Ménilmontant (Dimitri Kirsanoff, 1926)

Wow. Apparently cinematic perfection was developed in 1926. Ménilmontant proves to me that cinema is most blissful as a purely visual medium. This film needs no soundtrack and no intertitles. Kirsanoff uses his characters faces, the city that surrounds them, and incredible montages to tell a simple and heartbreaking story. Of all the other films famous for their montages and tricky camerawork from the 1920s, none of them accomplished anywhere near the emotional connection of this film. Ménilmontant is able to do all those technical things while still being first and foremost about the characters. Nadia Sibirskaia gives one of the greatest performances I have ever seen. She displays the emotions of newly discovered love, heartbreak, desperation, and hope in an unexaggerated, yet obviously real way. She gushes of innocence and is one of the most sympathetic characters to ever grace the screen. This is the best film I’ve seen in ages.  10/10

Citando a frase que um professor e  amigo passou:

Santo Agostinho: “Se você acredita em tudo o que lê, não leia.”

1 – Contexto do fato

Fato: O Climate Research Unit (CRU) da Universidade de East Anglia (Reino Unido) sofreu um vazamento de informação em algum momento da primeira quinzena de Novembro de 2009. Nesse vazamento foram copiados milhares de documentos e e-mails dos pesquisadores envolvidos nas pesquisas sobre a forçante humana, (Antropogênica), do aquecimento global.

2 – Dados disponibilizados

Os dados disponibilizados amplamente pela Internet foram inicialmente hospedados num site chamado Real Climate, e depois se espalharam para outros servidores de download de arquivos. Os dados compreendem as correspondências eletrônicas trocadas entre pelo menos 70 pesquisadores ao longo de 13 anos de pesquisas, e artigos, teses, papers para revistas dentre outros documentos como os códigos de programação dos modelos climáticos utilizados para as simulações e previsões de comportamento do clima.

Dentre estes dados também se encontram formulários de orçamentos e suas finalidades, assinadas pelos respectivos requisitantes.

3 – FOIAs – Freedom os Information Acts

F.O.I.As são documentos que servem à sociedade civil como maneira de aquisição de informação retida intencionalmente (pelo governo ou por universidades e instituições de pesquisa).

No caso desses documentos vazados existia, e ainda existe, extensa demanda por parte de grandes universidades ao redor do mundo interessadas em cruzar as informações e corroborar ou não os fatos e dados disponibilizados pelo IPCC.

Existem muitos desses documentos, dados e papers que já estavam sob tais ordens desde 2006 e que sofreram tentativas, por parte dos próprios pesquisadores da CRU, de serem apagados diretamente dos servidores, o que em si também é ilegal.

Um dos persistentes impetradores das FOIAs é Steve McIntyre.

( http://camirror.wordpress.com/ ).

4 – Os dados disponibilizados são um grande conjunto de e-mails, com linguagem informal/coloquial trocados entre os pesquisadores e outros envolvidos na distribuição e publicação dos dados.

Dentro do “pacote” de dados encontram-se também:

- Num e-mail específico há um Login e uma senha, dando idéia de que a informação foi roubada por alguém de dentro da própria CRU e postada para download posteriormente.

(http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=741&filename=1157546057.txt )

- Códigos fonte de modelos climáticos utilizados;

- Documentos internos de orçamentação e requisição de verbas;

- Documentos voltados à publicidade de grupos como o Greenpeace;

- Papers e artigos publicados desde 1995 pelos próprios pesquisadores;

- Orientações de hierarquias superiores sobre formatação e submissão de dados para revistas;

- Comentários e arquivos sobre como utilizar os modelos climáticos e seus “problemas” com os resultados alcançados;

- Imagens e caricaturas internas salvas em imagens com os rostos de outros céticos ao redor do mundo;

Enfim, grande quantidade de material sensível ao escrutínio público que abala sobremaneira a credibilidade desse pequeno grupo com grande poder em mãos.

Fica evidente em muitos aspectos a falta de habilidade dos próprios pesquisadores com a gestão do modelo climático, mesmo porque dentro do código fonte dos modelos utilizados existem comentários demonstrando a perda de dados e a supressão de etapas de cálculos.

Em muitos momentos a confusão com o código chega a ser risível, forçando os pesquisadores a simplesmente somar valores de séries aos resultados para aproximar os valores resultantes de valores previamente existentes, numa matemática infelizmente irresponsável de querer aproximar a saída dos dados de acordo com o que se espera como resultado.

Para ver a análise completa do código fonte, aconselho os links abaixo.

( http://www.devilskitchen.me.uk/2009/11/data-horribilis-harryreadmetxt-file.html )

( http://di2.nu/foia/HARRY_READ_ME-30.html )

5 – Dentro do “pacote” de documentos, existem muitas informações relevantes, por exemplo, ao estudo da forçante de vulcões e conseqüências de seus gases na atmosfera, gerando conclusões de que sempre existe um resfriamente após um intenso período de atividades vulcânicas, verificado pelo estudo do crescimento de árvores e plantas.

(http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/11/024995.php )

6 – Existem consequências principalmente no que tange a credibilidade desses dados publicados nos relatórios do IPCC. Tais dados do CRU foram utilizados desde os primeiros relatórios para formulação de políticas públicas de combate ao “aquecimento global”. Dessa forma, podemos esperar que algo seja pronunciado ao público e massa de pesquisadores caso haja ainda preocupação com a lisura do processo de apuração dos dados, já que, de qualquer forma, os dados requisitados inúmeras vezes através dos FOIAs estão disponíveis.

Visão geral:

Da mera disposição de fatos e eventos, passamos então a uma análise mais voltada ao pulso da realidade.

A primeira pergunta que me vem à mente é:

- Quem se beneficia mais com o vazamento desses dados?

Se caso for um ataque coordenado de hackers pagos pelo governo do regime X, interessado em desbancar as políticas de aquecimento global impostas pelos “facistas, imperialistas e socialistas” da ONU, a lista tem um pequeno número de suspeitos…

Se caso for um vazamento causado pela mera estupidez de se colocar um Login e uma senha interna da universidade num corpo de email, vejo que o “hacker” nem teve tanto trabalho… Talvez a motivação tenha sido mais pessoal do que o imaginário do hacker tenha concebido. Talvez um aluno ou orientando do grupo de pesquisas tenha tido acesso ao email, ou talvez um técnico de informática da sala de servidores tenha feito o trabalho por mero sadismo.

Se caso for um Wistleblower, alguém que esperou o momento certo para fazer a denúncia e fazer a “Verda bater no Mertilador”, acredito que a motivação venha corroborar o lado dos céticos que há tantos anos esperavam esses dados para cruzar com suas próprias metodologias de cálculo.

De fato,  “existem digitais por toda a parte”… O que dificulta ainda mais a análise clara de “quem , quando, quanto, onde e porquê” desse fato.

O quê não podemos perder de vista aqui é a visão mais ampla:

- Caso a forçante humana não seja a maior responsável pelo aquecimento global, o quê acontece com a ideologia “Poluo, logo existo!”?

Um fator importante para a análise mais ampla:

O Aquecimento Global em Marte.

(http://g1.globo.com/Noticias/Ciencia/0,,MUL18305-5603,00-MARTE+TAMBEM+VIVE+AQUECIMENTO+GLOBAL.html )

“Com base nas mudanças na luz refletida pela superfície do planeta — uma medida conhecida como o albedo de um objeto –, os cientistas concluíram que o planeta esquentou cerca de 0,65ºC entre os anos 70 e os anos 90, o que pode explicar o recente recuo na calota de gelo do pólo sul de Marte.”.

Porquê o aquecimento global em marte é importante?

Por dois motivos:

- O primeiro: Se conseguimos verificar mudanças climáticas em um Planeta no qual não há consumo, não há petróleo, não há seres-humanos, deveríamos ser capazes de medir algo parecido aqui no Planeta Terra.

- O segundo: Se tomarmos como verdade o fato de que temos a habilidade de calcular com precisão decimal o aumento de temperatura num planeta distante, como podemos, então, ter de passar pela infeliz trajetória dos dados da CRU? E o pior, como podemos acreditar que em Marte existe “aquecimento global”, mas aqui na Terra não existe?

Outro fator importante:

O aquecimento global em Júpiter:

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap080523.html

Mais uma vez… Júpiter é um planeta basicamente gasoso, no entanto sofre as conseqüências de suas próprias mudanças climáticas. Alguém vai tentar discordar da existência de Júpiter?

A conclusão que fica é simples:

Não há possibilidade de consenso enquanto o mercado controlar o interesse da ciência.

O IPCC tem sua credibilidade manchada por inconseqüência(?) de menos de uma centena de pesquisadores;

As políticas gestadas pelo IPCC perdem credibilidade por tabela;

Tudo em nome de dados ruins num cronograma apertado.

Fica patente a necessidade de um purgamento científico, que infelizmente não virá em nome da boa ciência, virá com amargura e revolta de outros grupos com interesses menos escusos do que o de “consertar” os dados apresentados pelas entidades tidas como plausíveis de credibilidade.

Fico triste, por ser engenheiro ambiental, com as conseqüências desse evento, que servirá apenas para alavancar mais e mais as posturas dos intransigentes e negadores das Mudanças Climáticas e enfraquecer ainda mais os dados futuramente apresentados por mais genuínos que sejam.

Fico indignado porque os créditos de carbono tem se tornado uma ferramenta afiada no cerceamento das capacidades produtivas e reprodutivas da humanidade em nome de se tornarem instrumentos de governança política e mercadológica global.

Tais créditos de carbono, assemelhando-se aos derivativos já tão explorados por especulação, tornam-se formas de concentração de capital e potencial produtivo nas mãos de Bancos, tirando dos países a responsabilidade de conter a degradação ambiental em nome da sua população e de seu futuro, e legando a um conjunto de toneladas de CO₂ equivalentes ditar se podemos ter filhos ou crescer como países.

Os créditos de carbono se tornaram a ferramenta ideal para a resposta da crise de mercado, (que ainda tem muito a piorar assim que o Ouro cruzar a barreira dos 1500 dólares por onça) , por relacionar todas as formas de dominância corporativas num preço facilmente convertível em SDRs (Special Drawing Rights).

Portanto, se existe a forçante antropogênica das mudaças climáticas, ela veio em nome de mercado primeiramente, e depois a “ciência” – ou pseudo ciência – ou ciência do Consenso –   se encarrega de gerar os dados que dêem base para a argumentação. Enquanto isso especula-se financeiramente com os números apresentados no meio do caminho.

O futuro?

De agora em diante, é “truco em mão de 11”.

Pouco importa se São Paulo colocou metas de redução de N%, ou se o Japão colocou (N-1)% para os cortes de suas emissões.

Caso os países signatários resolvam pedir análises massivas dos dados apresentados como fonte de fortalecimento e auxílio às tomadas de decisões de políticas públicas, qual será a reação das instituições que geraram esses dados? Torres de Marfim ou resignados servos implorando por perdão? Enfim, quem vai convencer os países signatários desse acordo a destinar parte de seu PIB para combater “O Aquecimento Global”?

E o pior, caso os signatários resolvam repartir o bolo e decidir quem gera os dados em seus países… Qual a credibilidade e transparência necessárias para colocar em ação um plano desses? Quem vai pagar as taxas? Quem vai se dar ao trabalho de reler e cruzar os dados novamente?

Uma coisa é certa, existem muitas informações que ainda virão à tona até à COP-15 e que ditarão o futuro do mercado mundial de carbono. Resta saber até lá quem acredita no que mais lhe interessa e quem acredita no que lhes é apresentado, numa forma de escolha dentre as opções menos piores.

Agradeço com muita humildade, e sabendo o meu lugar, os conselhos do professor Horta.

Emily Pitts writes:

As the lights begin to fade on 2009, thought turns to the New Year and what hope we might have for progress on climate change in 2010. And sound the bells; it looks like hopes should be pretty high. Global commitments to climate change (that were due to take place at the Copenhagen talks in December) are now taking place early next year in Mexico, and the UK’s much-publicised 10:10 campaign that invites individuals and organisations to reduce their carbon emissions by 10% over the course of the year, officially kicks off in January. (The Futures Company has signed up).

However, there’s still a fair way to go before we can be confident of 2010’s ability to announce the dawn of a new era. Look at where the most influential global powers are on the issue, for example with Obama’s well-publicised absence from the Copenhagen talks next month. [Update 26/11: No sooner had we posted this than Obama decided to go to Copenhagen after all].  There is no doubt that he is concerned about climate change and takes it seriously. It is also equally clear that the difficulties he faces domestically from within the Senate are serious, and have led him to feel that the possibility of reaching global accord this year is unrealistic.

In spite of this, there is something undeniably depressing about a protocol to replace Kyoto being delayed. Even alone, the very symbolism of the American president’s absence from Copenhagen packs a powerful punch in the gut of the climate change movement.

This tardiness to act on climate change is increasingly at odds with public opinion. 2009 Global Monitor data shows that globally, 67% of consumers agree that climate change is the biggest single problem facing the world today – even after the financial crisis. Take also, the proliferation of grass-roots movements that are galvanising the public’s appetite for change and progress, from 10:10, to Do the Green Thing, to the Campaign against Climate Change, as well as a host of cultural interventions (the RSA’s Arts and Ecology blog is the best guide).

The chasm between the positions of politicians and the public on climate change is perilous. There are risks here for politicians as well, if they get too far out of step with what the public is both saying and doing. Even in the US, carbon emissions are now falling. Closing the gap and delivering meaningful action from the top as well as the bottom could see 2010 jubilant in realising its potential for being the year that finally delivers on climate change.

The picture is from the greenzer blog, and is used with thanks.

Children of Men (A. Cuaron, 2006)

I had the good fortune of getting to see this in the theater during its opening back in 2006, and it was one of best theatrical experiences of my life. The film’s cinematography brings its intense world to the forefront and easily makes you a part of it. The hand-held camera, amazing long takes (the best ever?), and even beautifully desolate (and meticulously crafted) scenery are all perfect, making this one of the best shot films I have ever seen. The cinematography’s realism is equally matched by the screenplay and performances. There is a strange sense of naturalism in this film, considering it’s a apocalypse-inevitable film. We don’t feel like we are shoved way into the future, watching some sort of possible reality. This film feels like a reality that could be here right now. The way the characters talk, react, and just exist feel exactly as if this was happening.

Of course, this sense of realism makes the film a bit frightening with its impending horror that the human race will soon be extinct. (For those that don’t know, the film is set in an infertile world.) As a result, when hope is placed into this world, the sense of importance is just as great as the fright that preceded it. As I said the first time I saw this movie, this might be the best nativity story movie out there. The parallels are obvious, though I believe they are intended to be. Still, it brings a new sense of realism to a story most of us take for granted. The film includes several emotionally accurate scenes, and is near perfect in every way.  9.75/10

Who’d have thought? Last night Stoke on Trent became the first city to sign up to the 10:10 commitment. The council, the college, Staffordshire University, businesses, churches, Port Vale Football club, and several schools have all signed up, making it a city-wide initiative.

