The PR machine has spent twenty years pretending to be scientific while they push poll the phrase “carbon is pollution” (Don’t you want to stop pollution?) But turn the polling inside out and the nonsense is exposed. Stephen Harper takes the PR team’s theme to its logical conclusion and uses it against them.
——————–
Forget plate tectonics and continental drift. A trace gas in the atmosphere can reshape the Earth, at least, that’s apparently how many people see it. A new survey shows that over a third of the population think that climate change induces not just tsunamis, but even volcanic eruptions. Worse, 37% of people are so convinced carbon is pollution that they think it would be a worthwhile aim to reduce the carbon content of their body. (The ultimate diet, you might say).
About a quarter of the population are so plum-confused about what carbon is, they would rather not eat food with carbon in it. (Crikey!) The numbers taken in by the mass delusion are shocking. Nearly half the population think food would be safer without carbon.
This is the unscientific bias of our national bureaucracies, institutions, and science communicators laid bare.
Stephen Harper randomly questioned 100 people with one the most original, useful surveys I’ve seen yet. Even though the numbers are small, his questions give us real insight into just how successful our various science journalists, science communicators and government public relations departments are at getting across the basics. After all, Tim Flannery, CSIRO, and the Department of Education want to make sure people understand “the science” don’t they?
Indeed, believers of the Theory of Man-Made Catastrophe often blame their poor communication skills for the rising tide of skepticism. Au Contraire, I say. They’ve done a masterful job of conveying the public relations message “carbon is pollution” and have been extraordinarily successful at hiding the basic facts of life like: we are carbon life forms, and literally everything edible in your kitchen was made with CO2 (bar salt, water and industrial food additives).
The carbon in meat, milk and salad came from the sky. Did they forget to mention that? I can’t think why.
Don’t misread this, it’s not about how clever the public is or isn’t, it’s about how well “the science” has been conveyed. All the glossy brochures, school handouts, 3,000 page reports, press releases, endless repetition of “carbon pollution” by politicians and journalists, and coloring in competitions have been effective propaganda. The Ministry of Disinformation has been hard at work.
Thanks to Stephen Harper for this original, insightful contribution. It must have taken weeks to compile. The questions and results are documented in this PDF. The survey covered a broad cross section of ages and voting types, and Stephen plans to keep surveying to increase the size of the survey.
— Jo
——————–
THE PUBLIC FAILS THE KNOWLEDGE TEST ON CARBON
IS MEDIA POLLUTION THE CAUSE?
Guest Post By Stephen L. Harper
April 29th 2011
A survey just conducted in the streets of Perth, Australia shows a disturbing lack of basic understanding of the roles carbon and carbon dioxide play in life processes on planet earth. It also highlights some monumental elementary misapprehensions regarding climate change issues.
A staggering 37% of carbon-based-life-form respondents are keen on reducing carbon in the human body. Perhaps the amputation of an appendage at the end of the leg will be the new way to reduce one’s carbon footprint.
Equally remarkable is the finding that 44% of respondents wish to eliminate carbon and carbon dioxide from food and drink altogether. Nonplussed are the 28% of respondents who don’t think there is any carbon or carbon dioxide in food and drink in the first place.
Another alarming finding is that 47% of respondents think carbon dioxide is a pollutant. Marginally less at 44% give poor old carbon, the sixth element of the periodic table (and my personal favourite, since without it we would not exist), the big thumbs down.
A solid majority of 77% know that carbon dioxide is invisible which is encouraging. Yet, there are still many labouring under the misconception that carbon dioxide is black, grey or white – and in some fanciful imaginings, green, blue, yellow or even purple. Thankfully no polka dots.
Knowing CO2’s colour is one thing but knowing its concentration in the atmosphere is quite another.
CO2 comprises less than 1/20th of one percent of the earth’s atmosphere – it is a trace gas. Just 7% of respondents knew that CO2’s concentration was under 1%; a sizeable 44% saying more than 10% concentration and 21% saying CO2 represents more than 50% of the atmosphere – an asphyxiating notion if ever there was one. So it would seem the alarmist media has done a sterling job in creating the perception that CO2 is the dominant player in the earth’s atmosphere.
One fifth of the population estimates CO2 is 1000 times higher than it is.
These days we hear that climate change is the animating agent for many things, but it will be news to vulcanologists, seismologists and oceanographers that climate change causes tsunamis, earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. Or so say a disturbingly high percentage of respondents to the survey at 53%, 40% and 37%, respectively.
Younger people (18-25) were easily the group most bent upon ascribing causation of these natural events to climate change. For starters, a whopping 82% cast climate change as the villain most likely when unwelcome tsunamis visit our shores. In the same vein 76% of this group think a small increase in a trace gas (CO2), trumps tectonic plate movement and complex processes in the earth’s crust as the causative agent for earthquakes and volcanic eruptions.
People wildly overestimated the power of the Australian government to control planetary warming.
When asked what difference a 5% reduction in Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 would make to global warming more than a third imagined a forestalling of more than one degree of warming and 14% predicted a staving off of more than 2 degrees of warming. These are staggering over-estimates.
These are staggering over-estimates.
If we accept the IPCC’s worst-case scenario (the IPCC being the UN’s purported gold standard of climate science) of 4.5 degrees warming by 2100 (and this itself is a huge over-estimate), pro rata this to 0.5 degrees by 2020, multiply this by Australia’s 1.4% of global emissions and multiply that answer by 5% (the proposed emissions reduction) we get 0.00035 degrees of warming forestalled. And if we consider that the 5% reduction would happen in a step-wise manner over a ten year period, the actual quantum of greenhouse gas emissions reduced by 2020 is just 2.5%. So the warming prevented is 0.000175 degrees – an unmeasurable amount that is essentially zero. Now that’s “action on climate change” you can believe in. Or not.
When asked what percentage of climate change is human-induced versus natural, the average of respondents’ answers was a 55%/45% split. Respondents were also equally divided (48%/51%/1% – yes/no/don’t know) on the question of support for the federal Labor government’s “gift to the nation” of a carbon tax (which PM Julia Gillard expressly ruled out prior to the October 2010 federal election). Coalition voters were the least supportive at 25%, with Labor voters at 60% and Greens voters an enthusiastic 64% happy to submit. Greens voters were also the most eager to contribute financially offering up an average $1,142 a year sacrifice to the carbon reduction god.
This survey did not test the knowledge the general public has of climate science itself. It examined perceptions of climate change and the public’s understanding of basic scientific concepts concerning carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and carbon (and CO2) in living things and in food. The responses are troubling to say the least. The public’s knowledge in these areas is very poor and in some cases some beliefs are downright alarming.
Of course, not everyone’s understanding is dismal and compromised. Many people know enough to shield themselves from the depredations of blatant scare-mongering. In particular, independent voters acquitted themselves very well, proving consistently to be the most well informed of all groups (whether classified by age or political preference). Nevertheless, all is not well regarding the public’s comprehension of these issues.
What do we make of the results of this survey?
Why is public knowledge of basic scientific facts so poor? No doubt people’s general educational levels play a part, but many of the perceptions are so fanciful that they could not have come from a misremembered science class. No, it is most likely the media who are responsible, creating a huge bogey out of carbon dioxide and carbon in the minds of the public with their incessant and indiscriminate alarmism regarding global warming/climate change. If the public has been so comprehensively duped what hope is there for rational discussion of the issue formerly known as “the great moral and economic challenge of our time”?
The author can be contacted at sharperx AT iinet.net.au
The full survey questions and results are in this PDF.
Image credit: Original cereal pic Scott Bauer (photographer)
Now we see why it took mankind well over 100,000 years to rise above the savage ignorance of the stone age to nearly being able to reach the stars. Then, after only a few hundred years of industrial and technological advance , start the rapid slide back to the stone age.
This is not the result of an innocent mistake or a mere misunderstanding. It is a violent and willful attack on the mind of man AND his ability to live as man. The self same attack mounted by every tribal leader, witch doctor, petty dictator, and wannabe ruler of the earth since the first tribe was formed. It is simply more subtle than the old style enslavement, theft of wealth, and wholesale death and destruction.
Destroy the ability to think and man is enslaved (a gift from Plato and Kant). Destroy the objective meanings of words, and man cannot think (a gift of every pragmatist who ever lived). Destroy the ability to communicate clearly and the use of force is legitimized (a gift of public education and the MSM). Make individual action a sin, and all are enslaved to all (of every religion that ever existed). This was accomplished without firing a single shot or chopping off a single head. The wannabe ruling elite are in the process of cashing in on what has already been accomplished.
Can we recover? Since man has free will he can always choose to pull back from the brink. Some of us know there is a brink, why it is there, and desperately want to avoid going over in spite of being pushed there at point of gun. We are going to have to learn how to say “NO!” in a way that cannot be evaded. It won’t be easy and the process will likely get very ugly but the alternative is much much worse.
40
So the average person of reasonable intelligence on this globe gets their information these days from several sources literally while on the fly with their lives—newspapers, magazines, digital media, etc. Aside from those young enough to have just gotten out of one stage of formal education or another, everyone else assimilates information from these sources. With very few exceptions, newspaper articles and even science magazines these days are still selling human-induced global climate change. The digital media, in case no one noticed, is simply selling good-looking talking heads.
Sadly, good science is profoundly uninteresting to the average person who I’m describing above and therefore they do not care to separate out fact from fiction. At some point the average person can be sold any of a number of ‘facts’ such as the dire need to create a carbon tax or cap-and-trade. In America Scientific American and Popular Science, both at one time very good neutral magazines in explaining how things work in our world, are selling the CO2 story and the major role of humans in the process. Web sites abound with psuedo-data aimed at capturing the uninformed. School kids (for Pete’s sake) are being taught with approved text books decrying global climate change and the radical steps needed to reverse these trends.
How to be proactive about getting the truth out when so many ‘experts’ who should be getting the story right, aren’t, is a considerable worry to those of us who are old enough to see younger generations unwilling to question the science. Alchemy and astrology may indeed return to our world in a big way if enough of these trends continue unabated.
20
Maybe if we let them know we’re a Carbon-based lifeform, it’ll help …
Pointman
20
Most people – unfortunately – are stupid. Like the people who think that the essential element carbon is a pollutant.
Like the people who are incapable of learning from history, and STILL trust Government to tell them the truth.
Like the people who think they have to sign their name in blog comments sections.
“pointman:
April 30th, 2011 at 3:48 am
Maybe if we let them know we’re a Carbon-based lifeform, it’ll help …
Pointman”
By Jove, I think he gets it. Well, that’s one down…
10
Re @3: I don’t know Pointman it might cause a lemming like suicidal reaction……….
20
@Mark D. Tragically, I suspect you may be quite right. Anyway, I wouldn’t want to be the one to break the news to them. Volunteers? Anyone? Anyone …
Pointman
10
This level of ignorance is frightening. It is a disturbing fact that we live in a time where “celebrity” = credibility & belief is based on crafted by spin & not reason. The aspect which is outrageous & bordering on criminal is the continuing campaign to keep real debate of the science & even basic facts from consciousness of the public.
In a modern developed society it is not hard to point the finger of blame at the media & the willingness of politicians to spin emotive ideas into an electoral platform : i.e. “keep ’em busy, keep ’em ignorant, keep ’em worried & above all keep ’em believing that we are the solution”.
It is a sad indictment of modern society that the important news & real issues of the day are “those annoying gaps between reality TV shows &soaps”
20
Hooray! At last a proper and relevant survey of the topic. Hopefully Stephen’s work can be expanded to all of Australia and the results brought to the attention of all politicians.
Clearly the public have been thoroughly brainwashed. However there is hope. The one result I found of particular interest was that 32% of intending Greens voters are against the introduction of the carbon dioxide tax. To me that’s a clear sign that many people have no idea what the policies of the Greens are and would probably be very surprised, like I was when I first read about it, to discover just how effective the Greens have been in the distribution of CAGW propaganda.
10
Pointman: #6
You know as well as I do that the number one rule for a foot soldier is, “Never volunteer – for anything”.
But we (the regulars here) have volunteered, and it is up to us to spread the word in any way we can. Jo’s line that the only thing we eat that does not contain carbon is salt, water, and some industrial food additives, is a powerful message. We need to get it out there.
There is an organic food outlet close to where I live. Perhaps late on Sunday night, the store might acquire a new sign that says,
10
@Rereke. You gorra go for it bud. Their sales would probably crash too.
Pointman
10
So, what is to be done about it?
Don Griffiths says:
Lionell says:
Jo says:
In fact we all say the same things, and we all agree.
I don’t want to sound negative about this, but I am seriously asking that question.
What is to be done about it?
The Government uses our money to promote non-science for their own political power, the major corporations are interested in profits from any source, the education system has reverted to teaching religion or propaganda, the Greenies are interested in, who knows what! (I don’t think they actually know)
And many of us sometimes banter over the semantics of whether to concede that Green House Gas theory is supportable or not.
I’m sorry, but I feel as though we are all using this site as a ‘Dear Dorothy’. Tell Jo your story and then we can feel as though we are doing something about fixing the problem.
I’m just as guilty. So I’m asking for your help.
Can someone with better communication skills, produce an A5 document that I can use to distribute to the people in my town that will entice them to seek information other than from the MSM.
I’ll gladly stand out in front of the local pub and hand them out.
10
Hmmm…. there is that sticky label campaign in the US which is being used to point out the Obama/Bernanke/Geithner engineered inflation. Maybe we could put that to slightly different use?
10
Lionell @ 1
Pure gold!
10
I was recently trying to get the notion of how much CO2 was in the atmosphere across to a guy I once thought was reasonably intellegent (he is a warmist, so my opinion of his intellegence has dropped considerably).
I finally got through to him, I think, when I put it in money terms by saying
“If the climate was a $100 dollar note, then before major industrialisation there was less than 3 cents worth of CO2, there is now approximately 4 cents worth”
Gotta reach 5c before we can even start using it ;-))
10
“Diamonds”………
The Ultimate Symbol of carbon pollution – 100% pure carbon !
10
Pattoh: #7
Modern society is based on a technological world. And like most things based on technology, it is compartmentalised. Information is no exception, and is available in a number of technological layers. These are:
Twitter – individual thoughts of the moment. As I write this, the major themes on Twitter are “PILF” (don’t ask), “Forget iPhone”, “Sarah Burton”, “William and Kate”, “THEY KISSED”, “EMINAJ”, “Buckingham Palace”, “Esqueda”, “Michael Scott”, et cetera, (and the list changed order as I typed that). This is the ephemeral word of ideas that have about the same half life as a mayfly, but which collectively start to form and shape the opinions of the pre-teens and teens. That is why we have a trend monitor running on Twitter. As you can see, right now it is mostly about the royal wedding (and what some girls dream about doing to Prince Harry).
Social networks – slightly more considered thoughts of the older teens and the twenty-somethings (and the thirty-somethings who wish they were still twenty-somethings), but the thing to remember here that the “considered thoughts” are based on the messages that these people continue to assimilate from others in the network and through twitter.
Personal blogs – really an extension of the social network, with slightly more considered material. People need to want to go to a blog before it gets traffic. Blogs therefore tend to form collections of individuals who have similar opinions on a topic, or those who are directly opposed (seem familiar?). Note: I do not include this blog in this category – see below.
With some exceptions all of the above is just opinion and group-think, but useful for understanding social trends.
The next layer is the Media. There are three primary sources that the media use: Press releases (for the serious stuff), reporter interviews (for the cat-up-tree stories), and public opinion garnered from the three layers above! Yep, a lot of what you read in the press originates either as a concept in a PR firm, or as opinion on the social networks, and they both feed off each other. There is an excellent book on this subject, called “Flat Earth News”, by Nick Davis.
And the sad fact is, the media (print or television or radio or personal blogs), is as deep as most people go in their search for information.
Some people go to company web sites for specific information about a product, but they expect to be marketed to, so that is acceptable.
There are also some specialist subject blogs available, WUWT being one of the best examples, where a number of knowledgeable authors write or opine about one or perhaps a few specialist topics. This site is another good example, and is one that is more accessible to the lay person. But these sites are still primarily based on opinion – informed opinion, to be sure, but opinion none the less.
Some people go to libraries (either physically or electronically), and they are an excellent source of historic information to determine trends. But libraries are somewhat immoral, they will hold books on all opinions, so people need to weigh the evidence for themselves. But in doing that, what can they use as a yard-stick? Only the opinions they have formed from the above layers.
The real information is actually available in what is called “the deep web”, if you have the time, and take the trouble to dig it out.
The deep web consists of academic papers, conference proceedings, patent applications, company prospectuses, legal testimony, et cetera. Heavy going for most punters, but people do not lie at this level. If they did, nobody would know what was going on.
The deep web also requires you to learn several new and evolving languages where words take on strange meanings. For example, prediction is usually a generalisation of the more precise “extrapolation”, “projection”, “forecast”, or “scenario”, which are words implying the type of prediction. But not so in politics. In Politics, a prediction means certainty, and that is why computer models that produce “predictions” are considered, by our decision makers, to be on a par with empirical evidence.
The sad fact is that we can only really communicate with words, but there are not enough words to go around all of the topics we need to discuss in this modern technological society, so words get reused in different contexts, and they get bastardised, and the meaning of words changes to meet the immediate needs of the speaker or writer, and that is what is really killing society.
I believe (and it is a belief) that the politicians really believe what they are told by the scientists – they don’t know for themselves, by why wouldn’t they trust a University Professor, especially when the social networks are full of the same type of stuff?
I also believe that the said University Professor hasn’t got a clue either, but he believes what his specialist chums tell him.
The specialists also believe what their computer models tell them, because they really haven’t got a clue how they work – sure they know they are not giving the “right” answers, but they have no idea why, so they tinker with the data to try and make the models better fit reality.
The financiers don’t give two hoots about the science, they can only see an opportunity to make money, so they will support the current trend.
And as far as China and India is concerned; the west is collapsing under its own weight, so their day in the sun is finally starting to dawn.
Oh, and for our conspiracy theorist friends: the Fabians and the Malthusians can see this all happening, and really wish they had thought of it in the first place, so they scheme about how they can take all of the credit when the whole thing is all over.
10
Here are some excellent articles regarding this topic………..
Why is “carbon pollution” not listed as a pollutant by this deceiving government?
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/why_is_carbon_pollution_not_listed_as_a_pollutant_by_this_deceiving_governm/
In praise of Carbon
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/Carbon.htm
Quadrant Online – The case for carbon dioxide
http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2010/02/the-case-for-carbon-dioxide
The Carbon Tax Deception // Current – ENDGAME & ENDGAME 1.5 VIDEOS
http://current.com/news/90550837_alex-jones-the-carbon-tax-deception.htm
YouTube – ENDGAME: BlueprintForGlobalEnslavement – Global Carbon tax
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45pNNrGnMC4
10
MaxL: #11
Never assume a planned cause and effect, when simple stupidity is a perfectly valid reason for an action.
10
“What do we do about it ?”
Possibly the only thing we can do about this misinformation being presented by government departments, schools and media, is to write Letters to the Editors of our local and mainstream newspapers.
It can be difficult to present information on carbon dioxide to the general public, due to the propaganda that has been presented as science over many years especially with the word limit applied to some newspapers.
I do like Andy G’s simile using money to illustrate. Hopefully I can use that as another tool.
J.
10
Climate Change as a publishing concept has failed commercially. The offering “A Change in the Weather” with contributions from leading warmists Clive Hamilton and Tony McMichael and financially supported by the Bureau of Meteorology was selling at the National Museum of Australia for $49.95 last week.
http://www.nma.gov.au/about_us/publications/a_change_in_the_weather/
This week’s sale price? $2.00.
The price has fallen faster than global temperature. No mention of the dreaded carbon dioxide in the book (printed 2004). In fact, it claims carbon is essential in soils to control salinity. Just goes to show us what a lot of goal post movers these warmists are.
Definitely a bargain at that price – a bargain being defined as “something you don’t need at a price you can afford”
I love how this CRAP was “financially supported by the Bureau of Meteorology” !!
In other words the Australian Taxpayer!
10
Huh!
10
I awoke early the other morning with quite a tummy ache. Must have been something I ate the night before. So I did what any nature-loving person should do. I took a glass of water containing a teaspoon of activated charcoal powder. Yep, good old carbon at its best. I’m told that it can absorb thousands of times its own weight in poisons. Felt great within 30 mins.
Yet another “horror carbon story”.
20
Rereke Whakaaro #18
Thank you for the concise summary of the history of AGW.
10
The poster who sneered at those who are not too cowardly to give their name clearly hadn’t read the posts about this on WUWT this week. I stand by what I say, and put my name to it. I’m dismayed, but not surprised by the findings about public ignorance on carbon dioxide and carbon. Those who actually work in science, doing real research, have to communicate with each other in a specialised language which is mostly inaccessible to even science workers in other fields. No wonder the media’s bs has such influence!
10
Damian Allen: @20
Toilet paper’s a better bargain; and it won’t slip at the crucial moment…
10
If you want a practical and simple example of how easily people are manipulated.
Simply go to your nearest shopping centre, and set up a table and petition, asking for signatures to ban dihydrogen monooxide.
Tell a few basic truths, like, it is extensively used in industry and it is present in all forms of cancer, and 90% of the passerbys will sign your petition without hesitation.
The fact is, emotionally there is little difference.Between the modern humans in the shopping centre signing petitions like that,and Middle Ages humans in the marketplace calling for the burning of witchs.
10
Further on the money simile… remembering that the atmosphere is at about 4 cents worth in $100.
Because CO2 is used in industry, there is a good set of industrial exposure limits.
5000ppm is the International Safety limit for prolonged exposure (50c worth ie 12 times current level )
15000ppm is the Short term exposure limit ($1.50 ie 37x current)
at 20000ppm breathing rate increases by 50%, tiredness, dizziness (that’s 50 time current levels)
30000ppm.. levels can start to become dangerous to human existence.
Now, there are papers that show that even if we burn all the carbon fuels we have available , we are unlikely to get much over 500-600ppm (can’t recall the exact value). It is also becoming increasing obvious that the AGW effect of CO2 is pretty much a disproven hypothesis and WILL NOT cause any major climate change.
People.. Rising CO2 levels IS NOT A PROBLEM.. it only has benefits !!!!!
therefore NO CARBON DIOXIDE TAX is required.
10
I suggest the reason for that is that the scientists in question have something to hide. They don’t want the general public to find out they are full of (fill in the blank – most any common Anglo-Saxon earthy idiom will do) and can only spout endless self referenced, confused, and confusing verbiage.
If you can’t make yourself understood to the ordinary hard working taxpayer, you don’t know what you are talking about. If you need to take ten thousand words to say what can more clearly be said using only a hundred words, you perpetrating a fraud and trying desperately to hide that fact. You don’t deserve to be paid out of unemployment insurance let alone have academic tenure with full salary and benefits.
If the general public, who are paying the salaries of the scientists, actually understood what the scientists were saying and why they were saying it, it would be pitch forks and torches parades 24/7 until the last scientist was hanging high.
PS: I have actually worked in science, science education, engineering, and product development for all my professional life (in excess of fifty years): in the fields of physics, chemistry, math, physiology, pharmacology, biomedical devices, and software engineering. The primary fault people have found in my writing is that they actually understand what I am saying and cannot stand being told the truth. I have lost contracts because I have refused to do otherwise.
10
Binny #26..
Not to mention the number of death each year from excessive dihydrogen monoxide, the very young being especially vulnerable. And the significant infrastructure damage it often causes.
I agree, it is obviously a very dangerous substance, and the community MUST be protected !!
10
Malcolm Miller’s piece about those professional scientists who are intimidated to the point they won’t be recognized for their beliefs are slowly coming out of the closet:
http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=289&Itemid=96
I don’t know if these folks talk with each other about climate change, but the fact that they are standing together in a public way against the barrage of ‘real science’ is heartening. Perhaps many baby steps are necessary to change the direction of knowledge on this subject.
10
Rudd, Wong, Gillard, Combet etc all wail that co2 is pollution, yet because of some bi-polar blockage or mental disorder they happily export 3 times as much coal every year than we use at home.
This of course when used by the importers produces what, pixy dust , fairy floss, pork chops or perhaps THREE TIMES the co2 we produce at home.
Of course this co2 doesn’t count somehow,it must reside in the atmosphere of another parallel universe I suppose.
10
Question #2 seems incomplete:
55% of respondents identified with option a). Does that mean that they blame humans for, say, more than 50% of climate change?
As a general comment not intended to reflect adversely on Stephen’s work, it may be useful to extend the survey to a wider community. For what it’s worth, all my acquaintances consider the whole climate brouhaha as a load of unmitigated baloney, yet formal surveys on the subject seem to pass us by!
10
Well done Stephen.
The education experts in Perth ( no matter what side they are on ) should be very worried at how ineffective they are.
10
I hated science subjects at school … but I gained a bit of general knowledge from my three years of hate. Like the carbon cycle, which I have tried to explain in general knowledge terms rather than chemical terms.
Carbon Dioxide or CO2 … it is the stuff you breathe out of your nose or mouth many times per day. The plants around the place ‘breathe’ it in, and give us the oxygen back for us to breathe in again, to convert to CO2.
How to we get the Carbon part of the equation into our body to combine it with the oxygen we breathe in to create CO2? We eat it in plant and animal products. We are a carbon life form too, as much of our body is made up of carbon molecules.
When the lessons went beyond this point to carrying out experiments and doing maths I switched off … I wasn’t interested in going further on the subject. It is becoming obvious that this is the level of information which needs to get out there … but how? (The line about what foods we eat which don’t contain carbon could be added.)
10
Graham #32
55% of respondents didn’t answer a). Perhaps the question is not as clear as it could be.
