Crimes, Punishments and Riots

I must admit to more than a sneaking sympathy for those who want to cut the benefits of anyone convicted of riot related crimes. It goes without saying that the majority of those who will be convicted who are currently in work won’t be in the future. There’s also probably a case for saying that the parents of anyone under the age of 13 ought to lose their benefits if their child is convicted. I know that 13 is an arbitrary cut-off, but once kids are into their teens it gets harder to keep a lid on what they get up – particularly when the entire welfare system seems to exist to give them free reign.

However, I’m also not convinced that prison is the right punishment for some of the less serious offences. It seems to me that we ought to be thinking of putting some of these kids to work – and it should be unpaid. . And this should be real work – a proper working day, no bus fares being paid, no social workers on hand to soothe the ruffled feathers of teenagers who actually have to do as they are told. It should be real work with some value, not ‘make-work’. How about repairing the damage they’ve committed. Or fixing up some of the estates that are most run down. For this to work you need to have penalties in place. For every day that you are late a day is added to the sentence. For every day that is missed you add two days. If offenders repeatedly don’t turn up then it’s automatically a custodial sentence.

As a corollary, if we’re cutting benefits from offenders, then what do we expect them to do instead? Something like this calls for some radical action. Firstly, waive minimum wage rules for them. If they have to work for less than minimum wage then that’s tough. If they stick to their jobs then they can move on to somewhere that will pay better. Secondly, we have to do something about the gang culture that is a cancer in large parts of our inner cities. I never thought I’d see the day when I’d be agreeing with Diane Abbot, but there you are. The police will have to come down really hard on the gangs. Loss of social housing, loss of benefits, custodial sentences – the full gamut of punitive options should be used. It’s gone too far already – now we need to take the opportunity to kill it off for good.

Nobody wins

Our feral politicians do not have the moral weight to criticise rioting – they are venal, corrupt and deserve our contempt. The media, immersed in navel-gazing and reporting celebrity gossip, similarly carry no moral weight. Our education system has systematically undermined the authority of parents and others. It exists to boost the ‘self esteem’ and greivance culture that exists among sections of the poor (black and white). It too has lost the authority it might once have had.


The only people who can criticise are those of us who get up and work. Those of us who want to stand on our own two feet and not to have to depend on a welfare state that seeks to make us addicted to hand-outs. Those of us, black and white, who have raised kids to know what’s right and wrong, and to make sure our kids stay on the straight and narrow. We’re the only ones who can criticise, and we need to make sure our voices are heard above that of ‘hug a hoodie’ Dave and the rest of the parasites.

Nobody has done well out of this sorry mess. Least of all those people who's lives have been destroyed by their neighbours and the criminally stupid kids in their areas. The costs of doing business in places like Tottenham, Croydon and so on will go through the roof. Shops will be boarded up and left to rot. This effects everyone in those areas, including the morons who smashed, burned and looted. In time people will complain that their communities are not being served and no doubt some will blame racism or seek some other explanation that ignores the facts of what has just gone on.

Just about the only people who win from all of this are the BNP. Who will ignore the fact that a huge number of the victims of the riots are black, Asian, Kurdish and others. They will ignore too that in some places there were as many white faces under the scarves and hoodies as black.

An intelligent voice

Internet Explorer, Intelligence and Climate Change

The recent and much-publicised story about Internet Explorer users and intelligence casts an interesting light on the parlous state of journalism in much of the mass-media. On the odd chance that you missed it the story goes as follows: a psychometrics company releases a study that looks at browser usage and IQ tests, the results show that users of Internet Explorer score significantly lower on the online IQ tests than users of other browsers, the results are picked up and trumpeted right across the world and in all the big media outlets (both in print and online), finally the study is shown to be bogus and the whole thing turns out to be a hoax. Apart from the great Daily Mash headline ‘If you're using Internet Explorer, this is called a 'website'’, is there anything especially noteworthy to report?

I think there is, and it is directly relevant to much science reporting, particularly, but not exclusively, with respect to climate change.

The hoax was not especially elaborate. It appears that it consisted of little more than a purchased domain name, a plausible looking web site and some skills in crafting a press release. The media received the press release, look at the site and then went to print. Instant headlines across the world. Cracks began to show in the story, however, when careful readers and bloggers started digging deeper. It turned out that the domain name had only been recently purchased. The web site contained images stolen from another company. Nobody could be contacted directly at the fake company. This isn’t rocket science, it’s just basic fact checking and it fell to readers and bloggers to do the job that the journalists should have done in the first place.

Climate Change In Black and White

Although this isn’t a new story, this Guardian piece on ‘conservative white males’ being more likely to be climate change sceptics  is worth discussing in a bit more detail. The conjunction of race and climate is an interesting one, combining two of the key planks of current liberal/left orthodoxy.

Firstly, Judith Curry, who is decidedly not a climate change sceptic quite rightly points out what a pitiful piece of work this as in terms of research. There appears to be no clear definition of what a ‘denialist’ is, as she states:

Because of the mounting political and economic stakes of dealing with climate change, this global environmental problem has become extremely controversial in the US, and American efforts to deal with it have provoked a significant degree of denial—both of the reality of climate change and of its status as a problem deserving amelioration.

JC comment.  The above is the first para in the paper.  It is the only place where they come close to defining climate change denial.    Do you know anyone that denies the reality of climate change?  I sure don’t.   Many people on their “denier” list probably also agree that the problem deserves some attention.  It seems that “denier” really means people that don’t support emissions targets.  This whole group of sociologists working in this area seems not to have given much thought to what actually characterizes “deniers.”

It would appear then, that in the absence of a clearly articulated definition, ‘denier’ is essentially a short-hand way of saying people who we disagree with. Note that there is not even an attempt to outline a set of criteria against which we might be able to assess degrees of agreement or disagreement. It’s all or nothing, completely binary thinking that does not allow room for manoeuvre (see the post on the Climate Quadrant on one possible approach to classifying a wider range of views on the subject). Indeed, one has to wonder whether Dr Curry herself wouldn’t qualify as a ‘denier’ as far as many people on the left are concerned – because despite her adherence to the anthropogenic climate change hypothesis she is critical of the idea of a climate change ‘consensus’, of the practices of some of her colleagues (particularly in the light of Climategate), and of the conduct of the IPCC.

No Shit Sherlock!

What a surprise... Really, can there have been any doubt that Anders Breivik is insane? It's been apparent from the beginning that he is a classic spree killer. He is closer to Thomas Hamilton, Michael Ryan and Derrick Bird than Tim McVeigh.

Now, can people please stop taking his rationalisations on face value? Enough already on the Left with all that bollocks about the unpoliced internet, equating doubts about immigration with Nazism and the need to clamp down on civil liberties. Equally, let's stop with similar rubbish on the Right about the failures of multiculturalism, the success of political correctness and so on.

We need to debate all of those issues, but on their own terms, not in connection with a fantasist killing scores of young people as a consequence of his own psychological defects.

The Norwegian Massacre

While the response of the Left to the Norwegian massacre is fairly predictable and opportunistic, there is also evidence that there are some on the Right willing to indulge in similar double standards. On the Left there is a palpable sense of relief that the spree killer was white and clearly identified with the Right. It enables them to trot out the old clichés about neo-Nazis and the internet, it tars with the same brush all those who have concerns about multi-culturalism (presumably not those of us who are dark-skinned though), and they can have a pop at Norway for being xenophobic enough not to want to be sucked into the EU. All so predictable and all so boring.

On the Right, however, we have a parallel story. While few outside of Stormfront or other Nazi forum will applaud Anders Behring Breivik for his actions, there are some who will use the attack as a means of getting back at what they see as a corrupt, liberal society. They will suggest that it is the closing down of discussion on multi-culturalism that is at fault here. They will reason that Breivik was robbed of legitimate avenues of protest, that his views have been marginalised and criminalised so that an explosion of violence was inevitable – if not from Breivik, from some other deranged individual.

The Climate Quadrant

It’s hard not to get angry reading yesterday’s BBC Trust report by Steven Jones. Delingpole does a nice job of laying into it, but there are plenty more bloggers out there covering similar ground. Having read the report it’s pretty poor stuff, and Jones comes across as lazy, arrogant and clearly not interested in attempting to be even handed. But what lies at the heart of his argument is not just another unscientific appeal to consensus, but also a complete lack of understanding that there are endless shades of opinion on the topic of climate change. In his world there are only two camps – the consensus (as represented by the IPCC and supported by the Royal Society) and the denialists (his word). Climate change is a complicated topic, is it really feasible that opinion could neatly fit into two such simplistic categories?

At heart Jones views climate science in the same way that some people view politics. There is an out-dated and unsophisticated view the imagines that political ideas, and those that adhere to them, can easily sit on a single axis of Left vs. Right. All ideologies can be dropped somewhere on this axis. So, simplistically, Hitler is on the extreme right, Stalin on the extreme Left, and everyone else sits somewhere in between. Of course this is redundant in a time when our politicians no longer have much in the way of ideology. But even so, assume that this Left vs Right dichotomy still exists. Where do you place Anarchists on this line? And judged purely on economic policies, surely the BNP are on the Left, having much in common with the authoritarian left (economic protectionism, state control etc).

Monckton, Pachauri and Hitler

Can somebody help me here, please?

Not that long ago climate change sceptic Christopher Monckton compared Ross Garnaut, a leading climate change alarmist advising the Australian government, to a Nazi there was outrage. Monkcton was criticised not just by the warmist side, but by many people on the sceptical side of the fence (Anthony Watts and Andrew Bolt, for example). He apologised almost immediately, but the damage had been done, and it detracted from what he was actually saying. Some Australian academics even wanted to cancel Monckton's lectures in universities.

It's clear then, that Nazi references are verboten in climate change discussions.

So, can somebody point me to the shock horror from the climate change alarmist side when IPCC Rajendra Pachauri compared Bjorn Lomborg to Hitler? Pachauri was quoted as saying:

"What is the difference between Lomborg's view of humanity and Hitler's? If you were to accept Lomborg's way of thinking, then maybe what Hitler did was the right thing."

Mockton doesn't hold an official position, he's not funded by our taxes. Pachauri is the head of the IPCC, and ultimately funded by tax payers the world over. Mockton compared Garnaut to a Nazi, Pachauri went one better and compared Lomborg (who isn't even a climate change sceptic) to the top Nazi, Hitler himself.

So, please help me. Where is Pachauri's apology? And where are the criticisms directed from his own side?

I want my money back

I want my money back. All of it. I was promised global warming. It was guaranteed so long as CO2 continued to rise. I was going to get hot summers and warmer winters. Instead it’s mid-July and it’s cold, grey and miserable. I want the warming I was promised. It was promised to me by Al Gore, James Hansen, the BBC, the UK Met Office, Rajendra Pachauri and the IPCC, Sir David King, Sir Paul Beddington, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, David Cameron, the BBC, the Guardian, the Daily Telegraph, the Times, the Royal Society, the BBC, Gavin Schmidt, Brian Cox, Leonardo diCaprio and most of Hollywood and the music industry, Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, Geoffrey Lean, George Monbiot, Michael Mann, Jonathan Porritt, Prince Charles, the BBC, Oxfam, Phil Jones, the Hadley Centre, the CRU, Chris Huhne and the BBC. And that’s just off the top of my head.

So where is it? Where’s this warming I’ve been looking forward to? I just checked the latest figures on the Central England Temperature record. The average temperature for June 2011 was 13.8 C. The 353-year average June temperature is 14.3 C. The 30-year average (1970-1999) June temperature is 14.1 C, the 30-year average for 1980-2009 is higher still at 14.4 C. And before you carp, I know that this is a local temperature for central England and not a global figure. And I know that weather is not climate. But local temperatures have the advantage of being more reality-based than the fictional global temperatures that warmists like.

So, having ranted because of the cold, it seems to me that a refund is in order. Either that or we need to increase the amount of coal we burn to get some of that warmth that we’ve been waiting for.

Chris Huhne and Fuel Poverty

Picture this: You implement policies that are deliberately designed to make energy usage expensive. This you justify on the grounds that it will reduce carbon emmissions. Of course you implement the policy by levying various taxes and additional charges on the power companies and big users of energy (such as the NHS, for example). The energy companies pass the charges on to the consumer, as expected. What's more the systems are so complex that it's not easily possible for the consumer to see how much of the increased cost is down to 'green' policies and how much is down to increased wholesale costs or a desire to increase margins.

In any case, the consumer just gets to see increased power costs. What do you, as the author of these policies do? You pin the blame on the energy companies and encourage users to switch to different providers. Which providers? You know for a fact that all providers will be increasing their charges. But it makes you look good, and you can even convince yourself that you're standing up for the little guy.

When the number of families in fuel power rises, how do you react? With outrage of course. You promise to tackle this injustice, and, as befits a man of principle, you will look at rebates, or tax breaks or some such policy. In other words you will take some of the money that you have grabbed and give a little of it back. And you'll do this by increasing dependence on the state, by increasing the complexity of the tax and benefits system and ultimately by enlarging the state. What you will not do is directly reduce the green levies or make changes to any of your energy policies.

And, just as importantly, you will continue with the narative that the world needs saving from CO2, that the real culprits are the energy companies and that the only defender of the poor is the state.

It's a nice picture, it really is. Chris Huhne really is pissing on our shoes and telling us it's raining.

Aussie climate tax and science journalism

Science journalist Fred Pearce has a piece in the New Scientist on Australia's new carbon tax. The gist of the article is that the tax is so full of loop-holes and rebates and exclusions that it is unlikely to make a dent in what he describes as 'largest per-capita emitter of greenhouse gases in the developed world'. It's the usual New Scientist story - nasty industrialists subverting a policy that is designed to save the planet. One wouldn't expect any different from the New Scientist, which seems to prefer acting as a cheerleader for Greenpeace (and yes, there's a quote from Greenpeace in his article) than in digging any deeper or disturbing the status quo.

What is conspciuously absent from Pearce's careful analysis of Australia's CO2 budget, is what effect any of this is likely to have on global temperatures. The 'per capita' figure is a red herring, Australia's population is relatively small and globally its CO2 emissions come in at 1.32%, putting it 16th in the world rankings (as reported on wikipedia).

Even if, (and it's a huge IF), we accept that CO2 emmissions cause warming, the effect of Australia reducing its emmissions is not going to make a blind bit of difference. Or at least not that you'd be able to notice with the sort of thermometer that you or I can use. So, whether there are loopholes and get out clauses, what we have is a massive new tax, an army of bureaucrats to administer it, all kinds of pain and aggravation and for what? To ultimately make no real difference to a projected (not predicted) temperature change at some point in the distant future.

Forget the science, the question that needs to be asked by Pearce and others in the media, is simple. What are the benefits of this policy relative to the costs? Is the massive cost of making a projected difference of fractions of a degree in the future worth it? Arguing over whether these expensive and intrusive measures will reduce CO2 emmissions by x% or not is almost immaterial.

A public scandal

I have avoided any comment on the whole News International phone hacking scandal. It's sickening. Really, really, really sickening. The orgy of sanctimonious, hypocritical cant on display at Westminster yesterday was hard to stomach. All that bollocks from all sides on how it was parliament responding to the public was especially vomit-inducing. This is the same parliament that has listened to the public on all the important issues, like going to war, handing power to the EU, bailing out the failed Euro, passing the climate change act...

Thanks to intensive therapy, the Progressive Contrarian is able to mix with members of the public (yes, even without a minder these days), and the overwhelming feeling that is expressed by most people is contempt. Contempt for Murdoch and his minions, but even more there's a contempt for our political classes who are jumping at the chance to occupy what they think is the moral high ground. It's a times like these that one feels that removing our politicians from the gene pool would be a gift to humanity.

Science journalism and climate change

In a previous post I posed the question of why our so-called leaders have fallen hook, line and sinker for man-made global warming – which is, at best, a hypothesis which is increasingly being demolished by newer results and empirical facts. It certainly does not look like the science is settled. Nor do the alarmist predictions that were being made a decade ago seem to be coming true. Despite all of this, and in spite of the increasing scepticism of the public, there seems to be no signs that our political leaders harbour any  doubts. I would joke about the lights being on but nobody being home, but the lights in politicians heads are powered by wind – there are only occasional flickers of intermittent light at best.

But it’s not just the politicians at fault here. Arguably the mania for global warming would not be half as strong had there not been a near unanimous chorus of approval from the mass media. From repeating the mantra about scientific consensus, to labelling sceptics as oil-industry funded ‘deniers’ to trumpeting the most absurd alarmist claims of impending disaster – the media are complicit in furthering the green agenda and propagandising for global warming alarmism. The question we have to ask then, is what are the forces at work here? Why are there so few sceptic voices heard in public?

In a recent post at the Global Warming Policy Foundation, David Whitehouse points out that:

Many science reporters haven’t been scientists and haven’t been general reporters. Like the rise of the career politician that goes straight from University to politics it is a worrying trend.

Why Do They Believe?

I must admit that this is a topic that I continually struggle with. I’m sure I’m not the only one, and that in years to come diligent young historians will be earning their PhDs off the same question: how is that the ruling elites in the West bought in so totally into the whole anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory. And, despite the increasing scepticism of electorates and the growing number of scientists willing to admit to doubts as the evidence grows ever weaker, our politicians shown no signs of coming to their senses. If anything the mania seems to be getting worse as they bet everything on windfarms, solar energy and cutting CO2 emissions.

So why is it? Now there are some who survey the scene and conclude that it only makes sense in the context of some grand conspiracy. You know the score. Evil one worlders out to impose a de facto UN government under cover of saving the planet. They’ll even point the finger at specific individuals, like Maurice Strong, as being behind this conspiracy. But, I’m afraid that being a sceptic means remaining sceptical about conspiracies too. Sure, the IPCC, the major scientific societies, huge chunks of academia, almost the entire mass media and so on are completely over-run by warmista comrades, but that doesn’t make for a conspiracy. Instead I see networks of mutual aid and support, all buying in because that’s where the money and the prestige lie.

Absenting a conspiracy, is there another explanation?

Abnormal Service...

...will be renewed sometime soon.

12 Facts about Global Climate Change That You Won’t Read in the Popular Press

A nice and succinct post from Joseph D’Aleo on CO2 and climate change... Well worth a read.

Plain Stupid Plane Stupid

Who says that the days of radical political action are over? Dan Glass, a member of Plane Stupid, really gets radical when he glues himself to Gordon Brown's jacket. Wow! Down at indymedia there are virtual pats on the back all round... That's really radical, Dan. There you are in Downing Street to pick up an award for 'your protesting work' when you whip out the super glue and there you are, stuck to Gordon's pin stripe.

Yep, you read that right. Pick up an award. That's how radical and anti-establishment environmental protest is these days. How these people can imagine that they are fighting the establishment is beyond me. They are the establishment, lined up behind New Labour, New Tories, Lib Dems and the rest.

Global Warming Swindle - Ofcom ruling

Nice to see that the media's warmist frenzy is in full flow following the Ofcom ruling on 'The Great Global Warming Swindle'. The Guardian even rolled out the former chair of the IPCC to comment that Ofcom hadn't gone far enough. Did he, or the rest of the media warmists, make similar comments when Al Gore's propagandist film was found guilty of more serious charges in court? No, I think not. Where Gore's film contains factual inaccuracies and lies, Swindle did no more than mislead some of the interviewees.

This is a huge difference, of course. Particularly when Al Gore's film gets shown to school kids up and down the country, day in and day out. My own kids report that the Gore film was not prefixed with the required warning about it being propaganda. Can you imagine the out-cry should Swindle get similar screenings in schools?

According to warmists, Swindle must count as one of the most effective pieces of propaganda ever, seeing as how it has been blamed for the skepticism of the majority of Britons when it comes to global warming. I suppose that's easier for warmists to accept than the alternative, which is that no amount of preaching and moralising can hide the paucity of evidence and lack of theory when it comes to climate change.

Brown Goes Green

Gordon Brown wrested the mantle of global leader from the rest of the G8 by urging people to eat their greens. Brown, with one eye on domestic concerns and the success of David 'Green Blue' Cameron, suggested that world problems could be tackled head on by eating a plate of spinach or spring greens. 'It's the only way,' he told the world's press.

Prime Minister Brown's outburst stunned world leaders. Nicolas Sarkozy has privately admitted that he likes tucking into curly kale, but feels compelled to deny this in case it is seen as too neo-liberal by the French public. George Bush, meanwhile, agreed that he shares his father's well-known dislike of broccoli, but that he does like to have some lettuce with his burgers.

In the UK the Tory party has been thrown into disarray. With rising inflation, a collapsing housing market and an epidemic of street crime they had taken their eye of the ball. David Cameron is reported to be furious with newspaper reports that he is a pak choi man. 'Yes,' he admitted, 'I may have had some pak choi as a student, but I didn't inhale.'

Sarkozy vs. Mandelson

The full text of French President Nicolas Sarkozy's comments on the EU Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson:

'It is an outrage zat Europe is represented by zis man. 'Ee is not a real man. No, Monsieur, Mandelson is not married to a beautiful and sophisticated ex-model like I am. 'Ee is a bandit de fess, no? Such a man 'as no feeling for the realite of Europe. 'Ee does not understand ze soul of Europe. For us Europe 'ees about protection of our farmers, our fisherman and our lorry drivers. For us Europe is about defending our way of life: ze annual burning of British tucks loaded wiz your rotten lamb, selling you our undrinkable wine and keeping ze good stuff for ourselves and most of all blockading our ports to screw your 'olidays. All of zis, Mandelson ignores. When I am President of Europe, all zis will change...'

Labour Deeply Disappointed With Henley Result

Jock McJock, a spokesperson for the Labour Party, has admitted that the Party and the Government are deeply disappointed by the result of the Henley by-election. 'We are just gutted to be in fifth place. Behind the Greens and the BNP,' he said. 'After all that work we still didn't come in last. What more do we have to do?'

His comments were echoed by Mildred Dimkins-Simkins, an advisor to Gordon Brown. 'We've got good money riding on this at Ladbrokes,' she confessed. 'If we can come last then we've got a big payoff coming.'

Arnold Reichstag of the BNP outlined what he believed the Labour strategy was. 'They're doing their best to make themselves unelectable. It seems to be the aim to make even us more electable, and it's working. Just take a look at the London elections where they did everything they could to get one or two members into the Assembly. Brilliant.'

An unnamed source at Labour Headquarters has suggested that future policy announcements will include a plan to kill off first-born children, price cars off the road and reduce the number of successful mortgage applications to one a year.

Dr James Hansen Speaks Out

NASA's Dr James Hansen, the man who made headlines world wide 20 years ago when he brought the subject of man-made global warming to public notice, has again hit out against those who deny the reality of the problem. 'What is it with these people?' he demanded. 'Can't they see that there's a real problem here? The world is warming so fast that soon we'll all be dead. Twenty years ago I said we had 20 years left, well, that's still true. Unless my funding is increased drastically I won't be able to carry on warning the world of danger.'

The ever-controversial Dr Hansen hit out at his critics. 'They've tried to censor me before, and they're trying to do it now,' he announced to the mass of journalists at his 23rd press conference of the day. 'This message has to get through,' he affirmed.

Dr Hansen had a number of radical ideas for raising the profile of the issue still further. Firstly he suggested that all climate change deniers be forced to wear a yellow star for easy identification. Secondly climate change deniers should be sterilised so that they could not breed. Possibly, he suggested, deniers could be used as an energy source - though he did worry about how much CO2 they would emit. Thirdly he suggested that young children should be forced to watch as their pets are boiled alive to illustrate what will happen to the world should his funding not grow exponentially during the next few years.

Finally Dr Hansen described attempts to undermine his work as criminally motivated. 'My work has stood scrutiny. No matter how many times I look at it I think it's fine. Anyone who disagrees is a fool or a liar motivated by nothing but personal greed and ambition.'

British University Announces Degree In Walking And Chewing Gum

A top British academic institution, the University of Trumpton, has announced the world's first honours degree in Walking and Chewing Gum. Dr Irma Dillo, Pro Vice Chancellor and a key advisor to the government, hailed the new course. 'Nowhere else in the world can students study walking and chewing gum to such a high level,' she announced. 'Once again we are at the forefront of academic innovation and creativity.'

The course follows a recent government initiative that aims to have 50% of school leavers able to walk and chew gum at the same time, even if only at the most basic level. Leading educationalists have attacked the plan as being too ambitious. Dr Crispin Crispin-Woods voiced widespread fears that the new course would prove too taxing for many school leavers. 'This is typical of an education system that is insufficiently diverse,' he said. 'Walking, yes, chewing gum, yes. But both at the same time? And where are the NHS resources to tackle the inevitable rise in accidents and injuries as young people attempt to chew gun while taking their first few steps? It's criminal.'

Opposition spokesman gave the new course a cautious welcome. 'Of course we're in favour of our children leaving university with a solid degree in Walking and Chewing Gum,' Tim Etonian told the Times Educational Supplement, 'but we think that going for a 50% target is the wrong way to go. Not everyone needs to walk and chew gum at the same time.'

The government, however, insists that the ability to talk and chew gum is essential if Britain is to remain a competitive economic power. A spokesperson from the Department of Education and Science was quoted as saying 'Industry is starved of people with skills in this area.'

Dr Irma Dillo outlined some of the key areas of study: gum and climate change, walking and obesity, diversity and different flavours of gum. 'The climate change agenda is in an implicit part of the course,' she stated.

The new course was announced on the same day that Trumpton University announced the closure of its Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics degrees.

10p Tax Band

Once more the Progressive Contrarian unearths the minutes of a recent meeting at 10 Downing St:

---

PM: 'Ah, Darling, there you are.'

Chancellor: 'Yes, PM. I am.'

PM: 'What's that, laddie?'

Chancellor: 'I am, PM. You said, "there you are", and I agreed and said "yes, PM, I am."'

PM: 'Enough of your wittering, Darling. We have a problem.'

Chancellor: 'Which one, PM?'

PM: 'What are you saying, Darling?'

Chancellor; 'Nothing, sir. A problem you said.'

PM: 'It's your budget. You've mishandled things, haven't you, laddie?'

Chancellor: 'But you said it was fine, I'd deciphered all the scribbles on the back of your envelope and...'

PM: 'Who delivered the budget, Darling?'

Chancellor: 'I did, PM. Sorry.'

PM: 'In cutting the 10p tax band you've made life very difficult for the most vulnerable members of society.'

Chancellor: 'The Parliamentary Labour Party?'

PM: 'Precisely. And rewarded those who deserve it the least.'

Chancellor: 'The Opposition?'

PM: 'Correct. Now, what what do you propose to do about it, laddie?'

Chancellor: 'Exactly what you tell, me, PM.'

PM: 'Good boy.'

Chancellor: 'But I told people I couldn't re-write the budget...'

PM: 'But you're not, are you?'

Chancellor: 'Technically, I suppose not. How can I be re-writing something I didn't write in the first place?'

PM: 'Well, laddie, that's one way of putting it...'

Chancellor: 'But the tax rebate is going to cost us billions, PM. Isn't that a lot of money to pay for the Crewe and Nantwich by-election? That's an awful lot of money for one MP.'

PM: 'Don't be silly, boy. It's not for one MP, it's for all of the ungrateful buggers. Ask them how much they think we should pay to keep them in their seats...'

Desalinating Livingstone

Way back in May 2006 I blogged about Ken Livingstone's refusal to allow a desalination plant to go ahead in London on the grounds that it wasn't carbon neutral. Now it seems that new Mayor, Boris Johnson, has over-turned that decision. That's a good move for London. Those of us in London were 'warned' that Johnson is a closet global warming skeptic. Personally I'd like to think that this was a factor in his win. But he's a politician and he'll tow the party line, and Cameron is a definite warmist. Perhaps we can hope that Johnson will pick up on the increasingly skeptical mood to finally stand up and declare the whole warmist enterprise dead. But I'm not holding my breath. For the moment, warmism remains the dominant political ideology of all the major political parties in the West.

It's about time he had some good ol' fashioned development (yup, that's development without the obligatory sustainable prefix).

Ends and Means

Numerous discussions with true believers in global warming have often ended with a rather petulant 'even if man-made global warming isn't true, it will have positive spin-offs in the end...' So, having failed to prove a case with any hard science the warmists end up reverting to an 'end justifying the means' argument. And of course they've got a long list of supposed benefits to justify Kyoto-like proposals to cut CO2 emissions. These include:

• Moving away from 'big oil'
• People buying local produce
• More emphasis on 'sustainability'
• Forcing people to think more about Nature

Well, what do we see already resulting from CO2 reduction policies (such as the EU renewal fuels policies):

• Food riots
• Increasing food prices
• Increased fuel poverty
• Environmental problems in the rush to plant bio-fuel crops
• A rush towards more nuclear power generation
• Increasingly authoritarian plans from governments and bodies such as the EU

It's especially ironic of course that the arch-demon of warming mythology (George Bush), is in part to blame for all of this by pandering to environmentalism. The subsidies to farmers for producing bio-fuel crops are seriously distorting things. On this one at least, Fidel Castro is right.

All of this is evidence, if evidence is required, that the logic of global warmism will ultimately hurt those supposedly most at risk from higher temperatures - the poor, both in the UK and the rest of the world.

But hey, at least Al Gore will continue to rake it in.

It's the weather, stupid

While AGW (anthropogenic global warming) advocates like to point out that extended cold weather episodes (like those afflicting huge chunks of the globe) are just weather and not climate, there's also no shortage of them seizing every severe weather episode as evidence of global warming (or climate chaos as some of them prefer to refer to it). This was the case in the UK with last summer's severe floods. Warmists were happy to pin the blame on CO2-induced climate change.

Of course the research suggests that this isn't the case. As reported by the BBC: The UK's summer floods of 2007 were a freak event unrelated to global climate change, according to a report from the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology (CEH).

How many people will take notice of this? In the same way that the European heatwave in 1998 is now known not to have been due to global warming but a consequence of the la Nina event that year, it's still firmly embedded in the popular consciousness as being caused by CO2. It's a regretable part of human nature that we remember the initial accusation and not the subsequent 'not guilty' finding. Of course that plays well for climate alarmists everywhere...

Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change

Not that you would have seen much mention of this in our UK media... Unlike the fuss made about warmist conference and declarations.

Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change

"Global warming" is not a global crisis

We, the scientists and researchers in climate and related fields, economists, policymakers, and business leaders, assembled at Times Square, New York City, participating in the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change,

Resolving that scientific questions should be evaluated solely by the scientific method;

Affirming that global climate has always changed and always will, independent of the actions of humans, and that carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant but rather a necessity for all life;

Recognising that the causes and extent of recently observed climatic change are the subject of intense debates in the climate science community and that oft-repeated assertions of a supposed 'consensus' among climate experts are false;

Affirming that attempts by governments to legislate costly regulations on industry and individual citizens to encourage CO2 emission reduction will slow development while having no appreciable impact on the future trajectory of global climate change. Such policies will markedly diminish future prosperity and so reduce the ability of societies to adapt to inevitable climate change, thereby increasing, not decreasing, human suffering;

Noting that warmer weather is generally less harmful to life on Earth than colder:

Hereby declare:

That current plans to restrict anthropogenic CO2 emissions are a dangerous misallocation of intellectual capital and resources that should be dedicated to solving humanity's real and serious problems.

That there is no convincing evidence that CO2 emissions from modern industrial activity has in the past, is now, or will in the future cause catastrophic climate change.

That attempts by governments to inflict taxes and costly regulations on industry and individual citizens with the aim of reducing emissions of CO2 will pointlessly curtail the prosperity of the West and progress of developing nations without affecting climate.

That adaptation as needed is massively more cost-effective than any attempted mitigation and that a focus on such mitigation will divert the attention and resources of governments away from addressing the real problems of their peoples.

That human-caused climate change is not a global crisis.

Now, therefore, we recommend --

That world leaders reject the views expressed by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as well as popular, but misguided works such as "An Inconvenient Truth."

That all taxes, regulations, and other interventions intended to reduce emissions of CO2 be abandoned forthwith.

Agreed at New York, 4 March 2008

Not at all funny

I must admit to sneaking several looks during the day yesterday - and smiling each time that I saw that electricity usages was marginally higher than normal during the UK's E-Day (Energy Saving Day).

How are you lot going to save the planet (© Al Gore Inc.) when you can't even turn off a few lights...

Test of Britishness

The applicant for British Citizenship must be able to:

Demonstrate a clear understanding of the terms: rat-arsed, bladdered, wankered, smashed. Additionally the applicant must undergo a practical test in order to demonstrate that he or she is able to achieve one of these states (and to show a true understanding of the phrase ‘responsible drinking’).

The applicant must undergo some activity that provides value to the community at large. Suggested activities include: canvassing for the Labour Party, joining the Labour Party, voting for the Labour Party.

The applicant must undertake to understand fully the science of climate change and global warming. Understanding of the consensus is essential. Additionally the applicant must be 100% in favour of other people cutting back on their life-styles for the good of the planet.

The applicant must be able to show an understanding of true British values by being able to slag off in detail the England manager, the England team and the wives/girlfriends of members of the England team.

Finally, a written test of English must also be taken. The exam will be to A level standard, and therefore applicants who show any sign of grasping grammar, spelling or punctuation will be heavily penalised.

Phillip Pullman - Miserabilist

And for a very late kick-off for 2008, here's a nice story from those spiky bastards over at the Register. So, Pullman joins the ranks of the misanthropic miserabilists who want to save humanity from itself - all for the good of the planet of course...

Unfortunately, Pullman's line in reasoning (or lack of), seems to be increasingly common even as the evidence continues to point away from CO2 as the big, bad driver of climate change.

Gordon Brown - Election Planning

The Progressive Contrarian again brings you the latest top-secret goings-on at Number 10. This latest on the election planning still going on shows Gordon Brown in conversation with his Chancellor, Alistair Darling.

PM: Ah, Darling, I want to have a word.
Darling: Yes, PM.
PM: The election, laddie. What are we to do?
Darling: I'm sorry, PM, I'm not sure I...
PM: It's time we took the initiative, Darling.
Darling: Yes, PM.
PM: What do you suggest?
Darling: That we take the initiative, sir.
PM: Excellent, Darling.
Darling (blushes): Thank you, PM.
PM: I'm thinking we go on the road. Let's take politics to the people.
Darling: Yes, PM.
PM: I want every member in the cabinet to stand up and be counted.
Darling: Yes, PM, every member standing up.
PM: The length and breadth of the country needs to see our members.
Darling: Yes, PM. Length and breadth.
PM: Take this down, Darling.
Darling (gulps): Take what down, PM?
PM: Notes. I want Blears to go to Manchester. Jowell to Birmingham. Milliband - Bristol.
Darling (scribbling furiously): Yes, PM. Milliband - Bristol.
PM: Straw - Bury.
Darling: Strawberry, PM? Have we switched to fruits?
PM: What are you wittering on about, laddie. Take it down, take it down. We can button Hutton for Sutton.
Darling: Pardon?
PM: Balls to Liverpool.
Darling: I agree, sir.
PM: Finally, Benn - Dover, Darling.
Darling (sighs): Yes, sir, if you like.

Raising School Leaving - The Truth

The truth behind the plan to raise school leaving age in the UK. Direct from 10 Downing Street...


Gordon: How are the soundings?

Anon1: Not good, Gordon -

Gordon: Pardon?

Anon1 (contrite): I'm sorry, sir.

Gordon: Let's start again, shall we? How are the soundings?

Anon1: Not good, PM.

Anon2: No, PM. The whole 'Gordon is human' thing's fallen flat, I'm afraid.

Gordon: Never mind. At least I don't have to do the smiling exercises any more. What else?

Anon1: The Britishness thing's been commandeered by the Tories again.

Gordon: Never mind, we'd been using it for long enough, they can have it back now that I'm done with it. Next?

Anon2: Well PM, it looks like the civil liberties thing has still got legs.

Anon1: Yes, PM, you can sound statesman-like and concerned while at the same time clamping down on liberties.

Gordon: Ah yes, it's my Iron Chancellor stance all over again. A safe pair of hands. I like that. Do we have anything else?

ANon1: I'm afraid not, PM.

ANon2: Frankly sir, we're not sure where we're going with this raising the school leaving age idea.

Gordon: Do you not?

Anon2: Well...er...we...

Gordon: We?

Anon1: It's more him than me, PM.

Anon2: But...

Gordon: It's simple. If the laddies are in school they're not causing trouble for the polis.

Anon2: Yes, PM. But won't they be causing trouble in school?

Gordon: What's your point, laddie?

Anon2: What are they actually supposed to be doing in school?

Gordon: Lessons, of course. Mostly Global Warming Studies and Voting Studies. They'll be compulsory, obviously.

Anon1: Global Warming Studies?

Gordon: Aye. They can learn that there's a consensus and that anyone who disagrees is some kind of lunatic who'd probably not vote for me in the election and therefore can't be trusted.

Anon2: And Voting Studies?

Gordon: They learn how to vote, what I look like, how to spot my name on a ballot paper and so on. Important stuff.

Anon1: And the West Lothian angle?

Gordon: Good point. We'll be dropping the school leaving age in Scotland. The boys and girls can skip school from the age of 14 so long as they've passed the Voting Studies exam.

Anon2: And how do they do that, PM?

Gordon: By signing over their votes to me, in perpetuity, obviously.

Anon1: Is that legal, sir?

Gordon: Aye laddie, if I say it is. Now, bugger off and find me some lame policies that I can convince Cameron he wants to take off me again...

Anon1 + Anon2: Yes, your Highness.

BBC Highlights CO2 Growth

As per usual the BBC has given a good deal of prominence to the story that researchers have found an 'unexpected' growth in CO2 levels (about 35% faster than expected since 2000). This is put down to a combination of decreased fuel efficiency and a reduction in natural CO2 sinks (which the BBC high-lighted in a separate story a few days previously).

However, nowhere in the story do the obvious questions get asked. Firstly there's no mention of just what the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is. 35% sounds like a big number, but given the low level of CO2 in the atmosphere and the prominence of water vapour in the greenhouse effect the numbers won't look so alarming.

But the big question is this. If the level of atmospheric CO2 has been rising faster than expected in the last seven years, where is the corresponding increase in temperature? Global warming seems to have stalled during this period of unexpectedly high CO2 increases. Surely you'd expect to see some correlation, even if you believe that there's a time lag... You can bet that if there had been any evidence of a correlation it would have been trumpeted from the roof-tops.

Race, IQ and Political Cowardice

So much for scientific debate and the willingness of academia to challenge ideas. The decision by the Science Museum to drop the talk by James Watson (of double-helix DNA fame), because of his objectionable views on race is down-right idiotic. Instead of cancelling the talk they should have invited scientists to debate the point that black people are less intelligent than white. You don't tackle bad ideas by refusing to debate them. Watson's a reactionary bigot by all accounts, but he's a molecular biologist not a neuro-scientist or psychologist.

Yet again academia reveals itself to be a timorous world ruled by a pervasive political correctness that outlaws debate on any issue that it deems offensive - from race to gender to climate change. Bad ideas should be attacked and demolished by better ideas, not by political sensibilities.

Nobel Piss Prize

Really, my honest reaction is just to howl. What more can you say about the Nobel Peace Prize handed out to Al Gore and the IPCC? This in the same week that a British court ruled that the Gore-film is riddled with inaccuracies and down-right lies. Predictably Gore's defence team in the British media have rushed to (1) play down the ruling, (2) admit that lying may necessary in the cause of a 'higher truth' and (3) start the process of demolishing the reputation of the man who brought the case to court in the first place.

This process is being carried out by the same people who screamed blue murder when Channel 4 attempted to redress the balance by showing the Great Global Warming Swindle. They complained about inaccuracies and smears in that film, yet are willing to defend the same from Gore. Let's not forget that Martin Durkin's film isn't the one being shown to school kids as though it's gospel truth.

And it's not just Gore, the IPCC is now the latter-day Vatican. It alone is the infallible voice of authority, forever to be believed and never to be doubted.

For a while it has looked like the 'man-made global warming' myth was starting to unravel. There's been a stream of papers that have poked great big holes in the theory, and the empirical evidence has been pointed away from warming towards cooling. Now, in one fell-swoop the Warmists have stolen a march on the opposition and granted themselves another badge of legitimacy. What's more it's enabled the alarmists to rally the troops and prepare themselves for victory.

If there's one hope it's that the backlash against Gore will spill over into a backlash against the IPCC itself.

The impartial BBC

Despite its own report into impartiality specifically criticising the BBC for its record on climate change, there does not appear to have been any fundamental shift on display. The BBC continues to report the most alarmist of stories, cherry-picks which scientific articles or papers to report on and injects a 'global warming' angle into every conceivable subject.

For example, the Lockwood and Froehlich paper from the Royal Society Proceedings was reported prominently with the headline 'No Sun link' to climate change. This was splashed across the main BBC news page, as well as the Science and Technology page (where it remained for some time). The story carried no dissenting views, and several very strong quotes from Lockwood. The paper has subsequently been criticised heavily in several places, (here, here and now, finally, with a response by Svensmark and Friis-Christensen. Can we hope to see the BBC giving even a mention to the rebuttal of Lockwood and Froehlich's paper? Rather than there being 'no sun' link to climate change (which is a patently ridiculous headline anyway), it is clear that the science is far from settled.

To take another example, the BBC has been heavily reporting the recent news of Arctic ice-melting. Again, the tone is both partial and hysterical. However, has there been any report based on the NASA story that the melting might be due to wind patterns (with no mention of CO2)? Nope. Not a bit of it. If the story had been about CO2 causing the melt (which is what the imply in most of the BBC reports), then there's little doubt it would have been front page news.

In the same way, the story earlier in the year that black carbon (soot) may be responsible for a significant portion of the apparent global warming was missed by the BBC completely.

Despite paying lip service to impartiality, the BBC remains one of the most biased voices reporting on climate change. BBC? It really does stand for Broadcasters for Banning Carbon.

Nobody could be that stupid...

You would think that the disaster that is Iraq - and let's face it, nobody could seriously describe it as anything but a disaster - would be enough to make even the most hawkish voices in the US and UK stop and think. But here we are desperately trying to extricate ourselves from the mess and there are some who are making a serious push for war against Iran. Nobody could be that stupid, could they?

What we've done to Iraq is criminal, and Blair and Bush deserve to be tried as the war criminals that they are. But now the same voices that pushed us to that war are edging us ever closer to confrontation with Iran. Bush and Blair are the biggest recruiting sergeants Islamists have ever had, and now they want to up the ante again.

There's a good piece on the Cato Institute site that outlines some of this. Here in the UK it seems to be the Daily Telegraph that is most vocal in this campaign.

This isn't to say that we shouldn't oppose the Islamist regime, nor that we should be happy about the nuclear issue. But war isn't the answer, it'll just make the problems much, much worse.

A public good from a private need

There's a nice little story on the other end of the link to the BBC news site. It shows how anti-spammer measures on interactive websites are being used to verify the digitisation of old books. It's a neat example of a private need (to keep spammers off web site forums) results in a public good (old books digitised and made available to all).

The NOzone Layer

In the same way that I used to believe that the science of man-made global warming was settled, I've always believed that the science of ozone depletion in the atmosphere was also done and dusted. Not only that, I believed that only a fanatic would dispute it.

That was then. Now I no longer accept that there's a consensus on climate change science. More than that I now believe that the science of CO2-induced warming is deeply flawed and that there are other climate forcings that are much more important (particularly solar factors, including the magnetosphere and the relationship to cosmic rays). However, there now looks like there's evidence that the ozone hole science might be flawed.

Why is this important? Because the science of climate change is more complex than ozone depletion. In both cases models were used extensively even though the underlying theories were not fully developed. If the flaws in ozone depletion are further verified then it ought to cause more people to doubt the CO2 theories on climate change.

And, as an end-note, it's worth mentioning that Pat Michaels, recently moved out of his role as State Climatologist of Virginia because of his climate-change skepticism, was also an ozone depletion skeptic...

Science By Consensus

There's a predictable sense of glee from Warmists everywhere with the results of an opinion poll that shows large parts of the population across the world believe that human activity is responsible for global warming. What does this show us?

Firstly that the propaganda machine, of which the BBC (who carried out the poll) is a large part, has managed to persuade lots of people that we're responsible for global warming despite the lack of evidence or even a viable theory. The constant diet of alarmist stories, repeated ad nauseam, has an effect. And of course the Warmist mantra that there is consensus and that the science is done and dusted is hugely convincing to large parts of the population, most of whom who lack scientific knowledge or the time and energy required to understand the details.

Secondly, it also betrays a lack of understanding about the way the world works. Sorry, but the Universe does not run according to democratic principles. No matter what we believe, the climate pays no attention to our beliefs. Just because there's a big majority agreeing that CO2 causes global warming, that doesn't make it true. No doubt opinion polls in many parts of the world would show big majorities against evolutionary theory. Does that make evolutionary theory wrong?

Of course this poll makes for another weapon to use against those of us who dispute the 'consensus'. It means that we will continue to be painted as a small, undemocratic and lunatic fringe in the pay of big oil.

Madeleine McCann - Reality TV For Real

The McCann saga is now bigger than any reality TV program ever. Forget Big Brother and phony 'racism' controversies, forget all those 3rd rate celebs desperate for attention, the Madeleine McCann circus has by-passed them all. With minute by minute updates, rumours aplenty and the attention of the world, it's going where no reality TV program has been before. All it needs is for the Portuguese police to open the premium rate phone lines and the calls will come flooding in. Which candidate will get voted into the winning (losing?) slot? Mum, Dad, oddball Englishman abroad or mysterious kidnapper?

BBC switches off climate special

How saddening it is for some people to see that the BBC is pulling back from some of the more overtly propagandising activities on behalf of the man-made global warming lobby. Forget the BBC's own report on its lack of impartiality - so far as some 'environmentalists' are concerned this is just about the BBC caving in to a tiny group of 'climate change sceptics' (or 'climate changed deniers' as some would have it).

However, the cancellation of one program amongst many is hardly likely to make much difference to the overall tone of the BBC's one-sided programming. More insidious is the news coverage, which manages to be both alarmist, partial and extremely selective. News stories which are pro the CO2 theory get massive news coverage, stories which are anti are ignored or downplayed.

BBC really ought to stand for Broadcasters Bashing CO2.

UK Flooded...

...with pundits desperate to pin the latest floods on to 'man made climate change' (anyone else notice that the phrase 'global warming' is being rapidly replaced with the phrase 'climate change' - you can bet your life that when it gets hot again they'll revert to talking about warming again).

There's been frequent mention that these floods are the worst since 1947, but the obvious question of what caused the floods in 1947 is never asked. Given that 1947 was in a cooling period and that that man-made CO2 emissions were lower it's easy to see why the obvious questions aren't asked. Instead we're treated to 'we told you so' comments along the lines of 'more rain is precisely what the climate models predict' - again conveniently forgetting that the predictions are for wetter winters, not summers.

The epitome of this was one anonymous listener emailing Radio 4's Today program to comment that no wonder we're suffering such disasters when people are complaining that the 8 litres a day of clean water being distributed to victims is not enough. I've tried to parse the logic (I'm being generous here...), and the best I can come up with is along these lines... We demand so much (i.e. more than 8 litres of water a day) and that these demands are met by industries that pump CO2 into the atmosphere and that this is causing the floods.

How can one even counter that kind of thinking?

True Confessions

There's a great little article by Dr David Evans, who used to work for the Australian Greenhouse Office. He was, as he admits, doing a well-paid scientific job modelling the effects of man-made CO2. It's the sort of thing that Kyoto, and other future schemes, would depend on implicitly. However, as Evans explains, once he had a chance to look at the science he's had a change of heart. Where is the observational evidence, he asks? After 20 years (and billions of dollars) of intense investigation why is the evidence so scant?

Read his article, as true confessions go it, it's a good one.

It's not all bad...

Good to see that much of the British population retains a healthy dose of skepticism when it comes to climate change. While there's a predictable wringing of hands from environmentalists, for those who've still got some sense of perspective the news is something of a relief.

No doubt that this sort of news is going to push some environmentalists towards ever more authoritarian policies in an effort to get us to change our ways in spite the lack of evidence or a credible theory that CO2 emissions cause global warming.

Dilbert

Not for the first time Scott Adams' Dilbert is right on the button....

Dirty snow warming the planet

The story that 'dirty snow' (snow with soor particles) may be responsible for a sizeable part of Arctic warming seems not to have generated massive amounts of coverage compared to some of the more alarmist climate change stories. For those who missed it, the science is straightforward enough - snow that contains soot and other dark particles absorbs sunlight for more than cleaner snow does. This promotes warming as less light is reflected back into space. The research suggests that up to 20% of the warming attributed to man-made CO2 emissions may be down to this dirty snow.

Now, what does this mean? Firstly, this is a factor that seems to have sprung up from nowhere. It's not accounted for in those models that are driving the most apocalyptic visions. It should prompt the question what other unknown effects are there? How can we be taking action to cut CO2 when something like this can come out of nowhere?

Secondly, it also offers a relatively cheap and fast means to ameliorate the situation. Reducing man-made particulates is easier and cheaper than cutting down on CO2.

Will this finding cause any change in the current climate change discourse? Don't hold your breath...

What U.S. immigration policies mean to Google

There's a blog piece on Google about what US immigration policy means to their company. What it doesn't state is also worth mentioning - that those immigrants working in the US and other Western economies now send back more money to their home nations than they receive in aid. What does this mean? It means that those who want to block immigration and who want to speed economic development in poor countries can't do both. Immigration to the West is now a key driver of economic development and change in poor countries.

It's a win-win situation - the host country gains economically and so does the country that immigrant came from.

When the global warming bubble bursts

While climate change remains at the top of the political agenda, it feels as though the myth of scientific consensus is beginning to crumble. It's too early to say that the tide has turned, but it seems to me that the voices disputing the idea of 'man-made' global warming are growing more numerous. Just as important are those who don't dispute the theory of 'man-made' global warming but who are saying that tackling global poverty, lack of development and disease should take higher priority.

The big question for me is what happens to public perception of science and scientists when the bubble bursts? Do those scientists who've made the loudest noises and most extreme statements regarding global warming realise that when their theory falls flat the millions of people who listened to them will feel that science itself is a con? Public antipathy to science will rise rather than fall in response to this. Rather than 'man-made' global warming acting to make science important and relevant, it could in the end fuel the biggest backlash against science ever.

On the plus side, perhaps it'll be another nail in the coffin of those leftists who jumped on the bandwagon. Having lost any way to connect with ordinary people, the 'man-made' global warming theory has been a lifeline to them. With it they find legitimacy and relevance, and the more gloomy the prognostications the better as far as they're concerned.