Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


New Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by snowflux

  1. I simply asked you to justify your opinion by quoting an example or two, which you have failed to do. My opinion is that the majority of the media coverage of the issue is far more dismissive of AGW than the science indicates. Compare, for example: Climate Change: Evidence & Causes from the Royal Society and The game is up for climate change believers from Charles Moore in The Telegraph. I think you'll find that most of the misrepresentation is in articles such as the one I linked to in The Telegraph above. As I said, there has a constant and concerted effort by a section of the mainstream media to discredit the science of AGW in the eyes of the public; it has, unfortunately, been quite successful.
  2. Yes, that's exactly the sort of thing I mean. The report quoted by Lawson in the Telegraph article was commissioned in an effort to improve the processes followed by the IPCC and so is bound to be critical in tone. Lawson, in accordance with his agenda, has of course picked out the most negative comments he can find and added his own interpretation and context. Let me now quote the opening paragraph from the conclusion of the report, and you'll see what I mean: Does that sound like a damning indictment of the IPCC to you? Can't you see what Lawson did there?
  3. You can't find any articles saying anything like the text you quoted because there are very few of them. You were simply making it up. There are, however, plenty of mainstream media articles, mostly in The Telegraph and The Daily Mail, claiming that talk of AGW is nonsense. Just compare the opinion of virtually any scientific body (e.g. UK Royal Society) to what you read in the media, and you come to a very simple conclusion: a large part of the media is party to a conspiracy to discredit the science of AGW in an effort to prevent legislation from being enacted to counter it.
  4. You must be reading some very different mainstream media to me then. Perhaps you can give a link to a mainstream media article indicating that we should "accept these abrupt economic sanctions or accept the imminent demise of the entire human species." Edit: If you really want to understand the debate, though, it's got to be better to refer to the actual science as set out in the IPCC reports rather than trying to follow it through the warped prism of the media.
  5. Exactly these questions are addressed in the second chapter of the last IPCC report. In fact, the scientific debate largely concerns the likely effects, both good and bad, of anthropogenic climate change and the possibility of influencing these effects. Unfortunately, however, the political debate keeps getting hijacked by the loons who simply deny the whole idea of AGW, which is why the public debate rarely gets past square one. The BBC has also been guilty of abetting this by giving a platform to political activists with little understanding of the underlying science, such as Nigel Lawson.
  6. Well, not exactly. Given that I currently receive more in tax credits than I pay in income tax and NI, it's more a case of George Osbourne cutting back the amount he gives me by £70 (£20 tax, £9 NI, £41 tax credits) for every extra £100 I earn. And, on the plus side, for every £100 less that I earn, he gives me £70! Since I work from home, my other (non-business deductible) costs are minimal. Edit: Mind you, then there are non-income dependent taxes such as VAT and council tax. If you add those, then I would be paying more in tax than I receive in tax credits, so I guess your interpretation is more accurate after all. Edit2: But not much more, so I'm still effectively getting government services at a knock-down rate, which becomes less knock-down as my earnings rise.
  7. Encouraging BTL is of course evil, but I don't think that encouraging part-time work is necessarily such a bad thing. Who wants to spend their life slaving away all day? I've just calculated my own effective marginal tax rate - dot on 70%! As I'm self-employed, this is a figure that's well worth bearing in mind in situations that trade time for money.
  8. Some maths and science background. You don't even know what a theorem is. Aside from that, you're come out with the usual conspiracy ******** (scientists say what they're paid to) and logic failures (Greenpeace use planes therefore GW is suspect). D-
  9. Yes, it's ridiculous. The provision of energy costs money, and when the environmental effects of its production are accounted for, it costs even more money. The government should concern itself just with specifying the environmental and contractual obligations for its provision and ensuring a competitive market. It is, or should be, up to the energy companies how they meet those obligations, and receiving money from the taxpayer should not be an option. Energy bills will almost certainly need to rise in the future, and this will inevitably cause hardship for those on lower incomes. However, if the government wishes to mitigate this hardship, it should be through the provision of lower taxes or higher benefits, not through the funding of power companies. The latter will cost more money while failing to provide any incentive to conserve energy. Government micromanagement is not the way to do it.
  10. No need for the experiment. That's pretty much what they do do in Germany, and it works just fine.
  11. Why must that be the aim? Why can't the aim be to have the work done by robots and a few very highly paid experts while the rest of us do as we please? Why must we all keep slaving away when there is no particular need to do so?
  12. Not at all, given that every rotation of a large turbine saves burning about 5 cubic feet of gas. Depending on the price of gas, and the price you put on the environmental effects of burning gas, it can make very good sense to utilise wind power. Edit: As for generators, those who already have generators for other purposes could make some money, but you're not likely to make a profit from running a generator farm specifically for feeding the grid.
  13. It's always been a problem, given that total electricity demand ranges between a minimum of about 20GW on a warm Sunday morning in the summer and as much as 60GW on a cold January afternoon. Even without input from renewable sources, you still need to have a lot of capacity lying idle just to cover those occasional winter peaks. As energy costs rise and the technological means become available, it makes more and more sense to use demand management to flatten the peaks. Increasing input from wind and solar power will require more conventional plant to be idled, and the market will have to be organised to cope with that, but we're not yet at the level where it makes a significant difference.
  14. Have you actually read the article? It's just the Telegraph putting a negative spin on what is, on the face of it, a perfectly rational way of cutting electricity costs by reducing the need for new power generating capacity. As far as domestic consumers are concerned, it simply means that electricity should be a little bit cheaper than it would otherwise be.
  15. In what way has electricity generation "gone to hell". Are you without power?
  16. No, I'm one of those green types who thinks that limited resources, such as land, and environmentally destructive activities, such as burning fossil fuels, should be taxed in order to encourage their sensible use, and that the money raised should be used to reduce or abolish other taxes. The government should not be involved in micromanagement through subsidies or tax breaks; it should simply tax the external negatives and leave the rest to the market.
  17. It's just media shit-stirring. Demand management makes perfect economic sense. Why pay for extra generating capacity that will hardly ever be used, when it would be cheaper to pay large consumers to cut back their consumption at times of peak demand?
  18. The BBC has always taken a subtle anti-EU tone. It just looks pro-EU when contrasted against the rabidly anti-EU tone adoped by most of the rest of the MSM. Like the way sunspots look dark against the solar disk even though they shine almost as brightly.
  19. What makes you think David Woodsmith of Currency News is a lefty loon?
  20. As I remember, Blair was quite pro-EU, at least until the Iraq war. I think he certainly had his eye on a job with the EU, but there was no way that France and Germany would have him after Iraq.
  21. I haven't written a CV in ages. I much prefer working (not very hard) for myself, even if it does require me to make my own sandwiches. At least I choose what time I get up to make them.
  22. One of my brief relationships was dealt a severe blow by a difference in philospohy. As I may have mentioned, I run a small, economic and old but reliable car that does a perfect job of getting me from A to B. The money I save by running as cheap a car as possible allows me to work less hard and spend money on other things to make my life more comfortable, such as a cleaner. This logic was lost on my lady-friend, who owned a large, new Audi that she could barely afford to run. In her eyes, it was stupid not to run the most expensive car you could possibly afford; it just seemed a fact of life to her, as was having to keep the house clean herself. She found me eccentric. We're all different, I guess. Edit: And she only ever drank bottled water. I'm not sure if she thought tap water was undrinkable, or if drinking tap water was simply a sign of low status to her.
  23. We already covered that. If you want to be pedantic: Adults who were bright 10-year-old children in 1980 were somewhat more likely to vote Green or LibDem; adults who were slightly dim 10-year-old children in 1980 were somewhat more likely to vote BNP or UKIP, or not vote at all in 2001. As I mentioned upthread, today's UKIP voters may or may not be brighter than the ones who were voting for them in 2001. Please also note that my argument was against Flat Bear, who was claiming that LibDems and Greens are stupid. I'm perfectly entitled to present arguments to counter his assertion. Also, I see that a UKIP spokeswoman has now admitted as much: Ukip flops in London blaming the capital's 'educated, cultured and young' who live in a different country to everyone else It seems UKIP do indeed have a problem getting many educated people to vote for them.
  24. Save your embarrassment for yourself. The researchers didn't choose to test the children at 10, they simply used data from the IQ tests normally offered at that age for grammar school selection from the 1970 British cohort study. Because the sample size is so large, the results should be quite accurate. Perhaps you'll let it go if I phrase the result more precisely: Adults who were bright 10-year-old children in 1980 are somewhat more likely to vote Green or LibDem; adults who were slightly dim 10-year-old children in 1980 are somewhat more likely to vote BNP or UKIP, or not vote at all.
  25. Well yes, the Telegraph/water combination is the cheaper way of getting a bottle of water at the UK end. I don't normally bother reading the paper at all though since I've normally got something far more interesting to read. Must be a boost to the Telegraph's circulation figures though.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.