Carbon Units Infesting This Planet

 

I’m sure there are folks out there trolling the internet for items about Star Trek. They’re called Trekkies. And the title of this post is a direct quotation from Star Trek - The Motion Picture.  So, it’s reasonable to expect that they may find this post and have a look. They will be disappointed. I apologise to them if they feel that I have tricked them into looking at my blog instead of interesting facts about Star Trek.  It is not my intention to trick anyone.  

This post is about us - the carbon units currently infesting this planet.  We’ve been infesting it for quite some time now, and if reports are to be believed we may not be infesting for much longer.  Let’s face it: the end of the world is a popular topic in fiction, films and documentaries.  Imagining the end of the world or of civilization is a growth industry.  Bad news still sells newspapers.  

Why should this be so? Sorry it comes with the territory. In historical terms it's pure hubris. Homo sapiens stands head and shoulders above other species as the pinnacle of evolution. And, unless you are a religious person this is simply the result of the march of evolution. But, evolution has no end product. And however much you may wish it wasn't so we are simply the evolutionary result of many chance encounters. We are in the box without knowing so and have no idea how to imagine any other reality outside the box.  We are prisoners of this planet and this reality.

We are, if the commentariat is to be believed, at a crossroads on this planet. The resources required to keep our species going forward are either too difficult to maintain or too depleted to enable us to go forward, as we have unerringly done for the last few thousand years. I submit that voluntarily going back to some sort of sustainable pre-industrial utopia is simply not an option. 

Now, it may well be that Micawber-like something will just turn up. Possible but increasingly unlikely in my view. Society has become so dependent on technologies that the average Joe doesn't really understand much about how things work.  He just doesn't need to. 

Think I'm joking? In the dim and distant past I taught science. I loved a lesson where I asked 12 year olds to explain how some mundane and common items in the home actually worked. A light bulb or a telephone or a heating system could they explain, even briefly, how they work? Some of the answers were very entertaining. Mostly they fell back on you just flip the switch. That was the extent of their knowledge and engagement with the modern world. And, it was not necessarily their fault.  To the average Joe things just work until they don’t and then you get somebody else to make it work again.  

Think we could turn the clock back and become subsistence farmers again? Get real. 

We either find some way to share the resources or our stay here may be much shorter than we either think or wish. 

Which neatly brings me to my dream, or should I say my nightmare. Essentially we comfort ourselves with the knowledge that though as individuals we are mortal, as a species we are immortal. We go on and on and on for as far as we can imagine. All our hopes and the remorseless march of the selfish gene populate our future. 

Out in the cosmos there are problems. Despite efforts lasting a long time in human terms we are still alone and may continue to be on and on and on. There are lots of theories purporting to prove that out there life must be really quite common. Thousands of habitable planets are just waiting for contact. But, there is a chilling alternative. Habitable planets and even life itself may be as grains of sand on every beach on Earth. Intelligent life could even be common, as grains of sand in a wheelbarrow. Time and the sustainability of civilisations could be the controlling feature. Many civilizations may have existed, flourished and died before the capacity we have of detecting them has become available.  

Septics will note here that what I’m describing is not new.  Ancient Aliens visiting us is not a new idea.  What is new is that they may have thought us so primitive as to not be worthy of another visit and before it occurred to them to look us up they themselves fell victim to what I’ve described.  Overpopulated, running out of essential resources and unable to sufficiently master the technology necessary to avoid an asteroid taking them out, or some new virulent disease plunging their civilization back into the Dark Ages; they just ran out of time for a return visit.  The fourth dimension - time may be the controlling feature here, not some complicated algorithm involving mathematical probabilities.   They may have just run out of time as we may before the cosmic forces align at precisely the right moment.

The comfort of religion or philosophy only works if we can be assured that we will be noticed and remembered.  Cast ahead to a future where the Earth is just an uninteresting looking  rock orbiting a nondescript star and a passing space ship just goes cheerfully on its way not realising that a complex carbon-based civilisation once was here but destroyed the Earth.

We leave no trace. We leave no marker.  We are truly alone in the cosmos separated not so much by space as by time.  Our immortality is gone in a flicker of space-time.  

That, I contend, is a nightmare truly worthy of note.

10 000 BC - Update 18 Feb

And then it snowed

Predictably things went from bad to worse. With more people giving up, the tribe were down to 13 by the time the next show was screened on Monday.

A sudden snowstorm and freezing temperatures left them cold, wet miserable and more or less trapped in their huts. Disaster.

After consultations with the producers, it was decided to temporarily abandon the project and remove the tribe to a place of safety. With hot showers, hot food and some well-needed rest the remaining members recovered their spirits and the time was not entirely wasted.

The survival experts and the producers finally realised that two days of training to live in the Stone Age was never enough. So, in the time available while the snow poured down they tried to expand the knowledge of the group. Some tribe members used the time well. Some members, having been reminded what life in the 21st century was all about, decided to leave.

The seven remaining tribe members seemingly bonded well and appeared determined to make a success of the experiment.

Lots of positives were expounded, but could these be translated into real progress?

Finally they got back to the camp as the weather moderated. The tribe promptly decided to sack Steve. Steve is the archer and a wise head on old shoulders. How would he react?

Badly.

Steve decided to leave. And then there were six.

(aside – a recent news report concerned a proposed reality TV show. The purpose of the show would be to “select” members to join a mission to Mars – where they would set up a colony. The producers seem to think they can do this for almost no money (compared to the propose NASA budget for a Mars mission). This would, at least, be more realistic than 10 000 BC. Members of the tribe just quit; they leave the camp via a four-wheel drive vehicle, and they resume a normal everyday life. Put 20 people on Mars and then we'll see who can survive! Craziest idea I've heard in some long time!)

Left with six, three men and three girls, the tribe began to struggle, despite having their food stores replenished with 10 days supply of nuts and berries and yet another deer.

They managed to skin the deer and prepare it for making deer jerky. This is a good plan for the first deer was wasted because it was soon infested with fly maggots. They even managed to wedge it up a tree overnight to prevent animals feeding on the tempting carcass.

Paul Barnes (the leader voted in after the coup to get rid of Steve Nicholson got sick. Really sick. Constant coughing and short of breath. He was removed to the medical tent for assessment. Down to five.

Of the five, one of the ladies is a vegetarian. Great call producers! She is running out of food. (I didn't spend 10 000 years clawing my way to the top of the food chain to become a vegetarian!) Digging up the required roots for carbohydrates is back-braking work with no modern tools. She is going to starve!

John Paul was helping her to dig. He announced last night that he was leaving but the whole group begged him to stay, so he remains for the time being.

Melissa more or less takes over leadership as Paul's illness prevents him from playing an active part.

This looks like it could be a blessing in disguise. It is very possible that our ancestors lived in a matriarchal society. Men are hunting all day and women are raising children. Nagging has a long and illustrious history!!

Paul eventually arrives back at the camp but he is weak.

Last word to the Mirror:

“In just eight days they caught 10 tiny crayfish and – drum roll – a mouse. Enough to reduce everyone to severe malnutrition. Yay.

As more and more of them collapsed and had to be rushed to hospital, the on-site doctor declared a thoroughly modern medical emergency. Unless these ailing losers were fed fast the show was over.

Enter the programme’s hapless staff with a mammoth meal of jerky, honey, isotonic drinks and “for the first time in days”... fresh meat. A dinosaur-size slab of venison. What, no wine? A nice Bulgarian red to wash it down?

Wearing the panicked ­expression of a man whose mission was falling apart at the seams, producer Rob Rawlings lied: “The aim of this experiment isn’t to watch 20 people starve. It’s to see if 20 people can survive like a Stone Age tribe.”

Now I’m no expert, but I’d hazard a guess that when the going got tough for those real-life Fred ­Flintstones, there was no caring camera crew ready to provide them with tasty takeaways.

In other words Rob, the answer’s no. You have emphatically established that 20 people CAN’T survive like a Stone Age tribe. Your experiment has failed. On an epic scale. Get used to it.”

Lissingdown

Stuck in Lissingdown

As the Thames overflows in a few counties, the Somerset levels return to the sea from whence they came, the politicians crap themselves and the Tory voters are the ones who are being inundated; I reiterate my plan to solve the crisis in an historical way.

Folks seem to have forgotten that England is a green and pleasant land for a very good reason – it rains and it rains a lot. We can speculate about global warming and climate change, but it is all a bit academic to the poor sods currently sand-bagging their sodden properties throughout the West Country, Wales and the Home Counties.

We are currently “enjoying” a very mild winter. We have hardly had a frost worth speaking about and the days are getting longer and longer. We may get through to the end of February without one freezing day!

What a difference a year makes. Last February we were wondering if winter would ever end and piling more logs on the fire.

The old adage that England doesn't have climate it only has weather has never seemed so true.

What do we do?

We could appoint a Minister for rain. Example: last time a Minister for drought was appointed it rained incessantly for weeks. Maybe the reverse would do?

We could demolish the Thames barrier and flood the capital. The sight of all the MP's, merchant bankers and assorted big wigs paddling up Whitehall might cheer up the masses no end.

We could find the drain plug for the country and pull it out.

I have a better idea – a little thinking outside the box is required.

For example – in Bordeaux it will be 16 degrees on Friday with a little light rain.

So, we let the Scots keep their little country (where it has been surprisingly dry this winter) and reconstitute the English empire in France.

Or being charitable to the surrender monkeys, we simply swap England for those desire parts of France which we still, in theory, own – namely the Empire of Henry V.

So, we get the good bits with room to build enough houses to house us all and they can make do with Slough (if it stays above water) and Goole. Works for me!

Yes, I know they will moan a lot but who cares. Everyone in England gets a free holiday in France to find a swap partner and then on a date specified in the treaty of Troyes we go there and they come here.

Simples.

It can rain forever in the Thames valley and we will be high and dry in the Dordogne.

As the saying goes: It's cool in Goole, dry in Rye and in Lissingdown it's pissing down. We need to do something!

Keep Calm and Carry On

Bulldog spirit?  Nah, too wet!
Think it might rain at the Olympics?  You can't get good odds that it won't!

http://www.thehimalayantimes.com/fullNews.php?headline=Concerns+rise+about+incessant+rain+on+eve+of+Olympics&NewsID=338589

Despite all the contingency plans in place, the incessant rain during the Olympics will cause major headaches and possible calamities.  After all, the Olympic experience will attract many visitors to this island.  If we ever want them to come back, we better provide some kind of excellent experience.  One that doesn't involve an umbrella.

Mind you the Sunday Times had an article about how Washington DC can not provide electricity to run the air conditioners and folks are barely surviving as a consequence.  Totally unprepared and under-funded apparently. 

Some of us can remember a time when there was no aircon.  Oh happy days!  Not! 

Eventually, we did get one of the room air conditioners.  You know, the ones that just sit in the window and are propped up on the outside wall.  Mom and Dad had one in their bedroom.  Only fair when you have to get up and go to work, I suppose. Meanwhile, we poured with sweat and panted the night away dreaming of a cool dip in the pond.

And it is the pond that is the problem.  The big pond, the Atlantic pond, has gone haywire.  The jet stream is too far south and all the rain that usually falls on Scandinavian mountains is now falling on the East Anglian plain.

What's to be done?

Nothing as yet.  I predict the Olympic experience will sour relations with the rest of the world for a generation. Enjoy the Olympic experience while you can for London will not host another games for a generation (or two).  The games start in seventeen days.  Looking at the forecast for the rest of this week – it's a washout!

So the seventeen becomes ten.

Then the long-rage forecast will show even more rain on the way.

I can't wait for the 100m final to be run in a torrential downpour, or postponed or cancelled.

Misery loves company and if you are of that bent you have a lot of company in store.

We need some method of covering the country, like the centre court at Wimbledon.

Failing that:  I give up.

The Razor's Edge

Razor Addendum

How good is this! No sooner do I finish spouting off about one of my favourite gripes concerning human evolution than the scientists have come to my aid!

Researchers at Northeastern University in Boston discovered that most of us lead predictable lives. Who'd have guessed it!

Our travel arrangements are not very adventurous. By studying mobile phone data they found out that people rarely strayed from a six-mile radius. 70% of the time we can be found in our most visited location.

At Work? At a friends? Visiting John Terry's girlfriend's house?

They are hoping that the data will shed light on the spread of diseases. “We are all in one way or another boring,” said Albert-Lazlo Barabasi who co-wrote the study.

My point was and is that we are not very different (if at all) from our ancestors. What drives us would drive them.

Science may have some convincing evidence for the spread of human populations, but it has no answer to explain why people would up stakes from a sparsely populated and environmentally secure place and wander off to the freezing nether regions or worse.

This may be the Occam's Achilles. Seems like it to me.

Fancy a Close Shave?

Occam's Razor

No, this is not a Gillette commercial.

Rather it is a comment on Occam's Razor: first to Wikipedia -

Occam's razor (or Ockham's razor[1]), entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem, is the principle that "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity" and the conclusion thereof, that the simplest explanation or strategy tends to be the best one. The principle is attributed to 14th-century English logician, theologian and Franciscan friar, William of Ockham. Occam's razor may be alternatively phrased as pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate ("plurality should not be posited without necessity")[2]. The principle is often expressed in Latin as the lex parsimoniae (translating to the law of parsimony, law of economy or law of succinctness). When competing hypotheses are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selection of the hypothesis that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities while still sufficiently answering the question. It is in this sense that Occam's razor is usually understood. To quote Isaac Newton, "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances. Therefore, to the same natural effects we must, so far as possible, assign the same causes."[3]

Clear? I thought not. In layman's terms what it means is that given a choice between a simple and a complex explanation to a problem, always choose the simple one. It's probably correct.

This is fine, as far as it goes. Problem is is doesn't go very far.

Some examples. Why is there always a quantity of lost coins down the back of your settee/couch? Where do chickens roost in the desert? What did pre-historic man use for toilet paper? The list is long. The list is fairly endless.

But, is it correct?

I think not.

Let's take one of my favourite examples. One that has perplexed me since first I learned of it when I was (say) 12 or 13. Cro-Magnon man fascinated me. They were, as far as we can tell, modern humans. They would not be out of place walking down a street in London or New York. Yet for 25 to 30 thousand years they wandered about Europe and apparently achieved nothing. It took about that long to invent a wheel.

If, as we are led to believe, they were essentially us, what were they doing all that time? Back to Occam's razor. Occam would have us believe that the simplest explanation is the best and most accurate. They were just killing time. Fossil evidence says they were goofing around for thousands of years, getting nowhere. And the fossil evidence is always right. Right?

Maybe.

Let's back track a little. Our Cro-Frenchie pals were relative latecomers to Europe. Originally we were all Africans. The DNA tells us so. Out of Africa is all the rage.

According to both genetic and fossil evidence, archaic Homo sapiens evolved to anatomically modern humans solely in Africa, between 200,000 and 100,000 years ago, with members of one branch leaving Africa by 60,000 years ago and over time replacing earlier human populations such as Neanderthals and Homo erectus. According to this theory, around the above time frame, one of the African subpopulations went through a process of speciation, prohibiting gene flow between African and Eurasian Human populations.[citation needed] The recent single origin of modern humans in East Africa is the near-consensus position held within the scientific community.[1]

So, if Wiki says so, it must be so.

What no-one really deals with is the why. If Occam is correct and the simplest explanation is the one the Our of Africa makes sense – doesn't it?

Not really.

If our ancestors wandered out of Africa about 60 000 years ago and got as far as Australia by about 45 000 years ago, what I want to know is not how, but why.

Assuming modern humans are the same as our African ancestors then what is interesting is not whether they wandered about all over but why they would bother. Who, for example, would voluntarily “vacation” on the snowy steppes of Siberia when you could just stay put on the warm, verdant coastal strips of India and Southeast Asia?


No-one deals with this. The DNA and fossil evidence says it is so; therefore, it is so. Full stop. Occam's Razor. I'm not convinced.

Merchant Bankers

Cockney Rhyming Slang.

Well. We have the British Airways staff going on strike, the N 25 only being partly built, the A 11 imploding south of Thickthorn, the MoD probably closing an airbase and cancelling plans to upgrade the fighter force, interest rates at almost zero and the Daily Mirror fronting a campaign to rubbish the climate change gurus.

Any connections?

Strangely, yes. It's the banks. Or, more precisely, the antics of the government and the merchant bankers over their bail-outs and their bonuses.

I cheerfully confess, with pride, that I neither understand nor particularly care about economics. It's just a pseudo-science. How else can you explain the crazy way money has been acting.

For example, you might reasonably expect that when the government is borrowing record sums of money to fund the bankers greed and The Old Lady of Threadneedle Street's penchant for toxic assets that interest rates would be sky high to attract investors.

They are nil.

Question one on the Economics 101 final exam: explain.

We are assured that no money can be found to fund essential infrastructure projects, yet the pit full of funds to bail out the banks is seemingly bottomless. The sums are colossal and should mean high interest rates. Explain please.

For climate change read bankers bail-out. Who else will benefit from an increase in global infrastructure projects. Yep, it's the bankers.

When British Airways goes bust with a massive hole in their pension fund who gets the goodies? Bankers.

And, when the MoD can't find a few millions to protect the nation who should we thank? No prizes for guessing - the bankers.

Am I just taking cheap shots at everyone's favourite target for being crossed off their Christmas card list and saving a few pennies that way. Not really, the bankers have just about finished off the Royal Mail in their spare time.

Come the revolution, these greedy geeks in pin-stripes will be exchanging their garments for real stripes as they are marched (with their bogus bonuses and bulging bank accounts confiscated to fund real progress for real people) straight into the Gulag.

Can't wait.

Walcheren Malaria

Things aren't always as they seem!

I like reading. I will read almost anything, but history is a particular leisure read. In the Wroxham library I found a book called, Redcoat by Richard Holmes. Richard is a well-know and well-respected writer of military history. He has made television programmes about battle and campaigns. He should know what he is talking about.

In truth it is not a very good book. In attempting to discuss the British Army from about 1750 to 1890 he jumps around, repeats himself and is trying to be too clever in the organisation. He attempts to bring the material together thematically but is not averse to dispensing with this scheme when the mood strikes him.

In any event, when discussing some minor military engagement against the French (our natural enemies) he informs the reader that during the invasion of Belgium in 1809 – the purpose of which was to remove Bonaparte from a position where he could seriously affect British naval interests and remove the French from the Belgian coast, particularly the island of Walcheren in the Scheldt estuary (the approach to the port of Antwerp); Richard writes about the disaster which ensued. Apparently the troops, after initially meeting with success, succumbed to malaria and many died, whilst the rest took ship for dear old Blighty. Not the greatest military engagement of the 19^th century. That would have to wait for 1815 and the field of Waterloo.

What struck me was the matter-of-fact way Holmes described malaria in what is, after all a Northern European country.

I didn't know that.

I think I vaguely knew that malaria was sometimes found in Southern Europe and North Africa. Sicily has had malaria. So, occasionally does Greece. So did the poor old Romans, though it didn't stop them from conquering the world.

I'm just not sure what the travel advice is: do you need to take anti-malarial precautions if you go to Greece or Sicily?

This bears investigation.

Using the internet, I found some interesting stuff!

Did you know that people in Finland suffered from malaria? Bet you didn't. Don't believe me? Check this out!

“Endemic northern malaria reached 68°N latitude (just a bit south of Murmansk in Russia or Tromso in Norway and about the latitude of the Great Bear Lake in Northern Canada) in Europe during the 19^th century, where the summer mean temperature only irregularly exceeded 16°C, the lower limit needed for sporogony of Plasmodium vivax. Because of the available historical material and little use of quinine, Finland was suitable for an analysis of endemic malaria and temperature.”

And, malaria was found in Sweden and Russia too. This is interesting, because when I first read this I thought, “Hang on a minute! Malaria is a tropical disease! If there was malaria in Northern Europe in the recent historical past, it must mean that the temperature was higher! Makes sense!”

Apparently not. For, in answering the question, “Where do mosquitoes go in the winter?”, the answer is: indoors to rest and wait for spring or summer. Makes sense when you think about it. If all the mosquitoes in Britain, Belgium, Norway, Sweden and Finland died every year, we wouldn't be plagued by the little stinkers every summer!

They don't. 99.99999% of them do, but a few survive by finding a warm, or warm-ish spot to hide in and re-emerge in the spring, reproduce like crazy and provide the next generation of blood-suckers.

Ain't Mother Nature wonderful!

Despite the fact that my investigation has not shed any real light on the global warming debate, as I had hoped, I intend to keep looking. I just have a feeling that malaria in Europe and North America must somehow be related to temperature. Although we know that mossies have no problem surviving in Northern Europe in the summer and breeding, what is less clear is why we no longer have outbreaks of malaria (even the much less virulent P. vivax) in Europe now.

If the planet is warming for whatever reason, it makes sense for malaria to become established again in Europe.

p.s. from our correspondent Willi in Finland:

FINLAND LOW TEMPERATURE RECORD BROKEN 27 Jan, 1999

From: "Wili"
Vora-Oravais-Maxmo Hogstadieskola, Finland
Subject: Low temp.record of the century in Finland!
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 15:41:33 +0200

Hi all once again. I HAVE TO send you a mail to let you know that the lowest temperature of the century in Finland has been registered in a Village in northern Finland called Kittila; -51deg C.

I just spoke to the deliverer of my Davis weather station. He had reports that due to the low temperature and the low air pressure the car tyres have "frozen" in a square form, so the cars which still run behave like rabbits or kangaroos. The temperautre here in Vora is falling all the time.

With interest we look forward to next morning!

Have a warm night!! Best Regards...........Wili, Finland

Don't look much like warming to me!!

New Year's Resolutions

What's Great in '08?

Time to make some resolutions to improve things in 2008.

I have some good ideas.

One

Lose weight. Always a popular choice, but, hang on, is it really necessary? Does anyone ever ask if losing weight is really necessary or has it simply become an all-encompassing mantra? Why does everyone want to lose weight?

There is no doubt that as I have gotten older I have added a few pounds. How many? I've been checking. I've been tracking my weight religiously for about nine months now. In that time my weight has fluctuated by about 8 pounds. It started out going down and then just after Christmas it has peaked about 2 pounds more than it was in April.

Why is this? It was lowest in the summer when I was eating BBQ and drinking beer. That makes no sense! Unless you factor in the increased physical activity provided by outdoor activities that are possible in the summer and not in the winter, things like sport, gardening, long walks with the dog.

Conclusion: Weight is cyclical according to the season and needs to be tracked for at least a year before any real conclusions can be drawn. Also, your weight in Jan is bound to be large, remember all that Christmas dinner!

Shakespeare usually got it right. What did he say about weight? Sir John Falstaff: “a good, portly man was he”. And we all know what a great guy Sir John was.

Let's not forget Julius!

Caesar: Let me have men about me that are fat;
Sleek-headed men and such as sleep o' nights:
Yond Cassius has a lean and hungry look;
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.

Nuff said?

Two

Give up smoking. No, sorry, I already did that one. Was it hard? Yes. Can anyone do it? Yes. I wish I had given up 30 years ago! Am I sounding sanctimonious? You bet.

Three

Sneak out of Iraq. This sounds flippant, but it is not. It is not necessary to declare the withdrawal from Iraq. It would be better to just do it. Unfortunately, military operations have become almost impossible since the end of WWII. Now the generals have to announce their plans and allow them to be scrutinised by the politicians before they are attempted. This is just nutty.

Better idea – make your plan to get out, get out and then tell everyone about it later.

Works for me.

Four

Stop looking of Who's – a – ma – bin – liner. The man is irrelevant and if the military establishment couldn't find him after all these years it's not likely to happen now. Better plan. Announce that he is dead and when the inevitable video tape turns up purporting to be from him – declare that it is a fake and ignore it.

Also works for me.

Five

Throw money at Afghanistan. I actually emailed Ol Dubbya to just such affect when this mess started. Needless to say, he ignored me. It would be better for everyone if we just game the Afghans lots of money. People sitting around watching re-runs of Little Britain do not suddenly break off and plant an IUD. If you can't win the hearts and minds – buy them. That's what capitalism is all about anyway.

Last real revolution we had in the U.S. was the Whiskey rebellion of 1794 http://www.blurtit.com/q324958.html - after that we just got in the gas-guzzler and went to the store. Great for democracy.

Should work for the Afghans as well. Let's try it!

Six

Forget Global Warming and go the beach. I was astounded the other day when on TV a commentator let slip that the climate data they use to “prove” climate change is only 100 years old. Yep, that's one hundred years. It's like basing your calculations for the coming wheat harvest on the growth rate of a wheat plant in the corner of a small field in Nebraska in the last 14 seconds. It is all nonsense.

Trouble is if you question the orthodoxy of that globe-trotting, very rich eco-warrior Al Gore, people call you nutty.

Bottom line. Climate varies naturally. Right now, it's getting a bit warmer. End of analysis.

All the other nonsense is just conjecture. We have no accurate, historical climate data to base any conclusions on. There is good circumstantial evidence that the climate has changed fairly dramatically in the last 1000 years.

Witness the Vikings. Pretty tough dudes by all accounts. But, about a thousand years ago they up and sailed away to Iceland, where their descendants are still, grabbed a quick holiday to Greenland (anybody notice the name, Greenland) and mooched over to Canada - probably Labrador, not noted as a holiday destination today!!

Had they lost their marbles? Probably not. It was just a bit warmer then. And, this was nine hundred years before much fossil fuel had been burnt.

Explanation? Climate is subject to natural variations.

Learn to live with it!

Don't forget the “Mini-Ice Age” in the 18th Century!!

Of course, we all need to be responsible for husbanding the resources of the planet as well as we can. But, and this is a big but, you don't have to subscribe to the Global Warming Quasi-Religious Dogma to be a good citizen.

Stop feeling guilty and enjoy the warmer weather.

That's enough resolution for anyone!

Climate Change Fascists

Who's Counting?

Watching a interview on television about climate change is as easy as turning it on. They are everywhere. Just turn the TV on – rather like buses there's bound to be one on the way. Whether or not it will make any sense of course is more problematical.

Fascists get a bad press. Deservedly. Queuing up to rubbish other folks ideas can be boring. Much easier just to label them or their ideas as fascist and save a lot of time. The climate change messiahs are getting to be bores in this regard. Their tactic: anyone who doesn't agree with their view is either incredibly stupid or on the payroll of the oil industry – and everyone knows what fascists they are.

One charmless chappie was on TV a few days ago arguing that anyone who didn't believe, as a matter of faith, in mankind's responsibility for carbon-based climate change was either a moron or, worse, a dangerous ideologue. These extreme views stifle debate. It's not a numbers thing. Just because many, or most, or a majority of scientists take a certain view does not make it correct. You can't have a vote on scientific principles. Either a theory has merit or it doesn't. Ask Galileo or Copernicus. Their minority of one proved to be the “correct” answer.

What's dangerous about these Ubermenshen is the virulence with which they present their arguments.

There are responsible scientists who genuinely believe that the major factor in global warming is burning carbon-based fuels. Some of them are open to an examination of their theses and a debate on the validity of their evidence. I have no quarrel with them. Their views are genuinely held and have some logical basis.

The climate fascists are in a different league altogether. They will not allow that there can be a debate, much less engage in it. Their language is meant to denigrate and ridicule the ideas they don't agree with. This is not only dangerous but downright evil.

What's so surprising is that so many people are taken in by this pseudo-science. In the name of science (but only climate-change science) only those who parrot the party line are in receipt of the research grants. Only those who think Al Gore is a prophet are allowed to roll the barrel or get their snout in the trough.

Not only is this bad science – it's bad for the future of the planet and the carbon-based units currently infesting it.