I thought I’d write a more diversionary and entertaining piece as I am, like most people, heartily sick of the miserable and depressing news. I’ll be 66 in three weeks, joining the ranks of old age pensioners. It’s impossible not to look back sometimes.
Exactly 60 years ago Gerry (whom I met once) and Sylvia Anderson and their team of brilliant puppeteers and effects designers, among them the unmatched Derek Meddings, were completing their Stingray series for ITV. For those who don’t know, this involved the World Aquanaut Security Patrol (WASP), charged with keeping the oceans safe. These were treated much as modern science fiction shows deep space. Under water were lethal foes like King Titan of Titanica and his aquaphibian troops, but also more benign characters.
Leading the defences were Captain Troy Tempest with Lt. ‘Phones’, aided by the diaphanous and mute nymph Marina, an escapee from Titan’s domain. They operated out of Marineville, a futuristic city with buildings that dropped underground at the slightest prospect of trouble, and had subterranean silos where Stingray, a submarine that looked like a cross between a shark and a spaceship, waited to be launched with Tempest at the helm.
“Anything can happen in the next half hour,” snapped the handicapped and chipper CO, Commander Shore from his electric buggy in an interestingly far-sighted example of TV six decades hence. He was less woke in his enthusiasm to launch nuclear missiles the moment Titan sent his mechanical fish out to loose off rounds at Troy Tempest. Titan’s strike was usually based on intelligence from Surface Agent, a cloaked and vaguely reptilian figure who sounded a bit like a fishy version of James Mason and lived in a Daphne du Maurier novel style house at the top of a cliff.
There was something vaguely Cold War about it all. Now, I do remember my parents’ fear during the Cuban Missile Crisis and their distress when JFK was assassinated. But I watched Stingray with sheer exhilaration. Despite being populated by puppets with visible strings, it was fantastically exciting and came off the back of earlier series like Supercar.
I thought back to this today and the sort of world I was growing up in. It was grotty in many ways. Everyone smoked so almost all indoor areas were disgusting. The air stank from car, truck and bus fumes, coal gas, and even more so from coal fires. Few people had central heating. The village in which I now live was only just in the throes of acquiring electricity, sewage and mains water. My mother assured me constantly that Harold Wilson, who became leader of the Labour Party in 1963, and Prime Minister the following year, was a “crook”, which made me believe he was a literal thief who robbed people.
None of that mattered to me. I wasn’t being ground down by SATs tests or endless doom-laden Covid death porn, being locked inside my house on Government orders, or climate misery news items on the TV. Schools weren’t built round Ofsted inspections. The teaching was usually rotten of course and the facilities lousy but at least we had time to do our own thing. There wasn’t much TV anyway. Mostly, I played with the other kids in my street in Wimbledon where I grew up. I was allowed to do much as I pleased, and by the time I was seven I was travelling to school on my own by bus and train.
Highlights of the week were not only Stingray, and then its successor the epic and overwhelming Thunderbirds, but also The Man From Uncle and The Saint. They propelled me all in some way into an exciting world of sophistication, the celebration of new technology and an overwhelming sense of optimism. My father took me and my brother in 1965 to see the Beatles in the movie Help!, an experience so joyous and vivid it is hard to believe it was over 58 years ago.
But that paled compared to the day in 1966 in Cornwall where by some amazing freak of fate it was pouring with rain on the day we had been booked to see a Midsummer Night’s Dream at the Minack Open Air Theatre. In the week leading up to this I had been hag-ridden with horror at the dreadful prospect of having to sit through that for hours. But a miracle happened. The play was cancelled thanks to the horrible weather and we had to go to the cinema, a prospect presented to me and my brother as a very poor substitute.
“Unfortunately”, we were told, the only film was a James Bond film called Goldfinger and that it was a double bill with “something called Thunderball“. I can still recall an almost dizzying state of total disbelief that I had been plucked from the gates of hell and in an instant propelled towards paradise.
