Post Number: 8
|Posted on Tuesday, August 21, 2012 - 11:17 am: ||
I am posting this here because although these comments arise from an entry in Whitley's Space it is specifically about climate change and as Whitley has taken the incident he refers to as an opportunity to set the record straight regarding his opinion on the matter, I am going to set the record straight on the opposing view - and which was done such an injustice by the caller in question on the Coast to Coast show.
First I want to make quite clear that I am what people disparagingly call a 'denier' but it's not quite as simple as this trite and rather offensive term would suggest. Also, many sober minded people like me have these views and I speak for them - not the for the loony who argued with Whitley on the radio show. So yes, I do 'deny' that Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change is occurring and no, I do not think this means that climate change is not happening.
However, this is not the reason I am writing here now, although I will say that the debate about whether CAGW is occurring is very much alive and responding to new data regarding clouds, cosmic rays, solar activity etc. And apart from those who think science no longer tolerates dissenting views, this is a healthy and positive thing - and besides, I've ranted about all of that here before.
No, what literally keeps me awake at night is this: in my humble but pretty much informed opinion (I have read extensively about this virtually every day for years) the green movement has been hijacked by an unholy alliance of bodies and people who most definitely do not have your best interests on their agenda. Encouragingly, I see this realisation is now beginning to seep into mainstream consciousness and many good hearted and well meaning people are starting to realise just what exactly these people have in mind as they enact - for real - all the policies that have sounded so reasonable over the years since the environment became a major subject.
For example, opposition to wind farms is increasing in my country as swathes of beautiful countryside are festooned with industrial sized turbines that will do nothing, at all, to reduce C02 emissions or benefit the climate in any way. In fact they comprehensively ruin it.
Germany too is beginning to understand that the green policies it has enacted so enthusiastically over the years may sound the death knell for its world beating economy if they continue with them. The shutting down of all its nuclear reactors may have to be slowed, if not stopped altogether as solar and wind power prove unable to take up the slack. Indeed it is in the process of building a number of coal-fired power stations at this moment. Of course the green movement over there is apoplectic but when its a question of keeping the lights on and people warm in the winter their cries are drowned out by the reality of the economic situation.
Spain too, has found that for every green job it creates, 2.2 'normal' jobs are lost. Here in the UK its worse, with over three being lost. There's nothing like a bit of economic reality to pop the green dream bubble.
But even with these situations and more like them all over the world the fact is that the green machine has rumbled off into the distance with a now unstoppable momentum. Facts, new data, warnings from concerned parties, economic reality, all of these matter not a jot now. The whole thing has taken on a life of its own, ably and enthusiastically abetted by a media which just loves a good scare story - especially in a time of declining print media sales. The voices of those with perfectly valid doubts about the whole thing are drowned out by the clamour.
Take the recent heatwave in the US, many news outlets are proclaiming this is unequivocally due to CAGW, with no doubt about it. Yet the climate data just does not bear this out. El Nino is a factor. So is a cyclically occurring climate event called a 'derecho' apparently. And there were more (and more severe) droughts than this in the 1930s, before humans could have made a difference of that magnitude.
Even hurricanes we are told will become more intense and more numerous, yet they are declining in both characteristics. The trend line since 1900 is absolutely flat - and it is trends we should be watching, not becoming hysterical over isolated events. Similarly, the trend for sea level is upward but constant. It is not increasing. Insurance claims are often quoted as proof of more damage due to climate change, while ignoring the fact that there is more expensive stuff being destroyed in weather events these days.
We are told that weird weather is increasing everywhere but the fact that worldwide communications have vastly improved so that every event is household knowledge in minutes, thus skewing the empirical data, is ignored.
And regarding new data, a recent report has been independently reviewed and found to be correct in its conclusion that clouds, seeded by sub atomic particles from cosmic rays play an influential role in the climate. This research comes from CERN but you won't have heard about it on the news.
So, the science is evolving. Yet none of this matters because the people who have taken up the green cause in a political sense don't care about science - only the scary bits they can use to wield ever greater and more restrictive control over humans, who they regard as a cancer on this earth. I know one or two of these 'deep greens' from my past and I am friends with someone quite prominent in the green movement herself yet it is deeply dismaying how little attention they pay to the science. They are much, much more interested in how they can change human behaviour, with the threat of CAGW as a catalyst. And when I say 'change human behaviour' I mean more control, less freedom, more surveillance, less travel, more fear and guilt, and frankly, less human progress as a result. Plus higher taxes, higher fuel costs and austerity of course.
Wealthy economies are the cleanest, by far, just look at how the US' CO2 emissions have declined by up to 20% recently due to cheap and abundant shale gas. So you would have thought that any opportunity to help developing countries gain access to more and cheaper power so they can become wealthy would be welcomed wouldn't you? But no. Instead, my green friend travels the world trying to tell poorer countries how to adopt power sources that manifestly will not lift them to the lofty heights we all enjoy. Her colleagues in the movement also, are happily engaged in telling people in these countries to stop breeding. It's all done in a caring, concerned and reasonable manner but the goal is the same: stop breeding, the world cannot support you and you, yes you poor brown person, should feel very guilty about this.
