Counting Cats in Zanzibar Rotating Header Image

The Jizzard of Oz

Climate alarmist propaganda is the gift that just keeps on giving.

Yet another Downunder MSM prick rears its slot-eyed, self-important tumescence and spunks out its warmist dogma informed journalistic opinion regarding AGW heretics carbon tax protesters.  But, unlike her fellow MSM dickhead Richard Glover, Jill Singer of the Herald Sun isn’t prepared to stop at merely tattooing unbelievers concerned Australian citizens.  Hell no.  There ain’t gonna be no poncey half measures for this verminous cunticulate.  She’s verging orgasmic to see the return of the gas chambers in order to silence the voices of reason enemies of Gaia Julia Gillard.  Here’s what passes for open minded comment at the Herald Sun:

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.

Meanwhile the greenscum prokaryotes look on, vacantly scratching their arses and wondering why the tide of public opinion is turning against them…

H/T WUWT

19 Comments

  1. 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.

  2. RAB says:

    It’s already been done Kev…

    http://hplusmagazine.com/2009/06/29/man-behind-biosphere-2/

    Bear in mind that this is an interview with the main Fruit on the Loon himself, so it is very self congratulatory naturally.

    The interesting thing though is that in the first experiment, Oxygen levels dropped to 14% and CO2 levels were up to 600 ppm ! The current level of CO2 in the atmosphere is 387ppm. That much Co2 and still the place didn’t burst into flames! In fact the desert area started to turn into Savanna.

    Everyone had started to go a bit bonkers by the second experiment, and apparantly the ants finally did for it when they started to infest the place.

    As a wise wit once said…

    Life would be a picnic… If it wasn’t for the ants!

  3. Kevin B says:

    The point being RAB, that if you keep the CO2 below 150ppm then every plant in the place will die, closely followed by the greenies as they either starve or run out of oxygen.

    Think of it as a graphic demonstration of the role that carbon dioxide, and indeed carbon, has in life on this planet.

  4. RAB says:

    Ah I see, got you now. I didn’t know how low CO2 had to fall to extinguish all plant life, and the clowns want zero carbon! Sheesh.

  5. CountingCats says:

    I thought it was about 220 ppm that shut down photosynthesis.

    In historical terms, the atmosphere really is CO2 impoverished these days.

  6. permanentexpat says:

    With all respect…How is it that if you want a really utter AGW nutter it’s an Aussie?

  7. Kevin B says:

    Yeah Cats, 220ppm and they stop photosynthesis, then below 150 and they croak.

    Course at 1200ppm – the kind iof level you get in commercial glasshouses – plants grow like billy-o, which kinda shows that plants maybe evolved with much more luvverly carbon about the place, and these days they’re feeling a bit starved at less than 400. Oh, and the more CO2, the less water plants lose through transpiration so they can grow in deserts and other dry places.

    So burn the midnighjt all – and all hours oil and coal and gas – for a greener world.

  8. CountingCats says:

    Consider your outrage.

    Unthinking and uneducated idiot that she is, all she is doing is advocate that skeptics top themselves, the same suggestion Delers made to warmists.

    Apart from sophistication in presentation want to show me any functional difference between Delingpole and Singer on this topic?

    Here we have an example of precisely why I objected in the first place. If you are outraged at her why weren’t you outraged at Delers?

  9. Lynne says:

    Many warmists are also foaming at the mouth Malthusians. Many climate sceptics are not. Dellers suggested the warmists show the courage of their convictions (them first) and I, for one, have no problem with that; what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander sort of thing. At the very least he’s inviting them to stand and fight the conflicting theories and evidence out in public – which the buggers refuse to do.

    Atmospheric CO2 is harmless to breathe, even at the considerably higher concentrations we know existed in the past hundreds of millions of years (carboniferous anyone?). High concentrations of CO2 in an airtight, confined space, which is what the bitch is suggesting, is certainly not harmless. As for CO, WTF? Wanna bet she drives a car?

    While the mention of Masada was not the best choice, Dellers is hardly advocating the mass extinction of everyone who disagrees with him which Singer was. He was suggesting the warmists practice what they preach from their towers of imperious hatred for humanity if they are so concerned about saving the planet. The two quotes are not the same.

  10. Shodan says:

    Odd…apparently I’m breathing both oxygen and nitrogen, I can’t smell either of them, and I’m still not dead.

    I think I might light a ciggie to conceal the smell of my socks, though.

  11. CountingCats says:

    Lynne,

    In other words:

    But, but, but.

    excuse, excuse, excuse.

    Both of them, regardless of the words surrounding the invitation, were inviting the opposition to top themselves. So long as you seek to condemn one, but not the other, I can’t take your condemnation seriously.

    The fact that I agree with Delingpole in most other issues is irrelevant to my condemnation of his call to mass suicide. In this one issue he is doing precisely the same as she; that he uses fancier and more erudite imagery is of no consequence.

    As to the opposition being Malthusians, well:
    Firstly, that is a supposition by you, not demonstrated fact. It may very well be true, but until you demonstrate it to be fact the claim is irrelevant.
    Secondly, I, and I hope you, don’t demand policies based on Malthusian control, EVER. The fact that some opponents do is no justification for our joining them on this. I certainly do not wish on anyone, including them, the policies they wish on me. That is what makes me different to them, I don’t support their policies, regardless of who they are applied to.

    If you do support their policies when applied to them specifically, how does that leave you any different to them?

    And high quantities of CO2, in an airtight container or elsewhere, are harmless so long as the partial pressure of O2 is maintained. There may be discomfort caused by the pant reflex which kicks in at high concentrations of CO2, but you still won’t be hurt. In a confined space you don’t die from build up of carbon dioxide, that is irrelevant, you die from lack of oxygen. The point is, that CO2 really really is harmless is no exaggeration. As she made clear in her article, it is the CO which is toxic.

  12. Lynne says:

    No buts. No excuses. This is how I read the two.

    Dellers – practice what you preach.

    Singer – shut up and die.

    To anyone who advocates saving the world by drastically reducing the human population I will say, “You first!”. It is not a demand to off themselves. It is an act of contemptuous defiance that reveals the hypocrisy of those who think themselves too important to be included in the cull they are proposing.

    As for my “supposition” of neo-Malthusians, unless you haven’t noticed, the green agenda seeks to de-indulstrialise as hard and as fast as it can which makes it an anti-people agenda. The UK government and the EU are enshrining their green zeal in law and the most vulnerable are dying as a result as winters continue to become more harsh and energy bills rocket beyond affordability, to say nothing of the impending blackouts thanks to a criminally suicidal energy policy. The nightmare is already here, albeit in a we sympathise but it’s for your own good form rather than the direct final solution form. Either way, it costs lives. I do not support these policies. I do not seriously advocate unilateral, pre-emptive violence but you’d better believe that, if it comes to a choice between survival or oblivion, I will fight like a the proverbial tiger to make sure it is they who go down and not me.

    As for CO2, yes it is harmless. And yes, people suffocate because of lack of oxygen. But honestly, Cats, do you think Singer actually gives a fuck about the finer details? She describes silencing sceptics with not only CO2 but also very harmful CO, as refreshing. Her words. That doesn’t just make her wrong, it makes her sadistic too. Or do you believe that Dellers is also a sadist and therefore no better?

    Dellers used a poor analogy, I don’t deny it. Singer used no analogy at all. The language might be similar but the messages as I see them are very different. I’ve tried to look at the situation from your point of view, which has a lot of merit and I agree, in general, with the thrust of your argument. However, I still read undercurrents and subtle nuances between the two people under discussion. Call it bias (who isn’t?). Call it female bloody mindedness. Call it the result of the generational gap and the wide differences in our personal experiences. Call it what you will. I’m sticking to my guns water pistols on this issue because I do not believe is it as black and white as you make it out to be.

    I would much rather being doing more of this than defending against the encroaching darkness of totalitarianism and its cheerleaders. But my sense of fair play and innate stubbornness won’t let me. Yours neither it seems.

    Therefore I call pax and ask that we beg to differ on this occasion. :)

  13. CountingCats says:

    Sorry Lynne, but this is double standards on your part. Delingpole encouraging opponents to top themselves, regardless of the sophistication of his word use, and Singer encouraging opponents to top themselves, regardless of the simplicity of her word use, are indistinguishable to me. It doesn’t matter in the slightest how much I like or dislike any of the parties involved, or what opinions or policies any of the parties profess.

    If I don’t approve of the policies of any one set of people then I don’t approve of them, full stop. I don’t, and won’t, advocate any sort of poetic justice is justified, that people should be hoist on their own petard, or otherwise suffer the consequences of the policies they advocate if I don’t approve of those policies for others.

    If those policies are wrong, then they are wrong. As you say, I will fight to defend myself and others against policies I abhour, but I won’t celebrate their being applied to their advocates.

    And yes, you are stereotyping. All (some group you dislike) are X, X being something you also dislike. All Greenies are Malthusians huh? Well, sorry, but they aren’t. Nor are all Malthusians greenies. There may be a high level of congruence, but there isn’t an exact match. Your assumption is invalid.

  14. Lynne says:

    Cats, I’m not going to apologise for being partisan. I’ve never pretended to be otherwise. Nor am I going to bow down to your lofty moral superiority and feel guilty for not being perfect in your image. If you want to act as my moral conscience, fine. If it makes you feel better to expose the fact that I’m a flawed human being then carry on. Just don’t expect me to appreciate being lectured to like a snot nosed kid and don’t be too surprised if I tell you what you can do with your moral high ground and the ram jet that flew you there if I feel that you have over stepped the line of polite debate. I accept that you are passionate about your views but at the end of the day you are not the only one who holds passionate views and I am not going to argue this point further because life is too short.

    You are not going to change my mind by talking down to me, trying to make me feel small. I once stood in your shoes, looking at things in black and white terms but life has tempered my views over time. It’s nice to be idealistic and sail above the morally compromised masses and win academic arguments but it rarely wins fights. Like you, I’m a product of tertiary education but I don’t let that blind me to the real world. As a copper I’ve scraped the shit of base humanity off my shoes and it opens your eyes to a lot of things.

    All Greenies are Malthusians huh? Well, sorry, but they aren’t. Nor are all Malthusians greenies. There may be a high level of congruence, but there isn’t an exact match. Your assumption is invalid.

    If you are going to quote me then do it right. I didn’t say all, I said many. There’s a universe of difference. At no time did I infer that all Malthusians are Greenies because that would be absurd. Therefore that makes your assumption of what you consider to be my assumption invalid.

    Q.E.D.

  15. RAB says:

    I’m with Lynne on this one Cats. I thought you were being semantically pedantic with the original Dellers post, and you’re just compounding it now.

    Do you really think there is an equivilance between what Dellers clumsily said, and what Singer said?

    Dellers was using an innapropriate metaphor for people who know they are defeated, to do the right thing. And in a very metaphorical sense, not a real one.

    Singer was implying something else entirely, coersive force to achieve their ends. She may try to laugh it off as a joke, just as that advert by Richard Curtis with the exploding Climate sceptics was passed off as a joke (but pulled off the airwaves immediately) but you know they meant it, just as the Fabians Shaw and Wells meant it, that if you dissent from their vision of humankind’s future, you will be liquidated, in a nice humane way of course!

    Everyone here uses stereotypes and generalisations to get their point across, and so does the other side. Only a fool takes it literally.

    So are you going to stop reading Dellers copy now that you deem him not to have reached the pinnacle of your Ivory Tower Cats?

  16. Mjolinir says:

    Re ‘Biosphere2′ //While there were some problems (with oxygen, for instance), the bionauts … managed to achieve their goal of living in this closed system for two years.//

    AIUI, the ‘problem’ was that no-one involved with the project realised concrete (the preferred ‘eco-friendly’ construction material) sets by reacting with – and sequestering – CO2 in the form of Calcium Carbonate. Very similar to the process whereby the formation of chalk deposits stripped out almost all of the CO2. That was a mere 65 million years before mankind started on its futile attempts to bring levels back up to those ‘natural’ levels.

    That removal of ‘Pollution That Causes Global Warming’ turned out not to be such a good idea, and the ‘solution’ to potential death by asphyxiation was – to add large quantities of oxygen to the (supposedly) sealed system?

  17. CountingCats says:

    hmph

    I think I’m right, but ok. No point arguing around the dinner table and upsetting everyone else. It spoils the mood over the turkey and delays the pudding until it gets cold.

  18. Lynne says:

    Cats, on the ethical level of this issue you are right. It’s the practical application of those ethics upon the world that is the dicey bit. Stepping into the grey zone of compromise can be a bit of a bastard but it’s a necessary evil I accepted long ago in order to make progress.

    I think Monckton’s recent use of a prominent Nazi swastika on his lecture tour was wrong. At least he’s realised and has apologised but I would have thought that such a well educated man would have considered the consequences of his actions beforehand and rejected the idea even if it was meant to be a joke. His valid message risks being drowned out in the furore. That the symbol was a calculated part of his presentation is troubling. A far bigger faux pas and deeper shade of grey than Dellers’ single use ‘M’ word.

  19. Paragraph writing is also a fun, if you be familiar with then you can write or else it is complicated to write.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: