<< "BLOODY GREAT GUY" ~ MAIN ~ GORE'S NINE LIES >>
METABABABOLISM ALL MESSED UP
We’re nearing the point of no return. Hooray!
A UN climate change report out next month will show that greenhouse gases have reached dangerous levels, with emissions more likely to cause irreversible climate change, scientist Dr Tim Flannery warned ...
Dr Flannery - author of climate change book The Weather Makers and a leading expert on global warming - described how the world economy was ‘on a collision course with the metabolism of our planet’.
My money’s on the global economy. Do your worst, puny metabolism.
(Via Jerome D.)
UPDATE. In the interview that led to the news item above (and many more besides), Flannery offers his solution to the crisis:
I think that what needs to happen is we need to put the people who own those tropical lands in direct contact with the people who want to buy their climate security. And we could do that using these amazing things we’ve got now, like Google Earth. You can imagine, you know, Googling 50 villages in Papua New Guinea who’ve got some carbon to sell, who want to regrow their forests. You could buy it over eBay. A lovely thing that keeps everyone honest.
Hit the link and scroll down for video. See Flannery actually say the crazy words.
#7 “What’s the latest ‘point of no return’ date? I want to mark it on my calendar.”
Substitute Gaia for Jesus and Environmentalism is the Millerism of the 21st century.
Posted by Bruce Rheinstein on 2007 10 10 at 12:59 PM • permalinkI’m loving this messed up metaboebolaism; here it is pushing late October and the golfing weather is still fantastic in NJ!
Posted by Mr. Bingley on 2007 10 10 at 01:00 PM • permalinkhere’s what happens when you give trees more carbon dioxide: You get an 80% increase in wood biomass for a 75% increase in CO2 levels.
So, basically, the leftards want to starve trees. On the surface, that doesn’t seem very “green” to me.
A UN climate change report out next month will show that greenhouse gases have reached dangerous levels, with emissions more likely to cause irreversible climate change, scientist Dr Tim Flannery warned ...
Well fine. If it’s irreversible, then shut up about it.
Posted by wronwright on 2007 10 10 at 01:59 PM • permalinkIf the planet ate more fiber, we’d have fewer liberals.
Some butt-ugly, incredibly stoopid asteroids, tho…
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2007 10 10 at 02:18 PM • permalinkGaia-worshipping ‘roo defies man’s puny machines!
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2007 10 10 at 02:24 PM • permalink“A UN climate change report out next month will show that greenhouse gases have reached dangerous levels, with emissions more likely to cause irreversible climate change, scientist Dr Tim Flannery warned ...”
Scientist? Shouldn’t that be “paleontologist”? I mean, just so we can keep the proper perspective? I think that would be a good idea in all cases.
“The earth has a fever”, said Al Gore, failed politician and overweight non-scientist.
“Our energy problem has become an energy crisis”, said Barack Obama, doomed aspirant to the White House and jug-eared lawyer.“Climate change is not only detrimental to our welfare; in some cases it causes its termination”, said the convicted, shot-at, shipwrecked and clinically-dead George Monbiot.
Meanwhile, a number of copies of Flannery’s book are wasting precious resources in the local bookstore’s bargain bin...
The comments over there are all gloom and doom, so I left the following:
Well heck, as long as we’ve passed the point of no return, let’s fire up the carbon-spewing barbie and party like it’s 1759.
It awaits moderation.
Posted by Kyda Sylvester on 2007 10 10 at 02:48 PM • permalinkO/T, but this ought to be good.
How unsurprising that ABC (U.S.) apparently pulled a CNN and declined to air the material on Cuban hospitals.
Also, Che’s hair is for sale. This gives me a great idea for a new product to be marketed through college bookstores: the chia Che!
How come these scientific illiterates keep setting final dates past the end of the Mayan calendar? WHAT year 2050?
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2007 10 10 at 04:42 PM • permalinkThe world that we live in has changed. Where half the global population have the power to change the planet beyond all other life.
Even I being conciously aware how i have contributed to the excelleration of are own demise.They say do not place a bannana amongst all other fruit in the fruitbowl but instead we have piled more on top.When i go home from work tonight i shall turn off my pc & switch off the light.Does this make any diffrence & should i bid you all good night.michael myles,London
Thank you Michael.
You see people, such a simple solution.
Watch your banana.
1. Dave S - if you go to the transcript of the ABC Lateline interview, he ACTUALLY said, and it deserves boldening!!!
WE HAVE PASSED THE TIPPING POINT!!!
It was November, 2005.
Got any old calendars lying around?
