[Pseudoscience] Snowball Warming

Watching news reports this week, it is appearing the man on the street that, as I predicted, global warming theory (uh, sorry, it’s a fact, because theory in science means fact… y’know like there is no word for speculation in science it’s all Feoryact) doesn’t have the ring of consistency to it as is being propagated, even before the recent snow storms.

Recent snowfall in the UK has perhaps helped the middle classes to stop and question something they are being told to believe in without question. The snowfall has managed to shut up even the loudest uninformed global alarming peddler, but it hasn’t prevented the more astute to start pedding two specific reasons, or rather, excuses for the snow.

The first one is an easy debunker. “Global Warming doesn’t mean it always gets hotter, it means more extreme types of weather!” Can anyone tell me what is so wrong with this argument? Well for starters it’s a catch all.. if you think about it, any type of extreme weather means global warming, hot or cold, dry or wet, delightful or devastating. If you’re trying to debate this logic intelligently you won’t win. Global Warming is essentially happening, regardless of the actual state of the environment.

The second one is this: Snowfall used to be much more common, but the Global Warming trend means that it’s occurring every 20 years (instead of, say, every year).

OK this is a bit more tricky, sounds believable right? But the remarkable thing about this argument is that it’s, like, almost dead on. We’re not talking about 25 years here, or 15 years, but we’re actually talking approximately 20 years. How are scientists able to predict this so accurately? Is it down to data provided by studying the global warming phenomenon or is it more like… the Zany Ones?!

Could it be scientists are stating 20 years, because, well, snow like this fell 20 years ago! A bit like if I told you house prices are going to rise this year because they’ve been rising since 1996?

I have one question for the Global Alarmists, if an unmoving linear Global Warming trend is happening despite record warmth, record cold, growing antarctic ice, receding antarctic ice, clouds affect data, clouds don’t affect data, we don’t rely on past data/history, we rely on past data/history, it’s not sunlight, sunlight fell in the Northern Hemisphere… can someone tell me how the heck we are going to know:

a) When we have succeeded in our mission to cool the earth down? and
b) If we actually do enter a Global Cooling period?

Perhaps if we start experiencing lots of freak heatwaves, this will be an indicator that we are in danger of Global Cooling and need to act fast to warm the earth up?!

global warming, global alarmists, climate change, science, debunking, global cooling, sol

Powered by ScribeFire.

[G-Wiz] Battery Powered Death Machine

This Post Is Rated: C for Controversial. Would have been fun if it hadn’t been about a life-threatening contraption built by environMENTALISTS.

If anyone wanted further proof that the environMENT has become more important that human life, last month Top Gear released the G-Wiz Crash tests:

This is the car Red Ken, Global Leader and Supreme Dictator of Londonland, wants you and everyone else to drive one of these awful death-traps.

Here’s a piece cut from the FAQ on G-Wiz manufacturers site:

What about safety in the G-Wiz?
The G-Wiz is a breakthrough product in the fight against climate change… Thanks but we asked about safety
Excessive speed, no seat belts, alcohol & drug usage, and driver error are the main causes of accidents and injuries in the UK… Just so you know, it’s not our fault if you end up dead in one
Whilst larger, heavier cars in general perform better in crash tests, they are also more likely to injure other road users… Our cars will only kill you
The G-Wiz has a tubular steel space frame which surrounds the driver and passengers. This includes side impact bars and a front crumple zone designed to protect passengers in low speed collisions… Low speed collision = 2mph?

Why have no manufacturer Euro NCAP crash tests been done on the G-Wiz?
Neither the Euro NCAP test nor the Dept of Transport UNECE Regulation 94 test are required or recommended under the European regulation for quadricycles. Both tests are designed for M1 vehicles, primarily cars capable of speeds in excess of 100 mph and not low speed urban vehicles… Wow, that’s convenient, avoids any marketing problems.
Like all vehicle manufacturers RECC is however constantly reviewing safety features and innovation relative to usage… I feel safer already – as long as the other guy is driving one.

Source: Going Green FAQ

HT Gavin Ayling.

Technorati Tags: death trap, g-wiz, environment, london, ken livingstone, crash tests

[EnvironMENTALIST] Miliblog: 2 Questions

Much debate has taken place over EnvironMENTAL, Food and Affairs Secretary David Milibands blog. Rumours abound at the cost of his blog to the tax-payer.

Guido first posted with a figure of £8,150 (but estimated the real cost to be nearer £50,000). One MP, Tom Watson dismissed that as nonsense and offered figures of £6,000 for setup and £4,500 to maintain annually. Guido came back with an annual wage of £62,400 for Milibands blog assistant.

Finally Miliband posted actual costs on the blog:
Initial Setup £6,000
Change over to DEFRA £1,250
Ongoing Technical costs £900 p.a.
Blog assistant £3,600 p.a. (£300 / 10 hours per month)

What no-one seems to be asking is:

A) Why tax-payers are paying ANY money towards a personal blog, especially when 11.2 million UK households (44%) are not online.

B) If one of the opposition parties gain power at the next election, no doubt the EnvironMENTAL secretary will be replaced- does this mean the blog will be forfeited to the new secretary? If it belongs to the tax-payer it should (yet another £6k for name change, no doubt).

[Churchianity] All Aboard The Environmental Bandwagon

Hurry and get your tickets before the bandwagon leaves and the latest global cultural obsession joins the other short-lived evangelical fashions.

I’m not even going to bother lamenting over why the Church does not lead the way in cultural issues, instead of continually chasing the last boat.

Instead I implore any Christian leaders to come upon or regularly read this blog (those who have not denounced it as heresy) to do their research before joining the Climate Nazis!

Make an informed decision and at least promote debate, for Christ’s sake (and I use the Lords name in the strongest and most sincerest terms)!

[Global Alarming] The Green Threat

Referral: Recess Monkey
Source: Beau Bo D’Or

[environMENTAList] Sian Berry

If Sian Berry thinks there are too many humans on the planet, why doesn’t she offer to be part of the solution?

Technorati Tags: environment, politics, sian berry

[Global Alarming] The environMENTAL Propaganda Machine

Being a Christian, I have always believed in treating animals and the environMENT with respect. However, I believe God created the world for us and not the other way round. We are to treat it with respect as stewards (and we will possibly be held to account), but ultimately humans are sacred beings, infinitely more important.

It was heartening to see when communities started talking about the environment, also when churches finally joined the bandwagon, I didn’t mind. But once the government got hold of it the subject has gone environMENTAL, and the Climate Nazis moved in. The Climate Nazis do not care about human life, only being seen to be green.

As with all taxes and government policy, it affects the poorest of society- in this case we are talking global society. From reverting air travel to a luxury of the rich to denying Africans basic necessities for living.

A recent Channel 4 documentary highlights the propaganda and abuses of the Global Warming Swindle, the documentary has been split up on YouTube. They are about 10 minutes long each, but worth viewing:

C4: The Great Global Warming Swindle
Introduction
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6
Part 7
Part 8

What’s that big orange ball thing in the sky? It’s the sun! Fancy that! I wonder if that has any effect on the climate? hmm…

Why should the many sacrifice their 1-2 flights a year, where they fly cattle (thus making use of all available space), when Climate Nazis and the Elite fly 100’s of trips on private or half-full jets? Perhaps if these people were to sacrifice their annual travel, the same amount of co2 could be cut as it would all of those on the bottom rung of society:

Al Gore
Ken Livingstone
Tony Blair
Gordon Brown
David Cameron
Not to mention all the celebrities…

Regardless, it’s a lie which has been bought by anti-globalisation and government taxation opportunists. “Top scientists” are now emerging to tell the tale of government spin. Elmo at Power Of Suggestion (P.O.S.) provides a list (follow the link):

“People keep saying this, but provide no names, no documentation, no evidence whatsoever to back it up. They just blame any opposition on oil money. Well, there are plenty of climate experts who are not in the employ of any oil or energy companies, but are tenured professors and department chairs at major universities.” – P.O.S.

It’s time the people read the facts and stood up to the environMENTAL propaganda machine- before it takes lives.

[Global Alarming] Cashing In On The Environment

The other night I watched an interview on Newsnight with Jeremy Paxman interviewing Stephen Timms regarding Gordon Browns green tax. Paxman was arguing about the real costs of the tax, and how some complain it doesn’t go far enough. It was discussed that the new 1.5p tax hike will make drivers drive 1 less mile per week.

Is there anyone else who finds this assumption a bit off the mark? How are car drivers going to drive 1 less mile per week? How is this going to save the environment? Wait… do you hear that crunching cement sound? It’s my flat uprooting and moving a quarter of a mile closer to work!

He then went on to talk more doublespeak about how the tax reflects the cost to the environment when people use gas.

I’m sorry but I don’t get the connection between trees dying and the government getting extra tax? What are they going to do- give money to the trees? “Sorry trees, here’s some cash compensation, by the way, we’re going to keep flying and driving cars.” Tax doesn’t solve environmental issues- cheaper alternatives do!

Gordon Browns new plan takes more money from the taxpayer, doesn’t stop carbon emissions, but it does make him a little richer, and able to keep going on spending sprees.

I have no fear in saying that I’m a car driver, an unrepentant car driver at that. As car-owners know, being a car owner makes you an enemy of the government and more recently an enemy of the environment. I have something to say to all those environMENTALISTS who are screaming for environMENTAL taxes. Gordon Brown has raised petrol by 1.5 p a litre. So what? I’ll just recoup that by buying non-energy saving light bulbs. No amount of tax will make me stop using my car- the only difference is I would be forced to cut out other things, find a better paying job and so on- everyone else would be in the same situation, the economy would change on a massive scale.

I have another secret to share with you. I hate driving, I especially hate driving in London. But its better than taking the tube:

• I am 6 miles from work, but to get there I would have to switch tubes 3 times.
• To take the tube daily, for which I would have to purchase 2 zones even though my home and work is in 1, it would cost me more than driving.
• Delays and repairs. London tube already struggles with its public transport as it is. What do you think would happen if every car driver in London decided to use public transport one day? Have you thought about that? Chaos- pure chaos. Do you really think that it’s feasible? The country would grind to a stop.

It’s not that I don’t want to be more friendlier to the environment. I would take public transport if it was feasible, but the government we have does not want to help the environment, it only wants to find lucrative schemes to cover its wasteful spending. I’m being honest with you. I lived in Switzerland, I didn’t need a car there, in this country, I need a car. The government is just not prepared to invest in alternatives. Their only answer to any problem is to tax it.

The bottom line is making me pay more tax takes away my ability to afford the environmental alternatives.