Earth Does Not Have a Cancer; the Cancer Is Not Man

Some deeply unpleasant remark

Chris Packham, 'wildlife expert' (Photo: Paul Grover)

Chris Packham, ‘wildlife expert’ (Photo: Paul Grover)

Any minute now I’m going to lay off blogging for a while, for health reasons. But I can’t pretend I’m going to find going cold turkey easy, especially not when there are stories like this around.

It concerns “wildlife expert” Chris Packham – presenter of some of the BBC’s most popular nature programmes including Springwatch and a new series called The Animal’s Guide To British Wildlife – and some deeply unpleasant remarks he made in the course of an interview with the Radio Times.

“There’s no point bleating about the future of pandas, polar bears and tigers when we’re not addressing the one single factor that’s putting more pressure on the ecosystem than any other – namely the ever-increasing size of the world’s population. I read the other day that, by 2020, there are going to be 70 million people in Britain. Let’s face it, that’s too many.”

So what does he suggest we do about it? Get people to stop having children?

“Yes. Absolutely. I wouldn’t actually penalise people for having too many children, as I think the carrot always works better than the stick. But what I would offer them tax breaks for having small families: say, 10 per cent off your tax bill if you decide to stick with just one child. And an even bigger financial incentive if you choose not to have a family at all.”

What frightens me almost more than these remarks – whose loathsomeness I shall gloss in a moment – is the response of the Daily Mail’s readership. All right, perhaps the Mail’s online audience is not representative of the entire country, but I do think they’re probably close to embodying what the reasonable other person from Middle England thinks, and in this case what they seem to think is frankly bloody terrifying.

All right, so I don’t imagine many of us here would quibble with the most popular comment so far, with 1300 plus positive votes:

How about offering people nothing for not having children as well as not giving them anything when they have ten children? Let them pay for their offspring with their own money for a change. That might make a few people consider the population even if it’s the one in their own home.

This is in line with the very sensible remarks that once got Howard Flight into such trouble. And of course the Tory peer was quite right: it’s absurd to have a situation where the most feckless, unproductive sector of the economy is subsidised by the state to have children they would otherwise be unable to afford.

But here are the second and third most popular comments, with well over 1000 positive votes each:

He is quite right you know, the most eco friendly thing you can do is not breed.

Well done Chris I couldn’t have said it better myself. That is the main problem with this planet — too many people. We require a massive birth control programme, never mind growing more food and building more houses — cut back on breeding is the only answer.

There are so many things wrong with this attitude I don’t know where to begin. But why not let’s start with the plight of only children? Almost everyone I know who was brought up without a brother or sister wishes it could have been otherwise. I myself grew up in a family of seven, and while it’s true that I have never quite forgiven one of them for voting for Caroline Lucas in the last election I count the friendship and kinship of my wonderful brothers and sisters one of the greatest joys of my existence. I know there are many in China who feel much the same way: the tyrannical one-child policy, it is now being recognised, has not only led to much unnecessary unhappiness but is also leading to potentially disastrous economic consequences (especially in its battle for economic supremacy with India, where no such restrictions have applied).

Yet such is the misery that Chris Packham wishes to import to Britain. And to be fair, he is far from the only high profile figure who thinks this way. Very much of the same view is that famously nice, caring natural history TV presenter David Attenborough, concerned environmentalist the Hon Sir Jonathon Porritt, actress Susan Hampshire, Gaia theory inventor James Lovelock, ex UN apparatchik Sir Crispin Tickell (the man who – briefly – persuaded Margaret Thatcher of the imminent perils of Man Made Global Warming) and chimp expert Jane Goodall. All of these luminaries are – with Packham – patrons of the Optimum Population Trust, an organisation which believes that the world’s growing population is “unsustainable” and which is dedicated to finding ways of reducing it.

The problem with the Optimum Population Trust – one of them anyway – is that its very existence is predicated on a vilely misanthropic view of the human species: that there are too many of us, that we do more harm than good.

And yes, superficially, this view of the world makes a kind of sense. It’s what I call an “I reckon” argument: the sort of argument you’d make in a pub, after a few beers, based on information you’ve established from a gut feeling so strong it doesn’t need any awkward details like facts getting in the way of your opinion. I mean obviously more people means less space, and more demand on “scarce resources”, so the more people there are the more trouble we’re in. Stands to reason dunnit?

This is exactly the kind of wrong thinking I address in my new book Watermelons. You’ll forgive me if I don’t come up with all the counterarguments here. (Read the bloody book!). But in a nutshell, it’s that this Neo-Malthusian pessimism – as warped and wrongheaded today as it was in the era of doom-monger Thomas Malthus (1766 to 1834) – is based on fundamental misconceptions about the ingenuity of the human species and about the nature of economic growth.

Sure if all populations did as they grew and grew was use up more finite “stuff”, then we would indeed have cause to worry. But they don’t: as populations increase in size, so they learn to specialise and adapt and find ever more ingenious ways of making more with less. That’s why, for example, the mass starvation predicted by Paul Ehrlich in his Sixties bestseller The Population Bomb never happened: because thanks to Norman Borlaug’s Green Revolution, crop yields dramatically increased while the area of land under cultivation remained unchanged. If you want to read more about this, I recommend not just my book, but also Matt Ridley’s superb The Rational Optimist or anything by Julian Simon (known as the Doomslayer because of the way he constantly confounded Neo Malthusian pessimism and  junk science).

