15 July, 2009
The G-8 Plus meeting in L’Aquila, Italy has finished with the usual pre-scripted, tears generating worded declarations which can be summed up along these lines:
We, the one who know best, [rubbing of hairy chests] agree that global problems require global solutions and regardless of what the people who elected us think about [insert issue here] and about spending their money are going spend it on their behalf anyway and by the tonne.
Much of the time and media management (i.e. propaganda) of this charade was devoted to Climate Change, a euphemism for Global Warming, that is much like the tale about Herscheleh from Ostropol, a fictitious folkloristic Jewish comedian, prankster and village idiot figure in !8th century Eastern Europe:
One early morning, just before dawn, as the folks were on their way to the synagogue for the Shaharit (early morning payer) they notice Herscheleh under the lamp post, circling the post scanning the ground.
“Herschel” said the rabbi “What on earth are you doing here this time of the morning?”
“I lost my key” replied Herscheleh
“Where did you lose it?” inquire the rabbi
“There” said Herscheleh pointing into the darkness away from the light of the lamp post.
“So why are looking for you key in here if you lost it there”? persisted the rabbi with a puzzle.
“Because the light is here Rabbi, not there” replied Herschel with a smug.
The same goes for the leaders of G-8, the eight largest economies in the world, are all in deep economic disarray which they have no idea as to how to get out of it, using climate change as a decoy away from their incompetence.
The G-8 Plus (some of the G-20) leaders declared amongst other things that they
[R]ecognize the scientific view that the increase in global average temperature above pre-industrial levels ought not to exceed 2 degrees C. [highlight added]
Scientific view, what is it? Science does not have views, sciences has hypotheses which are either proven, disproven or remained unproven. Views express by scientists are only views and are as valid as anyone else’s view, there is nothing scientific about a scientists’ views.
Don’t let them (the scare mongers) fool you, it is not the first time, and probably not the last time, that politicians use science as a fig leaf. We all remember Al Gore’s proclamation that “the science has been settled” and global warming is has been proven by “a scientific consensus” placing science on par with beauty pageant as to picking winners.
Science is never settled and it is not about consensus, science is about selecting hypotheses and proving them (or not). ask Copernicus and Galileo Galilei who, contrary to massive scientific (and theological) consensus, risked their lives and disproved geocentricism. Had science been about consensus, who knows, we may gave still be walking this earth believing that it is flat and that we are the centre of universe.
One can imagine the UN Intergovernmental Panel for Geocentricism warning us of the danger paused by people such as Copernicus and Gallie.
The “science” of global warming is based on two mutual inclusive hypotheses (meaning BOTH must exist) and they are that the increase in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is THE CAUSE for global warming of the planet AND that the increase in CO2 is cause by human activities (anthropogenic).
The facts of the matter are that NONE of these hypotheses have been scientifically proven!
Bear in mind, the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is 350ppm (parts per million), compare it to a teaspoon of sugar in a standard glass at about 2,500ppm. More important the so-called “carbon pollution” is only 4% of the atmospheric carbon dioxide (14ppm).
So what are we talking about? Nothing, nada, tipota, gurnischt! BUT the echophiles always come up with escaper route and their escape route is something called the Precautionary Principle, another non-scientific PC term which is neither precautionary nor a scientific.
Under the pretence of science those echophiles tell although we don’t really know what cause global warming we better pretend and behave as if it is manmade carbon dioxide just in case (JIC).
Absolute crap! We already have scientific (mathematical) tools to deal with decision making under uncertainty, it is the Mathematical branch of Operations Research that deals with such questions.
For example Operations Research is used to determine how many bank tellers or supermarket checkout will be setup given a the pattern of the demand for the service and acceptable level of customer queues. The Bank or the Supermarket does not construct 500 service point just in case a one time unusual demend.
BUT, Operations Resreach is based on sound mathematical rules not some eco-whacko furphies such as the “science” of global warming.
Do you really want to use Precautionary Theory? Fine, go right ahead; lets see: Helmet, sky-divers suit, parachute and ejecting seat for every airline passenger, JIC; mandatory crush helmet and fire suit installed in every family car for every passenger, JIC; a man with a red flag in front of every car (with phosphorous vest and a hard hat), JIC … I guess that you get the idea.
Use the precautionary principle argument when you run out valid arguments for your case.
* * * * *
The last two counties to fall to the global warming hoax was Australia (in November 2007) and the USA (in January 2009). We now have almost a global unanimity on the issue among almost all politicians of all persuasions which is frightening – To me it is a true conspiracy even if I am not one who for conspiracies.
If you think that “conspiracy” is too stronger word for it how about reading of the Declaration Of The Leaders The Major Economies Forum On Energy And Climate that formed a part of the G-8 Plus in L’Aquila meeting which foreshadowed global climate change measures not normally spoken about, not loudly anyhow.
In addition to emission trading (however such scheme named) there is a unanimity on a MASSIVE GOVERNMENT SPENDING, over and above the various stimuli already flushed down the drains, and
dramatically increase and coordinate public sector investments in research, development, and demonstration of these [green] technologies, with a view to doubling such investments by 2015 [Emphasis added]
Simply put this is a hijack of the global economy by putting obscene amounts of money into the “greening” of our economies.
The last ecophile to join the global war4mning asylum, President Obama, glorified Spain and other countries and use them as examples for the USA to follow, for their “progress” in greening their economies, some six moths ago he said in Bedford, Ohio that:
And think of what’s happening in countries like Spain, Germany and Japan, where they’re making real investments in renewable energy. They’re surging ahead of us, poised to take the lead in these new industries.
This isn’t because they’re smarter than us, … It’s because their governments have harnessed their people’s hard work and ingenuity with bold investments – investments that are paying off in good, high-wage jobs – jobs they won’t lose to other countries. [Highlight added]
Not quite Mr. President, a Spanish academic, Dr. Gabriel Álvarez of the Juan Carlos University in Madrid has published a study that shows, amongst other things, that
we find that for every renewable energy job that the State manages to finance, Spain’s experience cited by President Obama as a model reveals with high confidence, by two different methods, that the U.S. should expect a loss of at least 2.2 jobs on average [Highlight added]
–Summary, No 2, pg. 1
(I strongly recommend that you read, at least, the whole summary on pages 1-4)
The loss of jobs cited by Dr Álvarez is primarily due to high electricity charges, up to 7 times the market level, that are forced on industry, particularly electricity intensive ones, such as aluminium, steel, other metallurgy, food processing and tobacco. They all move their operation to countries who will not have a bar of this stupidity (eg China, India, Vietnam) and who guarantee low electricity charges for years to come – China is connecting a new (coal fired) power station to their grid every 10 days or so.
In fact the actual loss of jobs to the economy is more then 2.2 per each “smart” job but I leave it for now mainly for sake of simplicity.
* * * * *
As important as jobs are there is something even more insidious that I wish to draw your attention to but I need to explain it a bit first;
Suppose that I am a tomatoes’ farmer, growing your normal humble tomatoes and selling them to the local supermarket for years at market prices that fluctuate with supply, demand quality etc. Nothing to write home about.
One day a man from the government comes around and he want me to grew a new type of pear shaped “green” tomatoes which are environmentally friendly thus give me the opportunity to be part of the movement to save the planet – ain’t that exciting?
I tell the man that I love to help but… those tomatoes are hard to grow, the farm machinery that I need for them is very expensive, and has long period of down time, the yield I would per acre is about 12% of I get now and that them eco-friendly tomatoes are very susceptible to the weather and insects. According to a quick calculation I would probably need to charge about three times the prices I get now and all that I don’t even sure that people would like such tomatoes. “Thanks but no thanks, I pass” I conclude.
To my surprise, the man smiles and says that the government is aware of all the difficulties but here is the deal: The machinery and other investment I need will be provided by the government, the government also guarantees the price I would be getting at about 6-7 times what I get now AND most importantly the government guarantee the sale of the whole crop.
I go back to do my sums and discover that with such massive help I would be earning some 17% on my investment compare with 4% that I get now, wow!
Now my friends, instead of tomatoes think of “renewable energy” and you would immediately understand the attraction global warming has to the likes of GE and Suzlon who adopt global warming AND GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES all heartedly.
So much so that they even “grow” their “tomatoes” in (wind) FARMS, this gives the farming profession a whole new meaning.
If yo were a CEO of any company and had the opportunity to earn 17% return on your shareholders capital, you too will jump on it irrespective of your opinion on the “science” behind it, I know I would, it would be incumbent upon me to do so.
In fact in total subsidies, paid-up and committed, Spain, a country of 46 millions, spent some $36 billions. If America spend the same on a per capita basis it would amount to about $235 billions.
So generous was the Spanish program that it influenced the financial markets and created an investment “bubble” paused to explode in a middle of a global financial crisis that forced the Spanish government to tweak their generosity back somewhat.
And what does that mean in terms of your air-conditioning and hot water regulators? Dr Álvarez worked it out as an increase of 31% in electricity expenses, payable either on you bill or by your taxes.
I hope that now you see why we all going to get carbon trading of some description – much of that money has already been spent. It is now time to pay for it, just watch it coming.
(BTW, has anyone studied the relationship between wind and photovoltaic farms in their states and their state deficit? e.g. California)