Idiot Republicans - Making Stupid Look Easy

A bunch of total dickheads Republicans have got together in South Dakota where they hold sway to pass a law decrying the politicisation of climate science and insisting on real science being used. Sounds ok, but here is the text of the declaration:

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the House of Representatives of the Eighty-fifth Legislature of the State of South Dakota, the Senate concurring therein, that the South Dakota Legislature urges that instruction in the public schools relating to global warming include the following:

(1) That global warming is a scientific theory rather than a proven fact;

(2) That there are a variety of climatological, meteorological, astrological, thermological, cosmological, and ecological dynamics that can effect [sic] world weather phenomena and that the significance and interrelativity of these factors is largely speculative; and

(3) That the debate on global warming has subsumed political and philosophical viewpoints which have complicated and prejudiced the scientific investigation of global warming phenomena;

Where do you start taking that part? You could not make it up!! I thought this might be a piss take, so I checked the official text - and no, it really is there. Let's dive in...

(1) That global warming is a scientific theory rather than a proven fact;

Fucking idiots don't understand what a theory is. A theory is an overarching framework that explains the existence of facts. They are not opposites; quite the opposite - facts and theories work together. How somebody who does not get Science 101 thinks they should lecture people on it is gobsmacking.

(2) That there are a variety of climatological, meteorological, astrological, thermological, cosmological, and ecological dynamics that can effect [sic] world weather phenomena and that the significance and interrelativity of these factors is largely speculative; and

Astrological???? I assume you mean Astronomical in trying to push the false meme that the sun is to blame? Or perhaps they really mean that only Virgo and Sagittarius are subject to climate change? Twats - but as if that was not enough; Thermological?? Thermology is the study of heat-based images of the human body for medical imaging. It has nothing to do with climate science. Fucking idiots.

(3) That the debate on global warming has subsumed political and philosophical viewpoints which have complicated and prejudiced the scientific investigation of global warming phenomena;

Yup - that will be what you lot are doing too; a bunch of politicians passing laws trying to frame science is the very definition of politicising the science. Fucking flipperty-flopperty twats.

The Lomborg Deception

So the anti sceptical environmentalist, as he likes to be known, Bjørn Lomborg - who is really an economist, likes to argue that while global warming is happening, we really should not worry about it too much. He's written lots on the subject and is accountable in that he references his arguments with footnotes... except that his references, if you take the time to read them can mean the total opposite of what he claims they do! The damming concision of somebody who has checked all the footnotes of his book 'Cool It' is damming; that Lomborg is "a performance artist disguised as an academic." Ouch!

One of Lomborg's most interesting claims is that global warming will avert more deaths (as fewer people die of cold) than it will cause. But three of the five sources he cites (including this and this) reached the opposite conclusion ...

This a key point as it does to the heart of the issue - accountability. At least Lomborg gave references that can be followed up and challenged. Most denial you encounter is a type of ranting innuendo that is a million times less accurate and accountable that the IPCC documents they attack.

Fairford Protests Put The Shits Up 'em (Good)

I went along to a couple of the protests during the Iraq War at Fairford, the huge US airbase that was used to send B52 bombers over to iraq to bomb some democracy into the natives. The first protest I went to was small (hundred or so) and the second was huge (couple of thousand?) - both were noisy and confrontational affairs; as they should have been. Here's what I wrote at the time;

The massive police reactions in Fairford, Bristol, across the South West and UK show a system in trouble. For those of us attending the demo at the US airbase of Fairford on Saturday 22nd, and I suspect for those attending any of the hundreds of demos and actions across the UK, we witnessed what can only be called the state in panic. Police presence was overwhelming to the point where you could see the fear of the state manifested in a thick blue line around the gates of USAF Gloucestershire. It made you think of a cornered and wounded beast.

Such was the fear of the people attending that the first use of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2000 / Section 60 in mainland Britian was at in effect. Its use was not to stop al Qaeda, but to protect a US airbase. As back up for the anti-terror laws there were huge number of police Forward Intelligence Teams, contracted civilian photographers and Evidence Gathering Teams. They had enough cameras to film a Hollywood epic, even if most of their footage was of people making roll-ups. Such was the panic of the authorities that they turned back coaches of protesters under the thin veil of 'legitimacy' as the numbers attending the demo threatened to spiraled out of their control. Police from all over the UK including Thames Valley, Manchester, Devon and Cornwall and Liverpool been drafted into sleepy Gloucestershire with their leave and rest days canceled as they struggle to cope with the popular resistance to war. ... more.

Now we find out that I was right - these protests really had put the willies up the Neo-Labour fuckers and thier neo-con backers! Good:

[Documents] show [anti-war] protests made the authorities very worried: the Americans leaned on defence minister Lewis Moonie, who leaned on Home Office minister John Denham to resist protests. Moonie wrote: "Concerns remain, especially on the part of the US authorities, who also see RAF Fairford becoming a focus of increased protester activity."

Moonie revealed that Americans helped plan policing this bit of Gloucester, writing: "Plans to respond to demonstrations and protest action in the Fairford area, whether at or away from the base itself, have been worked up by the Ministry of Defence police, the US authorities and the civil constabularies."

A draft reply from Denham shows the Home Office was worried that US soldiers might shoot protesters. Talking about the danger of "overreaction" by "American military personnel", the draft letter says: "We are all clear, I think, that the consequences of protesters being seriously injured, or even killed, would be very serious indeed."

For his part, Moonie was concerned that "the possibility clearly exists for unhelpful media coverage should future demonstrations get out of hand, and for our relationship with the US authorities to be damaged as a result". The papers also reveal David Veness, the Scotland Yard boss involved in dealing with terrorism and liaising with the head of MI5, was involved in discussions about how to police the Fairford demonstrations.

My recollection was that the national Stop The War hierarchy didn't want to protest there and wanted us to go to London. Local autonomy prevailed and we went and went. Let that be a lesson to us; same old same old marches in London do fuck all. Protests need to be focused.

(Also see here for more on the counter-intelligence tactics used on protesters.)

I'm on Twitter!

So it had to happen some time - but I noticed that Twitter, especially in Bristol, has got a healthy debate and discussion going on, so I've decided to dive in:

http://twitter.com/anarchist606

So feel free to follow with me if you're on Twitter, or sign up if not...

Thanks

More on Denial's Bootboys

Part 2 of an ongoing investigation into the orchestrated campaign of bullying, disinformation and denial run by an unholy cabal of right-wing media, free-trade think-tanks and big oil/coal and gas concerns;

The floods of offensive and threatening emails aimed at intimidating climate scientists have all the signs of an orchestrated campaign by sceptics groups. The links are well-hidden because mobilizing people to send abuse and threats is well outside the accepted bounds of democratic participation; indeed, some of it is illegal. And an apparently spontaneous expression of citizen concern carries more weight than an organised operation by a zealous group.

Without access to ISP logs, it is difficult to trace the emails to a source. However, it is clear that hard-line denialists congregate electronically at a number of internet nodes where they engage in mutual reinforcement of their opinions and stoke the rage that lies behind them.

Those who operate these sites retail the "information" that reinforces the assertions made by their followers. They often post highly personal attacks on individuals who speak in favour of mainstream science and measures to combat global warming, knowing from experience that they will stimulate a stream of vituperation from their supporters.

The posts on these sites often provoke an outpouring of the most outlandish conspiracy theories and vilification of individuals. There is no restraining influence and, in the middle of one of these frenzies, it would be a brave sceptic who called for caution and moderation in the ideas expressed or the language used.