Browse > Home /

| Subcribe via RSS



Will May 7th bring relief from the meddling maniac?

By Angela Harbutt
March 18th, 2010 at 9:23 am | 4 Comments | Posted in UK Politics

Its rant time folks. One of my pet hates – Sir Liam Donaldson, the Chief Medical Officer (CMO).

Over the years I can come to dread the words “a report from the Chief Medical Officer says”. I know it will say we are all fat, lazy, stupid (or words to that effect); say how “disappointed” the CMO is that some recommendation or other has had little or no effect; how much our collective action (or lack of it) is costing the NHS…

I don’t know what irritates me more – the meddling, or the tone. Its well, so authoritarian. When he speaks of his “recommended levels”, it sounds more like a command than a suggestion. More like a directive than advice. You can almost here the disdain in his voice when points out how we, the public, have failed to implement his plan or “recommendation” with sufficient gusto.

As far as he is concerned we are a nation of idle, feckless idiots, who are unfit to run our own lives, let alone be parents. We need to be told, bullied, shamed, or forced into doing what he knows is best for us. No matter how fit, hardworking, and health conscious we were, it would just not be enough for this man.  

So here are just a couple of the missives from his annual report, out now.

1. We are such crap parents, our kids are all so unfit, that he will subject them to annual “bleep” exercise tests.

Last month I was sure our kids were all consumed with achieving Kate Moss skinniness and the anorexia was on the increase – I was wrong. They are unfit and getting obese. And to prove it, Mr Donaldson intends to subject every child in the country to a series of annual “bleep” exercise tests. Not only will children be humiliated by being forced to participate in this fruitless caper. Parents whose children fail the exercise tests will receive “letters” from the schools telling them their child has failed….I imagine something along the lines of “Dear Mr and Mrs Jones you are clearly unfit to have children because your lard arse son is letting the side down”.  Yes, that’s a good idea, lets pile more pressure on the little darlings. Not content with testing their academic prowess at every twist and turn, lets now point out where they are failing on the fitness level too. Stuff childhood – this is the future economic machine we are building here and nothing less than perfection will do.

And what will the tests achieve? Nothing. If there is a problem – and frankly who knows anymore – we need solutions. Not bloody bleep tests. Selling off playing fields, judging schools on almost wholly academic criteria and demanding that every after-school and weekend sports club “helper” prove they are not a paedophile before they lift a finger, can hardly have helped the situation……

And grandparents don’t escape MrDonaldson’s scorn either. He says that 40% of grandparents now provide some kind of childcare when parents are working, but few of them encourage their grandchildren to eat healthily or take exercise. He now wants Government “advice” for grandparents telling them how they can become better grandparents (and presumably send them a letter too when they fail).  Oh come on Mr Donaldson, parents do the hard stuff, the discipline, the “eat your greens” thing. Grandparents do the spoiling, the treats, the fun stuff. That’s how it is, how its always been, how it always will be. Get a life.

2. Our diet is warming the planet and ruining our health.

Not content with telling us its every grandparents duty to turn into mini-dictator for the good of the nation, Mr Donaldson also reckons it’s our collective duty to eat less meat in order to reduce the threat of climate change, because our diet is warming the planet.

So we should all cut our meat consumption by 30% to save some 18,000 premature deaths and indeed the world from climate change. May be its because it was outside his remit, but I am somewhat surprised he did not suggest we slaughter all our pets (think of all those dieases they carry after all). That would cut our carbon emissions nicely.  Give him time it’ll come to him.

A while back it was red meat we should not eat. Chicken and fish were OK. The chicken thing was not that straight forward – only the breast mind not the evil thigh and certainly NOT the skin. And the fish thing seems to change on a daily basis. Do I have to smuggle my haddock out of the shop these days – its so unethical – they are endangered don’t you know – or walk tall and proud – hey look at me I am buying Haddock. Haddock is cool! ??? And eels. Where exactly are we on eels? Now Mr Donaldson tells me I should not even be eating chicken.Well 30% less chicken. Grass nuts and berries are all that seem to be left that are ok – and if you can forage yourself rather than go to a shop, you just might not get sent a letter.

Well its all just a bit too much for me. Come May 7th, I pray that Mr Donaldson gets a letter too. One that says sod off.

Tags: , , , ,
'

Sexed up documents, personal attacks on their critics.. no it’s not Iraq.. it’s Global Warming

By Angela Harbutt
January 25th, 2010 at 4:48 pm | 11 Comments | Posted in UK Politics

A cause for celebration! Reports that the the Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 have been greatly exagerated. Well totally made up in actual fact. himalayas

I thought hard before deciding to post on this. I have posted on this subject  before (“I am trying very hard not to be a climate change denier “). My concerns have surrounded the over-reliance on “computer models” to predict apocalyptic circumstances; the lack of clarity on what assumptions have been input into these models, based on what ground research and with what level of confidence ? These questions have not been answered. And not only have they not been answered – but those asking these and other questions have been accused of  being “flat earthers”, “climate change deniers” and worse. We have been told that there is a total scientific concensus on global warming and those that speak out are mad, malicious or on the payroll of some multinational.

