The insults levelled at me from the Loony Left after posting a single article on this blog…
…in which I neither deny, confirm or otherwise the reality or non reality of “Climate Change”, “Global Warming”, “Climate Disruption” or whatever pink flavoured slogan they have invented this week to terrify those who believe every single word uttered “‘cos Al Gore, the IPCC, East Anglia, Michael Mann (inventor of the Hokey Stick Climate Graph – misspelling intentional) and the media told me”…
…have reached new peaks.
[note color="#FFCC00"]I can only imagine they’ve all piled into a VW Komibi, daubed with flowers of course, and hastily shown up at their local Gore Store and purchased multiple copies of the – Climate Change Watermlon Protection Kit.[/note]
I invite you to comment on the commentators, if you find their comments to be as sickening and abhorrent as I do, here:
Reprinted: Hal Lewis: My Resignation From The American Physical Society
In the meantime the image above – Climate Change Watermelon Protection Kit – and the headline of this post is for my amusement and pretty much sums up how I view these people who would seek to undermine and destroy what I believe to be the fairest, but not perfect, system of government and commerce the world has known to date.
That system being those the Western World governs and conducts itself on. A system that endorses and supports the right to free speech, free debate, free enterprise and freedom of the mind.
A complete opposite of what some commenting in the above thread would otherwise have us subservient too.
It’s a kit for Watermelons everywhere, that they might continue closing their ears, eyes and minds to anything that even remotely disagrees with the religion of the Green Forrest Furbies and Immaculate Germination of the Tall Eucalyptus.
Don’t accept everything as given. It is healthy to question established “fact”, true science has thrived on this. True science is the first victim of a political “revolution” in almost every historical instance where the tenets of free thought, free speech and free association were not respected and seen as sacrosanct. Don’t let them take that away from you, no matter your views or politics
Scott Kane
Quote:
“When a government takes over a people’s economic life it becomes absolute, and when it has become absolute it destroys the arts, the minds, the liberties and the meaning of the people it governs.”
Maxwell Anderson
I notice that the blindfold is coloured grey in some areas and black in others. From this I conclude that it's made of carbon! This is a crime, under some law the name of which escapes me but it must be true because I read it from a watermelon elsewhere on your blog.
Shame!
At least the earplugs are green, but you must do more than that to redeem yourself.
The text on this page is also grey. It must be made of carbon. Perhaps that's why the watermelons only use short words, to avoid using too much of it?
More shame!
Bloody Watermelons…
I doubt your non-Australian readers get the "watermelon" reference. It might be worth explaining that our former treasurer described the Australian Greens as watermelon's because they green on the outside and red in the middle.
@Rich,
The term is used internationally now. In the USA in particular. Not sure of it's original use, but I suspect it was already in vogue before he entered parliament. It was being used, already, in the early 90's in Australia when the "green" element split from the Australian Democrats to form the "Greens", You know, when they ripped their logo from the Democrats "No More Dams" for Tasmania campaign – and word for word their orignal "policies", adapting them over the years to suit their own position.
The Americans also use "Moonbat" which works well for some members of the Australian Greens too. While the Greens use the environment to push socialism there are those in the Greens who use the Greens to push full blowm Marxism and in at least one case a Neo-Fascist ethos.
In Yugoslavia we have a saying about people who make stupid jokes about bad serious things like climate change.
"Everyone will sit on a little donkey."
You need to think about that and perhaps reconsider your stand?
Hello Goran,
Interesting saying. Curious that donkeys eat vegetation and according to Watermelon 101 therefore contribute to global warming through their gas output of methane. Which is my way of asking you to perhaps consider – not getting to close to the rear end of that donkey!
The jokes being made aren't about climate change. They're about the watermelons, who don't understand science, debate, democracy, the role of carbon in the universe, or anything else much.
so your solution is to mock the truth with this? LIAR!!
No, I rather think we're mocking people like you. How does it feel to be a mockee?
is this a joke? oh yeah the guy who runs this site is the joke. i forgot.
funny very funny if you are a three year old getting their rocks off at the xpense of the worlds future.
BASTARD!!!
have you thought about the children – they are really what matters here
Let me quote Charlie Brown of Peanuts fame – "Oh Brother."
Children are 18% carbon. So they're henceforth banned.
If only you were all right. The polar bears would still have their ice.Big oil could not access their quarry.No one would be fighting over their rights to all the minerals deep underneath the arctic. It was all a nasty dream and we will wake up to mountaineers in France still able to find snow everywhere also Austria. The nepalese would not need to worry about their farms flooding with the everest melts. Peru would also benefit from waking up from their nightmares and discovering that they were running out of snow melt. Oh and Bugger !Greenland could not grow fruit and veggies on the permafrost which would not have melted.
