Monday, 28 November 2011

Happy Monday Morning!

Today a two week United Nations climate change summit begins in the South African coastal city of Durban. Thousands of suits, representing the world's governments, will gather to pose on this world stage and insist they're taking action against emissions. The usual build-up hype provided by politicians and the media has been lacking in recent weeks. Probably because the politicos know they've been rumbled.

The scaremongering continues with the Guardian proclaiming global emissions need to start to fall within the next five years or so - or else.  Or else what?

Where did the global warming theory originate?  With the amount of 'scientific' evidence floating round the MSM and BBC the past few years, many may have thought all these scientists can't be wrong, so assumed the scientists brought the threat to the public's attention.  Not so. The threat of catastrophic warming was launched by the United Nations to promote climate treaties that would transfer wealth from rich countries to developing countries.

This is important.  The global warming theory did not come from a breakthrough in scientific research because scientists don't yet understand global climate.  The science is in its infancy.

"First off, there isn't a consensus among scientists.
Don't let anybody tell you there is.”
- Dr. Charles Wax, past president of the American Association of State Climatologists

From the beginning the global warming theory was political and the political mouthpiece, the IPCC, was funded to report on how man was changing the climate. However recently I sense a more sceptical public - with the exception of the global warming alarmists who believe that man-made CO2 threatens life on earth and are prepared to sacrifice life to fight it. The first tranche of leaked emails suggested certain scientists were working towards a pre-defined objective while the emails recently leaked more or less confirm that idea. One blogger thinks there is more to come.  Quite possibly.

Once again I'll be criticised for not wanting the world to be a healthier and cleaner environment. I do, but I consider my efforts are based on common sense rather than the fear that I must do x,w or z, in case the political global warming theory is true.

It does scare me that Scotland's present government is putting all its eggs in the one basket. An independent Scotland will not survive long-term on renewable industries alone, particularly when these industries are owned by other countries and Scotland will only be producing a percentage of the work force.

We could produce many more skilled workers if our education system provided a quality vocational system for our young from around the age of 14, instead of insisting all children follow a rigid curriculum until they are of an age to leave school.  By that time many of these children have lost the enthusiasm to learn such skills, because our education system refused to recognise their needs.

That's a topic for another post though. This one is for you to imagine how much of the world's hard-earned taxes are being spent in Durban for the next two weeks. Happy Monday morning!



pa_broon74 said...

I think for me, renewables isn't so much about global warming anyway, (which I'm not convinced we're causing.)

Its about sustainability, I know that's another fluffy word oft touted by greenies (which I'm not) and Guardian readers (also, which I'm not, well mostly not.)

But it is an issue for us going forward. As for Scotland missing the boat on these new technologies, we have westminster to blame for that, an unrepresentative government for Scotland continually keeping us down so we remain beholden.

I also think, while its easy to assume because of headlines Scotland is relying only on renewables industry for its future, we have many more strings to our bow, computer gaming, whisky and tourism to name but a couple not to mention the elephant in the room; gas an oil production. Granted, that won't last for ever but it's going to be there for the remainder of my life at least.)

As for all the stuffed shirts off on a jolly to Durban? It is what it is: a big fat junket for climate change troughers.

Woodsy42 said...

"An independent Scotland will not survive long-term on renewable industries alone,"

This is especially true when you consider that of the consumers who fund this nonsense with green levies many come from outside Scotland.
There is no guarantee this will continue if Scotland becomes independent, Scotland will be selling its power in an international market.

Sheila said...

Apologies if this appears twice - my first attempt seems to have got wheeched off into cyberspace...

Have found this site very informative:

I started to check out the references because my first reaction(especially to the Spiritual UN) page was disbelief.

Unfortunately, with the exception of minor editing together of quotes and a few dead links, it has all been spot on so far.

Read page 75 of The First Global Revolution for starters:

If I had to choose just one example of the "spirituality" at the heart of the UN then it would have to be this one:

But please read the rest of the pages, especially the green governance ones as Scotland is really blazing a trail here:

The over-arching purpose of the Scottish Government is "sustainable" economic growth with our "sustainability" being assessed at a very personal level indeed:

microdave said...

"And Scotland will only be producing a percentage of the work force."

Ah, the great "Green Jobs" myth... A large scale solar plant in Norfolk was built by imported labour from the Czech republic:

Look Here and: Here

I think we can guess who will be carrying out the cleaning & maintenance during its 25 year life span (always assuming it doesn't get abandoned within a few years...)

Woman on a Raft said...

At least it means some of the hospitality staff in Durban are likely to get paid this month.

That's a very small lining, I know, for a very big cloud.

Woman on a Raft said...

BTW, what a clever picture to choose. A synopsis of the book shows no sense of rational questioning at all; just pure propaganda aimed at recruiting children when we should be educating them.

A series of books for Key stages 3 - 4, aimed at secondary school librarians, these 4 titles provide an overview of key and contemporary political and social issues covered at this stage of the curriculum.

Ground Work delivers easy to access information and the background behind these sometimes controversial topics in a lively and accessible way. Each book in the series addresses key questions about pressing social issues from: what is climate change and where do we go from here?; globalisation and the widening gap between the rich and the rest of the population; to bridging the gap between different cultures and religions; and the controversial topic of genocide and who is at threat from this ultimate crime against humanity?

From shrinking glaciers to erratic weather and threatened water supplies, Climate Change looks at how we got here and what will happen in the future
as well as the economic, social and political implications of accepting what is going on.
About the Author(s)
Shelley Tanaka is an award-winning editor and author of books for young people.

And what has genocide - a fundamentally political act - got to do with this?

JRB said...

I have for long suspected that ‘climate science’ is in fact not science, but rather a
It falls into the same category as Economics, based purely on conjecture and individual interpretation of available data.
Ask two climate scientists the same question and you will get at least, three answers.

And as for the Scottish Government, they are so deeply embroiled in the renewables debate that for them to now admit the error of their ways would mean an embarrassing loss of face. So Scotland’s future is being hamstrung by the stubborn pride of a few MSPs.

subrosa said...

Don't feel embarrassed -I too read the Guardian on occasion pa_broon. :)

I become less and less convinced each day pa_broon about this. Indeed, we do have other strings but the vast amount we're investing in renewables surely isn't sustainable in the long-term. Renewable energy is costly and even more so when it's installed by other countries. We should be reinvesting here.

The oil will be there well after I'm fertiliser too, but it's our ability to create jobs and the gradual reduction in education which trouble me most.

subrosa said...

The problem is Woodsy we may not be able to sell to an independent market once we get independence, because it could be too expensive - or we sell at a loss.

subrosa said...

Sheila, thanks for reposting because I hadn't read some of your links until now. It's been some time since I read the green-agenda one because, like you, I was astonished at the content.

I do hope others read the links you've provided because it's important we all have a balanced view. Thanks again.

subrosa said...

Yes microdave, therein lies the problem. Any profits will not be reinvested here and gradually, or not so gradually, we'll become poorer.

subrosa said...

Only if they've had their pay up front WoaR. That's the thoughts of a cynic of course.

subrosa said...

I came across the image by chance WoaR, but when I looked into the author I thought 'another one profiting on the back of a lie and influencing another generation'.

This was a review on her book:

There is no longer any question that the planet is warming, and that this warming is caused by human activity. Shrinking glaciers and melting permafrost, erratic weather patterns and threatened water supplies are already affecting the lives of people around the globe. Climate change has been called the single greatest threat confronting societies today. The crisis is real, but there is little consensus about how to confront the problem, because the science is complex, the economic, political and social implications of taking action are far reaching, and the scope of the problem is vast.'

Children are being taught this and I suspect much of the content being taught in UK schools is similar.

subrosa said...

Scotland's future is being hamstrung JRB but I sincerely hope that once we're independent the politicians will come clean and confess renewables aren't our saviour and we need home-grown industries.

Crinkly & Ragged Arsed Philosophers said...

I beg to differ - the development of renewables may suffer through all the idiocies of politics and self interests but as a core principle its logic is as ineradicable as the Earth orbits the Sun and the Moon the Earth.

The global warming debate may not have to same level and provenance of proof but have we the right once the veil of genuine ignorance is lifted, to inflict corruption on future generations?

Woodsy42 said...

"The problem is Woodsy we may not be able to sell to an independent market once we get independence, because it could be too expensive - or we sell at a loss."

Exactly the problem I was pointing at SR!

subrosa said...

Crinkly, when the science is in its infancy, I'm not prepared to accept the current word that global warming 'has been proven'.

What we now need to concentrate upon is the nonsense younger generations have been told. That will take some undoing and politicians with principle. I don't expect any to admit humans aren't responsible. Of course we must continue the fight against pollution but that's another subject.

subrosa said...

Ooops Woodsy, sorry, now I've re-read your comment that's exactly what you meant. My apologies.

Brian said...

No single industry is an economic panacea. Instead of sustainable or renewable the keywords should be diverse and balanced, a little bit each of a lot of different industries. All children should be educated and trained to their full potential (the tripartite grammar secondary and technical school model appears to work in Germany) and doing business should be made as easy as possible.

Hamish said...

I too am a sceptic about man-nade climate change. If only we did have that power: rain would only fall during the night and there would be wall-to-wall sunshine on my birthday.
Seriously though, I agree with Pa and Crinkly, there is no alternative to renewables. They are by definition the only source of energy that is sustainable in the long term.
Oil reserves are finite and the remaining pockets are becoming increasingly expensive to extract.
The SNP has consistently said no to nuclear in all its forms, and after Fukushima, who would seriously suggest we go down that route?
Clearly we need to be hard-headed about expenditure on renewables. For example, a working lifetime of 25 years for turbines is far too short. It needs to be at least twice that. Let Scotland's engineers get working on those issues.

Sheila said...

This is what Scottish schoolchildren are being taught:

These sites are for the teachers believe it or not - dumbed down or what?

At least that last site does at least mention that there is some controversy...

Can't see any mention of this in the "E's and Os" of the Curriculum for Excellence though.

Crinkly & Ragged Arsed Philosophers said...

SR -I would far rather the principles of democracy were delved deeper into in the education curriculum.

Were that done without fear, favour or bias the pros and cons of other issues would leave them well placed to form judgements.

As you state the 'science' of global change may well be in its infancy but the effects may not. Which begs the question of when and what do we accept as proof?

Hamish said...

Tut tut Crinkly you don't mean 'begs' you mean 'raises'.
Didn't they learn you nothing at the squeal?

subrosa said...

Yes Brian, balance is most important, but as we're losing a massive skill base, I wonder what businesses will we be able to sustain.

For years I've quoted the German schooling system. It's why they produce good engineers.

subrosa said...

Windmills aren't long-term though Hamish. Tidal maybe, but windmills will be our expensive folly.

subrosa said...

Sheila, thanks very much for the links. If you don't mind I'll read them thoroughly in the morning then comment.

subrosa said...

I suppose I've always been one of the 'awkward' lot Crinkly, because I seldom accept without question. Are our children not taught to question these days? We were.

Crinkly & Ragged Arsed Philosophers said...

Hamish -does a question not 'beg' an answer?

SR -being an 'awkward cuss' myself I appreciate the quality but, to be honest I've no idea what the quality of teaching is now and little beyond a memory of boredom as to the majority of my classroom time.

subrosa said...

Because I am acquainted with several people who have children at school Crinkly, I listen to what the parents and children say. Usually a few questions about basic learning can provide an insight into standards.

Hamish said...

Crinkly, begs the question is like:
"When did you stop beating your wife?"
To which one may retort:
"How dare you assume that I have ever stopped beating my wife."

Related Posts with Thumbnails