aigZilD
2011-03-14 03:47:37 UTC
With Many Thousands Killed By The Japan Earthquake, Leftists / Warmists
Wring Their Hands Over Two Nuclear Fatalities!
Already the greenies are circling like vultures ready to exploit this new
outbreak of anti-nuclear hysteria
The BBC, unsurprisingly, appears to have decided that potential nuclear
disaster is the single most important aspect of the entire story.
A "never let a crisis go to waste" opportunity to promote "renewable energy",
at the expense of energy that actually works: ie nuclear, gas, oil, coal
etc.
March 13 2011
Did mythical manmade 'climate change' cause the Japanese earthquake?
No.
But that hasn't stopped one or two unscrupulous environmentalists trying to
make the spurious connection.
Top prize for shamelessness goes to one Staffan Nilsson, president of an EU
offshoot called the European Economic and Social Committee.
The earthquake and tsunami will clearly have a severe impact on the economic
and social activities of the region. Some islands affected by climate change
have been hit. Has not the time come to demonstrate on solidarity - not
least solidarity in combating and adapting to climate change and global
warming? Mother Nature has again given us a sign that that is what we need
to do.
Here's an environmental blog called Mongabay having a go:
http://news.mongabay.com/2011/0311-japan_tsunami_climate.html
Could the earthquake that triggered Japan's devastating tsunami be linked to
climate change?
While it's unlikely that scientists will be able to provide a definitive
answer anytime soon and Japan has long been a hotbed of seismic activity,
past research suggests there may indeed be a link between climate change and
earthquakes in some parts of the world
The eco website Grist had a valiant stab too with a headline "Today's
Tsunami: this is what climate change looks like." After getting a roasting
from some of its more scientifically scrupulous readers it then modified its
position with a couple of updates.
(But still decided to have its cake and eat it - as you'll see from the last
line of update 1)
Update:
The intent of this piece isn't to attribute today's tragedy to climate
change. Apologies to those whom I misled with the headline. It was meant
literally, as in: Tsunamis are inundations of shorelines and therefore have
impacts that resemble storm surges, which are one of the most immediate
threats of a warmer planet. In addition, climate change may cause tsunamis
directly, so it's possible we'll someday see more images like this as a
result.
Update 2:
Changed the headline (it originally read "Today's tsunami: This is what
climate change looks like") and updated the text to reflect the discussion
of the science and the framing in the comments.
There are also worrying signs that Japan's tragedy is going to be exploited
by greens in much the same way they exploited the BP Oil Spill: as yet
another Rahm-Emanuel-style "never let a crisis go to waste" opportunity to
promote "renewable energy"
(at the expense of energy that actually works: ie nuclear, gas, oil, coal
etc).
The BBC, unsurprisingly, appears to have decided that potential nuclear
disaster is the single most important aspect of the entire story. Its every
TV news bulletin is now filled aeons of waffling from environment and
science correspondent David Shukman on the state-of-play at the various
troubled nuclear plants.
Which might seem fair enough until you remember that in one town alone as
many as 10,000 people may have been killed by the earthquake and the
tsunami.
Compare and contrast this with the two fatalities so far in Japanese nuclear
plants. Perhaps this figure will rise but until it does, the coverage given
to what might possibly happen in Japan's nuclear plants - as opposed to the
far greater and very real and present disasters happening elsewhere in the
country - seems irresponsible, misleading and overdone.
Yet already the greens are circling like vultures ready to exploit this new
outbreak of anti-nuclear hysteria (which they've been stoking up, of course,
since the 1970s). Here's another BBC Environment Correspondent (sheesh, how
many have they got?) Richard Black:
However, possible implications outside Japan are already beginning to
emerge.
In Germany, scene of a big anti-nuclear protest on Saturday, Environment
Minister Norbert Roettgen suggested that safety systems at nuclear plants
would be analysed anew in the light of the Fukushima incident.
"This happened in a country with very high safety standards. the fundamental
question of whether we can guard against all dangers is now open again, and
we will address that question," he said.
In the UK, the Stop Hinckley pressure group has called for a halt to a
proposed new reactor at Hinckley Point in southwest England, on safety
grounds.
Environment groups are beginning to feature Fukushima in their energy
communications - and whatever actually happens at the site, it is likely to
become a major card in campaigns to promote renewable energy above nuclear.
