Quote of the week – Australian gassing edition

Friends, prepare yourselves for this stunning collection of logic, green thinking, and simple unvarnished, outright hatred. Should we be thinking about getting ourselves off to secure locations in light of this? /sarc

Simon from Australian Climate Madness makes note of this from the Herald Sun, which is complicit (and editorially bankrupt) in printing this article from Jill Singer.

First, some stunning logic rationalization about the shame merits of lying to get to office:

Prime Minister Julia Gillard, as has been widely noted, misled our nation by declaring she wouldn’t introduce such a tax. The worst that can be said is that she lied. The best that can be said is that she lied because we can’t deal with the truth.

O-kaaaayyy……but this really takes the cake.

I’m prepared to keep an open mind and propose another stunt for climate sceptics – put your strong views to the test by exposing yourselves to high concentrations of either carbon dioxide or some other colourless, odourless gas – say, carbon monoxide.

You wouldn’t see or smell anything. Nor would your anti-science nonsense be heard of again. How very refreshing.

That’s some seriously ugly thinking lady.

I suppose Ms. Singer is justifying these thoughts as many do on the grounds of that favorite of noble cause corruption: save the planet.  I’ll bet she thinks she’s being clever, even if harsh and naziesque.

Sorry, another angry green beat you to it years ago and I have dibs on it. It all started simply, when she called me a “WMD” for discussing my doubts about AGW:

===============================================================

Take some responsibility
Chico Enterprise-Record
Article Launched: 05/22/2007 12:00:00 AM PDT

Anthony Watts seems to be a poster boy for right-wing ideology. This isn’t a distinction that one should be proud of considering the so-called “right” seem to be wrong on almost every issue. Even after hundreds of the world’s top scientists have documented that global warming has in fact been caused by the actions of man, he states that this is not true, that it is a natural occurrence. Just looking at Chico’s polluted skies tells me otherwise.

It seems that Republicans in general have a hard time taking responsibility for anything. The war in Iraq, brought to you by the lies of this illegitimate administration has been a horrendous mistake costing the lives of over 4,000 Americans if you include private contractors and over 650,000 Iraqi civilians. Most Republicans still believe there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. I’ve come to believe that Republicans, especially people like Anthony Watts, are the WMDs.

— Sherri Quammen, Chico

==============================================================

My response on my blog: (since I didn’t think it merited a letter to the editor response)

Fine Me

WMD_Boom_tshirt.jpg

My friends at coffee this morning got a huge laugh out of Chico Peace and Justice Center member Sherri Quammen’s claim in a vitriol filled letter to the editor that I’m the “real WMD”.

For somebody who professes “peace and justice”, she sure seems to have a lot of anger to vent. She’s sent letters to all three newspapers, the ER, Chico Beat, and you’ll see the same letter come Thursday at the Chico News and Review I’m sure. Lately, the message of “peace on earth” seems to have lost the accessory clause of “goodwill towards men”. Though its hard to tell through her rant just what she dislikes about me most, it appears that my views and research into climate change must be the main factor.

I sent her a nice note last week, offering to meet and get acquainted over coffee or tea someday, (since we’ve never met) after the letter appeared in the Chico Beat, so far no response.

But that’s OK, being a public person, criticism comes with the territory. It’s an occupational hazard. I guess I should be honored that my threat level has been elevated. Poor Al Gore takes all sorts of flak daily.

Sooo….since I’ve been labeled a WMD, I think that I’ll have to look over my shoulder a lot to make sure I’m not being followed by police officers intent on giving me a ticket in case I go off in the Chico city limits. That’s a $500 fine you know.

To make it easier for people to spot me, I think I’ll get a T-shirt that says simply “BOOM”.

=================================================================

And to that blog post, this is how she responded (emphasis mine):

Chico Enterprise-Record (Chico, CA)

July 1, 2007 Don’t deny the obvious
Author: Chico Enterprise-Record Section: Letters To The Editor

On his blog site, Anthony Watts states that my remarks in a letter to the editor did not seem that “peaceful” and since I am involved with the Peace and Justice Center I should display a “goodwill to man.” He’s right about the fact that I am upset about the current state of our nation under the corporate crooks in the White House and how it’s affecting our planet, because unlike him, I am paying attention.

Watts seems to enjoy researching this mysterious phenomenon called “global warming” that could bring not only human but all existence on this planet to extinction. So here’s a little research Watts can try at home. First, park his (most likely very large) car or SUV in his garage. Then close the door and start the engine. Sit there for a few hours and then (if he is still able) he can make an entry on his blog contemplating the effects of car exhaust on people in enclosed areas (like our atmosphere).

Why is it so important for this man and others like him to try and refute the obvious, shunning all responsibility for something that we are obviously responsible for? That is why I have labeled Watts a “WMD” which, especially in his case, could also stand for “weapon of mass deception.” — Sherri Quammen, Chico

==================================================================

I didn’t bother responding to that letter.

Yeah I got the early dibs on angry irrational people suggesting I kill myself. It is such shame for eco-conscious people everywhere that this sort of ugliness continues to be represented by their brethren virtually identically today.

Andrew Bolt says that Lashing at sceptics does science no favour.

For the citizens of Australia who think that newspaper journalists should not be advocating the death of their neighbors simply because they have a different view on global warming, here is where you can complain, on her editorial page:

Carbon tax sideshow must stop

Jill Singer

THE “debate” over a carbon tax in Australia has become high farce. It’s time for the game-playing to stop – on both sides of politics.

And also to the editor of the Herald Sun to demand an apology:

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/help/contactus

I ask anyone lodging such a complaint to be respectful and don’t escalate. Stick to the issue at hand.

 

About these ads
This entry was posted in Climate ugliness and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

132 Responses to Quote of the week – Australian gassing edition

  1. crosspatch says:

    [snip - over the top - Anthony]

  2. Adam says:

    I apologize, I just was amazed that Science Daily would post the article seeing as they have have consistently had articles that support anthropogenic global warming. Again I apologize, thanks for covering it Anthony!

    REPLY: No apology needed, thanks for the tip. -Anthony

  3. George Turner says:

    Well, doesn’t she know that running an engine in a garage still produces planet-destroying CO2? I’m sure she’ll soon modify her proposal to use a non-greenhouse odorless gas like HCN (hydrogen cyanide), perhaps in a more stable form like Zyklon B.

    REPLY: Well we don’t need any escalation, even in jest. And for the record, HCN has a faint, bitter, burnt almond-like odor that only some people are able to detect. – Anthony

  4. ferd berple says:

    By Jill SInger’s logic we should ban water along with CO2, because water is a much more dangerous greenhouse gas than CO2 and like CO2 is a poison when over consumed.

    From Wikipedia:

    “Water can be considered a poison when over-consumed just like any other substance.[2] The recommendation from the medical field is to drink at least 1 to 2 liters per day[3] depending upon body mass. Water intoxication
    would only occur at levels far higher than that.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication

  5. Rhoda Ramirez says:

    I’m constantly amazed that people who don’t understand the chemical differences between carbon, carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide can feel they have the smarts to dictate to the rest of us about these very issues.

  6. Thanks for the link, Anthony.

  7. Dave says:

    Just another do as I tell you not as I do person, see like there is a lot of them these days as they jet around the country to get their so called point about global warming across.

  8. Rick Bradford says:

    It’s a pity that the Warmists can’t seem to get far from Nazi ideas — first, we have ‘deniers’, then tattooing of distinguishing marks, now it’s gassing by carbon monoxide, the common method used by the Nazis pre-war to deal with undesirables.

    I’m sure it’s more than a coincidence — sometimes their deep-rooted nastiness just spills out.

  9. L Nettles says:

    In my denier guilt I keep trying to end it all by drinking beverages liberally laced with CO2 by all those Diet Cokes™ are having little effect.

  10. Dave N says:

    Sherri’s extreme confusion between black pollution and CO2 is testament to how well the “CO2 is pollution” mantra has been propagated. Either that, or Sherri has the impressive ability to see an invisible gas over the skies of Chico.

    REPLY: Chico has an ozone problem in the summer, as do many Sacramento valley cities. She doesn’t distinguish. – Anthony

  11. RoHa says:

    “the so-called “right” seem to be wrong on almost every issue.”

    This part is absolutely correct. And when we look at the history of the Global Warming scam, we see plenty of “right” names attached. Margaret Thatcher, Enron, Al Gore (all American politicians are “right”), Goldman Sachs and the other big money boys.

    http://www.ecofascism.com/article2.html

    In other words, the “right” is wrong about this as well.

