I was invited to be on the Murnaghan programme on Sky News this morning – which I always find a great deal more intelligent than the Andrew Marr alternative on the BBC. I declined because I did not want to get up and get a 7.30am train from Ramsgate on a Sunday morning. I had a meeting until 11.30pm last night planning a conference on human rights in Balochistan [I still tend to say Baluchistan], and I have a newly crowned tooth that seems not to want to settle down. But I am still worried by my own lack of energy, which is uncharacteristic. Is this old age?
I also have some serious work to do on my Burnes book, and next week I shall be staying in London to be in the British Library reading room for every second of its opening hours. So there may be a bit of a posting hiatus. I have in mind a short post on an important subject on which I suspect that 99% of my readership – including the regular dissident commenters – will strongly disagree with me.
This is a peculiarly introspective post, perhaps because my tooth is hurting, but I seem to have this curmudgeonly spirit which wishes to react to the huge popularity of this blog by posting something genuinely held but unpopular; a genuine view but one I don’t normally trumpet. The base thought seems to be “You wouldn’t like me if you really knew me”.
Similarly when I wrote Murder in Samarkand I was being hailed as a hero by quite a lot of people for my refusal to go along with the whole neo-con disaster of illegal wars, extraordinary rendition and severe attacks on civil liberties, sacrificing my fast track diplomatic career as a result. My reaction to putative hero worship was to publish in Murder in Samarkand not just the political facts, but an exposure of my own worst and most unpleasant behaviour in my private life.
I am in a very poor position to judge, but I believe the result rather by accident turned out artistically compelling, if you don’t want to read the book you can get a good idea of that by clicking on David Tennant in the top right of this blog and listening to him playing me in David Hare’s radio adaptation.
Anyway, that’s enough musing. You won’t like my next post, whenever it comes. Promise.
Sorry Chris, I stopped reading after the 2nd paragraph as you seem intent on a rather flimsy distortion of the arguments made against the oregon petition. If you can make a case without resorting to this tactic, I’ll listen.
Hi Chris: Your highlighted point of evidence, the Oregon Petition Project, is an absolute steaming pile of fossil-fuel, hard right-wing (include big business and religious nuttery) sponsored bunch of horse-feathers. Rather than properly defend it or revise your confidence in it, you attack the people pointing out the blatant BS is obviously is.
It declares itself as – and you strongly insinuated it was – a serious scientifically backed dissent from “alarmists” who want to delude and panic us into thinking there’s actually a problem concerning GCC.
It proves to be no such thing, in fact, it is an utter sham, a house of cards. But that gives you no pause for thought whatsoever, nor did you consider my pointing out that all your sources are from dubious, corporate-sponsored shills for the fossil fuel industry and their various stooges. You seem remarkably detached.
Are you a “sceptic”? You show no scepticism whatsoever when it comes to highly suspect, self-interested supporters of the status quo. You say, when expressing apparent disappointment with climate scientists, “what reason would they have to mislead?” – but apparently you’re very trusting of the exponents of your current point of view.
quote Chris: Still no explanation on how the IPCC graph completely changed from its 1996 model to the 2001 model by the way. Maybe it’s just a fashion thing. Maybe it’s those naughty birds leaving crumbs in the circuits again
No idea what you’re talking about there, but FYI… scientific theories change to accommodate ALL new data. What would you prefer that they do, Chief?
*
Just as an aside, there is a modest but reasonable living to be made by shilling for the polluting industries, the well-funded right wing “think-tanks”, not to mention Israeli foreign policy and so on. You get money for quality posts on high profile website, calling into TV/radio shows and putting your message out. Might I kindly suggest you could turn a buck or two, with your reasonable, non-confrontational approach, while you can keep the conversation going, and “debate” ranging around the real issues?
You do this so well, and you obviously believe in it – and are handsomely endowed with information for us – why not also get paid for doing this greater good while you’re at it?
Ben Franklin: I don’t know of any atheist who does actually “…trash the person known as Jesus to make a point about the hypocrites who claim his name”. Do you? Could you name some of them, please? Every last atheist I know considers some of the philosophies of Jesus to be very sound – Matthew 25, for instance. Christians don’t seem to know/care much about that, though.
Atheism is not a faith, no more than science is a faith. It’s simply not believing in that which is not proven. How is that a faith, any more than baldness is a hair colour?
You use this fallacy to conclude: (quote) Therefore, it is just as much ideology as the religion of the uninformed or, low-info religionists.
As it happens, atheists know vastly more about all religions, particularly the one they likely escaped from, than the average mindlessly accepting religionist. There is no ideology, just humanism.
Couldn’t you reference at least a scrap of evidence for these declarations? Unsupported assertions might hold great weight where you hang out, but not among the scientific or atheist inclined.
Glenn, thanks for that, and well done, applying your uh. Now what? I know you’re atheist, so I wouldn’t want to accuse you of “applying a Christian principle”, but you did, and applied it well; that is exactly {whoever “Jesus” really was} would have taught. But that doesn’t mean your principles didn’t come from your conscience, and that’s just what Jesus taught, too. There would be none of this linguistic trouble if no one had built a religion around the teachings, but alas, it’s just human nature to do so.
What a thoroughly miserable teacher that was, with her talk of worms and rotting. Transmitting the dogma overruled conscience / good moral sense on that occasion, eh?
The Armageddon thing was both better and worse than it could have been. They never did tie down an exact date. The official dogma was “before the passing of living memory of 1914”, but 1975 was often mentioned quietly in private, and did get into The Watchtower on one occasion. So the tension was spread and held over a number of years.
But the good news was I was going to survive because I was “in The Truth”, and then all the people who’d died before (but not at) Armageddon would get resurrected. So lost aunties and uncles would come back. But I hoped Dad would die before Armageddon came, so he’d get resurrected instead of annihilated permanently. Then, we’d all live happily forever and ever. Yep, immortality on a Paradise Earth.
So, better and worse, see, but a big crock of shit nonetheless.
Agreed, but I’d go further. Religious indoctrination of children should be banned. Not a snowflake’s chance in Hell of that, though. Not for ages yet.
Sorry, Glenn, but I agree with Fedup. Humans really are that perverse, that they can make a belief of disbelief, and aggressively push their dogma of non-existence of, well, whatever it is they think doesn’t exist, onto other people. Sorry again, Glenn, and with respect, but you do so yourself, with your ranting about the “sky fairy”, trying to offend those who believe, just like some people of one religion try to wind up those of different dogma.
I agree with you that atheism can be done right. But it often isn’t.
On a related/inverted note, have you heard of the atheist Quakers? They’re a really good bunch. They have a well known book, Godless, for God’s Sake!
bah my last post, too moany. Good debates here, talk and Mary and co handling heavy duty reality.
Im on a flickering connection due to meteorite static. Clark good on ye by the way.
Ben Franklin, by and large, the other witnesses were decent people; kind and honest. It was really true that you could take expensive belongings to an assembly of tens of thousands of people, leave it on your seat to keep your place while you went for lunch, and no one would steal it, it would be there when you returned. They also all chipped in to build and decorate their own assembly spaces, an truly communal effort that didn’t buy in corporate services at all. Impressive. They really did practice what they preached.
The bitterness is rather fresh in my mind. Mum only died last year. But discussing it doesn’t seem to be a problem for me; more of a relief, really.
Thatcrab, good on you, too. And Mark Golding, thanks.
Thatcrab, I have clear sky here. Is it worth going out to look? Have you been watching? Seen anything?
Further to Ben Franklin, I’d say that the worst libel of Jesus is the Christian dogma that he was the same individual as “God”, or Jehovah of the Old Testament. What a terrible thing to say! The cynical part of me that has learned how politics works sees propaganda in this outrageous slur.
Glenn; It was more of an implicit suggestion I picked up from the comments in a generic sense. Notice I did not address any individual. Your point is well-taken.
“Atheism is not a faith, no more than science is a faith.” Your words, I believe. You suggest atheism is more attuned to science than a belief in ‘an immutable spirit” in which Einstein believed.
It could be semantics dividing us, but my attitude is that science supports the idea of a first cause, rather than a mindless chaos operating by chance. I think you have relegated God to First Cause in which he sets the wheels of Physics in motion then watches the display. I don’t believe God plays dice with the World. It takes faith to believe a tree arose out of chance rather than creation. But I am guessing until you describe your cosmology with more detail.
Clark; My impression of JW’s is that they live their faith most respectably. There are the exceptions, but the rule was well-stated by yourself.
As to the accepted belief that Jesus was Almighty God, I agree. It seems people feel if Jesus were not God, his sacrifice was less. I disagree. the example of Abraham when told to sacrifice Isaac illustrates the greater sacrifice of god sending his Son. It would be much easier for HIM to sacrifice his own life.
Ben, you needn’t answer this, but which seven years? Specifically, was your encounter after 1975? I mean, The Truth must have changed rather a lot some years after 1975. I just happened to hit a particularly bad patch, and it happened to coincide with my formative years.
Clark; Maybe a little too revealing….I was a Bethelite at Headquarters in 1975 and remember the context of the date. If you care to know more without involving the locals…email [Mod/Jon: email removed].
Ok..still here? Want to discuss?
I actually suspect that the story about Jesus being God was political disinformation to quell a big problem for the political power structures. This working class man, never chased possessions, riches or power, born of a single mum, girlfriend is a hooker. He goes around saying, “Don’t accumulate wealth. Be good to each other. You don’t need priests or people to tell you your morals; you can feel what’s right in your heart”. Called out the money-changers and threw their table across the temple.
Well, he was martyred, tortured to death, and it started a movement. Now what? How do the political powers diffuse that one? Well, first, we need to make his death less of an injustice. I know, what if he didn’t really die? What if he was immortal? What if he had a superhuman capacity for suffering? If he wasn’t even human, maybe people wouldn’t identify with him so much, and they wouldn’t feel that they could aspire to what he did? That’ll do. Just whisper it here and there…
I was composing that comment. I edited your e-mail address to save you from invasion by the spambots. I’ll read your comment now.
He wasn’t sacrificed for politics. His was a mission of death. He was above politics and dissuaded his disciples from engaging in any form of it.
OK, I’ve got the address; would you like me to remove it? I’ll e-mail you tomorrow. Must get some zeds soon.
Thanks. I give it out too often, out of Faith 🙂
Get some rest. You are a nightowl.
No, Jesus wasn’t political. The politicos just had to cope with the movement he started.
Goodnight.
Talk to you on the Morrow.
Ben: Thank you for your 22 Sep, 2012 – 2:30 am reply. Not sure what “an immutable spirit” actually means on any sort of practical basis – could you define this a little more closely? After all, if Einstein believed in this … not quite sure what I should conclude from that, actually. Please help me out. (Don’t forget, Einstein was a Jew retreating from Germany and those Godless Russian commies taking over at the time. A few platitudes wouldn’t do the guy any harm – he was human.)
My albeit limited understanding, is that science does not support a “First Cause” hypothesis – a divine master manipulator or designer is not necessary, nor is there much evidence for it. None at all, in fact.
Zero evidence is not much of a basis for a theory. For instance, I could argue that the entire purpose of the Universe is to create the conditions under which this very post could be composed and sent off. Can you refute that, if I put the argument in religious terms?
*
Actually, I thought for a long time (relatively speaking) that while the laws of physics, maths etc. surely had to be followed, God must have set the whole thing in motion with divine knowledge, and manipulated the great numbers (G, the gravitational constant, C etc. etc.) so that the universe would turn out exactly as it has. But later, I had serious doubts that my own insignificant role could possible have any bearing on such a grand plan, and either there was unalterable fate or freewill. Would God punish us for exercising freewill with which we had been endowed? But the universe is unalterable once that First Cause has been set!
Or are we claiming God to work within our lives on a day-to-day basis? If so, where’s the evidence? Why is this God such a teaser, a jester, so shy, so demanding and yet so absent?
*
To help overcome your disbelief that something like a tree, or a moth, or a spider could come into existence, may I suggest you read something by an expert in understanding and explaining – read “Climbing Mount Improbable”, and also “The Blind Watchmaker”. But only if you’re genuinely interested in answers based on all available evidence, because that is all that science has to offer.
Glenn – I’am definately a healthy sceptic and have no way of guaranteeing how many people on any petition are genuine or not – i would hazard a guess though that the ones on the Oregon petition are a bit more numerous than the 5 main authors of the IPCC reports.I would suggest however that you are showing considerable signs of intolerance and bigotry by judging others that might choose to practice religion or be involved in business as ‘nutters’ and equate this and the use of fossil fuels to hard right wingery and general nuttery. I would suggest your views are quite extreme and dangerous and something you should maybe take a look at.It’s interesting also that you say ‘i show no scepticism whatsoever when it comes to highly suspect, self-interested supporters of the status quo’, when that is sadly what you yourself seem unable to demonstrate when it comes to the IPCC and their flawed reports.
Generally speaking,I think the important thing that that petition and others like it show is that there isnt global scientific consensus on what the IPCC has been peddling for many years now.
Your quite right however, to say that scientific theories change to accommodate all new data. But i’m sure you would agree that science reports should not be modified to reflect political aspirations,like the IPCC has admitted doing. This as well as many other evidence of failings are highlited in my post.
Paul Flynn has written this on the STWC website. I had not appreciated that his expulsion from the HoC by Mr Speaker on behalf of the gangsters-in-charge extends to five days and that he will lose a month’s pay. Truly disgusting treatment of an honourable man.
http://www.stopwar.org.uk/index.php/afghanistan-and-pakistan/1894-serving-uk-soldier-tells-mp-paul-flynn-hes-right-the-government-is-lying-about-afghanistan
Again though, it is the plight of the serving soldiers that matter and not that of the recipients of their weaponry who are killed or maimed.
My earlier comment last night included a phrase …as if tea on the vicarage war was being discussed… It should have been …vicarage lawn…!
New specs are on order! £99 for two pairs at Boots Opticians. ‘We recommend the anti-scratch treatment which is £30 for each.’ ‘No thanks’ say I.
Did you know that the ownership of Boots has been carved up over recent years by KKR private equity based in Switzerland,Stefano Pessina and now Walgreen?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/jun/19/pharmacy-walgreen-alliance-boots-merger
‘Walgreens is initially buying a 45% stake in Alliance Boots for £4.3bn, but it intends to buy the remainder for another £6bn within three years.’
The sums of money acquired in the sellers and purchasers in all these deals are phenomenal.
I had always assumed that Walgreens had some connection to Walmart but not so.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/jun/19/walgreens-short-history?intcmp=239
Best headline of the day. The Sun and the Mirror both have it.
On Your Bike!
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/4551319/andrew-mitchell-faces-pressure-to-quit-after-gate-rant-at-woman-PC.html
Chris Jones 22 Sep, 2012 – 12:16 am
“30,000 signers of the petition should be utterly dismissed because a) a few randomly picked signers have the cheek to not believe in big government b) some dare to have a measured opinion that differs from theirs c) some randomly picked members even have the audacity to have died.”
Not at all. You misunderstand me. I was genuinely interested when you said “30,000 recognised scientists have signed a petition denouncing the exagerated claims of man made global warming.”
However, your claim is nonsense. The petition is sponsored by people who overtly support those who have reason to deny. And the signatories are not even scientists, let alone ‘recognised’ scientists, let alone specialists in the field. You did see the vet and the PR man in that tiny sample I looked at?
The petition is textbook propaganda.
That you respond with disingenuous misdirection speaks of your ability to think.
One of interest to Craig here?
22 September 2012
Ivory Coast closes Ghana border after deadly attack
Ivory Coast has closed its border with Ghana after several people were killed in an attack on an army checkpoint.
Ivorian Defence Minister Paul Koffi Koffi said “armed elements from Ghana” carried out the attack in the border town of Noe.
At least five attackers died and others fled back over the border, he added.
Ivory Coast has blamed previous attacks on its security forces on supporters of ex-President Laurent Gbagbo, some of whom are in exile in Ghana.
/..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-19683708
Chris Jones 22 Sep, 2012 – 4:40 am
“Generally speaking,I think the important thing that that petition and others like it show is that there isnt global scientific consensus”
No it doesn’t. What that petition shows is that there are vested interests putting out propaganda.
Please point me towards the others you refer to.
Phil and other IPCC supporters, do you know who set up UNEP and the IPCC?
Maurice Strong – suggest you do some research on his background.
And if you still have any doubts about the science fitting political policy, do watch the attitude by these climate gatekeepers to a genuine scientist postulating with good evidence that our climate is modulated by events in the milky way:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANMTPF1blpQ