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.
Zoologist, I said I wasn’t playing a game with you, but are you playing a game with me? I’ve stated clearly that I’m opposed to solid fuelled water cooled nuclear reactors because they’re dirty and dangerous, so you should be able to tell that I don’t want Sizewell up the road from you, either.
Why do you call Stuxnet cyber-terrorism? It wasn’t intended to terrorise anyone, nor did it do so. It apparently did break some centrifuges. The only “terror” that has come from Stuxnet is that which is being propagated by yourself and others, that it was somehow responsible for the meltdowns at Fukushima. This is utterly unfounded, and utterly contradicted by the analyses of the Stuxnet code.
The Fukushima disaster was caused by building unsafe reactors in a tsunami and earthquake zone, and made worse by storing the “spent” fuel in the roof space. It was a human-made disaster waiting to happen. If you go spreading the disinformation that it was caused by Stuxnet, you weaken the argument that those sorts of nuclear power stations are inherently unsafe. Do you not see this?
Your arguments have become so self-contradictory that I think I may be making matters worse by arguing with you. Your arguments are looking increasingly to be mere reactions to mine, so I’d better shut up. Please read back and note the contradictions in your own position.
It’s at times like this that I think there is little hope for humanity. Zoologist seems to have been arguing for argument’s sake, unable to admit error or reassess his own arguments.
Maybe a similar set of motivations perpetuates the constant threats against Iran, etc. No matter that all the US intelligence agencies say that Iran is not building nuclear weapons, and the IAEA says that no nuclear material has been diverted from Iran’s monitored civilian nuclear programme, the evidence is ignored and Iran is treated as a threat nonetheless.
This is the same attitude I discovered whilst talking to a young woman about Iran’s nuclear program. I explained about the US intelligence assessments and the IAEA reports. Her reply was that the IAEA and US intelligence must be keeping the evidence secret so as not to panic people, and the corporate media with its constant scaremongering were telling the truth.
Ho hum.
“No I didn’t …” Now, maybe you understand the importance of attribution.
Why do you NOT call Stuxnet cyber-terrorism? What is it then? Pre-emptive defense?
“I didn’t get around to mentioning; of course it was reckless that Israel/US/UK released Stuxnet.
Siemens controllers are used for all sorts of things, from nuclear power down to bottling milk. It wasn’t the Bushehr power station that Stuxnet was directed at; it was the centrifuges at Natanz … ”
Would it be terrorism if the “Eeevil Iranians” wrote a virus to disrupt the control systems at Sizewell then?
If they did, I think their arse would be glass, no questions asked.
This is classic British/Western Exceptionalism, I fear.
Clark: “I’m not playing a game with you, Zoologist. I want you to start thinking clearly, I want you on board”
I dont want them on board. They are an inter winking clique of very randomly reasoned opinionists. They detract heavily from the many good diverse messages they often list as passing alibis for their endless follies and dysfunctionally jaded outlooks.
Clark; Watch comments. When it reaches 999, the commentator gets a Herman Cain award.
To be determined………
Now, now Crab. Glenn doesn’t like Word Salad.
And i dont believe half of them are sincere.
To avoid any confusion – I am absolutely AGAINST bombing Iran, or anyone else.
Sorry if my poor stab at humour did not make that clear.
I agree Clark “the IAEA says that no nuclear material has been diverted from Iran’s monitored civilian nuclear programme, the evidence is ignored and Iran is treated as a threat nonetheless.”
Why is that?
None of us ordinary folk want war. The BBC are agitating for war against Iran and Syria, just as the did with Iraq. Cui Bono?
They are sincerely narcissistic.
I think Glenn can stomach my better arranged coarses cool dagger :p
@Thatcrab “So until the weather has got so bad for so long as you decide a whole majority community of professional scientists specialising in the situation might understand somethings you dont – you are merely “skeptical” not a “denier”. Bollocks Leonard.”
Yes that’s right. I remain sceptical. Of both sides. There is not a “whole majority of professionals specialising in the situation”. There is a body of scientists, the majority of whom are NOT specialised in the subject who do not understand any more than you and I because they are not climate scientists, but whose names were attached to IPCC reports as though they were.
As I have mentioned, there are far more pressing issues about general pollution which the CO2 obsession have sidelined.
Please don’t resort to words like “bollocks”. It does nothing for your argument. Thanks.
presentation is half the secret of successful cuisine.
Youre just like some kind of freaky beatnik man, thats alright under the sea.
Zoologist, yes, if Stuxnet had targeted Bushehr, or any other nuclear power station in such a manner that could have caused a nuclear accident, I would have called that cyber-terrorism. But it only targeted the centrifuges. I can’t call that terrorism, because no one was put at appreciable risk. I can’t blame Stuxnet or its makers for imagined risk.
What can I call it? Cyber-sabotage seems to fit.
Just don’t call me Ariel, crabman.
Oh. Mea Culpa.
LeonardYoung, have you looked into ocean acidification?
Summary of the problem:
http://www.interacademies.net/File.aspx?id=9075
And a few dozen references:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification#References
Semantics here, Cyber-sabotage if you prefer.
It would be “terrorism” if Iran did the same to us, even if it weren’t a reactor directly.
Let’s face it, they are “terrorists” for just being already. We are the aggressors. If they retaliate what would happen?
Are you in favour of murdering Iranian scientists too, in the name of sabotage?
Why do the BBC never accurately report the IAEA, or Syrian Rebels, or the death of Dr David Kelly.. or so many things.
So many questions.
LeonardYoung ..
Don’t forget to check out the under water volcanos while you’re at it ..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_volcano
I know this is small potato Karmic residue to y’all, but you might want to consider the lesser of two weevils (Obama/Romney) and the strange silence on the circumstances around the deaths in Benghazi. Odd. Very, very odd.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/post/cnn-vs-the-state-department-a-long-story/2012/09/23/36f4d9dc-051c-11e2-8102-ebee9c66e190_blog.html
What is the point in Leonard looking into ocean acidification Clark? Didnt you read: “until I see evidence that is almost beyond question, I shall remain sceptical.” ? This is guy who is commited to dismissing anything not “almost beyond question” – I dont know how that works out in normal life:
Is it almost beyond question that i will need a coat today?
Is it almost beyond question that this ladder will fall?
Is it almost beyond question that this ladder wont fall?
These big issues:
Is it almost beyond question that the world is in danger?
Is it almost beyond question that the world isn’t in danger?
A fine and dandy way of not knowing what you dont feel like knowing! Just ask yourself the prefered question, and declare yourself simply skeptical!
“LeonardYoung .. Don’t forget to check out… ”
Yeh yeh, check stuff out Enstiens, you guys actually are beyond questioning.
Good article Ben, but will it be “almost beyond question” enough for these leviathans of scrutiny here? It all rests on the frame, cause the criteria is mission impossible.
@Nuclear Proponents (standard fission variety)
Regular nuclear reactors are basically too little, too late, too expensive, too dirty –
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/ockhamsrazor/nuclear-energy-a-panacea-for-climate-change/3049300#transcript
Thorium and other exotice reactors are another matter, but certainly not on the table yet as a viable alternative.
Crab; The info from State or Media is paper-thin. The ‘criteria’, at this point is, nearly non-existent. Why was the consulate so poorly protected? The security was an open compound, like an apartment complex. Two Navy Seals for protection. Didn’t THEY send a memo? There was no riot.
It was a coordinated attack without any inkling of a warning. The funerals of all four victims was not reported in the Press. The SILENCE from Obama Admin. is deafening.
@ anyone referencing Wikipedia
I turn to Wikipedia when I want information on non-controversial subjects, but not for anything with a political dimension. People are regularly caught fixing their profile or spinning a topic. The most outrageous example that I am aware of was a Cambridge-based scientist and Green Party activist named William Connolley who created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles relating to global warming. Here’s how the Telegraph reported it:
Quote:
Connolley took control of all things climate in the most used information source the world has ever known – Wikipedia. Starting in February 2003, just when opposition to the claims of the band members were beginning to gel, Connolley set to work on the Wikipedia site. He rewrote Wikipedia’s articles on global warming, on the greenhouse effect, on the instrumental temperature record, on the urban heat island, on climate models, on global cooling. On Feb. 14, he began to erase the Little Ice Age; on Aug.11, the Medieval Warm Period. In October, he turned his attention to the hockey stick graph. He rewrote articles on the politics of global warming and on the scientists who were skeptical of the band. Richard Lindzen and Fred Singer, two of the world’s most distinguished climate scientists, were among his early targets, followed by others that the band especially hated, such as Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, authorities on the Medieval Warm Period.
All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity. When Connolley didn’t like the subject of a certain article, he removed it — more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand. When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred — over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions. Acolytes whose writing conformed to Connolley’s global warming views, in contrast, were rewarded with Wikipedia’s blessings. In these ways, Connolley turned Wikipedia into the missionary wing of the global warming movement.
Endquote.
His motivation? We can’t be sure, but he wasn’t a disinterested party. He was on the CC list of all the emails from the discredited Phil Jones (see the Climategate scandal). In other words, the guy who was caught fixing Wikipedia to promote the “man-made climate change” model was a colleague and confidante of the guy who was caught fixing the source data to promote the “man-made climate change” model.
Whatever other conclusions we draw from this sorry tale, we surely must (reluctantly) be cautious about the information we glean from Wikipedia.
“That conversion to powder for fuel plates makes the uranium unavailable for reconversion to a form that could be enriched to weapons grade level.”
Verifiable? Not. Another ploy? Knot.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article32543.htm
I used to say; ‘all roads lead to Iraq”
Now, it seems the strings of the World originate in Iran.