PM Glass Box for Friday
Would you like to let us know what you think of tonight's programme. The PM team will meet in the glass box in our office at 6pm to discuss it. But here is your own space to give your comments. Dan is editing. Keep it clean!
sequin
Listen to PM
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~24~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
That was a speedy Autumn and Winter.
Someone interfering with the weather?
Complain about this comment
I know it's late-breaking news - but the Lib Dems beating the Tories for the mayorship of Bedford makes the general election more interesting than we thought. Doesn't it?
Well done, Dave Hodgson!
Complain about this comment
Sid, No, it doesn't. (comma, apostrophe, full stop/period)[brackets]
Complain about this comment
Wot's a donkey hoatee?
Complain about this comment
Theives recently stole lead from the roof of St Michael's church here and now some have knocked down part of Sopwell Nunnery and taken whole bricks. No, l_d/Ln, I'm not building a fourth shed.
Complain about this comment
#4. David_McNickle
A type of beard!
Complain about this comment
#2. Sid
Why?
Complain about this comment
Ln 7, I think he's related to Sid.
Complain about this comment
#5. David_McNickle
My neighbours from St. Albans are currently building a large shed, sorry they say it is a summer house. Their plan is to put a hot tub in the summer house. Is this the Roman connexion. I hope they do not have naked romping (unless they invite me).
Perhaps ITV should do a series called "Neighbours From St. Albans".
Complain about this comment
Ln 6, That would be on a Billy goat gruff.
Complain about this comment
5. DMcN: You have three sheds???? - Shock-Envy
Complain about this comment
Ln 9, Did you ask the wife if her mother lived across the street from me?
Complain about this comment
It seems anyone voicing any criticism of Islam is now automatically labeled far right by the media.
Refusal to engage with the argument drives people towards anyone voicing that criticism. The problem is that anyone who is left, is cowed into silence even when they have legitimate doubts that go against the PC herd on immigration and Islam. The 'anti-racism' industry intimidates people and acts like a rent-a-mob which both deters from speaking some and gives an image of intolerance to anti-racism, and thus their targets as standing for tolerance.
When someone of the far right appears to be the one standing up for free speech, women, and gays, perhaps the issue should move centre stage where it belongs. Some people need to start thinking.
[On a nationalistic/linguistic note, why does the spellchecker here flag up centre? Center gets without the red line, by by which I assume the BBC has gone American.]
Complain about this comment
Regarding your article on children's education - England does already have the system for play in early years - our school in Aldershot has been using this method for the last two years and it works very well.
Complain about this comment
Looternite @ 7
The Tories appear to think they've got the general election in the bag (and the lazy press are following them tamely). The fact that the Lib Dems can beat the Tories in a place like Bedford suggests that it may not be quite so clear-cut - and therefore much more interesting.
Complain about this comment
#15. Sid
I see you point now.
Complain about this comment
#12. David_McNickle
No I have not yet.
I may need more detail than Did your mum used to live opposite an American who listens to Radio 4 PM programme
Complain about this comment
Mr. Milliband, this is the same "special relationship" between the UK and the US that was so evident when the UK were overlooked in the invitation list to the WWII memorial ceremony in France earlier this year?
Complain about this comment
Sid 15, Can't say that I've heard of Bedford MP Patrick Hall (majority 3,383).
Complain about this comment
Sid, That's Labour MP Patrick Hall.
Complain about this comment
#15. Sid
By the way Sid you said "The fact that the Lib Dems can beat the Tories in a place like Bedford" shows that you do not know Bedford.
Complain about this comment
Eddie, Great stuff! Where is organ being played?
Complain about this comment
Ln 21, I think he meant coming second to Labour.
Complain about this comment
"It's not an abstention, it's a non-vote"? I can't believe you let that one past.
Complain about this comment
Mwahahah. "I represent freedom of speech... let's ban a book."
Complain about this comment
Looternite ...
Sorry to labour the point, but with this result last time:
Patrick Hall *ELECTED* Labour Party Candidate 17,557 41.7%
Richard Quentin Fuller Conservative Party Candidate 14,174 33.7%
Michael Paul Headley Liberal Democrat 9,063 21.5%
the Tories will be hoping they can win next time. I'm suggesting that the Lib Dem victory in the mayoral election calls that into question.
Complain about this comment
#26. Sid
So you think that Labour may hold Bedford and surprise the Tories and their pet media.
Interesting thought, of course that is possible, there may be a celebrity independant of course.
Complain about this comment
It is interesting that the Dutch, Danes and French make such a fuss about freedom of speech and yet they could have made more of an effort supporting freedom of speech between 1939 and 1945.
Complain about this comment
Baroness Uddin when discussing Gert Wilders pointed out that the right to free speech gave rise to the Nazi movement. What inference are we to draw? For me, the shallowness of Uddin's argument.
Complain about this comment
28 Ln
The Dutch and the Danes really had no choice, they were far too small to resist Germany militarily, but in all 3 countries you can find individual and some organised acts of heroism and resistance.
Complain about this comment
#29. newlach
Interesting that comment. There are those who say it was proportional voting. Others point out that Hitler was a vegetarian. Others say he was short. Of course then there is his testicular quantity.
Complain about this comment
#30. lucien_desgai
I once worked with a guy who was part of the British Expeditionary Force going towards the advancing Germans. He said that the roads were choked with the deserting French.
They were not prepared to fight to the last man in the defence of "Freedom".
Complain about this comment
The new style forecast is just fine. Add my vote to retain it not only in PM but in all BBC broadcasts.
Complain about this comment
Re. the Binyan Muhummad (sp?) who claims to have been tortured on behalf of the US military.
I tend to believe what he says. At the very least it demands a proper investigation. I also believe the UK government are afraid it may come out that they knew about this, that they allowed the flights to transit via the UK, and that they were complicit in this disgraceful behaviour, contrary to international law and contrary to what they have told us.
The strenuous attempts by both governments to suppress this story do lend support to this view, do they not?
I would have thought that human rights would take precedence over some shaky agreement between the US and UK.
Dry.
Complain about this comment
Interesting item about fly's memories ... but I'd say 'false memory' is a bit misleading - wouldn't something like 'false response/reaction/trigger' be better? After all, the fly only reacts - it doesn't actually remember anything (rightly or wrongly).
Complain about this comment
newlach and Looternite: you might find that it was as simple as the Nazis encouraging all their members to go to the polls and vote. This notion of "only voting when you fancy it" and not legislation that ensures everyone over the age of 18 is legally obliged to vote has a lot to answer for. Hobby horse I know but it does make a difference.
Carolyn: for the record I think you do a most excellent job and your style is most refreshing. That I adore Edward goes without saying but, I have to say, I look forward to your Friday and Saturday slots and any other occasions you are in the chair. Good programme. Well done one and all.
Complain about this comment
Sid, 35: How do you know flies don't remember anything? Have you any evidence or is this just an example of "I know it's true, therefore it is."
Complain about this comment
Dryopithecus (37):
Well, I never get a birthday card from my flies... that's pretty conclusive.
Complain about this comment
SSCat (38) - My flies often don't remember to do themselves up. Even more conclusive proof.
Complain about this comment
Dryopithecus @ 37
I didn't say flies don't remember anything. In this particular case, a behavioural trigger is implanted in the fly's brain. The fly is not remembering anything when it repsonds - remembering implies that something actually happened.
So yes - I know it's true, therefore it is.
Complain about this comment
The Programme was full of things I felt unable to comment on. Government ministers, Baronesses, possible future leaders of Holland etc etc. Good news about the Germany economy though Nils and I enjoyed the theme this week on Upshares Downshares.
Subject: (q inn your clan) - keep it clean exclamation mark
Anagram: Ex kin mannequin - crackpot Tory - lame alliance
See what I mean DoctorDoLots. Super Injunctions!
Complain about this comment
I agree with the broad thrust of DoctorDoLots at #13 - we owe it to ourselves and our children to reject Islamification .. how dare these people tell me how to live my life and what views I should hold!
