June 21, 2011
A denialist's brain: recent scans show evidence of cooling
The Man who writes stuff like this…
Sure Glenn Beck has his faults but they are vastly outweighed by his strengths: his fearlessness in speaking truth to power; his gift for explaining political ideas in a way that galvanises the attention of Middle America; his sheer entertainment value
the values of the eugenics movement and of the modern green movement are closely connected
Brings you this:
It’s official: a new Ice Age is on its way. In what has been described as “the science story of the century”, heavyweight US solar physicists have announced that the sun is heading for a prolonged period of low activity. This makes global cooling a much more plausible prospect in the next few decades than global warming.
Sadly one of the heavyweight US solar physicists (only heavyweight when they’re telling you what you want to hear, it seems) has had to issue a follow-up statement [see bottom of page]:
We are NOT predicting a mini-ice age. We are predicting the behavior of the solar cycle. In my opinion, it is a huge leap from that to an abrupt global cooling, since the connections between solar activity and climate are still very poorly understood. My understanding is that current calculations suggest only a 0.3 degree C decrease from a Maunder-like minimum, too small for an ice age. It is unfortunate that the global warming/cooling studies have become so politically polarizing.
Delingpole is one of the ringleaders of the denialist movement and when any of his claims about climate science is examined it leads to a similar misinterpretation/incontrovertible lie. But good on them for winning the propaganda war.
November 27, 2010
Glad to see that Biffo and his mates have finally capitulated and realised that to better survive a spell in the financial penitentiary requires a delicate receptivity to the probing tumescence of one’s burly financial overlord cellmates. But Fianna Fail may not have realised that putting out for Bubba would be quite as circumferentially painful as a possible interest rate as large as 6.7 per cent. Lubeless love courtesy of the IMF.
May 12, 2010
Less than 24 hours into the new government and the middle classes are under siege again. Business as usual.
May 12, 2010
I am regretting slightly that the Conservatives didn’t win an overall majority. Can you imagine if Cameron were today leading a Conservative government? What would the ambiance be like tomorrow in the conference rooms of the Tory press? Can you imagine being a news editor in the Daily Mail? Where does the material come from if not NuLiebour and Gordon Broon? You’re fucked. The tabs have been spoon-fed anti-Labour stories for 13 years. Eurosceptic PR, MigrationWatchUK, Taxpayers’ Alliance to hint at just a few. Easy, juicy, pre-written news fodder. And overnight it all vanishes. Three glorious years of vilifying Gordon Brown is over. Who to blame for chavs, immigrants, rapists, speed cameras, elf ‘n’ safety, council tax, stealth taxes, broken Britain, single mothers, benefit scroungers, human rites, political correctness? Who does a columnist turn to when stripped of his subject? Screwed, totally screwed. They certainly carry on for a while and blame it all on the legacy of Labour. But after a couple of years it starts to ring hollow. Incredulity incubates and people stop believing that Labour can be responsible for a stabbing in Basingstoke, two years out of government. But in coalition with the Lib Dems I think the tabs have a substitute scapegoat who can be blamed for anything that goes wrong in Britain as long as they’re power-sharing. And I can’t help feeling a little disappointed about that.
May 5, 2010
The political squabbling in the last days of canvassing season is an embarrassment to a nation which, if it stands for anything, should be voting in a single-issue election–Iraq. ‘Fairness’ seems to be the a frequent motif peppering the political guff. Brown think’s he’s been fair but he could have been a tad fairer, to be fair. He could have started by not supporting an illegal war. Cameron thinks that the ‘big society’ project will encourage fairness as a bovine electorate stands in for mutilated public services. Might prove to be fair, we’ll see. But the Tories would have fairly pounded the shit out of Iraq had they been in power too. Read the rest of this entry »
April 23, 2010
We knew it would get ugly but maybe not this ugly. April 15 was the date that Nick Clegg punctured the political/press/PR gasbag and left them all a muddle.
I couldn’t contain a squirm of Schadenfreude when it became apparent that the Lib Dems had lopped the Conservative tree and trampled on Labour’s rose. You can imagine the chagrin of the tabloid nexus at seeing the Tories’ lead dwindle, and the years of election hopes dashed by the third party. Labour’s cronies must be equally shocked at being outgunned by the Cleggster. What a delight to see the glib bastards rattled and disarrayed.
It wasn’t long before the press backlash began, as expected. Plenty of opprobrium was heaped on Clegg, especially on the morning of the second debate. The Telegraph had something about donors and bank accounts, the Mail a ‘Nazi slur’; the Express screamed about a ‘crazy’ immigration policy. The criticism has been so intense that Clegg’s election coordinator, Danny Alexander, claimed that the Tories had orchestrated a media campaign.
Peter Oborne writing in the Mail found his inner Littlejohn and wrote this spiteful bollocks:
‘The truth is that Clegg is the leader of a profoundly dishonest party that is prepared to lie, cheat and on occasion issue outrageous smears on its opponents in order to win power.’
Equally applicable to all parties, more so to Labour and Conservatives in my opinion. And at least the Lib Damns have for years been advocating the reform of the political system so that dishonesty, lies, cheating and outrageous smears aren’t the modus operandi of British politics.
Despite all the violent criticism, Rasputin refuses to die–the Lib Dems remain strong in the polls. Maybe the conservative press is using diversionary tactics by obsessively focussing on Clegg so the electorate might forget about the inconvenient Vince Cable whose ability and likeability make him one of the biggest political assets in the Commons.
March 17, 2010
Ugh. I dread to write about Middle Eastern politics because it such an incendiary subject, fraught with partisan agitators on both sides. The arguments of so many columnists and forum fighters are riddled with illogical and apocryphal nonsense, making any contribution to the ‘debate’ both futile and farcical. Often, when the moronic accusations grow tiresome (x are Nazis, y are Nazis), the history of the region and its peoples becomes the focus–it reduces to a matter of squatters’ rights.
The squatters’ rights rationale asserts that those who are there longest have an inalienable entitlement, irrespective of anything. Subsequent immigrants are simply interlopers who ought not be there at all.
This is a simple idea but there’s a catch. You’ll find that advocates for both sides claim that their favoured faction has been there longer than the other. What? But surely a common or garden history book will settle this dispute. Apparently not. The internet, bless its gullible soul, abounds with many bowdlerized, hackneyed and revisionist versions of Middle East history. Both sides have their insuperable histories so they are both wrong and both right–the quantum cat is neither dead nor alive, and the truth cannot be revealed until someone opens the box (or the history book).
So how to surmount the conundrum? You could start by reasoning that both sides are right and wrong. You could say that there is a long presence of both groups in the region which is complex, and, importantly, difficult to ascertain with certainty, given that we simply don’t have the detailed data available to provide any certainty.
But surely this is all irrelevant if you believe that an individual has the right to live freely in the place of his or her birth. In which case both Israelis and Palestinians are equally entitled to live where they are. Is the passport of a Briton born of Lithuanian parents any less valid than a Briton who can trace his roots back to the Middle Ages? To be born in a nation-state of the Western world is to be an automatic and equal citizen of that nation; provenance is scrubbed at birth. So why are supporters on both sides so desperate for it to be different in the Middle East?