<< YEAR OF THE STOMP ~ MAIN ~ NEWS BRIEFLETS >>
TREES! IT WAS TREES ALL ALONG
The Guardian reports:
They have long been thought of as the antidote to harmful greenhouse gases, sufferers of, rather than contributors to, the effects of global warming. But in a startling discovery, scientists have realised that plants are part of the problem.
According to a study published today, living plants may emit almost a third of the methane entering the Earth’s atmosphere.
The result has come as a shock to climate scientists.
Fools! They should have listened to Ronald Reagan. More from the SMH on this delightful development:
What if trees in addition to taking in Co2 also emit a greenhouse gas of their own?
That scenario is sketched in a new study by European scientists, which, if confirmed, would be one of the biggest upheavals in climate science for years.
It would also inflict a serious blow to Kyoto, one of whose key pillars is the faith in “sinks,” as forests are called in the treaty’s jargon.
Why, forests turn out to be no better than filthy car factories! Except with more owls. Atmospheric scientist David Lowe is depressed:
"We now have the spectre that new forests might increase greenhouse warming through methane emissions rather than decrease it by being sinks for Co2,” Lowe said ruefully.
This news is yet to reach The Age’s online insanity forum, currently fuming over Australia’s rejection of Kyoto, among other things:
We should also educate and stop third world countries from breeding. These people have no quality of life , they die young and the more people on this planet the more pollution.
Posted by: Fiona Q at January 11, 2006 12:29 PMA sensible solution would be to ban all cars over (say) five years old. That way there would be less pollution and a lot less cars. An added benefit would be less poor people on the roads causing traffic jams and congestion.
Posted by: Roger Z at January 11, 2006 03:57 PMI sit in an office with 6.8kw watts of flourescent light during the day when the sun is shining giving out free light? Why isn’t turning on a light during the day an illigal act.
Why do we have street lights. It enables gangs and thieves to move about without alerting people they are there because they would need a light from a torch …
The Governments job is to provide stability. Stability is created by changing nothing. Therefore all current fixes to the problems involve bandaid measures to ensure the current systems stay in place. This why we don’t ride around in hover cars and enjoy free energy, free communications and have robots do the hard work for us.
Posted by: barry steer at January 11, 2006 02:34 PM
In the midst of this madness, Ian’s fine joke blends almost seamlessly:
Japan has had its coldest winter for 80 years. This is because Kyoto is in the centre of Japan and the protocol’s effects are felt strongest there.
Posted by: Ian at January 11, 2006 01:37 PM
(Via James Morrow)
Tim, I try, swear to god I try whenever you post one of those links. But it’s like trying to have a conversation with the funny man camping on the bus stop bench…
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 01 12 at 12:56 AM • permalinkTrees = bad
Nuclear energy = good
Therefore climate change can be solved by nuking the forests…
Posted by Margos Maid on 2006 01 12 at 12:58 AM • permalinkAt my university, 20 years ago, some lefty moron took a glass cutter and scribed in huge letters into a large restroom mirror:
"Trees cause pollution” - Ronald Reagan, PhD in idiocy
When I went back ten years later, it was still there. I was pissed.
Now I hope it’s still there, as a monument to the intellectual jackasses who thought they were smarter than Ronnie. Kind of like reading Lincoln’s Northern critics who called him a second-rate man, a baboon, etc.
Don’t know about hovercars, but I can’t wait to go down to Melbourne and get involved in a high-speed persuit with Mr Plod piloting one of these.
Why do we have street lights.
So you can better spot the gang of theives that would otherwise be sneaking up behind you to hit you in the back of your head with their torches.
Duh.
Posted by SoCalJustice on 2006 01 12 at 01:15 AM • permalinkBut...I thought some scientists just proved, proved mind you, with computer models, that expansion of forests would cause Global Cooling. Now we learn that expanding forests would expand the addition of methane to the air. Can it be that the people so confidently announcing what will happen with the climate in the future, who prove that human-induced global warming/cooling/change/stability (take your pick) don’t know what the hell they are talking about? It would seem that global climate is a tad too complex to be modeled with the tools we presently have, at least to the extent that we could reliably base hard predictions of results on them, and therefore ue them to decide among policy choices.
