Home

Advertisement

Previous Entry | Next Entry

EcoSting.

  • 12th Nov, 2009 at 2:09 AM
legiron2

SteveShark is a relatively new blog to me but it's well worth a visit. Today he has that master of Green (as in nosegoblins), Sting from the Police. The band, not the paramilitary wing of the Labour party. It's not that easy to tell, except that Sting looks more like an ecoprotester than a policeman, goes about with a dishcloth around his waist and has hair in a distinctive 'electrocuted' style.

(The 30th anniversary issue of Viz magazine features Sting's Tantric helicopter invention, if anyone hasn't seen that yet.)

Anyway, Mrs. Sting was apparently asked how she justified herself and ElectroHead campaigning on green issues while having seven houses and flying everywhere in jets while pouring burning aviation fuel out of the window and all the rest of it. She said:

“I would like to think that we both work hard for the rights of indigenous people… but we do need to get around.”

Oh. They need to get around. Nobody else does so everyone else can make do with mud huts and all gather around the smouldering remains of the local power station after the Green Saviours have torched it. Everyone else can walk from Paris to New York, stuffing coal back into the sea bed along the way, while Mr. and Mrs. Sting fly overhead at vast fuel-burning expense because they need to get around. It's fine to tear the last fiver out of every poor bugger's wallet to pay for ever-rising green taxes because Mr. And Mrs. Sting have declared it's in the best interests of the planet, from the patio-heated balcony atop their lights-blazing mansion (one of seven).

Sounds like they are following in the footsteps of the Climate Change Pope, Gory Al himself, and their likewise ecohypocrite pals Bonio and Bob Gelding. Everyone else can go out and wreck the power stations and businesses, everyone else can huddle around a candle and shiver, everyone else can suffer cattle-class travel. Not the Green Elite. They have to get home and turn the heating up to tropical before roasting a couple of those evil methane-belching cows over the searchlight-illuminated barbecue.

And to think, all those activists listen to what these people tell them. They believe it!

The last twenty years' trend. Thats what they go on about. The last twenty. They can't go back further than that because it brings them into 'the next ice age' territory. So for about nine years the world showed a bit of warming, then nothing for ten years, and for the last few years it's been cooling. That is the last twenty year's records. So they change it from 'global warming' to 'climate change' because now it's cooling rather than warming and yet they propose exactly the same solutions to an entirely opposite problem. All the while worshipping the biggest carbon footprinters on the planet and doing what they are told by these smug and controlling self-enrichers. Idiots.

Buried away in the newspapers is a report on just how much human-induced CO2 is being absorbed by the Earth. It's nowhere near capacity, it seems. And yet the comments are filled with the Green Zealots who cannot imagine a world in which they are not doomed at all, but could get on with actually having a life instead of obsessing about the end of it. Meanwhile those who play them like chess pieces, Bonio, Stink, Gelding, Gory and the rest, just laugh and watch it all on the wall-sized TVs installed in their megajets while nipping across to Monte Carlo for a coffee.

I know the British have a long tradition of complaining about the weather but these people are taking it way too far. It was meant to be a conversation opener, not a religion.

The climate will change. It's never been constant. It will warm and cool. Sure, we should work on alternative energy sources to coal and we should recycle what can be recycled because that's all good. But don't tell us we are killing the world, because we're not. That's all lies.

Consider those who tell you to restrict your lives to Trappist monk levels and look hard at how they live. Do they look worried about their carbon footprints?

Until they do, neither will I.
wordpress blog stats

Comments

( 22 comments — Leave a comment )
(Anonymous) wrote:
12th Nov, 2009 08:18 (UTC)
Why listen to a failed entertainer when.......
Our current crop politicians are the most selfish people on earth. If for one moment they believed that climate change was manmade, and therefore reversible, all causes would immediately be banned in order to save their own miserable lives! Nothing has been banned, just taxed. No problem then is there.
[info]fatbigot wrote:
12th Nov, 2009 09:25 (UTC)
I wonder whether these frightfully rich eco-warriors have ever spent any time looking at the evidence in support of the hypothesis of catastrophic man-made global warming. Perhaps they have. Perhaps they have formed a considered opinion that the evidence justifies the impoverishment of everyone in the Western world (except them).

My suspicion is that they are victims of their own hype. After all, it can hardly be said that Mr Stink and Mr Bongo are in the top flight of vocal artistes. Neither of them is exactly an Engelbert when it comes to hitting notes the Bank of England can't cash. Yet they have made enormous fortunes out of ... well, out of what ... is it anything more than the odd catchy tune and their images?

Doing good things for impoverished brown people would be a fine way to maintain their images. Saying they are doing good things for impoverished brown people is a step on the way and it keeps them in the headlines, massages their overblown egos and ensures a few more sales for the next re-release of material they recorded many years ago.

Royalties, royalties.

Sadly they seem to think that earning royalties makes them Royalty.
[info]leg_iron wrote:
12th Nov, 2009 21:34 (UTC)
They get no royalties from me.

Especially since they wring their hands over impoverished brown people but will ignore impoverished white ones. Bunch of racists.
(Anonymous) wrote:
12th Nov, 2009 11:21 (UTC)
is CO2 a good thing after all?
could a scientific person please explain why CO2 is bad? i thought plants breathed it in, then exhaled oxygen. so doesn't a bigger car give you more ecological points? it's freeing up CO2 which should have been feeding plant-life before it was trapped as fossil fuel. doesn't CO2 emission, by man or by nature, encourage vegetation?
[info]leg_iron wrote:
12th Nov, 2009 21:53 (UTC)
Re: is CO2 a good thing after all?
CO2 in itself is not a big deal because it's present in tiny amounts in the atmosphere. Plants keep it that way and yes, the fossils show that plants grew faster when there was more CO2 around.

There have been times when the gas mix of the atmosphere was very different to what it is now. Much higher CO2 at some times, much higher oxygen at others (enough to produce some seriously big insects).

The climate change cult has taken a period of recent historyand decided that the atmospheric composition and average temperature is the only one that will support life. If we were that sensitive to temperature changes, a holiday in Spain would kill everyone who tried it. If we were so sensitive to atmospheric gases as they suggest, then nobody is alive today in London because the smog killed them all and anyone entering a room with a coal fire has died.

The climate will change, one big volcanic eruption can do that, and if one of the big ones goes, all our carbon-capture schemes are going to be as effective as emptying the Atlantic with a teaspoon.

There's a really, really big but long-dead volcano near Vesuvius. Scientists want to drill a hole in it. And they want us to worry about the central heating.
(Anonymous) wrote:
12th Nov, 2009 12:14 (UTC)
Bono's the worst
The Oirish explorer of his own colon once flew his fucking *hat* first class to a concert.

When his fucking HAT gains more air miles than the people he condescendingly tells to watch their carbon footprints, all whilst swanning around on tour with a set that's heavier than Heathrow's daily baggage weight, I think we have a class-A, unrepentant, unmitigated, undistilled uber-cunt on our hands.

Sting you can just condescendingly pat on the head, whilst silently mouthing 'bit of a tit' to the other people in the room, Bono needs locking in a cell with his ego.
[info]leg_iron wrote:
12th Nov, 2009 21:55 (UTC)
Re: Bono's the worst
That's one to remember next time Bonio shows his face, or whenever anyone quotes him.

His hat has a bigger carbon footprint than me.
(Anonymous) wrote:
12th Nov, 2009 12:54 (UTC)
Ecosting
There seems to be a pattern here.
Fox hunting for instance, if you are for it you are scum and fit to be harassed and bullied.
Immigration, if you are against it due to the obvious downsides, you are scum and racist and fit to be harassed and bullied.
'Climate Change', if you are against it...... I thing you get my drift.
[info]leg_iron wrote:
12th Nov, 2009 21:59 (UTC)
Re: Ecosting
If' you're a smoker you are only fit for harassing and bullying, and drinkers, and fat people too.

There's a hospital that won't accept ready-to-pop pregnant women if they are over the State Standard Weight. Even though seven or eight pounds of that weight isn't theirs.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1227175/Fat-mothers-banned-giving-birth-hospital.html

If anyone had written a book about a society like the one we have, it would never have been published. It's just too far-fetched to be real.
[info]johnpickworth wrote:
12th Nov, 2009 15:19 (UTC)
I hate them all with a passion...

I too have to travel. My 'other half' hails from Asia and on the rare occasions I visit (and I'm not rich) I'm reminded rather painfully of the costs. Last flight was £320 fare + £220 taxes! And that's before the next two tax increases recently announced. Is it any wonder the airlines are struggling?

Oh but its to save the planet I hear you cry. No its not. Most other countries don't have these punishing taxes, they're still flying to their hearts content. Why is it left to a small island nation to save the entire world? I laugh when they say we're bombing Afghanistan back to the middle-ages. Seems to me our Government is tax-bombing us back to the middle-ages... and its a toss up who'll get there first.

As for the Green A-Listers; I'm waiting for just one of them to sell all their 'other homes' and declare they're staying resident in just one to reduce their travel. Then, and only then, will I take lessons from them... but we know it ain't gonna happen.

I'm afraid we're never going to find a wall big enough to line them up against. I know we certainly ran out of lamp posts long ago.
[info]leg_iron wrote:
12th Nov, 2009 22:04 (UTC)
I wonder... is it possible to fly to Paris and then book the rest of the journey from there? If you booked it from this country they'd catch you in the tax net but do they get you if you're in Paris when you book it?

It would be a chancy way to travel unless you know someone in France who could book flights for you.

There are now so many politicians, quangos, green-cultusts, council morons and so on that it would take Brunel to design lamp-posts strong enough to hold them all.

Perhaps we could use them as railway buffers in shunting yards. That should get through them quickly and it won't cost us more than a few nails.
[info]johnpickworth wrote:
13th Nov, 2009 00:57 (UTC)
"I wonder... is it possible to fly to Paris and then book the rest of the journey from there?"

I've often tried this virtually... for some reason the prices always come out more expensive but I suspect that because they know where you're located (via the internet) that the prices are 'massaged' a little. I'm certain the locals aren't paying these rates.

However, I've given this a go. Using a route I know well and the KLM airline because their website is so flexible and informative.

Choosing the dates 1st February and returning 14th February 2009. Departing Humberside (don't laugh, they have flushing toilets and everything there now) to Kuala Lumpur via Amsterdam's Schipol airport. Airport codes: HUY, AMS and KUL.

A one shot booking from the UK gives £486 return.

The same route, dates and indeed the very same aircraft* but booked as return flights from Humberside to Amsterdam £149 and Amsterdam to KL £499 (558 Euros) totals £648

Okay, they'll always be a difference due to booking fees but they usually total 10 or 20 quid at most. So its a puzzle? Interestingly, the exact reverse journey booked from Malaysia is £622 including the UK duty which is now levied on all flights departing from UK soil (as the return flight would). But, a major reason this flight looks expensive is because of the crap exchange rates we are now getting. A couple of years ago this would have been just £400. Then again, their national airline (MAS) doesn't charge the locals the full rate... be nice if we looked after our own too sometimes but no, that wouldn't be allowed under EU rules would it!.

We could do with a Dutchman checking from Holland to see if there's a difference for the KLM flights.

However, in answer to your question. The travel industry has warned the Government that people will soon find it cheaper to pay the lower rate of Air Passenger Duty by flying to one of Europe's major hubs (like Amsterdam or Paris) and then continuing their long haul flight from there free of the higher rate APD. Effectively, another nail in our air industry to the benefit of our rivals. Is there nothing that Gordon Brown hasn't throttled to death yet?

* Outward: KL1489 > KL0809 Return: KL0810 > KL1498
(Anonymous) wrote:
12th Nov, 2009 15:28 (UTC)

How about starting with Hadrian's Wall and line them up on both sides?
(Anonymous) wrote:
12th Nov, 2009 15:31 (UTC)


Start with Hadrian's Wall and line them up on both sides.
[info]leg_iron wrote:
12th Nov, 2009 22:05 (UTC)
That could be fun and profitable. People would pay to walk along the top of the wall with a long scythe.
(Anonymous) wrote:
12th Nov, 2009 16:40 (UTC)
Ecostink
Don't knock coal so readily , we've still got loads of it and it's a pretty efficient source of energy.
[info]leg_iron wrote:
12th Nov, 2009 22:11 (UTC)
Re: Ecostink
I have no problem with coal, I'm just fascinated by other sources (and I know coal won't last forever). solar power is great here in the sumer but no use at all in winter. In summer I can charge batteries for free with a little panel. In winter I have to plug them into the mains charger.

The wind farms, I'm not so keen. They don't pay back the startup costs and maintenance. They look revolting too. I'd buy a little one if I could rely on it for some power, such as lighting, if it was going to repay the cost but I'm not convinced it would. The solar panels need no maintenance beyond an occasional wipe.

None of the alternatives are ready, so we need the coal, but the coal won't last for ever so we need to look at alternatives now because they'll take a long time to reach useful efficiency.

Nuclear is the best alternative at the moment but we've been stuffed there too. This government will never build any of the power stations they've just promised. They have no intention of trying.

Everyone should get a generator.
(Anonymous) wrote:
12th Nov, 2009 18:49 (UTC)
Anonymous Gareth says:
"The last twenty years' trend. Thats what they go on about. "

For some bizarre reason they decided the early part of that period was somehow an optimum 'global' temperature and we will all die if it gets much higher.

The Met Office exacerbate matters by continually comparing today with the average temperature from either 1969-1990 or 1969-2001 I think. Whichever it is it is not quite a fair use of the data but I can only assume these practices are to exaggerate the warming we have experienced.(If the last 8 years were included in the average we would not be 0.4 degrees C higher but much less.

The data itself is a bit preposterous - the notional global temperature is determined from a dwindling number of weather stations (Canada and the former USSR pretty much stopped providing data, and there are no surface temperature readings for the oceans included in the calculation.) and much of the data has been fiddled with (supposedly to counteract things like urban heat island) but the fiddles don't always stand up to scrutiny.

For such a serious matter you think they would throw a few billion at setting up a conherent and well maintained network to at the very least *start* collecting data that is credible.

They haven't even proven the way in which carbon dioxide is meant to increase the temperatures. The only mechanism is that as we add various gases to the atmosphere, regardless of what they are, the pressure at the surface increases which will increase the surface temperature. This is not a greenhouse effect.

The surface temperatures for Venus, Earth and Mars are roughly 460, 14 and -46 degrees C respectively. Distance from the sun and atmospheric pressure explain those differences. Both Mars and Venus have atmospheres that are mostly carbon dioxide. Were CO2 actually trapping energy as the climate scaremongers suggest Mars should far hotter than it is as the radiation going in wouldn't be re-radiated back into space. Yet the reason Venus is so hot is in part due to the very dense atmosphere not the composition of that atmosphere. The surface pressure on Mars is something like 1/10000th that of Venus. The Earth's atmosphere is 100 times that of Mars and 1/100th that of Venus. Like Goldilocks and her porridge one is too hot, one is too cold and one is just right.
[info]leg_iron wrote:
12th Nov, 2009 22:16 (UTC)
Re: Anonymous Gareth says:
They'll never do any serious research because a) there's no need, they have enough suckers believing it already and b) they know real research is already proving them wrong.

It's about time for them to start on the 'shrinking ice shelves of the Antarctic' again. It's summer down there. There'll be no mention of the increasing ice cover in the Arctic, not until next spring when it starts melting, like every year.

These people really believe nobody's noticed, you know?
(Anonymous) wrote:
12th Nov, 2009 21:16 (UTC)
"could a scientific person please explain why CO2 is bad? i thought plants breathed it in, then exhaled oxygen. so doesn't a bigger car give you more ecological points? it's freeing up CO2 which should have been feeding plant-life before it was trapped as fossil fuel. doesn't CO2 emission, by man or by nature, encourage vegetation?"

my question has been answered. the extra CO2 from industry has been absorbed by plants. the level has been constant for years.

http://www.bristol.ac.uk/news/2009/6649.html
[info]leg_iron wrote:
12th Nov, 2009 22:19 (UTC)
I'm surprised. I thought it would have gone down since the industrial revolution, when everything ran on coal and oil and wood.

The plants are messing up the message, so the Green Cult will have to dispose of them soon.
(Anonymous) wrote:
14th Nov, 2009 02:28 (UTC)
Al Gores new bok
Leg-Iron, get with the program, it is no longer climate change, I've promoted it to climate Crisis
"Our Choice: A Plan To Solve The Climate Crisis " out Nov. 3rd, just in time for everyone at Copenhagen to buy it on expenses.

AG
( 22 comments — Leave a comment )