Patio heaters vs the Environmentalists

...err.. I'm with the camp that says 'put a jumper on for heavens sake!' but I do remember the luxury of basking under one outside in Holborn Viaduct one sub-zero evening some years ago. It has become a talking point since sales rocketed due to the smoking ban and cool summer. I might buy one if I had a patio to put it on but probably not for the same reason I wouldn't get a 4x4 - they cost too much to run ...its a waste of money when a big coat or more fuel efficient vehicle would do the same job! jude "Cacoethes scribendi" http://www.judesworld.net

I am not going to have children... for the sake of my grandchildren. As Buck says 'I suppose if we agree that using less energy is a good idea' which it is even outside the locum of the greenhouse debate. John, I love having you around and I couldn't agree with this more 'Monitor more closely the qualitative and quantitative evidence of the Environmentalists.' However, I view these climate change environmentalists as mostly harmless and there is scientific basis to parts of their claim. But in other unrelated areas environmetalists are a dangerous menace (I know this is a complete tangent but I need to vent). 'Monitor more closely the qualitative and quantitative evidence of the Environmentalists.' In fact we need to listen to environmental scientists not environmetalists who are only championing a middle class ideology rather than science. I think this ideology is damaging in the arena of agricultural biotechnology, that uses genetic engineering to enhance the output and value of many agricultural products. This includes increasing resistance to disease, "vaccinating" crops with herbicides and pesticides, crop losses to disease and insects can be minimized and farmers can produce more plentiful and nutritional harvests. Also, crops can be grown on previously unplantable lands using no-till farming which will improve the environment (a fact that the environementalists choose to ignore). The objections include the need to protect the environment and consumers from the dangers of genetic engineering. They claim that agricultural biotechnology is a dangerous and untested technology and they paint horrific frankenstein food scenarios. Such claims, however, have no ABSOLUTELY NO basis in fact. The food industry then perpetuates the myth by advertising GM free food which wholly implies there is something wrong and damaging with this technology. I agree with Dr Michael Centrone that "Environmentalists' war against agricultural biotechnology, a technology that has so much potential to alleviate human suffering and improve the environment, is not only illogical - it is immoral. Sadly, affluent Western environmentalists are more concerned with rigid adherence to their wrongheaded ideology than saving the lives of millions of people in the developing world." jude "Cacoethes scribendi" http://www.judesworld.net

Oh and Bukh is absolutely right about birth rate not being the cause of population growth in the UK since it is now 1.8 here and a population needs to have a birth rate of 2.2 to sustain itself... In the third world, there is a problem but this is complicated by lots of other factors including high infant mortality and the Aids epidemic. When there is a consensus that birth rates in poverty stricken areas should be reduced, it is not uncommon to point the finger at the Catholic Church's teaching on contraception. However, in the UK and other developed countries the birth rate amidst Catholic mirrors that of other Christian or secular groups. And in the third world the birth rate is equally high amoung non-catholics as it is in the Catholic population. This suggests that it is cultural and sociological factors that impact birth rates and not church teaching. There is enough food on the planet to support the world's current population (6.3 billion) . It is a difficult sum to calculate because of the huge amount of variables but the most sensible calculations suggest the planet can support 10 - 15 billion but this assumes a modest mainly vegetarian diet I don't think this is realistically achievable. So we need to stabilise the worlds population but WHO predict it will stabilise next century hopefully at no more than 10-11 billion but that still leaves a shortage of food not to mention the environmental impact since most of them will be in developing nations who tend to have more polluting industries. jude "Cacoethes scribendi" http://www.judesworld.net

I was taught greenhouse effect as science fact in A level chemistry but at university it was presented with all the other arguments and data. Your accusations about institutions definitely hold true at school level. I have no experience of the old polytechnics and can't comment on their standards but I can vouch that the top traditional universities still teach correct scientific methods, or they certainly did ten years ago when I graduated. But the falling number of traditional science graduates in this country is worrying. I do not believe people are opting for 'softer subjects' for an easier ride. I think the a big part of the reason is the awful pay scientists can expect in this country. I worked with a lot of bitter PhD graduates who pointed out they earned the same or less than I did (I've no post grad qualifications) after three or more often four-five years surviving on a lousy research stipend. (gosh another rant!) But I think the way schools educate in certain aspects is as you say propaganda-led and is a huge disservice. jude "Cacoethes scribendi" http://www.judesworld.net

"At GCSE level particularly, when you're trying to give young people an overview of all the science in the world, in a few hours a week, you have to generalise." Maybe that's where we're going wrong. I remember in GCSE science (but I did them seperately not as the double cert) learning chemical reactions, basic physiology, and uses of proven technology like galvinisation of oil rig supports ... leave the opinion pieces to social "sciences" and present them as exactly that...opinion. They manage to present all the arguments and opinions with issues like abortion and euthanasia in RE so why not the same for opinions on science and leave science for science? jude "Cacoethes scribendi" http://www.judesworld.net

I am with Bukh in the sense that we are not at present nearing the earth's limit of sustainability and that different ways of doing things would enable us to support an increasing population. For example we ought to harvest and waste less fish. We keep the cod and plaice and throw back equally edible fish that are less desirable often for no other reason than consumer trends. However as Denver points out there is a limit we can do in changing things and I for one want to eat cod and have several nice cars and a house bigger than my needs. For that reason I am with Peps in that I think we need a world where less children are born and we look after the ones who are, better. I don't think the value of human life can be measured mathematically. Human life is the highest value and therefore the greater number of lives, the better seems like an ontological argument. We discussed this a while ago in a thread... http://www.abctales.com/forum/2007/02/18/life-gift It is qualitative as much as quantitative. I have four brothers and a sister all of whom are fantastic people whom I care about but having experienced first hand the consequences of producing more children than one can really afford. that's my major reason for opposing large families rather than any environmental concern jude "Cacoethes scribendi" http://www.judesworld.net

I don't agree with aggressive measures. They don't work anyway and short of sterilisation I don't think much could work. But more passive measures such as they have in Holland for curbing birth rates in certain demograhic groups (teenaged pregnancy) might be helpful. It seems that the better educated and more economically comfortable people are, the less children they have anyway. jude "Cacoethes scribendi" http://www.judesworld.net

in holland there is a lot of sex education but a lot of people including myself think it is to do with the stigma attached to teenage pregnancy and lack of welfare state for teenaged mothers . Teenage mothers have to appoint a legal guardian (over 18) for their baby. They themselves are not entitled to housing or other support. However, this has not worked in very poor inner city areas where the situation still mirrors ours. It is too simplistic to say cut the welfare and they won't get pregnant - this is not true. If people can have aspirations other than parenthood, the birthrate will go down. So education and reducing poverty is the most effective way of cutting birth rates. So long as it isn't dome with hand outs! jude "Cacoethes scribendi" http://www.judesworld.net

agreed, so long as the carrot has to be worked for. Tax credits for working families are better than hand outs. Gordon Brown's 'leg up' rather than 'hand out' mentality was I think a good thing. My friend who had been unemployed since aged 17 when she had her first child went back to work as soon as it meant she would be significantly better off than remaining totally reliant on the welfare. Mind you, she only had 2 kids so going back to the birth rate issue, this is the same as an average middle-class 2-parent family. Teenaged pregnancy doesn't necessarily lead to lots of children, they are 2 different issues. People are going to have large families in this country for cultural reasons more than anything else I would imagine. jude "Cacoethes scribendi" http://www.judesworld.net