I love those moonbat quotes from The Age, especially this one:
“Why do we have street lights. It enables gangs and thieves to move about without alerting people they are there because they would need a light from a torch.”
Somebody a bit less ignorant might know, or realize, that cities before street lighting were the haunt of criminals to an even greater extent than now. In the past the absence of street lighting facilitated robberies and killings.
The same poster, Barry Steer, goes on to define stability as changing nothing. I thought these lefty moonbats were all for change, the nature of which they leave unspecified, change for the sake of change. That’s the way they talk here in the states at any rate. Perhaps he is a righty moonbat, like Pat Buchanan. In any case, the complete stability of never changing would be very maladaptive and a society that never changed would not last long. The world around us is constantly changing, so we need a dynamic equilibrium to survive, not a static one. That means changing in a reasonable manner. I suppose that is a bit too complex an idea for Mr. Steer and his ilk. Sorry ‘bout that.
Posted by Michael Lonie on 2006 01 12 at 01:19 AM • permalinkSo my eight-year-old car that gets 30 miles per U.S. gallon (7.8 liters per 100 km) should be sent to a landfill and replaced with a new one in a manufacturing process that consumes loads of energy, water, and materials to produce a car that gets… 30 miles per U.S. gallon.
But apparently only while I sit in the dark in my interior office during daylight contemplating how to stop third-worlders reproducing. Excellent.
Bwwahahha, the age forum is full of comments of insanity… and sometimes indistinguishable from the comments of mockery.
My favorite one below:
"To all you warmongering denialists in the pay of big oil and pharma, global warming is happening right now! At 10am this morning, it was 20 degrees and it is 30 degrees now. Based on my hurried calculations, it will be 70 degrees by this time tomorrow in spite of the fact that I’ve been powering my eco-house by treadmill for the last 30 minutes. I’m heading for higher ground!
But didn’t Prof Quiggin say that the debate was/is over????? :)
Posted by WeekByWeek on 2006 01 12 at 01:30 AM • permalinkWell, for what it’s worth, I had chili for lunch, and another bean dish for dinner. So I’m doing my best to outperform the trees today.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 01 12 at 01:49 AM • permalinkFrom the bottom of the Guardian story:
Global dimming
In 2003 scientists noticed levels of sunlight reaching the Earth’s surface had dropped by 20% in recent years because of air pollution and bigger, longer-lasting clouds
And I was sure the term “Global dimming” referred to the online forum of The Age.
Posted by SoCalJustice on 2006 01 12 at 01:52 AM • permalinkDrBob’s Global Warming Laws....
1. If you are sure that your global warming science is accurate - then you are wrong because what you don’t know has a 50% chance of biting you.
2. If you are relying on the consensus of scientists rather than your own informed opinion - despair, because the history of science is one of the overthrow of consensus.
3. Complex Computer Models are 60% likely to be wrong - rememebr GIGO.
4. The more complex the statistics, the greater the likelihood of error - either deliberate (fraud) or accidental (ignorance) or just bad luck. - nuff said.
I seriously cannot tell which of those comments are genuine schtoopidity and which are mockery. I thought I did at first, but now a I have no idea…
I’m boggled.
Posted by Spiny Norman on 2006 01 12 at 02:18 AM • permalinkDave S.,
Now I hope it’s still there, as a monument to the intellectual jackasses who thought they were smarter than Ronnie. Kind of like reading Lincoln’s Northern critics who called him a second-rate man, a baboon, etc.
Wouldn’t it be great to go back and scratch on that mirror,
"Guess what, he was right."
Posted by Spiny Norman on 2006 01 12 at 02:22 AM • permalinkOne has to come the obvious conclusion that the climate scientists don’t really have a clue what is going on.
This is going to be one really amusing development to keep watch on.
The other problem they have is Mars with an atmosphere of 95% CO2 which has a problem generating a runaway greenhouse effect, so NASA propose to melt the CO2 caps to pump more CO2 into the Martian atmosphere.
Yeah, where is Schmidt to tell us not to look behind the curtain, the models are accurate, they are computerized with silicon and such, we know exactly how the planet’s climate works, the temperature between 1850 and 1925 is the exact perfect Gaia-approved amount of warmth for the planet, as it has been for millions, well, thousands, well, hundreds, well, a couple of years at least, his bets are based on cold hard rationale and impeccable logic, not the wishful thinking of a zealot.
Save us from our blasphemous skepticism, oh Schmidt!
Posted by Crispytoast on 2006 01 12 at 03:07 AM • permalinkNever mind, I see he’s polluting the other thread with his flawed ‘logic’.
Posted by Crispytoast on 2006 01 12 at 03:12 AM • permalinkYadvinder Malhi, a specialist in the relationship between vegetation and climate at Oxford University, said the plant source of methane had probably been missed in the past because scientists have a poor understanding of the way methane circulates in the atmosphere.
However, the Enderite Supersmart Global Climate Model is still 110% accurate.
Nor does it challenge scientific opinion on global warming, which has become rock-hard over the past five years
Rock hard. Firm. Throbbing with consensual tumescence… the kind of theory that drives you insane with desire at its maddening but seductive contradictions… a theory that tantalizes with hints of commitment, then frustrates with callous disregard of every promise… a frustration that only deepens the animal attraction…
Haha! That Barry Steer guy sounds like a champ! Can you imagine arguing with him? You’d need to suffer from several mental health disorders to follow his logic, however.
Posted by James Waterton on 2006 01 12 at 05:54 AM • permalinkI’ve always thought trees were somewhat suspect after they regularly drop their leaves on my large lawns and driveway ... I use the Victa to pick the leaves up every fortnight during summer, with also the grass to be mown, and whatever detritus falls down ... the Victa is the Trabant of the lawnmower world, a two stroke, smoky when starting, hard to start, and a temperamental beast of Aussie bloke culture.
I have an over abundance of Eucalypts here, way too many. Have already chopped down about twenty 15-20+ metre specimens, too many to fit on a 840 square metre block, have about three to go to leave about six still humongous Eucalypts ... I’ll show you my house on Google Earth if anyone dares me ... can’t see the yard from space.
More seriously, why don’t the disciples of environmental doom also look at more pressing world problems, including governance, freedom and law, to name a few. Being an environmental evangelist seems an easy path to take … yeah, talk to the trees …
I might be sounding like some of the loony left that inhabits cyberspace but I think we need to put things into perspective. There’s a lot of injustice in this world emanating from totalitarian and fascist states that really worry me. Let’s put our energies there.
Disclaimer: I “believe” there is global warming, but don’t know whether it is caused by man made events. Nor do I know what actions, if any, should be taken to combat it. Need to know an answer to the first sentence to answer the second.
Cheers …
#20 achillea: Hah! Reminds me of the old joke: How did Sonny Bono die? He got yewed, babe…
Seriously, sunspot activity is at record levels, temperatures on Mars have increased, and yet the tree-huggers still believe that temperature increases on our planet are caused by humans? I guess it wasn’t the Gipper who had the advanced qualification in idiocy…
temperatures on Mars have increased
Bush, you nefarious bastard! Is there no limit to your ruinous plans?
Posted by Mr. Bingley on 2006 01 12 at 08:56 AM • permalinkWhat percentage of greenhouse gases are produced generating power to run climate models and transporting environmentalists to conferences?
Posted by Rob Crawford on 2006 01 12 at 09:14 AM • permalink#22 Louis:
Oh the other embarassing thing for the climate types is that arboraceous-methane is so large an output, then how did they miss it in the first place then what else don’t we know about Mater Gaia?
Probably because the ones they listen to are paleontologists. There waiting for the methane to settle into the earth for 20 billions years so they can measure it.
Near the end of the article is this gem:
Michael Keller of the US Department of Agriculture’s Forest Service, who carried out the study, said the new process discovered by the German scientists provided a plausible solution to the puzzle.
But he warned against making any assumptions at this stage about what it meant for the climate impact of forests until much more was known about the way this new phenomenon operates in different conditions and among different species.Dr Keller said: “We know that when deforestation takes place we liberate large quantities of carbon dioxide, and indeed methane, into the atmosphere. We may be replacing that forest with vegetation which produces more methane.
"Until we know how this process works it is really unwise to come to any conclusions.”
Ain’t it amazing that whenever data appears that goes against their cherished beliefs we’re sternly cautioned against “rushing to conclusions; it’s not good science, old chum” whereas they conveniently forget that this whole global warming hullaballoo has been one yuge stampede by themselves, leftist groups and the MSM.
