Monday, November 05, 2007

Burn them all

Hot on the heels of my recent digest of Climate Skeptic's post pointing that there probably isn't any significant warming happening, let alone any human activity causing catastrophic climate change, there is a BBC Poll showing, once again, that people in general are ignorant sheep.
Most people say they are ready to make personal sacrifices to address climate change, according to a BBC poll of 22,000 people in 21 countries.

Four out of five people say they are prepared to change their lifestyle, even in the US and China, the world's two biggest emitters of carbon dioxide.

Three quarters would back energy taxes if the cash was used to find new sources of energy, or boost efficiency.

Yeah, and what are the chances of that happening? The government takes more taxes to piss them up the wall—fucking great! Y'know, governments have such a wonderful track record in efficiency and innovation, don't they? For fuck's sake...

Look, people, there are new forms of energy coming but we have price and engineering problems to overcome first. In fact, Timmy highlights the progress that is being made in solar power at present.
I love this piece, I really do.
Take the member of the renewables/efficiency/conservation family, that I know best: solar. The manufacturing costs of solar photovoltaic cells are coming down at nearly 20% every time the global industry doubles in capacity, and that is happening every two years at present. Solar PV manufacturing costs are, in fact, cheaper today than retail electricity in some markets, and by 2010 will be cheaper than today’s electricity in most developed country markets even if the price of retail electricity grows only slightly.

OK, great. Solar is getting cheaper quickly. An excellent thing too. So we should all wait until 2011 or so and then we’ll all switch quite happily as it’ll be cheaper. Great.

But much, much more amusing that that is this. In the SRES, those economic models which then feed through into the IPCC scenarios for emissions, a basic assumption is that solar becomes cheaper by 30% per decade. Here we’re told it’s 20% every two years. Or 250%* per decade. So things are vastly better than the IPCC says: we’ll all be switching to solar in just a few years now, we don’t need Kyoto, we don’t need to restict anything. Just install the cheapest power systems from 2011 on and we’ll be fine.

And, of course, there is the LIMPET Wave Power generators, which are extremely efficient and which I have been banging on about for years. There are also, I happen to know, very good progress in a number of wave and tidal systems.

And, of course, there is the continued development of the zinc-oxide solar powerstations, which have been so successfully tested in Israel.

Plus, of course, we have had some decent advances in fusion, both through Dr Bussard's Fusor process and the Sandia Labs Z Pinch facility.

The point is that these processes are all coming to fruition but we are overcoming engineering problems right now: taxing people more is not going to bring these products to market any more quickly. Mainly because governments are totally fucking shit at making decent and efficient use of money.

I mean, look at what we are developing and what is our government investing over a billion pounds a year of our money into? Fucking windmills, which are just about the most unreliable, useless, ugly and inefficient power-generation option open to us.

On top of this story, of course, is The Telegraph article by Booker and North on the deceit in global warming.
More serious, however, has been all the evidence accumulating to show that, despite the continuing rise in CO2 levels, global temperatures in the years since 1998 have no longer been rising and may soon even be falling.

It was a telling moment when, in August, Gore's closest scientific ally, James Hansen of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, was forced to revise his influential record of US surface temperatures showing that the past decade has seen the hottest years on record. His graph now concedes that the hottest year of the 20th century was not 1998 but 1934, and that four of the 10 warmest years in the past 100 were in the 1930s.

Furthermore, scientists and academics have recently been queuing up to point out that fluctuations in global temperatures correlate more consistently with patterns of radiation from the sun than with any rise in CO2 levels, and that after a century of high solar activity, the sun's effect is now weakening, presaging a likely drop in temperatures.

If global warming does turn out to have been a scare like all the others, it will certainly represent as great a collective flight from reality as history has ever recorded. The evidence of the next 10 years will be very interesting.

Indeed it will, and I am looking forward to the day when all of those bastards on blogs and in real life who have accused your humble Devil of being an evil "climate change denier" come crawling back to apologise for being such stupid, lackwit fucktards.

Of course, it won't happen: climate change is one of those open-ended threats that politicians can hold over us forever...


poohbear said...

Is the BBC so desperate that they have to resort to a fake/rigged poll? What the fuck?
Its obvious that the questions were rigged to obtain the answers they required!
So the commisars decided they wanted to justify their tax grab OK? all they do is get on the phone and instruct their mouthpiece BBC to rig a poll, that much is clear, but what they dont tell you is that they screen people at source so they will ask only people who will give the answer they require! The target subject would be a young person sporting a greenpeace badge? Someone who has never paid a penny tax in their lives so would be happy to say yes to more tax?
So what do we have? a fake poll to justify a dishonest proposition to support a pack of lies? CUNTS!

Roger Thornhill said...

If people want to change their lifestyles then what is the issue, as long as they are not being tricked.

The issue is if the Tyranny of the Majority kicks in and we are all forced into a collective.

anthonynorth said...

I don't know whether man is causing climate change or not. The science consensus is a high probability that we are. To this I ask a simple question: Do we ignore it and possibly face a harsh future, or take steps to prevent it, which can only be good even if the probability is wrong?
Provided, that is, that the true offenders - big business - are the ones who should change, and not the people.
As for green taxes, this is a guarantee that it will put people off green issues. If the government are truly eco, they're doing the worse job they could.
As for pricing and solar power, I'm reminded of when tights became more popular than stockings. Regarding prices, the more tights were pulled up, the quicker they came down.

Anonymous Coward said...

I still haven't made my mind up about this whole catastrofuck.

My current understanding is that the planet is not currently warming, that it has warmed in the past and will do in the future, and that this has little or nothing to do with human intervention.

Secondly, there is climate change itself, which I understand to be a different concept to simple global warming (or, indeed, global cooling). The idea being that industry is damaging our ability to live on the planet, and that we can avoid this scenario by adopting a somewhat eighteenth-century lifestyle.

Now. I don't doubt our ability to ruin our chances of surviving on the planet - a light dusting of fusion bombs would do the trick nicely. I also don't doubt the principle that the more of an energy source we consume, the less of that source is remaining to be consumed.

However, I'm not sure that any of the solutions are viable, even if they will actually have any impact, and even if there is a problem to be solved.

Firstly, if we make it impossible for industry to function through tariffs and regulation, industry won't function, millions, worldwide, will lose their jobs and starve. They will not instantly find other work, because a huge chunk of the available employment has been removed. Result - the poor are culled.

Secondly, I'm not sure people actually want a green lifestyle as much as they say they do. I don't question their commitment or indeed anything about them, I've just never met someone who wants to go without everything, and that would seem to be the end result of any solution.

Now, as I said, I still haven't made my mind up. I believe - and please correct me if I'm wrong, on this and on anything I've posted - that carbon has been shown to have no correlation with global temperature, or that the carbon level 'follows' the average temperature rather than leading it. I understand that there are other factors besides carbon, and that not knowing the properties of these factors does not necessarily mean it's safe to saturate the atmosphere with them - but nor does that indicate a good reason to cripple industry.

Correct me where possible.

diogenes said...

"Cimate change is an open-ended threat that politicians can hold over us forever..."

Yes and no... The way the temperature records are stilted and adjusted and massaged and buried, always in one direction, is clear evidence to me that we are dealing with mendacity and self interest not science. This kind of scientific sleight of hand is becoming harder by the day thanks to heros like Steve McIntyre. The reason the eco lobby is getting more panickey and shrill is that the technically minded amongst them know there will be no catastrophic temperature increase but they still hope to be able to claim credit for the benign climate.

If they do not get some swingeing emission cuts soon they will not be able to claim that they kept us just the right side of a 'tipping point'.

That is why the eco-mob need to shut down the debate fast and why the role of the sceptic is now so important. Whilst the debate is kept alive the cuts will not be made and the credit for saving the world cannot be claimed.

This is the real tipping point that we are near. Will Gore have an eternal legacy of bullshit or will he forever be just a laughing stock.

poohbear said...

Anthony North,

You mention "scientific consensus" as though it were a good thing? Let me clue you in a bit about those two words.
All through history the "concensus" has tried to defend scientific ideas, like the age of the Earth for instance, for years the scientists would insult or ignore or even hide new evidence that dared to challenge the mainstream view, only when the evidence became too much to ignore would the 'old guard' admit defeat and accept the new theory!
Let me offer you some examples of "scientific concensus".

Lunar volcanoes.
Tectonic plates.
Pyroclastic flows(vulcanology).
Stomach ulcers.
Pluto(planet or asteroid)
Speed of sound(thought to be unbreakable).
Cholera(thought to be transmitted by bad smells).


There are thousands of examples like this and there will be thousands more to come! Can I give you a bit of advice?
There will be no evidence against the AGW/MMGW 'concensus' if you dont open your eyes an LOOK for it yourself! Stop leaving it to others to give you your opinion on the issues and go out and read books,listen to BOTH sides with an open mind,take what vested inerests tell you with a pinch of salt and ALWAYS make the effort to look at the real evidence NOT the propaganda!
The biggest error that people make is to trust other people to do the hard work of finding out the truth and that is why so many people just look blank when you ask them about global warming/climate change!
Never trust the likes of FOE/GP to tell the truth because they wont! They will tell you what THEY decide you need to know and often that aint got nothing to do with the truth!

mitch said...

Im willing to make a huge sacrifice. I will personaly disembowel anyone who says man is causing climate change with pieces of jagged metal ripped from those pointless fucking windmills.

diogenes said...

Well done that man. They are sure to commute your sentence for recycling.