Hot Air in Copenhagen
So today, the big climate change conference starts in Copenhagen. Yawn! Yawn!
I’m cynical anything of any substance will emerge.
Prudence bashes on about how he is at the forefront of reducing our energy use, but this article in the Telegraph says otherwise.
These are two paragraphs from the article.
His former chief scientist Professor Sir David King said he frequently urged Downing Street to spend money on energy saving measures in order to create jobs and cut carbon – but was repeatedly ignored.
And in a separate interview with the Daily Telegraph, the world’s top environmental watchdog Achim Steiner, the head of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), also said the Labour Government failed to “pick the low hanging fruit” of insulating homes and investing in renewable energy.
Typical Prudence, all waffle and bluster, and absolutely no substance. He doesn’t even have any style.
But I’m totally against this sort of junket. It should be done remotely by electronic means, with perhaps two or three important people from each country in Copenhagen to dot i’s and cross t’s.
Global Warming Denial
The junket at Copenhagen is about to start and we’ll get all of those global warming denial stories. Usually, they are from selfish, overweight people, who are addicted to 4x4s, private jets and all other wasteful indulgences.
But before you embrace what they say, read Johann Hari in the Independent. He analyses all of the evidence and comes to the conclusion that global warming is man-made.
These are the last two paragraphs, which if you can’t bother to read the rest, you should read.
So let’s – for the sake of argument – make an extraordinary and unjustified concession to the deniers. Let’s imagine there was only a 50 per cent chance that virtually all the world’s climate scientists are wrong. Would that be a risk worth taking? Are you prepared to take a 50-50 gamble on the habitability of the planet? Is the prospect of getting our energy from the wind and the waves and the sun so terrible that’s not worth it on even these wildly optimistic odds?
Imagine you are about to get on a plane with your family. A huge group of qualified airline mechanics approach you on the tarmac and explain they’ve studied the engine for many years and they’re sure it will crash if you get on board. They show you their previous predictions of plane crashes, which have overwhelmingly been proven right. Then a group of vets, journalists, and plumbers tell they have looked at the diagrams and it’s perfectly obvious to them the plane is safe and that airplane mechanics – all of them, everywhere – are scamming you. Would you get on the plane? That is our choice at Copenhagen.
Now, I’ll add another thought.
Look at the major countries that are lukewarm on climate change; the United States, China and Saudi Arabia. All have a lot to lose if climate change is accepted. America would have to change its lifestyle much more than any other country, China would have to generate its energy in different ways and poor old Saudi would lose all those oil sales. None of these countries have large areas of low-lying land.
On the other hand, a lot of those countries who believe that action should be done on global warning have a lot of land that will soon disappear. They should know!
So just as the fat bloke in his 4×4 is a denier, so are the United States, China and Saudi Arabia. It is just plain selfishness.
The Anonymous Widower 