sifting the shit

Diane Abbott wins prize for her vagina

2010-06-09T20:26:00.005+01:00

That is to say she has been successfully nominated for the Labour leadership contest as a result of her being born a woman. Who would have thought that in 2010 race and sex would still play a vital role in your life chances. So much for equality.

Honour the dead

2010-04-18T21:13:00.014+01:00

Disclaimer: this is close to the bone, if it offends you you can write to the Daily Mail about it.

So you might have heard the Polish President, Lech Kaczyński, was killed in a plane crash last week, along with pretty much every high-ranking politician, diplomat, and military official in Poland. In a cruel twist of fate the party were flying to Russia to commemorate the anniversary of the Katyn massacre, in which pretty much every high-ranking politician, diplomat, and military official in Poland was slaughtered by the Soviet secret police. If that wasn't bad enough, a volcano, dormant for nigh on a hundred years, chose the following week to erupt, spewing ash over northern Europe and ensuring that no one could go to the funeral. You might call it unfortunate.

One would be forgiven for feeling a tug at the heart strings, and then perhaps afterwards, in the privacy of your own home, a muffled laugh at the sheer incredibility of it all. Unsurprisingly the people of Poland have been mourning, but, in a turn of events which is proving increasingly common, have in the process elevated the dead to a state of virtual sainthood.

Before his death Kaczyński's approval rating had fallen to 20% and he was expected to lose a presidential election due in the autumn. He twice banned the Warsaw gay pride march and instead allowed a counter-demonstration called the "Parade of Normality." In 2007, Poland, represented by Kaczyński, was found guilty by the European Court of Human Rights of violating the freedom of assembly under Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights. That's not to entirely detract from the man; he was a vociferous opponent of communism and the tyranny it led to; he campaigned tirelessly against corruption; and on 21 December 2008, Kaczyński became the first Polish head of state to visit a Polish synagogue and to attend religious services held there. The point, however, is that being dead shouldn't automatically grant one immunity from criticism.

Kaczyński and his wife are now interred in the crypt of Wawel cathedral, the traditional burial place for Poland's kings, national heroes, poets, statesman and romantic revolutionaries. Lech Kaczyński was none of those things. To put it in perspective, burying Lech Kaczyński in Wawel cathedral is like burying Gordon Brown in Westminster Abbey. Apparently I'm not the only one who noticed this disparity; according to the Guardian "some Poles have staged protest rallies and joined petitions on the social media site Facebook against the decision to bury Kaczynski in such a sacred spot". And yet any protests were muffled by the overwhelming indignity of a nation who felt that dead meant great; Karolina Rajchel, 19, a student who travelled five hours from Wroclaw, said she had not supported every step that Kaczyński took, but called the protests "out of place" in light of his death. "Out of place"? If anyone can suggest a more appropriate time to have a protest over where someone is to be buried than following the individual's death, then I'd like to hear it. I mean it would be pretty fucking weird if they'd started protesting before he'd died.

She went on: "Kaczyński had good and bad qualities but now you shouldn't say anything bad about the dead". Obviously a certain amount of respect should be accorded on account of relatives et al, and everyone should have the right to respond, which is a bit tricky when you've kicked the bucket, but even so, "shouldn't say anything bad about the dead"? Good God, all those who've slammed Hitler's immigration policies these past 60 years all need to stand up and give themselves a good slap on the wrist. How dare you? He's dead don't you know.

Such sentiment is not confined to the death of the Polish premier however. The current UK election campaign is positively dripping with vote-winning sentiment about 'our brave troops'.

Leaving school with no GCSEs and 'joining up' because it "will be a laugh" does not necessitate bravery. It doesn't negate it mind, but it in no way implies it. And truth be told, anyone can get shot. That's the easy bit. With the Daily [insert favoured tabloid here] leading the way, our nation has been taken over by a culture of necro-sycophancy, in which anyone who's snuffed it while serving their country is now hailed as a 'hero'. I'm not anti the armed forces; it's a tragedy when anyone dies unnecessarily, and many of those who've lost their lives were undoubtedly selfless and courageous individuals. Indeed, that's the beauty of war, it represents the very worst of humanity, yet more often than not draws out the very best of individuals. But this broad-brush approach to conferring honour is obtuse. You don't have to wear a uniform to be brave, and you certainly don't have to be dead.

There's a competitive edge to public mourning these days. You should have the largest flowers, the darkest suit, the longest face. It's become a form of self-affirming ritual, in which the individual demonstrates to themselves and everyone else their own deeply held sense of humanity. As a result we've managed to elevate death itself to the highest echelons of accomplishment.

Unite Against Fascism up to their usual antics

2010-03-21T01:39:00.006Z

So Weyman Bennett, UAF joint secretary, was today arrested on suspicion of conspiracy to commit violent disorder. The UAF were holding a counter protest in response to an English Defence League event in Bolton and, as appears to have become the norm these days, the UAF resorted to violence in an attempt to silence the EDL's legal protest. I'm not defending the EDL, I would estimate that the combined IQ scores of the 4000 people who attended from both sides would total up to about eight. One group is a bunch of shaven headed football hooligans without a pinch of political nuance between them, the other is a bunch of communist students with nothing better to do on a Saturday than get on a coach and toss a few bricks around. They're all disgusting. The vital difference is of course that UAF are supported by the political establishment. It's no surprise that Ken Livingston is its Chairman; that man's idiocy knows no bounds, but to have 'Call me Dave' Cameron as a key signatory is a stain on his already dubious reputation. When is the political mainstream going to reject this clearly violent group? It's hypocrisy to criticise the EDL if you don't tar UAF with the same brush.

Coincidently, it would appear that as well as being stupid, UAF supporters are also really fucking ugly.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/7489008/English-Defence-League-and-anti-fascist-protesters-clash-in-Bolton.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/8577777.stm

Fashion as the death of utilitarianism

2010-03-19T17:19:00.008Z

It's not exactly original to claim that fashion is at odds with the concept of usefulness, but the point has surely reached its zenith in the invention and subsequent proliferation of 'jeggings'. For those of you who don't have a GCSE in going incognito in Shoreditch, 'jeggings' are leggings which look like jeans, or maybe jeans made of legging. I don't know. I don't actually know if 'legging' is, in itself, a substance. But either way, they are undoubtedly stupid. If you want to wear jeans, with the multitude of advantages that confers (pockets, protection from grazing etc.), then wear jeans. If you'd rather wear leggings, with all the advantages that confers (shows off your pins etc.), then wear leggings. But why conflate the two? Why make leggings and then decorate them with fake pockets, zips, and seams. Surely the whole purpose of leggings is that they don't have pockets, zips, and seams. All those things are undeniably associated with jeans. Indeed, they are needed on jeans. If you put them on leggings, and then put the leggings on yourself, you unavoidably become a victim. Because, after all, that is the only defence. You must stand up and say "this morning I put leggings on that had pockets drawn on them, because I am a victim to fashion".

Quotes on Delingpole

2010-03-19T15:50:00.010Z

I've just had a browse around the blogosphere to garner opinion on Delingpole, here's what I found:

"For those that haven’t had the pleasure, this guy is a two-bob shock jock wannabe, who routinely adopts a writing tone reminiscent of Rush Limbaugh going cold turkey on the hydrocodone."

[On his use of the phrase 'libtard']
"Hell, it’s not as if ‘libtard’ is even his own creation. He’s shovelling other people’s excrement off the floor and chucking that around. I guess he’s too thick even to shit his own pants."

“‘Delingpole’ should be the official name for a penis protruding from one’s forehead.”

"I tend to think that even half-heartedly debating Delingpole’s ideas is to engage in a massive great category error. It’s like holding a symposium on the moral and ethical implications of “In the Night Garden.”"

"Delingpole unwittingly engages in what I like to call the ‘asymmetrical horseshit gambit’ – by saying things so completely absurd you completely demoralise your opponent by forcing them to engage you in a foreign reality. I had the misfortune to read his book once, he really is certifiable."

"Delingpole: An erection plainly visible through the trousers of a bearded drunk fast asleep opposite you on a train."

"I feel quite sorry for the guy, to be bitter and twisted at his age, what the F*** is he going to be like at 50. At least Amis grew into his persona."

"He's the sort of twat that would probably love finding out that people like me think he's a twat, as he sits there oozing twattery from his twatty face."

"Oh my, this is one of the worst articles I have ever read, and I spend a lot of time online reading other people’s tripe. I never ever leave comments (I feel it’s a waste of time in most cases – I’m usually beaten to the chase by someone with a better grasp of what I’m trying to articulate), but feel that in this case I had to. It’s an absolutely terrible piece of guff. Are you 8 years old James? I’m guessing this because I know that when most kids are about 9 years old they have to take compulsory Creative Writing classes as part of Key Stage English. You clearly haven’t had to do this yet (unless of course you have graduated from the Tanya Gold school of Hack Journalism)."

"James Delingpole is a piece of shit."

[From Charlie Brooker]
"What a clueless, rat-faced, simpering, humourless, piss-writing, fuck-of-a-shit."

"Have you heard of James Delingpole? He is a right-wing journalist, author and blogger who specialises in denying man-made global warming and defending the charitable status of private schools. He is in many ways the archetypal absolute cunt; an aristo-fetishistic dickhead and slithery sassenach poster boy for Scottish independence."

[From George Monbiot]
"His blog posts for the Telegraph consist of the kind of ill-informed viciousness provided for free by trolls on comment threads everywhere, but raised by an order of magnitude. He puts a wrecking ball through any claims the denial lobby might have to being civilised, intelligent or serious. His followers act as an echo-chamber, magnifying his nastiness. Between them they succeed in alienating anyone who might want an informed debate."

"The recent Monbiot/Delingpole TV debate was hilarious. Delingpole tried oiling up to Monbiot (recognising him as a genuine toff and thus drooling over him a bit) while Monbiot's face suggested he was thinking "who is this oik and why is he pawing me?""

"I thought James Delingpole was a posh twat only qualified to write about nice jumbers and t-shirts from Selfridges (expensive but worth it darleengs). Wrong Delingpole?"

"James Delingpole - Climate denialist and card-carrying twat."

Would you?

2010-03-18T19:25:00.011Z

Would you trust this man with your planet?

No me neither, I wouldn't trust him with my pot plants.

Here's Hugo Rifkind giving him a good kicking in the Spectator:

"Where has it come from, this sudden consensus among Britain’s right-wing punditry that there’s some kind of scam going on here [Re: climate change]? Yes, Delingpole, I mean you, and plenty of others, too. What gives you the right? It’s like your hairdresser diagnosing multiple sclerosis… I’ve watched it develop and spread over the past couple of years, first with amusement, then with alarm, and now with a sort of horrified panic. Guys, you’re not just fiddling while Rome burns. You’re actively going out and smashing up the fire engines. You’re terrifying me."

http://www.spectator.co.uk/columnists/all/5571293/climate-change-deniers-are-antiscience-and-antireason-and-they-terrify-me.thtml

Giles Coren, my hero.

2010-03-18T18:49:00.011Z

This is old news, but I just stumbled across it. It's a leaked email from Giles Coren to his incompetent sub-editors. I empathise with him, such are the downfalls of being a perfectionist...

To: the Times subeditors

From: Coren, Giles

Chaps,

I am mightily pissed off ... I don't really like people tinkering with my copy for the sake of tinkering. I do not enjoy the suggestion that you have a better ear or eye for how I want my words to read than I do ... It was the final sentence. Final sentences are very, very important. A piece builds to them, they are the little jingle that the reader takes with him into the weekend.

I wrote: "I can't think of a nicer place to sit this spring over a glass of rosé and watch the boys and girls in the street outside smiling gaily to each other, and wondering where to go for a nosh." It appeared as: "I can't think of a nicer place to sit this spring over a glass of rosé and watch the boys and girls in the street outside smiling gaily to each other, and wondering where to go for nosh."

There is no length issue. This is someone thinking, "I'll just remove this indefinite article because Coren is an illiterate cunt and i know best."

Well, you fucking don't. This was shit, shit subediting for three reasons.

1) "Nosh", as I'm sure you fluent Yiddish speakers know, is a noun formed from a bastardisation of the German "naschen". It is a verb, and can be construed into two distinct nouns. One, "nosh" means simply "food". You have decided that this is what i meant and removed the "a". I am insulted enough that you think you have a better ear for English than me. But a better ear for Yiddish? I doubt it. Because the other noun, "nosh" means "a session of eating" ...

2) I will now explain why your error is even more shit than it looks. You see, i was making a joke. I do that sometimes. I have set up the street as "sexually charged". I have described the shenanigans across the road at G.A.Y. I have used the word "gaily" as a gentle nudge. And "looking for a nosh" has a secondary meaning of looking for a blowjob. Not specifically gay, for this is soho, and there are plenty of girls there who take money for noshing boys. "looking for nosh" does not have that ambiguity. the joke is gone. I only wrote that sodding paragraph to make that joke. And you've fucking stripped it out like a pissed Irish plasterer restoring a renaissance fresco and thinking jesus looks shit with a bear so plastering over it. You might as well have removed the whole paragraph. I mean, fucking christ, don't you read the copy?

3) And worst of all. Dumbest, deafest, shittest of all, you have removed the unstressed "a" so that the stress that should have fallen on "nosh" is lost, and my piece ends on an unstressed syllable. When you're winding up a piece of prose, metre is crucial. Can't you hear? Can't you hear that it is wrong? It's not fucking rocket science. It's fucking pre-GCSE scansion. I have written 350 restaurant reviews for The Times and i have never ended on an unstressed syllable. Fuck. fuck, fuck, fuck.

I am sorry if this looks petty (last time i mailed a Times sub about the change of a single word i got in all sorts of trouble) but i care deeply about my work and i hate to have it fucked up by shit subbing ... And, just out of interest, I'd like whoever made that change to email me and tell me why. Tell me the exact reasoning which led you to remove that word from my copy.

Right, Sorry to go on. Anger, real steaming fucking anger can make a man verbose.

All the best

Giles

There are a couple more of his gems here.

How the ICA came to symbolise Liberal Cowardice

2010-03-18T18:43:00.005Z

I could do this often, and so should really restrain myself, but Nick Cohen's latest blog is excellent: http://nickcohen.net/2010/03/14/how-the-ica-came-to-symbolise-liberal-cowardice/#more-947

He recounts a famous encounter between Martin Amis and the Institute of Contemporary Arts; a place populated by that far too frequent phenomenon, the Islamist supporting liberal. Amis asked the audience to raise their hands if they thought they were morally superior to the Taliban; only a third did...

Wanted: for crimes against democracy

2010-03-18T18:36:00.003Z

This dropped onto my doorstep today, and has been promptly stuck on my window. Delicious.

Gap Yah

2010-03-18T15:45:00.003Z

My adventure into the dark heart of the blogosphere

2010-03-16T14:29:00.027Z

NB: I have posted this to Delingpole's blog using an alternate username - 'dgrocott' as opposed to 'davidgrocott' as my account has been disabled.

Armed only with a keyboard, some balls and a picture of a man with an impressive moustache, I ventured into the dragon's lair, and, as some of you may have gathered from my "The End is nigh" post, I have now been officially banned, by the man himself, from James Delingpole's blog. I think he got a tad grumpy when I mentioned the depletion of the world's fish stocks, or it could have been when I revealed that Robin Ince had openly mocked him at the Palace Theatre.

"Pot. Kettle. Black.

You only have to look at realityreturns’ boorish lists of scientists who deny AGW to realise that the ’sceptics’ are similarly seduced by doctorates and academic bodies.

I was at ‘The Big Libel Gig’ last night, and it was nice to hear Robin Ince bring up our James (to a few boos from the audience I might add – who’d have thought!) Apparantly they had a little exchange via Twitter which went something like this:

‘James, on what basis do you refute AGW’

‘I refute it because I’m good at sniffing out things that are wrong’

‘But what’s your actual evidence’

‘[block]'

So good to know Jimbo’s making a stand against non-evidence based hearsay.

Not."

Who knows? I don't. But grumpy he got, and thus, like the Beelzebub that I am, I have been banished to the fiery pits of the Guardian pages, which are sadly much less entertaining. I may have only been commenting for a few weeks, but my what a few weeks they've been, so in the spirit of education, I thought I would recount my oft times hilarious experiences to you all.

Well let us begin with the name calling, it's as good a place to start as any. Over the past few days I've been called growcunt, grock, grockie, gronutts, greenshirt, troll, young troll, arsehole, grot (grott), john grotti, davidgrowbag, a type rather than an individual, petulant, dispicable (sic), the new slimeball on the blog, grotty, davey grotty, grottosaurus, greenshirt grotty, junior greenshirt, grotbag, arsewipe, angry, frustrated, pratt (and when I corrected the spelling, it became "Surely Prat*), fantasist, wanker, cowardly, juvenile, and childish.

In fairness, I have been no shrinking violet myself. I did encourage one man to give up conspiracy theories in favour of matchstick shipbuilding:

"@ captainsherlock

I’ll ignore all your fruitcake conspiracy bumf, and get right down to answering your ‘pithy’ proof.

If you don’t think CO2 can drive temperature, you might want to acquaint yourself with the following historical events.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%E2%80%93T_boundary

You are quite right, changes in temperature can also drive CO2, and for this you deserve a gold star. So your graph (http://www.john-daly.com/press/lag-time.gif) is quite correct. When changes in the Earth’s orbit affect temperatures, this causes an increase in CO2 emissions.

If this ^^ is the information you base your retirement hobby on, I suggest you take up matchstick shipbuilding etc."

I then called the same gentleman "nuts":

"Dear captainsherlock

You’re nuts. Seek help, stop wasting space on the comment thread; you’re giving me a RSI from all the scrolling I have to do.

Yours,

davidgrocott"

I called someone else an "angry little man":

"@ realityreturns

Gosh, you are an angry little man aren’t you?"

I accused someone of "blindness and stupidity":

"“What is so important about preserving the planet in its present state? It’s not as if we are vandalising nature for no good reason. Everything we do has some impact on our environment, but these are the costs of human progress. And sorry, but I think that improving our lot is the most important thing of all. Certainly more important than preserving a pure, unspoilt environment.”

I’m saving this wonderful paragraph as an example of pure blindness and stupidity.

Perhaps one day aliens will visit what becomes of our earth, find my hard drive, and say ‘ahhh, so this is what happened’"

And told someone else to "get some backbone":

"@ msher1

It was not your question which surprised me; it was your contradictions.You make out like you’re some trend-bucking environmentalist cum global warming “sceptic”, by questioning whether restrictions should be placed on plasma TVs. Yet, when you ponder the possible reasons and solutions for California’s brownouts, you ask “whether that means California should be upgrading its electrical capacity or whether indeed some reasonable restrictions make more economic sense”. Note “economic sense”; you’re not talking about conservation or ecology, you’re purely concerned with the financial implications of energy sucking technology.

Get some backbone."

I have mocked people's grasp of spelling and punctuation:

"@ pointman

When you’ve worked out how to spell ‘testimony’, I suggest your next job to be getting to grips with the ‘hide the decline’ email. The interweb is virtually bursting with explanations."

"@ realityreturns

Now that you’ve discovered punctuation, the next step in your education is to look up the meaning of ’synopsis’. Let me know how it goes."

I attacked the state of someone's memory:

"@ msher1

Your memory fails you. Here’s your original post:

“Do you have an opinion about California’s upcoming restrictions on plasma TV’s? These restrictions are being imposed by the Energy Commission because the big plasma TV’s consume more energy. I’m not asking about whether the TV’s do or don’t consume more energy – but about your view as to whether restricting consumption of energy is called for (or making manufacturers re-engineer the TV’s). In previous years, on hot days in summer, at peak hours there were rolling brownouts. I don’t know much about whether that means California should be upgrading its electrical capacity or whether indeed some reasonable restrictions make more economic sense. Could you give me your thoughts?

My question might surprise the AGW believers. I.e., believing AGW is a hoax doesn’t mean that one automatically rejects every conservation measure.”

Now, here’s my question. Why would YOUR question surprise AGW believers? You are not asking it with conservation measures in mind. You don’t mention putting restrictions on plasma televisions, to cut down on electricity usage, which largely relies on disappearing fossil fuels. By all means, dismiss global warming, and still be an environmentalist (the two aren’t mutually exclusive), but don’t try and claim green credentials when you’re not expressing any."

I have laughed at people:

"What you gonna do? Quote the petition project at me again? bahaha"

"Haha! He’s at it again! Great."

I have been painfully sarcastic:

"Sorry, that was for realityreturns. I’m mighty impressed with his last post. You know, until I came here, I simply had no idea there were scientists out there who disputed AGW. It’s all a revelation to me."

"@ captainsherlock

Sorry! I thought you were the king of working out the unworkoutable. Apologies, I’ll explain. Basically, the impact of the asteroid vaporised carbonate-rich rocks, releasing large amounts of CO2. Scientific paper here – http://www.pnas.org/content/99/12/7836.abstract"

"@ realityreturns (does it?)

YES. Joanne Simpson! That’s the one! Did you want to give the quote in full? Or would you rather select the bits you like?"

patronising:

"@ realityreturns (irony?)

I see you’ve discovered natural variation! Well done you."

"@ realityreturns

You can read about those events on ‘real’ science websites. I just wanted to keep it simple for you guys."

condescending:

"@ ozboy

Never said they were caused by anthropogenic global anything. They simply demonstrate that a rise in CO2 levels (caused in this case by natural events) can drive a rise in temperature.

Do bother to read the posts before you reply to them.

I hope you realise we can measure temperatures going back further than 150 years."

"Oh James, you could have at least done your research, the RSA stands for the “Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce”, not the “Royal Society of Artists”."

and irreverant:

"@ captainsherlock

Gosh you guys are angry tonight. Time for a cold shower?

Neither the KT Boundary or the Late Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum were caused by an ‘El Nino type phenomenon’."

"Would you like a gold star also? I’m nearly out. Snap them up."

At times I have simply been whimsical:

"@ Detective Inspector Walt O’Brien/realityreturns (really?)/pointman (got one?)

Just wanted to let you know that the office is LOVING the banter. We just finalised a massive deal in which we take all your taxes (which are invested in the BBC, through a pension fund managed by Al-Qaeda, the Bullingdon Alumni, some Rhodes Scholars, and the Jonas Brothers, and then finally funnelled to Marvin Gaye to fund his huge appetite for Cadbury Dairy Milk, under the guise of protecting a waterfall in the Madagascan rainforest which allegedly feeds a lake containing the only remaining fresh water hamster – check out the full story here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khSIYmTzt6U, anyway, so we take all your taxes and we invest them in …my new Mercedes SL65! Wheeyyyyy! Check it out

http://images.businessweek.com/ss/06/02/geneva_preview/image/mercedes-sl65-amg.jpg (that’s me driving)."

"Sorry guys. Just an update for anyone making pension contributions. Basically, what’s happened is, little slip up, I sort of accidentally on purpose funnelled all that money through my private hedge fund (CEOs David Dimbleby and Boris Johnson), into a holding account based on the Cayman Islands. Err, and from there I ran it through my investment company (www.henderson.com) and spent it on a windfarm. Well a windmill. For me. To live in. It doesn’t actually go round or anything, I just think it looks nice.

Again, really really sorry to anyone caught up in that. Hate to be the bearer of bad news."

"Re: CIA, Bullingdon Alumni, Rhodes Scholars, CERL, Sidley Austin, Basque boys, and von Bismarck, I’d like to add the following point:

http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn124/Bludra_kure/windmill_beard.jpg"

But generally I have just been exasperated:

"“I think that improving our lot is the most important thing of all”

How long do you think we can improve our lots for when we’re leeching off the planet’s capital rather than its interest. This isn’t a case of, ‘oh those guys are just killjoys who want to ruin the pollution party’; if we don’t change the way we live, then there won’t be a planet to have a party on.

I’m not talking about climate change; I’m talking about energy, oil, coal, gas, soil quality, forests, fish stocks. The whole lot.

Don’t you understand that? It’s the most basic idea. If you want to succeed and progress, you can’t plunder the very thing that sustains you. You have to manage it.

Jesus wept, I don’t know what to say."

Yet, with all that said and done, the vitriol which has been chucked my way has been quite remarkable in the low level of provocation it required. It was of course Rousseau who said "Insults are the arguments employed by those are in the wrong".

Perhaps my favourite moment was when someone decided to do some "research" and used the time-honoured and foolproof method of googling my name. They could have gone for the antique dealer David Grocott, or the haulage company owner David Grocott, but they went, perhaps unsurprisingly, for the hedge fund worker David Grocott:

"Pointman: Cue up “Ride of the Valkyries”, then “I love the smell of ammonium sulfate in the morning! Smells like Victory!”

Seriously, it always helps to do a bit of net research on posters here. At least Growc*nt has the fortitude to post using his own name, as do I.

I am wondering if this new product development manager for an investment firm has anything to do with carbon trading activities development for his firm, specifically as relates to wind farms and renewables, hm?

http://uk.linkedin.com/pub/david-grocott/a/734/885

Here’s also a smaple (sic) of his equally successful blogging activities. Please read the responding posts.

http://lastexitmag.com/article/ostalgia

I would be willing to bet he helped package the Tata carbon deal which closed Redcar, or wishes he did. Nice piece of change for filling out a few forms and laying off a couple of thousand British steelworkers, wot? Drinks all round."

Oh, that's right; a blog about East German trams was also ascribed to my fair hand. Anyway, cue further "research". It gets better; it now turns out that I'm actually partly responsible for the deaths of a group of Spanish exchange students!

"davidgrocott – “I .. funnelled .. money through my private hedge fund (CEOs David Dimbleby and Boris Johnson) into a holding account based on the Cayman Islands .. from there I ran it through my investment company (www.henderson.com) and spent it on a windfarm”

Thanks Grockie; many a true word spoken in jest.

So we follow your money route through the Henderson private equity group, through the bogus Lloyd’s $64 trillion CDP syndicate, through the snuff-film network operated by Bullingdon-SS (Sidley Saboteur) agents to arrive at mens rea such as the late Gottfried von Bismarck and late Gavin Henderson, 2nd Lord Faringdon.

A little homework shows that your Henderson private equity is deeply ‘rooted’ in Gavin Henderson, 2nd Lord Faringdon, who was, in turn, deeply rooted at Eton and Christ Church, Oxford in the 1920s by members of the set known as the ‘Bright Young Things’ [Bullingdons' blood and sabotage oath takers] immortalised in the novels of the deeply rooted Evelyn Waugh and Aldous Huxley.What happened to the Basque children mentioned below? I hope they didn’t become deeply rooted victims of investors in the Henderson private equity group.

“But by the time he [Henderson, 2nd Lord Faringdon] succeeded to Buscot he had developed a strong interest in public affairs, had joined the Labour Party, and had keenly supported the Republican cause in the Spanish Civil War. Walter Leonard, son of the famous German singer Lotte Lenya, was himself a fugitive from the Nazis before becoming involved with the Basque children. Trained as a restaurateur in Switzerland, he helped to open the first foreign-run hotel in Tossa and early in 1937 met W. H. Auden and Stephen Spender (”a bickering lot, they were”) during their brief civil war forays. When the hotel closed he came to England and was chosen to supervise a Basque colony housed in a cottage on Lord Faringdon’s estate at Eaton Hastings, Oxfordshire. “The Oxford committee, mostly university people, were very good about fund-raising, and the government made a pound-for-pond grant. Lord Faringdon supplied milk, eggs and vegetables, but our anarchist cook accused him of exploiting the older boys as slave labour and had to be sent away. Rosa, the only girl in the colony, asked for a transfer. That’s how I met my wife Peggy, who came from Birmingham to collect her; and, through Peggy, Fausto Garcia met Rosa and later married her. There were many such romances.”"

It's amazing what "a little homework" can do. As I'm sure you can guess, I had great fun with this...

"Haha, this is great, I’ve acquired a cushy virtual job, where I make LOADSA MONIES! But yet I’m also a spotty adolescent who should be in bed. And according to some reports I own a haulage company. Murky. One for the Captain?"

Yet, despite my protestations, some people continued to labour under the illusion that I was a high flying hedge fund man...

"davidgrocott

Questions for you:

1. De Montfort University
Combined Studies, Accountancy, Marketing, Law, 1995 — 1998

Is that an undergraduate degree in marketing? (In U.S., CPA is at least one post-graduate year, law is 3 post-graduate years, MBA is 2 post graduate years and MBA-JD is 4 post graduate years.)

2. You’re a product development manager for an investment firm. What product are you developing? I think someone on the previous thread asked you that. I didn’t catch whether you answered.

3. Your web site has a video under the following title: “Economic growth only benefits countries upto a certain level of development. Beyond that, it’s destructive.” I didn’t watch the video. But do the clients of your firm agree thattheir economic development should be capped? Doesn’t that philosophy put you in a conflict of interest with your firm’s clients?

http://siftingtheshit.blogspot.com/2010/03/economic-hamster.html

4. Is your time on this web paid time and/or part of your job?

5. How is Henderson Global Investors going to do when the City is under regulation by Brussels?"

My new job description did, however, lead to some lovely backhanded compliments:

"Sort of explains the snappy technical comebacks, dunnit? All you have to do is go into your corporate reference department’s files. You’re good. I’ll give you that. How mcuh they pay you for this, I wonder?

Kiss Pachauri goodnight for me."

But sadly, I was later demoted to tea boy, on account of my inherent stupidity, which, to be honest was galling, because I was just getting used to my new found wealth:

"captainsherlock on Mar 16th, 2010 at 1:17 am

Cap’n, davidgrocott isn’t David Grocott. He’s a junior in the office. If the real Grocott ever finds out, someone’s job is toast …Pointman"

And our Great Leader was not afraid to get involved either. After one commentator declared that rather than aliens finding the reason for mankind's decline on my hard drive, they would simply find large quantities of downloaded porn, Delingpole himself chipped in:

"@crownarmourer top post!"

It was immediately following this zenith of embarrassment that I was banned from further comments. Of course, predictably, having been banned, I was roundly abused for my cowardly silence:

"All,

Well, there we have it. Despite multiple requests eg

“Surely Prat*. I’m STILL, STILL waiting for your proof that plastic bags harm the environment.”

He refuses to provide any proof and he’s too cowardly to even try to reply.

He makes assertions explicitly or implicitly and asks you to disprove it. NO. You ask him to prove his assertion and there’s silence. Don’t waste your time trying to disprove negatives – it can’t be done. His silence is damning because if he can’t even prove plastic bags are bad for the environment what chance has he to prove AGW? Simple really.

As I said in a previous post, the science is toast. If you’re convinced of that statement then why bother arguing the “science” with an imbecile like davidgrocott. He’s only here on this blog because he’s a stage 2′er who absolutely needs to vent his anger. He’ll argue black is white or the reverse simply because he’s angry.

Take the time to review his posts on this blog entry. Look at the mood swings, momentarily reasonable, the next juvenile, at once seeming to engage then swinging wildly onto the personally offensive, at one moment adult and the next childish.

We’re going to see a lot more of this type in the coming months. Learn to recognise them.

Pointman"

For those less observant readers, perhaps I can highlight that 'pointman' calls me childish, and accuses me of 'swinging wildly onto the personally offensive', while calling me 'Surely Prat*' and an 'imbecile'. Which in my rather lengthy book, is hypocrisy of the crassest form.

Now don't be mistaken. I didn't write on Delingpole's blog in an attempt to wind people up or get myself banned, so that I could gather fodder for my blog. I wrote because I believed I had a valid opinion to express, and I wanted to refute some of the claptrap that James and his merry men were producing. The idea for this little note only came once I had faced the firing squad. However, I should probably not have been surprised that this would be the standard of "debate" at the bottom of a Delingpole blog. This is what Spectator and Times columnist Hugo Rifkind recently wrote concerning the matter:

"I don’t mean to be abusive here. I’m certainly not suggesting that everybody who comments on an article, ever, is sitting at home in their pants, tinfoil on head, basically being batshit doolally. I’m just saying it worries me. Pretty much any journalist I know would say the same. I know of one who describes the comments below her articles as ‘the bottom half of the internet’, which pretty much captures the sort of distaste we’re talking about here."

And George Monbiot contributed this observation:

"His [James Delingpole's] blog posts for the Telegraph consist of the kind of ill-informed viciousness provided for free by trolls on comment threads everywhere, but raised by an order of magnitude. He puts a wrecking ball through any claims the denial lobby might have to being civilised, intelligent or serious. His followers act as an echo-chamber, magnifying his nastiness. Between them they succeed in alienating anyone who might want an informed debate."

Perhaps the point is best demonstrated by quoting another commentator who failed to toe the Delingpole line. A user going by the name 'izen', posted the following recently:

"It may not be a fact that ‘THEY’ are a unified group with a single agenda. It is probably mistaken to think that any agenda would not be riven with internal contradictions. There are historical precedents for the conflict between those parts of the ‘real power’ to shape the world who believe their industrial/financial activities are legitimate, and those who wish to extend their regulatory control over such enterprises.

Asbestos, CFCs and acid rain were real scientific problems that motivated part of the ‘real power’ to regulate those engaged in activities that engendered these problems. But the activities were pursued by other factions of the ‘real power’ who denied, disputed and delayed action using THEIR power to obstruct change.

The resultant of these forces evolves as the extent of the power each faction has interacts with the material reality they operate in. A sufficient proportion of the ‘real power’ have the scientific insight to be rightly worried by the environmental risk of AGW, and the experience of change and destabilising ecologies reinforces their hand. Meanwhile other factions with immense wealth, and the strings of the energy supply resist with the tried and tested methods of doubt and diversion.

The NWO is not a carefully planned outcome of a coherent agenda, its the emergent property of the internal conflict of a splintered power structure."

All that seems fairly innocuous to me; an individual expressing their opinion. It was countered with the following complex and well thought through responses from two different posters:

"Izal…Bum scrape. Please lend us your enlightened hand as to how the future must / might be…with particular reference of how you might go about keeping your own sorry arse from a damn good thrashing."

and:

"scud1 on Mar 16th, 2010 at 11:57 pm

The only proper way to take out an Izal ‘aerosol wipe:’

Air strike:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5y8tUdwKyWk&feature=related"

Which really says it all. Here's another example though, in which a commentator going by the username 'thecultsings' dares to criticise James' interview performance:

James,

Your claim, that you have no idea whether Plimer is right or wrong about volcanoes, indicates, at best total laziness, and criminal incuriosity on your part. I find it almost impossible to believe that you have not heard of him being picked up on this on numerous occasions, for instance, by George Monbiot in a televised interview. Are you saying you never bothered to check? Unbelievable!

I’m going to go back through it and check (later, I’m off to celebrate St. Patrick’s night now), but I suspect you managed to exhibit all five denialist strategies listed here:

http://eurpub.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/19/1/2.pdf

in that short interview.

That got the following response:

thec*ntsings – When you do your radio interview let us know – meanwhile why don’t you just go and stick your tiny head with its tiny brain up your backside – no-one’s interested in you stupid witterings and those who bother do it in the spirit of lions playing with a sewer rat.

and then:

yaosxx on Mar 17th, 2010 at 8:33 pm

Oh right, Mr Niceguy today, yaosxx. The cultslinger has not evolved to a mamal (sic). Eeee…sewer rat indeed…what a compiment (sic). He is a maggot of the Ku Klux Klimate….lol.

(Incidentally, the commentator who wrote that particular post goes by the name 'realityreturns', and claims to be, in his own words, 'a minor local politician', which says a great deal about local councillors, and very little about our hopes as a species).

Still, even forewarned of the likely dubious output you will be exposed to on such a blog, when you read things like this beauty (posted recently by 'tayles')...

"Third World countries are not made poor because we don’t pay enough for our coffee. If we decide on the value of something arbitrarily we only mask its true value, which is determined by factors like supply and demand. Anything we pay over and above its true worth is a waste of money.
I know the natural reaction is to say “It’s not a waste for the people who receive that extra cash,” but that’s a very short-sighted view. By paying sellers over the odds, we take away the forces that encourage them to be more efficient and productive. The extra money they receive through Fair Trade would otherwise have to be earned by adding value to their goods; by working smarter. Their prospects will be much brighter if they are able to grow as a company than if they are reliant on Western subsidies.
But hey, you don’t want to hear this. It’s too dry and logical. If you have to explain why something is compassionate then can’t be, eh?"

I think you're justified in choking on your tea in mild surprise.

Most worryingly for James' future career, he actually appears to be relying on this stuff to write his new book:

@flatpackhamster – great stuff. I’ll try to incorporate it into my book….

@tayles By the way, it still goes without saying that when I discover I’m secretly gay and decide to abandon my wife and children I’m definitely planning to make you my civil partner. Obviously I’d kind of prefer it if you look like Liv Tyler. But your mind is enough. Can I rip off your progress meditations wholesale for my upcoming book?

That's the same 'tayles' I just quoted above by the way, slamming those nasty Fair Trade people...

Perhaps it's no bad thing I've been banned. Entertaining as it has been, I should really be getting on with something more constructive. At times it's frustrating; in absentia I have been accused of poor punctuation, by a man who spelt punctuation without a 'c'. I would relish the chance to advise him of this. But alas, the thought police have spoken; I have been silenced.

I think 'pointman' summarises my thoughts on the matter nicely (for the record he was commenting on Prof. Ian Plimer being 'uninvited' to the RSA Prince Philip Lecture):

"davidgrocott on Mar 10th, 2010 at 12:33 am

Being “barred” is the operative word. That’s science is it? Nope, [that's] political..."

What an irony that a journalist who has railed so vehemently against the suppression of dissenting voices should suppress a dissenting voice of his own. Of course, I will go on reading Delingpole's renal diatribes. If it wasn't for the activities of second-rate, Littlejohn wannabe, aristo-fetishistic hacks, then I would simply be at a loss as to what to do with an evening. So thank you James (and I know your reading this, your ego's too large not to).

I'll leave you with what I feel was a particularly insightful and sensitive post from one commentator:

"What is so important about preserving the planet in its present state? It’s not as if we are vandalising nature for no good reason. Everything we do has some impact on our environment, but these are the costs of human progress. And sorry, but I think that improving our lot is the most important thing of all. Certainly more important than preserving a pure, unspoilt environment.

It’s not as though we are going to pollute the planet into ruin, either. As we progress economically and technologically, we become cleaner and more efficient. Just compare today’s air quality to that of a British city in the 1950s.

The danger is in thinking that there is some innate value in nature, and that we should preserve it for its own sake. That way madness lies. Man is the measure of all things. Without us to put value on things, this planet would just be a rock spinning pointlessly through space. It might suit the interests of those who are fixated with the ‘arrogance of man’ to dispute this view, but I would question their logic and their motives."

I particularly love "The danger is in thinking that there is some innate value in nature". I can describe it as nothing short of genius.

My thanks to msher1, tayles, captainsherlock, pointman, realityreturns et al, who have blessed me with such an enjoyable week.

Almost all content taken from the following blogs:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100030092/greens-sacrifice-babies-to-satan-sell-grandmothers-into-slavery-etc/

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100030044/does-even-ian-mcewan-know-what-ian-mcewan-really-thinks-about-climate-change/

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100029899/sir-john-houghton-agw-is-real-because-ive-got-a-knighthood-im-a-scientist-and-i-say-so/

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100029547/herod-orders-top-un-scientists-to-investigate-mysterious-infant-slaughter-in-judaea/

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100029355/two-things-i-love-about-the-arabs/

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100029145/how-the-british-establishment-is-conspiring-to-prop-up-the-agw-myth/

I should be an Ad-man

2010-03-15T22:59:00.003Z

I don't know why the Conservative party is bothering with all these giant posters plastered with Cameron's shiny face, or someone on benefits telling us that it's time for change. All they need is the following (black writing on a white background):

"Dear reader,

This is a campaign poster for the Conservative party. Labour can't afford to have these because they have no money. Economic management is not their strong point. Perhaps you've noticed. Vote Conservative"

The End is nigh

2010-03-15T22:00:00.003Z

I have reached my zenith, my goal, my destiny. I have been banned from James Delingpole's blog. No longer need I soldier through life grinding my teeth and sighing with the wind. I have achieved. I am complete.

The Economic Hamster

2010-03-08T17:39:00.004Z

Economic growth only benefits countries up to a certain level of development. Beyond that, it's destructive.

Keep on failin'

2010-02-28T14:31:00.008Z

Moron of the day, Alicia Keys!

In an interview with music magazine, Blender, Alicia Keys has revealed what we'd been suspecting all along: gangsta rap is actually an elaborate "ploy to convince black people to kill each other".

Apparently rappers, such as Ice T and Dr Dre, are instruments of mysterious puppetmasters who exist to perpetuate the rap community's strife. The late-90s feud between east and west coast hip-hop was, in fact, created by shadowy figures in government, and the deaths of Notorious BIG and Tupac Shakur were part and parcel of this plan; an attempt "by the government and the media, to stop another great black leader from existing."

As part of her own personal crusade to right these sinister wrongs, Keys has donated an impressive $500 to the Democrat party, and around her neck wears a solid gold AK-47 which apparently symbolises "Strength, power and killing 'em dead", which all obviously makes complete sense.

Well done you.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2008/apr/15/aliciakeys.urban

The failure of 'multicultural' Britain.

2010-02-26T04:17:00.008Z

It's a shit day when you think it might be better to be French, but reading today's Evening Standard, that's the conclusion I've drawn. Issues of race and integration continue to cloud daily news coverage, as Britain's all-embracing approach to 'multiculturalism', and discriminatory attitude to racial equality, lurches towards an inevitable disintegration of common sense.

First of all there was the good news:

Police Commander and President of the National Black Police Association, Ali Dizaei, was today found guilty, by a jury, of 'misconduct in public office' and 'perverting the course of justice'. As a result he has been sentenced to two years in prison. This might sound like bad news, but should he have been found not guilty, his claims that he had been singled out because of his colour, would have been to some degree vindicated. This would have been bad news.

On his arrest, the National Black Police Association (NBPA), released a statement which declared: "It is outrageous that the CPS [Criminal Prosecution Service], for the second time in four years, has commenced prosecution against the president of the National Black Police Association, Commander Ali Dizaei. This has not happened to any other senior police officer in the history of the MPS [Metropolitan Police Service] or the CPS." In response to the accusations levelled against Dizaei, the NBPA called for black Londoners to boycott recruitment for the Metropolitan Police and Dizaei himself launched a case of racial discrimination against the force.

The NBPA and Commander Dizaei now both look rather silly, while the Metropolitan Police Service has been vindicated in its assertion that Ali Dizaei was not fit to wear a uniform. Dizaei was not accused because he was black, he was accused because he was guilty; the fact that a jury has confirmed this is a blow to those who would seek to falsely and frequently claim 'racial discrimination' in an attempt to silence their critics.

The second piece of good news comes in the form of Adam Afriyie, Conservative MP for Windsor. He also happens to be black, but as he points out, this isn't important. Having grown up on a council estate in Peckham, he is now a multi-millionaire, as well as the Shadow Science Minister. When questioned about why he is reluctant to discuss his position as the Tory's first black MP, he replies: 'I consider myself post-racial...I don't see myself as a black man. I refuse to be defined by my colour or pigeon-holed in that way'. Discussing the 12 black and Asian candidates who are standing for the Tories, in winnable seats, at the next election, he says: 'If my role has been to encourage that trend, then I'm proud to have played a part. But it's the merits of the candidates that count, not their colour. If there'd been all-black shortlists, I'd never have stood'.

Adam Afriyie MP is everything Ali Dizaei is not. Where Ali Dizaei defines himself by his colour, choosing to play the race card in answer to his critics, Adam Afriyie transcends his, proving what can be achieved by anyone of any colour in this country.

Afriyie also attacks the notion that black people should warrant special treatment; his assertion that "If there'd been all-black shortlists, I'd never have stood", strikes at the heart of the 'Diversity agenda' which infects this country. In an echo of George Orwell's famous critique of communism, that "all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others", the establishment has declared that equality is paramount, therefore we must discriminate in favour of black people, or women, or those of a minority sexual persuasion etc. You are not first a person, judged on merit. No. You are first a black man; then a person judged on merit. Such a notion is not only criminal, it is insulting to those who who would wish to transcend the pigment of their skin and be judged as a person, along with all other people. The Diversity agenda perversely acts to reinforce racism, encouraging a person's colour to be considered as an important and note-worthy factor.

Those, like Afriyie, who refuse to be defined by race, are the true heroes of the struggle for equality. Dizaei's proven guilt is a blow for all those who believe a man's colour should render him immune from legitimate criticism.

Now onto the bad news.

Sir Mota Singh QC, Britain's first Asian judge (now retired), has said in an interview with BBC Asian Network that he believes Sikh children should be allowed to wear their ceremonial daggers to school. He argues that it is their religious right. The ridiculousness of this statement is undermined only by the sad fact that the British press have considered it to carry enough weight to bother publishing it. Unfortunately this is actually a pressing issue. Last year a Sikh boy was withdrawn from a school in Barnet because the school had banned him from carrying his kirpan (dagger).

In a similar vain, a bus company today 'had a word' with one of its Muslim drivers for pulling over to pray mid-journey. According to reports, 'The driver of the No 24 in Gospel Oak stopped without warning, left his cab and rolled out a jacket as an improvised prayer mat in the vehicle's aisle. Removing his shoes, he knelt to face Mecca and began chanting during a prayer session that held up the bus for more than five minutes. Passengers were unable to get on or off the vehicle'.

Now, if our society is going to continue in a smooth and workable fashion, some decisions must be taken. Do we live in a country where someone should be able to carry a knife to school or stop a bus mid-journey in order to fulfil their daily prayer quota, or do we not? It is no use continuing as we are, muddling through on a case-by-case basis; firm legislation needs to be put in place, to ensure that everyone knows what is acceptable and what is not.

It is not a case of suppressing freedom of religious expression; it is simply about ensuring that a set of laws are in place which allow us all to exist peacefully together. The 1905 French law on the Separation of the Churches and State states: 'The Republic neither recognizes, nor salaries, nor subsidizes any religion'. As such, all religious symbols are banned from the French state education system. There are no exceptions. After all, why should religion be elevated to a position of special dispensation from the laws which govern us lowly non-believers. Why is it any more legitimate for someone to claim they should be allowed to do such-and-such because their holy wad of paper tells them to, than it is for me to say I want to carry a gun because I've decided to. Ironically of course, that's exactly what's happened in America, where the right to bare arms has been virtually deified. The respect which religion is afforded is outrageous. Thankfully the Anglican church, in its typically English-tea-and-crumpets way, doesn't kick up a fuss about its supposed rights and status. It is Islam, Judaism, Catholicism, Sikhism, and perhaps to a lesser extent, Hinduism, which are the culprits here. The respect and special treatment which they demand for the largely imbecilic scribblings of their holy texts is the driving force behind a whole raft of human misery. To take one brief example, one of the principal factors in the ongoing dispute over Palestine and Israel, is the belief, by certain groups of Jews, that Abraham promised them the land around Hebron, in the West Bank. As a result of this perceived 'religious right', they are continuing to occupy the West Bank and expand their settlements, with an unashamed view to fully 'Jewifying' the area. For them, there is no room for debate, or discussion, or negotiation, or compromise. It has been promised to them, by God.

Thankfully, I don't live in Israel, so while the insanity there vaguely troubles me, I don't have to deal with it on a day-to-day basis. What I do have to deal with on a day-to-day basis, however, is catching the bus and one day sending my (possible) future children to school. I would like to board that bus in the knowledge that it will go from 'A' to 'B' without taking a lengthy detour down Prayer Mat Street. I would also like to send those possible future children to school safe in the knowledge that none of the other children are carrying knifes. Just a personal preference you know, maybe I'm fussy, I don't know. Anyway, it would seem to me, that the way to ensure the smooth running of our country is to establish a concrete set of laws which dictate what is acceptable and what is not. Religion should receive no dispensation. I personally believe in compulsory voting, an initiative which would undoubtedly be rejected by a minority of Muslims who consider democracy to contravene the word of God. Well I'm sorry, if you don't want to live in, and contribute to, a liberal democratic country, where homosexuality is legal, men and women are equal, and capital punishment is banned, then go and live in Saudi Arabia, under Shari'a law, where all your dreams will come true. I find the notion that someone would choose to live in a country whose laws contradict one's own dearly held beliefs, baffling in the extreme. If you can't accept it the way it is, then leave.

There is a widespread deception that we live in a multicultural society. We don't. We live in a plurality of mono-cultures, each of which fail to integrate or assimilate into the mainstream. Perhaps this is because there is no mainstream within which to assimilate. If our government is incapable of passing a law which outlaws the carrying of knives in public by those of a particular religious persuasion, then surely 'the mainstream' must be an incredibly impotent, fragmented, and worthless entity. We need a universal code by which we can all live, and as a democratic, liberal, and secular individual I believe that code should allow every citizen to go about their business without suffering the negative influences of other people's religion.

Perhaps it would surprise you to know that Trevor Phillips, head of the Commission for Racial Equality (he's also black, but that shouldn't matter), has called for the government to reject its support for multiculturalism, claiming it was out of date and legitimised "separateness" between communities, and instead should "assert a core of Britishness". When a newspaper described the Notting Hill Carnival as "the triumph of multiculturalism", Mr Phillips pointed out that "carnival can hardly be said to represent the everyday culture of most of London's communities." In response to this comment, Ken Livingston, then mayor of London, accused Trevor Phillips of trying to "move the race agenda away from a celebration of multiculturalism" and "pandering to the right" so much so that "soon he'll be joining the BNP" - which really just goes to show what a misguided fruitcake Ken Livingston is.

If the Commission for Racial Equality is arguing that the multicultural dream is falling flat on its face, then perhaps someone should sit up and take notice. The problem is, no one in power has got the backbone to stand up and say what needs to be said about our confused and disintegrating society, for fear of being labelled a foaming-at-the-mouth Nazi by some tool like Ken Livingston.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23803267-muslim-driver-halts-bus-to-kneel-in-aisle-and-pray.do

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23803328-judge-attacks-ban-on-sikh-daggers.do

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23803233-adam-afriyie-from-peckham-council-house-to-shadow-minister.do

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23803418-scotland-yard-commander-guilty-of-corruption-charges.do

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5301498.stm

The People's Manifesto

2010-02-26T02:36:00.004Z

Mark Thomas spent a year trawling the country in an attempt to gauge the Nation's annoyances and aggravations. It worked like this: before a show, Mark asked everybody to hand in policy suggestions; he would then discuss them on stage, and through the complicated and exact process of 'who shouts loudest', the favourite policy of the night was selected. The result of this pilgrimage? The People's Manifesto. It consists of 50 policies which (possibly) represent the collective feelings of our island. The publisher of The People's Manifesto is offering the chance for one reader to take up the gauntlet laid down by the book; they are willing to pay for one reader to stand for Parliament in the next general election and run a campaign based on the ethos and ideals of The People's Manifesto. If you have the good fortune to be a member of said reader's prospective constituency, I urge you vote for them.

From the perfectly sensible to the slightly outlandish, here are a few of my favourite polices, not all of which made the cut, but which Mark nonetheless details in his introduction to The People's Manifesto.

Noel Edmonds should be publicly beheaded, and his severed head placed in one of 22 identical sealed boxes.

4x4 drivers should be forced to drive everywhere off-road; even to Sainsbury's.

The Olympics are too costly and will really cripple our economy for little return. Why not give them to the French?

Everything in supermarkets should be stacked in alphabetical order.

Stop the taxpayer subsidising the Murdoch empire and institute the Sky test on benefit claimants, so if you suck on the teat of Murdoch, no benefits for you.

We should abolish all criminal laws in this country and replace them with two offences: being out of order; being bang out of order.

Those in favour of ID cards should be banned from having curtains.

We should adopt an opt-out system for organ donation.

The Daily Mail should be forced to print on the front of every edition: 'This is a fictionalised account of the news and any resemblance to the truth is entirely coincidental'.

The people have spoken, and it would appear they are with brain.

http://www.thepeoplesmanifesto.co.uk/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/feb/08/britain-should-invade-jersey

Misery Bear

2010-02-22T19:17:00.001Z

I have just discovered the joys of BBC Three Comedy 'Misery Bear'. The Bon Iver soundtrack adds to the brilliance.

shitmydadsays

2010-02-15T18:06:00.001Z

I don't like Twitter but I like this guy.

He basically recounts the shit his 74 year-old dad says.

This is his entry for January 1st:

"Universe is 14 billion years old. Seems silly to celebrate one year. Be like having a fucking parade every time i take a piss."

Why maternity leave needs re-examining

2010-02-12T20:07:00.010Z

The current state of maternity leave legislation in the UK is open to a culture of abuse. There is a sense that none of the major political parties are willing to address the issue, as any development which could be perceived as adverse risks alienating the female electorate.

The Situation

As it stands, mothers-to-be are entitled to (amongst other things):

26 weeks 'ordinary' maternity leave regardless of how long they have been with their employer, after which they are entitled to return to the same job. This leave can begin 11 weeks before their expected week of childbirth.
A further 26 weeks 'additional' maternity leave regardless of how long they have been with their employer, after which they are entitled to return to the same job, unless that’s not 'reasonably practicable', in which case the right is to return to an appropriate similar job.
Out of this total of 52 weeks maternity leave, 39 weeks are paid, providing they have worked for their employer for 26 weeks by the 25th week of their pregnancy, i.e. they must have worked for the company for one whole week before they get pregnant if they wish to receive maternity pay from said company. Maternity pay is paid at 90% of their earnings for the first 6 weeks followed by a flat rate, which is increased by a few pounds every tax year. From April 2009 to April 2010 it is £123.06 per week.

Now, let it be said I have nothing against the concept of maternity pay or maternity leave. If we expect couples to have children, and want women to have the ability to develop careers, then maternity leave and pay are essential; it is the way in which the issue is managed and legislated, rather than the issue itself, with which I have a problem.

The Problem

Thankfully it was announced at the end of January that, as of April 2011, new mothers would be able to transfer the second half of their year-long maternity leave to the father - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/8485781.stm. This is a long overdue correction to existing legislation, which goes some way to enhancing gender equality when it comes to childcare. What needs to come next is the end of 'maternity' and 'paternity' leave, to be replaced with an allocation of parental leave to be divided between parents as they see fit.

Gender inequality, however, is not my major bugbear with the current maternity leave legislation. I reserve that accolade for the effects it can have on small businesses.

As the law stands, a woman can begin a job with the full intention of becoming imminently pregnant; get pregnant after one week of being at the company; work for a grand total of 29 weeks then take one year off, with the company holding their position, or a position similar to their original position, open for them; get paid by that company throughout that year, including pension contributions during the first 26 weeks of maternity leave; and then decide they do not, after all, want to return to the company. The maternity leave money does not have to be repaid.

Alternatively a woman may begin a job while heavily pregnant (without notifying her employer of her condition), only to announce on her first day that she is taking maternity leave. She will not be paid by the company as she will not have worked for the required amount of time (one week) before falling pregnant, however, she will receive 'maternity allowance' from the government, with which I have no qualms. The company will, however, be required to give her a year's maternity leave, and hold her position, or a position similar to her original position, open for her. It is, I imagine, difficult to find a capable employee who is willing to work for only one year (or less depending on whether the employee on maternity leave wishes to return sooner).

The two scenarios described above pose the most obvious problems for a small business, however, there is also the possibility that an existing employee who is either already pregnant, or intending on becoming pregnant, may negotiate a pay rise without notifying their employer of their imminent plans, or indeed the recent occupation of their womb. If a pay rise is granted, this will then be included in the 90% of their salary which they will be paid in the first 6 weeks of maternity leave.

I don't intend to insinuate that all women who intend on having jobs and children are amoral money-grabbers; I'm just pointing out that some inevitably are, and the system is open for them to abuse.

At the risk of posing a hypothetical situation which in reality would never happen, I'm going to pose a hypothetical situation which in reality would never happen:

It might not be politically correct, but it is certainly realistic to say that if a small business owner was faced with two prospective job candidates in their early thirties, who were of absolutely identical stature/experience/character etc., with the one caveat being that one was male and the other female, he would be wise to opt for the male candidate. This is a position of which I am sure most small business owners are aware, and no doubt they act accordingly. Under the current maternity legislation, employing a woman of childbearing age is, in many cases, simply too risky. I would therefore argue that the poor quality of said legislation is actually having a detrimental impact on the career prospects of women.

The Solution

Not being a government policy maker with the associated benefits of in-depth economic projections etc., it's difficult to come up with exact figures, but I will give a rough idea of the kind of measures which I feel should be put in place to shore up the system, and protect small businesses.

I have no complaints about the financial quantities paid out in the event of pregnancy per se, nor do I disagree with the length of time given for maternity/paternity leave. I simply feel that safeguards should be put in place to ensure what an employee 'gives' to a company is in proportion with what they receive regarding maternity benefits.

With that in mind, I propose the following:

Job positions will only be held if the employee has been working for the company for 6 months BEFORE they become pregnant.
Maternity pay will only be paid if the employee has been working for the company for 6 months BEFORE they become pregnant. The amount of maternity pay will operate on a sliding scale - increasing with the amount of time you have been with the company. If you do fall pregnant within these first 6 months then the responsibility for providing maternity pay rests with your previous employer, assuming you worked for them for longer than 6 months before you became pregnant. If you did not work for them for longer than 6 months before you became pregnant, then the responsibility rests with the government, and you will receive 'maternity allowance', which is £123.06 per week.
Pay rises must have been in place for a minimum of 3 months BEFORE an employee becomes pregnant if they wish to have their revised pay factored into their maternity pay.

These adjustments are not perfect. The most obvious flaw being in a situation where someone moved from a job at which they had worked for a number of years, and didn't realise they were pregnant when they moved. They would then be trapped in a no-man's land, as their new employer would not be required to hold a position open for them.

What the above proposals would do are:

Prevent women cynically seeking pay rises with a view to taking maternity leave in the immediate future.
Prevent women starting a job when they are knowingly pregnant, and then expecting the company concerned to keep their position open.
Prevent women seeking new jobs while being knowingly pregnant, or planning an imminent pregnancy, in an effort to boost their salary and therefore their maternity pay.

In committing to these proposals, or something similar, I feel that small businesses would feel safer employing women of childbearing age, creating a fairer society for all.

All information is from http://www.worksmart.org.uk/rights/viewsubsection.php?sun=52 - thanks!

The Real Avatar

2010-02-11T13:32:00.009Z

Survival International, the charity for Tribal Peoples, has appealed to Avatar director James Cameron on behalf of the Dongria Kondh Tribe of Orissa, India. The Dongria Kondh are struggling to defend their land against a mining company bent on destroying their sacred mountain. British FTSE-100 company 'Vedanta Resources' is determined to mine their sacred mountain’s rich seam of bauxite (aluminium ore). Watch the video below...

The Robin Hood Tax

2010-02-11T12:06:00.004Z

Take money from the banks and give to the poor, visit the website to find out more - http://www.robinhoodtax.co.uk/

Here's nobel-prize winner, former chief economist at the World Bank, and former chief economic advisor to Bill Clinton, Joseph Stiglitz, talking about why the Robin Hood Tax is a good thing - http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/markets/article-23804049-joseph-stiglitz-robin-hood-who-wants-to-tax-the-rich-for-the-poor.do

Careergate

2010-02-09T15:12:00.007Z

I whole-heartedly agree with the gentleman who wrote to the Guardian last week and declared that "ANY '-gate' suffix, apart from the one and only original, is banned, and that persons attempting an offence will be shot at dawn on an empty stomach."

The continued use of the appendage 'gate' to any minor or major scandal is the epitome of sloppy journalism. Delingpole laid the straw that broke the camel's back when, in his blog, 'Climategate: Mad Sunday', he coined the phrase 'Africagate', in reference to a potentially erroneous claim regarding climatic impacts on north African crop production in the Fourth IPCC Assessment Report.

Africagate?! I can't think of a less-specific and impenetrable label for a news event.

It would appear that the proliferation of '"gate" dubbings' in a journalist's work, is in inverse proportion to the quality of said journalist.

Julie Burchill

2010-02-05T21:31:00.004Z

It would appear I am way behind the times in only just discovering the delights of rent-a-gob columnist, feminist icon, and all round idiot, Julie Burchill.

Highlights from her inane twitterings include: 'A thing I thought I'd miss about being married, but don't, is not being able to commit adultery' and 'Israel is the only country I would fucking die for'.

You can create your own Julie Burchill articles using 'The Julie Burchill Random Recycler'. A recent concoction of mine reads: 'On leaving my husband for a girlie some six years ago, I must have put enough toot up my admittedly sizeable snout to stun the entire Colombian armed forces and first had my face printed in the papers throwing twenty-pound notes at a tramp. Now there's a big idea to get your head around.'

Petition to ban Melanie Phillips from Question Time

2010-02-05T17:56:00.003Z

In light of Melanie Phillips' repeat appearances on Question Time, which normally result in some form of renal diatribe, I have lodged a petition with 10 Downing Street in an effort to have her banned. It will of course not be accepted, but the contents of the petition are as follows:

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to ban Melanie
Phillips from appearing on BBC Question Time

Melanie Phillips still harbours suspicions that Obama might be
a Muslim (God forbid!)
[http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/oct/31/melanie-phillips-islamism-spectator],
called Civil Partnerships for homosexuals 'toxic'
[http://www.melaniephillips.com/articles-new/?p=550], argued
that while 'individual Palestinians may deserve compassion,
their cause amounts to Holocaust denial as a national project'
[http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-the-loathsome-smearing-of-israels-critics-822751.html],
advocates the teaching of creationism alongside evolution
[http://www.melaniephillips.com/articles/archives/000756.html],
and compared environmentalists to Nazis
[http://www.melaniephillips.com/articles-new/?p=641]. She does
not even have the excuse of receiving nearly one million votes
at a European election, to justify her presence on the BBC's
flagship political show. Her appearances appear to be
dangerously proliferating and she should be banned before she
inflicts any more damage on the impressionable.

UPDATE: I have received an email rejecting my petition on the grounds that it is 'outside the remit or powers of the Prime Minister and Government'. Nothing surprising there, but I feel the point has been made.

From one brother to another

2010-02-05T13:11:00.007Z

Just dragging this hilarious story up from the archives.

MP for Brent, Dawn Butler, who is, as she will regularly remind you, 'one of only two black women in parliament', revealed that she had received a gushing letter of support from President Obama.

It read: "Having met Dawn Butler MP I can see why she is one of only two black women in parliament. She is bright, intelligent and determined. I say to the people of Brent you should have the audacity of hope and when someone asks you can she do it, you respond yes we can. Barack Obama”

Presumably the hilarity of the phrase, 'when someone asks you can she do it, you respond yes we can', was lost on Dawn Butler.

Ms Butler said: “For Obama to be impressed with me as one of only two black female politicians humbles me greatly".

The letter was then posted on the MP's website.

There were, however, two clues that all was not as it seemed. Firstly the letter was printed on House of Commons headed notepaper, and secondly Barack (or Barak according to the letter) was spelt wrong.

After being widely ridiculed, it was revealed by Ms Butler’s spokesperson that while the wording of the letter had been a “collaborative effort” approved jointly by Mr Obama and Ms Butler’s office, the request for an endorsement and the initial text had originated from Ms Butler’s office. The letter had apparently been printed in Ms Butler’s office but was signed by Mr Obama on meeting Ms Butler during his visit to the UK last year.

That's the equivalent of me writing my own reference.

The letter was temporarily removed from the MP’s website but was reinstated with the House of Commons insignia removed and Barack Obama's name spelt correctly.

Classic.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article5568569.ece

The terrorist threat intensifies

2010-02-05T01:34:00.003Z

Clip taken from 'Four Lions' - Chris Morris' (Brass Eye) new film.

Cherie Blair Fail

2010-02-04T18:31:00.005Z

Today Cherie Blair spared a man jail on the grounds that he is religious.

She said: “I am going to suspend this sentence based on the fact you are a religious person and have not been in trouble before. You are a religious man and you know this is not acceptable behaviour.”

What a moron.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8497365.stm

The Truth

2010-02-04T02:43:00.003Z

Dara O'Briain speaks the truth, about everything.

The global warming debate debunked, and why you still need to change your life

2010-02-03T03:56:00.008Z

In light of both Climate Secretary Ed Miliband's recent interview with the Observer, in which he warned against listening to the 'siren voices' of climate change deniers, and the recent email hack at the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit, I thought I'd write a note on some of the issues at hand. Apologies for the length, I'll try and make it as interesting and free of jargon as possible.

Let me first set out where I stand. I'm pretty green. I've spoken before about the importance of sustainable living. In the 21st century we are able to live our lives of relative leisure and ease because we are drawing on the wealth of billions of years worth of stored energy in the form of fossil fuels. The harnessing of this energy goldmine has enabled us to develop a civilization more complex and advanced than any other in the history of our planet. Fossil fuels have given us time. Time to think. Time to develop technologies which have taken us to the moon and regrown body parts. However, in a reasonably short space of time we will shift from an era of abundance to an era of scarcity; the combination of massive population growth, an insatiable human appetite for consumption, and the poor use of our limited material resources will soon render our planet barren. There will be no more oil, no more coal, and no more gas, and unless we learn how to live in a sustainable manner, then our civilization will fall.

I've also spoken before about the importance of diversity in our lives. I do not want to live on a mechanical planet devoid of living things, save vast fields of genetically modified wheat, upon which the surviving humans sustain themselves, scratching their chins while they wonder what the point of still being alive is. Between 1970 and 2003 the population of land species declined by nearly a third, and populations of tropical species declined by more than half. In the past thirty years, humanity has destroyed almost half the planet's original forests. Poaching, oil extraction, logging, pollution, over-fishing, poorly managed industrial waste, urban sprawl, unsympathetic farming practices etc. are all having a massively detrimental effect on the environment around us, resulting in the loss of a large number of animal and plant species every year, as well as adversely affecting the health, well-being, and in some cases, cultural heritage, of a large number of people.

In one sense, neither of the above have anything to do with climate change. If it was revealed tomorrow that climate change was indeed an enormous hoax, thought up by a group of self-serving dictators who secretly controlled world leaders like puppets on a string, then both of the points raised above would still stand. We would still be marching haplessly towards societal oblivion, destroying everything that isn't of apparent use along the way. The confusion that people have between possible climate change and other environmental travesties comes as a result of the intertwining nature of all of these issues. For example, while the continued and unchecked use of oil and gas is leading us into the energy supply equivalent of a cul-de-sac, in which we will slowly rot, light candles and twitch our curtains when the neighbours dare leave the tap running, it is also in part to blame for the increasing levels of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere, a development which the majority of climate scientists believe to be the major trigger for contemporary global warming. Similarly, this warming of the environment, whether induced by human activity or not, is one of the key factors in the on-going destruction of the world's plant and animal species - a study last year suggested that a temperature rise of 4C would kill 85% of the Amazon rainforest. That's not to say that we're not capable or destroying the rainforest through logging and oil extraction alone, it just means that we'll get a little help from a warming planet. Incidentally the destruction of the rainforest also increases the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere; 400m tonnes of carbon enter the atmosphere every year because of traditional deforestation in the Amazon, and estimates suggest that an additional 100m tonnes of carbon occurs through selective logging (source). The carbon which is released comes from the decomposing matter left behind when a tree is removed. The decomposition of such matter is estimated to contribute up to a fifth of global CO2 emissions, and creates a vicious cycle of warming and destruction.

What all this tells us, is that, even if anthropogenic (human induced) global warming is a big hoax, that's no excuse to carry on as we are. The idea that 'when this whole global warming scandal blows over, I can jump in the old 4x4 and leave the lights on all day' is built on ignorance. Unfortunately, 'climate change' has rather stolen the limelight from other vital environmental issues; the very fact that Ed Miliband is 'the Climate Secretary', rather than 'the Environment Secretary' is telling. There is potentially good reason for this; should some of the global warming predictions prove correct, and should we fail to alter our lifestyles in time, then climate change will prove to be far more calamitous to the human race than either a loss of bio-diversity or an energy shortage. However, I fear that as the battle over global warming plays out, and observers inevitably take sides, it will lead to a complacent attitude towards other environmental concerns, as the separation between climate change, sustainability, and protection of bio-diversity becomes confused.

With that lengthy caveat in place, I'll turn my attention to the sticky issue of global warming. First of all, I think it's worth noting that I'd be delighted if this all turned out to be some big joke. I think it's a point many global warming sceptics overlook; that no one wants global warming to be true. The second major point, is that I don't really have a clue what I'm talking about. I'm not qualified in any way whatsoever to comment on the importance of upper tropospheric humidity, or the weaknesses of radiosonde based reanalysis products, both of which I'll shortly do. What I do have is a brain, and the ability to read and dissect information, which is what I've done.

My own personal feeling about global warming is in many ways similar to my view on organised religion, which is essentially 'how can so many intelligent people devote so much of their lives to studying one particular thing, only to emerge with radically different conclusions?' It's baffling, and makes me feel like I'm perpetually missing out on some sort of special point - a key which will unlock the mystery, proving one side irrevocably right, and condemning the other to eternal obscurity. Unfortunately no such key ever emerges, frustrating my desire to find a concrete answer for everything. As a result of this, I am forced to rely on the opinions of the majority of the people who do spend their lives investigating such things. With regards to climate change, working out what the majority of qualified people actually think is not as easy as one might have hoped, however, I am convinced that the mainstream scientific consensus is broadly in agreement with the theory of anthropogenic climate change - see http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm and http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/consensusD1.htm. There's definitely a debate to be had over that statement, but I'm not going to have it now.

The problem lies in the complexity of the issue. If you've ever attempted to argue with an educated Christian over the finer points of theological understanding (I have), you will quickly learn that biblical historicity is a hugely complicated subject. The accuracy of the bible is furiously supported by some, and vehemently denied by others. Between these polarities there is a wealth of academic variation. It is the number of texts, both historical and biblical, combined with the length of time over which the various books of the bible were compiled, which makes it so complex. Motives and biases need to be explored. Interpretation varies. Problems with translation occur. Archeological finds contradict, support, and generally confuse the original conclusions of textual study. As I've already stated, people spend their lives busily coming to diametrically opposed conclusions. The study of climate change has similar problems. First of all there is a wealth of data, not all of which is mutually supporting. There always has been, and always will be, problems with data collection, a fact which provides ample ammunition to both sides of the warming divide. There are many questions to be asked. Is the world warming? If it is warming, is the warming being driven in part by man? How much is man's activity affecting the climate? If climate change is being significantly driven by human actions, which actions are they? Is it the release of CO2 that is the major trigger? If global warming is being driven by increasing levels of CO2 then will the change in temperature prove dangerous? The list goes on. Sceptics have argued all of these points. Some don't believe the Earth is warming at all; others are happy to believe that it is, and accept that this warming is being driven by human activity, specifically the release of CO2, but argue that this warming will not reach dangerous levels. As with many things in life, the science has reached such a point of complexity, that it is almost impossible to be an expert in all of it, resulting in a huge divergence in opinion, and a large dose of confusion.

I don't seek to clarify that confusion in any way. What follows is simply a brief exploration of one small element in the science of climate, which will hopefully shed light on the problems and issues which muddy the wider issue...

Doing some research the other day, I stumbled across something called 'The Skeptics Handbook II'. It was written by Jo Nova, an Australian, who describes herself on her website as "a freelance science presenter & writer, professional speaker and former TV host". According to her website over 200,000 copies of the original Skeptics Handbook have been distributed and it is available in ten languages.

Now for a quick bit of science...on page 6 of the Skeptics Handbook II, it explains what any armchair sceptic will tell you: that water vapour, not CO2, is actually the most important greenhouse gas when it comes to climate change. This is also a point on which any climate scientist would agree. The theory is this: rising CO2 will marginally increase the temperature of the Earth; this small rise in temperature will increase the amount of evaporation from the world's oceans; and the increased humidity which results from this rise in evaporation will lock in more heat, amplifying and accelerating the warming trend. It's quite simple, and it's known as 'positive feedback'. This is an extremely important point. Without the amplification effect of water vapour, you could double the current amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and only observe a rise in temperature of 1C, which would have no major impact. When positive feedbacks, including rising humidity, are taken into account, a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere would increase global temperature by 3C, causing serious problems (source). In Nova's own words, "without the effects of feedbacks to amplify carbon’s minor warming, there is no disaster".

Nova argues that "the modellers [who] guessed that as the world warmed, more water would evaporate, and the rising humidity would lock in more heat" were wrong. She points out that "water is complex and fickle. Humidity can stay ‘humid’, or turn into low clouds, high clouds, or fall out as rain, hail or snow. And they all have a different effect." She declares that the observations show that in fact humidity is not rising, and therefore cannot be amplifying the warming of the Earth. In support of this point she cites a study by Prof. Garth Paltridge, entitled 'Trends in middle- and upper-level tropospheric humidity from NCEP reanalysis data'. The full study, should you wish to read it, can be found here.

It is an interesting study, and not wholly without merit. In it, Paltridge examines something called 'NCEP reanalysis data'. NCEP stands for 'National Centers for Environmental Protection' and the reanalysis data is a joint project between NCEP and NCAR, which stands for 'National Center for Atmospheric research'. The reanalysis data itself is a continually updating data set representing the state of the Earth's atmosphere, incorporating observations and global climate model output dating back to 1948. NCEP and NCAR are constantly trying to improve the data by adjusting for discrepancies in the measurements and removing anomalies. In the case of the atmospheric humidity data which applies to Paltridge's study, the original measurements were taken by balloon-borne radiosonde instruments.

Paltridge's study is limited for a number of reasons, which he discusses. He cites a 1991 study by Elliott and Gaffen (here), which dismisses any radiosonde humidity measurements prior to 1973, deeming them unusable as a result of instrumental changes and deficiencies. As a result, Paltridge's study only covers the reanalysis data from 1973 to 2007. In light of other criticisms of radiosonde measurements in the Elliott/Gaffen study, Paltridge also limits his examination to particular latitudes and atmospheric pressures (latitudes between 50° S and 50° N, and atmospheric pressures up to up to 500 hPa everywhere, together with the summer season data from 400 hPa, and the data up to 300 hPa in the tropics, if you want to be specific). To put it simply, the radiosonde measuring system isn't accurate enough to measure changes in humidity in locations where humidity is already at comparatively low levels. Thus, Paltridge cannot use data for the highest altitudes, where the atmospheric pressure (hPa) is lowest, because there is not enough humidity. He believes that the data will be more accurate during the summer months (when he uses data up to 400 hPa), and in the tropics (where he uses data up to 300 hPa), because these factors will represent higher basic levels of humidity. Paltridge is honest throughout, and indeed spends a considerable part of his study apologising for the potential inaccuracy of his data. You'll excuse me if I give a few quotes:

"Radiosonde humidity measurements are notoriously unreliable and are usually dismissed out-of-hand as being unsuitable for detecting trends of water vapor in the upper troposphere." - he cites this 2005 study to support this consensus.

"It is of course possible that the observed humidity trends from the NCEP data are simply the result of problems with the instrumentation and operation of the global radiosonde network from which the data are derived. The potential for such problems needs to be examined in detail."

These quotes are not taken out of context, I am not trying to trick you. Read the study for yourself.

For further in-depth criticisms of radiosonde data, please see these reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch3s3-4-2-2.html and http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch3s3-4-1-1.html

Despite these caveats, Paltridge does, quite rightly I feel, argue that "the NCEP data for the middle and upper troposphere should not be “written off”...Since balloon data is the only alternative source of information [as opposed to that taken from satellite measurements] on the past behavior of the middle and upper tropospheric humidity and since that behavior is the dominant control on water vapor feedback, it is important that as much information as possible be retrieved from within the “noise” of the potential errors."

Perhaps unsurprisingly, given our knowledge of Jo Nova's endorsement, what Paltridge found when he examined the NCEP/NCAR data, was that it showed that "the face-value 35-year trend in zonal-average annual-average specific humidity q is significantly negative at all altitudes above 850 hPa (roughly the top of the convective boundary layer) in the tropics and southern midlatitudes and at altitudes above 600 hPa in the northern midlatitudes". In normal language, this means that according to the NCEP/NCAR data, humidity is not increasing at all, but rather decreasing: a 'negative feedback', as opposed to a positive one. The implication of this, is that a fall in humidity could actually compensate for the rise in temperature caused by increased CO2, and thus stabilise the climate. In short, this would be good news.

There are two further brief points to be made regarding the NCEP/NCAR data. The first is that the reanalysis of the humidity data is based on a combination of observations and climate models. This is discussed in depth here - 'The NCEP–NCAR 50-Year Reanalysis: Monthly Means CD-ROM and Documentation'. This report notes that "gridded variables, the most widely used product of the reanalysis, have been classified into three classes"; moisture variables, upon which Paltridge would have relied, fall into the category, 'Type B Variables', which the report describes as being "influenced both by the observations and by the model, and are therefore less reliable [than Type A Variables which "are generally strongly influenced by the available observations"]". A climate model is a complex device used to simulate the interactions of the atmosphere, oceans, land surface, and ice; it is not the same as using empirical evidence. Interestingly, Jo Nova, in The Skeptics Handbook II, describes climate models as relying 'on best guesses, assumptions and estimates' and derides climate researchers for trusting them. The second point is that on both the NCEP reanalysis website and the NCAR reanalysis website a 'problem report' is given, discussing the issues associated with the data. One such issue is titled 'Spurious Moisture Source/Sink', and full details can be found here. In brief, it states that "a poor approximation was used for the humidity diffusion which created spurious moisture sources and sinks"; amongst other things this "can be expected to increase/decrease humidity".

None of the points I have just raised discredit Paltridge's study; he himself is aware of the many problems with using this data, and it would be unscientific to dismiss an accurate and honest study, simply because it does not agree with the scientific consensus. However, it would be equally unscientific to fail to recognise the issues and problems with the data, which Paltridge himself raises, when assessing this study. In essence, his work must be put in perspective.

As Paltridge points out, the negative trends which he observes "are not supported either by the predictions of climate models or by the few indications from satellite observations". He cites three studies which discuss these satellite measurements and models in relation to a positive trend of humidity in the upper troposphere: Bates JJ, Jackson DL (2001) Trends in upper-tropospheric humidity. Geophys Res Lett 28(9):1695–1698 (unavailable); Minschwaner K, Dessler AE (2004) Water vapor feedback in the tropical upper troposphere: model results and observations. J Climate 5:5–21 (here); Soden BJ, Jackson DL, Ramaswamy V, Schwarzkopf MD, Xianglei H (2005) The radiative signature of upper tropospheric moistening. Science 310:841–844 (here).

Satellite measurements are not without their own problems. Changes in technology and measuring processes make merging together data from different satellites a difficult task. Problems include orbital decay and drift, incorrect calibrations, and various other mind-bending phenomena which I'm too scientifically illiterate to fully grasp. If you want to read about the issues, as well as some of the steps taken to correct them, the IPCC outline them here. Despite these issues, satellite data is considered superior to data taken from radiosonde equipment by the overwhelming majority of scientists. The reasons for this are discussed, in detail, in Chapter 3 of the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report.

The conclusion that we have surely now reached in our examination of Paltridge's study is, I believe, neatly summarised in Chapter 3.4.1 of said IPCC report: "Within the community that constructs and actively analyses satellite- and radiosonde-based temperature records there is agreement that the uncertainties about long-term change are substantial. Changes in instrumentation and protocols pervade both sonde and satellite records, obfuscating the modest long-term trends. Historically there is no reference network to anchor the record and establish the uncertainties arising from these changes – many of which are both barely documented and poorly understood. Therefore, investigators have to make seemingly reasonable choices of how to handle these sometimes known but often unknown influences. It is difficult to make quantitatively defensible judgments as to which, if any, of the multiple, independently derived estimates is closer to the true climate evolution."

In the interests of making a 'reasonable choice' about which data to trust, and which conclusion to draw, I would suggest that the data, upon which Paltridge's study is based, is so flawed that it can be deemed virtually unusable as a method for identifying trends in the specific humidity of the middle to upper troposphere.

Reaching that half-hearted conclusion, however, was not the purpose of this exercise. I have not in anyway done anything to prove or disprove the theory of anthropogenic global warming. I have merely pointed out the shortcomings in one particular source, referring to one particular area of the global warming debate. What is clear is that it has now taken me 1,739 words, at least four peer-reviewed scientific studies, the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report, various blogs and websites, and several days, to tell precisely no-one (congratulations if you're still reading), why they should partially refute what Jo Nova has told 200,000 people in 7 words. Those 7 precious words being: "Paltridge found that humidity levels have fallen". This situation epitomises the problem with the climate change debate, but before I move on to discuss such issues I just want to round this critique out.

Along with Paltridge, Nova cites two other studies to back up her assertion that humidity is not providing a positive feedback. She writes: "Lindzen found that as the planet warms it gives off more radiation. Spencer found that as the planet warms, we get fewer high clouds". I don't have the time, nor the will, to do the same for these studies what I did with Paltridge. The point has been demonstrated, that not only is the issue hideously complex when you get down to the real science, but that the confusion is magnified by the idiocy of people like Jo Nova, who think it's OK to state something as fact, when they undoubtedly know (bearing in mind Paltridge points it out himself in the introduction to his study) that it is highly refutable. I chose the Paltridge study to pick apart because it gave the most credence to Nova's argument - the other two appeared more abstract. However, in the interests of completeness, I will briefly, very briefly, address these two remaining studies. Lindzen's study (here) is indeed abstract. It asserts that as the Earth warms, it gives off more radiation, which provides a negative feedback, and helps prevent climate change. It says nothing to negate the role of positive feedbacks such as water vapour, which is, after all, the debate Nova is attempting to wage. In addition to this, Lindzen's study has been thoroughly discredited by various people...http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/08/a-rebuttal-to-a-cool-climate-paper/ and http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/01/first-published-response-to-lindzen-and-choi/ and even http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/03/spencer-on-lindzen-and-choi-climate-feedback-paper /, the latter being a famous 'sceptic' blog. Lindzen himself has also been savaged by the scientific community for various reasons - http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/lindzen-in-newsweek/ and http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/lindzen-point-by-point/...all of which makes for amusing reading. The other study which Nova cites (Spencer et al 2007 - here), was written by one Roy Spencer, whose article criticising Lindzen I just posted up. Once again, the study bears absolutely no relevance to Nova's argument regarding water vapour and humidity. The study concerns the negation of another possible positive feedback: high clouds. High clouds are supposed to increase warming, but Spencer argues that as warming increases there is evidence that high clouds disappear, compensating for the rise in temperature and stabilising the climate. I can find little criticism of this study, or for that matter any comment on it. It may well be accurate, and the behaviour of high clouds may offer a negative feedback, but that does not disprove, or in any way negate, the potential role of increasing humidity as a positive feedback. Indeed, it is widely accepted that a rise in CO2 will kickstart various negative feedbacks, as well as positive ones; an excellent example being the increase in tree size in the tropics - http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/feb/18/trees-tropics-climate-change. The growth of the trees is driven by increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, however, the larger the trees grow, the more CO2 they can soak up, thus going some way to regulating CO2 levels. The debate is not over whether negative feedbacks are occurring, but whether they go any way towards balancing the effect of positive feedbacks.

There is one final point to address in relation to Nova's claims that a positive feedback effect is not a likely outcome of rising Earth temperatures. It is a popular sceptic argument to state that the climate of the Earth has drastically fluctuated before, without any input from humans. This is of course correct, and a 'natural' change in climate will undoubtedly occur again in the future. This begs an important question: if humans weren't there pumping out fossil fuels, then what caused the earlier changes in the Earth's climate? The answer depends on which particular change in the Earth's climate you are referring to. There are two excellently supported incidences of rising greenhouse gas levels causing drastic global warming. The first is known as the 'KT Boundary' - a layer of rocks which documents the impact of a huge meteorite 65 million years ago (the same one that wiped out the dinosaurs). When the meteorite struck, it released vast amounts of CO2 from vaporising carbonate-rich rocks, leading to a massive increase in the greenhouse effect - here's a BBC article discussing its impact. The second incidence is known as the 'Late Palaeocene Thermal Maximum', and took place 55 million years ago. This period saw a dramatic period of warming which is believed to have resulted from several massive releases of methane from the sea floor, probably as a result of continental drift, but possibly as a result of volcanic activity. Thanks to http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/paleo/paleoclimate.htm#ghg_cause for that information. Both of these events demonstrate the impact that rising levels of greenhouse gases, including CO2, could have on the Earth's climate. Other large temperature fluctuations are triggered by Milankovitch cycles - variations in the Earth's orbit that change the amount of energy from the sun that reaches us. But the key point in all of this, which puts rather a large hole in Nova's argument, is that neither the previous releases of greenhouse gases, nor the effects of the Milankovitch cycles, are enough on their own to have caused the vast changes in temperature which have been observed. Both have relied on positive feedback to amplify the changes in temperature which they have caused - without such feedback there would have been no previous fluctuations for the sceptics to point at and say, 'but look, the climate has changed before'. This study, published in the journal 'Nature', points out the importance of increased tropospheric humidity in amplifying a warming effect during the Late Palaeocene Thermal Maximum. The importance of rising levels of atmospheric CO2, another amplifier, as a result of Milankovitch cycles is discussed here. In essence, in order to explain previous changes in the global climate, we must account for positive feedback from a variety of sources. If we argue, like Nova, that temperature rises are not causing a positive feedback loop, then we must find other explanations for previous climate change.

When I was studying for my degree, I would, occasionally, take a quote out of context, or neglect to include critical opinion which contradicted my argument. When your essay title is 'How does Milton’s ‘Lycidas’ draw upon and reform the tradition of pastoral elegy?', and the only person who is going to read it is your tutor, doing this is, at worst, stupid and unscholarly. When you take quotes out of context and fail to represent a fair exploration of the facts in a booklet concerning a phenomena that has the potential to destroy mankind, and what you write will be read by hundreds of thousands of people, you should be charged with some sort of crime.

I did not scour the internet for a sceptical snippet of information which I could dissect and take apart. Jo Nova's handbook was merely the first populist piece, which had the potential to affect people's opinions on climate change, that I came across. I did not spend time combing over it looking for fault. Her argument about humidity and positive/negative feedback was simply the first point I came to which had the potential to rubbish the theory of anthropogenic global warming. Her point appeared to be supported by studies, and if it had turned out to be true, I would have been thoroughly persuaded that human global warming is a scam. If what I have written above has not completely disproven what Nova has argued, it has, at the very least, demonstrated that the issue at hand is far more complex and uncertain than she gives it credit for.

The kind of attitude shown by Nova to the global warming debate is one which is sadly reflected by a large number of writers and scientists on both sides of the divide. Indeed, those who believe in anthropogenic global warming are by no means innocent. The current head of the IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri, recently declared a report for the Indian government, which refuted the IPCC's claim that the Himalayan glaciers would have disappeared by 2035, to be 'voodoo science'. The report was later demonstrated to be correct and the IPCC had to issue a correction to their own assessment. The email hack at the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit has demonstrated the flaws with both the peer-review process, and certain scientists attitudes to scientific principle. A lot of what the sceptics have said regarding 'Climategate' is nonsense - an excellent demonstration of exactly why it's nonsense can be found here - if you're interested read it, I'm not going to go over the ins and outs. However, some of what has been discovered in the leaked emails is inexcusable. The two most obvious faults are as follows. 1) Days after receiving a request for information from the British climate change sceptic David Holland in may 2008, Phil Jones (head of the CRU) asked Prof Mike Mann of Pennsylvania State University in the United States: "Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith [Briffa] re AR4? Keith will do likewise" and "Can you also email Gene [Eugene Wahl, a paleoclimatologist in Boulder, Colorado] and get him to do the same ... We will be getting Caspar [Ammann, also from Boulder] to do the same." This is a clear suppression of information and has been quite rightly condemned by the Information Commissioner's Office. 2) In June 2003, as an editor of an unnamed journal, CRU scientist, Keith Briffa, emailed fellow tree-ring researcher Edward Cook, a researcher at Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in New York, saying: "Confidentially I now need a hard and if required extensive case for rejecting [an unnamed paper] – to support Dave Stahle's and really as soon as you can. Please." This clearly violates the convention that peer-reviewers should be independent and anonymous, and as such should be thoroughly investigated. Beyond this I have seen nothing that warrants attention.

The problem, as always, is complex. The peer-reviewing system is designed to weed out the 'bad' science, however, in highly specialised fields, papers will often be reviewed by those whom the paper has set out to discredit. Bias is often unavoidable. There have also been cases of journal editors fast tracking papers which have been negatively peer-reviewed, simply because they personally agree with them. An excellent example of this (in this case a sceptical paper being published by a sceptical editor) can be found here.

Due to a lack of availability it is almost impossible to independently assess whether a paper has been rejected because its science is flawed, or because its science disagrees with the scientific consensus. In this atmosphere of confusion, honesty and openness are vital in maintaining credibility. These are traits which the UEA CRU has been shown to be seriously lacking in. If the claims made against the scientific consensus are as shoddy as Nova's then they should be easily dismantled. The issue of course is time. As I have adequately shown, it is a long and arduous process to explain the complexity behind climate change. I can fully understand the frustration of those scientists who spend their lives observing intricate and problematic data, before drawing careful, and sometimes speculative, conclusions, only to be faced with a moronic or simplistic criticism which, while false, will take a considerable amount of time to refute. It is of course often the way that by the time the original criticism has been refuted, the damage has been done and many people will be reaffirmed in their belief that anthropogenic climate change is a big hoax. However, irritating as this may be, dismantling must be done; sweeping under the rug is no longer an option.

What is clear, is that there needs to be a refreshed attitude towards the entire debate. More raw data sources need to be released; the peer-reviewing process should be reviewed; the arrogance with which some scientists conduct themselves needs to be purged; freedom of information requests should be answered; findings which go against the scientific consensus should not be dismissed simply because they are contrary - if the science appears sound they should be added to the wealth of information which has already been amassed and considered as a problem in their own right. There needs to be a degree of modesty gained, and an end to the attempted character assassination of other scientists from both sides. We, the public, deserve the truth, and the best way to reach that truth is through a thorough application of objective scientific principles.

The website 'Skeptical Science', which I relied on heavily in the composition of this essay, is an excellent resource for information concerning anthropogenic climate change. Despite its name, it is not sceptical of human induced climate change, but rather argues for its existence. It is worth pointing out, however, that in its section concerning the role of water vapour as a contributer to climate change, it fails in any way to mention the Paltridge study, or the potential faults with satellite data. This is a great shame, and serves to demonstrate the unwillingness of those who believe in anthropogenic climate change to voice anything which might call into question certain assumptions. For an argument to be truly successful you should preclude the objections of others by discussing the potential weaknesses of your own arguments. In the section of this essay concerning Jo Nova's claims about humidity, I have endeavoured to represent every possible facet of the argument, and in the process I believe I have reached a truthful conclusion which recognises its own uncertainties. This should be a model for debate concerning climate change. A full and proper representation of differing 'facts' and theories is all too often missing.

Journalists, columnists, and television personalities all have their role to play. The James Delingpole's of this world need to cut the polemical nonsense and take a responsible approach to the issue. It is from these mouthpieces that the unwashed masses garner their information and form their opinions.

Of course, in the time that it has taken me to write this, a number of plant and animal species will have become extinct. Some of these species we won't have even discovered yet, but now they are lost, and the potential medicinal or technological advances they could have held are lost with them. There is now less coal, gas, and oil in the world than when I started, and we are a step closer to an age when we have little rather than plenty. The amazon rainforest will now be smaller than it was when I began my first sentence. There are more people on the Earth now than when I started this essay, and they are relying on an ever-more precarious food supply. In short, global warming is only one concern. The furious debate over its existence has somewhat obscured the issue of the damage we are undeniably doing to our planet every day. However, if we follow the advice on combating climate change, by cutting carbon emissions, we will also build ourselves a more sustainable economy upon which we may thrive, as well as protecting diversity in the Amazon rainforest, which is at risk from future oil extraction. It is not the only thing we must do, but it is a start. It is often that you hear the phrase, 'save the planet'. The planet does not need saving; the planet will be fine. Should humans disappear tomorrow it would not take long for Earth to return to its 'natural' state. If we don't curb our destruction of the environment it will be us who lose out. We will kill ourselves and wipe out our species. It is humans that need saving.

Grumpy people are more evolved

2010-02-01T15:34:00.004Z

Researchers now believe that being aggressive, intolerant and short-tempered could be a sign of a more advanced nature. Win.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/7103354/Grumpiness-is-a-sign-of-advanced-civilisation.html

During your times of trial and tribulation, when you see only one set of footprints in the sand, it was then that Uncle Phil carried you

2010-01-30T21:27:00.007Z

Haha!

Two new documentaries that look like they're worth seeing

2010-01-30T21:19:00.007Z

Joe Berlinger and Michael Moore offer up their latest projects.

Modern Art is rubbish

2010-01-29T16:12:00.031Z

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/arts_and_culture/8486011.stm

'Artist' Michael Landy, who is famous for once destroying everything he owned - which is now apparently a foolproof fast-track to international recognition - has launched his latest artistic malapropism: a 600 cubic metre perspex box, known as the 'Art Bin', into which he is encouraging members of the public and better known artists to toss their 'failed' art. At the end of the exhibition, the contents of the bin will be sent to landfill.

Landy has described it as 'a monument to creative failure', presumably unaware of its imminent status as a monument of creative failure. A friend of mine kindly described it as 'a waste', although did concede that 'the first instance of waste occurred some time ago' in the production of the original 'artworks'. I personally have no qualms with the notion of gathering together a vast collection of modern art, from a selection of the world's most renowned artists, and then throwing them all into a landfill, where they will be crushed and buried, never to assault the senses again. If pushed on the matter, I would prefer for them to be recycled, and turned into something more aesthetically pleasing, like a bottle, or a drawing pin. But if you're going to launch a ceremonial destruction of modern art, I don't want to hear about it; it should be a personal, cathartic act of righteousness, in which no man should share. In the act of publicising his destruction, and by granting it the label, 'installation', Landy has surpassed himself, and the rest of the modern art world, in it's desperate race to out-cunt itself. Never, in the long, rich history of shit modern art, has an artist plumbed such unfathomable depths.

If there's anything good to come of this, it's that such an act may herald the dawn of a new post-avant-garde-new-wave-futurist era in which the modern art world will slowly begin to eat itself. Perhaps ten years from now it will have wiped itself out, as in a final flurry of genius, artists will burn all existing works and fling themselves from the nearest high point as part of a global installation 'exploring the limits of human experience while reflecting the transient nature of our times, and the merging of man and nature...yadda yadda'.

Here's hoping.

I want to pay

2010-01-29T08:38:00.015Z

I'm getting pretty sick of the steady stream of 'Abolish Tuition Fee' groups that seem to be proliferating on facebook...examples here, here, and here.

I think that as a student, especially as one who was in the first intake to be hit by 'top up fees', it is tempting to bemoan the system, and complain about being up to my eyeballs in a debt which is going to take me half my life to pay off. But I feel that would be a little short-sighted. And anyway, I've got the NUS to do all that moaning for me. The National Union of Students and all that. That is their job after all - to moan on student's behalf, put students first, and fight for the best possible outcome for those students - which is all very well, but it renders them virtually useless if you want to quote them as an independent and justified source for backing up an anti-fees argument. It's hardly surprising that the NUS was against the introduction of top up fees, and is now against the lifting of the cap; it has students interests at heart, and solely student's interests. You might as well ask David Cameron why you should vote for David Cameron at the next election, and then use that to form a cohesive argument about why you should vote for David Cameron at the next election. Just because the NUS says it, doesn't make it right or logical.

In 1998, when it became apparent that the rising number of people studying at university was becoming economically unsustainable, the government introduced the first round of tuition fees; a contribution of between £0 and £1,250 per year, dependent on a student's parent's income. It is important to note that these fees were to be paid upfront by students or their families. The government continued to subsidize the remainder of the fees, and students were also entitled to a means-tested loan of up to £4,000 to help them cope with the cost of living at university. This loan was paid back at 9% of a graduate's gross income over a £15,000 threshold, and the rate of interest was tied to the rate of inflation.

When, in 2004, it became clear that the government budget could still not cope with the burgeoning student population, it was decided that the £1,250 yearly cap on tuition fees should be raised to £3,225, with the government continuing to subsidize the remainder. However, rather than pay the fees up front (as was the case previously), they would now be paid by the government-owned 'Student Loans Company', and once graduated, individuals would repay this loan in an identical way to that in which the original maintenance loan was paid back (at 9% of a graduate's gross income over a £15,000 threshold, and with the rate of interest tied to inflation). In real terms this means a graduate earning a starting salary of £18,000 would pay back £5.19 per week. It's also worth noting that the maintenance loan arrangement continued unchanged, with students still eligible for up to £4,000.

In the past year, due to a continued funding crisis, there has been much talk about ending government subsidy (or 'removing the cap') altogether. This would mean that students would foot the whole bill for their education, using a system almost identical to the current one.

Now, there are some really important points to make. Firstly, when the government introduced top up fees, they also introduced a system of means-tested, non-repayable grants of up to £2,700 per student. In addition to this, universities were instructed to recycle more than a quarter of the money they received from fees back into bursaries; in 2006/07, the typical bursary for a student receiving the full maintenance grant, on a course charging the full £3,070 tuition fee, was expected to be around £1,000 ("Are top-up fees good or bad?" - Independent). Do the math, and you'll find that there's a fair chance the poorest students could actually be GIVEN money as a result of the 'top up fees' system. The second important point is that any outstanding loans after 25 years will be cancelled, and that if at any time a graduate dips below the £15,000 income threshold, their loan repayments will temporarily cease. It is also vital to note, that student loans are NOT taken into consideration when graduates apply for a mortgage. The third and final point is that, as has already been stated, the student loans are linked to the 'Retail Price Index of Inflation', meaning that in real terms, they are interest free - the interest charged on them simply keeps the loan at an equivalent value in line with inflation. They are not commercial, nor are they profitable for the government.

With that in mind, I find it hard to understand how anybody can object to either top up fees, or the removal of the cap altogether. The alternative to students eventually paying for their own higher education, is that 'the taxpayer' forks out. This would require a rise of roughly 3% in income tax - (http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2005/oct/04/highereducation.uk). I don't think it right that someone who has made a conscious decision not to go to university, or someone who has been, for whatever reason, unable to go to university, should pay for me to do a degree.

One of the central objections to increased tuition fees is that it will discourage students from poorer families from continuing with their studies. Indeed, UCAS reported a fall of 12,000 applicants for the year 2006-2007 - the year in which top up fees were enforced. While this number may have been affected by a variety of factors, there is no doubt the increase in top up fees was largely to blame. However, the problem lies not in the system, but in the way it has been represented. It is a failing of the media, schools, universities, and the government, that certain young people should perceive this system in a negative light, and be put off attending university because of it.

In the latest NUS report on Higher Education funding, the following are cited as two central complaints regarding fees; "Students have to take a huge financial risk, with no guarantee of success", and "Students have to work far more to support themselves than ever before". Both of these statements are fantasy. Students are taking no financial risk; as has been pointed out, if they fail to earn over £15,000 they will not be under any obligation to repay their loan. And this notion about students having to work harder to support themselves, which keeps cropping up in the debate, is complete garbage. Why would the introduction of a fee which you pay back AFTER you've graduated have any effect on the need for students to support themselves throughout their degree? I'm yet to hear a response which makes any coherent sense. The NUS are clutching at straws in a desperate attempt to get the best deal for students; and good for them, that's what they're supposed to do.

It's been suggested that rather than asking students to pay back a fixed amount, a scheme could be introduced whereby graduates pay, for example, 5% of any income over £25,000 to their universities - a form of 'graduate tax'. This would mean that those who have done 'best', would pay back more into the system than those who were struggling. This has two flaws. The first is that it could discourage people from going to university, as they will then be aware that an unlimited amount of their future earnings could be stripped from them. Second, there is no way of measuring how much somebody's success is down to their degree or university experiences; thus it would seem unfair to take 5% of a highly successful entrepreneur's earnings, when he had a rotten time at university and has never used his or her degree. This scheme may work better with a cap in place, although I feel that this would fail to resolve the second problem.

For those who are anti-fee and failing miserably in a debate, a final, desperate cry is often, 'well the government should pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan and spend the money they're wasting there on funding higher education'. This is a different argument for a different day, but suffice to say, even if pulling out was a viable or morally just action, we could just as easily say that that money should be assigned to policing, the NHS, care for the elderly, primary or secondary schooling, developing renewable energy, transport, or whatever our particular area of interest is. It still seems incredibly strange to me that some of those who go to university expect those who did not, to pay for them.

I chose to go university, and I'm happy to pay for the privilege...eventually.

Shame on you England

2010-01-28T13:37:00.005Z

If I needed a reason to be reminded why a large percentage of the human race are half-wits (I didn't), then this is it, doing the rounds on facebook statuses today...

"Shame on you ENGLAND !!!!!! the only country where we have homeless without shelter ,our troops without the proper equipment, children going to bed without eating, elderly going without needed meds, and mentally ill without treatment - yet we donate £50 million to the people of Haiti ... 99% of people won't have the guts to copy and repost."

or

"Shame on you America: the only country where we have homeless without shelter, children going to bed without eating, elderly going without needed meds, and mentally ill without treatment - yet we have a benefit for the people of Haiti on 12 TV stations AND THEY RAISED MILLIONS! . 99% of people won't have the guts to copy and repost this---."

or very occasionally

"Shame on you BRITAIN !!!!!! the only country where we have homeless without shelter, children going to bed without eating, elderly going without needed meds, mentally ill without treatment, troops without proper equipment, - yet we donate £50 million to the people of Haiti ... 99% of people won't have the guts to copy ..."

Oh dear.

Delingpole fail

2010-01-28T12:45:00.015Z

James Delingpole, perhaps the most annoying person ever (after Glenn Beck), ran a pretty vicious article yesterday, which has since been removed (presumably on legal grounds), which, in its vitriol, published the full name and address of a man who wrote the following letter to his local MP:

"Dear Edwin Northover

I was concerned to note the results of a survey of 140 Conservative candidates for parliament that suggested that climate change came right at the bottom of their priorities for government action.
I hope you can reassure me that you recognise the importance and success of climate change action by the UK government at home and internationally.
Can you clarify that:
You accept that climate change is caused by human activity?
Do you support the target to achieve 15% renewable energy by 2020?
Do you support the EU imposing tougher regulation to combat climate change?

Kind Regards, *** ***"

As a result, the gentleman concerned received a large amount of abuse at his home.

George Monbiot covers the story here.

I then emailed James Delingpole, which can be done here, and wrote the following:

"Dear James,

I was just writing to ask for your telephone number and home address, so that I can post them on the internet. That way, all the people who think you're a complete moron can let you know. I thought this only fair.

Yours in expectation,

David Grocott"

I would encourage anyone else to do the same.

UPDATE: Delingpole has now posted an apology here.

Things the Daily Mail says give you cancer

2010-01-27T14:08:00.011Z

What's she got to have cancer about?

2010-01-26T13:06:00.008Z

Does that sound like a pertinent question? Perhaps, 'why does she have cancer' would be slightly more appropriate, after all if a woman is diagnosed with breast cancer then we might look at the risk factors: age, family history, reproductive history, oral pill use etc. Still, it would seem strange for the question of 'why?' to be our most immediate reaction. And would that be a question we'd actually ask to the lady with the cancer, rather than simply confining to the scrutiny of our own minds? Surely the most common reaction is to say, 'how awful, let me know if I can do anything to help'. No inquiry into the reasons why, no questions of choice. No one chooses to have cancer, they can't think their way out of it, and they haven't 'got anything to have cancer about'. I'm not quite sure why the same doesn't apply to depression.

After the author, Marian Keyes, announced to the world last week that she was too depressed to write, the Daily Mail ran an article entitled - "Author Marian Keyes has fans across the world and a husband who adores her. So why is she so depressed she can't eat, sleep or write a word?"

Just replace the word depressed with cancer, and see how much sense it makes.

In fairness to the Mail, in true tabloid fashion, the article itself gives only a casual nod of recognition to the headline it follows; it does acknowledge that Marian's material success, happy marriage, and general life achievements 'offer no protection from this 'crippling' disease she says is making her life 'hell'. However, it then goes on to explore her childhood, previous alcohol addiction, weight, looks, societal pressures, and lack of children.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying all these things don't have an effect. Any competent psychologist will explain that depression is caused by a complex mixture of genetics, diet, lifestyle, childhood experiences, the stress of our jobs, and so on. The combination of one, two, or more of these factors can conspire to change the chemistry in our brains which leads to depression. Sometimes lifestyle factors need to be addressed, sometimes people get depressed for no explicable reason and simply need medication to restore their chemical balance. The point is that it seems strange to be asking all these questions about someone's illness. We would not ask the same questions of a celebrity with breast cancer. 'What's their diet like?' 'Did they breast feed?' 'Did their grandmother have cancer?' We would accept that they are ill with something not of their making, and that would be that.

We all wade through the same coloured shit and it doesn't bring everyone down; there are always a hundred possibilities why someone could be depressed, but never a reason. Depression is an irrational and illogical state, and to attempt to approach it from a logical angle is ill-judged. The best thing to do is accept that it happens, and treat it like it should be treated, as an illness.

Bye Bye Cadbury

2010-01-26T04:14:00.007Z

Leaving aside the obvious puns about flaky directors, fudged deals, wispa'd rumours, credit crunchie, and assets being milked (although I will of course list them here in a potentially ill-judged attempt to demonstrate literary flair), today's take-over of Cadbury, by the American plastic cheese manufacturer, 'Kraft', is an unmitigated prolapse in the fabric of human, environmental, and economic well-being.

There was no justifiable reason for Cadbury to be bought out. It wasn't teetering on the brink of extinction; it was a high-growth successful company, with an iconic brand name and a firm fan-base. So why was it bought out, and why is that bad for us all?

When Kraft - a flat-lining, low growth, conglomerate mess - first approached Cadbury with an offer some 5 months ago, they were soundly turned down. But when the hedge funds got wind of the approach, they bet on Kraft's tenacity and started buying up large swathes of shares in Cadbury, hoping that any takeover would push up Cadbury's share price. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy - by owning a large percentage of Cadbury shares, the hedge funds had significant sway over what the board of directors chose to do (as the board simply has to reflect the wishes of the share holders). So with the hedge funds putting pressure on, Cadbury was sold, and the share price shot up, making a few already very rich people a lot more money. In addition to that, investment bankers, lawyers, accountants and PR advisers have racked up fees at a rate of more than £2m a day for the last 5 months in the battle for control of Cadbury - "£2m a day cost of Cadbury deal – plus £12m for the boss"

The deal-makers and the fixers rake in the cash, while everyone else picks up the pieces. Kraft took on £7bn of debt in order to buy Cadbury, which means there's going to be a large amount of 'rationalisation' - code for job losses and asset stripping. Cadbury's fair trade certification is a prime contender for the axe when the cost-cutting begins. Think the Glazer's, but with chocolate.

Gordon Brown's promises to insure that 'levels of investment' remain the same and that 'jobs' are made 'secure', is completely redundant. Decisions from now on will be made in Illinois, once removed from the soon-to-be jobless humans in Bournville, and anything Brown says about 'pressure' on Kraft is a load of hot air.

A stable economy, like pretty much a stable anything else, relies on diversity to flourish. If Kraft ever comes tumbling down, it'll now bring Cadbury with it. And economy's not the only thing to suffer from the destruction of diversity. We all lose out. A couple of days ago George Monbiot wrote the following: 'All industries strive not only towards monopoly but also towards monoculture: domination of the natural or cultural landscape. This is what George Orwell meant when he remarked that "the logical end of mechanical progress is to reduce the human being to something resembling a brain in a bottle". Industry, if left unchecked, tolerates no deviance. It seeks to shrink both the range of human experience and the wonders of the natural world until they fit into the container it has made for them.'

And he's right. That's what unchecked industry does; merges everything into an indistinguishable grey gloop, in which everything is owned by everything else and men spend their days slapping each other on the back and giving motivational speeches. It is diversity which is the cultural fabric of our lives. Charles de Gaulle once moaned that it was tricky managing a country that produces four hundred types of cheese, but I don't think anyone seriously wants to live in a dairylea world.

Plenty of City boys and girls will be popping corks next week over a job well done. Before long there will be brutal cuts to public spending in order to pay for a recession caused by the short-term, purely profit-driven thinking of financiers. In the post-recession world, nothing has changed.

So, who to turn the impotent wrath of my blame on? Well apart from the soulless individuals who somehow manage to justify spending their life doing a job which essentially consists of buying things and then selling things to make money for other people, with no view to the consequences of their actions, I think the buck really has to stop with the government. Business is business, industry is what industry does, to expect any form of ethical self-regulation is deluded. Unfortunately, the Labour government removed the last vestiges of a public interest clause in competition law back in 1998, leaving them ludicrously impotent when it comes to intervening in business. Mandelson's recent warning to the Cadbury's bidders that they could not 'come here and make a fast buck' was laughable. It's time the government took a real stance against the shameless, money-driven, anti-human mob that is the financial sector, because while we wait, diversity is melting, and congealing into a pool of celebrity biography and processed cheese. Obama stood up and started, and now we have to join him.

UPDATE: 09/02/10 - Surprise surprise, Kraft have announced they will be closing the Cadbury factory in Somerdale after all. The factory was due to be closed by Cadbury anyway, but Kraft had promised that if their takeover was successful then they would keep it open.

In exasperation at a miserable Question Time - written 27/11/09

2010-01-26T02:52:00.005Z

What an absolutely dismal night of general ignorance and stupidity. One might hope that Question Time, being the flagship political programme that it is, would be stocked with reasonably intelligent, well read, and capable individuals, instead we got Melanie Phillips.

This is the woman who still harbours suspicions that Obama might be a Muslim (God forbid!), called Civil Partnerships for homosexuals 'toxic', argued that while 'individual Palestinians may deserve compassion, their cause amounts to Holocaust denial as a national project', advocates the teaching of creationism alongside evolution, and compared environmentalists to Nazis. Nice. Thanks BBC. And she hasn't even got the excuse of receiving a million votes in a European election...

So after the show had stumbled through a prolonged period of naive contributions concerning the war in Iraq, during which the only point anyone (with the exception of Melanie Phillips - something good at last!) managed to make, involved the sentence 'but he didn't have any WMD' - as if that was the crux of the matter - it moved onto a section concerning climate change, prompted I think (memory lapse) by the 'news' that some emails between climate scientists at UEA had been hacked into and distributed, and they appeared to cast doubt on climate change research (more on this later). So off Mel went, 'climate change is a fallacy'; 'the amount of ice is actually increasing rather than decreasing'. The mind can only boggle at which particular item of junk science or dodgy report she had gleaned her worthless information from, but just to demonstrate how easy it is for a statistic drawn from thin air, run through a couple of typos, and spat out by the likes of a Daily Mail columnist can become a solid piece of evidence against the extent of climate change, this is well worth having a look at - http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2005/05/10/junk-science/

All I can say is thank fuck for Marcus Brigstocke, who made a robust defence for the devastating impacts of climate change, only to receive a smug shake of the head from Mel. The debate, sadly, only continued to go downhill. The next contribution came from a well-meaning but woolly-between-the-ears lady, who was aghast at Mel's denial of climate change, when so many had suffered in recent days in 'the Cocklemouth floods'. Here's an article explaining why the floods happened - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8376031.stm. As you can see, they were caused by a number of intertwining and complex factors, and 'the only aspect of the downpour which climate change may have contributed to...[was that] sea temperatures in [the] source region were some 2°C to 3°C above the November average, enhancing the potential absorption of moisture by the airstream.' While the article clearly doesn't dismiss the role of climate change in these abject weather conditions, it is quite clear in its explanations that this was a freak event, caused by a number of highly unusual factors. Bringing up such a negligible event (in the sense of climate change only having a minimal impact) during a serious discussion on climate change is pretty unhelpful, leaving the 'climate change camp' open to legitimate criticism, and potentially undermining the argument. Of course it was further dwelled on by Nicola Sturgeon MP (from whom as an MP you might have expected a little more knowledge), who described it as an excellent reason to do something about climate change.

Then it was David Davis' turn to say something stupid. He said he was '80%' sure global warming was man-made. Fair enough. Then he said that it was important not to be wrong though. Fair enough. We need to be certain. Yeh. Because if we're wrong we will slow down growth. Ye...what? I mean yes, we will slow down growth, and sorry why is that a negative? Davis did that horribly condescending thing (which always seems to go unnoticed), of sweeping away the cultural importance of entire continents in one swift phrase. He declared that by slowing down growth it will be the poorest people in the world who suffer, as if somehow they all definitely want, nay need, to be like us, all suited and booted, driving around in their flash cars, chained to the joys of capitalism. 'The Way' is the West. This is what it's all about, he seemed to say. Growth. Yeh. We all seem really contented.

There was then an inane comment from a woman quite clearly employed by the airline industry, bemoaning the recent tax hikes on aviation fuels. Her argument went something like this: 'yeh, them boats use loads of fuel and that, they're not getting no tax, why don't you give us a break, and tax them instead'. I think this point speaks for itself.

So after a brief rummage around the issue of Scottish independence, which as ever managed to blather on about how hard done by Scotland is, tied as it is to its low-lying, trouser-wearing neighbours, while simultaneously (and rather miraculously) managing to avoid the West Lothian Question, it was all over.

Bed time I thought, oh but here's 'This Week', i'll just have a quick watch...and up came the issue of climate change. Diana Abbot brought up the Cumbrian floods again - for fuck sake. And then Michael Portillo proved himself to be an absolute tosser. He started yacking on about how climate change is all a bit over-hyped and doubtful. Said he'd read an article by Nigel Lawson which made him doubt it all (it wasn't by Nigel Lawson, but it did feature him heavily and it's here - http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3778985.ece). How Portillo managed to garner anything positive from the article, i'm not quite sure, but there you go. This is Nigel Lawson, who called his daughter Nigella Lawson. I mean really. Perhaps worse than that (perhaps), he was the man responsible for deregulating the banks when he was Margaret Thatcher's chancellor, so you can blame him for the mess we're in. Anyway read the article for yourself. It's most amusing.

Portillo then went on to not only prove himself an idiot, but to actually commit libel. He declared his doubt had been shown to be justified by the recent evidence that scientists at the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit had been 'doctoring the data' (quote unquote) on climate change. This was the 'story' we touched on earlier. Some hackers broke into a UEA server and stole a large amount of data and private emails from the Climate Research Unit - here's the story http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/20/climate-sceptics-hackers-leaked-emails. The emails were then circulated on the internet, and cherry picked for incriminating statements to show that climate change is a hoax. Nigel has of course called for an inquiry into these claims of manipulation! Anyway, here is an explanation of what actually happened and what the emails were about - http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/. And I hope Portillo gets his fucking arse sued off by those scientists for his ill-informed accusation of bad practice.

What hope is there for man's progress towards sustainability when the politicians in charge and the journalists giving us our news are so hideously miss-informed? For me it's not really about climate change or global warming, it's about sustainability and 'treading lightly'. I don't believe we should leach off the world's resources. We should make as little impact as possible, and if global warming slows down as a result of that then jolly good. Perhaps it won't, perhaps it's just a natural and unavoidable cycle. The Earth will certainly cool down or warm up one day, whether man were here or not. But all the evidence points towards this particular warming being down to man's actions. The sooner we lose our arrogance and realise that it is not 'our' world, it is 'the' world and we must try and be as one with it as much as possible, the better. And the sooner people like Mel, Nigel, and Portillo shut their fucking pie-holes, then also the better.

Why the BNP should be allowed on Question Time - written 22/10/09

2010-01-26T02:50:00.003Z

Seeing as everyone's talking about it and it's going to be on T.V in a couple of hours, I thought I might as well put my two pennies in.

I suppose the first thing to say is that, despite the attempted proliferation of Unite Against Fascism et al's views, the majority opinion seems to be that the BNP should be allowed to appear on Question Time. Racism bad, free speech good, and all that. Even the government appears to be generally supportive (Culture Secretary Ben Bradshaw said that most of the cabinet did not share Mr Hain's view), although Gordon Brown has remained characteristically spineless and said he doesn't want to comment. So I don't feel like I'm bucking any particular trend here, just reiterating the sensible masses' viewpoints.

Why should they be allowed? I think freedom of speech is the obvious answer. Thankfully Orwell's vision is yet to fully materialise and thus we are entitled to hear the opinions of those who we may well disagree with. There are legal limits to what can be said, as Nick Griffin well knows, having previously been prosecuted and found guilty of inciting racial hatred, so don't expect Question Time to be an hour of racial slurring. But outside of these legal bounds, people are free to say what they wish, and thank goodness they are. The government could choose to have the BNP catagorised as a proscribed organisation which would leave them unable to publicly voice their opinions, but clearly it has not chosen to do so, and as the BNP will be standing in the next general election it seems an obvious step to allow it to tell us what it is all about.

There appears to be a general fear from the far left, that by enabling the BNP to voice its viewpoints we pave the way for its acceptance, legitimacy, and more worringly, increase its share of the vote. I think this argument falls apart for two very different but very important reasons. The first is that if the BNP's policies, viewpoints, and personnel are as bad as the the left say they are then presumably this will quickly be shown up by, if not Griffin himself, then the other hopefully capable panel members (more on this later). The way to expose an idiot is surely to let him speak for himself. The second, perhaps more controversial reason why the idea of a legitimate BNP should not be a worry is because if the BNP do receive more votes as a result of appearing on Question Time then it is a clear indication that something somewhere is very wrong, and that the sooner something is done about it the better.

The political mainstream appears to be very good at pretending there isn't an issue, but the BNP's two seats in the European Parliament, and now its appearance on Question Time, may perhaps finally force it into a degree of realisation. Here is the crux of the matter: whether problems are real or imagined, they are still problems if someone believes in them. If Betty from Marple believes that immigration is causing a housing shortage, a job shortage, and a rise in violent crime, then it is a problem. Why is it a problem? It is a problem because that is one vote for the BNP, a party which wants to eject anyone who isn't white from this country.

The main political parties need to wake up and realise that certain sections of society are feeling disenchanted, and that this is manifesting itself in support of the BNP. It doesn't matter that BNP voters are more often than not ignorant, ill-educated, and above all wrong; they have their opinions and they are voting. It does not mean that there is necessarily a problem with immigration, but it means that their most certainly is a problem with people's perceptions of immigration, and more importantly their perceptions of what the current political mainstream are doing (or not doing) about it. I'm not suggesting the big political parties adopt BNP policy in an attempt to draw its vote, but there is quite clearly plenty of education that needs to be done amongst certain sections of society, and a more concerted effort from the mainstream to address their concerns, whether they are legitimate concerns or not.

The current Home Secretary Alan Johnson appeared on last weeks Question Time claiming that he would refuse to engage in any form of public debate with the BNP. What a frankly ridiculous decision. Almost a million people voted for the BNP in the European elections. It is too late to pretend they don't exist. Edmund Burke said that 'All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing', which I think very neatly sums up the notion of no-platform. Thankfully there are those willing to share a stage with the BNP in order to denounce their views.

And what of those who are sharing the stage with Griffin? I have to say i'm a little dissapointed. No Galloway, no Benn. Griffin is clever and manipulative and I hope that the panellists are up to the job of nailing his views.

If I'm honest I think it's going to be a dissapointing show, in which Griffin wriggles his way out of difficult questions between irritating shouting from some idiot in the studio audience. At least the British are vaguely being stirred from their political apathy.

I think the Deputy Director-General of the BBC, Mark Byford, summed up my feelings when he said: 'they should have the right to be heard, be challenged, and for the public who take part in Question Time and the viewers to make up their own minds about the views of the BNP'.

If those who are exposed to the views of the BNP are seduced by them, then there has either been an alarming failure by those who will be appearing alongside Griffin tonight, or there is a problem in society which needs addressing (even if that is simply a re-education), rather than simply sweeping under the rug.

A literary and philosophical review of 'The God Delusion' - written 30/11/08

2010-01-26T02:40:00.003Z

We agree on something...

Let me first say I am no fan of religious fundamentalism ; I find the idea of a desert religion , which supposes the earth and everything on it was made in seven days approximately 4000 years ago, and was then transposed wholesale around the world, frankly ridiculous.

As Einstein said (and Dawkins quotes at the beginning of his chapter regarding morality):

‘Strange is our situation here on Earth. Each of us comes for a short visit, not knowing why...however, there is one thing we do know: that man is here for the sake of other men – above all for those upon whose smiles and well-being our own happiness depends’.

I find this belief (which I share) incompatible with the notion of organised religion, which condemns to damnation any individual who fails to support a particular belief system. If there is a personal God, then I’m hedging my bets that he’s going to be benevolent enough to understand scepticism concerning an unproven (and unprovable) theory, and respect a life lived with respect for other humans and the planet on which I live. If he turns out to not be that benevolent, then I’m not sure ‘heaven’ is really going to be all it’s cracked up to be, and maybe I’d be better of toasting my marshmallows over the fires of hell.

Widespread belief in Abrahamic religions is, I believe, a waste of human time. There is evidence to support Darwin’s theory of evolution; there is evidence to prove the earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old; there is evidence to demonstrate that the universe is not static. The ridiculous notion that creationism should be toasted as an alternative to evolution in schools, is just that, ridiculous. The time that is spent on attempting to prove the absurd would be better spent helping to improve the conditions within which humanity lives, or furthering our scientific understanding of the world around us.

So that’s the bit I agree with Dawkins on. Well done for saying it Sir, but you could have saved yourself 420 pages and an awful lot of time.

An Atheist Fundamentalism

Before I get on to the deeper problems with Dawkins’ philosophy I’d like to address some of the things he says about religion which I don’t agree with. Even as a non-believer in organised religion I find him insulting and ignorant, as I shall demonstrate.

A typically authoritative and unsubstantiated Dawkins quote:

‘To the vast majority of believers around the world, religion all too closely resembles what you hear from the likes of...Osama Bin Laden or the Ayatolloah Khomeini’.

Perhaps Dawkins lives in a particularly fervent village, but last time I went to the Christingle service I don’t recall the Vicar having an AK47.

With regards to the Montreal police strike in 1969, when all hell (excuse the pun) broke loose, Dawkins declares it is his 'uninformed prediction' that religious believers looted and destroyed more than unbelievers. Such unfounded scare-mongering is both unhelpful and prejudice. I might suggest that if he is so 'uninformed', he should refrain from predicting.

More seriously Dawkins appears to solely blame religion for the ills of this world. He asks us to imagine a world without religion, with no Northern Ireland ‘troubles’ (a situation which is fuelled by the desire of one half of N. Ireland to join the Republic, and other half to remain with the UK – it is undeniably linked to tensions between (loyalist) protestants and (republican) catholics, but religion cannot shoulder the sole blame), and with no 9/11 (once again Dawkins dismisses the important political issues surrounding the build up to 9/11, which were arguably far more important than the role of religion). It is worth remembering that both Stalin and Hitler were Atheists, and they arguably committed the worst atrocities in the history of mankind (oh sorry, that should be ‘humankind’ or ‘peoplekind’ – as Dawkins pedantically points out throughout his book, use of the male pronoun actually, and I quote, ‘makes half the human race feel excluded’). The Holocaust demonstrates the dangers of fundamentalism of any kind, religious, atheist, or otherwise. Of course, it would be ludicrous to say that because Hitler and Stalin were bad people, then all atheists are bad people, or even that most atheists are bad people, just as it is ignorant to lump all religious people together in one havoc-wreaking, blood-letting collective.

The ills of the world are numerous, some are caused by religion, others are not. All are caused by a lack of understanding and empathy - characteristics which Dawkins appears to be woefully short of.

Disregarding Deism?

Early in his book, Dawkins (quite rightly) is eager to point out the difference between theistic and deistic religious beliefs. Theistic being a belief in a personal God, who answers prayers, enacts miracles, etc. and deistic being a belief in an entity who set the laws in place for the universe to exist – essentially something which exists outside of the universe and which we cannot understand.

He then (for reasons which I don’t quite understand) decides to attempt to convince the reader that Einstein was an atheist - on Dawkins ‘side’. I’m not sure why it matters what Einstein’s religious beliefs were, I thought this book was all about Dawkins’ opinionated attitudes, but maybe I’m wrong. And so begins a battle of the quotations – ‘Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind’ on the side of the theists, ‘I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this’ on the side of Dawkins. Once again we must ask ourselves, who cares and what relevance does it have? But at the risk of lowering myself to the childish level of Dawkins and the theists, I will wade in with my own Einstein quote:

‘I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth.’

I don’t know about you, but that seems to be fairly clear to me. Einstein, one of the greatest minds of the twentieth century, recognised the lunacy of belief in a personal God, but also respected the limits of science. He was an agnostic. Dawkins (quoting his old school chaplain) describes agnostics as ‘namby-pamby, mushy pap, weak-tea, pallid fence sitters’. Lovely. How open minded. How respectful. Of course if you don’t share Dawkins belief in radical atheism then you are clearly lacking in character. Religious people are naturally stupid, I quote: ‘I suspect that for many people the main reason they cling to religion is not that it is consoling, but that they have been let down by our educational system’. Is no-one else reminded of statements like ‘those that don’t believe in God just haven’t been shown the way yet’, or, more controversially ‘the Jews (substitute blacks, gays, Muslims, infidels, Christians) are evil, and should be destroyed. If you don’t believe me then you have not been educated’? Surely the way to tackle discrimination, close mindedness, and fundamentalism is not to replicate it in a different form?

I do feel bad about doing this, because this is supposed to be about my opinionated attitudes, but I am going to quote Einstein once more, in an attempt to sum up my personal beliefs.

‘To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is something that our mind cannot grasp and whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly and as a feeble reflection, this is religiousness. In this sense I am religious’

This quote, I believe, speaks of an acceptance that science can never have all of the answers. In the next section I will explain why this is. It does not have the assumptive arrogance of Dawkins atheism which says humans are capable of understanding everything.

Ironically Dawkins uses this quote in his book (and I’m sure you can guess that I have unashamedly stolen it from there, which I suppose is even more ironic...). Dawkins says that in this sense he too is religious, except that, hold on here comes that arrogant atheism, he says that ‘cannot grasp’ should not mean ‘forever ungraspable’. As I will explain, he is lacking in understanding if he believes the human mind is capable of understanding everything. Dawkins then somehow attempts to link Einstein’s quote with a quote by Carl Sagan, which says:

‘If by ‘God’ one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying...it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity’

How Dawkins managed to mangle Einstein’s view of a 'something beautiful and sublime which cannot be grasped', into Sagan’s view of God as the law of gravity, I’m not quite sure. Gravity is painfully graspable (especially when falling from a great height). We understand it, it can be explained. Einstein’s God cannot, that is the point.

Dawkins writes that his title, ‘The God Delusion’, does not refer to the God of Einstein (which Dawkins handily defines for us – a definition which I do not agree with). He writes: ‘in the rest of this book I am talking only about supernatural gods’. I had vainly hoped that this meant he would stick to discrediting Abrahamic religions for the rest of the book, which would have made for a slightly boring, but at least rational read. However he doesn’t. He chooses to stick his scientific size 9’s where they really don’t belong...

An Arrogant Ideology

Dawkins concedes that ‘the deist God...is certainly an improvement over the monster of the Bible’ but insists that ‘unfortunately it is scarcely more likely that he exists, or ever did’. It is important to remember that a deist God is not a personal God, he(???) does not cast miracles, listen to prayers, or send sons down to die for our sins. A deist God is something which exists outside our universe, and plays no part in the working of it.

Dawkins central argument against the existence of God (and it’s a good one) is that if there is a God who created the universe then there must have been something which created God. This raises the problem of infinite regress; the idea that there must always be an increasingly intelligent and complex creator. His answer to this is a form of cosmological Darwinism (proposed by Lee Smolin)...a sort of evolution of the universe. It is, I think, an interesting theory.

Biological evolution is, in my eyes, a fact. It works within the laws of our universe. It can be proven. Cosmological evolution, on the other hand, does not have to work within the laws of our universe, and it cannot be proven, and as a result I am very sceptical (Dawkins would be proud!). There is also the problem that evolution must come from something. The biological evolution with which we are familiar began in a primordial soup, when heavy elements combined to form amino acids, which became proteins, and eventually formed the building blocks for basic life. The starting point of this evolution was the heavy elements. Equally, cosmological evolution must start somewhere, there must be something basic from which something can evolve. We then encounter the same problems with infinite regress as we would if we believed in a God who operated according to the laws of our universe (it would just infinitely regress the other way - rather than looking for something increasingly complex, we would be looking for something increasingly simple). However, as I will show, to consider something purely from the perspective of the laws of our universe, is to miss a trick.

Dawkins assumes that because humanity experiences things a certain way then that is how they have to be. For example according to the laws of our universe for a watch to exist it must have been made by a watchmaker, it cannot just be. Or for humans to exist they must have evolved from something, they cannot just be. Because this is how we experience the formation of a watch or a human we apply this logic outside of the universe, but this is a fallacy. I am of course not suggesting that humans didn’t evolve from something else, I am simply saying that this logic is useless outside of the universe.

The ‘Big Bang’ is a singularity. Scientifically this means that at the big bang the laws of science break down, the laws of our universe are no longer applicable. The big bang is the start of space and time. People may say, ‘well if time only began at the big bang, then nothing could have happened before because time didn’t exist’, but time is only a dimension of our universe. If there is any form of ‘God’ operating outside of the universe he would not be subject to time, who knows what he would be subject to.

It is a hard idea to imagine, so I’m going to offer some examples to demonstrate the limits of human understanding...

What exists outside of the universe? Nothing? What is the nothing like? Imagine it. Are you imagining a white space? A white space is something, it is white, and oddly enough, it is a space. You, nor I, can imagine nothing, because we exist in a universe of somethings. White is something, air is something, everything is something, so you can’t comprehend nothing.

Another example...string theory postulates that there are either 10 or 24 dimensions. It is not a concrete fact but it is a well supported scientific theory. It says that in our universe, or at least in our section of the universe, the four dimensions we experience (width, height, depth, and time) are flattened out, and the other 6 (or 20 depending on what particular part of string theory you support) are curled up tightly into balls, so small that they can never be experienced. In other parts of the universe or in other universes, some of these dimensions might be flattened out, or the dimensions we experience might be curled up. Try and imagine another dimension...can’t do it? No me neither, because I exist within four dimensions, therefore I can only imagine four dimensions; just like I exist within the laws of this universe therefore I am incapable of imagining anything outside of it. It is like asking a blind person to describe the colour red. It is useless, and more than that it is pointless.

Every time we think of ‘God’ we think within the constraints of our own universe and experience: we assume that the universe must have evolved from something simpler than itself, or that it was created by a greater being who must in turn have been created. We disregard the notion that 'God' could just exist, without anything to create him(?), and by the same token (and at the risk of unpicking my own arguement about the probable existence of something outside the universe) we rarely consider the fact that the universe could just exist, from nothing. Existence from nothing is an alien concept to us, but that does not mean that it does not exist. There may well be (read probably are) other possibilites to explain the existence of our universe which we (and our language) are unable to comprehend. The very notion of 'God' is relative to our universe, I consider myself an ignostic (note the 'i' not the 'a') in that I believe you must have a meaningful defintion of what God is, before you can meaningfully debate his existence. Seeing as we can only imagine a God who works in accordance with the laws of our universe, I don't think I'll be changing my stance anytime soon. We think according to our laws, and our experiences, we cannot hope to imagine what happens outside of our universe, or even outside of our particular area of this universe. I think this is what Einstein was alluding to when he describes the something we cannot understand which lurks behind everything.

Perhaps that seems depressing? To think that there is something that we simply cannot grasp, something which is (despite Dawkins' protestations) forever ungraspable. I don’t find it depressing in any way, in fact I find it uplifting, to know that there is something beyond our understanding, which won’t be confined to the history books of knowledge. Why Dawkins is fearful of the unknown I’m not sure. In all honesty I don’t think he is, I just think he’s got carried away in his condemnation of an Abrahamic God. You’ll excuse me for guessing what Dawkins is thinking, it’s a nasty habit I’ve picked up from reading his book in which he appears omniscient with regards to the thoughts of Hawking, Einstein, and Huxley to name a few. Suspiciously Godly I say.

Science proposes that the universe is simply a set of numbers and equations. That love, beauty, a desire to be good, enjoyment can all be explained with numbers. This is something I will never be able to come to terms with. This is where that dangerous word ‘faith’ comes in, the point where I just have to say ‘I think there’s more to it all than a set of numbers’. However, unlike Dawkins and many theists I won’t be forcing my faith down anyone’s throats.

Even if you do support the notion that the universe is just a set of rules and equations, then Stephen Hawking raises an excellent point when he writes:

‘What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the model to describe. Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?’

We do not know, and I don’t think we will ever know. Hawking quite rightly says it is philosophers, not scientists, whose business it is to ask why. There is nothing wrong with not knowing, it is in my eyes part of the beauty of life.

The fact that Dawkins attempts to disprove a deistic God using the logic of our universe is illuminating of the arrogance often associated with hard-line atheists. Scientifically we cannot understand what exists beyond the laws of our universe, and it is a fallacy to claim you can. It is an understandable effort to discount any form of ‘God’, from a man clearly frustrated by the presence of Abrahamic religions in our (supposedly enlightened) society. Sadly for Dawkins he is barking up the wrong tree, and should probably return to writing well–regarded papers on the rules for grooming in flies and the nesting strategies of digger wasps. Something I hear he does very well.

The arrogant and assumptive tone of ‘The God Delusion’ does no favours for the school of rational thought which Dawkins attempts to promote. I think ‘The God Delusion’ can do one of two things. The first is breed contempt among people who disagree with it. The second is get impressionable people to swallow it and everything it says wholesale. What’s the other book that does that? Oh, the Bible.

Hello

2010-01-26T02:13:00.011Z

I have thus far resisted having a 'Blog', there's something pathetic and self-congratulatory about thinking that people will care enough to read it, and I continue to stand by that, naked, under the glaring floodlights of hypocrisy.

I write on here for three reasons. 1) It makes me feel more important and influential than I will probably ever be. 2) It allows me to express my opinions without having to bore my friends and family with them and therefore allows me to feel that I have 'done my bit' to set the world to rights. 3) It gives me an outlet so that I don't have to rip my own face off at the withering 'injustice of it all'. Which is, incidentally, the tragic name I gave to this blog when I couldn't think of anything more insightful (also, my preferred name was already taken - http://talkingofmichelangelo.blogspot.com/ - posts include 'sweeney todd. how can you not think johnny depp is great?

sex & the city. kinda fun on a big screen. all those manolos.

reign over me. this movie joined my all-time top 5 before i even finished watching it. seriously'. Judge that for yourselves.) I have since changed the name to the eminently less embarrassing 'sifting the shit'.

You won't find anything personal here. That would be awful. Instead i'll just toss out my thoughts on the things that interest me (religion, politics, philosophy, the environment, society and the human condition etc.) into the uncaring void. Some music/book/film stuff might leak into it as well.

I take an interest in language and writing, so part of the challenge for me is making things fun/interesting/cutting etc. I hope I achieve at least some degree of success.

When I write things I think them. That doesn't mean I still think them. A lot of the things I have written are wrong, inane, twee, pretentious, arrogant, etc. The list is endless. I thought they were good at the time. Just take them as points of interest.

I'll begin as I mean to go on. By uploading a load of stuff I've already written.