Globalist Warming Denial & the Green New Deal

I can give a bit of background here as I know Ian Dunlop, having once been a member of the WA Greens where he was an outstanding figure.
I ran across a critique of the Spratt & Dunlop white paper, by a number of mainstream scientists. In general they felt that the conclusions of the white paper were beyond the IPCC projections, and do not reflect a scientific consensus, which is no surprise. One substantive critique is that "lethal temperatures" should be taken to mean that at least a few people would die, but not massive numbers of people as implied by Spratt & Dunlop. The tropics would not necessarily become literally uninhabitable by 2050, according to the peer reviewed study that addressed the issue.
The wildflower-rich south west of WA (=Western Australia) has suffered from a long term drought since 1977. This same year was the year when British Columbia warmed by about 2 degrees C, and I have been working why these events occurred simultaneously.

Hence Ian Dunlop is allowed to be particular pessimistic in his assessment whereas many others are less so.

As for the Milankovich Cycles they do indeed influence CO2 levels since they initiate warming changes on land and ocean that can trigger the release of CO2 from the deep ocean into the atmosphere. However, the melting Greenland Ice Sheet is having the opposite effect, diluting the "Atlantic Conveyor" so that the CO2 at the bottom of the ocean is remaining there, rather than coming to the surface, especially in the North-East Pacific, as it would normally. I cannot refer you to a specific paper on this issue as I am trying to connect the dots myself.:confused:

Yours faithfully
Claude very badly
 

Ruby Gray

Member
I am constantly reminded, in any discussion of the topic of Global Warming, whether manmade or solar radiation induced or of whatever other possible cause, of this encouraging painting by Sir Nathaniel Bacon.

It depicts the produce of a great garden in East Anglia in England, in about 1620 AD. Although the four seasons' harvests are represented here, it is notable that besides the hardy cabbages, apples, turnips and onions that survive any cold climate, many fruits were also produced which require a much warmer climate than this area of England enjoys today. Luscious grapes, figs, melons, pumpkins, cucumbers and peaches obviously grew without the benefit of glasshouse or heated polytunnel.

https://flic.kr/p/2gvpagd
 

Ruby Gray

Member
However on the other hand, this era of almost subtropical fruit growing in Britain was during the middle of the Little Ice Age, which ran from about 1300 to 1870 AD, when global temperatures were much cooler, and winters could be severe indeed. The Thames River was frozen solid in many years for as long as 2 months, with great loss of life of man, beast, trees and crops. The first recorded freeze of the river was in 250 AD. An elephant walked across the icy river in 1814. Traders set up businesses on the ice, and "Ice Fairs" were held.

https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofEngland/The-Thames-Frost-Fairs/
"The Frost Fair in 1683 / 84


"During the Great Winter of 1683 / 84, where even the seas of southern Britain were frozen solid for up to two miles from shore, the most famous frost fair was held: The Blanket Fair. The famous English writer and diarist John Evelyn described it in extensive detail, writing:

"'Coaches plied from Westminster to the Temple, and from several other staires to and fro, as in the streetes, sliding with skeetes, a bull-baiting, horse and coach races, puppet plays and interludes, cookes, tipling and other lewd places, so that it seemed a bacchanalian triumph or carnival on the water, whilst it was a severe judgement on the land, the trees not onely splitting as if lightning-struck, but men and cattle perishing in divers places, and the very seas so lock’d up with ice, that no vessels could stir out or come in.'

"Even kings and queens would join in the festivities, with King Charles reportedly enjoying a spitroasted ox at this very fair."

https://flic.kr/p/2gvqArM
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Luscious grapes, figs, melons, pumpkins, cucumbers and peaches obviously grew without the benefit of glasshouse or heated polytunnel.
Are you sure? According to this article 'The History of the Greenhouse', the technology of artificially warm, protected growing spaces has been known since Roman times. Glasshouses were in use in Europe as early as the 13th century. As a wealthy landowner, Nathaniel Bacon was in an excellent position to own one of these luxurious and exotic structures, and to boast about it in his painting.
 

Ruby Gray

Member
A painting is virtual reality. It doesn't mean anything....
In that case, you could argue that "Nothing means anything"!

Paintings and drawings were the only way to graphically document reality for future reference. Enormous effort was involved in creating a large work such as this. If Bacon had possessed a flamboyant glass house, would he not have revealed a glimpse of that behind his sumptuous model, rather than a pile of manure?

As I understand it, glasshouses were not built in England until Victorian times.

For some considerable time prior to this, there was the ubiquitous "Windows Tax", which kept the utilisation of expensive glass to a minimum. The idea was that the Crown was entitled to tax its subjects for the amount of sunlight they allowed into their houses. Hence the typical appearance of homes from those days, massive thick walls and tiny windows.

So I am not aware of any glasshouses in 1620 in Britain.

They did utilise other season extending techniques. Labour was cheap, and manure ubiquitous. Hotbeds of composting organic matter were cased with soil, and their warmth filtered up to the growing plants. Not so easy to do with fig trees etc. This was a technique employed from Roman times. Apparently even the Egyptians used hotbeds, though I wonder why - or when - they needed supplementary heat in their gardens.

Britons also built great stone walls around gardens, which were warmed by constant fires reticulating hot air through internal channels. This created a microclimate for trees and vines grown along the walls. In fact, this was done at our Botanical Gardens in Hobart, in the early colonial days, before they discovered it was unnecessary here.

But it is true that a wider variety of warmth-loving plants was grown in Britain long ago, than is now possible in open cultivation. The Romans grew grapes on field scale 2,000 years ago, quite far north.
Greenland was a thriving agricultural community for centuries.

So somehow, it seems that extremes of warm and frigid weather almost co-existed over the millennia, or at least alternated in rapid succession, with the Thames freezing over on average one year in twenty, but bounteous summer crops being possible at times.

A certainty of weather is that it is changeable. That is not a novel concept surely!

I think it's a fair question - was the Little Ice Age (1300 - 1800s) a consequence of the deficiency of industrial pollution?
What then explains the preceding Mediaeval Warm Period within today's MMGW paradigm?
If the reason for global warmer conditions .ca. 900 -1200 AD was not industrial activity, then why is that the only cause now touted?

Although today's graphs show impressive temperature spikes way back for 2,000 years, with the average temperature in the Middle Ages drawn in considerably less than today's averages, this of course is no more than guesstimation. The hard fact is that Greenland at that time had a thriving population of farmers tending livestock and crops. How many glaciers would have to melt today to restore what was the norm for those Greenlanders? To them, the encroachment of ice kilometres deep over their settlements, was the ecological catastrophe of their days.

It strikes me that we are phenomenally short-sighted and arrogant today. Wild temperature, rainfall and climate fluctuations have occurred for millennia. Who has the authority to decide which particular phase of this cyclical phenomenon is "normal" ? In which geographical location?

I remember summers being very hot when I was a small child. When i was a teenager, people complained that it "always" rained "all summer". My grandfather said that in the early 1900s, summer rainfall was much more reliable than in the 1980s. However, the rainfall and temperature records do not bear this out. There have been great fluctuations from year to year for as long as records have been kept in Tasmania - which is not very long. Whatever we recall the weather being like in our childhood seems subliminally to influence all our expectations of what it OUGHT to be now and forevermore.

Personally, I have been longing for global warrming to affect Tasmania's bitter winters, and to annihilate the many summer frosts I get in my particular location - with no discernible results over the past umpty decades!
 

Suchender

Member
As I understand it, glasshouses were not built in England until Victorian times.
I am not denying your argument, Mr. Gray.
You may be correct.

My point is only that you need more information to draw those conclusions.
The freezing of rivers and see is good information !

Greetings !

Mr. Brown
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
My point is only that you need more information to draw those conclusions.
Indeed, more information would be helpful. Here's a quick introduction to Bayesian thinking. Consider two hypotheses. H1, that Bacon grew luscious warm-weather fruits. H2, that Bacon was a 'fantasy painter', and depicted fruits in his painting that he only wished he could enjoy in real life.

The painting is perfectly consistent with either hypothesis. To judge between them, we can only evaluate based on our "prior knowledge", that is, our assessment of how likely it is that Bacon would just be making stuff up.

If Bacon had possessed a flamboyant glass house, would he not have revealed a glimpse of that behind his sumptuous model, rather than a pile of manure?
Maybe he was cheating on his glass taxes, and wanted his painting to be plausibly deniable?

As I understand it, glasshouses were not built in England until Victorian times.
For whatever it's worth, here's another article indicating that greenhouses were being constructed throughout Europe in the 17th century and before. The article gives links to more sources. Eventually this could presumably be traced back to primary 17th century source documents, or else it might turn out to be an Internet rumor.

https://davesgarden.com/guides/articles/view/3607

A certainty of weather is that it is changeable. That is not a novel concept surely!
Yes, of course the weather is always changing, and the climate is always changing. I haven't seen anybody challenge either of these basic facts.

I think it's a fair question - was the Little Ice Age (1300 - 1800s) a consequence of the deficiency of industrial pollution?
What then explains the preceding Mediaeval Warm Period within today's MMGW paradigm?
If the reason for global warmer conditions .ca. 900 -1200 AD was not industrial activity, then why is that the only cause now touted?

Although today's graphs show impressive temperature spikes way back for 2,000 years, with the average temperature in the Middle Ages drawn in considerably less than today's averages, this of course is no more than guesstimation.
According to the 'official story', the fluctuations of the climate over the period from 900-1800's AD were very gradual and also very modest. They were caused by Milankovich cycles, solar variations, and other mundane factors that are always causing changes in the climate. Wikipedia gives this image that shows estimates of global temperature change from various studies.



It does appear that the figures from the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period are 'guesstimates' compared to more accurate modern instrument readings. But at least we can say that the 'guesstimates' indicate that the average temperature declined anywhere from -.2 to -.6 degrees C over about an 800 year period, compared to a sudden jump of +0.8 C since 1950.

The enormous sudden rate of change, which is correlated with an equally sudden and dramatic change in atmospheric CO2, is the reason why MMGW is touted as the reason for the current situation. It is further claimed that the increase in CO2 is provably a result of fossil fuel consumption, because of the ratio of C14 isotope in the atmosphere. As if the massive increase in fossil fuel consumption isn't proof enough.

The hard fact is that Greenland at that time had a thriving population of farmers tending livestock and crops. How many glaciers would have to melt today to restore what was the norm for those Greenlanders?
Again according to the official story, atmospheric temperature can change rapidly, but it takes awhile for this to be reflected in changes of ice cover. Glaciers and continental ice sheets melt over a period of decades to centuries. So just be patient, Greenland will be green again soon enough. If one owns Florida coastal real estate property, now is the time to trade for a glaciated coastal plateau in Greenland.

Wild temperature, rainfall and climate fluctuations have occurred for millennia. Who has the authority to decide which particular phase of this cyclical phenomenon is "normal" ? In which geographical location?
The 'official story' claim is that the rate of extreme temperature, rainfall and storm conditions is dramatically increasing on a statistical basis. When '500-year' floods and draughts occur every few years, something's up, even if any particular event can't be ascribed exclusively to climate change. Google turns up many statistical studies, such as this one:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/03/180321130859.htm

Globally, according to the new data, the number of floods and other hydrological events have quadrupled since 1980 and have doubled since 2004, highlighting the urgency of adaptation to climate change. Climatological events, such as extreme temperatures, droughts, and forest fires, have more than doubled since 1980. Meteorological events, such as storms, have doubled since 1980.

Personally, I have been longing for global warrming to affect Tasmania's bitter winters, and to annihilate the many summer frosts I get in my particular location - with no discernible results over the past umpty decades!
I was just having a similar discussion with Suchender. He was saying that MMGW is not happening, but if it did, it would be a good thing.

Ecologists disagree. They say that rapid changes cause species to lose their ability to survive in their existing habitat. They can't move quickly enough to a new range, to follow the changing climate. So, they go extinct.

I keep saying, "According to the official story." And as we're well aware at this site, there are many possible causes of bias & error in the sources we have available. Mass media sources are controlled by corporations & intelligence agencies. Scientists are inevitably influenced by their funding sources & peer review pressure. "Green" foundations can effectively buy scientists, and so can oil & coal companies.

Caveat emptor. We do what we can, to make sense of it all.
 
Last edited:

Ruby Gray

Member
Hopefully it is noted that I mentioned how talk of MMGW reminds me of these climate-related paintings which seem to support both warming and cooling simultaneously in the 17th century! Of course conclusions require much more information, and it is a deeply, even bottomlessly, fascinating field of study.

The Daily Mail tells me that scientific assessment of fossilized tree rings proves that the climate 2,000 years ago was warmer than hitherto suspected, even more so than today.

Those Milankovich Cycles certainly explain a great many things. There are just so many uncontrollable external variables in the mix of causes for perceived climate effects, with solar radiation being responsible for 99.96% of Earth's energy. Seems like all the human effort imaginable could therefore be wiped out by a renegade solar flare, or a passing space dust storm that blocked out incoming sunlight.

When in Texas soon after Al Gore's aggressive climate campaign, I was shocked at the duplicity between his words and the country's profligate use of electricity. All my friends in this idyllic climate used tumble dryers every day of the year, whereas in Australia, with our "Hills Hoist" culture, we let the sun and fresh air do our drying for us. In fact, the possession and use of an outdoor clothesline for airing one's clean laundry in public, was an arrestable offence in many areas. Nuts!!

And the American custom of heating all public buildings in the cooler months, apparently from a central source of mysterious fire generation stoked by goblins in underground caverns, was totally foreign to me, but explained the curious venting of steam from the sidewalks seen only in movies. These buildings were stiflingly and inescapably overheated to me. A trip to the post office was an ordeal to be endured.

So sucks to Al Gore and his "Inconvenient Truth"! With our Tasmanian hydroelectricity scheme, we are and always have been greener than he ever could be. His mandates for "reducing greenhouse gases" cut no ice with me. It has always seemed to me to be no more than a manipulative political power play, somewhat related to the 9/11 deception, and another stranglehold posture of the NWO.

While I deplore the industrial production line that churns out non-disposable "disposable" synthetic compounds that have practically formed a neoplastic continent in the Pacific Ocean, I find other elements blamed for MMGW to be inocuous and in fact beneficial in the greening of our earthly home, while many others are not even slated for attention.

So a herd of dairy cows supposedly belching methane gas, would be taxed under this system, when in fact this is a benign natural cycle where greenhouse gases are sucked up on vast field scale to produce the green pasture required for manufacture of a vital global food source, with all bovine byproducts returning carbon, water and minerals to the soil, creating increasing humus levels and fertility.

However the modern phenomenon of air travel which burns up vast quantities of fossil fuels with exponential increases driven by the western world's affluence and desire to spend time anywhere but at home, producing no beneficial organic or sustainable byproducts, is glossed over.

It has been astutely observed that those with the power to enforce their measures claimed to protect our planet's green status, intend to outlaw the natural compounds essential to achieve this! It is widely supposed that carbon dioxide is the major greenhouse gas, and it has been demonized as such. But in fact, CO2 is not the primary greenhouse gas. That honour belongs to good old H2O. Together, this tag team of much maligned chemicals, with the input of solar energy transformed in unreproducible systems found only in natural plant life, create all of earth's hydrocarbons and carbohydrates. Since greenhouse gases are by definition the indispensable building blocks of life itself, what is the logic of outlawing them? Whose Canute-like decree determined that CO2 levels had never previously, and must not ever, exceed 350 ppm? Surely the fossil fuel reserves were created during an era of much higher greenhouse gases than we currently enjoy.

Plants in enclosed greenhouses rapidly absorb all atmospheric CO2 as soon as solar energy restores photosynthesis each morning, within minutes. To grow abundant crops, supplemental CO2 must be pumped into a closed system, and 350 ppm is insufficient. Plant growth requires 1,000 ppm or more, and fossil fuels are burned in CO2 generators to provide this essential plant nutrient. This is an inconvenient truth not considered by Al Gore.
 

Ruby Gray

Member
In Australia, we have a long-term weather forecasting service, which for many decades has been able to predict climate at particular locations far into the future. So accurate is the system, that it has become a successful business, selling this information to individuals and sectors critically affected by climatic conditions. The basis of its accuracy is the longterm study of the cycles of sunspot activity historically related to climate events, along with lunar and planetary positions, and suchlike factors outside human control.

www.haydenwalkersweather.com.au
Our organisation has been in the business of weather forecasting since 1892, and therefore we are the longest serving professional Australian weather forecasting company. If you have a strategic decision to prepare for your business, or a private function to organise, we provide accurate weather forecasts to reduce your risk, at the same time increasing productivity and profit.

Our weather records date back centuries, and tied in with these events we have significant sunspot records which enable us to make comparisons regarding climate extremes. Past weather records in combination with my recent observations, enable me to assess the Sun’s volatility, and therefore, are able to forecast major climate changes throughout Australia. What happens on the Sun’s surface directly influences our weather patterns.

Four Generations of Accurate Forecasters

Clement Wragge 1852 – 1922


Much of the meteorological pioneering work in Queensland was performed by Clement Wragge, 1887 to 1902. By 1893 he had established nearly 100 meteorological stations in Queensland, together with 400 rainfall stations, so laying the meteorological foundation for Queensland. Clement also started the tradition of naming tropical cyclones, initially with the Greek alphabet, and then onto using the politicians of the day. Assisted by a young man named Inigo Jones, Wragge also began to issue long range weather forecasts for Queensland.

Inigo Jones 1874 – 1954

On February 2, 1893, Jones noted an Australian record rainfall of 958mm for the day. From round that time for the next 6 decades he kept a diary in which he recorded the daily weather. One of Jones' beliefs was in the definite cycle of weather. He believed the longest cycle lasted some 165 years. In 1923 Inigo correctly predicted rain after a dry spell. The ensuing rains created a demand for more of his forecasts so eventually it became his full time job along with lecturing. Jones sought sponsorship from 1927 to 1934, and the Queensland Government appointed him director of the Bureau of Seasonal Forecasting. Industry and Government contributed to the Inigo Jones Seasonal Weather Forecasting Trust formed in October 1928. It comprised of representative bodies of farmers and graziers and the Queensland Government. In August 1935, the Crohamhurst Observatory in Queensland’s Glass House Mountains was opened with funding from the Trust and the Colonial Sugar Refining Company. Inigo Jones died at the Crohamhurst Observatory in 1954 and his work was taken over by his assistant Lennox Walker.

Lennox Walker 1925 – 2000

After convincing his parents to help him put his age up, Lennox joined the army and at the tender age of 16 ½, he served on the Kokoda Trail in New Guinea and stayed in the army until 1946. On his return, he became a surveyor with both the Queensland and NSW Forestry Commissions and began working at Crohamhurst Observatory in 1953 as an assistant to Inigo Jones. Lennox learned all he could from Inigo Jones and then developed his own theories on how sunspots affect weather patterns. A combination of these studies, correlated with the particular time of year, provided the basis of his forecasts. Lennox correctly forecast the weather for the 1956 Melbourne Olympics. After a period of intense rain, he predicted fine weather for the games – and that’s exactly how it was. He also forecast Cyclone Tracey, which devastated Darwin. At 68, after 41 years of forecasting, Lennox retired and handed the reins over to his son Hayden Walker.

Hayden Walker

With a well proven accuracy rate, Hayden has become known as Australia’s most accurate Long Range Weather Forecaster. With a proven accuracy rate of around 80%, Hayden has been successful in predicting many major weather events – such as the cyclones Larry, Yasi, Marcia & Olwyn; flooding to the NSW coast during April 2015 and recent storm activity to QLD and NSW. Furthermore he was the only long range weather forecaster to predict Cyclone Oswald that brought heavy rains to New South Wales and Queensland, especially the floods to Bundaberg.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Hi Ruby,

Many of your points are well taken. And yet, you aren't really addressing the specific issues that I and others are concerned about, with MMGW.

The Daily Mail tells me that scientific assessment of fossilized tree rings proves that the climate 2,000 years ago was warmer than hitherto suspected, even more so than today.
The Daily Mail article is based on this scientific paper:

https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate1589#/

Which is based on a study of tree ring samples from northern Scandinavia. At that location, they found a long-term cooling trend of -0.31 degrees C per thousand years. But they can't really draw any conclusions about world average climate, and they don't claim to. What they actually say is that earlier studies might "underestimate pre-instrumental temperatures including warmth during Medieval and Roman times." They don't venture to state how warm Roman temperatures might have been, exactly. It's only the Daily Mail that made that extrapolation.

Here is a summary graph of those earlier studies cited, going back to 200 AD. None of those studies were suggesting that Roman times were anywhere near as warm as today. From https://www.pnas.org/content/105/36/13252:





Even if Roman times were in fact as warm as today, it wouldn't mean that the situation today is therefore OK. The concern is not so much about how warm the planet is now, as it is about where the climate is going, and how rapidly it's changing. A considerable amount of additional warming is already "baked in the cake" and the situation will only get worse, the more fossil fuels are burned.

So sucks to Al Gore and his "Inconvenient Truth"!
Yes, Al Gore is a hypocrite, and Americans are far more wasteful than Tasmanians will ever be. Agreed.

While I deplore the industrial production line that churns out non-disposable "disposable" synthetic compounds that have practically formed a neoplastic continent in the Pacific Ocean, I find other elements blamed for MMGW to be inocuous and in fact beneficial in the greening of our earthly home, while many others are not even slated for attention.
Again, agreed. Plastics and other toxic chemicals are huge problems which are being swept under the rug. While the elements that cause MMGW are, in themselves, not only harmless, but essential to the web of life on earth.

So a herd of dairy cows supposedly belching methane gas, would be taxed under this system, when in fact this is a benign natural cycle where greenhouse gases are sucked up on vast field scale to produce the green pasture required for manufacture of a vital global food source, with all bovine byproducts returning carbon, water and minerals to the soil, creating increasing humus levels and fertility.
Unfortunately, modern dairy operations in the USA are nothing like this. I don't know about Tasmania. Here, the cows are kept in overcrowded feedlots, their "byproducts" are dumped into anaerobic lagoons, and they're fed mostly GMO corn from heavily ploughed, herbicided fields.

However the modern phenomenon of air travel which burns up vast quantities of fossil fuels with exponential increases driven by the western world's affluence and desire to spend time anywhere but at home, producing no beneficial organic or sustainable byproducts, is glossed over.
Agreed. The NWO foundation-driven green movement is based on the idea that nobody is going to have to make any sacrifices, and indeed that economic growth can continue un-interrupted. Air travel is obviously a key part of the modern economy, yet there's no green aircraft technology in sight. So, the airlines are just going to have to pay their carbon tax, or buy carbon credits.

It has been astutely observed that those with the power to enforce their measures claimed to protect our planet's green status, intend to outlaw the natural compounds essential to achieve this! It is widely supposed that carbon dioxide is the major greenhouse gas, and it has been demonized as such.
Maybe some environmental extremists might want to outlaw carbon emissions altogether, but this is not the Green New Deal. Mainstream environmentalists just want to tax the carbon, or cap-and-trade carbon emissions rights. Here in the US we have income taxes, but it doesn't mean that it's against the law to work, much less that it's demonic to work and pay taxes.

CO2 is not the primary greenhouse gas. That honour belongs to good old H2O.
Yes, but it's now believed that higher levels of CO2 lead directly to warmer temperatures, which in turn cause more evaporation from surface waters, leading to higher levels of atmospheric H2O. Some sources also say that warmer temperatures inhibit cloud formation, as water in the air remains in vapor form rather than nucleating into tiny droplets. Less cloud cover means the planet is darker and absorbs more solar radiation, leading to higher temperatures, more water vapor & etcetera. Thus, H2O is thought to be in a positive feedback loop with CO2. This was more controversial decades ago. But as more data is coming in, most scientists seem convinced this is true.

Whose Canute-like decree determined that CO2 levels had never previously, and must not ever, exceed 350 ppm? Surely the fossil fuel reserves were created during an era of much higher greenhouse gases than we currently enjoy.
Obviously the 350 ppm "limit" is a political threshold, not a physical hard barrier. Yes, there have been times when both CO2 and temperature have been higher than today. In Jurassic times, the dinosaurs enjoyed temperatures 3 degrees C warmer than today, and CO2 of 1950 ppm.

But they were dinosaurs. We aren't. (Or are we?)
 

Ruby Gray

Member
Greetings Jerry,
Of course (as usual) everything you say is correct! And interesting!

The predictable NWO solution to the many industrial causes of pollution cited as the root causes of perceived MMGW seems to be, to franchise the carbon tax so in effect, the poor consumer pays for the evil producer of emissions to buy "carbon credits" which subsidise farmers to grow more trees which tie up good primary production land, but which ideally should never be harvested.

Of course, trees require vast volumes of CO2 and H2O, which is a good thing. But humble grass slurps up these nasty chemicals at a huge rate, too. In Australia, there are a few beef feedlots, but as nobody farms the very few areas with winter snow, all dairy cows live outdoors 24/7. They graze pasture at the stocking rate of 1 cow per acre, with increasingly large herds now being rotated around their paddocks in a cycle of from 17 to 21 days (best growing season) to 35 - 60 days in the off season. Their diet is supplemented with silage and hay cut from those paddocks when grass growth exceeds the capacity of the herd to eat it. Grain is often fed, but all manure is returned to the land which produced it.

