I was driving through our nearest town today.
I noticed a bumper sticker on the vehicle in front. It said: “I love my country - I just don’t trust it’s government.”
It made me chuckle.
Showing posts with label Public Scepticism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Public Scepticism. Show all posts
Friday, 5 September 2008
Wednesday, 14 May 2008
The truth is out there…
It seems that secret files on Unidentified Flying Objects (UFO’s) seen in the UK are being released.
Now Unidentified Flying Objects just about sums it up. They are basically something that someone saw in the sky that they could not work out what it was.
Now even pretty sensible people can wonder what on earth they are seeing under the right circumstances.
I remember years ago whilst driving at night seeing what looked like a weird glowing object in the sky, that apparently changed shape between lenticular and globular. A surefire Alien Space ship you might think. We decided to investigate. After several miles we got close enough to see it was a blimp lit up and floating above a small airfield. The apparent change in shape a result of seeing it from different angles.
Of course we could have been reprogrammed by the alien occupants of a real space ship to think that - Cue twilight zone music, doo do doo do...
If you then factor in those who don’t think carefully, or those who really badly want to believe the earth is some sort of Watford Gap interchange for aliens … Then there the downright sad and loopy who just want attention. Well it is easy to see how these reports get generated.
Why were the reports kept secret? I would suspect, especially during the cold war, against the chance someone had spotted an experimental aircraft, or weapon, either ‘ours’ or ‘theirs’. If one was spotted and needed some disinformation to obscure the details the UFO enthusiasts might be an excellent tool for that too.
In the middle ages it was the dog heads, men with faces in their chests, monopods with big feet, devils and such now it is little green men. Now it’s greys and a whole collection of others to go with them.
The truth is out there - and it is probably far more mundane, at least when it comes to little green men, than many would apparently like.
Now Unidentified Flying Objects just about sums it up. They are basically something that someone saw in the sky that they could not work out what it was.
Now even pretty sensible people can wonder what on earth they are seeing under the right circumstances.
I remember years ago whilst driving at night seeing what looked like a weird glowing object in the sky, that apparently changed shape between lenticular and globular. A surefire Alien Space ship you might think. We decided to investigate. After several miles we got close enough to see it was a blimp lit up and floating above a small airfield. The apparent change in shape a result of seeing it from different angles.
Of course we could have been reprogrammed by the alien occupants of a real space ship to think that - Cue twilight zone music, doo do doo do...
If you then factor in those who don’t think carefully, or those who really badly want to believe the earth is some sort of Watford Gap interchange for aliens … Then there the downright sad and loopy who just want attention. Well it is easy to see how these reports get generated.
Why were the reports kept secret? I would suspect, especially during the cold war, against the chance someone had spotted an experimental aircraft, or weapon, either ‘ours’ or ‘theirs’. If one was spotted and needed some disinformation to obscure the details the UFO enthusiasts might be an excellent tool for that too.
In the middle ages it was the dog heads, men with faces in their chests, monopods with big feet, devils and such now it is little green men. Now it’s greys and a whole collection of others to go with them.
The truth is out there - and it is probably far more mundane, at least when it comes to little green men, than many would apparently like.
Thursday, 5 July 2007
Voter apathy in the UK
Returning to the new UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s ill conceived idea of emulating our continental cousins by holding elections at the weekend , mooted at the despatch box yesterday.
After all he has only been in the job a week ;-) and as he intimated (before he realised quite what he was saying) can’t be expected to know much about what has been going on in Government. Give him a chance…
As I observed elsewhere we do all have ‘better’ things to do with our weekends ;-)
Why has he come up with the idea? Certainly it is ‘fresh’ (for the UK) and ‘newsworthy’, probably that is enough in it’s self for a politician who desires to associate himself with these concepts -
It may be related to the apparent loss of voter interest in politics.
Lets examine that. Party politics. In my experience few supporters of any party actually like all their parties policies. For most of us who take an actual interest, rather than vote for a cardboard cut out with the right coloured rosette, it is a case of finding the party with the least objectionable set of policies and promises.
Then we cast our vote knowing that a random selection of those policies and promises will in all likelihood never actually be honoured as they were probably designed to hook votes and nothing more anyway.
Now if your constituency is subject to swings, then it is worth voting for the package you have the least objection to, but don’t be surprised if it turns out not to be as advertised. ”The manufacturer reserves the right to vary the product specification without notice” as they say - As an example in the headlines, Nu-Lab’s empty manifesto promise of a referendum on the EU Constitution springs immediately to mind.
Too much of that sort of thing and you start to loose faith in the whole system, let alone interest in voting.
Then if you live in a ‘safe’ seat and you don’t happen to support that particular party, then you are effectively disenfranchised anyway, so the best you can do is move, or make a protest vote.
What do voters do under those circumstances? They either loose interest, or if they are sufficiently motivated, drift towards single issue politics - and work to pressureall parties on their particular issue/s.
Then again there is the gradually increasing awareness that much legislation is actually now driven more and more from Brussels - and the UK Parliament is becoming increasingly irrelevant as a consequence. When you think about it, by failing to call for a referendum, Gordon Brown will significantly increase that irrelevance.
Still unelected Commissionerhood could eventually wait in the wings for our Gordon…
What might get voters interested again? Well a 'none of the above' box on the ballot paper springs immediately to mind, but I can’t see Politicians going for that as it damns the lot of them.
Maybe a negative vote. So instead of voting for someone you could vote against someone if you wanted. That would be a more honest form of tactical voting and at least probably engage the electorate. Again I can’t see politicians being too keen on it though.
Maybe binding referenda on some single issues might engage the public? A civil service dept, or independent commission, might come up with a spread of proposals for each issue, on various issues, based on opinion polls. The Referendum should be framed and worded so it didn’t prejudice the result.
A referendum on the EU Constitutional Treaty would almost certainly galvanise voters.
The prospect of Parliament regaining some of it’s powers, or at least not loosing more power, might well make voting for it’s members more relevant to the UK electorate again.
After all he has only been in the job a week ;-) and as he intimated (before he realised quite what he was saying) can’t be expected to know much about what has been going on in Government. Give him a chance…
As I observed elsewhere we do all have ‘better’ things to do with our weekends ;-)
Why has he come up with the idea? Certainly it is ‘fresh’ (for the UK) and ‘newsworthy’, probably that is enough in it’s self for a politician who desires to associate himself with these concepts -
It may be related to the apparent loss of voter interest in politics.
Lets examine that. Party politics. In my experience few supporters of any party actually like all their parties policies. For most of us who take an actual interest, rather than vote for a cardboard cut out with the right coloured rosette, it is a case of finding the party with the least objectionable set of policies and promises.
Then we cast our vote knowing that a random selection of those policies and promises will in all likelihood never actually be honoured as they were probably designed to hook votes and nothing more anyway.
Now if your constituency is subject to swings, then it is worth voting for the package you have the least objection to, but don’t be surprised if it turns out not to be as advertised. ”The manufacturer reserves the right to vary the product specification without notice” as they say - As an example in the headlines, Nu-Lab’s empty manifesto promise of a referendum on the EU Constitution springs immediately to mind.
Too much of that sort of thing and you start to loose faith in the whole system, let alone interest in voting.
Then if you live in a ‘safe’ seat and you don’t happen to support that particular party, then you are effectively disenfranchised anyway, so the best you can do is move, or make a protest vote.
What do voters do under those circumstances? They either loose interest, or if they are sufficiently motivated, drift towards single issue politics - and work to pressureall parties on their particular issue/s.
Then again there is the gradually increasing awareness that much legislation is actually now driven more and more from Brussels - and the UK Parliament is becoming increasingly irrelevant as a consequence. When you think about it, by failing to call for a referendum, Gordon Brown will significantly increase that irrelevance.
Still unelected Commissionerhood could eventually wait in the wings for our Gordon…
What might get voters interested again? Well a 'none of the above' box on the ballot paper springs immediately to mind, but I can’t see Politicians going for that as it damns the lot of them.
Maybe a negative vote. So instead of voting for someone you could vote against someone if you wanted. That would be a more honest form of tactical voting and at least probably engage the electorate. Again I can’t see politicians being too keen on it though.
Maybe binding referenda on some single issues might engage the public? A civil service dept, or independent commission, might come up with a spread of proposals for each issue, on various issues, based on opinion polls. The Referendum should be framed and worded so it didn’t prejudice the result.
A referendum on the EU Constitutional Treaty would almost certainly galvanise voters.
The prospect of Parliament regaining some of it’s powers, or at least not loosing more power, might well make voting for it’s members more relevant to the UK electorate again.
Tuesday, 3 July 2007
Poll shows public 'Scepticism' on climate
An Ipsos Mori poll has found that the UK public were suspicious that the threat of man made global warming was being exaggerated to make money.
Phil Downing of Ipsos Mori said that people: "are alive to climate change and very few people actually reject out of hand the idea the climate is changing, or that humans have had at least some part to play in this,"
"However, a significant number have many doubts about exactly how serious it really is and believe it has been over hyped."
It is hardly surprising that the public should have suspicions any possible impact of climate change is being hyped, when even leading ‘climate scientists’ such as Dr Hans Von Storch, a fervent believer in global warming, is concerned that the effects of climate change are being exaggerated.
ADDITION
Possibly entirely by coincidence, there again possibly not. Just after a survey is published suggesting the public have less than absolute faith in the more alarmist predictions of the global warming camp.
What should happen but that Sky News should do a piece on Greenland.
There was a correspondent, on location, telling us all how global warming was making the glaciers move faster - and that could result in sea level rising faster.
And who should they trot out? None other than the champion of the democratic process himself, Jose Manuel (check your wallets folks) Barroso.
So would that be sea level rising faster than the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) dodgy figures fiddled to fit a sinking tide gauge in Hong Kong perhaps?
Phil Downing of Ipsos Mori said that people: "are alive to climate change and very few people actually reject out of hand the idea the climate is changing, or that humans have had at least some part to play in this,"
"However, a significant number have many doubts about exactly how serious it really is and believe it has been over hyped."
It is hardly surprising that the public should have suspicions any possible impact of climate change is being hyped, when even leading ‘climate scientists’ such as Dr Hans Von Storch, a fervent believer in global warming, is concerned that the effects of climate change are being exaggerated.
ADDITION
Possibly entirely by coincidence, there again possibly not. Just after a survey is published suggesting the public have less than absolute faith in the more alarmist predictions of the global warming camp.
What should happen but that Sky News should do a piece on Greenland.
There was a correspondent, on location, telling us all how global warming was making the glaciers move faster - and that could result in sea level rising faster.
And who should they trot out? None other than the champion of the democratic process himself, Jose Manuel (check your wallets folks) Barroso.
So would that be sea level rising faster than the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) dodgy figures fiddled to fit a sinking tide gauge in Hong Kong perhaps?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)