Sunday, 3 October 2010

Farage gets his climate science from Bilderberg

The lastest missive from arch climate denier Farage is in this week's Kent on Sunday. This time he is complaining about the Thanet wind farm and wanting Dungeness C instead (plus more coal and gas too). Feels like time for a letter, so...

Dear Editor,

Nigel Farage is right to point out the coming energy crisis and that government should be working to close the energy gap but he is way off the mark with his solutions.

As a well publicised climate denier, Farage is content to dismiss the overwhelming evidence of scientists on climate change prefering to cite well known capitalists with vested interests instead. Rather than trusting the people who have brought us the current economic crisis, I would rather put my faith in what almost all the climate scientist are agreed on and look for energy solutions that are not going to worsen climate change.

Nigel Farage's pet solution, Dungeness C, is particularly strange. Ignoring the fact that it would be sited on an area most at risk from sea level rises, ignoring the fact that there is no long term solution to nuclear waste and ignoring the fact that nuclear power puts us into even more dependency on imported fuel, nuclear power cannot a long term solution as it relies on finite resources.

The amount of nuclear fuel is constrained in a similar way to oil, gas and coal, there is only a limited amount that can be dug up. The impact of continuing to use up these resources, especially with their impact on the climate, will be staggering. It is surely immoral to use up these finite resources when renewal energy is available.

If Mr Farage hates wind power so much there are other alternatives such as concentrated solar power, geothermal, tidal and wave power - all of which can combine to make power dependable. If we cut down on our energy use as well, we can have safe and affordable power now and power that our grandchildren can enjoy too.

1 comment:

Camp David said...

Why don't you post this overwhelming evidence? I'm afraid the temperature records are so corrupted that it is difficult to say what on earth the temperature is doing. NASA use only 1000 stations as opposed to the 7000 they used 20-30 years ago. If that means 6000 are unreliable then I'm afraid your whole temperature trend is worthless. Even if you could see a trend you cannot say it is man. I await your evidence, if it is overwhelming then it should be a simple task.