Lizzie Zoom wrote on 29. Nov 2009 at 11:54:




Have you fully read his history Zulu?  Does his experience, training, and association with many highly qualified individuals on the subject of the environment not count for anything?


I have indeed Ms Z and very impressive it seems however how does this relate to the undoubted warming being firmly placed at the collective feet of recent human activity to the apparent exclusion of everything else?


so sorry but I consider him and many others far more qualified to comment on this subject than anyone else on this Forum.

I'm gratified that you are able to accept his analysis with such conviction.  I would rather be more discerning when trying to establish whether or not Dr. P is well enough placed in terms of definitive science regarding the AGW aspect of global warming.

To cliam one 'side' or the other has all the answers on this very complicated issue and the other argument is talking rubbish

...are you suggesting that I have adopted this position?  (I haven't by the way)


conspiracy against Western Liberal ideals is not only stupid but could well be disasterous.


In the light of the following I would disagree with you;


Pachauri caused controversy last year by advocating, in an interview with the Observer, that people should eat less meat because of the levels of carbon emissions associated with rearing livestock. He is scheduled to deliver a keynote speech at the opening session of the Copenhagen summit



[b]He said that he also believed car use would have to be "curbed": "I think we can certainly use pricing to regulate the use of private vehicles." He added he was a supporter of former London mayor Ken Livingstone's plan to increase the congestion charge to £25 for the most polluting vehicles. The proposal was dropped by Boris Johnson and the charge currently stands at £8. Pachauri also denounced the practice in some restaurants of providing iced water to customers who had not ordered it. "It is just an enormous amount of waste that we don't even think about," he said.

Ultimately, Pachauri said the value shift that was needed would take a generation to take hold. "I think the section of society that will make it happen is essentially young people. I think they will be far more sensitive than adults, who have been corrupted by the ways we have been following for years now[/b]."

source:  Western lifestyle unsustainable, says climate expert Rajendra Pachauri
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/29/rajendra-pachauri-climate-warn...

Will you be prepared to make sacrifices in your lifestyle on the basis of what Dr. P asserts?  Those will be fundamental changes by the way, what you eat, what you discard, how you travel, how much energy you use and so on?


I consider most unhelpful and dare I say, arrogant in the extreme


I would be most unhappy if you considered my contributions here to be arrogant, however I do note with some dismay that the treatment of those who seek greater information on this very important matter seems to border on the arrogant and dismissive for having the temerity to question 'settled science' when it seems everything but.

Desperate Den wrote on 29. Nov 2009 at 15:27:



You Zulu are doing exactly what I am very concerned about, and taking observational comments personally, then clearly criticising any perceived attempt to support 'settled science' (a contridiction in terms in anycase) becuase the argument does not clearly support the authors aims.  In fact, I repeat yet again, that I am completely neutral on this particular issue as neither 'side' has yet to satisfactorily prove their case.   

If Nick wants to publish such far fetched assertions as this, as he did to Banjax on page 1 of this post:

"

"They" refers to anyone you want really. Radical envrionmentalists, politicised scientists, the IPCC. They all run with the same agenda:

1. The West and its capitalism are evil
2. The West's wealth should be transferred to developing countries
3. The West should give up its standards of living
4. The West's population should be reduced
etc, etc.
You choose

then that is up to him, but it weakens his argument to one of a pre-conceived political judgement that is his view of what is transpiring, regardless of fact.

In view of the entrenched views, biased very much on the notion that all the top politicians of the world are being fooled by the vast majority of leading scientific brain power, and anyone who agrees is being conned, then I will not contribute any more to this debate as it is going nowhere.   

[quote author=6F4A59594A467C794C4C4E230 link=1259318018/63#63 date=1259512837]


You Zulu are doing exactly what I am very concerned about, and taking observational comments personally, then clearly criticising any perceived attempt to support 'settled science' (a contridiction in terms in anycase) becuase the argument does not clearly support the authors aims.  In fact, I repeat yet again, that I am completely neutral on this particular issue as neither 'side' has yet to satisfactorily prove their case.   

If Nick wants to publish such far fetched assertions as this, as he did to Banjax on page 1 of this post:

"

"They" refers to anyone you want really. Radical envrionmentalists, politicised scientists, the IPCC. They all run with the same agenda:

1. The West and its capitalism are evil
2. The West's wealth should be transferred to developing countries
3. The West should give up its standards of living
4. The West's population should be reduced
etc, etc.
You choose

then that is up to him, but it weakens his argument to one of a pre-conceived political judgement that is his view of what is transpiring, regardless of fact.

In view of the entrenched views, biased very much on the notion that all the top politicians of the world are being fooled by the vast majority of leading scientific brain power

[quote]

taking observational comments personally, then clearly criticising any perceived attempt to support 'settled science' (a contridiction in terms in anycase

...far from taking your comments personally Ms Z and thank you for your concern, I was merely concerned that you regarded my contributions as being arrogant.  I’m well enough equipped to accept any criticism that’s directed towards me without animosity or hurt so I consider this to be a non-issue.

The contradiction of 'settled science' can be placed firmly in the mouth of the individual who uttered it - former Vice President A Gore, a leading proponent of AGW.

In terms of the controversial nature of this matter and your suggestion that Nick takes it to a wider political audience, does that men we have no right to debate the issue here?

The fundamental proposals for behavioural change in terms of the desire to stave off global warming will have far reaching consequences for each and every member of this forum and as such I thing think that at the very least, a debate should be conducted here on such a relevant matter.

I would also assert that the justifiable questioning of these issues is far removed from critisim in terms of my intent.

Opti wrote on 29. Nov 2009 at 17:37:



That's better.

And now he wants $1,200 for a handshake.

http://www.visitcopenhagen.com/composite-4994.htm

I think I'll just give him the finger for free.