Agreed, Jill Singer: the nonsense has to stop


Jill Singer supports a carbon (dioxide!) tax. Unfortunately, she shows a complete ignorance of the real science behind the politics.

THE “debate” over a carbon tax in Australia has become high farce.

Indeed it has. The Left seem to think that taxing the bejesus out of a trace gas will somehow save a planet that doesn’t need saving. Jill and her ilk fail to realise CO2 is only a minor greenhouse gas at that. It makes up only 0.04% of our atmosphere. Most of it is natural. The sceptical side has man-made CO2 at 3% or about 0.001% of our atmosphere. The alarmist side puts man-made CO2 at ten times higher. But so what? That means man-made CO2 would occupy 0.01% of our atmosphere.

There’s no way Man’s small contribution to a minor greenhouse trace gas – yet an essential gas, most of it naturally occurring – can be the main driver of climate. That hypothesis is, to use Jill’s words, a “high farce”.

Read more of this post

Candidate for the Elephant Elite


RINO in native environmentI’ve made no secret of my loathing for “The Hairdo”, AKA Mitt Romney. He’s the poster child for RINOs. He’s a gigantic flip-flopping fraud. And now, once again, he’s running for President.


Romney declared to cheers on a sunny farm in southern New Hampshire, “I’m Mitt Romney and I believe in America. And I’m running for president of the United States.”

The former governor and business executive aggressively challenged Democratic President Obama while trying to pitch himself to the coalition that makes up the modern GOP: fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, evangelicals and libertarians. Romney included nods to all as he sought to make himself the candidate with the broadest appeal and best shot at sending Obama home to Chicago as a one-term president.


Yeah, he’s trying to appeal to everybody. He certainly appeals to the Elephant Elitists, who have all but anointed him as The Chosen One. But if you really examine who he is and what he represents, he certainly won’t appeal to YOU.

Anyone who purports to be a “conservative” who supports this tool is a waste of oxygen and should be forcibly prohibited from voting.

The irony of the situation is mind-blowing. Ron Paul is “extreme” and “unelectable”. But Mitt Romney? Why, he’s everything a “conservative” could ever wish for!

Except conservative.

More climate chicanery


A dog bites man headline – “NASA Gets Caught Faking Climate Change Data-AGAIN!” (Hat tip to Vulture pal Stacy Allgood for the tip).


The climate change hoaxers use computer models to predict that sea levels would rise anywhere from 15 inches to 2o feet because of global warming in the 21st century (the consensus number is closer to 3 feet).

But Mother Nature was never good at computer science. Satellite data proved that the first decade of the 21st century sea level grew by only 0.83 inches (a pace of just 8 inches for the entire century). What’s even worse (for the global warming hoaxers) there has been no rise since 2006. Now I know that some Democrats believe that Obama is a miracle worker, but even the the crazies at the Daily Kos would admit that controlling sea level is way above his pay grade. So the scientists at the University of Colorado’s NASA-funded Sea Level Research Group did what any other self-respecting cult members would do, they fudged the numbers. They simply added .3 millimeters per year to its Global Mean Sea Level Time Series. That way they could report that the sea level rise was accelerating, instead of what was actually happening–decelerating.


Yeah…this data is no good. We’ll have to “fix it”.

And “fix it” they do. But what they mean by “fix” and what I mean by “fix” are two different things entirely.

Trust me when I say, “The fix is in”.

Homo oecologicus


They’re dead serious (I think), but that didn’t stop me from laughing at every sentence. You couldn’t satirise gobbledegook this well.

Even by academic humanities standards, it’s a painful abuse of the English language.

Launching My New Conspiracy Theory


I don’t usually engage in conspiracy theories (Troofers, anyone?) but this one is different. My Conspiracy, hereby known as The Drinks Scam Conspiracy, is so ridiculous that if anyone believes it, I will laugh my ass off and mock them for as long as I live.

