Brigg duly had a White Christmas, courtesy of one fairly light "big day" snow shower which didn't last too long. It added to the white stuff already deep and crisp and even on Brigg streets from earlier falls over recent weeks.
I will readily admit that, over many years, I've been increasingly annoyed with, and angered by, the Climate Change lobby. Among my favourite reading of the week is Christopher Booker's column in the Sunday Telegraph in which he highlights the billions being wasted on this topic and the ludicrous nature of it all. Plus the weather experts' general inability to forecast colder winters happening year after year. If they can't provide accurate, long-range advice, then what's the point of funding them?
Chris's recent offerings have been even more interesting, given that - if you glance up from reading for a moment - the view outside your window in Brigg will show a decidedly wintry scene of snow and ice.
Successive UK Governments have no problem stumping up billions to ensure Britain is a full paid-up member of the global warming club, including carbon footprint-busting flights to conferences round the world, but can't ensure North Lincolnshire Council, and other local authorities, have enough cash to get gritters and snow-clearing crews round our streets. Or make sure 21st century railway companies operate modern trains in conditions which proved no problem to Victorian technology steam locos, even in the deep midwinter of 1963.
However, let's finish with a word of praise for central government. I've just renewed the road tax on Mrs F's car... on Boxing Day. It took less than a minute on the internet. Much better than the old system when you first had to rifle through your "filing system" to locate the MoT certificate and the current certificate of insurance, then make your way to Brigg post office (now in Martin's, Wrawby Street) to join the queue, hand over the necessary cash and get your new tax disc. Use the online system and the technology emails you a receipt within 20 seconds, to be printed off in case you are stopped by Brigg police during the period before the postal service delivers the envelope containing your new disc (snow and ice permitting). Brigg Blog doesn't always take to new ways of doing things, but online car tax is very much an exception. Give it a go next time your reminder notice arrives.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
I like to judge newspaper columnists by the breadth of what they comment upon. A person may be a master of one area, perhaps a journeyman in two, and possibly an apprentice in several. But the wider a person ranges the less likely they are to have a firm grasp on the terrain. This is not a fault, just a fact of human limitations.
Yet Christopher Booker believes himself capable of not only commenting intelligently on climate science, the EU, social work, defense, carcinogens, evolution and others, but also of understanding these issues more thoroughly and correctly than anybody else in those fields. Booker is frequently at odds with what the majority of informed and considered opinion says on an issue, despite having little background in those areas himself.
That might be a good shtick for drawing in readers, but it doesn't make for good decisions. If you received advice from a plumber, an electrician, a gas fitter, a roofer, and a glazier as to problems with your house, would you then prefer the contrary advice of a single person?
No, you wouldn't, nobody would.
Nige - you and I are going to come to fisticuffs if you accept what Christopher Booker is misleadingly spouting on Climate Change.
He has previously claimed that BSE, asbestos, and passive smoking offers little, or no danger to health.
He has been seriously criticises by many disciplines of the science community...and even fellow jounalists question his beliefs.
As Sova indicates, CB has attempted to devalue/disprove Evolution, in favour of 'intelligence design' - the very area that fundamental Christians advocate Creationism and reject overwhelming scientific evidence.
CB, with respect Scribs, is a journalist; he has no scientic qualifications (I believe he has a classic/history degree from Oxbridge).
Wot Sova is saying is correct....if you suspected that you could have a life-threatening illness, would you visit the bank-manager for advice?
Additioinal notes:
1. Climate is not the same as predicting Weather.
2. Most of the so-called sceptic 'experts' to Climate Change seem to have direct and/or indirect connections to (USA) oil and car conglomerates - many such 'experts' are found to be economists.
3. Other sceptics are found in the arena of Creationmism - Climate Change is not found in the Bible and, therefore, cannot be true!
4. President George W. Bush - a Creationist (believe the Earth is no more than 10k years old) - originates from a family of bankers (were bankers to Hitler's Nazis) - own about 50 percent of General Motors - refused to sign the Kyoto Agreement.
Also remember, Nige - international airports throughout Europe have been closed owing to being overwhelmed by the severe weather - and these airports have comprehensive euipment for snow clearance. (My own daughter and family were stuck at Dublin for days - both Dublin and Gatwick wered closed)
In brief:
Climate - is the general predictable pattern of global zones - AND these patterns are changing on an unprecedented scale.
Weather - is the day-to-day variables - precipitation, wind, temperature, humidity and etc that localised areas experience - Over an enduring period, the average of such variables, combined with other areas showing similar charateristics will place such an area in a recognised Climate Zone.
Just because weather forecasters find it extremely difficult to predict day to day weathers predictionns (especially difficult in the UK, which is at the junction of 6 separate climate/air mass zones).....does not mean that the overall and prevailing Climate is not changing.
Globally, the highest average World temps have all occurred in the last ten years. This does not mean severe cold weather is eliminated.
There may be disagreement in the scientific community about the future severity of Global Climate changes - from moderate to disasterous.
Some misleading sceptics will claim this to be a weakness and/or evidence that Global Climate change is a fallacy.......they ignore the consensus that climates are changing. UK is experiencing warmer summers and wetter winters - - most of the winters have been warmer than avarage, athough a number have been snowier and colder than average. We have to examine the whole picture, not just the weather conditions over the last month.
Can any expert predict the consequences of global flu pendemic? We know we are overdue for one and there have been a few false starts in the recent past....it does not mean that the expected pendemic can be ignored.
With the advent of "everything on the internet" its worth noting that services from the Post Office continue to decline steadily until it disappears altogether. then it'll be UPROAR, how could this happen to Brigg, why dont we lobby parliament!!!
Selling off the Royal Mail to foreign owners, removing the Queens Head from the stamp, another vestige of Britain disappears. We cant just blame the t'internet, but where do we start and more importantly where will it end........
Scribs - you have a bit of a romantic image of the winter of 63.
Many trains were caught in snow-drifts - train services and, indeed, all transport systems were severely disrupted.
Only main routes were gritted - side roads remained hazardous.
Few people had central heating and relied on coal...coal depots tended to be numerous and localised and folks used sledges to transport sacks to their homes.
Electrical supplies were rationed, or on reduced power...some things companies are now unable to do without facing massive mitigation claims for computers being damaged etc.
Folks tended to shop at the corner shop and personal diet requirments were seemingly quite simple - folks didn't get angry because snow had disrupted the supply of pesto.
Many more schools remained open, but in 63 both pupils and staff tended to live within walking distance of the school.
In 63, there were no legislation indicating minimum pupil/staffing ratios - classes could be 40+ pupils to a teacher.
People tended to walk to places more, so blocked side roads in 63 had relatively little impact on using cars. Neighbours would clear walking routes in side streets - few people had cars, so clearing the actual road was less important.
Workers tended to work locally, but those who had to travel tended to use public transport - buses (which were more more frequent used main routes which were regularly gritted.
The snows of 63 started in late January - unlike this year when snow has fallen over the busiest - shopping-travelling and etc festive time. Even the time of year in 63, the length of daylight was longer (nearly an hour).
In 63 folks tended have and wear practical clothing - everyone seemed to have wellies.....so it was very unlikely for people to go out in flimsy blouses and stilletto heels - which I have seen on numerous occasions in and about the icy conditions in Brigg.
The annoying thing to me is the Government is cutting spending on local councils (which will affect many people working/living in Brigg) and the armed forces (eg withdrawal of the famous Harrier jump-jets) but the massive amount ploughed into talking about, and addressing, global warming/climate change goes unquestioned and unchallenged. The argument is that there's no proven need for many of those employed in local government (eg various layers of managers). However, as scientists and weather experts cannot agree whether we are suffering global warming or heading for a mini-ice age, and given the economic strife Britain is in, we should not be spending an old brass halfpenny.
Nigel - I agree that spending priorities are skewed, and don't necessarily agree with how money is currently being spent under the banner of "climate change". An example would be £43m on the electric car subsidy, which I don't believe will ever pay dividends. Indeed, we could even spend *less* money on certain things and achieve a better outcome, such as removing certain products from the CAP (a bit complicated given the new system, but still possible).
It's possible to understand the potential problems we're causing to our climate, yet still roll your eyes at the way we're trying to deal with it.
Now Nige, Olde Mate,
In the Middle Ages there were folks who argued against the scientific evidence that the planets revolved around the Sun;
In the C19th - there were dissenters against the abolution of slavery - and with railways, some asserted that if people went faster than 30mph they would die of suffocation.
On the other hand, Newton made laws about gravity and that the greater the density mass, the greater the force of relative gravity; Einstein went further and claimed that light could be affected by gravity - bending, accelerating/decreasing its natural speed.
Masses of folks don't stand up and deny such claims, even tho' most haven't got an iota wot its all about.
But now we have thousands of climate scientists predicting an unprecendent Man-Made Climate Change and a mixed handful of deniers (ofen with their own agenda)...and yet a minority of folks accept the scientists' claims.
A vast range of world-wide, highly qualified scientists are not making things up.....so why are your favourites like Christopher Booker given credibility?
Why doesn't the Sunday Telegraph allow a proper scientist to reply?
Wot would happen, Nige, if your favourite cricket columnist was replaced by a football expert who disliked cricket; gave misleading, selective facts out of context and claimed the cricket fraternity were bonkers?
I seem to recall that my original point related to the sinking of billions in British taxpayers' money into something on which the world's scientific community cannot agree - at a time when huge cuts are being imposed on UK local government jobs/services and the armed forces (with more to follow in 2011 and probably 2012). Similar UK cash is being splashed on the European Community at a time when, if we are as hard up as the current Government says we are, should surely be re-allocated for home use, rather than helping to support an institution which cannot even tot up its income and expenditure correctly to the satisfaction of the bean-counting fraternity. The points you make, Ken, about great scientific discoveries of the past cannot be disputed. But neither Einstein's nor Newton's ground-breaking theories resulted in massive cost to the British economy, as the theory of global warming is doing at the moment. Many of those in the early 19th century who argued against trains travelling above 30mph were of the laissez faire school, having vested personal and economic interests in keeping things just as they were and resisting any sort of change (sadly, abolition of slavery included). These rich and educated types, including MPs and Peers of the Realm, were trying to scare the uneducated, or less-well-educated, masses (Where have we encountered that tactic before?). By the way, didn't Einstein call it his THEORY of Relativity? The phrase that's still in use today. (Even one of the greatest scientific minds of all time termed it a theory). I refer you to his first book on the subject Einstein A. 1916 (translation 1920), Relativity: The Special and General Theory, New York: H. Holt and Company. There are varying definitions of the word "theory" but one learned writer warns: "A clear distinction needs to be made between facts (things which can be observed and/or measured) and theories (explanations which correlate and interpret the facts." NOTE - INTERPRET THE FACTS. Further suggested reading on the theory of global warming: The Story of the Emperor's New Clothes (Hans Christian Anderson).
Nigel Fisher....
Scientific laws are similar to scientific theories in that they are principles that can be used to predict the behavior of the natural world. Both scientific laws and scientific theories are typically well-supported by observations and/or experimental evidence. Usually scientific laws refer to rules for how nature will behave under certain conditions. Scientific theories are more overarching explanations of how nature works and why it exhibits certain characteristics.
A common misconception is that scientific theories are rudimentary ideas that will eventually graduate into scientific laws when enough data and evidence has been accumulated. A theory does not change into a scientific law with the accumulation of new or better evidence. A theory will always remain a theory, a law will always remain a law.
I do not accept your notion that 'scientists cannot agree re Climate Change'.
The overwhemling scientific community (I refer to those who are appropriately qualified and are reseaching Climate Change) support the findings that such change has been created by man. Appropriately, within such a community they remain, as good scientists should, question and challenge their peers - this is proper example of scientific scepticism.
Various groups have produced scientific research that is open to scuntiny by peers. There findings may vary, although it should be realised that groups may employ different formuli and may use different global monitoring stations - some ground, some in the higher atmosphere, such remote monitoring stations are concentrated in the Poles, others in the tropics, others land-based, others ocean-based.
All reseach terms - although their results varied, have shown that GLOBAL temperatures have risen over the last 150 years and the rise is increasing.
As a collective group they have researched and discounted natural occurences, such as volcanic dust and the fluctuations in Solar winds as causing such Global temperature rise. They, however, accept that natural occurences will continue to happen, regardless of man's interference. (In the past, fluctuations in Solar wind radiation casued the so-called 'Little Ice Age' - which was essentially localised to Europe, while Global temps remained constant..and somewhat account for the Ice Ages of previous ages.
In contrast, there is a comparatively small group of very vociferous 'scientists' of so-called Climate Change Deniers.
This group cannot agree between themselves the reasons for Global temp rises - some even deny its occuring.
Of these 'scientists' few are qualified in the specific discipline of climatology and related disciplines. Few have produced scientific papers which can be reviewed by the wider scientific community and the very few who have have tended to offer a variety of explanations, such as Solar winds, volcanic dust, changes in the Earth's magnetism - all of which have been examined and discounted by the expert scientific community.
Of such 'scientists' one is a mining engineer, another has qualifications in forestry and religion.
Even the Bible enters the debate.
Others have direct, or indirect association with motoring, oil, or similar conglomerates.
Much of such scepticism (which is the wrong context) and denying is focussed on certain institutions in the USA.
Such institutions have a history of suggesting, for example, that smoking in not harmful to health - not surpringly it is not difficult to uncover that tabacco industries have been a main sponsor.
One of the great difficulties for the proper scientists to get message across is that they do not have time or money to educate the masses.
Meanwhile, a small group of deniers have the massive financial backing of certain significant USA industries.
Post a Comment