Sorry i meant NOT running out of snow melt
Liz,
You need to check the ice cutter stat's – an accurate way to determine ice-flows in the Arctic waters.
"Greenland could not grow fruit and veggies on the permafrost which would not have melted."
Do some research on Greenland, farming and Erik the Red. It's enlightening.
oh yeah?
LIAR!!!
greenpeace has proven polar bears will be extinct in twenty years due to climate disruption. lost ice is drowning millions of polar bears and they have the evidence to prove it carbon criminal!
Are you *sure* of those figures?
See – this is the problem with Watermelons quoting "science". They in fact don't. First – I'm betting you can't produce evidence Greenpeace – who are activists and not scientists – ever made that statement.
Most importantly – the September 1965 consensus on polar bear numbers worldwide (including zoos I expect) was in fact from 5,000 to 19,000. The current consensus is a population of about 20,000–25,000 polar bears worldwide. You can Google that and check for yourself – you know "Google"? It's a search engine. Search for the figures and confirm it yourself, "Real scientists" have published the estimates. Because I know you won't here's a pedestrian "link" for you to get you started:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_bear#Populatio…
Now – given that – and please do check the data – how could "millions" of polar bears be drowning?
To have any semblance of credibility on any subject – impossible for you guys I know – you could try starting with fact and reality for once and not make things up to suit yourselves.
you have not point your figures are not relevant. splitting hairs. the point is there would be MILLIONS IF NOT FOR GLOBAL CLIMATE DISRUPTION CAUSE BY HUMANS!!
only people who are corrupt and perverted think otherwise. only criminals try to argue against the facts.
what does that make you?
a criminal. i rest my case.
You can't 'rest your case' Sonia. You haven't made a case.
You said "greenpeace has proven", and it was amply demonstrated that nothing has been proven.
So you have neither facts nor a case at hand. Just empty invective.
You lose. Bye.
That has got to be the lamest response from a Watermelon to date. The only "science" you view as relevant is "science" you spout. The latter invariably either being completely fabricated or untested psuedo science.
Every one of you who have argued in this and other comments to posts on this blog (and elsewhere) always resort to conclusions that play the ad hominem attack card when it's shown your argument is based on ad ignorantiam.
When arguing "from authority" and if and when that "authority" is challenged with logic you conclude, again, with the ad hominem. To top it off you argue the cause is due to the effect, confusing association with causation.
You then "rest your case" without having made one in the first instance.
Try again – and try not to embarass yourself so completely.
I currently believe that climate change is real but not the effect of human activity. Why do politicians (particularly liberals) love climate change so much?
Please do not try to convince me that climate change is real or fake. That is NOT my question. Thanks!
Seriously, I have no idea. There are people who say Climate Change is not Global warming, and some say it is. Heck, on the list of topics for my group to choose to present, it had Global warming and climate change separate. Can someone clear this up for me? I need to know what I have to work with to discuss just Climate Change.
You will be more confused to learn it is also, now, referred to as "Climate Disruption".
Just when you thought it couldn't get more confusing they've variously labelled it:
"The Greenhouse Effect"
and
"Greenhouse Earth"
The Watermelons change names for the event generally when a fundamental tenet of the name is proven to be invalid. Usually by physicists.
Many of you, especially the neoconservatives, are dismissing the threat of climate change as a "liberal" fiction, but the science clearly demonstrates that it is occurring. Some of you accept that, but insist that climate change has happened before and has nothing to do with atmospheric pollution.
Certainly there is historic and prehistoric evidence of climate change. The Greeks and Romans recorded a shift to warmer temperatures about 500 BC, and the so called "little ice age" that began in the eleventh century is well documented. While some are blaming the current change on human activity an argument can be made that it is a product of the Earth's variable rotation.
Scientists have further argued that the Ice Ages themselves might have been signs of other climate changes. Given that some of those actually destroyed the higher life forms, should we not be worried even if pollution is not the cause?
Further, is it not possible that pollution could kill us anyway?
Zoey,
"Many of you, especially the neoconservatives, are dismissing the threat of climate change as a “liberal” fiction, but the science clearly demonstrates that it is occurring."
I'm not a neo conservative for starters.
Please explain – right now – to the people in some parts of central Europe who have homes 21 feet under snow that "science clearly demonstrates that it is occurring."
Take your time…
"Certainly there is historic and prehistoric evidence of climate change. "
I've never heard anybody say there was no "climate change". You need to concentrate on fact, rather than applying labels like "neo conservative". The fact is people are debating whether or not humans and to what degree they are responsible for accelerating or causing major climatic temperature increase – or not.
"Further, is it not possible that pollution could kill us anyway?"
Red Herring and rhetorical. Nobody doubts a significant amount of pollution could kill somebody – it has. But if you are referring to CO2 when you use the word "pollution" then you are misinformed. CO2 is NOT a pollutant.
Now – which is it you are arguing your case for. Pollution or CO2?
What has caused all the other climate changes for over thousands of years?
For the first time in the history of the earth, the ability to change the worlds climate, (which has been changing all by itself for thousands of years) has now been accredited to man
where do we get the idea that climates are static and they don't change
why over 5000 years of recorded human history is co2 now considered a pollutant?
Do plants consider it to be polluting
i would like to know what affects a plant seeing as they are mostly responsible for all the oxygen on this earth
do plants find extra co2 polluting ?
would plants grow bigger in the presence of extra co2
do you see plants bigger than normal, do you?
or more fruit being yielded?
evidence with your eyes vs the "it's all our fault guilt trip" off CNN
but i guess we all prefer the sugar coated answers off the tv
Answers to the above please
I'm doing homework and i need to know
Does climate change lead to global warming? Or does global warming lead to climate change? Or are they both unrelated in this way?
What's the difference?
The melting of the icecaps, are they part of global warming or climate change?
And the hole in Australia's atmosphere, is that part of global warming or climate change?
And also the increase of natural disasters too. Is that part of global warming or climate change?
I'm so confused. Please help. 10 points for the best and most detailed answer.
Thank you.
Climate change legislation's ultimate goal is to change the climate of the earth..Really? Change the climate of the earth? People actaully believe a few greenies can pass some laws that will CHANGE the climate of the ENTIRE PLANET..People who believe this garbage, I don't know what to think..What do you think?
for all the opinions greenies have I find most of them know very little about the real environment.
Do climate change followers have a weather machine in the planning stages? Should we have a standard year round temperature because we can't have it getting all warmer and cooler just whenever the Earth feels like it?
I would like to know what common people think about climate change. Do they see any changes in their countrys climate? Or maybe they have suffered the consequences of climate change?
I am presently carrying out a local weather alter essay for geography that is because of tomorrow. Eeeeek!
I just want to know how would I commence my essay off? The topic is "Is Canada carrying out enough to fight climate change," and I am on the positive side, or that Canada IS undertaking enough to overcome climate change.
I never want to begin off my essay with my thesis, which will be following 2 sentences in the introduction paragraph!
PLEASE HELP!
Several of you, especially the neoconservatives, are dismissing the risk of climate transform as a "liberal" fiction, but the science clearly demonstrates that it is occurring. Some of you take that, but insist that local climate change has transpired just before and has nothing to do with atmospheric pollution.
Certainly there is historic and prehistoric evidence of local weather change. The Greeks and Romans recorded a shift to warmer temperatures about 500 BC, and the so called "little ice age" that started in the eleventh century is properly documented. While some are blaming the present alter on human exercise an argument can be created that it is a solution of the Earth's variable rotation.
Scientists have more argued that the Ice Ages themselves might have been symptoms of other local climate changes. Offered that some of individuals in fact destroyed the increased daily life forms, really should we not be nervous even if pollution is not the cause?
Further, is it not possible that air pollution could destroy us anyway?
I at present feel that environment adjust is true but not the impact of human activity. Why do politicians (particularly liberals) really like local climate transform so much?
Please do not try out to persuade me that local weather change is real or fake. That is NOT my question. Thanks!
Seriously, I have no idea. There are individuals who say Local Weather Adjust is not International warming, and some say it is. Heck, on the record of topics for my group to pick to present, it had International warming and climate adjust separate. Can an individual obvious this up for me? I need to know what I have to perform with to talk about just Environment Change.
Local Climate transform legislation's ultimate goal is to adjust the local weather of the earth..Really? Adjust the local weather of the earth? Men And Women actaully imagine a few democrates can move some legal guidelines that will Adjust the local climate of the Whole PLANET..People who feel this garbage, I will not know what to think..What do you think?
for all the views liberals have I find most of them know very minor about politics.
Several of you, especially the neoconservatives, are dismissing the menace of local climate transform as a "liberal" fiction, but the science obviously demonstrates that it is occurring. Some of you take that, but insist that environment transform has took place before and has nothing at all to do with atmospheric pollution.
Certainly there is historic and prehistoric evidence of local climate change. The Greeks and Romans recorded a shift to hotter temperatures about five hundred BC, and the so called "little ice age" that began in the eleventh century is nicely documented. Even Though some are blaming the latest transform on human activity an argument can be created that it is a item of the Earth's variable rotation.
Scientists have further argued that the Ice Ages themselves may have been signs of other environment changes. Given that some of people actually destroyed the larger life forms, must we not be worried even if pollution is not the cause?
Further, is it not achievable that air pollution could kill us anyway?
Many of you, specially the neoconservatives, are dismissing the danger of local weather transform as a "liberal" fiction, but the science obviously demonstrates that it is occurring. Some of you take that, but insist that climate change has transpired prior to and has absolutely nothing to do with atmospheric pollution.
Certainly there is historic and prehistoric proof of environment change. The Greeks and Romans recorded a shift to warmer temperatures about five hundred BC, and the so referred to as "little ice age" that commenced in the eleventh century is well documented. Whilst some are blaming the latest change on human exercise an argument can be made that it is a solution of the Earth's variable rotation.
Scientists have further argued that the Ice Ages themselves might have been indicators of other local weather changes. Granted that some of people really destroyed the increased lifestyle forms, really should we not be concerned even if pollution is not the cause?
Further, is it not achievable that air pollution could kill us anyway?
What is the total local climate change theory about the dinosaurs going extinct?
Also, what are the activities that led to the dinosaurs demise (in this theory)?
Thanks, G.
Seriously, I have no idea. There are people who say Climate Change is not International warming, and some say it is. Heck, on the checklist of topics for my group to select to present, it had World Wide warming and local climate adjust separate. Can somebody distinct this up for me? I need to have to know what I have to perform with to go over just Local Climate Change.
I would like to know what common individuals assume about environment change. Do they see any changes in their countrys climate? Or perhaps they have suffered the consequences of environment change?
I am at present carrying out a local weather alter essay for geography that is due tomorrow. Eeeeek!
I just need to have to know how would I commence my essay off? The matter is "Is Canada carrying out adequate to battle local weather change," and I am on the optimistic side, or that Canada IS doing sufficient to fight climate change.
I don't want to commence off my essay with my thesis, which will be right after 2 sentences in the introduction paragraph!
PLEASE HELP!
I need some assist with my geography the query is :
The influence of local weather change on (some country) Your choice: Wherever is it? Give a distinct paragraph locating it. Don’t make it much too big e.g. a entire continent.
Second Heading: The proof for environment adjust at this location.
Why do we assume this distinct area is most likely to have climatic change? Assume of the leads to and results of environment transform mentioned in class.
What is happening now or could happen in the future?
How can we see this or even forecast the possible changes?
When is the adjust probable to happen?
I require some support with my geography the question is :
The affect of climate change on (some country) Your choice: Where is it? Give a obvious paragraph finding it. Don’t make it as well huge e.g. a entire continent.
Second Heading: The evidence for local weather transform at this location.
Why do we feel this certain spot is probably to have climatic change? Think of the causes and results of environment adjust reviewed in class.
What is happening now or could happen in the future?
How can we see this or even forecast the feasible changes?
When is the alter most likely to happen?
Do local climate transform followers have a climate machine in the organizing stages? Really Should we have a normal 12 months spherical temperature simply because we cannot have it obtaining all hotter and cooler just whenever the Earth feels like it?
I write an essay on climate change, picking a side of the debate and arguing in its defense, for school. I want to research both arguments first but I am unable to find an article giving SPECIFIC EVIDENCE that ties human activity to climate change apart from "Scientists now agree that…"
do you know of any such articles? can you post a link?
thanks a bunch
I would like to know what common people think about climate change. Do they see any changes in their countrys climate? Or maybe they have suffered the consequences of climate change?
I currently believe that climate change is real but not the effect of human activity. Why do politicians (particularly liberals) love climate change so much?
Please do not try to convince me that climate change is real or fake. That is NOT my question. Thanks!
What is the full climate change theory about the dinosaurs going extinct?
Also, what are the events that led to the dinosaurs death (in this theory)?
Thanks, G.
And it’s just weird to hear Janet Napolitano, Secretary of Homeland Security, describe her department’s focus on environmental justice and climate adaptation. (Audio, our transcript):
So as we look at climate change, the climate change that we are in, and think about the environmental phenomenon that is happening in the course of our own lives, we translate that into increased drought. We translate that into increased likelihood of wildfires, particularly catastrophic fires in the West, we translate that into more category four and five hurricanes, and that affects communities around the gulf but also up and down the Atlantic seaboard and the Pacific as well, and other natural occurrences that are affected by changes in climate.
Changes in climate really translate into huge environmental changes that have impacts on communities and also on national security, because they raise not only the issues of making sure that we are taking into account and caring for the most at-risk populations, but that we are also looking at and planning for the potentiality of mass migrations, demographic changes, patterns, concentrations of economic assets, population growth in different areas, deteriorating infrastructure. All of this gets knit together under this umbrella of climate change and environmental adaptation.
That’s an expansive, expensive agenda, isn’t it? We thought Congress formed the Department of Homeland Security to more effectively address imminent threats to the American people, priorities like fighting terrorism, controlling our borders, and handling security at our ports and airports. Turns out the Department is instead working on EVERYTHING!
http://shopfloor.org/2010/12/if-jobs-are-the-prio…
http://shopfloor.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/N…
I need some help with my geography the question is :
The impact of climate change on (some country) Your choice: Where is it? Give a clear paragraph locating it. Don’t make it too big e.g. a whole continent.
Second Heading: The evidence for climate change at this location.
Why do we think this particular location is likely to have climatic change? Think of the causes and results of climate change discussed in class.
What is happening now or could happen in the future?
How can we see this or even forecast the possible changes?
When is the change likely to happen?
I am currently doing a climate change essay for geography that is due tomorrow. Eeeeek!
I just need to know how would I start my essay off? The topic is "Is Canada doing enough to combat climate change," and I am on the positive side, or that Canada IS doing enough to combat climate change.
I don't want to start off my essay with my thesis, which will be after 2 sentences in the introduction paragraph!
PLEASE HELP!
Seriously, I have no idea. There are people who say Climate Change is not Global warming, and some say it is. Heck, on the list of topics for my group to choose to present, it had Global warming and climate change separate. Can someone clear this up for me? I need to know what I have to work with to discuss just Climate Change.
Many of you, especially the neoconservatives, are dismissing the threat of climate change as a "liberal" fiction, but the science clearly demonstrates that it is occurring. Some of you accept that, but insist that climate change has happened before and has nothing to do with atmospheric pollution.
Certainly there is historic and prehistoric evidence of climate change. The Greeks and Romans recorded a shift to warmer temperatures about 500 BC, and the so called "little ice age" that began in the eleventh century is well documented. While some are blaming the current change on human activity an argument can be made that it is a product of the Earth's variable rotation.
Scientists have further argued that the Ice Ages themselves might have been signs of other climate changes. Given that some of those actually destroyed the higher life forms, should we not be worried even if pollution is not the cause?
Further, is it not possible that pollution could kill us anyway?
What has caused all the other climate changes for over thousands of years?
For the first time in the history of the earth, the ability to change the worlds climate, (which has been changing all by itself for thousands of years) has now been accredited to man
where do we get the idea that climates are static and they don't change
why over 5000 years of recorded human history is co2 now considered a pollutant?
Do plants consider it to be polluting
i would like to know what affects a plant seeing as they are mostly responsible for all the oxygen on this earth
do plants find extra co2 polluting ?
would plants grow bigger in the presence of extra co2
do you see plants bigger than normal, do you?
or more fruit being yielded?
evidence with your eyes vs the "it's all our fault guilt trip" off CNN
but i guess we all prefer the sugar coated answers off the tv
Answers to the above please
Climate change legislation's ultimate goal is to change the climate of the earth..Really? Change the climate of the earth? People actaully believe a few democrates can pass some laws that will CHANGE the climate of the ENTIRE PLANET..People who believe this garbage, I don't know what to think..What do you think?
for all the opinions liberals have I find most of them know very little about politics.
Do climate change followers have a weather machine in the planning stages? Should we have a standard year round temperature because we can't have it getting all warmer and cooler just whenever the Earth feels like it?
I'm doing homework and i need to know
Does climate change lead to global warming? Or does global warming lead to climate change? Or are they both unrelated in this way?
What's the difference?
The melting of the icecaps, are they part of global warming or climate change?
And the hole in Australia's atmosphere, is that part of global warming or climate change?
And also the increase of natural disasters too. Is that part of global warming or climate change?
I'm so confused. Please help. 10 points for the best and most detailed answer.
Thank you.