Global Warming

Scientists have made an alarming discovery in the East Siberian Arctic Shelf. There are plumes of methane bubbling up through the shallow sea and this potent greenhouse gas is being injected directly into the atmosphere. In an area of just ten thousand square miles, one hundred "fountains of methane" have been discovered and some of them are over a kilometre across. Why should we worry? Methane is a much more powerful green house gas than carbon dioxide and over a hundred year period it is twenty times more powerful in its effect. There are literally hundreds of millions of tons of methane stored on the Eat Siberian Arctic Shelf bed alone. This is stored as methane hydrate under high pressure and low temperatures at the bottom of the sea. Global warming in the Arctic has been a lot stronger than the rest of the planet. The warming causes these hydrates to release their methane.

In the Arctic region in general there are billions of tons of methane hydrates stored on the sea bed. If, even a small proportion of this gas is injected into the atmosphere it could cause catastrophic warming by means of a positive feedback mechanism. More warming causes more melting of the methane hydrates which causes more warming yet again.

We have all been warned that excessive man made emissions of carbon dioxide are warming the planet to possibly dangerous levels. Some earth scientists such as James Lovelock believe that we have set in train irreversible consequences regarding the dangerous warming of the planet. Let us hope he is proved wrong. We need to do something to prevent the injection of billions of tons of methane into the atmosphere at all costs. A climate change agreement and treaty is badly needed.

BBC and Frozen Planet

The BBC has been criticised for "deceiving" its Frozen Planet audience. the documentary has lead its viewers to believe that its film of a female polar bear with her cubs, just after giving birth in there den, was filmed in the Arctic snows, when in fact it was filmed in a zoo in Amsterdam. For me this is an acceptable "deception" as the scene was included for illustration purposes. Why disturb a polar bear and her family in the wild? Provided all of the factual information is correct for me it is not a problem. I am sure that all wild life documentaries are to a certain extent stage managed, they have to be for continuity purposes.

Viewers of television programmes should beware though, as all programmes are to a certain extent stage managed even science programmes and the news.

There really is no such thing as "reality" television: it has been faked and the audience is being duped. You are better off not watching such rubbish.

Egypt Again

The Egyptian people are urbane and civilised. They deserve to be masters of their own destiny and be allowed to elect their own government. This is not just a luxury: it is their right. It is their right to decide how their country will be run and to vote for a new constitution. They have had to experience much deprivation, unfair arrest and violence to get this far. Let us hope there will be a peaceful resolution to their predicament and that the army cedes power to a democratic government which is elected fairly. The country can then be led to social justice and prosperity.This will not just benefit Egypt but also every other nation in North Africa and eventually the Middle East.

Zero based budget for care of the elderly

There has been much furore in the press recently about the standard of care given to the very elderly and infirm in the UK. Much criticism levelled at care workers who do not spend enough time with the aged or the infirm. Some of this criticism may be justified as the "care industry" probably employs people who just do not care and it probably has its fair share of employees who simply are criminal. Most "care workers" are probably trying to do their best under difficult working conditions.

This morning I saw a "care worker " being interviewed on television; she was obviously sympathetic towards those who she looked after. But, she explained that she was paid £2.76 per hour for the time that she spent at the patient's home only, and she was not fully compensated for the travelling time and expense when moving from one patient to another. She also averred that she was given very little time to spend with each patient and that in fact the time allocated, in many cases, was insufficient to provide an adequate service.

I suggest that the pay is inadequate for the importance and pressure of the work.

A representative of the United Kingdom Homecare Association Ltd (UKHCA) was also interviewed . He intimated that the budget allocated by the local authorities was probably insufficient to meet all the demands of home care placed on UKHCA members.

The problems are caused not just by budgetary constraints but problems of morale. The carers are expected to perform work without sufficient time allocated to complete their job to the standard expected. No wonder there is low morale given the poor pay.

There is a case for applying the techniques of scientific management to the work of carers and not just allocating work within a budgetary constraint. This just encourages bad management and the arbitrary allocation of work based on a whim and desire rather than facts from the ground. It also encourages a bureaucratic mentality of inefficiency and ineffectiveness. The aged and the infirm deserve better than this. They need to be looked after by well motivated staff who really care about them and who have the time and resources to do a proper job.

A quality standard should be set. There should then be a fair amount of time allocated for each caring task to be completed. The carer should be allowed a fair amount of time to move from one patient to another. A contingency time should be added to take account of difficulties.
Sufficient redundancy should be built into the system to allow for sickness or staff absence.
The staff should be paid a fair rate for the job and this fair rate should be independently assessed. Staff should be interviewed and selected by assessing their personality and attitude towards the aged and the infirm. From this the number of staff needed to provide a high quality service "manned" by dedicated staff ,who really care about the patients, should be calculated.

From this calculation, a budget should be built up from a zero base to include not just the direct staff costs but also the cost of administration. I suspect that this cost would be substantially higher than the budgets allocated from on high by the council and the government.

The public should be made aware of the real budget required to provide the high quality service which is expected.

A similar process of zero based budgeting should be applied to all our key services: health, the police, the army etc.

Once the budget is prepared it should be made public. The public will probably be shocked how much it costs to provide these services. But scientific management, if used effectively, could ensure optimum productivity based on facts and not just on the whim of accountants and bureaucrats wielding spreadsheets and making arbitrary decisions about "service delivery" .

The public could then make a decision of how services are delivered and at what quality level and how this is to be financed through the balance of taxation and borrowing. If we want very high levels of quality for health care, care for the elderly or policing etc. then we have to pay for it. We may have to do this at the expense of a new car or a new PC every year.

The very idea of setting a budget before the cost of job that needs to be done is calculated is anathema to good management. No wonder the care of the elderly and infirm is in such a mess. No amount of inspection or public relations statements will cure this problem. Only hard headed decision making based on the facts will go anywhere near to resolving such difficulties.