Complain about this comment
Sid, 40: So a behavioural trigger has been implanted in the fly's brain. This must be stored in some form, otherwise it would be forgotten. Doesn't this stored information constitute a memory?
Dry.
Complain about this comment
SirSK 42 (& DoctorD): I missed the story but, in my experience, most mainstream Moslems (who are the majority in this country) don't tell me what to think & do. In fact, I've found them to be polite and hard working and an asset to the community, as also are most Hindus. This makes me suspect that the real motivation behind the BNP and other native Brits demands for the control of immigration is not religious or cultural but just racism.
Dry.
Complain about this comment
44. Dryopithecus : You appear to confuse religion with race, while apparently able to speak of personal knowledge of 'most mainstream Muslims', a claim I find difficult to accept. You like the broad sweep though,don't you? Like lumping the BNP and 'other native Brits' together because they both oppose immigration, precisely the point I was making, thanks for reiterating it so nicely. Criticism equals racism, nice and simple, no need to question dogma, no need to think. There are many ways that anti-racism has morphed into a cult. Cults can also become dangerous and a threat to free speech.
.
Complain about this comment
Muslim radicals are alive and well in England and whilst many moderates may well be law abiding, the protestors on the BBC tonight do not help their case by stating in their banners that Islam will dominate the world. Gert Wilder's case will be helped by that. Like many people I am tolerant of any one who chooses to believe in a God even though I don't. However, I am not alone in finding their inability to treat women as equals as abhorrent.
Complain about this comment
Dry @ 43
I'd say it would have to be conscious to be a memory. A trigger to which one* responds without awareness is just that - a trigger. But we may be edging towards a discussion of the many varieties memory can take - for in reality, there are many kinds of memory.
*whether fly or human (or Jeff Goldblum)
Complain about this comment
Sid 47: I know exactly what you mean but I don't think we can't accept consciousness as a criterion unless we can define it. I tend to think that consciousness depends on memory, not the other way round, i.e. consciousness is the memory of what we have just thought, done or experienced. It's a whole can of worms, though.
Dry.
Complain about this comment
46 Blogarooney, what you say makes a lot of sense.
45 DrD: I don't disagree strongly with what you say, except that I remain suspicious of people who oppose immigration. On balance, I think immigrants contribute to the economy by working and spending their earnings in our shops etc. If we are heading for a top-heavy population, surely an injection of young people who want to come here to work could be just what we need.
I should have made it clear that I do agree with you on the question of religious intolerance and the device of characterising any criticism as racism. In particular, I deplore the way the Israelis cry anti-Semitism in response to any criticism of Israel.
I have (some) Jewish ancestry (in fact I'm as Jewish as Barack Obama is black), so, apart from the fact that I deplore racism in all its forms, it would be silly for me to hold any prejudices against people of Jewish ancestry. On the other hand I believe the Hebrew faith is itself racist as it involves the belief that Jews are the chosen people of God and are therefore in this respect superior to Gentiles.
Dry.
Complain about this comment
45. Dry... I don't see why you should 'remain suspicious of people who oppose immigration'. The logic of 'immigrants contribute to the economy by working and spending their earnings in our shops' is to completely fill the country with millions from all over the world until every shop is packed out and the shopkeepers are rich. How we cope with the travel, housing and feeding of these people is a question you haven't addressed.
Already the UK has insufficient housing and has to, according to government, build hundreds of thousands more houses, these will take up land presently used to grow food since land unsuitable for food growing is also unsuitable for housing estates - hillsides, mountains, moorland etc.
We also already import more than half our food, so are not self sufficient in food at a time when global competition for food is increasing.
The argument that immigrants stimulate the economy is a capitalist mirage, they provide CHEAP labour to undercut long fought for employment minimums for sure, which is why capitalists and the government are in favour. Whether immigration benefits the general population is arguable though for the reasons I have stated. Unlimited growth of anything is unsustainable, I suggest immigration to the UK has reached the point where it has to be stopped before the British way of life is forever changed for the worse, and before serious inter-ethnic friction and violence becomes the norm.
I agree totally with you about Judaism and have always thought it racist and elitist; and the reason why Israel behaves so appallingly towards anyone who isn't a Jew. The fact that those religions which are the most toxic, violent and doctrinaire are the three Abrahamic religions - Judaism, Christianity and Islam - is worthy of note, especially as their competitive violence has always been directed at each other, with millions of deaths over millenia as a result.
Complain about this comment
You would be right to oppose filling the country with millions of immigrants, if that were the proposal, but we're a long way from that situation. Some parts of Leicester (a town I visit fairly often) do resemble outposts of South Asia, but there are many other parts where Asians are rarely seen. Leicester is famous for being one of the prime destinations for S. Asian immigrants, but I challenge you to find any problems with housing, transport, education, health care or food supply, because there are none. These are just windmills for you to joust at, or to raise as spurious arguments to justify what appears to me to be an irrational argument.
Dry.
Complain about this comment
Sid 47, I preferred the Vincent Price version. Although I did like Gold blum and Emma Thompson 'playing the piano' together in The Tall Guy.
Complain about this comment
#49. Dryopithecus + 50. DoctorDolots
What happened to your posts. Did you mention Islam or muslims in less than praiseworthy language.
Complain about this comment
53 Ln
I complained about those posts because of unfounded remarks about Jews.
Complain about this comment
53 Looternite, yep. It's of concern that even expressing concern is censored. However, I have no doubts about what I posted and have faith the BBC is not into banning posts on spurious grounds, so it's down to whoever objected and their concept of freedom of speech.
It's impossible to have a debate in a straitjacket.
Complain about this comment
#54. lucien_desgai
Thanks for your upfront honesty. As far as I can remember you are the only person who has admitted referring and given the reason.
Complain about this comment
54. lucien_desgai - since I have had and have many Jewish friends, secular of course, I'm unsure how you could have objected to anything I posted. What unfounded remarks were these, or were they, rather than 'against Jews', merely critical of Israel perchance? Oh yes, I remember Dryopithecus' post, nothing in it any rational, unbiased person could object to.
Come on moderator, show us free speech on the BBC isn't to be censored by Israel.
Complain about this comment
51. Dryopithecus: I wasn't saying that was the proposal, but the logical extension of the 'I see no problem with immigration, it helps shopkeepers' argument. My major point was the finite size of this country - set to shrink as sea level rises over the next decades - and the fact that population increase inevitably means more land under concrete and loss of wildlife habitat and farmland. This applies to all immigration, I don't single out South Asia, although what you describe certainly sounds like a piece of the country is now permanently South Asian, illustrating perfectly my point about multicultural ethnic ghettoes which are little different to the bantustans in South Africa which were explained by the SA government of the time as 'separate development' and against which I and others campaigned in the sixties. Much the same language is used to justify multiculturalism today.
Whether the population increases by immigration or birth rate, it is unsustainable in the long run, and we should look beyond short term profits [largely gained by rich capitalists exploiting the desperate immigrant workers] and consider what is good for the country in the long term. Do we really want people like Geert Wilders or Nick Griffin running European countries? It may seem far fetched, but Germany in the period before Hitler probably also seemed a million miles away from fascism.
Today the fascism comes from all sides, and some of it is religious.
Complain about this comment
57 DoctorDolots
I would never that criticism of Israel is intrinsically anti-semitic to complain about a post just because it is condemnatory of Israel.
My complaint related to your assertion that judaism is "racist and elitist."
Complain about this comment
Sorry, the first line of 59 doesn't make much sense. I meant to type...
I would never argue that criticism of Israel is intrinsically anti-semitic nor complain about a post just because it is condemnatory of Israel.
Complain about this comment
57 DD
I should add that your post was responding to remarks from Dry who was arguing that jews consider themselves to be superior to gentiles. It seemed to me that that your combined posts were heading to a very dark place.
Complain about this comment
#51. Dryopithecus
We have a "problem" now with the English Defence League. They have not appeared out of the blue. Many indigenous people feel that towns like Luton are no longer recognising their culture or needs.
You have to admit that multi-culturism is not a roaring success.
