September 6, 2014
OK Mr Beatty, so marketeering is frequently an exercise of exaggeration, manipulation or distortion of facts or concepts to convince the public of a need they didn't know they had.
Usually your columns are quite interesting and not overly given to such preaching, but dear me Ray, the distortions, assumptions, errors and deliberately misleading hyperbole of your wildly alarmist column in last Thursday's Herald Sun were a worrying departure from your usual moderate writings. And all this from your "holiday in August" !
Since global statistics from multiple sources have provided thoroughly factual evidence that despite moderate increases in carbon dioxide gases the earth has had no significantly measurable warming since 1997 (when alarmists accordingly ceased propagandising "global warming" and instead rebadged to the safer ongoing catch-all of "climate change"), proponents of the dismissal of such evidence and the adherence to the hand-wringing continuance of the concept of man's responsibility for the dooming of the planet have pursued their alarmism undeterred. And the worries of your northern European holiday has now been added, expressed as some sort of verifying fact-finding trip.
Let's look at some of your hyperbole:
* "Extreme weather patterns have hit repeatedly in recent years". Yep, just like they always have, from time to time, thoughout history.
* "If you ask Europeans to name their climate sceptics, they won't know what you mean". Garbage, Ray. That (among others) is too general to be even slightly credible.
* "For them (Europeans) climate change is a fact and a worry as ancient hills and towns are blown over or washed away". Really? Ancient hills? Whole towns? You omitted even one such example, and no such extreme catastrophy seems to have made the news.
* "To a man, or woman, they are committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions". Garbage, Ray. Again, too general to be even slightly credible. That certainly wasn't my experience (or that of anyone I know) in either Europe OR north America.
* "Around the houses"......etc....."you'll see solar panels everywhere". True: it's an attempt to power their homes for less than the excruciating supplied power costs in Europe. Denmark and Germany, for instance, with a high percentage of electricity generated by so-called 'renewable energy', have the highest per KwH charges in Europe, if not the world. But due to the solar panel proliferation for self-consumption of private power, Germany now actually taxes homeowners who have their own solar panels 4.4 euro cents per KwH. For large users of self-generated power the tax is 6.24 euro cents per KwH. Expensive, this renewable power. Anywhere.
* I must admit I had to laugh at the novelty of your hyperbole in your description of a driving (in Italy) experience as....."you'll see graceful (?!) wind farms in the Tuscan hills scattered on the Mona Lisa landscape, a delightful bringing-together of the Renaissance and the future" . Poetic Ray, but ridiculous.
One of the major concerns often of even those committed to the concept of 'renewable energy' is the blight on some of the world's most pristine hilltops and scenic coastal landscapes by gigantic rows of churning (if the wind happens to be blowing) windmills. You can't possibly be unaware of that.....or insensitive to it.
* Being critical to the point of rudeness (a common reactive characteristic of Climate Change religion adherents to any indicators of a contrarian viewpoint) of the Prime Minister and the Warburton Report and findings and recommendations regarding the Renewable Energy Target is, I suppose, your prerogative and a 'freedom of expression', but attempting to convince readers of your article that having been on holiday in Europe was enough to find justification for such sentiments is, at best, simplistic nonsense.
* "People want clean energy and will pay for it". They sure will, but not in the sense you are suggesting!
* "Cutting subsidies will make little difference anyway – the prices are already tumbling" Not if the recorded experiences of Denmark and Germany (and the less advanced – in the renewable energy sense – countries) are a demonstrable example.
* After having said that on your return trip you had ONE DAY in Shanghai, you assured your readers that "There, everone talks clean energy" . WOW, one day in a city with a population of some 25 million and you can make that assurance! As a generalisation, now that's impressive!
* You went on to write that the Chinese government "seems to announce action plans every few months" and "what they declare happens with blinding speed", your inference (and that's all it was) being that China is about to launch into a vast switch into investment in and use of renewable energy.
In actual fact, though the renewable energy share in China's power generation is targeted to reach 20% by 2020, “Grid companies lack economic incentives to take in more wind power, as government-dictated on-grid wholesale prices of wind power are higher than those of thermal power,” Meng Xian’gan, secretary-general of the China Renewable Energy Society, is quoted as saying.
That's why the Chinese government has long been concentrating on the non-stop building of increasingly high-tech, inexpensive-to-operate, dependable coal-fired power stations to cope with their country's increasing demands for reliable power. A brand-new one is opened every few weeks.
As I mentioned earlier, the constantly-demonstrated prerogative adopted by the Climate Change (nee Global Warming) religion's devotees in its response to anyone with – or expressions of – contrarian opinions is one of scorn, insult, ridicule, rudeness, abuse.....and often even combative outright lies in its blatent striving to supress debate on the subject ("The science is IN" is an oft-quoted, sneering dismissal). It is surprisingly rare to see or read similar demonstration or verbiage by the alarmists' opponents: the "deny-ers", the "flat-earthers", the ignorami, or whatever derogatary description is usually applied. You would recognise, from this article of yours, that you are no exception to the affliction, even if in a more moderated way: your description of the Prime Minister's opinion as "absurd", ".....our politicians' puny minds", and "Too many of our leaders, both business and political, are stuck in the 19th century with no imagination or understanding.....", etc. Really? And your understanding is superior?
Your article does you no credit, Mr Beatty.
Bryan Huntley
* Hi Bryan *
Thank you for your lengthy and thoughtful note. I have posted it to my blog for the benefit of others - among my readers I know I have climate change "deniers" and "believers", and personally I am a passionate believer in free speech so I am content to air both sides of the debate.
Unfortunately I don't have time to reply to you line by line but let me make a few points. As an Italian speaker I was able to watch the news and debates, read the press and discuss with people, and found that the issue was regarded as simple fact. In China I have a son, daughter in law and two grandchildren who have been there a decade, and I have frequently visited and holidayed with them - I spent last Christmas in Yunnan. And I can assure you that from the bottom to the very top, the prime concern is pollution and the nation's health.
The speed and level of the catastrophe is a debatable factor, but the fact that this earth is under threat from its dominant, profligate species is a fact. The question is what are we going to do about it - sit back and say nothing is happening, or at least take whatever measures we can to reduce the attack that we are generating.
* Ray *
No comments:
Post a Comment