On Dec 1, 2:14*pm, Jules
wrote:
On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 15:08:18 +1300, Roger Dewhurst wrote:
Offsetting rarely gives the best bang for the buck. *That's because
how the carbon reduction is defined is so open to abuse. *The result
is that the claimed reductions are rarely achieved.

In another five years it will be recognised as the bull**** that it has
always been.

... and by then there'll be a new bandwagon to jump on and everyone can
once again feel safe and secure in the knowledge that they're Doing
Something. Ho hum.

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an
endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."

- HL Mencken

MBQ

In message , "Hawi:"
writes
On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 22:53:22 +0000, geoff wrote:

snip


Well, I come at this from the POV that if someone is concerned enough
to pay for carbon offsetting, at the very least, it helps the
individual to acknowledge and accept that their CO2 usage is harmful.
Eventually, that acceptance is more likely to lead to a net personal
reduction.

No it gives you feel that you can get away with not changing by
transferring the problem to someone else YTC

No. Your opinion.


It's a hell of a lot better than the 'clarkson type' denial
of the problem itself. And, a personal financial costing and charging
for carbon usage is always more likely to force people to really
concentrate on their part of the problem. That's all I'm saying.

Back to the subject though: Paying for someone to plant trees is one
way you can choose to carbon-offset. That is not at all the same thing
as paying someone not to use CO2. It's a way of removing CO2 from the
atmosphere. Don't get too bogged-down with media-led rubbishing of
offsetting.

Sorry, I think most people are ahead of you on that one
believing in carbon offsetting is as close to believing media led hype
as thinking that removing your charger from its socket during use will
save the planet

It is counter productive, it makes you think that you are doing
something useful when you really are not

Interesting. Do you throw away all your small change too, by any
chance?

I just tend to leave it around, yes

Obviously those coins aren't worth enough to make a
significant contribution to your overall wealth, are they?

No, not really, I

(Actually, re-reading your last statement, perhaps they dont make ANY
difference!)


But you are totally missing the point (or rather several)

I only just caught it on the news today, and don't know who was saying
it, but they said we need to actively suck CO2 out of the atmosphere to
mitigate global warming

This means ...

creating CO2 now and planting a couple of trees or whatever other scam
is on the books to compensate in 10 or 20 years just isn't a viable
solution. It DOES give people an excuse to not change


Lets face it, we, in the UK account for some 2% of all emissions,
whatever we and the rest of the world pales into insignificance when put
against USA, India and China

This means that, whatever we do, with whatever good intent, is really
just a drop in the ocean without the above countries making significant
changes



--
geoff

In message , "Hawi:"
writes
On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 22:36:21 +0000, geoff wrote:

In message , "Hawi:"
writes
On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 20:25:10 +0000, geoff wrote:

Haven't you heard the rubbishing that carbon offsetting has had in the
past few days, showing it up for the scam that it is

Have you heard that the media sometimes don't tell the truth?

Personally, I would say that carbon offsetting is better than doing
nothing. It is a small improvement, - to be added to lots of other
small improvements designed to reduce our CO2 usage. It also helps
high CO2 users to become aware of their own individual impact on the
problem.

Perhaps you have a different view?

Absolutely - it makes people think they can carry on as normal , but
clear their consciences by contributing to some "project" which was
probably going to happen anyway

Putting CO2 into the atmosphere today feeling OK that your tree(s) will
compensate in 20 years time is nothing more than a marketing gimmick and
a load of grreenwash ********

I presume that you are also making a massive contribution by unplugging
your phone charger when you're not using it

Your presumption is incorrect. However, I do unplug my phone charger
when I'm not using it. The difference it makes is infinitesimal, - but
not zero.

Look, what I'm saying here is that an acknowledgement of environmental
change, caused by humans, is a good thing. Carbon offsetting is an
extremely poor way of dealing with the problem. But it does NOT
produce a zero improvement and it is therefore marginally better than
ignorting the problem altogether. People who employ carbon offsetting
as their solution are more environmentally aware than those who do
nothing.

Perhaps it's my fault for not understanding your apparent belief that
there are no numbers between 0% and 100%?
In your opinion, are the following equations true? ...

0.00000001 = zero
tiny = zero
one penny = zero
1 milligram = zero

No, its your fault for underestimating the number of zeros you need
after the decimal point

Infinitesimal in this case is as good as zero

Do you really think that you are talking to people here who don't have a
clue about CO2 and global warming?

Perhaps you should do a GG search and check out previous discussions
here, since you do seem to be that idea short of a clue

--
geoff

In message , "Hawi:"
writes
On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 08:13:23 -0600, Jules
wrote:

On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 08:43:01 +0000, Hawi: wrote:
However, I do unplug my phone charger
when I'm not using it. The difference it makes is infinitesimal, - but
not zero.

I wonder how the impact of walking back and forth to plug in / unplug the
charger stacks up against the impact of just leaving it plugged in all
the time?


erm..

impact on what, exactly?

IWHT he means the otherwise useful oxygen that you converted into CO2 by
your increased metabolic rate


--
geoff

"geoff" wrote in message


But you are totally missing the point (or rather several)

I only just caught it on the news today, and don't know who was saying it,
but they said we need to actively suck CO2 out of the atmosphere to
mitigate global warming

This means ...

creating CO2 now and planting a couple of trees or whatever other scam is
on the books to compensate in 10 or 20 years just isn't a viable solution.
It DOES give people an excuse to not change


Lets face it, we, in the UK account for some 2% of all emissions, whatever
we and the rest of the world pales into insignificance when put against
USA, India and China

This means that, whatever we do, with whatever good intent, is really just
a drop in the ocean without the above countries making significant changes


I wonder if the obesity epedemic is helping. All those fat people are
really carbon storage facilities, so you see the USA is doing its bit.

mark

On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 21:02:31 +0000, geoff wrote:

snip

But you are totally missing the point (or rather several)

I only just caught it on the news today, and don't know who was saying
it, but they said we need to actively suck CO2 out of the atmosphere to
mitigate global warming

This means ...

creating CO2 now and planting a couple of trees or whatever other scam
is on the books to compensate in 10 or 20 years just isn't a viable
solution. It DOES give people an excuse to not change


Lets face it, we, in the UK account for some 2% of all emissions,
whatever we and the rest of the world pales into insignificance when put
against USA, India and China

This means that, whatever we do, with whatever good intent, is really
just a drop in the ocean without the above countries making significant
changes

Great attitude. And you are now totally missing the point. I was
talking about awareness of the problem. Without that awareness the
problem will not be addressed. Your stance that what each of do is not
significant enough to be bothered doing in the first place, is
madness. Are you waiting for politicians to force the changes
required?

