We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
BBC Climate correspondent Paul Hudson asks What happened to global warming?:
This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.
No surprise to me about those dates. But yes indeed, big surprise that a BBC person is saying this.
But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.
No matter how hard we tried.
And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise.
So what on Earth is going on?
What indeed? This is not the usual BBC line, is it? Whatever your opinion of A(nthropogenic) G(lobal) W(arming) – mine has for quite a while been that it is wall-to-wall made-up nonsense – I think you will agree that this is quite a moment, as is further illuminated by the fact that Instapundit has just linked to the above piece. Which is how I just heard about it.
I wonder if the BBC feels inclined to switch to being AGW-skeptic in order to try to make difficulties for David Cameron – stirring up his own party’s AGW skeptics against him etc. David Cameron has swallowed the AGW argument whole, or at least pretended to. With that man, you never really know what he really believes. Apart from believing in David Cameron, David Cameron probably doesn’t know himself what he really believes, and probably never will.
But I digress. Mainly I just have a question. Is it right that this marks a big shift for the BBC, or have I not been paying attention properly? This is entirely possible. I don’t follow this debate religiously, and certainly do not know the names of all the key players on this topic in the mainstream media. Maybe Hudson has been a known unreliable for some time. But whatever the truth of that, I will certainly keep my eyes and ears open for what others, especially people like Bishop Hill, make of this, in the days and weeks ahead.
George Gilder – author of such books as the Spirit of Enterprise, has a nice essay up about the technological savvy and business prowess of Israel’s IT sector. Makes a change to read something about that country that does not involve armed conflict. But then, as we should remember, it is the sheer success of Israel as an economic unit, as much as anything else, that drives its would-be destroyers nuts, because it shows up their own massive failings.
I would like to get Gilder’s new book on Israel. As if my reading list were not long enough as it is.
And now for something completely different: the amazing new photos via the Hubble telescope.
Nokia has taken a stab at what might be possible with materials that will be available before the end of the next decade.
Phones that are foldable, do not get dirty, do not need recharging and look really neat as well may be the next step beyond the Apple iPhone.
If you have even the slightest interest in nature or biology, you will love The Encyclopedia of Life. It is an attempt to put all the world’s taxonomy data in one easily searched location. Presumably they will one day attach the full genome of each critter as well!
Oh how I wish I had this available when I was a kid. I knew just about everything that walked, crawled, slithered, swam or flew in Western Pennsylvania and was working away at the rest of the world when I was 14 or so!
The world of genetically modified plants took an interesting commercial turn, according to this story by Bloomberg that caught my eye.
You have to hand it to him for sheer, brass neck: George Monbiot, uber-Green, is trying to claim that those calling attention to what he claims is Man’s disastrous impact on climate are being censored, while those nasty, capitalist running dogs, climate change “deniers”, are bully boys:
One of the allegations made repeatedly by climate change deniers is that they are being censored. There’s just one problem with this claim: they have yet to produce a single valid example. On the other hand, there are hundreds of examples of direct attempts to censor climate scientists.
As evidence, Mr Monbiot says:
Most were the work of the Bush administration. In 2007 the Union of Concerned Scientists collated 435 instances of political interference in the work of climate researchers in the US. Scientists working for the government were pressured by officials to remove the words “climate change” and “global warming” from their publications; their reports were edited to change the meaning of their findings, others never saw the light of day. Scientists at the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration and the US Fish and Wildlife Service were forbidden to speak to the media; James Hansen at Nasa was told by public relations officials that there would be “dire consequences” if he continued to call for big cuts in greenhouse gases.
Well, such outrageous events are entirely possible, but Mr Monbiot, in trying to claim that the Green movement is some sort of vulnerable, weak grouping ranged against the forces of evil big business, is surely testing the reader’s patience and intelligence. The thesis of Man-Made global warming is widely promoted and repeated in the MSM. To argue against it, even to argue that such warming must be mitigated rather than reversed, can often land the arguer in hot water professionally. Consider, for example, the treatment of skeptical enviromentalist, Bjorn Lomborg. Note the use of the word “denier”. Anyone who goes against the standard party line on Man-made global warming can expect to be dubbed by the Monbiots of this world as a “denier”. Consider how even the word, “skeptic”, which once may have implied a sort of admirable refusal to take certain big claims on trust without the most rigorous testing, is now almost a term of abuse in the mouths of some, if not all, climate change alarmists.
So in truth, while Mr Monbiot may have some merit in his argument, for him to claim that the green movement is operating against forces of censorship is laughable. As far as I can see, the force is very much with the alarmist case, albeit perhaps less potent than a few years ago. There is only so much panic that flesh and blood can stand.
I am an agnostic on the climate change issue, and not being a scientist, do not presume to know what the position actually is with regard to whether such warming is man-made, or not. However, my political and economic views lead me to favour approaches that work to enhance prosperity and freedom, and my suspicions about some of the alarmists is drawn very much from the fact that their agenda seems to be incorrigibly statist. Sometimes you have to go with your gut instincts.
He is far from perfect, being happy to run a railway business that takes state funds, but my goodness, one has to admire the entrepreneurial brio of Richard Branson.
If true, this story suggests that his commercial space venture could be soon involved in taking up satellites. There is a distinct buzz around such ventures at the moment, which might have something to do with lessons people are hopefully learning about the flawed, if magnificent Moon landings of 40 years ago. For some extended reading, this long article by Rand Simberg is a good guide to some of the issues involved in spacefaring. In particular, I liked the way he addresses the issue of getting fuel into space and making it possible to set up the equivalent of a gas station network.
Here is also a good book on how spacefaring get back on track.
Okay, since we are in Lunar mode today, here’s another quotation:
“No event in contemporary culture was as thrilling, here on earth, as three moments of the mission’s climax: the moment when, superimposed over the image of a garishly colored imitation-model standing motionless on the television screen, there flashed the words: “Lunar module has landed” – the moment when the faint, gray shape of the actual model came shivering from the moon to the screen – and the moment when the shining white blob which was Neil Armstrong took his immortal first step. At this last, I felt one instant of unhappy fear, wondering what he would say, because he had it in his power to destroy the meaning and the glory of that moment, as the astronauts of Apollo 8 had done in their time. He did not. He made no reference to God; he did not undercut the rationality of his achievement by paying tribute to the forces of the opposite; he spoke of man”. (page 186).
Ayn Rand, The Voice of Reason.
For all that I broadly share the sentiment expressed here, I don’t think that any of the astronauts, even if they were religious, would have thought of their faith as somehow undercutting the sheer, grandeur of rational thought that got them up there in the first place. For them, I think, belief in a Supreme Being might even have been strengthened by wondering about how the universe came about in the first place, although cosmology comes in many forms. But still, Rand was right to make the point: in a culture that sometimes denigrates science and reason, the Moon landings were a potent reminder of just how far Man has travelled through the use of both.
University of Essex Professor Vic Callaghan has a paper addressing issues of privacy and intelligent environments. In his review of a video on the subject he notes:
I just watched the video of your talk “Open Source Physical Security: Can we have both privacy and safety?“.
I think you raise a number of very important points about the potential for misuse of technology. I research in pervasive computing (Intelligent Environments, Pervasive Sensing, Digital Homes, Smart Homes etc) having previously been heavily involved in robotics. In this work I became aware of how technology could be misused, in a similar way to the nanotechnology you describe. We became so concerned that we gave a talk to the UN (as we felt it needed legislation or guidance at a very high level). More recently we wrote this up as an academic paper which suffered some opposition and modification before we were able to find and outlet willing to publish it (its a rather unpopular message). We are mainstream researchers in intelligent environments, that spent most of our life promoting this technology so it was, perhaps, a little unusual that we wrote an article that might be counter to its unfettered deployment.
Although I do not think the UN is going to have the effect he would wish, the worries he expresses are ones we all need consider. The era of ubiquitous sensing has already begun.
PS: Watch the referenced Christine Peterson video for a good summary of the right way to approach this problem (and not just because she’s a very old friend of mine!)
In just over one month’s time, some of us space geeks will be hoisting a glass or several to mark this 40th anniversary. I was only a three-year old toddler when Messrs Armstrong and Aldrin climbed out of the craft and onto that dusty, sun-blasted place called the Moon. 40 years. Popular Mechanics has a good look at what it all meant.
I think a good place to mark the occasion would be down at Greenwich, London, near to the Royal Observatory.
Via such blogs as this one (see the list of recent postings on other blogs), and this one (the previous list being how I got to that blog), I today encountered a video of someone called Ian Plimer plugging his latest book, which is called Heaven and Earth. Watch it here.
And here (via this posting) is a piece about an Aussie politician who seems to be following Plimer’s lead.
I am no scientist, and politically I am heavily in favour of the free market capitalism that the Green Movement wants to shut down or at least castrate. So I would say all this. But I can honestly say that I find Plimer more convincing than those persons who talk about climate change as if the urgent need now is to stop all climate change (impossible) of as if those who doubt their prophecies of apocalypse (such as me) believe that climate is not now changing. The climate always changes.
Plimer is eloquent, and relatively brief. Even pro-AGW greenies would find this, I think, a quite useful short compendium of all the arguments against their views, in fact they already are using it this way. That’s if they are interested in answering arguments, as some are.
The clearest insight that I personally got from this video performance was Plimer’s claim that the AGW (as in anthropogenic global warming) people are all atmospheric scientists (insofar as they are scientists at all), who are plugging their apocalypse without looking at any other kinds of scientific evidence, or much in the way of historical evidence either. He also says that this particular evidence is itself very threadbare, but that is a distinct argument that I have long known about.
I was also interested that Professor Donald Blainey [Correction: Geoffrey Blainey], an Australian historian whom I have long admired, is in his turn an admirer of Plimer’s book. Big plus, for me.
Plimer is optimistic that the current economic woes, woes that really are now being experienced by our entire species if not our entire planet, together with the little bit of cooling that has recently been happening, will concentrate people’s minds on what a load of humbug the AGW scare is. No doubt pessimists commenting here will say that the damage has already been done, and will take decades to undo. I’ll pass on that argument.
I now guess that the next argument for AGW here in Britain is going to be that since the BNP also says AGW is humbug, it must be true.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
