Climategate, global warming, global climate change... it goes on and on and on and o... you get the picture of how I'm currently feeling. I must confess to it being slightly self-inflicted having spent most of today reading two blogs arguing from both ends of the scale, http://climateaudit.org/ - for the sceptic arguments - & http://www.realclimate.org/ - for those in support. The first is written by a statistician and the second by a collection of expert climate scientist and general scholars. I will state now the Dr. Michael Mann of Penn State, currently under investigation for poor practice, does write for realclimate.org but he is only one of a large panel who write on there.
My whim of ire is one that I'm sure many people suffer from, that of the partisanship of the media and apparent repetitive counts of failiure to follow due process. On one hand I hear that the data is flawed, cherry-picked and adjusted to suit their cause, then you hear that this data is but a flick right at the very end of what is already a flick, or in the current characterization of it as a hockey stick on the tip of a hockey stick. You then see the graph depicting this and it does nothing to help clear anything up, yes there are some lines which show a general upwards trend in the last 200 years but on this graph are some broad shaded areas which, one assumes is the error range, can show a relatively constant temperature for the past 2000 years or what would have to be described as an emergence from an ice age in the past 200 years. This graph seems to be being used by those in favour of climate change... WHY?
This graph, to me, shows absolutely nothing! A sausage could almost ell me as much. Okay it does tell me one thing, that in the past 200 years we have been better able to calculate a world average. This graph, when used, has only minimal explanation for the references, again why? I am trying to make an informed decision based on research that has been done, when the proposers of this phenomenon use strange graphs which explain little to back up statements it makes me more skeptic.
This though is being counter-acted by those who disagree who concentrate on small items. I know people will say that they are attacking the fundemental data upon which this has been based, but from what I have been reading the skeptics have gotten stuck purely on temperature, yes important but not the whole picture.
What happened to science being impartial?!
How can I make an informed decision when the two sides start arguing different parts of the arguments at the same time?!
If you were watching two people arguing over two sports A & B and the two arguments you hear are "A is better because it is more popular" and "B is better because it is more challenging." How are you as a simple observer going to be able to decide which is better on a level of understanding when the two sides don't stop to talk about what is agreed.
Would it be too much to ask that several experts with opposing interpretations of this topic to sit down and set down what is accepted fact, and what is under contention? Surely it is impossible that one side of the argument is a complete fabrication, invented on whims and anomalies?
Can a brother get a little help around here?
Showing posts with label UN. Show all posts
Showing posts with label UN. Show all posts
Thursday, 4 February 2010
Tuesday, 19 January 2010
Legalising Mass Murder
I am sitting at a desk in the offices of BBC worldwide, getting paid to watch Blue Peter and generally feeling very bored. Out of the corner of my eye I can see the Iraq inquiry going on, which I can't watch as I have to pay attention to Blue Peter, or hear, I am in an office. The whole concept of the Iraq war got me thinking, how can one legalise such a terrifying act as war and in whom should the power to make this decision be placed?
On the first point I just suffer severe bouts of confusion. How is it possible to concieve that war, which in essence is murder, GBH and extreme vandalism on a grand scale, be legalised? This is not a case saying that war should always be illegal or legal, but that the principle of allowing war to be legal is a fallacy of huge consequence.
Saying that nothing good comes of war is incorrect. The positive effect of war is seen only in terms of scientific and engineering advances. It seems that mankind is at its most inventive when trying to kill itself, the guns and machines that take part in the war do not realise the benefits of the new advances for the masses. The transition into the rest of the world happens during peace at the end of the war, although it may wait until the technology has become obsolete before doing so.
The above paragraph is not an advocation for war, as most of the advances would happen in the course of events anyway, merely a fact. This though is part of the reason that you cannot and should not try to define a legal set of requirements for war. If war can be legal, then this argument could be placed as a reason why any war should be legal. It is the same as murdering some person, and claiming that it was for the good of humanity for that corpse, if still living, would have gon on to cause the deaths of billions. This can not be proven. In the same way, you cannot prove that any technological advancement would actually derive from your war.
