Though, I suspect some may not like my use of it.
Boris Johnson to slash London environmental team in half
'...a major shake-up that calls into question the commitment to the environment of the mayor'
By whom? Until we see the enviROI of what gets DONE with the money that makes a difference, rather than talked about endlessly between vast overlapping quango empires with vast comms budgets, I will hold any critique or allusions to 'others' making them until they do.
I am a champion for green initiatives leading the charge, but they need to be tangibles that make my kids' futures better, not box-ticking, target-meeting, non-job-creating, multi-million £ 'awareness'-raising, bonus-feeding, lobbyist-pleasing, lipsmacking, ace-tasting... er.. you get my drift:)
But if any lost are making a real contribution, then questions need to be asked, and answered.
ps: I'm guessing that leaked docos are OK, at least for today? (A Guardian journo was on the Jeremy Vine show yesterday saying it wasn't on, and was allowed to allude to the 'whisleblower' being a Tory mole. Which does kinda smack of those plethora of standards that crank my eyebrow.)
Addendum 1:
What's the saying? 'Careful what you wish for... predict... create?
Interesting, but sad, is how this has progressed.
First thing to note is that, other than a few possible observers, beyond the author (and who knows who they post as?) it is a singles' game.
No matter.
I think, on balance, I was at fault. I was rather sweeping in my critique. But then in mitigation I was irritated by a political/media agenda which, in my view, was already producing some slopping reporting.
But in being flip, I may well have conjured up a vision of a red rag to a public-sectorphilic person with a sore head.
That's where my mea culpa ends.
This person was/is on a very high horse and, despite my attempts, decided to stay upon it. Maybe even rear up more. I was in no mood for too much by way of conciliation.
However, as this was swerving into nasty places I have decided to leave, exit stage...right (wing?), followed, I hope not too far, by the bear.
I obviously think this person to be wrong, unfair and aggressive.
Mainly it's the journalist's fault. Dripping with agenda, they came out with a half story and I objected, maybe swinging too far the other way to show how some others may view matters. But I clearly stated that it was this lack of clarity that prevented objective conclusions so far.
Hence it could be a purging pol looking to save a quick buck on a weak voter sector (currently), or it could be some trimming of fat in crunchier times. Having a degree does not guarantee pay and indeed a job for life for a lot of us.
I am satisfied I did my best, fought the corner for enviROI and, coincidentally managed to work in my concerns of the medium and the messengers.
The Guardian can be a fine reporting organ. But it is read by a small minority, and one which seems too often to think 'others' are beneath them, and contempt.
That is a poor way to bring the majority of the UK population onside, especially as articulated by this representative. I think they have given environmental debate a worse name as a consequence.
Addendum 2 -
Hard to leave such things alone, but I think best to move the debate of the pages of the Guardian, noting that they seem to have about two more readers to me.
There has been a reply, which is more friendly at least, and even more balanced, but perhaps as dangerous. Where the previous poster was 'how dare you have another view', this was more 'Why can't we all be friends... and leave the original post as it was'.
Any reader of this blog will know I am an advocate of doing over talking, but sorry, these two options still leave a result that won't wash... at least with me: doing nothing.
Unlike the latest poster, when I look at my two lovely sons, I feel happy, happy happy, and then angry, and then all the more determined to fight for making their futures as good as they can be.
And that means being pragmatic. Divorcing budgets from actions is the naive mantra of the hopeless idealist. Even foot-stamping, cross ones.
I have never said do nothing. I DO things all the time. I simply advocate that what gets done, with all the money that can and will be allocated to do it, goes to tangibles that make a difference.
Take insulation. I have lost count of the number of bodies - with offices and staff and comms budgets and conference passes - that there are to get it into my dear old Mum's cottage. She doesn't need it, because I did it an age ago. But has she... or I... heard from any one of these overlapping numpties, at least in terms that make sense and create engagement. For every £20, subsidised roll, there is a horde of officers and forms and checks and assessments. All overlapping.
I have been wrong, I am often wrong and I will be wrong. And I am more than willing to be told I am, set things straight and work on the positives of correction and promotion.
But I will not be bullied to silence by those who have a nice little number, or seduced by those who think 'green is always good, no matter what the cost'. Especially when it is with my family's money, more often than not to fund them for what they want, rather than what is actually needed.
End of.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Monday, March 30, 2009
I decide to reply to a BBC blooger...
On the one hand, I love useful info. On the other, I don't like being 'fed'.
There were a few elements of 'medium vs. messenger' here, and also some 'politically correct' BBC lines being taken.
Are we all doomed?
Other than death, taxes and licence fees, No. But I'm guessing you mean the humin race, and more specifically through 'probably man-worsened climate change'. In which case no, not for a while, and 'I am not sure anyone knows, yet, but it might be worth sussing out the skinny to prepare'.
Well, we came to America to do nothing less than save the world.
And here was me thinking it was another 'don't do as we do, don't do what we say don't do' jolly to get a programme out and crank up some ratings in the niche end of the schedule, and some hits on a blog. But it is great you had a good time, and guys like our Darryl liked the reach the BBC has so much she caught up with you again.
If a few things might assist in certain endeavours, I'd pop in 'realism' and 'pragmatism' for two.
I have a colleague who lives in fear of their blog because of the aggressive and rude comments people post.
That is neither welcome nor, to use one of our Dear Leader's most fatuous phrases, 'acceptable'. Aggression and rudeness are poor ways to move opinion, IMHO. Especially if the pieces that have provoked such reactions are factual, objective, and free from 'enhanced narratives' and 'interpreted events'. That's what effective, honest moderation is for.
However, as your colleague Susan and her 'superior' might appreciate, it is not unlikely there will be a robust expression of disagreement if liberties are taken. Folk were not keen that President Obama's speech was turned in the edit suite into an 'emerging truth'.
That said...
'...if readers or viewers disagreed their only way to respond was a letter to the editor that, almost always, would go unpublished, if not unread.'
You are aware of the BBC 'House Rules', I take it? They can be, and often are used to delete just about anything that some do not fancy. Still.
A fact that seems to be causing some rumblings in the blogosphere. You can't control what you don't own.
But I'll look forward to the report. So long as it is guided by 'hewing close to the line, and letting the chips fall where they may', and not dogma or agenda. And by heavens the science stays sensible and the enviROI top of mind.
If not, I'm sure a few will be on hand to give you the heads up.
There were a few elements of 'medium vs. messenger' here, and also some 'politically correct' BBC lines being taken.
Are we all doomed?
Other than death, taxes and licence fees, No. But I'm guessing you mean the humin race, and more specifically through 'probably man-worsened climate change'. In which case no, not for a while, and 'I am not sure anyone knows, yet, but it might be worth sussing out the skinny to prepare'.
Well, we came to America to do nothing less than save the world.
And here was me thinking it was another 'don't do as we do, don't do what we say don't do' jolly to get a programme out and crank up some ratings in the niche end of the schedule, and some hits on a blog. But it is great you had a good time, and guys like our Darryl liked the reach the BBC has so much she caught up with you again.
If a few things might assist in certain endeavours, I'd pop in 'realism' and 'pragmatism' for two.
I have a colleague who lives in fear of their blog because of the aggressive and rude comments people post.
That is neither welcome nor, to use one of our Dear Leader's most fatuous phrases, 'acceptable'. Aggression and rudeness are poor ways to move opinion, IMHO. Especially if the pieces that have provoked such reactions are factual, objective, and free from 'enhanced narratives' and 'interpreted events'. That's what effective, honest moderation is for.
However, as your colleague Susan and her 'superior' might appreciate, it is not unlikely there will be a robust expression of disagreement if liberties are taken. Folk were not keen that President Obama's speech was turned in the edit suite into an 'emerging truth'.
That said...
'...if readers or viewers disagreed their only way to respond was a letter to the editor that, almost always, would go unpublished, if not unread.'
You are aware of the BBC 'House Rules', I take it? They can be, and often are used to delete just about anything that some do not fancy. Still.
A fact that seems to be causing some rumblings in the blogosphere. You can't control what you don't own.
But I'll look forward to the report. So long as it is guided by 'hewing close to the line, and letting the chips fall where they may', and not dogma or agenda. And by heavens the science stays sensible and the enviROI top of mind.
If not, I'm sure a few will be on hand to give you the heads up.
Saturday, March 28, 2009
A man to like, on several counts...
Miliband's new green helper
I shall follow now follow another so described: 'impeccable "green" credentials. He is also outspoken and not afraid to criticise the Government. With interest.
I shall follow now follow another so described: 'impeccable "green" credentials. He is also outspoken and not afraid to criticise the Government. With interest.
EARTH HOUR - Confusion time?
At the behest of a few, and as it was/is a 'why not?', I was ready to switch off tonight.
Now, I need to look at enviROI's an messages and messengers again.
Not because of this: Earth Hour is stupid and pointless. Leave the blasted lights on
Or because of this in rebuttal (which it richly deserved. It's one thing to have a contrary view on things, but just being contrary for the sake of it serves no one): Never mind me, what about them
But mainly because of this (and comments in reply): Earth Hour: Turning out the lights plays into the hands of our critics
As a pragmatist, my greatest concern is this on the science: it is claimed 'this will not actually reduce any emissions. Power companies always keep spare capacity and will keep their turbines spinning through this unpredictable fall in demand in preparation for when people turn their lights back on again'.
However, the caution on the effect to the vast proportion of very lite greens to don't cares is well taken.
A dilemma indeed.
On the one had if any ask why my house is in darkness do I show it to be a tokenist but worthy piece of 'awareness', or set myself up for be more part of a problem then the solution?
As I seek to confirm the counter-engineering aruments by some posters, I am still erring on 'off'. Also I worry about an author who is linked to a site that last updated in Dec. of last year. Junkk's home page has new stuff (ideas and blogs) about 6 times a day. This is a fast moving sector!
FWIW, this PC will now be off then, having been convinced that it is better to switch in on and off daily than spin 24/7 (the energy in standby vs. energy to buy a new one as they break quicker if spun up and down all the time - but roll on solid state hard drives of 1 TB)
BBC - World cities begin big switch-off -
The Australian - Hour of no power increases emissions - No idea about the claims until they are challenged, but we now seem to be in a zone of looking like you're doing something being more important than actually doing it. My awareness is will honed, but what will be the actual effect on someone less concerned?
Telegraph - NEW - Earth Hour: Landmarks plunged into darkness in support of climate change action - I did my bit... I was in bed!
Now, I need to look at enviROI's an messages and messengers again.
Not because of this: Earth Hour is stupid and pointless. Leave the blasted lights on
Or because of this in rebuttal (which it richly deserved. It's one thing to have a contrary view on things, but just being contrary for the sake of it serves no one): Never mind me, what about them
But mainly because of this (and comments in reply): Earth Hour: Turning out the lights plays into the hands of our critics
As a pragmatist, my greatest concern is this on the science: it is claimed 'this will not actually reduce any emissions. Power companies always keep spare capacity and will keep their turbines spinning through this unpredictable fall in demand in preparation for when people turn their lights back on again'.
However, the caution on the effect to the vast proportion of very lite greens to don't cares is well taken.
A dilemma indeed.
On the one had if any ask why my house is in darkness do I show it to be a tokenist but worthy piece of 'awareness', or set myself up for be more part of a problem then the solution?
As I seek to confirm the counter-engineering aruments by some posters, I am still erring on 'off'. Also I worry about an author who is linked to a site that last updated in Dec. of last year. Junkk's home page has new stuff (ideas and blogs) about 6 times a day. This is a fast moving sector!
FWIW, this PC will now be off then, having been convinced that it is better to switch in on and off daily than spin 24/7 (the energy in standby vs. energy to buy a new one as they break quicker if spun up and down all the time - but roll on solid state hard drives of 1 TB)
BBC - World cities begin big switch-off -
The Australian - Hour of no power increases emissions - No idea about the claims until they are challenged, but we now seem to be in a zone of looking like you're doing something being more important than actually doing it. My awareness is will honed, but what will be the actual effect on someone less concerned?
Telegraph - NEW - Earth Hour: Landmarks plunged into darkness in support of climate change action - I did my bit... I was in bed!
Some that is green can be black or white?
Black car ban hysteria misses the point
And here was me thinking it made sense!
Mind you, imagining how eco-guys like the Prez and his motorcade of Suburban's and the limos of most green advocates with better business models than some would fare was proving fun.
And here was me thinking it made sense!
Mind you, imagining how eco-guys like the Prez and his motorcade of Suburban's and the limos of most green advocates with better business models than some would fare was proving fun.
Friday, March 27, 2009
RE:view - SATS tests
I succumbed.Motivated by a recent 1/2 hour drivearound seeking a venue, and promoted by a deal, I have bought a Sat Nav. So far, so blinking amazing.
I'd have to say the enviro aspects were not uppermost in my mind, but already I can safely say that it was the best £150 I have spent in a while, even if it is on a 'toy'.
I have already completed a few trips, and while the fuel cost savings may never cover the purchase investment, I am happy that enviROI is well and truly satisfied. There's also the intangibles (I hope) of safety, etc.
The Good
My model is a Tom Tom, and very easy to use and effective I have found it. Nice clear screen, simple, comprehensible audio warnings and instructions. Simple to program. WYSIWYG. Can't fault it yet. A few odd routes close to home when I know a quicker way, but it seemed to 'learn' when I ignored those.
The Better?
Of course, I now am more 'aware', and just clicked on a banner at for a competitor, and arrived at this. Too late for me! Though I am a little unclear as to what it does that others cannot. But maybe the eco. vs. fastest route is genuine. That said, 56mph on a motorway is probably the most fuel efficient way to go rather than 70mph, or stop start and winding the B-roads. Possibly a bit of a gimmick. Without buying one it's hard to say. But I may revisit this RE:view as I would a category as news is published from elsewhere.
The Ugly
And now the downside. This from last night's Ch 4 Snowmail sums it up: And seen any 40-tonne artics stuck up single-track country lanes recently? Well, the joys of Sat Nav Stupidity are becoming so well known now that there's a kind of unofficial hit parade emerging as the nation's tried and tested favorites grind to a frustrated halt in great clouds of diesel with ever increasing regularity. And the extraordinary thing is that the system never seems to learn and amend. The Lib Dems are demanding urgent government action. Don't hold your breath.
Enter 'Sat Nav HGV Hot Spots' here
Personally, I still keep a road map and the relevant pages of Google Maps to hand... just in case.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
CATEGORY - RE:tie support info
Sorry, just using a bit of back-up space to start filing useful info to help the RE:tie efforts.
However, as most pertains to consumer attitudes to environment in their purchasing, especially with packaging, some may find it interesting too.
Daily Express -
Times - Hard-up shoppers abandon organic and fair trade goods
COMPANIES -
Times - New lease of life for the Co-op
However, as most pertains to consumer attitudes to environment in their purchasing, especially with packaging, some may find it interesting too.
Daily Express -
Times - Hard-up shoppers abandon organic and fair trade goods
COMPANIES -
Times - New lease of life for the Co-op
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Meanwhile, on the perpetual motion front...
Water-fuel car unveiled in Japan
I can see that the car can be powered by energy from burning hydrogen generated by splitting water. Nifty.
What is not so clear from any text or video is what powers the 'energy generator' that produces the hydrogen to run the car.
It suspect that still may require some 'external input'.
Not that the reporter seemed concerned. Soon to be all round the MSM, equally uncritically, no doubt.
I can see that the car can be powered by energy from burning hydrogen generated by splitting water. Nifty.
What is not so clear from any text or video is what powers the 'energy generator' that produces the hydrogen to run the car.
It suspect that still may require some 'external input'.
Not that the reporter seemed concerned. Soon to be all round the MSM, equally uncritically, no doubt.
CATEGORY - GM
New topic.
This first post covers many other, related, issues...
Articles
BBC - Is the green movement part of the problem?
This first post covers many other, related, issues...
Articles
BBC - Is the green movement part of the problem?
THE TWO E"s - On your wagon
Turning on to Nano-man
'Regularly these days we hear appeals from politicians... It's urgent, they say, and - this is the key message - it can be done, if everyone and every country does his/her/its bit.'
A very key comment. And one I find hard to rationalise with what issues forth from many politicians, and the media that carry their press releases.
The only appeals I have heard of late are to support the car industry, and often ones that would be hard-pressed to be called 'green'. In crowded urban centres as described above, I agree mass transit initiatives would seem a much 'better' commitment.
But here the latest wheeze I heard of was paying the likes of me £2k to ditch my old car and buy a new Jag (who makes those?). Or maybe an LDV van? Sadly (financially, if not environmentally, from manufacturing impact to running) , I opted for a second hand LPG.
I'd just love to square the whole reduced eco-impact vs. growing economy thing, but just can't. I don't think it can be, at least in the ways being currently attempted, and with such blatant fudging if not dishonesty from the establishment.
Guardian - India launches 'world's cheapest car' - Enjoy the other threads and comments. George Monbiot's is 'lively'. I liked one of his supporters' claims against a few eyebrow-crankers that he has a car 'because he needs one'. Ahhhh... that's where I have been going wrong with my finger-wa... oh... I don't do that.
'Regularly these days we hear appeals from politicians... It's urgent, they say, and - this is the key message - it can be done, if everyone and every country does his/her/its bit.'
A very key comment. And one I find hard to rationalise with what issues forth from many politicians, and the media that carry their press releases.
The only appeals I have heard of late are to support the car industry, and often ones that would be hard-pressed to be called 'green'. In crowded urban centres as described above, I agree mass transit initiatives would seem a much 'better' commitment.
But here the latest wheeze I heard of was paying the likes of me £2k to ditch my old car and buy a new Jag (who makes those?). Or maybe an LDV van? Sadly (financially, if not environmentally, from manufacturing impact to running) , I opted for a second hand LPG.
I'd just love to square the whole reduced eco-impact vs. growing economy thing, but just can't. I don't think it can be, at least in the ways being currently attempted, and with such blatant fudging if not dishonesty from the establishment.
Guardian - India launches 'world's cheapest car' - Enjoy the other threads and comments. George Monbiot's is 'lively'. I liked one of his supporters' claims against a few eyebrow-crankers that he has a car 'because he needs one'. Ahhhh... that's where I have been going wrong with my finger-wa... oh... I don't do that.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
PROF'S POSER - Dial 'S' for 'Sun'
Nothing like tapping into the best brains out there.Sp sorry if this is another question without an answer, as yet.
This weekend I bought a solar security lamp combo.
Where it was needed rather determined where it went and, despite a 5m cable, my choices were limited.
However, I did manage, a great risk to life and limb, to get it pretty high up, to make the most of the daytime sunlight. And, despite the picture, the panel is pretty much clear exposure all day.
However, I faced it due South. And near vertical. Now I have noticed, on a nice day like today, it is missing out on any solar impact until mid-morning, though if the sun stays out it will keep it pretty much until dusk.
My question is whether this is the most sensible orientation? Two real issues. When is the sun mostly 'out', and when is it at its most solarific?
I know that data will exist, and can determine the optimum year-round setting, as I don't want to go up there again. Scaaaaareee!
In passing, I will advise that I am working on a self powered device to help panels auto-track the heat of the sun, which I'll share when complete.
RE:tie - Uses
A few business folk have dismissed the RE:tie as they can't think why anyone would use them.
How do I love thee, RE:tie, let me (and I rather suspect, nay hope, others' imaginations may add to the list) count the ways ....
Bag tie - (if you are being charged per bag, you'll want to fill it to the top. So you'll need a tie)
Bean canes -
Cable Tidy - no pix yet
Connector -
Sign-posting -
Supermarket baskets -
Wheel hubs -
ADDENDUM -
By happy coincidence, I already have come across the next batch, from nifty reuse site repurposeful (featured in links..RHS)
Bogey persons
Opposing wind farms should be socially taboo, says Ed Miliband
This should, technically, be under the ALT. ENERGY category, but I think I'll give it its own splash.
What the heck does that headline, and by association the words of a government minister, mean?
'Should be socially taboo'? Is he simple? Or just playing to the crowd at the premiere of the Age of Stupid which, a few blogs earlier I have stated I wish to watch, but am more than unimpressed that will not allow any dissenting commentary to enter their realms.
Opposing wind farms should be subject to reasoned debate, facts, objectivity and (what is left of it) democratic process. Plus...enviROI. Just because there's a big whirl thing that meets an EU target and a lobbyist's entreaties doesn't make it right.
Next thing you'll find is Ministers will go on air claiming that the court of public opinion should take precedence over the law....oh.
I think these things can and should be embraced, wherever and whenever practically and cost/eco-effectively possible. But then I don't live near any. I like the look of them. But I accept there are negatives, from noise (close up) to property prices being reduced. Such things cannot be dismissed in such a manner by breaking out of one's pod like something from 'Invasion of the Body Snatcher's and hissing 'Nimby' at folk who have other views, any more than one should throw around pejoratives like 'denier' or 'Treehugger'. Especially if thy are there and you are just passing by.
I'm with Voltaire here, and I while I may agree with much that Mr. M is trying to do, I think he has a darned doltish way of saying it.
This should, technically, be under the ALT. ENERGY category, but I think I'll give it its own splash.
What the heck does that headline, and by association the words of a government minister, mean?
'Should be socially taboo'? Is he simple? Or just playing to the crowd at the premiere of the Age of Stupid which, a few blogs earlier I have stated I wish to watch, but am more than unimpressed that will not allow any dissenting commentary to enter their realms.
Opposing wind farms should be subject to reasoned debate, facts, objectivity and (what is left of it) democratic process. Plus...enviROI. Just because there's a big whirl thing that meets an EU target and a lobbyist's entreaties doesn't make it right.
Next thing you'll find is Ministers will go on air claiming that the court of public opinion should take precedence over the law....oh.
I think these things can and should be embraced, wherever and whenever practically and cost/eco-effectively possible. But then I don't live near any. I like the look of them. But I accept there are negatives, from noise (close up) to property prices being reduced. Such things cannot be dismissed in such a manner by breaking out of one's pod like something from 'Invasion of the Body Snatcher's and hissing 'Nimby' at folk who have other views, any more than one should throw around pejoratives like 'denier' or 'Treehugger'. Especially if thy are there and you are just passing by.
I'm with Voltaire here, and I while I may agree with much that Mr. M is trying to do, I think he has a darned doltish way of saying it.
Worried about CO2 and Methane?
Well, apart from these two well known greenhouse gases, there are now a couple more to worry about too, as this from SciScoop reports.
Apparently, concentrations of nitrogen trifluoride (NF3) and sulfuryl fluoride (SO2F2) are rapidly increasing in our atmosphere and both are known to be powerful greenhouse gases.
Just how many more straws can we (mankind) load onto the camel's back?
Apparently, concentrations of nitrogen trifluoride (NF3) and sulfuryl fluoride (SO2F2) are rapidly increasing in our atmosphere and both are known to be powerful greenhouse gases.
Just how many more straws can we (mankind) load onto the camel's back?
Monday, March 23, 2009
POOH CORNER - Wee Directive?
NASA delays test of space station urine recycler
And here's me thinking it was in the Carling 'brewery'.
And here's me thinking it was in the Carling 'brewery'.
CAMPAIGN - Action Earth
I'm often not big on campaigns, but this one looks OK:
actionearth.org.uk
A bit of sponsorship in there, but that's fine. Plus some nice funding for nifty local activities.
actionearth.org.uk
A bit of sponsorship in there, but that's fine. Plus some nice funding for nifty local activities.
PR COVERAGE - And it's Rubbish... thankfully
They do say it's the awards from your peers that mean the most.
rubbish-diet-awards-2009
I'll go along with that:)
rubbish-diet-awards-2009
I'll go along with that:)
Stupid is as Stupid does
I am going to see the Age of Stupid.
I am going to do so because I have heard about it, it sounds interesting, it may be worth a gander and I'll learn something.
The producers must be thrilled.
However, they might not be so pleased that I am going with an eyebrow now cranked, and not in a good way. And it's their fault.
The rage of stupid
This bit, especially, did not help: the site's managers are taking no chances. Their comment box carries a legend that somewhat undermines this apparently glowing feedback. It reads: "Any comments from climate deniers/sceptics will be deleted."..the site's managers are taking no chances. "
That smacks of a slight lack of confidence from the off, and also suggests that balance may not be uppermost. Which means the science I see may not be the science there is.
You know, I may wait for a few more reviews where all 'sides' are allowed to comment free of censorship/agenda/narrative enhancing, etc, and then decide whether I'll go.
Now, was/is that the intention?
I am going to do so because I have heard about it, it sounds interesting, it may be worth a gander and I'll learn something.
The producers must be thrilled.
However, they might not be so pleased that I am going with an eyebrow now cranked, and not in a good way. And it's their fault.
The rage of stupid
This bit, especially, did not help: the site's managers are taking no chances. Their comment box carries a legend that somewhat undermines this apparently glowing feedback. It reads: "Any comments from climate deniers/sceptics will be deleted."..the site's managers are taking no chances. "
That smacks of a slight lack of confidence from the off, and also suggests that balance may not be uppermost. Which means the science I see may not be the science there is.
You know, I may wait for a few more reviews where all 'sides' are allowed to comment free of censorship/agenda/narrative enhancing, etc, and then decide whether I'll go.
Now, was/is that the intention?
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Big issues. No #36G.
Can cosmetic surgery ever be green?
Nice to see the Londonistas getting to the 'meat' (sorry) of the big eco-issues.
I can see this really bothering my missus of an evening. Population control (major s**t-fight on the BBC this morning. And an interesting way of spinning it in The Observer), MMGW, etc... and getting perky in a way that will impress the gels at the next eco-gathering. Mind you, we do often get excited about plastics, so maybe it's 'in the zone'.
