Welcome to 2010

Just to wish all who visit my blog a very happy, productive, healthy, wealthy and interesting year in 2010!

According to the Chinese zodiac, 2010 will be the Year of the Tiger (I say “will be” because technically the Chinese New Year starts on Valentine’s Day this time around.) To be more specific, 2010 will be a White (Metal) Tiger Year, which is said by some to bring a certain amount of conflict and difficulty.

Interesting times!

Are We Nearly Doomed Yet? Part 1.

On one of my bookshelves at home I have a paperback from 32 years ago called Science Fact (Topaz, 1977, edited by Frank George, Professor of Cybernetics at Brunel University), which is all about the exciting scientific and technological developments of the mid-’70s and how these might fare in the future. The book was certainly on the mark with such things as unmanned space missions, genetic engineering and advanced electronics. Other areas, such as parapsychology, seem just as contentious now as they were then. But one general assumption underlying this book is that our modern civilisation – the civilisation of electric lights, cars, fast food, indoor loos and central heating – is here to stay, despite the immense technology-induced and environmental stresses predicted at its conclusion.

However, there are other books written before or since that have painted a much more negative and edgy picture of modern civilisation and its prospects. Paul Ehrlich’s The Population Bomb, James Lovelock’s The Revenge of Gaia and Mark Lynas’s Six Degrees are just some of the publications which portray a world about to be completely overwhelmed by such things as overpopulation, overconsumption, depleted resources and, of course these days, dangerous Global Warming.

Futurology is a perilous undertaking. Who knows what the world will be like in 2030, or even in 2012? We can speculate, but even the most sensible, conservative predicted outcomes are apt to be overturned if one of Nicholas Taleb’s black swans happens to flaps its wings. The rapid collapse of communism, the 9/11 attacks and the rise of the internet have altered the world in sweeping and unpredictable ways. Likewise, the great spontaneous global economic boom of 2014, the deadly flaming cockatoo virus of 2019 and Wu Li’s invention of nano-crystalline life forms in 2023 might change things utterly and in ways that could never have been precisely foreseen.

Civilisation itself could even be doomed. Something could happen to us so dreadful that we could end up back in the Stone Age without the skills such as flint-knapping and mammoth-butchering that enabled actual Stone Age folks to get by. Unsettled by that thought, some years ago I started to make a list of all the things I could think of that could doom civilisation before we had the chance even to colonise the Moon or Mars.

It’s a long list and of course is incomplete, and I won’t include it here. But it can be organised into three general categories, which I will include.

**************************************************************************************************

1) Unknown unknowns (as per Donald Rumsfeld’s useful 2002 speech). Obviously not much can be said about these. Life on Earth might be instantly exterminated when the solar system enters a violent Gurnning-epsilon particle storm in 2035. What are Gurnning-epsilon particles? I don’t know, I just made them up on the spot. They are unknown unknowns.

2) Known unknowns. These I define as things we know might happen but we don’t know exactly when or where. This is the main category and a full list would probably take me all day to type in, but they include:

a) Asteroid or comet strike. A very big one would be the end of us, and even a medium sized impact would destabilise the world economy and cause far-reaching geopolitical changes.

b) Supervolcano eruption. Similar to asteroid impact in potential devastation. In this case, we know roughly where (e.g., the Sunda Straits region in Indonesia or under Yellowstone in the US) but not when.

c) Carrington Event. A solar storm so violent and focussed that it could cause electrical transformers to burn out over a large region of the globe, bringing the electrical grid to a complete standstill. The only one observed so far was in 1859, and it is almost impossible to predict when the next one will happen.

d) Gamma ray burst: These are intense flashes of gamma rays that emanate from colossal explosions in distant galaxies. If one of these went off and Earth was in its path, it would not be good news for us.

e) Thermonuclear war. Less fashionable these days, but you never know. The worst case scenario right now would probably be a showdown between the US and China.

3) The knowns. These would be things that we know are happening now, or about to happen, and are recognised as a threat (or a potential threat.) This is where it gets awkward, as many of the things that some people are identifying as a clear and present danger are being identified by other people as no such thing.

The current biggie is Anthropogenic Global Warming. On one side are proponents who argue that greenhouse effect + positive feedbacks = catastrophic global warming of between 2 and 6 degrees over the next century or so. On the other side are sceptics who argue that the greenhouse effect may be a fact but the climate is dominated by negative feedbacks which restrict any man-made warming (if it exists) to very modest levels at best. This I realise is an extremely limited and wholly inadequate summary of what is possibly one of the most complicated and rancorous debates ever in the history of the world. I have to say here: I’m a sceptic; I’ll write more about this in a future post.

There’s also resource depletion, from fossil fuels running out (peak oil, peak coal, peak gas, etc) to overfishing. Again, there is plenty of controversy. Overfishing? I’d say this is a problem (albeit not a civilisation-killer.) Peak oil? I don’t think this is so much of a problem (again, more of this later.)

And there is environmental degradation – farmland turning into desert, salt water contaminating fresh water, toxic waste accumulating in the food chain. Again, like the resource depletion category, this one is multifarious, debatable, perplexing and deserves a blog post of its own.

**************************************************************************************************

Threats can also slip from one category into another. For instance, the Ebola virus is deadly but cannot spread easily – it’s a known, but is not a threat to modern civilisation at the moment. However, should Ebola mutate into something that could spread as easily as flu or the common cold, then it might well become a threat to us all – so, more of a known unknown.

This post is threatening to go on forever, so I’ll attempt to wrap it up and send it on its way. What I’ve been trying to say, in my clumsy, rambling fashion, is that the future is uncertain (well, d’oh) and that there are a number of things (currently known to us or not) that could do us in. So how do things stand at the moment, here at the end of 2009? Are we nearly doomed yet?

Looking at my (extremely makeshift and incomplete) dashboard:

**************************************************************************************************

1) Asteroids: nothing threatening us right at the moment, according to NASA’s Near Earth Object Program, anyway.

2) Supervolcanoes: the Yellowstone caldera has been on the move of late, rising by about 7cm a year for the last three years. A threat? Perhaps not in the next 12 months, although I think this situation will bear watching.

3) Solar storms: the Sun is extremely quiet at present, so another Carrington Event is perhaps unlikely at the moment. However, our level of knowledge about the Sun and its internal processes is still extremely poor, so no guarantees.

4) Global Warming: despite some claims of thousands dying each year from AGW who would otherwise be alive, the evidence for this is weak, in my opinion. There are many people affected by war and famine across the globe – are they victims of man-made Global Warming or just victims of war and famine? To my mind, Occam’s Razor suggests the latter. It’s possible that 2009 has seen a slight but not dramatic rise in average temperatures from 2008, consistent with an El Nino year. However, summer Arctic ice increased from 2008, Antarctic sea ice also increased from 2008, and the current northern hemisphere winter (2009/2010) has been very cold so far. Whatever the medium or far future may bring, I don’t think Global Warming will be a threat to civilisation in 2010.

5) Everything else (war, pestilence, resource depletion, environmental degradation, odds, sods, etc.): nothing stands out in 2009 that looks as though it will destroy us in 2010. Swine flu hasn’t been as virulent as feared. The US and China aren’t about to fire nukes at one another, ditto India and Pakistan. Iran might destabilise further in the next 12 months but unless this triggers a major war across the Middle East, I don’t see an immediate threat to us there. There are still oil and coal reserves in the ground, and the environment is not so far gone that most of us cannot feed ourselves throughout 2010.

**************************************************************************************************

So – a cautious thumbs-up from me, then. Modern civilisation made it intact through 2009, I give it good odds to do the same through 2010 too.

I intend to make Are We Nearly Doomed Yet? a regular feature on this blog (once a year, perhaps, or twice yearly?) Obviously, however, I might forget or lose interest. Or a giant asteroid could actually strike the Earth over the next few months, in which case maintaining this blog will not be my highest priority.

In Praise of Aviation

Birds do it. Bees do it. Educated fleas don’t do it, because although they can jump prodigious distances, they lack wings. Actually, to be a little more precise, fleas (both the educated and the ignorant varieties) can’t do it under their own power, but, like us, can manage it by hitching a ride on something that does have wings.

What am I on about? Flying, of course. Aviation – one of the routine technological wonders of our world.

I don’t fly very often, but greatly enjoy the experience – I try to get a window seat and am always captivated by the views. I love the fantastic cloudscapes – mountains and valleys, vast plains and faerie castles all made of white fluff, which I am certain would feel like refrigerated candy floss, were I able to open a window, reach out and grab handfuls of the stuff. There are also interesting things to glimpse when it’s dark – from the air, cities at night are mysterious and beautiful entities, patterns of glowing lights that resemble luminous sea creatures on some alien ocean floor. Travelling between London and Tokyo earlier this month, I found myself looking down from a great height upon the Siberian wilderness, where lonely rivers cut their way through great mountain ranges in the darkness, and distant settlements were lit up by what appeared to be giant hellish torches (possibly gas flares, as much of this is oil country.) There’s always something fresh and different to see.

Flying is also a brief and welcome break from chores, duties and other ties. Not being a business traveller, I am unencumbered by laptop or Blackberry, and can luxuriate in the freedom from work and indeed everyday life in general. It’s like a mini holiday within a holiday. I even don’t mind the food.

And I am not alone. Despite the economic downturn and the real problems faced by airlines, people still want to fly. According to the Air Transport Action Group (ATAG) 40% of all international tourists travel by air, and while the technology now exists to conduct much of international business and affairs of state by video link, business and diplomatic travel appears to be largely as popular as it ever was. World dignitaries used 140 private jets to arrive at Copenhagen for the recent COP15 climate summit (no video-conferencing for them!) Compared to travel by ship and train, flying has its obvious advantages – it is fast, convenient, and relatively cheap.

Even people who believe that aviation is the devil’s work and is contributing to catastrophic global warming still somehow manage to fly when they feel the need (like George Monbiot this year, when he hopped across the pond to lecture the Canadians, and like Plane Stupid activist Katrina Forrester when she embarked on a secret trip to New York in 2008 to meet up with kindred spirits and also to see the sights, by air rather than by sea, because “the boat cost £4,000 and the plane was so cheap”. And who can blame these folks? (Well, Joss Garman might, but that’s another story.) Indeed, how else would far-flung global citizens, even those of the environmental persuasion, get from A to B in these accelerated times?

There are more reasons why I find aviation interesting and inspirational.

Firstly, the field has been a hotbed of innovation and technological advancement ever since the first flimsy box kite-like machines struggled into the air a century ago. Given a dream, an incentive and a set of challenges to overcome, we as a species are at our problem-solving best.

Secondly, aviation is a game changer. In the early days of powered flight, it would have been easy to think of aeroplanes as merely an exotic sort of personal conveyance. Who in 1903 could have foreseen the vast changes wrought by air travel over the next handful of decades? Warfare has been transformed utterly, and tourism, once the preserve of a privileged few, has become a mighty industry. Large and small enterprises of all kinds now have the potential to span continents and oceans. Along with telecommunications, aviation has shrunk the world and condensed it into something rather like Marshall McLuhan’s global village.

Also consider the synergies embodied in a modern airliner, like the Virgin Atlantic Airbus A340-600 that brought me back to London Heathrow from Narita. The plane could not have flown without jet engine technology, of course, but neither could it have functioned without the advanced materials developed to constitute its airframe, or the modern electronic systems designed to control this giant metal beast, or the up-to-the-minute software created to manage and monitor all the intricate processes of air traffic control, flight booking and even duty-free shopping and in-flight entertainment. In turn, surely all these other technologies would not be as sophisticated as they undoubtedly are, in 2009, without the impetus and the catalyst powered flight has provided.

Lastly, the conquest of the air has paved the way for the eventual human colonisation of space. We’re not progressing as fast as I had hoped, in this regard (I was one of those children in the 1970s who expected a moon base and a man on Mars by the end of the 20th century), but I’m of the firm opinion that we’ll get there eventually. Barring a medical miracle, I won’t be around to witness much of this next phase, although maybe (just maybe) I’ll have collected enough air miles, by the time I get old, to book a flight with Richard Branson’s Virgin Galactic. I live in hope.

