Tuesday, 25 May 2010

Warmists Against Democracy

I caught some of a programme on Radio 4 last night - Analysis it was - in which a couple of warmists were roundly declaring that, in the face of what they saw as impending catastrophe, democracy might well have to be abandoned. One of them was our old friend Jim Lovelock. The presenter Justin Rowlatt questioned them robustly, and gave plenty of time to the opposing case, essentially that no such drastic measures could conceivably be justified by such uncertain science. But just supposing, by way of hypothesis, that at some point it was scientifically established beyond doubt (inasmuch as science can really establish anything beyond doubt) that (a) global warming was increasing to the point where it was an imminent threat to human survival, and (b) that the acceleration was due to human activity, and (c) that it could be stopped by human intervention - just supposing all of that - would it then be right to abandon democracy? Would we actually know what to do, and would abandoning democracy make it any easier in practice to do it? And would it, in the end, be worth giving up one of the great human achievements, one of the things that makes life livable, for the sake of maintaining the human population at its current extremely high level? Would the world we were reduced to by these drastic measures be worth saving? Perhaps, as Rowlatt suggested, democracy has already effectively been suspended in this cause, as all three electable parties have signed up to a near-identical green agenda - and, he might have added, the UK is already committed, without public consultation, to a legal process that, if carried through, will effectively destroy the economy (the notorious 80 per cent cuts in carbon emissions). I don't suppose that was what Lovelock had in mind when he chillingly declared humankind 'too stupid' to deal with climate change, but it looks pretty stupid to me.

11 comments:

  1. If global warming was proved to be real, I don't think humankind would want to do anything about it. Unless, of course, a green non-fossil fuel lifestyle could be adapted to the ITV game show formula. Then we might stand a chance...

    ReplyDelete
  2. First read Lovelocks Gaia on a plane to Portugal in the early eighties, went from sixteen to thirty degrees in less than three hours. Which is,as a piece of science fact as relevant as any of their guesswork.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Why is it a taboo question to ask if there might be some benefits of a rise in temperature?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hi, I am from Australia.

    Please check out this reference which, among other things, points out that human activity is the principal cause of both global climate change and warming too.

    www.dabase.org/p2anthro.htm

    Plus there are numerous other places in this book where the author repeats this fact.

    Plus another essay from the same book which gives a very sobering assessment of the state of the world altogether, and how we got to here.

    www.beezone.com/AdiDa/reality-humanity.html

    Plus a related site on the non-human inhabitants of this mostly non-human world.

    www.fearnomorezoo.org

    ReplyDelete
  5. who cares if the planet's warming up, when we're all going to be killed by merciless cyborgs anyway?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous

    I think you'll find that those references don't point out any facts, merely his conjectures.

    ReplyDelete
  7. and unreadable, gibberish conjecture at that.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Nigeness has a troll!An "anonymous" troll but a troll nonetheless. Very entertaining.

    ReplyDelete
  9. It's happening though; glaciers, sea levels, ice caps, animals and birds moving north. You just have to observe.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I didn't get out much last winter Mac - too bloody cold!

    ReplyDelete