An alternative? Really?

An alternative to the new wave of ecofascism

By liberating humanity from the compulsion to consume, climate catastrophe can be averted without recourse to authoritarianism

It is time to acknowledge that mainstream environmentalism has failed to prevent climate catastrophe. Its refusal to call for an immediate consumption reduction has backfired and its demise has opened the way for a wave of fascist environmentalists who reject democratic freedom.

In which our intrepid blogger tells us that those nasty population controlling, back to the stone age eco-fascists have got it all wrong and instead a cuddly environmental movement will ban advertising, 'liberate' us from consumption, revoke the power of corporations and bring about a downshift in the economy.

So by doing the same as the 'eco-fascists' but doing it with a good heart.

Yeah, right.

Just more of the same mantra, ignoring that this twat can't see he's just calling for the same control-freakery nonsense that his alleged targets are.

Humanity can avert climate catastrophe without accepting ecological tyranny. However, this will take an immediate, drastic reduction of our consumption. This requires the trust that the majority of people would voluntarily reduce their standard of living once the forces that induce consumerism are overcome.

So 'humanity' can avert disaster by bringing disaster upon itself. See it's consumerism that's the cause of the world's ills. Not stone-age theocracies that seek to diminish individualism, not tin-pot dictators who like to keep their poor cowed and accepting what scraps are thrown at them, not western societies that spend half their GDP on government and building a client-state of reliant masses firmly stuck in the bottom.

No, it's ingenuity, invention and production of desirable products that are going to kill us all. In Micah's world a kettle is far worse than a gun, a toaster more depraved than preventing women from getting an education and cars worse than tanks. To be fair, he has a vested interest in this seeing as he edits a magazine which you can buy in the name of reducing your consumption.

What is it with these loons that makes them unable to see that everything they say is hypocritical?

Here's what Adbusters think:

Citing the global vilification of tobacco as his model for other industries, Adbusters chief Kalle Lasn writes: “[Culture] Jammers are now mobilizing to repeat the tobacco story in many other areas of life. We’re going to take on the global automakers, the chemical companies, the food industries, the fashion corporations and the pop-culture marketers in a free-information environment …We want auto executives to feel just as squeezed and beleaguered as tobacco executives. We want them to have a hard time looking their kids in the eye and explaining exactly what they do for a living."

I blame Bill Hicks.

Nah, just kidding, at least Bill could see through hypocrisy.

So the Guardian pay a guy to write an article about how the 'eco-fascists' are wrong, and what is needed is big dose of eco-marxism instead. If it wasn't in the Guardian I guess you couldn't make it up.

War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength

Norwegians lose ice artifacts to climate change

Ice layers once covering Norwegian mountain summits are melting so fast, archaeologists cannot keep pace with and preserve the number of emerging discoveries.

It takes a fairly special interpretation of the facts to deduce that uncovering archaeological treasures going back some 3,000 years is somehow 'losing' them.

The doublespeak being offered here seems to be based on the idea that, because they have found so many they must have lost even more and so that great global bogeyman 'climate change' (even this phrase is about to be binned in place of Global Climate Disruption, yet another coverall phrase) can be wheeled out and applied in this case.

Do these people think we're stupid? I think they do.

The scientists talking to the reporter here don't mention climate change in any of their quotes. Indeed:

"It's like a time machine...the ice has not been this small for many, many centuries," Pilø told Reuters this week.

I'll accept that the ice is melting due to climatic processes right now. I'll accept that some portion of that may well be related to man on earth. But you need to remember it's also been reported that cow, pig, sheep and chicken on earth are responsible for about a third too (oO,). But what exactly happened many, many centuries ago that is fundamentally different from what may or may not be happening now?

The standard answer is time period. Like we're to accept that the ice encroached over a leather show over hundreds of years. Not forgetting that the artifacts they are finding stretch back 1500 years up to 3400 years. Did the ice stop coming slowly for nearly 2000 years do you think? Or is it at all possible that in a period of 3500 years alone the ice has moved back and forth sometimes more than today, sometimes less?

You need to remember if you even have the audacity to wonder about this stuff you're a denier and an anti-science flat earther.

I'd like to know why this article is even tagged with climate change considering they couldn't get a money quote from the scientists? Do you think they've just not used it, or the implication is in the quotes and it doesn't need to used. Or is the sub-editor just so lazy they've seen melting ice and automatically added the climate change tag. Personally I think it's more likely that we're being spoon fed yet more bilge dressed up as concern for the planet.

Carry on Camping

Camped down and ready to take on RBS

CLIMATE-change activists gathering in Edinburgh for a four day-day protest last night vowed to "shut down" the Royal Bank of Scotland after setting up camp at the firm's HQ.

Yeah, because climate change is an environmental issue and absolutely nothing to do with socialists and the left in general!
Lets have a look at what these people are planning to do on their world saving crusade shall we?

An RBS source said they had been using bolt cutters to try to cut padlocks on security bollards.

Why are they trying to cut padlocks on bollards? Surely not to allow their cars and vans access to the land? Land, by the way, which is owned by the bank. So they don't have any problem with setting up a protest on land which is not public. And about those cars? What's the carbon footprint of this protest. I hope to hear it's fully carbon neutral (don't hold your breath though).
Because it's a 'green' protest the bank seem to be ignoring this issue and are allowing them to protest. I wonder if I would be able to protest about their bail out money on that land without having my collar felt? If you read the article you'll also see that the bank are closing the nursery in the grounds to 'ensure the children's safety'. I doubt that the eco-warriors would be a threat to any kids and so this is grandstanding a wee bit, but this likely means staff who have their kids in the nursery (and any non-staff parents) will be inconvenienced by these people choosing to protest here. Why not protest on public land near the bank?
Then there's the choice quotes:

"We want to make a big scene, cause RBS to lose money. You might be looking at what we've done to RBS before - getting in the building, locking ourselves in, superglueing ourselves together, disrupting them."
-
"We are looking at peaceful protest and everything with the police is fine so far. But we hope from the police's point of view they'll be keeping themselves peaceful throughout as we've had bad experiences with them at the G20 and Kingsnorth power station protest in Kent."
-
"It is not our intention to put anyone in danger. When we have to break the law to make our point about RBS it will not be done in a destructive way. RBS is part of the problem, not the solution, there is no point in talking to them"

Then there's this idea that the police are 'fine so far' with a veiled threat that if the police then try to enforce the law they'll squeal like children and insist that they're victims of police brutality.
OK, so the stated aim is to cause a bank to lose money. So far so left-wing. As for that 'getting in the building, locking ourselves in', again - would I be able to protest in that way? I'd be lifted for trying to rob a bank! It seems that you can do anything you like as long as it's to save the planet.
The next quote above tells us that they'll break the law, but not in a destructive way. So that's OK then. Next time I steal a car I'll make sure I don't do any damage and then plod can just supervise me doing it. Save everyone a load of trouble.
The last line is the kicker. 'There's no point in talking to them'. In other words, since banks and business are part of the problem it is that which must be taken down. Classic lefty arguments. I dunno where they think the lifestyle that allows them to protest against the system will come from under socialism, what I do know is that every single socialist state we've ever seen has been brutal in suppressing dissent. Of any kind.
Funnily enough, the protesters have a 'non-hierarchical' setup (very Monty Python), yet manage to organise monthly gatherings (who does this) and have managed to appoint a 'media team' including the lovely Natalie Swift who is the source of the third quote above.
A lot of these people are the same ones who got away with breaking into Kingsnorth, the judge who felt they were OK to do that as they had their hearts in the right place is likely feeling very proud.
So it seems that we have a bunch of activists, spouting the same anti-globalisation, anti-capitalist, anti G20, in fact anti-everything that allows them their self-indulgent western lifestyle tagging themselves onto climate change. But, hey, climate change is not a left-wing issue. Give me strength. There's nothing I have seen in years of reading up on and following the news on this particular issue that has told me that there is a catastrophe waiting to happen. But it's a convenient catch all that makes plants grow more (and less), snow fall more (and less) and, well you get the picture, we have a science full of uncertainty that we don't yet fully understand but the scientists decided, for reasons I don't fully understand to claim had very little uncertainty. Before we allow the world to reorganise itself along the same lines as Stalin, Pol Pot and Castro I'd quite like to see something more than computer generated scenarios and studies that return so many conflicting results.

Looks like the scare is over; what's the next one?

That global warming meme seems to be dying now. Good. Hope you never put too much stock in it, this time next year it'll be like bird flu.

Might mean you'll feel a bit daft for having bought into it, but it's OK, you're most likely a socialist anyway and so you'll have plenty of experience of being wrong. Now, leave the rest of us alone ya nutters.

Making it up as they go along

or are they? The BBC's Michelle Roberts - Health Reporter says this (my emphasis):

Climate change 'will increase heart deaths'

Many more people will die of heart problems as global warming continues, experts are warning.

Climate extremes of hot and cold will become more common and this will puts [sic] strain on people's hearts, doctors say.

Except it's not what the report says at all, the report says a 2.0% increase in heart attack risk is attributable only to 1C drops in temperature and even better it specifically says:

Conclusions Increases in risk of myocardial infarction at colder ambient temperatures may be one driver of cold related increases in overall mortality, but an increased risk of myocardial infarction at higher temperatures was not detected. The risk of myocardial infarction in vulnerable people might be reduced by the provision of targeted advice or other interventions, triggered by forecasts of lower temperature.

So the usual alarmist note is taken, so caught up is our intrepid reportrer in her assignation of anything that is available to that modern catch-all 'climate change' that she is either blithely ignoring the referenced article she is reporting on, or she is well aware that a guaranteed byline is available on surely the world's top alarmist source (sorry Guardian) if those two dog-whistle words are in the copy.

I wont blame her completely for this blatant misreporting of what the study says, she does, after all, manage to find an accompanying piece on the BMJ site 'Temperature changes and the risk of cardiac events' where Paola Michelozzi, head of environmental epidemiology unit, Manuela De Sario, epidemiologist manage to perform the heroic task of making sure anything bad that can happen manages to have some climate stakeholder claim.

Climate change is a concern in many regions of the world where extreme hot and cold temperatures may affect people with cardiovascular diseases and increase the incidence of coronary events. The impact may be greater in areas with inequalities in the access to medical services.1

In the linked study (doi:10.1136/bmj.c3823), Bhaskaran and colleagues assessed the effect of temperature on the risk of myocardial infarction and other acute coronary syndromes2; they performed a time series analysis across 15 conurbations in England and Wales using clinically confirmed hospital admissions data. They found that each 1°C reduction in daily mean temperature was associated with a 2.0% (95% CI 1.1% to 2.9%) cumulative increase in the risk of myocardial infarction for 28 days; the highest risk was within two weeks of exposure. They found no association at higher temperatures.

So fair does, she's parroting a line that's been parroted onto a report which had nothing at all to do with rising temperatures. But it's a nice insight into the mindset - people wont respond to articles about climate change that don't mention heat so make sure that heat is also bigged up and scare tactics applied.

Is there a point to this? I think there is. I don't think this is sloppy reporting, I think it's desperation to add a bogeyman onto any story, no matter how tenuous the link. I don't doubt that if climate change was instead a fear about fuel shortages the article would have been skewered accordingly. And, to me this is what is so wrong about the whole thing, the alarmist nature of so many of the scientific advocates, journalists and politicians points to a problem that no one knows the actual outcomes but have vested interests (research grants, tax increases, environmental political goals and selling copy) and so will always push the worst (or worse!) case scenarios.

Either that or they really think the report said 'hot and cold' temps will increase heart attack risk and they want us all to live in hermetically sealed, air conditioned (irony alert) rooms kept at a perfect temp for optimal heart performance.

That's alright then

Government departments spend £6m on search engines

Four government departments spent almost £6m ensuring their websites appeared on search engine results pages in the last two financial years, according to newly released figures.

The Department of Health was the biggest spender, running up a bill of £4.4m in "paid search" fees.

It said the money was spent supporting campaigns on smoking and the flu pandemic.

Well that's alright then I suppose, long as it was for the children.

Where does any government department that's already blowing so much of our money on advertising to hector us get off on blowing another load on placements on Google?

Listen fucknuts, if your content is relevant to what people search for, then Google shows it, that's how it works, and if people aint interested enough in your pet projects to find them when they search for what they are into, ditch them.

Why am I not surprised to find Act on CO2 listed among the bilge I've now paid to see promoted at me? Another example of government pushing an agenda at us.

Where is that oil?

I said to Mrs Niggurath when this happened, please show me the pictures of the dead birds and fish.

I'm not trying to suggest that there have been none, but then again where are the pictures of the dead birds everywhere else that climate change is killing them. Oh that's right. Those pictures don't exist.

What about the birds killed by windmills? Oh. Sorry, doesn't happen.

I also asked my good lady to show me the dead creatures that I killed by my addiction to oil.

But it appears that that evil witch Gaia is destroying all evidence of an oil spill. Who'd a thunk it?

Politics: Showbusiness for ugly people #3

Vince Cable always looks as though his nose it too near his arse to me.

The day the coalition stood still

Back in May, it was widely reported that the new coalition government intended to hold a consultation on repealing draconian and unnecessary parts of the law which the previous administration had enacted (many people think there were a lot of these).

Part of the Deputy PM's speech was this:

"As we tear through the statute book, we'll do something no government ever has: we will ask you which laws you think should go,"

"Taking people's freedom away didn't make our streets safe. Obsessive lawmaking simply makes criminals out of ordinary people. So, we'll get rid of the unnecessary laws, and once they're gone, they won't come back. 

All very laudable I'm sure.

They even set up a website to let us tell them.

In typical politician fashion though, this is just a box-ticking exercise so that they can claim to have listened, but instead just do what they want.

So Nick Clegg turns up with the one-liner that 'of course' the smoking ban will not be amended.

What people have been consistently requesting on the site with regards to the smoking ban is that the blanket ban on smoking in enclosed spaces is amended so that private businesses can be allowed to choose whether or not to allow smoking on their premises.

No one is petitioning for a complete repeal, just for a sensible approach to the issue. I haven't even seen anyone asking that the smoking ban be amended for railway stations, cinemas or workplaces. Really it's just pubs. One type of business, one type of amendment. Not to allow smokers to smoke wherever they want, just where the business owner would allow.

The search for smoking on the site yields 345 results as of just now. More than for climate change for example (there's a peachy climate one if your interested where someone is demanding 'deniers' be sent abroad on forced labour schemes).

This is the point the coalition stopped listening, took them all of two months. I've seen plenty of cynicism and criticism of the coalition so far, but the truth is many people were just relieved to be shot of Brown and so were taking a breather and perhaps even hoping to aim criticism at targets where they were failing. So I guess now the coalition might have to get used to losing popularity. And not having an overall majority that's a big risk for them. The simple act of agreeing to look at the smoking ban in the lifetime of this parliament (meaning a couple more years of the status quo) could have given them  a lot of Brownie points from the 20 percent of the adult population who do smoke, maybe not all, but enough to matter.

Idiots.

He's got big balls, I'll give him that.

Edward Michael Balls tells us that the economic policy he supported as a cabinet minister was a mistake.

Cuts pledge was a mistake - Ed Balls

Labour leadership hopeful Ed Balls has said he believes it was a "mistake" for Labour to promise to halve the deficit in four years by cutting spending.

He told the BBC News Channel he "didn't think it could have been done" but had accepted "collective responsibility" when Labour was in government.

Mr Balls has previously said it "made no sense" for Labour not to rule out raising VAT ahead of the election.

He was Gordon Brown's chief economic adviser for his 10 years as chancellor.

Happily using the idea of collective responsibility as though he was some kind of junior member and not instrumental in forming policy. Undoubtebly taking credit when it suits his agenda.

Oh! And this:

In the interview Mr Balls also said it was "not true" he had briefed against other MPs and had "no time for that sort of nasty politics".

Hahahaha.