The public must make a hard choice. Are we prepared to pay the full cost for the services which we demand or do we want to pay less money for a reduced service? How is this to be financed - by charges, taxes or borrowing or a mix? Are we prepared to sacrifice the consumption of consumer goods for improved public service when budgets are stretched? It is our choice and we can only expect our politicians to follow our lead on this issue.

Who would be a rugby player?

Once again sporting personalities are making the headlines for reasons other than match prowess or success. The behaviour of England's rugby players has come under press scrutiny and criticism for other than playing reasons. But, is there really a need for us to know about the silly antics of rugby players when they are not on the training ground? Most of the time their antics are no worse than what happens on a Friday night when young men have had too much to drink. Just because they are on a grandiose rugby trip at the World Cup, do we expect that the behaviour should be any different? So lets look at what the England players have been doing a little more closely.

They go out to a pub the night after winning a key match and have a few beers to let off steam before their next match which is a week away. It seems that doing this is not really a problem as they did not misbehave in any other way. The difference on the night in question is that one of the party is married to a member of the royal family. This means that the press were after a story. Supposedly, he is seen embracing or being friendly with an ex-girl friend and the story grew from there. A tabloid newspaper acquires a tape of the drinkers from the bar's CCTV system. Pictures from this tape are emblazoned over the front pages of the tabloid press. None of these pictures were very clear but they were blown out of all proportion. Nothing in the pictures indicated that any wrong doing was going on. These pictures should not have been published as they were an egregious and irresponsible invasion of privacy. The innuendo sparked by their publication was clear and it ended up damaging his reputation and probably and needlessly upset his wife and the lady who was present in the the pub. All that upset and angst to improve the circulation figures of a newspaper.

Rugby players are high spirited and not all of them are or should be expected to be tee-totallers. They do plenty of damage to themselves on the training ground or playing real matches much more damage than a few drinks; but then they are playing for their country so that is different. They represent their country but they are not national possessions. No doubt members of the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra go out for a few beers and glasses of wine when they are on tour but the world never gets to know about it and for good reason - we do not need to know. Why get sanctimonious about rugby players?
If a group of rugby players are rude or act lewdly to a hotel chamber maid then it is a different matter to going out boozing in a local pub. That is wrong as no-one deserves to be treated like that. The players concerned owned up and apologised formally to the chamber maid, this should have been the end of the story and the world did not need to know about it.

Fining a rugby player because he is wearing the wrong sort of gum shield which offends the commercial sensibilities of the sponsors is beyond the pale. The gum shields are made to fit the player and protect him from serious injuries. The organisers of the world cup should be protecting players from this kind of commercial bullying as it is the players and their supporters who are generating the income for both the sponsors and the organisers. Without the players and supporters the commercial sponsors would not be able to generate any income at all. Can it be any wonder that players chose to go out and get drunk when they are under that sort of pressure.

Of course, the England players are now being heavily criticised for being knocked out of the World Cup at the quarter finals. They did not play very well against France. France are one of the top teams and can beat anyone when they play well but the press have not noticed this fact.
The team did not play badly because of the silly antics: they were simply not good enough. One bad performance and you go back home and this is the simple rule in a knockout competition.

Unfortunately for England, the television and press ratings war results in the team being portrayed as heroes when performances are going well even though they have not won anything. They are then portrayed as devils when things go wrong and the silly antics are pushed further into the foreground. This type of media exposure probably has more of an effect on team morale than having a few drinks. When media pundits portray the team, unjustifiably, as favourites to win, the public and player expectation becomes too high and complacency leads to defeat. It is better to be in the position of Wales, they keep out of the eye of the press and pundits and do their drinking in quite bars well away from view. They might even pull off a surprise using this approach and get to the final. Their touring activities remain on the back pages where they belong.

If the England team are guilty of anything then it is naivety. Naivety that the press and media will not leave them alone and that some members of the public and press expect them to be paragons of virtue.

To cap it all, one of the England players, from Samoa, gets fined by the Rugby Union (RU) for jumping off a Ferry whilst on his way back with his team mates from an island visit to, of all places, a vineyard. No doubt they were tasting lemonade. The New Zealand police saw fit only to give him a warning but because of the publicity he was charged GBP3,000 by the RU for the privilege of jumping off a ferry and having a swim. Damn it, he is from Samoa and probably swims as well as he plays rugby. Do we really need to know that he dived off a ferry? Lets hope England does not frighten him off to return home to play rugby. On the very same day that the the swim made front page news, religious violence had broken out again in Cairo and this is the type of news that we really need to know about.

Lets hope we can get our sense of humour and proportion back and leave the rugby, football and sports reporting to just the back pages. Then one of our British teams might have a fair crack at winning one of the sporting prizes.

Demonstration at the Proms

Last night the BBC promenade concerts were disrupted at the Albert Hall. The Israel Philharmonic Orchestra was interrupted by demonstrators espousing the Palestinian cause. I cannot see any purpose in doing this as the orchestra was there for the music and the BBC does its best to cultivate some sort of international harmony with its "Proms" performances. What would have been the reaction if a group of Israeli sympathisers had disrupted a Palestinian performance? No doubt there would have been a furore.

By all means demonstrate for the Palestinian cause outside of the auditorium and counter demonstrate too; but was there a need for such vehemence?

In my opinion the Palestinians have been treated unjustly by both history, the international community and the Israelis. But, from an historical point of view the Jewish community has been treated much more abysmally; so we need to recognise this fact too if there is ever going to be a peace settlement. Both nations deserve a homeland where they can live in peace, preferably together and I believe this is possible. What is the problem to develop an Israeli and Palestinian commonwealth along the lines of the western and central Europe? This may seem idealistic but why not try and aim for it rather than all the vengeance?

