There has been a fair bit of cheerful reference to global warming as the icy fist of an artic Winter has gripped Britain The usual response has been forthcoming ; that climate extremes are part of the story and it all fits into something or other and you lot are in denial and so on and so on. Well , I don’t say a cold snap does prove anything , every time there is warm one however … well they say it does .That right there is your problem
Those in favour of global warming ( and I meant that ) actually do so with a specific political objective. It is the objective of all manufactured emergencies from ‘Krystallnacht’
onwards , a power grab, and suspension of accountability .It is usually conceived as a reason for collectivist of elitist solutions such a socialism of or the EU. There no reason why multi state empires or socialism should be any better at solving this problem than they have been at getting the drains fixed ,but it is a “higher purposes” , and the left love a good reason to shut everyone up.
The scientists who make a living from it can no more be trusted that the economists who have so conspicuously been talking arse for a decade ,when ordinary people sniffed a rodent . We get no honesty from the warmers either .If they wanted to be taken seriously they would admit that alarmist and misleading material has demonstrably been used by the emergency men. Al Gores disappearing snow on Mount Kilimanjaro was cited by one tearful columnist as the moment when the argument “Moved from my head to my gut …” When he discovered it has nothing to do with warming but is caused by deforestation and moisture reduction …lets hope it moved back
And yet and yet….. I am not a denier , I am pretty convinced something is happening let me explain my problem with an example
The amount of ice in the world is increasing . Fact . Glaciers which are getting larger have been filmed in Spring and shown as dramatic examples of global warming , also fact . The is called lying .
It is also true that if you turn off the freezer it fills with ice , that’s is why in the ant-artic ice is increasing but in the Artic where it is on the sea , for the most part it is shrinking . Here you have an ice cube in warm water effect.
So in simple terms the changes in ice patterns can support a convincing model of global warming but you have to ignore the utter bilge coming from doomsters together with their dying Polar Bears ( vastly increased in number since the 60s )
So no , I am not a denier ,but that does not means signing up for being patronised lied to and lead into world government via treaties or collectivist responses . So when catastrophe enthusiasts talk about the obdurate unreasonableness ,they ought to think a little harder about who started lying, why they started, and what they can do to clean their act up.
Oh continuing the theme of snow related poems Ted Hughes’ Thought Fox is perfection , the Fox of course is the idea creeping into conscious form, I love Ted Hughes he is so direct …. so unlike me .
I imagine this midnight moment's forest:
Something else is alive
Beside the clock's loneliness
And this blank page where my fingers move.
Through the window I see no star:
Something more near
Though deeper within darkness
Is entering the loneliness:
Cold, delicately as the dark snow
A fox's nose touches twig, leaf;
Two eyes serve a movement, that now
And again now, and now, and now
Sets neat prints into the snow
Between trees, and warily a lame
Shadow lags by stump and in hollow
Of a body that is bold to come
Across clearings, an eye,
A widening deepening greenness,
Brilliantly, concentratedly,
Coming about its own business
Till, with a sudden sharp hot stink of fox
It enters the dark hole of the head.
The window is starless still; the clock ticks,
The page is printed.
14 comments:
Exactly. If zanulab really, believed Brown's doom mongering claims - that climate change will raise the spectre of world war and world wide economic doom - why the heck are they expanding UK's airports and doubling the number CO2 belching flights? And why would our politicians keep jetting around the world?
Climate change fits too snugly into Brown's manic one world order agenda and it all stinks to high heaven.
That's why I believe we should concentrate our efforts on saving the world's resources, as we have hard and fast evidence that these are dwindling.
This poem is stunning and this is what I hate about Hughes - well, one of the things. He could write so beautifully about an animal - a predator, natch - he could empathise with other creatures yet he could not empathise with another human being, the woman he claimed to love.
There's something else going on in this poem too. His creativity is made analagous to procreativity. The images are charged with sexuality. What does that mean? Is this movement of the fox, so beautifully described by Hughes, just an inspired metaphor for the creative process? Or is it something else too?
What I'm trying to get my head around is whether this poem is laying bare Hughes' mysoginistic dislike of sex.
Let's be blunt: is Hughes intellectualising his fantasy of having sex with Mr Fox, or what Mr Fox symbolises for him, here? Or am I reading something into this poem that's not there?
"Till, with a sudden sharp hot stink of fox
It enters the dark hole of the head.
The window is starless still; the clock ticks,
The page is printed."
I dunno. What's your view?
I dunno, maybe it's me fantasising, not Hughes... :)
Had you not read that Flo its a very famous one simpler than many .Its the picture of the fox picking its way and the sudden chage from sight to smell that is so transporting
Then I will read this Hughes when I get time :-)
Right, let's unpack this.
Brown is a twat who couldn't care less about the environment. All environmentalists are against Heathrow expansion. The fact that he is a hypocrite proves nothing.
Freak weather actually is more likely to confirm that something is happening than to refute it. Frankly, arguing that it's cold so climate change must be made up is beneath contempt.
If you really want hysteria over climate, look no further than Devil's Kitchen & the rest of them, who have decided in advance that none of it can be true as it doesn't fit their agenda: they will, accordingly, grasp at any straw they can. Exhibit A, the Heartland Institute's "findings", which were gratefully seized upon by bloggers, but have now been totally discredited.
All scientists are, or should be, sceptics in the true sense of the word, but someone who is a sceptic rather than a monomaniac who won't see inconvenient facts will want to sit up & take notice of environmental problems. You don't have to believe that climate change is happening, but what about the excessive building, about plastic bags causing such hideous pollution in the Pacific, deforestation, & what have you?
I regard pollution as part of thr have it all, unrealistic culture which was typified by New Labour rule & the attempt to get rich off house prices, debt & the excesses of the City. Practical solutions are what people want.
It is ordinary people who are against Heathrow expansion, who want to stop the Coachmaker’s Arms in Stoke being demolished so some bunch of twats can go to yet another cloned shopping centre, who don’t want “eco” towns to be built on the fields they once played in, who want their household bills to be lower, who want to eat honest food & drink clean water, who want rural beauty spots for themselves & their descendants to enjoy.
As for oil dependency, there are obvious reasons to end it which have zip to do with the environment.
There was a recent post about cars that you may or may not appreciate:
http://fabulousblueporcupine.wordpress.com/2009/02/06/why-cars-are-banned-from-the-peoples-republic/
Personally, I think you can see the point of conservation, you just don't like the fact that it's associated with the left. Though it shouldn't be, as it concerns us all, which Cameron realised long ago. Now, I don't like Cameron, but I have reached the conclusion that he really means this stuff.
It isn't my fault if some greens have a hectoring attitude. It doesn't mean that there aren't serious problems to address if we are to have a liveable future.
"Freak weather actually is more likely to confirm that something is happening than to refute it" DCF
I've been reading a book about freak weather in Essex since medieval times. Heat waves, Artic conditions lasting months, giant hailstones, months of rain, massive flooding, day turning to night and of course numerous earthquakes - the last huge one in Essex being that of 1884. We've had the lot.
So I find the claims that we are having more extreme weather very hard to stomach.
Frankly, arguing that it's cold so climate change must be made up is beneath contempt.
I did not say that did I ? Did you read my post at all ?Honestly I do understand ,. I can be quite dull but you seems to be furiously attacking someone not in the room. I was saying that I do think there is something in it all but the fact that the lobby have demonstrably misused information muddies the water.
.
All scientists are, or should be, sceptics in the true sense of the word
Ahem yes but is “Environmentalism” a science ? it’s a cross disciplinary specialism and it is highly speculative . It has an inbuilt bias not as far as say “Women`s studies” or Economics “ but on the spectrum . The high regard science is rightly held in has been misused to present models as truth .
As for oil dependency, there are obvious reasons to end it which have zip to do with the environment.Personally, I think you can see the point of conservation, you just don't like the fact that it's associated with the left.
I very much agree with both comments , especially conservation which is the sort of Conservatives I am
isn't my fault if some greens have a hectoring attitude. It doesn't mean that there aren't serious problems to address if we are to have a liveable future.
Well then we agree more or less , that is almost exactly the balanced view I was trying to express. Yeesh I should hate to see what you do to someone you do not agree with DCF !
Yes, but I've seen language like that used one too many times by the likes of Clarkson, Littlecock, Iain Dale et al. In all likelihood we may agree on specific policies, we may disagree with them. But there are too many people who simply decided, long ago, "This doesn't fit with my worldview so I won't accept a word of it, whatever evidence may say". It seems as if you sail too close to their wind.
I am also disagreeing with Auntie Flo, & others, who flag up the fact that Broon is a hypocrite as if it meant something. Most environmentalists dislike New Labour & are sceptical about biofuels, certainly in the form they currently take.
A lot of fuckers are just trying to wind people up, not sure whether you're one but I am guaranteed to take the bait.
Not sure what side you are ion Cat , my vew is that there is a problem but that it is not so large it can trump all others at all times. Even if it is , the prescriptions for a green tommorow will not work
Some schemes may be counterproductive, yes. But the fact is I do not believe local conservation schemes, laudable as they are, will be enough. There needs to be some form of regulation on a national scale. I would like it to be light & well aimed, & I'd like to see other regulations & taxes scrapped to make it easier. For example, raising green taxes to cut income tax & cut/abolish VAT.
Shite like the acidification of the seas, & the extinction of wild animals will not be stopped by some middle-class knobhead who works for the council putting rubbish into 3 different bins & wanking over how clever he is.
The specific regulations, I can almost guarantee, are ones that you & those like you would be against. An understandable position in a way, because governments are often doing completely the wrong thing, but still we'll find ourselves on opposing sides on many issues even if we do agree from time to time.
Most of it can be done by private enterprise, but the state will have to restrict certain activities because they are harmful to other people & to this planet which we all live on, as much as some types are mentally on another world.
Again, I think Cameron is sincere, though I retain my doubts as to whether he'll accomplish much & he'll have me criticising him in exactly the same way as I criticise Brown if I consider it deserved.
DCF and Cat, can I ask you if you drive, how often you fly and what sacrifices you have personally made for the sake of the environment?
I am the same person as The Cat, it is one of my aliases.
I have never driven a car, am a vegetarian, don't fly & generally have next to no impact.
Besides, even if I were a hypocrite (which I think I've just demonstrated that I'm not), it wouldn't be an argument against my points.
I honestly don't understand why so many right-wing types see red (pun intended) at even the vaguest hint of anything environmentally friendly. I actually mistrust the Green Party because it is full of radical left-wing knobheads who have nothing to do with protecting the environment. But a cause is not discredited by who supports it.
DCF alias Cat said:
"I have never driven a car, am a vegetarian, don't fly & generally have next to no impact"
Well, you aint normal then, are you, sunshine? So I guess that excludes you from the equation.
I don't eat meat, don't drink alcohol and don't fly, so I'm a bit weird too, but I qualify as
a - near - normal human being by smoking like a trooper and driving a car. No one,
no one will ever prise my fags from me or my steering wheel from my hands. Don't care
what the climate changlings say, I'm sticking steadfastly to these, my only sins.
Post a Comment