First: "Global Warming" (as it was called before the earth stated to cool again in 1998, whence it became "climate change"), was hyped up and bandied around the world first by whom?
Friends of the Earth?
Nope
Greenpeace?
Nope
WWF?
Nope
Could it be the evil witchbitch we all know and hate as Maggie Thatcher.
Could be
(you are, at this point, permitted 1 (one) mental rendition of the Hong Kong Phooey theme)
.....waits.....
Right, so why was The Thatch suddenly taking time of from raping the UK and creating UK(PLC) in it's place?
She wasn't. Thatch had two big plans going on (well she had many, but these two are the ones we need to focus on). Plan A. destroy trade union power and stop all the common fuckers having any kind of a say in whether or not their employer has to use lube when he arse rapes them. Plan B. Build lots of Nuclear power plants (not because, done properly they are the cleanest and best source of power currently available), but because she wanted to have lots of raw materials to send to Selafield to makes lots of Plutonium that she could sell to all and sundry.
Imagine her delight when some minor research (remember at the time, the same people who are predicting we'll all catch fire, were predicting we were sliding back into the depths of the ice age) suggested that burning fossil fuels would cause the end of the world.
So Thatch funded further research (and remember here people when the Govt funds research, it finds the "right" answer, or it vanishes). And saw that it was publicised (no doubt she also discussed it with Ronnie Ray-gun in between mouthfuls of his cock). It was one more string in her bow to shoot the unions down with, the National Union of Mineworkers, being her nemesis. So policy was that we build more nuke stations (and part of the rationale for this came from the govt.-funded GW research of course), and shut down the mines because they were already unprofitable and clearly had no future at all once everyone got away from coal fired things. One of the amusing things is of course that while committees studying mines and reactors were being force fed this crap.....anyone involved in the big cash cow that is the North Sea....not a whisper LOL.
Here endeth the history lesson.
And WHY is the whole thing so evil?
Well, it's like this.....CC is being used as a cudgel, all around the developing world. The basic way of it is this......in the developed world, we have cash hanging out of our arses, having built massive economies on fossil fuel energy and exploitation of poorer nations.Yet alternative energy programs in the developed world, are few, far between, and still considered silly hippy pipe dreams. At the VERY SAME TIME, nations in Africa, Asia, maybe even one or two in South America and the Carribean, are all beginning to want to expand their industrial base and (heaven forbid) do something about the quality of life of their citizens. This is particularly a vital thing in Africa, because a few highly developed, affluent nations (that aren't still largely run by congenital racists) would do wonders to stimulate growth and prosperity in their neighbours....which for some of them might merely mean not having to worry about where their next meal is coming from.
But when the govt. of $DEVELOPING_AFRICAN_NATION scrapes together the money for a programme of new power stations, some western arsehole, swoops in, on his private 4 engined jet to tell him he can't have those power stations, because they upset baby polar bears, and that instead they have to build some daft, not quite ready, alternative energy scheme costing 20x as much.[1]. The result is that $DEVELOPING_AFRICAN_NATION gives their entire power station budget to $HUGE_CORPORATION and gets a crappy little solar plant that knocks out 10MW instead of 30GW they would have gotten from coal (which BTW, they are most likely sitting on shitloads of......but Whitey will be wanting that sooner or later). So rather effectively bankrupting them AND keeping them in the late 19th century a bit longer.
For those of you who couldn't give a llama's fanny for Mr J. Foreigner, you're getting it up the bum too.
Enviro taxes, moronic enviro laws, none of them REALLY doing that much good, but all of them reducing the quality of your life just that little bit (and of course, almost all of them have financial get-outs so they only affect us muppets).
And worse is the crime against the human consciousness. To The Great Unwashed, The Environment=Climate Change, end of. Every single other consideration regarding our species' impact on it's environment is totally sidelined. Ask someone about the mercury levels in top tier marine predators, or the inadequate disposal of toxic waste, and they are likely to tell you they've cut their "carbon footprint" by waking to work 2 days a week and switching to energy saving bulbs.[2] They think that it's all the same bloody thing. It's a fabulous piece of social engineering....instead of "the man", having to fend off masses of environmental concerns from the populace, they simply put their weight behind one, largely unimportant issue and use it to drive all other such matters from people's heads.
For the love of all that's sane.....ask 10 people in the street to name a pollutant and 7 will probably say CO2 (after a joke about their spouse's flatulence of course). People.....have your minuscule little brains ever encountered the phrase "carbon based lifeform"? Cos see....you, are MADE of CO2....most of the carbon in your body comes from CO2 ingested by plants, and the animals that ate them....you even extract some directly from the air.....but on net....you produce about 8.5 tons of the stuff in your life time.....remember that little stat for the next time some moron is giving you a half arsed lecture......"if I could save 8 tons of CO2, would that be a good thing you'd go along with?" when they say yes, hand them a cutthroat razor and show the best way to open a vein.
Why am I so sure it's a scam?
Well, for this first barrage of rationality, let's assume that everything we are told about anthropogenic carbon dioxide is completely true.
Why then are people coming on the TV and saying "oooooooh, don't leave your TV on stand by" But NEVER "skip ONE shower this week"?????????
Cos you see....one ten minute shower consumes as much electricity as a TV on standby (and bear in mind that an LCD TV is lighting an LED and keeping a 5v trickle running through the power button and the remote sensor, a CRT television also takes in trickle charge to keep it's HT system energised, but this is minimal, in the order of 1-5W) on standby for a couple of years.
So my advice to you would be to stink next weekend, and run all your shit on standby for the next couple of years.
Why would I say that?
Why would "the tv" say otherwise?
Why not tell people the really effective ways of saving CO2 emissions (skiping baths and showers, putting a jumper on instead of running the heating all day, simple, HIGHLY effective stuff like that).
Easy: If you keep your TV/Hi-Fi/computer, whatever on stand by.....it will live longer, you will need to replace it less (which funny enough is a massive benefit to the environment, because making TV's emits all sorts of shit, which includes CO2, and things which are ACTUAL toxins). Electricity is not a gentle energy, when you physically switch circuits on and off....spikes happen, components run outside tolerance, all sorts of stress is placed on the guts. You don't even need me to tell you this....think back through your life......of all the electrical, and particularly electronic (or partly electronic) devices that have died on you. How many just stopped for no reason in the middle of doing their thing (hairdryers don't count) and how many went wrong as you switched them on (or when you switched them off, but you wouldn't know till next time you try to turn it on). The advice to always use the standby mode if available used to be fairly standard across all manner of consumer advice sources.....now....sssshhhh you're costing us money!
So, instead of giving advice that would actually help, they advise meaningless placebos that make people feel they are good people, and make sure those good people need a regular supply of replacement TV's and hi-fi's.
Instead of saying "don't use concrete for your patio, because 1 ton of that shit emits more CO2 in manufacture than a RangeRover shits out in a year (and then some!)"....they say "take that old jacket out of your boot, dragging those unnecessary 4KG around with you is killing baby seals AND costing you money.
WANK!
Essentially.
If you want to believe this crap....then believe it and act accordingly, the situation we have now is misinformational brain washing bordering on fucking mind control, so pervasive is the message and the meaningless advice that accompanies it.
And now the generosity ends.....cos you know what...I aint buying the basic fucking premise of the whole thing.
Oh very good says you, linking variations in the planet's main source of heat with variations in the planet's temperature.....but you;re leaving CO2 out completely....WE'VE seen the graph that shows perfect correlation between CO2, and temperature, the one Mr Gore showed us.
You mean this one?
Now, let's actually LOOK at the graph without some smarmy yank politician with a MASSIVE vested interest (he owns carbon offset firms....you give them money, they tell you they;ll plant trees or some shit, which means you get to emit X amount of carbon dioxide, guilt free....just like Penn and Teller said, it's like the old papal indulgences, give the pope some gold, get one free rape pass (obviously you need to join his little cult for the lifetime pass)....but I have no doubt Mr Gore is sincere.....after all he has made vast tax deductable payments to carbon offset companies.....surprisingly enough...the ones he owns himself, so he obviously believes in them LOL).
Yes, the graph shows CO2 and temp tracking quite nicely.[4 EDIT]
Before we go any further....experiment time (there will be another experiment later).
Take a bottle of fizzy water or coca cola or any carbonated liquid, gently pour it into a pan and heat it until it's sort of body temperature, then allow to cool and drink it.....not so bubbly is it?
Warm water can hold less gas in solution than cold (the converse of solids).
Now take another look at the graph with the bullshit wiped off your glasses.....which line moves first?
