The Australian Broadcasting Company has created a “green” website that tells you when you should die, based on your usage of Earth’s resources.

The PlanetSlayer site, which the network calls the “first irreverent environmental website,” includes “Professor Schpinkee’s greenhouse calculator,” which tells a user when he or she should die, based on their lifestyle and consumption of resources.

The “calculator” is made like a children’s video game, with cartoon characters who look like a detective dog and a pig, and asks, “How big a greenhouse pig are you?”

The user goes through a series of questions about how much one drives, is the vehicle fuel efficient, how many miles the person flew – divided by pleasure travel and business travel as if one would be more Earth-friendly than the other, and others.

Those responses are added to answers to questions about the size of your home, how many people live there, how big the utility bills are and does any of the energy come from a renewable resource, and queries about recycling.

Planet Slayer website telling how long you can live your lifestyle before using up your allotment of resources, at which point you should die

Then you click on a skull-and-crossbones button to find out that you should die at 23.4 years, or 9.3, or 5.2, depending on your answers.

With the click on the skull-and-crossbones button, a pig representing the survey-taker, positioned between a fat pig for energy usage and a lean, “green” pig, explodes.

Other parts of the website promote the Kyoto Protocol international agreement under which greenhouse gases are supposed to be regulated and reduced, and various question-and-answer resources.

Regarding the efficiency of various types of heat, for example, the website tells, “As a rule, gas is better than electric, which is better than open flames. The exception to this scenario is on nights where romance is in the air and a deep shag pile is on the floor.”

Generally, “For each hour of heat, you’ll produce about 0.7 kg CO2 (gas heater), 2 kg CO2 (2 bar electric radiator), 3.3 kg CO2 (open fire).”

“Gas is more efficient because you just burn it where you are – about a quarter of the heat gets lost up the flue, but the rest heats up the room. Electricity on the other hand is pretty hopeless efficiency-wise – 2/3 of the coal’s energy is lost at the power station,” the report said. “Open fires vary on a scale from pretty inefficient to hellishly inefficient. And as well as their greenhouse excesses, they produce a heap of other pollutants and the odd irate asthmatic neighbor.”

As for mitigating such “excesses” by planting trees, the website advises that to counter the usage of an ordinary family, members would have to plant “a helluva lot” of trees.

“Your average Aussie belts out about 24.5 tons of CO2 each year (that covers everything from housing and transport to your share of government and industry). Your average Aussie native tree can soak up about 270 kg CO2 in that time. And your average Aussie science journalist with a calculator reckons that’s about 91 trees you’d need to plant every year,” the website advises.

“On a national scale, we’d be talking about planting 1729 million trees … EVERY YEAR.”

It also includes links to organizations such as the Climate Action Network Australia, the international IPCC, the Australian Greenhouse Office, the Sustainable Energy Development Authority and others.

WND reported only two weeks earlier that more than 31,000 scientists now have signed a petition rejecting the global warming agenda.

That list includes more than 9,000 Ph.D.s in fields such as atmospheric science, climatology, Earth science, environment and dozens of other specialties.

“There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate,” the petition states. “Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”

The Petition Project actually was launched nearly 10 years ago, when the first few thousand signatures were assembled. Then, between 1999 and 2007, the list of signatures grew gradually without any special effort or campaign.

But now, a new effort has been conducted because of an “escalation of the claims of ‘consensus,’ release of the movie ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ by Mr. Al Gore, and related events,” according to officials with the project.

“Mr. Gore’s movie, asserting a ‘consensus’ and ‘settled science’ in agreement about human-caused global warming, conveyed the claims about human-caused global warming to ordinary movie goers and to public school children, to whom the film was widely distributed. Unfortunately, Mr. Gore’s movie contains many very serious incorrect claims which no informed, honest scientist could endorse,” said project spokesman and founder Art Robinson.

WND submitted a request to Gore’s office for comment but did not get a response.

Robinson said the campaign to severely ration hydrocarbon energy technology has now been markedly expanded. And reducing energy use “now threaten[s] the prosperity of Americans and the very existence of hundreds of millions of people in poorer countries.”

The Petition Project’s website includes both a list of scientists by name as well as a list of scientists by state.


Exposing the secret agenda behind today’s obsession with global warming

Sky’s Not Falling! Why it’s OK to chill on global warming

Read the book that started it
all: Al Gore’s ‘Earth in the Balance’


Will hurricane
‘expert’ be sued for being wrong?


Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.