Sunday, March 10, 2019


No, I don't have this from The Onion, but from HLN:


"Why don't we print money? We did that to save the banks. We must also do that to save the climate." says Member of the European Parliament Bart Staes (Groen!) in De Zondag"

... [there follows an exerpt where Mr Staes tells us what he should do if they would ask him to be Climate Minister in the next government. I'll spare you that]

... Apart from that printing extra money isn't a taboo. "The urgency is there: the warming up of the climate must be reduced to one degree and a half by 2030. The Rekenkamer [federal accountancy bureau; MFBB] says we need 1.115 billion EUR yearly. That is possible. We do not have to screw up the budget for that. Why don't we create a European Climate Bank? Such a bank can with that money finance investments AND provide citizens and companies with rent free loans."

Mr Staes may be onto something. Why, printing extra money worked tremendously well in the Weimar Republic:

... in Zimbabwe under Mugabe, where everybody became a trillionaire overnight:

... and most recently in Venezuela, of which in 2006 the economic policies were highly praised by Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz:

Longtime DowneastBlog readers may remember a post I put up in 2007 re the same nutter. Indeed, in early May 2007 the same Bart Staes called for a drastic reduction in global cattle because cow farts contain too much methane, which is a potent greenhouse gas:

So it took Mr Staes all of 12 years to come up with a plan - printing money for a European Climate Bank - to solve the persisting problem of cow farts. Because cow farts contain methane (CH4).

I'm no meteorologist, and no chemist either, and definitely not a cowfartist, but I am capable of simple math. Which I did.

Methane is, like CO2, a greenhouse gas, but a much stronger one. Over a time span of a century, a methane emission will have 28 times the impact on temperature of a carbon dioxide emission of the same mass.

And it is true that the globally averaged concentration of methane in the Earth's atmosphere increased by about 150 percent from an estimated 722 ± 25 ppb (parts per billion) in 1750 to 1803.2 ± 1.2 ppb in 2011 (a claim in the IPCC's 5th Assessment Report). According to NOAA (the US's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), the atmospheric methane concentration continued to rise since 2011 to an average global concentration of 1850.5 ppb in July 2018.

So currently the methane concentration stands at about 1.85 parts per million.

And the CO2 concentration at around 400 parts per million.

Our moral betters claim that the rise of temperature as a result of greenhouse gases, predominantly the dreaded CO2, is about 0.7 degrees Centigrade since the early seventies, when there were an estimated 367 ppm.

This would imply that all of the tremendous bruhaha, what with rising oceans, heat waves etc would be the result NOT of 400ppm CO2, because there WAS already CO2 - an estimated 300 ppm around the time the Industrial Revolution started... but because of 400ppm minus 367ppm.

Or... 33 ppm.

I am going out on a (serious) limb here, because of the many dynamics involved, and I feel I shouldn't really use snapshot statistics, but even so, think about it. Warmists correlate an increase of 33 parts per million of CO2 with a rise of 0.7 degrees Centigrade.

400ppm CO2 means that for every 2,500 molecules of air (78 per cent N2, 21 per cent O2, 1 per cent Argon gas) there is ONE, just one, molecule CO2. Do the math. That's 400ppm.

But the increase of 0.7 degrees Centigrade would be due to only 33 molecules CO2 (400 minus 367, remember). They shouldn't come whining that in the early seventies the momentum was already well underway because of the 367ppm minus the 300 pre-Industrial Revolution, because in the early seventies they were hollering about Global Cooling! So, the 33 extra ppm of CO2 would, according to Warmist Reasoning (an oxymoron if ever there was one) be responsible for the staggering temperature increase of 0 point 7 degrees in half a century.

33 is give and take 400 divided by 12. Or, just ONE molecule CO2 in 2,500 x 12 = 30,000 molecules of air would be responsible for global warming!!! Hey, basically I'm just repeating Al Gore here, I assume he can handle a calculator (But not AOC, she can't multiply. Only thing she can do, is divide).

OK, so 1 molecule of CO2 in the pleasant company of 30,000 molecules of air is the boogeyman. For the sake of the argument, we will even assume, though sure as hell it ain't true, that that CO2 molecule is always of human origin.

Well, now that I have (hopefully) brought you up to speed as regards CO2 concentration, let's compare that with CH4.

Mr Staes wants to slaughter the world's cows, depriving billions of people of food, because of currently 1.85 PARTS PER MILLION OF METHANE.

That's 216 times less than 400 ppm. We have just seen that 400ppm CO2 equals to 2,500 molecules of air vs 1 molecule of CO2.

This means that Bart Staes can't sleep at night because of 216 x 2,500 = 540,000, or 1 MOLECULE OF CH4 VS 540,000 MOLECULES OF AIR!!!!!!!!

But wait, it gets better.

Mr Staes projects a cow holocaust to solve his problem. Only thing is, the methane from cattle (enteric fermentation aka farts and animal waste) accounts for only 16 per cent plus 5 per cent or 21 per cent of the total methane production (anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic). Graph by NASA's Goddard Institute:

In other words, the methane from cattle REPRESENTS ONLY ROUGHLY A FIFTH IN THE PREVIOUS EQUATION! Or, for every molecule of CH4 that's emanated from a cow's ass, there's 540,000 times 5 = 2.7 MILLION MOLECULES OF AIR!!!

And yet the cows have to disappear according to our genius. Hey, rice paddies are responsible for 12 per cent of total methane emitted, why not destroy all the rice paddies too???

A complete godforsaken IDIOT like Staes sits on his fat warm ass in the European Parliament however - paid lavishly - and that means that, in contrast to your humble blogger, he's got power. If people like him obtain EXECUTIVE power - and that is not impossible, polls give the Flemish Greens around 15 per cent of the vote in Flanders, they may be able to carry through their plans.

And what are those plans? Kill the cows and print money. Result: mass starvation and hyperinflation. Progress!

Now, the question is, are we just going to sit still and take all that cow shit? How much more insanity will we tolerate?


No comments: