Passionate about people, networking, politics & travel. Travelling extensively & blogging about it, plus my reflections & insights on what's happening in the World! Background, expert in delivering strategic change. Executive/consultant/coach/researcher/author. Retired mainstream but still happy to share expertise.
I am afraid that whilst Dr Alf thinks that what Martin Wolfe has written is a “must read” I think it needs to be a must read for a different reason.
Many years ago, I had an excellent geography teacher called Mr. Burlingham and I remember his lesson on this very subject vividly and his belief that we were in fact between two ice ages because the time period between the last two ice ages was bigger than the period between the last one and the then present day when I was a schoolboy in his geography class.
The lesson was about how the earth traveled in an elliptical orbit around the sun for 1500 years and during that time drew closer to the sun for a period of 40 years and then moved away again.
The Medieval warming period and the period of the 1970s, when we had very long hot summers, corresponds with the warmer times when the earth was closer to the sun, whereas the winters of 2002, 2009, 2010, 2012 and 2013 are indicative of Global Cooling, something which the British Government has had reports about for almost ten years.
There is more hard evidence.
The earth has warmed by 1 degree in about 125 years, a period in which global population has doubled to 7 billion and any warming trends there were stopped in 1998 some 16 years ago.
The IPCC report in its latest manifestation says that this is explained by the oceans absorbing the man-made generated warming and that in 25 years this process of heat absorption will stop and that the world will start warming up again.
The problem with this is that both the north polar icecap and the one in Antarctica are 25% thicker and cover a 25% larger landmass at least according to NASA satellite imagery copied onto my mobile phone.
One would expect that warmth in the oceans would melt the ice, or at least, stop it from thickening but the opposite is true, and what’s more, Polar Bears are flourishing and have quadrupled in number thus confounding doomsayers, like Al Gore, the Prince of Wales,the BBC and the Club of Rome.
Professor Richard Lindzen, the top oceanographer in the world, does not believe in Global Warming and said so in an address to the House of Commons, the Russian Academy of Sciences; the Chinese and Indian Governments do not believe it either.
This is why the Chinese, even as we speak, are buying up land in Cambodia, Argentina, Brazil and Australia, on which to grow food for their people and one of the reasons Russia is keen to obtain more land in the Ukraine and put more of its own land under cultivation using the expertise of English arable farmers to advise and guide them.
The BBC which listens to people like Professor Nurse, Professor Beddington and the Climate Change Department at the University of East Anglia, does believe in it, yet the BBC cannot get more than 20% of its weekly weather forecasts right.
The Met Office who provide the BBC with forecasts on weather are so inaccurate that Tesco PLC fired them and replaced them with an American forecasting service because the BBC’s inaccurate advice was costing Tesco’s a great deal of money.
Martin Wolfe should I think write less alarming nonsense.
Like Dr Alf, who probably discovered the Simon Wren-Lewis article in the Guardian, I eventually found it in a Socialist publication via a Google search.
My reading of the article and my first hand knowledge of America and the politics there does not impel me to the same conclusions as Wren-Lewis or the idea that ideology is simply confined to one political party or that the IPCC and those who believe in Darwinian evolution have a monopoly of wisdom and that all this wisdom is concentrated in the brain of Simon Wren-Lewis, those who agree with him and people in socialist parties or parties which purport to be.
–A strong military covenant with our fighting men and their loved ones looked after
–Food and energy self-sufficiency
–People being allowed to get on with their lives without undue interference
–The preservation of the Nation State
–Alliances based on hard-headed realpolitik
–Security of our borders
–Thrift and hard work
–Free markets with sensible controls
–The rule of law fairly applied and based on a tradition of Judeo Christian ethics going back 1000 years
What we have under David Cameron and his fellow stooges is nothing like that:
–Police numbers cut by 20%
–Value per taxpayer pound 17th in the world
–A bankrupt economy and £2 trillion in on and off balance sheet debt
–A Tri Forces unable to guard our coastline, too few boots on the ground, no ability to defend our sea lanes and an over reliance on America, France and others to defend us
–A broken military covenant
–Massive food imports and 5000 farmers going bankrupt every year and just 4% spare generating capacity
–An intrusive state which interferes and spies on people 24 hours a day
–Parliament reduced to a cipher with our real masters being Angela Merkel and Germany in Europe
–Alliances which are a one way street
–35 million too many people and no border security whatsoever with the Census about to be abolished
–Economic incompetence, no exports ,too little enterprise, too few jobs, too little inward investment, too few linguistically capable export salespeople
–Judeo Christian ethics traduced by “Gay Marriage”,attempts to permit Sharia Law and a failure to get certain immigrants to integrate fully.
America is not like this, looks after its military forces and their families and has in most of its policies a different approach to the one adopted by David Cameron.
So the comparison Simon Wren Lewis seeks to make is one of comparing apples with pears.
This I know from living and working in that country and encountering people from across the political divide.
The Republican Party resembles the Conservative Party under David Cameron in that they both represent the interests of Big Business and plutocrats but there the resemblance ends.
Yes, it has people in it who imagine the earth was created in 7 days and is just 6,500 years old but we have people here who believe the earth can support only 1 billion people and that 6 billion people need to be culled as “useless eaters”.
Clearly, there is no monopoly on derangement and lunacy either.
In 150 years, the earths temperature has supposedly risen by 0.8 degrees yet since 1996 there has been a cooling as evidenced by 1 million extra square miles of ice at the poles a flourishing Polar Bear population and harsh winters in the UK during 2002, 2009, 2010, 2012 and 2013.
In fact, the Government has had 8 years of reports sitting on its desk produced by its scientists telling them that the climate is cooling.
Then Wren-Lewis cites Darwinian evolution.
The reality is that humans are the only creatures on the planet with brains far more developed than the rest of their bodies but Darwinian theory does not explain this adequately or at all.
Second, if we look at primitive people like Indonesian Dyaks, African Pygmies etc and then compare them to a Westernized C1 or C2 and then compare them to an Oxbridge graduate or to Professor Stephen Hawking or a Bill Gates are we really saying that all of them have evolved at the same speed from apes?
During the California Gold Rush, the miners found skeletons very much like modern mankind over 1 million years old, which meant they must have coexisted with more primitive forms of humankind supposedly descended from apes at the same time.
The skeletons were taken to the Chief Archaeologist for California who took them to Harvard for examination. Harvard University rejected the skeletons on the grounds that they did not fit in with the “prevailing view on Darwinian evolution.” So what we can gather from this is that whilst there has been Darwinian evolution, in some cases there have been additional factors at work which have created different types of human being which Darwinian theory cannot in its present form, explain.
Dr Alf’s Response to John Gelmini on Simon Wren-Lewis, Climate Change and UK Conservatives
With regard to Simon Wren-Lewis’s latest blog, I monitor it on a daily basis. Wren-Lewis is a World renowned Oxford economist who is regularly cited by top financial journalists, like Martin Wolf in the FT, and Nobel Prize winning economist, Paul Krugman, in his op-ed column in the NYT.
Wren-Lewis’ refereed research is a leading authority on the following:
(1) Damage done by excessive austerity policies of current UK Coalition Government; and
(2) The integrity of the economic management of the previous Labour Government.
I would also recommend taking a good look at some of Simon Wren-Lewis’s earlier blogs. If you feel passionate about some issue or other, I would be delighted to republish your views, irrespective of whether I agree or disagree with you.
Wren-Lewis writes his blog for three main audiences:
1. Professional economists around the World;
2. Financial journalists to help them with evidence based commentary; and
3. People like myself and others in “blog-sphere” who are keen to get behind the news and understand it from multiple perspectives.
If you read Wren-Lewis’ blog carefully, you will see he argues that he is apolitical. Anyway, enjoy checking it out!
Returning to areas of agreement and disagreement, we clearly disagree on climate change. In this regard, I strongly disagree with your comments about evidence to support the damage from climate change. I refer you to my reblog of an FT article yesterday citing the latest UN evidence. Here’s the link to my blog:
If you want to go straight to the UN report, here’s the link:
For me, the UN report is full of scientific evidence.
Finally, I would like to pick up your point citing:
1. The Russian Academy of Sciences;
2. The Chinese Government;
3. The Indian Government; and
4. the world’s top oceanographer Professor Richard Lindzen.
Using Simon Wren-Lewis distinction between “ideology-based policy” and “evidenced based policy”, I tend to group these four sources as ideology-based policy, along with much of the policy of the US Republican Party and the UK Conservatives.
Let me conclude that like you I have been a UK Conservative Party supporter all my life and whilst our views diverge (see above), we both take extreme exception to many of the policies of David Cameron’s Government. Let me conclude that in my view, David Cameron’s Government has been an omni-shambles in most areas of policy.