Gulf Stream Weakening

If the Gulf Stream shuts down, or even if it is seriously disrupted, then we are all in a lot of trouble. 

The Climate Scam

The climate is always changing, of course, but what is global climate change science all about? The following movie examines the industry that is scamming everyone. If your income depends on selling climate change as a thing, then they'll work at proving that thing and doing something about it, even if it doesn't exist. Sort of like the virus from 2020, which was just the flu and common cold rebranded. 

Carbon Hysteria

I found the following article interesting and funny. The person being interviewed thinks a new religion is emerging, based around ecology and saving the planet. It has become heresy to question climate change or its causes, and carbon has become the new evil doer. I talk about this new religion in my book Snob's Guide to New Zealand. 

Here's the interview: https://internationalman.com/articles/doug-casey-on-why-the-carbon-hysteria-is-a-huge-threat-to-your-personal-freedom-and-financial-wellbeing/

Look, this is all about politics and money, but disguised as a religious movement, which is quite clever. There’s no question that Greenism is being promoted as a new religion.

Christianity is a dead duck in Europe, and it’s dying in North America. But people need some type of religion, a replacement for Christianity, to hold on to.

People will be encouraged to treat their taxes as tithes to wash away their sins against Mother Nature—much the way they tithed the church to expunge their sins in the Middle Ages. It’s an exact analogy. They’ll buy “carbon credits” as an analog for building cathedrals and monasteries.

Neil Oliver: Conspiracy Theorists Were Right

Neil Oliver is always good. Here he points out the truth, that we're living in a horror movie that will never end soon.

 

Pure EV's No Good - For Now

 Here's a different way of looking at electric vehicles but he comes to the same conclusions I do:

Meat-based Meat

Another idea; a lot of talk about plant-based meat. What about meat-based meat. Meat carries with it a lot of energy in a small quantity, that's why humans are omnivores. If they were herbivores they'd spend all day eating plants and have no time left to do anything else. Eating meat is the answer. This is criticised as inefficient but it really isn't, that's why humans domesticated wild animals and started farming.

Lecture over, here's the idea. You have a factory growing beef. It works like a giant sausage factory except the factory grows the meat from basic ingredients. No, I'm not talking about feed lots, this is a factory growing the meat and then you lop off the end product and sell the steaks. When I put this idea to someone they reacted by calling the factory a giant womb, and that's the idea. The brain would be a computer controlling all the inputs. It would also produce fertiliser as a byproduct and it could capture methane (farts and belching) thus preventing greenhouse emissions. What do you think?

Global Climate Change - Carbon Dioxide Sequestration

Here's an idea. Australia has a lot of barren land, otherwise known as desert. Cover the desert in trees or plants and you've got a big carbon sink. So, cover the place in plants.

But wait, I hear you say, the roots would need water. They would and this idea would require some serious engineering. To begin with; plants that take large amounts of carbon dioxide out of the air and deposit it deep in the soil. But at the same time, plants that require minuscule amounts of water.

Then where does the water come from? New Zealand's west coast of the South Island. The coast is the wettest place on planet earth. Then ship that water to Australia and feed it into a trickle irrigation system to keep the plants alive.

See where I'm going with this? Australia has the land, NZ the water. Australia pays NZ for the water, and the earth pays Australia for the carbon sequestration.

Big Oil and Electric Vehicles

I thought of this lovely conspiracy theory, have fun with it. I haven't seen this anywhere else, so I apologise in advance if this isn't an original idea.

As I've outlined numerous times, electric vehicles (EV's) are total nonsense, a complete waste of time, don't even think about them. That's the well considered experienced view of the matter, all very scientific.

But hang on, what if the fact EV's are utter crap has something to do with why they're being pushed so hard. What if the big oil companies and the myriad of companies heavily reliant on the liquid fuels infrastructure are pushing EV's as they know they're rubbish. They're doing this to discredit alternative fuels or forms of energy. The result would be to force people back to the internal combustion engine and this would be for the foreseeable future. In other words, EV's are a stalking horse, concealing big oil's desire to lock in fossil fuels. Hmm?

Note that Norway, the world's biggest hypocrite which has made a fortune from oil and gas is heavily promoting EV's. Sweden is not far behind this, they're massive hypocrite's too but they'd be promoting their carbon capture technology. There'd be a lot of interconnecting and overlapping agendas with this theory, but they all have one goal; to lock in people to a future that relies entirely on old industries that have morphed into new, sexy, born again new technology companies. Old technology companies that are really old tech re-branded or re-skinned.

To support this theory, consider ideas that never get looked at seriously. We have the idea of the water powered car, which are generally discredited. One in New Zealand was designed and built, the story of which you can read about here: https://waterpoweredcar.com/archieblue.html

The argument against this is that it involves more energy (or the same amount) to separate the hydrogen and so there is no gain. Fine, but what about a nuclear car? The nuclear reactor generating heat, then a steam engine is used for motive power. The amount of uranium needed to drive a car its entire useful life would be extremely small. Even microscopic. It would not be enough to create an explosion, it would be more like a clock with reflective hour and seconds hands and numbers.

Such a car completely circumvents the liquid fuels infrastructure. No gas stations, and very few oil refineries would be needed as only certain lubricants would be required for wheel bearings and the like. These ideas would be ditched because of that very fact. In this new green age of Corporate Green only the right technology is accepted and that has to be based upon centralised models that rely on the existing companies (or sources of capital ) to provide the solutions. Independence is not allowed, with this idea that's exactly why EV's are promoted, they're to fail as they must, sending people into the arms of Big Oil.

Climate Strikes: What Kind of Message?

Climate strikers are trying to save the planet. They're skipping school, work, and descending on houses of parliament and public spaces to demonstrate. Now it doesn't take a genius to work out their efforts will be for nought. But what I'm concerned about are two things: what is the end point for what is being proposed and who exactly is behind the giving of the message.

Imagine the strikes are successful and what is being asked for comes about. What kind of world would that be exactly. That would be a world I certainly wouldn't want to live in. Follow the logic; cars are bad, you can't use your car, you can't own a car, take your car away, the way you live is also bad, change how you live, tell you where to live, take your house away, all property is theft.

That's right, bloody communism, or whatever label you want to put on it. Look into the people behind organising these climate strikes, look at their politics. They can stuff off.

Greta Thunberg's Zero Carbon Journey

What kind of message is Greta Thunberg sending deciding to sail from Europe to North America? The sensible thing would be to fly, but oh no, we have to applaud the sheer stupidity of climate panic merchants like Thunberg. Newsflash: if everyone decided not to fly, the world would plunge into a global depression the likes never seen before. Millions would die as a result.

I'll tell you the message she is sending: we should all go back to live in the eighteenth century, a time when poverty prevailed, there was little or no democracy. Infant mortality was horrendous, life was brutal and short. Well, you can stuff that message where the sun don't shine.

And her journey is crammed with carbon, look at the kind of boat she's travelling on, and the technology she's using on board, it's all crammed with carbon. If she was trying to set any example, she would travel on a boat made entirely of wood (no metal nails) and cloth sails. Hmm?

Who is exploiting this young woman for their own political agenda?

IPCC Giving Every Reason to be Ignored

I'm basing my opinion on the latest IPCC report which suggests humans need to eat less meat to avert climate catastrophe. Story here:

https://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/climate-news/114866294/everything-we-do-affects-our-climate-experts-react-to-climate-change-report

What does the IPCC hope to achieve with this alarmist nonsense? Do they want to be taken seriously or not? News flash: humans are omnivores. That means a diet of plants and meat is fine. There's a reason for that and it's a good one; meat packs a lot of sustenance into a small package. If you want proof of that then observe the large predators. After a kill they spend much of their time lolling about the place, satisfied. By comparison herbivores spend all day eating (and all night scared). Humans cannot spend all day grazing, they need meat. Ask anyone who has had a serious job of work to do, they'll tell you quickly enough what actually works.

Human behaviour is not going to change  and anyone who thinks otherwise is stupid. And I don't even think that of the IPCC, no, I think they've been taken over by a vegetarian agenda.

What's the solution? Engineer solutions, that's what. Use carbon capture techniques in our soils, and animal diet that reduces emissions. The idea that people are going to suddenly chow down on lentils is pure fantasy and quite frankly, laughable.

Climate Strike

The event is planned for March 15, 2019. Supposedly this event is being organised by school children without the endorsement of schools. In New Zealand at least; who is really behind the planning for this event? What are their politics exactly and what are their credentials for safely managing a nationwide campaign?

I've noticed a decided lack of information about this. I don't believe for one minute that children are capable of organising a nationwide political campaign. The children are being used as pawns. Disgraceful.

Are valuable learnings possible? As things stand there is no valuable lesson as schools are not on board with it. Without classroom time examining all the angles of the debate, the whole exercise amounts to brainwashing.

The media has been complicit in this brainwashing. We need to know who the adults are behind this event and who is to be held accountable if anything goes wrong. Media, start being the professionals you claim to be.

Surviving the Carbon Age

Enough with the negativity, this blog post addresses how to deal with the rising levels of carbon dioxide. Here it's all about the future and solutions, the way forward.

We find ourselves in a downward spiral. At the same time as carbon dioxide emissions are rising, forest coverage is decreasing. Forests are disappearing at an alarming rate. The deforestation is having an effect on the climate, not just in reducing the number of trees available to eat carbon dioxide but also in relation to cloud formation and precipitation. It's not enough that one country acts as clouds don't observe national boundaries. Forests do a lot of good, they hold and condition the soil, suck in carbon dioxide, and help form clouds. We need forests.

But this alone isn't enough, we also need to decrease greenhouse gas emissions, the worst of which is carbon dioxide. That means being more efficient. I suggest we avoid adopting already proven failures like electric vehicles (EV's). Why? The simple reason is they don't work, they're not good cars and rely on technology running parallel to the liquid fuels industry. EV's rely on infrastructure never intended to power an automotive fleet.

My solution is three-fold:

Work on achieving greater efficiency using current technology.

What I'm talking about is reducing fuel consumption by making the engines of industry and consumerism work better. Keep developing the internal combustion engine to the point where you can run your car for a year on a single tank of gas. Why not?

This seems an obvious approach and one you never hear. It's an approach that doesn't throw the baby out with the bath water.

Put the forests back.

Instead of talking about carbon all the time (which appears to be a code word for the evils of industrialisation) and carbon trading schemes (which no-one understands), structure the world economy to reward forest creation. The more trees, the more carbon dioxide is processed by those trees. This would help a lot. I know what you are going to say, carbon trading effectively does what I'm saying, but the problem with that approach is it misses the point by making trees data units rather than living things. Everyone likes their trees, they don't care about carbon units.

Japan is a major industrialised power and they have 60% forest coverage so I'm going to use that as the benchmark. I've done some sums and it appears worldwide forest coverage of around 42% keeps things as they are now. There would be no gain as human activity from industrialisation would still keep adding greenhouse gases into the atmosphere (although at a reduced rate if my other two suggestions are followed). Greater forest cover is required to sequester the carbon dioxide that is emitted unsustainably, bearing in mind that these trees also need to be replaced as they rot and burn.

Here are the top 10 countries ranked by total size of forest coverage (with their percentage of forest coverage alongside):

Russia (49%)
Canada (49%)
Brazil (56%)
USA (34%)
China (22%)
Australia (16%)
DR Congo (50%)
Argentina (34%)
Indonesia (46%)
India (24%)

These 10 provide the big carbon sinks. We could expand this to the top 50 if you like (this is purely to illustrate). They all have work to do, some more than others. Across the board, there needs to be a 60% increase in forest size. Do this and together with greater industrial efficiency, you're almost there.

Globally, set up a system of trade tariffs that acknowledges the rate of forest creation in each individual country. Failure to meet targets would mean raising tariffs and less income for those not playing ball. This would be a new form of GATT (General Agreement of Tariffs and Trade). Forget Kyoto Protocol and its arbitrary 1990 benchmark, what my benchmark does is acknowledge that humans are the cause of the problem and the solution is collective in nature, but those areas settled earlier and deforested worst must do more to correct the harm. The tariff regime would take account of total economic output and local climate and soil types, so areas that find it harder to grow trees aren't handicapped. China would be a country required to do a lot, as would India and the USA.

What about small countries that emit a lot of carbon dioxide? I checked this and one example is South Korea. However while being a big emitter, their forest coverage is at 63%, so they would meet the benchmark. Once at 60% of forest coverage worldwide, trade tariffs would be set to zero for all nations. Global free trade so long as forest coverage remains at 60%.

Keep developing new technology.

In addition to the above, work on developing new techniques such as enhanced weathering for agriculture. This is where mineral rocks are spread on agricultural land, the effect of which is to take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere.

And finally, work on mitigating the effects of climate change, learn how to change and adjust. Not all climate change is a negative. Readers will note I haven't included any changes in individual human behaviour. That's because, after hundreds of thousands of years of evolution humans are unlikely to change their habits. All that can be done is to keep improving, keep advancing, and plant trees.

There we have it. Keep it sensible, keep it simple.

Quick! Save the Planet: Stuff's Campaign

New Zealand media group, Fairfax are promoting the Quick! Save the Planet series through its newspapers and Stuff.co.nz website. It's meant to awaken concern and inform about climate change, and offer ways to effect change. In so doing, I assume they expect this will result in saving the planet from its imminent demise.

It won't do anything of the sort and campaigns like this are misguided at best, and at worst extremely foolish or even stupid. Okay, I accept they have to sell newspapers, they're largely failing and they'll all have to shut up shop within my lifetime, but the desperate will do anything to survive.

The problem with this campaign is twofold; the first is with the hysterical nature of the title. Any solution is certainly not quick, and the planet doesn't need saving. Most people intuitively know this and so when reading they're likely to skip. Only the converted will read, and so no progress is made at all.

The second problem is more serious and lies at the root. This sort of scaremongering results in polarisation of opinions and climate change extremism. Any not fully on board with the most extreme climate alarmists are instantly labelled 'climate change deniers.' Heretics in other words.

Of course there is no real debate about climate change being real, no-one with half a brain is debating it. What is up for debate is the extent to it and whether the effects are adverse at all. And if they are adverse, how bad exactly and can it be managed? What doesn't help is when someone enters the debate talking practical matters, and they're shouted down and accused of being a 'denier.'

What we are witnessing folks, is the development of a new religion; in my book Snob's Guide to New Zealand, I call the religion Eco. I describe how this new religion functions. It seems Stuff and Fairfax have adopted the faith. 

IPCC Drivel

Why do we have to put up with this IPCC nonsense? Who in their right mind believes for one second that Global Climate Change can be reversed?

The solutions as described have the following effects; they hobble the western world and they amount to re-colonisation of the developing world. Just as they're about to enjoy prosperity, Africa and SE Asia are told to stay in their huts and suck it up. It's unworkable.

President Trump and the Paris Agreement

President Trump has it right again, his base will be happy with him pulling the US out of the Paris Agreement. Why should the US make all the sacrifices? I've got no argument with climate science but I do take issue with how the science has been adopted by those who want to see the industrialised world sidelined and then neutered.

It's like this; imagine you've worked hard to own a nice house. Someone from down the road with a much poorer house proposes that you be taxed so you can no longer afford to maintain your house, instead your taxes would go to improve the upkeep of the house owned by the person proposing you be taxed. Does this make any sense? No it doesn't, not at all, but this is the sort of thing these climate agreements demand of the developed world.

We could look it another way. How about we demand that Europe fix the climate solely at their cost? They've cut down their trees over the last few thousand years, put the trees back there Europe. The US is a new country, relatively speaking, why should they bear the burden? Imagine the howls of protest from Europe at the prospect.

Innovative Water Export Scheme

I've been saying it for a long time and now it looks like someone has got the idea over the line - almost.

The West Coast of the South Island of New Zealand is one of the wettest places on earth. The rain runs right off the mountains into the sea. It's pure fresh water untouched by industry. The water is suitable for export as ships can park right off the coast for loading.

>> The Scheme <<

A company has ambitious plans to pipe glacial water from rugged South Westland mountains directly onto tanker ships headed overseas.

Plans such as these help combat global climate change if the water is used right. If the water is exported to help green the deserts, then moisture from plant growth would help cloud formation and hence precipitation around the earth in areas where water is badly needed. The volume they're talking about taking is a drop in the proverbial bucket compared to the total rainfall on the West Coast.