Desert killed

Last updated on August 6th, 2017 at 01:32 pm

Reuters – dear old calm and sensible Reuters – reports:

Australia’s cities are drought-parched and its desert outback drenched by floods, but climate change has not yet killed the country’s famed surf beaches …

It hasn’t exactly killed anything in the drenched outback, either. Quite the opposite:

Vegetation in the surrounding countryside appears to be springing back to life, with a faint green tinge spreading across the underlying pinkish-tan terrain.

But evidently deserts should always remain as deserts. As they say at treehugger.com:

We are fundamentally against change …

Their emphasis. They’ll be out there in the Australian desert any minute now, torching plants and erasing the hated “faint green tinge”.

1. We are fundamentally against change …

   Except for others.  We want you all to change your way of life.  Don’t drive an SUV.  In fact, don’t drive at all.  Don’t use electricity.  Don’t eat beef.  In fact, don’t eat anything with a face.  Live in a grass hut.  Cook food over a fire pit.

   Posted by RK on 2007 03 01 at 11:35 AM • permalink

1. After they tidy up the greening desert they really should do something about plate tectonics.  I mean, if something isn’t done now, the continents as we know them will cease to exist!!!![

   Posted by nobody important on 2007 03 01 at 11:41 AM • permalink

1. How can you kill surf in an ocean that is rising to consume us all?  Do these people even bother to check their slogans against each other anymore?

   The left doesn’t need ideologues, it needs copyeditors.

   Posted by richard mcenroe on 2007 03 01 at 11:41 AM • permalink

1. #1, do all that, so that we the Keepers of the Climate may continue to jet around the world in private planes, maintain multiple homes the size of small towns, and be driven in any of several gas-guzzling luxury autos we like (except when we want to be seen in the Prius, just so the peasants know we’re still one of them).

   Posted by RebeccaH on 2007 03 01 at 11:42 AM • permalink

1. Also, isn’t evolution all about change?  All of nature changes and adapts.

   This is hard to square with the current climate ‘crisis’.  You’d think that evolutionists would expect the polar bears to adapt.  You’d think that they’d expect humans to adapt.

   Posted by RK on 2007 03 01 at 11:42 AM • permalink

1. “We should become the new conservatives, the defenders of the status quo. We like things the way they are- cold winters, tolerable summers, stable water levels, cute polar bears. We are fundamentally against change, and things that cause it (like coal plants, low density suburbs and big SUV’s).” (full paragraph).

   Yeesh these people are stupid—things do not stay the way they are.  Period. 200 years ago they’d be against endind slavery. 100 years ago they’d be against women voting.  I’m sure if they went back far enough in time they’d be against Pangea breaking up.  “Save the cute dinosaurs!”

   Posted by rbj1 on 2007 03 01 at 11:50 AM • permalink

1. The French put it plus ca change, “look for the woman.’’

   Posted by rhhardin on 2007 03 01 at 11:51 AM • permalink

1. If you’re fundamentally against change then you are fundamentally anti-Gaia.  She’s all about change.

   (The treehuggers should go ask those Vikings in Greenland how they feel about the current climate.  Except they can’t, of course, because the current cold climate drove the Vikings out of Greenland centuries ago.  Somehow, though, it’s self-evident that this climate is obviously better and more right than that climate was.)

   Posted by kcom on 2007 03 01 at 12:17 PM • permalink

1. They want the term conservationist?  The first conservationists were Republicans, led by Teddy Roosevelt.  But these people don’t really want to conserve as people like George Bush do.  They want to use cute and cuddly animals to force their social agenda on the rest of us.

   Posted by RK on 2007 03 01 at 12:48 PM • permalink

1. These people aren’t “conservatives” or “conservationists”…..they are for preservation.  I call them “preservationists”.  And no, I did not originate that.

   No, they are for, in their own words, the “status quo”.  The current condition.  Which is ludicrous, because (as others here have noted), the environment is all about change.

   And I do not consider genuine environmental problems (e.g., dumping raw sewage into streams) as “change”—that’s a problem.  One that is caused by people, and can be addressed.

   If the climate is shifting from dry to wet, warm to cold, and that shift is natural (i.e., Mankind hasn’t got a say in the matter), that is something that we need to live with, and not be as so arrogant as to try and maintain the status quo.

   I really can’t decide if these preservationists are stupid, arrogant, or just slick scam artists, sucking money from the pockets of marks all around the world.

   Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2007 03 01 at 12:59 PM • permalink

1. I really can’t decide if these preservationists are stupid, arrogant, or just slick scam artists, sucking money from the pockets of marks all around the world.

   Um.  All of the above?

   Posted by RebeccaH on 2007 03 01 at 01:56 PM • permalink

1. It’s fun to watch them squirm, or even giggle, when you tell them being agaisnt change is a conservative position. I had to work oone on one with a leftard for a while who was so anti-change he objected to changing a highway’s identifying number.

   Posted by triticale on 2007 03 01 at 02:13 PM • permalink

1. I remember a few years ago seeing a show on Discovery (Or one of those types of channels) about how deserts were spreading and would DOOM US ALL!  Now, the deserts are blooming but… WE’RE ALL STILL DOOMED.

   I’m inclined to agree: Nobody gets out of this life alive.

   Posted by Hucbald on 2007 03 01 at 03:15 PM • permalink

1. Electricity is generated when waves wash into a funnel facing the ocean, driving air through a pipe and into a turbine capable of pumping 500kw of clean power each day into the local grid.

   The A$6 million ($4.7 million) floating plant, built to withstand a 1-in-100 year storm, can also desalinate 2,000 litres of drinking water each day for almost as many homes as it powers.

   Really?! How very clever of you Ozites. And to think that all this was done without government mandate or taxpayer money (it was, wasn’t it?).

   From another link at that site: Climate change as dangerous as war – UN chief Ban

   Climate change poses as much danger to the world as war, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said on Thursday as he urged the United States to take the lead in the fight against global warming.

   In his first address on the subject, Ban said he would make climate crisis the focus of talks with leaders at a meeting of the Group of Eight industrialized nations—Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Britain, the United States and Russia.

   snip

   Ban said the world needed a more coherent system of international environmental governance and that he hoped the United States would take the lead in looking toward the climate change fight beyond Kyoto’s end in 2012.

   “I hope that United States, while they have taken their role in innovative technologies as well as promoting cleaner energies, will also take the lead in this very important and urgent issue,” Ban said.

   I dunno, Ban. You guys didn’t care much for the lead we took in the fight against global Islamic terrorism (you do remember global Islamic terrorism, don’t you). Chances are you’ll like our response to this climate hysteria even less.

   I had some small hope when Kofi left, but this guy is pretty much Kofi-lite. Guess we can start calling him Ban Ki-moonbat. Sigh.

   Posted by Kyda Sylvester on 2007 03 01 at 04:16 PM • permalink

1. “I hope that United States, while they have taken their role in innovative technologies as well as promoting cleaner energies, will also take the lead in this very important and urgent issue … “

   So, what you’re saying is, you want us to act unilaterally?

   Posted by Achillea on 2007 03 01 at 04:51 PM • permalink

1. Does anyone else find it disturbing that the UN Secretary-General is named “Ban”?

   Posted by RebeccaH on 2007 03 01 at 04:53 PM • permalink

1. #10 RJ:
   Wait, I’m confused, preservatives are good now? I thought they were evil, unnatural, synthetic precursors to FrankenFood.

   These people change dogma like ball gowns at a drag-queen show. Or so I’ve heard.

   Posted by brett_l on 2007 03 01 at 05:05 PM • permalink

1. #6 RBJ1 i have to say that paragraph you quoted seems to me to be one of the most amazing examples of stupidity i’ve read in my entire life. And it has stiff competition.

   Posted by Francis H on 2007 03 01 at 05:39 PM • permalink

1. It’s always annoyed me when lazy songwriters include lyrics like “I need you like the desert needs the rain”. The desert doesn’t need the rain – if it rained it wouldn’t be a desert.

   The desert fears the rain, like a Frenchman fears work.

   Posted by Don Charleone on 2007 03 01 at 06:03 PM • permalink

1. “We are fundamentally against [insert anything you can think of] …

   Posted by Contrail on 2007 03 01 at 06:22 PM • permalink

1. They’re against change but are they against changing change?  Ah, forget it.  I don’t want to get inside their minds.

   Posted by anthony_r on 2007 03 01 at 06:34 PM • permalink

1. Finally a good news story not from Reuters, but about Reuters.

   Reuters Group has reported a 30 per cent drop in annual profit as it continued its investment program targeting new markets, but the news and financial information provider was upbeat about 2007.

   Going the same way as NYT?

   Posted by anthony_r on 2007 03 01 at 07:25 PM • permalink

1. We are fundamentally against change …

   Behold the progressive movement.

   Posted by Achillea on 2007 03 01 at 07:29 PM • permalink

1. The Australian outback after rain is truly one of the great sites in nature. Abundant life springs almost instantly, creating a rich tapestry of flora and fauna… sorry, I can’t write in a floral style. Believe me, the desert after rain is fookin’ brilliant.

   Posted by Infidel Tiger on 2007 03 01 at 07:40 PM • permalink

1. #21

   Ah, forget it.  I don’t want to get inside their minds.

   Well, it’s roomy.

   Posted by kae on 2007 03 01 at 07:45 PM • permalink

1. The A$6 million ($4.7 million) floating plant, built to withstand a 1-in-100 year storm, can also desalinate 2,000 litres of drinking water each day for almost as many homes as it powers.

   And how do they plan to deliver the 4 litres per day (half a watering can) to each of the 500 households? Well, I suppose they’ll find a way and then at least the water crisis will be solved.

   Posted by Whale Spinor on 2007 03 01 at 07:49 PM • permalink

1. I wonder why Treehugger.com censored my comment on that thread, last week? —

   “We are not Green Moonies.”

   True.  You’re more like Scientologists.

   “It is time to push back.”

   See what I mean?

   Posted by Copious Maximus on 2007 03 01 at 11:14 PM • permalink

1. The desert fears the rain, like a Frenchman fears work.

   Bono, eat your heart out.

   Posted by daddy dave on 2007 03 02 at 12:38 AM • permalink

1. A developer is a person who wants to build a house in the woods.

   A conservationist is a person who already has one.

   Posted by Steve Skubinna on 2007 03 02 at 12:39 AM • permalink

1. (World’s biggest) desert … famed surf beaches … Antarctica! … heaven for penguins

   Posted by egg_ on 2007 03 02 at 01:08 AM • permalink

1. RK—cook over an open fire pit?  Are you mad?

   Posted by richard mcenroe on 2007 03 02 at 02:06 AM • permalink

1. I think it’s funny that athiest groups are “fundamentally” anything.

   Did they put the “fun” in fundamental, the “mental” in fundamental, or just the “duh”?

   Posted by Hucbald on 2007 03 02 at 04:17 AM • permalink

1. The Sahara Desert is shrinking because of the extra CO2 in the air encouraging more plant growth.

   That can’t be good.

   Posted by Brett_McS on 2007 03 02 at 06:24 AM • permalink

1. I’m inclined to agree: Nobody gets out of this life alive.

   Whew!  What a relief.  I’ve been brooding over my own mortality lately.

   Posted by nobody important on 2007 03 02 at 06:07 PM • permalink

1. We are fundamentally against change …

   Ah, an honest statement.  They are the New Luddites.  The first Luddites opposed the Industrial Revolution with similar violent demonstrations and slogans.
   They disappeared quickly under the march of human progress.

   Posted by Barrie on 2007 03 03 at 03:38 AM • permalink

Page 1 of 1 pages

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.