Gaia Demands Sacrifice

Like all primitive religions, the global warming cult demands sacrifice for the CO2 goddess. The picture below is either a wind farm, or a scene from “War Of The Worlds”

“East Perthshire and Highland Perthshire are among the most scenic and beautiful parts of Scotland and many visitors come to our area to see unspoiled landscape.

“This is now lost due to unwanted wind farm developments. Wind farm companies and supporters must realise that massive wind farms are ruining our landscape with these turbines and damaging our local economy.

Mr Fraser voiced his fears that the tourism industry in the area could be damaged by the blight of turbines and made an impassioned plea for a review of the planning system.

He believes it should be looked at urgently as all three developments in Perthshire have been opposed by both communities and the local council.

I do not want to see the beauty of Highland Perthshire sacrificed with massive wind turbines staked into the landscape, which can be seen for miles across Perthshire,” he added.

“Scotland’s planning system for wind farm applications and the decision-making process is in a complete mess.

The Courier – Newsnight Scotland wind farm comment seen as ‘insult to Perthshire’

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

72 Responses to Gaia Demands Sacrifice

  1. Dave N says:

    Palm Springs is prettier:

  2. Traitor In Chief says:

    Maybe we could vault Gore like a giant Rutabaga thru one of these bird shredders and make a (really) big salad. Something must be sacrificed, and Al has always claimed to care more for the planet than anyone else.

  3. David Appell says:

    And your method for generating energy without carbon emissions is…?

  4. Pathway says:


  5. Hugh K says:

    “The picture below is either a wind farm, or a scene from “War Of The Worlds””

    I’ll take idols of Gaia for it all Alex….

  6. Andrew says:

    A Coal burning power plant is much aesthetically prettier, and produces more power(cleanly with todays technology) than those ugly bird shredders!

  7. sunsettommy says:

    Another deflective stupid statement by the resident warmist moron David Appell:

    “So do you think that the surface doesn’t emit infrared radiation, or that CO2 doesn’t absorb it?”

    It is clear that you will not face the fact that it warm ONLY when an El-nino comes around and that when it does warm it is well BELOW the predictions as stated in the overrated IPCC reports of .20C per decade.

  8. Ivan says:

    They spent all their lives trying to calculate the infrared properties of the Earth and its atmosphere

    Any chance that they are going to finish this work any time soon?
    Any danger that we are ever going to have any actual evidence to substantiate all these claims?

    • David Appell says:

      You really think there is no evidence?

      There is — you’re just ignorant of it.

      “Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997,” J.E. Harries et al, Nature 410, 355-357 (15 March 2001).

      These findings have been confirmed:
      “Comparison of spectrally resolved outgoing longwave data between 1970 and present,” J.A. Griggs et al, Proc SPIE 164, 5543 (2004).

      “Spectral signatures of climate change in the Earth’s infrared spectrum between 1970 and 2006,” Chen et al, (2007)

      More papers on this subject are listed here:

      “Observed changes in top-of-the-atmosphere radiation and upper-ocean heating consistent within uncertainty,” N.G. Loeb, et al, Nature Geosciences 1/22/12

      But if there was no ignorance, blogs like this could not exist, and commenters like you might have to actually learn some science. Right?

      • You are a broken record

      • sunsettommy says:

        Dr. Lindzen long ago himself pointed out the INCREASING outflow of OLW but as John Kehr points out it actually shows how insignificant CO2 really is:

        “If the Earth were to warm by 1.1 °C, the amount of energy lost would be almost 4 W/m2 greater than what it lost in 1984. If the Earth were to warm by 3.0 °C which is what is predicted by a doubling of CO2, then the amount of energy lost would be > 10 W/m2 the energy loss that existed in 1984.

        The science of this is very clear. The rate at which the Earth loses energy will increase at more than twice the rate that the theoretical CO2 forcing is capable of causing warming to take place. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere cannot stop the Earth from losing more energy if it warms up.”

        David you really dont count very well.

      • David Appell says:

        “Steve Goddard,” the pussy coward afraid to reveal his own name, will no longer allow dissenting points of view here. So fuck him and fuck you.

      • Ivan says:

        Well, let’s have a look at the references that you cite as evidence:

        Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation..
        Inferred is NOT empirical evidence. It is merely one person’s assessment (otherwise known as “guesswork”)

        These findings have been confirmed:….
        “Difference spectra are compared to simulations created using the known changes in greenhouse gases such as CH4, CO2 and O3 over the time period. This provides direct evidence for significant changes in the greenhouse gases over the last 34 years, consistent with concerns over the changes in radiative forcing of the climate.”
        “Compared to simulations” is NOT empirical evicence.

        Spectral signatures of climate change in the Earth’s infrared spectrum
        This is a re-hash of the reference above, and does not add anything of weight to the argument.

        Papers on changes in OLR due to GHG’s
        Makes “Observations,” and then discusses “Theories and Models.”
        None of this constitutes empirical evidence.

        Observed changes in top-of-the-atmosphere radiation and upper-ocean heating consistent within uncertainty”
        “We conclude that energy storage is continuing to increase in the sub-surface ocean.”
        Which proves what, exactly?

        When you have something that constitutes empirical evidence, then by all means let us have it. But in the meantime, quit wasting our time with bullshit like this.

  9. sunsettommy says:

    David wants to look smart with his stupid nitpicking,

    “IR absorbs in only three bands? Have you published this result? Because there are a lot of atmospheric physicists who would disagree with you. They spent all their lives trying to calculate the infrared properties of the Earth and its atmosphere, and if you could simply show them how
    they’re all just misguided and wrong you would save everyone a lot of time, money, and computer programming.”

    I was referring to the three that absorbs in any significant amounts while the rest are piddling but you have to try your stupid gotcha attempt on me when that chart I posted showed only one band that is anywhere near the main IR outflow while the other two are in a low energy part of the IR window.

    Here is that chart again and this time try turning on your pea brain and see that only three of them absorbs near or at 100% within the range it strongly absorbs in but only one of them is near the main IR outflow.

    Notice that at the peak radiation outflow CO2 is nowhere in it.

  10. sunsettommy says:

    David A,

    here is a presentation from a real atmosphere scientist who make it clear that CO2 is absorbing about AT BEST 8% of the IR outflow:

    and the text for it:

    “As we can see above, carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation (IR) in only three narrow bands of frequencies, which correspond to wavelengths of 2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometers (µm),
    respectively. The percentage absorption of all three lines combined can be very generously estimated at about 8% of the whole IR spectrum, which means that 92% of the “heat” passes right through without being absorbed by CO2. In reality, the two smaller peaks don’t account for much, since they lie in an energy range that is much smaller than the where the 15 micron peak sits – so 4% or 5% might be closer to reality. If the entire atmosphere were composed of nothing but CO2, i.e., was pure CO2 and nothing else, it would still only be able to absorb no more than 8% of the heat radiating from the earth.”

    Your god CO2 is a wimp!

    • David Appell says:

      Wow!! — an article in the Middlebury Community Network! Now THAT’s the Big Time! That’s certainly a prestigious publication, world-renowned, and clearly definitive, undoing in just a few pages all the decades of climate science by generations of physicists.

      Does this article have an author? I can’t tell. Maybe, like you, he’s afraid to use his name. Who cares??!! I am just *SO* so impressed that someone took their valuable time to type in all these words, and include pictures too! Golly gee, I”m sure convinced, yes sir.

      Thank you so much for showing the way that everyone else missed — even if you are afraid to sign your name to your work. (Pussy.)

  11. sunsettommy says:


    What a funny meldown David is having and as usual is making a fool of his impressive college education with childish ravings in vivid display.

    Steve has good reason to put YOU on moderation when you pollute his blog with evasive dishonest deflective infantile ravings.

    Meanwhile this college educated raving lunatic is unaware who wrote this simple primer:

    The man who wrote an article in the Middlebury Community Network! is James A. Peden,

    “Editor’s Science Bio

    James A. Peden – better known as Jim or “Dad” – Webmaster of Middlebury Networks and Editor of the Middlebury Community Network, spent some of his earlier years as an Atmospheric Physicist at the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh and Extranuclear Laboratories in Blawnox, Pennsylvania, studying ion-molecule reactions in the upper atmosphere. As a student, he was elected to both the National Physics Honor Society and the National Mathematics Honor Fraternity, and was President of the Student Section of the American Institute of Physics. He was a founding member of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry, and a member of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. His thesis on charge transfer reactions in the upper atmosphere was co-published in part in the prestigious Journal of Chemical Physics. The results obtained by himself and his colleagues at the University of Pittsburgh remain today as the gold standard in the AstroChemistry Database. He was a co-developer of the Modulated Beam Quadrupole Mass Spectrometer, declared one of the “100 Most Significant Technical Developments of the Year” and displayed at the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago.”

    When will you stop punching yourself in the face David?

  12. sunsettommy says:

    By the way James A. Peden is also a member of the MENSA group as well and the creator of this funny cartoon back in 2008:

  13. roger says:

    What a shame that no one saw fit to comment on the real subject of this thread, namely the visual despoilation of Scotland by the proliferation of wind turbines, the reckless accumulation of which has already blighted it’s countryside to such an extent that few if any of the populace could now argue that Scotland’s scenic beauty has not already been fatally impaired.
    No comment either on Alex Salmond’s dream of a separate Scotland exporting green energy to a separate England, which he believes, will willingly pay well over the odds to import his wind and wave power rather than import Nuclear from France and Holland whilst dashing for gas and encouraging fracking on home soil, as the 20th Century CO2 myth subsides and becomes lost in the passage of time.
    Sadly you have all seen fit to engage with a foul mouthed person, David Appell, who might well benefit from psychiatric assistance for his obsessive beliefs so agressively and rudely promulgated here.
    Could we please start this again, and discuss the very real threats that Scotland now faces, with Salmond having bet the farm on what increasingly appears to have been a persuasive but false premise?
    The discussion will need to be kept simple to enable the sixteen year old children that he has enfranchised to comprehend the arguments when they vote in 2014.

    • David Appell’s MO is to immediately change the subject.

      • rw says:

        I think you’re right. There is an MO here. This may be intended to confuse readers other than those who usually comment. I.e. thow up any counter-argument just to have it up there to dilute the original message.

        DA is better than some that I’ve seen. I guess that PhD was good for something …

      • rw says:

        I should add that for us students of sophistry it’s very helpful to have DA’s postings (and suchlike) accepted on this site.

    • Andrew says:

      I guess you missed my comment, that a Coal fired power plant is much more aesthetically pleasing than a landscape littered with these ugly teletubbie-like wind spinners. I’ll bet the people of Scotland would much rather have a power plant(in one location!) that takes the place of 10,000 or more of these windmills – and in the process unblight the landscape!
      Modern Carbon and Sulfur scrubbing technology in addition, can arrest copious amounts of CO2 and SO2 from release into the atmosphere. H2O would be the main emission. psst, but don’t tell that freelance journalist guy: Water Vapor is The King of GHG’s, he might just have to resort to using more of those p and f words – the true mark of a coward.
      If you can’t use logic and reason then call ’em names, the dirtier the better(speaking of dirty climate 😉

  14. rw says:

    I think I know what David is so surly. He’s heavily invested in solar panels.

  15. Rob J says:

    “I think I know what David is so surly. He’s heavily invested in solar panels.”

    And he has been stupid enough to waste other money on “green energy” in general. If he is that dumb then he deserves to lose money. I hope he goes broke chasing his global warming delusions.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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