Students not to blame for riots.

I'm not suggesting that the protesters in the recent demonstrations are not responsible for their individual actions or that they shouldn't be accountable for what they did as individuals but history will not blame them for bring anarchy to the streets of the British Capitol, any more that history blames the protesters for the Poll Tax riots 20 years ago.

The Government must take the blame for bringing riots to the streets of London.

Ironically, successive governments and political parties have for generations been trying to engage the young in politics. For many young people this has now been achieved but I doubt this is what the parties had in mind.

Do you want to spend Eternity with this man?

We can only presume that the late Jerry Falwell, who died in May 2007 and other like him are in Heaven. He certainly believed that is where he was headed along with the parishioners that this Christian evangelical fundamentalist Baptist pastor administered to.

He started the Christian Political Movement in America known as the Moral Majority a powerful group that was instrumental in electing Ronald Reagan to Office on two occasions.

Falwell attacked the Black Civil Rights Movement singling Martin Luther King out for special criticism; he attacked the anti-Apartheid Movement singling Bishop Tutu out for special criticism. And, of course, apart from Blacks he also attacked Gays, Liberals, Jews, pagans and women activists:

'In 2001 he said "that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians" helped the Sept 11 attacks happen.'

Would you want to spend Eternity with him in Heaven? It sounds more like hell to spend eternity with a sexist, homophobic, anti-Semitic, racist.

Of course he may not get to Heaven, for those who believe such a place exists. Some may claim he was the wrong sort of Christian, particularly if he wasn’t part of a certain Christian grouping – the ‘true faith’. Some would claim he was a bad person, and I would agree, but and they might say "Why abandon the whole religion just because of some bad people?"

But can you say Falwell was a bad person? He was a fundamentalist who seems to have got his beliefs and morals from the bible. He was in every sense of the word a true Christian and he could justify all his statements with scripture.

So why shouldn't he go to Heaven? He lived and preached according to an interpretation of the bible. Why should his interpretation of it be less valid than other believers? A few decades ago the majority of Christians believed more or less what he preached up until his death and similar or worse is still being preached by some Christian ministers today. If they lived their lives according to it they would be expecting to be going to heaven and the person they pray to every day isn’t telling them any different.

Remember that Falwell was not a one man band either. He had supporters and plenty of Christians agreed with him. They will also be expecting to be going to heaven by following their version of Christian belief. Why should a more modern and moderate version of Christianity be better or be right? He obeyed the Bible. Just because our ethics have changed in the last 2000 years has Gods? And his interpretation is more in keeping with Christianity’s of the last 2000 years.

So it might be expected that anyone who gets their morals and ethics from the bible should end believing like the Late Pastor Falwell. He lived his life according to the scriptures. What I mean is that his version is more similar to the one that led to the burning of heretics, inquisition, crusades and numerous other examples from Christianity since roman times.

'Nice' Christians cherry pick the bible for all the nice bits. Fundies like Jerry Falwell are true to the spirit of the whole book. I'm sure he would have said he loves everyone, which is why he is doing homosexuals the favour or pointing out if they don't change their ways they will go to hell. He certainly wasn’t expecting to be there to meet them.

Who voted for this idiot?

Roger Helmer, Conservative MEP for the East Midlands constituency

As reported in the Guardian, Conservative MEP for the East Midlands constituency, Roger Helmer has launched a £9000 anti-climate change poster campaign.

A political poster campaign is nothing new but this one is launched at a time when there are no elections and no votes to gain. So why has he done it? It seems the only reason is because in coincides with the UN climate talks in Cancun Mexico. But that still does not explain why. None of the people he represents as an MEP can influence those talks which he is attending.

So what about the funding for the posters? The £9000 cost is coming a European Conservative group known as the ECR which gets it's funds entirely from the EU Parliament. And of course that is funded by its member states paid by taxes form us!

My title of this post is being somewhat disingenuous to voters. Many may not have really voted for idiot at all as we often don't know much about our candidates and vote in reality for their parties. But the views expressed by Helmer do not represent either the Conservative Party, the ECR, or Conservative MEPs as a group. As the Guardian reports; "This does not represent the view of the Conservative Party."

Helmer's £9000 poster. Someone on CIF has suggested that the Green text be replaced by 'Roger Helmer'. I think I agree.

So what we have is one maverick MEP, (and I don't mean that in any romantic way), who is spending thousands of pounds of taxpayers money to buy advertising space to promote his own unsound beliefs and theories.

Now don't get me wrong. I understand that any country's commitment or legalisation to do any thing about climate change is going to get political. I have no problem with politicians thrashing out policy whether domestic or international and a poster campaign is a valid way for any political group to publicise it's views and policies. I have no problem with that as long as their response is based on need determined by sound science. But that is not the case here, Helmer is speaking for no one other than himself when he talks about climate change. Every taxpayer in the EU regardless of their views on climate change should be appalled that our money is being spent on a personal campaign like this, it is a misappropriation of funds.

I think the most interesting question the Guardian reports asks is;  'in what capacity has Helmer travelled to Cancún?' He is clearly not representing his party and holds no environmental position in the EU parliament. Unless he has personally funded his whole expedition and claims no parliamentary expenses, then that will be another misappropriation of funds. Add that to the fact that he has left the country during this time, even if it is simply a coincidence and he is on holiday, it is still a dereliction of his parliamentary duties.

Why my outrage? If all of the above isn't enough to be going on with, I am one of his constituents. Roger Helmer, MEP, is my representative in the European Parliament! I wonder is it possible for me as one of his constituents to issue an FOI request to determine exactly what he was doing in Cancun Mexico at this time and how much if any were his expenses?

I feel a strongly worded letter to my MEP coming on.

Biblical authority for abortion.

Abortion is one of the most contentious subjects in the science/religion debate for some people of faith, along with evolution and homosexuality.

Being from Christian origin I was always totally against it. Now as a non believer I no longer have my Christian belief as a guide and if I claim rationality I must consider other evidence for guidance.  

I can no longer see it as a black and white issue but generally I’m against abortion. It should not be used as a form of contraception and there seems to be plenty of childless couples of good standing who would adopt unwanted children, rather than see them aborted.

But there are many scenarios where I could not claim any moral superiority to say if abortion was justified or not, I’m just thankful that I am not in the position where I need to make any decision. Abortion is an unpleasant fact of life whether planned or unplanned. The morality is an open topic and I would not presume to think I have answers but to get those morals from copper and iron age books when we have another 2000 or more years of ethical debate and medical advancement is a very sad thing to contemplate.

I accept that life begins at conception – that is simple logic.
But for the religious, when does the foetus have a soul and therefore human?
You may again think at conception but is this logical?

Many zygotes (the initial ball of cells that develop after conception) split into 2 and become identical twins. If the soul is present at conception the do twins have the same soul? Obviously not.

And when there are 2 zygotes present they do not always become non identical twins but can combine and can become a single individual known as a chimera. Does a Chimera have 2 souls – again obviously not.

However, from my new un-Christian perspective I began to wonder if there really was any Biblical authority on abortion. The Bible does not comment directly on abortion, even though abortion was practiced then. All Biblical arguments on abortion are indirect and open to interpretation, and debate continues even among the world's most respected theologians.

The most cited verse is the Commandment ‘Thy should not kill’, but it is difficult to believe that abortion was in mind when that was brought down from the mountain. The ‘killing’ is clearly very selective because there is plenty of it in the name of God from that point in the Bible, including pregnant women;

Hosea 13:16 (King James) Samaria will bear her guilt because she has rebelled against her God.
They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to pieces,  and their pregnant women ripped open. 

Nice.

Also I believe that according to Jewish Law which was in force in the Old Testament, a baby is not considered to be living until thirty days after its birth. One is not allowed to observe the Laws of Mourning for an expelled foetus and these Laws are not applicable for a child who does not survive until its thirtieth day. In fact, the Jews, who are famous for their preservation of tradition, have never considered abortion to be a sin. This makes some kind of sense when considering the high rates of child mortality in the Bronze Age.

Exodus 21:22-23 (New Living Translation) seems to support this;

22 “Now suppose two men are fighting, and in the process they accidentally strike a pregnant woman so she gives birth prematurely.  If no further injury results, the man who struck the woman must pay the amount of compensation the woman’s husband demands and the judges approve. 23 But if there is further injury, the punishment must match the injury: a life for a life,

It seems to say that the assailant's life and the stillborn's life are not equal so is proof that the Bible does not count the foetus as a person. It could be argued that it does not explicitly say that the further injury only includes the woman but Jews, who know their own tradition best, have always accepted the first interpretation

There may be some other biblical passages that could be interpreted as being against abortion but there isn’t anything specific that I can find. So it seems that the generally Christian concept that abortion is murder is not very will supported in scripture, and although it is a difficult topic, when considering specific cases perhaps a less fundamentally religious view is called for. One that looks rationally at the issues and ethics and considers the views of those involved to help them make an informed decision rather than dictate what others consider must be so.

I am a Climate Sceptic, and I Accept the Science

I am a sceptic, and I accept the science. There is no contradiction in that statement.

Accepting science and being a skeptic does not mean accepting every piece of research published, - you would for ever flip flop your understanding from one likelihood to another.

It does not mean rejecting things you simply don't want to hear or can't handle.

It means accepting that the most likely is also the most supported by the researchers and their interpretation of the data.

It means not being so arrogant that you think you know better than specialist experts, particularly when most broadly agree.

It means accepting the general direction and conclusions of all the separate threads of evidence.

The only real way to do this is to accept statements from the scientific communities on a subject, while being sceptical of research than contradicts this and highly sceptical, but not immediately dismissive of, evidence from non-expert sources like unqualified blogs and media reports.

It means not accepting something just because it is what you want to hear.

It means not dismissing sound science that adds to our understanding because it contradicts your most cherished beliefs.

It does means rejecting anything that is only supported by the unqualified, or pseudo-science or conspiracy theory, or even conspiracy unless extremely well evidenced.

I accept where the science points. I can never be wrong by doing this because if the research reveals evidence that modifies our understanding, then that is still what I will accept.

If the worlds national science academies start to issue statements saying that AGW is over blown, that is what I will accept. Or if the scientific community band together to declare climatology is using unsound methodologies, then that is what I will accept.

There is a problem if you already believe that AGW is over blown or climate scientists are untrustworthy without real, credible and irrefutable evidence to support this.

That isn't scepticism. It is belief supported by ignorance.

Chinese wispers disprove global warming.

It doesn't take much for most climate skeptics to un-skeptically accept some stories - apparently just telling them what they want to hear will do. It also doesn't help that the standard of most of the worlds reporting media is so, so awful. Most journos are happy to take the lazy way out and rehash others stories, spinning them for effective headlines without backtracking to confirm sources. And so the Chinese whispers start.

A recent and revealing example of this was reported on the RealClimate blog. An interview with a Polish climatologist about a hypothetical, but presently unlikely breakdown in gulf stream circulation, which would cause server winter in the northern hemisphere, results in a shoddy article entitled 'Scientists warn that awaits us, "Winter Millennium"'. This is re-reported, without any apparent checking of the source until it morphs in to claims of "Coldest winter in 1,000 years on its way". 

It is picked on by the 'skeptical' blogger  Anthony Watts on his blog 'Watts Up With That?, which will be known forthwith as 'Watts Wrong With That?' The premise of this is apparently that if this winter is really cold in the north, the coldest for 1,000 years even, then there can't be global warming.


Of course the real irony is that the climate 'skeptic' was not at all skeptical of this report and one of the main reasons that the gulf stream might alter would be due to fresh water melt caused by climate change.

Web publishing is a poor substitute for peer review.

Every so often, too often to my mind, a piece of 'research' appears on the web that has science deniers pushing as evidence that supports all their misconceptions.This web publishing circumvents the very corner stone of science publication, peer review. This doesn't usually seem to be a problem for the deniers, in fact many claim that peer review is overrated or flawed, but rather than than try to offer something better they just dismiss it in favour of just about any sciency looking stuff that confirms their anti-science bias.

One such 'research paper' was about the intensity and frequency of hurricanes by the well know climatologist Les Hatton;
http://www.leshatton.org/Documents/Hurricanes-are-not-getting-stronger.pdf

OK you got me, Mr Hatton isn't a climatologist but the lack of appropriate qualification is no barrier to those that need something to call research that supports their beliefs, but this paper was being pushed at me on a forum as good science.

I shouldn't have been surprise by some people taking this ‘paper’ seriously that isn’t by a climatologist and isn’t peer reviewed.

I always give such things a wide birth, because if it was good science it would not be self published. When I do get involved in looking at such ‘evidence’ I always regret it as it quickly becomes apparent that my time has been wasted and the flaws are obvious to anyone who truly thinks critically.

Yet against my better judgement I decided to see what all the fuss was about. So here is my appraisal of the paper and why, as Dr Hatton agrees, it is un-publishable. Don’t take my word for anything I say, I admit to being completely unqualified in climate science – however that may make me as qualified as Hatton himself.

First strange thing is that Hatton seems to be a true academic but does not appear to have used this to any advantage. I’m certain he must have published in his own field at least so he must me well aware of the quality of material needed to get published in a peer reviewed journal but he does not make any attempt to do so here. Also if he contacted scientists working in climatology there is a good chance he would get replies and answers to any queries he had about the IPCC conclusions – he does not appeared to have done this.

The paper looks at 6 statements made by the IPCC and compares them to his own analysis of some of the raw data.

Here is the first problem, the IPCC statements are made based on many papers all of which are available and referenced in WG1. I have only looked at Chapter 3;

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm

Among the hundreds of references I can find over 60 that relate to hurricanes, cyclones or storms. All of which use much more detailed analysis than Hatton uses. Basically if he wants to compare his analysis with that expressed by the IPCC he needs to use the same data sets, like for like, – or have a very good reason for not doing so. I suspect any journal considering this for publication would expect that at least.

There is no evidence that he has read any of these papers or understands how the IPCC conclusions were arrived at. Why should his simple graphing and analysis be more credible than any of the papers published by researching climatologists?

His conclusions are also lacking.

Conclusion 1, he agrees with the IPCC but adds “this is only a return to the level of activity it had in the 1950s and 1960s after a 25 year period of relatively low activity from around 1970.”

But his analysis does not look at much before then. On what basis can it be said to be a return? There is data going back to 1851 for this area, and scientists say that the data is fairly good for the last 100 years. So why hasn’t he used as a check before making such a conclusion?

http://weather.unisys.com/hurricane/atlantic/index.html

http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/Data_Storm.html

NASA and PEW appear to have and do not conclude as he does;

FREQUENCY OF ATLANTIC HURRICANES DOUBLED OVER LAST CENTURY; CLIMATE CHANGE SUSPECTED
About twice as many Atlantic hurricanes form each year on average than a century ago, according to a new statistical analysis of hurricanes and tropical storms in the north Atlantic. The study concludes that warmer sea surface temperatures (SSTs) and altered wind patterns associated with global climate change are fueling much of the increase."

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=33160

Is the frequency of hurricanes increasing?

Globally (not just in the North Atlantic), there is an average of about 90 tropical storms every year. According to the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC-AR4), globally "[t]here is no clear trend in the annual numbers [i.e. frequency] of tropical cyclones."

However, in the North Atlantic there has been a clear increase in the frequency of tropical storms and major hurricanes. From 1850-1990, the long-term average number of tropical storms was about 10, including about 5 hurricanes. For the period of 1998-2007, the average is about 15 tropical storms per year, including about 8 hurricanes. This increase in frequency correlates strongly with the rise in North Atlantic sea surface temperature, and recent peer-reviewed scientific studies link this temperature increase to global warming.

http://www.pewclimate.org/hurricanes.cfm#freq

Conclusion 2, he dismisses on the basis that climate models were used – “Climate models are corrupted by unquantifiable errors. This could be due to inadequate physics, software error or both.”

He is a software specialist; shouldn’t he be more specific about what the problems are? Shouldn’t he give some evidence that what he claims is actually the case?

And yet the IPCC conclusion was that “The observed increase in hurricane intensity is *LARGER* than climate models Predict”. So it seems that if there is anything wrong with the models it is to err on the side of conservative estimates.

Conclusion 3 – Agrees with the IPCC.

Conclusion 4, he claims the IPCC has made “a worryingly incorrect statement”. But that is only based on the data sets he used and with no input form any one qualified in climatology. Here is where his lack of qualifications lets him down. As a respected academic he could try to contact the authors of the relevant chapter of WG1 AR4 or the authors of the papers it was based on and ask on what basis such a conclusion was drawn. This again is the least that a journal would expect before publishing a paper stating that other research could not actually be confirmed.

Conclusion 5 & 6 suffer from exactly the same problems as conclusion 4. They were made based on his limited data and climate knowledge. He has made no attempt to qualify the IPCC statements and on which basis they were reached.

So for a paper that is aimed at confirming or refuting statements made based on many published science papers it apparently fails to look at any of the evidence presented in them, and his conclusions are based on an analysis of  very narrow data, both in quantity and time frame, without seeking any input from those who are experienced in the subject. He also dismisses, without presenting any evidence, climate models that may have been used in some of the many papers that the IPCC conclusions are a summary off.

Yet his paper in un-publishable, simply because no effort has been made to write to anything near the required standard for a credible journal to consider.

I do of course welcome any thoughts and opinions on the issues I have raised.