Just had a few nice folk sign up on Junkk.com (despite our money-strapped, UK-centric registration) as a result of a nice post in a nice blog/site.
What better excuse to start a new category by listing it, (and, in time, all others I come across/get told about). Least I can do:
craftser - US-based. Broad spread of craft-based ideas. Nice search facility.
make - NEW
Saturday, February 23, 2008
More depressing predictions ........
..... this time from a report allegedly leaked from the Pentagon and obtained by The Observer.
"A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a 'Siberian' climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world."
"'Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life,' concludes the Pentagon analysis. 'Once again, warfare would define human life'."
The odd thing is that the Pentagon officials appear to be trying very hard to move Dubbya from his head in the sand (or should that be head up the *****'s of big oil?) standpoint on climate change and its potential influences on the population of our little lump of planetary rock.
"You've got a President who says global warming is a hoax, and across the Potomac river you've got a Pentagon preparing for climate wars"
I find many of these predictive reports a little scary, although I guess most of them really do attempt to forecast the worst possible scenario. But if this report genuinely originates from the Pentagon, then I find this one very worrying.
The other odd thing is the the report predicts that Britain will be gripped in a rising sea level problem whilst being gripped in a 'Siberian' climate. That suggests that scientists at the Pentagon are predicting that the Gulf Stream will cease.
While the planet warms, we will fall into ever warmer and drier summers, but with bitterly cold, freezing winters. It doesn't sound too good does it?
"A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a 'Siberian' climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world."
"'Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life,' concludes the Pentagon analysis. 'Once again, warfare would define human life'."
The odd thing is that the Pentagon officials appear to be trying very hard to move Dubbya from his head in the sand (or should that be head up the *****'s of big oil?) standpoint on climate change and its potential influences on the population of our little lump of planetary rock.
"You've got a President who says global warming is a hoax, and across the Potomac river you've got a Pentagon preparing for climate wars"
I find many of these predictive reports a little scary, although I guess most of them really do attempt to forecast the worst possible scenario. But if this report genuinely originates from the Pentagon, then I find this one very worrying.
The other odd thing is the the report predicts that Britain will be gripped in a rising sea level problem whilst being gripped in a 'Siberian' climate. That suggests that scientists at the Pentagon are predicting that the Gulf Stream will cease.
While the planet warms, we will fall into ever warmer and drier summers, but with bitterly cold, freezing winters. It doesn't sound too good does it?
QUOTE OF THE DAY - Friggin' in the riggin'
Another from today's Newswatch...
Some snitty editor trying to weasel out of an enquiry as to why the nation's broadcaster managed to fail to cover the Chancellor's press conference at The Treasury (you'd have thunk they might have thought getting the BBC there might have been a plan. They certainly seem good at getting them on site with much less pressing issues of public concern, such as PM pontifications on football managers) on Northern Rock:
"It's hard to rig a press conference".
Oh, I don't know. They seem to do pretty well most of the time.
Some snitty editor trying to weasel out of an enquiry as to why the nation's broadcaster managed to fail to cover the Chancellor's press conference at The Treasury (you'd have thunk they might have thought getting the BBC there might have been a plan. They certainly seem good at getting them on site with much less pressing issues of public concern, such as PM pontifications on football managers) on Northern Rock:
"It's hard to rig a press conference".
Oh, I don't know. They seem to do pretty well most of the time.
An insight into how we get our news
Just watched the BBC's high-profile (Not) mea-culpa progamme, Newswatch.
Moderated by 'Uncle Ray' Snoddy, there was a lady viewer/scientist on with one of the customary cabal of defensive News editors.
Boy, was she focussed. And boy, was he inadequate.
The issue was the reporting of a Govt. report on dealing with the health consequences of a warmer climate (different to 'global warming'). Bascially the BBC had managed to get this as two completely differing takes, depending on when and where one looked.
Ignoring the actual ramifications of basic premise this lady had, that it would be nice to hear some good news as we all know the bad stuff, I was frankly appalled at this editor's explanations and excuses.
For a start he seemed pretty clear that the BBC will mess with facts in any way it feels necessary, and somehow it's all OK as the viewer needs to flit between headlines and subsequent text, but also what's on broadcast screen and online, to try and arrive at what the actual situation is/might be.
Frinakly I am getting to the point that news has about as much value as fiction, let alone reasonable debate. As a public service they are totally compromised.
Moderated by 'Uncle Ray' Snoddy, there was a lady viewer/scientist on with one of the customary cabal of defensive News editors.
Boy, was she focussed. And boy, was he inadequate.
The issue was the reporting of a Govt. report on dealing with the health consequences of a warmer climate (different to 'global warming'). Bascially the BBC had managed to get this as two completely differing takes, depending on when and where one looked.
Ignoring the actual ramifications of basic premise this lady had, that it would be nice to hear some good news as we all know the bad stuff, I was frankly appalled at this editor's explanations and excuses.
For a start he seemed pretty clear that the BBC will mess with facts in any way it feels necessary, and somehow it's all OK as the viewer needs to flit between headlines and subsequent text, but also what's on broadcast screen and online, to try and arrive at what the actual situation is/might be.
Frinakly I am getting to the point that news has about as much value as fiction, let alone reasonable debate. As a public service they are totally compromised.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)