Climate change the unravelling

By | |
2 Comments

I tend to avoid commenting on climate change as there are excellent blogs out there written by people that understand the science a hell of a lot better than I do. However in this case I feel I ought to draw your attention to a recent development, and apologies if you’re attention has already been drawn to it. I must state out right that as I was given a somewhat traditional science training, I can’t help but be a “climate change skeptic”as the science is never settled, I also remain a relativity skeptic and consider pretty much everything else I’ve been taught to not be proven (which is probably just as well given the half life of facts. Anyway I digress it seems there is a leaked report out from the IPCC (cached zip of the PDFs here just in case) – which seems to suggest that maybe the models weren’t as good as we’ve been told and that maybe the science isn’t really that settled. Just as well everyone invovled remembered their classic science training, kept in mind it was all just theories and didn’t persuade governments to base masses of policy around it all… I mean no scientist would do anything so daft would they….

Anyway sarcasm aside if you’ve the time and the background go read the whole report, alternatively if like me you lack either the time or the background then the ever informative Katabasis has a nice starting article, for more details and ongoing updates as they chew though it head over to Watts Up with that. If we’re finally admitting that the sun may actually have a fair bit to do with climate change then the historical stuff that the Chiefio digs through on why henges were built, lifetime climate patterns and a whole host of interesting stuff that all ties together to paint a worrying picture that the current settled science just doesn’t countenance. Let’s just hope this settled science nonsense doesn’t get into the legal and educational systems.

-1

Gay marriage and democracy

By | | , ,
2 Comments

According to the Guardian the majority of people in the UK now support the legalization of gay marriage. A term I find odd as it’s not really illegal for gay people to marry it’s just not recognized, which may be splitting hairs but I think points to the way in which the survey was probably phrased. I am it seems learning to be ever less trustful of polls and how they can be slanted.

That aside though this lead to people I know uttering statements of anger towards the Rev Vincent Nichols, for having the audacity to suggest that the way that Gay marriage is being introduced is shambolic. From what little I’ve read he has a damn good point, this is primary legislation which has really quite far reaching effects which wasn’t in any party manifesto, wasn’t in the Queens speech and has just suddenly become this urgent thing which Mr Cameron feels the need to rush through. I know we’re an impatient country these days and Mr Cameron probably needs the ratings boast, but surely if this is so very important it’s equally important that it be got right and thus the legislation and the ramifications of the legislation should be discussed and thought through properly? That doesn’t play well to the do it now, create new legislation and then legislate again to fix the screw ups of the first lot of legislation and keep going till you’ve cut all the legs off the table culture we seem to have in Westminster – but surely it would be a better idea than rushing it through in a shambolic fashion? Over on Lynne Featherstones blog she claims it’s the “governments intention” to let churches make up their own mind, but well they’ve already said they won’t let the CofE make up it’s own mind, and lets be honest the track record of our Governments for letting people make their own decision really isn’t that good. I also like her argument that a manifesto is “a prospectus of what a government will do – not a prospectus of all it will do”, as the previous lot went to court to argue that wasn’t the case and I think we’ve all seen enough broken manifesto promises to know that’s a load of bunk. Perhaps if they got round to doing everything they got elected to do then when they’ve got some spare time they can start tackling the extra stuff? If this is so popular then put it in the next manifesto, who ever doesn’t have it will get trounced and things can be done nicely and everyone will be happy?

The think I find at this instance the most fascinating if how politicians and those that like to shout at other people will throw opinions polls around like they’re carved on stone tablets by the finger of God when it’s for something they support, but if it’s something they don’t like well you wouldn’t want to give into “mob rule”. Let’s consider a few other opinion polls which by the current logic our politicians and those waving opinion polls for gay marriage should be getting behind:
death penalty supported by more people than against since 1936 (except for 1966)
stronger immigration control – supported by 73% of people
Most people don’t support electoral reform so let’s stop banging on about that
Seems that most of us think unemployment benefits are too high so the government should be being encouraged to take the axe to those as well.

It is of course all bollocks opinion polls are fickle things, and public opinion changes. Which is all the more reason not to hurry things but to get any legislation right, if there’s even need for it, and to make sure that the case for it is made on the grounds of principle not “it’s the popular thing to do”. If we’re to be governed by opinion poll then lets get rid of the 650 and just have government by opinion poll, The ICM poll the Gordian references just asked 1002 people so as long as lets say 500 people more support a thing than oppose we let it pass? Or we could avoid shambolic rushed legislation and expect our paid politicians to take time to consider and consult before making a choice based on principle? If they do go for recognizing gay marriage then I do have to wonder what they’re thought of for divorce law and all the other annoying bits of legislation which mention marriage I can’t help but suspect there may be some interesting gotcha’s lurking out there in the quagmire of our bloated legal system.

For the record I don’t favour legal gay marriage, I think in this day and age the state shouldn’t be having anything to do with “marriage”, let everyone register their partnerships with the state if they so choose and have whatever spiritual/religious/secular marriage ceremony that they won’t as the state won’t give two figs either way. It is worth noting after all that heterosexual couples don’t have the choice of a civil partnership which must be quite annoying for the more secular of them? Surely better the state gets out of the “marriage” business and just registers the partnership between any set of people that wish to be registered as partners by contract be it for business, love, convenience or whatever, then let the terms of the contract determine what happens when it gets dissolved.

0

Politics, navel gazing and Edith Cavell

By | | , , , ,
Comments Off on Politics, navel gazing and Edith Cavell

Edith Cavell statue Trafalgar Square Just in case the title of this post wasn’t enough warning, I must warn you that this post is rather navel gazing in content and may even tend towards being a bit hippy in places. I do apologize and I shall try not to make a habit of it. As with many other people I get a tad thoughtful around this time of year, partly it is of course the end of a calendar year so seems a good time to review but also it’s quieter at this time of year so I have time to pause and think. It’s a bit over 4 years since I started this blog, due to going on Old Holborns little walks, I’ve apparently written a very consistent .32 of an article a day since then and apparently some people are reading my random ramblings. It’s been an educational 4 years and I’ve become more politically active than I have been since either my student days or since going on CND marches with my parents. This growing activism has led me to moving ever further from my comfort zone, writing a blog is easy I just like to think no one reads it, going on a walk or demonstration you’re one of a crowd (albeit at times a small crowd), trying to leaflet the Olympics that was scarier and now it seems I’ll be fronting the Drinkuary beermat launch which I find terrifying (seriously if anyone wants to be the spokesman let me know). During all this, the direction our political rulers have been taking us seems to be inexorably down hill and by and large most people seem to be complacent in this. Though as I’ve commented before that tide may be changing, perhaps the British people are finally being roused and if so I pity those who become the object of that anger. So despite that seemingly inexorable direction we’re being seemingly quietly led, it seems more important to me know than it ever has to keep plugging away at what little I can do, if nothing else it means I can say I tried, for as the final verse of “Lesson of war” says:

“Things may be the same again; and we must fight
Not in the hope of winning but rather of keeping
Something alive: so that when we meet our end,
It may be said that we tackled wherever we could,
That battle-fit we lived, and though defeated,
Not without glory fought..”

That verse has rather stuck with me and bring me in a very obscure and rambling way to where I vaguely wanted to go, for me this year I’ve become increasingly aware of how well we’ve been divided against each other, how hate filled so much of politics has become on all sides. Perhaps it was always so and I just never noticed, if so then I suspect there’s no hope for any of us. On the “left” they still obsess over an old woman who hasn’t been in power for over decades, whilst celebrating regimes which killed millions, idolizing a man who burnt books, killed gays, dissidents and other undesirables yet accuse anyone they disagree with of being like another man who did the same thing on a much larger scale. Then there’s the Occupy movements obsession with bankers and that companies should pay the amount of tax that occupy decree regardless of consequence. The right seems obsessed with hating “scroungers” and immigrants. The libertarian wing seems to hate everyone if you believe the press and blogs written by anyone other than libertarians. Sorry for concentrating on the “left” so much there but they seem to wear their hatreds on their sleeves far more than the others. The problem I have with all of them though is the same, their arguments are almost always couched in terms of hatred of being against this that or the other. Their policies seem to be forged around the extreme’s “1% do this, they must be stopped”, this just strikes me as a huge waste of energy in most distributions the outlying 1% aren’t worth the effort you can’t get rid of them or do much to change those outliers concentrate where more good can be achieved. As the adage goes “Hard cases make bad law”, I’d suggest that extreme cases also make bad policy and especially when the policy and demands are couched so much in terms of hatred.

Which eventually and in a very rambling way brings me to Edith Cavell, whose statue stands on the north east corner of Trafalgar square near where Old Holborns little walks start. Inscribed on her statue are these words:
“I realise that patriotism is not enough, I must have no hatred or bitterness towards anyone.”
Ever since I read those words on her statue they’ve rather stuck with me. Seeing the amount of hatred and bitterness in todays politics I’ve had enough, the ends can never justify the means and if we try to achieve things motivated by hatred and bitterness we’re going to poison the fruit of our labors before we begin (yeah this is the hippy bit sorry). We need to rephrase our words and our thinking so that we remove the hate and bitterness, I’d like to believe that everyone on protests and in politics are there because out of decent and compassionate motives, so why is compassion so invisible in our political speech and campaigns. It may just be the press, but in which case no one is getting their message across very well, but would it not be a better to start arguing for things not against them. I may be being naive, maybe it’s too much work, or maybe it’s already being done (but I’m not seeing it). Maybe if we started focusing on the end rather than the means we might find more common ground? Of course almost any argument for a thing can be phrased as an argument against something else, but surely it would be healthier and more constructive if we all started discussing what we were for not what we are against (after all the list of things we don’t like is almost always longer than the list of things we like). Surely such a change in tone and language might lead to more debate, less hostility, less antagonism and who knows perhaps the discovery of more common ground that will let us make real progress towards a better and more humane country for everyone?

I’m going to try and change my language and my thinking, and keep plugging away fighting to save what I can even if it scares me – because if it’s worth fighting for then it’s worth sacrifice and if it’s not worth sacrifice then it’s not worth the energy in fighting for it. I fear the time has more than come that we all got our hands a bit dirtier than liking posts and signing electronic petitions. Just in case all this rambling navel gazing wasn’t hippy enough for you I’ll leave you with this link – as if we want a better world we’re going to have to muck in and make it.

-1