I had planned to write this post a couple of days back which is why it is rather old news now, but I think it's still pertinent. Unfortunately, thanks to the attentions of the driver of a German 4x4 I've spent most of the last two days sorting out a replacement car while the Alfa sits on my drive with its rear end in a very sorry state.
Anyway, the issue that came to my attention was regarding the response of Fiona Pilkington's local council who deemed that her problems with "anti-social behaviour" were a "low priority". To understand why they would do this it is necessary to understand what motivates local councils these days,
The reality is that Fiona Pilkington killed herself and her disabled daughter because she was abandoned by the local authorities whose job it was to protect her from what was actually persistent victimisation and criminal behaviour - not anti-social. Anti-social means urinating on the street or swearing loudly in a pub - i.e. it is not behaviour aimed at any individual, just something that society should not be expected to tolerate. What happened to Fiona Pilkington went far beyond "anti-social".
However, the thing is that most - if not all - local councils consider this sort of thing to be low priority these days. For some daft reason, most local councils don't focus on local issues anymore - their priorities are on global, and often very contentious issues. They are more concerned about the plight of some distant native of the Maldives than they are worried about the growing rat population in Acacia Avenue due to the fact that the bins haven't been emptied for six weeks.
For most councils, dealing with the issues of the people is an unwanted distraction from their real priority of "saving the environment" - but perhaps the biggest irony is that while they supposedly strive to make the environment better for people in Bangladesh or Bangalore (striving that make absolutely no difference whatsoever, by the way) the local environment descends into a chaotic morass of filth and despair. Hence bins are overflowing, rats roam the streets which are covered with broken glass and graffiti and the pleas of Fiona Pilkington go unheard while local councils worry about the plight polar bears.
Local councils and authorities need to remember what and who they are supposed to be working for. The clue is in the name.
Showing posts with label Environment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Environment. Show all posts
Friday, January 15, 2010
Monday, November 10, 2008
Bin Laden in Slough!
There are so many they clutter the pavements making the walk to school a combination of chicanes between them and the cars half parked on the pavements with frequent incursions into the road where the moving cars show little regard for pedestrians whatever age they are.
Eh?
Wheelie bins - what did you think I was on about?
Yep, we're now laden with wheelie bins in Slough. Virtually every household has two - often three. We have red ones for recycling and black bins for everything else - plus an optional green one for garden waste.
The mornings remind me of something out of Doctor Who with alien looking machines patrolling the streets - all they need is to start spying on us and their leaders to demand that "you will obey" - oh, wait ..... they already do.
It wouldn't be so bad if the dustmen were like they were back in the days when the council worked for us rather than vice versa. Back then they used to come and collect your bin from wherever you left it and then put it back there after - and they did that usually before most of us were out and about. All we had to do was remember to leave them a Christmas box and they'd be happy.
Ah well - I guess that's progress for you. Personally, I could have done without it.
Eh?
Wheelie bins - what did you think I was on about?
Yep, we're now laden with wheelie bins in Slough. Virtually every household has two - often three. We have red ones for recycling and black bins for everything else - plus an optional green one for garden waste.
The mornings remind me of something out of Doctor Who with alien looking machines patrolling the streets - all they need is to start spying on us and their leaders to demand that "you will obey" - oh, wait ..... they already do.
It wouldn't be so bad if the dustmen were like they were back in the days when the council worked for us rather than vice versa. Back then they used to come and collect your bin from wherever you left it and then put it back there after - and they did that usually before most of us were out and about. All we had to do was remember to leave them a Christmas box and they'd be happy.
Ah well - I guess that's progress for you. Personally, I could have done without it.
Thursday, November 06, 2008
The mounting mountain of waste
Thousands of tons of waste collected for recycling is piling up in storage because nobody wants it.
Collection companies and councils are running out of space to store paper, plastic bottles and steel cans because prices are so low that the materials cannot be shifted.
Things are so bad they are considering changing the storage rules so that they can store the rubbish in warehouses and disused military bases. At least they'll have plenty to choose from. It's also kind of ironic that these bases are considered unfit for housing criminals, but are OK to store rubbish in and were OK for our soldiers, sailors and airmen to live in. What does that tell you about the regard our politicians have for our military personnel?
I'm not keen on this whole recycling thing to be honest. I have nothing against it on principle, but I do object to being forced to do it on pain of punishment. If there was a genuine demand for it then the market would find a way.
Indeed, it used to back in my day. I'm sure my street wasn't the only one that had a rag and bone man tour weekly. I actually remember being told to sit outside the front of our house as a young kid to "keep an eye out" for the rag and bone man. He would come round each Wednesday leading his horse and cart and I don't think he ever refused to take anything away - even tatty old water damaged carpet.
Mind you, we didn't waste much in those days. Clothes would be passed down from sibling to sibling until, when they finally couldn't stand one more wash, they were cut up into rags for dusting, polishing, cleaning or even patching.
There was little food waste either. Most families didn't have freezers and most mums didn't work. So food was bought each day to be used that day. The question of "use by" dates didn't arise because most food was bought fresh and eaten on the day it was purchased - and as most communities had a local high street where one could buy the daily essentials, this was never an onerous task.
Far from it as far as my mum was concerned - it was part of her social life. I frequently hear young women today complain that they couldn't bear to be a stay at home mum cooped up all day with the kids, but it wasn't really like that back then. As a young mum, my mother would get my brothers off to school then walk up the high street with me in a pushchair where she'd bump into lots of other young mums who would become lifelong friends. It was part of what made the community we lived in so strong.
When it came to major goods - TVs, washing machines, fridges - we bought new things only when the old ones broke down and were no longer repairable. My mother only just recently replaced the colour TV my dad bought in the seventies - and only then because of the digital switchover. The TV still worked perfectly. I know people younger than that TV who change their set virtually every year!
The other thing today is packaging. As I mentioned, most food was bought fresh so wasn't packaged at all. These days virtually everything comes in a carton, wrapped in plastic or in a box. Perhaps the worst of all is the plastic packs designed, so I'm told, to discourage pilfering. Mrs Stan bought a memory stick for a digital camera the other day - a tiny thing little bigger than a postage stamp, but it came in a plastic pack about the same size as a paperback novel!
I don't suppose anyone cares really anymore. You can't tell anyone that things really were better in the old days because it doesn't fit the post-modern narrative - but they really were.
Personally, I see the mounting mountain of rubbish as a metaphor for the post-modern society. Full of liberal progressive good intentions but ultimately it just creates more garbage for society to have to deal with.
Collection companies and councils are running out of space to store paper, plastic bottles and steel cans because prices are so low that the materials cannot be shifted.
Things are so bad they are considering changing the storage rules so that they can store the rubbish in warehouses and disused military bases. At least they'll have plenty to choose from. It's also kind of ironic that these bases are considered unfit for housing criminals, but are OK to store rubbish in and were OK for our soldiers, sailors and airmen to live in. What does that tell you about the regard our politicians have for our military personnel?
I'm not keen on this whole recycling thing to be honest. I have nothing against it on principle, but I do object to being forced to do it on pain of punishment. If there was a genuine demand for it then the market would find a way.
Indeed, it used to back in my day. I'm sure my street wasn't the only one that had a rag and bone man tour weekly. I actually remember being told to sit outside the front of our house as a young kid to "keep an eye out" for the rag and bone man. He would come round each Wednesday leading his horse and cart and I don't think he ever refused to take anything away - even tatty old water damaged carpet.
Mind you, we didn't waste much in those days. Clothes would be passed down from sibling to sibling until, when they finally couldn't stand one more wash, they were cut up into rags for dusting, polishing, cleaning or even patching.
There was little food waste either. Most families didn't have freezers and most mums didn't work. So food was bought each day to be used that day. The question of "use by" dates didn't arise because most food was bought fresh and eaten on the day it was purchased - and as most communities had a local high street where one could buy the daily essentials, this was never an onerous task.
Far from it as far as my mum was concerned - it was part of her social life. I frequently hear young women today complain that they couldn't bear to be a stay at home mum cooped up all day with the kids, but it wasn't really like that back then. As a young mum, my mother would get my brothers off to school then walk up the high street with me in a pushchair where she'd bump into lots of other young mums who would become lifelong friends. It was part of what made the community we lived in so strong.
When it came to major goods - TVs, washing machines, fridges - we bought new things only when the old ones broke down and were no longer repairable. My mother only just recently replaced the colour TV my dad bought in the seventies - and only then because of the digital switchover. The TV still worked perfectly. I know people younger than that TV who change their set virtually every year!
The other thing today is packaging. As I mentioned, most food was bought fresh so wasn't packaged at all. These days virtually everything comes in a carton, wrapped in plastic or in a box. Perhaps the worst of all is the plastic packs designed, so I'm told, to discourage pilfering. Mrs Stan bought a memory stick for a digital camera the other day - a tiny thing little bigger than a postage stamp, but it came in a plastic pack about the same size as a paperback novel!
I don't suppose anyone cares really anymore. You can't tell anyone that things really were better in the old days because it doesn't fit the post-modern narrative - but they really were.
Personally, I see the mounting mountain of rubbish as a metaphor for the post-modern society. Full of liberal progressive good intentions but ultimately it just creates more garbage for society to have to deal with.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Return to Life On Mars
In the TV show, Life On Mars, DCI Sam Tyler spends his entire time trying to wake himself from the coma so as to escape from 1973 back to the present. When he eventually succeeds, though, he finds the modern world so superficial and banal he takes his own life in an attempt to return back to 1973 - which he does.
Turns out Sam may not have needed to do that anyway.
Prof Ian Fells, emeritus professor of Energy Conversion at the University of Newcastle, said the country will lose a third of generating capacity in the next twelve years as old nuclear and coal fired power stations close down.
With the current politicial situation making it difficult to rely on imported gas or oil, he said Britain will face regular power cuts lasting long enough to delay operations in hospitals, close down schools and bring cities to a standstill.
Ultimately he said the situation would lead to economic downturn and mass unemployment.
All very 1973. All Sam had to do was wait a few years and then he too would be able to enjoy 3 day weeks, power cuts, reading by candlelight and cooking his dinner on a one ring calor gas stove.
Back in 1973, though, this was all caused by a miners strike against the backdrop of an oil crisis. This time, although we have an oil "crisis" of sorts, the real problem is not miners, but environmentalists - the Environazis - who, through their successful propagation of the myth of man-mad global warming, have managed to paralyse government's management of our energy generation and supply.
The power cuts and 3 day week of the seventies was the inspiration for Thatcher's battle against union power culminating in the year long miners strike of 1984/85 which effectively ended union power in Britain - a move which was widely supported by the British public.
I expect a similar thing to happen again - this time with environmentalism - with similar "battles" and tactics - and I expect a similar backing for the move by the British public.
When the cuts start to bite, when people have to walk home through pitch black streets because there are no trains running on the electrified line and all the streetlights are off, when there is no heating or hot water in the house, no power to run the TV, computer, washing machine or tumble dryer, when schools are closed for days at a time and when millions are out of work because there is no power to run the industries and businesses that employ them - people will react with anger.
They will be angry with the government, of course - but they will lay the blame squarely where it lies. The AGW movement.
The folly of the belief in "renewables" will be laid bare and those who had pushed for such things will be derided and condemned. The AGW movement will be dead inside 15 years and environmentalists will have a hard time generating public support for their beliefs ever again.
Turns out Sam may not have needed to do that anyway.
Prof Ian Fells, emeritus professor of Energy Conversion at the University of Newcastle, said the country will lose a third of generating capacity in the next twelve years as old nuclear and coal fired power stations close down.
With the current politicial situation making it difficult to rely on imported gas or oil, he said Britain will face regular power cuts lasting long enough to delay operations in hospitals, close down schools and bring cities to a standstill.
Ultimately he said the situation would lead to economic downturn and mass unemployment.
All very 1973. All Sam had to do was wait a few years and then he too would be able to enjoy 3 day weeks, power cuts, reading by candlelight and cooking his dinner on a one ring calor gas stove.
Back in 1973, though, this was all caused by a miners strike against the backdrop of an oil crisis. This time, although we have an oil "crisis" of sorts, the real problem is not miners, but environmentalists - the Environazis - who, through their successful propagation of the myth of man-mad global warming, have managed to paralyse government's management of our energy generation and supply.
The power cuts and 3 day week of the seventies was the inspiration for Thatcher's battle against union power culminating in the year long miners strike of 1984/85 which effectively ended union power in Britain - a move which was widely supported by the British public.
I expect a similar thing to happen again - this time with environmentalism - with similar "battles" and tactics - and I expect a similar backing for the move by the British public.
When the cuts start to bite, when people have to walk home through pitch black streets because there are no trains running on the electrified line and all the streetlights are off, when there is no heating or hot water in the house, no power to run the TV, computer, washing machine or tumble dryer, when schools are closed for days at a time and when millions are out of work because there is no power to run the industries and businesses that employ them - people will react with anger.
They will be angry with the government, of course - but they will lay the blame squarely where it lies. The AGW movement.
The folly of the belief in "renewables" will be laid bare and those who had pushed for such things will be derided and condemned. The AGW movement will be dead inside 15 years and environmentalists will have a hard time generating public support for their beliefs ever again.
Saturday, July 19, 2008
Priorities
This was kind of inevitable given the priorities of politicians these days.
You see, you and me - the people formerly known as British subjects - are no longer the priority of the British government. Far from it. Top of the list of priorities is "saving the planet" - which is odd seeing how the planet doesn't vote for them, has been around for several billion years without any help from the Labour party, is remarkably adept at looking after itself and will be around for several billion years long after we're gone.
You think I'm over-reacting to a minor piece of legislation? Just look at the names of the acts involved.
The act that gave us the right to weekly bin collections - The Public Health Act of 1875.
The act (being amended) that takes away that right - The Environmental Protection Act of 1990.
The environment trumps public health.
You see, you and me - the people formerly known as British subjects - are no longer the priority of the British government. Far from it. Top of the list of priorities is "saving the planet" - which is odd seeing how the planet doesn't vote for them, has been around for several billion years without any help from the Labour party, is remarkably adept at looking after itself and will be around for several billion years long after we're gone.
You think I'm over-reacting to a minor piece of legislation? Just look at the names of the acts involved.
The act that gave us the right to weekly bin collections - The Public Health Act of 1875.
The act (being amended) that takes away that right - The Environmental Protection Act of 1990.
The environment trumps public health.
Monday, July 23, 2007
On the bright side
What with all the rain, thunder, cloud, flooding and general gloominess from the weather recently it would be easy to get depressed about this washout of a summer.
But as always there is a silver lining.
My roses are looking fantastic. Best year ever, I reckon.
Thursday, June 28, 2007
It's not what you know, it's how you use it
Number Watch has a good swipe at the flood coverage.
If you build your house on a flood plain, it follows as the night the day that it will eventually be flooded. That is how the flood plains were created in the first place. That is what they are for. Concreting over vast areas of the naturally absorbing soil guarantees that this will happen more often. Time was when communities carried on traditions that had been developed over hundreds of generations, such as hedging and ditching at the appropriate time of year. Water meadows were flooded for a purpose and houses were never built on them. Now people think they know better.