  12. Robert M says:

    L Nettles says:
    June 21, 2011 at 7:45 pm

    In my denier guilt I keep trying to end it all by drinking beverages liberally laced with CO2 by all those Diet Cokes™ are having little effect.

    :-)

    You beat me to it!!! But I prefer the leaded version. (Note to greenies hoping for lead poisoning, sorry, I just meant the version that has calories… sorry… Not!)

  13. pat says:

    fiona has a “stupid” from Friends of the Earth and a “terrifying” from Greenpeace to counter a sceptical viewpoint:

    21 June: Guardian: Fiona Harvey: Tory MEPs defy David Cameron over greenhouse gas targets
    Conservatives threaten to scupper EU vote on carbon reduction by opposing the 30% cut in emissions committed by the PM
    “Cameron should step in,” said Martyn Williams, a campaigner at Friends of the Earth. “He should tell his MEPs ‘we look stupid if you vote against this’.”…
    The move comes as EU environmental policy was undermined by one of the most important figures in the European commission, causing alarm in Brussels. Janusz Lewandowski, the commissioner in charge of fraught negotiations on the future of the EU’s €130bn budget, cast doubt on the science of climate change and the future of emissions policy.
    In an interview with a Polish newspaper he said: “We already have overambitious agreements on CO2 emission reduction. There is a notion that the thesis that coal energy is the main cause of global warming is highly questionable. Moreover, more and more often there is a question mark put over the whole [issue of] global warming as such.”
    Lewandowski said the CO2 targets “are too ambitious for the Polish economy … Polish politicians have to persuade that there cannot be a quick jump away from coal. For Poland it would be a disaster.”
    His remarks were all the more pointed as the Poles at the European council blocked progress on the carbon roadmap to 2050, which the commission hoped would be the basis of a strengthening of climate policy. Poland will hold the revolving presidency of the EU from 1 July.
    Ruth Davis, chief policy adviser at Greenpeace UK, said: “It’s terrifying that the man in charge of Europe’s budget is someone you might expect to see in Sarah Palin’s Republican party…
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/jun/21/greenhouse-gas-targets-eu-vote

  14. Videodrone says:

    L Nettles,

    I prefer my C02 from a barley – yeast reaction (and its byproducts)

    works wonders

  15. Steve Oregon says:

    The funniest thing in this post was looking back at the 2007 WUWT thread where there was only 2 comments.

    You couldn’t limit a thread to 2 comments now if you put up a blank screen.

  16. Nick Stokes says:

    Speaking of naziesque….

    REPLY: Agreed, no excuse for that, but I’ll point out, again, the left is the instigator of bad behavior, disrupting and shouting down the meeting. Do you condone that and also this ugliness today from your homeland Nick? Where is your outrage, or do you have only snark to offer up with that hateful idea? We all await your answer – Anthony

  17. Michael Jankowski says:

    [snip - over the top - Anthony]

  18. Alicia Frost says:

    Australia’s primary and secondary education system is third or even 4th world level I can attest to this especially in mathematics and science. This has been so for 15 years now. A child of mine considered 5th year level maths and approved and certified by the school there in Australia was deemed to be 2nd year level maths in a South American country and unable to enter the school. You are now privileged to witness this first hand from the 20-35 years of age generation in Australia. The drivel concerning Global Warming that’s coming out of these people is incredible. At least there are some intelligent people left such as Bolt, Carter, Jo Anne Nova etc who are able to counter it. However I think you will find that eventually they will vote in a carbon tax and really show how stupid they are.

  19. J. Felton says:

    Just wait, soon we will have someone who believes in AGW calling out sceptics and accusing us of making personal attacks.

    Oh, wait..

  20. wermet says:

    This shows why (some?) activist warmistas are interpreting the “passionate” or “excitable” emails they get as death threats. It is because they have hate in their hearts. They really do seem to hate other people for not following their “enlightened” belief that the world is in imminent danger unless we all do something right now!

    With all the vitriol currently being spouted in the MSM, I fear that it is only a matter of time before the “Green Inquisition” starts.
    /sarc?

    I truly pity the activist warmistas. It must be horrible to have that much hate and frustration within one’s soul.
    “Forgive them Lord, they know not what they do” — Christ

  21. R.S.Brown says:

    So what’s SherriQ doing NOW ?

  22. Nick Stokes says:

    “We all await your answer – Anthony”
    The Herald-Sun circulates in my home town, but I’ve never subscribed. They seem to think bomb-throwers like Jill Singer and Andrew Bolt boost circulation.

    Of course it’s over the top, and dreadful, and the HS shouldn’t have printed it.

    REPLY: Thanks for clarifying, but I don’t think Bolt has ever suggested people kill themselves over a difference in opinion. He may toss rhetorical bombs, but I don’t recall any that could be described in the same class as Singer’s – Anthony

  23. Mooloo says:

    put your strong views to the test by exposing yourselves to high concentrations of either carbon dioxide or some other colourless, odourless gas

    I’m happy to oblige, given that oxygen and nitrogen are colourless and odourless. I even chuck in some carbon dioxide at low levels.

    Obviously chemistry of the atmosphere is not her strong suit.

  24. nobody in particular says:

    ferd berple says:
    June 21, 2011 at 7:28 pm

    By Jill SInger’s logic we should ban water along with CO2, because water is a much more dangerous greenhouse gas than CO2 and like CO2 is a poison when over consumed.

    She should also consider what would happen if one tied concrete blocks from their ankles and then jumped into the deep end of a swimming pool – but no matter how much I dislike anyone’s politics, I would never desire them to actually do such a thing. However, since nearly all AGW proponents are rabid misanthropes, it’s hardly surprising that they constantly wish death upon any who are too difficult to enslave.

  25. Ralph B says:

    Don’t you have an electric car? I would think sitting in it in your garage would be a welcome break.

    REPLY: Yes, well there’s that pesky hydrogen sulfide from charging which is also toxic. – Anthony

  26. dp says:

    Does this ditz not know that CO2 is where oxygen comes from? if oxygen were not combining with carbon we would all be dead. CO2 is the best thing that ever happened to our planet. It also gave birth to the Green party but I won’t hold that against it. Seriously – is anyone really thinking of the consequences of runaway CO2 depletion? For every atom of carbon that is unburnt, 2 atoms of oxygen bind to iron or aluminum. You don’t get that oxygen back using petunias.

  27. Rick says:

    I wonder if, after offering that suggestion to us, she’d be willing to try an equally outrageous suggestion and, say, refrain from eating any food created using CO2?

    Of course not, that would be silly, because of course I don’t know what I’m talking about and being a hindrance to all the people trying to save the world from the deniers.

    I’m very shocked, Anthony, to read those two different issues. I probably shouldn’t be, because I can’t imagine any sane person making suggestions like that against a single person in an letters section or in any part of a newspaper.

  28. F. Ross says:

    Rick Bradford says:


    June 21, 2011 at 7:40 pm

    It’s a pity that the Warmists can’t seem to get far from Nazi ideas — first, we have ‘deniers’, then tattooing of distinguishing marks, now it’s gassing by carbon monoxide, the common method used by the Nazis pre-war to deal with undesirables.

    I’m sure it’s more than a coincidence — sometimes their deep-rooted nastiness just spills out.

    And lets not forget the “Red Button” which, when pressed makes a skeptic magically explode. :-)

  29. Lance says:

    They used to burn witches at the stake for bad weather…..I fear we have not exited the dark ages yet….

  30. Douglas DC says:

    Chico- the Eugene Oregon of Northern California. Berkeley is well Berkeley. BTW.
    Wife and I had several run-ins with the peace and justice crowd there. One Klown tied ram my
    Motor home, with his peace sticker emblazoned Geo Metro. He cooled off when laid the ‘ol
    .45 ACP on the Dash. CCW comes in handy…
    We call’em “violent peace people” almost had a “I would KILL for peace ” bumper sticker made up…

  31. Noelene says:

    Nick Stokes
    The Herald Sun circulates in my home town too,thanks to the internet.I can travel the world now,therein lies the problem for alarmists.
    I see you have picked your prophets just like Singer.How did you choose Jones and the rest above Linzden and the rest?
    How do you justify your belief?
    It’s a question I would like to ask Gillard.How does she know that the alarmist scientists are right?
    Because a group of scientists told her,but a group of scientists are also telling her we may be in for cooling.
    When there is dissent,why pick a side on such an issue?
    I’m a fence sitter.I do not believe that scientists have a clue.They need more data,hundreds of years of data,but I also believe there is a chance that warmists may be right.If so,then the world is in for a tough time,because the Chinese government will do exactly as it pleases,the rest of the world will never dictate to China(and its allies).It’s not a wimpy western country riddled with guilt,so it was over before it began.

  32. HB says:

    I’ve left a comment. Jill Singer is, I think trying to outdo Richard Glover from last week, but where do they get off? Speaking as someone who used to be a “dyed in the wool greenie” in Australia, I’m unfortunately not surprised. I’ve been thinking through the mindset of left-wing environmentalist types. I used to go to rallies against woodchipping, etc, and there were always many young men particularly, who were almost just there for a fight. So much anger in them, waiting to spill over into violence. I’m thinking its the left wing common thought, that they are missing out on the wealth, the abundance that the right-wing types are hoarding for themselves. It was a sense of frustrated entitlement. In Australia we now have the “chardonnay socialist” set ( I was once one of them), who are well educated, and left wing. I’m thinking they are suffering survivor guilt, (I know I was) and feeling the need to atone for their sins of having professional jobs and good incomes. That’s why they like the idea of paying a carbon tax, they can afford it and it assuages their guilt. If right wing types disagree, its obviously because they’re greedy and irresponsible, and don’t care for “our children”. At this point they become the violent thugs at the woodchipping rallies, in print. It’s not science or logic, its assuaging their guilt, that’s why they get so angry and violent.

  33. charles nelson says:

    The shrill noises coming from Jill are due entirely to the record breaking cold/wet weather currently afflicting the urban hubs of Adelaide, Melbourne and Sydney. Most of the austrailan population live in these cities and that’s where the greens have their support base…not in the country…obviously.
    With everyone turning their heating up, and putting on an extra couple of layers of warm clothing…the Global Warming scare is fading fast from the public consciousness…don’t forget that a couple of years ago Australia was in a prolonged drought with heat waves, bushfires and water shortages to match…it was EASY back then to sell the Global Warming Hoax…harder now. They’re cornered, their political base is shrinking and TIME IS RUNNING OUT for their Carbon Tax…excellent.

  34. philincalifornia says:

    Are Singer and Quammen on record anywhere regarding their actual “scientific” views on anthropogenic global warming, climate change, climate disruption – whichever particular branch of the religion they adhere to ?? Or is it just the usual “loadsa scientists say it’s so, and CO2 is a greenhouse gas so it must errrrm cause warming, or whatever the loadsa scientists say it does …..”. Even though they couldn’t state whether it warms, changes or disrupts !!! Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

    After thinking they were going to save the planet, being flushed down the toilet of history must cause a lot of psychological pain. Many posters on here over the years that I’ve been an avid reader have said that, based on the history of such demises, they would not be quiet on their way down. So I’m not getting angry at this drivel, or even being called anti-science. I’m just mentally accepting their noise, because I know it will soon, really soon, be overwhelmed by the sound of the actual flushing.

  35. Frank says:

    When you’re pissing them off, you’re doing something right.

  36. Aard Knox says:

    Singer is a left-wing loony who’s upset because her pin up girl (Gillard) is sliding towards oblivion in the polls, partly because most Australians now don’t believe in AGW.
    Take no notice of her.
    I’m blowed if I know why the Herald Sun pays her. She’s probably only there as token balance for Bolt, McCrann et al.
    No one even bothers to complain about her any more on the letters page.

  37. The Ill Tempered Klavier says:

    Save the planet? The planet doesn’t need saving. The people are (beep), but the planet’s doing just fine. – George Carlin

  38. Nick Stokes says:

    charles nelson says: June 21, 2011 at 9:20 pm
    “The shrill noises coming from Jill are due entirely to the record breaking cold/wet weather currently afflicting the urban hubs of Adelaide, Melbourne and Sydney.”

    Not cold in Melbourne, where Murdoch’s Herald-Sun is located. Ave max for June so far 15.5C, compared with longterm average of 14C.

    And Noelene “I do not believe that scientists have a clue.”
    Not my belief. I’ve been a scientist all my adult life, and I listen to their arguments. I think the consensus is sound.

  39. Brian Hall says:

    Lewandowski said the CO2 targets “are too ambitious for the Polish economy … Polish politicians have to persuade that there cannot be a quick jump away from coal. For Poland it would be a disaster.”

    Sounds like he has his head screwed on right. Maybe he can save the Poles from EU-destruction. Here’s hoping!

  40. dbleader61 says:

    Anthony – you really should not let Ms Quammen’s SUV comment stand given you drive an electric car -the ultimate in irony and presumptive ignorance on her part!

  41. Patrick Davis says:

    I see this sort of rot spat out across the Australian MSM every day. Some days it’s a little less, but I getting tired of the misinformation being broadcast. Also reported at the Australian Climate Madmess facebook page the Kiwi’s are “winding back” their ETS due to economic reasons. Gillard failed to mention this, but Key wants a joint ETS solution between Aus and NZ. Although polls suggest Australians support a tax on carbon, most Australians don’t support Gillard. Just goes to show how duped Aussies have become.

  42. rubberduck says:

    I live in Melbourne, and I have no problem with the Herald Sun printing that tripe from Jill Singer. 1) The paper gives voice to more than one side in the debate, which is only fair. 2) Every time such people vent their opinion, the world gets another glimpse of their innate nastiness and violence. I trust to the intelligence of voters to make up their own minds about who makes more sense, and who is more trustworthy. The Herald Sun is a tabloid aimed squarely at the average reader, and it has the largest circulation in Australia. By printing that article, it has ensured that thousands of uncommitted voters will be nudged away from the eco-nazis. It’s the simplest method with such hate-filled extremists: give them enough rope.

  43. David Falkner says:

    I guess I am having an issue here. What’s the big deal with rhetorical bombs? So what if someone says people who do not believe that CO2 will exterminate life on Earth as we know it should off themselves? It is hateful and character revealing, sure, but is it really a good idea to suppress that behavior? If you are in the Serengeti and facing a roaring lion, you would instantly recognize the threat to your self. If properly armed, you can respond. That is what this behavior, and the behavior of all organizations and individuals openly promoting hate, amounts to. A roaring lion. We can shoot the lion and kill it. We can tranquilize the lion and cage it. Or just tranq it and leave. But if you force this behavior to become secretive, you are now in the Serengeti walking along when a poisonous asp bites you amidst the tall grass. Unprepared and unable to defend, the snake is likely to win. Especially if it gets a chance to bite a second time. Not only that, but a snake can slither away undetected.

  44. James Sexton says:

    Another fine example of the typical uninformed bigoted alarmist. Every time they spew their hate, more and more rational people see them for what they are……… misanthropists. Its a win for skeptics world wide. Tell Ms. Singer to keep up the good work and soon enough the world will see the truth. If someone was feeling generous, they could tell Ms. Singer, the truth doesn’t come packaged with a lie. And, if that lie was told for the cause what other lies have been told for the cause? Well, ……. countless.

  45. Jeremy says:

    Nick Stokes says:
    June 21, 2011 at 8:07 pm

    Speaking of naziesque….

    No, I think you’re wrong again Nick. Try again. Monckton may be clownish in how he goes about things, and his example was in poor taste, but it wasn’t wrong. The quote is a man telling everyone else to stop thinking for themselves and just accept what someone says. I can’t see how that doesn’t parallel the indoctrination of propaganda-controlled dictatorships. Of course you don’t allow yourself to see this, you just see Monckton referencing the holocaust and ignore the subtle handwaving thought-control by self-proclaimed experts that he is illustrating. The use of nazi imagery shouldn’t distract the open mind from seeing the point being made.

  46. nobody in particular says:

    Common Sense says:
    June 21, 2011 at 9:55 pm

    Ironic in view of this article at Slashdot:

    http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local/news/general/climate-of-fear-scientists-face-death-threats/2185089.aspx?storypage=1

    Claims prominent climate change scientists had recently received death threats have been revealed as an opportunistic ploy, with the Australian National University admitting that they occurred up to five years ago.

    Only two of ANU’s climate change scientists allegedly received death threats, the first in a letter posted in 2006-2007 and the other an offhand remark made in person 12 months ago.

    Neither was officially reported to ACT Police or Australian Federal Police, despite such crimes carrying a 10-year prison sentence.

    The outdated threats raised question marks over the timing of their release to the public, with claims they were aired last week to draw sympathy to scientists and their climate change cause.

    I get a few menacing emails every day for no particular reason, so I doubt the fact that they get even fewer than the average person is any kind of severe persecution, although it’s still disgusting behavior on those rare occasions it occurs.

  47. pat says:

    Australia has about as much affect upon international atmospheric pollution as Jamaica. But being white people, they are necessarily evil.

