The Pickering Post
Tuesday, 12th December 2017

If you would like to be involved or support the upkeep and further development of this site, it would be very welcome no matter how small.


UNDER THE ICE WITH MALCOLM

Larry Pickering

Four-time Walkley Award winning political commentator and Churchill Fellow, has returned to the fray over concern that the integrity of news dissemination is continually being threatened by a partisan media.

BLOG / FACEBOOK



Look, I’m no physicist and I’m no climatologist, in fact I left school at 13 because I wanted to learn stuff, but I certainly feel more qualified than Malcolm Turnbull and his lefty mates Tim Flannery and Ross Garnaut to tell you about how melting ice would affect sea levels, because it’s not exactly what they say and it’s not exactly rocket science either.

Now, my life has been one of inventing things, building things and growing things. Mr Turnbull’s has been a life of making money from money. So I reckon, productivity wise, I’m a little bit in front of Mr Turnbull.

So I’ll try to explain the physics of ice for Mr Turnbull. No, not the stuff you smoke, the fresh water that get hard when it gets really cold:

You see, the globe is not getting warmer (if only it was, food production would not be a problem). Despite what Mr Turnbull’s friends in the UN say, ice is actually increasing at both poles and has been for years, especially in the South.

At the Northern cap, where valuable CO2 is at its most productive as it is surrounded by industrialised nations, record cold temperatures have paralysed North America and Europe for the past five years.

But let’s not shoot Mr Turnbull and his mates down straight away... let’s play with them for a while, much like a cat plays with mice.

Okay, the Northern cap is a floating ice sheet where most ice volumes are below the surface, we see only the tips. Okay, Mr Turnbull, I’ll type slowly for you... shouldn’t that tell you the displacement factor already exists? Obviously not! And honestly, I can’t type any slower.

The above pic isn’t photo-shopped Mr Turnbull and it’s similar to all fresh water ice that floats in salt water. And the volume of salt water on the globe is well beyond your and my comprehension when it’s compared to a paltry amount of ice.
Are you still with me here, Mr Turnbull?

Okay, now water comes in only three forms, vapour, solid and liquid, and in this case it’s solid. (Oh, and by the way, water is a 100 per cent renewable resource, it always returns in one of those three forms.) Yep, your wee today is the water in Mr Flannery’s scotch tomorrow. Better not tell him that tho’.

Now I know this might be hard to get your head around, Mr Turnbull, but when ice melts it decreases in volume and when water freezes it increases in volume.

It expands by around nine per cent. A bit over that actually, but don’t take my word for it, I left school at 13, so stick a bottle of water in the freezer overnight and I'll wait here while you have a sleep.

Still not convinced? Well, how are you at arithmetic then Mr Turnbull?

Let’s take some northern cap ice which is up to 90 per cent under the water, so that leaves 10 per cent above the water which, when it melts, will decrease in volume but will add only a miniscule amount to its initial volume when absorbed by sea water.

Ahhhh, but hang on a minute, when 90 per cent of that ice (the part that is under water) melts, it decreases in volume by around 10 percent compared to what it was when frozen.

Just because most polar ice is under the water, it doesn’t mean it isn’t there, Mr Turnbull... just because you can’t see it, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

You see, sea water freezes at a much lower temperature and is far denser than fresh water, and it creates some complicated equations, so we’ll ignore that until after you have digested the simple stuff.

So, given that a displacement factor already exists under water and 90 per cent of that displacement decreases in volume by around 10 per cent when it melts... tell me, what do you reckon will happen when, or if, polar caps melt?

Yes, yes, Mr Turnbull, if those polar caps decide to melt (and they won’t inside the next ten thousand or so years, and even then not entirely) it will actually make not a zot of difference to sea levels.

But here’s the nub! If it ever did make a difference, Mr Turnbull, it would only be to LOWER sea levels.

That’s why not one Pacific Island has reported increased sea levels, they have only reported a fear of anticipated increased sea levels, a fear promoted by the outrageous lies of Al Gore and the UN’s IPCC.

And these fears mostly evaporate with increased aid.

So would you be kind enough to call your friends in the Labor Party and at GetUp, the ABC, Fairfax, The Guardian, Green Weekly and all your sexually confused associates in the judiciary residing on the north shore and explain to them that your thesis on global warming and increased sea levels is fundamentally flawed (or a load of bullshit)?

No? I didn’t think so.



Comments

HAARP is melting the Arctic Ice - That's it's reason for being - If you know anything about short wave radio - you would know that the frequency is reflected off the ionosphere - HAARP uses its antenna array 'frequency' to heat up the ionosphere and reflect it on the Arctic - simple - the purpose is to open up shipping lanes and access the vast resources of oil and gas - who benefits ??? The Rothschild's of course !!!

Global warming, not happening. Oceans rise physically impossible. A trace gas altering climate?. Actions demanded, taxes imposed which could have little or no influence and yet we live with this bullshit and pay the price. We don't have to be mad, but it helps!

Are Gender-Bending Chemicals Causing Gender-Bending Confusion?

http://holyhormones.com/womens-health/hormones/estrogen-dominance/are-gender-bending-chemicals-causing-gender-bending-confusion/

Chemical Gender Manipulation: Turning boys into girls. Warning: This article is not politically correct


https://healthmasters.com/blog/chemical-gender-manipulation


The chemical BPA can cause children to become feminine men and Butch lesbians before they are even born.

If we were heading into another Ice Age, Con Men like Gore and Turnbull would find a way of introducing an Ice Tax, if they thought they could line their own pockets.

How come Turnbull's close friend Josh Frydenberg voted for Tony Abbott? Was it to keep a low profile and make Turnbull look good when he promoted him? Is Frydenberg trying to hide his Jewish identity? Were the numbers for Turnbull well known before the spill and that some votes for Abbott were deceptive?

Quote from above "Every time the same sex marriage issue is raised the TV news shows footage of fat lesbians or grizzled old faggots groping each other and tongue kissing." I agree totally, it is on TV for all the children to see. It could be a good thing, what kid would relate to the old leathered fags and fat tattooed pierced lesbians. If anybody imagines it not, then they must be too embarrassed to admit it.

Winston S. Churchill — 'Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened.'

“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear.”
.
Marcus Tullius Cicero
.

Spot on, Professor Pickering. But, a word of caution, if I may: From Tertullianus, who reminds: "The first reaction to Truth is hatred! But silence, when Truth is demanded, tags the cowards among Men." So be on the lookout for crabby former female pretenders to prime-minister-ships and to Malignantly Envious kangaroo-courtiers and to other assorted crooks and pukes and crapheads. /tongue-in-cheek

I am no one's nursemaid. I simply believe in courtesy.

Dick maybe a blowfly in a beer bottle will do the trick for Donald.

You seem upset, Donald. Boyfriend not back from Friday drinkies at the Oxford Tavern? Probably hitting on the mail-room boy.

Can't help watching faggot porn, Donald. Every time the same sex marriage issue is raised the TV news shows footage of fat lesbians or grizzled old faggots groping each other and tongue kissing.

Errr . . . that's why I referred to the 'NEW' age of aquarius. One accepting of sodomy. . . and, you may be half right - I am an old bloke. Just not like the grizzled old farts whose pictures we're assailed with constantly in the media passionately kissing other disgusting old deviants.

The 'new age of aquarius' is yet young, Donald. Straight families with kids far outweigh the new 'fashion' of homosexual couples with kids, by a significant factor. Let's see what happens when the few toddlers clucky faggots are now bouncing on their knees reach adulthood, or when same sex marriage and marriage breakups become the vogue. It may not all turn out like Elton John . . .

stringy, he is. His point is that only the most needy in the indigenous peoples, should claim any benefits or assistance. Those who can stand on their own two feet, whether part aborigine or not - should be independent.

Well done, BW.

Bernardi is probably making a point about assistance programs intended for the disadvantaged of the aboriginal communities being claimed by people of very slight ancestry who have never suffered disadvantage. But he will have to elaborate on the point himself.

Terrible that the 'great unwashed' out in blogger land might just get to hear the truth, isn't it?

OT Rachel Carson's Deadly Fantasies . .... . We recently passed the 50th anniversary of Rachel Carson’s best-selling book, “Silent Spring.” Widely credited with launching the modern environmental movement, it was an emotionally charged but deeply flawed denunciation of the widespread spraying of chemical pesticides for the control of insects. Today, the book is still revered by many, but its legacy is anything but positive.

As detailed by Roger Meiners and Andy Morriss in their scholarly yet very readable analysis, “Silent Spring at 50: Reflections on an Environmental Classic,” Carson exploited her reputation as a well-known nature writer to advocate and legitimatize “positions linked to a darker tradition in American environmental thinking.” Carson “encourages some of the most destructive strains within environmentalism: alarmism, technophobia, failure to consider the costs and benefits of alternatives, and the discounting of human well-being around the world.”


Carson’s proselytizing and advocacy raised substantial anxiety about DDT and led to bans in most of the world and to restrictions on other chemical pesticides. But the fears she raised were based on gross misrepresentations and scholarship so atrocious that, if Carson were an academic, she would be guilty of egregious academic misconduct. Her observations about DDT have been condemned by many scientists. In the words of Professor Robert H. White-Stevens, an agriculturist and biology professor at Rutgers University, “If man were to follow the teachings of Miss Carson, we would return to the Dark Ages, and the insects and diseases and vermin would once again inherit the earth.”

In 1992, San Jose State University entomologist J. Gordon Edwards, a long-time member of the Sierra Club and the Audubon Society and a fellow of the California Academy of Sciences, offered a persuasive and comprehensive rebuttal of “Silent Spring.” As he explained in “The Lies of Rachel Carson,” a stunning, point by point refutation, “it simply dawned on me that that Rachel Carson was not interested in the truth about [pesticides] and that I was being duped along with millions of other Americans.” He demolished Carson’s arguments and assertions, calling attention to critical omissions, faulty assumptions, and outright fabrications.