Josh captures the essence of …
See the story:
Andrew Bolt scores the Quote of the Millennium
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Josh captures the essence of …
See the story:
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Simplifying the gibberish is a humorists greatest strength!
http://theclimatescum.blogspot.com/2011/03/quote-of-millennium.html
Over at Whats Up With Watts, I found the following wonderful quote from Australian arch alarmist Tim Flannery:
Just let me finish and say this. If the world as a whole cut all emissions tomorrow the average temperature of the planet is not going to drop in several hundred years, perhaps as much as a thousand years because the system is overburdened with CO2 that has to be absorbed and that only happens slowly.
Reading that quote, any sane person has to ask himself: if it takes up to a thousand years for Earth to cool after our CO2 emissions, what is the bloody point of cutting those emissions? It simply doesn’t make sense! It just has to be a scam! As Anthony Watts comments:
Crikey! So much for the “think of the grandchildren” argument used by Dr. James Hansen.
This reminds me of an encounter I had with another Gaia-worshipping tree hugger a while ago. I and some friends had gone to an ancient oak forest near where I live, bringing our chain saws. We wanted to make a really big bonfire to celebrate Man’s Dominion Over Nature Day, and we thought that those oaks would make the perfect fuel. However, after we had felled a few of the oaks, a man came up to us and called out:
“What are you doing? Why are you felling those oaks?”
I responded: “We want to make a bonfire.”
He said: “But this forest is protected. You cannot do that!”
I responded: “I don’t think that we are doing any harm to those oaks. It is only natural for them to burn.”
He cried: “Are you mad? It will take many centuries for oaks like those to grow back again!”
Whereupon I replied: “Centuries? Are you telling me that even if I and my merry friends stopped cutting down oaks right now, it would take many centuries for the forest to grow back?”
He said: “Yes! We would have to plant new oaks to replace those lost, and they grow very slowly.”
So I laughed at the poor imbecille: “Why should I stop cutting down these oaks if it doesn’t make a difference until after many centuries?”
Whereupon I and my friends continued to fell oaks.
The moron who had harassed us with his idiotic nature-worshipping ramblings apparently felt so humiliated by the crushing intellectual defeat he had suffered that he had phoned the police as a petty act of vengeance, but that’s a different story.
Nos ardere quercus
Minnie Pearl price tags?
So using the sam logic: its not worth planting oak trees – they will take many generations to grow to significant height, and I and my children and grandchildren will be dead by then. I’ll go dig em up now!
??Nos ardere quercus????
I think you are missing conjugation here. That means “We oak tree to burn”
“Nos ardemus quercos” means “We burn oak trees”
“Nos ardere quercos desideremus” means “we wish to burn oak trees”
walt man says:
“I’ll go dig em up now!”
Keep digging, walt man.
” they [oak trees] will take many generations to grow to significant height”
Is this really your understanding of the natural world? And we are supposed to listen to your opinion on global warming why exactly? Many generations?
kinetic climate action ;>)
Walt man, classical scholar, general all round wit, and raconteur: are you saying that CO2 produced in the 20th century caused global warming, stopped causing global warming from 1998 onward, will then continue to cause global warming in the 21st century, but cannot stop global warming for 1000 years, if we stop producing CO2 completely now?
I just want to summarize your basic scientific thought process.
Two aspects from this great cartoon by Josh:
1) What is the meaning of “not likely” used in Tim Flannery’s phrase “not likely to drop”? Is it a 20 percent chance, or 30%? Or perhaps 15%? (With that much confidence, how can anybody put any credibility in what he says regarding that?)
2) What is the verbal representation of 1,000 years of descendants? I’ll show you (based on 4 generations per 100 years, or 25 years per generation, a fairly good estimate); one of my descendants would be a:
great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great granddaughter or grandson. *whew*
Now, how’s what we’re doing now with CO2 going to possibly impact people 1,000 years from now? Don’t you think there’s a much greater chance that the earth will enter the next Ice Age rather than see a temperature rise? As a geologist relying on “the past is the key to the future”, I certainly do.
@Myron Mesecke
Corks, to chase mozzies away or at least give them headaches.
Doesn’t the quote kinda miss the point? Isn’t the “warmists” goal to stop the increase in temperature, or maybe even just to stop the acceleration thereof? (Isn’t that the essence of why they’re wrong?) Who is seeking a temperature decrease anyway?
[[[Myron Mesecke says:
March 25, 2011 at 9:39 am
Minnie Pearl price tags?]]]
It’s a new tanning hat using recycled nuclear fuel pellets, air cooled.
Helps boost vitamin D.
To Stop us from producing man-made CO2 every person and anamial and other living creature will have to stop existing instantly because even the corpse will decay and produce CO2 . Now the fact that the greenhouse gas effect is a hypotheses that has never been proven with scientific tests and there is NO creditable data that proves the “ghg”effect exists thus Mann-made global warming is a fairy-tale just like Avatar is a work of fantacy.
List of references:
The paper “Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 greenhouse effect within the frame of physics” by Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner is an in-depth examination of the subject. Version 4 2009
Electronic version of an article published as International Journal of Modern Physics
B, Vol. 23, No. 3 (2009) 275{364 , DOI No: 10.1142/S021797920904984X, c World
Scientific Publishing Company, http://www.worldscinet.com/ijmpb.
Report of Alan Carlin of US-EPA March, 2009 that shows that CO2 does not cause global warming.
Greenhouse Gas Hypothesis Violates Fundamentals of Physics” by Dipl-Ing Heinz Thieme This work has about 10 or 12 link
that support the truth that the greenhouse gas effect is a hoax.
R.W.Wood
from the London, Edinborough and Dublin Philosophical Magazine , 1909, vol 17, p319-320. Cambridge UL shelf mark p340.1.c.95, i
The Hidden Flaw in Greenhouse Theory
By Alan Siddons
from:http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/the_hidden_flaw_in_greenhouse.html at March 01, 2010 – 09:10:34 AM CST
The below information was a foot note in the IPCC 4 edition. It is obvious that there was no evidence to prove that the ghg effect exists.
“In the 1860s, physicist John Tyndall recognized the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect and suggested that slight changes in the atmospheric composition could bring about climatic variations. In 1896, a seminal paper by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius first speculated that changes in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could substantially alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect.”
After 1909 when R.W.Wood proved that the understanding of the greenhouse effect was in error and the ghg effect does not exist. After Niels Bohr published his work and receive a Nobel Prize in Physics in 1922. The fantasy of the greenhouse gas effect should have died in 1909 and 1922. Since then it has been shown by several physicists that the concept is a Violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Obviously the politicians don’t give a dam that they are lying. It fits in with what they do every hour of every day .Especially the current pretend president.
Paraphrasing Albert Einstein after the Publishing of “The Theory of Relativity” –one fact out does 1 million “scientist, 10 billion politicians and 20 billion environmental whachos-that don’t know what” The Second Law of thermodynamics” is.
University of Pennsylvania Law School
ILE
INSTITUTE FOR LAW AND ECONOMICS
A Joint Research Center of the Law School, the Wharton School,
and the Department of Economics in the School of Arts and Sciences
at the University of Pennsylvania
RESEARCH PAPER NO. 10-08
Global Warming Advocacy Science: a Cross Examination
Jason Scott Johnston
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA
May 2010
This paper can be downloaded without charge from the
Social Science Research Network Electronic Paper Collection:
http://ssrn.
Israeli Astrophysicist Nir Shaviv: ‘There is no direct evidence showing that CO2 caused 20th century warming, or as a matter of fact, any warming’ link to this paper on climate depot.
Slaying the Sky Dragon – Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory [Kindle Edition]
Tim Ball (Author), Claes Johnson (Author), Martin Hertzberg (Author), Joseph A. Olson (Author), Alan Siddons (Author), Charles Anderson (Author), Hans Schreuder (Author), John O’Sullivan (Author)
Web- site references:
http://www.americanthinker.com Ponder the Maunder
wwwclimatedepot.com
icecap.us
http://www.stratus-sphere.com
SPPI
many others are available.
The bottom line is that the facts show that the greenhouse gas effect is a fairy-tale and that Man-made global warming is the World larges Scam!!!The IPCC and Al Gore should be charged under the US Anti-racketeering act and when convicted – they should spend the rest of their lives in jail for the Crimes they have committed against Humanity.
The only thing more dangerous than ignorance is arrogance.”
—Albert Einstein
“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for dinner. Liberty is a well-armed lamb.”
Benjamin Franklin
You guys are idiots…. There’s just no getting around it… I’m sorry but I’ve tried and tried to make sense of your ramblings…. But it just can’t be done…
“Corks, to chase mozzies away or at least give them headaches.”
Never heard mosquito’s called that. There is a character on White Collar called Mozzie.
It is called H-U-M-O-R. It is usually done for fun. I have heard that some people are humorless, but until you popped in, I had thought they were just mythological.
Bolt is my new hero.
BOOOOM!
I knew we should get an aussie on this a long time ago. 🙂
Walt man,
I like the oak tree story. Here’s another example of the almost exactly same events. Almost exactly the same thing happened – police prosecution and all – to Liam Sheahan.
http://antigreen.blogspot.com/2009/02/australian-wildfire-roundup-greenie.html
I know some of the above lurkers are wondering why Aussies have corks dangling from their stockmans hats. Most of the meat at Aussie barbecues flies in unaided and unwanted and does not go well with steak and a beer or two. The corks are a primitive fly deterrent, Aussie blowflies are big buggers.
The Australian Stockmans hat is not an affectation, but a sensible device aimed at preventing sunstroke.
Tim Flannery might be right, but he might be wrong.
Is it likely that the scientific political world is fooled by an over hyped myth?
Well yes, actually! History is littered with the wreckage of scientific consensus that turned out to be myth. The non existent millenium computer bug being the latest over hyped myth, the science leaders were told there wasn’t a problem, but they did not understand, as their ego’s were likely obscuring reality.
Nobody never even found one to fix, if they had, we would have heard all about it!.
I think my problem is that I’m being forced to pay for the planting of invisible magic oak trees which may or may not grow after I’m dead.
Robb876 said on March 25, 2011 at 11:50 am:
Hey, I’ve felt that way sometimes since I saw the first Crocodile Dundee movie, let alone the second one (and I just found out there was actually a third one, oh the horrors). But really, the lingo ain’t all that hard to understand. Now trying to understand someone from South Africa theoretically speaking English but using a lot of Afrikaans slang, that will drive you bonkers!
??Nos ardere quercus????
Reminds me of this classic:
ROMANES EUNT DOMUS
Walt, our proverbial proponent of a carbon dioxide tax or other such emissions reduction scheme, has set up a straw man making out those who are skeptical of AGW cut down trees. This is not a true statement. In fact, it is possible to argue the opposite. For example, in Africa lots of trees are cut down for firewood because they do not have access to electricity or fossil fuel heaters. Does this mean Walt and his kindred are killing the environment?
Furthermore, cutting Carbon Dioxide emissions, does not mean not cutting down trees. You can cut a tree down, bury it and plant a new one in it’s place and there will not be, more or less, a net increase or decrease in CO2 emissions.
That’d be rather stupid though wouldn’t it. I like trees. I like nature. I think most people do. However, I do worry that people that think like Walt will leave people poorer. This in turn will have a more harmful effect on our environment. I that’s without the need to account for the positive effect increased CO2 has on plant growth.