Anthropogenic Climate Change is Nonsense!!

Bushfires: It wasn't Global Warming, it was Green Party Idiocy

2009-02-11T15:52:00.000-08:00

The bushfires here in Australia have devastated huge areas, wiped out many hundreds of homes and killed (what will probably be when the toll is finished) some 200 people.

The Greens, of course, have leapt on the "See! Global Warming disaster!!!" bandwagon. They blame high temperatures and strong winds and all other usual manifestations of Australian Summer weather on causing the fires. Well they are WRONG.

Apart from the fact that some of the most devastating fires were DELIBERATELY LIT, the reason that the fires were so ferocious is because people in the areas concerned were FORBIDDEN to remove trees and vegetation (http://www.theage.com.au/national/fined-for-illegal-clearing-family-now-feel-vindicated-20090211-84sw.html.) Along with the accumulation of many, many tonnes of debris from the likes of the deadly (just add fire) Stringybark trees and thousands of tonnes of leaf litter from all the other Australian native trees that actually REGENERATE THROUGH FIRE, no one was allowed to remove any of it (http://www.theage.com.au/national/angry-survivors-blame-council-green-policy-20090211-83p0.html).

Stupid bloody loony environmentalcases have done it again; this time people paid for idiotic "Green" thinking with their lives...

The Faith of the Climate Changers

2009-02-01T17:42:00.000-08:00

CLIMATE CHANGE BELIEVER: " Science has proven the connection between the level of CO2 and the rise in Earth’s temperature."

SKEPTIC: "Oh really? How has science proven that?"

CLIMATE CHANGE BELIEVER: "Well, Science proves it. Scientists have shown it to be true."

SKEPTIC: "Scientists have shown it to be true? Just exactly which scientists? Exactly how have they proven it to be true?"

CLIMATE CHANGE BELIEVER: "All the scientists! Everyone knows that."

SKEPTIC: "Well, there are great differences in climate theory in the scientific community. Can you tell me just which version you mean? Tell me which studies you're referring to so I can look at them and address those issues."

CLIMATE CHANGE BELIEVER: "I don't know which studies. All I know is that they proved it!"

SKEPTIC: "Actually, it doesn't sound like you do know. You can't tell me the scientists to which you're referring, you can't tell me which study and you can't tell me how it was proven true. Just where did you get this information?"

CLIMATE CHANGE BELIEVER: "It's common knowledge. You hear it all the time."

SKEPTIC: "Just because you hear something a lot doesn't make it true. At Christmas I hear about Santa all the time, too. That doesn't make him real. What you're asking me to do is believe in the correlation between CO2 levels and the Earth’s temperature without providing me any evidence for doing so. I'm sorry, but I can't do that. I can't just accept what you say as true just because you say it. That would mean I would have to believe it by faith alone."

CLIMATE CHANGE BELIEVER: "So, you're saying believing in something by faith alone is wrong?"

SKEPTIC: “Yep. Stupid too”

Chicken Little - A Modern Version

2008-12-16T19:01:00.001-08:00

Once upon a time there was a group of people known as Middle-class Western post-modern humans. One day, one of these Middle-class Western post-modern humans – let’s call him “Al” - of a sub-set called, “Gullible”, was scratching in the garden when he was told by a Bunch of neo-Luddite Hippies that something had just fallen on his head.

"Oh," cried Al, "the sky is falling. I must go tell the king."

So Al ran and ran, and he met Henny Penny.

"Where do you travel so fast, Al?" asked Henny Penny.

"Ah, Henny Penny," said Al, "the sky is falling, and I must go and tell the king."

"How do you know that the sky is falling, Al?" asked Henny Penny.

"I saw it with my eyes, I heard it with my ears, and a bit of it fell on my head," said Al.

"I will go with you to the king," said Henny Penny.

So they ran along together, and they met Ducky Daddles.

"Where do you travel so fast?" asked Ducky Daddles.

"Ah, Ducky Daddles," said Al, "the sky is falling, and Henny Penny and I go to tell the king."

"How do you know that the sky is falling, Al?" asked Ducky Daddles.

"I saw it with my eyes, I heard it with my ears, a bit of it fell on my head, and someone showed me a chart to prove it" said Al.

"I will go with you to the king," said Ducky Daddles.

So they ran along together, and they met Goosey Loosey.

