Glynsky

climate warming global change 2…

Dear diablog,

Yesterday I promised you more from Ian Rutherford Plimer

plimmer

as sent by Christina.

And here it is:
Ian Rutherford Plimer is an Australian geologist, professor emeritus of earth sciences at the University of Melbourne, professor of mining geology at the University of Adelaide, and the director of multiple mineral exploration and mining companies. He has published 130 scientific papers, six books and edited the Encyclopedia of Geology.

These are his extensive credentials.

Born 12 February 1946
Residence Australia

Nationality Australian
Fields Earth Science, Geology, Mining Engineering

Institutions University of New England,University of Newcastle,University of Melbourne,University of Adelaide

Alma mater
University of New South Wales,Macquarie University

Thesis
The pipe deposits of tungsten-molybdenum-bismuth in eastern Australia (1976)

Notable awards Eureka Prize (1995, 2002),Centenary Medal (2003), Clarke Medal (2004)

Author (for purposes of this post) of

Where Does the Carbon Dioxide Really Come From?

Professor Ian Plimer’s book in a brief summary….

“Okay, here’s the bombshell. The volcanic eruption in Iceland, since its first spewing of volcanic ash has, in just FOUR DAYS, NEGATED EVERY SINGLE EFFORT you have made in the past five years to control CO2 emissions on our planet – all of you.

Of course, you know about this evil carbon dioxide that we are trying to suppress – it’s that vital chemical compound that every plant requires to live and grow and to synthesize into oxygen for us humans and all animal life.

I know….it’s very disheartening to realize that all of the carbon emission savings you have accomplished while suffering the inconvenience and expense of driving Prius hybrids, buying fabric grocery bags, sitting up till midnight to finish your kids “The Green Revolution” science project, throwing out all of your non-green cleaning supplies, using only two squares of toilet paper, putting a brick in your toilet tank reservoir, selling your SUV and speedboat, vacationing at home instead of abroad,nearly getting hit every day on your bicycle, replacing all of your 50 cent light bulbs with $10.00 light bulbs…..well, all of those things you have done have all gone down the tubes in just four days.

The volcanic ash emitted into the Earth’s atmosphere in just four days – yes, FOUR DAYS – by that volcano in Iceland has totally erased every single effort you have made to reduce the evil beast, carbon. And there are around 200 active volcanoes on the planet spewing out this crud at any one time – EVERY DAY.

I don’t really want to rain on your parade too much, but I should mention that when the volcano Mt Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines in 1991, it spewed out more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire human race had emitted in all its years on earth.

Yes, folks, Mt Pinatubo was active for over one year – think about it.

Of course, I shouldn’t spoil this ‘touchy-feely tree-hugging’ moment and mention the effect of solar and cosmic activity and the well-recognized 800-year global heating and cooling cycle, which
keeps happening despite our completely insignificant efforts to affect climate change.

And I do wish I had a silver lining to this volcanic ash cloud, but the fact of the matter is that the bush fire season across the western USA and Australia this year alone will negate your efforts to reduce carbon in our world for the next two to three years. And it happens every year.

Just remember that your government just tried to impose a whopping carbon tax on you, on the basis of the bogus ‘human-caused’ climate-change scenario.

Hey, isn’t it interesting how they don’t mention ‘Global Warming’ anymore, but just ‘Climate Change’ – you know why?

It’s because the planet has COOLED by 0.7 degrees in the past century and these global warming bullshit artists got caught with their pants down.

And, just keep in mind that you might yet have an Emissions Trading Scheme – that whopping new tax – imposed on you that will achieve absolutely nothing except make you poorer.

It won’t stop any volcanoes from erupting, that’s for sure.

But, hey, …..go give the world a hug and have a nice day.

At this point I would steer you to a search on Professor Rutherford because, as usual, the Guardian (in particular) and just about everyone else has been taking pot shots at him and if you share my sceptisism on the subject you will be pulled this way and that.

