Sharing a car back from the BBC Big Question debate in Cardiff on Sunday I had a tremendous bust-up with one of my fellow panellists which I think many of you would have enjoyed hugely. (Our driver could barely keep a straight face.)
It was prompted when I very vocally expressed my disgust at one of the standard phrases trotted out by Warmists and other eco-loons in these debates (as, of course, inevitably, they did again on Sunday): the one about “preserving the planet for future generations”.
The reason this cant phrase makes me want to throw up every time I hear it is that it’s such a grotesque inversion of reality. It’s not people on my side of the debate who want to ravage the countryside with wind farms (with no provision for decommissioning them), rein in economic growth, introduce wartime-style rationing, raise taxes, destroy farmland and rainforests to create biofuels, and base heinously expensive public policy on hysteria and junk science. It’s not people on my side of the debate who are condemning those “future generations” to a lower standard of living and an uglier environment in order to deal with a problem that doesn’t exist. So how dare they have the gall to try to take the moral high ground?
Warming to my theme, I noted that there are now sufficient reserves of shale gas to power the US economy for the next five hundred years (at current consumption levels) and that after that we’ve got at least another five hundred years worth of viable energy from the clathrates (concentrated methane deposits) on the ocean floor. So that’s panic over for the next millennium at any rate.
Does anyone imagine that back in 1012 they were all agonising about how the children of the future might cope in 2012, what with all the scarce resources being used up at an alarming rate to make ships and spears and light warning beacons for the next Viking raid? Somehow I don’t think so. Yet this is precisely the kind of unutterable boll***s you hear being advanced almost every day by people like this liberal-leftie media type with whom I had my big row.
Bravo, James! You Should give the warmist, part of the same type of Hell that he’d give to his fellow countrymen, even though the warmists can’t IMAGINE they merit the blame for a world made dimmer. A world Dimmer due to their wish to quench the magical, soft, hopeful-glow of gas. They embody the “Scrooges” of the World, but they are far, far Worse, because no ghosts will visit them, so they cannot change. And if they can, they seek to make it so we ALL will not have, Tomorrow… money to buy an operation…or even a Christmas-goose! And the warmists HERE, in the ‘States, are trying to beat people into having GUILT for paying half of what the worthless, profligate, Fascist-EU inmates… pay for their gas, –as if paying MORE was a virtue we should hope to attain!
UN predicts the world population to increase, an increase would signify a stable agriculture , their report until 2300 comments more on the fear of climate cooling in the future due to natural causes.
UN concludes that population will peak at 8 billion in 2040 before rapidly declining. The population will never double again. This myth of overpopulation is as widely believed as Global Warming.
Huzzah to the Brits, who have a way of putting things that just works.
On the “future generations” theme, it seems reasonable to expect the gradual extinction of the warmist sub-population.
After all, if they truly believe their gospel, surely they will refrain from breeding?
By adopting celibacy/chastity they would: minimise their carbon footprint; reduce their burden on resources; eliminate both entirely when they fall off the perch; help to slow the population growth.
Lastly, if they truly believe their own projections, how can they countenance bringing children into such a world?
The future is bright….and the gene pool will be better too!!
Being rude to warmists is a public service.
The only thing better James would have been if you had delivered that harangue while your auto was stuck in a snowbank…
Sharing a car….
The eco-loon wasn’t walking or using mass-transit? Heretic!