Sunday, 24 April 2016

The Conversation - NOT

Post by Anthony Cox

Tyrants and fundamentalists have a defining quality. They are intolerant of criticism. Islam killed its critics at Charlie Hebdo and brave individuals like Ayaan Hirsi Ali are under permanent death threat because of their truth telling about Islam.

Alarmists are not at the stage of Islam; yet. But they censor, censor, and censor; alarmists accuse sceptics of insanity, of mental disorder; they want to jail sceptics, lock up sceptics, sue sceptics; Judges want to use the law to stop sceptics; Gore and 17 democrat US state A-Gs are going to sue Oil companies to find out when they knew about AGW; and academics want the death penalty for deniers.

Maybe alarmists are as bad as the Muslims.

In Australia under the Rudd/Gillard governments the Finkelstein report attempted to muzzle discussion about alarmism.

The reason for this suppression and aggression is two fold; 
  1. firstly alarmists are fundamentalists; and 
  2. secondly their theory (sic) has no credibility; they cannot defend it by the usual rational discourse of science so they behave as all fundamentalists do.

The Conversation is part of this fundamentalism and typically it is funded by the public while censoring the public. Many of my fellow sceptics are subject to oppression at The Conversation as I have been in the past.

In a recent post at The Conversation by Marc Hudson this trait of censorship is endorsed. The general theme of the Hudson essay is that fossil companies knew about alarmism in the 1970s and have been complicit in preventing information about alarmism from getting out. There are a number of ironies in this puerile essay.

Firstly big oil has been a supporter of alarmism. This support is to no doubt to mute the hysteria of alarmism and also to be in the queue for subsidies for renewable energies. The fossil companies have not distinguished themselves by standing up to the alarmists as their support for the chimera of CO2 capture and clean coal has shown.

Secondly in the 70s the prevailing theory from the hysterics was an impending ice age.

Before the cooling hysteria of the 70s both cooling and warming had been previously predicted by the alarmists. The only consistency in alarmism is that it is wrong and never concedes that it is wrong.

Hudson ignores the pathetic failures of alarmism and gloats about the imminent demise of coal because of Peabody Coal’s Chapter 11 Bankruptcy petition. This is glaringly wrong. Coal continues to be the world’s dominant power source. Brendan Pearson, chief executive of the Minerals Council describes the comparison between fossils and renewables:
 Let’s do the maths. Last year wind and solar ­energy produced the equivalent of nine days of global primary energy needs. Coal produced 109 days and fossil fuels combined produced 313 days of the world’s ­annual primary needs. Despite all these power sources, 1.3 billion people still missed out on electricity and a further 1.7 billion only had partial access.
Pearson goes on to also point out the immorality of alarmism:
 Halting or limiting coal or fossil fuels output will simply mean that those with no or partial access to electricity would have to wait much longer in the dark.
This aspect of alarmism is often ignored. Alarmism is based on an assumed moral superiority. Alarmism is saving the world gloat alarmists. But in fact what alarmism is doing is condemning millions to energy poverty and even death. 

Alarmists are hypocrites.  

The hypocrisy is compounded when it may be the case that Germany the poster child of renewables is likely in the future to need coal powered energy from China which is building coal power stations.

The real reason that Western coal companies are struggling is not because the world is using less coal.

The reasons are the Saudis and OPEC are over-producing oil to wipe out the fracking boom particularly in the US which along with Australia has oil equivalent reserves potentially larger than those in Saudi Arabia

Secondly China has been stockpiling coal in the recent down turn ; that down turn has passed and China’s usage is increasing again.

Naturally Hudson endorse the plan by Gore and his 17 democrat A-G’s to sue the fossils via the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI). But Gore’s censorship is typical half-baked alarmism. As Hans von Spakovsky notes:
Walker (the A-G initiating the action) didn’t actually get a court in the Virgin Islands to issue the subpoena; he simply issued it himself. 
Subpoenas that are not issued by a “court of record” and that are not part of a “pending judicial action” cannot be domesticated in another jurisdiction like the District of Columbia where CEI is located and was served with the subpoena. This is the type of basic error that one might expect from a young law firm associate, not the attorney general of a U.S. protectorate. 
But more fundamentally, CEI is objecting on First Amendment grounds, citing to court cases prohibiting the compelled disclosure of the type of information and documents that Walker is trying to obtain. Grossman claims that the subpoena “violates the First Amendment because it constitutes an attempt to silence and intimidate, as well as retaliate against, speech espousing a particular viewpoint with which the Attorney General disagrees.” 
CEI asserts that the subpoena is also “invalid because the underlying investigation is pretextual, is being undertaken in bad faith, is intended as a fishing expedition, and is in support of an investigation of charges that have no likelihood of success.”

Hudson’s pitiful article is in itself of no importance. But it is symbolic because it continues the attack by alarmism against science, truth and the best interests of humanity.

The Conversation is anything but a conversation and should be defunded immediately.

No comments:

Post a comment

All serious comments published after moderation.
Comments should be polite, and respect all views.
No bad language. Spam never makes it!