Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Marf on TMay’s big idea – the war on plastic waste

124»

Comments

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 39,624
    edited January 12
    rkrkrk said:

    HYUFD said:

    rkrkrk said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    murali_s said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Re those celebrating Khan's tweet about Trump getting the message from Londoners...

    I am in two minds about this. I do not like Trump at all.

    But celebrating that the leader of a very major world power does not think it worth his while coming, especially given the other countries he has visited, does rather highlight our irrelevance.

    France managed to offer him a welcome - and I doubt that either Macron or the Parisians are any more fond of Trump than Khan and Londoners. I am quite certain that France is using that visit to position itself as the US's special friend in Europe.

    Khan is in danger of celebrating something which emphasises our diminished status in the world. A short-term tactical victory at the expense of a long-term strategy. If he really does have ambitions for the top job, he might want to think a bit harder about issues like this.

    Knowing how volatile Trump is and his mood swings if we are not careful we may see him tweeting something like 'had a great trip to Paris last summer welcomed by the President of France, our oldest ally, not one protestor, meanwhile Great Britain, against whom we had to fight a war to gain independence, refuses to grant me a proper welcome, SAD'
    That is a reflection of Trump not the USA. The bigotted white suprematist is not welcome in London.
    But is apparently welcome in Paris.

    Now, think about that for a moment..... Britain needs friends. Do you think France is not going to use what advantages it can get from that visit? Meanwhile we can earn our living tweeting about white supremacists, I suppose.....
    Macron certainly played a blinder on Trump last year, making clear he disagreed with him on many issues first then rolling out the red carpet for him soon after, the exact opposite of May's strategy
    Has that actually kin to a lame duck President. He changes his mind every time he turns on the news - there is no way we can rely on him.
    It may well do in future and Macron is going from.a position of strength as with Merkel weak he is de facto leader of the EU while we are becoming increasingly isolationist
    I think it makes very little difference except for PR.
    Trump can offer us nothing - he doesn’t have the power to get stuff done.
    The USA is our biggest destination for exports after the EU, in the space of under 2 years we have managed to piss off both
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 43,020
    Sandpit said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Green policies at council level often lack any sort of joined up thinking.

    Take my council, for instance: they have stopped collecting green waste from our gardens, unless we pay. So now people have to drive to the recycling centre to deposit their green waste. More air pollution is the result. Ditto with household waste - now collected every fortnight (which is generally fine because the vast majority of waste in my household is recyclable). If, for whatever reason, it is more than will fit into the bins, they won't collect it, even though the lorries are there and they insist that you drive it to the recycling centre.

    So by taking a rigidly jobsworth approach, they have likely increased the number of individual car journeys with all the attendant pollution. Furthermore, there has been a notable increase since the new policy came into effect of fly-tipping and waste being strewn about the streets.

    It would be nice if people could just think through the consequences of their proposals and think about the practical consequences for real people. Sigh.......

    And also think how these policies affect those without cars.

    AIUI the issue is the EU Landfill directive, which hopefully we can repeal. It would cost very little for the council to offer a pick-up service for disposal of large items that could benefit the community much more than fly tipping would.

    As an example, about a decade ago (and I’m going to take a guess that this has got a lot worse since then), a friend had an old sofa to get rid of. It wouldn’t fit in his car so I borrowed a van, we loaded the sofa and took it to the local ‘tip’. The jobsworth at the entrance pointed at the ‘No Commerical Vehicles’ sign and directed me to another ‘tip’ in a bigger town a few miles away. I went there and was invited to drive to the weighbridge, where they would weigh my vehicle before and after ‘dumping its waste’ and charge me appropriately. Any protests that I had a perfectly serviceable sofa that they might be able to find a good home for were met with absolute derision. I ended up driving the sofa to a different local authority’s ‘tip’ and they were more accommodating, hopefully some family in a Council house with no money ended up with a nice second hand sofa.

    And we wonder why fly-tippping is a problem.
    Yes I've come across similiar nonsense recently - I'm sure the tips used to be... bigger too - but the ban on all decent sized vans to them (Even when you've borrowed one for a house clearance etc) creates a real issue.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 9,679
    Sandpit said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Green policies at council level often lack any sort of joined up thinking.

    Take my council, for instance: they have stopped collecting green waste from our gardens, unless we pay. So now people have to drive to the recycling centre to deposit their green waste. More air pollution is the result. Ditto with household waste - now collected every fortnight (which is generally fine because the vast majority of waste in my household is recyclable). If, for whatever reason, it is more than will fit into the bins, they won't collect it, even though the lorries are there and they insist that you drive it to the recycling centre.

    So by taking a rigidly jobsworth approach, they have likely increased the number of individual car journeys with all the attendant pollution. Furthermore, there has been a notable increase since the new policy came into effect of fly-tipping and waste being strewn about the streets.

    It would be nice if people could just think through the consequences of their proposals and think about the practical consequences for real people. Sigh.......

    And also think how these policies affect those without cars.

    AIUI the issue is the EU Landfill directive, which hopefully we can repeal. It would cost very little for the council to offer a pick-up service for disposal of large items that could benefit the community much more than fly tipping would.

    As an example, about a decade ago (and I’m going to take a guess that this has got a lot worse since then), a friend had an old sofa to get rid of. It wouldn’t fit in his car so I borrowed a van, we loaded the sofa and took it to the local ‘tip’. The jobsworth at the entrance pointed at the ‘No Commerical Vehicles’ sign and directed me to another ‘tip’ in a bigger town a few miles away. I went there and was invited to drive to the weighbridge, where they would weigh my vehicle before and after ‘dumping its waste’ and charge me appropriately. Any protests that I had a perfectly serviceable sofa that they might be able to find a good home for were met with absolute derision. I ended up driving the sofa to a different local authority’s ‘tip’ and they were more accommodating, hopefully some family in a Council house with no money ended up with a nice second hand sofa.

    And we wonder why fly-tippping is a problem.
    Freecycle is very good for recycling usable but no longer wanted goods.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 14,392
    CD13 said:

    Mr Tyndall,

    "I long ago realised that giving you anything approaching facts was a waste of time."

    You have to understand that some people don't understand that science is about scepticism. You may as well discuss relativity with a slug. Scientists themselves have biases, the difficult part is acknowledging it.

    I have found it interesting to see a number of AGW proponents recently saying that 'climate science' should not have to follow the same basic principles as 'normal science'. Apparently the sorts of basic rules that were followed by people like Richard Feynman should not have to apply to people like Michael Mann.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 23,490
    On topic, environmentalism has many strands.

    On the Right even the rightest of the right wingers will detest littering, noise pollution, demolition/removal of trees and the destruction of views. They don't mind collecting their shopping in a basket rather than bags, as long as that's their choice. They mostly love gardening. They're often interested in wildlife, horses, dogs, garden birds and bees. What they detest is wind farms, "swampies", ecosocialism, irregular bin collections, and people who bully them over car ownership or what they do inside their own homes (lightbulbs).

