O/T:- ⚠️Impressed with the leadership [The UK Party Politics Thread]

[Magpies1959]

UTM, I am not sure how you can know how concerned GB News are with the Royal Family, if you are not sure if they do have opposing views to the BBC etc.

[upthemaggies]

I smell projection. Or did the Chinese make you say it?

You're projecting "several thousand years" into the future and worrying about seeing the utopia you've been promised being cancelled by bad weather. Why not bang one out over your imaginary all-inclusive, diverse and fully vaccinated rainbow civilisation of 9023AD erecting a giant statue honouring your great sacrifice to make their lives possible whilst you're at it.

[upthemaggies]

UTM, I am not sure how you can know how concerned GB News are with the Royal Family, if you are not sure if they do have opposing views to the BBC etc.

I'm going by the website, I have them all bookmarked including the BBC and Guardian. Every time I look at GB News website, which is not every day admittedly, they seem to have something to do with Prince Harry at or near the top of the page. I did hear somebody say the other day though that whenever they put a video up about the royal family, the views go through the roof, so can't really blame them for giving people what they want. The complete opposite of the BBC who are now haemorrhaging viewers and listeners for trying to force feed the nation with its' BS.

[Mapperleypie]

Which eminent scientists, who have any sort of qualifications on the matter, think that global warming is in some way not contributed to with the burning of fossil fuels?

Please list them.

[Mapperleypie]

To BFP and Mapperley Pie, I personally don't know any 'Corbynistas' or 'Corbyn Lads', whatever they are. Apart from 'Boris' or Trump supporters, I don't know anyone dumb enough to tie their beliefs to any one particular person.

But with labelling like that, of socialists I guess, keep a look out for openings at GB News, or have a think about not making divisive slurs like that, if that direction doesn't appeal.

The socialist element of the Labour party are massively important & absolutely crucial to the movment as a whole.

If you have not noticed the people that are so tied to Corbyn that they are unhappy with the Labour party having a massive lead in the polls I suggest that you look harder. The Labour party are a broad church but there is certainly an element that are so tied to Corbyn in the same way that the Tories are tied to Johnson and can't see past that.

My personal view is that Corbyn was right in so many things but was wholly unelectable (twice). I want the Labour party to win power so we can help everyone in society and not just the few. This may mean that the party appeal to some centrist ideas for a while to win an election and do just that.

Something has to give and Labour cannot be seen as a left-wing protest vote. The Tories have lurched so far to the right that Labour need to hold a centre-left ground before the election to appeal to floating voters. After this if I do not see a decent shift I will be massively critical of Starmer et al. At the present moment in time the Tories need removing, they are not working on behalf of anyone but themselves and their rich donors.

[upthemaggies]

Which eminent scientists, who have any sort of qualifications on the matter, think that global warming is in some way not contributed to with the burning of fossil fuels?

"Some way" and "contributed" are very vague terms which aren't the real issue anyway. We are where we're at. Will doing anything about it make a difference? Will it make things worse? What are the trade offs and would it be worth it? How many people does it save, you could drive millions into greater poverty and death by taking climate action, why does your kids inheriting the Earth matter more than theirs does? When we talk about the environment we're talking about the entire planet, it's relationship with the sun, the solar system and the whole damned show. You're making a grand doomsday prediction about an extremely complex system when we can't even predict the weather accurately beyond 5 days.

[Jampie]

Will doing anything about it make a difference?

Yes

Will it make things worse?

No

What are the trade offs and would it be worth it?

The tradeoffs are we have to stop using fossil fuels. Most people will end up better off because natural energy sources are cheaper, electric cars are cheaper to run etc etc.

Some corporations will make less profit.

Yes it's worth it.

How many people does it save, you could drive millions into greater poverty and death by taking climate action, why does your kids inheriting the Earth matter more than theirs does?

Millions are being lifted from poverty every year, moving off fossil fuels will ensure this continues indefinitely. Or until we run out of people in poverty.

So your question is a false dichotomy.


