In case anybody else 'out there' is still not convinced that this so called "war on terror" is phoney, then please would you explain to me the following.Apart from the obvious (i.e. how do the 10/8 alleged 'terrorists' extract the chemicals from their fizzy drinks, nail varnish and tooth-paste) in order to make the explosive TATP bombs, the truth is that the chemicals have to be mixed at 0 degrees centigrade, and concentrated sulphuric acid is added (also at freezing point), the whole solution needs to be left at room temperature for 24 hours without stirring (or shaking, as this has all the hallmarks of a James Bond novel) so that the Triacetone Triperoxide can precipitate out of the solution. So how can this be done in an eight hour flight to America in a cramped toilet??If you don't believe me, then look at this article from the Isreal Institute of Technology athttp://www.technion.ac.il/~keinanj/pub/122.pdfIgnore the chemistry and go straight to page 13, and the paragraph entitled "Experimental Section". So, knowing the truth, how come we still can't take our drinks on board? All part of the UK & US Governments' "terror scam" to keep us all quaking so they can come in and "be tough on terror" in order that we'll keep voting for them.And why are our mainstream media so quiet about this impossibility? I have pointed out this academic article to the deputy editor of the Guardian, but he seems completely disinterested. One day the truth will dawn on the sleeping populace!!
The whole 10/8 thing may have been got up by John Reid. In Blair's absence he managed neatly to sideline the Fat Oaf and present himself as a no-nonsense leader-in-waiting. Unfortunately for him, he is, like Brown, an unreconstructed Jock and therefore has no chance of winning a general election.The reason the Americans and British are in Iraq is quite simple -- oil. The stuff is running out. Demand is skyrocketing. This is a formula for economic collapse.For the same reason we supported Israel in its attempt to crush Hezbollah (i.e. to get at Iraq and Syria, which in turn are in danger of becoming client states of the Chinese). So it's USA vs China, squabbling over dwindling oil reserves.All the rest of the totalitarian measures NuLabour is churning out -- ID cards, DNA databases, and whatnot -- are intended to control the population when the oil-shit hits the fan and the banking system collapses.Welcome to Realpolitik and WW3. You may loathe Tony Blair, but who'd be Prime Minister in 2006? Reid needs his head examining.
Ahhh... Bagpuss, someone else who is awake, great stuff.Yes, oil, worldwide reserves are more than half depleted, America thirsts for it. So how to get the people to agree to the invasion of other countries in order to control the supply of dwindling reserves?? Simple, deceive the populace into thinking we invade the Middle East to "smoke out the terrorists"!!! Trouble is, most of the people don't think, they just lap up the 'illusion' being created by the politicians and government controlled media. Once one realises that all this is an illusion, it all starts to make clear sense.For instance, why, knowing that arrests are imminent on 10/8 to foil a plot of "mass murder, bigger even than 9/11" (and you know my beliefs in that one), does Bliar swanny off on his hols??? As you so rightly say, step forward Reid. Oh, and notice that the 10/8 terror arrests came the day following Reid's claims that we should all cower in greater fright and give up yet more of our rights and freedoms to the State under "new anti-terror legislation" to be brought in this Autumn.
Some people are saying that the end is already nigh.Panic would only hasten the inevitable, so maybe it makes sense to terrify everybody.Myself, I dug up my lawn last year to grow food, mainly for the taste & vitamins; but who knows what the future holds? I cycle wherever I can and have cut down on car-miles (in a tiny Peugeot which does 52 mpg anyway). For the past 25 years I have been attending to my health, so I'm reasonably fit -- essential if things start to go awry, and a good idea anyway. If I feel like buying something I now ask myself "what do you want it for?" and unless I can give a cogent answer it stays unbought. And I shall not be replenishing my heating-oil tank when it runs out in October.I trained as a biologist and I believe western civilization is under greater threat from ecological catastrophe (esp. climate change accelerated by global dimming), but really the oil problem is just a part of all that.My best advice to anybody with half a brain is to get out of debt, if you're in it, get fit, if you're not, and don't believe the propaganda spewed out by the BBC and tame newspaper proprietors.
Only a clueless creature such as the Bushtard himself would consider this admission a revelation worthy of front-page news coverage. Now if only his neocon droid followers would cue in on this admission and either return to the real world or politely self-destruct. I guess we can always dream...
You know it's odd spiv but apart from the 9/11- al Qaida and Iraq fiascos it seems to me that the other half of he US political movement controls the majority of fear factors around the world - and of course the media to ensure that Bush's ideologies are vilified and theirs are treated as gospel. Fitting really as both poitions seem to rely more on beliefs that science and facts. Both of the latter are very hard to identify these days, at least to my satisfaction.And whilst I broadly agree with the bagpuss assessment of the future I see things going that way for different reasons - mainly internal self destruction by Western Societies taking on cost which are both unnecessary and unaffordable. "Global Warming" is a case in point. Hans Christian Anderson would make a whole book of tales from the absurdity. The rest is, sadly, my generation assuming that 1984 was an Operational Manual rather thean a warning. And perhaps it was, being written by a Blair. (Is that enough of a conspiracy theory to qualify?) Talking of conspiracy theories, I suspect you ascribe way more ability to the alleged authors than of the problems then they possess, though they may possess enough wit to turn events into their causes. However I have no doubt that those who 'spot' the conspiracies possess very fecund imaginations indeed.10/8 is of course a different matter. The timing just stinks of Blair getting away on Hol without inconvenience and Reid immediately outflanking Prescott with a few arrests and a very public show of 'security' designed to persuade the public to accept remarkable inconvenience for little or no, probably no, real danger.A bit transparent but successfully passed off.Various people in Germany in the late 30's would have been in awe of this approach and its apparent success.Be careful with your gardening bagpuss, the chances are that the land contains heavymetals which will contaminate your food stuffs.But then again I broadly agree with your analysis, if for different core reasons, and suspect that self poinsning in order to successfully shorten ones life is an excellent way to avoid the forthcoming catastrophe without inadvertently falling foul of Nanny's obsession with keeping alive the older social cost base even when they would prefer to practice euthenasia.Seems you have a good way to win against Nanny, most other ways being blocked.I fully agree with your propaganda points but fail to see the benefits of fitness or being out of debt since after one's demise neither matter much, providing one's relatives have been protected from the excesses of the global banking system in advance of one's departure. ( I assume that they may not wish to make the journey with one.)Of course the 10/8 fiasco might just be the result of failures in the eductation system and the lack onf understanding of chemistry and particularly physics that has resulted.I note thet John Reid seems to have stopped pushibng tghe "Dr." title these days. I wonder if he has also given up smoking in line with the laws of his homeland?
Grant -- apropos global warming, the scientific evidence is overwhelming. I was convinced as far back as 1971, when I was reading biology at Sussex University; my major was ecology. Particulate atmospheric pollution is being reduced around the world by means of various government initiatives, increasing the amount of radiant energy reaching the Earth. Till now we have been protected to some extent by this "global dimming"; today the planet is warming at an alarming and unpredicted speed. As sea temperatures rise, frozen methane in compounds called methyl hydrates (the product of eons of detritus) is starting to be released. Methane is a much more effective greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Its release accelerates global warming and so causes further sea-temperature rise, releasing more and yet more methane -- an unstoppable chain reaction.Nearly all the predictions so far have been too conservative. I'd say 2030 is probably the crunch time. By then many places below lat. 40 will be uninhabitable in the summer, including such southern states as Texas and Arizona; the Wheat Belt will already have become unproductive, causing widespread famine; mass migration to the north will have triggered civil unrest; and rising sea-levels will have started to affect such cities as London and New York -- anywhere low-lying, in fact. Actually it may be far worse than this, if the present acceleration of polar melt continues. There's a good deal more to be said, but if you're not convinced so far and want to go on thinking it's all doom-mongering, be my guest.Unless you choose to give up (an entirely rational reaction) in the face of such overwhelming problems, you will need to be physically fit to survive. You will need to be out of debt because not all this stuff is going to happen at once. First there will be a rise in inflation, with consequent rises in interest rates. If you can't afford to service your debt, your creditors will come and take whatever property you may own. Then you'll be completely at the mercy of the State, and the State will progressively fail as the tax-take falls. The period between the onset of the terminal round of inflation and the ultimate collapse of the whole system could be several years. That's why I said what I did.BTW I live in deepest Hampshire and my soil is clean. Delicious courgettes and French beans with our lunch today; and the maincrop potatoes will be enough to sustain the whole family for a year. Even if I'm wrong and this is the best of all possible worlds, at least we get to eat some great vegetables!
bagpuss,I understand why you believe what you believe and I too believed much the same sort of thing from about the same point - early 70's when the whole thing first came to prominence as far as I was concerned.Even after the U-turn from the New Ice Age doomsayers of the mid 70's into the Global Warmers of today I accepted the role of mankind without question. After all I respected scientists and their constant search for observational evidence to support theories. And for their unquestionable honesty.But a few years ago I began to have some doubts, once I started to think about stuff that I was reading all over the place.The doubt became a questionmark regarding whether people were writing with religious conviction or attempting to put forward a scientific perspective.Once I realised that the predictions were all based on computer models and all disagreed with each other my doubts increased somewhat. It's a trait that is the result of working in IT for a number of years and having a few friends and acquaintances in academia.I also wonder just how many times people can change their predictions diametrically and retain credibility, though Nanny seems to manage to fool most of the people most of the time in that respect so it should be much easier for scientists - from 'real' science or the modern stuff - to do so. Especially in the light of the falling educational standards and loss of investigative rigour in journalism. I mean why investigate when you can just print a press release? So why do research when yuo can just write a paper and get it publiched without any real peer review?And I also have doubts when anyone perpetally claims things like 'The Science is settled' or "Overwhelming compelling evidence" especially when the 'evidence' is no more than the result of some computer models and a lot of patchy guesswork.Nanny used 'Overwhelming' evidence about Saddam's WMDs though it proved to be underwhelming tending to non-existent. Served its purpose at the time though.Following on from that thought, forget terrorist and wars and other distant threats - much too 1984 with its remote fronts to make the locals feel really threatened en masse.But Climate Change (Presented as Global warming or not according the the headlines available) offers the wonderful opportunity to hold up a spectre for several decades ahead and so allows governments to justify controls and scientists to justify their jobs and research demands when both know that they will never be held to account for their results. Brilliant!Better still if you formulate in certain ways ANYTHING AT ALL can be blamed on the GW/CC principles.Doubly brilliant!And of course once you have got away with that a couple of times why should you continue bothering to make any pretence about caring whether the theories are in fact realistic? Who cares, you have gained enough control over the populace to last a political lifetime philosophically and financially.If they want to run with the research that is fine, what's a few million of whatever currency in the general scheme of things? But to take the concepts and hoodwink everyone into thinking they can make a difference just plays into Nanny's hands as she seeks to overawe her subjects. Nannies of all colours have recognised this enormous potential.The only comeback if they are, as is quite likely in my opinion, wrong is that they may be villified in the history books, if the economy can still support the concept of books.I guess they might want to think twice before burdening their families with very the extended mortgages that are being talked about - but then if your scenario is in fact realistic I guess it won't really matter one way or the other.(Although I can see that Nanny would be quite keen on such long term commitments, even if they fail a few decades down the line, because they provide power and control NOW.)As it happens I broadly agree with your projected economic scenario but mainly because the cost of this focus on a Canute like demonstration of how to control the planet's climate (an enormously arrogant undertaking on behalf of humanity even if all several billions were buying into it) is very likely to cause the melt down of the world economy well before any alleged human influenced climate changes make serious inroads into the icecaps, glaciers or whatever there may be factored in as being the most likely threat or threats.But the worst of this is that the efforts and therefore the costs seem to be the conceits of just the so called "western" economies. The others seem to care less - they have less to lose and more to gain on balance taking into account their usual attitude towards the value of life.Personally I could see people looking back at the Mad Max movies (if they can view them) and seeing them, with hindsight, as predictions. My guess is that 2030 or thereabouts would be the right sort af era.As for being debt free - no point. Just because you apparently own something dos not mean that the state cannot take it away. Or the marauding masses of the displaced. They could get in first.Your comment about the tax take falling is almost certainly correct and very likely if the environ mental spend heads odd in the direction it seems to be heading.As for your vegetable plot I really hope you enjoy them. Sounds like you may not have any heavy metals or other pollutants in the soil - but you never know what else might be lurking! No oil fields in the garden I suppose?The green fingers in my family belonged to my paternal grandmother and seem to have passed away with her.The increasing levels of CO2, whether leading or following the temperature changes or being entirely unrelated to them, should offer some continuing assistance to your yields and for some crops will probably either do extremely well if the predictions for a wetter climate are fulfilled, or just very well if the predictions for a drier climate are fulfilled.By the time the chaos arrives I doubt that I will be able enough to complete very well due to age. I suspect we may be of a similar. age.Ultimately the planet will not be 'saved' since such a concept is without meaning except in human terms and viewed within the constraints of a human understanding of timescales.I might also observe that a naturally destructive volcanic tendency just might stuff things right royally, well before anything we might be able to influence bringfs that planet to its metaphorical knees.The ants, the cockroaches and no doubt many other forms of life will continue with their tasks long after humans have disappeared.GrantPS. I quite like your global dimming ideas. If we are losing the atmospheric albedo by reducing contaminents and therefore accelerating the warming trend that sounds like a great argument for seeking to increase the levels of cloud or cloud like cover with a view to providing an effective control. I have seen reports which suggested air transport might be such a useful control mechanism, having the benefit of bieng something that could, if required, be deployed rapidly.Makes you think. I suspect they are wrong, but it does make me think.
Global warming, global shwarming.30 years ago, it was global cooling, now the green loonbats call it "Climate Change" to cover both bases.For an intelligent view of just how evil the greenie philosophy is check out: http://antigreen.blogspot.com/This is written by a guy who is actually a real scientist.I'm surprised at how many of you Brits suffer from the affliction called BDS. (Bush Derangement Syndrome)Making explosives from liquids is not rocket science. While I distrust the government as much as the next guy, I have to side with the security folks on this one.
Grant -- Thanks for your comments. We share a low opinion of Nanny, that's for sure.Anonymous, you semi-literate twerp -- do some proper reading before spouting off like that. You could always start here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
Bagpuss, you are right about our mutual low opinion of Nanny. I congratulate you if you waded through all my typos (introduced by the posting mechanism of course!)On the other hand I have a fairly low opinion of wikipedia as well, especially for any entries of a disputable nature.It seems to me that the only element of scientific consensus to do with climate is the agreement that most aspects of it as 'poorly understood' and 'require more research'. Such comments appear throughout the literature it seems.Quite how that translates into the "The debate is over" and "the science is clear/settled" (or equivalents) is beyond my understanding of the English Language genre.Unless such statements are blatant lies. Similar to "Saddam has weapons of Mass Destruction that can be deployed in 45 minutes."The parallels are self evident. (Or are they?) This entire philosophy is not about "truth" and nor is it about "choices" as the same sort of trite manipulations at a local social level would like to have us believe.They are all about personal power and control and how the individuals concerned will be written up in suitably airbrushed history.An aside;For some reason this evening I ended up seeing some BBC telly around the 18:45 to 17:30 time period.When did they shift all the kiddie programs into the early adult slots? And why is Blue Peter merged with the revised and dumbed down version of John Craven's News Round and shown after 19:00?More to the point, why am I forced to pay for all this drivel and propaganda?Anomalous - What is BDS?I think we have enough self cultivated problems without being too worried about beating around the Bush. That Bush should totally wrongly assess the Iraq probable outcome was very predictable. Many have tried before and failed to unravel the Mesopotamian question. With all due respect the chances of the US getting it right were pretty miniscule. That's the way it is.On the other hand I sympathise with your view to some extent as I suspect that Gore, et al., would have represented an even greateer danger from a completely different direction.But if your view of English Politics encompasses Bliar but not Reid, Brown and the rest I would just point out that our lot are pretty much as capable as yours in creating control systems and self promotion in equal measure.Whether or not there is a real security issue from liquid bombing I have no idea. But the timing of the spectacular would otherwise be remarkably fortuitious for the parties involved and quickly allow the previous 250 strong police raid farago to drift into the background.Let's be honest here, it is quite difficult to take a pee in an airline toilet, let alone make a seriously threatening bomb from 3 separate liquids even if they were available in the correct quality and quantity.Nasty, unpleasant and offensive the arrested individuals may well be (or not ...) but the timing and puffing of the related actions have all the hall marks of opportunist individuals pretending to act on behalf of the governement and therefore 'the people' whilst in reality practising self agrandisement.Presumably this one is big enough and visible enough that we might larn its reality ithout having to wait 50 years for the official papers to be made public.How the alleged terrorists gained to much exposure and generated so much apparent fear for little if any effort should be written up and used as a training manual for advertising agencies. The success must have exceeded their most vividly imaginative expectations.Unless, of course, their understanding of Western Psychology is far and away better than our understanding of theirs.
Grant -- I agree that Wikipedia has its shortcomings, but it's getting better all the time. A comparison between it and Britannica last year had them level-pegging (both contained a similar level of errors of fact). There are some pretty eminent people working on the science pages, if you care to follow up on talk pages and links.Apropos the telly, if you go here you will see that you needn't pay your annual £131.50 if you don't feel like it. Just withdraw TVL's implied right of access to your property and they can't do a thing.
Thomas,Yes I have read the the people behind wikipedia have been stung into action (now, what might one infer from that phrasing?) by criticisms over the last year or so.Nevertheless the basic concept requires some passion of perpetual involvements and, as with newspapers, a headline (or equivalent) with a threatening message gets greater attention. So people espousing theories and pointing to the papers each other in the specialist community write as the evidence, is rather too incestuous for my comfort.Good to see that the Wegman, et al., review of Mann's hockey stick work gets a link at the end of the Global Warming section to which bagpuss posted a link. The Executive summary makes some interesting observations.But overall the wiki entries continue to present a rather assumptive 'all scientists agree' form of wording in the items even when a previous paragraph, or even sentence, has made it clear that such is not the case.In fact the wording masks the fundamental message. "We haven't got a clue how it all works really and need more funding for further research" - or is that further careers - (notice the wiki type generalised ad-hominem attack there?), becomes "The science is clear and anyone who disagrees is in the pay of BIG OIL/BIG COAL/George W, etc. But we still need more money for further research."In the wiki, on various blogs and in most media articles there is clear use of words that re-inforce the GW message and the implication that it is all down to humans and no other significant factors are even possible. The standard language of propaganda in fact. Do we now accept propaganda as fact?I thought it was precisely that sort of problem that brought us to Ken's site with the common factor being our discomfort with the same concepts being applied by Nanny, and for the same ultimate ends, or so I would speculate.I do recall some discussions about the Wikipedia to Britannica comparisons. I believe some observes concluded that the playing field was not quite level so the comparisons were difficult to be sure about.But hey, we all make mistakes.As for the TV stuff, I inherited a house a few years ago for which received numerous threatening letters from Crapita about the lack of licence for over a year until I managed to sell it. This despite contating them to advise the previous occupant (my mother) had died and that no TV receiving was occurring in the property. The lettes stopped for about 2 weeks each time I responded and then started arriving again addressed to "The Occupier". After a few weeks they reverted to being addressed to my late mother.After my third attempt to communicate with them at my expense on a premium rate customer service line I decided to ignore them and, if a the house, kept a kettle warm in anticipation of he arrival of the inspectors.Of course they never came.University halls of residence are a much more rewarding target, both in terms of income potential and the numbers of people that can be bullied in a condensed area.However, now you have provided the interesting link I will look into it. Given that I have 2 off-spring away at Uni, both of whom would need to obtain licences, the potential saving may be greater than 131 quid.
Bagpuss,You are a long winded, pompous ass.