Disney and Man-Made Global Warming.

Earth Hour with
Lady and the Tramp.

The Disney-fication of Nature

by Anthony Cox

Disney has a lot to answer for; he invented adorable Bambi and a thousand other equally cute animals, 
all of whom had endearing human characteristics, a process called anthropomorphisation.

Disney also made countless animal documentaries which featured animals acting like humans, being cute and as we see in Disney’s many successors, especially Attenborough, being noble, majestic, glorious etc.

What has flowed from this, not only through Hollywood and movies in general but also Western society, is a powerful notion that Nature is good, beneficial, generous and caring; and that humans bring shame and disaster on themselves when they contradict and despoil nature.

AGW is the ‘natural’ extension of this; ideologically, AGW has a lot in common with the Eden myth; nature and humanity were in balance until the ‘forbidden’ energy from fossils came along and now Nature is punishing humanity through climate catastrophe.

At base, therefore, AGW is a religion, certainly a belief, which is why it will persist long after the corrupt and bad science which supports it, is shown to be bad, as it already has been.

Beliefs can conquer common sense; certainly the believers in Nature being better will continue to extol renewable energy which cannot work. Miskelly and Quirk’s paper shows this perfectly. This paper deals specifically with wind but the principles are applicable to solar as well. All electricity sources have an installed capacity [IC] which is what the installation would produce if operating 24/7, a capacity factor [CF], which is the actual electricity produced by the installation as a % of the IC and averaged over a period, usually at least 3 months but often annually. The 3rd measure is the key and is called the reliability point [RP]. The RP is the probability that the CF will occur at any one time, expressed as a confidence level in % terms.

Looking at Table 1 we can see the 3 kinds of power output; if we use Cullerin range we can see that the IC is 30MW and their CF is 34% or 10.2 MW. That 10MW is the actual power produced as an average over a period, usually at least a 1/4. What the RP shows is the probability at any one moment of that CF occurring; for Cullerin it is 3%; so what that shows is that at any moment the odds of the Cullerin installation producing power is 34/100 X 3/100 = 0.0102 or negligible.

This is why renewables do not work; they are unreliable. If you replace reliable fossil, nuclear, hydro with renewable you end up with far less power and whatever power you have is too dear; and people die.

They die because that is what Nature is like; it is like having no electricity. This is why Earth Hour is not a symbol of how wonderful Nature is but how cruel life is when Nature is not restrained by electricity. The night-sky of Earth shows this starkly in the comparison between North Korea and the rest of the globe.

It is always Earth Hour in North Korea; North Korea has taken over the mantle of the agrarian revolution from Pol Pot’s ‘paradise’. Both of these places were deliberate show-cases of where people would live simple natural egalitarian lives; they are both as close to being Hell on Earth as you could get.

And this is why the resemblance of AGW and all it attendant ideology and symbols to the Eden Myth is so ironic. AGW is not about a paradise lost as in the Eden myth; it is about creating the opposite of a paradise; the return to the misery that being dependent on Nature would bring.

The evolution of humankind has been away from Natural constraints. Those constraints did not deliver a better way of life as is romanticised by the AGW believers and the Nature worshippers. A natural life is usually short, miserable and full of exigencies.

This is what has happened today with AGW and the reverence given to Nature. The reality of Nature has been replaced with an aesthetic of Nature. This goes beyond a rose-coloured perception of Nature; instead it is fundamentally confused about the fact that no matter what sophistic context you place on the meaning of Nature you can never get away from the fact that an aesthetic of Nature can only be realised from the disconnected reality of a civilised vantage point which has kept nature at arm’s length.

Humans who live according to the survival dictates of Nature have no time for generating an aesthetic about it beyond pagan invocations. For the primitive, Nature would be designated out of fear rather than decadence.
We see this fear in the supporters of AGW; for many the World is literally going to end; they are not helped when the leading scientific minds of AGW predict such violent doom and gloom, even to the extent that Earth will end up like Venus, The Venus Syndrone; a physical impossibility.

One can only speculate what motivates believers of AGW; we have seen its leading advocates make fools of themselves, lie and exaggerate [see comment 246 for an extensive list; a perusal of the tranches of emails from the University of East Anglia also shows the efforts to subvert the truth by AGW scientists], commit possible criminal offences and be ‘cleared’ in problematic enquiries, be arrested repeatedly and demonstrate levels of misanthropy which are startling, if for no other reason than their focus on children.

People have suggested that AGW belief and consequent reverence for Nature has produced a Noble Cause Corruption by its advocates. But there is an immense downside to this variation of “whatever it takes”. AGW belief has cost $billions, diverted and arguably corrupted scientific process and wasted time in developing real new energy sources. It’s harm has been incalculable.

AGW has also bolstered the misdirected worship of Nature and cast a pall over human endeavor and achievement. The elevation of Nature has resulted in a perception that humans are a blight, a disease and that Nature would be better off without us.

The fact that children are being taught such self-loathing and pessimism cannot be good for them. Nature is not a thing or a God, it is a set of processes; the environment humans live in does not nurture us. Science has told us that. Survival of the Fittest is a maxim of science. Everything humanity has achieved has been hard-won by keeping Nature at bay and surviving the tests Nature throws at us.

To that end Nature and it’s processes should be respected and as moral beings humanity should cherish other life forms; to worship the processes of Nature however, reverses this. And to reverse the advances made away from the stringencies of Nature will make no difference to Natural process but will make the world of difference to humanity.