Each respondent split 100% of climate change into a) a human-caused component and b) a natural component. So the
percentages listed are the average of the percentages of attribution for each human and/or natural. Thus the split for the whole sample group was 55/45 (human/natural).
10
Rereke @18
There must be a corollary to this… let me try:
“the easiest explanation of nearly anything is that stupidity is the culprit”
How does that fit?
10
The dumbing down of CO2 is being lead by the government and all of the departments. CSIRO, Education etc etc
See http://www.reec.nsw.edu.au/geo/climate/page/clch41.htm This is the NSW Education & Training Website.
They state that
– then also add
. No wonder most people are mixed up with what CO2 actually is.
The next generation and the current one leaving school are being/and are brainwashed by these lies.
Education is the only key to this problem.
10
Rereke Whakaaro @16
I thank you for your comments.
On 28/04/11 watched an interview between Leigh Sales of the 7:30 Report & Lindsay Tanner .
He was ostensibly being interviewed about his recently published book “SideShow”, describing his dismay at the relationship between the MSM & poltilcs & how it is of recent years driven by appearance rather than substance & that the media is “behind the wheel”.
After clearly stating what he was trying to outline, Ms Sales brazenly attempted to garner polilical comment on leadership of the ALP & his thoughts on AGW/Carbon Tax?Cap& Trade. Obviously she was not listening to him or considering his comments! It was painful but entertaining.
If it is on the ABC, IT HAS TO BE ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE!!!!!
http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/
&
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/former-finance-minister-lindsay-tanner-has-likened-federal-politics-to-the-shallowness-of-a-hollywood-blockbuster/story-fn59niix-1226047038985
10
Perhaps this test should be given to our politicians? And the results published, of course.
10
Younger people (18-25) were easily the group most bent upon ascribing causation of these natural events (tsunamis, earthquakes and volcanic eruptions) to climate change. For starters, a whopping 82% cast climate change as the villain most likely when unwelcome tsunamis visit our shores. In the same vein 76% of this group think a small increase in a trace gas (CO2), trumps tectonic plate movement and complex processes in the earth’s crust as the causative agent for earthquakes and volcanic eruptions.
Science teachers, who, I’d suggest, tend to be misanthropic and blame the human race as a kneejerk reaction in many isssues (in other, subscribers to views that are broadly described as left-wing), are responsible for the zombieism in school curriculums in the past 40 years that has given the anti-science of the IPCC kneejerk emotional currency with children. Well done. Deluded young people who are not grounded in the truth are currently targets for manipulation by unscrupulous and potentially highly dangerous people in the political sphere, even in the democracy we take for granted. I do not like the possibilities of where this may lead.
10
Carbon health warning……
The ALP Government in their “wisdom” have told the Australian public that Carbon is a pollutant. We are to have a CARBON tax, not a CO2 tax.
I have been searching the net about Carbon and have found that all foods contain the pollutant, carbon.
e.g. Just a few.
Wheat 41.18%
Canola oil 74.48%
Corn 32.04%
Meat 18.00%
In fact ALL foods contain carbon. Therefore, should all food outlets have a health warning thus?
Health warning.
All foods sold in this outlet
contain Carbon.
PS Why is “carbon pollution” not listed as a pollutant by this deceiving government?
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/why_is_carbon_pollution_not_listed_as_a_pollutant_by_this_deceiving_governm/
10
Graham: #32
Likewise, I found Question 2 strange. A % is ask for, but apparently an average is reported. The spread and proportions would add much to the report.
To frame and ask questions 10 – 13 is brilliant, but appalling that such ignorance is revealed.
10
With apologies to Lionell. A prominent scientist was an athiest. He thought he would prove his position by studying the Chemical Chart. When he got to the sixth element he was more than amazed on the many forms of carbon and it’s combinations. He deducted that this could not have happened randomly and he became a Believer (in God)
20
Alcoholics have also commented on the ill effects of dihydrogen monoxide. They cite what it does to the radiators of cars. Also what fish do in it.
10
Andy G @ 27
I think the paper you seek disproving the notion that burning all known reserves of fossil fuels would raise CO2 levels to dangerous levels, is one by Tom Quirk and published in Qudrant, here , “we would only add another 154 ppm of CO2. This is well short of a doubling of CO2!”
10
DAmian at 41.
You mention Corn. In USA they refer to Maize as corn. The correct meaning of corn is Wheat, Oats and Barley. In New Testament references to corn, it means wheat, oats and barley, not maize.
20
Damien #46
“The ALP Government in their “wisdom” have told the Australian public that Carbon is a pollutant. We are to have a CARBON tax, not a CO2 tax. ”
That being the case, the tax should ONLY apply to native carbon that is discharged into the atmosphere, NOT on CO2, which is a beneficial gas at anything less than about 2% atmospheric concentration. (ie 50 times current concentrations)
Mind you, pure carbon does not stay in the atmosphere for very long, (depending on particulate size, and weather conditions)
10
Allen Ford #45,
Yep that could be the paper. Somewhere between 500-600 ppm maximum, highly beneficial for plant life and absolutely no problem in any other way.
10
It’s not so much that people are stupid, I think most can be reasonably intelligent.
The problem is most people don’t like to think. It’s like exercising. Too much hard work for most people. Therefore, their brain starts to deteriorate, just as your body does if you don’t exercise.
If you don’t exercise and have to run a marathon the next day, you aren’t going to be capable of doing it. If you don’t exercise your mind and you come across something which requires brainpower, you are not going to be able to handle it in the same way you could have if you had exercised your mind.
This is why scammers get away with so much in society. Most people’s inherent laziness.
10
One could invite warmers to dinner or something and offer them food that contains no carbon, or, point out when you see them eating carbon based food that they are eating polluted food. Hmmm – this might drive it home better than rhetoric.
10
I hope all these people drink FLAT beer !!! YUCK !!!
10
At last we have a survey telling us the true story of Global warming–Well done Stephen your worth your weight in carbon.
10
I would love to see this survey given to students at Uni.
It would be very interesting to see the results, maybe analysed by course taken !!! 😉
10
Yay! Scratch Rio off the CO2 tax/price/ETS supporters list for now after their piece in The Australian:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/dont-go-alone-on-carbon-tax-rio-tinto/story-fn59niix-1226047284303
I notice that they referred to Jooolya’s move to price carbon (sic) as both a brave and courageous decision … anyone who has watched even a few episodes of Yes Minister knows exactly what that signals. For the unintiated it means “push this legislation and expect a huge fight from industry.”
The main disappointment in the article is that Rio and the author keep referring to them as a major polluter (meaning the CO2 emissions). This Newspeak has to be stopped.
10
Actually most industrial food additives, such as flavours, colours etc, are organic as well and so also contain carbon.
10
Carbon Is the World’s Best Friend
(To the tune of “Diamonds Are A Girl’s Best Friend” by Jule Styne)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hZL4guaFKQ (Carol Channing)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xX-Ule22-Y (Marilyn Monroe – includes the Intro:)
Intro:
Academies and Government
May have planned a grand alliance,
So much of which is mere pretense
Consensus isn’t science.
Verse 1
No one disagrees
We should tackle pollution,
But Carbon is the world’s best friend.
From algae to trees
It’s a wide distribution
Of the flora who
Would not eschew
More CO2
While their game
Is heap the blame
On this element, trace gas, and blend
It isn’t profound that
There’s no getting ‘round that
Carbon is the world’s best friend
Verse 2
If some say the wheel
Is the world’s best invention
Then Carbon is the world’s best friend
Its range of appeal
(Here’s a subset I’ll mention)
Goes from bikes to Rolls
Remote controls
To fishing poles
Planes and trains
And beers, champagnes
And in most things on which we depend.
It’s hard to conceive that
Some will not believe that
Carbon is the world’s best friend.
2nd Intro
Elites forever look at ways
That can scare the av’rage Bunny
This latest gig’s the star by far
To snare the bunny’s money
Verse 3
While diamonds are nice
(And I needn’t remind you
They’re “Carbon” and a girl’s best friend)
But that cuts no ice
With the grim humankind who,
If they could prevail,
Would make a sale
As we exhale
“Chaos” rules
Though knaves and fools
Will insist they have foretold the trend.
Let’s hope that the masses
Aren’t fooled by these asses;
Carbon is the world’s best friend.
Verse 4
Combet can repeat
That the science is settled
But carbon is the world’s best friend
The P.M. can tweet,
She appears mighty nettled
That the mob won’t buy
The reason why,
She had to lie.
Garnaut grins
And says “Our sins,
Must be paid for as I recommend”
Though he may decry it
No one can deny it
Carbon is the world’s best friend.
I don’t mean Sooty,
Carbon! Carbon! Carbon! Carbon!
Carbon is the world’s best friend.
••••••••••••••
10
I am a carbon based life form and proud of it!
I hereby declare war on all non carbon based people until they out themselves!
10
MadJak # 55
I am a carbon based life form and proud of it!
Now that would make a good placard at a protest!
10
Bulldust@53
If du Plessis believes there is enough scientific evidence to draw a “very clear link” between carbon emissions and global warming” and if one assumes Mr. du Plessis also thinks that global warming will have serious negative implications for the Earth’s climate system and the welfare of its inhabitants then what sort of immoral person is he if he continues to mine and sell massive quantities of coal to industries that are significant producers of “carbon” emissions.
That surely is the height of cynicism by du Plessis who talks the talk but walks in the opposite direction and by his duplicity treats all Australians as fools.
10
Former finance minister Lindsay Tanner has a thing or two to say about the current state of political debates and media discourse – he will probably surprise you, because he is echoing a lot of the sentiments we share about the dumbing down of society:
http://www.smh.com.au/national/rudd-was-beheaded-and-it-was-all-for-nothing-tanner-laments-20110429-1e0th.html
Here’s some key quotes:
I always argued that the media has far more power than the politicians, because they shape the mood of the country. With the arrival of the internet, and the advent of social networking and blogging, much of that power has been wrested away from the traditional media and put back in the hands of individuals. It has been a gradual victory for democracy IMO.
10
Llew Jones:
Du Plessis is doing exactly what he has been employed to do … maximise the wealth of the shareholders. Sometimes soothing the peasants with PC-speak is required while anyone with half a braincell knows full well the company is doing exactly the opposite. Given the results of the survey many people in Australia seem to lack half a braincell… hence his contradictory statements probably pay off.
I work in government, so I am fully versed in double speak, motherhood language and dog whistling. It is quite easy to appear to say one thing and mean another, say nothing while appearing to say something etc… it is all done to palm off people with a gripe against whicever organisation you are representing. Such is the world we live in.
I should note that I prefer direct and concise language … something that occasionally gets me in trouble LOL
10
http://www.pindanpost.com/2011/04/30/greenhouse2011…t-horticulture/
Jo, didn’t see your name or David Evans at this Perth Climate Confernce. The only easy recognisable name, along with a 26 page PDF presentation is your old friend Ove.
Posted on April 30, 2011 by Tom Harley
GREENHOUSE 2011 will be will be the most significant climate change science meeting in Australia in 2011. (Their promo, not mine)
10
This survey is probably representative, deeply disturbing and depressing.
“War is Peace,” “Freedom is Slavery,” “Ignorance is Strength.”
10
A very interesting project and valuable contribution to the debate; of note to me is that ignorance is spread across the political spectrum; that is not surprising since all parties, except the Nats believe in AGW, and the Nats are in a coalition with the Libs.
This country needs a political party which is up to speed on the science and the consequences of AGW ‘measures’; that’s right we already have one: The Climate Sceptics.
The fact is, this debate has moved from the science and is now firmly a political issue with massive msm support. Politically the opposition to AGW must proceed in a way consistent with the paradigm for all political success, the hip-pocket nerve.
The position of the msm is slightly more difficult; most msm hacks are self-indulgent and regard themselves as being ahead of the hoi polli, particularly morally and ethically; this is why AGW resonates with the msm; saving the world is a great moral issue; they will be convinced of the immorality once the lights go off because as a group the msm are singularly useless and will suffer disproportionately but if the lights go off for them it will go off for everyone. Who wants that?
So the moral imprimatur of AGW has to be removed. So far the advocates of AGW have been shown to be liars, bullies, opponents of scientific transparency, democracy and the rule of law, recipients of huge amounts of money, hypocrites, elitists and misanthropes; none of these have really changed the msm’s opinion about the moral worth of AGW, so what next?
10
It may all be good fun , decrying the lamentable state understanding in the general population, but these are bogus questions. If you simply promote the idea that carbon is unavoidable because we’re made of it, that simply suggests that other bogus need for repopulation.
As someone above illustrated with diamonds , this is not about Carbon per se, but the balance of different states of carbon. Most people do understand that ‘carbon’ is just being used as a shorthand for CO2 .
The surveyed are rarely as pig ignorant as their surveyors would make them out to be.
10
It’s only a very small thing, but we should start specifying CO2 concentration in %age by volume, rather than parts per million. 380 ppm may sound a lot, but when you point out the the atmosphere comprises less than 0.04@ CO2, or even better, that over 99.96% of the air is NOT CO2, that might get some people thinking.
