Whatever happened to acid rain?

So the UEA has been completely exonerated about Climategate, as it has become know, and so Newsnight have a ‘where are we now’ debate around the table with the usual suspects, the most usual of them being Nigel Lawson, who, it seems clear, has his own very vested interests. But then, so, it increasingly seems, do the scientists, those interests unveiled by the use of the word ‘trick’ to make the figures work. What could be less scientific than a trick? That rabbit was up your sleeve all along, sheltering from the sun before waiting to pop out of the hat wearing a pair of UV shades and a coating of Factor 30. Everybody knows that. Tricks are only to be expected from politicians who need to arouse emotions and to be sleightful with their hands, they are not the sort of currency we want to see from scientists who must surely take some sort of Hippocratic oath that allows them to evaluate information with cold impartiality, to discover exactly what sort of mess will be made if, for example, you split an atom, and to report the findings on a clean white chart on a clean white wall.

The language that surrounds this debate is remarkably loaded : belief and denier. The sort of fun the liberal press has with deniers is kind of instructive, just becuse they’re a motley crew is the conclusion that there really is only one truth on this? To me, the study of climate change looks more like a humanity than a science, perhaps because every piece of evidence has to be translated into something else: ‘this’ equals ‘that’. And then ‘that’ is so loaded and can so easily, and quickly (at least under New Labour, anyway) be converted into practices that makes things worse: to sit under hundred watt light bulbs now you have to stockpile them like sugar under Edward Heath but the low energy bulbs that replace them need specialist recycling which costs more in ‘climate’ than 100 watt bulbs ever did, so now we have dispose of these ‘green bulbs’ in designated radioactive containers while we sit in 60 watt misery watching England play appalling football in the World Cup Finals. Where’s the progress in that?

Well done Spain btw, but go Holland in the Final. The Future’s bright…

Advertisements
This entry was posted in The Song House and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to Whatever happened to acid rain?

  1. calvininjax says:

    It isn’t about science any more, it is all about money, i.e. funding. And the greater the theoretical threat to life as we know it, the greater the funding.

    But worse than that is when scientific/medical half truths turn out to be blatant lies. Do the scientists ever admit they got it wrong? Do they buggery? And no one ever calls them to account.

    You are quite right to equate scientists with politicians. Science has become politicised because it is the politicians who sanction the funding and also supress findings that do not fit their agenda.

    Holland? I wouldn’t have thought you would have had much time for their blatant play acting.

    I have a feeling it may well be pre-ordained that Spain will win the World Cup and they do have the Mike Pejic lookalike — Puyol.

  2. Stephen Foster says:

    Pejic : )

    I haven’t actually seen much of Holland, have they been diddling the ref?

  3. makemeadiva says:

    Never mind that German Psychic Octopus, my guppies with their orange tails tell me it’s all about Holland in the final.

    So I think I’ll have to call them Edgar and Ruud.

  4. makemeadiva says:

    There’s a joke about tights with all those deniers about, but it’s too early for me.

  5. Daftburger says:

    So SF and diva say Holland? I’m just off to re-mortgage my house and put it on Spain! 🙂

    On the suject of lookalikes did Marty Feldman ever live in Germany?

    http://tinyurl.com/3ytd8eo

  6. Stephen Foster says:

    Edgar and Clarence, pls, for conceptually intact cross-channel Dutch punditry.

  7. OS says:

    “deniers”

    I thought it was a reference to ladies hosiery until I read the link. Would ‘denialists’ be a better term?

    I’m stuck between a rock and a hard place who not to support in the final. Calvin, on his blog, sums up what I think of Holland, and any team with Fabrigas in it could never get my support, although I do *like Puyol.

    *Not in a gay way.

    I’ll go with Daftbugger on this one. I think. I don’t know why I go with him on anything. He’s a lunatic.

    GGOS. (Hon umb.) POC.

  8. Stephen Foster says:

    One of the most incomprehensible expressions of my childhood was when my mam use to ask for ‘Ten dernier American Tan.’

  9. Stephen Foster says:

    I’ve *tinyurl-ed you so you’re not so wide.

    What do make of that?

  10. makemeadiva says:

    Ok Edgar and Clarence it is. Ruud being too confusing for the simple-minded canine in the house.

  11. Stephen Foster says:

    Denier is strange to look at – I surfed it up several times to see if it was really a word.

    It’s not in my ten-year-old Oxford dictionary , but it is in here:

    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/deniers

  12. Daftburger says:

    Next to ure intellect I always feel tiny anyway! 😉 x

  13. Daftburger says:

    There’s a fine line OS! 😀

Comments are closed.