The Bewilderness

A certainty of alarmists

Take a pinch of salt, stir in speculation, and pluck figures from thin air. Simmer with press releases escaping. Voila! alarmism, without a shred of evidence:

Climate change could cause global conflicts as large as the two world wars but lasting for centuries unless the problem is controlled, a leading defence think tank has warned.

The Royal United Services Institute said a tenfold increase in energy research spending to around £10 billion a year would be needed if the world were to avoid the worst effects of changing temperatures.

However the group said that the response to threats posed by climate change, such as rising sea levels and migration, had so far been "slow and inadequate," because nations had failed to prepare for the worst-case scenario.

The source of the report is Nick Mabey, a former senior member of the Prime Minister's Strategy Unit, and has an unsurprising background in environmental charities, non-governmental organisations, and think-tanks. He has contributed to the economic study of global warming and its transmutation into the agitprop term, 'climate change'. His article adops a certain tone....

Food riots in Mexico City, environmental outrage from Osama bin Laden and Russian territorial claims in the Arctic: the past year has seen climate change emerge as a serious issue across the security agenda, from the abstraction of discussions in the UN Security Council to the brutal reality of drought-driven conflict in Africa. These are just the first signs of how climate change – and our responses to it – will fundamentally change the strategic security context in the coming decades.

Climate change is already creating hard security threats, but it has no hard security solutions. Climate change is like a ticking clock: every increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere permanently alters the climate, and we can never move the hands back to reclaim the past. Even if we stopped emitting pollution tomorrow, the world is already committed to levels of climate change unseen for hundreds of thousands of years. If we fail to stop polluting, we will be committed to catastrophic and irreversible changes over the next century, which will directly displace hundreds of millions of people and critically undermine the livelihoods of billions. There is some scientific uncertainty over these impacts, but it is over when they will occur not if they will occur – unless climate change is slowed. Preventing catastrophic and runaway climate change will require a global mobilisation of effort and co-operation seldom seen in peacetime.

Not so much economics as prophecy. Uncertainty of outcome is downplayed and the effects are asserted as fact, although Mabey would be the first to see the future since Christ or Nostradamus.

The guardian or april fool

Do they think we are fools?

Flying penguins, though they overdid it with the rainforest. Too Disney!

The Guardian has a dismal article on why practical jokes are unfunny.

I was actually six and three-quarters when I first discovered that practical jokes aren't funny. What they are, in fact, is acts of bullying performed with a sly grin. The physical ones - in Scotland, apparently, you have to kick someone's bottom on April Fools' Day, which must make going to work a riot - are nothing more than simple thuggery.

On any other day you would call the police, or at least go to see someone in human resources, but at this time of the year you are supposed to gurn with pleasure as someone performs a humiliating physical assault upon you. Don't join in and you are guilty of "not having a sense of humour" - itself an extra kind of social shaming. Retaliate with just a tad too much vigour - like, say, holding your tormentor down and kicking them repeatedly in the groin - and it's you who risk being escorted from the building.

And those subtler April Fools' hoaxes performed with a gentlemanly accent are no better. Apparently the Guardian did one back in the late 90s when it said that the Queen was going to start a website. And then - do hold your chuckles and try not to spray Coco Pops around the room - a few years later she actually did. It's a mad world, my masters, and you have to be mad - but in a good way, obviously, not in one that requires intervention from social services - to enter into it fully.

No doubt, Kathryn likes her humour sophisticated and subtle. None of your slapstick as this could be offensive. A lot of humour is! Ban it.

Calamity Clinton and Barmy Obama

Were the Democrats jealous of their British namesakes, the Liberal Democrats?

Relations between the Democratic presidential nomination frontrunners Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama have deteriorated markedly after Obama's team condemned as "slime politics" a reported personal slur from the Clinton camp.

We await a briefing on Calamity Clinton and a paper on Barmy Obama.

Liberal Democrat chiefs are today considering whether to take action against leadership contender Chris Huhne over a campaign document describing his rival as "Calamity Clegg".

Nick Clegg's team lodged an official complaint with the party's chief whip yesterday after Huhne's camp issued the briefing note.

Climate change comparison

Extrapolation, hysteria, fattened figures and obese statistics. Welcome to the latest laugh from the fat farm. Our health minister, Alan Johnson, can foresee every snack, every burger, every transfat soaked-up sugar bun that you will gorge yourself upon in the next half century.

And this danger, this threat, this enemy that is poised to undermine the British way of life: it is as great, if not greater, than climate change. How could Alan Johnson quickly gain attention for himself? The bright spark was Climate Change Comparison. This is a new tool in the state's armoury.

Do the professionals want to dose up on regulatory steroids and steer the fatted calves (proles) in the right direction. The proles know not what they do and require guidance. But, to justify, to justify social workers setting menus, tearing families apart if so much as a crisp packet is found in the kitchen; losing prole priveleges if little Johnny weighs over the odds.

They invoke the Climate Change Comparison as justification. Obesity is  just as dangerous as carbon emissions, or cars, or  rabbits  or  the aliens.

The public health threat posed by obesity in the UK is a "potential crisis on the scale of climate change", the health secretary has warned.

Alan Johnson said the magnitude of the problem was becoming clear for the first time and "it is in everybody's interest to turn things round".

Details have emerged of a government study which says half the population could be obese within 25 years.

And what is to be done about this  forecast. The government has a plan.  Perhaps it is part of Gordon's vision.

Ministers are drawing up a long-term action plan to tackle obesity.

We are so lucky that the government will draw up a fully costed plan with targets, policies and wish fulfillments. But plans cost money, and my money will be used to tackle obesity and climate change and any other problem that demands Climate Change Comparison.

Thankfully, this government is being compared and found wanting.

The echo chamber of a silenced boycott

Where is the Israeli boycott? The University and College Union does not know how to deal with the calls for a boycott and have received legal advice that the action would be illegal. The legal advice noted that the boycott would contravene discrimination legislation and that it did not meet the aims and objects of the union. There is a fitting irony that the boycott demanded is defined as discriminatory under the politically correct legislation advanced by the New Left. Moreover, it does not appear to meet the union's legal reason for existence which is, of course, pursuing the interests of its members.

Sally Hunt, general secretary of the UCU, insisted the majority of the union's 120,000 members would neither support a boycott call nor regard it as a priority. She said last night: "I hope this decision will allow all to move forwards and focus on what is our primary objective, the representation of our members."

However, Sue Blackwell, a member of the union's executive and of the British Committee for the Universities of Palestine, said of the decision: "It is quite ridiculous. It is cowardice. It is outrageous and an attack on academic freedom."

This is the stupidity of the Left. Bound by laws that they passed, they now howl in frustration since they find their own freedoms circumscribed. These laws were designed to silenec their enemies, not themselves. Even more galling is the long march of infiltration designed to provide an organised platform for their sectarian ways falls before the legal demands of British law. They fall back upon their own odious shibboleth of an academic freedom that they do not espouse for others. The shrill hysteria of the disappointed pervades Amjad Barham's article, who is rather vocal for a man who has been silenced:

By resorting to bullying, censorship and intimidation, however, the Israel lobby in the US and UK, supported by the Israeli government and academic establishment, is declaring its definitive loss of confidence in its own ability to rationally refute the case for an academic boycott against Israel.

By muzzling debate and free discussion on the boycott, the lobby and its supporters within the UCU are suppressing academic freedom in the most crude manner. They are proving once again that they were never concerned about the alleged "infringement" of the boycott on academic freedom; rather, their only concern has always been how to shield Israel's unique form of apartheid from scrutiny and censure. Their aim has been to protect the Israeli academy from damning accusations of complicity in maintaining Israel's oppression of all Palestinians, academics and students included....

Needless to say, the boycott campaign will not only continue, but is likely to gain public support among western academics in particular; the true face of the anti-boycott camp has been exposed as a McCarthyist front that unabashedly violates the most revered values of academic freedom and open debate.

They have every right to debate, boycott and protest in print, academia and in politics. They just will not be able to use the vehicle of UCU for their demands since this is illegal. We really need to educate the Palestinian sympathisers about the rule of law. It might make their campaigns more intelligent.

Barbarian At the Gates

In the early running towards the US Presidential election in 2008, the tactics are as much about establishing a brand, raising money, and acquiring the support of activists.

This election is unusual, since neither the incumbent President nor the Vice-President will be running, and that makes for a much more open contest.  This effect is more dramatic in the Republican party, since the effective leaders of the party are the (deeply unpopular) president, and the congressional leaders who lost control of both the House of Representatives and the Senate. 

In short, the conditions are ideal for an unexpected and unfancied candidate to enter the race and genuinely contend.  The man who might do this is Texas Congressman Dr Ron Paul. 

Dr Paul ran for president as Libertarian Party candidate in 1988, and won 0.43% of the vote, but he has also won election to Congress on three occasions when not the incumbent.  When one considers the advantages of the incumbent in US politics, this is a fine record.

More recently, he is registering 1-2% in opinion polls, while running first or second in internet or text message polls after the May 3rd Republican Presidential Debate, and has highly popular Facebook, Myspace and Youtube presences (as discussed here).  As well as these signs of activist support, he is apparently receiving considerable campaign contributions. Of the three goals I mentioned in the first paragraph, only general "brand-awareness" appears to be lacking.

Dr Paul is also accused of not really being a Republican, and the party establishment appears to be acting to sabotage his candidacy.  After all, he is not mainstream, in favour of Habeas Corpus rather than torture, small government rather than large, and in general, disagrees with his party in its current form on almost everything.

Clearly, the best way to weaken him is to reduce his opportunities to reach large audiences. And so, he has not been invited to a debate in Iowa on June 30th.  The press release is dated today.

This is a risky game. I do wonder if the coverage of this step is likely to generate exactly the sort of coverage that the party sought to avoid.

Ahmadinejad is apparently a Holocaust Denier

The Guardian headline states that President Ahmadinejad's support in Iran is "soaring" although there are no political polls to provide any firm evidence. Cue the quote from a Professor of political science at the University of Tehran that provides a figure without any indication of its accuracy:

"He's more popular now than a year ago. He's on the rise," said Nasser Hadian-Jazy, a professor of political science at Tehran University. "I guess he has a 70% approval rating right now. He portrays himself as a simple man doing an honest job. He's comfortable communicating with ordinary people."

Other sources are "Iranian officials and western diplomats" although why their information should be treated as honest and impartial is not provided. We must assume that Iranian bureaucrats provide information about their elected President from a neutral stance. The article then states that the President is favourite to win a second term in 2009, which is only three years away. He may already be a lame duck given the electoral cycle! It is also attributed to his obigatory resistance to the United States.

Attributing his success to his populist style and fortnightly meet-the-people tours of the country, the sources said that as matters stood, Mr Ahmadinejad was the clear favourite to win a second term in 2009. The perception that the president was standing up to the US on the nuclear issue was also boosting his standing.

Further down, balance returns with alternative views that Ahmadinejad's popularity stems from his lack of corruption and a high oil price that allows subsidies to be sprayed at the peasant and poor urban classes who voted for him.  However, the recent unrest amongst minorities is wrapped into "US claims": "US officials have described the Iranian president as a threat to world peace and claim that he faces a popular insurrection at home". His denial of the Holocaust is only "apparent".

Here, Iran is represented in the reporting as another democracy. with an emphasized subtext that Ahmadinejad's popularity stems from threats by the United States as he is merely standing up for the rights of his country and resisting the demands of the West. An unbalanced article informed by unattributable sources, a lack of hard evidence, and a series of talking heads that are supposed provide a middle point from which readers infer the truth.

You Wouldn't Put It Past Him

There have been accusations that Sir Ian Blair has not made himself available to the IPCC for interview in connection with the De Menezes inquiry. The source of this rumour, denied by the IPCC, appears to be the  De Menezes family, who are understandably frustrated at the length of time that the inquiry has taken.

A spokeswoman for the IPCC admitted that the inquiry, named Stockwell 2, would be delayed, but refused to point the finger at Sir Ian. "We are now looking at late summer," she said.

"The investigation is complex and is taking longer than we expected for a number of reasons.

Once the probity of a public figure is compromised, further accusations, even if untrue, will be considered in a certain light due to past actions. Sir Ian Blair has made serious errors of judgement and this now governs perceptions of his conduct.

Sir Ian Blair: Brought to Book

The position of Sir Ian Blair has been untenable since the De Menezes shooting, and his continued tenure as Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police brings that force into disrepute. As one of the New Labour cadre, he combines that distasteful attachment to the illiberal spectacles of  political correction with the heavyhanded authoritarian measures that this group adopt for social and political problems. Such a combination has proved anathema to the Left-liberals professionals who gravitate  to the public sector and have done so well from Brown's tenure. Now Sir Ian Blair may be prosecuted as the Metropolitan Police did not adopt a "duty of care" to the shooting of De Menezes:

Prosecutors may now bring charges under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974.

They believe as there was little or no intelligence to suggest the innocent 27-year-old was a terrorist the Scotland Yard chain of command failed in its "duty of care".

Until now, it had been thought only those who fired or ordered the operation were under investigation.

Despite not being directly involved, a prosecution under the 1974 legislation could see Sir Ian appearing at the Old Bailey. A CPS source has said the move was now "likely".

I am not a fan of health and safety legislation, but it appears that some of the CPS wish to see justice done and Sir Ian brought down. Steve Glover remains behind the curve:

The tragedy is that a police force which indulges a destructive suspected car thief, and mounts a commando raid in East London, will lose public trust. A police force that is alternately indulgent and terrifying, and wastes time in persecuting ordinary people for holding reasonable views, will find that it is forsaking the confidence of the law-abiding middle classes on whose support it ultimately depends.

The trust of the public has been squandered. It is inherent with all state structures that they will shift from trust structures to the arbitrary interpretation of regulation as civil society shrivels before the onslaught of the state.

London's leading chavs

The President of the Republic of Venezuela will be lunching with London's leading chavs.

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez will continue his two-day visit to London with a lunch hosted by Ken Livingstone....

They will be joined at the lunch by figures from the worlds of culture, finance and fashion as well as trade unionists and MPs.

Guests include playwright Harold Pinter, Bianca Jagger, Peter Voser, Chief Financial Officer of Shell International, fashion designer Katherine Hamnett and Michael Lynch, director of the South Bank Centre.

MPs expected to attend include Tony Lloyd, Jon Cruddas, Diane Abbott, Colin Burgon, Dawn Butler and Jon Trickett.

Chav is shorthand for the supporters of Hugo Chavez, the chavistas.

The Chavs admire a President who presides over curbs on the freedom of expression, the harassment and imprisonment of political opponents and human rights NGOs, and violent corrupt police forces. Perhaps it is the doe-eyed admiration of a Left-wing caudillo.