Pete
10
“cohenite” (62),
One Nation, Australian Protectionist Party, DLP, Shooters and Fishers, to name a few, are all against this global warming FRAUD……
Unfortunately, The Liberals are too gutless to call it for the Scam that it is !
10
In my opinion the National Party should split with the Liberal Party and field candidates in ALL electorates.
They and the ones I mentioned above are more Patriotic and representative of the Majority of the electorate than the Liberals, REDS (greens) and alp (Australian LIARS PARTY)……….
10
Mark D #36
If you have read “The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy” you will know that the answer to “The Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything”, is 42.
If you have read any book by Terry Pratchet, you will know that the invisible force that binds the multiverse together is … stupidity. Stupidity, in Terry Pratchet’ multiverse is much stronger than gravity. Gravity is puny, and can only work in one direction. Whereas stupidity is much more powerful, because it can work in all directions simultaneously, even allowing people to run up the wall. Well, at least until they get confused at the top, and start thinking about Gravity.
10
To truly understand what is the mind of the majority?
Just look at what is broadcast, what is advertised, the ratings and popularity thereof.
I rest any case you like.
10
MadJak: #55
A bit like Animal Farm: Carbon based good – Silicon based bad. Declare war on silicon-based life forms!
10
Bulldust: #58
That is a good point, but it is very hard for professionals to sort the wheat from the chaff in the social networks and personal blogs, and most people just have to take it as they find it. But I agree that the media are loosing their once pre-eminent position. It is sad, but inevitable, like evolutionary extinction.
10
Top One Liners from above
I hereby declare war on all non carbon based people
I am a carbon based life form and proud of it!
Declare war on silicon-based life forms!
I hope all these people drink FLAT beer !!! YUCK !!!
invite warmers to dinner or something and offer them food that contains no carbon
Toilet paper’s a better bargain; and it won’t slip at the crucial moment…
The Ultimate Symbol of carbon pollution – 100% pure carbon
Maybe if we let them know we’re a Carbon-based lifeform, it’ll help …
Great stuff above – LOL
Bad One Liners from:
Julia:
Peter Midnight:
Miss Wong:
Greg Combet:
Mr Conners:
Mr. Kloppers:
Mr. Rio:
Mr. MattyBee:
10
Chinese – Statistics on Warmists comments:
Mattybee Like 9 Dislike 20
J Brooks Like 5 Dislike 32
The warmists are losing their ability – John Brooks – how can he possibly inspire more DISLIKES than MattyBee?
The WARMISTS are collapsing in a heap of carbon dust.
10
Are we moving towards a world that is not carbon based?….Should we not give it a whirl?
…’The war of the Whirls’…
http://fenbeagleblog.wordpress.com/
10
Brillant
FenBeagle – all of this is terrific.
Go to
You are on my favourites bar (Number One) right now.
10
MaxL@11
This may help, I am no scientist, but I have studied this topic for years. I wrote a letter to a journalist at the West Australian in answer to a column hr wrote. I received no answer.
I have attached another link at the bottom which includes items that I felt were solid science towards falsifying AGW. Other commenters here would be better informed than I am, but this can be a start.
Permalink: http://www.pindanpost.com/2011/04/30/letter-to-a-jo…list-no-answer/
10
…to a column ‘he’ wrote…sorry, large fat horticultural fingers…
10
T Harley
The link you gave in 77 should be – I think your large fat horticultural fingers… may have hit a wrong key
10
Thanks Tom,
and thanks David for posting the correct link.
With your permission I’ll use it as a guide. I think you’ve summarized the most important issues very well. I’d like to get some of the 150 people in my town to start to question what the MSM are feeding them.
10
Rereke @69 I’m at a loss with the comment about “42” but it is an interesting (seemingly not stupid) number.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/42_%28number%29
On the other hand Terry Pratchet must be genius! Gravity IS puny compared to stupid. I’d never though about it that way before……….
Another observation: stupid must outweigh smart by at least 10 to 1 in sheer volume of examples.
10
Patrick sent this email to a couple of politicians (and cc’d me): Thanks Patrick.
—————————————————————————–
Dear Member of Parliament,
This is a downright disgrace. What is wrong with Australian education?
Carbon is the fundamental basis of organic chemistry without which there would be no plant or animal life on our planet.
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/04/carbon-demonized-by-climate-propaganda/
What a splendid job our Government has done in dumbing down Australians.
Regards
Patrick
10
Can’t say I’m surprised. It would be interesting to get all your politicians to fill out the questionnaire. I would be shocked if they did any better.
10
A moment of clarity came, and I added this post note summary right at the top.
10
Thanks David @ 79, the links thingy I am still trying to work out, have not been doing this for too long. Back to the shovel now I guess.
10
[…] Media pollution…public fail Posted on May 1, 2011 by Tom Harley Carbon — demonized by climate propaganda […]
10
We can safely assume that neither do the Politicians know that CO2 comprises only 0.039% of the atmosphere etc… so basically, when Mead, Schneider, Holdren and Lovelock decided to blame CO2 they created the greatest hoax of all times, exploiting the non-knowledge of non-scientists. The biggest con artists of all times.
1975 `Endangered Atmosphere’ Conference: Where the Global Warming Hoax Was Born
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/highlights/Fall_2007.html
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202007/GWHoaxBorn.pdf
10
The big problem is that carbon, in some forms, can be a pollutant. The black, stinky smoke you see belching out of a diesel truck as it pulls away under heavy load contains a lot of carbon particles. It looks and smells bad, and it IS carbon pollution.
There are other forms of pollution that are, contain or are produced by carbon in one for or another.
Confounding one thing with another is an old trick. It was used with some success in the US to convince people that semi-automatic rifles are the same thing as machine guns – the MSM even went so far as to have demonstrations of “firepower” — using, of course, machine guns.
Its the old left-wing strategy of “if you can’t win on the basis of your arguments, lie and frighten people to death”.
The only real answer is education — but the same people have taken control of that, and ensure that only approved education takes place. That does not include critical thinking or stimulation of curiosity.
10
Here’s the latest bit of crazy from Paddy Manning in the SMH:
http://www.smh.com.au/business/peak-oil-its-closer-than-you-think-20110429-1e0gt.html
He starts off with peak oil (which obviously has to occur at some point, but is an entirely moot issue for reasons I won’t go into here) and ends up taking a flight of fancy (electrified plane I hope) with BZE. BZE wants high speed rail tracks between all the capitals and major regional towns, except Darwin … presumably because they are a bit troppo up there.
It’s a slow news morning, but this should give you an early giggle.
10
[…] Carbon demonized. Jo Nova on the scam of the century. […]
10
Rereke@71,
I wonder if some of the enhanced pretty people might get worried about that statement. Plastic surgeons might be at risk of losing work too.
I might start canning some 99% carbon free food and sell it. I could make a fortune out of these people.
LOL
10
Madjak:
We laugh at this, but how far away are we from mandated carbon footprint labelling I wonder? I wouldn’t put it past the Europeans. This is right up there with the carbon offsets counters at airports… I mean seriously, we are already in the age of stupid.
10
Bulldust @87
Peak oil is the least of our worries.
When “scientists” refer to carbon dioxide as pollution it’s clear we’ve past “peak intelligence”.
It’s all down from here folk…
10
Debunking the Myth of Peak Oil – Why the Age of Cheap Oil is Far From Over (Part 1)….
http://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/Debunking-the-Myth-of-Peak-Oil-Why-the-Age-of-Cheap-Oil-is-Far-From-Over-Part-1.html
10
The msm is the issue; who runs the msm?
10
Damian Allen @91.
Must be those Space Dinosaurs…
10
Bulldust
You are, of course, completely correct.
What is truly scary about that survey is the second part which breaks the responses down by age group. It is obvious that the Young ‘uns are convinced that Earthquakes, Tsunamis and Volcanoes are cause by AGW.
I have seen this first hand, and yes, it has been taught in the schools (in Australia and New Zealand). Just like Nazi propaganda about the “aryan” race was done only a few generations ago. And yes, this is a direct comparison on my part, quite deliberate and 100% accurate IMO.
I could get wound up about it, but honestly, it’s hardly worth it. With Team Catastrafaria setting up the pitch that this is being about carbon “pollution”, they have seeded their own demise. Now it’s time to the Coup De Grace.
Humour is all that’s needed, because, well, they really have nothing to backup their claims.
10
Damian Allen:
Yep that chap covers the main reasons Peak Oil is a non-issue. Technology and substitution as we economists call it. Higher oil prices send a strong signal to the market to do both. In the end this backfires on OPEC because once the alternatives supplies are developed their grip on the market weakens.
10
Totally OT but a friend sent this to me recently..
Interesting though.
Official ET Disclosure? –> “NSA Document Admits ET Contact” By Kevin W. Smith
The NSA has been forced to release documents to show that one of their satellites received messages from Space.
http://www.ufodigest.com/article/official-et-disclosure-nsa-document-admits-et-contact-kevin-w-smith
10
Damian Allen @96,
Those must be the same space aliens my cat talks to every night. Or maybe not!
Did you notice the claim that the messages had been originally received by Sputnik? The thing had barely the capability to send back a simple radio signal so it could be tracked, much less did it have anything sensitive enough to pick up signals from light-years away.
Now is the time to apply a good big dose of the skepticism we’re so well known for. Especially given all the other nonsense we’ve seen from NASA lately. Sputnik indeed!
Did you notice the link to this on the page for his show? VIDEO: HAARP secret web page that is the smoking gun on HAARP and weather modification? He’s a blinking conspiracy nut! 😉
Good comedy though! Or are they really sending my cat secret messages? She won’t tell me but I know she knows.
10
I think we have to be a bit careful of the food questions…
Sure, our food contains a lot of carbon compounds, but I’m not at all sure I would like to have even small levels of actual carbon (as itself) in my food.. yuck..;-)
So when we see people saying they would prefer their food without carbon, I think we have to know what they actually meant by their answer.
I would want clarification on the the question first.
10
ps, and anyone who lives near a coal railway knows that base carbon could be considered a pollutant, its certainly a nuisance, not sure how dangerous (although coal dust does have lots of impurities that can be dangerous)
10
This is one of those internet memes that is either created deliberately for fun by someone, or may be an honest mistaken identity.
Howard Campaigne was an actual cryptographer at NSA, who wrote a number of papers on computer cryptography. Here is a search on the NSA website that shows some of his papers, including the ones on extraterrestrial intelligence.
Apparently, there was an ongoing discussion about what an ET intelligence might be like, what kind of signals might we expect, and how could we decode them. Several cryptographers at NSA made up hypothetical “signals from outer space” (as alien as they could imagine) to challenge the other cryptographers’ ability to decode them.
The paper Damian Allen linked to (indirectly — go to the bottom of the linked article) is the “solution set” of an hypothetical message created by H. Campaigne. (Note the document is titled “key_to_et_messages.pdf”).
Here is an earlier article in the series that makes it clear what is going on.
From the preface:
Also, Sputnik was even more limited than Roy stated. It did not even have a radio receiver, and the transmitted signal only carried the information that the satellite was within temperature range and hadn’t yet depressurized. Here is the Russian description of its design. The claim that Sputnik received these messages is a tip off that they are an elaborate fantasy — one that NSA crypographers used to amuse each other, apparently.
10
the public gets its (lack of) information from the MSM.
turn off the TV (free-to-air and cable), the radio and stop buying what passes for newspapers.
10
Rereke sugests: “There is an organic food outlet close to where I live. Perhaps late on Sunday night, the store might acquire a new sign that says,
“Health Warning: Food sold in this store may contain large quantities of carbon”.”
This response to the survey suggests an interesting/fun way to stick a spoke in the wheel of the alarmists.
1. Put the signs outside Coles and Woolworths stores.
2 Encourage grafiti-artists to put it up all over the place.
10
Totally agree with you “Pat” (104) !!
We only source our news from very select internet sites and and certain radio networks. And of course Jo Nova! No tv news or the majority of so called newspapers. No abc or sbs !
Also DL all tv from the net. No ads that way.
I’m over reading Crap, Lies, Obfuscations and Propaganda from the MSM !!
10
Andy G. at 14.
Don’t want to be a ‘smarty pants’but $100 x 100cents is 10,000cents. What we want is a million cents,so divide 1,000 000 by 100 and we have $10,000 worth of atmosphere with CO2 worth just under 4 cents at the moment.All the best.
10
So, essentially, we could construct a simple questionnaire containing all but one simple yes and no question, like so,
Are you a carbon based life form: Yes/No?
The ones that answer no, we toss off to gitmo for possibly being illegal aliens of unknown origin.
10
Wow — what an inspired survey! Some of the questions are just brilliant & make me laugh out loud. “Should we try to reduce carbon in the body?” “Do you think food and drink would be safer if it had no carbon or carbon dioxide it it?” And of course the response percentages make me shake my head in dismay. What a dirty trick the lefty politicians & media have pulled on the masses! I suspect many respondents did not even think about their answers, they have just been so brainwashed and indoctrinated. This is especially evident with the questions about whether climate change causes earthquakes, tsunamis & volcanic eruptions. For God’s sake — THINK people! Many probably would have said “yes” to “caused by climate change” no matter what calamity was listed (dog barking, paint peeling off the bathroom wall, cellulite on your thighs). Jo is right in saying that Stephen has turned the traditional lefty polling ploys inside out to expose their indoctrinating bias. Keep up the great work Stephen! I hope to see more from you. I loved your sentence: “Perhaps the amputation of an appendage at the end of the leg will be the new way to reduce one’s carbon footprint.” Brilliant! Really gave me a chuckle!
10
Here’s what happened to me early April at St Leonard’s Station, (which is just north of Sydney for non Aussies). I had an encounter with a young man returning from the carbon protest.
I’m a kiwi, and I was visiting Australia for a few days to attend a training course at Macquarie. The course was due to start on Monday 4th April. I had come over on Saturday 2nd April. I was sitting in the Oporto restaurant at St Leonard’s eating my burger and I watched him walk past. He was carrying a placard. He wasn’t demonstrating – just walking by. I saw the black bold words “STOP CARBON POLLUTION”. I thought to myself; I’d like to have a chat with him.
I let him walk by, and casually finished my burger.
As I left the station via the exit by Coles Supermarket he was leaning on the wall opposite, waiting for his friend to do some shopping. So I said “Hi”, and asked him what demonstration he had been to. He said he’d been to the one to stop carbon pollution, the one in favour of the carbon tax.
So I asked, “What’s the problem with carbon then?”. His answer, “It causes global warming.”
So I said, “Really, how much carbon is in the air, but of course it’s not carbon, it’s really just carbon dioxide you really mean eh.” He said, “About 1% I think.” I said, “No, much less than that. It’s about 1/25th of that, presently around 390 ppm, or 4% of 1%.”
And then I asked, “So is CO2 the only, or main greenhouse gas?”. “No” he said, “water vapour is also a greenhouse gas.”
So I asked, “How much of the greenhouse effect is attributed to water vapour and how much to CO2?” He said, “About half each.” “No”, I said, “About 90 to 95% is due to water vapour. The last 5 to 10% is due to other GHGs. But CO2 is the main one making up that last 5 to 10%.”
We talked about CO2 being essential for photosynthesis. He thought plants had plenty enough CO2 and would manage fine with less. I said plants would do better with more than the measly 0.04%.
At this point he accused me of being a ‘denier’. To be expected I guess, given what was happening.
I admitted that I was sceptical, but I hadn’t denied anything yet in the conversation. So we continued.
I asked, “If Aussie did introduce a carbon tax, how much do you think it might cost the economy?” He had no idea.
I asked, “And if you did actually manage to reduce CO2 production how much do you think global temperatures might drop?” He said, “I don’t know.”
So I had to tell him those answers too, “Well, it’ll cost you billions, and the temperature change would be measured in hundredths of a degree.”
Ignorant and brainwashed!
10
How about, “Too much CO2 or CH4 in the atmosphere is bad”. And of course, for balance, “Too little CO2 in the atmosphere is bad.” It would be much too cold without CO2 (but so as not to offend anyone, I won’t draw any conclusions about what happens with too much CO2).
Isn’t the essential problem that it is difficult to understand? And that most people have not invested the effort needed to understand properly (and I include most of you, and myself, in that basket). Of course if you guys want to keep advertising the Dunning-Kruger effect, knock yourselves out.
11
chuckle.. I wouldn’t have minded a slight reduction in carbon on those sausages I burnt over the BBQ this evening. 😉
10
Johnny Brooks @ 110
You Sir, have met all the requirements of the Dunning & Kruger Effect as follows:-
1.Tend to overestimate their own level of skill
2.Fail to recognize genuine skill in others
3.Fail to recognize the extremity of their inadequacy
4.Recognize and acknowledge their own previous lack of skill, if they can be trained to
substantially improve.
Are you a Carbon Life Form (CLF)? Now carefull Johnny with this question!
20
One more point. This post was about ignorance. People in general don’t understand very much at all. Yet they make sensible decisions (except going on the blog, but I must have done some pretty awful things in a past life…). Some on this blog pretend they are rugged individuals who actually understand everything just as well as the experts, but most of us know we don’t.
I once saw a show where new Harvard graduates were asked to explain why we had summer and winter. They very confidently gave the totally wrong reason that the sun was closer in summer, but further away in winter. But despite having this wrong belief, they didn’t base their life on it. If they planned a holiday to the southern hemisphere, they would be smart enough to not assume that summer in the northern and southern hemisphere happened at the same time (as their wrong thinking should lead them to conclude). Instead they would incorporate other information, and make their decisions on the weight of all the evidence. Most of that information is gained from the experience of other people, including “experts” like travel agents.
That is all very well for making individual decisions, where others have already done what we plan to do. It is, of course, much harder planning to go for example, to the moon, where we can’t rely on experience, but have to work things out for ourselves. Then we will make mistakes (like having a pure oxygen atmosphere in a space craft).
Our response to climate change is even harder. We can’t be sure what is happening (well you guys can, but I have doubts), and how dangerous or benign it might be. And instead of individuals making decisions for themselves, we have to make a collective decision in the face of uncertainty. Like a swarm of bees deciding on a new home. I think this is too big an ask, individual self interest will hold sway, and we will end up not acting and taking our chances – unless disasters of sufficient magnitude convince us that there is an overwhelming need to act.
11
Johnny,
You are now the perfect example of “The Peter Principle“!
10
John Brookes @113
They also said their lecturer taught them that caring socialist governments were going to enact a lovely new tax that would make the sun stay exactly where it was and make the weather nice and balmy; just like it was Spring all year round.
20
BobC, I’ll go for created deliberately.
I remember Sputnik quite well and in spite of its primitive capability it was a major accomplishment. It was also the push that put two men on the moon.
10
John Brookes why is there a need to act and for what?
I mean you must know by now that the whole fantasy is a total wank, and waste of time.
If you’re really concerned you should be suggesting we adapt to future floods, fire, drought ( Natural CC) whatever and invest time and money on R&D then new invention/technology.
I know this is a waste of time but I’ll try again, please read the latest from the EIA. This is very simple maths, it shouldn’t be too hard for you to understand.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/emissions.html
10
JB in 113,
As always you completely miss the point, we have a government that is about to launch the greatest changes to our taxation system since federation based on CO2. Do you think it prudent that the gov. inform and explain exactly what they are about to do?
Has your gov. told you exactly how this tax will work? How much extra tax will you pay?, how much will the essential services increase (power, food, fuel)?
You dont have a clue do you JB and that is because this useless gov wont tell you. Its the same with the basic principles underpinning the need for the tax in the first place. If the gov. want to introduce the biggest tax system in history then they are obligated to explain to the voters why we need it in the first place.
Questions for you JB, why do you think the gov. has failed to explain the basics of carbon/CO2 and AGW and why have they failed to explain with any clarity how the tax will work?
10
Oh well Neville@117, you are certain of things while I harbour doubts.
And crakar24@118, the carbon tax is easy enough to understand. If you’d followed the debate over the ETS, you would understand it. If you’d dipped into the Garnaut report, you would understand it. The basic reason why the government have not explained the tax in detail is because as soon as the details are made public the media will kick up an almighty stink, and all hell will break loose. As for understanding AGW, you can read the IPCC reports, and maybe your skeptical faith will be a little bit shaken, or maybe it won’t.
10
John B: I’m impressed by your reasoned arguments lately (still not convinced, though). One problem is that you tend to get too invested in your own explanations: When you have a “story” that fits all the facts together, it seems like that must be true. I like to call this “storybook logic”.
The problem with storybook logic is that it is a fiction dreamed up to tie the facts together, and humans are extremely clever at dreaming up fictions. They usually go where you desire them to — where your prejudges lay in the first place. When you actually test them against reality, they usually fail.
I’ve done this over and over while debugging large computer programs — I form an hypothesis that explains the program’s behavior; I act on that hypothesis; and I find that the problem is something else. The reason I get the program debugged eventually, is that I am perfectly willing to abandon any hypothesis that fails to meet the test of reality.
That’s the next step you need to learn.
Since the government is elected from the people, what are the chances that this is due to either:
1) The government officials are so much more wise and intelligent than the masses that they must resort to subterfuge to do what is in the public’s best interest; or
2) The government officials are corrupt and are trying to put over a fast one on the public for their (the officials’) gain?
Either one of these makes a good “story” — only one (at most) can be correct. Only reality checking can decide.
John, this entire blog is a reaction to the “storybook logic”, data manipulation, and junk science in the IPCC reports. Joanne’s “Skeptics Handbook” takes the IPCC claims head on — it doesn’t ignore them!
Your engine is running, now you just need to get all the cylinders firing.
10
I’m new here. I see you have the prerequisite lefty site pest.
10
John Brookes,
Must you continually tell us that if we’d only read everything for ourselves we’d understand all things and suddenly be enlightened? This nonsense is so old it has a long gray beard. You point to your authority and then say it’s our fault if we don’t get it. It’s a shameful attempt to make people feel guilty and thus, get some leverage to change their opinion. Every pipsqueak cause in the world has used this on me (add appeal to guilt to the list of fallacious arguments).
John, we have read all that stuff and it doesn’t add up to anything convincing. It’s shot down by all the evidence that says the IPCC is dead wrong! But any evidence that doesn’t favor their cause is very conveniently ignored.
I don’t know what the rules are in Australia but here a prosecutor is legally bound to turn over any exculpating evidence to the defense before trial. Both sides are entitled to know what the entire situation is. The defendant deserves an actually fair and honest trial. But this same actually fair and honest trial is not happening when it comes to global warming.
To put it bluntly — John, you need to find a better argument. You might try actual facts just for starters.
10
I submit my draft A5 page for consideration by any who wish to make improvements/corrections. Please note, I would like to keep it to A5 size (so far this fits).
CARBON POLLUTION – IMPOSSIBLE!
“Carbon Pollution” is a ridiculous term, invented by “Green” groups who have difficulty convincing the public that carbon dioxide (CO2) is responsible for anthropogenic (man-made) global warming, and taken up by Julia Gillard to help her form a minority government with the Greens. There is an enormous amount of evidence that CO2 has almost no effect on natural climate change. There were many periods in the past where the world was warmer than now with much less CO2 in the air, and other periods were colder than now with much more CO2 in the air .
There are many reasons for changes in the earth’s temperature including; solar activity, clouds and the urban heat island effect etc. The Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO are often wrong on short term weather predictions. Their computer-modelled conjecture of man-made climate change has been falsified in recent research. Yet, based on their computer predictions, Victoria is building a $4 billion Desalination plant. It’s completion date is delayed because it is flooded due to the recent rains, – the rains that their computer said we would never have!
The running cost was initially estimated at $132 million per year!
Life cannot exist without CO2, and there are considerable benefits to an increase of CO2 in the atmosphere – more plant growth and higher crop yields.
CO2 is a tiny trace gas somewhere between 0.036% and 0.039% of the air we breathe. Let’s settle on 0.038% as an average.
World wide, humans produce only 0.001% of the CO2 in the air.
It is estimated that Australia produces 0.00001% of the CO2 in the air. An amount so small that it can’t even be measured. Yes, that’s all the coal fired power stations, the fuel in your car and of course the CO2 we breathe out, etc.!
If all the people were removed from the Earth, the amount of CO2 in the air would drop from (our averaged) 0.038% to …. 0.037%.
Carbon is an essential element of life, everything we eat and drink contains carbon: meat, vegetables, fruit, eggs, fish, milk, beer, wine, rice, bread etc., (with three [3] exceptions: water, salt and synthetic food additives).
Furthermore, all that carbon comes from the CO2 in the air and from carbon in the soil. To reduce your “carbon footprint” try living on salt water and artificial flavourings.
“Carbon Tax” – what for? Taxing people won’t make any difference to the climate, or to the CO2 in the air, it’ll just make us all poorer.
Anyone who refers to “Carbon pollution” or “Carbon dioxide pollution” is either ignorant of science or they are trying to mislead you.
10
John Brookes @111 Invokes Dunning-Kruger…..
John, Read up on DK and you’ll find it to be a nearly universal HUMAN characteristic. We all are likely to exhibit DK. (somewhere I read a study that suggests that people with the surname “John” are 5 times more likely to suffer the effects of DK.)
20
John Brookes@120
WOW! I can’t wait for the government to release the details of the Carbon (sic) Tax.
I’d love to see “all hell break loose”.
Do you really think that the government fearing MSM will do anything other than applaud or at least spin faster than they have ever spun before?
10
John Brookes @120
Isn’t that a contradiction?
To be sceptical about one’s own faith?
10
Mark D: #81
The story relates to a super intelligent pan-dimensional alien race who built an extremely large computer to answer the question: “What is the meaning of life, the universe, and everything?”
The program ran for millions of years, and then the great day arrived when it was due to give an answer. All of the important aliens gathered and waited with baited breath for the answer, which was … “42”.
They then had to set about building an even larger computer to find out what the question was.
It is the perfect simile for the way Governments work.
20
Johnny @ 114
There seems to be a similarity between yourself & Tim Flannery in your quote:
10
JB @ 114, Now we have it. “The collective must act”. A time honoured call to socialism and communism. We now have your political belief system clearly spelt out. People can not be trusted to make their own decisions and so they must be forced into the direction that super clever drones such as “Lets suspend democracy” Clive Hamilton think is best for us.
Over my dead body mate. There are now large numbers of people setting up to man the barricades(metaphorically speaking). I would not have believed it possible that any thinking person who has studied the 20th century and was aware of the 100s of millions of people killed by collectivist political ideologies could even think there was any value in taking “collectivist” actions to plan our lives.
10
MadJak: #91
I can neither confirm nor deny any experience, at any time, either now or in the past, where I have knowingly been in close contact with any silicon life form, or partially silicon life form.
Observing from a distance, when I thought that Mrs Whakaaro was not looking, does not count. 🙂
10
AndyG: #101
So you won’t be wanting to eat any root vegetables then …?
All root crops absorb minerals in the soil, including small particle of soot – i.e. carbon.
10
OT but relevant:-
Just heard on ABC/AM the proposal for a non – government Carbon Bank!
It will take less than a day for the MSM to front (& spruik Malcolm T) for this & I’ll bet you will not have to glance too far into the wings to find Bob Carr.
10
John Brookes: #114
And some of us who know that we don’t know, take the time, and make the effort to read the wisdom of the experts, and then we do know, and we can make up our own minds.
Remember that the definition of an expert is a person who knows a great deal about very little.
I aspire to be a person who knows a reasonable amount about a lot of things so I can see the interconnections between the areas of expertise, and possibly expose flaws or exceptions in the expert view.
The only skill you need, is the ability to read.
10
Rereke Whakaaro @114
I have used it before but it still works: paranoid cynical pessimists only ever have pleasant surprises.
It has been my life’s obserevations which brought me to this, particularly the politicians.
( & I am challenged enough to have to read things several times to fully enjoy them like Lionell @ the top)
10
PeriBlue: @122
Don’t you just love em?
I find they’re great to prod at with a stick every now and then.
Their writhing and squirming never fails to amuse…..
10
John I’ll try this from another angle because you don’t seem to understand the EIA’s ratio of 20 to 1 and the complete waste of time and money for us to try to overcome that ratio.
Lomborg has assembled a team of experts ( not one or two) to look at the world’s most serious problems and surprise , surprise CAGW comes stone motherless last.
Now Bjorn is a believer in AGW but he spends a lot of time in “Cool It” proving that reducing co2 emissions by the Developing world won’t work and of course the 20/1 ratio confirms he is correct.
He puts all his efforts into promoting more R&D and then hopefully faster invention and then new technology.
I don’t believe in CAGW but I accept if you double co2 we may get an increase of around 1C.
But I know we’ve had big NATURAL increases/decreases in temp during the Holocene and other interglacials and the planet has survived.
I hope this explains my position a lot better, I think Lomborg has things about right except that AGW is a real problem and his idea of a small carbon tax to help invent other sources of energy.
Just personally I think Algae is a good chance to produce new fuel sources especially if we use co2 from power stations to increase its growth.
The Smorgan family has been experimenting with this in Victoria and of course many companies and Unis have plants operating and producing fuel in USA and elsewhere. See youtube, interesting stuff.
10
MaxL # 124
This reads well. My only suggestion would be to simplify a couple of the words – like conjecture and falsified. Perhaps use instead ‘estimates of the climate future’ and ‘proven false’?
10
martin w @ 107
Andy G @14 had it right in the first place. Using your logic you need just under 400 cents for the $10,000.
All the best to both of you! 🙂
10
bob carr & carbon trading………
http://www.envex.com.au/people.htm
10
As an explanation of the idiocy we see in the “climate science” arena:
I recently spoke to a student of “Environmental Engineering” at RMIT; he was immensely proud of his studies, and his ambitions to save the world.
When I suggested that it would be useful for him to expand his horizons by taking some courses in Chemical Engineering, he told me couldn’t do so.
Why?
Because he hadn’t taken any math, chemistry or physics in high school.
I am serious; this is what he told me. Evidently, his lack of basic knowledge is no impediment to his studies at RMIT.
Is it any wonder the world is going down the toilet?
10
Imwd@138
Thank you. Yes, that is much better.
10
JB in 120,
I think you have missed the point once again.
You said “And crakar24@118, the carbon tax is easy enough to understand. If you’d followed the debate over the ETS, you would understand it. If you’d dipped into the Garnaut report, you would understand it.
This could not be further from the truth, if i were to say the carbon tax would put a price on emissions then yes it would be easy to understand but that is just a basic understanding. I have followed the debate over the ETS and i have “dipped” into the Garnaut report so dont dismiss me like an idiot JB.
In all the ETS debate and all the reports it does not tell me what the price (TAX) of a carbon ton will be, will this price remain constant over time until the ETS is introduced, what will the price be once an ETS is introduced, which companies will have full exemption, which will have partial and which will have none. What will be the changes in the tax brackets as a way of compensation and will they be revisited as the price of a carbon ton goes up or possibly down? Will the price on carbon be applied before or after the GST, a good example is the fuel excise is applied before the GST raising the GST component. If the carbon price is applied before the GST then the actual cost increase will be even higher, which is it to be?
You then said “The basic reason why the government have not explained the tax in detail is because as soon as the details are made public the media will kick up an almighty stink, and all hell will break loose.As for understanding AGW, you can read the IPCC reports, and maybe your skeptical faith will be a little bit shaken, or maybe it won’t.”
NO JB the reason why the gov. have not released the details of the tax is because they dont have any detail, they are thrashing around like a punch drunk Mike Tyson.
The media will do what they always do and distort the facts surrounding the tax to support a useless government.
As for the IPCC…..dont make me laugh.
Why have the government not come clean on what the ramifications are of this tax, why do they go out of there way to misinform the general public?
Most people have no idea what levels of CO2 there is or any other basic information and that is a direct result of government reluctance to disseminate such information.
You weren’t out by St Leonards on the 2nd of April carrying a placard talking to a Kiwi by chance were you?
10
“John Brookes”,
Please quote one, just one, Peer Reviewed Scientific Paper which PROVES, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that human beings and carbon DIOXIDE (Plant Food) are/is responsible for global warming.
PS Computer Models don’t count as evidence and proof.
10
such a shame Russell doesn’t bring up the carousel fraud etc rampant in “uncorruptable” Europe!
30 April: UK Tele: Jonathan Russell: Climate change spending at risk of fraud and corruption
Multi-billion pound spending on climate change and carbon markets could be wasted because of significant corruption and fraud, according to charity Transparency International…
The industries likely to benefit from the $100bn spending on anti-climate change measures include forestry and agriculture. Transparency International is warning its is these industries that could be targeted by fraudsters.
The report states: “Where huge amounts of money flow through new and untested financial markets and mechanisms, there is always a risk of corruption.”…
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/8482981/Climate-change-spending-at-risk-of-fraud-and-corruption.html
10
Damien Allen @ 140
Having arrived in NSW from Qld in 1995 I was just in time to see Bob Carr get his gig as premier. As a bird-watching nature lover( nothing wrong with that), he was never too keen on those “dirty coal fired power generators”.
Everybody in NSW is now, by way of their power bills, paying through the nose for his “dis-interest”. At least we got de-sal & a few road tunnels!
Wouldn’t it be deliciously ironic it his mates at Macquarie Bank ended up big(profitable) players in any private generation or PPP?
10
A few thoughts on carbon pollution.
Just bought some new cabin air filters for my car. The blurb says ‘uses activated carbon to eliminate pollutants from the atmosphere before entering the ventilation system’. Quite a double-trick – absorbing pollutants and then being one itself. I can confirm they do work when following a stinky car that is pumping out real pollution – usually an old smoky-exhaust banger with a greens sticker on the window.
$100.00 / 3 cents is correct. The mistake you’re making is thinking it is 3 parts per million, so you need 1 million cents. Not true – it’s 390 cents per million. That would make it 390 cents in a million dollars, which is $3.90/$100,000.00. So you can drop two zeroes and put it into 10,000 cents – which is $100.00. So 3cents in $100.00 is correct. A good image would be a photoshopped 10,000 cent pieces with 3 painted red to highlight how insignificant they are. And then a couple of copper molecules to show what difference a carbon tax would make.
10
Rereke Whakaaro @132
I’ll send you round a salt shaker full of soot, just for you to put on your meals…… enjoy !! 😉
I much prefer my daily dose of carbon delivered in compound form.
10
@brc #147 “A good image would be a photoshopped 10,000 cent pieces with 3 painted red ”
no.. the 3 or 4 CO2 coins should be painted colourless. 😉
10
@martin w: #107 “Don’t want to be a ‘smarty pants’”
its all right, no-one will notice 😉
10
Just thinking about the 18-25 group that said climate change can cause cyclones (88%), tsunamis (82%), earthquakes (76%) & volcanic eruptions (76%). The left-dominated educational system, teachers, professors do not care about educating young people. The goal is to make them pliable tools to further their socialistic agenda. Nothing more, nothing less.
10
Here’s a good link (would you believe Wiki) that shows the concentrations of the various gases in the atmosphere.
Link here
They have to expand the pie chart underneath to show carbon dioxide – you can’t see it on the main one. (They don’t separate the manmade component – but it does really demonstrate the idiocy of trying to limit a minor, life essential trace gas – fools!!!)
Nice to know how our MULTIPLE $$$$$billons will go to reduce this “almost nothing” to, well “almost nothing”.
Cheers,
10
92Bulldust:
May 1st, 2011 at 8:38 am
.
Carbon footprinting is already being introduced by large corporates, to beat up on their suppliers with. B T are trumpeting their new Climate Change policy, which requires their suppliers (always a soft target) to introduce a raft of measures – if they wish to remain suppliers, of one of Europe’s greatest IT service providers.
BT has announced the introduction of a climate change procurement…
The time was once when this would have been considered anti-competitive, in the Free Market that Europe was supposed to be all about when GB signed up. We’ve learned a lot about The EU since then.
Here is the requirement, Suppliers are required to.. meet.
The EU will lap this up, after it’s similar (though more worthy) Directives on WEEE & Rohs.
10
134Rereke Whakaaro:
May 2nd, 2011 at 8:32 am
John Brookes: #114
An expert is one who is knowledgeable enough about what is known, to have a qualified opinion on what is unknown.
When experts start agreeing with each other, you have to wonder what is being put in their food.
10
141Diogenese:
May 2nd, 2011 at 10:40 am
In Social Science, “Engineering” is used more to imply manipulation.
Fluffy feelgood Science , rather than any desire to understand the Universe.
I hope that course was being run in a Geography Department , rather than in any Hard Science Faculty.
10
You do realise it’s not the CO2 in the food we’re worried about, it’s the stuff in the air!
Are you really a scientist?
10
Joe V, from post #65:
I strongly dispute this part:
.
I had to post a couple of times in a forum.Showing that C is not the same as CO2.
The person I had to correct,thought C is what causes global warming.I showed him that CO2 is the one that can absorb a trace amount of IR.C does not.
There are many people who are of that thinking.This then made easier to demonize C itself.That is the real goal of militant environmentalists.It is a way to exert control over ignorant lazy people.
They must be truly lazy to shorten a very short form CO2 to just C and think they mean the same thing.This is the ultimate example of sloppy thinking.
Please do not support it.
10
156sunsettommy:
May 2nd, 2011 at 11:38 pm
OK Sunsettommy, It must be worse than I thought. The capacity for human laziness is hard to fathom.
Is burnt toast a good source of activated charcoal ?
10
Wow, not only can the Prime Minister of my country (Canada)run a successful election and deal with world wide events (Bin Laden’s dead)he manages to find the time to produce a survey in Australia on how uninformed a certain percentage of Aussie’s don’t understand CO2
10
Blimey 156,
You raise an interesting point, if the CO2 in the air is what we should be worried about so much so that we should consider it pollution then once a plant absorbs it is it still pollution? or is carbon and oxygen by themselves not pollution and only become pollution when they combine to form CO2?
Is carbon monoxide pollution? one would have to say yes it is so what is the difference, well one is a natural occurring molecule ad the other is not but does this mean both are to be considered pollution.
This is the crux of the debate, if one does not educate the public before making such claims than it can only be viewed as deception. I for one am sick of being lied to by our current inept government the question is are you?
10
JoeV:
Oh oh,it is revealed.He burns his toast for the activated charcoal!
10
blimey @156
DOH ! of course we realise its the CO2 in the air that the AGW drones are worried about.
I suppose you didn’t realise that we were just making fun of the total ignorance of the MANY people that think the C in food is the same as CO2.
Nope, you seem to be an AGW apsotle, and therefore, almost certainly, didn’t ‘realise’ ! Reality is not in your vocab.
10
Reminds me of the stall set up at the recent Cancun climate conference which invited people to sign up to ‘ban’ dihydrogen monoxide – with a list convincing reasons to do so (well as convincing as banning carbon…).
A lot did.
Yeah – water…..!
10
I hope I can add something of interest to the answer to ‘What is to be done?’. Don Griffith points out the disinterest in science amongst the young, whilst Bob C shows how narratives can deceive. Quite properly, Bob C locates this faculty in dreaming and ‘prejudice’. Yet he provides the ‘exit strategy’ himself – by testing one’s dreams; in this case, as hypotheses.
It seems our society cannot understand our essential need for myth and dreams, and either ‘disses’ it (‘science’) or extols it uncritically (the humanities).
One way out of this, perhaps, is an education system which acknowledge both sides of our thinking – the rational and the irrational; shows the young their commitment, fervour and generosity is invaluable; but, on the other hand, no matter how strongly something feels to them, it need not be true.
A start might be to free the schools entirely from state interference in the curriculum (apart from the 3 Rs). The aim would be: Critical thought as the antidote to mass-mindedness
But the political will must be there. In Australia recently I was alarmed by three things: ABC’s corrupt failure to interview the leader of an anti-carbon tax rally; a sign by a Victoria roadside telling me to ‘Report Litterers’ (to the police?); and a member of the newly-elected NSW coalition saying that school performance figures shouldn’t get into the ‘wrong hands’. This was for me the most sinister.
10
Re Kolnai:
I’m more inclined to believe that alchemy and astrology will become essential studies taught worldwide to all youngsters who enter the education system as to believe that those who teach today will be offered the tools to rationally explain genuine differences between fact and fiction. What I see of political will in the world allows me to think that many elected officials have already secretly become degreed masters in the ways of turning fools into gold and stars and planets into future “myths and dreams”. If what I see is true, then the path to unmasking the veil of untruths on the role of CO2 and global warming remains firmly stuck in place. Not a pretty picture for the next generation.
10
Don Griffiths
I understand your resistance to my ideas. Possibly you associate them with ‘the enemy’?
However that may be, we surley agree that the AGW hysteria is a pseudo-religion. Its followers are convinced they possess ‘absolute knowledge’. This suggests more generally that today, religion is unconscious (or ‘repressed’), hardly an advance on the understanding of the middle ages. I suggest that the desire for certainty will not go way, and indeed has an important part to play in scientific discovery.
Prejudices and superstition have often been at the root of science as Koestler’s work, especially The Sleepwalkers, shows. Both Kepler and Newton, for example, believed in astrology. But both tested their prejudices, and were prepared to learn from their mistakes.
By all means teach astrology. And then teach students how to test it. It is, after all, more popular than religion these days…and you never know, some of it might be true? At any rate, students should know that knowledge isn’t really knowledge at all until it’s tested.
For, at the end of chasing rainbows, the gold of truth is an occasional reward…
10
I agree that Empiricism is the root of all real knowledge (and Francis Bacon would be the patron saint) — if you can’t get confirmation from Nature (Mother, not the journal), you have nothing but empty speculation.
I once owned a used book store for about 10 years, and got to see some very interesting books. In one, a retired electrical engineer decided to put astrology to a statistical test. He worked on the project for a number of years, then published his results. He mostly got negative results (e.g., Zodiacal sign correlated with nothing about a person’s character or life choices), but he did find some surprisingly strong correlations — the best was with the Moon’s hour angle at the moment of birth.
Nobody liked this book: Scientists didn’t like it because he found astrological effects; The astrologers (we had a lot of them in Boulder) didn’t like it because the configurations he found effects for weren’t ones that they used, or even kept track of.
(Good think the author was already retired!)
Neither scientists nor astrologers are right about astrology, because neither group ever puts their beliefs about it to an empirical test.
10
Bob C
It’s very interesting and unusual to claim scientists don’t test their ideas. For me, the limits of science are rarely explored.
This lack of modesty by apologists who say science is omniscient (James Randi and Richard Dawkins come to mind) helps explain why the poll reveals such ignorance: ‘They’re scientists so it must be true’. If you’ve ever glanced at Joe Romm’s ‘Climate Progress’ site, it is only after science-as-certainty (sic!) has been definitively established that open abuse of blasphemers is
encouragedpermitted.To the public, it seems that if a majority of the anointed say something, they somehow possess absolute privileged access to ‘reality’. Nothing can conflict with this ‘knowledge’, so Robin Pittwood’s young man threw himself on the only defence he had – ‘denier!’ – to relieve his mental agony. The scientist has become the warrior priest/guardian of the mysteries. And it’s obviously not confined to AGW.
10
[…] […]
10
A lot of scientists would probably be somewhat unsettled by science fiction writer Isaac Asimov’s simile for scientific knowledge (BTY, Asimov had a Phd in biochemistry):
He likened it to a lone streelight in the dark, casting a circle of light. If the light is made brighter or the pole taller, the circle of light expands — but so does the boundary with the dark.
10
Waow Bob, That observation certainly bears thinking about. What could he have meant ?
10
Andy G @150 and Ian Hill @139
Apologies for my very poor arithmetic–of course you are correct Andy G. All I can say is long day–brain fade–beer–.Sorry.
10
The current siuation with regard to govenment brainwashing of it’s citizens could be foreseen years ago. In my opinion, the seeds were sown when Bob Hawke announced that Australia had to get smarter. If I remember correctly, it was a plea that we had to catch up with the rest of the world. Sound familiar? On the face of it, it was a good call, however, it has resulted predictably in an over abundance of professionals and academics. Most other Western countries have the same problem….how to employ people who have cost hundreds of thousands of dollars each to train.
The obvious answer is to create jobs. Unfortunately, there is only limited scope for providing such people with productive labour. After all, how many geologists does one mining company need? How many marine biologists are needed to survey the Great Barrier Reef?
The answer was discovered years ago. Create a diabolical environmental/health issue, inform government and line up for the grants. Goverments then realised that there could be a quid in it for them as well. Think about the
scientific scams that we have suffered over the last 20 years or so. The ozone layer depletion caused by CFCs which was supposed to fry us all.Despite all the $billions spent on CFC reduction and introduction of ozone friendly gases, there has been no change in the Ozone “hole”. It’s size continues to fluctuate as it has since the dawn of time and now scienists tell us that it is just a natural phenmenon. If you feel like doing some research, check out the association between the discovery of the “ozone hole” and Dupont’s patent on refridgeration and air conditioning gas. How can we forget the Y2K computer bug? The millenium bug that was going to wipeout all computer programs. How many $billions were fleeced by the computer industry with that scam?
What about the Crown of Thorns starfish that was going to wipeout the Great Barrier Reef? As a diver and spear fisherman on the reef sine 1976, I can attest personally to the fact that it was nothing more than a scientific scam. Scientists now tell us that the starfish is an integral part of the natural management of the reef, after of course, that the dire consequences that they predicted never eventuated and the grants dried up because the Crown of Thorns starfish plague was no longer “sexy”.
Now we have the “mother and father” of all scientific scams….anthropogenic global warming. The man induced destruction of the environment by the production of carbon dioxide. This one is particularly scary for two reasons. There is no “sunset clause” like there was with the Y2K bug and there are untold $billions to be made by morally corrupt governments, corporations and individuals. It is the quintisential “river of gold” that will never dry up.
The only problem for governments is that the scam is based, as usual, on a false premise and supported by fraudulent science.This hasn’t presented too much of a problem in the past, however, today the average person is generally better educated and informed and therefore, much more likely to question government claims and assertions and has the ability to communicate and disseminate information and views with their peers and others world wide, through the internet and social media avenues. This is creating huge problems for “Big Brother” governments, hence, the need to spend $billions on brainwashing and propaganda campaigns to win their cause.
It has also resulted, as we are personally experiencing in Australia, the birth of a new breed of politician, who cares nothing about the national interest and is wholly prepared to lie and deceive to pursue their own agendas.
10
The Stephen L. Harper survey and most comments are 100% in line with what I’m thinking of people’s knowledge and intelligence with respect to CO2 and carbon in general. See my latest letters to National Geographic Magazine:
3-5-2011.
Mr. Chris Jones
NGM editor.
After having written to NGM various times in the course of many years, I´m really astonished by the fact that nobody in your organization seems to have the decency to answer my very serious complaints about the ridiculous articles about CO2 and AGW CO2 that are published under NGM’s supervision.
It seems that at NGM one lacks the intellectual prowess to understand the simple fact that CO2 and AGW CO2 are no cause of any global climate and/or temperature change, nor has that ever been the case during many millions of years, while CO2 percentages were even many times higher than now!
Only nitwits still think or believe that CO2 (natural and/or manmade) is bad stuff, although they might have learned at school that plants grow better with lots of CO2. But stupidity reigns supreme, where fake “scientists” of the protagonist (anti anthropogenic “alarmists”) type swindle their way through to the world of equally stupid politicians, throwing € trillions into the deep pit of wasted money for non efficient windmills, the sequestering of manmade CO2 (no difference with natural CO2!) and other crazy endeavours. Intermediate information by The Chairman of “Carbon Sense”, Mr Viv Forbes; I cite: Carbon, oxygen, nitrogen and hydrogen are the building blocks for all life on earth. All plant life, animal life, marine life and carbon fuels such as oil, natural gas and coal are composed mainly of various combinations of these four key elements. When any carbon compound is burnt in a fire or digested in a stomach, the carbon combines with oxygen to form carbon dioxide and the hydrogen combines with oxygen to form water. These reactions produce warmth and energy for mankind. All life needs food and water. Carbon dioxide is the keystone for all food on earth – it feeds all plants, which feed all animals. Water is the foundation for all drinks. Thus combustion of carbon fuels provides food and drink for all life on earth. Only a fool or a schemer could describe either of these basic elements of life as a pollutant. Both carbon dioxide and water are recycled via the atmosphere, and both make our climate liveable. Carbon dioxide is an invisible gas that has a tiny climatic effect. But water in all its forms such as vapor, clouds, oceans, rivers, rain, hail, snow and ice is vastly more abundant and influential in causing changes in weather and climate.
The utter nonsense in the article “The Acid Sea” written by Elizabeth Kolbert (Mrs. E.K.) in NGM April 2011, is so disgustingly stupid, as shown in the following quotations in blue, that I´m absolutely fed up with the rubbish you publish, so I don´t want to contribute to National Geographic anymore.
Page 106: The acidification (of the sea) is occurring more gradually across the world´s oceans, as they absorb more and more of the CO2 that´s coming from tailpipes and smokestacks. That “manmade” AGW CO2 (only 0,001152% of the atmosphere; thus completely negligible and void of any influence) is exactly the same as naturally existing CO2. So how could Mrs. E.K. possibly write that AGW CO2, coming from tailpipes and smokestacks, is the cause of acidification?
Page 108: . . . . . not much else lives near the densest concentration of (CO2) vents. If pure O2 (apart from CO2, the other necessary ingredient for all life on earth) would come out of “such a concentration of vents”, life around those vents would equally die out, as organisms wouldn’t endure such a concentration!
Page 108: . . . . . an international team of scientists undertook a massive research project analyzing seawater samples, which showed that the oceans have absorbed 30 % of the CO2 released by humans over the past two centuries. What kind of “scientist” is capable of discerning between natural CO2 and manmade CO2 absorbed in the oceans; answer: no real scientist is capable of the confirmation that manmade CO2 is the culprit!
Page 108: . . . . . every ton of CO2 the oceans remove from the atmosphere is a ton that’s not contributing to global warming. and . . . . . ocean acidification is global warming’s “equally evil twin”. Those “scientists”, to whom Mrs. E.K. refers, should know already for a very long time that CO2 does not cause global warming at all and that it is just the other way around: 1.)* a temperature rise –for whatever reason– brings 2.)* more CO2 in the atmosphere!
Page 108: The acidification that has occurred so far is probably irreversible. Although there were much higher concentrations of CO2 in past eons, there is no irreversible acidification diagnosed in worldwide sediment samples! So this is another “alarmist” lie!
Page 112: Even if CO2 emissions were somehow to cease today, it would take tens of thousands of years for ocean chemistry to return to its pre-industrial condition. Obviously, ocean chemistry has been functioning well enough during the eons of much higher CO2 concentrations, to keep the oceans sound enough to keep plant and animal life in a perfect condition. Were it not for over-fishing, trash- and oil-dumping and other unsavory human actions, the oceans would be as pristine as they ever were, completely independent of the CO2 concentrations (natural CO2 and manmade/industrial CO2). So this is another “alarmist” lie!