That last sentence echoes my own beliefs - that modern "progressives" believe they know better than our forefathers. That is why they have spent the last few decades dismantling generations of accumulated knowledge with their post-modern revisionist perspective on everything - from education to morality - particularly on the environment. Modern environmentalism is based on reactionary sentimentalism and has nothing on the old ways.
Once upon a time - not that long ago, either - we cared for the environment because it was tied to our existence and we did so with cold eyed efficiency, not faint-hearted sentimentality. They knew better how to manage the land, the resources, the flora and fauna. Despite our so-called knowledge society, despite all our technological advances, they had a better understanding of the environment, the seasons and the weather than we do now - because their lives and livelihoods were linked to them.
That is real knowledge.
In comparison, we know nothing.
If you build your house on a flood plain, it follows as the night the day that it will eventually be flooded. That is how the flood plains were created in the first place. That is what they are for. Concreting over vast areas of the naturally absorbing soil guarantees that this will happen more often. Time was when communities carried on traditions that had been developed over hundreds of generations, such as hedging and ditching at the appropriate time of year. Water meadows were flooded for a purpose and houses were never built on them. Now people think they know better.
That last sentence echoes my own beliefs - that modern "progressives" believe they know better than our forefathers. That is why they have spent the last few decades dismantling generations of accumulated knowledge with their post-modern revisionist perspective on everything - from education to morality - particularly on the environment. Modern environmentalism is based on reactionary sentimentalism and has nothing on the old ways.
Once upon a time - not that long ago, either - we cared for the environment because it was tied to our existence and we did so with cold eyed efficiency, not faint-hearted sentimentality. They knew better how to manage the land, the resources, the flora and fauna. Despite our so-called knowledge society, despite all our technological advances, they had a better understanding of the environment, the seasons and the weather than we do now - because their lives and livelihoods were linked to them.
That is real knowledge.
In comparison, we know nothing.
Thursday, June 07, 2007
Home thoughts
Listening to the news this morning, there was an item in which the governments housing advisor was quoted as saying that there is a danger that the next generation will be priced out of home ownership.
I don't disagree with that, but what I do disagree with was his assertion that the ONLY option to avoid this happening was to build more houses. Not only do I not think this is the only option, I don't even believe it should be the first option as one of the most precious things in a small and, largely, overcrowded island is green space. Once again, we have a situation where a government's concern for the "environment" does not extend to the immediate environment or even the environmental impact of it's social policies.
When it comes to the housing shortage there are some things that ought to be considered before we start carpeting huge swathes of our glorious landscape with massive housing estates. First off, is the issue of empty homes. There are thousands of unoccupied houses the length and breadth of Britain which are left standing empty and unused for various reasons. Surely it would make sense to introduce policies to encourage the owners of these homes to either use them or lose them. Maybe that sounds draconian, but it's a national disgrace that so many homes are left virtually abandoned when there is such a chronic housing shortage.
The second issue is that of single occupancy homes. More and more people in Britain today are living alone - often in 2, 3 or even 4 or more bedroom properties. Of course they have a right to do this, but it is wrong in my opinion that they are given tax concessions for doing so in the form of rebates on their council tax. Instead of giving a rebate there should be a premium attached to single occupancy homes. I would suggest a premium of 25% per bedroom - so that a person living in a one bedroom flat pays 125% of the council tax for a property of that band, 150% for a 2 bedroom, 175% for a three bedroom and so on. That's just a quick thought off the top of my head, but I'm sure there are ways that any forward thinking government could think of to discourage single occupancy homes.
The third issue is that of second/holiday homes. Again, this should be discouraged by adopting punitive measures for multiple home ownership and, off the top of my head once more, a simple method would be to introduce a premium on the council tax on second homes - in this case, though, I would add 100% to the council tax for each home - so that the first home they pay 100%; 200% on the second home, 300% on a third home and so on.
All of this is my way of saying that the before we consider building more houses in this already overcrowded land (especially in the south east), we should make much better use of the existing housing stock.
There is, of course, another reason why property is so scarce at the moment. Immigration. When hundreds of thousands of people are arriving in this country every year looking for somewhere to live this is bound to cause problems with housing. The solution is simple. Restrict immigration substantially and round up and deport illegal immigrants immediately.
I don't disagree with that, but what I do disagree with was his assertion that the ONLY option to avoid this happening was to build more houses. Not only do I not think this is the only option, I don't even believe it should be the first option as one of the most precious things in a small and, largely, overcrowded island is green space. Once again, we have a situation where a government's concern for the "environment" does not extend to the immediate environment or even the environmental impact of it's social policies.
When it comes to the housing shortage there are some things that ought to be considered before we start carpeting huge swathes of our glorious landscape with massive housing estates. First off, is the issue of empty homes. There are thousands of unoccupied houses the length and breadth of Britain which are left standing empty and unused for various reasons. Surely it would make sense to introduce policies to encourage the owners of these homes to either use them or lose them. Maybe that sounds draconian, but it's a national disgrace that so many homes are left virtually abandoned when there is such a chronic housing shortage.
The second issue is that of single occupancy homes. More and more people in Britain today are living alone - often in 2, 3 or even 4 or more bedroom properties. Of course they have a right to do this, but it is wrong in my opinion that they are given tax concessions for doing so in the form of rebates on their council tax. Instead of giving a rebate there should be a premium attached to single occupancy homes. I would suggest a premium of 25% per bedroom - so that a person living in a one bedroom flat pays 125% of the council tax for a property of that band, 150% for a 2 bedroom, 175% for a three bedroom and so on. That's just a quick thought off the top of my head, but I'm sure there are ways that any forward thinking government could think of to discourage single occupancy homes.
The third issue is that of second/holiday homes. Again, this should be discouraged by adopting punitive measures for multiple home ownership and, off the top of my head once more, a simple method would be to introduce a premium on the council tax on second homes - in this case, though, I would add 100% to the council tax for each home - so that the first home they pay 100%; 200% on the second home, 300% on a third home and so on.
All of this is my way of saying that the before we consider building more houses in this already overcrowded land (especially in the south east), we should make much better use of the existing housing stock.
There is, of course, another reason why property is so scarce at the moment. Immigration. When hundreds of thousands of people are arriving in this country every year looking for somewhere to live this is bound to cause problems with housing. The solution is simple. Restrict immigration substantially and round up and deport illegal immigrants immediately.
Monday, April 16, 2007
Playing to the crowd
The Lib Dems - a party of opportunists if ever there was one - have announced a "new" policy dubbed an "energy mortgage" whereby homeowners would receive loans to improve the energy efficiency of their homes.
I'm not sure how this idea is new as I'm pretty sure there are grants already available for this sort of thing, but the Lib Dems leader seems to think this will result in a considerable saving on CO2 emissions.
The Lib Dems claim their proposals could save 31 million tonnes of CO2 - equivalent to the amount produced in 18 months by all the cars on Britain's roads.
I've mentioned this before on this blog, but I am still staggered by the sheer short sightedness of this kind of thinking. What does Mr Campbell think people are going to do with the money they save from making their home more energy efficient? Spend it on trees? Shove it under the mattress? Give it to charity?
Maybe some will, but for the vast majority it will be none of the above. They'll spend it on new electronic goods, more holidays to more exotic locations, another car, a bigger car, more days out, more trips to restaurants, a short city break in Barcelona - that kind of thing. In other words, they'll spend the money on things that will also cause emissions and negate any benefits that might be obtained by cutting their energy usage in their home.
What is really needed - and what people want - are the things that government should be doing. Better, more efficient and more affordable public transport should be top of the list of policies to reduce emissions - before anything else. If there are good public transport services available - reliable, clean, comfortable, safe - staffed by friendly and courteous people rather than surly jobsworths, then people will use those more and their car less.
The fact that the Lib Dems, or the Conservatives or Labour for that matter, believe that this sort of posturing - waving their "green" credentials above their heads without any real thought about the consequences of such policies - reveals the astounding lack of political thought that exists in this country. All that matters to politicians today is tomorrow's headline and that means that the majority of their policy making is geared towards pleasing the media rather than providing what the people want and need.
I'm not sure how this idea is new as I'm pretty sure there are grants already available for this sort of thing, but the Lib Dems leader seems to think this will result in a considerable saving on CO2 emissions.
The Lib Dems claim their proposals could save 31 million tonnes of CO2 - equivalent to the amount produced in 18 months by all the cars on Britain's roads.
I've mentioned this before on this blog, but I am still staggered by the sheer short sightedness of this kind of thinking. What does Mr Campbell think people are going to do with the money they save from making their home more energy efficient? Spend it on trees? Shove it under the mattress? Give it to charity?
Maybe some will, but for the vast majority it will be none of the above. They'll spend it on new electronic goods, more holidays to more exotic locations, another car, a bigger car, more days out, more trips to restaurants, a short city break in Barcelona - that kind of thing. In other words, they'll spend the money on things that will also cause emissions and negate any benefits that might be obtained by cutting their energy usage in their home.
What is really needed - and what people want - are the things that government should be doing. Better, more efficient and more affordable public transport should be top of the list of policies to reduce emissions - before anything else. If there are good public transport services available - reliable, clean, comfortable, safe - staffed by friendly and courteous people rather than surly jobsworths, then people will use those more and their car less.
The fact that the Lib Dems, or the Conservatives or Labour for that matter, believe that this sort of posturing - waving their "green" credentials above their heads without any real thought about the consequences of such policies - reveals the astounding lack of political thought that exists in this country. All that matters to politicians today is tomorrow's headline and that means that the majority of their policy making is geared towards pleasing the media rather than providing what the people want and need.
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Hard evidence of climate change?
In an article in Time magazine, a Dr Hans Ahlmann speculates on impending global warming.
Greenland is getting greener and Iceland's ice is shrinking. The Arctic is losing its chill. According to Dr. Hans Ahlmann, professor of geography at Stockholm University, all the cold lands around the northernmost Atlantic are entering a balmier climatological era.
Dr. Ahlmann has been collecting evidence from a variety of sources: temperature records, glaciers, trees, fish. In the Scandinavian countries, he says, the winters have been getting milder since the 19th Century.
Well, we've all heard this before haven't we. The article states nothing new so far.
Retreating Glaciers. Mountain glaciers, "very sensitive to climatic changes," also support Dr. Ahlmann's theory. In central Norway, Lapland and Greenland, the glaciers have been drawing back their long tongues of ice. Some have disappeared entirely. Icelandic glaciers are yielding up farmland which they have overridden for the last 600 years.
The Rev. Gore is always on about retreating mounting glaciers to, so Dr Ahlmann isn't telling us anything we don't already know is he? Hang on, though - Dr Ahlmann has another angle. Cod (Pardon the pun).
Advancing Fish. In the 19th Century only a few cod were caught off southwestern Greenland. Now they are schooling far north of the Arctic Circle, where grateful Greenlanders and Eskimos are hauling them up by the ton. Many times in geological history, over long periods of years, the ice has piled up in the north and crunched down into the temperate zones.
So that's why there is no cod left in the North Sea. They've all gone north for the cold! And there was me blaming Spanish factory trawlers for overfishing our waters. Despite all the evidence of a warming climate, Dr Ahlmann is unable to point the finger at man for the cause of global warming.
Scientists do not agree on the causes of these fluctuations. One theory: the sun's radiation may vary at different periods. Another: the sun may have drifted through belts of cosmic dust which kept some of its rays from reaching the circling planets.
Between the great cycles come lesser cycles, when the cold advances or retreats a little. This is probably what is happening now; it may be only a short spell of fever, to be followed soon by chills.
That's a brave prediction to make with the current furore over anthropogenic causes of climate change. Even more so when you consider that the IPCC have dismissed the sun as a major factor in global warming. It gets even more remarkable when Dr Ahlmann goes on to say that ....
The change for the better amounts to only a degree or two, but that is enough to make all the difference in countries that fringe the Arctic.
Change for the better? Crikey! Don't hear many climate scientists saying that, do we? Is Dr Ahlmann just being a selfish Scandinavian or is there another reason why he thinks it could be change for the better? Maybe.
The article was published in 1947.
And we all know what happened then, don't we. Yep - it got cooler. Just like they predicted when they said "Between the great cycles come lesser cycles, when the cold advances or retreats a little. This is probably what is happening now; it may be only a short spell of fever, to be followed soon by chills."
I guess they hadn't thought of "scientific consensus" as proof back in 1947.
Greenland is getting greener and Iceland's ice is shrinking. The Arctic is losing its chill. According to Dr. Hans Ahlmann, professor of geography at Stockholm University, all the cold lands around the northernmost Atlantic are entering a balmier climatological era.
Dr. Ahlmann has been collecting evidence from a variety of sources: temperature records, glaciers, trees, fish. In the Scandinavian countries, he says, the winters have been getting milder since the 19th Century.
Well, we've all heard this before haven't we. The article states nothing new so far.
Retreating Glaciers. Mountain glaciers, "very sensitive to climatic changes," also support Dr. Ahlmann's theory. In central Norway, Lapland and Greenland, the glaciers have been drawing back their long tongues of ice. Some have disappeared entirely. Icelandic glaciers are yielding up farmland which they have overridden for the last 600 years.
The Rev. Gore is always on about retreating mounting glaciers to, so Dr Ahlmann isn't telling us anything we don't already know is he? Hang on, though - Dr Ahlmann has another angle. Cod (Pardon the pun).
Advancing Fish. In the 19th Century only a few cod were caught off southwestern Greenland. Now they are schooling far north of the Arctic Circle, where grateful Greenlanders and Eskimos are hauling them up by the ton. Many times in geological history, over long periods of years, the ice has piled up in the north and crunched down into the temperate zones.
So that's why there is no cod left in the North Sea. They've all gone north for the cold! And there was me blaming Spanish factory trawlers for overfishing our waters. Despite all the evidence of a warming climate, Dr Ahlmann is unable to point the finger at man for the cause of global warming.
Scientists do not agree on the causes of these fluctuations. One theory: the sun's radiation may vary at different periods. Another: the sun may have drifted through belts of cosmic dust which kept some of its rays from reaching the circling planets.
Between the great cycles come lesser cycles, when the cold advances or retreats a little. This is probably what is happening now; it may be only a short spell of fever, to be followed soon by chills.
That's a brave prediction to make with the current furore over anthropogenic causes of climate change. Even more so when you consider that the IPCC have dismissed the sun as a major factor in global warming. It gets even more remarkable when Dr Ahlmann goes on to say that ....
The change for the better amounts to only a degree or two, but that is enough to make all the difference in countries that fringe the Arctic.
Change for the better? Crikey! Don't hear many climate scientists saying that, do we? Is Dr Ahlmann just being a selfish Scandinavian or is there another reason why he thinks it could be change for the better? Maybe.
The article was published in 1947.
And we all know what happened then, don't we. Yep - it got cooler. Just like they predicted when they said "Between the great cycles come lesser cycles, when the cold advances or retreats a little. This is probably what is happening now; it may be only a short spell of fever, to be followed soon by chills."
I guess they hadn't thought of "scientific consensus" as proof back in 1947.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)