A
clearly biased study in the notorious left-wing journal Nature claims that marine phytoplankton are in retreat, and that the decline is related to climate change. Somehow, we are supposed to be worried by that. But just what the heck are these phytoplankton? They are very very tiny algae – typically their size is measured in micrometers. Which leads to the first question: just how did they count them? If they are so small, there must be really a lot of them, so there is no way that the researchers could have counted them all. And in order to claim that there is a decline in their numbers, they would need to count them several times. That is impossible! And what connection could this alleged decline have to climate change? The climate is not changing, only naturally. It is obvious to the informed reader that the whole paper is bogus.
I don’t believe their results. The paper would never have managed to pass through the rigorous standards of peer review applied in blog science.
But the madness does not end there. Here are some pictures of phytoplankton (from NASA).
They look like some kind of freaky aliens! I wonder if all the eco-fascists lamenting their decline really know that they look like this? You bet they believe the phytoplankton look like tiny cuddly bunnies! The truth is not so pleasant. One of the most common kinds of phytoplankton is called the dinoflagellates, which is Latin for “terrible whip”. I certainly don’t want to get those things into my swim trunks and near my reproductive organs when I go for a swim in the ocean. The less of them the better, I say. But it is so typical of the enviro-nazis to care more about some weird-looking microscopic plants than about humans like me.
Philosophum non facit barba.
So Baron von Monckhofen, are you by any chance related to that other denier pillock Christopher Monckton.
ReplyDeletePhytoplankton, by the way, have two positions of merit.
1/ They are the start of the food chain, remove them and all the ocean's fish will ultimately suffer.
2/ They convert carbon dioxide into oxygen through photosynthesis and so help to keep all animals alive.
But, of course you already know this, you're just being one of those deniers who spread disinformation so as someone else can keep their wallets full, what a sucker.
Dear anonymous,
ReplyDeleteRegarding your point 1: in that case, a decline in phytoplankton would cause a decline in fish. But that is not happening, according to blog science! Indeed, last time I went to the supermarket, there were as many tuna cans on the shelves as ever. So there cannot be a decline in phytoplankton. Reductio ad absurdum.
Regarding your point 2: if the phytoplankton eat carbon dioxide and there is more carbon dioxide, then there should be more phytoplanktion. Hence there cannot be more carbon dioxide, and the whole AGW hypothesis is a big scam! Reductio ad absurdum.
Baron I was astonished by those NASA photos of those creatures, and two questions occur to me.
ReplyDelete1) Just what magnification are they using on those bloody satellites these days?
and
2) Wheareabouts were they orbiting between say 11pm and 3.00am last Saturday?
and
3) Any such photographs that may or may not exist would have no legal standing in a court of law, such as for instance divorce proceedings?
Baron, I can't say how much I admire your smack-down of that warmalarmist drive-by shooter! Especially the Latin. Always a nice touch. Are you related to any of the Friends of Gin and Tonic?
ReplyDeletePecuniae Obediunt Omnia!
Herr Baron von Mcwarmingistnonsense,
ReplyDeleteIn your erudite reply, "if the phytoplankton eat carbon dioxide and there is more carbon dioxide, then there should be more phytoplanktion",
you seem to have neglected a basic dictum (or is it a dictus?): We cannot now nor have we ever been able to measure carbon dioxide.
Since this is a dictum/us, it must be true. Ergo, we have no way to know whether these fiendish phytoplankton are working for us or against us. They could even be the dreaded 'sleeper' cells, ready to be activated to do the dastardly work of some fiendish doctor of evil. Who knows, "lasers" may even be involved.
Ionic disturbances,
ReplyDeleteYou have a very good point. Remember rule number one of tropic explorers regarding engagements with exotic animals: "If you are not sure that it is harmless, shoot it."
Of course, the same rule applies to natives.
ReplyDeletePerhaps you are referring to a highly secretive program to develop an array of space-based lasers to deal with phytoplankton aggression. If you have any knowledge of said program (known by some as the Strategic Dinoflagellate Initiative or SDI) you are advised to deny it immediately.
ReplyDeleteI try to live my life by Rule Number Two: "if it looks like a snake, don't pick it up."
Ionic disturbances wrote: 'I try to live my life by Rule Number Two: "if it looks like a snake, don't pick it up."'
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, my first ex wife started living by the same rule pretty soon after our wedding.
This whole story is overblown. The dinoflagellants were large lizards which indulged in deviant sexual practices and are now, thankfully, extinct. There is thus no cause for alarmism.
ReplyDeletemarvulus! keep on exposing the frods of those dumm enviromentilusts! luv the sight!
ReplyDeleteThey may have studied the phytoplankton, but they have made a huge mistake not studying the phytoplanktoff. When you factor that into the equation you find that the dinoflagellates turn into autofellates and thus become harmless.
ReplyDeleteNature is a crock of a publication. I mean it isn't even Lord reviewed by the proper Barons and Knobility (until you reviewed this article, my dearest dearest Baron, and found the sceince wanting).
Douhickee Tryckyleshougar.
Moron
ReplyDelete