After two hours of Goldfinger, a reckless cavalcade of mind-boggling action and thrills beyond anything I had even imagined beforehand and involving an obviously petrol-powered Aston Martin, it was a choice moment indeed to think that there was another two hours yet to come. I was still only eight years old that summer. No-one in those heady days worried much about such niceties. I staggered out into the sun afterwards, dazed, my life changed forever.
Meanwhile, the Americans were well on the way to mastering space and before the decade was out, I was treated to the spectacle of Apollo 8 orbiting the Moon on Christmas Day. Within a few months they were walking on the Moon, an event I was woken in the middle of the night to watch.
Looking back now, I don’t think it’s rose-tinted spectacles to say how thrilling it was. TV science fiction was actually happening. In 1972 I even saw David Scott, commander of Apollo 15, in London. Right before my then teenage eyes I had seen man who had walked, even driven a car, on the Moon. The Voyager spacecraft were sent to the outer planets and into deep space around then too.
Of course, there was much wrong with how we lived back then. More people were a lot worse off. There were still bombsites in London. By the 1970s the doom was beginning to set in with those hell-bent on telling us the world was going to be destroyed by pollution and a new Ice Age caused by blotting out the sun. I can’t say I listened very much. I was more interested in David Bowie and T. Rex, which was just as well as the Ice Age never happened. Nor did the oil run out by 1980, another prediction by ‘experts’ that went nowhere.
As a teacher between 2007-16 I often used to think of the differences. My childhood was far from a paradise though we were comfortable and well fed. But in my 50s I saw mobile phones seeping into school like chlorine gas and poisoning relationships and discipline. I also saw the rising tide of apocalyptic predictions of all sorts, but far worse the dramatic, evil and devastating consequences of social media on adolescent minds in multifarious ways.
Worst of all, as a teacher I never once detected the sense of wonder I felt when Stingray launched, when Thunderbird 2 made its impossible leap into the air from its ramp, or when on a grainy black and white TV we watched a Saturn V lift off from what was then Cape Kennedy. I still have a boxful of the NASA Apollo publicity material I sent off for every week, and the sheets of paper covered with little squares on which I frantically tried to draw the live scenes of the TV broadcasts from the lunar surface. No video recorder, you see.
By 1973, as an RAF cadet at camp I saw the Concorde prototype fly overhead. It was only 28 years since the Second World War and there was this supersonic rapier in the sky, the living embodiment of the Fireflash in one of the most famous of all Thunderbirds episodes.
And, yes, I know those early 70s were the desperate days of strikes, three-day weeks, horrible news from Northern Ireland and dystopian movies like Soylent Green (when a world destroyed by pollution has to use the bodies of euthanised elderly people to feed the rest). But they were also still (just) exciting times and I didn’t spend my childhood or teenage years being bombarded with the sort of despair that every newspaper, every news bulletin, every documentary is filled with today – at least to anything like the same extent. I know it’s only natural for someone of my age to think that the past was better. Well, in many ways it wasn’t and often it was far worse.
But I’ll tell you what, I think there was more excitement and optimism, even if a lot of it was make-believe. Go on to YouTube and watch the 80-second long opening credits of Stingray if you don’t believe me. Unmatched to this day.
And the reason I know? I’ve watched the faces of my grandchildren, filled with the same wonder I felt 60 years ago, as Stingray bursts out from the sea. I only wish I could do what my father did and wake them in the middle of the night to watch the first men walk on the Moon.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
“The West’s headlong rush to jettison fossil fuels and hit ‘Net Zero’ carbon dioxide emissions is impoverishing us while enriching China… “
This is an oxymoron
For China to become ‘enriched’ – presumably by the transfer of manufacturing from West to East – then the product of that manufacture must be sold to somebody for that ‘enrichment’ to occur.
If the West is impoverished, then Westerners will not be able to buy from China, so how will they be enriched?