Page 116: Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, head of the Global Change Institute at Australia’s University of Queensland, cited by Mrs. E.K., is an absolutely untrustworthy “alarmist” as can be concluded reading: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/15/formal-complaints-against-professor-ove-hoegh-guldberg/ and http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/16/oz-report-footy-at-least-has-rules/ Listen to Joanna Nova: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NtbuM3OuTZg , she tells exactly what I´m trying –already during many years– to get through to normal, but uninformed people; it is an antidote to the ongoing lies uttered by frauds and swindlers like IPCC´s Pachauri, Al Gore and thousands of equally dangerous manipulators of the truth!
And dangerous for mankind, as it would degrade the world´s population to pre-stone age circumstances! Another negation of “alarmists” AGW CO2 menacing theories is to be found in: http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2011/04/government-misadvised
Page 120: CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere will be roughly double what they were in preindustrial times. And so what? This time it is not a lie, but a stupid and senseless remark (as I said before, CO2 is no cause of global climate and/or temperature change), so it is only meant to “alarm” the billions of uninformed people with the alarmists’ menacing jingle about manmade CO2.
Page 120: During the long history of life on Earth, atmospheric CO2 levels have often been higher than they are today. But only very rarely –if ever– have they risen as quickly as right now. For life in the oceans, it’s probably the rate of change that matters. At least an acknowledgement that CO2 levels have often been higher. I would say in fact many times higher! But as I said before: CO2 is no cause of global climate and/or temperature change. The last remark the rate of change has the alarmist venom in its tail by imbuing uninformed people with the terror of irrevocably disastrously wasted land and wasted oceans, which is the equivalent of another “alarmist” lie!
Page 120: During the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum huge quantities of carbon were released into the atmosphere, from where, no one is quite sure. Temperatures around the world soared by around ten degrees Fahrenheit, and marine chemistry changed dramatically. Mrs. E.K. should try to get some more general knowledge before writing ever more stupid things! C(arbon) as such, was not released into the atmosphere, but e.g. as CO, CO2 or other derivatives of C(arbon). Because 1.)* the temperatures around the world soared, 2.)* huge quantities of CO2 were released, as shown in graphics with respect to many eons; not the other way! as already declared above.
Page 121: Mrs. E.K. concludes in her last sentences that CO2 emissions must be reduced dramatically to avert the most extreme acidification scenarios. If Mrs. E.K. has understood all my foregoing comments, she should be convinced that what she wrote in her article “The Acid Sea” is complete rubbish.
Besides the misinformation you print regularly about CO2 and AGW CO2, it makes me doubt very much the trustworthiness of all the other articles.
Anyway that was the same consideration to stop my contribution to TIME, NEWSWEEK, WWF and others for having published equal incredible lies as emanate from the IPCC cesspool, managed by the super fraudster Pachauri.
A sad goodbye, F. Eckenhuijsen Smit.
National Geographic Magazine Alfaz del Pi, 21-3-2011.
To the Editor Mr. Chris Johns
[email protected]
Dear Sir,
Referring to “Enter the anthropocene age of Man” in NGM March 2011, I want to object again to the utter nonsense as published under your responsibility on page 77.
Quote:
But their (CO2 emissions’) warming effects could easily push global temperatures to levels that have not been seen for millions of years. And: Some species will not survive the warming at all. Meanwhile rising temperatures could eventually raise sea levels 20 feet or more.
In my former objections ‒as shown underneath‒ I referred to: National Geographic’s sea level rise projections way off the mark, as criticized by Dr Kelvin Kemm and as well published under your responsibility.
Since 1936 ‒with the exclusion of the WW II years‒ first my parents and later on I (age now 78) have been a member of National Geographic Magazine.
Some years ago I started to reprimand NGM people responsible for publishing the absurdities about AGW CO2 (manmade CO2) and advised them to study the many scientific papers ‒not the IPCC kind of scientific swindle‒ on that subject, contradicting all the falsities about AGW CO2, to be able to revise their knowledge about it and to understand that there can never be too much CO2 (natural CO2 + AGW CO2), as it is a gas that makes life on earth possible!
NGM’s conclusion then shouldn’t be any other than to stop to print the kind of nonsense as referred to by Dr Kelvin Kemm.
And NGM should then apologize for the fact that, during years, they have been printing the enormities about AGW CO2, even resulting in the laughable idea that the melting of the north pole ice cap would contribute to the supposed 1 or 5 m worldwide sea level rise; really what a terrible misapprehension of Al Gore stature!
It is a shame that NGM is directed by people who obviously are not apt to grab the immense stupidities they are printing with respect to AGW CO2.
In order to try to raise your knowledge in that aspect, I want to help by introducing you to the following:
Danish Prof. Henrik Svensmark gave a very convincing scientific explanation of climate change and inherent temperature change caused by cosmic rays and sun’s activity, resulting in important changes in cloudcover on earth. http://il.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4XYxL66O_s&feature=related
Furthermore he pointed out that cosmic ray quantity and intensity vary greatly while planet earth moves through the spirals of our Milky Way.
So that also is affecting earth’s climate over a long period of time and accordingly a change in global temperature.
I consider his theory ‒which is not “a new study”, but exposed already in 2005‒ absolutely brilliant and explanatory for at least 95% of global wide climate change.
He ‒just as I‒ considers all talk about AGW CO2 and natural CO2 as a “destructive” gas completely besides any logic, because it is the gas of life without which life on planet earth would not be possible!
Kind regards, F. Eckenhuijsen Smit.
10
Mr F.E. Smit, good letters. Please copy to here if they bother to reply.
Mark
10
The danger to Australia is not Julia Gillard, Wayne Swan, Bob Brown, the “Independents” and all the rest, but a citizenry willing to entrust people like them with the Government of the country.
It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of a Labor/Greens/”Independents” coalition than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate, willing to have such people for their representatives.
The problem is much deeper and far more serious than those mentioned, who are mere symptoms of what ails Australia. Blaming the princess and princes of the dunces should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of dunces (with apologies to John Kennedy Toole) that made them their princes and princess.
Australia can survive people like those mentioned, who are, after all, merely fools. It is less likely to survive the many dunces such as those who made them their Government.
10
Henry Buxton
Lost faith in the electorate and decided to get a new one, eh? The problem is not the people. It is the mad intellectuals who dirctly or tacitly inform the politicians and who run the state education system, namely the ‘progressives’. Since the 1930s (and before), they have set about removing all checks and balances on power. Concomittantly, the aim has always been a docile and stupified people.
In this aim, they have been supported by a cretinous and credulous media. Yet despite this, people have a conscience – they know when they are being lied to. Hence the astonishing crumbling to dust of AGW since 2009. For who could have foreseen major players like J Hansen publicly admitting flawed GCMs before this date? More follows, depend on it. And when it does, the public’s reaction will blow them all away…
Why let the other side into our goalmouth!? It is they who hold the people in contempt, not us.
10
The climate alarmists need to totally change their message, because it invites misunderstanding and antagonism.
SYNOPSIS OF BETTER (AND MORE PRECISE) MESSAGE:
1. Recent global average temperature increase is due to fossil carbon, fossil energy technology.
2. Global average temperature increase will reduce agricultural output.
3. Fossil energy technology is obsolete. Old technology is no technology.
1. Recent global average temperature increase is due to fossil carbon, fossil energy technology.
See what I did there? I did not say that global warming was man-made. Saying that inspires responses like “Thanks, Officer [snip]!” Of course it’s man-made. Most people are in a man-centered universe. Why even mention it to me (average Joe) otherwise? This message is great if you want to piss someone off before you even get to the precise message. Start with the precision.
Also, start with the biggest, most long-term problem. Note how I didn’t mention methane, or cutting forests, etc. This is because methane and other greenhouse gases than CO2 are short-lived. They won’t hound us for a thousand years like CO2 will. Also, methane can be captured and used as fuel (dairy farms are in the midst of becoming self-powered by methane from cow manure, thanks to policies of George W. Bush), so it’s not a problem that anyone disagrees with fixing. Likewise, gases with strange names from unusual manufacturing processes can be trapped and processes can be changed; and again, those gases decay quickly so that once we change processes, the threat decreases quickly.
Cutting forests and burning wood, etc. These things are sustainable if done sustainably. E.G., there is circumstantial pressure to not burn all your wood. This also applies to the CO2 from burning the cow methane above. Bottom line ALL NON-FOSSIL CO2 IS OFFSET AND NON-FOSSIL CARBON SUSTAINABILITY IS FORCED BY CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE RELATIVE SHORT TERM.
Non-fossil carbon is part of the biological carbon cycle, involving plants, animals, and soil and ocean microbes. The non-fossil, biological carbon cycle is on the scale of years, and so is more easily managed, less easily circumvented or cheated.
Fossil carbon is part of the geological carbon cycle, which involves soil producing sediment over thousands and millions of years, plankton floating down and producing ocean sediment over thousands and millions of years, and mountain uplifting & plate subduction over millions of years, causing rock weathering and volcanoes. It is easier to cheat the geologic carbon cycle by trying to release fossil carbon as fast as we can, which is what we are doing. Once we whack the system, it stays whacked for thousands or millions of years.
Non-fossil CO2 is not a problem because the carbon in cow farts, wood, and your breath, was captured by plant matter this year or in recent years. Fossil carbon was captured before human memory, by Providence. And He didn’t mean for us to release it back out as quickly as we possibly could.
On to the effects of fast global average temperature increase. But wait a second and see what I did there. I tried to remove ambiguity and misunderstanding by saying global AVERAGE temperature increase. This means that just because you’ve got a record low today, doesn’t mean that most likely today or this month, and definitely this year, the globe as a whole isn’t warmer than the hundred year average. I also said “fast” here, and “recent” earlier, because people always guess that we might be talking about very long gradual changes, but we aren’t. Those are less costly because there is more time to change.
The geologic carbon cycle is important because CO2 is a greenhouse gas along with water. CO2 is not constantly phase changing, falling out or coming into the air like water. CO2 is distributed evenly at more levels of the atmosphere than water. Water is a positive feedback to CO2 increase. We all know that warm air holds more water…giving it an even stronger greenhouse effect, pulling more moisture in from sea and soil, increasing the greenhouse (IR absorption), and around we go. There are limits to this feedback, thank goodness, but it is definitely positive, not negative. The fact that there is a limit to the water feedback indicates that CO2 is actually the controller.
2. Global average temperature increase will reduce agricultural output.
So, as I was saying, the effects are on agricultural production. Nothing else matters to most people. Certainly the critters don’t matter. A lot of people are sick of hearing about the critters and figure if you complain for them, you are less concerned about people. Speaker: “Ecosystems are going to blah blah”. Audience: “zzzzz”. Agricultural production is a threat to civilization. People care about that, not the threat to “Gaia”.
The agricultural effect is true. As I said, warmer air holds more moisture. The warmer tropics have a flood-and-drought (monsoon-and-dry) cycle that temperate crops, and temperate people, are going to hate! As the global average temperature warms, flood and drought will increase. I can think of nothing worse for our temperate crops! Warmer is better? Have you BEEN to the tropics? It’s not all moonlight and roses.
In fact, as I said, the monsoon/drought of the tropics will get worse, impacting tropical agriculture, and temperate agriculture will have to deal with floods/droughts which were rare occurrences becoming normal. This increases the price of food, on a global scale, for decades. THIS IS A PRESCRIPTION FOR ECONOMIC COLLAPSE AND WAR.
3. Fossil energy technology is obsolete. Old technology is no technology.
Science and technology is what allows our astronomical population. Science and technology is what creates our ever increasing standard of living.
Technology does not stand still. Technology from 2000 years ago was still a type of technology, but it was not the same as today. Science and technology progresses. As our population and standard of living progresses further and further beyond anything ever imaginable, our science and technology changes to build on and address unforeseen consequence of yesterday’s technology! Progress and change are the only constant now, if we are to allow human life to thrive and grow.
Science and technology is as much driven by government as by the market. What major technology of the last century or this one–nuclear power, satellites, computers, medicine–was not driven by the government in response to international competition and security concerns? I tell you this is a competition and security concern!
But, we are told, by the fossil worshipers in Congress, that getting rid of an old, obsolete fossil energy technology is TOO HIGH A PRICE TO PAY to minimize risks of economic collapse and war! Ending old fossil technology will lead to constant and declining energy prices, American economic boom, and increased international security.
11
Anderlan, what a pile of crap you have typed there. Why did you waste the keyboard on your poor computer?
An endless stream of Pro-AGW bull Sh$T. Very dull.
20
Mark D.,
May I second you on this?
20
Anderlan, you’ve almost got it, just change one word: The climate alarmists need to totally change their
messagemethods, because it invites misunderstanding and antagonism.What methods should they change? The scientific ones – they need to use them.
They’re actually very very good at communicating, but they have so little reality on their side to work with. They’ve only got models, which get most of their predictions wrong (count their local successes, eh?). The empirical evidence is all going against them.
Most people do care about the animals and the poor. That’s exactly why they fell for the scam in the first place. They want to help.
Not so altruistic people use that guilt against them.
It’s not that a carbon tax is “too high a price to pay”, it’s that the benefits are next to nothing.
10
[…] And that’s only part of the story, read more <HERE>. […]
10