The next part of this argument is in the idea that war can be legal as a defensive measure, if the coutry has been invaded. Again, I find plenty to laugh hystericaly at as it could only be a joke. Here I am not saying that one should not defend oneself by waging war on the invading force, but that say it is legal is not valid. How does one define a defensive war? One where you are defending your homeland? With that Great Britain could declare war on France to reclaim Normandy and Brittany, though I am not saying that would be a bad thing, or Great Britain could declare war to reclaim the New Territories. These cases would all have a valid claim for legality. Normandy and Brittany became English with Norman the Conqueror. The New Territories in America were not taken by force initially, we settled and in some places the natives let us. These cases are farcical, intentioanlly so, as I wish to point out that boundary disputes will always cause war do not dignify it by saying that it can be legal.
Next comes the pre-emptive strike, most notably used by the USA. This is what would be defnined as one of the best forms of self defense. Yes your fists might get bloodied as you knock your attacker down before he can start but the parts not designed for fighting remain blissfully whole and intact. Again, I shall produce a metaphor to aid my argument. In the street you see a man running towrds you with a cricket bat over his head, screaming, ruby faced and eyes wild with rage. It is not legal in this position to produce a gun and shoot him before he reaches you, nor a taser. In each case it is you who would end up in the dock. The screaming man may well have been after someone behind you whom you could not see, in which case you are in the wrong. Equally possible is that he was in fact about to attck you, in which case this would be a fair cop (though I do believe you would have a hard time getting the angry man to say this). This is not to say that nobody should be punished in this instance, you and the attacker should both be punished, you for taking the law into your own hands where it may well not have been neccessary, and him for extremely aggressive behaviour and gross stupidity. In this case there is a higher power, the Police. Their vices and virtues are not being argued here, but that there is a single body with the specific aim to stop such events as these.
In the city of nations though, this is not the case. I hear people cry "There are!" some say the UN, some say NATO and some few cry the name of USA or China. None of these are the same as the Bobby on the beat, the police force. USA and China would turn up as a masked avenger fighting a solo battle against crime for the better of the world (we will come back to this), NATO is the Neighbourhood Watch of the fair and beauteous side area of city, and the UN amount to a security company hired by the City Council. If the Earth were a single nation, and the UN the governing body, then maybe the UN forces would be the police force. This can never happen though whilst the UN armed forces operate under the laws of engagement of their own nation. What about the NATO forces? These troops are entirely partisan in their deployment. They orginated as a gang, an area of wealthy inhabitatns scared by their jingoistic neighbours. They are of an individual class and do not subscribe to the overall whole. Nato as the police force would be like the Chicago Police under Al Capone. Then what of China? What of the USA? They are individual, alone, above the law they would claim to uphold. How on earth could they be considered police?!
I realise that I have digressed from the original point of pre-emptive strike somewhat, but this I believe is the crux of the argument. How can law be uphelp without an impartial force to maintain it? Before London had a police force there were the thief takers. Fine at first, but corrupted quickly with power. The answer is that you cannot. So, until this is addressed, countenancing the idea of legal parameters for war is absurd.
Now to the second question I made at the start. In whom should we bestow such powers that they can decide when mass murder is legal? You would be correct in deducing that I am saying that the powers would be with one man. If you choose a committee, one must lead. If there comes a time when the cast of votes is locked at certain place, there will be one vote left to determine the result. So in whom could you put your trust to a completely unbiased decision to be made? It could not be one from this planet.
So there are my reasons behind finding the idea of a legal war farcical. Do you argue my logic?
On the first point I just suffer severe bouts of confusion. How is it possible to concieve that war, which in essence is murder, GBH and extreme vandalism on a grand scale, be legalised? This is not a case saying that war should always be illegal or legal, but that the principle of allowing war to be legal is a fallacy of huge consequence.
Saying that nothing good comes of war is incorrect. The positive effect of war is seen only in terms of scientific and engineering advances. It seems that mankind is at its most inventive when trying to kill itself, the guns and machines that take part in the war do not realise the benefits of the new advances for the masses. The transition into the rest of the world happens during peace at the end of the war, although it may wait until the technology has become obsolete before doing so.
The above paragraph is not an advocation for war, as most of the advances would happen in the course of events anyway, merely a fact. This though is part of the reason that you cannot and should not try to define a legal set of requirements for war. If war can be legal, then this argument could be placed as a reason why any war should be legal. It is the same as murdering some person, and claiming that it was for the good of humanity for that corpse, if still living, would have gon on to cause the deaths of billions. This can not be proven. In the same way, you cannot prove that any technological advancement would actually derive from your war.
The next part of this argument is in the idea that war can be legal as a defensive measure, if the coutry has been invaded. Again, I find plenty to laugh hystericaly at as it could only be a joke. Here I am not saying that one should not defend oneself by waging war on the invading force, but that say it is legal is not valid. How does one define a defensive war? One where you are defending your homeland? With that Great Britain could declare war on France to reclaim Normandy and Brittany, though I am not saying that would be a bad thing, or Great Britain could declare war to reclaim the New Territories. These cases would all have a valid claim for legality. Normandy and Brittany became English with Norman the Conqueror. The New Territories in America were not taken by force initially, we settled and in some places the natives let us. These cases are farcical, intentioanlly so, as I wish to point out that boundary disputes will always cause war do not dignify it by saying that it can be legal.
Next comes the pre-emptive strike, most notably used by the USA. This is what would be defnined as one of the best forms of self defense. Yes your fists might get bloodied as you knock your attacker down before he can start but the parts not designed for fighting remain blissfully whole and intact. Again, I shall produce a metaphor to aid my argument. In the street you see a man running towrds you with a cricket bat over his head, screaming, ruby faced and eyes wild with rage. It is not legal in this position to produce a gun and shoot him before he reaches you, nor a taser. In each case it is you who would end up in the dock. The screaming man may well have been after someone behind you whom you could not see, in which case you are in the wrong. Equally possible is that he was in fact about to attck you, in which case this would be a fair cop (though I do believe you would have a hard time getting the angry man to say this). This is not to say that nobody should be punished in this instance, you and the attacker should both be punished, you for taking the law into your own hands where it may well not have been neccessary, and him for extremely aggressive behaviour and gross stupidity. In this case there is a higher power, the Police. Their vices and virtues are not being argued here, but that there is a single body with the specific aim to stop such events as these.
In the city of nations though, this is not the case. I hear people cry "There are!" some say the UN, some say NATO and some few cry the name of USA or China. None of these are the same as the Bobby on the beat, the police force. USA and China would turn up as a masked avenger fighting a solo battle against crime for the better of the world (we will come back to this), NATO is the Neighbourhood Watch of the fair and beauteous side area of city, and the UN amount to a security company hired by the City Council. If the Earth were a single nation, and the UN the governing body, then maybe the UN forces would be the police force. This can never happen though whilst the UN armed forces operate under the laws of engagement of their own nation. What about the NATO forces? These troops are entirely partisan in their deployment. They orginated as a gang, an area of wealthy inhabitatns scared by their jingoistic neighbours. They are of an individual class and do not subscribe to the overall whole. Nato as the police force would be like the Chicago Police under Al Capone. Then what of China? What of the USA? They are individual, alone, above the law they would claim to uphold. How on earth could they be considered police?!
I realise that I have digressed from the original point of pre-emptive strike somewhat, but this I believe is the crux of the argument. How can law be uphelp without an impartial force to maintain it? Before London had a police force there were the thief takers. Fine at first, but corrupted quickly with power. The answer is that you cannot. So, until this is addressed, countenancing the idea of legal parameters for war is absurd.
Now to the second question I made at the start. In whom should we bestow such powers that they can decide when mass murder is legal? You would be correct in deducing that I am saying that the powers would be with one man. If you choose a committee, one must lead. If there comes a time when the cast of votes is locked at certain place, there will be one vote left to determine the result. So in whom could you put your trust to a completely unbiased decision to be made? It could not be one from this planet.
So there are my reasons behind finding the idea of a legal war farcical. Do you argue my logic?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
