James Lovelock goes nuclear

He has had enough!

To erect a large wind turbine on the Broadbury Ridge above the Carey and Wolfe Valleys is industrial vandalism that will diminish the regard with which the countryside is held and make the region vulnerable to urban development and unsustainable farming. Even if there were no alternative source of energy to wind we would still ask that this 84 metre high industrial power plant was placed in less ecologically sensitive areas. Better still we should look to the French who have wisely chosen nuclear energy as their principal source; a single nuclear power station provides as much as 3200 large wind turbines.

I am an environmentalist and founder member ofthe Greens but I bow my head in shame at the thought that our original good intentions should have been so misunderstood and misapplied. We never intended a fundamentalist Green movement that rejected all energy sources other than renewable, nor did we expect the Greens to cast aside our priceless ecological heritage because of their failure to understand that the needs of the Earth are not separable from human needs. We need take care that the spinning windmills do not become like the statues on Easter Island,
monuments of a failed civilisation.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

81 Responses to James Lovelock goes nuclear

  1. Grey

    James Lovelock has been pro-nuclear for years.
    He has always worshiped at the altar of technological progress.

  2. Poor Old Rafe

    I mean he has gone nuclear in his abuse of Green fundies.

  3. cohenite

    That’s right Grey; a literary minded chap like you should have picked up on POR’s metaphor; although in deference to your misunderstanding when I first read the heading I did briefly think the Greens had detonated Lovelock with a small nuclear device.

  4. Sirocco

    The link does not work.

  5. Jarrah

    I hope some day our own Greens abandon their unscientific opposition to nuclear power. I mean, they even oppose thorium, which could negate practically all of their concerns about plutonium!

  6. Sirocco

    I still get:

    Page Not Found
    The page /storage/James Lovelock Letter.pdf could not be located on this website

  7. .

    I hope some day our own Greens abandon their unscientific opposition to nuclear power. I mean, they even oppose thorium, which could negate practically all of their concerns about plutonium!

    Integral fast breeder reactors use waste as fuel. The thorium cycle is non weaponisable and can go on forever.

    The Australian Greens are rolled gold fuckheads.

  8. Keith

    He has always worshiped at the altar of technological progress.

    This comment brought to you by technological progress.
    __________________________________________________________

    Can someone please explain how a technology based on rare earth elements, and requiring considerable base load generation as a hot backup can be considered renewable?

  9. JC

    To erect a large wind turbine on the Broadbury Ridge above the Carey and Wolfe Valleys is industrial vandalism that will diminish the regard with which the countryside is held and make the region vulnerable to urban development and unsustainable farming.

    Huh? Why?

  10. JC

    Keith

    It’s outright fraud and the people involved charged and taken to court.

  11. Token

    It certainly brings to mind this quote (which I have paraphrased):

    “You can depend upon the Americans Lefties to do the right thing. But only after they have exhausted every other possibility.”

  12. Rabz

    I experienced our clean green futcha for two hours last night and to say I’m not happy about it is an understatement.

    The Australian Greens are rolled gold fuckheads.

    Quite so. What sort of industrial grade imbeciles are opposed to the concept of cheap electricity – and then to make matters worse, try to take it from people by making it obscenely expensive?

    A bunch of rolled gold fuckheads, that’s who.

    I am sick to death of the staggeringly stupid, narcissistic obsessions of these pompous, irrelevant wankers impacting on my life.

  13. Token

    He has always worshiped at the altar of technological progress.

    …by contrast to the most of the left which worships at the altar of Luddite-ism.

  14. cohenite

    I hope some day our own Greens abandon their unscientific opposition to nuclear power.

    That’s a forlorn hope because it misunderstands the real purpose of the greens; which is to punish humanity; and if that punishment can be facilitated by depriving humanity of cheap, reliable power from any source then so be it.

    For the greens to abandon their opposition to nuclear and thorium would mean they cease to be greens; in other words it is a tautology.

