Search on this site

Landscape Industry Forum

Landscape Gardening Jobs

« Should we all build a wildlife tower? | Main | Sodium chlorate attack wrecks village's Britain in Bloom chances »

Comments

Well Phil, a typical, out of touch rant on your behalf.

As John Prescott lead the UK's delegation in the agreement of the Kyoto Protocol on climate change, I would suggest that he has done rather more for the Environment than the current con-dem crowd.

Tory toff "call me Dave" put up for peerages Michael Howard the failed tory ex-leader, Dolar Popat who donated £200,000 to the tory party, and the disgraced ex-shadow Home Office Minister Chris Grayling. What a ramshackle lot, not a green credential between them.

Added to that on "Con-Dem Watch", we saw over the weekend that the new Defra Minister Caroline Spelman up to no good, again.

After an early morning game of tennis with disgraced former tory MP Andrew Mackay, who was order to repay more than £31,000 over his espenses scandal, she jumped in a chauffeur driven limo from her plush 3 million pound London pad, to travel just 1000 yards to her Office. I guess the tennis bit was her green thing for the day?

So call me Dave wants Ministers to travel by public transport, yer right!!!

Spelman already has a dodgy history, claiming nearly £10,000 in the Nannygate scandal. Along with this she courted further controversy in over £47,500 paid to a political advisor, and a £40,000 claim in June 2009, for running costs for her 2 million pound pad in the West Midlands.

Spelman is just a joke, but that's what you need to be to get in Call Me Dave's Government, just ask David Laws.

Hi Steve

"As John Prescott lead the UK's delegation in the agreement of the Kyoto Protocol on climate change, I would suggest that he has done rather more for the Environment than the current con-dem crowd."

I'd be pleased to read your evidence on this?

"After an early morning game of tennis with disgraced former tory MP Andrew Mackay, who was order to repay more than £31,000 over his espenses(sic) scandal, she jumped in a chauffeur driven limo from her plush 3 million pound London pad, to travel just 1000 yards to her Office. I guess the tennis bit was her green thing for the day?"

You have a short memory Steve - don't you remember during the Labour conference of 1999, Prescott used his official car to ferry him a just few hundred yards to the conference centre?

Morning Phil,

As Call Me Dave stated publically that he was doing away with Ministerial cars, what is Spelman doing in one? Is this the first of many broken promises?

Since you appear to back Spelman using a car to travel 1000 yards, I would question if you were standing up for a green agenda, or using your blog for a party polical point. I have no doubt that in fairness you will post a similar blog on Michael Howard, for he was in Government once, and what he did for the envirioment whilst in Office?

Now, I have been thinking back to the last tory goverment, and trying to think of a green policy that they introduced or global climate change agreement...............

........................................ No, can't think of one.

I didn't think you'd be able to point me to any of Prescott's success on the environment Steve ;-0)

I don't back Spelman at all...what I want to see (and this goes for all minsters) is the right person doing the right job ad if Spelman doesn't get the job done to the majority's satisfaction then she should be replaced.

I'm prepared to give everyone time...

Inane rants about UK politicians deciding to wear the fur of dead animals is getting nobody anywhere. Like it or not, Prescott has been at the forefront of environmental initiatives on a number of fronts:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/aug/08/copenhagen-kyoto-climate-change-talks

Whether he has been 'successful' or not is a matter of opinion, but the fact that these things have or are happening is surely progress of sorts. And this article, though a little dated now, does suggest that Prescott is doing more than "meddling in environmental issues".

I get very worried when all I keep hearing is that it's down to some politician or other to sort everything out. The only way humans are going to reach a better equilibrium within planetary limits is if we all take responsibility for 'sorting things out'.

What also worries me is the overuse of the tired old argument that everything must be done for future generations. What about today's generation - do we not count? There are plenty of current-generation humans suffering the effects of ecological imbalance, primarily that caused by human-induced climate change, but I don't hear you lamenting their fate.

I'm afraid the biggest threat to your children and grandchildren, in terms of them having a habitable planet, isn't fur-wrapped Prescott', but those who continue to deliberately pour doubt on the veracity of climate science.

Hi John

I think there are lots of us who share a 'responsibility' but until we get that 'right' person, to add some weight to our collective goals and act as a conduit through bureaucracy, I fear we will take another generation (although change has started and is happening) before the powerful key holders die out.

"I'm afraid the biggest threat to your children and grandchildren, in terms of them having a habitable planet, isn't fur-wrapped Prescott', but those who continue to deliberately pour doubt on the veracity of climate science."

I'm saddened to read this from you John - I think it's a strength not to become one of the Pied Piper's sycophants.

Whether you or other climate change supporters like it or not, in the short term (as much as I hate to acknowledge the fact) the world needs oil as it undergoes 'transition'.

I think my grand children are more than likely to be using a horse than an oil fired machine, if they choose to work in farming.

We are moving to local economies and local money but we have to be pragmatic and plan the timing as we all get used to the change.

'Now, I have been thinking back to the last tory goverment, and trying to think of a green policy that they introduced or global climate change agreement...............

........................................ No, can't think of one.'

Steve I sit completely on the fence politically, but I have to say that a lot was implemented, (and taken away again by the Blair government). Following the Earth Summit Rio 1992, the UK government pushed the UK biodiversity action plan through rapidly, seeing actual work on the ground within 24 months. The WGS III was implemented seeing the largest ever expansion of new native woodland in the UK ever and serious funding was enabled for the rural communities to enable a resurge in crofting and small scale sensitive funding. John Gummer, was an environment minister who truly cared and help push through policies rapidly and some of these policies were cancelled only to be reintroduced (with much lower funding)to a fanfare of self congratulation and PR hype.

Personally I feel that with regards the larger issues all governments have to take serious radical action with regards climate change and other serious environmental issues or otherwise be held too much to account to allow for any move forward.

And the evidence is that right wing politics are continually responsible for the grander policies to assist in environmental issues, but given this sometimes includes a reduction in access for the public such policies are seen as nepotistic and unfair.

I would be happy to accept your invitation Phil, to list all Labour's achievements over the last 13 years, so something on the front page then, I'm thinking, around 5,000 words?

Looking forward to reading your forthcoming blogs on the green achievements of the former tory Leader Michael Howard and former Shadow Home Office Minister, Chris Grayling.

Should make for an interesting read...

As regards, Spelman, well the walk to her Office was only 500 yards, but as her limo had to go around the one-way system, it was 1000 yards. As for giving her time, well based on her previous financial record, I'm surprised to see her become a Minister in the first place.

But, at least this condem alliance is high on entertainment value, Laws, Spelman and now Alexander. I love this new politics, and it's not even a month old.

If John Prescott was told that he was losing his seat in the Lords, and was being replaced with a democratically elected representitive, I'm sure that he would be delighted. Until we get rid of this outdated arena, and have a real democracy, we need a many progressive peers as possible to stop Call Me Dave and his toff's pushing through dodgy legislation.

Steve, you are as prejudiced as John Prescott - conservatives are not all toffs - they come from all walks of life and social backgrounds so don't make ignorant sweeping statements.

The greater pied piper effect is demonstrated by those who sow doubt on and filibuster over climate change, especially the scientific evidence for it.

I happened to catch this, from James Hansen, head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, who also warns of the dangers to future generations of denial and delay:

"Unfortunately, the delay in public understanding of the situation, in combination with the way the climate system works (inertia, tipping points) could be very detrimental for our children and grandchildren."

The full piece is at climateprogress.org (which also discusses how 2010 is predicted to be, in global temperature terms, the warmest year on record):

http://climateprogress.org/2010/03/19/nasa-giss-james-hansen-global-warming-record-hottest-year/

Historically, and still in modern days, the tory party has always represented the ruling class establishmant.

Sure at times it throws a few crumbs to the working class, like us, when it needs their support, but based on it's record in Office, it more more often looking after it's natural electorate.

This can be seen in it's representation in the Commons, which is by and large, male and educated at public school. If you believe that is a representation of Britain, we will perhaps have to disagree.

In Call Me Dave's Cabinet, 18 out of 23 are millionaires, most have not worked for that, it is inherited wealth. If you think that this is reflective of society, we will have to again disagree. Most of them have never got their hands dirty working, so can never understand working people.

If the tory party was representative it would select more women for it's winnable seats, say 50% to reflect the population. Perhaps also 80% from comprehensive education to reflect society, but it does not.

The tories represent class, at it's worst form, which I hate. I would not stand for the queen, as she is there based on class and nobody ever voted for her anyway. (and can we have a decent national anthem before the World Cup starts? I for one am sick of saving the old bag.) I would not stand for a lord, for the same reason,

However I would stand for a working woman or man, doing their best to make a living, and that is the majority in this country.

So if I do have a predjudice it is against the unelected and those who have not done a days work in their lives, and seek to rule over us, but I can live with that.


"The greater pied piper effect is demonstrated by those who sow doubt on and filibuster over climate change, especially the scientific evidence for it."

I note the (deliberate?) omission of 'man-made' from in front of the words 'climate change'?

John, you are usually extremely careful in your use of words, phrases and meaning...can you explain why you've referred only to climate change?

For the record; I don't deny that climate cycles and oscillations are taking place, what I refuse (at least at this stage) is to acknowledge that climate change is man made.

Hi Phil,

On this we are at least agreed, climate change is not man-made.

It is of obviously, as at least 50% of the world's population is female, made by humankind.

Been away for a couple of days and had some thoughts on this national anthem before the world cup begins.

Rather than "God save our blah, blah, blah" why not turn it around to "Why can't the Queeen save blah, blah blah"

This could have a positive effect to all people saving, especially herself, as she is currently demanding another 6 million pounds of taxpayers money, another unemployed person sat at home, claiming big-time off the state.

Or perhaps she could ask her ex-daughter in law to do her fundraising?

Regards,

Steve

Pure oversight. Please insert 'man-made' or 'human-induced' to suit.

Thanks for finally acknowledging that you do not recognise or accept the scientific evidence that climate change is being driven by human activity.

I assume this means you do not accept the findings or scientifically-measured readings from sources such as the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, which I linked to in my last comment:

http://climateprogress.org/2010/03/19/nasa-giss-james-hansen-global-warming-record-hottest-year/

It would be interesting to know exactly the kind of evidence, and from what source, that would convince you, over and above that which already exists.

John

I've never hidden the fact that I don't believe the man-made global warming theory.

I note your careful use the word 'evidence' - until someone can point to actual proof then I will continue with my theory that climate oscillations are a cyclical balancing act.

In respect of NASA - it's difficult to believe these guys. It was not that long ago they insisted there wasn't water on Mars or life anywhere else outside our planet.

Now they are telling us that there are life forms living on Saturn's Moon Titun.

Take a read of this - it's a little old but it makes some good points about how NASA have manipulated data to make it seem as though temperatures are rising when, in fact, they are no warmer that they were in 1878.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/02/a_tale_of_two_thermometers/

Our earth is over 4.5 billion years of age....let's be sensible about the time scales - the last 200 years are nothing in the scheme of things.

Phil, attempting to rubbish NASA with a link to a dated online article is hardly answering my question (do you really believe NASA are part of some sort of conspiracy to fix the figures?). So I'll ask it again: what kind of evidence/proof over and above that which already exists would convince you that climate change is being driven by human activity?

Please try to answer it this time: I am asking you what will convince you that change is being driven by human activity, not what you can pluck from the internet to support your 'theory' that it isn't. The two things are very different. It would also be interesting to know the basis for your theory; is it based on having a background in climate science?

"The last 200 years are nothing in the scheme of things".

Have a look at this from www.skepticalscience.com It uses a nonsensical claim from none other than Alan Titchmarsh to show that the last 200 years have in fact been very significant in driving up concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Industrial-Revolution-global-warming.htm

Sorry I've taken so long to respond John.

You might debunk the article I linked to but I think it makes a good point and puts forward a persuasive argument that the accuracy of thermal measuring equipment over the period we have kept records is far from satisfactory.

I watched (some) of a programme last night with Richard Hammond about measuring wind shear across Hong Kong International Airport.

In days when flight started, pilots used a wind sock to judge wind speed and direction; today they can fire laser and measure how the lasers are reflected to gauge wind movement.

My point is, wind reacts exactly the same way today as it did when man first flew but the accuracy of measuring it has risen enormously.

200 years is just too short a time frame in which to draw a conclusion on global warming and whether it's attributed to man or not.

The comments to this entry are closed.