Panic and upset as planes grounded, and it's nothing to do with Brexit. Gatwick airport, closed due to drones operated by desperate locals seeking relief from the noise and pollution. As it happens we stayed near Gatwick last year, at Long Acres campsite and the only thing that ruined our stay was that the campsite was directly under the Gatwick flight-path - noisy polluting planes flew over every few minutes or so, 24/7 - not exactly conducive to a relaxing holiday of peace and quite. So I hope the residents around Gatwick enjoyed at least some well earnt respite during the disruption to peoples desire to spend Christmas in Ibiza.
Long Acres campsite is in Lingfield, Kent and is about 8 miles from Chartwell House (the once lavish home of Winston Churchill). Anyway, as I said, being on Gatwick's flight-path reminded me of when I used to live in Egham, Surrey during the 80s. I recall jets flew over Egham about one every 15 to 30 mins or so and that was not continually over a 24hr period - even Egham was spared the misery of continual aviation.
We now have a worshipped 16yr old Greta Thunberg and the rise of Extinction Rebellion - whilst I agree with their fundamental point abt the need to scale-back human activity, I worry that their method of delivery leaves something to be desired. However, you have to ask yourself; how long can we continue trashing the planet? Having said that, I don't immediately subscribe to the doomsters suggestion that every climate event is somehow directly attributable to human agency. Take the recent Australian fires - the media would have us all believe that it's all down to global climate change - yet there were no such fires in other equally hot parts of the world. I've not yet heard a reasonable explanation for that - as I understand it, there is to be an investigation into the fires because over 200 people were arrested for arson offences.
Then we have the EU and their core principle of the freedom of movement of millions across the continent of Europe - how is that compatible with environmentalism? I've put that question to a number of environmentalists, Green Party and Extinction Rebellion activists and errr, no reply for an answer. That is because, it isn't compatible in any way shape or form and they don't want to be seen as anti EU.
The following was written in 2007 and published on my MySpace blog. Some of the language is a little on the ripe side - you have been warned!
Climate Change 2007
What troubles me about this whole debate, if you can call it that, is that if anyone dares to question the alleged globally accepted wisdom of climate change scientists they are more or less treated as holocaust deniers, fringe lunatics on the very edge of sanity. Here in the UK environmentalism is getting very evangelical and is actually on the cusp of being legally viewed as a religion. It will mean that you cannot be fired/sacked or even made redundant if you happen to have certain unspecified deeply held beliefs about the environment. Another thing is that whenever broadcasters debate this issue, rarely is that debate balanced, by that I mean they never manage to find a scientist, and they do exist, to put a counter argument to this whole climate change issue. By that I mean no one is arguing that the climate doesn't fluctuate; the issue is whether or not, or at least to what extent humans are responsible for climate fluctuations.
As I see it the problem is a real dichotomy for the creatures who aim to control us all, because you cannot on one hand support the perpetual growth of the human population and talk about raising living standards etc. whilst simultaneously delivering the necessary actions required to save the planet. That is simplifying it I know because there are so many complex forces all pulling in different directions. Because of this I believe that multi-property owning energy munching politicians should just shut the f**k-up. I also believe that whatever they say about the importance of this so-called new Copenhagen Treaty, will be, and is already proving to be, total bollocks. This treaty will undoubtedly lead to a festival of utterly stupefying legislation that'll drive us all nuts. They say it's important; no it isn't, not really. What'll happen is that a few people/companies/countries, will become incredibly rich on the back of their carbon trading policies because the commercial world is simply not able to operate within their parameters, as set out no doubt in said treaty. If the environmentalists are to be believed then we need zero emissions now. In 2007 the target year was 2020. But the thing is politicians simply won't tell us the truth because zero emissions or even lowering emissions to any great extent in the short term means the end of capitalism, the end of industrialisation and the end of life as we know it.
I am not going to be the first person to say this but anyone serious about saving the planet would not be using the Internet, inconvenient I know but imagine how much energy it requires, the world over. I suppose new technologies will emerge and the mighty Personal Computer will become evermore eco-friendly but I say why can't we do this now, why can't we utilise the energy from existing internet usage? As we all know approximately 95% of internet traffic is pornography, so why not harness this energy somehow, channel this raw energy into the flux capacitor, so to speak, from the heat generated by our genitals? There's a thought, the new Dell Genitalia, has a certain ring to it, no? Anyroad, take Microsoft touch-screen technology, in just a few years that could really take-off. As this technology develops I can envisage computers that look and feel exactly like a real woman or real man depending upon your particular sexual persuasion. The interesting thing though, for me, is to predict when precisely the scientists take a step back and think: hang on, why don't we use real women? There we are, full circle as usual, meanwhile yet another giant whole in the ozone layer has been created and the bloody scientists get to blame someone else.