A Quiet Victory for Common Sense

In November 2009, anti-aviation activist group Plane Stupid launched a “hard-hitting” cinema ad showing computer-generated polar bears falling from the skies over a city centre, impacting on buildings and cars in a spray of blood. The message? A short-haul flight is said to generate 400 kg of carbon dioxide, which is about the weight of an adult polar bear; in effect, Plane Stupid were saying that your family holiday in Majorca last year contributed to greenhouses gases in the atmosphere and thus contributed to theoretical man-made global warming, which in turn is said to be behind recent Arctic ice loss, which in turn is said to be endangering the species Ursus maritimus. In future, so the reasoning goes, save the planet and the bears by not flying; don’t go to Majorca by plane – go by train, boat or bicycle (or better still, don’t go at all.)

This short and very graphic video has its admirers – “flawless execution”, “impactful” and “attention grabbing” are some of the comments I’ve read on various internet forums. Others, however, include “distasteful”, “fraudulent” and “hysterical.” Even Ed Gillespie (AGW believer and also co-director of Futerra, a green-leaning ad agency) expressed his doubts in this Guardian article: “…I’m still not sure it will change behaviour, the danger is that by pumping up the high octane drama of an ad, you increase the risk of viewers feeling manipulated and dismissing it as pure propaganda. Or lapsing into highly questionable failures of tact and taste in pursuit of ‘edginess’.”

I found the Polar Bears ad unpleasant in the extreme and complained to the Advertising Standards Authority. This is what I wrote.

**************************************************************************************************

I am writing to complain about the “Polar Bear” cinema ads produced by climate activist group Plane Stupid, which have been shown in British cinemas since 20th November 2009. These ads show computer-generated polar bears falling out of the sky and landing on buildings and streets with grisly realistic impacts.

Here are the reasons why I am complaining.

These ads are meant to be hard-hitting, as they are designed to dissuade people from taking short-haul flights. They are also designed to jolt and appal people, basically, being depictions of animals being dropped from a great height. The intention is to cause shock, upset and guilt. Now this might be justified if the ads depicted a road accident and were meant to dissuade people from drink-driving. However, there is no clear connection between travelling by air and causing polar bears to fall out of the sky, obviously. To spell this out further – there is no simple or clear connection between aviation and polar bear deaths.

These ads imply that by flying, air passengers are contributing to the burning of carbon-based fuels, which creates more carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere, and which in turn causes global warming (and also causes the deaths of polar bears, due to the shrinking of the Arctic ice pack.) This implication is contentious in several ways, and my personal view is that it is incorrect. Firstly, as the recent “Climategate” revelations have highlighted, the theory of man-made global warming remains very controversial and unclear. The “evidence” for catastrophic warming relies largely on computer models, and the efficacy of these models is being increasingly challenged and questioned. Also, even though (according to the global warming theorists) the world has been warming since the late 1970s, during this time polar bear numbers do not show a clear decline, according to a recent report by the U.S. Geological Survey.

In my view, these ads are thus contravening:

a) Section 6: Harm and Offence, by depicting gratuitous, violent and gory deaths.
b) Section 5: Misleading Advertising, by implying that air travellers are contributing to global warming, when it is by no means certain that they are.
c) Section 5: Misleading Advertising, by implying that air travellers are killing polar bears, when it is by no means certain that they are.

**************************************************************************************************

I came back from a trip to Japan last weekend and found that the ASA had sent me a reply by letter; here it is:

**************************************************************************************************

8 December 2009
Dear Mr Cull
YOUR COMPLAINT ABOUT PLANE STUPID

Thank you for your recent complaint about a cinema ad by the above organisation.

We received a number of complaints about it and approached the advertiser for their response. They confirmed that they had received a large number of complaints directly and were understandably concerned at the response to the ad. They therefore took the decision to withdraw the ad early and have given us their assurance that it will not be used again.

As the ad is no longer being shown, there would be little to achieve by investigating further. We are satisfied with the action Plane Stupid has taken to resolve the concerns raised. Brief details will appear in a list of informally resolved cases on Wednesday 23 December.

Thank you for taking the time to bring this to our attention.

**************************************************************************************************

It is encouraging to know that others thought and acted along the same lines that I did, and that there has been a quiet victory for common sense.

Our complaints had an impact.

Tumbling Down

If you rely on the national newspapers and the BBC for all your news, you may well have missed it completely. But on Thursday 19th November 2009 the world of climate science changed forever. Something happened that, just over a week on, still seems incredible. Sometimes I find myself with lingering doubts as to its authenticity: surely it could all be a cunningly contrived hoax? But so far there has been, to my knowledge, no detailed refutation from the scientists involved. It looks increasingly likely that most or all of the material contained in file FOI2009 is genuine.

Rather than going over the history of the “CRU hack” or leak, as I think it might better be described, I’ll point you to some sources on the internet. Firstly, this Wikipedia article (although the usual Wikipedia caveats apply.) Secondly, this article on Wattsupwiththat (currently one of my favourite websites), and this post on the excellent Bishop Hill blog. Thirdly, a very good searchable online database of the CRU e-mails here.

What can it all mean? It is virtually impossible at this early stage to say just what all the implications might be, or what new revelations may emerge from all the files and e-mails revealed hitherto. But from what I’ve seen so far, these are my conclusions:

1) The climate science reset button needs to be pressed. So many of the assumptions made by scientists, journalists and politicians all over the world are based on the published work by the scientists involved in this scandal – Michael Mann, Phil Jones, Ben Santer, Keith Briffa – that rather than proceeding as if nothing serious has happened, there should be a hiatus while these assumptions are challenged, and while the science is independently audited. By independently audited, I mean put under complete scrutiny by a group of independent scientists who understand what they are looking at, and whose own methods and communications are utterly transparent. So much is at stake here, in terms of the future wellbeing and prosperity of the human race, that an independent audit of the scientific work done by CRU so far is essential and, in my opinion, a minimum requirement.

2) The talks in Copenhagen scheduled for December 2009 (under a month from now) should be put on hold, or if they cannot be put on hold, it should be made clear that no legally binding agreement on carbon emissions can be imposed on the world’s nations until an independent audit of the science is carried out, as per (1).

Will this audit actually take place? There is little sign of this happening so far in official circles, although I think the The Global Warming Policy Foundation now being set up by Lord Lawson is a welcome sign of progress taking place on this front. You can find an online petition here to request the current British government to place CRU on hold until an investigation takes place; there are no guarantees, of course, that the petition will achieve anything much, but if enough people sign, hopefully someone in Whitehall will sit up and take notice.

