The Global Hot and Cold Mixing Tap

There must be something in the air. Since I posted this morning Coffee House referenced an article by the FT which highlights some serious research that raises questions about the present orthodoxy.

But new research now seems to be backing up Svensmark’s theory. Dr. Svensmark and his team undertook an elaborate laboratory experiment in a reaction chamber the size of a small room. The team duplicated the chemistry of the lower atmosphere by injecting the gases found there in the same proportions, and adding ultraviolet rays to mimic the actions of the sun.

Result: a huge number of floating microscopic droplets quickly filled the chamber. These were super-small clusters of sulphuric acid and water molecules – which are the building blocks for cloud condensation nuclei - that had been catalysed by the electrons released by cosmic rays.

The point? The research experimentally identified a causal mechanism by which cosmic rays can facilitate the production of clouds in Earth's atmosphere. This does not disprove the existence of greenhouse gases and the greenhouse effect. But it does challenge the “man-only” theory, and suggests that the IPCC should consider the effect of cosmic particles in examining climate dynamics. Or, at least, accept that there is a long way to go before we fully understand climate dynamics and who plays what role.

So the jury is out - as it should be, but we should make a careful assessment of the science before we allow our politicians to make bonehead decisions, such as Gordon Brown legislating for the compulsory use of bio-fuel at the very moment it became apparent that this is a social and environmental clanger.

The corrosive impact of environmental dogma

Go over to Devil's Kitchen to read some truly astonishing stuff. HERE
My bullshit detector has been signalling for a while now - probably triggered by Gordon Brown's discovery that green issues could be a great tax generator - but these leaked documents appear to show that the data is being manipulated to fit the theory, namely that Global Warming is man made.
Like the majority of people I simply don't know enough to pretend to any serious knowledge on this subject. What I do know, however, is that there was a significant global warming during the Middle Ages and that there was global cooling during the ice age followed by global warming and so on. None of these were caused by human population. I also grew up during the years of the smoke stack economy when huge amounts of carbon were being pushed into the atmosphere. No global warming then.
My own view now is that we should be responsible in our treatment of the environment. We can limit waste and air and water pollution and we should do everything we can in this regard. Talk to most people and they will find this reasonable. Ask them to wear a hair shirt, live in unheated homes, pay so-called "Green taxes" and you will get a different answer.
And this is more likely to be the answer when zealots overstate the case. We are not saving the planet. The planet will save itself. What we want to do is to save our lifestyle - that is, we want warm and air-conditioned environments, personal transport, easy access to good and services, choice of family size. If that requires some adjustment, we will adjust. But don't expect us to adjust on the basis of fraudulent theories and dodgy data!

Out of Afghanistan

The withdrawal, retreat if you like, starts now. Brown on Sunday and Milliband yesterday came up with a form of words which they presumably hope will persuade us that they intend to get out of Afghanistan. All done in an atmosphere of electoral panic. The next step is to sit back and hope that the Americans will find some face-saving formula for withdrawal.
I was in favour of going after Bin Laden. I was not in favour of staying in Afghanistan to establish democracy - whatever that means. The moment to have pulled out was after setting up Karzai's government. But we didn't. We forgot about our original objective, got sidetracked by Iraq, then came back to Afghanistan with a view to somehow "winning".
Most people now seem to know the answer to that question. We can't win if we don't know what we are fighting for. Vague, warm and cuddly, politically correct objectives are not  much use when you invade a country and try to impose a government on its citizens. Invasions only work when you intend to rule permanently.
"One, two, three, four
What are we fighting for?"
Back, reluctantly, to the dismal Brown. He has spent several years trying not to take ownership of the Afghan situation, much as he did with Iraq, hoping, presumably, that it would just go away. Unfortunately for him, being Prime Minister requires that you take a leadership position. There are two choices here, both requiring courage:
1. Bow to popular opinion and pull out. Distance ourselves from American foreign policy and throw out lot in with Europe.
2. Stand one's ground. We are where we are. See the job through to the end.
What we get instead is a non-decision which will end badly. Peace without honour.

They are all at it!

I suppose the BBC employees got it right when they brought out the champagne on May 1 1997. They have benefited hugely from the change in culture that has allowed them to enjoy increased salaries and unlimited expenses. When Stephen Fry told us that everyone fiddles their expenses during the first week of the Telegraph exposure, I assume he was speaking from experience.
This culture of entitlement must surely come to its inglorious end. I'm sure it's going to be painful.
There are still some of us around who can remember when local government officials were modesttly but reasonably paid and when civil servants were slightly more modestly and slightly more reasonably paid. And indeed they spent entire careers in the job without abusing the system.
I am disappointed that it has come to this. The system has been corrupted. Officials help themselves to high salaries and benefits while seeking all the time to cover their tracks. They never fear getting found out because spin and lies can usually get them out of a tight pocket. And nothing seemingly can be done!
In 1824 Henry Fauntleroy, a banker, was tried for fraud and found guilty. His sentence - death!
We may have to recover this rougher justice if we are to correct our society

Institutional takism

At lunchtime today I listened to a senior executive from the BBC confidently assert that licence fee payers would approve the idea of production staff spending their money on a llittle junket to celebrate the end of a successful program.
What?
What prompted this example of talking down to the masses was the information that the crew of The Apprentice had dipped into BBC funds for £260 to have a little party. Yes, I know the amount is trivial but it does convey this assumption of entitlement of just about anybody whose lifestyle is funded by the public purse.
Should we now expect teachers to dip into school funds for a big bash after surviving an OFSTED inspection?
Should the police budget allow for boozy parties every time a team solves a case?
Should hospital teams anticipate a publicly-funded celebration every time someone survives a succesful heart operation?
Our governing classes have set the morally bankrupt standard in these matters and it is perhaps no surprise that BBC executives expect to trough with the best of them.
It won't do, and although the BBC believe they are teflon-coated there is a growing number of us who are fed up with this arrogance. I get better service from my local council - and they only collect bins every two weeks!

No apprenticeship for me m'lord!

I am now bored with "The Apprentice". The first series was great fun and I bought into the idea that the contestants were all serious young(ish) business aspirants. The producers of the second show included some freak show contestants and in my view it has declined further with every series. So it is with no regret  on my part to hear that the next show has been postponed until next June when I will have better things to do. Apparently the BBC has now started to worry about it "impartiality" - in other words not doing things which demonstrate it customary bias towards the government.
There only remains the minor amusement of watching the contestants calling Alan Sugar "m'lord" instead of "Suralan". That will take two minutes, so I will not be adding to the show's ratings next year.

There are places where the sun don't shine!

Suddenly we are all getting very sniffy about The Sun. Poor Gordon Brown, getting beaten up by a newspaper that was once counted as New Labour's friend. Remember when The Sun got access to scoops detailing Saddam's ability to annihilate us in 45 minutes?
Short memories oil the wheels of the spinner's news machinery. The very same people (Whelan and Campbell for starters) who are aghast at The Sun's current crusade, were not the least flustered by the harrying of John Major 13 years ago. And it was only a few months ago that Damien McBride was dishing our all kinds of scurrilous dirt on behalf of his now-beleaguered master. What they really fear, as Guido pointed out earlier today, is that The Sun really does have influence. The spinning wheels of Downing Street must be in panic mode.
We can note that opinion is divided:
On Brown's scratchy letter to a mother who has lost her son -"Shockin', i'nit?"
On The Sun's pounding of Brown - "Shockin', i'nit?"
The middle classes, who don't buy or read The Sun appear to be equally divided amongst those who believe that Brown has brought all this on himself and deserves the opprobrium and those who are now feeling sorry for him.
Next week, it will be out of the headlines. Next month we turn our attention to edible turkeys rather than the Prime Ministerial kind, and before too long this fuss will become a vague memory - to be filed with Gurkhas and clawing back awards to injured soldiers - and The Sun will be shining its laser in some place that we cannot see.

Call Buckingham Palace

It has occurred to me more than once during this latest furore over Brown's ineptitude that a call to HM would have been useful. After all she has had more experience than most in sending letters of sympathy to people she does not know and I have heard no complaints over the last 50 years.
There is obviously a knack to this, getting the words right and the presentation right and not seeking any personal or political gain. I doubt if the palace guard would let anything out that was inappropriate or had not been double and triple checked, and I sense that the Queen is always open to advice.
I'm afraid Gordon Brown is not in this camp. The letter, although sincerely intended no doubt, betrays haste and an absence of input from someone less impetuous. Is there anybody left in Downing Street who has the courage to say: "Er, excuse me Prime Minister.......

The fall of the wall

When the Berlin wall came down 20 years ago we who lived on this side of it had freedom of expression and freedom of movement and, on the whole, governments that had some respect for the will of the people.
Fast forward to today. We have a government that spies on us constantly, personal expression is restricted, parents are not trusted to bring up their children, fat people and smokers and old people are subject to discrimination, elections are rigged by the governing party where they can, mindless bureaucracy increasingly dominates our lives and corruption among the elite is commonplace.
What really happened?

Beyond outrage

I'm sure it was not that long ago when a billion pounds seemed like a lot of money. Today our government chucked another 30 billion into the open maws of two of our banks. I feel sure that this will not be the last handout.
The real shock is that nobody appears to worry about any of these figures any more. Only lat year an annual deficit of £40 billion was thought to be about as much as this economy could handle. Now these numbers are treated like a £40 parking fine.
Keep calm and carry on!