Posted by Mr. Bingley on 2006 01 12 at 10:13 AM • permalinkThere was a letter in Viz a few years ago pointing out that plankton absorbs more CO^2 than the rainforests, so therefore we should cut down the rainforests to make harpoons to catch plankton guzzling whales.
The letter writer didn’t even take into account the displacement effect that the whales have on sea levels.
Yeah, those fat fuckers. Ruining our sea and our air at the same time.
Posted by James Waterton on 2006 01 12 at 10:37 AM • permalinkNor does it challenge scientific opinion on global warming, which has become rock-hard over the past five years
Much like the theories of phlogiston and the luminiferous ether…
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 01 12 at 11:08 AM • permalink#9: Whoa, hold the phone! I’m a warmongering denialist and Big Oil hasn’t paid me a dime! I’m not interested in maintaining my amateur status, so where do I sign on for my cut?
In the meantime, does all of this mean I shouldn’t be killing bagworms? Dang! In my part of the country, one of our greatest amusements is to set fire to those pink webs and watch the little bastards curl up like Wronwright’s fingers when he’s got the Iowahawk fits.
Next volcano to blow will make all of this tree stuff look like nonsense. We’re arguging over nickles and pennies while the volcano gods are betting with thousands of dollars at a time.
We really need giant fire-proof corks and those metal contraptions that hold the corks in on champaign bottles and an organized 5 year plan to plug ‘em all up.
A tree tried to kill my father-in-law with a falling branch once. At the time, I thought it was just an accident, but now…
So, what’s the next Big Crisis on the agenda? A nervous breakdown among the Wailers and Gnashers because their latest fanatasy has blown up in their faces? (See, Paco, that word is just so useful!)
#56: What a coincidence! I have only recently set up plans for an IPO of common stock (Class B; er, non-voting) in the Giganta-Cork Lava Stoppah Corporation. This high-quality investment, which will initially trade on the Turkmenistan stock exchange, is available now in the form of warrants and options to a few select, discriminating investors - such as you, rjschwarz. Other shrewd, forward-looking investors include R. McEnroe and W. Wright (oh, BTW Richard, if the check is really “in the mail” you’d better put a stop payment on it and send me a new one; haven’t seen the thing yet. Try registered mail). Your check, in the amount of US$1,000 payable to the Paco Cayman Island Trust, will provide you with the security I need; I mean that YOU need. Heh heh. So act today on this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.
Stevo #38: Global Warming has been literally demonized. Ask most anyone what’s good about it, and they will say “nothing”.
As far as I can tell, the agenda driven global warming “science” [Kyoto, for example] only accepts hypothetical disasterizing scenarios as results in its analysis of the possible effects of global warming. This is not scientific. I’m certain that with comparable funding, which must be verging on billions, I could do “science” which would show that warming is going to produce the next thing to Nirvana.
There are other problems with the “science” of warming disasterizers - virtually fatal flaws in their models, wild projections, etc..
Common sense says warming is a good thing compared to cooling. [The idea that we can climate-control Earth’s temperature to achieve whatever ideal temp. we vote on is manifestly rediculous, although this will not stop the anthropocentric morons from trying.]
Others project, for example, that deserts will disappear with further warming. The arable land of Northern Europe has increased by 11% according to satellite views, possibly due to the warming we probably are experiencing, whatever its duration.
Warming is good for life in general. Moreover, it has been much warmer in Earth’s past. Reading the Nova site on ice ages, I was stunned to see that even its version of Earth’s history is totally inconsistent with the view of global warming alarmists.
In a recent Senate hearing on warming, John McCain got a science “honcho” of the alarmists to admit that he could not say that humans were even causing warming. I saw the hearing.
Recently I also witnessed a CSPAN dialogue in which the Warming Editor for “Science” mag. - himself an alarmist - admitted that the only things a recent consensus pole of involved scientists agreed on were, 1] the scientists have “some” confidence in the models which allege a human contribution to warming; and 2], if we do have an effect and warming needs to be reversed, it will take “100 years before any effect occurs”. I assume that means that there will be no effect or no one can say if there will be an effect.
It just goes on and on, once you start to merely scratch the surface. The whole thing is a scam, possibly the most gigantic “scientific” fraud ever.
Here in the U.S., NBC is running a piece of crap TV show that features a hippie-dippie Jesus in prime time. He appears to a pill-popping preacher and makes unchristian announcements.
Now, we know the network and producers wouldn’t be able to find a ball between them for doing a show like that—or even a respectful one—about Muhammad. But worse, they’d never dare run anything that could subvert the religion of the environmentalists. The tree-spiking fuckheads would burn the studios down and take an axe to the families of the stars.
Envirotalitarian bastards.
Posted by Monroe Doctrine on 2006 01 12 at 02:34 PM • permalinkHmmm.
I guess this means that New Zealand will end up owing even MORE money due to Kyoto now that their forests are polluters rather than sinks.
Wow! It seems that every new revelation concerning global warming ends up costing New Zealanders money.
Posted by memomachine on 2006 01 12 at 03:20 PM • permalinkWand, Crispy, and Tim B., if you think this disproves global warming, I suggest you bet me.
Posted by schmidtb98 on 2006 01 12 at 04:49 PM • permalinkAbout schmidtb98:
Can we stop arguing about whether the earth is a bit warmer or a bit colder at various times? That is a fact. We do not have to “disprove global warming”. In order to blame human activities, we have to eliminate all other likely causes. Some of the causes in the past have definitely not been industry or agriculture, as the scope of those activities was limited or non-existent.
The sun is still the main source of warming, and as xj reminds us above, there is variance in the sun’s internal reactions. The whole solar system is not fixed in space. The atmosphere is not a readily predictable water clock, it is a chaotic set of fluid inter-reactions.
It is always safer to start from the premise that you are an insignificant little specimen.The study refers to Central America, not Australia.
My friends here will be shocked to learn that I’m somewhat skeptical of this theory. Sorry to disappoint.
Posted by schmidtb98 on 2006 01 12 at 05:37 PM • permalinkThe global-warmists are embarassing themselves. In their rush to use their doomsday “science” as a club with which beat industrial progress--the best thing that ever happened to the human race, ever--they are falling over themselves.
Expect more climate change conferences to be held for the purpose of getting the story straight.
Posted by stuartfullerton on 2006 01 12 at 05:51 PM • permalinkHmmm.
Wand, Crispy, and Tim B., if you think this disproves global warming, I suggest you bet me.
Ok. I’ll make a bet with you, but not that nonsense. Of course temperatures can rise, but what you have to PROVE is that it is due to a human cause.
So I’ll bet you $50 that you cannot personally PROVE beyond any doubt, i.e. fact vs theory, that human activity is responsible for the rise in global temperatures.
I expect massive reams of detailed data.
Posted by memomachine on 2006 01 12 at 06:08 PM • permalinkPaco
Australia has a cane toad problem.
Cane toads were introduced to control the cane beetle. Now the sugar industry appears to be heading down the chit chute and we are left with the cane toad.
We really don’t have a problem with frogs, except that some are becoming scarce, or due to others’ unique habitat requirements, their habitat is threatened. Then there are the ones killed by the cane toad, not to mention the effect of cane toad spread to the Northern Territory on the goanna (a bloody BIG lizard).schmidtb98:
What would be the point of putting down a 10- or 20-year bet with you? If you’re like the rest of the people that believe in global warming, and that humanity can “reverse” it, then you’ve been collectively moving the goalposts for, what, 40 years now?
A track record like that doesn’t inspire much trust/faith when it comes down to matters of money, especially with someone that’s for all intents and purposes anonymous.
If the global average temperature gets lower, it’s evidence of climate change.
If the global average temperature gets higher, it’s evidence of climate change.
If the global average temperature stays the same, you’ll cite examples where certain areas have experienced increased temperatures.
But if it’ll shut you up, fine, I bet $1 trillion dollars that in 100 years the climate will have done the exact oppposite of whatever you think it’s gonna do.
Kyoto is stacked with problems. Turning a lemon into an orange takes a lot of sugar. (see NZ and its carbon tax, http://weekbyweek7.blogspot.com/2005/12/nz-dumping-carbon-tax-overboard.html#links)
Surely the AP6 framework is worth considering, given the pragmatic political framework ‘politicians’ are working in. The Fact that Martin Ferguson (ALP Left) is prepared to split the ALP Left on this issue is a sign that AP6 does have ‘political’ merits.
Posted by WeekByWeek on 2006 01 12 at 07:12 PM • permalink#67 - Schmitty - you don’t like responding to me for some reason but here goes anyway.
In the 1970s there was a huge fuss about industrial halide gas pollution (similar to the push to ban hydrofluorcarbons more recently). Huge news, panic stricken headlines, lefties shouting at us poor science students.
The kerfuffle and fuss on halides all disappeared, pretty well overnight, when it was figured out that something of the order of 95% of the bromine and related gases in the atmosphere came from sea-weed.
Everything (pretty well) that you believe is factually wrong. I’m sure you find that irritating - we just consider you amusing.
schmidtb98: Wand, Crispy, and Tim B., if you think this disproves global warming, I suggest you bet me.
As I made perfectly clear in an earlier thread, the logic behind your ‘natural warming’ bet is massively flawed.
Also, if you can’t read an article like the one to which Tim linked (and others to which Tim has linked) and admit that maybe the climate models are not even taking into account some very fundamental data, to say nothing of the interactions between the data, then you are being willfully blind.
You can bleat all you want about how you just want to bet, it doesn’t make the conclusions you are drawing one iota more sound.
I hope to God you’re not an engineer.
Posted by Crispytoast on 2006 01 12 at 08:45 PM • permalinkBefore we get too enthusiastic about restoring the environment, can we take a minute to recall that the Earth’s original atmosphere was ammonia?
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 01 12 at 08:50 PM • permalinked, I consider anthropogenic global warming proven (with reams of data), you consider it unproven. Rather than endless stupid arguments about the quality of the proof, I propose bets that test the proof with future climate behavior. Your bet takes us back to square one, and the amount you propose is chump change.
Wand, nice misdirection about gambling, but this issue is not a good one for compulsive gamblers - no one on the opposite side is putting their money where their mouths are.
David - you don’t need to trust me, just bet me at longbets.org. And my offered bets specifically contradict your assertions - if temperatures go lower, you win and I lose.
Russell, my apologies for ignoring you - there are way too many issues to deal with, so I just want to focus on one - the issue of who’s willing to put their money where their mouths are. Tim B. does not seem to be willing to do so.
Posted by schmidtb98 on 2006 01 12 at 09:02 PM • permalinkSchmidtb98… it has been said repeatedly that we accept that the earth is getting warmer. What most people here argue with is what the cause is. Therefor, why the deuce would we take a bet that says the Earth will get cooler? Make sense, man!
Posted by MikeTheLibrarian on 2006 01 12 at 09:27 PM • permalinkschmidtb98, if you don’t quit posting your boring, repetitive demands that Tim and other posters here feed your gambling addiction I will ban you. I would really rather not lift a finger, and prefer that you go bore some other people with your monomania. But it would only be the lift of one finger to ban you.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 01 12 at 09:35 PM • permalink… it has been said repeatedly that we accept that the earth is getting warmer.
It is for the moment. Perhaps. It got a LOT warmer around 1830 or so. Then it got cooler. Then about 1970 got warmer again. Assuming the same measuring instruments in the same places, of course. Then there’s the whole question of when it starts to get cooler again, leading to the ultimate conclusion of, “Who gives a fuck?”
It gets warm, it gets cool. BFD. As long as you don’t have a glacier on your house, chill.
Mike, I’ve got a bet for those who believe in “natural warming". Crispy and I disagree over whether it’s a fair bet. Other people here seem to dispute whether we even know if it will warm, so the other bets should interest them. Tim B. just calls it a scam, so there should be room to propose a fair bet with him.
Posted by schmidtb98 on 2006 01 12 at 09:40 PM • permalinkAndrea - I was wondering when that would happen. At least you lasted longer than the Free Republic did.
In case I’m about to be banned, sayonara, everyone.
Posted by schmidtb98 on 2006 01 12 at 09:46 PM • permalinkSchmidt, he seems to call “global warming”, i.e. the idea that mankind is responsible for an out-of-control warming of the planet, a scam. I would agree with him.
Posted by MikeTheLibrarian on 2006 01 12 at 09:54 PM • permalinkI live in one of Sydney’s leafier suburbs. Our street is full of trees. We all love our trees, including me, it’s just that I’ve got too many on my block. But how to get rid of them, given my PC, envirocrazy neighbours and the nosy local Council? One neighbour blatantly ringbarked his gum for all the world to see, the way our pioneers used to do it. It worked and he got away with it. I admired his balls. Since he is a Turk, the neighbourhood excused him as a poor ignorant Middle Eastern peasant who didn’t know any better, but he had the last laugh.
I’m now surreptitiously shovelling swimming pool salt into the roots, which is the way the middle classs do it, and awaiting the results.
Perhaps in the light of this new report, the Council make take a kinder approach. In which case I’ll ringbark the lot tomorrow.
schmidt98, all you have to do to not be banned is to be more interesting than you have been. Congratulations: you are the most boring troll who has registered on this site. At least the other trolls were lively; you’re about as interesting as one of those beeping alarm clocks. “Bet me.” “Bet me.” “Bet me.” “Bet me.” Except that it wouldn’t wake anyone up.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 01 12 at 10:13 PM • permalinkAnother thing I could do is to simply edit your posts so that, instead of the dull insisted smush of “bet me” you would instead be inviting Tim and his commenters to thrust rusty springs up your bum. Let’s try it on one of your crashingly dull comments:
Mike, I’ve got a bet for those who believe in “natural warming”. Crispy and I disagree over whether it’s a fair bet. Other people here seem to dispute whether we even know if it will warm, so the other bets should interest them. Tim B. just calls it a scam, so there should be room to propose a fair bet with him.
Here’s the spiffier, “edited” comment:
Mike, I’ve got a nice tingly feeling down below for those who believe in “natural warming”. Crispy and I disagree over whether I’ve got a vagina or simply have retracted my balls. Other people here seem to dispute whether we even know if it will warm, so the other things I can do with frogs, whipped cream, and a rotorooter should interest them. Tim B. just calls it a scam, so there should be room to shove an entire 1990 Buick LeSabre up my arse.
Yes, much better.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 01 12 at 10:18 PM • permalinkI live in one of Sydney’s leafier suburbs. Our street is full of trees. We all love our trees, including me, it’s just that I’ve got too many on my block. But how to get rid of them, ....snip ...
I’m now surreptitiously shovelling swimming pool salt into the roots, which is the way the middle classs do it, and awaiting the results.Perhaps in the light of this new report, the Council make take a kinder approach. In which case I’ll ringbark the lot tomorrow.
O/T mr magoo - I also live in one of Sydney’s leafier suburbs and appreciate your dilemma.
A better call and far more effective method is to use pool acid - yes good old hydrochloric acid introduced into the tree through some strategically placed holes in the trunk. You could drill the holes below ground if you were concerned about visibility.
It is extremely effective and fast as the acid is drawn into the sap stream probably faster than traditional ring barking. At least you are allowed to remove dead trees.
Wouldn’t salt make a mess of the soil. Oh yes, and shhhh, I didn’t tell you.
Now Andrea, wouldn’t it be a quite wonderful to use your website to make much-needed improvements to what someone else said? I’d suggest giving you lots and lots of money via your Paypal link, but either way, it’s me being made a total fool of for being such a dick.
And if you’re trying to turn my pathetic, failed attempts to comment like a grownup into something resembling normal efforts at communicating above rabid grunts and squeals so you can stop wincing and yawning every time I drop another lump of typing like so much dried-up clay in the comment box, I’m sorry but it won’t work. I’m just boring.
“Improvements" in red. Better than the original? Oh yes, believe me.—A.H.
Posted by schmidtb98 on 2006 01 12 at 10:34 PM • permalinkThis is the original of the comment I edited here, by the way:
Now Andrea, wouldn’t it be a little unethical to use your website to lie about what someone else said? I’d suggest disemvowelling, but either way, it’s the same as a ban.
And if you’re trying to provoke me into being offensive so you can ban me for that reason, I’m sorry but it won’t work. I’m just boring.
Coma-inducing, IMHO. I’ll bet you all agree with me! Har har!