Quite a surprise. I lived in Stoke on Trent for four years, and it never struck me as a hot-bed of environmental forward thinking. It is however, a place in need of renewal, and the greening of Stoke could have far-reaching effects. With the potteries going or gone, the industrial heart of Stoke on Trent has crumbled. A re-invention as a green pioneer could be a hugely successful idea, showing plenty of other towns how climate change action can be positive, creating jobs and local pride.

It’s also a great boost for the 10:10 organisation. “It is hugely exciting to see Stoke-on-Trent become the first 10:10 city” said Eugenie Harvie, director of 10:10. “This is what 10:10 is all about – people and groups, committed to combating climate change, coming together to pack a punch far greater than they could have on their own. Seeing this in action here in Stoke strengthens my conviction that Britain will be a leader in demonstrating that people can and will take action to turn climate change around.”

10:10 in Stoke appears to be largely the work of MP Joan Walley, long standing Stoke on Trent North MP and member of the committee behind the Climate Change Bill. She will be attending the Copenhagen summit, and it’s great to see an MP dealing with climate change at both the global and local level.

I’ve been quite critical of the 10:10 campaign previously, not because I believe it will be damaging or because it’s misguided per se, but because we all know we need to more than wear woollen jumpers, which is one of the things people can do to allegedly reduce their emissions by 10%, and because any sort of campaign like this invariably gets latched on by politicians who frankly should have all been doing it long ago – same with the environmentalists and precisely why I haven’t joined up.

However, this article on the Guardian provides some good reasons and stories as to why the 10:10 campaign may still be a good thing for the wider population.

It discusses the 10:10 campaign in Stoke and how certain groups are responding to the campaign. The one that struck me was a sports club that backs it because they support their local (Labour) MP, who has helped them in the past.

It struck home to me how even despite the media dominence (relative to a decade ago) of climate change and the environment now it’s still something distant and unreal to many people, so it was interesting to see how a social club reacted to the campaign.

Meanwhile Port Vale has got the Carbon Trust in to ‘give them a good going over’ (speaking of which, is the excellent Carbon Trust one of the quangos David Cameron wants to scrap?) and Stoke’s cycling city project officer has helped increase the number of pupils cycling to schools to multiply by 10.

All these things, really, should have been done anyway – but in business and in our personal lives life gets in the way – so if the 10:10 campaign helps focus people’s mind on the issue of climate change, on what they can do and in many cases how they can save money doing it – then you can only support that.

Still have to say though, that I still think it’s gimmicky when politicians get involved and the Lib Dems whinge about the government not officially signing up to it despite us already having legally binding targets to hit regardless.

Aguirre, the Wrath of God (Werner Herzog, 1972)

I had the chance to see this on the big screen last night. This is my third time through this great movie and I still find myself flustered by the chaos at hand every time. This is the quintessential movie about delusions of grandeur. The role of Aguirre was designed for Klaus Kinski and he is amazing in it. I don’t think there is another actor alive who is strange enough, and who possesses the right kind of attitude to have pulled this off. This time through, what I noticed for the first time was the chaotic actions of the rest of the crew. No one spews hilarious non-sensical dialogue like Aguirre, but everyone’s actions still express an extreme amount disorder. In fact, the audience around me starting to become so uncomfortable with watching these men break down, they starting laughing at nearly everything, even scenes not meant to be humorous.

What I find to be most enjoyable about the film is the way the river these men travel down presents both an intense and a calming tone. In fact, while there is still some sanity in this group of men, the river is wild and dangerous. As the film continues and everyone begins losing it, the river is mostly calm, making for an interesting contrast. Even the latter Indian attacks are almost silent and strangely poetic. Additionally, the cinematography and soundtrack (though much more sparingly used than I remembered) are also excellent. This is definitely one of Herzog’s best.  9.5/10

Apart from two light fittings, all of the bulbs in our house are traditional incandescents. And there are lots of them. Tackling them all at once would be a mammoth task, so we’re going at it in a piecemeal fashion. Now that the evenings are drawing in we’re using the lights in the house a lot more, and I think they’re starting to become a significant drain on our electricity consumption.

My first spot to start was the bathroom. This has three – yes three – recessed light fittings. That makes it sound palatial, but it’s not. What it is is unbearably bright. Each fitting takes a full-size “R80” 100 watt reflector bulb. Luckily these had been progressively blowing, so at point of replacement we only had one running, and the light in the room was adequate, although poorly spread.

After some detailed online research I gave up and went to B&Q. Quite a lot of money later I had three Megaman 11W R63 reflector bulbs – each one equivalent to a 60W conventional bulb. I went for the slightly smaller, lower-powered R63 size because I new that three 100W-equivalent bulbs would be far too bright.

Putting them in was easy; the bulbs fitted perfectly and didn’t protrude from the ceiling. Turning them on was a little less impressive. Startup is a little slow, with them remaining dim for a little too long for my liking. Once they are all going though they are impressively bright – in fact if they’d had more of a choice I might have been tempted to go for something closer to 8W (40W equivalent). Still, even with these three, we’ve reduced the wattage in the bathroom from 300W to 33W – that should help our electricity bills a little, be a good step towards our 10:10 target, and make us a little more solar-ready.

VERDICT:
10/10 Awesome Dads

One hell of a debut effort by director Sam Mendes and screenwriter Alan Ball. Also happens to be my good buddy Fred’s favorite movie of all time.

Good choice, Fred.

American Beauty is about Lester Burnham, a guy going through a mid-life crisis thanks to the “good job” he hates, the “good marriage” that failed a long time ago, the estranged relationship he has with his daughter that he sees every day but hardly even knows, and the facade of a “good life” he grudgingly maintains in suburban America for the sake of everyone but himself. Then one day he meets his next-door neighbor – a dope-dealing classmate of his daughter – who teaches Lester by example that life is too short to just sit back and accept the way things are. Lester listens, Lester abides, and so begins the story of the most entertaining and profound mid-life crisis I’ve ever seen put to film.

While I’m on the subject, I’m just gonna go ahead and get my Lester Burnham/Kevin Spacey rant out of the way, mainly because he’s a big reason this movie got a 10.

Alright, here it goes…

Lester Burnham is the man. Arguably one of the top three movie protagonists…ever. Part of that is because he’s played by Kevin Spacey, who also happens to be the man and one of the best working actors out there today (now if only he’d take better roles). It helps that Burnham’s such a well-written character to begin with, but it’s not often in movies that you see an actor really become the character he’s playing. The reason the change from Lester the Buzzkill to Lester the Hero is so effective is because Spacey is just so damn believable and invested as he sticks up a big ol’ middle finger to the life he can’t stand and punches it square in the kisser as he passes it by with an ear-to-ear grin on his face.

It’s an amazing display of character development, it’s an amazing display of life in general.

But everyone else is  great, too. Annette Bening is fantastic as Lester’s wife, Carolyn, the one person in the family who seems to relish in their superficial existence and has no idea how to cope with her husband’s sudden disdain for it. She’s a great counterpoint to Lester’s whole mindset and Bening does a great job of making her feel both trapped and

Thora Birch (where’d she go?) is good as Lester’s daughter, Jane. Mena Suvari (probably hiding out with Thora) is good as Jane’s best friend/Lester’s lust interest. I thought Wes Bentley (who has since taken up a campaign to destroy his own career from the inside out with big roles in Ghost Rider and P2) was really good as the terribly odd, yet terribly fascinating Ricky Fitts, Jane’s main squeeze and Lester’s weed pusher/personal idol next door. And Chris Cooper and Allison Janney are also awesome in their own disturbing ways as Ricky’s parents.

Probably could have just left that at “everyone else is great, too,” but hey, good casts like this deserve their props.

And like I said, what an amazing script by Alan Ball. Sam Mendes might be the reason this movie looks so damn good, but the brilliant characters, the wonderful dialogue, and the way this thing goes from great scene to great scene to great scene goes right back to Ball. We’ve all got our favorite moments, and that’s ’cause there’s a lot of ‘em here.

The plastic bag dancing in the wind.

Lester blackmailing his boss.

Lester chucking the asparagus and changing the music.

Lester working the drive-thru window.

Carolyn belting out “Don’t Rain On My Parade” right before she’s pulls into her driveway.

Just so many great scenes here thanks to a perfect little partnership between Mendes and Ball. Those guys should really get back together.

What more can I say about American Beauty. Best movie of 2000, deserved the freakin’ slew of awards it got that year, and it’s the best thing Sam Mendes has done for the world. Still the most insightful and eye-opening behind-closed-doors look into suburban life, and I’ll be damned if that statement ever changes.

…And the scene where Lester goes off on Carolyn after she stops his advances because he’s about to spill beer on their couch – one of my favorite scenes of all time.

“This isn’t life, it’s just stuff! And it’s become more important to you than living. Well, honey, that’s just nuts.”

Fuckin’-A, Lester. Fuckin’-A.

In December 2007, the Isle of Wight council began styling the Island ‘Eco Island’. In spite of this, they have just declined to commit to the 10:10 campaign, that is, to cutting the Council’s carbon emissions by 10% by the end of 2010.

Read, first, about the hope:

http://ventnorblog.com/2009/10/20/isle-of-wight-council-urged-to-join-1010-campaign/

And then the disappointment:

http://ventnorblog.com/2009/11/09/isle-of-wight-council-reject-1010-carbon-reduction-agreement/

We got back on Sunday after a week spent in an actually properly heated house to find the temperature had dropped sharply, with yesterday bringing our first really hard frost of the season. It’s eased off a bit now (winter here seems to come in two flavours: cold and sparkly or less cold and dreich and for once this morning I was actually quite pleased to welcome the dreich) but we’ve switched into cold weather mode: moving out of our (damp, in the ‘north wing’ and with three external walls) bedroom and into the guest room (merely damp), digging out the thermals and dressing in front of the Rayburn. Oh, and we’ve had to break down and switch on the heating for a couple of hours every day.

If my calculations are correct, and it would help if our magic wireless oil-level measuring thing actually worked rather than simply blinked at us, we’ve used about 100 litres of oil a month since we re-lighted the Rayburn, but without running the heating. That compares with an average monthly consumption of oil of about 200 litres a month over the year (including the summer when the Rayburn was off). I was beginning to wonder last year if our oil tank was actually leaking, or whether it was the Rayburn that was consuming all the oil. Now I realise it was just that we were running our enormously inefficient boiler. Sadly, replacing the boiler is in our landlord’s hands and as they would bear all the cost and we would reap all the benefit, it’s hard to see how to best to persuade them to get it replaced so I’ve settled for glaring at it to see if giving it the evil eye will leave it irreparably broken. Sadly, it appears to be built like a tank and indestructable. British engineering at its best, bastard thing.

So that leaves trying to minimise its use, which means keeping the house as cold as we can bear it. These days, I prepare to go outside – on the bike or into the garden – by taking layers off, rather than putting them on. And this is only November. It’s not even officially winter yet…

… remind me, when was it last year that it started to get warm again?

Item #1010

This hand-dyed blue faced Leicester roving for spinning is 4 oz. of red grape/green colors.  It is a soft and bouncy wool, good for beginner or advanced spinners.

10:10 is an ambitious project to unite every sector of British society behind one simple idea: that by working together we can achieve a 10% cut in the UK’s carbon emissions in 2010.  Find out more at 10:10

Olá, leitores!

Como o clima anda meio agitado com relação à COP-15, dei uma lida na pré-redação do acordo que será assinado na COP-15.

Aconselho a leitura do Blog do Wall Street Journal:

Has Anyone Read the Copenhagen Agreement?

U.N. plans for a new ‘government’ are scary.

We can only hope that world leaders will do nothing more than enjoy a pleasant bicycle ride around the charming streets of Copenhagen come December. For if they actually manage to wring out an agreement based on the current draft text of the Copenhagen climate-change treaty, the world is in for some nasty surprises. Draft text, you say? If you haven’t heard about it, that’s because none of our otherwise talkative political leaders have bothered to tell us what the drafters have already cobbled together for leaders to consider. And neither have the media.

Enter Lord Christopher Monckton. The former adviser to Margaret Thatcher gave an address at Bethel University in St. Paul, Minnesota, earlier this month that made quite a splash. For the first time, the public heard about the 181 pages, dated Sept. 15, that comprise the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change—a rough draft of what could be signed come December.

So far there have been more than a million hits on the YouTube post of his address. It deserves millions more because Lord Monckton warns that the aim of the Copenhagen draft treaty is to set up a transnational “government” on a scale the world has never before seen.

The “scheme for the new institutional arrangement under the Convention” that starts on page 18 contains the provision for a “government.” The aim is to give a new as yet unnamed U.N. body the power to directly intervene in the financial, economic, tax and environmental affairs of all the nations that sign the Copenhagen treaty.

The reason for the power grab is clear enough: Clause after complicated clause of the draft treaty requires developed countries to pay an “adaptation debt” to developing countries to supposedly support climate change mitigation. Clause 33 on page 39 says that “by 2020 the scale of financial flows to support adaptation in developing countries must be [at least $67 billion] or [in the range of $70 billion to $140 billion per year].”

And how will developed countries be slugged to provide for this financial flow to the developing world? The draft text sets out various alternatives, including option seven on page 135, which provides for “a [global] levy of 2 per cent on international financial market [monetary] transactions to Annex I Parties.” Annex 1 countries are industrialized countries, which include among others the U.S., Australia, Britain and Canada.

To be sure, countries that sign international treaties always cede powers to a U.N. body responsible for implementing treaty obligations. But the difference is that this treaty appears to have been subject to unusual attempts to conceal its convoluted contents. And apart from the difficulty of trying to decipher the U.N. verbiage, there are plenty of draft clauses described as “alternatives” and “options” that should raise the ire of free and democratic countries concerned about preserving their sovereignty.

Lord Monckton himself only became aware of the extraordinary powers to be vested in this new world government when a friend found an obscure U.N. Web site and searched through several layers of hyperlinks before discovering a document that isn’t even called the draft “treaty.” Instead, it’s labelled a “Note by the Secretariat.”

Interviewed by broadcaster Alan Jones on Sydney radio Monday, Lord Monckton said “this is the first time I’ve ever seen any transnational treaty referring to a new body to be set up under that treaty as a ‘government.’ But it’s the powers that are going to be given to this entirely unelected government that are so frightening.” He added: “The sheer ambition of this new world government is enormous right from the start—that’s even before it starts accreting powers to itself in the way that these entities inevitably always do.”

Critics have admonished Lord Monckton for his colorful language. He has certainly been vigorous. In his exposé of the draft Copenhagen treaty in St. Paul, he warned Americans that “in the next few weeks, unless you stop it, your president will sign your freedom, your democracy and your prosperity away forever.” Yet his critics fail to deal with the substance of what he says.

Ask yourself this question: Given that our political leaders spend hundreds of hours talking about climate change and the need for a global consensus in Copenhagen, why have none of them talked openly about the details of this draft climate-change treaty? After all, the final treaty will bind signatories for years to come. What exactly are they hiding? Thanks to Lord Monckton we now know something of their plans.

Janos Pasztor, director of the Secretary-General’s Climate Change Support Team, told reporters in New York Monday that with the U.S. Congress yet to pass a climate-change bill, a global climate-change treaty is now an unlikely outcome in Copenhagen. Let’s hope he is right. And thank you, America.

Ms. Albrechtsen is a columnist for the Australian.

Link para o Download do Rascunho do Acordo: AQUI

Vídeo Aula de Lord Monckton:

Truly the definitive horror film that will never get old.

When larcenous real estate clerk Marion Crane (Janet Leigh) goes on the lam with a wad of cash and hopes of starting a new life, she ends up at the notorious Bates Motel, where twitchy manager Norman Bates (Anthony Perkins) cares for his housebound mother. The place seems quirky but fine … until Marion decides to take a shower.

What could possibly be said about Psycho that hasn’t been said before? It certainly must be one of the most famous movies of all time. Having heard so much about it, I really doubted if the movie could live up to my expectations. Amazingly, it actually exceeded my expectations.

Psycho is basically a horror film that was the first to ever come out, and it might as well be one of the greatest. I’m not a huge fan of those gore-fest films with over excessive nudity, blood, and violence. So because this film was basically made back in the 60’s there really is none of what we get nowadays with these horror films.

The one amazing thing about Psycho that not many other films do is that it really is a timeless film that really has aged perfectly. It isn’t corny nor is it dumb now that we look at it, it is still a great thrilling horror film.

Alfred Hitchcock really is one of the greatest director’s of all-time. I’m not talking in the horror genre, I’m talking of all film. He uses these camera angles and looks during each scenes to really have us capture the essence that something just isn’t right. The famous shower scene that almost everyone knows is great, and really is worth, just to see.

Anthony Perkins shines in this film as the creepiest mo fo in the whole film as Norman Bates. He creates one of the first great creepy characters on film, and he actually does make this person seem creepy as he talks more and more.

Consensus: Alfred Hitchcock shows he is the greatest director of all-time with Psycho. A film that has aged really well, and is an amazing watch of how much it’s influence in the horror genre that we see all today is in.

10/10=Full Pricee!!

As a way to mix some of my old reviews in with my new reviews, I’m doing a Best of… Series. In this series, I will review my favorite movie of each year.

The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford (Andrew Dominik, 2007)

This was easily my most anticipated film of 2007. I remember reading about it, seeing the trailers, watching clips, and thinking it might be the best movie Terrence Malick never made. After seeing it the first time, I couldn’t help but be disappointed. I thought the film was fantastic, but it didn’t live up to the Terrence Malick standards I had unfairly placed on it. It wasn’t until I watched it a couple more time that I began to appreciate it as its own film.

First, the Malick comparisons are entirely skin deep. Yes, the film is shot beautifully (in my top 10 most visually impressive films actually), but outside of that, this movie is its own thing. The film deals with the themes of idolization, respect, disappointment, and (as the title suggests) cowardice. And all of those themes come to life thanks to the wonderful performance from Casey Affleck. To me, this was one of the best performances of the decade. Affleck uses his entire repertoire of face, body, and voice to create an unforgettable Robert Ford. The rest of the cast really helps back him up as well. Brad Pitt is great. Sam Rockwell, Paul Schneider, Sam Shepard, and Garret Dillahunt are all fantastic, playing smaller roles here.

I should probably also mention the film’s soundtrack, composed and performed by Nick Cave and Warren Ellis. It very well might be my favorite movie soundtrack ever. It helps define the tone as incredibly poetic, and (combined with the lingering pace and amazing cinematography) makes this film a strangely ethereal experience.  10/10

Tonight, on Jay Leno, Jimmy Rollins was a guest for the “10 at 10″ segment. Basically, it’s just a short couple minute long thing where Jay asks 10 questions. Anyway, the final question for Young James was for his prediction on the series. His answer went something like this:

“Well, of course, we’re gonna win. If we’re nice, we’ll let it go 6, but I’m thinking 5, close it out at home.”

Hopefully, I can come up with a video of this at some point, from somewhere, because I’m certainly not computer savvy enough to know how to do that stuff.

Keep reading for a video of Young James, making his predictions…

Update: Here’s a link to the video, starting with question #8…

Sorry, I’m not smart enough to figure out how to post the video on here, unless it’s a youtube one or something. Anyway, enjoy…

An old geezer takes flight.

After a lifetime of dreaming of traveling the world, 78-year-old homebody Carl (voiced by Ed Asner) is lured into an unbelievable adventure, thanks in part to the persistence of Russell, an 8-year-old Wilderness Explorer (Jordan Nagai). Together, the unlikely pair embarks on a thrilling odyssey full of jungle beasts and rough terrain.

This is Pixar’s first hit at a 3-D film and might as well be their best work to date. With Up they dive into a world vivid and alive, rich in detail, and somehow despite the obvious lack of realism, completely authentic.

Pixar’s one great thing about their films is that they can create this mashing of heart and humor in one film to make it work, but I think this is one of their best work combining the two. In the beginning of the film we get a montage of Carl and his wife together throughout the years of their marriage, is some of the best animation in a film to date. It’s gut-wrenching, and true showing all the high’s and the low’s of marriage.

Up is actually one of those really special films that when it comes out you must see. It’s a very timeless film tat doesn’t act like many other Pixar films. It doesn’t have those jokes that are more for the adults and go right over the children head, there all for everyone in the crowd to understand.

Never in my life have I come closer to crying at a Pixar film in my life. Up really deals with some tough and heart-wrenching themes, such as love, death, and most all life in general. There are some scenes that just bring out a huge batch of emotion from inside of you out into this movie, and it was all worth it, cause it really does mean something when you cry watching this film.

Ed Asner voices Carl, and if there is anybody that can do the voice of an old grumpy man it’s him, because he does an amazing job right here. Also the voice of the little kid was also very good, along with the talking doug ,Dug, who every time talked made me laugh every time. Christopher Plummer also comes out of nowhere and does a great voice over playing the villain.

Though Up was sad and serious it still has some comedy that stays with you throughout the film and is well-worth it. Also, there is a message that really means something that is saying that you did accomplish something in life and life is an adventure.

Consensus: Up is exciting, heart-felt, and also hilarious. This is one of more Pixar’s most serious work to date, but has a great message and brings out the best within you.

10/10=Fulll Priceee!!!

The Lovebox Festival in London and the Isle of Wight’s Bestival are the latest organisations to sign up to the 10:10 climate change campaign which asks members to cut their carbon emissions by 10%.  The organisation now has more than 38,000 individual members and 1200 companies and organisations including Tottenham Hotspur football club, Adidas, Microsoft UK and 56 local councils. Both festivals say they are looking to reduce their carbon emissions with Lovebox’s Tom Findlay saying “I was very fired up by the whole notion of the 10:10 campaign” adding “a lot of it is just enormous practical common sense” but cautioning that ”there is no one fundamentally brilliant idea to solve it”. Lovebox are looking at better transport solutions, using sustainable power and providing water fountains to make a change and reduce emissions. At Bestival, organiser and radio 1 DJ  Rob da Bank said “we will be looking to make cuts in emissions by creating incentives to use public transport” – the festival will also be using more solar power and local biofuels as well as promoting car sharing. Bestival won an ‘oustanding’ Greener Festival Award in 2009.

Well I’ve made my views on the 10:10 campaign clear before but this is precisely why I am wary of campaigns like this, especially when politicians stick their oar in.

The government didn’t back a tokenistic, populist Lib Dem bill for the government/Westminster to back the 10:10 campaign.

The reason, as Ed Miliband writes on Labourlist, is that they’re already doing more than that and don’t want an overlapping of random targets and campaigns.

That of course hasn’t stopped Lib Dem bleating about how the government aren’t taking climate change seriously enough, as if backing this campaign would prove it one way or another.

Thus we have Simon Hughes, one of the most ‘respected’ Lib Dems (as much as any Lib Dem who isn’t Vince Cable is respected) and their Climate Change spokesperson saying ‘We could have TVs turned off when they’re not needed; we could have lights turned off; we could turn off computers,’ as if any of this cannot be done unless the government backed a Lib Dem bill.

It’s his next statement however, that winds me up beyond belief, ‘We could use stairs rather than lifts’.

What a stupid statement. As it happens, most of the energy used in lifts is done by counterweights and gravity – the actual energy use of a lift is absolutely minute, possibly a couple of watts per floor. Yes I appreciate the cumulative effect from over 600 MPs but seriously, for someone who is effectively a Lib Dem Shadow Minister to come up with this drivel is embarassing.

In the mean time Angela Eagle announces that Westminster is saving £7 million a year through efficiency and energy efficiency drives.

Ed Miliband is driving a campaign for a new Kyoto deal in Copenhagen later in the year and his Lib Dem counterpart is whinging about lifts and bottled water. It’s pathetic and exactly the reason I have avoided the 10:10 vision thing, yes it’s worthwhile in and of itself but frankly it’s all stuff that everyone should be doing anyway.

Not to blow my own trumpet but I’ve been doing this sort of thing for years – millions of people have been doing various things just through common sense rather than an overwhelming desire to save the environment.

The Lib Dems are famous for their tokenistic approach to politics, but this is genuinely the most pathetic example I’ve yet seen.