While other European countries had given up grabbing remote islands by the 1920s Norway went annexation mad a opposite ends of the world – Svalbard, Bear Island and Jan Mayen in the North and Bouvet, Peter 1 island in the South and a claim on part of Antarctica itself – Dronning Maud Land – a name that always fascinated me as a kid when I looked at maps.



Filed under Uncategorized


  1. b

    @Tom – you are misquoting me. It wasn’t just that some places were “already” getting warmer before the industrial revolution; it was that within a short space of time there was a big and lasting change. The fact that within a short space of time since then there has also been a big change (in the same direction) is used by green propagandists to promote the idea that human activity has caused the change.

    As for ‘science’, is that your god, or what? Because it really sounds like that. Replace the word with “knowledge”, and my point may become clearer. Do you know how the journal system works, and just how top-down the system is in which areas suitable for research are chosen and others nobody is even allowed to start doing a PhD in?

    Do you realise it’s controlled from the top, even? And I mean every aspect of it, including the selection of the sorts of people they want to induct and promote. Big business – very big, international, centralised big business – controls ‘science’ right the way across the board.

    But you pooh-pooh what I say about ice fairs, as if of course Big Protective Daddy Scientists will have taken everything a scumsucker like me might want to draw attention to, before Big Protective Daddy Scientists came to their oh-so objective and species-serving conclusions. You do yourself a big disservice, with that kind of attitude. Frankly, try being less submissive to hierarchical authority figures in society, to ‘sir’. Do you think ‘science’ is anything other than a completely capitalist structure and ideology? I think you probably do. So in that case, the scientists in the mainstream consensus are working away for Objective Truth in service of Humanity, are they, interested above all in furthering the general interest of the species? I’m not even trying to over-parody your position. That sentence two sentences back encapsulates what you think, doesn’t it?

    Money and enormous profits are a side issue in ‘science’, d’you think? As for stopping climate change, yes, that’s exactly what’s being sold. Climate change is sold as a problem for us all. That’s not opinion; that’s fact. The idea is being promoted all around us. We’ve all got to tighten our belts, pay more for plastic bags, have our rubbish collected less often, give back raw materials to the fucking bosses for free, etc. Otherwise we’re anti-social, right?

    In Ireland, for example, it’s literally illegal to burn stuff in your garden. You’re supposed to take it to some racket-run facility and PAY those bastards to burn it instead.

    And no, you can’t get a handle on what green shit means, just by looking at scientific journal articles. It’s social. It’s who does what to whom. What do you mean by “capitalism”, unless you put that recognition in the very centre?

    I have no idea who “Lawson” is, but I have noticed TIME AND TIME AGAIN that when someone says something that’s against the official position, the defenders of the official position, who’ve never really thought in their whole lives about why they believe what they believe, accuse the other person of having been bamboozled by this or that author who functions as a figure of fun for them, bolstering their unthinking
    solidarity. Associate oppositional thought with some nasty figure or straw man. That’s how scientific cultism works in part of its market – one of its rings of parrots. Then no more thought is needed.

    Are you going to mention tin foil hats next, perhaps?

    The attitude is reminiscent of when a person hands out leaflets and someone asks, challengingly, “who published this?” – when they’ve never dreamt of asking who publishes what’s on the television or in the newspapers sold in all the shops.

    And I’m a “racist”, because I deny that human activity has contributed much to climate change, am I? Can’t you argue your position without using sarcasm, misquoting, and throwing out such obviously unjustified insults? Or am I just “objectively” a racist, someone who’s been bamboozled, who doesn’t understand the great religion of Science, who hasn’t thought about things much, and whose heart might be in the right place but whose submissive choices are anti-social and lead inexorably towards the new Auschwitz? An objective enemy of the people and follower of “Lawson” (or is it Emmanuel Goldstein?) even if I’ve never even heard of the said Mr or Mrs Lawson?

    Real racism, like science, is about who does what to whom. The ideologies of (anthropogenic) ‘climate change’ is closely linked to ‘population control’ and ‘food security’. And by that, I mean in terms of how they are actually used, by actual concrete interests in society (I suggest you look up about say the Rockefeller Foundation or at British government websites on food security). The plan is, in short, exterminationist. Time for a big cull of the lower orders.

    I’m not trying to make a statement that’s just the inverse of yours about ‘racism’. (Although, having said that, many might find it useful to go back to Rachel Carson and then back to Viscount Lymington. Even just knowing what he said about tuberculosis is useful. And there is a lot of similar evidence as to the intentions of those at the top, almost always dressed up in the language of ‘nature’ and ‘the planet’).

    • P.K Feyerabend

      Well said B. Two things we must be aware of: 1. Arguments directed at the source not the evidence, playing the man not the ball. eg. If (Nigel) Lawson said it then it must be false. If its in the Daily Mail, it must be a lie. Saves having to argue. 2. Producing the race card in the belief that it can refute any opponent. Hence, if you don’t support efforts to combat global warming then you must be a racist because people in hot climate zones will suffer. Note how the race card has become the main form of permitted political discourse. So we are all guilty if we complain about our masters combating climate change by skimming from the urban poor in the developed world to give to wealthy elites in the developing world.

      We might consider the appeal to the science is settled argument from Prof Jones and others in the BBC. It is never settled, science ought to be a permanent conflict between data and hypotheses, and once you introduce absolute truth, you are doing either politics or religion. Your point about the scientists is correct B. Much of mainstream science has sold out for research grants and professional advancement.(Read my book – The Worst Enemy of Science) But in the end, the truth catches up with them as it has on the ship of fools stuck in the Antarctic.

      As for the inevitable appeal to authority -97% scientists accept the theory of man made global warming – this is tosh because 97% agreement ( a figure which is disputed and impossible to ascertain) does not prove anything. Remember what Feyerabend said of the 186 famous scientists who signed a letter saying that astrology was false. He said:’Who needs 186 signatures if you have an argument’.

    • Tom

      Sorry, the Tom Ferrour person wasn’t me, so I think some of what you were saying doesn’t apply.
      At the end of the day, there is climate change, there is a massive link between climate change and human activity. Current trends in climate change are going to have huge impacts on human populations. Mostly in the poorer parts of the world and, no doubt, the poorest members of the richest societies will suffer most.
      Yes, I think your argument about ice fairs is ridiculous, because it isn’t a good argument.
      I do know how the scientific research system works. I’m not sure I understand your fixation on the link between big business and climate research. Nearly all of the research being completed is giving results which are bad for big business.
      What I really don’t understand is why you want to maintain the status quo. NEarly all the changes they want to make to reduce the impact of climate change will have a better impact on society. They involve more energy security, more local production, better health systems… they are all about changing society so that it isn’t so centred around big business.
      And the reason I mention people like Nigel Lawson and right wing America is because they are the ones that oppose the ‘green propoganda’. As you say, it is all about social things, about who controls whom. Which is exactly why nearly everyone who has looked at the evidence and still denies man-made climate change is right wing and capitalist. Because the consequence of taking action against climate change is that they lose power. I really don’t understand why you are lumping yourself in with them and supporting them.

  2. limon

    b is crap with science, puts ideology before chemistry, thinks he’s the bollocks. Insisting science is all politics in disguise is good for a wind up, but it doesn’t much hold up.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s