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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