On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 21:13:45 +0000, geoff wrote:

In message , "Hawi:"
d writes
On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 08:13:23 -0600, Jules
wrote:

On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 08:43:01 +0000, Hawi: wrote:
However, I do unplug my phone charger
when I'm not using it. The difference it makes is infinitesimal, - but
not zero.

I wonder how the impact of walking back and forth to plug in / unplug the
charger stacks up against the impact of just leaving it plugged in all
the time?


erm..

impact on what, exactly?

IWHT he means the otherwise useful oxygen that you converted into CO2 by
your increased metabolic rate

Ahhh, I see. It was a joke!

On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 21:11:07 +0000, geoff wrote:

snip

Look, what I'm saying here is that an acknowledgement of environmental
change, caused by humans, is a good thing. Carbon offsetting is an
extremely poor way of dealing with the problem. But it does NOT
produce a zero improvement and it is therefore marginally better than
ignorting the problem altogether. People who employ carbon offsetting
as their solution are more environmentally aware than those who do
nothing.

Perhaps it's my fault for not understanding your apparent belief that
there are no numbers between 0% and 100%?
In your opinion, are the following equations true? ...

0.00000001 = zero
tiny = zero
one penny = zero
1 milligram = zero

No, its your fault for underestimating the number of zeros you need
after the decimal point

Although my point is made, - as long as there's a 1 at the end.

Infinitesimal in this case is as good as zero

An oxymoron as a statement of truth. Interesting.

Do you really think that you are talking to people here who don't have a
clue about CO2 and global warming?

Not at all. But you are obviously one of those without that clue.

Perhaps you should do a GG search and check out previous discussions
here, since you do seem to be that idea short of a clue

And perhaps you should know that I've been in and around this group
for over 10 years myself. I have not been involved in discussions of
this sort here. And now I realise why. I'm involved in the transition
movement, btw. Perhaps you'd like to wander over to
http://transitionnetwork.org/ and be enlightened.

Enjoy the sand. I believe it's very comforting with your entire head
submerged in it.

H.

Hawi: wrote:
On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 21:13:45 +0000, geoff wrote:

In message , "Hawi:"
writes
On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 08:13:23 -0600, Jules
wrote:

On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 08:43:01 +0000, Hawi: wrote:
However, I do unplug my phone charger
when I'm not using it. The difference it makes is infinitesimal, - but
not zero.
I wonder how the impact of walking back and forth to plug in / unplug the
charger stacks up against the impact of just leaving it plugged in all
the time?

erm..

impact on what, exactly?
IWHT he means the otherwise useful oxygen that you converted into CO2 by
your increased metabolic rate

Ahhh, I see. It was a joke!
Actually, its not.

The way to reduce your carbon footprint is to use Tesco direct for junk
food, never go out, just stay in watching TV and sticking junk in your arm.

The government encourages this.

mark wrote:
"geoff" wrote in message
But you are totally missing the point (or rather several)

I only just caught it on the news today, and don't know who was saying it,
but they said we need to actively suck CO2 out of the atmosphere to
mitigate global warming

This means ...

creating CO2 now and planting a couple of trees or whatever other scam is
on the books to compensate in 10 or 20 years just isn't a viable solution.
It DOES give people an excuse to not change


Lets face it, we, in the UK account for some 2% of all emissions, whatever
we and the rest of the world pales into insignificance when put against
USA, India and China

This means that, whatever we do, with whatever good intent, is really just
a drop in the ocean without the above countries making significant changes


I wonder if the obesity epedemic is helping. All those fat people are
really carbon storage facilities, so you see the USA is doing its bit.


Until you cremate them.

Mind you, a good source of alternative energy. Powerstation + crematorium.

Where's Eichmann when you need him?
mark

In message , mark
writes

"geoff" wrote in message


But you are totally missing the point (or rather several)

I only just caught it on the news today, and don't know who was saying it,
but they said we need to actively suck CO2 out of the atmosphere to
mitigate global warming

This means ...

creating CO2 now and planting a couple of trees or whatever other scam is
on the books to compensate in 10 or 20 years just isn't a viable solution.
It DOES give people an excuse to not change


Lets face it, we, in the UK account for some 2% of all emissions, whatever
we and the rest of the world pales into insignificance when put against
USA, India and China

This means that, whatever we do, with whatever good intent, is really just
a drop in the ocean without the above countries making significant changes


I wonder if the obesity epedemic is helping. All those fat people are
really carbon storage facilities, so you see the USA is doing its bit.

What about the veggies - methane factories by any other name

--
geoff

In message , "Hawi:"
writes
On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 21:02:31 +0000, geoff wrote:

snip

But you are totally missing the point (or rather several)

I only just caught it on the news today, and don't know who was saying
it, but they said we need to actively suck CO2 out of the atmosphere to
mitigate global warming

This means ...

creating CO2 now and planting a couple of trees or whatever other scam
is on the books to compensate in 10 or 20 years just isn't a viable
solution. It DOES give people an excuse to not change


Lets face it, we, in the UK account for some 2% of all emissions,
whatever we and the rest of the world pales into insignificance when put
against USA, India and China

This means that, whatever we do, with whatever good intent, is really
just a drop in the ocean without the above countries making significant
changes

Great attitude. And you are now totally missing the point. I was
talking about awareness of the problem.

I don't think that there is a lack of awareness, just too many people
that think that they can get away with paying someone else to do
something on their behalf and not actually do anything

,,, and the eejits that think that it's actually going to help YTC


Without that awareness the
problem will not be addressed. Your stance that what each of do is not
significant enough to be bothered doing in the first place, is
madness.

No its not, it's the reality of the situation - made worse by you
thinking that you are actually making a difference

Are you waiting for politicians to force the changes
required?

Not really happening, is it ?

--
geoff

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , "Hawi:"
writes
On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 21:02:31 +0000, geoff wrote:

snip

But you are totally missing the point (or rather several)

I only just caught it on the news today, and don't know who was saying
it, but they said we need to actively suck CO2 out of the atmosphere to
mitigate global warming

This means ...

creating CO2 now and planting a couple of trees or whatever other scam
is on the books to compensate in 10 or 20 years just isn't a viable
solution. It DOES give people an excuse to not change


Lets face it, we, in the UK account for some 2% of all emissions,
whatever we and the rest of the world pales into insignificance when put
against USA, India and China

This means that, whatever we do, with whatever good intent, is really
just a drop in the ocean without the above countries making significant
changes

Great attitude. And you are now totally missing the point. I was
talking about awareness of the problem.

I don't think that there is a lack of awareness, just too many people that
think that they can get away with paying someone else to do something on
their behalf and not actually do anything

,,, and the eejits that think that it's actually going to help YTC


Without that awareness the
problem will not be addressed. Your stance that what each of do is not
significant enough to be bothered doing in the first place, is
madness.

No its not, it's the reality of the situation - made worse by you thinking
that you are actually making a difference

Are you waiting for politicians to force the changes
required?

Not really happening, is it ?

No, they're busy giving the green light to extra lanes on motorways and
extra runways at airports, then blaming global warming on us lot for using
tungsten bulbs.

mark

In message , "Hawi:"
writes
On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 21:11:07 +0000, geoff wrote:

snip

Look, what I'm saying here is that an acknowledgement of environmental
change, caused by humans, is a good thing. Carbon offsetting is an
extremely poor way of dealing with the problem. But it does NOT
produce a zero improvement and it is therefore marginally better than
ignorting the problem altogether. People who employ carbon offsetting
as their solution are more environmentally aware than those who do
nothing.

Perhaps it's my fault for not understanding your apparent belief that
there are no numbers between 0% and 100%?
In your opinion, are the following equations true? ...

0.00000001 = zero
tiny = zero
one penny = zero
1 milligram = zero

No, its your fault for underestimating the number of zeros you need
after the decimal point

Although my point is made, - as long as there's a 1 at the end.

Infinitesimal in this case is as good as zero

An oxymoron as a statement of truth. Interesting.

Do you really think that you are talking to people here who don't have a
clue about CO2 and global warming?

Not at all. But you are obviously one of those without that clue.

Perhaps you should do a GG search and check out previous discussions
here, since you do seem to be that idea short of a clue

And perhaps you should know that I've been in and around this group
for over 10 years myself. I have not been involved in discussions of
this sort here. And now I realise why. I'm involved in the transition
movement, btw. Perhaps you'd like to wander over to
http://transitionnetwork.org/ and be enlightened.

Not actually made any difference where it matters, though


Enjoy the sand. I believe it's very comforting with your entire head
submerged in it.

I would say rather that you have your head up your arse

byee - you are a pointless person to discuss this with

--
geoff

On Dec 1, 9:45*pm, "Hawi:"
wrote:
On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 21:11:07 +0000, geoff wrote:

snip





Look, what I'm saying here is that an acknowledgement of environmental
change, caused by humans, is a good thing. Carbon offsetting is an
extremely poor way of dealing with the problem. But it does NOT
produce a zero improvement and it is therefore marginally better than
ignorting the problem altogether. People who employ carbon offsetting
as their solution are more environmentally aware than those who do
nothing.

Perhaps it's my fault for not understanding your apparent belief that
there are no numbers between 0% and 100%?
In your opinion, are the following equations true? ...

0.00000001 = zero
tiny = zero
one penny = zero
1 milligram = zero

No, its your fault for underestimating the number of zeros you need
after the decimal point

Although my point is made, - as long as there's a 1 at the end.

Infinitesimal in this case is as good as zero

An oxymoron as a statement of truth. Interesting.

Do you really think that you are talking to people here who don't have a
clue about CO2 and global warming?

Not at all. But you are obviously one of those without that clue.

Perhaps you should do a GG search and check out previous discussions
here, since you do seem to be that idea short of a clue

And perhaps you should know that I've been in and around this group
for over 10 years myself. I have not been involved in discussions of
this sort here. And now I realise why. I'm involved in the transition
movement, btw. Perhaps you'd like to wander over tohttp://transitionnetwork.org/and be enlightened.

Enjoy the sand. I believe it's very comforting with your entire head
submerged in it.

H.

People have spent ages on this ng trying to factually establish the
core green views, and none has ever managed it. The 'youre in denial'
approach only demonstrates ignorance.


NT

mark wrote:


No, they're busy giving the green light to extra lanes on motorways and
extra runways at airports, then blaming global warming on us lot for using
tungsten bulbs.


Indeed. The problem is people are stupid enough to think that they can
have their lifestyle and not have climate change, and especially without
nuclear power.

The facts of the matter is that all governments are treading a tightrope
between public opinion and physics.

The reality of that means that climate change will happen, and its
probably easier and cheaper overall to let it happen, (and politically
desirable) and deal with the results.

There is a real problem in that whereas a long time ago we had a ruling
class who didn't listen to us, but were at least born into the job and
the responsibilities, now we have a ruling class, that has to pander to
the electorate at every turn, and who have essentially no training in
rule or leadership. This is particularly true of Browns Bull****ters.

What matters is getting elected. Not saving the planet. Honesty is the
worst policy.

On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 09:02:06 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

There is a real problem in that whereas a long time ago we had a ruling
class who didn't listen to us, but were at least born into the job and
the responsibilities, now we have a ruling class, that has to pander to
the electorate at every turn, and who have essentially no training in
rule or leadership. This is particularly true of Browns Bull****ters.

What matters is getting elected. Not saving the planet. Honesty is the
worst policy.

The previous ruling class had the best interests of themselves at
heart, not the interests of proles so I think we can discount that as
a good system of government

The current system doesnt work well either, but it is not easy to
think of one which would work better (*)

At one time I was interested in the idea of representatives being
chosen by ballot, for maybe a 5 year term - a bit like jury service.
But then I relaised that would put far too much power in the hands of
the civil service

(*) I do think that it would be a good idea to find some way to get
rid of the concept of career politician, so that no-one is allowed to
be an MP until they have done something worthwhile already and have
life experience to bring to the table

(*) The idea of MPs sitting in parliament for a few weeks and then
having a few weeks back in the constituency is outdated. It was
reasonable when London was three days horse ride from home but a bit
daft now

(*) Do we need MPs at all? Mind you we are unlikely to get rid of
them. Too much like turkeys voting for Xmas

Anna

Who obviously has too much time to muse while stripping paint off her
ceiling

On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 21:21:28 -0800 (PST), NT
wrote:

On Dec 1, 9:45*pm, "Hawi:"
d wrote:
On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 21:11:07 +0000, geoff wrote:

snip

Perhaps you should do a GG search and check out previous discussions
here, since you do seem to be that idea short of a clue

And perhaps you should know that I've been in and around this group
for over 10 years myself. I have not been involved in discussions of
this sort here. And now I realise why. I'm involved in the transition
movement, btw. Perhaps you'd like to wander over tohttp://transitionnetwork.org/and be enlightened.

Enjoy the sand. I believe it's very comforting with your entire head
submerged in it.

H.

People have spent ages on this ng trying to factually establish the
core green views, and none has ever managed it. The 'youre in denial'
approach only demonstrates ignorance.


NT

Agreed, - if that's the only point being made. Here, it isn't.
And denial from certain people appears to be quite prevelant. So it's
no good denying that denial exists and it's no good pretending that
denial isn't a crucial part of the problem.

On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 23:21:26 +0000, geoff wrote:

snip

Perhaps you should do a GG search and check out previous discussions
here, since you do seem to be that idea short of a clue

And perhaps you should know that I've been in and around this group
for over 10 years myself. I have not been involved in discussions of
this sort here. And now I realise why. I'm involved in the transition
movement, btw. Perhaps you'd like to wander over to
http://transitionnetwork.org/ and be enlightened.

Not actually made any difference where it matters, though

Of course it has, - and is.

And it's growing in popularity, which is crucial.


Enjoy the sand. I believe it's very comforting with your entire head
submerged in it.

I would say rather that you have your head up your arse

Of course you would.

byee - you are a pointless person to discuss this with

doom, gloom, denial, moan, whinge
versus..

creating solutions and practicing them, positive action, lifestyle
change, lobbying.

So, you're right. I don't belong in this thread with you.

Bye.

Anna Kettle wrote:
On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 09:02:06 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

There is a real problem in that whereas a long time ago we had a ruling
class who didn't listen to us, but were at least born into the job and
the responsibilities, now we have a ruling class, that has to pander to
the electorate at every turn, and who have essentially no training in
rule or leadership. This is particularly true of Browns Bull****ters.

What matters is getting elected. Not saving the planet. Honesty is the
worst policy.

The previous ruling class had the best interests of themselves at
heart, not the interests of proles so I think we can discount that as
a good system of government


Ah, but enlightened self interest show that actually the two are not
dissimilar.

The odd king murdered is always a good reason to be nicer next time.


Democracy is only coup de ballot rather than coup de grace, otherwise
little has changed EXCEPT that the ruling class no longer are drawn from
a pool of people *educated in the expectation that they would be rulers*.

And with a moral code to suit.

Namely they might be incompetent selfish venal grabbers and oppressors,
BUT they could at least be expected to resign when they 'broke the code'

This lot wont resign for any reason whatsoever.


The current system doesnt work well either, but it is not easy to
think of one which would work better (*)

At one time I was interested in the idea of representatives being
chosen by ballot, for maybe a 5 year term - a bit like jury service.
But then I relaised that would put far too much power in the hands of
the civil service

(*) I do think that it would be a good idea to find some way to get
rid of the concept of career politician, so that no-one is allowed to
be an MP until they have done something worthwhile already and have
life experience to bring to the table


well some of them, at least.


(*) The idea of MPs sitting in parliament for a few weeks and then
having a few weeks back in the constituency is outdated. It was
reasonable when London was three days horse ride from home but a bit
daft now

(*) Do we need MPs at all? Mind you we are unlikely to get rid of
them. Too much like turkeys voting for Xmas


If you are truly interested in THINKING about this, rather than
accepting the politically correct norms, I would suggest that in
essence, we recognise that democracy does not mean that the government
does what the people want or gives the people any power at all. In
essence we are no different from e.g. communist Russia, where a ruling
elite held power simply by making any other party than their own
unelectable by legislation.

As it is we have a choice of three, none of whom really differs much
from the others.

Where we have a real choice, is in our spending power. We can choose to
buy what we want, or not.

Really that for me is why I favour the Tories at the moment: the idea
being to not take all your money and spend it on what a bunch of
bureaucrats say you want, but to give those choices back to the people
who make the money.

The other potential way to give people more power, is to make local
government more independent. Let them raise their own taxes and spend
them as their electorate wants.

I don't like Big Government. But I dont like US style republicanism either.

I think the answer has to be to devolve power as far as is possible
towards the people.

It wouldn't be perfect, but it might be better.


Anna

Who obviously has too much time to muse while stripping paint off her
ceiling

On Dec 2, 9:38*am, (Anna Kettle) wrote:
On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 09:02:06 +0000, The Natural Philosopher

wrote:
There is a real problem in that whereas a long time ago we had a ruling
class who didn't listen to us, but were at least born into the job and
the responsibilities, now we have a ruling class, that has to pander to
the electorate at every turn, and who have essentially no training in
rule or leadership. This is particularly true of Browns Bull****ters.

What matters is getting elected. Not saving the planet. Honesty is the
worst policy.

The previous ruling class had the best interests of themselves at
heart, not the interests of proles so I think we can discount that as
a good system of government

The current system doesnt work well either, but it is not easy to
think of one which would work better (*)

At one time I was interested in the idea of representatives being
chosen by ballot, for maybe a 5 year term - a bit like jury service.
But then I relaised that would put far too much power in the hands of
the civil service

(*) I do think that it would be a good idea to find some way to get
rid of the concept of career politician, so that no-one is allowed to
be an MP until they have done something worthwhile already and have
life experience to bring *to the table

MPs should be chosen like jurors.

MBQ

On 2 Dec 2009 12:19:00 GMT, Huge wrote:

On 2009-12-02, Hawi: wrote:
On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 23:21:26 +0000, geoff wrote:

snip

Perhaps you should do a GG search and check out previous discussions
here, since you do seem to be that idea short of a clue

And perhaps you should know that I've been in and around this group
for over 10 years myself. I have not been involved in discussions of
this sort here. And now I realise why. I'm involved in the transition
movement, btw. Perhaps you'd like to wander over to
http://transitionnetwork.org/ and be enlightened.

Not actually made any difference where it matters, though

Of course it has,

Such a huge difference, in fact, that I've never heard of it - and I take
a keen interest in what the AGW community is up to. But then, I like to
read science, not meaningless waffle.

Really? A keen interest? But yet you've not bothered with the Centre
for Alternative Technology (www.cat.org.uk) or the Peak Oil
discussions at, for example www.theoildrum.com ? How odd! Especially
as Transition Towns are an important part of their range of solutions.

Why not search for Transition on either of those sites? You might
learn something.

Perhaps these organisations are not 'scientific enough for you? In
that case, why not read a bit about the Peak Oil problem itself,
described as early as 1949 by Dr. M. King Hubbert?
Heard of Ron Swenson or Professor Albert Bartlett?

I'll pick another one at random, as an exercise you can get your teeth
into. Try Dr. Robert Kaufmann's lecture, available at:
http://vmsstreamer1.fnal.gov/VMS_Sit...mann/index.htm

As a final gift, here's a link to this week's article in the Guardian,
in which, Rob Hopkins, an eminent Transition Towns Movement founder
has just won their annual Energy Saving Trust award.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/greencommu...rs-must-follow

On 2 Dec 2009 14:05:42 GMT, Huge wrote:

snip

Such a huge difference, in fact, that I've never heard of it - and I take
a keen interest in what the AGW community is up to. But then, I like to
read science, not meaningless waffle.

