Seen elsewhere



Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace


lapogus. The Monbiot piece was new to me and I very much appreciate being led to it. It captures Monbiots style so perfectly that I was several paragraphs into it before my sceptical brain cells were sufficiently stimulated.

Jan 18, 2017 at 7:41 PM | Unregistered CommenterSupertroll

tomo & lapogus,

George Monbiot fails to mention the noxious emissions, including greenhouse gases, from huffing and puffing vegetarian cyclists, that other road users have to put up with.

Jan 18, 2017 at 6:36 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

This is an old one from the Daily Mash, but it is always worth re-reading:

Do we really need ambulances?
By George Monbiot

THEIR screaming sirens, their back-to-front writing and their dirty diesel engines have become a fixture in our modern lives, but does anyone ever stop to think if we actually need them?

Allow me spell it out for you. Ambulances are notoriously inefficient in terms of fuel consumption. They are either screaming along dual carriageways at more than 90mph, on their way to some self-inflicted ’emergency’. Or they are plodding along carefully at 30 because they are carrying some fascist polluter with a fractured spine.

I performed a peer-reviewed calculation on my phone and discovered that British ambulances make up 0.00023% of our annual CO2 emissions. Look at that figure again and tell me you don’t feel an overwhelming sense of shame.

We must re-order Britain as an ambulance-free society. It won’t be easy. De-ambulancification never is. But we must reach down to the very roots of our being and rip up everything that allows the ambulance to prosper.

Why do we need ambulances? Because people hurt themselves. Or get sick. Therefore our first step must be to stop using things.

Hoovers, Magimixes, television sets and angle-poise lamps are not just power-sucking planet-killers, they are death traps. I use none of these things and yet I am still able to go about my day and make a comfortable living writing articles about ambulances. Why can’t you do the same?

More than half of all UK heart attacks are caused by easyJet. Peer-reviewed fact! Every time you fly you are causing a heart attack which requires the dispatch of an ambulance to take the fat polluter to hospital where it is hooked up to electrical machines, only to recover and go on yet another holiday to one of easyJet’s 74 European destinations. And so your filthy, gassy circle keeps turning.

Those of you who have ever been so complacent, so self-absorbed, so willfully ignorant as to allow yourself to be carried in an ambulance should ask yourselves this question: Am I really good enough to go on living among people like George Monbiot and some of his friends from university?

Source: Do we really need ambulances? By George Monbiot

Jan 18, 2017 at 5:12 PM | Registered Commenterlapogus

The Moonbat doesn't consent - apparently.

Jan 18, 2017 at 4:42 PM | Registered Commentertomo

stew 12:15
yup... what is exasperating is that when there is clear corruption of the "higher purpose" (cleaner air in this case) there are no folk with a public platform who step up to challenge the misbehaviour - even on a trivial level.

I mean - it's not like there is any lack of evidence in this case - just indolence and a lack of moral fibre.... :-)

Jan 18, 2017 at 12:23 PM | Registered Commentertomo

8:50pm Nut on R4Today ..she unscientifically shouted the mantra “hottest year evah !”

It was
"Dean for Diversity and Inclusion, Professor of Climate Physics, STEM Ambassador, mum to 2 boys. Opinions are mine, not employers!

University of Reading

Jan 18, 2017 at 12:18 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

"Ban" = give my mates free playing field to sell EVs and collect subsidies.
It's vnot really about air quality.
Just as alarmism isnt about CO2

Jan 18, 2017 at 12:15 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen


There is recent report (Jan '17) out on gas powering of commercial vehicles that you might find of some interest.

Section 6.2 is the takeaway.... that said - this is a repetition (ad nausiam) of earlier work that shows gas is all round a better fuel in terms of emissions - this was well known in automotive engineering circles before Boris buses were even on the drawing board.

What is it with people who simply want to ban things (with fines...) and take lazy self serving decisions paid for with other people's money? I am still smarting after being cheated out of a LCZ waiver because there were too many gas vehicles being registered in London and that was an unacceptable revenue loss... - go figure.

Jan 18, 2017 at 11:14 AM | Registered Commentertomo

@SandyS Dr Jon Grigg re-appeared in the Diesel discussion yesterday so I put that question to him cos Tony Heller had just broke the story.

Jan 18, 2017 at 9:19 AM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

How does the news that 30% (perhaps more ) diagnosis of adult asthma are incorrect affect the correlation between increasing asthma cases and pollution? Or will it just move seamlessly into a correlation between pollution and allergies?

Jan 18, 2017 at 7:59 AM | Unregistered CommenterSandyS

PostCreate a New Post

Enter your information below to create a new post.
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>