But in reality I did not have to think about it very long. Indignation got the better of me. Because I do actually care about this planet and think the way to getting to the right course of action on the issue of climate change is with hard science, reasoned debate and honesty. Not by governments or its institutions thinking that they can short cut this because they know the problem and the answer and the rest is just media management.  

So it was with fury and frustration, not satisfaction, that I learned that the scientist behind the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) report in 2007 has finally publicly admitted that the line about disappearing glaciers was nothing more than a bit of “sexing up” to put political pressure on world leaders. No evidence at all to support the notion. Nada.

This makes old Alistair Campbell’s attempts during the Iraq affair look positively amateurish by comparison. If you missed the coverage over past few days, it went something like this… Two magazine articles appeared in 1999 stating that glaciers were set to disappear by 2035. This information was then recycled by WWF in 2005 without any fact checking. The IPCC then used the WWF report as the sole basis for its assertions in 2007 because they thought it would “impact policy makers and politicians to take some concrete action“. Never mind the truth.

This was a report from the revered IPCC (“the leading body for the assessment of climate change, established by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) to provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic consequences”), involving an esteemed working group and reviewed by 500+ external reviewers. So what went wrong?

Well the Global Warming Policy Foundation (Nigel Lawson’s new group) will publish an analysis of those 500 or so formal review comments tomorrow. But in essense a good number of highly regarded indidivuals and institutions did raise questions, ask for clarification, query the level of confidence and indeed urge the IPCC group to withdraw the assertion of glacier melting as patently untrue. As far as one can tell from the information available to date, they were simply ignored. 

Worse than that. And here’s another bit of  indignation… A report published by the Indian Government just last November written by geologist Vijay Kumar Raina, stating that Himalyan glaciers have not in anyway exhibited, especially in recent years, an abnormal annual retreatwas dismissed as “voodoo science” by the chairman of the IPCC  who said “With the greatest of respect this guy retired years ago and I find it totally baffling that he comes out and throws out everything that has been established years ago.”

Last week the IPCC was forced to withdraw its claim over the melting glaciers as it has no scientific foundation. The WWF has likewise issued a retraction.  

Heads should roll over how these claims of glacier melting ever found their way into the IPCC report. But what is almost worse is the assertion by the IPCC when questioned that “everything has been established years ago”.

Yet again it calls into question the whole issue. Who should we trust? How do we even know who we should trust? How much more of the “scientific concensus” on global warming and its causes is built on so-called science “established years ago”. As I post this I learn that another IPCC claim linking global warming to natural disasters has now also come under question. Oh dear…….

Tags: , , , , ,

I am trying very hard not to be a “climate change denier”

By Angela Harbutt
December 6th, 2009 at 8:54 pm | 13 Comments | Posted in UK Politics

…..a “climate change sceptic” or as Mr Miliband dubbed those of a different opinion to himself last week  – a “climate change saboteur”  …… but boy they are not making it easy for me.

For I find myself increasingly wondering – just how much money is there in this for those who are leading the climate change vanguard? How much kudos, fame and bandwaggoning is tied up in this particular cause? The scientists taking their research funds; the energy companies taking their subsidies; the politicians taking centre stage with their great moral crusade on which they pontificate, and use to terrify us into submission.

Only today The Sunday Telegraph reports that professor Phil Jones – who until recently led the Climate research Unit (CRU) at University of East Anglia -has so far received £13million+ in climate research funding no less. That’s 13million good reasons to big-up any issue.

It has not helped the climate change cause that the very same unit in receipt of the £13million is also at the centre of the investigation into doctored figures. Emails (obtained by hackers it seems) from Prof Jones say, amongst other things, I’ve just completed Mike’s NATURE trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline”. Well…if you will incentivise people to go down a particular path, don’t be surprised if they overstep the mark.

And let’s not forget the holier-than-thou, great-and-the-good descending on Copenhagen. 15000 delegates are seemingly required to discuss pie-in-the-sky “targets” that everyone seems to agree already will not result in any binding deal. And even if they do agree binding targets – these dont appear to be modest, sensible ones, over, say, the life of most parliaments (e.g. 3 or 4 years) that today’s politicians will be answerable to. Why not cancel the thing and save the many thousands of tonnes of carbon the conference seems set to cost. Because it will have a BIG carbon footprint. Last heard, some 1200 limo’s will be used to ferry these hand-wringers around and some 140 extra private jets will use Copenhagen’s airport.  That’s a lot of hot air, in every sense of the word.

