Showing posts with label Church of Environtology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Church of Environtology. Show all posts

Sunday, 14 November 2021

Environtologists and the Church of Environtology

You can find the following quote at:
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/religion.htm -=-=-=-=-=-=-=- "Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had. Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.” -Michael Crichton -=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Which brings me to what I like to call "Environtologists and the Church of Environtology". Yes, I know that sounds a bit like another nutty and dangerous group that seeks to both control and fleece the rest of us, but all the more reason to deem the title "apt". I've got nothing against working towards a cleaner and smarter world, but I've got plenty against a world ruled and taxed by lefty marxist humanists who are willing to stamp on every individual freedom in their efforts to create a cruel atheistic society where mere insects will end up with greater protection than most of us. Particularly the "least" or more helpless of us. The climate has always changed, is changing now, and will continue to change. Right now it is changing for the better, and even if current CO2 levels are in someway directly linked to human behaviour (doubtful), our crops and wild flora are currently are starved for the stuff and would do better with at least 3 times the levels (which is why it is artificially boosted in certain controlled environments). Marxism has always failed, is failing now, and will continue to fail. Right now it is being forced to swap its previous jargon and agenda and pick up all the Environ jargon and agenda instead. It is still just as evil. The Roman Catholics among us would know of and understand/appreciate the principal and practice of "Indulgences" as used by that Religion. Well, this new religion has got something similar. I'm referring to the modern form "Indulgences" called "Carbon offsets." Refer to that link given at the beginning of this blog entry for more on that comparison. It would seem that Atheists, Secular Humanists, Marxist and general loonie left (including "The Greens") have their nice new world wide religion well underway. With Al Gore as their Prophet (who is maybe even The False Prophet talked about in certain ancient records), and allegedly thousands of allegedly happily agreeing scientists as their priesthood and laity, and a whole new generation of blank slates being programmed with this stuff from an early age in school (just like with evolution and dinosaurs and whatnot), this religion is going to become a hit in no time. Literally. regarDS

An escape from the Loonie Leftie pandemonium of fear-mongery

Sick of all the fear-mongery being foisted upon us by the Loonie Left and the (mostly) Loonie Left world media and their plans to turn the whole globe into a nanny state ?
Tired of how the moment the weather fails to support the "Cult Of Climate Change" dogmas and orthodoxies, some new scare is quickly broadcast to keep us distracted, compliant, and trusting of the religious fanatics ... ie, every person in a position of power who has jumped on the "AGW"/"manmade global climate change" bandwagon and feeding at the tax-payer supported troughs while they promote The Big Lie ?
Wanna join in on this latest fearfest "Swine Flu" thang in a more satisfying way ?
Then here is the distraction for you.
Get thee to: http://www.crazymonkeygames.com/Pandemic-2.html and enjoy creating some pandemonium of your own upon a virtual globe in this freeby online game !
In one of my first tries, a non-lethal (ie, no symptoms to reveal it too soon) taste of "der spatz brain borer" parasite was delivered to every country on the globe except madagascar within 16 days, and then the entire population (sans madagascar) was infested within 38 days, and then "der spatz brain borer" parasite was cranked up to bring about rapid death via Hypersensitivity, Cysts, Fever, Nausea, Vomiting, Depression, Dementia, and Insanity ... but I dragged that out to last over 120 days to keep it interesting.
A bit like my blogging and forums involvements when you come to think about it ...
Sure, tis prolly a bit on the "bad taste" side of things ... but so too are the constant efforts by "them" (the Loonie Left, et al) to control you by fear , so rather than be offended, why not deem this freeby online escape as being a tool for dealing with (and breaking out of the control of) those irrational fears ?
Anyway, here some poor screen shots of my efforts to achieve what the likes of the WWF wants for the globe and humanity. Really !
Ooops, my turn to foist some fear. Heh.

regarDS

PS: CLE, I don't know whether to thank you or curse you for making me aware of this game, so to play it safe and cover all options, deem a virtual chocolate bar infected with "DSBB" to have been mailed your way. :)

To the Federal Leader of the Opposition

A letter I just sent via links available here: http://www.liberal.org.au/contact/ and http://malcolmturnbull.com.au/ContactMalcolm/tabid/87/Default.aspx and http://www.dennisjensen.com.au/contact.asp and http://www.nationalswa.com/contact.aspx and http://www.aph.gov.au/house/members/memfeedback.asp?id=SJ4 (The Hon Wilson Tuckey MP's website) and no doubt more to follow. The version I sent to Dr Jensen was prefixed with:
"Dear Dr Jensen. Sorry to read what has just happened to you re: pre-selection, particularly considering your views regarding AGW Alarmism. I do hope you continue with the good fight in that regard, either with the Liberal Party or as an Independent. I submitted the following note to the Liberal Party webpage and Malcolm Turnbull's webpage this morning because I am very much concerned by the direction that the Coalition seems to be going in relation to the typical AGW alarmist position and the Rudd & Wong "ETS". Also, because of Mr Turnbull's stance and recent decisions I find that I can no longer speak of the Liberal Party in good terms while he remains its leader and in support of any kind of ETS. Letter is as follows, and thank you for your time:"
To the Federal Leader of the Opposition. In every election over the last 27 years I have voted for either the Liberal party or the Coalition, either directly or via preferences but mostly the former. I will be unable to continue this trend in the next election should the Liberal party continue in anyway to support the alarmist nonsense and fraud that is "man made climate change", CO2 being "a pollution", and any kind of "Emissions Trading Scheme" related to CO2. Instead, I will be supporting candidates who demonstrate climate change realism, which at the moment seems to only be the Family First party. Yes, the climate is changing, it has always changed, and it continues to change, and atmospheric CO2 levels always lag behind global temperature changes and not lead them ... and regardless of mankind's pitiful contributions to the same. Besides, when it comes to atmospheric CO2 levels, the planet is virtually starving for the stuff anyway, and would benefit by actually being doubled or more. Make no mistake. If the blogs and forums are anything to go by, there are a lot of longstanding typical coalition supporters out there who will be casting their votes elsewhere unless the Liberal party soon chooses to admit to the folly of AGW ("manmade global warming) and associated fraud of an ETS, and instead adopt a unified Climate Change Realist position that is contrary to the kind of disaster the ALP (let alone The Greens) are trying to inflict upon Australia. Also, don't under estimate the power of "the internut" in terms of reaching people and shaping public opinion. At the moment, it would appear that KRudd and Co are continuing to use it far more effectively that the Coalition. Personally, I think you will find that if you decisively establish policy that not only opposes the ALP's "ETS" but also rigourously demands answers to the kinds of questions Senator Fielding recently asked on the topic, and made it all very public, then the Australian Public would overwhealmingly support your party. The average voting age Ozzie can sniff out BS from 50 paces and most of us probably know by now that there is something distinctly fishy about the whole AGW Alarmist thing and that to implement an ETS would be to put the country and economy through a hiding for nothing, so with that in mind it would be quite foolish to do a "me too" to what Rudd and Wong want to inflict upon us. As a blogger and prolific forum participant I will be continuing to warn against AGW Alarmism and an ETS, and similarly will be denouncing any and all political parties who support those scams. In fact, this very letter is also about to be posted to my own blog and a highly google referenced forum, and I will also be supplying it by way of comment to the PM's new blog on the topic of climate change. I firmly believe that how your party chooses to approach the (Natural) Climate Change topic will directly affect your chances at the next election. To merely support or echo the ALP postion will render you irrelevant, but should you choose to take a stand against the Alarmist hysteria and nonsense, you could not only be returned to Government but also save Australia from ruin. Thank you for your time. regarDS (name included)

KRudd's last stand ?

I'll not pollute this blog by posting KRudd's latest round of dishonest rhetoric and sophistry. If you want to read his address to the Lowy Institute made on 6/11/09, then go here: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/the-pms-address-to-the-lowy-institute/story-e6frg6nf-1225795141519 His address makes a couple of things abundantly clear. One of them is that it is clear that he doesn't actually believe in man-made global climate change, and another is that he is quite desperate for the AGW trojan horse to deliver its planned payload, and not because he thinks it is good for the climate or the children of the world, but rather (and only) because he thinks it will be good for his political future and place in history. The fact his address is riddled with weasel words and phrases and appeals to (unquantified) authority (i.e. "genuine body of evidence") that are typical of those who want to be seen as being in honest support of something they don't actually believe the word of, and who do not wish to tell a direct lie, show that he is really only giving convenient lip-service and that he doesn't actually think for a moment that our children and childrens children are under any threat by mankinds pitiful contributions of CO2 to the atmosphere ... and doesn't he just luuurv the convience "precautionary principle" offers in that regard, too ! Thus, he shows himself to be almost as much a fraud as the ETS he and Wong have cooked up to betray and ruin the country with. His obvious desperation to see the AGW trojan horse be brought through the city gates before Copenhagen, is delicious. To build on the gambling theme he chose to repeatedly use in his address, I think he knows everyone knows he's holding a dud hand and is bluffing, but he has put so much of himself into the pot that he might as well see it through, because to abandon his play now would be to lose absolutely, whereas while he continues with the obvious bluff, some miracle may still save him. A man of great blindness of faith and twisty-turniness of character is our Kevin "to infinity billions and beyond" big spender ... As this whole thing comes unstuck and the knowledge of the truth continues to grow and spread throughout this nation and the world as to how complicit in utter fraud some of our elected have become in relation to building nation destroying sovereignty robbing policies (and accompanying taxes and laws) around the AGW environmentalist religion, I wonder if we are going to see a repeat of the Oz Governer General vs Gough, and USofA "watergate" type thing. Hmmmm, no, prolly not. Our current GG is too into herself to ever do what is required in relation to dismissing a PM and government that has betrayed its country and should no longer be in office, and I suspect that the USofA would still be more inclined to make it easy for some nutter with a gun to take care of such business than do the whole impeach thing again. Actually, speaking of nutters with guns, I couldn't really see the Obamanation delivering the kind of address our desperate "the sky is falling, but I can save you" KRudd just gave. Well, at least not on USofA soil ... they shoot at the very table those who seek to cheat and defraud, don't they ? In closing, I'll quote the tiniest bit more of KRudd's sickening address. He mentioned a certain collection of names quite a few times (even Lord Monckton's ... but our Kevvy didn't say anything about the absolutely disgusting draft treaty the UN are pushing. The little Judas probably helped put the draft together anyway ...)
Malcolm, Barnaby, Andrew, Janet – stop gambling with our future. You’ve got to know when to fold ‘em – and for the skeptics, that time has come. The Government I lead will act. - Kevin Rudd, 6/11/09
Ooooh, I wonder what new laws our desperate little weasel of a PM is busy cooking up to see the likes of Andrew Bolt and Janet Albrechtsen silenced ? Re-education camps where "arbeit macht frei" ? I don't reckon MSM is going to be in much support of Kevvy for much longer. Interesting recent news is that Rupert Murdoch reckons KRudd "is delusional". You can read about that here: http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,26316630-2,00.html
"If Rudd thinks we can set an example for the rest of the world with a cap-and-trade system on greenhouse gas emissions - the ETS - all it would do is push up the cost of living in Australia and the rest of the world will laugh," - Rupert Murdoch 07/11/09
How's that for a fair shake of the sauce bottle in the fullness of time, Kev ? You'll be needing that job in the UN by the time all this is over, coz no one is going to want you in Oz. Anyway, you should fit in well over at the UN. They aren't all that big on "due diligence" either. regarDS

Saturday, 22 January 2011

Indulging my carbon offset nipples !

"Today I ...", in the "offline world", got to share a social occasion at "Little Creatures" in Freo with somebody who (if I understood the job title correctly) earns their bread and butter by not only supporting and promoting the Grand Lie of AGW/MMCC (Anthropogenic Global Warming / Man Made Climate Change), but also via the Great Fraud/Scam of our era, "Carbon Trading".

We had only known each other for prolly less than 5 minutes when The Discussion got underway, and all because LSCP ("LifeStyle Choices Partner" for those who have come in late) asked him what he did for a living and he foolishly answered "Carbon Management".

Can you image my glee and the tingle induced to my erogenous zones upon hearing such a thing ?

At one stage we had to turn things back down to about 11 (refer to The Amp on "This is Spinal Tap" ) coz he didn't like me talking about public funded professional scare-mongerers Karoly and Flim-Flannery in disparaging terms.

By the time I got to drop the name "Andrew Bolt" at our drinking table (the great names of James Delingpole and the award winning science blog "wattsupwiththat.com" already having been mentioned), my warmista drinking companion was calling me "satan" and I was calling him "gullible". :-) 

LSCP's take on the evening is that this poor fellow just simply could not believe that I was serious in my rejection of the mythical "consensus" he Truly Believed in, along with the utterly failed hypothesis of global climate change being caused by levels of atmospheric CO2, let alone mankind's pitiful contributions to the near to starvation (for flora) levels of atmospheric CO2.

To be fair and on the flip side, I just simply could not believe he was serious when he suggested that the quality of life I was enjoying thanks to relatively cheap energy generated by plant-food creating coal, could not possible be making me happy and that I would actually prefer to live without all those wonderful things cheap energy brings me.

My LSCP's view was that he thought I musta been just taking the p!ss, even though I said I had been part of a grass-roots letter writing movement that produced over 400,000 items of corro to pollies about the nation and that in turn helped see Malcolm Turncoat ousted as Liberal Party leader which in turn saw KRudd, Killard (so renamed because of her "roll out the red carpet to queue jumping economic opportunists" border control policies that has seen who knows how many wannabe illegal immigrants drown at sea), Turncoat, and Penny Wrong's ETS/CPRS stopped in its tracks.

Anyhoo, twas all fun (well, from my POV), nobody lost an eye, and I just had to LOL at his end of the evening compliment to me of "they say satan always takes an appealing guise".

I told him to put "derspatz" into google or "Hitler" + "AGW" into youtube. ;)

Actually, it has been a while, so here again is my take on Hitler's reaction to Briffa's Yamal tree ring data and all it implied.

I'll only include the youtube link because for some strange reason embedding mucks up the captions.

See: http://www.youtube.com/embed/cTGLpqFGyYM

... and for good measure, here is a favorite youtube of mine from the "JollyGreenWatchman":  http://www.youtube.com/embed/-esLrrqGKkE (linked coz of caption issues when embedding)
Anyhoo, cheers, ummm, "Gullible" (name changed to protect the identity of a modern day peddler of what is akin to the useless Roman Catholic "Indulgences" ala "permissions to sin" system of old :-)), it was all fun, and I'm sure that lump of cow you ate for dinner was raised a vegetarian.  :-) :-) :-)

Oh, and on the subject of carbon trading, here is an idea that might even tempt this little so called "satan":


OTOH, going to bed for money is called prostitution isn't it ?

Oh, and here is yet another youtube I found interesting. All about the Bias of the BBC (much like Oz's "ABC") and "The Guardian" (much like Oz's "The Age"), particularly in relation to the Big Lie of our era, "Man Made Climate Change".

Enjoy. :-)


My parting comment today is something I informed a iPad carrying drone for Bono's "One" activist/fake charity group at a 360 degrees concert late last year.

"Left wing politics is the problem, not the solution"

Something which painfully apparent here in Oz at the moment.

regarDS

Friday, 4 December 2009

Climategate - "I am a climate scientist ..."

Above image from:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/04/jo-nova-finds-the-medieval-warm-period/#more-13698 It shows the Real Story of the climate cycle as opposed to the one Michael Mann fraudulently wanted the IPCC (et al) to believe in ... one with no prior warmer-than-now time called "The Medieval Warm Period" that helps prove that humankind is NOT the cause of global climate change.

I recently found the following on http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/04/a-devastating-response-to-theres-nothing-to-see-here-move-along/#more-13710 and AFAIC, it is worthy of as much mirrored blogspace as it can get ... so here it is:

I am a climate scientist, and it is clear that the evidence that “human activity is prominent [sic] agent in global warming” is NOT overwhelming. The repeated statement that it is does not make it so. Further, even if we accepted the hypothesis, cap-and-trade legislation does not do anything about it.