Two days after the alarm was first raised about safety at Fukushima Daiichi
plant, uncertainty still surrounds the situation on the ground and the
status of the three reactors that were functioning at the time of Friday's
earthquake and tsunami.
Putting this into perspective:
in the last decade the wind farm industry, it turns out, has killed far more
people for far less electricity produced than the nuclear industry
Nuclear fatalities in the last ten years: 7
Wind farm fatalities in the last ten years: 44.
In those ten years nuclear provided thirty times the energy of wind. This
means in the last decade, nuclear has been around 200 times safer than wind
on an energy produced/accidents basis.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100079664/did-climate-change-cause-the-japanese-earthquake/
Warmest Regards
B0nz0
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps
US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists
worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct
from natural variation."
Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
"If climate has not "tipped" in over 4 billion years it's not going to tip
now due to mankind. The planet has a natural thermostat"
Richard S. Lindzen, Atmospheric Physicist, Professor of Meteorology MIT,
Former IPCC Lead Author
"It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you
have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your
side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is
wrong. Period."
Professor Richard Feynman, Nobel Laureate in Physics
"A core problem is that science has given way to ideology. The scientific
method has been dispensed with, or abused, to serve the myth of man-made
global warming."
"The World Turned Upside Down", Melanie Phillips
"Computer models are built in an almost backwards fashion: The goal is to
show evidence of AGW, and the "scientists" go to work to produce such a
result. When even these models fail to show what advocates want, the data
and interpretations are "fudged" to bring about the desired result"
"The World Turned Upside Down", Melanie Phillips
"Ocean acidification looks suspiciously like a back-up plan by the
environmental pressure groups in case the climate fails to warm: another try
at condemning fossil fuels!"
http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/threat-ocean-acidification-greatly-exaggerated
Before attacking hypothetical problems, let us first solve the real problems
that threaten humanity. One single water pump at an equivalent cost of a
couple of solar panels can indeed spare hundreds of Sahel women the daily
journey to the spring and spare many infections and lives.
Martin De Vlieghere, philosopher
"The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that
it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of
mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible."
Bertrand Russell
Wring Their Hands Over Two Nuclear Fatalities!
Already the greenies are circling like vultures ready to exploit this new
outbreak of anti-nuclear hysteria
The BBC, unsurprisingly, appears to have decided that potential nuclear
disaster is the single most important aspect of the entire story.
A "never let a crisis go to waste" opportunity to promote "renewable energy",
at the expense of energy that actually works: ie nuclear, gas, oil, coal
etc.
March 13 2011
Did mythical manmade 'climate change' cause the Japanese earthquake?
No.
But that hasn't stopped one or two unscrupulous environmentalists trying to
make the spurious connection.
Top prize for shamelessness goes to one Staffan Nilsson, president of an EU
offshoot called the European Economic and Social Committee.
The earthquake and tsunami will clearly have a severe impact on the economic
and social activities of the region. Some islands affected by climate change
have been hit. Has not the time come to demonstrate on solidarity - not
least solidarity in combating and adapting to climate change and global
warming? Mother Nature has again given us a sign that that is what we need
to do.
Here's an environmental blog called Mongabay having a go:
http://news.mongabay.com/2011/0311-japan_tsunami_climate.html
Could the earthquake that triggered Japan's devastating tsunami be linked to
climate change?
While it's unlikely that scientists will be able to provide a definitive
answer anytime soon and Japan has long been a hotbed of seismic activity,
past research suggests there may indeed be a link between climate change and
earthquakes in some parts of the world
The eco website Grist had a valiant stab too with a headline "Today's
Tsunami: this is what climate change looks like." After getting a roasting
from some of its more scientifically scrupulous readers it then modified its
position with a couple of updates.
(But still decided to have its cake and eat it - as you'll see from the last
line of update 1)
Update:
The intent of this piece isn't to attribute today's tragedy to climate
change. Apologies to those whom I misled with the headline. It was meant
literally, as in: Tsunamis are inundations of shorelines and therefore have
impacts that resemble storm surges, which are one of the most immediate
threats of a warmer planet. In addition, climate change may cause tsunamis
directly, so it's possible we'll someday see more images like this as a
result.
Update 2:
Changed the headline (it originally read "Today's tsunami: This is what
climate change looks like") and updated the text to reflect the discussion
of the science and the framing in the comments.
There are also worrying signs that Japan's tragedy is going to be exploited
by greens in much the same way they exploited the BP Oil Spill: as yet
another Rahm-Emanuel-style "never let a crisis go to waste" opportunity to
promote "renewable energy"
(at the expense of energy that actually works: ie nuclear, gas, oil, coal
etc).
The BBC, unsurprisingly, appears to have decided that potential nuclear
disaster is the single most important aspect of the entire story. Its every
TV news bulletin is now filled aeons of waffling from environment and
science correspondent David Shukman on the state-of-play at the various
troubled nuclear plants.
Which might seem fair enough until you remember that in one town alone as
many as 10,000 people may have been killed by the earthquake and the
tsunami.
Compare and contrast this with the two fatalities so far in Japanese nuclear
plants. Perhaps this figure will rise but until it does, the coverage given
to what might possibly happen in Japan's nuclear plants - as opposed to the
far greater and very real and present disasters happening elsewhere in the
country - seems irresponsible, misleading and overdone.
Yet already the greens are circling like vultures ready to exploit this new
outbreak of anti-nuclear hysteria (which they've been stoking up, of course,
since the 1970s). Here's another BBC Environment Correspondent (sheesh, how
many have they got?) Richard Black:
However, possible implications outside Japan are already beginning to
emerge.
In Germany, scene of a big anti-nuclear protest on Saturday, Environment
Minister Norbert Roettgen suggested that safety systems at nuclear plants
would be analysed anew in the light of the Fukushima incident.
"This happened in a country with very high safety standards. the fundamental
question of whether we can guard against all dangers is now open again, and
we will address that question," he said.
In the UK, the Stop Hinckley pressure group has called for a halt to a
proposed new reactor at Hinckley Point in southwest England, on safety
grounds.
Environment groups are beginning to feature Fukushima in their energy
communications - and whatever actually happens at the site, it is likely to
become a major card in campaigns to promote renewable energy above nuclear.
Two days after the alarm was first raised about safety at Fukushima Daiichi
plant, uncertainty still surrounds the situation on the ground and the
status of the three reactors that were functioning at the time of Friday's
earthquake and tsunami.
Putting this into perspective:
in the last decade the wind farm industry, it turns out, has killed far more
people for far less electricity produced than the nuclear industry
Nuclear fatalities in the last ten years: 7
Wind farm fatalities in the last ten years: 44.
In those ten years nuclear provided thirty times the energy of wind. This
means in the last decade, nuclear has been around 200 times safer than wind
on an energy produced/accidents basis.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100079664/did-climate-change-cause-the-japanese-earthquake/
Warmest Regards
B0nz0
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps
US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists
worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct
from natural variation."
Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
"If climate has not "tipped" in over 4 billion years it's not going to tip
now due to mankind. The planet has a natural thermostat"
Richard S. Lindzen, Atmospheric Physicist, Professor of Meteorology MIT,
Former IPCC Lead Author
"It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you
have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your
side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is
wrong. Period."
Professor Richard Feynman, Nobel Laureate in Physics
"A core problem is that science has given way to ideology. The scientific
method has been dispensed with, or abused, to serve the myth of man-made
global warming."
"The World Turned Upside Down", Melanie Phillips
"Computer models are built in an almost backwards fashion: The goal is to
show evidence of AGW, and the "scientists" go to work to produce such a
result. When even these models fail to show what advocates want, the data
and interpretations are "fudged" to bring about the desired result"
"The World Turned Upside Down", Melanie Phillips
"Ocean acidification looks suspiciously like a back-up plan by the
environmental pressure groups in case the climate fails to warm: another try
at condemning fossil fuels!"
http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/threat-ocean-acidification-greatly-exaggerated
Before attacking hypothetical problems, let us first solve the real problems
that threaten humanity. One single water pump at an equivalent cost of a
couple of solar panels can indeed spare hundreds of Sahel women the daily
journey to the spring and spare many infections and lives.
Martin De Vlieghere, philosopher
"The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that
it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of
mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible."
Bertrand Russell