Tuesday, September 25, 2007

[climate change] blame the right people

An average of 79% of respondents to the BBC survey agreed that "human activity, including industry and transportation, is a significant cause of climate change".

Now, before you click out, write an angry rebuttal or whatever, wait just a minute. I don't believe this at all. For a start, I don't trust the BBC in its selection of sample, I don't trust its agenda and I don't trust its conclusions.

Also, I think we've been a bit a-s- end about on this on this site and arguing heatedly against each other when the real target is getting off scot free. Seems to me that the argument is all wrong. Clearly the government [= big business and finance] wants it to be so, so they can hit the little man over the head with a big stick.

So the little people band together and find 500 scientists to say:

1. there is no climate change;

2. even if there is, it's not the fault of humans.

But something [don't call it climate change if you don't want] is happening and it is the fault of humans. The only question is - which humans?

Those who enabled decades of unrestrained industrialization first, closely allied with government and big money contracts, followed by farmers, followed by the Chinese and other primitive coal burning societies, followed by the automobile.

In all this, the government has failed to set attainable targets and failed to move hell and high water to achieve them, as they would do if it was a war they were interested in. The people behind the government are the more cynical - existing for short term gain [the Alisha the Hutts of the world] but knowing full well the long term consequences.

Then there is intent in certain quarters [Ephesians 6:12] but we needn't insist on this point at this moment.

Then there are projects like Woodpecker and HAARP and the Chinese one which only surfaced in relation to the Olympic Games. And if you read all of these, in detail, it is not insignificant, it does try to replace the ionosphere with billions of metal rods and they are playing god. Read the literature for yourself .

What the blogosphere is up in arms about is that these same people are then turning around and blaming the little man for being induced into an unsustainable lifestyle which both government and backers knew full well had to be restrained but would never do because of both votes and the greater world agenda.

That's what this thing is about - the culpability of the MIC and its attempt to slide the blame off onto the common man and leave him with both the devastation, the cost and the guilt.

Very clever.


  1. Very true.

    Recently when leaving Fulham tube station I was accosted by some people campaigning against climate change, some hard-core lefties but decent enough people. In their midst was a young lady who had just graduated from Oxford who was about to start a PhD in Climate studies. Anyway I got chatting and pointed-out that any effort we made would be eclipsed by Chinese growth and how globalisation was driving the problem. Within minutes I had a small audience and with the Oxford graduate's backing all [initial] class prejudices were left behind. In spite of the depressing conclusion it was a gratifying meeting of minds.

  2. Quite apart from what you say, Wolfie, you are an amazing man.

  3. I completely agree with you, James. I think I need a gin and tonic!

  4. It does concern me, because of the effects of the simple equation C+O2 = CO2.
    I think I have pointed out before, the Oxygen we breath is the result of two billion years of orgainisms converting Carbon from the atmosphere into fossil fuels.

    Nevertheless, the fact remains I don't think we shoule be negative and Luddite in our approach.

    WWe should accept Human existence IS changing our Ecosystem, and learn to treat as a chemical environment.

    We need to push forward in developing technology to regulate the atmosphere.

    Which if course, we need anyway, if we are ever to make use of the neighbouring rocks.

  5. Welsh - a g&t is just what the doctor ordered.

    Crushed - technology for fresh air - interesting.

  6. I feel like a person sitting near the net position at a tennis match on this issue.
    One thing I do believe is that we cannot not go backwards but must solve the problems using technology and some restraint.

  7. Here's a scenario:

    Britain may well achieve its CO2 reduction targets. Given enough taxation and regulation, what's left of our dirty, scruffy manufacturing industry will close down or relocate abroad.

    The ensuing national poverty will then force most of us out of our cars and onto buses.

    The good news is that with lots more unemployment and no car, we'll have lots more time to drink, and won't get booked for DUI.

    Every day, I pass crowded pub tables on the pavement in my (what used to be) artisan neighbourhood, next to the bookies and the knock-off shop, and wonder how the underclass manage to have so much more leisure and drinking vouchers than me.

    Clearly the middle-class model doesn't work. We're just far too clever and busy to notice.


Comments need a moniker of your choosing before or after ... no moniker, not posted, sorry.