Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Support

 

Twitter
Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« Slow news day | Main | Diary dates - here we go again edition »
Wednesday
Apr292015

Remember the poor - Josh 323

I don't think this cartoon needs any words but many thanks to Cumbrian Lad for an inspiring post. Matt Ridley's excellent article on Electricity for Africa is also worth reading - let's hope Pope Francis reads this blog.

Cartoons by Josh

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (24)

Brilliant as usual, Josh.

Apr 29, 2015 at 6:35 PM | Unregistered CommenterMessenger

Well done.

Apr 29, 2015 at 6:46 PM | Unregistered CommenterRud Istvan

I suspect the Pontiff is too stuck in Socialist thought to see that the way out of poverty is not redistribution of wealth, but the creation of more wealth.

Apr 29, 2015 at 6:46 PM | Unregistered Commenterjorgekafkazar

Yes, Africa is the moving from being the 'Dark Continent' to the 'Dark Shadow' on a Green world. In which view, I thought stuck-record's comment on Matt Ridley's post was pretty graphic. He merely substituted 'them' for 'it' in the slogan, 'Keep it in the ground'. Powerful image, I thought. ymmv

Apr 29, 2015 at 7:10 PM | Unregistered CommenterHarry Passfield

Many levels there Josh, thanks. He is a good man, and will rise to the challenge.

Apr 29, 2015 at 7:16 PM | Unregistered CommenterCumbrian Lad

Is the Pope signing an Encyclical - or a death warrant?

Apr 29, 2015 at 7:41 PM | Unregistered CommenterHarry Passfield

Let's wait and see what the Roman Catholics actually want us to think about?

They do care about the poor - CAFOD shows that.
They are on the ground in the third world.
They may have an interesting perspective.

Apr 29, 2015 at 8:12 PM | Registered CommenterM Courtney

All he is interested in is redistributing wealth from the rich to the poor.

If he were truly concerned about the poor, he would do something about birth control.

Apr 29, 2015 at 8:35 PM | Unregistered CommenterPaul Homewood

The Cathlic Church has not done so well in meddling around with science. I do wonder why the Church was able to largely resist the pressure to back eugenics but sems unable to think critically about climate. Frankly I find the faith based fanatics of climate obsesion to be transparently non-rational. That the Vatican seems to fail to perceive the risks of involving itself in such a regressive anti-life issue as green extremists, it raises the question of what else have these leaders of the Church missed?

Apr 29, 2015 at 8:38 PM | Unregistered Commenterhunter

Never trust a murderous old villain wearing a frock.

Apr 29, 2015 at 8:53 PM | Unregistered CommenterJack Dawkins

@Paul H
The third world poor need many children to provide sinteriorupport in their old age. For them, the catholic church supports that imperative. Should they have the wealth of a pension that imperative would disappear.

Fossil fuel is a contraceptive.

Apr 29, 2015 at 9:47 PM | Unregistered Commenterssat

Effin smart phones.

Support

Apr 29, 2015 at 9:50 PM | Unregistered Commenterssat

I hope this Pope continues to demonstrate common sense and humanity.

The Roman Catholic Church and the Church of Climate Science are both founded on faith, not science. Both have a dodgy track record, when it comes to acting in good faith.

Both have new leaders, one of them is on course for self destruction.

The world and humanity would be worse off without the Catholic Church.

The world and humanity would be better off without Climate Science.

Only Green Luvvies and Climate Scientists have any faith in climate science.

Climate science proves you can fool the same people, all of the time.

Apr 29, 2015 at 10:14 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

God, how I hate religion.

Apr 29, 2015 at 11:58 PM | Unregistered CommenterJohn Silver

Whatever climate science predicts will result from the Pope's signature, will be wrong. Climate science has a very consistent record, in making false predictions, and they are very confident (over 95%) about this one.

Apr 30, 2015 at 1:37 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

How can any true Scot put his trust in a Roman climate encyclical ?


All sound theologians know that no good can ever come from running a climate model on the Sabbath.

Apr 30, 2015 at 7:39 AM | Unregistered CommenterRussell

@Russell:

The new climate models only work on Feb. 30TH. (except when that falls on a Sunday).


Great cartoon, Josh.

Apr 30, 2015 at 8:10 AM | Unregistered CommenterGraeme No.3

"the way out of poverty is not redistribution of wealth, but the creation of more wealth"

These two aspirations aren't mutually exclusive you know!

Apr 30, 2015 at 10:14 AM | Unregistered CommenterJamesG

Matt King Coal,
was a merry old
with lots of stuff to sell

Africa, of course, is his target market.

As Eli has pointed out, renewables are a lot cheaper, certainly outside of the bigger cities. The major cost per MWh of fossil fuel is the cost of the fuel. The amount of capital needed to build the generator is less than 5% or so. However, for solar PV, small hydro, and small wind capital costs are more than ~80% of the cost of power, operating costs are maybe the other 20%.

Eli, like others has to wonder why no one is building micro coal plants to roll out across Africa. That is cheaper in the short term, right? No grid. Why isn’t Matt Ridley doing that

Even now solar and wind are less expensive than coal, and they will be much less so in the future. They are orders of magnitude more deployable and not as subject to mayhem. Moreover, efficient modern lighting, telecommunications, cooling, other conveniences and necessities don’t have large power draws.

Apr 30, 2015 at 3:33 PM | Unregistered CommenterEli Rabett

It maybe because the good professor lives in the DC area he thinks deployment of fossil fuels causes mayhem.

Apr 30, 2015 at 3:56 PM | Registered Commentershub

The anti-Catholic rhetoric that is on display here is appalling. There's a better attitude on display by greenpeace for once

Bishop, there is no ecumenical meeting of minds here at the moment. All the same mud slinging complained of from the warmists. Clean out your stable.

Apr 30, 2015 at 4:56 PM | Unregistered CommenterRecusant

My comment yesterday about people with rabbit-sized brains is endorsed yet again.
Having no "efficient modern lighting, telecommunications, cooling, other conveniences and necessities" is even cheaper, Eli, and that is exactly what you end up with half the time if you try relying on solar and wind. (Though I will go some way with you on the subject of micro coal plants, or even micro-nuclear).
The first and essential requirement for a power system to drive anything above the level of bare subsistence is reliability. Which means, in simple terms, that when you push the button or throw the switch the electricity starts to flow. This is hardly rocket science though it seems that a very large number of allegedly intelligent people with letters after their name to prove how clever they are seem unable to comprehend it.

Apr 30, 2015 at 5:46 PM | Registered CommenterMike Jackson

If but one ten thousand of the Victorian steam engines in the Northumbrian rust belt that have no work today were charitably exported to Zaire, Zambia and Zimbabwe, fueling them could provide gainful employment for thousands of indigenous coal miners, who with reasonable thrift could soon afford air conditioners to consume the coal-fired kilowatts resulting, and so assure the employment of their coal mining posterity.

Apr 30, 2015 at 7:07 PM | Unregistered CommenterRussell

Mr Rebate: remember this, from a few threads back?

Consider this: only one “renewable” (hydro) gives constant output; all other “renewables” require “fossil”-fuel backup. To ramp up the necessary output only when required costs a lot in fuel (and emissions), thus costing more. As this backup is necessary, and needs to have an output equivalent to the maximum available from “renewables”, why not just drop the ridiculously expensive idea of installing the “renewables” (and replacing them rather frequently) in the first place.
Why do you think the situation could have changed, in the few days since?

Apr 30, 2015 at 9:07 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>