Oh, look.....the world gets warmer THEN the CO2 in the atmosphere goes up...I can't imagine why that would be....if only there were a simple experiment that could be performed at home that would shed some light on it.
Oh and since 1998......global temps have been falling (that's why they don't call it global warming any more, too easy to call bullshit on it.....call it climate change and you can blame every single thing that happens on it).....but CO2 output has been going up. The best the CC scammers can do with that is to "adjust" the figures, but only the ones from 98 onwards, the ones that don't fit the theory.
Which brings me to my next point.
It's Not science.
We're going to do this by means of rollplay.
Science:
"Our theory said that by now a certain thing should have happened."
"But it hasn't"
"Yes, we know, we've found some new information"
"does our theory, adjusted for this new information, explain why the certain thing hasn't happened?"
If "Yes"
Then "We shall continue with the current theory, adjusted for the new information, but proceed with extreme caution, as there may be yet further unknowns that could affect it's validity"
If "No"
Then "The theory is more or less fucked, back to the drawing board".
Religion:
"our holyman/holybook/holytree/holygoat/holytoastie said that by now a certain thing should have happened"
"But it hasn't"
"Yes we know, there has been a new revelation, given to me by our lord in my bedchambers last night"
"does this new revelation explain why the certain thing did not happen"
"no, it was basically just the same thing, but we've spent a great deal of time interpreting of it and see that the exact same certain thing will happen as predicted.....but not for 8 years, so you have to keep bringing your offerings and so on for at least that long, by which time I will have ascended"
Climate Change:
"Our theory says that by now a certain thing should have happened"
"But it hasn't"
"Yes we know, we have much better data now than we had when we came up with the theory"
"And does our theory altered to account for the better data explain why the certain thing hasn't happened"
"Errrm no, not even close"
"We should just bin the theory and start over then"
"Well, yes, but our jobs are "certain thing prevention operatives", if we say we don't know why it hasn't happened, or that some of our data suggests it might not happen...we're fired. But if I do some clever sums on some bits of the data, but not the ones that already fit, I can change the prediction of the theory so that the certain thing, will happen in maybe 12-15 years time......so we need to get funding for at least that long.....then the next guys can explain why it hasn't happened then....err I mean......if it hasn't of course".
Now which of the first two, does the third sound most like.
The thing I had in mind was London and most of East Anglia disappearing under the English Channel....was supposed to happen by 1999.....then 2005....it's now 2010 and they are still there.....and it's now predicted for 2020. I should say "people don't you know flim flam when you see it"....but there's enough cars outside the churches to answer me before I need ask,
I remember someone on some "news" show actually having the balls to say it was all because of the Thames surge barrier (good trick protecting marshes 100 miles up the coast LOL).
And here is experiment two.
We're going to see what affect the (completely natural, and normal) melting of polar sea ice has on sea level.
Take a pint glass (any glass will do, but if you're reading this, your cupboards, like mine are probably full of stolen pint pots) and add half a dozen ice cubes.
Now fill it with water until the surface tension is giving you a convex meniscus on top (water sitting above edge of glass).
Now fuck off.
Come back in a few hours.
How much water has spilled, and what has happened to the level in the glass.
Answer: none, and stayed more or less the same.
Anything that's floating displaces a volume of the liquid equal to it's mass. So the floating ice in the glass, and in the ocean already pushes the sea level up by the same amount as if it would melt and join the water....it floats, because water is a freak compound that goes into expansion briefly as it approaches freezing. This isn't Hawking, folks, this is fucking Archimedes!!!! as in before that palestinian hippy got nailed to a tree!
Melting of ice on land WILL affect sea level.....big fucking deal....the Earth is not meant to HAVE ice caps.....ice caps are the core definition of the term "ice age", we are IN an "ice age" because there are ice caps.....their melting is good, natural and wonderful.....as long as, instead of having concerts that blame it all on cars, we move people away from low lying areas, start land reclaimation projects etc......but we can't because we wont allow the people worst at risk to build the infrastructure needed.....because we keep telling them if they don't build it, the floods wont come. ARRRRRRRRRRRGGGGHHHHH!!!!!!
And let's just take a quick look at how much CO2 man produces, and it's place in the greenhouse effect ( I once asked 3 passionately enviro-mentalist mates to explain the GhE to me.....not a fucking clue, and there they are telling other people who to live their lives based on it....they are the new religiotards, I'm telling yous!).
Took a while to even find that picture....if you search for for "sources of greenhouse gasses" you get 100 pictures of that little 0.28% from the REAL figures blown up into the whole circle...showing how 26% comes from fossil fuels and so on....not a single mention that the whole lot amount to roughly 1 300th of the amount of greenhouse agents in the atmosphere.
The green band BTW includes not only biologically generated CO2, but also methane and other complex carbon based compounds which have the exact same effect on light. As a note, I went to look for how much Co2 it was estimated that the wee eruption in iceland earlier this year produced. The data I found was that it produced 150000 to 300000 tons per day. This came from an pro-CC site and was hailed as proving volcanos were not the big bad wolf that sensible folk know them to be. ....it was producing as much CO2 as a medium sized European country....nothing at all really. Except it's not the only volcano active, there are dozens if not hundreds of geologically active sites around the world day in and day out, many of them much larger than that little firecracker in Iceland....largely forgotten about because they don't suddenly erput under glaciers and turn their entire output into ash that blows into air corridors inhabited by numpty airlines more concerned about their maintenance budgets than safety. And never mind that......what about flood eruptions that would be on the order of 100 million times the ferocity of the unpronounceable Icelandic squib.....how come there's ANY life after those things kicked off(EDIT: IF atmospheric CO2 is such a hot-houser)?
Am I saying we should do nothing to work on our fossil fuel use?
Well, there's one point nobody seems to mention...well they mention it....then somehow can't make the leap....
The shit is running out!
It'll all be gone soon.
It will be gone before it's happened in terms of geological time. A billion years from now, this period in history will be a little layer of soot almost too thin to measure ;)
So in addition to there being not a lot to worry about really, we should still be looking at alternative energy sources as a matter of sever bloody urgency.
Biofuels are often lauded as a solution....
Pro: Carbon Neutral (if you give a fuck)....the currently growing crop will absorb slightly more CO2 than the combustion of the previous crop produces (please note, this is before some arsehole works out some way to pointlessly enhance it with a hugely energy wasteful process).
Pro: Most existing fossil fuel technologies can be adapted to suit with a hammer.
Con: It does nothing to eliminate all the other byproducts of combustion.....some of which actually are harmful, unlike CO2.
Con: The use of land for the production of biofuel crops, is already pushing food crops off the land and causing food prices to rise, and it's worst in the places than can least afford it of course.
For MY money, the solution is state run Nuclear Fission plants. Fusion will work eventually, gets closer all the time, and it WILL be the answer to our energy problems[3]...sea water in....power and oxygen out, and the only mess will be the reactor itself which will be soaked in protons it doesn't need and be a bit radioactive in the milder end of the scale.
Which brings me back to Fission....
"ooooh it makes the world more radioactive"
No, it doesn't, it makes the world LESS radioactive, that's where we get the heat from FFS!! We dig really radioactive shit out of the ground, encourage it to do it's thing faster (the "thing" that all radioactive substances like to do is decay into something more stable, and therefore less radioactive), then put some less radioactive stuff in the ground. The problems seem to involve, the moving of the stuff, where the stuff ends up, and idiots doing stupid shit in the power plant itself. Solution....build plants nearer to uranium deposits, and where this is not possible, stop trying to make a profit on the transport of poisons (which is why I specify state run plants). Even if you have to transport the stuff about....at least sort the waste problem out in a manner that makes some sense....wherever you dig the fuel up.......scatter the waste back there in the same concentrations as the original ores...what you will effectively have done, is clean the place up a bit!
"ooooh it's not safe, it blows up and there's a big mushroom, I've seen it on TV!".
Errm No, it's quite safe if you don't cock about with it. On a daily basis a nuclear plant emits.....water vapour.....the coal plant next door releases fuck knows what all day every day (but because people understand smoke...but the word radiation goes right over their heads and into their panic glands.....light is radiation.....heat is radiation....music is radiation FOR FUXAKE!). Trouble is, people fuck up, which is where the problems start, but let's deal with them shall we.....
"ooooh they leak"
Yes they do, but they leak radiation that was already in one place, into another place, nothing more.
