MarkSp;262225 wrote:"After this winter and the ludicrous cost of gas, caused by government incompetence and their climate catastrophe religion"
So, nothing to do with Russia, Ukraine or energy traders?
Nothing to do with guzzling cheap energy and becoming dependent on Putin to support our lifestyles
Nothing to do with allowing UK onshore gas storage to be sold off for housing
Nothing to do with HMG refusing to fund the Rough gas Storage facility
Nothing to do with allowing any wide boy to become an energy supplier?
Most of what you've listed is a result of government incompetence and their climate catastrophe religion.
We have centuries and centuries worth of coal and gas here in the UK, and yet there is resistance to exploiting those and dependence on expensive, imported equivalents - which has a worse environmental impact. It is stupidity piled on top of stupidity. We have power stations that are mothballed or have been blown up, billions wasted on junk renewables, which at times only provide 1% of our energy needs and will need to be half landfilled in about 20 years' time, and on the back of that, dependence on gas as a backup (imported, of course).
There needn't have ever been any lack of gas storage, or dependence on Russian gas, these were choices. It is the job of competent adminsitrators to ensure that we have a secure and affordable supply of energy to meet our needs.
The shrewd and clever engineers who govern China and other countries understand this; the thick-as-pig-shit dreamers, PPE grads and lawyers who run this country do not.
I don't know where the idea comes from that we have ever been "guzzling cheap energy". 65% of the cost of petrol at the pump is tax and we've been getting ripped off for years.
Quote:
yes there are extreme views and a lot of tree huggers out there
The cost of producing gas didn't change that much, most is supplied on fixed supply deals. The price of gas was traded to ridiculous levels and then back down again and the energy traders have made remarkable profits - isn't that how the free market is supposed to work?
It would be good to agree the factual data, define the problem statement and after that apply the political/ideological filters to the solutions
is the sea level rising?
what impact could that have nationally, regionally and globally? that will deliver a range of results so what is the most likely range?
those questions aren't overtly political they are scientific
Whether you are descartes, proudhon, trotsky or Goldmans, an inch is an inch
Applying causality within the problem statement will usually result in the wrong policy being adopted and potential solutions being ignored as they don't fit the politics.
The extreme views aren't just held by tree hugging wasters, they are the mainstream government and media narrative.
There is no sound scientific basis for claiming that there is a climate emergency, never mind one that we are contributing to or can change. There is no scientific consensus for any of this - the "consensus" idea is itself based on a pack of lies. You would understand this if you were sufficiently knowledgeable and educated on the subject. Not meaning to be rude saying that, but it's how it is. To those of us who understand this subject, what is happening is deeply infuriating.
The so called climate science IS very highly politicised, thanks to the antics of the UN and other actors. When was the last time somebody was interviewed on TV who was allowed to offer a contrary view? All government funding and media coverage favours one specific narrative - which is that there is an emergency and we must all panic. It is the environmental version of what they did with covid, but has been going on for a lot longer, and is perhaps less obvious for that reason.
Modelled fantasies masquerading as science; alarmist narratives that scare people; stupid, panic driven policy responses; squander public money and waste everybody's time.
All I can recommend to people is to think for themselves, try to think in a scientific way, and apply common sense.
When the moron in the news studio describes some weather event as being a result of climate change and, following their narrative, is a result of human activity, ask yourself: would this event have happened anyway and, how could this be proven either way? When they show a house falling off a cliff as a result of coastal erosion and blame this on the climate emergency, ask yourself: did coastal erosion in certain areas happen before the industrial revolution? Also, is the opposite of coastal erosion happening in other parts of the country, if so, why? When they show that ice is melting in one hemisphere, ask why they don't talk about how it is increasing in the other hemisphere?
How is the basic data about climate change gathered? Where are the thermometers, how good is the coverage, how long has truly reliable data been available for? (clue: only those who've studied geology in any detail are likely to understand the important long term trends).