    On the Left, it's often more internationalist - or global - environmentalism than local. They do often like a number of those things, but want immediate action on climate change, like saving energy in everything they do, and more tax incentives and regulations to change behaviour, banning products, and do want to limit flights, car use, and meat eating, and are keener on people living very differently to achieve it. And are not shy of saying so.

    Both sides can end up detesting each other over more or less the same thematic issue.

    And everyone hates new housing developments and fracking.
  • volcanopetevolcanopete Posts: 1,918
    edited January 12
    To put the current attempts at Tory greenwashing in perspective, TMay's PR stunt looks pretty meaningless when the priority is to keep people- safe climate-change-induced risks must be taken seriously and money must be spent for adaptation. If we act now, we can protect against the risks of the next two decades. But further climate change must be limited by cutting greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels to avoid risks that surpass our abilities to adapt.By 2040, 100s of millions of us will be under water.
    https://futurism.com/2040-hundreds-millions-affected-river-floods-across-world/
  • Scott_P said:
    Is this guy also part of team twat?

    image

    I particularly like this one...Fonzie wannabes.

    image
    Well he's French, so yes.
    I have no idea why that move to Paris never panned out for you ;-)
    I think it all went wrong when I gave the project to open up in Paris the name 'Operation Collaboration', purely for rhyming reasons.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 9,679
    Pulpstar said:

    Cyclefree said:

    geoffw said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Another green change we might usefully make is having more milkmen.

    I've been using one for years. Fresh milk every morning. In bottles. Which get returned and reused.

    And no plastic to throw away. Plus they use electric vehicles.

    In fact, just like how it used to be when I was growing up.....

    Horse and cart in my day, and a side helping of fertiliser for the roses as well.
    I remember the rag and bone man.......

    Horse manure will burn the roots of roses. You need to let it rot down first.....
    Remember ?

    This still goes on 'op north ;) !
    I was remembering London. Hampstead in fact. Which was not, when I were but a lass etc etc.., quite as chi-chi and full of bankers as now. The rag and bone man was a regular visitor.


  • Sandpit said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Green policies at council level often lack any sort of joined up thinking.

    Take my council, for instance: they have stopped collecting green waste from our gardens, unless we pay. So now people have to drive to the recycling centre to deposit their green waste. More air pollution is the result. Ditto with household waste - now collected every fortnight (which is generally fine because the vast majority of waste in my household is recyclable). If, for whatever reason, it is more than will fit into the bins, they won't collect it, even though the lorries are there and they insist that you drive it to the recycling centre.

    So by taking a rigidly jobsworth approach, they have likely increased the number of individual car journeys with all the attendant pollution. Furthermore, there has been a notable increase since the new policy came into effect of fly-tipping and waste being strewn about the streets.

    It would be nice if people could just think through the consequences of their proposals and think about the practical consequences for real people. Sigh.......

    And also think how these policies affect those without cars.

    AIUI the issue is the EU Landfill directive, which hopefully we can repeal. It would cost very little for the council to offer a pick-up service for disposal of large items that could benefit the community much more than fly tipping would.

    As an example, about a decade ago (and I’m going to take a guess that this has got a lot worse since then), a friend had an old sofa to get rid of. It wouldn’t fit in his car so I borrowed a van, we loaded the sofa and took it to the local ‘tip’. The jobsworth at the entrance pointed at the ‘No Commerical Vehicles’ sign and directed me to another ‘tip’ in a bigger town a few miles away. I went there and was invited to drive to the weighbridge, where they would weigh my vehicle before and after ‘dumping its waste’ and charge me appropriately. Any protests that I had a perfectly serviceable sofa that they might be able to find a good home for were met with absolute derision. I ended up driving the sofa to a different local authority’s ‘tip’ and they were more accommodating, hopefully some family in a Council house with no money ended up with a nice second hand sofa.

    And we wonder why fly-tippping is a problem.
    That's somewhere else where we could copy the Germans. Where I lived, one day per (I think) month was designated for the removal of bulky rubbish. On the day before that, everybody in the neighbourhood would pile any old furniture and the like outside their house. And then there would be time for people to walk around and take anything they wanted from those piles. The local council would then dispose of what was left. It's how we furnished our first flat in Germany :-)
  • murali_smurali_s Posts: 1,954
    rkrkrk said:



    With a couple of rare notable exceptions, climate scientists didn't exist as a group 40 years ago. They have carved themselves out a niche on the basis of the AGW hypothesis but all of those who originally started it were from other disciplines - geology, physics and chemistry. Anyone who is trained as a climate scientist today is trained on the basis of the reality of AGW. They have to be as it underpins the whole existence of the subject.

    Funnily enough those few original climate scientists (primarily meteorologists) who were around before AGW did not buy into it. The founder of the CRU, Hubert Lamb remained a sceptic to the end.

    His Wikipedia article says:
    “It is to be noted here that there is no necessary contradiction between forecast expectations of (a) some renewed (or continuation of) slight cooling of world climate for some years to come, e.g. from volcanic or solar activity variations; (b) an abrupt warming due to the effect of increasing carbon dioxide, lasting some centuries until fossil fuels are exhausted and a while thereafter; and this followed in turn by (c) a glaciation lasting (like the previous ones) for many thousands of years.”

    That to me says he accepts AGW.
    The AGW deniers timeline:

    1) the World is cooling - leveraging the one data set that errroneously showed some cooling.
    2) the World is not cooling and it’s not warning - again referencing the erroneous derived temperatures from Sateliites
    3) yep, the World is warming but CO2 is good for you - it’s a plant nutrient.

    I wonder what’s next in the AGW Denier’s playbook?

    Thankfully their number is diminishing by the day...
  • CD13 said:

    Mr Tyndall,

    "I long ago realised that giving you anything approaching facts was a waste of time."

    You have to understand that some people don't understand that science is about scepticism. You may as well discuss relativity with a slug. Scientists themselves have biases, the difficult part is acknowledging it.

    I have found it interesting to see a number of AGW proponents recently saying that 'climate science' should not have to follow the same basic principles as 'normal science'. Apparently the sorts of basic rules that were followed by people like Richard Feynman should not have to apply to people like Michael Mann.
    And who, exactly, is saying that?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 17,416

    On topic, environmentalism has many strands.

    On the Right even the rightest of the right wingers will detest littering, noise pollution, demolition/removal of trees and the destruction of views. They don't mind collecting their shopping in a basket rather than bags, as long as that's their choice. They mostly love gardening. They're often interested in wildlife, horses, dogs, garden birds and bees. What they detest is wind farms, "swampies", ecosocialism, irregular bin collections, and people who bully them over car ownership or what they do inside their own homes (lightbulbs).

    On the Left, it's often more internationalist - or global - environmentalism than local. They do often like a number of those things, but want immediate action on climate change, like saving energy in everything they do, and more tax incentives and regulations to change behaviour, banning products, and do want to limit flights, car use, and meat eating, and are keener on people living very differently to achieve it. And are not shy of saying so.

    Both sides can end up detesting each other over more or less the same thematic issue.

    And everyone hates new housing developments and fracking.

    How many on the Left are prepared to make the biggest immediate contribution to reducing their carbon footprint: declining to have kids? They seem very shy of discussing this.....
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 14,392
    murali_s said:

    rkrkrk said:



    With a couple of rare notable exceptions, climate scientists didn't exist as a group 40 years ago. They have carved themselves out a niche on the basis of the AGW hypothesis but all of those who originally started it were from other disciplines - geology, physics and chemistry. Anyone who is trained as a climate scientist today is trained on the basis of the reality of AGW. They have to be as it underpins the whole existence of the subject.

    Funnily enough those few original climate scientists (primarily meteorologists) who were around before AGW did not buy into it. The founder of the CRU, Hubert Lamb remained a sceptic to the end.

    His Wikipedia article says:
    “It is to be noted here that there is no necessary contradiction between forecast expectations of (a) some renewed (or continuation of) slight cooling of world climate for some years to come, e.g. from volcanic or solar activity variations; (b) an abrupt warming due to the effect of increasing carbon dioxide, lasting some centuries until fossil fuels are exhausted and a while thereafter; and this followed in turn by (c) a glaciation lasting (like the previous ones) for many thousands of years.”

    That to me says he accepts AGW.
    The AGW deniers timeline:

    1) the World is cooling - leveraging the one data set that errroneously showed some cooling.
    2) the World is not cooling and it’s not warning - again referencing the erroneous derived temperatures from Sateliites
    3) yep, the World is warming but CO2 is good for you - it’s a plant nutrient.

    I wonder what’s next in the AGW Denier’s playbook?

    Thankfully their number is diminishing by the day...
    LOL. Magnificent. Another murali comment that contains no actual truth whatsoever.

    You are truly the master of the blatant lie.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 17,342

    Pulpstar said:

    Electric vehicles are essentially as clean as the constituent power makeup of the country overall, no :) ?

    As far as emissions while driving are concerned yes.

    As far as global pollution of all types is concerned, no. The most polluting element of electric vehicles is arguably mining the Rare Earth Elements necessary in their battery construction.

    However that's a different type of pollution and drilling for oil isn't exactly without damage either. Plus its better for us if the pollution is concentrated at certain mines in China and not in the air we breath. Even for the Chinese they'll be happy to see far cleaner air in their very polluted cities.
    The Chinese embarrassed themselves last year as the famous Shanghai Smog caused the Friday sessions of the Formula 1 races there to be abandoned, due to the hospital’s helipad being in the middle of it.

    Their solution was not to deal with the smog, but to move overnight - to the satisfaction of the F1 medical delegate - an entire neurological intensive care unit to a small local hospital next to the track. I’d take a random guess that that was a pretty crap deal for anyone staying in the local hospital, or anyone else suffering a serious head injury elsewhere in Shanghai that weekend.

    It will be interesting to see what happens there this year.
  • murali_smurali_s Posts: 1,954
    edited January 12

    murali_s said:

    rkrkrk said:



    With a couple of rare notable exceptions, climate scientists didn't exist as a group 40 years ago. They have carved themselves out a niche on the basis of the AGW hypothesis but all of those who originally started it were from other disciplines - geology, physics and chemistry. Anyone who is trained as a climate scientist today is trained on the basis of the reality of AGW. They have to be as it underpins the whole existence of the subject.

    Funnily enough those few original climate scientists (primarily meteorologists) who were around before AGW did not buy into it. The founder of the CRU, Hubert Lamb remained a sceptic to the end.

    His Wikipedia article says:
    “It is to be noted here that there is no necessary contradiction between forecast expectations of (a) some renewed (or continuation of) slight cooling of world climate for some years to come, e.g. from volcanic or solar activity variations; (b) an abrupt warming due to the effect of increasing carbon dioxide, lasting some centuries until fossil fuels are exhausted and a while thereafter; and this followed in turn by (c) a glaciation lasting (like the previous ones) for many thousands of years.”

    That to me says he accepts AGW.
    The AGW deniers timeline:

    1) the World is cooling - leveraging the one data set that errroneously showed some cooling.
    2) the World is not cooling and it’s not warning - again referencing the erroneous derived temperatures from Sateliites
    3) yep, the World is warming but CO2 is good for you - it’s a plant nutrient.

    I wonder what’s next in the AGW Denier’s playbook?

    Thankfully their number is diminishing by the day...
    LOL. Magnificent. Another murali comment that contains no actual truth whatsoever.

    You are truly the master of the blatant lie.
    So, Richard, what do you think has caused the huge spike in temperatures (>1 degree C against a pre industrial baseline)? And, where do you see global temperatures heading? Do you believe with me that our current decade will be earnest money very recorded. And do you believe that the next decade 2021-2030 will be even warmer?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 27,365
    Not just MPs who get regular abuse and threats of violence on social media...

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/tennis/2018/01/11/special-report-tenniss-social-media-abuse-epidemic-get-death/
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 17,416
    Here's an interesting conflict: the Spotted Owl, cause celebre amongst American environmentalists, is being put at risk not by the timber industry they saw off, but by marijuana farms:

    https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jan/11/northern-spotted-owl-being-poisoned-californias-il/
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 27,365
    edited January 12

    Here's an interesting conflict: the Spotted Owl, cause celebre amongst American environmentalists, is being put at risk not by the timber industry they saw off, but by marijuana farms:

    https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jan/11/northern-spotted-owl-being-poisoned-californias-il/

    I have been following the story about Prop 64. It appears one result so far of the hugely expensive and onerous red tape is a large expansion of illegal cultivation.

    Basically if you want to be legal, not only do you have to pay large amounts upfront before starting growing each year, grow in a certain way, taxed again at the end of the harvest...and that is before you want to ship your product, you can only then transport via particular licensed carriers etc etc etc.

    Far easier just to have a series of small illegal grows. There is also evidence that the likes of the Mexican drug gangs have sent members into the US to now carry this out.
  • murali_smurali_s Posts: 1,954
    HYUFD said:

    rkrkrk said:

    HYUFD said:

    rkrkrk said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    murali_s said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Re those celebrating Khan's tweet about Trump getting the message from Londoners...

    I am in two minds about this. I do not like Trump at all.

    But celebrating that the leader of a very major world power does not think it worth his while coming, especially given the other countries he has visited, does rather highlight our irrelevance.

    France managed to offer him a welcome - and I doubt that either Macron or the Parisians are any more fond of Trump than Khan and Londoners. I am quite certain that France is using that visit to position itself as the US's special friend in Europe.

    Khan is in danger of celebrating something which emphasises our diminished status in the world. A short-term tactical victory at the expense of a long-term strategy. If he really does have ambitions for the top job, he might want to think a bit harder about issues like this.

    Knowing how volatile Trump is and his mood swings if we are not careful we may see him tweeting something like 'had a great trip to Paris last summer welcomed by the President of France, our oldest ally, not one protestor, meanwhile Great Britain, against whom we had to fight a war to gain independence, refuses to grant me a proper welcome, SAD'
    That is a reflection of Trump not the USA. The bigotted white suprematist is not welcome in London.
    But is apparently welcome in Paris.

    Now, think about that for a moment..... Britain needs friends. Do you think France is not going to use what advantages it can get from that visit? Meanwhile we can earn our living tweeting about white supremacists, I suppose.....
    Macron certainly played a blinder on Trump last year, making clear he disagreed with him on many issues first then rolling out the red carpet for him soon after, the exact opposite of May's strategy
    Has that actually kin to a lame duck President. He changes his mind every time he turns on the news - there is no way we can rely on him.
    It may well do in future and Macron is going from.a position of strength as with Merkel weak he is de facto leader of the EU while we are becoming increasingly isolationist
    I think it makes very little difference except for PR.
    Trump can offer us nothing - he doesn’t have the power to get stuff done.
    The USA is our biggest destination for exports after the EU, in the space of under 2 years we have managed to piss off both
    Stop conflating Trump and the USA. The USA is a key ally and friend. Trump is a racist c*nt!
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 5,129

    TGOHF said:

    brendan16 said:

    Curious. Theresa spent...

    Maybe she is just a bit plastic and like a plastic bag just blows in which ever direction the wind is blowing next week. Perhaps issues like rising youth crime and knife crime, the NHS, housing and social care are a bit too difficultl
    And being cynical is easy. Gove is the driving force and things will change, they have to and do not underestimate how much the young are demanding it. I can see it from my children and grand children
    Trouble with the Tories ...
    Being a climate change sceptic does not in any way stop one caring about the environment. Just look at the man who founded Greenpeace.
    Being a climate change sceptic makes it rather pointless to care about the environment.
    Bollocks.

    Sceptics are following the science not the religion.

    Bjorn Lomberg cares more about the environment than Al Gore.
    Climate-change sceptics who are climate scientists are a bit thin on the ground though.
    With a couple of rare notable exceptions, climate scientists didn't exist as a group 40 years ago. They have carved themselves out a niche on the basis of the AGW hypothesis but all of those who originally started it were from other disciplines - geology, physics and chemistry. Anyone who is trained as a climate scientist today is trained on the basis of the reality of AGW. They have to be as it underpins the whole existence of the subject.

    Funnily enough those few original climate scientists (primarily meteorologists) who were around before AGW did not buy into it. The founder of the CRU, Hubert Lamb remained a sceptic to the end.
    That seems to be an extremely disingenuous characterisation of Lamb, who was one of the early theorists of AGW:
    https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=50HjSi5o8J0C&pg=PA285&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

    In any event, he died twenty years ago; the balance of evidence has shifted somewhat in the intervening decades.
    Most climate scientists accept there is considerable uncertainty around their predictions - they are, after all sceptical scientists. That manmade increases in atmospheric CO2 have a significant (and likely hazardous to human society in the near term) effect is not so much contended.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 5,769

    On topic, environmentalism has many strands.

    On the Right even the rightest of the right wingers will detest littering, noise pollution, demolition/removal of trees and the destruction of views. They don't mind collecting their shopping in a basket rather than bags, as long as that's their choice. They mostly love gardening. They're often interested in wildlife, horses, dogs, garden birds and bees. What they detest is wind farms, "swampies", ecosocialism, irregular bin collections, and people who bully them over car ownership or what they do inside their own homes (lightbulbs).

    On the Left, it's often more internationalist - or global - environmentalism than local. They do often like a number of those things, but want immediate action on climate change, like saving energy in everything they do, and more tax incentives and regulations to change behaviour, banning products, and do want to limit flights, car use, and meat eating, and are keener on people living very differently to achieve it. And are not shy of saying so.

    Both sides can end up detesting each other over more or less the same thematic issue.

    And everyone hates new housing developments and fracking.

    How many on the Left are prepared to make the biggest immediate contribution to reducing their carbon footprint: declining to have kids? They seem very shy of discussing this.....
    Well, me for a start. In my ideal world, no more children would be born, and our species would become extinct in 100 years or so. (This is not Labour Party policy)
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 39,624
    murali_s said:

    HYUFD said:

    rkrkrk said:

    HYUFD said:

    rkrkrk said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    murali_s said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Re those celebrating Khan's tweet about Trump getting the message from Londoners...

    I am in two minds about this. I do not like Trump at all.

    But celebrating that the leader of a very major world power does not think it worth his while coming, especially given the other countries he has visited, does rather highlight our irrelevance.

    France managed to offer him a welcome - and I doubt that either Macron or the Parisians are any more fond of Trump than Khan and Londoners. I am quite certain that France is using that visit to position itself as the US's special friend in Europe.

    Khan is in danger of celebrating something which emphasises our diminished status in the world. A short-term tactical victory at the expense of a long-term strategy. If he really does have ambitions for the top job, he might want to think a bit harder about issues like this.

    Knowing how volatile Trump is and his mood swings if we are not carefelcome, SAD'
    That is a reflection of Trump not the USA. The bigotted white suprematist is not welcome in London.
    But is apparently welcome in Paris.

    Now, think about that for a moment..... Britain needs friends. Do you think France is not going to use what advantages it can get from that visit? Meanwhile we can earn our living tweeting about white supremacists, I suppose.....
    Macron certainly played a blinder on Trump last year, making clear he disagreed with him on many issues first then rolling out the red carpet for him soon after, the exact opposite of May's strategy
    Has that actually kin to a lame duck President. He changes his mind every time he turns on the news - there is no way we can rely on him.
    It may well do in future and Macron is going from.a position of strength as with Merkel weak he is de facto leader of the EU while we are becoming increasingly isolationist
    I think it makes very little difference except for PR.
    Trump can offer us nothing - he doesn’t have the power to get stuff done.
    The USA is our biggest destination for exports after the EU, in the space of under 2 years we have managed to piss off both
    Stop conflating Trump and the USA. The USA is a key ally and friend. Trump is a racist c*nt!
    Trump is the President of the United States and for the moment his party controls Congress, like it or not he is the American government now
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 9,679

    Sandpit said:

    Cyclefree said:

    And also think how these policies affect those without cars.

    AIUI the issue is the EU Landfill directive, which hopefully we can repeal. It would cost very little for the council to offer a pick-up service for disposal of large items that could benefit the community much more than fly tipping would.

    As an example, about a decade ago (and I’m going to take a guess that this has got a lot worse since then), a friend had an old sofa to get rid of. It wouldn’t fit in his car so I borrowed a van, we loaded the sofa and took it to the local ‘tip’. The jobsworth at the entrance pointed at the ‘No Commerical Vehicles’ sign and directed me to another ‘tip’ in a bigger town a few miles away. I went there and was invited to drive to the weighbridge, where they would weigh my vehicle before and after ‘dumping its waste’ and charge me appropriately. Any protests that I had a perfectly serviceable sofa that they might be able to find a good home for were met with absolute derision. I ended up driving the sofa to a different local authority’s ‘tip’ and they were more accommodating, hopefully some family in a Council house with no money ended up with a nice second hand sofa.

    And we wonder why fly-tippping is a problem.
    That's somewhere else where we could copy the Germans. Where I lived, one day per (I think) month was designated for the removal of bulky rubbish. On the day before that, everybody in the neighbourhood would pile any old furniture and the like outside their house. And then there would be time for people to walk around and take anything they wanted from those piles. The local council would then dispose of what was left. It's how we furnished our first flat in Germany :-)
    Occasionally, we have this in our street: people leave small items outside with a "Please Take" sign. The stuff always goes. Freecycle is a slightly more organised way of doing the same thing. You'd be amazed at what people will take.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 19,119
    One Brexit mutineer is declining the opportunity to endorse Nigel Farage's interest in a fresh referendum:

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 39,624

    On topic, environmentalism has many strands.

    On the Right even the rightest of the right wingers will detest littering, noise pollution, demolition/removal of trees and the destruction of views. They don't mind collecting their shopping in a basket rather than bags, as long as that's their choice. They mostly love gardening. They're often interested in wildlife, horses, dogs, garden birds and bees. What they detest is wind farms, "swampies", ecosocialism, irregular bin collections, and people who bully them over car ownership or what they do inside their own homes (lightbulbs).

    On the Left, it's often more internationalist - or global - environmentalism than local. They do often like a number of those things, but want immediate action on climate change, like saving energy in everything they do, and more tax incentives and regulations to change behaviour, banning products, and do want to limit flights, car use, and meat eating, and are keener on people living very differently to achieve it. And are not shy of saying so.

    Both sides can end up detesting each other over more or less the same thematic issue.

    And everyone hates new housing developments and fracking.

    How many on the Left are prepared to make the biggest immediate contribution to reducing their carbon footprint: declining to have kids? They seem very shy of discussing this.....
    Well, me for a start. In my ideal world, no more children would be born, and our species would become extinct in 100 years or so. (This is not Labour Party policy)
    No, Barnsley Labour makes up for Hampstead Labour's lack of kids
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 5,228
    murali_s said:

    rkrkrk said:



    With a couple of rare notable exceptions, climate scientists didn't exist as a group 40 years ago. They have carved themselves out a niche on the basis of the AGW hypothesis but all of those who originally started it were from other disciplines - geology, physics and chemistry. Anyone who is trained as a climate scientist today is trained on the basis of the reality of AGW. They have to be as it underpins the whole existence of the subject.

    Funnily enough those few original climate scientists (primarily meteorologists) who were around before AGW did not buy into it. The founder of the CRU, Hubert Lamb remained a sceptic to the end.

    His Wikipedia article says:
    “It is to be noted here that there is no necessary contradiction between forecast expectations of (a) some renewed (or continuation of) slight cooling of world climate for some years to come, e.g. from volcanic or solar activity variations; (b) an abrupt warming due to the effect of increasing carbon dioxide, lasting some centuries until fossil fuels are exhausted and a while thereafter; and this followed in turn by (c) a glaciation lasting (like the previous ones) for many thousands of years.”

    That to me says he accepts AGW.
    The AGW deniers timeline:

    1) the World is cooling - leveraging the one data set that errroneously showed some cooling.
    2) the World is not cooling and it’s not warning - again referencing the erroneous derived temperatures from Sateliites
    3) yep, the World is warming but CO2 is good for you - it’s a plant nutrient.

    I wonder what’s next in the AGW Denier’s playbook?

    Thankfully their number is diminishing by the day...
    I would like to establish a baseline for your understanding of science. So, as I asked you downthread:

    Just out of interest, let's compare AGW and smoking. Out of proposition A, "smoking cigarettes causes lung cancer" and proposition B, "AGW is real and happening", in your opinion is the evidence for A stronger, or for B stronger, or are they both the same?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 17,342

    Sandpit said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Green policies at council level often lack any sort of joined up thinking.



    So by taking a rigidly jobsworth approach, they have likely increased the number of individual car journeys with all the attendant pollution. Furthermore, there has been a notable increase since the new policy came into effect of fly-tipping and waste being strewn about the streets.

    It would be nice if people could just think through the consequences of their proposals and think about the practical consequences for real people. Sigh.......

    And also think how these policies affect those without cars.

    AIUI the issue is the EU Landfill directive, which hopefully we can repeal. It would cost very little for the council to offer a pick-up service for disposal of large items that could benefit the community much more than fly tipping would.

    As an example, about a decade ago (and I’m going to take a guess that this has got a lot worse since then), a friend had an old sofa to get rid of. It wouldn’t fit in his car so I borrowed a van, we loaded the sofa and took it to the local ‘tip’. The jobsworth at the entrance pointed at the ‘No Commerical Vehicles’ sign and directed me to another ‘tip’ in a bigger town a few miles away. I went there and was invited to drive to the weighbridge, where they would weigh my vehicle before and after ‘dumping its waste’ and charge me appropriately. Any protests that I had a perfectly serviceable sofa that they might be able to find a good home for were met with absolute derision. I ended up driving the sofa to a different local authority’s ‘tip’ and they were more accommodating, hopefully some family in a Council house with no money ended up with a nice second hand sofa.

    And we wonder why fly-tippping is a problem.
    That's somewhere else where we could copy the Germans. Where I lived, one day per (I think) month was designated for the removal of bulky rubbish. On the day before that, everybody in the neighbourhood would pile any old furniture and the like outside their house. And then there would be time for people to walk around and take anything they wanted from those piles. The local council would then dispose of what was left. It's how we furnished our first flat in Germany :-)
    That sort of scheme sounds like a great idea. I’d write to the DCLG (or is it DHCLG now) suggesting it.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 27,365
    edited January 12


    What did he call them...f##king darky countries? Until this came up yesterday, I totally missed the claim is also said those from Haiti had all got aids.

    The Overton Window is so far off centre now that these comments hardly register, where as normally any politician caught uttering them would packing their bags that afternoon.
  • murali_smurali_s Posts: 1,954
    Ishmael_Z said:

    murali_s said:

    rkrkrk said:



    With a couple of rare notable exceptions, climate scientists didn't exist as a group 40 years ago. They have carved themselves out a niche on the basis of the AGW hypothesis but all of those who originally started it were from other disciplines - geology, physics and chemistry. Anyone who is trained as a climate scientist today is trained on the basis of the reality of AGW. They have to be as it underpins the whole existence of the subject.

    Funnily enough those few original climate scientists (primarily meteorologists) who were around before AGW did not buy into it. The founder of the CRU, Hubert Lamb remained a sceptic to the end.

    His Wikipedia article says:
    “It is to be noted here that there is no necessary contradiction between forecast expectations of (a) some renewed (or continuation of) slight cooling of world climate for some years to come, e.g. from volcanic or solar activity variations; (b) an abrupt warming due to the effect of increasing carbon dioxide, lasting some centuries until fossil fuels are exhausted and a while thereafter; and this followed in turn by (c) a glaciation lasting (like the previous ones) for many thousands of years.”

    That to me says he accepts AGW.
    The AGW deniers timeline:

    1) the World is cooling - leveraging the one data set that errroneously showed some cooling.
    2) the World is not cooling and it’s not warning - again referencing the erroneous derived temperatures from Sateliites
    3) yep, the World is warming but CO2 is good for you - it’s a plant nutrient.

    I wonder what’s next in the AGW Denier’s playbook?

    Thankfully their number is diminishing by the day...
    I would like to establish a baseline for your understanding of science. So, as I asked you downthread:

    Just out of interest, let's compare AGW and smoking. Out of proposition A, "smoking cigarettes causes lung cancer" and proposition B, "AGW is real and happening", in your opinion is the evidence for A stronger, or for B stronger, or are they both the same?
    Both the same brother. Both are done deals!
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 19,119



    That's somewhere else where we could copy the Germans. Where I lived, one day per (I think) month was designated for the removal of bulky rubbish. On the day before that, everybody in the neighbourhood would pile any old furniture and the like outside their house. And then there would be time for people to walk around and take anything they wanted from those piles. The local council would then dispose of what was left. It's how we furnished our first flat in Germany :-)

    Hungary has a similar idea. Once every six months, each district has a bulky rubbish day like that. It works very well.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 5,228
    murali_s said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    murali_s said:

    rkrkrk said:



    With a couple of rare notable exceptions, climate scientists didn't exist as a group 40 years ago. They have carved themselves out a niche on the basis of the AGW hypothesis but all of those who originally started it were from other disciplines - geology, physics and chemistry. Anyone who is trained as a climate scientist today is trained on the basis of the reality of AGW. They have to be as it underpins the whole existence of the subject.

    Funnily enough those few original climate scientists (primarily meteorologists) who were around before AGW did not buy into it. The founder of the CRU, Hubert Lamb remained a sceptic to the end.

    His Wikipedia article says:
    “It is to be noted here that there is no necessary contradiction between forecast expectations of (a) some renewed (or continuation of) slight cooling of world climate for some years to come, e.g. from volcanic or solar activity variations; (b) an abrupt warming due to the effect of increasing carbon dioxide, lasting some centuries until fossil fuels are exhausted and a while thereafter; and this followed in turn by (c) a glaciation lasting (like the previous ones) for many thousands of years.”

    That to me says he accepts AGW.
    The AGW deniers timeline:

    1) the World is cooling - leveraging the one data set that errroneously showed some cooling.
    2) the World is not cooling and it’s not warning - again referencing the erroneous derived temperatures from Sateliites
    3) yep, the World is warming but CO2 is good for you - it’s a plant nutrient.

    I wonder what’s next in the AGW Denier’s playbook?

    Thankfully their number is diminishing by the day...
    I would like to establish a baseline for your understanding of science. So, as I asked you downthread:

    Just out of interest, let's compare AGW and smoking. Out of proposition A, "smoking cigarettes causes lung cancer" and proposition B, "AGW is real and happening", in your opinion is the evidence for A stronger, or for B stronger, or are they both the same?
    Both the same brother. Both are done deals!
    Thanks. That establishes beyond doubt that you have less idea than my goldfish about any of this.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 14,392
    murali_s said:

    murali_s said:

    rkrkrk said:



    With a couple of rare notable exceptions, climate scientists didn't exist as a group 40 years ago. They have carved themselves out a niche on the basis of the AGW hypothesis but all of those who originally started it were from other disciplines - geology, physics and chemistry. Anyone who is trained as a climate scientist today is trained on the basis of the reality of AGW. They have to be as it underpins the whole existence of the subject.

    Funnily enough those few original climate scientists (primarily meteorologists) who were around before AGW did not buy into it. The founder of the CRU, Hubert Lamb remained a sceptic to the end.

    His Wikipedia article says:
    “It is to be noted here that there is no necessary contradiction between forecast expectations of (a) some renewed (or continuation of) slight cooling of world climate for some years to come, e.g. from volcanic or solar activity variations; (b) an abrupt warming due to the effect of increasing carbon dioxide, lasting some centuries until fossil fuels are exhausted and a while thereafter; and this followed in turn by (c) a glaciation lasting (like the previous ones) for many thousands of years.”

    That to me says he accepts AGW.
    The AGW deniers timeline:

    1) the World is cooling - leveraging the one data set that errroneously showed some cooling.
    2) the World is not cooling and it’s not warning - again referencing the erroneous derived temperatures from Sateliites
    3) yep, the World is warming but CO2 is good for you - it’s a plant nutrient.

    I wonder what’s next in the AGW Denier’s playbook?

    Thankfully their number is diminishing by the day...
    LOL. Magnificent. Another murali comment that contains no actual truth whatsoever.

    You are truly the master of the blatant lie.
    So, Richard, what do you think has caused the huge spike in temperatures (>1 degree C against a pre industrial baseline)? And, where do you see global temperatures heading? Do you believe with me that our current decade will be earnest money very recorded. And do you believe that the next decade 2021-2030 will be even warmer?
    There has not been a huge spike in temperatures. We are still experiencing temperatures cooler than those estimated for the Bronze Age, Roman and medieval warm periods. Both the rates and scales of change are in line with natural change (in fact they are far less than the rates of change we have seen in the recent geological/archaeological record). So whilst this is certainly the warmest decade for the last few centuries, that is a meaningless measure of whether or not the warming is due to man's activity.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 27,365
    edited January 12
    'Liver branding' surgeon Simon Bramhall fined £10,000

    The court heard the surgeon's actions were a "naive and foolhardy" attempt to relieve tension in the operating theatre during transplant operations in February and August 2013.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-birmingham-42663518

    Is that it....fined £10k...hey watch this folks, this is going to be right laugh...might draw a cock and balls while I am at it.

  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 27,651

    Can any of the Govey (™ Gove) fanbois shed some light on his current position re devolution of powers? Pre the EU referendum he campaigned in Scotland on the basis that agfish and immigration powers should be returned to Scotland in the event of a leave vote. In a post referendum debate he said that he still believed this but had no means to expedite it as he was no longer a minister. Any word on his current view? As a minister. For Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

    the implication is Gove believes these powers will go to the devolved Parliaments and it will be up to them to decide how to deal with subsidies etc.
    Taking decisions and spending their own money? They’ll not like that!
    During the progress of the last Scotland Act, the SNP put forward (I think) 39 amendments, mostly to do with increased decision making and oversight over Scottish spending. Strangely they were all voted down by English, Welsh and Scottish Tory mps (not sure how the DUP voted, but I'm willing to take a guess).
    Funny how no one mentions “Full Fiscal Autonomy” anymore.....

    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-33146586
    Voted down by English Tory mps. Fit can ye dae.
    So “Full Fiscal Autonomy” is SNP Policy is it?

    Thought not...
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 17,342

    Not just MPs who get regular abuse and threats of violence on social media...

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/tennis/2018/01/11/special-report-tenniss-social-media-abuse-epidemic-get-death/

    Almost all of the quotes there, while highly offensive and nasty things to say to a professional sportsperson, were not actually death threats.

    Saying that you wish someone raped and murdered because they lost you money is a horrible thing to say to them, but is *just* on the right side of the line of freedom of speech.

    Someone saying “I’m going to rape you and murder you” can expect a prison sentence, no matter what medium was used to deliver the message.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 26,071
    Boris accused President Obama of being an uppity African who hated the UK. He will die in a ditch for the white supremacist sex pest who succeeded Obama. Hmmm.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 27,365
    edited January 12
    Sandpit said:

    Not just MPs who get regular abuse and threats of violence on social media...

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/tennis/2018/01/11/special-report-tenniss-social-media-abuse-epidemic-get-death/

    Almost all of the quotes there, while highly offensive and nasty things to say to a professional sportsperson, were not actually death threats.

    Saying that you wish someone raped and murdered because they lost you money is a horrible thing to say to them, but is *just* on the right side of the line of freedom of speech.

    Someone saying “I’m going to rape you and murder you” can expect a prison sentence, no matter what medium was used to deliver the message.
    These days, I would have thought that calling a person of colour a monkey repeatedly will get you done for hate crime
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 9,679



    That's somewhere else where we could copy the Germans. Where I lived, one day per (I think) month was designated for the removal of bulky rubbish. On the day before that, everybody in the neighbourhood would pile any old furniture and the like outside their house. And then there would be time for people to walk around and take anything they wanted from those piles. The local council would then dispose of what was left. It's how we furnished our first flat in Germany :-)

    Hungary has a similar idea. Once every six months, each district has a bulky rubbish day like that. It works very well.
    We should certainly have something similar here.

    Oddly, at Camden's recycling centre, there is a place for people to put stuff which can be reused but, for some bizarre reason, now if you want to take something you're not allowed to. God knows why. In the past I've acquired some rather lovely glass vases and plates.

    If we're going to have something like the German/Hungarian schemes, stupid rules like that will need to be changed.
  • murali_s said:

    murali_s said:

    rkrkrk said:


    His Wikipedia article says:
    “It is to be noted here that there is no necessary contradiction between forecast expectations of (a) some renewed (or continuation of) slight cooling of world climate for some years to come, e.g. from volcanic or solar activity variations; (b) an abrupt warming due to the effect of increasing carbon dioxide, lasting some centuries until fossil fuels are exhausted and a while thereafter; and this followed in turn by (c) a glaciation lasting (like the previous ones) for many thousands of years.”

    That to me says he accepts AGW.

    The AGW deniers timeline:

    1) the World is cooling - leveraging the one data set that errroneously showed some cooling.
    2) the World is not cooling and it’s not warning - again referencing the erroneous derived temperatures from Sateliites
    3) yep, the World is warming but CO2 is good for you - it’s a plant nutrient.

    I wonder what’s next in the AGW Denier’s playbook?

    Thankfully their number is diminishing by the day...
    LOL. Magnificent. Another murali comment that contains no actual truth whatsoever.

    You are truly the master of the blatant lie.
    So, Richard, what do you think has caused the huge spike in temperatures (>1 degree C against a pre industrial baseline)? And, where do you see global temperatures heading? Do you believe with me that our current decade will be earnest money very recorded. And do you believe that the next decade 2021-2030 will be even warmer?
    There has not been a huge spike in temperatures. We are still experiencing temperatures cooler than those estimated for the Bronze Age, Roman and medieval warm periods. Both the rates and scales of change are in line with natural change (in fact they are far less than the rates of change we have seen in the recent geological/archaeological record). So whilst this is certainly the warmest decade for the last few centuries, that is a meaningless measure of whether or not the warming is due to man's activity.
    When have we previously seen a rate of change of global temperature exceeding the current 1 degree C per century?
  • NEW THREAD

  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 17,342

    'Liver branding' surgeon Simon Bramhall fined £10,000

    The court heard the surgeon's actions were a "naive and foolhardy" attempt to relieve tension in the operating theatre during transplant operations in February and August 2013.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-birmingham-42663518

    Is that it....fined £10k...hey watch this folks, this is going to be right laugh...might draw a cock and balls while I am at it.

    And who reckons he only did this twice?

    Hope the GMC strike him off.
  • TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 6,926
    murali_s said:

    Cyclefree said:

    murali_s said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Re those celebrating Khan's tweet about Trump getting the message from Londoners...

    I am in two minds about this. I do not like Trump at all.

    But celebrating that the leader of a very major world power does not think it worth his while coming, especially given the other countries he has visited, does rather highlight our irrelevance.

    France managed to offer him a welcome - and I doubt that either Macron or the Parisians are any more fond of Trump than Khan and Londoners. I am quite certain that France is using that visit to position itself as the US's special friend in Europe.

    Khan is in danger of celebrating something which emphasises our diminished status in the world. A short-term tactical victory at the expense of a long-term strategy. If he really does have ambitions for the top job, he might want to think a bit harder about issues like this.

    Knowing how volatile Trump is and his mood swings if we are not careful we may see him tweeting something like 'had a great trip to Paris last summer welcomed by the President of France, our oldest ally, not one protestor, meanwhile Great Britain, against whom we had to fight a war to gain independence, refuses to grant me a proper welcome, SAD'
    That is a reflection of Trump not the USA. The bigotted white suprematist is not welcome in London.
    But is apparently welcome in Paris.

    Now, think about that for a moment..... Britain needs friends. Do you think France is not going to use what advantages it can get from that visit? Meanwhile we can earn our living tweeting about white supremacists, I suppose.....
    Leverage with Trump is non existent unless you want to prostrate in front of him obeying his every command. The UK has moved away from being a pathetic satellite state of the USA. Thank God!
    And posters like you want this country to be tied to the EU like a state in a European superstate.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 5,228
    Cyclefree said:



    That's somewhere else where we could copy the Germans. Where I lived, one day per (I think) month was designated for the removal of bulky rubbish. On the day before that, everybody in the neighbourhood would pile any old furniture and the like outside their house. And then there would be time for people to walk around and take anything they wanted from those piles. The local council would then dispose of what was left. It's how we furnished our first flat in Germany :-)

    Hungary has a similar idea. Once every six months, each district has a bulky rubbish day like that. It works very well.
    We should certainly have something similar here.

    Oddly, at Camden's recycling centre, there is a place for people to put stuff which can be reused but, for some bizarre reason, now if you want to take something you're not allowed to. God knows why. In the past I've acquired some rather lovely glass vases and plates.

    If we're going to have something like the German/Hungarian schemes, stupid rules like that will need to be changed.
    Not sure what to make of this, but: the British Heart Foundation will accept donations of good quality furniture, and collect it off you. A couple of years ago I tried to offload a 10 year old John Lewis dining table, same model still available for £1200, on them, and had it rejected for a minor scratch which would take 20 mins to polish out. So I said wtf, and the guy said that they were taking in so much more than they can sell on that his job was essentially finding pretexts for rejecting things.
  • OchEyeOchEye Posts: 1,086

    murali_s said:

    Cyclefree said:

    murali_s said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Re those celebrating Khan's tweet about Trump getting the message from Londoners...

    I am in two minds about this. I do not like Trump at all.

    But celebrating that the leader of a very major world power does not think it worth his while coming, especially given the other countries he has visited, does rather highlight our irrelevance.

    France managed to offer him a welcome - and I doubt that either Macron or the Parisians are any more fond of Trump than Khan and Londoners. I am quite certain that France is using that visit to position itself as the US's special friend in Europe.

    Khan is in danger of celebrating something which emphasises our diminished status in the world. A short-term tactical victory at the expense of a long-term strategy. If he really does have ambitions for the top job, he might want to think a bit harder about issues like this.

    Knowing how volatile Trump is and his mood swings if we are not careful we may see him tweeting something like 'had a great trip to Paris last summer welcomed by the President of France, our oldest ally, not one protestor, meanwhile Great Britain, against whom we had to fight a war to gain independence, refuses to grant me a proper welcome, SAD'
    That is a reflection of Trump not the USA. The bigotted white suprematist is not welcome in London.
    But is apparently welcome in Paris.

    Now, think about that for a moment..... Britain needs friends. Do you think France is not going to use what advantages it can get from that visit? Meanwhile we can earn our living tweeting about white supremacists, I suppose.....
    Leverage with Trump is non existent unless you want to prostrate in front of him obeying his every command. The UK has moved away from being a pathetic satellite state of the USA. Thank God!
    And posters like you want this country to be tied to the EU like a state in a European superstate.
    We could always become a vassal state of the USA...... 51st?
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 14,392

    murali_s said:

    murali_s said:

    rkrkrk said:


    His Wikipedia article says:
    “It is to be noted here that there is no necessary contradiction between forecast expectations of (a) some renewed (or continuation of) slight cooling of world climate for some years to come, e.g. from volcanic or solar activity variations; (b) an abrupt warming due to the effect of increasing carbon dioxide, lasting some centuries until fossil fuels are exhausted and a while thereafter; and this followed in turn by (c) a glaciation lasting (like the previous ones) for many thousands of years.”

    That to me says he accepts AGW.

    The AGW deniers timeline:

    1) the World is cooling - leveraging the one data set that errroneously showed some cooling.
    2) the World is not cooling and it’s not warning - again referencing the erroneous derived temperatures from Sateliites
    3) yep, the World is warming but CO2 is good for you - it’s a plant nutrient.

    I wonder what’s next in the AGW Denier’s playbook?

    Thankfully their number is diminishing by the day...
    LOL. Magnificent. Another murali comment that contains no actual truth whatsoever.

    You are truly the master of the blatant lie.
    So, Richard, what do you think has caused the huge spike in temperatures (>1 degree C against a pre industrial baseline)? And, where do you see global temperatures heading? Do you believe with me that our current decade will be earnest money very recorded. And do you believe that the next decade 2021-2030 will be even warmer?
    There has not been a huge spike in temperatures. We are still experiencing temperatures cooler than those estimated for the Bronze Age, Roman and medieval warm periods. Both the rates and scales of change are in line with natural change (in fact they are far less than the rates of change we have seen in the recent geological/archaeological record). So whilst this is certainly the warmest decade for the last few centuries, that is a meaningless measure of whether or not the warming is due to man's activity.
    When have we previously seen a rate of change of global temperature exceeding the current 1 degree C per century?
    There are a whole series of different events which are characterised by rapid warming and cooling. Dansgaard–Oeschger events as measured by the Greenland ice cores have seen temperatures change by as much as 8°C in 40 years. Bond events cause similar warming. The late Bronze Age collapse around 1200 BC and the Mid - Late Roman period both show temperature changes greater than we are seeing currently.
  • TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 6,926
    OchEye said:

    murali_s said:

    Cyclefree said:

    murali_s said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Re those celebrating Khan's tweet about Trump getting the message from Londoners...

    I am in two minds about this. I do not like Trump at all.

    But celebrating that the leader of a very major world power does not think it worth his while coming, especially given the other countries he has visited, does rather highlight our irrelevance.

    France managed to offer him a welcome - and I doubt that either Macron or the Parisians are any more fond of Trump than Khan and Londoners. I am quite certain that France is using that visit to position itself as the US's special friend in Europe.

    Khan is in danger of celebrating something which emphasises our diminished status in the world. A short-term tactical victory at the expense of a long-term strategy. If he really does have ambitions for the top job, he might want to think a bit harder about issues like this.

    Knowing how volatile Trump is and his mood swings if we are not careful we may see him tweeting something like 'had a great trip to Paris last summer welcomed by the President of France, our oldest ally, not one protestor, meanwhile Great Britain, against whom we had to fight a war to gain independence, refuses to grant me a proper welcome, SAD'
    That is a reflection of Trump not the USA. The bigotted white suprematist is not welcome in London.
    But is apparently welcome in Paris.

    Now, think about that for a moment..... Britain needs friends. Do you think France is not going to use what advantages it can get from that visit? Meanwhile we can earn our living tweeting about white supremacists, I suppose.....
    Leverage with Trump is non existent unless you want to prostrate in front of him obeying his every command. The UK has moved away from being a pathetic satellite state of the USA. Thank God!
    And posters like you want this country to be tied to the EU like a state in a European superstate.
    We could always become a vassal state of the USA...... 51st?
    Or just a independent Britain ?
  • hunchmanhunchman Posts: 2,482

    murali_s said:

    murali_s said:

    rkrkrk said:


    His Wikipedia article says:
    “It is to be noted here that there is no necessary contradiction between forecast expectations of (a) some renewed (or continuation of) slight cooling of world climate for some years to come, e.g. from volcanic or solar activity variations; (b) an abrupt warming due to the effect of increasing carbon dioxide, lasting some centuries until fossil fuels are exhausted and a while thereafter; and this followed in turn by (c) a glaciation lasting (like the previous ones) for many thousands of years.”

    That to me says he accepts AGW.

    The AGW deniers timeline:

    1) the World is cooling - leveraging the one data set that errroneously showed some cooling.
    2) the World is not cooling and it’s not warning - again referencing the erroneous derived temperatures from Sateliites
    3) yep, the World is warming but CO2 is good for you - it’s a plant nutrient.

    I wonder what’s next in the AGW Denier’s playbook?

    Thankfully their number is diminishing by the day...
    LOL. Magnificent. Another murali comment that contains no actual truth whatsoever.

    You are truly the master of the blatant lie.
    So, Richard, what do you think has caused the huge spike in temperatures (>1 degree C against a pre industrial baseline)? And, where do you see global temperatures heading? Do you believe with me that our current decade will be earnest money very recorded. And do you believe that the next decade 2021-2030 will be even warmer?
    There has not been a huge spike in temperatures. We are still experiencing temperatures cooler than those estimated for the Bronze Age, Roman and medieval warm periods. Both the rates and scales of change are in line with natural change (in fact they are far less than the rates of change we have seen in the recent geological/archaeological record). So whilst this is certainly the warmest decade for the last few centuries, that is a meaningless measure of whether or not the warming is due to man's activity.
    When have we previously seen a rate of change of global temperature exceeding the current 1 degree C per century?
    The Younger Dryas Feersum Enjineeya. You show your complete ignorance of historical events with your 1C per century question. But then again, that doesn't surprise me, since anything climate related before 1850 is ignored in your now ridiculed and discredited AGW agenda.
This discussion has been closed.