German Authorities Are Cracking Down On ‘Climate Dissent’
In this newsletter:
1) The Coming Dark Age & The Death Of The Scientific Method
Gideon Rozner, The Australian, 30 May 2020
2) The Life Of Others: German Authorities Are Cracking Down On ‘Climate Dissent’
Sky News, 30 May 2020
3) Germany To Open Brand New Coal Power Plant Next Week
Reuters, 26 May 2020
4) German Industry Demands Subsidies For Fossil Fuel Cars
Deutsche Welle, 31 May 2020
5) Coronavirus Reveals The Truth About Denmark’s Costly Carbon Tax
Bloomberg, 27 May 2020
6) Thanks to Asia, Coal Is Still King Worldwide
Mary Hutzler, Power Magazine, 26 May 2020
Sky News, 30 May 2020
3) Germany To Open Brand New Coal Power Plant Next Week
Reuters, 26 May 2020
4) German Industry Demands Subsidies For Fossil Fuel Cars
Deutsche Welle, 31 May 2020
5) Coronavirus Reveals The Truth About Denmark’s Costly Carbon Tax
Bloomberg, 27 May 2020
6) Thanks to Asia, Coal Is Still King Worldwide
Mary Hutzler, Power Magazine, 26 May 2020
7) Steven Hayward: The Green God That Failed — Almost
Real Clear Energy, 28 May 2020
8) And Finally: Journalists Are Being Replaced By Bots - Will Anyone Notice The Difference?
Reclaim the Net, 30 May 2020
Real Clear Energy, 28 May 2020
8) And Finally: Journalists Are Being Replaced By Bots - Will Anyone Notice The Difference?
Reclaim the Net, 30 May 2020
Full details:
1) The Coming Dark Age & The Death Of The Scientific Method
Gideon Rozner, The Australian, 30 May 2020
An academic who doesn’t have the ability to challenge the research findings of their colleagues because those questions threaten the university’s funding doesn’t have intellectual freedom. And if academics know they could get sacked, as Peter Ridd was, for asking uncomfortable questions, they will stop asking uncomfortable questions.
Dr Peter Ridd outside Parliament House in Canberra.
A court case this week in front of three judges of the Federal Court was a further stage in Peter Ridd’s fight for freedom of speech on climate change. The case, James Cook University v Peter Vincent Ridd, has enormous significance for the future of Australia’s universities and scientific institutions.
Ridd’s case is a dramatic illustration of the free speech crisis in Australian universities, not least around matters as politically and emotionally charged as climate change. It will determine, in effect, whether universities have the ability to censor opinions that threaten their sources of funding. It is one of the most important cases for intellectual freedom in the history of Australian jurisprudence.
The Ridd case has resonated around Australia — and has attracted significant attention worldwide — for good reason. It confirms what many people have suspected for a long time: Australia’s universities are no longer institutions encouraging the rigorous exercise of intellectual freedom and the scientific method in pursuit of truth. Instead, they are now corporatist bureaucracies that rigidly enforce an unquestioning orthodoxy, and are capable of hounding out anyone who strays outside their rigid groupthink.
JCU is attempting to severely limit the intellectual freedom of a professor working at the university to question the quality of scientific research conducted by other academics at the institution. In other words, JCU is trying to curtail a critical function that goes to the core mission of universities: to engage in free intellectual inquiry via free and open, if often robust, debate. It is an absurd but inevitable consequence of universities seeking taxpayer-funded research grants, not truth.
Worse still, it is taxpayers who are funding JCU’s court case. Following a Freedom of Information request by the Institute of Public Affairs, the university was forced to reveal that up until July last year, it had already spent $630,000 in legal fees. It would be safe to assume that university’s legal costs would have at least doubled since that time. The barrister who JCU employed in the Federal Court this week was Bret Walker SC, one of Australia’s most eminent lawyers. Barristers of his standing can command fees of $20,000 to $30,000 a day. And all of this is happening at the same time as the vice-chancellor of the university, Sandra Harding — who earns at least $975,000 a year — complains about the impact of government funding cuts.
While Australian taxpayers are funding the university’s efforts to shut down freedom of speech, Ridd’s legal costs are paid for by him, his wife and voluntary donations from the public. As yet, neither the federal nor the Queensland Education Minister has publicly commented on whether JCU is appropriately spending taxpayers’ money and, so far, both have refused to intervene in the case.
