punkscience is going on a cruise . . .

. . . in the North Sea, for two weeks. So you will have to arrange for other sources of anger and vitriol to inform or entertain yourselves, or to disgust yourselves with, if that's why you're here (I dunno- it takes all sorts).

Whatever you do, I can assure you it will be much less fun than playing with crabs for two weeks- for which, I offer my sympathy.

Ciao!

Noam rules

“If the left means anything, it means it’s concerned for the needs, welfare, and rights of the general population.”

Word. I wonder where Noam's political compass lies?

The Media Lens massive are pretty rad too:

"In the last decade of corresponding with journalists we have found that they often do behave as though they were living in a police state, or at least in a state policed by corporate power. Many are privately supportive and helpful. Indeed, many journalists who might be expected to be fierce opponents of our work, are in fact enraged by the mendacity and destructiveness of the media employing them. But they tell us their comments must be off the record; that they are not willing to comment over the internet (which is surely monitored); that they will help us only on condition that their names be concealed. Could it be more obvious that journalists do not feel free to write the truth about Alton and Kelner, and much else, because of the likely professional consequences?"

Peter Mandelson is a sociopathic cockweasel

Word.

I've had a shit day and to come home to face this neo-classical economical, ecocidal mania is just too much for me. I need a drink.

And a spliff. I'm really not much of a reefer-fiend, preferring a glass of good rum when I'm in company. But tonight I just feel the need for that warm fuzziness and the welcome absolution of short-term memories.

Self-medication rules.


Addition:

I changed the epithet in the title. I regret my original term, which was designed for maximum offense and was a product of my earlier bitterness.

Anyway, how's this for an interesting observation:

" . . . arable land would store more carbon year on year for many decades if just left to revert to a natural ecosystem . . . . If we grow biofuels "on previously unfarmed land" we will obviously incur the opportunity cost that the land would (or already does) store more carbon if we DON'T grow biofuels on it than if we DO."

It was a comment from SteelyGlint below Mandletwat's article. I'm not sure how right it is but it certainly rings true to me. Carbon fixed in biofuel production on arable land is rapidly released back into the atmosphere. The obvious problem is that letting arable land 'return to nature' results in a loss of food production capacity, just as the conversion to biofuel production does.

the Americanisation of the UK is almost complete

With the revelation that several UK citizens allege that they were tortured in Pakistan after being detained on terrorism charges the convergence of US and UK security policies proceeds unabated. Our military and security services are now accused of indiscriminate bombing, torture and abuse, ignoring- and even obstructing- the detention of war criminals, advocating the training of a new generation of guerillas and terrorists and- generally- operating utterly counterproductive security policies that serve to propagate and magnify the threat as opposed to reducing it.

religion is a byproduct of the evolution of imagination

Word.

New Scientist rules.

Murdoch criticises the BBC for being great

James Murdoch, clone of his BBC-hating, right-wing extremist father, has decided that the BBC's iPlayer service is a bad thing. Unsurprisingly really, seeing as his company BSkyB has completely missed the boat on internet TV and is now unable to compete with the BBC's visionary service. This is the second time in a month that the iPlayer has been criticised by corporate figures, who are clearly rattled at its success. Personally, I've never used it, but I can see how I will soon come to rely on it as I loathe the pre-programmed format of modern television almost as much as I hate the mindless shite that is perpetually broadcasted. Basically, these guys are assaulting the BBC because of what it is, not what it is doing. They simply can't stand having to compete with an organisation with a mandate that proscribes objectivity and balance, however poorly that may be implemented. It clashes directly with the corporate media's goal of homogeneity, elimination of real news and the dissemination of nationalist and corporate propaganda.


Addition:

More lies and propaganda from the little shit in this CiF post. Read the 3rd comment. Word!

lies, damned lies and White House Intelligence Briefs

In a moment that makes me wonder if I am not a little prescient after my previous post, the White House today broadcast claims that the building in Syria that was bombed by Israel- in a flagrant act of aggression- on September 6th, 2007, was a nuclear reactor.

