So it is official your exam performance is more related to the performance of your genes than environmental factor such are teaching and culture etc. Intelligence is based on genes rather than how well you have been brought up or cared for. Where is the proof of this? There is none.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/nature-trumps-nurture-in-exam-success-gcse-results-mainly-determined-by-genes-says-landmark-study-of-twins-8998782.html
Why do we have to keep on returning to the gene versus nature argument? It is obvious , that with regard to the human species as a whole, that genes have conferred on us a bigger and more complex brain per kilogramme of body weight than any other mammal. It is obvious that a human being is more intelligent than a dog or chimpanzee.
It is not so obvious when comparing one human with another. Intelligence tests are simply bad science. We have no independent variable to test against as there is no other being which has any form of related intelligence by which a standard can be set.
IQ tests are conducted by comparing an individual subject against a community which that subject is a already a member of. There is no independent variable, so IQ tests are bogus.
If genes were in control of how well a subject does in a test then please tell me how well a English child would do in the Japanese "O" level equivalent? He would probably fail especially if he could not speak Japanese.
Where are the genes for intelligence and learning and who has identified them? Where are the genes for criminality for that matter? So Mother Nature invented a gene for "O"levels did she?
Whenever I see reports that intelligence and learning or success are based on superior genes I think of political correctness but not of the left wing variety. The elite are superior because God or Nature or both gave them better genes. And, because of this they deserve all the power and money. This is baloney.
Whatever next:: are we going to go back to the failed theories of Eugenics and racial superiority? White men, of course, being chosen to mate with white women provided their Mensa scores are above 140 or whatever.
I would like to see what a set of European academic geniuses would do if they were dumped onto a boat in the middle of the Pacific ocean without a "satnav", a compass, a map, a sextant or a watch or clock. Would they be able to navigate to the nearest island to save themselves like the Polynesian explorers of yesteryear?
The Polynesians did not have a gene for navigation; they learnt how to travel thousands of miles across the oceans, without mechanical aids, from a body of knowledge passed down through the generations. White men could do this too but only if they could learn how.
Let us forget about the better and the good being more intelligent and superior to lesser mortals.
The better and the good invented: Thermonuclear bombs, Eugenics, Nerve gases, Biological warfare, Racism, Slavery, the Holocaust etc. but some of them had the intelligence to regret what they did but most of them didn't. The real great and good had the intelligence and learning not get involved in any of this in the first place.
I wonder if Jesus Christ, Ghandi and Nelson Mandela got "A" passes in their GCSE?
Friday, 13 December 2013
Friday, 15 November 2013
14% African ancestry indeed
There has been a lot of press reporting about a so called white supremacist submitting himself to a DNA test on the "Trisha Goddard" show in the US. Supposedly, he found out that he was in fact of 14% African ancestry. What does that mean? This statistic is completely wrong. All the evidence suggests that Homo Sapiens originated in Africa. We are all of 100% African ancestry. Every living person can trace their ancestry back to a mother and father somewhere in Africa. All Americans are African Americans and All Europeans are African Europeans despite their skin colour.
There is no such thing as a completely "white" person or a completely "black" person or a "yellow" person. All of us have melanin in our skin and it is an accident of genetic mutation and subsequent evolution that European people became lighter skinned than their African fore fathers and mothers. The terms "white" and "black" are simply labels of convenience as they have no real deep meaning.
To distinguish between people and call them members of different races on the basis of skin colour is irrational, illogical and ignorant.
We are all members of the same race: Homo Sapiens Sapiens. There are some grounds for believing that another "race" of mankind did once exist. There is evidence that the Neanderthals interbred with our ancestors to produce viable offspring, so the Neanderthal is most likely to be another subspecies or "race" of human namely, Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis. However, the morphological features of the Neanderthal man all fall within the range of modern man, but of course in different combinations, so we may not be a different "race" to the Neanderthal man after all.
To complicate the issue further there is strong evidence that both Neanderthals and modern humans interbred with the newly discovered Denisovan man. So there may have been another "race" of man on the planet in recent times. The Denisovan and Neanderthal subspecies or "races" have died out to leave just one subspecies of man or "race" on the planet: Homo Sapiens Sapiens or all of us.
It might do "racists" some good to read books about anthropology rather than appear on or watch shows such as the Trisha Goddard one.
There is no such thing as a completely "white" person or a completely "black" person or a "yellow" person. All of us have melanin in our skin and it is an accident of genetic mutation and subsequent evolution that European people became lighter skinned than their African fore fathers and mothers. The terms "white" and "black" are simply labels of convenience as they have no real deep meaning.
To distinguish between people and call them members of different races on the basis of skin colour is irrational, illogical and ignorant.
We are all members of the same race: Homo Sapiens Sapiens. There are some grounds for believing that another "race" of mankind did once exist. There is evidence that the Neanderthals interbred with our ancestors to produce viable offspring, so the Neanderthal is most likely to be another subspecies or "race" of human namely, Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis. However, the morphological features of the Neanderthal man all fall within the range of modern man, but of course in different combinations, so we may not be a different "race" to the Neanderthal man after all.
To complicate the issue further there is strong evidence that both Neanderthals and modern humans interbred with the newly discovered Denisovan man. So there may have been another "race" of man on the planet in recent times. The Denisovan and Neanderthal subspecies or "races" have died out to leave just one subspecies of man or "race" on the planet: Homo Sapiens Sapiens or all of us.
It might do "racists" some good to read books about anthropology rather than appear on or watch shows such as the Trisha Goddard one.
Tuesday, 22 October 2013
You are what you do, not what you say; so do it like the "space monkey".
Why are we becoming so sensitive about what everyone says rather that what everyone does? There have been three classic examples in the press recently.
1) The "slutgate" affair and the UK Independence Party (UKIP)
UKIP's Godfrey Bloom was accused of insulting an audience of (mainly) women when he called women who did not clean behind the refrigerator "sluts". One of the ladies took exception even though he was only joking. He was subsequently told that he could no longer represent UKIP as an MEP.
I do not support Mr Bloom's policies and never will. However, I do support his right to make fair comment and make a joke. Mr Bloom quoted the Shorter Oxford Dictionary. The first entry for the word slut is " a women of slovenly habits or appearance or a kitchen maid or a drudge". The second entry is "a sexually promiscuous woman".
I am prepared to accept that Bloom meant the former. Why should he be traduced for using the word "slut"?
The person or people who complained were obviously ignorant of all the meanings of the word. It would have been better if they had looked up the Shorter Oxford Dictionary before creating a furore.
Why not give him the benefit of the doubt even if you do not like him or his policies?
I accept that Bloom's comments about "Bongo Bongo" land were ill judged and should not have been made.
He has also made other ill judged remarks about the employment of young women. So, if you do not like him don't vote for him.
The best way of resolving issues about Mr Bloom are at the ballot box rather than creating a silly furore about his use of language.
http:wwwhuffingtonpostcouk20130928ukipsgodfreybloomhits_n_4007325html
2) The "plebgate" affair
Ten years ago a Government Minister could swear unjustifiably at a policeman and then apologise and the matter would then be dropped. The policeman would have accepted that the language used was uttered on the spur of the moment.
Policemen are sworn at and insulted much more on the streets by drunkards and petty criminals.
Andrew Mitchell, the government minister involved ,was forced to resign for using naughty words. This is completely ridiculous.
The senior management of the police have got themselves in a lot of hot water for refusing to accept Mitchell's explanation of what he said.
I am sure that all the parties involved in the affair would have preferred it if the matter had been dropped after the initial apology. Andrew Mitchell had not been violent and he had done nothing wrong other than use a few impolite words. You are what you do, not what you say.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/policing-reform-needed-plebgate-affair-2464082
3) The "spacemonkeygate" affair
It is difficult enough to be the manager of the England football team at the best of times without being accused of racism. The "space monkey" phrase came from the initial era of American space travel. Instead of sending dogs into space before humans, like the Russians, the Americans sent chimpanzees, Ham and Enos, into space first. During Project Mercury this prompted the joke about the astronauts being sent into space only to feed the "monkey" who was doing all the real work.
Roy Hodgson is not a racist and once again he is the victim of ignorance. No one took offence about what he said and the comment should not have been leaked to the press. There should have been no investigation and no one should have even mooted an investigation. The matter should have been dropped. Hodgson was only joking.
There is no such thing as different races of human beings as we are all members of the same race - homo sapiens sapiens. It is completely ignorant to claim that there are different races of human being. To differentiate human beings on the basis of skin colour is also ignorant and unjustified by the facts.
Let's forget about race in this context and treat all men and women as being equals and with equal respect. This is what Roy Hodgson, who is a decent and intelligent man, does; he puts his beliefs into action.
When Project Mercury was in progress the astronaut corps members were all white men. There were no black astronauts selected and women were not selected either. Quite rightly, NASA was criticised at the time for their selection criteria. It was wrong to exclude both black men and all women. NASA subsequently corrected this.
The subject of the astronautical joke took the "space monkey" comment as being rather a compliment. It implied that the he was rather special and should be fed the ball.
Once again, you are what you do, not what you say. Let there be shame on those who misconstrued the joke and blew a little piece of humour and humanity out of all proportion and into a racist incident.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/england/10388833/Andros-Townsend-defends-England-manager-Roy-Hodgson-saying-space-monkey-joke-a-compliment.html
I find it very irritating, when dining with my wife, to be called "guys". If I am dining alone no one calls me "guy", and I get funny looks from the waiter if I call him Guy in return. My wife hates being called "guys". The use of this word is irritating; what is wrong with using the word "folks"?
I looked up " guy" in the Shorter Oxford Dictionary and apart from meaning 3 being defined as "a man or fellow" in the singular or "people" in the plural and chiefly North American; it also means "a person of grotesque appearance" or "an effigy of a man about to be burnt on Guy Fawkes night".
When the waiter calls me and my wife "guys", he does not intend to call us "people of grotesque appearance" or burn us. He is just trying to be friendly. It is my wife and I who interpret it as being irritating. However, we are not offended and usually see the funny side of it especially when I ask the waiter "how did you know my name was Guy?" This joke is usually lost on waiters, just like the "space monkey"" joke was lost on the media and the watchdogs.
It is a pity that everyone takes themselves too seriously especially with regard to jokes, the way you are greeted or even the way you are sworn at.
Let us reserve our ire for those who are truly offensive and advocate violence against others - even with polite words.
You are what you do, not what you say ;so three cheers for the "space monkey" , he was very clever even if he was really a chimpanzee.
1) The "slutgate" affair and the UK Independence Party (UKIP)
UKIP's Godfrey Bloom was accused of insulting an audience of (mainly) women when he called women who did not clean behind the refrigerator "sluts". One of the ladies took exception even though he was only joking. He was subsequently told that he could no longer represent UKIP as an MEP.
I do not support Mr Bloom's policies and never will. However, I do support his right to make fair comment and make a joke. Mr Bloom quoted the Shorter Oxford Dictionary. The first entry for the word slut is " a women of slovenly habits or appearance or a kitchen maid or a drudge". The second entry is "a sexually promiscuous woman".
I am prepared to accept that Bloom meant the former. Why should he be traduced for using the word "slut"?
The person or people who complained were obviously ignorant of all the meanings of the word. It would have been better if they had looked up the Shorter Oxford Dictionary before creating a furore.
Why not give him the benefit of the doubt even if you do not like him or his policies?
I accept that Bloom's comments about "Bongo Bongo" land were ill judged and should not have been made.
He has also made other ill judged remarks about the employment of young women. So, if you do not like him don't vote for him.
The best way of resolving issues about Mr Bloom are at the ballot box rather than creating a silly furore about his use of language.
http:wwwhuffingtonpostcouk20130928ukipsgodfreybloomhits_n_4007325html
2) The "plebgate" affair
Ten years ago a Government Minister could swear unjustifiably at a policeman and then apologise and the matter would then be dropped. The policeman would have accepted that the language used was uttered on the spur of the moment.
Policemen are sworn at and insulted much more on the streets by drunkards and petty criminals.
Andrew Mitchell, the government minister involved ,was forced to resign for using naughty words. This is completely ridiculous.
The senior management of the police have got themselves in a lot of hot water for refusing to accept Mitchell's explanation of what he said.
I am sure that all the parties involved in the affair would have preferred it if the matter had been dropped after the initial apology. Andrew Mitchell had not been violent and he had done nothing wrong other than use a few impolite words. You are what you do, not what you say.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/policing-reform-needed-plebgate-affair-2464082
3) The "spacemonkeygate" affair
It is difficult enough to be the manager of the England football team at the best of times without being accused of racism. The "space monkey" phrase came from the initial era of American space travel. Instead of sending dogs into space before humans, like the Russians, the Americans sent chimpanzees, Ham and Enos, into space first. During Project Mercury this prompted the joke about the astronauts being sent into space only to feed the "monkey" who was doing all the real work.
Roy Hodgson is not a racist and once again he is the victim of ignorance. No one took offence about what he said and the comment should not have been leaked to the press. There should have been no investigation and no one should have even mooted an investigation. The matter should have been dropped. Hodgson was only joking.
There is no such thing as different races of human beings as we are all members of the same race - homo sapiens sapiens. It is completely ignorant to claim that there are different races of human being. To differentiate human beings on the basis of skin colour is also ignorant and unjustified by the facts.
Let's forget about race in this context and treat all men and women as being equals and with equal respect. This is what Roy Hodgson, who is a decent and intelligent man, does; he puts his beliefs into action.
When Project Mercury was in progress the astronaut corps members were all white men. There were no black astronauts selected and women were not selected either. Quite rightly, NASA was criticised at the time for their selection criteria. It was wrong to exclude both black men and all women. NASA subsequently corrected this.
The subject of the astronautical joke took the "space monkey" comment as being rather a compliment. It implied that the he was rather special and should be fed the ball.
Once again, you are what you do, not what you say. Let there be shame on those who misconstrued the joke and blew a little piece of humour and humanity out of all proportion and into a racist incident.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/england/10388833/Andros-Townsend-defends-England-manager-Roy-Hodgson-saying-space-monkey-joke-a-compliment.html
I find it very irritating, when dining with my wife, to be called "guys". If I am dining alone no one calls me "guy", and I get funny looks from the waiter if I call him Guy in return. My wife hates being called "guys". The use of this word is irritating; what is wrong with using the word "folks"?
I looked up " guy" in the Shorter Oxford Dictionary and apart from meaning 3 being defined as "a man or fellow" in the singular or "people" in the plural and chiefly North American; it also means "a person of grotesque appearance" or "an effigy of a man about to be burnt on Guy Fawkes night".
When the waiter calls me and my wife "guys", he does not intend to call us "people of grotesque appearance" or burn us. He is just trying to be friendly. It is my wife and I who interpret it as being irritating. However, we are not offended and usually see the funny side of it especially when I ask the waiter "how did you know my name was Guy?" This joke is usually lost on waiters, just like the "space monkey"" joke was lost on the media and the watchdogs.
It is a pity that everyone takes themselves too seriously especially with regard to jokes, the way you are greeted or even the way you are sworn at.
Let us reserve our ire for those who are truly offensive and advocate violence against others - even with polite words.
You are what you do, not what you say ;so three cheers for the "space monkey" , he was very clever even if he was really a chimpanzee.
Badger Cull in the UK
The badgers have won. They have outsmarted the human beings and refused to roll over and allow themselves to be shot. It is now time to stop the the cull and put the guns away.
The tuberculosis bacteria has also won. A small proportion of badgers that were infected with bovine TB have probably run away from the cull site to spread the infection elsewhere - the scientists call this perturbation. Other species which carry bovine TB bacteria might have done this too.
It is now time to re-assess why bovine TB has got into the population of wild animals and the mechanism of its spread amongst cattle.
If badgers were economically important a cull would never have been contemplated in the first place it seems that money is the only driving force.
Alternative solutions are required. The vaccination of wild animals could help prevent the spread. There is also a need to improve cattle husbandry. Improved bio -security on farms and when transporting cattle will also help.
Luckily no-one was hurt as a result of the cull. No protestor was accidentally shot and no farmers seem to have been attacked by animal rights activists.
http://www.thisisgloucestershire.co.uk/Martin-Horwood-Cheltenham-MP-run-badger-cull/story-19964792-detail/story.html#axzz2iReDSCEa
The tuberculosis bacteria has also won. A small proportion of badgers that were infected with bovine TB have probably run away from the cull site to spread the infection elsewhere - the scientists call this perturbation. Other species which carry bovine TB bacteria might have done this too.
It is now time to re-assess why bovine TB has got into the population of wild animals and the mechanism of its spread amongst cattle.
If badgers were economically important a cull would never have been contemplated in the first place it seems that money is the only driving force.
Alternative solutions are required. The vaccination of wild animals could help prevent the spread. There is also a need to improve cattle husbandry. Improved bio -security on farms and when transporting cattle will also help.
Luckily no-one was hurt as a result of the cull. No protestor was accidentally shot and no farmers seem to have been attacked by animal rights activists.
http://www.thisisgloucestershire.co.uk/Martin-Horwood-Cheltenham-MP-run-badger-cull/story-19964792-detail/story.html#axzz2iReDSCEa
Tuesday, 15 October 2013
US Debt Ceiling
It is to be hoped that negotiations to settle the US debt ceiling will be resolved before the so called October 17th deadline. There is no doubt the US Treasury will be able to carry on settling the country's debts beyond the deadline.
There is a danger that panic could set into the markets at anytime leading up to the deadline and afterwards. If the impasse continues who knows what would happen? All the domestic and international financial markets need to be confident that the US will settle its debts. The US President might order the Treasury to settle all essential debts even if it means breaching the debt ceiling.
What would happen ,however, if the Government failed to pay social security checks or fail to pay its soldiers? Many thousands of other American citizens and small businesses are set to suffer if a deal is not reached.
A protracted impasse could lead to chaos in both the financial markets and the social arena.
The financial system might become ruined by inflation and ever increasing interest rates.
Some people of both the extreme right and the extreme left could be wishing for this as a type of catharsis which would lead to a new world order of the left or the right. I ask them to think again; the last think to wish for would be violence on the streets of America this would have far reaching consequences beyond the USA borders.
It is time for the politicians to stop playing with fire. Of course it is desirable for governments to run their societies without massive debt ceilings, but the debt ceiling needs to be managed downwards by careful negotiation about future spending and revenue collection and the growth of the economy. This has to be done slowly but not precipitously by denying the settlement of existing obligations . All nations have a lesson to learn here.
There is a danger that panic could set into the markets at anytime leading up to the deadline and afterwards. If the impasse continues who knows what would happen? All the domestic and international financial markets need to be confident that the US will settle its debts. The US President might order the Treasury to settle all essential debts even if it means breaching the debt ceiling.
What would happen ,however, if the Government failed to pay social security checks or fail to pay its soldiers? Many thousands of other American citizens and small businesses are set to suffer if a deal is not reached.
A protracted impasse could lead to chaos in both the financial markets and the social arena.
The financial system might become ruined by inflation and ever increasing interest rates.
Some people of both the extreme right and the extreme left could be wishing for this as a type of catharsis which would lead to a new world order of the left or the right. I ask them to think again; the last think to wish for would be violence on the streets of America this would have far reaching consequences beyond the USA borders.
It is time for the politicians to stop playing with fire. Of course it is desirable for governments to run their societies without massive debt ceilings, but the debt ceiling needs to be managed downwards by careful negotiation about future spending and revenue collection and the growth of the economy. This has to be done slowly but not precipitously by denying the settlement of existing obligations . All nations have a lesson to learn here.
Friday, 11 October 2013
Greenpeace and the Russian Oil Platform
The Greenpeace Activists and other members of their party who have been arrested whilst protesting against the Gazprom Prirazlomnaya rig are in for a very tough time. I wonder if the directors of Greenpeace were fully aware of what would be the consequence of their action and did they fully advise all members of their ship's party of the risks involved?
The oil rig may be in international waters but it is very close to the the Russian mainland but albeit in a very remote location. The Russian authorities obviously see Greenpeace as a threat to their national interests and their fuel strategy. They could have been expected to have acted very strongly when their oil rig was approached by the Arctic Sunrise ship. The attempt to board oil rig: was regarded as being illegal and it was resisted.
Perhaps, the Greenpeace activists on board knew what they were letting themselves in for but was the British journalist, who was not a member of Greenpeace, fully informed of what might happen? The journalist and his family must now be living in despair.
The detainees are claiming that they should be released under the convention of the law of the sea but I doubt that this will make much difference. The detainees could quite easily be charged and found guilty of piracy and end up in prison for a long time.
I hope that no one has entered into this form of high profile protest without knowing what could happen especially with regard to the risk to their own safety. Fire hoses were used to try to wash the boarders from their ropes. Shots were also fired at or near them by the Russian authorities.
In Western Europe, we have got used to our governments treating protesters with a rather light touch when compared to Russia and other states. In fact, in Britain, the police will quite often defend the right to make peaceful protest. We cannot expect liberal values to prevail in every other state; protesters should therefore act accordingly and look after their own safety as no one else will do it for them.
Of course the protesters should be released immediately without charge; that would be the fair approach but can we expect the Russian authorities to do this? No: we cannot.
Greenpeace should be more careful about what it is doing, how it obtains publicity and how it exploits the idealism of its young activists. It should also pay attention to the safety of the journalists who work for them.
The end does not always justify the means.
Tuesday, 1 October 2013
Rapprochement with Iran
The sudden warming of relations with Iran is to be welcomed. We must at least listen to what they have to say. We can lose nothing from this. The people of Iran also deserve better too. They deserve a democratic and secular government that serves their best interests. The people of Iran are probably not interested in acquiring nuclear weapons or sponsoring extreme religious groups intent on attacking Israel.
Israel must listen too they can lose nothing from hearing what Iran has to say. There is no doubt, in my mind, that Iran wants to do a deal. However, I suspect that they will demand a quid pro quo. They will demand that Israel dismantles its nuclear weapons. In which case no deal will be struck. Lets hope this is not the case.
Israel will probably not give up its nuclear arsenal whilst its neighbours seek to destroy its very existence.
The key to a Middle East settlement lies in the hands of Israel's neighbours; they must stop trying to destroy the state of Israel which is the only homeland where Jews feel safe.
It is obvious from history that Jews must have a homeland where they are free from persecution and where they can defend themselves. They have been let down too many times by European nations which have failed miserably to guarantee their safety.
When the security aims of Israel are guaranteed by rapprochement with its neighbours it will be time for the United Nations to apply the pressure for a military withdrawal from the West Bank. This is the realpolitik situation which must be embraced by Jews, Arabs and Persians alike. Rapprochement should then lead to the dismantling of nuclear weapons and their removal from the Middle East.
The hatred on both sides must stop. Small steps are being taken with Syria and by Iran but Israel must also show that some small steps can be taken too. Any resolution depends on a quid pro quo.
Peace should be the ultimate objective and there is no reason why a Middle East commonwealth could not be established afterwards. This will allow for the return of Palestinians to their natural homeland and will allow Jews to become legitimate and protected residents, but not masters, in the West Bank and beyond.
If their is no ambition for the peace and security for all the people of the Middle East then there is no hope.
Israel must listen too they can lose nothing from hearing what Iran has to say. There is no doubt, in my mind, that Iran wants to do a deal. However, I suspect that they will demand a quid pro quo. They will demand that Israel dismantles its nuclear weapons. In which case no deal will be struck. Lets hope this is not the case.
Israel will probably not give up its nuclear arsenal whilst its neighbours seek to destroy its very existence.
The key to a Middle East settlement lies in the hands of Israel's neighbours; they must stop trying to destroy the state of Israel which is the only homeland where Jews feel safe.
It is obvious from history that Jews must have a homeland where they are free from persecution and where they can defend themselves. They have been let down too many times by European nations which have failed miserably to guarantee their safety.
When the security aims of Israel are guaranteed by rapprochement with its neighbours it will be time for the United Nations to apply the pressure for a military withdrawal from the West Bank. This is the realpolitik situation which must be embraced by Jews, Arabs and Persians alike. Rapprochement should then lead to the dismantling of nuclear weapons and their removal from the Middle East.
The hatred on both sides must stop. Small steps are being taken with Syria and by Iran but Israel must also show that some small steps can be taken too. Any resolution depends on a quid pro quo.
Peace should be the ultimate objective and there is no reason why a Middle East commonwealth could not be established afterwards. This will allow for the return of Palestinians to their natural homeland and will allow Jews to become legitimate and protected residents, but not masters, in the West Bank and beyond.
If their is no ambition for the peace and security for all the people of the Middle East then there is no hope.
Wednesday, 25 September 2013
Climate Change Again
The IPCC is due to report again shortly and I await to hear its pronouncements.
The British public are becoming increasingly sceptical about anthropogenic global warming and climate change. This is because there are reports in the newspapers that atmospheric global warming has slowed down considerably or that it has even stopped despite the fact that this last decade has been the warmest on record.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-week/leading-article/9027511/a-climate-glasnost/#comments
The fact is the reverse is true and the planet as a whole is still warming up. The oceans are storing heat at an increasing rate. If you do not believe this then read this paper.
http://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/1/2/76
Let the deniers prove their case.
I am old enough to know that the seasons have changed and from my own personal experience on average it feels much warmer now than it did in the 1950s and 1960s. From the latter part of the 20th century spring has been starting earlier and the summers are warmer.
The fact of the matter is that increasing amounts of greenhouses gases in the atmosphere warm up the planet. Science has known this since the middle of the 19th century. The same is true for other planets with Venus being a classic example.
We live on the Earth by pure chance but because we are humans it does not mean that we are immune to the laws of physics - we are not special and no one is watching out for us.
In the UK we have been lucky; the people of Newtok in Alaska have a different story to tell. Their village is being destroyed by rising water levels and climate change.
http://www.npr.org/2013/05/18/185068648/impossible-choice-faces-americas-first-climate-refugees
We need to start action now. What sort of world do we want to leave to our children and grandchildren?
The British public are becoming increasingly sceptical about anthropogenic global warming and climate change. This is because there are reports in the newspapers that atmospheric global warming has slowed down considerably or that it has even stopped despite the fact that this last decade has been the warmest on record.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-week/leading-article/9027511/a-climate-glasnost/#comments
The fact is the reverse is true and the planet as a whole is still warming up. The oceans are storing heat at an increasing rate. If you do not believe this then read this paper.
http://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/1/2/76
Let the deniers prove their case.
I am old enough to know that the seasons have changed and from my own personal experience on average it feels much warmer now than it did in the 1950s and 1960s. From the latter part of the 20th century spring has been starting earlier and the summers are warmer.
The fact of the matter is that increasing amounts of greenhouses gases in the atmosphere warm up the planet. Science has known this since the middle of the 19th century. The same is true for other planets with Venus being a classic example.
We live on the Earth by pure chance but because we are humans it does not mean that we are immune to the laws of physics - we are not special and no one is watching out for us.
In the UK we have been lucky; the people of Newtok in Alaska have a different story to tell. Their village is being destroyed by rising water levels and climate change.
http://www.npr.org/2013/05/18/185068648/impossible-choice-faces-americas-first-climate-refugees
We need to start action now. What sort of world do we want to leave to our children and grandchildren?
Monday, 16 September 2013
Peace in Syria and the Middle East - Is it too much to hope for?
John Kerry and Sergei Lavrov are to be congratulated in averting another crisis in the Middle East. It looks as though commonsense and diplomacy might work. When Russia and the US work together they become a powerful force to persuade warring states to come to the negotiating table. Let us hope that Syria will allow its chemical weapons to be destroyed and that they will sign the treaties banning the use of chemical weapons.
It is unlikely , however, that the killing in Syria will be stopped by this latest peace initiative. It will be exceptionally difficult to negotiate a peace treaty but the US and Russia need to try again. The war in Syria is horrific and the suffering of all its innocent people needs to be stopped.
There can by no shame or humiliation in negotiating a peace agreement. The decision by President Obama to walk the path of diplomacy is to be congratulated not condemned. Why should someone who is not prepared to use force be portrayed as an "isolationist"? I would prefer the word realist.
If a settlement can be concluded in Syria then there is hope for a settlement of the Israeli and Palestinian crisis.
Confidence building can only come from guaranteeing the Israeli state and its people to the right to live in peace. Some"realpolitik" on the side of Israel's opponents and enemies is required. Equally, Israel needs to apply some "realpolitik" to the confrontation so they should withdraw from their settlement of Palestinian territory by force. There should also be a settlement negotiated over Jerusalem.
The only institution that can impose this form of "realpolitik" on the two combatants is the UN supported by all security council members.
An Israeli and Palestinian solution should be ambitious and should involve the ultimate objective of merging the two states or if this is unacceptable to both parties, then the two states should head for a loose "confederation" for want of a better word.
This type of loose "confederation" was adopted by Britain and Ireland after Ireland became fully independent. It has been very successful for many decades and exists to this day.
British and Irish citizens are completely free to come and go within their respective countries, they can settle down and vote for parliamentary elections. In other words an Irish citizen living in Britain has most of the rights of an indigenous Briton and vice versa. Neither country sees any need to change a very satisfactory arrangement. Both countries are completely independent but act together in the common interest of their states and individual citizens.
It is time for Israelis and Palestinians to set aside their animosity and live alongside one another in peace and co-operation not war
Why not give the loose "confederation" idea a try? It is one way of assuring continuing peace.
It is unlikely , however, that the killing in Syria will be stopped by this latest peace initiative. It will be exceptionally difficult to negotiate a peace treaty but the US and Russia need to try again. The war in Syria is horrific and the suffering of all its innocent people needs to be stopped.
There can by no shame or humiliation in negotiating a peace agreement. The decision by President Obama to walk the path of diplomacy is to be congratulated not condemned. Why should someone who is not prepared to use force be portrayed as an "isolationist"? I would prefer the word realist.
If a settlement can be concluded in Syria then there is hope for a settlement of the Israeli and Palestinian crisis.
Confidence building can only come from guaranteeing the Israeli state and its people to the right to live in peace. Some"realpolitik" on the side of Israel's opponents and enemies is required. Equally, Israel needs to apply some "realpolitik" to the confrontation so they should withdraw from their settlement of Palestinian territory by force. There should also be a settlement negotiated over Jerusalem.
The only institution that can impose this form of "realpolitik" on the two combatants is the UN supported by all security council members.
An Israeli and Palestinian solution should be ambitious and should involve the ultimate objective of merging the two states or if this is unacceptable to both parties, then the two states should head for a loose "confederation" for want of a better word.
This type of loose "confederation" was adopted by Britain and Ireland after Ireland became fully independent. It has been very successful for many decades and exists to this day.
British and Irish citizens are completely free to come and go within their respective countries, they can settle down and vote for parliamentary elections. In other words an Irish citizen living in Britain has most of the rights of an indigenous Briton and vice versa. Neither country sees any need to change a very satisfactory arrangement. Both countries are completely independent but act together in the common interest of their states and individual citizens.
It is time for Israelis and Palestinians to set aside their animosity and live alongside one another in peace and co-operation not war
Why not give the loose "confederation" idea a try? It is one way of assuring continuing peace.
Thursday, 5 September 2013
Poor Old Badger
I have written about the misguided attempts to control bovine TB before. Killing the Badgers will not work.
If the farmers and the government want to eliminate TB why not look at animal husbandry first? Intensive farming is probably weakening the the immunity of our livestock.
We are also transporting cattle over long distances in the UK and this is an easy way to spread diseases.
Badgers are not the only animals that harbour bovine TB. It is also harboured by rats, rabbits and deer. Even if we wipe out every other sentient being in the countryside bovine TB will remain. What sort of solution is this?
It is time to take the cowboy boots off and replace them with wellingtons. It is time to stop shooting from the hip.
Culling badgers quite rightly upsets a lot of people. But to the protesters I say this - "let the culling go ahead as it will fail and some other rational solution will be have to be found". To attack the farmers involved in the culling is wrong and inhumane too and will not prevent the spread of bovine TB.
Unfortunately thousands of Badgers will have to sacrificed before commonsense prevails.
.
If the farmers and the government want to eliminate TB why not look at animal husbandry first? Intensive farming is probably weakening the the immunity of our livestock.
We are also transporting cattle over long distances in the UK and this is an easy way to spread diseases.
Badgers are not the only animals that harbour bovine TB. It is also harboured by rats, rabbits and deer. Even if we wipe out every other sentient being in the countryside bovine TB will remain. What sort of solution is this?
It is time to take the cowboy boots off and replace them with wellingtons. It is time to stop shooting from the hip.
Culling badgers quite rightly upsets a lot of people. But to the protesters I say this - "let the culling go ahead as it will fail and some other rational solution will be have to be found". To attack the farmers involved in the culling is wrong and inhumane too and will not prevent the spread of bovine TB.
Unfortunately thousands of Badgers will have to sacrificed before commonsense prevails.
.
Bombing Syria
I am really disappointed at the response of the Western Nations regarding the use of chemical weapons in Syria. Of course, using Sarin gas to bomb anyone is abhorrent. It is a war crime and those who have committed this crime should be brought to justice in the ICC.
The evidence to prove that the Assad regime has committed this crime is inconclusive and would probably not stand up in a properly constituted criminal court. We need to find more evidence and correctly identify the culprits.
It is, therefore, unwise to make punitive military strikes against Syria for a number of reasons:
According to the United Nations charter it is illegal to commit a first strike against another member state.
The military action contemplated by Western Nations requires the approval of the UN Security Council.
A limited military operation will not stop the civil war and the killing.
Military action could cause the conflict to spread into neighbouring nations.
There is no plan for the future or contingency plan for what happens if the war spreads other than more military action.
The military action will kill more innocents.
There are no peace negotiations taking place and negotiations have not been given a full chance to achieve results.
If Israel were to be attacked there would definitely be a new Middle Eastern war, as Israel is perfectly entitled to protect itself from bombing and the possible use of chemical weapons against its citizens.
The US and Israel are clearly aware of the dangers of military action against Syria because they have tested the air defence systems that would have to be deployed to meet possible attack by chemical weapons attached to rockets.
The situation is grave and the leaders of the Western world are right to consider all options to prevent chemical weapons from being used. But any measures taken must be effective and must not exacerbate the situation.
I believe that the UK Parliament was right to not to sanction military action against Syria. I feel that the authority of standing of our Prime Minister has not been diminished. He was right to refer the proposed military action to Parliament and he has had the courage to stand by its decision.
There is no doubt that our Prime Minister is a humane man and was troubled by the sight of the corpses of innocent civilians who had been gassed and he was right to consider all course of legal action to prevent such atrocities. I believe that Parliament considered the proposal purely upon its merits and debated the issue fairly. It was not an easy decision to make - one that rests lightly on the conscience of humane people.
It is very difficult to control what happens in a war. During the Second World War the allies were fully aware of the Holocaust but the full might of several powerful nations could not prevent the horrors. We should not forget this. Dictators are capable of committing the most horrendous war crimes; it is better not to allow them to gain power in the first place.
With further regard to Western intervention in the Middle East, we could do well to learn from history again. At the end of the Second World War it was relatively easy to establish democratic government in Western Germany. Why was this? Most of the German population did not vote for or approve of the actions of Hitler; the national guilt to a certain extent lives on.
The German people understood the culture of The US, UK and France and we understood them. Peace could be establish relatively quickly and Europe could progress, in the main, to peaceful co-existence. This process took a long time however and there is still work to be done.
The case of the Middle East is different. Western Nations do not fully understand Arab nations and they do not fully understand us. This is a fact of life. The Arab nations, also, cannot understand why the UK and France should have colonised them by force and decided where international boundaries should be drawn up without consulting the people affected by arbitrary decisions. The West cannot impose a solution. Let us learn from the Suez crisis about what can go wrong in the Middle East and not continue the same mistakes.
The Iraq wars have failed to secure the peace and the recent war in Libya has also failed to secure stable government.
At one time Saddam Hussein was supported by the Western powers who helped him to attack Iran. In the end he had to be removed - so why was he supported in the first place?
All in all, continuous Western intervention in Arab states has lead to further problems of our own making.
The Syria conflict could cause similar problems. The Assad government is unpalatable to the West but so is the possible alternative. If Assad is deposed then Isis backed "jihadists", who are the implacable enemies of the West, could take over. They are also the avowed enemies of Israel. The people of Syria are in the middle of all this, people who just want to live their lives in peace.
The US president is rightly concerned about the welfare of the Syrian people. But, any decision should be based on hard headed politics and diplomacy. Emotion alone will not solve a problem which requires wise and rational action. Why can diplomacy not be given a try? The Russians and Iran have influence over Assad and the Arab Nations and the West have some influence over the opposition. There is still time for diplomacy to work. It is time that all the warring parties were forced to the negotiating table.
The problems of Syria will take years to resolve and tragically the killing will continue. The Western Nations cannot solve the problems of Syria. The consent of the people of Syria and their neighbours is needed to find a solution. The authority of the United Nations is also needed. The tragedy and suffering of the Syrian people will continue despite any use of "limited air strikes".
I have been a big supporter of Barack Obama and his efforts to find peace but on this issue I believe that he is wrong. The standing of the US President and the American people will not be diminished by stalling military action against Syria. So the US should wait until the UN Security Council gives approval.
The evidence to prove that the Assad regime has committed this crime is inconclusive and would probably not stand up in a properly constituted criminal court. We need to find more evidence and correctly identify the culprits.
It is, therefore, unwise to make punitive military strikes against Syria for a number of reasons:
According to the United Nations charter it is illegal to commit a first strike against another member state.
The military action contemplated by Western Nations requires the approval of the UN Security Council.
A limited military operation will not stop the civil war and the killing.
Military action could cause the conflict to spread into neighbouring nations.
There is no plan for the future or contingency plan for what happens if the war spreads other than more military action.
The military action will kill more innocents.
There are no peace negotiations taking place and negotiations have not been given a full chance to achieve results.
If Israel were to be attacked there would definitely be a new Middle Eastern war, as Israel is perfectly entitled to protect itself from bombing and the possible use of chemical weapons against its citizens.
The US and Israel are clearly aware of the dangers of military action against Syria because they have tested the air defence systems that would have to be deployed to meet possible attack by chemical weapons attached to rockets.
The situation is grave and the leaders of the Western world are right to consider all options to prevent chemical weapons from being used. But any measures taken must be effective and must not exacerbate the situation.
I believe that the UK Parliament was right to not to sanction military action against Syria. I feel that the authority of standing of our Prime Minister has not been diminished. He was right to refer the proposed military action to Parliament and he has had the courage to stand by its decision.
There is no doubt that our Prime Minister is a humane man and was troubled by the sight of the corpses of innocent civilians who had been gassed and he was right to consider all course of legal action to prevent such atrocities. I believe that Parliament considered the proposal purely upon its merits and debated the issue fairly. It was not an easy decision to make - one that rests lightly on the conscience of humane people.
It is very difficult to control what happens in a war. During the Second World War the allies were fully aware of the Holocaust but the full might of several powerful nations could not prevent the horrors. We should not forget this. Dictators are capable of committing the most horrendous war crimes; it is better not to allow them to gain power in the first place.
With further regard to Western intervention in the Middle East, we could do well to learn from history again. At the end of the Second World War it was relatively easy to establish democratic government in Western Germany. Why was this? Most of the German population did not vote for or approve of the actions of Hitler; the national guilt to a certain extent lives on.
The German people understood the culture of The US, UK and France and we understood them. Peace could be establish relatively quickly and Europe could progress, in the main, to peaceful co-existence. This process took a long time however and there is still work to be done.
The case of the Middle East is different. Western Nations do not fully understand Arab nations and they do not fully understand us. This is a fact of life. The Arab nations, also, cannot understand why the UK and France should have colonised them by force and decided where international boundaries should be drawn up without consulting the people affected by arbitrary decisions. The West cannot impose a solution. Let us learn from the Suez crisis about what can go wrong in the Middle East and not continue the same mistakes.
The Iraq wars have failed to secure the peace and the recent war in Libya has also failed to secure stable government.
At one time Saddam Hussein was supported by the Western powers who helped him to attack Iran. In the end he had to be removed - so why was he supported in the first place?
All in all, continuous Western intervention in Arab states has lead to further problems of our own making.
The Syria conflict could cause similar problems. The Assad government is unpalatable to the West but so is the possible alternative. If Assad is deposed then Isis backed "jihadists", who are the implacable enemies of the West, could take over. They are also the avowed enemies of Israel. The people of Syria are in the middle of all this, people who just want to live their lives in peace.
The US president is rightly concerned about the welfare of the Syrian people. But, any decision should be based on hard headed politics and diplomacy. Emotion alone will not solve a problem which requires wise and rational action. Why can diplomacy not be given a try? The Russians and Iran have influence over Assad and the Arab Nations and the West have some influence over the opposition. There is still time for diplomacy to work. It is time that all the warring parties were forced to the negotiating table.
The problems of Syria will take years to resolve and tragically the killing will continue. The Western Nations cannot solve the problems of Syria. The consent of the people of Syria and their neighbours is needed to find a solution. The authority of the United Nations is also needed. The tragedy and suffering of the Syrian people will continue despite any use of "limited air strikes".
I have been a big supporter of Barack Obama and his efforts to find peace but on this issue I believe that he is wrong. The standing of the US President and the American people will not be diminished by stalling military action against Syria. So the US should wait until the UN Security Council gives approval.
Tuesday, 20 August 2013
Scottish Wild Cat
The Scottish Wild Cat is under such threat that measures will have to be taken to ensure its survival as a pure bred animal. There are probably fewer than 1000 pure bred animals left in the wild. The wild cat died out in the rest of the UK before the end of the 19th century. The wild cat is meeting the same fate as the wolf, lynx and the European bear. Its habitat has almost been completely destroyed and it is being persecuted and shot by gamekeepers.
Now it is finally being threatened by hybridisation with feral domesticated cats. The wild cat is choosing to mate with an introduced subspecies to ensure the survival of some of its unique genes. This is the best it can do for itself.
There are a number of lessons to be learnt here.
The wild cat will only survive in Scotland if it has sufficient territory to allow it to roam freely without encountering too many fellow members of the same species - the domesticated cat. Humans will have to refrain from trapping or killing them when they hunt on grouse and partridge moors reserved by humans for shooting game.
We have been foolish to regard the domesticated cat as being a completely different species to the wild cat. Both types of cat freely interbreed and produce viable and fertile offspring. They should both really be regarded as subspecies of Felis Sylvestris. In this way it would have been easier to convince pet owners to neuter their cats to prevent the dilution of the gene pool of the wild cat.
Measures are going to be taken to reduce the numbers of domestic and wild cat hybrids. This measure should be carefully considered as we could eliminate wild cat genes altogether if we destroy the population of crosses at the same time as failing to save the pure bred wild cat.
It is possibly too late to save the pure bred wild cat as its natural habitat has disappeared. The cat itself does not discriminate on the grounds of appearance but finds a mate on the basis of smell and sound and feral cats fit the bill to ensure the survival of some of the wild cat genes. The wild cat hybrid has also probably picked up a few tricks on how to survive, in the presence of man, from its feral cat cousins. It may be a better solution to let some of the hybrids survive.
If we want our wildlife to thrive we need to change our attitude. We should not regard other animals and plants, for that matter, as just possessions. A dog is a subspecies of the wolf and a domesticated cat is a subspecies of the wild cat. Dogs and cats are faithful pets but they are perfectly capable of reverting back to the wild state and live independently of humans.
We cannot isolate our pets or domesticated animals from the rest of nature by naming them as separate species from their wild ancestors. Nature does not work like that. The hybridisation of the wild cat is a perfect example of the influence of mankind on the rest of nature and what can go wrong.
It is ironic that we have persecuted the wolf and the wild cat because they are subspecies which we have been unable to tame and somehow we see them as threatening our economic interests. The wolf has been demonised as an animal which hunts and kills humans even though there are few verified claims that this has ever happened. The domestic dog is probably more of a danger to humans and their livestock than a wild wolf has ever been. But the wolf does not belong to us and avoids us so it is fit only to be persecuted.
The wolf is making a small comeback in the Mercantour National park in France but because it has killed some sheep there is talk of shooting it again. Why not leave it alone to thrive for a while? Human Beings can still live well even if the wolf takes a few of our sheep. There will never be many wolves surviving in Western Europe again - unless Human Beings die out.
The same principle applies to the wild cat - so why not help protect some of their natural habitat and leave them alone to survive even if they take some grouse and partridges? They will never return in large numbers but if they are given enough space they will not need to consort with their domestic cousins. We need to at least try this. I fear that this is too much to hope for. The pure bred wild cat is now probably doomed in Britain.
http://www.scottishwildcats.co.uk/
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xbqsro_mike-tomkies-2009-interview-for-sco_animals
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xkilr2_warning-of-extinction-threat-to-british-wildlife_news
Now it is finally being threatened by hybridisation with feral domesticated cats. The wild cat is choosing to mate with an introduced subspecies to ensure the survival of some of its unique genes. This is the best it can do for itself.
There are a number of lessons to be learnt here.
The wild cat will only survive in Scotland if it has sufficient territory to allow it to roam freely without encountering too many fellow members of the same species - the domesticated cat. Humans will have to refrain from trapping or killing them when they hunt on grouse and partridge moors reserved by humans for shooting game.
We have been foolish to regard the domesticated cat as being a completely different species to the wild cat. Both types of cat freely interbreed and produce viable and fertile offspring. They should both really be regarded as subspecies of Felis Sylvestris. In this way it would have been easier to convince pet owners to neuter their cats to prevent the dilution of the gene pool of the wild cat.
Measures are going to be taken to reduce the numbers of domestic and wild cat hybrids. This measure should be carefully considered as we could eliminate wild cat genes altogether if we destroy the population of crosses at the same time as failing to save the pure bred wild cat.
It is possibly too late to save the pure bred wild cat as its natural habitat has disappeared. The cat itself does not discriminate on the grounds of appearance but finds a mate on the basis of smell and sound and feral cats fit the bill to ensure the survival of some of the wild cat genes. The wild cat hybrid has also probably picked up a few tricks on how to survive, in the presence of man, from its feral cat cousins. It may be a better solution to let some of the hybrids survive.
If we want our wildlife to thrive we need to change our attitude. We should not regard other animals and plants, for that matter, as just possessions. A dog is a subspecies of the wolf and a domesticated cat is a subspecies of the wild cat. Dogs and cats are faithful pets but they are perfectly capable of reverting back to the wild state and live independently of humans.
We cannot isolate our pets or domesticated animals from the rest of nature by naming them as separate species from their wild ancestors. Nature does not work like that. The hybridisation of the wild cat is a perfect example of the influence of mankind on the rest of nature and what can go wrong.
It is ironic that we have persecuted the wolf and the wild cat because they are subspecies which we have been unable to tame and somehow we see them as threatening our economic interests. The wolf has been demonised as an animal which hunts and kills humans even though there are few verified claims that this has ever happened. The domestic dog is probably more of a danger to humans and their livestock than a wild wolf has ever been. But the wolf does not belong to us and avoids us so it is fit only to be persecuted.
The wolf is making a small comeback in the Mercantour National park in France but because it has killed some sheep there is talk of shooting it again. Why not leave it alone to thrive for a while? Human Beings can still live well even if the wolf takes a few of our sheep. There will never be many wolves surviving in Western Europe again - unless Human Beings die out.
The same principle applies to the wild cat - so why not help protect some of their natural habitat and leave them alone to survive even if they take some grouse and partridges? They will never return in large numbers but if they are given enough space they will not need to consort with their domestic cousins. We need to at least try this. I fear that this is too much to hope for. The pure bred wild cat is now probably doomed in Britain.
http://www.scottishwildcats.co.uk/
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xbqsro_mike-tomkies-2009-interview-for-sco_animals
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xkilr2_warning-of-extinction-threat-to-british-wildlife_news
Friday, 16 August 2013
Egypt
The events in Cairo and other Egyptian cities confirm my pessimism about what is happening to a state that is struggling to become a true democracy.
There is no justification for the military government to shoot its citizens when they are asserting their rights to peaceful protest.
No democratically elected or approved head of state should ever be overthrown and imprisoned without first being impeached and put on trial under a fair judicial and democratically approved process. It is no wonder that the supporters of the former President Morsi are angry. It is to be hoped that they do not turn to violence to register their discontent. It is to be hoped that the former president is not subjected to physical harm.
Like it or not, Morsi was elected by a majority of the Egyptian people so the only way he should have been replaced was by another election or legal and constitutional impeachment. His election was seen to be fair by the international community.
Western governments seem unable to produce a coherent response to what is essentially a military coup. Surely, the response should be simple: military and financial aid should be cut off until a constitutional democracy is restored. The only aid which Egypt should now receive should be humanitarian.
What is wrong with Western Democracies asserting their values? A state should be run by a democratically elected parliament and/or head of state which assures the rights of all citizens to non-violent free assembly and freedom of speech. The state should protect the legitimate political, social and economic interest of all its minorities and it should protect the freedom of worship and the freedom to be an atheist or an agnostic. No-one should be jailed without a fair trial.
These principles have allowed true democracies to flourish.
With regard to foreign policy, no nation should interfere in the domestic affairs of another state without the specific approval of the United Nations and only then under extreme circumstances when international law has been violated.
Some peoples and their states may freely wish to have a theocracy or even military rule or an absolute monarch or dictator. There is nothing to stop us having diplomatic relations with such states or trade with them but provided that they adhere to international law. We do not have to subsidise them, however, or give them military aid.
When they become true secular democracies we should give them all the aid necessary to ensure the continuance of democratic values. This would help to ensure that the West is given full support by the people of the emerging democracies. Supporting military regimes and dictators wherever they are is self-defeating.
There is no justification for the military government to shoot its citizens when they are asserting their rights to peaceful protest.
No democratically elected or approved head of state should ever be overthrown and imprisoned without first being impeached and put on trial under a fair judicial and democratically approved process. It is no wonder that the supporters of the former President Morsi are angry. It is to be hoped that they do not turn to violence to register their discontent. It is to be hoped that the former president is not subjected to physical harm.
Like it or not, Morsi was elected by a majority of the Egyptian people so the only way he should have been replaced was by another election or legal and constitutional impeachment. His election was seen to be fair by the international community.
Western governments seem unable to produce a coherent response to what is essentially a military coup. Surely, the response should be simple: military and financial aid should be cut off until a constitutional democracy is restored. The only aid which Egypt should now receive should be humanitarian.
What is wrong with Western Democracies asserting their values? A state should be run by a democratically elected parliament and/or head of state which assures the rights of all citizens to non-violent free assembly and freedom of speech. The state should protect the legitimate political, social and economic interest of all its minorities and it should protect the freedom of worship and the freedom to be an atheist or an agnostic. No-one should be jailed without a fair trial.
These principles have allowed true democracies to flourish.
With regard to foreign policy, no nation should interfere in the domestic affairs of another state without the specific approval of the United Nations and only then under extreme circumstances when international law has been violated.
Some peoples and their states may freely wish to have a theocracy or even military rule or an absolute monarch or dictator. There is nothing to stop us having diplomatic relations with such states or trade with them but provided that they adhere to international law. We do not have to subsidise them, however, or give them military aid.
When they become true secular democracies we should give them all the aid necessary to ensure the continuance of democratic values. This would help to ensure that the West is given full support by the people of the emerging democracies. Supporting military regimes and dictators wherever they are is self-defeating.
Tuesday, 23 July 2013
Global Warming Has Stopped - No time to stop worrying
There have been lots of articles in the newspapers recently which are reporting that Global Warming has stopped. I wish it had but I am not celebrating.
Deniers of anthropomorphic climate change are again cherry picking the data. The rate of increase in global warming has slowed down it has not stopped. Why is this? The oceans are transferring heat from the atmosphere to the lower regions of oceanic water.
The oceans sometimes release back heat into the atmosphere especially during El Nino events. The trend for the atmosphere is to show an inexorable rise in temperatures as the concentration of greenhouse gases.
increases.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/has-global-warming-stopped-no--its-just-on-pause-insist-scientists-and-its-down-to-the-oceans-8726893.html
Climate models are inaccurate but we can look back into the past to see how the Earth reacted when it came out of or back into an ice age. The temperature did not gradually rise or fall. When we came out of the last ice age and there was a long term trend when temperatures were rising we saw reversals and temporary lapses into ice age conditions. These changes happened rapidly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas
The same thing could happen in the future so we play with climate change at our peril. Pumping more and more CO2 into the atmosphere will have dangerous consequences if not for our generation then for the ones to follow.
What a great legacy to leave to our grandchildren.
Deniers of anthropomorphic climate change are again cherry picking the data. The rate of increase in global warming has slowed down it has not stopped. Why is this? The oceans are transferring heat from the atmosphere to the lower regions of oceanic water.
The oceans sometimes release back heat into the atmosphere especially during El Nino events. The trend for the atmosphere is to show an inexorable rise in temperatures as the concentration of greenhouse gases.
increases.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/has-global-warming-stopped-no--its-just-on-pause-insist-scientists-and-its-down-to-the-oceans-8726893.html
Climate models are inaccurate but we can look back into the past to see how the Earth reacted when it came out of or back into an ice age. The temperature did not gradually rise or fall. When we came out of the last ice age and there was a long term trend when temperatures were rising we saw reversals and temporary lapses into ice age conditions. These changes happened rapidly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas
The same thing could happen in the future so we play with climate change at our peril. Pumping more and more CO2 into the atmosphere will have dangerous consequences if not for our generation then for the ones to follow.
What a great legacy to leave to our grandchildren.
Monday, 15 July 2013
Community Enterprises
There has been a failure of global corporate capitalism to meet the needs of the societies which they serve. The economic collapse resulting from the 2007 international banking crisis nearly brought the world economy to its knees. We faced a dangerous economic, political and social situation.
At the moment there are increasing numbers of people in the western world who are relying on food handouts. The poor people of the third world are working in conditions which are almost tantamount to economic slavery. The gap between the rich and poor is widening. Wealth is not cascading down from top to bottom.
The redistribution of wealth promised by traditionalist economists and politicians has meant wealth being taken from the poor and the middle classes and being re-distributed to the super wealthy. Global corporations have not been held to account by our governments and politicians
Had there been a complete economic failure, who knows what would have happened? There could have been unwanted violence on the streets and divisions among the nation states which could have lead to new war. There are certainly parallels and lessons to be learnt from the experiences of the 1920's, '30's and '40's and we are still not out of the woods. It is quite possible that the current economic model is self-destructive.
I am not arguing a case for some form of communism or public ownership of all enterprises. We need healthy economies driven by some sort of free enterprise to provide the wealth which allows all of our citizens to thrive and be healthy. We therefore need enterprise which meets the needs of our communities to ensure that everyone has a fair stake in the wealth of society and that everyone who wants to work or start an enterprise has the opportunity to do so.
Capitalism is not an economic system which is based on some sort of state of natural affairs. It is a creation of the human mind and it has been allowed to flourish by the consent of our society. Our community allows for the legal, social and economic framework for joint stock and limited liability companies to exist but we have allowed some companies to trade solely for the generation of profit for the shareholders.
Companies should take into account all of the stakeholders of the society which allows them to operate. If capitalism fails it could quite easily be replaced by something unpalatable for all of us. Therefore there is an obligation for global corporations to improve their act.
There is also an obligation for our society to provide other means of creating wealth; means which are outside of the orbit of both global capitalism, state capitalism and communism.
Let us examine the following example. My wife and I went into a woman's clothes shop the other day to buy a pair of ladies trousers. There was a pair on sale at the reduced price of £90. These trousers were of exceptionally poor quality; they were for fashion only. Normally they were on sale for much more. They had been made in a third world garment factory.
They were probably made and transported to the UK for a cost of about £5. Where did the bulk of gross profit margin of £85 go ?
I opine that it did not go to garment factory workers in the third world. It did not go to a worker in the UK as most of the garment industry has gone out of business here. It did not go to the shop's retail staff. I suggest that the transport companies did not take much of the margin. So who is left to take the money?
The margin, I suggest, has gone to marketing companies and international retailing conglomerates.
This economic model does not really serve the communities in the third world that produce the garments nor the UK manufacturers who have gone out of business as a result of the transfer of capital and the means of production.
At a local business network meeting I met an entrepreneur who wants to change this business model so that it serves the community. He sells garments which are made in the UK and these garments cost much more to make than they would in a third world sweat shop. He sells the garments to University students for a fair price which is much less than the price of the fashion trousers described above. His margin is fair.
He wants to share some of the profits of the enterprise with the community. He wants to be a millionaire and deserves to be. He is not interested in becoming a multimillionaire or a global capitalist. He also believes in free enterprise in the genuine sense of the word. He is not interest in living in a business world dominated by oligarchs and monopolies. Adam Smith would be proud of him.
Some of his business colleagues have tried to convince him that it is best to have his garments made in the third world. He is not interested in this as he wants to help British industry. After all, we are a world of nation states but this model could be repeated in any country to the benefit of the local community.
This business model allows for the trickle down effect to to support the workers in the industry and other businesses in the community. It is a model which allows for private enterprise, the community and workers or even unions to invest in the company and become stakeholders and investors.
Such business models could run alongside traditional capitalist industries such as car making, electronics and telecommunications. It would not replace global capitalism but would provide an alternative form of economic activity which is more stable and sustainable and one which serves the community. Community enterprises could also fill in the gap if global corporate capitalism fails; it would be ready to form a backstop.
The Community would be able to guarantee that essential services are maintained and that everyone is fully employed.
Do you want to live in a world where global corporations dictate what economic model we live by?
Do you want to live in a world where third world sweat shops are used to make cheap goods which are sold in the richer economies at an exorbitant profit margin?
Do you want large supermarkets to dictate to farmers how food should be produced and at what cost?
Do you want your local high street to be full of charity shops?
Do you want essential services, such as care for the elderly, to be under the complete control of large corporations?
Or, would you rather?
Live in a world where large corporations are held to account by a strong democratic government and operate in the best interests of themselves and the community.
Third world workers are given fair wages and working conditions.
Farmers are given a fair deal and local retail shops are encouraged to thrive.
Local services are controlled and owned by the communities they serve in co-operation with local entrepreneurs.
Global capitalism has served us well in some instances; the electronics and software industries are classic examples. I am not advocating that this form of enterprise is abolished. But we could control our economies far better if there was an improved mix of different forms of enterprise. Everyone could benefit from this - including large corporations.
Is it not time that our traditional political parties, unions, and other political and economic groups sat up and thought of a democratic alternative to what we have now?
The public also have a role to play by supporting enterprises and ideas which will change the economic model.
It is time for a change and it is possible to create and encourage new forms of enterprise using a legal, social and economic framework that does not impinge on anyone's individual freedom or rights.
At the moment there are increasing numbers of people in the western world who are relying on food handouts. The poor people of the third world are working in conditions which are almost tantamount to economic slavery. The gap between the rich and poor is widening. Wealth is not cascading down from top to bottom.
The redistribution of wealth promised by traditionalist economists and politicians has meant wealth being taken from the poor and the middle classes and being re-distributed to the super wealthy. Global corporations have not been held to account by our governments and politicians
Had there been a complete economic failure, who knows what would have happened? There could have been unwanted violence on the streets and divisions among the nation states which could have lead to new war. There are certainly parallels and lessons to be learnt from the experiences of the 1920's, '30's and '40's and we are still not out of the woods. It is quite possible that the current economic model is self-destructive.
I am not arguing a case for some form of communism or public ownership of all enterprises. We need healthy economies driven by some sort of free enterprise to provide the wealth which allows all of our citizens to thrive and be healthy. We therefore need enterprise which meets the needs of our communities to ensure that everyone has a fair stake in the wealth of society and that everyone who wants to work or start an enterprise has the opportunity to do so.
Capitalism is not an economic system which is based on some sort of state of natural affairs. It is a creation of the human mind and it has been allowed to flourish by the consent of our society. Our community allows for the legal, social and economic framework for joint stock and limited liability companies to exist but we have allowed some companies to trade solely for the generation of profit for the shareholders.
Companies should take into account all of the stakeholders of the society which allows them to operate. If capitalism fails it could quite easily be replaced by something unpalatable for all of us. Therefore there is an obligation for global corporations to improve their act.
There is also an obligation for our society to provide other means of creating wealth; means which are outside of the orbit of both global capitalism, state capitalism and communism.
Let us examine the following example. My wife and I went into a woman's clothes shop the other day to buy a pair of ladies trousers. There was a pair on sale at the reduced price of £90. These trousers were of exceptionally poor quality; they were for fashion only. Normally they were on sale for much more. They had been made in a third world garment factory.
They were probably made and transported to the UK for a cost of about £5. Where did the bulk of gross profit margin of £85 go ?
I opine that it did not go to garment factory workers in the third world. It did not go to a worker in the UK as most of the garment industry has gone out of business here. It did not go to the shop's retail staff. I suggest that the transport companies did not take much of the margin. So who is left to take the money?
The margin, I suggest, has gone to marketing companies and international retailing conglomerates.
This economic model does not really serve the communities in the third world that produce the garments nor the UK manufacturers who have gone out of business as a result of the transfer of capital and the means of production.
At a local business network meeting I met an entrepreneur who wants to change this business model so that it serves the community. He sells garments which are made in the UK and these garments cost much more to make than they would in a third world sweat shop. He sells the garments to University students for a fair price which is much less than the price of the fashion trousers described above. His margin is fair.
He wants to share some of the profits of the enterprise with the community. He wants to be a millionaire and deserves to be. He is not interested in becoming a multimillionaire or a global capitalist. He also believes in free enterprise in the genuine sense of the word. He is not interest in living in a business world dominated by oligarchs and monopolies. Adam Smith would be proud of him.
Some of his business colleagues have tried to convince him that it is best to have his garments made in the third world. He is not interested in this as he wants to help British industry. After all, we are a world of nation states but this model could be repeated in any country to the benefit of the local community.
This business model allows for the trickle down effect to to support the workers in the industry and other businesses in the community. It is a model which allows for private enterprise, the community and workers or even unions to invest in the company and become stakeholders and investors.
Such business models could run alongside traditional capitalist industries such as car making, electronics and telecommunications. It would not replace global capitalism but would provide an alternative form of economic activity which is more stable and sustainable and one which serves the community. Community enterprises could also fill in the gap if global corporate capitalism fails; it would be ready to form a backstop.
The Community would be able to guarantee that essential services are maintained and that everyone is fully employed.
Do you want to live in a world where global corporations dictate what economic model we live by?
Do you want to live in a world where third world sweat shops are used to make cheap goods which are sold in the richer economies at an exorbitant profit margin?
Do you want large supermarkets to dictate to farmers how food should be produced and at what cost?
Do you want your local high street to be full of charity shops?
Do you want essential services, such as care for the elderly, to be under the complete control of large corporations?
Or, would you rather?
Live in a world where large corporations are held to account by a strong democratic government and operate in the best interests of themselves and the community.
Third world workers are given fair wages and working conditions.
Farmers are given a fair deal and local retail shops are encouraged to thrive.
Local services are controlled and owned by the communities they serve in co-operation with local entrepreneurs.
Global capitalism has served us well in some instances; the electronics and software industries are classic examples. I am not advocating that this form of enterprise is abolished. But we could control our economies far better if there was an improved mix of different forms of enterprise. Everyone could benefit from this - including large corporations.
Is it not time that our traditional political parties, unions, and other political and economic groups sat up and thought of a democratic alternative to what we have now?
The public also have a role to play by supporting enterprises and ideas which will change the economic model.
It is time for a change and it is possible to create and encourage new forms of enterprise using a legal, social and economic framework that does not impinge on anyone's individual freedom or rights.
Friday, 5 July 2013
Two Wrongs Do Not Make An Egyptian Right
In my opinion there can be no justification for the military in overthrowing a democratically elected government. There is no justification for the arrest of key members of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.
The Muslim Brotherhood after all were the strongest peaceful opposition to military rule in Egypt over the course of many years.
It is my view that the best form of government is a secular democracy which has all the checks and balances needed to ensure a fair society and the rights of everyone. To impose a theocracy does not guarantee this and it is clear that a substantial number of Egyptians, although religious, do not want a state run by clerics.
The best course of action would be for the military to remain loyal to the Egyptian electorate and desist from intervention.
Egyptian religious leaders should support a secular and democratic constitution and remove themselves from politics.
This is the best method of assuring the rights of everyone and the peace.
The Muslim Brotherhood after all were the strongest peaceful opposition to military rule in Egypt over the course of many years.
It is my view that the best form of government is a secular democracy which has all the checks and balances needed to ensure a fair society and the rights of everyone. To impose a theocracy does not guarantee this and it is clear that a substantial number of Egyptians, although religious, do not want a state run by clerics.
The best course of action would be for the military to remain loyal to the Egyptian electorate and desist from intervention.
Egyptian religious leaders should support a secular and democratic constitution and remove themselves from politics.
This is the best method of assuring the rights of everyone and the peace.
Monday, 3 June 2013
State of Nature Report
Yesterday and today I was reading the RSPB State of Nature Report on UK Plants and Animals; it makes depressing reading. Of the 3,168 species of plants and animals, which were part of the sample, there has been a 60% decline in their abundance during the last 50 years. Furthermore there has been a strong decline of abundance for 31% of the species.
What is more disturbing is that 1 in 10 of a sample of 6,000 species is under the threat of extinction. There has been a a threat to the numbers and range of a number of species especially those which have specific environmental requirements.
Most environments ranging from coastal to uplands have been affected especially meadows where there has been a 97% reduction of area which is no defined as "meadow". Fenland and mires are being drained and peat bogs are also being replaced by forests.
Some of our most familiar and iconic species are disappearing fast such as sparrows and skylarks. Recently, I took a walk through a golf course on the north Norfolk coast and I was pleasantly surprised to see and hear a dozen skylarks. The skylark is now a rare sight elsewhere, however.
Some species such as the red kite and the otter have extended their range and numbers but the success of some species has been more than compensated for by the demise of many others.
When I was a youth growing up in West Wales in the 1950s and 1960s there were large flocks of lapwings feeding on the farmland. Now I rarely see a lapwing when I pay a visit.
The estuary of the the Western and Eastern Cleddau rivers or Aberdaugleddau was regularly filled with massive shoals of herring; the local fishermen used small boats coated with black tar waterproofing to catch prodigious supplies of the fish. There are hardly any herring left in the estuary now and any that are are caught with a line rather than a net.
Industrialised fishing has made the local herring shoals almost extinct and it has severely affected the mackerel shoals as well. The local fishermen do not land mackerel in large quantities anymore.
It seems that mankind is unable to exist on our planet without severely affecting the climate or the abundance of our fellow species of plants and animals. The effect that we have upon the ecosystems are closely related to the sheer number of our species and industrialisation. These two factors are affecting both the climate and the environment in general.
We could cope with industrialisation if we where able to keep our numbers down. Some scientists such as James Lovelock aver that we can only control the emission of greenhouse gases to an acceptable level if we reduce our population to around 1.5 billion people. I agree with him.
To reduce the human population would also help alleviate the pressure on our fellow species and help their populations to survive.
What is wrong with controlling our fertility? We are intervening in nature to control disease and increase the fertility of the soil and this intervention has led to huge increases in our numbers. We are not afraid to make medical advances to stave of disease so why not make social advances to control our population?
Industrialisation helps us to maintain a world population of 7 billion people; to deindustrialise would mean that millions would starve to death. There is only one way to maintain a healthy world, that includes a healthy human population, and that is to manage our population growth just as we manage soil fertility.
I do not agree with government imposed limits to family planning as it is an infringement to our liberty. However, I appeal to personal responsibility. If we all limited our family to one child we could halve the population of the planet within a hundred years or so. The planet easily has the productivity to feed 3.5 billion people but we need to halve the population again within the following one hundred years.
Reducing the population could be achieved without anyone starving to death. It would also reduce the likelihood of war created by nations competing for resources. It is possible if we make the necessary
political, economic and cultural changes to achieve this. I am not a member of population matters but I support their primary aim.
http://www.populationmatters.org/
I fear that mankind will not be able to control himself. But, we must ask ourselves the question, "do we want to live in a world where there is no room for a sparrow, a dandelion, a tree or a herring"? "Do we want to live in a world where only plants and animals that are useful to humans are allowed to survive"? "Do we want to live in a world where we are unaware of the dangers of eliminating our fellow species"? There is the possibility of unwittingly achieving our own extinction by killing everything else.
Surely, 1 billion people is enough to ensure our own survival for the foreseeable future. A world with 7 billion people assures us of nothing but depravation.
What is more disturbing is that 1 in 10 of a sample of 6,000 species is under the threat of extinction. There has been a a threat to the numbers and range of a number of species especially those which have specific environmental requirements.
Most environments ranging from coastal to uplands have been affected especially meadows where there has been a 97% reduction of area which is no defined as "meadow". Fenland and mires are being drained and peat bogs are also being replaced by forests.
Some of our most familiar and iconic species are disappearing fast such as sparrows and skylarks. Recently, I took a walk through a golf course on the north Norfolk coast and I was pleasantly surprised to see and hear a dozen skylarks. The skylark is now a rare sight elsewhere, however.
Some species such as the red kite and the otter have extended their range and numbers but the success of some species has been more than compensated for by the demise of many others.
When I was a youth growing up in West Wales in the 1950s and 1960s there were large flocks of lapwings feeding on the farmland. Now I rarely see a lapwing when I pay a visit.
The estuary of the the Western and Eastern Cleddau rivers or Aberdaugleddau was regularly filled with massive shoals of herring; the local fishermen used small boats coated with black tar waterproofing to catch prodigious supplies of the fish. There are hardly any herring left in the estuary now and any that are are caught with a line rather than a net.
Industrialised fishing has made the local herring shoals almost extinct and it has severely affected the mackerel shoals as well. The local fishermen do not land mackerel in large quantities anymore.
It seems that mankind is unable to exist on our planet without severely affecting the climate or the abundance of our fellow species of plants and animals. The effect that we have upon the ecosystems are closely related to the sheer number of our species and industrialisation. These two factors are affecting both the climate and the environment in general.
We could cope with industrialisation if we where able to keep our numbers down. Some scientists such as James Lovelock aver that we can only control the emission of greenhouse gases to an acceptable level if we reduce our population to around 1.5 billion people. I agree with him.
To reduce the human population would also help alleviate the pressure on our fellow species and help their populations to survive.
What is wrong with controlling our fertility? We are intervening in nature to control disease and increase the fertility of the soil and this intervention has led to huge increases in our numbers. We are not afraid to make medical advances to stave of disease so why not make social advances to control our population?
Industrialisation helps us to maintain a world population of 7 billion people; to deindustrialise would mean that millions would starve to death. There is only one way to maintain a healthy world, that includes a healthy human population, and that is to manage our population growth just as we manage soil fertility.
I do not agree with government imposed limits to family planning as it is an infringement to our liberty. However, I appeal to personal responsibility. If we all limited our family to one child we could halve the population of the planet within a hundred years or so. The planet easily has the productivity to feed 3.5 billion people but we need to halve the population again within the following one hundred years.
Reducing the population could be achieved without anyone starving to death. It would also reduce the likelihood of war created by nations competing for resources. It is possible if we make the necessary
political, economic and cultural changes to achieve this. I am not a member of population matters but I support their primary aim.
http://www.populationmatters.org/
I fear that mankind will not be able to control himself. But, we must ask ourselves the question, "do we want to live in a world where there is no room for a sparrow, a dandelion, a tree or a herring"? "Do we want to live in a world where only plants and animals that are useful to humans are allowed to survive"? "Do we want to live in a world where we are unaware of the dangers of eliminating our fellow species"? There is the possibility of unwittingly achieving our own extinction by killing everything else.
Surely, 1 billion people is enough to ensure our own survival for the foreseeable future. A world with 7 billion people assures us of nothing but depravation.
Thursday, 9 May 2013
CO2 soon to pass 400ppm in the atmosphere
Very soon the average concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere will surpass 400 ppm. This means that since the beginning of the industrial revolution we have increased the concentration of this greenhouse gas by 50%. Industrial processes have added 200 billion tons of carbon into the atmosphere within 200 years.
At the height of the last ice age the amount of carbon in the atmosphere stood at 400 billion tons. To warm up the atmosphere to a sufficient level to create the balmy inter-glacial climate nature then added another 200 billion tons of carbon into the atmosphere. Nature alone accomplished this over a period of tens of thousands of years. We have added another 200 billion tons in just 200 years or so. Global average temperatures are going to rise again and this is indisputable.
Far from reducing the production of CO2 and other greenhouse gases mankind is in fact stepping up the rate.
It has been known since the time of the scientist Arrhenius that doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will raise global average temperatures by between 3 and 5 degrees celcius. This means that we have stored up an average increase of 1.5 to 2.5 degrees celcius since the industrial revolution.We are probably in a dangerous predicament already.
The time for action is now, as our species and others may not have time to adapt to the new climatic conditions. Some areas of the planet may in fact become cooler whilst other areas become much warmer to compensate. We are already facing changes to weather patterns caused by global warming and this is set to be exacerbated.
Scientists such as James Hansen and James Lovelock have warned us about the future and they are doing this because they are genuinely concerned about the future of mankind. The time for action is now, so we need to manage the reduction of greenhouse gas production. We may have to face the politically difficult problem of managing mankind's fertility as well to help reduce the population of the planet without war or starvation.
If we do not tackle these problems urgently, we face the possibility of nature curbing our numbers without any form of human emotion or sympathy.
Let us hope that we can act before it is too late.
At the height of the last ice age the amount of carbon in the atmosphere stood at 400 billion tons. To warm up the atmosphere to a sufficient level to create the balmy inter-glacial climate nature then added another 200 billion tons of carbon into the atmosphere. Nature alone accomplished this over a period of tens of thousands of years. We have added another 200 billion tons in just 200 years or so. Global average temperatures are going to rise again and this is indisputable.
Far from reducing the production of CO2 and other greenhouse gases mankind is in fact stepping up the rate.
It has been known since the time of the scientist Arrhenius that doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will raise global average temperatures by between 3 and 5 degrees celcius. This means that we have stored up an average increase of 1.5 to 2.5 degrees celcius since the industrial revolution.We are probably in a dangerous predicament already.
The time for action is now, as our species and others may not have time to adapt to the new climatic conditions. Some areas of the planet may in fact become cooler whilst other areas become much warmer to compensate. We are already facing changes to weather patterns caused by global warming and this is set to be exacerbated.
Scientists such as James Hansen and James Lovelock have warned us about the future and they are doing this because they are genuinely concerned about the future of mankind. The time for action is now, so we need to manage the reduction of greenhouse gas production. We may have to face the politically difficult problem of managing mankind's fertility as well to help reduce the population of the planet without war or starvation.
If we do not tackle these problems urgently, we face the possibility of nature curbing our numbers without any form of human emotion or sympathy.
Let us hope that we can act before it is too late.
Saturday, 20 April 2013
Waco Texas explosion
The tragedy resulting from the explosion of the fertiliser factory exposes the dangers of large explosions.
Buildings were destroyed at a considerable distance from the factory. The blast could be heard 45 miles away and the power of the explosion registered 2.1 on the Richter scale; it created a minor earthquake. Had the explosion happened in the middle of a city hundreds if not thousands of people could have died.
But this explosion is nothing compared to a thermonuclear one. If an H Bomb exploded in NewYork, Moscow or London millions would die. It makes me wonder why we had to invent such weapons in the first place.
A stable and democratic nation was the first to use the less powerful A bombs with the result that hundreds of thousands of civilians died. If Adolf Hitler had developed the A bomb first there is no doubt in my mind that he would have used them without mercy to obliterate Russian and British cities. We must hope that an unstable nation is never able to deploy such weapons. But I fear that sometime in the future this could happen.
We cannot reverse history and "un-invent" nuclear weapons. The Western powers did little to stop Israel from obtaining nuclear weapons and the Eastern powers have also been unable to restrain North Korea. This could lead to the possibility of another arm race where Iran feels no moral restraint to creating a nuclear weapon. Japan also has the the ability to quickly develop a nuclear weapon if it chose to do so.
I doubt that the human species has the sense to impose nuclear disarmament on itself so I fear it is only a matter of time before nuclear weapons are used again.
Buildings were destroyed at a considerable distance from the factory. The blast could be heard 45 miles away and the power of the explosion registered 2.1 on the Richter scale; it created a minor earthquake. Had the explosion happened in the middle of a city hundreds if not thousands of people could have died.
But this explosion is nothing compared to a thermonuclear one. If an H Bomb exploded in NewYork, Moscow or London millions would die. It makes me wonder why we had to invent such weapons in the first place.
A stable and democratic nation was the first to use the less powerful A bombs with the result that hundreds of thousands of civilians died. If Adolf Hitler had developed the A bomb first there is no doubt in my mind that he would have used them without mercy to obliterate Russian and British cities. We must hope that an unstable nation is never able to deploy such weapons. But I fear that sometime in the future this could happen.
We cannot reverse history and "un-invent" nuclear weapons. The Western powers did little to stop Israel from obtaining nuclear weapons and the Eastern powers have also been unable to restrain North Korea. This could lead to the possibility of another arm race where Iran feels no moral restraint to creating a nuclear weapon. Japan also has the the ability to quickly develop a nuclear weapon if it chose to do so.
I doubt that the human species has the sense to impose nuclear disarmament on itself so I fear it is only a matter of time before nuclear weapons are used again.
Wednesday, 10 April 2013
Death of a Famous Person
I can see no reason why anyone should celebrate the death of Mrs Thatcher. With regard to politics you should always separate the policies from the person. If she had not become Prime Minister someone else would have probably introduced similar policies as, rightly or wrongly, the UK population were in the mood for a change.
I see no reason for violent demonstrations during her funeral and I hope everyone shows restraint.
You can probably infer from my opinions that I am of a liberal frame of mind and I disagreed with most of her policies. Not everything that she did was bad, however, and she was one of the first world leaders to recognise the problems of climate change and global warming but I doubt if she will be remembered for that.
Everyone should remember that she has close family and friends who want to grieve her passing and they deserve some peace of mind.
I could never understand how anyone could grieve for somebody who was not a really close family member or friend. I could not grieve for John Lennon, when he died, even though I loved his music so much. I said to myself it is a shame that such a great musician will no longer be composing or performing. I just played one of his records in his memory. I felt the same when Patrick Moore died and I treated myself to reading some of his work in his honour.
I shall not watch the funeral or mourn her death but I shall not be celebrating either. That is the most rational way for me to react.
I see no reason for violent demonstrations during her funeral and I hope everyone shows restraint.
You can probably infer from my opinions that I am of a liberal frame of mind and I disagreed with most of her policies. Not everything that she did was bad, however, and she was one of the first world leaders to recognise the problems of climate change and global warming but I doubt if she will be remembered for that.
Everyone should remember that she has close family and friends who want to grieve her passing and they deserve some peace of mind.
I could never understand how anyone could grieve for somebody who was not a really close family member or friend. I could not grieve for John Lennon, when he died, even though I loved his music so much. I said to myself it is a shame that such a great musician will no longer be composing or performing. I just played one of his records in his memory. I felt the same when Patrick Moore died and I treated myself to reading some of his work in his honour.
I shall not watch the funeral or mourn her death but I shall not be celebrating either. That is the most rational way for me to react.
Friday, 15 February 2013
Richard III remains
I remain sceptical that the remains found in a Leicester car park are in fact those of Richard III. I have two grounds for this.
The radio carbon dating cannot, exactly, narrow down the year of death of the skeleton. The radio carbon dating estimates that the person in the grave died between the years of 1450 and 1540. Richard III died in 1485. There is a considerable chance that the human buried there died before 1450.
Genetic evidence is rarely conclusive. The scientists have only made "matches" for mitochondrial DNA. They have not matched nuclear DNA. The findings have not been peer reviewed yet. There could be other living people who have the same match but are not on the genealogical line. If such a person is discovered it would cast doubt about the identity of the person buried in Greyfriars church.
We do not have known samples of Richard III DNA to make a direct comparison.
We should be careful to assume absolutely that these are the remains of Richard III. We should also be careful that the team investigating the remains are not making the facts fit the desired result.
There is strong circumstantial evidence but none of it is incontrovertible. When incontrovertible evidence is forthcoming I shall believe that they have found Richard III's grave.
There has been a lot of publicity and hullabaloo surrounding the remains and this type of PR activity makes me suspicious. The newspapers just seem to blindingly accept what the Richard III society and the University of Leicester are claiming. There seems to have been no real critical examination of the claims.
The Government and the Head of State have made no official comment and there seem to be no preparations being made for an official burial. The State is right to remain guarded until there is absolute proof.
I remind readers that scientists have made PR statements of a tenuous nature before and with "99% certainty". Every one could have reasonable grounds to believe that a meteorite discovered in Antarctica contained fossilised Martian microbes. This discovery was greeted with well founded scepticism. The microbes turned out to be an artifacts. But this does not mean to say that life or evidence of it will not be found on Mars itself.
We were also assured at a press conference that scientists at CERN had discovered Neutrinos that could travel faster than light. This, if proven to be true, would have over turned Einstein's theories of relativity. It turned out to be a measurement error. The sceptics were right to warn against jumping to conclusions before there was absolute proof positive.
But , of course, nearly every one wants to believe -but not me.
The radio carbon dating cannot, exactly, narrow down the year of death of the skeleton. The radio carbon dating estimates that the person in the grave died between the years of 1450 and 1540. Richard III died in 1485. There is a considerable chance that the human buried there died before 1450.
Genetic evidence is rarely conclusive. The scientists have only made "matches" for mitochondrial DNA. They have not matched nuclear DNA. The findings have not been peer reviewed yet. There could be other living people who have the same match but are not on the genealogical line. If such a person is discovered it would cast doubt about the identity of the person buried in Greyfriars church.
We do not have known samples of Richard III DNA to make a direct comparison.
We should be careful to assume absolutely that these are the remains of Richard III. We should also be careful that the team investigating the remains are not making the facts fit the desired result.
There is strong circumstantial evidence but none of it is incontrovertible. When incontrovertible evidence is forthcoming I shall believe that they have found Richard III's grave.
There has been a lot of publicity and hullabaloo surrounding the remains and this type of PR activity makes me suspicious. The newspapers just seem to blindingly accept what the Richard III society and the University of Leicester are claiming. There seems to have been no real critical examination of the claims.
The Government and the Head of State have made no official comment and there seem to be no preparations being made for an official burial. The State is right to remain guarded until there is absolute proof.
I remind readers that scientists have made PR statements of a tenuous nature before and with "99% certainty". Every one could have reasonable grounds to believe that a meteorite discovered in Antarctica contained fossilised Martian microbes. This discovery was greeted with well founded scepticism. The microbes turned out to be an artifacts. But this does not mean to say that life or evidence of it will not be found on Mars itself.
We were also assured at a press conference that scientists at CERN had discovered Neutrinos that could travel faster than light. This, if proven to be true, would have over turned Einstein's theories of relativity. It turned out to be a measurement error. The sceptics were right to warn against jumping to conclusions before there was absolute proof positive.
But , of course, nearly every one wants to believe -but not me.
Monday, 21 January 2013
The Sahel Emergency
Once again the west is getting involved in a war in Mali under the pretext of heading off terrorism. I cannot help thinking that this policy will not work. The French soldiers are being held as liberators at present but if they remain for a long time they will start to become regarded as occupiers. This will feed resentment and further opposition in the local population.
Terrorists where ever they are and whoever they may be must be stopped. I believe that it is better to deploy most of our resources to track down the small number of terrorist leaders and then capture them and put them on trial. They should be imprisoned, if found guilty, rather than executed.
Justice will then be seen to be done. The communities, from which the terrorists draw their tacit support, will then see the protagonists for what they really are and withdraw their backing.
Troops which are used as invasion forces should be re-deployed to protect key installations and infrastructure directly.
In Mali, there might just be a case for using foreign troops to prevent a guerrilla army overrunning the country and imposing laws which do not have popular support. This army should remain no longer than is necessary and should withdraw when the threat is eliminated. They should not outstay their welcome.
Terrorists where ever they are and whoever they may be must be stopped. I believe that it is better to deploy most of our resources to track down the small number of terrorist leaders and then capture them and put them on trial. They should be imprisoned, if found guilty, rather than executed.
Justice will then be seen to be done. The communities, from which the terrorists draw their tacit support, will then see the protagonists for what they really are and withdraw their backing.
Troops which are used as invasion forces should be re-deployed to protect key installations and infrastructure directly.
In Mali, there might just be a case for using foreign troops to prevent a guerrilla army overrunning the country and imposing laws which do not have popular support. This army should remain no longer than is necessary and should withdraw when the threat is eliminated. They should not outstay their welcome.
Decadence and Snow
Once again our country ( UK) is brought to standstill by a few inches of snow. Last Friday twelve hours before a flake fell one of the London Region's train companies declared an emergency timetable. They cancelled a number of rush hour trains. This is sheer decadence.
There was a real emergency going on in Algeria and now doubt the Foreign and Defence Ministries would have appreciated all their staff getting to work on time.
The BBC was constantly giving us reports about the extreme weather. We are not having extreme weather: minus 1 Celcius and 4 inches of snow is not extreme weather. Why was the BBC not calling into account the railway companies who claim that they could not run the trains when there is a few inches of snow?
I have had the pleasure of working in Hamburg in the winter. The temperatures are much colder and the snow is deeper. They use the same electric three rail system as London. Their trains run on time in winter; why can't ours?
The residents of Prague, New York and Moscow must be laughing at us.
Today, 5,000 schools were closed because of 4 inches of snow. Once again the BBC did not question a Headmaster who said he had closed his school because a pupil might slip over and break an arm. Does this mean that he should cancel all football and rugby lesson for fear of a broken arm? What would he do if the snow fell for six weeks? This happened in 1962.
In 1962 our winter could just about manage to be called extreme; the snow and freezing temperatures lasted for weeks. All the schools remained open and the buses kept running we did not miss a day of school. We are a much richer country now and have much more resources. We could easily keep the schools open and the buses and trains running through a few inches of snow.
What we are lacking is the will, mental attitude and vitality to keep things going when there is a minor in convenience and such decadence could see us off.
It is a good job that the police, fire brigade and ambulance men and women do not have the same mental weakness.
When some climbers had a tragic accident in Scotland over the weekend many brave mountain rescuers faced the snow to help them. Perhaps some mountain rescuers could be seconded to run our schools and railways. They are brave enough to get the job done.
It is also a good job that the armed services do not refuse to rescue hostages or sailors in distress during a real emergency because of the prospect of bad weather. Where would we be then?
There was a real emergency going on in Algeria and now doubt the Foreign and Defence Ministries would have appreciated all their staff getting to work on time.
The BBC was constantly giving us reports about the extreme weather. We are not having extreme weather: minus 1 Celcius and 4 inches of snow is not extreme weather. Why was the BBC not calling into account the railway companies who claim that they could not run the trains when there is a few inches of snow?
I have had the pleasure of working in Hamburg in the winter. The temperatures are much colder and the snow is deeper. They use the same electric three rail system as London. Their trains run on time in winter; why can't ours?
The residents of Prague, New York and Moscow must be laughing at us.
Today, 5,000 schools were closed because of 4 inches of snow. Once again the BBC did not question a Headmaster who said he had closed his school because a pupil might slip over and break an arm. Does this mean that he should cancel all football and rugby lesson for fear of a broken arm? What would he do if the snow fell for six weeks? This happened in 1962.
In 1962 our winter could just about manage to be called extreme; the snow and freezing temperatures lasted for weeks. All the schools remained open and the buses kept running we did not miss a day of school. We are a much richer country now and have much more resources. We could easily keep the schools open and the buses and trains running through a few inches of snow.
What we are lacking is the will, mental attitude and vitality to keep things going when there is a minor in convenience and such decadence could see us off.
It is a good job that the police, fire brigade and ambulance men and women do not have the same mental weakness.
When some climbers had a tragic accident in Scotland over the weekend many brave mountain rescuers faced the snow to help them. Perhaps some mountain rescuers could be seconded to run our schools and railways. They are brave enough to get the job done.
It is also a good job that the armed services do not refuse to rescue hostages or sailors in distress during a real emergency because of the prospect of bad weather. Where would we be then?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
