Tuesday, 21 August 2012

Climate change = energy equality

Have you even wondered why mainstream climate science is such obvious junk?

Deranged junk? Of course it is. Useful idiots may go along with it, but no serious scientist believes crap like this. Although climate change is often presented as a scientific matter, many of us know it’s a political game.

Climate propaganda seems to be well rooted in left-wing energy politics – a long-term game to achieve global socialism via energy equality. I’ll call it left-wing and socialism as a matter of convention – fascist  or communist would be just as appropriate. It’s a matter of taste.

The main political given says nobody should be allowed to consume more natural resources than anyone else. Next to food and water, the prime natural resource is energy and energy equality lies behind climate propaganda - not climate science.

The second political given says traditional energy sources such as fossil fuels and uranium, are finite and insufficiently abundant for long term global use. So if everyone can’t use them, nobody should be allowed to use them. It’s more nuanced of course, but essentially this is the political narrative behind climate propaganda.

Fossil fuels and uranium may be finite in an absolute sense, but that doesn’t tell us much. It depends on timescales, discoveries and technical developments which have not yet happened. Our current understanding is not deep enough to say when these fuels could become economically inaccessible. The uncertainty may well be a matter of centuries.

So the UN, as the global sponsor of climate propaganda, is promoting energy equality as a matter of global socialist policy – not as a matter for scientific debate or further negotiation.

Energy production and use is the main source of many of the threats to the Earth's atmosphere. Despite tremendous increases in commercial energy use to date, the majority of the global population still has inadequate access to the kind of energy services enjoyed by the inhabitants of the industrialized countries. A lack of adequate energy services is one of the symptoms of poverty. The inequalities are so large that it would be virtually impossible for the majority of the world's population to enjoy similar resource intensive energy-use patterns as those prevailing in the industrialized countries. More sustainable energy patterns throughout the world and the protection of the atmosphere are recognized as important policy objectives at both the national and international levels. International environmental agreements are being extended from the local and national to international levels.
Second session

For climate sceptics, this is the real issue. It doesn’t really matter how thoroughly the science is trashed, it will just keep on coming at us. It is already morphing into sustainable development because the climate science based on CO2 alarmism is so obviously silly.

But even the silliness doesn’t matter too much. Junk science will do – it’s merely a matter of presentation. The underlying policy is not about to change and in any event the UN is not likely to run out of journalists and scientists prepared to swap their integrity for a career.

At the moment there only seems to be one major stumbling block to all of this – shale gas.


Angus Dei said...

It is just an excuse to make us pay more for petrol, diesel, gas and leccy...

Sam Vega said...

Interesting article in the Guardian CIF this morning:

Andrew Brown gives the impression of being out of his depth about nearly everything, and this is no exception. Some of the research he refers to is thought-provoking, however.

James Higham said...

Climate propaganda seems to be well rooted in left-wing energy politics – a long-term game to achieve global socialism via energy equality.

In one, AKH.

A K Haart said...

Angus - yes, pay more to narrow the gap with "sustainable" energy.

Sam - it is interesting and something I'm aware of but haven't written about.

I spent all my working life with professional environmental scientists and never met one who wasn't at least wary about climate propaganda.

James - thanks - I do tend to think the science is a distraction, but it has to be countered too.

Demetrius said...

The Ancient Greeks believed that the climate, weather and all that depended on the whims of the gods. Perhaps they were more right than we think.

A K Haart said...

Demetrius - oddly enough, I'm not so sure they were wrong. It's almost as if the climate doesn't quite decide what to do tomorrow until tomorrow arrives.

It may have a few ideas, but doesn't tell anyone what they are. In other words, within certain boundaries it's whimsical!

Anonymous said...

Well, seeing as the Right Wing gets supported by the tobacco lobby, the arms companies, the road/rail/airline outfits and
the management consultants I suppose those who might believe the Climate Lobby would tend to be a bit lefty.

Whether there is anything in the Climate Change stuff seems moot. Burning all that coal and oil seems intuitively to be "A
Bad Thing" and that JR Ewing seems a complete rotter. So one would expect JR and his mates to cover up anything bad.

But looking out of my sitting room window all seems right with the world and I cannot see that 0.1 degrees C shift is anything to get sweaty about - well within any reasonable margin of error.

But there something a bit sus about the Climate Lobby - Windmills, Tidal Barriers and Solar all seem jolly expensive and
do not compare with serious power supplies - all seems a bit amateur and driven by a quick buck - at my expense. Which is where the political complexion turns a bit Rightish - there being money and jobs on the horizon (their horizon not mine).

A K Haart said...

Roger - exactly. I see the UN root as left wing with leftist appeal, but traditionally right-wing business sentiment has been handed a chance to climb on board too.

Poor taxpayers and bill-payers are the main losers.