The sheepdog barks; the sheep panic.
Of course, the sheepdog didn't really bark, he was just clearing his throat.
What started as a speculation has rapidly assumed the status of a proven fact.
We know this to be truth because the media and the politicians tell so; the scientists still debate and collect the data, the models they run have about a 300% error factor.
How many engineers would rely on a computer simulation with that degree of uncertainty and base their entire futures on it?
It might be true?
We ought to act as if it is true?
IF I choose the right six numbers, I can win millions on the lottery.
True.
Yes, in fact this is absolutely true; more so than global warming.
I should of course, sell everything I own and trust in the future happy outcome. The reality is more likely that I will end up living rough.
Sure, we could act now "just in case" but that's what sheep do. It's this sort of primeval fear that enabled prehistoric man to drive herds of mammoth over the edges of cliffs to their certain doom.
Just what are the probabilities that these events are "true".
Flavour of the month for "renewable energy" was the "Carbon Neutral" fuel approach.
This meant we would have to plant out the planet with vast acreages of quick growth trees (which would spell doom for the various local ecosystems: the vast forrests of Cyprus pine grown in the UK are pretty sterile environments; not indigenous (Cyprus?) it supports very little of the local wildlife while an English oak tree will support over a thousand species).
The secret to this solution? Carbon in = carbon out.
Neutral.
Very clever.
Not.
The very latest bad news, hot from the Max Plank labs, is Methane:
"From their data, the researchers estimate that the world's plants generate more than 150 million metric tons of methane each year, or about 20 percent of what typically enters the atmosphere. They report their findings in the Jan. 12 Nature."
Based only on this data, which is probably more sound than the data to support the global warming sepeculation, I am justified, more justified than in claiming global warming exists, in instantly assuring you all of a death from heat extinction within years of adopting this carbon neutral policy.
How can you know that whatever panic measures you decide to adopt will help or condem? and what if the problem doesn't even exist or if the alternative (falling over the cliff) is worse?
The power of auto-suggestion... because of all the hype about global warming "Observers" are reporting they have "never known weather conditions such as these before..." usually some 25year old TV presenter who couldn't be expected to have experienced the extremes of weather personally before anyway but none the less this is "responsible journalism" today.
Remember the "El Nino" event? Its great novelty on a slow news day was that no one had heard of it before. Apparently (and far less newsworthy) is that this is pretty normal behaviour and yes, it did do billions of dollars of damage. On the other hand the extended growing season etc resulted in a net benefit.
Again, not newsworthy because:
a} its not alarming
b) by the time this sort of data has been collected everyones forgotten all about it.
c) good news doesn't sell newspapers
What most of us recall is how this was presented as yet more evidence of global warming.
What we don't even have is scientific debate.
What we do have is media and political debate and everyone confusing the profundity of journos and politicians with reality.
On UK TV today, Jonathan Porrit is busy explaining why more Nuclear power won't significantly affect the UK's carbon emissions...
????????
Of course, this is based on the assumption of only a moderate increase in nuclear power generation. The UK doesn't actually have than much nuclear power generation to begin with ... the result of the anti-nuclear "save our planet" mob being so effective just as they are now with "global warming.
So doubling nuclear capacity sounds like a reasonable basis for the argument until you realise just how little that really is.
Doubling my income isn't going to excite anyone;
Doubling Bill Gates' would be pretty impressive.
On the other hand, the measures proposed to address the greenhouse problem that he espouses are on nowhere near such a modest scale, the UK is going to be surrounded by vast windfarms onshore and off shore....
Nuclear power will increase costs... but so will wind farms and they justify the big tax incentives (costs) on the fact that it is good for us... why wouldn't the same justification work with nuclear power?
I'm lost, do I treat this man with the reverance that the politicians do?
Disingenuous? Objective? Self serving?
Of course, he argues, power generation isn't the only use of fossil fuels.
He implies cars.
While he implies zero effect of nuclear on transport uses of fossil fuel, he doesn't explain how wind turbines will be any better, he just lets the sheep think this is a profound statement that nuclear power is no good as a response to climate change.
So go ahead;let the media prod you with their circulation growth tool and commit to as yet unjustified investments.
Taking a bit of time to get the true facts shouldn't be an unusual requirment should it? But then we are being give the same old "Club of Rome" hysteria all over again.
JMW
