global warming
climate change
carbon footprint
gay marriage
healthy river
clean coal
carbon pollution
big polluters
clean energy
carbon tax
ocean acidification
The way these double words are used, either very much distorts the genuine meaning of the words, or presents a false meaning with the aim of supporting the cause, which on deeper analysis is shown to be claptrap. A basic objective and theme is to rob tax payers' money to be wasted on some bizarre scheme. For example:
1. A decade ago we were supposed to be scared of global warming ... nothing happened. It is impossible to measure global temperature changes of a fraction of a degree in a year. Dream on. We have had about 12 years with no detectable rise in global temperature. So global warming was changed to "climate change" and anything variable with the weather is blamed on climate change (in the hope that no geologists object, by saying climate is always changing irrespective of CO2 emissions). The Government grant scam is perpetuated by applicants mentioning "climate change" and promoting the eco-religion that we must do something about it.
2. Next "carbon footprint" was invented to scare people .. what a load of bunkum. It is a foolhardy eco-religion that thinks we can have a prosperous society without burning carbon and hydrocarbon fuels. The gas carbon dioxide is NOT a pollutant and its emission is welcomed by the biosphere and farmers as it is a free fertilizer. This is not to be confused with "carbon farming" which also is a nonsense.
3. Gay marriage does not exist. Leave the Marriage Act and the traditional meaning of the word alone. Find another word to describe a gay relationship.
4. "Healthy river" is an inapropriate term to describe Australia's Murray River which is supposed to always flow out to sea at the ocean mouth. This is a nonsense. Over a decade in the Murray-Darling Basin you may on average have about 6 years low flow in drought , 3 years normal flow and 1 year flood. It is ridiculous to expect the river to always flow to sea by stealing more water from the irrigators. It is necessary to maintain water (sea) levels in the Lower Lakes during times of drought.
5. "Clean coal" is a bizarre scheme whereby the CO2 liberated at coal-fired power stations is captured and buried underground in order to stop the "pollution". It is called carbon sequestration (hiding carbon) which is a complete nonsense. CO2 is NOT an atmospheric pollutant.
6. "Carbon pollution" This is a double falsehood. What is meant by carbon is carbon dioxide which is an invisible harmless atmospheric gas vital for the biosphere, and it is implied to be dirty, thus causing pollution. The word pollution is defined in the dictionary as something that is foul or filthy. Using this word to describe the element carbon is a great insult to the most wonderful element in the Periodic Table, that forms more compounds than all the other elements put together, and is an essential component to all life forms.
7. "Big polluters" these are industries that emit large amounts of Greenhouse gases such as CO2, which is considered pollution. None of the major Greenhouse gases are polluting, eg water vapor and CO2. ABC TV continues with TV News images of white steam issuing from the cooling towers at power stations implying that it is "pollution". This is fraudulent media coverage and must be stopped
8. "Clean energy" is supposed to be superior to any other, presumably coal energy, which is the cheapest and we have plenty of it to last hundreds of years. The Greens want us to use solar and wind energy both of which are very costly and have only a limited economic use today, and are not worth doing.
9. Carbon tax: what is being taxed is CO2 emissions, now at $23/tonne, thanks to PM Julia. How crazy can you get? What does an ex-trade union lawyer know about chemistry?
10."Ocean acidification" The oceans are an enormous buffer solution having a stable alkaline pH of ca 8.1
These double buzz words are very deceptive and are largely used to squeeze or demand money from gullible Governments for the development of bizarre Green Projects, with an accompaning threat of the end of the world coming, or its equivalent. Governments should NOT be in the business of picking winners. Leave this to the private sector and R & D financing will automatically follow the most promising lead and at the appropriate speed.
In conclusion, I suggest that these catchy Green Buzz words be forgotten, and/or exposed as inappropriate when used by the Australian Labor Party and the Greens, the US Democrats, and unfortunately in the UK both Labour and the Coalition, God help the UK.
No comments:
Post a Comment