I’m not a fan of Paul McCartney. In fact, the only song I liked from his solo career is “Band on the Run”. Everything else, is, well, fluff; bubblegum (“Silly Love Songs”? Please…). John Lennon & George Harrison were my favourite Beatles. They actually had talent and substance. It became more apparent when the beginning of the end of the Beatles came and right on through their solo careers.
However, McCartney now has the number of the climate change deniers bang on, when he compares them to holocaust deniers. He is also of the belief that the BP spill will now accelerate the search for cleaner renewable energy sources.
“Sadly we need disasters like this to show people. Some people don’t believe in climate warming – like those who don’t believe there was a Holocaust.
But the facts indicate that there’s something going on and we’ve got to be aware of it if we want our kids to inherit a decent world, not a complete nightmare of a planet – clean, renewable energy is for starters.”
Well, I can’t argue with McCartney on either count. However, I am just not that optimistic we can cure our addiction to oil; we’re oil junkies just like Heroine junkies are addicted to their smack.
In other environmental news is that The Times is retracting the climategate stories. However, it is feared that it may be too little too late. Well, we can at least try by passing these most recent articles on the subject. Here is part of the retraction:
The article “UN climate panel shamed by bogus rainforest claim” (News, Jan 31) stated that the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report had included an “unsubstantiated claim” that up to 40% of the Amazon rainforest could be sensitive to future changes in rainfall. The IPCC had referenced the claim to a report prepared for the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) by Andrew Rowell and Peter Moore, whom the article described as “green campaigners” with “little scientific expertise.” The article also stated that the authors’ research had been based on a scientific paper that dealt with the impact of human activity rather than climate change.
In fact, the IPCC’s Amazon statement is supported by peer-reviewed scientific evidence. In the case of the WWF report, the figure . . . was based on research by the respected Amazon Environmental Research Institute (IPAM) which did relate to the impact of climate change. We also understand and accept that . . . Dr Moore is an expert in forest management, and apologise for any suggestion to the contrary.
The article also quoted criticism of the IPCC’s use of the WWF report by Dr Simon Lewis, a Royal Society research fellow at the University of Leeds and leading specialist in tropical forest ecology. We accept that, in his quoted remarks, Dr Lewis was making the general point that both the IPCC and WWF should have cited the appropriate peer-reviewed scientific research literature. As he made clear to us at the time, including by sending us some of the research literature, Dr Lewis does not dispute the scientific basis for both the IPCC and the WWF reports’ statements on the potential vulnerability of the Amazon rainforest to droughts caused by climate change. . . . A version of our article that had been checked with Dr Lewis underwent significant late editing and so did not give a fair or accurate account of his views on these points. We apologise for this.
A Frankfurt newspaper has also printed a retraction. The original article is in German. If any readers know how to read German, click here. Here is a version I had translated into English via Google translate, so the grammar and spelling will suck.
While the timing of The Times retraction may well be too little too late and I don’t share the former Beatle’s optimism on the acceleration of searching for clean renewable energy to replace our oil addiction, I would love to see Blogging SupposiTories like the Rancid Dr Jabba the Roy, Hunter, Alberta Aardvark and Harpercon fools like Ex-Lax Max Bernier as well as other Harpercon cheerleaders in the media such as Redneck Ryan Doyle and Chuckles Adler attempt to squirm from the retraction. They would at the very least, have to admit that they’re just pigs who love to consume and waste because it’s of comfort to them and well, they would pollute their neighbourhoods and drive baig-assed gas guzzlers simply to piss off lefty, as that seems to be more important to them these days than the actual future for their kids and grandkids. Then again, maybe they’re planning for the Rapture.