Later

My last post has been hijacked by some children, so I'm going to start again. Global warming. Two views: 1. Al Gore: An Inconvenient Truth: humans are causing global warming and we need to reduce our carbon emissions or sea levels will rise between 20-40 feet.  An Inconvenient Truth is available on DVD.  I first saw it on TV, then rented it before buying it online for less than £5. 2.  The Great Global Warming Swindle: increased solar activity is causing the temperature of the earth to rise, which in turn is  causing an increase in carbon emissions (from mostly natural sources especially the sea - which is a great big carbon sink).  I.e. this says that Al Gore has got it the wrong way round - the earth is heating up and this is causing an increase in carbon emissions.  The Great Global Warming Swindle can be downloaded from Google Video.  http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...62022478442170 I think we need to look very suspiciously at an argument that says humans must reduce their carbon emissions because it is causing the world to overheat. Now I've had some time to read up on this issue, I think this is nonsense. The amount produced by humans is a drop in the ocean compared to other sources. And any increase in the temperature of the earth attributable to man's activities is nothing compared to the impact of the sun pumping out a lot more energy than it has in recent times. I think there are two sets of arguments here. Separate unrelated arguments. 1. We must consume less and look for alternatives, because (i) non-renewable resources are going to run out (eventually) and (ii) we're messing up the planet with all our "stuff". ------- AND -------- 2. We need to put our amazing brains to work to deal with the consequences of something that is beyond our control - global warming - because these consequences are going to make terrorism and the raft of other social and economic issues dominating the world look inconsequential. I can't see any politician making a case for 2. Especially if he can blame global warming on human activities and legislate to hell to curb those activities - they do so like to legislate... You can't legislate against the great fireball in the sky having more and much bigger solar flares etc etc. Like Don Quixote, lots of people interested in this subject are tilting at windmills (not a lot of people knew that Don Q was concerned about global warming :-)   ). We shall feel very deceived if, in 5-20 years time mankind has thrown enormous resources into reducing carbon emissions, when we should have thrown enormous resources into dealing with a substantial rise in sea levels. This will result in the displacement of literally hundreds of millions of people.  Where are all those people going to go? What lengths will they have to go to to secure food and shelter? Many of the big cities of the world are near the coast and on river.

Cooperlola There's the rub.  How can we tell developing nations they can't have what we have?  Sanitation, lighting / electricity, transport infrastructures -  things that we take for granted that make a huge difference to people living more fulfilled lives.  On the other hand it is imperative that we husband our resources and fill less holes in the ground with our detritus. Notions of happiness not coming from material possessions will probably not have currency with people who have very little.  This is a preoccupation of the well off.  Maslow's Heirarchy of Needs and all that ...

Without a doubt the French ...

What? Highly dishonest like perpetuating a false argument about the relevance of the role of humans in carbon emissions? Yours is a political argument, not a scientific one. I think you will be hard pressed to find someone who does not agree that we need to take measures to sensibly use finite resources and not pollute the planet, but please let's be honest.

Bugbear, I'm right with you on that.  Morons!

Ford Anglia  thanks for that link. We're doomed! or not as the case may be ... The Great Global Warming Swindle was very interesting.  http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4499562022478442170   More compelling in a way than the Al Gore effort. The main thrust is that global warming is not caused by an increase in carbon emissions (from all sources), but that carbon emissions increase when the temperature of the earth increases.  What causes the temperature of the earth to increase ?  In their view the sun is responsible for variations in the average temperature of the earth.  If global warming is not being caused by man-made (man-caused) carbon emissions, then the global warming argument as it stands falls apart, in fact it falls down ...  :-) So we may just have a lot of people tilting at windmills.  People with vested interests; particuarly their job, or their research grant, or not losing "face".  This side of the argument seems to be very credible.  However, regardless of the cause and consequences of global warming, what remains, in my opinion, is a strong need to husband our finite resources.

Just reading a summary of now on Amazon. It's coming out on DVD in September.

Just watched, for the second time, the documentary "An Inconvenient Truth" by Al Gore. I think what he's saying about global warming needs to be taken more seriously by many people - me included. If what he is saying comes about, sea levels will rise by 40 feet, say about 14 metres. Even if he is out by a factor of five or ten, we are in for some interesting times. Glad I didn't buy a house anywhere near the sea or a river. My view is there is definitely something to what he says. Some of the evidence he puts forward is fairly convincing. Enough to make you sit up and spill your cup of tea. It is just a question of scale and time - and not as much time as you might think. I think it would be no bad thing for everyone to watch this documentary and discuss it with all and sundry. I first saw it broadcast on TV, but I got it from my DVD rental place yesterday and I'm going to download it from Amazon tonight.

My floors have shrunk.  I can't help thinking it would have helped if I had left them for some months in the house to dry out.  Impractical of course.

I bet demand and prices are unchanged for houses in the "real" Spain (ie not the coastal resort towns).  I'm sure people who have moved to Spain to integrate with the Spanish locals are unaffected by all this collapse of the property market business. 

Please start by giving your username: laterdude /first name: John and explain if you are:  permanently resident in France – no the UK a second-homeowner - no considering buying a home there – yes happy just holidaying there Next, please let us know the following: If you did vote, or could have voted, would you have elected:  If I could I would have voted for Sarkozy Why would you vote for either of these candidates?   France needs some changes and he is the man to implement them.  Will Sarkozy have a positive or negative impact on France during his presidency?  It will go “pear-shaped” for a while and then things will get much much better. How, if at all, will/has his election affect(ed) your views towards France?   It gives me hope that it has some chance of pulling itself out of the mire and that there is a future for this magnificent country.  France’s economy is in such bad shape.  It needs some serious work to be made viable and sustainable. An example:   It is almost impossible to run a small business in France and make a success of it.  Small business provides work for a significant part of the workforce in most western economies and generates a lot of tax revenue.    Some of the proposals put forward by Sarkozy will make it more attractive to work and less of a financial burden to employ people – especially for small businesses. If you are considering buying a home in France, has his election caused you to change your mind?  If Royal had won, there is absolutely no way I would by a house to live in France.  Now I’m for it, but not without serious reservations; mainly to do with whether or not Sarky can do what he says he's going to do and secondly there will be a period of pain which probably won't be much fun for anyone.

I am just about to use http://www.sfpn.com/  I spoke to Angela (in English) on the phone.  She was very helpful.  An extract from her email below.  I am proposing to get them to do 1-2 days work for me.  I will let you know how it pans out.  Thankyou for calling our company yesterday. I confirm that it is possible for us to analyse the costs and taxes that you would incur if you decide to move to France and carry out your side of the business in France. We will also propose possible solutions and structures for your business in France (i.e. sole trader, "micro entreprise", limited company).   We confirm that our fees are the following :   * 55,15 €/hour (exclusive of VAT) for myself or my colleague * 110,75 €/hour (exclusive of VAT) for a Chartered Accountant   As we have explained, we will probably not be able to start work for you before the beginning of June (2007), but will do our upmost to complete the work that you request as soon as possible.  

I don't trust anyone near that button.

Thanks Georgina, that is very reassuring.  What do I want in life?  Lots of time to be with my children. I make plenty of time for them in the UK, but expect to have even more time in France.  Also fantasise about having more time to take photos and write, but suspect I will spend a lot more time filling out forms and earning money to pay my cotisations :-) [quote user="Georgina"] Good luck John, looks like you have done the homework.  Tell your son not to worry, he will pick it up in no time.  Kids fluent after 8months.  They had french lessons in UK and I introduced them gradually into french school. They are much happier than in UK school.  They were that age when I introduced them here during holidays etc. It depends what you want out of life as to whether it is better here, and it is for me.  But I can vouch for the fact that it is a much better life for young children. Georgina [/quote]

OK, sticking my my flag in the ground now.  If Sarkozy doesn't get in then, France is in serious trouble. Deep, deep,deep deep in the mire.