Here are the facts. We have known for years that the Mann hockey stick model was wrong, and we know why it was wrong (Mann used only selected data to normalize the principal component analysis, not all of it). He retracted the model. We have known for years that the Medieval Warm period occurred, where the temperatures were higher than they are now (Chaucer spoke of vineyards in northern England).

Long before ClimateGate it was known that the IPCC people were trying to fudge the data to get rid of the MWP. And for good reason. If the MWP is “allowed” to exist, this means that temperatures higher than today did not then create a “runaway greenhouse” in the Middle Ages with methane released from the Arctic tundra, ice cap albedo lost, sea levels rising to flood London, etc. etc.), and means that Jim Hansen’s runaway greenhouse that posits only amplifying feedbacks (and no damping feedbacks) will not happen now. We now know that the models on which the IPCC alarms are based to not do clouds, they do not do the biosphere, they do not explain the Pliocene warming, and they have never predicted anything, ever, correctly.

As the believers know but, like religious faithful, every wrong prediction (IPCC underestimated some trends) is claimed to justify even greater alarm (not that the models are poor approximations for reality); the underpredictions (where are the storms? Why “hide the decline”?) are ignored or hidden.

As for CO2, we have known for years that CO2 increases have never in the past 300,000 years caused temperature rise (CO2 rise trails temperature increase). IPCC scientists know this too (see their “Copenhagen Diagnosis”); we know that their mathematical fudges that dismiss the fact that CO2 has not been historically causative of temperature rise are incorrect as well. We have also known for years that the alleged one degree temperature rise from 1880 vanishes if sites exposed to urban heat islands are not considered.

We have long known that Jones’s paper dismissing this explanation (Jones, et al. 1990. Assessment of urbanization effects in time series of surface air temperature over land, Nature 347 169- 172) is wrong and potentially fraudulent (see the same data used to confirm urban heat islands in Wang, W-C, Z. Zeng, T. R Karl, 1990. Urban Heat Islands in China. Geophys. Res. Lett. 17, 2377-2380). Everyone except Briffa knows that the Briffa conclusions are wrong, and why they are wrong; groups in Finland, Canada (lots of places actually) show cooling by this proxy, not warming; the IPCC even printed the Finn’s plot upside down to convert the fact (cooling) into the dogma (warming).

Prof. McCarthy is, of course, part of the IPCC that has suppressed dissenting viewpoints based on solid climate science. His claim to support by “peer review” is nonsense; he has helped corrupt the peer review process. We now have documentary evidence that Jones, Mann, and the other IPCC scientists have been gaming peer review and blackballing opponents. On this point, the entire IPCC staff, including Prof. McCarthy, neither have nor deserve our trust.

We have tolerated years of the refusal of Mann and Jones to release data. Now, we learn that much of these data were discarded (one of about 4 data sets that exist), something that would in any other field of science lead to disbarment. We have been annoyed by Al Gore, who declared this science “settled”, refused to debate, and demonized skeptics (this is anti-science: debate and skepticism are the core of real science, which is never settled). The very fact that Prof. McCarthy attempts to bluff Congress by asserting the existence of fictional “overwhelming evidence” continues this anti-science activity.

All of this was known before Climategate. What was not known until now was the extent to which Jones and Mann were simply deceiving themselves (which happens often in science) or fraudently attempting to deceive others. I am not willing to crucify Jones on the word “trick”. Nor, for that matter, on the loss of primary data, keeping only “value added” data (which is hopelessly bad science, but still conceivably not fraud).

But the computer code is transparently fraudulent. Here, one finds matrices that add unexplained numbers to recent temperatures and subtract them from older temperatures (these numbers are hard-programmed in), splining observational data to model data, and other smoking guns, all showing that they were doing what was necessary to get the answers that the IPCC wanted, not the answers that the data held. They knew what they were doing, and why they were doing it.

If, as Prof. McCarthy insists, “peer review” was functioning, and the IPCC reports are rigorously peer reviewed, why was this not caught? When placing it in context made it highly likely that this type of fraud was occurring?

The second question is: Will this revelation be enough to cause the “global warming believers” to abandon their crusade, and for people to return to sensible environmental science (water use, habitat destruction, land use, this kind of thing)? Perhaps it will.

Contrary to Prof. McCarthy’s assertion, we have not lost just one research project amid dozens of others that survive. A huge set of primary data are apparently gone. Satellite data are scarcely 40 years old. Everything is interconnected, and anchored on these few studies. Even without the corruption of the peer review process, this is as big a change as quantum mechanics was in physics a century ago.

But now we know that peer review was corrupted, and that no “consensus” exists. The “2500 scientists agree” number is fiction (God knows who they are counting, but to get to this number, they must be including referees, spouses, and pets).

The best argument now for AGW is to argue that CO2 is, after all, a greenhouse gas, its concentration is, after all, increasing, and feedbacks that regulated climate for millions of years might (we can hypothesize) be overwhelmed by human CO2 emissions. It is a hypothesis worthy of investigation, but it has little evidentiary support.

Thus, there is hope that Climategate will bring to an end the field of political climatology, and allow climatology to again become a science. That said, people intrinsically become committed to ideas. The Pope will not become a Protestant even if angel Gabriel taps him on the shoulder and asks him to. Likewise, Prof. McCarthy may claim until the day he retires that there remains “overwhelming support” for his position, even if every last piece of data supporting it is controverted. As a graduate student at Harvard, I was told that fields do not advance because people change their minds; rather, fields advance because people die.

Posted by Sean December 2, 09 11:26 PM

And for an example of the kind of code cooking going on that shows what fraudulent mischief the CRU crew were up to, go here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/04/climategate-the-smoking-code/

And how is this from an Oz newspaper found here: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-email-mess-hits-australia-20091204-kb39.html ?

What the hell was Phil Jones and the rest of his colluding CRU crew using for raw data anyway ?

... The Australian data comes in for particular criticism as the programmer discovers World Meteorological Organisation codes are missing, station names overlap and many co-ordinates are incorrect.

At one point the programmer writes about his attempts to make sense of the data. "What a bloody mess," he concludes.


In another case, 30 years of data is attributed to a site at Cobar Airport but the frustrated programmer writes: "Now looking at the dates. something bad has happened ... COBAR AIRPORT AWS [automatic weather station] cannot start in 1962, it didn't open until 1993!"

In another he says: "Getting seriously fed up with the state of the Australian data ... so many false references ... so many changes ... bewildering." ...

Wow, weather station data from a weather station not established until 32 years later ... now THERE is a "trick" !

Seems to me that the only thing holding up AGW now is religious blind faith and wishful thinking ... and why would anyone want it to be true anyway, hmmm ?

regarDS

Saturday, 3 October 2009

Big News! AGW's "Hockey Stick" well and truly broken ...

This is Big News. At long last, after near a decade of being stymied and stonewalled, the Base Data used to help give the world the infamous "Hockey Stick Graph" has been made available for suitable scientific peer-review scrutiny ... and it is now plain why such desperate efforts were made to keep it from being scrutinised in the first place.

Rather than repeat what has already been said, get thee instead to the following links from the award winning science blog "wattsupwiththat.com":

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/27/quote-of-the-week-20-ding-dong-the-stick-is-dead/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/02/a-hands-on-view-of-tree-growth-and-tree-rings-one-explanation-for-briffas-yad061-lone-tree-core/

Or if you don't have the time to be reading all that at the moment, then enjoy the following rant from Hitler ... but please pardon any mis-translating of German into English I may have inadvertently made in providing subtitles. Heh.


So, "man-made climate change" is in fact shown to be "mann-made climate change". Not that I expect the AGW environmentalist religionists to suddenly abandon their cult just because a central sacred icon to it has been hurled down. They'll soon find something to replace it with ... such is the nature of such True Believers.
regarDS

Friday, 14 August 2009

Can you hear me Penny Wong ?

I thought I better resist the urge to launch into yet another massive/longwinded post on the topic of AGW Alarmism.

So I'll launch into a song instead. Heh.



Lyrics (as found in the comments section at http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/it_should_have_been_defeated_because_its_insane/
by "Perturbed") as follows:


EARTH ODDITY. (Apologies to David Bowie)

Kevin Rudd to Penny Wong
Kevin Rudd to Penny Wong
Put your special hat that's made of tinfoil on.

Kevin Rudd to Penny Wong
Legislation spin switch on
Check your factoids and may Al Gore be with you

(Countdown from 10 - 1, then Liftoff!")

This is Kevin Rudd to Penny Wong,
Weve really made the grade!
And weve sidelined that weird singer with no hair
Now lets push the ETS through if we dare

This is Penny Wong to Kevin Rudd
My hearts gone through the floor
For theyre voting in a most peculiar way
And the outcomes looking miserable today!

For here we are with our hats of tinfoil
Trying to save the world
The ETS we blew and there's nothing we can do.

Though we've made three hundred billion debt
We could do better still
But the stupid Senate told us where to go
(To a double dissolution, dont you know?)

Kevin Rudd to Penny Wong
Our Climate Change crusades gone wrong
Can you hear me, Penny Wong
Can you hear me, Penny Wong
Can you

Here we are with our hats of tinfoil
Baying at the moon
The ETS we blew and theres nothing we can do


Anyway, to participate in the debate, join up at: http://www.behindthebox.com.au/showthread.php?t=38673

regarDS

Thursday, 13 August 2009

A minor win in the war on stupidity and fraud that is AGW Alarmism and ETS.

On the 13th of August, 2009, a minor skirmish in the war on gross stupidity and outright fraud was won when the PRO-Anthropogenic Global Warming Alarmist Government had its CO2 indulgence scheme ala "CPRS" voted down.

Featured below is a speech from one of the voices of reason who voted against the Government's ruinous plans for Australia. Please note that all paragraph breaks and bold (etc) emphasis, have been added by yours truly. The speech in its original form was not provided with paragraph breaks so I've had to guess where they may have been.

To see it in its original format, visit: http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/it_should_have_been_defeated_because_its_insane/

Tuesday, 11 August 2009
BY AUTHORITY OF THE SENATE
Tuesday, 11
August 2009 THE SENATE 1
CHAMBER SPEECH
Date Tuesday, 11 August 2009
Source Senate
Page 70 Proof Yes
Questioner Responder
Speaker
Minchin, Sen Nick Question No.

Senator MINCHIN (South Australia) (7.32 pm)—

The government this week are asking the Senate to support passage of a package of no less than 11 separate bills, the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 and related bills, to give effect to their Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, as they call it.
This scheme represents one of the most dramatic and far-reaching interventions into the Australian economy ever proposed by an Australian government. Its passage and entry into force would have enormous impacts on the Australian economy and the economic circumstances of millions of Australians.

The government knows there is no Senate majority for this legislation, yet it is determined on what is nothing more than a cynical political exercise. This legislation should be withdrawn for a number of reasons.

Firstly, it proposes a scheme which will not commence operation for another two years. There is absolutely no justification for the government’s insistence that the parliament deal with it now.
Secondly, the government is seeking to legislate an emissions trading scheme for Australia well in advance of the UN meeting in Copenhagen in December, which will determine the extent to which, if any, the world is prepared to act in concert on CO2 emissions. It is utter folly for Australia to legislate a scheme prior to the Copenhagen conference.

And, thirdly, the United States, currently the biggest emitter, is currently considering the issue of an ETS. It is, in our view, cynically irresponsible to propose that the Australian parliament lock in an Australian ETS prior to the US —as I said, the biggest emitter of CO2—before it determines whether or not it will commit to an ETS and, if so, the nature and design of such a scheme. For these reasons, the opposition condemns the government for its naked political opportunism in forcing the parliament to consider its so-called CPRS at this time.

Not only is the timing of this legislative initiative to be condemned, so too should the very name given to this package of legislation be condemned by this parliament. It is regrettably typical of this spindriven government to use such a grotesquely Orwellian approach to the description of this legislation.

For no more than base political purposes, the government has called its emissions trading scheme a ‘carbon pollution reduction scheme’. This is of course the perpetuation of a cruel hoax on the Australian people, childishly simplistic and misleading. The scheme proposed does not deal with carbon. It purports to deal with something quite separate—carbon dioxide emissions—and the scheme does not deal with pollution.

Whatever the climatic role of human induced emissions of CO2, CO2 is not by any stretch of the imagination a pollutant. CO2 is, as we know, a clear, odourless, colourless gas vital to life on earth. Indeed, CO2 is essential to a healthy environment.
One of the most cynical and deceptive manoeuvres of the climate change fanatics is to seek to convince people that CO2 emissions are pollution, to demonise CO2 per se. Anyone with any understanding of science knows this to be a complete falsehood. Indeed the Rudd government knows it too. Its own environment department’s website has a link to the official Australian National Pollutant Inventory, which lists 93 pollutants. Surprise, surprise, carbon dioxide is not listed among them. Mind you, after this speech, I bet some poor public servant will be bullied into adding CO2 to the list. So even the government’s own official list of pollutants, all 93 of them, does not include carbon dioxide.

It is also typical of this deceitful and spin-driven government to so cynically misrepresent the nature of carbon dioxide. Of course this whole extraordinary scheme, which would do so much damage to Australia, is based on the as yet unproven assertion that anthropogenic emissions of CO2 are the main driver of global warming.

I want to commend Senator Fielding for his questioning of the government over the causes of global warming. The Rudd government arrogantly refuses to acknowledge that there remains a very lively scientific debate about the extent of and the main causes of climate change, with thousands of highly reputable scientists around the world of the view that anthropogenic emissions of CO2 are not and cannot be the main driver of the small degree of global warming that occurred in the last 30 years of the 20th century.

No-one, of course, disputes the reality of climate change. Of course the climate is constantly changing —it always has; it always will—but the main drivers of the small degree of warming that occurred in the 20th-century and the extent to which we should be concerned about it are hotly disputed in scientific circles.

One of the world’s most eminent atmospheric scientists, Professor Richard Lindzen of the prestigious Massachusetts Institute of Technology, recently observed:

"The notion of a static, unchanging climate is foreign to the history of the earth or any other planet with a fluid envelope. The fact that the developed world went into hysterics over changes in global mean temperature anomaly of a few tenths of a degree will astound future generations. Such hysteria simply represents the scientific illiteracy of much of the public, the susceptibility of the public to the substitution of repetition for truth, and the exploitation of these weaknesses by politicians, environmental promoters, and, after 20 years of media drum beating, many others as well. Climate is always changing."

That is Professor Richard Lindzen, one of the world’s most eminent atmospheric scientists, who I suspect knows a little bit more about this subject than Senator Penny Wong. On Tuesday, June 23, writing in the Australian, Professor Peter Schwerdtfeger, Emeritus Professor of Meteorology at Flinders University, in Adelaide, reinforced this:

Repeatedly in science we are reminded that happenings in nature can rarely be ascribed to a single phenomenon. For example, sea levels on our coasts are dependent on winds and astronomical forces as well as atmospheric pressure and, on a different time scale, the temperature profile of the ocean. Now, with complete abandon, a vociferous body of claimants is insisting that CO2 alone is the root of climatic evil.

I fear that many supporters of this view have become carried away by the euphoria of mass or dominant group psyche. Scientists are no more immune from being swayed by the pressure of collective enthusiasm than any other member of the human race.

To acknowledge the reality of continuing scientific debate is not to say that Australia should not act in concert with other nations to give the planet the benefit of the doubt and to seek a global agreement to contain CO2 emissions. To the extent that anthropogenic CO2 emissions may be a cause of the limited global warming that has occurred, and to the extent that that warming is considered to be damaging, internationally coordinated measures to contain emissions at the least possible cost may be warranted.

Indeed, as someone trained in economics, I proclaim the virtue of an approach based on ensuring the most cost-efficient use of finite resources. The world has not measured up to that standard in relation to its use of energy. But, given the continuing scientific debate, it is especially important that a country like Australia only take steps in relation to CO2 emissions that are in concert with the rest of the world and clearly involve the least cost and most economically efficient means of CO2 containment.

The government’s CPRS clearly fails that test. The case against this scheme was convincingly made by my colleague the member for Goldstein, Mr Robb, in his speech on this bill in the House of Representatives. I also commend the work of my coalition colleagues on the Economics Legislation Committee in their reports on these bills and of Senator Xenophon on his minority report, which is a well-argued condemnation of this CPRS. I should also make mention of the critical analysis of this CPRS undertaken by the Select Committee on Climate Policy, chaired by my colleage Senator Colbeck, which exposed the CPRS’s many, many flaws.

Not enough is made of the reality of Australia’s circumstances in the consideration of measures to contain anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Australia contributes a little over one per cent of the planet’s CO2 emissions. If we were to completely shut down the Australian economy tomorrow, Australia’s CO2 emissions would be fully replaced by China within nine months. It is indisputably the case that nothing Australia does on its own can have any impact whatsoever on the earth’s climate. The deceit perpetrated by climate change fanatics that an Australian ETS will save the Barrier Reef is utterly contemptible.

The manic determination of the government to impose this scheme on Australia also ignores the reality of the Australian economy. Australia’s economy and our higher standard of living have been built upon our access to relatively cheap and abundant supplies of energy generated by coal-fired power stations. This is regrettably not well understood in this parliament let alone in the wider community.

It was my privilege to serve as Minister for Industry, Science and Resources for three years in the Howard government, an experience which reinforced this fundamental reality about Australia: all the great manufacturing and value-added industries of Australia, which this Labor government professes a commitment to, have been built on and are sustained by access to cheap, reliable energy derived from coal. That is why an ETS, essentially an energy tax, is such a threat to this country.

As Terry McCrann so accurately said in the Australian of 20-21 June: ... an ETS threatens to kill the Australian economy. It is a direct attack on our core comparative advantage: bluntly, the production of CO2. Power generated from cheap and abundant coal is a, perhaps the, core building block of both our standard of living and our entire economy.

That is a reality which this government wilfully ignores. What we see here is a Labor government sacrificing workers in energy-intensive industries on the altar of green votes. The cruel joke is that all those thousands of jobs to be destroyed by Labor’s CPRS will be in vain, because this scheme will make absolutely no difference to the global climate.

Most Australians clearly do not understand what an emissions trading scheme is, how it would work and what its consequences would be. That is perfectly understandable. I suspect most of the Labor caucus has no idea, either. Essentially it will be a very substantial tax on energy, and that is why Labor’s flawed CPRS is such a threat to our economy, dependent as it is on relatively cheap supplies of energy. Hence the utter folly of Australia designing and implementing this scheme ahead of the rest of the world.

Labor’s CPRS is a serious threat to many regional economies and the jobs they support, and I commend Senator Fiona Nash for her eloquent espousal of their cause. In my own state of South Australia it is estimated that it will cost 2,000 jobs by 2020 in the minerals industry alone. As a senator for South Australia, I do not see how I can possibly vote for this legislation, nor do I see how any government senators representing South Australia can vote for it.

While the financial capitals of Melbourne and Sydney may relish the creation of a new financial instrument to be traded by 20- something bankers, the people of a state like mine will pay the price in a higher cost of living, in industries and jobs destroyed and in a reduction in competitiveness — all for zero environmental gain.

It is also reprehensible that Labor would seek to legislate this serious attack on the Australian economy at a time when, as Mr Rudd constantly reminds us, we face a very serious set of economic circumstances. Mr Rudd loves to remind us of the seriousness of the so-called GFC and its threat to Australia. Indeed, it is his justification for the most massive explosion in government spending, government deficits and government debt seen since the 1930s. Yet, while talking endlessly about our serious economic situation, he seeks to fit Australia up with a set of concrete boots called his CPRS.

As Geoff Carmody, one of Australia’s most eminent economists, wrote in the Financial Review on 23 June this year: The CPRS is ‘the GST from hell’, delivering negative protection. Why should any country unilaterally tax its exports and effectively subsidise its imports, for no global emissions reduction?

At a time when policy should be wholly directed at maximising the efficiency, productivity and international competitiveness of the Australian economy, Mr Rudd seeks to impose a unilateral massive new tax on Australian industry and consumers which will damage our economy and do nothing to combat global warming.

The government’s pursuit of this legislation at this time is nothing more than an act of vanity on the part of Mr Kevin Rudd. This most vain of prime ministers wants to strut the stage at Copenhagen in December with a legislated ETS in his back pocket. He and his government propose to sacrifice Australia’s national interest on the altar of his vain desire for international acclaim from the vast UN bureaucracy being built around climate change policy.
The Australian parliament should not even be considering legislation for an ETS until we know the outcome of the UN’s Copenhagen conference and the US Senate’s consideration of the Waxman - Markey bill. The Australian people agree with this view. An Australian Newspoll conducted on the weekend of 24 to 26 July showed that 53 per cent of Australians wanted their government to either delay the introduction of an emissions trading scheme until after the Copenhagen conference or not introduce an emissions trading scheme at all.

On that basis, and for the reasons I have outlined to the Senate tonight, I urge the Senate to reject this package of bills.

Hear, hear.

regarDS

Tuesday, 14 July 2009

The creator of the Weather Channel wants Gore sued for fraud




While on the subject of The Goracle (who is in Oz busy recruiting latte-lefty Melboredites even as I type), here is a picture of his Crystal displays. At last we have his chief advisor and source of faulty information revealed !



Yup, as always suspected, the Goracle depends not only on Liquid Crystal Displays, but also the old fashioned Solid Crystal Balls (as circled in purple in the pic).

In fact, The False Prophet only requires but ONE "SCB" to four LCDs to arrive at the fraud, scam, carpet bagging and flim flammery he touts.

Incredible, eh ? Yup ... and in every sense of the word.

How many big screen monitors and trees does it take be the profit, uh, prophet of AGW (Anthropogenic (ala "man made") Global Warming) Alarmism anyway ?

I see from http://www.climatedepot.com/a/1893/Gore-US-Climate-Bill-Will-Help-Bring-About-Global-Governance that the false prophet of climate change is (still) busy calling for "global governance", too.

The very thing I've been talking about for yonks now re: the pragmatic use of AGW Alarmism to cement together a mish-mash of governments into a New World Order of a Global Government. As also represeneted by "the 10 toes" of the "feat of iron and clay" final last days kingdom as per King Nebuchadnezzar's dream as interpreted by Daniel in the book by the same name and from chapter 2.

Not only has the march towards global government been steadily progressing as promised, but also is still happening and fast taking on its final form as detailed in the symbol of that King's infamous statue.

If indeed AGW Alarmism turns out to be the "clay" that cements the "iron" together in that final government before a certain big finish, then does that mean that The Goracle isn't just a false prophet, but in fact is THE False Prophet spoken about of the final days before Heavenly Intervention ?

If so, then not even the book writings of a hundred Professor Plimers are going to turn back the "man-made climate change" Alarmist madness, but rather it is more a matter of firmly choosing sides and accepting the consequences that go along with those choices.

I choose the side of science, rationality, and anti-fanaticism ... which obviously puts me directly opposed to Gore and all of the (mostly) loonie left who support him and who are pragmatically using natural climate change as a way to establish global systems of government that are not only anti-conservative and anti-christian, but also are likely (if left unchecked) to lead to a greater blood-letting than the extreme lefty regimes under Stalin, Hitler, and Mao (etc) put together.

Yes, you read that correctly, I reckon that the Nazis, ala "National Socialist German Workers' Party" were lefties who were found just to the right of the very much lefty Stalinists. To quote another blog on the subect, "The Big Lie of the late 20th century was that Nazism was Rightist. It was in fact typical of the Leftism of its day. It was only to the Right of Stalin's Communism. The very word "Nazi" is a German abbreviation for "National Socialist" (Nationalsozialist) and the full name of Hitler's political party (translated) was "The National Socialist German Workers' Party" (In German: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei)" See: http://ray-dox.blogspot.com/2006/05/american-roots-of-fascism-american.html for the entire article.

Still don't think so ? Well no matter, for "left/right" politics isn't a spectrum ... it's a circle with the extreme left and the extreme right ending up at the same place; fascism and totalitarianism.

Which is precisely what the world will get if the fanatical extremist environmentalists slash AGW Alarmists slash disenfranchised socialists slash Gorites get their way.

Their kind of mindsets just love the bloody revolutions and the mass murder of dissenters that such forms of overbearing government always bring ...

regarDS
PS: For more Climate Change Alarmism news articles and commentary (mostly from yours truly. Big surprise ?), visit: http://www.behindthebox.com.au/showthread.php?t=38673

Thursday, 18 June 2009

The vindication of carbon means the vindication of human freedom.

If you've not realised yet, I'm a "Climate Realist". ie, I am of the reasonable and sensible view that the world's climate is changing, has always changed, and shall continue to change in the future. I certainly have not in any way, shape, or form, bought into the current nonsense that (a) CO2 is a pollutant and (b) human production of CO2 is driving global climate change.
Nor am I of the view that Real Science is decided by consensus - and just as well it isn't or we might never have found a cure for stomach ulcers.
I'm also of the view that on a global scale, our flora is somewhat starved for CO2 at the moment and could greatly benefit by an increase of at least 3fold to current levels. Which would be wonderful for providing so much more of the planet's population their daily bread !
Could it be that the desire to remove CO2 from our atmosphere is a desire to bring about population control via starvation ?
Anyway, I found the following at
which is the website of a new Oz political party dedicated to the truth getting out and the evil greenie loonie lefty religion of environmentalism being exposed for the fraud and enemy of humankind and the planet that it is.
The full link is:
all bolds and extra emphasis are mine and paragraph format is probably different from the original (all formating was lost in the cut and paste)
Start Of Quote

THE VINDICATION OF CARBON MEANS THE VINDICATION OF HUMAN FREEDOM
Robert D. Brinsmead

The evidence is piling up every day that the world is now getting cooler instead of warmer, the oceans are now cooling instead of warming, the ice is returning to the Arctic rather than receding, the sea ice in the Antarctic is at record levels, and that rising sea levels have moderated. The sun has recently gone into a less active phase of fewer sun-spots, and the ocean decadal currents have changed from a warming to a cooling phase.
Before too long the global warming scare will be as dead as the scares about the Y2 bug or acid rain. Already some of the global warming alarmists, anticipating this may soon happen, are reinventing their alarmism into the scare about the oceans becoming acidified by our CO2 emissions – even though the oceans already contains 90 times more CO2 than the atmosphere (Chilingar, et.al.)

Beyond all these things, however, we need to get to what this debate and this climate change alarmism is really all about.

Beyond all this alarmism about global warming or ocean acidification, we need to see that on a deeper level it is a debate about carbon, and when we dig into that level of the debate we will finally see that behind the demonization of carbon and CO2, it is all about an attack on humanity itself.

Global warming alarmism is not a science, but a religio/political movement. This paper will show why it a dangerous totalitarian ideology and a more serious threat to human freedom than Communism or Nazism. It is also like a bad joke, because carbon just happens to be the most wonderful of all the elements in the periodic table because of its ability to make so many organic compounds that are fundamental to the formation of life. Yet here is a movement that is all about demonizing carbon.

The Wonders of Carbon
Nearly every new product that human ingenuity has devised on the road of human progress is a carbon-based product. Steel, for instance, is made by blending carbon with iron. There would be no construction industry without carbon. Nearly every product in a modern house, including most of the surfaces, with the exception of the glass and the bricks, is a carbon-based product.
If our clothes are not made of natural fibers such as wool, cotton or silk (all of which are carbon-based), then they will be made from synthetic fibers, all of which are carbon based too. All plastics and polyethylene products are carbon-based materials. All the foods we produce and eat are carbon products - and that not only includes our carbo(n)hydrates, but all the fats and proteins in our food are made of carbon compounds too.
Not just the petrol and oil that run our autos, but the cars themselves, right down to their brake linings, are made of substances that would not exist without carbon. There could be no aviation or space industries apart from a whole plethora of carbon-based products.
There are ten million naturally occurring carbon compounds (more than all the other elements of the periodic table combined), and beyond these, man is finding that there are almost limitless
opportunities to come up with new products using carbon -from fantastic nanotubes composed of the toughest stuff known to making better tennis racquets. This never-ending variety of new products is all due to the amazing and unique features of the carbon molecule that is so adaptable and so flexible that there is no end to what new products might be made with it - from the hardest to the softest substances known.
Carbon is not just the fourth most common element in the universe, but through its millions of compounds it is as ubiquitous and as necessary to life as oxygen and water.
Carbon is the Basis of Life
This brings me to my main point. Human ingenuity, as I have pointed out, can make an astounding array of new products that are carbonbased, including products that play a vital role in taking man into space. But, for all that, we cannot make living things with carbon because we can't solve the mystery of replicating life. But when the time came for the good Lord (or Gaia or Lady Luck if you insist) to make a world of living things, whether amazing plants that live and reproduce, or animals that can live and reproduce, or the human brain that can actually think creatively, what do you suppose this life-generating power used?
Carbon, of course!
Any good biology text book will tell you that life is carbon-based. All living things, starting at the cellular level which is common to all life, is based on carbon compounds, including the DNA that carry the gene sequences of the genetic codes. Of the trillions of cells in the human body, there is not a one of them that is not made of carbon.

Think of giant Cedars, Californian Redwoods and Tasmanian Mountain Ash - they are all made of carbon. Every blade of grass, every delicate orchid, every kind of fruit (there are ten thousand known varieties) is made of carbon. Think of all those tantalizing flavors in fantastic variety - juicy mangoes, buttery avocados and versatile limes, all filled with fruit sugars so varied and in such abundance - they are all made of a carbon/hydrogen combinations. Ordinary pure sugar is made up of ten atoms of carbon compounded with sixteen atoms of hydrogen. There are eight kinds of sugars essential to the human body and vital in cell to cell communication. Glucose, fructose, lactose and mannose are the more common ones. Sugar is fundamental to brain function. Every diabetic knows that.
When we turn to the animal kingdom, including mankind itself, we find too that leaping deer, frolicking seals, lumbering rhinos or thinking humans are all forms of animated carbon. In the human species we have thinking carbon through which the universe actually becomes conscious of itself. The human brain is the most complex and intricate piece of equipment in the universe. This is the organ of the human mind through which carbon not only becomes thinking carbon, but reaches the sublime heights of becoming caring, sharing, loving carbon.
So who is going to tell me that carbon is just some black old ugly stuff that deserves to be demonized as the world’s great pollutant?
Stand back, and let your mind take into this whole wondrous biosphere - the living earth - and what you are surveying is the awesome wonder that carbon has come alive in the great dance of life.

What is made of carbon must be fuelled by carbon. Now consider too that this great dance of living things is not just made of carbon, but it has to be fuelled by carbon. It needs to feed on carbon to grow and reproduce. Yet we have people who call themselves scientists or leaders of society who are so deluded with a disease called carbophobia (an irrational fear of carbon), that they label carbon a dangerous pollutant which has to be regulated and sequestered to the nether regions of the earth. For pity's sake, how can their carbon-thinking brains reach such anti-carbon conclusions?

This is not just madness; it is madness gone mad.
Mad science. Mad politicians. Mad anti-carbon activists on a mankind-hating, lifehating crusade of self destruction. In the entire history of civilization, no mass hysteria has ever come close to being such a monstrous threat to civilization at this!
Where do animals, including mankind, get their carbon-based fuel?

All animal food has to originate from plants, of course. Plants start this food chain by making carbo(n)hydrates for the animal kingdom. No plants = no food chain = no animals = no mankind. So where do the plants source their carbon so that they can make all this carbonbased food to sustain all creatures great and small?
The only gateway through which carbon can enter the food chain to enable the biosphere to exist is through the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. There is no other way. It all starts with CO2 in the atmosphere. The entire chain of life starts with plants absorbing this entirely natural, colorless, odorless, absolutely non-toxic aerial gas called CO2.

They used to teach these simple facts to primary school kids, but nowadays teachers who are way off with the environmental fairies are scaring the daylights out of our children with hobgoblin stories about the evils of CO2.

This insanity must stop. It's time to teach the kids again and to remind the adults of this world that CO2 is the primary plant food that ends up feeding them too. They need to be told again the simple fact that the leaves on a plants have stomata through which they absorb or breathe in C02, and by a process of photosynthesis, the plants turn this CO2 into carbo(n)hydrate food for animals and man.
They need reminding that more than 90% of the dry matter of plants is simply processed C02. Whether it is a cow eating the grass or humans eating the cow, all are eating -and being fuelled - by processed CO2.

CO2 is as natural and as necessary to life as water and oxygen. It is not a poison. It is not a pollutant. It feeds the whole world, Stupid!
Unless the soil gave off carbon emissions into the atmosphere, unless the sea (which contains 90 times the amount of CO2 than the atmosphere) gave off carbon emissions, unless the micro-organisms which comprise more than two-thirds of the world's biomass gave off their carbon emissions, unless the termites gave off their carbon emissions, unless cattle gave off their carbon emissions (their belching and flatulence actually give off more carbon emissions than the entire human transport system), and unless we as part of this tapestry of life gave off carbon emissions, then life could not go on for the simple reason that the plants would have no food by which to grow, and then no creature on earth would have anything to eat.
For life to go on, the carbon used to make all living things and to feed all living things, must be circulated back from whence it came to start the life-cycle all over again. Every form of life simply borrows the carbon by which it lives only to give it back again. We give some of it back when we breathe, we give some of it back in our bodily wastes and we give the last bit of it back when the shovel thumps the ground on top of us.

Demonizing Carbon is a Dangerous Nonsense.
In the light of all this, it is a sheer nonsense of the highest and most dangerous order to put forward the notion that carbon or carbon dioxide is a pollutant. It is double nonsense to say that the carbon emissions of either humans or cattle is a threat to the earth anymore than the much more abundant carbon emissions of the soil microorganisms or the carbon emissions of the oceans that outdo our human carbon emissions in an order of magnitude many times to
one are a threat to the earth.

Be warned: this dangerous eco-Taliban wants to subject us to a carbon taxing, carbon regulating police state. It surely has to stand to reason that you can't regulate human carbon emissions without regulating every aspect of human existence - and that would be more totalitarian than anything the world has ever known. This is a religio/political ideology masquerading as science.
Their plans to decarbonize our footprint and to decarbonize our economy will reduce our civilization to a weakened and impoverished state of carbo-anorexia. Does that sound like a lot of fun?
People need to be told the plain truth that much higher carbon emissions and much higher levels of atmospheric CO2 than we see at present would mean more plant food, more plant growth and more food for man and animals to eat. Carbon is the greenest stuff on the planet.

I speak now as a horticulturist. Plant nursery operators know that CO2 enrichment of the air in the nursery house means that the plants grow quicker, have bigger roots and get by on less water.

Certainly every indoor tomato grower in New Zealand, Australia, Holland or anywhere for that matter knows that he can increase the yield of tomatoes 40% simply by increasing the CO2 content of the air by about 300%. What's good for plants is good for animals because animals and plants evolved together and share a common basis in life based on cells.
A great leap forward in world agricultural productivity took place in the 1920's when they learned to take nitrogen out of the air and put it into the soil where it could stimulate plant growth. Our highly populated world could not feed itself today without recourse to synthetic nitrogen. The second leap forward is staring us in the face. It is to take the carbon out of the earth and put it into the air where it can benefit plant life and so enhance food productivity. The technology has already been proven and demonstrated thousands of times. It is estimated that the agricultural industry today enjoys a 15% increase of food productivity due to the modest rise of atmospheric CO2 levels of the last 100 years from 280 ppm to 385 ppm.
More and more evidence accumulates that in an ideal world we would have 1000 to 1500 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere instead of a mere 385 ppm as we have now, or a 280 ppm that the carbophobics would take us back to if they have their way.
That level of CO2 happens to be only a tad higher than the point at which plants suffocate for lack of CO2. (See the Wikipedia article on CO2) 300% to 400% higher levels of CO2 will have no adverse impact on humans or animals.
In evolutionary history, the explosion of life-forms took place during the Cambrian Age when there were many times more CO2 in the atmosphere than we have today. Besides, humans work in indoor tomato-growing facilities and indoor offices where the CO2 levels are around 1,000 ppm.
As for world temperatures, more and more evidence piles up every day, especially over the last five years, that higher levels of atmospheric CO2 have no catastrophic effect on climate.
In the theory of the global warming alarmists, CO2 has heat-trapping properties, meaning that the more CO2 builds up in the atmosphere, the warmer the world will become. There are some inconvenient facts, however, that destroy this theory:

(1) CO2 is only a small player when it comes to greenhouse gas, more than 90% of which is water vapour – and who gets paranoid about water vapour?
(2) The earth and her systems – including the very complex climate system – are robust, resilient and self-regulating. Apparently, they easily adjust to a bit more CO2 just as easily
as all the plants and animals do.

(3) The proof of any scientific theory is in observing and measuring what takes place in the real world irrespective of what computer modeling might indicate. Whilst CO2 levels have continued to rise over the last decade, world temperatures have begun a downward trend. If the current behavior of the sun with its diminished sun-spots and magnetic strength is any guide, and if the recent changes of the Atlantic and Pacific Decadal Currents are any guide, then this cooling trend will continue for a least another 20-30 years – all proving that C02 never was and never can be a primary driver of climate.

Carbophobia - the irrational fear of carbon - has become the disease of our age, the religious myth of our time and the apocalyptic delusion of this moment of history. It can be cured, however, with a good dose of common sense.
Why then worry about the size our carbon footprint? - the bigger the better if the aim is to green the earth and to feed the world. As for pollutants, let's direct our attention to the real pollutants in our environment like the sulphurs, the nitric oxides and real chemical pollutants. CO2 is not one of them. Before we get too morbidly obsessed about the size of our carbon footprint, it might help to remind ourselves that the termites and the micro-organisms have a very much larger carbon footprint than we do.
As for the oceans, their carbon emissions are so massive that they make human carbon emissions appear about as significant as some flatulence in a hurricane.
Carbon is good for you, good for every living thing, and good for the earth. So relax and enjoy your good portion of carbon under the sun, especially if it happens to be a carbonated cold one.
The fear of carbon is the fear of life. The love of carbon is the love of life. Humans are animated carbon. Everything we consume and emit is carbon-based. Everything we make or purchase causes carbon emissions.
It is not possible to control and regulate carbon without controlling and regulating every aspect of human existence. To be anti-carbon is to be anti-human freedom.
The war on carbon is an ill-disguised war on humanity, a war on human freedom. Carbon and carbon emissions are simply a proxy for human activity. This whole movement to demonize carbon is driven by a world-denying, man-hating worldview. It is time to rip away the mask and expose the movement whose real aim is to put the human race in chains to a system that controls every aspect of human existence.
It is time to stand up and say, “You take your jackboots off my carbon and off my life.”
It is heartening to see that more and more scientists are waking up to the junk science of man-made global warming alarmism and that they are are now coming out of the woodwork to say so. The movement to shut down our energy sources by a beat-up against CO2, if successful, would turn off the lights of civilization. It is fitting that the symbolism of the recent Earth Hour was darkness rather than light.

There has never been more than a small coterie of pseudo-science activists and social engineers driving this global warming alarmism cart. They have been remarkably successful in closing down the debate and silencing opposition by their big lie about their enjoying an overwhelming scientific consensus. They have intimidated a lot of scientists with the fear of losing academic funding if they should open their mouths with a contrary opinion.
As for the Media that refused to obey their own credo of rigorous investigative journalism, that ducked from asking the hard questions, that forgot they were supposed to be independent journalists instead of advocates for the popular hysteria, its integrity and credibility has been trashed by its own hand.
Long live the free spirits of the Internet, the indefatigable bloggers who would not be silenced.
*Robert D. Brinsmead is a Horticulturist and a free-lance Writer.
End of Quote
regarDS

Sunday, 24 August 2008

Burbles and Wobbles ...

A quick post-note to the last entry where I mentioned that after a day and a half of throwing various tools and lumps of wood etc at Der Ratte, it still looked more or less the same as when I started and merely smelled worse due to a good fish oiling.

I have now discovered that removing the stock air-box and replacing with the Pods makes a simply marvelous difference. Not only in the get Up and Go department, but also in the 'hey, that sounds Good" section too. I'm sure those of you who have done similar are nodding their heads knowingly.

What a beautiful burble now emits when cruising, and what a satisfying 'hey, I'm here, get out of my way" volume increase when opening up the throttle ! Who would have thunk that such a simple change could make a bike so much more enjoyable to ride !

The economy seems to be better too ... I've already gone over 20 kilometres over where Der Ratte usually starts coughing for a switch over to reserve, but still no sign of cutting out.

Okay, that is the Burbles" side of this blog entry done.

Now for the Wobbles. Nope, nothing to do with Der Ratte.

I was reading with some interest today as to how quickly ice is melting away in the Northern Hemisphere due to this current cycle of natural global climate change we are being blessed with.

Glaciers are retreating at a fast rate of knots even in most Northern Greenland, Arctic ice is soon going to be no more, permafrost in Siberia (etc) is becoming swamp, millions of tons of driftwood and scary amounts of defrosting mammoth meat is finding its way down Northern rivers after being released from previous frozen areas, etc, etc, etc.

In short, billions of tons of frozen water accumulated in various heaps in the North, is following the path water best likes to travel, and is flattening out into the form of less cold wet stuff wot boats can float on.

All good as far as I'm concerned ... we're merely returning to the way things were back when Greenland was more hospitable to the Vikings and the like.

But what is happening at the better end of the globe ? That place South of the land of Oz where yours truly lives, loves, and laughs from ?

Apparently ice at the Antarctic is getting thicker. A bit like all those Environtologists of the Church of Environtology who are running around telling all who will listen to their religious nonsense (and be taxed for the privilage) that the sky is falling and it is all our fault.

Ok, here we get to the wobble part.

Anyone got any kind of idea as to how much ice has to turn to water (with accompanying changes in water tempurature and current directions, etc) in the far North in comparison to how much water has to turn to ice in the far South before this spinning mis-shappen ball we live upon must naturally see a change to its axis wobble due to weight redistribution ?

regarDS

Wednesday, 9 January 2008

Genesis 3:21 The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife, and clothed them.

From "The Australian" January 9th 2008
Climate change cure is warm and fuzzy. by Janet Albrechtsen
CANADA: I am starting to warm to this whole climate change business. Arrived in Vancouver for a night just before 2007 drew to a close. With barely a few hours remaining before the stores closed, I raced out and bought a fur coat. A long coat cascading down to my ankles, light as a feather and as warm as a ... well ... fur.
A few days later, despite sub-zero mountain temperatures, I am still positively glowing with warmth from my new fur. Not just because animal skins protect from the cold. No, there is the unexpected, more cerebral, inner-warmth that comes from learning that by buying a fur, I have done the right green thing. According to the Fur Council of Canada's new ad campaign, fur is now eco-fashion. Thats right. Wrapping yourself in a fur is a guilt-free pleasure. More than that, it's positively good for the planet. Barely 10 days in, I am loving 2008. It holds the promise of lots more surprises from green politics as the climate change juggernaut continues to head in the most unlikely directions.
Let me explain. At the weekend, Canada's National Post reported on an advertising campaign launched at the end of last year by the Fur Council of Canada, which represents 70,000 of the nation's fur traders. These sassy new ads feature gorgeous women draped in fur, one under the heading "Environmental activist". The ads explain that buying a fur coat is the ecologically correct thing to do because fox stoles and mink coats are natural, renewable and sustainable. By contrast, synthetic furs are no more than by-products of the petro-chemical industry. Making a single faux fur coat can chew up 19 litres of petroleum, a non-renewable resource, says the council. Ergo, buying a fur coat is good for the planet. Welcome to the brave new world of climate change politics.
The Fur Council's campaign has been so successful that even comedians are sending out the "fur is green" message. Picked up by a Canadian comedy show, a camp-looking guy who resembles Borat in a fur coat gets off some great lines assuring us that a genuine fur coat creates less pollution than synthetic textiles and uses no child labour. "So say auf Wiedersehen to faux fur," he smiles into the camera. "You wouldn't wear a barrel of oil, so why would you wear a coat that is made from one?" You can find it on YouTube. And if you're worried about being sprayed with paint by those nasty PETA people, funny fur boy has some advice: "Well, you just turn around and tell them that every spray can produces enough fluorocarbons to drown three polar bears. Who's the killer now, PETA?" Fur boy's advice if you want to do something good for the environment: "Kill a small animal and slap it on your noggin."
Alan Herscovici, the council's executive vice-president, told me by phone from Montreal that the global warming issue provided the perfect opportunity for the fur industry to tackle the animal rights industry. He described these groups as the new politically correct hate groups and lamented that the media rarely exposes the intimidation they use to pillory legitimate industries such as fur.
So if you are in the business of producing and selling natural products such as furs why wouldn't you jump aboard the natural, sustainable, renewable bandwagon? Long derided as the brutish killers of innocent animals who satisfy the hedonistic vanity of callous consumers, now animal trappers and hunters are, according to the Fur Council of Canada, the new heroes of global warming. And those buying and wearing the fur coats can hold their heads high in the knowledge that they are doing the socially responsible thing.
The fur industry is fighting back using the sort of emotional blackmail that the animal rights industry mastered long ago. All these years the anti-fur brigade has assumed the high moral ground when extolling the virtues of synthetic, faux fur coats over the real thing. Now we learn that their motto can be reduced to "Save a beaver. Kill the planet."
Climate change has snatched the moral high ground. Now the inference is that the animal rights industry would rather you line the pockets of Big Oil by buying petroleum by-products such as synthetic coats, rather than support the fur-farming and hunting families of the Cree people in the James Bay area or the Dene nation north of British Columbia.
Maybe the Fur Council's campaign is just a case of green-washing, as some warn. But theirs is a more legitimate claim compared to the shonks trading on climate change. Take the booming industry of offsets. When you next jump aboard a fuel-guzzling aeroplane you can soothe your conscience by throwing a few more dollars at the airline company that promises to send your money on to some green initiative such as planting trees or investing in wind power in India.
But as Mark Jaccard, a professor at the school of resource and environmental management at Simon Fraser University, told the National Post: "Was the tree planted in Guatemala truly an additional investment in reducing greenhouses gases or would another tree have sprouted in that spot eventually? Has the Indian wind generator actually helped prevent or delay the construction of a coal-fired power station, or was it simply a wealth transfer to one region in India while the expansion of coal stations has continued at the same pace? We cannot know because future actions are unknowable."
Even for those who accept climate change is a major threat to the planet, there are plenty of reasons to remain suspicious about how companies and industries move to rebrand themselves as environmental friends. Any new industry - and make no mistake, greenwashing looks like the boom industry of the early 21st century - will attract a rich collection of snake oil salesmen, hypocrites and downright crooks in its early years. And separating the rogues from the saints can often only be done in retrospect.
For the moment, I'm prepared to back the Fur Council. Why? Because I kind of like this novel feeling. Finally, I get around to buying a full-length fur coat and it turns out to be the politically correct thing to do. There I was recently mocking a friend in the advertising industry for ending his email with a pro forma "Have a low carbon day". Now I'm looking forward to the bumper stickers that will soon start appearing on the back of the small hybrid cars driven by our green-minded friends. "Buy a fur. Save the planet."
ROFL ! Good on ya Janet !
regarDS