Complain about this comment
Ln 56, I have admitted referring posts and so have Big Sis and Lady Sue. I believe Intermittent Horse did as well.
Complain about this comment
DD 58, Look at some of the people in the EU that Cameron has tied his party to.
Complain about this comment
l_d 61, If that is what their posts said (got here after they disappeared), I agree.
Complain about this comment
I gave up on AA today after 25 minutes because Eddie only discussed one topic from AQ. How boring to hear one question answered fifty different ways.
Complain about this comment
What a pity we don't have a Saturday PM Glass Box. That was another great programme Sequin, well done.
The piece on climate change was excellent. Thrilled to learn that the Aussies are at the forefront of exposing this international 'conspiracy'.
Complain about this comment
Lady Sue
Carbon.
Cycle.
280ppm.
1832 Ice core data
380ppm.
2009 Ice core data
What is the dispute?!
n-n
xx
Complain about this comment
"Climate Change In Australia
In 2007 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released their fourth assessment report, concluding that:
* Warming of the climate system is unequivocal
* Humans are very likely to be causing most of the warming that has been experienced since 1950
* It is very likely that changes in the global climate system will continue well into the future, and that they will be larger than those seen in the recent past.
These changes have the potential to have a major impact on human and natural systems throughout the world including Australia."
http://www.climatechangeinaustralia.gov.au/
Complain about this comment
And there's a good graph here:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/
Perhaps you could explain your doubts about it, Lady Sue?
Complain about this comment
Climate change: A guide for the perplexed
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462-climate-change-a-guide-for-the-perplexed.html
This is quite good, too.
Complain about this comment
And you can read the IPCC's latest report here:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_synthesis_report.htm
Complain about this comment
nikki: After googling 'ice core data' (so I would better understand your reference) I found some relevant research on ice core data from the Vostok site in Antarctica. The ice cores were drilled to over 3,600 meters (just over 2.2 miles deep) and give data on Greenhouse Trace Gases back 420,000 years.
The graph shows what looks like a series of joined up 'U's detailing peaks and troughs in temperature and CO2 concentration going back 420,000 years.
The research states:
"Thus we seem to be headed for some very large climate changes. Temperatures could increase rapidly, and then decrease just as rapidly - as they have repeatedly over the past 420,000 years."
Sid@69: note the repeated phrase "very likely". Speculation not fact. The Australian interviewed on PM strongly objected to propaganda which stated that humans were responsible for climate change when there isn't "a shred of scientific evidence" to support this.
Sid@70: the data and graph on your link go back only to 1850. Compare with Vostok site data going back 420,000, above.
Sid@71: the most interesting and enlightening sections of the New Scientist articles were the comments made by scientific 'bloggers' who strongly dispute the claims, variously stating the:
The "articles and reference sources have more 'myths' than you (New Scientist) try very lamely to dispel";
"Of the 22 climate models utilized by the IPCC in analyzing man-made global warming, THEY ALL CAME TO THE SAME CONCLUSIONS. Given how little we know about atmospheric and ocean science, particularly in light of our infancy in modeling global systems and the lack of proven model specifications, the odds that all 22 would come to the same conclusions is truly astronomical";
"Frankly these computer model predictions should be confined to a college campus and not ever be let loose as science by the IPCC who's credability is already seriously in question on so many basic science issues."
and rather amusingly:
"The operative analysis horizon was 100 years for most models and for some, they were taken to 300 years. The computer models these guys use can't even forecast the local weather for next week with any reasonable degree of accuracy!"
Grateful to both for information and links but, rather than dispelling my skepticism, on the contrary, you have provided information which reinforces it.
Sid, I'm yet to check your fourth link but will do so at a more reasonable hour.
Complain about this comment
65 DMcN
The mods have restored posts 49 and 50 - it is apparently ok on a BBC blog to say that "the Hebrew faith is itself racist as it involves the belief that Jews are the chosen people of God and are therefore in this respect superior to Gentiles."
I am Jewish hy birth and atheist as an adult, although I still regard Judaism to be an element of my identity. There is a strong cultural element to Judaism and British law regards Jews as a race.
As a religion Judaism never supports a literal reading of the old testament, it is interpreted as a series of hitorical parables designed to guide followers to lead a holy life. Unlike most other religions Judaism considers heaven to be open to all people who lead a good life, observant or non-observant, of all faiths and none.
Throughout the centuries Jews have been the victims of racism and in recent times Jews prominently stood shoulder to shoulder with African Americans in their struggle for civil rights and equality.
No Jew that I have ever met believes that their religion makes them in any way superior to other human beings. To suggest otherwise is wrong in fact and hateful in intent.
Complain about this comment
l_d 74, Remember, as some say here, "Some of their best friends are 'martians' (or something like that). When I was in elementary school, my best friend was Jewish and nobody cared one bit. I even loaned him a sports coat for a Bar Mitzvah. I wonder what Marvin is doing now...
Complain about this comment
A better Graf:
http://www.amelianow.com/spring06-pierce.jpg
Complain about this comment
#63. David_McNickle
I hadn't noticed other people admitting their referring.
I have noticed that you get referred a lot however.
Usually because you are trying to be funny.
Complain about this comment
#69 + #70 + #71 + #72 Sid
Thanks for the graphs. I have no doubt that global warming is happening. If there is an underlying natural process elevating global temperatures. Then our consumption of fossil fuels will make it worse - no argument.
As I have been saying for 40 years oil, gas and coal will run out eventually and so we should look for alternatives. It is now more urgent as these fossil fuels are contributing to global warming.
Mind you the ultimate cause of global warming is too many people.
Complain about this comment
Ln 77, OK, who referred my latest post on the Beach?
Complain about this comment
#36. Lady_Sue
My father, my uncles and their generation risked their lives, and many gave their lives, in the fight for freedom and freedom means the right not to vote.
We could of course try incentives ie £10.00 off the council tax to people who vote.
Complain about this comment
#79. David_McNickle
I have no idea, as I don't bother with the Beach, as I tried to be funny over there and got critised and referred.
Complain about this comment
@72 Lady Sue - I have that page open in front of me too. The one about Ice core data from Vostok. And it *does* show data going back 420,000 years. That's the beauty of it.
Never in those 420,000 has CO2 been above 310ppm. Never. Not even once. And now CO2 are at 380ppm, and rising. The actual quote from that page is: "Notice how CO2 concentration rises vertically at the end of the time series"
This is not in dispute (I think you'll agree).
So.
We need now to know is whether the CO2 rise either causes or follows a rise in temp. Who cares?!!! The graphs you are looking at show some sort of link. Either cause or effect, but I dont mind which, it doesnt matter a jot to me. Cos either way, we stand at on the threshold of something not seen on this planet for 420,000 years.
Please note, I am not talking about weather. Or temperature in the last 10 years, or even 100 years. I dont know about Sids graphs and links. All I am talking about is the dawning of an epoch of CO2 not seen in 420,000 years.
n-n
xx
http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/
Complain about this comment
Ln 81, I told them that I was leaving the beach and the post was referred. Somebody said, "Yeah, yeah, you've said that before.", and I asked where I said it. As it had been deleted...
Complain about this comment
Lady Sue - thanks for your reply.
1) Sid@69: note the repeated phrase "very likely". Speculation not fact.
Yes indeed - speculation is what scientists do. (I sometimes think scientists are their own worst enemies on this; any nutter can come along and say 'This is only a theory', and the scientists all say 'He's absolutely right!' Well yes - as I say, that's what scientists do. They have theories - and they test them.
2) Sid@70
See Nikki Noodle's #82.
3) "Sid@71: the most interesting and enlightening sections of the New Scientist articles were the comments made by scientific 'bloggers' who strongly dispute the claims..."
I'm afraid I can see no evidence that these climate change deniers are scientists. The quote you find particularly amusing appears to confuse weather and climate. (I've often noted that the more prone contributors are to conspiracy theories and the like, the less literate they are - as is the case with a number of the responses to the NS articles.)
