The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Green fundamentalism > Comments

Green fundamentalism : Comments

By Richard Castles, published 1/12/2006

'Repent now or pay later' is the solemn warning of the Stern Report.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 11
  7. 12
  8. 13
  9. Page 14
  10. 15
  11. All
Richard, my nonsense post served two purposes. Firstly to amuse myself and secondly to see if I could draw a response. Successful on both counts. Of course much of what gets posed on OLO is nonsense.
Posted by Johnj, Saturday, 9 December 2006 10:22:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
TIME TO WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE?

Richard, if you have stock in any of the retrogressive US-linked energy companies, I suggest you examine either your portfolio. See the Washington Post item below, which mentions shareholder action compelling US energy companies toward emissions-trading schemes:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/24/AR2006112401361_pf.html
and the "view all comments" at the bottom of the article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/comments/display?contentID=AR2006112401361

Remembering that (for example) Duke Energy has Australian investments, it may be worth you doing an item on ethical investment.

And have a look at these two items, concerning Brazil. Is it possible that the same interest groups who brought you “climate scepticism” and “eco-fundamentalists” will take their CO2-spewing investment and development opportunities to the developing and third world?

I expect it will be easily as easy to show an offshoring of CO2 production by traditional energy producers as it is for you to show the perfidy of Global Warming Alarmist Fundamentalists.

And see:
Latin American Energy Issues (in English)
http://www.temasactuales.com/temasblog/?p=62

Despite recent lobbying and some governmental support, a recently adopted Brazilian energy policy is centred on growth in demand rather than conservation of supply:

“The principal theme of the plan can be found in its subtitle: "Strategy for Expanding Supply." The government proposes a huge increase in supply, arguing that its scenarios forecast a tripling of current consumption by 2030.”

A very interesting proposal was put to the Brazilian Government by the Brazilian WWF, and is well worth a look:

http://assets.wwf.org.br/downloads/brazilpowerswitchstudy_1.pdf

For example, Brazilians use on-line shower water heaters which are very cheap, but which are estimated to commit 100 times their purchase price in peak power electricity generation capacity.

It seems to me that, rather than deal with smart conservation strategies, the government wants to build nuclear electricity plants to assure base load.

Where will they get those radioactive contraptions from? Is the Brazilian nuclear industry entirely homegrown? Is it Brazilian coffee we smell there, or something from north of the equator?
Posted by Sir Vivor, Sunday, 10 December 2006 8:01:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Richard Castles wrote:

"""
Sams: Richard Castles wrote: "Here are a couple of other inconvenient pieces of evidence that you might like to check out, and perhaps horror of horrors," [FALSE - where did you get this from?]
"""

My apologies, I misread another Richard's byline in the above as yours (use a search and you will find it). However, I still stand by my other comments though. You are at odds with the vast majority of climatologists, thousands of them, who actually know what they are talking about.
Posted by Sams, Sunday, 10 December 2006 9:32:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Johnj, thank you for acknowledging your nonsense.

dickie, I would be happy to try to answer some of your questions, and some are relevant and reasonable, but none of them demonstrates lying on my part. Without a retraction, I don't feel compelled to respond.

Sams, you say thousands of climatologists are at odds with me. Do you mean they believe sceptics should be silenced? You don't seem to be addressing the content of my article.

colinsett queries why this piece is categorized under Environment, not Religion. I am inclined to agree.

Over and out on this one.
Posted by Richard Castles, Monday, 11 December 2006 1:37:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Richard Castels wrote: "Sams, you say thousands of climatologists are at odds with me. Do you mean they believe sceptics should be silenced? You don't seem to be addressing the content of my article."

No one has been "silenced", as is evident in the very forum. Almost all sceptics that disagree with the mainstream scientific community are completely wrong, something the habitual sceptics seem to overlook on a regular basis. Usually they only notice that very rare cases where the sceptic is real genius (in the literal sense) that has outsmarted the scientists and happens to be right.

People in this country are free to be sceptical, but if lots of others disagree strongly with them and form opinions about their character, then they shouldn't be surprised.
Posted by Sams, Monday, 11 December 2006 2:17:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mr Castles remains defiant that he did not lie or spread information about environmentalists in his article.

Worse, whilst I have responded to his request to justify my claims that he did, he insists that I retract my accusations but is unable to justify his spurious attacks on environmentalists. Guess that's one way of "saving face!"

By joves Mr Castles, if any of your future written inaccuracies incur litigation, I suggest you get yourself a top silk! Even, then your legal representative would be hard pressed to influence the bench in your favour!
Posted by dickie, Monday, 11 December 2006 3:56:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 11
  7. 12
  8. 13
  9. Page 14
  10. 15
  11. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy