The pathetic sight of a man scrabbling for a better place in history

Yep, sick bags on standby - we have the frankly odious sight of Tony Blair desperately trying to justify what will probably be the biggest stain on his already deeply checkered historical repuation - the invasion of Iraq.

There's lot of shit in the article, unsurprisingly. He talks about how difficult regime change can be difficult, but ignores the fact that, as the leader of one of the coalition powers, it was his job to make it as easy as possible. For example, by not stripping the country of the whole political infrastructure. Or by making sure the troops are properly equipped. Or by having some sort of exit strategy that isn't just blind panic in the face of a deeply predictable insurgency. Yet, in amongst all the rest of the horseshit, this bit particularly stands out to me as the very pinnacle of empty rhetoric:

But he went on: "I think people sometimes think my religious faith played a direct part in some of those decisions, it really didn't."

No. No, I don't think Blair's religion played a part in his decision. In fact, had he followed the path set by the central Messianic figure in his religion he might have been less willing to commit his country to war. But that's irrelevant, since - as Blair notes - he wasn't motivated by religion. No, we know why he went to war with Iraq. He was afraid of losing favour with the US administration. He was afraid of appearing soft on security. His decision to commit troops to conflict was based on cowardice and cynical political action. There was nothing moral or Christian about his decision. And that is how he will be remembered. A spineless political charlatan, ready to fight a war for no other end than to further his political career.

BBC Priorities...

So, a leading body that researches climate change has been apparently exposed as telling the odd lie. The potential implications for the climate change lobby are massive. And God love the BBC, they are even reporting this story. In their Technology section:

The e-mail system of one of the world's leading climate research units has been breached by hackers.

And:

A university spokesman confirmed the email system had been hacked and that information was taken and published without permission.

Yes, because it is all about the (possible) hacking, isn't it? That's the crucial issue here. Silly me, thinking that the media might report on the apparently egregious and gross distortions perpetrated by those who would want to radically change government policy based on spurious and often fabricated evidence. But no. It is all about the alleged hacking.

Fucking hell. And I wonder why some people claim that the BBC is biased?

Climate Change *Proof*

DK is (naturally) celebrating the news that some of those Climate Change "scientists" have been caught being somewhat economical with the the truth. Now, the climate change brigade would probably argue that this makes little difference; that the environment is still under threat even if these scientists have been caught constructing the sort of fabrications that might normally be associated with a Nu Labour government preparing for war. Certainly, I'll concede that the climate is changing, and that humanity often does have a negative impact on that environment. And I'll also concede, since I am in an unusually generous mood this morning, the deceit of some environmentally focussed scientists does not dismiss the findings of all environmentally focussed scientists. However, it does bring it all into question.

Which is the point. I, for one, am sick of being called a "climate change denier" in the same tones that are normally reserved for Holocaust deniers. I don't "deny" climate change, I simply question the extent to which humanity is responsible for it and also doubt how convincing some of the supposed evidence for it is. Guess what? I'm a skeptic - and this evidence shows that being sceptical is a good position to be be in.

Blind adherence to the "truth" about climate change is a frankly moronic position. Like every other part of life, science can seldom offer an absolute, indisputable "truth". And it is also open to use and abuse by those with agendas. So for all those environmentalists out there who wish to close down the debate because the evidence for climate change is now "indisputable", take a step back and a deep breath, admit you are wrong, and start making your case again. This time without the shrill, strident tone that sounds more appropriate coming from a religious fanatic than someone talking about reality.

Climate Change Insanity

It falls to another to accurately sum up my position on climate change as well as his own:

And I am not - I am, still, not - what they refer to, so offensively, as a "climate change denier". I believe that mankind can and does affect the planet, and I believe that effect is usually negative.

Will rising CO2 in the atmosphere cause warmer temperatures, changing weather patterns, and a few inches' rise in sea levels? Yeah, maybe - though the jury is still out. Even if the science were settled, though, does that justify dismantling the edifices of our civilisation, one by one? No, of course it doesn't. If it rains more, buy a fucking umbrella. If the seas rise, don't build your house on the beach.

I'd advise everyone to go and read the angry baby man's article in full - it neatly sums up just how insane the environmental industry lobby can be.

Only 50 Days To Save The World!

Ignoring the hysterical climate change nonsense inherent within the statement (as difficult as it might be to do so), take a look at Gordon Brown's latest pronouncement:

Gordon Brown said negotiators had 50 days to save the world from global warming and break the "impasse".

Right. Riiiiggght. So, having been in one of the most important positions in the UK government since May 2nd, 1997, and having been in charge of that government since 27 June 2007, he now decides - with 50 days to go - to lead a charge towards "solving" climate change. I'm sorry, but what about the preceding 12 years? What was wrong with doing something in the decade and a bit that Brown has been at the very heart of our government? Talk about leaving everything to the last minute...

Now, there are two possible interpretations to this hasty hyperbole. On the one hand, he could really believe that we only have 50 days to save the world. In which case he is an incompetent moron who needs to learn to prioritise the saving of the world over such things as commenting on that hairy testicle who sang on Britain's Got Talent. On the other hand, he might not believe at all in this 50 day deadline - in which case he is a shallow, manipulative oik trying to create panic to distract people from his own failing political career.

So there we have it - either the Prime Minister is an incompetent moron or a shallow, manipulative oik. Neither is a particularly attractive category for a Prime Minister, and it gets worse when you consider that Gordon is probably both.

Expanding Heathrow

The protest about Heathrow airport rumbles on with typical tedium. This time, those scampish protestors have come up with a very different idea to highlight their concerns. Yes, in this recession* and at a time of crashing property prices, they've only gone and bought a ruddy piece of land:

Greenpeace director John Sauven said: "We've thrown a massive spanner in the engine driving Heathrow expansion."

Yep. In fairness, this may well piss of those expansion types no end. But no doubt they will find a way. Even given the reach of this, *ahem*, eclectic group of protestors and now land barons:

The campaigners - including actress Emma Thompson, Tory front bench spokeswoman Justine Greening, Lib Dem MP Susan Kramer and impressionist Alistair McGowan - bought the land for an undisclosed fee.

One of the most intriguing things for me is that two of the group named above are MPs. It really comes to something when MPs feel their best way to influence policy is to indulge in Greenpeace led campaigns. And I also find it it intriguing, and mildly irritating, that they have the money to (part) finance the purchase in West London.

I have a limited amount of sympathy for these protestors. Unsurprisingly, I am not that bought into their arguments about climate change - the problem of noise pollution would be more concerning for me (and, I suspect, a lot of the people who this campaign will need to win over in order to be successful). But there's something else that is worth highlighting, since most of the media coverage we see is about the protests and is effectively airing the views, opinions and theories of the protestors.

See, there is a reason why Heathrow airport needs to expand. It isn't coping with the volumes of air traffic it is expected to deal with, and something needs to be done. And this isn't purely about airlines and BAA making money, although they all will do so from any expansion to the airport. There will be a net gain to the whole of London by expanding the number of passengers that will come into Heathrow. It will create wealth and jobs in London. And given the economy is getting more and more horrific by the day, wealth and jobs coming into this nation's Capital City can only be a good thing.

Libertarian bloggers are often accused - sometimes with merit - with being long on complaints but short on actual solutions. Yet we could say exactly the same thing about these protestors. They are certainly vocal with their complaints, and they are taking direct action to stop Heathrow expansion. Yet they are not offering any alternative to the expansion of that airport - given the current economic climate and the implications of not expanding that airport, doing nothing is not an option.

Whilst the group quoted above are probably not typical of Greenpeace members, I find their professions quite telling: two are MPs, who can quite happily live off the public purse, and the other two are celebrities working in media. None of them are really going to be affected by the recession in any real way. And none of them are directly exposed to what, if I were to be scathing, might be called "the real world." Their protest is certainly eye-catching, but in reality is nothing more than a gimmick. And if they really want to win people over to their campaign, they need to offer an alternative, as well as headline grabbing stunts.

*Well, we will officially be in recession in a few days, but you have to be pretty fucking naive - or Chancellor of the Exchequer - to deny that right now regardless of whether the nation has hit certain criteria or not.

A New Religion

Last night I watched An Inconvenient Truth*. Any regular readers will know I am a little cynical about global warming and the environmental movement, but I wanted to watch Gore's film to see if he could persuade me. After all, he was the Vice-President of the most prosperous and one of the most advanced countries in the world, so surely he would have access to a lot of research and a lot of information that I, working as an HR bod in Central London, just don't have.

Let's just say he didn't win me over. Sure, there were lots of graphs showing dramatic increases in, what I shall scientifically call, "stuff", but he failed to explain exactly what his graphs and pictures meant or exactly what his timescales were. And at the risk of being an intellectual snob, a truly good researcher does not cite his or her sources as "my friend". And the moments when Gore got really passionate were the moments when he was talking not about the environment, but rather himself. There may well be a case out there, somewhere, that will convince me about global warming, and the threat it poses to us all. But it most certainly wasn't An Inconvenient Truth.

But it did get me thinking. There was one moment** when Al Gore spoke about his son being involved in a car accident and ending up in a critical condition in hospital. He spoke about how it changed his life, and how it made him devote his energies to the environmental cause. How it made him realise that he would have to fight to save the planet, because what he took for granted may not be there tomorrow. Ho-hum. But perhaps that is the main motivating factor for many of those passionate about environmentalism. It is a chance to convince yourself that you have found the truth about the future, and found a way to save yourself and your fellow humans. You can spread the word, and save the world. You have the key to salvation!

Which, when you put it like that, sounds not unlike evangelical Christianity.

Now I'm not saying that everyone who is interested in environmentalism, or everyone who pays lip service to the environmental cause***, is like an evangelical Christian. Far from it. But those like Gore, those who refuse to enter into a debate**** about the absolute truth of global warming, and are passionate about spreading the word across the world and changing the way people live their lives in relations to that absolute truth, display the absolute conviction in their belief that I have only really seen before in evangelical Christians. And whilst there is probably more scientific fact in global warming than in the highly unlikely story of a carpenter's son who could turn water into wine and rose from the dead, I still don't see the concept of global warming and the supposed implications of that global warming as absolute fact. So you could argue that the evangelical environmentalists are acting on faith rather than fact.

Which actually helps me to understand the environmentalist mindset. It must be very comforting to have discovered an absolute truth, and then be able to think that they have a way to save the world, and the unbelievers. I almost wish I could have a belief like that. But unfortunately the cynic in me demands (the most probably unachievable) proof before I can have that faith.

And the case for global warming could be made much more convincing if the zealous evangelists in that movement managed to put their faith to one side at the moment, and took on the sceptics in an intelligent, reasoned and sensible debate. But the problem is that their absolute conviction in the scientific "facts" behind their movement resembles faith and therefore stifles debate. As soon as someone has "faith", it becomes very difficult for them to accept argument against those fundamental beliefs.

*I also watched Demons. Which was cheesy, poorly scripted and gleefully anti-intellectual. But since it had zombies vomiting green poster
paint, it was a lot more fun that An Inconvenient Truth.
**Actually, more than a moment. At least five minutes. Which in a 91 minute film is quite a substantial amount of time.
***Such as recycling rubbish.
****And there is no acknowledgement in An Inconvenient Truth that there is any real opposition to the global warming movement other than the occasional arch reference to the "so-called sceptics".

Impending Armageddon

Once again, we are facing certain doom in the face. There is a global apocalypse just around the corner. According to this anyway.

Now, I have no intention of going in to the ins and outs of the report and what it is telling us about the world we live in. Sure, there seem to be some alarming stats in there, and winter does seem to be warmer these days, but climate change was occurring a long time before greenhouse gases. This planet has had ice ages that have turned into our current climate, and I have yet to be convinced that any changes to the environment are anything other than completely natural climate changes. It may be the climate is changing, and it may also be this is a natural phenomenon that we cannot control.

My point is this - throughout my life, the human race has been on the brink of extinction. Through nuclear war, through flesh eating viruses, through meteors striking the earth (although that could have just been to promote a couple of dodgy Hollywood films), through AIDS, through bird flu and, yes, through the environment. Christ, I'm surprised that no-one has seriously suggested our immediate extinction through rage infested monkeys. Either we are a very lucky race to have avoided all of these calamaties, or people are prone to exaggerating the threats we are facing. It actually gets on my tits, really, because people seem insistent on being negative about the future. I'm a pessimist, but I don't gain any pleasure through shouting from the roof tops "We're all going to die!" I actually think that the human race is resourceful and adaptable, and can probably cope with almost anything that happens to us, short of the planet falling into the sun (and before any wild internet rumours start happening, no, I am not saying the earth is going to fall into the sun...)

There is something about the Stern report that reminds me of the sandwich board man who wanders around with "The End of the World Is Nigh" plastered all over him. And I cannot help but note that we treat the sandwich board man as a joke, something to be smiled at then ignored.