SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: maceng2 who wrote (16357)11/16/2003 10:24:25 PM
From: KLP  Respond to of 793738
 
Just push some business our way and we might re consider things -g-

There would definitely be more tourist business if you all could keep the rif-raff out of the demonstrations. What tourist in their right mind wants to get involved in a bull stampede?

Americans love to visit the UK, but not if the rabble is climbing the gates.



To: maceng2 who wrote (16357)11/18/2003 1:21:43 PM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793738
 
"British Spin" Blog.

The Great visit of Mr Bush..

What a to-do. George W. Bush, (who is, alert readers will gather, apparently the President of something called “the United States of America”) is coming to stay and the country is up in arms. Pundits are scribbling frantically across the country and your humble correspondent is never one to ignore trends that are sweeping the nation. I have hula-hooped, I have body-popped, I have shoe gazed. I am therefore admirably qualified to comment on the geo-political and domestic implications of Mr Bush’s trip to London.

The first thing to tell our American readers is that we are just as prejudiced about you as the French, though slightly less ideologically. In our minds, you are either movie stars, or fatso’s gorging hamburgers and fries. There is no middle ground. Sure, we might occasionally bump into a slim American, but they are watched with a kindly interest, as one would gaze at a laboratory hamster, to see whether they will start scoffing burgers or taking leads in west end musicals. There is no other foreseeable outcome.

This binary approach to the US citizen explains why Elvis is still the most popular American in British history. He was both a movie star and a burger-gurgler. He encapsulated all our beliefs about America in one XXL sized rhinestone jumpsuit.

So, you can now understand our confused reaction to your politicians. Sure, Presidents have all the appurtenances of a top flight movie star; the private jet, the blacked out limo, the burly guards, the diva attitude, but not to put too fine a point on it, they couldn’t gross a hundred million on opening weekend if their lives depended on it. So what to make of them?

President Clinton was welcomed with open arms. Here was a man who fit our stereotypes of the nice American. He was clever, but brash and definitely a burger guzzler. He looked like a fellow who enjoyed a KFC. He didn’t seem to cause too much trouble. He didn’t want us to go to war with Russia or Vietnam or any other country where men with bombs lurked. He seemed unlikely to unleash nuclear warheads at anyone. On top of all of this, he very generously opened his private life to the delectation of the Tabloids just when we’d got a bit bored of Charles and Diana.

President Bush had a tough act to follow and suffers from a few disadvantages of his own. First, he appears to be a Christian of the televangelist school. Nothing dismays an Englishman more than an openly declared love of God. This goes back to the 16th century, when after decades of religious persecution, with vicars constantly making with the stakes and the burnings, the torments and the heresies, the nation exhaled a big sigh of relief when Queen Elizabeth declared she did not want to make a window into men’s souls, or even if she did, she’d be jolly upset if there wasn’t a nice net curtain blocking the view. Ever since then, our attitude to religion has been governed by the ancient motto to be found in houses across Britain. "No salesmen, no canvassers, no circulars, no Hawkers".

Secondly, Mr Bush seems to very much enjoy bombing people and making with the wrath and the vengeance. This offends our sense of fair play.

A clarification here, the vaunted sense of British fair play means fair play just for the British. When ruling the world, we were entirely justified in sending gun ships up Chinese rivers to support the opium trade and would have very miffed if some Yankee upstart had been going around shouting “no blood for dope” at Disraeli. Burger-scoffing surrender baboons in the war against yellowism, John Bull would have said. Jingoism? We invented it.

Mr Bush on the other hand seems to believe in fair play just for the Americans, which is very disturbing and amoral. He has the guns, he has the men, he has the money too. His desire to use them strikes us as forward. Typically American we sigh, always showing off about his F-18’s, his Apache strike helicopters and battlefield nuke capability. So lacking in reticence.

If Bush must use his overwhelming military might, could he not at least look a bit embarrassed about it? “Oh, what’s this?” he might say to the putative dictator, “the Sixth fleet?, gosh. Who would have thought. Sixth? Isn’t five enough? I’m terribly sorry about this, but I’ve got nowhere else to put it, so it’s going to have to be outside your capital. I hope you’re not too put out by the ten capital ships, air capability greater than your entire Air force, 200 nuclear warheads and 25 support ships, and I promise we’ll try not to make too much noise over your presidential palace when testing our computer controlled cruise missiles. Amazing thingummies, these missiles. Apparently, accurate to within 10 meters, so rest easy, it should be fairly simple to avoid having it slam into your bedroom, old boy”

Of course, people very much disagree with Mr Bush on issues of substance. I myself would happily demonstrate against him on the basis that he has piled idiocy upon idiocy since his correct decision to depose Saddam Hussein and seems committed to adding a few more idiocies to the ever-growing pile. These are topics for another time. On matters of style at least, If he was a little less, well, how to say this? A little less American. Perhaps, a little more…
British.

It would be so much easier. We’d even forgive him for the cowboy boots.
britishspin.blogspot.com



To: maceng2 who wrote (16357)11/20/2003 12:31:04 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793738
 
How Hot Is It?

Global warming creeps along

Ronald Bailey

"New View of Data Supports Human Link to Global Warming," the New York Times reported yesterday. Well, perhaps.

It is a scientifically established fact that, all other things being equal, extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will tend to trap heat from the sun and warm our planet. But the real question is how much the carbon dioxide that has been added to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels will really warm the earth.

Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.) has called global warming a "hoax" perpetrated by extreme environmentalists. Of course, Inhofe is from a big oil-producing state and is derided by activists as a know-nothing yahoo, but perhaps he's on to something. Buried in the Times article was an acknowledgement that "the new research is showing that, at least so far, the influence of greenhouse gases appears to have been more modest than some climate experts once predicted."

The article cites a Remote Sensing Systems study, spearheaded by Frank Wentz, that re-analyzed 25 years worth of satellite temperature data. Using 1979-2002 numbers measuring the atmosphere from the surface up to the stratosphere, Wentz' team found that the temperature trend is an increase of 0.115 degrees centigrade per decade. This contrasts with data from the NASA team, led by climatologist John Christy from the University of Alabama, indicating that the same portion of the atmosphere is warming at a rate of 0.032 degrees centigrade per decade.

Christy notes that if one were to consider just the lower troposphere (the part of the atmosphere closest to the earth's surface) Wentz' temperature trend would be about 0.15 degrees centigrade per decade, in contrast to Christy's trend of .074 degrees centigrade per decade. The disparity in the two figures arises from the differing ways the two teams handle errors in the data sets, Christy says. He believes both methods are scientifically defensible in a statistical sense. However, Christy contends that a long-running series of weather-balloon measurements strongly and independently confirms his temperature trends.

But let's set those statistical arcana aside for the moment, and just consider what either set of trends is telling us about the future of global warming. "I don't like to extrapolate," says Christy, "but we do have 25 years of good temperature data that are telling us something about how the atmosphere reacts to carbon dioxide."

So assuming that Wentz' team has gotten it right, and the lower troposphere is warming at a rate of 0.15 degrees per decade, that would mean that the earth would be 1.5 degrees centigrade warmer in 2100 than it is today. If Christy is right, he believes, "We might see a degree of warming over the next century. Neither one of those temperature increases is going to cause much of a catastrophe."

One should also take into account the somewhat spotty temperature record compiled from surface thermometers suggesting that the earth is warming by 0.17 degrees centigrade per decade. Extrapolating that trend yields an increase of 1.7 degrees centigrade by 2100. Again, no catastrophe.

Keep in mind that the earth's atmosphere warmed by 0.6 degrees centigrade over the past century. It is generally agreed by most climatologists that most of the 20th century's warming was not the result of higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. That fact suggests that extra carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases can't be contributing very much to warming, either.

In 2001, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) cited various climate models that predicted the world's climate could warm between 1.4 and 5.8 degrees centigrade (2.5 to 10.4 degrees Fahrenheit) by 2100. Of course, the higher catastrophic increase was the one featured in headlines and cited by activists. Now, according to the Wentz and Christy data, it looks like the smaller increase of the IPCC's predicted range of temperatures is more likely to occur. (And if you think that the IPCC's climate models are a bit questionable, you really ought to look at how bad its economic models are, according to The Economist).

But how heavily should we rely on these temperature data sets? Thomas Karl, director of the National Climatic Data Center, suggests in the article that in order to get a true picture of future global warming, we should look at a variety of data, such as melting glaciers and sea-surface temperatures, rather than "rely on a lone line of data." Karl likens the process to taking a school test. "Any conclusion will ultimately have to look like the results of a 100 question test. If you get a 90, you're probably on track."

Christy counters that not all the questions on Karl's notional climate test will have equal weight. "Measuring the temperature trends of the bulk of the atmosphere is like a fifty-point question, while many of the others are just half-point questions," he says. If you get the atmospheric temperature trends right, then you're well on your way to acing the test.

The New York Times correctly notes that satellite data trends now more closely match the predictions of climate models. The article fails to note that that is largely because refined models are predicting lower temperature trends. It seems that the planet is telling us that the climate models most sensitive to changes in carbon dioxide have gotten it wrong and need to be revised. So OK, global warming is not a "hoax," but the danger it poses to humanity and to nature is being exaggerated by activists. There is indeed a small amount of man-made global warming, but the scientific evidence is growing stronger that it's not much of a crisis.

Ronald Bailey, Reason's science correspondent, is the editor of Global Warming and Other Eco Myths (Prima Publishing) and Earth Report 2000: Revisiting the True State of the Planet(McGraw-Hill).

reason.com