"Where do you travel so fast, Al?" asked Goosey Loosey.

"Ah, Goosey Loosey," said Al, "the sky is falling. Henny Penny and Ducky Daddles and I go to tell the king."

"How do you know that the sky is falling, Al?" asked Goosey Loosey.

"I saw it with my eyes, I heard it with my ears, a bit of it fell on my head, someone showed me a chart to prove it, and a lot of people got together and agreed that it must have happened" said Al.

"I will go with you," said Goosey Loosey.

So they ran along together, and they met Turkey Lurkey.

"Where do you travel so fast, Al?" asked Turkey Lurkey.

"Ah, Turkey Lurkey," said Al, "the sky is falling, and Henny Penny and Ducky Daddles and Goosey Loosey and I go to tell the king."

"How do you know that the sky is falling?" asked Turkey Lurkey.

" I saw it with my eyes, I heard it with my ears, a bit of it fell on my head, someone showed me a chart to prove it, a lot of people got together and agreed that it must have happened, and all of the newspapers and TV stations are saying it is so" said Al.

"I will go with you to the king," said Turkey Lurkey.

So they ran along together, and they met Foxy Loxy.

"Where do you travel so fast, Al?" asked Foxy Loxy.

"Ah, Foxy Loxy," said Al, "the sky is falling, and we go to tell the king."

"Do you know the way to the king's house?" asked Foxy Loxy.

"No," said Al.

"No," said Henny Penny.

"No," said Ducky Daddles.

"No," said Goosey Loosey.

"No," said Turkey Lurkey.

"Then come with me and I will show you," said Foxy Loxy.

So they all followed Foxy Loxy who took them to a huge locked gate in an enormous unscaleable wall. After Foxy Loxy unlocked the gate, they followed him through into a village where others who also believed that they had been hit on the head were living. There, no one had running water, no sewerage, they lived in mud huts, the mortality rate was very high, diseases that could have been cured with simple medicines were rife, and most people died at a very early age.

“I am a trustee to the King, and this is where he gets me to take everyone who claims to have been hit on the head by something as you say you have been.”

“Oh,” said Al

"Oh," said Henny Penny.

"Oh," said Ducky Daddles.

"Oh," said Goosey Loosey.

"Oh," said Turkey Lurkey.

“Yes,” said Foxy Loxy and then turned away through the gate and locked it behind him, leaving Al, Henny Penny and all the others to their fate.

Then Foxy Loxy went home to his house in a suburb of a neighbourhood where there was fresh, clean running water, sewerage, a local hospital, a low mortality rate and all the myriad other wonders brought to humankind by Science and Technology.

“Idiots” thought Foxy Loxy as he rolled over in his comfortable bed and went to sleep.

The End

One Second Being Added as Earth Slows Down

2008-12-10T18:20:00.000-08:00

An extra second is being added next year to allow for the slowing rotation of the Earth.

Someone out there want to blame this on humankind as well?

How about "Anthropogenic Global Slowing"?

--------------------------------------------------------
Seems to me the debate on Global Warming (sorry, "Climate Change"; much more nebulous) has begun again in earnest; more people are seeing that the world didn't warm one bit (see my blog entry of November 26th) in the last decade and are beginning to ask, "Where is all the disaster?" "Where is all the doom?"

I notice, also, that none of it has come to pass.

2008-11-26T16:10:00.000-08:00

From the BBC News Webstite:

"La Nina and El Nino are two great natural Pacific currents whose effects are so huge they resonate round the world.

El Nino warms the planet when it happens; La Nina cools it. This year, the Pacific is in the grip of a powerful La Nina.

It has contributed to torrential rains in Australia and to some of the coldest temperatures in memory in snow-bound parts of China.

...the effect was likely to continue into the summer, depressing temperatures globally by a fraction of a degree.

This would mean that temperatures have not risen globally since 1998 when El Nino warmed the world.(My emphasis)"

So El Nino warmed the world in 1998 and La Nina has cooled it ever since. There has been absolutely no temperature rise globally in the last ten years.

Ten years is a long time to go without any warming, particularly when the Sky is Falling brigade shout doom and gloom about the CO2 increase that must have occurred during that time.

Y2K, here we come again.

Scientific Knowledge has Nothing to do with Consensus

2008-11-12T18:57:00.000-08:00

The current climate debate fails to mention one significant factor: Scientific knowledge has nothing whatsoever to do with consensus.

The origin of today's so-called "scientific consensus" on climate change is based on a survey of the abstracts of 928 science articles published between 1993 and 2003 which showed that none disagreed explicitly with the notion of anthropogenic global warming.Scientific consensus, as used by political and other groups to form the basis for changes in business, society and the law is, then, merely a general collection of opinions that do not question anthropogenic global warming. Yet, on an individual level, quite the reverse occurs. The peer review process in most scientific journals does not use a consensus based process at all; instead, referees submit their opinions individually and there is no concerted effort made to reach a group opinion.

Scientific consensus has been used as a means of protecting the accepted worldview for centuries – look to the examples of Galileo, continental drift, and the much more recent Helicobacter controversy, for a start – and is a political construct, not a scientific one. Even the act of seeking such a consensus as a form of proof goes against all tenets of empirical science.

The claim of a consensus in scientific opinion is simply a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. The true test of science – making a theory more robust by stridently attempting to disprove it with experiments, rather than attempting to "prove" it with computer simulations – has fallen by the wayside through socio-political pressure, it would seem.

Less Arctic Ice 6000-7000 Years Ago

2008-10-22T19:16:00.000-07:00

Oh dear. Evidence that the Arctic was ice free (or nearly so) 6000-7000 years ago, according to the findings reported in Science Daily, here: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081020095850.htm

Not much to say on this, as the evidence supports itself.

I do like the statement from the scientist in the article being careful not to upset the environmentalcases however, "..."Changes that took place 6000-7000 years ago were controlled by other climatic forces than those which seem to dominate today,”.

Yeah. Right.

Desalination - The best Invention Ever!

2008-10-15T16:41:00.000-07:00

Desalination could turn the driest inhabited continent on Earth – Australia – into a paradise. The dry rivers could be replenished, dams and lakes refilled, and the threat of cyclic drought forever banished. An almost inexhaustible supply of water would create an ecological heaven that could sustain and help flourish a myriad different endangered species, the landscape would be forever transformed into a lush and fertile environment, farming land could spread all the way inland, deserts could be changed into savannah….

It’s a pity that the environmentalcases don’t agree with it.

And why don’t they agree with it? Why would anyone, given the scenario just given, not want to use the almost inexhaustible water of the ocean and turn into potable water? Simple, as I have stated before; environmentalcases are neo-Luddites.

They don’t want to “Save the Planet”, if they did, they would let Australia break its cycle of drought. No, the environmentalcases want people to suffer so that they call for rain water tanks, pit toilets and other arcane representations of the neo-Luddite bucolic idyll.

Pathetic bloody loonies.

Garnaut is a FROOT LOOP!!!!

2008-10-01T18:14:00.000-07:00

What the hell is wrong with this man? Where on Earth did he get the idea that we should replace all the sheep and cattle in Australia with kangaroos for our meat consumption? Has he lost his tiny, neo-Luddite mind??

I fail to fathom what it is that Garnaut has against the "burping and farting" of sheep and cattle? It isn't the bovines and the ovines that produce the methane - it's the decomposition of the grass! As one old farmer succinctly put it the other day, "If I stopped farming sheep and cattle, the grass would simply grow tall, die off, and release methane from that decomposition..." Sure, these creatures have bacteria in their gut that breakdown the grass into methane more quickly, but that doesn't mean that they produce more methane...

So, how are Garnaut's kangaroos going to do any better? They aren't. Kangaroos eat grass, grass is turned to methane. Garnaut reckons that the 'roos don't produce as much methane as cows et al... Probably not straight away, but I am quite sure that you will find that the faeces of the kangaroos eventually does: you cannot remove the decomposition of an amount of grass from the equation - any grass consumption or natural decomposition will produce methane. It's just that cows, sheep et cetera do it more quickly.

Besides, as Miranda Devine so succinctly puts it, who the hell wants to eat the horrible, chewy gamey meat of a bloody kangaroo anyway?

Yuk!

Want to "Save the Planet"?

2008-09-29T21:37:00.000-07:00

Want to "Save the Planet"? Yes? Well what are you doing about it?

Do you use any of the following?