Really? A keen interest? But yet you've not bothered with the Centre
for Alternative Technology (www.cat.org.uk)

You read minds? How odd.

As a final gift, here's a link to this week's article in the Guardian,

Thanks but I have enough arsewipe.

Yes, I thought as much. Interesting secret selective snipping there
too, - I notice.

I was only providing you with some science because you said you like
to read some. I did suspect that your version of 'science' is only
credible if it matches your own pre-chosen and entrenched viewpoint.
somehow, I knew you would prove me correct.

Goodbye.

On Dec 2, 10:53*am, "Hawi:"
wrote:
On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 21:21:28 -0800 (PST), NT
wrote:





On Dec 1, 9:45*pm, "Hawi:"
d wrote:
On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 21:11:07 +0000, geoff wrote:

snip

Perhaps you should do a GG search and check out previous discussions
here, since you do seem to be that idea short of a clue

And perhaps you should know that I've been in and around this group
for over 10 years myself. I have not been involved in discussions of
this sort here. And now I realise why. I'm involved in the transition
movement, btw. Perhaps you'd like to wander over tohttp://transitionnetwork.org/andbe enlightened.

Enjoy the sand. I believe it's very comforting with your entire head
submerged in it.

H.

People have spent ages on this ng trying to factually establish the
core green views, and none has ever managed it. The 'youre in denial'
approach only demonstrates ignorance.

NT

Agreed, - if that's the only point being made. Here, it isn't.
And denial from certain people appears to be quite prevelant. So it's
no good denying that denial exists and it's no good pretending that
denial isn't a crucial part of the problem.


youre only in a position to credibly claim there's denial if you can
scientifically establish your POV. And you certainly cant.

In this thread you havent even tried to.


NT

On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 06:45:17 -0800 (PST), NT
wrote:

snip

youre only in a position to credibly claim there's denial if you can
scientifically establish your POV. And you certainly cant.

In this thread you havent even tried to.


NT

Rubbish.

So only matters that have been scientifically established (whatever
that means) can be denied?

Right; "I deny that GW is caused mainly by natural earth-temperature
cycles".

My denial does not lose it's credibility simply because you are not
able to scientifically establish that it is.

Issues such as these are impossible to establish as true or false. As
you know, it is a balance of probability, - based on thousands of
studies and scientific opinions. I am quite convinced that the balance
of probability lies heavily in the 'caused by human CO2 emissions'
camp. But you may deny my truth, - just as I deny yours.

On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 11:39:28 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

The previous ruling class had the best interests of themselves at
heart, not the interests of proles so I think we can discount that as
a good system of government

Ah, but enlightened self interest show that actually the two are not
dissimilar.

Oh but they are. I have just been reading an interesting book called
"Who owns Britain" which is a fine example of how self interest wins
over enlightenment

The odd king murdered is always a good reason to be nicer next time.

or a good reason to tighten up on terrorist laws

Democracy is only coup de ballot rather than coup de grace, otherwise
little has changed EXCEPT that the ruling class no longer are drawn from
a pool of people *educated in the expectation that they would be rulers*.

And with a moral code to suit.

Namely they might be incompetent selfish venal grabbers and oppressors,
BUT they could at least be expected to resign when they 'broke the code'

This lot wont resign for any reason whatsoever.

Indeed. I dont hold a candle to this lot either

If you are truly interested in THINKING about this, rather than
accepting the politically correct norms, I would suggest that in
essence, we recognise that democracy does not mean that the government
does what the people want or gives the people any power at all. In
essence we are no different from e.g. communist Russia, where a ruling
elite held power simply by making any other party than their own
unelectable by legislation.

As it is we have a choice of three, none of whom really differs much
from the others.

Where we have a real choice, is in our spending power. We can choose to
buy what we want, or not.

True

I think the answer has to be to devolve power as far as is possible
towards the people.

That has good points and bad

Good, in that Joe down the pub has little or no interest in the
workings of government or respect for MPs and I cant see that changing
any time soon

Whereas he will get very involved in issues where he feels personally
interested, such as closing the local school (or pub) It would be good
if the political system made use of this enthusiasm, so he feels that
he can, with others, really make a difference

But if devolution happens then it is not on to cry 'postcode lottery'
You cant have it both ways

Or maybe you can so shuffling money between (say) Hampstead and
Toxteth and drawing up minimum standards is a good function of
national (or possibly EU) government

Bad, in that I cant think of a single good example of devolution
happening in practice. It is in the power building person's self
interest to aggregate but never to devolve

In a similar vein, the tendency is for rules to multiply, there doesnt
seem to be any counter mechanism for getting rid of them. Road signs
are a good example of this. When did a road sign ever get taken away?

There is a money argument against devolution. In Norfolk, several
District Councils are amalgamating back office services to save money.
Or is this an argument that there are just too many tiers of
government

Anna

Issues such as these are impossible to establish as true or false. As
you know, it is a balance of probability, - based on thousands of
studies and scientific opinions. I am quite convinced that the balance
of probability lies heavily in the 'caused by human CO2 emissions'
camp. But you may deny my truth, - just as I deny yours.


It doesn't help when you talk about "your truth". Truth is truth, what
you and I have is opinions, nothing more. Don't turn it into a religion.

The balance of probability is that GW is all ********, if only because
politicians are so keen on it.

On Dec 2, 3:14*pm, "Hawi:"
wrote:
On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 06:45:17 -0800 (PST), NT
wrote:
snip

snip... if you can
scientifically establish your POV. And you certainly cant.

In this thread you havent even tried to.

snip

Issues such as these are impossible to establish as true or false.

That's something.

As
you know, it is a balance of probability,

ok


- based on thousands of
studies and scientific opinions.

well...

I am quite convinced that the balance
of probability lies heavily in the 'caused by human CO2 emissions'
camp.

I agree. But the green agenda is much more than that single point. It
is, in summary:
1. Global warming is occurring
2. Global warming is manmade
3. Global warming will be an epic disaster
4. Humans can stop global warming by reducing energy consumption
5. The cost to human life of doing so will be minimal compared to the
cost of global warming
6. We should therefore cut back heavily on energy consumption.

1&2 I might agree with you on, but its far from certain. But the rest
aren't remotely established. Point 5 is grossly wrong, the cost to
human life of the green agenda would be appalling.

To warrant following the green agenda all above points would need to
be correct. This is far from the case.


NT

Hawi: wrote:
On 2 Dec 2009 14:05:42 GMT, Huge wrote:

snip
Such a huge difference, in fact, that I've never heard of it - and I take
a keen interest in what the AGW community is up to. But then, I like to
read science, not meaningless waffle.
Really? A keen interest? But yet you've not bothered with the Centre
for Alternative Technology (www.cat.org.uk)
You read minds? How odd.

