|
|
Post by sigurdur on Feb 15, 2015 18:38:05 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Feb 16, 2015 0:25:06 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Feb 16, 2015 20:29:41 GMT
|
|
zaphod
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 210
|
Post by zaphod on Feb 18, 2015 2:51:31 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Feb 18, 2015 19:20:30 GMT
|
|
zaphod
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 210
|
Post by zaphod on Feb 19, 2015 17:36:36 GMT
Amusing side to this, but an interesting one as well. UKIP is a new political party here which has done very well in terms of support in a short space of time. So they have become a target for any possible fault finding because the established parties and certain segments of the press are scared of them. So this item stems from a gaffe by a candidate who did not say what she meant. What she meant is worth considering: "Ukip candidate Victoria Ayling asks: 'What happens when renewable energy runs out?' " www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ukip-candidate-victoria-ayling-asks-in-meeting-what-happens-when-renewable-energy-runs-out-10057008.htmlShe says that what she meant was what happens when the subsidies for renewal energy run out. A good question, and one that press and politicians are avoiding. |
|
|
|
Post by flearider on Feb 19, 2015 19:12:44 GMT
but in fact her words are true .. how much to replace a wind turbine at sea ??how much to replace a solar panel ??
they all use much more oil than is let on ...
|
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Apr 16, 2020 6:57:37 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by mondeoman on Apr 16, 2020 7:46:54 GMT
Did the UK version of this abject stupidity and dereliction of duty ever get round to finishing their reviews or did corona put an end to it? Ah - last meeting postponed - lets hope forever. www.climateassembly.uk/news/ |
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Apr 16, 2020 21:45:40 GMT
Did the UK version of this abject stupidity and dereliction of duty ever get round to finishing their reviews or did corona put an end to it? Ah - last meeting postponed - lets hope forever. www.climateassembly.uk/news/I see it's not to decide if we should...but how. |
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Apr 17, 2020 0:08:11 GMT
Did the UK version of this abject stupidity and dereliction of duty ever get round to finishing their reviews or did corona put an end to it? Ah - last meeting postponed - lets hope forever. www.climateassembly.uk/news/Leave it to the Celts (or Celto-Franks) to figure out how to turn victory into defeat at a moments notice. Viva La Fr unce |
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jul 16, 2020 10:41:21 GMT
"EU Embroiled In €24 Billion Bogus Climate Accounting Scandal
Brussels has been dragged into a bogus accounting scandal after it was claimed climate change spending had been overblown by at least €24 billion.
The European Court of Auditors has questioned the European Commission’s claims about its climate-change programmes. It was found the European Union’s powerful executive had substantially overestimated the amount it spent on preventing global warming though the use of clever-accounting. Farmers have been handed cash subsidies which have been counted as agriculture-based spending aimed at climate protection by the Commission."www.thegwpf.com/eu-embroiled-in-e25-billion-bogus-climate-accounting-scandal/Otherwise known as fraud
|
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Oct 13, 2020 4:35:41 GMT
Why Study Science Advice?The study of science advice is political – it is about making policymakers accountable for societal outcomes and preventing decline of democratic governance.
by Jessica Weinkle
The other day in class I had the following a common exchange with a graduate student:
Student: We need more science in policymaking because policymakers are not making enough effort to protect the environment and public health.
Me: So, you want policymakers to make different choices then the ones they are making?
Student: Yes. They are not listening to the science. We have tons of evidence of public health problems and environmental degradation but apparently, we need more scientific research because policymakers are not protecting the public health or the environment.
Me: What you are after is political power: the ability to influence policymakers so their decisions represent your values. You have a political problem, a representation problem, not a scientific problem.
My student expresses a widely shared sentiment: there is something wrong with the interaction between science advice and policymakers based on the political outcomes that we observe.
A great many are frustrated with the current role of scientists in policymaking. Whether someone wants scientists to have more influence or less, there is resentment that policymaker decisions do not reflect widely shared values and concerns. There is decline in trust in policymakers and skepticism towards the legitimacy of the way democracy is being exercised (Pew, Gallup).
[PEW Research Image]
The frustration is no mere passing annoyance. It is a growing challenge to the state of political order: the institutions, processes, and people involved in determining who gets what, when and how.
Etc ....
|
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Oct 13, 2020 12:45:03 GMT
Why Study Science Advice?The study of science advice is political – it is about making policymakers accountable for societal outcomes and preventing decline of democratic governance.
by Jessica Weinkle
The other day in class I had the following a common exchange with a graduate student:
Student: We need more science in policymaking because policymakers are not making enough effort to protect the environment and public health.
Me: So, you want policymakers to make different choices then the ones they are making?
Student: Yes. They are not listening to the science. We have tons of evidence of public health problems and environmental degradation but apparently, we need more scientific research because policymakers are not protecting the public health or the environment.
Me: What you are after is political power: the ability to influence policymakers so their decisions represent your values. You have a political problem, a representation problem, not a scientific problem.
My student expresses a widely shared sentiment: there is something wrong with the interaction between science advice and policymakers based on the political outcomes that we observe.
A great many are frustrated with the current role of scientists in policymaking. Whether someone wants scientists to have more influence or less, there is resentment that policymaker decisions do not reflect widely shared values and concerns. There is decline in trust in policymakers and skepticism towards the legitimacy of the way democracy is being exercised (Pew, Gallup).
[PEW Research Image]
The frustration is no mere passing annoyance. It is a growing challenge to the state of political order: the institutions, processes, and people involved in determining who gets what, when and how.
Etc .... It is a question of target variable(s) A scientist tends to have a small closely related set of target variables and will try to convince/persuade/cajole policy makers to modify behavior to meet that set of variables. The Economist has a completely different set of variables and will reduce things to resources, money, net present values and opportunity costs so from the scientists' point of view the economist will appear to be contrarian and illogical. There are obviously more... but it is the job of the 'leader' to take all these varying and sometimes mutually exclusive points of view and decide what the nation's target variable(s) will be. At that stage some of the multiplicity of advisers will throw their toys quite a long way out of their cribs. We can see this behavior with the senior military and John Bolton in the USA where Trump did not take their advice - and they are used to being 'listened to'. But Trump has a completely new set of target variables mostly called 'America First' - what does the end game suggested do for the people in Podunk? These people are normally not considered at all - indeed those inside the beltway may consider that the people in Podunk are unimportant - back to target variables again. Scott Adams has a very good book out called 'Loser Think' which explores just that area - a problem that is intractable thinking like an accountant might be extremely simple thinking like an engineer. Another way of looking at the definition of the end state with a different set of target variables. |
|
... like Australia's national broadcaster's current affairs audiences. 