There are herds of more than 1,000 cows all around me. What was very recently marginal land growing swamp gums, shunned by dairy farmers and bank managers, is becoming a bucolic oasis of green as irrigation and fertiliser and locally sourced lime transform hungry unproductive expansive silt soils into what seems initially like hydroponic grass production on a prairie scale, but will progressively sequestre huge amounts of carboniferous organic matter into the soil.

Of course the processes and transport involved in production of fertilisers are horrifying, but what can you do? People need milk, cheese and butter, and until the industrial age implodes and propels us all forward into a peasant agriculture where we each produce our own on the little share of land to which all citizens are entitled by birthright, it seems the manic progression to ever-larger more-rapacious industrial farming techniques will continue. However recently many dairy farmers have left the industry here, burned out from trying to meet the "efficiency" standards in a country which basically consists of a narrow fertile fringe surrounding a gargantuan baked red desert. Very striking to look at, but tourism isn't everything.

Much of our country was never suitable for farming, so for us to claim that the crippling cycle of droughts, bushfires and floods was caused by industrial processes on the other side of the world, is unrealistic. Many of our native trees are drought and/or flood tolerant, and rely on regular bushfires for seed germination and regeneration. It has always been this way, then.

In our arrogance we have colonised a harsh country and attempted to mould it into the image of the green and pleasant land from which we came, with mixed results. Population centres and industry encroach onto the most fertile soils, pushing agriculture further into the marginal areas. Already we have the world's most efficient farmers. How much further can we push nature? At what cost to the earth and the intrepid souls whose lot it is to perpetually reduce costs and meet ever-increasing targets?

It is not the cow's fault. The blame in this case is being levelled at the wrong culprit. Cows are a benevolent thing in this earth's ecology. Earth-destroying fertiliser mining with its corollary of forcibly mass-medicating the world with its incredibly toxic by-product, fluoride, is a very bad thing.

Yes, many of our industrial practices are very bad, and need to be addressed, whether or not they are to blame for GW. But that is not the way the NWO is approaching it. They are victimising the wrong sector. "Progress" must continue at any cost. The recent situation in the USA where 3 year old cars were classified as old clunkers and trashed in order to stimulate the ailing and highly polluting car building industry, is just one example of monstrous hypocrisy in the CO2 debate.

I drive a 30 year old van sans electronics, as little as possible, and that's the way I like it. But the majority of consumers scramble for the latest at any cost. I visit the trash dump, which has a wonderful recycling venue ... at present. It will shortly be converted to an American style "transfer station" with nothing reclaimable. Serried ranks of gleaming nearly-new but recently defunct whitegoods are shaming testimony to our society's insupportable greed and short-sightedness.

I am not the only objector to the MMGW hypothesis as it is presented to us. I just think it is wrong. Sure we need to fix many things. But I disagree with the way they are going about it. The proliferation of solar power generation on a household scale seems to be a very green option, although it Is claimed the cost of embodied energy in producing the hardware and recycling it a few years later, outweighs the benefits. But the constant inducement to utilise greater amounts of electricity, is counter productive.

My quarterly electricity bill is about $60. A handy comparative graph on the reverse of my bill tells me that other single person households are consuming perhaps $1,000 of electricity for the same 90 days. What is wrong with this picture?
 

Suchender

Member
....air travel which burns up vast quantities of fossil fuels ....
Wikipedia :
".....Most hydrocarbons found on Earth naturally occur in crude oil, where decomposed organic matter provides an abundance of carbon and hydrogen...."

Wikipedia :
"Titan is the largest moon of Saturn and the second-largest natural satellite in the Solar System.... the Cassini-Huygens mission in 2004 provided new information, including the discovery of liquid hydrocarbon lakes [ !!!! ] in Titan's polar regions. The geologically young surface is generally smooth...."

A 'planet' with a smooth surface (no tectonic activity ?) is producing LAKES of 'crude oil' ??!!!!!

Shouldn't we stop calling crude oil fossil !!!???

Wikipedia :
"....With its liquids (both surface and subsurface) and robust nitrogen atmosphere, Titan's methane cycle is analogous to Earth's water cycle, at the much lower temperature of about 94 K (−179.2 °C; −290.5 °F)..." = produced by bacteria ???
 

Ruby Gray

Member
That's very interesting!

But of course, "hydrocarbon" does not necessarily translate to "crude oil".
I wonder what the compounds are, and how they were formed.
It's hard to imagine bacteria functioning at those temps and low light levels, never mind the vast quantities of vegetation which would have needed to grow, surely in the presence of solar energy, oxygen, water (not solid ice), carbon dioxide and minerals to be converted into "crude oil" if that was indeed what the lakes consisted of.
And crude oil on earth was created at great pressure and high temperatures.
I think it must have been a whole other process forming different hydrocarbons there.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
But of course, "hydrocarbon" does not necessarily translate to "crude oil".
Yes, that's right. If you continue to read in Wikipedia's article about Titan, they state that the lakes are made of methane, CH4, rather than crude oil.

Shouldn't we stop calling crude oil fossil !!!???
This is referring to the abiotic theory of petroleum origins, whose most prominent advocates were/are Thomas Gold and Jack Kenney. The more widely held opinion is that most terrestrial petroleum, coal, and natural gas are indeed made up of ancient organic materials. This is because such fuel deposits are found almost entirely in layers of sedimentary rock formations, and they contain various trace materials of organic origin.

Wikipedia's article about the controversy is here: abiogenic petroleum origin. The first reference given by the Wikipedia article is an excellent, even-handed review "Development of oil formation theories and their importance for peak oil" by Hook, Bardi, Feng & Pang.

Abstract
This paper reviews the historical development of both biogenic and non-biogenic petroleum formation. It also examines the recent claim that the so-called "abiotic" oil formation theory undermines the concept of "peak oil," i.e. the notion that world oil production is destined to reach a maximum that will be followed by an irreversible decline. We show that peak oil is first and foremost a matter of production flows. Consequently, the mechanism of oil formation does not strongly affect depletion. We would need to revise the theory beyond peak oil only for the extreme — and unlikely — hypothesis of strong abiotic petroleum formation.
 

Ruby Gray

Member
I just came back from a cherry orchard and the cherry quality is really bad :-(
I hope it will get a bit warmer this year to improve this years cherry crop !
This may was way too cold !
View attachment 411
I presume you live in Europe, Suchender? I can never quite decide whether our Antipodean weather leads or follows yours, but it seems that one way or another we suffer very similar climatic events, 6 months apart.
Last year in Tasmania, a warm late winter coaxed all my fruit trees out of hibernation early, then a prolonged late Antarctic blast destroyed almost every blossom and tiny fruit. Not a cherry to be seen, no pears, hardly an apple. Not a single plum. Even the hardy currants were decimated.
 

Ruby Gray

Member
And since the climate is always changing, ecosystems also have an ability to adapt to change. The swings between cycles of ice ages and interglacials have not caused mass extinctions, because the changes are slow enough that the plants & animals migrate to find suitable habitat.
Is this not ignoring the woolly mammoth in the room?

What then of the herds of permafrosted mammoths, preserved as though in suspended animation beneath vast layers of Siberian ice, their most recent meal of lush grasses still between their tusks?

Alas, no mammoths were quick enough to migrate out of the path of this climatic extinction episode.
Or maybe enough of a gargantuan comet survived burn-up through our atmosphere and exploded thousands of cubic miles of ice upon them and their formerly extensive, temperate grazing lands.

A couple of similar events, albeit with fiery and nuclear repercussions, are slated to occur shortly, if John the Revelator can be trusted. And I suggest he can be. His 1,900-year-old prediction of the microchip implantation of humanity, to be compulsorily marked after the fashion by which "beasts" are now identified, monitored and centrally controlled, is a salutary warning.

As are his forecasts of famines, droughts, massive earthquakes, tsunamis, global political trends, the slaughter of 50% of earth's population, and poisoned water supplies, to name a few topical examples.

A great mountain burning with fire, headed towards our planet, would certainly create climatic effects from which nobody would be quick enough to escape.

Very scary indeed!
 

Ruby Gray

Member
Or, as an alternative, farmers grow grain in their fields, and give it to cattle in feedlots. This results in unhealthy cows, and meat products that are high in saturated fats that cause heart disease.
Somewhat off-topic here Jerry, but liberating to a butter lover, is the work of various medical researchers such as Dr Uffe Ravnskov and Dr Malcolm Kendrick, regarding the wholly beneficial and even essential qualities of dietary saturated fats and cholesterol. The video "Station Nation" is a good intro, and Kendrick's unputdownably entertaining and enlightening book "The Great Cholesterol Con" details the science rightly interpreted as opposed to the BigPharma-manipulated figures of all the major studies of these maligned nutrients.

Go make yourself a delicious fried bacon & egg sarnie with a clear conscience!
 
Top