As a final gift, here's a link to this week's article in the Guardian,
Thanks but I have enough arsewipe.

Yes, I thought as much. Interesting secret selective snipping there
too, - I notice.

I was only providing you with some science because you said you like
to read some. I did suspect that your version of 'science' is only
credible if it matches your own pre-chosen and entrenched viewpoint.
somehow, I knew you would prove me correct.

Goodbye.

Any science, to the uneducated, is indistinguishable from magic.
Any bull****, to the untrained, is indistinguishable from science. Cf
the 'New Scientist'

Anna Kettle wrote:
On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 11:39:28 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

The previous ruling class had the best interests of themselves at
heart, not the interests of proles so I think we can discount that as
a good system of government

Ah, but enlightened self interest show that actually the two are not
dissimilar.

Oh but they are. I have just been reading an interesting book called
"Who owns Britain" which is a fine example of how self interest wins
over enlightenment

The odd king murdered is always a good reason to be nicer next time.

or a good reason to tighten up on terrorist laws

Democracy is only coup de ballot rather than coup de grace, otherwise
little has changed EXCEPT that the ruling class no longer are drawn from
a pool of people *educated in the expectation that they would be rulers*.

And with a moral code to suit.

Namely they might be incompetent selfish venal grabbers and oppressors,
BUT they could at least be expected to resign when they 'broke the code'

This lot wont resign for any reason whatsoever.

Indeed. I dont hold a candle to this lot either

If you are truly interested in THINKING about this, rather than
accepting the politically correct norms, I would suggest that in
essence, we recognise that democracy does not mean that the government
does what the people want or gives the people any power at all. In
essence we are no different from e.g. communist Russia, where a ruling
elite held power simply by making any other party than their own
unelectable by legislation.

As it is we have a choice of three, none of whom really differs much
from the others.
Where we have a real choice, is in our spending power. We can choose to
buy what we want, or not.

True

I think the answer has to be to devolve power as far as is possible
towards the people.

That has good points and bad

Good, in that Joe down the pub has little or no interest in the
workings of government or respect for MPs and I cant see that changing
any time soon

Whereas he will get very involved in issues where he feels personally
interested, such as closing the local school (or pub) It would be good
if the political system made use of this enthusiasm, so he feels that
he can, with others, really make a difference

But if devolution happens then it is not on to cry 'postcode lottery'
You cant have it both ways

Indeed. I WANT a postcode lottery., Or rather a postcode CHOICE. You
move to place X, it has more or less council tax, better or worse
schools, better or worse public transport, better or worse hospitals.
That's YOUR CHOICE.

If you want 509% of your council tax devoted to gay support groups, move
to Brighton.


etc.


Or maybe you can so shuffling money between (say) Hampstead and
Toxteth and drawing up minimum standards is a good function of
national (or possibly EU) government


If toxteth has special needs, let it get central govt or EU funding, but
make that the exception, NIOT the rule.



Bad, in that I cant think of a single good example of devolution
happening in practice. It is in the power building person's self
interest to aggregate but never to devolve

USA is a federation of quasi autonomous States. Switzerland is a
scottish N/.Irish and welsh assemblies have considerable sway over local
affirs., As in fact does London. All Swedish schools are semi private,
but state funded.,, Certainly no WORSE than ours.

In a similar vein, the tendency is for rules to multiply, there doesnt
seem to be any counter mechanism for getting rid of them. Road signs
are a good example of this. When did a road sign ever get taken away?


I think you may be in for a shock if the Tories get in. I think it will
be red pen through most of the legislation of the last ten years and a
'this is not a governments problem' as a standard response.

It may take lengthy debate and amendments to get statutes ON the books
(or indeed, in many cases no debate at all) but it takes no input by the
law lords to remove it. Once its been mandated, off it goes. There is
nothing to argue about in terms of fine detail.



There is a money argument against devolution. In Norfolk, several
District Councils are amalgamating back office services to save money.
Or is this an argument that there are just too many tiers of
government


I suspect the latter. I mean not only those councils, but we have EEDA,
EERA..chop the ruddy lot. Never done anyone any good.

I want a parish, or town council with teeth, whose councillors addresses
are known and whose windows I can smash if needs be. Pour encourager les
autres. I want them to have almost complete power of local affairs.
Because I can get to them. And I want my local taxes and VAT to go to
them, not central govt, to spend as I want. Not as central govt decrees.

Central government should be there for anything too big for the county
to handle. As the county is there for things too big for a
parish/borough to handle.



Anna

On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 20:39:27 +0000 The Natural Philosopher wrote :
Indeed. I WANT a postcode lottery., Or rather a postcode CHOICE.
You move to place X, it has more or less council tax, better or
worse schools, better or worse public transport, better or worse
hospitals. That's YOUR CHOICE.

Well yes. That's where the likes of the Daily Mail fail to educate
people by one day running a "decisions made by faceless Whitehall
mandarins" and the next - in a derogatory way - banging on about
postcode lotteries. As you rightly say, devolution does mean that
local decision making bodies will set different priorities.

Back when I was a BCO it was in a London borough which was formerly
three smaller councils, and building control operated as three
districts following the former council boundaries. Each of us three
district inspectors was allowed to run our patch as we chose, which
we did - three very different styles, reflecting our backgrounds and
personalities. It was a very happy place to work, and I think that
the same standards were achieved in each area, but by different
means.

Then we got a new boss who declared that it was ridiculous for
someone to submit virtually the same plan three times to the same
council and get three different responses - an approval (from
someone who was confident that any small things could be resolved on
site and who spent most of his time on site inspections), a phone
call asking for an amendment letter (me), or a letter with 36
queries (from someone who wanted every last detail right at plan
stage). I guess the boss had a point, but within a short time of us
being required to implement a unified approach we had all left. But
I do see it from the customer's pov: you do expect some consistency.

--
Tony Bryer, Greentram: 'Software to build on' Melbourne, Australia
www.superbeam.co.uk www.superbeam.com www.greentram.com

Tony Bryer wrote:
On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 20:39:27 +0000 The Natural Philosopher wrote :
Indeed. I WANT a postcode lottery., Or rather a postcode CHOICE.
You move to place X, it has more or less council tax, better or
worse schools, better or worse public transport, better or worse
hospitals. That's YOUR CHOICE.

Well yes. That's where the likes of the Daily Mail fail to educate
people by one day running a "decisions made by faceless Whitehall
mandarins" and the next - in a derogatory way - banging on about
postcode lotteries. As you rightly say, devolution does mean that
local decision making bodies will set different priorities.

