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)
Apr 23, 2014 at 3:54 PM | Unregistered Commenter Chandra
As there are no "fruits of socialist policies" without capitalist funding, us capitalists are quite safe from this treatment.
Apr 24, 2014 at 1:00 AM | Unregistered Commenter Chandra
I'm afraid that you don't seem to understand, you are welcome to organise your 'world' however you so please, just don't expect the rest of us to pay for it ... the "Jack Hayes" system just happens to be the one that our world is organised by. Go find your own world if you don't like this one.
Chandra,
As I have pointed out a number of times, you have a tendency to take what somebody has said, imagine it means something different from what they actually said, and then continue as if what you imagined was what they actually said.
The Bish said (my emphasis):
"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."
Chandra said (my emphasis):
"according to the Bishop, my participation in a society that I would prefer were organised differently makes me a hypocrite."
Do you see that if the Bish reports that a book says somebody is a hypocrite, that is different from he himself saying that that person is a hypocrite?
DNFTT
Lets go easy on the enviros.
It's a broad church that includes people who go ooh ah at David Attenborough films and want everything to be yummy and nice as well as the hardcore nutters who want to reverse the industrial age.
We don't want to push them all into a corner. Instead we need to help the conservationists to peel off from the anti-human ideologues and anti-capitalist extremists.
Martin, the words, "This book argues that ..." are Plimer's (follow the link). The Bishop normally makes it very clear when he disagrees with something quoted. As he just copied Plimers words with no such disclaimer I take it that he agrees. That is a reasonable assumption, after all none of you have argued that the statement is wrong, quite the contrary, so he is in tune with his readers.
Chandra,
This book has yet to be released and, unlike some ethically challenged CAGW proponents, the Bishop wont review a book without reading it.
Chandra (12:21),
If that's how you see things, then that's how you see things.
I've noticed that you (Chandra) also tend to think that, if someone does not contradict a statement, that can be taken as indicating that they are in full agreement with it. This seems to be another illustration of that.
I think that many BH readers - perhaps most - accept that if the world is not exactly as someone would like it to be, then they are free to live in it as it is.
I imagine (I'm just guessing) that Plimer is referring to people in the West who say (for example) that people in African villages should be provided only with 'sustainable' (ie non fossil-fuel) energy sources but who themselves live in centrally heated houses connected to a reliable electricity supply.
The canard about the US doing better at cancer treatment was well debunked long ago. Apparently they like to count false positives as cures. The real numbers tell the opposite story. It is not in serious dispute that they pay more to get less. And nobody counts those who are excluded from the system in the first place because they had the cheek to be ill already or just plain can't afford the exorbitant rates.
As far as I can tell, very few people in the UK would get rid of the NHS for all it's faults. For those of us who have used the French system, yes it is better if you pay extra via top-up insurance. If you don't then look out. And usually you have to pay a percentage of everything. It is rather less of a social safety net than the NHS.
Not that this has anything to do with environmentalism.
Martin, yes, it was only a flyer so maybe the book qualifies his accusations of hypocrisy against people like me somewhat. All the same, your example is a caricature. Providing mains electricity to villages might be a Plimer's supposed desire but to do that he has to build cetral power stations, a grid, and local distribution. He also needs to supply fuel to the station indefinitely, maybe set up a payment system, provide training for maintenance staff etc, etc. And of course most of that investment will go to provide power not to the villages, who will be last on the list of people helped, but to the cities where the subsidy may well be less necessary - most such subsidies are, I believe, captured by the already wealthy. And he has to pay for all of that - I have no idea of Plimer's view on aid, but a wild guess says he probably would not be opening up his cheque book.
Against that, targetting renewables at villages is arguably more appropriate. For further evidence, I have read that the availability of cheap solar has meant that for various communities in Australia the assumption that a grid connection is the best way to provide electricity is being questioned.
JamesG, yes, free market types have trouble with the idea that public systems can be better than their beloved private system. I wonder how their views change if they loose their job and insurance and then become ill...
JamesG -
For those of us who have used the French system, yes it is better if you pay extra via top-up insurance. If you don't then look out. And usually you have to pay a percentage of everything. It is rather less of a social safety net than the NHS.
"If you don't then look out. "
I was not completely convinced about the value of top-up in France. The point of insurance is to provide cover against things that you could not afford to pay for yourself. But my impression is that the potentially *very* expensive things are covered by the core insurance (for example hospital stays involving an operation).
I took it out myself but feeling that it was a bit like taking out comprehensive cover on my 18-year old car - a bit of an unnecessary expense. From what you say, I was mistaken.. ...
"It is rather less of a social safety net than the NHS."
Are you sure about that? I had to pay for my basic cover when I moved to France. But I was told that if I had had no resources, it would have been provided by the state.
_______________________________________________
A little anecdote. Shortly after moving to France, I asked the owner of the house I was renting if he could recommend a doctor. I phoned the surgery and explained that I was not a patient but would like to see the doctor if that was possible. I was asked when I would like to see him. I asked whether sometime next week might be possible. The receptionist said "No, I meant did you wish to see him this morning or this afternoon?".
Chandra
I'm not too sure why I'm entering this debate, as arguing with you is like nailing jelly, but here goes:
>the words, "This book argues that ..." are Plimer's
i.e. not the Bishop's, which is exactly what Martin was pointing out! What he (the Bishop) does say is that the book "seems to take a fairly strong poke at the environmentalist fraternity" which suggests firm neutrality on his part.
