Harry's Place

Excellent stuff Brett. More of this type of thing please.

I’m generally inclined towards the articles way of thinking, but some of the points made are rather vague. I’d very much like to see the figures on some of these points. For example, some research suggests that organic farming can be as productive as conventional:

http://agron.scijournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/100/2/253

Also, on the tree front I’m rather sceptical. If they are talking about going into the boreal forest and ripping in to shreds, then I’m not keen at all. If getting a grip on global warming requires fucking up important existing ecosystems, we should be very wary indeed.

Having said all that, it’s nice to see an article that is prepared to point out that dealing with global warming might involve taking on some sacred cows.

Screw Organics – Conventionally raised beef steers emit less polluting methane gas than steers raised organically. (more here…)

but the methane production isn’t the main reason for people eating organically.

Crank the aircon – Cooling a home in Arizona produces 93 percent fewer CO2 emissions than warming a house in New England.

so the solution is to do what? leave New England uninhabited, and use air con more? how does that point make any sense? surely the solution is to insulate houses better and limit energy use wherever possible, be it for warming or cooling? using air con more would solve WHAT, exactly?

These aren’t ‘clear objectives’ at all. they just seem to be deliberate attempts to annoy people in the green movement, with little basis in reason or science. the idea that using air conditioning more is good for the environment, because it’s more energy efficient than heating, is ridiculous.

Yes folks, sensible people have to campaign for the exact opposite of what Green campaigners have been telling us to do.

I think Green campaigners have alienated far more people than the Republicans ever have. They have tainted the notion of environmentalism with hairy-armpitted neo-Puritanism. It means normal people are faintly embarrassed to admit that they recycle and the like.

It was probably in the New Scientist where I read that reducing carbon emissions to any significant degree is going to take a global mobilisation on a massive scale – similar or greater than that during WW2. Unwashed hippies in foul old Landrovers and VW Combis aren’t going to achieve this.

“so the solution is to do what? leave New England uninhabited, and use air con more? how does that point make any sense?”

If people can, according to green campaigners, make a difference by changing their lighbulbs, then surely they can make a difference by favouring some cities over others when making a choice of where to live?

If people can, according to green campaigners, make a difference by changing their lighbulbs, then surely they can make a difference by favouring some cities over others when making a choice of where to live?

that’s not the point you were making in the article though, you specifically reiterate the phrase ‘crank the air con’, as opposed to ‘move somewhere warm’.

So do you think that people should be cranking the air con?

or was your actual point that we should all be moving to warmer areas? why not phrase it liek that, if that was your actual point?

Will you be moving somewhere requiring less household heating Brett, given that you consider the proposals in your piece to be the epitome of:

hard work, but intelligent hard work, in the right direction, with clear objectives.

seems like the objectives and directions you are identifying in your article are ill-defined at best.

The anti GM food lobby seems to be one of the most successful campaigns around.
Yet based purely on scare stories.
They make the anti MMR people look evidence based.

Don’t switch to a Hybrid Car – stick with your old one or buy 2nd hand.

Any article which assumes that we all drive (or need too) is off in lala land before it even begins.

Actually, I agree with the bits about nuclear energy, GM, and “Carbon Trading”

But keeping an old car, or buying an old one 2nd hand? Do give over. Sell your car and use public transport if you can (and if you must live in a city, you should be able to do so)

“that’s not the point you were making in the article though, you specifically reiterate the phrase ‘crank the air con’, as opposed to ‘move somewhere warm’. “

Yes, because people make life decisions based on three word headlines on a blog. Gah!

specifically reiterate the phrase ‘crank the air con: To be fair to the article itself, it compares the relative energy consumption of aircon vs heating, but nowhere suggests we crank the aircon (or move to Arizona). This seems to be Brett cranking up reader attention with a controversial sub edit.

Graham & Venichka. You do realise of course that the majority of the world doesn’t live in London with its fantastic public transport network. I don’thave a driver’s license, and frankly, London has been the first city I’ve lived in (and I’ve lived half-a-dozen) where not having a car and not being able to drive is not an inconvenience.

I’m a vegetarian, but I can accept that the point about organic beef is directed at those who eat meat, not me. I’m sure you can allow graciously that the point about choice of car is aimed at those who drive cars, and not at you or I, or Venichka.

Yes, because people make life decisions based on three word headlines on a blog. Gah!

I don’t understand, are you suggesting that you don’t actually take the green issues you have just outlined seriously?

that you aren’t going to follow the advice you have just spent a fairly long article praising?

or that you even understand it (since as a commenter above points out, nowhere does the Wired article suggest that using more air con is the answer, contrary to your claim)?

rather undermines your idea of

hard work, but intelligent hard work, in the right direction, with clear objectives.

doesn’t it?

do you actually care about the environment at all?

My comment on Green politics was made when I was harassed by the Dole this week.

‘Why do you think you are unemployed Mr Coates?’

Answer: ‘I blame global warming’.

An interesting article by Wired. A bit simplistic on some of the science and portraying environmentalists as a homogeneous block with a defined set of beliefs means they completely miss the target on a couple of things.

I think the reply at the end puts it best – a single minded focus on reductions in greenhouse gases distracts from the ultimate goal, which is creating the conditions for globally sustainable high living standards. This does not just mean trying to keep the temperature the same.

See this site for some scientifically based sense about “Global Warming” or whatever you want to call it.

http://www.petitionproject.org/

It’s a petition signed only by qualified scientists, 30,000+ so far.

“Go Nuclear – Per kilowatt-hour, a nuclear power plant emits 6 percent as much carbon as a plant fired by natural gas.”

What do you do with the nuclear waste? What about accidents?
Nuclear is dangerous.
You neo cons are just a bunch of corporate whores.

demonstrative is an idiot.

They make some assumptions – for one thing, their thing about cities involves traiding off against the cost of commuters, though spreading out and not having concentrated employment zones could equally resolve the situation – wired could call this “Death to the green belt” – we could spread out more, increase microgeneration, and work locally and that would have a similar effect.

But, overall, they talk sense.

Of course, the big problem with global warming isn’t really that it damages the environment all that much – the world has been through worse before and has adapted just fine. The problem with global warming is that it risks flooding large tracts of productive agricultural land (NB – not nature) and cities (also not nature).

We shouldn’t be scared of rising seas because of their threat to the environment, we should be scared because of the risk to us. So actually, it’s not a big surprise that environmentalists should be against many of the most effective ways of stopping global warming, as preventing climate change and protecting the environment are not the same thing.

Venichka:

But keeping an old car, or buying an old one 2nd hand? Do give over. Sell your car and use public transport if you can (and if you must live in a city, you should be able to do so)

Meantime, a finger in the eye of all the self-congratutatory urban ecoweenies in their hybrids.

Graham & Venichka. You do realise of course that the majority of the world doesn’t live in London with its fantastic public transport network.

Yes but does the author realise that some of us do and therefore don’t need cars? This is my point and I really think that an author who makes the assumption that we all drive cars (even if he is not quite doolaly enough to suggest -as some here have that sticking up for the rights of pedestrians makes somebody “fanatically anti-car”-) is ridiculously out of touch with the VAST MAJORITY OF PEOPLE ON EARTH WHO DO NOT DRIVE!

And by the way where are these other cities where the public transport is so bad that you need a car? Shall I list the ones in Europe and North America that I have been too and not been teribbly inconvenienced? Or will you name these dastardly places?

See this site for some scientifically based sense about “Global Warming” or whatever you want to call it.

It’s a petition signed only by qualified scientists, 30,000+ so far.

Ha, ha, ha! A petition signed by self certified scientists (including members of the Spice Girls and characters from Star Wars) based on review written from an imaginary science institute in Oregon and published in an open source medical journal! Fear the science!

While the rest of the world is talking about what to do (or not do) about global warming, there are still some people sticking their heads in the sand.

“Yes but does the author realise that some of us do and therefore don’t need cars? This is my point and I really think that an author who makes the assumption that we all drive cars “

Graham, take a chill pill. He no more assumes that everyone drives than he assumes everyone eats meat, or lives in New England. There is an implicit “If you do… [drive a car / eat meat]…”

So the assumption that everyone does drive in the article above is your own then Brett?

Only there ione “implicit” meaning in the clear statement:

Don’t switch to a Hybrid Car – stick with your old one or buy 2nd hand.

is that the implied audience are all drivers…

Graham, take a chill pill. He no more assumes that everyone drives than he assumes everyone eats meat, or lives in New England. There is an implicit “If you do… [drive a car / eat meat]…”

If you are a vegetarian who only uses public transportaotion, you are breathtakingly virtuous and rightfully view the rest of us with contempt and pity.

“Don’t switch to a Hybrid Car – stick with your old one or buy 2nd hand. is that the implied audience are all drivers…”

No it isn’t! As I have now said three times, it isn’t in the same way as the similar reference to beef assumes everybody eats meat, which, since I dont myself, would be a bizarre assumption. Ditto, the fact that, as said, I don’t drive either. So again, it would be bizarre to assume everyone did.

You don’t have a car. You don’t drive. You’re proud. We get it.

In the last six days I have eaten: donkey, John Dory, wild boar, rabbit, hare (surprisingly unlike rabbit in texture and flavour) and pigeon. I, regrettably, failed to find a suitable place to eat suckling pig on this occasion.

Ah the joys of being a formerly self-righteous vegetarian in Italy.

(I have also recycled this comment that I made on another blog, so can be particularly self-righteous today)

The issue of town planning – that in recent decades (in the UK and much of Western Europe, and I think longer in the USA) : that towns are planned in such a way so as to render car ownership unnecessary (or a luxury) – is part of the “macro planning” at stake here: we need to stop building sprawling suburbs with a dearth of amenities –

and of course this IS a much greater problem in North America than Europe (and probably also worse in the UK than in much of the rest of Europe – thank you Margaret Thatcher): the car culture is not only environmentally-unfriendly, it contributes to social atomisation and the destruction of local communities and traditional values.

“A petition signed by self certified scientists (including members of the Spice Girls and characters from Star Wars) based on review written from an imaginary science institute in Oregon and published in an open source medical journal! Fear the science!”

This is either ignorant, or a lie. A Greenpeace activist signed the name ‘Geri Haliwell’ to the petition in order subsequently to be able to point that name out. The name was removed, of course. This sort of incident has been repeated, including the deletions.

There is significant and widespread – peer-reviewed and published – dissent among qualified climate scientists to the Al Gore line on this issue.

Well that is an absolutely pathetic argument Brett. We are supposed to accept that somebody who is quite clearly talking only to drivers actually isn’t on your mere say-so!

Having now read the section of the article which deals with cars I can see the author would make Jeremy Clarkson feel like a pinko! But OK I see that you are out to have a jerk-fest about environmentalists and anybody who thinks there may just be too many cars so I will leave you to your Daily Mail style musings.

Short order cook @ 12.24
See the extract below from the FAQs for the petition site. Note that signatories are verified, not self-certified.

5. Does the petition list contain names other than those of scientist signers?

Opponents of the petition project sometimes submit forged signatures in efforts to discredit the project. Usually, these efforts are eliminated by our verification procedures. On one occasion, a forged signature appeared briefly on the signatory list. It was removed as soon as discovered.

In a group of more than 30,000 people, there are many individuals with names similar or identical to other signatories, or to non-signatories – real or fictional. Opponents of the petition project sometimes use this statistical fact in efforts to discredit the project. For examples, Perry Mason and Michael Fox are scientists who have signed the petition – who happen also to have names identical to fictional or real non-scientists.

“the car culture is not only environmentally-unfriendly, it contributes to social atomisation and the destruction of local communities and traditional values.”

I never felt so atomized and isolated as when I lived in a city and rode public transportation.

Crank the aircon – Cooling a home in Arizona produces 93 percent fewer CO2 emissions than warming a house in New England.

Oh dear. If that’s standard of their thinking, they are fools. “Cranking the aircon” is simply inefficient. I live in city that uses immense amounts of aircon to keep it habitable (Hong Kong), and its hugely inefficient, expensive, and pretty damaging to the environment. Instead buildings can be designed to reduce the amount of aircon needed, or other measures can be taken. Efficiency and conservation are good; that’s what Brett’s hated greens get right.

A lot of the proposals Brett posits are attention grabbing; they don’t necessarily make sense. Farm the Forests is simply provocative, it ignores the heritage issues, apart from anything else. No one is suggesting that all forests should be farmed. Hybrid cars are fine; they are more efficient, as are most newer cars, old cars usually are not. Hybrid cars are an interim solution anyway.

And by ’sense’ I mean not repeating the fluffy bunny, ’spiritual’ hippy bullshit that the boomer generation tie-died into their heads Woodstock.

Of course, that’s the issue for Brett. It’s cultural. Like Peter Hitchens he’s got hang ups about the 1960s, and simply sees the Greens as part of that legacy. Unfortunately, putting crap ideas in their place won’t cut the mustard.

“Crank the aircon”, indeed!

Mesquito – if I understand you correctly (you were surrounded by weirdos), may I ask if that would be a consequence of the fact – which I think needs to be reversed, and applies in most parts of the UK outwith London – public transport isn’t used by much of a social cross-section?

Woo I’m living the green dream with my S reg ford focus. There’s really very few cars that age on the roads which is odd cos they’re so much better made than they were in the 70’s and 80’s where you pretty much had to keep constantly buying cars.

There is significant and widespread – peer-reviewed and published – dissent among qualified climate scientists to the Al Gore line on this issue.

Is there really? So why continually recycle a 10 year old review article and a self certified petition?

Is it just a gigantic conspiracy where the thousands of scientists, politicians and civil servants involved in climate change science and policy pretend not to notice that global warming doesn’t exist? And the only champions of the truth are Spiked and Exxon Mobil?

I pretty much agree with your proposals.

It seems that all the greenies ever do is come up with complaints about every potential solution to the worlds problems. There is no perfect energy source, and no perfect technology. So given that they are going to bleat anyway, we should be gearing up for the cleanest and most effective solution and that is nuclear.

The issues around organic and GM food are rather less clear to me though. I think people should be free to use them, but I don’t see the food supply in general as a major influence on hunger. Oppression and war tend to be much more significant. Famine is a horribly effective weapon for a tyrant to inflict on his people.

Venchka: I was surrounded by pretty normal people. I was the oddball. (Seriously, most of the people on the busses were fellow students.)

I think you are confusing an aggregation of large numbers of people with social integration. I think the reverse is true. I can see no other homes from my front door, but I know pretty intimately everybody who lives in a 2-mile radius. We comprise a pretty good cross-section of hayseeds.

What Brett also does not mention is that nuclear power is simply an outmoded way of producing power. There are techniques being developed that are much ultimately much cleaner and more efficient than nuclear power. The only cogent scientific for the nuclear industry now is the quick fix silver bullet argument; but thats a pretty dodgy argument to rely on. I suspect much of the lobbying for it is motivated by corporate money men.

The most important challenge is to ensure technology transfer to the developing world in order to improve pollution levels. I spent three years in Kolkata in India and the high level of pollution – especially air-born particulate matter – gave the sky a Martian-style orange tinge, my snot was always grey from the pollution and I had constant throat infections. A study found that school kids in some parts of the city had lungs that were as bad as a 50 year old chain smoker. The level of pollution in the developing world is appalling and the poor suffer the most, since they are the ones who are most exposed to pollution but are the least able to counter its effects. But you can’t tell people not to consume – why can’t they have what we take for granted in the West? In fact, high levels of household consumption and economic liberalisation are crucial to containing the rise in pollution. India needs more new cars and trucks to replace the polluting old models, but the impetus will only come from foreign investment and trade with countries with stricter emissions standards. The only way to reduce pollution in places like Kolkata is to make them industrial hubs for export to Europe and North America.

Actually Global Warming is a ‘good thing’ we would not be here without it. So a very good thing and is making the planet even more productive and user-friendly to boot. A return to an ice-age (equally predicted by the whoring ’scientific’ fear-mongers) would mean the end of civilisation, finish, start again chaps in a hundred thousand years. I have no doubt that the fascistic, totalitarians of the Green movement relish the thought of this with glee.

It is our dependence on a petro-economy that is a very bad thing. In terms of stability and security and future-proofing and preventing the Oil weapon being used to implement the twisted world-views of the Arab world. The economies of Arab oil-producing countries (and a few South Americans too) are the most unsustainable (and unjust and unfree) on the planet.

It means a longer growing season and the opening up of hitherto unusable areas for food production and with speeded-up reforestation, timber and other products. The point about managing the forests, primarily felling old trees, (it means planting younger ones that take up far more CO2 than old ones) for construction and using wood again shifts us slightly away from the higher embodied carbon materilas of plastics, glass and ceramics. But burning more timber waste products, and organic waste products generally, would go a long way to squaring the energy and CO2 emission circle.

Some already marginal areas might succumb to the historically slight rise sea levels but the classic case of Bangladesh is one exacerbated by widespread corruption and bad management of the delta.

It is not the car that brought about ’social atomisation’ which is also a good thing that is down to peope wanting to move away from the ‘communities’ they grew up in as quickly as they can. Social mobility physically and socially would be completely undone and return us to the darkest depths of a rigid class system. This may well suit some reactionaries’ agendas but means social strive on a huge scale and a housing and job market in a bottomless free-fall.

The issue of town planning – that in recent decades (in the UK and much of Western Europe, and I think longer in the USA) : that towns are planned in such a way so as to render car ownership unnecessary (or a luxury) – is part of the “macro planning” at stake here: we need to stop building sprawling suburbs with a dearth of amenities -

and of course this IS a much greater problem in North America than Europe (and probably also worse in the UK than in much of the rest of Europe – thank you Margaret Thatcher): the car culture is not only environmentally-unfriendly, it contributes to social atomisation and the destruction of local communities and traditional values.

*Applause*

I visited Connecticut a few years ago, and was astonished by how each shop along the main street had its own car park. To get from one shop to another – no more than 50 yards apart – people were getting in the cars and driving.

And this kind of ‘planning’ is increasingly taking hold in the UK.

If anyone has had the misfortune to visit Crawley, I am sure they are aware of the vast new car park (in the town centre!) with restaurants dotted around within it.

It is almost as if people can’t walk anymore.

My parents recently came to visit me (I live in London zone 2) and complained when I suggested walking to a local restaurant after a “short walk” turned out to be 10 minutes. Neither of them are over 60 or unfit. I think that people outside city centres just aren’t used to walking except as a recreational activity.

There is significant and widespread – peer-reviewed and published – dissent among qualified climate scientists to the Al Gore line on this issue.

I’m wondering where all these dissenting scientists are publishing their research, because it sure as hell isn’t in any mainstream peer-reviewed journal.

Perhaps they’re being suppressed, like all the creation scientists in Expelled?

http://www.realclimate.org/

I’ve never read so much bollocks!

Oh well when the author of this blog piece actually gets around to reading ecology, he will change his views

“Actually Global Warming is a ‘good thing’ we would not be here without it. So a very good thing and is making the planet even more productive and user-friendly to boot”

Yes, nothing is more productive then more desert and less rainfall or, like the UK could face, a colder and dryer climate.

The danger of man assisted climate change is that it causes the disruption to human societies and economies.

MArk T – exactly. Land use patterns matter enormous. One of the problems in the UK is that in the 80’s and 90’s we had a dash for out of town car based development. That was, to put it mildly, a mistake.

Anyway, I fail to see the problem, as Brett appears to have, with investing and shifting to cleaner, more sustainable technologies. Nuclear may well be cleaner (but that links evidence is thin BTW and I doubt it is as much) but there is the simple cost per kilowatt hour. I would invest in companies undertaking the R&D now in ocean floor/ continental shelf current generation. Off Shore wind is looking good too and these are young technologies.

I would be concerned that we in the UK could build a new generation of nukes only to find them hopelessly expensive compared to, by then, maturing renewable technologies.

I agree thought that carbon trading is a bust.

Oh and the car thing, am sorry but that is just a cheap shot at people who buy hybrids. These cars produce less emissions overall and, looking at just the petrol phase, alot less co2 in use then your old car. The aim of keeping the old car is to avoid the emissions of a new car being produced I appreciate but hybrids are good for helping to address local air quality and your old car will bite the big one eventually. Second hand is only a half way house because the greater demand for hybrids the more the technology willl mature and develop as well as productive capacity.

I think that people outside city centres just aren’t used to walking except as a recreational activity.

My in-laws actually drive as a recreational activity. A 10 minute walk for them is probably beyond comprehension. Walking is the thing you do that takes you to the car.

So the assumption that everyone does drive in the article above is your own then Brett?

Honestly!

You are being insufferably petty, and waaaay too virtuous.

Were you a Catholic, Graham, you’d be the genuflecting whore of Opus Dei.

Brett is making sense, but I find it diffcult to believe he’s a vegertarian.

Surely you’ve at least eaten a sausage, or two, at some point.

Surely you’ve at least eaten a sausage, or two, at some point.”

I had a sausage on a breadroll for lunch a few minutes ago. But it was made out of mycoprotein…. by Quorn.

I had a sausage on a breadroll for lunch a few minutes ago. But it was made out of mycoprotein…. by Quorn.

I can’t believe you said that.

Well, haven’t you heard?

Don’t tell anyone, but ‘mycoprotein’ is the same stuff they use to make dildos.

Don’t be a tit all your life Palibuski – I was making the very reasonable point that we are not all petrolheads as the writer of the somewhat hysterical article assumes.

“So why continually recycle a 10 year old review article and a self certified petition?”

“I’m wondering where all these dissenting scientists are publishing their research, because it sure as hell isn’t in any mainstream peer-reviewed journal.”

See here for a list – a partial list, of peer-reviewed papers from such obscure journals as Nature and Science.

You’ve been peddled a lie, and bought it. Sorry for the undiplomatic language, but in this case it’s appropriate.

Clarification: the lie is that there are no peer-reviewed, mainstream papers that question the IPCC case. There are hundreds.

The hockey stick graph has been completely discredited and the research that the second main plank of the 1990 IPCC report was based on, a surface station survey, included a large chunk that is the subject at the moment of a fraud investigation. The – peer reviewed – paper behind this fraud allegation can be read here (pdf).

For the sake of clarity, I don’t suggest there’s no anthropogenic warming. I do suggest there’s a lot of misinformation about this subject, which has been deeply and regrettably politicised.

Your argument is very confused. You appear to have just posted a huge list of papers – what does this prove? Have you read any of them?

Don’t be a tit all your life Palibuski -

Don’t be orthographically challenged all you life.

It’s spelled P-A-L-U-B-I-S-K-I

And I fail to see where the author of this ‘hysterical’ article implies we’re all pretolheads.

Perhaps if you’d step out of your bulle verte for just a second, you’d realise that some of us need a private vehicle.

I mean, how many abattoirs have you seen with a bus-stop right in front of them?

And I fail to see where the author of this ‘hysterical’ article implies we’re all petrolheads.

I didn’t he was doing that. I took it as read that the bit beginning “Don’t switch to a Hybrid Car” meant “if you have a car and are thinking of changing your car then don’t switch to a hybrid car”. Similarly I didn’t think that “Go Nuclear” was exhorting me as an individual to open a nuclear power plant or assuming I was in a position to do so; I took it to mean that nuclear power was more efficient than the available alternatives.

Neil W,

‘Yes, nothing is more productive then more desert and less rainfall or, like the UK could face, a colder and dryer climate.’

‘Could’ and ‘possibly’ or ‘maybe’, or simply ‘will probably not’, as you need to prove it, Sarcasm-boy. Monkeys could be flying from your ass. These horrorshows you paint are not based on any observed fact but on scare stories that merely seek funding of yet more Positivist Gnostic bollocks to market to the deluded paranoic Left-wing-nuts whom cease upon this shite.

More heat also means more rainfall and hence much more freshwater available – free of charge. Marginal lands in the temperate to tundra zones produce huge amounts of harvestable organic fuels and will do so more and more. Not exploiting that opportunity will allow a serious increase in the amount of naturally produced methane going into the atmosphere and that would be very, very bad. Also vast swathes of unproductive land will be able to be put into agricultural use to feed the world and increased CO2 promotes all organic growth on land or in the seas. Plants love warm, wet, CO2 rich conditions, lengthen the growing season as well and a new equilibrium will establish, it is not the end-of-the-world but the beginning of a more stable and human favourable equilibrium.

‘The danger of man assisted climate change is that it causes the disruption to human societies and economies.’

Still, not proven … but we have been terraforming this entire planet to suit us since we discovered fire. The climate has always been changing to, causing ‘disruption’, big deal. What I am advocating is that since we’re now aware that this happens aiming to develop our opportunities quickly will do much to mitigate against this ‘disruption’ which will only occur in already marginal areas anyway. If you mean population migrations, then there will be large amounts of land needing settling in areas where currently very few would want to live, like most of Russia and Greenland and the northernmost of Northern America.

to all,

The car is not the big problem that either Green or ‘Socialist’ toss-pots like to make it out to be. This reverse snobbery and hatred of the aspirations of the lower classes being just one of the many and profound flaws common to these reactionary camps.

The car has also been the great liberator for individuals and their families allowing a huge leap in social mobility and a much better quality of life for those escaping from the Stalinist hell-holes we turned our cities into post-war. Switching all petrol engines to hydrogen cells is easy and not too dear, and as carbon-prices skyrocket, inevitable over the next 20 years anyway.

I’ve checked them to ensure they are as represented, yes. I suggest you try doing the same, shortordercook. I have read some but not all in full, and offer the same suggestion to you. It is undeniably the case that there is significant mainstream dissent on this issue. I’m as sceptical with these papers as I am with the ones that do support the idea of AGW – the latter being more numerous than the former, but not by that much (6% compared to 7% of all published papers between 2004 and 2007). Most are neutral.

Incidentally, in the post you link to, you appear not to have read the comments. Not only do the first few comments describe very well why scientists in the know don’t bother arguing the science on climate change on blogs, but later the owner of the blog himself agrees with them. Maybe you should try reading Real Climate?

That’s the real problem, shortordercook. This is an alarmist blog. Of course that’s the consensus in the comments. I read the comments in full at the time I posted and they were what you’d expect. We have second-raters stating why they refuse to debate with Nobel prize winners like Freeman Dyson (who signed the Oregon petition).

You haven’t addressed my point at all: there are lots of peer-reviewed papers that conflict with the ‘consensus’, and this is routinely ‘denied’ by various people who ought to know better.

Whoops. failed to close my tag. Sorry.

Wired have found a series of options that are less bad than the worse options and are promoting them over better options. People’s love of contrarianism and craving for solutions that don’t involve actually doing anything will cover the gaps. You wouldn’t be fooled if Spiked was doing this.

Graham is absolutely right about the article.

I think a good proportion of anti-car movement is down to anti-Americanism and anti-big business. And of course balls-to-the-wall self-righteousness.

It would be nice to think that oil will be replaced within my lifetime. Then perhaps we can stop enriching some of the most horrible regimes in the world. Let’s hope they don’t already own everything by the time that happens!

This is a good site re the AGW issue with articles from both sides, anyone who wants to see what is happening in this debate should take a look : http://climatedebatedaily.com/

Personally I’m an AGW sceptic and look forward to our sh*tty media being shown up for the irrational alarmists they are when it all comes crashing down.

You are a perfect example of why it’s pointless debating this. The Schulte paper you quote (or rather quote a blog which quoted it) was never published, but yet it’s key “finding” is all over the internet and has been quoted favourably by anti-global warming journalists.

You criticise a blog which is actually written by climate scientists, and yet point me to blogs and newspaper articles by economists and medical doctors.

Incidentally, wasn’t it Freeman Dyson who said:

“One of the main causes of warming is the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere resulting from our burning of fossil fuels such as oil and coal and natural gas”?

nuclear? don’t make me laugh, we’ve been thru this time and again

it is costly to implement;
takes a long time to come on stream;
it is horrendously costly to decommission;
it is polluting;
and the basic scientific solution put forward is to dig a big hole and throw the waste down there;
it is accident prone (although a lot of them seemed to be covered up)
etc

let’s not go there, HP archives are replete with long threads on the topic of nuclear power

short order cook, cite the reports you refer to – some of the papers are on epidemiological and economic subjects.

I suppose it’s pointless asking, again, that you address the point I’m actually making – that, contrary to the assertion made above, there are lots of peer-reviewed papers that conflict with your ‘consensus’?

As I have said, in this thread, I’m sceptical of all these papers and everything else I encounter. Scepticism is good, it means not accepting what you’re told but rather making your own enquiries.

I’ll cite Dyson properly. He said: “My first heresy says that all the fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated. Here I am opposing the holy brotherhood of climate model experts and the crowd of deluded citizens who believe the numbers predicted by the computer models.”

And he said: “Freeman Dyson: I am always happy to be in the minority. Concerning the climate models, I know enough of the details to be sure that they are unreliable. They are full of fudge factors that are fitted to the existing climate, so the models more or less agree with the observed data. But there is no reason to believe that the same fudge factors would give the right behavior in a world with different chemistry, for example in a world with increased CO2 in the atmosphere.”

