Photo EBU

The peculiar, but by now a sort of fancy kitsch, the Eurovisioncontest, is on again. This time in Baku, the not so democratic Republic of Azerbaijan. (Use the link to check out some of the songs. Montenegro has some, well interesting, lyrics.)

This has raised some concern over the possible PR, the, no doubt nasty regime, might get. As the same discussion is going on concerning soccer, let me say that I’m generally reluctant to boycotts, and specifically those carried out by government. Boycotting private companies, as was the case with the hysteria over French wines and nukes some years ago, is both stupid and insulting. And even not boycotting governmental monopolies might be a good idea. If I got clearance, naturally out of the question, to operate freely as a journalist in North Chorea, it would be more than stupid to refuse to use whatever electricity, phone services or lodging there is, on the ground that it’s run by a communist regime. Hey, everything is. If it’s running at all, that is.

Sometimes, you tend to think twice though. Not about if boycotts are effective, but if they might be justified. To clear way for the Eurovision, the government quite frankly confiscated peoples’ houses, to clear the way for the stage. In this case, with a short notice, the owners were compensated with 50 percent of the “market value“. How you calculate such in expropriation I’ve never understood. The same goes for the worst environmental crimes, regardless of energy source, committed not by energy companies on a free market, but by energy companies working in collusion with the government.

The damage is done. Sadly enough. So not going would probably just make things worse. Try to spread some fresh ideas while there instead! On the other hand, at least one of the finalists had some difficulties in grasping the possible dilemma. Because Baku is in the Caribbeans, is it not?

It’s here again, the Super Moon, or more correctly the same old moon, but a bit closer to Earth than usual. Got a glimpse yesterday, and admit it’s impressive when the skies are clear enough.

As with all weather phenomena, it’s easy to find speculations. This year, however, I’ve only found articles in which the authors find it necessary to point out that earth quakes are not caused by the moon (or by the otherwise most powerful force around; the Sun, or – for that matter – by CO2). No references to Global Warming. That’s comforting.

It’s otherwise rather natural that in earlier times, superstition has been high.  And sure, if you really browse the net, you can still find it. But this folklore, the risk to be moonstruck, werewolves etc, were – as in the case of a lot of religious myths and traditions – often built on observations and practical considerations. As for some religious rules, such as the ban on pork and certain see food, you only need to look at geography and living conditions to grasp the rationality. As for the sacredness of family values, that too seems rather rational in most societies.

And as for the moon, it is indeed a powerful force. Just look at the tide, for example in the Channel. And with that force, it’s not hard to understand that some people, most notably those prone to migraine, can be very sensitive to a full moon. And dogs do wail towards it. Possibly some humans too, but we are not werewolves.

Please Come Back to Europe

Intended another story, but some issues just make me tired. Like the tiny news piece yesterday in the local paper, informing us that the local community – in a basically monopolized health care market – would no longer provide so called Laughing Gas, to women giving birth.

The reason given was that it hurts the environment.

I’m rather aware of the potential hazards, also to nurses and doctors, of all sorts of anesthesia. And of precautions taken. But why this word “environment“?

Earlier, the talk in the environmental debate was that the worst villain was women eating contraceptives.

I will never give birth, for the simple reason that I’m a man, but I know enough ladies to imagine the suffering (sure, sometimes, it’s just a walk in the park) and anxiety with a pregnancy and birth.

Neither can I eat contraceptive pills, because they are still women only, but again, I know enough women to know that there are health hazards involved. Diminishing, but still risky.

Now, why use “environment” to attack the vast 50 percent of the general population who are female? Never understood those male politicians who pledged to be “feminists”. I still don’t, but if you don’t stop harassing my lady friends, I will certainly reconsider.

Realist or Alarmist?

During my years in the climate debate, I’ve been called all sorts of things. Climate Hater, Weather Denier, to mention a few. Apparently all climate realists are now also “Anti-Science”, and according to Robin McKie, writing for the Observer, though this article  was found in our fanzine The Guardian, people are getting scared.

“Most scientists, on achieving high office, keep their public remarks to the bland and reassuring. Last week Nina Fedoroff, the president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), broke ranks in a spectacular manner.

She confessed that she was now “scared to death” by the anti-science movement that was spreading, uncontrolled, across the US and the rest of the western world.”

 If they had asked me, I could have delivered quite a few speakers, not very hateful, and certainly scientists. As a matter of fact, this service is constantly offered and provided by CFACT and our vast network of scholars.

To my disappointment though, CFACT Europe is not even mentioned by name, but the theme seems to have been that this plague is spreading into Europe too.

According to the article, the conference does not seem to have been a lot about science, just about being scared, so probably my services would not have been of great use. Never mind Climategate. Never mind the lack of significant global warming. Never mind that man can’t control the sun. We are here to share the horror stories. But my offer stands, and until we meet, feel free to browse our web site, quite full of not so hateful science and reflections.

Sidewalks are slippery, with the newly arrived and thus unusual European winter. Traffic is as bad as every year and people are frantic to make last minute purchases.

Then comes another old tradition, with a new name. It used to be some mumbo jumbo about not exploiting something, now the young hooligans blocking traffic and shopping malls call it a Climate Action.

Could, in the midst of winter, these kids at least try to show some decency towards their fellow men and women, who are just out to – with or without wheelchair or crutches – risking their health in order to spend a nice holiday.

Grumpy? You bet. But, Yes, this is not a season for grumpiness. Please take my advice, go sit on Santa’s lap instead of harassing people. Who knows, we might even get peace, prosperity and a clear sky to contemplate on that star up above.

The fact that you didn’t make it in Durban does not give you the right to deny others to enjoy the pleasures of the season. Merry Decency to you all.

Hey Lady! Got a Light?

Don’t you agree? On the anti smoking issue, that is. On the one hand, people in general are just giving up, resigning in the face of oppression and harassment. On the other, some – maybe an increasing amount of people – are beginning to feel that enough is enough. Some even dare to say so in public.

Let me be one of them, enouraged by a – today non smoking – brother in arms.

Dr Sean Gabb of the Libertarian Alliance has made a bold effort to reintroduce science into the debate, otherwise carried out either by uninformed legislators or the, often just as uninformed, public.

The passive smoking, or as it is sometimes referred to, Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS), roughly took off about 30 years ago with a widely quoted EPA report in the US, quickly dismissed as nonsense by a subsequent analysis from the Congressional Research Center, not gaining much attention. Legislators followed. Air traffic came first, then public buildings, airports, trains, restaurants, now even pubs, and the hyenas are out sniffing for balconies, peoples homes, and now even their cars. Oh, yes, forgot the outdoor cafes, already banning smoking in some places, and probably the top thing next European summer. Sure, there has been a load of more or less scientific attempts since then.

Writes Gabb:

“The argument from “passive smoking” is based on falsehoods. There is no way of gathering meaningful data, nor even sound epidemiological evidence that passive smoking exists. The alleged figure of 300,000 children harmed every year in the UK by passive smoking is what is called a “junk statistic.” It is in the same league as the claims made in the 1980s about the number of people who would die of aids by 1990, or the claims made in the 1990s about the numbers who would soon be dead from mad cow disease. It is almost as gross a falsehood as the fraudulent global warming claims made by British scientists.”

Letting voodoo into the rules for governmental buildings is one thing. As for the airlines, well, the result apparently was less cost for ventilation/fresh oxygen, and a jump in so called air rage, which in turn was used as an excuse to cut down on the free drinks.

But moving further, to the situation today, when it’s regarded as perfectly normal to harass smokers standing on the sidewalk (where-else should we be), it’s strange to notice the – frankly rather stunning- disrespect for private property. Some European countries still allow smoking in bars, if not in restaurants, but even that is to be taken away. Germany, seems to be one of the few decent countries left. Austria introduced a rule a few years ago that you had to have separate sections and advertise on the entrance door if you were a smokers place or not. Quite acceptable from a patron’s point of view. This is now tightening. Belgium has fallen, as has France. One of the last times I had a decent smoke indoors was in the secluded smokers area (air proof) at one one Copenhagen’s oldest hang-outs, in connection to the Climate Fiasco in 2009.

Remains the fact that smoking can be impolite, just as hitting on total strangers, or invading private property. Remains the golden rule of survival in a civilized society: Common Decency.

The tradition of lighting a candle, or a fire, to guide travellers and visitors is probably as old as the tamed fire. With the invention of electricity and the light bulb, it also became more convenient and safer.

Since some years back, another – imposed – tradition is the so called Earth Hour on Saturday, when politicians and environmentalists, led by WWF expect you to turn out the lights.

My own tradition is to write about this every year, and the most encouraging parallel tradition of turning on your lights during the same hour is spreading, for example on Facebook.

I do admit that candles are cosy, as is a barbecue or an open fireplace. I do however acknowledge that it’s hardly a coincidence that most tragic accidents related to fires occur in different parts of Europe during the events when the open fire, or candle, is – again – part of the tradition. Christmas, Hanukkah, and up north in the spring greetings or light traditions around the darkest day of the year.

And I do, as I do every year, wish to point out that street lights and lighthouses are not there for no reason.

As the entire Earth Hour is just a gimmick with more than questionable environmental symbolism, feel free to light that candle if it makes you happy. If you really care about human safety, why not turn on the lamps.

Finally the trial against the hooligans posing a security threat to the Queen of Denmark during the Copenhagen conference is starting. Naturally, Greenpeace is doing it’s best to ridicule the process, pointing out that “the eleven are also facing the obscure charge of having committed an offence against Denmark’s Queen.” , “… dusting off of this little known and as far as we can tell never before used law”.

You might argue that it was unnecessary for the Royal Court to host a gala dinner for this obscure gathering, or that it was bad judgement in the first place of the Danish government to make lives miserable and dangerous for Copenhageners by hosting the summit. However, severe rules protecting the Head of State – and in this case, one of the most admired monarchs in Europe – are neither uncommon, nor ridiculous.

It should also be noted that the other charges include, listed by Greenpeace themselves: “Trespass, falsification of documents, and impersonating a public official”.

You might want to add creating a general danger to the public, breach of security and general hooliganism.

At least, Greenpeace should be grateful they are not charged with what most decent people probably would suggest; High Treason.

In the never ending debate on what really triggered WWI, an interesting observation is that August 1914 was one of the warmest months in Europe, during the last century. With no AC, politicians simply went bananas.

Naturally, the underlying factors were multiple; trigger happy, sometimes very old, politicians and officers, negligence to the risks involved in a full scale war with the still new military technology, old alliances, you name it. But the observation is still interesting, and probably correct at least for some of the major players.

In a recent issue of Science, the authors try to take a climate approach to the fall of the Roman Empire, arguing that the Germanic tribes finally invading Rome, were driven south by severe draughts caused by climate change.

Again, there’s probably some sense to this. At the same time, empires tend to fall for multiple, often combined reasons, such as corruption, uncontrollable expansion or just plain discontent, or incompetence among the rulers.

For some reason, the authors in Science find it necessay to point out that today’s warming is unprecendented. Really? As far as I know, the history of the world has always been rather turbulent, both concerning politics and science. And climate.

Applying an alarmist perspective to the Roman Empire gets complicated indeed, given that you really believe that climate can’t vary without human intervention. Did the northern tribes eat too much meat, or did the vicious Romans bomb them with CO2? Was this extraordinary technology of warfare then hidden until 1914,  later to be exposed by the IPCC, or has it been the well kept secret of a mysterious society, the Knights of Climate Control, based on a non-discovered island and devoted to fight civilization wherever it should appear.