One Farmers point of view

[Delaney]

^That's basically an ideologically motivated lie.

Carbon tax credits are effectively a form of money.
The initiation of such on companies as a legal requirement, is a form of taxation on business.

 

[DrPhill]

Carbon tax credits are effectively a form of money.
The initiation of such on companies as a legal requirement, is a form of taxation on business.

Or taxation on pollution, which to me sounds reasonable. If a company makes profit from damaging my environment I would like to see them pay something to remediate the harm..... If your neighbour dumps his rubbish on your land to save himself money would you not expect some kind of compensation?

 

[Delaney]

Or taxation on pollution, which to me sounds reasonable. If a company makes profit from damaging my environment I would like to see them pay something to remediate the harm..... If your neighbour dumps his rubbish on your land to save himself money would you not expect some kind of compensation?

Why stop there?

How far have you driven this week?
What did you have for dinner last night?
How many kw’s does your computer consume?
How big is your television?
How many TV’s do you have?

Let me come round and investigate you!

Please contact HMRC immediately and make a voluntary payment for damaging my environment.

I would then like to know what your ancestors did. Coal miners you say! You’ll need to make historic reparations now too.

Or we could just be sensible.

Carbon tax credits doesn’t stop pollution.
It just charges big companies money to do it.
Like ULEZ didn’t stop pollution going up in London. If you had a 5ltr 4x4 Range Rover, you just paid more to pollute!

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

I dare say they will be saying that In another 70 years. Way too many examples of ‘research’ designed to prove a specific view.

I dare say that you're a little bit correct.

But I also still maintain that the regulators of today, unlike in those past days are independent (past: mostly self-funded internal "research" or alternatively opaquely funded lobby group "research" - both of which have a fundamental inherent interest in self-preservation).

It is a fundamental tenet of today's regulators that they remain independent, and therefore their views are not tied to the interests of the thing that they are regulating.

Add to that the current crop of well known past mistakes - such as the thalidomide quoted - and the current cultural need for reparations - in other words "financial compensation" - this provides the regulator with a fundamental motivation to get things right, because the motivator is still money - but in this case not losing their shirts - such that where things can't be classified to a certain degree of safety, then not to declare them as safe.

The past is a lesson to us all and the thalidomide lesson is not a strong place to start claiming that "regulation doesn't work", if we can clearly see that regulation has taken the lessons from thalidomide and addressed the shortcomings. Both the foreseen risks as well as making some kind of nod toward the unforeseen risks.


Bottom line is that allowing self-regulation, in any measure whatsoever, is actually anti-regulation. Everyone needs to learn this lesson and learn it well. (And heed this well, particularly when somebody mentions markets regulate themselves - take heed of the potent stench of decaying rat and treat this person with extreme prejudice. Yes, I'm still looking at you, Tufton Street, Truss/Kwarteng, and "free market ideologues"/disaster capitalists).
Saying that "regulation doesn't work, because, for instance, thalidomide happened" is not exactly helping to drive standards forwards and instead serves as a motivation for regression back to the aforementioned Tobacco Industry shenanigans.

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

Or taxation on pollution, which to me sounds reasonable. If a company makes profit from damaging my environment I would like to see them pay something to remediate the harm..... If your neighbour dumps his rubbish on your land to save himself money would you not expect some kind of compensation?

I'd expect more than this. I'd expect the restoration of the status quo at neighbours expense AND some compensation of some kind.

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

Like ULEZ didn’t stop pollution going up in London. If you had a 5ltr 4x4 Range Rover, you just paid more to pollute!

So many things to unpack, but I'll just stick with this one.

You imply that there were just as many 5ltr 4x4 Range Rovers in London either with or without ULEZ!

Just stop for a second and analyse what you have said. It is really very shallow, superficial, and dare I say, biased, as if there is an underlying agenda.



Analysis would take account of the following, not just your one-sided observation:

Prior to ULEZ, how many total vehicles. Post ULEZ, how many total vehicles.
Prior to ULEZ, how many electric vehicles. Post ULEZ, how many electric vehicles.
Etc,,,,Etc,,,

I put it to you that there are a high proportion of electric vehicles in the ULEZ for the SOLE reason that it is a ULEZ.

 

[DrPhill]

How far have you driven this week?
What did you have for dinner last night?
How many kw’s does your computer consume?
How big is your television?
How many TV’s do you have?

- < 2 miles (would have walked but there was a storm going on)
- Chilli bean stew (vegetarian)
- 45w
- I don't own any televisions
- None

Edit:
I have not flown in the last 25 years. I own a car that is so light on emissions that I only pay ~25gbp road tax a year. Our house is only heated to ~17 degrees. Most of my mileage in the last year was by public transport or lifts from people already going to my destination. I grow a significant portion of my own vegetables (organically).

How about you?

Edit: I also have solar panels, and a large storage battery. My system is attached to the grid in such a way that Octopus can use it for storing excess electricity at quiet times, and release it at peak times when they need it back. (They pay me for the privilege). I am trying to be a smaller part of the problem, but can only dream of being part of the solution.

 

[artie]

So many things to unpack, but I'll just stick with this one.

You imply that there were just as many 5ltr 4x4 Range Rovers in London either with or without ULEZ!

Just stop for a second and analyse what you have said. It is really very shallow, superficial, and dare I say, biased, as if there is an underlying agenda.

But why is your really very shallow, superficial, and dare I say, biased opinion better than his ?

Analysis would take account of the following, not just your one-sided observation:

Prior to ULEZ, how many total vehicles. Post ULEZ, how many total vehicles.
Prior to ULEZ, how many electric vehicles. Post ULEZ, how many electric vehicles.
Etc,,,,Etc,,,

I put it to you that there are a high proportion of electric vehicles in the ULEZ for the SOLE reason that it is a ULEZ.

Again why is your unsubstantiated claim more worthy than another.

But imo you are missing the point, which is or should be, is the air any cleaner?

 

[John Brown]

But why is your really very shallow, superficial, and dare I say, biased opinion better than his ?

Again why is your unsubstantiated claim more worthy than another.

But imo you are missing the point, which is or should be, is the air any cleaner?

Yes, Ulez has apparently reduced levels of pollution in central, inner and outer London.

 

[Jacob]

Ah yes, the good old argument from authority.

If you mean by "authority" you mean people who have studied and know about a topic then of course you should. It'd be stupid not to. The very definition of stupidity!
OTOH if you mean people who have power, like politicians, then be very dubious. Many of them are complete morons, like Nigel Lawson (prominent climate sceptic) even of they don't have an agenda and malicious intent

Next you'll be saying "Follow the science"

Absolutely! You could think of it as "finding your way", in which case taking the advice of map maker would be sensible.

 

[Jacob]

Carbon tax credits are effectively a form of money.
The initiation of such on companies as a legal requirement, is a form of taxation on business.

Carbon trading is the kiss of death - just another means for crude capitalism to dodge the issue, gamble on the outcome, make money whilst destroying the planet.

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

Either you or I are mistaken.

My definition of an "argument from authority" is taking the word of an "expert" just because they are an expert without considering their reasoning.

Just stating I have a degree in "X" so I know doesn't cut it

In which case it is categorically you who is mistaken.

If I told you I have a BSC(Eng) Degree in Aeronautical Engineering awarded by The University of Glasgow, and that I therefore have a fundamental understanding of aerodynamics, fluid dynamics, fluid pipe flow, thermodynamic heat transfer, etc with experience in performing calculations and analysis in of all of those topics - and you then go on to disagree with my insights into aerodynamics - and saying that you are justified to disagree with my analysis by citing "Argument from Authority", then you would be 100% wrong about "Argument from Authority" to be at work.

If I gave you the same credentials and then gave you my views on spaceflight dynamics, without giving you any credentials on that particular topic, then you would be 100% free to cite "Argument from Authority" for disregarding my material on spaceflight. You wouldn't necessarily be correct to disregard my input, but you'd be free to call "Argument from Authority" as a reason for doing so.

The logical fallacy of "Argument from Authority" hinges solely upon the expert's field of expertise and whether that field of expertise covers the topic of conversation. Not just that they are an actual qualified expert.

It saddens me that people have taken hold of Michael Gove's deliberately disingenuous words that "we've had enough of experts", and it saddens me almost as much as it sickens me that Govey said those words. Idiotic opportunistic anarchists like that have opened the door for people who "don't want X to be true" to argue against the people who can prove without any shadow of a doubt that X is actually true. And with no reasoning other than they don't like the truth. It is childish and immature and lacks any credibility.

Sadly, once a layman has disagreed with an expert in the expert's field of expertise, the layman will most often dig their heels in - even when they have zero credibility - because they just do not want to lose face and to be outed as having zero credibility.

It is utterly unconscionable to me that laymen feel that they have any credibility to argue against the experts in the expert's own field of expertise. Particularly when that field of requires many years of devoted study and examination, versus the layman having browsed the internet - often aiming to find agreeable material - and absolutely avoiding, at all costs, trying to find material which they disagree with. This is the exact opposite of the scientific method. Science SEEKS TO DISPROVE, not goes out of it's way to avoid being disproved. And laymen therefore often cite "Argument from Authority" as a last resort. Often incorrectly.

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

I dare say they will be saying that In another 70 years. Way too many examples of ‘research’ designed to prove a specific view.

That's not what I said. "Regulators" categorically don't seek to prove a specific view - that was the dodgy internally funded research of yesteryear (and the de-facto current pursuit of non-independent "think tanks"...).

Contemporary Independent Regulators of stuff like drug safety don't travel a research path that starts with "prove this is safe". They start with the question "IS THIS SAFE?" and travel the path to "describe the methods this would be unsafe" - and "characterise unsafe usage on the intended system, on associated systems, potential down-stream environmental impacts, and on accidental unintended exposure to other potentially fragile systems".

 

[paulrbarnard]

That's not what I said. "Regulators" categorically don't seek to prove a specific view - that was the dodgy internally funded research of yesteryear (and the de-facto current pursuit of non-independent "think tanks"...).

Contemporary Independent Regulators of stuff like drug safety don't travel a research path that starts with "prove this is safe". They start with the question "IS THIS SAFE?" and travel the path to "describe the methods this would be unsafe" - and "characterise unsafe usage on the intended system, on associated systems, potential down-stream environmental impacts, and on accidental unintended exposure to other potentially fragile systems".

Yeah right…

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

But imo you are missing the point, which is or should be, is the air any cleaner?

I'm getting a bit tired of pointing out the obvious - that these things that you and Del boy are writing are entirely shallow.
Isn't it obvious that what you wrote is shallow and lacking in expanded thinking? I mean, the question you pose is an OK one, but it is shallow and critically incomplete compared to what I was implying.

When I wrote "what it's like now under ULEZ", compared to "what it would be like without ULEZ", I expected a certain penny drop moment if anyone was using any brain power for critical analysis.

Any thoughts yet?

No?

OK, perhaps it is only obvious to me, and impossibly difficult or opaque for others to grasp? Is that true, or are people simply being deliberately obtuse? I don't know, but I do know that there is something missing from your question>

It isn't a case of "what is it like now compared to previously" that matters.

Rather, it is a case of "what is it like now, compared to what it would be like without ULEZ" that really matters.

Please feel free to go and research for yourself the massive uptick in hybrid electric vehicles in the immediate consequence of ULEZ. It was real and it is a thing. It isn't "unsubstantiated" at all.

The question is whether the ULEZ was responsible for the massive uptick in cars such as Honda's Prius, or whether this was entirely inconsequential from ULEZ introduction and a correlation rather than causation.

Isn't it an obvious question, therefore to ask - "OK, so it transpires that the air quality hasn't improved since ULEZ - but what would it have been had ULEZ not been introduced?"

If it turns out that Prius purchase was driven by ULEZ, then it follows that the air quality would have been even worse had ULEZ not been introduced.


This is a classic case of arguing that something isn't perfect, so we therefore shouldn't be happy with the positive improvement that has resulted as a direct consequence. It's absurd.

 

[artie]

In which case it is categorically you who is mistaken.

Nothing like being over confident

If I told you I have a BSC(Eng) Degree in Aeronautical Engineering awarded by The University of Glasgow, and that I therefore have a fundamental understanding of aerodynamics, fluid dynamics, fluid pipe flow, thermodynamic heat transfer, etc with experience in performing calculations and analysis in of all of those topics - and you then go on to disagree with my insights into aerodynamics - and saying that you are justified to disagree with my analysis by citing "Argument from Authority", then you would be 100% wrong about "Argument from Authority" to be at work.

That does not make sense.
If you make claims in a field you have not studied, you have no authority in that field, so it it not a argument from authority, it's called bluffing.

As I said before, if you make a statement about a subject you have studied and have a qualification in and state how you came to that conclusion, because x=(blah/blah) times 4 etc.
That's an argument and you may convince someone.

If you just say your piece and say I know, I have qualification take my word for it.

That is an argument from authority.
Can you not see that.-

All experts don't tell the truth, so they must explain fully to be legitimate.

It saddens me that people have taken hold of Michael Gove's deliberately disingenuous words that "we've had enough of experts", and it saddens me almost as much as it sickens me that Govey said those words. Idiotic opportunistic anarchists like that have opened the door for people who "don't want X to be true" to argue against the people who can prove without any shadow of a doubt that X is actually true. And with no reasoning other than they don't like the truth. It is childish and immature and lacks any credibility.

Not childish at all to ask for the proof, rather tan take your/their word for it.

Sadly, once a layman has disagreed with an expert in the expert's field of expertise, the layman will most often dig their heels in - even when they have zero credibility - because they just do not want to lose face and to be outed as having zero credibility.

It is utterly unconscionable to me that laymen feel that they have any credibility to argue against the experts in the expert's own field of expertise. Particularly when that field of requires many years of devoted study and examination, versus the layman having browsed the internet - often aiming to find agreeable material - and absolutely avoiding, at all costs, trying to find material which they disagree with. This is the exact opposite of the scientific method. Science SEEKS TO DISPROVE, not goes out of it's way to avoid being disproved. And laymen therefore often cite "Argument from Authority" as a last resort. Often incorrectly.

Shouldn't an honorably scientist seek the truth rather that seek to prove/disprove. And be willing to show that proof to all.

 

[artie]

I'm getting a bit tired of pointing out the obvious - that these things that you and Del boy are writing are entirely shallow.
Isn't it obvious that what you wrote is shallow and lacking in expanded thinking? I mean, the question you pose is an OK one, but it is shallow and critically incomplete compared to what I was implying.

When I wrote "what it's like now under ULEZ", compared to "what it would be like without ULEZ", I expected a certain penny drop moment if anyone was using any brain power for critical analysis.

Any thoughts yet?

No?

Yes
It's cocky to say the least for you to attack our mental capacity rather than make a solid point.
Your sad argument of comparing "what it's like now under ULEZ", compared to "what it would be like without ULEZ" which is something we cannot ever know.
But it gives the opportunity to model and estimate something that suits the narrative

OK, perhaps it is only obvious to me, and impossibly difficult or opaque for others to grasp?

Your quite possibly right and you should take a few moments to reflect on that.

Please feel free to go and research for yourself the massive uptick in hybrid electric vehicles in the immediate consequence of ULEZ. It was real and it is a thing. It isn't "unsubstantiated" at all.

I don't doubt it, But you must understand that if it is true, it just shifted the pollution to somewhere else.

The question is whether the ULEZ was responsible for the massive uptick in cars such as Honda's Prius, or whether this was entirely inconsequential from ULEZ introduction and a correlation rather than causation.

To my knowledge Honda doesn't make a prius. Perhaps that's not the only factual error in your Epistol.

Isn't it an obvious question, therefore to ask - "OK, so it transpires that the air quality hasn't improved since ULEZ - but what would it have been had ULEZ not been introduced?"

If it turns out that Prius purchase was driven by ULEZ, then it follows that the air quality would have been even worse had ULEZ not been introduced.


This is a classic case of arguing that something isn't perfect, so we therefore shouldn't be happy with the positive improvement that has resulted as a direct consequence. It's absurd.

Testing has been done which showed air quality is no better in the ulez zone than outside it, but you won;t want to research that.

 

[John Brown]

Testing has been done which showed air quality is no better in the ulez zone than outside it, but you won;t want to research that.

Do you have a link?

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

Nothing like being over confident

Courage of convictions.

That does not make sense.
If you make claims in a field you have not studied, you have no authority in that field, so it it not a argument from authority, it's called bluffing.

Google it, It makes perfect sense. It's using expertise in an apparently closely related field and using your valid expertise in that related field to claim expertise slightly outside your field.

As I said before, if you make a statement about a subject you have studied and have a qualification in and state how you came to that conclusion, because x=(blah/blah) times 4 etc.
That's an argument and you may convince someone.

If you just say your piece and say I know, I have qualification take my word for it.


That is an argument from authority.
Can you not see that.-

No it isn't - see later below - you may not possess the required tools to be able to include yourself in a valid or credible discussion, and at some point you really need to accept that experts hold the answers in their fields of expertise.

All experts don't tell the truth, so they must explain fully to be legitimate.

If we're discussing Fallacious Arguments, then I'm going to drop on you that proposing that you cannot trust any expert because some may be bad actors, then this is a Sweeping Generalisation Fallacy.

