Sammy Wilson Right Or Wrong!

[Thundery wintry showers]

I didn't say that they were not qualified to provide advice, and, indeed, sit on committees with those elected; but, being the tail, they should not be wagging the dog - indeed, if they want to be the dog, they should stand for election.

My question is- if the politicians are to make decisions based on evidence, where else can they get the scientific evidence from?

Also I don't trust the current political climate at all. We are not an ideal democracy where we vote for the people that represent our views. We are a two-party state where a large majority of us either vote for the lesser of the evils, or abstain from voting at all. I would guess that some scientists might actually have better ideas on the best ways forward than many of the politicians.

Re. "everyone's entitled to their opinions- even flat earthers", there's a difference between merely letting people have their opinions, and letting their opinions be forced down everyone else's throats- and in some cases, particularly when action (or lack of it) has to be taken, the ramming of opinions down people's throats can't be completely avoided. For instance if the prevailing view re. the sustainability problem is "that's life", and we just "let the masses have their opinions"- chances are, what do we do about it? Answer, nothing. Therefore, what happens? The "that's life" maintenance of the status quo view gets forced upon everyone.

[Solar Cycles]

nope, just that those with such extreme religious views may not be taken seriously - at least initially.. I guess if someone with such a view were to demonstrate a track record of clear scientific thought processes then you might be able to ignore it as an eccentricity? Much like if someone were convinced they were napolean or some such.

That's what's great about this country, we will defend all faiths and cultures, except our own. All in the name of science!

[pottyprof]

We already have a politics thread....

Can we please keep to Sammy Wilson being right or wrong......

Ta Muchly

[trevw]

That's what's great about this country, we will defend all faiths and cultures, except our own. All in the name of science!

not sure the C of E take any line other than that the old testament is metaphorical? I would defend the rights of anyone to believe most things I can think of (perhaps not to act on those beliefs in all cases) But if they exercise that 'right' in a manner which casts doubt on their ability to reason clearly then I see no problem with the opinions of such people being weighted accordingly.

The whole creationist thing is an aside anyway. My main point was that the idea of government being 'the dog' and scientists being 'the tail' is a distinctly 'George Bush' like view of how science should inform public policy - i.e. tell us what we tell you we want to hear.. I would rather a government that accepts that their knowledge in an area of scientific interest is likely far less and more biased than their scientific advisors. I certainly don't want MPs determining policy on the basis of a Google 'I feel lucky' search or similar on the subject.. (edit) hence I would say he is wrong as he is going against the scientific advice the government are receiving..

Edited February 10, 2009 by trevw

[Essan]

The point is, Wilson has banned an advert because it promotes a scientific view which he, personally, disagrees with.

What then, if he personally, disagrees that smoking is bad? Does he ban adverts encouraging people to give up smoking?

That is the issue at hand here: should a minister determine public policy based solely on personal, private views irrespective of the advice of his scientific advisers?

He is quite entitled to his personal views. I earlier used creationism as an analogy. But if he holds such views do we think it's acceptable on that basis for him also to ban the teaching of evolution and geology which runs contrary to his personal views?

[Methuselah]

That's what's great about this country, we will defend all faiths and cultures, except our own. All in the name of science!

Defending faith 'in the name of science'? An interesting idea is that. Any evidence to back it up?

[cheeky_monkey]

like anything i think we should all look at the information available and be allowed to come to our judgements and be allowed to form our own opinions..often as with anything we are deemed incable of doing so..as a result often opnions and judgements are forced on us by people who think they know better which is wrong.

teachers in schools are a prime example of this..slowly we are being forced into having the same ethics about everything and anything.

[VillagePlank]

My question is- if the politicians are to make decisions based on evidence, where else can they get the scientific evidence from?

Not all evidence is scientific? Is it?

Wilson has banned an advert because it promotes a scientific view which he, personally, disagrees with.

He is there to exercise the will of the majority of people. That's it. Nothing more. Of course, if his idea to ban this advert is him out on a limb he deserves all the crucifixtion you guys seem intent on.

However, if he has good reason to believe he is exercising the mandate that got him into that position in the first place, then, I'm afraid, that's democracy.

After all if you voted UKIP, they got into power, and they voted to join the Euro - you'd accept that wouldn't you? (and don't say it depends on the circumstances - a vote for UKIP means coming away from Europe, and it means no further integration - there's absolutely no way you'd accept that)

If you don't like, stand for parliament, that is your right, and that is your privilege for living in a democracy.

Edited February 10, 2009 by VillagePlank

[Solar Cycles]

I'm sure if the public don't agree with Sammy Wilson, then they will let him know at the ballot box. Until then he can't be judged on his actions, although all the usual suspects on here have him as guilty for daring to question those superior scientist!

[laserguy]

We already have a politics thread....

Can we please keep to Sammy Wilson being right or wrong......

Ta Muchly

Okidoki.... he's dead right,wish more had his courage and integrity.

[Essan]

He is there to exercise the will of the majority of people. That's it. Nothing more. Of course, if his idea to ban this advert is him out on a limb he deserves all the crucifixtion you guys seem intent on.

However, if he has good reason to believe he is exercising the mandate that got him into that position in the first place, then, I'm afraid, that's democracy.

I'm sure if the public don't agree with Sammy Wilson, then they will let him know at the ballot box. Until then he can't be judged on his actions, although all the usual suspects on here have him as guilty for daring to question those superior scientist!

Hang on a Mo! People do not vote for MPs based on their personal opinions about AGW! This is getting crazy!

Show me where the party of which Wilson belongs had a stated manifesto that they would refute/deny all suggestions that AGW is happening if they were elected?

Unless you lot have had a referendum on whether or not AGW is happening, that I'm not aware of you, you're both talking complete bunk.

Comes of desperation to defend a indefensible stance I suppose?

This is not about AGW - it's about Ministers putting private belief before public duty and responsibility. The slippery slope towards reversing all bans of cigarette sales and advertising and burning all books that mention evolution.

But maybe that's what some people want?

E pur si muove

[Solar Cycles]

Hang on a Mo! People do not vote for MPs based on their personal opinions about AGW! This is getting crazy!

Show me where the party of which Wilson belongs had a stated manifesto that they would refute/deny all suggestions that AGW is happening if they were elected?

Unless you lot have had a referendum on whether or not AGW is happening, that I'm not aware of you, you're both talking complete bunk.

Comes of desperation to defend a indefensible stance I suppose?

This is not about AGW - it's about Ministers putting private belief before public duty and responsibility. The slippery slope towards reversing all bans of cigarette sales and advertising and burning all books that mention evolution.

But maybe that's what some people want?

E pur si muove

Essan, if they disapprove of what he said then they will show him the door, simple really, that's what we the public do, when our politicians upset us. Also is Mr Wilson just supposed to keep quiet on something he obviously feels strongly about? Would you?

[Thundery wintry showers]

Both Solar Cycles and VillagePlank are missing an important point: we do not live in a perfect democracy.

Most people don't vote for the parties that represent their views. They vote for the least of the evils, or not at all. And many people think that if they can find a party that represents their views, voting for that party is a wasted vote because everybody else votes Labour and Conservatives. And on an anecdotal level, how many parties represent my views well? Answer, up until a few years ago, probably the Lib Dems at a stretch- since then, none at all.

When our politicians upset us we only vote them out if we think the alternatives are likely to upset us less! Plus many people in the UK bask in comfort zones like, "that's life", "things always happen for a reason" and "at least you're better off than the children in Africa", and so don't get off their wotsits and do something. Yes, we can certainly do our bit to help, but unless individuals do their bit collectively, overcoming the tendency to shrug shoulders and say "that's life", the status quo tends to be maintained regardless.

[Methuselah]

Essan, if they disapprove of what he said then they will show him the door, simple really, that's what we the public do, when our politicians upset us. Also is Mr Wilson just supposed to keep quiet on something he obviously feels strongly about? Would you?

Everyone has the right to say what they believe (Or should have IMO!)...Even Holocaust deniers should have the right to speak their minds; but, at the same time, they should be willing to accept the public loathing and ridicule that they deserve...It is surely not only nutcases for whom our natural born right to blether, bleat, expound, theorize, talk nonsense should apply?

I think it was one of Fyodor Dostoyevsky's characters who said: I talk nonsense therefor I am human?

[Solar Cycles]

Everyone has the right to say what they believe (Or should have IMO!)...Even Holocaust deniers should have the right to speak their minds; but, at the same time, they should be willing to accept the public loathing and ridicule that they deserve...It is surely not only nutcases for whom our natural born right to blether, bleat, expound, theorize, talk nonsense should apply?

I think it was one of Fyodor Dostoyevsky's characters who said: I talk nonsense therefor I am human?

Well that's not been said before as it Pete, Holocaust deniers! Comparing someone who doesn't believe in AGW to Nazis is highly offensive, was it Hansen who said that before? I tell you what, when your agw gravy train has run dry, I hope all those who made such venemous claims, are brought before a court of law, charged with attempt to commit FRAUD!!

[VillagePlank]

Both Solar Cycles and VillagePlank are missing an important point: we do not live in a perfect democracy. Most people don't vote for the parties that represent their views.

Well, I do, don't you?

For my own amusement perhaps you'd like to provide evidence for either claim? Evidence is the buzzword, now, isn't it? We can't say anything without evidence? And if we do say something without 'evidence' then we are remarkably rounded for doing so?

So, on that basis, where's your evidence for such an extraordinary claim that represents some 40 million adults in the UK?

[Methuselah]

Well that's not been said before as it Pete, Holocaust deniers! Comparing someone who doesn't believe in AGW to Nazis is highly offensive, was it Hansen who said that before? I tell you what, when your agw gravy train has run dry, I hope all those who made such venemous claims, are brought before a court of law, charged with attempt to commit FRAUD!!

I wasn't likening anyone to anyone, SC (Merthinks the lady doth protest too much?)...And if you for-once bothered to read things properly, you'd understand that!

So, just for you: I may loathe another person's opinion, but I won't muzzle him or her because of it!

[Thundery wintry showers]

Well, I do, don't you?

No, because since the Lib Dems changed its policy stances a few years ago, there hasn't been a single political party that has even remotely come close to representing my views. From my perspective it really is a case of choosing the least of the evils.

At a huge stretch you could call it "voting for the party that represents my views", in truth it's better phrased as "voting for the party that represents the views that I despise slightly less than I despise the views represented by the other parties". And in my experience many other citizens of this country feel much the same. And that is my basis for arguing that we do not live in a perfect democracy.

For my own amusement perhaps you'd like to provide evidence for either claim? Evidence is the buzzword, now, isn't it? We can't say anything without evidence? And if we do say something without 'evidence' then we are remarkably rounded for doing so?

So, on that basis, where's your evidence for such an extraordinary claim that represents some 40 million adults in the UK?

Well, you could level the same at Crimsone, The Enforcer etc. who have expressed much the same kind of claims in various threads in the recent past.

I could equally ask you to provide evidence for your claim that people don't largely do what I've outlined. I have plenty of anecdotal evidence from people that I've spoken to and seen over the years, but as I cannot prove on this forum that they said these things to me, you probably won't count it as "evidence".

[trevw]

Well, I do, don't you?

For my own amusement perhaps you'd like to provide evidence for either claim? Evidence is the buzzword, now, isn't it? We can't say anything without evidence? And if we do say something without 'evidence' then we are remarkably rounded for doing so?

So, on that basis, where's your evidence for such an extraordinary claim that represents some 40 million adults in the UK?

even the members of the political parties don't agree with all the policies of their party, think its safe to say the same is true of a majority of voters :-)

is there really a party that you believe whoose stated position on every topic mirrors your own??

Edit: Is this on topic? It seems a natural evolution of the discussion, was he right or wrong to do as he did is a political question and very much I would say to do with the way our democratic system should/does work?

Edited February 11, 2009 by trevw

[VillagePlank]

even the members of the political parties don't agree with all the policies of their party, think its safe to say the same is true of a majority of voters :-)

is there really a party that you believe whoose stated position on every topic mirrors your own??

Edit: Is this on topic? It seems a natural evolution of the discussion, was he right or wrong to do as he did is a political question and very much I would say to do with the way our democratic system should/does work?

Yeah - swaying a bit off-topic, I guess, but certainly relevant.

For the avoidance of doubt, I vote based on the 'person' not party, whose views mostly match mine; I see it as a positive action, and certainly not a negative one where selection is based on a lesser evil.

Perhaps I'm just not cynical enough for this modern age in this even larger teapot

I could equally ask you to provide evidence for your claim that people don't largely do what I've outlined. I have plenty of anecdotal evidence from people that I've spoken to and seen over the years, but as I cannot prove on this forum that they said these things to me, you probably won't count it as "evidence".

I thought the rules were that the onus to present evidence was on whomever had made a claim. I'm not claiming to 'mostly' represent 40 million people. Anyway this one seems to me to be likely to bounce around like a yoyo bounces up and down, being that it will boil down to some abstract philosohpy that will require hours of reading on Wikipedia. I shall now close the lid on this and pretend it never happened. Do you think I should change my username to Ostrich on the basis of a head/sand thing?

Edited February 11, 2009 by VillagePlank

[jonboy]

Getting back to whether Sammy Wilson is right or wrong to make his comments there is two question s here. Firstly is he right to make the comments as an individual and secondly as a minister of goverment.

I am sure many on here will accept that he is entilted and therefore right in the first but question whether he is correct and therefore wrong to make such comments as a minister.

However I firmly believe that he is correct on both counts. If you stop people in positions of power/influence from expressing their strongly held beliefs then you are on the slippery slope. What Sammy Wilson has done hopefully by making his comments is get a much needed debate going, however, some of the comments by friend of the earth and the greens are so vitriolic that it almost stifles debate and almost represents the general staus over Global warming ie it is manmade and thats the end of the debate.

I firmly believe that we need to conserve energy and as a result lower our emmissions but for the very good reason we need to conserve our resources and we should not pollute our planet. I do not however believe that man is the cause of global warming I believe it is cyclical and part of our planets natural cycle and by forever propergating the global warming trend we really do run the risk that we will miss the signals that we are entering a significant cooling period until it is to late to prepare. We should fear a significant cooling far more than any warming.

Therefore I say Sammy Wilson is 100% right

[osmposm]

The slippery slope towards reversing all bans of cigarette sales and advertising and burning all books that mention evolution.

But maybe that's what some people want?

God, ES, I didn't know cigarette sales had been banned, did I miss the law change? My corner shop and I have been happily conspiring to break it for some time, if so.

Slightly strangely, though, it's the banning - potential or actual - that I consider part of the slippery slope, not the idea of a reversal!

Puffing Billy of Putney (it's all right, don't get flustered, only in the privacy of my own home, though I remain puzzled as to why I can't do it in a private club, inhabited and staffed by other smokers......but that's really, really off-topic!)

[laserguy]

I firmly believe that we need to conserve energy and as a result lower our emmissions but for the very good reason we need to conserve our resources and we should not pollute our planet. I do not however believe that man is the cause of global warming I believe it is cyclical and part of our planets natural cycle and by forever propergating the global warming trend we really do run the risk that we will miss the signals that we are entering a significant cooling period until it is to late to prepare. We should fear a significant cooling far more than any warming.

Therefore I say Sammy Wilson is 100% right

You can say that again,jonboy! By all means try to reduce FF usage etc etc etc. All I've ever asked is that the real reasons for such haste in doing so are made perfectly clear without involving ludicrous scary fairy tales about climate. Sammy Wilson is right in what he says,and he's right for saying it. May the floodgates open in earnest.

Just seen your post about smoking,Ossie. Going well off the beaten track now,but the rate things are going,life itself must be in line for banning afore long. Stop the train and let me off,at least it'll save on 'carbon' (whatever became of the 'dioxide' bit?) emissions.

[johnny1972]

Getting back to whether Sammy Wilson is right or wrong to make his comments there is two question s here. Firstly is he right to make the comments as an individual and secondly as a minister of goverment.

I am sure many on here will accept that he is entilted and therefore right in the first but question whether he is correct and therefore wrong to make such comments as a minister.

However I firmly believe that he is correct on both counts. If you stop people in positions of power/influence from expressing their strongly held beliefs then you are on the slippery slope. What Sammy Wilson has done hopefully by making his comments is get a much needed debate going, however, some of the comments by friend of the earth and the greens are so vitriolic that it almost stifles debate and almost represents the general staus over Global warming ie it is manmade and thats the end of the debate.

I firmly believe that we need to conserve energy and as a result lower our emmissions but for the very good reason we need to conserve our resources and we should not pollute our planet. I do not however believe that man is the cause of global warming I believe it is cyclical and part of our planets natural cycle and by forever propergating the global warming trend we really do run the risk that we will miss the signals that we are entering a significant cooling period until it is to late to prepare. We should fear a significant cooling far more than any warming.

Therefore I say Sammy Wilson is 100% right

Well said and couldnt agree more. I recall 30 - 40yrs ago the US science community had us heading into another mini ice age and now within the last 20yrs its global warming. Ive aired my views many times over this issue and for me Sammy Wilson is 100% correct in what he has done. He is one of our politicians and its about time someone stood up to be counted. Too many are going with the status quo instead of taking a step back and assessing all the evidence and then making an informed decision. For me there is alot of evidence emerging now against global warming (man made) and i wonder for just how long it will remain the topic on everyones lips ! The earths weather patterns run in cycles and so much is still unknown about all the factors that drive our weather/climate. It amazes me how so many claim to know so much about the climate yet our experienced met office can barely get the weather right passed 2 or 3 days ! I know many may disagree with me but this is my view and has been from the outset. However i do agree with conserving energy as the worlds population continues to grow then energy resources will become strained with greater demand so yes this does require better management.

Good on ya Sammy wish there were more like you !!!

[snowsure]

on creationism - obviously everyone has the right to believe what they choose, but if someone chooses to believe in the creation myth then they've surely got to expect a slightly dubious reaction to any scientific assesments they make on other subjects?

How much of a problem will it be for these people then?