AGW - is the tide turning? Probably not

This article seems to me to encapsulate the climate change "debate" so perfectly.

On the one hand, a group of 166 scientists have called for the repeal of the Climate Act, on the quite correct grounds that it is a colossal waste of money, thanks in no small part to wind farms. (See DK's excellent blog for a thorough dismantling of the wind farm idiocy). They also ask for some kind of proof for the following ten statements:

1. Variations in global climate in the last hundred years are significantly outside the natural range experienced in previous centuries.
2. Humanity’s emissions of carbon dioxide and other ‘greenhouse gases’ (GHG) are having a dangerous impact on global climate.
3. Computer-based models can meaningfully replicate the impact of all of the natural factors that may significantly influence climate.
4. Sea levels are rising dangerously at a rate that has accelerated with increasing human GHG emissions, thereby threatening small islands and coastal communities.
5. The incidences of malaria and other infectious diseases are now increasing due to recent climate changes;
6. Human society and natural ecosystems cannot adapt to foreseeable climate change as they have done in the past.
7. Worldwide glacier retreat, and sea ice melting in polar regions, is unusual and related to increases in human GHG emissions.
8. Polar bears and other Arctic and Antarctic wildlife are unable to adapt to anticipated local climate change effects, independent of the causes of those changes.
9. Hurricanes, other tropical cyclones and associated extreme weather events are increasing in severity and frequency.
10. Data recorded by ground-based stations are a reliable indicator of global surface temperature trends.

It seems to me that more and more people are turning to the possibility that AGW or whatever you want to call it is a myth, or at least unproven. Fingers crossed.

On the other hand, you have the predictable response from a special interest group:

Bob Ward, Policy and Communications Director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics, said the group misunderstood the point of science, which is to disprove theories.

Which seems to be exactly what they are attempting.

He said the UK legislation was overwhelmingly backed by Parliament and is leading the world.

Politicians think so? Well then, job done. What with all their qualifications and their track record of not fucking things up over and over and over again.

“Nobody thinks climate change is not a problem. The discussion has moved on to what is the best way of tackling the problem and making a transition to low carbon growth,” he said. “These guys are a remnant group of dinosaurs trying to argue something while frankly the public and political debate has moved on.”

Nobody? What not even these 166 scientists? Or me? Or DK? Or James Delingpole? Or Anthony Watts? Or maybe Hal Lewis?

What Bob Ward thinks we don't realise is this. His job exists because of a £12million grant from the Grantham Foundation. If the Climate Act were to be repealed in the UK, I suspect Jeremy & Hannelore Grantham would have a long hard think about the effectiveness of this grant, and maybe cut the funding off.

The final gem is this:

Meanwhile a complaint against an Oxfam advert warning of the risk of climate change was not upheld.
The advert read: "People dying thanks to climate change is a long way off. About 5000 miles, give or take.”
The complainant claimed that it had not been proven that people are drying (sic) as a result of climate change.
However the Advertising Standards Authority did not uphold their complaint.

Well, I suppose global warming would cause people to dry, good news for Nivea. But assuming they mean dying, it isn't "proven" at all. It doesn't matter though, because since "the discussion has moved on" I guess proof is no longer required. Mr. Ward must be pleased the media at least is still on message.

Personal Responsibility? Anyone? No?

Welcome to another nauseating display of weasel words and dodging of respsonsibilty.

I first saw this Daily Fail article, so I was sceptical, but then I found it written more or less the same in the Telegraph. It seems the mother of Chanella "Sasha" Jones, who was stabbed to death by her father, warned the police on 102 occasions about her worries.

"But despite Fisher’s history of violence going back to his teens – and him being wanted for a serious assault by another police force – officers failed to take the reports seriously. Four officers are now facing disciplinary action within the force."

Let's have some guff about best practice shall we? Tee up some diversity refresher training eh? Should help.

Tom Davies, the IPCC commissioner for Wales, ...added that the officers had not accorded with “best practice and policy” for dealing with reports of possible domestic abuse.

Some fairly large-scale incompetence going on here.

One Pc who did take the allegations seriously failed to notice that Fisher had a police record and was wanted for a serious assault by another police force.

It's OK though.

Despite the numerous failings, the IPCC concluded that no individual errors “had any impact on Fisher’s later actions when he murdered Sasha”.

Right, so him being arrested for the pending assault charge would have made no difference? Thank God. Otherwise how would those poor officers sleep at night?

I wonder what a senior figure thinks of all this?

Ms Jackie Roberts, Deputy Chief Constable of Dyfed Powys Police, said: “Firstly I would like to express my condolences to Sasha’s family for their sad loss.

Note the choice of words. "Sad loss". That's like when your fucking puppy gets run over. Not when police incompetence means a 15-year-old is stabbed to death by her dad.

“We have noted the findings of the independent IPCC investigation and acknowledge that there are areas in relation to the historic involvement with the family which could have been dealt with better. The IPCC acknowledge that the historic individual errors are not suggested to have influenced the tragic outcome in this case.

Ass well and truly covered, moving on.

“We are committed to follow up the recommendations made from both policy and operational perspectives which will assist us in delivering a high quality of service and making improvements where necessary.

Whoo, buzzword bingo, someone's got her eye on the Chief Constable's comfy chair. "High quality of service?" You're not running a call centre for Christ's sake.

"The officers identified as having dealt with previous incidents will be supported in terms of advice and guidance on dealing with such matters and the lessons learnt communicated accordingly.”

I am speechless. No taking of responsibility, no actual apology, just a sorry for your loss platitude and move on. I hate litigation and I know the taxpayer pays but I hope she sues the ass off of everyone she can.

Incredibly Depressing

This has knocked the wind out of me completely. I just don't think people like him will exist once the veterans are all dead, because it's just too fucking dangerous to try and help people.

Bloody hell.

I cannot think of one single thing to say, except I hope whoever did this falls down a manhole cover, breaks his legs, and isn't found for days.

Common Sense in Unlikely Places

A few cast members from Glee have apparently caused somewhat of a storm by posing as raunchy schoolgirls for GQ. So far so irrelevant.

However, I was struck by a surprising nugget of common sense and personal responsibility hidden away:

She questioned the fact that young children might have access to the magazine and the raunchy photos saying: 'If your eight-year-old has a copy of our GQ cover in hand, again I am sorry. But I would have to ask, how on earth did it get there?'

Well indeed. Bravo to you Dianna Agron, not just a pretty face perhaps.

It's OK though, there's a pressure group to right ship:

The Parents Television Council released a statement condemning GQ for publishing the pictures.

The what? Maybe if they spent more time parenting and less time worrying about what's on TV they might have fewer ishoos?

'It is disturbing that GQ, which is explicitly written for adult men, is sexualising the actresses who play high school-aged characters on Glee in this way. 'It borders on paedophilia. Sadly, this is just the latest example of the overt sexualisation of young girls in entertainment.'

It borders on pedophilia to show girls in their 20s wearing revealing outfits? In a mainstream adult men's magazine? So Peter Phile will be looking at this rather than staring into playgrounds at actual, er, children?

Bollocks. Still, well done Ms. Agron for at least attempting to suggest that parents might take responsibility for what their children look at.

Leg-Iron's Booky-Wook

Massive congratulations to Leg-Iron for the impending publication of his book.

His collection of short stories was outstanding. Buy them both!

Why the cuts won't be enough

This is a superb article from Simon Heffer, on why today's cuts simply won't be sufficient. He picks up on two major problems, namely:

1. Certain budgets are ring-fenced. The NHS and Education, two of the most wasteful black holes, are too sensitive to be touched, showing that the Coalition are indeed pussies. Furthermore, the ludicrous decision to ring-fence overseas aid is truly without merit at a time when the UK debt mountain is piling up by the day.

2. There is no room whatsoever for tax cuts at any stage. If the Chancellor is serious about stimulating the economy, he needs to get people spending, not take money out of the economy in order to reduce its impact with bad decisions by taxing the "wealthy". Angry Teen has posted on this element many time so I direct you to his house for further musings.

However, Mr. Heffer misses the Belgian mammoth in the room. His Grace has eloquently posted on this topic today, borrowing some words from Dan Hannan in the process. Hannan sums it up, so I shall do the same:

Britain’s net contribution to the EU is rising from £6.4 billion this year to £8.3 billion in 2011-12 and £10.3 billion in 2015. But, of course, the net figure is misleading: the EU may spend some of this money in the UK, but rarely does so on things we would have chosen for ourselves. Much of the moolah goes to a privileged class of EU contractors and consultants; some goes on straightforward propaganda. Our gross contribution is rising from £14 billion to £19 billion – enough to cut council tax by half, take fourpence off income tax or pay of our Olympic debt in a single year. Here are some vivid ways of visualising the sum.

The Coalition do not give a shit about you, anymore than Labour did. Until this torrent of money flowing from the UK to the EU stops, you can count on that. This is what happens when Cast-Iron Dave makes a promise.

How much meat to eat?

You know what I'd like this morning. I'd like to know what Friends of the Earth and the Soiled Association think about eating meat. What's that? They think I should eat less? Wow, that's come out of left field. Let's go deeper shall we (dream within a dream within a dream).

I wonder if it will save an arbitrary amount of lives?

Cutting meat to 3 meals a week 'will save 45,000 lives'

Hurray, box ticked. What about an arbitrary amount of money pulled out of a researcher's arse?

...and save the NHS £1.2 billion each year

Sweet. Should pay for a whole bunch of middle managers. I'm excited now. But I do wonder if perhaps it's not better to eat more expensive meat, since the Soil Association do after all basically represent organic farmers?

The University of Oxford study said processed products, such as cheap burgers or sausages, were particularly bad for people’s health because of high levels of salt and fat.

Ah-hah, salt and fat. Shouldn't eat those. Bad. I know this because someone told me. Can't remember who. But it is true.

This would all be so much easier if I had some awesome celebrities to guide me. Perhaps that actress that had a cameo in Friends might have something to say?

Helen Baxendale, the Friends actress and mother of three, said she has already changed her family’s diet. She called for new legislation to encourage more people to cut down on meat and cut subsidies to ‘factory farmers’ in favour of farms where animals are put out to graze. “We’ve switched to less and better quality meat since we heard about the damaging impact factory farming is having on the planet – now I want the Government to play its part," she said.

Well done love. Reduce subsidies to cheaper food, and make expensive food slightly less expensive, thus fucking poorer people over. You thespians are so right-on.

One thing that's beyond doubt though. Those eeeeevil corporations actually enjoy raping the world's resources. Capitalism provides no incentive for big business to address these "issues".

PepsiCo, that produces Walker Crisps and Quaker Oats, is already bringing in a number of new farming techniques to cut carbon emissions by half over the next five years on the 350 farms they use around the UK.

Measures include using computer programmes known as ‘i-crop’ that mean only a certain amount of water and fertiliser is used.

I'll be damned. Helen Baxendale said we needed the Government to be involved, and yet it seems that large corporations are innovating all the time to make farming more efficient. I don't get it.

Who should I believe?

Director of Climate Change

Here is an ad for the post of Director of Climate Change at the World Economic Forum.

Aside from the fact that it might as well be for the Director of Flat Earth and Fairy Dust, just read it. It's gibberish. There is such a slurry of cliches, such a cesspipe of management-speak, and in my view the more management bullshit something contains the less likely it is that a) the person that wrote it knows what they're talking about and b) that it will be important.

I was going to pull out some key phrases, but fuck it, here's the whole thing:

You will be responsible for the ongoing delivery and future development of the World Economic Forum’s Climate Change Initiative. In doing so, you will provide content direction and leadership to an existing team and project portfolio, and you will develop and evolve the work to ensure sustained impact and relevance in the wider low-carbon and green growth agenda.

 

You have an advanced university degree and extensive senior management experience in a relevant corporation, government and/or international organization. You have an exceptional understanding of the global climate change and low-carbon growth agenda, particularly in infrastructure investment and related finance matters. You also have a strong understanding of the key strategic and geopolitical issues relating to climate change, and know how to work with multiple stakeholders to address them. You are comfortable engaging with business leaders, government officials and leading experts involved in climate change and related matters, many of whom would consider you a peer.

 

You have a strong focus on delivery to tight deadlines, coupled with excellent leadership, interpersonal and networking skills. You are an energetic, hardworking and positive team player who can inspire an exceptional team. You have excellent communication skills and a perfect command of written and spoken English; other languages are a plus.

 

If you possess the relevant qualifications and background and if you thrive in a highly demanding environment, please apply.

Wow.

Moral Vacuums

A comment on Dan Hannan's latest post triggered a thought for me, as it was perceptive but should be extended much further.

Here it is:
"Yes what exactly are Conservative MPs supposed to believe ? The answer appears to be NOTHING..."

Well yes. Having said that, what politician does seem to believe in anything other than self-interest and working out which way the wind blows? It was always like this, you might argue, but I think there are a couple of big differences which make it so much worse now.

1. Everyone has moved towards what they perceive to be the Centre. Blair started this by detoxing Old Labour, and CMD has jumped on the bandwagon. Tribalism used to mean supporting your party's policies in the face of any evidence to the contrary. Now it means supporting the colour of your party's rosette, while ultimately doing the same thing as everyone else.

2. The death of quality journalism. Journalists used to hold politicians to account. Now they just vomit up whatever press release their MP chums have sent them, while whining about how crap bloggers are. The BBC has a lot to answer for here, I came across this nugget this morning:

In 2007, a BBC Trust report called Safeguarding Impartiality in the 21st Century said: “Climate change is another subject where dissenters can be unpopular … The BBC has held a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific experts, and has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus. But these dissenters (or even sceptics) will still be heard, as they should, because it is not the BBC’s role to close down this debate.”

Words fail me.

3. Science and the reporting of science following journalism down the toilet. Here's a great example. This article suggests cancer is a modern invention as little trace of it can be found in ancient mummies. Nowhere does the report say something like "Of course, this could be due to the lower life expectancy of 25 to 50, since the median age of cancer diagnosis is in the 60s". I'm not saying this proves that the report's conclusions are wrong (although that is my opinion), but there is no rigour anymore, no balance. Facts are manipulated to fit theories, and to chase money.

Which brings me to the end. No-one seems to believe in integrity, fairness or balance. Politics (including the quango and EU farces), science and journalism have become a chase for funding at all costs. It's exactly the same in the US, anyone who has any interest in where we're headed should listen to Dan Carlin's Common Sense podcasts. This is exactly how I feel about UK politics, just change the names.

A Short Story - Sleep Asylum

Sleep Asylum

This story is based on an incredibly vivid nightmare, with a few additions. I needed to write it down to get rid of it. Your feedback is very welcome!

I never should have followed the little boy. He just looked so sad, there was so clearly something wrong. He was rushing into a building, tears pouring down his dirty face, clothes torn, it just didn’t look right. No-one else seemed to notice him, but I did.

When I got inside the building, it turned out to be a bank. Horrible colours, orange walls. People milling around, all seemed normal. The boy rushed across the foyer, people around him ignoring him, as small boys are so often ignored. He charged up the stairs and vanished from view.

Since the Bank only had 2 floors including the ground floor, I decided to take the lift to follow him up. The lift was old and worn, and to my surprise had buttons for 5 floors. I supposed this must be the staff elevator, would explain why it was in such poor condition. On impulse, I pressed for floor 2, guessing that if the boy wanted to hide he’d keep going past the 1^st floor where I imagined there would be lots of people.

The lift door opened again on floor 2. Same horrible colours, but this floor was in real disrepair. I saw a flash of movement up ahead, and heard a door slamming. I jogged down the corridor past the peeling walls and flickering lights. I could hear distant voices, women laughing, and I suddenly realised how ridiculous this whole thing was. I was running round some sort of disused maintenance floor of a bank chasing after a little boy I didn’t know and had maybe even imagined. I turned round to leave when I realised I could hear crying.

I turned back towards the noise, which appeared to be coming from the end of the corridor, where I’d seen the movement earlier. As I walked down the corridor, my feet slipped on the thick layer of dirt and damp on the floor. Suddenly, the door at the end of the corridor opened and the little boy from earlier appeared. He was about 6, with an old-fashioned haircut and a grimy, ripped shirt and shorts on.

“Hey! What’s your name? Are you lost?” I asked him. He looked at me blankly, and then coughed into his sleeve, a harsh, hacking sound. The boy took a slow step towards me, then another. Unnerved, I backed off at the same pace, unable to tear myself away from his gaze.

“Who the hell are you?” I flinched at the man’s voice behind me, and span around to see who it was, my heart pounding and bile rising in my throat. A dark-haired man in his 40s stood 3 paces away from me. He was filthy too, and his lumberjack shirt so dirty that the pattern was barely visible. “Are you Peter?” he shouted at me, spit flying from his lips. He seemed agitated and terribly nervous.

I took a step back and bumped into the small boy. I jumped again, and found myself flattened against the wall, utterly terrified without really knowing why.

“Are you Peter?” the man asked, this time more calmly. “No, my name’s Steve” I replied, in what I hoped was a calming voice.

“Well where the fuck’s Peter then?” he yelled back. The man screamed then stormed off down the corridor. The little boy looked at him blankly then turned back to me. I swallowed, trying to compose myself, and asked the boy “who are you? What are you doing here?”

The boy took a step toward me, then another, and reached for my hand. I watched as my hand moved towards his, it seemed as if it wasn’t my hand at all as I felt as if I had no control whatsoever. He took my hand in his, and his fingers were ice cold. He slid his hand up my bare forearm, and as his arm brushed against mine, it was cold too, like meat in a freezer.

Suddenly, everything seemed to clear, as if I had been drunk and was suddenly sober. The boy smelt terrible. Not like he needed a wash, but rotten inside. His lips were blue and bloodless, and I knew deep down that a corpse was holding my hand.

I bolted in panic, yanking my hand away from the boy’s and bursting down the corridor where the man had run off what seemed like an eternity ago. At the end was a red door, and I ran into it at full speed, expecting it to be locked now. To my surprise and relief it flew open, but as I ran through it I realised it was a dead end. The only thing in the room was a mirror and a light hanging from the ceiling.

The door closed behind me, and the little boy stood there, somehow utterly innocent and horribly menacing all at once. A strange idea hit me. If he really was dead, maybe if he saw himself in the mirror, he would realise. I grabbed him and lifted him up in front of the round, cracked mirror.

The boy shut his eyes. I shouted in his ear “you’re dead! Do you hear me? Look at yourself! Look at yourself and see what you are!” He wriggled in my arms, but his eyes popped open and he looked straight into his own eyes.

Nothing happened. I put the ice cold, dead boy down. He stood looking at me blankly again, and behind him the door opened. In walked the man from before, this time with two women in nurse’s uniforms. The nurses were stunningly beautiful, with long black hair and young, firm bodies. Yet they were dead too. The smell drove into me, and the cold icy skin seemed to glisten under the harsh, flickering lights.

“It’s Peter. Look, it’s Peter” said the man to the nurses. “Bill, it’s not Peter, Peter’s gone, you know that”, replied the taller of the two. She turned to me, and her breath seemed to freeze my skin as she spoke. “You’ll have to excuse Bill, he’s not really quite right. He wouldn’t be here otherwise though would he?” At this she cackled, as did her companion, while Bill looked uncomprehending.

“Who are you? Where am I?” I yelled at the nurses.

The second nurse, whose grimy nametag read Claudia, shook her head and said, “It’s always the same. Denial is so wearing.” She moved closer to me and put her hands on my shoulders.

“You’re dead like us Steve. You’ll live here now. It’s not much, but it’s what it is.”

Bill giggled dumbly, a sound like fetid water bubbling up from somewhere deep inside him.

My paralysis broke and I ran like never before. Charging past the group of dead, I ran back down the corridor towards the stairs. I knew that if I could just get back to the bank, this would all stop. A giggle from behind made me gag, and I looked over my shoulder to see Bill running behind me, as if this was some bizarre game.

I shot down the stairs, taking them 3 or 4 at a time, and in no time I was back in the bank with its orange walls and warm people. As I charged through the foyer, no-one paid me any attention at all.

“You can’t stay awake forever you know”, came a woman’s voice from behind me. I looked back to see the first nurse stood a few paces back, and I skidded to a halt.

“What do you mean?” I screamed back at her. “What will happen to me?”

She shook her head. “You know,” she said sadly.

She was right, I do know. I type this in my room with shaking hands, with Bill, the nurses and the little boy watching me. No-one can see me, so I don’t know if anyone can read this.

Maybe if anyone can, it means they’re like me already. I don’t know why this is happening, but my eyes grow heavy, and soon I will fall asleep.

13^th October 2010

More HMRC Failure

The rolling, relentlessly ugly car crash that is the HMRC just keeps embarrassing itself more and more.