We shall destroy ourselves but that won’t make China richer, in fact worse off as they have lost a source of imports.
Exports are a cost. An exporter Country uses capital, labour, other resources to produce something which provides no benefit to consumers domestically – the benefit is to consumers in importing Countries.
Exports are the way a Country gets foreign currency in order to buy imports. And any Country running a trade deficit, is enjoying the benefits of a net capital inflow/inward investment.
Net Zero will mean we cannot make what we desire (or even need) ourselves, nor will we be able to produce for export to get the money to buy from others. That makes us poorer, but it will enrich nobody else.
“If the west is impoverished, then westerners will not be able to buy from China….” You are taking things too literally. ——–When this article says “impoverished” it means “relatively impoverished”, it does not mean “totally impoverished”.
True.
As the West becomes more impoverished expect China to shift its export focus to developing nations. They will happily sell them stuff in exchange for their relatively untapped hydrocarbon and mineral wealth.
“Net Zero is Impoverishing the West and Enriching China”
There must be group behind this, promoting ideas that are completely contrary to the Laws of Physics, Chemistry, in fact contrary to Scientific endeavour.
I wonder who it can be 🙂
Isn’t Net Zero just an agenda of aggregating power and control over people and the transfer of money to rich individuals and corporations?
“ Outside the most advanced economies, climate change has understandably always been a relatively low voter priority.”. Outside of the “elite”, I suspect that it’s pretty low down the list of priorities of most people in the advanced economies too.
Outside of the Globalist Elite (and their brainwashed legions of middle-class eco-warriors in the west) I doubt if most people in the world give a flying fcuk about it.
Well solar panels are not net zero for starters due to the sulphar hexaflouride:-
https://www.epa.gov/eps-partnership/sulfur-hexafluoride-sf6-basics
This is a way more potent greenhouse gas and pollutant (can you call co2 a pollutant???)- although it is non toxic. They are also used in windmills. Renewables need more switching gear, so more SF6 where it is used:-
https://theconversation.com/why-sf-emissions-from-the-renewable-energy-sector-should-not-be-considered-a-dirty-secret-130734
It also makes you wonder how much c02 and real pollutants is produced by windmill things when they catch fire!
As well as which wind turbines need oil for lubrication (PAO synthetic oil based on crude), about 350 litres or more annually for each windmill. Given the number of windmills in the UK at the moment that is getting on for 4 million litres of lubricating oil per annum in he UK, this is not an insignificant amount of oil and needs factoring in to the net zero figures.
Besides concrete, steel, copper, molybenium, chromium, nickel, manganese for construction (lots of co2), not to mention the toxic chemicals bisphenol A, gallium arsenide, lead, cadmium and other toxic chemicals when they are dumped into landfill.
https://truth613.substack.com/p/exposing-the-climate-change-scam
A couple of extremely worthwhile articles on the climate change scam. As we on here know the scam is all about one government control.
https://open.substack.com/pub/truth613/p/the-rockefellers-created-990-climate
And another excellent article on the climate scam.
Yes . This is quite common. Many experts and scientists not dependent on government funding and even many who are but who are honest individuals rather than parasites arrive at the conclusion that the climate change narrative is POLITICS not SCIENCE.
—– I don’t know about you but I find that anything I might say out with the groupthink that people are pressurised into accepting on the issue of climate is frowned upon. Once an idea becomes entrenched in peoples mind it is very difficult to dislodge. I find often people will become embarrassed that at the age of 50 or 60 years old eg, that something that they have long accepted as some kind of ultimate truth is maybe not as clear cut as they thought. This can often make them feel silly and they simply do not like it. Some will become hostile and refuse to enter into any discussion as it makes them uncomfortable. It is the same kind of thing I get when people say to me that Man never landed on the Moon.
“…I find that anything I might say out with the groupthink that people are pressurised into accepting on the issue of climate is frowned up.”
Absolutely. Including one firkin idiot who I work with occasionally who has a Physics degree but still believes in AGW. Absolutely pisses me off.
If your “firkin idiot” has a Physics degree and you don’t, then he won’t take kindly to you telling him he might be wrong. He will feel superior to you, and it would be humiliating to have an inferior person maybe know something that they don’t or something they have never considered. But unfortunately for him there are huge uncertainties in the issue of climate change and it is not a black and white issue. Also it is not just about science. It a political, economic, social and moral issue as well. But the science aspect of it is really more modelling than actual science, and your “firkin idiot” would be very surprised to discover that all of the expensive models that government rely on to make their absurd energy policies have all be wrong so far. Not just wrong but VERY wrong.
Most Physicists I meet are curious, usually attempting to connect the Mathematics with Reality.
Ed Miliband has an A level in Physics, but his Dad was a Marxist. 🙂
But for the Milibands of this world it has nothing to do with Physics. It is about Climate Justice , fairness, equality, and wealth redistribution. —-Sustainable Development is Marxism with climate as the excuse.
The BBC decided on the Green Agenda, in 2006, well before the 2008 Climate Change Act.
Motor vehicles kill people. —Yes that is true. But not even the families of those killed by vehicles would suggest or demand that vehicles be eliminated. Because motor vehicles overall are a huge benefit to them and to society. It is exactly the same with fossil fuels. Overall they provide enormous benefit. Curiously the Progressive Left that demand the end of fossil fuels normally speak of the “greater good”. Their mentality is that everything should benefit us all, not just individuals. So how then is that they totally ignore the greater good that comes from the use of fossil fuels? That good includes, better health, longer lifespan, freedom from preventable diseases and from back breaking labour, more leisure time and a standard of living generations from 200 years ago could never imagine.
—–Yet, getting rid of fossil fuels lowers that standard of living. Now if there were truly a climate emergency maybe the greater good would be served by removing fossil fuels, but ofcourse the alleged climate crisis is a global one.
—–For most ordinary people the climate change issue may be about protecting nature, recycling, stopping the planet warming and causing dangerous changes to climate etc etc. This all sounds reasonable, and the solutions like wind power and solar energy seem like plausible and necessary solutions to a problem. So people accept that “Sustainable Development” is simply something that has to be done. But “Sustainable Development” to its proponents at the UN and WEF means something very different. They speak of “equity and fairness”, “social and climate justice”, “ending capitalism”. Environmental and Social Governance (ESG) is the way ahead to repair the world and reset the economic system of the world. ———Climate Change then has one meaning for ordinary people and another for those seeking to control the world and its resources.
It’s funny – just reading this sat in darkness – 3rd power failure in 2 months, this time 4000 houses out and 2 hours indicated to try and fix it… large city location
Don’t worry, it is coming to everyone soon. We do not have enough generating capacity, but much worse we do not have enough distribution capacity. Fred down the road plugs in his electric car to charge and uses the supply for 7 houses! When 10 people do it the fuses in the substation will blow and everyone loses the supply. This simple fact cannot be changed by Government dictat, but strangely they haven’t noticed this fact yet. Fuse makers are doing well!
Indeed – last nights failure turned out to impact 6000 homes due to an underground HV cable fault – the engineers did well to get it back for most in less than an hour, with some switching in/out along the way as they tried to bypass the faulty route
This morning Sir Kneel has given a speech about the Gummint’s plans for Net Zero to stop the weather changing. He says that the race is ON to get to Net Zero and with ‘his’ Gummint, the UK is now IN the race and he wants the UK to WIN the race??
Who is he racing against? Why is there a ‘race’? More and more countries are realising that they cannot get to Net Zero at all either because the cost is impossible to meet or it would require closing down millions of businesses so they are not ‘racing’. The EU says it will continue with its ‘Green Deal’, which hopefully will result in millions of people across Europe demonstrating against it. So the UK is racing to get to somewhere impossible on its own.