  48. Konrad says:

    I feel the Herald Sun is doing Australia a favour publishing the shrill and petulant shrieks of this vacuous woman. By exposing the bitter and hate filled rage of the warmists, the Herald Sun have no doubt won thousands over to the realist cause. Jill Singer suggesting that Australian voters need to be shamelessly lied to by our sad excuse for a prime minister because we “can’t handle the truth”, completely exposes the mindless arrogance of the Left. In these, the last days of the global warming hoax, I for one hope the Herald Sun and others give the likes of Jill Singer even more rope.

    Those reading and viewing Australian media of late will be aware that this Ms Singer’s putrescent opinion piece is part of a recent pattern in “Progressive” behaviour. With the collapse of the global warming hoax inevitable, the Left are looking at political annihilation. They are becoming aware that anyone having used the language of vilification against sceptics is going to have their public or political career destroyed. In the age of the Internet the Left cannot erase the evidence of their wrong doing. What we are seeing now is a mad effort to crash or crash through. The Herald Sun is simply publishing the more entertaining bits.

  49. Mac the Knife says:

    In a sincere request to Sherri Quammen, Chico, respectfully Sherri…. please stop exhaling your personal planet destroying CO2. A grateful Gaia thanks you…..

  50. dtbronzich says:

    Friends, prepare yourselves for this stunning collection of logic, green thinking, and simple unvarnished, outright hatred. Should we be thinking about getting ourselves off to secure locations in light of this? /sarc

    ready when you are.
    http://www.availabledatacenters.com/bunker/

  51. Nick Stokes says:

    Konrad says: June 21, 2011 at 11:03 pm
    “The Herald Sun is simply publishing the more entertaining bits.”

    No, they are paying Ms Singer to write them. Your Murdoch press at work.

  52. Paul Callander says:

    Just read the comments on Ms Singer’s rant on the Herald Sun site. Of the 23 at least 20 were clearly skeptic (the others unclear but not supportive) so it appears that not all Aussies are as blind and crass.

  53. rukidding says:

    If the replies to Ms Singer are anything to go by it seems she is on the wrong side of the argument.

  54. Paul80 says:

    If not already suggested, the re-joinder to such remarks, is that for those so fearful of generating carbon dioxide then “STOP BREATHING !!”

  55. Massimo PORZIO says:

    The link below is just a joke, of course.
    I read someone above talking about “water intoxication”.
    Well maybe you already know this web-site:

    http://www.dhmo.org/

    I suggest you to read the well done FAQ section.
    Please note that the people who wrote there never lied about the DHMO effects, they just described them with vagueness. Just missing to write important details they transformed the probably most important chemical for life in a tremendous pollutant.
    That’ s a great example of how anybody could drive ingenuous minds in one direction just by rhetoric writing.

  56. Christopher Hanley says:

    I liked the bit about “… nor would your anti-science nonsense be heard of again…”.

    Poor Jill, she thinks carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide are equivalents — well they both have deadly carbon in them don’t they?

  57. OK …. hands up …. I did suggest something similar for “warmists”. I think it was along the lines of …

    weren’t we all told not that long ago that we were heading for a nuclear winter by preciously the same groups who tell us we cannot stop the world heading for global warming? Do they doubt the power of nuclear weapons? May I make a suggestion … that we invite all those who believe that it is impossible to stop global warming to a small atoll somewhere remote and demonstrate to them first hand the power of nuclear weapons and thereby remove completely from the world all this nonsense hysteria about global warming.

    Just in case any warmists are reading this, let me explain:
    1. In the 1970s we were all told that a nuclear war would invariably lead to a nuclear winter causing a massive drop in temperatures etc. deaths, etc. due to all the particulates which would be flung into the atmosphere. (After the 1970s we saw a massive drop in particulates in the atmosphere due to clean air legislation and a rise in temperature. Coincidence?)
    2.Now we are told that there is no way to reduce the world’s temperature … when a few decades away we were being told that it was impossible not to stop a massive drop in temperature if anyone used nuclear weapons.Either one is true and not the other, or neither is true!
    3. It was customary to test nuclear weapons on small atolls … by suggesting “an isolated” atoll, it would be obvious to most people that the test and the atoll to which the warmists were being invited were one and the same.
    4. One would hope that no one would be gullible enough to accept an invitation to watch a nuclear weapon first hand on an isolated atoll (a small island on which all life would be destroyed). However one would hope that no one was gullible enough to accept the nonsense on global warming … natural selection does tend to favour the less gullible … the moral of the story being: don’t be so gullible as to believe all the nonsense you are told!

  58. WMD = Weather of Mass Destruction!

  59. jason says:

    This helps to prove that for the loony left, its not about facts or reality. To them this is an ideological crusade, or in extreme cases a religion.

  60. climatenonconformist says:

    When your side doesn’t have facts or evidence, then bring out the final solution.

  61. …put your strong views to the test by exposing yourselves to high concentrations of either carbon dioxide or some other colourless, odourless gas – say, carbon monoxide. … You wouldn’t see or smell anything.

    One thing you might notice with CO before passing out (assuming you took no action to remedy the situation) is your fingernails turning bright red/pink and your skin going bright pink. Kenneth Branagh produced a drama for the BBC that made note of the fact, though I don’t believe that production made to the U.S. Some of our U.K. posters may have seen it.

    As for CO2, the concentration in your lungs is a hundred times the atmospheric concentration. To get a really high concentration, Ms Singer hold her breath for two minutes and see if she notices anything. Colourless, odourless, and choking.

  62. What I find most hilarious about her article is the “unscientific” views of sceptics when CAGW itself is profoundly anti-scientific. She likely has no clue how science works.

    It’s become apparent that we’re not engaged in a scientific debate but rather a religious one. For radical environmentalists, their belief that humans are destroying “nature” has the characteristics of a functional religion. When one looks at these people as religious zealots, then it’s easy to see why nothing will change their mind. They are on a mission from Gaia to cleanse the earth of non-believers and the curse of technologic civilization. Thus, there is no point in arguing science with them as:
    (a) they are profoundly ignorant of the scientific method and even basic scientific facts and
    (b) nothing one says to them will change their mind.

    The way to go after them is through legal means which utilize the principles of separation of church and state in all Western democracies. While I’m not sure on the details of how Australia handles religious disputes, I’m sure that there is no state religion in Australia and the principle of religious freedom holds. Environmentalists are monists and are especially in conflict with Christianity. This puts them in conflict with freedom of religion which is one of the rights Western countries have. After some reflection I’ve concluded that science is my functional religion and it’s a lot more versatile than an anti-scientific functional religion.

    By embracing environmentalism and CAGW, politicians are violating the separation of church and state that is fundamental to Western civilization and perhaps someone with legal expertise could figure out how one could take politicians to court over CAGW. The other place in society where religion supposedly has no place is in public education. Teaching CAGW should be looked at as religious education and the thus should be banned or made optional for parents who dont want their children to be exposed to unscientific religions. Again, another place where legal challenges are appropriate.

    What is most hilarious about the environmentalist religion is that the assumption of the anthropocentric nature of Christianity which it regards as evil. None of the environmentalist zealots seem to be aware that their “religion” is just as anthropocentric as Christianity in that it views humanity as a “virus” or some form of parasite on nature. If they were logical they would realize that humans are a part of the ecosystem and hence technology is natural. Religions are rife with internal contradictions which are ignored by the true believers.

  63. charles nelson says:

    Watch out for Nick Stokes above, cherry picking longterm average temps for melbourne(0ne city out of three I mentioned)…in an attempt to undermine a fairly uncontroversial statement. Hmnnn where have I seen THAT before! But I will refine my statement to accomodate Nick’s delicate warmist sensibilities.
    “It’s bloody cold in Australia at the moment…Alice Springs ‘sub zero record’…Northern Queensland 5 degrees C two nights ago…prolonged cold cloud, wet weather in the Urban heartlands of the Greenies.”
    There Nick Stokes, disagree with that!
    I’m sure Nick will try to undermine that statement too…and that may make him feel better…but it doesn’t counter the perception of most australians that it’s bloody cold…
    I am an Evangelising skeptic…everywhere my work takes me I do my bit to counter the AGW Faith.
    And I’ve noticed the change in attitude amongst the general population.
    Why are we being asked to pay a carbon tax to stop the world getting hotter..when it’s bloody cold?
    That’s the question on everyone’s lips.
    Ignore the likes of Nick Stokes…he’s seriously out of touch!

  64. Rick Bradford says:

    This episode spilled over into Wikipedia. Singer’s page received the following addition.

    > In 2011, Singer advocated that people sceptical of the link between Carbon Dioxide and Global Warming be gassed with Carbon Monoxide.

    The paragraph has now been removed.

  65. John Marshall says:

    Makes you realize why they were transported to Australia in the first place.

