I want to thank Olive Heffernan for being so honest: her blog at Nature’s Climate Feedback, that will surely make Lord Lawson proud despite a tad too many personal attacks, is definitely neither cool nor rational. Exactly “what it says on the tin”…
Big news today about Mars’ peculiar north-south terrain divide having been caused by the impact of a Moon-size object shortly after the planet formed. Since there is also strong evidence for Earth having undergone a similar impact, with a Mars-size planetoid, thereby forming our Moon, it would be odd to imagine that no such catastrophe ever occurred to Venus.
After all there’s lots still to explain about “Earth’s Twin”: a very slow retrograde rotation, an incredibly massive atmosphere and a relatively young (<500 million years) surface. To me, the whole setting cries out loud for an “impact” explanation, rather than the classic “it’s warm because of the CO2!” theory that says nothing about all the other peculiarities (and it’s not exactly necessary…).
With a 5-to-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled yesterday June 25 against the capital punishment of child rapists.
Of course those rapists better spend a few decades in prison. But it is quite momentuous finally to hear affirmed in the USA the principle that the death penalty cannot be applied to crimes where victims have not died.
One may start wondering if, according to the Supreme Court, capital punishment is “just” a “State revenge”, a death to compensate another death. But we can leave that to a more appropriate time.: because the other important achievement in the majority’s opinion, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy:
When the law punishes by death, it risks its own sudden descent into brutality, transgressing the constitutional commitment to decency and restraint
Justice Kennedy has thus confirmed what already known to those fighting for the abolition of the death penalty: the very application of capital punishment means (running the risk of) brutalizing the entire legal system of the whole nation, including the professional executioners, the prosecutors arguing to terminate a human being’s life, and the judges and juries deciding to end that life.
Three “hoorays” for Justice Kennedy.
Full-page ad on the IHT on June 23 by the Taellberg Forum:
Remember this number for the rest of your life
It is left to the reader’s imagination to hear music like in an old Bela Lugosi movie…
Anyway: such an effort is apparently linked to the 20th anniversary of Hansen’s warning to the US Congress about global warming.
We are told, CO2 concentration at the time was 350 ppm, and now it’s 385. We are also told that “Science says” the worst effects happen above the level of 450ppm.
Looks like it’s not too much of a worry then? Don’t even think about it.
For unfathomable reasons (=otherwise a lot of people would become inconsequential), the ad says that we have to go back to levels lower than 350ppm anyway (and yes, there is no scientific basis at all for choosing the value “350”) “peacefully and deliberately, with all possible speed” (rather ominous words if you ask me…): because “<350 is essential to maintain human and planetary well-being”
Why then “350”? Perhaps as a celebratory level for Hansen’s true guidance. But with planetary temperatures refusing to go up, I do expect lots more of this stuff in the near future
I have a small question though: if they believe in what the ad says then…why are they still travelling so much? For example, to the Taellberg Forum, june 26-29 in Sweden.
Con una decisione 5-contro-4, la Corte Suprema americana ha stabilito ieri 25 Giugno 2008 che non e’ possibile applicare la pena capitale a chi ha violentato uno o piu’ minori.
Naturalmente i violentatori si devono passare i loro decenni in galera, ma insomma e’ passato il principio secondo il quale la pena di morte non si applica ai delitti che non comportino la morte delle vittime.
Questo potrebbe suggerire ulteriori argomenti di discussione: vuol forse dire, la Corte Suprema, che la pena di morte e’ “solo” una vendetta di Stato, una morte per compensare un’altra morte? Ma non e’, probabilmente, il momento giusto.
E’ il momento giusto invece di sottolineare quanto scritto nell’opinione di maggioranza dal Giudice Anthony Kennedy:
“When the law punishes by death, it risks its own sudden descent into brutality, transgressing the constitutional commitment to decency and restraint”
“Quando la Legge punisce con la morte, rischia di far precipitare se stessa verso la brutalita’, trasgredendo al dettato costituzionale della decenza e della moderazione”
Insomma, il Giudice Kennedy ha confermato quanto ripetuto da anni da chi lotta per l’abolizione della pena di morte: l’applicazione di questa significa (rischiare fortemente di) brutalizzare tutto il sistema legale di una nazione, dai carnefici di professione ai procuratori che discutono del perche’ terminare la vita di un imputato ai giudici e alle giurie che a quella vita decidono di porre fine.
Tre “hooray” per il Giudice Kennedy.
They emit very very little CO2 compared to everything else, they have set up a “4-pillar strategy to address climate change”, they have been hardly hit by gigantic fuel prices.
They have also been plagued for decades and decades by poor managerial and cost-control skills, resulting in a multitude of bankruptcies and often disappearance of once-thriving companies.
Still, that’s not enough for the miserabilists at the EU trying to force emission trading schemes on anything that moves. And so today, IATA, the International Air Transport Association, decided to pay for a full-page ad on the International Herald Tribune, detailing their perfectly mainstream ideas about climate change.
Much has been said about coercing evil Big Oil and Big Energy companies into emission trading schemes. Let’s see if airlines will be treated any better: one fears not, as the underlying goal is not so much actual emissions, rather the removal of whatever can provide fun