George Monbiot has published a story in the Guardian with a strong dose of reality:
He goes on to say that maybe it’s time to give up “magical thinking”.
I hope that by laying out the problem I can encourage us to address it more logically, to abandon magical thinking and to recognise the contradictions we confront.
I’ll say. While I disagree with a lot of what Monbiot says, he does know enough not to lie to himself when things really aren’t going in his favor. He also hits on why the green/warmist movement is becoming so unpopular:
It is a campaign not for abundance but for austerity. It is a campaign not for more freedom but for less. Strangest of all, it is a campaign not just against other people, but against ourselves.
Monbiot does have some realist sense about him, so I find it encouraging that he’s writing about the pickle the greens and warmists find themselves in. I recall during Climategate when he was the first to come out with a statement saying that the issue needs to be addressed square on:
Confronted with crisis, most of the environmentalists I know have gone into denial. The emails hacked from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, they say, are a storm in a tea cup, no big deal, exaggerated out of all recognition. It is true that climate change deniers have made wild claims which the material can’t possibly support (the end of global warming, the death of climate science). But it is also true that the emails are very damaging.
The response of the greens and most of the scientists I know is profoundly ironic, as we spend so much of our time confronting other people’s denial. Pretending that this isn’t a real crisis isn’t going to make it go away. Nor is an attempt to justify the emails with technicalities. We’ll be able to get past this only by grasping reality, apologising where appropriate and demonstrating that it cannot happen again.
And, as he wrote there, many have continued with the “storm in a tea cup, no big deal, exaggerated out of all recognition” meme. Except the public knows better, and warmists are losing, and losing big. His article this week though is well worth a read, because he’s pretty well come to the conclusion that warmists and greens have painted themselves into a corner with demanding energy policy changes, while providing for no alternatives of substance, and the public is having none of it.
All of us in the environment movement, in other words – whether we propose accommodation, radical downsizing or collapse – are lost. None of us yet has a convincing account of how humanity can get out of this mess.
Dogged reality bites – coming soon to an election near you. Canada this week, Australia soon, and the USA in 2012.
The way out, George, is the same as the way in. Let the free market decide. Shoving mandates down peoples throats like that dimwitted liar Julia Gillard is trying to do in Australia simply won’t work, and she’ll find herself knocked on her butt come next election. She must think people are too stupid to notice or care. People will embrace energy saving technology, but it takes time. And, the solution must have more value, not less. The modern world wasn’t built in 100 days, and neither will the postmodern.
Does this mean we can’t call him Moonbat anymore?
When Monbiot thinks he has he upper hand he abuses whatever power and influence he thinks he has to the fullest extent. When he gets slapped down he cowers in the corner pretending to be a victim of errorsome humanity.
Worse than a politician.
UNPOPULAR I went on to a newspaper forum I used to frequent a couple of years ago. Then I was the only sceptic amongst a couple of dozen active alarmists.
Now, there are a couple of alarmists (one I think has a financial interest in wind so maybe only one actual believer) and everyone and I mean everyone else is sceptic. The world is now so full of us sceptics that there is hardly anywhere left to have a decent argument with an alarmist!
And very relevant to the story, the news count for “global warming”, which used to be around 20,000 (2007) which dropped to 10,000 before climategate and is now in the low 5000s; it is now at severe risk of being overtaken by the “peak oil” newscount which is now at 4000.
Why is this important? First, it was my naive attempt to add a link to peak oil from global warming on Wikipedia which showed me the true nature of the warmists: lying deceitful manipulative bullyboys. Second: I’m officially calling the global warming scam to have died its natural death when the “global warming” news count drops below “peak oil”. At the current rate, I think that will happen in the next couple of months … then of course we can all moan about the peak oil alarmism and the way the wind lobby are now trying to push the scare of peak oil in order to secure future subsidies … but, at least oil will run out, whereas it is still far from certain that CO2 will cause harmful warming.
Anthony,
“dimwitted liar” is such an uncharitable way to refer to poor Julia Gillard. She is destroying herself and immolating the Labor party. We should call her…. “Our secret weapon!!!” No one has helped clarify things like Ms. Gillard. You go girl!
“Mark A says:
May 4, 2011 at 11:12 pm”
Bush fires in the UK, yes that is correct however, just like in Australia most summers, most of those fires were started by arsonists.
gallopingcamel says: May 4, 2011 at 10:33 pm
“Not long ago paleo-Monbiots were predicting dire consequences owing to the diminishing availability of the whale oil that was used for lighting. The predictions were entirely wrong as kerosene turned out to be an excellent substitute for whale oil at a tenth of the price.”
