The failure of the left to force an agreement at the UN Copenhagen conference last week has obviously upset a lot of people in the media. The left wing newspapers (just about all of them) have been voicing their displeasure, but this wasn't so easy for the BBC who are, supposedly, impartial.
But the BBC are THE left wing media organisation. More than any other they encompass the beliefs and values of the left. They employ an almost entirely left wing staff and broadcast only left wing approved programming.
However, because they are "impartial" they are not allowed to put forward opinions on failures such as Copenhagen. So what to do? It's quite a conundrum but the BBC have now established a way around this.
What they do is they put forward a number of representatives from various left wing NGOs - such as Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and WWF - and ask them their opinion. As if that matters!
Greenpeace, FoE and WWF are not democratically elected organisations. Their opinions are not required and should not be sought - and they are no more valid than my opinion. The BBC should no more be seeking the opinion of these organisations any more than they should be seeking the opinion of a large multinational corporation for their views on Copenhagen.
But in the days following the failure of the Copenhagen conference the BBC trotted out various spokespeople from the NGOs I mentioned for their opinion in a shameless display of grovelling to their puppet masters.
The worst thing about this is that they aren't even subtle about it. They are quite open about their unashamed bias now - they have stopped even trying to be impartial. It's a national disgrace that this organisation is now so institutionally biased and continues to receive public funding to put forward their putrid views.
Showing posts with label UN. Show all posts
Showing posts with label UN. Show all posts
Monday, December 21, 2009
Monday, January 12, 2009
Just how useless is the UN?
If an organisation is so inept it can not impose a simple smoking ban in its own headquarters building - just how effective will they be at resolving complex international disputes?
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
The west's betrayal of Israel
Whenever I watch, read or listen to anything on the mainstream media these days relating to Israel I almost always find myself becoming increasingly infuriated with the dreadful bias against that plucky and embattled nation.
I'm just so fed up with the soft sods that parade themselves on television decrying the "disproportionate" response of Israel to constant and unending provocation - the latest being some UN toady from UNRWA on the Channel 4 news this evening who was barely able to contain his indignation at Israel's behaviour.
The UN is supposed to be non-partisan, but this lowlife scum clearly favoured one particular side over the other as he moaned about the air strikes and lack of medical supplies being allowed in by Israel. He seemed to think that the UN should be investigating the Israeli's for "war crimes" - shame he doesn't think that the UN should investigate the Palestinian use of UNRWA as a front for their terrorist operations.
His message was clear. Israel has no right to defend itself. The Palestinians should be allowed to continue to lob their missiles into Israeli towns and villages and the Israelis should do nothing about it.
But why shouldn't they? Israel is a legitmate nation - much more so than the fake nation of bloody Pakistan in my opinion - and a UN member. The UN charter makes it clear that all member nations have the right to defend themselves from attack and Israel was under attack - day after day after day.
Unlike the Pally scum, Israel abides by the rules of war. It uses clearly marked equipment, ensures that its soldiers wear clearly identifiable uniforms and goes to great lengths to minimise civilian casualties. The Palestinian filth do none of these things - they deliberately target civilians, deliberately wear civilian clothing and deliberately mingle with civilians to maximise casualties to accentuate the propaganda value of their deaths - but what does the UN ever do about that?
Nothing. Not ever. Just gives them more support and more credibility.
None of this is ever mentioned by our media. They are complicit in this betrayal of Israel just like the UN. The really remarkable thing is that the UN was set up, in part, to support the Zionist cause of creating a homeland for Jews - and having achieved that it has spent the next sixty years trying to knock it down again.
Personally, I believe Israel is doomed. I don't expect it to be able to celebrate a 75th anniversary. When the horror of the holocaust became apparent towards the end of the Second World War the nations of the world recoiled at the sheer inhumanity of it all and declared "never again!"
Never again? Not soon enough for the United Nations.
I'm just so fed up with the soft sods that parade themselves on television decrying the "disproportionate" response of Israel to constant and unending provocation - the latest being some UN toady from UNRWA on the Channel 4 news this evening who was barely able to contain his indignation at Israel's behaviour.
The UN is supposed to be non-partisan, but this lowlife scum clearly favoured one particular side over the other as he moaned about the air strikes and lack of medical supplies being allowed in by Israel. He seemed to think that the UN should be investigating the Israeli's for "war crimes" - shame he doesn't think that the UN should investigate the Palestinian use of UNRWA as a front for their terrorist operations.
His message was clear. Israel has no right to defend itself. The Palestinians should be allowed to continue to lob their missiles into Israeli towns and villages and the Israelis should do nothing about it.
But why shouldn't they? Israel is a legitmate nation - much more so than the fake nation of bloody Pakistan in my opinion - and a UN member. The UN charter makes it clear that all member nations have the right to defend themselves from attack and Israel was under attack - day after day after day.
Unlike the Pally scum, Israel abides by the rules of war. It uses clearly marked equipment, ensures that its soldiers wear clearly identifiable uniforms and goes to great lengths to minimise civilian casualties. The Palestinian filth do none of these things - they deliberately target civilians, deliberately wear civilian clothing and deliberately mingle with civilians to maximise casualties to accentuate the propaganda value of their deaths - but what does the UN ever do about that?
Nothing. Not ever. Just gives them more support and more credibility.
None of this is ever mentioned by our media. They are complicit in this betrayal of Israel just like the UN. The really remarkable thing is that the UN was set up, in part, to support the Zionist cause of creating a homeland for Jews - and having achieved that it has spent the next sixty years trying to knock it down again.
Personally, I believe Israel is doomed. I don't expect it to be able to celebrate a 75th anniversary. When the horror of the holocaust became apparent towards the end of the Second World War the nations of the world recoiled at the sheer inhumanity of it all and declared "never again!"
Never again? Not soon enough for the United Nations.
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
NATO has served its purpose and a new alliance is needed
A thought provoking and insightful article on the Times is a rare thing these days so congratulations to Michael Evans for his piece today on the future of NATO.
In Afghanistan, for example, it has 50,000 troops throughout the country, but where is its political voice? Is Nato now just a troop-providing alliance that takes the flak when things go wrong and sacrifices its men and women without having a real say on the way forward for the country? This is one reason why the campaign there faces stalemate. Even in military terms, the alliance is not acting as a cohesive force in Afghanistan; individual member states present the US commander of its International Security Assistance Force (Isaf) with a kaleidoscope of national caveats that limit military action.
In truth, this has always been the problem for NATO - it's just that during the Cold War it was never seriously put to the test - but as Evans points out, in recent years NATO has been used as a political tool rather than a military alliance. And as Evans points out, the problems for NATO are exacerbated by other considerations.
The United Nations and other international bodies are in the forefront of the political game in Afghanistan but Nato just sends troops.
I make no secret of my belief that the UN is a curse on the modern world. An organisation that has done nothing to earn the respect or authority which so many people seem to think it warrants, but that doesn't excuse NATO from accepting the role of second fiddle to the UN in Afghanistan. Evans goes on to make some important points about NATO expansion.
Nato is in no position to offer an Article 5 guarantee - an attack on one member is an attack on all - to Georgia or Ukraine; yet there are ideological members of the alliance who believe that this fundamental principle must apply whatever the circumstances. If enlargement remains a priority under Mr Obama, this increasingly high-risk guarantee will need to be put into a more realistic context.
NATO was an organisation which made sense at the time and, during that time, it was clearly an organisation which was limited by the geographical threat. The core principle was deterring an attack on Western Europe by the Soviet Bloc forces which vastly outnumbered those conventional forces which the west could muster against them. But times have changed and the threat to Western Europe no longer comes from the Russian Bear.
As Evans points out, if Georgia had been a member of NATO before the mini-war in South Ossetia NATO would have been compelled to act in her defence, but the reality of that war is that Russia was not the aggressor - Georgia was. That whole event was a narrow escape for NATO and one which should serve as a lesson to those who advocate expansion.
NATO has served its time and is no longer necessary in my view. What is necessary is a new global alliance between states that have similar roots - an Anglosphere Alliance that would include the USA, UK, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, India and, possibly, South Africa.
Such an alliance between states that have so much in common makes more sense to me than an alliance between a group of disparate states which are rooted in a different history and are far from stable.
In Afghanistan, for example, it has 50,000 troops throughout the country, but where is its political voice? Is Nato now just a troop-providing alliance that takes the flak when things go wrong and sacrifices its men and women without having a real say on the way forward for the country? This is one reason why the campaign there faces stalemate. Even in military terms, the alliance is not acting as a cohesive force in Afghanistan; individual member states present the US commander of its International Security Assistance Force (Isaf) with a kaleidoscope of national caveats that limit military action.
In truth, this has always been the problem for NATO - it's just that during the Cold War it was never seriously put to the test - but as Evans points out, in recent years NATO has been used as a political tool rather than a military alliance. And as Evans points out, the problems for NATO are exacerbated by other considerations.
The United Nations and other international bodies are in the forefront of the political game in Afghanistan but Nato just sends troops.
I make no secret of my belief that the UN is a curse on the modern world. An organisation that has done nothing to earn the respect or authority which so many people seem to think it warrants, but that doesn't excuse NATO from accepting the role of second fiddle to the UN in Afghanistan. Evans goes on to make some important points about NATO expansion.
Nato is in no position to offer an Article 5 guarantee - an attack on one member is an attack on all - to Georgia or Ukraine; yet there are ideological members of the alliance who believe that this fundamental principle must apply whatever the circumstances. If enlargement remains a priority under Mr Obama, this increasingly high-risk guarantee will need to be put into a more realistic context.
NATO was an organisation which made sense at the time and, during that time, it was clearly an organisation which was limited by the geographical threat. The core principle was deterring an attack on Western Europe by the Soviet Bloc forces which vastly outnumbered those conventional forces which the west could muster against them. But times have changed and the threat to Western Europe no longer comes from the Russian Bear.
As Evans points out, if Georgia had been a member of NATO before the mini-war in South Ossetia NATO would have been compelled to act in her defence, but the reality of that war is that Russia was not the aggressor - Georgia was. That whole event was a narrow escape for NATO and one which should serve as a lesson to those who advocate expansion.
NATO has served its time and is no longer necessary in my view. What is necessary is a new global alliance between states that have similar roots - an Anglosphere Alliance that would include the USA, UK, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, India and, possibly, South Africa.
Such an alliance between states that have so much in common makes more sense to me than an alliance between a group of disparate states which are rooted in a different history and are far from stable.
Tuesday, December 09, 2008
What goes around ...
Tracy Corrigan over on the Telegraph's comment section, considers the future of globalisation.
It is almost always a mistake, I have noticed, to try to call the end of anything. The end of history, the end of boom and bust – like the musings of happy couples in Hello! magazine, such pronouncements inevitably seem to trigger a reversal of fortune.
Corrigan goes on to suggest that the credit crunch is likely to put a brake on globalisation, but will not bring it to an end. Essentially I agree with that summation, but with caveats.
Like Corrigan, I don't think it is possible to call the end of certain things - particularly ideologies and trends. We thought we'd seen the end of wars in 1918 but twenty years later we were all at it again. We thought we'd seen the end of flares in 1979, but they seem to have made a comeback recently.
I don't believe you can ever say that something has caused the end of something else because, quite simply, I believe that everything is cyclical. What goes around, comes around.
Take globalisation for example. It is nothing new. What was the Roman Empire if not "globalisation"? We might have found a different name to call it, a different way to achieve it or a different method of administering it, but it is still the same thing - empire building.
Globalisation is the same as empire building or, as we tend to call it now, supranationalism, and if there is one thing certain about empires it is that they always eventually collapse. This is why the UN and EU have more to fear from this credit crunch than anyone else because the fundamental reason why empires collapse is economic.
I know that there are many reasons why empires have historically collapsed - wars, droughts, famines, plagues - but they all lead to the same thing. An empire unable to fund it's empire. Once the empire's economy begins to collapse, individual constituent nations of that empire reassert their national independence and the people of that nation become more self-reliant for their needs.
Globalisation and supranationalism are interconnected. You can not have one without the other - nor can you support globalisation without implicitly supporting the EU, UN or any other supranational body of governance because, without those bodies, globalisation can not exist. Similarly, without globalisation there simply is no reason for a supranational body to exist either - so they will wither and die.
It is almost always a mistake, I have noticed, to try to call the end of anything. The end of history, the end of boom and bust – like the musings of happy couples in Hello! magazine, such pronouncements inevitably seem to trigger a reversal of fortune.
Corrigan goes on to suggest that the credit crunch is likely to put a brake on globalisation, but will not bring it to an end. Essentially I agree with that summation, but with caveats.
Like Corrigan, I don't think it is possible to call the end of certain things - particularly ideologies and trends. We thought we'd seen the end of wars in 1918 but twenty years later we were all at it again. We thought we'd seen the end of flares in 1979, but they seem to have made a comeback recently.
I don't believe you can ever say that something has caused the end of something else because, quite simply, I believe that everything is cyclical. What goes around, comes around.
Take globalisation for example. It is nothing new. What was the Roman Empire if not "globalisation"? We might have found a different name to call it, a different way to achieve it or a different method of administering it, but it is still the same thing - empire building.
Globalisation is the same as empire building or, as we tend to call it now, supranationalism, and if there is one thing certain about empires it is that they always eventually collapse. This is why the UN and EU have more to fear from this credit crunch than anyone else because the fundamental reason why empires collapse is economic.
I know that there are many reasons why empires have historically collapsed - wars, droughts, famines, plagues - but they all lead to the same thing. An empire unable to fund it's empire. Once the empire's economy begins to collapse, individual constituent nations of that empire reassert their national independence and the people of that nation become more self-reliant for their needs.
Globalisation and supranationalism are interconnected. You can not have one without the other - nor can you support globalisation without implicitly supporting the EU, UN or any other supranational body of governance because, without those bodies, globalisation can not exist. Similarly, without globalisation there simply is no reason for a supranational body to exist either - so they will wither and die.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
The U(seless) N(uisance)
The Telegraph reports that the UN has, as usual, failed to decide whether their "peacekeeping" force in the Democratic Republic of Congo (why is it that any country with the word "democratic" in it never is?) needs more troops.
The head of UN Peacekeeping operations Alain Le Roy said it was unlikely the council would arrive at a decision on the UN mission, known as MONUC, before the end of the month.
Wow - that quick, eh? Only another couple of weeks to go before they actually get round to deciding whether or not something needs to be done. It's not as if much can happen in that time is it?
Surely the whole point of a "peacekeeping force" is to keep peace? If it is not managing to do that then surely the force either needs to be increased or, failing that, be a little more aggressive in enforcing the warring factions to withdraw a bit until that peace can be assured. Mr Le Roy doesn't think so.
"The priority is (defending) Goma," he said.
Why? Is it the job of the UN to support a government against a rebel force? I thought they weren't supposed to get involved in internecine disputes? I thought the purpose of the UN in cases like this was to protect the civilian population, not the seat of government.
The UN is now nothing more than a useless nuisance. Useless because it doesn't actually manage to achieve what it sets out to achieve and a nuisance because it frequently prevents the forces of good taking action against the forces of evil.
It is bureaucratic, undemocratic and sclerotic. As such it has outlived its usefulness and should be dissolved.
The head of UN Peacekeeping operations Alain Le Roy said it was unlikely the council would arrive at a decision on the UN mission, known as MONUC, before the end of the month.
Wow - that quick, eh? Only another couple of weeks to go before they actually get round to deciding whether or not something needs to be done. It's not as if much can happen in that time is it?
Surely the whole point of a "peacekeeping force" is to keep peace? If it is not managing to do that then surely the force either needs to be increased or, failing that, be a little more aggressive in enforcing the warring factions to withdraw a bit until that peace can be assured. Mr Le Roy doesn't think so.
"The priority is (defending) Goma," he said.
Why? Is it the job of the UN to support a government against a rebel force? I thought they weren't supposed to get involved in internecine disputes? I thought the purpose of the UN in cases like this was to protect the civilian population, not the seat of government.
The UN is now nothing more than a useless nuisance. Useless because it doesn't actually manage to achieve what it sets out to achieve and a nuisance because it frequently prevents the forces of good taking action against the forces of evil.
It is bureaucratic, undemocratic and sclerotic. As such it has outlived its usefulness and should be dissolved.
Monday, November 10, 2008
Secret report reveals CO2 is NOT the major cause of global warming
Actually, it's not in the least bit secret, but you wouldn't know that from the MSM who have categorically failed once more to report on a study which contradicts the IPCC approved narrative.
The paper suggests that, although there is a small underlying trend of warming connected to CO2 (which we are all aware of anyway otherwise this planet would be a freezing hell hole), the conclusion is that most of the warming is not from CO2. They even go as far as to say ....
These conclusions are contrary to the IPCC [2007] statement: "[M]ost of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."
In other words, the IPCC is wrong, CO2 is not the driver of climate, the majority of the increase is natural and there really isn't any need to cut our economic throat by clamping down on CO2 emissions.
Of course, this one study is no more conclusive proof than anything else, but it amazes me that what should be considered as essentially a good news story is given absolutely no coverage. Why is it that the very real probability of climate change being almost entirely natural and, therefore, the need to spend trillions of dollars mitigating it unnecessary being ignored?
You'd have thought - what with the ballooning credit crisis - that governments all over the world would be dancing with joy at the news, but it seems that they are not. Why would that be?
The paper suggests that, although there is a small underlying trend of warming connected to CO2 (which we are all aware of anyway otherwise this planet would be a freezing hell hole), the conclusion is that most of the warming is not from CO2. They even go as far as to say ....
These conclusions are contrary to the IPCC [2007] statement: "[M]ost of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."
In other words, the IPCC is wrong, CO2 is not the driver of climate, the majority of the increase is natural and there really isn't any need to cut our economic throat by clamping down on CO2 emissions.
Of course, this one study is no more conclusive proof than anything else, but it amazes me that what should be considered as essentially a good news story is given absolutely no coverage. Why is it that the very real probability of climate change being almost entirely natural and, therefore, the need to spend trillions of dollars mitigating it unnecessary being ignored?
You'd have thought - what with the ballooning credit crisis - that governments all over the world would be dancing with joy at the news, but it seems that they are not. Why would that be?
Tuesday, October 07, 2008
Planet Gaga
Honestly, where do they get this crap from?
Rural communities which protect nature and exploit forests, wetlands and wildlife sustainably will be the best equipped to cope with the droughts and floods that will increasingly hit Africa, Asia and Latin America with climate change, says a new UN-backed report.
Yeah, right - which is why a bit of rain leaves thousands homeless in Baltimore while a torrential deluge has little effect on Bangladesh.
I'd have more respect for these ecoloons if the garbage they spouted was not so demonstrably gibberish.
Rural communities which protect nature and exploit forests, wetlands and wildlife sustainably will be the best equipped to cope with the droughts and floods that will increasingly hit Africa, Asia and Latin America with climate change, says a new UN-backed report.
Yeah, right - which is why a bit of rain leaves thousands homeless in Baltimore while a torrential deluge has little effect on Bangladesh.
I'd have more respect for these ecoloons if the garbage they spouted was not so demonstrably gibberish.
Monday, September 22, 2008
Don't blame capitalism!
I've got a bit fed up over the last week with reading or hearing comments about how the credit crunch is a "collapse of capitalism". It isn't anything to do with capitalism - except superficially. Capitalism is an economic principle - not a political ideology - which is founded on the belief that the means of production remains in the hands of the individual and that the producers are able to trade freely in "markets".
First of all, there has been no such thing as a free market for some considerable time. Secondly, the financial sector is nothing to do with capitalism -except, as I said earlier, superficially. Even communist states have banks which loan money to various organisations - including wholly state owned ones. I suppose because that generally means raising "capital" it is assumed that that must be "capitalism" - but it isn't in the real sense.
Also, the real cause of the problem is plain old fashioned greed - and greed is most definitely not the preserve of capitalist societies, but is prevalent in every sort of society. It is a natural human weakness and demonstrates exactly why the Utopian society which socialism strives to deliver is unachievable. If poverty can be relative - so can greed.
Nor is it due to a lack of regulation. Some of those companies that have nearly gone to the wall are the most careful to abide by stringent regulation - such as Sarbannes-Oxley. One of the features of regulation, though, is the law of unintended consequences. In other words, a regulation brought in with the best of intentions can often have dire repercussions. I'm not saying this is the case in this instance, but I have no doubt that the more you regulate, the more people will find ways to work around it.
The reason for the credit crunch is the same reason we have enjoyed a global economic boom over the last 10-12 years. Technology and globalisation. Technology that meant it was possible to move money instantly across borders and over thousands of miles at the touch of a button. Globalisation which meant that national economies were interconnected in ways that had never been seen before.
But there is a third reason as well. Corporatism.
Corporatism is the regulation of markets by unelected transnational or supranational bodies. Globalisation is the result of corporatism (aided by technology). It is the regulation imposed by these groups - the UN, World Bank, EU - which places burdens of cost and expense on companies which are trying to compete with larger, more powerful businesses. As a result of regulation, these smaller businesses either go to the wall themselves or are swallowed up wholesale by the larger companies who are much more able to absorb the cost of regulation. Regulation intended to keep markets "fair" and accountable, inevitably results in those markets less competitive and less free. Globalisation, by the way, is not capitalism either.
I'm not opposed to regulation - it is a necessary evil in my opinion - but I am opposed to "one size fits all" regulation which requires a small restaurant in Solihull to abide by the same regulations as a multinational corporation. This is why it is important for a nation to retain the ability to regulate itself. It is vital to keep the internal market as free as possible and just as important to impose restrictions on foreign markets. Some might say this is a socialist principle, but actually it is simple nationalism.
Please do not confuse political ideology with economic principle. It is worth noting that China, although it has embraced capitalism as an economic principle, remains not just politically socialist, but staunchly nationalist. It has an internal market considerably more free than anything in the western world, but places huge restrictions on foreign markets. As a result, not only is China largely insulated from the effects of the "credit crunch" it actually appears set to benefit from it at the expense of the nations which have signed up to transnational corporatism.
Capitalism has not failed. This is the usual economic cycle - which Gordon Brown foolishly boasted that he had abolished - and the downturn will, eventually, be followed by an upturn. What has failed, though, is globalisation, but more than anything it is a failure of trans-nationalism and supra-nationalism.
First of all, there has been no such thing as a free market for some considerable time. Secondly, the financial sector is nothing to do with capitalism -except, as I said earlier, superficially. Even communist states have banks which loan money to various organisations - including wholly state owned ones. I suppose because that generally means raising "capital" it is assumed that that must be "capitalism" - but it isn't in the real sense.
Also, the real cause of the problem is plain old fashioned greed - and greed is most definitely not the preserve of capitalist societies, but is prevalent in every sort of society. It is a natural human weakness and demonstrates exactly why the Utopian society which socialism strives to deliver is unachievable. If poverty can be relative - so can greed.
Nor is it due to a lack of regulation. Some of those companies that have nearly gone to the wall are the most careful to abide by stringent regulation - such as Sarbannes-Oxley. One of the features of regulation, though, is the law of unintended consequences. In other words, a regulation brought in with the best of intentions can often have dire repercussions. I'm not saying this is the case in this instance, but I have no doubt that the more you regulate, the more people will find ways to work around it.
The reason for the credit crunch is the same reason we have enjoyed a global economic boom over the last 10-12 years. Technology and globalisation. Technology that meant it was possible to move money instantly across borders and over thousands of miles at the touch of a button. Globalisation which meant that national economies were interconnected in ways that had never been seen before.
But there is a third reason as well. Corporatism.
Corporatism is the regulation of markets by unelected transnational or supranational bodies. Globalisation is the result of corporatism (aided by technology). It is the regulation imposed by these groups - the UN, World Bank, EU - which places burdens of cost and expense on companies which are trying to compete with larger, more powerful businesses. As a result of regulation, these smaller businesses either go to the wall themselves or are swallowed up wholesale by the larger companies who are much more able to absorb the cost of regulation. Regulation intended to keep markets "fair" and accountable, inevitably results in those markets less competitive and less free. Globalisation, by the way, is not capitalism either.
I'm not opposed to regulation - it is a necessary evil in my opinion - but I am opposed to "one size fits all" regulation which requires a small restaurant in Solihull to abide by the same regulations as a multinational corporation. This is why it is important for a nation to retain the ability to regulate itself. It is vital to keep the internal market as free as possible and just as important to impose restrictions on foreign markets. Some might say this is a socialist principle, but actually it is simple nationalism.
Please do not confuse political ideology with economic principle. It is worth noting that China, although it has embraced capitalism as an economic principle, remains not just politically socialist, but staunchly nationalist. It has an internal market considerably more free than anything in the western world, but places huge restrictions on foreign markets. As a result, not only is China largely insulated from the effects of the "credit crunch" it actually appears set to benefit from it at the expense of the nations which have signed up to transnational corporatism.
Capitalism has not failed. This is the usual economic cycle - which Gordon Brown foolishly boasted that he had abolished - and the downturn will, eventually, be followed by an upturn. What has failed, though, is globalisation, but more than anything it is a failure of trans-nationalism and supra-nationalism.
Saturday, July 14, 2007
Children, oil and gold
Is there anything the UN won't abuse?
It still amazes me that anyone believes that the UN holds some sort of moral compass. It must be the most debased political organisation in the world - riddled with corruption, strangled by bureaucracy and utterly incapable of performing the role it is supposed to. I bet old Joe Stalin would be looking on in envy if he could see the reach and power that the UN has compared to his Soviet Union at it's height - although, to be fair, at least old Joe allowed a pretence of democracy in the USSR.
But liberal progressives seem to think the UN holds the key to peace on earth. Do you need any more evidence that they really are completely deluded?
It still amazes me that anyone believes that the UN holds some sort of moral compass. It must be the most debased political organisation in the world - riddled with corruption, strangled by bureaucracy and utterly incapable of performing the role it is supposed to. I bet old Joe Stalin would be looking on in envy if he could see the reach and power that the UN has compared to his Soviet Union at it's height - although, to be fair, at least old Joe allowed a pretence of democracy in the USSR.
But liberal progressives seem to think the UN holds the key to peace on earth. Do you need any more evidence that they really are completely deluded?
Friday, June 29, 2007
IPCC sea level rise claim is "a fraud"
The claim that the sea is rising at an accelerated rate is bogus. So says one of the world's leading experts on sea level rise, Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner.
So, for example, those people in the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change], choose Hong Kong, which has six tide gauges, and they choose the record of one, which gives 2.3 mm per year rise of sea level. Every geologist knows that that is a subsiding area. It's the compaction of sediment; it is the only record which you shouldn't use.
Not a simple mistake, either. according to Dr. Mörner.
Not even ignorance could be responsible for a thing like that. So tide gauges, you have to treat very, very carefully. Now, back to satellite altimetry, which shows the water, not just the coasts, but in the whole of the ocean. And you measure it by satellite. From 1992 to 2002, [the graph of the sea level] was a straight line, variability along a straight line, but absolutely no trend whatsoever. We could see those spikes: a very rapid rise, but then in half a year, they fall back again. But absolutely no trend, and to have a sea-level rise, you need a trend.
So if it isn't a simple mistake out of ignorance - what then? As he says, to support predictions of impending doom - you need a trend.
Then, in 2003, the same data set, which in their [IPCC's] publications, in their website, was a straight line—suddenly it changed, and showed a very strong line of uplift, 2.3 mm per year, the same as from the tide gauge. And that didn't look so nice. It looked as though they had recorded something; but they hadn't recorded anything. It was the original one which they had suddenly twisted up, because they entered a “correction factor,” which they took from the tide gauge. So it was not a measured thing, but a figure introduced from outside. I accused them of this at the Academy of Sciences in Moscow —I said you have introduced factors from outside; it's not a measurement. It looks like it is measured from the satellite, but you don't say what really happened. And they answered, that we had to do it, because otherwise we would not have gotten any trend!
That is terrible! As a matter of fact, it is a falsification of the data set. Why? Because they know the answer. And there you come to the point: They “know” the answer; the rest of us, we are searching for the answer. Because we are field geologists; they are computer scientists. So all this talk that sea level is rising, this stems from the computer modeling, not from observations. The observations don't find it!
"The observations don't find it!" There is no observed sea level rise, no accelerated rise indicated by satellite data, nothing significant whatsoever - but the IPCC have deliberately falsified data to make it appear there is. Why would they do that?
According to Dr. Mörner, the headline grabbing estimate of a sea level rise of 3m in 100 years are also completely ridiculous.
You couldn't have more melting than after the Ice Age. You reach up to 10 mm per year—that was the super-maximum: 1 meter in 100 years. Hudson Bay, in a very short period, melted away: it came up to 12 mm per year. But these are so exceptionally large, that we cannot be anywhere near it; but still people have been saying, 1 meter, 3 meters. It's not feasible!
A rise of 1 metre a century only happens after an Ice Age - and we're currently in an interglacial - so no chance of that whatsoever. The fact is that the IPCC is falsifying data to come up with the answer that their computer models predict. Not only is there no evidence to support their theory, they are changing the evidence that counters it. If that is not political, then what is it?
Time to stop falling for all this garbage. The IPCC, the UN, the EU, the environmental NGO's, the liberal left - they are all involved in the greatest scam perpetrated since man first walked this earth and it is starting to fall to pieces. Some day they are going to have to be held accountable for this fraud.
So, for example, those people in the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change], choose Hong Kong, which has six tide gauges, and they choose the record of one, which gives 2.3 mm per year rise of sea level. Every geologist knows that that is a subsiding area. It's the compaction of sediment; it is the only record which you shouldn't use.
Not a simple mistake, either. according to Dr. Mörner.
Not even ignorance could be responsible for a thing like that. So tide gauges, you have to treat very, very carefully. Now, back to satellite altimetry, which shows the water, not just the coasts, but in the whole of the ocean. And you measure it by satellite. From 1992 to 2002, [the graph of the sea level] was a straight line, variability along a straight line, but absolutely no trend whatsoever. We could see those spikes: a very rapid rise, but then in half a year, they fall back again. But absolutely no trend, and to have a sea-level rise, you need a trend.
So if it isn't a simple mistake out of ignorance - what then? As he says, to support predictions of impending doom - you need a trend.
Then, in 2003, the same data set, which in their [IPCC's] publications, in their website, was a straight line—suddenly it changed, and showed a very strong line of uplift, 2.3 mm per year, the same as from the tide gauge. And that didn't look so nice. It looked as though they had recorded something; but they hadn't recorded anything. It was the original one which they had suddenly twisted up, because they entered a “correction factor,” which they took from the tide gauge. So it was not a measured thing, but a figure introduced from outside. I accused them of this at the Academy of Sciences in Moscow —I said you have introduced factors from outside; it's not a measurement. It looks like it is measured from the satellite, but you don't say what really happened. And they answered, that we had to do it, because otherwise we would not have gotten any trend!
That is terrible! As a matter of fact, it is a falsification of the data set. Why? Because they know the answer. And there you come to the point: They “know” the answer; the rest of us, we are searching for the answer. Because we are field geologists; they are computer scientists. So all this talk that sea level is rising, this stems from the computer modeling, not from observations. The observations don't find it!
"The observations don't find it!" There is no observed sea level rise, no accelerated rise indicated by satellite data, nothing significant whatsoever - but the IPCC have deliberately falsified data to make it appear there is. Why would they do that?
According to Dr. Mörner, the headline grabbing estimate of a sea level rise of 3m in 100 years are also completely ridiculous.
You couldn't have more melting than after the Ice Age. You reach up to 10 mm per year—that was the super-maximum: 1 meter in 100 years. Hudson Bay, in a very short period, melted away: it came up to 12 mm per year. But these are so exceptionally large, that we cannot be anywhere near it; but still people have been saying, 1 meter, 3 meters. It's not feasible!
A rise of 1 metre a century only happens after an Ice Age - and we're currently in an interglacial - so no chance of that whatsoever. The fact is that the IPCC is falsifying data to come up with the answer that their computer models predict. Not only is there no evidence to support their theory, they are changing the evidence that counters it. If that is not political, then what is it?
Time to stop falling for all this garbage. The IPCC, the UN, the EU, the environmental NGO's, the liberal left - they are all involved in the greatest scam perpetrated since man first walked this earth and it is starting to fall to pieces. Some day they are going to have to be held accountable for this fraud.
Sunday, June 17, 2007
New head of UN - same old barking mad baloney
Nice to see the newly elected chief of the super democratic and accountable United Nations is settling into his role nicely.
Climate change is partly to blame for the conflict in Sudan's Darfur region, where droughts have provoked fighting over water sources, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said in an editorial published Saturday.
It's hard to believe that anyone gives this ridiculous body of self-serving autocrats any credibility whatsoever. What will it be next - Iran needing nuclear weapons to combat climate change? Gaza upheaval caused by anthropogenic global warming? Islamist terrorism linked to shrinking Alaskan glaciers?
Barmy. Utterly barmy.
Climate change is partly to blame for the conflict in Sudan's Darfur region, where droughts have provoked fighting over water sources, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said in an editorial published Saturday.
It's hard to believe that anyone gives this ridiculous body of self-serving autocrats any credibility whatsoever. What will it be next - Iran needing nuclear weapons to combat climate change? Gaza upheaval caused by anthropogenic global warming? Islamist terrorism linked to shrinking Alaskan glaciers?
Barmy. Utterly barmy.
Monday, June 04, 2007
The heat is on for AGW supporters
Browsing the web last night, I came across this interesting article from Web Commentary. Take a look at this graph.
I expect most people are aware - actually, no they probably aren't - I expect most people who have bothered to look for themselves are aware that the more CO2 is released into the atmosphere, the progressively less effective it becomes as a greenhouse gas - but this is the first time I have seen a graph that so clearly demonstrates how rapidly that effect diminishes and how little effect is caused by recent changes to CO2 emissions.
Notice that the biggest effect comes from the first 20 ppm (parts per million) of CO2 and that this first 20 ppm has a greater effect than the next 400 ppm combined. Please note, that this is not a "forecast" or a model-based prediction. This is established scientific fact. We KNOW this.
Current levels of atmospheric CO2 are estimated at 380 ppm with the IPCC warning that global catastrophe awaits us if this increases much beyond 420 ppm. The study (pdf) from which this graph comes from actually tells us that an increase of atmospheric CO2 to 620 ppm will actually only induce a rise of 0.16C. We will reach a CO2 level of 620 ppm - if nothing changes and if China continues its economic expansion at the current rate - somewhere around 2150.
As Web Commentary points out, even the level of 620 ppm is not anything unprecedented.
The geologic record of past climate (paleoclimate) reveals that over the past 500 million years, atmospheric carbon dioxide has been an order of magnitude higher than it is today (up to 16 times higher)! Over that same time span, Earth has experienced four ice eras (colder than normal climate regimes lasting 45 million to 65 million years). During the coldest of those four ice eras, 450 million years ago, Earth was a virtual snowball of ice - while atmospheric carbon dioxide was 15 times higher than it is today (about 5600 ppm)! According to the IPCC/Al Gore theory, that would have been impossible. Yet the record is clear. Oh yes, it should be noted that Earth is still in the last of those four ice eras, though the record reveals the current ice era is the mildest of the four and Earth should emerge from the current ice era in a relatively short time (within the next five million years).
Also rather interesting, to me anyway, is that the Archibald study - Climate Outlook to 2030 - actually focuses more on the forthcoming Solar Cycle than atmospheric CO2. It notes that....
The increased length of Solar Cycle 23 supports the view that Solar Cycle 24 will be weak, with the consequence of increased certainty that that there will be a global average temperature decline in the range of 1° to 2° C for the forecast period. The projected increase of 40 ppm in atmospheric carbon dioxide to 2030 is calculated to contribute a global atmospheric temperature increase of 0.04°C. The anthropogenic contribution to climate change over the forecast period will be insignificant relative to natural cyclic variation. (My emphasis)
This is a prediction to 2030 - just 23 years away - suggesting that, contrary to what the IPCC, Al Gore and all the MSM are telling you, there is likely to be a drop in global temperature of 1-2 C in the next 23 years. To put this into context, the lower level of temperature drop in the coming 25 years will be greater than the total increase in global temperature that has been estimated to have taken place over the last 100 years! In the worst case scenario - a drop of 2C - we will see a temperature drop to levels last experienced during The Little Ice Age when the Thames frequently froze over.
Now, given that this change in climate is predicted to start very soon - we should know within the next five years I would guess - then does it not make sense to adopt a "wait and see" policy? The fact that this isn't happening and that, in fact, the calls for action on "Global Warming" have become ever more strident and immediate suggests to me that those who support AGW are starting to realise that their time is running out. Not because the world will endure catastrophic global warming or that a “tipping point” will soon be reached, but because they could very soon be proved wrong.
My view is that there are going to be an awful lot of people who are going to look very silly in the not too distant future - and these people have a huge vested interest riding on this. If they fail to achieve their ambitions within the next five years then there will be a significant backlash against them all - the NGO's of course, but particularly the IPCC, the UN and the EU. The collapse of the AGW scam could herald the collapse of supranationalism too. Is it any wonder that these organisations are now going all out to gain the control they need before it's too late?
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
The real agenda
If anyone still doubted that the supporters of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) have another agenda at the root of their cause, George Monbiot dispels that doubt today in The Guardian.
The best way to give the poor a real voice is through a world parliament.
Er ... OK. So the best way to give the poor a voice is to move the government as far away as possible. Yep - that's really going to work. What a dribbling loon. Anyway, back to the issue - do AGW supporters believe in the theory because they are really concerned for the future of the earth or do they believe in it because it gives them a route to establish their "world government".
Those of us who want a world parliament are often accused of trying to invent a system of global governance.
There's your answer. Straight from the horses mouth. Moonbat then tries to shrug off his personal crusade as just giving us what we want.
But there is already a system of global governance. The UN security council, the World Bank, the IMF and the World Trade Organisation make decisions that affect us all. They do so without our consent.
Very true, but they do so also only with our cooperation. The global "governance" only goes as far as any nation allows it and certain nations - Iran and North Korea being prominent recent examples - often refuse to play the game. This is one of the things that Moonbat and his cohorts forget. "International law" does not exist. What "international law" is a series of agreements between consenting nations to abide by certain treaty agreements - and a treaty can be changed or cancelled at any time by any nation.
We then move to the crux - at least what I perceive to crux to be - of Moonbat's agenda.
Those who claim, like the British Eurosceptics, that regional or global decision-making is unnecessary are living in a world of make-believe. No political issue now stops at the national border. All the most important forces - climate change, terrorism, state aggression, trade, flows of money, demographic pressures, the depletion of resources - can be addressed only at the global level.
Wrong! First of all, few Eurosceptics claim that regional or global decision making is unnecessary. On the contrary, it has always been necessary and that is why we have such a thing as a "Foreign Office" to negotiate regional and global decision making on our behalf. What we Eurosceptics don't agree with is the idea that a single negotiator can work on behalf of a dozen or more disparate nations and peoples all of whom have different needs and requirements. Secondly - and more importantly - all of those "important forces" - apart from one - can be controlled or stopped at the national borders by national governments. The one that can not, as Georgie well knows, is climate change.
That is why it is so crucial for him and his ilk to establish climate change as a man made event rather than the entirely natural event - and an event completely beyond the control of any national OR "world government".
But at least he's admitted what it's really about.
The best way to give the poor a real voice is through a world parliament.
Er ... OK. So the best way to give the poor a voice is to move the government as far away as possible. Yep - that's really going to work. What a dribbling loon. Anyway, back to the issue - do AGW supporters believe in the theory because they are really concerned for the future of the earth or do they believe in it because it gives them a route to establish their "world government".
Those of us who want a world parliament are often accused of trying to invent a system of global governance.
There's your answer. Straight from the horses mouth. Moonbat then tries to shrug off his personal crusade as just giving us what we want.
But there is already a system of global governance. The UN security council, the World Bank, the IMF and the World Trade Organisation make decisions that affect us all. They do so without our consent.
Very true, but they do so also only with our cooperation. The global "governance" only goes as far as any nation allows it and certain nations - Iran and North Korea being prominent recent examples - often refuse to play the game. This is one of the things that Moonbat and his cohorts forget. "International law" does not exist. What "international law" is a series of agreements between consenting nations to abide by certain treaty agreements - and a treaty can be changed or cancelled at any time by any nation.
We then move to the crux - at least what I perceive to crux to be - of Moonbat's agenda.
Those who claim, like the British Eurosceptics, that regional or global decision-making is unnecessary are living in a world of make-believe. No political issue now stops at the national border. All the most important forces - climate change, terrorism, state aggression, trade, flows of money, demographic pressures, the depletion of resources - can be addressed only at the global level.
Wrong! First of all, few Eurosceptics claim that regional or global decision making is unnecessary. On the contrary, it has always been necessary and that is why we have such a thing as a "Foreign Office" to negotiate regional and global decision making on our behalf. What we Eurosceptics don't agree with is the idea that a single negotiator can work on behalf of a dozen or more disparate nations and peoples all of whom have different needs and requirements. Secondly - and more importantly - all of those "important forces" - apart from one - can be controlled or stopped at the national borders by national governments. The one that can not, as Georgie well knows, is climate change.
That is why it is so crucial for him and his ilk to establish climate change as a man made event rather than the entirely natural event - and an event completely beyond the control of any national OR "world government".
But at least he's admitted what it's really about.
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Making Britain a laughing stock
Margaret Beckett is a remarkable foreign secretary. She has achieved something that, on the face of it seemed impossible. She is actually worse at the job than Jack Straw.
Now that takes some doing, but she has managed it.
Chairing a UN Security Council debate, Beckett used the opportunity to claim that the biggest threat to world security right now is - climate change. Not terrorism or Islamic extremism, then? Not a nuclear armed North Korea or Iran, then? Not a destabilising in the governments of nuclear armed Pakistan or Russia, then?
No - the biggest threat to the world's security is something that may never happen and which, from a national perspective, can be mitigated relatively easily.
"This is an issue which threatens the peace and security of the whole planet - this has to be the right place to debate it," Mrs Beckett said.
If unproven hypotheses that threaten the peace and security of the whole planet are issues which need to be debated by the UN Security Council then I can only presume that the next debate will be on how to prevent an alien invasion force from taking over the world or what can be done to prevent the earth being devastated by a meteor strike. These are obviously far more pressing concerns for Mrs Beckett than genocide in Darfur, the threat to African stability caused by the implosion of the Zimbabwean economy or the dire situation in the Middle East.
She warned of migration on an unprecedented scale because of flooding, disease and famine.
All of which can be easily mitigated by Britain and most of the world - even assuming it is likely (which it isn't).
Drought and crop failure would also cause intensified competition for food, water and energy, and result in economic destruction comparable to World War II or the Great Depression.
Once again, assuming this could happen and is likely - which there is no evidence to suggest it is - then these can be mitigated relatively simply. In Britain's case by becoming much more self-sufficient in terms of food and energy supply, implementing stringent immigration policies and by having armed forces capable of defending a fairly easily defensible island.
"Climate change is a security issue but it is not a matter of narrow national security - it has a new dimension," she said.
Aha! A new dimension, eh? None of that narrow nationalistic stuff that Beckett is supposed to be concerned about. Oh no, she has much grander plans and visions than simple concern for British interests.
"This is about our collective security in a fragile and increasingly interdependent world."
And that's it? That's the "new dimension"? I'd like to ask Mrs Beckett why it is that after more than 50 years of the United Nations and fifty years of European Union our world is so fragile? And this interdependency myth is one that needs examination as, while some nations such as Britain become increasingly "interdependent" (just another way of saying "dependent" without making it sound like dependent) other nations such as India and China feel increasingly self-reliant, self-confident and are taking on more leading roles on the world stage.
The representative from one of those nations, China, offered the correct response to Beckett's childish speech.
China's deputy ambassador to the UN, Liu Zhenmin, was blunt in rejecting the session.
"The developing countries believe that [the] Security Council does not have the professional competence for handling climate change, nor is it the right decision-making place for extensive participation," Mr Liu said.
China and Russia, among others, warned that the council's mandate was limited to peace and security. So did Pakistan, on behalf of 130 developing nations, which argued that the council was encroaching on more representative bodies, such as the 192-member General Assembly.
Labour need to change their slogan. "New Labour - making Britain a laughing stock" would be about right.
Now that takes some doing, but she has managed it.
Chairing a UN Security Council debate, Beckett used the opportunity to claim that the biggest threat to world security right now is - climate change. Not terrorism or Islamic extremism, then? Not a nuclear armed North Korea or Iran, then? Not a destabilising in the governments of nuclear armed Pakistan or Russia, then?
No - the biggest threat to the world's security is something that may never happen and which, from a national perspective, can be mitigated relatively easily.
"This is an issue which threatens the peace and security of the whole planet - this has to be the right place to debate it," Mrs Beckett said.
If unproven hypotheses that threaten the peace and security of the whole planet are issues which need to be debated by the UN Security Council then I can only presume that the next debate will be on how to prevent an alien invasion force from taking over the world or what can be done to prevent the earth being devastated by a meteor strike. These are obviously far more pressing concerns for Mrs Beckett than genocide in Darfur, the threat to African stability caused by the implosion of the Zimbabwean economy or the dire situation in the Middle East.
She warned of migration on an unprecedented scale because of flooding, disease and famine.
All of which can be easily mitigated by Britain and most of the world - even assuming it is likely (which it isn't).
Drought and crop failure would also cause intensified competition for food, water and energy, and result in economic destruction comparable to World War II or the Great Depression.
Once again, assuming this could happen and is likely - which there is no evidence to suggest it is - then these can be mitigated relatively simply. In Britain's case by becoming much more self-sufficient in terms of food and energy supply, implementing stringent immigration policies and by having armed forces capable of defending a fairly easily defensible island.
"Climate change is a security issue but it is not a matter of narrow national security - it has a new dimension," she said.
Aha! A new dimension, eh? None of that narrow nationalistic stuff that Beckett is supposed to be concerned about. Oh no, she has much grander plans and visions than simple concern for British interests.
"This is about our collective security in a fragile and increasingly interdependent world."
And that's it? That's the "new dimension"? I'd like to ask Mrs Beckett why it is that after more than 50 years of the United Nations and fifty years of European Union our world is so fragile? And this interdependency myth is one that needs examination as, while some nations such as Britain become increasingly "interdependent" (just another way of saying "dependent" without making it sound like dependent) other nations such as India and China feel increasingly self-reliant, self-confident and are taking on more leading roles on the world stage.
The representative from one of those nations, China, offered the correct response to Beckett's childish speech.
China's deputy ambassador to the UN, Liu Zhenmin, was blunt in rejecting the session.
"The developing countries believe that [the] Security Council does not have the professional competence for handling climate change, nor is it the right decision-making place for extensive participation," Mr Liu said.
China and Russia, among others, warned that the council's mandate was limited to peace and security. So did Pakistan, on behalf of 130 developing nations, which argued that the council was encroaching on more representative bodies, such as the 192-member General Assembly.
Labour need to change their slogan. "New Labour - making Britain a laughing stock" would be about right.
Friday, March 30, 2007
Crumbling consensus
A scientist recruited by the IPCC to review articles on climate change which the IPCC reports reference has given us an indication of just how thorough the IPCC review process is - and a classic condemnation of the so-called "consensus" claimed for those 2500 scientists.
Steve McIntyre was invited in 2005 to be a reviewer for the upcoming IPCC AR4 and asked, not unreasonably, for the IPCC to provide sources for data in related in articles that he was being asked to review. The IPCC flatly refused and their reply was highly revealing.
[T]he IPCC process assesses published literature, it does not involve carrying out research, nor do we have the mandate or resources to operate as a clearing house for the massive amounts of data that are used in the climate science community or referred to in the literature used by our authors.
So the IPCC does not carry out research nor do they check the data in articles which the report authors use in their report to support the claims they make?
Out of the 2500 scientists the IPCC claims to be part of their consensus, it turns out that some 1200 of them are employed as "expert reviewers", but if Mr McIntyre's example is anything to go by they do not have access to the data required to review the articles. Which means that some 1200 of the 2500 are performing their reviews without the information that supports the articles they are supposed to be reviewing!
As one of the commenter's, notes ...
“What sort of peer review is it, when the peer reviewer cannot see the data used or the supporting calculations?”
Good question. The answer is that it isn't a peer review at all and that the point of the IPCC is not to critically assess research and data on climate change, but to find anything that will support it's politically motivated pre-conceived assertions that global warming is man-made.
Steve McIntyre was invited in 2005 to be a reviewer for the upcoming IPCC AR4 and asked, not unreasonably, for the IPCC to provide sources for data in related in articles that he was being asked to review. The IPCC flatly refused and their reply was highly revealing.
[T]he IPCC process assesses published literature, it does not involve carrying out research, nor do we have the mandate or resources to operate as a clearing house for the massive amounts of data that are used in the climate science community or referred to in the literature used by our authors.
So the IPCC does not carry out research nor do they check the data in articles which the report authors use in their report to support the claims they make?
Out of the 2500 scientists the IPCC claims to be part of their consensus, it turns out that some 1200 of them are employed as "expert reviewers", but if Mr McIntyre's example is anything to go by they do not have access to the data required to review the articles. Which means that some 1200 of the 2500 are performing their reviews without the information that supports the articles they are supposed to be reviewing!
As one of the commenter's, notes ...
“What sort of peer review is it, when the peer reviewer cannot see the data used or the supporting calculations?”
Good question. The answer is that it isn't a peer review at all and that the point of the IPCC is not to critically assess research and data on climate change, but to find anything that will support it's politically motivated pre-conceived assertions that global warming is man-made.
Play the game
As predicted here on Ranting Stan, the UN has failed to send an unequivocal message to Iran over the kidnapped British sailors.
After four hours of negotiations yesterday, the Security Council could only agree a watered-down version of the statement, voicing “grave concern”, which fell far short of Britain’s demands.
These sailors were working on a UN operation with full UN approval and the best the UN can do is voice their "grave concern".?
Just what is the point of the UN?
If they are unable to respond to blatant acts of aggression against troops operating under their auspices then when will they respond? The organisation has become so impotent, so toothless and so cumbersome that is now nothing more than a huge, expensive international joke. Everything it does is done badly. Whether it's the IPCC and the blatant politicising of science or peacekeeping in the Congo where UN members have been accused of organising child sex rings, the UN has demonstrated that it is "unfit for purpose" in the words of our Home Secretary.
Even in areas where the UN is supposed to be the leader - responding to natural disasters - we've seen that they are incapable of doing anything. When the tsunami struck Indonesia it was the USA, Australia and India that led the relief while the UN held high-level talks to talk about organising high-level talks at the earliest opportunity - which turned out to be several months down the line.
This was their chance - their last chance - to demonstrate that they still have a place in today's world. They blew it big time. Britain should now be unequivocal and tell the UN that either it responds and proves it's worth to protect British troops operating under the UN banner or Britain will immediately withdraw all British forces from all UN operations and refuse to commit future staff to future UN operations.
Furthermore, the British government should also tell the UN that it will use it's position on the security council to veto any resolution by default that is not tabled by Britain or the United States.
It's time to get tough and play the game.
After four hours of negotiations yesterday, the Security Council could only agree a watered-down version of the statement, voicing “grave concern”, which fell far short of Britain’s demands.
These sailors were working on a UN operation with full UN approval and the best the UN can do is voice their "grave concern".?
Just what is the point of the UN?
If they are unable to respond to blatant acts of aggression against troops operating under their auspices then when will they respond? The organisation has become so impotent, so toothless and so cumbersome that is now nothing more than a huge, expensive international joke. Everything it does is done badly. Whether it's the IPCC and the blatant politicising of science or peacekeeping in the Congo where UN members have been accused of organising child sex rings, the UN has demonstrated that it is "unfit for purpose" in the words of our Home Secretary.
Even in areas where the UN is supposed to be the leader - responding to natural disasters - we've seen that they are incapable of doing anything. When the tsunami struck Indonesia it was the USA, Australia and India that led the relief while the UN held high-level talks to talk about organising high-level talks at the earliest opportunity - which turned out to be several months down the line.
This was their chance - their last chance - to demonstrate that they still have a place in today's world. They blew it big time. Britain should now be unequivocal and tell the UN that either it responds and proves it's worth to protect British troops operating under the UN banner or Britain will immediately withdraw all British forces from all UN operations and refuse to commit future staff to future UN operations.
Furthermore, the British government should also tell the UN that it will use it's position on the security council to veto any resolution by default that is not tabled by Britain or the United States.
It's time to get tough and play the game.
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Iran un-phased
Tony Blair has warned Iran that Britain will move to a "different phase" if our sailors release is not forthcoming.
That'll do it, I'm sure. Actually, I'm not sure because I expect the Iranians, like me, are wondering what exactly that "different phase" will be. So far it's been a case of Britain and Iran arguing over what exactly happened and where. As far as negotiations are concerned, this is a very early "direct negotiation phase". Next will come the "EU phase" with, perhaps, EU foreign minister, Javier Solano adding his voice to the call for the captives "early" release.
After the "EU phase" will come the "UN phase". This is where it starts to get complicated as, before the UN actually does anything, Britain will have to make representations calling for a resolution. The resolution will have to be debated and the wording agreed before the UN Security Council vote on it. Then, when it's vetoed by France, Russia and China we'll go through more horse-trading until they can find a wording to agree on - something along the lines of "please release the British sailors or we'll be very, very cross and will talk to you very sternly. No offence."
Eventually the resolution may be passed and then Iran will have to respond - not!
After the "UN phase" we'll be back to the "direct negotiation phase". This is where our foreign secretary - who may not be Margaret Beckett, by then - will insist in the strongest possible diplomatic terms that our men and women are released tout- suite - or we'll be moving to a new phase.
This will be followed by the "behind the scenes phase" where the government will assure us that they haven't been forgotten about and that officials are working around the clock "behind the scenes" to secure their release.
Next comes the "combined phase" where the British government, EU and UN will tell us how they are all working together to obtain the freedom of the British service men and woman. This will be quickly followed by the "no stone unturned phase" and then the "every conceivable means phase".
At some point, our leaders may start to realise that "soft power" needs to be backed up with "hard action" - but I don't believe, as the Telegraph appears to be hinting at, that that is going to be any time soon.
That'll do it, I'm sure. Actually, I'm not sure because I expect the Iranians, like me, are wondering what exactly that "different phase" will be. So far it's been a case of Britain and Iran arguing over what exactly happened and where. As far as negotiations are concerned, this is a very early "direct negotiation phase". Next will come the "EU phase" with, perhaps, EU foreign minister, Javier Solano adding his voice to the call for the captives "early" release.
After the "EU phase" will come the "UN phase". This is where it starts to get complicated as, before the UN actually does anything, Britain will have to make representations calling for a resolution. The resolution will have to be debated and the wording agreed before the UN Security Council vote on it. Then, when it's vetoed by France, Russia and China we'll go through more horse-trading until they can find a wording to agree on - something along the lines of "please release the British sailors or we'll be very, very cross and will talk to you very sternly. No offence."
Eventually the resolution may be passed and then Iran will have to respond - not!
After the "UN phase" we'll be back to the "direct negotiation phase". This is where our foreign secretary - who may not be Margaret Beckett, by then - will insist in the strongest possible diplomatic terms that our men and women are released tout- suite - or we'll be moving to a new phase.
This will be followed by the "behind the scenes phase" where the government will assure us that they haven't been forgotten about and that officials are working around the clock "behind the scenes" to secure their release.
Next comes the "combined phase" where the British government, EU and UN will tell us how they are all working together to obtain the freedom of the British service men and woman. This will be quickly followed by the "no stone unturned phase" and then the "every conceivable means phase".
At some point, our leaders may start to realise that "soft power" needs to be backed up with "hard action" - but I don't believe, as the Telegraph appears to be hinting at, that that is going to be any time soon.
Monday, March 26, 2007
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil
Niall Kilmartin has a quite brilliant post over on Biased-BBC about the post-modern, political correct attitude to Wilberforce and slavery. As a piece, it is a good demonstration of how the blogosphere can produce work of high quality - far in excess of my own trivial efforts, it has to be said - but also of the value that blogs provide through an alternative viewpoint from mainstream media and commentary.
It's a great read and this particular paragraph stood out for me, but read it all.
The anti-slavery movement, born of a society that had eliminated first slavery and then its lesser cousin serfdom centuries earlier in its homeland, taught that slavery was wrong, not just for citizens or for people like them but for absolutely everyone. They made this conviction a practical reality, backed by preaching, by the force of law and above all by their power, especially their navy. “If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong.”, said Lincoln. It is an obvious thought to us; who would deny it? Answer: most of the past. Wilberforce and the movement he led stand at the fulcrum of that change. Our minds inherit their achievement. “I cannot understand why for so many centuries mankind allowed such a trade”, said the presenter (“for so many millennia”, she should have said). We share her feelings, if not her limited timespan, easily, without needing a trace of Wilberforce’ moral grandeur because she and we live after Wilberforce, not before. But to the politically-correct mind, that origin of this knowledge is unwelcome; better to sneer at him.
I believe, in this day and age, we lack the men of courage whom Wilberforce typifies. Men like Wilberforce were not afraid to take on supremely tough challenges - no matter how heavily the odds were stacked against them. Where there were once great men of morals, we have weak men who moralise. Where there were once men of great courage and conviction, we now have men without the courage to hold a conviction. We view everything through the triple prisms of post-modern revisionism, cultural equivalence and moral relativity that effectively boils down to finding excuses for avoiding doing anything lest we offend anyone. Is it any wonder that slavery is thriving once again?
It's a great read and this particular paragraph stood out for me, but read it all.
The anti-slavery movement, born of a society that had eliminated first slavery and then its lesser cousin serfdom centuries earlier in its homeland, taught that slavery was wrong, not just for citizens or for people like them but for absolutely everyone. They made this conviction a practical reality, backed by preaching, by the force of law and above all by their power, especially their navy. “If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong.”, said Lincoln. It is an obvious thought to us; who would deny it? Answer: most of the past. Wilberforce and the movement he led stand at the fulcrum of that change. Our minds inherit their achievement. “I cannot understand why for so many centuries mankind allowed such a trade”, said the presenter (“for so many millennia”, she should have said). We share her feelings, if not her limited timespan, easily, without needing a trace of Wilberforce’ moral grandeur because she and we live after Wilberforce, not before. But to the politically-correct mind, that origin of this knowledge is unwelcome; better to sneer at him.
I believe, in this day and age, we lack the men of courage whom Wilberforce typifies. Men like Wilberforce were not afraid to take on supremely tough challenges - no matter how heavily the odds were stacked against them. Where there were once great men of morals, we have weak men who moralise. Where there were once men of great courage and conviction, we now have men without the courage to hold a conviction. We view everything through the triple prisms of post-modern revisionism, cultural equivalence and moral relativity that effectively boils down to finding excuses for avoiding doing anything lest we offend anyone. Is it any wonder that slavery is thriving once again?
What should we do about Zimbabwe?
Rampant inflation, unemployment running at around 80%, a lunatic thug in charge of the brutal ruling party and an opposition that is regularly -and literally - beaten into submission. Life expectancy now hovers around the mid thirties and the former bread basket of Africa is incapable of feeding itself.
Zimbabwe is a mess. I don't think anyone can argue with that. The question is; what can we do about it?
I see so many people discussing this on blogs, news comment sites and so on - but I still don't know what it is that these people expect to happen.
The first thing we have to consider, I suppose, is whether we should do anything about it? Do we have any responsibility to Zimbabwe which acts as a justification to intervene?
Zimbabwe is, after all, an independent country, on a different continent and there is no geographical relationship between us. There is a historical and colonial link - but that was long ago and it was their choice to break that link. There is no direct threat to Britain from Zimbabwe, either - although you could argue that the situation there exacerbates the asylum and immigration problems faced by Britain creating more pressure on our public services and housing stock.
What about a moral responsibility? Well, personally, I believe that we all, as individuals, have a moral responsibility to act in ways that improve the lives of those less fortunate than ourselves through charities - by volunteering or donating or both - and I believe that for the vast majority of situations, this is is the course to take.
By the way, let me point out that what I have just said does not mean I approve of passing that responsibility on to the state. I don't. In fact, I think that is one of the most damaging aspects of socialism with too many people believing that paying taxes is a better way to help the poor and disadvantaged. It isn't. It is the worst way and guarantees that the genuinely needy will remain needy.
Obviously there are individual actions we can take to apply pressure on Zimbabwe, but the situation there is such that individual acts are not enough. Instead it is a situation where a nation needs to act collectively - and that means through the government. Obviously a government has no moral obligation to any people other than the people it governs, so, in that respect, there is no moral obligation for this government to act on Zimbabwe - unless the people of this country expressed that as their will.
If there is a responsibility - or any other justification to act, what should that action be?
The preferred way for many is sanctions, but do they really work? Don't sanctions and economic embargoes just end up hurting the people you're supposed to be trying to help? Other sanctions - such as sporting boycotts - are unlikely to have any real effect either. They might make us feel a bit better, but I can't see Mugabe being forced to climb down just because Zimbabwe are kicked out of the cricket world cup. It's not as if they were likely to win the damn thing and gain some sort of propaganda coup from that!
As far as I can see, the only action that would have any chance of forcing Mugabe out is military action, but that, like sanctions, has serious implications for the people you're supposed to be helping. On the positive side, military action would be considerably quicker than sanctions, but the "pain" for the populous of Zimbabwe would be that much more intense. Is the swift traumatic death of war better or worse than the slow lingering, but equally certain death of sanctions, starvation and misery?
Even if we did kick out Mugabe through military action - what then? Another despot and the same problem again 20 years down the line? I listen to people talking about the "success" of South Africa - just as they talked about the "success" of Zimbabwe 20 odd years ago when that was the "rainbow nation" and the model for all Africa. South Africa will be the new Zimbabwe in 20 years time - ruled by a despot, no effective opposition (it has none now), a collapsed economy, raging unemployment and riddled with crime (it already is).
So, what should we do? What can we do? I'd really like to know.
Zimbabwe is a mess. I don't think anyone can argue with that. The question is; what can we do about it?
I see so many people discussing this on blogs, news comment sites and so on - but I still don't know what it is that these people expect to happen.
The first thing we have to consider, I suppose, is whether we should do anything about it? Do we have any responsibility to Zimbabwe which acts as a justification to intervene?
Zimbabwe is, after all, an independent country, on a different continent and there is no geographical relationship between us. There is a historical and colonial link - but that was long ago and it was their choice to break that link. There is no direct threat to Britain from Zimbabwe, either - although you could argue that the situation there exacerbates the asylum and immigration problems faced by Britain creating more pressure on our public services and housing stock.
What about a moral responsibility? Well, personally, I believe that we all, as individuals, have a moral responsibility to act in ways that improve the lives of those less fortunate than ourselves through charities - by volunteering or donating or both - and I believe that for the vast majority of situations, this is is the course to take.
By the way, let me point out that what I have just said does not mean I approve of passing that responsibility on to the state. I don't. In fact, I think that is one of the most damaging aspects of socialism with too many people believing that paying taxes is a better way to help the poor and disadvantaged. It isn't. It is the worst way and guarantees that the genuinely needy will remain needy.
Obviously there are individual actions we can take to apply pressure on Zimbabwe, but the situation there is such that individual acts are not enough. Instead it is a situation where a nation needs to act collectively - and that means through the government. Obviously a government has no moral obligation to any people other than the people it governs, so, in that respect, there is no moral obligation for this government to act on Zimbabwe - unless the people of this country expressed that as their will.
If there is a responsibility - or any other justification to act, what should that action be?
The preferred way for many is sanctions, but do they really work? Don't sanctions and economic embargoes just end up hurting the people you're supposed to be trying to help? Other sanctions - such as sporting boycotts - are unlikely to have any real effect either. They might make us feel a bit better, but I can't see Mugabe being forced to climb down just because Zimbabwe are kicked out of the cricket world cup. It's not as if they were likely to win the damn thing and gain some sort of propaganda coup from that!
As far as I can see, the only action that would have any chance of forcing Mugabe out is military action, but that, like sanctions, has serious implications for the people you're supposed to be helping. On the positive side, military action would be considerably quicker than sanctions, but the "pain" for the populous of Zimbabwe would be that much more intense. Is the swift traumatic death of war better or worse than the slow lingering, but equally certain death of sanctions, starvation and misery?
Even if we did kick out Mugabe through military action - what then? Another despot and the same problem again 20 years down the line? I listen to people talking about the "success" of South Africa - just as they talked about the "success" of Zimbabwe 20 odd years ago when that was the "rainbow nation" and the model for all Africa. South Africa will be the new Zimbabwe in 20 years time - ruled by a despot, no effective opposition (it has none now), a collapsed economy, raging unemployment and riddled with crime (it already is).
So, what should we do? What can we do? I'd really like to know.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)