Â鶹Éç

more tax orders from the brown bunker. this time on climate.

...we will tax them on the beaches we will tax them in the hills we shall never stop tax as a solution to everything...


so we are going to borrow 500 m from the chinese and give it back to them through dodgy climate schemes that do nothing for climate.

clearly its genius. the same genius that gave us iraq and credit crunch.

DISTINCTION FOR NEWSNIGHT?

It is becoming painfully apparent that under the heading CLIMATE CHANGE, anthropogenic global warming is being debated. Only Troglodytes would claim climate is not changing - IT ALWAYS DOES, apparently.

It remains to be seen if Newsnight can spell out, and confine itself to, enquiry into the hypothetical THE WARMING EFFECT OF MAN, as distinct from the natural variations in climate on earth.

And we have a fascinating film from Christian Fraser reporting on how climate change is affecting the Nile Delta region.

The Â鶹Éç really should get is own airline (Irony Free Air?), and airport (or maybe yet another runway at Heathrow, solely for those in politics, quangos and the media on important 'green' trips?), if only to handle the sheer number of 'reporters' flying around the world to raise awareness of the consequences of folk... well... non-eco gilded ones... making a mess, especially with trips that are not necessary. Often in planes. Or space ships. But that's OK 'cos that nice Mr. Branson is an Aunty weak spot, so nothing nasty in the news about a rocket just to lob rich folk into low earth orbit, as the design is 'energy efficient'.

Now, about this latest wadge of wonga being committed by 'us' via a man who seemed to be trying to out bid Sarkozy in some bizarre 'mine's bigger than yours' effort at a dodgy auction, just to impress the onlookers.

Usually one does not invest anything without an expectation of return.

What ways exist to 'measure' the positive impacts of all the money going into AGW mitigation?

One presumes it is not proposed to just throw money at 'stuff' and hope it works. I just ask because it seems that there is evident trouble analysing what has already been, so it's hard to understand how 'we' will be any better at assessing the present, much less predicting the future.

Meanwhile, such discussion as I have been privy to have only been from quite dogmatic extremes. But it has been pointed out to me that with only either/or being served up, it's a sign of politics at play.

Arguing only if it's GW or AGW serves well as moves progress to simply take money to 'deal' with 'things', and any questions as to on what, why and with what results anticipated get sidelined.

Unique.

remember. there is no laughing.

What is the shortest book in the world? "The Environmentalists' Book of Jokes"

despite the army of bbc i suspect we will get no report from the 'counter revolutionaries', flat earthers , deniers, non believers and any other pejorative term people can think up attending the sceptics conference in copenhagen? [nic cohen on this week managed to bring in anti semitism into the debate!]

...Mr Pilmer questioned how scientists could so confidently predict future temperature changes when so little was understood about the causes of past changes, such as ice ages. He pointed to volcanoes and solar radiation as greater influences on climate than man-made carbon emissions. “I cannot respect a theory that looks at one trace gas as being the only variable that drives a very complex, dynamic, chaotic system called the earth.�

also they had jokes.

#5 Jaunty

Nic Cohen? I have his mobile number somewhere. I spoke to him one. Didn't bother again.

"I cannot respect a theory that looks at one trace gas as being the only variable that drives a very complex, dynamic, chaotic system called the earth.�
I taught myself to read before I started school so I could read Cousteau's books on ecology. Now I find politicians who never bothered studying how a planet works are given prime time to tell a nation tat.

"Tat, tat, bloody tat."

You should know the author of those words.