For many centuries both communities lived in harmony. They could do so again if some hard headed and courageous decisions were made to set aside the hatred and negotiate a solution. We managed to do this in Europe after the worst atrocities in human history were committed during the second World War.

Shakespeare a Fraud?

"A rose by any other name would still smell as sweet". Why are we still questioning whether the bard wrote the plays or not? There is not much evidence to say that he did not. Why not just sit back and enjoy them. The bard must have had a hard time writing all those words with a quill - knock me down. Please leave him to rest.

The story line of the film "Anonymous" looks like rubbish to me so I shall not go to see it even for a laugh.

More on the Riots

Everyone is talking about the riots so why not me?

This is the time for all reasonable politicians to unite to agree a solution. They all have an opinion and most of these opinions range from pure criminality, to the breakdown of the family, to social liberalism, to poverty and poor education. All of these no doubt are part of the mix within the problem and part of the mix in the solution. We need action this time not just platitudes to find a a resolution. The police and the justice system may find it increasingly difficult to keep order on the streets if we do not find an answer. We should consider the fact that the increasing economic downturn will make life even more difficult for all of us including those who feel that they have to turn to looting to obtain the things in life that they desire. Effective action will require the investment of money, resources and commitment to reverse the the social ills that have been a decades in the making and have been simmering to boiling point.

Another factor that should be taken into account is economic liberalism and the influence of advertising. In many respects economic liberalism has been a good thing and it has enabled our society in general to obtain the desirable things of life. A house, its furniture, a car and all sorts of electronic goods including portable 'phones and computers have been ,up until now, easily affordable for most of the people in our society. Economic liberalism has also allowed us to make fashion statements by the provision of cheap and often throw away clothing. We can also afford cheap wine and alcohol and afford foreign holidays and party time. All of the good things in life have been fuelled by an economic boom created by economic liberalism , which in turn has been encouraged by advertising. The markets had never had it so good up until about 2007.

There are four classses of people who are participating in the market:

the rich who can afford what they want and when they want,

the middle and working classes who save for what they want.

the middle and working classes who have participated in the boom by dint of credit - this forms the overwhelmingly largest part of the market,

the poor whether they are working or not who cannot afford anything more than a life of subsistence.

To really get the economic boom going the market requires advertising to persuade the middle and working classes to part with their cash - usually on credit. All sorts of mechanisms are devised and no one f is immune to parting with their cash by many types of persuasion. This includes me, one of the biggest sceptics of all- how many times have I gone into a supermarket to buy just one item but have come out with ten. Why did I have to buy a gadget that will charge my 'phone and other devices from a portable sun panel? I have never used it.

Advertising has a powerful effect; now it is everywhere on the television, on a hoarding, on the radio, in the newspaper and on the Internet and you simply cannot avoid it. Of course, adverts are useful to let you know where and when products are available. But, what if they are used to promote a glamorous or dangerous life style, which appears to be cost free especially if it is obtained on credit? What if celebrities such as footballers are promoting fashion wear in the accompaniment of gangsters? What influence does this have on young people? What happens when our media and television broadcasts promote a free and easy life style of showing off the latest fashion, electronic gadgets, HD and 3DTV etc. ? Perhaps all this consumption is OK if you can't afford it but what happens if you cannot? What happens if the good things of life are constantly being pushed in your face and tempt you. Surely it means debts for the middle classes, sometimes crippling debts, on credit cards? The enormous private debt mountain has caused as much problem for our economy as public debt. We now face a seriously damaged economy caused by excessive credit; one which will affect the middle classes and poor alike.

For the poor, all the advertising and promotion means something different; sometimes it means depriving their children of consumer goods which everyone believes are essential for the good life or resorting to the "loan shark". This is not a good position for a poor family to cope with. Most poor families succeed in bringing up their children not to rob or steal. Some do not and their children end up stealing what they cannot get by legal means. Economic poverty exacerbated by social poverty and poor education creates the problems seen on the streets. Some people cannot see through the purpose of advertising and the tricks that are played on them to obtain more and more goods.

We need something more than just punishment to get delinquent youngsters back on the straight and narrow . We need incentives, like a job, so that they can pay for the things they have been persuaded or tempted to possess. We need to allow them to get their self respect back.

Advertising is poorly regulated in the western economies perhaps the best control would be for each advertisement to be compelled to show, prominently, the real price of their products and not to pretend that it is easy to go into a shop and walk away with a product by snapping your fingers.

There have been very few experiments that have been or can be conducted to prove what effect the the media and advertising have on the community. In 1999 Bhutan became the last nation in the world to allow television to be watched. Cable television was introduced with 47 channels. Within 3 years there was a crime wave. A stable and relatively crime free nation was transformed. Serious law breaking had broken out and many elements in the community turned to excessive alcohol consumption and drug use. It was probably not the television itself but the content of the 47 channels of MTV, crime movies, lifestyle programmes, celebrity culture and adverts promoting the good life which cast their spell on a naive population - perhaps it has done the same to us.

0.2 % UK growth

Part of the blame for the poor growth of the UK economy has been attributed to the Royal Wedding. This is of course nonsense. Before the Royal Wedding we were all happily informed that it would boost our trade and of course that was nonsense too. You can't have it both ways. I hope the happy couple see it for what it is -Duckspeak so quack quack.

Poor old Badger

It looks as though the UK is going to bend to the opinion of farmers and allow a badger cull in a limited area of the south west of England. There is also pressure on the Welsh Assembly to allow a similar cull in Pembrokeshire. There is little doubt that badgers can become infected with bovine TB and that they can become a source of infection and transmission of the disease. Other animals can also become infected including deer, foxes, rats, cats and even humans. What remains clear is that the primary source of infection and transmission of the disease are the cattle themselves. There is very little evidence that a cull of badgers will significantly decrease the spread of bovine TB. It is possible that frightened badgers will run away from a cull and carry the disease with them and thereby increase the incidence of diease.

The probable solution to the problem involves a combination of vaccination programmes, improved animal husbandry, greater control on cattle movements and better control of grazing etc. and just keeping badgers and cattle apart. Of course, this is difficult and costly - better to blame the poor old badger; kill it and hope the problem goes away. Unfortunately, the problem will not go away by using this ignorant and irrational approach.

We need to do our best to defend the livelihood of farmers for obvious reasons. But farming should not be defended to the cost of all wild life in general. The attitude that no other living creature, be it plant or animal, should be allowed to interfere with our farms could be disastrous. The health of all animals and plants on the planet requires some form of competition between the species. Human beings rely on the rest of nature just as much as they rely on farms; by damaging the rest of nature we could ultimately damage ourselves.

We should not be sentimental about our wildlife. I do not support any form of violent protest against the cull or those who conduct it. There have even been reports that journalists are being threatened merely for reporting the cull . This is unacceptable. If the cull goes ahead it will probably fail to the embarrassment of all concerned so any protest should be peaceful.

The public are overwhelmingly opposed to this cull even if they are not prepared to go out and demonstrate. The public at large is, however, opposed to violent protest; why go out of your way to upset them?

The best way for consumers to prevent this cull would be to buy products only from those farmers who respect their animals fully and those who also show some respect for the environment around them. The case for organic and bio-dynamic farming becomes stronger.

Cooling of the planet

A study by Dr Robert Kaufmann and his colleagues, and which was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences on July 5 th, has proposed an explanation why increasing levels of carbon dioxide have not lead to ever increased atmospheric temperature during the period 1998 t0 2009. During that period global average temperatures have not increased as much as they should have done according to climate models. The reason, concludes Dr Kaufmann, is that coal fired power stations have doubled the amount of coal burned during this period , and this coal burning has not only substantially increased the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere but it has also substantially increased the amount of sulphur dioxide. It is an irrefutable fact that carbon dioxide acts as a greenhouse gas and that, with all other things being equal, an increase in the concentration of this gas in the atmosphere will warm the planet. It is also an irrefutable fact that, all other things being equal, an increase in the concentration of sulphur dioxide in the atmosphere will cool the planet.

During the period 1998 to 2009 the effect of the concentration of one gas in the atmosphere offset the effect of the other. Therefore, the mean temperature of the planet did not show a substantial increase or decrease.

Climate change sceptics have jumped upon the fact that the planet has not been warming up as predicted is evidence that global warming caused by man's activities does not exist. Clearly they are wrong: Dr Kaufmann's findings are not inconsistent with global warming or cooling theory or climate science in general.

We should not be relieved by the fact that global warming has temporarily been arrested by pumping industrialised quantities of sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere. Sulphur compounds are quickly removed from the atmosphere by rain. If and when coal burning and other sources of human produced sulphur dioxide are reduced or eliminated the atmosphere will quickly warm up. The carbon dioxide is not so easily or quickly removed from the atmosphere.

Carbon dioxide and sulphur dioxide should not been seen as pollutants; they are part of the natural cycles of the planet and are naturally released into the atmosphere by both living and geological processes including volcanoes. Without carbon dioxide the planet would become too cold to support much of the life on our planet as we know it today, including ourselves. The danger to the environment does not stem from the fact that carbon dioxide and sulphur dioxide are in the atmosphere per se, but from the rate of change of their concentration. If the rate of change is too fast, plants and animals, including ourselves, may not have enough time to change to the new atmospheric circumstances and become extinct.


Some scientists and engineers have proposed that pumping sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere could be used as a solution to global warming. Other scientists have opposed this as being potentially dangerous. It seems that we have been conducting an unwitting experiment with the atmosphere by increasing the concentration of both sulphur dioxide and carbon dioxide to dangerous levels and very quickly. What happens if a sudden volcanic eruption rapidly increases the level of sulphur dioxide to an even higher level? We could be faced with a sudden and unexpected global cooling for two, three years or more years; one that is not offset by the global warming and our harvests could be devastated.

We must do something to tackle the increased production, by our own activity, of both carbon dioxide and sulphur dioxide before it is too late, otherwise we could be faced with having to artificially maintain our planet's atmosphere. There is no room left for climate sceptic complacency.

Every Nation has the Media it deserves

The quote "Every Nation has the Goverment it deserves" is attributed to Joseph de Maistre a polemical author born in the the mid 18th century. It is my view that there is an element of truth in this but it is often quite difficult, even in a true democracy, to remove quickly an incompetent, weak or corrupt government.

I some respects a similar aphorism could be applied to the newspapers "Every Nation has the Media it deserves". During the current media "crisis" in the the UK we should not rush to judgement. If and when all the facts emerge, and it is proven that some newspapers have behaved unethically, then the nation has a simple solution. No member of the public should buy newspapers which indulge in unethical practices. I doubt, however, that this will ever happen.

The Cult of the Personality

I could never understand why the human race places so much importance of one man or woman to lead an organisation , community or government. Why is there so much triumphalism when a violent political opponent is toppled or despair when a leader of a respectable organisation is lost.

We would do well not to underestimate the threat from Al Qaeda since the removal of their leader - they have in fact already struck to devastating effect in Pakistan.

The International Monetary Fund still continues to function without its charismatic leader. Most institutions, especially those belonging to established democracies, continue to function well when their leaders fall from power. There is nearly always someone who can take over the reigns of power. So why should we pay so much respect to the cult of the personality or celebrity? Could it be that animal instinct is more powerful than rationality?

Rapprochement between Britain and the Republic of Ireland

At last the rapprochement between Britain and Ireland as been fully recognised at the highest state level. In many ways this rapprochement has been lead by the ordinary citizens of both countries between families, friends, work colleagues and cultural collaboration. A prime example of cultural collaboration is in the sporting arena where Rugby Union players from Northern Ireland play the international game by representing Ireland in general. The British and Irish Lions are a supra-national team where national differences are completely set aside for the better good of the game.

In the main Irish and British citizens do not treat one another as foreigners when making trips to either of their nations. British and Irish citizens have the right to vote in general elections when resident in each other's country. There was no reason why the visit of the Queen as the Head of State of the United Kingdom would not be welcomed by the overwhelming majority of Irish people and the Queen looked visibly delighted to be there. Let us hope that the remaining part of her trip remains peaceful and successful.

There has been a transformation in both Britain and the rest of Western Europe in the attitude to political and constitutional change at both a grassroots and government level: All change must be achieved by means of the ballot box and not be means of force. Since the end of the Second World War and the fall of the Berlin wall all major change in the democracies of Europe have been brought about by means of popular consent backed up by the ballot box. We have seen important moves by national states to recognise the rights of independent minded communities by the creation of semi-independent provinces such as Corsica.

In Britain and Ireland we still have a long way to go, as there are still difficulties to be faced in Northern Ireland before relations between the different communities are fully resolved and we can all feel at home when we pay a visit to any locality in Belfast or Londonderry.

One thing is certain those who seek constitutional change for Northern Ireland by violence will be defied by the overwhelming majority citizens of both Britain and Ireland. But, at last some peaceful and democratic progress is being made.

Celebrity

I am in two minds about the controversy surrounding the super injunctions granted to celebrities and politicians to protect their privacy. I am not interested in any form of tittle tattle about celebrities, whether it is good news or bad. What is the difference between "A Star" having a baby, having an affair or taking drugs and "A Nobody" doing the same things? The difference between these actions, whether it is a well known person or an anonymous person, is none. Surely, you should only be interested if it is a member of your family or a close friend who wishes to share the good things of life with you and perhaps be advised when things go wrong. The names of the people and their celebrity status does not really add any extra meaning to good or bad activities.

The press, however, do have a point as many people trade off their celebrity status for profit: and, if they do so, should they not accept any bad publicity which comes with this trade? If the press are gagged from publishing bad news, why don't they not do us all a favour and voluntarily not publish the good news that celebrities seek. We can then concentrate upon the really important issues of life - our friends, our family and neighbours amongst others.

Climate Change Again

In Britain, within the last six months, we have seen the coldest December on record closely followed by warmest April. Some parts of the UK were three to five degrees celcius warmer than normal last month. These wide variations from the average temperature are consistent with predictions of climatologists such as James Lovelock and James Hansen who examine past climate records to help predict the future rather than purely relying on climate models. The science is clear; the build up carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is changing the climate.

It is another piece of evidence that man made activities are changing the climate by pumping industrial quantities of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere; quantities which the natural ecosystems cannot easily deal with. We are upsetting the homeostasis of the atmosphere at our peril. I expect that that there will be further more severe variations in our climate in the near future.

We have all been warned. Nothing is being done about it. Future generations should prepare for the worse.

Defeating Terrorism

The methods used by the US government to apprehend and kill Osama Bin Laden confirms my view that that is better to use subtlety, intelligence and brave specialised forces to defeat terrorism than to go in with all bombs and guns blazing.

I have also been of the view that the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan have been counter-productive as many moderate Muslims have felt victimised by the bombing of innocents civilians even if it was not intentional. And many activists might have been driven into the arms of terrorists from that perceived victimisation.

I do not believe in the death penalty. It would be better to apprehend terrorists alive and put them on trial for murder where they have killed people, then we might find out what motivated them.

We need to find a political solution to the problems of the Middle East rather than both sides using the failed approach of continuous death and retaliation.

In the words of Winston Churchill "to jaw jaw is better than to war war."

I welcome Barak Obama's more measured and intelligent approach even if the perceived results are a longer time coming.

Snogging at the John Snow

Of course, there is a furore about two gay snoggers being thrown out of the John Snow pub in Soho. But there are a few things to point out to the activists who are protesting. Many people find watching other people snogging offensive; gay or not, heterosexual or not or bisexual for that matter. It is bad enough watching it in a private house let alone in a public one. The snoggers were in a pub and the landlords have the right to exclude whoever they wish. They have a duty to protect all their customers in a place where alcohol is sold; what would have happened if a customer who had had too much to drink took the law into his own hands and decided to punch the snoggers on the nose? The rights of man in Europe and the USA have been hard won under the opposition of illiberal religious and political organisations. Everyone is free to exercise their rights but should they not exercise them with restraint? If you want to snog why not find a more private place to do it? It is anyone's right to be a devil worshipper but surely you would expect to be asked to leave a Mosque if you decided to exercise your rights there. You may have the right to burn books in public, in the USA if nowhere else, but exercising that right is distasteful if not provocative. There is a danger that liberal political activism may start to manifest itself as self-obsessed decadence and that those who are campaigning for freedom of oppression will no longer be taken seriously. There was no need for a protest outside the John Snow pub as there are bigger issues to get upset about.

Health Warnings and Alcohol etc.

I have always been sceptical about the health warnings that the food research institutes are increasingly making. These health warnings find their way as cheap copy into the newspapers and morning radio shows and breakfast television. During broadcasts the interviewers never question the science related to the assertions. No-one ever questions how the data was collected and interpreted and what empirical evidence supports the claims. We are constantly being told that eating more than 6 grams of salt per day is dangerous to our health but where did that figure come from? What experiments have been conducted to ascertain the affect of salt on human health? I suggest that no empirical evidence has been gathered from experimentation; as to perform such an experiment would be immoral. Most of the evidence is probably an interpretation of statistics. The 6 gram warning is the result of an estimation made by a committee. What happens if I consume 6.01 grams per day would my health be seriously compromised? If I consume 5.9 grams per day will I live longer? The amount of salt that one should consume must be dependent upon your size. Could 6 grams per day be safe for a 13 stone adult male but dangerous for an eight stone female teenager? One thing is certain, if you consume no sodium chloride at all you will die. Many men who work under hard and arduous conditions lose their taste for salt and often crave salted butter and other salted products in their diet. If you spend some time under hot desert conditions you will see what I mean. The body makes adjustments to the salt required to maintain the homeostasis of the blood and it excretes excess salt. The 6 gram recommended figure is thus an arbitrary one. We are also constantly advised about how much red meat to eat. The recommendation is now 90 grams per day, but once again what happens if I eat 91 grams per day will my life expectancy be reduced? No-one can answer this question. Now there is a hotting up of the campaign for all of us to drink less alcohol. One of the research institutes claims that alcohol consumption causes 13,000 cancers per year. Where does this figure come from? Why is it 13,000 the figure may be more precise than accurate? If none of us consumed alcohol would bowel cancer, throat cancer and cancer of the oesophagus disappear entirely or would the 13,000 figure be reduced by two hundred if at all? No one knows for certain. I am equally sceptical about the blandishments to eat five portions of fruit and vegetables a day what happens if I eat six a day will I live longer? Will this counteract the risks of my drinking on average two glasses of wine a day and eating red meat? There are too many complexities and variables related to diet for hard and fast claims to be made. How do we know that the claim that you should drink a glass of red wine a day to protect your heart is true? For some people who have liver disease one glass a day is too much. It is obvious, in Britain and other countries,that we have health problems realted to excessive consumption of alcohol. But do the assertions of research institutes make any difference? Nobody listens to it because thay are not really credible. It is obvious that drinking one glass of wine per day will not really damage a healthy adult but drinking a bottle of scotch or its equivalent will . We have all known this for centuries if not thousands of years. There is a happy medium somewhere along the lower end of the scale but it is different for everybody. It is up to the choice of the individual to find their own happy medium. During the the first 80 years of the twentieth century there was an incredible improvement in the health of the rich nations of the world. During that time the advice was " eat and drink in moderation". Everyone knew this including the health authorities and the general population. I suspect that the real improvement to health was caused by a combination of improved diet , sanitation, the discovery of antibiotics and general vaccination programmes. Practical measures not blandishments were used to improve our health. As far as alcohol is concerned, actual measures to reduce the consumption of should be undertaken. Some such measures could include: reducing the number of off-sales outlets by withdrawing the licences of some supermarkets to sell alcohol , ban two for one promotions in pubs, off-sales outlets and clubs, deny licenses to pubs where there is a lot of problem drinking. The latter might help to improve the quality of life in many town centres. With regard to salt, if it is such a problem there is nothing to stop the government to draw up legislation to reduce the quantity of salt in processed foods. Stilton cheese being an exception. The idea that salt should be banned from fish and chip shops is stupid beyond belief. With regard to the so called excessive consumption of red meat, don't worry market forces will soon take care of this. The best advice I ever got about diet was from my mother - "EAT UP ALL YOUR VEGETABLES". The best advice I got from about my general health was "DO NOT SMOKE". She did not need a research institute to tell her that.

Japan Earthquake

When I travelled to Tokyo on business, many years ago, I knew a Japanese colleague who never went on the underground railway. It was his belief that it would not survive a really strong earth tremor whose epicentre was under or near the great city. The recent earthquake (Richter 9) had an epicentre over a hundred kilometers away; even so it gave Tokyo a substantial shaking for many minutes. An earthquake is a very frightening experience. The first time I felt even a small one I was in a traditional Japanese restaurant and decided to run away much to the amusement of my hosts and the waiting staff : it was about 4 on the Richter scale but the epicentre was not far from Tokyo. The local people seemed to be able to tell the difference in the strengths of the tremors. After this first experience I decided to go to the earthquake museum and learn a little more. Most of the buildings in Tokyo are built to withstand a substantial earthquake. This was proven to me when I woke up one night in my Hotel room to feel the whole building swaying, it was uncanny and frightening. There was no warning and you could hear the building creaking. I had learnt from my work colleagues and the museum not to run out of the building and not to stand near the window for fear of being thrown out but to shelter in a corner or under a table. After about ten seconds the shaking stopped but there was no way I could sleep again despite the jet lag. The next time, I felt an earthquake, I was on the upper floor of our office block and once again I could hear the building creaking, but this time I could see the the other office blocks swaying in the distance. Some of my Japanese colleagues got out their helmets and there was some sense of nervousness. This earthquake was about 5.2 on the Richter scale and the epicentre was not too far away. The last time, I felt an earthquake, it was 5.9 on the Richter scale and once again it was nearby. It was much more frightening. We were in the computer room in the basement of the office block. This time I could feel through my feet that the earth was actually moving and I felt as if I was going to lose my balance. I could hear the building moving and feel it shaking. This was more frightening even for my colleagues. It lasted for about 20 seconds but it felt like an eternity. The lifts in the building automatically stopped. Afterwards, we learnt that there had been some minor damage and the local trains had automatically stopped. This last time my Japanese colleague was able to convince me that Tokyo would be substantially damaged by an earthquake above 8 on the Richter scale - if the epicentre was underneath or nearby. That was why he never used the underground railway as it would not survive. I decided to still use the underground as I estimated that the risk was worth the benefit for a three month trip. But like him, if I lived and worked in Tokyo permanently, I do not think I would use the underground. In fact a medium strength earthquake was enough for me . I shall never take up permanent residence in an earthquake zone. The earthquakes are bad enough for me never mind the risks of a Tsunami. My experience is imprinted in my memory and I can still remember the strength of the tremors more than twenty years later. And reports of the New Zealand and Japan events have made me dream about the earth shaking all those years ago. Earthquakes are perfectly natural phenomena; they are not dangerous in themselves and there is nothing we can do to prevent them. We put ourselves in danger either by living in earthquake prone regions or building houses , factories and office blocks which are unable to withstand the shock. We are of course taking a risk by living in an earthquake zone but this risk can be mitigated by good construction standards. It would be possible to make concrete buildings which are completely earthquake proof but this would probably be prohibitively expensive. So there is always some risk so, therefore, each individual most assess that risk and take responsibility for any decision that he makes about where he chooses to live. This is not to say that we should not have sympathy for anyone killed or injured by an earthquake - even if they have taken that risk. The same would apply for mountaineers who are killed in accidents or soldiers who are killed in battle. We all take risks in our lives, I decided that the risk of using the underground railway in Tokyo was worth taking. Some people are forced to live in earthquake zones and have no choice about where they live for economic reasons; this is why the international community should help them.

Tsunami are a different matter they are more unpredictable and often cause much more damage than the earthquakes which initially drive them. They also cause damage at a much greater distance. We can protect ourselves from danger by living on higher ground and further from the coast and even more strenuous building standards. Once again people in poorer countries may not have the choice to relocate so this is why Tsunami warning centres must be maintained in all areas at risk.

We should be more realistic when making risks assessments , how many times have we been told by the authorities and scientists that a particular disaster is one in a thousand year event or is of unprecedented strength. The scientists, engineers and government of Japan got it wrong. Was it wise to build nuclear power stations so near to the coast? Were the defences against an earthquake and Tsunami sufficient? Should a major city and financial centre be built on an actual fault line? If a really major earthquake were to hit Tokyo directly the casualties resulting from a Tsunami could be colossal. The financial implications for the whole planet could be dire. It is time to act now to improve the protection for the megalopolis surrounding Tokyo. There is scientific evidence that one major earthquake can spark off major earthquakes within the vicinity in short order.

The recent earthquake which has sparked off the Fukushima nuclear power station crisis has once again raised the "green" issue of nuclear power stations. I still believe that nuclear power should be consider as an option to solve the possible crisis related to global warming by the use of fossil fuels. But we need a complete review of construction standards and the risks and contingency for the safe operation of Nuclear power stations. Above all we should re-consider where we have situated these stations and consider decommissioning those plants we have been built in zones which have a high risk of flooding from Tsunamis or damage from earthquakes.

All of us should be aware of the risks and I am amazed that unprotected houses are still being built on flood plains and that meteorologists still tell us that a flood or storm is a once in a thousand year event only to be followed by a similar natural disaster one year later. All of us should be sceptical.

I can remember the fear of the fallout from atmospheric nuclear bomb tests, we were assured by governments that this was not dangerous. Wisely, our governments then decided to negotiate nuclear test ban treaties and for once they assessed the risks correctly and decided that the risks were not worth the consequences.

We need to do the same today, when we conduct our daily lives, are the risks worth the consequences?

Cloud technology

I read a newspaper article the other day where the author was contemplating uploading his entire music collection onto a "cloud" server which would enable him to download and play his music anywhere. The "cloud" would store his uploaded Mp3 files and allow him to play back the music on a PC or 'phone anywhere in the world provided he could obtain a broadband or telecoms link. He was a self confessed technophobe and believed that the 35 GB of stored music on his PC hard disk slowed down his computer. He did not even know how to find the music. He believed that the "cloud" would enable him to back up his music files. He had dispatched his Cd collection to the attic. I presume that he had ripped the Cd's himself onto MP3 files. The "cloud" provider was going to give the first 5 GB of storage free and charge for the rest. I am sceptical about a number of points related to storing and playing music in this way and the quality of the playback. Whenever I travel for business I always carry a PC with me. I have 8 GB of music stored on the hard disk on MP3 files ripped from the original Cd's which I have bought in the traditional manner. I have also bought some MP3 files of music from Amazon. 8 GB of storage hardly uses up any space on my PC and I see no need to pay for back up space on a "cloud". All the MP3 music is sampled at 256 KB per second and sounds good good when played through my HiFi at home but on a PC or "IPlayer" it does not sound so good, owing to the lower quality of the sound cards, PC speakers or headphones. In many hotels you have to pay for the privilege of using their WiFi and there is often substantial cost when you use a portable telephone to connect to the Internet when you are abroad. I can't stand to listen to music for long over a PC or through an "IPlayer" type device so why pay for the privilege? For me it is better to store the music on my own device. If you are determined to listen to music over the Internet while at home or abroad , then why not use a service such as "Spotify" you can play music stored on its servers for free if you are prepared to accept the odd advert. If you subscribe, it is advert free and the cost of the subscription is offset by the cost of not having to pay for the "cloud". "Spotify" has an enormous selection of music and you can create your own play lists. It is a really good commercial idea although I do not take advantage of it myself. What is wrong with a CD; the quality of the music is better than MP3 recordings which compress the music? MP3 recordings lose a lot of information and you need to use very good ripping software to achieve good quality results. Home ripped MP3 files do not sound so good when played through good HiFi equipment compared to CDs. If you luse lower bit rates than 192 KB per second you can notice the difference even with simple pop music. The same principle applies to music played over Digital radio or Internet radio; the same music does not sound as good as an FM broadcast. If you want to listen to HiFi quality music at home then a CD, a Vinyl LP or FM broadcast is the best way to do it. You will not be able to do this via MP3 files, Digital radio or Internet radio. We are in danger of losing the physical media to reproduce HiFi quality music. MP3 files and Digital radio etc are unable to do this because of the limitations of bandwidth and storage restrictions. Not everything from the past is bad and not everything from the present or future is better regarding technology. I am not a Luddite as I gave up taking film photographs years ago. And my vinyl LP's have been dispatched to the attic, I could not stand the crackle and pop and the need to constantly clean the records. If you want to enjoy HiFi then listen to a CD or FM broadcast and put your feet up equidistant between a good pair of speakers. If you travel a lot you will have to put up with something less but at least technology will allow you to take an important part of your life on the road with you.

Confirmation of my scepticism of Facebook and Twitter

The recent developments in Libya only confirm my view that you cannot organise a revolution, solely, using Facebook, Twitter and portable 'phones etc. The existing regime is becoming very difficult to dislodge despite Nato air raids, armed insurrection, trade and economic sanctions and diplomatic pressure. A well armed and determined regime is able to resist enormous pressure and it is completely naive to suggest that Facebook and Twitter software can be used to overthrow a government. The Television and Press should know better to give the impression that a popular movement only needs to use these modern tools to overthrow dictators. It will be interesting to see what the outcome will be for Libya but one is certain, if the regime is overthrown it will not be because of Facebook or Twitter.

Libya

Further to my previous post, the Libyan people were not able to to make use of technology to the same extent as the Egyptians. It is apparent thay they were still able to stage a revolution and an uprising. This is testament to their courage and ability to organise themselves on the street. The willingness of the outgoing regime to use force against its own people is making the task that much more difficult. Hopefully the Libyan people who are tired of being repressed by dictatorship will succeed to create a freer and fairer society. I wish them success with or without social network sites.

Internet Revolution -Cairo

Having spent a considerable amount of time in Cairo working with the Egyptian people, I feel confident that they will be able to to work together to achieve a plural and secular democracy which takes into account the wishes of all the people whether they are religious or not , whether they are Muslim or Christian.

The news media have once again emphasised the role that the Internet and social network sites
have played in organising the revolution or uprising. In my view they have exaggerated this role.
Obviously, social network media have improved communication between the protestors but the role of the Internet should not be overstated. One million people meeting on a social network site does not constitute a revolution: a revolution cannot be achieved within virtual reality.

If the news media are to be believed the Egyptian uprising could not have succeeded without the Internet. This is nonsense.

The success of the uprising was mainly the result of two factors. The first was the fact that the Egyptian people were able to overcome their fear and mobilise physical demonstrations of hundreds of thousands of people. The second factor was the unwillingness of a well organised Army to act violently against its own people.

When counter revolutionary forces attacked the demonstrators with actual weapons the demonstrators had to protect themselves with barricades and stones and warning signs of attack were drummed out by sticks against iron railings. In this situation social network sites, Ipods , SMS texts and portable 'phones were useless; good old fashioned human confrontation was the order of the day.

We should learn from history that most revolutions were organised by word of mouth and pamphleteers and above all by the bravery of the dissidents. Even the American Revolution or struggle for independence was organised along these lines. Another lesson we should learn from history is that one despot can be replaced easily by another;but in the case of Egypt I believe that they will be able organise a free society which will benefit their country and their region.

A strong independent and democratic Egypt may well lead to a solution of many of the problems of the Middle East including eventual rapprochement between the Israelis and Palestinians - time will tell.

We should not exaggerate the influence of technology on social change; it is face to face contact and communication and above all courage in the real world that effects change. The Internet is no more important as an agent of change than a stone, a barricade or a gun.

Dark skies

The Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) is campaigning to reduce light pollution. Last week my wife and I went out after dark to see how many stars we could observe within the constellation of Orion - but not counting the major stars which make up the corner of the box. On a very clear night we could count just seven. This is shameful. We are located right at the edge of London in the borough of Bromley. We are not avid astronomers and do not get up in the early hours of the morning to peer through a telescope but we do love to see the stars and the constellations.

The CPRE and Astronomical organisations have come up with a number of reasons why we should have dark skies citing the waste of energy as one of them. For me, however, there is only one compelling reason - which is the sheer beauty of the night sky when seen from a very dark location.

During the Christmas period of 1999, whilst on a trip to France, there was a major power cut which turned off the lights over a vast area of the North. The view of the night sky was incredible; we found it difficult to identify the constellations as there were too many stars. There were thousands. From our location in London we can probably only see a couple of hundred stars.

You may well ask what difference does it make whether you can see the stars or not. The stars are our connexion with the rest of the galaxy. The more that you can appreciate the night sky the more you can appreciate the astronomical forces which dictate our life on earth.

There are more than two hundred billion stars in our own galaxy, the Milky Way, and only the most bright are visible and identifiable from earth. It is possible, however, to see the faint luminous band which comprises the rest of the Milky Way from a dark location. This is impossible from a light polluted location such as Bromley.

Our solar system is the only one in the whole galaxy which is proven to support life. Our planet is the only planet which is known to support intelligent life. It will be extremely difficult to for us to travel to another planet let alone the nearest neighbouring star which is trillions of kilometres away.

We should look after our planet it may not be possible to get to another one that can support life.

That is why we need dark skies to appreciate our galaxy and our place in it.


http://www.cpre.org.uk/campaigns/landscape/light-pollution/start-count-week-2011?gclid=CKa6n4a39qYCFQZO4QodjjZmGg

Insects and other bugs

Last Friday Michael McCarthy wrote this article in the "Independent" - Nature Studies by Michael McCarthy: The 21st century bodes ill for non-human species it is well worth reading it. could not agree with him more. It is important to maintain the health of our environment in general. Insects not only provide for the pollination of plants but also the provision of a healthy and fertile soil. Of course some insects attack our crops and spread diseases but in the main they make a major contribution to a healthy environment and the balance of nature which makes the whole earth suitable for life . The same can be said of all the other plants and animals which live on our planet. We humans have evolved to live on a planet which has a wide diversity of plant and animal life. Can we be certain to survive if the diversity of life and the health of our environment is compromised by our own actions? Is it not in our own self-interest to maintain a healthy ecosystem?

The destruction of other species which share our planet may prove to be a bigger danger to our survival than climate change.

Age

After a long time on the road running a project Sceptic'sJaw is back in business.
I was glad to see that a televison presenter won her case after being sacked because she was too old at age 53. It is the content of the television programme that matters not the age of the presenter. Since when is content improved when it is presented by someone young?