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.