Climate doing what the experts predicted it would

"Ding, dong, the witch is dead! Global warming is no more! The Earth is cooling!"

Expect this claim to reverberate around the bloglands, and perhaps even weasel its way into the speeches and pronouncements of some politicians and special interest groups. For, verily, the Earth is cooling, according to a report (1) on the (anti-AGW) Daily Tech blog.

The anti-AGW crowd would do well to remember that this was predicted last year, by the Hadley Centre, when they issued a ten year forecast:

... at least half of the years between 2009 and 2014 are likely to exceed existing records.

However, the Hadley Centre researchers said that the influence of natural climatic variations were likely to dampen the effects of emissions from human activities between now and 2009.

But over the decade as a whole, they project the global average temperature in 2014 to be 0.3C warmer than 2004. (2)

I predicted (3) at the time that a dip in temperature would be seized on by the anti-AGW crowd as proof that global warming was a hoax. That doesn't make me Nostradamus - it does, however, show how obvious their tactics are.

I'm not suggesting that the 'natural climactic variations' described by the Haldey Centre account for 100% of the drop. The truth is probably complex anmd messy. Natural climate variotions, such as the mitigation of El Nino may play a part. A tail off in solar (YES) activity might contribute. ANd the predicted volatility of global weather will also have had an impact. All this is lost on the AGW-deniers, of course.

Never mind that the experts predicted warming, and it happened. Never mind that the experts predicted cooling, and, right on cue, it is happening. Never mind what the experts say, a bunch of Moomins armed with keyboards have decided climate change is a hoax. So it must be.

"Ding dong, the witch is dead ..." Repeat as necessary, as loud as possible to drown out any dissent.

1 - "Temperature Monitors Report Widescale Global Cooling," posted by Michael Asher on Daily Tech, 26th of February, 2008. (http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Widescale+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm)
2 - "Ten-year climate model unveiled," unattributed BBC article, 9th of August, 2007. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6939347.stm)
3 - as described previously on lefthandpalm: http://lefthandpalm.blogspot.com/2007/08/another-of-durkinism-crumbles-into-dust.html

New Zealand secures infamous first FTA with bastards of Beijing

I just can't get my head around the idea that people who instinctively knew that opposing the Springbok tour in the 80s was the right thing to do, who supported further sanctions against South Africa during Apartheid, and who, as recently as 2005, were willing to make gestures (1) of opposition to the sick regime in Zimbabwe, would not only agree to a free trade deal with one of the most hateful regimes on the planet, but would make a blind dash to be first (2).

I can understand why a party of unscrupulous money grubbers the National Party would pursue a FTA with the bastards of Beijing. But Phil Goff smugly smirking (3) that the deal "does not cover any issues other than the removal of tariff and trade barriers and issues of market access." Dollars over human rights. That's the National way. It disgusts me that these words were spoken by a Labour minister.

Which puts me in a quandry. I've always assumed that Labour could be confident of my vote, if not directly, at least by proxy through the Greens. But I'm so bitter about the deal with Beijing that I'm not sure I could vote for Labour, or for a party that will help them cling onto power. Up unti now, my reasoning has been that Labour is the lesser of two evils - a Labour government will mean less damage to the country than a National government. I've always found this phlegmatic-pragmatism very useful, and never entertained the slightest doubt about who to vote for, either here or in Britain. Always, the least right party that most likely to win. Recently, I was scratching my head at Maia's decision (4) to squander her vote. Didn't she realise that letting National wouldn't be worth the little squirt of satisfaction of voting against Labour? Labour bad, maybe, but National worse. End of story.

But now it isn't the end, because Labour are going to pursue goals so antipathetic to my values that I'm not sure I can support them, even indirectly. The logic of voting for the least bad doesn't hold when the least bad is going to sign a FTA with communist China. Perhaps, in the longer view, a National victory in 2008 would be better for Labour, because it will allow them to sort out whether they want to be Right-lite and Goffite, or a proper party that I could vote for. As it is, I'm not sure I can bring myself to do that. But I don't imagine a party that will cosy up to the bastard junta in Beijing cares particularly what I think. And therein lies the problem.

1 - 'Kiwis ignore tour pull-out motion,' unattributed BBC article, 26th of July, 2005. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/cricket/4713507.stm)
2 -'NZ to Sign China Free Trade Deal April,' by Ray Lilley, AP article, 26th of February, 2008. (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hRUoNpG_YSviOtALdd7rRxl9VgWgD8V1R9VO0)
3 - 'NZ pushes free trade with China forward,' by Sarah Matheson in the Epoch Times, 17th of September, 2007. (http://en.epochtimes.com/news/7-9-17/59871.html)
4 - 'Friday Electoral Politics - Winston Peters Hatred Edition,' postedf by Maia on Capitalism bad; tree pretty, 14th of February, 2008. (http://capitalismbad.blogspot.com/2008/02/friday-electoral-politics-winston.html)

Virgin screws the planet

No .. not that sort of virgin. And not that sort of screwing. Virgin as in Richard Branson. And screwing the planet as in promoting our aeroplane addiction with a thin green veneer (1) applied:

The world's first commercial aircraft powered partly by biofuel took off from Heathrow yesterday to a storm of criticism from climate change experts, who insisted it was nothing more than Sir Richard Branson's latest "nonsensical" publicity stunt.

