Below is a link to a new video from Paul Burgess which highlights the fallacy at the heart of carbon capture and storage which is the massive cost of it in terms of the amount of CO2 which it could remove. It will drive up the cost of energy and practically everything that we make or consume. Those nations which do not go down this route will have a much lower cost of living. Here is the link:
Exposing Green Energy Propaganda Cut 2 (youtube.com)
via climate science
August 15, 2024 at 01:30AM
Ed. Note: This is Part 5 of a six-part series on the ideology of environmentalism and its incompatibility with the foundational individualist philosophy of the United States. Part 1 is here. Part 2 is here. Part 3 is here. Part 4 is here.
“Yes, we too are part of nature; but our nature is that of a developer…. It’s morally appropriate for us to regard the rest of nature as our environment—as a bountiful palette and endless canvass for our creative works.”
The basic premise of preservationism is that all of nature—except, of course, human nature—has “intrinsic value” in itself, and thus a “right” not to be affected by Man. But this premise, which is the moral core of modern environmentalism, is a colossal fraud.
The simple little question that punctures the balloon of intrinsic value is: Why? Why is the status quo of nature good in itself? No one has ever offered an intelligible answer.
To declare that a Northern spotted owl, a redwood tree, or the course of a river has “intrinsic” or “inherent value in itself,” is to speak gibberish. There’s no inherent “value” or “meaning” residing in nature, or anything else. “Value” presupposes a valuer, and some purpose. It’s only in relation to some valuer and purpose that something can be said to “have value.” Thus, there’s no such thing as “intrinsic value.” The concept is meaningless.
In addition, while animals and plants do pursue values that further their lives, they do so automatically: they cannot choose to ignore their genetic programming. Without the conceptual capacity to think, to project various future possible outcomes, and to choose among them, they reside outside the realm of morality and meaning. That’s because moral values and meanings can only be created and imposed upon an otherwise meaningless nature by a volitional, conceptual consciousness—that is, by a human being.
All life on earth is relational, and in the struggle to survive, often competitive. Relative physical and mental abilities afford each species varying competitive survival advantages and disadvantages. In this, humans are terribly vulnerable: they can’t compete physically with animals that are stronger, faster, and equipped with superior senses and natural weaponry. Humans distinctively survive only by utilizing their single unique advantage—the power of reason—in order to adapt the rest of nature to themselves. This means that even to subsist, Man must necessarily, unavoidably use and disrupt animals and their habitats, transforming these natural resources into food, clothing, shelter, and tools (capital).
Yes, we too are part of nature; but our nature is that of a developer.
As the only entity on earth having both the conceptual ability to define “good” and “evil,” and the power to choose between them, Man is the only natural source of moral values—and of meaning. The environment, then, acquires moral value and meaning only insofar as it’s perceived, developed, used, and enjoyed by human beings. That’s why it’s morally appropriate for us to regard the rest of nature as our environment—as a bountiful palette and endless canvass for our creative works.
To Enlightenment thinkers, this was Man’s power and his glory. To environmentalists, however, Man is the only thorn in an otherwise perfect Garden of Eden. But again—why? By the only moral standards there are—ours—human creativity is not a vice, but a virtue; our products are not evils, but—literally—“goods”; and the term “developer” is not an epithet, but a title of honor.
If we reject the idea of nature’s intrinsic value, we may also reject its corollary: the notion that animals have inherent rights not to be bothered by people. Rights are moral principles that define the boundary lines necessary for peaceful interaction in society. Any intelligible theory of rights presupposes entities capable of defining and respecting moral boundary lines. But since animals are, by nature, unable to know, respect, or exercise rights, the principle of rights simply can’t be applied to, or by, animals.
Practically, the notion of animal rights entails an absurd moral double standard. It declares that animals have the “inherent right” to survive as their nature demands, but that Man doesn’t. It declares that the only entity capable of recognizing moral boundaries is to sacrifice his interests to entities that can’t. Ultimately, it means that only animals have rights: since nature consists entirely of animals, their food, and their habitats, to recognize “animal rights,” Man logically must cede to them the entire planet.
All animals may be equal in animal rights theory; but—as Orwell quipped in Animal Farm—some animals are more equal than others.
This environmentalist double standard applies to humans not just in our relation to animals, but also in our relation to all of nature. If a hurricane erodes miles of seashores—well, that’s nature for you; if a man bulldozes a beach to build his home, however, that’s a desecration. If the Mount St. Helens eruption destroys hundreds of square miles of timber, that’s natural; if a man clears a patch of that very same forest in order to raise his crops, that’s a biological holocaust—and he’s contributing to global warming, to boot. If a beaver builds a dam and floods a dry field, that’s an “ecosystem”; if a developer builds a duck pond on the same dry field, that’s an ecological atrocity, and the felon must be sent to the slammer.
Man the Creator
And this is where the second idea I mentioned comes in: the ancient notion that self-interested activities are morally tainted or evil.
There is only one fundamental alternative in the natural world: the alternative of life and death. Like all living things, we humans must act to further our own interests, or we perish. But—as I pointed out—unlike other living things, we cannot effectively compete as predators, with claws, fangs, speed, and strength. In order to survive and flourish in nature, we must produce what we need. We must use our unique reasoning powers to transform natural resources into the goods and services that sustain and enhance our lives.
Alone on a desert island, a man would realize immediately that the amount of his wealth is not fixed, but expands based solely on what he produces. However, in a complex economy built on trade, where direct causes and effects are harder to trace, it’s easy to forget that overall material abundance doesn’t exist in some fixed, perishable quantity. As a result, many believe that the economy holds only a limited supply of resources and wealth—like a pie of fixed size, so that if one person gets a bigger piece, his neighbor has to get a smaller piece. And so, to many, “self-interest” in the economy has come to mean not productivity, but getting something at the expense of others—acting not as a producer, but as a parasite, or even as a predator.
This premise—that the interests of men are inherently in conflict—is rooted in our tribal past. It’s the source of the myth that the pursuit of one’s self-interest must necessarily harm others. And that myth, in turn, has led to the corollary idealization of self-sacrifice: the belief that to reduce social conflict, the individual must be made to sacrifice his interests for the sake of others, or of the “greater whole.”
However, the premise isn’t true. The belief that human interests are inherently in conflict fails to take into account human creative intelligence. We aren’t fighting over a fixed or dwindling quantity of resources, or an economic pie of fixed size. That’s because we aren’t just pie consumers: we’re pie producers. By using our creative intelligence to develop previously idle resources, we create a bigger pie—then more pies—then better pies—then cake, as well.
The history of human progress is that Man takes things from nature, and by using his reason, transforms them into ever-increasing abundance. He does so with ever-greater efficiency, too, creating more values with fewer resources. And then he adds to his abundance by trading what he produces for other things that he wants. Both sides to a trade get something that they want more, by trading away something they want less. Such enlightened self-interest doesn’t require anyone’s victimization: free trade is a win-win situation.
Far from using up a fixed and shrinking amount of natural resources, then, Man’s rational intelligence produces a growing bounty of new resources from material previously considered to be useless. That is why centuries of Malthusian predictions about resource depletion, mass starvation, population outrunning resources, and the destruction of the planet have utterly failed to materialize—why global living standards and life spans have, in fact, been rising at an accelerating pace.
About the Author
Robert Bidinotto is an award-winning journalist, editor, lecturer, and novelist who reports on cultural and political issues from the perspective of principled individualism. Over three decades he has established a reputation as a leading critic of environmentalism.
As a former Staff Writer for Reader’s Digest, Bidinotto authored high-profile investigative reports on environmental issues, crime, and other public controversies—including articles on global warming and the 1989 Alar scare. His Alar article was singled out for editorial praise by Barron’s and by Priorities, the journal of the American Council on Science and Health. He authored a monograph, The Green Machine,and for several years ran a website (“ecoNOT”), both critically examining the environmentalist philosophy and movement.
Bidinotto’s many articles, columns, and reviews also appeared in Success, Writer’s Digest, The Boston Herald, The American Spectator, City Journal, The Freeman, and Reason. He served as the award-winning editor of The New Individualist, a political and cultural magazine, and as editor of publications for the Capital Research Center, a nonprofit watchdog group.
In 2011, Bidinotto began writing political thrillers. HUNTER—the debut novel in his Dylan Hunter series—soared to the top of the Amazon and Wall St. Journal bestseller lists. BAD DEEDS, the first sequel, dramatizes the evils and dangers of environmentalism. A number-one best-selling Audible political thriller, BAD DEEDS was named “Book of the Year” by the Conservative-Libertarian Fiction Alliance. Bidinotto’s thrillers are available on Amazon.
Learn more about Robert Bidinotto at his fiction website, “The Vigilante Author” and at his nonfiction blog.
The post Environmentalism or Individualism? (Part 5: The Value of Nature) appeared first on Master Resource.
via Master Resource
August 15, 2024 at 01:05AM
Can the media disguise the truth about where Kamala Harris and Tim Walz have stood on climate and energy?
via CFACT
August 15, 2024 at 12:17AM
Earlier this month, the Met Office claimed that climate change was causing a “dramatic increase in the frequency of temperature extremes and number of temperature records in the U.K.”. Given what we now know from recent freedom of information (FOI) revelations about the state of its ‘junk’ nationwide temperature measuring network, it is difficult to see how the Met Office can publish such a statement and keep a straight face.
The claims were the headline findings in the operation’s latest state of the U.K. climate report and are said to be based on “observations from the U.K.’s network of weather stations, using data extending back to the 19th Century to provide long term context”. That would be the network where nearly eight out of 10 stations are deemed by the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) to have ‘uncertainties’ – i.e., potential errors – between 2-5°C. The same junk stations that provide ‘record’ daily temperatures often in the same places, such as the urban heat furnace that is Heathrow airport. The same junk measurements that the Met Office uses to claim collated measurements down to one hundredth of a degree centigrade.
The WMO rates weather stations by the degree of nearby unnatural or natural temperature corruption. Classes 4 and 5 have possible corruptions of 2°C and 5°C respectively and these account for the vast majority of the Met Office sites. The WMO suggests that Class 5 should not be used to provide an accurate measurement of nearby air temperatures, yet nearly a third of the Met Office sites are classified in this super-junk category. Only classes 1 and 2 have no uncertainties attached and only these should be used for serious scientific observational work. But, inexplicably, the Met Office has very few such uncorrupted sites. Even more worryingly, it seems to show no sign of significantly increasing the paltry number of pristine sites.
Human-caused and urban heat encroachment are the problems, with extreme cases found at airports, which can add many degrees of warming to the overall record. But this has been known for some time, and it is a mystery why the Met Office has not done anything about it. Recent FOI disclosures reveal that over eight in 10 of the 113 stations opened in the last 30 years are in junk classes 4 and 5. Worse, 81% of stations started in the last 10 years are junk, as are eight of the 13 new sites in the last five years.
It’s almost as if the Met Office is actively seeking higher readings to feed into its constant catastrophisation of weather in the interests of Net Zero promotion. Whatever the reason – incompetence or political messaging – serious science would appear to be the loser. As currently set up, the Met Office network is incapable of providing a realistic guide to natural air temperatures across the U.K. Using the data to help calculate global temperatures is equally problematic.
Of course, the Met Office can rely on its helpful messengers in the mainstream media not to breath a word about this growing scientific scandal. The central plank of Net Zero fear-mongering is rising temperatures and claims that ‘extreme’ weather is increasing as a result. Temperatures have risen a bit over the last 200 years since the lifting of the mini ice age, the clue to the pleasant bounce being obvious to all. But this is not enough to force the insanity of Net Zero on humanity, so fanciful climate models and bloated temperature databases are also required. The compliant media are uninterested, but the cynicism and outright derision over the Met Office’s temperature antics are growing. The Met Office regularly posts on X and it cannot be unaware that a growing number of replies are less than complimentary. Last week, it announced the “warmest day of the year” based on measurements taken at Heathrow. The following are a few of the more polite comments it received:
What is it about LHR that could make it hotter than surrounding areas? I will give you a clue – concrete and hot jet exhausts maybe?
Real temperatures should be taken out in the open away from London.
…manipulating temperatures to fit the climate agenda.
Might as well measure inside an oven.
It’s all made up to fit your agenda.
I have a brighter red highlight in my fonts that I can lend you if you think the one you choose does not does not push the propaganda enough!
Remind us where you were taking temperature recordings in the last century, because it wasn’t on the roasting tarmac of airports.
Urban heat islands should not count and you know it but the grift continues.
In its recent annual report, the Met Office claimed that “our new analysis of these observations really shines a light on the fastest changing aspects of our weather as a consequence of climate change”. It is not just temperature data that is brought to the Net Zero table, but rainfall as well. The indefatigable investigative journalist Paul Homewood took a look at how the Met Office spun precipitation in a recent article in the Daily Sceptic. He agreed with the Met Office’s claim that rainfall has risen since 1961, but asked why that year was chosen to start the timeline. The graph below shows why.
England and Wales are rainy countries, but their island position in the North Atlantic leads to regular seasonal, yearly and longer-term decadal variations. The year 1961 fell within a drier interlude, and current totals are similar to those around the 1930s, 1880s and 1780s.
Helped by the widespread availability of satellite images and measurements, the Met Office does an excellent job in forecasting short-term weather and is of great benefit to shipping, the military, agriculture and the general population. But the state body funded by over £100 million a year is clearly riddled with green activists who, on the evidence that a number of sceptical journalists have presented, are using unreliable figures, carefully-curated statistics and inaccurate measurements to promote their own attachment to the insanity of hydrocarbon elimination.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor
via Watts Up With That?
August 15, 2024 at 12:05AM
Iowa Climate Science Education 