Home > climategate > Greenpeace in our time

Greenpeace in our time

Current green energy policy is a complete farce

The cartoon above is just one of many amusing items I’ve just discovered on the Cartoons by Josh website. I’ve been trying to keep my sense of humour about AGW, although when I read that electricity and gas prices are going to go up by 20% and 10%, respectively, in the next months mainly due to feed-in tariffs, and that we will soon be at risk of rolling black-outs because our cretinous politicians think windmills and solar cells can adequately replace our existing coal, gas and nuclear power plants, I’ve felt my blood pressure rising to dangerous levels.

Our energy policy is written by vested interests

Based on the above, you will be not surprised to learn that I was not impressed by the revelation this week that a key author of the IPCC report into climate change was in fact on Greenpeace’s pay-roll. That’s right: someone paid by a lobby group that campaigns on behalf of vested industry interests was a key player in a document which, when implemented by our paid-for politicians, will divert billions (if not trillions) of dollars from customers into said vested industry interests. Then again, this comes after numerous IPCC claims have already be shown to be made up or based on ridiculous assumptions. It’s already be found out that one ‘expert’ report author had not even completed her PhD at the time.

Obviously, we all want to live sustainably and leave our environment in a good state for our children; however, I completely and utterly disagree with those who advocate the dismantling of our economy and lowering of our quality of life to achieve it – all justified on now-thoroughly-discredited computer models.

Nuclear fusion power cannot come soon enough, since it would have so many advantages:

  • No carbon emissions. The only by-products of fusion reactions are small amounts of helium, which is an inert gas that will not add to atmospheric pollution
  • Abundant fuels. Deuterium can be extracted from water and tritium is produced from lithium, which is found in the earth’s crust. Fuel supplies will therefore last for millions of years
  • Energy efficiency. One kilogram of fusion fuel can provide the same amount of energy as 10 million kilograms of fossil fuel
  • No long-lived radioactive waste. Only plant components become radioactive and these will be safe to recycle or dispose of conventionally within 100 years
  • Safety. The small amounts of fuel used in fusion devices (about the weight of a postage stamp at any one time) means that a large-scale nuclear accident is not possible
  • Reliable power. Fusion power plants should provide a baseload supply of large amounts of electricity, at costs that are estimated to be broadly similar to other energy sources

What price sanity in energy policy?

  1. 2011-06-19 at 14:44

    Hey Manu,

    Again with the ad hominens! Conflicts of interest bias science sometimes, but are not alone enough to discredit a study. Also, not holding a PhD is not enough to discredit a study. You should probably read the scientific literature instead of just following blogs that confirm your biases πŸ™‚

    You already know that I don’t buy the financial interest arguments. Goldman Sachs is well positioned to make ridiculous amounts of money from green technology just as they already make a lot of money from oil industry, but at the same time there is just as well funded, if not much better funded, interests on the side of status quo.

    Do you have any evidence to back up the claim: “all justified on now-thoroughly-discredited computer models”? At the risk of sounding like an appeal to authority, I just want to point out that Richard Muller’s Berkeley Earth project agrees with GISS, HadCRU, and NOAA on the recent warming:


    “Despite potential biases in the data, methods of analysis can be used to reduce bias effects well enough to enable us to measure long-term Earth temperature changes. Data integrity is adequate. Based on our initial work at Berkeley Earth, I believe that some of the most worrisome biases are less of a problem than I had previously thought.”

    Science is about repeated testing of hypotheses. The more the replications agree, the stronger the hypothesis. We can argue about politics and how to address AGW, but the science looks pretty solid.

    • thisisgettingtiresome
      2011-06-25 at 11:22

      Josh done me a cool T- shirt with his pricelesS ‘Greenpeace in our time’ cartoon.
      Now I’m thinking of getting more done, to give to all my environmentalist friends.

      It’s great how that image can be read both ways. On the face of it supporting an Eco friendly world, which I’m all in favour off btw. , but with the underlying message that only those with a deeper historical perspective will

      I don’t know where Josh gets his talent from , but I think this piece is worthy of even that great Czech tradition, for cartooning under oppression.
      Indeed it’s frightening to think, that in the Czechoslovakia of those times , one would have been thrown in jail for less than this.


  2. 2011-06-19 at 20:02

    Hey Antti,

    I have to disagree with you that the science (of *anthropogenic* global warming) ‘looks pretty solid’. Anyway, since this is all based on computer models, rather than incontrovertible fact, perhaps the argument will never be settled one way or another. Like most ‘climate skeptics’, I would never deny that the global climate is changing – as it has been doing constantly since the creation of the planet. It may well be warming. The central issue however remains: how much – if any – of that is due to human activity…? Even if any significant degree of any warming is shown to be anthropogenic, is Al Gore’s proposed remedy the best way forward?

    In the meantime, there is NO doubt that our politicians are signing us all up to ‘green’ campaigns that will significantly increase ordinary people’s fuel bills, reduce the reliability of the national grid, make certain industries & individuals massive amounts of money, and propel us further down the road to statist control. All for a potential reduction in temperature rise of substantially less than 1 degree celcius?! It is simply not worth it!

    Incidentally, from what I’ve read about BEST to date, Muller et al have not (yet) actually shown anything new or helpful. Indeed, Muller apparently testified to Congress before all of the necessary analyses were complete, and before any of his data had been peer-reviewed and independently validated. Not really the actions of a true scientist working to the scientific method…

    Oh, and the only ad hominem in my post was directed at Chris Huhne – and I do not apologise for it…

    It’s a shame that we can’t have these discussions over a curry and beer – they’re fun! πŸ˜‰

  3. 2011-06-20 at 16:58

    Great spot with the cartoon site, some very well drawn (pun unintended) visual arguments there.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: