Climate change - the POLITICAL debate.
Discussion
BliarOut said:
The Budget said:
GREEN MEASURES
Government to seek "major savings" in the administrative cost of the Carbon Reduction Commitment, and bring forward an alternative environment tax this autumn if such savings cannot be found.
Does this mean George is backing away from the Green mantra?Government to seek "major savings" in the administrative cost of the Carbon Reduction Commitment, and bring forward an alternative environment tax this autumn if such savings cannot be found.
More wannabe-luvvies preaching about climate change, with a particularly silly sounding twist:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/theatre/theatre...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/theatre/theatre...
On the other hand, I heard the most sensible stuff from a mainstream (sort of!) politician on QT last week - Frank Field slagging policy and wind turbines in particular, saying (nail on head) more or less that these policies pushed/believed by 'young' and middle class devotees were stealing from his constituents. Also, that if we/they were really concerned about the environment we'd be starting elsewhere, like rain forests and (real) pollution.
Rainforests as biodiversity sources of e.g. potentially new and lifesaving drugs to the benefit of evil humans, yes, as a place to live for people and amimals that live there, yes, but as the supposed lungs of the planet, ho ho ho. It's behind you
the economy stupid the oceans and very small things in them.
Lost_BMW said:
On the other hand, I heard the most sensible stuff from a mainstream (sort of!) politician on QT last week - Frank Field slagging policy and wind turbines in particular, saying (nail on head) more or less that these policies pushed/believed by 'young' and middle class devotees were stealing from his constituents. Also, that if we/they were really concerned about the environment we'd be starting elsewhere, like rain forests and (real) pollution.
A politician and a labour one at that with something very rare, common sense and a backbone. I have been very impressed him in the past, during the expense scandal and again after this appearance.That's probably why he always seems to have been treated with scepticism by sections of his own party, often tarnished with the 'maverick' and 'right wing' tags by labour die hards - for speaking his mind and sticking out for what he actually believes in! Amazing he made it in politics at all.
Lost_BMW said:
More wannabe-luvvies preaching about climate change, with a particularly silly sounding twist:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/theatre/theatre...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/theatre/theatre...
Article said:
How does this 24-hour challenge work?
We all meet at half past seven the night before, having absolutely no idea what we are going to do.
Oh, ok then. Glad that's clear...We all meet at half past seven the night before, having absolutely no idea what we are going to do.
Article said:
What do you hope this project will actually achieve?
I hope it will be a way of getting people to think about climate change again. Global warming and climate change were hot topics about three or four years ago and they seem to have been replaced, among other things, by the recession, unemployment and university fees. I think that Climate Week as a whole will reawaken the debate.
So, 'the most important issue of the modern age' and indeed the future of our very existence on this fragile Planet has been pushed into the weeds by such Titanic issues as 'university fees'?!?I hope it will be a way of getting people to think about climate change again. Global warming and climate change were hot topics about three or four years ago and they seem to have been replaced, among other things, by the recession, unemployment and university fees. I think that Climate Week as a whole will reawaken the debate.
Article said:
What’s your own personal view of climate change?
I know there are people out there who dismiss climate change as scaremongering. My personal view is I will do everything I can to look after our planet, because ultimately even if there is no scientific truth behind the theories, why harm our planet when we can be looking after it?
Wibble wibble!I know there are people out there who dismiss climate change as scaremongering. My personal view is I will do everything I can to look after our planet, because ultimately even if there is no scientific truth behind the theories, why harm our planet when we can be looking after it?
Got into my car around 3.20pm today and caught a brilliant interview with Dellingpole on the Radio 5 Live 'Richard Bacon' show.
Well worth catching it on iPlayer/podcast or whatever, probably around 1hr 20m into the broadcast, as he was brilliant. Rubbished Bacon and his lame attempts to claim any knowledge/insight on the subject and his supposed reading of Dellingpole's book, refuted the "97% of scientists agree line" by explaining where it came from (to Bacon's embarrassment) and described the cost to benefit ratio of the decisions being made quite well.
Bacon tried pathetically to get his own back and to catch him out on a couple of semantic points which were spotted and dealt with very well. A bit aggressive perhaps but clearly won all the arguments + it had some laugh out loud moments, e.g. re Polar Bears being endangered he pointed out that the numbers have risen from 5000 to 25000 adding that that sounded less like "a species at risk of extinction and more like an infestation"!
Well worth catching it on iPlayer/podcast or whatever, probably around 1hr 20m into the broadcast, as he was brilliant. Rubbished Bacon and his lame attempts to claim any knowledge/insight on the subject and his supposed reading of Dellingpole's book, refuted the "97% of scientists agree line" by explaining where it came from (to Bacon's embarrassment) and described the cost to benefit ratio of the decisions being made quite well.
Bacon tried pathetically to get his own back and to catch him out on a couple of semantic points which were spotted and dealt with very well. A bit aggressive perhaps but clearly won all the arguments + it had some laugh out loud moments, e.g. re Polar Bears being endangered he pointed out that the numbers have risen from 5000 to 25000 adding that that sounded less like "a species at risk of extinction and more like an infestation"!
stevejh said:
Just listened to it on iplayer. James was on good form against the odious Bacon who was completely out of his depth but kept plugging away with the usual warmist platitudes and still managed to get the last, and false, word in.
He really was determined to try to make up ground and get back for the embarrassment Dellingpole put him through near the start! He seemed to go beyond the interviewer's need to be Devil's Advocate and to actually get annoyed, hostile and flustered. Didn't come off well really; too involved and, as you say, out of his depth!
This one I would guess.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01djp25/Rich...
I remember listening to Richard Bacon declare on his show that crop circles are made by aliens because what else could be responsible? The man is a credulous fool who would be out of his depth in a kindegarten science class so no wonder he's fully signed up to warmist nonsense.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01djp25/Rich...
I remember listening to Richard Bacon declare on his show that crop circles are made by aliens because what else could be responsible? The man is a credulous fool who would be out of his depth in a kindegarten science class so no wonder he's fully signed up to warmist nonsense.
Globs said:
stevejh said:
Just listened to it on iplayer. James was on good form against the odious Bacon who was completely out of his depth but kept plugging away with the usual warmist platitudes and still managed to get the last, and false, word in.
Any clues to the link are welcome!Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff