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.
Monday, June 30, 2008
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
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.'
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.'
Monday, June 23, 2008
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.
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.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
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...'
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...'
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
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).
It's about time he had some good ol' fashioned development (yup, that's development without the obligatory sustainable prefix).
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
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.
• 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.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
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...
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...
Monday, March 10, 2008
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
Friday, February 29, 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...
How are you lot going to save the planet (© Al Gore Inc.) when you can't even turn off a few lights...
Thursday, February 21, 2008
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.
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.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
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.
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.
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
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.
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.
Tuesday, November 06, 2007
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.
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.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
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.
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.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
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.
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.
Monday, October 15, 2007
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.
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.
Thursday, October 04, 2007
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.
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.
Wednesday, October 03, 2007
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.
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.
Tuesday, October 02, 2007
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).
Friday, September 28, 2007
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...
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...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)