The post of mine that was removed last week said that 97% of US climatologists believe both that the climate is changing and that part of the change is due to human activity. Scientists who don't believe that usually come from other branches of science (like David Bellamy).
Complain about this comment
Dear PM
The simple, plain weather forecasts offered recently have been a delight. Please continue with them. There have been times when one rather expects the BBC weather presenters to break into rhyming couplets, so ridiculously artful and elevated have their reports become. Could you perhaps start another campaign addressing a different aspect of the BBC’s irritating and sometimes indecent habits? A programme is no longer followed by a few seconds of dignifying silence in which we may reflect on it. We will be told without a moment’s hesitation that, for instance, the News will be next, and that this will be followed by some other named programme. Then, without any further hesitation, a preview of some other programme will be inserted, before the News itself is delivered. We are being uncomfortably stuffed by the BBC in this and other ways.
Yours truly,
Michael George Gibson of The True English (Poetry) Party and a member of The Queen’s English Society.
Complain about this comment
#74. lucien_desgai
In the late 1960's I went out with a girl from a Jewish family. She told me that her family were unhappy that she was going out with a non-Jew.
The relationship did not last and I wonder if she eventually married within the Jewish community and complied with her family. This makes strict Jewish families look racsist from the outside, I think you will agree.
If I applied similar stictures on who my son or daughter could marry I would be accused of being a racsist. I only said to my children marry for love not duty and if their partner truely loved them they would not insist that they convert.
In a truely multi-cultural society inter-marriage would be normal and accepted.
Complain about this comment
86 LN
Actually, inter-marriage involving jews are so high that some say that the long term viability of the UK Jewish community is threatened.
Despite this familial resistance to 'marrying-out' is no greater in the jewish community than many other minority groups (and large parts of the majority white non-jewish population).
Also, the posts about which I complained were not making points about inter-ethnic / inter-religious marriage.
Complain about this comment
86 Ln
I think you'd also find that attitudes have changed enormously since the 1960s. I'm sure that many jewish mothers would prefer their offspring to marry within the community but - outside of the small ultra-orthodox community - it's very rare these days to hear of heavy duty pressure being applied.
Complain about this comment
87. & 88 lucien_desgai
I am pleased to hear that things have moved on.
I have no problem with the Jewish community.
In fact, way back in the 1980's, I went passed the George Street , Luton entrance of Marks & Spencer and a small group of muslims were handing out leaflets.
I was given one and it was calling for a boycott of jewish businesses like M & S as a protest against Israels treatment of the Palestinians.
The person who gave me the leaflet was about 10. I said "you should not be doing this as it is racist". as soon as I spoke an adult from the group asked what was my problem.
I explained that calling on a boycott of Jewish businesses was racist, however they should campaign for a boycott of Israelie products and services.
At which a second adult approached and had not heard in full my argument, he declared me a "jew-lover" and using Anglo-Saxon language suggested I go away.
This was the 1980's, years before 9/11 etc.
Complain about this comment
89 Ln
I don't really want to go too far into defending jewish customs and practices, I am an atheist and my relationship with my jewish background is complicated. I just felt that the remarks made by two other posters were very wrong and intended to encourage dislike of jews.
Complain about this comment
#90. lucien_desgai
I think that you will agree that part of the problem here is that if anyone is critical of Israel. Then people like Melanie Philips or the Jewish Defense League accuse these critics of anti-semitism. We all know that non-jews have to be very careful in discussing Israel or the jewish faith.
It is now mimicked in the muslim community as any criticism is declared islamaphobic and hence racist.
Complain about this comment
91 Ln
Yes, and I made it very clear from the off that my problem with the posts was not their critique of Israel but their assertions that Judaism is intrinsically racist and that Jews consider themselves superior to non-Jews. I have myself posted criticisms of Israel on this blog.
Opposition to Israeli actions or the occupation of the west bank and Gaza should not be conflated with anti-semitism. Equally, criticism of Israel should not be used as a lead-in or cover for anti-semitism.
Complain about this comment
74. lucien_desgai Try telling that to a friend of mine back in the sixties who married a goy. Her parents, kosher butcher and wife, disowned her and refused to meet their grandchild. The mother would occasionally leave parcels of meat outside the front door, presumably so her disowned daughter could stay kosher and thus not be totally damned. Progessive or secular Jews have a fight if they come from 'traditional' backgrounds. There was no intention whatsoever to encourage dislike of Jews, I have, as stated, had many Jewish friends. The criticism was of the faith/culture of Judaism, and was abundantly clear. Perhaps you are too sensitised in the present climate and see bias and incipient racism where there is none. You should be more careful before knee-jerk banning motions, that way lies to the burning of books one doesn't like.
Complain about this comment
DD 93, Nice term, 'goy'.
In English, the use of the word goy can be controversial. Like other common (and otherwise innocent) terms, it may be assigned pejoratively to non-Jews. To avoid any perceived offensive connotations, writers may use the English terms "Gentile" or "non-Jew".
Complain about this comment
93 Doctordolots
Would you be happy to share with your jewish friends (some of whom, I'm sure, are your best friends) the sentiment contained in the quote "I agree totally with you about Judaism and have always thought it racist and elitist" and that "I believe the Hebrew faith is itself racist as it involves the belief that Jews are the chosen people of God and are therefore in this respect superior to Gentiles"?
The first quote being from your post #49 and the second from Dry's post #50 with which you "agree totally."
I was unsure about whether or not to complain; the reason why I did so was because that sort of bile against any other minority group I'm quite sure would fall foul of the BBC blog rules and be removed. I don't believe that anti-semitism should be treated as a lesser form of racism.
Complain about this comment
Correction to previous post: the post number references 49 and 50 should be the other way round.
Complain about this comment
#94. David_McNickle
You've looked up "goy" on Wikipedia haven't you. As I have also, as I had not known this word before.
You live and learn.
Complain about this comment
97 Ln
'Goy' is a term an elderly aunt of mine (now dead|) used to use. It is an unpleasant and racist yiddish term for non-Jews. You're probably unfamiliar with it because it's largely fallen out of use.
I suspect the Doctordolots deployed it to highlight jewish racism. Yes some jews use racist language as do some members of all minorities and many members of the majority population. But I doubt that (s)he would brand any other minority culture racist on that basis.
I have already explained why Jewish theology doesn't argue for Jewish exceptionalism and that a notion of superiority would be utterly alien to the overwhelming majority of Jews and Jewish organisations - it has no place in the culture. So why persist in the accusation other than to encourage dislike of jewish people?
Complain about this comment
sorry, another clarification! The final paragraph of 98 was in response to points made by Doctordolots, not Looternite.
Complain about this comment
@72 Lady Sue - Levels of carbon dioxide have varied only between 180 and 300 parts per million over the last 800,000 years — until recent decades, said Tripati, who is also a member of UCLA's Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics.
"It has been known that modern-day levels of carbon dioxide are unprecedented over the last 800,000 years, but the finding that modern levels have not been reached in the last 15 million years is new."
UCL have published a report into ice core data in the Antarctic.
n
Complain about this comment
93 DoctorDolots
As I explained in an earlier post there is no concept of superiority in jewish theology - these wikipedia links give more information.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews_as_a_chosen_people#Views_of_chosenness
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews_as_a_chosen_people#Charges_of_racism
Similarly you would have to look very hard to find a jewish organisation or even an individual jew who espouses jewish exceptionalism - it's in no way part of the culture nor the faith and I'm at a loss to understand why you're so adamant that it is.
Complain about this comment
ooops
missed off the letter 'A'
University of California - Los Angeles. "Last Time Carbon Dioxide Levels Were This High: 15 Million Years Ago, Scientists Report." ScienceDaily 9 October 2009. 18 October 2009
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091008152242.htm
Complain about this comment
DoctorDolots
Sorry, yet another correction - the first link I gave should have been the following
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews_as_a_chosen_people#Chosenness_is_not_superiority
Complain about this comment
I've just been looking at the BNP website. There's a picture of Nick Griffin opposite Jack Straw with a second-by-second countdown to Thursday's Question Time. So Griffin obviously thinks it's a big deal.
Just thought I'd mention that. Not quite sure why.
Complain about this comment
Looternite@80: then you can fully expect that political parties who can whip up the most fervor in their supporters will always be elected. My father and all of my uncles fought too, for democracy. How can a true representation of what everyone wants be assessed if people can't be bothered to participate in the voting process? The idea of a council tax levy for those who don't bother is an amusing concept.
nikki@82: the paragraph from which you quote goes on to say, "Notice too that there hasn't been a corresponding increase in temperature during this time period. This is probably due to the ability of the oceans to function as a heat sink, and thereby delay the increase in atmospheric temperatures."
Sid@84: in previous postings on this topic there were arguments of 'scientific fact' purported to refute my hypothesis. Speculation is not going to convince me.
The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible. Bertrand Russell
Complain about this comment
Lady Sue @ 105
1) Do you think the ability of the oceans to function as a heat sink is infinite? Climatologists don't.
2) Don't we have to go with the theory which best fits our current data? If you say this is 'speculation' and it won't convince you, then where do you get your conviction from?
The converse of Russell's suggestion is also true - the fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is utterly absurd.
Complain about this comment
#105. Lady_Sue
I have had this discussion with Lib/Dem councilors before. They always express concern regarding low turn outs and yet when I have asked them "what are you sugesting" they have no plans apart from something has to be done.
People I know who don't vote say "I ain't bothered who gets in, it makes no diference to me"
The concerned worried classes wring their hands and say, oh dear something has to be done.
Making people vote is not generally considered in line with "human rights" and freedom of choice not to participate is a right, surely.
That is why I suggest incentives ie £10.00 off the council tax bill.
Some have suggested money off council run things like swimming pools or sports etc.
Well I for one never go to the swimming pool and I don't go to the sports centre but I always vote.
Complain about this comment
Ln 97, I've known the word 'goy' for ages, and it always had negative connotations where I come from.
Complain about this comment
108 DMcN
'Goy' is a ugly word (even in yiddish - contrary to wikipedia) that is generally only (and quite rarely these days) used by older members of the jewish community. I believe the word may have been introduced to this thread as an attempted illustration of 'Jewish' racism. All ethnic & religious gropings have unpleasant terms for other communities including many directed at jews. The fact that a small number of people in a community use such language does not support a description of the whole community or its culture as racist.
Complain about this comment
l_d 109, I grew up near two Cleveland suburbs with large Jewish communities and delivered flowers to lots of Bar Mitzvahs because my boss (Italian) had lots of Jewish connections, so heard the word 'goy' used in negavitive terms often, "Oi, our Marsha has a goy for a boyfriend! Probably not even circumcised. Meshugganah!". I knew a nice bagel shop, though.
Complain about this comment
l_d 109, Read 110 quickly, I used a furrin word.
Complain about this comment
110 DMcN
You sound like my aunt! :o)
I think in those days racist language was more a lot more pervasive across the board.
When I first came out as gay to my mother she did (Maureen Lipman style) try to matchmake me with a jewish gay friend who was training to be a doctor. Thankfully she soon got over it.
Complain about this comment
111 DMcN
At least three foreign words by my count. I think they allow 'Meshugganah', but you really never know.
Complain about this comment
Sid@106, your para 2:
"Don't we have to go with the theory which best fits our current data?"
My point is that the current data being quoted for climate change purposes is being carefully selected to support the speculation and in some cases (as illustrated in the comments under the New Scientist articles) is either not supported, or the data quoted is highly suspicious, or both.
If you google (I'm afraid I don't know how to do those helpful hyperlinks) the 'Australian Sceptics' mentioned on Saturday's PM, you will find any amount of scientific research, petitions and reports that counter the claims. Many well respected scientists and scientific bodies have also disputed it.
Perhaps we should agree to disagree?
Complain about this comment
Re: #107. Looternite:
A £10 off the Council tax is not much of an incentive. I'm for something more substantial. How about a substantial (eg: £100) "Voting Levy" added on to the Council Tax. Then when you vote you get a voucher which you can submit in place of that levy?
I don't regard refusal to participate in the democratic system by voting as being a "human right", but if it is then that provision could easily be fulfilled by the addition of a "None of the above" box on the voting slip.
Complain about this comment
At least climate change deniers can no longer claim that their nonsense doesn't get a fair hearing on the BBC. If you didn't just see Andrew Neil's extraordinary questioning of Hillary Benn on the Daily Politics then watch it later on the i-player.
Complain about this comment
Re: Climate Change.
The time for arguing about the fact of Climate Change is long past. Climate Change is now generally regarded as established fact and the question is not whether it is correct or how many people believe in it, but what needs to be done and how that is to be achieved. In the (extremely unlikely) event that it eventually proves NOT to be as huge a problem as it currently appears to then those steps, if taken, are in any case likely to prove to be extremely beneficial to future generations.
However, climate change is only one symptom of the massive "health problem" which humanity now presents the planet on which we all live. There are far too many of us and we are collectively consuming the available resources far too rapidly. The next buzzword to appear looks like "peak oil" and my guess is that will soon start to replace climate change as the Number One problem. The elephant in the room however, as it has long been, is global human population.
Complain about this comment
#117. idontcareanymore
I agree with you and as I said in my #78 above - Too Many People. Too slow down future fossil fuel use we have to consider expansion of birth control.
Complain about this comment
l_d 113, Circumcised isn't a foreign word.
Complain about this comment
idontcare@115: in countries where the over 18 population are legally obliged to vote the 'none of the above' camp register their objection with a 'donkey vote' (1,2,3..) or spoiling the ballot paper. I wonder how many people go to the polls with the intention of doing so and change their minds once there and instead register their preference?
idontcare@117: no, sorry, this debate arose because there are skeptics like me who doubt the "established fact". I don't subscribe to notions and speculation or, as you observe "buzzwords" that create (forgive the mixed metaphors) media band wagons on an international scale.
However, I would like to make it clear that I think a reduction in the use of fossil fuels and finding alternatives to them is a wholly good thing. I don't approve of what, in my opinion, is scare-mongering on a massive scale, in order to get backing for it. Millions being wasted.
Complain about this comment
Lady Sue: "...any amount of scientific research, petitions and reports that counter the claims. Many well respected scientists and scientific bodies have also disputed it."
I'm sorry, I can't find any of the scientific research you refer to (there is, of course, plenty of garbage out there).
Nor can I find any well-respected scientists and scientific bodies who dispute climate change/human influence on climate change.
"My point is that the current data being quoted for climate change purposes is being carefully selected to support the speculation and in some cases (as illustrated in the comments under the New Scientist articles) is either not supported, or the data quoted is highly suspicious, or both." Any evidence? (The comments in the NS you refer to are generally ignorant as far as science goes.)
You still keep saying that you cannot accept speculation, where I think that's essentially what scientists do. I do wonder why you accept the speculation of the sceptics, but not of the majority of scientists. If you're not prepared to say how you think scientists work/ought to work, or to provide evidence for your assertion that the majority of scientists are wrong, we'd probably better leave it there.
Complain about this comment
Lady_Sue @120 you say "I think a reduction in the use of fossil fuels and finding alternatives to them is a wholly good thing."
If you are serious about that then you should support the general aims of the Climate Change lobby, even if you don't actually wholly agree about the science. In this world if you wait for everything to be proved to the complete satisfaction of every single person then you'll wait forever. Sometimes, and IMO this includes the case of the environment, in order to get done what needs to be done it is necessary to go with the flow. Provided that you perceive it to be a good flow, which your words indicate you do (as do I).
So I don't see what is the point of the "stand" that you are making against the Climate Change lobby. Instead why not simply encourage everyone towards "a reduction in the use of fossil fuels and finding alternatives to them"? Which you yourself say "is a wholly good thing" and is all the environmentalists are asking for!
Complain about this comment
Sid, idontcareanymore, Et al
I think I know why people like Lady_sue have a problem with the global warming issue.
