THE GLOBAL WARMING GRAVY TRAIN
Respected comrade Jura Watchmaker has already pointed out in this post that regards saving the planet, there may be some gap between what Al Gore preaches and what Al Gore practices.
I can't help thinking that this type of hypocrisy was in so much abundance yesterday at these Live Earth concerts that world hypocrisy levels must now surely be so badly depleted that Sharon Osbourne will be appealing for donations of hypocrisy on our TVs anytime now.
I dare say that I am not saying anything original, but really. Firstly, it is harder to think of anything that drains more of the earth's resources for so little point than a rock/pop concert.
Yes, I'm going to tell you that you must not leave your TV on standby, and to do this I'm going to create an event that will use in one day the electricity that a small third-world country uses in one year.
I mean, just how much of the earth's resources were used in just organising this thing, never mind how much was used, in two continents, on the actual day.
Secondly, I only caught a small amount of it, but the presenters and guests were not exactly on message. Jonathan Ross saying he will never give up his plasma TV, with David Badiel pointing out that he owned several cars. Alan Carr saying he might do some recycling if he can be bothered, but that he wasn't a fan of not flushing the loo. Jimmy Carr saying the important thing is that we all remember Diana. These people are all rich, and they buy, and use, and do so much more than the rest of us, and therfore use up so much more world energy than the rest of us. They knew it, we knew it, and they knew that we knew it.
But the biggest piss-take of all - the use of extraordinarily rich rock and pop stars, who between them must gobble up more of the earth's resources than the rest of us put together, pushing the message that we've all got to conserve energy! You first fuckers!
It is the most patronising of things. The idea that most people cannot grasp a concept unless it is brought to them by Phil Collins and Duran Duran. Really, if someone hasn't got the message about global warming by now then I doubt watching the Pussy Cat Dolls at Wembley Stadium is going to get it into their thick skulls. And if it does, it's a pretty fucked up message - people who use lots of energy, using excessive amounts energy, to tell people not to use so much energy.
But as long as the middle classes continue to be suckers for a feel-good message that comes with an opportunity to go to concerts and buy merchandise then this is what we'll all have to suffer.
Global warming is not just a buzz word anymore, it is a gravy train. Everyone from scientists, to politicians, to rock stars, are jumping on the train and earning themselves loads of money. There is no advantage in questioning the concept that human beings are contributing to the rise of the earth's temperature, but plenty of booty if you go along with the current popular narrative. This is not good for debate.
Personally, I will continue to turn lights off when not needed, not leave my appliances on standby, recycle as much as I can, use supermarket bags for life rather than disposable plastic bags, and turn the tap off whilst I clean my teeth, but this morning it all feels a bit futile. Just how much difference can one person make when even the global warming brigade don't see anything wrong with mass orgies of energy consumption?
30 comments:
Jonathon Porritt (wealthy friend of HRH PoW and self-appointed green guru) has confessed to flying 62,000 miles last year and Gloucestershire's Green Party declares itself not bovvered! What a lot of holier than thou hypocrites they are...
The National Post here in Canada has been running a series of articles called The Deniers, eminent scientists who disagree with the 'global warmists'. [Go to the link, click on the first item and it will take you to links for all the articles] Whichever side of the fence you are, at the very least it gives the lie to there being a consensus, or that the matter is settled as per the propaganda of the GW's.
"webpage cannot be found" Ligneus. Can you cut and paste link as address maybe? As I would like to see it.
By the way, how do you feel about the term "Denier"?
I've never liked it, and yesterday during the concert at Webley one of the guests said that he didn't either.
It's the connection with "holocaust denier".
A holocaust denier, we all know, is somebody who denies one of the greatest crimes against humanity because of race hate.
So we must be careful, I think with what we parallel to that.
But, also, being a "denier" of global warming suggests someone who denies an irrefutable fact because, we suppose, of some personal agenda.
But that's not what questioning the idea that human beings are soley responsible for global warming is. That should be debate. That should be part of the scientific process of discovery.
Instead, people outside of the global warming gang are being branded as "deniers".
That's actually a bad thing, whether or not human beings are responsible for heating up the globe.
A better analogy would be smoking. The attempts by the tobacco industry over the years to deny a link with cancer and heart disease - despite overwhelming scientific consensus - are akin to what is happening now with climate change.
The key point is doubt. What a great concept that is, as any defence lawyer will tell you. One of the great features of doubt is that it helps with almost any problem. So few things can be proven with certainty that creating doubt is easier than boiling eggs. Is there a link between cancer and smoking? Well, a small percentage of people get lung cancer who do not smoke. Ah ha, there's your doubt...
Why do people create doubt? Well, one of the reasons might be that they have a real economic interest in it (see how Exon has funded many counter climate change organisations at http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1875762,00.html). The other, of course, might be that some people just don't like being in the mainstream.
Lets put aside all the science for a mo. Lets think about what is happening in our lifetimes. There is an unprecedented amount of industrial activity on this planet of ours, at a combined scale that each of us could barely imagine. Think of the power required to run even a modestly sized city. Now imagine that for the UK. Now think of it for a big county. Getting the idea?
Now, imagine all that energy and all those changing gases pumping out to a world that has never known the like before. What are the chances that this will be affecting our usual climate and weather patterns? What's the probability that, once the changes start, some of them become self-reinforcing. Surely, the shocker would be if we spewed all this stuff out and nothing happened. Alas for everything in life there is cause and effect. There are consequences to all things.
There's no denying that the exact way this thing's gonna hit us is not completely clear. When you're dealing with globalised consequences, you need globalised forecasting of millions of interactions that you just can't predict.
Nobody's saying abandon electricity and go and live in huts. But there is an issue here and it does need to be addressed. By all means be sceptical about some of the claims. We all have to make our own choices. I just ask you to take a look around where you live and think about what effects our technology may be having.
We've been smoking for a number of years now and we're starting to get a dreadful cough. Possibly it is already too late to avoid cancer, but don't you feel it is worth trying to survive?
I don't like the name 'deniers' either but we seem to be stuck with it, not sure how it came about but it does seem to be of the 'give a dog a bad name' method of discrediting people which seems to be more prevalent on the left, as in Bush=Hitler, right wing=fascist etc.
The url for the articles is:
ttp://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/archives/search_results.html?searchtype=0&searchfor=the%20deniers
if you click on the first item it takes you here:
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/environment/story.html?id=4432a41c-7c52-4b74-934e-f0dac3b2bcb8
where there is a list of links to the articles. It is an excellent series and at the very least gives the lie to Al Gorblimeys assertions that the issue is settled, no need for further discussion. Well, what do you expect from a politician, and not a very good one of those either. After all he couldn't even win against the 'moron' Bush!
Where do the Dhimmicrats keep finding these people? First Gore, then Kerry. Two charlatans, pure and simple. Add the Clintons to that list too, come to think of it.
Yes I know I'll be told Bush is a charlatan too, but remember he was elected twice as Governor of Texas against highly thought of opponents, and twice as President, not a bad record.
I'm going off topic a bit, one more link, I've been commenting on a post on Al Gore and GW today at The Vigil, you might be interested in the discussion there.
http://the-vigil.blogspot.com/2007/07/happy-birthday-america.html
Anon, forgetting about the science is part of the problem, it's all run on emotional response and imagination, not a good model for what is happening.
URL's don't work either, I'll try hyperlinks again, meantime check out this article at American Thinker.
http://www.americanthinker.
com/2007/07/science_magazine_waffles_on_wa.html
The Deniers
If it works click on the first item and it will take you to the list of articles. Hope it works this time!
This is taking too long! The link works but just in the small comments box, maybe there is a way to make it full screen but don't see it on my computer. So here again is the url, maybe you can cut and past and get there.
Must be getting tired! left the link off after all that, sorry for the mess I'm making of your comments.
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/archives/search_results.html?searchtype=0&searchfor=the%20deniers
One more try, now it's not posting the whole url, I'll have to divide it.
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost
/news/archives/search_results.html?
searchtype=0&searchfor=the%20deniers
I'm with you on this, Scribbles. Your argument is most compelling, yet I still have one lingering doubt (damn!) and it's because of James (Brother Jim) Gilles. Brother Jim's in the news for losing an appeal in court where he tried to force Murray State University to let him preach on campus.
The aspect of Brother Jim's story most germane to your post is the fact that Jim found the Lord at a Van Halen concert in 1981. The guy's been relentless ever since, spreading the Good News as a wondering ascetic.
Don't underestimate the power of qualudes and loud music to change people's lives.
Dear Scribbles
Good Article.
What these people need is to have the piss ripped out of them on a regular basis.
anonymous -
"A better analogy would be smoking. The attempts by the tobacco industry over the years to deny a link with cancer and heart disease - despite overwhelming scientific consensus - are akin to what is happening now with climate change."
No it isn't! It's nothing like the situation to do with smoking. Proving whether or not a substance is a cancer risk cannot be compared to trying to figure out the data regarding the earth's atmosphere.
"The key point is doubt. What a great concept that is, as any defence lawyer will tell you. One of the great features of doubt is that it helps with almost any problem."
It's the GW lobby who are labelling it "doubt" and it's a dirty trick. It's not doubt, it's scientific debate. Or it should be.
"Lets put aside all the science for a mo. Lets think about what is happening in our lifetimes. There is an unprecedented amount of industrial activity on this planet of ours, at a combined scale that each of us could barely imagine. Think of the power required to run even a modestly sized city. Now imagine that for the UK. Now think of it for a big county. Getting the idea?"
No! I'm not! Think of a planet. Think of the size of it. Think of how many thousands of years it would take to heat the seas of this planet. Think of how much climate chage this planet has already experienced without interference from the flicks of humanity that barely touch its surface. Think of how human beings always have to over estimate their own importance in everything.
"There's no denying that the exact way this thing's gonna hit us is not completely clear. When you're dealing with globalised consequences, you need globalised forecasting of millions of interactions that you just can't predict."
Sorry? What was that? But I thought the GW scientists had the whole thing sewn up? You're not telling me there is some doubt over what is going on and what is going to happen are you? Because that's not how the GW are putting it to everyone!
"I just ask you to take a look around where you live and think about what effects our technology may be having."
I've thought about it, but as well as thinking about what affect humans are having, I'd also like to be able to think about how this planet naturally experiences climate change without being called a "denier" or a "doubter".
"We've been smoking for a number of years now and we're starting to get a dreadful cough. Possibly it is already too late to avoid cancer, but don't you feel it is worth trying to survive?"
I think that the idea that we should just throw everything we have at tackling possible human contributions to climate change could be the biggest mistake humanity ever makes. What if it is not humans who are responsible? What if we actually have no effect on the earth's climate at all? I'd rather see us put a load more effort into dealing with the actual problems caused by climate change, in proportion to more boring stuff that doesn't get it's own rock concert - like the obesity problem, the social housing problem, the islamo-fascist problem.
And let me make it clear here - I'm eco friendly. But I'm also freedom-of-speech friendly too. I don't like to see debate smothered, which is what the GW "humans are to blame" crowd are actually trying to do.
Ligneus - I've put you to so much trouble, I'm so sorry!
Hey, no trouble, as long as you got the articles. They're really worth spreading around.
I like your reasoning above, a fellow Norm! Must be something in the air around Manchester. [You are close by aren't you?]
Actually, finding out about climate change may be easier than the effects of smoking. Medicine is an imperfect science as you can't actually perform perfect testing (some damned ethical nonsense that the patients might end up dead).
I think the days when we were pinpricks on the earth's surface are long gone. The atomic age was of course the start of this. That was the first time that man had the ability to begin to shape his environment (however adversely) at the level of neo-God.
Interestingly, a NASA study found that Springtime land surface temperatures in North American cities were on average 2.3°C warmer than surrounding rural areas. The warmth of cities had an impact on plant growing sesaons ten miles from the edge of the city. No gases, no crazy science, just the basic everday glow of a city felt 10 miles away.
World carbon ommissions in 2001 were over 6.5 billion tonnes. That's about 6,500,000,000,000 kg. In 1950 carbon ommissions were 1.5 billion tonnes. There is now a third more CO2 in the world than there was pre-industrialisation. Hardly a minor adjusment. And the world continues to develop at a phenomenal pace, with India and China racing towards - and potentially past - our level of developments.
As I say, Scribbles, man is not a pin-prick anymore. Like him, or loathe him, mankind is the bees-knees of this planet.
But one thing is clear. This earth doesn't give a s*** about us. Extinction is the norm for our planet. As we learnt with the atomic age, with power comes huge dangers and responsibilities. The more we are able to subject nature to our will, the higher the fallout when something goes wrong.
Good to have the debate. But Scribbles, we aren't kids anymore. Mother nature won't put it all right and give us a loving hug (well, she will, but after we've all been dead for thousands of years). This is a global world and we're in charge. We need to act like it.
"I think the days when we were pinpricks on the earth's surface are long gone. The atomic age was of course the start of this." Nope. Farming was the start of it.
It is meaningless to state baldly how many billions of tons of CO2 have been produced in a year, [it's even more meaningless when you put it into the huge figures that result from converting to kg's!] without relating the figures to the weight of existing CO2 or the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere. Also the rate of absorption by the oceans and by vegetation. A warmer climate would produce more vegetation which would absorb more CO2 for instance and of course it's so much more complicated than that info would tell you.
The CO2 overall figures were used (yes for show) to demonstrate the extent of man's efforts on this planet of ours. In that context I think it was useful. I agree the more meaningful statistic that I did quote above is actually the increasing concentration of C02 post-industrialisation (I think the exact figure is a 32% increase).
Yes of course it is all more complicated than that. Thinking of Scribbles' earlier comment, it is not impossible that other factors are to blame. Come on though, we're spewing out 6.5 billion tonnes and the concentration of C02 is rising. I'm thinking there might just possibly be a link?
We are living in a world where we can't accurately predict weather more than two weeks ahead. But then we're also living in a world where we can't accurately predict when, how, (or even if) cancer will develop from smoking in any single patient. The absolute, 100% cast-iron proof is likely to be too late for us or our children, so chances are we're gonna have to go by our best judgement. It seems that the best theory at present is that we're harming our world, perhaps irreparably.
Like any hot political issue, there are extremists on both sides of the debate. You can dislike some of the people making the argument (who wouldn't want to swipe at the hypocritical bastards?), but I think sooner or later we are going to have to take our heads out of the sand and decide what we're going to do about this issue.
This 6.5 or 7.5 as I've seen billion tons seems an awful lot of weight in gas to produce, so I question where those figures came from and how they were arrived at.
Anyway, just for fun, I looked up on Wikipedia the weight of the earth's atmosphere, they say it is 5,000 trillion tons and I know that different gases have different densities so I don't know how that would fit into the picture. But I divided that by 7.5 billion and it came out 666,666.16, which translates into an added .00015%. If I'm right in my maths, I'm happy to be corrected, I make no claims other than high school math an awful long time ago, it hardly seems enough to start melting the polar ice caps.
OK, this post is pretty funny.
http://gmroper.mu.nu/archives/232846.php
[It is to me anyway]
I tried to do a hyperlink but it just came out as part of the post in this comment area.
Another must read article from American Thinker, on the history of global warming and cooling through the ages and how it's caused by various cycles of effects of the sun on the earth.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/07/global_warming_and_solar_radia_1.html
The opening paragraph:
"Without the impact of solar radiation, the temperature on the earth would be about the same as the temperature of space, which is about -454 C. The amount of radiation reaching the earth is about 1,368 watts per square meter. This is a vast amount of energy, which would require the simultaneous output of 1.7 billion of our largest power plants to match. About 70 percent of this solar energy is absorbed and 30 percent is reflected. However, the amount of solar energy reaching the earth is not constant, but varies in several independent cycles of different degrees of magnitude, which may or may not reinforce each other."
Something the Goricle should read.
Ah, yes the sun's to blame, which is all terribly convenient.
Interesting graph here by those reactionaries at the Stanford solar centre. Sometimes pictures do say so much more than words.
http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/600px-Temp-sunspot-co2.svg.png
Or here
http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/Climate_Change_Attribution.png
The sun isn't to "blame" and "convenience" has nothing to do with it. Interesting language you guys use in your anthropomorphisation of everything, your self centredness is projected onto whatever you touch instead of sticking to science. We are neither that important nor so influential.
What part of the earth has warmed and cooled for hundreds of thousands of years related to the sun's activity and the relative position to and distance of the earth from the sun don't you understand? The orbit and angle of the earth relative to the sun is Newtonian physics, nothing mysterious or nefarious about it, if you want to go back to pre Galileo, fine.
And your links did't work.
I've just copied the link and pasted it into the browser as a test. Seems ok but apologies if this doesn't work.
Personally, I love to anthropomorphise. That's one of the faults of my species. However, we are that important, not in the lifespan of this planet, but in our influence on it. To say that we are custodians of this world does seem a strangely archaic concept in recent times, but never more so has it been true. So many things could sink us - huge tsunamis, yellowstone going off on one - yet we also have the power to destroy ourselves, be that instantly or over a period of time.
Clearly, Scribbles has moved on with life and I think we may have to agree to disagree. I've been interested by your comments and I suppose that, as long as we're all prepared to challenge ourselves and our arguments, we may stand a fighting chance after all.
It's fine if you want to anthropomorphise, but it has no place in a discussion on science. When I said we are not that important, I meant that we should not ascribe to ourselves an importance that properly belongs to something beyond us, something that some people use the word God to describe.
I believe the global warming movement is mainly on the left and the way they think they can figure out how the climate works and from that, that they can exert some control over it has the same motivation and hubris that leads them to think they know how a society should be constructed and know how it and therefore its members should be controlled [the nanny state] rather than leaving it free to evolve [which is how they came to be in the first place] within a framework of laws designed to provide order which allows people to decide for themselves how they want to live.
All of which is getting away from global warming, but it's what I pick up from the way you and other global warmists write.
I hope I wasn't too snarky in my previous reply, but I thought you were being a little sarcastic and that provokes me!
[Apologies to Scribbles for infiltrating her blog with my right wing views, though I try to be well mannered in doing so.]
That's how we like it on this blog - good and civilised.
Thank you to both of you for your contributions, and to everyone else.
It's overcast here again today and threatening rain. Never mind, for this time next week I shall be in Tuscany and neither global warming nor terrorists can stop me.
For the first, I will off-set my carbon usage, for the second I pay no heed.
Tuscany! Now I'm jealous.
Now there is this
Royal Society
And yes very small proportions of additional Co2 do have a large effect as they change the balance of the existing greenhouse effect we need to survive, just as a small amount of additional salt in my soup turns it from delicious to inedible. The science is now incontestable and has been for some time. The faith based dogma lies with the sceptics.
Nah! Co2 follows heat, not the other way around. Co2 is rising because the earth is hotting up, not the other way around
(look, I have absolutely nothing to back up that sentence, but I feel like arguing)
You could be right, Scribbles, from another American Thinker article on the various cycles of the sun and earth:
Each 100,000-year peak in radiation appears to last about 15,000 to 20,000 years, and each has been coincident with massive surges of carbon dioxide and methane (the green house gasses), into the atmosphere, causing de-glaciation of the Polar and Greenland ice caps. Surges of these greenhouse gasses have always been vastly greater than the amounts currently being generated by burning fossil fuels.
Link to the article follows, if it works!
http://www.americanthinker.com/
It goes to the home page and you must scroll down, it's on the left side entitled 'Global Warming and Solar Radiation'.
Post a Comment