The Drinks Scam Conspiracy is based on a simple premise: some people will buy absolutely anything. So allow me to now detail the Conspiracy for you.

We all know that Global Warming/Climate Change is real and must be fought immediately, and therefore, for a reason that makes absolutely no sense, we have to get rid of the carbon.

Many alcohols are filtered through carbon to remove impurities and unwanted flavours and other assorted things, so it naturally follows that we need to remove the carbon from the alcohol brewing process. Our superiors (ie, Those Who Believe) therefore believe that in order to fight Global Warming, we need to have either beer that tastes like piss, or go without a wide range of drinks, because from memory, beer, wine, vodka, bourbon and Southern Comfort are all carbon-filtered.

This got me thinking about Dear Leader Kevin’s alcopops tax. Since Dear Leader’s alcopops tax was introduced to “curb teenage binge drinking”, we can safely assume that this tax is for the good of the children, and that alcohol is always bad. So it naturally follows that since alcohol is bad, alcohol that is carbon filtered is extra bad. So we’re taught about the evils of carbon, starting as early as the age of five.

We’re through the looking glass here people…

Global Warming was invented to curb drinking!

Fight The Emissions Trading Scheme


In Australia, there are moves to create a tax plan based on carbon emissions, and this plan should be open to intense scrutiny. Via Andrew Bolt, I learned of a campaign to debate the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS).

This campaign is being launched by Jennifer Marohasy, and her plan and premise are clear:

I am the Chair of The Australian Environment Foundation and we are planning an Internet campaign to oppose the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) proposed for Australia on the basis:

1.  An ETS will not change the global temperature;

2.  Will force many clean and green Australian industries overseas; and

3.  Will make Australians poorer; while it is generally richer, not poorer nations that are better able to protect their natural environment.

She’s quite right on all of it. Their aim is to raise $30,000 to create a website and launch a formal campaign to bring more awareness to the debate on the ETS. If you’re able, donate! Donations of more than $2 are tax-deductible, but as always, do your own research into the group before handing over your hard-earned.

The ETS proposed by the Rudd Government, if passed, means that depending on your tax bracket and earnings, there is a chance that you’ll be required to pay up to 90 cents of every dollar you earn in tax.

It’s a fight worth supporting, particularly when you consider how well the environment does do, when there’s enough water to help it grow.

sherbrooke-forest-1

Sherbrooke Forest: Lookin' Good

UPDATE: Slatts highlights just one article that proves that there needs to be a more open debate.

Questions For Tim Flannery


Andrew Bolt has up a thread asking for suggestions of what he should ask Tim Flannery next time they meet. There are some great suggestions on that thread, some of which are paraphrased below.

From Andrew’s readers:

  • Are you as stupid as you appear to be on the tele?
  • Scared any children this week, Tim?
  • What measurable statement would you be prepared to stake your reputation on and if wrong, would you ‘retire’?
  • Why aren’t you taking the stairs [instead of the lift]?
  • Have any of your predictions come true yet?
  • Have you measured the emissions produced by this hotel yet?
  • Did your arms get tired flying here?
  • How are the fossilised marsupials coming along, mate?
  • Where is all the water coming from for sea levels to rise by 80m?
  • Did you request a room on the top floor?

The comment that made me laugh (and I’ll warn you, lime cordial coming out of my nose is not fun) was from Boonarga in Queensland. Their observation about Flannery’s reliability?

Ask him for a prediction for the Cup. Then I will know at least one horse to rule out.

I have three questions for Flannery of my own, one of which Margo’s Maid also asked. That question is “At what point did you change your position on nuclear power, and was it influenced by changes in your income stream?”. My other two questions would be “Other than an understanding of scientific research techniques, how does a degree in paleontology qualify you to consider yourself an expert in climatology?” and “What personal sacrifices and life changes have you made to ensure that your predictions regarding climate change are not proven correct?”

I’d bet that he’s stumped on answering all of these questions, and probably many more.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 36 other followers

%d bloggers like this: