brettbh

Yup. To digress somewhat, the last time I caught a flight in the US my baggage had slightly too much weight for which I was, of course, charged an additional amount. Under normal circumstances, I wouldn't have objected. But checking in at the next desk was a big lard-arse who, despite weighing more than me and my baggage combined, wasn't made to pay an additional charge. I pointed the irony out to the check-in person and was informed that it was simply a matter of policy and that super-sized people only needed to pay extra if they were so large as to require an additional seat. I considered claiming that this constituted racial discrimination (I had to pay more than the American, despite the fact that I was bringing less weight onto the plane) but decided that it would probably be best to let the matter drop before my extremely embarrassed decided to batter me to death with one of our overweight suitcases. This does, however, raise a valid question: are fat people bad for the environment? I mean, it must take more gas to get a plane full of butterballs across the Atlantic than a plane full of regular sized people. And the same applies to other forms of public transportation too. Which leads to the question of whether or not a “tubby tax†would be in order. Should the obese be made to pay more to travel? This would have a number of benefits: 1. Gas consumption would be reduced as fat people would be encouraged to either get thin or travel less; 2. Obesity-related illnesses would be reduced leading to cuts in health care spending; 3. Current discriminatory practices would be eliminated. Thoughts?

You think that Shrub or Brush or Lucifer or whatever-his-name-is is "nothing to worry about"?

Nope, it doesn’t. In fact, it is undoubtedly “very likely†and “extremely likely†that human activity has indeed contributed to climate change. I do. The climate change discussion have become akin to a political debate with both sides presenting conflicting and biased (mis)information. This results in confusion. People simply do not know what’s fact, what’s fiction and what’s speculation. And that’s not the way to stimulate them into action. Telling them that islands are sinking because of global warming (when the evidence to support that claim is extremely weak) is not the way to get them to get them to accept the realities of climate change. I am not for one moment suggesting that the green movement should underplay the importance of climate change; simply that it should distil its arguments and start to place greater emphasis on simple, indisputable and important facts. The green movement should stop talking about sinking islands and start talking about the fact that the majority of climate scientists agree that human activities are almost certainly causing the world to get warmer. The green movement should stop talking about knickers made from recycled cans and environmentally-friendly clothing for chihuahuas and start talking about what people need to do in order to really make a difference.

Yup. The sad thing is that, had this happened in any other country, the worker would probably have escaped with some minor bruising. But, it happened in the US and ... well, that's what doomed him. He'd have stood a better chance of survival had he been facing a herd of stampeding hippopotamuses.

What is really the difference between the Easter Bunny and Father Christmas? But, according to superstitious nutcases, the Devil is the organ grinder; the AC is his monkey. IOW, Shrub (or Brush or whatever his name is) is Old Nick; the AC is his minion, Cheney.

Even the IPCC cannot say for sure that global warming is a man-made phenomenon and so their reports use phrases such as “very likely†and “extremely likely.†My point is simply that the majority of people would react better to simple honesty than overstatement. Tell them that the world's leading climate scientists have concluded that, "It is extremely likely that human activities have exerted a substantial net warming influence on climate since 1750," and they may sit up and listen. Pull a Chicken Licken and tell them that the sky is falling in and that islands are sinking (when that has not been conclusively proven) and they'll likely think, "Uh-oh. Here we go again," and promptly lose interest.

Hmmm. I don't think that he actually expressed an opinion - he simply said that cold winters make some people wonder whether or not global warming is really something about which they need to be worried. That said, there is really no doubt at all that global warming is a reality. What's less certain is the cause. Is it man-made? Is it part of a natural warming cycle? Or is it a combination of both? Temperatures rose by 5º during the Jurassic period due to increased concentrations of greenhouse gasses, and who’s to say that that’s not what’s happening now? My point is that saying man is, without doubt, to blame for global warming is not helpful. And nor is saying that seas are rising and that islands are sinking because of man-induced global warming. The science is way too complicated to enable people to make informed decisions about the realities of global warming. They have to rely on what they are being told. And if the green movement is telling them that global warming is causing islands to sink (when the evidence does not conclusively support that), then people will doubt everything that the green movement has to say. Simple and honest facts are the best way to motivate people into action. Doomsday scenarios based on inclusive science are not.

No matter how good the product, I doubt that they would ever be as durable as plastic bottles and so they would need to go through the recycling process much more frequently - and that, of course, requires energy. I'm not at all convinced that such bottles would represent a greener option.

It's possible, but Shrub is definitely a more likely candidate. I mean, just look at his minion. What further proof do you need?

Yup, some debates simply serve to muddy the waters. For example, claiming that the Carteret Islands are sinking because of global warming will invariably be perceived by some as alarmist doom mongering. The fact is, that nobody can say for sure what's causing these islands to "sink". Is it due to tectonic movement, reef erosion, El Niño, global warming or some other combination of conditions? And, if it is due to global warning, is that a natural phenomenon (such as 5° rise during the Jurassic period) or a man-made phenomenon? Or a combination of both? I did some reading on the Carteret Islands and, I must say, that I am not at all convinced that these islands are sinking because of global warming (at least, not yet) and I'm sure that others feel exactly the same way. If people see claims which state that it is a matter of absolute fact that these islands are sinking because of global warming, they may well wonder about the accuracy of other claims about global warming. And that's counterproductive. The fact is that the majority of people do not know enough to be able to hold an informed opinion about global warming. They do not know enough to be able to say whether it's a man-made phenomenon or whether it's part of the same natural cycle that saw temperatures rise by about 5 degrees during the Jurassic period due to an increased concentration of greenhouse gasses or whether it's a combination of both. There is no point in confouding them with science because the science is contradictory and completely beyond their understanding. There is no point telling them that global warming is casuing glaciers to melt when some glaciers are, in fact, expanding. That simply creates confusion. There is no point telling people that global warming is causing islands to sink when there is no evidence to support such a claim. That simply creates mistrust. As I said, to really get people to on board, the green movement needs to simplify its message and start dealing in indisputable facts. And, where facts are disputable, to present them as such instead of claiming, "We're all gonna drown - and the few who do not drown shall become climatic refugees in a scorched post-apocalyptic world, slowly starving to death because of global crop failures."

>>You're sure they'd say it was healthy?<< Yup. >>It's too simple for you.<< It's not too simple; it's just plain old, straightofward simple. >>Which only means you are unwilling to take responsibility for your unhappiness.<< Eh? What the heck is that supposed to mean? Like most people, I have experienced events which have caused me to be sad. When a loved one dies, people do not usually grin like a Cheshire cat. They feel sad. And, in some cases, they may even feel angry. That's perfectly normal. >>Or would you tell me you don't get unhappy?<< Nope. I'm human. >>Like the biblical slave you mentioned earlier you don't yet have the will to see the cause of your enslavement, you believe normal is natural.<< To what, exactly, do you think I am enslaved? My emotions? Yup, I suppose I am. And I suppose everybody else is too (well, except for you!). Emotions are part and parcel of being one of those odd critters called humans. I really do not know what you are attempting to say here. That somebody shouldn't be angry if a crackhead breaks into his house and steals his belongings? That somebody shouldn't be sad if a parent dies? That somebody shouldn't feel outrage if their daughter is raped? That these emotions are wrong? That these emotions can and should be kept under wraps? That wars could be avoided were people to take more pleasure in the small things? Emotions are part of our nature. The problem is not that we have those emotions; rather, it is 1) that some of our emotions are stirred up entirely by bias or bigotry and 2) the way in which some people deal with their emotions. Were the KKK a group of emotional (angry) people? Possibly. Would the KKK have been an ok movement had its members been less emotional and expressed their opinions through, say, political debate rather than hangings? Nope. They'd still have been a bunch of bigots. The problem is not that we are emotional; it is that some of us cannot deal with our emotions and/or have emotions which are stirred entirely by intolerance and bigotry. The solution is not to lose our emotions (which is impossible anyway); it is to learn to deal with our emotions and to lose our intolerance and bigotry.

Yup, there are numerous problems. Firstly, there is the public's perception of environmentalists as bunny-hugging crackpots with absolutely no credibility. Secondly, the science related to climate change is somewhat unclear and the waters have been further muddied by impartial research (example) sponsored by bodies on both sides of the environmental fence which makes it difficult for people to understand the real situation. Thirdly, resources such as TreeHugger which infer that people can reduce their impact on the environment simply by wearing eco-undies and drinking eco-beer. My take? The majority of people - me included - have no idea whether or not climate change is a reality and so all we can do is work with the best information to hand, and that is probably the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Control: "Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations." "From new estimates of the combined anthropogenic forcing due to greenhouse gases, aerosols, and land surface changes, it is extremely likely that human activities have exerted a substantial net warming influence on climate since 1750." "It is virtually certain that anthropogenic aerosols produce a net negative radiative forcing (cooling influence) with a greater magnitude in the Northern Hemisphere than in the Southern Hemisphere." We have no way of knowing whether the IPCC are right (even they cannot say for sure whether they are right), but it would be extremely stupid to sit back and do nothing in the hope that they are wrong. IMO, the green movement needs to starting working with the facts and facts only. Debates about whether more glaciers are shrinking than expanding are not needed and simply confuse people ("Huh? Some are getting bigger while others are getting smaller. Why's that? What does it mean? Does it mean that the planet is getting warmer? Or does it mean that the next Ice Age is almost upon us?"). What's really important - and what needs to be stressed - is that the world's best brains have concluded that, "It is extremely likely that human activities have exerted a substantial net warming influence on climate since 1750." That alone should be enough to convince most people that we should change our ways.

Unlike gargoyles ...

Yup, it's amazing how he's managed to get away with this type of stuff for so long. Or maybe not. When you have the CIA to clean up and eliminate witnesses, I suppose it's easy enough to do. What do you think of claims that he is the Antichrist?

Google How To Be Green and you'll find countless websites offering advice on everything from choosing eco-friendly beers to how to make your Thanksgiving celebrations greener. TreeHugger, for example. Most of what these websites recommend is small spuds - easy stuff that anybody can do without feeling too much pain - but that's ok. I mean, it all helps, right? Or does it? Are these things simply distracting people and causing them to lose sight of issues that are much more important? Are people drinking their pint of eco-beer and thinking, "Great, that's it, I've done my bit for the environment today"? The fact is that making the changes that are needed to protect our environment and stop climate change is not going to be easy and is not going to be painless. Radical action and major changes are needed. Drinking eco-beer will not cut it. Going into the forest and chopping down holly bushes (as this post recommends - is that good for the environment, anyway?) will not cut it. And environmentally-friendly shagging certainly will not cut it. Websites such as TreeHugger tell people what they want to hear and lead them to believe that they can make a big difference by doing small things - easy things which require minimal effort on their part and which do not entail significant lifestyle adjustments. But that's not the case. To make a real difference and to effect the changes that are needed, people do not need start drinking eco-beer or searching the Internet with Blackle. What they do need to do is to get rid off their Hummers and start using public transport (ouch!). They need to vote - and to vote for a party that has a clear environmental policy. They need to telephone their politicians and demand that they do not support Shrub's midnight regulations against the environment - and to make it clear that, if they do support them, they'll be voting for somebody else come the next election. They need to attend and express their opinions at public meetings/consultations. They need to stop buying products from companies with poor environmental records - and to make it clear to those companies why have they stopped buying their products. People looking for information about what they can do to help the environment arrive at sites such as TreeHugger and what do they find? Trivial stuff about eco-undies and environmentally-friendly gifts for Father's Day, that's what. These sites contain practically no advice on matters of any substance. They do not encourage activism. They do not discuss serious environmental problems. They do not offer any advice as to what people can do about those problems - which local or national politician and/or which government agency or department a complaint about that problem should be addressed. They do not offer sample correspondence which would make it easier for people to draft their own complaints. They do not discuss the environmental policies of political parties. They simply talk about eco-undies. Certain aspects of the green movement have been commercialized. Websites such as TreeHugger are for-profit enterprises which have jumped on the green bandwagon in order to make a buck. They have absolutely no interest in encouraging or helping people to do what's best for the environment; instead, they simply tell people what they want to hear so that they'll keep on returning to the website. According to the TreeHugger website: "Our environment is currently facing huge obstacles that have the potential to seriously disrupt our future and the future of all our fellow flora and fauna friends. Keeping that in mind, TreeHugger also sympathizes with the fact that most people aren’t willing to compromise their current lifestyle in order to improve our shared environment, so we have created a place where you can discover how to maintain or improve your quality of life while reducing your harmful impact on the earth." BS! That's akin to telling a fat person that he can lose weight without either eating less or exercising. Well, sorry to disillusion you, Butterball, but there's no gain without pain. Keep on eating supersized junk food, and you'll always look like the Michellin Man. People absolutely do need to "compromise their current lifestyle in order to improve our shared environment" and telling them otherwise simply is not helpful. They do need to give up their Hummers, they do need to start making greater use of public transportation and, most importantly, they do occasionally give up some of their free time and use it to speak out about environmental matters. Buying eco-undies is not enough. While it's certainly good to see the green movement gaining momentum, it's not so good to see important message being buried by nonsense pushed out by for-profit companies.

Nope. I prefer pig meat. Smoked and then burnt to a crisp.

>>Ask the one on the receiving end of your anger if it's healthy.<< I'm sure they'd say that it was healthy. Were I to do something that PO'd my wife, I'd certainly want her to speak to me about it. In doing so, we'd be able to find a solution. That may entail me adjusting my ways, or maybe her anger would dissipate when I explained the reasons for my actions. In either case, problem solved! >>It sure is normal, just look beneath the surface of anyone who isn't getting their own way and there it is.<< If somebody is angry simply because they are not getting their own way, then that's certainly rather childish. >>War, violence, conflict begins inside where I believe I have a right to be angry because somebody did something to me.<< That's way too simplistic. Conflict is caused by religious intolerance, racial intolerance and prejudice, monetary gain, political expediency and a host of other reasons - including, in part, anger. But the solution is not to get rid off the anger, it is to get rid off the biases and bigotry that cause unreasonable anger. >>You give in to anger and you must enjoy it to say it's healthy.<< Sorry, but that is completely nonsensical. Yup, I give in to anger. And I also give in to happiness, sadness and all the other emotions that are a perfectly normal - and healthy - part of the human condition. People do not enjoy negative emotions, but they are nonetheless part and parcel of being human. A person will feel sad if one of their parents dies. A person will feel angry if one of their children is abused. Feeling those emotions is not in any way unhealthy, it's perfectly normal.

He eats puppies too.

I'm sorry, maybe I'm stupid but I really do not understand what it is that you are attempting to say :-) >>If I acknowledge problems I get problems.<< You may; I do not. Acknowledging problems is the first step towards dealing with problems. To do otherwise is simply to bury one's head in the sand. >>Test it in your experience, next time anger arises in you don't give it your attention as if it has a right to be.<< Anger is a perfectly normal and healthy emotion. If a person makes me angry, I'll speak with them about the cause of my anger; if a situation makes me angry, I'll consider whether I should do something to change that situation. People have problems. People have emotions. Attemtping to bury either is pointless.

Shocking and saddening.

That still does not explain why a single person should be permitted to override judicial process. I mean, is a man who eats kittens for breakfast considered to have better judgement than the appellate courts?

Erm, do you mean the bible?

Which I'd wave as enthusiastically as Shrub waves the US flag ;-)

Unless, that is, the result could have been swung by the 5000 ballots that Bud, the hillybilly sheriff of Hicksville, forgot that he'd left in the trunk of his Chevy when rushing out the door for his breakfast of a 32 ounce steak, a dozen eggs sunny side up, grits, five corn dogs, ten pancakes with syrup, 15 waffles with syrup, a bag of donuts with ice cream all washed down with a bottle of diet root beer. The rumour is that those votes never did end up being counted. But, yeah, I suppose that they did rather bring it on themselves, didn't they.

11.