Counting Cats in Zanzibar Rotating Header Image

The New Bullshit – Part 5

Gore’s Climate of Denial (CoD) is a cyclone of alarmism, outrageous lies, pseudo-science and desperation.  Now read on…

The truth is this: What we are doing is functionally insane. If we do not change this pattern, we will condemn our children and all future generations to struggle with ecological curses for several millennia to come.

When all else fails – think of the chiiiildren!  Whoooooo-whooooo!  All aboard the Guiltsville cliché Express!

As for ecological curses, that’s what sceptics are fighting against.  That is, fighting against opportunist bastards like Gore who absolutely, positively insist on burdening us with the biggest ecological curse in the history of personal enrichment politics.

Twenty percent of the global-warming pollution we spew into the sky each day will still be there 20,000 years from now!

Nature makes you a fucking liar, Al.  Ever heard of the twin inconvenient truths known as the carbon cycle and carbon sinks?   How do you suppose limestone or a fossil fuel like coal was formed, you fool?  How do you think plants survive?

We do have another choice.

What choice is that, pray?  The choice to comply and make you rich at the expense of our civil liberties or be demonised for calling you what your are, a fuckwitted bilker?

Renewable energy sources are coming into their own. Both solar and wind will soon produce power at costs that are competitive with fossil fuels; indications are that twice as many solar installations were erected worldwide last year as compared to 2009. The reductions in cost and the improvements in efficiency of photovoltaic cells over the past decade appear to be following an exponential curve that resembles a less dramatic but still startling version of what happened with computer chips over the past 50 years.

How much did “sustainable” energy contribute to the US power grid last winter?  1%?  2%.  So tell me, Al.  When you up the ante on sustainables, what happens when the sun goes down and the wind doesn’t blow?  Do you sit in the dark and twiddle your thumbs (in the way you conspicuously didn’t during Earth Hour 2009) or do you switch to energy generated by a power station using fossil fuel or nukes?  If energy generated from sun and wind is so über-efficient why the hell is it so heavily subsidised to the severe detriment of taxpayers?  Perhaps you should ask T Boone Pickens why he scrapped his ambitious plan for a huge wind farm in Texas and began lobbying for natural gas instead.

BTW, the microchip industry bears no relevance to “sustainable” energy production and is therefore a non sequitur so I call BULLSHIT on it.

Enhanced geothermal energy is potentially a nearly limitless source of competitive electricity.

Sure it is.  If you are fortunate enough to live close to a high temperature geothermal source and you believe that the 10-23% thermal efficiency of your heat engine is viable.  But then, if you believe you can run the US power grid on sun and wind as efficiently as you can on fossil fuels and nuclear energy I guess you’ll believe anything.

Increased energy efficiency is already saving businesses money and reducing emissions significantly.

So why did companies like Northrop Grumman, Hilton Hotels and Nissan transfer operations away from the People’s Socialist Republic of California green utopia of the Sunshine State?  How come EBay and Yahoo have opened new data centres elsewhere?  Did all those Californian employees lose their jobs for the hell of it or were those companies driven out by the huge “anti-carbon” taxes being imposed on them because of the CO2 is pollution fraud?

New generations of biomass energy — ones that do not rely on food crops, unlike the mistaken strategy of making ethanol from corn — are extremely promising. Sustainable forestry and agriculture both make economic as well as environmental sense. And all of these options would spread even more rapidly if we stopped subsidizing Big Oil and Coal and put a price on carbon that reflected the true cost of fossil energy — either through the much-maligned cap-and-trade approach, or through a revenue-neutral tax swap.

Put a price (massive tax) on carbon?  What the fuck do you think biomass is you numbskull?  Magic moon dust?  And what do you call the by-product when you burn biomass in the presence of atmospheric oxygen?  Non-anthropogenic CO2?  Unless of course biomass has a magical property that allows it to burn cleanly in a vacuum…

All over the world, the grassroots movement in favor of changing public policies to confront the climate crisis and build a more prosperous, sustainable future is growing rapidly. But most governments remain paralyzed, unable to take action — even after years of volatile gasoline prices, repeated wars in the Persian Gulf, one energy-related disaster after another, and a seemingly endless stream of unprecedented and lethal weather disasters.

Grass roots?  You mean AGW pressure groups, avariciously insane politicians and climate alarmist NGOs like Greenpeace and WWF?  As opposed to the ordinary people whom, when polled, tend not to put much faith in the warbal gloming scam?  Do you honestly expect us to believe that energy only the well off can afford is either prosperous or sustainable?  Do you think we’re all as stupid as you look and sound?

What the hell is an energy related disaster?  Fukushima?  Chernobyl? Neither of which are fossil fuel related unless you believe AGW caused the Japanese earthquake.   Do you mean war in the Middle East?  How about the energy related disaster we’re all heading for if you, and all the other religious fanatics alarmist, shit for brains gauleiters, get your way and destroy the energy security of the West?

How come you don’t mention massive domestic oil reserves like Prudhoe?  Or the Bakken Formation? Or the massive untapped oil reserves of the outer continental shelf?   How about shale gas?  They aren’t under the control of Arab States. Are they?

