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?
Wednesday, 25 September 2013
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
