So Much For Carbon Dioxide, Then

Over at American Thinker, Guy Mitchell concludes that the whole CO2 scare is a load of old bollocks.  Details here, but a succinct summary says, starting with the premise:

The basic premise in the man-made global warming hypothesis is that CO2 molecules in the lower troposphere, emitted by the burning of fossil fuels on Earth, absorb the LWIR photons emitted as the Earth cools. The CO2 molecules “trap” the heat energy in the photon, which causes the troposphere to warm. Then the CO2 molecule reradiates an LWIR photon of the same wavelength it absorbed back to the Earth’s surface, which warms the Earth’s surface. The more CO2 molecules that are emitted into the troposphere by burning fossil fuels, the more heat is trapped and reradiated back to the Earth’s surface, increasing atmospheric and surface warming in a never-ending cycle.

Conclusion (after a whole bunch of actual, you know, data and science and stuff, emphasis added):

Scientific analysis using publicly available data demonstrates that an LWIR photon emitted by a CO2 molecule in the Earth’s lower troposphere does not penetrate the oceans’ surface to a depth greater than 100 μm, thereby having no effect on the ocean’s temperature. The ARGO Float Program temperature measurements of the world’s oceans confirm those scientific analyses.


Therefore, if the first principles of science and observational data on the ocean’s temperature indicates that CO2 emissions cannot heat the world’s oceans, why does the U.N. IPCC continue to promote the global warming hypothesis? The legal definition of fraud is intent to deceive.

Yeah, we all knew that.

We Know Better

…saith Gummint, when it comes to just about every human product or endeavor.  Here’s a fresh dose of silliness, from a doctor (another group of busybodies):

Banning junk food won’t stop people eating it, just look at how Prohibition failed! But we DO need new regulations to tackle our poor diet

Oh we do, do we?  So banning won’t work, but the softly-softly approach by regulation will achieve the same ends (cf. gun control Over Here, another catalog of failures).  Let me continue:

How do you feel about being told what to do, particularly when it comes to decisions around your health? I want to reach for my 1911.

Most of us, I suspect, think we should be left to make our own decisions (and our own mistakes). Except for doctors, government busybodies and other foul control freaks

But I also think most of us would accept that there are areas where the government should step in and regulate”errrr no.  Maybe 5% of all human activity might need government oversight, and I’ll entertain arguments from anyone who thinks that 5% is too much.

Anyway, after dealing with the low-hanging fruit (leaded gasoline and cigarettes), Our Good Doctor gets after food.

There’s no way you can ban people from eating junk food — not only is it everywhere but you also have to ensure there are affordable alternatives. — No, “you” don’t.  People would prefer to eat Twinkies instead of carrot sticks or oatmeal bars.  Leave the Twinkies alone.

But there are lots of things that could be done to nudge our behaviour, many of which Boris Johnson planned to introduce before he fell from power. — and not a moment too soon.

These include the end of BOGOF (Buy One Get One Free) sales on foods high in fat and sugar — their main purpose, after all, is to make you eat more junk food. You rarely see BOGOF (US: BOGO) offers on fresh veg or fish.errrr that’s because fresh veg and fish are perishables, hello.

Other plans included a ban on adverts for junk food and sweets aimed at children, online and before 9pm on TV. These measures are popular — a YouGov poll found a ban on junk food adverts before 9pm is supported by 62 per cent and opposed by just 17 per cent — but almost all the anti-obesity strategies Boris loudly promoted have been kicked into the long grass.because they’re unpopular, stupid and bossy.  Kinda like Boris.  By the way, the same percentage (62%) applies to people who want to reinstate the death penalty in the U.K.  No?

With one in five children now overweight or obese when they get to primary school, and the number of obese adults projected to soon outnumber those of a healthy weight within the next five years, there is a desperate need for action. Yes, ban smoking in the young but we also need to be thinking about diet. — If we’re serious about reducing the number of fat people, why not just shoot them all in the street?  This would be the most efficient (and, by the way, the least costly) option.

And we just know that Gummint is all about efficiency — except in their own dealings, of course.

Let’s rather just shoot them.  On the whole, I’d be happier living among fat people than having Government busybodies peering into my shopping basket.

Not to mention:


Anyone else starting to feel peckish?