Pages

Sunday 13 December 2009

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!

Wednesday 2 December 2009

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.