I am in Ghana and had some Ghanaian friends in the apartment here while I was watching the budget. I was ashamed, and they were incredulous, at the sheer crassness of the entire event. Hammond’s manner and delivery were beyond embarrassing. The constant stream of infantile jokes, of which the lengthy stream of toilet humour was just one part, was beyond childish. The worst thing about it is that Hammond apparently genuinely believed he was funny.
But even worse was the petty party nature of so much of it. The obsequious reference to DUP MPs by name, the grovelling towards new Tory “star” Ruth Davidson, the puerile digs at the SNP, the shoehorning in of an anti-semitism reference, the pathetic jibe at John MacDonnell’s accident. The Ghanaians with me observed that it would all have disgraced a school debating society.
Most of the budget’s rehashed public spending announcements and tax cuts for the wealthy are not worth analysis. The condemnation of PFI was very welcome, but it has taken 20 years for the political class – Red Tories or Blue Tories – to acknowledge the blindingly obvious, that they have used it as a device massively to abuse public services to rip off the taxpayer to the benefit of the bankers and wealth managers who funded the PFI schemes.
Hammond made the constantly repeated Tory claim that the income gap between rich and poor in the UK is shrinking. It depends what you are measuring. While it is indeed true that the income gap between the top and bottom deciles is slightly shrinking, the gap between the top centile and the bottom decile – or any other decile, including the between the top centile and the top decile – is expanding very fast. In short, we are taking on the characteristics of a helot society, where distinctions between the upper middle class and working class are reducing, but the gap to the extremely wealthy is growing.
In Ghana this last week I have made a point of asking a large number of Ghanaians, from drivers and students to businessmen and senior ministers, whether, in exchange for a higher standard of living and free immigration to the UK, they would give up Independence and become a colony again. I have been met with incredulity and outrage that I would even ask such a question, and even anger from those who misunderstood my motive in asking.
Ghanaians are of course quite right. Any nation should be outraged at the idea it would voluntarily become subservient, or that its allegiance can be bought for money. Which is why I am incapable of understanding the mentality of unionists in Scotland, many of whom were swayed in 2014 by arguments their pension might be reduced or their currency depreciated.
As everybody who canvassed in the 2014 knows, and opinion polls confirm, it was not those on the breadline who were influenced by these arguments. The worse off were solidly pro-Independence (except for the Orangemen, whose thought processes are not rational). It was the bungalow dwellers of suburbia who were swayed by the fear that they might not be able to trade in their Nissan Qashqai after three years as they intended.
In fact, I think the arguments Scotland will be worse off after Independence are demonstrably nonsense. But even were they true, I cannot express the degree of my contempt for those who value national freedom in pennies, and weigh self-respect against gold.
Independent states which are geographically, climatically, and in population and demographics closest to Scotland – Ireland, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Iceland – are all markedly wealthier than Scotland, despite Scotland’s terrific endowment of national resources. Why do some Scottish people believe they are inferior to the inhabitants of these countries, and would be unable to run their own affairs and economy?
The fact that Ireland, Norway, Denmark, Iceland and Sweden are all markedly wealthier than England, but that Scotland is poorer, should be sufficient indicator that the Union has not brought the claimed historical benefits, compared to those small independent states. So should the fact that, in 1707, the population of Scotland was a quarter that of England, and after three hundred years of union it is a tenth, while the population of the Highlands has only just returned to the original level. The fact that the A1 is, amazingly, still not much dualed north of Morpeth, while Crossrail is a national UK expenditure; the fact that high speed rail – like Crossrail accounted for in GERS as a national UK expenditure – will not come north of Leeds; the massive concentration of central government functions in London, and the long term effect of that on economic development: given all these indicators, you have to be slightly crazy to believe an independent Scotland would not be better off.
Astonishingly, this collection of untalented careerists that constitutes the “government of the United Kingdom” is managing currently to extend its lead in the UK wide opinion polls, while falling back again into third place in Scotland. I have sympathy for friends in England who do not wish Scotland to be independent, because the Tories have such a majority in England. But they have no right to force Scotland to live under a succession of Tory governments, which it has not voted for in over 60 years. Similarly, the Scots have no right to prevent the English from living under Theresa May – or even under Jacob Rees Mogg – if the English continue inexplicably to wish to do so.
I have expressed for many years the hope that I will see Scottish Independence and a United Ireland before I die. I am happy to say I am now convinced that I will do so. That the end of the UK would be marked by such a squalid, incompetent and dysfunctional political leadership I could not have dared to hope. Thank God the UK will soon be over.
Think the igniminious death of ourselves is more likely.
.
. . . . . hastened by the said UK regime you omitted to mention perhaps?
.
Ignominious. A strange word.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ignominious
It is used frequently in Parliament. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/ignominious
Arron Banks referred to National Crime Agency
bloody hell,
beginning to look like
Brexit will not mean Brexit
Banks is having his collar felt.
Absolutely wonderful!
He’s in Bermuda, fishing. Is he bothered? Apparently not.
https://mobile.twitter.com/Arron_banks?
He will be when the NCA start to question the true origin of the £8m he gave to the Leave Campaign.
Yes and I should think it came from US sources if anywhere. No doubt a few millionaires with Non-Dom status in London funnelled money over offshore accounts.
Still has absolutely nothing to do with Brexit. The campaigns themselves had nothing to with Brexit. I’m fairly certain that nearly all people who voted to leave had always wanted to leave and had made the decision before the referendum was even announced.
As the MSM goes into frothy overdrivel about the Brazilian despicables – they can’t see how they build monsters by their cras thinking.
Jonathan Cook nails them for it.
https://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2018-10-30/bolsonaro-is-a-monster-engineered-by-our-media/
E.g
“The truth ignored by [Gatekkeepers] Jenkins and these corporate stenographers is that if you keep sabotaging the programmes of a Chavez, a Lula da Silva, a Corbyn or a Bernie Sanders, then you get a Bolsonaro, a Trump, an Orban.”
A lot more excellent analysis, as usual, longish but worth reading and sharing.
No one sabotaged Chavez’s or Lula’s programmes – socialism always fails.
always fails because the greedy refuse to make sacrifices for the needy.
Are there no prisons? Ebenezer scrooge.
During the course of the 20th century some 100 million people made the ultimate sacrifice – but it made no difference. Socialism still failed. Cambodia managed to kill about one third of its total population – but it was not enough to make Year Zero a success.
How many more must die in order to usher in paradise on earth? No-one knows, but shortly before his own death of natural causes at age 95, Eric Hobsbawm suggested that he would be fine with a further 20 million deaths. Surprisingly Hobsbawm failed to move to Cambodia to offer support to Pol Pot, failed to move to the PRC to partake in the Cultural Revolution and showed zero interest in relocating to Soviet forced labor camps.
Socialists seem to believe that the forced blood sacrifice of others somehow cleanses their own intellects. Maybe the Aztecs discovered Communism sometime before Marx.
but that wasn’t socialism. that was just another dictatorship, and how many has the us killed with it’s “democracy”? how many will capitalism kill with global warming?
What PR company do you work for?
But Year Zero was a success! It just depends on how you define success. In Pol Pot’s case, murdering a third of the country, and pretty much everyone with glasses, was probably considered a win. And for his western backers, including UK, maybe same.
Chomsky posits the interesting theory, apropos of nothing, that Vietnam was actually a win for the US. They lost the war but won the larger battle, or something.
Many of the people making these strategic decisions are, I’m not perfectly certain, complete whack jobs. I mean literally certifiable. Comforting words.
You seem to be confusing socialism with communism.
Chavez was a paratrooper on top of an oil well. That is all.
I wouldn’t even better a fiver on that, could the truth be told.
Man what country do you live in?
If it’s anywhere that you benefit from any public services – you need to get out! It’s socialism.
Yes? Where has it been allowed to operate without undermining and destabilising by capitalist powers? Come on, wise arse, name one.
You and your friends should remember that it was Eric Hobsbawm, nor me, that postulated that a further 20 million deaths would be acceptable in order to usher in paradise on earth.
As for your inane question take a look at the USSR – look at at vast land mass, its vast base of natural resources, the technologically advanced nature of its weaponry and the protection afforded to it by the battle hardened and fully committed Red Army. Look at at all of that and then you tell me how capitalist powers are capable of destabilizing and undermining the USSR.
As a matter of obvious fact the USSR undermined and destroyed itself. You want further proof – take a look at Russia. Modern Russia operates without large swathes of the land and population of the USSR but continues to cover 1/7th of the worlds land surface. There are obvious, on-going and unending attempts to undermine and destabilize Russia. How is that working out? Is Putin waving the white flag of surrender, are there anti-Putin riots sweeping Russia?
@Loony-The extent of your ignorance, evidenced by your comments, is so vast, that responding to your stupid points regarding both Hobsbawm and the U.S.S.R. alone would take up my whole day. I have better things to do but you should read more with your time. Apposite name though.
I am aware of my own ignorance – so need need for you to point it out, but thanks anyway. Why not help me to lift my cloud of ignorance and help me out.
There was a time when the USSR looked like it might be destroyed by the Nazi’s. To be sure the Nazi’s were aggressive and determined invaders – but most accept that they were assisted by the fact that Stalin had just got through with killing most of the Soviet officer corp.
The tide really turned for the soviets when they acted to limit the role of the Political Commissars so as to afford the Red Army operational freedom. Contemporaneously they sought to boost morale by reference to historical Russian heroes such as Suvorov and Kutuzov who were hardly ideological heroes of Communists.
Take a look at the wartime poetry of Ehrenbergy – a well known Bolshevik. His atavistic appeals to kill Germans and defend pure Russian earth were hardly aligned with the Bolshevik philosophy – but were nonetheless encouraged.
So the only way the USSR defeated the Nazi invaders was to essentially suspend the purity of the revolution for the duration of the war. So why did they do this? If their system was so pure and good and holy why weaken themselves through overt appeals to the Imperial past?
Even the fucking Russians knew that they were destabilizing and undermining themselves – and now over 70 years later someone who claims to despise ignorance thinks that rewriting history is the way to go and that “Ignorance is Strength” is a slogan to be taken literally.
yeah who can forget the collapse of norway and sweden?
or Denmark or Israel
Norway and Sweden aren’t socialist. They may have higher levels of taxation than a lot of countries but the means of production are still in the private sector.
https://iea.org.uk/blog/the-myth-of-scandinavian-socialism
Just take your bs definition of collectivistic communisim and …
You are not fooling or confusng anyone here that social democracy as exists in Europe for many many decades and drives some of the biggest developed economies is not desirable
The usual question:
Can you show me a capitalist country which has flourished while American interests regularly stage coups against its leaders, wage war, fund armed extremists within it’s borders, employ trade embargo’s & sanctions against it, while poisoning world opinion with propaganda?
When questioned by reporter on whether he tells the truth, Trump replies “I try. I do try”.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/11/01/trump-tell-the-truth-953106
Of course, he could be lying ?
Quite why fragmenting the island of Great Britain and yet unifying the island of Ireland would in any sense be an improvement over an integral Great Britain and a divided Ireland I fail to grasp. I am not arguing for the latter! I just want to know why swapping the setup would be beneficial, let alone logical. How about some consistency of approach and preaching fragmentation towards regionalism for both islands? Or else, consolidation for both?
Furthermore, “squalid, incompetent and dysfunctional political leadership” is ubiquitous. It is present in Westminster, Edinburgh, Belfast, Dublin, Paris, Rome, Washington, Los Angeles, Brasilia, Canberra, Madrid, Barcelona and…on and on…
In what way would fragmenting the island of Great Britain lead to purity of governance? In what way would unifying Ireland lead to purity of governance?
‘In what way would fragmenting the island of Great Britain lead to purity of governance? In what way would unifying Ireland lead to purity of governance?’
Excellent question. Especially given the love of bribery and corruption that is endemic in politcal parties north and south of the border in Ireland.
I suppose the consistency is in that time-worn (perhaps illogical) reluctance of other peoples to be ruled by the English.
The question concerned purity of governance, not the motivation for independence or freedom from ‘English’ rule.
Now now, uncle pat, don’t be getting your union Jack undies in a twist! There is a blinding consistency to what Craig Murray desires, whether you and the mistress choose to see it or not.
Not purity of government, everyone knows there’s no such thing.
However independence would allow Holyrood in particular to gain all the levers of government, who better to make decisions for Scots than Scots themselves.
No one is “fragmenting” the island of Great Britain, its a dissolution of a unfit for purpose union.
I have no particularly strong opinions on the island of Ireland but consider.
Depending on whether you class Dun Laoghaire as a separate entity, Dublin has a population of 1 million. The next largest city (Cork) has a population of 190 K. This is a structural imbalance that the Republic has never been able to address. The unification of Ireland would place Belfast (280 K) and Derry (108K) in the top four Irish cities by population and would bring a Northern balance to the island.
Perhaps the largest gripe among Scottish nationalists (of whom I am one) is the draw of wealth and power to the SE of England and in particular London. This gripe is as fervently held by folk in the North of England with every bit as much justification. Addressing this issue would go a substantive distance to dispel the surge for Scottish independence. A new UK parliament in say Leeds would be a good start. Thing is, we all know it ain’t going to happen.
Perhaps we are looking for an improved administration rather than a perfect one?
“I have no particularly strong opinions on the island of Ireland but consider.”
I think we all know the mad bad knuckledragging loyalists led by Arlene Foster, and the DUP, would rather see NI burn than unite with the RoI, such is the unionist mentality.
That is a rather crass and outdated generalisation of unionists and their viewpoint on a United Ireland.
Arlene Foster’s stated opinion of leaving NI in the event of unification is not one that is shared, at least publically, by many unionists.
“That is a rather crass and outdated generalisation of unionists and their viewpoint on a United Ireland.”
Is it really?
It wasn’t that long ago Arlene Foster was at the head of a Orange Order march in Fife.
A disgraceful thing to do, mind you the DUP and Foster are blocking a successful Brexit for NI and RoI, she’s veoted every proposal by her boss May, who bunged the DUP footsoldiers over a billion quid for backing.
Now the rabid loyalist feel emboldened in NI knowning they have the Tories by the short and curlies, god knows what sort of old troubles will flare up again.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jun/01/arlene-foster-accepts-invitation-to-lead-orange-order-parade
@RoS 17:23
Yes it is. It conflates the actions of Arlene Foster and the DUP with all of unionism, which is a lazy generalisation. Unionists include those who vote for the UUP, Alliance, Green Party and independent candidates at both Westminster and Stormont.
Added to this is the declining numbers of the ‘Grand Orange Lodge of Ireland’ which would suggest that the knuckledraggers are not the force they once were within unionism.
‘God knows what sort of old troubles will flare up again.’
Please don’t fall for the hyperbole being stoked up by both Sinn Fein and the DUP. The IRA and its various incarnations are riddled with informers and while dangerous lack the capacity to re-ignite the Troubles. The IRA commanders are either dead or transformed to cuddly politicians. As for the Loyalist paramilitaries, much the same story, except lots of them are living the high life as drug peddling gangsters or state funded ‘community workers’. The appetite for violence is almost non-existent compared to the days of anger and frustration during the Troubles.
RoS.
Don’t conflate the DUP and the Orange Order with the entire Prodestant community. The “knuckledragging” portion of my own extended family are mostly now in “mixed marriages”. Eccies and disco biscuits in the 1990’s worked wonders.
If I were a non-Catholic in NI say 20 or 30 years ago I would not entertain the notion of a united Ireland for a nanosecond. Eamon De Valera’s clerical, agrarian state would scare the bejesus out of me. The flourishing of social diversity in the Republic in recent years is a wonder to behold (I am a regular visitor and have family in Kildare). In many ways the Republic is more reflective of a modern Western European state than NI. By many accounts Snarlene and her dinosaur denying cult is substantively out of tune with its constituency in social matters.
All that said, I would still miss the NHS. Health care provision in the South is not optimum.
Well said Vivian. I am in complete agreement.
Foster and the DUP have no idea that through their promotion of Brexit and Calvinist stance on social issues they are, ironically, more of a danger to the Union than Sinn Fein.
I’d always thought the O’Blivion’s were from County Kildare or County Sligo and the land of William Butler Yates, but it’s NI is it?
I hail from the snowy wastes of the parish of St. Alphonso as any fool know.
I see the good saint has certainly travelled widely: Louisiana, New Orleans, Baltimore, Naples and Glasgow.
Incidently in a few nights time, NI especially in Belfast will burn huge bonfires with pictures of the pope, the Irish flag, and a whole plethora of images the bad and insanely mad unionist neanderthals find to their distaste.
One of many.
https://i.redd.it/jgl8l8b7tb911.jpg
aren’t they scottish settlers?
A very poor point, I could follow you down the same path and claim by default the English are responsible for the North American indigenous people’s genocide, (The USA was a colony) and every act of aggression by the US abroad ever since. But I won’t
England and the USA are two different nations, as are Scotland and NI.
Still you are correct the Ulster planation was colonised by Scots, and the English.
The plantation was overseen by two English lords, John Davies and Arthur Chichester.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plantation_of_Ulster
RoS in response to your reply at 17:16:
Now don’t underestimate the contribution of the Scots to the Plantation, from the article you quoted:
“Scottish settlers had been migrating to Ulster for many centuries. Highland Gaelic Scottish mercenaries known as gallowglass (gallóglaigh) had been doing so since the 15th century and Presbyterian lowland Scots had been arriving since around 1600. From 1606 there was substantial lowland Scots settlement on disinhabited land in north Down, led by Hugh Montgomery and James Hamilton. In 1607 Sir Randall MacDonnell settled 300 Presbyterian Scots families on his land in Antrim.”
Border reivers were expelled to Ulster; in particular the legendary Grahams of the Debatable Lands.
Many of these reivers later went onto establishment prominence in the US for eg (as the late George MacDonald Frazer pointed out) the Elliots, the Nixons and the Grahams.
Didn’t the Scots come from Ireland in the first place? It could be argued (weakly) that they returned home…
Em, unless your post has arrived from July past or July future, I fear you are incorrect. November 5th (Guy Fawkes Night) isn’t widely celebrated in Northern Ireland, which may seem surprising given Guidio being Catholic and all. Halloween is much more of an event.
The bonfire you have shown is from the annual 11th Night in July, which while still disgusting, has nothing to do with November 5th.
Are all Northern Irish unionists insanely mad neanderthals or just the ones in the Orange Order and who dance around bonfires?
Irish nationalists and republicans have been known to enjoy bonfires where they burn flags and a whole plethora of images that they find to their distaste:
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/bonfires-blaze-as-nationalists-mark-internment-date-30494845.html
https://www.reddit.com/r/usa/comments/3hh5yi/an_irish_republican_bonfire_note_the_planned/
“Em, unless your post has arrived from July past or July future, I fear you are incorrect. November 5th (Guy Fawkes Night) isn’t widely celebrated in Northern Ireland, ”
Hurry get your ticket.
“Bonfire Night in Belfast can be one of the most exciting nights of the year. There are loads of Guy Fawkes events in Belfast and no matter what the weather’s like, you can always be sure a firework party in Belfast will always draw in a big crowd.”
https://www.skiddle.com/cities/belfast/bonfirenight.html
RoS,
Try again. Not one of the events listed on that webpage involve a bonfire in Belfast for Guy Fawkes Night, disproving your original comment, the attached photo which you claimed showed a bonfire erected for November 5th and your most recent response.
In fact, you searched Belfast > Season Events > Bonfire Night, on Skiddle with the following results:
A psychic show (2nd Nov)
A poetry open mic night (2 Nov)
The Lady Boys of Bangkok (3 Nov)
A James Bond Theme Night for singles (8 Nov)
Strange there is no bonfire or fireworks display, when Bonfire Night is so widely celebrated? A generic events page tagging lots of events happening in November that have nothing to do with Guy Fawkes or the normal Bonfire Night.
Furthermore, the text you quoted is similar for each city’ here is Manchester’s:
“More and more it’s not just about getting out to see a firework or bonfire displays in Manchester, there are loads of events in Manchester for Guy Fawkes Night, with Manchester clubs, pubs and restaurants all putting on a themed Bonfire Night”
(https://www.skiddle.com/cities/manchester/bonfirenight.html)
Rather similar to your quote about Belfast?
We have enough bonfires on the 11th of July and in August with the republicans. I am quite glad we don’t join in on November 5th!
As for your point above you might look at the REAL reason for the American Colonists Rebellion in 1776 ……was the Royal Proclamation 1763 guaranteeing Indian territorial rights……..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Proclamation_of_1763
IrishU.
The article adds that there are loads of Guy Fawkes event, it doesn’t list everyone. How could it?
But I find it very hard to believe that they’ll be no 5th Nov bonfires in NI.
RoS,
It doesn’t list a single bonfire or fireworks party for November 5th. Not one. Just a load of events which would be happening regardless.
Trust me as someone who has lived in NI for 30 years, Bonfire Night isn’t celebrated widely.
Halloween is much more of a thing with fireworks etc.
Happy to retract if you find evidence of large bonfire and fireworks parties on the 5th (n.b. Not pictures of 11th July bonfires ?).
@RepublicofScotland
There is a strong anti- Roman Catholic element also present in the Bonfire Night parades and burnings at Bridgewater and Lewes in England, probably dating back to memories of the mass executions after the Monmouth Rising against James VII and executions of Protestants under Mary. I do not think you have to be ‘ insanely -mad’ or’irrational'(Craig’s word above ) to observe or take part.
Back at the turn of the (19)70’s, there seemed to me to be a good case for the integration of the Six Counties plus Co. Donegal with an independent Scotland. More recently many arguing for Scottish independence seem to blank out on the North , perhaps in view of the Freemasonry and skulduggery still lingering there, which found unwelcome echoes for me in Dunblane or the machinations associated with Lockerbie.
Travelling along the Antrim coast, it is often hard to distinguish what Ireland and what is Scotland. There is little talk in Scotland of a road/rail bridge/tunnel but the various proposals are often featured in the North(Perhaps Varadkar can contrive it along with massive East Coast infrastructure investment and further ‘corporate tax toleration’ funded b y German taxpayers as a quid pro quo for co-operation on the ‘backstop’.
Many of the current troubles among the Three Kingdoms and the Principality hark back to the religious wars of the17th century with history education , if at all, talking of England against Scotland or England against Ireland.The intolerant Scottish Calvinist insistence (a trait that still persists for good and ill) on enforcement of their creed throughout the Three Kingdoms was highly detrimental to the (Irish) Confederacy and a peaceful resolution of the conflicts.
I hope readers,if any,will excuse these ramblings ,but I find it helpful to reflect upon how we got to be in our current ‘fine old mess’.
No need to apologise, it was far from a ramble but please don’t mention the bloody bridge NI-Scotland bridge! Ha.
Talking of religious intolerance, the recent assassination of Mr Kashoggi in the struggle for hierocracy between the Muslim Brotherhood and the Saudi Salafists reminds us of the fact that two religious intransigencies are unlikely ever to be at peace. When colonial empire became an alternative power-house to the papal power-house and the two beasts harnessed and weaponised the crimes of the papacy were soon dwarfed by the crimes of the colonisers.
I suppose it is only a matter of time before the power of the world-wide web will be similarly harnessed and weaponised against the beasts of the superpowers. SCARY INDEED. Universal spying , universal access to all financial data, and universal competition in a web-based market place have made much of life as we know it, getting up in the morning and negotiating family and business relationships, look pretty unimportant. Big brother already knows what you said , the second you said it, because the teat of the web dummy, the mobile phone, proved extremely addictive long after weaning time.
It’s about as futile, this pathetic attempt to piss off big brother by railing against corporate power, as an Orangeman ort woman fanning the flames of a 300 year-old religious quarrel, or in the case of Islam an 800 year old religious quarrel that has long since been about orc power rather than wizard-knowledge.
We kick against the EU only because we detest the satanic power of big brother who records our pathetic attempts at humanity, our weaknesses and our frustrations. We really are that dumb. Dumber than orcs or gollums. Our enemy is invisible and all-seeing, able to punish us without being available to be punished.
In spite of that all of the satanic activity of google and the CIA/MI5, is crushable in a microsecond by the power of Allah.
Vivian,
I like that thought and redressing regional imbalance is certainly a strong draw for nationalists in Northern Ireland. The problem is that while the unification of Ireland would place Belfast and Derry / Londonderry in the top four Irish cities by population, it would not bring a Northern balance to the island in an economic sense.
Instead the wealth of Dublin would be drawn north to support the sizable challenges of integrating the northern six counties. Don’t forget that NI currently receives a subvention of c.£10bn from the British Exchequer. Obviously a unified Ireland would undergo a transformation but in the short, more ‘predictable’ term, London’s economic burden would have to be replaced by Dublin / Brussels.
It would also probably strengthen the shinners’ position in the Dail, which I suspect is the very last thing Fianna Fail or Fine Gael want
I’m sure that calculation does weigh heavily on the minds of Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael. Both parties have recently made overtures to stand candidates in the North, most likely to gain some form of recognition prior to any reunification.
Most people in NI struggle to move beyond the old tribal / sectarian divisions, so introducing southern parties as an option on the ballot paper will take some getting use to.
Likewise the Conservative Party fields a few candidates but hasn’t made any significant impact to date
John Garett would have some considerations to give on ‘ purity of Governance’. And why politiicians are easy meat for vested interests.
however honourable their words may sound.
He was.an expert policy buff on organising the civil service, and we had a few walks together talking about how the civil service one day could rejuvenate itself , priodically, a pipe dream , as political influences and agendas would never allow it to happen.
Ireland belongs together, imho, the last years of peace have introduced calm and some copperation, trade and service exchanges, gas water and electricity, have shown that they can co-exist.
For anyone wanting to disturb this with artificial strife over some downright corrupt alternative energy system and a paralising huff into the arms of big daddy England, is beyond me. Its like handing out boots that walk backwards.
The Good Friday agreement allows for Stormont to decide for NI to stay in, so full unity is not needed, but it would help. Its an international agreement that ought to honoured.
And if politicians cant be bothered to sit in Stormont, just taken the wages, then the people ought to organise a popular referendum on a gradual introduction to unity, north and south of the border.
It would mean a border between England and Ireland, the way it was organised being partial to the respecting countries negotiations.
A possible solution?
Hi Nevermind,
If I may, I need to pick you up on this comment, “For anyone wanting to disturb this with artificial strife over some downright corrupt alternative energy system and a paralising huff into the arms of big daddy England, is beyond me.”
I am assuming you are referring to the Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI) Scheme, which as you rightly say, was downright corrupt? If so, the Assembly fell for several reasons including, failure to agree an Irish Language Act, DUP intransigence over social issues and of course the possible out workings of Brexit. Also, the ill-health of Martin McGuinness cannot be ruled out as a significant factor in the fall of devolved government. Despite his past Martin McGuinness was committed to devolution and the Good Friday Agreement and often acted to rein in the more intemperate On the point of RHI and the paralysing huff it was Sinn Fein who went into a huff over RHI as they sought to capitalise on the situation and gain concessions from unionism (the DUP) on progress towards introducing an Irish Language Act.
The problem with your suggestion is the Good Friday Agreement, and subsequent Northern Ireland Act (1998), did not give Stormont the power for NI to stay in the UK or to seek unification with the Republic. That power rests with the Secretary of State for NI, and it is up to them to call a referendum when ‘it appears likely to him that a majority of those voting would express a wish that Northern Ireland should cease to be part of the United Kingdom and form part of a united Ireland’ (NI Act 1998 Schedule 1, Paragraph 2).
As you say, the Good Friday Agreement is an internationally recognised Treaty and it should be honoured, which includes the method by which a united Ireland may be attained.
I noted from an earlier comment on the Skripal affair that Mr Murray had said all news outlets informed us that they left their house at about 9 15am on that fateful Sunday..I agree as it is what I saw from All media comments…CCT apparently confirmed that from his car movements…you may therefore guess my question..has Mr Murray any new evidence of them returning home prior to 12midday?
Mark Urban knows that Sergei Skripal is still alive…but don’t question him.
http://members5.boardhost.com/xxxxx/thread/1541075950.html
The CCTV cameras all went down between 9.15 and 12 noon because somebody hacked them. Was it MI5 or the Russians?
Joke, by the way.
Tracey Crouch, the DCMS minister, has resigned over Hammond’s delay on measures to limit the use of fixed odds betting machines. Good for her and good to see someone in Parliament prepared to stand up for their principles.
‘The minister who announced a crackdown on maximum stakes for fixed-odds betting machines has resigned in a row over alleged delays to the policy.
Chancellor Philip Hammond said in Monday’s Budget that the cut in stakes from £100 to £2 would come into force in October 2019, leading to accusations from Labour of a six month delay.
Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Liz Truss, claimed the government had already brought the timetable forward.
But Tracey Crouch has now stepped down.
Speculation around Ms Crouch’s resignation began after she failed to appear in the Commons earlier to answer an urgent question around the policy’s timing.
But her boss, Culture Secretary Jeremy Wright, refused to say if she had resigned, after being put on the spot by Labour’s deputy leader Tom Watson.’
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-politics-46057548
Tom Newton Dunn posted an interesting piece on this. Apparently introducing the £2 max stake would have cost the HMT £120m, money which is needed for the DUP…
Could be something in that and all the other giveaways the Chancellor announced on Monday.
Steve Bell
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/picture/2018/nov/01/steve-bell-on-the-tory-government-and-fobts-cartoon
Keep silent about the real nazis in the west, dont bother the liberals!
“An activist from neo-Nazi C14 gang spoke at the US government’s America House in Ukraine. C14 is notorious for violent attacks on the Roma.”
https://www.mintpressnews.com/violent-neo-nazi-organizer-speaks-at-us-government-event-in-ukraine/251247/
Our politicians are indeed embarrassing. If a person were to translate what they say into another language, they would feel deeply ashamed and humiliated and inclined to translate things in a more sophisticated way. There is no sophistication or intelligence. We have people who say ‘cut the green crap’ ‘fuc* business’ or some really crass references to toilets. It’s a shocker that we are represented by such morons. Even third world countries have better leaders.
The clue lies in the meaning of the word ‘ sophistication’…..I totally agree with your last sentence Ros.
:
?Better: “The Death of the Ignominious United Kingdom” ?
.
It would be good to have Craig’s opinion on Hunt’s hare brained scheme to appoint ‘businessmen’ ie Tory donors, as UK Ambassadors.
Well much better for the establishment to have an Alan Sugar or a Branson as ambassador than a Craig Murray or Peter Ford who can speak out their mind and follow their conscience.
Did Peter Ford speak his mind and follow his conscience while he was in active service or only after he retired?
I was under the impression that, unlike Craig, he retired at the normal retirement age?
A reminder that Peter Ford was Ambassador to Syria for three years from 2003-2006. Previously Ambassador to Bahrain.
‘British policy has made situation in Syria worse, says former ambassador
Peter Ford says Britain should either have committed troops or not have encouraged opposition to mount ‘doomed campaign’
[..]
Ford also opposed UK bombing of Islamic State in Syria, and at one stage, giving evidence to the defence select committee, argued that Assad would win because “repression works”.
The former diplomat said the UK’s policy on Syria had been mistaken from the start. He said the then prime minister, David Cameron, should either have been prepared to commit British forces on the battlefield or refrained from “encouraging the opposition to mount a doomed campaign which has only led to hundreds of thousands of civilians being killed”.
“We have made the situation worse,” he said. “It was eminently foreseeable to anyone who was not intoxicated with wishful thinking. The British Foreign Office, to which I used to belong, I’m sorry to say has got Syria wrong every step of the way.
“They told us at the beginning that Assad’s demise was imminent. They told us he would be gone by Christmas – they didn’t tell us which Christmas, so they could still be proven correct – but then they told us that the opposition was dominated by these so-called moderates. That proved not to be the case.
“Now they are telling us another big lie, that Assad can’t control the rest of the country. Well, I’ve got news for them. He is well on the way to doing so.”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/23/british-policy-syria-former-ambassador-peter-
As you see, the suggestion that he was only wise after the event is untrue. Don’t malign good people.
Of course it’s not the first time that HMG has appointed outsiders to ambassadorial posts.
Older readers will no doubt remember the appointment of Peter Jay (a journalist) as HM ambassador to the United States.
It is (probably) true that Peter Jay was not a Labour Party donor but on the other hand he was the son-in-law of the then Prime Minister, one James Callaghan.
LOLZ
Lloyd George appointed the Lord Chief Justice of England to the Ambassadorship in Washington
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rufus_Isaacs,_1st_Marquess_of_Reading
“In 1918, Isaacs was appointed Ambassador to the United States, a position in which he served until 1919, while continuing at the same time as Lord Chief Justice. In 1921, he resigned the chief justiceship to become Viceroy of India. ”
All because of his role in The Marconi Scandal
but he was appointed by former NHS Registrar David Owen who was moonlighting as Foreign Secretary and whose wife Debbie Owen was Literary Agent for Geoffrey Archer
http://people.com/archive/a-doctor-turned-politician-foreign-secretary-david-owen-is-the-fresh-new-face-in-britain-vol-9-no-9/
Moved again? New gravatar!
Hi Sharp Ears
If I remember Correctly, you are fond of Bill Blum’s work.. he had a bit of a fall –
” I’m writing to you in place of William Blum.
I’m his friend, his ex-wife, and the mother of his son, who lives in Germany.
He will not be able to write his Anti-Empire Report.
He had a very bad fall in his apartment. There he lay for many hours, maybe up to two days, unable to move, until a friend found him.
He was taken to the ICU. He is no longer in critical condition, but he is still confused, extremely weak, and can’t move his right arm.
He has been in the hospital for more than two weeks now, and it is impossible to say how much longer he has to stay there, and he will certainly need long-term care.
As you may guess, he does not have the best of insurances. Which means: he needs your help!
If you wish, you can donate to Bill using the button below:
Blum is the author of five books, most notably Rogue State: A Guide To The World’s Only Superpower, an encyclopedia of US meddling around the world, and Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II, widely considered to be the single most exhaustive treatment of all post-war US bombing campaigns and coups.
He will need long term care. His medical bills are mounting and, in light of the fact he gave up a well paying career in the US State Department over the Vietnam War to be a dissident writer, and given he was blacklisted from lecturing at colleges, his health insurance is not sufficient to cover his expenses. If you want to help, please consider making a contribution to this appeal by visiting his website, scrolling down to the bottom, and clicking the “donate button”.
Forgot the Source Link –
https://mondoweiss.net/2018/11/william-empire-report/
Thanks Brian. I did know. Poor old chap. I have pressed the donate button. I will miss his wise words in his ‘Anti-Empire Reports’ and his take on the activities of the gangsters-in-charge.
This was the last, in August.
https://williamblum.org/aer/read/159
Cheers too.
I have just found the one for September, #160.
https://williamblum.org/aer/read/160
Just been listening to Al Manar from Lebanon on two issues. One is the call for a cease fire in the ‘civil war’ aka Saudi Invasion of Yemen. and the other is the Khashoggi murder. Basically there is much more journalism there in the discussions. On the Yemen ceasefire a yemeni politician was saying that this is really an attempt by US to damage limitation on a war of aggression that has gone wrong as the Yemenis are beating back the aggression from KSA and UAE and turned the tables on them by ballistic missile capabilities that will damage the aggressors. So Pompeo and Mathis are trying to impose terms on the Yemenis in order to reverse this advantage, but the Yemenis are not interested in this ceasefire but on much more equitable terms.
On the Khashoggi murder, the discussion was centred on the total incompetence of the Saudi side on crisis management. They are forced into reactive extempore declarations to answer specific questions but without an overall damage limitation plan. Above all the question remains: where is the body?
Erdogan is not going to release the body. If Erdogan was tracking the murder, it follows that they also tracked the body disposal. In fact the whole thing may have been fake news to discredit MBS.
As to Yemen, I am more and more inclined to believe that USUKIS are assisting Iran to anger the Saudis. cue Craig to say I’m talking nonsense. USUKIS politics is all lies, assisted by their propaganda m/c the MSM.
King Salman is a wise old codger who understands the treachery of his USUKIS ” friends “.
Just like Islamic state was a horror movie staged by Obama to extract Iraqi oil, so also I believe Kashoggi and Yemen are stratagems of deceit by the Zionist enemies of Islam. And no, I’m not saying people didn’t suffer in Iraq, Syria, Libya and Yemen. I’m saying they are the collateral damage of colonialism waged by deceit. Zionist system.
“….cue Craig to say I’m talking nonsense. “
I would agree with Craig if he said so. Your explanations often run contrary to much of what we know.
I understand the body was disposed of in acid but as this article shows there should be around 28 lbs human fat in that well the Saudis don’t want disturbed
http://www.chemistryworld.com/opinion/can-acid-dissolve-a-body/3007496.article
@giyane,
Your posts are becoming ever more confused and random.
The Saudis are barbaric.
This reads like a pro Brexit rant. And yet Craig wants Scotland to become a shoe shine state for the Brussels Mob.
«whether, in exchange for a higher standard of living and free immigration to the UK, they would give up Independence and become a colony again. … the mentality of unionists in Scotland, many of whom were swayed in 2014 by arguments their pension might be reduced or their currency depreciated.»
Mr Murray, this is a very bad comparison and it is a delusional brexiter style argument, because of representation: Scotland is not formally a colony of the UK or England, as it has representation at all levels of the UK state, starting with scottish MPs in Westminster, while a colony does not have representation, it just obeys.
Similarly the England is not a colony of the EUSSR, but one of the biggest voting blocks and determinants of EU policy.
The question is rather whether the representation that Scotland has in the UK is worth much, and as to that it is blatantly obvious that the doctrine of english supremacism means that the periphery matters pretty much nothing.
«The fact that Ireland, Norway, Denmark, Iceland and Sweden are all markedly wealthier than England, but that Scotland is poorer,»
But some elite scots have been benefiting from being given a second-rate place in the English (colonial, mostly) Empire, and having their wealth protected by the English Red Jackets, just like today some parts of the english elite benefit from being a second-rate place in the Usian (suzerain, mostly) Empire, and having their wealth protected by the USA Airborne Cavalry.
«because of representation: Scotland is not formally a colony of the UK or England, as it has representation at all levels of the UK state»
BTW there is a very very important distinction here that i have unfortunately obscured: the difference between “Scotland” and “scots”. Here I really meant “as scots have representation”.
The difference is very important as to “sovereignty” and “independence”, two words used by brexiters without understanding them or as euphemisms for “english supremacy”: the “sovereignty” of a country is not a matter of declamation, but of effective power, the sovereignty of the people of a country, something far more important, is a matter again not of declamation, but of effective representation.
Why doesn’t Scotland ask for its own currency and back it with its own reserves ? They could do that within the UK currently since Scottish banknotes are not legal tender even in Scotland but are classed as “promissory notes” backed by BoE reserves. So why not simply state that within Scotland oNLY Scottish banknotes are legal tender and no longer carry a guarantee from the BoE ?
B: “Similarly the England is not a colony of the EUSSR, but one of the biggest voting blocks and determinants of EU policy.”
I don’t know about that. Britain, or England if you prefer, has about as much sway over the EU, as that other colony of England – Wales – has over the direction of British political policy as a whole. Which is to say, virtually none whatsoever.
Britain has opposed mass migration into the UK from our new friends from former Eastern Bloc Soviet states for a generation, and has been told to sit down and shut up about it. You have no choice, so suck it up. Don’t you remember voting for that “ever closer union”? You don’t? Well that’s what you’ve got.
Brexit is the result, like it or not.
Britain has opposed mass migration into the UK from our new friends from former Eastern Bloc Soviet states for a generation,
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/9352335/Tony-Blair-I-dont-regret-opening-UK-borders-to-European-immigrants.html
http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/immigration-legacy-tony-blair/
Sorry to rain on your parade (not really !) but it is UK Governments that have FAILED to implement EU Rules on Immigration deliberately. It was UK that wanted an Incomes Policy of holding down wages as demographics kicked in. Anyone recall Norwich Union offering jobs to 16 year olds because the demographics in the area meant it needed to hoard labour ? That was blown up by London Media into shortage of teens and a need for immigration.
Blair-Brown simply opened the floodgates where Continental Europe had a transition phase. It was all about seizing advantage and as the main English speaking nations Ireland and UK were inundated because they had no Registration Database to check people were housed and working after 90 days looking for work.
EU has many issues that create incompatibility but this Immigration was a home-made UK problem
Yes well that was one of many ways Blair misled voters by saying one thing in Brussels and another in London.How many spokes a year were the public good to expect? If memory serves it was around 13,000 and even those we were told would be almost exclusively young men who would only stay a couple of years and go home. Hiw many Poles are settled in the UK today? And howcmany Romanians and Bulgarians in the second wave? The UK’s eneral population was not ” let in” on Blair’s encouragement of EU migration from East Europe, to benefit the business leaders of whom he always struck me as very envious. You might as well say that trump speaks for America. He speaks as President, in the face of substantial opposition.
sorry typo spokes should read Poles above
You are not going to last very long in NL with attitudes like that, Glenn. A bizarre misrepresentation, surprising that people still come out with it. We have had massive influence in the EU, we led the admission of Eastern Europe – it was we who wanted it – and then refused to implement the immigration restrictions available. The problem is in Westminster, not in Brussels.
No, it was Blair who wanted it. “We” suggests the population had been consulted and had consented.
Like I said, the problem is in Westminster, not in Brussels (or outside Westminster).
plus Tony Blair spoke with a forked tongue on Europe, when addressing the UK population. As he turned out to do so often. Had the public actually been consulted on many of the things he did in the name of the UK, the actual outcome might have been very different.
Britain, …, has about as much sway over the EU, […as wales over UK] Which is to say, virtually none whatsoever.
This is exactly wrong
UK had massive impact in the EU, was widely respected; true it exasperated the French from time to time, but was that a bad thing?
One example: UK introduced the entire concept of mass telecommunications interception and retained data ‘for fighting terrorism’ at a quiet meeting of the EU Council agricultural committee! The subsequent legislation was passed quietly by fax throughout the entire European Communities, done so well that only one member of the House of Lords noticed the bill, and queried it.
Big win GCHQ/NSA/8200 etc. “full-take achieved”
Nowadays everyone is still at it, although the judicial sphere have ruled this attack on fundamental rights as non-proportionate.
«The question is rather whether the representation that Scotland has in the UK is worth much»
«no right to force Scotland to live under a succession of Tory governments, which it has not voted for in over 60 years.»
Theresa May herself in her “Florence speech” launched the Conservative campaign for scottish independence with these very good arguments:
Tony Blair born 6 May 1953 in EDINBURGH had a Rock Band in Government with George Robertson born in Port Ellen, John Reid born in Belshill, Gordon Brown born in Giffnock………..and the roadies in the band were from assorted towns in Scotland……and for 13 years held sway over England imposing tuition fees and flooding England with immigrants quite deliberately………….and not to forget that John Smith born in Ardrishaig died 1994 to be replaced by Edinburgh Tonie – not an Englishman in sight in The Scots Party
Was that when he was known as Miranda? 😉
Yes but they all sold Scotland out, whilst carrying out their dirty deeds at Westminster. It must be something to do with the hallowed halls of Westminster that can corrupt a man, or woman for that matter. ?
Paul, “they held sway” only because the English voted their party into power. To suggest they forced themselves on the English is nonsense.
They forced their policies on the English. Student Tuition Fees were only carried with Scottish votes in the HoC
Paul, Labour won 418 seats in 1997, whereas only 330 was required for a majority. Therefore, Scottish MPs were not required to get the tuition fee legislation through.
However, perhaps yourself and Alex below should get together and campaign for English independence – you’ll certainly have my support!
“They forced their policies on the English. ”
Jeez, some have short memories in here, right Paul? for centuries Westminster has forced laws on Scotland. They still do, so come off your high horse please.
You winge over that, lets not forget what Nick Clegg did either. Clegg is English by birth, but his heritage is a right old mixed bag, Dutch, Russian, Baltic-German.
And who came after Blair? And I realise that this is stretching the point a bit but David Cameron is half Scottish – his surname is a clue.
His grandfather was a wealthy grain merchant Alexander Geddes and his father was born in Aberdeenshire
Cameron did Scotland no favours, indeed after the 2014 indy vote which no won. Cameron welched on his Vow promise, opting for EVEL instead English Votes for English Laws.
Agent Cameron is offering his services to Treeza’s successor. No thanks. We have had enough of his services to Mammon.
The new fascist on the block in Brazil will move his country’s embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Bibi approves.
____
Glen Greenwald tweets:
To recap: * All polls throughout 2018 show Lula would easily win the presidency * Judge Moro rushes to convict Lula on dubious charges, preventing him from running * Bolsonaro wins with Lula in jail * Moro to get high, powerful position in Bolsonaro’s government #Justice
…
And:
The judge who put Lula in prison on a highly dubious conviction, which resulted in Lula’s being barred from running while leading all presidential polls, just got his reward: formally accepted Bolsonaro’s offer to be Justice Minister.
ex https://mobile.twitter.com/glenngreenwald?
South American Brazil’s deep state learned from the North American US Trump election didn’t they? Preemptive conviction works best.
Yet another four day week for the troughers.
‘The House will not sit on 2 November 2018 due to Non-sitting Friday – Commons.’
Wouldn’t it be good if we all had four day weeks and be paid £78k pa plus expenses plus the ability to ’employ’ family members and so on.
‘MPs will get a 1.8% pay rise for 2018-19, taking their overall salary to £77,379 from 1 April, the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority said. The salary for chairmen of Commons select committees will also increase by 1.8% to £15,509, which is added to their basic salary for being an MP.1 Mar 2018’
The Lords are off too and like the Commons, will not ‘sit’ next Wednesday, Thursday and Friday (7th-9th November). What’s that about? Remembrance Day is not until Sunday, 11th November.
https://www.parliament.uk/about/faqs/house-of-commons-faqs/business-faq-page/recess-dates/
Incredible, isn’t it? They seem to work a school year. And with the royals increasingly taking the piss, the conditions are starting to look ripe for a revolution – let’s hope it’s a peaceful one.
The revolution started on Wednesday:
https://risingup.org.uk/XR/
https://extinctionrebellion.org/
Does anyone know if it was televised?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnJFhuOWgXg
Here is an alternative view from a retired Professor of Meteorology at MIT:
https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2018/10/Lindzen-2018-GWPF-Lecture.pdf
Lindzen may be retired from science, but he’s been working for Peabody coal:
– Peabody, the world’s biggest private sector publicly traded coal company, was long known as an outlier even among fossil fuel companies for its public rejection of climate science and action. But its funding of climate denial groups was only exposed in disclosures after the coal titan was forced to seek bankruptcy protection in April, under competition from cheap natural gas.
– “These groups collectively are the heart and soul of climate denial,” said Kert Davies, founder of the Climate Investigation Center, who has spent 20 years tracking funding for climate denial. “It’s the broadest list I have seen of one company funding so many nodes in the denial machine.”
– Among Peabody’s beneficiaries, the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change has insisted – wrongly – that carbon emissions are not a threat but “the elixir of life” while the American Legislative Exchange Council is trying to overturn Environmental Protection Agency rules cutting emissions from power plants. Meanwhile, Americans for Prosperity campaigns against carbon pricing. The Oklahoma chapter was on the list.
– Contrarian scientists such as Richard Lindzen and Willie Soon also feature on the bankruptcy list.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jun/13/peabody-energy-coal-mining-climate-change-denial-funding
Blunderbuss, I thought you said you were going to do more research before you promoted any more of this dangerous nonsense:
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/10/nicola-and-independence/comment-page-10/#comment-797254
You certainly got many elementary facts wrong in the course of our discussion, certainly enough that you should have questioned your position. And who do you work for? I showed you mine; now you show me yours.
@Clark
“And who do you work for? I showed you mine; now you show me yours”.
I don’t work for anyone, I’m a pensioner.
The pro-AGW lobby also accept money from special interest groups so the pot is calling the kettle black:
https://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2015/03/29/climate-change-special-interests-condemn-special-interests/
@Clark
“Blunderbuss, I thought you said you were going to do more research before you promoted any more of this dangerous nonsense”.
I have done more research and I have come to the same conclusion. I suppose I should be flattered that you think I am so influential. Actually, I’m not the dictator of the world so I have no power to impose my “dangerous nonsense” on anybody.
– “I’m a pensioner”
Then shame on you for promoting the environmental destruction that those younger than you will have to cope with. You’ve had your bit, eh? And now you indulge yourself, helping to promote manufactured doubt:
– “I suppose I should be flattered that you think I am so influential”
You obviously intend to influence, or you wouldn’t be posting your pseudoscience here.
– “I have done more research and I have come to the same conclusion”
I don’t believe you. Just ten days ago you claimed that CO2 emissions would have to increase by a factor of 25 to increase the temperature by 8 centigrade, and just two days ago you repeatedly pretended that water vapour does not appear in the climate models.
And your link is utterly misleading. On the one hand we have Peabody coal, Koch industries etc; industries that make vast profit, and vast CO2 emissions. On the other, which your link claims as vested interests, we have voluntary pressure groups, charities and educational bodies, not manufacturers of photo-voltaic cells or wind turbines.
Attitudes like yours are the death of hope.
@Clark
obsession with suppression:
https://hat4uk.wordpress.com/2018/11/02/the-weekend-essay-why-gab-is-a-victim-of-the-liberal-establishments-obsession-with-suppression/
“On the one hand we have Peabody coal, …….; industries that make vast profit,”
I thought they’d just gone bust. How do you square that with making “vast profits”.
In any case, the fossil fuel industries may make their money in ethically and ecologically dubious ways, but, unlike renewable energy, they do not depend on vast public subsidies.
The trouble with all you global warmmongers, is that you think you know the truth and that anyone who doesn’t believe as you do is denying the truth and therefore evil. However, to quote Oliver Cromwell, I beseech you in the bowels of Christ to consider for one moment that you may be mistaken and, while you are thinking that, consider how it looks from the other side, from the POV of someone who has an alternative truth, which you are denying, that all climate change is natural and the whole AGW myth has been cooked up by the multi-billion dollar renewable energy industry to keep all that money flowing from the public purse, money which has been abstracted from an unwilling populace under threat of imprisonment.
This site provides you with the freedom to publish, but freedom must be tempered with responsibility. I haven’t, and cannot, suppress your misinformation. But you and your ilk waste a lot of my time, making up for the responsibility you choose not to exercise.
This is the human tragedy; freedom is frequently abused, and it is destroying our understanding and our world. Maybe in the interests of the unbridled freedom you insist upon as a right for yourself, major media outlets should promote vehicle racing through pedestrianised areas, or administering heroin to keep children docile. Or if that seems too extreme, maybe freedom of speech should protect the right to shout “Fire!” during theatrical performances, or freedom of enjoyment should ban similar warnings of genuine emergency.
We have failed to exercise responsibility in our new public media, and consequently censorship is again on the rise. Behaviours such as your own are directly responsible for that. Congratulations; isn’t power a nice feeling, eh?
Bayard, of course all climate change is natural; humans are natural, an ant hill is natural. Did you ever look up the Oxygen Catastrophe? That was natural.
Humans have developed conscious intelligence, the highest expression of which so far is the collaborative systematisation of knowledge called science; in a geological instant it has changed our world out of all recognition. You advocate reaping its short term rewards while dismissing its long term warnings as a conspiracy.
Humans naturally extract fossil fuels and burn them for energy, and the CO2 released naturally causes retention of heat.
The relevant question is not “is the current rapid global warming natural”? Natural organisms have changed the global climate before; this time, it just happens to be us. But uniquely, we have the intelligence and science to recognise the situation, so the relevant question is “do we want it to happen”?
@Clark
I can’t speak for Dave and Bayard but I think they might agree with me. I’m not trying to destroy the earth for profit or egotism or anything else. I simply have a different view from you about what is the best thing to do.
I think climate change will happen anyway, whether we reduce carbon dioxide production or not. It therefore makes more sense to spend money on defensive measures, like higher sea walls, than on carbon dioxide reduction, which will probably have little effect.
I don’t deny that greenhouse gases contribute to global warming but they are only one of many influences on the climate. If the IPCC would pay as much attention to these other influences as they do to greenhouse gases, I might be more inclined to take them seriously.
I agree with Richard Lindzen’s criticism of the “currently popular narrative”:
“Now here is the currently popular narrative concerning this system. The climate, a complex multifactor system, can be summarized in just one variable, the globally averaged temperature change, and is primarily controlled by the 1-2% perturbation in the energy budget due to a single variable – carbon dioxide – among many variables of comparable importance. This is an extraordinary pair of claims based on reasoning that borders on magical thinking. It is, however, the narrative that has been widely accepted, even among many sceptics”.
Geoengineering: Waging Weather Warfare On World Populations:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDvLCPe8viU
I make no comment.
Blunderbuss, Dane Wigington’s message as it seems to me:
Planet Earth is suffering severe climactic change and environmental degradation, and many people are suffering health problems, but these aren’t inherent side effects of normal commerce, industry and power generation. No, they are being caused deliberately by highly secret but very public government programmes, coordinated globally by the United Nations. This evil agenda also controls the whole of so-called academia, which is actually an elaborate charade to brainwash the public and lesser academics. For instance, “vaccines” are actually designed to increase illness and the death rate, and studies showing otherwise are either elaborate deceptions, or the work of those deluded by “academic” brainwashing.
The mainstream “academic” position is a hoax, carefully crafted to fulfil three functions: to look scientifically plausible, to hide the covert government programmes, and to blame all the symptoms on the commercial, industrial and power sectors. Indeed, these sectors are being used; forced or tricked by government and academia into perpetrating the evil schemes, sometimes knowingly sometimes not, but commercial aircraft certainly wouldn’t be polluting our environment if only governments would stop using them to carry their secret, remote-controlled spraying equipment.
Any leading “academic” is probably in on it. You can tell which scientists are truthful because their position dissents from the mainstream, so they’re likely to be right whether their ideas contradict each other or not. On many specific issues the mainstream academic position is a deliberate lie to cover up one of the many evil schemes of the global UN government, and so anything that contradicts the mainstream is likely to be better.
Summary: the private sector is utterly innocent. Government and academia are evil.
Lots of people in many jobs just can’t be trusted. Anyone you speak to employed in aviation, epidemiology, virology, meteorology, climatology, pollution and atmospheric and environmental monitoring, most of the earth sciences, many medical professionals, toxicologists, coroners and pathologists, employees in water purification, supply and monitoring – any or all of these are likely to lie to you, about things they do for secret government programmes that make us all ill including their own families, but they’ve been told what not to say or they’ll be sacked.
Blunderbuss, would this be a fair summary?
Blunderbuss (or Dave or Bayard I suppose), please tell me what you understand of the section from 19:23 to 20:13. Do you think it shows something that the government and academia are keeping secret from the public?
Hmmm. At 14:06, Collier’s looks suspiciously like Awake! from the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society.
@Clark
I did not put the link up because I believe it. I just wanted to see what other people thought of it.
Does falling water go into a zig-zag when exposed to radiation at a certain frequency? I don’t know, I haven’t tried the experiment.
Is Collier’s the same as Awake! I don’t know, I’m not familiar with either publication.
If some people are Waging Weather Warfare, I don’t think it will be very effective because it will be too localized.
– “Does falling water go into a zig-zag when exposed to radiation at a certain frequency?”
That’s not what’s shown in the experiment. Rather, that’s the suggestion Dane Wigington made about it. Ignore Wigington, maybe even mute the sound. Instead, observe the third party video that Wigington is showing to the audience. Watch it in its own right. It contains all the information you need to work out what it really demonstrates; the list of requirements shown in yellow at 19:23 and the subsequent instruction screens should give you a good start.
I expect the Collier’s illustrators just borrowed the Awake! style for its apocalyptic connotations.
Spoiler Alert! – don’t look here before you’ve worked it out for yourself.
The video Wigington showed to his audience apparently originated from YouTube user “brusspup”, and there’s plenty more where that came from:
“Science and Illusions”
https://www.youtube.com/user/brusspup/videos
Here’s what seems to be the original video that Wigington showed:
“Amazing Water & Sound Experiment #2”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uENITui5_jU
So why is Wigington using this video about vibration to support his claim that radio transmitters are controlling US weather? Just because the concept of frequency can be applied to both, very different phenomena? Is he scientifically illiterate himself, or is he deliberately exploiting and promoting scientific illiteracy in his audience? Does he really believe that “academics” don’t understand the effect shown, or does he just want us to believe that?
Now Blunderbuss, you claimed to be a scientist, which you said is about doing research, and to have worked in the field of chemistry:
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/10/nicola-and-independence/comment-page-4/#comment-795886
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/10/nicola-and-independence/comment-page-8/#comment-797012
Earlier you made no comment, but would you now agree with me that Dane Wigington’s banter, though sounding very sciency, is in fact not scientific but rather exhibits superficial plausibility?
@Clark
I think I see what you are getting at. 24 Hz is certainly not radio frequency, so it’s not comparable to wireless transmissions. The 24 frames per second camera also looks dodgy – it could be the camera, rather than the water, that is producing the effect. Alternatively, the 24 Hz tone could be causing the rubber hose to vibrate and this is what is producing the effect on the water. Am I right with either of these?
Here’s the original for the supposedly scary “chemtrail 787 over Russia” clip that Wigington showed:
https://www.newsflare.com/video/133533/travel/captain-films-incredible-contrails-left-by-boeing-787-over-russia
That article was the source for articles on the Daily Mail and Mirror websites, among others – straight out of the MSM. The Mirror actually produces a pop-up window saying:
– INCREDIBLE VIDEO SHOWS HUGE CHEMTRAIL FOLLOWING PLANE OVER RUSSIA – VAPOURWOWZERS – VIDEO UNAVAILABLE
The interior of the trail looks black at first, but if you watch the whole video you can see that’s just a contrast effect.
Blunderbuss, the original video demonstrates a stroboscopic effect.
The loudspeaker shakes the hose 24 times a second, so the water makes a wiggly arc as it falls; seen directly, the arc would seem to diverge. But the camera captures the scene in snapshot frames, 24 times per second, so the wiggles get photo’d in almost exactly the same place each time. The water is falling; it only looks stationary because replacement water is in just the same place in each succeeding frame of video.
Absolutely nothing to do with electromagnetic radio waves; they’re a completely different subject.
Yes, it’s a dodgy dossier.
Too right it’s a dodgy dossier, and I’ve met a few on these threads who have taken it seriously. In fact it ties in to a whole genre. There has been masses of it flooding the ‘web. Our failure to call it out weakens our case against organised gatekeeping.
We need our governments to legislate to minimise ecological catastrophe, but what happens if our demands are backed by bullshit? Skyrocketing CO2 concentrations certainly aren’t bullshit and neither are the concerns about it, whereas I know of zero evidence that weather could be covertly controlled by the cellphone network.
@Clark
Don’t get too excited! The dodgy dossier is about chemtrails and mobile phones influencing the weather. I don’t believe either of them, as I said here:
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/10/the-ignominious-death-of-the-united-kingdom/comment-page-5/#comment-800126
What I do believe is that climate change is driven by by a large number of different influences, of which carbon dioxide is only one.
– “The dodgy dossier is about chemtrails and mobile phones influencing the weather”
What’s dodgy is Wigington’s repeated abuse of sciency-sounding material to conjure superficial plausibility for non-issues. You make exactly the same accusation against legitimate climate science.
– “I don’t believe either of them”
I’m less interested in what people believe than why they believe it. You have claimed to have been a research scientist, but you exposed your ignorance of general science, and your vulnerability to pseudoscience, when you wrote, above:
– “Does falling water go into a zig-zag when exposed to radiation at a certain frequency? I don’t know, I haven’t tried the experiment” and “24 Hz is certainly not radio frequency, so it’s not comparable to wireless transmissions”
It’s not that the frequency is low. It’s that physical vibration and electromagnetic radiation are two entirely different physical phenomena. If you couldn’t spot Wigington’s simple conflation of the two, you lack the competence to dismiss or accuse the IPCC’s science. Why have you been encouraging Dave and Bayard in their folly? Did you overestimate your own competence, or did you know you were just blagging?
@Clark
You are obviously enjoying yourself so here is another video for you to analyse. I actually do support the Solar Magnetic Field theory of climate change so you can really make mincemeat of me here.
https://www.thegwpf.org/professor-valentina-zharkova-the-solar-magnetic-field-and-the-terrestrial-climate/
The first part is all technical. Discussion of the effect on the climate begins at 42 minutes.
Blunderbuss, it’s not about me “enjoying myself”, and I won’t be enjoying it if I have to end up in the cells as part of Extinction Rebellion. There is vitally important information that needs to be acted upon. One of the most simple, quantifiable, undeniable pieces is that CO2 concentrations are going through the roof, and in the fossil record that has been repeatedly accompanied by mass extinctions, one of which seems to be gathering momentum right now.
I think I’ve read an MSM article by Valentina Zharkova. If I remember correctly, she’s a proper researcher claiming to have identified a solar rhythm by superimposing other, simpler rhythms, and her new approach seems to match the solar records better than previous attempts. And if it’s right, it predicts an unusually long (about twenty year) minimum of solar output starting around now.
If this proves true, it might buy humanity enough time to get the CO2 concentration back down, but if the anti-science PR lobby successfully spin it that “warming has stopped” (as they have done repeatedly) and in consequence action is neglected, it’ll be really bad news when solar output climbs out of minimum again.
Blunderbuss, I can see why you might feel that I’m having a go at you personally. We are human; emotional, ego-driven animals. Rationality does not come naturally to us; we are more inclined to deploy partial rationality, to appear superior in arguments and thereby increase our social ranking. Maybe I displayed an element of that when I asked:
– “Did you overestimate your own competence, or did you know you were just blagging?”
But it is also an operational question, as you have claimed to be considering climate change scientifically. If you are indeed discussing scientifically, you should have posted a warning of pseudoscience along with your link to Wigington’s video, for the benefit of your colleagues, Bayard and particularly Dave. If we’re doing science, we should all be helping each other to understand, to the best that each can achieve. This is science, the antithesis of rhetorical debate. We must shun the practice of bolstering a particular position by deploying superficial plausibility, and instead set about the mundane but vital business of weeding – exposing illogic, false connections and concocted distractions. As a scientific colleague, I was imploring you to reflect upon how you got it wrong enough to add to the confusion, when science dictates that understanding must be our goal.
@Clark
I didn’t get it wrong. I said from the start that I made no comment on the Wigington video. I gave you the opportunity to demolish it and you did.
I’m now giving you the same opportunity with the Zharkova video.
What you can’t seem to accept is that scientists disagree about the extent to which carbon dioxide influences climate. You seem to believe that any scientist who does not toe the IPCC line is not a proper scientist.
You don’t have to protect Bayard and Dave from my malign influence. They are quite capable of thinking for themselves.
Blunderbuss, Wonky has promoted chemtrails, and Dave has demonstrated that his scientific understanding is quite shaky enough that he might take Wigington’s material seriously, particularly if it appears to support his position.
While I have been accused of appealing to scientific authority, it is you that has actually claimed it. Linking to pseudoscience in the assumption that I will demolish it is at best manipulative; we all share equal responsibility in furthering the public understanding, of what scientific reasoning is, and of what doesn’t make the grade and why. If you’re having trouble with that yourself, and therefore decided to test out Wigington by feeding his stuff through me, I implore you to get up to speed, and I recommend Goldacre’s Bad Science.
@Clark 13:16
“While I have been accused of appealing to scientific authority, it is you that has actually claimed it”.
I’ve never claimed to be an expert on climate science. I’ve only expressed the opinion that there are many drivers of climate change and carbon dioxide is just one of them. I think more research should be done on other drivers, such as the solar magnetic field. The IPCC’s scope is far too narrow.
Dave and Bayard and everybody else are free to agree or disagree with me.
– “The IPCC’s scope is far too narrow”
Which papers by the IPCC have you actually read?
– – – – – –
– “@Clark What is your scientific discipline? Mine is chemistry”
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/10/nicola-and-independence/comment-page-4/#comment-795886
– “I am a scientist and I am aware that scientists are fallible”
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/10/nicola-and-independence/comment-page-8/#comment-796998
– “I don’t think I said anything about ppm and it’s not an SI unit anyway. ‘This notation is not part of the SI system and its meaning is ambiguous’ [Wikipedia]”
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/10/nicola-and-independence/comment-page-4/#comment-795882
– “1) Fair’s fair. You haven’t given me any evidence that you are a scientist”
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/10/nicola-and-independence/comment-page-8/#comment-797031
– “1) So you now admit that you are not a scientist.”
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/10/nicola-and-independence/comment-page-8/#comment-797038
– “I haven’t published any papers. Science is about research, not publishing papers. Unfortunately, scientists are now defined as “people who publish peer-reviewed papers” and this is why science if facing a crisis of confidence”
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/10/nicola-and-independence/comment-page-8/#comment-797021
I think it’s pretty obvious that you’ve been pretending to scientific authority; you even used it to try to put me in my place, and your comment about units is a proper piece of posing. You have been claiming that from a scientific perspective, there are strong grounds for being suspicious, specifically of the IPCC. Yet every argument you’ve advanced or commended has been scientifically unsound, the couple of exceptions escaping by their vagueness.
Your behaviours on this subject are indistinguishable from those of a paid global warming denial shill. So I’ll repeat; which IPCC papers have you read?
– “Dave and Bayard and everybody else are free to agree or disagree with me”
That is true in terms of human rights, which uphold various freedoms; of expression, thought, belief and so on.
But if we’re having a scientific conversation, it’s a bit more complicated than that, because science specifies certain restrictions and responsibilities.
Clark: Don’t let this incredibly lazy “Blunderbuss” waste your time like this.
All this fool has to do is post up a youtube video which will take him less than a minute to find and reproduce here, and let you spin away for the next day or so after wasting god knows how long watching it. It’s the ultimate passive-aggressive online tactic. I never respond to dueling you-tubes (or even look at them as an argument point) for this very reason. To settle a dispute in a very specific point of contention, perhaps, but never to allow a video to make a case for a bone idle debatee.
Maybe that’s where s/he gets the name from – a blunderbuss technique. Just fire all sorts of nonsense in every direction, and let the opponent who’s gullible enough to take any of it seriously go running around trying to deal with every bit of buckshot it fires off.
I admit that it’s enjoyable reading your replies, but your audience is very limited compared with the effort this is taking you, and you’ll never convince someone who’s having a great deal of fun watching you spin and run around, dancing to his rather obviously insincere tune.
Glenn_nl, who was it posted those four stupid graphs a few weeks ago; two of them covering a decade and showing some small decrease, and two others covering a century showing ten times as much increase, and trying to pretend that this contradicted increase. Can you remember where that was?
@glenn_nl 20:38
I don’t agree with your characterization of me but I’m going to take your advice and leave the subject of climate change for a while. Let’s see if Clark does the same.
Blunderbuss, Glenn_nl didn’t give you any advice, nor even address you in any way.
Sloping off now is not an acceptably scientific conclusion to our discussion; scientifically, we should be able to pinpoint what our disagreement is about, and at worst retire to consider how we might test the matter. You had said that the IPCC’s scope was far too narrow, so I asked you which papers you’d read. What is the IPCC’s scope? I only ever read a bit, and that was years ago.
Or if your arguments were never meant to be real science in the first place, please just say so.
@Clark
OK, take this summary for policymakers:
http://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/pdf/sr15_spm_final.pdf
As far as I can see, there is no mention of any non-anthropogenic driver of climate change, such as the solar magnetic field.
If I were a policymaker, the (incorrect) message I would take from this is that climate change is driven entirely by anthropogenic sources.
Yes, that’s the Summary for Policy Makers; I wouldn’t expect to find the science in there, would you?
As a policymaker, you’d need to know what changes to prepare for, and what environmental protections you should apply; the relative contributions of various causal factors which you have no control over would be a distraction.
If you disagree with the science behind this advice, that’s obviously in other papers. What’s right at the top, straight in through the front door? Hmm. I can’t say I like the IPCC’s website very much. Ah. Here might be a good place to start for now:
http://ipcc.ch/report/ar5/
How did you come to choose that summary for policymakers? It isn’t even finished yet, is it?
@Clark 01:19
“As a policymaker, you’d need to know what changes to prepare for, and what environmental protections you should apply; the relative contributions of various causal factors which you have no control over would be a distraction”.
If Professor Valentina Zharkova is right, we are heading for a period of global cooling, beginning around 2020. This could lead to food shortages due to reduced crop yields. I think policymakers need to know about this but you see it as a distraction.
I’ll repeat the link to the Zharkova video:
https://www.thegwpf.org/professor-valentina-zharkova-the-solar-magnetic-field-and-the-terrestrial-climate/
@Clark 01:38
“How did you come to choose that summary for policymakers? It isn’t even finished yet, is it?”
If I’d chosen something older, you’d probably have said it was out of date.
Read the first page:
This Summary for Policymakers was formally approved at the
First Joint Session of Working Groups I, II and III of the IPCC
and accepted by the 48th Session of the IPCC, Incheon,
Republic of Korea, 6 October 2018.
It says “subject to copy edit” but if the IPCC chooses to publish it before they have copy edited it then that is their choice, not mine.
– “If I’d chosen something older, you’d probably have said it was out of date”
Ah, so you’re trying to second-guess me; you’re assuming I an adversary. Whatever. But you were complaining about the IPCC’s scope, and you’re not going to find that in the “summary for policymakers”.
You see, with some minimal clicking I have found scoping documents, and the IPCC’s scope is a whole lot wider that just CO2, contradicting your complaint. It specifically mentions solar forcings which you claim the IPCC ignores, and it also covers preparation for changes, which Dave claims it ignores. This might give you some idea:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ar5/ar5-outline-compilation.pdf
Whereas you keep linking to what I have found to be a small Tory think-tank, thegwpf.org. Your scope looks much, much narrower than the IPCC’s. The only cases you seem to be promoting are that the IPCC is the devil, and that CO2 emissions not be limited. Just like a fossil fuel shill. Are you sure you retired?
Clark: I could not find the reference for those graphs, sorry.
But I do recall this last exchange with BB, before I fully appreciated his utter insincerity:
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/10/the-ignominious-death-of-the-united-kingdom/comment-page-5/#comment-800791
Here, you may recall, BB was insisting that it was “magnetic radiation” that was the cause of any possible climate change all along. His own reference – when he finally produced one – consisted of a single study which posited that cosmic rays _might_ have some effect on clouds, based on observations over a single solar cycle. Even the abstract of this 16 year old study was hedged with lots of “maybes”, “ifs”, and “proposals”.
Having been given a pretty good response to BB’s chosen reference for BB’s own case (even if I say so myself), BB’s response was to insult us, telling us our god was the ISPP (which wasn’t even mentioned), and disappeared saying he wasn’t going to waste any more of his time.
That’s the level of honesty you’re getting from this guy. Don’t play his stupid game of “It’s anything but CO2!”
@Craig 10:04
I can only find two references to the word “solar” in the document. They are:
Chapter 8: Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing
Executive Summary
· Natural radiative forcing changes: solar and volcanic
WG III – Water and climate change mitigation issues include:
· low carbon energy: bioenergy, biofuels (use of water, added pollution); nuclear power
(cooling); hydro power; co-benefits and tradeoffs; side effects of solar, wind, etc.
I think the second reference is to solar-generated electricity.
This may show that the IPCC is aware of solar forcing but it says nothing about the size of it, or what research they have done on it.
The word “magnetic” (as in the Solar Magnetic Field hypothesis) does not appear at all.
@Craig 10:04
“The only cases you seem to be promoting are that the IPCC is the devil, and that CO2 emissions not be limited. Just like a fossil fuel shill. Are you sure you retired?”
You can’t seem to accept that I have a different opinion from you. You appear to believe that my opinion is wicked and blasphemous and that I must be “re-educated” or punished for my opinion.
Since you (and glenn_nl) don’t believe anything I say, is there any point in continuing this discussion? It only seems to be causing you grief.
Glenn_nl, thanks for looking. Incidentally, the link you posted is wrong; do please post the right one as I’d like to read that bit again.
Sorry for the errant link, Clark – here’s the right one:
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/09/soft-focus/comment-page-4/#comment-784628
Blunderbuss: – “I can only find two references to the word “solar” in the document. […] This may show that the IPCC is aware of solar forcing but it says nothing about the size of it, or what research they have done on it”
No, it shows, completely obviously, that you’re looking the the contents (it’s at moments like this that I’m sorely tempted to append “dunderhead” to the end of the sentence). The one (relevant) mention is just the reference to an entire section in the actual report, itself presumably compiled from the findings of multiple papers.
– “You can’t seem to accept that I have a different opinion from you”
Oh no, I fully accept that. But you have repeatedly argued that this is your scientific opinion, and that’s different. It’s unsurprising that you neglected to call out Dane Wigington’s pseudoscience because you use very similar tactics yourself; projecting an image that looks sciency but is actually anti-scientific, to create a fake air of authority around your opinions. That’s cheating, and yes, cheating is usually punished in the interest of fairness.
It isn’t merely that your promotion of your unscientific opinion about global warming is almost unbelievably selfish. It’s that your bullshitting undermines readers’ understanding of what science itself actually is. To you, in your ignorance, a scientific position is “just an opinion” like any other. But it isn’t opinions that keep planes in the air and save people’s lives in ICU. The application of science has lifted the human condition beyond recognition, yet you happily promote ignorance and corrupt readers’ understanding of science itself because you don’t like one specific fact which has emerged from it.
In musical notation, FFF means “play as loud as you can”:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8rDhJbiXIQ
@Clark
I’ve had enough of being insulted by you. This correspondence is closed.
Glenn_nl, thanks for the corrected link, doubly so because my deconstruction of the graph article which I asked you about is also there, earlier in the thread, and it was, again, Blunderbuss who posted it. Debunking Blunderbuss’s link using its own figures prompted Blunderbuss to accuse me of cherry-picking sources. Priceless!
Blunderbuss, I’m sorry that you feel personally insulted. I wouldn’t have phrased things so strongly had you not been insulting readers’ intelligence for weeks; your attempt to pass off a list of contents as the articles they referred to was merely the final straw.
Something I have found fascinating is just how few sound-bites global warming denialism is actually based around; the same old phrases crop up over and over. I may not have demonstrated the integrity of the IPCC (not that I tried or needed to, as the mainstream science has held up well), but you have clearly demonstrated the paucity of the denialists’ arguments.
PS: and thanks for confusing me with Craig; not only is it a complement, it also happened a few times on the 9/11 thread when I’d refuted all the Enlightened Ones’ sound bites.
@Clark 18:33
My apologies for confusing you with Craig. I don’t know how I did that.
Thanks for drawing my attention to the 9/11 thread. I see that you have a history of insulting people who don’t agree with you. What did you say that led to this tantrum?
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/comment-page-134/#comment-714503
Why even bother asking? I could slowly dismember and eat a live kitten for breakfast each morning but it would make not a jot of difference to the validity of any scientific argument I might present.
For what it’s worth, most Twin Tower demolition theorists, and conspiracy theorists generally, tend to behave like fascists. The symbol of fascism is the fasces, a bundle of sticks bearing an axe head. The fasces represents unity:
– “The symbolism of the fasces suggested strength through unity: a single rod is easily broken, while the bundle is difficult to break”
Twin Tower demolition theorists act as if unity defeats honesty, accuracy, and competence. Though promoting utterly contradictory “theories”, they united against my lone voice on the thread, repeatedly evading my simple questions (while accusing me of evasion), accusing me of “cognitive dissonance” and a psychological need to revere authority, and supporting the official story (though my comments made it clear that I do not), accusing me of supporting Western wars (I have consistently campaigned against war), mocking my comments (and trading such jibes back and forth between them), and insinuating I was some sort of secret agent – one of them even “accused” me of being Jcwish. As if any such techniques made the blindest difference to how buildings collapse. But the objective of conspiracy theorists is not to be right but to recruit, and to that end they treat badly anyone who challenges their nonsense, in an attempt to intimidate them into silence. It is exceedingly ugly.
Twin Tower demolition theorists are notably keen on citing Newton’s laws, but very few – and none on the 9/11 thread – can actually apply them very well. Unfortunately, at least one of the moderators at this site was insufficiently experienced to correctly apply one of the moderation rules:
– “Engage with arguments rather than commenters. Play the ball, not the man”
Some moderator seemed incapable of understanding that accusations of “waffle” and “you don’t know Newton’s laws” are personal arguments, not scientific ones. It’s just a personal smear and often a wilful lie (I had calculated kinetic energy and momentum transfers with Nikko) and should have been deleted. A scientific argument would need a form such as:
– “You have incorrectly applied Newton’s laws because you have (neglected a force or used the wrong mass or whatever)”
You can see an example of a personal, non-scientific argument just four comments up from your link, from Nikko, whose physics I repeatedly had to correct. You can see some dishonest sniping from Paul Barbara at the bottom of the page. Your own comments accusing me of blindly following the IPCC are also personal rather than political.
After weeks and months of countering rhetoric with evidence and reasoning, and being thoroughly smeared for my efforts, I lost patience and started responding with personal smears of my own. However, mine weren’t thinly veiled as science such as the example from Nikko, and unfortunately an inexperienced moderator interpreted their role as enforcing politeness rather than the appropriate moderation rules, so the insults I posted were deleted whereas those such as Nikko’s were permitted to stand. That’s hard to take when it’s been half a dozen against one for months.
@Clark 22:36
Yes, you are always right and anybody who can’t see that you are right is a liar or a cheat or a conspiracy theorist.
It’s impossible to have a sensible discussion with you so I won’t try again.
It was my experience on the 9/11 thread that revealed to me just how destructive and divisive the conspiracy theory rationale really is. I had thought that the term “conspiracy theory” was merely used dismissively, and of course it is used that way, but there is also a recognisable mode of thought (or rather lack of thought) that gives rise to and popularises certain beliefs.
My hunch is that this is a vestige of humanity’s affinity for supernaturalism. Every human society that we know of has developed supernatural beliefs. Modern rationality has discredited all of them, but the brain function that generated them is still present and active, so it concocts a secret conspiracy as a surrogate to satisfy its longing for a supernatural agent.
Note that shared supernatural beliefs invariably have served as the major societal binding agent, with frequent reinforcement by exchanging superficial agreement within the group, and prejudice directed at “outsiders”. Disagreements within-group are quietly passed over, often by innocuously morphing the discussion to agreement about a core in-group tenet, whereas even minor disagreements with those outside the group are seized upon as demonstrative of the outsiders’ lesser worth.
The Conspiracy takes the place of a deity, but a malign one. There is no evidence The Conspiracy cannot fabricate, no contradictory evidence It cannot suppress, no person It cannot subvert (apart from the beleaguered but intrepid conspiracy theorists, of course) – The Conspiracy is close to all-powerful.
But The Conspiracy has to be expanded continually to account for ever emerging contradictory facts, so the conspiracy theorists end up having to be suspicious of everyone around them – is my doctor trying to poison my child with vaccines? Does the aircraft steward at number 17 know about the chemtrail spraying? Is Clark a member of the IPCC? Are you sure you’ve retired?
The trouble is that we actually are surrounded by, and actually do partake in conspiracies; colleagues within organisations conspiring to misinform the wider public is very much standard practice. And this is why the double meaning of the term is so annoying; getting sucked into one of the mainstream conspiracy theories takes our eyes off the game, and consequently we miss actual conspiracies that are very damaging; see Goldacre’s books Bad Science, and even more so, Bad Pharma.
Blunderbuss, there’s no nice way to say it, but you have been cheating by pretending that you’ve been engaging in scientific argument. To take just one example, you accused the IPCC of narrow scope, but then you had to cherry-pick a document to avoid revealing the IPCC’s much wider scope. The scientific response is to acknowledge that you were wrong so that the discussion can move on, to things that are supported by fact. Instead, you attempted to dismiss the new evidence by pretending that the contents list was the article. Do you really imagine that arguments of that quality are what gave us powered flight and the Internet?
Blunderbuss, I love it when someone finds a genuine counter to one of my arguments, because it means things are about to get interesting again; there’s something to be investigated, discovered, learned. But what you’ve been doing isn’t it; it’s just all tired old fallacies from denialist websites, superficial to disprove, nothing to get my teeth into.
Ho hum.
So what about you, Blunderbuss? Which other conspiracy theories do you buy into? There aren’t very many; there couldn’t be, because conspiracy theories operate on the desire for unity, so too many would dilute the followers too thinly. Are you into Twin Tower demolition theory? Faked Moon landings? Sandy Hook? Agenda 21 and UN depopulation theory? NWO and the vaccines conspiracy? Or even Spivey’s Glasgow bin-wagon false flag?
Blunderbuss, it isn’t about what you believe, nor even about whether we agree or not. It’s about how you go about establishing it. Try presenting me with a good argument.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Well I found that a long, hard conversation with Blunderbuss & Co. As with Twin Tower demolition theory, facts are either ignored or replaced with fallacies which contradict evidence. The anti-scientific method is clearly demonstrated; first, decide upon your desired conclusion, and then warp every fact and argument toward promoting that conclusion, honesty and accuracy be damned.
And then this morning I discovered another example:
– ‘Which EU Law Are You Most Looking Forward To Losing?’ 11 October 2016, 14:03
– “This caller voted to leave the EU so we could take control of our own laws. James O’Brien asked which law he was most looking forward to getting rid of. This is what happened next”
https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/james-obrien/which-eu-law-are-you-looking-forward-to-losing/
And that in turn reminds me of Michael Gove:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGgiGtJk7MA
The Commons rarely sits on Fridays. The assumption is that MPs will spend Fridays on duties back in their constituencies. I’m not saying that some of them don’t abuse this, but that’s the reason.
As for employing members of their families, most MPs employ someone to run their diary, and that person is who you need to talk to if you want the MP to attend an event. Again this is open to abuse, but in many cases the MP’s spouse is uniquely qualified for this role. As long as they actually do the job I don’t see a problem
Really?
That was quick,
Brazil’s Bolsonaro wants Israel embassy moved to Jerusalem
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/11/brazil-bolsonaro-israel-embassy-moved-jerusalem-181101111544136.html
He said during the campaign that this was his intention if he was elected
Are you on here to give the establishment view?
‘A Senior Russian Diplomat Confirms: “Russia Is Preparing for War” – Is Anybody Listening?’:
http://www.unz.com/tsaker/a-senior-russian-diplomat-confirms-russia-is-preparing-for-war-is-anybody-listening/
But who cares? The real news is ‘Former EastEnders star Janet Dibley joins Coronation Street to play school headteacher’, Arsenal beat Blackpool 2-1, and ‘Duchess Meghan turns heads in seemingly see-through skirt during royal tour’.
There is a lot of weaponry being tested currently………..Russia has no early warning of a US attack now Mk41 launchers are in Romania and huge consignments of munitions are arriving in Ramstein AFB
The Metropolitan Police have been set onto the Labour Party at the behest of a foreign-backed Nazi-style gang. Jeremy Corbyn should tell them to f*** off.
If you are a police officer reading this, seriously, wouldn’t you prefer to catch criminals rather than work for them in this way?
Live by the sword die by the sword. Oh how sweet it is.
Only a matter of days ago I pointed out that Alan Billings (Police Commissioner for South Yorkshire) was urging the public to report to the police incidents that were not criminal or in contravention of any law, rule, or regulation but incidents which some people may have found upsetting. All this while South Yorkshire is plagued with actual crime and substantial resources are required to address historical failures of the police.
Naturally this constituted conclusive proof that I was some form of Nazi. (I guess I just don’t hate the citizens of South Yorkshire with sufficient zeal).
So I say good – investigate the Labour Party all you want, – imprison all Labour MP’s if you want. Should this happy day come to pass then for one brief and fleeting moment the iron heel of oppression will be lifted from the faces of the people.
The leadership of the Metropolitan police kiss the butts of the Community Security Trust who are utter “race”-haters and foreign backed with it. But the CST don’t ever seem to get paid police visits “without coffee”, let alone have the media told they are under investigation, or have their highly-strengthened doors kicked in, or their premises searched for weapons, or their links with groups operating under other names investigated. The Met also cooperate with the Scientologists.
Got to wonder whether there aren’t some police officers who rather than helping such fascists wouldn’t prefer to try to reduce crime levels. Surely there must be some? Who controls promotion in the police and MI5 these days?
As it turns out the story was bollocks. So you can put your fantasies of unopposed fascism on hold for a while.
The anti-semitism pot is being stirred again. Anything will do to try and destabilize Corbyn.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/nov/02/met-police-opens-criminal-inquiry-into-labour-antisemitism-claims
LBC have passed on their ‘dossier’. LBC is part of Global Radio and is owned by the Tabor family. The father is a millionaire bookmaker and horserace owner who hobnobs with Her Maj. The son wanted this flat in Knightsbridge.
Council rules against radio boss’s record-breaking £200m flat
Ashley Tabor has applied to make country’s most expensive apartment by knocking together two penthouses in Knightsbridge
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/oct/11/planning-chief-rules-against-radio-bosss-record-breaking-200m-flat
I am very sorry that LBC poached Eddie Mair from the BBC and that he went to them.
Eddie Mair said he was fired from the BBC on his show last night. I was not aware that was the case. I too thought he’d been poached. And why was he fired?
Absolutely agree, nothing to see here, officer, no violent crimes committed, go find some real crooks, burglars and murderers.
Time to turn this FoI hate campaign on those who have devalued their favourite accusations in their own ranks.
Their is nothing threatening or worrying in the Labour party for its jewish members and those who keep this now very small tea-light burning should be ignored.
Ma Hodge was all over the BBC with it on the 6pm and the 10pm ‘news’ – How she lives in fear being a Jcwish MP etc.
Not forgetting her daughter by her first marriage, Lizzi Watson, is the editor of both programmes.
Her Twitter handle –
Lizzi Watson
@islingtonlizzi
Deputy Editor, BBC News at 6 and 10
Appalling that the state broadcaster is putting out this propaganda for the Jcwish lobby.
Spain is using British Brexit chaos as an opportunity to at the very least gain joint sovereignty over Gibralter.
“Spain’s Socialist Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez has come under attack for failing to take back control of Gibraltar, with the conservative opposition accusing his Cabinet of wasting an opportunity thrown up by Brexit to achieve shared rule over the British enclave.”
Maybe after Britain falls of the Brexit cliff, Spain with the help of the EU (EU backing Ireland just now a member like Spain) covertly of course will attempt to wrestle Gibralter back.
https://www.politico.eu/article/spanish-government-pedro-sanchez-josep-borrell-takes-hit-over-gibraltar-brexit-deal/
a brilliant, concise read:
https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/11/02/bolsonaro-a-monster-engineered-by-our-media/
Yes, another good piece by Jonathan Cook.
Jenkins is far from the first to bemoan the end of the monopoly of ‘regulated media,’ ie establishment voices like his.. “When debate is no longer through regulated media .. politics will default to the mob”.
It doesn’t take a great stretch of memory to recall what was – and still is – considered politically acceptable by this ‘regulated media’. (Who, as Cook points out, are far more horrified by Corbyn’s pro-human policies than by Bolsonaro’s fascist, pro-corporate ones).
The Scottish Parliament is slow in producing a record of proceedings, compared to Hansard. Yesterday’s proceedings are not up yet. There is an iPlayer recording –
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0bqmst7/scottish-first-ministers-questions-01112018# 32mins until 40mins in
That is the session from yesterday on the Parliament Channel which I happened on earlier this morning. It was like a Friends of Israel gathering at one point with questions from John Mason, Adam Tomkins and Neil Findlay and Sturgeon’s lengthy replies. All the usual about hate speech, A-S, Yad Vashem, the HET and trips to Auschwitz for children. Sturgeon said she had been there this week with a party of 200 children. Not one mention of the Palestinians in those exchanges.
This article from May last year says it all. It’s about Regev being welcomed there. I wonder how many other ambassadors receive a similar welcome?
Scottish Propaganda fails to mask Israel’s Crimes
https://scottishsocialistparty.org/scottish-propaganda-fails-mask-israels-crimes/
Like Westminster, there is a FoI grouping.
https://www.commonspace.scot/tags/snp-friends-israel
Yes, none more so than Labour, wouldn’t you agree?
“Labour Friends of Israel (LFI) is a Westminister based pro-Israel lobby group working within the British Labour party. It is considered one of the most prestigious groupings in the party and is seen as a stepping stone to ministerial ranks by Labour MPs. LFI boasts some of the wealthiest supporters of the party, and some of its most generous donors, ”
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Labour_Friends_of_Israel
Or the CFoI or the LD FoI and even embedded in the European Parliament.
Meanwhile Jeremy Runt is meeting the leader of the White Helmets
https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/uk-foreign-secretary-meets-with-white-helmets/
“Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt has welcomed Raed al-Saleh, the leader of the Syrian Civil Defence (White Helmets), to the Foreign Office today to discuss the vital work the group has done in Syria,” the statement read.
‘US & UK Funded White Helmets Because They Served Their Interests’ – Commentator
Hunt lauded White Helmets efforts during the hostilities in Syria, which “saved over 115,000 lives,” according to the statement.
@ SA November 2, 2018 at 13:14
Unlike those fakirs and terrorist’s PR agency, the UK really could have saved 500,000-odd deaths and millions of refugees if they hadn’t decided (alonf with France and the US, and assorted ME cronies) to ‘overthrow Assad with the use of mercenaries’ in 2009 – ‘France’s Roland Dumas tells how Syria’s Destruction was planned in advance’: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWKA2ffECUg
‘Former French Foreign Minister Roland Dumas: West was preparing attack on Syria before crisis started’:
https://www.globalresearch.ca/former-french-foreign-minister-roland-dumas-west-was-preparing-attack-on-syria-before-crisis-started/5341296
But no matter how unambiguous that message is, no one wants to address it, least of all MP’s and the MSM.
Is Dr Nott going along too.
Dr Nott should be reported to the GMC for advocating humanitarian bombing.
White Helmets. Otherwise knows as ISIS.
Looks like fascist Trump is on the watt to taking over the USA at the ballot box.
His Repubkican Party has become a Nazi one except in name..
Now market which deals with a same minority of people with jobs is calling for his election in the name of stability.
Trump is just scaring people to vote for him without any burning down of the Capitol by just claiming a group of desperate, unarmed immigrants are involved in invading the country.
Hitler found taking over Germany much more difficult.
Hitler found taking over Germany much more difficult.
That is a strange statement. With Hugenberg’s UFA empire behind him and funding from US sources it is hard to see the great difficulty. the alternative after Bruening’s Rule by Decree was an Army Coup or Communist takeover. Von Papen gave Hitler a role as his deputy
It took Hitler a generation to take over while Trump has only baen at it for a few years.
Tesco now going full pelt on its Union Jackery no doubt Welsh and NI produce will suffer the same fate.
You can shove your club card where the sun doesn’t shine.
https://mobile.twitter.com/TweetvilleBobo/status/1058138805977432065
That news is rather old isn’t it?
Tesco suffers backlash in Scotland after staffer uses 2016 statement in response to question about Scottish flag
November 03, 2017
Retail giant Tesco suffered a backlash from Scots after its Twitter account erroneously posted a 15-month old statement about removing the Scottish flag from certain packaging.
https://www.prweek.com/article/1449184/tesco-suffers-backlash-scotland-staffer-uses-2016-statement-response-question-scottish-flag
And don’t forget that Craig went to the USA where he said he was the connection between the DNC and Hillary emails getting to Wikileaks which Special Counsel Robert Mueller is investigating Roger Stone, a corrupt middleman going back to Reagan’s dirty covert actions, being the covert one.
Is there a Blairite conspiracy going on with regards Brexit and Russia? The answer may be that there is. Be Bradshaw who has been pursuing the story that Russia influenced the Brexit vote is now focusing on the Aaron Banks story and trying to link this with Russian money. Now this is all very tricky because of course, few people on this blog would like to be seen defending Banks but I think the true target here is again another Russia story. It may well be true that Banks has had meetings with Russian businessmen, any of these businessmen including Trump and many others could. But does that then translate to ‘Russia influenced Brexit vote’?
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/nov/01/investigators-will-scrutinise-arron-banks-russian-links
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/nov/02/theresa-may-arron-banks-leave-eu-campaign-investigation
Spain’s robust pursuit of the Catalonian rebels does not bode well for any Scots engaging in UDI.
Indeed, Trowbridge, 25 year sentence for carrying out a vote. Definitely encouraging people to take up arms rather than rely on a ‘democratic’ process.