The reason I have become so obsessed with “global warming” in the last few years is not because I’m particularly interested in the “how many drowning polar bears can dance on the head of a pin” non-argument which hysterical sites like RealClimate and bloggers like Joe Romm are striving so desperately to keep on a life support machine. It’s because unlike some I’ve read widely enough to see the bigger picture.

One thing I’ve learned in this wide reading is how obsessed so many of the key thinkers in the green movement are with the notion of “overpopulation.” As one of their favourite think tanks, the Club of Rome, puts it: “Earth has a cancer and the cancer is man.” This belief explains, inter alia, why the “science” behind AGW is so dodgy: because the science didn’t come first. What came first was the notion that mankind was a problem and was doing harm to the planet. The “science” was then simply tortured until it fitted in with this notion.

I do not share this view. Indeed, though I believe that while people like Chris Packham (and Prince Charles; George Monbiot; Al Gore; David Attenborough; Robert Redford; Mikhail Gorbachev; Ted Turner; et al) may believe what they do for the noblest of reasons, their ecological philosophy is fundamentally evil. And I do mean evil. Any philosophy which has, as its core tenet, the belief that mankind is the problem not the solution cannot possibly be one that pertains to good, can it?

This is why I have been fighting this Climate War so hard for so long. And why I have no compunction whatsoever in calling the people who promote that repellant philosophy by the names they deserve. The ideological struggle that is being fought now over the issue of “Climate Change” (and related, quasi-Marxist weasel concepts such as Sustainability) may not yet involve the bloodshed caused in the wars against Nazism and Stalinism, but the threat it poses to individual freedom and economic security is every bit as great. But there aren’t enough of us fighting this war on the right side – and I’m knackered.

I want to leave the last words here to one of my favourite commenters, Tayles, who brilliantly explained the other day why there is moral equivalence between the green/liberal fascist side of the argument, and the one libertarian, empirical one for which I’m so frequently vilified by some of the posters below this blog. It really should be a separate post but that might confuse commenters as to where to go.

UPDATE

Just one more thing before I pass you over to Tayles. While of course I value the rich panoply of varied opinions I’m seeing appear below this blogged, I’m disturbed by the number which seem to determined to conflate “immigration” with “overpopulation”. These are entirely separate issues. It’s quite possible to believe, as I do, that unchecked immigration (encouraged as a deliberate policy under Blair) has been a disaster for Britain, especially when allied with the pernicious philosophy of multiculturalism which encourages division and separatism, while yet disagreeing violently with the loathsome Neo-Malthusianism of Chris Packham and his ilk. Do not confuse the two issues. Many – indeed the majority – of Britons are rightly concerned about how the character of their country has been changed and the infrastructure swamped by deliberately poor border controls. But this is a separate topic for discussion.

So, here he is: Tayles on why James Delingpole is right:

Such an approach is the one Delingpole adopts. Why do you never have a go at him for “cherry picking internet sources”? – Endeavour

That’s a fair question. There is a straightforward answer, which is that the Left’s evidence is normally one-eyed, misleading or downright dishonest. That extends to the AGW sham, which is propped up by a bunch of cobblers, peddled by scientists and politicians with much to gain from the spread of their dogma.

There’s a more philosophical answer too, which I’ll indulge you with if you’ve got a minute. The fundamental condition of mankind is one of liberty – which is to say, freedom from the constraints imposed by higher authorities. The only real ‘rights’ are those that exist in the absence of other people’s intervention, such as freedom of speech and property rights. Taxes, laws and so-called positive rights are man-made constructs that require the enforcement of a higher power, such as a government. Clearly they are no more naturally-occurring than iPods or Ford Fiestas.

When some new constraint is scrawled onto the blank page of freedom, it must be justified. The onus is on the person who wants to enforce that constraint to justify the need for it, rather than on those who must suffer its effects to explain why they should be spared. Just as a person is innocent until proved guilty, and the burden of proof is always on the True Believer, so the defenders of freedom should not really have to defend their position.

For this reason, the benefit of the doubt must be always be given to those looking to protect our freedoms, while those who wish to take them away should be required to be especially thorough and honest, and deserve to be treated with suspicion. The consequences and trade-offs of what they intend to impose should be weighed and analysed. We should be especially concerned if they try to brush aside the concerns of their opponents or ignore contrary evidence.

I think that the arguments put forward by AGW zealots should be a lot more convincing than they are. And I think that the defence of our freedoms advanced by James Delingpole are perfectly good enough. There is more at stake here than our climate.

Related posts:

  1. Pandas: do we need ’em?
  2. Pope Catholic; night follows day; IPCC found telling pack of lies about sea level rises
  3. What on earth is Bob Ward?
  4. ‘We must live more sustainably’ says Jeremy ‘Seven Homes’ Irons

5 thoughts on “Earth does not have a cancer; the cancer is not man”

  1. Max Eastern says:6th April 2011 at 9:16 pmWatermelons: is it really a book or is it just a joke? You inisit in your last blog that we read the bloody book, but where? At first I thought there really was a book, then, when I couldn’t find any evidence of it even on your own website, I thought it was a joke, then you mentioned the book again in a blog and I wasn’t sure. I might even be tempted to read the bloody thing if I thought it existed.
  2. Nige Cook says:8th April 2011 at 5:06 pmJames, can I just say well done for today’s Daily Express article, “What Exactly has the World ever Done for Britain?”, http://www.express.co.uk/ourcomments/view/239388/What-exactly-has-the-world-ever-done-for-Britain-

    “The fact is that we in Britain have done far, far more for the world than ever it did for us.

    “And it’s about ruddy time that pitifully ungrateful world gave us something back.”

    It’s spot on. We’d at least expect some respect, but the rest of the world is too full of bigotry against Britain’s history of colonialism to remember that, for example, slavery continued in America for 32 years longer than in Britain. If we had no immense deficit, we could afford to play God and sort out the world’s problems, if others were genuinely deserving and genuinely grateful for the help. But borrowing money to throw down the drain “helping others” while we cut jobs and social spending here is not generosity, but stupidity.

    Because we’re virtually throwing money at the recipients in a stupid manner, it comes across in the wrong way; we even don’t get respect in return. It’s perceived that we’re stupid and frivolous with our money, that we have “more money than sense”, that the giving of money is some kind of reparation for our colonial past, or that the leaders who agreed to give the money are corrupt and must be doing it to get a secret private brown envelope of cash back from the recipient, etc. Nobody is grateful to Britain under these circumstances. The fastest way to make false “friends” is to start giving money for nothing. You don’t get genuine respect, instead you’re looked on as a loaded fool. If Cameron wants to help the world, let him write his cheques on his own private bank account, not increase Britain’s debt burden by giving unwanted help to selfish anti-British regimes, while making cut backs here.

  3. Velocity says:9th April 2011 at 9:16 pmConsider Prince Phillip said if he was re-born (God help us!) he’d like to come back as a virus as there’s too many of us. He’s on the WWF and ‘surprise surprise’ has born 3 children himself!!!

    The problem i see with eugenicists is that they’re still alive and having children adding to the population ‘problem’. A ‘problem’ that would disappear overnight if they were all eradicated

  4. Deadpeoplestuff says:21st April 2011 at 12:40 pmWell JD, down targets, patch-out. That’s to say, don’t stay away too long, recharge the batteries or should that read ‘stoke the coal fired boilers’ and come back fighting! (although I entirely understand the need to take a break….the trolls wear everyone down eventually)

    Please try to remember, you are one of the few writers prepared to represent the ‘other side’ of the great global warming racket. These ‘deep greens’ can not be given free run or those who respect and care for all life would lose an important voice.

    Anyone concerned about the ozone layer may wish to consider the nuclear tests and the continued deployment of so called ‘low yield’ depleted uranium (er..nukes) around the globes war zones (there are a few to choose from..) and may care to look deeper into the whole CFC story

  5. Nige Cook says:21st April 2011 at 10:00 pm“Anyone concerned about the ozone layer may wish to consider the nuclear tests and the continued deployment of so called ‘low yield’ depleted uranium (er..nukes) around the globes war zones (there are a few to choose from..) and may care to look deeper into the whole CFC story” – Deadpeoplestuff

    But 438 megatons of atmospheric nuclear tests, including high altitude tests in the ozone layer, had no measurable effect on ozone: see Nature (vol. 244, pp. 545-551), http://www.bmartin.cc/pubs/79bias/Goldsmith.pdf

    Nuclear explosions in sea level air produce a strong blast wave which heats and compresses air to produce nitrogen dioxides. Simplistically, a tiny amount of nitrogen dioxide can set off a chain reaction that destroys the entire ozone layer – ignoring reactions with water vapour to form nitric acid, which is of course what happens to most nitric acids formed in shock wave “thunder” around lightning bolts (it was proved that this happens in nuclear detonations too, when America flew sampling aircraft through a Chinese megaton yield mushroom cloud in 1976). Water vapour is entrained by afterwinds and is sucked into the cloud, where it mixed with nitric oxides, forming nitric acid.

    High altitude nuclear explosions which don’t produce a significant blast wave, don’t produce significant amounts of nitric oxides, but the gamma rays released from such bursts do produce a massive amount of ozone, which gives a good boost for the ozone layer. This is still deliberately covered up by the American military, who are still classifying as secret early-time thermal radiation emission which shows the absorption of ultraviolet by the ozone created by the action of gamma radiation on the air around the fireball.

    People think this kind of data either (1) doesn’t exist, (2) isn’t precisely measured, or (3) is “controversial” (ignorable), when it’s merely still being classified as restricted data under the US Atomic Energy Act of 1954!

    This shows the danger of believing early scare-mongering “scientific” claims from armchair theorists. There’s also a media “selection principle” where only nuclear disaster claims are deemed newsworthy at all. Facts debunking widely-held dogmas don’t sell the Guardian and aren’t objectively reported. Scientists always pick up on this and ensure their reports are scary stuff that attracts more funding and research, like the self-perpetuating AGW scam. Lefties rely on lies (using dogmatic “science”) to camouflage their ecofascist eugenics policies: they censor out science criticisms as if they’re the same as religious heresies.

Comments are closed.

Triumph of the West

If at the beginning of the 15th century you’d had to predict who was going to dominate the world for the next 500 years, the answer would surely have been China. From the sophistication of its sanitation system to the size of its fleet, China — under the Emperor Zhu Di and his eunuch naval commander Cheng Ho — was a country going places. Its mighty, 400-foot-long ships sailed as far as Malindi on the East African coast and probably Australia. It had invented the clock and, of course, gunpowder.

Europe, during the same period, was — relatively speaking — a stagnant, backward mess. Architecturally, it had nothing modern that could match the glories of the Forbidden City in Peking or imperial Nanjing. It was decidedly lacking in Confucian harmony and cohesion: a mishmash of violent, squabbling, plague-ravaged city states and warring kingdoms. Between 1330 and 1479, one quarter of deaths among the English aristocracy was violent.

By the end of the century, though, something had changed. Columbus, in a ship one tenth the size of Cheng Ho’s, had discovered the New World, while Vasco da Gama had opened a new trade route to India. And by 1842, the power imbalance had grown so great that to punish China for confiscating some of its opium Britain was able to demand reparations, including $21 million, the opening of five trade treaty ports and the establishment of a crown colony on Hong Kong.

Where did Europe get it so right and the Chinese so badly wrong? This was the question asked by Niall Ferguson in the first episode of his six-part series Civilisation: Is the West History? (Channel 4, Sunday). I can’t say I’ve been a particular fan of his earlier stuff, which has always struck me as a bit abstruse and pleased with itself. But this new one looks set to be an absolute cracker: cogent, urgent, persuasive and compelling.

Read the rest at the Spectator.

Related posts:

  1. How The West Was Lost (ctd): the Burkini
  2. Sporting triumph at school is even sweeter than the smell of napalm in the morning
  3. Allen West: America’s next black president?
  4. Margaret Thatcher dies; Dave basks in the limelight

5 thoughts on “Triumph of the West”

  1. Nige Cook says:14th March 2011 at 9:28 amYes, it wasn’t too bad. I saw it and Niall Ferguson half won me over with his discussion of the role of science in the military, showing off Benjamin Robins’ book which attempted to mathematically predict air resistance effects on cannon shell in his 1742 New principles of gunnery were enthusiastically taken up and extended three years later by the German language translator, the ubiquous mathematician Leonard Euler, in his improved Neue Grundsätze der Artillerie, 1745. Robins argued that the effect of air resistance increases with the initial velocity of the projective, which was revolutionary because the previous half-baked analysis by Tartaglia in 1537 and made parabolic by Galileo in 1638, claimed that air resistance was only important near the end of the trajectory.

    In fact air resistance is highest when the velocity is highest (in the early stages), because the drag is due to dynamic pressure, which as Euler found is clearly proportional to the square of the velocity of the shell. So as it slows down, air resistance becomes smaller, not bigger (as previously believed from intuitive guesswork). The key problem was determining the shell’s range as a function of gun elevation angle and the initial velocity of the shell. Napoleon studied the French version of Euler’s revision, and was able to get his gunnery more efficient than his rivals, whose military relied on an excessive amount of preliminary “test shots” to empirically determine the best elevation angle (wasting time, wasting cannon, and forewarning the enemy!). So the basis of Napoleon’s success was the brainpower of an English physicist!

  2. Nige Cook says:14th March 2011 at 9:41 am(Sorry, I was interrupted while writing the comment above; the second sentence is a dog’s breakfast.)
  3. JimmyGiro says:14th March 2011 at 6:04 pmI totally agree with your assessment of the Headmaster, in Jamie’s Dream School, as being the weakest link. And therein lies the value of the show; not so much for Jamie’s hopes, but for the way this show promises to expose some of the excuses that professional teachers (and their unions) come up with, such as blaming parents.

    Whether these ‘dream teachers’ succeed or fail becomes dwarfed by the incite we will all get by watching the reactions of real kids in real lessons. And I’ll bet a pound to a penny that the Headmaster will inadvertently expose his political training, along with the culpability of the teaching profession as it currently stands.

  4. Velocity says:15th March 2011 at 2:30 amNial Ferguson nailed only 1 major force for Europes, and latterly Americas, economic success: competition. It’s the most powerful force in capitalism.
    The other key he missed was freedom. Freedom of the individual to push boundaries, wether that be technology, industry or science (ie. knowledge).
    He touched on Chinas regression from being the most advanced nation but he didn’t nail the reason: authority or centralising of power.
    Centralising power of economic progress is fatal. Ity proved fatal to China.
    Whereas in Europe entrepeneurs, primarily agricultural and industrial, had room to breath. However Americas freedom surpassed Europes increasingly stifling Govts which is why America overtook authoritarian Europe so rapidly.

    Incidentally James ‘The Abyss’ is about to kick off i believe. The Euro and US stock markets have just taken what looks like the beginning of an accelerating wave down.
    This is important because it’s a lead indicator for the economy. And it also leads all political events (markets = horse… politics = cart).
    This last stock rally is being nicely ‘peeked’ by Merkals Emperor like orders for the minnows of Europe and agreeing to increase the Eurozone bailout fund. But this stock collapse is marking the beginning of the end for these last ‘chummy’ and ‘friendly’ Euro Clubbers. The declining stock market will now bring on devision, fall out and the inevitable split of the Eurozone in the next year.
    Tell Hannan… he’ll like the news… in fact if he knew how events unfold he could make the news and mark his place in history! He was very brave to use my line that business does not need the EU/Govts to trade across Europe in his speech at the EU. He gulped a bit delivering such a powerful message but deliver it he did (kudos for that)

  5. herkinderkin says:15th March 2011 at 2:37 pmJames – Nailed, pretty much. I cannot disagree about the key advantages:
    competition, science, property rights, medicine, the consumer society and the work ethic.

    Neither can I disagree about that these are negatives:
    bunny-hugging, diversity awareness training, renewable energy and the EU. The last is taxation (and regulation) without representation.

    The way that successive UK politicians of both left and right have ceded sovereignty to the EU.is treason in my book. NZ politicians have similarly ceded sovereignty to foreign interests and the UN. Perhaps it’s no coincidence that the same leaders have abolished the death sentence for treason. Playing it safe, no doubt.

    Two comments are necessary.

    It is ironic that China, which is growing very fast, has central control, but does it in such a way that it now at last has all of the key advantages you identified. (Actually, they always did have the last, the work ethic.) I am uncomfortable with the excesses of the control the Chinese exercise, but it seems to be working overall. The Chinese are out-performing the West.

    Part of their success – a big part, arises from the headlong rush of western businesses to source their manufactured goods from the cheapest sources. As a result, manufacturing in the West has severely diminished. The short-term profits have been made, but the overall wealth of western nations has declined sharply.

    And the Chinese, and latterly the Indians, are beginning to laugh all the way to the bank.

    Competition, science, property rights, medicine, the consumer society and the work ethic. greed may not be such a crash-hot idea. It might be a good thing if western governments exercised some controls designed to promote growth. And abandoned the cloying, unecessary growth-limiting controls of carbon taxes.

Comments are closed.

Warmists: ‘We Can’t Win the Game, So Let’s Change the Rules’

True believer eco-loon warmistrydodo

Willis Eschenbach’s recent guest post at Watts Up With That? on the current state of ‘Climate science’ should be made compulsory reading in every classroom, every university science department, every eco-charity, every environmental NGO and in every branch of government. They won’t like it up ’em, that’s for sure.

What Eschenbach says is so pure and simple and obvious you’d need to be as dumb as Chris Huhne not to get it:

The theory linking man-made CO2 with dangerous global warming is dead. It has been falsified. It has run smack bang into a “null hypothesis.” It has met its Waterloo. It has bought the farm. It has gone for a Burton. It has cashed in its chips, fallen off its perch, gone south, gone west, shuffled off this mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the Choir Invisible.  Man-made Global Warming has ceased to exist.

Eschenbach wrote his post in response to a bizarre speech prepared by Dr Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), which he intended to deliver to the American Meteorological Society. Trenberth is the arch-warmist perhaps best known for writing the Climategate email which went:

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.

When Trenberth’s speech was pre-published on the internet it caused something of a stir, both for the way large chunks of it had been taken almost verbatim from another scientist and for its use six times of the word “denier”. (Thanks to some kindly advice proferred by Steve McIntyre, Trenberth has now significantly altered his speech. But not – as I incorrectly reported earlier – by changing his six uses of the word “deniers” to “sceptics”. That loaded word deniers he has kept, which gives you an idea of the man’s zealotry. And also his foolishness: a good many in his audience at the AMS, being meteorologists rather than “climate scientists” tend very much to fall into the sceptic camp).

What Eschenbach focuses on, though, is Trenberth’s absurd demand that the “null hypothesis” on AGW theory be reversed. That is, instead of having to prove AGW exists, what people should now be required to prove that it doesn’t exist. (!)

Here’s an excerpt from Eschenbach’s hilarious demolition of this nonsense:

Gotta love the style, though, simply proclaiming by imperial fiat that his side is the winner in one of the longest-running modern scientific debates. And his only proffered “evidence” for this claim? It is the unequivocal fact that Phil Jones and Michael Mann and Caspar Amman and Gene Wahl and the other good old boys of the IPCC all agree with him. That is to say, Dr. T’s justification for reversing the null hypothesis is that the IPCC report that Dr. T helped write agrees with Dr. T. That’s recursive enough to make Ouroboros weep in envy.

Do read Eschenbach’s post in full.

Eschenbach goes on to offer a long list of things climate ‘scientists’ should do if they’re ever to be taken seriously again:

Stop avoiding public discussion and debate of your work.

Stop secretly moving the pea under the walnut shells.

Enough with the scary scenarios, already.

Speak out against scientific malfeasance whenever and wherever you see it.

Stop re-asserting the innocence of you and your friends.

STOP HIDING THINGS!!!

Will any of this happen? It’s about as likely, I’d say, as my winning gold in the 100 metres at the 2012 London Olympics. The reason for this is that “Climate Change” has long since abandoned any connection it had now with actual science. It is an ideology. A religion. A psychopathology.

That’s why the people on this planet now inhabit two parallel universes.

On the one hand are the true believers, such as NASA’s Dr James Hansen, who believes his compatriots are “barbarians”, that US democracy is “dysfunctional” and that the best way to sort out the world’s carbon problems would be to invite some kind of global, Chinese-led eco dictatorship. These true believers also include this eco-loon at Treehugger who appears to admire China’s no-nonsense way of meeting its five-year energy-efficiency targets: by “cutting power to industry and imposing rolling blackouts.”

According to the Treehugger this is brutal, statist, anti-human example is something we could learn from:

It’s worth noting the difference in political culture: What do you think would have happened if the US had such an energy-reduction target to hit, but a sagging economy got in the way?

I can tell you with some certainty: We would have missed that mark.

Then, on the other side of the planet, living in a parallel universe, are the rest of us. We look at James Hansen’s quotes and think: “Hang on a second. This is the guy in charge of one of the world’s four main climate data sets. He’s paid for by the US taxpayer, supposedly to represent US interests. And he’s a scientist who’s supposed to be politically neutral. Is it just me – or has one half of the world gone totally mad?”

Or as Dr Kevin Trenberth might say if only he weren’t so committed to the wrong cause, “This AGW sham. It’s a travesty!”

UPDATE

I’ve been urged – and rightly so – to draw your attention to the equally brilliant refutation of AGW at WUWT (commissioned by the GWPF) by the mighty Dr Richard Lindzen. (H/T D Simmons)

When an issue like global warming is around for over twenty years, numerous agendas are developed to exploit the issue. The interests of the environmental movement in acquiring more power, influence, and donations are reasonably clear. So too are the interests of bureaucrats for whom control of CO2 is a dream-come-true. After all, CO2 is a product of breathing itself. Politicians can see the possibility of taxation that will be cheerfully accepted because it is necessary for ‘saving’ the earth. Nations have seen how to exploit this issue in order to gain competitive advantages. But, by now, things have gone much further. The case of ENRON (a now bankrupt Texas energy firm) is illustrative in this respect. Before disintegrating in a pyrotechnic display of unscrupulous manipulation, ENRON had been one of the most intense lobbyists for Kyoto. It had hoped to become a trading firm dealing in carbon emission rights. This was no small hope. These rights are likely to amount to over a trillion dollars, and the commissions will run into many billions. Hedge funds are actively examining the possibilities; so was the late Lehman Brothers. Goldman Sachs has lobbied extensively for the ‘cap and trade’ bill, and is well positioned to make billions. It is probably no accident that Gore, himself, is associated with such activities. The sale of indulgences is already in full swing with organizations selling offsets to one’s carbon footprint while sometimes acknowledging that the offsets are irrelevant. The possibilities for corruption are immense. Archer Daniels Midland (America’s largest agribusiness) has successfully lobbied for ethanol requirements for gasoline, and the resulting demand for ethanol may already be contributing to large increases in corn prices and associated hardship in the developing world (not to mention poorer car performance). And finally, there are the numerous well meaning individuals who have allowed propagandists to convince them that in accepting the alarmist view of anthropogenic climate change, they are displaying intelligence and virtue For them, their psychic welfare is at stake.

Related posts:

  1. ‘Climate change sceptics have smaller members, uglier wives, dumber kids’ says new study made up by warmists
  2. Why the BBC will always be wrong on Climate Change
  3. Climategate 2.0: the Warmists’ seven stages of grief
  4. Warmists overwhelmed by fear, panic and deranged hatred as their ‘science’ collapses

8 thoughts on “Warmists: ‘We can’t win the game, so let’s change the rules’”

  1. Soi Disant says:20th January 2011 at 8:42 amHere’s a constant: Denialists will… deny. Failing any perceived success with that, some of them will call silly names.

    What, exactly is an Eco Loon? I’ve seen, and listened at different times across the water in the late evening and very early morning to the cries of the Common Loon, the Red-Throated Loon, the Pacific Loon and the Great Northern Loon (genus _Gavia_), but I’ve never heard of the Eco Loon. Is this meant to be some sort of insult?

    How odd.

  2. Chris P says:20th January 2011 at 4:20 pmJames

    You are nuts. Global warming is real and you are stupid. How many more freaking articles does National Geographic, Nature, New Scientist, Smithsonian, Scientific American and a bazillion others have to write before you’ll even read one of them.

    You have your head up your rear end. You aren’t a qualified scientist and wouldn’t know a scientific fact if it hit you on the head.

    You’re a “Talking head”.

  3. Steve M says:24th January 2011 at 10:23 pmJames,

    You are a scaremongering idiot. Climate change driven by human activity is real – your tactic of confusing the public to raise your own profile is despicable. Get off the stage and stop your posturing and allow scientists (real scientists) to at least approach the problem and to attempt to develop solutions or at teh very least ameliorations !!

    There are lies, huge lies and damned journalistic fairy tales !!!

    Clown !

  4. Keith Rossiter says:24th January 2011 at 10:25 pmLovely to see Mr Delingpole twitching, like a butterfly fluttering its last on the end of a pin, in tonight’s Horizon programme. The calm, reasoned and scientific approach left him speechless. For one glorious moment there I thought he might even say something along the lines of: “Hmmm. Well, I’ll have to go away and think about your argument.” (the consensual approach to cancer treatment). But no: he was just getting his breath back.

    It was shameful, though, and embarrassing to see a fellow journalist behaving like the worst kind of second-rate politician when cornered.

  5. Velocity says:24th January 2011 at 11:40 pmA wise old sage (veteran investor) I read every day across in Northwest Connecticut, USA is currently ‘basking’ in -10 to -20 Degrees weather. Two huge snowfalls and so cold between that the snow didn’t clear so just piled up and there’s a 3rd downfall predicted shortly.

    Kevin Trebert and James Hansen are both Yanks, you’d think these dreamers would look out of their padded cells just occasionally to see how things are working out on their global warming predictions!

  6. Velocity says:24th January 2011 at 11:50 pmChris P

    You’ve got your head up your arse too and born yesterday from what I can see. Why do you think Nature, Nat Geographic et al have scare stories on their front and inside pages?

    Trying to sell rags with shock stories is a well worn path don’t you think!

    And every enviro journalists tucked in the backroom as a lessor topic 20 years ago suddenly found a story they could run with, upped their status and even got themselves on the front pages in mainstream newspapers.

    The born losers of environmentalism have ‘never had it so good’ have they, unless you were born yesterday?!!

  7. Groper says:25th January 2011 at 6:29 amVelocity and Delingpole only live on headlines… of their choice. They forget Europe had an unusually warm Autumn prior to the snow dumps. Then Greenland is having an unsually warm winter. And they don’t understand annual global averages either. Just how cold it feels in their front room.

    But you can’t expect denialists to look at things in context…

  8. Rod Dhillon says:25th January 2011 at 12:00 pmI saw you on Horizon last night…haha..you got shown up big time!!
    So funny!

    Mate….you’re not a Journalist…you’re a Sensationalist….you’re a perfect example that bullsh*tting can make you money.

Comments are closed.

What the Chinese Really Think of ‘Man Made Global Warming’

Another BRIC in the wall

Low-income coal miners rest before starting their shift in a privately run coal mine close to You Fang Liang, Ningxia Province, north eastern China (Photo: EPA)

Low-income coal miners rest before starting their shift in a privately run coal mine close to You Fang Liang, Ningxia Province, north eastern China (Photo: EPA)

One of the great lies told us by our political leaders in order to persuade us to accept their swingeing and pointless green taxes and their economically suicidal, environmentally vandalistic wind-farm building programmes is that if we don’t do it, China will. Apparently, just waiting to be grabbed out there are these glittering, golden prizes marked “Green jobs” and “Green technologies” – and if only we can get there before those scary, mysterious Chinese do, well, maybe the West will enjoy just a few more years of economic hegemony before the BRICs nations thwack us into the long grass.

This is, of course, utter nonsense. The Chinese do not remotely believe in the myth of Man-Made Global Warming nor in the efficacy of “alternative energy”. Why should they? It’s not as if there is any evidence for it. The only reason the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming myth has penetrated so deeply into Western culture is… No. I’m going to save that stuff for my fairly imminent (Nov?) book on the subject which I hope you’re all going to buy.

What do the Chinese think about CAGW? Well, until now it was largely a question of educated guesswork, based on inferences like the fact that it was the Chinese who derailed the Copenhagen negotiations. But thanks to a new book called Low Carbon Plot by Gou Hongyang we know exactly what the official view is.

Ozboy – one of the finest commenters in this parish as well as proprietor of the Liberty Gibbet website – sets the scene nicely:

The argument [that China leads the world in renewable energy technology investment] rings a little hollow when you consider Beijing plans to build coal-fired power stations at the equivalent rate of one Australia, per year, for the next twenty-five years. The reputed Chinese fascination with renewable energy looks at best, a very long-term fallback position; at worst, a façade.

That’s what makes what you’re about to read even more startling. It’s a book called Low Carbon Plot, by Gou Hongyang and, as it’s freely available in China’s government-controlled bookstores, carries Beijing’s nihil obstat. No English translation is currently available, but our own China correspondent, Locusts, has translated the introduction from the original Mandarin, and (not entirely without risk to himself) has asked me to make it publicly available on this forum. At four thousand words, it’s a little long to insert onto a blog page, but you can navigate to it from the Rare Scribblings menu option at the top, or just click here.

It’s not so much an eye-opener as it is a bombshell. If true, it shows the Chinese government as rejecting CAGW in its entirety, believing it a conspiracy between Western governments and business to protect their own way of life, at the expense of the entire developing world—in other words, 80% of the world’s population.

Ozboy does not exaggerate.

Here, for example, is the author’s damning verdict on the Climate Change industry. Noting the irony of the spate of freezing cold weather that greeted the Copenhagen summit, the author wrily notes:

It was as if the freezing cold winter was having a laugh at all of these “Global Warming” theories. If the world was warming at an ever quickening pace, as all of these environmentalists say, then whence from such extreme cold? Whenever there are any doubts about Global Warming, it is almost as though environmentalists turn everything around and claim that this is too, a result of Global Warming. The Greenhouse Effect has turned in to a big basket, no matter what bad thing it is, just chuck it in.

He is even more damning about solar power in which, let it not be forgotten, China is supposed to be the world’s most shining example of just how well it can work.

First, he neatly captures the wishy-washy, John-Clare-esque pastoral utopianism which drives greenies to throw commonsense out of the window and pursue “renewable energy” regardless of all the facts:

Isn’t this the most beautiful thought possible, no pollution, everywhere is just greenery mountains and rivers, people won’t need to worry about coal mines collapsing, no need to worry about forests being chopped down, no need to worry about rising sea levels submerging island nations. It is as if, if only humanity could adopt clean energy, then all of our problems would be resolved with one sweep of the knife. But is the result really thus?

There is a very real problem staring everybody in the face. Solar power, wind power, can they be implemented on a large scale? Can they provide large scale industries with enough electricity? Can they supply trains with the power to fly along the tracks?

It is obvious, that the answer is in the negative.

He then – rather daringly, I think – weighs into the environmental unsoundness of this supposedly clean energy source:

Is solar power really clean? Investigations show that the base silicon that solar panels rely on is extracted via a energy intensive, heavily polluting industry. And where is this industry based? China.

China has already become the world’s biggest photovoltaic industrial market. The most important ingredient in solar power is polycrystalline silicon. The efficiency of manufacturing the panels is rather low, and a lot of pollution is generated as a by-product. When local industries started producing polycrystalline silicon, they were mostly reliant on outdated technology. Apart from high energy consumption, for every ton of pure polycrystalline silicon created, there were also more than 8 tons of ammonium chlorid[adized] silcon as by-product, as well as [other shit that a cursory look at google translate doesn’t answer].

The prosperity of China’s solar power industry, at the price of the environment of those rather weak distant regions, in order to attract commerce and investment, in order to collect tax revenue, very many environmental appraisal programmes have not yet been strictly implemented.

Here is the author eloquently demolishing the Carbon = Poison meme:

Will the increase in Carbon Dioxide definitely lead to the planet warming? Although there have been many many reports published by research institutes that verify this, but from the viewpoint of the history of man, and scientific method, the theories have not yet achieved scientific proof.

But, after many years of repeated indoctrination from every kind of propaganda machine, and the mixing together of environmental pollution and the exhaustion of natural resources, people have already formed a conditioned reflex, when the wind blows, the grass bends with it, and quickly hang these things on the hook of “carbon”, and attempted to get rid of carbon at a faster rate. We need to start peeling, and get back to the real world, and cannot stick labels everywhere. “Carbon” is the same “carbon” it was before, we must not get in to too much of a fluster. It is with polluted water/effluent, acid rain, destructive logging and waste with which we must struggle over the long term.

And here he is concluding that it is a fiendish plot – a new Cold War to all intents and purposes – by the West to suppress the economic growth of the BRICS nations.

Behind the back of the demonizing of “carbon”, we must recognize that it is the sinister intention of the Developed Countries to attempt to use “carbon” to block the living space of the Developing Countries.

There is only one Earth, natural resources are limited. If according to current technological conditions, and Developing Countries had the same living standard as Developed Countries, then we’d need at least 3 to 5 Earth’s to satisfy our appetites. This is what Developed Countries are most afraid of, the development of the Developing Countries poses an enormous threat to their way of lives.

In 2008, the price of foodstuffs substantially increased, a certain President actually said that the primary reason was because suddenly, one day, 300 million Indians started to eat two bowls of rice, and one billion Chinese started to drink milk.

In the eyes of some Westerners, the many developing countries have absolutely no right to enjoy the same standard of life as them.

If we really are equal, are of one mind, and together protect the Earth – our garden, we really can see a beautiful utopia in the future. But the Developed countries do not in the slightest wish to take any responsibility, they have set up double standards over “carbon emissions”, everywhere  reflecting their arrogance and selfishness.

Behind “the Carbon Plot” is national interest, it is the bitter struggle for the right to existance for every country.

At this time, we again see the struggle between two camps, Europe, the USA and other developed countries, and China, India, Brazil, and Russia as the representatives of the Developing Countries, owing to their common interest, now walking closely together.

Personally, I think his conclusion says more about BRICs chippiness and paranioa than it does socio-political actualite. The CAGW scam owes much more to an attempted power grab by the left in order to achieve “environmentally” in the 21st century what it couldn’t achieve economically in the 20th Century, viz: total state control of the means of production, in the guise of ecological correctness.

But it doesn’t really matter whether the author is right or wrong in what he thinks. What matters is simply that this IS how the Chinese think, which, whether you love China or loathe it is fantastically good news for those of us in the realist/sceptics camp. China, after all, is the world’s future dominant economic power and, this being so, it makes an absolute nonsense of attempts by the EU and the US to hamper our industrial growth by imposing on our economies eco-taxes and eco-regulations which the Chinese intend to ignore completely.

This truth hasn’t hit home yet: not in the EU; not in the Cleggeron Coalition; not in Obama’s USA. Here’s my bet. The first to see sense on this will be whichever Republican administration takes over from Obama’s one-term presidency in 2012. From that point on – by which time we’ll have had two more exceptionally cold winters to concentrate our minds – British and European environmental policy will look increasingly foolish and irrelevant.

Related posts:

  1. How come we now have to go to the Chinese for the truth about global warming?
  2. Why we can all stop worrying about ‘Global Warming’ for a bit
  3. Green jobs? Wot green jobs? (pt 242)
  4. The real cost of ‘global warming’

One thought on “What the Chinese really think of ‘Man Made Global Warming’.”

  1. Locusts says:17th August 2010 at 4:24 amJames,

    Thanks for picking up the story. Feel free to contact me if you wish.

Comments are closed.