I remember during the last general election campaign fiasco I was innocently drifting through the high street, trying to ignore the pain caused by my wife's shopping expedition, when I suddenly happened upon a particularly enthusiastic Green Party candidate. Nothing annoys me more than misplaced left-wing over enthusiasm. Anyway, unfortunately I was feeling slightly argumentative and for no apparent reason decided to engage. As I understand it, he was basically saying that the planet is being destroyed by global warming, sea levels are rising and we're all about to drown in a tidal wave of our own shit and the road to salvation is to vote for him, sort of thing - an apocalyptic sermon as it were. Eventually I managed to get a word in. I suppose the look on my face must have said it all because the small gathering suddenly became very quiet, a hushed silence you might say. I started by saying that you could fill the UK Parliament with Green Party MPs and it wouldn't make a scrap of difference to what you describe as global warming, or if you want to be more precise, the rate at which the earth is heating up as a direct result of human agency, of which there is no real evidence and in point of fact there is no real evidence that C02 (carbon dioxide) drives the earths climate anyway. I swear you could actually see steam coming out of this blokes ears, it was almost like saying to a born-again Christian well if your particular god does exist he's a bit of a c**t, look! Spina bifida!
Why, he said. CHINA, that's why. The Chinese are opening three new fossil fuel driven power stations every week! Ah, he said, we need to set an example. Really? You totally over estimate the potential British input here, we are a tiny sod of earth just off the coast of France, what possible difference could we make? I don't think there are many foreign countries that'll be willing to take any lessons from the British. I honestly think some of these environmentalists have a sort of Harry Enfield Look Listen and Take Heed Cholmondeley Warner hallucination as to the size of Britain's influence on these matters.
I digress, anyway even if we were to comply with your every fantasy and people en-masse start spending small fortunes on having solar panels and wind turbines etc. Oh and those bloody silly low energy light bulbs the only people that would benefit are those with all their money invested in the making of the sodding stuff. In any case, as I've said, there is no real evidence that it is human agency causing climate fluctuation. The fact is that the earth's climate has been in a state of flux since the dawn of time, humans have only been here five minutes, in geological terms.
Study of pollen has proven that the climate here in England during the Bronze Age was in fact warmer than it is now. Go back even further in time say 500,000 years and here in Devon the climate was virtually sub-tropical, I'm told we had creatures such as Elephants and even Lions wandering around. What global warming, I'm freezing my nuts off here, why do I have to insulate my home if the world is going to be a bit warmer? Well apparently here in the UK it's going to get colder, I'm sorry, they've lost me there! How do they explain these anomalies in America? Are they telling you that Fred Flintstone ran his monster truck on unethical fart power? Talking of which, there's also growing concern that mans obsession with all things bovine and the inevitable consequence (cow poo, or to be precise methane) of the meat industry is also having an adverse effect on the climate. It was reported on the BBC News that scientists in India are recommending that people should eat less meat. As a vegetarian I say stop eating meat by all means but don't subject me and my friends to a bewildering array of insane environmental regulations based on the so-called scientific dodgy dossier evidence dreamt up by various government scientists with their fingers in the till. They'll say anything for money, look at the oil company Shell or the tobacco industry, they paid scientists a fortune just to say exactly what they wanted to hear. Take it from me, you ARE being manipulated and lied to. Oh, you don't believe me? Then take a look at this recent article entitled:
Climate Scientists Accused of Manipulating Global Warming Data
In any case, if cows were the main cause of excessive greenhouse gasses what on earth would Brontosaurus farts do to the planet? They must have caused one hell of a hole in the ozone layer over a period of 600 million years, how did it repair itself then? Did the dinosaurs have solar panels and low energy light bulbs? Were they recycling and washing out their Marmite pots? Maybe it was Fred Flintstone after all, bloody Americans! WILMA!!! Perhaps Fred had one too many Pteranodon curries which culminated in a critical green house gas event in his pants? Rectaloxide (ROX) being the hitherto unaccounted for green house gas in dinosaur extinction folklore. That would've been the final straw for the dinosaurs in my view, just one fart too many and - BOOM!
Global Warming (part two) 2008
low and behold as soon as I publish part one of my blog on global warming BBC Radio4 attempt a discussion with an actual sceptic about how British scientists at the University of East Anglia are manipulating the data to make their science support their global warming theories. Apparently the alleged stolen emails from the Universities Climate Research Unit reveal that figures on global warming were actually changed to exacerbate the threat. The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has told the BBC it is taking the matter very seriously and will investigate the emails. Take it from me, this will be yet another white-wash. According to the BBC, Saudi Arabia has said that the emails will have a "huge impact" on the talks and that countries will now be unwilling to cut emissions. Philip Stott, emeritus professor of Biogeography at the University of London, and environmentalist and writer Jonathon Porritt have discussed whether the row could have the potential to derail the Copenhagen climate talks.
According to Professor Stott scientists are apparently becoming very defensive about their positions especially when the science leads to a change in government policy and the inevitable spending of huge sums of public money. There has been the creation of other scientists outside the climate science fraternity with other ideas and theories which contribute to climate change. These respected climate change scientists have become excluded voices. According to Professor Stott climate science is an inverted pyramid which rests on a remarkably small foundation and that climate science relies on just a few people, perhaps just 30/40 scientists/researchers. If any of the science is proven to be questionable then the whole of that pyramid in effect, collapses.
Jonathon Porritt had to admit that the integrity of the science had been severely damaged but then accused Stott of slightly over egging the case about the inverted pyramid metaphor, because the research is based on thousands of pieces of evidence that is happening in the climate now i.e visible evidence like polar ice-caps melting and so on. Professor Stott's riposte was that simply seeing things happen does not necessarily give us an idea of cause. In other words you are going to have climate change no matter what happens. Professor Stott went on to explain that temperature and Co2 are driven by the hydrological cycle - water vapour - so to suggest that melting polar ice-caps is caused by rising co2 levels is in fact a false correlation.
Professor Stott reckoned that the really crucial aspect about the leaked emails is the political impact more than the science because prior to the Copenhagen summit there was a private meeting between China, India, Brazil and South Africa setting a unique agenda that not all politicians have grasped. These countries have apparently agreed to walk out of the talks if they don't get what they want. Jonathon Porritt had to agree that the impact was profound and that there are lots of countries who will take a stand based on their national interests and that they don't want deep cuts or to find a different way in order to live in a low-carbon world.
Finally, professor Stott said that there is undoubtedly an element of human influence on climate change and that in so complex a system managing one factor at the margins will not produce a predictable outcome. Because of this the whole agenda should change to how do we adapt to change - hot - cold - wet - dry. Putting a vast amount of resources in trying to produce a given result is the inherent danger we face because the politicians do not really grasp the complexities of climate science.
To a simpleton like me what Stott is saying here seems to be perfectly reasonable given that scientists now accept that the earths temperature has not increased in the last ten years. Scientists appear to be basing their global warming theories on the assumption that the earth's temperature has gradually risen over the last 100 years by 0.75% degrees centigrade and claim that the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation is largely to blame. Scientists can't even agree on what was the hottest year in the last 100 years, some say 1998 and others 1934. Anyway, if you consider how people lived during the first part of the 20th century i.e most houses across Europe were heated with open coal fires etc. this is obviously no longer the case. With this in mind, if it is being claimed that the 0.75% is the human contribution it would be interesting to find out whether or not the devastating effects of say two World Wars, Vietnam and Chernobyl, are being factored into this 0.75% increase in temperature, in other words what percentage of that 0.75% is directly attributable to said factors? If it is, then what about a natural phenomenon like volcanic activity and Sun spots?
The real answer is that they simply don't know. Humans clearly contribute to green house gas emissions but are not the sole cause of climate change, which is inferred in the way in which the case is being presented by the politicians and some journalists. That said, I do believe that even if it were proven beyond doubt that humans could overt disaster by decreasing green house gas emissions and counteract gas emissions caused by natural events it is still worth cleaning up our act. What I disagree with is the way all the so-called experts are recommending we achieve this, because the answer is bleeding obvious. Have less children, stop deforestation. That's it folks..no need for wind farms, solar panels, electric cars and everything else that's going to be rammed down our throats over the coming years. The thing that most concerns me is that in the face of conflicting evidence the politicians only concern themselves with how they are going to be able to persuade the public to embrace a low carbon economy, whether we actually need it or not.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
In conclusion of recent events I still say that whatever the main cause of Climate Change, destroying our environment with wind turbines etc. simply cannot be justified and my last point in 2008 still stands. Higgs Boson™ 🎹
PS. Amazon Music is offering a good deal - click the banner below