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 01 12 at 10:58 PM • permalinkReagan, in saying trees cause pollution, had in mind the trees in the Blue Ridge Mountains, the blue haze. He had read some scientist saying that the trees were the cause, and decided that he was right. It’s in Edmund Morris’ biography and I would give the page number if the fat book had an adequate index so that I could find it. Anyway, you can see about that kind of pollution here.
But this news is really something.
LOL, Andrea! Too bad we can’t clone your brain and insert it into schmidt’s skull. All that empty space, going to waste.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 01 13 at 01:00 AM • permalinkGee, THANKS, Andrea, for choosing his comment to me to associate those images with.
Heh heh.
Posted by MikeTheLibrarian on 2006 01 13 at 01:28 AM • permalinkTo Schmitty:
There’s a good reason no one will indulge your bet fetish - the same reason there’s no point betting a fundamentalist that god doesn’t exist.
How can we prove a negative? As others have pointed out, you’ll use any data that pops up, no matter how threadbare, to prove your faith.
Jeez, it’s like a religion to some people.
Posted by Quentin George on 2006 01 13 at 01:47 AM • permalinkQuentin George,
Jeez, it’s like a religion to some people.
It IS a religion: Gaia-worship, a modern incarnation of a pagan Earth Goddess fertility cult.
Posted by Spiny Norman on 2006 01 13 at 02:03 AM • permalinkQuote from Martin Ferguson about how Labor should drop the Greens and support the talks in Sydney on finding new technologies to combat climate change:
"It is extraordinary that the Greens could place the economic security and jobs of their constituents at risk,” Mr Ferguson said. “Let’s be real - without getting business on board we cannot achieve anything.”
Doesn’t he realise that like 75% of the Green’s supporters probably don’t have jobs?? but are just feral, parasitic, dole bludging, refugees-from-reality??? :o?
sorta ot but in keeping with the bashing og gaia-worshippers
some of you may be aware that we have a nuclear reactor at lucas heights. the good souls who work there contribute to the sum of human knowledge through their research work & do good by providing the radioactive stuff to zap cancers
but in an attack of moonbattery, one of the units there has been renamed the institute for nuclear geophysiology. that’s right, you heard me. Geophysiology (Geo, earth + physiology, the study of living bodies) is the study of interaction among living organisms on the Earth operating under the hypothesis that the earth itself acts a single living organism (Gaia).
the driving force behind this can be found here
suggest we all send her a pet rock
KK - the “driving force” is no longer with ANSTO and the name of the Division will soon become something a little more normal.
Ann Henderson-Sellers became the director of the World Climate Research Programme at the beginning of the year. url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Henderson-Sellers]Ann Henderson-Sellers[/url]
# 60 Joe Peden:
Been watching the cricket ... need to get a life off the web so I involve myself in cricket and community things ...I don’t agree with the global warming scenarios being put by various scientists and the media ... let’s put the hypotheses into Nature or other reputable journals ... I have said that I believe global warming is happening, but not why ... but I’d like to know why. But I appreciate your reply. I believe you have said it is happening from your #60 post.
Be careful because other groups have said global warming is not happening on non scientific grounds … I believe in science, not as a religion, but a means of getting evidence … and yes, science is not infallible …
BTW, I remember reading the Limits to Growth from the Club of Rome when a 12YO back in about 1973 ... am I pretentious, no ... my mum used to buy these books for me as a youngster ... maybe your arguments will pan out similar to the predictions that never happened from the Club of Rome report ... and I miss my late mum ...
Cheers ... Stevo
In case Schmitty is banned, I’ve written a bit of code so we don’t have to do without his dazzling rhetoric. It’s in BASIC, because why waste leet programming skillz on something so simplistic?
10 REM Behold the Schmittybot!
20 PRINT “Take my global warming bet!”
30 IF counterarguments > mine GOTO 50
40 GOTO 20
50 PRINT “Don’t bother me with facts! You’re just too chicken to bet!”
60 PRINT “bwawk, bwawk, bwawk!”
70 GOTO 20Ooh, Basic! The only programming course I got an A in. (And that’s why I’m not a programmer. That and many other reasons.)
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 01 13 at 12:55 PM • permalink
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
Sounds like a lot of those posts could be “taking the piss.” But the fact that it’s a tough call tells you something about the geniune article.