Friday, 11 December 2009

THE NOBEL "PEACE" PRIZE

I like Barak Obama. He seems the best (of a bad bunch) of recent American presidents.
However to award him the Nobel peace prize within weeks of his inauguration and before he had time to do anything was like awarding somebody the winner's trophy in a race before the race had started.

No he was awarded the peace prize for being Black, nothing more.
Since then he has shown his peace credentials by sending 30,000 more troops to the illegal war in Afganistan.
Other recipients of this prestigious prize include the peaceful terrorist Nelson Mandela,(not just any peaceful terrorist but a BLACK peaceful terrorist)
Martin Luther King, not exactly whiter than white (excuse the pun) also received one as did the gun toting Yasser Arafat.

I wonder how long Tiger Woods will wait for his award for his work in uniting peoples of different races. Going on past experience not long.
Let's face it these "peace awards" are a farce, unlike the Nobel science awards. These latter seem largely deficient in black recipients. I wonder why.

Could it be that science is colour blind and Nobel prizes for this recognise brilliant original intellectual work rather than all this PC nonsense? Perhaps but wait until someone in the climate change lobby receives an award (they may already have done I don't know).
Then the once prestigious accolade will be really be devalued and shown to be like most awards nowadays, PC nonsence.

(Sir) Paul Mc Cartney anybody?

14 comments:

Chris Hill said...

Hi Charles,

I too was very suppressed at the award of the Nobel Peace piece to Obama, after only a few short weeks in office, but I also agree that he was the best choice for President (given the totally abysmal alternative) that Americans had. The rest of your posting went totally along with my own views until, that is, you attacked the Scientific community for its insistence of warning us about climate change. Charles my friend "Climate Change" is a fact, and the contribution made by man (although not as conclusively proven as global warming itself) is also very strongly supported by scientific analysis of decades of climate data.

The recent attempts to discredit the science (which I have compared to the tobacco industry's attempts to fog the links between smoking and cancer) should concern us all.

"Who exactly is behind theses attempts to fog the issue of climate change?"'</a

In fact if the Peace price was awarded (on mass) to the scientific discipline of Climatology, I can think of no more worthy recipients. Warning the human races, about the catastrophe facing the planet, will hopefully allow us to avoid its most potentially destructive effects, before it's too late, and that truly is worthy of a Peace price.

From
Chris Hill
(Lancaster)

phoenix said...

I'm NOT a scientist, but when we hear that the opposing view to the climate change is being suppressed, then we have to ask ourselves "WHY".? If the arguments are so conclusive for climate change, then WHY are they so afraid to allow the likes of David Bellamy to be heard.? You have not seen D B on T.V. for some time, the reason being, he contradicted the climate change theory, and because of that he lost his job with the BBC, and has not been allowed on since. There are also thousands of other prominent scientists who also have challenged climate change, who are not allowed near media outlets. These same people are not permitted to go to Copenhagen. All this negativity about the alternative viewpoint, must be worrying. Or is it because there is some truth in what they are trying to tell us.??????????
How can a theory be a fact, to a large part of the scientific community, "climate change" is just a cyclical event, and not man made. Natural phenonemon, a normal process of weather and climatic change due to nothing more than the sun heating and cooling.?
When data is collected it is advisable to keep using the same weather stations for the purpose.. With the 6,000 stations being used, you then remove 1/3 of these (2,000) out of the equation, yes of course there will be a significant change in the data being interperated....
There is nothing man can do to alter this course of events, making us pay more tax for this, is just a way to fill the greedy banksters and politicians pockets, and has nothing to do with saving the planet.?

Chris Hill said...

whoops! what happened there?

Sir Henry Morgan said...

Leave it alone Chris, it's finished.

Sir Henry Morgan said...

Here's a pair of comments I posted over at Lunatic Arms. I'll repeat them here as one comment:

The truth is not a good in its own right then?

And determining the truth is by nature an adversarial procedure. How does anyone expect truth when only one side of an argument is presented?

Or has truth become yet another of those things that are “socially defined”?

Outside of suppression to such an extent that it becomes oppression Stasi-style, how does anyone expect to be able to silence the opposing argument?

Lanky Patriot said...

I don't want to start another saterile argument with you Chris.
No one disputes global warming, the dispute is over how much it is man made.
Even if you are right and I know there are vested interests on either side from the government sponsored scientists and people such as Paul Mc Cartney promoting his vegetarian meals on one side and other scientists who point out the medieval warm period and later little ice age and the oil interests the question is how are we to combat it.
It is impossible to reduce our emissions meaningfully in the next two decades.
We would have power failures, the Greens are against nuclear,as too dangerous and wind and tidal for various other reasons.
The carbon trading is a scam and benefits fraudster hypocrits like Al Gore.
The BNP and Nick Griffin were the first to point out that we must pollute less and conserve resources and I agree there is far too much waste.

My way would be to raise most of our taxes from consumer goods which are a luxury and reduce employment taxes such as national Insurance.
We should build sea barriers along the North sea as Holland is doing rather than give money we do not have to the third world where they just breed.

We should produce goods locally and travel less and have fewer children.
I have tried myself to economise on my use of scarce materials and was recycling years before it became fashionable. I use mainly scrap timber to heat my house. I was also a member of a group campaigning against overpopulation 40 years ago and that is why I only had two children.

I think the population of sheep on our mountains should be reduced and replaced by trees and the goats in hot countries should be reduced and trees planted there.
Paul Mc Cartney may do some good as his soya protein contains oestragens which reduce fertility but these wealthy hypocrits people should reduce their fuel consumption.

I have only filled my Land Rover up once in a year and use a Nissan Micra to save fuel.
But goods are transported and food and goods are produced using oil and there is as yet no alternative.
In other words these reductions will not happen.
The Copenhagen conference is a scam to make us close our industry and pay £billions to other countries. Many major polluters will not abide by the rules and we will become VERY poor as a result.
We should conserve our resources, rebuild our own industries and prweserve our coastline and power resources.
What happens to other countries does not concern me, as our fate does not concern them.
The outlook for OUR country is very bleak unless we ignore this unattainable nonsense and look after ourselves.

I don't want to continue talking about this reduction which will not happen apart from asking you how you would achieve a 40%reduction in this country and what difference it would make on a world scale.

Chris Hill said...

Hi Charles,

We now seem to be very close to agreeing on the major points of climate change.

1. It is happening.
2. The only long term solution (200years plus) is a world population of less than 500milion.
3. We must use the planet's scarce resources more carefully.
4. Most politicians and political parties (like big business) will use the dangers of Global Warming for their own benefit.

Where we seem to disagree is:
1. Scientists are not trying to fool anyone! They are simply presenting the results of their analysis obtained using the most up-to-date (ie computer models) methods available to them. To suggest otherwise, without evidence, is simply unfair.
2. The recent stolen emails from climate scientists at the University of East Anglia was a cynical attempt to derail the current Copenhagen climate conference. Possible (although of course this is only speculation) paid for by Arab Sheiks and big multinational Oil Companies with that in mind.

As for how we should reduce our CO2 emissions: firstly in the short term (20-50 years) we must look at Nuclear energy, because alternative energy sources simply aren't viable at the moment. Then we must reduce our population by stopping all immigration, and encouraging recent immigrants to return home to their own countries (I don't see that as passing the buck, just putting the problem where it belongs). Then rather than bribing third world countries to reduce emissions (most of that money will end up paying for Mercedes cars for their government ministers anyway), the developed world should simply ban imports from any third world country whose CO2 emissions are not reduced. Yes reduced! Exactly to the same extent as we in the developed world reduce ours. Now I would offer aid to help them do that, mainly I think in the form of research/advice and equipment.

A permanent long term solution would mean more people (yes I said more people!), just not all at once. Carry on the way we are and by 2050 the population of the Earth will be an estimated 9 billion people, and then possible total extinction by 2150. While a controlled population of say 500million could be sustained indefinitely. Energy would then come from wood fuelled powers stations, while their CO2 emissions would be returned naturally to the newly planted replacement forests. This would give a pleasant world sustainable for many hundreds of thousands of years to come.

Now I know neither of us will be around to see it, but I simply can't live with the ethos of: "I don't care I'll be dead by then" that seems to have driven the greedy fat cats of British businesses in the late 1940's and 50's, and appears to still be prevalent with our politicians today.

From
Chris Hill
(Lancaster)

Sir Henry Morgan said...

Getting to sound very much like a Jehova's witness on this Chris.

Climate is changing - it's been cooling for the past nine years. It's always changed and it always will change. The Medieval Warm Period was warmer than any time in the 20th or 21st century ... and that was a time of prosperity.

No Chris, I don't care. A few degrees of global warming will do this country good; if it does other countries bad, then that is not my problem, it's theirs and we must find ways of exploiting the problems (if any) other countries have, to our county's benefit. I care about THIS country and its people - but that's because I am a nationalist. We'll see what we can do for others when we have gotten ourselves and our problems sorted. Could be a long wait.

Sir Henry Morgan said...

If it was stolen emails to this government's disadvantage would you complain?

Anyway, it's considered more likely they were leaked by a whistleblower disgusted with the way CRU was behaving, than hacked from outside.

And I've said before, and will say again: the emails are trivia, the real scandal is unscientifacall manipulating the data. A lot of academic heads are going to roll before this is finished. And rightly so.

Sir Henry Morgan said...

That's a nice conspiracy theory you've copy/pasted there. Very entertaining. Almost as entertaining as the conspiracy theory that the World trade centre was attacked by Bush.

Freeborn John said...

I went shopping in Manchester yesterday, the city centre resembled some viciously overcrowded Third World bazaar...that worries me.
A Christian couple were dragged through the courts this week by a crazed old bat of a Muslim convert because they argued with her...that worries me.
On TV and in every shopping centre the smart boys are buying up every scrap of gold, with the world economy in its worst recession for decades do they know something we don't? That worries me.
The weather? I couldn't give a toss right now.

Leigh, Lancashire Nationalist said...

I was looking forward to a lovely "barbeque summer" this year!

Unfortunately, they couldn't get that right!

If our experts can't see what's going to happen in a matter of weeks, how are we supposed to swallow what's going to happen in the years ahead?

A very simplistic comment I know: but, it's just a little food for thought.

All yours Chris!!

Chris Hill said...

Hi Morg,

You said:
"That's a nice conspiracy theory you've copy/pasted there."

I say:
I'm sorry I don't understand what you're trying to say. Are you suggesting I didn't spend a good hour last night typing out a reasoned and thoughtful reply to Charles's comment? Because believe me I did! As for a conspiracy: yes I think there almost certainly is one here. The big oil companies and Arab Sheikhs stand to lose billions, and will do anything to keep their position on the gravy train totally regardless of the damage to the Earth.

From
Chris Hill
(Lancaster)

Sir Henry Morgan said...

and ... ?

yaz