Gallopingcamel, by a series of dumb luck, our civilisation has found more and more energy supplies: coal, oil and nuclear. It is therefore understandable that people have the belief that when one source of fuel runs out, that there will magically (“as always”) be another source of fuel. After all it simply isn’t possible to conceive of a Western economy without the energy to run it … and therefore, most people assume, there must be another form of energy just around the corner when our current energy supplies run out.
Well … that’s about as stupid a logic as saying: “CO2 must have some impact on planet earth” … both are entirely irrational
Now, I’m not saying peak oil will be the end of the Western civilisation (more accurately “modern” civilisation), but neither can I honestly say it won’t. To me, peak oil doesn’t so much mean the end of oil: it means the end of known supplies of oil … it means we are moving from the known, certain world of established supplies, to the uncertain world of diminishing known supplies and a huge big unknown as to how our demand for oil can be satisfied by unknown supplies.
At one end, it is entirely conceivable that the Arab countries have been vastly overstating their oil reserves, that shale oil is only enerconic in small pockets, and that wind, nuclear and all other fuels are entirely inadequate to fill the demand for oil leading to a rapid run on coal, which itself has had the best reserves dug out. On a worst scenario, we are talking mass starvation (food production uses huge amounts of oil), armies of billions of people trying to secure food/energy and a series of regional wars heading rapidly to WWIII. At the other end of the scale is: “business as usual”. (I.e. people who are at heart global warmist’s in that they actually believe we can: “continue using fossil fuels at the current rate … and the worst that will happen is some warmer weather”)
Personally, I’m in the camp that says: “We really have to understand the true extent of our future energy supplies … forget I’ll Kidya, forget global warming, forget Libya, Israel, etc. … the megalosaurus in the dunny is that we simply have no idea where the key energy supplies that sustain our western economy will come from in the next few decades let alone the next century. The real crime of global warming is that if we had spent even a fraction of the money wasted on this global warming nonsense, we would by now have had a very clear idea of what practical energy supplies are available for the next century.
And you know what! Sometime I wonder whether global warming was deliberately stoked up by some government(s) or some oil suppliers either to hide the nature of peak oil, or to provide a smoke screen to e.g. secure all the available oil reserves before other countries cottoned on to the fake nature of global warming and the true nature of peak oil
And who are the big alarmist nations!! The US and the UK. So as a true patriot, should I just hope that the secret service of our countries have all got a cunning plan … somehow I think not!
Mark A says:
May 4, 2011 at 11:12 pm
Werner Brozek
“UK recorded its lowest temperature for 25 years”
Maybe it was in December last year, but I heard on the wireless this morning that the UK has a heatwave and bush fires, no rain in sight.
That’s just typical British weather; rain forecast for the next few days btw.
I think in George Monbiot we are seeing a conversion. His column re a debate between himself and Helen Caldicott, beginning…Over the last fortnight I’ve made a deeply troubling discovery. The anti-nuclear movement to which I once belonged has misled the world about the impacts of radiation on human health…is a staggering recantation, and shows that the whole green edifice is about to fall.
I will certainly not refer to him in derogatory terms on my blog, and imagine that the green wrath descending on him will inspire further soul searching on his part.
see…http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/05/anti-nuclear-lobby-misled-world/print
If only man could harness the power of Julia Gillards jaw
Monbiot: It is a campaign not for abundance but for austerity. It is a campaign not for more freedom but for less. Strangest of all, it is a campaign not just against other people, but against ourselves.
Well, that just about sums up socialism. I wonder if he’ll get the reality of that next.
Martin Brumby says: May 4, 2011 at 11:35 pm
“The Moonbat’s piece … had me laughing until I was gasping for breath.
He suffers from a similar problem to the Royal Academy of Engineering report:-
http://www.raeng.org.uk/news/releases/shownews.htm?NewsID=553“
Martin Brumby,
I don’t understand your comment. If you are saying the premise is that we have to cut fossil fuel BECAUSE of global warming, then I entirely agree with you. But the conclusion is more “if we are to meet this … then the implication is this”:
“Whatever happens in the future, we need to recognise that the changes required to the UK energy system required in order to meet the 2050 emissions reduction targets are so substantial that they will inevitably involve significant rises in energy cost to end users.”
This is simply a statement of fact. If anyone were stupid enough to try to proactively reduce energy use (which is extremely closely correlated to GDP so in effect “try to reduce GDP”), then they will certainly have a mega huge problem trying to do so. Which is born out by the way all previous attempts in this area have been abysmal failures (and in my opinion will continue to be so)
The key to the problem is in the connection between GDP and energy use. The problem is that people seem to think that they can create new economic activity to reduce energy use. Because energy and GDP are so closely linked, this is really saying: “create more economic activity to reduce economic activity”.