You have the problem common to people who don’t believe in evolution, the moon landings or the “consensus” on 9-11. You are just picking any evidence which doesn’t agree with any tiny bit of what you regard as “the consensus” without ever defining what “the consensus” is.

You have no point to address.

It’s spelled P-A-L-U-B-I-S-K-I

Who cares?

Perhaps if you’d step out of your bulle verte for just a second, you’d realise that some of us need a private vehicle.

Who said you didn’t? My point is that the author implies that everybody already has one which (although Brett hates the idea) is quite untrue as I was just pointing out to you petrolheads…

Any article which is headlined: Don’t Buy That New Prius! Test-Drive a Used Car Instead is aimed at drivers and it is utter nonsense to suggest otherwise.

But keep going as it is hilarious to watch.

And of course balls-to-the-wall self-righteousness.

Har!

I’ll also quote Richard Feynman: “There is one feature I notice that is generally missing in “cargo cult science”… It’s a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty — a kind of leaning over backwards… For example, if you’re doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid — not only what you think is right about it… Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them.”

Real Climate is a “cargo cult science” site.

I’ll take that as a “No, I’m not going to address your very specific and thoroughly proven point”.

In which case, there’s some paint drying that suddenly seems strangely interesting. I think I’ll watch it.

I am also mystified by Graham going to such lengths to misinterpret the article as saying everybody owns a care.

The argument that cities have great public transit is missing the point because it focuses on people commuting to work. Families with children are not going to get around by public transport if they can possibly avoid it.

Good

There was an interestign letter in the latest Fortean times on the question of the beneficent nature of scepticism – the author noted that nowadays, many sceptics – on evolution, climate change, etc. are not being so with an inquiring mind, but in fact are defensivly so – using scepticism to knock holes in rival theories without necessarilly put forward the positions they own. It was a thought provoking letter – though I’m a little sceptical…

This is my point and I really think that an author who makes the assumption that we all drive cars (even if he is not quite doolaly enough to suggest -as some here have that sticking up for the rights of pedestrians makes somebody “fanatically anti-car”-) is ridiculously out of touch with the VAST MAJORITY OF PEOPLE ON EARTH WHO DO NOT DRIVE!

I suspect that the subset of humans who read “Wired” is more likely to include a far higher percentage of car owners than humans as a whole.

Scepticism and science are inseparable, unlease you believe Global Warming is caused by an excess of phlogiston.

Am apoplectic on a decision by GM motors Canada to shut down a truck plant instead of taking the opportunity to turn it into an electric car factory and save jobs.

Goddamn dinosaurs! I hope they go out of business entirely!

Who said you didn’t? My point is that the author implies that everybody already has one which (although Brett hates the idea) is quite untrue as I was just pointing out to you petrolheads…

Don’t switch to a Hybrid Car – stick with your old one or buy 2nd hand.

Just where does that statement imply that everybody drives a car?

Farm the Forests – Old trees are very bad for the planet.

Now, does THAT statement imply we’re all lumberjacks?

Or chainsaw owners?

Quelle mouche t’a piqué ce matin?

I am also mystified by Graham going to such lengths to misinterpret the article as saying everybody owns a care.

A care bear?

It is hardly misinterpreting it! It is aimed at car-owners full stop! The “misinterpretation” is coming from those who wish to tell us that an article with the headline: Don’t Buy That New Prius! Test-Drive a Used Car Instead has been written with pedestrians in mind…

I think scepticism is a much overused word. One person’s scepticism is another person’s quibbling over tiny details. People seem to pick something they don’t like, whether it be evolution or 9-11 and pick over every small detail in the hope that if they throw up enough contradictory details the entire edifice will come crumbling down. They don’t realise that this is not, nor ever has been how science works.

Just where does that statement imply that everybody drives a car?

It implies its readers all have a car with the words “stick with your old one” I’d say (as it is obviously not an article for anyone who does not even have an old car now is it?)

Time to give up on this nonsense that it is addressed to non-drivers. As I indicatedoriginally an article with such a narrow implied audience of car-owners is hardly impressing anybody with its green credentials.

I think one of the problems here may be that the car-owners on this thread have retreated into the kind of “metal-box” mentality which they usually exhibit on the roads and are metaphorically tooting their horns at anyone trying to stop them interpreting an article quite clearly aimed at car-owners as a contribution to green issues.

Mr Palibuski is the toad of toad hall of this tendency.

Am apoplectic on a decision by GM motors Canada to shut down a truck plant instead of taking the opportunity to turn it into an electric car factory and save jobs.

You should buy GM and build electric cars. I bet they’d be real nifty and go for miles and miles between charges.

doesn’t it get very cold in phoenix at night during the summer? maybe that’s why they don’t spend so much airconning their houses – bet people in the swampier parts of the south have to leave there aircon running all night.

course there’ll be nothing artful about selecting phoenix as an example of a city in one of the warmer states – climate skeptics are totally straight whereas greens are lying lunatics who believe in faries.

Scepticism and science are inseparable,

Don’t let them see you spell like that in Texas, mesquito. You’ve clearly been spending too much time around the Brits

*sigh*

We should not talk about cars in the context of environmentalism because some readers might not own one.

I was actually more upset than Graham when I realised I didn’t own a power station or a forest, or an aircon.

And since I neither drive a car or eat beef, there appears very little of the article aimed at me.

I too hate all petrol-heads, particularly the ones that insist on keeping gas-guzzling busses on the roads.

doesn’t it get very cold in phoenix at night during the summer?

No.

since I neither drive a car or eat beef, there appears very little of the article aimed at me.

but since you wrote an article paraphrasing it, giving fairly uncontroversial ideas over-the-top and misleading headings, maybe you should have a little bit of a harder think about what exactly the hard work, but intelligent hard work, in the right direction, with clear objectives. you are so adamant you – and we – should be doing actually consists of.

From here, it doesn’t look like very much other than prattling about car ownership.

But that’s no surprise, since HP is not noted for being a website that takes much interst in environmental issues. This dipping of your toe is hardly convincing, given that you seem to think that people worried about climate shange should move to warner places and max out their air con, because hey, travel and using inefficient cooling methods are slightly less damaging than turning your heating up.

or something.

Why did you post this article? do you actually care about climate change and environmental issues? are you following any of the advice in the wired article?

I was actually more upset than Graham when I realised I didn’t own a power station or a forest, or an aircon.

Please point us in the direction of the bits of the article which say Don’t Buy That New Power Station/Forest or Aircon! Buy a Used Power station/Forest or aircon Instead.

You may not drive but like Queen Liz you have informed us that you are ferried around.

And buses don’t run on petrol (although they will probably have horses pulling them again by the time Boris has destroyed the transport system round here.)

Hah! If this is intelligent Green debate options I fear to dread what proper science / green debate looks like.

And where did:

We should not talk about cars in the context of environmentalism because some readers might not own one.

come from?

You can talk about anything you like (though I must warn you that you may find that others suggest that an article which is so obviously aimed at drivers is off in lala land to begin with.)

Mr Palibuski is the toad of toad hall of this tendency.

You know, Graham, if I could get rid of my car and find other means of getting to work, I would.

Filled up this morning and the price of a litre of gas is $1.46 for regular unleaded.

I’ve only a small four-cylinder car, but even at that a fill-up is close to 80$.

The wired article suggesting that there are only seven basic blog-posts is way more interesting – I’d say brett’s is a number six.

http://www.wired.com/entertainment/theweb/commentary/alttext/2008/06/alttext_0604

By the way is it true this magazine was inspired by marshal Macluhan? Good God!

You know, Graham, if I could get rid of my car and find other means of getting to work, I would.

You work in an abattoir toady – get on a goat!

Actually I have been thinking of moving to Yorkshire and buying an electric car which would take me to either coast on one charge – might even get an Everton season ticket.

The car is not the big problem that either Green or ‘Socialist’ toss-pots like to make it out to be. This reverse snobbery and hatred of the aspirations of the lower classes being just one of the many and profound flaws common to these reactionary camps. The car has also been the great liberator for individuals and their families allowing a huge leap in social mobility and a much better quality of life for those escaping from the Stalinist hell-holes we turned our cities into post-war.

I would suggest that it is car-centred planning that is vastly responsible for the fact that cities are Stalinist hell-holes.

I also fail to see why thinking that car-centred town planning is generally a bad idea is ‘reverse snobbery’ or demonstrates ‘hatred of the aspirations of the lower classes.’

Calm down.

Interesting to see the idiot Graham deliberately and laughably misinterpret an article or argument, doing exactly the same thing he accuses me of.

If Graham doesn’t like an argument, he takes one line out of it, distorts it, argues on that, and pretends the apparant flaws in this one line destroys the entire argument.

Good fun watching him implode and having his arguments destroyed. I wonder how long it will be before he resorts to making racist comments LOL.

Palubiski is talking sense for once. Very unusual.

I was going to abandon this blog, but with great articles like this, I might stick around for a little longer :-)

It is not true that hybrid cars are the most fuel efficient or produce the least emissions. The Toyota Prius and Honda Civic Hybrid may be the lowest emitters in their class, there are conventional diesel and petrol engine vehicles that have lower emissions and just as much horse power. The development of turbo charged petrol engines and common rail diesel engines have helped reduce engine capacity and clean up exhaust fumes, with many vehicles approaching the 100 g/km mark. The important thing is to mainstream these engines throughout the world. The EU’s emissions standards – particularly Euro-4 and Euro-5 – are forcing carmakers in emerging markets to improve their own emissions in order to export cars to the EU.

4×4s and luxury vehicles should not be the main targets since even if they were eliminated altogether, car pollution would not diminish. The reason why they are targeted is due to class war, rather than environmental responsibility. Mass market small and medium-sized are the main polluters.

Interestingly, the country that is seriously pioneering electric-power cars is none other than Israel. It is small enough that most people can drive around the country with just one charge and the government wants to reduce dependence on oil imports for economic security reasons. Renault-Nissan and some Israeli partners are planning to invest some US$1 billion in the infrastructure, including 500,000 recharging points, to support the mass use of electric-powered cars.

This clearly demonstrates that when economic circumstances change, so do the priorities of industrial groups. So put away your hair shirts, the future is still bright.

Actually I have been thinking of moving to Yorkshire and buying an electric car which would take me to either coast on one charge

Well, that’s all fine and dandy, but do you have the hemp-fibre clothing to go with it?

I once had a friend who owned an electric car, but I didn’t much care for it.

Found it too shocking.

Clearly the point about not switching to a hybrid car is aimed at people who drive, but that is only one point out of ten. People have different lifestyles and some points will be relevent to them and others not. Do they really need to put “If you eat meat…” or “If you drive a car…” etc in front of each point?

But unlike you Tag I don’t lie and throw my toys out of the pram when I lose an argument (which i certainly am not doing here – you cannot “misinterpret” something as straightforward as this unless (like for you) the truth is flexible!. And certainly I don’t devalue the concept of anti-racism in order to make myself feel a little better.

Now fuck off back down the toilet you crawled out of – theres a good little creep.

“Modern”ity’s complaints about nuclear:

1) it is costly to implement;

So will be any solution to this problem. With oil approaching $200 a barrel, there’s no such thing as uncostly. Once implemented, its LRICs before decom are actually very good.

2) takes a long time to come on stream;

Which is why we need to be commissioning them sooner rather than later.

3) it is horrendously costly to decommission;

See above.

4) it is polluting;

Not where it matters: atmospheric particulates.

5) and the basic scientific solution put forward is to dig a big hole and throw the waste down there;

Where do you think the radioactive metals came from in the first place? The sky?

6) it is accident prone (although a lot of them seemed to be covered up)

Not that accident prone, and with modern pebble-bed reactors, the failsafes are much more convincing than older technology.

Any Greeny who opposes Nuclear power reveals himself as a Puritan rather than someone genuinely concerned with finding a solution.

just guessing here, but I’ll bet that spike/RCP, etc are pro-nuclear?

“With oil approaching $200 a barrel, there’s no such thing as uncostly.”

With oil approaching that price, oil reserves that were once dismissed as non-recoverable will become profitable to extract, leading to more deep and ultra-deep sea extraction. There is a myth about “peak oil”, that more oil has been extracted than can be sustained in the long-term. The world has not passed peak oil, because oil prices have increased the amount of oil available to us. Fossil fuels still have a lot going for them and they need not be as polluting as they currently are. In my mind, the way forward is to improve efficiency of existing technology, because nuclear power will take too long to construct and we don’t know if the technology for alternative fuel sources will improve fast enough to satisfy existing demand – particularly from Asia, which urgently needs more technology transfer from the developed world. I don’t oppose nuclear power for the sake of it, but I’m not convinced a new generation of reactors is either more cost efficient than currently available technology or will meet medium-term demands.

Day night temperature forcasts from the BBC site (deg C)

Phoenix AZ 38 17
NO LA 30 25

I’d reckon arizonans would have the aircon cranked at work in the heat of the sun and lower at home overnight, but by all means tell me if it aint so.

Jod D.

Check those figures in August. I don’t grok celsius, but Phoenix routinely has low tempertures in the upper 80s F. And high in the 115-degree range.

Yes Graham, and you’ve certainly not been throwing the toys out of the pram in the above posts.

It seems everyone else on the board thinks you’ve misinterpreted the source. So obviously everybody is wrong except for you.

You seem incapable of making arguments that have any correspondance with reality Graham. I suggest you go and see the doctor for symptoms of early dementia.

“And certainly I don’t devalue the concept of anti-racism in order to make myself feel a little better.”

How is telling people about the racist drivel that you spout devaluing the concept of anti-racism. If anything, denying the comments you made and loudly calling yourself anti-racist is devaluing it more.

The psychological phemomenon of people denying and suppressing the memory of the crimes they have committed so much that they genuinely forget what they have said or done. This phenomenon is quite common among war criminals and people who have sexually abused children.

I don’t think Graham is a war criminal, but I wonder if he has any more skeletons in his cupboard other than extreme sinophobia

It seems everyone else on the board thinks you’ve misinterpreted the source. So obviously everybody is wrong except for you.

Really? And you are suggesting I need checking for dementia? LOL!

You seem incapable of making arguments that have any correspondance with reality Graham.

I think you mean any arguments which correspond with your reality (ie that of an RCP cultist and proven liar.)

How is telling people about the racist drivel that you spout devaluing the concept of anti-racism.

but you have no evidence of this “racist drivel” in fact you have made it up just so you can accuse me of being a racist and therefore feel better about yourself (or devalued the concept of anti-racism in other words…)

This phenomenon is quite common among war criminals and people who have sexually abused children.

Bwahahaha having made himself look a tit by screaming racist when he felt threatened he’s now going to call me a paedophile (it surely can’t get any more amusing!)

“but since you wrote an article paraphrasing it, giving fairly uncontroversial ideas over-the-top and misleading headings…”

Um, actually, the headings come from Wired itself (I provided two links if you’d like to check) and there’s nothing wrong with attention grabbing headlines in any event. You want to engage people, you want a discussion and a debate. Well, that’s what we appear to be having.

Go play with Flanker, Tag.

“Really? And you are suggesting I need checking for dementia? LOL!”

Haha that response confirms it beyond all reasonable doubt

“that of an RCP cultist”

Haha, and yet more evidence of Graham’s feeble mind. You’d better check under your bed, cos there might be RCP members under there. You never know, you might even find your medication too.

“but you have no evidence of this “racist drivel” in fact you have made it up just so you can accuse me of being a racist and therefore feel better about yourself (or devalued the concept of anti-racism in other words…)”

Graham thinks everyone who reads this blog except for him have goldfish-like memories and are not aware that the people who run this site can delete comments that are embarrassing to them

“Bwahahaha having made himself look a tit by screaming racist when he felt threatened he’s now going to call me a paedophile (it surely can’t get any more amusing!)”

Interestingly, Jonathon King made a similar statement to this when allegations of him sexually abusing children surfaced. Interesting….

Go play with Graham mesquito, but watch where he puts his hands….

Haha that response confirms it beyond all reasonable doubt

Confirms your idiocy for sure!

Haha, and yet more evidence of Graham’s feeble mind. You’d better check under your bed, cos there might be RCP members under there.

I doubt it you don’t usually find them in working-class areas (they get a bit scared like.) Anyway what would the RCP be doing under my bed? Are they some sort of perverts?

Graham thinks everyone who reads this blog except for him have goldfish-like memories and are not aware that the people who run this site can delete comments that are embarrassing to the

Hohohoho how pathetic can you get kid? (Don’t answer that I think we have all seen for ourselves!) Take a great interest in the Jonathon King trial did you? Can’t say I’m surprised.

Thing is Tag isn’t very bright (like most of the Spiked/RCP lot : in fact that is why they got together as a cult – in order to tell each other they are intelligent when it is quite plain they are thickos.)

When they enter the real world they start getting beating in arguments by people they have been taught to regard as untermenschen and then all hell breaks loose and they are screaming racist and paedophile in a vain attempt to protect their inflated self-image.

Sad really but cults are like that.

Clearly the point about not switching to a hybrid car is aimed at people who drive, but that is only one point out of ten.

Yes and it is the one point I commented on so thanks for backing up what I have been saying. (My point being that an article which assumes that everybody drives is not in my view something I would trust.)

People have different lifestyles and some points will be relevent to them and others not. Do they really need to put “If you eat meat…” or “If you drive a car…” etc in front of each point?

Of the other nine points not a single one assumes that you own an “old” version of something. The beef-eating point just says “screw organics” which, were you a vegetarian you would be doing already surely? Only the point about cars is addressed squarely to a particular audience and IMHO shows how far the media has become used to selling the myth that everybody drives without being challenged.

Speaking of nuclear energy, I read an article in the FT the other day which I thought was interesting:

http://us.ft.com/ftgateway/superpage.ft?news_id=fto053020082131372508&page=1

It discusses an alternative fuel for nuclear reactors; something called “thorium”. Apparently it’s almost impossible to use this stuff to make nuclear weapons. Some of you scientific types might find it interesting.

It discusses an alternative fuel for nuclear reactors; something called “thorium”

There are many elements suitable for nuclear power. the Greens don’t want you to know this for a simple reason: it’s quite simple to turn spent nuclear fuel into ready to use nuclear fuel for a different type of reactor.

A general rule: anything highly radioactive can be used for power, anything not suitable for that isn’t very dangerous (though you wouldn’t want it in your water)

That’s right, careless. But like a very astute commenter pointed out above, the shit came out of the ground, so why not put it back in (way, WAY in)?

there’s nothing wrong with attention grabbing headlines in any event. You want to engage people, you want a discussion and a debate. Well, that’s what we appear to be having.

not really. you’re yet to actually state whether you’re actually going to be making any of the ‘difficult choices’ you claim are so essential, and you’ve managed, in the comments, to completely go against the advice you enthusiastically endorse in the article.

are you going to follow any of the advice from Wired? are you going to follow its apparent suggestion (which you have personally extrapolated) that we should lal move somewhere warmer and use lots of air conditioning?

i ask again – are you, personally, following any of the advice in the article?

or is this, as usual with HP on green issues, simply a coded critique of the green movement – which has little interest in the environment, but a lot of interest in rubbishing the genuine concerns of people who you consider ‘hippies’ for opposing things like nuclear power?

demonstrative: of that list I am indeed going to
1. Screw Organics (veg and meat– although I like to buy free range for taste raher than environmental reasons).
2. Go Nuclear (or rather support the govt plans to go nuclear– a I am not a major power company or govt myself Graham).
3. Live Urban (yup)
4. Crank the aircon (admittedly no).
5. Farm the forests (hmmm dunno).
6. China i the solution (hmm dunno).
7. Accept GM (I wish I could buy more GM foods and I support them fully).
8. Carbon Trading (hmmm dunno).
9. Dont switch to a hybrid car (yup — check, I have a 10 year old small car that is fairly clean and efficient and I will run into the ground– both because I dont ue it that much and as the energy cost of car production (mining, smelting, metalbashing, manufacture)can be close to half the total lifetime cost of a car.

So yes I am going to follow some of these ideas and some I am going to look up and read more about.

thank you. but how many of the things you are going to do in that list have actually been changed by reading it? were you ever likely to buy a hybrid car, for example? and you seem to be ambivalent at best on 4 of the 9 proposals. the ’screw organics’ point is ridiculous. Most people who buy organic or free range do so because like you say, it demonstrably tastes better. and the piece has absolutely nothing to say about organic vegetables. it’s a point exclusively about cows. a neat headline but precious substance underneath it. the actual headline should be ‘give up meat’ given the link.

the nuclear point is a fair one but then again, what about alternative energy sources? they’re not even mentioned.

hardly a ringing endorsement of this apparently cast-iron set of moral responsibilities that Brett has so enthusisatically embraced.

the ‘crank the aircon’ point is the most telling, designed not to help the environment but to annoy members of the green movement through inflammatory and unhelpful rhetoric.

there is no earthly way that anyone interested in conserving power and carbon emissions would think that using more air conditioning would be a good thing for the environment.

saying ‘it’s more energy efficient than heating’ is not really making a coherent point about the environment. as Brett proved when he revealed that he actually interprets the point as ‘move somewhere warmer’…

Go Nuclear (or rather support the govt plans to go nuclear– a I am not a major power company or govt myself Graham).

Fine by me, I didn’t read the part of the Wired article where it stated that everybody owned a Nuclear Plant.

I’ll also quote Richard Feynman: “There is one feature I notice that is generally missing in “cargo cult science”… It’s a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty — a kind of leaning over backwards… For example, if you’re doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid — not only what you think is right about it… Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them.”

Real Climate is a “cargo cult science” site.

Don’t you dare quote Feynman in your defence. Feynman would have laughed in your face.

Real Climate is a site containing contributions by people who have done actual research and have published actual papers containing actual evidence to back up their actual hypotheses.

The “sceptics” you seem to admire are doing precisely the opposite. They have no integrity and no honesty: unlike real scientists, they have absolutely no intention of admitting they can be wrong. They also have no intention of trying to prove that they are right.

Graham, I don’t actually disagree that the media are often guilty of assuming that everyone owns a car, or at least of showing little consideration for those who don’t. However, if you look at the various human activities which contribute to CO2 emissions then driving has to be pretty near the top, so it is hardly surprising that there was a point specifically related to it. Any point about car ownership by definition only applies to car owners so I don’t see a need to point out that it only applies to that particular audience.

Any point about car ownership by definition only applies to car owners

Sorry Andrew but this is pure rubbish. What about prospective car owners? Anyway the point is that those of us without cars are now apparently being told that we cannot comment in order to say that any article which presumes everyone is a car owner (in a way that it doesn’t presume we own any of the other things talked about) cannot from our point of view be considered objective.

I realse that some people would like to narrow the audience for this blog down to car owning middle-class people who send their kids to grammar schools but that is just silly.

Graham, your comments are nothing but pure projection since all the comments apply more to you than to me.

“I doubt it you don’t usually find them in working-class areas (they get a bit scared like.”

I bet your one of those idiots who defines “working class” as people who disagree with you. Your probably correct that RCP members would probably not want to hide under your bed, I guess they wouldn’t want tetanus or something.

“Hohohoho how pathetic can you get kid? (Don’t answer that I think we have all seen for ourselves!) Take a great interest in the Jonathon King trial did you? Can’t say I’m surprised.”

This is another pattern, when Graham gets caught out, he just blusters and uses petty insults.

“Thing is Tag isn’t very bright (like most of the Spiked/RCP lot : in fact that is why they got together as a cult – in order to tell each other they are intelligent when it is quite plain they are thickos.)”

Actually, this is a great description of how you people at Harry’s Place behave. When somebody gives an opinion that is counter to your prejudice, you behave in a manner similar to this

Graham: YOUR WRONG (Insert a few cheap shots that are irrelevant to the argument)

Brett: GRAHAM IS RIGHT AND YOUR WRONG

David T: GRAHAM IS RIGHT AND YOUR WRONG, I SEE THE HAND OF THE RCP IN THIS

Paul: GRAHAM IS RIGHT AND YOUR WRONG, AND YOU CAN’T SPELL

Mesquito: YOU ARE A NEO-NAZI TROLL AND GRAHAM IS RIGHT AND YOUR WRONG, OH AND FLANKER, WHY DID BUSH START THE REICHSTAG FIRE HUR HUR HUR!!!

Wardytron: BAN HIM, KILL HIM!!!!

Then you all start slapping each other on the back and say how wonderful you are compared to the mean old RCP.

So in other words, that comment by Graham is nothing but projection. When the RCP are confronted with an argument that they disagree with, they attack the argument rather than the person.

“When they enter the real world they start getting beating in arguments by people they have been taught to regard as untermenschen and then all hell breaks loose and they are screaming racist and paedophile in a vain attempt to protect their inflated self-image.”

When Harrys’ Place members starts getting beaten in arguments by people they regard as uentermenschen then all hell breaks loose, and they starts accusing people of being cult members, or neo-nazis in order to protect their inflated self image.

…or in Graham’s case, loudly denying racist comments he made.

“Sad really but cults are like that.”

So by your logic, Harry’s Place is a cult. Interesting….

or in Graham’s case, loudly denying racist comments he made.</I.

You liar.

Brett, you do realise that the post you made wouldn’t be out of place on spiked-online. Perhaps you should rethink your attitude to this website.

I bet your one of those idiots who defines “working class” as people who disagree with you.

Er no. Some do and some don’t.

When the RCP are confronted with an argument that they disagree with, they attack the argument rather than the person.

Yeah right, by throwing their toys out of the pram and inventing charges of racism and paedophilia.

Nice play, but you need to do something about the dialogue – I can’t see Wardy saying “ban him, kill him” (unless he’s talking about Joe Strummer!)

“are you going to follow any of the advice from Wired? are you going to follow its apparent suggestion (which you have personally extrapolated) that we should lal move somewhere warmer and use lots of air conditioning?”

I know you’re trying to be facitious, but has it occurred to you that I’d already come to similar conclusions to Wired (which is why I was pleased to see them making these arguments) and actually DO in fact follow much of their ‘advice’ already.

I’m a vegetarian. I’m pro-GM (in circumstances where it improves yields, not where it is used as corporate copy-protection), I’m pro nuclear. I don’t drive. I’m not a fan of central heating and having grown up in a country that didn’t have it I’m actually more likely to put on a jersey than to crank the heat. I already live Urban. I work from home which minimises commuting. Anything I’ve left out?

And what does “personally extrapolated” mean?

Paul: GRAHAM IS RIGHT AND YOUR WRONG, AND YOU CAN’T SPELL

He’s right, you know.

“Yeah right, by throwing their toys out of the pram and inventing charges of racism and paedophilia.”

Your throwing the toys out of the pram, and your inventing charges of me being part of a “cult” when the RCP broke up years ago and I haven’t even talked to anyone who works for spiked.

When it comes to making fake and unsubstantiated charges to cover the fact you have lost the argument, you leave me far behind. I can only watch in awe.

“Nice play, but you need to do something about the dialogue – I can’t see Wardy saying “ban him, kill him” (unless he’s talking about Joe Strummer!)”

“Benji hasn’t been banned yet on the new HP, has he. Anyway, Tagnuzlsx is far more obnoxious. I mean, if Benji was drowning I’d save him; if it was Tagnuzlsx I’d throw stones.”

Not so far-fetched after all.

Graham’s reaching escape velocity from reality.

I wish you would follow the example of Strummer and drop dead. The world would certainly be a better place without frothing racists like you.

“Benji hasn’t been banned yet on the new HP, has he. Anyway, Tagnuzlsx is far more obnoxious. I mean, if Benji was drowning I’d save him; if it was Tagnuzlsx I’d throw stones.”

Even if you are stupidly literal enough to take that seriously it still doesn’t actually say “ban him, kill him.”

Anyway you are one to be accusing people of racism with your hatred for all Poles.

You wish I’d drop dead Tag? Aww how cute and primary school! (Unfortunately it is more likely that you yourself will be killed by somebody angry at how you have devalued the racism they have suffered.) Still nobody will miss you will they? I bet even your mother thinks you are an arse.

And every other comment you are bigging up Spiked (as you did a few comments above!) You are like a BNPer who denies membership and then recommends reading their paper every few minutes! Get real!

Yer deeply troubled kid.

“Unfortunately it is more likely that you yourself will be killed by somebody angry at how you have devalued the racism they have suffered.”

What a stupidly relativistic statement, are you sure your on the right blog, or is it O.K. for ethnic minorities to kill people you don’t like.

“Even if you are stupidly literal enough to take that seriously it still doesn’t actually say “ban him, kill him.”

BAHAHAHAHA What a stunning case of pot calling kettle. I was saying something for comic effect, and stupid brendan takes it seriously.

I criticise Polish culture. JP and Graham criticise the Chinese and Anatolians on their race, there is a difference.

“And every other comment you are bigging up Spiked (as you did a few comments above!) You are like a BNPer who denies membership and then recommends reading their paper every few minutes! Get real”

Spiked is an online magazine, not a party. I couldn’t “join” them unless I volunteered to write for it. The majority of people outside the HP bubble realise these basic facts.

You idiotic hypocrite