Global Warming - Fact or Fiction

navyblueshorts wrote:

Tattie Scones RRN wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Yougov..

18-24............71-29 stay...
25-49............54-46 stay...
50-64............60-40 leave...
65+..............64-36 leave...

Agree with Tattie by all means...I'll stick with the data...

Uneducated poor people maybe less educated....But worth remembering Degrees don't give you common sense..

I work with "Educated" people every day.....Don't like all this patronising cheap-shotting.

Going on in the US at the moment with Trump...

Cheers Truss - by the way, my comment wasn't a statement to be agreed/disagreed with....it was a genuine question.

I'm always a bit sceptical with percentages. There may have been only a few thousand who voted in the 18-24 group, whereas there might have been millions in the 25-49 (which was pretty close to half and half).

Stats look good, but I'm more into real detailed analysis rather than overall figures. I've learnt that from the Global Warming (sorry....Climate Change now that the figures aren't adding up) scam currently sweeping everyone up into hysteria.

Something wrong with your head Navy?

Tattie Scones RRN wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Tattie Scones RRN wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Yougov..

18-24............71-29 stay...
25-49............54-46 stay...
50-64............60-40 leave...
65+..............64-36 leave...

Agree with Tattie by all means...I'll stick with the data...

Uneducated poor people maybe less educated....But worth remembering Degrees don't give you common sense..

I work with "Educated" people every day.....Don't like all this patronising cheap-shotting.

Going on in the US at the moment with Trump...

Cheers Truss - by the way, my comment wasn't a statement to be agreed/disagreed with....it was a genuine question.

I'm always a bit sceptical with percentages. There may have been only a few thousand who voted in the 18-24 group, whereas there might have been millions in the 25-49 (which was pretty close to half and half).

Stats look good, but I'm more into real detailed analysis rather than overall figures. I've learnt that from the Global Warming (sorry....Climate Change now that the figures aren't adding up) scam currently sweeping everyone up into hysteria.

Something wrong with your head Navy?

Like it. Not at all Scones old bean. I just despair of those who so easily discount the massive prevailing scientific consensus. Sure, some disagree (there have always been disagreements in science, even without the crackpots), but it's a tiny proportion and allows you to indulge in some confirmation bias perhaps...

What I don't get either, is the idea that it's not simply a good idea, period, to reduce man-made emissions going into our environment.

navyblueshorts wrote:

Tattie Scones RRN wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Tattie Scones RRN wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Yougov..

18-24............71-29 stay...
25-49............54-46 stay...
50-64............60-40 leave...
65+..............64-36 leave...

Agree with Tattie by all means...I'll stick with the data...

Uneducated poor people maybe less educated....But worth remembering Degrees don't give you common sense..

I work with "Educated" people every day.....Don't like all this patronising cheap-shotting.

Going on in the US at the moment with Trump...

Cheers Truss - by the way, my comment wasn't a statement to be agreed/disagreed with....it was a genuine question.

I'm always a bit sceptical with percentages. There may have been only a few thousand who voted in the 18-24 group, whereas there might have been millions in the 25-49 (which was pretty close to half and half).

Stats look good, but I'm more into real detailed analysis rather than overall figures. I've learnt that from the Global Warming (sorry....Climate Change now that the figures aren't adding up) scam currently sweeping everyone up into hysteria.

Something wrong with your head Navy?

Like it. Not at all Scones old bean. I just despair of those who so easily discount the massive prevailing scientific consensus. Sure, some disagree (there have always been disagreements in science, even without the crackpots), but it's a tiny proportion and allows you to indulge in some confirmation bias perhaps...

What I don't get either, is the idea that it's not simply a good idea, period, to reduce man-made emissions going into our environment.

Fair play.

Although considering 0.04% of the atmosphere is CO2, and the absolute miniscule amount of CO2 that is emitted from man, it's like turning up to the aftermath of a tsunami with a toothbrush to help clean up.

I've read a few books based on both sides of the argument, and trust me, I was horrified at what the IPCC are up to. More and more people are beginning to realise this.

Oh...and scientific opinion. Have a look at what the IPCC and associated 'experts' are actually qualified in.

So you've actually got nothing to back up your ludicrous claims other than "I've read a few books".

Please, stop.

Excellent counter argument Pr4wn.

Bravo Sir.

It's not an argument, it wasn't meant to be an argument. I'm pointing out that you have no argument at all, other than "I've read some books". Nothing at all to counter the mountain of empirical, peer-reviewed evidence that counters your ridiculous claims.

Yes yes....the science has spoken indeed.

I don't even know what that's supposed to mean.

Tattie Scones RRN wrote:...I've read a few books based on both sides of the argument, and trust me, I was horrified at what the IPCC are up to. More and more people are beginning to realise this.

Oh...and scientific opinion. Have a look at what the IPCC and associated 'experts' are actually qualified in.

Books that cited all their sources? More and more people are "realising" this because they either don't understand any of the science or have a vested interest in this not being correct.
I suspect that most members of the IPCC are far more qualified to comment on climate change and humanity's influence on it than thee or me.

I think the problem with climate change is the same problem there is with any science such as nutrition, health etc. There is always an industry that pops up around it that often uses misleading or poorly sourced evidence to profiteer. In the process it devalues the progress of genuine science and attaches to it the stigma that you would associate with scientists who work for tobacco companies. Climate change is real and there's a huge body of evidence that suggests human activity is accelerating it beyond nature's ability to self correct. I'm of the same mind as navy. This is exacerbated by incorrect reporting by journalists who don't know any better. For example a couple years back the press reported that the ice coverage at the poles was larger than ever...but failed to report that while the surface area was bigger the thickness of the ice was reduced by significant amounts. So this sort of ice melts pretty sharpish. The stacked ice glaciers stay frozen mostly because of the thickness like when piles of snow wiped off of cars are left on the pavement when all other snow melts. This means that there is less ice and more melt every time it warms up hence the rising sea levels. This is without counting the destruction of forests worldwide further limiting nature's ability to self correct.

Pr4wn wrote:I don't even know what that's supposed to mean.

Read some books Pr4wn, then you'll know.

Tattie Scones RRN wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:I don't even know what that's supposed to mean.

Read some books Pr4wn, then you'll know.

Ye brexit voting n*bless bakri

Navy - yes, the books cited their sources.

May I recommend reading the following:

An appeal to reason - Nigel Lawson (first book I read about it)
The real global warming disaster - Christopher Booker

There are loads more too.

It's things like the carbon trading scheme - which cost the UK tax payer over £400m (which we had to pay Germany), the hockey stick theory being proved to be bollix, neglecting to use data from 000's of Northern European weather stations because it was 'too cold', the photo of the polar bear on a tiny bit of ice etc. etc. The list goes on and on and on.

I also have a good friend who works for a reputable [sic] windfarm company. He states it's all a con really but they collect millions from subsidies - paid for by us.

All through the ages we've had acid rain, greenhouse effect etc. etc. It started with Global Cooling in the 70's, then Global Warming, and then when the temperatures stopped rising, Climate Change. This recent claim is costing people around the globe billions upon billions so that Al Gore can live in his estate which uses more energy than Kendal.

I did my practitioner course for the Institute of Environmental Management 2 years ago. It covered Acid Rain, and the photo they used was the same one when it was covered in my GCSE's 25 years ago.

ShahenshahG wrote:

Tattie Scones RRN wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:I don't even know what that's supposed to mean.

Read some books Pr4wn, then you'll know.

Ye brexit voting n*bless bakri

You're a good man Shah.

Bakri sounds quite tasty.

Tattie Scones RRN wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Tattie Scones RRN wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Tattie Scones RRN wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Yougov..

18-24............71-29 stay...
25-49............54-46 stay...
50-64............60-40 leave...
65+..............64-36 leave...

Agree with Tattie by all means...I'll stick with the data...

Uneducated poor people maybe less educated....But worth remembering Degrees don't give you common sense..

I work with "Educated" people every day.....Don't like all this patronising cheap-shotting.

Going on in the US at the moment with Trump...

Cheers Truss - by the way, my comment wasn't a statement to be agreed/disagreed with....it was a genuine question.

I'm always a bit sceptical with percentages. There may have been only a few thousand who voted in the 18-24 group, whereas there might have been millions in the 25-49 (which was pretty close to half and half).

Stats look good, but I'm more into real detailed analysis rather than overall figures. I've learnt that from the Global Warming (sorry....Climate Change now that the figures aren't adding up) scam currently sweeping everyone up into hysteria.

Something wrong with your head Navy?

Like it. Not at all Scones old bean. I just despair of those who so easily discount the massive prevailing scientific consensus. Sure, some disagree (there have always been disagreements in science, even without the crackpots), but it's a tiny proportion and allows you to indulge in some confirmation bias perhaps...

What I don't get either, is the idea that it's not simply a good idea, period, to reduce man-made emissions going into our environment.

Fair play.

Although considering 0.04% of the atmosphere is CO2, and the absolute miniscule amount of CO2 that is emitted from man, it's like turning up to the aftermath of a tsunami with a toothbrush to help clean up.

I've read a few books based on both sides of the argument, and trust me, I was horrified at what the IPCC are up to. More and more people are beginning to realise this.

Oh...and scientific opinion. Have a look at what the IPCC and associated 'experts' are actually qualified in.

Hard not to buy into the figures when 15 of the hottest years on record have all come in the last 16 years.

Or, closer to home, when Johannesburg is currently floating between being in a heatwave or experiencing "one in a hundred years" floods basically every second week.

kingraf wrote:

Tattie Scones RRN wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Tattie Scones RRN wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Tattie Scones RRN wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Yougov..

18-24............71-29 stay...
25-49............54-46 stay...
50-64............60-40 leave...
65+..............64-36 leave...

Agree with Tattie by all means...I'll stick with the data...

Uneducated poor people maybe less educated....But worth remembering Degrees don't give you common sense..

I work with "Educated" people every day.....Don't like all this patronising cheap-shotting.

Going on in the US at the moment with Trump...

Cheers Truss - by the way, my comment wasn't a statement to be agreed/disagreed with....it was a genuine question.

I'm always a bit sceptical with percentages. There may have been only a few thousand who voted in the 18-24 group, whereas there might have been millions in the 25-49 (which was pretty close to half and half).

Stats look good, but I'm more into real detailed analysis rather than overall figures. I've learnt that from the Global Warming (sorry....Climate Change now that the figures aren't adding up) scam currently sweeping everyone up into hysteria.

Something wrong with your head Navy?

Like it. Not at all Scones old bean. I just despair of those who so easily discount the massive prevailing scientific consensus. Sure, some disagree (there have always been disagreements in science, even without the crackpots), but it's a tiny proportion and allows you to indulge in some confirmation bias perhaps...

What I don't get either, is the idea that it's not simply a good idea, period, to reduce man-made emissions going into our environment.

Fair play.

Although considering 0.04% of the atmosphere is CO2, and the absolute miniscule amount of CO2 that is emitted from man, it's like turning up to the aftermath of a tsunami with a toothbrush to help clean up.

I've read a few books based on both sides of the argument, and trust me, I was horrified at what the IPCC are up to. More and more people are beginning to realise this.

Oh...and scientific opinion. Have a look at what the IPCC and associated 'experts' are actually qualified in.

Hard not to buy into the figures when 15 of the hottest years on record have all come in the last 16 years.

Or, closer to home, when Johannesburg is currently floating between being in a heatwave or experiencing "one in a hundred years" floods basically every second week.

Ok some questions....

1) Hottest where exactly?
2) When did records begin officially? What happened prior to that?
3) Were floods as bad 100 years ago when there was far more natural drainage rather than buildings and roads?

I respect the fact that people listen to the news and form opinions based on the information they have been given. Nothing wrong with that. I just urge people to look a little further into it.

Tattie Scones RRN wrote:Navy - yes, the books cited their sources.

May I recommend reading the following:

An appeal to reason - Nigel Lawson (first book I read about it)
The real global warming disaster - Christopher Booker

There are loads more too.

It's things like the carbon trading scheme - which cost the UK tax payer over £400m (which we had to pay Germany), the hockey stick theory being proved to be bollix, neglecting to use data from 000's of Northern European weather stations because it was 'too cold', the photo of the polar bear on a tiny bit of ice etc. etc. The list goes on and on and on.

I also have a good friend who works for a reputable [sic] windfarm company. He states it's all a con really but they collect millions from subsidies - paid for by us.

All through the ages we've had acid rain, greenhouse effect etc. etc. It started with Global Cooling in the 70's, then Global Warming, and then when the temperatures stopped rising, Climate Change. This recent claim is costing people around the globe billions upon billions so that Al Gore can live in his estate which uses more energy than Kendal.

I did my practitioner course for the Institute of Environmental Management 2 years ago. It covered Acid Rain, and the photo they used was the same one when it was covered in my GCSE's 25 years ago.

Thanks Tattie. You're more into this than I realised, so fair play for that.

Re. your fried at the windfarm company. I don't think his opinion qualifies him to be an expert on changes to global weather (he just works there) and of course they'll take the subsidies.

Acid rain? Interesting one to bring up as I'm not sure anyone gainsays that it was caused by man-made environmental emissions do they?

I simply don't see that there's a global scientific conspiracy run by some cabal somewhere. Scientists aren't like that - if anything, they're always out to steal one another's research and argue the toss about a competitor's theories.
I also come back to what I said before: since when is it a bad idea to reduce, as far as is possible, man-made emissions (of all sorts)? I don't understand the logic here; we only have the one planet with which to gamble. If the global warming ideas are wrong, well ha ha. If they're right and we do nothing, we're all dead. Seems a no-brainer to me.

One other thing. All your books seem to be anti-global warming. Have you read comparable books arguing for it? How does their evidence-base stack up against that expert climatologist, Nigel Lawson, for example?

navyblueshorts wrote:

Tattie Scones RRN wrote:Navy - yes, the books cited their sources.

May I recommend reading the following:

An appeal to reason - Nigel Lawson (first book I read about it)
The real global warming disaster - Christopher Booker

There are loads more too.

It's things like the carbon trading scheme - which cost the UK tax payer over £400m (which we had to pay Germany), the hockey stick theory being proved to be bollix, neglecting to use data from 000's of Northern European weather stations because it was 'too cold', the photo of the polar bear on a tiny bit of ice etc. etc. The list goes on and on and on.

I also have a good friend who works for a reputable [sic] windfarm company. He states it's all a con really but they collect millions from subsidies - paid for by us.

All through the ages we've had acid rain, greenhouse effect etc. etc. It started with Global Cooling in the 70's, then Global Warming, and then when the temperatures stopped rising, Climate Change. This recent claim is costing people around the globe billions upon billions so that Al Gore can live in his estate which uses more energy than Kendal.

I did my practitioner course for the Institute of Environmental Management 2 years ago. It covered Acid Rain, and the photo they used was the same one when it was covered in my GCSE's 25 years ago.

Thanks Tattie. You're more into this than I realised, so fair play for that.

Re. your fried at the windfarm company. I don't think his opinion qualifies him to be an expert on changes to global weather (he just works there) and of course they'll take the subsidies.

Acid rain? Interesting one to bring up as I'm not sure anyone gainsays that it was caused by man-made environmental emissions do they? Yes - it comes from burning fossil fuels.

I simply don't see that there's a global scientific conspiracy run by some cabal somewhere. Scientists aren't like that - if anything, they're always out to steal one another's research and argue the toss about a competitor's theories. Absolutely spot on!
I also come back to what I said before: since when is it a bad idea to reduce, as far as is possible, man-made emissions (of all sorts)? I don't understand the logic here; we only have the one planet with which to gamble. If the global warming ideas are wrong, well ha ha. If they're right and we do nothing, we're all dead. Seems a no-brainer to me. Like I said before - the atmospheric content of CO2 in the atmosphere is 0.04%. I think human contribution to that is less than 0.03%. So reducing 0.03% of 0.04% by 2% = pretty much bugger all. And it's all selective......one service my company provides is the recovery and recycling of SF6 gas. A green house gas which is 22,000 times more harmful to the environment than CO2. It's probably the most potent of greenhouse gases. In fact, the EU are trying to ban it. We are regulated like you would not believe. If even 10g of this gas was emitted by us into atmosphere, we'd probably be fined so heavily, we'd be out of business. However, the MoD are free to spout this same gas from the nose of some aircraft in order to avoid detection by radar. That's ok though.

One other thing. All your books seem to be anti-global warming. Have you read comparable books arguing for it? How does their evidence-base stack up against that expert climatologist, Nigel Lawson, for example?

Cheers Navy. I've made some comments above...

Yes, my pal isn't qualified by any stretch, but it all stems down to emission reduction. Less burning of fossil fuels and an increase in harnessing natural resources will reduce C02 emissions (in addition to NOx and SOx) etc. etc. Hence the billions worth of subsidies and grants which allow windfarms to sprout up everywhere. For the record, windfarms at maximum output (and only when conditions are perfect), only produce a third of the stated generation figure i.e. 900kV will only produce 300kV. This is completely daft....total waste of money. Also, I'd like to state that wave power generation is probably the way to go.....behind nuclear generation of course.

Yes the books above are just recommendations for the argument against. I have read some pro MMGW books....including that tw*t Al Gores' An Inconvenient Truth. People go on about Trump? This guys an even bigger bell end.

Discuss.....

There are some posts already on the Brexit discussion which I'll ask get transferred....

Tattie Scones RRN wrote: Less burning of fossil fuels and an increase in harnessing natural resources will reduce C02 emissions (in addition to NOx and SOx) etc. etc. Hence the billions worth of subsidies and grants which allow windfarms to sprout up everywhere. For the record, windfarms at maximum output (and only when conditions are perfect), only produce a third of the stated generation figure i.e. 900kV will only produce 300kV. This is completely daft....total waste of money. Also, I'd like to state that wave power generation is probably the way to go.....behind nuclear generation of course.

Tattie
A couple of issues with the above - the 'nameplate' capacity on the windfarm (should be in Watts, not volts, but where you've stated 900kV) is what would be output at 100% operation. The 1/3rd is what they put out on average over time. However the situation is even worse, because they vary between 0% and 100% output (in fact in cold and still conditions, windfarms actually are a net user of power as the blades have to be driven round to prevent damage to the bearings and gearbox). As such, there has to be some form of back-up to compensate for (at least most of) the 900MW capacity, and chances are this will be some form of gas-fired station (as these are the easiest to ramp up and down to match demand). Unfortunately, running a gas turbine in this manner actually makes them less efficient than running at 100% all the time, so there is the quite ridiculous situation where in some situations the presence of wind generating capacity can actually lead to an increase in fossil fuel burning and hence CO2 emissions*

* Noting that natural gas is a 'cleaner' fuel than most of the coal available in the UK, so at least SO2 and NOx emissions are not significant.

Wave power has some major engineering obstacles to overcome, mainly because sea water is aggressive in particular to cables and the likes, so the limiting factor is probably longevity of equipment and hence cost effectiveness. It's tech that is a long way from being economically / commercially viable at the moment.

Also note that government grants, particularly in the UK, USA and Canada are far higher for the fossil fuel sector than they are for renewables.

dummy_half wrote:

Tattie Scones RRN wrote: Less burning of fossil fuels and an increase in harnessing natural resources will reduce C02 emissions (in addition to NOx and SOx) etc. etc. Hence the billions worth of subsidies and grants which allow windfarms to sprout up everywhere. For the record, windfarms at maximum output (and only when conditions are perfect), only produce a third of the stated generation figure i.e. 900kV will only produce 300kV. This is completely daft....total waste of money. Also, I'd like to state that wave power generation is probably the way to go.....behind nuclear generation of course.

Tattie
A couple of issues with the above - the 'nameplate' capacity on the windfarm (should be in Watts, not volts, but where you've stated 900kV) is what would be output at 100% operation. The 1/3rd is what they put out on average over time. However the situation is even worse, because they vary between 0% and 100% output (in fact in cold and still conditions, windfarms actually are a net user of power as the blades have to be driven round to prevent damage to the bearings and gearbox). As such, there has to be some form of back-up to compensate for (at least most of) the 900MW capacity, and chances are this will be some form of gas-fired station (as these are the easiest to ramp up and down to match demand). Unfortunately, running a gas turbine in this manner actually makes them less efficient than running at 100% all the time, so there is the quite ridiculous situation where in some situations the presence of wind generating capacity can actually lead to an increase in fossil fuel burning and hence CO2 emissions*

* Noting that natural gas is a 'cleaner' fuel than most of the coal available in the UK, so at least SO2 and NOx emissions are not significant.

Wave power has some major engineering obstacles to overcome, mainly because sea water is aggressive in particular to cables and the likes, so the limiting factor is probably longevity of equipment and hence cost effectiveness. It's tech that is a long way from being economically / commercially viable at the moment.

Yes Dummy you are correct....was trying to make it simple. I deal with transformers hence the voltage reference.

It's interesting you mention the distribution cables under the sea. I was at a conference 2 years ago and was speaking to a guy who measured partial discharge on these very cables (mainly for offshore windfarms). He said that due to the subsidies, contractors were installing cheap/cr@p cables but charging ludicrous amounts of money....they weren't even lasting a year some of them!!

As I say, nuclear is the only way to go.

Tattie Scones RRN wrote:...As I say, nuclear is the only way to go.

Quite. If someone can crack a productive, commercial fusion setup as well, so much the better.

I'm sure it's in the pipeline.

Interesting article in the Guardian last month....

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/nov/22/nasa-earth-donald-trump-eliminate-climate-change-research

Some of it is bollix, however I completely agree with the politicised science part.

Trump's an arse. OK, I get that we can learn stuff from space exploration (see Apollo etc), but to trash world-renowned climate research because it's 'political'? What a p.r.ick.
Of course much of science research is 'political'. That might be because there's obvious national interest in doing science and politicians usually have to instigate research into designated areas of special interest. That's part of their job.
NASA doing climate science was presumably OK (generally) with both Democrats and Republicans. As the article points out, planet Earth is in fact wholly worthy of study by NASA.


Re. fusion, this really needs to work:

http://www.ipp.mpg.de/4073918/07_16

I think it might be more to do with lining the politician's pockets Navy.

Maybe. In what sense? As in politicians move into climate-related consultancies? Or that they get a bung (from whom?) in order to approve an area for research funding?

I would say both.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/08/5-moneyed-environmentalists-who-profit-off-global-warming/

You can't use a renowned far-right website as proof of anything, I'm afraid.

Ok.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/11/03/blood-and-gore-making-a-killing-on-anti-carbon-investment-hype/#6852adc37502

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/climatechange/6496196/Al-Gore-profiting-from-climate-change-agenda.html

http://climatechangedispatch.com/what-is-al-gores-net-worth/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/decision2012/al-gore-has-thrived-as-green-tech-investor/2012/10/10/1dfaa5b0-0b11-11e2-bd1a-b868e65d57eb_story.html?utm_term=.a73d8c0b3083

Just google it.....there'll be plenty of literature around.

I'm confused, is there something wrong with making money from inventing green technology? Should all green tech be NFP?

Using your rather strange standards, fossil fuel production must be one of the biggest conspiracies ever as they receive far more in subsidy and make far more money than anything green.

Pr4wn wrote:I'm confused, is there something wrong with making money from inventing green technology? Should all green tech be NFP?

Using your rather strange standards, fossil fuel production must be one of the biggest conspiracies ever as they receive far more in subsidy and make far more money than anything green.

But it works.

And it doesn't use scaremongering as a tactic.

But it, without reasonable doubt, pollutes our environment, poisons our air, shortens lives, destroys our natural world and takes resources from our planet at a rate at which they cannot be replenished.

Tattie Scones RRN wrote:Ok.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/11/03/blood-and-gore-making-a-killing-on-anti-carbon-investment-hype/#6852adc37502

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/climatechange/6496196/Al-Gore-profiting-from-climate-change-agenda.html

http://climatechangedispatch.com/what-is-al-gores-net-worth/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/decision2012/al-gore-has-thrived-as-green-tech-investor/2012/10/10/1dfaa5b0-0b11-11e2-bd1a-b868e65d57eb_story.html?utm_term=.a73d8c0b3083

Just google it.....there'll be plenty of literature around.

OK. It's one thing for Gore to invest in 'green' tech etc. Several things though:

1) Has he created/driven policy change in his role as a U.S. politician to increase the value of his investment?
2) Has he actually intervened in any of the entities he's invested in to improve their worth and, therefore, his?
3) It's one thing for Gore to promote green tech, but I'm not all sure that's the same as NASA or some other Government-funded entity throwing Gore a bung to create/drive through policy that directly benefits them and their funding. Any evidence of that?

For 1), I'd hardly say that's an issue would you? So Gore invests in 'green' as a result of (maybe) policy shifts; what's to stop anyone else from also doing so?
Any evidence of 2)? I'd be surprised. I'd also be seriously surprised if state-funded entities are giving politicians cash bungs (or similar) in return for policy favours and increased/sustained Government funding.

I'm amazed by the amount of coverage given by "responsible" media to the views of Nigel Lawson, whose credentials to make authoritative pronouncements on the science of global warming must be close to non existent.

The real issue seems to be the mood of the times which is to dismiss expertise as worth less than an uninformed opinion or gut feeling. Essentially Nigel Lawson is in similar position to Aaron Banks, the UKIP donor, who sought to correct Mary Beard about the fall of the Roman Empire. It is not inconceivable that Aaron Banks' knowledge of the Roman Empire is more valid than that of Mary Beard. But imo it is very, very unlikely.

It is also not inconceivable that the huge preponderance of scientists who have made serious study of the issue global warming, and humankind's influence on it, is wrong in their conclusion.  But the chances of Nigel Lawson being better informed in his conclusions on the subject seem very very low.

I'm reminded of a post made by Rowley on the 9/11 conspiracy thread. Essentially he pointed out that someone with a vague knowledge of the subject was well capable of writing a book that could fool most people despite being, well, utterly rubbish. Similarly, someone like Nigel Lawson could well be capable of writing a book explaining why Climate Change is a scam, and the book seem credible to most readers, simply because we don't have the required knowledge to understand it, even if it is complete and utter nonsense.

As Corporal points out, a lot of it comes down to our distrust of experts, fed IMO by our reluctance to admit that we're wrong and/or that someone may know better than us.

He's been dead 15 years but Isaac Asimov nailed this a long time ago.....

Yes...in Democracy, my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge. Correct.

That means that a banker or lawyer or College Professor or Philosopher, or scientist - anyone who doesn't have a clue how to get together a Big Mac meal in a busy McDonalds, doesn't have a notion how to combine a concrete mix on a building site, hasn't an idea how to fix a fishing net with a hole in it whilst being tossed around on a stormy sea, can't boil an egg, use a hoover, tidy up a hotel room, make a cocktail, fix an car exhaust with a hole in it, mind sheep or babies, work their way around a factory warehouse and actually find what they're looking for, etc, etc, etc, ... - it means that those idiots, even though they can't do a million things that others could do in their sleep, still have the right to vote for people who would claim to run a Nation on their behalf.

Who is this TopHat bloke?

So basically.....

Anyone who has a different view to what they're being fed through the mainstream media is either ignorant, thick or both?

Pr4wn wrote:Who is this TopHat bloke?

A door to door salesman. He doesn't really sell anything but he can be in the front door and the back door of your house simultaneously. Welcome back Toppy.

SecretFly wrote:Yes...in Democracy, my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.  Correct.

That means that a banker or lawyer or College Professor or Philosopher, or scientist - anyone who doesn't have a clue how to get together a Big Mac meal in a busy McDonalds, doesn't have a notion how to combine a concrete mix on a building site, hasn't an idea how to fix a fishing net with a hole in it whilst being tossed around on a stormy sea, can't boil an egg, use a hoover, tidy up a hotel room, make a cocktail, fix an car exhaust with a hole in it, mind sheep or babies, work their way around a factory warehouse and actually find what they're looking for, etc, etc, etc, ... - it means that those idiots, even though they can't do a million things that others could do in their sleep, still have the right to vote for people who would claim to run a Nation on their behalf.

Indeed. And that works by each equal person casting their equal vote to elect a chamber of representatives to govern the country and, key phrase from your post, act "on their behalf".

Works beautifully....until a perverse decision is made to hand decision making power back to the average idiot. The point then being, democracy as per above works because the elected persons are cognisant of the limits of their knowledge & expertise and will bring in advice as appropriate in order to make informed decisions.

When decisions (rather than elections) are handed back to the electorate to make, the cancer of anti-intellectualism manifests as people actively rejecting the expertise of those more knowledgeable than them (as if ingorance is prudence) therefore not only is the decision uninformed, information is activey rejected and rebelled against. Kind of like a statistical double negative.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Yes...in Democracy, my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.  Correct.

That means that a banker or lawyer or College Professor or Philosopher, or scientist - anyone who doesn't have a clue how to get together a Big Mac meal in a busy McDonalds, doesn't have a notion how to combine a concrete mix on a building site, hasn't an idea how to fix a fishing net with a hole in it whilst being tossed around on a stormy sea, can't boil an egg, use a hoover, tidy up a hotel room, make a cocktail, fix an car exhaust with a hole in it, mind sheep or babies, work their way around a factory warehouse and actually find what they're looking for, etc, etc, etc, ... - it means that those idiots, even though they can't do a million things that others could do in their sleep, still have the right to vote for people who would claim to run a Nation on their behalf.

Indeed. And that works by each equal person casting their equal vote to elect a chamber of representatives to govern the country and, key phrase from your post, act "on their behalf".

Works beautifully....until a perverse decision is made to hand decision making power back to the average idiot.  The point then being, democracy as per above works because the elected persons are cognisant of the limits of their knowledge & expertise and will bring in advice as appropriate in order to make informed decisions.

On the contrary, Top.  I think you have much too much a purist concept of, and theoretical trust in, what elected persons bring to the table.  Elected persons - because of their powers granted to them through the democratic process - are eminently corruptible.  That might be said to be one of the weaknesses of Democracy but I'd just say it's a weakness in humanity itself.
The proof of that theory is the endless stream of proven corruption itself in high elected office in many nations of the world.  The voting fools might indeed be ignorant of the detail of governance but then I'd put down the very endless detail and more detail - and the plethora of law and double law on top of the detail - to be one of the common designs brought to elected democratic Governments to aid the corruptible nature of politics.  Keep the general public confused and rule on through their apathetic ignorance.

When decisions (rather than elections) are handed back to the electorate to make, the cancer of anti-intellectualism manifests as people actively rejecting the expertise of those more knowledgeable than them (as if ingorance is prudence) therefore not only is the decision uninformed, information is activey rejected and rebelled against.  Kind of like a statistical double negative.

The act of voting in a General Election is no less an exercise in anti-intellectualism than is a Referendum.  Voters are voters.  They don't suddenly become more informed simply because a particular voting day is a General Election rather than a Referendum.  Indeed, to be particular about it, the previous UK General Election was conducted on the very principle of asking the voters did they want a Referendum.  The electorate put in a party that said they'd have a Referendum on Europe if they got in.  So the 'average idiot' voted to be allowed vote on European Membership.  Democracy working beautifully.

Purist and overly theoretical perhaps, but it's a theory I have greater faith in than the intelligence and apitude for national decision making than the 'common man'.

Also, noted re corruptablity, but let's not muddy British waters with Africa-esque allegations of bungs and the like. Or I would counter that that greatest example of corruption in modern Britain was the duping of 17 million people with fake stories such as an apparent £350 million being made available directly to fund our oppressed NHS or that Turkey was on the brink of joining the EU and opening the doors to Islamic terrorism.

More minds were corrupted in the build up to 23 June 2016 than in the modern history of British parliament.


To your final paragraph, I believe you are deliberately confusing the expressly different examples I am forwarding in order to sustain your argument. An electoral vote and a decision-making vote are not the same thing. Regarding GE2015, whilst I'm sure the Tory ploy bought some of the racist UKIP vote, it was a string to the bow of a powerful election victory - it was not the only string. It was the night of the shy Tory.

Shy Tory explanation doesn't wash..

2015 was the night the Lib dems folded and Labour got decimated by the SNP..

2010....Tory 36.1%......................Lab 29%...

2015....Tory 36.9%......................Lab 30.4%..

As Labour increased its vote more than the Tories I guess it was the night of the shy Labour voter too....

The lib dems defended more seats against the Tories....

Labour died in Scotland.....

Or else the Election was as you were..

Regardless it doesn't suggest that a referendum was 'what people voted for' in 2015.

Whoops....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-38513740

Navy, I was just about to post that link.

So all these experts/scientists/academics can't even interpret data correctly for something so cataclysmic??

Whoops indeed.

Isn't that generally how science progresses? New studies, new data, new conclusions etc.

Who'd have thought smoking caused cancer?

Yes when you find something new.

What's happened here is that they've found the original data to be misinterpreted.

"Right, there's 100 people coming to the wedding so we need 40 sandwiches"

If I underestimated a quote for a job, I'd be gone.