SETI : Fag Papers Blown off the Eiffel Tower?

Just added a bit toSETI - the Search for ExtraTerrestrial Intelligence, in Wikipedia.

It goes something like this:

The fifth assumption behind SETI is that intelligent life does not always destroy itself. The duration of human beings in relation to earth time has been likened to the thickness of a piece of cigarette paper placed on the topmost railing of the Eiffel Tower. Earth-time is the Eiffel tower, human history is the paper. SETI assumes that two pieces of paper exist at exactly the same height, but the planetary towers on which we stand are in fact of a hugely different. If a human civilisation capable of sending electromagnetic signals continues for hundreds of thousands of years, the paper becomes a little thicker and the likelihood that we will exist simultaneously with another transmitting/receiving civilisation is increased. If however, our civilisation destroys itself through nuclear war or as a result of releases of greenhouse gases and other erosions of our life support system, and if other civilisations have the same proclivities, then the probability of two competent civilisations coinciding in time and making contact with each other becomes vanishingly small.

American Voting Fraud Part 93

Election Issues continue to dog the Americans. In the mid-term election, the self-styled "greatest democracy in the world" is still soiled by the fraudulent voting systems that gave Bush the presidency in 2004. Agonisingly slowly, the truth is emerging. History will condemn early 21st century anglo-saxon journalism for the fact that they can write acres of text about American elections, yet ignore the fact that they are still deeply flawed.

Bringing the Barrage out of the Garage

Debate about the Severn Barrage, the vast energy generating project, has surfaced in the Green Party in the South West and South Wales. The majority are against it, because it is Big, will involve deomlition of a few mountains, and will threaten an internationally important Ramsar wildlife site.

There is a reasonably good summary of the issues on Wikipedia.


The whole issue it a complex system of advantages and disadvantages. Starting at the relavively trivial, I have ridden the Severn Bore in an inflatable (very interesting). The Barrage will diminish the Bore severely; but it will clarify the water of the Severn Estuary (nice) but will therefore tend to silt up (need siltation pans and organic farming exclusively in Severn Estuary); it will reduce the mudflats used by migrating birds, but they will go anyway with sea level rise, and we could protect them; there are, in short, lots of pluses and minuses, but in the end the Big Plus is that it will keep the flood waters from rising sea levels out of Bristol, Cardiff, Newport, Chepstow, Lydney and Gloucester would be protected by the Barrage, not to mention the rich agricultural lands bordering the Severn. It is clearly more economic to protect the area with one Barrage, rather than trying to trace out the whole coastline with banks dykes and bunds.

In protecting the land east of the barrage, it will worsen flooding west of the barrage.

Unfortunately, when the barrage is functioning as a sea wall, it will no longer act as an energy generator - apart from the wind trubines, current turbines and wave machines strung along its length.

As for the rest of the South West, they will benefit because if Bristol goes under a lot of Bristolians will come and want to live in there. Which will mean lots of new house building on green field sites, which is a Bad Thing.

On http://flood.firetree.net/ you can see the effects of sea level rise on our area. Serious changes occur at 4-5m, affecting mainly the low lying agricultural land.

Small is beautiful, but this does not mean necessarily that Big is always Ugly. We are confronting a Big Thing in Global Warming, and sometimes big responses are appropriate for big threats.

PM programme, Radio 4 does a piece on the Stern Report about the economic impact of Global Warming, then interviews an obscure American global warming sceptic professor. This isn't balance - it is perverse Luddism. The debate is not about whether it is happening - that was last century - it is about what we can do to avoid its worst consequences. I cannot tell you how frustrating (this is a copy of my email to PM ) it is for us out here to listen to the BBC returning again and again to American sceptics, like a dog returning to lap up its own vomit ( a Biblical reference, therefore not offensive). Pull yourselves together! Get a grip, for God's sake - or rather, for all our sakes. Do you actually want to provoke us into a BBC licience strike? Is that the game? If not, it is difficult to see WHAT you are up to.
Dissatisfied listener.

You too can write and complain, but it a long navigational path but you can just click here instead.