Al Gore?

As observed a couple of days back, global warming has become flavour of the moment and the damned paper is full of it at the moment - it'll pass. There is an editorial which says nothing new but reiniforfes my impression that Helen's timimg in making her speech in Rotovegas to just predate the release of the Stern Report is no coincidence. The editor agress that all this as a diversionary tactic to pull your mind away from all the crap that is flying round governmental corridors at present. Also pointed out is yet another (as if it were needed) example of how all this talk is long on rhetoric and short on fact. Helen wants to make New Zealand 'carbon neutral'. Sounds terrific (maybe) but means very little and is consequently unachievable because a)what is to be achieved hasn't been defined and b) there are no details on how this mythical state might be reached. Which leads nicely into a syndicated piece from the Independent out of London. Al Gore. How wierd is this? Failed presidential candidate, dons the jodhpurs, makes a movie (and no, I haven't seen it and won't be wasting my money so to do) and morphs into the global warming Pied Piper. He is quoted in the Independent's piece as saying 'we know all we need to know to be in a position to change what is going on' or some such. Anyone who nails their colours to the mast of a plonker who can stand up in polite society and let that trickle out of his gob is barking. The one thing that is certain about all this global warming is that there is no certainty. All the projections af doom and gloom are made on notoriously unreliable mathematical modelling, the most infamous of which (the Mann Hockey Stick) has been shown to be just plain wrong, and presented maliciously to a politically motivated audience who were just dying to believe it. There are no facts now that can be projected to be 'facts' for the future - full stop. There are facts in history, like the fact that the climate has been fluctuating for eons, that there have been mini ice ages and periods of relative warmth in the past and that these last for centuries. THis is very different from the 'we are warmer than we were in 1997 and it is all the fault of the Toyota Landcruiser' bollocks. I suppose I have to accept that in the short term Helen is in the poo and will waste more of my cash to use this eco nonsense to try and claw her way out.

A sneaky little piece on the comments page about proposed (well they are not really proposed, they are going to happen) changes to the ACC. Bear in mind that htis is penned by a representative of the employers side of things but, that not withstanding, it is not a good look. You can currently claim compensation for lots of work related ilnesses. Work in a sulphuric acid manufacturing plant (if there is such a thing) and spill the product on your hand and the resulting burn is work related. Not even I, in one of my more cynical moods, would argue with that. Other illnesses and the burden of proof is on the claimant that the illness is work related. This is all going to change. A group of illnesses has been identified where cause and effect is assumed right up front. This includes things like asthma, deafness and lung, throat and paranasal sinus cancer. It is estimated that in one fell swoop the ACC burden to the employers will increase by 200%. This is crazy and based on pseudo science (vide supra) of the worst kind. Example. You work in a panel beaters shop and spend your spare time at heavy metal rock concerts. After 20 years you start to lose your hearing. Panel beating is the cause and ACC pays up. Nuts. Suppose you work in a library - same. Suppose your deafness is caused by something else and not exposure to excess noise - there is more than one cause of deafness you know. More controlling legislaton aimed to reward the bloody 'victim'. The whole tenet of the legislation is flawed - the idea of cause and effect. There are very few illnesses that are 'caused' by just one thing. The law ignores the often very complex science (and real science, not politicians pseudo science 101 version) of epidemiology completely and especially ignores the very real existence of sporadic cases of anything. Still Nanny state must be seen to be looking after its poor charges who are totally incapable of looking after themselves, musn't it?

Tweet