Magic thinking

We have all kinds of innovation and we have them all the time, but you cannot decide on what will be invented next. The magical thinking of the global warming crowd who believe that if you make fossil fuels really expensive that a cheaper alternative will simply materialise is so bordering on the insane that I actually don’t know what can be done about it. Making energy more expensive will certainly mean that some of us will use less of it, with the less well off the ones who will suffer the most. And those who live in genuinely poor communities will find their standard of living falling below where it now is. This is not a matter of theory but is an absolute arithmetical necessity. If you have less of something, some people who used to have a particular quantity will have less and some may even have none at all.

Tonight I went along to hear Sinclair on the great moral question of our time: is coal on its way out as a source of energy. The audience was what I suspect a Q&A audience must be like, all well meaning and quite comfortable, thank you very much, but oh so concerned about the future about a hundred years from now when the oceans have risen and our farmlands have all turned to desert. We must therefore get rid of fossil fuels, and coal in particular, immediately. The replacement technologies are already available; its only the lack of will that prevents us from taking the steps we need to take.

Bob Brown led the offence for the yeas, while Professor Davidson played anchor for the nays stressing the moral case for fossil fuels. Every one of the five speakers except one agreed that global warming and greenhouse gases was the greatest issue of our time. The sixth made the hilarious point that no one really cares about people who will be inhabiting the planet a hundred years from now, evidenced by the fact that they don’t seem to care all that much about people who are inhabiting the planet right at the moment. This brought a strong round of applause from at least one member of the audience, but if there was anyone else applauding at the same time, I think I may have missed it.

This entry was posted in Global warming and climate change policy. Bookmark the permalink.

19 Responses to Magic thinking

  1. mareeS

    The claptrap about the children and the children’s children, and how they will eventually fry or drown or freeze to death after 2050, is the weirdest kind of magical thinking.

    Being a reasonably pragmatic person, I have no thoughts about the fate of grandchildren or their children’s children. They can take care of themselves, just as the spouse and I and the immediate offsring have done.

    I’m not at all bothered about future generations. It’s up to them what they make of it.

  2. stackja

    well meaning and quite comfortable, thank you very much

    typical Greens I assume.

  3. Bruce of Newcastle

    A few graphs and they might change their minds. That assumes they could (i) read a graph (ii) understand what it meant and (iii) were capable of verifying the data is correct.

    More and more the population resembles the majority in The Marching Morons.

  4. Mayan

    Even were one to buy the AGW myth, it is better to use the wealth due to energy use to deal with the symptoms (I don’t BTW).

    The AGW myth states that the amount of CO2 produced by the industrialised world in the 20C was enough to cause damage. Some think we have to stabilise emissions at the levels that they say caused a problem: logic fail. Other say that the agreement with China, which will see global emissions increase further, is a wonderful thing, even though the increased emissions will, according to their model, be a bigger problem. No, they just can’t bring themselves to admit that their dogma requires that emissions return to levels of 150 years or more ago. That will not happen. Still, they insist that meeting any arbitrary target they suggest is good, even though it cannot be under their dogma.

    Their unwillingness to accept the end result of their dogma is amusing.

    A wealthier world is a world better able to withstand whatever fluctuations in our environment come our way. Let’s build that world.

  5. rickw

    Once upon a time in England, there was a great deal of concern that they might run out of quality bent oak trees for ship building. Then the innovators started building timber plank / iron frame vessels, then iron skin / iron frame vessels and the whole issue disappeared.

    Trying to address the problems of future generations is completely ludicrous, there is a good chance that the problems you imagined won’t even exist.

    The best strategy for protecting future generations is to ensure the wealth and prosperity of current generations, no industrialisation of England and the lack of quality bent oak would have become a problem because there wouldn’t have been an iron alternative.

  6. Mickfromthebush

    Oh FFS cut off the taxpayer funds for so called universities (deliberate lower case).

  7. nerblnob

    no one really cares about people who will be inhabiting the planet a hundred years from now, evidenced by the fact that they don’t seem to care all that much about people who are inhabiting the planet right at the moment

    Best quote on the subject , ever.

  8. jupes

    Well done to Sinc for that comment if nothing else.

    As I (gratuitously) advised Sinc the other day, use graphs and ridicule against these idiots – two weapons to which they have no defence. Graphs to show that AGW and China’s efforts to reduce emissions are bullshit, and ridicule because warmers really are fucking idiots.

    If you argue the economics but accept that CO2 is ‘pollution’, then you are arguing on their terms.

  9. HRT

    RickW – once upon another time (late 1800s I believe), the concern was that by about 1920 London’s streets would be 10 feet deep in horse dung.

  10. Rococo Liberal

    May I suggest one thing?

    It is a matter of semantics, but semantics is where our friends on the left live.

    We should never let anyone refer to ‘climate change’ without insisting that if they are a warmist they add the prefix ‘man-made’ to it. Climate change is a natural phenomenon that has been happenning since the earth was created. We have nothing to fear from it.

    We can’t let these chicken little lefties twist things so that they can claim that any climate change is evil. They must be made at every opportunity to explain their preposterous theory.

    We must keep up our own mantra that puts the onus on the alarmists:

    “No-one denies that climate change occurs, it always has. What I deny is that the change has been caused by humans rather than nature, that the change is in fact deleterious or that humanity if left to thrive could not easily adapt.”

  11. sabrina

    Is there a recording of the event available – Steve/Sinc? I am interested to hear what Mike and Richard said.

  12. Peter

    If the Chicken Littles really were concerned about forthcoming generations, they would be working to create adaptations that would/ will allow humanity to flourish, regardless of how and why the climate changes.

    Instead, they continue to siphon off as much as possible to fund their favourite non-productive enterprises.

  13. .

    Tel
    #1517066, posted on November 19, 2014 at 7:16 am
    Magic happens, M’kay?

    That’s just the glutne talking.

    If people don’t realise Keynes is magic pudding economics, the chances of them voting for a rational policy are slim to zero.

  14. Major Elvis Newton

    “…Every one of the five speakers except one agreed that global warming and greenhouse gases was the greatest issue of our time…”

    Shameful.

    Sounds like some were scared to speak up and denounce the religious cult openly. Much like those who vote conservative but daren’t admit it publicly.

  15. Tim Neilson

    Rococo Liberal
    #1517123, posted on November 19, 2014 at 9:39 am
    Agreed.
    It’s always lies with the middle class pinkos because truth is always against them.
    I always start by defining the real issue as (in their jargon) “catastrophic anthropogenic global warming”, and then refer to “CAGW” from then on.

  16. duncanm

    Climate change is a natural phenomenon that has been happenning since the earth was created. We have nothing to fear from it.

    I agree it is historically natural, but I think the Human race has much to fear about climate change.

    Whether we can do anything to prevent it (unlikely) is another matter altogether.

  17. Nicholas (Natural Genius) Gray

    I am very concerned about the weather in 100 years time! Thanks to modern medicine, I might still be around. Or I might reincarnate back. However, I am sure that us humans will be inventive enough to have solved this problem!
    However, i bet that the thermonazies will have latched onto something else by then!

  18. Percy

    This brought a strong round of applause from at least one member of the audience,

    Good stuff Katesy, but please tell me you threw in an ear piercing wolf whistle also.

    no one really cares about people who will be inhabiting the planet a hundred years from now, evidenced by the fact that they don’t seem to care all that much about people who are inhabiting the planet right at the moment.

    Liberty Quote.

Comments are closed.