Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Support

 

Twitter
Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

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

Powered by Squarespace
« New vacancy on S&T committee | Main | Lobbywatch and the Fox »
Saturday
Oct162010

Josh 49

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (10)

I have always suspected that the only reason for having a railway engineer in charge was to prevent the gravy train from coming off the rails!

Oct 16, 2010 at 2:28 PM | Unregistered Commentergraphicconception

Patchy Ozzie?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MLp7YNTznE&feature=related

Oct 16, 2010 at 2:36 PM | Unregistered CommenterJohn M

Has the global warming train arrived at its tipping point?

Oct 16, 2010 at 2:48 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charley

I reckon there was a leak somewhere on the gravy train which caused it to slip off the tracks. I just hope that all those people who bought tickets, caught the train.
This could be a prophetic cartoon.

Oct 16, 2010 at 3:48 PM | Unregistered Commenterpesadia

Then there is the issue of truthfulness, this deserves a wider airing: The reseach was done by Richard North a year ago and involves and in an Indian court case where a judge ruled that Pachauri had "suppressed material facts and they have sworn to false affidavits"

The original court document of the judement is here:

http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/290167/

And this is a extract from Richard North's EUREferendum citing the contents of court document:

" the judge was entirely unconvinced, declaring that the three officers of the Council, including Mr (sic) Pachauri, " have suppressed material facts and they have sworn to false affidavits."

The Judge went on to say that the defendant had acted in a very arbitrary way, stating: "such things could not be tolerated in a democratic set up." In a coruscating indictment, he then declared:

And I am afraid, that the affairs and the efficient management of the Centre are not safe in the hands of officers like ... Dr R K Pachauri ... and they had ignored that the officers have to function as a public functionaries within the parameters of the Constitution.

A year after that judgement, Pachauri was elected to become co-chair of the IPCC. He is still on the Governing Council of the Habitat Centre and between September 2004 and September 2006 was its president."

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2009/12/hypocrite-as-well-as-liar.html

Oct 16, 2010 at 6:48 PM | Unregistered CommenterJulian Williams

A MUST read, if you want to smile...

From the Thames Valley Climate Action Group (found it via climate camp, my local group)
http://tvca.ox4.org/meetings.php

!!! Take a look at the 'twinkling hand' signal (with picture) to give when the meeting reaches consensus... !!!!

They have their own special hand signals !!!! (Follow the link for the diagrams!!)


"Raise one or both hands and wiggle when you hear an opinion that you agree with, wave a hand with your fingers pointing upwards. This saves a lot of time as people don't need to chip in to say "I'd just like to add that I agree with that point." This is sometimes called a twinkle. Some people use a 'reverse twinkle' (hands pointing down and wiggling) to show disagreement with the point being made."

I might be considered a 'block' and asked to leave....


•Blocks are where people feel so strongly that the proposal should be rejected that they would consider leaving the group if the proposal is passed. People that block will be asked why they are doing so in the hope that the proposal can be modified to address their concerns. Ultimately, if there is a block, consensus has not been reached and the decision will not be taken. If you find yourself blocking a lot it could be that you don't share the same values and vision as the rest of the group and you might think about leaving the group for one that does share your values.

•Stand-asides are where people do not actively support the proposal, but are OK for it to go ahead. As with blocks, people that stand aside will be asked why they are doing so that the group can understand the concerns people have and, hopefully address them. If lots of people stand aside the facilitator may decide that consensus has not been reached and look to reform the proposal. If only a small number of people stand aside the facilitator may decide to go ahead and check for consensus.
•Consensus is when people actively agree to the proposal and are willing to implement it. If you consent to the proposal, show this with the twinkling hands signal.


leaving of course a like minded 'consensus'
some consensus, asking people to leave....

Oct 16, 2010 at 7:33 PM | Unregistered CommenterBarry Woods

oh......... I feel a 'reverse twinkle' coming on.....

Comedy Gold part 2?

Oct 16, 2010 at 7:33 PM | Unregistered CommenterBarry Woods

Maybe the IPCC should try this approach to form consensus ( no red button, if you are asked toleav, your choice, no pressure)

I would love to see Pachauri perfom a REVERSE TWINKLE

(see hand signals) - Thames Valley Climate Action
http://tvca.ox4.org/meetings.php

Oct 16, 2010 at 7:50 PM | Unregistered CommenterBarry Woods

Now, continuing the railway theme, anyone notices who emerges from the steam at 2m30s into this ending clip of the Railway Children? Looks like a well-known railway engineer..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44vAostw1BI

Oct 16, 2010 at 8:05 PM | Unregistered CommenterCharlie

This is quite important:
How did the IPCC get Pachauri to hang on, even after explicit, direct recommendations to the contrary? The IPCC plenary has to either 'accept' the IAC's recommendations, or 'reject' it, or .... give some reason for acting otherwise.

What did the plenary do instead? It turns out, they managed to do another thing - they postponed action

From Nature blog:

But a number of more far-reaching recommendations concerning the IPCC’s management and procedures will not be implemented so quickly.

The plenary agreed to form a task group to address the issue of whether the IPCC needs an executive director and whether the term of its chairman should be limited to one assessment.

What's more...

The task group will report to the IPCC’s plenary which, at its next session in May 2011, may or may not implement the proposed new policies.

Oct 16, 2010 at 8:29 PM | Unregistered CommenterShub

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>