Personally I look at the stupid notion of Blackout Night, in honour of the planet.
We left our caves, our sod houses of the past to enjoy modern homes. I enjoy the thought that if I’m sick and require an operation the hospital has electricity 24 hours per day, seven days per week so that the surgeon and his team can fix me or my loved ones. I enjoy the thought that at 7pm at night I can turn on a television and watch it, in the comfort of my single family dwelling home. I enjoy the thought that if I want a beverage I can go to my frost free fridge and grab a beer. I enjoy the thought that my employer has electricity and indoor plumbing so that I can defecate in the safety of my closed off cubicle.
These modern fools of Mother Earth and modern Environmentalism want to return to the yesteryears of cave dwelling pre-human existence. All I’ve ever read about pre-modern living, and that’s not all too long ago, just 100 years ago. Most men died before the age of 50 years. Children died by the thousands because of infections, and poor health quality. You were considered old when you were over 40!
Turning out the Lights glorifies stupidity, and glamorizes the progressive liberal mentality about the so called “global village”. You know what, its one village I don’t want to belong too. I’ll take living in a single dwelling home, with electricity, and my beer fridge powered by coal fired plants with modern precipitators and scrubbers installed in the gas path cleaning up the grime.
Today’s environmentalist aren’t cleaning up the stacks – they’re socialists who can’t get elected at the ballot box but are hell bent to destroy our western society so that we fit into their social activist world of stupidity and failure.
Here is an animated video produced by FirstEnergy available from Mining Connection (http://www.miningconnection.com/). It shows how we make electricity from coal. It also shows that the cooling towers so loved by TV to illustrate power plant pollution in fact emit only warm air and moisture – not even the demonised but harmless carbon dioxide. The invisible carbon dioxide exits via the less photogenic chimneys. So what TV usually shows to illustrate “carbon pollution” is no more polluting than what comes out of the spout of your kettle. So much for truth on TV.
“As things now stand, the advocates representing the establishment climate science story broadcast (usually with color diagrams) the predictions of climate models as if they were the results of experiments – actual evidence. Alongside these multi-colored multi-century model-simulated time series come stories, anecdotes, and photos – such as the iconic stranded polar bear – dramatically illustrating climate change today. On this rhetorical strategy, the models are to be taken on faith, and the stories and photos as evidence of the models’ truth. Policy carrying potential costs in the trillions of dollars ought not to be based on stories and photos confirming faith in models, but rather on precise and replicable testing of the models’ predictions against solid observational data.”
Jason Scott Johnson of the University of Pennsylvania Law School for the Institute for Law and Economics, a Joint Research Center of the Law School with the Wharton School of Economics. Report: http://www.probeinternational.org/UPennCross.pdf [PDF, 399KB]
“The newest game by the banks is carbon emissions trading. The plan is to manufacture emission credit certificates out of thin air, trade them between big financial companies, and compel the rest of us pay for them by producing real goods and services. The new financial slavery.
“Carbon emission permits are the latest paper currency, brought to you by the same crowd who profited from the world’s largest financial bubble. Same structure, same modus operandi, same beneficiaries, same exaggerations, half-truths, and tricky government statistics.” [P. 2]
“Emissions trading by the finance industry was $120 billion in 2008. This will grow to over $1 trillion by 2012, and carbon emission permit trading will be the largest “commodity” market in the world—larger than oil, steel, rice, or wheat. Typically the finance industry will pocket 1% – 5% of that turnover. So even now their financial interest matches the alarmist spending, and soon will vastly exceed it.” [P. 30]
In the past, Ms Wong and Kevin Rudd have said they rely on the IPCC reports for their policy decisions. They also criticise those who disagree with the IPCC.
However, the IPCC report (2007) gives a high and low scenario for sea level rises. The high of the high scenario is a rise of 59cm for the 21st century. That is far less than the 110cm in this new report.
So is Ms Wong now saying that the IPCC is wrong? If so, why won’t she listen to the large number of sceptics who also disagree with the IPCC?