    A note to the sane majority of Australia- Vote Gillard out of office ASAP.

  66. Gary Mount says:

    Just a quick note now that spring is over in the Northern Hemisphere; Vancouver, B.C. had its coldest spring ever recorded (54 years).

  67. Nick Stokes says:

    charles nelson says: June 22, 2011 at 1:34 am
    “Watch out for Nick Stokes above, cherry picking longterm average temps for melbourne(0ne city out of three I mentioned)”

    Charles, you said Ms Singer’s problem was recent cold weather. Ms Singer is located in Melbourne.

    But if you think there’s been notable recent cold elsewhere, you should document it.

  68. Gary Mount says:

    “In the 1970s we were all told that a nuclear war would invariably lead to a nuclear winter causing a massive drop in temperatures etc”

    1983 is when Carl Sagan published “The Nuclear Winter”.

    I grew up believing that for the sake of my future family, I should consider moving to the U.S.A. from my Canadian home to escape the oncoming glacial ice age, and the glacier that would lap my back door.
    It is disturbing to read that many people are trying to relegate the idea of the belief of a coming ice age as just a few articles written in obscure magazines when I am living proof that this was not so, and the idea permeated throughout the MSM, so much so that, as I mentioned, I was considering trying to find a way to immigrate south.

    Thank goodness Global Warming came along ;-)

  69. A K Haart says:

    A problem here is that Ms Singer’s comments are so gross that a normal person isn’t quite sure what to say. Okay, there are lots of comments here, but is someone is prepared to take the debate beyond civil discourse, then that’s it. You can try to reel it back in, but trying to do so feels ineffective because it obviously is ineffective in some quarters, otherwise the comments wouldn’t have been published in the first place.

  70. Alan the Brit says:

    I suspect in her yoof MS Sherri Quammen was a member of the “Smash violence, kill the warmongers, be here Saturday man, we’re havin a Peace Riot!” brigade!!!! It’s always those who shout loudest who having some guilty secret or somesuch. Anti-Carbonists numbskulls, Carbon is about the 15th most common element in the Earth’s crust, the 4th most common element in the Universe, after Hydrogen, Helium, & Oxygen! It’s the most promiscuous element too with its covalent bonding abilities, marvelouus stuff! People like Ms Quammen are always either Communists, Nazis, anti-semitic, anti-colour, anti-Catholic, anti-Christian, anti-Muslim, anti-Hindu, anti-industry, anti-science, anti-anything in fact, just plane prejudiced, always looking for the next revolution, the cause is neither here nor there, it’s just the way they are! Oh, & what science did she present to support her viewpoint, other than a silly appeal to authority on numbers?

  71. Harpo says:

    Charles, I live in Melbourne and have done so for 43 years. It is bloody cold. I can confirm that Nick Stokes is full of it. I know for a fact that the ALP and the Greens are recruiting trolls and trying to pose as crazy Climate Change Deniers in an attempt to make the 75% of the population who oppose the carbon tax look like they are crazy. I like you, I have become an evangelistic skeptic. I am writing letters galore and even helping a guy with an anti-carbon tax film. I tutor kids and I never miss an opportunity to to make the warmists look like idiots. The kids get it too.

  72. Jack Savage says:

    Best just ignored…surely?

  73. P Wilson says:

    okay. Well that is ugly logic. re: room filled carbon monoxide

    Its akin to telling someone who has a glass of red wine a day at dinner to drink 20 litres of ethanol a day instead, just to see how damaging alcohol can be.

  74. TrevorG says:

    Nick Stokes says: June 21, 2011 at 10:19 pm

    “Not cold in Melbourne, where Murdoch’s Herald-Sun is located. Ave max for June so far 15.5C, compared with longterm average of 14C.”

    So What!

    For the month of June, Adelaide’s Average Max is 0.0 degrees (the same) away from the long term average.
    For the month of June, Brisbane’s Average Max is -1.4 degrees (Less) than the long term average.

    So your point is exactly, What?

  75. Jay299 says:

    Not sure where to post this so:

    “Tory MEPs defy David Cameron over greenhouse gas targets”

    Fiona Harvey, environment correspondent
    guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 21 June 2011 20.50 BST

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/jun/21/greenhouse-gas-targets-eu-vote?commentpage=2#start-of-comments

  76. Jimmy Haigh says:

    Anthony. Didn’t The Mad Dhog have the same advice for us all a few years ago? Singer is in “good” company…

  77. JudyW says:

    I recommend the book “Ecofascism”. It is about the roots of the green movement. It existed throughout the 20th century and was part of the “Soil and Blood”, anti-industrial age, anti-Christian, anti-people, anti foreigner movements in Europe. The hateful sentiments of gasing people is not always an idle wish.

  78. Patrick Davis says:

    “Nick Stokes says:
    June 22, 2011 at 2:16 am”

    Canberra suffered it’s coldest May in 78 years this year. Darwin suffered through it’s coldest Autumn QUATER in recent DECADES.

  79. Lawrie Ayres says:

    Mentioned earlier but felt it necessary to state The Herals Sun has as one columnist, Andrew Bolt and another in Terry McCrann. Bolt has the best and most popular blog in Australia and is a conservative and sceptic. McCrann is a columnist writing about the economy, also a sceptic and very astute when it comes to the financial implications of a CO2 tax. The government and left wingers hate both Bolt and McCrann. The Herald Sun and the Australian at least give the public a glimpse that all is not right with both Gillard and her climate tax. Most other papers and broadcasters are firmly in the government camp. The media are very much out of step with the public. In a recent 150000 internet poll (I know it’s not scientific), 88% voted for a plebiscite on the tax. Gillards government is running 41% to the oppositions 59% 2 party preferred. She’s dead in the water but is too thick to admit it and no one seems brave enough to tell her to drop the tax.

  80. Kevin B says:

    So let’s offer to put all the true believers like Singer and Glover and the rest of them in one of those Eden project type places and let them live off whatever they can grow in the greenhouse. They can have as much water as they like and keep the temperature at whatever level they believe is the ‘correct’ temperature for the planet, but evil carbon dioxide levels will be kept below 150 parts per million.

    Oh, and when they start to keel over we’ll remove the bodies. Don’t want any nasty carbon polluting paradise, do we.

  81. “I’m prepared to keep an open mind and propose another stunt for climate sceptics – put your strong views to the test by exposing yourselves to high concentrations of…carbon dioxide”

    Sure, I’d be happy to do that. I’d be prepared to “put my strong views to the test”. We’re always being told by Greens that 400ppm is too high, and 600ppm CO2 is way too high concentration, so 800ppm CO2 must be a very high concentration. I’m happy to put my ‘strong view’ to the test that 800ppm CO2 is benign, and indeed beneficial, by suffering exposure to 1000ppm for 24 hours.

    Unfortunately for silly Ms Singer, putting the view to the rest will merely validate the ‘strong view’ that a doubling of CO2 from present levels is a perfectly benign atmosphere for humans to breathe.

    This emphasis on saving ‘the planet’ is a really ugly one. Deep green don’t seem to talk about ‘the world’ because the world includes humans, but ‘the planet’ seems to be everything except humans, as if humans are some kind of parasite on ‘the planet’. Saving ‘the planet’ is anti-human, anti-God, self-loathing rhetoric. They think it would be a vast improvement for ‘the planet’ if we should all top ourselves and allow ‘the planet’ to revert to a chaotic wilderness.

  82. Dr A Burns says:

    The stupidity of our PM is only exceeded by the stupidity of its taxpayers. Here’s the results of a poll to the following question, posted on an Australian climbing forum, Chockstone:

    “Our government may soon ask you whether you want more taxes. Do you really want a carbon tax ?

    http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/tony-abbott-moves-for-plebiscite-on-carbon-tax/story-e6frfku0-1226078264738

    The amount of the new tax hasn’t yet been fixed but estimates are that it will bring in around $11,000,000,000 per annum. It is hoped that the Oz carbon tax will reduce global temperatures by 0.0007 degrees by 2050 (based on IPCC claims). What better way to spend money to help our environment ?

    Yes. Tax me please. I love taxes. 80%
    No. Are you nuts ? 20%

    Total 52 votes ”

    It’s a tiny sample but given a choice of how to spend half a trillion dollars (give or take a few billion) by 2050, these idiots would rather ATTEMPT to cool the earth by 0.0007 degrees, despite the possibility of another LIA. Half a trillion dollars is enough to fund NASA’s budget for 25 years or to carry out a wealth of social and environmental tasks.

    The proposal for the plebiscite was initiated by the leader of the opposition, Tony Abbott, a Rhodes scholar, who is smart enough to describe man caused global warming as “absolute crap”. Hopefully one day soon, Abbott and the Liberals will replace Gillard and the Greens she is trying to bribe with her carbon tax.

