Guest post by Alec Rawls
Jill Singer, long time Aussie talking head:
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.
Her mind is OPEN to wishing for the deaths of those who disagree with her ignorant presumptions. All in good fun of course! But this totalitarian closed-mindedness really does seem to strike her as a kind of open mindedness. She finds the thought “refreshing.”
Maybe its just an Aussie thing, like the forced tattooing of political opponents. And Singer does make a serious charge. She accuses Aussie business leader David Murray of a very unscientific leap:
Murray states there’s no link between global warming and carbon dioxide emissions because carbon dioxide is necessary for life, colourless and odourless – and therefore can’t be considered a pollutant.
If Murray actually said that because CO2 is necessary for life it cannot cause warming then flamboyant gibes would be merited and the rest of us could only drop our faces into our own palms. We would never hear the end of it, sigh. But the charge is false. David Murray and his interviewer both clearly distinguished the pollution question from the warming question:
DM: [Carbon dioxide] has got nothing to do with pollution.Financial Review interviewer Colleen Ryan: What do you mean?
DM: Well, carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It is colourless, odourless. It is not a pollutant.
FR: Yes, but it is still bad for greenhouse gases.
DM: No it isn’t. It is a tiny proportion of greenhouse gases.
FR: So, if you believe in the warming of the planet, it is a tiny proportion of that?
DM: There is no correlation between warming and carbon dioxide.
FR: So if you accept the warming of the planet, what should you do?
DM: Take measures to stop the effects of it.
FR: What about the melting of the glaciers?
DM: They’re not. The amount of ice in the world is slightly increasing. It’s not decreasing. It’s just staggering. Staggering. So you call something a pollutant, which it is not. It is actually necessary for life. And then the people who disagree with you, you call skeptics or scumbags or doubters or something.
Murray gave a perfectly logical reason for dismissing the greenhouse effects of CO2 as dangerous and it has nothing to do with CO2 not being a pollutant. CO2’s greenhouse effects can be dismissed because they are so tiny!
Exactly right. The only way CO2 warming could be dangerous is if it were dramatically amplified by water vapor feedback effects, in which case our climate would be radically unstable and sneezing would be dangerous. In other words, the only way CO2 is dangerous is if EVERYTHING is dangerous, and there is no evidence for such instability.
Singer is really just lying when she says that Murray denies a link between global warming and carbon dioxide “because carbon dioxide is necessary for life.” After reading his remarks on a conservative Aussie site she accuses Murray of an unscientific leap that he absolutely did not make, then she uses this deception to justify her happy death wish for everyone who doesn’t toe the party line.
If casual death wishes really were just an Australian mannerism they would appear on both sides, but Murray, for example, is the opposite of Singer. He appeals to Singer et al. to stop calling their opponents dirty names and she responds by dreaming of his annihilation. Nope, it’s a believer thing, as believers in authoritarian religions have always wanted to expunge heretics.
The only twist on this old story is how today’s eco-religious believers are able to imagine themselves on the side of science even as they do things like knowingly deceive their readers about what their opponents are saying. What does science mean to them if it doesn’t require truth? And if they don’t care about the truth, how can they possibly think they are right?
Because their religious authorities tell them so. Facepalm.
As the heat continues to go missing, expect to see a lot more of this:
Does Australia have “hate speech” laws? Saying something like that some places would get you a good time in court defending yourself.
Frankly, this is just as silly as the stuff you are complaining about – please try and stay above the GIGO level of the CAGW crowd.
Nope, it’s a believer thing, as believers in authoritarian religions have always wanted to expunge heretics.
It’s not about the science… it’s about Authoritarian Science aka Post-Normal Science…
It’s not about the truth… it’s about Authoritarian Conformism…
It’s not about the environment… it’s about Authoritarian Environmentalism…
It’s not about the economy… it’s about Authoritarian Economics…
It’s not about the politics… it’s about Authoritarian Government…
It’s just about Authoritarianism… we know best – punto!
So read the The Dark Ages Revisited memo pronto!
She would get on well with Joana Nova. Sparks would fly.
As Jill Singer admits when talking about Julia Gillard, her coalition leader – the person that sets the example for the rest of the party to follow:
“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.”
Jill has it exactly right. Her leader lied and by doing so set the example for Jill to follow. Anyone that doesn’t agree isn’t fit to live.
We have heard this all before. How many millions will have to die this time in the name of the “great leader”. A leader that will lie to get what she wants, that doesn’t trust the people’s judgement of right and wrong, or truth and fantasy.
Death wishes/threats are a sign of desperation. But it cannot be because any tides are turning against them. The MSM and most politicians are still in their camp. it can only be one thing then – the data is falling farther and farther away from their scare stories and the public is starting to take notice.
It’s amusing now listening to these people getting increasingly unhinged as their post-normal science and authority crumbles all about them. They can only circle wagons together and rant hysterically from fading past authority. Could you imagine MSM printing this ‘heresy’ from James Delinpole only 12 months ago-
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100092809/greenpeace-and-the-ipcc-time-surely-for-a-climate-masada/
What a metaphor- their climate Masada. I suppose after a suitable period of disdainful scorn they’re ultimately to be pitied.
She is condemned by her thinking to be surrounded in all walks of her life by alike thinkers. That would make me crazy, too.
Seems like too much coverage for this uninformed woman.
People on the left seem to have a nasty streak of totalitarianism. In addition to this one here are some others.
-Forcing people to buy government approved healthcare insurance whether they want it or not.
– Banning incandescent light bulbs, rather than just informing people that they can cut their electric bills with other types of bulbs.
– Having TSA goons touch our private parts before we can board a plane, and soon a train or a bus.
– Presidents starting wars without even consulting congress, instead consulting unelected foreign bureaucrats in the UN.
Woops, typo- it is of course James Delingpole
ShrNfr asks- “Does Australia have “hate speech” laws? Saying something like that some places would get you a good time in court defending yourself.”
Well not exactly in all States but we do have the usual PC suspects wanting to shut down free speech with the aid of the Victorian State apparatus but it’s a small world as Mark Steyn weighs in to flay the indefensible on behalf of our own ‘Brigitte Bardot from Melbourne’-
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/mark_steyn_on_free_speech_while_he_still_has_it/
Rivetting stuff from a man that’s already been there.
Jest aside, it would not be a stretch if SInger thought CO2 as toxic as CO and that they are both part of the same problem.
US OSHA says the average daily exposure to CO2 in the workplace should not exceed 5000 ppm. Prolonged exposure actually raises this number as we acclimate. Sudden onset of such high levels can cause some discomfort, but acclimation is fairly rapid.
CO on the other hand causes symptoms at 35 ppm and potential lethality at 800 ppm. It binds to hemoglobin about 230 times better than O2 and thus blocks the ability to transport O2 in the circulation. O2 is actually a deadly gas and must be entrained or bound most of the time in the body to prevent undesired chemical reactions from occurring.
These two gases are largely unrelated as CO is only the product of incomplete combustion, the release of which can be easily mediated and prevented. CO2 is released by combustion and all living things, as well as volcanoes, and is food for all photosynthetic life.
Historically it appears that CO2 is usually between 1000–2000 ppm for most of the last 600 million years. We are currently living in a very low CO2 environment (plants do not do well with CO2 <200 ppm, levels the world has been flirting with now and then).
We could really use more CO2, particularly as the planet cools and we need our crops of grow as well as they can, which they do with more CO2. Plants are more temperature tolerant, able to grow and bloom earlier in the Spring, irregardless of any warming, and they utilize nutrients and water more efficiently (the latter because with more CO2 the leaves have fewer stomata and thus transpire less water).
More CO2 is a win-win for us and the environment as it greens the planet and makes all more healthy!
David S objects:
– Having TSA goons touch our private parts before we can board a plane, and soon a train or a bus.
Huh? I can’t get anyone to touch my private parts; what’s your trick?
Personally, I think people like Jill Singer should be allowed to say whatever they like. The internet guarantees that their comments will be recoverable forever and can be thrown back in their faces whenever required. This will be particularly useful when the AGW hoax is finally laid to rest and these zealots move on to their next great planet saving cause.
36 second clip of lefty anti-nuclear journalist James “Hotcock” Cockburn on AGW hysteria:
As Lubos mentioned on his blog, Carbon Monoxide was used at Dachau.
Singer considers she is a comedian. Trouble is you need to be so far left wing that you would have to free an arm from a strait jacket to hold the microphone or write anything.
“…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…”
If this were reversed and thrown down to Climate scientists, there’d be such a ruckus…
But, we could propose our own study.
Have them enter a room with today’s CO2 levels, and pump in CO2 until the level is doubled. See if the room temp goes up.
Open-mindedness is what I say it is! Hear me, Infidels, thought control is for your own benefit, or else! You just won’t admit that your minds are exactly like mine, but that mine’s better!
I’ll be happy to sit a few days in a room with 1000 ppm of CO2 , no problem. In exchange, Jill can give me a contract guaranteeing she will pay 10% of her income (a simulated carbon offset tax) for the rest of her life if I survive.
@ur momisugly ferd berple says:
June 22, 2011 at 8:32 am
…………………………………………
We have heard this all before. How many millions will have to die this time in the name of the “great leader”. A leader that will lie to get what she wants, that doesn’t trust the people’s judgement of right and wrong, or truth and fantasy.
As Brat Pitt ( playing Achilles in Troy ) said: “He’s not my king.”
You know who else wanted to gas everyone that stood in their way?
observa says:
June 22, 2011 at 9:01 am
Mark Steyn is a very riveting writer, I put him up there with one of my all-time favorite writers, Victor Davis Hanson, who has plenty to say about global warming, climate change or disruption, etc… Well worth reading his work on a daily basis!
Elsewhere it has been suggested that ‘true believers’ be allowed to conduct a counter experiment.
Essentially to allow a small group (Of ‘believers’) to live in a closed environment with atmospheric CO2 levels artificially kept below 100ppm and a control group (of ‘sceptics’) in an environment where CO2 levels are kept artificially high, say about 1000ppm. The idea being for the participants to log ill effects, temperature, and to live off only what they can grow / produce within the closed environment. The Eden project in the UK might prove a suitable venue.
After one calendar year the experiment should be concluded with the examination of participants and their allotted environment for signs of malnourishment or debilitation, and the health of the closed environment likewise. A properly controlled environmental experiment, and no-one, no matter what their opinion, has to be put in gas chambers. Unless it is one of their own making. Sounds fair to me.
Although wasn’t this type of experiment done in Biosphere two in Arizona and I believe the Russians had / have something similar?