Archive for the ‘Policy’ Category
Observationally, they have nothing to show to support their claims of upcoming climate disasters. Scientifically, they got it mixed up and regularly distort what Science is and is not showing. In practice, they are using persuasion tools developed to save pandas and the Hudson river, and those are the wrong ones because Anthropogenic Global Warming is not a species in peril now or a river polluted at the present, but a risk for the end of the century.
No wonder then, Climate Change activists have been fighting a mostly political battle for at least two decades. And the main objective appears time and again to force their solutions upon us, and to stifle all forms of dissent.
In desperation, what else have they got?
Apparently one of the reasons for Al Gore and the IPCC to receive the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize relates to “green” being nowadays equal to “peace”.
This is absolutely a fantasy as there are many, many wars and conflicts around the world and not even one can honestly be related to climate change or global warming.
The one example that is always used is the remote possibility that increased drought would be behind the Darfur genocide. Such a link has been fabricated in a recent UN report and it is a shameful way of abandoning all those women and children while providing a ready-made excuse for the people committing the genocide.
All that, because a bunch of rich people fear that world temperature may go up 2C in 40 or 100 years, and can only get their worries on top of everybody’s agendas by stocking up fears?
The issues about Darfur have nothing to do with climate. And in any case, on the entire rest of the surface of the planet there is not a single other place where armed conflicts can be even remotely connected to any presumed, measure or modelled change in the climate.
Israel is bombing nuclear targets in Syria and Damascus did not even complain, and we think that peace will come from lowering CO2 in the atmosphere??
The contribution by Al Gore and the IPCC to present or future peace remains a mystery indeed. And other big questions remain open:
- Why give a Prize before the fact, when we do not even have a Kyoto-II Agreement?
- Why a political award to what is supposed to be a non-policy-making international body of scientists like the IPCC?
- Why not a Nobel Prize in Physics for the IPCC if the science of global warming is strong enough to justify their efforts that earned them a Peace Prize?
- Why can’t concerned IPCC scientists group themselves outside of the Panel, thus separating Science from politics?
All in all, this year’s IgNobel Peace Prize does seem a more likely contribution to peace than what Al Gore and the IPCC have not yet done:
PEACE: The Air Force Wright Laboratory, Dayton, Ohio, USA, for instigating research & development on a chemical weapon — the so-called “gay bomb” — that will make enemy soldiers become sexually irresistible to each other.
REFERENCE: “Harassing, Annoying, and ‘Bad Guy’ Identifying Chemicals,” Wright Laboratory, WL/FIVR, Wright Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, June 1, 1994.
A bit far-fetched, perhaps, especially about attracting annoying creatures, eliciting halitosis and the extraordinary application of the old slogan Make Love Not War to the battlefield: still, the Wright Laboratory’s efforts were (are?) about changing the nature of the armed conflicts of today, not the ones some very worried people are imagining now will happen in five or more decades.
Brighton, 18 Sep (MNN) – At their annual conference in Brighton, the Lib-Dems have decided to back a radical series of proposals to tackle climate change – including a ban on people living in Scotland by 2040.
Environment spokesman Chris Huhne said tackling global warming would need an “enormous economic change”.
As simply too many people stubbornly keep their abodes in the damp, cold northern regions of the British Isles, generating humongous amounts of carbon dioxide just to heat their houses up, the only solution is to get everybody over to the warmer side of Hadrian’s Wall.
“Climate Change is a threat to democracy”, Lib-Dem delegates have been told, “and tough sacrifices are in order to save our planet.”
In other news: Lib-Dems are going to vote on a proposal to mandate nomadism by 2047.
This will allow everybody to move (on foot!) from one day to the next to find the warmest place where to mount their tent, without having to burn any greenhouse-gas-emitting fuel.
A warm welcome to my blog to all the folks at the NSA.
Hello guys and gals, how are you doing?
I know, I know, it’s a tough job, but somebody’s got to do it. Don’t move, son, let me beat you up, I assure you it’s gonna hurt me more than it’s gonna hurt you. And all that.
By the way: no, I don’t see any positive side in terrorism. If you ask me, it’s a crime against humanity and an act of cowardice to plant bomb or otherwise try to instill fear into innocent people getting on with their daily lives with little or no hope to prevent their Governments do this or that.
Oh well, I hope you and your automatic e-mail scanning system have had the time to properly digest the paragraph above. Otherwise, see you all in Gitmo!
Kisses for now and goodbye also to the American Constitution
The future of the religious form of marriage is in the hands of the respective clerics and faithful people.
The future of civil marriage is to be placed away from the hands of the State, until it lasts. And for civil wedding to be eliminated.
What is the State for, in fact, but to manage conflict situations also within its own society?
If I establish a friendship with a neighbour, do I have to make that public in the Town Hall? Of course not. But if I start an argument with them, it may go as bad as to warrant the intervention of the Law (the Police, or even “just” a lawsuit).
And so it should and surely will be that there will be no hand at all of the State when two people want to live together: whilst the weakest component of the couple, if the love and friendship disappear, will only have to demonstrate the two were living “as husband and wife” (in Ancient Rome, more uxorio), for the Law to act in their defense.
Even if policies dictate incentives for couples, again all they should have to show is that they are a couple (perhaps, a stable couple in the second year of cohabitation)…how it all started, and if there was a ceremony with a mayoral representative mimicking the religious ritual, all that must surely be immaterial from the point of view of the individual’s rights.
The above will finally re-align legality and societal mores, now so completely at odds with each other. With the added bonus of further separating God and Mammon, as Somebody recommended to do a few years ago…
The phraseology of one of your Op-Eds is quite clear: the new “terror” is called “climate stress“, and it will cause a long list of disasters and upheavals if “nations fail to aggressively limit carbon dioxide emissions and develop technologies and institutions” “to cope with a warmer planet.”
(“Terror in the weather forecast” by Thomas Homer-Dixon, IHT April 25, 2007)
And so: just a few years ago the neo-cons pushed for an ill-judged preventative “war on Saddam” to protect us against fantasized Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.
And to export the institutions of Democracy.
Nowadays it’s the turn of the neo-warms: recommending a preventative “war on carbon dioxide” to protect us against (future!) climatic changes of just as massive (predicted) destruction potential.
Ominously, this too will mean exporting political institutions.
Don’t we ever learn?
UK PM Tony Blair, former US VP Al Gore and so many other politicians: why have they been so eager to jump on the Climate-Change-is-Humanity’s-Fault bandwagon?
A cynical explanation is in order: because they can’t lose by joining in.
They risk losing a lot instead, by staying out.
In fact, if (a) they can appear to be doing something about Human-induced Climate Change (CC):
- a1. If CC doesn’t happen, they will claim victory, or
- a2. If CC does happen, they will blame us all for not trying hard enough, and introduce ever harsher policies in order to… appear to be doing something about CC
On the other hand, the opposite position, of (b) publicly expressing doubts that Climate Change is caused by humans if it is happening at all, will mean:
- b1. If CC doesn’t happen, they will claim victory, but
- b2. If CC does happen, they will be blamed by us all for not trying hard enough
Worse, as climate is bound to naturally change if we just observe it for long enough a time, the “If CC doesn’t happen” options are simply immaterial.
It is self-evident then that (a) provides unlimited reward and no risk, while (b) vice-versa carries little reward and career-breaking risks.
Only naive or honest politicians, provided they exist, will refrain from shouting that Humanity is bound to destroy the planet by overheating it with carbon dioxide.
If anybody believes that the above is going to inspire good policies, I’ve got a bridge to sell them
(blog inspired by messages on the Climate Sceptics mailing list)