We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
The Great Global Warming Swindle available online As an addendum to Brian’s post on the Channel 4 documentary, The Great Global Warming Swindle, I thought I would inform anyone unaware that the programme can be viewed in full at Google videos. Brilliant – I am downloading it as I type.
(picked up from LGF)
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
Yes it is also available on bittorrents in a slightly better resolution.
I think I will post it to the Mensa Atheists list and see if it incites a Gaiacratic jihad against me, as happened on nogodblog. It astounds me how willing supposed atheists are to believe in such obvious humans-as-evil-sinners fantasy.
Nice of you to pigeon-hole, TomWright 🙂
Personally, I subscribe to reason and logic, but then I suppose we can’t all be perfect fantasists, can we?
I’ve just spent the past 75 mins watching the video on Google. I got the URL from a Canadian blog I frequent called Small Dead Animals. Compelling viewing. I’ve just posted the URL to another site, Silicon Investor, and tomorrow it goes out to my full office email list.
Let us use the internet to get the word out and gore Al Gore.
Thanks for sharing and pointing in the right direction! I am also with you with regards to logic and reason, but far be I from being a fantasist – 😉
Here is, usefully I think, Janet Daley over on the Telegraph with Green lobby must not stifle the debate :
Interestingly, back in 2001, it was the obvious avoidance of sound scientific principles (rather than the science being wrong) that started my interest in the issue of AGW.
And that, as Ms Daley points out, is an issue suitable for everyone to judge, and not just experts in climatology.
Best regards
There is now also a copy of Beck’s draft paper on line courtesy:
http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com
This revives some 90,000 atmospheric CO2 measurements made by distinguished scientists from 1826 onwards by direct chemical analysis, independent of proxy ice-cores. The surprise is that CO2 levels were higher in 1940 than today, which rather undermines the current political fraud.
Pay a tax, change the weather. I don’t think so. Humans account for only 3 percent of the carbon dioxide released into the biosphere annually (Google: carbon cycle). Congresswoman Pelosi’s and Senator Reid’s plans for regressive new carbon offset and green tax legislation are designed in concert with UN and Kyoto Accord mandates. The goal is to reduce human CO2 production by 1/3. How high would new carbon offset taxes on transportation and heating fuels need to be to motivate you and everyone else to cut back by 1/3? At best that level of taxation will reduce annual CO2 production by a mere 1 percent globally. Not much mitigation or hope there. Certainly 1% is not enough to make a difference in the perceived problem of anthropogenic (human) global warming gases. The impact of such draconian tax measures can only be imagined. However, it does beg the question, “If humans can’t really be expected to make much of an impact on global warming gases, how can they possibly be blamed for warming in the first place?” Why are people compelled by politicians and the media to feel responsible and guilty for causing global warming? For the answers, Google “blame, shame and guilt used as political controls”, read “Unstoppable Global Warming” and “The Chilling Stars” for the scientific facts and “State of Fear” for the political dynamics behind this renewed eco-tax controversy. Those party faithful that think this debate is over are sorely mistaken. It’s a little late, but welcome to George Orwell’s “1984”. Watch–>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XttV2C6B8pU
Global Warming (the increase in the earth’s surface temperature) is a natural event as is Global Cooling. The temperature of the earth has increased and decreased many times over hundreds of thousands of years.
Carbon Dioxide is a natural element of the earths atmosphere. It is created naturally, among other ways, by animals, humans and the oceans. Carbon Dioxide makes up approximately 0.05% of the atmosphere. Less than 3% of that CO2 is created by human industry (cars,factories,planes,electricity production etc). Natural volcanic activity on the Earth releases more Carbon Dioxide into the atmosphere than all human industrial emmisions put together.
Do the reseach and don’t believe all you hear from your governments. Remember, Iraq had weapons of mass destruction!
Martin, exactly. Something the Greens seem unwilling to admit.
John J.
The probably that we aren’t the cause (or at last not the cause) of global warming doesn’t necessarily mean we can’t or shouldn’t do something about it. Based on research on jet contrails, the simple day/night timing of flights might have a very substantial effect on average temperature. I don’t think it is within reasonable statistical assumption that the extreme short winter, after 9/11 caused the huge reduction in civil aviation flights, is coincidence.
If we can, should we? I am rather confident that technology can do pretty amazing things. But should we do this? Something we should probably be discussing.
Some comments specifically on the part of the show that addressed climate charge and the Third World: This portrayed an extreme environmentalist view point on climate change and inaccurately applied it to developing nations. It poorly addressed how the reducing the impact of climate change practically pertains to developing countries and completely ignored the effects – current and potential – of climate change on people there… Or maybe they were just being tongue-in-cheek; I never really understood British humour, smiley faces are as sophisticated as I get 🙂
But anyways, as someone working in renewable energy in Nigeria, I found many of the assertions and arguments to ring particularly false to the reality on the ground. These four points in particular:
– “The polices being pushed to prevent global warming are having a disastrous effect on the world poorest people.” The only part of the Kyoto Protocol’s climate change policy that directly affects developing countries is the opportunity for partial sponsorship of clean energy projects in developing nations through carbon trading schemes such as the Clean Development Mechanism. CDM has been estimated to free up around $10 billion for clean energy projects in developing nations. The issue with CDM is that Africa is currently getting a meager share as governments like China and India’s were more able to organize to access this funding. I don’t think that’s quite the “disastrous effect” Paul Driessen alleges. Since there are no proposed policies that I’m aware of requiring Africans to limit their CO2 emissions, I’m not quite clear what policy he’s referring to…
– The implication that all renewable energy, particularly solar, is too expensive and inadequate. (via one improperly sized photovoltaic system!) The claim that renewable energy is three times more expensive than conventional grossly oversimplifies energy costs in Africa – where cost per unit energy can be many times that of North America. For instance, the convention in Nigeria is that anyone who can afford it buys a generator as a backup power source since the grid is only up about a third of the time. The office I’m working estimates they spent the equivalent of 10 bucks a day on fuel alone or about $50/week. Since we installed a $6000 solar system 2 months ago, we’ve only had to use the gen once (when the grid was off for a week straight). So our PV system will pay for itself in a little more than two years while most of the components (excluding the batteries) are supposed to last for 15-20 years. However, the majority of people don’t have that much cash to put up at the onset and interest rates are 18-30% here… assuming one could get a (very scarce) loan approved for something as uncommon as a PV system. So solar is too expensive much the same way buying a house is too expensive compare to renting – it actually can be cheaper in the long term but only if people can access loans. Granted, there are quite a few other issues with solar, but it’s deceptive to claim nobody in Africa can afford it.
– Africa is being told by climate change activists “Don’t touch your resources” Well yes, they’re right that Africa has oil. But no one, not even environmentalists, would or could argue that Africa shouldn’t benefit from it. Let’s just be practical about who is currently benefiting from those resources. In Nigeria, only one thousandth of the oil produced here is used by Nigerians. And the profits from the exports mainly go to the international oil companies and very rich politicians. The current climate change movement is not playing an even incremental role in keeping Africans from benefiting from their resources, especially compare to the (incredibly complex) economic and political systems that have evolved over the past two centuries. Please, let’s be realistic – if this is seriously a concern then climate change is the wrong scapegoat.
– Energy infrastructure in developing nations is being [though I’m assuming they meant ‘should be’ ] restricted to wind and solar as part of the global warming campaign. No one is actually advocating this. There are certainly people encouraging alternative energies to be included in a diverse energy mix and for very good reasons: Africa is still expanding its energy infrastructure which making both grid connected and decentralized alternative energy option cost-competitive in some situations. However, since these technologies aren’t as well-established they may not otherwise be considered. Diversification of non-fossil fuel energy also makes nations less vulnerable to fossil fuels’ unpredictable costs. Most developed nations planned their infrastructure in an era when fossil fuels were assumed to be endless and benign. Now they have a host of issues because of it. Shouldn’t developing countries learn from this and use it as an opportunity to develop better than the West? Due to the vastly different situations pertaining to North American and African electricity development the ‘We’re slow at adopting alternative energies and it’s even more difficult for them to’ line doesn’t necessarily hold. But that’s not to say that renewables, especially solar, don’t have some major challenges in order to be effectively utilized. (Detailed post on that here: http://my.ewb.ca/home/ShowPost/14177 ) Some of those challenges do require large scale action, but not one simple solution (that would make the topic too easy and uninteresting 🙂