Thursday, November 19, 2009

Heresy Corner has lost it

Yes, OK, I know that this is a guest post but that doesn't alter the fact that when your article starts out with something that's totally wrong, it really doesn't help the credibility of the rest of the post.
It was a Nobel prize-winning Swedish chemist by the name of Svante Arrhenius (1859-1927) was who first discovered the greenhouse effect. And it didn't take him long to conclude that burning coal (oil was just coming into widespread use as a fuel in the late 19th century) would cause a surprisingly strong increase in that effect. In other words, the earth would heat up.

Unfortunately, as we know, Arrhenius's theory was incorrect.

Never mind, let's plough on anyway.
Thousands of scientists from Arrhenius onwards could all be wrong and the world’s climate will not become substantially warmer. Suppose that's what happens—yet the government introduces measures to avert the catastrophe anyway. Would that be such a bad thing?

Oh look—it's the precautionary principle rolled out again! But the principle is here distorted because there are substantial costs involved in trying to avert this possible problem.

Because we know what measures the government wants to introduce and they will seriously constrict our freedom; further, they will make us all poorer—and poverty causes death. Especially in the Developing World.

Perhaps I am being unjust; after all, it may be that the author, Valdemar, feels that the deaths of millions of people is a price worth paying—although I doubt that Valdemar anticipates being one of those who are killed.

But if you do think that millions of deaths is a bad thing then "the government [introducing] measures to avert the catastrophe" which doesn't actually exist is probably not something that you'd support.

So the answer to Valdemar's question is, "yes, it would be a bad thing".

The rest of the piece is a sort of self-indulgent hate-piece about drivers: apparently driving is the root of all evil.
Did I hear some old reactionary ask about evidence-based policies? Well, I appeal to common experience. I can’t present a UN-sponsored scientific report to support my viewpoint, oddly enough. I just think that our car-based society is very effective at suppressing what has long been considered civilized behaviour. And I think we’ve lost something important; something nebulous, and certainly something that’s hard to quantify, but something real and good, nonetheless.

Or, to sum up, here's the shorter Valdemar:
I don't know what it is that we've lost, I have no evidence that we've lost it and I have no data on what might have caused us to possibly lose this thing that I can't define. Ergo driving is definitely evil.

Fucking hellski.

Fail.

11 comments:

DC said...

I do believe in the precautionary principle but only when applied to politicians. Every once in a while a politician comes along who causes the deaths of millions of people. Probably best we slot the fucking lot of them now then - just to be on the safe side.

Curmudgeon said...

FREEDOM is the root of all evil. But you knew that anyway.

thefrollickingmole said...

I was waiting for the wanker to call for a group hug and start singing Kumbyah by the end.

Like a lone nut of a protester walking around with a sandwich board declaring "down with this sort of thing"...

Ayrdale said...

How strange, a guest post at Heresy Corner dedicated to decidely unheretical conservative green left bullshit.

Anonymous said...

I've never known a time like this. I'm old and don't have decades before me but I (hesitate to) admit that I feel despair about what limited future I have.

It seems to me that the human hating environmentalists and world governance marxists are running amok.

They are calling all the shots.They have control of the media and education. They have their silencing techniques called political correctness and hate speech in place and accepted by a populace too ill educated (deliberately) to pay any attention.
The truth about so many things is just not heard. "Climate change" sceptics are "deniers" to be threatened with prison or death by some enviro-maniacs.

I just find it impossible to comprehend why seemingly intelligent "leaders" are going along with a programme to destroy western industrialized civilization (which more that one enviro-freak has stated as their objective).

And in parallel is the take over of America and Europe by people who in all honesty should be called what they are--communists.

This is a nightmare that I am afraid to wake up from in case it gets worse. It probably will.
How have we arrived where we are?

Despair is too weak a word.

Bill Sticker said...

While you gentlemen in England lay abed, Hadley CRU got hacked. Go take a look at the fun as the data (and a whole rake of interesting email conversations)is picked over.

Never mind Arrhenius. If this stuff is true, the game really is up for the Climate Carbon Cheats.

Anonymous said...

Big news folks (hopefully not a hoax). It appears the Hadley climate research unit has been hacked and data and emails have been released with some rather embarrassing details. Bloggers are still unsure whether or not it is for real but We live in hope.

Letters From A Tory said...

The precautionary principle is not black or white, as Heresy Corner seems to suggest. It is a spectrum of belief in the dangers of climate change, and you can sit anywhere on it. However, as DK points out, the more the move towards the precautionary end of the spectrum, the greater the potential economic and societal impact will be.

Henry Crun said...

Where does this twat Valdemar live? I'm going round there to run him over.

Anonymous said...

It's CRU not Hadley.

F'ing dynamite if true:

Breaking updates of selected bits here:
#
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/hadley_hacked/P80/

Come on Devil get swearing!

neil craig said...

The Precautionary Principle ("Many things should be done but nothing should ever be done for the first time" - Sir Humphrey Appleby) such as it is falls here because there is also the significant possibility we are enteing another little ice age, in which case the PP mandates burning more carbon just in case.

Although to be fair back in the 70s when an ice age was the eco-fascist scare their solution to catastrophic cooling was destroy industry & stop people flying which is now the solution to catastrophic warming.