As for solar power in remote areas of Australia, some power is doubtless preferable to none where a grid connection is not available and sunshine is plentiful. Things are different in the UK...
Re: JamesG
The false positives you refer to are those resulting from the PSA test. The US makes extensive use of this test followed by a DRE and a biopsy. The end result of this is that they have the highest rate of prostrate cancer in the world. The controversy isn't false positives (the cancers they detect are cancers) but overdiagnosis. This occurs with prostrate cancer but there are many other types of cancer and, in general, the survival rates are better in the US than the UK.
I am not claiming that the US medical system is better or worse than the UK, I am simply debunking the unsubstantiated generic claim that: "The US pays much more for worse outcomes" by providing specific examples of how the US outcomes are better.
Every radical Green (of whatever political party) who goes on and on about "sustainability" should be required to analyze rigorously the economic (un)sustainability of so many Green policies. Only by myopically ignoring cost-effectiveness do "Green" arguments even get started...... they want all of the developed world to end up economic basket cases like Greece, and far worse.
Chandra,
I said before "As I have pointed out a number of times, you have a tendency to take what somebody has said, imagine it means something different from what they actually said, and then continue as if what you imagined was what they actually said."
You have done it again.
I made up an example, saying: "I imagine (I'm just guessing) that Plimer is referring to people in the West who say (for example) that people in African villages should be provided only with 'sustainable' (ie non fossil-fuel) energy sources but who themselves live in centrally heated houses connected to a reliable electricity supply."
Note that I said nothing about connecting villages to an electricity supply. I implied only that their being able to use energy derived from fossil fuel would benefit them.
But you then said (my emphasis):
" Providing mains electricity to villages might be a Plimer's supposed desire but to do that he has to build cetral power stations, a grid, and local distribution. He also needs to supply fuel to the station indefinitely, maybe set up a payment system, provide training for maintenance staff etc, etc. And of course most of that investment will go to provide power not to the villages, who will be last on the list of people helped, but to the cities where the subsidy may well be less necessary - most such subsidies are, I believe, captured by the already wealthy. And he has to pay for all of that - I have no idea of Plimer's view on aid, but a wild guess says he probably would not be opening up his cheque book."
To repeat:
- Chandra reads something sombody wrote
- Chandra imagines they said something different
- Chandra discusses as if they actually said what he imagined
This happens so often that it's clearly not just a random error.
Martin said,
> Note that I said nothing about connecting
> villages to an electricity supply. I implied
> only that their being able to use energy derived
> from fossil fuel would benefit them.
I have heard of green pressure against the building of centralized fossil power stations, but not of similar pressure against organisations that want to supply diesel or petrol generators to African villages and are prepared to supply them with the necessary fuel. Can you point me at any examples? I agree it could benefit the recipients, although we have to remember what you said earlier that aid is "harmful to everybody, especially the recipient countries" - does that explains any lack of such projects. The possibility for such aid has actually existed for more than half a century, so why haven't those who are now so concerned for the wellbeing of African villages saturated the continent with generators by now?
As usual, I expect you will nit-pick some aspect of what I have written instead answering.
Chandra - on taking a quick look, I can see that "sustainable" (in relation to villages in sub-Saharan Africa) is often taken to be virtually synonymous with "sustainable electrical generation" so I can understand to some extent why you made the assumption.
Martin
No doubt it depends on context, but I should have thought that 'sustainable' for an African villager probably had more to do with, er, sustenance.
Prof Plimer is a geologist who puts reality before PC thinking. As it should be. When it is out this book is for me.
John Marshall, are you serious? Go look at the source watch page on Plimer (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Ian_Plimer) before buying the book. Here's a choice quote for Plimer's view that the sun isn't composed of 98 per cent hydrogen and helium but is instead similar in composition to a meteorite.: "hard to understate the depth of scientific ignorance".
Source Watch is a smear site, no better but maybe worse than the now thankfully defunct News of The World.
@KNR and SandyS,
It's certainly true that Monbiot didn't want to debate Plimer - he made that very clear. But he reluctantly agreed to it on the condition that Plimer answer in advance some very basic questions first - like "what is the source for the graph you used [in your book]?"
The Spectator and Plimer agreed to this. The Spectator said:
Plimer agreed to answer them too, in an admittedly more equivocal manner, but nonetheless saying:
Plimer then starting blustering before simply not answering them. I just reread the email exchanges (www.monbiot.com/2009/09/14/correspondence-with-ian-plimer/ and www.monbiot.com/2009/09/14/correspondence-with-the-spectator), and I just cannot believe that anybody - whether sceptic or warmist - couldn't see through him.
Thankfully he is not the best we (on the sceptical side) have, but I'd encourage everyone to get over their distaste for Monbiot enough that they can read the email exchanges before deciding to lionise Plimer.
thanks for the reminder HK, the great George Monbiot at his best (puke) -
"I think I should inform you that you are currently being torn into tiny shreds on the comment thread following my article and on a number of other internet forums"
Yes dougieh, Monbiot can be pompous, irritating and simply mistaken. I'm not suggesting anybody routinely read his stuff (I don't). I would like to have seen someone take him apart in a debate and I was disappointed that Plimer turned out not to be up to the task.