Marmora Man

Show me a room of climate skeptics, and I'll show you a room of creationists and free marketers. All three belief systems involve the abdication of responsibility to one god or other: Natural Cycles, the Almighty, the Free Market.

Hugenot ? while I don?t consider name calling a rational form of debate - you get me on two out of three. I?m a libertarian (therefore free marketeer) and a sceptic but not a creationist tho?, more of a Dawkinite atheist. My scepticism arises not from any abstruse belief in ?natural cycles? but in the relative absence of rational science in much of the debate ? however, I would posit that every organism, organization, system or collection of ?things? is subject to certain physical laws that tend to bring those organisms, organizations, systems or collections back into equilibrium except and unless the feedback loop is malfunctioning ? and, I agree, mankind can be an agent that upsets the feedback loop and has been responsible for damaging, for example, the cod and herring fishing in the Atlantic and North Sea ? but mankind can also reverse its actions and restore the equilbrium. I believe that real science and scientific research will ensure the survival of mankind and the planet; not some well meaning gesture politics.

Furthermore I?m a climate change sceptic (and I note the relatively recent change from ?Global Warming? to ?Climate Change? necessary since the warming element hasn?t been too obvious over last few years) because there is a lack of properly researched hard evidence of abnormal changes. Too many of its proponents are not qualified in the field of meteorology, glaciology, oceanography or other related subjects. There are too many loose statements that don?t hold up to proper, ?Popperian? scientific analysis.

The hypothesis of global warming / climate change has some strengths and should therefore be tested. It should be possible to construct experiments and tests that will test the hypothesis and thus demonstrate the case. I haven?t yet seen a clear exposition of the hypothesis and necessary associated experiments or tests.

Nevertheless your second posting, with less name calling, on what should be done was a better argument and as most of the actions you propose are sensible and do not involve the entire country wearing a hair shirt I can support much of what you say. It is possible to be a climate change sceptic and still live rationally and sensibly:

The 'energy gap' - expected to be 20% in the next 5/6 years. AGREE ? let?s invest in relatively carbon free nuclear power stations now.

It's bad news, as energy providers (e.g. the Middle East / Russia) have us over a barrel (as it were), and this is one of the major sources of international conflict. They use it as negotiation leverage over all sorts of nasty issues like human rights abuse. Reduce the reliance, and we increase our bargaining power. AGREE ? home produced energy is best.

Target insulation and consumption (e.g. loft cladding, double glazing, lights off not in use, turn TV off at plug). All done in my household.

Second target is source: renewables cost 20% more than fossil fuels. Don't target your supplier based on lowest price (otherwise you just get fossil), but upon price of renewable energy vs. fossil, and the share of supplies coming from renewables. Be prepared to pay 10 quid a month more for renewables. It's only a couple of pints after all.

Two points:

1. There is too much faith in renewables ? wind power cannot provide for all of UK?s power needs. If it weren?t for the subsidy it would be even more expensive than it already is. Far better to subsidise scientific research to identify better and more efficient energy sources.

2. If the user has to pay a premium it should be for a discernible benefit not just to feel good. Better to use the power of the market to get renewables (if you really believe they are better for us) to drive down the cost.

Next target is transport: next time it's a 50:50 call, just go public or by Shank's pony. I do this all the time ? cycling into work 3 days a week and using public transport on other days.

Don't buy a second car, get Streetcar and share the footprint for construction. A second car doesn?t, of itself, increase carbon footprint. The total mileage of a family / individual does. So it?s possible to own several cars but travel less than 12,000 miles a year in total. Nevertheless in London owning a car is of questionable financial benefit ? so a free market approach would suggest it will reduce over time.

Finally is lifestyle: just buy seasonal local veg, apples instead of oranges. AGREE ? we do this.

Conversion's go both ways - tho' the trend is toward flats. I converted a 3 flat house into a proper 4 bed house with ground floor flat for elderly parents-in-law. Worked well for 5 years, but now we have to decide what to do with an empty ground floor flat. Teenage sos eying it up as potential party space, I'm more inclined to let it Mon - Fri to someone working in London but with home in the distant country.

candj Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Louisa, Pizza has been around for over 3000 years,

> in various incarnations. If you go to Naples*,

> you WILL see pizza everywhere. Some people like

> to go out to eat pizza as most of us don't have

> wood burning ovens at home and there is a

> difference between one from the Iceland freezer

> section and one from say, Lombardi's Pizza in NY

> or Antica Pizzeria da Michelle in Naples. I too

> would love to have a sit down pizza place on LL,

> next to the McDonalds.

>

> Best,

> -C

>

> *a place in Italy

Have you ever ried the piuzzas in Potsuali (not sure ofspelling bt the bit of NAples in an old volcanic crater) there's a small street, known locally as "the squeeze" 'cos it's only 3 feet wide in one spot, where the pizzas are sublime - wood fired, cooked to order in a small 3 / 4 table premises with jugs of wine. Truly excellent. I love Naples.

And tonight's sunset is rather special too.

Particularly when the sun is shining, the daffs are out on the Rye and beer in a pub garden tastes good.

