Politics, news and stuff.

[Seventhseil]

Yes it happened about twenty years ago on the west side of the island....there has been a huge number of fish boils coming up past balvicar towards the sound. Along with the dreaded DSP........what to do ... perhaps the sunday sailing has something to do with it. Any comments CanU?

[canUsmellthat]

I'll tell you tomorrow when I come safely, hopefully, ashore from said sailing...I'm packing my red shoes!!!

[Eric the Viking]

Aye....tis the devil's work and no good will come of it

[DonnieC]

Thanks for that 7th.

The following morning, Friday, gulls, herons and crows were busy feasting on the foreshore between the bridge and Old Clachan Farmhouse where the shore was covered, with not only fry, but mackerel that had driven themselves ashore in their frenzy for food.

Canu - red shoes? Were you at a wedding?

[longshanks]

All very strange and unusual Connie.
I've noticed a lot of large jellyfish in the Sound over the last week or so; some as large as a medicine ball. Brown bodies.
Definite signs of global warming I reckon and it can only get worse if we don't do something quick. I'm now right behind the Raera turbine array and hoping it won't be too late.
Isn't the weather strange at the moment! Mid summer at its been raining for three days now with more forecast for the rest of the week. Something's happening and we need to warn everyone about it. How about another showing of Al Gore's excellent film in the Hall?

Bong Shanks (stoned by choice)

[canUsmellthat]

Sunday sailing went fine, ferry was packed - no need for my red shoes...

Donnie: I wasn't at a wedding, just visiting some MacDougall clansmen...

[Peter Connelly]

Hi folks. As Seventhseil points out on the Scallop Dredging thread the argument ‘all really comes down to which set of stats you wish to believe’. The same point applies to the Climate Change debate. Maybe if we leave behind the particular stats for a minute, and look at the options available in relation to man-made Climate Change/Global Warming, we can get an idea about what might be the best course of action:

Either man-made Climate Change exists or it doesn’t.
Either we act upon CC, or we don’t.

This gives four options:

1. CC does not exist and we act as if it doesn’t.
2. CC does not exist and we act as if it does.
3. CC does exist and we act as if it doesn’t.
4. CC does exist and we act as if it does.

Let’s consider the possible outcomes of these options for future generations, leaving aside for now the specific stats. (I suggest this because CC, if it exists, will be more likely to have a greater impact on future generations than upon us.)

1. CC does not exist and we act as if it doesn’t.
This option means that nothing much in terms of value or disvalue is either gained or lost. How we behave in relation to manmade CC will have no consequences for future generations. The ‘value’ of this option we could put at zero.

2. CC does not exist and we act as if it does.
This option means that research and the development of new technologies driven by the belief in CC is a waste of money, and such strategies would impose financial burdens on individuals through ‘green taxes’ which could impact on the wealth of some members of future generations. However, the eventual production of more localised and cheaper renewable energy sources may well rebalance the initial slight impoverishment of near-future generations in favour of their offspring. I’ll propose a slightly negative value for this option, given the initial potential impoverishment of near-future generations. This ‘value’ we could put at minus 2.

3. CC does exist and we act as if it doesn’t.
This could have a large, possibly catastrophic, negative effect on future generations, making their lives potentially very much worse that they might be, being subject to flooding, hurricanes, disease, etc. Value: Minus 10.

4. CC does exist and we act as if it does.
This option may well avoid a large negative effect on future generations, enabling them to have better, perhaps very much better, lives than they might otherwise have. Given the potential for slight near-future generation impoverishment, I’ll propose a value of Plus 8 for this option.

Overall, comparing the values of zero, minus 2, minus 10 and plus 8, the best option to undertake for the sake of future generations is option 4.

This poses the question, however: Why should we concern ourselves with people who are not yet alive? Derek Parfit writes as follows:

'Suppose that I leave some broken glass in the undergrowth of a wood. A hundred years later this glass wounds a child. My act harms this child. If I had safely buried the glass [or better still, recycled it] this child would have walked through the woods unharmed. Does it make a moral difference that the child whom I harm does not now exist?
On one view, moral principles cover only people who can reciprocate, or harm and benefit each other. If I cannot be harmed or benefited by this child, as we can plausibly suppose, the harm that I cause this child has no moral importance. I assume that we should reject such a view.'


I realise that the details and ‘valuations’ above are not perfect (some points in options 2 and 4 being deliberately devil’s advocate-ish) but hopefully the general drift of the argument is clear(-ish).

Cheers,

Peter.

[ChristopherBooker]

[youtube]http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=snPdEl0Duoo[/youtube]

Mind the gap . . .

Chris Booker

[longshanks]

I agree:

the argument ‘all really comes down to which set of stats you wish to believe’. The same point applies to the Climate Change debate.

but there is a difference.
The trashy stats put out by the Denyers are patently wrong, and no doubt created by the oil industry.
The stats put out by the likes of Al Gore are obviously correct and the predictions by himself and the likes of Michael Lynagh etc. will come true (for example 300,000 people will die of climate change this year alone!).
So its not a matter of anyone being allowed to believe what they want. For the sake of avoiding a massive catastrophe we must repeat our facts and predictions ad nauseum until the denyers shut up, or, as proposed by a member of the Canadian Parliament, we should make denying man made climate change a criminal offence and lock up any one who dares to speak up against what we're doing.

Al Shanks (not Egyptian by choice)

ps that's a pretty dodgy thread about a smell I reckon.

[MonaLott]

Here are 2 recent quotes from Shankers on climate change:

maybe you're still not aware of the growing consensus amongst eminent scientists that global warming was just a geeky scare story. They are pointing out that solar radiation is now reducing again and that global average temperatures are back to the level of seven years ago*. A lot of damage (environmentally and economically) is still being wrought by the warmists but most respectable thinkers are now consigning the theory to the same dustbin as we put Y2K, CjD, bird flu etc and leaving the warmists to watch their complete series DVDs of Star Trek and The Simpsons

(for example 300,000 people will die of climate change this year alone!).
So its not a matter of anyone being allowed to believe what they want. For the sake of avoiding a massive catastrophe we must repeat our facts and predictions ad nauseum until the denyers shut up, or, as proposed by a member of the Canadian Parliament, we should make denying man made climate change a criminal offence and lock up any one who dares to speak up against what we're doing.

Methinks these reveal him for what he is! A stirrer who argues not from principle but, at best, just for fun and, at worst, to annoy people! C'mon Shankers, shape up!

[longshanks]

Oh Mona, do keep up !
Maybe its slipped your mind but I recently challenged my fellow, and esteemed, forumites to give one piece of evidence proving man made global warming is affecting Seil. I promised, if the challenge was met, to do a complete volte face in my attitude to global warming.
You met the challenge magnificently with all sorts of evidence about sandeels etc. What really convinced me was your firm assertation that our Seil air has exactly the same CO2 concentration as everywhere else in the World; wow, our air has as much CO2 in it as the air above industrial cities with populations of millions!
So
Don't be surprised that I've kept my promise and am now smugly sitting in the warmist camp.
An simple apology will suffice me old chum.

Long Uturn (This lady is for turning, by choice)

[MonaLott]

Yawn! Snore.......zzzzzzzzzzzz....2 threads with a common villain...

[canUsmellthat]

Hmmm, Tornados and Sunday sailings – coincidence much???