Food and Ethanol Shortages Imminent as Earth Enters New Cold Climate Era

Space and Science Research Center P.O. Box 607841  Orlando, FL 32860                                                                                                           www.spaceandscience.net 407-394-9089 Press Release SSRC 2-2010 Food and Ethanol Shortages Imminent as Earth Enters New Cold Climate Era

Monday, May 10, 2010

11:30 AM

The Space and Science Research Center (SSRC), the leading independent research organization in the United States on the subject of the next climate change, issues today the following warning of imminent crop damage expected to produce food and ethanol shortages for the US and Canada:

Over the next 30 months, global temperatures are expected to make another dramatic drop even greater than that seen during the 2007-2008 period. As the Earth’s current El Nino dissipates, the planet will return to the long term temperature decline brought on by the Sun’s historic reduction in output, the on-going “solar hibernation.”  In follow-up to the specific global temperature forecast posted in SSRC Press Release 4-2009, the SSRC advises that in order to return to the long term decline slope from the current El Nino induced high temperatures, a significant global cold weather re-direction must occur. According to SSRC Director John Casey, “The Earth typically makes adjustments in major temperature spikes within two to three years. In this case as we cool down from El Nino, we are dealing with the combined effects of this planetary thermodynamic normalization and the influence of the more powerful underlying global temperature downturn brought on by the solar hibernation. Both forces will present the first opportunity since the period of Sun-caused global warming period ended to witness obvious harmful agricultural impacts of the new cold climate. Analysis shows that food and crop derived fuel will for the first time, become threatened in the next two and a half years. Though the SSRC does not get involved with short term weather prediction, it would not be unusual to see these ill-effects this year much less within the next 30 months.”

The SSRC further adds that the severity of this projected near term decline may be on the order of 0.9 C to 1.1 C from present levels. Surprising cold weather fronts will adversely impact all northern grain crops including of course wheat and the corn used in ethanol for automotive fuel.

In pointing out the importance and reliability of this new temperature forecast and its effects on North American crops, Director Casey adds,” The SSRC has been the only US independent research organization to correctly predict in advance three of the most important events in all of climate science history. We accurately announced beforehand, the end of global warming, a long term drop in the Earth’s temperatures and most importantly the advent of a historic drop in the Sun’s output, a solar hibernation. The US government’s leading science organizations, NASA and NOAA have completely missed all three, as of course have United Nations climate change experts. It is only because of the amount of expected criticism we received because of our strong opposition to the Obama administration’s climate change policies and our declaration of the end of global warming, that the SSRC is not more fully accepted for its leadership role in climate change forecasting. The facts and reliability surrounding our well publicized predictions however stand as testament to the SSRC’s proven ability to understand the nature of global climate change. In view of the importance of this new forecast I have notified the Secretary of Agriculture to take immediate actions to prepare the nation’s agricultural industry for the coming crop damage.”

The SSRC places only one caveat on this forecast. Casey elaborates, “Only a stronger solar cycle with a period longer than the 206 year cycle can cause us to alter our projections. Although more research is needed in this area, none have yet shown themselves. The present hibernation is proceeding in almost lock step as the last one which occurred from 1793 to 1830. If it continues on present course, while the cold weather impacts on food and fuel announced today are certainly important, they do not compare with what is to follow later. At the bottom of the cold cycle of this hibernation in the late 2020’s and 2030’s there will likely be years with devastating to total crop losses in the Canadian and northern US grain regions.”

Letter to USDA Secretary Vilsack

Press Release SSRC 1-2010

SSRC Research Report 1-2010 (Preliminary)

Press Release SSRC 5-2009

Letter To Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Members

Press Release SSRC 4-2009

Press Release SSRC 3-2009

Letter to SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro

Press Release SSRC 2-2009

Press Release SSRC 1-2009

www.spaceandscience.net

Indian minister attacks biofuels

Editor
Nice touch Mr. Gore. Starve the poor while you fill your pockets. I know you need lots on cash to pay your hydro bill, being the energy hog that you are. You are “KING of the Scam Artists”.

You keep telling the children about sustainability. Why don’t you let them in on the real plan.

