Now the fun begins.

Every time there is a natural disaster, the oafs we have in charge line up to take the credit for it. Lately, Prince Charles (look up the last two times we had a king called Charles and see how it turned out) has stated ‘See that typhoon that hammered the Philippines? We did that. We made it happen’.

Every hurricane, every earthquake, every disaster has our moronic leaders fighting to claim responsibility.

So is it any wonder that those hit by such disasters now say ‘Oh, it was you, was it? Well you can bloody well pay to fix it.’

Now, Cameron, let’s see you get out of that.

You could always send the bill to the University of East Anglia, I suppose.

If only you and your predecessors hadn’t been such gullible twats, and so greedy for excuses to add tax.

You might want to look again at all the other fake charities you’re charging us for, too.


14 thoughts on “Now the fun begins.

  1. I’ve been waiting for the big banner headline – “Vatican opens coffers to help” The Philippines being one of its biggest present day sources of income I’d have thought they’d be falling over themselves to give give give. . . .


  2. This is what we get for our easily led politicians attaching the country to yet another fashionable but questionable cause. The concept of paying “historic climate debt” was an obvious cash redistribution project, but they were so busy being seen to be pious it doesn’t seem to have occured to them.


  3. If only you and your predecessors hadn’t been such gullible twats

    Post Normal Science

    “But it was also Hulme who made the really remarkable admission in 2007 that AGW theory could not be supported by the ‘normal’ rules of scientific inquiry. He wrote:

    “The danger of a ‘normal’ reading of science is that it assumes science can first find truth, then speak truth to power, and that truth-based policy will then follow… Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth-seeking, although science will gain some insights into the question if it recognises the socially contingent dimensions of a post-normal science.

    Global warming, he claimed, was an example of ‘post-normal science’ which did not seek to establish the truth through evidence. Instead, truth had to be traded for influence.
    In areas of uncertainty, scientists had to present their beliefs instead as a basis for policy.”

    The post-normal science of precaution
    Ravetz – 2003

    New tools for new problems

    “In the sorts of issue-driven science relating to the protection of health and the environment, often facts are uncertain, values in dispute, stakes high, and decisions urgent. The traditional distinction between ‘hard’, objective scientific facts and ‘soft’, subjective value-judgements is now inverted.

    All too often, we must make hard policy decisions where our only scientific inputs are irremediably soft. The requirement for the “sound science” that is frequently invoked as necessary for rational policy decisions may affectively conceal value-loadings that determine research conclusions and policy recommendations.

    In these new circumstances, invoking ‘truth’ as the goal of science is a distraction, or even a diversion from real tasks. A more relevant and robust guiding principle is quality, understood as a contextual property of scientific information.”
    http: //

    For example

    Ecological Integrity – Post-Normal Science – “Ecological Footprint” – Ethics – The Precautionary Principle – 1997

    ” Present laws and regulations even in democratic countries are not sufficient to prevent the grave environmental threats we face. Further, even environmental ethics, when they remain anthropocentric cannot propose a better approach.
    I argue that, taking in considerations the precautionary principle, and adopting the perspective of post-normal science, the ethics of integrity suggest a better way to reduce ecological threats and promote the human good globally”

    In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely practiced by the States according to their capabilities.
    Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific uncertainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost effective measures to prevent environmental damage.

    This principle clearly indicates that, because of the gravity and the urgency of the many environmental problems and crises that face us, it is sufficient to be aware of the threats, even before the scientific certainty might be available,to indicate priority action on the part of policymakers.

    This principle is introduced as an agent of change in order to counter the arguments of those who would appeal to scientific uncertainty, or to disagreements among experts, as a delaying tactic and as a reason to postpone action.”
    http: //


    • We all feared the worst but onThe Slog today john ward, a friend of hers, seems to say she pulled the blog due to vile abuse she was getting, how bad is that to a woman fighting for her life. We can only hope she is recovering in peace and we have not heard the last of her.


First comments are moderated to keep the spambots out. Once your first comment is approved, you're in.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s