  83. Jimbo says:

    This reminds me of Pachauris who said that sceptics should rub asbestos over their faces. He also said something about ‘flat-earthers’ and ‘voodoo’ science.

    Why are gullible Warmists so angry and full of hate?

    [Asbestos facial rub http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/260c9290-10d7-11df-975e-00144feab49a.html

  84. Mark Wilson says:

    Like most liberals, Ms Singer appears to have problems with the concept that the dose makes the poison.
    She correctly notes that high levels of CO2 will kill you, and then assumes that this is proof positive that low levels are dangerous as well.
    She also has problems seperating different forms of pollution. She seems to feel that the fact that Chico skies are polluted proves that CO2 is a problem.

    Beyond that her level of hatred would be astounding if you didn’t already know that she is a liberal. The one defining characteristic of most modern liberals is the level of vitriolic hatred they feel towards anyone who disagrees with them, and worse, stops them. They have convinced themselves that they are trying to save the world, which means that anyone who opposes them is evil.

    Imagine anyone who thinks for a living declaring that lying for a good cause is not only justified, but noble.

  85. Wally says:

    Well, I left this comment:

    ——-

    Jill – your suggestion that anybody holding a different view to you should gas (poison and kill) themselves is similar to that of your colleague, Richard Glover, who thinks such people should be tattooed. Perhaps it’s time to go back and look at the history of the Nazis, and other similar oppressive regimes. You do yourself and your profession a terrible disservice with an attitude that will tolerate no dissent, no other views, and which incidentally won’t consider any of the opposing science. And speaking of opposing, non-CAGW science, there is actually a great deal of it. Doesn’t get much of a mention when the media is fuelled along by people like you who will tolerate nothing at all that does not meet with the world-view-of-the-week. But seriously, gassing dissenters? Perhaps you should consider a more moderate first step: Re-education camps. Or perhaps it’s easier to just kill off the intellectuals. After all, the Nazis, Vietnam, Uganda… such wonderful upstanding examples. They’d have some other ideas you could consider as well.

    ———

    I wonder if they will actually publish it.

  86. Pete in Cumbria says:

    Further to Judy at 3:05, here’s Staudenmaier’s rather (IMO) chilling essay..
    http://www.spunk.org/texts/places/germany/sp001630/peter.html

    …..did you ever wonder why Hitler and a lot of his general’s were vegetarians/vegans right up to the very end.

    A question for Jill – Does your mother know where you are and/or what you’re doing?

  87. Paul R says:

    This could be an attempt to drum up some hate mail, hopefully threatening I suppose. I don’t read the HUN and have never heard of Singer so ‘Meh’, as they say. Our government is getting really desperate though and at the moment with the primary vote polls having them just above the oblivion mark of 30% things could get really interesting.

  88. Eyal Porat says:

    I am sorry but I have hard time taking this lightly.
    These people are becoming more and more violent, though verbally for now, and there is nothing amusing about it.
    Frankly, it seems it is only time before some “extreme” person will take this kind of talking one step further, in the name of the “holy scripts of the Warmists” and we will all cease to laugh.
    See the case of the abortion clinics.

  89. Rick Bradford says:
    June 22, 2011 at 2:03 am

    This episode spilled over into Wikipedia. Singer’s page received the following addition.

    > In 2011, Singer advocated that people sceptical of the link between Carbon Dioxide and Global Warming be gassed with Carbon Monoxide.

    The paragraph has now been removed.

    The paragraph has been reinstated, witha “citation needed”. I’d link to the article, but can’t see how to edit the page. If anyone has editing rights, I think the citation should be: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/sideshow-around-carbon-tax-must-stop/story-fn56az2q-1226079531212

  90. jrwakefield says:

    It is pointless to continue to try to be rational to an irrational person. You have to understand where the hate comes from. Frustration and guilt. Just think what these poor people are going through every day (the one’s who think we are killing the planet). They wake up in the morning to a modern civilization they detest. They have to work for a living (which is “killing the planet”) They have families of their own who will go on to doing modern civilization which will “kill the planet”. Everything they do, see, encounter is “killing the planet”. They have to be very frustrated people, they must have guilt that runs deep. Hence the need to lash out. Anthony is easier to attack than for these people to get into reality.

  91. sandyinderby says:

    Videodrone says:
    June 21, 2011 at 8:04 pm

    L Nettles,

    I prefer my C02 from a barley – yeast reaction (and its byproducts)

    works wonders

    Not if the UK “Nanny” state has its way (at least for some of us).

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-13863196

  92. Curiousgeorge says:

    Ms Singer seems to be another passenger on the “Death to Skeptics” train.
    How refreshing that one doesn’t see any similar rhetoric directed at warmists from the skeptic side. :)

  93. ShrNfr says:

    HIgh CO2 levels in the blood cause a panic reaction. I suggest that she immerse her head in a bag and then run argon into it. As we know, argon is not a “global warming gas” and makes up about 1% of our atmosphere. She would only have to increase the concentration percentage by a factor of 99. I am of course kidding. I wish her a long life and a return to sanity. A course in chemistry and physics would help her. Radiative transfer and fluid dynamics would be a plus.

  94. ScientistForTruth says: June 22, 2011 at 3:52 am

    This emphasis on saving ‘the planet’ is a really ugly one. Deep green don’t seem to talk about ‘the world’ because the world includes humans, but ‘the planet’ seems to be everything except humans, as if humans are some kind of parasite on ‘the planet’. Saving ‘the planet’ is anti-human, anti-God, self-loathing rhetoric. They think it would be a vast improvement for ‘the planet’ if we should all top ourselves and allow ‘the planet’ to revert to a chaotic wilderness.

    I personally think a lot of this is latent penis envy. Let’s start with the basics humans produce CO2. Therefore the obvious solution to reducing CO2 is to reduce the number of humans? So let’s see just how many greens propose population reduction as the prime way of reducing CO2 emissions?

    Zilch? So what do they propose instead … what is the target of their anger? It is those gaz guzzling cars, those aeroplanes, engineering, industry.

    Let’s ask a stupid question: between the two solutions:

    1. Less women having children.
    2. Less cars, industry = less engineers, less jobs, less of all the “macho” society …

    Which is characteristically “MALE” … which would a feminist suffering from penis envy unduly attack?

    How come the solution to CO2 is always to attack the present “macho” society, … to make us all suffer today so that just as many brats can be born, whereas the obvious solution is to have fewer brats so that no one alive suffers (except those who have children as a hobby) and we all continue to have the same fossil fuel consumption/person, but there is just less people to do that consumption? Sexist or what?

    And let’s examine this further. What do they call … “mother earth” … is it “Male” or “female”? What would happen if you called it “father earth”, or worse “brother earth”? Let’s consider all the noxious emissions, the burps and farts of brother earth; brother earth … the boozy friend of MANkind, but nevertheless a restless friend who is quick to anger a boiling ball of lava with a thin veneer of crust upon which we all stand until brother earth decides to scratch himself and we all fall over allowing the earth to return to its former “chaotic wilderness”.

    Brother earth? Mother earth? What’s the difference?

  95. Rational Debate says:

    Hum…. Seems to me that a deal ought to be offered to Jill Singer. If she completes the experiment specified below with no problems breathing, she converts and admits that a doubling of CO2 wouldn’t harm the earth. If she has troubles breathing, then we convert and admit that a doubling of CO2 is a serious problem.

    A little back of the envelope calcs to determine just how long an average sized woman would need to breath in a sealed space (full of normal atmosphere of course) the size of an average 2 car garage to raise the CO2 levels by a conservatively high 400 ppm – e.g., a little more than the equivalent of doubling CO2 in our atmosphere. (Would be fun to know just how long that would be, but I don’t recall the l/m CO2 offhand, or have the garage size handy & not inclined to look it up right now) Then Ms. Singer must close herself in such a garage, and breath for the allotted time period. End of experiment. Did she note any increased breathing problems? We could be snarky and also ask if she notes any increase in temperature, but of course that wouldn’t be reasonable.

    Note: Hyperventilating or breathing problems from panic over the LACK of breathing problems during the experiment which would require her to admit error and convert to the skeptic’s stance does not count as a breathing problem during the experiment.

  96. tstone says:

    When reason and logic fail, there is just one other way to make your point: by using physical force. This is the reason you see so many proponents of CAGW suggesting that those who are skeptical (and it seems they think we are all Republicans) do the rest of the world a “favor.”

    It is plain to see that the CAGW position is not purely a left-wing view, but an anti-reason and ultimately an anti-science view. Those who believe we have to “save the planet” have no other option than to suggest the use of force to impose their belief since reason and logic fail in supporting their ideology. What Ms. Quammen suggests (and others, thinking 10:10 video here) is a more primitive form of force. The rest of the CAGW crowd simply suggest the more sublime (and legal) form of force known as government.

    As Ayn Rand said; “faith and force are corollaries”. When you ask someone to take something on faith and they are not inclined to believe (because you haven’t made your point logically), you will always ultimately have to resort to the use of force. This is why when CAGW proponents resort to suggesting the use of force (physical force or government regulation) they have lost the argument.

  97. … and of course, what is the quintessential horror of those suffering “LPE”? It is a horror of the … how do I put this? The rise … the growth … the phallus. They reject what they cannot themselves have, they hate others for enjoying what they themselves cannot participate in and therefore respond by zealous condemnation of those who can.

  98. Todd says:

    What is this “carbon” tax I keep reading of? A tax on diamonds? Buckyballs? Should I be killing myself if I don’t think we need a tax on these items? Is there also to be a tax on all that fake carbon I see being pawned on shopping channels?

  99. Olen says:

    The global warming crowd, long on predictions and short on proof.

  100. Alex the skeptic says:

    Quote>>I’m prepared to keep an open mind and propose another stunt for climate sceptics – put your strong views to the test by exposing yourselves to high concentrations of either carbon dioxide or some other colourless, odourless gas – say, carbon monoxide.

    You wouldn’t see or smell anything. Nor would your anti-science nonsense be heard of again.<< Unquote

    I do not know if anyone has said it before here, but this science-challenged girl should also try putting her head in a bucket full of water for longer than 4 minutes. Water is essential for all life. Without water we would all die, but since we would die within 4 minutes if we but our head in abucket full fo water, then, by the same principle so movingly expounded by Ms. Singer, water should, must be banned from planet earth.

    And she doesn'teven know the difference between CO2 and CO, which gives strength to my view that the more scientifically challenged one is, the more one believes in AGW. Is there a graph somewhere showing the scientific knowledge/lack of against belief in AGW? Can we start with politicians (Al Gore?), then journalists

  101. 1DandyTroll says:

    So, essentially, she freely joins the rank and file of all the other world saviors, the communists, the fascists and the nazis.

    The mindset of these “good green climate friends of the earth” are stunningly lacking in non-violence. “We’re not here to do violence, this is for the good of the people,” and of course, then they promptly run their tanks over the people, or move them in to the death camps or gas chambers.

    A rational crazed climate communist hippie is still a crazed climate communist hippie.

  102. MikeP says:

    I get most of my exposure to excess CO2 levels by breathing out. As a kid I used to sleep with my head under the blanket. Somehow I’m still here and able to type.

  103. Kelvin Vaughan says:

    REPLY: Well we don’t need any escalation, even in jest. And for the record, HCN has a faint, bitter, burnt almond-like odor that only some people are able to detect. – Anthony

    But not for long.

  104. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    “I think the consensus is sound.”

    You need to finish the sentence, it should have been “I think the consensus is sound and fury, signifying nothing.”

    I have been a scientist “all my life” (meaning all my professional life) as well, and I can easily, using the simple scientific method, poke so many holes in the “consensus” that I can make a complete mockery out of it.

  105. Grumbles says:

    How about, put me in a closed room and increase CO2 concentration to 10000 parts per million, far higher than it will ever reach. I will be fine.

    Also the reason someone would die in her experiment is not due to poisoning from CO2 as she is implying but rather suffocation from lack of oxygen.

  106. Woody says:

    “Like most liberals”… It is sometimes difficult to remember that many North Americans have a very different definition of the word “liberal” than that of most dictionaries. Ms Singer’s comments were extremely illiberal. Liberalism is a fundamental quality of Western European culture. Indeed, in Australia the conservative party is called the “Liberal Party”. For mine, politics weakens all arguments, so it always saddens me to see party partisan comments on this site.

  107. ozspeaksup says:

    REPLY: Well we don’t need any escalation, even in jest. And for the record, HCN has a faint, bitter, burnt almond-like odor that only some people are able to detect. – Anthony

    hey Anthony, for real ?some can’t smell cyanide? huh? it reeks.

  108. Uzi says:

    I’m stunned because I did not recognize the pope of CAGW at first glance. Then I realized he was not wearing his tiara (a tall vine encrusted version with three crossed poison ivy leaves and six CO2 symbols) for the videos.
    But when the wacko green religion priest opened his mouth to spew lie after fascist lie I knew it had to be Al Gore.

  109. hum says:

    “put your strong views to the test by exposing yourselves to high concentrations of either carbon dioxide or some other colourless, odourless gas – say, carbon monoxide. … You wouldn’t see or smell anything. ”

    I will take her test if she will. The test will be 100% concentration of an odorless and colorless gas for 1 hour. I will even give her the advantage by allowing her to take the gas with the highest concentration in our atmosphere Nitrogen at 78%. Obviously, this gas with the highest concentration is not toxic and can cause her no harm. I then will take the second most concentrated odorless and colorless gas in the atmosphere Oxygen at 21%.

    I’m fairly sure at the end of our test she won’t be making up stupid tests anymore.

  110. ImranCan says:

    Anthony
    As vile as the statements are, you should take heart from such language. When people resort to such tactics, not only is the argument lost but they also know they are in the wrong. Nobody tells ‘flat-earthers’ to jump off a cliff to see what it feels like, and no one tells Holocaust deniers to take a lungful of Zyklon B. Its over – we know it and they know it … but their colours are anchored so firmly to the mast of illogicality that they have no where else to go.

  111. observa says:

    As these global warming zealots are increasingly exposed and their post-normal science challenged they are becoming increasingly unhinged at losing the hearts and minds of thinking people everywhere. They circle the wagons and resort to talking down to everyone, almost screaming at them from authority. Their authority is crumbling rapidly all about them as the polls show and all they can do is resort to hysterical rants. James Delingpole nails it, fully anticipating time for their climate Masada-
    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100092809/greenpeace-and-the-ipcc-time-surely-for-a-climate-masada/
    Let her rip James-

    The Man Made Global Warming industry is a crock, a scam on an epic scale, fed by the world’s biggest outbreak of mass hysteria, stoked by politicians dying for an excuse to impose more tax and regulation on us while being seen to “care” about an issue of pressing urgency, fuelled by the shrill lies and tear-jerking propaganda of activists possessed of no understanding of the real world other than a chippy instinctive hatred of capitalism, given a veneer of scientific respectability by post-normal scientists who believe their job is to behave like politicians rather than dispassionate seekers-after-truth, cheered on by rent-seeking businesses, financed by the EU, the UN and the charitable foundations of the guilt-ridden rich, and promoted at every turn by schoolteachers, college lecturers, organic muesli packets, Walkers crisps, the BBC, CNBC, Al Gore, the Prince Of Wales, David Suzuki, the British Antarctic Survey, Barack Obama, David Cameron and Knut – the late, dyslexic-challenging, baby polar bear, formerly of Berlin Zoo.

    And you really don’t need to be a contrarian or an out-there conspiracy theorist or a hard-core libertarian or a rampant free-market capitalist or a dyed in the wool conservative to think this way any more. This is reality. This is how it is. This is where all the overwhelming evidence points. So what kind of a bizarro, warped, intellectually challenged, cognitively dissonant, eco-fascistic nutcase would you have to be to think otherwise?

    Look, I’m sorry to be blunt all you Greenies (you know how normally polite and respectful I am to you and your cause) but don’t you think the charade has gone on long enough? Do you not think, maybe, that given that the IPCC is the basis of all your so-called “science” on climate change, and given that the IPCC has been proven dozens of times now to have been hijacked by activists with about as much of a handle on objective reality as Syd Barrett locked in a cupboard during a particularly bad acid trip, it mightn’t be time finally to do the decent thing?

    Either come over to the side of reality, truth and climate scepticism (as your Lynas has sort of done) and admit you’re wrong. Or gather together in your last redoubt with your Hansens and your Gores and your Porritts and all the other die hards and do the only other honorable thing: show the courage of your convictions by staging a Climate Masada.

  112. John Brookes says:

    Hey, Jill Singer is cool!

    You mob (you know, the people who come up with all sorts of monster raving loony ideas to try and discredit AGW) should see the somewhat tasteless humour in Jill’s idea.

    After all, if you are prepared to believe that the 2nd law of thermodynamics precludes AGW, then it should not be a problem to believe that CO is harmless! Ha ha.

