So we cheered up, and sure enough things did get worse.
That was a favourite saying of my late friend Tony, a great drinking and travelling companion. It often came to mind in recent decades, possibly first when I tried to explain to people what was happening in the universities in the 1970s and 1980s. I found it impossible to convey the absurdity of so much course content, and that was a lifetime ago for most of the people who are alive today. The process of radicalization in some faculties happened very quickly between about 1968 and 1973 so students arriving in the 1970s could not believe that faux Marxism was not the prevailing tone in the 1960s when I firs arrived on campus. Admittedly that was in Tasmania and we might have lagged in the transformation.
Ever since I got into the climate debate circa 2011 we thought the turning point was at hand. We were winning! The late Bob Carter thought we had won by the time he died. And so on. The victories of Trump and Morrison looked like a potential turning point, at least in the tide of electoral opinion. Adults like to have jobs and they pay the power bills.
But there is another constituency and that has been mobilized in a matter of months with the aid of social media and of course the usual suspects in the MSM. So can things still get worse? The leaders of the child crusade are determined to make things worse.
Thoughts from the still living treasure Don Aitkin. The Conversation that Isn’t. Can we expect people like this to emerge from the modern academies in the way that we would have expected not long ago?
It seemed a good idea for a while, but before long it became clear to me that only some academics were to be favoured, while the editorial tendency was very much to the current Left-leaning orthodoxy. Nowhere was this tendency more obvious that in the area of ‘global warming’, or as it later became, ‘climate change’. I thought some of the stuff that was being published was so biased that I wrote my own temperate essay, pointing out the uncertainties in the whole climate change scenario. It was rejected, on the ground that I was not an expert in this field. I responded that no single person could be an expert in the field, which was a vast one, that many of the essays that had been published had little scientific background, and that I had published in the field myself.
I received a dismissive reply, and gave up, finally ceasing to read anything in the website unless it was directly of interest to me. I avoided all essays on climate change until a few days ago, when the opening lines were so striking that they had to be nonsense.
The view in Germany. Hovering on the brink of recession and mayhem.
After having met some 19 hours in a “Climate Cabinet” meeting, the suspense ended yesterday as Chancellor Merkel’s government compromised and announced its long-awaited bold plan. The promised “act of immense strength” plan, however, turned out to be every thing but, and is light years away from what the FFF movement and climate cultists had been demanding.
Though the package promises more economic hardship and environmental destruction, the country at least as put off its economic death leap – for the time being.
The German plan forsees higher fuel prices for consumers, 10 million electric cars by 2030, a network of one million charging stations, an air traffic tax, cheaper train tickets, and more solar panels and wind turbines.
The Greens reacted to Merkel’s timid plan with outrage. For example, green lobbyist Volker Quaschning tweeted he couldn’t eat as much as he’d “like to vomit” and that it’s “a black day for the climate”.
FFF German activist Luisa “Longhaul” Neuerbauer retweeted Quaschning’s comment. Many activists are stunned and speechless by the timidity of Merkel’s 100-billion euro climate plan.
Like the 1930s?
Zajonc also added that feasibility is being replaced by ideology, and anything that disagrees is getting labelled “criminal and so must be outlawed”.
Anyone expressing common sense is getting labeled “an enemy of the environment, a denier, someone who needs to be morally punished”.
Zajonc summarizes: “Freedom, democracy, liberal thought – all of it being sacrificed .. […] and everyone is enthusiastically cheering it on. What a development.”
A handy survey of the resources for power in Africa.
700 million Africans have no reliable electricity. What is to be done in view of the formidable disadvantages of the continent. Apart from South Africa most of the nations have no coal, oil or natural gas. Hydro is almost out of the question for most of the continent due to topography and unreliable rainfall. Don’t mention the sun and the wind. The answer is nuclear, SMR – Small Modular reactors. They are only 10% the size of large traditional reactors and so they are cheaper. Most important, they are not water cooled, they can be located anywhere and they can decentralized to minimize the need for long-distance transmission lines.
Contrary to the claims of our loony Greens they are cost-effective considering the life cycle cost. They can be designed to last for 60-80 years compared with the 15-20 years for windmills and solar panels.