As for cap and trade, well what can I say?  The licence to make money by destroying the economy Chicago Carbon Exchange was a bust and has been closed down.  People don’t want your crap legislation.  Get the fuck over it already.

Continuing on our current course would be suicidal for global civilization. But the key question is: How do we drive home that fact in a democratic society when questions of truth have been converted into questions of power? When the distinction between what is true and what is false is being attacked relentlessly, and when the referee in the contest between truth and falsehood has become an entertainer selling tickets to a phony wrestling match?

You are as phony, as prevaricating and as power crazed as they come, Al.  Or didn’t you think anyone had noticed?

The “wrestling ring” in this metaphor is the conversation of democracy. It used to be called the “public square.” In ancient Athens, it was the Agora. In the Roman Republic, it was the Forum. In the Egypt of the recent Arab Spring, “Tahrir Square” was both real and metaphorical — encompassing Facebook, Twitter, Al-Jazeera and texting.

Controlling people by rationing the supply of energy has bugger all to do with democracy so please feel free to piss the hell off.  Immediately would be nice, last week would be better.

In the America of the late-18th century, the conversation that led to our own “Spring” took place in printed words: pamphlets, newsprint, books, the “Republic of Letters.” It represented the fullest flower of the Enlightenment, during which the oligarchic power of the monarchies, the feudal lords and the Medieval Church was overthrown and replaced with a new sovereign: the Rule of Reason.

Yet you want the People to relinquish the Rule of Reason to soulless, authoritarian state corporatism and irrational cretins like yourself instead?  Are you fucking insane?

Gore rants on for several more pages about US politics and how nasty, selfish and thoroughly disgusting are the people with whom he does not agree, particularly Republican politicians and the right-wing media.  Not even the Obamessiah escapes his scorn.  Gore’s continued ravings are too dense and interminable to fisk so I’m not even going to attempt it.  I’ve said all I want to say on Gore’s religious zealotry.  I’ll end on the damning note that Al Gore, this towering example of intellectual superiority and scientific integrity, actually equates Thomas Paine’s pamphlet, Common Sense, with Harry Potter.  To say Gore is a wickedly insidious and ignorant cunt is not an exaggeration.  Some of the people who pay attention to this bluffoon (intentional spelling) have the potential to control the way we live.  We must stop this vileness dead in its tracks before it’s too late.

11 Comments

  1. Stonyground says:

    Excellent take down with just one gripe. Biomass is a carbon neutral energy source because Co2 is removed from the atmosphere while you grow it and then returned to the atmosphere when it is burned. I think that the main argument against it would be the enormous amount of land that would need to be used to get any usable amount of energy from it.

  2. May I quote a top-tip from this month’s Viz magazine?

    Environmentally friendly lightbulb manufacturers ~ get a jump on the competition by inventing one that actually emits f*****g light.

  3. Lynne says:

    Stonyground – thanks for the fact check. I’ll make a note for future reference.

    SAOT – Laffing!

  4. Roue le Jour says:

    This made me laugh like a drain.

    Data? We don’t need no steenkin’ data!

  5. Gordon Walker says:

    “Twenty percent of the global-warming pollution we spew into the sky each day will still be there 20,000 years from now!”
    So CO2′s half life in the air must be about 9 000 years and yet it is all dissolving in the sea and turning it acid already?

  6. Lynne says:

    RleJ – what made me laugh about that is they only want the data to help them predict more warbal gloming. So I ask them, if their conclusion is a foregone, why the fuck bother?

  7. Lynne says:

    Question: Does biomass produce CO2 when it burns?
    Answer: Of course it does. But it is “good” CO2 because biomass is carbon neutral and it only releases CO2 it removed from the atmosphere whilst growing. Simples.

    Question: Does biomass produce SO2 when it burns?
    Answer: Um…weeeeell…er…actually…ah…yes, it does. But only an itty bit, you see. So that’s all right then. Rly.

    Question: So presumably biomass firing plants will have SO2 scrubbers of the type that does not produce CO2 as a by-product?
    Answer: Of course!

    If you follow the logic of “carbon neutral” then coal must be the most efficient carbon neutral fuel around. It even managed to sequestrate itself for hundreds of millions of years. And since SO2 scrubbers have been used successfully for years, what’s the damn problem?

  8. Lynne says:

    Gordon, you blasphemer! There is no logic. There is only faith. As set down in the Gospel of the Holy Goracle. Cast aside thy wicked ways and accept the sacred penury that is mightily fiscal. To be energy poor in the eyes of the Goracle is to be rich in heaven after you have frozen to death from warbal gloming.

    Er…

  9. RAB says:

    Lynne, it must have driven you almost clean round the bend, wading through that much Goracle effluent, but you have done an absolutely magnificent job! A thousand thankyou’s.

    Now pour yourself a large one and put your feet up, you deserve it lady!

  10. ivan says:

    Lynne, you seem to have missed the bit about the Goracle being backed and funded by Big Green.

  11. Lynne says:

    I van, Big Green using Big Greenbacks stolen, under threat of imprisonment, from people like us.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: