Category: Bait & Switch

Bait & Switch : Urging action on Climate Change as a channel to guide people in promoting technologies, products and services (which may actually not be really effective in dealing with Climate Change).

Categories
Bad Science Bait & Switch Climate Change Corporate Pressure Divide & Rule Energy Change Energy Insecurity Energy Revival Engineering Marvel Fossilised Fuels Freak Science Genetic Modification Genetic Muddyfixation Green Investment Hydrocarbon Hegemony Major Shift Mass Propaganda Media Non-Science Nuclear Nuisance Nuclear Shambles Oil Change Optimistic Generation Peak Emissions Peak Energy Policy Warfare Political Nightmare Protest & Survive Realistic Models Renewable Resource Science Rules Scientific Fallacy Technofix Technological Fallacy Technological Sideshow Technomess The Data The War on Error Unqualified Opinion

Mark Lynas : Mutant Ninja

Mark Lynas may call himself a “green”, and be a clean-shaven, respectable, politely-spoken Oxford academic type but he appears to be mutating into something very unappealing indeed. He’s written some good books on climate change – every schoolroom and university module should have one – but on energy, he is deep in the political woods, without even a wind-up flashlight.

His latest stunt is to join in with accusations from Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit that the IPCC’s report on Renewable Energy has been partly crafted by people without appropriate independence or expertise. Here, from Andrew Revkin :-

https://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/15/a-deeper-look-at-an-energy-analysis-raises-big-questions/

“The IPCC must urgently review its policies for hiring lead authors – and I would have thought that not only should biased ‘grey literature’ be rejected, but campaigners from NGOs should not be allowed to join the lead author group and thereby review their own work.”

And who is this nefarious untalented Non-Governmental Organisation ? Greenpeace, it appears, according to Mark Lynas, is not capable of writing about the future of energy (or even the current situation).

Daniel Kammen has weighed in and The Revkin has updated his post :-

“There is no Himalaya-gate here at all. While there are some issues with individual chapters, there is no ‘Greenpeace Scenario.’ The 77% carbon free by 2050 is actually more conservative than some cases. The European Climate Foundation, for example has a 100% carbon neutral scenario and Price Waterhouse has a very low carbon one for North Africa. Further, while the IPCC works from published cases, the scenarios are evaluated and assessed by a team.”

There have been a number of reports written in the last year that back the viability of Renewable Energy technologies in replacing the world’s fossil fuel and nuclear energy systems. Not all of them were crafted by Greenpeace researchers. In fact, virtually none of them. Nuclear…yes…maybe it’s that little word “nuclear” that’s the root cause of Mark Lynas’ problem with Greenpeace.

In the Guardian, he is quoted as saying :-

https://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2011/jun/15/italy-nuclear-referendum
https://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jun/13/greenpeace-foe-charles-secrett-criticism

“Many ‘green’ campaigns, like those against nuclear power and GM crops, are not actually scientifically defensible…”

And that’s where you are so wrong, Mark Lynas with the book coming out soon that you seem so desperate to publicise by saying things you know people will find annoying. Nuclear power is a TECHNOLOGY, not a SCIENCE. This is the same basic category error made by Dick Taverne and a number of other public commentators who don’t appear to have an engineering background.

TECHNOLOGY is where people decide that their designs to make something look like they’ll work, build them and don’t foresee flaws with them. SCIENCE is where people study the technology that they’ve built and research the flaws that appear and report on them. Science is what has shown the limitations with the original boasts about genetically modified crops. It turns out that GMOs are a ruse to sell chemicals. And on nuclear fission – the science is in and on the front of your daily newspaper : nuclear power plants pose a number of risks. The advice of the reputable scientists and engineers – old fission nuclear power plants should be withdrawn.

But returning to Renewable Energy, a number of organisations now believe that the demise of fossil fuels needn’t stop humanity from accessing abundant energy. Here is just a very short compilation :-

The Two Marks : Mark A. Delucchi and Mark Z. Jacobson :-
https://www.peopleandplace.net/on_the_wire/2011/2/5/mark_jacobson_and_mark_delucchi_wind_water_and_solar

PriceWaterhouseCooper :-
https://www.pwc.co.uk/eng/publications/100_percent_renewable_electricity.html

CAT Zero Carbon Britain 2030 :-
https://www.zerocarbonbritain.com/

Roadmap 2050 :-
https://www.roadmap2050.eu/

European Renewable Energy Council R[e]volution :-
https://www.erec.org/media/publications/energy-revolution-2010.html

But oh, no, we can’t quote the last one because Greenpeace researchers were involved, and Mark Lynas wouldn’t approve of that. Mark Lynas appears to be living in a world where Greenpeace people can’t have engineering research skills because they have ideals, working for a world that uses safe, clean energy.

The IPCC report on Renewable Energy is here :-
https://srren.ipcc-wg3.de/

Much as I respect turtles, I have to say it – Mark Lynas, you’re a turtle – slow-moving and easy to catch out and turn into soup. You should know by now not to get sucked in by spurious non-arguments from Steve McIntyre. The “cleantech” industry that’s ramping up to provide the world with green energy is worth billions, soon to be trillions of dollars worldwide, and this fact appears to have completely passed you by. The only future for energy is sustainable, renewable, non-nuclear, clean, quiet and safe. There is no other viable, liveable, option.

[ UPDATE : In the Independent newspaper, Mark Lynas is quoted as remarking “Campaigners should not be employed as lead authors in IPCC reports”. So, Mark, it’s really fine for employees of the major oil, gas and mining companies to take a leading role on major IPCC reports; but it’s not fine, according to you, that somebody working for much less money and much higher principles than mere corporate profit should contribute ? Denigrating somebody for being a “campaigner” is a stereotypical insult. Everybody’s got an agenda, campaigners included. What’s your agenda, Mark ? Selling your new book ? Don’t be dismissive about Greenpeace researchers. They may have ideals, but they’re not naive – they also have brains – and with their declared position on getting at the truth they can be trusted to be direct, decent and honest. Where’s your ethical compass, Mark ? ]

Viva Italia !

Categories
Advancing Africa Animal Kingdoom Bad Science Bait & Switch Big Society Dead End Demoticratica Design Matters Divide & Rule Engineering Marvel Environmental Howzat Evil Opposition Foreign Interference Foreign Investment Freak Science Genetic Modification Human Nurture Libertarian Liberalism Mass Propaganda Media Non-Science Pure Hollywood Resource Curse Scientific Fallacy The War on Error Unqualified Opinion Unutterably Useless Utter Futility

Adam Curtis : Daft Punk

[ UPDATE : BRILLIANT DECONSTRUCTION OF ADAM CURTIS’ WORK FROM BEN WOODHAMS ]

The final part (I really hope it is the final part) of Adam Curtis’ trilogy on “Evil” Computers and “Devillish” Enviromentalists – “All Watched Over By Machines of Loving Grace” – a title drawn from a poem written by what would appear to be a madman – has now been uploaded to YouTube, allowing me to view it without taking part in the memory-eating public monitoring disappointment that is BBC iPlayer :-

Adam Curtis certainly reveals himself as a little monkeyish in this episode, throwing overarm and underhand javelins at “liberals” of all hues and cries, particularly environmental ones; and throwing in liberal references to primates wherever he can, seemingly to suggest that mankind has un- or de-evolved by adopting computing tools and studying the natural world.

Continue reading “Adam Curtis : Daft Punk”
Categories
Bait & Switch Behaviour Changeling Big Picture Big Society Climate Change Corporate Pressure Demoticratica Divide & Rule Economic Implosion Evil Opposition Financiers of the Apocalypse Growth Paradigm Human Nurture Libertarian Liberalism Major Shift Mass Propaganda Media National Socialism Nudge & Budge Optimistic Generation Political Nightmare Protest & Survive Social Capital Social Change Social Chaos The Power of Intention The War on Error Voluntary Behaviour Change

Adam Curtis : Against Nature

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uz2j3BhL47c

I was encouraged to take in the audiovisual presentation of “All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace”, wherein Adam Curtis demonstrates what appears to be a lack of understanding regarding failure in the financial markets. Most foundational year ecologists can tell you that systems are self-correcting, that virtual bubbles get popped, that hubris gets torn down, that over-population gets underfed. Rabbits and foxes. Owls and mice. George Monbiot’s “War On Slugs” because of missing hedgehogs and thrushes. It all depends on the natural resources available to feed the participants in the game. The global economy can only accelerate growth so much before it implodes. There are Limits to Growth. Curtis could be said to be expressing his suspicions that the fake “Knowledge Economy”, the Asian “Shock Doctrine” and the Property Crash were an artefact of a secret evil cabal formed from the vaguely impressed followers of Ayn Rand – but the rest of us all know that’s silly. She was a lovely, sensitive, principled woman, although she could have done with a little more kindness in her life to inspire altruism in her worldview.

