Politicians are kidding us that they have the solution to climate change: there are simply not the mineral resources to deliver the energy buffers to back up wind and solar.
Yes Alasdair you are correct. "Politicians are kidding us that they have the solution to climate change: there are simply not the mineral resources to deliver the energy buffers to back up wind and solar."
FYI: I am the Founder/CEO of North American Solar Network, PBC, a Colorado public benefits corporation "start-up" and I have been involved in renewable energy, disruptive technologies and regional/local economic development for over forty years. Accordingly, what must occur to reduce fossil fuel externalities is the "creative destruction" of the fossil fuel industry by "the law of markets" and not MMT/Keynesian stimulus, enacted by central planning socialists, who are nothing more than rent seeking grifters.
If I was allowed to give advice to Donald J. Trump on the "law of markets" pathway to "carbon-net-zero", it would be to: (1) immediately unleash the American fossil fuel industry and flood the economy with affordable oil and natural gas, (2) phase out ALL government subsidies enacted by Biden/Harris in the "Inflation Reduction Act, and (3) Permanently eliminate all federal income and capital gain taxes on all profits and gains by creating and selling carbon-credits/offsets.
The "green energy transition will not work" is the intention of this entire climate change agenda. It is about the intentional destruction of the industrialised nations (particularly those with British/European heritage and common law etc.)
*You are the carbon they want to reduce!!*
As Maurice Strong said decades ago "What if a small group of world leaders were to conclude that the principle risk to the earth comes from the actions of the rich countries? In order to save the planet, the group decides: isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialised civilisations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?"
This agenda has nothing to do with science, and everything to do with politics - anyone, and I mean *anyone* who believes carbon dioxide (the gas of life) is a problem to be dealt with is either; a communist/authoritarian, a grifter (solar/wind mill manufacturer) or an ignoramus - it is that clear cut.
We are in the midst of 5th generation, un-restricted, un-conventional warfare with an incredibly strong bias towards psychological warfare. The climate change agenda is a major element of the global war of statists/tyrants against the people. Destroying our ability to maintain advanced civilisation is the intention - as Fyodor Dostoevsky said, Lenin's entire political philosophy could be encapsulated in a single aphorism, - "the worse, the better."
Apply this to "climate change", "covid", "migrant crisis" etc. and ask yourself, does this aphorism fit today? And while you are at it, ask yourself, is China or Russia "de-carbonising", duping their citizens into taking mRNA injections, or flooding their countries with people from the third world? World War 3 is already here, Ukraine/Middle East etc. are simply storylines to be driven in any direction the narrative building tyrants desire.
Keynes quipped that not one man in a million understands inflation, unfortunately it seems that not one man in a million understands politics either. Once one has researched the political ideology proposed by Antonio Gramsci, post WWII politics becomes a lot clearer.
Alas, the sooner fiat currencies fail, the sooner the regimes' ability to destroy our nations by diktat will occur - notwithstanding the enormous issues currency failure will bring, one silver lining is a severely weakened state.
FYI Michael Sutanto: This is a Google Docs link to an unpublished "working draft" manuscript, (that I began in 2012), on my inquiry into the on-going Third Wave economic transition:
Wow that is a wealth of information. I have a glimpse and its interesting reading about antipositivism. Did not realise such term exist. Should use that kind of reasoning to prove the existence of God
IMPORTANT MESSAGE TO ALL FELLOW MEMBERS / FOLLOWERS OF - ' MACLEOD FINANCE ' .
As an adjunct to the video that Alasdair has recently posted of ' Simon Michaud ' talking about
climate change and the ' Green Energy Transition / Agenda ' ....and if you want the whole unexpurgated truth as to the back history of this ' Complete Scam ' and want to know who and what were behind it & still driving it on to this day . SEE LINKS BELOW & IDEALLY IN THE ORDER AS LISTED .
Just to say & you have already noticed ' BUT ' - I think my " Sausage Fingers " somehow intervened when typing in the links shown in my comment , such that many don't come up as intended . This said - if you go to ' Bitchute ' & ' Rumble ' & just put the title's
into the search bar - then they should be able to be accessed .
