dspp wrote:Lootman wrote: On the one side we have the self-styled "expert" .
When it comes to renewables/energy, or wider engineering fields, please note it is you who are throwing the moniker at me in a pejorative manner, rather than a term I have applied to myself. If you can find a flaw in my reasoning in those topic areas please draw it to my attention so I can learn.
I was not casting doubt on the extent of your professional competence in this field. I do not know enough to know either way but I always like to give others here the benefit of the doubt, so will accept that at face value.
Rather my point was that experts, scientists, technologists, engineers, specialists, whatever you want to call them, only get you so far. They are inputs into the debate, as are many others. But they do not decide the outcome - rather that is a political and democratic decision.
So when it comes to deciding what we do, if anything, about this alleged problem then your vote doesn't count more than anyone else's. Being informed may be necessary but cannot be sufficient. The voters are entitled to disregard the science if they hold other factors to be more vital to their wellbeing, like freedom, mobility and prosperity.
But if you thought I was being pejorative then I apologise.