ForArgyll.com: Argyll's online broadsheet.

We would have thought that good science – …

Comment posted Major environmental groups seriously compromised by wind developers’ cash by newsroom.

We would have thought that good science – and enough good science – would be an absolute prerequisite for the policy currently being implemented wholesale.

The preparedness to drive ahead without anything like an adequate reassuring research base, on matters which will leave a permanent negative legacy, challenges belief in reason.

We also find it disturbing to witness how far the ability even to conduct civilised shared investigation on a rational footing has been undermined by an evangelical abusiveness which does not grace humanity.

There is an extent to which the issue of renewables has been hard wired to the vision of Scottish Independence and has become synonomous with it, distorting the need to interrogate the scientific foundation for a major redirection of the environment.

We are agnostic on both independence and on turbine driven renewables -although increasingly opposed to the latter on objective, rational grounds. It is worth saying that we were not previously agnostic on either.

Evidence emerging on serious environmental and physical consequences of turbine production and operation, alongside the sheer scale of some of the installations contemplated on and offshore, without the support of adequate research results, is redirecting our view weekly.

And the management of the independence prospectus increasingly seems so ad hoc, opportunist and inflexible in its response to changing external circumstances – like the reality of the condition of the eurozone – that any intelligent person would pause for more considered personal thought.

Neither cause is made more attractive by intemperance and abuse.

newsroom also commented

  • For Argyll is not a political party operating a whip system. Of course we have different views and we are each entitled both to express and pursue them – in genuine mutual respect.

    Each of us is entitled to say what we see and think – so long as we provide the evidence and argument for it, which we work to do.

    Charles Dixon Spain remains faithful to wind and I have no doubt that his community – and others – will benefit substantially from the inventive energy I hugely admire which he has put into the Stronafian forest project. Another colleague in our core team, John Patrick, is also vigorously committed to the value of wind energy.

    I am the one who has changed position, driven by evidence I am unable to dismiss, from having been a supporter of renewable energy and of wind energy, to a position of serious concern.

    All that any of us can do, within and without For Argyll, is to test privately the validity of what we see and think; present publicly the evidence and reasoned arguments for what we come to see; be prepared to listen to and honestly examine contrary evidence and other equally reasoned views; and, on occasion, accept the case of a superior reason.

    If I had not personally been prepared to go through this process I would not be where I now am – which is not where I expected to be.

Recent comments by newsroom

  • Here’s how the ‘BT Broadband Security’ scam works – a victim’s narrative
    If only it were, Jake.
  • Supreme Court finds for appellants on Named Persons
    Not in my control and hadn’t noticed this myself [so thanks] – and will pass on your concerns.
    This us likely to be one of the consequences of recovery from recent outages which were beyond our control.
  • Supreme Court finds for appellants on Named Persons
    It is worth noting that in its judgment the Supreme Court said:
    ‘“The first thing that a totalitarian regime tries to do is to get to the children, to distance them from the subversive, varied influences of their families, and indoctrinate them in their rulers’ view of the world. Within limits, families must be left to bring up their children in their own way.’
  • Bute refugees suffer from inadequately considered placement
    Eveything you say above applies justly to those who radicalise – but not necessarily to those who are vulnerable to be radicalised.
    When you are young, everything in life is understood in simple binary oppositions. It is only time and broad experience that introduces and embeds the tonalities of understanding.
    Many of the young everywhere, from the need to belong and from the acceleration of peer pressure, are also prone to follow the accepted behavioural norms or fashions of their peers.
    This is why radicalisation is most easily effected in cities and amongst the large cultural enclaves that can form there.
    The young, in their uncluttered understanding, are also idealist – and extremism is a form of idealism perverted.
    What you say about the safety and security that relocated refugees now possess is also correct – but is amended by two considerations.
    One is the automatic perception of all refugees as having the education to hold such an understanding of their situation. Many will be educated – some very highly indeed – but by no means all will have had the opportunity of education.
    The second is that, as may be the case with some of the Bute families, if they feel and look ‘different’ from everyone around them and if they cannot communicate, some will feel uncomfortable and vulnerable, even intimidated – and it is unrealistic to assume that refugees will be universally made welcome in any locality.
    We had assumed that the acceptance of such refugees here would mean the automatic employment of those qualified to teach English as a foreign language and that such classes would be taught in a regular and compulsory schedule.
    This would be a responsible and necessary provision if integration is to be a realistic achievement.
    We do not know if such provision has been made and there seems to be no mention of it.
  • Turkey’s military coup raises issues to be confronted here in Britain
    This is another issue – a procedural one – and one which clearly needs to be resolved while the need can be immediately understood.

    It remains a mystery why, when political party leadership elections require set percentages well above 50% to secure a win, politicians would not have reason and wit to see that decisions taking a member of a significant political union out of that union, changing the nature of the larger union [helpless to prevent that] as well as the nature of the departing member, that decisions of such weight and permanence cannot sensibly be taken by 50% + 1 single vote of an electorate.
    The opportunity for due revision was not taken following the Scottish Referendum, which was run under this rule.
    Something like a 60% threshold would guard decisions against the percentage of transient whim – and/or of misunderstanding and/or of misinformedness – in any vote; and these are the things that that can help to create very narrow majorities on very profound issues.
    Opinion polls declare that their results are subject to a 3% margin for error.
    In the EU Referendum, a 2% change of mind would have produced an even tinier – but legally acceptable – majority in the opposite direction.

powered by SEO Super Comments

· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·


Related Articles & Comments