Empty Rhetoric: Obama’s BS On Climate Change

THE POLITICAL LEFT — internationally — is cock-a-hoop in the wake of a “deal” between China and the USA on climate change, announced last week by US President Barack Obama; far from isolating Australia, this arrangement will never even take effect, and far from achieving anything meaningful, it will disappear behind the shifting priorities of Chinese pragmatism and the reality that Obama has lost control of his own government.

I have continued to be deprived of the time I would like to post on this site over the past few days, and whilst I haven’t published anything I have certainly been keeping track of the goings-on at both the G20 summit in Brisbane and in politics generally; we will, I’m sure, touch on several of the “missed” issues as we move into the week.

But I wanted to comment on the “deal” on climate change that was announced late last week by Barack Obama, because it’s been some time (and distance) since such an unutterable pile of sanctimonious bullshit was last dumped on “believers” and the gullible and/or stupid — assuming, of course, those groups aren’t comprised of exactly the same people.

And in terms of the distance travelled since the last batch of comparable verbal diarrhoea was encountered, the name of a town called Copenhagen springs to mind.

I’m not going to pull apart the specifics of the promised deal; there is no need to do so, save to note that China and the President of the United States appear to have confirmed a framework of aspirational targets to enact swingeing cuts in global emissions, with China and the US ostensibly providing the world “leadership” that has been conspicuously absent, often demanded by the “believers,” and claimed for patent purposes by the Australian Labor Party and the Communist Party Greens in the form of a tax.

Rather, I simply wish to point out why this latest exercise in verbal defecation won’t even yield a solid stool, let alone emissions reductions, and anyone who accepts the announcement by Obama without a very big pinch of salt probably needs their heads read.

On the Chinese side, it has been a fashionable argument of the Left (and the Greens in particular) to observe that China has been closing down coal-fired power generation plants, and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future, and such an observation is correct.

But this characteristic and deliberately misleading half-truth neglects to add that the decommissioned coal-fired plants are being replaced by new, far larger plants (that also swallow tons and tons of coal) and being augmented by new nuclear power generation and hydro-electric capacity, too; far from reducing her energy footprint, China is rapidly and exponentially expanding it as it caters to the energy consumption needs of a modernising — and ballooning — new middle class comprising hundreds of millions of affluent Chinese.

To date, China has exhibited scant practical interest in emissions reduction, combating climate change, tackling global warming, or any of the other emotive watchwords of the Left.

The “science” of climate change — settled or not, depending on your view, and not even relevant on this occasion — has failed, if it is true at all, to curb or even alter the course of colossal industrialisation of Chinese industry, commerce, and consumption, and there is no reason to believe this will change.

What China does have a reputation for is pragmatism: pragmatism through the prism of its own interests and its own agenda, and this, I suspect, is where the “deal” announced by Obama comes into play.

After all, China has faced relentless criticism and sustained political pressure from the global Left on this issue; what better circumstance in which to strike a “deal” could it wish for than with someone who currently stands in the shoes of Barack Obama?

A big hint that this “deal” is nothing more than a partisan political stunt (agreed to by the Chinese for reasons of pure and understandable expediency) was glaringly evident from the start; the USA and China may very well be the two biggest emitters in the world, but the complete absence from the structure of the agreement of any of the others — India, the EU, the UK, Russia, or the developing bloc in South America — somewhat tarnishes the glittering light in which the “deal” was presented.

But Obama, with two years remaining on his presidential term, can do little more than talk.

Already unable to control the US House of Representatives, his Democratic Party was brutalised in mid-term elections last week that saw it also lose control of the US Senate; consequently, Obama is — to use the American vernacular — a lame duck in every sense of the word.

In practical terms, it means Obama can promise whatever he likes, but unless it’s something he is able to decree by the Executive Orders he has proven so enamoured with during the past six years, his initiatives will never see the light of day: and anything that radically targets climate change — a subject viscerally detested by the energised Republicans who now operate the levers of legislative government in the USA — will be bitterly and ruthlessly savaged by his opponents.

It is all well and good that the G20 summit in Brisbane has concluded with the issuing of a communique that pledges constituent nations to “support strong and effective action to address climate change;” these are mere words, and whether you fit the “believer” or “sceptic” approach to climate change, they will amount to precisely nothing.

The Chinese, for their part, can hardly be blamed for signing up to Obama’s plan; after all, with a complete inability on the US side to deliver, they will be held accountable for nothing by doing so.

And if a Republican wins the White House in November 2016 — which is a distinct possibility, with Jeb “the competent one” Bush increasingly likely to seek his party’s nomination — this “deal,” announced with such fanfare, will quietly cease to exist at all.

Which, frankly, is as it should be.

I’m not passing any judgements on the merits or otherwise of what the agreement sought to achieve; merely to note that far from the big win the lunar Left thought it had scored, it is nothing more than an empty, empty promise.

What it was, however, was a flagrant play at partisan politics.

Far from isolating Australia, the “deal” probably makes the Abbott government’s Direct Action plan look good (or at least, to look better than it otherwise would); after all, doing something, however spurious, is better than doing nothing more than talking.

And with the darling of the American “moderate Left,” Hillary Clinton, seeming more likely than not to stand against (we presume) Jeb Bush in 2016, there is a clear vested interest for Obama to pump up the hot button issues US Democrats crow about at election time, but rarely — if ever — deliver on.

Obama can hardly crow about healthcare, employment, education, welfare reforms or the state of the US budget deficit: after six years as President (and too long to keep blaming George W. Bush), these are all signature failures of a regime seemingly obsessed with European-style socialism and the unproductive sovereign debt levels that accompany it.

And he can hardly claim to have been a successful President in international affairs when the Cold War has all but resumed on his watch, with Russia emboldened by his policies of strategic disarmament and the perception that if push came to shove, Obama would do nothing.

Just like the annexation of Crimea and ongoing Russian-orchestrated insurgency in Ukraine have been met with little meaningful response.

And elsewhere in the world, and particularly in those areas in which America traditionally prides itself on its influence in the Middle East and Asia, the number and scope of dangerous flashpoints have exploded on his watch as President.

Hence the grandiose rhetoric and posturing on climate change, and this “deal,” from Obama: just about the only agenda item in the Democratic manifesto his administration has singularly failed to bugger up thus far.

Nobody ought to believe for a moment that “progress” has been made on climate change this week, if that’s what they are looking for: it hasn’t.

And far from being hailed as a hero and a man of principle, this “deal” of Obama’s should be examined in context of the spectacular failings of his administration and the failure he has been as President, and the tacky attempt to reset US Democratic politics in Clinton’s favour by using this incendiary hot-button issue in an international setting when his own domestic political shortcomings now dictate he can deliver absolutely nothing.

This is empty rhetoric, delivering an empty promise, premised on little more than hot air and bullshit.

But Obama has made a political career from these attributes for years, so it ought to surprise no-one.

It should, however, make plenty of people who “believe” — in both Obama and in climate change — very angry indeed.

And when all is said and done, China — in agreeing with Obama — can hardly be blamed for it.

 

Advertisements

26 thoughts on “Empty Rhetoric: Obama’s BS On Climate Change

  1. As the English language evolves, a new word frequently emerges that neatly encapsulates a set of complex ideas. The latest such word to enter the lexicon: GRUBERING.

    For those of you who missed it, an MIT Professor named Jonathan Gruber has been caught on video describing all the various ways that he helped the Obama Administration to deceive the public regarding the true nature of Obamacare. http://video.foxnews.com/v/3893227412001/will-jonathan-gruber-hasten-obamacares-demise/#sp=show-clips

    It is plain to see that the entire duration of the current US administration has been one of “Grubering”. And the bullshit involved is not confined to that continent by any stretch of the imagination.

    In fact, the entire nonsensical “climate change” argument is nothing but “Grubering”. Have a look at the way in which you have been conned by the omnipotent elite political class for over thirty years embodied in this quote by the late Stephen Schneider.

    “On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”

    In fact the entire CAGW case is pure 100% “Grubering”. “Global warming” is no more real than Santa Claus. Australia’s BOM, New Zealand’s NIWA, the Yankee NOAA, and the UK met office have all been caught out “spiking the puch bowl”, by fabricating scary stories and complete bullshit about the “hottest day” or “hottest month”. Our local shaman Tim Flannery long ago honed Grubering down to a fine art.

    “The Science”, as they call the deity of this phony religion, is bullshit from alpha to omega. There is no global warming, there is no “greenhouse effect”, there are no so-called “greenhouse gases”. There is no sea level rise. And a healthy Earth requires more CO2; not less.

    You have all been conned by Jonathan Gruber and his associates.

  2. One of the most notorious bullshit artists in the gang of five at the IPCC has been Kevin Trenberth. The Climategate emails are full of examoles of the illusions created by this prestidigitator . It seems to me that the IPCC was well advanced in “Grubering” long before Jonathan Gruber determined how easy it is to deceive the “stupid American public”. Here is a somewhat comical example of this crook’s disregard for the stupid public.
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/15/dr-trenberth-redux/

  3. I was amazed at the standing ovation and adulation given to Barrack Obama by the pseudo intelligent Uni types when he presented on stage at UQ.
    One, he does not have the funds nor his government’s backing to make such a grandeous announcement of $3bil, as you point out Yale – Two, this man is the sole reason we now have ISIL as he took the troops out against all of the military advice given.

    Wake Up People!!!!!

    I thought him to be the consummate Politician playing the crowd and the media – even to the extent of some of them ‘misting’ up as Air Force One departed Amberly Air Base.

    I , as many Brisbanites, are glad he and the others have gone and that the whole show is over.

    It was a coup for our new P.M and a huge global success – but painful for those living and working in the proximity.

    I also loved Putin leaving early – but as the saying goes, “if you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen”….and he is never coming back…boo hoo.

  4. People might also note that China isn’t giving up much at all. They expect their population to peak around, guess when, 2030. This agreement simply allows them to increase emissions until their population peaks (or there abouts) which will be a level some 2 to 3 times as high as they are now. There is no “reduction” at all.

    Nor is the 20% “non fossil fuels” difficult to achieve, renewables are already 23% of the mix although the “Greens” won’t mention that 75% of those renewables are from hydro.

    Very much a deal that hobbles America and allows Communist China free rein. I suspect that this is one reason the political left like it so much.

    Karabar, “Global Warming” is indeed very real, the planet has warmed by about .8 degrees since 1850. We are no longer in a time that could be called a “Little Ice Age” because it is warmer now. Artifacts are reappearing from the permafrost in Greenland and the Ice Fairs are no longer held on the Thames in London. The Queen takes a boat to travel the Thames from the Palace to the river mouth unlike Henry VIII who took a coach and four. Heck, in Japan even the cherry trees bloom earlier than they did in the 16th Century. Regardless of any less than optimal adjustments to the temperature record, the world has indeed warmed.

    “Greenhouse Gases” are a bit of a misnomer as a Greenhouse gets its warmth from blocking convection and not the actions of the 1000 ppm of CO2 inside, however the term is still accurate enough for everyday use. The simple fact is that under the Stefan Boltzmann equation the planet should be about 15 degrees colder than it is. The rise in temperature from an average damn close to zero to our rather comfortable range is due primarily to the Water Vapour in the atmosphere, with some help from trace gases like CO2, Methane, etc.

    Sea levels go up and down all over the place however the only real measure worth worrying about is what it’s doing relative to the land. If the land is rising faster than the sea, then there is no problem.

    The climate debate is not black and white, (although there is no empirical evidence to support the catastrophic predictions of some) the climate itself is a complex, chaotic, non linear system. I may not agree with the crystal ball gazing proclamations gleaned from the entrails of climate models, but I do take my hat off to people trying their best with severely inadequate instruments to understand the system. And to be fair to the modelers, those controlling the purse strings will not accept “We have no bloody idea” as an acceptable answer.

    Besides, real scientists have far important deadlines to meet. They only have one more year to provide us with Weather control, flying Deloreans, Mr. Fusion and Hoverboards. Seriously, how cool would it be to own “OUTATIME”? Just cruisin would be a ball.

    • JohnB
      I am terribly sorry. I understood that all the fuss over catastrophic global warming entailed something far more astounding than a few tenths of a degree in 165 years. Especially over a period extending from the Maunder Minimum to the Solar Maximum. My goodness! Where will it all end! And it’s only been nearly a quarter century now with no warming at all and cooling since 2006! Never before has so much Antarctic ice been seen, and discussed by so few. With more arctic ice now than only a decade ago, Great Lakes six degrees below normal, Lake Superior ice a month early. Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus. And a Tooth Fairy. And a Sasquatch. And alien abductions. They are all part of the same delusion as global warming.

      On the comment about the S-B equation, unfortunately it assumes radiative heat transfer from one black box to another. Seen any black boxes floating around lately? And the old wives’ tale about the 15 degrees as thoroughly and completely decimated a few months ago with the results from “Diviner”.
      http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/03/28/empirical-results-from-diviner-confirm-s-b-law-was-misapplied-to-moon/

      • That’s pretty much why the catastrophists say what they do. Being deniers of real climate they assume it never changes (or changes extremely slowly, a feature of most 19th Century BTW) and so are scared of the change. This alone tells us how clueless they are, if .8 degrees in 150 years scares them, then they’d wet their knickers if they looked at D-O Events or most changes in the last 400k years. 10 degrees in 70 years wasn’t unknown, 5 degrees was pretty usual.

        But the simple fact is that the globe is warming. According to any set of records we use and if we pick any 100 year period the globe will either be warming or cooling, it’s never stable. Add in that the period 1800-1850 was arguably the coldest the planet has been in about 8,000 years and was part of the “Little Ice Age” and so personally I’m all in favour of warming, cooling more would have been disasterous. The mere fact of warming however does not “prove” any particular cause. If I were looking for a “cause” I’d think that the big, hot, yellow thing in the sky going from the Maunder Minimum of Solar activity to the late 20th Century Grand Maximum where it’s the most active it’s been for 1,000 years.

        You’re right, the Tallbloke article does put paid to the 15 degrees, thanks for that. It points out the figure is more like 91-97 degrees. We can argue semantics if you want, but the bottom line is that without the GHGs our temperature curve would look like the Moons. GHGs slow the heat loss at night and I’m willing to bet that Earths rotational speed has more than a little to do with it too, constantly taking warm air , water and land to where it can radiate energy back into space. “Greehouse Gas” as a name is wrong scientifically, woefully misleading and inexact, but it works for everyday use and people know what is meant by it. That the catastrophists exploit the name isn’t the fault of the words, it’s a deliberate act of deception on the part of the catastrophists. That being the case, it no longer matters what we call them, the catastrophists will lie about it anyway.

        Having said all that, I’m working on an article to submit to WUWT on the assumed stability built into early science. I wouldn’t mind some other eyes on it so with your permission, once finished I’ll send it to Yale and he can forward it to you?

    • JohnB
      As a fellow Engineer, I am certain that you appreciate the miraculous fluid hydrogen dioxide, and its weird physical and chemical properties. Of course you are quire correct. It is this super substance that provides the tight temperature control that this planet enjoys, (at least during the interglacials). Without this amazing material, and its equally amazing counterpart carbon dioxide, there would be no life whatsoever on this orb. It is the specific heat that enables the oceans to store and release energy as required, and the unique heat of vapourisation that creates a precision thermostat. While carbon dioxide, and plenty of it, is essential for all life on Earth, it has nothing to do with temperature. Not even in the slightest. Zero correlation. Zip nada. (apart from the effect that temperature has on the quantity of the trace gas in the atmosphere).

      • The only place we differ is that I think that CO2 can have a Primary effect on temperature, circa 1.1 degrees per doubling. However that’s not actually important, what’s important is the result after all the feedbacks are taken into account. It’s the feedbacks that relegate CO2 to an “also ran” in the climate race.

        Forcings are there, all of them, but it’s the feedbacks that decide what the final result will be. 😉

        BTW, I’m not an engineer, my backgound is Exhibitions, warehousing and sales. 😉

  5. Of all the empty promises, Tony “I come in praise of coal” Abbott’s view that his Direct Action policy will lower carbon emissions by 5% by 2020 is leading the pack – discredited by economists and science, this hollow policy shows the lack of commitment to anything but that sanctioned by mining companies and big business, and his puerile efforts at the G20 embarrass us all.

    • That’s it Jo. Make it about Tony Abbott. Change the subject like every other Leftie who thinks any time is a good time to hop into Tony Abbott, whether remotely relevant or not.

      This is about Barack Obama trying to hoodwink US voters into thinking he is doing something about climate change. Aside from making Direct Action look a bit better than it probably deserves to on a comparison based on reality rather than the semantic diarrhoea this “deal” really is, this isn’t about Tony Abbott at all.

    • I’m over 50. I have experienced hotter summers in the past. A couple of years ago in Canberra (where I live) we had one of the coldest summers for a long time. Last night, I had to throw the Doona cover on. The thing with you lefties is that you experience a hot day in summer and use that as proof of Global Warming. The funny thing is that when a winter’s day is exceptional cold, you use that as proof of Global warming as well. So what’s it going to be – Cold = Global Warming or Hot = Global Warming? The way you lefties think is the same as protesters crowding into a 1971 VW Kombi, belching smoke from worn rings. As you get overtaken by a Mercedes V8, you scream “you are contributing to Global Warming from your big V8 gas guzzler.”

      You see, Jo or whatever your name is, when you reach my age, you develop a very good bullshit monitor, and you have the ability to see through crap, just like the Pakistani ringing to tell me that my PC is infected. You lefties would believe what was being said, enter the URL and have a virus infect your operating system. You see, lefties whether young or old are always wet behind the ears and never develop a bullshit monitor. That is why the world will never advance under politicians of the left. That is why Obama is as popular as a Pork chop in a synagogue

      • Lovely to hear the balanced response, so a cold summer night when you had to use the doona and your experience as a 50+ qualifies you as a climate expert – I guess climate change is just another left wing conspiracy, keep reading the Australian and watching Andrew Bolt to get the real facts.

      • The simple fact of my post Jo (or maybe it is Christine Milne) is that you lot always refer to the Hockey Stick graph. “See it’s warming, the models say so.” Got news for you. CO2 is not carbon pollution. The Amazon rain forest loves CO2. The North Queensland and Tasmanian forests love CO2. Crops love CO2.

        You can’t entertain the great cycle of life. To you man (or you being a Feminist Julia Gillard hippy supporter – personkind – damn the word son meaning male can be extracted…Ok peoplekind) is responsible for all of the so called Global Warming. I’m not a scientist, but as your lot use the last 50 years to demonstrate that the world is warming, my alluding to my age is also stating (unscientifically) that I haven’t noticed any temperature increases. So I am as qualified as you to state the obvious. Anyway, quoting weblinks and wikipedia means nothing. I don’t water my lawn, it’s still green. We’ve had good rain this spring, as we did last year and the year before that. In fact, I’m sick of washing my car to get all the road grime off from wet roads!!!!

        You lot belt on like Daleks, “Destroy all carbon, destroy, destroy.” How many volcanoes erupt and spew CO2 into the atmosphere on a yearly basis? Do you take that into account in your carbon pollution whinging and whining? You guys are the losing team and no one remembers second place in a race

      • And another thing Jo. Yes I used my doona as a symbol of the shallowness of the left argument. For one night in mid November it was cold. That one cold night is not proof of climate change, just as one hot day in summer is not proof of climate change. I bet you London to a brick, that Christine Milne will be up in arms about long, hot summer days.

        Oh forgot to mention, how many of the Flim-FLam Flannery Desalination plants are in operations. Crickets……

    • While the former East German Frau Merckel was spouting greasy green grimy hypocrisy in Australia on the weekend, her government back in ‘the Fatherland’ was busy dismantling their ridiculous “targets’. It’s simply a matter of survival. Sigmar Gabriel must have heard the whines of Grannie Millstone. He responds with “It’s coal or bankruptcy, so I’ll take coal”. Guess where the Germans will be looking to purchase massive amounts of coal?

      http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/11/17/Germanys-Social-Democrats-Descend-in-Uproar

    • Jo the only worthwhile point of Abbotts plan over the Carbon Tax is that it will do nothing for less money.

      While this hurts the fragile egos of the left, the simple fact is that there are 2.3 Billion people without decent access to electricity on this planet, that’s 1,000 times the population of Australia. These nations are working very, very hard to develop and provide for their people. If they build 500 power stations for every one we have, then that would be enough power to allow their people to choose between having the lights OR the stove turned on.

      In the face of that, what difference does our cutting anything by 5% make? Our total emissions right now amount to .1% of what they will be producing. Although they will probably be smarter than us and build huge dams and hydro plants and lots and lots of nuclear reactors, both of which the ALP and Greens are against. Right now there are 482 coal fired plants planned for India and over 300 more planned for China, worldwide the figure is over 1,200 coal fired plants planned. Tell me again why our 5% reduction is more than a fart in a cyclone?

      Talking about any reduction in Australian emissions having an effect is like parading around with the body of a mosquito and claiming that you’ve helped stop the spread of Malaria.

      Finally, before you get too narky at mining companies go and look at the State Budgets. Actually see how much they pay in royalties that YOU will have to make up for in extra taxes if they close down. Either that or decide which services you would like to see cut out. While I do hate to say it, what is good for business is often good for the Nation too.

      Then add in that since we are already hundreds of Billions in the red what the knock on effect will be when Billions of federal tax dollars disappear and a few hundred thousand land on the dole. Please, get informed before mouthing off, before it can be spent, wealth has to be created. Neither the Greens or any Union has ever created one, single self sustaining job.

      • Well said, JohnB.
        One just has to wonder if Jo is aware of the details of the agreement worked out by Xi and Old Bummer.
        It means that for the next sixteen years, China will INCREASE its output of CO2 ANNUALLY by an amount greater than the TOTAL Australian CO2 production. And even then the total ANTHROPOGENIC CO2 is less than 4% of the annual total. Mother Nature delivers 96%, because she knows how to deal with it. She has been doing this for over four billion years.

      • I wish there was an edit feature. The figures should have been “100 times our population” not 1,000 and “50 power stations” not 500. Mea Culpa.

        Some might argue that an order of magnitude makes a difference but either figure relegates Australia to “utterly unimportant” in the global emissions game.

    • PS. Jo, if you find the attempt to get some sort of justice for 300 people shot down by Russian supplied weaponry embarassing, then you need to realign your moral compass. Everybody else was letting this issue slide, even Shorten wasn’t going to say squat.

      I’m sure the families involced would be just amazingly comforted to know that the “Alternate Prime Minister” doesn’t give a flying f*ck about their dead relatives. NO. Seeing an evil done and not saying anything is embarassing, a cowardly act from a low cur. What if it were your family on that plane? Would you still be embarrassed that somebody was trying to get their bodies returned to you?

      do you stand for a side, or a principle?

    • You gotta love it when a cartoonist gives a course on climate. Almost tempting to enrol, and do a series of youtube vids exposing the mistakes or misrepresentations. With a bit of effort maybe I’ll get onto Lewandowski’s list. 😉

      • Wow, you and Karabar are a couple of hotheads (pardon the temperature related quip) Your point is that why should Australia take any action because it would have no effect, and your mate Karabar just doesn’t believe that there is climate change caused by human activity.

        Hard to know who to feel most sorry for, the uncaring or the blind, and this isn’t a right or left issue,:it’s a global issue that your collective small mindedness conveniently ignores – well done chaps, keep up the good work.

  6. So Jo, you support the idea of taking expensive action that does nothing? And the simple fact is that I do care and you don’t. You make all the noises, but are against anything that will lift 2.3 billion people out of disease and poverty. Hospitals don’t run on Solar Power, they need a massive and reliable power supply. You won’t get clean water for 800 million people from hand pumps.

    Poor nations cannot deal with natural disasters as well as real ones can, but you think that you will help the generations to come by keeping them poor. No, you’re just going to guarantee that more will die. But that is the point isn’t it? There hasn’t been a single idea out of the Green movement in the last 50 years that would markedly improve the lives of the “non white” people on the planet has there? Pick any looming “ecological disaster” and a plank of the “solution” has always been that the Third World never develop. When the history of the early 21st Century is written, and it will be written by the Chinese, Indians and Africans, the “Green” movement will be named as the racist, genocidal, murdering bastards that they are.

    If you think I’m wrong, then show by giving examples, anything else will show you for the empty vessel that you appear to be.

    The problem with Green supporters is that they are long on stories but short on intelligence. Milne goes around saying that we should “get on board” and follow the lead of the USA and China without the faintest twitching of a brain cell about what she is suggesting.

    I say “YES! Let’s get on board and follow the USA and China”. Emissions are down in the USA because fracking has dropped the price of gas so low that it’s a real cheap way to run a power station now. Fracking is getting on board and following the USA. Fracking is good. China brought some 31 Gigawatts of hydro power online last year and among other things is planning a massive series of dams on the Tibetan Plateau to generate a phenomenal 61.5 Gigawatts of power. Hydro makes up about 25% of China’s power and is going to climb. Follow China. Dams are good, hydro is good. China has 22 NUCLEAR power stations and 26 more under construction with more NUCLEAR power stations in the planning stages. Follow China, NUCLEAR is good. China is opening a new COAL fired power station about every 10 days and will continue to do so for the next 10 years, over 300 are either under construction or planned. Follow China, COAL is good.

    Both Senator Milne and you should be careful what you demand, you just might get it.

    You called me “uncaring” which is simply wrong. I do care, I care about the future of the billions of people on this world and I despise with a passion all who wish to keep them in poverty, disease and hopelessness. I want a better world for the people of ALL nations, not just the “White” ones. And make no mistake, the ONLY WAY that any “reductions” made in the West will have any effect at all is if we ALSO prevent any development in the Second and Third World. Get off the fence Jo, do you think they deserve a better life in a more developed nation or not? Forget politics, “Left or Right”, as Human Beings that we share the planet with don’t they deserve better? And doesn’t that make it a crime to try to stop them?

    What I AM uncaring about are the pathetic little egos of the Green movement and their supporters. They like to think they are important or “making a difference”. The fact is that in the grand development of the 7 billion people on this world, what the 23 million Australians do or do not do makes not one iota of difference. On the World economic stage over the next 100 years we don’t count. We don’t matter. We are unimportant. And that is what the egos of the Green movement cannot face, the simple reality that they really don’t matter. If every Australian Green politician and all their supporters dropped dead tomorrow the World would neither notice nor care. How does it feel to be so insignificant?

    • And that should have been “Poor nations cannot deal with natural disasters as well as rich ones can”.

      Oh for an edit feature. 🙂

Comments are closed.