Not childish at all to ask for the proof, rather tan take your/their word for it.

I didn't say that. I said that disagreeing with an expert, (indeed, disagreeing with all experts from what you said above) without having the necessary expertise to do so is immature.

If you go through life believing that all experts are to not be trusted, on account that you believe that some of them are being untruthful some of the time, and therefore requiring of them that they provide proof to you at every juncture, that is a bizarre way to approach experts in particular and life in general, imho. ymmv, but I'm suggesting that you might be asking for too much, all of the time.

Shouldn't an honorably scientist seek the truth rather that seek to prove/disprove. And be willing to show that proof to all.

Philosophical discussion - how would you propose to "seek the truth" without "proving AND disproving" the appropriate material questions?
Second sentence - about showing that proof to all - this is what Peer Review research does. Why do you propose that this method is distinctly named as "PEER review", rather than "layman review". Doesn't that title of PEER review back up what I've been saying all along? And doesn't it bring into question whether experts must ALWAYS provide you, as a layman, their workings, as you have been insisting? Peer review has a reasoning behind it - in that it allows those people who possess the required equipment to contribute towards the output of the research endeavour - in whatever that field might be - it is there specifically and purposefully to provide counterargument. It isn't there to gather consensus - it aims to uncover whether the research can be criticised - and to take on board criticisms and go back to square one. Which begs the question about established scientific consensus (see below) - whether a layman always must be provided with proof - and the basis of scientific consensus being above the challenge of "Argument from Authority"



Fallacious Argument:

Several resources exist which describe and explain Argument from Authority or Appeal to Authority Fallacious Arguments;

Excerpts:

" an appeal to the testimony of an authority outside of the authority's special field ..."


"It's important to note that this fallacy should not be used to dismiss the claims of experts, or scientific consensus. Appeals to authority are not valid arguments, but nor is it reasonable to disregard the claims of experts who have a demonstrated depth of knowledge unless one has a similar level of understanding and/or access to empirical evidence."



It is also extremely important to note that an expert will almost always use a technical lexicon within their field that layman do not have the tools or understanding to decipher. Oftentimes the concepts being discussed do not lend themselves to non-technical speak, and putting them into layman's english loses meaning or context.

As a simple example, in discussing GPS satellite orbits, the term sidereal day is required to be used. GPS satellites have a re-visit time of exactly twice per day on their inclined orbit, yet they orbit the earth once in 11hrs58min. A layman might notice that 2 x 11hrs58min is not "exactly 1 day" and argue they have found fault.

Laymen are most often not equipped to discuss within expert jargons and this is the genuine reason that Argument from Authority is not a real claim against an expert within their field of expertise.

Another important point for you to note is that you are not really free to debate my solutions to triple partial differential equations in my calculation of aerodynamic phenomena even if I don't provide my workings, if you have no expertise in solving triple partial differential equations yourself. So when an expert says that X = True, and you want to dispute that, it is not for the expert to instruct you into developing the skills to solve triple partial differential equations. The layman needs to do that for themselves if they wish to dispute or, alternatively, put up and shut up. This is not Argument from Authority Fallacy. And you can't just wave your hand and say "I don't believe you, therefore I'm claiming Argument from Authority as my credible counterargument". That's just deliberately deceitful - and rendering yourself, at all times, just as bad versus on the rare occasion that you encounter an expert who is being a bad actor.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

Carbon trading is the kiss of death - just another means for crude capitalism to dodge the issue, gamble on the outcome, make money whilst destroying the planet.

Many years ago I was involved in an early iteration of a Carbon Trading Scheme. The company, (remaining nameless) was a large consumer of energy (5MW+) and needed back up power supplies in the event of grid failure.

Back up generators installed. They routinely ran for two purposes - operational testing, and on days of high general demand ("triad days") as fixed charges were based on consumption.

The allowances granted under the CTS scheme were based on site capacity. As the generators were used infrequently, a large allowance surplus was accrued which it could then trade. Daft!!

Implementing a very complex scheme inevitably has unintended consequences.

It relies processes to allocate allowances, covers only part of the market (larger players), creates the illusion that markets work, encourages all players to "game" the market. It directly impacts the international competitiveness of UK businesses in an unpredictable way.

Unlike Jacob I have no problem with capitalism, but the goal of reducing carbon consumption could be met far more simply - eg: tax fuel carbon fuels directly rather than via complex trading and allowance schemes.