Interestingly, the report also says (p. 6), “Over the geological past this dynamism has been even more pronounced, with sea levels up to 4-6 metres higher than today and the shoreline in some places more than 500 kilometres inland.”
Clearly, those increases could not have been caused by humans, but I don’t expect the media, or Wong or Rudd, will make that point!
“Well, the thing is we’re dealing with an incomplete understanding of the
way the earth’s system works…”
“When we come to the last few years, where we haven’t seen a continuation
of that warming trend, we don’t understand all of the factors that
create earth’s climate, so there are some things we don’t understand,
that’s what the scientists were emailing each other about, you know, we
just don’t understand the way the whole system works, and we’re trying
to find out.”
“These people work with models, computer modelling, when the computer
modelling and the real world data disagrees you’ve got a very
interesting problem, that’s when science really gets engaged. What Kevin
Trenberth, one of the most respected climate scientists in the world, is
saying is, ‘Guys, we have to get on our horses and find out what we
don’t know about the system, we have to actually understand why the
cooling is occurring, because the current modelling doesn’t reflect it.'”
“…sure for the last few years we have gone through a slight cooling
trend…”
It was Michael Crichton who first prominently identified environmentalism as a religion. That was in a speech in 2003, but the world has moved on apace since then and adherents of the creed now have a firm grip on the world at large.
Global Warming has become the core belief in a new eco-theology. The term is used as shorthand for anthropogenic (or man made) global warming. It is closely related to other modern belief systems, such as political correctness, chemophobia and various other forms of scaremongering, but it represents the vanguard in the assault on scientific man.
The activists now prefer to call it “climate change”. This gives them two advantages:
1. It allows them to seize as “evidence” the inevitable occurrences of unusually cold weather as well as warm ones.
2. The climate is always changing, so they must be right.
“The individual sea level records obtained from the SEAFRAME study on 12 Pacific Islands have all been assessed by the anonymous authors of the official reports as indicating positive trends in sea level over all 12 Pacific Islands involved since the study began in 1993. This assessment studies individual records and finds that all of them show no change of sea level in almost all of the records following the 1998 cyclones. It is considered that cyclones and tsunamis not only induce false readings which should be ignored when calculating a trend, but they also disrupt the leveling of the equipment so that previous years’ figures should also not form part of a trend.”
“Graphs of sea level for twelve locations in the southwest Pacific show stable sea level for about ten years over the region. The data are compared with results from elsewhere, all of which suggest that any rise of global sea level is negligible. The Darwin theory of coral formation, and subsidence ideas for guyots would suggest that we should see more land subsidence, and apparent sea level rise, than is actually occurring. Sea level studies have not been carried out for very long, but they can indicate major tectonic components such as isostatic rebound in Scandinavia. Attempts to manipulate the data by modelling to show alarming rates of sea level rise (associated with alleged global warming) are not supported by primary regional or global data. Even those places frequently said to be in grave danger of drowning, such as the Maldives, Tuvalu and Holland, appear to be safe.”
Here is a the very latest sea Level data from “The South Pacific Sea Level and Climate Monitoring Project” produced by the Australian Government Bureau of Meteorology with technical support from the National Tidal centre and funded by the Australian Agency for International Development. There is no evidence of any dramatic increases in sea levels.
Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
ARTHUR B. ROBINSON, NOAH E. ROBINSON, AND WILLIE SOON
Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, 2251 Dick George Road, Cave Junction, Oregon 97523 [artr@oism.org]
ABSTRACT A review of the research literature concerning the environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that increases during the 20th and early 21st centuries have produced no deleterious effects upon Earth’s weather and climate. Increased carbon dioxide has, however, markedly increased plant growth. Predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in hydrocarbon use and minor greenhouse gases like CO2 do not conform to current experimental knowledge. The environmental effects of rapid expansion of the nuclear and hydrocarbon energy industries are discussed.
RSS