Total population of no more than 2 billion. That means 4 billion have to be removed. So, if people starve because of your greed, so what, those people don’t matter anyway. It only helps to get rid of the extra 4 billion people, right AL

People can’t afford food because you and your friends make a big profit burning the food crops as fuel.

I guess the poor can always eat a bowl of COAL

Indian minister attacks biofuels

Greed is overtaking the common good of the world P Chidambaram

Indian Finance Minister P Chidambaram has said that it is “outrageous” that developed countries are turning food crops into bio fuels. He said that countries like the US were doing so while the world’s poor are struggling with surging food prices.

Delivering a lecture in Singapore, Mr Chidambaram said that using corn and other crops for fuel was a sign of “lopsided priorities”.

He said that such an “uncaring” policy had to be strongly condemned.

The finance minister was also critical of “lax supervision”, which he said had led to the US mortgage crisis and global economic uncertainty.

‘Deprived of food’

Mr Chidambaram said developing economies were shouldering an “enormous burden” from the relentless rise in prices of food and commodities.

He said the situation was worsened by the diversion of food to produce bio fuels in some countries.

Citing the US as an example, he said nearly 20% of corn goes to making bio fuels.

Mr Chidambaram said there was now a climate of food insecurity

“It is a sign of the lopsided priorities of certain countries that they will resort to measures that will produce fuel at a cheaper cost in order to meet the transport requirements of a section of their population,” Mr Chidambaram said.

He said the pursuit of such policies at a time when many in the world could barely afford to eat was “outrageous and… must be condemned”.

Corn, soybeans, sugar cane and other crops are seen as sources of clean and cheap biofuels.

Correspondents say this results in less grain available for human consumption, which drives up the prices for basic foodstuffs.

The finance minister said that the prices of maize, rice and wheat have at least doubled between 2004 and last month, while commodities such as crude oil and metals have also spiralled in price.

He said that these rises were damaging for countries like India, which subsidises food and fuel.

Mr Chidambaram also said the rise in oil prices from about $30 a barrel in 2004 to above $100 this year is another example of “greed overtaking the common good of the world”.

“Oil producing countries have struck a gold mine. Demand is very high… they think that this is a great time to reap in the profits,” he said.

“I understand that from a commercial point of view, but it’s hurting the world economy.”

This story is from the BBC

How to grow your own wheat

Editor
As more cracks appear in the global warming scam, the very news agencies that people look to for truth continue to ramp up the rhetoric. The UN has decided it is a good idea to grow crops but instead of using those crops for their intended use – food, they have decided that burning your food for fuel is a better use of crops.

So, as they burn your food and drive prices ever higher, they want you to grow your own.

In the near future you won’t be able to afford food or electricity.

But then again that is the plan of the UN, isn’t it.

How do I know Global Warming is a FRAUD? They said it not me. They came up with the idea of global warming and then fit the science to  their needs. Anyone who disagreed  with their science was shunned and belittled. 

“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill …All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome.
The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.”

– Club of Rome,
The First Global Revolution,
consultants to the UN.

“…we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination…. So we have to offer up scary scenarios,
make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts…. Each of us has to decide what the right balance
is between being effective and being honest.“
- Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology
lead Author of many IPCC reports

“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.“
- Timothy Wirth,
fmr US Under Sec of State,
current Head of the UN Foundation

“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
- Christine Stewart,
fmr Canadian Minister of the Environment

And from the father of Kyoto, Maurice Strong

“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the
industrialized civilizations collapse?
Isn’t it our responsiblity to bring that about?”
- Maurice Strong, former Secretary General of UNEP

How to grow your own wheat

Your garden will probably not look like this

By Finlo Rohrer BBC News Magazine

Global stocks of wheat are plummeting and people are starting to worry about the price of staples like bread. But can you beat the commodity market by growing your own?Look out your back window. How’s the grass?

If you’ve got a garden at all, it might be that the grass is an unloved scrub as sparse as Elton John’s hair used to be. Or it could be a lush strip of glorious verdure.

HOW TO GROW WHEAT

Prepare the ground by finely raking the soil as you would to plant grass.

Scatter the wheat seed evenly by hand and rake over. Consider a bird-scaring device.

Harvest with sickle or scythe. Leave 2-3 inches of stubble. Tie stalks into sheaves.

Thresh by placing sheaves into pillow cases and hitting against brick wall.

Winnow by throwing wheat and chaff up into breeze from fan. Chaff should blow away.

Either way, the odds are you’re not getting much use out of it. Wouldn’t it be great if you could improve your health, help the environment and at the same time do your part to fight inflation?

The world is running dangerously low on wheat, one of civilisation’s original staple foods. Drought in Australia and China and a switch to meat in the newly prosperous parts of the world are putting the squeeze on wheat. Prices are at a record high.

EU/UK POLITICS

PM outlines climate action plan

Climate bill’s 60% emission cut

LATEST SCIENCE

Arctic summers ice-free ‘by 2013′

‘Tropics expand’ as world warms

‘Unexpected growth’ in CO2 found

IPCC ASSESSMENT

UN challenges states on warming

Human climate impact defined

Billions face climate change risk

Mapping climate change

BBC NEWS or Propaganda Machine

First Biofuel Flight Dismissed as Stunt

First Biofuel Flight Dismissed as Stunt

Published by Andy Rowell February 25th, 2008 in Biofuels, climate sceptics, aircraft travel, greenwashing Tags: aircraft travel, Biofuels, climate sceptics, greenwashing.

The world’s first commercial aircraft powered partly by biofuel took off from Heathrow yesterday to a storm of criticism from climate change experts, who insisted it was nothing more than Sir Richard Branson’s latest “nonsensical” publicity stunt.

The Virgin Atlantic 747 flew from London to Amsterdam using a 20 per cent biofuel mix of coconut and babassu oil in one of its four main fuel tanks. Sir Richard said the “historic” flight was the first step towards using biofuels on commercial flights.

But campaigners said that carbon savings from bio-fuels, often made from organic materials such as wheat, sugarcane and palm oil, were “negligible”. The World Development Movement said yesterday that even if all flights in the country used biofuels, the reduction in British aviation’s contribution to climate change would be cancelled out by one year’s growth in flights.

Its head of policy, Pete Hardstaff, said: “This is nothing more than a Virgin publicity stunt with dangerous consequences for the planet.”

I couldn’t agree more. The sooner people see through Branson’s greenwashing the better.

Oilchange

Biofuels emissions may be ‘worse than petrol

 Biofuels emissions may be ‘worse than petrol’

• 19:00 07 February 2008
• NewScientist.com news service
• Jim Giles

Biofuels, once seen as a useful way of combating climate change, could actually increase greenhouse gas emissions, say two major new studies.

And it may take tens or hundreds of years to pay back the “carbon debt” accrued by growing biofuels in the first place, say researchers. The calculations join a growing list of studies questioning whether switching to biofuels really will help combat climate change.

Biofuel production has accelerated over the last 5 years, spurred in part by a US drive to produce corn-derived ethanol as an alternative to petrol.

The idea makes intuitive environmental sense – plants take up carbon dioxide as they grow, so biofuels should help reduce greenhouse gas emissions – but the full environmental cost of biofuels is only now becoming clear.

Extra emissions are created from the production of fertiliser needed to grow corn, for example, leading some researchers to predict that the energy released by burning ethanol is only 25% greater than that used to grow and process the fuel.

Carbon debt

The new studies examine a different part of biofuel equation, and both suggest that the emissions associated with the crops may be even worse than that.

One analysis looks at land that is switched to biofuel crop production. Carbon will be released when forests are felled or bush cleared, and longer-term emissions created by dead roots decaying.

This creates what Joseph Fargione of The Nature Conservancy and colleagues call a “carbon debt”. Emissions savings generated by the biofuels will help pay back this debt, but in some cases this can take centuries, suggests their analysis.

If 10,000 square metres of Brazilian rainforest is cleared to make way for soya beans – which are used to make biodiesel – over 700,000 kilograms of carbon dioxide is released.

The saving generated by the resulting biodiesel will not cancel that out for around 300 years, says Fargione. In the case of peat land rainforest in Indonesia, which is being cleared to grow palm oil, the debt will take over 400 years to repay, he says.

Missing corn

The carbon debts associated with US corn are measured in tens rather than hundreds of years. But the second study suggests that producing corn for fuel rather than food could have dramatic knock-on effects elsewhere.

Corn is used to feed cattle and demand for meat is high, so switching land to biofuel production is likely to prompt farmers in Brazil and elsewhere to clear forests and other lands to create new cropland to grow the missing corn.

When the carbon released by those clearances is taken into account, corn ethanol produces nearly twice as much carbon as petrol.

Liberals would set up billion-dollar fund to help manufacturing: Dion

Editor:

There will be a Federal Election in the not to distant future and there’s no one to vote for. Sad times ahead for Canada. The Liberals want to give up our sovereignty to the UN and the Conservatives want to give up our sovereignty through the Trilateral agreement-combining Canada,the USA and Mexico into one nation. The other parties are just variations of the two main parties. All seem hell bent for leather to destroy Canada.

Dion wants you to believe that investing your tax dollars in “Green Technologies” will resurrect the ailing manufacturing industry in Ontario. The exact opposite will be the result. In order for our manufacturing industry to survive and thrive, it must be competitive. We need cost effective energy sources, to hang on to the industry we have and encourage new industry to come to Ont.

Mr. Dion what do you have in mind for us.

Should we invest in bio fuels? Decision-makers in the climate change field have little faith in biofuels as a low-carbon technology, the World Conservation Union (IUCN)

How about wind-According to Premier, Dalton McGuinty
Ontario Hansard - 19-April2006
“Wind turbines: We are investing heavily in those, but again, those are an expensive form of electricity and they’re not reliable”

Solar-Premier, Dalton McGuinty says-When it comes to solar, those tend to be expensive as well.”

“Drive up the price of energy and drive industry from Ontario”.

Is that your election platform Mr. Dion?

I will always be an environmentalist but I will never be “Green”

You won’t be getting my vote Mr. Dion. I won’t vote for a carbon tax con man

Liberals would set up billion-dollar fund to help manufacturing: Dion

HAMILTON, Ont. – A Liberal government would establish a $1-billion fund to help manufacturers move into green technologies, Stephane Dion pledged Friday.

The Liberal leader said his proposed Advanced Manufacturing Prosperity Fund would help pay for research and development projects aimed at boosting the hard-pressed manufacturing sector.

He told a Hamilton Chamber of Commerce meeting he has met business and union leaders, premiers and environmentalists over the last year to discuss the troubled manufacturing sector.

“They all bring different viewpoints to the table, but there is consensus on one thing: they all want to see Canada’s manufacturing sector become a world leader in green technologies,” he said. “The . . . fund is designed to help accomplish precisely that”.

Thousands of factory jobs have disappeared in recent years and Dion says it’s time to go beyond simple tax corporate breaks.

“Tax cuts alone are not enough,” he said. “The federal government must partner with the manufacturing sector as it adjusts to recent economic shocks. That requires strategic investment”.

In addition to the prosperity fund, the Liberals would provide tax credits to support private research which doesn’t translate into immediate profits.

“Innovation is essential to the survival of our industries, but it can be an expensive undertaking,” he said. “We want every company that puts money into R and D to be rewarded for innovating.

“By offering incentives for companies to continue investing in R and D, the Liberal party will encourage all companies to innovate, even if that innovation does not lead to immediate profitability.”

He said this will encourage more private funding for research and development and help Canadian companies become leaders in green technologies.

Dion took a swipe at Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his Conservative government, saying it’s not willing to build a greener economy.

“If he plans to watch the manufacturing sector crumble instead of helping it to evolve, then he will not live up to anybody’s conception of good leadership.”

CBC

Ethanol: The Great Big Green Fraud

America’s Biofuel Gladiators

Turning food into biofuel pits the car owners of the world against the two billion poor who struggle to get enough to eat says Lester Brown of the World Policy Institute.

Who do you think is going to win?

“This will be seen as one of the great tragedies in history,” says Brown.

