• Banging my head against a wall

    Via an old Steynpost, I find out the following from James Dellingpole:

    It was once conservatively estimated (by blogger Richard North) that the cost of propping up the global warming industry since 1989 was equivalent in real terms to five Manhattan Projects. But that was back in 2010, since when spending on green boondoggles (eg the Obama ‘stimulus’) has risen exponentially, so we’re likely looking at ten Manhattan Projects now.

    A good chunk of that spending has, of course, gone towards “educating” the public.

    If you hear a distant howl, of prolonged suffering and frustration, that was me.

    I’ve been calling for a Manhatten project to find alternatives for oil for a long time.  Now I find out that the Green movement has had that coin, but has thrown it away ‘educating’.

    Just imagine if that cash had been spent somewhere where it would have done some good.  We might already be producing all our energy from nuclear power, and be off oil – and this would allow us to, metaphorically, moon the Saudi monarchy into the sands.

    This is why I do not believe in big government solutions to global warming.  The argument seems to be generally divided between those who think that global warming is a serious problem and those who think that the green agenda is trying to impose a strangling, centralized tyranny.

    I’m with both of the above.  I take my disaster visions supersized.  I think it would be perfectly possible for the green movement to impose a strangling, centralized tyranny and for us to be still stuck with catastrophic levels of global warming.

    Category: APGW

    Article by: The Prussian

    • alfanerd

      I’ve never been convinced that CO2 will lead to catastrophic levels of global warming (in that respect, I appreciated your attempt to make a case for it here, but I still dont see evidence that CO2 warming will be catastrophic). But it’s rather clear that the green movement is all about imposing an undemocratic world government.

      With respect to manhattan-project style engineering projects, I believe there is a ton of money being spent all over the world on nuclear fusion. But that’s obviously a very tough nut to crack. I hope to see it in my lifetime. Im not sure that the money wasted on “raising awareness” would have made a big difference.

    • nicky

      It is not a question of being convinced: many a Christian is not convinced that natural selection can cause new species to arise, many -from both left or right- cannot be convinced that MMR does not cause autism.
      We have the facts as pointed out by an overwhelming majority of scientists investigating the matter -and since not a climate scientist myself , I have to take it on their authority. In other words: global warming is real, and it is caused by human burning of fossil fuels. (Note, I do not think that the burning of fossil fuels is some kind of evil, after all, it led to the industrial revolution, and modern society, with low child mortality, modern science and technology, etc. would not have been possible without it).
      “Raising awareness’ would or could have been a good thing, if that awareness would have translated into using energy significantly more sparingly. Alas, it did not , and hence I think the Prussian’s point is valid.
      Although I’m not into ‘Lomborg-bashing’, coming originally from a country whose surface is for a third below present sea levels, I think that the consequences are not to be dismissed lightly.
      I fully agree that the “Manhattan” sized funds would have been better spent on alternative sources of energy (i.e. nuclear and solar -the latter one the only ‘renewable’ source that does not need unacceptable amounts of land ‘surface’).

    • nicky

      Note, I think that the ‘green movement’ is genuine in its worries, I think that dismissing it as “all about imposing an undemocratic world government” is a lunatic fringe conspiracy theory.