With regard to the apparent evasion of Freedom of Information requests by Dr Phil Jones and his fellows, I will be writing to Sir Brandon Gough, Chancellor of the UEA, and will be sending a copy of my letter to Charles Clarke, current MP for Norwich South. I will be calling for the University to investigate the matter, and if the University has evidence that Dr Jones et al were in breach of the Freedom of Information Act, to treat this as potential law-breaking and turn the matter over to the police and the courts. I’ll publish my letter on this blog, in due course, with any replies that I receive.

The picture I have posted with this blog entry is of the tarot card known as The Tower; it is generally considered a very unsettling card to find, should it show up in a tarot reading. Here’s a very good and rather relevant description of The Tower from the Aeclectic Tarot website:

“False structures, false institutions, false beliefs are going to come tumbling down, suddenly, violently and all at once. What’s important to remember as a tarot reader is that the one you’re reading for likely does not know that something is false. Not yet. To the contrary, they probably believe that their lover is being faithful, that their religious beliefs are true and right, that there are no problems in their family structure, that everything is fine at work…oh, and that they’re fine. Just fine, really.

Alas, they’re about to get a very rude awakening. Shaken up, torn down, blown asunder. And all a reader can really do to soften the blow is assure the Querent that it is for the best. Nothing built on a lie, on falsehoods, can remain standing for long. Better to tear it all down and rebuild on the truth. It is not going to be pleasant or painless or easy, but it will be for the best.”

Thinking about this card, I am also reminded, alternatively, of the tower as a symbol of civilisation. Civilisation rises up from the earth, with each storey resting on the one beneath, each part of the superstructure (accumulated wealth and knowledge) depending on the one below, all the way down to the foundations. Stoutly and cleverly built, it has a good chance of withstanding the forces of entropy and chaos. Weakened and damaged by its enemies (which is what I anticipate will happen should the world’s nations expend huge efforts and divert sorely needed resources into combating what I suspect to be the monstrous non-problem of climate change) the odds begin to tip towards entropy, chaos and ruin.

Two towers – the edifice of climate science, as it now stands, and the structure of modern civilisation itself. Which will prevail?

UPDATE

When writing this blog post, I hadn’t read this BBC news item from Friday evening stating that the UEA will be making an inquiry into the Climategate e-mails and that more details will emerge next week. I note that the BBC’s Roger Harrabin is still referring to these e-mails as “stolen”, when “leaked” is just as likely a possibility. Anyway, it looks as though there will be little point now in writing to the Chancellor; I shall be directing my efforts elsewhere.

Toxic TV Fairytale – Part II

I’ve just e-mailed this addition to my earlier written complaint to the ASA about the dreadful, manipulative TV advert Bedtime Stories. I’m not sure if it will have any effect now – for all I know, a decision has already been made as to whether or not to uphold complaints against this ad. But I think I’ve probably done my best, in the circumstances.

Dear Sir/Madam,

As an addition to my letter of complaint, I would like to provide the following material, which I consider to be helpful in backing up my assertion that the Bedtime Stories advert could be emotionally harmful to very young children. Normally I would have sent this by post, but am e-mailing this instead, due to the erratic quality of postal services at the moment.

1) My first reference is to a web page maintained by the National Mental Health Information Center of the US Department of Health and Human Services – Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA.)

PSYCHOSOCIAL ISSUES FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES IN DISASTERS:
A Guide For The Primary Care Physician

On this page is a table (Table 5) showing various points to consider when understanding the comprehension of death in children and adolescents. I believe this is relevant, as people and pets such as dogs can and do lose their lives in natural disasters such as floods, and a dog drowning in a flood is depicted in the Bedtime Stories advert.

In this table, developmental considerations for preschool children include the terms “magical thinking”, “egocentric” and “no concept of time.” My interpretations of these are as follows:

“Magical thinking” would be the erroneous connection between thoughts such as “I didn’t switch off the light”, or “Daddy left the lights on” and either recollections such as “There was a flood (and I must have caused it)” or anticipations such as “There will be a flood (and it will be my fault).”

“Egocentric” is self-evident; it appears very possible for preschool children to imagine that what is happening to them is happening to everyone, or that their actions or private thoughts and feelings have a direct and magical effect on the rest of the world.

“No concept of time” again is self-evident. Preschool children do not have a realistic notion of long periods of time such as decades or centuries. The idea that the energy generated to provide power for electric lights also generates CO2, and that the UK’s man-made CO2 emissions (about 2% or less of the world total) would contribute (according to the controversial theory of anthropogenic global warming) to the increased likelihood of floods in unspecified locations and in future decades, would be more or less incomprehensible to preschool children. In the advert, they see the catastrophic consequences of not switching off a light occurring immediately and nearby, perhaps the very next day in their own neighbourhood.

2) My second reference comprises quotations from a 2005 article from the US-based News-Medical.Net, which recommended that parents limited television viewing of the Katrina disaster for children under 12 years of age.

THE MEDICAL NEWS: from News-Medical.Net – Latest Medical News and Research from Around the World

“Although they were not directly involved with the tragedy, repeated television viewing of the disaster puts these children at high risk for developing Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), anxiety and depression.”

“Research on the impact of the World Trade Center attack indicates that children who viewed more television news of the attack were two times as likely to develop symptoms of PTSD than children with lower TV exposure,” said Harold S. Koplewicz, M.D., Director of the NYU Child Study Center. “Our job as parents is to protect our kids from unnecessary media coverage of this event. Good parents will stop the television.”

3) My third reference is from the University of Michigan Health System website
This lists the following ways that TV can scare or traumatize children.

“Children can come to view the world as a mean and scary place when they take violence and other disturbing themes on TV to be accurate in real life.”

“Symptoms of being frightened or upset by TV stories can include bad dreams, anxious feelings, being afraid of being alone, withdrawing from friends, and missing school.
Fears caused by TV can cause sleep problems in children.
Scary-looking things like grotesque monsters especially frighten children aged two to seven. Telling them that the images aren’t real does not help because kids under age eight can’t tell the difference between fantasy and reality.
Many children exposed to scary movies regret that they watched because of the intensity of their fright reactions.
Children ages 8-12 years who view violence are often frightened that they may be a victim of violence or a natural disaster.”

4) My fourth reference is from Pediatrics – the official journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics
Published online August 31, 2005

CLINICAL REPORT

Psychosocial Implications of Disaster or Terrorism on Children: A Guide for the Pediatrician
Joseph F. Hagan, Jr, MD and the Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health and the Task Force on Terrorism

I have excerpted three paragraphs from this report (below) which I consider to be particularly relevant:

“Traumatic and disrupting events can have adverse effects even on children who are too young to verbalize their distress. Although infants and toddlers may have no cognitive comprehension of a disaster, the destruction of routine and loss of loved ones can lead to regression and detachment. In the first year of life, such experiences can manifest as increased crying and irritability, separation anxiety, and an exaggerated startle response. Toddlers and preschool-aged children are likely to experience sleep terrors and nightmares and exhibit behavioral and skill regression manifesting as helplessness, clinging behavior, and increased temper tantrums.”

“School-aged children often demonstrate the experience of trauma through play, expressing trauma-related themes and aggressive behavior. Similar to their younger counterparts, sleep disturbances and regressive behaviors such as separation anxiety are often seen. School-aged children also may become withdrawn or apathetic or exhibit somatization and behavioral problems. Although fear was the most common primary reaction to the events of September 11th among school-aged children, the developmental diversity of this age
group leads to a wide range of responses to such trauma.”

“Children remote from catastrophic events by both location and experience are not immune to the acute and chronic psychopathologies related to disaster. Several studies have implicated indirect television exposure to disaster as a risk factor for children’s reactivity. The amount of information that a child will find valuable in understanding a disaster largely depends on a child’s developmental stage. Parents and caregivers should be aware that gruesome and disturbing details are likely unnecessary in facilitating a child’s comprehension of a tragedy. Such information has a great potential to engender fear and may be psychologically injurious and thus impede a child’s psychosocial recovery. In addition, the subjective response of a child to disaster has been demonstrated to have a high predictive value for symptoms of PTSD.”

Due to the very short time frame, I have not had the time or opportunity to access the primary sources, i.e., scientific studies and books, cited in these web pages. I am confident that were I able to have full access to these primary sources, I would be able to build an extremely robust case against the Bedtime Stories advert. However, even with the limited material I have been able to find on the internet, I am confident that I have been able to demonstrate convincingly some the factors by which the Bedtime Stories advert could be injurious to the emotional health of small children, and to summarise, I have listed some of these factors below.

1) The prevalence of “magical thinking” among very small children (“I didn’t switch off the light, so there will be a flood.”)
2) The natural egocentricity of very small children (“My thoughts and actions have a direct and powerful impact on everything around me.”)
3) The lack of a clear concept of time among very small children (“By not switching off the light, I could cause a flood tomorrow.”)
4) The fact that frightening TV stories can, in general, lead to bad dreams, anxiety, withdrawal from friends and sleep disorders in children.
5) The fact that scary images (such as a giant black CO2 sky monster, or pets drowning in a flood) may upset children between two and seven years especially, because they cannot differentiate between fiction and reality.
6) The fact that there is strong evidence to suggest that repeated TV viewing of disasters can lead to PTSD, anxiety and depression in children.

I believe that I have put forward a case strong enough to persuade the ASA to at least investigate this appalling advert, and I hope that there is enough of a case for the advert to be withdrawn as soon as possible. I think that children and parents in 21st century Britain have enough on their plates without the Halloween spectre of CO2 emissions, however illusory this threat may ultimately prove to be, hanging over them as well.

Yours sincerely,

Alex Cull

UK Gov’s Toxic TV Fairytale

On 9th October 2009 at 8.45 PM, viewers of Coronation Street on British TV channel ITV1 watched a commercial that had been put together by the UK Government, at a cost of about £6,000,000 and which is part of their “Act on CO2″ initiative. You can watch it in all its sinister glory here on YouTube.

This commercial shows a little girl being told a scary bedtime story by her father, a story in which man-made CO2 causes “strange” weather and the possibility of lands disappearing under the sea. This story is in a children’s picture book, which shows a group of distressed-looking animals, including a weeping rabbit, looking down at a drought-stricken patch of dried-up mud. It shows little grey blobs of CO2, anthropomorphised into tiny faces with hands, rising up into the sky and forming a giant grey monster cloud with jagged teeth and glaring eyes. It shows what appears to be a small town in the English countryside being overwhelmed with floodwater and people waiting for rescue on rooftops. It shows a dog disappearing under the water, presumably drowned. Finally it shows a suburban street with lights glowing from windows, and a little girl smiling as she switches off the light in her room.

Where to start with this? I have just written to the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) to complain about it, and here is what I wrote:

I am writing to the Advertising Standards Authority to complain about the Government’s TV advert that was aired on 9th October 2009 at 20.45 on ITV1 and which is part of their “Act on CO2″ initiative. It shows a father telling his little daughter a frightening bedtime story about horrible things happening as a result of man-made CO2 in the atmosphere.

On your website, under “A short guide to what we do”, you state: “The main principles of the advertising standards codes are that ads should not mislead, cause harm, or offend.” I assert that this advert misleads and also that it is likely to cause emotional harm. In the numbered points below, I will explain why I believe this is the case.

1. Firstly, in my view, this advert is blatant, unabashed scare-mongering. This advert is not telling us about the likely consequences of irresponsible behaviour such as drink-driving or drug taking. It is putting forward the unproven view that people doing “ordinary, everyday things” like keeping their houses warm, driving cars and switching on lights are the direct cause of “strange weather” such as “awful heat waves” and “terrible storms and floods”. It was shown before the 9 PM “watershed”, which means it is likely to have been watched by very young children who may well have identified with the little girl in the advert and who would have been upset to see pictures of distressed animals and what appears to be a drowning dog.

What associations will have been formed in the minds of these children? I believe that when they continue to see their parents and other people around them carrying out harmless activities such as switching on a light, they will make an association between these harmless activities and distressing scenes of scary clouds and animals drowning in floods. People are not going to stop using electric lights or driving cars, so when impressionable children see lights continue to be switched on or cars continue to be driven, they are likely to recall this advert and expect that disastrous consequences will follow. In this way, I believe this is likely to cause emotional harm, in that it is going to evoke excessive and unfounded anxiety in young children.

2. I also assert that this advert is likely to cause unnecessary anxiety and guilt in parents. We are currently experiencing a recession, with many parents already worried about how to make ends meet and look after their families, in the face of threats such as redundancy and the higher cost of living, and with many families already economising by reducing their energy bills and car use, as far as they are able to do so. What message does this advert send to parents? That even while being sensible and economising, simply by using electricity, gas and motor vehicles they are still somehow being irresponsible parents because by doing so they are causing “strange weather” and endangering their children? In a few weeks’ time, it will be winter here in Britain, with darker, shorter days, and colder temperatures. People will need to use electric lights more in order to carry out their everyday activities – keeping them switched off will not be an option. People will need to switch on the heating in their homes. People will need to use motor vehicles, as an alternative to the barely adequate public transport system in this country. Should a parent who decides to give their child a lift somewhere in the family car, as an alternative to letting them walk along cold, dimly-lit streets on some dark November evening, be made to feel guilty about it? It would be unreasonable to think so, surely. In this way too, I assert that this advert is liable to cause emotional harm.

3. I finally assert that this advert is misleading. It states that higher levels of man-made CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere are the direct cause of “strange weather” such as heat waves, storms and floods. This remains a highly contentious theory, nothing more. Even the BBC is now stating: “For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures. And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise.” The last major heat wave we had here in Britain was in 2003, over six years ago now. And far from being “strange”, extreme weather events have happened in every epoch – in the 18th century alone there was no shortage of such “strange” events. In 1774 the bridge over the Thames at Henley was swept away in disastrous floods. Europe had a record heat wave in 1757, much like the 2003 heat wave in its intensity. The most catastrophic storm in England’s historical records took place back in 1703.

Scottish scientist Wilson Flood is reported to have analysed the CET (Central England Temperature) records, which started in 1659, and found that UK summers in the 20th century were cooler than those of two centuries previously (average UK summer temperature 15.46 degrees C in the 18th century, 15.35 degrees C in the 20th century.) As for sea level rise, historically sea levels have been rising by an average of several millimetres a year, a few tens of centimetres a century, for the last couple of centuries at least, and there is no sign of any significant acceleration.

According to the advert’s narrative, “There was once a land where the weather was very very strange. There were awful heat waves in some parts, and in others terrible storms and floods. Scientists said it was caused by too much CO2, which went up into the sky when the grown-ups used energy. They said the CO2 was getting dangerous. Its effects were happening faster than they had thought.”

The facts are that global temperatures have not risen in 11 years, “strange” weather events are actually not strange at all, and the rate of sea level rise has not changed much for centuries. I therefore assert that there is little or no evidence to support the advert’s claims that CO2 is causing or is about to cause the sort of disastrous effects that it portrays. I believe that this advert thus contravenes the advertising standards code, as it sets out deliberately to mislead viewers. The way it misleads is to imply certainty, with sentences like “They said the CO2 was getting dangerous”, where in fact there is a complete absence of certainty, and where there is plenty of evidence that suggests a very different scenario, i.e., that CO2 plays a very minor role (perhaps a vanishingly small role) when it comes to the rise and fall of global temperatures.

In short, I consider this advert to be an egregious piece of misleading, scare-mongering nonsense, and conclude that the UK Government should have done better things with the £6 million it spent creating this work of propaganda, to use the most accurate word to describe it. I would like to see, as a result of ASA adjudication, the Government withdrawing it with immediate effect and issuing an apology and a retraction in its stead.

I look forward to receiving your response by return of post.

Yours sincerely,
Alex Cull

I intend to update this as soon as I have a response.

UPDATE

No adjudication by the ASA yet (this is Sunday 18th October) but there may be one this coming Wednesday (21st). There have, however, been over 200 complaints so far – see this article in The Guardian.

Also please visit TonyN’s excellent climate blog Harmless Sky for news about this ad campaign and the views of some of us who oppose it.

Invisibility

I’m having a short break from climate-related stories, and thought I’d write about invisibility instead. Last month I found an article in the Metro about a Chinese artist, Liu Bolin, who paints his body so that he merges with the background, a bit like a chameleon. (Here’s a similar article in the Mail on Sunday.) The idea is simple, actually, but the procedure is very fiddly and time-consuming, taking over ten hours to complete. Obviously you can still see that he’s there, if you look closely, but the average passer-by might not notice him at all.

When I was a lot younger, I was very self-conscious and the idea of moving around unseen seemed cool. That was before I learned about the possible drawbacks, though, by reading about the many problems faced by the character Griffin in The Invisible Man, by HG Wells – even moving around without being constantly bumped into would be a challenge in itself. Clearly, unless you just happened to be trying to infiltrate a military base in some sort of ninja operation, actually being invisible would be a pain for much of the time.

But there might still be occasions when being unnoticed would be helpful, for instance when trying to avoid a talkative but very boring acquaintance in the street. So it’s probably worth asking the question: is invisibility possible?

Surprisingly, science says yes, it is. In theory, a cloaking device could be devised consisting of “metamaterials” that can guide electromagnetic radiation around a central region (this has already been done on a small scale with microwaves.) However, it is foreseen that the device would have to be rather rigid and substantial, so unless you happen to be a Romulan spaceship, it probably won’t be something you can just slip on. In the near future, anyway. And even if they developed a prototype suit made of light-bending material (or something resembling Harry Potter’s invisibility cloak), making it work convincingly is likely to be something of a technological nightmare.

How do animals do this? Of course, chameleons, squid, flounder and other creatures that change colour, either for display purposes or to conceal themselves by matching their backgrounds, do so not by bending light rays but by using specialised skin cells called chromatophores, which change colour and form patterns. We humans have skin cells that darken when UV light stimulates the production of melanin, but alas their repertoire is limited (we range in colour from deep brown to pale pink – no sky blue, avocado or mauve, of course) and we cannot alter them quickly or at will.

(Incidentally, I had always thought that the skin cells of animals such as squid must somehow sense nearby colours and change themselves accordingly. Not so – the squid must be able to see its surroundings – the information reaches the chromatophores via the squid’s eyes.)

However, even if humans were genetically modified so that our skin could reproduce any colour of the rainbow in any conceivable pattern, this would still leave a problem, as we’d have to go about naked for this to work. So it’s back to the invisibility cloak idea, but instead of light-benders, the outer layer of the cloak might consist of arrays of cells that would sense their surroundings and change colour accordingly.

Something like this – “chameleon cloth” – has already appeared in science fiction, featuring in George RR Martin’s story Dying of the Light and more recently in the Polity novels by Neal Asher. So is it feasible? At least one company – Philips – is already developing “photonic textiles” which can be programmed to display text and images. Further down the line, a combination of minuscule programmable pigment cells and tiny sensors – nano-scale CCDs – could do the trick, perhaps.

Wearing a cloak or a sort of burkha made of chameleon cloth, a person might eventually be able to emulate Liu Bolin and fade into the background. It would be a lot faster and more sophisticated than using a paintbrush and palette, but the prototype would be somewhat expensive – for the likes of you and me, anyway. Maybe by AD 2075 invisibility cloaks will be manufactured on an industrial scale and everyone will be able to afford one, but until then, I imagine this technology is likely to be the prerogative of secret agents and super villains, the Bonds and Blofelds of this world.

Perhaps it already exists, and there’s someone standing unseen, just a few feet away from you, watching…

(It has also occurred to me that there are other ways to become invisible than distorting light or changing colour. Blending in with the surroundings is often simply a matter of not drawing attention to oneself, which can sometimes be a simple matter of carrying a clipboard and looking “official”. But that, I think, is the subject of a whole new blog post.)

Letter to my MP

On 28th October 2008, the Climate Change Act was debated in the UK Parliament. It became law a month later. In November I wrote the following letter to my MP, Mrs Ann Keen, Member of Parliament for Brentford and Isleworth.

14th November 2008
Dear Mrs Keen,

I am writing in connection with the Climate Change Bill, which was passed through the Commons last month and supported by a majority of MPs. I understand that this Bill, when it becomes law, will commit the UK to reducing its emissions of CO2 by 80% by 2050, including the emissions from shipping and aviation. Personally, I am sceptical about the extent to which man-made carbon dioxide has much, or any, impact on average global temperatures, but aside from this, I think there are additional good reasons why the Bill should have been challenged, or at least more thoroughly debated in Parliament.

1) Even if the proponents of man-made Global Warming are correct in their basic assumptions, I understand that the UK’s CO2 emissions come to a very small percentage (probably under 5%, and I’ve seen at least one source which states under 2%) of the world total, smaller by far than the portions of the USA, China, Russia and India. I’m surely not alone in thinking that a 60%, 80% or even a 100% reduction of the UK’s carbon emissions would thus appear to have minimal consequences for the climate as a whole.

2) An additional problem would appear to be that even if the UK drastically reduces its carbon emissions, it is not clear what measurable results the reduction would have (if any.) Normally, if there is some sort of economic sacrifice, such as an increase in income tax or council tax, we can be sure that the money levied will be spent somewhere and that we will experience tangible and measurable benefits, e.g., more police on the streets, schools and hospitals with better resources, fire stations with more up-to-date equipment, etc. There is also some accountability if such benefits do not occur, i.e. there is an audit trail that can be followed, to determine how the money was spent (or not spent, as the case may be.) There seems to be no measurable outcome that can be confidently predicted for a cut in the UK’s carbon emissions, e.g. a corresponding reduction in global temperatures or a reduction in the rate of sea level rise. In other words, this cut appears to represent an economic sacrifice for which there seems to be no evidence of a guaranteed or measurable return.

3) Furthermore, it is not very clear how far this cut will affect the UK economy in the decades to come. Common sense suggests that the cost of generating energy and doing business will rise by a large amount, but the extent of this is not fully known. Extending the emissions cut to shipping and aviation will surely affect the UK’s trade and our competitiveness in the world economy – again, it is not clear by how much. From my (admittedly limited) understanding of Parliamentary procedures, it does not seem that this matter has been properly assessed and debated, especially as the financial and social consequences could be far-reaching.

4) I would add that the science of climate change, far from being “settled”, as some proclaim, appears to be anything but, on further inspection. Institutions monitoring global temperatures, such as NASA GISS and the UK’s Hadley Centre, rely on computer models which provide a range of projections for future temperatures; however, these are highly controversial and appear to be flawed in quite a few ways. In December 2003, for instance, the Hadley Centre’s Climatic Research Unit in East Anglia were confident that temperatures would rise during 2006-2010. This year, however, we were told that temperatures will probably not rise again until after 2010; basically, my understanding is that they had underestimated the cooling effect attributed to La Nina.

The concept of due diligence seems to me to be as important in science as it is in business, and I’m concerned that not enough was done in this instance, before approving a decision which could have very far-reaching consequences for the UK economy during the next 42 years and beyond. Personally, I would like to see more openness, in the British media and in British politics, regarding the uncertainties and the limitations of the scientific models upon which these important economic decisions are based. Proponents of man-made Global Warming might argue that the time for debate is over, and that urgent and unilateral action is required. However, I take a different view – that when the economic stakes are high, it is better to be cautious, to consider both sides of a proposition and to make sure that there is a proper, public and thorough audit of the science.

As a constituent, I am therefore asking whether you would be prepared to put the following questions to Ed Miliband, the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change:

1) What actions are the Government taking to scrutinise and assess the likely impact of the 80% emissions cut on the UK economy?

2) What actions are the Government taking to determine exactly (if at all possible) what measurable effect the UK’s 80% emissions cut will have on world climate?

3) What actions are the Government taking to carry out due diligence on the science of climate change, and ensure that the public and media are aware of the uncertainties and limitations involved in modelling climate trends?

Thank you for taking the time to read my letter.
Yours sincerely,
Alex Cull

UPDATE

And here is the reply, in a letter dated 13th April 2009, to Ann Keen from Joan Ruddock MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change:

Dear Ann,

Thank you for your letter dated 9 December enclosing a copy of a letter from your constituent, Mr A Cull of [address supplied] about the Climate Change Bill (now Act). I am replying as the Minister responsible for this area and apologise for the delay in doing so, which is due to departmental reorganisation.

Your constituent expressed a number of concerns regarding the Climate Change Act in his letter.

Firstly, he questioned whether man-made carbon dioxide impacts on average global temperatures. It is evident that atmospheric concentrations of key greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide, have increased significantly since the pre-industrial period. The concentrations of these gases have now reached levels unprecedented for tens of thousands of years. Carbon dioxide concentrations alone have risen by around 35% to 382ppm (parts per million) [US NOAA data - 2006 average], since 1750. The current level now far exceeds that at any time measured over the last 650,000 years. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report concludes that most of the observed warming since the mid-20th century is very likely, i.e. a more than 90% chance, due to human emissions of greenhouse gases. The assessments of the IPCC represent the consensus of thousands of scientists worldwide, based on peer-reviewed research.

Mr Cull asked whether by reducing its carbon emissions the UK would be able to impact on climate change, given its relatively small percentage contribution to global emissions. The UK is fully aware of the need for international cooperation on this matter and by setting a target of an 80% cut in carbon emissions – rather than the legal requirement of 60% – the Government has set an example for other countries to follow. We recognise that developed countries bear most of the responsibility for the climate change already underway and that we have a moral duty to prevent its harmful effects. It is also worth considering that British businesses throughout the globe increase the UK’s percentage contribution to carbon emissions.

Thirdly, Mr Cull highlighted the difficulty in measuring the effects of meeting carbon emissions reduction targets to ensure accountability. Action on climate change is taken to reduce the likelihood of detrimental effects in the long term. Due to the time lag in the carbon system, and our past emissions, we are already committed to a certain level of climate change. This means that even if we stopped all emissions tomorrow we would still expect another 30-40 years of temperature rise, and more than a century of sea-level rise. Predicting the exact outcomes of UK reductions in carbon emissions is extremely difficult therefore. Scientists can, however, use models to estimate how human activities have changed the likelihood of the event occurring. For example, scientists have calculated that the likelihood of a heat wave like that seen in Europe in 2003 has already at least doubled because of human-induced warming. Similarly, it is now becoming possible to attribute long-term trends in weather to human influence. For example, the recent report of the IPCC concluded that human activities have likely contributed to observed changes in wind patterns and temperature extremes globally.

I do agree that it is important for governments to be held to account on their progress. That is why the Act created an expert, Independent Committee on Climate Change to suggest the levels of budget and provide an annual progress report to Parliament, which the Government must publicly respond to. This will help keep progress towards a low-carbon economy transparent and accountable.

Finally, Mr Cull raised concerns that the Climate Change Act will adversely affect the UK economy. Ultimately, the aim of the Act is to provide a framework for the UK to make a transition to a low-carbon economy. By being the first to introduce radical emissions targets, the UK Government is giving businesses a head start in this transition, which should benefit the economy in the long term. A comprehensive approach to tackling climate change needs to include emissions from corporations, international aviation and shipping. We ensured that the Act aimed to include these emissions in its targets and budgets by the end of 2012. If this is not the case, the Government will have to explain to Parliament why not. This provides sufficient time for corporations to adapt to the legislation and for an international agreement to be reached on how to allocate aviation and shipping emissions between countries.

Should your constituent wish to examine further Parliament’s scrutiny of the Climate Change Bill, he can do so here: http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2007-08/climatechangehl.html [link]

With best wishes,
Joan Ruddock

Douglas Adams: The Salmon of Doubt

In 2001, when I heard that Douglas Adams had just died at the age of 49, I remember feeling an acute sense of loss. This was not only because I was, and still am, a fan of his, and not only because he was dead and at a relatively young age. Quite a few of my favourite SF writers have died during my lifetime, including Isaac Asimov and Arthur C. Clarke, and while I’ve always felt a sadness and a sense that their absence has taken some of the light out of the world, there’s also often been the feeling (certainly in the cases of Asimov and Clarke) that they had a good innings and pretty much fulfilled their destinies as writers. It was different in this case.

I felt that after The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy and the Dirk Gently novels, Douglas Adams still had a lot more to write about and would have taken his stories to some pretty exciting new places. There would have been another Dirk Gently book, of course, and then an embarking on who knew what amazing projects. Alas, it was never to be.

Instead, we have The Salmon of Doubt, a posthumous collection of Adams’s articles, bits and pieces salvaged from his computer, and some rather fragmentary chapters of the third Dirk Gently novel (which is where this book’s title comes from.) Reading it left me amused and entertained, as always with Adams, but also inevitably quite melancholy. I wish he were still alive.

The articles are a showcase for Adams’s wit, his curiosity about the world and his love of technology, and have titles such as Hangover Cures, The Rhino Climb, Little Dongly Things and Is There an Artificial God? There is also – and this is poignant – a review of P.G.Wodehouse’s unfinished novel Sunset at Blandings. He writes: “…But you will want to read Sunset for completeness, and for that sense you get, from its very unfinishedness, of being suddenly and unexpectedly close to a Master actually at work – a bit like seeing paint pots and scaffolding being carried in and out of the Sistine Chapel.”

I say this article is poignant, because Adams is also describing something akin to the sense I get from reading what there is of his novel The Salmon of Doubt. There are 11 chapters in all, most of them featuring the eccentric and perennially disorganised Dirk Gently of Dirk Gently’s Holistic Detective Agency and The Long Dark Teatime of the Soul, although one chapter is about a rather laid-back, godlike person called Dave, who inhabits DaveLand in DaveWorld, and there is also a bewildered rhinoceros called Raymond, who is teleported somehow into Los Angeles and ends up in someone’s swimming pool.

None of these elements hang together really, or make any kind of sense. But you just know that Adams would have edited them, written the rest of the chapters, added other characters and plot threads, and in some magical sense made it all work out beautifully, albeit in a supremely unpredictable way. The secret of Dirk’s mission would have been revealed in all its cleverness, Dave’s existence would have fitted in perfectly, and Raymond the rhino’s story would have shown us that being teleported into a Los Angeles swimming pool was logically the most likely fate that could have befallen him.

Unfortunately, now we will never know how Douglas Adams would have done it. A few months ago (I’m writing this in early 2009) it was announced that Eoin Colfer (author of the Artemis Fowl stories) has been commissioned to write a sixth Hitchhiker novel, possibly using some of the material Adams had been working on. It might be that Colfer will also go on to write a third Dirk Gently book and carry it off very well indeed – in this unpredictable universe of ours, who knows? But it wouldn’t be the novel Douglas Adams would have written.

For me, he was one of those people who left the world a better place, because he wrote stories that were funny, intelligent, brimming with ideas and that somehow made you feel happier for having read or listened to them. I have been a fan of Douglas Adams from that day in 1978 when I happened to hear the very first radio broadcast of The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy; over thirty years later, reading The Salmon of Doubt made me feel sad, amused, exasperated and delighted all at the same time, a mix of emotions that seems somehow appropriate, given the wonderfully quirky nature of the man and his stories. How typical, really.

© Alex Cull, 29th January 2009

(As usual I’ve posted this on Helium.com and Planet Bookworm. Also on Ciao!)