Ridd describes himself as a “luke-warmist”. “I think carbon dioxide will have a small effect on the Earth’s temperature,” he told an IPA podcast recently. “But it won’t be dangerous.” He has been studying the Great Barrier Reef since the early 1980s and was even, at one point, president of his local chapter of the Wildlife Preservation Society.
But Ridd is sceptical about the conventional wisdom that the Great Barrier Reef is dying because of climate change. “I don’t think the reef is in any particular trouble at all,” he says. “In fact, I think it’s probably one of the best protected ecosystems in the world and virtually pristine.”
The problems Ridd’s views cause for JCU are obvious. The university claims to be a leading institution when it comes to reef science, and has several joint ventures with taxpayer-funded bodies such as the Australian Research Council Centre for Excellence in Coral Reef Studies.
Ridd challenged his sacking in the Federal Circuit Court on the basis that the university’s enterprise agreement (which determined his employment conditions) specifically guaranteed his right to “pursue critical and open inquiry”, “express unpopular or controversial views”, and even “express opinions about the operations of JCU and higher education policy more generally”. In September last year, Ridd won his case as the court found he had been unlawfully sacked and he was awarded $1.2m in damages and compensation for lost earnings.
The case in the Federal Court this week was an appeal by JCU against that decision. At issue was whether the intellectual freedom clauses in the enterprise agreement covering JCU staff protected his criticism of quality assurance issues in reef science at the university. The university alleges that in going public with his concerns that organisations such as the ARC Centre “cannot be trusted” on reef science, Ridd committed several breaches of the university’s staff code of conduct, with its vague, faintly Orwellian requirements to act “collegiately”, and to “uphold the integrity and good reputation of the university”.
In other words, even though the enterprise agreement specifically declared that staff had the right to intellectual freedom, it was for the university to determine the limits of what that freedom actually permitted.
Full story ($)
Gideon Rozner, The Australian, 30 May 2020
An academic who doesn’t have the ability to challenge the research findings of their colleagues because those questions threaten the university’s funding doesn’t have intellectual freedom. And if academics know they could get sacked, as Peter Ridd was, for asking uncomfortable questions, they will stop asking uncomfortable questions.
Dr Peter Ridd outside Parliament House in Canberra.
A court case this week in front of three judges of the Federal Court was a further stage in Peter Ridd’s fight for freedom of speech on climate change. The case, James Cook University v Peter Vincent Ridd, has enormous significance for the future of Australia’s universities and scientific institutions.
Ridd’s case is a dramatic illustration of the free speech crisis in Australian universities, not least around matters as politically and emotionally charged as climate change. It will determine, in effect, whether universities have the ability to censor opinions that threaten their sources of funding. It is one of the most important cases for intellectual freedom in the history of Australian jurisprudence.
The Ridd case has resonated around Australia — and has attracted significant attention worldwide — for good reason. It confirms what many people have suspected for a long time: Australia’s universities are no longer institutions encouraging the rigorous exercise of intellectual freedom and the scientific method in pursuit of truth. Instead, they are now corporatist bureaucracies that rigidly enforce an unquestioning orthodoxy, and are capable of hounding out anyone who strays outside their rigid groupthink.
JCU is attempting to severely limit the intellectual freedom of a professor working at the university to question the quality of scientific research conducted by other academics at the institution. In other words, JCU is trying to curtail a critical function that goes to the core mission of universities: to engage in free intellectual inquiry via free and open, if often robust, debate. It is an absurd but inevitable consequence of universities seeking taxpayer-funded research grants, not truth.
Worse still, it is taxpayers who are funding JCU’s court case. Following a Freedom of Information request by the Institute of Public Affairs, the university was forced to reveal that up until July last year, it had already spent $630,000 in legal fees. It would be safe to assume that university’s legal costs would have at least doubled since that time. The barrister who JCU employed in the Federal Court this week was Bret Walker SC, one of Australia’s most eminent lawyers. Barristers of his standing can command fees of $20,000 to $30,000 a day. And all of this is happening at the same time as the vice-chancellor of the university, Sandra Harding — who earns at least $975,000 a year — complains about the impact of government funding cuts.
While Australian taxpayers are funding the university’s efforts to shut down freedom of speech, Ridd’s legal costs are paid for by him, his wife and voluntary donations from the public. As yet, neither the federal nor the Queensland Education Minister has publicly commented on whether JCU is appropriately spending taxpayers’ money and, so far, both have refused to intervene in the case.
Ridd describes himself as a “luke-warmist”. “I think carbon dioxide will have a small effect on the Earth’s temperature,” he told an IPA podcast recently. “But it won’t be dangerous.” He has been studying the Great Barrier Reef since the early 1980s and was even, at one point, president of his local chapter of the Wildlife Preservation Society.
But Ridd is sceptical about the conventional wisdom that the Great Barrier Reef is dying because of climate change. “I don’t think the reef is in any particular trouble at all,” he says. “In fact, I think it’s probably one of the best protected ecosystems in the world and virtually pristine.”
The problems Ridd’s views cause for JCU are obvious. The university claims to be a leading institution when it comes to reef science, and has several joint ventures with taxpayer-funded bodies such as the Australian Research Council Centre for Excellence in Coral Reef Studies.
Ridd challenged his sacking in the Federal Circuit Court on the basis that the university’s enterprise agreement (which determined his employment conditions) specifically guaranteed his right to “pursue critical and open inquiry”, “express unpopular or controversial views”, and even “express opinions about the operations of JCU and higher education policy more generally”. In September last year, Ridd won his case as the court found he had been unlawfully sacked and he was awarded $1.2m in damages and compensation for lost earnings.
The case in the Federal Court this week was an appeal by JCU against that decision. At issue was whether the intellectual freedom clauses in the enterprise agreement covering JCU staff protected his criticism of quality assurance issues in reef science at the university. The university alleges that in going public with his concerns that organisations such as the ARC Centre “cannot be trusted” on reef science, Ridd committed several breaches of the university’s staff code of conduct, with its vague, faintly Orwellian requirements to act “collegiately”, and to “uphold the integrity and good reputation of the university”.
In other words, even though the enterprise agreement specifically declared that staff had the right to intellectual freedom, it was for the university to determine the limits of what that freedom actually permitted.
Full story ($)
2) German Authorities Are Cracking Down On ‘Climate Dissent’
Sky News, 30 May 2020
YouTuber and climate realist Naomi Seibt says governments across the world are cracking down on dissent, especially when it comes to contentions issues like the response to COVID-19 and climate change.
click on image above to watch SkyNews interview
Ms Seibt is currently being threatened with imprisonment by German authorities after she refused to take down three of her videos, with authorities claiming her videos do not comply with the law.
“They are abusing these crisis’ to push tyranny and to silence the people who have different opinions or who do their research,” Ms Seibt told Sky News.
“Once again we can see that state going against people like me and trying to silence us,” she said. “I made them (the videos) because I do stand by what I say, and I do question the science behind the climate change mainstream agenda”.
“I do believe most climate activists don’t know what they’re talking about and there is so much propaganda being put out there.
“We need to push against this and fight for more climate realism and freedom of speech again.”
Full post
3) Germany To Open Brand New Coal Power Plant Next Week
Reuters, 26 May 2020
German power utility Uniper’s new Datteln 4 coal-fired power station will begin operating on May 30, it said on Tuesday.
The 1,050 megawatt (MW) plant that has cost Uniper 1.5 billion euros was granted an exemption from Germany’s plan to exit coal power by 2038 after the company argued that it made more sense to shut old capacity with high CO2 emissions to clear the way for state-of-the-art Datteln to operate into the 2030s.
Environmentalists have criticised the compromise, saying the government lacked ambition and allowed coal operators to get off lightly.
Full story
4) German Industry Demands Subsidies For Fossil Fuel Cars
Deutsche Welle, 31 May 2020
Germany's carmakers have demanded a sales rebate on new diesel and petrol cars.
Germany's top industry body on Sunday called for sales subsidies on electric cars to be extended to fossil-fuel-powered vehicles.
Dieter Kempf, president of the Federation of German Industries (BDI), made the demand in the Welt am Sonntag newspaper.
Germany's powerful-but-struggling carmakers have been calling for the expansion of the subsidies on electric cars, in a bid to shore up their positions during the coronavirus-induced economic crisis.
"In view of the crisis, it makes sense to introduce a further purchase bonus for at least 12 months in addition to the environmental premium, provided that this premium is part of a cross-sectoral approach," Kempf said.
Kempf said the promotion is based on investment and climate protection. "It therefore makes perfect sense to also promote vehicles with modern and efficient combustion engines in this context, if this does not dilute existing incentives for electric mobility," he said.
Rebates are currently available for the purchase of purely electric and hybrid cars.
The automakers have been backed up in their demands by the states of Bavaria, Lower Saxony and Baden-Württemberg, where the manufacturers BMW, VW and Daimler are headquartered.
Bavarian State Premier Markus Söder told Welt: "It is unacceptable that France spends €8 billion on automobile promotion and we spend €9 billion on Lufthansa — but nothing for the heart of our economy. That would be an industrial policy mistake."
"It'll help protect the climate and the economy. We are taking old cars off the market and replacing them with the latest generation of clean vehicles," he added.
Germany's carmakers were responsible for the Dieselgate scandal, in which they deliberately colluded to conceal the illegal emissions of new diesel cars.
On Tuesday, the leaders of the ruling coalition will discuss an economic stimulus package which is intended to restore the German economy. According to the Bild newspaper, the package is expected to be worth between €75 and €80 billion.
Full story
5) Coronavirus Reveals The Truth About Denmark’s Costly Carbon Tax
Bloomberg, 27 May 2020
Denmark will not consider how to raise taxation of greenhouse gas emissions until fall because of the current economic uncertainty, Minister for Climate, Energy and Utilities Dan Jorgensen says.
Sky News, 30 May 2020
YouTuber and climate realist Naomi Seibt says governments across the world are cracking down on dissent, especially when it comes to contentions issues like the response to COVID-19 and climate change.
click on image above to watch SkyNews interview
Ms Seibt is currently being threatened with imprisonment by German authorities after she refused to take down three of her videos, with authorities claiming her videos do not comply with the law.
“They are abusing these crisis’ to push tyranny and to silence the people who have different opinions or who do their research,” Ms Seibt told Sky News.
“Once again we can see that state going against people like me and trying to silence us,” she said. “I made them (the videos) because I do stand by what I say, and I do question the science behind the climate change mainstream agenda”.
“I do believe most climate activists don’t know what they’re talking about and there is so much propaganda being put out there.
“We need to push against this and fight for more climate realism and freedom of speech again.”
Full post
3) Germany To Open Brand New Coal Power Plant Next Week
Reuters, 26 May 2020
German power utility Uniper’s new Datteln 4 coal-fired power station will begin operating on May 30, it said on Tuesday.
The 1,050 megawatt (MW) plant that has cost Uniper 1.5 billion euros was granted an exemption from Germany’s plan to exit coal power by 2038 after the company argued that it made more sense to shut old capacity with high CO2 emissions to clear the way for state-of-the-art Datteln to operate into the 2030s.
Environmentalists have criticised the compromise, saying the government lacked ambition and allowed coal operators to get off lightly.
Full story
4) German Industry Demands Subsidies For Fossil Fuel Cars
Deutsche Welle, 31 May 2020
Germany's carmakers have demanded a sales rebate on new diesel and petrol cars.
Germany's top industry body on Sunday called for sales subsidies on electric cars to be extended to fossil-fuel-powered vehicles.
Dieter Kempf, president of the Federation of German Industries (BDI), made the demand in the Welt am Sonntag newspaper.
Germany's powerful-but-struggling carmakers have been calling for the expansion of the subsidies on electric cars, in a bid to shore up their positions during the coronavirus-induced economic crisis.
"In view of the crisis, it makes sense to introduce a further purchase bonus for at least 12 months in addition to the environmental premium, provided that this premium is part of a cross-sectoral approach," Kempf said.
Kempf said the promotion is based on investment and climate protection. "It therefore makes perfect sense to also promote vehicles with modern and efficient combustion engines in this context, if this does not dilute existing incentives for electric mobility," he said.
Rebates are currently available for the purchase of purely electric and hybrid cars.
The automakers have been backed up in their demands by the states of Bavaria, Lower Saxony and Baden-Württemberg, where the manufacturers BMW, VW and Daimler are headquartered.
Bavarian State Premier Markus Söder told Welt: "It is unacceptable that France spends €8 billion on automobile promotion and we spend €9 billion on Lufthansa — but nothing for the heart of our economy. That would be an industrial policy mistake."
"It'll help protect the climate and the economy. We are taking old cars off the market and replacing them with the latest generation of clean vehicles," he added.
Germany's carmakers were responsible for the Dieselgate scandal, in which they deliberately colluded to conceal the illegal emissions of new diesel cars.
On Tuesday, the leaders of the ruling coalition will discuss an economic stimulus package which is intended to restore the German economy. According to the Bild newspaper, the package is expected to be worth between €75 and €80 billion.
Full story
5) Coronavirus Reveals The Truth About Denmark’s Costly Carbon Tax
Bloomberg, 27 May 2020
Denmark will not consider how to raise taxation of greenhouse gas emissions until fall because of the current economic uncertainty, Minister for Climate, Energy and Utilities Dan Jorgensen says.
In 2019 Denmark set itself some of the world’s most ambitious environmental goals; they include a 70% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030, compared to 1990 levels. The EU’s target, by contrast, is for a 40% reduction by 2030, an objective that Jorgensen has said is not sufficiently ambitious.
It will be impossible to reach the country’s goal without looking at a fundamental overhaul of the Danish economy that puts a larger price on pollution, Jorgensen said in an interview Wednesday, but “the middle of an unprecedented crisis where thousands and thousands of Danes are losing their jobs, and companies are closing down” is not a good time to raise taxes.
A report released in March by the government-appointed Danish Council on Climate Change recommended increasing carbon taxation, but Jorgensen said that a tax covering the whole of society would be extremely complex and that there is no such model out there that is ready to implement.
The government is planning a broad overhaul of its tax system, he said, but this has been sidetracked by the coronavirus crisis.
“Like [boxer] Mike Tyson said, everybody has got a plan until he gets hit in the face,” said Jorgensen. “That’s what happened to us.”
Full story
6) Thanks to Asia, Coal Is Still King Worldwide
Mary Hutzler, Power Magazine, 26 May 2020
Coal may be struggling in the U.S., but it’s still king worldwide, and likely to remain so with Asia as its primary customer.
It will be impossible to reach the country’s goal without looking at a fundamental overhaul of the Danish economy that puts a larger price on pollution, Jorgensen said in an interview Wednesday, but “the middle of an unprecedented crisis where thousands and thousands of Danes are losing their jobs, and companies are closing down” is not a good time to raise taxes.
A report released in March by the government-appointed Danish Council on Climate Change recommended increasing carbon taxation, but Jorgensen said that a tax covering the whole of society would be extremely complex and that there is no such model out there that is ready to implement.
The government is planning a broad overhaul of its tax system, he said, but this has been sidetracked by the coronavirus crisis.
“Like [boxer] Mike Tyson said, everybody has got a plan until he gets hit in the face,” said Jorgensen. “That’s what happened to us.”
Full story
6) Thanks to Asia, Coal Is Still King Worldwide
Mary Hutzler, Power Magazine, 26 May 2020
Coal may be struggling in the U.S., but it’s still king worldwide, and likely to remain so with Asia as its primary customer.
Despite the U.S. and Europe shuttering coal-fired power plants, coal remains a major fuel in global energy systems.
In 2018, global coal demand rebounded and grew by 1.4% due to increased consumption in Asia, where coal consumption increased by 2.5%. This increased consumption was mainly from power generation, which reached an all-time high, increasing 3% in 2018 and accounting for almost 40% of global electricity generation.
China remains the world’s largest coal consumer, using more than 50% of all the coal consumed in the world. According to China’s National Bureau of Statistics, China relies on coal for 57.7% of its primary energy, and for 67% of its electricity.
And China isn’t the only major coal user in Asia. India led all countries in coal consumption growth, increasing its consumption in 2018 by 36 million metric tons oil equivalent—8.7% higher than in 2017. India generated 75% of its electricity from coal in 2018.
Both countries have sizable coal reserves of more than 100 billion metric tons. But, both countries also import coal, together accounting for more than one-third of the world’s coal imports in 2018.
According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), global coal demand is expected to decline in 2019 but remain broadly stable over the following five years, supported by robust growth in major Asian markets. Despite that growth, coal’s share of electricity generation is expected to decline—from 38% in 2018 to 35% in 2024. Regardless, coal is expected to retain its status as the single largest source of power supply worldwide. [...]
The IEA expects coal demand in Southeast Asia will grow by more than 5% per year through 2024, led by Indonesia and Vietnam. The region’s strong economic growth is expected to drive electricity and industrial consumption, which will both be fueled in part by coal. Southeast Asia countries are also using coal to provide electricity for their growing populations.
Full post
In 2018, global coal demand rebounded and grew by 1.4% due to increased consumption in Asia, where coal consumption increased by 2.5%. This increased consumption was mainly from power generation, which reached an all-time high, increasing 3% in 2018 and accounting for almost 40% of global electricity generation.
China remains the world’s largest coal consumer, using more than 50% of all the coal consumed in the world. According to China’s National Bureau of Statistics, China relies on coal for 57.7% of its primary energy, and for 67% of its electricity.
And China isn’t the only major coal user in Asia. India led all countries in coal consumption growth, increasing its consumption in 2018 by 36 million metric tons oil equivalent—8.7% higher than in 2017. India generated 75% of its electricity from coal in 2018.
Both countries have sizable coal reserves of more than 100 billion metric tons. But, both countries also import coal, together accounting for more than one-third of the world’s coal imports in 2018.
