Were such a book written, the High Court, on the application of the Serious Organised Crime Agency with the fiat of the Attorney General, could make an exploitation proceeds order under Part 7 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 against Mr Huhne, if the book constituted a criminal memoir from which he derived a benefit.
OT (I'm sure). Why is it that amusing left wing writers when they decide their bread is better buttered working for right wing rags turn into the most unpleasant misogynistic racists?
Could it be because as left wingers they spent their time denouncing the right as racist and misogynist so now feel that's what their rabid audience expect?
That's not fair on the LDs, Geoff. They have consistently supported PR on principle.
Indeed the LDs have consistently supported PR although whether they have done so for political reasons (under-representation during the 80s etc) or out of principle is a separate debate. The fact is, as you say, they have been consistent.
But OGH and others are suggesting that the Conservatives should abandon a principle and support PR purely for self-interest. That's the point. Is that really the correct way to look at major constitutional change? (see Blair et al for details)
Were such a book written, the High Court, on the application of the Serious Organised Crime Agency with the fiat of the Attorney General, could make an exploitation proceeds order under Part 7 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 against Mr Huhne, if the book constituted a criminal memoir from which he derived a benefit.
But OGH and others are suggesting that the Conservatives should abandon a principle and support PR purely for self-interest. That's the point. Is that really the correct way to look at major constitutional change? (see Blair et al for details)
It is possible that the Conservative Party also is governed by self-interest, and simply assesses that interest differently.
Blair's approach to constitutional change is marked not so much by self-interest but by rushing to enact policies that had progressed little beyond the slogan stage. The perils of sofa government.
A more sophisticated analysis of the Blair reforms might detect an American tinge. For instance: high uptake, modular higher education; marketisation and piece-meal privatisation of the NHS; Department of Justice and Supreme Court.
OT (I'm sure). Why is it that amusing left wing writers when they decide their bread is better buttered working for right wing rags turn into the most unpleasant misogynistic racists?
Could it be because as left wingers they spent their time denouncing the right as racist and misogynist so now feel that's what their rabid audience expect?
No Roger, that's just your interpretation which equates all views to the right of centre (or to the right of yours?) as racist and misogynist. For someone who's supposed to understand public tastes re advertising, it never ceases to amaze me how out of touch you can be.
In any case, Liddle argues throughout his entire piece that the criticism of Beard (while appearancist, if not sexist as such), is based on substance and that the critics would be better sticking to their points without throwing in other irrelevant, if easy, insults.
OT (I'm sure). Why is it that amusing left wing writers when they decide their bread is better buttered working for right wing rags turn into the most unpleasant misogynistic racists?
Could it be because as left wingers they spent their time denouncing the right as racist and misogynist so now feel that's what their rabid audience expect?
Although I don't agree with your labelling, perhaps it is because many, if not most, writers in the popular media don't really have firm viewpoints. Instead, they have a market they have to satisfy. Therefore if they get a job with a paper or website with a certain view, they will moderate their message (or even change the message completely) to suit that particular paper's audience.
You don't really believe that the commentators you read in the newspapers actually believe what they write, do you?
If Cammie really didn't have the first idea what labour were offering then that's hardly a ringing endorsement of his and his negotiators competence is it?
What's he supposed to be, psychic? It was plausible that they'd offer. (Although maybe not that they could have delivered.)
"I run a small, light-hearted competition every year on my blog for people to vote for the most stupid woman to have appeared on Question Time in the past 12 months."
David. Are you really arguing that the Liddle piece isn't sexist?
Cyril Smith and Liberal candidate in Torbay seemed to be wearing red rosettes, were they deep orange or is my col our on my TV a bit off?
Yes, there are huge and multi-coloured rosettes all over. Didn't Howe have a blue and white rosette? What the heck? He wasn't standing for the knesset. LOL
"Global warming was always going to make this bit of the planet cooler."
Really? That is why not that long ago climate "experts" were telling us that snow in the UK would become a rare thing and we could expect a Mediterranean climate, if not worse. Now, I am asked to believe that those expert scientists were wrong and it was always the case that the UK was going to get colder. Well who says so? Another lot of climate "experts".
So two forecasts diametrically opposed both based on the "settled science". They are just making it up as they go along.
"I run a small, light-hearted competition every year on my blog for people to vote for the most stupid woman to have appeared on Question Time in the past 12 months."
David. Are you really arguing that the Liddle piece isn't sexist?
Absolutely. Read it in full. The entire thrust is that the abuse Beard has received (much of which no doubt is sexist) is because of her views, not her sex, race, sexual orientation, looks or anything else - that sort of thing is just a gratuitous insult designed to add to the justified criticism (though which actually tends to diminish it as it allows the recipient to dodge the argument and reply to the insult).
Cyril Smith and Liberal candidate in Torbay seemed to be wearing red rosettes, were they deep orange or is my col our on my TV a bit off?
Yes, there are huge and multi-coloured rosettes all over. Didn't Howe have a blue and white rosette? What the heck? He wasn't standing for the knesset. LOL
Michael Foot had a red green and white one, multicolored all over.
Except for the people, who have been entirely white, both on BBC and at counts.
I remember 1983 well, of course - was up against the very nice Nick Scott (we exchanged Xmas cards for years afterwards). I greeted him jovially at the count with the news that he seemed to have saved his deposit - he mopped his brow in mock-relief. Elections in safe seats are very amicable, in general. My posh mum spent most of the day with a red rosette taking numbers at Chelsea Town Hall and chatting about fashion to the Tory teller, while the Alliance teller eyed them with outraged intellectual disgust.
Canvassing was tough - I remember on election day being out with one other canvasser being narrowly missed by an apple thrown from the top floor of the aptly-named World's End tower blocks. We could see Thatcher was going to have a landslide, and my frustrated assistant bellowed at the concrete tower: "You'll be sorry!" No doubt he was right. We were sort of relieved all the same, both locally (where we did well to save our deposit) and nationlly (where we weren't quite displaced as second party as expected). I remember as polling day approached we started to pull back a few waverers into line ("You don't stop supporting a team just because they're a bit crap at the moment", said one returning voter) and it was exciting in a grim sort of way.
It was many years ago that I first heard this piece of 'orthodoxy'.
The argument runs, so I believe, that global warming causes the icecaps to melt. Huge icebergs drift south and the Gulf Stream, which keeps the temperatures around these shores so moderate, is deflected further South. The waters around these Islands cool and we freeze.
Sounds plausible.
But then I think about just how awful weather men are at predicting the next few days so I take their views about the next few millenia with a pinch of salt.
"Global warming was always going to make this bit of the planet cooler."
Really? That is why not that long ago climate "experts" were telling us that snow in the UK would become a rare thing and we could expect a Mediterranean climate, if not worse. Now, I am asked to believe that those expert scientists were wrong and it was always the case that the UK was going to get colder. Well who says so? Another lot of climate "experts".
So two forecasts diametrically opposed both based on the "settled science". They are just making it up as they go along.
Hurst, exactly , just another load of bollocks from charlatans trying to line their own pockets.
The Coalition increasingly are failing us on the weather, it was definitely warmer under Labour.
Are you saying Cameron has cured global warming? Bloody hell.....
Global warming was always going to make this bit of the planet cooler.
Since when was this the latest orthodoxy?
I can't be arsed digging up links but I've certainly been aware since the late 90s that the effect of the arttic icecap meliting would be to make the gulfstream cooler.
I can't be arsed digging up links but I've certainly been aware since the late 90s that the effect of the arttic icecap meliting would be to make the gulfstream cooler.
Yes I believe that the ice cap melting has been mentioned at a possible cause of cooler wetter conditions in most of northern Europe. The jet stream is then for whatever reason bent further south leading to increasing desert like conditions in southern Europe.
There are loads of articles online about this, if people are interested. But why do they have to be so long winded !
I'd love to know what weather patterns would lead a believer in warmism to disavow their faith.
I don't think it's a matter of belief. It's a matter of interpretation of the evidence. But I have said several times what would cause me to reassess my view: 20 years of flat or negative temperature growth globally. Only a fool would think weather over the UK, 0.05% of the world's land area, would matter much at all for the theory.
It's weird watching these with hindsight - Parkinson tipped for high office, bold predictions about the SDP supplanting Labour at the 1988 election... and although 30 years have passed also remarkable how many familiar names come up - Beith, Fallon, Meacher, Margaret Jay (as a BBC reporter)...
Mr. Socrates, hasn't the global temperature been lower every year since 1998 (a recent high)?
Also, we know the climate can warm up entirely naturally as it did so during the Caligula/Claudius period and during the Middle Ages.
It is fair to say that UK weather/climate does not equal the global picture, but that did not stop warmists from claiming hot summers were indicative of global warming.
"... just another load of bollocks from charlatans trying to line their own pockets"
I say! That is a bit harsh. These are not necessarily bad people, they are mostly trying to ensure that their mortgage gets paid and there is food on the table just like the rest of us. Only of course their careers are tied to maintaining a belief amongst the gullible that they know what they are talking about.
It is interesting that a couple of posters have used the word "orthodoxy" in relation to the "Science" of Climate change. There is more than a whiff of religion about it and I reminded of the hoops the Catholic church went through when successive real scientific advances showed its teaching to at variance with the demonstrable facts. The believers just shifted over to the new orthodox view and it became another of the eternal verities even if it was the opposite of the previous one. After all the Pope or, now, the "Scientific Consensus" is infallible.
We all know that the climate is not static, and changes over time - 2 ice ages, medieval cool period etc.
But the current climate change argument seems to be merely a way for lefties to push for a greater role for government in society, be it in the form of taxes or regulation.
I love the way they have all these conferences, which have huge carbon footprints, to decide to spend vast amounts of tax payers money to limit the growth in temperature to 2 degrees over the next 30 years when at the same time they can't predict if it will rain tomorrow.
Mr. Socrates, hasn't the global temperature been lower every year since 1998 (a recent high)?
There is volatility year to year, and 1998 was a particularly hot year because of the El Nino cycle, but even ignoring such things, it's still a "no". 2005 and 2010 were warmer:
Rolling averages are the best way to remove out volatility, and are frequently used in statistics for volatile datasets. Under this measure, global temperatures have been roughly flat since about 2003.
Also, we know the climate can warm up entirely naturally as it did so during the Caligula/Claudius period and during the Middle Ages.
Yes, it can, although the Medieval warm period was much smaller than the recent increase in temperatures, and seems to have been restricted to the North Atlantic. I think the relevant analogy here is that forest fires can start naturally, but in some cases, there is much greater reason to believe it is down to arson. We are in one of those cases.
It is fair to say that UK weather/climate does not equal the global picture, but that did not stop warmists from claiming hot summers were indicative of global warming.
Yes, people on both sides have done this unfortunately. We are best off ignoring the ideologues and looking at what the scientific academies state, rather than individuals writing columns in the Guardian or the Telegraph.
But the current climate change argument seems to be merely a way for lefties to push for a greater role for government in society, be it in the form of taxes or regulation.
Why then, is it supported by the national scientific academy of Russia, a country largely run by former KGB agents getting rich off oil and gas investments? Why is it supported by Norway, who not only have the oil sector as their main economic sector, but also have so much money to run government they write checks back to every Norwegian citizen each year?
What is "it", the context of your post, Mr. Socrates? What is the "it" that the national scientific academy of Russia and the state of Norway supports?
But then I think about just how awful weather men are at predicting the next few days so I take their views about the next few millenia with a pinch of salt.
It's over the next century actually. But even if you think there's a lot less certainty than claimed by the major academies, it is still a ludicrously risky venture to churn ever increasing pollution into the atmosphere of the only planet we've got. I find it amazing that many of those that (rightfully) insist on cautious management of our financial resources are so dismissive of arguments to manage our environmental resources.
Can you guys please sort it out re. Climate change? It's still f-f-freezing out there. I have to cycle to the station first thing tomorrow, so I would appreciate if you could warm things up a little.
What is "it", the context of your post, Mr. Socrates? What is the "it" that the national scientific academy of Russia and the state of Norway supports?
The Russian academy has signed on to this statement, for instance:
The need for urgent action to address climate change is now indisputable. For example, limiting global warming to 2°C would require a very rapid worldwide implementation of all currently available low carbon technologies. The G8+5 should lead the transition to an energy efficient and low carbon world economy, and foster innovation and research and development for both mitigation and adaptation technologies.
Norway's scientific academy has signed on to this:
EASAC agrees with the consensus view of the world’s climate scientists that significant reductions in global emission of carbon dioxide of at least 50% from 2000 levels will be required to achieve the 2 °C limit in global warming.
RT @GregHurstTimes: Profile of Christine Blower of NUT calling her 'Bob Crow with pencils' got under her skin: she's quoted it twice (£) http://t.co/9YG5OAVti1
It does look likely that UKIP will do to the Conservatives in 2015 what the SDP did to Labour in 1983. But longer term what maybe of more interest is the growing sidelining of the Centre and right wing of the Labour party under Ed Milliband.
More nonsense on BBC about Di Canio's 'right wing views' - there is a hell of a difference between support for fascists and support for free markets, smaller government.
Average temperatures in Britain were nearly 0.6C higher in the Nineties than in 1960-90, and it is estimated that they will increase by 0.2C every decade over the coming century.
...
According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event".
"Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said."
When did this climate "expert" make his prediction? March 2000 that is when. Apparently we have known since the nineties that the UK was always going to become colder with Global warming.
I am fairly sure that the Earth's climate is changing, but then it always has and always will. What I am far less confident of is that the "experts" actually know what they are talking about. What I am bloody certain of is that consensus of the "wise men" is no basis for good science, if for no other reason that the "consensus view" has proved to be wrong so often in the past.
Who are these PB Tories that give such unquestioning support to Cameron & Osborne? I suspect they are fewer than 5 of the circa 100 regular posters on here. Why do these 5% keep being attacked? Name them so they can respond! I have posted on here the view that Osborne should have been moved since before the last GE!
Re: Climate change. When the facts changed so the Global warming "experts" change the terminology to "climate change". Viner "an end to snow" sums up the flakes.
More nonsense on BBC about Di Canio's 'right wing views' - there is a hell of a difference between support for fascists and support for free markets, smaller government.
Cannot see why having different political views should limit people's job opportunities; surely we learnt that with Labour councils lack of freedom to state different views to that found on the BBC up north last year.
3 Labour Cllrs in Hull and 1 in Warrington have recently voted against Labour's budget because it contained cuts. 2 of the Hall 3 have been suspended indefinitely while the third just for 3 months. The Warrington one is waiting for decision by the Whips (suspension has been proposed).
Please would you go back to your old avatar? Pretty please? A photo of the great man is far more becoming and matches the tone of most of your posts. He was also an Irishman was he not?
Please would you go back to your old avatar? Pretty please? A photo of the great man is far more becoming and matches the tone of most of your posts. He was also an Irishman was he not?
Mr Llama for you and mr malcolmg who made a similare request I shall change it forthwith. I had been thinking of the giants causeway, but antifrank beat me to it.
(Repeated from previous thread) Today, Monday 1st April 2013, I can now officially announce that I have resigned from the OMRLP and joined the Conservative Party.
@JohnLoony Will you notice the difference? It would be good for the Tories if Maria and Nadine were to go in the opposite direction.
I suppose I will have to get used to being a small fish in a big pond, after having been a big fish in a small pond. I will also have to do things like leafleting and vote-tallying for someone else and not just for myself. Another difference is that spending £25 p.a. on membership fees is cheaper than spending £500 on deposits once every 5 years.
PtP if you're still on, do you have any juicy selections from today's smorgasbord?
Very difficult day, Blue Rog, on account of the dramatic turn around in the going.
I've had a number of small bets. Fwiw, they are:
Huntingdon: 1.40 Sail And Return 9/1 3.40 Kings Road 4/1
Plumpton: 2.35 Dollar Bill 13/2 4.35 Capellini 6/1
Fakenham: 3.15 Riddlestown 9/2
Prices are as I took earlier today. They may have changed. I know Riddlestown (my strongest bet) has shortened to 7/2 and I'm not sure I would be interested at that price.
On the whole, I am keeping powder dry for Aintree.
PtP if you're still on, do you have any juicy selections from today's smorgasbord?
Very difficult day, Blue Rog, on account of the dramatic turn around in the going.
I've had a number of small bets. Fwiw, they are:
Huntingdon: 1.40 Sail And Return 9/1 3.40 Kings Road 4/1
Plumpton: 2.35 Dollar Bill 13/2 4.35 Capellini 6/1
Fakenham: 3.15 Riddlestown 9/2
Prices are as I took earlier today. They may have changed. I know Riddlestown (my strongest bet) has shortened to 7/2 and I'm not sure I would be interested at that price.
On the whole, I am keeping powder dry for Aintree.
Thanks PtP, I'm on Ben Cee Pee M in the first at Hunt. It's had a few good write ups and is fancied in a couple of papers. I'll have a look at the others. Good luck
Mr Llama for you and mr malcolmg who made a similare request I shall change it forthwith. I had been thinking of the giants causeway, but antifrank beat me to it.
Mr Llama for you and mr malcolmg who made a similare request I shall change it forthwith. I had been thinking of the giants causeway, but antifrank beat me to it.
Much improved - thank you.
Now all we've got is tim's rather curious "Vote for Cameron in 2025" avatar.....
There used to be considerable local variations in party colours, sometimes for obscure reasons. For example the Conservatives used to use red in parts of Durham because it was the colour of the local aristocrat ( Lumley I think).
What is "it", the context of your post, Mr. Socrates? What is the "it" that the national scientific academy of Russia and the state of Norway supports?
The Russian academy has signed on to this statement, for instance:
The need for urgent action to address climate change is now indisputable. For example, limiting global warming to 2°C would require a very rapid worldwide implementation of all currently available low carbon technologies. The G8+5 should lead the transition to an energy efficient and low carbon world economy, and foster innovation and research and development for both mitigation and adaptation technologies.
This year saw a record increase in the quantity of artic sea ice but this is largely because we were starting from a record low in 2011: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
Even with this increase the maximum extent was still the 6th lowest ever recorded by satillite (which of course means a relatively short time frame).
Does this mean a change in direction or is the trend towards an ice free north pole still continuing? It will take several more years like this one to change the trend. First year ice will melt much more quickly as it is typically thinner. I think we are still heading to an ice free north pole within a relatively short period of time.
What is telling is that the projections from 10 years plus ago continuously have to be revisited reducing the extent of the projected change. Whilst the sun may well have played a major part in this I suspect that scientists have underestimated the compensatory capabilities of this wonderful rock that we are on.
The one thing that is crystal clear in this messy area is that our politicians have been embarrassingly parochial in their viewpoint. Reducing our carbon output by exporting manufacturing to China, for example, was not only very bad economics but incredibly stupid environmentalism because their energy is much dirtier than ours.
Unfortunately the current legislation seems to carry on this lunacy by making energy intensive manufacturing more difficult in this country. If we stopped preening as a nation and starting thinking globally I think we would have a set of policies that would have much greater support than the current mess.
Comments
Every day is Big Society Day as We are all in this Together in the Aspiration Nation woken up by Alarm Clock Britain. Or something.
Could it be because as left wingers they spent their time denouncing the right as racist and misogynist so now feel that's what their rabid audience expect?
http://www.spectator.co.uk/columnists/rod-liddle/8830261/its-not-misogyny-professor-beard-its-you/
But OGH and others are suggesting that the Conservatives should abandon a principle and support PR purely for self-interest. That's the point. Is that really the correct way to look at major constitutional change? (see Blair et al for details)
How could it constitute a criminal memoir?
Blair's approach to constitutional change is marked not so much by self-interest but by rushing to enact policies that had progressed little beyond the slogan stage. The perils of sofa government.
A more sophisticated analysis of the Blair reforms might detect an American tinge. For instance: high uptake, modular higher education; marketisation and piece-meal privatisation of the NHS; Department of Justice and Supreme Court.
In any case, Liddle argues throughout his entire piece that the criticism of Beard (while appearancist, if not sexist as such), is based on substance and that the critics would be better sticking to their points without throwing in other irrelevant, if easy, insults.
You don't really believe that the commentators you read in the newspapers actually believe what they write, do you?
David. Are you really arguing that the Liddle piece isn't sexist?
Really? That is why not that long ago climate "experts" were telling us that snow in the UK would become a rare thing and we could expect a Mediterranean climate, if not worse. Now, I am asked to believe that those expert scientists were wrong and it was always the case that the UK was going to get colder. Well who says so? Another lot of climate "experts".
So two forecasts diametrically opposed both based on the "settled science". They are just making it up as they go along.
Except for the people, who have been entirely white, both on BBC and at counts.
The past really is a foreign country.
Canvassing was tough - I remember on election day being out with one other canvasser being narrowly missed by an apple thrown from the top floor of the aptly-named World's End tower blocks. We could see Thatcher was going to have a landslide, and my frustrated assistant bellowed at the concrete tower: "You'll be sorry!" No doubt he was right. We were sort of relieved all the same, both locally (where we did well to save our deposit) and nationlly (where we weren't quite displaced as second party as expected). I remember as polling day approached we started to pull back a few waverers into line ("You don't stop supporting a team just because they're a bit crap at the moment", said one returning voter) and it was exciting in a grim sort of way.
It was many years ago that I first heard this piece of 'orthodoxy'.
The argument runs, so I believe, that global warming causes the icecaps to melt. Huge icebergs drift south and the Gulf Stream, which keeps the temperatures around these shores so moderate, is deflected further South. The waters around these Islands cool and we freeze.
Sounds plausible.
But then I think about just how awful weather men are at predicting the next few days so I take their views about the next few millenia with a pinch of salt.
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html
I'd love to know what weather patterns would lead a believer in warmism to disavow their faith.
I can't be arsed digging up links but I've certainly been aware since the late 90s that the effect of the arttic icecap meliting would be to make the gulfstream cooler.
Yes I believe that the ice cap melting has been mentioned at a possible cause of cooler wetter conditions in most of northern Europe. The jet stream is then for whatever reason bent further south leading to increasing desert like conditions in southern Europe.
There are loads of articles online about this, if people are interested. But why do they have to be so long winded !
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/va-gov-mcdonnell-in-close-relationship-with-owner-of-struggling-company/2013/03/30/43f34fb8-97ea-11e2-814b-063623d80a60_story.html
Also, we know the climate can warm up entirely naturally as it did so during the Caligula/Claudius period and during the Middle Ages.
It is fair to say that UK weather/climate does not equal the global picture, but that did not stop warmists from claiming hot summers were indicative of global warming.
"... just another load of bollocks from charlatans trying to line their own pockets"
I say! That is a bit harsh. These are not necessarily bad people, they are mostly trying to ensure that their mortgage gets paid and there is food on the table just like the rest of us. Only of course their careers are tied to maintaining a belief amongst the gullible that they know what they are talking about.
It is interesting that a couple of posters have used the word "orthodoxy" in relation to the "Science" of Climate change. There is more than a whiff of religion about it and I reminded of the hoops the Catholic church went through when successive real scientific advances showed its teaching to at variance with the demonstrable facts. The believers just shifted over to the new orthodox view and it became another of the eternal verities even if it was the opposite of the previous one. After all the Pope or, now, the "Scientific Consensus" is infallible.
But the current climate change argument seems to be merely a way for lefties to push for a greater role for government in society, be it in the form of taxes or regulation.
I love the way they have all these conferences, which have huge carbon footprints, to decide to spend vast amounts of tax payers money to limit the growth in temperature to 2 degrees over the next 30 years when at the same time they can't predict if it will rain tomorrow.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Global_Temperature_Anomaly_1880-2012.svg
Rolling averages are the best way to remove out volatility, and are frequently used in statistics for volatile datasets. Under this measure, global temperatures have been roughly flat since about 2003. Yes, it can, although the Medieval warm period was much smaller than the recent increase in temperatures, and seems to have been restricted to the North Atlantic. I think the relevant analogy here is that forest fires can start naturally, but in some cases, there is much greater reason to believe it is down to arson. We are in one of those cases. Yes, people on both sides have done this unfortunately. We are best off ignoring the ideologues and looking at what the scientific academies state, rather than individuals writing columns in the Guardian or the Telegraph.
What is "it", the context of your post, Mr. Socrates? What is the "it" that the national scientific academy of Russia and the state of Norway supports?
The need for urgent action to address climate change
is now indisputable. For example, limiting global
warming to 2°C would require a very rapid worldwide
implementation of all currently available low carbon
technologies. The G8+5 should lead the transition to
an energy efficient and low carbon world economy,
and foster innovation and research and development
for both mitigation and adaptation technologies.
http://www.nationalacademies.org/includes/G8+5energy-climate09.pdf
EASAC agrees with the consensus view of the
world’s climate scientists that significant reductions
in global emission of carbon dioxide of at least 50%
from 2000 levels will be required to achieve the 2 °C
limit in global warming.
http://www.easac.eu/fileadmin/PDF_s/reports_statements/Easac_11-CC.pdf
It's just about possible to imagine the West halting carbon emissions or possibly reducing them. But China? India? South America? Africa?
Carbon credits and green levies are the equivalent (if you're correct) of knitting a jumper in preparation for a joust.
RT @GregHurstTimes: Profile of Christine Blower of NUT calling her 'Bob Crow with pencils' got under her skin: she's quoted it twice (£)
http://t.co/9YG5OAVti1
Loosen up, Socco.
It was a dig at weathermen, not the Global Warming thesis.
In fact I do believe in GW, but mainly because my son assures me it is for real. He may be wrong, but at least I know he's honest.
Average temperatures in Britain were nearly 0.6C higher in the Nineties than in 1960-90, and it is estimated that they will increase by 0.2C every decade over the coming century.
...
According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event".
"Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said."
When did this climate "expert" make his prediction? March 2000 that is when. Apparently we have known since the nineties that the UK was always going to become colder with Global warming.
I am fairly sure that the Earth's climate is changing, but then it always has and always will. What I am far less confident of is that the "experts" actually know what they are talking about. What I am bloody certain of is that consensus of the "wise men" is no basis for good science, if for no other reason that the "consensus view" has proved to be wrong so often in the past.
Oh, CO2 is not pollution, it is plant food.
When the facts changed so the Global warming "experts" change the terminology to "climate change".
Viner "an end to snow" sums up the flakes.
Is it true Sunderland will be playing in black shirts from now on?
And can we expect an extension of their non-interventionist defence policy?
He would surely have stood for the leadership against Kinnock and may have won. If he had, there would have been no Mandleson rebrand in 86 and so on.
All down to 1000 swing votes.
It wouldn't be impossible to imagine Ron Paul as an elaborate hoax.
Please would you go back to your old avatar? Pretty please? A photo of the great man is far more becoming and matches the tone of most of your posts. He was also an Irishman was he not?
Which it turn produces Oxygen O2, that all Pbers, and others, breath.
I've had a number of small bets. Fwiw, they are:
Huntingdon: 1.40 Sail And Return 9/1
3.40 Kings Road 4/1
Plumpton: 2.35 Dollar Bill 13/2
4.35 Capellini 6/1
Fakenham: 3.15 Riddlestown 9/2
Prices are as I took earlier today. They may have changed. I know Riddlestown (my strongest bet) has shortened to 7/2 and I'm not sure I would be interested at that price.
On the whole, I am keeping powder dry for Aintree.
flat footed De Gea. Great goal from Ba.
Lunar Pad? Or is that his son?
Now all we've got is tim's rather curious "Vote for Cameron in 2025" avatar.....
Even with this increase the maximum extent was still the 6th lowest ever recorded by satillite (which of course means a relatively short time frame).
Does this mean a change in direction or is the trend towards an ice free north pole still continuing? It will take several more years like this one to change the trend. First year ice will melt much more quickly as it is typically thinner. I think we are still heading to an ice free north pole within a relatively short period of time.
What is telling is that the projections from 10 years plus ago continuously have to be revisited reducing the extent of the projected change. Whilst the sun may well have played a major part in this I suspect that scientists have underestimated the compensatory capabilities of this wonderful rock that we are on.
The one thing that is crystal clear in this messy area is that our politicians have been embarrassingly parochial in their viewpoint. Reducing our carbon output by exporting manufacturing to China, for example, was not only very bad economics but incredibly stupid environmentalism because their energy is much dirtier than ours.
Unfortunately the current legislation seems to carry on this lunacy by making energy intensive manufacturing more difficult in this country. If we stopped preening as a nation and starting thinking globally I think we would have a set of policies that would have much greater support than the current mess.