Wind saving our bacon again

There's no point in continuing with it because

a) you realise that you're wrong, that you can't explain how the BBC would have been funded under Neils proposals, but you haven't got the guts to admit as much

or

b) you don't understand the issue

after I've taken the trouble to explain it to you.

michael adams

...

Reply to
michael adams
Loading thread data ...

Well there is, because governments appear unable to run things. Nothing wrong in principle with contracting out, either: d'ye think car companies make all their components? No, they contract out and know how to do it, too (except Jaguar around 1980, when they stopped doing their own quality control and allowed the suppliers to do it).

Blame Gordon Brown for the regulation part. Meanwhile, they are being taxed in case you hadn't noticed.

Interesting article in the Times today, based on memoirs of one Roger Mosey, former Today Editor, Controller of R5Live and Head of TV News. He said BBC editors of news, while not party political, were too prone to groupthink. Some editors, f'rinstance, "thought that the correct positioning for a pope would be to be pro women-priests, pro gay-rights, and generally the kind of agreeable liberal who would be at home in a north London CofE parish. The idea that the cardinals might elect a traditional Catholic like Ratzinger came as a bit of a blow."

A bit like all those socialists on social media then, who were just talking to each other and so thought a Labour victory this year as inevitable.

Reply to
Tim Streater

No Tim it was me who should have realised sooner that somebody who actually names his source, for one single quoted wind reading at that, as though the identity of the source made any difference at all, hasn't really got a clue what he's talking about.

You see Tim the calculations have already been done.

Here's the headline Tim because I imagine you're not much of a one for detail - unless of course they're from a TV celebrity such as Andrew Neil

"Why the Best Path to a Low-Carbon Future is Not Wind or Solar Power"

It's all there on the link for you, compiled by Charles Frank of the Brookings Institute

formatting link

Why the Best Path to a Low-Carbon Future is Not Wind or Solar Power Its shows that hydro, if available, a big if, is cheapest followed by nuclear as the cheapest way to a LC future.

Wind power or lack of it is already factored in. The calculations have already been done. So what earthly purpose is served by Andrew Neil quoting a single days wind reading, or more to the point you starting a thread about his doing so ?

What Andrew Neil and yourself should be concerning yourselves about is, why despite all the obvious economic benefits, Germany and Japan are mothballing nuclear capacity.

michael adams

...

Reply to
michael adams

Governments also tend to control what a nationalised company does and what it charges.

Sell it off with non of those constraints and surprise surprise it makes a (bigger) profit. Even more so considering they were all sold at considerable discount.

Thus proving to the single brain cells types on here that private enterprise is always profitable, nationalised, not.

Very interesting that there was never enough cash to invest in state industries properly.

But when banks fail miserably down entirely to their own mismanagement. unlimited funds are available to bail them out.

Reply to
Dave Plowman (News)

You may (apparently) know this. I know this. Plenty of people on this ng know this. But there's plenty more who don't, and I imagine most of them are not on this ng. There's also plenty who ignore this for their own selfish political and commercial reasons - there's money to be made from them thar subsidies, after all.

Therefore, if someone [1] who has access to the broadcast media looks like he may know it too, and is moreover someone who is in a position to press politicians of all flavours on the matter in his own programme on the box, then I view it as positive if said person might be a bit skeptical about all the claims made for wind. Rare and refreshing, I would say.

[1] And I don't care an FF about your pissy and childish views of AN, either.
Reply to
Tim Streater

Oh really ?

So what are these posts about then ?

Even with all that exaggerated doom and despondency, the BBC wouldn't necessarily come to an end as you surmise.

Reply to
michael adams

No it just turns into a divisive shouting match between mistaken proponents of wind power who are never going to back down when hangued by a combetant person like Andrew Neil, and Andrew Neil. It's just TV Same as "Question Time". Its all a performance. The only thing that happen is that a bad TV performance can certainly harm a politicians career. But that's becaue they're bad TV performers, not because their policies are wrong.

There you go again. It seems that I happen to know rather more about Andrew Nei than you do, or ever did. If you did so you wouldn't describe my views as either pissy or childish. But acknowledge that they're based on actual evidence

In so doing, all you're achieving is displaying your own ignorance of the man.

And it is relevant Tim because it was you who introduced Andrew Neil into this discussion. Nobody else.

Unless of course you're fully supportive of him in his neglect of Mordecai Venunu. Basically the man lacks judgement. End of.

It really is as simple as that Tim. Andrew Neil is a divisive figure and is the last person anyone would want as a visible spokesmnan for their cause

Which was my original point which appears to have flown straight over the top of your head.

Anyway that's it.

michael adams

...

Reply to
michael adams

Exactly.

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

Of course I've heard of them. They're called spelling lames because it's lame to do them.

Reply to
Tough Guy no. 1265

I seem to have this twice.

We know why they're mothballing them. Japan lost a plant to a tsunami that killed thousand of people, of which were killed by the resulting meltdown.

Germany has obviously decided there's a risk of a tsunami in the Schwarzwald and they are shutting theirs down too. And thus going over to brown coal. So the fear of nuclear power is wrecking the planet.

And that number I left out? It's zero.

Andy

Reply to
Vir Campestris

How odd that they appear to be able to run all of the roads, cops, legal system, schools, military, universities, NHS, BBC etc quite adequately.

Nothing

Of course nothing like that ever happens with newspapers or non government media, eh ?

Some editors, f'rinstance, "thought that the correct

Of course nothing like that ever happens with newspapers or non government media, eh ?

And all those UKIPers who were convinced that UKIP would get lots of MPs elected and in fact they halved the number of MPs they had and couldn?t even get Farage elected and had him pretend to quit and pretend to be dragged back kicking and screaming into UKIP again against his will. A Japanese would at least have had the decency to disembowel himself.

Reply to
John Chance

There's a quite well known saying in the news media - "if it scares it airs". It seems the public much prefer watching or reading scare stories about spectacular risks with a very low probability - the threat of a terrorist attack or a nuclear meltdown, than they do about everyday boring risks with a much higher probability such as heart attacks or clinical obesity. And so they greatly exaggerate the risk of the former in their mind, with the encouragement of the news media, while playing down or even ignoring the latter entirely

michael adams

...

Reply to
michael adams

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.