Friday, June 29, 2007

Global warming: two word argument for doing sweet FA

The current debate surrounding global warming and climate change is enough to cause steam to come out of my ears - indeed, these days, the very mention of the words 'global warming' is more than enough to make me go out and buy a second-hand Colt 1911, with extra clips.

What I really hate is the fact that when any eco-worrier utters the words 'global warming' what they really want is the whole of humanity to just stop everything it’s doing - what the greens really desire is for everything to be put on hold, or worse, to be frozen to a stand-still. For example, every time we need to build new roads, the miserable greens shout 'No - what about global warming?' Every time we need to expand our airports, again we hear 'No - what about global warming?' Every time we need new power stations, 'oh no - what about global warming'? Every time we need new desalination plants, 'err no - what about global warming'?

The self-righteous crusade to fight global warming has become the number one argument for doing next to nothing - however, even if the greens are scientifically correct (which is still highly debatable), humanity cannot hope to solve any of it's problems simply by being in a state of stasis - if anything, history shows us that growth and rapid development equips humanity so it can, at the very least cope with anything that is thrown at it.

Labels: ,

9 Comments:

At 12:29 PM, Blogger Phil A said...

Excellent points, well made.

Have you seen this? the trend of the ‘Global Near surface temperatures monthly anomalies’ chart is particularly interesting.

I wonder how long before they ‘adjust’ it?

 
At 12:52 PM, Blogger Courtney Hamilton said...

Many thanks for the comment Phil - I'll take a good look at the link.

As for how long before the Met office adjusts its chart? I haven't got a clue.

 
At 3:12 PM, Blogger michael greenwell said...

i have responded to your comment. i don't know why you think i wouldnt publish it.

as for your post, i for one have never advocated doing nothing.

i believe we have to build a vastly improved high speed energy efficient rail network to get people out of cars and planes

we have to make a massive shift to renewables while we still have an electricity grid that works

homes need to be made much more energy efficient and insulation needs to be improved.

i believe we need a massive collective effort to sort things out before the situation becomes irretrievable.

on no stretch of the imagination can these be considered 'doing nothing'

 
At 12:09 AM, Blogger Courtney Hamilton said...

Micheal,

I was surprised you posted my comment - however, one cursory look at your site did reveal the 'no we can't do that' type of ill-informed criticism.

For example, on the issue of securing the future energy supply that our advance societies need, you argued that 'just in case the phoney debate in this country is starting to swing you toward thinking nuclear power is a good idea and not at all like nuclear weapons, here is a short documentary about Chernobyl 20 years after it happened.'

So there we have it, no need for our society to develop nuclear power for the future, all we need do is watch a documentary about Chernobyl and we will see the error of our ways.

However, the Chernobyl accident is no real reason why we in the advanced West can't have nuclear power. Indeed, why should the entire World hold back the development of nuclear energy because of the death of 56 people?

56 is the official death toll from the disaster, but from your perspective, those deaths mean we should not dabble with the messy business of nuclear science. Of course those deaths are regrettable, but they should not be used as an argument against developing nuclear power in the future.

 
At 8:21 AM, Blogger Lord Straf-Coventry said...

As someone who experienced at first hand last night climate change in the form of a storm which caused about two million dollars damage and has never been seen before in this city [it's the third this summer], nevertheless I agree that it gets nauseating when everything is ascribed to it.

 
At 3:30 PM, Blogger V said...

Ever wondered why the left keep wanting to lower the voting age? You need a subtle level of naivety to actually believe some of this stuff!

Thought you might be interested in these new figures from NASA which reveal that the hottest year of the 2oth century was ... 1934. In fact 5 of the top 10 hottest years were before WW2.

It just seems that those with an agenda to hide, were doing their best to hide it - and got found out due to some reverse engineering by the fellas at climateaudit.org

 
At 5:26 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

'56 was the official death figure for Chernobyl'. The official Russian figures! They are always spot on now aren't they! or ........ The new data, based on Belarus national cancer statistics, predicts approximately 270,000 cancers and 93,000 fatal cancer cases caused by Chernobyl. The report also concludes that on the basis of demographic data, during the last 15 years, 60,000 people have additionally died in Russia because of the Chernobyl accident, and estimates of the total death toll for the Ukraine and Belarus could reach another 140,000.

 
At 10:30 AM, Blogger Courtney Hamilton said...

Hello anonymous,

Those official figures came from the United Nations in-depth, 20 year investigation into the accident.

So, where exactly is this 'new' data that 'predicts' untold deaths, and concludes that untold people have been killed - just so we can all have a look for ourselves?

 
At 10:39 AM, Blogger Courtney Hamilton said...

Anonymous,

Some more inconvenient truths posted by myself last year for you to muse over...

"Last year the UN published it's scientific report into the accident at the nuclear facilities at Chernobyl. The 600 page report concluded that the people of Ukraine and the surrounding region have been affected by over-the-top, exaggerated fears rather than by radiation exposure. Indeed, the report argues that the people in the affected area have suffered a 'paralysing fatalism', due mostly to the 'myths and misperceptions' spun by environmentalists organisations throughout the West.

I'm not quite sure what's worse, 'paralysing fatalism', or death - in human terms, there pretty much the same. Eco-worriers like Blake Lee-Harwood from Greenpeace, told the BBC, that the nuclear industry had a 'vested interest in playing down Chernobyl because it's an embarrassment to them'. But, hold on a minute, Greenpeace also have a 'vested interest' in hyping-up Chernobyl. It stands to reason, if the world's worst nuclear disaster wasn't really all that, then there's no good reason why we can't build a new generation of nuclear power-stations over here.

But, Greenpeace couldn't have that, they hate anything to do with nuclear science, I don't know why they just don't come out and say it - at least it would show some honesty. Rather than the un-scientific opposition towards nuclear science which Greenpeace is basing their case on. Where is Greenpeace's evidence that 93,000 people will die as a result of Chernobyl?"

Indeed, where is the evidence?

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home