The key words in my opinion.
Much too recently we have all witnessed how protection of an agreed narrative is deemed far more important than examination or consideration of differing information or points of view.
Wild fires in BC Canada.
- Thread starter Lefley
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
- Status
The key words in my opinion.
Much too recently we have all witnessed how protection of an agreed narrative is deemed far more important than examination or consideration of differing information or points of view.
So do I - but I believe we should use our own rather than import it.
Jacob
New Luddism. Awake and resist!
The very smart people continually challenging the science are the scientists themselves. This is how science works. They don't need help from nutters on the fringe.
What agenda? What agreed narrative? These are paranoid delusions.
If you asked you would find the the near 100% of scientists who support the general consensus would far rather it was not happening and would be the first to spread the good news.
Why do you listen to the nutters?
Unfortunately thats a bit problematic currently, as I believe the process is - We sell licenses to oil companies, you put in the investment, rigs,drilling, staff etc then what they extract belongs to them ,which they sell on the open market. So even the oil and gas extracted from our own waters we need to go to the open market to buy it back in.
It's why this whole 'energy security' currently selling 100+ more licenses is a complete fabrication of the truth.
For us to keep the oil/gas we would need to put investment in to our own rigs, staff etc etc or pay the drilling companies for probably more than we get were we to sell them a license.
Jacob
New Luddism. Awake and resist!
Where have you seen this?
The whole of science deals with differing opinions and information and always has done. That's what science is all about.
It's called research, the opinions are hypotheses, the information is data which is subject to exhaustive sceptical analysis and constantly under review. Any conclusions are subject to peer review, tested by experiment where possible, or in the case of climate change by the matching of events to forecasts.
Scepticism rules, nothing is taken for granted, there may even be paradigm shifts !
The same process identified the dangers of lead poisoning, pollution and illness, gravity, the movements of the solar system, the greenhouse effect itself, the dangers of asbestos/nicotine/alcohol, landed men on the moon, laws of motion, relativity, the atom bomb, antibiotics and modern medicine....... you name it, an endless list possible.
People of the same tradition using the same methods are identifying the details of climate change, yet you are listening to the nutters instead!
Do you see a paradigm shift imminent in climate science?
Last edited:
RogerS
Established Member
Thank you. But not exactly an unbiased survey given the sponsor.
RogerS
Established Member
Um....you missed this in that article
The polling, conducted by YouGov for Global Witness
As I said, not exactly an unbiased survey.
RogerS
Established Member
Phil P's comment is still valid. Without seeing the actual questions asked all these polls are meaningless.
RogerS
Established Member
I guess the people with the agenda sponsoring them changed?
The New Statesman piece does show the question asked: To what extent, if at all, would you support or oppose the government banning all new oil and gas exploration in the UK?
A pretty clear cut question and hard to see any ambiguity.
Jacob
New Luddism. Awake and resist!
It makes no difference either way.
Public opinion is if interest of course but the obligation of government is to do "the right thing" whatever they judge that to be, even if opposed by public opinion.
The public get their democratic say at the ballot box and/or by being party to nominations.
How well this works is another issue!
Last edited:
RogerS
Established Member
That is correct. But it is a very simplistic question. I suggest that if a few more questions following along the lines of 'Would you still support etc etc if there were job losses....the price of petrol rose ...take your pick....that the response would be different.
artie
Sawdust manufacturer.
How about we use everyone else's until it's all done, then we still have our own?
That seems to be the US method.
Well I'd be fine with that if it also listed all the positives along the lines of " lessening the effect of global waming, making it less likely for refugees to land on our shores because their homelands are no long habitable, cutting back on plastic pollution, stopping your homes being washed away by rising sea levels..." Reasonably, you have to draw the line somewhere on a question or by the time you get to the end of it, there's a danger that people will have forgotten where it started.
Also of course, I'm fairly sure that the majority of people are capable of making the connections for themselves. The question was not nuanced in favour of, or against, it was a simple question.
The U.S. is fracking millions of gallons and supplying others.
China has been doing that for years, sitting on and stockpiling raw material whilst happily consuming everyone elses, but in their favour they do return a lot of it back to us as products.
artie
Sawdust manufacturer.
It kind of blows the mind.
A few years ago plywood was increasing in price more than I would have liked. I bitched to the supplier who informed me that China was buying up all the plywood on the world market, hence the price rises.
I couldn't quite get my head around how China could buy up all the plywood, take it to China, make stuff and then sell the products back to us for half nothing and free postage.
Jacob
New Luddism. Awake and resist!
Probably because it's nonsense
Jacob
New Luddism. Awake and resist!
Well, now you’re advocating a dictatorship, or a full blown communist state. Well I think I can say with absolute confidence, never happen in the UK. Suggest you pack your bags and move to Russia or North Korea!
- Status
