Tuesday, June 30, 2009

Crap celeb endorsements of our time

I watched a laughable piece of celeb news last night (hey, it's not my fault if the nation's news media now consider celeb gossip to be news stories) about Keisha Castle-Hughes going on a Pacific tour to "document the effects of climate change," courtesy of Greenpeace.

Apparently, it's worth the carbon footprint of sending a boat around the Pacific Islands so that Castle-Hughes can hear old codgers claiming the weather was much better when they were kids, or witness the strangely localised effects of "sea level rise," because she's encouraging the Islanders to hassle John Key about the next Kyoto round when he visits.

"Greenpeace ... are using celebrities like Ms Castle-Hughes" (a direct quote!) to promote govts commiting to reduce carbon emissions by 40% by 2020. I'm not sure why this unrealistic figure was chosen over others (why not 80% by 2015?), but the previous Kyoto round should have taught Greenpeace something by now: getting govts to sign agreements is one thing, getting them to abide by them is another.

I don't actually have strong views either way on climate change (unlike my wife, who's a scientist and therefore has very strong opinions on the politicisation of scientific opinion going on in this area.) For one thing, I don't have the necessary skills to interpret the research (and given the politicisation of that research, you bet it needs interpreting). It certainly seems straightforward that if we continue putting CO2 into the atmosphere at the rate we are, it will cause changes and those changes are unlikely to be pleasant ones. Set against that though are various equally straightforward factors such as:

1. People won't voluntarily make drastic changes to their lives without some clear and present danger to force it.

2. Govts are accountable to the people, and their performance is measured to a great extent on the state of the economy. If responding to climate change = putting a serious brake on the economy, forget it.
In other words - if climate change really does start to have a clearly demonstrable and indisputable effect, then we might see some action. Before that? Nuttin.

10 comments:

The Prophet said...

You can bet she didn't take the slow boat all the way over there. I'm sure the many Greenpeace 'dignitaries' that accompanied her didn't either.

This is what cracks me up about these people. If they really believed they would never fly, junk their cars, cut off their power and start dressing in sackcloth. None of them seem to do that though.

As evidence builds for the Suns lack of activity being a major cause for changing climate conditions these people look more and more the fool.

I support Greenpeace in their stand against whaling and the work they do in educating and helping protect endangered species but this CC religion is doing their brand huge damage. They risk ending up looking like a crackpot similar to Bomber with his constant pronouncements of doom.

I do remember those long summers when I was a kid though and I'ms sure Petone beach used to be bigger.

alex Masterley said...

Who is this Castle-Hughes person?

Kevin said...

'celebrity'...lol

Colonel said...

I think she was one of the daughters on the Cosby Show?

Gooner said...

I don't actually have strong views either way on climate change (unlike my wife, who's a scientist and therefore has very strong opinions on the politicisation of scientific opinion going on in this area.)

Your wife is a smart woman Milt. Politicisation of lotsa things creates disasters for said lotsa things.

erikter said...

You have to feel sorry for the poor ignorant Castle-Hughes to be used this way by the Green Party.

Young uneducated Maori will fall into this trap.

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

I thought she was on Gilligan's Island.

FAIRFACTS MEDIA said...

She was once a Whale Rider!
Obviously, if she was given that discription today, Spanish Bride might not approve!! :)

WWallace said...

I, too, share your wife's concern about the damage to Science caused by the politicisation of global warming. Science is not a matter of "consensus". It is a matter of disproving hypotheses. And cooling global temperatures since 1998 while CO2 levels have continued to rise is an "inconvenient truth".

It certainly seems straightforward that if we continue putting CO2 into the atmosphere at the rate we are, it will cause changes and those changes are unlikely to be pleasant ones.

Not so. CO2 is plant food. Fertilizer. Without it, we all die. As a greenhouse gas, it is a trace element and as it increases in concentration in the atmosphere it has a diminishing additional "greenhouse" effect.

CO2 levels have been over 20 times higher than current levels in the past. Life flourished. No apocalyptic event happened.

WAKE UP said...

I wait breathlessly every day for Keisha's next pronouncement.