Failing to do so risks catastrophic climate change that could lead to the entire human race returning to poverty. The survivors anyhow.

When we talk about the environment we're talking about the entire planet, it's relationship with the sun, the solar system and the whole damned show. You're making a grand doomsday prediction about an extremely complex system when we can't even predict the weather accurately beyond 5 days.

He isn't making a prediction, scientists have.

Climate is literally weather over time, and while predicting whether it will rain in Nottingham next Thursday is very difficult because that's one datapoint and could easily vary, predicting that the average temperature globally is going up by another degree in the next couple of decades is quite achievable and has been done. It's a matter of modelling the energy in vs. energy out of the system. In the last 50 years scientists have gotten quite good with these models.

[upthemaggies]

Yes




No



The tradeoffs are we have to stop using fossil fuels. Most people will end up better off because natural energy sources are cheaper, electric cars are cheaper to run etc etc.

Some corporations will make less profit.

Yes it's worth it.



Millions are being lifted from poverty every year, moving off fossil fuels will ensure this continues indefinitely. Or until we run out of people in poverty.

So your question is a false dichotomy.


Failing to do so risks catastrophic climate change that could lead to the entire human race returning to poverty. The survivors anyhow.




He isn't making a prediction, scientists have.

Climate is literally weather over time, and while predicting whether it will rain in Nottingham next Thursday is very difficult because that's one datapoint and could easily vary, predicting that the average temperature globally is going up by another degree in the next couple of decades is quite achievable and has been done. It's a matter of modelling the energy in vs. energy out of the system. In the last 50 years scientists have gotten quite good with these models.

As usual you're speaking with absolute certainty of a chaotic universe, as anybody indoctrinated by a cult will do. You have faith in "the science" and you will support more and more government interference and control of people's lives in order to achieve your insane objective, the subjugation of nature, the environment, human genes, you name it. This is fascism on stilts.

[the_anticlough]

The socialist element of the Labour party are massively important & absolutely crucial to the movment as a whole.

If you have not noticed the people that are so tied to Corbyn that they are unhappy with the Labour party having a massive lead in the polls I suggest that you look harder. The Labour party are a broad church but there is certainly an element that are so tied to Corbyn in the same way that the Tories are tied to Johnson and can't see past that.

My personal view is that Corbyn was right in so many things but was wholly unelectable (twice). I want the Labour party to win power so we can help everyone in society and not just the few. This may mean that the party appeal to some centrist ideas for a while to win an election and do just that.

Something has to give and Labour cannot be seen as a left-wing protest vote. The Tories have lurched so far to the right that Labour need to hold a centre-left ground before the election to appeal to floating voters. After this if I do not see a decent shift I will be massively critical of Starmer et al. At the present moment in time the Tories need removing, they are not working on behalf of anyone but themselves and their rich donors.

Good post. It's a strange situation though when imagining or anticipating being 'massively critical' at a certain point in the future.
I wonder if this is just one hypothetical or more of a gut feeling or considered projection.

Apart from all of that, we can be sure that the Tories will be removed - they even want themselves removed!
All they're set up to do is scheme and plunder, they couldn't actually govern to save their lives. Even they realise this all gets a bit too conspicuous after 15 years. It's like a compulsive criminal of some kind handing themselves in to the police for their own good. But they will fully expect to be back in situ before the decade's out. And history suggests that's likely to happen.

[PedroTheFisherman66]

Providing energy is more or less a monopoly! Dont be fooled that you will get cheaper energy. Once everything is in place for renewables dont think for one minute it will remain a cheaper option. The costs will spike to cover inflated dividends for its shareholders and off course R & D costs. I'm sure their will be a few more very valid reasons spouted out by the providers like the wind is very gusty or that the waves are breakers...!

[Magpies1959]

Surely it is only those nasty oil people that are there only to make billions. These wind and solar chaps are anti profit and just want to provide cheap clean energy for the poorest in society, while keeping the earth's thermostat at the optimum setting for all life on earth.