Sadly no option to respond.
My answer to the headline is.. 'Of course. A rusty blade. Limited access to medical care, a bit of gangrene and Bob's your uncle (or boobs the colour of pus-flecked corruption).
Probably just as well I didn't get the chance.
Next up... 'Is your fresh Tofu flown in AND offset?'
Addendum
No, I think this one is better... and for real. Sadly:
The Aga saga: George Monbiot v William McGrath
Nice to see the Londonistas getting to the 'meat' (sorry) of the big eco-issues.
I can see this really bothering my missus of an evening. Population control (major s**t-fight on the BBC this morning. And an interesting way of spinning it in The Observer), MMGW, etc... and getting perky in a way that will impress the gels at the next eco-gathering. Mind you, we do often get excited about plastics, so maybe it's 'in the zone'.
Sadly no option to respond.
My answer to the headline is.. 'Of course. A rusty blade. Limited access to medical care, a bit of gangrene and Bob's your uncle (or boobs the colour of pus-flecked corruption).
Probably just as well I didn't get the chance.
Next up... 'Is your fresh Tofu flown in AND offset?'
Addendum
No, I think this one is better... and for real. Sadly:
The Aga saga: George Monbiot v William McGrath
PROF'S POSER - Up in smoke?
This is firmly in the 'Two wrong's do not...' camp, but I would like to know*:
Do you think the BBC environment correspondent will tell us how much CO2 and sulfur compounds has been released by the Tongan volcano in the last two days, and what % this represents of the sum of similar gases released by annual human industrial activity?
This may bring up an 'inconvenient' fact or two.
It becomes pertinent as one discusses the relative man-worsened aspects of anthropomorphic climate change. I wonder if we will get any discussion, much less answers, from some usual suspects quitekeen on rushing to print and screen with other data when it suits?
Times - Underwater volcano sends huge columns of ash into Pacific sky
Indy - Volcano shatters Pacific calm around Tonga
ADDENDUM
*I asked; I may have an answer (if from another source, and an unvetted one for now. And I await, with dread, the publishing of equally valid-looking data that claims the exact opposite) in another blog...
48. At 8:58pm on 21 Mar 2009, manysummits
We have injected a trillion (1 x 10 EEX 12) metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere since 1751, half of that in the last twenty five years, and we are increasing that by some two to three percent per year. Background volcanic emmisions from all volcanoes, including the 60,000 kilometer mid-ocean ridge system, are on the order of 0.2 to at most 1 billion (1 x 10 EEX 9) tons per year, two orders of magnitude less than we, anthropogens all, are emitting per year.
CO2 is up 38 percent over preindustrial levels (280 to 387 ppmv), and has never been above 300 ppmv for at least 450,000 years (four glacial intergalcial cycles).
The search continues.
ADDENDUM 23/03/09 - Alaskan volcano Mount Redoubt erupts -
Do you think the BBC environment correspondent will tell us how much CO2 and sulfur compounds has been released by the Tongan volcano in the last two days, and what % this represents of the sum of similar gases released by annual human industrial activity?
This may bring up an 'inconvenient' fact or two.
It becomes pertinent as one discusses the relative man-worsened aspects of anthropomorphic climate change. I wonder if we will get any discussion, much less answers, from some usual suspects quitekeen on rushing to print and screen with other data when it suits?
Times - Underwater volcano sends huge columns of ash into Pacific sky
Indy - Volcano shatters Pacific calm around Tonga
ADDENDUM
*I asked; I may have an answer (if from another source, and an unvetted one for now. And I await, with dread, the publishing of equally valid-looking data that claims the exact opposite) in another blog...
48. At 8:58pm on 21 Mar 2009, manysummits
We have injected a trillion (1 x 10 EEX 12) metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere since 1751, half of that in the last twenty five years, and we are increasing that by some two to three percent per year. Background volcanic emmisions from all volcanoes, including the 60,000 kilometer mid-ocean ridge system, are on the order of 0.2 to at most 1 billion (1 x 10 EEX 9) tons per year, two orders of magnitude less than we, anthropogens all, are emitting per year.
CO2 is up 38 percent over preindustrial levels (280 to 387 ppmv), and has never been above 300 ppmv for at least 450,000 years (four glacial intergalcial cycles).
The search continues.
ADDENDUM 23/03/09 - Alaskan volcano Mount Redoubt erupts -
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)