R U all


Simple question, simple answer       finger down

Apply as required to any other vociferous idiot—



—other than moi, that is. (I’m a sensitive wee soul …)


If your roof isn’t coloured white (or even better, a lovely reflective mirror-like finish such as polished silver) then you are not (r) NOT a genuine global warming nutter …

… you are a fraud. A vociferous con-artist, no less. For shame, Sir!

It’s an old saying:

(a)  put your money where your mouth is, and

(b)  actions speak louder than words

etc etc.


I haven’t verified any of this—


—I just pondered it, then thought I’d share with like minds … and ask how many of the LA city fathers have white roofs (at their own expense), hey?

I hate to think what might happen if the Invercargill Council got its grubby hands on these thoughts. Hell, they’ve just shut the Southland Museum because it’s “earthquake prone”.

Pyramid Museum.png

I still haven’t figured out what makes the Pyramid building more prone to earthquakes than any other part of its this town—but who can argue with the goat with the gun, hey?






12 thoughts on “R U all

  1. “Earthquake prone” … someone (in fact, all of those someones) doesn’t know the meaning of the word ‘prone’.

    I still think that for a little country with a huge investment in tourism it’s perhaps not good policy to run around bleating that we are earthquake prone. Not if prone still means “get lots of” …


  2. It’s not the absorption of long wave radiation converted to short that is the problem; the planet would be a ball of ice without this major heat source. The problem is with the thermal blanket called the atmosphere that stops too much of the short wave radiation from escaping into space. That’s what we see on Venus, and an example we’re apparently trying to emulate. No amount of white roofs would alter the Venutian atmosphere one iota any more than it would address (put money where mouth is) anthropogenic global warming on Earth.


    1. It’s that ‘conversion of radiation to heat’. If instead of being converted it were ‘returned to sender’ there’d be no problem.

      And the human nature of the Alarmists.
      They seem overjoyed to spend other folks hard earned cash … but if they haven’t painted their own roofs white they are labelling themselves as outright hypocrites. I mean, really, what’s important here? Saving the planet from a ‘heat death’ or a few bucks in the bank … you know, the old “every little helps” and (from WW2 Britain) “Just doing my bit”?

      I know nothing of Al Gore’s home beyond what I’ve read but the ‘anti-alarmists’ tell us that he’s right into extravagance of energy redistribution (rather than putting his money where his mouth is).

      Don’t do as I do—do as I say. Okaaaaayyy …
      I state again that if you are an alarmist, and your roof isn’t white, you are not sincere.

      But, do not fret. Due to combinations of factors there will be further ice-ages (and on average everyone will be satisfied).


      1. The use of the term ‘alarmist’ applied to those who understand why anthropogenic global warming is not just true but the greatest self-made threat to mankind’s existence reminds me of a joke:

        There are only 10 kinds of people in the world: those who understand binary language and those who don’t.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. I dare say nukes would be a bit much more greater? But it’s not the nukes that are the threat—it’s the goats wielding them.
        But this planet has taken a few hits before, and the clocks reset—we’ve been a lot hotter, and a lot colder. Nature is cycles, and we are part of Nature too.


      3. On this matter, I’m sorry to have to say, you have some serious catching up to do.

        When I held firmly to the opinion that cycles and not humanity was the major driver of climate change, I was asked on what basis would I be willing to change my mind. After much thought – based on me having a pretty extensive knowledge base of polar geology and environmental science (I also held summer positions working on ice core samples) – I supplied the criteria: demonstrable changes to the rates and frequencies of weather patterns to indicate long term changes to climate patterns that could not be accounted for using what constituted cyclical changes.

        Guess what?

        That’s exactly what we now have and the discrepancy grows predictably each year correlated perfectly with increasing greenhouse gas emissions mitigated by cyclical changes. On a global scale. Unidirectional. The evidence fits seamlessly in spite of short term fluctuations. Long term patterns is what matters. Add to that exponential changes to both rates and frequencies of extreme weather patterns over time and you’ve got my attention. Add to that ocean desalination and the related dramatic ocean current slowdowns to demonstrate this global climate change shift, increase the flows of polar melt water, shrinking volume of polar ice, break up of ice shelves, melting of permafrost, dramatically increasing the duration of fire season, increasing the rate of pattern change to El Nino and La Nina events, and so on. All of these coherent and consistent and reliable harbingers of pattern change globally for climate. Now add to that all the shorter term term stuff that are all – ALL – unidirectional yet subject to cyclical change, and I could list over many dozens of localized pattern changes that are still unidirectional in spite of and even contrary to cyclical changes!

        But putting aside all the good science that has produced consensus and pretend we are in a position of knowledge that supersedes every major scientific organization in the world – a bit egotistical, I’ll grant you but possible nevertheless – one could go with business and try to understand why the major reinsurers – those business that insure every major insurance company in the world – are certain enough that human caused climate change warming the planet is real to issue new guidelines that just so happen to mirror the lower end of the climate change predictions. The cost is so vast that there is no insurance to be had for ocean front property in the United States. That insurance comes only from the local government and backed by an unaware public. Insurance is being pulled from cities with rivers and there are hundreds of lawsuits filed by insurance companies against cities and municipalities for not addressing and planning and implementing these climate related changes to weather patterns that cause property damage. Hundreds. Again, no media is reporting this. Again, each country’s governments are stepping into the insurance business void and pretending it’s business as usual. It’s not. The changes are already happening no matter what thee and me might think about them.

        But one doesn’t have to believe the ‘alarmists’ (aka those who respect reality’s arbitration of the issue, the consensus of the scientific community, the warnings from NASA and NOAA and the Royal Academy of Science, and so on… idiots and gullible fools one and all, including exactly the same scientists who first warned and then help to address ozone depletion and acid rain); all one has to do is read the science done by EXXON, Mobile, Shell, British Petroleum, and so on from the lat 70s and early 80s, or perhaps the research done by the US military to address the atmospheric problems of too much PPM greenhouse gas well known to interfere with the sensitive guidance mechanisms for air-to-air missiles, or the US Navy having to address the dramatic temperature gradient change for the positioning of their nuclear submarine fleet or the trillion dollar project to raise the entire dock infrastructure at Norfolk and San Diego to address the rising sea levels. The list just goes on and on and on in every conceivable fashion for reality to tell us this problem is here, it’s getting worse, it’s on trajectory to a tipping point, and we need to stop making the well known problem worse.

        What astounds me is that all it takes for interested parties who don’t want to address necessary change to mitigate these dramatic global changes to our climate we are doing to it, is to sell doubt. That’s all it takes. Doubt. That’s easy. And people fall all over themselves to grasp whatever that doubt comes ion the shape of to feel vindicated when in reality we sit on the deck of the Titanic and feel our belief that it isn’t really tipping all that much and that such tipping is a natural part of wave action on this HMS Earth is sufficient to address the overwhelming contrary evidence that humanity burning the back seat on the space shuttle and pretending the smoke encountered in the first class seats might be related in some small and trivial way but that there’s really nothing wrong at all, nothing really to be concerned about, that us smart folk with the cleaner air up at the front know better than others sitting towards the thicker smoke and heat not to get too excited or worked up but spend a few more decades thinking hard about why the smoke might not be related to any introduced problem but just part of the normal operation of the shuttle and feel good that our clever and doubtful efforts are sufficient.

        We are on a trajectory today to raise global average temperatures by 4 degrees Celcius by 2100. Not 2. Not 2.5. 4. To give you some idea of what that world will be like, understand that 6.5 will make 20 minutes outside in Florida and parts of Texas a death sentence.20 minute survival window. Toxic to human life. Run that band around the world – north and south of the equator – and see how many billions of people have no place to live. How much is that going to cost? More than all the money in the world. It’s called Too Late You Stupid Idiots. The tipping point is 7 and after that we are producing another Venus. The Titanic will sink and the tail section of the shuttle will burn up. That’s where we’re headed. That’s where the Merchants of Doubt can realize that maybe, just maybe, they weren’t the smartest people in the room after all.

        Liked by 1 person

      4. Wow~! Succinct, to the point, and very convincing.

        What turned me off in the first place was that much ballyhooed word
        “unprecedented”. Given the temperature oscillations (admittedly over substantial periods) in the past I became an immediate doubter/derider—that, and a lot of the ‘denialist’ literature made excellent sense too.

        But a good clean brisk nuclear war should provide the answer, no? Nuclear winter cancels Global Warming, so any survivors will be very happy …

        But seriously, I have no answers either.

        In the meantime they now have flourishing vineyards/wineries in England so we may as well make the best of it; and to help stave off the inevitable everyone should put down their “End of the world is nigh” signs and hop up on the roof with a brush and large pot of white.

        I’m open to any better suggestions? (Please keep it seemly …)


      5. ‘Unprecedented’ is a term used to try to convey the fact that these patterns are changing, that the typical variability has moved to new median and that this change is something new, something different, something whose rate is not found in the historical record.

        This is why I demanded evidence for such change, phrased as ‘changes to rates and frequencies’ that demonstrated the kind of change natural cycles cannot account for even with natural variation. But this notion is hard for people to understand when being wet or dry or hot or cold has always been the norm. Events that are wet or dry or hot or cold attributed to AGW seem to be just as wet or dry or hot or cold as before. The difference – what is ‘unprecedented’ – is to add ‘er’ to all of these AND then add ‘and steadily getting moreso for longer periods of time’.In other words, the affect attributable to AGW is demonstrated when wet is getting wetter and more often, dry is getting drier and lasting longer, hot is getting hotter for longer periods of time and cold is getting colder while lasting longer in locations where it shouldn’t be. (This year it has been warmer at the North Pole on average than it has in the Great Lakes basin of North America, for example).

        The pattern changes are easy to see in Rossby waves, winds (and ocean currents but I won’t go there here) created by the rotation of the Earth inside an atmosphere that moves weather systems from west to east. Temperature differences between polar air masses and temperate air masses affect pressure gradients: the greater the difference in gradient, the more severe the resulting ‘weather’ where the two collide (and above which we call the Jet Stream) on the surface of the planet below. This differential shows up on weather maps as a long loopy line separating cold on one side from warm on the other. Somewhere distant we usually see the symbol for a high pressure on the opposite sides of this line and the symbol for a low pressure somewhere on the line. That’s the source for ‘weather’. The line itself can be understood to be like river – but of air: the faster the river, the straighter it runs west to east, the slower the river, the more it meanders in big loops from north to south. We have oodles of historical records to show this ongoing variation and matching oodles of weather records in locations to correlate. This is the ‘weather pattern’ we know: its seasonal ‘norms’. This is the pattern that is undergoing ‘unprecedented’ change and we can both see it on these weather maps and experience it on the ground. And we can model with a very high degree of accuracy what raising the global mean temperature by even what seems to the uneducated very small increments should produce on average. And this is exactly what we are currently seeing but the increments are larger than adaptation of infrastructure can match. That’s why it’s a growing problem.

        For example, a weather pattern that used to zip across North America along a shorter Rossby wave (looking somewhat like a sine wave) has been doing so for over 15,000 years now meanders from the Arctic circle down to the Caribbean. This ‘unprecedented’ loopiness of the wave means areas to the north of the wave are still colder than the area to its south. But because the wave itself is so loopy, this translates into cold where such cold has almost never been and warm where warm has almost never been. In addition, the low pressure traveling along this wave now spends much more time tootling along this much longer line than historically expected bringing extended periods of time doing whatever weather is experienced under it in places never built to account for this ‘unprecedented’ weather. That’s why the reinsurers are pointing out that you can’t operate a business under one set of expectations (for ‘typical’ weather) and then be held accountable for dealing with the effects of a completely different and much more highly variable set of expectations. These expectations are ‘unprecedented’ because we are experiencing a new set of weather patterns because we are experiencing a radical and sudden shift in climate patterns due – not to anything ‘natural’ but – completely man-made changes to the chemical constitution of the atmosphere. That chemical addition is unquestionably man made, which is why you see charts of CO2 parts per million used by climate scientists to try to convince politicians of the severe ramifications by continuing to operate assuming business as usual doesn’t produce drastic climate change and all the costs associating with altering our fundamental infrastructure for doing business as usual. You can’t have both and you can’t expect the public to foot the ever-increasing bill to repair fundamental infrastructure built for a different set of climate expectations so that business can continue to operate in the usual way in altered times. That’s crazy. Yet that’s what we continue to do. A dollar of mitigation now equates with not paying 100,000 dollars in 20 years time, and then in ten following that, and then five years following that, and then… well, you get the idea. Those costs are ‘unprecedented’ and that’s to be expected when the changing conditions are already known to be unprecedented. Remember, the definition of crazy is doing the same thing but expecting a different result. The Merchants of Doubt would have you try to believe otherwise and call you clever for being skeptical. This is the business-as-usual play and way too many people are buying into it. So the real question is just how crazy are most of these people? Stay tuned….


  3. You mentioned the nuclear option to cool the planet but this does not alter the AGW problem. Sure, it would affect global temperature but it would also effectively neutralize carbon sinks – all the carbon-based biology that draws carbon to live and releases carbon when dead. This would make long term AGW more virile by killing off the systemic carbon sinks we need to ‘scrub’ the atmosphere back into balance and sustainability. That takes human change – the most difficult and elusive motivation so easily diverted by the weakest of reasoning.


    1. My ‘nuclear option’ is ever satire (sarcasm, sometimes…).

      I’m fighting a horrible bug at the moment and am a bit fuzzy in the wuzzy; I’ll print out your summaries and read them again, properly, at leisure, later. Thanks again for your efforts, very much appreciated … sadly I don’t have much of a following but what you say may be picked up by others; and utilised.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s