    I on the other hand hope some day our very own greens get whisked off to nirvana on a one way trip.

  15. JC

    Rabz

    Youre partially wrong in your assessment of the filth. They aren’t morons in the sense of not knowing what they are doing. Primarily they are evil people with evil intentions. They hate industrialized civilization and want us to live a preindustrial way of life. They will do anything to forced this.

  16. JC

    Cummunist Luddites…

    They reach equality by improverishing us all.

    They celebrate expensive energy and expensive food etc. they pretend not to because it would mean fewer voters support them and so they will lie.

  17. Jim Rose

    I like wind turbines. they test the commitment of green voters to the costs of green energy: spoiled views, dead birds, and lower land values.

    the green NIMBY opposing a wind farm is a sight to behold

  18. JC

    FFS

    It’s Sunday … Don’t get me all worked up on a peaceful Sunday about the green scum.

    It agitates me just thinking about this scum and human dregs.

  19. Rabz

    Primarily they are evil people with evil intentions.

    Agreed. But anyone who has some bizarre obsession about electricity and tries to deny people access to cheap plentiful electricity is an imbecile.

    They will do anything to force this.

    It’s time to start hitting back, big time, in my opinion. This might just be the year to do exactly that.

    Enough.

  20. Skuter

    Rabz, there’s too much electricity infrastructure in your neighbourhood, clearly. It is the gold plating that got you last night, or something like that…

  21. Lloyd

    He has always worshiped at the altar of technological progress.

    You say that as if it’s somehow a bad thing. The sneer is almost audible.

    Technology potentially brings longer lifespans, better overall health and well being, greater connection between individuals and peoples and most importantly hope that our children will enjoy at least the same standard of living as our own, if not better.

    How is that a bad thing?

  22. .

    You have too many nice, stupid people voting for the Greens because they “don’t like Liberals or Labor” or it’s a habit they pick up at uni like listening to that JJJ shite.

    (They never grow up. They could at least listen to Classic FM or Newsradio if they don’t want mindless commercial nonsense…instead, they get Government owned, commercial nonsense…)

  23. JC

    Jim Rose

    Homestly, who fucking cares what they think or if they take a back step.

    This is like gooing and gaaing over a toddler talking his/her first steps…. Except that they aren’t toddlers.

    Fuck’em.

  24. .

    You say that as if it’s somehow a bad thing. The sneer is almost audible.

    Hopefully Grey is an anti vaccination and anti antibiotics nutcase.

  25. Rabz

    … there’s too much electricity infrastructure in your neighbourhood

    Skute, if get put through another experience any time soon like what I went through last night, there are going to be [deleted]…

  26. .

    I like wind turbines. they test the commitment of green voters to the costs of green energy: spoiled views, dead birds, and lower land values.

    the green NIMBY opposing a wind farm is a sight to behold

    Jim

    You’re very well read and your economic analysis is usually peerless, but I think you live a sheltered existence.

    The Greens oppose ALL sources of power.

    They even oppose solar updraft towers FFS!

    They are deep Green misanthropes who lack the honesty to say so.

  27. cohenite

    Rabz, where was this blackout?

  28. Skuter

    You have too many nice, stupid people voting for the Greens because they “don’t like Liberals or Labor” or it’s a habit they pick up at uni like listening to that JJJ shite.

    Another thing is the willingness of lefties to be completely sceptical of da corporations yet unfailingly trust da government. This has mystified me for a long time. The corporate world is held to a far higher threshold of accountability (unless they are in cahoots with the government, that is)…

  29. .

    Cohenite

    Quickly can you recap on the limits to the Greenhouse effect for me with some references?

    It will be much appreciated.

  30. .

    Another thing is the willingness of lefties to be completely sceptical of da corporations yet unfailingly trust da government. This has mystified me for a long time. The corporate world is held to a far higher threshold of accountability (unless they are in cahoots with the government, that is)…

    It’s envy mixed with naive patriotism.

    1. They have more money than me, they must have cheated someone.

    2. MY Government wouldn’t do THAT to me.

    An appreciation of history, and actually making a quid themselves would help most of them.

  31. JC

    You have too many nice, stupid people voting for the Greens because they “don’t like Liberals or Labor” or it’s a habit they pick up at uni like listening to that JJJ shite.

    They’re Hitler’s children, dot.

    These pieces of shit caused the burning of our food supplies in 07-08 and thousands and thousands of people died of hunger.

    Kids in Haitii were lucky as they had dirt biscuits to live off. They didn’t all die. They had perhaps 50 points wiped off their potential IQ because of lack of 1/4 decent food.

  32. Skuter

    Rabz, where was this blackout?

    To the north west of the concrete penis owl.
    Rabz, you should have taken a little drive. You don’t need power to enjoy that gift to the people…

  33. Jim Rose

    voting for the Greens because they “don’t like Liberals or Labor”

    people vote governments out. protest votes are common.

    Schumpeter’s theory of democratic participation is voters have the ability to replace political leaders at regular elections. All voters have time to know is performance, so they vote retrospectively.

    the swinging voter has sufficient knowledge and sophistication to vote out leaders who perform poorly, vote in minimally competent replacements, and prevent serious misalignments between government actions and public opinion and at little cost in time or distraction from private pursuits.

    This power to vote officials out of office at the next election gives an incentive to adopt policies that do not outrage public opinion and administer policies with some minimum of honesty and competence.

    In troubled times, democratic elections provide opportunities for radical parties that provide an alternative to the discredited policies of incumbent officials. The worse the incumbent party, the better even an extremist challenger looks.

    HT: Schumpeter and Richard Posner

  34. Jim Rose

    The Greens oppose ALL sources of power

    dot, the greens support renewable energy except dams. they therefore oppose 99% of all power sources.

  35. JC

    What troubled times did australians experience to hand the greenslime over 10% of the vote, Jim?

    Ummm.

    As I said .. And I don’t say it lightly. They are Hitler’s children.

  36. Dangph

    They hate industrialized civilization and want us to live a preindustrial way of life. They will do anything to forced this.

    I respect the back-to-the-earth hippies who live a (somewhat) preindustrial lifestyle and grow their own food. They walk the talk, and they know how hard it is to extract a living from the ground. If that’s what they want to do, then good on them.

    The inner-city greenies understand nothing of that. They want to get rid of the unpleasant aspects of the industrialized world, such as coal fired power stations, but they take for granted that in a world without electricity their washing machines will still work. It’s not malice, it’s just stupidity.

  37. C.L.

    No, it’s neither malice nor stupidity.

    It is an actual mental illness.

  38. Jessie

    JC and Rabz,
    Agreed on your comments about Greens.

    Rabz, this may help your situation.
    Used the same model to hook up laptops and projectors while teaching 400-odd adult pupils scattered over an area the size of Victoria.
    Fantastic machine. Told the ‘boys’ who enjoy tinkering leave this alone, my handbag (13kg).

    Didn’t quite power the 9kg washing machine post cyclone but kept other necessities going as it purred away in the background. Computers, fan and car fridge for cold beer.

    The bizarre obsession will be the tender for smart cards. E-cards Then we will be informed when ‘cheap electricity’ is available. And water.

  39. cohenite

    Quickly

    There’s the rub. There appears to be 3 views on the Greenhouse effect;

    The first is the IPCC/AGW view which says there is a greenhouse effect and human emissions of CO2, ACO2, is causing that effect to produce catastropic climate change.

    The second is that there is a Greenhouse effect but CO2 contribution is minor for various reasons and therefore ACO2 effects are miniscule.

    The 3rd is that there is not a Greenhouse effect and that the effect of CO2 is non-existent or even leads to a cooling effect.

    There are further links to the above link to various sources supporting each view.

    Simply explained the Greenhouse effect is a heat retaining effect caused by the blocking of certain wavelengths of IR by Greenhouse gases, especially CO2.

    The mechanism of the Greenhouse effect is backradiation, a product of the isotropic properties of Greenhouse gases whereby absorbed IR is reemitted in a random direction.

    An odd side effect of a Greenhouse effect which is produced by the Steffan-Boltzmann law is that average global temperature can be increasing while the Greenhouse effect is decreasing; the equation explaining it is one of my favourites:

    (A + B)^4 > A^4 + B^4

    Because SB shows that emission from a surface increases with the temperature of the surface to the fourth power and the Greenhouse effect is really a description of how much energy is trapped in the Earth’s atmosphere an increase in temp at a cold place can be negated by a smaller decrease in temp at a warmer place.

    Fascinating isn’t it?

  40. Jessie

    Dangph,

    I’ve not read a labour study on spatial distribution, of Greenies and their aggregation in city environs, but surely inner city Greenies clump together in inner city local Councils, state and federal government offices?
    They have the work email, propaganda photocopier and internet environment to pursue their cause at no cost.

    And with bike ways avail and employer provided hot showers/lockers post cycling, they don’t need to catch trams or buses or trains. They have home away from their hobby farms in the ‘city environment’.

    And with ‘work from home’ clauses in their employment contracts they can continue their rant. They always state ‘I am so much more productive at home than the office’. :)

  41. Jessie

    ….should have been …..

    at no cost to themselves.

  42. Honesty

    A vision based on the environment rather than anti capatilism that took over the green movement after the Berlin wall came down. In an interview when asked what would you do with the nuclear waste? Lovelock replied, oh I would keep it in my backyard I would not need heating for 40 years. How in the world are you going to scare the population with the founder of the Greens saying that?

  43. Jim Rose

    Jc, Hanson and ross perot got large votes too in times that were not very troubled. about 1/5 of the electorate of the UK votes for third parties with no chance.

  44. Jim Rose

    honesty, environmentalism was always anti-capitalist.

    The Greens are no more than the modern heirs to the 19th century British Tory Radicals: they have their aristocratic sensibilities that combined strong support for centralized monarchical power with a paternalistic concern for the poor.

    19th century Tory radicals opposed the middle classes and the aesthetic ugliness it associated with an industrial economy. Like the 19th century Tory Radicals, today’s green gentry see the untamed middle classes as the true enemy.

    Environmentalists have an aristocratic vision of a stratified, terraced society in which the knowing ones would order society for the rest of us.

    many left-wingers thought they were expressing an entirely new and progressive philosophy as they mouthed the same prejudices as Trollope’s 19th century Tory squires: attacking any further expansion of industry and commerce as impossibly vulgar and ‘ecologically unfair to their pheasants and wild ducks’.

    Big HT: http://www.city-journal.org/2010/20_3_american-liberalism.html

  45. Mk50 of Brisbane

    Gheyboy:

    He has always worshiped at the altar of technological progress.

    The funniest thing about Gheyboy’s comment is that he makes it on teh most advanced, complex piece of global tachnology the human race has ever invented… and utterly fails to see the irony.

    Don’t ever change, Gheyboy. We need self-beclowning pompous idiots like you to enliven our day a little.

  46. Pickles

    Wet enuff for ya Markl?

  47. Rabz

    A vision based on the environment rather than anti capatilism that took over the green movement after the Berlin wall came down.

    Wrong.

    The commies began to infiltrate the “green movement” about the time the Berlin came down.

    They saw the writing on that soon to be torn down wall…

    P.S. Thanks Jessie – I’ll investigate.

  48. Jim Rose

    Token, the Luddites were not anti-technology.

    As pointed out by Anderson and Tollison 1986, Ned Ludd and his mates broke machines as a means of cartel enforcement. They were in the pay of guild members extracting rents and suppressing output.

    Many sayings have contradictory origins. Newton’s remark about if he had seen further, it was because he stood on the shoulders of giants was an insult directed at a bitter rival who was a dwarf.

  49. Mk50 of Brisbane

    JC:

    You’re partially wrong in your assessment of the [green]filth.

    I’d say ‘incomplete’.

    They aren’t morons in the sense of not knowing what they are doing. Primarily they are evil people with evil intentions.

    ABSOLUTELY! Exactly why do groups like Deep Green Resistance and Stalinists like the only member of the KGB known to be an Australian senator, totalitarians like the Fudgepacker, Crazy Eyes and Tubbsy get along so well? because they share the view that they should be absolute rulers in a power-elite. They want the power of life and death over everyone else.
    These are amoral monsters, fundamentally evil people.

    They hate industrialized civilization and want us to live a preindustrial way of life.

    Unarmed, ignorant, illiterate peasants living a hand-to-mouth existence ARE easy to rule, aren’t they? This is their intent.

    It has nothing to do with ‘da enviwamun’ (to quote the bogan princess).

    I have been a conservationist my entire life. I’ve been in landcare groups and done a hell of a lot of hard yakka out there clearing lantana, blackberry and bitou bust infestations. I’m past that now but I am still a conservation hunter (only hunt ferals).

    Every conservationist I know – and I know hundreds – loathes the greenfilth with a black passion. You NEVER see them out spending a weekend clearing lantana, but hoo boy, the bastards are all over the credit of that work like blowflies on a fresh turd. They ‘organised’ it, they ‘facilitated it’, blah blah – they try to steal the credit for any work done.

    I recall one Landcare group leader who actually snotted one be-dreadlocked hipster greenfilth arsehole during an interview with the local paper after we’d finally cleared an area of lantana (not a big one, 25 square miles at 60% cover, took 4 years). This arsehole kept interrupting to grab the credit for the greenfilth party. Landcare leader was a big boy, fists like hams, family owned 5 or so farms in the district. He got the irrits with the greenfilth hippy and backhanded the bastard, who went arse over then started snivelling about assault. Everyone just ignored him.

    Thing of beauty, really.

    But they can be dangerous. The terrorist group Deep Green Resistance is increasingly active in Australia.

    We may see a re-run here in Australia of the European urban terrorism of the 1970s. DGR is aiming to do that sort of thing.

  50. Mk50 of Brisbane

    Pickles – yup. Going to see a movie.

    You in town or what?

  51. Honesty

    Thanks Jim. I guess my point was that it had some merit, eg eradicating rabbits, foxes, etc, clean up Australia campaign, things that recognized humans and had a cost benefit. Something I could support. Until it was taken over (accelerated by the end of the cold war) as a vehicle of the Left. Can you imagine a Green (owning the environmental brand) saying they are pro nuclear to save the planet? They get the easiest ride the Greens I mean with if their true agenda started to be questioned it wouldn’t surprise me they tried to gag the media or propose new laws. But thankfully that could never happen in a democracy? Could it?

  52. Honesty

    Mk50 ditto the Greens. How do you get the majority of voters, that are only interested in politics at election time, to understand they are not Koala hugging do gooders that they can give a protest vote to?

  53. Rafe

    “many left-wingers thought they were expressing an entirely new and progressive philosophy as they mouthed the same prejudices as Trollope’s 19th century Tory squires”

    A nice point, not generally understood that the Tory conservatives and the radical left shared the same economically illiterate resistance to industry and trade. That commonality was revealed in the abuse from both sides that economic rationalists received in the 1980s.

    I think the radical Green movement morphed out of the Ban the Bomb campaign in the 1950s, in other words it was always a communist front that recruited a lot of naive and well-meaning “useful idiots”. That was the term Lenin used to describe western intellectuals who supported the Soviet regime.

  54. wreckage

    He has always worshiped at the altar of technological progress.

    So now it’s wrong to love progress, the only thing proven to create positive environmental outcomes? You have to love doing things the older, dumber, less efficient way? Disrupting more ecosystems, using more energy, creating more waste and effluent?

    Right. Just as long as I know.

  55. nilk

    What troubled times did australians experience to hand the greenslime over 10% of the vote, Jim?

    One of my young workmates admitted to voting for the Greens because he “..didn’t like Liberal or Labor.”

    He didn’t know what the Greens policies were, and needless to say I called him a numpty and thanked him for the carbon tax.

  56. Boambee John

    In the end, I suspect that he remains a NIMBY, and he doesn’t want a turbine visible from his backyard.

  57. Pedro the Ignorant

    He got the irrits with the greenfilth hippy and backhanded the bastard, who went arse over then started snivelling about assault. Everyone just ignored him.

    Mk 50.

    Beautiful. Should be more of it. Bang some of these green fool’s heads together and knock some sense into them.

  58. Judith Sloan

    The destruction of the environmental landscape of the Fleurieu Peninsular on the coast of Gulf St Vincent is enough to make even me weep!

  59. Jim Rose

    Honesty, He Have you seen BAPTISTS? THE POLITICAL ECONOMY OF POLITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL INTEREST GROUPS By Todd J. Zywicki, Case W. Res. L. Rev (2002-2003)

    Zywicki specifies three testable implications of a public interest model of environmental interest groups:
    (1) A desire to base policy on the best-available science;

    (2) A willingness to engage in deliberation and compromise to balance environmental protection against other compelling social and economic interests; and

    (3) A willingness to consider alternative regulatory strategies that can deliver environmental protection at lower-cost than traditional command-and-control regulation.

    On all three counts, Zywicki found that the public-interest or “civic republican” explanation for the activities of environmental interest groups fails to convincingly describe their behaviour.

    Instead, evidence on each of these three tests is consistent with a self- interested model of the behaviour of environmental interest-groups.

    Their activities can be understood as being identical to those of any other interest group—namely, the desire to use government to subsidize their personal desires for greater environmental protection and to redistribute wealth and power to themselves.

  60. Jim Rose

    Rafe, the key clear air and clean water acts were passed decades before the greens parties were formed.

    I was on campus at ANU in 1990. the green-left banners were every where as was the first editions of the green left weekly.

    My 1 o’clock lecture was next to a room rented ironically first from 12 to 1 to the campus Trots and then the campus Christians for an hour of prayer to another saviour.

    In DEMAND FOR ENVIRONMENTAL GOODS: EVIDENCE FROM VOTING PATTERNS ON CALIFORNIA INITIATIVES, Journal of Law and Economics April 1997, by MATTHEW E. KAHN and JOHN G. MATSUSAKA studied voting behaviour on 16 environmental ballot propositions in California to characterize the demand for environmental goods.
    • The environment was a normal good for people with mean incomes.

    • An important price of environmental goods is reduced income in the construction, farming, forestry, and manufacturing industries.

    • In most cases, income and price can explain most of the variation in voting; it is not essential to introduce non-economic concepts such as ideology.

  61. Honesty

    Thanks Jim I will check it out further. If you have not read it already “Hiding the decline” A. W. Montford is a great read about the “hockey stick” I saw it at the site where the Lovelock comment above was posted. Ordered on Kindle this morning and have not been able to put it down. It sure has shaken my faith in scientists and reaffirmed my awe at the Internet and what a handful of sceptics can do.

  62. Jim Rose

    honesty, I had a debate over at John Quiggin’s blog after I caught Sir Paul Nurse’s Attack on Science on cable. Nurse is president of the royal society who was exploring why people were unwilling to accept the word of science.

    Nurse interviewed James Delingpole. After agreeing that science does not proceed on the basis of consensus, Nurse asked Delingpole why he rejected the scientific consensus on global warming but accepted the scientific consensus on cancer?

    Delingpole said he did not accept the analogy, but was otherwise flat-footed. I suggest the following:
    1. Medicine proceeds on the basis of double blind trials and other small field experiments. Control and treatment groups are used.

    2. The lag between cause and effect are short as would be the case if you rejected emergency treatment after a car accident or for cancer.

    3. Medicine tests the efficacy of invasive treatments, weighs side-effects and encourages adaptation and prevention.

    4. The staying power of self-interest in medicine is well-known: much higher rates of surgery when there is fee for service and much lower rates of surgery if the patient is a doctor’s wife. The efforts of the medical profession to suppress new entry to inflate their own incomes are well-known.

    Ken Arrow in the early 1960s famously concluded that virtually all the special features of the medical care industry could “be explained as social adaptations to the existence of uncertainty in the incidence of disease and in the efficacy of treatment.”
    1. information on diagnosis and likely consequences of treatment are asymmetrically allocated between providers and patients. The reason patients seek advice and treatment is that they expect physicians to have vastly superior knowledge about the proper diagnosis and efficacy of treatment.

    2. physicians may not agree on the medical condition causing the symptoms the patient presents.

    3. even if physicians agree in their diagnoses, they often do not agree on the efficacy of alternative responses — for example, surgery or medical management for lower-back pain.

  63. jumpnmcar

    There’s a scientific consensus on the cause of cancer?
    Great, we eliminate those causes via taxation and, Tadaaarr, no one will ever have cancer again.
    Taxing is the silver bullet for everything.

  64. Jim Rose

    jumpnmcar, there are common treatments for many cancers including those with unknown causes.

  65. mct

    Counting Cats on Irish windfarms… definitely on Lovelock’s side, methinks.

  66. Honesty

    Newtons law of gravity was consensus for hundreds of years until Mercurys orbit proved it wrong. You can only ever prove you are wrong in science, you can never prove you are right, on this I defer to Richard Fyneman. Science is not about consensus it is just, does the evidence prove your guess right? If not you are wrong, that’s it. Hence a few climate scientists are feeling the heat (pun intended) that their guess does not fit the evidence. “Now if you don’t like it then you can go to another universe where the laws may be bit easier” Fyneman.

  67. Rafe

    The Deep Green movement that I am concerned about was on the road worldwide long before there was a Green Party in Australia, check out the prehistory starting with Ban the Bomb described by John Grover.

    Since it is increasingly apparent that the science which underpin the demands for immediate and drastic action on carbon emissions is very far from settled, the burning question shifts from the science to the reasons why so much unsettled science has been taken so seriously by so many people. Some clues can be found in a study of the methods which were used to kill nuclear power in Australia. These were documented by the late John Grover.

    In the 1970s the US created 20,000 government employees dedicated to improving the environment and the nuclear energy industry soon ran into trouble. Urban sites were not favoured and remote sites with adequate water for cooling tended to be located in unspoiled recreational areas. Concern for the environmental impact of “thermal pollution” provided the rationale for a lot of objections to NP stations, supported by fear campaigns about the dangers of radiation. The “Sierra Club” became an early opponent of NP, possibly the most influential single political-environmental group in the nation due to its wealthy and well-connected membership, its budget was three million dollars in 1977.

    Two sensationalized books by Barry Commoner, The Careless Atom and Perils of the Peaceful Atom represented the start of the all-out anti-NP campaign. Dr. John Gofman and a colleague in the radiation and human health program at the Atomic Energy Commission created a sensation with the claim that if the U.S. population were exposed to radiation at the levels considered “acceptable” in federal radiation guidance, approximately 16,000 people would die annually from cancers induced by the radiation exposure. On some occasions they used the figure of 32,000. The claims were demolished by other professionals but they barnstormed across the country generating headlines and their predictions kept turning up over the years in the publications of anti-nuclear activists and the reports of journalists who did not do their homework.

    In 1971 Ralph Nader, bankrolled by the Rockefeller network, began to work with a lawyer Anthony Roisman and the “Union of Concerned Scientists” to combine the efforts of environmental groups and public interest lawyers against NP. They worked on several fronts:

    etc.

  68. .

    Their activities can be understood as being identical to those of any other interest group—namely, the desire to use government to subsidize their personal desires for greater environmental protection and to redistribute wealth and power to themselves.

    As witnessed by Kate Baillieu.

  69. blogstrop

    Both James Lovelock and Patrick Moore (co-founder of Greenpeace) have been supporters of nuclear energy for years. They know that their original “green” thoughts have been shunted into a siding, and that the political green movement has warped and mutated into a menace to civilised society.
    As Lovelock said, they didn’t intend or envisage human needs being relegated to the bottom of the pile in favour of nature, at any cost.
    But once people like them start to say the “wrong thing”, they are dumped (and dumped on) by the media as if they were Lord Monckton.

  70. cohenite

    Dot; just recapping, I reread your query and it was not about the Greenhouse effect but limits to it!

    The limits would be the logarithmic decline of the radiative effect of extra CO2 which is explained by Motl. This has been known for a long time as the original graph shows. This effect is described by Beers Law.

    Then there is the limitation imposed by Hottel’s principles explained here.

    A 3rd limitation would be the Steffan-Boltzmann law I described before in my earlier comment.

  71. Helen Armstrong

    (only hunt ferals)

    .

    - The four legged kind, MK50?

    Greenfilth: 10 percent of the vote and 100 percent of the environment and 100 percent of your wallet and fkcu your mind – you can have that back – after it has been reprogrammed.

    Maybe we can do a swap with asylum seekers? Anyone who has ever stood on a green ticket to start with and on from there – that is any ticket anywhere.

    At least the Asylum seekers economic immigrants are honest about what they want.

  72. Jim Rose

    The best of the best and brightest responds in http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-23/u-s-should-act-unilaterally-on-climate-change.html to the Sophisticated Objection

    They acknowledge that climate change is serious and the world’s nations should be doing something but contend that unilateral action by any country, including the U.S. imposes significant costs without producing significant benefits.

  73. cohenite

    the Sophisticated Objection

    How can you make a sophisticated objection to a theory which has no proof and is easily refutted and which is being used, obviously, by ideologues, cranks scientists, uber NGO’s, banks and sundry spivs?

  74. Mk50 of Brisbane

    Well, yes, helen, only 4 legged feral vermin.

    I hear the 2 legged feral vermin are a bugger to clean as they are:

    - thin-skinned

    - completely full of shit

    - lack spines

    - lack hearts

    - possessed of the smallest brain and largest mouth of any hominid

  75. Honesty

    The unsophisticated objection. The planet is not warming at what the IPCC predicated, the models do not reflect empirical evidence. In a word it is bullshit. Show me a theory that shows warming by humans that can be fixed with a tax, devise a test that is valid and we will check the results. Pretty simple really.

  76. .

    Dot; just recapping, I reread your query and it was not about the Greenhouse effect but limits to it!

    The limits would be the logarithmic decline of the radiative effect of extra CO2 which is explained by Motl. This has been known for a long time as the original graph shows. This effect is described by Beers Law.

    Then there is the limitation imposed by Hottel’s principles explained here.

    A 3rd limitation would be the Steffan-Boltzmann law I described before in my earlier comment.

    Thank you very much.

  77. jupes

    At least the Asylum seekers economic immigrants are honest about what they want.

    I would describe the asylum shoppers as a lot of things. Honest is not one of them.

    They throw away their passports so they can lie about their history.

  78. Steve of Glasshouse

    Jupes..”They throw away their passports so they can lie about their history.”

    With our continuing dialogue with our wonderful northern neighbours, how come we can’t access their passport control data to enable us to put names to faces..So simple, yet so hard for this mob to do. Sheeet

Comments are closed.