Electrical power and global warming skepticism

[John McVey]

The news website of the government-owned Australian Broadcasting Corporation today reported upon the words made by one Doctor Ian Palmer, made at a uranium conference currently being held in Adelaide, South Australia. The title of the piece is "Energy 'collapse' will force nuclear use, says expert". It's top-line summary is "A professor of geology has warned there will be no option other than embracing nuclear power in Australia when other energy sources collapse."

What got my attention the most was not what Dr Palmer said but what the article did not say. Here we have a reputable scientist openly declaring that 'alternative' energy is a failure and that nuclear power is the only option when coal runs out, and that even in the mean-time our present activities are not contributing to global warming - yet a news outlet notorious for not being altogether objective is presenting a summary of his position straight, without any attempt to dilute the message by 'balancing' the doctor's position with comment from critics! It did not even draw attention to the fact, other than it's basic mention, that Dr Palmer is a geologist. "Consensus" in the public's eyes is already on the rocks, and this does certainly doesn't finalise the destruction, but you have just heard a crashing sound coming from the impending wreck-site arising from an almighty shove that an anti-nuclear pro-AGW organisation did nothing to mitigate.

What's also interesting is Dr Palmer's overt recognition that modern civilisation is a good thing. He recognises and supports the fact that the majority of people want civilisation, want their values, and want their modern conveniences. Yes, it's a shallow support for modernity that only by implication recognises the need for reason, but it is nevertheless clear that he and those he observes would rather be alive and prosperous than suffer from following the outrageous moral codes offered by the environmentalists. Dr Palmer is to be praised for identifying and supporting that much. What Dr Palmer needs is the proper recognition of the validity of reason and its applications, plus good ethical theory, that underlie modernity. One LTE coming up.

JJM

[John McVey]

Here is the LTE I just sent to The Advertiser, an Adelaide newspaper run by the News Corporation:

On Monday 17th March at a conference in Adelaide, Dr Ian Palmer demonstrated that nuclear power was the only alternative for when coal ran out. He should be praised for publicly pointing out that “alternative” energy is a failure. If we want to keep our modern civilisation then we have to have electrical power that can handle the load. Wind and solar just don’t cut it, and I thank Dr Palmer for saying so straight.

But to keep civilisation there is more we need than just the power of electricity. We need genuine respect for the power of reason by which scientists and engineers build. We also need genuine respect for our right to buy in trade the best that minds can offer so that we benefit from them. Civilisation critically depends on rationality and enlightened self-interest. They are what make electrical power (and all civilisation) possible by giving people thinking power and motivation power. Environmentalists hate science and our interests with an infernal passion. They want to “save” the environment not for us but FROM us. What they really want is return to primitive life in both mind and soul. Their absurd promotion of “alternative energy” is only a frog-boiling step in that direction. I therefore also thank Dr Palmer for stripping them of that fig-leaf, and for him supporting our RIGHT to civilisation.

JJM

Edit: dang, Plimer not Palmer.

Edited March 17, 2008 by John McVey

[K-Mac]

Nice response! :-)

[Galileo Blogs]

I concur. That is an excellent response. It calls attention to the fundamental issues that lie at the root of this debate.

[John McVey]

Thanks!

It wasn't in yesterday's paper and I haven't checked today's, so I don't know if it has been printed. Anyway, I emailed it to Dr Plimer himself, and he responded with a happy "cheers!", which is good

I also submitted it to Dr Binswanger. He pointed out that "enlightened" was a bad modifier because it meant self-interest tempered by some altruism. I wont be using that term again in a hurry.

JJM