JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Archives

Domino makes carbon-free cane-sugar. It’s certified.

And you thought advertising or certificates couldn’t get more stupid.
Thanks to Christopher Essex for spotting this gemhttp://www.dominosugar.com/carbonfree/

You’ll have to click to go to the Domino site to see the helpful man tell you that “This is Big”.

They probably paid a lot for that ad.

Some of the poor users are not sure what it means. That’s OK, Domino helpfully provides an FAQ page:

Is it the same sugar? Will it function the same way in my recipes?

Yes, it is still 100% pure cane sugar with 15 calories per teaspoon. And, it functions just like all Domino® Pure Cane Granulated Sugar. Use it cup for cup exactly like the original Domino® Pure Cane Granulated Sugar.

Look out. You might think that carbon free sugar would be the ultimate diet-sugar. But it’s not so. Carbon free is not low-calorie. Lucky it is still useable at high temperatures “just like” normal sugar, eh?
Just so everyone can appreciate this special-chemistry-moment: in the sugar molecule below, the grey circles with a “C” are the carbon ones.

A glucose molecule. C stands for Carbon.

Remember the low-carbon crowd that this product appeals to are the ones who think they have science on their side.
To get certification this meaningless takes time:
“In order to earn CarbonFund.org’s CarbonFree® certification, Domino® Sugar products were put through a comprehensive, six-month certification process.”

Here’s another sort of carbon-free sugar. It’s “Organic” too.

 

 

Christopher Essex  has been entertaining people with it for ages and points out that when your chemistry is this loose anything is possible.

He writes:
 If you can have oxygen free carbon dioxide it is only a small step to having carbon free sugar.  You could replace the carbon by, say, silicon from  which one might get some kind of abrasive or just take all the carbon away and get water. So next time you drink pure water think of carbon free sugar.
Colleague Juan replies: “Perfect! if you can remove oxygen from carbon dioxide, and  carbon from sugar, why not carbon from coal too?…”
The propaganda takes over people’s understanding of science, the advertising gradually erases what they were taught at school, and the population gets that much more confused. The brand-name of science becomes just that much less useful.
Robert Tracinski summed it up:
The environmentalist movement is attempting a … con. They are stealing the terminology of science to provide cover for an irrational, unscientific fear of industry and technology. And so while they loudly claim to be the tribunes of science, they actually play to and rely on the public’s ignorance of science.

“Get that carbon out of my food!”

Stephen Harper posted a study on this site in 2011, which showed (rather savagely) how effective the propaganda machine has been in undoing all those years of chemistry at school.  He randomly asked 100 people in the street and the results show the sugar “carbon free” advertising might work.

Carbon — demonized by climate propaganda

  • … 37% of people are so convinced carbon is pollution that they think it would be a worthwhile aim to reduce the carbon content of their body. (The ultimate diet, you might say).
  • About a quarter of the population… would rather not eat food with carbon in it.
  • Nearly half the population think food would be safer without carbon.

I see WUWT had a post on Domino in 2009. It’s been around.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.2/10 (83 votes cast)
Domino makes carbon-free cane-sugar. It's certified. , 9.2 out of 10 based on 83 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/p4f9qc5

117 comments to Domino makes carbon-free cane-sugar. It’s certified.

  • #

    Alice’s world “Through the Looking Glass” makes immensely more sense than the pseudo world that is being pushed upon us. Imaging, a carbon based life form depending upon carbon based food to live and the exchange of oxygen, in the air, for carbon dioxide , trying to eliminate carbon from the air, land, water, food, and self. This has a long way to go to come up to the level of simple madness. The horrifying thing is that roughly half the population says they buy into the idea.

    Scotty. Beam me up. There are no signs of intelligent life on this planet. Oh, I forgot. Scotty has taken his last trip into the sky. Oh well….

    Hang on, it is going to be a very rough ride.

    142

    • #
      Lars P.

      The stupid it hurts…. Organic carbon-free sugar!!!
      Please skynet send your terminators, we want to be replaced by silicon based life forms.

      31

  • #
    john robertson

    Is it a crime to persuade persons of the gullible green persuasion to hand over their money?
    Selling indulgences and nonexistent products to such folk must be considered a social good, as we are living the damage they do to productive society when allowed to finance corrupt cults of the eco-crazy type.
    Think of it as social justice, as most of the dangerously deluded are recipients of your tax dollar either through welfare, student funding, charitable status or trough feeding as a “civil servant”.
    So depriving them of wealth must be seen as reclaiming stolen return on your labour.
    The evidence is pretty definitive, these people will believe anything and they vote.
    Facts and evidence have zero impact on their complacent righteous certainty.
    Poverty is known to focus a peoples attention to what works or they fail to survive through starvation.
    And based upon their public utterances, the benefits of poverty, a low energy hopeless lifestyle is what they aspire to.

    So ethically I propose that defrauding(As normal people would consider fraud) an eco-loon of all their worldly wealth must be a desirable social goal.

    101

  • #
    Anna Keppa

    If we could only get that poisonous chlorine out of our salt!

    201

    • #
      Richard the Great

      Think of the bright side. Without all that evil carbon the sugar must be 100% ORGANIC.

      51

  • #
    Dagfinn

    Your diamonds are pure carbon. I can help you get rid of them.

    191

    • #
      Speedy

      Dagfinn

      Hey Hey Hey! We’re onto something here! We start with carbon free food (organically grown, of course), then branch out into carbonless diamonds (aka cubic zirconia). After that, it’s the carbon-free pencils (“Puts the lead (Pb) back into your pencil”.)

      As Tony once said, and I quote:

      Nyuk, Nyuk, Nyuk, Nyuk….

      Cheers,

      Speedy

      81

  • #
    Rocky

    Better talk to hubby on this

    Sugar is SUCROSE

    20

    • #

      Lucky I checked before posting about the relevance of glucose schematic. Bizarre add. I wonder if “carbon free” will one day be like “organic”. I remember, back in the day, making the comment, “it’s organic however it is produced if it is carbon based” to no avail.

      41

    • #
      Mark D.

      Rocky:

      Sugar is SUCROSE

      No, sugar is:
      Sucrose
      Fructose
      Glucose (Dextrose)
      Galactose
      Lactose
      Maltose

      And I’m sure your “hubby” knows that they all are compounds that include carbon right?

      00

  • #

    I think this was covered last year by WUWT.

    30

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Quite likely. Now, what was your point … ?

      31

      • #
        Sparks

        It’s more of an informative statement, just relaying on a piece information that might be useful to other readers interested in this story. :)

        20

  • #
  • #
    R. Gates

    Oh my! Some marketing person really messed up. Jumping on the “go green” and reduce carbon bandwagon without thinking the whole thing through. I mean really… Know your product people. In the meantime, how about a go-green cookie made with Carbon Free Domino sugar:

    http://www.dominosugar.com/carbonfree/carbon-neutral-cookies.html

    71

    • #
      Greebo

      how about a go-green cookie

      I reckon whoever came up with this one has been putting something else in their cookies….

      http://www.thestonerscookbook.com

      51

    • #

      Shouldn’t that second paragraph start with: Place solar oven outdoors for preheating. Place cookies in solar oven. Wait a really long time and remove cookies when they appear to be done, or when the sun goes down, which ever comes first?

      10

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    I don’t see the problem with this. It is perfectly reasonable from a marketing point of view.

    All they have done, is to look at the constituent atoms in a sugar molecule, and reapportion the proportional costs of the carbon across the other elements in the molecule. Thus making the carbon “free”.

    A portion of the population thinks that a sign and road markings saying, “Parking Free Zone”, means you can park for nothing, so carbon free sugar is not an alien concept to those folks.

    Organic sugar is different though. Being organic means that it has got added healthy bits, to make it good for you.

    Having organic sugar, where the carbon is free, will be the best thing since sliced (organic, stone-ground flour) bread, to the alternate life-style greenies.

    70

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Oh, and when I say, “alternate life-style”, I don’t mean “alternative life-style”. I mean “alternate”, as in a totally different reality to the rest of us, who may choose to make choices between alternative options in the reality we already have.

      It is the Alternate Reality people who are driving the climate scare. You can spot them, because they have no sense of proportion, no sense of humour, and a belief that alchemy is superior to chemistry, because it has a longer history.

      210

      • #
        George McFly......I'm your density

        very cleverly said Rereke

        30

      • #
        Manfred

        RW, alchemy in their world is indeed superior to chemistry. They have after all, turned carbon into gold have they not?

        90

      • #
        Greebo

        You can spot them, because they have no sense of proportion, no sense of humour, and a belief that alchemy is superior to chemistry, because it has a longer history.

        They also think that 380ppm is a huge figure, because, of course, homeopathic remedies work.

        110

  • #

    I guess it’s not such a big step from “low carb” beer to “carbon free” but I’m glad XXXX hasn’t tried it- yet. Though probably a lot of people would buy it. Plenty pay top dollar for certified “organic” food. I’ve always thought the “certified” descriptor most appropriate. Buyer beware.

    30

  • #
    amcoz

    Just think about, if we ‘decarbonize’ ourselves a fart will no longer pollute the world.

    60

  • #
    tckev

    I’m looking for backers in my endeavor to have a CO2 free greenhouse environments to grow non-GM, organic, sustainable, and superior nutrition vegetables. I am planning to start-up on the fast-warming areas of the globe, such as Alaska, Greenland, etc. The produce will be fast shipped by wind-powered ships, and electric vehicles to the customer.

    Does anyone wish to assist with investing in this new green-employment in a sustainable enterprise?

    ‘Low Carbon – the Way to Go’©

    email: moremonythansense@scamulike.com

    100

  • #
    Dave

    .

    37% of people are so convinced carbon is pollution

    30% + of people think wind turbines are beautiful,
    30% + of people don’t know where milk comes from.
    30% + of people vote ALP or the Greens.

    There’s no hope for this 30%

    150

  • #
    Manfred

    This is a marketing ploy, clear and simple.
    Domino’s generously provide a definition of terms and have registered ‘Carbon Free’ as a trademark. They state:

    CarbonFree®, which means it has a neutral carbon footprint

    and go on to say:

    CarbonFund.org, a non-profit organization that certifies products as CarbonFree® following an extensive life cycle assessment to determine the product’s carbon footprint and greenhouse gas reductions that in turn render the footprint neutral.

    It appears that they assess the ‘carbon footprint’ (how I loathe that ridiculous term!) of the process from plant to granulated sugar.

    They rigorously and transparently state in classic Orwellian doublespeak:

    CarbonFree® not the phrase “carbon free”

    There is no real story here beyond an obvious marketing ploy that relies for its effectiveness and appeal upon the seemingly widespread ignorance of elementary chemistry and the word play around the usual vacuous Green propaganda regarding the environmental toxicity of ‘carbon’, itself a contraction of the term carbon dioxide, that has been re-morphed back to ‘carbon’ with the implication of being derived from fossil fuels, Big Oil, tobacco, and any other evocative proxy Green enemy.

    One thing that sprung to mind was whether Domino’s considered the carbon foot print of the workers who perform this process. I understand that the process itself is subject to a carbon dioxide analysis, but does this include the total output of the related workers necessary to undertake the various tasks associated with production.

    I very much doubt it.

    However, if and when we do see this incorporated into the analysis, we’ll all know that writing is on the wall so to speak. It’ll be ‘to the ramparts’ next.

    40

    • #

      There is Ortho EcoSense pesticide, which says on the bottle:”Not intended to imply environmental safety either alone or compared to other products.” Marketing…..

      00

  • #
    lemiere jacques

    where can i buy this sugar?
    i can pay with carbon free certified money.

    40

  • #
    Ace

    I tell you what, why dont these Greens volunteer to only have CARBON FREE CHILDREN !

    Lets see how they get on with that.

    Our problems with them would be solved.

    70

  • #
    ianl8888

    The model of the glucose molecule is missing two (2) hydrogen atoms

    Oh well …

    12

    • #
      GrahamP

      Ian, Two are partly obscured behind the carbon.

      20

    • #
      Mark

      If you think that’s bad Ian just wait till these clowns reveal the politically correct version of the Periodic Table. There will be a blank space at no. 6 where carbon once resided.

      50

  • #

    For those who live in the EU there is a serious point here.
    In the EU there is subsidies paid for the growing of sugar beet. This turnip-like product yields about a fifth or less per hectare of granulated sugar as sugar cane grown in Brazil. Further, in Brazil, there are no fertilizers needed. To equal things up the EU has an import tax. As a result, in the UK the cheapest sugar is about 4 times the cost of the cheapest in Brazil.
    So in the Europe, where energy prices are rising and destroying jobs to save the planet, farmers are incentivised to use fertilizers (which high energy inputs to produce) to produce low-yielding crops (i.e. high energy per input unit of input), aided by import duties that help block the much higher-yielding, lower energy-consuming crops from elsewhere.

    70

    • #
      J Martin

      To some extent I support the EU on this, even though my sugar may well be 4 times the price. People’s consumption of sugar in the developed world is arguably too high for their health and so if price acts as a mechanism for restraint then that may well be a good thing, it may even be cost effective assuming it were possible to cost any reduction in health care costs.

      I am also in favour of not destroying indigenous industries and resources on the back of excessive globalisation. I like the principle of retaining a wide range of locally grown products and bio diversity. I also don’t want to place all my food resources at the risk of disruption by distant wars or other unwelcome instabilities.

      In the end, it’s a matter of balance.

      There are more important battles to face. Fluoridation for one. I don’t mind Fluoride in my toothpaste. Put Fluoride in my drinking water, I object. I used to think that my 5 stage reverse osmosis water filter under the kitchen sink removed pretty well all pollutants from my drinking water including fluoride, but I recently found that some people say that even though RO manufacturers claim that their units remove fluoride, that apparently they don’t. So I am now uncertain as to whether my RO unit is removing most fluoride or not. Presumably there is no quick cheap easy way for a householder to test the amount of fluoride in their water supply.

      13

      • #

        J Martin,

        You are right about a matter of balance in these matters, but EU policies do the opposite of what you desire. I love the traditional English countryside with hedgerows and meadows that support an abundance of wildlife. But in the past the subsidies have encouraged a switch from pastures to crops on an industrial scale, by making it profitable to upgrade the soil through the intensive use of fertilisers and removing the stones.
        I would also agree that people use less sugar in their diet. But sugar in Britain is around A$1.30 per kg, as against around A$1.50 for 5kg in a sugar-growing area of Brazil. It is still one of the cheapest foodstuffs around. Nearly every form of fruit, vegetable and breakfast cereal is more expensive. (exception is the cheapest potatoes and rice) The healthier the food, and the more varied the diet, the more you have to pay.
        There is something I have noticed. Meat prices have risen by well over 50% in the last few years in Britain, for which I blame bio-fuels. Minced beef is one of the most popular types of meat in Britain. At one supermarket, the lowest grade (highest fat) had increased by 170%, the highest grade by 120%. As people’s incomes are squeezed, they switch to the cheaper foods. The best way to cheap foods is to increase globalisation. A side effect might be to squeeze the incomes of a few farmers in rich countries, but will increase the incomes of the much poorer farmers elsewhere.

        20

  • #
    Ian

    I think the advertisement is a condemnation of the steady decline in science teaching in schools. In the preamble these two comments were made, inter alia, by “Juan” who noted “the advertising gradually erases what they were taught at school” and Robert Tracinski who commented that environmentalists “actually play to and rely on the public’s ignorance of science”. It will come as no surprise to most that the teaching of science in school has itself been hijacked by the pro-AGW movement. There are many reports of teachers preference for students to discuss, for example “the disastrous effects of human production of CO2″ rather than teach their students hard science. An example of such science is “sugar” is sucrose, a disaccharide comprised of the monosaccharides glucose and fructose and with the chemical formula C12H22O11. Knowing this, any student would be able to understand the stupidity of the advertisement for “carbon free sugar” and hopefully, get a better understanding of how the “environmentalists” use advertising to push their one sided message on “carbon” pollution.

    60

  • #
    Joe V.

    Amusing as this all is , the only Carbon this is referring to is of course the fossilised carbon that may have been used in its production. The derdy Carbon .
    Certified Fossilized Carbon Free might have been more accurate. (Not to be confused with CFC Free).

    40

  • #
    MadJak

    This is merely another logical step after all the carbon demonisation JuLiar and many others have been pushing.

    It is a tragic indictment on the education system that there are people that cannot understand what the most basic elements in the periodic table are.

    Really, I have no doubt that there are now many many people in this country who truly believe that carbon is a pollutant and must be removed. they are all a bunch of ignoramus’s being played by some fascists who fanatically believe that the ends justifies the means.

    30

    • #
      MadJak

      Reminds me of Penn and tellers efforts of banning Di Hydrogen Minoxide

      Funny, but very very scary

      40

      • #
        Manfred

        typo – monoxide
        …just in case ‘minoxide’ inadvertently starts a new meaningless obsession.

        40

        • #
          MadJak

          lol,

          Fair call.

          20

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          What! I always thought that ‘minoxide’ was the working title for the branded Oxygen Lite (TM). I have been waiting for it to float.

          40

          • #
            Speedy

            Rereke

            Yet another marketing coup! What about “Light Water”? Contains less than 0.0001% deuterium and ZERO calories!

            Quickly, to the Patent Office!

            Cheers,

            Speedy

            50

          • #
            Rod Stuart

            Rereke do you recall making a post in which you explained why engineers are particularly well suited to analyse data pertaining to the agw phenomena? I like the way you put it and was looking for it a while ago and can’t find the topic.

            20

  • #
    Themm Nunnov

    Jo, you are looking at this the wrong way round.

    1) – Source a supplier of a weight loss pill known and clinically proven to work (appetite suppressant or similar).

    2) – Buy in bulk and repackage as “carbon loss” pills.

    3) – Advertise that for every kilo of overall weight loss, people are “losing” 180 grams of “filthy carbon pollution” from their bodies.

    4) – Sit back and count the dollars. Website funding solved.

    .
    I can even see the makings of a reality TV series – “Australia’s Biggest Loser Looney”

    110

    • #
      john robertson

      Why should an ethical person, such as yourself, be so constrained when dealing with people who demand to be stripped of their carbon corrupted wealth?

      20

      • #
        Themm Nunnov

        .
        I’m not an “ethical person”.

        I’m a political wannabe candidate in the next federal election.

        50

        • #

          Power to your arm. Don’t forget where you came from.

          20

          • #

            (Standard catchcry of the left, sorry temporarily lost my sarc button)

            20

          • #
            Themm Nunnov

            .

            Thank you for your kind words of encouragement.

            However, I came entirely from the imagination of a regular commentator here, tired of the “vote Abbott and everything will be better” prevailing attitude.

            As such, I don’t have arms.

            20

            • #

              Armless then (Sorry, bit naff as my daughter would say).

              10

              • #
                Themm Nunnov

                .
                Yes,

                Armless, legless and headless, I’m afraid. Definitely a bit naff.
                Nonetheless, I’m hoping to run in all 150 seats in the coming election. Can’t see much point in hedging my bets by running in just one electorate.

                Being armless, legless (and body-less) is a minor issue, simply overcome with a bit of help from friends and like-minded people.

                Being headless (and therefore, by definition, brainless), doesn’t seem to have been much of an imposition for pretty-much anybody occupying a seat in Federal Parliament, in at least the last 40 years.

                20

  • #
    realist

    How long before someone with a few spare $ printed on non-carbon-free plastic using non-carbon free inks in a carbon-dependent facility sue the carbon-rich backsides of these clowns under various state legislature for false and misleading advertising. Not even any carbon-equivalents of the late Dr Julian Sumner Milner could argue the science out of that one.

    ALL economies, whether claimed to be “carbon-free”, “carbon-neutral”, or whatever, begin with raw material economics, which begins with plants and microbes converting CO2 into food and hydrocarbons we trade (convert) into the collateral we call “money”.

    Everything we move in an economy flows and multiplies from that beginning. Now we have “money” in digital form from out of the sky, but while free of any material reality it also requires carbon (in the form of electricity) to be digitised. And not even that is “carbon-neutral”, as the debt created is then converted into the plastic everyone handles.

    A “carbon-free/neutral” economy or product is an oxymoron. The only free lunch we get in life is from photosynthesis.

    Perhaps they might agree to pay their lawyers in bags of carbon-rich sugar, “organic” of course, the certification says so, and any organic chemist learnt in first year chemistry is the basic building block of everything we eat, whether it comes from from an industrial-agriculture or “chemical-free” paddock. The delusion for the easily deluded is included for free with “carbon-free”.

    21

  • #
    Joe V.

    If rising CO2 in the atmosphere really were such a problem, then how come it’s OK to release more by burning plant materials, but not by burning coal or oil ?
    Who cares how sustainably sourced the CO2 might be. If it adds to the CO2 in the atmosphere it’ll cause the same warming that any other CO2 would. As that’s supposed to be going to kill us when are the greenies going to get serious about CO2 reduction ? Or is it just a fashion statement.

    50

    • #
      Olaf Koenders

      That’s just the point Joe, although greenies wail about deforestation, they’re all now in a pickle because the want to ban coal, but have to burn wood instead. They want their houses and furniture built with fine Tasmanian oak, but dare anyone cut down a tree to do it, even plantation ones.

      Much like the coal-fired power plant in the UK being converted to burn wood chips, shipped in from the US 3000 miles away, all because of the insane fear of a small black lump.

      The greenies are in a fine mess right now. Lets sit back and watch the fun. The word “implosion” seems accurate.

      60

  • #

    While we’re poking fun, here’s something I want you to look at, and I just know that as soon as I mention it, up comes the old conspiracy theory crock.

    Here’s something I only found out a little while back and it made me think, because of itself, it seems a little, umm, interesting.

    The UK introduced its rolling Carbon (Dioxide) Tax starting on April 1.

    3 years ago now, in 2010, the U.S. attempted to introduce its own Carbon (Dioxide) Tax, the now thankfully failed Kerry Lieberman Bill.

    The Bill was 987 pages long and at the time it was in the stages of introduction to The Congress, I wrote at length a series of Posts about it for the site I contribute at.

    Now, here’s the odd thing about that U.S. legislation.

    Credits would be issued on a certain fixed date each year, traded throughout the year at three or four set date auctions, and then handed back in on the original fixed date, and the next years calculations for credits would then begin, each year that one date being the start and end point.

    That date ….. April 1.

    Am I beginning to see a pattern here?

    Say, imagine in the late 70′s, early 80′s a couple of bored Uni students sitting around having a few beers, and thinking about practical jokes.

    “Say, how does this sound? Lets write up something for our term paper along the lines about how the use of a common substance can have drastic ramifications.”

    “What substance would we use?”

    “Oh! I don’t know. How about Carbon Dioxide? That seems common enough.”

    “What would we have it doing? It has to be big.”

    “Not sure. We could make it global, you know, wider ramifications and all that.”

    “What would we have the CO2 doing then?”

    “Umm! How about affecting the temperature or something like that.”

    “You know, that might just work.”

    “OK then, heads cooling, tails warming.”

    And please, don’t say it hasn’t been done before.

    Isaac Asimov did exactly this same thing, while at Uni, with his The Endochronic Properties of Resublimated Thiotimoline in 1948.

    April 1.

    Now what is there about that date that just quite escapes me at the moment?

    Tony.

    60

    • #
      Greebo

      Very well put, Tony. Gotta love this blog.

      30

    • #

      It’s extraordinary how we can be swayed in very emotional and subjective ways by every snake oil merchant that decides to pull a fasty. Seems to me we are still the superstitious and gullible people of old. We’re still told what to think and not how to think, and objective truth is a cheap prostitute.

      40

      • #
        Andrew McRae

        That poses a very good question for the Chemists in the crowd.
        Through some sequence of sulphuric acid, high temperature, high pressure, and an iron catalyst, can you in fact convert CarbonFree® sugar into CarbonFree® snake oil?

        20

  • #
    Manfred

    typo – monoxide
    …just in case ‘minoxide’ inadvertently starts a new meaningless obsession.

    20

  • #
    inedible hyperbowl

    I trust that the AGW alarmists will seriously look at reducing their personal carbon content to zero. It would solve a lot of problems.
    Don’t get me started on carbon fibre bicycles …

    40

    • #
      Dave

      .

      inedible hyperbowl

      Now you mentioned it, The Giro d’Italia Stage 19 was cancelled due to snow. The carbon fibre bikes caused the CAGW snow fall in summer and now they are going to use carbon free carbon fibre bikes.

      Snow in summer, carbon free sugar, the warmists are becoming raving mad lunatics.

      50

      • #
        J Martin

        You said ~”the warmists are becoming raving mad lunatics”.

        Over here in the Uk we have the perfect political party already set up for them, it has been running for years and is not a joke it is real. They have yet to win a single seat in parliament however. The name of this political party is “The Monster Raving Loony Party”.

        If they were to re-brand themselves to “The Carbon Free Raving Loony Party” then I predict enormous electoral success for them.

        60

      • #
        inedible hyperbowl

        Not to mention the Lycra (carbon+).
        So let’s ban Lycra!!

        10

      • #
        Joe V.

        All that snow on the Paso Tre Crocce…

        Now you mentioned it, The Giro d’Italia Stage 19 was cancelled due to snow.

        I recognised that weathered fence immediately, having hiked all the way up that road from Cortina, back in about ’82.
        Heavy snow across the Alps, just 1 month away from mid-summer.
        The kid in the Snowcast video report has supposedly never ski’ed on snow before.

        20

  • #
    Rick Bradford

    They start with a solution (“reduce carbon pollution”). Their thought processes then proceed from the emotional to the factual instead of starting with the facts as an rational individual normally does.

    This immature inspiration then leads them to a wide range of lunatic and completely un-self-aware actions where they use their skills to try and present what they have done as rational.

    I am heartily sick of these people flaunting their petty little consciences and lecturing everybody else on how to behave.

    50

  • #
  • #
    RoHa

    Can’t we replace all the carbon with silicon? Then our food would be really safe to eat.

    40

    • #
      Tim

      Here’s another idea: How about a green movement to ban graphite pencils…
      ‘Do the write thing and say goodnight to graphite!’

      40

  • #

    Certified stoopid. What else is there to say?

    20

  • #

    In Germany, when confronted by declining fisheries in Lake Constance, Franz Untersteller, responsible ministers in Baden-Württemberg’s (Germany) state government said “An environment ministry is there to improve the quality of the water, not to worsen it.”

    Instead of taking the declining fisheries as a warning signal that life is struggling in the waters of Lake Constance, the minister supports purification of the environment to the detriment of all life. Including endemic species and sub-species. When the fish go, it’s not just the human fishermen who suffer; wildlife also feeds on fish. Meanwhile, the human population of the region is increasingly importing fish from Vietnam, Russia and Canada to satisfy its appetite for fresh-water fish.

    The Lake formed as the glaciers of the previous ice age receded. It’s been receiving nutrient inflows from its surroundings, natural and anthroprogenic, for thousands of years. Traces of hunter-gatherer actvity have been dated back to almost the tail end of the ice age; 8000 BC. Established settlement has been uncovered dating back to 800 BC. Agriculture on the lake’s shores and tributaries goes back almost that far.

    31

    • #

      Hey Bernd, you say here:

      The Lake formed as the glaciers of the previous ice age receded. It’s been receiving nutrient inflows from its surroundings, natural and anthroprogenic, for thousands of years. Traces of hunter-gatherer actvity have been dated back to almost the tail end of the ice age; 8000 BC.

      I actually read about that.

      In fact, that’s where Ayla and Jondalar stayed for a while during their travels.

      Oh, nyuk nyuk nyuk!

      Tony.

      40

  • #
    Yonniestone

    The processed sugar industry itself is a scam that has been around longer than CAGW.
    I urge anyone that doubts me to read a book called “SUGAR BLUES”that gives a great insight into this industry.
    And big oil is called evil?

    20

  • #
    pat

    given Domino Carbon-Free Sugar is owned by the Fanjul Brothers, you have to laugh!

    Wikipedia: Domino Foods
    In 2001, Domino Sugar officially became Domino Foods, Inc. Domino Sugar Corp. was sold by Tate & Lyle in 2001 to Florida Crystals Corporation and the Sugar Cane Growers Cooperative of Florida in a $180 million deal that closed on November 6, 2001. Florida Crystals is a privately held company that is part of FLO-SUN, a sugar empire of the Fanjul Brothers whose origins trace to Spanish-Cuban sugar plantations of the early 19th century.
    Domino Foods has come under scrutiny and pressure regarding the sugarcane it imports from the Dominican Republic, which uses child and forced labor in the cane fields there.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domino_Foods

    Fanjul Brothers
    The Fanjul brothers were parodied in Carl Hiaasen’s 1993 novel Strip Tease, which features a pair of Cuban brothers who own a large sugar conglomerate, that receives enormous profits from the exploitation of immigrant labor and the subsidies regularly voted to them by the United States Congress…
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fanjul_brothers

    Nov 2003: NYT: America’s Sugar Daddies
    The Fanjuls harvest 180,000 acres in South Florida that send polluted water into the Everglades. (A crucial part of their business over the years has been to lobby not just against liberalization of the sugar trade, but against plans to have the sugar industry pay its fair share of the ambitious $8 billion Everglades restoration project.)…
    The government does not pay sugar producers income supports as it does many other kinds of farmers. Instead, it guarantees growers like the Fanjuls an inflated price by restricting supply. Only about 15 percent of American sugar is imported under the quota rules, and while the world price is about 7 cents a pound, American businesses that need sugar to make their products must pay close to 21 cents. Preserving this spread between domestic and world sugar prices costs consumers an estimated $2 billion a year, and nets the Fanjuls — who have been called the first family of corporate welfare — tens of millions annually. The sugar exporters who are able to sell to the United States also benefit from those astronomical prices. The Dominican Republic is the largest quota holder, and one of the big plantation owners there is — surprise — the Fanjul family.
    The sugar situation hurts American businesses and consumers, but its worst impact is on the poor countries that try to compete in the global agricultural markets…
    http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/29/opinion/america-s-sugar-daddies.html

    40

  • #

    Yes but the sugar industry never had designs on fecking up every modern economy on “the planet”.

    20

  • #

    Not really on topic, but I couldn’t help not mentioning this from an article I read today.

    The idea that human wickedness has some sort of effect on climate has long been a staple of some religious thought and it is yet another way in which modern environmentalism is actually similar to a religion. Both Al Gore and your garden-variety End Times lunatic believe that humans are being punished for their sins with more extreme weather events like hurricanes and tornadoes. It is sad reflection on modern society that the former is on his way to becoming a billionaire while only the latter is dismissed as a crank.

    Tony.

    60

    • #
      Dave

      Right on topic Tony,

      Al Gore’s THE END OF TIME epitaph will state:

      I thank all the losers followers for helping me get rich save the earth and increase my profit thanks to DOMINO CARBON FREE SUGAR company for their contribution to this religion saving of the planet.

      I have set up a ZERO carbon Footprint for all you dedicated hairy Lycra wearing cyclists to continue your daily carbon free coffee hit at your Carbon ZERO COFFEE CLUB. Enjoy followers.

      Gore’s Crematorium also utilises our dead bodies as a renewable energy source – the final eradication of the dirty filthy CARBON.

      60

      • #
        Bob Malloy

        Gore’s Crematorium also utilises our dead bodies as a renewable energy source – the final eradication of the dirty filthy CARBON.

        Soylent Green??. On second thought that would be carbon recycling, defeats the pupose.

        10

        • #
          Dave

          .

          Bob

          Not if they have been certified by Carbon Fund Individual Scam Scheme with the following fees: You become a CARBON FREE PERSON:

          1. Individual annual offset 24 tonnes $240.00
          2. Couple annual offset 48 tonnes $480.00
          3. 4 person family annual offset 96 tonnes $960.00
          4. Individual lifetime offset 1632 tonnes $16,320.00

          So for yourself – just send $16,320 to the the link below, and then cremation is ZERO. And your family can get a certificate stating that your whole life has been a ZERO Carbon Footprint existence.

          These figures are just an AVERAGE USA citizen today. I am currently working with AL Gore to get a world wide scheme instead of carbon trading, Carbon Tax, ETS etc to pay into a AL GORE FUND where you pay to a scale. I myself being a truck owner driver, business person etc will end up paying more, but Al will then enable me to be CARBON FREE when I die.

          Send for a free carbon quote to ????

          I think Rereke and Manfred are the Australian and New Zealand sales representatives, Rereke does your pets also.

          But donations are more than welcome at : Pay Here

          20

  • #

    When they picked on carbon as being the root of all evil, they were mounting an attack on the elemental basis of all life on Earth. If you’ve come to believe as I do that environmentalism has become anti-life, it was somehow inevitable that carbon absolutely had to become their hate object.

    http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2013/03/01/sleeping-with-the-enemy/

    Pointman

    60

    • #
      Byron

      Pointman , You`re not the only only one who has noticed the whole anti-life meme that seems to run through the heart of environmentalism ,

      From John Brignell`s essay “Global Warming as a Religion”

      Original sin in the older religions derived from one of the founts of life on earth – sex. The new religion goes even further back to the very basis of all life – carbon. Perhaps the fundamental human fear is fear of life itself. The amazing propensity of carbon to form compounds of unlimited complexity made the existence of life possible, while its dioxide is the primary foodstuff, the very start of the food chain. Every item of nutriment you consume started out as atmospheric carbon dioxide. It is therefore the ideal candidate for original sin, since no one can escape dependence on it. This manna that gave us life is now regularly branded in media headlines as “pollution” and “toxic”: surely one of the most perverse dysphemisms in the history of language.

      60

      • #

        Pointman and Byron, agree totally. It seems to me that all examples of destructive human behaviour have an element of self loathing at their core. Picking on CO2 is simply senseless.

        30

  • #
    cedarhill

    How funny. Selling bags of dehydrated water (carbon free no less).

    20

  • #
    pat

    26 May: UK Telegraph: Louise Gray: Hay Festival 2013: global warming is ‘fairly flat’, admits Lord Stern
    Lord Stern, who originally warned the Government about climate change, has admitted that global warming has been “fairly flat” for the last decade.
    “I note this last decade or so has been fairly flat,” he told the Telegraph Hay Festival audience.
    He said the reasons were because of quieter solar activity, aerosol pollution in certain parts of the world blocking sunshine and heat being absorbed by the deep oceans.
    Lord Stern pointed out that all these effects run in cycles or are random so warming could accelerate again soon.
    “In the next five to ten years it is likely we will see the acceleration because these things go in cycles,” he warned…
    He said it was an “illusion” to claim that the short term flat line in global warming means that global warming is no longer a threat.
    “It is a dangerous extrapolation of the short term phenomenon into a long term trend when the underlying responses for long term trends in terms of rising greenhouse gases are well understood and clear.”
    Lord Stern also said he has written to the Prime Minister urging him to introduce a target to decarbonise electricity by 2030 as part of the Energy Bill, currently going through Parliament.
    ***He said investors need the policy clarity in order to build the infrastructure Britain needs in future…
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/hay-festival/10081250/Hay-Festival-2013-global-warming-is-fairly-flat-admits-Lord-Stern.html

    ***yes, it’s all about those “investors” Lord Stern.

    00

    • #
      Joe V.

      Lord Stern said:-

      ***He said investors need the policy clarity in order to build the infrastructure Britain needs in future…

      He’s dead right, but sensible companies are holding back in the face of this Green policy madness, while a few Troughers take advantage and continue hold Government policy to ransom.

      Few could have put it better than
      Peter Lilley in his recent attack on the Governments Energy & Climate Change Committee

      Peter Lilley took on the climate change committee, the government and the whole intellectual establishment in this country in a Westminster Hall debate yesterday, complaining that they were living “in a dream world on energy and climate change issues”.

      10

  • #
    Matt J

    Carbon-based life-forms against carbon.

    10

  • #
    Graeme No.3

    Pat:
    I am sure you’ve seen this, but just in case:
    http://notrickszone.com/2013/05/21/eu-commission-plans-fundamental-course-change-in-energy-policy-focus-away-from-climate-and-more-on-economics/

    There are further comment about the decision elsewhere.

    Basically, the scam is over. The German government was given an ultimatum from business that they would switch their factories to the USA to get the advantage of 35% cheaper electricity (current advantage and poised to improve). With the carbon tax no longer bringing in much, and the prospect of less tax from the companies and their workers, and increased social welfare costs for the workers when they became unemployed, the decision was obvious.

    It ties in with the rush to install more coal fired stations in Germany (32 projects now) and the difficulties with the new Baltic Sea wind farms.

    Stern is fighting a doomed rear guard action. The war is nearly over.

    10

    • #
      Joe V.

      Indeed the EU is turning, but Britain carries on with its Green Madness regardless, introducing a Carbon Tax on April 1st., ignoring shale gas and promoting new targets for Green Energy by 2030.

      00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    “When water is ‘organic,’ it’s time to boil it before drinking.”

    Well, I could say several things.

    To start with, I woke up with my sore foot aching (temporary and on the mend) and I needed a good laugh to start the day. So thanks, Jo, for that comic relief

    Next, the quote above sums up the thinking ability or the honesty — whichever applies — of the people who do this kind of thing and/or fall for it. The children are in charge of the nursery and the nanny has gone off to smoke more pot and find a man for the night. If all this was not such a tragic commentary on the state of our world it would be even funnier than it is.

    Next, why can’t we get carbon free gasoline? That would allow us to keep driving our cars. Someone really needs to work on this.

    Come to think of it, why can’t we get carbon free politicians? But then maybe they’re already carbon free, at least their brains. That might explain their idiotic behavior.

    Finally, it shows what I’ve been saying for quite a while, that global warming is firmly entrenched in popular culture and isn’t likely to be removed without radical surgery. At this point I don’t even know where you would start fixing it. It will take some very strong distraction to get people’s minds back to reality. I can’t think of anything short of a good war that could do that. And we don’t want another one of those.

    Now, if this makes no sense to you, then I’ve made the quintessential comment about carbon free sugar. ;-) And if it does make sense to you, might I suggest seeing a psychiatrist? You really need to get with the carbon free program. :-)

    If you’re in the U.S., have a wonderful Memorial Day celebration and don’t forget to pay homage to those who lost their lives fighting for our freedom.

    00

  • #
    Joe V.

    None of this should be any surprise guys. Once anything becomes popular, it becomes a vehicle for exploitation. Greenyism is no different. Founded on lofty ideals with which many coild sympathise, it’s success has turned it to Greedyism & and now only the innocent (but gullible) or greedy are buying it..

    20

  • #
    Bulldust

    It may interest readers to know that one of the main ‘renewables’ in Australia is bagasse, which is the waste from sugar cane farming and burnt for energy.Presumably the ‘carbon’ released from this burning is good carbon, as opposed to the bad carbon from most other sources…

    http://www.australianminesatlas.gov.au/mapping/files/australian_energy_flows_2008-09.pdf

    Right down the bottom … zoom in a bit, those renewables are small.

    00

  • #

    My comment on JD’s blog;

    What a classic example of pandering to mass hallucination, FFS.

    http://www.dominosugar.com/carbonfree/

    Yeah right! Marketing to exploit the gullible par excellence.

    00

  • #

    It’s a shame this came out after I finished my last ‘Dispatch’. It would have fitted in perfectly. I might have to do an update.

    http://grumpydenier.wordpress.com/2013/05/23/dispatches-23-may-2013/

    00

  • #
    Frankly Sceptical

    Not so suprising given greenies and warmists at a conference signed a petition to ban Di-Hydrogen Monoxide. Says a lot about their “scientific nous”.

    Yep H2O

    00

  • #
    Grant (NZ)

    I wonder if you took CarbonFree sugar and put it in a pan, and then place the pan over the heat and left it for a long time. What is going to happen? Oxidation.

    “It’s okay kids. Ignore the smoke detector. Mum has just “caramelised” the dinner again.”

    00

  • #
  • #
    old44

    Not half as stupid as organic water.

    00

  • #
    crosspatch

    I have been arguing for carbon-free coal for a very long time. Here is what you do:

    1. Plant trees.
    2. Cut them down when they are of sufficient size.
    3. Turn them into paper.
    4. Mine coal.
    5. When the paper has served its purpose, pulp it and put it into the space in the mine where the coal was. Pack it in very tight, like a “rammed earth” structure.
    6. Pound for pound, the compressed paper will have more carbon than the coal did. when you are finished, the mine will actually contain more carbon than it had when it was full of coal. Carbon-free coal!

    10

  • #
    Bob from Arana Hills

    The molecular model shown is of glucose (C6H12O6). Cane sugar, sucrose, is C12H22O11. That’s twice as many carbon atoms… it’s worse than we thought!

    10

  • #
    David

    Presumably the 30% of people who think carbon is a pollutant are the sort of people who, at the latest climate conference, signed up to ban di-hydrogen oxide…

    20

    • #
      Safetyguy66

      No doubt at the confernece they ordered charcoal grilled Rhino Testicles for dinner, the menu from the earth day conference was so ironic it was almost unbelieveable.

      10

  • #
  • #
    Pilotte

    I’m with you all…. that misinformation must be corrected, especially if on a large scale as to be called propaganda. So, I hope nobody takes this the wrong way. If you actually go to the website you will find an explanation of the term, “carbon free”.
    It does not mean that the sugar molecule is free of carbon. Rather, the making of the sugar is carbon neutral… the net carbon footprint is zero (or negative).
    Think of it as taking 1 dollar out of the bank but putting at least 1 dollar back.
    Or cut down a tree and planting another, or more.
    It is not impossible.
    I agree the term can mislead (referring to the production, not the molecule), but only if you jump to a conclusion without considering alternatives.

    00