He says we are now doing irreversible damage to the climate. That’s right, to the CLIMATE!!!
So when I said on Bolt’s we can stop worrying about it as the damage was irreversible, of course the greenies howled me down saying we can fix it, or minimise the damage.
What part of irreversible don’t they understand?
I’d love to see how “climate” can suffer “damage”, let alone irreversible damage!
Bolt blog has more.
Ups and Downs for Gore
[Iain Murray]
While Al Gore is the favorite to win the Nobel Peace Prize on Friday, a British court has found that his film is both partisan and contains no fewer than eleven material inaccuracies that need to be drawn to students’ attention if it is going to be shown in schools. The details will be on Planet Gore soon, but for the moment, you can go to Globalwarming.org for the full embarassing truth. One would hope that this result will provide impetus for legal challenges to it being shown in schools over here.As for the impending laurel wreath, am I the only one who finds it depressing that, while past laureates like Mother Teresa and Albert Schweizer spent decades working with the poor in terrible conditions, Gore wins for making a movie? Moreover, a movie of himself giving a lecture? Moreover, a movie whose upshot is that the poor in Calcutta and West Africa should be denied access to the energy that can lift them out of poverty? Given the universal praise the man gets, perhaps I am.
Well ya can’t ask the third world to fix things cos they only got sticks and goats and juntas ta work with. It’s us that has the power to save the world. Cos we got everthang. Cos we had fitty years a energy-sucking carbon-spewin freedom-to-goddam-choose. That’s where we got tha techNOLogy, and tha MEDia, and tha enLIGHTment, and tha distriBUTion networks. That’s where we got tha POWER! So let’s leverage alla that! To ah, stop sucking and spewin and lettin folk work it out for themsevles, yeah, to save the world..n’ that..
Posted by ooh honey honey on 2007 10 10 at 06:29 PM • permalinkGore and a Nobel Peace Prize? That would be the absolute end to the Nobel Prize as something worthwhile. It has never been the same since they handed one to that murderous arsehole Arafat but it is a new low to hand it to a businessman promoting his own global worming products. Next year Richard Branson? Or maybe they could hand it out at the Academy Awards as just another award for rich smug bastards.
Or how about during Big Brother? “The Nobel Peace Prize this year goes to our mystery celebrity house guest - Osama bin Laden. Ossie has spent a lifetime - well thousands of other people’s lives - fomenting war between the West and Islam. What’s peace if you haven’t got war to compare it with, eh, Ossie.”
From the comments below Tim’s link:
The world that we live in has changed. Where half the global population have the power to change the planet beyond all other life.
Even I being conciously aware how i have contributed to the excelleration of are own demise.They say do not place a bannana amongst all other fruit in the fruitbowl but instead we have piled more on top.
When i go home from work tonight i shall turn off my pc & switch off the light.Does this make any diffrence & should i bid you all good night.I think he’s had enough bananas, excellerent or otherwise.
#9 hucbald. That was an interesting link, but I’d like to know (I couldn’t figure out from the article) whether that additional 80% is going to pure growth or whether some or all of it is going to density. If it’s density, that should make for some pretty decent wood to be used in the future for all sorts of things and thus further sequestering the CO2. Maybe even expensive furniture for all of AlManBearPigGore’s huge multiple dwellings.
Posted by JorgXMcKie on 2007 10 10 at 06:58 PM • permalink#44 Contrail -
Gore and a Nobel Peace Prize? That would be the absolute end to the Nobel Prize as something worthwhile.
Actually, that happened when they gave it to Jimmy “Wasted 4 Years” Carter.
Posted by wronwright on 2007 10 10 at 07:09 PM • permalinkSo once we hit the point of no return, reckon they’ll shut the hell up?
Posted by Shaky Barnes on 2007 10 10 at 07:21 PM • permalinkTONY JONES: So, where does it put us in terms of where we thought we were? For example, I know that if we have exceeded that threshold, that threshold wasn’t meant to come for some years, was it?
TIM FLANNERY: That’s right. We thought we’d be at that threshold within about a decade, we thought we had that much time. But the new data indicates that in about mid 2005 we crossed that threshold. [/b/]So as of mid 2005, there was about 455 parts per million of what’s called carbon dioxide equivalent. And that’s a figure that’s gathered by taking the potential of all of the 30 greenhouse gases and converting them into carbon dioxide potential, so we call it CO2 equivalent.
further to 36 - 1 - i said november, 2005 - sorry it should be MID 2005.
...a leading expert on global warming ...
...on a collision course with the metabolism of our planet...
Do newspapers or rags have editors any more?
