Rudd has trigger - but a March election unlikely

Posted to The Age on 4/12/2009
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/rudd-has-trigger--but-a-march-election-unlikely-20091202-k6bx.html

Climate change is a convenient term. It can mean global warming or global cooling, a real safe bet. Probe more deeply, ETS is not about climate change, it is about a slight smack on the bum those culprits who pour out more carbon dioxide and ask them make a "donation" to the poor box, get a fall guy to make good the sin.

By February 2010, the Copenhagen meeting is finished and done with for the time being, life goes on as normal, including Kevin Rudd's burning mid-night oil writing 2-broadsheet of "Life without glory - ETS demise".

To date, the Labor Federal Government has continuously pumped out uncosted programs and policies on the run; spent money as though there is no tomorrow. It could be true, too, for this may be one and only term for Kevin Rudd to run the country.

Climate Change - of course is true

According to Wikipedia, climate change refers to changes in modern climate. However, I regard “climate change” as a convenient term coined by some smart cookies, and worshipped by so many. Every day we experience climate change, or in layman’s term, temperature fluctuation. If there is a prolong cold season, it is due to climate change; similarly, a prolong hot season is also due to climate change. Whether it is wet or dry, flood or draught, the term climate change still applies.

How can people living in desert regions survive, where temperature differential is extreme between day and night? How can a southern hemisphere dweller cope when he leaves the hot summer heat and enjoys a skiing holiday in Aspen? If one believes that human originated from South Africa and migrated to various parts of the world, it shows that human beings could adapt to any climatic conditions without fear of extinction.

Scientists dream of populating the Moon and Mars in the future. The temperatures on these planets are a lot more formidable, and yet scientists are trying to convince the world the possibility of colonising these planets, having sufficient air, water, and food for the future settlers. So, what is the big deal about 2 degrees increase in temperature over the next decade, if the future homes of humankind could be in a harsher and more hostile environment where the temperature differential is a hundred degrees (warmer or colder) between day and night?

On 9 October 2009, two NASA spacecraft intentionally slammed on the southern “ice cap” of the Moon. Four days later, 13 November, NASA scientists announced that there was water on the Moon – expensive and precious 25 gallons of water splash! Similarly, scientists also have analytical evidence that there is moisture below Mars’ surface. The scientists are convinced that there should be enough water in these planets to sustain human lives.

So many times we hear about Australia not being able to support higher population because it does not have enough water. Are the scientists having sight problems, not noticing that 75% to 80% of the Earth’s surface is covered with water, and Australia is the biggest island on Earth? If it is too expensive to turn the plentiful sea water on Earth to useable water for human consumption, how can Earth-base humans support financially the projects to harness water on those planets?

I have been talking and writing about global warming / climate change is a bullshit concept - besides carbon dioxide, one of the recognised greenhouse gases is methane gas from flatulent and decomposition of droppings of animals. (The latest findings show that a sheep burps out more methane gas than that from the rear.) During prehistoric time, there were no humans around working in factories or driving cars that poured out carbon dioxide; one can only conclude that the prehistoric animals' droppings caused the climate change (ice age) which wiped them out eventually!

We cannot stop the long term temperature from rising in the near future, not even if carbon emission is cut by 25% or 50% by all nations in the world. We can only slow down the warming. It is elementary that the Sun keeps pouring out millions of joules of energy / heat upon the Earth every day, now and in the future. Unless the heat energy can be utilised and converted to some forms of matter or energy which do not emit heat, or new technology that can reverse the heating process, we need a totally different kind of conference, unlike the Copenhagen talkfest, to discuss and map out the theory of future life-style evolution.

Early primitive man and some native tribes of present time live a nomadic life-style and enjoy self-sufficiency. Whether the rising sea levels and melting icebergs are caused by climate warming is not just a discussion topic now; immediate actions must be taken for the people living in low lying areas to move somewhere else to avoid being drowned. If weather pattern changes in an area causing severe draught, consider moving to places where rainfall is plentiful and food can be grown.

The question one needs to ask, as the worst case scenario, is if hypothetically all the ice on planet Earth is melted, how much will the sea level rise? Will all the land mass be under water? Obviously, this cannot happen, because there are plenty of highlands well above current sea level.

As a spherical thinker, I strongly suggest that new cities be built on higher grounds. The minimum altitude should match or above the maximum rise in sea level. What are we waiting for? Campaign now!

Political Candidates on Climate Change

Posted to Monash Journal on 25/11/2009
Commenting on “Heat on candidates to tackle some big issues”

Whether one is a believer or sceptic, all the discussion about global warming, climate change, ETS are nothing more than just talk fests, trying to prevent or slow down further deterioration of the climatic conditions. In concurrence to all these debates and discussions, researches on global cooling should be funded to help reverse the trend.

We must think outside the square, and release the trapped warm air to higher layers of the atmosphere, or improve air exchanges.

Greedy opportunists and hoaxers on climate change are no different from the Y2K vultures, making millions and billions on human fallacy and frailty. Why pay other countries to grow trees, to green the earth, while we, the hypocrites keep polluting the environment?

It is too much to ask the candidates to tackle big issues; the only big issue they all have in common is to the win the election by saying things that the voters like to hear. Unfortunately, they have no concept of looking at "big pictures".

By the way, ETS may be aptly represents "Environmental Trickery Scam"!

Say No to ETS

Posted on Sin Fong Chan’s Facebook Wall, on 21/11/2009

ETS is a hypocritical approach by governments around the world, including Rudd's Government of Australia, to cap carbon emission by allowing companies that need to increase their emission allowance to buy credits from those who pollute less. It is like the gaming policies - allow problem gamblers to lose their pants, families and love ones and then ask them to seek counseling from agencies funded by the government.

Please stop ETS - Think Climate Cooling

Many climate change / global warming theories claimed to be so, but they are nothing more than hypotheses. Many scientific facts can easily be viewed as fictions.

If a rise in a couple of degrees can cause such detrimental effect to lives on earth, then how can anyone or anything survive the fluctuation of temperatures between summer and winter in many countries, or city like Melbourne having four seasons in one day?

Commonsense tells us that millions of joules of energy have been pouring in from the sun each day. The ocean water can only be warmed up, and so does the earth's atmosphere. Unless the heat is dissipated beyond our atmosphere, our climate will only change in one direction - rise in temperature.

Unfortunately many pray to false gods of climate change. Have those so-called eminent speakers on climate change the proper data to back them up? They also speak on borrowed statistics. The view of Edward De Bona who wrote the book “I’m right, you are wrong” seems to apply to opposing parties of climate change / global warming. May I suggest that instead of having all the current talk fests on global warming, it’s about time all the do-gooders invest in research on global cooling, if this is the goal to reverse the trend?

Rise in sea level should not be viewed as catastrophic, for rising water will only help to fill the many dried-up lakes and rivers, rejuvenating inland aquatic lives, fauna and flora. Larger land mass covering with water will result in more water evaporation, and hence higher rainfall, thus producing cooler temperature for many parts of the world. Isn’t this the outcome we are looking for?

Has anyone ever asked why we need the icy poles, besides keeping the current polar animals alive? If scientists really believe that they can learn so much from studying the ice layers, and there is a fear of all the ice being melt away within the next two to three decades, scientist of future generations will have no way to tell of our current climate fluctuation.

ETS will not solve the current “problems”. Money and time spent on climate cooling will!

Methane Gas from Cow Droppings

Posted as "SphericalThinker" to ABC Q&A on 27/7/2009

Commenting on "Penny Wong desperate to keep her job"

Global warming is about bullshit. The 'shit' from the bulls / cows emits methane gas, which pollutes the air and affects the ozone layer. During prehistoric time, there were no humans around working in factories or driving cars that poured out carbon dioxide; one can only conclude that the prehistoric animals' dropping caused the climate change (ice age) which wiped them out eventually!

Stop releasing balloons, stop pollution

There are many hypocrites talking about saving the environment, especially those releasing hundreds of balloons on "celebrating life" (for the deceased) events. Once the helium gas has escaped from the balloons, they will fall into the rivers, streams, paddocks, etc. and pollute the environment and even kill marine lives.

Outdoor Alfresco Style Dining

Many cafes extend their trading floor space to the side walk. The furniture occupies area, thus narrowing the walk way. On very busy sunny days, this hinders free flow of pedestrian traffic, and may post a safety problem.

While the side-walk Alfresco-style dining may give the city a touch of European atmosphere, the negatives may outweigh the positive. Most diners are considerate, but some leave unsightly mess of used bags, bottles, containers and cigarette butts.

Side-walk diners, like many people, are concerned about the air quality they breathe, and yet they are quite contented to sit next to busy roads where unhealthy exhaust fumes are continuously emitting from motor vehicles. If the diners are smokers, they will suck in double dose of carcinogens – the tar and the exhaust particles.

Diners who choose to dine outside on very cold days should wear appropriate attire instead of using external gas heaters installed by the business owners. Most of the heat is wasted in warming up the open air, and only small proportion benefits the diners. Such inconsideration reflects on the naivety and hypocrisy of the diners on climate change and global warming argument.

I would like to call upon all authorities to ban the use of external heating devices, unless for emergency purposes, in the name of energy conservation, climate change minimisation and being a good global citizen.

The Right Direction?

Comment on NZ MP Heather Roy's An Island by Other Name (25/4/2009)

http://www.roy.org.nz/royters/island-any-other-name#comment-427

You guys in Kiwi land will have the last laugh at the Ozzies should the name change proceed.

The Land of Oz has very unimaginative names for the states: South Australia, Western Australia and Northern Territory. Last but not least - Australian Capital Territory where the seat of power is located.

Water Solution

So what, we do live on the driest continent on earth! If we have a problem, then we have to fix it. If the population of Australia grows from 18 million to 20 million, a mere 10%, then the water supply must grow by 10% as well in order to satisfy normal consumption and irrigation. This has not happened, and with conservative thinking approach, will never happen. Damming more rivers, or building more reservoirs are like taking cookies from a jar of limited capacity and limited number of "cookies".

Many countries are blessed with large and long river systems, and just so happen the rain falls on well-positioned catchment areas. There is a saying, "if Mohamed does not go to the mountain, then brings the mountain to Mohamed" (no offence to all the Mohamed's, and this is not a racist remark). If the rain does not fall on the so-called catchment area in Australia due to whatever the reasons - global warming, El Nino, etc., then we should consider creating man-made mountains and catchments where rain is abundant. The so-called climate change due to global warming, that's what many people believe, resulted in erratic weather pattern causing floods in the northern half of Australia, draught and extreme high temperature in the southern half.

Large amount of the rain run-off in the northern half should be channelled to the desperate south, not by current technology of construction water pipeline, but instead creating open "rivers".

Building mountains is not a fantasy - if we can build freeways, we can build rivers. The soil from any excavated land and including that from open-cut mines can be piled up to form the mountains. What are the costs? The costs are probably peanuts when we compare that with loss of crops and export income due to draught and bush fires, and in time to come, loss of human lives. With the man-made river system, we can even solve the flood problem experienced in many parts of Australia.

The new river system will be linked to the existing natural rivers; starts with the head of the Murray Darling River. There is a lot of spin-off from a mountain-and-river system - a new environment for aquatic creatures and wildlife, new food chains, increase in tourism and real estate development, just to name a few.

I'm not a futurist. I only consider myself as a spherical thinker.

Does climate change cause the ice to melt?

Can anyone or any expert out there tell me what caused the ice to melt after the last two ice ages? Surely these could not be the result of man-made global warming, because mankind was not around yet to pollute the atmosphere and water.

We probably need to look beyond the atmosphere, and research more about the solar flares and solar winds. These solar phenomina could be the possible causes which destroy the ozone layer, create magnetic induction to increase atmospheric molecular activities to melt the ice, and tilt the earth axis slightly resulting in distorted rainfall pattern.

The earth was a very hot ball of fire, and throughout millions of years, the surface was cooled. Where was the heat released to? The earth core is still full of molten substances, above which is the large body of water / seas / oceans. Without doubt, movement of sea floors or plutonic plates would result in cracks and sippage of hot substances into the water. Such mixture of molten substances and water would cause a rise in water temperature as time goes by.

Since the water surface of the earth occupies 75% of the total global area, we can assume that 75% of the solar heat that strikes on the earth surface would be absorbed by the seas and oceans. It is just a very simple deduction that the rise in water temperature could never be the work of human.