...

The Virgin Atlantic 747 flew from London to Amsterdam using a 20 per cent biofuel mix of coconut and babassu oil in one of its four main fuel tanks.

Sir Richard said the "historic" flight was the first step towards using biofuels on commercial flights. But campaigners said that carbon savings from bio-fuels, often made from organic materials such as wheat, sugarcane and palm oil, were "negligible".

Kenneth Richter, Friends of the Earth aviation campaigner, said: "Biofuels are a major distraction in the fight against climate change.

"There is mounting evidence that the carbon savings from biofuels are negligible. If Virgin was really serious about reducing the aviation industry's impact on the environment, it would support calls for aircraft emissions to be included in the Climate Change Bill." (2)

So now Damon and Perdita can fly off to Mozambique to eat barbeque lion penises (3) and gawp at the "quaint" locals and come back with some ethnic knick-knacks that were made in China, with a clear conscience, because 20% of the fuel used to get them there might actually have been worse for the environment than the stuff that glugs out of the sand.

Some bio-fuels might have some use in reducing Co2, but flying doesn't. Branson's use of bio-fuels to justify and promote more air travel suggests either jaw-dropping stupidity, or grasping selfish hypocrisy.

Which could it be?

1 - 'First biofuel flight dismissed as Virgin stunt,' by Eoghan Williams in The Independent, 25th of February, 2008. (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/first-biofuel-flight-dismissed-as-virgin-stunt-786847.html)
2 - ibid.
3 - I don''t know, off hand, if you get lions in Mozambique. If not, the lion penises were probably imported, just to compound the wickedness of it all.

Happy birthday, Mr President

Mugabe (1).

Look, you evil, racist, repressive, murdering, tyrannical troll, I wanted you out of power by the end of the week (2). Instead, you decide to carry on (3). Fine. On your head be it. I really hope you lose the election, end up on trial for your crimes and die in jail. That would be the best out come for you. More likely, your pig-headed clutching at power will probably lead to you sharing Mussolini's fate - which is wrong, but, if it happens, couldn't happen to a more deserving scumbag.

P.S. Rot in Hell.

1 - 'Birthday boy Mugabe to launch campaign for sixth term' unattributed AFP article, 24th of February, 2008. (http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5i3ld9hsSPWjBX9uZ_rOPkcTQ6vXA)
2 - As described previosuly on lefthandpalm: http://lefthandpalm.blogspot.com/2008/02/pakistanis-oust-musharaff.html
3 - As per #1, above.

You learn something new every day, part 2

Inspired by my discovery (1) that the phrase 'useful idiots,' usually attributed to Lenin, is of unknown origin, I decided to have a quick look at the origins of another phraseused to discredit liberal ideas and make them instantly laughable - the dread phrase 'politcally correct.'

How many times has a perfectly good idea been described as 'politically correct,' which seems to immediately close any discussion on it? As Marcus Lush pointed out, calling something politcally correct is a lzy way of dismissing it, without having to think about the idea, or the issues behind it. Targetted funding for Maori is 'politcally correct,' so it's wrong, so it has to go. Never mind that it is an attempt to address very real problems in New Zealand society, whcih make Don Brashes 'mainstream New Zealanders' uncomfortable. Or Civil Unions. Political correctness gone mad! Lets forget that it is insane and wrong that heterosexuals can have special rights and privileges that are denied to other adults who just happen to be homosexual. Its politically correct. Case dismissed.

Another silly, leftwing, politically correct idea. Only, to my eternal delight, the phrase seems to originate (2) in 18th Century AMERICA, not (as previously has been put about) the Soviet Union, or college campuses in thrall to Marxism. Wikipedia advises that

[t]he earliest citation is not politically correct, in the U.S. Supreme Court decision Chisholm Vs Georgia (1793), denoting the statement to which it refers is literally incorrect, owing to the U.S.'s political status as then understood. (3)

While it may have been adopted by Marxist-Leninists and come of age in the increasingly bizarre world of college campuses from the 1960s onwards, the phrase and the concept it embodies is a true exemplar of the American Way.

1 - As described previosuly on lefthandpalm: http://lefthandpalm.blogspot.com/2008/02/you-learn-something-every-day.html
2 - 'Political correctness: history in the United States,' Wikipedia article, retreived 4th of February, 2008. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness#History)
3 - ibid.

Dog Whistling Dave II

The important thing about dog whistles is that they are deniable. The whistler should be able to adopt a look of wounded innocence and declare, "I never meant it to be taken like that." So it should surprise no-one that David Cameron and the Tories are now denying he suggested that state funded trips to Auschwitz were a 'gimmick.' (1)

The line (2) being spun is that the 'gimmick' aspect referred to the Government's filure to fully fund the initiative, requiring schools to contribute part of the cost:

Their remarks came after Cameron criticised Brown during a speech in Bolton for being "obsessed with short term gimmicks". In a briefing note to explain the speech the Conservative press office listed 26 "gimmicks". Fourth on the list was trips to Auschwitz.

...

The Conservative leader believes the government announced a "gimmick" when it said it would provide £4.65m for the Holocaust Educational Trust's Lessons from Auschwitz programme. The Tories believe this has not lived up to its billing because schools are asked to contribute £100 towards the £350 cost of taking each pupil.

A Tory spokesman said: "School trips to Auschwitz are a brilliant idea. However, by announcing these trips without providing the necessary funding the government has - in classic fashion - hidden the detail in the small print.

"Under a Conservative government these trips would be funded in full and schools would not have to find £100 per pupil from their budgets." (3)

Where does this leave us? Good question. It could be as the Tories are suggesting. Or it might not be. The original briefing (4) makes it clear that it is the funding that is the gimmick, not the trips themselves:

4. Trips to Auschwitz

• What was announced: ‘Two pupils from every sixth form and college in the country will be able to visit Auschwitz and learn about the Holocaust thanks to £4.65 million of funding’ (DCSF press release, 4 February 2008)
• In fact schools would have to find £100 to fund every sixth-former’s trip (Times, 4 February 2008) (5)

That doesn't clear it from being a dog whistle, though it is in Cameron's favour. It is the effect of the message on the target audience that is important. We'll have to see how that develops in the nastier reaches of the internet, where sublties don't matter.

One interesting point is that the way clumsy reporting of the story may have, in effect, turned it into what it was originally described as - the original point los tunder the gibbering claims (I bow my head in shame for having contribute in my own small way) that Cameron was playing politics with the Holocaust. Trying to Brand Cameron as racist, anti-Semitic or ruthlessly power-hungry would be very desirable the more ammoral in Labour, and they might not be above fomenting a little racism in putting the idea out there. Shame on them if it is so.

1 - As described previously on lefthandpalm: http://lefthandpalm.blogspot.com/2008/02/tory-dog-whistling-on-holocaust.html
2 - 'Cameron under fire for Holocaust 'gimmick' remark,' by Nicholas Watt in the Guardian, 23rd of February, 2008. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/feb/23/davidcameron.secondworldwar)
3 - ibid.
4 - 'Brown's governemnt by gimmick,' briefing notes released by the Conservative Party, 22nd of February, 2008. (http://www.conservatives.com/getfile.cfm?file=documet-govbygimmick-2008&ref=GENERALFILE/3585&type=pdf)
5 - ibid.

Tory dog whistling on the Holocaust

David Cameron, of whom I have said some nice things (1), has blown it all by indulging in a bit of clumsy dog whistling:

Cameron told a Conservative "North West Conference" in Bolton that Gordon Brown's government was obsessed with gimmicks that "grabbed the headlines but
amounted to nothing".

Number four on the list of 26 government gimmicks he cited was "trips to Auschwitz"

...

Earlier this month, the government announced a £4.65m payment of funds to the Holocaust Educational Trust to extend their programme of sending two sixth-formers from every school and college in the country to Auschwitz to learn about the Holocaust. (2)

Cameron's message wouldn't have been harmed if he'd ommitted that point - he had twenty five more, and some of them might even have had sme merit. It was planned - this wasn't an off-the-cuff remark or a trap set by an interviewer. He said what he intended to say.

Question is, who was he dog whistling to? There's the traditional Tory tight lipped crowd, who disapprove of anything that strikes them as political correctness. It says a lot about them that Cameron thinks they would regard visiting Auschwitz-Birkenau as a gimmick. But the comments might have been intended for a wider audience: Bolton has a large immigrant population, mainly Muslim. There is a lot of tension betweeen the immigrants and the rest of the town. The BNP have some support there. Cameron could well be whistling to them, trying to attract them back to the Conservatives by hinting that he's in tune with them. He might be trying to appeal to radical Muslims, who imbibe a lot of stupid anti-Jewery. These are the sort of people who need to learn more about the Holocaust. Cameron shouldnn't be pandering to their nasty prejudices.

Like I said, I'd previously praised him for putting forward progressive ideas. But he's exposed himself here as just another nasty little Tory runt, whole'll do anything to grab power. I don't know if he really regards sendoing students to Auschwitz as an empty gimmick or not. If he does, he's a creep. If he doesn't, he's a creep. Go a way, little man.

1 - As described previously on lefthandpalm: http://lefthandpalm.blogspot.com/2008/02/david-cameron-in-good-progressive.html
2 - 'Cameron branded 'sick and ignorant' in Auschwitz row,' by Helene Mulholland and Deborah Summers, in The Guardian, 22nd of February, 2008.
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/feb/22/conservatives.secondworldwar)