November 12, 2013

More stuff that politicians can't do

Ten thousand dead, current estimates, and millions homeless and without clean drinking water and food. 

Over at the UN, the Philippine's representative implores politicians to end the 'climate madness'. 

Alas, neither politicians nor the rest of us ordinary humans are much good at changing the weather let alone the climate. It has been this way for five billion years. 

It's like suggesting we equip ourselves with dinner forks to push back ocean waves or use tennis rackets to reduce wind.

The real madness, which has persisted since recorded time, is the inability of humans to predict the future.  Humans have an especially poor strike rate with predicting Armageddons, and yet so many persist, ever hopeful that one or other Armageddon will arrive - to prove them right. 

3 comments:

  1. The Earth has warmed and cooled more times than Labor has changed leaders. It is now in a warming phase; that is incontrovertible. Human activity contributes to this (for it most certainly does not detract from it) - the only debate being the extent of this contribution. Humans have an especially poor strike rate when it comes to refraining from trashing the environment which sustains us. An economic religion of constant 'growth' based on consumption and disposal is not one likely to foster angst over extraction and exploitation. The 'profit' model is the bible of this religion: if it doesn't turn a profit it is of no worth. We humans have an especially poor strike rate when it comes to understanding the bleeding obvious: history shows this only too well and especially so when it comes to resources and their consumption.

    We are contributors to the current warming phase and cold, clear scientific work needs to continue and to be published without the shrieks of the rabid 'green fringe' or the ignorant (and increasingly embarrassing in this and other ways) politicians inhabiting the treasury benches in Canberra and their followers.

    Nice to see the house is still alive Caz.

    ReplyDelete
  2. It's long past the point of even being the science, Father. Much like the church and state, science and politics should be kept separate, but they aren't. The major difference, of course, is that contrary to modern myth making, science isn't an article of faith, no matter which hypothesis is under examination!

    A total cost of more than $20 trillion, at least, is proposed to be spent, in order to reduce the projected temperature increase by a mere 0.05C. Think the number of lives that could be saved - and infinitely improved - during the next 90 years if that money was spent in other ways. (How about basis sanitation and clean drinking water for 2,5 billion people? Yes, that's how many still crap in a stream or a street .. think about it!)

    CO2 emissions have risen by about 57 per cent since 1990. Trillions spent in that time on summits, proclamations and huge subsidies to inefficient alternative energy sources. (Wind farming is so mind numbing inefficient and ineffective it makes my head want to explode!).

    ReplyDelete
  3. And I will always repeat, quite correctly, that humans do not survive the cold. Heat, on the other hand, for humans, can be adapted to. Trillions spent on adaptation, as necessary, will save more lives and make the world a better place.

    Gillard and Flannery both have their seaside houses now.

    Greenies and the left continue to deny all chance of nuclear power, despite it being the only alternative.

    Gotta wonder how serious they are in their faith. Not very, me thinks. They just prefer to squeal about Armageddon and how bad humans are - we must be punished, we must be punished! All so very biblical. Has always been the way.

    ReplyDelete