Posted by Wimpy Canadian on 2007 10 10 at 08:24 PM • permalinkHow many Papua New Guinea villages have the internet?
Posted by Wimpy Canadian on 2007 10 10 at 08:26 PM • permalinkscientist Dr Tim Flannery
At what point is the ABC in particular going to stop introducing this man as a scientist, or worse: ‘leading climate scientist’?
He produces no relevant research. He is a rent-a-quote, activist: An alarmist peddling hyperbole to gain influence and power in, you guessed it, the world economy.
Scientist, my fat ass!
The only reason people listen to him, is because he is very good at self promotion and has written two books that helped him cash in on the fear mongering rubbish certain groups of Pseudo_scientists, like himself have been foisting on the public.
You’re being conned by liars and frauds and Al-Goreeee’s.Rule 303 for the roos.
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22562480-662,00.html
MORE kangaroos should be slaughtered and eaten to help save the world from global warming, environmental activists say.
The controversial call to cut down on beef and serve more of the national symbol on our dinner plates follows a report on curbing greenhouse gas emissions damaging the planet.
Greenpeace energy campaigner Mark Wakeham urged Aussies to substitute some red meat for roo to help reduce land clearing and the release of methane gas.“It is one of the lifestyle changes we can make,” Mr Wakeham said.
Posted by Ernst Blofeld on 2007 10 10 at 10:34 PM • permalinkI knew there was a disturbance in the force in mid 2005. I just didn’t know it was from crossing the threshold to the point of no return on the collision course with the planet’s metabolism.
The Next Big Thing seems to be devising ways to suck CO2 back out of the atmosphere. Planting trees in New Guinea seems a more modest proposal than all those tubes.
So, how many windmills do you have to plant in Broken Hill to generate base power for 400,000 households anyway? Must be a shitload.
Posted by Kyda Sylvester on 2007 10 10 at 11:06 PM • permalinkA UN climate change report out next month will show that greenhouse gases have reached dangerous levels, with emissions more likely to cause irreversible climate change, scientist Dr Tim Flannery warned
Does that mean we’ll spend money on projects to minimize the damage of this global warming thing instead of spending money to promote “carbon trading” and other stupid things?
Posted by Old school on 2007 10 11 at 12:24 AM • permalinkFantastic reasoning on ABC news tonight..
1/ world is becoming more humid (ok.. I’ll bite)
2/ water vapour is a big greenhouse gas (check)
3/ therefore we need cut CO2 emissions (what?!)Does anyone except the un-dead seriously swallow this?
also, in the same article some stupidity about southern australia drying, despite the evidence to the contrary (everyone should read Gust of Hot Air for some reasoned analysis of the data)
“You can imagine, you know, Googling 50 villages in Papua New Guinea who’ve got some carbon to sell, who want to regrow their forests.”
With a population growth rate of 2.6%, PNG has barely enough arable land for subsistence agriculture. Reforestation isn’t high on their list. Anyone in PNG with access to the internet probably isn’t the legitimate “owner” of the village carbon anyway, although that wouldn’t stop them taking Flummery’s money. The place is infested with carpetbaggers, including purveyors of phoney carbon trading schemes.Posted by Willmott Fribbish on 2007 10 11 at 08:56 AM • permalinkI’m doing my part for Gaia. I just bought a BMW M3 Cabriolet -but I promise not to take it over 6500 rpms.
Posted by Son of a Pig and a Monkey on 2007 10 11 at 09:51 AM • permalinkMore hysterical screeching from Flummery? Maybe he sees the end of the climate change scam coming up, and wants to suck in as much cash as he can before the marks wise up.
Sort of like squirrels storing nuts for the winter, although for Flummery, it’s more like nuts storing squirrels for the summer.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2007 10 11 at 09:58 AM • permalinkFlannenomics: the belief that 80% reductions in CO2 levels have no effect on lifestyle choices deemed important by advocate of said reductions (eg., “We need to reduce greenhouse gases by 80% but maintain enough power supply so people in PNG can trade carbon and thus reduce emissions…”; “I need to fly 300,000 miles per year to inform people that flying leads to climate change…”; “I need a large house in Tennessee that uses more power in a month than the average house uses in a year because, well…, I’m Al Gore and you’re not”).
Irreversible? Every single climate change in the past several billion years has been reversed, sooner or later, often by glaciers creeping along, scouring out river valleys, dropping moraines when they melt.
If this global warmening stuff continues, first thing you know we’ll need fart licenses for our cows.
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
What’s the latest “point of no return” date? I want to mark it on my calendar.