I think it is that the scientific arguement is carried out in the media by the green groups spin doctors. What I cannot remember is an actual earth science scientist presenting his work directly. What tends to happen is a spokesperson from Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, the Green Party etc. telling us what scientists are saying. This means that global warming deniers can quote "scientists" who disagree.
As these green groups are seen as "political" therefore their message is seen as tainted. Plus of course this holier than thou attitude of these "Green hair-shirts wearers" gets up peoples noses.
Your links, Sid, graphs show without doubt that CO2 is increasing and needs to be tackled.
Lets hear the media interview the scientists directly whether for or against, not the spin merchants.
Complain about this comment
Looternite @118: You are correct, you did mention overpopulation long before I did. I apologise for having overlooked it.
Complain about this comment
May I compliment froggers of all persuasions for the grown up and civillised manner in which they are conducting the explorations of their differing points of view and conflicting interpretations of past and present events.
This is the main reason why the PM blog is a paradigm of informed and intelligent debate; an example of how the introduction of interactivity to a broadcast medium can expand and improve the service provided by the BBC and further the public understanding of difficult topics and contentious current affairs.
Hurrah for the frog! Hurrah for froggers!
Complain about this comment
#124. idontcareanymore
Apology accepted, my friend.
Complain about this comment
#125. Fifi
Yes grown up debate can flourish as long as we are not constantly referred.
Complain about this comment
Sid, let's not "leave it there". It seems there is masses of evidence for those of us who are open minded in looking for it.
For example, Australian Senator Fielding attended a conference of climate change sceptics and had briefings with White House advisers and with the Energy and Commerce committee in Washington in June. He said scientists at the conference had advanced other explanations, such as the relationship between solar activity and solar energy hitting the Earth to explain climate change. ('The Age')
It was also covered in 'The Wall Street Journal':
"Steve Fielding recently asked the Obama administration to reassure him on the science of man-made global warming. When the administration proved unhelpful, Mr. Fielding decided to vote against climate-change legislation.
Among the many reasons President Barack Obama and the Democratic majority are so intent on quickly jamming a cap-and-trade system through Congress is because the global warming tide is again shifting. It turns out Al Gore and the United Nations (with an assist from the media), did a little too vociferous a job smearing anyone who disagreed with them as "deniers." The backlash has brought the scientific debate roaring back to life in Australia, Europe, Japan and even, if less reported, the U.S."
and
"In France, President Nicolas Sarkozy wants to tap Claude Allegre to lead the country's new ministry of industry and innovation. Twenty years ago Mr. Allegre was among the first to trill about man-made global warming, but the geochemist has since recanted.
The collapse of the "consensus" has been driven by reality. The inconvenient truth is that the earth's temperatures have flat-lined since 2001, despite growing concentrations of C02. Peer-reviewed research has debunked doomsday scenarios about the polar ice caps, hurricanes, malaria, extinctions, rising oceans. A global financial crisis has politicians taking a harder look at the science that would require them to hamstring their economies to rein in carbon.
Credit for Australia's own era of renewed enlightenment goes to Dr. Ian Plimer, a well-known Australian geologist. Earlier this year he published "Heaven and Earth," a damning critique of the "evidence" underpinning man-made global warming. The book is already in its fifth printing. So compelling is it that Paul Sheehan, a noted Australian columnist -- and ardent global warming believer -- in April humbly pronounced it "an evidence-based attack on conformity and orthodoxy, including my own, and a reminder to respect informed dissent and beware of ideology subverting evidence." Australian polls have shown a sharp uptick in public skepticism; the press is back to questioning scientific dogma; blogs are having a field day."
Looternite@123: excellent observation. Let's hear it from the scientists.
With apologies for the length of this comment.
Complain about this comment
Thanks Fifi. I am very much enjoying this climate change debate as I trust my fellow froggers are.
Looternite: one can only get referred when one crosses the boundaries of the House Rules - or decency and respect for other bloggers.
Complain about this comment
#129. Lady_Sue
Or being funny!
Complain about this comment
Looternite, I've never known an instance where humour/wit has been referred, unless it has serious elements of bad taste or is objectionable for other reasons. This sadly occurs all too frequently with particular bloggers who then jump up and down complaining they are referred all the time and spitefully refer others in retaliation. It gets tiresome.
Complain about this comment
I'm afraid you won't persuade me with this sort of thing, Lady Sue!
1) Steve Fielding is an Australian senator, not a climate scientist. Why should I believe what he says in preference to what the scientists say?
2) I have read Plimer's book (and plenty more). If I remember correctly (not guaranteed) he puts quite a lot of emphasis on solar variation as a major component of climate change. Most scientists disagree with him. Kurt Lambeck, president of the Australian Academy of Science says of his book: "If this had been written by an honours student, I would have failed it."
"The inconvenient truth is that the earth's temperatures have flat-lined since 2001, despite growing concentrations of C02." I'm sorry - anyone who thinks that what has happened in the last eight years is relevant to the climate change debate is badly confused. (As is anybody who says 'Global warming? But I'm freezing!') One thing the scientists don't say is that there will be no year-to-year or even decade-to-decade variation.
Regrettably neither Plimer nor Fielding provide the sort of evidence I'd need to change my mind.
This is an interesting article, from last year:
http://newmatilda.com/2008/05/19/death-rattles-climate-change-skeptics
Complain about this comment
#131. Lady_Sue
On another thread a blogger posted a funny comment said by John Cleese regarding Terry Jones. The programme was on BBC television and was about the Monty Python team. Monty Python was shown on BBC Tv. Yet Cleese's comments were not acceptable on a BBC blog. Usually there has to be an object of the joke for it to work. If the English were to become as sensitive as others then a lot of comedians are going to be signing on.
Complain about this comment
131 Lady_Sue
You've obviously never seen an hirsute teddy drop dead in an ice-cream van.
Complain about this comment
#134. lucien_desgai
I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
Complain about this comment
Ln 133, So who was that poster?
Complain about this comment
Ln 135, And remember, some people only get referred in retaliation. Purer than the driven snow, they are.
Complain about this comment
l_d 134, I've seen that hundreds aand thousands of times.
Complain about this comment
As coal, oil, and gas are eventually going to run out, arguing about global cooling/warming is like discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Nobody is giong to convince anybody else, but alternative ways of producing fuel will have to be used.
Complain about this comment
#136. David_McNickle
I think you know it was you, my friend.
Complain about this comment
Sid@132:
1. see my 128 para 2, which begins, "Australian Senator Fielding...". He went to Washington to find out more from the scientists. The comments reflect his finding from those scientists. You don't want to believe what he reports because it runs contrary to what you have been led to believe;
2. "Most scientists disagree with him" - not according to the information I have under reference;
3. "One thing the scientists don't say is that there will be no year-to-year or even decade-to-decade variation." This has me perplexed. What are the 'pro climate change' scientists saying if not this?
I will read your article and comment later. Many thanks for your input and links.
Looternite: too obscure! I don't know what the joke is. Don't risk posting it, it is of little consquence.
lucien: that would be a one-off and sadly would not qualify as data, for or against.
David@139: have already stated that I approve of alternative methods for fuel production - rare event - we agree.
Complain about this comment
Ln 14, Oh yes, I forgot.
Complain about this comment
Ln, make that 140. Hey, why can you use my last name and I can't? Ain't fair.
Complain about this comment
Lady Sue:
1) Would you believe what Fielding says if he was a British govt minister? 'John Prescott changes mind over climate change'. I don't accept what he says because he doesn't understand the science.
2) You keep referring to your own sources, but without identifying them. This makes it difficult for me to assess your assertions. In this context, it's worth reading Kurt Lambeck's review of Heaven and Earth:
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/ockhamsrazor/stories/2009/2589206.htm
Plimer asserts that El Niño is caused by undersea earthquakes; I'd be most interested to see references to any other earth scientists who believe this. Likewise his bizarre belief that the sun is made of the same stuff as the planets. I'm afraid his science just doesn't stack up.