Back when I was a BCO it was in a London borough which was formerly
three smaller councils, and building control operated as three
districts following the former council boundaries. Each of us three
district inspectors was allowed to run our patch as we chose, which
we did - three very different styles, reflecting our backgrounds and
personalities. It was a very happy place to work, and I think that
the same standards were achieved in each area, but by different
means.

Then we got a new boss who declared that it was ridiculous for
someone to submit virtually the same plan three times to the same
council and get three different responses - an approval (from
someone who was confident that any small things could be resolved on
site and who spent most of his time on site inspections), a phone
call asking for an amendment letter (me), or a letter with 36
queries (from someone who wanted every last detail right at plan
stage). I guess the boss had a point, but within a short time of us
being required to implement a unified approach we had all left. But
I do see it from the customer's pov: you do expect some consistency.

Not really. There still IS inconsistency between BCO's. And judges. |And
magistrates. All part of life's rich tapestry.


Solomons judgement: you want fair, cut the baby in half.

Moral one: the real mother wont stand for it and relinquishes her claim.

Moral two, don't go crying to higher authority when you should be
sorting it out earlier at lower level.

Moral three, if you do, dont bitch about summary judgement.

The name of the game is to see which inspector you have, have a nice
chat, see what he wants, and give it to him. Respect.

On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 20:39:27 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Bad, in that I cant think of a single good example of devolution
happening in practice. It is in the power building person's self
interest to aggregate but never to devolve

USA is a federation of quasi autonomous States. Switzerland is a
scottish N/.Irish and welsh assemblies have considerable sway over local
affirs., As in fact does London. All Swedish schools are semi private,
but state funded.,, Certainly no WORSE than ours.

I am interested in what causes a change towards devolution which wasnt
in place before, because I dont believe it is likely to happen without
a big external push (or maybe I am wrong)

Scottish and Welsh Assemblies - Lots of demand by the electorate of
the countries as translated into votes for Plaid Cymru and SNP

Northern Ireland - I'm not sure - was it the compromise that was made
between nationalists and unioinists?

London - Again I am not sure. It seems a sensible thing to do, but
that was never a good reason for something to happen

In a similar vein, the tendency is for rules to multiply, there doesnt
seem to be any counter mechanism for getting rid of them. Road signs
are a good example of this. When did a road sign ever get taken away?


I think you may be in for a shock if the Tories get in. I think it will
be red pen through most of the legislation of the last ten years and a
'this is not a governments problem' as a standard response.

Well I hope they do, but I doubt it. Tories are not anarchists, they
are more of the same bunch as the current lot, with the added point
that most (all?) of the ministers will not have done the job before so
civil servants will have more power than now - and civil servants are
not known for sweeping away legislation

I want a parish, or town council with teeth, whose councillors addresses
are known and whose windows I can smash if needs be. Pour encourager les
autres.I want them to have almost complete power of local affairs.
Because I can get to them. And I want my local taxes and VAT to go to
them, not central govt, to spend as I want. Not as central govt decrees.

Central government should be there for anything too big for the county
to handle. As the county is there for things too big for a
parish/borough to handle.

Yes I want that too. It is how to achieve it that is the difficult
(and interesting) consideration

A

On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 23:07:59 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Tony Bryer wrote:
But I do see it from the customer's pov: you do expect some consistency.

Not really. There still IS inconsistency between BCO's. And judges. |And
magistrates. All part of life's rich tapestry.

There is always inconsistency, but there needs to be some framework
for comparison, for the benefit of the judge as well

Eg hospital A and hospital B both offer hip replacement ops, with a X
week waiting list and a Y% success rate. Unless Joe Public knows X and
Y for each hospital he cant make an informed decision of were to go
for his op

A

Anna Kettle wrote:
On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 20:39:27 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Bad, in that I cant think of a single good example of devolution
happening in practice. It is in the power building person's self
interest to aggregate but never to devolve
USA is a federation of quasi autonomous States. Switzerland is a
scottish N/.Irish and welsh assemblies have considerable sway over local
affirs., As in fact does London. All Swedish schools are semi private,
but state funded.,, Certainly no WORSE than ours.

I am interested in what causes a change towards devolution which wasnt
in place before, because I dont believe it is likely to happen without
a big external push (or maybe I am wrong)
People who care about a country remaining rich and powerful, and who
have more than two brain cells to rub together.

People who understand systems theory, who know that larger feedback
loops don't react fast, nor appropriately, to local disturbances.

Peole who feel that ultimately, rather than the government taking half
of what they earn and giving them back services they dont want or need,
and not giving them what they do want and need, and could pay for if the
taxes hadn't gone to support and army of bureaucrats that are employed
at huge expense to make sure that, in the name of egalitarianism,
everyone gets the same shoddy service and is equally miserable..



Scottish and Welsh Assemblies - Lots of demand by the electorate of
the countries as translated into votes for Plaid Cymru and SNP

Northern Ireland - I'm not sure - was it the compromise that was made
between nationalists and unioinists?


esssntially yes. It was the face saving way out. Sinn Fein can claim
they 'got the british out of ireland' and the unionists didn't get hung
out to dry and could still march up and down in orange T shirts being
rude to catholics.


London - Again I am not sure. It seems a sensible thing to do, but
that was never a good reason for something to happen


Either at some deep level the concepts of 'good for the nation' and
'efficient delivery of services' actually means more than political
sound bites, or it does not. If not then god help us. 1984 looms.

With luck economics will force efficiency rather than egalitarianism on us.


Efficiency is the man on the spot taking responsibility and making a
decision, and being held accountable for it, and progressing upwards if
his decisions proved effective.

Equality is some overreaching one size fits all regulation, whose
origins are lost in the mists of a political compromise at some late
night sitting attended by half a dozen people, being handed down to
street level and applied completely indiscriminately as a rule to be
followed blindly.

Efficiency is educating people about risk, and letting them take them.

Equality is about enforcing no risk policies. And treating the most
discerning equally as the most complete plonkers.

Under the law, there is no distinction betweeen doing 50mph down the
Finchley road in rush hour (assuming one could) or at 4 a.m, when even
the drunks are in the doorways, and its green all the way to Swiss Cottage.

Efficiency menas that when you stop a motorist, and find and unloaded
target pistol in a locked trunk in the back of his car, unloaded and
with the safety on, and he shows you his membership card of the highgate
shooting club, you don't arrest him as a terrorist

Equality means that the only person you don't arrest, is the man with
the long beard and turban waving a machine gun, because that's racist.




In a similar vein, the tendency is for rules to multiply, there doesnt
seem to be any counter mechanism for getting rid of them. Road signs
are a good example of this. When did a road sign ever get taken away?

I think you may be in for a shock if the Tories get in. I think it will
be red pen through most of the legislation of the last ten years and a
'this is not a governments problem' as a standard response.

Well I hope they do, but I doubt it. Tories are not anarchists, they
are more of the same bunch as the current lot, with the added point
that most (all?) of the ministers will not have done the job before so
civil servants will have more power than now - and civil servants are
not known for sweeping away legislation


The civil service has less power. Of decisions at any rate. They are
merely the instruments to ruber stamp legislation and apply it.

How many times do we hear Tim and Colin say 'well we can't because
government says' etc etc.

The key is efficiency. IF taht becomes the guiding principle, efficiency
and cost benefit, then sanity will return. There are a lot of smart
radicals in the tory party - not at the center of it, but providing a
stream of radical ideas. What is needed is the excuse to apply it: And
this recession aint over yet. Far from it. IF there is no return to
boom, this country is effectively bankrupt. And its hard to see where
growth will come..we are already over crowded, and under resourced, and
without the City, which is a busted flush, we dont actually DO anything
that anyone else wants or needs.

Right now, we are less effective than India at paying our way, and
that's really the sort of standar of living we should be at, instead of
living on borrowed time and borrowed money.

Borrowed from Arabs and Chinese. That's who owns the country now.

I want a parish, or town council with teeth, whose councillors addresses
are known and whose windows I can smash if needs be. Pour encourager les
autres.I want them to have almost complete power of local affairs.
Because I can get to them. And I want my local taxes and VAT to go to
them, not central govt, to spend as I want. Not as central govt decrees.

Central government should be there for anything too big for the county
to handle. As the county is there for things too big for a
parish/borough to handle.

Yes I want that too. It is how to achieve it that is the difficult
(and interesting) consideration


Vote Tory.

Its supposed to be part of their plan.

I know they will inevitably disappoint, but it's the best hope there is.




A

Anna Kettle wrote:
On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 23:07:59 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Tony Bryer wrote:
But I do see it from the customer's pov: you do expect some consistency.

Not really. There still IS inconsistency between BCO's. And judges. |And
magistrates. All part of life's rich tapestry.

There is always inconsistency, but there needs to be some framework
for comparison, for the benefit of the judge as well

Eg hospital A and hospital B both offer hip replacement ops, with a X
week waiting list and a Y% success rate. Unless Joe Public knows X and
Y for each hospital he cant make an informed decision of were to go
for his op


At the moment he has no choice. So it matters little.

But see previous post, educate and inform, don't legislate and dictate.

And gives us the choice having made it an INFORMED choice.



A

On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 11:01:33 -0800 (PST), NT
wrote:

snip

But the green agenda is much more than that single point. It
is, in summary:
1. Global warming is occurring
2. Global warming is manmade
3. Global warming will be an epic disaster
4. Humans can stop global warming by reducing energy consumption
5. The cost to human life of doing so will be minimal compared to the
cost of global warming
6. We should therefore cut back heavily on energy consumption.

1&2 I might agree with you on, but its far from certain. But the rest
aren't remotely established. Point 5 is grossly wrong, the cost to
human life of the green agenda would be appalling.

To warrant following the green agenda all above points would need to
be correct. This is far from the case.


NT

Well, we agree on some of the above, at least. I would add at least
two other of the above to my 'agree with' list. But that is also
assuming that those 6 items make up the difinitive list; which I don't
believe it does - even remotely. And I'm clueless about what you mean
by 'the green agenda'. Even if there is such a thing, there are many
different flavours and concentrations.

We've probably done this to death now.

In message , "Hawi:"
writes

To warrant following the green agenda all above points would need to
be correct. This is far from the case.


NT

Well, we agree on some of the above, at least. I would add at least
two other of the above to my 'agree with' list. But that is also
assuming that those 6 items make up the difinitive list; which I don't
believe it does - even remotely. And I'm clueless about what you mean
by 'the green agenda'. Even if there is such a thing, there are many
different flavours and concentrations.

We've probably done this to death now.

How about a *question time* vote from the unselected audience?

Those who believe global warming is factual and caused by human
activities? Put up your hands.

regards



--
Tim Lamb

On Thu, 3 Dec 2009 09:42:15 +0000, Tim Lamb
wrote:

How about a *question time* vote from the unselected audience?

Those who believe global warming is factual and caused by human
activities? Put up your hands.


Haven't recent surveys shown that only around half of the public
believe that climate change is human-induced?

And that figure would probably drop significantly lower if more people
read about what is currently being referred to as "Climategate", with
admissions of lying and the distortion and/or suppression of results
from and by prominent climate researchers, because the results don't
fit the "consensus".

An awkward time for climate research, isn't it? And just before
Copenhagen too. :-(

Bruce wrote:
On Thu, 3 Dec 2009 09:42:15 +0000, Tim Lamb
wrote:
How about a *question time* vote from the unselected audience?

Those who believe global warming is factual and caused by human
activities? Put up your hands.

That's really two questions that demand two answers.

The evidence for global warming is overwhelming. The evidence of the
extent of the human contribution is open to interpretation both by
scientists who should be disinterested and entrepreneurs who care only
about their profits. So who is it wise to believe?

Haven't recent surveys shown that only around half of the public
believe that climate change is human-induced?

With the amount of dishonest propaganda put out by the deniers I am
surprised that figure is so low.

And that figure would probably drop significantly lower if more people
read about what is currently being referred to as "Climategate", with
admissions of lying and the distortion and/or suppression of results
from and by prominent climate researchers, because the results don't
fit the "consensus".

Now that would depend what you read. On the one hand you have the stolen
e-mails taken out of context and presented in a manner intended to
deceive and on the other hand the explanation from the horse's mouth
that has received very little publicity:

http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/...news/CRUupdate

An awkward time for climate research, isn't it? And just before
Copenhagen too. :-(

I wonder how long the perpetrators of the theft have been waiting in
order to maximise the impact of their attack and to minimise the chance
that they are exposed as a bunch of charlatans before the meeting. No
doubt some of the mud will stick regardless and the committed among our
readers won't even bother to follow the link above, secure in the
knowledge that GW is only a fantasy put about by a few deranged
scientists with an axe to grind and a research budget to acquire.

Oh yes, to get back to the original subject. Carbon offset is a farce
designed to sooth the consciences of those who travel, without doing
anything at all to reduce CO2 production in the long term. And even in
the short term it takes the lifetime of the tree (even if it is
genuinely a tree that otherwise would not have been planted) to take in
the CO2 that is supposedly offset after which the tree is burnt or rots
releasing the captured CO2 again. There is only one message that
greenies should take to heart. If you want to do your bit to save the
planet don't fly at all.