So who's paying for this bit of ecobollox ... ?

[Tim W]

The Medway Handyman wibbled on Tuesday 27 October 2009 19:49

[The Medway Handyman]

1883 - 83 years after.

[The Medway Handyman]

As in 'because I said so'?

The premise is that fossil fuel use causes freak weather conditions. The black swan is that freak weather conditions have always exsisted.

[The Natural Philosopher]

oh well, find another one. Etna?

[The Natural Philosopher]

well take yoitr pick

[The Natural Philosopher]

no, rather that the frequency and degree or freak weather increases with increased CO2.

[T i m]

The frightening thing is it's true though. Even insurance Co's paying out simply bogus claims because it will be cheaper, not because it's the morally correct thing to do. This includes it seems paying those who are stupid enough to drive whilst holding a cup of coffee between their legs the suing because they get scalded (or whatever).

Who knows where it will stop.

The thing is, much of this over zealous PC / HSE stuff is affecting everyone. Kids not getting work opportunity because Co's can't tick enough boxes and / or don't want the risks.

The worst for me are all the ambulance chasers. I've heard that motorbike shops (and car garages no doubt) can get a cash kick-back if they get a customer to hire a vehicle while their claim is sorted out through the insurance Co rather than take a loan bike for free ... because they can earn money out of the hire etc.

T i m

[Derek Geldard]

All this is very odd. Anybody over about 55 will remember huge coke fired classroom stoves supplied from a huge pile in the schoolyard, and those who did national service will remember a coke stove at the end of every hut. All of these were naturally draughted (and not just the servicemen !).

Derek

[Derek Geldard]

Watching "Unemployed for 7 days" on TV last night revealed to me that the underclass (I.E. No husband / father figure in the house, and most of them unemployed for generations) live in a totally different universe to the rest of us where (A bit like the Big Rock Candy Mountain) new 5 bedroom houses grow on trees, and if money is in short supply it's the man down the council, jobcentre etc who is to blame even if they literally CBA to get out of bed in the morning to go down the jobcentre and pick up their dole / cash.

Derek

[The Natural Philosopher]

STOVES.

Not open fires.

There seems to be enough draught with a stove for it to work.

same with wood. Our woodburner stove will burn much fiercer than an open fire will.

supplied from a huge pile in the schoolyard,

[Jules]

Actually, the terminally clueless should be forced to drive with cups of coffee between their legs. Hopefully the resulting burns will prevent them from reproducing and making the problem even worse in future generations :-)

Yeah, it's terrible here in the US - but not nearly as bad as it was in the UK (which always strikes me as odd because the perception of myself & peers when I was growing up in the UK was that the US was the place fo H+S insanity).

Furthermore the rural nature of a lot of the US has an impact - there can be a big difference between what the law says and how it's enacted out in the sticks, where common sense tends to overrule everything (and I realise the UK's not really any different there, but there's a lot less 'sticks' to go around)

There's backhanders and stealth 'taxes' and sweet little deals going on everywhere all the time, I suppose. Best to try not to think about it or it'll make your head explode :/

cheers

Jules

[geoff]

In message , Andy Dingley writes

Tambora ?

[Heliotrope Smith]

I heard it was something to do with farting cows. Mmmmmmm, or was that wooly mammoths?

[dennis]

I would say that if you can't control your vehicles speed correctly then you are not driving safely. The excuse used by poor drivers that they spend all their time looking for hazards and can't see the speed limit signs or the speedo is just plain cr@p. If you can't keep an eye on your speed and know what the signs say then you are already driving too fast for your abilities.

Put them all in normal cars without safety cages, harnesses, crash helmets, etc. and a lot more would die, they have far more accidents than most drivers but survive them through engineering.

[Ash]

Cows ...

Daily Express Tuesday October 27,2009 By Emily Garnham

BECOME A VEGGIE TO SAVE PLANET

Methane from livestock accounts for a fifth of the global warming impact

ONE OF the world's leading voices on climate change has sensationally urged people to become vegetarian to help beat global warming.

Nicholas Stern, the author of an influential 2006 review of climate change, said methane emissions from cows and pigs were putting "enormous pressure" on the world.

He said: "Meat is a wasteful use of water and creates a lot of greenhouse gases. It put enormous pressure on the world's resources. A vegetarian diet is better."

The former World Bank chief economist was speaking ahead of a crunch climate change talks in Copenhagen this December, which could result in higher costs for meat and other foods that generate large quantities of greenhouse gases.

Lord Stern, who is not a strict vegetarian, told The Times: "I think it's important that people think about what they are doing and that includes what they are eating.

"I am 61 now and attitudes towards drinking and driving have changed radically since I was a student.

"People change their notion of what is responsible. They will increasingly ask about the carbon content of their food."

He added: "A diet that relies heavily on meat production results in higher emissions than a typical vegetarian diet. Different individuals will make different choices."

But Lord Stern - a professor at London School of Economics - warned: "The debate about climate change should not be dumbed down to a single slogan, such as 'give up meat to save the planet'."

According to estimates methane from livestock accounts for a fifth of the global warming impact. As a greenhouse gas it is 23 times more powerful than carbon dioxide If business continued as usual then temperatures could increase by 5C by early next century, warned Lord Stern.

He said: "These kinds of changes will have huge consequences - southern Europe is likely to be a desert; hundreds of millions of people will have to move. There will be severe global conflict."

Lord Stern said it was "vital" the UK public understood what was at stake.

"These negotiations will have a profound impact on the kind of world our children, our grandchildren and future generations will live in," he said.

"The choice is stark. If we take strong and effective action now to tackle the causes and consequences of climate change, we can create a bright future of sustainable growth and prosperity across the world built on a low-carbon economy.

"But if we fail, and allow less important short-term issues to cloud our judgment, such that we end up with a weak and ineffective treaty, we will condemn the world to a dark future, living in an increasingly hostile climate and struggling to deal with the mounting risks and hardships that will arise by continuing to follow a high-carbon route towards its inevitable dead end."

[geoff]

In message , Arfa Daily writes

No, I reckon that there are a fair number of people here who understand exactly what you mean

... just been through the argument too many times to post yet another reply

[David WE Roberts]

Back in your cage you dolts!

All the NHS dentists I have found in the last five years have been Polish or South African.

Long live immigration :-)

[geoff]

In message , Clot writes

Got caught (33 in a 30 zone - I thought that was within the limit of the limit) coming out of Much Wenlock just before it changed to 40 mph and well after the village had finished

I should have challenged it, but CBA

[Dave]

I am 63 years old and I can remember having an open coke fire that drew quite well. It had to be started with coal though.

Dave

[Bolted]

You do have to be careful not to fall into the Daily Mail trap, though. Just to take the coffee example, it is hugely blown out of context.

Had I been sitting in that jury, I think my sympathies would have gone against McDonalds. They could easily, having decided that they wanted to store at scalding temps, not to serve drive-by customers. Maybe I would have upped the 20% contribitory negligence, but I'm not sure.