Guest post by Steve Goddard
It is easy to become cynical about the motivations of some prominent figures in the global warming movement, but there are a few people who feel passionately enough about their beliefs to put their own life on the line. The Catlin explorers Pen Hadow, Ann Daniels and Martin Hartley are among the most dedicated. They have endured consistent minus 40 degree weather, frostbite, polar bear encounters, frozen sleeping bags, sleepless nights and general misery in their quest to prove that the polar ice caps are warming and melting.
Over the past 24 days they have traveled 84km of their 950km journey to the North Pole, averaging 3.5km per day. Every inch is hard fought across drifting and cracking ice. If their average travel rate were to continue, it would take another 250 days to reach the pole – stretching into the next Arctic winter.
Below are the titles of their most recent blog posts, which hint at the unimaginable difficulties they are facing.
# Mind games
# Like being in a milk bottle
# Frostbite (N.B Graphic Images)
# Spring in our step
# Stabbing pain
# Muscle Immobilisation
# Perran on Power Supplies for the expedition
# The difficulties of filming in such extreme environments
# Chivalry on the ice
# The Quitter
Compare their dedication and grit to Al Gore, who lives in a 20,000 square foot house, has a 150 foot yacht, jet sets around the world, and has made tens of millions of dollars promoting global warming.
No doubt Al is very appreciative of the foot soldiers in his infantry, willing to put their lives on the line for his Nobel cause.
Below is a headline from my personal favorite newspaper the UK Guardian, highlighting the brilliant thought process of AGW entrepreneurs.
Life vests for polar bears on melting ice
To raise awareness for the endangered species, a design company has come up with a life-vest for displaced polar bears.
Read about Polar Bear Life Vests at The Guardian (No, they aren’t made of Gore-tex – Anthony)
So whom do you admire? The entrepreneurs making millions off AGW, or those risking everything to help out the first group (and save the planet.) I know which group I would prefer to belong to.
One more question. If the Arctic really resembled the tropical paradise presented by The Guardian et Al, wouldn’t the explorers have a tough time walking across the (non-existent) ice?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Wind energy is possible. So is hamster power, Bill.
Every watt/hour of power generated is nearly a watt/hour preserved for future generations. It does not matter that it is intermittent. It is still saved.
This is typical AGWer nonsensical blather. You are confusing energy conservation with energy generation. You do not conserve energy by generating it. The question, which you conveniently ignore is, what is the cost, relative to say coal, or whatever energy source is the most readily available? And no, you can’t include the completely bogus “cost” of Cap n’ Trade and/or “Carbon Tax” scams to artificially drive up the cost of coal, gas and oil.
Human beings tend to think that suffering has a validating power, an ability to instill truth into a subject matter. Much of the Christian religious epistemology is based on that.
For me, their suffering does not bring any more intelligence to their quest. They choose to undergo these hardships mostly as a media stunt, exploiting the above phenomenon.
If they had more sense, they’d go measure the thickness of ice cubes in their drinks on a sunny sub-tropical beach…
bill (05:00:37) :
So we build two complete systems incase wind power fails? Where has that been factored into the cost of wind power?
[snip]
This is not a thread about windpower but I will say this:
Every watt generated by renewables means a watt less required to be generated by oil/gas/coal/nuclear. UK requires say 65,000,000,000 watts all generated by conventional means (say), if 1 watt is generated by wind then only 64,999,999,999 need be generated by non renewables – do you agree?. I think you will also agree this saves 1 watt * reciprocal of efficiency (=3 watts) equivalent of conventional fuel? This fuel is easily stored for when the wind does not blow i.e. energy has been stored.
Most engineering reports on the UK grid say that 20% approx windpower will cause no grid instability with the system as it stands. Adding better controls will improve this.
BarryW (07:44:02) :
So we build two complete systems incase wind power fails? Where has that been factored into the cost of wind power?
One system already exists but wil need relacing with 60% efficient CCGT base load or GT transient generation.
Future may include wind->Hydrogen for example:
http://www.hydrogen-yorkshire.co.uk/documents/Hydrogen_Generation_HMGS_fact_sheet.pdf
Bill
bill,
Those windmills in the countryside are hideous, and always placed in the most visible locations along the tops of ridges where birds migrate.
What is the air speed of a swallow?
Steven Goddard (11:21:24) :
The RSPB have changed their stance on wind turbines and now support them with reservations:
http://www.rspb.org.uk/Images/Positive%20Planning%20for%20Onshore%20Wind_tcm9-213280.pdf
What do you mean? An African or European swallow?
Although not a positive point one should always remember how much wildlife is destroyed by motor vehicles. Correctly sited wind farms will minimise deaths.
“Bruce Cobb (07:17:31) : Wind energy is possible. So is hamster power, Bill.”
Economic solutions in YouTube video :
Merionis Unguiculatis power. There, all better now:
Can someone please tell the Gaurdian that Polar Bears are excellent swimmers, its an insult to them that people believe they are so fragile they cannot get wet or they die!
The goal of these people is to eventually tell us how to live, I hope they have to be rescued and their feet amputated so they have speak at their next convention or summit from a wheelchair. They will have to tell the story of how global warming almost killed them because it was too cold, even a 20 year old Harvard student would have trouble believing that.