[Newish Pie]

As usual you're speaking with absolute certainty of a chaotic universe, as anybody indoctrinated by a cult will do. You have faith in "the science" and you will support more and more government interference and control of people's lives in order to achieve your insane objective, the subjugation of nature, the environment, human genes, you name it. This is fascism on stilts.

Right, let's try and unpick some of this. Not in the spirit of mocking or patronising, but in the spirit of trying to understand the thought process here and perhaps provide some reassurance.

First, let's talk about science and certainty and the nature of the universe. Can we be absolutely certain that the climate is changing in ways that are (a) going to be catastrophic for human civilisation; and (b) that human activity is causing this. I'd say no. Not if we're asking for absolute certainty. Because the number of things we can be absolutely certain about is very low.

When philosopher Rene Descartes said "I think, therefore I am", what he meant is that he was absolutely certain of his own existence as a "thinking thing". Someone... some thing.... was thinking, and that thinking thing was him. Of that he was absolutely certain. He argued that he couldn't be certain of anything else, because he couldn't rule out that he might be dreaming (am I a man dreaming of being a butterfly, or a butterfly dreaming of a man?), or that there might be an evil demon tricking him. Or, in modern terms, he might be living in the matrix or a computer simulation.

If I'm not absolutely certain that I'm not living in the Matrix or a computer simulation, I'm not absolutely certain about anything else much, but there must be an "I".

Point is, "absolute certainty" is the wrong bar. The wrong measure. If we want "absolute certainty", we're going to be disappointed. If we want "absolute certainty" before acting, we'll never act on anything.

The science on climate change does not reach the bar on absolute certainty, because little or nothing does. But it comfortably clears the bar on settled science. It's the consensus among experts, and has been for a long time now.

Here's why it's not a cult. It's because it's not "the science" in the sense of any particular set of conclusions that we ought to have faith in, it's "science" as in "the scientific method"... the way we reach conclusions and consensus. It's not a cult because when the evidence changes, the conclusions change. When a new model or theory emerges that better fits observations, it gradually takes over. The scientific method is the reason why we're not still living in mud huts. Perhaps we wouldn't even have made it to mud huts. Everything we enjoy about modern life is the result of the scientific method, and then some smart engineering, and then social arrangements (including capitalism).

I'm not a scientist, but I work in a closely adjacent role. Science and scientists aren't perfect... it is a human institution full of humans who are prone to all the same weaknesses and prejudices and blind spots that everyone else is. There are a lot of problems and weaknesses that I won't go into now.

But when the people and methods who brought you the fundamental insights that put humans on the moon and the mobile phone in your pocket are also telling you that there's a major climate crisis, I'd say it's time to believe them. It's settled science now. The consensus is clear. I can't rule out dramatic new evidence emerging (and god I hope it does, never have I hoped more to be wrong), but we could say that same about evolution or gravity.

The universe both is and isn't chaotic. On a quantum level, it's weird as all holy folk, and anyone who thinks they understand it, doesn't. But on other levels, it acts in known, predictable ways, and we have good theories that give us predictions that we can use to inform technologies. The more complex things get, the more unknowns and variables, the harder it is to predict. But we can and do make successful predictions and rely upon them.

On to "government interference". How we respond to climate change, who has to make what sacrifices, how the adaptation burden is shared, are all key political questions that are open for debate and discussion. There's concern about how we do it fairly, both within individual countries and internationally.

We need an open, honest discussion about what this looks like. But we can't have one while people are denying that there's a problem. Big Oil used the same tactics as Big Tobacco, and delayed and denied and obfuscated and spread doubt. They're still at it. It's time to stop falling for it.

As for the rest... more and more government control.... "subjugation of nature, environment, human genes... fascism"... genuinely no idea what you're referring to here. There's no fait accompli, no big conspiracy to bring in all these things, whatever they are.

What there is.... Big Oil, shadowy far right think tanks using the Big Tobacco playbook to try to sow uncertainty, doubt, paranoia, confusion to delay action on climate change that might hurt their profits. Why they're doing this I don't know... do they genuinely believe that action on climate change is worse than climate change (for them and their kind), or are they just trying to keep their party going as long as possible, or at least for their lifetimes? Or are they so ideologically blinded that when reality contradicts their ideological commitments, they choose the latter?

[upthemaggies]

I'm not a scientist, but I work in a closely adjacent role. Science and scientists aren't perfect... it is a human institution full of humans who are prone to all the same weaknesses and prejudices and blind spots that everyone else is. There are a lot of problems and weaknesses that I won't go into now.

Corruption. The threat of losing funding or credibility if they don't come up with the results their pay masters want to hear, for example.

You make a lot of fair points. I feel quite zen about it in the sense that I'm happy to leave it to the hands of nature and the Earth to take care of itself. If we die out, we die out. Natural selection has no interest in avoiding suffering and nobody thinks of an as yet unevolved species that may crawl out the sea in a few million years time and make a far better job of things if we're all out of the way.

[Jampie]

As usual you're speaking with absolute certainty of a chaotic universe, as anybody indoctrinated by a cult will do. You have faith in "the science" and you will support more and more government interference and control of people's lives in order to achieve your insane objective, the subjugation of nature, the environment, human genes, you name it. This is fascism on stilts.

You read my message on presumably a liquid crystal full colour high resolution display, are using a nanoprocessor device with several gigabytes of random access memory in it to reply, your reply is being sent to me over a global network of lasers shooting down glass fibers to the other side of the planet, having been stored in a database system that is several generations old and took decades to refine to where it is today.

And you mock me for having "faith" in science. Ha!

I don't have "faith" in science. Or anything. I look at evidence, and the evidence for humans causing climate change is very convincing. The evidence for global warming being bad is also quite convincing.

What are you talking about with government interference in people's lives? Where am I advocating for that? You sound completely paranoid and deluded to me.

[Newish Pie]

Corruption. The threat of losing funding or credibility if they don't come up with the results their pay masters want to hear, for example.

You make a lot of fair points. I feel quite zen about it in the sense that I'm happy to leave it to the hands of nature and the Earth to take care of itself. If we die out, we die out. Natural selection has no interest in avoiding suffering and nobody thinks of an as yet unevolved species that may crawl out the sea in a few million years time and make a far better job of things if we're all out of the way.

Well, that's useful in that it makes it pretty clear where we disagree. I'd rather we didn't die out as a species, and I'd rather we avoided the untold amount of suffering that would accompany our demise. For all our faults and foibles, I kinda like and value people as a whole. Yes, we've made a mess of the planet, but we've done some cool stuff too, and we did just manage to avoid nuking ourselves into oblivion, so there's that. Unfortunately, we've done some much meddling and damage, that the Earth can't take of itself in the sense of remaining the kind of place that will support the kind of life we want to live.

Pleased to say that your worry about corruption in science is unfounded, at least in terms of the way you've put it. Research funding is literally my job. There just aren't hidden "paymasters" who demand certain results... it just doesn't work like that. There's a complex ecosystem of research funders - domestic, European (e.g. Horizon, in the news recently), and worldwide. You've got research councils which give out public money, charities, quasi-charities, foundations, trusts, and so on. There's also industry funding and co-funding.

Funders don't micromanage the science. They'll want reports on the budget and on progress, but there's no shadowy figure on the phone to researchers telling them what they must or mustn't find, or else. I work with researchers... they're frighteningly clever people. And I don't want to generalise, but as a rule they prize their academic freedom highly, and won't stand for interference. Their toleration for administration/bureaucracy in general is pretty low, because most of them don't understand it. Getting researchers to do anything is like herding cats.... not a chance that anyone in UKRI (for example) tells them what their results ought to be. Not a chance.

There are worries in science that too much funding gets spent on safe projects and not enough on innovative or original ideas. That funding decisions - made by researchers - can be prone to groupthink and conservativism the same way as any human decision-making process. But then, there are funders who specialise in innovative, high-risk-high-reward stuff, or special schemes for those ideas. Some funders are experimenting with randomisation in funding allocation.