The fanciful nonsense of children

The shallow talk of freedom and our entitlement to it . 

 Whether one has children, or has to live with them  as adults, one longs for them to grow up --To mature .
A lot of my baby booming generation have clearly never grown up .They have had it all and it hasn't been good for them . Nor has it been good for their children who are not war ready and too rich to notice their dependancies and their real lack of freedom; their lack of awareness of choices and why one one needs to make good ones .  

Many of my generation have made a career out being the reactionaries they were as teenagers.
The only thing that is troubling them is old age and the realization that there are limits to growth and that resilience ( the thing you need to survive in the real world) comes not with mere freedom( but with resistance repentance and a return to the disciplined walking on the narrow road .

eg Lerhmann/Higgins trial. The growth of the risk of unresolved domestic anger, violence and abandonment .  

Think  about the overreaction so evident to men , of many modern single women who insist on post Christian lifestyle choices and then reject men's pressure on them.  Why should men feel obliged to one women when all the talk is about everyone's freedom to " do what they feel like '' ,  for example. 
If men are only animals,  why can't men just play the predator? 

I feel for such women  and accept that the risk of violence , misunderstanding and abandonment  is real , but their response of many of them to the sexual revolution is not complete or effective  . 

Some of these issues  have been more deeply dealt with very effectively in a RECENT scholarly  study by Mary Harrington of THE THREE PRINCIPLES OF REACTIONARY  FEMINISM ( reviewed in News Weekly Nov 11th) .

Mary points to the  reality that modern feminists ( many of whom appear in this stories  frame ) have foisted an " atomised , dehumanized  and commodified social order on women which doesn't work well. - and  IMHO presumably means they don't know what to do sometimes but resist it, make men more of a target, and resist what is happening to them  more strongly than ever.  
The evidence is there in the fanaticism .   

Creating God in our own image

 Our age seems determined to dumb itself down . Unwilling to follow the lengthy connections of logic , the quickfiddlers  insist we can change the world , not by changing the word connections s,but by changing the meaning of words .
 Its the dumbest nonsense  ever and our popular medai are afraid to state the fact . It can only end in mindess crap and reationships betwen people that only end in unproductive distinctions ,isolation,  no talk  and divorce . 
Take this excellent piece from Mark Durie https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/6564055/2950692593657357613?hl=en#
. 

Decomposition - The ignored friend amongst the fiends

 Its June 8th 2022 and everybody is talking about gas .
You do not need to read this if you are panicking about global warming or severe climate change because if you are right , I can't offer any solutions . 

This site exists to expose the half baked fears and fancies of the hard boiled pedants who name the problem without really knowing what the problem is, let alone how to solve the problem .

Lets for the sake of argument, lets ignore those who think Global warning and CC are a problem - see note below) _
Gas burning  ( combustion ) is not a problem , only the exhaustion of fossil fuel supplies of it . 
I'm sticking with one challenge at a time. 
Every living space emits gas  and the combsustion in all its many forms creates heat   Afew weeks ago we we were told we didn't need it and it was just another evil threatening our future if it was burnt.
That suggests those who talk "decarbonising the economy" and not using combustion are half blind and advocating death to the living,
The confusion has got people in a panic about what they can and can't do, partly because GW is attached now to our burning of fuel in the public mind.
The city often now doesn't even allow you to burn wood unless you do it like cars do , burning it inside where no one can see you sinning or criticize you for doing something like that. So much hypocrisy and confusion and plenty of room for hypocrisy because the elements of concern are invisible.
 
You can't even see the mouths of plants expressing their opinion on all our production of carbon dioxide.  some other time if you are interested .  

Today , suggesting a moving feast , nearly everybody has come to confession and said  "we still need it "vowing to never sin again once the cold is over and we find a way to never burn again  . ( combustion is the correct  term for a useful necessary  and largely untalked about process that will keep going even if we stop burning.

Compounding the problems
1. We have those who  think Global warning and CC are a problem. Before they talk,  tell me ask why they haven't yet embraced decomposition  
as its happening in quite a big way across the landscape right NOW and in the next few months  , emitting even worse things than CO2 into the atmosphere .
2, Misplaced concreteness leads to misplaced investment, And I know that ; The above work using biological decomp  ( and other sequestration concepts ) has not happened because projects for SW rural Australia that i put up  15  years ago have never been followed up )Universities and agencies have been funded for 20 years to the simple " find way to reduce CO2 emissions"  with what result except to corrupt those agencies . And the new government think they are going to root out corruption with another  ICAC ,
That how bad and incompetent our political leadership on conservation is , you will notice i am not spelling it out for yet another meddler to mess with the idea and ruin it ( Ellul)


3, Thoroughly lost and confused political arguments
Where is the sequestration on the ground?   You wanna be smart tell the earths daily sequestering rate ?  The Andrews government  are so lost in there rotting old growth  forests and against logging that they would rather   bushfires ants, termites and fungi  consume and produce the CO2   They are happy to close down half of Victoria and let it all rot . This nonsense is all in the name of " i hate logging " or something equally as narrow minded and religious as the magic charm and misanthropic words like " harvesting " listed  for more fuller discussion on this blog. The result of     

Summary ; the need for more clarity and less pedantry and evil agent labeling 

Sorry it's time the press got it right . We are not talking about the evil of burning gas  but of the real challenge of living without fossil fuels .  
Make sure your noisy worry warriors stick to the subject and don't waver . 
We all have a  concern tha FFG ( fossil fuel gas) is going to run out and we should be working out ways to avoid relying on it .Instead of working together we have people running in all directions. 
Net Zero means what -- same story ---who knows what it means  . 
If net zero means using gas from decomposition and fuel from recent sequestrations then we  might have something to talk about , but so far the assumption is panic and we must stop all burning and harvesting ,
Not very clever country 

Decarbonization

 Decarbonisation  or   decarbonization  hardly gets  a mention without someone offering solutions to prevent it 
for example it could mean 
1.The term decarbonization literally means the reduction of carbon. Precisely meant is the conversion to an economic system that sustainably reduces and compensates the emissions of carbon dioxide (CO₂). The long-term goal is to create a CO₂-free global economy.12 Mar 2019

2,  amore manageable  concept  might be ths one from Deloitte "Decarbonisation is the term used for removal or reduction of carbon dioxide (CO2) output into the atmosphere. Decarbonisation is achieved by switching to usage of low carbon energy sources".

If I am confused so must lots of other people .Plants can't speak and neither can animals  so i as  an ecologist  would like the idea to be better put because it involves them in every breath they take 

The problem is that the public are now not clear about what is trying to be achieved.   The use of the term net Zero  is also needing a  clearer definition  because it seems everybody  SUDDENLY agrees ( november 2021 in Australia ) that its now possible ---  so in theory there is no argument that's it nota matter of politics unless of course its not so poorly defined it means different things to different people 

If you know which maths song sheet the parties are singing from please post a link to it here  

iF you read the post on Decomposition  you will note that  this natural process in the carbon cycle maybe left out of a lot of discussions about whet has gotta happen to what carbon for what end  before the dinosaurs out thee stop eating and getting warm on grass   

Battery Power

 Labor will have to change direction after the election because,  after following the adoring fans of new technology around for decades now they will have to face the fact that Greenlabor for all its promotion of good intentions knows zilch about HOW to get there 
To be switched on and hooked up to the thought ( not a reality ) of new forms of battery power is to ignore the 50 years since we had any significant changes. ( Not to ignore many design and technology improvemnets -lithium like all alkaline and acid batteries still don't overcome the limits of ions being together) 
Greenlabors desperation is so evident to the people because they have nothing else to talk about , The whole lot are in a fanatical mood and I hope the public see that before they vote . 

Technological fixes are the damnation drugs of our age  http://quickfiz.blogspot.com   ( read Ellul) 

Coronavirus crisis --

 Lots of things can kill us,  but variations on the threats from respiratory failure will always feature among the worst because our lungs are a tennis courts of great inspiration and opportunity especially as substrates for infection. ...  and especially when we are immunologically or physiologically vulnerable.
Or Stressed ---Like when we standout side our house in arctic breeze to greet our friends  because the Andrews government has decided we can longer meet by the fire  in our homes .
Dr Andrews is particular focused on the high infectivity of the virus ( fair enough - 1 fact)  , but if the only result of all his testing and high levels of transmission control is ( For eg - a very incomplete register of just where the 14 day response was acute ?)  a lowered level of colds, viruses and deaths associated ( not caused) with  the virus , all his talk of "wicked and dangerous" and " his way of getting through it '( when it will pass in spite of his brilliance ) will send his current high popularity into the dark of a stalled economy , work and sound "family"  support 
Proving "me a good poly who can do things" is seen to be what it is---- a desperate effort to prove same ? 

His East melbourne bubble group ( not one known for effectiveness in HH and family care  ) are continuing to find new words and ideas to frame their ongoing confusion of the real microbial realities and risks ,
Like so many the daily graph of my latest plot of  ONLY 2 forms latest data suits the pedants. 
The abuse of words like hotspots ( means UR happy to chase the horse) , waves( normally implies a degree of immunity,  but used to threaten panic) hubs ( all close associations risk build up , so how can they be consistent when  attacks on those who get too close together ? why don't they encourage events where people keep their distance - church and stadium , beach )  clusters , bubbles , 
 The abuse of freedom . Dr Andrews has made on the spot fines apply when normally one has the chance to goto court for failing to show good judgement ( no we live in  police state where laws are the quickest and most appropriate way to get things done  ) 

All the threats,  not just one  conveniently named threat ( mere description attempts )  eg  Potentially  lethal Respiratory tract association  ( other agents are likely to be involved - not just COVID19)  
So why have  the ongoing threats from a virus infection we have uncomfortably lived with in various forms for decades become the reason to close down our society in the middle of 2020. Its not as though we really know how to stop these variations and associations of microbes  and the failure of our comon means of inoculation from working, Things like hooping cough and antibiotic  resistance have come back to remind us that our technology for dealing with the threats of nature are not as strong as we like to think them to be  . We appear to  standing on the edge of  a cliff ,but is it just a virus ? - clearly not 

That's the point - we are in a panic mode . Suddenly the optimism that comes with technological faith is shown to be not working( as it does when you can't in crisis back fill the cracks as governments normally do )

Epidemiologists the world over would have been shocked how the crass political mind has jumped at straws that are NOT proven to be helpful
-( masks( any masks)
-- tracing ( mouth to mouth when it might be mist to mist)
-arrowto the heart presumptions ( you get the risk you are done for)
- no discusion of herd immunity 

-sanitisation ;
-the vain hope idea of inoculation   
Expensive unproven ideas that even distract people from doing what measures we know do help ( sterilization of hard surfaces)  to things we know do not ( sterilization of substrates- like our hands _) The medai too seem to milk the "fear motivates factor" by not publishing or asking questions about tracing asymptomatic 'cases" and further defining them (eg  those people that die with COVID and those that die because of it ( as you would do with pneumonia )  

The confusion in Victoria has extended to running around with a bus to test find and fear antigen responses in crowded areas where one would normally be expected to find large numbers of " cases : herd immunity to be developing . Instead of seeing this as a good thing" the testers and tracing pedants whose view does not understand thresholds and the complex basis of the tests themselves ( measuring antibodies ; Not presence or absence of the virus as is often presumed) )

What ever happened to educating the public - bringing the people with you ? 
The Victorian government are  increasingly reverting back to their new bad habits of trying to coerce people rather than educate them . The idea that the people in charge know things is fine; not  bringing the people with you in a time of threat is not . For some of us it makes us think our leaders are their limits of their theological and scientific epistemology.

1.  No policy appears to be in place to help the public understand why  severely economic and social impacting measures are chosen and why exceptions for PC crowds and PC lifestyles are exempt) making Andrews government not only highly not credible, but in contempt  ) 
2. The normal nature and meaning of the waves is not explained resulting in predictable wild speculation about what CAN happen when what could be expected with waves is a sign of hope.  ( increasing herd immunity. If normal immunological expectations have changed,  the government should tell us - such sharing is also  the safest way to prevent the revolt which now looks like threatening the cooperation of the public ;

Mr Andrews shallow ideas of what works and how to deal with things comes to the fore -
If only the tracer chaser would stop sending his bus to the latest" hot spot"
 maybe the realisation will hit ,  that while tests don't show it ( the titre doesn't reach a threshold?)  the infection is more widespread than dilittant Dr andrews crew suggest ,
Instead of closing ourhome s and our faces we can all go back to minimizing  risk and not trying to isolate in such an extreme fashion.  
WE need confidence that the country is doing its best to come together  to deal with the threats. that the possibility that mist to mist is happening not just mouth to mouth hs been considered. 

 no more hiding behind brute death and case figures ( detah from COVID ? death with COVID . where tests were taken and what they mean ) 

Climate change

Quite large climate change ( patterns of seasonal weather ) occurs and the most we can say is that the many known strong  causes like changes in the tilt of the earth  ( due in part to changing magnetic field)  , sun activity, atmospheric and reflective absorption dynamics ,ash clouds  come from more reliable indicators ( geological record , the fossil record eg dinosaurs , volcanology ,atmospheric and radiation physics )   than our meagre records of accurate daily  rainfall and  temperature over  less than several hundred years .
As  an example,  a major drop in temperature occurred across the world for several years  with recent ash clouds.  ( Mt Pinatubo in the 1980's and there are hundreds of these cones on the edge of earth plates) 
In the early 2000's, I published many responses to the fears of long term global warming by the media and politicians but gave up about 10 years ago when the fearmongers changed the goal posts to Climate change. 
If these people were genuine about science led problem solving they would have stuck with one problem and the maybe then  some solution/s . By expanding their concerns to any number of problems ( instead of sticking with global warming ) they have completely confused the grounds for solution development  .Why the people still fall for fearmongers is a mystery to me . 
I am still very interested in discussing what alternatives we have when fossil fuels become uneconomic ; and whether  we can realistically reduce the profligate use of such resources   
Maybe they think , with the advance of multi each way betting in the house of cards , it may still be year s before polys and wannabes  realize that its no longer safe to create a fear and not deal with it .
Some leaders only survive by predicting the change of public opinion before it happens. 


The name change  decision  gave them great scope for fearmongering,   but made any reasonable scientific discussion nearly  as big as the internet screed  itself  . God help the party who even mentions it again .   Some of my posts are now buried in blogs such as these   http://quickfiz.blogspot.com

Rather than trust me , however because I merely use climatic data and study it in a small way 
Here is a list of some scientists who,  I think are better qualified to say why,  we the people should not be worried about the connection between Co2 /CH4 levels and some sort of immanent and unchangeable atmospheric disaster ( The scenarios have yet to be convincingly stated as well what it would be and what could be done  about it -- other matters of course )   
.
Dr Robert Balling:
"The IPCC notes that "NO significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected."
This did not appear in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers.
Dr Lucka Bogataj:
"Rising levels of airborne carbon dioxide DON’T cause global temperatures to rise.... temperature changed first and some 700 years later a change in aerial content of carbon dioxide followed."
Dr John Christy:
"Little known to the public is the fact that most of the scientists involved with the IPCC do NOT agree that global warming is occurring. Its findings have been consistently misrepresented and/or politicised with each succeeding report."
Dr Rosa Compagnucci: "Humans have only contributed a few tenths of a degree to warming on Earth. Solar activity is a key driver of climate."
Dr Richard Courtney:
"The empirical evidence strongly indicates that the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is WRONG."
Dr Judith Curry:
"I'm not going to just spout off and endorse the IPCC because I don't have confidence in the process."
Dr Robert Davis:
"Global temperatures have NOT been changing as state of the art climate models predicted they would.
Not a single mention of satellite temperature observations appears in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers."
Dr Willem de Lange:
"In 1996 the IPCC listed me as one of approximately 3000 "scientists" who agreed that there was a discernible human influence on climate. I DID NOT. There is no evidence to support the hypothesis that runaway catastrophic climate change is due to human activities."
Dr Chris de Freitas: "Government decision-makers should have heard by now that the basis for the longstanding claim that carbon dioxide is a major driver of global climate is being questioned; along with it the hitherto assumed need for costly measures to restrict carbon dioxide emissions. If they have not heard, it is because of the din of global warming hysteria that relies on the logical fallacy of 'argument from ignorance' and predictions of computer models."

Professor Ian Plimer ( Australian author of Heaven an Earth a broadrangeing well cited tomme on this huge subject )
Dr Oliver Frauenfeld:
"Much more progress is necessary regarding our current understanding of climate and our abilities to model it."
Dr Peter Dietze:
"Using a FLAWED eddy diffusion model, the IPCC has grossly underestimated the future oceanic carbon dioxide uptake."
Dr John Everett:
"It is time for a reality check. The oceans and coastal zones have been far warmer and colder than is projected in the present scenarios of climate change.
I have reviewed the IPCC and more recent scientific literature and believe that there is NOT a problem with increased acidification, even up to the unlikely levels in the most-used IPCC scenarios."
Dr Eigil Friis-Christensen: "The IPCC refused to consider the sun's effect on the Earth's climate as a topic worthy of investigation.
The IPCC conceived its task only as investigating potential human causes of climate change."
Dr Lee Gerhard:
"I never fully accepted or denied the anthropogenic global warming concept until the furore started after NASA's James Hansen's wild claims in the late 1980s.
I went to the [scientific] literature to study the basis of the claim, starting with first principles. My studies then led me to believe that the claims were FALSE."
Dr Indur Goklany:
"Climate change is unlikely to be the world's most important environmental problem of the 21st century. There is NO signal in the mortality data to indicate increases in the overall frequencies or severities of extreme weather events, despite large increases in the population at risk.

In my view those who promote CC as urgent will face great historical  criticism for ignoring the real threats to life on the planet
Dr Vincent Gray:
"The [IPCC] climate change statement is an orchestrated litany of LIES."
Dr Mike Hulme:
"Claims such as '2500 of the world's leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate' are DISINGENUOUS ...
The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was only a few dozen."
Dr Kiminori Itoh:
"There are many factors which cause climate change. Considering only greenhouse gases is NONSENSE and harmful."
Dr Yuri Izrael:
"There is NO proven link between human activity and global warming. I think the panic over global warming is totally UNJUSTIFIED.
There is NO serious threat to the climate."
Dr Steven Japar: "Temperature measurements show that the climate model-predicted mid-troposphere hot zone is NON-EXISTANT.
This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them."
Dr Georg Kaser:
"This number [of receding glaciers reported by the IPCC] is not just a little bit wrong, it is far out by any order of magnitude ... It is so WRONG that it is not even worth discussing."
Dr Aynsley Kellow:
"I'm not holding my breath for criticism to be taken on board, which underscores a fault in the whole peer review process for the IPCC: there is no chance of a chapter [of the IPCC report] ever being rejected for publication, no matter how FLAWED it might be."
Dr Madhav Khandekar:
"I have carefully analysed adverse impacts of climate change as projected by the IPCC and have DISCOUNTED these claims as exaggerated and lacking any supporting evidence."
Dr Hans Labohm:
"The alarmist passages in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers have been skewed through an elaborate and sophisticated process of SPIN-DOCTORING."
Dr Andrew Lacis:
"There is NO scientific merit to be found in the Executive Summary.
The presentation reads like something put together by Greenpeace activists and their legal department."
Dr Chris Landsea:
"I cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically UNSOUND."
Dr Richard Lindzen:
"The IPCC process is driven by politics rather than science.
It uses summaries to MISREPRESENT what scientists say and exploits public ignorance."
Dr Harry Lins:
"Surface temperature changes over the past century have been episodic and modest and there has been NO net global warming for over a decade now.
The case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated."


Don' t ever stop asking questions , especially about something as complex as the interaction of invisible gases in the atmosphere .
I personally have no time to again do the same old same old world tour of the wannabes sites of  great significance :  the great  barrier reef,  icebergs , Antarctica  , coastal cities , Kiribati and ....you name it