Bishop Hill Greenbait
Apr 23, 2014 Books Climate: Sceptics Ian Plimer has a new book on the way, one that seems to take a fairly strong poke at the environmentalist fraternity. Here's the flyer.
The processes required to make a humble stainless steel teaspoon are remarkably complicated and every stage involves risk, coal, energy, capital, international trade and finance. Stainless steel cutlery has taken thousands of years of experimentation and knowledge to evolve and the end result is that we can eat without killing ourselves with bacteria. We are in the best times to have ever lived on planet Earth and the future will only be better. All this we take for granted.
Greens may have started as genuine environmentalists. Much of the green movement has now morphed into an unelected extremist political pressure group accountable to no one. Greens create problems, many of which are concocted, and provide no solutions because of a lack of basic knowledge. This book examines green policies in the light of established knowledge and shows that they are unrealistic.
Policies by greens adopted by supine governments have resulted in rising costs, increased taxes, political instability, energy poverty, decreased longevity and environmental degradation and they don’t achieve their ideological aims. Wind, solar and biomass energy emit more carbon dioxide than they save and reduction of carbon dioxide emissions does nothing to change climate and only empties the pocket. No stainless steel teaspoon could be made using green “alternative energy”.
This book argues that unless the greens live sustainably in caves in the forest and use no trappings of the modern world, then they should be regarded as hypocrites and treated with the disdain they deserve.
Reader Comments (74)
I would like to add that Greenie policies are basically throwing away all the work that our ancestors did. Their hard work and sacrifices got us to where we are now. Greenies are pretty much saying that they don't think that the work of their grandparents was worthwhile.
There's an old saying for this: empty vessels make most noise.
"then they should be regarded as hypocrites and treated with the disdain they deserve."
They are hypcrites as they are happy to fly around the world to complain about others flying! They drive their fossil fuel cars (since the electric ones are too expensive and will not take them very far) around the country to complain about fossil fuel cars!
They care little for the environment or the consequences of their actions - millions have died since the Greens stopped DDT from being used, many more people in the UK live in fuel poverty since the Greens demanded the much more expensive renewables be used, etc., etc.
Since a large number of Greens have English as a qualification, an understanding of the science and technology has been replaced with zealotry and climate model mysticism. - "..and treated with the disdain they deserve" - well said that man!
Lovely wordsmithing and irrefutable logic. What more could a body want?
Even when I was a member of the green party I was horrified by their ignorance of even basic things. E.g. when I talked about "windmills on the hills", I was describing 1000s of 30m high thing that could be seen right across Scotland.
When they talked about "wind energy", they literally meant some small 1m whirlygigs that would not look out of place as an ornament in the garden.
Many hadn't a clue about where energy came from. Most didn't understand even the basics of manufacturing or that everything they wore or used or cooked used energy.
They had no understanding, nor did they want any understanding, but they would readily condemn those with understanding who disagreed with them.
... the unfortunate thing is that I've since learnt that most of the politicians and I would guess all the Scottish Journalists have the same level of understanding.
Which if I translate into language they might understand ... is like going on holiday to Java with a Klingon dictionary.
Mike, my green friends constantly use the expression, "Wind and Solar power are free".
Q: Why do they need subsidies then?
A: Blank looks.
Stuck-Record - "wind is free" yes it is when it's in the air, and so is coal in the ground, what costs the money is harvesting that energy.
Yes and "Arbeit Macht Frei".
Free coal, free oil, free gas .... it's all free until you try to collect it and deliver it in a usable form to consumers.
And then you discover that wind is far more expensive.
Blank look
... this is rather like the PC searching the DVD. What they are doing is trying to find some passage in their memory from all the daft people they listen to which matches the search term "wind isn't free". That is why they look blank - the cogs are churning but there's no quote at home ... and they lack the knowledge to say anything for themselves.
Kind of sad that many people are so incapable of thinking for themselves that they cannot say anything unless something is found in their repertoire of PC quotes.
Therein lies the problem with greens. If they were to admit that these renewables don't reduce emissions, then they would have to admit that we need massive nuclear power to "tackle climate change" and that they have been wrong over the issue of nuclear power for years. They clearly prefer "catastrophic climate change" to using nuclear power. They will never admit they have been wrong in the past (about virtually everything) because then they are admitting that they could also be wrong about climate change. To summarise that in a nutshell: "they are clueless".
> unless the greens live sustainably in caves in
> the forest and use no trappings of the modern
> world, then they should be regarded as
> hypocrites and treated with the disdain they
> deserve.
Here's another one for you: if capitalists make any use of the fruits of socialist policies they should be regarded as hypocrites and treated with the disdain they deserve.
That applies to all of you living in France for a start. And for the rest, don't even think of visiting an NHS doctor - get private cover!
Phillip Bratby
> They will never admit they have been wrong in
> the past (about virtually everything) because
> then they are admitting that they could also be
> wrong about climate change.
George Monbiot changed his position on nuclear.
Stupid is as stupid does. The Greens are perfect candidates for 'believing' in dangerous man-made climate change. Acolytes to a
manperson.They don't 'do' joined up thinking. I cannot bring to mind a single policy they have promoted that made sense, worked or benefited anyone, any environment or any creature but themselves. I am prepared to be disabused, which is more than I can say for any Green I have had a conversation with.
@ Phllip Bratby.
Britain was once a world leader in nuclear technology, but thanks to Tony & Gordon what remnants were left were sold of to a Japanese company. It would probably cost us dear to buy the technology back in! I recall France didn't have access to North Sea oil & gas, so they very sensibly invested massively in nuclear energy, & I don't seem to recall them having a problem, or being lambasted by oodles of greenalists telling them they were all going to die, when the French decide to do something, they do it. Three Mile Islands was a one off, Chenobyl was a one off badly designed, badly built, & poorly maintained, old nuclear reactor probably waiting to go wrong under the yoke of communist oppression, Fukushima was an old design from the late 50s & 60s, survived any after shocks from the original quake at sea, every safety system cut in as it should, & the only thing nobody foresaw was a tsunami that took out the low level mounted back-up generators. I understand that wildlife is teaming around Chenobyl, but so far, none possessing 3 or more heads!
Chandra
Here's another one for you: if capitalists make any use of the fruits of socialist policies they should be regarded as hypocrites and treated with the disdain they deserve.
That applies to all of you living in France for a start. And for the rest, don't even think of visiting an NHS doctor - get private cover!
For socialism to work it needs capitalists to pay for it
Kevin
"That applies to all of you living in France for a start. And for the rest, don't
even think of visiting an NHS doctor - get private cover!"
Are you saying the NHS should be an opt in/opt out service?? I don't really see what socialism has to do with it - someone has to pay for it, it is just semantics really on who does pay.
Very few capitalists are such extremists as to reject all publicly funded schemes.
Most are perfectly content with a reasonably blended economy.
It is when the socialists/greens start to impose their most destructive/parasitic polices that reasonable people seek to point out the unsustainability and injsutice and - often- the magical thinking of the socialist/greens.
Chandra
"Here's another one for you: if capitalists make any use of the fruits of socialist policies they should be regarded as hypocrites and treated with the disdain they deserve."
Is illogical as socialism is non-productive therefore has on fruit, socialist can only steal the fruits of productive capitalists.
P.S. Look-up Nationalization as a process. It is state theft
Chandra
"George Monbiot changed his position on nuclear."
When George Monbiot changes his position on coal then we will know things have changed.
Until the all he has done is an incremental micro-move in position to something not likely to get done economically.
Chandra. Is the NHS a socialist policy? It has so many capitlist features in it, it's difficult to call it a socialist policy. GP are freelance, the NHS buys all it's medicines from capitalists, and even the ability to choose a hospital to go to is a free market non-socialist policy.
To be a better argument, you should say that any capitalist making use of ex-Russian or Cuban health care is a hypocrite.
George is just one of all the greenies. It'll need more than that for it to make any signficance.
I like it! I like to quote the eradication of small pox as one of the technological triumphs of the 20th century. A return to the rural idyl of the 18th Century would quite quickly result in the unravelling of many of the medical gains that have been made.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smallpox
Please explain - what is it that applies to "all of you living in France"? They are capitalists?
You'll have to explain a bit what you are on about.
I look forward to its review in the Grauniad! I wonder how many casualties from apoplexy we can expect..?
> illogical as socialism is non-productive
So public provision of health in Europe provides universal cover whereas the US system leaves millions without. The US pays much more for worse outcomes and you think that is 'productive'?
Chandra,
George Monbiot also changed his position on 'climate science' on the publication of the Climategate revelations. He said this:
He reversed his decision shortly afterwards though. He must have been persuaded that being badly let down was OK so long as it advanced 'the cause' - I wasn't.
> The US pays much more for worse outcomes
Really? The ASR (Age Standardised Rate) of mortality from breast cancer is 14.9 per 100,000 in the US and 17.1 in the UK. Sounds like the US has a better outcome.
If you think I'm cherry picking breast cancer then the outcomes for all cancers (excluding non-melanoma skin) are 110 for the UK and 105 for the US, again a better outcome.
Chandra - evidently you are unaware that elsewhere in Europe the basic system requires you to have health insurance with a minimum level of cover/premium that varies according to your income. The insurance is provided by private companies, and you will pay excess for parts of it if you use it. The system is a bit like having compulsory motor insurance. You may opt for different levels of cover if you wish, so long as they meet the minimum obligation.
I live in France, Chandra, and do not understand quite what it is you are saying. Health care here is far from free, and I also pay a mutuelle top-up insurance, just to make sure. I sponge off no-one.
Absolutely love the "regarded as hypocrites..." and needs to be used more.
Some may also be interested in this book - i think just published in the UK
The Socialist/Capitalist debate is irrelevant Chandra (and there are several regular commenters at Bishop Hill who are self declared socialists).
Socialists/Capitalists can argue all they like about the best way political way to divide the economic cake or make it bigger. Green politicians are simply trying to make the cake smaller. It is distressing just how many of their supporters don't yet realise that.
Chandra
For those of us living check out how the EHIC card and mutuelle systems work. Unlike you I paid tax and NI and tax on company supplied BUPA cover for 50 years (you always sound like a teenager to me). So if I fall ill anywhere in the EU I will happily use the health system in whatever country I happen to be in.
Robin G: it was released in the UK last autumn but seems to have dropped off the radar. That might be because its key points were widely reported months earlier from the German original.
Ah, the never-ending stream of Green hypocrisy! It is such a rich seam to mine. The endless examples stretch out to the limitless horizon like wind turbines in the Highlands. I wrote a blog post a while ago about how many times the last-chance-to-save-the-world has been and gone:
http://jonathanabbott99.wordpress.com/2013/12/12/making-beliefs-pay-rent/
Michael Hart said,
> Green politicians are simply trying to make the
> cake smaller.
I doubt that many greens have that intention. It might instead be that they measure the size of the cake in different ways from you. As you probably know, GDP is not a measure that is universally accepted as being optimal.
Robin, thanks for the book link. So it is the sun! Wait until all the climate scientists learn about this, they'll think themselves such fools for missing it. And to think there's been so many people studying the sun and writing papers about it and they all missed it.
"unless the greens live sustainably in caves in the forest and use no trappings of the modern world, then they should be regarded as hypocrites and treated with the disdain they deserve"
Beautifully put. And if there are not enough caves, let them live in Yurts, cook their lentils with Yak dung and knit their own yoghurt.
Personally I can't see many "green" volunteers- they like their (fossil fuel powered) creature comforts too much.
Well think of it this way
If Global Warming does exist its not the end of the world is it.
Living in France Chandra, I pay like every other citizen, capitalist, socialist, choumeur et all, the Doctor 23 Euros every time I go to see him. I have a medical condition which under an E.U. wide treaty means the govt. of each country picks up 100% of the bill, there are 30 such malaises covered thus but I have an assurance mutual to pay for related medicines. I also have a small business and get taxed heavily for it, as does any business over here. I certainly do not live off the fat of the land.
johnnyrvf and others you miss my point. If the Bishop and his followers can call me a hypocrite because despite being green minded I don't behave absurdly by living in a cave, I can call all those who espouse extreme conservative or libertarian views hypocrites if they so much set foot in a public facility. You may not belong to the target group - the sort I have in mind are epitomised by (but not only) 'Jake Haye' on page 3 of the "Pluralism - an explanation for greens" thread the other day who said, "The public sector utterly discredits anything it touches."
Chandra,
If anybody here was trying to stop everybody else using the NHS and forcing them to go private then you might have a point about the hypocrisy of visiting your GP.
Chandra wrote "Here's another one for you: if capitalists make any use of the fruits of socialist policies they should be regarded as hypocrites and treated with the disdain they deserve.
That applies to all of you living in France for a start. ..."
Can anyone tell me what they think he was trying to say here - he does not seem willing or able to do so himself.
That all people living in France are hypocrites? Or all BH posters living in France are hypocrites? Is he making an assumption that all BH posters living in France are capitalists? (Whatever that means)
What is he saying? I can't make it out.
Martin, I clarified what I meant at 8:46PM. 'Capitalist' was too broad, after all I consider myself a capitalist.
Greens - not at dissimilar from the movement in health that identifies 'natural' as a sine qua non of 'better health and wellness', often uninformed illiterati resplendent with claims.
Climate science needs a 'Friends of Science' movement.
OK Chandra - if I understood (including your clarification) you meant that all extreme capitalists who hold that the public sector discredits anything it touches and who live in France are hypocrites (because some things in France are provided via the public sector) but other BH commenters who live in France are exempt.
I don't feel enthusiastic about discussions on ''hypocrisy".
But I think I can see a difference between:
- Someone who campaigns for curtailment of air travel yet attends frequent international conferences.
- Someone who thinks that a service should be provided privately (and who says derogatory things about public services) but who has had to pay for the provision of the service by a government agency, and who then makes use of such a public service.
If you consider any, or all, of warmth; food; shelter; health & longevity; education; knowledge; supporting a family; material posessions; a green and pleasant environment; free time from the general drudgery of staying alive before acheiving your desired aims; or anything else; to be optimal, then they are put further out of your reach by wilfully making energy less affordable.
The mistake is to assume the greens don't know renewable energy is not viable in modern world , they do in fact they rely on it for them an energy crisis is seen as an 'opportunity , has for the price . Well how much is to much when 'your saving the planet '
But its not a little ironic that most people would have to work hard match the air-miles of green 'heroes' such has Lucas has they fly all over the world to attend protests , meetings etc .
Chandra, do get a dictionary. Better still, an education. 'Extreme conservative' is a non sequitur. Tc be conservative is, ipso facto, to be moderate.
All you effectively do on these threads is pontificate about the race, age, gender, motivations or psychology of commenters. You exhibit no understanding of the state of the science, allow no possibility of progress in that science and comment with an air of hauteur I find repellent.
Are you a bit stupid, Chandra? Is that why you cannot see the ridiculousness of describing conservatism as extreme (your understanding of English being as inexact as your grasp of climate)? Or have you, like so many who have been sucked in by leftist political indoctrination, lost all self awareness and capacity for critical thinking?
More likely, given your proven ability to hijack threads (including this one) you are just the definitive troll.
MartinA,
You make an excellent point: If 'extreme capitalists' (we call them libertatrians) had an optional out from publicly financed schemes, and then sought ways to take advantage of them without paying, or paid lip service to condemning them while secretly opting in to the schemes, then hypocrisy would be a fair ruling. If someone is forced to pay into a scheme/system and then takes advantage of what those payments bought, that is moral and fair, imho. I have paid into the US social security system since I was about 13 years old. I have earned whatever I can lawfully get from it. If that same money had been invested in even a relatively low risk variable life product, I could retire by now and the security it would have provided my family would be more substantial than that of Social Security. I would have opted out if possible. It was not optional, so I want what my pay in purchased.
I've deliberately ignored everything Plimer has said since the very slippery way he dodged giving Monbiot pre-debate written answers to a basic list of questions about his earlier book - questions that he had agreed to answer as a precondition of the debate (hosted by the Spectator). As a result, Monbiot was able to legitimately say there was no point in debating, and pulled out.
I was drawn to the sceptic viewpoint (well before Climategate) by the data obfuscation of climate scientists, and the unwillingness of climate scientists to call it out as unacceptable. I don't see Plimer as any different from them in that respect.
Martin, according to the Bishop, my participation in a society that I would prefer were organised differently makes me a hypocrite. If that is to be, then the participation of the Jake Hayes of this world in a system that they would prefer were organised differently is also hypocritical.
Michael Hart, there are many things that change the affordability of what we desire. Undesired and unnecessary wars and subsidies to bankers are far higher up my list of significant evils than attempts to improve our future energy systems. Your priorities are clearly different.
+1, Gixxerboy!
HK actual it was Monbiot who ran away because he would not accept any form of open debate , he ONLY wanted to deal with issues of his choice in his way . In other words typical Monbiot school bully approach , running and hiding when someone 'dares ' to answer him back. His got 'form ' and to give you idea try repeating his own words about people who fly , utter shortly before he went on a North American book selling tour, on CIF to see how long before your post gets deleted . Like most warmest he does not do 'debate ' he does 'dictation'
HK
I think you've got who dodged the debate a**e about face. As I read it Monbiot dodges debate at all times unless he's with friends or on topics where he is unlikely to meet the facts head on.