█ A short chain of correspondence was forwarded this morning. As far as I’m concerned Agenda 21 adherents with (fossilised) climate panic may fall off the Earth as soon as possible to good effect. Elizabeth Head-In-Sand, Site Admin
From: Calvin Oaten
To: Jinty MacTavish
Date: 5 April 2015 12:56 pm NZST
I thought you might be interested in reading this article. Eighty four pages, but I suspect the gist of it can be got from reading the last maybe twenty, if time is of the essence.
Jinty, I know your aversion to fossil fuels and can understand the argument. But it seems to me that we desperately need to continue to use energy to ‘sustain’ present needs of food and almost every detail of present day living. That, until technology can replace it is totally reliant on fossil fuels.
To suddenly turn off the taps so to speak, would almost destroy society as we know it. Buying time is the only option as I see it and precipitate action would be counterproductive. This might come as a surprise to you but I do care for the planet as well, but also the people on it. I am just frightened that the current moves, ostensibly to ‘save the planet’, might be premature. It is not as if the perceived disaster of Co2 increase in the atmosphere is a proven model, yet. One of the aspects that have been touted is that of imminent sea rise and runaway warming. It seems at present that neither have come to pass according to projections. That they might is still based on theories that while they could become valid (who am I to know) have yet to do so. We must wait.
Another claim is that we will be subjected to more and more ‘climatic events’ of disastrous moment like cyclone/hurricanes of increasing intensity due to this inherent warming. That I question as I have done some research into the history of ‘events’ past.
In no particular order this is what I found.
● 1900 Galveston Texas. Deadliest hurricane in US history, 8,000 killed, 145mph (233kph) winds.
● 1928 Okeechebee. 4,000 killed, category 5 160mph (260kph) winds.
● 1974 Darwin. Tracy, 240kmh winds, tremendous destruction.
● 1998 North American Ice Storm. Huge destruction.
● 1780 Great Hurricane of the Antilles. 20,000 – 22,000 deaths, winds probably exceeding 200mph (320kph). It ran from 10-16 October. Six continuous days! There were two other deadly events in that 1780 season.
Now for what it is worth in 1780 the industrial revolution had not started, coal as an industry was in its infancy and oil far in the future.
Further, 1780 was firmly in the Little Ice Age.
Oil was just found around 1900 when Galveston was hit. 1928 was still pre intense fossil fuel exploitation.
Jinty, I only want to make the point that just maybe we are jumping the gun here in the demonising of fossil fuels relative to our way of life. Which is it to be, destroy, or buy time till viable alternatives become feasible? A serious choice which ought not be made on whims or unsubstantiated theories.
Here is the attachment as suggested.*
*‘Perfect Storm: Energy, finance and the end of growth’ by Tim Morgan, Head of Global Research, Tullett Prebon. -Eds
On 5/04/2015, at 10:39 pm, Jinty MacTavish wrote:
On 5/04/2015, at 11:19 pm, “Calvin Oaten” wrote:
Love the informality of your intro.
Read it, Bill McKibben is firstly not a scientist, he is a lobbyist or rabble rouser. That’s OK and I believe his heart is in what he espouses.
That doesn’t make it right or wrong, just his opinions. As I maintain all along it’s a matter of reason not emotion.
Notice of course there is absolutely no mention or consideration of the ramifications on society if his dreams were to come true even over the longer term. That is my worry, the “What now”, when the taps are turned down not off. First comes the shortages, next comes the cost increases, then comes the hardships for the poor and middle classes struggling to meet their power bills and put food on their tables. That, Jinty is what I am alluding to.
All before there has been shown a glimpse of truth in the speculations of disaster. That you as a public leader, will wantonly subscribe to these policies on the strength of your emotions without considering the effects on your constituents in real time disturbs me as does the whole pressure thing as manifested. It is developing into a sort of ‘mob cult’ movement and I see needless hardship down the track as the one-per-centers perversely destroy the lower and middle class life styles. In fact, one could be excused for thinking it was a type of conspiracy centred on the United Nations plans for world government. Dismiss that as madness if you like but if you study the implications of the “Agenda 21” manifesto you might have cause to ponder just a little.
You not care to comment on my findings re weather events?
From: Jinty MacTavish
To: Calvin Oaten
Subject: Re: Energy
Date: 6 April 2015 8:48:45 am NZST
Dear Mr. Oaten,
As I have previously commented, I do not wish to engage with you in correspondence on this matter. The reason being, we have previously explored the topic in detail, over a number of emails, with our differences coming down to the fact that I believe it immoral to sit on our hands whilst over 97% of climate scientists, all but a handful of the world’s governments, and international bodies like the United Nations, agree we urgently need to do something about the matter (and that if we don’t, we are consigning future generations to untold misery). You, on the other hand, prefer to believe the UN is running a conspiracy and that Agenda 21 is some kind of giant plot for it take over the planet, and hold onto the words of the very small minority of (generally fossil-fuel funded) scientists who continue to deny action is required. And then you tell me it is a matter of “reason not emotion”? Wow.
As such, as I have previously stated, I think our positions irreconcilable, and I do not think it worth my time or yours to continue to email back and forwards on the matter.
Related Post and Comments:
14.7.15 DCC strategies needed like a hole in the head
Posted by Elizabeth Kerr