Back in boggy Britain, we, the little people, are berated over OUR energy use. We are bombarded with sinister Government adverts telling us to use our cars 5 miles less per week, use public transport wherever we can – no matter how difficult/poor/filthy/cramped etc that is- switch off our lights, fly less, recycle more, obey or be doomed. Politcians on the other hand swish about in gaz guzzlers, attended by dozens of “advisors” along for the jolly, making big speeches feeling very self important . What bit of irony don’t they get?

We do irony well in the UK. We also do dissent rather well too. Echoing the results of  The Times survey a couple of weeks ago, an ICM survey for The Sunday Telegraph published today, shows that  nearly 50% of voters think there is no proof that mankind is causing global warming. Gordon Brown described such people as “flat earthers” . There’s clearly an awful lot of them about. And his response to the ICM survey was to say that he’s  convinced by the scientific evidence (well thats ok then) and that his government will be making the case that the threat of climate change is real. Hmmmm…..We have seen the effects of dodgy dossiers from this Government before. Let’s hope that the Government has not got another one in its briefcase this time.

All I really want for Christmas is an open honest debate on this issue – preferably amongst scientists – butI will take what I can get. No doubt inspired by the Daily Politics show last week, just such a debate appeared on BBC’s Politics Show lunchtime today between Lord Lawson and Ed Miliband. Government may be reduced to name-calling. Research units may manipulate the data and seek to prevent FOI requests for the raw data. But it seems to me that a healthy debate concerning the science and the economics of climate change is coming out at last. That has to be good news for all sides of the debate because it’s good for democracy.And because its more likely to result in the right policies being implemented.

And no Ed Miliband I do not think it “irresponsible” to query the science of climate change. As Lord Lawson put it so magnificently” What I think is profoundly irresponsible is to say that dissent should not be tolerated. That honest, rational, reasoned debate is unacceptable. That is wrong on any issue”

You can catch the Nigel Lawson v Ed Miliband debate at the top of the post – or catch the full Politics Show programme on BBC iplayer by clicking here.

Tags: , , , ,

GUEST POST: at Copenhagen, beware “green” protectionism

By admin
December 1st, 2009 at 2:15 pm | 2 Comments | Posted in Economics

dusty_kidWith all eyes on the UN summit at Copenhagen this month, keen observers are wondering whether collaborations are possible to mitigate climate change. Yet some proposals would do more harm than good, with “green” protectionism the most dangerous of all.

These are proposals to permit trade restrictions on the grounds that they will help to prevent climate change–a sadly misleading theory, which has predictably gained support already from uncompetitive industries and other vested interests have jumped on the bandwagon.

In our petition against these measures, the Freedom to Trade campaign explains:

“Trade enables specialisation, which results in the development of new technologies and leads to the creation of wealth. In the past two decades, trade has enabled over a billion people to escape poverty. Trade is the most powerful weapon in humanity’s armoury to fight poverty and environmental ills, including climate change. Trade restrictions are not desirable, nor are they an effective means of addressing climate change.”

Ongoing health disasters that some fear will be accentuated by climate change are already a reality today for millions of people–as a result of poverty, imbedded by oppression and trade restrictions.  Every thirty seconds a child dies of malaria, an entirely preventable and curable disease.  Seventeen thousand people in poor countries die every day from respiratory or diarrhoeal illnesses.

To instil today’s disasters by encouraging barriers to trade that are already preventing people in poor countries from lifting themselves out of poverty is madness. Please sign our petition against this phoney cure, and send a message to the politicians in Copenhagen that trade and wealth are our best weapons to adapt to a changing climate.

SIGN THE PETITION HERE: http://bit.ly/1mu46P

Alec van Gelder is Project Director of the Freedom to Trade campaign and writes on trade for publications such as the Wall Street Journal and Sydney Morning Herald.

Tags: , , , ,

Finally….a proper debate on climate change

By Angela Harbutt
November 23rd, 2009 at 5:32 pm | 7 Comments | Posted in UK Politics

Congratulations to the BBC . I dont say that often, so I will say it again. Congratulations to the BBC. Today on The Daily Politics show I finally got to see a proper discussion on climate change – and between two scientists no less! Prof Fred Singer ( Founder and President of the Science and Environmental Policy Project and Professor Emeritus of Environmental Science at the University of Virginia) and Prof Bob Watson (the chief scientific advisor at the department of the environment) met with Andrew Neil for a rattlingly good discussion.

I will put up the highlights of the programme up here later today or you can go to BBCiplayer to see the full programme.

This debate comes shortly ahead of the Copenhagen summit and, I am told, a debate being held tonight entitled “The Copenhagen Summit: Do Science and Economics Support Government Action on Climate Change” . Judging by the discussion on air today it promises to be a must see event. Full marks IEA and can we have more of this on the BBC please, so that more of us can listen to the arguments from all sides, not just the spin.

UPDATE: Apologies for the delay. You can now see the climate change part of the programme here… or you can go to BBCiplayer to see the full programme.

Tags: , , , , ,