Monday, June 29, 2009

ZenTiger Superhero Obama fools Orwell

Here's an amusing little clip on Obama employing his super powers.

It's really my small protest against the Democrats passing the cap and trade bill last week - something that symbolizes the left wing belief that taxes fix everything, and can even control the climate.

New Zealand is bound to follow the rest of the world on the path to a new form of global taxation. George Orwell, in 1984, suggested totalitarian control might be more palatable to the populace if they (Oceania) were engaged in a ceaseless battle against the remaining superstates - Eastasia and Eurasia. That idea is slightly problematic in today's times of rapid communication.

It's a truly brilliant move therefore to make ones enemy the climate. Even Orwell would have been astounded at this master stroke of propaganda.

It's now a race for bureaucrats (UN, EU) and multinational financial trading organisations (think Enron, Saros, and the multitude of investment firms recently bailed out by US taxpayers, keen to take another slice of our pie) everywhere to set in motion a global tax and control system justifying action to avoid world doom before we find out how unsettled the science behind the inconvenient truth really is.

We only need to rename the Ministry of Environment to the Ministry of Truth, define plant food as a pollutant and put up a 13 digit counter to show how much danger we are in.


A couple of notes about my links:
My point about the EPA defining CO2 as a pollutant is merely that it gives it a fair amount of legislative clout to enact whatever economically crippling strategy it decides. Expect to see America shoot itself in the foot. We get our chance later this year at Copenhagen.

The 13 digit counter is also a masterstroke of propaganda. These 13 digits measures around 0.35% of the atmosphere (CO2) plus some additional trace elements. They never mention this huge number represents say 0.4% of the atmosphere in total.

They also label CO2 as "a major source" of greenhouse gases, and also that "Human activity such as burning fossil fuels and deforestation is a major source of these gases." Wrong on both counts.

Water vapour is the major source of greenhouse gases, which makes up the majority of the greenhouse gases, with CO2 playing a much smaller role. Most of the figures we see AGW environmentalists quote has that nice little footnote "*excludes water vapour" to exaggerate their point. However, water vapour accounts for 95% of the greenhouse effect based on heat retention characteristics. AGW supporters then harp on about CO2 "forcings" and "amplifications", all of which are theories full of holes.

And to rub it in further - man-made CO2 contributions only represent 3% of the total CO2 contribution. That's hardly "major".

Related Link: Greenhouse Gases in detail

10 comment(s):

KG said...

I just found yet another commentary which suggests the wheels are falling off this scamwagon at an accelerating rate.
Mailing it to you.

Redbaiter said...

The word is this idiocy will never make it thru the senate.

MK said...

That'd be real swell Red. Here's to hoping the scumbags fail here too.

Anonymous said...

I think you missed the 'satire' tag on this one

KG said...

Wow! 'theatavism' just shot down that post in flames Zen!
What a profound and erudite rebuttal.
No doubt it's another warmaloonie, unable to muster a decent scientific argument but nevertheless absolutely convinced that AGW is somehow "real".

ZenTiger said...

I suspect our friend theavatism can muster some great arguments KG, as he is scientifically inclined.

That's not to say the political response to AGW is appropriate, and it's not to say that there seem to be a whole pile of good reasons for critiquing some of the assertions coming out about AGW.

Although, scientific arguments aside about what the stats might mean, I thought the quantities were about right. Perhaps theavatism can clarify?

Anonymous said...

They are about right and utterly irrelevant. The questions we need to ask are:

Do human CO2 emissons contribute to climate change?

Will future climate change endanger peoples lives and livelihoods and ecosystems? (I like ecosystems for their own sake but you can make an economic argument for them if you don't share my values),

Will cutting back on human emissions help to lessen these impacts?

Can we do it?

It seems to me that saying 'oh yes, but there is lots more forcing from water vapour" is at least as much a PR approach as a 13 digit ticker.

The 'satire' comment was really about the world-government line taken above the fold. If you have serious objections to the political answers being provided then present them, but doing that along with a conspiracy theory nuttier the Jesus Myth doesn't seem like it's going to help your cause.

KG said...

Almost all the assertions about the reality and urgency of AGW are sheer garbage.
Curious, isn't it that so many recently retired reputable scientists are now coming forward to point out the exaggerations, distortions and outright lies being used by the AGW crowd, now those scientists no longer have to worry about the sources of their research grants.
The wheels will eventually fall off this scam and many of the same people will be pushing the next Big Scare.

ZenTiger said...

Thanks for the clarification Theavatism.

If you have serious objections to the political answers being provided then present them

I have been. This post, other posts. Posts to come.

but doing that along with a conspiracy theory nuttier the Jesus Myth

What on earth are you going on about here? You lost me.

I'm not presenting a global taxation system as some sort of "conspiracy" theory being advanced by shadowy figures (although I understand that's the usual knee-jerk reaction to any comment which includes the United Nations.)

I am suggesting though that the current trend is heading towards a global taxation system, and with it a global governance body.

That's hardly conspiracy, it's fairly plain to see.

Greenies used to see this as the unfair power of multinational corporations raping the earth, now they see it as a huge opportunity to set taxes based on the weather to fund some major social re-engineering.

Rather than poo-poo my observation, perhaps you could first do a quick run through of the history of the United Nations, the EU, multinationals, global market economies, the money system, GATT, World Bank, IMF, OPEC, and the impact of technology and and consider my point without the trappings of "conspiracy" to distract you.

ZenTiger said...

Also, thanks for acknowledging my stats are about right. I think that this gives us a heads up to how relevant they might be.

There are also some other questions we can ask:

Is the solution proposed likely to have a positive impact?

Does the proposed solution create more damaging side effects, and are we properly aware of these?

What other options do we have?

How accurate are the predictions? (Have been the predictions)

I'll cover your other points in a post whenever I get around to it. Hopefully, there is no reason to hurry :-)

Post a Comment

Please be respectful. Foul language and personal attacks may get your comment deleted without warning. Contact us if your comment doesn't appear - the spam filter may have grabbed it.