While the floods and the bloody EPA preoccupy the country, other nasty things charge along regardless too e.g. this from Techdirt:
As governments around the world refuse to act in the wake of revelations about global spying, more and more people are launching legal actions to force them to address the problem. Back in December we wrote about several that had been filed in the UK, and now the well-known Chaos Computer Club (CCC) in Germany is launching its own legal challenge, in conjunction with the International League for Human Rights.
And even in the region of the unprovable, Govt does at least reveal that deliberate moves are something in its consciousness:
UK Government Response to the House of Commons Science and Technology
Committee’s 5th Report from Session 2009-10: The Regulation of Geoengineering
This memorandum sets out the Government’s response to the conclusions and recommendations of the report, and has been prepared by the Department of Energy and Climate Change with contributions from GO-Science, BIS, Defra, FCO and RCUK.
The Government agrees that the current definition of geoengineering encompasses a broad range of technologies and techniques, and confirms that methods of weather modification (such as cloud seeding) that achieve local (within national boundary) effects of a transient nature, are not included in our definition of geoengineering.
And of course, such a statement as this, touching on the Groenigen gas fields earthquakes:
NAM spokesman Chiel Seined commented that while they always knew that earthquakes could occur, they are no longer sure what the new maximum magnitude could be. He also said people could count on being compensated by NAM for any damage to their property, but refused to rule out that someone might die as a result of an earthquake, stating “you can never exclude anything.”
… only reignites the fracking v stop earthquakes debate. The hardheaded brigade on our side of politics will snort derisively and say fracking hasn’t been proven to do anything of the sort but I’d point out that we have a gap here between what theoretically is not a natural consequence and how it is made into a consequence in the manner in which it is done and that, in turn, comes back to the same old argument of intention v incompetence.
Is someone deliberately producing these things or is it incompetence from university graduate engineers v proper engineers and that, in turn, leads back to the question of how such piece of paper engineers got to be in charge of drilling anyway and that comes back to those in positions to employ and that comes back to the new culture and who is driving that.
Which comes back to haiku’s question of who are the real criminals?
Basically, it looks like GCHQ was engaged in widespread DDoSing, while at the same time helping to convict some kids for doing their own DDoSing. We’ve already questioned whether or not GCHQ is even supposed to be doing that to UK citizens (they’re supposed to be focused on foreign targets), but some of those convicted are already questioning how it’s right that they were convicted of the same thing that the GCHQ itself was doing to them.
Indeed. We could be forgiven for thinking we’re now living in some great circus whose theme is criminal insanity.
[H/Ts haiku and Ian PJ]