Continue reading “Adam Curtis : Against Nature”
Categories
Bait & Switch Carbon Commodities Carbon Taxatious Climate Damages Conflict of Interest Contraction & Convergence Corporate Pressure Cost Effective Dead End Divide & Rule Economic Implosion Emissions Impossible Energy Change Energy Disenfranchisement Energy Revival Energy Socialism Financiers of the Apocalypse Fuel Poverty Global Warming Growth Paradigm Hydrocarbon Hegemony Tarred Sands Unqualified Opinion Unsolicited Advice & Guidance Unutterably Useless Utter Futility Vain Hope Wasted Resource

Carbon Dioxide – a virtual, negative commodity

https://www.cato.org/event.php?eventid=7999

I found this excellent little CATO Institute debate somewhere in my Twitter stream, and I watched the whole of it, despite the annoying accents and speaking styles of the speakers, and the insider economics references to Pigou and Coase (they’re only theorems, you know).

I thought that Kate Gordon made some excellent rebuttals to Andrew Morriss’ whining, pedantic free marketeering, and I was with her right up until the last few frames when she said that the Center for American Progress, of course, supports a carbon tax, as this is, of course, the best way to prevent Carbon Dioxide emissions.

Such disappointment ! To find that somebody so intelligent cannot see the limitations of carbon pricing is a real let down. I tend to find that American “progressives” on the whole are rather wedded to this notion of environmental taxation, “internalising the externalities” – adding the damages from industrial activities into the cost of the industrial products. I do not see any analysis of the serious flaws in this idea. Just what are they drinking ? What’s in the Kool-Aid ?

Continue reading “Carbon Dioxide – a virtual, negative commodity”
Categories
Bait & Switch Nuclear Nuisance Nuclear Shambles Public Relations Technofix Technological Fallacy Technological Sideshow Technomess The War on Error Unnatural Gas Unutterably Useless Vain Hope

George Monbiot bites Thorium bait

George Monbiot in his new role as an apologist for the twice-bailed-out-of-insolvency British Nuclear Power industry, has now taken the Thorium bait, quite probably the most well-funded piece of astroturfing propaganda in existence :-

https://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/may/09/coalition-greatest-threat-to-environment

“This ‘greenest government ever’ is the greatest threat yet to our environment : The coalition is preparing to bin Britain’s climate change targets. After all, ministers have corporate sponsors to take care of : George Monbiot, guardian.co.uk, Monday 9 May 2011”

“…we should start considering other options for decarbonising the electricity supply: especially new nuclear technologies such as thorium, integral fast reactors or travelling wave reactors…”

“New”, George, “new” ? The only thing that’s “new” is the desperate rush to try Thorium power out, now that there are doubts about “classic” nuclear reactor design. Here’s what James Birkin has to say over at the Claverton forum, where they have real energy experts discussing Thorium reactors :-

Continue reading “George Monbiot bites Thorium bait”
Categories
Advancing Africa Bait & Switch Big Picture Conflict of Interest Corporate Pressure Dead End Disturbing Trends Energy Insecurity Fossilised Fuels Marine Gas Money Sings Oil Change Peace not War Peak Energy Peak Oil Petrolheads Political Nightmare Renewable Resource Resource Curse Social Chaos The War on Error Unconventional Foul Unnatural Gas Unqualified Opinion Unsolicited Advice & Guidance Unutterably Useless Utter Futility Vain Hope Vote Loser

The spoils of war

See the rest of Gaddafi’s speech to the United Nations here

When did Colonel Muammar Gaddafi learn of threats from the world’s major oil consumer countries against his rule ? Was it in early 2011 ? Or was it several years earlier ? On the public stage, he has been deliberately reduced to a figure of fun, and his message advising non-aggression and protection from aggression is being lost. He is now a desperate man :-

https://www.youtube.com/?v=DTjpdUiILDw

Continue reading “The spoils of war”
Categories
Bait & Switch Climate Change Media Social Change

Peter Sissons Writes. Sigh.

[ UPDATE : Hot on the heels of the e-mail from Biteback Publishing (now, there’s a coincidence, not) I got an e-mail from the Daily Mail, explaining why they will not make further corrections to the excerpt they published from Peter Sissons’ book, apart from the goodwill gesture they first made to remove my name… They appear to have failed to understand the irony. Roger Harrabin insists that my complaint didn’t influence him to change his 2008 article. And now the Daily Mail are insisting that my complaint will not influence them to change their article. This shows quite conclusively that journalists are resistant to complaints; evidence which completely undermines the “contrived” claim by Peter Sissons that my complaint influenced Roger Harrabin… ]

Peter Sissons wrote a book, but since I don’t watch TV, I didn’t see him popping up on various programmes to talk about his new publication.

First I knew, excerpts from the book were serialised in a couple of newspapers – including the Daily Mail. It was only when I questioned the account in the Daily Mail, that I found out that I’d been written about by Peter Sissons in a printed book.

Yet Peter Sissons never contacted me to confirm details in researching his narrative, and he didn’t acknowledge that the version of the story he used had been contested publicly by Roger Harrabin, the BBC journalist.

I have attempted to get a correction from Biteback Publishing, but it appears that so far I have been unsuccessful, and it seems unlikely that my complaint will get recognition. Here is the e-mail trail :-

___________________________________________________________

From: jo abbess
To: info, Biteback Publishing
Subject: Request for clarification regarding Peter Sissons’ publication
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2011 09:26:41 +0000

Dear Biteback,

According to an e-mail from the Daily Mail’s Assistant Editor that I received yesterday, I have been mentioned by Peter Sissons in one of your publications.

The Daily Mail published an article by Peter Sissons online on 25th January, and I have been told that this was an excerpt from his recent book.

I’m wondering if you could do me the highest favour and clarify for me what exactly may or may not have been put into print by Peter Sissons about me.

I questioned the accuracy of the piece by the Daily Mail, and asked them to consider amendments, but unfortunately, before they could respond, the article was cut and pasted across the Internet, along with my name.

This means that even if my name has been removed from any published version, it would still be easy to find out who the unconfirmed story refers to.

Peter Sissons did not approach me regarding the story he recounted in the Daily Mail to verify details, and does not seem to have taken account of BBC journalist Roger Harrabin’s version of events. The story was therefore incompletely researched, and should not in my view be put into print.

It would be unhelpful if the same incorrect story were to have been printed in Peter Sissons’s book, and I would welcome feedback from you on measures that could be taken to remove the unsound narrative from the public domain if it has appeared in one of your publications.

I am not interested in pursuing legal redress if a false account has been published, but I would like you to provide a remedy to clear my name, actions and character if they have been inaccurately described.

Yours sincerely,

Ms J. Abbess

__________________________________________________________

From: jo abbess
Sent: 04 February 2011 09:41
To: James Stephens, Biteback Publishing
Subject: FW: Request for clarification regarding Peter Sissons’ publication

Dear James,

It was very reassuring to talk to you just now.

As you requested, I’m forwarding the e-mail that I sent this morning to the general info address.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Regards,

jo.

__________________________________________________________

Subject: FW: Request for clarification regarding Peter Sissons’ publication
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2011 10:00:53 +0000
From: James Stephens, Biteback Publishing
To: jo abbess

Dear Jo,

Many thanks for contacting me on Friday with reference When One Door Closes, the recently published autobiography of Peter Sissons. The book does indeed make mention of you in three paragraphs on page 299, which I have attached here for your convenience.

For clarification, I should make clear that we can see absolutely no reason to withdraw the book – nor to include an erratum notice, nor to issue some manner of correctional statement.