So, what about all those scientists who say 'we're all gonna die'? They can't all be wrong can they? Well what does 'all' mean? We hear '97%' quoted a lot don't we? Take a look at this quote from James Delingpole, journalist at the Daily Telegraph, commenting on the original survey from a University of Illinois study that sent a poll to 10,000 scientists:
"Less than a third replied but didn’t give the sought-for answers. The pollsters were finally reduced to polling 77, of whom 75 gave the right answer. That was all the ‘consensus’ was about. It was like sending out a questionnaire asking, ‘Do bears defecate in the outdoors?’ The questions included, Do you believe the planet is warming? Well, derr. Yes we all believe. Do humans make a significant contribution? Derr again. Obviously, if only via the urban-heat-island effect. Any sane sentient person would say ‘yes’, but even then they didn’t get 100%."
So it's not '97% of scientists' is it? By far. In fact its 97% of 77! And the few who have the ear of the media and the politicians can easily be shown to have vested interests in pushing the CAGW meme for various reasons. Some are to do with ego, some face-saving, others involve maintaining grant funding and some are 'deep greens' themselves whose ascetic views on how we should be living are very important to them. James Hansen is a good example, he recently attempted to link the droughts to climate change but got called out on factual inaccuracies by scientists with a more sceptical eye than him. And Michael Mann - he of the 'Hockey Stick' graph, who fights every attempt of others to see his data and his workings and whose graph was based on a handful of bristlcone pines, from a larger number whose data he discarded because it didn't say what he wanted, is victim to his own ego and has gone far beyond a point where he can backtrack and admit his mistakes.
But then there's James Lovelock, he of 'Gaia' fame who has now completely changed his opinion yet I notice Whitley hardly mentions this, preferring to focus on Richard Muller but even he is not quite the rampant green he's being made out to be. Read more of what he said to see what I mean.
This isn't science, it is dogma. And the adherents to this dogma exhibit characteristics very akin to a religion. In fact I would say that the green movement has become completely religious in nature now. See how closed-minded greens are to hearing facts that support the opposing view. They don't like to hear for example that the hockey stick is tiny compared to the prehistorical record. They don't like it when the figures say it is actually less energy intensive to truck lettuces up from California to NY than it is to grow them locally. They don't like the fact that not a single prediction of climate doom has come true in the 24 years since Hansen first scared us all to death.
But the media loves all the hysteria of course. It recently trumpeted that the Greenland ice sheet was melting catastrophically. Of course they neglected to mention that this was a regular, once every 150 years event, at least not in the headlines anyway because that wouldn't have nearly so scary would it? New record temperatures are announced all the time while the increasing Urban Heat Island effect on data is ignored. Or the growth in Antarctic ice. Or even the beneficial aspects of increased C02.
So I'm sorry people but you can be led meekly into a dystopian world of control if you want but I will continue to adhere to the idea that the people trying to scare you into living in a world with less of everything are not trying to make the world a better place in the way that you or I would think. I will try to post some of their more juicy quotes in a later post to show what I mean - they're not nice.
Also, try reading the book 'Watermelons' by James Delingpole, that's watermelons as in 'green on the outside, red on the inside' to get a better idea of this. Or try going to http://wattsupwiththat.com (science blog of the year), regularly, to get the OTHER side of the argument, instead of only listening to those who like to scare you for their own reasons or perhaps to nurture some deeply held doom-laden beliefs or of your own about the world.
I wonder how many of you will?
Thanks for reading!
(Message edited by brit on August 21, 2012)
"The brighter the light, the darker the shadow."
Post Number: 1287
|Posted on Saturday, September 22, 2012 - 9:50 am: ||
Whitley also mentioned China burning more coal. Actually, the coal market has bottomed out big time. Coal use is declining, and mines are closing, worldwide, including China. Even if China was still increasing its use, it is declining everywhere else at a faster rate.
Post Number: 270
|Posted on Monday, September 24, 2012 - 11:12 am: ||
"This isn't science, it is dogma."
I'm not sure where you get that. Scientist, in general, are the most skeptical people you'll ever find.
I don't see that many people screaming "we're all going to die because of climate change". There may be more catastrophic weather patterns and a global change in weather and some, maybe many will probably die. There are vast unknowns as to what the future holds, and I think that is the danger and what most climate scientists are warning of.
I don't subscribe to the "climate change is the end of the world" business either, but there is ample evidence that shows that humans are part of a contributing factor.
Since 1950 alone, we have produced more material man-made goods than has ever existed in human recorded history. There's probably going to be a environmental reaction to that.
Geoff you are incorrect on coal:
"Coal provides 30.3% of global primary energy needs and generates 42% of the world's electricity
In 2011 coal was the fastest growing form of energy outside renewables. Its share in global primary energy consumption increased to 30.3% - the highest since 1969."