(Above: the only explanation for dust storms. The stars!)
There's nothing like a change in the weather to bring out the loons, and sure enough, after the dust storm in Sydney, centre of the universe, here come the loons.
The most perverse example of this, of course, was while the Victorian bushfires were still actually burning, and the likes of Bob Brown almost fell over in their rush to get to the fax machine and declare that there would be more fires, and worse fires, if we didn’t act now to save the planet.
That was tasteless but much of what we heard yesterday was just stupid.
And of course right up there at the front of the charge is David Penberthy, leader of Australia's most ineffable, incoherent conversation, with Is climate change ruining our sex lives?
Well of course it isn't ruining our sex lives, because as Janet Albrechtsen explained yesterday, that's the fault of hairy arm pit, men-hating feminists of the old school.
No, it's a satirical piece by Penbo, which contains highly original bon mots about Prius drivers and sex with the woman in the Brand Power commercial, before settling down to the point of the trolling. Climate change.
As usual, there's a trick to this. First there's a sullen admission that not being a scientist he's prepared to go with the majority scientific opinion on the subject. And then there's a but.
Because as usual this billy goat likes to butt:
But just as hairy-chested climate change sceptics give me the pip, so too do those who blindly (and even tastelessly) attribute any apparent blip in the weather to climate change, and use it as a device to bully or hector anyone who dares to disagree.
The most perverse example of this, of course, was while the Victorian bushfires were still actually burning, and the likes of Bob Brown almost fell over in their rush to get to the fax machine and declare that there would be more fires, and worse fires, if we didn’t act now to save the planet.
That was tasteless but much of what we heard yesterday was just stupid.
Yes I was much more pleased when Peter Costello's fundie mates explained that they were caused by abortion law reform.
The first point I’d make about the dust storm - coming as I do from Adelaide where they happen a few times a year - is to borrow from that eminent scientist Chopper Read and suggest simply that Sydney should harden the f… up.
STEPHEN CATTLE: A bit of both, it can be the former, over-grazing in particular can cause disruption of the top soil which leaves particles less aggregated and therefore much more easy for the wind to pick up and so it certainly if you are careful with your stocking rates and don't over-cultivate then that will certainly leave the soil better able to resist wind erosion but if you say over-graze or over-cultivate it then that can exacerbate these dust storms.
But, yeah, more generally speaking, I think we pretty much all understand that Australia is generally an arid continent and so from time to time when the rain doesn't fall and the wind howls then these dust storms are going to occur.
So to an extent we can control the severity of these storms, but at the end of the day nature will always win ...
TIMOTHY MCDONALD: But Dr Lees says land management is constantly improving, and that's helping to reduce the impact of dust storms.
JOHN LEES: We've seen basically an increase in good land management practices and a decrease in the amount of dust that's been occurring in recent years.
Except of course yesterday. So all might be getting better, but are we trying to get even more better? So we can avoid the mo' better blues?
Ha ha.
The first point I’d make about the dust storm - coming as I do from Adelaide where they happen a few times a year - is to borrow from that eminent scientist Chopper Read and suggest simply that Sydney should harden the f… up.
Which I think he means to say is act like a fucked up South Australian. Oh how we loved to burn up the mallee - those roots make such good flame for the open fire in a cold winter, they last for hours with a warm steady glow.
But that was only one of the more bizarre land and soil management practices of the twentieth century, and in only one part of the country.
What a pity then that Penbo can't make the leap and suggest that as well as hardening the fuck up, maybe it might be a good idea for the country to smarten the fuck up.
Irrespective of the climate change debate, managing the land sensibly with sustainable farming practices is worth more than a few cheap jokes about a fuck in a Prius. (And if you want a report on the Australian environment in 2001 after a century of happy abuse, trot off here, to yet another government report not read enough or thought about, except by those whose business it is to know about such matters).
Meanwhile hairy chested Penbo is roaming back through the annals to discover that dust storms were a regular part of the landscape in the twentieth century, which would only be news when peddled to city siders. If you've ever lived in the bush (or were in Melbourne during the great storm of '83), you'd know what it was like to taste the dead heart of Australia being blown across the land towards the sea.
And just as farmers began to work out losing a lot of the best of your land to water erosion through bad practices wasn't particularly smart, so there are some things you can do to help prevent wind erosion, which tends to take away the better part of the topsoil.
Penbo takes the easy way out at the end of his column, after saying that the word unprecedented was used a little too often when describing yesterday's event, thereby ignoring the fact that it was unprecedented in the context of the Sydney basin, which has tended not to experience these kinds of events in the past.
Sure there are precedents for dust storms all over the country - why there are even precedents for dust storms in other countries - but there's a reason for all the fuss. Because it's a novelty. Because to Sydney siders it's unprecedented within their lifetimes. And irrespective of climate change it might just make coastal dwellers more aware of issues facing country folk.
But ... there's always a butt - Penbo then takes the easy way out by quoting Dr Chris Strong as a way of preventing a descent into an orgy of dirt-coloured foaming at the mouth.
Strong delivers a factual description of the event, but let me take the easy way out and quote another couple of experts, as interviewed on The World Today (here):
TIMOTHY MCDONALD: Is this something that's made worse by the way the land is managed out there or is this merely just a product of being on a very dry continent?
STEPHEN CATTLE: A bit of both, it can be the former, over-grazing in particular can cause disruption of the top soil which leaves particles less aggregated and therefore much more easy for the wind to pick up and so it certainly if you are careful with your stocking rates and don't over-cultivate then that will certainly leave the soil better able to resist wind erosion but if you say over-graze or over-cultivate it then that can exacerbate these dust storms.
But, yeah, more generally speaking, I think we pretty much all understand that Australia is generally an arid continent and so from time to time when the rain doesn't fall and the wind howls then these dust storms are going to occur.
So to an extent we can control the severity of these storms, but at the end of the day nature will always win ...
TIMOTHY MCDONALD: But Dr Lees says land management is constantly improving, and that's helping to reduce the impact of dust storms.
JOHN LEES: We've seen basically an increase in good land management practices and a decrease in the amount of dust that's been occurring in recent years.
Except of course yesterday. So all might be getting better, but are we trying to get even more better? So we can avoid the mo' better blues?
Sadly, I'm thinking that jokes about loud sex in a silent Prius are much more fun than talking about dry as dust land management practices.
Sure enough Penberthy's piece brought out sundry loons, all titillated by sex being linked with climate change, and another million or so brain cells were picked up the giant wind forces emanating from News Corp and blown into the Pacific. So it goes.
That's why I hardly dare recommend reading Lucy Kippist's startling story Astrology. Fact or fiction? as a sorbet. But if you've toughened yourself up with Creationism. Science fact or science fiction, followed by a dose of Scientology. Is it true about those volcanoes or are the Thetans fiction?, not to mention that all time classic Flesh eating Zombies, vampires and Buffy: fact, not cable fiction.
The poor sweet thing, how Luy suffers for her beliefs. Here's a sample:
It’s not easy being a believer, especially if you live with a stubborn non-believer among whose favourite jokes is asking why you need to make an appointment with a psychic when they should already know to expect you.
Ha ha.
And gee does she know how to blow those evil sceptics out of the water:
Astrology has been around since third millennium BC when it was discovered in Babylonia -before astronomy and psychology. The Chinese, Indian, Egyptian, Mayan, and Ancient Greeks followed soon after with each culture adapting or re-interpreting the laws that had been set in place by the Babylonians. In ancient Rome, two emperors were astrologers and ruled their people through the stars.
But you don’t have to go that far back to see its significance.
Ronald Regan’s wife Nancy is believed to have consulted an astrologer before mapping out his diary for the year and an article in the Times of India shows astrology is still relevant, especially when there’s a big decision in the balance.
But you don’t have to go that far back to see its significance.
Ronald Regan’s wife Nancy is believed to have consulted an astrologer before mapping out his diary for the year and an article in the Times of India shows astrology is still relevant, especially when there’s a big decision in the balance.
Take that Eric von Daniken, and you Rosicrucians with your potty ideas. Move over for the Times of India and Nancy Reagan and the ancient wisdom of the Babylonians (which strangely didn't do them that much good when Alexander the Great left town. Guess the stars were feeling vindictive - here for more on Babylon).
Oh yes. The Punch. Bringing you the truth about the world tomorrow ... safe reading for Christian fundamentalists. Or is it?
1) The stars were created by God to serve as "lights" and "signs" for calendar purposes (years, months, days, seasons). The stars were made for our benefit (Genesis 1:1, 14-19) and not for the purposes of divination or predicting the future. (Psalm 136:7-9).
2) The worship of the heavenly bodies and stars is condemned by God as idolatry. Under the Mosaic law, people who engaged in these practices were to be executed. (Deuteronomy 17:2-7).
Oh no, say it ain't so, not sweet Lucy, executed for astrological heresy. Now that's a weird dust laden kind of sorbet ...
2) The worship of the heavenly bodies and stars is condemned by God as idolatry. Under the Mosaic law, people who engaged in these practices were to be executed. (Deuteronomy 17:2-7).
Oh no, say it ain't so, not sweet Lucy, executed for astrological heresy. Now that's a weird dust laden kind of sorbet ...
(More anti-astrological loonacy here).
(Below: as we like to say, go talk to the hand, but hey we love to endorse and publish sundry theological
heresies).
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments older than two days are moderated and there will be a delay in publishing them.