Nice post SimonBarnett, I hope you post that again sometime so more people will see it. I only take issue with one part. The issue with cows and livestock is actually methane… not CO2. These people (the global warmers) are trying to create a food crisis, so they are blaming livestock for putting methane into the air. But of course, there are only trace amounts of methane in the air because methane is a very heavy molecule, almost as heavy as water and falls out of the air very quickly.

But if the enviros are going to get control over the livestock then they have to blame them for something…. thus the silly accusations about methane. Thanks for the post, I enjoyed reading it.

Certainly my wife would not need much encouragement in that direction :\

As every schoolchild knows, the dinasours died because the climate changed. Was this because they all drove S.U.V.s? Obviously not.

Climate change IS happening. But the truth is it never stopped. When the Viking farms of Greenland were overrun by the encroaching icepack it was not becuase of “big oil”, Dick Cheney or the industrial military complex. It was not because of “Climate Change”(TM). It was just becuase the climate changed. And change happens.

There IS a correlation between carbon and temperature. The hotter it gets the more plants grow. And when they die they release carbon dioxide. More carbon is an effect of increased temperature, not the cause of it. Cause. Effect. See? I appreciate you don’t get time for such fine details when you are a big political figure. How… inconvenient.

In the last hundred years the average temperate of our planet HAS has increased. By one degree. Hardly conclusive. And, inconveniently, the bulk of that change happend before the industrialisation of the fourties. Before trans-atlantic travel and mass production of the automobile, before the naisance of the dreaded global marketplace or the onset of “wicked” consumerism.

Carbon should, to anyone who pauses to think about it for a while, seem a strange target for the environmentalists. We know that cows farting produces more carbon dioxide than all of humanities “evil capitolist” ways put together. A good volcano is worth about five years of human carbon activity, and there is volcanic activity somewhere in the world, on average, about every three weeks. And anyone who does think about it for long enough will eventually say something like, “hey! aren’t we made of carbon?”. And of course they would be right.

So, if not carbon, what else might cause changes in the temperature of our planet? Strangely enough, changes in the temperature of our planet bear a striking correlation to changes in the temperature of our sun. Who would have guessed? And what is not widely publicised – becuase it is “off message” – is that the other planets in our solar system are also getting warmer.

So why do people go along with this patently absurd idea? Why do we accept, often in complete faith, hundred year weather predictions from the same people who we can’t trust to tell us if it will rain this afternoon? The truth of the matter is that we exist on a lump of rock, travelling through the void at about 1000 miles per hour, held in the gravitatinal pull of an immense atomic fireball. Such a stark reality often causes otherwise sane individuals to fantasise that they have some control upon the wider environment. Their own sense of self importance creates an anomaly in their logical function that prevents them from acknowledging their impotence in the face of that precarious predicament.

But under those precarious circumstances should one degree of change in a hundred years be considered newsworthy? Worthy of reporting in a thousand different ways and in every single newscast?

Why is it that the political wing of the international panel on climate change always delivers it’s findings before the scientific body publish their research? Why does a “scientific truth” need a political wing in the first place? And why does the media work so hard to push the Climate Change(TM) agenda? Why are any dissenting voices being surpressed by comparisson to Holocost denial?

The reason is twofold. The first part is idealogical. Within the environmental movement, flower power hippy hold-overs from the sixties have given way to a new generation of ex-communists who, with the collapse of their failed ideology, set out into the world to seek new ways of pursing their anti-capitolist adgendas. These are the people who can, with a straight face, glibly state that Climate Change(TM) “can be solved for just a fraction of your GDP” – without actually mentioning how may trillion dollars that is. They are the new Vandals, hoping to destroy capitolism from within, to roll back globalism, restrict economic growth and ultimately enact global socialism via unelected international institution. The Climate Change(TM) adgenda gives them a tool with which they can enact seemingly reasonable legislation that will in fact accomplish all of the above.

The second reason is financial. Follow the money. If enacted, cap and trade schemes will create a new global market in the sale of what will essentially be the emporers new clothes. These “carbon credits” are designed to be party favours for politicians wishing to curry favour and funding from the big industries who polute. Fortunes will be made. It is set to make “big oil” look like beer money. And that is one detail that a certain American political figure did not overlook: he happens to own a company that is set up to distribute and broker these carbon credits.

Now that IS convenient.

If the Brits and the Europeans were really serious about Global Warming, they’d start by reducing the Voltage that their appliances use (240V-220V) to what Americans appliances use (120V).

zb42 on July 11, 2007 at 10:51 PM

There are plenty of reasons to criticize the Brits for their state of environmental hysteria, but there use of 220v wall power is not one of them. Toasting a slice of bread in a 220v toaster does not consume any more energy than toasting a slice of bread in a toaster that runs on 110 voltage. It’s the “load” that determines the energy use, not the input voltage, see Ohm’s Law.

The USA made the wall voltage standard 110v because it is not as dangerous as 220v, not because 110v is any more efficient. The same amount of electricity is needed to perform a given task no matter what the input voltage. But thanks for the chart on what countries use what type of voltage, that is good travel information.

Recently ABC TV (Australia) broadcast a post-documentary debate on the Global Warming Swindle. In it, several audience members pointed out that the modern green movement arose from the [Eugenics](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics) movement (which c…

We have 4 so I guess I need to buy some children offsets!

acleaver on July 11, 2007 at 11:03 PM

I’ll sell my offsets…how much are your two youngest kids worth to you?

In 50 years, Europe could regain its spirituality again. How do you like them apples?

They’re “watermelons”!

What are they ’saving’ the Earth for? Without people, nobody cares what happens to this hunk of rock, least of all the rock itself.
kate q on July 11, 2007 at 11:10 PM

That’s the crazy thing, isn’t it? In their minds, the earth is not a hunk of unthinking rock, but a deity, and our presence is a poison or virus making her sick.

This plan has been in the works for a long time anyway.

They could work on saving Pluto instead. I bet they could eliminate humans from there entirely. And then they would have to be happy, having actually saved an entire planet! Or something.

We have 4 so I guess I need to buy some children offsets! The boys do give off an awful lot of gas.

I’m surprised that I’ve never heard this mentioned before by Mark Steyn or someone with a bigger soapbox, though I keep forgetting to mention it myself. A crude calculation of how much more inefficient and wasteful the Brit’s and Euro’s dodgy appliances are, would be quite the embarrassment to them.

Oh, but I forgot, they’re our moral superiors….

I heartily agree that anyone who buys into Al Gore’s schtick should not reproduce.

saint kansas on July 11, 2007 at 6:37 PM

Yep.

As my dearly departed mum used to say, if the world is going to be overpopulated, better with my children than someone else’s.

Let them decline to procreate. Fine with me, more room fo the sane people.

Won’t global warming raise ocean levels, cause massive drought and starvation which in turn will lower population levels by the millions? Then why should I care if Britons chose not to make more babies who will grow up to be multi-cultural, anti-assimilation, politically correct wusses anyway?

Now if you need me I’ll be at home impreginating my wife for the fourth time.

Dang it! I can’t remember where…but I’m pretty sure it was on a popular British blog, I read:

Dear American environuts,

The people of the world graciously thank you for deciding not to reproduce. By taking this noble step in wiping out an entire population of misguided idiots, you are doing more to help the world than even you know.

Someday I’ll be able to tell my children, and then my grandchildren, that there were noble environmentalists who believed it was the duty of everyone not to reproduce. Thankfully, I say to them, I chose not to take that advice, and now share a beautiful, enviro-suicidalist free world.

Thank you survival-instinct free environmentalists, thank you for all you’ve done.