The kind of nonsense is exemplified by attempts to introduce “energy saving” schemes. What is the effect of saving energy? It is to save energy usage and therefore money! And what do people do with the money they save? They spend it! And so, from spending money/energy on e.g. electricity, they go to spending money/energy on extra holidays. The net result is not to reduce energy usage, but to transfer energy consumption from one area (electricity) to another (foreign holidays, luxury goods in China). Indeed, some naive civil servants might actually believe that energy efficiency works in their country because their energy usage is going down, but the reality is that manufacturing is going abroad, people are spending money abroad rather than at home, and in the end the result is the present economic mess of the US, UK, etc.
The truth is that reducing energy usage is simple:
1. Reduce population
2. Reduce standard of living
The following quotes demonstrate why the AGW is living in a windmill fantasy world.
WUWT and other excellent sites have demonsrated, time and again, that their ‘solutions’ are naive / disingenuous and people, like Turkeys, will never vote for Christmas. This is why the AGW movement is acting in a wild and desperate manner.
For the record George Monbiot, like his fellow Warmist Dr. James Lovelock, is pro-nuclear.
Here is more candour from George Monbiot – the self-confessed hypocrite.
And finally……………………..George Monbiot should stop listening to idiotic climate scientists otherwise he will continue to make failed predictions.
Then the reality smacks head first.
UK winter snow since 2007
Another jeremiad from one of Britain’s leading miserablists, dismayed that the economic collapse he so yearns for has not yet happened.
Human beings are a plaque on the Earth.
My God, he’s seen with his very own eyes people in east Africa, deprived of paraffin and kerosene, actually cut down trees rather than give up cooking!
This example apparently ” illustrates that wherever large-scale collapse has occurred [‘collapse’ is used 6 times], psychopaths take over “. He sounds as loopy as ever.
It will get to the stage when Monbiot and his ilk will have forgotten why they want to decarbonize everything, along the lines of Santayana’s famous quote.
Over at the Guardian there is a lot of talk about population control. These nutters are going to have a reality check on exactly HOW they think they will achieve this? My answer is – you first. Leave me and my 10 kids alone. ;O)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/may/02/environmental-fixes-all-greens-lost
John Karajas – you are still around!
Regards
John Gorter
Don’t forget Portugal’s elections, in exactly one month…
Ecotretas
Monbiot is not a stupid man. The scales fell from his eyes after “Climategate” and he has been shiftily rowing back ever since from his pre-Climategate hysteria about CO2. Not easy, considering what a rabid frother he was at that time.
However, as others have said here, I too will not forget his journalism and neither, fortunately, will the Internet.
Particularly unforgiveable was his “Top Ten Climate Deniers” article.
Revenge is a dish best served cold…..or at least with some statistically significant cooling.
WATCH THE BLACK SWAN!
Google : Andrea Rossi E-CAT Bologna University LENR CANR
Since January my Google Alerts have increased to at leasst three a day and the Chairman of the Swedish Sceptics Society is convinced.
If it was not for CO2 there would be NO life on Earth. Monbiot still does not believe this simple fact. His new stance is not a softening of beliefs but another way to persuade people that the ‘greens’ are correct.
The comments in the Guardian nearly all mention population control and this surely is the ultimate aim of ‘environmentalists’.
I am not a conspiracy theorist but I have heard the suggestion that ‘global players’ above government level have pushed and financed cAGW as a way of reducing population via limiting energy, particularly to the developing world.
Liquid fluoride thorium reactors or some other nuclear technology is the way to go.
I must admit that my solar powered water heating, insulation and renewable energy source ( I burn coppiced ash) has saved me a fortune in energy bills. I also like growing my own food and keep livestock. Am I an environmentalist or a clever capitalist? I think climate change science has been badly undermined by vested interests, does that make me a denier? Maybe it’s time we stopped using these words as the dividing line becomes more fuzzy. While some posters really worry about renewable energy and condemn it at every opportunity, it can be really useful, and anyone who condemns it on principle without thinking it through is behaving just as badly as any mad warmist crusty at Glastonbury. If it works, use it and don’t worry to much about your image or politics. You have the worlds full permission to be an evironmentalist/skeptic/green/republican/conservative activist if you want. I’ll even send you a permission slip.
There is no such thing as peak oil as supply and demand are always balanced by price until it runs out which it never does for the same reason. The correct solution for population and energy supply is the market and politicians should stay out of it if they want to see solutions.
@David, UK
Yes, read some of the comments on the MB piece. Most advocate population control as a solution to the problem. It’s ironic because they’re using the very same ‘magic thinking’ that Monbiot complains of.