  113. KT says:

    I’ve actually written to the current Victorian Minister for Education because I am deeply concerned about the indoctrination our children are getting about globull warming. Today I got my reply and it is rather defensive about it. They try to pacify me but it’s made me even more concerned. I’m told that ‘The Victorian gov is committed to sustainability as an ‘underlying value’.’ Whose value would that be? Anyway, I thought there may be some here who would like to see how they teach science in this country as the Vic govt was kind enough to provide links in the letter.

    http://vels.vcaa.vic.edu.au/science/relationships.html#ShowAll

  114. Judy F. says:

    I don’t know what brings out the fanatacism of the alarmists. I was married to a man who firmly believed in Global Warming and decided that we needed to live a sustainable lifestyle. ( We lived on a farm) He advocated not driving; purchasing only what we “needed” that we could not raise or grow ourselves; limit our use of electricity, only use 10 minutes of internet a day, use no air conditioning, have no artwork on the walls because we could look out the windows at the beauty of nature. He thought I could still sew, but should consider raising sheep to get the wool, to spin the yarn to weave the cloth to make the item… The list got longer and longer. We already lived frugally, and his ideas got more difficult to agree with. He even talked about starting an eco village, where all the like minded people would flock to live this wonderful life. His over-riding concern became taking care of Mother Earth. He said that if we took care of Mother Earth, she would take care of us.

    To me, Global Warming never made sense. I have a background in Horticulture and CO2 was something good from my outlook. My kids had an interest in geology, and so we trooped off to the Natural History Museum and learned about past times on earth and dinosaurs and rocks and how much warmer the earth was. When I voiced my skepticism to my then husband, the insults started. He told me that “everything” he read proved global warming and I couldn’t prove otherwise and why did I think I was smarter than “all” the scientists in the world and I was being “Ignorant by Intent”. When he balled up his fist and pulled his arm back I realized that there was no way I could talk to him, and that I was in danger if I stayed. I left at that point with the kids and didn’t return.

    To this day I don’t know why saving Mother Earth was more important to him than his wife and kids, but that’s what his decision was. And the ironic thing was, after I left, he bought a second car, used the internet extensively and found religion. I guess it really was a control thing.

  115. PhilJourdan says:

    You should have responded to that letter – to at least let her know you saw it – in about the same manner as you did the first. Hate defies logic and rationale, so attempting to debate her would have been moot. But holding up a mirror to the hate is the worst punishment of all! (and it usually gets the hater even madder! ;)

    REPLY: I didn’t have to, the community was so incensed they responded for me. The director of the Peace and Justice center even wrote an admoniton and apology. – Anthony

  116. Dr A Burns says:

    Judy, my sympathies. Most realists have encountered the abuse and name calling from alarmists but it must be terrible in a marriage. Alarmists seem incapable of rational discussion. For example, I had a series of emails in discussion with Dr Trenberth, a man I thought might have made some sense, but instead, just blatant lies and nonsense. When I pointed out his lies about Dr Jones’ “no warming” statement on BBC interview, Trenberth ran away.

    I suspect that alarmism really is a religion, based on pure unsubstantiated belief. Your husband certainly sounds as though he was filled with religious fanaticism, similar to other religious fanatics. Facts and science are irrelevant. Any disagreement with whatever religion is met in the same way.

    I have a young child and a very happy marriage. I can appreciate how difficult it must be for you. I hope you find a good man.

  117. jaymam says:

    I see that someone has succeeded in adding the cite to Jill Singer’s Wikipedia article, while I was in the middle of doing the same.
    Someone has since added a remark about Socialists. Let’s not do that, OK? Just leave it at being gassed with Carbon Monoxide.

  118. Bulldust says:

    Technically it would be impossible to say that Julia Gillard (Australian PM) actually lied. Stay with me here… much as I detest her weasel ways I could only call it a broken promise, not a lie. Six days before the last election she stated “There will be no carbon tax under any Government I lead.” Unless people can prove that she thought otherwise at the time it is not a lie. It is simply a promise that was later broken, she claims because of the minority Government the election left her with.

    I understand the desire to brand her a liar on this issue, but that is not helping the cause. She has certainly lied about other things, such as not intending to dispose of the previous PM in a leadership spill, but that’s a whole other story.

    The joke is on her, because her party is now polling the lowest in 40 years or more. Her days are numbered, but that makes her desperate to achieve something in her short reign. The next Australian election will be a massive swing to the right (which is not really much of a swing in Australia … both mainstream parties are very centrist politically), as we just saw in Canada. Just about anyone could front for the (notionally right wing) Liberal Party here and win against Julia.

  119. lexkeeps says:

    nice

  120. Rick Bradford says:

    Somebody has now added a citation to the Singer page, along with the remark:

    > In 2011, Singer advocated that people sceptical of the link between Carbon Dioxide and Global Warming be gassed with Carbon Monoxide, making her the most recent Socialist to advocate the use of poison gas as a means of disposing of political undesirables.

  121. charles nelson says:

    John Brookes above wouldn’t know the Second Law of Thermodynamics if it came up and bit him on the arse!

  122. Adam Collins says:

    If you try to leave a comment on her article, you get:

    “Please note that we are not able to publish all the comments that we receive, and that we may edit some comments to ensure their suitability for publishing.
    Feedback will be rejected if it does not add to a debate, or is a purely personal attack, or is offensive, repetitious, illegal or meaningless, or contains clear errors of fact.
    Although we try to run feedback just as it is received, we reserve the right to edit or delete any and all material.”

    If only they did the same for the articles presented…
    The suggestion she makes DOES overstep the ethics boundary, so maybe someone should point that out to her boss & the herald sun’s ethics/legal people…

  123. P Wilson says:

    Al Gore was right about one thing. Climate Change/global warming, has nothing to do with politics.

    It is therefore neither a right wing agenda, or indeed any political agenda to see the holes in the consensus anymore than it was not anti-papal for Galileo to point out that the sun did not revolve around the earth, as even the pontiff now accepts that Galileo was right

  124. PhilJourdan says:

    Bulldust says:
    June 22, 2011 at 6:27 pm

    Bulldust, it is a lie. Now we know politiics is filled with them, but when George H. W. Bush said “Read my lips, No New Taxes” and then later raised them, he lied. It matters not that congress was solidly of the opposite party. Was either his lie or Guillard’s an impeachable offense? No. But it was politics as usual and a lie (both of them).

  125. Dr A Burns says:

    Bulldust, I see where you are coming from but a lie also has the definition “an inaccurate or false statement. ” A promise that is not kept is certainly an innacurate statement.

  126. hum says:
    June 22, 2011 at 6:52 am

    … I then will take the second most concentrated odorless and colorless gas in the atmosphere Oxygen at 21%.

    I’m fairly sure at the end of our test she won’t be making up stupid tests anymore.

    And you won’t be humming any more. 100% Oxygen concentration will kill you just as quickly as, say, 1% CO.

  127. Rick Bradford says:
    June 22, 2011 at 9:20 pm

    Somebody has now added a citation to the Singer page, along with the remark:

    > In 2011, Singer advocated that people sceptical of the link between Carbon Dioxide and Global Warming be gassed with Carbon Monoxide, making her the most recent Socialist to advocate the use of poison gas as a means of disposing of political undesirables.

    I’d concur with another poster’s comment that the latter part of that sentence should be removed. It’s unnecessary, crass, and descends to her level.

  128. Graeme says:

    Bulldust says:
    June 22, 2011 at 6:27 pm
    Technically it would be impossible to say that Julia Gillard (Australian PM) actually lied. Stay with me here… much as I detest her weasel ways I could only call it a broken promise, not a lie. Six days before the last election she stated “There will be no carbon tax under any Government I lead.” Unless people can prove that she thought otherwise at the time it is not a lie. It is simply a promise that was later broken, she claims because of the minority Government the election left her with.

    I understand the desire to brand her a liar on this issue, but that is not helping the cause. She has certainly lied about other things, such as not intending to dispose of the previous PM in a leadership spill, but that’s a whole other story.

    The joke is on her, because her party is now polling the lowest in 40 years or more. Her days are numbered, but that makes her desperate to achieve something in her short reign. The next Australian election will be a massive swing to the right (which is not really much of a swing in Australia … both mainstream parties are very centrist politically), as we just saw in Canada. Just about anyone could front for the (notionally right wing) Liberal Party here and win against Julia.

    She was telling the truth, she does not currently lead the Australian Government, she takes her marching orders from Bob Brown, leader of her coalition partner the Greens.

  129. jaymam says:

    Derek Sorensen says:
    June 23, 2011 at 3:21 pm

    “I’d concur with another poster’s comment that the latter part of that sentence should be removed. It’s unnecessary, crass, and descends to her level.”

    Removed!

Comments are closed.