Dagmar

It would be interesting to see what the accounts are for the show. I'm sure that there are some significant expenses in setting it up and running it. If exhibitors are paying for their stands though, it makes you wonder why their customers are expected to pay to view the goods that they could see in the showrooms or out on site.

Yes, that what I meant by the mental wing................ Where is the real evidence that we, as in the human race, are so destructive? Scratch at the surface of the 'evidence' and it has little substance.

It looks like the wheels are flying off the 'global warming' bandwagon! I'm not convinced that it was ever anything other than a scare tactic to make us all accept higher prices/taxes in the name of saving the planet. The only ones still sticking to the "we're all going to burn/drown/starve" mantra are the mental wing of the environment movements!!

Really?

Censorship is the deliberate supression of truth or opinion. Surely this is a case of the removal of a post(s) that contain unsubstantiated allegations that are quite serious, as such it should be removed as the allegations cast serious doubts about the integrety of an individual. It is a bit rich that someone who uses his own publication to not only promote his own products and those of associated companies and then uses the same publication to attempt to damage the reputation of others should whine about censorship. Debate should be encouraged and indeed supported by this and any other forum - but this is reckless mudslinging of an unpleasant nature

There's plenty of information around the web and in print media, both for and against, but take it on balance and you can't help think that we are being conned. Why? It's a lot easier to talk up a minor problem or invent a non-problem than to tackle the real problems. It diverts peoples minds and if you can get them scared then they'll accept things that should really be unacceptable in a free, democratic society. Part of an article by John Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.), from his website. “.......................One also could build a case against man's "carbon footprint," another fiendishly effective green-sponsored image and a term Krauthammer uses matter-of-factly even as he logically details the possibility that Earth's own massive outpouring of CO2 very well may dwarf man-made carbon output into total irrelevance. Let's consider a few facts. CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas in the atmosphere that is measured in parts per million, or ppm. The vast majority of CO2 emissions, about 97 percent, comes from Mother Nature. CO2 is nowhere near the most important greenhouse gas; water vapor holds that distinction. An astounding 99.9 percent of Earth's greenhouse gas effect has nothing to do with manmade CO2 emissions. If that's not enough, we can look at graphs of the historical relationship between carbon dioxide and global temperature. Ice core data going back 650,000 years show that global temperatures increase before CO2 levels. Data from the 20th century indicate no particular relationship between CO2 emissions and global temperature. Finally, there is no scientific proof that the current level of atmospheric CO2 or that levels projected by the United Nations - about 700 ppm by 2095 if no greenhouse gas regulations are put in place - has or will cause any harm to the environment. Alarmist gloom-and-doom forecasts also are based on nothing more than the rankest speculation dressed up as computer models that remain wholly unverifiable. Yet, despite all this lack of evidence, the solitary term "man's carbon footprint" manages to concretize the notion of mankind producing indelible damage upon the Earth while in the process of stampeding its flora and fauna. For any effective critique of global warming hysteria, we have to move beyond these powerful yet baseless buzz words that undermine any rational case in which they are found.” Read the complete article here:http://antigreen.blogspot.com/ The site is well sourced and Ray presents his arguments logically and with due reference.

This guy plays two guitars at the same time - amazing! [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7XjDWmwMTU[/ame]

The beauty of these debates about various facts and differing viewpoints etc is that they send off all over the place - and we do learn from them. In our desire to prove our own viewpoint to others,we can also disprove it to ourselves. Which is, I think, very healthy

If you extrapolate the oxygen argument then you would get to a point where it would be sensible to suggest the removal of veteran trees and the planting of new ones, as these are more efficient in the production of oxygen. If this is the sort of thing that has to be used to get the message across as to the benefits of plants then I can only surmise that the general public is just too stupid to understand anything not presented in picture book simplicity. That is very sad.

The point that I was making was the oxygen produced by trees is given an unrealistic importance by many in an effort to persuade the public that trees are vital to their wellbeing. They are but not for that reason. Plants are important to humans and other life for a host of seperate ,related and disparate reasons. Without them earth would be a very different place and not particularly friendy for life in any of its common forms. The ammount of oxgen produced by the plant is calculated from the leaf; taking into account the size shape and weight in addition to the food, water light etc and can only ever be an estimate due to the variables.

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2008%5C06%5C08%5Cstory_8-6-2008_pg7_14

I don't disagree. But, if society decides that it wants to continue as it is without making any major changes, then nuclear power is the only viable option. It would keep the lights on and eke out the fossil fuel reserves. I suspect that is route we may take - if only because we elect short-sighted short term governments who rarely have any real vision. BTW, the 'carbon footprint' of anything is irrelevant.

A return to fuedal principles would be unlikely due to the educational and social changes that we have witnessed in the last century or so. For a while anyway. In order to maintain a degree of modern society and rule of law etc., I would think that a system based on localism, such as the French commune, would work. Probably work very well without a centralized government to cock it up!

It's these sort of 'cod science' facts that make us all look like dribbling treehugging imbeciles O2 is actually just a 'byproduct' of photosynthesis. (6CO2 + 6H2O + light -> C6H12O6 + 6O2) And to say that trees supply our oxygen is exaggerating a bit. Certainly plants on land are important to us, they protect the land from erosion with their roots and provide beauty and shade on a hot day; but the oxygen they produce is a bonus that we could probably survive without. Marine and freshwater algae produces about 330 billion tons of oxygen each year. Thats getting on for 50 tons per person,( worlds population 6.6 billion), each of whom consumes around 248.35 kilos per year.

When design goes wrong

Whilst there is a counter view to peak oil theory and it has its advocates it is not as credible as that which states that we are over the peak and we now have only a diminishing reserve. But, you need to remember that this is based on what we know is available as recoverable. Oil that is uneconomic to obtain now will become economic if the price of oil stabilises at its current or a higher price. Also, can we be sure that no new reserves will be discovered? The price of oil remaining over $100.00 per barrel also makes the extraction and processing of oil shale feasible, although this has to be weighed against an environmental impact that would be catastrophic. Even if you assume that we will locate and extract more oil it is a finite resource and we should be planning to live with the possibility of a supply that is much reduced and/or expensive. This has implications for the poorest levels of society, in terms of everyday living. It also has major implications for agriculture, trade and industry. It would force us all to live in a much more sustainable fashion. We would need to recreate local food chains and make use of mass transit solutions rather than eat imported guavas and drive ourselves on a 200 yard journey to buy some milk. We would need to eat much less meat, which is really a luxury food item that we take far too much for granted. For many these will be hard habits to break. Sustainable food production is possible (arguably desirable) in the British Isles, but would need to see radical changes in agriculture, probably switching to a permaculture approach. It would also need people to take more control over their own lives – again something that many will find problematic. Power needs to be addressed now, with the only viable option being a programme of new nuclear powers stations. The inefficiency and unreliability of wind power rule it out as an alternative, along with solar power, because other than in some minor domestic installations, it is unworkable. In any case, if the current experiments with nuclear fusion continue to be successful then it will be 'bye bye' to the oil and gas industries anyway. Many on this forum have much to share regarding sustainable living and the skills needed to achieve it. Perhaps there is the scope for a new forum section on this subject?

[ame] [/ame]

Annie Proulx is a particular favourite. Jo-Ann Beard - I wish she would write more Pam Houston

Yes I have. Corrected now; The total land area of Great Britain is 243,000 square kilometres. The population estimate at 2007 was 60,776,238 Divide 243,000 by 60,776,238 and it gives a figure of 0.003982 of a square kilomere per head of population. Convert this to acres and you get a result of just over 0.98 acres per person if the land area were to be divided equally. ( the exact figure is 0.983 973 629 ) Or, 3982 square metres This is a much larger area than you stated of 4.8 square metres, which represents an area 219cm by 219cm, smaller that the average living room I would think!

This would be a pretty good place to anyway!

I did. The total land area of Great Britain is 243,000 square kilometres. The population estimate at 2007 was 60,776,238 Divide 243,000 by 60,776,238 and it gives a figure of 0.03975 of a square kilomere per head of population. Convert this to acres and you get a result of just over 9.8 acres per person if the land area were to be divided equally. ( the exact figure is 9.810836442) This is a much larger area than you stated 4.8 square metres, which represents an area 219cm by 219cm, smaller that the average living room I would think!

In what way do petrochemicals threaten the planet? Oil based plastics are cheap and easy to mass produce, particularly important to those afflicted with poverty all over the world. Lifestyles change - they always have, but the death of oil is a long way off.

I can't understand the point you are trying to make. Or if there is one what it has to do with the rate of fuel duty?

Too much of the tax revenue is wasted on a bloated bureaucracy, at all levels, coupled with inefficient governmental departments( partly due to increased centralisation) and EU funding etc. It is our money but we are allowed very little say in how it is spent or collected. For all the extra money that has been put into education and the NHS, the improvemnts are minimal at best and in the case of education risable. Reduce government to a more local level and make it accountable to a local electorate - this would be a start. It would also allow prioritisation at a local level according to a mandate from the electorate. High taxation simply increases the avoidence of tax and is a powerful disincentive to achievement. If you really like tax that much you can pay more if you wish, by means of a voluntary tax payment. Just ask you local tax office, I'm sure they will help you out!

[ame] [/ame]