Was born N. London / S. Essex (now Greater London). 4 generations of my family lived in Woolwich / Deptford. Moved out to 'the country" aged 11, back aged 20. Ever since London has been my town - brief sojourns elsewhere - including Brum, Cornwall and Devon, New York, Paris, Dubai, Kuala Lumpur but London is and will remain my ideal town.

The variety, chaos, resident people, incoming people, taxis, taxi drivers, traffic jams at Marble Arch, Rye Lane, Jermyn Street, Columbus Flower Market, Burlington Arcade, Natural History Museum (and the Blue Whale), the British Musuem, Brick Lane, Petticoat Market, things that change, things that don't change, favourite views, favourite pubs, favourite walks, favourite shops, favourite theatres

Any road - what sort of evidence would satisfy a sceptic ? Assuming you would accept evidence long before it was manifestly too late. Does your thinking include any element of "better safe than sorry?"

I prefer to balance risk and action appropriately - and I do not think the risks as set out are yet well evidenced nor the proposed actions comensurate. Too many respected scientists, and importantly informed scientists from the appropriate scientific fields, are still sceptics.

Lindzen Senate Testimony

Beware the precautionary principle - it is that which so often persuades people to do the wrong thing from the mundane to the global:

Don't let the kids play outside they may get run over / meet a paedophile / get bitten by a dog

Don't use the tube - it's a terrorist target

Don't eat meat - you could get BSE

Don't sail the Atlantic Columbus - the world's probably flat, you'll fall off the edge.

Let's spend 10% of world GDP for next 30 years to head off a possible climate threat for which evidence remains thin, "just in case".

You did indeed refer to the law but your own words were "piety and fervour" which I took (and take) to suggest... some sort of religiosity

Sean, I did mean to draw a comparison about style - you would surely not deny the degree of faux religiosity / evangelical zeal that many climate change proponents bring to the debate. I did not mean to equate Climate Change with Christianity / Islamism / Hinduism / Atheism etc.

One is a scientific thesis that should be properly tested and evidenced - the others are irrational belief systems.

BTW - I agree with Brum the Earth, like many other natural ecological systems has a self regulating / self correcting feedback mechanism. Not managed by some superior / supernatural "force" just by the impact of the laws of science.

comparing the mounting evidence re: climate change with religious belief is poppycock of the highest order MM!

Sean, I think you read my post a little too quickly. I wasn't equating beliefs in climate change with religion - I was bemoaning the fact that employment law is going that way. Facts are better than beliefs when trying to make a case for change and too many of those proposing the case for climate change forget to include facts in their argument - James Hansen and George Monbiot being key in this respect.

James Hansen - Guardian

I would not deny that I find many proponents of climate change to be way over the top and that I have yet to see real evidence of their basic thesis. I think the immediate dangers of the future do, is you imply, lie in shortages of energy and other key resources.

On the energy front I think the case can be (and has been) made for extensive use of nuclear powerand not intermittent, heavily subsidised, wind farms, solar power and other supposedly carbon neutral options - tho' I make an exception for tidal power which is a fully predictable source of energy. On the use of other key resources the best bet is to reduce demand - and we (the human race) can best achieve that by a gradual reduction of the world's population (as argued for by Zac Goldsmith of Greenpeace).

Earth Hour will achieve nothing tangible in the way of reducing carbon output as the power stations cannot scale back generation to take account of one hour's dip in useage.

It will generate more piety and fervour in those that accept, unquestioningly, the tenets of climate change.

I note that the law (or at least industrial employment law) has been tempted to equate belief in climate change with other religious and philosophical views. This seems illogical - there should be a scientific basis for this particular question, not merely a belief. Yet many do accept the climate change thesis without question in the way that fervent evangelicals believe and promote their religious books and views.

From The Independent 26 March:

An executive sacked from a giant property company can claim he was unfairly dismissed because of his "philosophical belief in climate change", a judge ruled yesterday.

In the first case of its kind, employment judge David Sneath said Tim Nicholson, a former environmental policy officer, could invoke employment law for protection from discrimination against him for his conviction that climate change was the world's most important environmental problem.

That conviction amounted to a philosophical belief under the Employment Equality (Religion and Belief) Regulations, 2003, the judge ruled on a point of law at a pre-hearing review of an employment tribunal in London.

I still use the dining chairs I bought from Franklin's Antiques back in the 80's - strictly speaking not antiques but serviceable chairs from the 30's. When I moved back to London in 2001 I looked for the place and as disappointed to find it gone,

Neither of them were planned - they are called

Recession - nicknamed "Bust"

&

Successor Prime Minister - nicknamed "Hubris"

In my experience the majority, unless specified otherwise, of restaurant trout will be farmed rainbow trout. Some restaurants in the right area will have access to freshly caught brown trout - usually if there's good fly fishing stream / river nearby.

Whilst there is a market for farmed brown trout it is mostly for restocking of fishing lakes and rivers. The brown trout is the native wild trout of UK - tends to range in size from under 1lb to maybe 2 / 3 1lb. It's much rarer and more difficult to catch in most rivers as the rainbow takes over its habitat. A far more beautiful fish to look at - it also tastes better than its larger cousin - better still if from a clear chalk stream and cooked that day, can be muddy in taste at wrong time of year or from a less clear river.

LIke the following quote from the link; "In Lordship Lane, there was, in the time of William Hone, an inn called the "Plough" ? an old-fashioned wooden structure ? on one of the windows of which was the following inscription, cut with a diamond: "March 16, 1810. Thomas Jones dined here, eat six pounds of bacon and drank nineteen pots of beer."

I saw her and thought that, as is usual nowadays, the gov't representative lost the argument. TJ's defence of the dodgy costing of the Olympics was very weak. If it weren't for Fern Britton she would have been the weakest member of the panel. Ken Clarke was the effortless and jovial winner of most debates - with Vince Cable, as ever, very strong on the economic questions.

Dear Mrs. Murray,

Whilst we would like to thank you for your valued custom and use of the Tesco loyalty Card, the Manager of our store in Banbury is considering banning you and your family from shopping with us, unless your husband stops his antics..

Below is a list of his actions over the past few months all verified by our surveillance cameras:

1. June 15: Took 24 boxes of condoms and randomly put them in people's trolleys when they weren't looking.

2. July 2: Set all the alarm clocks in Housewares to go off at 5-minute intervals.

3. July 7: Made a trail of tomato juice on the floor leading to feminine products aisle.

4. July 19: Walked up to an employee and told her in an official tone, 'Code 3' in housewares..... and watched what happened.

5. August 14: Moved a 'CAUTION - WET FLOOR' sign to a carpeted area.

6. September 15: Set up a tent in the outdoor clothing department and told shoppers he'd invite them in if they would bring sausages and a Calor gas stove.

7. September 23: When the Deputy Manager asked if she could help him, he began to cry and asked, 'Why can't you people just leave me alone?'

8.. October 4: Looked right into the security camera; used it as a mirror, picked his nose, and ate it.

9. October 10: While appearing to be choosing kitchen knives in the Housewares aisle asked an assistant if he knew where the antidepressants were.

10. November 3: Darted around the store suspiciously, loudly humming the Mission Impossible' theme.

11.November 6: In the kitchenware aisle, practised the 'Madonna look' using different size funnels.

12. November 18: Hid in a clothing rack and when people browsed, yelled 'PICK ME!' 'PICK ME!'

13. November 21: When an announcement came over the loud speaker, assumed the foetal position and screamed 'NO! NO! It's those voices again.'

And; last, but not least:

14. November 23: Went into a fitting room, shut the door, waited a while; then yelled, very loudly, 'There is no toilet paper in here.'

Abbot Ale

More in the same vein: Free Banking

Pictures are at least 6 months old - my house has been captured but not our new door or garden.

Just a wild, off side argument but ............

The FSA wasn't shouting to the banks that their policies were wrong, the credit rating agencies were happily marking everything AAA and directors & shareholders were reaping huge rewards without any danger of having to pay them back if it all went wrong.

So is the answer more regulation, more legislation and more credit or is there an alternative?

If banks weren't regulated, weren't able to insure their financial position and weren't protected by limited liability legislation - ie if the bank failed then the owners / shareholders would be personally responsible for the debts the bank owed - would the banks have been more conservative in their financial and lending policies?

The analogous argument is that instead of seatbelts & airbags every car should have a 12" spike in the centre of the driving wheel to concentrate the driver's mind on safe driving.

Another thought .... Only the Bank of England may issue legal tender but it's not backed by anything tangible - hence quantitative easing (aka pending inflation). Perhaps we could return to free banking and allow any bank to issue banknotes. I'd bank with any bank that really offered to "pay the bearer the sum of one pound" if it was to be paid in something tangible such as gold, silver or another tradeable commodity. Whereas the BoE can only give me another equally worthless BoE pound note if I attempted to call on the "promise to pay" statement.

Never failed to vote in a general election

Jah Lush Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Didn't we do this before. About a year ago I

> think.

Yep - but someone wanted the website.

Brendan Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> By the website?s reasoning then MM http://www.politicalcompass.org/extremeright you really should be supporting the Lib Dems and not the Conservatives who are ideologically pretty similar to New Labour but just a bit more fascist.

>

>

> I?m down in the far left corner.

I'm trying to drag the Conservative Party back to its roots - socially and financially liberal.

My score is:

Economic Left/Right: 5.25

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.51

So - lots of good sausage rolls in ED - which is a good thing. Only one person, so far, standing up for Gregg's sausage rolls tho'.

On a recent thread someone asked about this website - couldn't remember it at the time but here it is.

Political Compass

Answer the questions and it will plot you on a matrix between Authoritarian / Libertarian and Left / Right on the Economy

I'm in the bottom right hand corner - but not the extreme bottom right.

'Come on Porsche,

Surely "Come on Portia" a fine name with a Shakespearean pedigree, it's been around a long time and should meet Louisa's steely tests for correctness.