Independent
BBC
Guardian

The possibility that this was, in fact, a nuclear plant, is a little remote. Why would Syria start a nuclear program? The US and Israel clearly have the country infested with agents and have satellite imagery of every inch of its surface. Syria stands to gain nothing from a nuclear program- whatever its purpose. I think this is an outright fabrication by the US to perpetuate ill-feeling towards the Arab states of the Middle East (anyone remember the "Iranian weapons" being supplied to Iraqi militia that were labelled with Roman characters, instead of Persian). Syria offered an olive branch to the US and they flatly refused it. The US has everything to gain from falsifying these allegation and Syria has nothing to gain from them being true.

'Nuff said.


Addition:

The IAEA has now waded in to the debate, pointing out rightly that the US and Israel should have shared any intel on a nuclear reactor with them first and foremost. Another example of the hell-bent unilateralism of these two states.

Just for a moment here, lets pause and review what enormous and genocide-promoting gaffs US intelligence has provided us with in the past.

• "Iraq is building nuclear weapons"
• "Iran """""""""""""""""""""""""""""
• A refusal to confirm or deny whether Israel has a nuclear weapon

Lets also just stop and consider what has been said by the US here:

• that the reactor is "good to go"
• this is clearly such utter bollocks that it should instantly invalidate any further posits from them. The "reactor building" didn't even have a roof when it was bombed!
• "Syria had built the plant "carefully hidden from view""
• so 'carefully hidden' that a commercial satellite operator could get images of it? What utter shite!
• "the reactor was designed to produce a small amount of plutonium, which can be used to build a nuclear bomb"
• sorry, what? How did they know this? If the North Koreans have spent the last twenty five years running a reactor similar to the alleged one here and haven't built a working warhead I don't think there's much to fear here. Building a nuclear powerplant and building a nuclear bomb are quite, quite different kettles of fish.

The Spectator: A mouthpiece for US and Israeli propaganda

Compare and contrast these two reports of the Israeli air strike on September 6th upon a target inside Syria.

One of them presents balanced perspectives and attributes its sources. The other is hysterical and makes extensive use of unattributable, unnamed sources.

Which do we think is the most accurate? Hmmmmmmm?

Middle Eastern insight

This ZNet interview with Norman Finkelstein is an amazing insight into the forces at play in the ME.

Dominic Lawson is a climate change-denying cockweasel

For someone who writes for the Indy he's remarkably stupid. He has utterly failed to contemplate the trend for rising fuel prices that will make renewable generation profoundly competitive within a few years. He is stupid enough to not have learnt anything from The Stern Report. He also makes no consideration of the apocalyptic consequences of rejecting sustainable development and renewable generation. In fact, this article misses so many glaring chances to point opinion in progressive directions- that is, directions which would lead to progress- that you have to wonder at the man's motives for essentially advocating the end of our society as we know it.

Take the economic point Lawson makes: That the economic downturn turns people's concerns away from environmentalism and towards economic stability. What he has missed completely is that the economic system itself is sick and in dire need of reform. The banks, whose idiocy and greed produced the economic crisis, aren't mentioned at all. Neither is any proposed changes to the system that might allow economic concerns to be mitigated.

That's just one example of an elephant in Dominic's room. Another would be his justified assault upon micro-generation. Damning David Cameron's poxy little turbine is entirely correct and Dominic throws some good figures in there. But this is after he has slated the EU's proposals for renewable energy generation, observing that they will cost the consumer £10 billion in total. The fact that such capacity will produce essential reductions in carbon emissions, increase energy security, generate thousands of jobs, shield us from subsequent rises in fuel costs and another million good reasons also pass mention, as does the fact that we should not be footing the bill for it- the government should be using our tax money to stabilise our economy and energy security!

But the worst piece of misdirection is Lawson's observation that "the British public . . . need educating about [the inconsistency of wind generation]" using the Texan example. His tone implies that, if the public knew about this flaw in the technology's reliability to generate electricity, they would reject such technology whole heartedly.This implication that renewable generation is flawed, uneconomic and inappropriate runs through the whole article. And, of course, it is entirely incorrect. As I have demonstrated time and again on this blog, renewable generation is perfectly capable of powering the world as long as it is applied intelligently.

Finally, and most damning of all, Lawson fails to extrapolate from his condemnation of renewable generation and covert endorsement of unsustainable development to the future: If we don't move to a sustainable society then catastrophic climate change will be inevitable and millions will die, our society will be crippled by food-poverty and mass migration of climate refuges and the economy will collapse. Dominic seems to imply that this is an acceptable alternative.

He is, clearly, a fucking cockweasel.