Wild fires in BC Canada.

[NickDReed]

and if the challenge is examined

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.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

I accept that we need a certain amount of petrochemicals to make "stuff", but I also believe that need will diminish rapidly as we look for alternatives and our ability to recycle improves as we head for a circular use system.

So do I - but I believe we should use our own rather than import it.

 

[Jacob]

...

My point, and position, is that when very smart people challenge the general consensus

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.

which is guided by people with an agenda, I listen.

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?

 

[TRITON]

but I believe we should use our own rather than import it.

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]

The key words in my opinion.

Much too recently we have all witnessed how protection of an agreed narrative is deemed far more important

Where have you seen this?

than examination or consideration of differing information or points of view.

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?

 

[RogerS]

https://www.globalwitness.org/en/pr...''The public are clear,,not more oil and gas.

Thank you. But not exactly an unbiased survey given the sponsor.

 

[RogerS]

Global witness didn't do the survey - they were quoting a survey done by yougov.

You are speaking to me now, even if it is through the medium of the internet and I have stated how opposed I am to new oilfields, so that's that argument shot down in flames!

Um....you missed this in that article

The polling, conducted by YouGov for Global Witness

As I said, not exactly an unbiased survey.

 

[RogerS]

Then try this one:
https://www.newstatesman.com/spotli...g-britons-back-end-to-oil-and-gas-exploration

Phil P's comment is still valid. Without seeing the actual questions asked all these polls are meaningless.

 

[RogerS]

Two thirds of the way through the book and climate change hasn't been mentioned once. Their priorities obviously changed.

I guess the people with the agenda sponsoring them changed?

 

[Cobbs]

Phil P's comment is still valid. Without seeing the actual questions asked all these polls are meaningless.

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]

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.

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!

 

[RogerS]

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.

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]

So do I - but I believe we should use our own rather than import it.

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.

 

[Cobbs]

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.

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.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

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.

The U.S. is fracking millions of gallons and supplying others.

 

[Spectric]

That seems to be the US method.

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]

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.

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]

.....

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.

Probably because it's nonsense

 

[Jacob]

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ilisation-climate-scientist-prof-michael-mann

 

[deema]

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.

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!