With reference to the e-mail exchange between Roger Harrabin and yourself referred to in the text where Peter uses your words he repeats verbatim what has already appeared elsewhere in the public domain. In terms of events it seems to me that he is factually correct. In terms of Peter’s own interpretation of those facts, we feel that it is the writer’s prerogative – especially in a memoir – to put down his own reflections on and personal interpretation of events.

Again, I thank you for bringing your concern to my attention. However, I hope that once you have had a chance to look at the text you will not feel you have been inaccurately described.

Best regards

James Stephens

__________________________________________________________

From: jo abbess
Sent: 08 February 2011 13:45:15
To: James Stephens, Biteback Publishing

Dear James,

Thank you for the clarification and the PDF of the page of Peter Sissons’ book where my name is mentioned in connection with Roger Harrabin and an e-mail exchange that Roger and I had in 2008.

I agree that Peter Sissons should be free to have his own opinions about what took place, but it appears to me that he has not given an accurate description of the factual events, and so I would question the validity of his summary.

I am unhappy that Peter Sissons published this account without verifying the factual details with me. I am also not happy to have a negative judgement of my character and behaviour appearing in print when this opinion is based on an incomplete account of the factual events.

In addition, it appears that Peter Sissons has ignored the account of the factual events as given by Roger Harrabin back in 2008, which has been repeated several times in several arenas since. In my view, Peter Sissons has come to an inaccurate conclusion based on faulty information.

The account by Peter Sissons seems to me to be lacking in a good deal of context. Were he to have fully researched what happened, and understood what actually took place, I am sure that he could see why I think that his position on this incident is uninformed and faulty.

Roger Harrabin and I made several attempts to get the Climate Change sceptic account of what took place corrected at the time, but it appears that these corrections were not heeded, and it seems possible that the inaccurate narrative will come back again and again to haunt us, if the usual pattern of Climate Change sceptic muck-raking behaviour is to continue.

It would be a really helpful thing if you could send me a letter confirming that you recognise my complaint and that I have challenged the accuracy of Peter Sissons’ account. This I could then use to wave in front of people who seem to be adamant in bringing this long-dead non-scandal back to life.

There is no dirt in what took place, and it should not be dug up repeatedly in my opinion, and I would appreciate your help in deflecting false accusations from third parties in future.

I need to have my voice heard and my position acknowledged on this matter.

Thank you,

jo.

__________________________________________________________

Categories
Bait & Switch Emissions Impossible

Buying Our Love

Of all the pointless exercises in all the world…

It seems we are cheap buys.

https://www.edfenergy.com/media-centre/press-news/Mayor-backs-bid-for-a-Low-Carbon-London.shtml

“…Low Carbon London would provide the vital information link, matching models of the electricity distribution network of the future with real customer behaviour, and finding the best ways of empowering customers to reduce their electricity consumption and carbon emissions. Working directly with London communities and businesses, EDF Energy Networks would seek to help them learn how to manage their electricity demand…”

So…what precisely is EdF going to do to lower their own carbon emissions, and stop burning coal ?

And why do we continue to allow the coal-burning power companies to tell us to cut our carbon emissions ?

Categories
Bait & Switch Political Nightmare Social Change

Ra-Ra Cheerleading Democracy

Hi MX,

A few words of insider insight from you could really help me decide how much energy I can personally justify putting in to the Stop Climate Chaos activities this year. In addition, it would colour the replies I give to my colleagues […] who are asking about how much we try to get behind and support and promote Stop Climate Chaos.

The [SCC] coalition meeting audience on Wednesday was assured that if we mobilised and made demands that we, by our efforts, could make the Green Deal strong/effective, that we could “win”. But this could seem a ridiculous waste of time, as the Energy Bill is already very clear about what the Government wants in the Green Deal. What is it that we are fighting for in that case ? Nobody introducing the campaigning plan outline had produced a layman’s guide to the components of the Energy Bill for us to try to digest – no points that we were encouraged to contest.

I discussed this situation with a co-worker of mine and his expression was to call Stop Climate Chaos a “Government chihuahua”. From his analysis, Stop Climate Chaos members are not being asked to “fight” a “campaign” – we are being asked to support what the Government is already intending to do. The top political negotiators are trying to sell us the narrative of “effective campaigning”, but just as in all […] campaigns, there’s nothing to struggle for, only things to assent to. This is just the same as back in the days of Gordon Brown when a fix had already been done at the political level for Make Poverty History, and the masses were invited to come out and wave flags for it. It’s so obviously saccharine, what’s the point of being involved ? And how do I get the energy together to sell engagement to other people ?

I and my colleagues are pleased to offer polite support, and we will even come and wave flags, but where’s the chewy centre ?

As for the summer “challenge” to the energy industries, Greenpeace, as usual, will probably soak up a lot of creative and hormonal energy from those who believe they need to be assertive and proactive, and who feel angry, but again as usual, Greenpeace will be pretty much dismissed by the general public (and given a very long leash by the Government). Is it all about keeping potential troublemakers busy (like the NASA Space Program) ? Quite a number of people I come into contact with prefer to take action outside of the recognised organisations for this very reason.

The basic problem of energy has to be approached in terms of systems – holistic strategies for future low carbon energy provision. This is not going to be addressed by going after individual energy technologies as Greenpeace seem to feel they have to. Where is the generic critique of “technofixes” and the analysis of the likely failings of a number of the components of the current UK energy “plan” ? Where, for example, is Carbon Capture just now ? Is it ever likely to succeed (without the EU and national subsidies proposed) ? I don’t know if I can ask my colleagues to support a technology crucifiction without offering a positive alternative.

I guess I’m ready to stop playing the “campaigning” game. I never believed in it, as a matter of fact. It’s completely artificial, and the drawing together of large, broad consensus, such as Stop Climate Chaos, shows up the failings in the “campaign” language and the theories of social engagement in democracy. I don’t believe that people can be “mobilised” around issues, except maybe at the grassroots, local level. Oh yes, I’ve filled in my fair share of campaign postcards, signed petitions, written e-mails, joined marches, but I can no longer sell this model of political interaction since I am discovering how it’s treated with such patronising attitudes by those who actually make decisions. As long as I am considered a “campaigner” or “environmentalist”, I shall continue to be ignored. I am really neither. I am a systems engineer with a background in electronics engineering and IT.

I don’t think my “democratic” representative gives any consideration to things that truly concern me and that I try to communicate. I don’t think any of the “campaigns” have a clue about what is really needed to solve the Climate Change or Energy emergencies, and they are often dismissive about engineering and systems work that can point the way. Those in the campaign groups that have dialogue with the political system don’t have the bandwidth to really listen to those working on the ground on local issues. There’s an awful lot of listening not going on.

Really, is there any point putting any energy into Stop Climate Chaos ?

___________________________________________________________

Hi Jo

I enjoyed working with you over the weekend – thanks for your useful and enthusiastic contributions. And your observations in your email about the effectiveness or otherwise of campaigning are highly relevant to our next session(s).

I should say that my (heavy) involvement with SCC came to an end c. 2 years ago so I am not that au fait with it now. Let’s discuss this next time we meet in more detail but I would argue that it is worth maintaining membership of SCC (I can’t see that adding your organisation’s name to it can cause any harm […]) whilst carrying out some kind of ‘cost-benefit analysis’ with colleagues (as you have begun to do) so as to decide how much time and money [they want] to devote to supporting its campaigns. I do think the nature of a Coalition Government (with a leader of the opposition who genuinely cares about this stuff) does potentially provide some political leverage which well focussed and run campaigns might capitalise on – and to a large degree the Climate Change Act did come about as a result of a FoE/SCC campaign.

And is it worth [your organisation] considering [signing] up in some way with 38 Degrees and Avaaz?

__________________________________________________________

Hi MX,

It was a fun weekend, was it not ? Our group is a great crowd, and the members have these amazing social roles and incredible in-depth experience, so there’s a wide variety of skill sets and personalities. We could go far.

I do appreciate the time and energy you devoted to the block conference days, and I hope I showed you that I enjoyed the learning and exercises and and your out-there honesty and clearly genuine passion for this work.

I’ve decided that what I really don’t like in campaigning is the promise of political engagement but the complete absence of any real influence.

The way all campaigns seem to be run is that the leaders try and shake everyone’s trees to “come on down, get involved, you can take part, we can win”, but the net result is mere flag waving. We are the sheeple.

It is a lie at the core of the machine, and people back away from that cognitive dissonance even if they don’t recognise it. If it’s numbers you want, you won’t get that by selling the myth of political engagement. Only the lead political negotiators in a campaign organisation stand a chance of real dialogue with those who make the decisions. Everybody else only has the kind of access that allows flag waving.

So campaigning shouldn’t be sold as a dialogue but a tick-the-box petition, maybe. Maybe it should be made more clear that there are skilled elites, and the rest of us are just nay-sayers or yay-nodders. 38 degrees and Avaaz are great examples of just that. That’s fine as long as there’s no sales pitch that suggests otherwise.

Of course [we] are going to stay signed-up to SCC – it’s a very Japanese politeness that insists that we all publicly support each other in the campaigns movement. Solidarity can be highly important – especially over complex issues – as long as they are well-defined.

The question is : is it worth us trying to use the SCC machine to try to launch our own messaging within the channels that exist there ? Is it possible ? The [SCC] coalition “planning” meetings always feel like we are allowed to speak, but not permitted to influence what SCC come up with. It is this entirely contrived “consultation” process that really gets my mountain-roaming bearded farm animal.

Since the ConDems do have some people who care about these issues, and the Civil Service does have some people that actually care about these issues, then why does SCC need to exist ? Does the Government really need flag-waving for its plans ? I doubt it. No “mandate from the people” required. Why do we need to march and protest and demonstrate ? And more importantly, why do we waste everyone’s time asking them to march, protest and demonstrate ?

It’s so much more efficient for me to sell the simple and quick ePetitions to [our] Members. […] They don’t want to be asked to march/protest etc, although some of us do.

Come on – let’s be honest – exactly how much of the work leading up to the Climate Change Act was guided by public pressure ? The NGO political elites handled most of the conversation, and key individuals were involved in promoting public and media debates, and more importantly, there was a lot of synergy because government types had begun to read the EU briefings and could see the way the land lay.

Is it efficient to ask for public input on strategy ? If a government has good advice from real experts, why does the public need to be consulted ? The public often get things wrong technically – the classic example being the completely irrational fear over mobile phone masts, and the fabled cancer dangers of mobile phones, which Caroline Lucas erroneously attached her name to. So, if the public are wrong, why are they told they need to take part in a token form of ra-ra cheerleading democracy ?

It makes my blood boil, etc

__________________________________________________________

Categories
Bait & Switch

Crossing Negativity Event Horizons

https://www.precious-friends.com/

Some days are better than others. Now, ain’t that the truth ?

One of the draining things about the environmental movement over the decades has been the pervasive negativity. It’s almost like it’s deliberate, that somebody somewhere has said to themselves, “let’s try and make the Greens as ineffective as possible by keeping them depressed and obsessed about negatives.”

Well, I stand against that ideology ! Like it says in the Good Book, “Brothers and Sisters, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable – if anything is excellent or praiseworthy – think about such things.”

It’s true that to be true you have to look at the bad stuff. You have to dig into unpleasant histories and unsavoury practices. Corporate polluters have to be exposed. Lies have to be unravelled. Economic ideologies have to be challenged. Energy myths have to be debunked.

But, at the end of the dark tunnel, you need a little lightening up.

Take up your attitude of gratitude – we have concentrated solar power plants. Holy goodness be thanked – we have wind turbines and hydropower (on a suitable scale) and the prospect of oceans of truly natural biogas, and efficiency savings, and low carbon housing and cross-modal transport options and photovoltaics printed on bioplastic and natural ventilation, and woodburning stoves, and, and, the list is genuinely endless…

All these solutions !

Negativity erodes your soul, like flying too close to a black hole. Stay opposed to something for too long and you get pulled over the event horizon into a very dark, pressured place. Hatred ruins the hater.

Let’s hear it for the things we want : cleaner, greener, keener.

What’s the positive direction ?

Categories
Bait & Switch Media Social Change

James Delingpole’s Lying Teeth

[ IRONY ALERT : WARNING ! THIS POST CONTAINS AN ATTEMPT AT HUMOUR. IF YOU TAKE IT SERIOUSLY, YOU ARE IN A BAD PLACE AND NEED TO HAVE A LITTLE LIE DOWN. I THINK THAT JAMES DELINGPOLE IS REPEATING INACCURACIES IN HIS WRITING ON CLIMATE CHANGE, AND HE APPEARS TO BE UNAWARE OF WHAT’S REALLY GOING ON. HE SEEMS TO CRASH FROM BLUNDER TO BLUNDER, BUT NOBODY APPEARS TO BE ALLOWED TO TELL HIM TO STOP, OR GUIDE HIM GENTLY INTO THE LIGHT. NOTHING IN THIS POST IS INTENDED TO BESMIRCH JAMES DELINGPOLE’S CHARACTER, AND I’M SURE HE HAS LOTS OF FRIENDS AND I TRUST HIS WIFE STILL LIKES HIM. WHAT I AM ATTEMPTING TO COMMENT ON IS THE FACT THAT HE HAS MISSED THE FINDINGS FROM SCIENCE, AND APPEARS TO BE SIMPLY REPEATING WHAT HE’S FOUND OUT FROM BIASED SOURCES. I HOPE HIS TEETH ARE NOT AS CROOKED AS THE IMAGE DEPICTS. I’M SURE HE HAS THE WEALTH TO ACCESS A QUALITY, PRIVATE DENTIST, EVEN AS THE REST OF THE NATION’S FANGS GO TO POT THROUGH LACK OF SOCIAL FACILITIES. SMILE. ]

I understand that James Delingpole has not been exposed to the lexicon of science, and so I would hazard to suggest that he is, perhaps, entirely unconscious of the depth, extent, range and expertise of the scientific community, and the strong consensus on matters global warming.

So I must assume that it is not him, but his teeth, that are lying when his web log on the otherwise commendable Daily Telegraph website utters things like this :-

https://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100073116/oh-no-not-another-unbiased-bbc-documentary-about-climate-change/

“…Nurse’s analogy is shabby, dishonest and patently false. The “consensus” on Climate Change; and the “consensus” on medical care bear no similarity whatsoever…The “consensus” on ‘Climate Change’, by contrast, is a figment of Al Gore’s – and, I’m sorry to say, Sir Paul Nurse’s – imagination. It exaggerates the number of scientists who believe in Man Made Global Warming and it grotesquely underestimates the number who have many good reasons for suspecting that there is far, far more to “Climate Change” than anthropogenic CO2. What’s more such “consensus” as there is is an artificial construct. It has not been subjected to the rigour of an open or even semi-open market. It is the creation, almost entirely, of politically-driven funding from US government, from various UN bodies, from the EU, from left-leaning charitable foundations on a scale unprecedented in the history of science…”

James Delingpole’s teeth believe they can pronounce what they like without any validity whatsoever, with no comeback or rebuttal. He has not been orthodontically corrected because people with science degrees tend to ignore James Delingpole – his teeth have the wrong evidential, educational and technical roots, so their enamel is rotten.

Most people with any knowledge, reason, sense, decorum and evidence refuse to waste their good time in contradicting James Delingpole’s artful gnashers, and I must say I too am tempted to laugh and turn the page. What nonsense his teeth are masticating ! They don’t even have the ring of toothiness…sorry “truthiness”.

But just because very few people come back and contest James Delingpole’s teeth’s outrageous and completely unsubstantiated fabrications doesn’t mean his teeth are right. In fact, it means his dental organs are inconsequential uneducated thorns in the flesh.

James Delingpole should take control of his toothy dissemblers, and send them to college, where they can learn the truth about global climate chaos, and stop chattering inanity and falsehood.

Oh, the shame ! To have teeth so polished, yet so unlearned !

Categories
Bait & Switch Energy Change Energy Revival

All You Need Is Plans

Image Credit : Profbrainstorm

Trying to take part in the national debate on future energy technologies is like wandering around the house in the dark – you frequently graze your knees and stub your toes on big things deliberately placed there to get in your way.

Some very well-financed people have been promoting dead duck technological options as if they hold some merit. Plucking a few examples out the air – a new fleet of nuclear power plants (with the risk of leaks and spiralling costs) and a network of carbon capture burial sites (with the risk of leaks and spiralling costs).

You would have thought that now would be a good idea to hatch a plan – an overall Energy policy, a strategy for the implementation of workable and reasonably-priced options that complement each other.

This would show up the uselessness of the engineering dodos such as new nuclear power and carbon capture and storage. To combat non-solutions, all we need is plans.

Well, there’s some movement from the UK Government, as one example, but it’s patchy. As for the social movements – well, that’s another story.

Quite a number of the activist communities still continue to adhere to the model of negative protest against big, old, dirty technology. Every time a piece of news arrives about a technology they don’t like, the “campaign” organisations react critically, defensively.

Every public event and “direct action” centres around things that people don’t want and don’t like. It’s never very happy. Civil society never gets around to forming a concrete positive proposal for how energy should be managed going forward.

To shine a light on this a little – Bill McKibben is just about to waste a whole bunch of his and other peoples’ time and energy on a schedule of “civil disobedience”, but this is likely to have little lasting impact on those who actually make decisions about the production and exploitation of energy resources :-

https://www.christiancentury.org/article/2010-12/disobedience

“Disobedience : Direct action on global warming : Dec 27, 2010 by Bill McKibben : If there was ever an issue about which civil disobedience should not be required, global warming is it…Global warming shouldn’t be a moral question, but because of our inaction it’s become the greatest moral challenge of our time.”

Couched in moral imperatives, Bill McKibben appears to be suggesting that the very best thing we should all do is to go and idle about outside a coal power station, or the like, and risk getting watercannoned, beat up or arrested. As if that helps – which it doesn’t.

There are some engineering people working to propose pragmatic, low cost strategies for implementing significant improvements in energy provision, but their work is not always read properly by the non-governmental organisations and independent groups.

If you’re not an engineer, your eyes tend to glaze over when you see a technical report. You don’t take it in, so you don’t understand the plan. Many social activists regard engineering reports as being simply “vision” and don’t understand the real proposals they contain.

Because activists regularly don’t understand positive proposals for changes in the energy systems, they can’t “get behind” them. So, without a plan, a plan for positive action, the default activist position is negatively opposing bad, old fossil fuel energies.

Struggling against fossil fuel energies and nuclear power is like trying to scramble up a scree slope while its experiencing an avalanche. By being continuously negative, activists don’t get anywhere fast.

Don’t get me wrong – it has been very necessary to follow through on resisting the negative aspects of energy for several years. People have had iconic photo opportunities camped outside massive, sinful coal power plants, or kneeling on an aeroplane runway. The “no” has been witnessed. And I have been a part of that witness.

But now we need to get on to the “yes”.

What is it that we are assenting to ? What changes do we think are practical, pragmatic to implement to drastically reduce carbon dioxide emissions in the United Kingdom.

Here’s just a couple of numbers :-

Biogas (from rotting sewage/food/plants) could provide somewhere between 20% and 50% of our current grid gas needs.
Insulating and draught-proofing buildings could cut Natural Gas use by something of the order of 30%.
Wind power could provide 45% of our electricity.

These are very Big Numbers.

Who says there is no “silver bullet” to fix the energy system ?

Several groups have a good idea on how these and other technologies can be implemented, and they have not been offhandedly ignored or dismissed by those that have the job of administering the country.

So what is it that we want ? And when are we going to have a wind turbine hugging event ? Or a Woodstock at a hydropower lake ?

Love your green energy. Go bless it with incense, chanting and soul.

Categories
Bait & Switch

My Watermelon Moment

Balancing the Books
Arguing for the Big State to solve Climate Change

After three decades of believing that the country can sustain a huge public debt, some credit must be given to the Conservative Liberal-Democrat Coalition for accepting that the public books must become more balanced.

The economic outlook is that, while steep inflation is likely, real productivity and wealth generation in the United Kingdom are unlikely to re-appear. Revenues from North Sea Natural Gas and Oil are long gone. Our national financial position would be broken if the Common Agricultural Policy were ditched tomorrow. The responsible thing, the right thing, is to make sure that the public budget is not tainted with debt. The State and its essential functions must survive.

Offloading assets from the books, whilst not helping with the overall balance of payments, does minimise risk to the future management of the State’s accounts. Outsourcing public services makes eminent sense, as nobody in Government office wants to have the State burdened by enormous pension obligations, or unshakeable employment costs.

It’s easy to understand this “small state” mentality. What is not so easy to understand is how the ConDems are prepared to sacrifice ordinary social securities in order to secure the economic condition of the Government.

What is the real function of the State if not to serve the people ? And how can the State serve the people if there is no common fund that’s generally accessible ? How do we get education for all done with limited central financing, grants and bursaries ? How do we guarantee dignity in care for the elderly and infirm without a large publicly employed workforce ? Are we permitted to justify cutting off the ropes of the safety net for the poor, the children and the vulnerable in order to protect the health of the State pocketbook ?

I think that all political thinkers who value social provision should consider where they pitch their tent. Do they advocate the building up of a Big State that can provide for those who cannot provide for themselves ? Can we build a platform on the idea of the Common Good of taxation and public sector jobs ? Do we want to undercut deprivation by building masses of zero carbon new social housing ? Do we want to preserve the systems of public health and education with adequate funding and staffing ? Do we want to continue to train people, particularly for new technical green jobs ?

Are you a community-minded person ? Will you declare yourself in favour of a truly socialist State ? Are you in favour of re-nationalising energy, water and transport in order to implement the low carbon energy revolution through the most efficient means – centralised publicly funded employment, public ownership of energy, and social provision of insulation ?

Why does the ConDem “Green Deal” smell so bad ? What has crawled into the Energy Bill, died and rotted ? Is it purely compromise ? Or is it the inability of a privatised energy industry to be capable of making the infrastructure and plant changes to de-carbonise the UK ?

Categories
Bait & Switch Behaviour Changeling Burning Money Corporate Pressure Delay and Deny Divide & Rule Economic Implosion Emissions Impossible Energy Change Energy Revival Green Investment Growth Paradigm Major Shift Optimistic Generation Peak Emissions Protest & Survive Public Relations Regulatory Ultimatum Resource Curse Voluntary Behaviour Change Wasted Resource

It’s not greed…

Image Credit : G. William Domhoff

In conversation yesterday evening somebody summarised the behaviour of banks and the energy industry as “greedy”, but I simply could not agree.

“It’s not greed”, I said, “most people are just trying to make a living.”

The corporations have an obligation to make profits for their shareholders, business managers have to be pragmatic, governments have to negotiate compromises and consumers are just looking to make the best use of their cash.

This is how we find ourselves locked into a vicious cycle of energy waste, through the production and use of cheap fossil fuels.

Fossil fuels are so cheap, nobody can spare the investment budget to make vehicles and power generation more efficient. Natural Gas is so relatively inexpensive that it’s cheaper to heat leaky homes than insulate them. Petroleum is so cheap (even with the rising global trade price and proposed increased taxes in the UK) that a high proportion of its energy value is wasted.

“It’s not greed,” I said, “look at who owns the wealth. The overwhelming proportion of people don’t have any control. They’re just trying to get by.”

To talk of “greed” anthropomorphises the machine of the economy, imbues it with a human emotion where it has none. To say that bankers are “greedy”, or that corporations and their Chief Executive Officers are “evil” entirely misses the point. Almost everybody is employed by somebody else, and has to follow instructions.

Even High Net Worth Individuals are under pressure to respond to their “electorates”, those who consume their intellectual property rights.

However, “just following orders” is no excuse to let people off the hook when it comes to carbon emissions, just like it is no excuse for war crimes.

But it’s not “greed”.

That would imply guilt, but guilt is not a lever that can be used successfully to correct excess carbon emissions.

Image Credit : Make Wealth History

Categories
Bait & Switch Climate Change Global Warming Media

Daily Exasperation

Scan Credit : Andrew Milligan

It appears that the editors of the Daily Express newspaper delight in selling units by being scandalously annoying.

“GLOBAL WARMING ? IF ONLY…”

Reads the line underneath the photograph of a posh Scottish gent in his snow-covered posh Scottish car (but probably made in Germany).

Inside on Page 6, we read, “Snow chaos…with worse to come”.

At the bottom of Page 6, just beside “ENERGY BILLS FACE HIKE”, with myths about the “cold snap” forcing prices upwards, we find, “But scientists claim world is ‘too warm'”

Indeed they do :-

“When could global warming reach 4°C ?”

The diagram shows a projection of global warming relative to the pre-industrial average for the emissions scenario we are currently following. The darker shading around the central line are the first statistical “standard deviation” range of uncertainty. The lighter shading shows the change in the uncertainty range when “carbon cycle climate feedbacks” are included.

Here’s what Joe Romm has to say about the research article :-

https://climateprogress.org/2010/11/29/royal-society-special-issue-4-degrees-world/

Categories
Advancing Africa Bait & Switch Big Picture Carbon Commodities China Syndrome Climate Change Contraction & Convergence Corporate Pressure Emissions Impossible Energy Change Financiers of the Apocalypse Global Warming Green Investment Money Sings No Pressure Peace not War Political Nightmare Regulatory Ultimatum Sustainable Deferment Technological Sideshow Tree Family Unutterably Useless Utter Futility Vain Hope

Cancun Day #2 : American Bullies

Image Credit : TF1

It’s not that developing countries and emerging economies are being picky. The problem lies with the United States of America, desperate to cling on to its geopolitical leverage :-

https://www.reuters.com/article/idUS273211516320101129

“U.S. Call to Preserve Copenhagen Accord Puts Climate Conference on Edge : By Stacy Feldman at SolveClimate : Mon Nov 29, 2010 : Many poor countries want to scrap the three-page Copenhagen agreement that the U.S. wants to preserve : CANCUN, MEXICO — The United States said Monday it would not back down on its plan to turn the unpopular Copenhagen Accord into a final global warming deal, setting the first day of already fragile UN climate talks in Cancun on edge. “What we’re seeking here in Cancun is a balanced package of decisions that would build on this agreement … [and] preserve the balance of the accord,” Jonathan Pershing, lead U.S. climate negotiator in Cancun, told reporters at the talks…”

https://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/nov/30/cancun-climate-change-summit-america

“Cancún climate change summit: America plays tough : US adopts all-or-nothing position in Cancún, fuelling speculation of a walk-out if developing countries do not meet its demands : Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent, guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 30 November 2010 : America has adopted a tough all-or-nothing position at the Cancún climate change summit, fuelling speculation of a walk-out if developing countries do not meet its demands. At the opening of the talks at Cancún, the US climate negotiator, Jonathan Pershing, made clear America wanted a “balanced package” from the summit. That’s diplomatic speak for a deal that would couple the core issues for the developing world – agreement on climate finance, technology, deforestation – with US demands for emissions actions from emerging economies and a verifiable system of accounting for those cuts. In a briefing with foreign journalists in Washington, the chief climate envoy, Todd Stern, was blunt. “We’re either going to see progress across the range of issues or we’re not going to see much progress,” said Stern. “We’re not going to race forward on three issues and take a first step on other important ones. We’re going to have to get them all moving at a similar pace.” In the run-up to the Cancún talks, Stern has said repeatedly that America will not budge from its insistence that fast-emerging economies such as India and China commit to reducing emissions and to an inspection process that will verify those actions. The hard line – which some in Washington have seen as ritual diplomatic posturing – has fuelled speculation that the Obama administration could be prepared to walk out of the Cancún talks…”

An “inspection process” ? Agreeing to the same use of satellite snooping and the threat of the penalties of economic sanctions as applied to the fabled Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, and the current pincer on Iran ?

I can’t quite see China agreeing to that.

If we’re thinking about paranoia, who should be monitoring whom ?

The Clean Development Mechanism should have been more closely monitored, but it wasn’t, and it’s collapsed in a big pile – fake credits, false accreditation, poor success rate. Where has the verification process been, there ?

New schemes for “climate finance” will essentially involve creating debt for Climate Change mitigation and adaptation projects in developing and emerging economies. Why more debt ? To prop up the ailing industrialised economies. And allow the Bank sharks to feed.

And “technology transfer” ? That’s all about intellectual property rights – America owning all the rights, and China and India and so on owning nothing, of course. What great technologies have parasitical American companies been keeping hidden away up their sleeves to sell to the Chinese under a Climate deal ? Or are they just rubbish deals, like expensive and untested Carbon Capture and Storage ?

“Deforestation” ? Virtually all proposed schemes under the REDD banner (Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) include an element of emissions trading – just the kind of offsetting that large, dirty American companies want to buy to justify carrying on with Business As Usual. Protecting the rainforests ? Nah – just finding another way to make money for the Carbon Traders, and protect the Oil, Gas and Coal industries of the industrialised regions.

What is needed is for the industrialised nations to commit to domestic emissions reductions, not continued attempts to coerce other countries to make cuts that can be traded.

Nobody has learned anything in the last year. The same ridiculous non-options are on the table, and nobody’s biting.

Categories
Bait & Switch Climate Change Delay and Deny Divide & Rule Fair Balance Global Warming Hide the Incline Media Science Rules Social Chaos The Data

Met Office Reports : Media Opinion Differs

Image Credit : Hobos 4 Life

Oo, it’s so hard knowing which version of reality to plump for, if you have to judge by the headlines alone.

These articles were published on the same day, based on the same report from the Meteorological Office, in different high quality newspapers :-

https://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/nov/26/global-warming-met-office

“World is warming quicker than thought in past decade, says Met Office : Report comes as scientists predict 2010 could be hottest year on record : Damian Carrington, The Guardian, Friday 26 November 2010 : The world warmed more rapidly than previously thought over the past decade, according to a Met Office report published today, which finds the evidence for man-made climate change has grown even stronger over the last year…”

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/8159991/Global-warming-has-slowed-because-of-pollution.html

“Global warming has slowed because of pollution : Global warming has slowed in the last decade, according to the Met Office, as the world pumps out so much pollution it is reflecting the sun’s rays and causing a cooling effect. By Louise Gray, Environment Correspondent, 26 Nov 2010 : The latest figures from more than 20 scientific institutions around the world show that global temperatures are higher than ever. However the gradual rise in temperatures over the last 30 years is slowing slightly. Global warming since the 1970s has been 0.16C (0.3F) but the rise in the last decade was just 0.05C (0.09F), according to the Met Office. Sceptics claim this as evidence man made global warming is a myth…”

I think I’ll go with Damian Carrington’s version, because at least he mentions more than one possible reason for why Global Warming hasn’t been accelerating as much in the last decade as the ones immediately prior.

Despite the slow down in acceleration, the temperatures are still rising, so there’s no need to use the word “cooling” in Louise Gray’s sub-heading.

And there’s no reason at all for Louise to mention the anti-science so-called “sceptics”, who are actually deniers. They would deny the Moon was made of rock, if they could manipulate the tiniest piece of evidence, or twist the most innocent of words, to make it appear that there were uncertainties about the exact composition of the samples taken from Earth’s satellite by the NASA astronauts.

There is still an outside probability that the Moon could be made of cheese, folks, according to the type of argument put forward by the sceptic-deniers.

But as we all know, that’s impossible, because the Moon landings were faked, and in fact, the Moon is only painted onto the sky dome, as it isn’t actually there any more as it was removed during an undocumented altercation between nuclear states some time in the 1990s.

Categories
Bad Science Bait & Switch Carbon Capture Carbon Commodities Carbon Taxatious Climate Change Climate Chaos Corporate Pressure Delay and Deny Disturbing Trends Divide & Rule Emissions Impossible Energy Change Energy Revival Engineering Marvel Extreme Weather Financiers of the Apocalypse Fossilised Fuels Genetic Muddyfixation Geogingerneering Global Singeing Global Warming Low Carbon Life Major Shift Media Money Sings No Pressure Non-Science Nuclear Nuisance Nuclear Shambles Oil Change Optimistic Generation Peak Emissions Peak Energy Peak Oil Political Nightmare Realistic Models Regulatory Ultimatum Science Rules Social Change The Data Unqualified Opinion

We Will Get To You

Video Credit : Brooklyn Space Program

Eventually we will reach you.

Scientists are proverbially poor at communication, but we will eventually be able to explain to you what is happening to the Earth in a way that you will understand.

You need to give some time to the data, to the arguments. You need to read the significant research papers, learn how to read graphs, learn the acronyms, abbreviations, technical terms.

You will need to be able to weigh in your mind the significance of probabilities, the risks of extremes, the trends, the changing patterns.

After a while, you will start to reappraise the evidence, and start looking into the data and see the conclusions for yourself.

You will begin to appreciate the strong line of reasoning, and come to be in awe of the minds of many who work on Climate Change.

I’ve become impressed by the body of scientific evidence, that’s why I will always be aligned with the Climate Change science community.

We’re not going anywhere. We’re here, and we’re right. There has already been significant change in the Earth’s climate due to humankind’s mining-to-burn activities, and the projections are for further, possibly very dangerous change.

The scientists know what the problems are, and what the engineering solutions are. Some companies/corporations, economists and politicans and sadly even some compromised “environmentalists” promote non-solutions like carbon pricing, Carbon Taxation, Carbon Trading, Carbon Capture (and Storage), GM Crops, Nuclear Power, geoengineering – but the academies of scientists are telling you they won’t work, or won’t solve all the problems.

What is needed is wholesale removal of Fossil Fuels from the global economy in order to prevent further deterioration and disruption in the global climatic conditions. Either BP, Shell, Chevron and ExxonMobil hang up their boots forever, or they need to embrace new clean energies (not Nuclear Power) to stay in business.

Oil, gas and coal depletion in the production facilities of those countries that are national players will mean that they will go bust, because a consistently high price for Fossil Fuels is not supportable, because the global economy is so Fossil Fuel-dependent currently. This is both a buyer’s market and a seller’s market, so the price will be governed by the operation of this two-sided cartel, not by the theories of “scarcity economics”.

Either Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, China, Venezuela and so on are on their way to extreme poverty, or they will embrace new clean energies (not Nuclear Power) to stay economically developed.

Meanwhile, the project of empirical scientific enquiry continues apace, and even though rich fossil fuel businesses are financing doubt, even though people with pension funds in mining pour scorn on Climate Change science, and even though the mainstream media can’t recognise uneducated propaganda when they meet it; you need to trust the intellectual community of Climate Change science researchers.

Stop listening to accusations of malpractice, dodgy data, weak methods, poor models. Do you really know what you are talking about when you pass judgement on the scientific community ? Who told you that scientists were wrong ? Can you really trust the people who tell you not to trust the scientific community ? Do you have the right or the authority to lay somebody else’s fabricated blame at the door of those whose whole lives are devoted to discovering the truth ?

Why don’t you do an integrity check on your sources, before replicating myths ?

Read the science journals and not the newspapers, is my advice.

And when it comes to the Internet, search wisely. You can’t believe every website you come across – there are some web loggers who are misled, and there are others seeking to mislead.

If you want to filter out the nonsense, try this :-

True Science

Categories
Bad Science Bait & Switch Climate Change Climate Chaos Delay and Deny Disturbing Trends Global Warming No Pressure Non-Science Peace not War Political Nightmare Science Rules Social Change Unqualified Opinion Vote Loser

Pete Ridley : Three Strikes

In a spirit of complete transparency, I share with you an e-mail from Peter Ridley CEng MIEE (see below), a moving, rambling feast of what some would call complete irrelevancies.

Pete, if you’ve got something to share that’s positive, productive and progressive, then please do so. However, this recent e-mail from you (see below) ticks none of those boxes and I shall not waste my time by replying to your e-mail or taking it seriously.

You have three more strikes and then you’re out, unless you stick to the subject of this web log in your communications to me.

This web log is about keeping the Climate stable – it’s about the problems already being caused by Global Warming and about efforts to address those.

Yes, it’s also about hearing different views, and about working out what to accept and ignore.

Most of the comments made here by Climate Change sceptic-deniers are pure entertainment for those who know what’s really going on.

It’s rare to read something that’s free from irrational argument from Climate Change sceptic-deniers.

I’m sure you wouldn’t want to have your efforts become ridiculed, so please start being serious about the science of Climate Change instead of complaining about perceived political bias.

Climate Change is not a polarised political argument as you seem to think judging by your web log. Policy thinkers and workaday politicians of all stripes and none are engaged on a common agenda to tackle the root causes of excess Carbon Dioxide emissions.

The reason that politicians and diplomatic missions take part in the United Nations process on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and the reviewing of the IPCC reports, is because the environmental and economic impacts of global warming are likely to have serious consequences.

It’s lazy to dismiss all politicians as selfish, money-grabbing and power-hungry without a moral duty to the truth. There are many politicians who are genuine, upright and want what’s best.

You must be able to work this out – it can’t be that every last Member of Parliament is on the take or working for backhanders, as some commentators continue to insist, can it ?

And what about Climate Change Science ? How could people survive unchallenged in academia if they cut-and-paste or fabricate ? Upholding the good reputation of the academic institutions is why I will not enter into general discussion about my course of study on this web log, so please don’t press me on that issue any further. Surely you could have worked this out ? You’re smart enough.

Please drop the conspiracy theories and start thinking logically about the Science of Climate Change and the implications it holds.

Slightly tangentially, I am currently reading a book by Gwynne Dyer called “Climate Wars”. Although I don’t like some of the attitudes and some of the views of some of the people he mentions in the field of national and international security, at least they take Climate Change scenarios seriously, and are willing to try to navigate the future in the best way.

You would earn my respect if you could do the same.

from Peter Ridley
to Jo Abbess
date Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 9:38 PM

Jo, please excuse me for contacting you by E-mail uininvited but I wanted to respond privately to one of the comments on your “The Messia: With us …” thread.

Ref. the comment bt “Stormboy” on October 18th at 03:13, the original comment was posted by the real Stormboy (AKA Phil – who runs the evangelical Bloodwoodtree blog at https://bloodwoodtree.org) on 14th February at 08:23:48AM following months of exchanges between us on Australian Senator Steve Fielding’s blog. Despite repeated requests Phil was unprepared to reveal any evidence of having demonstrated scientific expertise regarding global climate processes and drivers, e.g. through peer-reviewed papers. Phil had said that he used a false name because of previous threats against him and his family.

Towards the end of our public exchanges Phil persistently called me a con man, which I did not appreciate, coming as it did from someone who I considered was cowering behind a false name, so I decided to try to track him down. I was astounded that I was able to find out, in only four hours on the Internet using Google, who he was, where he worked, his E-Mil address and details of family and friends. This was from information that he had put into the public domain. One source of much of this information was Facebook, which brought home to me the importance of heeding repeated police warnings of the dangers of the Internet. I immediately warned members of my family about taking great care on Facebook. I also contacted Phil, through Facebook, by E-mail and on his own blog, about how easy it had been to track him down but in the process frightened his wife and of course gave Phil a scare too. He didn’t know what kind of a person I am and was understandably concerned. That was why he posted that comment on Steve Fielding’s blog.

I quickly apologised to Phil for frightening his family and since then we have resolved any differences that we had (other than about the causes of global climate change) and have exchanged numerous friendly E-mails. Phil confirmed to me a few days ago, after that comment of his appeared recently on the Greenfudge blog, that he has only posted the comment once, on Senator Fielding’s blog in February.

That comment of Phil’s has been posted repeatedly by another person who hides behind numerous false names. These include Cooloola, Guess Who, Lord Monkton, Phoenix and JA. She has also pretended to be me and fellow sceptics PeggyB and Colin. Now she has started posing as Stormby himself. She is a thoroughly nasty, dishonest, cowardly, bullying Australian from Queensland who has been hurling vile abuse at any sceptic who upset her on Senator Fielding’s blog. Now that it has closed (he’s no longer a Senator) she is looking for anywhere else to spit her invective. I’ve tried very hard to track her down and expose her but could only get as close as the Maroochidor/Noosa/Cooloola area of Queensland.

If you are interested you can pick up those repeats by Googling “he spent four hours on the net hunting down my last name”. The ones on Steve Fieldings blog are cached versions.

Best regards, Pete

Categories
Bait & Switch Be Prepared Big Picture Carbon Capture Coal Hell Corporate Pressure Design Matters Direction of Travel Energy Change Energy Revival Engineering Marvel Genetic Muddyfixation Low Carbon Life Major Shift Methane Management Nuclear Nuisance Nuclear Shambles Oil Change Peak Energy Peak Oil Petrolheads Renewable Resource Technological Sideshow Transport of Delight

Ride the Future

Video Found At : Energy Bulletin

The Earth keeps turning, the Sun keeps burning, and the future will look a lot different than today as we drag down Carbon Dioxide emissions “by hook or by crook”.

We have to be wary of possible “crooks”. There are still technology “snake oil salesmen” out there, trying to impose Genetically Modified crops on us, or Nuclear Power, or Carbon Capture and Storage (to justify the continued use of Coal), and using the vehicle of science to push their wares :-

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/agriculture/8048917/Climate-change-threatens-UK-harvest.html

“Climate change threatens UK harvest : Climate change could push up food prices by causing large-scale crop failures in Britain, the Met Office has warned. : By Louise Gray, Environment Correspondent : Published: 08 Oct 2010 : Rising temperatures could mean events such as the drought in Russia this summer, which pushed up grain prices, hit countries like the UK. But they said the worst effects of climate change could be limited by investment in better farming and the development of new drought resistant or heat tolerant crops. This could be done by aid money, breeding and new technologies like genetic modification (GM)…”

https://www.leeds.ac.uk/news/article/908/crop_failures_set_to_increase_under_climate_change

Look out for terms like “new crops”, “crop development” or “modified crops” :-

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/10/101007092817.htm
https://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/5/3/034012/

See the use of the word “biotechnology” in the actual research paper :-

https://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/5/3/034012/pdf/1748-9326_5_3_034012.pdf

But, as everybody can probably guess, most farmers in the world will not be able to afford Genetically Modified crops, and anyway, nobody really yet knows if GM crops confer the benefits claimed – there is some evidence that “life scientists” don’t know the full range of effects on organisms from gene splicing.

Continue reading “Ride the Future”
Categories
Bad Science Bait & Switch Climate Change Global Warming Media Non-Science Science Rules Social Change The Data

The Register : Can’t Read, Won’t Read ?

Is something ailing The Register’s Lewis Page ? Despite having access to the text of a recent research paper about the Sun’s recent output, and its short-term impact on surface temperatures on Earth, and having had plenty of time to read plain English reviews of the paper’s findings in everyday language, he still writes it up poorly (in my humble opinion). Could this be due to internal bias, I ask myself ? Or is Lewis Page being wilfully contrarian ? Who can say ?

Continue reading “The Register : Can’t Read, Won’t Read ?”
Categories
Advertise Freely Bait & Switch Big Picture Climate Change Coal Hell Disturbing Trends Divide & Rule Environmental Howzat Fossilised Fuels Global Warming Growth Paradigm Non-Science Obamawatch Peace not War Petrolheads Political Nightmare Protest & Survive Public Relations Regulatory Ultimatum Resource Curse Social Change Tarred Sands Toxic Hazard Unconventional Foul Unnatural Gas Unutterably Useless Utter Futility Vain Hope

Big Oil’s Tea Party

https://www.desmogblog.com/astro-turf-wars-uncovered-new-undercover-documentary

If you, dear Reader, are a Republican American, and you are demographically “middle class”, and you support the Tea Party movement, you are likely to have been seriously deceived – by Big Energy. Or Big Mining.

Who are these “Big Diggers”, propagandising the naive, well-intentioned, right-wing citizens of the United States of America, so they don’t realise they’re thinking somebody else’s thoughts, shouting somebody else’s slogans, riding somebody else’s train ?

Continue reading “Big Oil’s Tea Party”
Categories
Bad Science Bait & Switch Big Picture British Sea Power Climate Change Climate Chaos Cost Effective Design Matters Divide & Rule Energy Change Energy Revival Engineering Marvel Fossilised Fuels Global Warming Low Carbon Life Non-Science Nuclear Nuisance Nuclear Shambles Public Relations Renewable Resource Science Rules Social Change Social Chaos Stirring Stuff The Data Unqualified Opinion Wasted Resource Wind of Fortune

Wind Power : Material Fatigues

Image Credit : Cape Cod Living

James Delingpole follows in a long line of commentators with zero engineering experience in pouring scorn on a technology that could quite possibly save our skins :-

https://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100056158/wind-farms-yet-another-brewing-disaster/

I don’t know what he harbours in his heart against wonderful wind turbines, but he seems to be part of a movement who delight in their failure. Just ask the Internet to show you “exploding wind turbines”.

For example :-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKkTUY2slYQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nSB1SdVHqQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkGXoE3RFZ8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOfHxINzGeo

Clearly, you need to be in full protective fatigues when battling this kind of bad press…in fact “fatigue” is exactly the right word to come back at Mr Delingpole’s cracked warning (of cracks in wind turbine bases).

Continue reading “Wind Power : Material Fatigues”
Categories
Advancing Africa Bait & Switch Be Prepared Behaviour Changeling Big Picture Carbon Rationing Climate Change Climate Chaos Disturbing Trends Energy Change Energy Revival Fossilised Fuels Global Warming Incalculable Disaster Low Carbon Life Major Shift Oil Change Peak Energy Peak Oil Pet Peeves Political Nightmare Protest & Survive Public Relations Regulatory Ultimatum Social Change Stirring Stuff Technological Sideshow Voluntary Behaviour Change

George Marshall : The Dying of the Light

In the orange light-filled advertising corner : the oil and gas companies proclaiming new, untold riches beneath the melting Arctic. Technology will make us stronger, less polluting and improve the lives of the countless poor.

In the blue chain-smoking activist corner : Climate Change and Peak Oil are really, really serious, destabilising and horrible and we should all get depressed and go and lie down in a darkened room for a while.

On the other hand, most people don’t fall in one camp or the other. We worry about Climate Change some days, but we’re too pre-occupied with trivia on other days.

We have a natural in-built “happy button”, according to recent research mentioned in New Scientist magazine, so we can’t sustain feelings of doom and gloom for too long unless we’re clinically unwell :-

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727791.000-how-to-be-happy-but-not-too-much.html

We’re born to be sunny, optimistic (Teddy Miliband’s favourite word) and relaxed, only reserving adrenalin and noradrenalin for times of stress.

So why does George Marshall try to convince us that everyone is dangerously susceptible to “apocalyptic” language ?

https://climatedenial.org/2010/09/29/collapse-porn/

People can cope with being given bad news as long as they have some strategy with which to combat the problem.

It’s not wrong to tell people the truth about Climate Change just in case they get scared and worried.

Alarm is a good thing – I’d rather a fellow pedestrian shouted at me to “look out !” if I’m about to be mown down by a car as I cross the street, rather than just watching on and wincing at the crunch moment.

Continue reading “George Marshall : The Dying of the Light”
Categories
Bait & Switch Be Prepared Climate Change Corporate Pressure Cost Effective Delay and Deny Divide & Rule Global Singeing Global Warming Media Peace not War Political Nightmare Protest & Survive Public Relations Regulatory Ultimatum Science Rules Screaming Panic Social Change The Data Uncategorized Unsolicited Advice & Guidance Unutterably Useless Utter Futility Vain Hope Vote Loser

Chin Up, George Monbiot !

George Monbiot looks back in regret at Copenhagen :-

https://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/sep/20/climate-change-negotiations-failure

“…The closer it comes, the worse it looks. The best outcome anyone now expects from December’s climate summit in Mexico is that some delegates might stay awake during the meetings. When talks fail once, as they did in Copenhagen, governments lose interest. They don’t want to be associated with failure, they don’t want to pour time and energy into a broken process. Nine years after the world trade negotiations moved to Mexico after failing in Qatar, they remain in diplomatic limbo. Nothing in the preparations for the climate talks suggests any other outcome…”

Copenhagen was never seriously going to deliver, and I don’t think most of the protesters on the streets in Copenhagen thought so. Activist demands, including from activist nations, were always going to be ignored, The solutions really didn’t come to the conference, and the problems really lay elsewhere.

But there’s no need to utterly despair, George !

Continue reading “Chin Up, George Monbiot !”