David Bidstrup: “The madhouse effect”: how man-made global insanity threatens our future.

Looking at the behaviour of those who would lead us back to the dark ages in order to “save the planet”, the “science” of “global warming” and the insane policies put in place to achieve our salvation from “climate change catastrophe” provides some interesting insights.

We are expected to believe that the “average temperature” of the earth can be measured to an accuracy of hundredths of a degree and to be alarmed when the latest “hottest year on record” turns out to be 4 one hundredths of a degree warmer than the previous one. The question to ask is “how do you measure to that accuracy and what are the error margins in the observations”? We are supposed to be alarmed about a temperature rise of less than 1 degree C in 130 or so years.

The “global average temperature”, whatever that is, must keep rising to keep the narrative alive and there are legions of people searching for it every day. They look under the bed, in the garden shed and everywhere in between because “it has to be there somewhere” or the whole ridiculous idea collapses.

We are told that carbon dioxide, a substance that is the foundation of all life on earth and is vital to the growth of all plant life, is “pollution”. Without carbon dioxide there would be no life, intelligent or otherwise. I suppose we can blame carbon dioxide for providing our politicians.

It is vilified as a “greenhouse gas” but in the real world carbon dioxide concentrations are increased in commercial glasshouses by a factor of about 3 times the “natural” level as it promotes faster plant growth – so it really is a “greenhouse gas” and a very useful one.

Higher concentrations in our atmosphere would do more good than harm in terms of feeding the ever increasing world population and too low a concentration would be a disaster.

We are told coal is “dirty” because its use produces carbon dioxide and this allows fanatics to rationalise the destruction of the second most effective means of producing electricity to provide the energy needed for society to thrive.

In the insane quest to “reduce carbon emissions” we replace cheap and effective electricity generation with the most expensive and inefficient alternatives that produce intermittent energy at the whim of nature and are totally unreliable.

We suffer eye wateringly high prices and energy insecurity as well as the visual pollution of the ghastly wind farms and the health effects they have on the near neighbours.

Apparently “climate change/global warming” is caused by “the greenhouse effect” but it bears no similarity to the operation of a physical glass greenhouse other than the name.

A “real” greenhouse stops warm air from rising and being replaced by more dense cooler air by means of a physical barrier that separates the interior from the outside world so convective air movements cannot take place.

Apparently this effect is supposed to happen in an open environment where the air gets warmed by the surface of earth, (which is warmed by the sun), carbon dioxide “absorbs the heat” and then somehow defies physics and does not get intermixed with the cooler air around it.

Hot air rises, it does not stay still. As it rises, cooler more dense air from above will flow in to replace the warmed rising air. As altitude increases the temperature drops by 10 degrees per kilometre so as the hot air rises it will exchange heat with the cooler air until there is thermal equilibrium. At that point there will be no further exchange of heat.

The branch of physics called thermodynamics, (the branch concerned with heat and temperature and their relation to energy and work), has a fundamental law that says heat always flows from a hot body to a cool body – never the other way around – and that an object being heated by a source can never get hotter than the source. Thermal equilibrium strikes again.

If the heat transferred from the surface, (which is heated by the sun), warms the adjacent air it cannot warm it in excess of the surface temperature.

The warmed air cannot transfer heat back to the surface because at best it is at the same temperature, (thermal equilibrium again), and more likely is cooler. To transfer heat back to the surface it needs to be warmer than the surface and the question to ask is where did the extra heat come from? There are no “free lunches” in physics.

Heat cannot flow from a cooler object to a warmer object. If it did you could warm the kitchen by opening the freezer door or boil the kettle by placing it on a block of ice.

It seems that the mechanism that underpins the “science” of global warming/climate change” is based on disobeying the basic fundamentals of physics and so is a bit like perpetual motion machines and alchemists turning excrement into gold – although the “renewable energy” industry is having some success with this.

We are told it is “our fault”; we are putting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and cooking the planet but exactly how this is being done cannot be explained by some fanciful “greenhouse effect” as it is inconsistent with basic physics.

It seems clear to me that carbon dioxide has absolutely nothing to do with changing “global temperature” and that “natural causes” might be a better place to start looking and leave man alone.

The fact that climate is always changing and has managed to do so without our contribution of carbon dioxide in the past millions of years might make those of us with the capacity for critical thinking accept that our tiny “emissions” might not amount to a hill of beans and that “natural forces” might actually be the reason. Try googling Milankovitch cycles or sunspot data.

The earth managed to come out of an ice age without our help and it will go into another one some time, also without our help. When that happens life as we know it will cease to be. Let us hope it will not be too soon.

We are told we must “reduce carbon emissions” and the preferred method is to return to the dark ages and suffer the economic consequences.

It matters not that the “developing economies”, (China and India), pump out more that our annual contribution every few days and do not look like stopping anytime soon, in fact they are increasing.

It has become our “moral duty” to make some immeasurable reduction so we can “feel warm and fuzzy”, sitting in the dark eating cold baked beans as our society falls apart around us while we meet our “international obligations” to commit economic suicide in a grand but futile cause.

“Climate change” is all about drama. We have the fanatics shouting at us daily about the catastrophes that await us unless we “act now”.

Every problem is caused by mankind and carbon dioxide – sea level rise, (not true), ice caps melting, (not true, Antarctica has an average temperature of minus 49. It will take a lot of heat to melt that), “extreme weather” like storms, floods, hurricanes, cyclones, bushfires and droughts, (all not true) and the “death” of the Great Barrier Reef, (also not true).

“Tackling climate change” is the rationale behind any insane policy that increases the cost of living. “We have to do it to save the planet”. It’s a pity you cannot afford to have electricity, gas, water, a job and a home with food in the larder and glass in the windows.

“Climate change” is a blend of fanatical dogma and opportunities for “renewable energy” providers to gouge the populace with high prices that arise from using stupid technology instead of methods that have served society well for years and could continue to do so if sanity prevailed.

We need to remember the first principle of propaganda that says “a lie told once remains a lie, a lie told a thousand times becomes the truth”.

Also we need to remember that those that control the information control the narrative so it is vital that we insist that all the information and varied views – for and against – are made public and that policy makers take note rather than adopt populist positions where they milk the drama for political purposes.

We need to see those propaganda statements for what they are.  “97% of scientists agree” is the catchcry without a skerrick of proof that it is true. It is not – show me the list, what is a “scientist”?  “Climate change is real” is another although it is actually a statement of the “bleeding obvious” – it does and always has.

We need to see that the abuse hurled at anyone who dares offer a contrary view might be because there is something people are trying to hide and that attack then becomes their best form of defence.

While our “leaders” carry on in their state of blissful ignorance with their minds unencumbered by any actual knowledge they are being led by the nose by “science” fanatics, renewable energy carpetbaggers, economists and greenies who shout at us and foam at the mouth while the place is falling apart.

They paint themselves into populist ideological corners and rather than seeing the error of their ways they nail the colours to the mast and double down indulging in stupid competitions with their “oppositions” and promise more outlandish “solutions” to the “energy crisis” their policies have produced.

Bad decisions are made which make the country poorer, throw people out of work, shut down industries and impose costs that society cannot afford. The costs are charged to the federal or state credit cards and the people as ultimate underwriters of this profligacy pay the bills.

It is insane. It’s not the “greenhouse effect” that will end us all; it will be the “madhouse effect” where delusional intellectual dwarfs lead us down the road to ruin.

When we perform our act of collective insanity every 3 or 4 years and vote thinking the outcome will be different we need to look very carefully at the qualities of those who present themselves as candidates.

We need to determine whether they have IQ’s anywhere above ambient temperature, have the capacity for critical thinking, are not captives to vested interests and have actually done something socially useful in their lives.

We need to agitate and be noisy and demanding rather than hoping things will be better after a cup of tea and a lie down because they will not change unless we get off our bums and do something to change this insane situation.

Imagine the outrage when the “greenhouse effect” is officially pronounced a dud idea and all the pain, expense, disruption and impoverishment that has flowed from the quest to “save the planet” turns out to be a monumental waste of time and money?

It will be a classic example of “act in haste and repent at leisure”.

“The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him”.

Leo Tolstoy

This entry was posted in Global warming and climate change policy, Guest Post. Bookmark the permalink.

16 Responses to David Bidstrup: “The madhouse effect”: how man-made global insanity threatens our future.

  1. stackja

    without a shadow of doubt

    the ‘science’ is settled, and we must trust ‘science’. ‘Yes’? No!

  2. Fat Tony

    $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
    $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
    $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
    $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

  3. wal1957

    One of the major problems I believe is this. If you say “something” is true, as often as possible, the more the gullible will believe the lie. And so Gerbil Warming was born.

    When Gerbil Warming wasn’t happening as predicted, they just changed the name to “climate change”.
    As we all know, climate does change, who can argue with that?

    The alarmists are still having major problems though because their predictions just aren’t happening as their computer models have said it would. Duh!

    I think it would be fair to send all “Green” voters to live in STH AUST. They can be totally self sufficient with their windpower and solar energy and that big eveready battery. And then they can stop annoying the rest of us with their inane drivel.

    Apologies to Non-Green voting Sth Ozzies. You’ll have to move out soon anyway, you won’t be able to work without a viable, stable power network.

  4. Alexi the Conservative Russian

    I am glad to say I am getting old and will not likely live to see the end of this insanity. I really am inflamed about older Australians who have given all to country and cannot afford their energy bills. Old ladies talking on the radio about using torches and wet towels to keep themselves alive. This is not the country I fought for, nor the country our earlier Anzacs, WWII and Korean War veterans fought for. There is no honour in this country anymore other than that exhibited by a very few.

  5. David Brewer

    This post is on target most of the time, but its “thermodynamic” argument is probably wrong:

    “The warmed air cannot transfer heat back to the surface because at best it is at the same temperature, (thermal equilibrium again), and more likely is cooler. To transfer heat back to the surface it needs to be warmer than the surface and the question to ask is where did the extra heat come from?”

    Answer: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/08/experiment-results-show-a-cool-object-can-make-a-warm-object-warmer-still/

  6. Bruce

    “To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective, and being honest.”

    Dr Stephen Schneider:

    Leading greenhouse advocate, close friend of Al Gore AND major advisor to the IPCCC, in interview for “Discover” magazine, Oct 1989.

    Quelle sur ****ing -prise!

  7. Motelier

    Ask a greeny a few questions and observe the effects.

    1. Is the solar radiation from the sun greater or lessor than in the past.

    2. Is the current level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere higher or lower than periods in the past.

  8. Its a tax, a levy, a revenue stream based on power consumption. The vested interest that imposes the tax and distributes the money is strong, but so is the resistance to paying it. There are huge advantages in not paying it, some politicians will get this. Looking to the future Europe, they will not have the ability to afford it if their economic competitors in Asia do not pay it. The new Europeans may not be so green.

  9. OneWorldGovernment

    When we perform our act of collective insanity every 3 or 4 years and vote thinking the outcome will be different we need to look very carefully at the qualities of those who present themselves as candidates.

    We need to determine whether they have IQ’s anywhere above ambient temperature, have the capacity for critical thinking, are not captives to vested interests and have actually done something socially useful in their lives.

    David,

    I would like to see a referendum that makes it compulsory that included on every single voting ‘ticket’ is a line and box to mark that says “None Of The Above”.

    I have lived my life hearing from different folk that you get the quality of government that you vote for.

    Well I call BS on that.

    What’s to choose between tweedle dumb and tweedle dee?

    I would rather be allowed to reject the swamp of the Australian Uni-Party and write in my preferred candidate.

  10. manalive

    Heat cannot flow from a cooler object to a warmer object. If it did you could warm the kitchen by opening the freezer door or boil the kettle by placing it on a block of ice …

    Dr Roy Spencer explains why that argument viz. ‘the greenhouse effect violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics’ is nonsense.

  11. OldOzzie

    In the above – look at Melbourne Jan/Feb 1968 days above 30C

    Click on show in table and then click days above 30C – highlights the days of the month above 30C – easier to see qucikly

  12. manalive

    The claimed increase in the surface global average temperature since mid 19th century is the product of multiple adjustments, mostly to steepen the trend, and false precision.
    But there is no doubt that human ‘greenhouse’ gas emissions (mainly CO2) have increased spectacularly since ~1945, the question is what portion of the net GAT rise (~0.7C) since then was due to those emissions.
    The IPCC guess is over 50% i.e. >~0.35C.
    The net surface GAT rise 1910 – 1945 before CO2 emissions took off was as allegedly about the same as the post-’45 rise.
    The longest thermometer record is from Central England and dates from 1650, during the Little Ice Age, about the coldest period in the past 10,000 years.
    Theoretically science says doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration (currently 400 ppm) will cause an increase of ~1C and that doubling at the current rate of increase would occur around 2080.
    The IPCC predictions of 3C+ are speculation based on supposed positive feedbacks (mostly water vapour the most abundant ‘greenhouse’ gas) for which there is no physical evidence.
    Empirical estimates of the climate sensitivity (the actual rather than theoretical GAT increase due to doubling of CO2) are declining over time and most are now below 2C.
    Whatever the case Bjorn Lomborg has shown even assuming the IPCC model predictions are correct, the Paris Agreement (windmills and solar panels) will have virtually no effect.

  13. struth

    We surely now live in a time where a climate realist can compile a list of false predictions that were meant to have already occurred for us all to post all over the net with accompanying ridicule.
    You know, the dams will never fill, all the ice on the poles gone, the polar bears dead, the billions of climate refugees, pacific islands disappearing under waste deep Australian reporters………………………

  14. Wil

    Coal is stored solar energy from plants. The only difference is that it has a long energy cycle, measured in geological time, and created in periods of high CO2. Self balancing.

  15. mareeS

    I come from an upbringing where the Pope was infallible, where monetary indulgences earned you a spot in heaven, and where deliberate sin bound you for hell except for confession and true remorse and restitution.

    The green religion has taken on all of the Catholic qualities without any of the kindness or forgiveness.

Comments are closed.