Tuesday, 11 December 2007

Climate change bollocks (again)


If you assume, as is only reasonable, that the prophets of man-made climate change are the direct spawn of the counter-culture of the 1960s, credulous victims of a wide-eyed belief in the inherent wickedness of consumerism, instinctively anti-capitalist, anti-western and above all anti-American, then their desire to drive us back into the Stone Age to atone for our spoliation of the Earth, however obviously the product of their over-heated imaginations, at least has a certain logic.

But what I find baffling is why their alarmist vapourings have been so uncritically accepted by governments across the globe, above all in the West. It may be more or less understandable that those of a left-leaning bent would find some sympathy with the advocates of doom. Not only are they likely to find the political message to their taste, but presenting climate change in apocalyptic terms, typically comparing it to a Third World War – see here and here – allows near limitless scope for them to enact drastic new powers with which to boss us all about.

You can also understand why the BBC or the more sanctimonious kind of twat – the pious George Monbiot leaps to mind – should so actively propagate this fiction.

Yet even more or less apparently sane right-leaning governments seem incapable of doing anything other than swallowing the climate-change line whole as though it was a properly scientific certainty rather than a political provocation.

Faced with an apparent threat of this magnitude, self-evidently it is any government's first duty to assess it rationally. No less self-evidently, wherever you look the precise opposite is happening.

As a result, we have bonkers schemes such as that proclaimed yesterday by John Hutton, the government's 'business secretary', whereby every home in Britain should, he claims, be powered by wind-generated energy by 2020. This is more than averagely demented. It suggests the total failure of what may once have passed for his higher brain functions (if any).

Wind turbines are a scam, subsidised at vast expense, hideously ugly and almost completely useless.

Commanding that 'thousands' of them be built all around Britain's coasts is not so much New Labour as New Dementia, an absolute refusal to challenge, even to question, the eco-fascist orthodoxy that only drastic action NOW! can save us. It is also the cheapest of cheap political tricks, a shameless attempt to play to the gallery knowing that someone else will have to deliver his meaningless goal.

It is enough to drive anyone to drink.

9 comments:

Peter Horne said...

I say, Thomas old boy, this is not good for the old blood pressure.

Look at this
http://www.mises.org/story/2795

Then sit down in your favourite armchair, put on your comfy slippers, pour yourself a nice single malt and light a lovely cigar. Then just imagine how much fun we're all going to have when the shit hits the fan.

The whole gerbil worming thingy is being gradually disproved by objective scientific observation. This year was meant to be the warmest year since records began, in fact it has been the coolest since 1995. The fact is that the world has been cooling since 2001. These facts cannot be kept from the public forever.

Imagine the FUN when reality can no longer be denied!

Enjoy that malt!

The Creator said...

You are very wise, Mr Horne.

There was a very funny pronouncement from our very own Met Office made in January this year proclaiming that 2007 would indeed be the hottest year for probably about 8 million years – or at least since Al Gore was born.

The exact opposite happened.

You may remember, too, the dire warnings in April that the unusually high temperatures then were conclusive evidence that by June we would we effectively have been burned alive (assuming a series of 400 mph gales hadn't already done for us – or failing that a sudden new ice age).

But what alarms me is that so many people have staked so much on this tosh that they will never be able to admit they are wrong.

So, wind turbines galore, carbon footprints everywhere, green taxes to the horizon and beyond.

In short, no more single malts for anyone. Not even you!

Still, you are, as I say, a solid fellow, a comfort to the likes of me.

I am grateful.

Peter Horne said...

Indeed and thank you.

Besides, what more fitting tribute to our present government could there be than one of these off-shore wind farms?

Ugly...wasteful..pointless...ludicrously expensive and as it turns out wholly unnecessary. What will the verdict of posterity be? Damning? At least, I should think.

I think I'll lay in a couple of bottles of the divine "Highland Park" in anticipation. One each enough do you think? Or maybe a nice bottle of "Rosebank" in reserve, just in case.

The Creator said...

I suspect a case each will be the minimum required for either of us to retain anything approaching sanity. Plus plenty of 'lovely' cigars.

Above all, however, several dozen comfy slippers.

Forget 'bigger footwear'.

In times of national emergency, only comfy slippers will answer!

Churchill knew this and so, I strongly suspect, did the duke of Wellington. How else do you explain Talavera?

Were she not now sadly gaga, Thatcher herself would already have pledged the country to impound every pair held by Marks and Spencer – force open those warehouses! – and would have distributed them, by Green Goddess, across the land.

We must never lose sight of our national identity!

Next, free cocoa (or Ovaltine, if you absolutely insist), the cry of every free-born Englishman!

Newmania said...

I think this is a silly post. There is overwhelming evidence that something is happening and that there is a man made component. Of course you can throw around the details endlessly and I am certain exaggerated claims have been made.

It is peculair though out of a sense of wishing to be contrarian to actially wish to bring about the destruction of the enviroment .

On the stae of tbhe science there was a greatd ebate in the New Scienstist addressing the charges againt the orthodoxy and having read it i felt that to adopt the extreme posaiton of denila was just posturing .

the question is what do you do about it and to what extent sdhould other considerations be subordinate.

Argue about scale yes , policy of course , I detest the authoritarian policies propsoed and I also find Geogey M a pain but you will lose all credibilty ourt here with the blog deniers

Mark Wadsworth said...

It's the subsidies that worry me.

If people are happy to build these things with their own money and if they can generate electricity as cheaply as other alternatives, then what's the harm? If not, they'll go bankrupt and that will be the end of that.

Umbongo said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Umbongo said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Peter Horne said...

text of a letter sent to the UN Secretary-General by a group of eminent scientists here in case you missed it. As you can see there is no scientific consensus.
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164002