss differences (the time for debate is never over, and claiming it is represents nonscience), refrain generally from abusing or intimidating those of a different viewpoint (a published paper actually set out a list of the most prominent 'climate deniers') and do not call for or support the silencing of their counterparts, with whom they disagree, in the media (pressure placed on journalists by agw scientists and supporters) There is certainly no room for anything remotely like this:When governments and politicians 'force' science and technology, the results are generally poor. Just look a the flip-flop legislation from petrol, to diesel, to the emissions scandals, and to huge numbers of the latest diesel vehicles being fitted with untested particulate filters which either clog up with their own condensation on a regular basis, or otherwise drop condensation into the engine and wreck it through oil dilution. Just that there is a catalogue of f
k ups, driven by legislation and poor government.Open letter of resignation from Prof Bengtsson said:
Dear Professor Henderson
I have been put under such an enormous group pressure in recent days from all over the world that has become virtually unbearable to me. If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety. I see therefore no other way out therefore than resigning from GWPF. I had not expected such an enormous world-wide pressure put at me from a community that I have been close to all my active life. Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc.
I see no limit and end to what will happen. It is a situation that reminds me about the time of McCarthy. I would never have expected anything similar in such an original peaceful community as meteorology. Apparently it has been transformed in recent years.
Under this situation I will be unable to contribute positively to the work of GWPF and consequently therefore I believe it is the best for me to reverse my decision to join its Board at the earliest possible time.
With my best regards
Lennart Bengtsson
. I have been put under such an enormous group pressure in recent days from all over the world that has become virtually unbearable to me. If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety. I see therefore no other way out therefore than resigning from GWPF. I had not expected such an enormous world-wide pressure put at me from a community that I have been close to all my active life. Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc.
I see no limit and end to what will happen. It is a situation that reminds me about the time of McCarthy. I would never have expected anything similar in such an original peaceful community as meteorology. Apparently it has been transformed in recent years.
Under this situation I will be unable to contribute positively to the work of GWPF and consequently therefore I believe it is the best for me to reverse my decision to join its Board at the earliest possible time.
With my best regards
Lennart Bengtsson
This reflects unscientific and shameful behaviour - stand over thuggery in effect - from adults around the world claiming to be 'scientists'.
Digga said:
As a mechanical engineer, by trade and qualification, what concerns me greatly about 'climate' is the politicisation of science. It seems there is a need for climate scientists to sing for their supper - to use hyperbole to justify their funding - when, in fact, on a broader picture, we should all accept climate research is of huge value, whatever the findings.
When governments and politicians 'force' science and technology, the results are generally poor. Just look a the flip-flop legislation from petrol, to diesel, to the emissions scandals, and to huge numbers of the latest diesel vehicles being fitted with untested particulate filters which either clog up with their own condensation on a regular basis, or otherwise drop condensation into the engine and wreck it through oil dilution. Just that there is a catalogue of fk ups, driven by legislation and poor government.
Are you not conflating very different issues.When governments and politicians 'force' science and technology, the results are generally poor. Just look a the flip-flop legislation from petrol, to diesel, to the emissions scandals, and to huge numbers of the latest diesel vehicles being fitted with untested particulate filters which either clog up with their own condensation on a regular basis, or otherwise drop condensation into the engine and wreck it through oil dilution. Just that there is a catalogue of f
k ups, driven by legislation and poor government.Automotive engineering and climate science are quite different.
All people that work ‘sing for their supper’
That does not correspond to prejudice or bias.
If and when you used your Engineering know how to act as an expert witness did you tell the truth to the best of your knowledge or what you thought a particular side wanted?
In my experience, whilst not perfect those persons giving evidence do so honestly and to the best of their ability.
Nickgnome said:
Digga said:
As a mechanical engineer, by trade and qualification, what concerns me greatly about 'climate' is the politicisation of science. It seems there is a need for climate scientists to sing for their supper - to use hyperbole to justify their funding - when, in fact, on a broader picture, we should all accept climate research is of huge value, whatever the findings.
When governments and politicians 'force' science and technology, the results are generally poor. Just look a the flip-flop legislation from petrol, to diesel, to the emissions scandals, and to huge numbers of the latest diesel vehicles being fitted with untested particulate filters which either clog up with their own condensation on a regular basis, or otherwise drop condensation into the engine and wreck it through oil dilution. Just that there is a catalogue of fk ups, driven by legislation and poor government.
Are you not conflating very different issues.When governments and politicians 'force' science and technology, the results are generally poor. Just look a the flip-flop legislation from petrol, to diesel, to the emissions scandals, and to huge numbers of the latest diesel vehicles being fitted with untested particulate filters which either clog up with their own condensation on a regular basis, or otherwise drop condensation into the engine and wreck it through oil dilution. Just that there is a catalogue of f
k ups, driven by legislation and poor government.Automotive engineering and climate science are quite different.
All people that work ‘sing for their supper’
That does not correspond to prejudice or bias.
If and when you used your Engineering know how to act as an expert witness did you tell the truth to the best of your knowledge or what you thought a particular side wanted?
In my experience, whilst not perfect those persons giving evidence do so honestly and to the best of their ability.
Scientists should not have to sing a particular tune to justify their funding, but rather the funding should be there, intrinsically to promote research rather than to source data with which back up policy. Climate research is extremely important.
I use the automotive issue because it crystalises the types of unintended consequences that government meddling can produce. Right now, since 2017 to be accurate, manufacturers are producing and selling diesel vehicles which are more complex and will almost certainly be shorter lived than their predecessors. This is an utter waste of the CO2 expended in their production.
Digga said:
.. what concerns me greatly about 'climate' is the politicisation of science.
....
When governments and politicians 'force' science and technology, the results are generally poor.
Just snippeted a couple of your sentences which I fully agree with.....
When governments and politicians 'force' science and technology, the results are generally poor.
I've been following the climate change debate for many years and I would be the first to say that I am not going to pretend I'm any sort of expert on the numerous scientific disciplines that make up what would be required to call yourself a credible "Climatologist".
But I have grown up studying and then professionally working within STEM subjects, and I think its more than clear that current publishings around the climate are not 'science'. It is nothing more than politics.
It is very clear that it is politics because as with all political agendas the mantra is "project fear" and the exclusion of any balanced debate. This simple fact should be perfectly clear to anybody looking in to the subject.
On the subject of balance, I have tried to watch and intake the science/data from both sides of the 'argument', but it quickly becomes apparent that only one of the sides strikes me as being closer to reality than the other.
In terms of the data, no argument based from the data should required manipulation on the scale that the alarmists have done. There should also not be the cherry picking misleading publications that take place on nearly everything that is put forward.
And most importantly, in science there is always the debate and reason from every angle, rather than what we see today with claims of 97% consensus and the "science is settled" shut down claims.
I then got in to watching Tony Heller's youtube channel (along with a number of others) and as they use original data to base their arguments, they have me absolutely convinced that the data is not showing nor predicting any need for alarm.
I see people descending in to the usual game of "playing the man and not the ball" tactics, in attempts to discredit and therefore attempt to render their message meaningless, but again this is all part of everyday politics rather than everyday science.
So I currently live a life not in desperate fear that we only have 12 years left, but comfortable that the global climate is changing as it always has done and in a manner that humans are not in any more risk than than a 100 or so years ago. In fact with modern technology and weather event forecasts, humans are safer than any time in modern history.
GroundZero said:
So I currently live a life not in desperate fear that we only have 12 years left, but comfortable that the global climate is changing as it always has done and in a manner that humans are not in any more risk than than a 100 or so years ago. In fact with modern technology and weather event forecasts, humans are safer than any time in modern history.
Likewise.I would like to add that much good has come of the increased climate awareness:
- I have long been disgusted by the amount of rubbish tipped into our oceans.
- It been a source of dismay to me how blithely people jet about the planet, ignorant of the very significant 'cost'.
- I'm a die hard, make-do-and-mend, waste-not-want-notter; buying clothing on a whim, seeing fashion as transactional, is something that has seemed wasteful to me for years.
GroundZero said:
Digga said:
.. what concerns me greatly about 'climate' is the politicisation of science.
....
When governments and politicians 'force' science and technology, the results are generally poor.
Just snippeted a couple of your sentences which I fully agree with.....
When governments and politicians 'force' science and technology, the results are generally poor.
I've been following the climate change debate for many years and I would be the first to say that I am not going to pretend I'm any sort of expert on the numerous scientific disciplines that make up what would be required to call yourself a credible "Climatologist".
But I have grown up studying and then professionally working within STEM subjects, and I think its more than clear that current publishings around the climate are not 'science'. It is nothing more than politics.
It is very clear that it is politics because as with all political agendas the mantra is "project fear" and the exclusion of any balanced debate. This simple fact should be perfectly clear to anybody looking in to the subject.
On the subject of balance, I have tried to watch and intake the science/data from both sides of the 'argument', but it quickly becomes apparent that only one of the sides strikes me as being closer to reality than the other.
In terms of the data, no argument based from the data should required manipulation on the scale that the alarmists have done. There should also not be the cherry picking misleading publications that take place on nearly everything that is put forward.
And most importantly, in science there is always the debate and reason from every angle, rather than what we see today with claims of 97% consensus and the "science is settled" shut down claims.
I then got in to watching Tony Heller's youtube channel (along with a number of others) and as they use original data to base their arguments, they have me absolutely convinced that the data is not showing nor predicting any need for alarm.
I see people descending in to the usual game of "playing the man and not the ball" tactics, in attempts to discredit and therefore attempt to render their message meaningless, but again this is all part of everyday politics rather than everyday science.
So I currently live a life not in desperate fear that we only have 12 years left, but comfortable that the global climate is changing as it always has done and in a manner that humans are not in any more risk than than a 100 or so years ago. In fact with modern technology and weather event forecasts, humans are safer than any time in modern history.
Nickgnome said:
Digga said:
As a mechanical engineer, by trade and qualification, what concerns me greatly about 'climate' is the politicisation of science. It seems there is a need for climate scientists to sing for their supper - to use hyperbole to justify their funding - when, in fact, on a broader picture, we should all accept climate research is of huge value, whatever the findings.
When governments and politicians 'force' science and technology, the results are generally poor. Just look a the flip-flop legislation from petrol, to diesel, to the emissions scandals, and to huge numbers of the latest diesel vehicles being fitted with untested particulate filters which either clog up with their own condensation on a regular basis, or otherwise drop condensation into the engine and wreck it through oil dilution. Just that there is a catalogue of fk ups, driven by legislation and poor government.
Are you not conflating very different issues.When governments and politicians 'force' science and technology, the results are generally poor. Just look a the flip-flop legislation from petrol, to diesel, to the emissions scandals, and to huge numbers of the latest diesel vehicles being fitted with untested particulate filters which either clog up with their own condensation on a regular basis, or otherwise drop condensation into the engine and wreck it through oil dilution. Just that there is a catalogue of f
k ups, driven by legislation and poor government.Automotive engineering and climate science are quite different.
All people that work ‘sing for their supper’
That does not correspond to prejudice or bias.
If and when you used your Engineering know how to act as an expert witness did you tell the truth to the best of your knowledge or what you thought a particular side wanted?
In my experience, whilst not perfect those persons giving evidence do so honestly and to the best of their ability.
And of course much depends on the questions asked or which answers are published in reports and papers, etc.
And "experts" will often have their own biases and be very protective of their "expertise" since it defines them, their meaning in life and their income potential (and thus their personal "security".
There's nothing wring with that per se. Most people will of necessity have to apear to be totally confident in their expertise or else no one will believe them. Being utterly convinced that one is correct is a requirement f being considered "expert".
But only listening to one source of opinion or limiting the publication of opposing views is rarely a good idea for complex matters, especially thiose that are not well understood and cannot be completely proven by any known experimental method.
For many subjects of science (and engineering) the benefits of making use of "best current understanding" can offer significant benefits overall even if in some ways it is eventually found that there are some aspects that were a little less then optimal. There have been some spectacular failures from time to time but mostly their effects, sometimes tragic, have been well contained and localised.
The "experts" being used by those people we call politicians, whether deliberately used or not, seem to be heading into some very global and uncharted territory with their ideas for 'solving' the perceived problems that cannot be proven at all and certainly not in their lifetimes. Thus neither the experts nor the politicians will ever think themselves likely to experience the consequences of there actions - positive or negative. They have no perceived exposure to risk to temper their ideas as presented in the public domain.
They will lose control of their ideas as they are picked up by others who see commercial or political opportunities that they can exploit for some personal satisfaction. Most experts will be unable to reverse the effects of their advice even if they should choose to at some stage.
Many years ago I worked for a then very successful business person (in private company terms) who, if he was to be a rising star in current times, might be called a "thought leader".
He was fond of basing an interpretation of the word "expert" on some sort of pidgin Latin. "Ex" meaning "coming out of" and "{s}pert" being "a drip under pressure".
Very crass. But it made one think. sometimes, when taking what was presented as being "expert advice".
As one might anticipate he had become an "expert" himself, failed to recognise (at least publically) that some of his decisions were less than optimal, especially with his personally selected appointments of outsiders. Despite that a successful and innovative business developed for some years but was eventually allowed to disintegrate when he started to believe his own advice and especially his intuition more than was wise in some changing times.
The business was very viable but he lost control of it.
The "business opportunity" of AGW seems to me to be following a very similar pattern of development but over a wider subject and with a longer time frame. And with many more "experts" as both "thought leaders" and "advisors" being selected on the basis of what people ("leaders") want to hear to justify whatever it is they feel a personal need to champion from their position of authority.
Historically such situations have rarely resulted in a truly successful outcome.
Some have turned into long term disasters.
Humans have enormous capacity for creating chaos and destruction from even the best of intentions if the concepts are left unchallenged.
turbobloke said:
That sums things up very well indeed.
Thanks Turbobloke.I've only been on PH for a few months now but I have tried to read back a number of pages in this debate to gauge where it is at. I notice you are a frequent and useful contributor, using an evidence based approach.
Keep up the good work
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff