Everybody knows that common knowledge is always wrong

[unbeliever]

Is this a fact or an opinion?

 

"There is a vast amount of spin going on in what is the most important debate of the age and as a result we're making stupid decisions for political reasons."

 

Oh dear.

You think that if you can find a single imperfection in my OP, that makes me wrong about everything.

I think you'll have to try harder.

 

It is a fact that the scientific certainty about the need to switch to CO2 free energy by 2050 has been greatly exaggerated. You've been lead to believe that there is a 97% consensus amongst experts that this is the case. There isn't. That's clearly spin.

Because of its intermittency, the true cost of alternative energy is far higher that you've been lead to believe (also spin) and therefore using it anyway is extremely stupid.

 

Opinion amongst climate change experts as to the rate of global warming varies by a factor of 3. Nuclear is a far more sensible technology to use for CO2 free energy. Using alternative energy to provide our electricity is a very stupid thing because when you include storage and/or backup, it's extremely expensive and can actually lead to more CO2 production. It's being done because it's more popular and it's more popular because of the spin.

[SnailyBoy]

Oh dear.

You think that if you can find a single imperfection in my OP, that makes me wrong about everything.

I think you'll have to try harder.

 

It is a fact that the scientific certainty about the need to switch to CO2 free energy by 2050 has been greatly exaggerated. You've been lead to believe that there is a 97% consensus amongst experts that this is the case. There isn't. That's clearly spin.

Because of its intermittency, the true cost of alternative energy is far higher that you've been lead to believe (also spin) and therefore using it anyway is extremely stupid.

 

Opinion amongst climate change experts as to the rate of global warming varies by a factor of 3. Nuclear is a far more sensible technology to use for CO2 free energy. Using alternative energy to provide our electricity is a very stupid thing because when you include storage and/or backup, it's extremely expensive and can actually lead to more CO2 production. It's being done because it's more popular and it's more popular because of the spin.

 

Not at all, I'm going through the 'facts' 1 by 1.

 

"Your energy bills will rise and rise until you tell your government to use either fossil or nuclear to provide you with energy and no amount of tinkering with the organisation of how hyper-expensive green energy is organised is going to make a noticeable difference."

 

Is that an opinion or a fact?

[unbeliever]

Not at all, I'm going through the 'facts' 1 by 1.

 

So that's an opinion rather than a fact.

 

Is "Your energy bills will rise and rise until you tell your government to use either fossil or nuclear to provide you with energy and no amount of tinkering with the organisation of how hyper-expensive green energy is organised is going to make a noticeable difference."

 

Is that an opinion or a fact?

 

We're currently getting about 15% of our energy from alternative. That's why energy is expensive. We have a target of 20% by 2020 set by the EU. That will be more expensive. We also have a target of switching off domestic gas and going completely to a mixture of nuclear and alternative by 2050 with double the current capacity so that it can take over home heating as well. That will be astronomically expensive. If we allow the government to continue to follow the course it has quite openly stated that it will, your energy will rise and rise in cost until at least 2050.

 

You're free to verify or disprove everything I've said. It doesn't take long.

Edited August 21, 2015 by unbeliever

[SnailyBoy]

We're currently getting about 15% of our energy from alternative. That's why energy is expensive. We have a target of 20% by 2020 set by the EU. That will be more expensive. We also have a target of switching off domestic gas and going completely to a mixture of nuclear and alternative by 2050 with double the current capacity so that it can take over home heating as well. That will be astronomically expensive. If we allow the government to continue to follow the course it has quite openly stated that it will, your energy will rise and rise in cost until at least 2050.

 

You're free to verify or disprove everything I've said. It doesn't take long.

 

Is it an opinion or a fact?

[unbeliever]

Is it an opinion or a fact?

 

Everything I just said is verifiably true.

It's therefore clearly a fact.

 

Perhaps you're too busy to verify or disprove these things yourself?

If so, perhaps you could sum up any questions you have in a single post.

[tzijlstra]

 

1. Energy is expensive because of corporate greed.

This is outright nonsense. The energy companies make a few percent profit on the gas and electricity they supply. Maybe that's too much, but it can't account for the fact that energy costs twice as much in the UK as it does in the US.

Your energy is expensive because of wind turbines, solar panels and the absence of fracking. This is a fact.

The scientific consensus that you've been told about, that all this is necessary to save the world doesn't exist. There is a consensus that man made global warming is real, but no consensus about how fast it is. There is a vast amount of spin going on in what is the most important debate of the age and as a result we're making stupid decisions for political reasons.

Your energy bills will rise and rise until you tell your government to use either fossil or nuclear to provide you with energy and no amount of tinkering with the organisation of how hyper-expensive green energy is organised is going to make a noticeable difference.

Oh and Fracking is about as dangerous as putting on a hat, and there is enough fossil fuel scattered around the earth to power mankind for generations.

 

Energy is expensive because of the cost to distribute, produce and store it. Facts, all the rest you write down here is mainly (repetitive) nonsense.

 

2. Greedy bankers in the USA caused the 2008 crash.

The government was running a record deficit in 2006 during a long period of strong growth. Even Keynes, the father of socialist economics, would have called you a muppet for even considering such a thing.

The UK banks were extremely badly regulated by the new regulator, the FSA which Gordon Brown created to take over much of the regulatory work of the BoE. They did an terrible job and allowed several UK banks to lend lots of money on risky things with nowhere near enough reserve capital.

Then when it started to go wrong, they went almost overnight to extremely tight regulation in these areas which was impossible for the banks to implement without destroying healthy businesses. When that made it worse, taxpayers money was used to buy shares in the weakest banks at inflated prices, much of which we'll never get back.

 

Greedy bankers worldwide caused the crash, but it started in the US and quickly spread here as too many EU banks had exposure in the States. The fact that Britain nearly couldn't recover from that crash was the fault of the previous government who should have done more to prepare for this sort of eventuality. Hell, basic bull/bear economic theory from the 1920s predicted a crash was long overdue anyway.

 

3. Public spending has been cut and more cuts are planned. So called "austerity".

This is the worst in my view. Total public spending in the last Labour year (2009/10) was £669.7bn and in the last coalition year (2014/15) it was £732bn. That's a 9.4% increase. A similar rate of increase is planned for this parliament. I really don't see why I should need to say any more on that.

 

We are paying more as a country because we borrowed too much and the only increase in spending has been on interest. All the other spending, which is public spending, has been slashed. The fact that you think it has gone up shows how weak your economic knowledge is.

 

4. We could fix everything if we taxed the rich more. They're all avoiding tax and paying less then regular people

The top 10% of earners pay 50% of income tax.

When we put the tax rate for the super-rich up very high in the '70s, they left and we got less revenue.

When France put the tax rate for the super-rich up very high in the last few years, they left and France got less revenue.

No amount of hypothesising about what ought to happen when we put taxes up on the rich is going to get you anywhere. We know what happens. It's always happened and it always will happen. They leave.

I know you wish it wasn't that way, but it is. Ignore that at you're considerable impoverishment.

 

Finally, we agree on something! Except of course that it is opinion, not fact.

 

All these things are not opinions but facts. It only takes a little bit of armchair research to confirm them. Why on earth do the same people have to be told over and over and over again?

Once you've found out that you were wrong, I don't expect you to apologise, but how can your conscience bear repeating that which you now know is wrong?

Does your opinion on such important matters become part of your identity or something? Is it like trying to change religion? Would your head explode? Would you cease to exist? What is it?

 

Before anybody points out the the title is paradoxical, it's intentional.

 

You really don't understand fact and opinion, do you?

[unbeliever]

We are paying more as a country because we borrowed too much and the only increase in spending has been on interest. All the other spending, which is public spending, has been slashed. The fact that you think it has gone up shows how weak your economic knowledge is.

 

Excuse me, but in 2014/15 we paid £45bn on debt interest and in 2009/10 we paid £32bn. That's an increase of £13bn. Where do you suppose the rest of it went? You've got some nerve accusing me of having weak economic knowledge and spouting such drivel in the same breath.

 

http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN05745/SN05745.pdf

 

Finally, we agree on something! Except of course that it is opinion, not fact.

 

You really don't understand fact and opinion, do you?

 

By your standards, everything would seem to be an opinion.

Since you obviously can't do basic arithmetic, or even be bothered to take 10 seconds to look up on the internet the numbers on which your case is based, I'll take your thoughts on what is fact and what is opinion with about a kilotonne of salt.

 

---------- Post added 21-08-2015 at 10:45 ----------

 

Energy is expensive because of the cost to distribute, produce and store it. Facts, all the rest you write down here is mainly (repetitive) nonsense.

 

All of these costs are dramatically higher because of our heavy use of alternative energy. If you're going to argue, you might like to try taking a position which is actually contrary to what I said.

Edited August 21, 2015 by unbeliever

[Obelix]

 

We are paying more as a country because we borrowed too much and the only increase in spending has been on interest. All the other spending, which is public spending, has been slashed. The fact that you think it has gone up shows how weak your economic knowledge is.

 

You er might want to check your economic knowledge....

 

http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/past_spending

[Cyclone]

Is it an opinion or a fact?

 

Constantly asking that isn't really moving the debate forward.

 

If numbers are quoted, ie 15%, then it's not subjective, it's not opinion. It could be wrong of course, in which case just demonstrate that it is. But there is definitely a number which is a fact.

[SnailyBoy]

Constantly asking that isn't really moving the debate forward.

 

If numbers are quoted, ie 15%, then it's not subjective, it's not opinion. It could be wrong of course, in which case just demonstrate that it is. But there is definitely a number which is a fact.

 

If as the OP pointed out everything posted was a fact, there wouldn't be a debate.