I don’t know you, and you don’t know me, but I’m writing this letter to you anyway because I’m very worried about you.
Before I get into why, please let me say that I’ve been a huge fan of your work for over 25 years. Your stellar performance in countless British costume dramas is unparalleled in the annals of the genre. Brava!
However, I wish you would, as the American journalist Laura Ingram famously wrote, “Shut up and sing” (or “act” in your case).
My worry for you stems from your recent performance in a Greenpeace video documenting your voyage to the Arctic on the MV Esperanza last month. I am worried about you for two reasons.
First of all, you really need to get your hormones checked. While in the Arctic with Greenpeace you Tweeted, “I’m in the Arctic! … It’s the first time I’ve been actively grateful for the menopause.” You were undoubtedly referring to the temperature outside which, being as cold as it was, took care of any hot flashes. On this one, I can certainly feel your pain.
But it isn’t that Tweet that concerns me so much. It’s this one: “There are more good-looking men on this boat per square foot than any place I have ever been.” Emma, are you nuts? I fear the menopause has totally flipped you out.
How can you possibly find the red meat-eschewing, metro-sexual, enviro-geeks aboard the Esperanza preferable to the red-blooded, he-men epitomized by your hunk of a former husband Kenneth Branagh and the dozens of sweaty, testosterone-infused knights slaying each other on the set of Henry V?
But then again, maybe men have no place in your private life anymore. After all, you’ve been quoted as saying, “Comedy is orgasmic.” An esoteric, subjective performance genre seems a sad replacement for a living, breathing, woman-pleasing man helping you keep the bed warm. But enough about your personal proclivities. As I noted above, we can chalk all this craziness up to a mid-life hormone imbalance.
The second reason I’m worried about you is it appears you have been completely sucked in and brainwashed by the radical “climate change” agenda. You are an intelligent woman, Emma. And it’s because you are so intelligent that comments such as, “Unless we’re carbon-free by 2030 the world is buggered” have me so stupefied.
You made this comment in London on Sunday, September 21st at the worldwide “People’s Climate March.” Then you added, “We didn’t realize what they were doing but now we do know – you’ve got 97% of climatologists, the science is all there. Anyone who tries to deny it now may be a little bit bonkers.”
Before you start name-calling, let’s discuss who’s bonkers. The “97%” claim, proudly touted by Barack Obama, John Kerry, and other liberal darlings, was solidly debunked in a September 8, 2014 report by the Global Warming Policy Foundation, which found this so-called consensus comes from a handful of surveys and abstract counting exercises that have since been contradicted by more reliable research.
Yet, the enviro-left, to whom you have attached yourself, continues to bandy this erroneous claim about like a badminton birdie. Say it often enough and folks will take it as the God’s honest truth. Or, as Mark Twain said, “A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.”
The sad truth is, the “climate change” agenda is nothing more than a tool for social engineering by way of very high carbon taxes or severely restrictive cap-and-trade policies on the world’s wealthiest (e.g. most productive) countries. Tax the hard workers and entrepreneurs and funnel their hard earned money to worthless lay-abouts. That’s the left’s answer to all the world’s problems.
The reality is, the climate changers do not want to solve the problem of climate change. If they did then their whole raison d’etre would wither up and blow away.
The climate changers willfully ignore the fact that the science to reduce the world’s temperature exists. In 2013, the Carnegie Institution’s Ken Caldeira and Intellectual Ventures founder Nathan Myhrvold published “Projections of the pace of warming following an abrupt increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration.” The study concluded that about half of global warming occurs within the first 10 years after an instantaneous step increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration, but about one-quarter of the warming occurs more than a century after the step increase.
Caldeira, Myhrvold, and Intellectual Ventures scientist Lowell Wood were quoted extensively in the 2010 book, “Super Freakonomics,” in which they discussed a controversial potential solution to climate change called a “stratoshield.” The “stratoshield” involves the controlled injection of sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere to cool ground temperatures, which mimics the natural cooling effects of a large volcanic eruption like Mount Pinatubo. Super Freakonomics states, “By Intellectual Venture’s estimation, 100,000 tons of sulfur dioxide per year would effectively reverse warming in the high Arctic and reduce it in much of the Northern Hemisphere.”
This is but one potential solution to climate change that is backed by real science – not the junk science the left likes to bandy about because of their real socialist/anti-capitalist agenda. Yet, the enviro-activists are ardently opposed to any such geoengineering. Even though it could reverse the (their argument) man-made geoengineering that has already taken place!
So even if you’re not hot enough anymore to still be turned on by real men, our planet is not so hot that it couldn’t be cooled by a relatively inexpensive technology that would not require the dismantling of all productive industrial activity by humankind.
Maybe over tea, you can ask some cute metro-enviro-geek why he doesn’t support that solution.
By: Joy Baird