See previously published articles on biofuels/energy:
Ethanol: The Great Big Green Fraud – Government subsidies amount to $15 billion in 2007

Greenest Ethanol Still Unproven - Cellulosic ethanol is long way off and may not be a solution

Biofuels and Carbon Credits Behind Global Deforestation

ENERGY REVOLUTION NEEDED NOW – Efficiency improvement is fastest, cheapest and easiest

“James Lovelock’s Latest Book Trashes Renewables, Endorses Nuclear Energy’

Editor:
Mr. Lovelock seems to love nuclear and hate wind farms. The “Green Movement” loves wind and hates nukes. Odd. The “Green Movement” is based on the theory of Gaia by Mr. Lovelock.
Gaia is like a religion to the “Greens”. I appreciate Mr. Lovelock’s concern for the planet and I share that concern with him. According to Mr. Lovelock, just about everything the “Greens” are trying to shove down our collective throats, he disagrees with. The problem with the Greens is that their agenda is quite different to that of Mr. Lovelock. Al Gore, Maurice Strong, David Suzuki, Ted Turner and all the other leaders of the “Green Movement” are using Gaia to push for control, power and money under the guise of sustainability. The “Green Movement” is a fraud. They should be honest, they are about globalization or,”One World Order” controlled by the UN or a similar body.

Realistically they should be tried for treason against their respective countries.

alternative energy – “James Lovelock’s Latest Book Trashes Renewables, Endorses Nuclear Energy’

By: James A. Finch On the front page of the World Nuclear Association website prominently rests a quote from what some consider the world’s leading environmentalist and among the world’s top scientists, Dr. James Lovelock: “There is no sensible alternative to nuclear power if we are to sustain civilization.” – James Lovelock, preeminent world leader in the development of environmental consciousness

At age eighty-six, Dr. Lovelock has just published his fourth book, The Revenge of Gaia (Penguin Books, 2006). “Gaia” is Dr. Lovelock’s belief that earth is a living, evolving organism, not just a hunk of rock we all live upon. Through his book, Lovelock refers to Gaia, when he is discussing our third planet from the sun. His latest book is a MUST read for anyone who is following the renaissance in nuclear energy. Environmentalists won’t read this book. Perhaps their bosses will BAN them from reading this book. Those environmentalists who carefully read Lovelock’s latest book may very well become nuclear power lobbyists, if they would bathe, shave and spiff up a bit. Chapter Five, “Sources of Energy,” will instantly disintegrate every ridiculous argument propounded by the naïve and antediluvian anti-nuclear movements across the world.

Dr. Lovelock’s credentials and achievements are light years beyond those of any environmental mouthpiece espousing the “green” movement. More so than anyone alive, Lovelock is first and foremost a giant of the earth’s environmentalist movement. Since 1974, Lovelock has been a Fellow of the Royal Society. Since 1994, he has been an Honorary Visiting Fellow of Green College, University of Oxford. New Scientist described him as “one of the great thinkers of our time. The London Observer has called him, “one of the environmental movement’s most influential figures.” In 2003, he was made Companion of Honour by Her Majesty the Queen. Prospect magazine named Dr. Lovelock in September 2005, “one of the world’s top 100 global public intellectuals.”

How does Dr. Lovelock respond to the question of nuclear waste? He writes, “I have offered in public to accept all the high-level waste produced in a year from a nuclear power station for deposit on my small plot of land it would occupy a space about a cubic metre in size and fit safely in a concrete pit, and I would use the heat from its decaying radioactive elements to heat my home. It would be a waste not to use it. More important, it would be no danger to me, my family or the wildlife.” That should enlighten the yokels arguing against the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste depository.

Chapter Five, “Sources of Energy,” concisely and cogently answers every silly “theory” about renewable energy sources hyped by the “green” movement. Let’s take Biomass, which makes sense to any concerned citizen. Lovelock even agrees with the theory of Biomass, writing, “Used sensibly and on a modest scale, burning wood or agricultural waste for heat or energy is no threat to Gaia.” Please note that he modified his statement with “sensibly” and “modest.” In a nutshell, he explains why Biomass will not become a leading energy source, “Bio fuels are especially dangerous because it is too easy to grow them as a replacement for fossil fuel they will then demand an area of land or ocean far larger than Gaia can afford… We have already taken more than half of the productive land to grow food for ourselves. How can we expect Gaia to manage the Earth if we try to take the rest of the land for fuel production?” He added poignantly, “Just imagine that we tried to power our present civilization on crops grown specifically for fuel, such as coppice woodland, fields of oilseed rape, and so on. These are the ‘bio fuels’, the much-applauded renewable energy source…We would need the land area of several Earths just to grow the bio fuel.”

Wind power gets shellacked as well. For those environmentalists, such as Amory Lovins, who believe “Wind Farms” are going to become a significant energy source, they are full of hot air. According to the Royal Society of Engineers 2004 report, onshore European wind energy is two and a half times, and offshore wind energy over three times, more expensive per kilowatt hour than gas or nuclear energy. Denmark, which pioneered wind farms, is regretting the decision. Niels Gram of the Danish Federation of Industries said, “In green terms windmills are a mistake and economically make no sense… Many of us thought wind was the 100-percent solution for the future, but we were wrong. In fact, taking all energy needs into account it is only a 3 percent solution.” Lovelock writes, “To supply the UK’s present electricity needs would require 276,000 wind generators, about three per square mile, if national parks, urban, suburban and industrial areas are excluded… at best, energy is available from wind turbines only 25 percent of the time.” German environmentalists, who have recently led the charge for Wind Power, should reconsider. Lovelock writes, “The most recent report from Germany put wind energy as available only 16 percent of the time.”

Surely, solar power must be the answer, right? Wrong! Lovelock writes, “Solar cells are not yet suitable for supplying electricity directly to homes or workplaces, mostly because, despite over thirty years of development, they are quite expensive to make. At the Centre for Alternative Technology in Wales there is an experimental house with a roof made almost entirely of silicon photocells. In summer it provides about three kilowatts of electricity, but the cost of installation was comparable with the house itself, and the expected life of the cells is about ten years. Sunlight, like wind, is intermittent and would, without efficient storage, be an inconvenient energy source at these latitudes.”

Solar and wind power were just two of the many energy sources Lovelock sends to the dumpster. Wave and tidal energy, hydro-electricity, hydrogen, fusion energy, coal and oil and natural gas all suffer similar consequences under Dr. Lovelock’s scientific microscope. Geothermal gets a partial endorsement, but Lovelock writes, “Unfortunately there are few places where it is freely available. Iceland is one of them, and it draws a large part of its energy needs from this source.” How many of you know that, while natural gas could cut carbon dioxide emissions by half, if used ubiquitously, some of the natural gas leaks into the air before it burnt? According to the Society of Chemical Industry’s report (2004), this amounts to about 2 to 4 percent of the gas used. Methane, the main constituent of natural gas is 24 times more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.

James Lovelock’s Conclusion on Nuclear Energy

How does James Lovelock feel about nuclear energy? “I believe nuclear power is the only source of energy that will satisfy our demands and yet not be a hazard to Gaia and interfere with its capacity to sustain a comfortable climate and atmospheric composition. This is mainly because nuclear reactions are millions of times more energetic than chemical reactions. The most energy available from a chemical reaction, such as burning carbon in oxygen, is about nine kilowatt hours per kilogram. The nuclear fusion of hydrogen atoms to form helium gives several million times as much, and the energy from splitting uranium is greater still.”

Through his book, Lovelock reminds us that nuclear power is the single answer for this century, “We need emission-free energy sources immediately, and there is no serious contender to nuclear fission.”

Lovelock addresses Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, nuclear testing in the 1960s, and many other events over the past fifty years, as nuclear energy has developed. If you wondered about radiation and cancer, Lovelock answers that as well. You may leap up, after reading those pages, and start faxing them off to every environmentalist group you can contact. It may be the most definitive analysis of the disconnect the media and the greens have about nuclear energy and its impact on our health that you have ever read. Lovelock concludes, “The persistent distortion of the truth about the health risks of nuclear energy should make us wonder if the other statements about nuclear energy are equally flawed.”

James Lovelock

Five Tips on Manipulating Fools

From the Editor:
This could be why we, all those fighting wind farms, are having a hard time informing the average person about the realities of the wind industry. We are asking them to read and think. Two things they don’t want anything to do with.

1. Dumb it all down
Make things really simple, even if they weren’t particularly complicated before. Idiots want the payoff of having a skill or “knowledge” without the unpleasantness of having to study or practice. You need to oversimplify life, convince them by summarizing and redacting, knowing that anything requiring education or even common sense to grasp will go completely over their heads. They need the comfort of being told that there are certain things they don’t have to know. They want the difficult issues of life taken from their hands. Boil complexity down to black and white and they will follow you into the jaws of hell out of relief and gratitude.

2. Terrify them
Every single human is terrified of the unknown. Some of us try to learn in order to deal with it, while some go into denial, and others choose to just remain fearful. Morons tend to avoid the first option, due to a tendency to not understand shit and to be bored by the sheer difficulty of reading. The third option makes people pliable. Note that we have already established that they are not fond of thinking, fear only makes that worse. Simpletons usually know very little of history, and cannot understand long-term goals, making them very much like sheep. Myopic and ignorant. You can convince them to do anything as long as you make the alternative irreversible and dangerous.

3. Be one of them
People want a face they can relate to. If you are selling a product you need a spokesman, Al Gore and David Suzuki in the case of global warming, not just a logo. As has already been stated in this post, morons have trouble with understanding things. Therefore if you tell them something, they need to know if they like you before they decide whether or not to go along with it. It’s an easy way to make difficult decisions. You buy from the salesman who makes you laugh and feel generally comfortable, not the one who merely tells you lots of stuff about the product. You listen to a preacher because he makes you feel good, feel at home, not because what he says makes sense. What intellectuals usually fail to grasp is that stupid people really are not interested in knowing things, truth is not important to them, therefore things like good reportage, thoughtful writing, accurate analysis, logic, cannot sway them one way or the other.

4. Isolate intellectuals
You really don’t want them on your side unless they are all the way on YOUR side. You do this by stating an outrageous principle, or doing something outrageous in a way that only the smart people will find it offensive. You camouflage your motives, but not all the way, you let the intelligentsia peek inside. Intelligent debate is a meritocratic, the smart will grasp, the dumb will fall by the wayside. You wind up with smart people buying the same books, visiting the same websites, posting on the same messageboards, watching the same movies. They become identifiable because they aren’t with your flock. You get an intellectual apartheid wherein your enemies can be rounded up or intimidated without menacing the whole population.

5. Be very visual
The subtle joke does not work, for the fool you need the crass, loud sight-gag. Anything you use to harness the fool population must be something they can see. Fools need to see blackened lungs to stop smoking, they need to see concentration camps to know that their government was evil, Kaposi’s sarcoma to know why condoms are important. They need pretty pictures and flashing graphics, for evidence of this surf My space randomly for a while, read the profiles with the pretty pictures and big fonts.

Dirty writer

Kangaroo Farts Save Planet Earth

From the Editor
I have already booked my flight to Australia to get some kangaroo bacteria put into my stomach. It’s a win win situation for me and the world in general. I will be able to travel anywhere in the world by whatever mode of transportation I choose, knowing I will be offsetting my carbon emissions every time I fart. If you really want to do your part to save the world from GLOBAL WARMING contact me and I will sell you some kangaroo bacteria. Every time you fart you can smile knowing you are helping to save Planet Earth.

I just farted and yes I’m smiling

But  I refuse to  smile about the devastation caused  by the wind industry and truly stunned govt. officials.

Kangaroo farts used in global warming battle

Australian scientists are trying to give kangaroo-style stomachs to cattle and sheep in a bid to cut the emission of greenhouse gases blamed for global warming.

Thanks to special bacteria in their stomachs, kangaroos’ flatulence contains no methane and scientists want to transfer that bacteria to cattle and sheep who emit large quantities of the harmful gas.

Scientific literature shows that in addition to creating greenhouse gases, cow farts are linked to at least three deaths due to smokers lighting up in sheds and barns where flatulating cattle were being housed.

While the debate over coal fired power stations rages, research has also shown that cows and sheep can contribute between 14-5% of a country’s methane emissions, which are just as large a contributor to global warming as CO2.

Kangaroo farts used in global warming battle