"oooooh but 3 mile island, we don't even KNOW how many people that killed"
Yes, 3 mile island is the result of putting people who were taught creation in science class, not RE, in charge of an atomic reactor...it was a compound fuckup, and The Worst accident that can happen in a functional reactor. "we still don't know how many were killed" are weasel words for "we cannot solidly attribute a single death to this"...think about it....if Bush had said "we still don't know how many Americans were in that $TARGET", you'd NEVER swallow it without seeing bodies and proof the CIA didn't leave them there.
"oooh Chernobyl"
Unsafe data
Chernobyl was NOT a real atomic reactor on the day of the accident....almost all it's safety systems were offline on purpose too.....some were never meant to even have an offline mode, they were basically rendered offline with hammers and axes and saws....all so that moscow could have them perform an output enhancing test.....politicians fucking with science...always bad (and why, even if I advocate state control of fission to prevent profiteering causing trouble....it's probably best if it's not a totalitarian sate). No reactor on Earth could have done what Chernobyl did, it should be considered a deliberate act.....and it caused the worst accident it's possible for a reactor to have....the one that SHOULD have caused the infamous "China Syndrome" where super heated fuel rods fall right through the planet (in the notional scenario, from the US to china)...in defiance of all laws of physics, but it makes a good story. Actually...big nasty cloud of radiation, lots of unbelievably brave men dead, and a couple of two headed goats were born (the actual aftermath data is largely gibberish with any you see being completely slewed one way or the other....one lot says it's the fluffiest spot on earth, the other lot claim we all died in 1986 and don't realise it yet...all balls!.)
"oooh but Hiroshima"
Fuck off, Reactor | Bomb there is no relation between a reactor and a bomb, except that if you fuck with your reactor you can make it make bomb fuel. Nothing that you can do to a reactor will make it go off like an A-bomb (unless you build a huge A-bomb trigger mechanism round the pile and use teleport to remove the moderators at the exact moment you trigger the mechanism...even then I wouldn't give a tramp's pubes for your chances.)
Nuclear power, of any type, electrolysing water, into oxygen and hydrogen....hydrogen power cars and planes, with oxygen blowers instead of turbos (we'll have a lot of it LOL). A clean economy. I Thank You.
I've cooked my mind and wandered a bit.....there will most likely be a follow up in the form of "and another fucking thing!!!!" when I read this back (after hitting publish first.....I never second guess my madness until i've let it loose....or grammar check it), and realise I've left some point out.
I'm not saying don't look after your planet my friends, I'm saying make sure you're not making yourself live worse off, while doing no good whatsoever, when there are so many more genuine environmental issues that you are being distracted from with this racist white man's cash cow.
[1]Incidentally, this has a double benefit to whitey....because he's letting the developing nations pick up the R+D tab, the scale setup tab, and the manufacturing infrastructure tab, for technology he KNOWS he WILL need sooner or later.....talk about Win/Win if you're a white, soulless, suited wankstain on the duvet of the universe, kinda Lose/Lose if you're some non-pink geezer worrying about whether his kids are gonna have running water and food in their bellies. This is of course utterly backwards to how it should be.
[2] Expect to see a change in these over the coming years....now that everyone is using them (because they ARE a good idea), they makers will panic because they realise they've sold us all something that lasts 10-20 times longer than before. Expect them to become much cheaper and break a lot sooner in the coming years.
If you doubt me on this.....ask yourself where all the giant LED xmas tree light sets that were on sale 3-4 years ago have gone....easy "oh, fuck we're selling something they only need to buy once!!!!"...the ones I see now all have something that resembles an LED but is clearly no manufactured to the same standard as they usually are....so they fail more....so you need to buy more.
[3] Except....some cunts, in You Know Where....have "worked out" that the deuterium and tritium (isotopes of hydrogen) readily available in sea water, aren't just quite good enough (or monetizable), as they will result in reactor wall linings getting a bit radioactive quicker. THEY would prefer we use helium3 and they best source according to them,.....the moon. I am all for the exploration of the moon, and all for exploiting it's wealth, because I'd much rather they made a total fuck up of a lifeless ball of rock, than this beautiful green ball of rock.....but not if it means turning what could be the final answer to mankind's needs, into the next power economy!! (NB reactors running on isotopic hydrogen, produce helium 3....so what's the problem with compound seawater reactors, or hydrogen reactors used as main industrial units, and He3 units used where clenliness is more important.
[4 ADDENDUM]
It also shows the kind of cycle that it doesn't take an advanced knowledge of Fourier analysis to spot, or where on that natural cycle we are now.
No comments:
Post a Comment