I would like to outline a few issues relating to a speedy and successful resolution of the tragedy that is unfolding in Libya.
While the media coverage is obsessed with “mission creep” and military stalemate, it is vitally important that every possible non-violent means of success is deployed to bring the situation in Libya to a successful conclusion, allowing a healthy and prosperous democratic state to emerge. Libya, and indeed all of the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) stands at an historic watershed between the age of dictatorships and an incoming age of democratic development, and it is vital that non-violent means are maximised to bring about this change.
The Coalition Government shares our concerns about the propaganda issued from Gaddafi’s Al Jamahiriya 2 TV station. These broadcasts are an instrument of control for Gaddafi’s regime, and therefore work against the protection of the Libyan people. I appreciate the efforts made by HMG to persuade other elements in the Libya Contact Group to agree to bring pressure on Nilesat to withdraw their service to Libya. It is extraordinary that the profits of one corporation can be set against the interests of a whole nation, and I urge you to apply unrelenting pressure on Nilesat.
As well as blocking Al Jamahiriya 2, there are several other diplomatic avenues that need exploring, including the question of mercenaries, the question of recognition of the Transitional National Council and incentives for Gaddafi to leave Libya.
Some mercenaries are coming from lawless parts of the Sahel, but there are reports that others originate from as far away as Serbia. Can we be confident that sufficient pressure has been brought on all countries that have been sending mercenaries to Gaddafi? Have they at least been persuaded to cease sending more fighters? Have they taken whatever steps they can to recall their mercenaries from Libya? Is Government confident also that countries such as Israel and Algeria who are sending covert aid to Gaddafi are being challenged robustly about their position? It is reported that the Israeli companies have been recruiting for Gaddafi.
http://bit.ly/lbFihv
http://bit.ly/i0Y5b7 .
Regarding the matter of recognition of the TNC, HMG historically has recognised states, rather than regimes, and this position precludes recognition of the TNC until it controls the whole of Libya. However, historic positions must change when history changes. The post-2005 UN position of Responsibility to Protect has effectively replaced the concept of absolute sovereignty with sovereignty that is conditional on the regime acting in the interests of the people. This seismic shift must surely merit a reconsideration of the terms under which we recognise the TNC. To recognise them would be an enormous morale booster for this supremely courageous people, and would signify HMG’s commitment to bring the matter to a successful conclusion.
The International Criminal Court’s action in seeking the arrest of Gaddafi, although correct from a legal perspective, has the effect of increasing his motivation to stay in Libya. From a pragmatic point of view, in the interests of the security, if not the feelings, of the Libyan people, it would be helpful if Gaddafi were to be fully aware that HMG and the Allies will allow and facilitate his safe passage to a country outside of the jurisdiction of the ICC. Has this been made clear to Gaddafi?
In the longer term, there is a clear need to build on the foundations of Responsibility to Protect. Prevention is better than cure, and there is vital for the UN to set out a clear and consistent framework of norms and rules to nudge all governments in the direction of democracy and respect for human rights. The framework should provide incentives for any regime that makes progress towards democracy, and definite disincentives for any moves towards repression. At the present time, experience in Libya, Syria and Bahrain teaches us that a clear threshold is crossed when regimes use lethal force against peaceful demonstrators. Such actions should be met not merely with verbal condemnations, but with a set of targeted sanctions applied speedily and consistently in every case. The Contact Group has rightly been using asset freezes, travel bans and arms embargoes. These should be used consistently, without favour or bias that might tend to modify the reaction according to the strategic importance of the regime or any other considerations. It is well understood by psychologists that behaviour modification is successful when clear boundaries are set, and applied with 100% consistency.
In the longer term, it will be helpful if the UN would publish the human rights information that it gathers on its members in an easily digestible form. There is established academic work that can present this information in the form of ranked indices. Such a Global Index of Human Rights would provide a continuous, universal upward pressure for human and democratic development worldwide.
An important factor in the success of democratic change lies in the stance of the Army. The Egyptian Army refused to attack civilians, whereas the Syrian army seems to have no such scruples. We in the UK have an opportunity to set an example to other nations in the context of the military covenant that is being brought to Parliament. It would be right to bring a clause into legislation for the British Army to give an undertaking that in no circumstances will it obey any order to fire on unarmed civilians. I hope the Coalition Government will take this on board.
In summary, the events in MENA are of historic importance, a critical decision point between dictatorship, human rights abuses and violence, and the alternative of democracy and sustainability.
Thursday, June 02, 2011
Wednesday, June 01, 2011
How can we persuade politicians to get serious about global warming?
The International Energy Agency reports increased CO2 emissions last year, and it looks unlikely that we can stop the planet heating up by 2*Celsius. Which is bad news, because a 2 degreeincrease is considered to mark the threshold between Bad Things happening to the world climate and Really Bad Things happening instead.
And in other news, we have increasing frequency of extreme weather events worldwide, as predicted by global warming theory.
And as Caroline Lucas points out in an excellent letter in today's Guardian, there is an almost complete lack of political will to do anything meaningful and serious in terms of making the transition to renewable energy, and taking measures to reduce the atmospheric load of CO2.
The lack of will comes from many sources, ranging from straightforward psychological denial, through lobbying by the fossil fuel lobby, to the difficulty of elected politicians making changes to the lifestyle of a largely unconvinced electorate.
And the electorate are unconvinced of the dangers of climate change because of the fantastically successful propaganda exercise by the oil and coal industries, who have managed to persuade gullible and ideologically motivated journalists that global warming is a conspiracy dreamed up by Al Gore and George Soros, in collaboration with Greenpeace and the nuclear fuel lobby in order to make money out of carbon trading.
The fossil lobbies have propagated their theories across the internet with a Hydra of half-truths which grows two more misunderstandings every time one misunderstanding is removed.
Their points can be refuted, but the sceptics always come back with more, because many of them are in active psychological denial, and this is how people with denial behave. Others are driven by fundamental belief in the inviolability of the Free Market, and arguing with them is like trying to tell a Jehovah's Witness about evolution.
I am going to try a different tack. I am going to wade into the climate change skeptic's sites, and ask them what it would take to make them stop believing that man-made climate change is wrong
Because if, as they do, they claim to be scientific, then they must be able to envisage a testable set of circumstances that would persuade them that their theory is wrong. That is how science works. "A theory should be considered scientific if and only if it is falsifiable".
I'll let you know what happens. Better still, go find a sceptic - here's one - and ask him or her for yourself. Better still again, let's get our friends and relations to do it too. These guys are in the process of aiding and abetting the embuggerment of our planet, in particular the lives of our children and grandchildren. They have been spreading doubt over the interweb. Let's take the battle to them.
Here is my letter to the above link. Feel free to copy, amend, and use whenever you find a climate change sceptic.
Dear Benny Peiser
To be scientific, beliefs must be capable of disproof. I would be genuinely interested to learn what set of observations would cause you to stop believing that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are not going to cause serious climate change in the next 100 years?
Thank you for taking the trouble to answer this question.
Sincerely
Richard Lawson
[update]
Dear Mr Lawson
To which I reply:
Dear Mr Peiser
From what you have said, your position is that we must wait until 2030-2040 until you are satisfied that action must (or alternatively, need not) be taken.
What changes must emerge in that time scale to convince you that anthropogenic warming is a problem?
Sincerely
Dr Richard Lawson
To which he replied:
To which I replied:
Dear Dr Peiser
Would a global warming trend of that magnitude be enough to refute your position? What if there were an underlying long term increase in solar output over the next 30 years? You could attribute warming to that. Conversely, if there were a long term solar minimum (another Maunder/Sporer/Woolf/Oort minimum), the decadal trend might be less, but still more than it would have been without increased GHGs, with rapid changes after the minimum.
I am trying to apply the core scientific method to this. Searching for the refutable hypothesis.
Is your hypothesis that the climate sensitivity to CO2 is less than 1.5*C?
If so, the experiment you suggest involves the whole planet, putting it at risk.
I do not need to point out to that an Ethical Committee would be inclined to take a critical view of such an experiment.
There must be some specific experiment or evaluation that could be designed to test or refute your hypothesis?
Thanks for bending your mind to this question.
Sincerely
Richard
[to be continued]
I have also tweeted to @AGW_IS_A_HOAX, Anthony Watts, of the Watts up with that climate denial blog. So far, no meaningful response. He just replied "Actual Science", trying to evade the question.
[update 15 June]
Still no answer from Dr Peiser. So I have written again. I will not publish his email address, but there is a contact point on www.thegwpf.org if you want to add pressure.
Dear Dr Peiser
Forgive me for pressing you, but this is a very important matter.
Would a decadal warming trend of 0.3-0.5*C over 30 years that magnitude be enough to refute your position? You - or your successors - could attribute that to an underlying long term increase in solar output, if that had happened?
Conversely, if there were a long term solar minimum (another Maunder/Sporer/Woolf/Oort minimum), the decadal trend might be less, but still more than it would have been without increased GHGs, with rapid changes after the minimum.
So an actual global temperature trend would not be conclusive. We must disaggregate the GHG component from the trend.
We are trying to apply the core scientific method to this. Searching for the refutable hypothesis.
Is your hypothesis that the climate sensitivity to CO2 is less than 1.5*C?
I must also point out that the experiment you suggest in your answer above involves the whole planet.
Any Ethical Committee would be inclined to take a critical view of such an experiment.
There must be some specific experiment or evaluation that could be designed to test or refute your hypothesis.
The correspondence is continued here.
And in other news, we have increasing frequency of extreme weather events worldwide, as predicted by global warming theory.
And as Caroline Lucas points out in an excellent letter in today's Guardian, there is an almost complete lack of political will to do anything meaningful and serious in terms of making the transition to renewable energy, and taking measures to reduce the atmospheric load of CO2.
The lack of will comes from many sources, ranging from straightforward psychological denial, through lobbying by the fossil fuel lobby, to the difficulty of elected politicians making changes to the lifestyle of a largely unconvinced electorate.
And the electorate are unconvinced of the dangers of climate change because of the fantastically successful propaganda exercise by the oil and coal industries, who have managed to persuade gullible and ideologically motivated journalists that global warming is a conspiracy dreamed up by Al Gore and George Soros, in collaboration with Greenpeace and the nuclear fuel lobby in order to make money out of carbon trading.
The fossil lobbies have propagated their theories across the internet with a Hydra of half-truths which grows two more misunderstandings every time one misunderstanding is removed.
Their points can be refuted, but the sceptics always come back with more, because many of them are in active psychological denial, and this is how people with denial behave. Others are driven by fundamental belief in the inviolability of the Free Market, and arguing with them is like trying to tell a Jehovah's Witness about evolution.
I am going to try a different tack. I am going to wade into the climate change skeptic's sites, and ask them what it would take to make them stop believing that man-made climate change is wrong
Because if, as they do, they claim to be scientific, then they must be able to envisage a testable set of circumstances that would persuade them that their theory is wrong. That is how science works. "A theory should be considered scientific if and only if it is falsifiable".
I'll let you know what happens. Better still, go find a sceptic - here's one - and ask him or her for yourself. Better still again, let's get our friends and relations to do it too. These guys are in the process of aiding and abetting the embuggerment of our planet, in particular the lives of our children and grandchildren. They have been spreading doubt over the interweb. Let's take the battle to them.
Here is my letter to the above link. Feel free to copy, amend, and use whenever you find a climate change sceptic.
Dear Benny Peiser
To be scientific, beliefs must be capable of disproof. I would be genuinely interested to learn what set of observations would cause you to stop believing that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are not going to cause serious climate change in the next 100 years?
Thank you for taking the trouble to answer this question.
Sincerely
Richard Lawson
[update]
To which he replies:
Thank you for your query.
What makes you think that I have ruled out serious climate change in the next 100 years?
As far as I am concerned, we simply do not know the extend, magnitude and speed of anthropogenic warming in the next 100 years. I guess we will have to wait for perhaps 20-30 years before we will have a more reliable understanding of the most likely trajectory of a future warming trend.
Yours sincerely,
Dr Benny Peiser Director,
The Global Warming Policy Foundation
To which I reply:
Dear Mr Peiser
From what you have said, your position is that we must wait until 2030-2040 until you are satisfied that action must (or alternatively, need not) be taken.
What changes must emerge in that time scale to convince you that anthropogenic warming is a problem?
Sincerely
Dr Richard Lawson
Dear Dr Lawson If we were to experience a decadal warming trend of 0.3 to 0.5 in the next 20-30 years, I would consider global warming to pose a potential long-term problem. In the absence of such empirical evidence, I don't see any significant problem for the time being. In short - the proof of the pudding is in the eating. With best regards Benny Peiser
To which I replied:
Dear Dr Peiser
Would a global warming trend of that magnitude be enough to refute your position? What if there were an underlying long term increase in solar output over the next 30 years? You could attribute warming to that. Conversely, if there were a long term solar minimum (another Maunder/Sporer/Woolf/Oort minimum), the decadal trend might be less, but still more than it would have been without increased GHGs, with rapid changes after the minimum.
I am trying to apply the core scientific method to this. Searching for the refutable hypothesis.
Is your hypothesis that the climate sensitivity to CO2 is less than 1.5*C?
If so, the experiment you suggest involves the whole planet, putting it at risk.
I do not need to point out to that an Ethical Committee would be inclined to take a critical view of such an experiment.
There must be some specific experiment or evaluation that could be designed to test or refute your hypothesis?
Thanks for bending your mind to this question.
Sincerely
Richard
[to be continued]
I have also tweeted to @AGW_IS_A_HOAX, Anthony Watts, of the Watts up with that climate denial blog. So far, no meaningful response. He just replied "Actual Science", trying to evade the question.
[update 15 June]
Still no answer from Dr Peiser. So I have written again. I will not publish his email address, but there is a contact point on www.thegwpf.org if you want to add pressure.
Dear Dr Peiser
Forgive me for pressing you, but this is a very important matter.
Would a decadal warming trend of 0.3-0.5*C over 30 years that magnitude be enough to refute your position? You - or your successors - could attribute that to an underlying long term increase in solar output, if that had happened?
Conversely, if there were a long term solar minimum (another Maunder/Sporer/Woolf/Oort minimum), the decadal trend might be less, but still more than it would have been without increased GHGs, with rapid changes after the minimum.
So an actual global temperature trend would not be conclusive. We must disaggregate the GHG component from the trend.
We are trying to apply the core scientific method to this. Searching for the refutable hypothesis.
Is your hypothesis that the climate sensitivity to CO2 is less than 1.5*C?
I must also point out that the experiment you suggest in your answer above involves the whole planet.
Any Ethical Committee would be inclined to take a critical view of such an experiment.
There must be some specific experiment or evaluation that could be designed to test or refute your hypothesis.
The correspondence is continued here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