According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), global coal demand is expected to decline in 2019 but remain broadly stable over the following five years, supported by robust growth in major Asian markets. Despite that growth, coal’s share of electricity generation is expected to decline—from 38% in 2018 to 35% in 2024. Regardless, coal is expected to retain its status as the single largest source of power supply worldwide. [...]
The IEA expects coal demand in Southeast Asia will grow by more than 5% per year through 2024, led by Indonesia and Vietnam. The region’s strong economic growth is expected to drive electricity and industrial consumption, which will both be fueled in part by coal. Southeast Asia countries are also using coal to provide electricity for their growing populations.
Full post
7) Steven Hayward: The Green God That Failed — Almost
Real Clear Energy, 28 May 2020
At this point, it is tempting to sit back with a barrel of popcorn and watch the environmental Stalinists and Trotskyites fight among themselves.
Real Clear Energy, 28 May 2020
At this point, it is tempting to sit back with a barrel of popcorn and watch the environmental Stalinists and Trotskyites fight among themselves.
One of the signal intellectual events of the early Cold War period was the 1950 publication of The God That Failed, in which six prominent figures explained why they broke from Communism. The book was a sensation because it came from leading figures on the left, rather than from longtime anti-Communists whose arguments and commitments were discounted.
Most of the six distinguished and diverse figures, including the Hungarian Arthur Koestler, Italian novelist Ignazio Silone, and American Richard Wright, did not abandon their leftward dispositions, support for egalitarianism, or even socialist planning, but they did recognize the Soviet Union to be a malignant regime and the Communist parties in the West to be willing dupes of this massive ideological fraud. The stature of these writers as prominent figures of the left legitimized anti-Communism for other left-leaning people.
It was telling—and accurate—that Communism at that time was understood as a literal religious faith, with enforced orthodoxy and severe penalties for doctrinal heresy, complete with inquisitionary show trials to compel recantations or confessions of guilt, as well as public shunning of apostates. Which brings us to the new Michael Moore–produced documentary Planet of the Humans. It could almost (but not quite) have been called The Green God That Failed.
The film has caused an uproar among environmentalists because it casts a deeply critical eye on environmentalism’s favorite remedies for climate change, such as solar and wind power and biomass. Serious energy analysts have long known that wind, solar, and biomass are costly, cannot scale to our current power needs, and accomplish only modest reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Wind and solar, in particular, have intensive resource supply chains (including a lot of toxic chemical waste), require huge amounts of land area, have a working life span that is less than half that of conventional power plants, and are not amenable to recycling.
Even electric cars are not very “green” when the full resource supply chain and product life cycle are calculated competently. None of these energy totems can accurately be described as “clean.”
Environmentalists have long dismissed these substantive criticisms with fraudulent claims on behalf of the potential for “renewable” energy, along with a near-religious fervor in the sanctity of “green” technology. The effectiveness of Planet of the Humans is that the critique of “green” energy is made entirely by left-leaning academics and analysts rather than supposed “fossil fuel stooges.”
Of course, for people like Michael Moore, “corporation” is a four-letter word, and the film makes clear that most renewable energy is owned by private partnerships and corporations, though the film could have said more about how renewable “profits” are largely dependent on generous subsidies and favorable tax treatment. Adding insult to injury, the film commits lèse-majesté in on-camera shaming of several leading icons of environmentalism for their ignorance, including Al Gore, Bill McKibben, and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
The environmental activist community and their media sycophants have erupted with outrage over Planet of the Humans, demanding its suppression. The Nation called the film “dangerous,” stating that “you could be forgiven for thinking it was created by Breitbart News or Steve Bannon,” and a petition demanding that Moore apologize and retract the film drew the signatures of environmental activists such as Naomi Klein and Michael Mann. (And it appears the suppression campaign might succeed: YouTube has taken down the film on the flimsy pretext that one scene violates a photographer’s copyright).
At this point, it is tempting to sit back with a barrel of popcorn and watch the environmental Stalinists and Trotskyites fight among themselves. While it is edifying to see a few knowledgeable people on the environmental left come to grips with the reality of the energy utopianism of the climate campaign, Planet of the Humans is gravely defective in the end, and it deserves only two stars out of five.
A telling clue of the film’s central defect is that it omits mention of nuclear power, the one scalable source of near-zero emission energy technology that we already have in use; nor does it give consideration of possible future innovations in fusion or genuinely carbon-neutral biofuels. Although many environmentalists—including, most recently, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez—have expressed second thoughts about the longtime environmental opposition to nuclear power (AOC now says that she is “open” to it), Planet of the Humans seems unable to escape the congenital environmentalist hostility to nuclear.
Ultimately, Planet of the Humans represents a throwback to the gloomy Malthusianism that informed the birth of the modern environmental movement—the view that humans are a plague on the planet and that the planet can be saved only by having fewer humans on it, living subsistence lives. Some environmentalists have tried to leave this debilitating Malthusianism behind, but it is irrepressible, especially for those environmentalists who conceive their cause in religious-redemptive terms. Today’s neo-Malthusianism goes under the banner of the “degrowth movement,” and it is not hard to see the frisson of self-satisfaction among some environmentalists over the effects of the COVID-19 forced economic depression.
It is almost enough to make you prefer the naïve utopianism of Al Gore. Back in the final days of the Cold War, Norman Podhoretz observed that the authors of The God That Failed diminished the effectiveness of their message by clinging to socialism and refusing to acknowledge the moral and political superiority of the United States and the democratic capitalist system. Communism tried to blur the lines between itself and democratic socialism and liberalism and duped many Western liberals; likewise, environmentalism—or the climate-change fanatics, at least—blurs the lines between easy utopian solutions for energy and Malthusian “degrowth.”
Full post
8) And Finally: Journalists Are Being Replaced By Bots - Will Anyone Notice The Difference?
Reclaim the Net, 30 May 2020
Journalists working for Microsoft are set to lose their jobs at the company as it prepares to shift to AI-generated news curation.
Dozens of human writers maintain the news homepage on Microsoft’s Edge browser and MSN websites, used by millions daily. But Microsoft is confident that bots can replace them.
On Thursday, about 27 writers working for PA Media, formerly known as Press Association, were told their services would no longer be needed from July when Microsoft will shift to AI-generated news pieces.
The decision by Microsoft to end its contract with PA Media was made on short notice. The employees were told there’s a worldwide shift in favor of automated news updates.
A member of the team who worked on the news website appeared to understand that they were rather expendable and said:
“I spend all my time reading about how automation and AI is going to take all our jobs, and here I am – AI has taken my job.”
The team behind the Microsoft news site did not write original stories. Instead, they selected and edited pieces by popular media companies such as CNN, BBC, and The Guardian. Since the articles are not original but are hosted on Microsoft’s websites, the tech company shares ad revenue with the original publishers.
In a statement, a Microsoft spokesperson said, “Like all companies, we evaluate our business on a regular basis. This can result in increased investment in some places and, from time to time, re-deployment in others. These decisions are not the result of the current pandemic.”
Some of the writers working on the news site have years of experience. The site also provided an opportunity for newbies to make a name for themselves in a competitive industry. The media industry was challenging, even before AI and if other sites follow Microsoft’s lead many more writers will lose their jobs.
Full story
Most of the six distinguished and diverse figures, including the Hungarian Arthur Koestler, Italian novelist Ignazio Silone, and American Richard Wright, did not abandon their leftward dispositions, support for egalitarianism, or even socialist planning, but they did recognize the Soviet Union to be a malignant regime and the Communist parties in the West to be willing dupes of this massive ideological fraud. The stature of these writers as prominent figures of the left legitimized anti-Communism for other left-leaning people.
It was telling—and accurate—that Communism at that time was understood as a literal religious faith, with enforced orthodoxy and severe penalties for doctrinal heresy, complete with inquisitionary show trials to compel recantations or confessions of guilt, as well as public shunning of apostates. Which brings us to the new Michael Moore–produced documentary Planet of the Humans. It could almost (but not quite) have been called The Green God That Failed.
The film has caused an uproar among environmentalists because it casts a deeply critical eye on environmentalism’s favorite remedies for climate change, such as solar and wind power and biomass. Serious energy analysts have long known that wind, solar, and biomass are costly, cannot scale to our current power needs, and accomplish only modest reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Wind and solar, in particular, have intensive resource supply chains (including a lot of toxic chemical waste), require huge amounts of land area, have a working life span that is less than half that of conventional power plants, and are not amenable to recycling.
Even electric cars are not very “green” when the full resource supply chain and product life cycle are calculated competently. None of these energy totems can accurately be described as “clean.”
Environmentalists have long dismissed these substantive criticisms with fraudulent claims on behalf of the potential for “renewable” energy, along with a near-religious fervor in the sanctity of “green” technology. The effectiveness of Planet of the Humans is that the critique of “green” energy is made entirely by left-leaning academics and analysts rather than supposed “fossil fuel stooges.”
Of course, for people like Michael Moore, “corporation” is a four-letter word, and the film makes clear that most renewable energy is owned by private partnerships and corporations, though the film could have said more about how renewable “profits” are largely dependent on generous subsidies and favorable tax treatment. Adding insult to injury, the film commits lèse-majesté in on-camera shaming of several leading icons of environmentalism for their ignorance, including Al Gore, Bill McKibben, and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
The environmental activist community and their media sycophants have erupted with outrage over Planet of the Humans, demanding its suppression. The Nation called the film “dangerous,” stating that “you could be forgiven for thinking it was created by Breitbart News or Steve Bannon,” and a petition demanding that Moore apologize and retract the film drew the signatures of environmental activists such as Naomi Klein and Michael Mann. (And it appears the suppression campaign might succeed: YouTube has taken down the film on the flimsy pretext that one scene violates a photographer’s copyright).
At this point, it is tempting to sit back with a barrel of popcorn and watch the environmental Stalinists and Trotskyites fight among themselves. While it is edifying to see a few knowledgeable people on the environmental left come to grips with the reality of the energy utopianism of the climate campaign, Planet of the Humans is gravely defective in the end, and it deserves only two stars out of five.
A telling clue of the film’s central defect is that it omits mention of nuclear power, the one scalable source of near-zero emission energy technology that we already have in use; nor does it give consideration of possible future innovations in fusion or genuinely carbon-neutral biofuels. Although many environmentalists—including, most recently, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez—have expressed second thoughts about the longtime environmental opposition to nuclear power (AOC now says that she is “open” to it), Planet of the Humans seems unable to escape the congenital environmentalist hostility to nuclear.
Ultimately, Planet of the Humans represents a throwback to the gloomy Malthusianism that informed the birth of the modern environmental movement—the view that humans are a plague on the planet and that the planet can be saved only by having fewer humans on it, living subsistence lives. Some environmentalists have tried to leave this debilitating Malthusianism behind, but it is irrepressible, especially for those environmentalists who conceive their cause in religious-redemptive terms. Today’s neo-Malthusianism goes under the banner of the “degrowth movement,” and it is not hard to see the frisson of self-satisfaction among some environmentalists over the effects of the COVID-19 forced economic depression.
It is almost enough to make you prefer the naïve utopianism of Al Gore. Back in the final days of the Cold War, Norman Podhoretz observed that the authors of The God That Failed diminished the effectiveness of their message by clinging to socialism and refusing to acknowledge the moral and political superiority of the United States and the democratic capitalist system. Communism tried to blur the lines between itself and democratic socialism and liberalism and duped many Western liberals; likewise, environmentalism—or the climate-change fanatics, at least—blurs the lines between easy utopian solutions for energy and Malthusian “degrowth.”
Full post
8) And Finally: Journalists Are Being Replaced By Bots - Will Anyone Notice The Difference?
Reclaim the Net, 30 May 2020
Journalists working for Microsoft are set to lose their jobs at the company as it prepares to shift to AI-generated news curation.
Dozens of human writers maintain the news homepage on Microsoft’s Edge browser and MSN websites, used by millions daily. But Microsoft is confident that bots can replace them.
On Thursday, about 27 writers working for PA Media, formerly known as Press Association, were told their services would no longer be needed from July when Microsoft will shift to AI-generated news pieces.
The decision by Microsoft to end its contract with PA Media was made on short notice. The employees were told there’s a worldwide shift in favor of automated news updates.
A member of the team who worked on the news website appeared to understand that they were rather expendable and said:
“I spend all my time reading about how automation and AI is going to take all our jobs, and here I am – AI has taken my job.”
The team behind the Microsoft news site did not write original stories. Instead, they selected and edited pieces by popular media companies such as CNN, BBC, and The Guardian. Since the articles are not original but are hosted on Microsoft’s websites, the tech company shares ad revenue with the original publishers.
In a statement, a Microsoft spokesperson said, “Like all companies, we evaluate our business on a regular basis. This can result in increased investment in some places and, from time to time, re-deployment in others. These decisions are not the result of the current pandemic.”
Some of the writers working on the news site have years of experience. The site also provided an opportunity for newbies to make a name for themselves in a competitive industry. The media industry was challenging, even before AI and if other sites follow Microsoft’s lead many more writers will lose their jobs.
Full story
The London-based Global Warming Policy Forum is a world leading think tank on global warming policy issues. The GWPF newsletter is prepared by Director Dr Benny Peiser - for more information, please visit the website at www.thegwpf.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment