Friday, March 16, 2007
Greens decline Whitehouse invitation…
Looks like one of Northern Ireland’s political parties will not be joining the annual junket St Patrick’s celebrations in Washington. The Green’s (newly arrived as political players), have been invited, but have declined their invitation in protest at the Iraq war and the US administrations lack of commitment to tackling climate change.
From the Green Party:
“Green Partiy colleagues in the US and across the world have been consistent in their opposition to President Bush’s illegal war in Iraq. Moreover, if the Green Party is to be true to its commitment to combat climate change, we must walk the talk. The Party has decided that a two-way trip across the Atlantic to celebrate St Patrick’s Day in the Whitehouse is not a compelling reason, morally or practically, for emitting half a tonne of CO2.”
Citing the lack of leadership shown by the Bush Adminstration on climate change Dr. Barry explained: “Our decision to decline this invitation should not be read as a criticism of the American people,
but of the Bush Adminstration. Despite the Bush adminstration’s lack of commitment to tackling climate change, there are many positive signs of grassroots leadership on the issue in the United States - in California, for example. Dozens of Mayors representing some 25 million Americans have signed up to an initiative to get American cities to meet the US’s Kyoto environmental target which George Bush repudiated: cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 7% by 2010.”
Mick Fealty @ 10:16 AM
Mickhall
The replies of some shinners here, but not all, almost prove this point.
The replies of the shinners may have more to do with the next election in the South than any heart felt opinion.
Posted by on Mar 17, 2007 @ 12:16 AMIn response to JohnT: methane is definitely a big climate-change gas. What we can do about that is abolish mass factory-farming of cows and sheep. And how is it “hatred of my own species” to want to ensure that my species survives? Climate change will *destroy* that industrial society that you keep talking about. Famine, disruption of trade routes, terrible wars over water and unpolluted farmland, etc. That will destroy the globalised economy almost overnight - which is why even your old pal Tony Blair has stopped being a climate denier.
The really scary thing is people like JohnT have adopted a totally nihilist reaction to global warming - that “it doesn’t matter” if the whole species dies, as long as we can fly somewhere nice to die. That is the most concentrated expression of hatred and contempt for humanity I’ve ever seen. I want to live, and I want my descendents to inherent a planet with clean water and clean air. And they accuse *me* of hating humanity?
Posted by on Mar 17, 2007 @ 06:32 AMI have read many comments by critics of the theory of anthropogenic climate change on many right wing blog sites. Their scientific arguments are thin, designed to sew confusion rather than seriously challenge the mounting consensus. They tend to be regularly repeated in spite of regular and patient rebuttal (by people, unlike myself, involved in the science).
One of their main arguments, that the scientific consensus, as presented by the IPCC is based on a self interested “industry” addicted to government funding, is Ãmplausible to say the least.
Their arguments about the medieval warming period, about the effect of variations in solar radiation and the complexity of climate prediction etc. all have some merit. Some real scientists have reservations about the predictions, but the vast majority have concluded, that given all that we know about all of the factors that we have a bloody big problem and we have only a short time to do something about it. All of the serious counter-arguments have been factored in or rejected. If this is not as scientifically certain as ‘the periodic table, then it’s good enough for me.
Because their scientific cover is so thin, I have noticed that they resort to a kind of bravado I have elsewhere witnessed in adolescent males when challenged to look at some anti-social aspect of their behaviour. It also sometimes involves breathtakingly viscious personal attacks on ‘’enemies’’. I have also noticed a striking resemblance to 9/11 conspiracy theorists on the left, who argue that the CIA or somebody orchestrated the attacks on the WTC- they are infuriated by the political reality created by a given set of facts- so quite obviously the facts have to go!
Posted by on Mar 17, 2007 @ 11:01 AMOh, by the way, the invasion of Iraq was self serving, illegal, designed to control the ‘’greatest strategic prize in history’’ and is both murderous and farcical. Bush an Blair are major war criminals.
But quite clearly political realities mean that the closer to real centres of power you get the greater the constraints on your actions. That’s why many social change activists think parliamentarism is a dead end. I commend the Greens for their actions, but I won’t condemn SF and others for meeting Bush or Blair if on balance ‘’they had to.’’
Posted by on Mar 17, 2007 @ 11:15 AMI see comments on the political party’s positions on the Iraq war. I don’t know where the NI parties stand. What was their position at the start of the war, have they policies that would help the ordinary iraqi people, how do they think it can be ended, how do they think Honest Tony and his new labour crew can be held to account for their crimes, have the forcefully spoken out against the war rather than wisper in bush’s ear hole?
being the cynic that I am I would think unionists support the illegal invasion and the war because they are opposed to violence. SF would oppose it because they are opposed to militarism. The DUP would want to have a kick the pope march in bagdad and anyway the war was all trimbles fault. Alliance would want iraqi catholics and iraqi protestants to just get along and the PUP would want to build a social club in bagdad and think the british government sould pay them millions and millions because fenians got some money.
The SDLP will get back to us.
Posted by on Mar 17, 2007 @ 01:24 PMCarbon Dioxide is known to reflect heat back into the earth, and we are producing enough of it to increase its concentration in the air. In fact the rate of increase of this concentration (about 400 parts per million I think) took a little tilt upwards recently, suggesting that ‘runaway’ effects could be kicking in. Not so bad for us in these latitudes, but warming can destroy agriculture in dryer and warmer places, and can flood low lying areas such as Bangladesh or the Nile Delta, displacing millions. India is building a high fence around Bangladesh to keep people in already.
I can understand a willingness to deny that anything should be done to avert the risk of climate change. It will cost money, and worst of all we will have be told what to do by a load of geeks. Journalists and editors will have to understand the science to make head or tail of it all.
Jeremy Clarkson could be made redundant.
Roll on the degrees, roll on the day.
Posted by on Mar 18, 2007 @ 07:24 PMA question to those of you on this thread who’ve gone off on some ‘climate change skeptism’ : are you suggesting that the likes of the Stern Report (commissioned by the UK Treaury not DEFRA significantly) the IPCC Report released in Paris last month, and finally, Swiss Re (world’s largest re-insurance company) all of whom accept the reality of human-created climate change - are all part of a global green conspiracy?
Posted by on Mar 18, 2007 @ 07:52 PM