3) Sorry if I wasn't clear about this: what I mean is that a dip or plateau in the data doesn't mean there isn't still an underlying trend upwards. You refer to a plateau since 2001, presumably as evidence that global warming is not taking place. I'm saying it's quite possible to have a plateau (or even a dip), but still to have an overall underlying upward trend. We're not talking about weather - we're talking about climate.
Complain about this comment
Looternite @123 said: "What I cannot remember is an actual earth science scientist presenting his work directly."
Well I'm pretty sure there have been plenty on various programmes over recent years. Costing the Earth and One Planet are two radio programmes in which I'm confident such scientists have participated.
But all this nit-picking is completely irrelevant, even Lady_Sue who seems intent on debunking the whole idea of global warming felt obliged to admit that "I think a reduction in the use of fossil fuels and finding alternatives to them is a wholly good thing."
So I don't see where the beef is. The global warming lobby demands precisely those actions, so why not simply accept the need for change and get on with bringing that about instead of wasting all this effort and hot air on arguing about science?
What matters now isn't who believes what but how to persuade the world to take the necessary steps to actually reduce the use of fossil fuels and find alternatives to them.
Complain about this comment
idontcareanymore @ 145
Yes, of course we have to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. However, we also have to be clear about the role of scientists and charlatans in our society. Why do we have to do only one?
Complain about this comment
#145. idontcareanymore
What I am saying is I don't remember these scientists presenting their work. An edited, cut down version may have been presented.
However, you must admit the Prophet Dawkins has a much higher profile.
Now this reminds me of another quirk of science debates in the media. When the Prophet Dawkins speaks about the Prophet Darwin other scientists don't come on to argue against evolution. No, religous people are lined up to gainsay the facts of evolution.
The debate about global warming appears to be conducted via pressure groups on either side, hence public confusion. This confusion has lead to deniers sowing the seeds of doubt.
Complain about this comment
David_McNickle @139 wrote: "As coal, oil, and gas are eventually going to run out ... alternative ways of producing fuel will have to be used."
That's the "Peak Oil" concept. The idea that right now oil is at the peak of its production and use. We are not running out, and in absolute terms we will never run out completely, but from (approximately) now on the extraction and production of oil will become increasingly difficult and expensive. Some argue that this will act as a force on the market in favour of the very alternatives required to combat global warming, however while that is no doubt true, to simply allow that to happen without making a positive effort to overcome the problems would probably prove to be the most painful way of dealing with it (akin to waiting for starvation and hunger to become the norm before bothering to increase food production).
@146 Sid wrote: "Yes, of course we have to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. However, we also have to be clear about the role of scientists and charlatans in our society. Why do we have to do only one?"
Because the near certainty of the fossil fuel thing is a zillion times more important than the slight possibility of the odd charlatan amongst the earth scientists.
Complain about this comment
Sorry to turn up late at this party!!
@148 idontcareanymore writes "(in absolute terms) we will never run out completely" a concept I would love in a wine bottle, a teapot, or planet Earth. But, regretably for all concerned, we live with finite resources. And in the last 12 years, we have consumed more fossil fuels than has ever been mined or extracted in our entire history. Not only are we living with finite resources, but our rate of consumption is still increasing!!! We are accellerating towards a painful diminuation of fossil fuels, if not a complete lack!!!
Many posters write about 'average planet Earth temperatures' over the last 10 years or so. Tbh, I dont really know about that, or even care very much.
CO2 levels are at 380ppm - a level not seen for 420,000 years, or more. And it might be as Lady Sue suggests in post 105, that we can rest easy because the last decade hasnt shown any correlation between temperature and CO2, or that scientists are discussing mechanisms, or that the oceans may, or may not, be a heat sink, or a heat pump for all I care.
I dont mind what scientists currently believe to be a valid mechanism. We are hurtling towards 400ppm CO2 on our planet, and our children will not thank us IF we could have done something to turn that around, and instead we sat on our back sides, playing with our golden joy sticks.
noodle
xx
A link for Hawaii CO2 Data:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends
Complain about this comment
Sid@144:
1. don't be silly! Fielding being Australian is neither here nor there - that he is challenging the climate change debate and, not being a scientist, is asking some questions and getting answers from scientists (in Washington) is the relevant point.
2. I do keep giving my sources. With respect, you keep willfully ignoring them.
Agree with nikki and others that it is important for us all to be responsible about the use of fossil fuels and finding alternatives. However, if I may cite the BBC One Minute World News today by way of topical example - does this sound like the calm, cool (no pun intended) voice of reason OR does it rather smack of scaremongering? :
[quote]
The UK faces a "catastrophe" of floods, droughts and killer heatwaves if world leaders fail to agree a deal on climate change, the prime minister has warned.
Gordon Brown said negotiators had 50 days to save the world from global warming and break the "impasse".
He told the Major Economies Forum in London, which brings together 17 of the world's biggest greenhouse gas-emitting countries, there was "no plan B".
[unquote]
"50 days to save the world from global warming" - Does this smack of "bubble bubble toil and trouble" to anyone else?
Complain about this comment
Nikki Noodle, If you were to examine your empty wine bottle closely enough, under a microscope, you would find there is still wine in it. Even if you wash it out thoroughly as you can manage under a tap I defy you to entirely get rid of every single molecule of wine. That's what I meant by "not running out completely" of oil. There will always be some left in the ground, we'll never get it all out, but for practical purposes the cost of extracting those last dregs would become prohibitive. I was not meaning to suggest that no worries 'cos the oil will never run out.
Quite apart from the requirements necessary to combat global warming, it is the fact that we are at (or extremely close to) peak oil production that makes it imperative to start putting into practice the ways to reduce use of fossil fuels and to find alternatives to them, as proposed by Lady_Sue.
Complain about this comment
The "50 days" will be the number of days from now to when the decisions and agreements have to be made at Copenhagen, not the time by which the necessary actions need to be completed.
So no, it doesn't sound like Shakesperean witchery, Lady_S. It just sounds like Gordon bumbling, in his usual well-meaning way, towards complete incompetence.
The consequences of doing nothing, however, which despite your declared enthusiasm for "reducing the use of fossil fuels and finding alternatives to them" appears to be your objective, Lady, would in all likelihood be ultimately catastrophic.
Complain about this comment
@151 idontcareanymore - I see!!
When you said in post 148 "We are not running out, and...." you meant me to understand " We are running out..."
And Lady Sue: I would love to hear your thoughts on the CO2 issue. Way back above somewhere, we agreed (i think?!) that atmospheric CO2 has not been at htis level for 420,000 years, adn is still rising.
How does that grab you?!
n-n
xx
Complain about this comment
I admit I was being a bit pedantic. Sorry!
Complain about this comment
Sorry for being silly.
Complain about this comment
nikki, the graph you refer to, showing variations in climate change going back 420,000 years, illustrated that this 'global warming' is part of an ongoing climatic pattern and is an example that shows we 'insignificant humans' have very little impact on it.
The CO2 levels being high possibly reflects a natural increase over this time.
"Carbon dioxide is not to blame for global climate change. Solar activity is many times more powerful than the energy produced by the whole of humankind. Man’s influence on nature is a drop in the ocean."
Dr. Oleg Sorokhtin, Merited Scientist of Russia and fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences and staff researcher of the Oceanology Institute.
idontcare@152, re. the '50 days' quote: I know what he is saying (that there are 50 days to make a decision), it is the 'scaremongering' way in which he is saying it (implying something must be done within 50 days) that I object to. It is an example of just that type of 'spin' being used internationally that has everyone quaking in their boots.
Yes, let's reduce use of fossil fuels, let's be responsible about any impact we might be having on our environment (and I mean this on the most basic level, everyone taking responsibility for their own actions) but don't treat the general public like a load of idiots that need to be frightened into agreeing with whatever policy the governments wants to implement for their own reasons (see mine @128).
Sid@155: you are forgiven.
Complain about this comment
Lady Sue:
Steve Fielding
You offer Steve Fielding’s views as part of your ‘masses of evidence for those of us who are open minded in looking for it. ’ Steve Fielding is an Australian politician who attended a conference of climate change sceptics, and asked questions of the US administration (he was not satisfied with their response). As I said - I don't accept what he says because he doesn't understand the science. My question is: why prefer his views over those of expert scientists? If someone said that John Prescott had attended a conference of climate change sceptics, and asked questions of the US administration, and now had doubts about climate change, I’d say they were clutching at straws.
Sources
You say: ‘I do keep giving my sources. With respect, you keep willfully ignoring them.’
The only specific source I can find is Plimer’s book. I told you what I think of that, and await you reply.
In your #114 you say “you will find any amount of scientific research, petitions and reports that counter the claims. Many well respected scientists and scientific bodies have also disputed it.” I find that a little vague, to be honest.
In your 141 you say: ‘2. "Most scientists disagree with him" - not according to the information I have under reference;’ but you don’t say what information you are referring to.
If you have referred to other sources and I have ignored them, please accept my apologies and tell me where they are.
Gordon Brown
To be honest, I’m not entirely sure of the relevance of GB to a discussion about human activity and climate change. About as relevant as Steve Fielding, perhaps.
Solar activity
Most scientists believe that solar variations do not play a major role in determining present-day observed climate change. The IPCC says that the measured magnitude of recent solar variation is much smaller than the effect due to greenhouse gases.
National Centre for Atmospheric Research et al (Sept. 06): 'Scientists have examined various proxies of solar energy output over the past 1,000 years and have found no evidence that they are correlated with today’s rising temperatures. Satellite observations over the past 30 years have also turned up nothing.'
http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2004/wigley.shtml
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060914095559.htm
Heliophysics and the Max Planck Institute for Astrophysics (Sept. 2006): ‘Sunspot-driven changes to the sun's power are simply too small to account for the climatic changes observed in historical data from the 17th century to the present.’
http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/mpa/research/current_research/hl2006-9b/hl2006-9b-en.html
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/09/060913-sunspots.html
What scientists do
I have said before, and I repeat, that what scientists do is speculate. They collect data, wonder how it all fits together, form a hypothesis, and test their hypothesis by collecting more data. If the new data doesn’t fit the hypothesis, they change the hypothesis. I regard this sort of speculation as essential to scientific activity. You say it’s just speculation, and speculation won’t convince you. I wonder if you could clarify this for me please?
Complain about this comment
idcam 148, Did I mention 'Peak Oil'? No. We have been running out of these natural resources ever since we started using them. Bury your head in the sand if you want.
Complain about this comment
@156 Lady_Sue wrote: "Yes, let's reduce use of fossil fuels, let's be responsible about any impact we might be having on our environment (and I mean this on the most basic level, everyone taking responsibility for their own actions)"
Chance'd be a fine thing! Since when has it been safe to expect "everyone taking responsibility for their own actions"? The only chance there is of "everyone taking responsibility for their own actions" is if things are re-arranged so that is what 'everyone' (including Big Business & Governments as well as billions of individuals) perceives as in their own best interests. That means discussing it and making treaties and other arrangements, which is what Copenhagen and the whole Climate Change lobby is about. It is about getting people to agree to undertake those responsibilities! If making that happen involves a bit of 'scaremongering' then so what?
Lady_Sue, if you are genuinely meant what you said @120, that "I would like to make it clear that I think a reduction in the use of fossil fuels and finding alternatives to them is a wholly good thing" then you need to support the steps that are most likely to bring that about, rather than to do everything you can to try and discredit those who are trying to do so.
Complain about this comment
idcam - I think you may be missing the point. This particular discussion is about whether climate change is happening or not, and if it is how much it is due to human activity. Also, to a lesser extent, about scaremongering. I'm arguing that climate change sceptics (those who think there's no climate change, or that human activity has no effect) are wrong. Lady Sue is arguing that some of them are right. What you are suggesting is that we should have a different discussion. Well, why should we? If you don't want to join in this one, you don't have to!
Complain about this comment
Well, I'm arguing that the time for discussing "whether climate change is happening or not" is gone, that it is now firmly established that it is happening, and that to continue to debate the question on a public forum is not merely navel-gazing but works actively to undermine the efforts of those who are trying to do something positive about the consequences.
Accordingly, I repeat (and correct the grammar) my assertion to Lady_Sue: if you genuinely meant what you said @120, that "I would like to make it clear that I think a reduction in the use of fossil fuels and finding alternatives to them is a wholly good thing" then you need to support the steps that are most likely to bring that about, rather than to do everything you can to try and discredit those who are trying to do so.
Complain about this comment
idcam - so you're asking us to stop discussing what we want to discuss, and join in a discussion about what you want to discuss?
Complain about this comment
Not at all, Sid. I believe in free speech. And what I want to freely point out to Lady_Sue is as follows:
Lady_Sue: If you genuinely meant what you said @120, that "I would like to make it clear that I think a reduction in the use of fossil fuels and finding alternatives to them is a wholly good thing" then you need to support the steps that are most likely to bring that about, rather than to do everything you can to try and discredit those who are trying to do so.
Complain about this comment
@158 David_McNickle wrote: "Did I mention 'Peak Oil'? No. We have been running out of these natural resources ever since we started using them. Bury your head in the sand if you want."
No, I mentioned Peak Oil. The reason I mentioned Peak Oil is that what needs to be done about it is basically the same kind of stuff that needs to be done about climate change, ie reducing the use of fossil fuels and finding alternatives to them, as so eloquently expressed by Lady_Sue @120.
Not quite clear where the head burying comes in. :)
Complain about this comment
@156 Lady Sue
I have been very very clear about my questions!!! I am not asking you about Global Warming or any other temperature thingy!
What I would love to hear are your thoughts on the CO2 issue. Way back above somewhere, we agreed (i think?!) that atmospheric CO2 has not been at this level for 420,000 years, and is still rising.
How does that grab you?!
What do you think about unprecidented levels of CO2 - or are you ambivalent?
n-n
xx
Complain about this comment
Lady_Sue, I believe the unprecedented level of CO2 represents a clear danger for life, in particular human life, and that it is essential to drastically reduce the use of fossil fuels and to find alternatives to them.
In that connection I believe it is necessary for everyone who is aware of the situation to do whatever they can towards creating a positive outcome to the Copenhagen climate conference.
Complain about this comment
I don't 164, You said in reply to mine, "That's the peak oil concept.", which I didn't mention. I mentioned nothing about whether or not we had reached it, just that it was running out. Bury you head and you don't use fuel.
Complain about this comment
David_McNickle, @139 you wrote: "As coal, oil, and gas are eventually going to run out ... alternative ways of producing fuel will have to be used."
The "Peak Oil" concept is that we are now at or rapidly approaching (or possibly have recently passed) the point at which oil is at the peak of its production and use. In consequence of which "alternative ways of producing fuel will have to be used."
I never said (or meant to imply, or did imply, or even IMO seemed to imply) that you mentioned Peak Oil. You didn't. I did. I mentioned it because the Peak Oil concept is basically the same concept (or a similar concept to) the concept that you described.
Still don't get the head-burying thing, sorry!
Complain about this comment
To revive this thread one more time ... this is a very funny clip from today's Democracy Now showing the Yes Men spoofing the American Chamber of Commerce and Fox News.
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/10/20/yes_men_pull_off_prank_claiming
Also worth watching from the same programme is this piece on how big corporate interests influence the climate change debate.
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/10/20/pr_executive_james_hoggan_on_james
Complain about this comment
It was a good try, I think, but I dont know whether it has got us much further...
Complain about this comment
Australia is the harbinger of change for global warming. If you think a few degrees hotter would be quite pleasant here in the UK, imagine that in the hotter parts of the world.
"Climate scientists warn that Australia: condemned by prolonged drought and increasingly deadly bush fires in the south, monsoon flooding and mosquito inflicted fevers in the north, declining wildlife population, collapse of agriculture and killer heat waves, epitomizes the “accelerated climate crisis” that global warming models have forecast."
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS