The Roman Warm Period

It is widely accepted by historians that there was a Roman Warm Period of a few centuries, straddling either side of AD 1. When it started to cool down, there were famines, unrest and wars for scarce (food) resources and the western Roman Empire in western Europe collapsed. The eastern Roman Empire aka. Byzantine Empire, being further east and south and a bit warmer struggled on for a few more centuries, but hey.

Then came the Dark Ages, when it was cooler and history is murkier, people were too busy fighting with each other or simply struggling to survive to leave much recorded history. Then was the Mediæval Warm Period, a time of exploration and expansion, formation of larger states (Vikings got as far as Greenland). The wheels fell off again in about AD 1300 when things cooled down (very quickly) and we had the Little Ice Age. Rinse and repeat, famines, unrest, wars etc, esp. in the 1600s.

The Little Ice Age ended in the mid-to-late 1800s, since when we have had the Modern Warm Period. There have been few weather-related famines, and certainly no global ones, for the past fifty years or more, apart from the fairly local ones caused by wars and/or incompetent or downright malevolent governments (which in turn lead to wars...). It's having plentiful food that we really care about. You can survive the cold if you are well-fed; warmth is no good to you if you are starving.

That's what history teaches us. No links because I assume that this is all widely accepted. Sorry for the Euro-centric view, but that's the history I learned. Chinese and Asian history, which is as well recorded as European history, seems to show a similar timeline of rises and falls of civilisations.

The Alarmists reveal themselves to be the true Climate Deniers and swear blind that temperatures remained unchanged for thousands of years until shooting up over past fifty or a hundred years (the Hockey Stick graph), with past temperatures being adjusted down and current temperatures adjusted up.

What is the point of this brief canter through history? The point is that the Alarmists now have the cheek, temerity and gall to use clear evidence of the Roman Warm Period as evidence that... there is sudden and unprecedented climate change:

From Reuters:

ZANFLEURON PATH, Switzerland, Sept 11 (Reuters) - A rocky Alpine path between two glaciers in Switzerland is emerging for what the local ski resort says is the first time in at least 2,000 years after the hottest European summer on record.

The ski resort of Glacier 3000 in western Switzerland said this year's ice melt was around three times the 10-year average, meaning bare rock can now be seen between the Scex Rouge and the Zanfleuron glaciers at an altitude of 2,800 metres and the pass will be completely exposed by the end of this month.

In other words, it's about as warm now as it was 'at least' 2,000 years ago. Which is not really Earth-shattering news, if you are prepared to learn from history. Whether the approx. 1,000 year warm/cool cycle since AD 1 is a coincidence or there is an underlying natural pattern, nobody knows. Records don't go much further back than that, although there is some ice-core evidence of a Minoan Warm Period about 1,000 years before the Roman Warm Period.

Today's entry in the history rewriting competition

From The Metro:

N Power was wrong by claiming [sic] that Baroness Thatcher wouldn't have suggested dancing on anyone's grave (Metro, Thu).

After the Argentine warship General Belgrano was sunk in the Falklands War with the loss of 323 lives, her response was 'Rejoice, rejoice'. It wouldn't be hard to argue that doesn't amount to pretty much the same thing.

David Jacob, Essex.

Strictly speaking, she said that when "our forces and the marines" raised the White Ensign over South Georgia:

The history re-writing competition is in full swing

From the FT:

Sir, It has been mentioned in a number of articles that Margaret Thatcher's greatest legacy (1) was in controlling inflation.

In 1980 inflation in the UK was 18 per cent and by 1986 it stood at 2 per cent. In France, under a socialist administration throughout the 1980s, the inflation rate in 1980 was 14 per cent and by 1986 it stood at 2 per cent.(2) Did Thatcher also help the French to reduce their inflation? (3)

David Peett, East Dean, West Sussex.

1) Yes, some people mention this, but the list of things which Thatcher allegedly achieved is very long indeed. So he's off to a poor start there.

2) This probably is true.

3) Clearly not. The Thatcherites would no doubt answer this with "yes", for them, her powers were virtually unbounded. Truth of the matter is that the fall in inflation was largely due to the end of currency controls in 1979 (and yes, we have Thatcher and whoever was her first Chancellor to thank for that). Of course, when the Thatcher government tried reintroducing currency controls (the ERM debacle) we had another short period of relatively high inflation.

UPDATE: Graeme in the comments reckons that the French simply adopted similar economic policies to those adopted in the UK. The Thatcherites will say "ah yes, that shows how influential she was" and the realists would say "well sod that, everybody was doing the same thing anyway".

"The Fight For History"

"This is not a song taking delight from the prospect of anybody's death or illness, this is about the fight that will take place for the correct telling of history and the lasting implications of the Tory governments of 1979-1997."

Yeah right.

Nick Clegg issues hasty correction to misreporting of a speech he gave in January

Spotted by Bob E at Huff Post:

Nick Clegg has said he's delighted that no way will Chris Huhne return to the cabinet now that the former energy secretary has been convicted of perverting the course of justice related to a speeding offence.

The Lib Dem leader told journalists in Westminster on Thursday that Huhne was a "formidable and accomplished liar" who he wanted to see "banged up" and that there was no way Huhne could ever expect to be back at the "top table" of British politics.

Clegg's desire to have Huhne back inside a correctional facility may in part be motivated by the view that it is better to have him inside having nasty things done to him, than outside it doing nasty things to those in the Cabinet.

[Rewriting history] If the first excuse isn't good enough...

Ha!

Three days ago, the Lib-Cons shelved their eminently sensible policy to replace Air Passenger Duty with a per-plane duty on the grounds that this contravened EU law, as confirmed by e.g. Channel 4's usually reliable fact check. EU rules are usually self-defeatingly stupid, so I was prepared to take this at face value.

However, the Trade Minister in my Bloggers Cabinet, John B, commented thusly:

Hmm. I think... the reason you haven't found an EU law against this is because *there isn't one*, like most of the things governments blame on the EU. Rather, because someone wants to backtrack on the pledge (at a guess, because it'd bust BA and Virgin whilst favouring Mr O'Leary), they're lying that it's an EU rule so that they can renege on the deal and have the blame go elsewhere.

This is primarily what the EU is for - so that governments can do whatever they like, and then pretend to the public that it's someone else's fault if said things are unpopular.
-------------------------
The last paragraph of that is indisputably true, but it turns out he was spot on with the first part as well. From today's FT:

The Liberal Democrats and Conservatives have long advocated the policy of switching from a “per passenger” duty to a “per plane” levy as a green measure to end the current situation whereby empty flights are not taxed...

However, ministers have backed away from the plan after Whitehall officials and lawyers advised it would breach the 1944 Chicago Convention, which established the legal framework for international civil aviation and outlaws fuel taxes on international flights.

It was argued that if the levy was based on maximum take-off weight, it could have been a proxy for an aircraft’s fuel burn – and therefore open to legal challenge as a “fuel tax”.

No doubt others will have spotted this history re-write as well, so the next excuse will probably be that the Chicago Convention is enshrined in EU law or something.
-------------------------
In any event, the relevant article in the Convention, Article 24 Customs Duty says:

(a) Aircraft on a flight to, from, or across the territory of another contracting State shall be admitted temporarily free of duty, subject to the customs regulations of the State.

Fuel, lubricating oils, spare parts, regular equipment and aircraft stores on board an aircraft of a contracting State, on arrival in the territory of another contracting State and retained on board on leaving the territory of that State shall be exempt from customs duty, inspection fees or similar national or local duties and charges.

This exemption shall not apply to any quantities or articles unloaded, except in accordance with the customs regulations of the State, which may require that they shall be kept under customs supervision.

I've bolded the clue bat to save you a valuable few seconds. Seeing as the per-plane duty would apply whether or not the plane is refuelled on UK soil or merely lands and takes off again, how anybody in his right mind can construe that as preventing a per-plane duty while allowing a per-passenger duty is a mystery to me.

Rewritin' history: it depends where you start

From the BBC:

The number of MRSA infections in hospitals in England has fallen by 40% compared with the same period last year, figures show. Between April and June this year 509 cases were reported, compared with 839 in the same quarter in 2008, the Health Protection Agency said.

The latest figure is a quarter of the peak of nearly 2,000 in 2004. Rates of Clostridium difficile infection are also continuing to fall with a 37% drop from last year. The government met its target to halve 2004 MRSA rates in summer 2008, and at the time ministers called for the NHS needs to focus on sustaining the reduction.

What's the significance of 2004? What is the relevance? Ah ... I see:
Chart from National Statistics Online. OK, that's deaths not cases, but I'd assume that the two move roughly in line. It's not clear to me why they chose 2004 rather than 2005 as their 'year zero'.

Rewritin' history

From the BBC, 8 May 2009:

UKIP, which campaigns for Britain's exit from the European Union, achieved a breakthrough in 2004, winning 16% of the vote and beating the Liberal Democrats into fourth place. It has performed less well in elections since then and has lost three of its 12 MEPs, including television celebrity Robert Kilroy-Silk, who left to form his own party.

Subtext: "UKIP down from twelve to nine MEPs"

From the BBC, 1 July 2009:

UKIP won 17.4% of the British vote and increased its number of MEPs to 13 in the June election - beating Labour into third place. UKIP had 12 seats in the former parliament.

Subtext: "UKIP only gained one MEP"

Time heals all wounds. Unless you keep re-opening them.

From The Metro:

Major British companies and institutions founded using the profits of slavery will be highlighted by a new study.

An online database of all the slave owners in the country at the time of abolition in 1833 will be created to trace how their wealth was used. This will be the first in-depth study of how the owners were involved in events such as building the railways. UCL's three-year study is funded by £613,000 from the Economic and Social Research Council.

UCL means University College London, which is largely State-funded, and the Economic and Social Research Council..? Ah ... see here:

"We are an independent organisation, established by Royal Charter, but receive most of our funding through the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills. Our planned expenditure for 2008/09 is £203 million, which funds over 2,500 researchers in academic institutions and policy research institutes throughout the UK. We also support more than 2,000 postgraduate students."

Stalinist history re-write of the week

Irwin Stelzer has a good gripe about Obama's all round muzzliness in The Telegraph, but then can't resist showing that stuck-in-a-rut old right-wingers can rewrite history as well as the Lefties with this sentence:

Obama now has to explain to his pacifist Democratic Left why he is sending tens of thousands of troops into Afghanistan when his Nato allies, equally threatened – witness terrorist attacks on Madrid and London – won't.

IIRC, Nato invaded/enabled an uprising in Afgh in late 2001 in response to the 9/11 attacks, which were sponsored by Al-Qaeda/The Taliban, who more or less ruled that country. Fair enough.

The attack in Madrid (which may or may not have had some sort of Al-Qaeda link, who were no longer in charge in Afgh by that stage) was in 2004 and the one London (which was carried out by four UK resident Islamist mass murderers, who also may or may not have trained in Al-Qaeda sponsored terrorist camps which may or may not have been in Afgh or neighbouring Pakistan) was in 2005. These attacks have little or no connection with Afgh and happened years after the Taliban regime had been replaced with the current regime.

If the UK is going to go round willy-nilly attacking countries with some vague connection to terrorist attacks in the UK, then why not attack Ireland and the USA (sponsors of the IRA), Pakistan or indeed, attack itself?

Twat.

Obama betrays terrifying lack of grasp of reality (Part 94)

From The Metro, Obama's speech to the Turkish parliament:

"The Islamic faith has done so much over centuries to shape the world for the better...

Well, I agree that most major religions (Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism etc.) have had a huge civilising influence, which probably outweighs all their downsides, as opposed to Islam, whose influence appears to be totally malign, but that's just 'opinion' rather than arguable fact. What's terrifying is that Obama ended that sentence with this:

...including my own country."

Dude, WTF?

Apart from Utah, which is a kind of Islamic sub-State (very strict licensing laws, misogyny, polygamy etc) and the disastrous experiment with teetotalitarianism in the 1920s, how the f*** has Islam 'shaped' the USA? Did 9/11 "shape the USA for the better"? Or is Obama talking about Nigeria or maybe Indonesia? Is that what he means by "my own country"?

Lest we forget

It is a matter of history that when Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces, General Dwight Eisenhower, found the victims of the death camps, he ordered all possible photographs to be taken, and for the German people from surrounding villages to be ushered through the camps and even made to bury the dead. He did this because he said in words to this effect:

'Get it all on record now - get the films - get the witnesses - because somewhere down the track of history some bastard will get up and say that this never happened.
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil, is for good men to do nothing'.

This week, the University of Kentucky removed The Holocaust from its school curriculum because it 'offended' the Muslim population which claims it never occurred. This is a frightening portent of the fear that is gripping the world and how easily each country is giving into it.

Caveat - this may be a slight exaggeration or even a completely false rumour.