This, bear in mind, is the same organisation that felt it would be a good idea to collect gross income and distribute the net, post-tax amount, as a way of "simplifying PAYE".

Here are some choice nuggets to feed your ire, emphasis mine:

Millions more people could be caught up in the HMRC tax chaos than first thought, its chief executive admitted yesterday.

Ah yes, the chief executive. Because HMRC is a company accountable to, wait, wait, no sorry I can't find anyone.

Dame Lesley Strathie warned the PAYE problems could continue for at least two years, with hundreds of thousands more people falling victim to mistakes. She revealed the whole fiasco had cost Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs almost £170million.

Clearly not made a Dame for her grasp of simple facts. This hasn't cost HMRC anything, because HMRC do not have any fucking money! It's taxpayer money that you are wasting, losing and fucking up with. Which is why your position of CEO is utterly irrelevant.

Dame Lesley disclosed that the fiasco had lost the HMRC £167million – and she admitted that the organisation had known about the problem before the election but had not said anything.

Why am I not even surprised. It's beyond the tail wagging the dog, it's like the turd wagging the tail wagging the frigging dog.

But she added that it would not be until 2012 that ‘we still see a stable system’ – meaning that wrong codings could still be being sent out two years from now.

No, we won't. No govt department will ever have a stable system because procurement is such a cluster-fuck and everyone working there is so wilfully ignorant.

And why the fuck is it still called Her Majesty's anything? Can we not just be honest and accept that they are the collections agency for the Government and name it more honestly? Any suggestions?

The pointlessness of judges

Fuck this.

With this decision, and the hundreds of other appallingly inadequate sentences and prosecutions that are doing all kinds of damage to parts of the UK, the judicial system has jumped the shark.

If this was my son, then very bad things would happen to these three savages. I don't say that lightly. I don't believe in vigilantism or an eye for an eye for its own sake. However, when an old lady needs the support of a brilliant, determined blogger and a journalist to avoid prosecution for dropping cigarette ash, and three thugs walk free with a suspended sentence for torturing an autistic boy for 3 days, something is badly broken.

"Judge Geake said he had taken into account the attackers’ ages, remorse and the fact they had pleaded guilty."

Remorse? You can't show remorse for something carried out over 3 days. Remorse is lashing out and wishing you hadn't. This was a sustained attack on someone who couldn't defend himself. And as for pleading guilty, they had footage on their own mobile phones of the attack. What were they going to do? Deny it?

Judge Geake, I would not usually wish ill on anyone, but I hope something similar befalls your family. Then we can see how important remorse and pleading guilty really are for sentencing.

Condom Win

Quote of the goddamn year here!!

Fennell was also questioned about reports of condoms blocking toilets in the athletes' village.
He replied: "If that is happening, it shows there is use of condoms and I think that's a very positive story, that athletes are being responsible."

Mike Fennell, I salute you.

Drinkunaware

Nanny-statism in action, as the "Chief Executive", whatever the hell that means in a charity, of Drinkaware leaped into action to make sure an opportunity to show his contempt for other people was seized with both hands.

The article is fairly innocent, with research suggesting that light drinking by a pregnant woman has zero impact on the unborn baby. Seems pretty sensible to me, getting hammered every day probably not a good idea but a couple of glasses here and there not a major issue. Certainly did my kids no harm, but then I wasn't the pregnant one ho ho ho.

However, up pops Chris Sorek from Drinkaware (emphasis mine):

He said: "Despite these findings, it is important to remember that 'light drinking' can mean different things to different people.

Ah-hah, so perhaps you should spend all your time telling pregnant women exactly how much they should drink. Oh wait, you do? On teh interwebz and everything? So what's the problem?

"There is a risk that if pregnant women take this research as a green light to drink a small amount, they could become complacent, drink more than they think they are and inadvertently cause harm to their unborn child.

Yes, pregnant women are famed for their complacency. I had to keep reminding my wife she was pregnant, as the responsibility of carrying a tiny person around inside you for 9 months really meant nothing. You twat.

"Excessive drinking during pregnancy can carry serious consequences and lifelong damage to children and should be avoided."

Which is of course irrelevant to this article, which is very clearly stating that light drinking is not harmful. Bugger off Mr. Sorek, you add less than nothing to the debate.