There is scientific evidence from CO2 & temperature data from the period we have reliable data (since 1959) that in fact temperature changes before CO2:
”The results are clear: changes in CO₂ concentration cannot be a cause of temperature changes. On the contrary, temperature change is a potential cause of CO₂ change on all time scales. As we conclude in the paper, “All evidence resulting from the analyses of the longest available modern time series of atmospheric concentration of [CO₂] at Mauna Loa, Hawaii, along with that of globally averaged T, suggests a unidirectional, potentially causal link with T as the cause and [CO₂] as
the effect. This direction of causality holds for the entire period covered by the observations (more than 60 years)." "
Accordingly there are other reasons for the rise in temperature during the last decades. The rise in CO2 level may be an effect of that. The human caused emission of CO2 yearly is only about 4% of the total.
YES - You are 100% correct , as indeed is Simon Michaud , who is simply re-iterating all of the facts and prognosis of what's to come that I've seen and kept up with from all manner of source's for many years now . I've noted a few additional links below which you and ' The Clan ' should find interesting .
The thing to say about this ' Global Warming Agenda ' and it's having been caused by Human Beings , Fossil Fuels , Cow Farts , Over-Population and mega level's of CO2 - is that in the very timely words of the sainted ' Bill Holter ' - " It's Just too Stupid to be Stupid " in that there is an all too apparent not so hidden narrative / agenda that's driving this nonsense - and which can't just be attributed to the ignorance and ineptitude of the myriad Governments / NGO's / Climate Scientist's & feeble minded Computer Modelers who have dreamt up and are propagating this baseless twaddle , and which is being eagerly sucked up by the vast majority of our fellow bretheren who are completely devoid of any capacity to think for themselves or question anything that spew's forth from the gob's of politicians , media & so called celebrity's alike .
More power to Simon Michaud's elbow & to those of all of the other like minded individuals who are prepared to show the evil truth that really lays behind both the ' Climate Agenda ' - and even more especially the ' Corona Virus / Vaccine / Big Pharma / Eugenics ' agenda - which combined have been designed to cull and massively de-populate this planet .
I WILL NOW NOT SHOW MY ' LINKS ' HERE - BUT WILL POST THEM SEPERATELY
The green transition has always been a wealth transfer bait and switch. It was never intended to work. Initially it allowed massive theft of tax dollars by insiders. The useful idiots think they are saving the planet while the real agenda is failure which will justify further onerous restrictions - no private vehicle ownership - 15 minute cities and the rest of the WEF agenda.
The copper market has never bought into the green transition. It’s not lying…
All you have to do is read The Statistical Review of World Energy. Ignore the climate change headline and just read the data. There is no "transition" to "green" energy. There cannot be and will not be.https://www.energyinst.org/statistical-review
Some absolutely great stuff in there including the impact of debt, the deficit of raw materials for even a partial green energy future and so on, but it also contains quite a few glaring scientific errors. Unusual I thought for a predominantly popular science-based show.
I'll only mention one of them here; the stuff on ammonia combustion engines is a complete non-starter.
Yes, there's ongoing research into a few ships being powered by ammonia but that's probably government funded research and massively different from trying to use it on a global scale in cars for example.
Ships engines are so massive and run so slowly they will burn just about anything and heavy ship oil is effectively a waste product from refining alkanes - gasoline/octane, methane, ethane and so on. It's only one step away from bitumen. It's very dirty to burn which is why most ship companies only burn it away from port, but the oxides produced when ammonia is combusted are another level again. Theoretically you burn it to produce nitrogen and water, but it's impossible to make it truly clean.
NH4 is horrible stuff to have to deal with as a fuel. If you have used cloudy ammonia from the supermarket you'd know how much it stinks and will kill you quickly if you mess with it.
NH4 has an order of magnitude lower energy density than hydrogen gas and it's significantly lower than octane/petrol/gasoline and natural gas/methane. It's also extremely difficult to ignite requiring a whole lot of energy to get combustion started compared with fossil fuels.
Oxides of nitrogen are inevitably produced which are appallingly dangerous to living things - hence the reason we call nitrogen dioxide red death. When inhaled or in the atmosphere it reacts with water vapour to form nitric acid ie acid rain.
The Haber process which is the main way of producing industrial ammonia takes a ton of energy and pressure to react nitrogen from the air with hydrogen gas. Then of course you need to make the H2 gas in the first place - maybe from methane (pointless) or using even more power to electrolyse water into H2 and O2.
Like economics, in science and engineering there's no free lunch. Energy in vs energy out. Perpetual motion machines can't exist and no process is without losses.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics (entropy) is lost on the Green New Deal.
An example of what I mean by "creative destruction" is "methane (CH4) pyrolysis". By using microwaves in a non-oxygen reactor, the carbon atom is split from the four hydrogen atoms and the state of matter of the carbon is transitioned from a gas to a solid and pure H2 gas remains for fuel cell work, with no externalities other than a few drops of water:
Right, with the resultant carbon self assembling into nanotubes and buckyballs. Sounds extremely difficult even in lab conditions and impossible at any reasonable scale.
I thought - what's going to be the catalyst, probably one of the PGMs and you bet - palladium! They don't bother to mention it however, just saying it's a nickel paired with "other metals" but if you look at the electron micrograph, there it is - Pd.
Can't mention palladium in government research papers because the vast majority of extremely limited deposits are found in Russia and South Africa. BRICS nations bad and all that etc.
Hello Andy Grace and thank you for your comment. Question: When you state, "Sounds extremely difficult even in lab conditions and impossible at any reasonable scale", are you referring to "methane CH4 pyrolysis"?
Yes Carl. Not the pyrolysis itself, but the resultant production of carbon nanotubes and buckminsterfullerenes. My guess is despite the magical nickel-palladium catalyst you'd mostly end up with tons of near useless graphite instead of nanotech super-products.
The other problem with this is the hydrogen itself. There's a reason we use it in space vehicles. In stoichiometric quantities with oxygen - it's effectively a controlled bomb!.
How do you safely turn the world into a hydrogen economy? Hydrogen takes an enormous amount of energy to compress and as it's so small it's nigh on impossible to prevent it from leaking out unless you're using exceptionally strong tanks and seals. That means a lot of extra mass in the storage containers so in a car that means more H2 is required to be carried on board to compensate.
Then there's the issue with fuelling stations and the extreme cold you're dealing with when filling your vehicle. Any bad seals and you have that potential bomb on your hands. These things could be solved, but the question is whether it's worth it.
If the hydrogen can be used at the point of production, then that's awesome, but having to distribute it far and wide is a major logistical problem, the likes of which we don't have with octane or mildly compressed propane/butane. as LPG.
Not at all. The pyrolysis is easy - it's just burning in the absence of oxygen. The end product mentioned in the first link talked of carbon nanotubes as the end product. That's a whole different ballgame to producing just regular 2D carbon as in pencils.
It's typical of non-professional interviewers and egomaniacs. You hear it everywhere online. The secret to any good radio or TV interview is listening to the subject. We all did it when we started; we were more worried about asking the next question and not looking foolish. When one starts to listen carefully, the interview is radically better for all. Then there is the egomaniac interviewer whose guest is just a foil for them to get their own long-winded points across. Luckily there aren't many of them around - but I've worked on air with a few !!! :)
Yes Alasdair you are correct. "Politicians are kidding us that they have the solution to climate change: there are simply not the mineral resources to deliver the energy buffers to back up wind and solar."
FYI: I am the Founder/CEO of North American Solar Network, PBC, a Colorado public benefits corporation "start-up" and I have been involved in renewable energy, disruptive technologies and regional/local economic development for over forty years. Accordingly, what must occur to reduce fossil fuel externalities is the "creative destruction" of the fossil fuel industry by "the law of markets" and not MMT/Keynesian stimulus, enacted by central planning socialists, who are nothing more than rent seeking grifters.
If I was allowed to give advice to Donald J. Trump on the "law of markets" pathway to "carbon-net-zero", it would be to: (1) immediately unleash the American fossil fuel industry and flood the economy with affordable oil and natural gas, (2) phase out ALL government subsidies enacted by Biden/Harris in the "Inflation Reduction Act, and (3) Permanently eliminate all federal income and capital gain taxes on all profits and gains by creating and selling carbon-credits/offsets.
SEE THESE LINKS: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Zuz3IvjX232XQ1oaT1he9XDBc1kO8qBbZZEYUbGyLt8/edit?usp=sharing
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FmZMHJmp3mMFgIpP3otf4dbYqjhNDluC7tdp1eEFg1U/edit?usp=sharing
The "green energy transition will not work" is the intention of this entire climate change agenda. It is about the intentional destruction of the industrialised nations (particularly those with British/European heritage and common law etc.)
*You are the carbon they want to reduce!!*
As Maurice Strong said decades ago "What if a small group of world leaders were to conclude that the principle risk to the earth comes from the actions of the rich countries? In order to save the planet, the group decides: isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialised civilisations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?"
This agenda has nothing to do with science, and everything to do with politics - anyone, and I mean *anyone* who believes carbon dioxide (the gas of life) is a problem to be dealt with is either; a communist/authoritarian, a grifter (solar/wind mill manufacturer) or an ignoramus - it is that clear cut.
We are in the midst of 5th generation, un-restricted, un-conventional warfare with an incredibly strong bias towards psychological warfare. The climate change agenda is a major element of the global war of statists/tyrants against the people. Destroying our ability to maintain advanced civilisation is the intention - as Fyodor Dostoevsky said, Lenin's entire political philosophy could be encapsulated in a single aphorism, - "the worse, the better."
Apply this to "climate change", "covid", "migrant crisis" etc. and ask yourself, does this aphorism fit today? And while you are at it, ask yourself, is China or Russia "de-carbonising", duping their citizens into taking mRNA injections, or flooding their countries with people from the third world? World War 3 is already here, Ukraine/Middle East etc. are simply storylines to be driven in any direction the narrative building tyrants desire.
Keynes quipped that not one man in a million understands inflation, unfortunately it seems that not one man in a million understands politics either. Once one has researched the political ideology proposed by Antonio Gramsci, post WWII politics becomes a lot clearer.
Alas, the sooner fiat currencies fail, the sooner the regimes' ability to destroy our nations by diktat will occur - notwithstanding the enormous issues currency failure will bring, one silver lining is a severely weakened state.
🙌🏻
Please excuse my ignorance, but what is that symbol?
It is a double high five sir.
Michael, I am honored. Thank you.
Thank you for your info Carl
FYI Michael Sutanto: This is a Google Docs link to an unpublished "working draft" manuscript, (that I began in 2012), on my inquiry into the on-going Third Wave economic transition:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KOsd36mpOGRFpgrLsmNn0KNo7QwdIwgz9EZiQqVNkJ8/edit?usp=sharing
Wow that is a wealth of information. I have a glimpse and its interesting reading about antipositivism. Did not realise such term exist. Should use that kind of reasoning to prove the existence of God
IMPORTANT MESSAGE TO ALL FELLOW MEMBERS / FOLLOWERS OF - ' MACLEOD FINANCE ' .
As an adjunct to the video that Alasdair has recently posted of ' Simon Michaud ' talking about
climate change and the ' Green Energy Transition / Agenda ' ....and if you want the whole unexpurgated truth as to the back history of this ' Complete Scam ' and want to know who and what were behind it & still driving it on to this day . SEE LINKS BELOW & IDEALLY IN THE ORDER AS LISTED .
PROFESSOR IAN PLIMER :
old.bitchute.com/video/tMs8OxllkwZs/
THE GREAT GLOBAL WARMING SWINDLE
old.bitchute/video/FnDGuaq8Cpdu/
CLIMATE CHANGE HOAX - SCAM OF A CENTURY
old.bitchute.com/video/wtu5gfAEa9Dj/
THE FALL OF THE CABAL - PART 28
old.bitchute.com/video/bqSmXvZ42H1V/
DR TIM BALL - CLIMATE CORRUPTION / GLOBALIST AGENDA 2030
old.bitchute.com/video/8yvOS4LSLabl/
CLUB OF ROME 1.
geopolitics.co/2021/04/20/club-of-rome-the-origin-of-climate-and-population-alarmism
CLUB OF ROME 2.
geopolitics.co/2022/08/22/the-great-carbon-conspiracy-and-the-wefs-great-reset/
CLUB OF ROME 3.
geopolitics.co/2022/10/31/the-dark-origins-of-the-davos-great-reset/
CLUB OF ROME 4.
geopolitics.co/2020/08/23/planetary-emergence-plan-declared-club-of-rome/
MAURICE STRONG - THE GODFATHER OF CLIMATE CHANGE
old.bitchute.com/video/V64XeTWp4gbQ/
MAURICE STRONG AND THE TAVISTOCK INSTITUTE
old.bitchute.com/video/DBzZbal9gihd/
THE TAVISTOCK INSTITUTE OF HUMAN RELATIONS - BY JOHN D. COLEMAN / FREE PDF DOWNLOAD
archive.org/details/Tavistock_20161/mode/2up
If I may add…. https://youtu.be/sgOEGKDVvsg?si=PTHPBZXijT0_6_ew
Thanks Colin .
Just to say & you have already noticed ' BUT ' - I think my " Sausage Fingers " somehow intervened when typing in the links shown in my comment , such that many don't come up as intended . This said - if you go to ' Bitchute ' & ' Rumble ' & just put the title's
into the search bar - then they should be able to be accessed .
There is scientific evidence from CO2 & temperature data from the period we have reliable data (since 1959) that in fact temperature changes before CO2:
https://www.mdpi.com/2413-4155/5/3/35
The authors conclude:
”The results are clear: changes in CO₂ concentration cannot be a cause of temperature changes. On the contrary, temperature change is a potential cause of CO₂ change on all time scales. As we conclude in the paper, “All evidence resulting from the analyses of the longest available modern time series of atmospheric concentration of [CO₂] at Mauna Loa, Hawaii, along with that of globally averaged T, suggests a unidirectional, potentially causal link with T as the cause and [CO₂] as
the effect. This direction of causality holds for the entire period covered by the observations (more than 60 years)." "
Accordingly there are other reasons for the rise in temperature during the last decades. The rise in CO2 level may be an effect of that. The human caused emission of CO2 yearly is only about 4% of the total.
YES - You are 100% correct , as indeed is Simon Michaud , who is simply re-iterating all of the facts and prognosis of what's to come that I've seen and kept up with from all manner of source's for many years now . I've noted a few additional links below which you and ' The Clan ' should find interesting .
The thing to say about this ' Global Warming Agenda ' and it's having been caused by Human Beings , Fossil Fuels , Cow Farts , Over-Population and mega level's of CO2 - is that in the very timely words of the sainted ' Bill Holter ' - " It's Just too Stupid to be Stupid " in that there is an all too apparent not so hidden narrative / agenda that's driving this nonsense - and which can't just be attributed to the ignorance and ineptitude of the myriad Governments / NGO's / Climate Scientist's & feeble minded Computer Modelers who have dreamt up and are propagating this baseless twaddle , and which is being eagerly sucked up by the vast majority of our fellow bretheren who are completely devoid of any capacity to think for themselves or question anything that spew's forth from the gob's of politicians , media & so called celebrity's alike .
More power to Simon Michaud's elbow & to those of all of the other like minded individuals who are prepared to show the evil truth that really lays behind both the ' Climate Agenda ' - and even more especially the ' Corona Virus / Vaccine / Big Pharma / Eugenics ' agenda - which combined have been designed to cull and massively de-populate this planet .
I WILL NOW NOT SHOW MY ' LINKS ' HERE - BUT WILL POST THEM SEPERATELY
The green transition has always been a wealth transfer bait and switch. It was never intended to work. Initially it allowed massive theft of tax dollars by insiders. The useful idiots think they are saving the planet while the real agenda is failure which will justify further onerous restrictions - no private vehicle ownership - 15 minute cities and the rest of the WEF agenda.
The copper market has never bought into the green transition. It’s not lying…
Great article Alasdair. Thanks very much for bringing it to us
All you have to do is read The Statistical Review of World Energy. Ignore the climate change headline and just read the data. There is no "transition" to "green" energy. There cannot be and will not be.https://www.energyinst.org/statistical-review
Some absolutely great stuff in there including the impact of debt, the deficit of raw materials for even a partial green energy future and so on, but it also contains quite a few glaring scientific errors. Unusual I thought for a predominantly popular science-based show.
I'll only mention one of them here; the stuff on ammonia combustion engines is a complete non-starter.
Yes, there's ongoing research into a few ships being powered by ammonia but that's probably government funded research and massively different from trying to use it on a global scale in cars for example.
Ships engines are so massive and run so slowly they will burn just about anything and heavy ship oil is effectively a waste product from refining alkanes - gasoline/octane, methane, ethane and so on. It's only one step away from bitumen. It's very dirty to burn which is why most ship companies only burn it away from port, but the oxides produced when ammonia is combusted are another level again. Theoretically you burn it to produce nitrogen and water, but it's impossible to make it truly clean.
NH4 is horrible stuff to have to deal with as a fuel. If you have used cloudy ammonia from the supermarket you'd know how much it stinks and will kill you quickly if you mess with it.
NH4 has an order of magnitude lower energy density than hydrogen gas and it's significantly lower than octane/petrol/gasoline and natural gas/methane. It's also extremely difficult to ignite requiring a whole lot of energy to get combustion started compared with fossil fuels.
Oxides of nitrogen are inevitably produced which are appallingly dangerous to living things - hence the reason we call nitrogen dioxide red death. When inhaled or in the atmosphere it reacts with water vapour to form nitric acid ie acid rain.
The Haber process which is the main way of producing industrial ammonia takes a ton of energy and pressure to react nitrogen from the air with hydrogen gas. Then of course you need to make the H2 gas in the first place - maybe from methane (pointless) or using even more power to electrolyse water into H2 and O2.
Like economics, in science and engineering there's no free lunch. Energy in vs energy out. Perpetual motion machines can't exist and no process is without losses.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics (entropy) is lost on the Green New Deal.
An example of what I mean by "creative destruction" is "methane (CH4) pyrolysis". By using microwaves in a non-oxygen reactor, the carbon atom is split from the four hydrogen atoms and the state of matter of the carbon is transitioned from a gas to a solid and pure H2 gas remains for fuel cell work, with no externalities other than a few drops of water:
https://www.pnnl.gov/news-media/new-clean-energy-process-converts-methane-hydrogen-zero-carbon-dioxide-emissions
Right, with the resultant carbon self assembling into nanotubes and buckyballs. Sounds extremely difficult even in lab conditions and impossible at any reasonable scale.
I thought - what's going to be the catalyst, probably one of the PGMs and you bet - palladium! They don't bother to mention it however, just saying it's a nickel paired with "other metals" but if you look at the electron micrograph, there it is - Pd.
Can't mention palladium in government research papers because the vast majority of extremely limited deposits are found in Russia and South Africa. BRICS nations bad and all that etc.
Hello Andy Grace and thank you for your comment. Question: When you state, "Sounds extremely difficult even in lab conditions and impossible at any reasonable scale", are you referring to "methane CH4 pyrolysis"?
Yes Carl. Not the pyrolysis itself, but the resultant production of carbon nanotubes and buckminsterfullerenes. My guess is despite the magical nickel-palladium catalyst you'd mostly end up with tons of near useless graphite instead of nanotech super-products.
Obviously Andy you are uninformed:
https://hydrogen.monolith-corp.com/
https://www.powermag.com/does-first-1b-loan-guarantee-in-years-seeks-to-bolster-turquoise-hydrogen-process/
The other problem with this is the hydrogen itself. There's a reason we use it in space vehicles. In stoichiometric quantities with oxygen - it's effectively a controlled bomb!.
How do you safely turn the world into a hydrogen economy? Hydrogen takes an enormous amount of energy to compress and as it's so small it's nigh on impossible to prevent it from leaking out unless you're using exceptionally strong tanks and seals. That means a lot of extra mass in the storage containers so in a car that means more H2 is required to be carried on board to compensate.
Then there's the issue with fuelling stations and the extreme cold you're dealing with when filling your vehicle. Any bad seals and you have that potential bomb on your hands. These things could be solved, but the question is whether it's worth it.
If the hydrogen can be used at the point of production, then that's awesome, but having to distribute it far and wide is a major logistical problem, the likes of which we don't have with octane or mildly compressed propane/butane. as LPG.
Not at all. The pyrolysis is easy - it's just burning in the absence of oxygen. The end product mentioned in the first link talked of carbon nanotubes as the end product. That's a whole different ballgame to producing just regular 2D carbon as in pencils.
Oil/gas in Mediterranean
West Africa, west Atlantic in LATAM
Great video, thus far, but I wish the gal would have let him talk without interrupting so much.
It's typical of non-professional interviewers and egomaniacs. You hear it everywhere online. The secret to any good radio or TV interview is listening to the subject. We all did it when we started; we were more worried about asking the next question and not looking foolish. When one starts to listen carefully, the interview is radically better for all. Then there is the egomaniac interviewer whose guest is just a foil for them to get their own long-winded points across. Luckily there aren't many of them around - but I've worked on air with a few !!! :)
Nuther germane report: https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/FMfcgzQVxlRNBrZVVjvvHbBMQNBTHVbV
Thank You Alasdair.