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.
I’m not sure God would approve 🙂
Chris Jones, I don’t experience any “eco-tyranny”. I have seen reports of undercover police infiltrating an ecological protest group that were going to get into a coal fired power station, even to the point of forming a sexual relationship with one of the campaigners. I have seen establishment opinions calling peaceful environmental campaigners “eco-terrorists”. I believe that the French secret services bombed one of Greenpeace’s Rainbow Warrior ships. Charles Jean de Menezes was not executed for the sake of global heating. Most of the tyranny seems to be associated with “terrorism” laws, like the girl on her bicycle near Heathrow who was arrested.
Chris Jones, do read my article, here:
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/12/31/clark-energy-resources-and-the-future/
Read the comments too, and see that the Deniers camp, at least at Tallbloke’s blog, predominantly support Right wing political ideology. CanSpeccy even turned up, and attempted to use international energy usage patterns as an argument against immigration.
Clark; The serious manner with which commentators addressed your piece, and the respect shown by all, to all, is a lesson for us all.
Although the WorldWide Petroleum engineers have never been allowed to study Saudi Arabia’s reserves, their speculation is, like speculations about Mitt Romney’s tax returnsa; there must be something rotten in Denmark. Shale and sand are exponentially more expensive to extract, and so your critics must be hoping for rather archetypal innovations.
@Zoologist The sea otters (Enhydra Lutris) should of course contribute to the European Carbon Exchange! If they are low on cash I’m sure the zionists will print some useless paper money and borrow it to them at a shameless interest rate.
@ ScouseBilly Yes, I heard about the corn craziness. It’s so absurd that… I don’t know. These people are just insane, but since they control all major media they get away with anything they want.
Thanks, Clark, I remember it well – in essence you were addressing the “peak oil” issue, which I presume you see as synonymous with CO2 emissions.
I tend to distrust the oil industry and can see how they might want to spin the idea that oil reserves are less than they really are.
Webster Tarpley is in this camp and speaks about this regularly in the media. On the other side you have people like Mike Ruppert.
One commentator on your article, Richard S. Courteney makes a robust argument against “peak oil” or “peak energy” as he describes it from a historical, economc and technological perspective which I commend others to read and consider.
I would like to add a speech given from an economic perspective by Vaclav Klaus that addresses your legitimate concern rather well, in particular, you must be prepared to state what your position (or its practical application at any rate) entails, viz.
“If somebody wants to reduce CO2 emissions, he must either expect a revolution in economic efficiency (which determines emissions intensity) or start organizing a world-wide economic decline. Revolutions in economic efficiency – at least in relevant time horizons – have never been realized in the past and will not happen in the future either. It was the recent financial and economic crisis, not a technological miracle or preaching by the IPCC, that brought about a slight – and probably temporary – reduction in CO2 emissions. The GWD adherents should explain to the people worldwide that to achieve their plans economic decline is inevitable.”
and he adds
“A low discount rate used in global warming models means harming current generations (vis-à-vis future generations). Undermining current economic development harms future generations as well. Economists representing very different schools of thought, from W. Nordhaus at Yale[5] to K. M. Murphy at Chicago[6], tell us convincingly that the discount rate – indispensable for any intertemporal calculations – should be around the market rate, around 5%, and that it should be close to the real rate of return on capital, because only that rate reflects the true opportunity cost of climate mitigation.
We should not accept claims that by adopting low discount rates we “protect the interests of future generations”,[7] or that opportunity costs are irrelevant because in the case of global warming “the problem of choice does not exist” (p. 104). This uneconomic or perhaps anti-economic way of thinking must never be accepted.”
Please feel free to read the full speech here:
http://www.klaus.cz/clanky/3165
So far as I know, the global population has risen by a factor of four since about 1900, and is still rising. Such population growth is without precedent, and it would seem to be fossil fuel extraction that has enabled the technology that has supported that increase.
I really don’t like the look of the way things are going; we don’t know how much is left in the ground.
I read elsewhere, but haven’t attempted to verify, that the OPEC countries also have a strong economic incentive to overreport their reserves, as their permitted extraction rates are proportional to their declared reserves.
Chris, please don’t take offence at my use of “Deniers”. If you notice, I have been referring to myself as an “Alarmist”, partly for the sake of balance, but also because I admit that I’m raising an alarm. I also want short, easily identifiable labels to use. I wasn’t being sarcastic when I asked you what you’d like the Deniers to be called. I don’t want to end up calling anyone the anti-anti-global-heating-believers or anything like that; it’s too confusing.
@ScouseBilly Klaus is mentioned here as well:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-09-22/former-ecb-chief-economist-says-ecb-panic-czech-president-warns-end-demoracy-imminen
Pitch inflation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concert_pitch#Pitch_inflation
1 + 1 = 3
for large values of 1
A wise man, Sunflower and deeply saddened as many of us are.
And still the people sleepwalk (mis)led by the media and political traitors conspiring with the banking cabal – this will not end well for humanity.
Good night all.
Scouse Billy, you remember my Tallbloke thread; did you comment on that thread, and if so, under which name?
No, I didn’t comment, Clark but I thought you did well and were really quite brave, although, give Roger his due he keeps things pretty civil as Ben pointed out.
Now I must get some sleep to 528Hz 😉
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fc4_xaWsQC4&feature=relmfu
“In case of sonic attack, use your wheels, it is what they are for…”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xywQQXrYi5s
@Clark “So far as I know, the global population has risen by a factor of four since about 1900, and is still rising. Such population growth is without precedent, and it would seem to be fossil fuel extraction that has enabled the technology that has supported that increase.”
One of the greatest drivers of population growth is poverty. Poverty-stricken families in developing and third-world countries tend to produce more children in the hope that at least some of them will defeat their appalling infant mortality statistics, and at the same time provide a cheap source of labour by which, so they believe, they might better survive. That is one of, but by no means the exclusive, reasons why the developed world has lower population growth.
Regarding your use of the word “deniers”. This is very different from “alarmists” who at least have what sounds like a half-plausible reason to be worried about something. Whereas “deniers” is a word most usually used to describe those who refuse to acknowledge a faith (see Spanish Inquisition) or belief system. Moreover even the word “sceptic” has now been hijacked in the context of climate, to mean anyone who casually or gratuitously challenges any theory notwithstanding their genuine concern that any evidence behind a belief is questionable.
Taken from its proper meaning “sceptic” should be the position of ANYONE who takes a distanced and disinterested view in the theories of others, and especially those whose minds are closed to either new evidence or to reviewing old evidence. It should be the default position of all scientists to be “sceptical”, no matter matter what subject is at hand. Nowadays to be a “sceptic” is to be a “denier” as far as many climate scientists are concerned. This is an abuse of proper science and a form of bullying or emotional blackmail which any intelligent person should resist.
Zoologist waved away my reference of nasa.gov, and metoffice.co.uk with “I’m interested in science, not government funded propaganda.”
It’s pretty obvious most GCC deniers here feel pretty much the same. So my question to them is, which government is that? The government of “Dubbya” Bush, who undermined and dismissed warnings about GCC from his own agencies. The Thatcher government was famously disinterested in environmental concerns until her “road to Damascus” conversion, but then she did have something of a scientific background. All governments since have done between little and nothing to seriously address GCC.
So whose propaganda – which government – do the deniers believe to be behind it all? And how come they’re so thoroughly blase about the warnings from these agencies? They certainly manage to whoop-up intelligence supports from security agencies when they want to do something!
So the GCC agenda is population control and de-industrialising the west, eh. For who’s benefit? And are any of these purported goals actually happening? (Off-shoring industrial activity does not count as de-industrialising, btw.)
The whole “conspiracy theory” angle on a supposed GCC myth lacks any rational motive or plausible culprit.
“The whole “conspiracy theory” angle on a supposed GCC myth lacks any rational motive or plausible culprit.” There never is such a single culprit; hence plausible denialism. But any suggestion outside the bubble of ideology, most inhabit, contrary to the goals of the Authoritarian, must be opposed with vigor, notwithstanding the big picture of context.
Hi BF just above – I’ve no idea what you’re talking about, apart from some “plausible deniability” is achieved through lack of some single culprit. But generalise – please! – who has the resources and clout to pull off such a massive fraud of GCC, what are its aims, and how well are these aims being met? We’re talking about an on-going programme going back decades, after all, who nobody has blown the whistle on.
Any conspiracy/ hoax theory has to have a aim and masterminds, so far I’ve heard nothing but rather vague and paranoid generalities.
It would also be funny, if it were no tragically sad, to see serious discussion between Deniers about ionising effects from cosmic rays, the Milky Way, sunspots and magnetic perturbations causing observable climate problems. Nary an eyebrow of scepticism to be seen. But pump billions of tons of crap into the atmosphere, chop down all the forests, kill half the ocean and then someone has the audacity to suggest that might affect the climate? OMG! Absurd! What a dupe!
LeonardYoung, by your argument about poverty and population growth, there must have been a big increase in poverty since around 1900. I think you must be oversimplifying. Something has enabled a fast expansion of population.
As to “Deniers” and “Alarmists”, I don’t care what labels we use, so long as they are short, clear, and not unduly pejorative. Since I had none for either side, I used pejorative terms for both. You, as Chris Jones, are welcome to make your suggestions. But I’d rather use common words, which can be understood by their context, than strings of initials which are incomprehensible to anyone unfamiliar with them.
Since it is free blags time still, i may as well try too..
@Deepgreenpurdock
“Curiously, it refers to a design by some entity called nature.”
As an aside from your correction- although appeals to nature seem unpopular, i find rejections of descriptive uses of the word a sad sign. For instance although nature cannot even loosely be said to ‘design’ – it would at least ‘evolve’, and that process can be seen to result in myriads of novelty and true wonder.
Given- one difference between the designed and evolved is that design implies some knowledge involved; and evolution does not. I expect ‘the process’ of evolution and co- and sub-processes, contain informatic~structures with levels of abstraction in addtition all that is known about them to date. What will be known soon and what in hundreds of years?
The non-designs of evolution are not known to be dumb iterations through passing circumstance, as the basic description describes; all of the possible recognisable routes of effect from past states to the current permutation things Evolved, are not known as yet.
So i do think of ‘nature’ as still a mysterious something and find refutations of its intelligabilty, deny some wonderful qualities, or qualities of wonder. Values of a thing are hard to uphold without an acceptable word for it.
More mundane -I often take ‘natural’ as emphasising an essentially mysterious history of coexistence and integration with the nearby things, which the ‘artificial’ usually lacks in comparison.
@Clark. I was careful to point out that poverty was not the exclusive reason for population growth in the third world.
Regarding use of words which you wish to describe as “short and clear”, word choice is really quite important. Their meaning is not dependent on brevity or apparently clarity, but what they do actually mean. It is not pedantry to point out that careful use of language is extremely important where controversial subjects are concerned, because sloppy language nearly always hides meanings and agendas.
Have a look here at Orwells brilliant essay on uses and abuses of language for political purposes, a piece which is as relevant today as it ever was: http://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_polit/
Glenn; Point taken. I get carried away with prose.
“It would also be funny, if it were no tragically sad, to see serious discussion between Deniers about ionising effects from cosmic rays, the Milky Way, sunspots and magnetic perturbations causing observable climate problems. ”
Perhaps CME’s can be relegated to the ash-heap of alarmism.
Catching up after a spell minding grandchildren. For observing meteor showers best equipment is a kitchen chair, a big mirror and (optionally) a pair of binoculars. You place the mirror on the ground, sit on the chair and watch the shower in the mirror. This allows a nice wide view (given a good big mirror) without getting a crick in your neck. If you can get one of those convex mirrors used to help drivers at difficult exits, so much the better. Binoculars allow you to see fainter meteors but even at low magnification they will massively restrict your field of view (so you couldn’t attempt a sample count, for example).
There is a bit of a mystery about the manner in which the US Ambassador to Libya died.
Also the absence of a funeral. Surely an ambassador would have an official funeral, if not a state funeral?
http://www.globalresearch.ca/benghazi-attack-and-ambassador-stevens-why-the-sound-of-silence/
All there is this caption on a photo.
President Obama and Secretary Clinton at a ceremony transferring the remains of slain U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stephens: In the midst of a presidential campaign, renewed Arab unrest raises the stakes for the president and the nation.
{http://www.worldmeets.us/dietageszeitung000019.shtml#ixzz27K6Z2w1C}
Then silence.
This question on Yahoo Answers was deleted.
‘Will there be a state funeral for Ambassador Stevens? Or does …’
This question has been deleted
Questions on Yahoo! Answers are sometimes deleted according to our Community Guidelines
All very odd.
From the Medialens Editors.
Marcus Chown summarises the government’s carving-up of the NHS
Marcus Chown, a journalist who writes for New Scientist, was a major help when we did our 2-part media alert on the NHS earlier this year.
Here’s his own piece – please distribute widely:
http://t.co/GILRPfAC
The Medialens alerts are on:
‘People Will Die’ – The End Of The NHS. Part 1: The Corporate Assault {http://bit.ly/JkBfnU}
‘People Will Die’ – The End Of The NHS. Part 2: Buried By The BBC
{http://bit.ly/InXEz0}
Watch out Mary, our favourite Newsnight sensation has got a new job which should bring her someone closer to our community here.
She is, long drum role and Glockenspiel…, our new cyber security csar.
http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/politics/norwich_mp_given_cyber_security_role_1_1526224
“Ms Smith said: “It can also include ‘hacktivism’, and that means situations in which a group seeks to hack into systems belonging to a government, business or people for a particular purpose, for example to carry out some sort of political campaign.
“People will be aware of some of instances where some firm’s website has been brought down by that kind of activity.”
The hacking group called ‘Anonymous’ came to prominence when it launched online attacks in support of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange in December 2010, after his website published secret US government diplomatic cables”.
It takes a brave man to write about the odious aspects of your own conduct, a bit like the Moghul Emperor Babur who wrote in his memoirs about the state of anxiety he was caused by beholding the young boy whom he loved. Perhaps Babur was your inspiration?
A Human rights conference in Baluchistan is a good idea, so many have disappeared there and the UN has recently conducted an investigatory visit to Pakistan to examine disappearances. Human rights sadly do not exist in Pakistan and the Baluch like others are the victims of this. However the Baluch are also second class citizens in their own country with developments like Gwadar hardly providing any employment to local Baluch people. Discrimination needs to end and so does more rampant abuse of human rights. At the same time recently a group of ten Pashtun labourers were killed in Baliuchistan after being told to leave by an armed group. The doors of hell can open in Baluchistan if the Baluch start targetting Pashtuns. Hitherto only Punjabis had been targetted but the Pashtuns represent a significant proportion of the overall Baluch population. I hope that your human rights conference will also investigate killing by armed nationalist groups of innocent workers as well as the more politicised issue of the Killing of the Bugti chief by General Musharaf in an extrajudicial act of murder.
One thing is certain about why so many scientists on some level promote global warming: money. It has been so much easier to get funding for any research if there is a CO2 is scary angle. See the otter example shown earlier. If you want a cushy 12 months watching otters, it’s much easier to get that government money if you can tie it to the state nominated bogeyman.
A wonderful consequence of the internet is that woeful science can be dissected readily in public, rather than hidden away in the ivory towers of academia. Peer review, which many knew before was a sham, has been exposed for what it often is: mutual back-scratching or a means to attack opponents and wreck careers.
Global warming will live in infamy longer than Tony Blair’s name.
All I can say about her Nevermind is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxD-5z_xHBU
If she has as much knowledge of ‘cyber security’ as she has about economics, then the mission is doomed. She looks the sort that would enjoy snooping on our e-mail, internet, blogs, phones and mail.
She works in the same building as Mitchell (Cabinet Officem 70 Whitehall) who scurried in there this morning having denied again to the reporters outside that he used the words attributed to him at the ‘gate’.