Skip to main content

A 'reprieve' from dangerous climatechange?

I debated Mike Hulme last night, as part of the UEA Public Lectures on 'Philosophy and the Environment'. It went well. But my fear is that some people like Mike's work so much, because it appears to offer them a reprieve. Mike's work suggests that it is somehow OK for us to disagree about manmade climate change. But the parameters within which it is OK are limited. If we go on disagreeing much longer, we'll be arguing underwater...

Comments

Paul said…
but Rupert, Mike Hulme is an international climate scientist with 25 years experience behind him.

You on the other hand are not a scientist but a politician with a very politicised agenda in respect of 'climate change'
25 December 2010 at 19:04
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Post-Growth: A new vision for a fairer and more sustainable Britain

Post a Comment
Read more

More on why 20's plenty -- without need for any further 'trials'...

There are a number of reasons for setting a default speed of 20mph throughout the 'unclassified' road network in residential parts of a city such as Norwich. Most important perhaps is that of driver recognition as to what the speed limit is. If you have 20 mph as the default then you not only establish this limit clearly, but you also adjust the driver's recognition as to what is the "normal" speed in such residential areas. The most important aspect is that drivers set 20 mph as the norm with those 30 mph areas or roads being seen as 50% faster, rather than seeing 30 mph as the norm with 20 mph as 33% slower. The psychological adjustment of normal speeds in residential areas is key to the success of reducing speeds and therefore danger to pedestrians and cyclists. Therefore any trial, pilot or whatever, that only implements 20 mph in a tiny proportion of the city is not modelling 20's Plenty in any realistic manner.   When considering the val...
2 comments
Read more