Electricity
Petroleum
Gas
Coal
Timber
Plastic
Cotton
Steel

Yes? Then how are you contributing to "Saving the Planet"? If you use just one of these things - you are contributing to the "Environmental Crisis". But how would you live without all these, you ask? You tell me; it's the bucolic idyll of the "Green Movement" that keeps harping on about the "destruction" that Science and Technology are causing.

So, if you really are concerned with wanting to reduce your "Carbon Footprint", then stop using any of the benefits that Science and Technology have brought to you! Simple.

Oh, you've got used to them now? How dare I suggest that you go without something? After all you are entitled to shelter, food, clothing et cetera, et cetera...

WRONG. This society benefits from the use of technology and you are advocating its removal. If you want a society to conform to some anti-technology, froot-loop, neo-Luddite world, then go off and start your own. Don't sit around bleating in your air-conditioned, centrally-heated, electrically-lit, double-brick veneer house watching TV and blogging your heart out.

And don't tell me, "I only use these things in moderation" or, "I reduse, reuse, recycle" or, "I only eat organic, soy-based products", or some other namby-pamby, lip-service lies that you tell yourself and your friends.

If you are ACTUALLY serious about "Saving the Planet" - then get out of this society altogether and create something that doesn't use technology at all... (good luck with that, by the way)

Otherwise, just shut the hell up.

Too much CO2? Answer: Just remove it

2008-09-28T17:30:00.000-07:00

Forget carbon offsets, forget carbon-trading, forget turning off your lights, forget building nuclear powerstations - if you have too much CO2 in the atmosphere, then just take it out!

If human anthropogenic pollution is the cause of the increase in CO2 to several hundred parts per million of the atmosphere, and that purportedly is responsible for "Global Warming", then why don't we use some of the ingenuity that supposedly got us there in the first place, and use machinery to just take it out? Let's just channel all of the money - and that's trillions - that is going toward "saving the planet" and build enormous (gigantic, gargantuan, leviathanic) air-scrubbers like they use on spacecraft and suck that CO2 right out of the atmosphere?

Huge air intakes all over the world all sucking in air, forcing it through a filter and spitting it out - minus ALL of its CO2 on the other side. Air with absolutely no CO2 whatsoever would then mix with the stuff that has it and - before too long (some years perhaps, but faster than letting it do it on its own) - presto! back to CO2 levels of the past!

And the filters? Well, take them out to the Marianas Trench and drop them in - 10 kilometres down and they will happily bubble their CO2 into the very low depths of the Pacific Ocean over hundreds of years.

If you're going to waste quadrazillions of dollars doing things that won't work anyway, how about gambling it on an engineering solution? That way, you could use the thing that allegedly caused the problem in the first place to remove the CO2 now...?

What do you think?

Climate Change Advocates are Neo-Luddites

2008-09-24T20:31:00.000-07:00

The worldwide movement to – somehow – slow or reverse “Climate Change” is one of the most pointless and ill-conceived plans in the history of humankind.

Not only do the people who support the idea that this is actually possible – that they can have any influence whatsoever on something that occurs naturally, with the Earth climate having been in a constant state of flux since it first got weather all those billions of years ago – but they also believe that we can all live a better life in some bucolic idyll free of GM foods, a lack of infrastructure like sanitation and clean running water, no vaccinations for their children and the myriad other nonsensical props of the anti-just about everything movement.

What these Neo-Luddites fail to fathom is that, without Science and Technology, we would all still be living in the Dark Ages. Driven by a core of anarchist hippies who have some incredibly skewed worldview, the so-called “Eco Warriors” and members of the “Green Movement” are effectively calling for the end of the industrial society.

And that notion is – at best – just plain stupid. At worst, it is a dire and dangerous concept that would kill far more than it could ever possibly hope to save.

Can you imagine a world without Science and Technology? We would have to go back to wood-burning stoves and the pollution and forest destruction that goes along with them. We would have no medicines to combat any diseases and almost anything that we now consider as a simple affliction would be able to kill us. Diseases such as Bubonic Plague, Polio, Typhus and a plethora of other - virtually eradicated - bugs would once again be the bane of humankind’s wretched existence. Life spans would shrink to the mid-30s as they were in the Dark Ages, people would suffer with pain that could not be treated, there would be pestilence, sickness, lameness and any other affliction imaginable on a huge scale.

Listening to hippies is one thing, but going along with their muddle-headed nonsense is quite another.