The House Of Lords, The Unelected Elite.

[Flexo]

Like me.

PhD in particle astrophysics, 16 years in cutting edge research at a Russel group University.

 

... No!

 

We're not special in the way that you suggest. Scientists are still just people and we are entitled to one vote unless elected by the people to do otherwise.

 

Yes! If the debate was about matters of particle physics then I'd rather have you there directly than have you go to explain a complicated topic to someone who probably won't understand.

 

I'm sure you would procure nuclear reactors that are far cheaper and better than the proposed Hinkley C.

 

You would serve us well on matters of climate change. You wouldn't just say "I don't believe in it!" as if science is a matter of faith. And climate change is by far the most important matter facing the world.

 

You know the limits of your competence and therefore know when you should abstain from a vote.

 

You'd serve well with the other new lords who are experienced in other fields.

[Santo]

Yes! If the debate was about matters of particle physics then I'd rather have you there directly than have you go to explain a complicated topic to someone who probably won't understand.

 

I'm sure you would procure nuclear reactors that are far cheaper and better than the proposed Hinkley C.

 

You would serve us well on matters of climate change. You wouldn't just say "I don't believe in it!" as if science is a matter of faith. And climate change is by far the most important matter facing the world.

 

You know the limits of your competence and therefore know when you should abstain from a vote.

 

You'd serve well with the other new lords who are experienced in other fields.

 

Are the reactors for Hinkley expensive or is the price of energy we have agreed to pay the fault?

 

I digress again. But this thread is pointless anyway. Angelfire1 isn't getting the agreement he hoped to bask in.

Edited November 15, 2016 by Santo

[unbeliever]

Yes! If the debate was about matters of particle physics then I'd rather have you there directly than have you go to explain a complicated topic to someone who probably won't understand.

 

I'm sure you would procure get nuclear reactors that are far cheaper and better than the proposed Hinkley C.

 

You would serve us well on matters of climate change. You wouldn't just say "I don't believe in it!" as if science is a matter of faith.

 

You know the limits of your competence and therefore know when you should abstain from a vote.

 

You'd serve well with the other new lords who are experienced in other fields.

 

 

I'm not a big believer in climate change (a luke-warmer by most standards) and I have strong views on all manner of things which (alongside consultation with learned folk) would likely inform my voting decisions.

Scientists are not special in the way you describe. We're rarely faith-driven or zealots but then there's no problem finding equally rational people from outside professional science. Your idea makes no sense to me.

I consider myself less qualified to sit in parliament than, for example, ex cabinet ministers who sit in the Lords. Although if you want to swap me out for that dodgy Shami Chakrabarti then I dare say that would be an improvement.

[sgtkate]

Like me.

PhD in particle astrophysics, 16 years in cutting edge research at a Russel group University.

 

... No!

 

We're not special in the way that you suggest. Scientists are still just people and we are entitled to one vote unless elected by the people to do otherwise.

 

Actually, yes people like you. You are exactly the sort of person that our 'Lords' should be made up of. Don't get all puffed up with pride here, I am simply referring to the likelihood that know what you are talking about within your area of expertise, and if we have more people like you in the Lords then perhaps we'd have a debate based upon knowledge and evidence rather than populism. There is a place for both.

[unbeliever]

Actually, yes people like you. You are exactly the sort of person that our 'Lords' should be made up of. Don't get all puffed up with pride here, I am simply referring to the likelihood that know what you are talking about within your area of expertise, and if we have more people like you in the Lords then perhaps we'd have a debate based upon knowledge and evidence rather than populism. There is a place for both.

 

Maybe they could use more scientists, but they consult them routinely and their job is to set the law, so people with experience as lawyers and law-makers are probably most useful.

[Flexo]

Are the reactors for Hinkley expensive or is the price of energy we have agreed to pay the fault?

 

The most expensive power station ever built, making the most expensive energy ever made. Plus the costs of decommissioning and long term storage of waste.

 

The govt has promised to buy power at 95p per megawatt (?) but the cost of on shore wind is already down to about 65p and would be lower if planners would allow larger turbines.

 

It's argued that nuclear can provide a "base load".

 

I reckon unbeliever would do a much better job at procuring nuclear than the govt who seem to be paying way too much for an unproven technology by those famous providers of quality products, China.

 

---------- Post added 15-11-2016 at 16:20 ----------

 

I'm not a big believer in climate change (a luke-warmer by most standards) and I have strong views on all manner of things which (alongside consultation with learned folk) would likely inform my voting decisions.

 

I think you'd review - and understand - what the scientists are telling us.

 

If you disagree then you won't just say "la la can't hear you", you'd submit a proper rebuttal that advances the debate.

 

I don't want a house full of scientists. There's room for lots of other experts in their field.

[unbeliever]

The most expensive power station ever built, making the most expensive energy ever made. Plus the costs of decommissioning and long term storage of waste.

 

The govt has promised to buy power at 95p per megawatt (?) but the cost of on shore wind is already down to about 65p and would be lower if planners would allow larger turbines.

 

It's argued that nuclear can provide a "base load".

 

I reckon unbeliever would do a much better job at procuring nuclear than the govt who seem to be paying way too much for an unproven technology by those famous providers of quality products, China.

 

---------- Post added 15-11-2016 at 16:20 ----------

 

 

I think you'd review - and understand - what the scientists are telling us.

 

If you disagree then you won't just say "la la can't hear you", you'd submit a proper rebuttal that advances the debate.

 

I don't want a house full of scientists. There's room for lots of other experts in their field.

 

 

I'd pretty much already decided that I approve of Hinkley C.

As always with the supporters of renewables, you quote the price of wind without accounting for intermittency, which is absolutely bogus. Your wind turbine requires fossil backup which adds greatly to the cost and of course produces CO2.

Edited November 15, 2016 by unbeliever

[sgtkate]

Maybe they could use more scientists, but they consult them routinely and their job is to set the law, so people with experience as lawyers and law-makers are probably most useful.

 

They seem to remove the ones that don't agree with the government's chosen position from the board of advisors.

 

---------- Post added 15-11-2016 at 16:59 ----------

 

I'd pretty much already decided that I approve of Hinkley C.

As always with the supporters of renewables, you quote the price of wind without accounting for intermittency, which is absolutely bogus. Your wind turbine requires fossil backup which adds greatly to the cost and of course produces CO2.

 

And this is why we need more scientists in the house because you challenge with numbers and evidence rather than nodding along with the status quo. Well most do.

[ez8004]

As that "Other Place" is seeking to scupper BREXIT by any means possible,

 

Should the house of Lords be,

 

1 Left as is.

 

2 Move to Elected members only.

 

3 Have 100 Members Maximum.

 

4 Abolished.

 

You have no idea how the House of Lords work do you? The upper house can't ultimately scupper the wishes of Brexit if the Commons want it. There is legislation in place to bypass the Lords. I wish people do a bit of research. Geez.

[unbeliever]

 

And this is why we need more scientists in the house because you challenge with numbers and evidence rather than nodding along with the status quo. Well most do.

 

This is well known to MPs and Lords already. Most ignore it wilfully as being accused of being un-green is almost as bad as racist now.