It amuses me to note that the ‘Inquisition/Stalin/Bigot’ style of thought is still so prevalent. Disagree and you deserve the rack.

However, as Christina said, mmm, it makes you think.

Yours, diablog, in orbit

Glynsky

19 thoughts on “climate warming global change 2…

  1. Hmm, with the same logic we could have NOT cleaned up our rivers, streams and lakes.
    Just because natural causes go one way, we don’t need to sit here and do nothing, do we?
    Cleaning up all the waste in the oceans would be a nice enterprise IMHO.

    ER

  2. As always, ER, a cogent thought. Somewhere in the Pacific there is, I think, a UK size ‘island’ of floating plastic bags. That’s the place to start I guess.

  3. I read this post at school as I was about to go in for my science lesson. I thought it a great idea to question my teacher.

    What I don’t understand and is still puzzling to me, is how I got from my science class to my bedroom…

    Casper

    X

  4. Lol, oh uh Glynsky :p.

    As for you Pedro!, I know what you are hinting at you massive end of a bell!

    If you must know, they are coping wellish.

    Casper

    X

  5. I think that it might be easier to teach Glynsky some manners instead of trying to teach Casper at school.

  6. Oy yo yoi Mr Smiles, What is this?

    I am an excellent student!! They love me, I even got my maths tutor a sweet strawberry pastry because I like him. I am a dream…

    Casper

    X

  7. Lol, well as of yet Smiles I have not had any complaints from my tutors, ill take that as a sign.

    Casper

    X

  8. Very interesting take on this contentious subject. For every expert on one side there is always another opposing! In my line of work it is an on – going debate to add improvements to new build that eliminate carbon emissions. Many are good, just because they make valuable improvements, but others are just a waste of money. However, when you compare them to how the Earth mucks us around, it’s all dwarfed.

    I’m not anti-renewables, just anti the massive waste of public money on unproven theories which look more like a means or raising tax revenue than a way to change the climate. While emerging economies carry on regardless.

    One of the main reasons for this consensus is the BBC. People are at last realising that this titanic media organisation which influences UK opinion to a massive degree is totally biased towards those that believe in anthropogenic climate change – anyone else is, quite simply, a lunatic. They are having great difficulty reporting things like the IPCC reports which show that global temperatures have not risen a jot since 1998.

  9. In Africa they now greet each other with:
    My they never find oil in your country.
    If you believe banks are too big to fail, check Exxon Mobil, BP, Shell, Total.

    IMHO, every step away from oil and towards, decentralized, renewable energy sources is a step worth taking.

    ER

  10. Welcome Phil. Hope the operations went well.
    ER seems to be on a wagon/bandwagon – so more on the debate please.
    I am the ever sceptic – too many vested interests and Phil makes a few good points. Sometimes the ‘right’ accuse the BBC of being ‘left’ and vice versa! I hope it kinda balances itself , but it is true that ‘lovies’ and the ‘media’ seem a bit too far on Pete’s side of the fence.

  11. Thanks Glyn – yes they seem to have gone Ok. Although I am in rather alot of pain right now, but then they said put your foot up, but I can’t do that for long and have been walking around building sites too much! So foot is swollen. Another 3 weeks to see if the steel pins can come out.

    As you want to wind this debate up a little, I will put in some words for “Pete” to give an argument for the other side….

    The latest IPCC repose states that the last three decades is likely to be the warmest in the last 1400 years and that global average surface temperatures have risen by an average of 0.85 degrees since 1880. Of course there is natural variability within this which is why headline grabbers like ‘no warming in the last 15 years’ are as useful as saying ‘I have not grown any new wrinkles today, therefore I am not ageing’. Much as I’d love both of these to be true, I know they are not.

    There is almost unanimous scientific consensus that the climate is warming and the 30 billion tonnes of CO2 (along with all our other pollutants) that we are adding annually is likely to be the cause. It is also incorrect to assert that our contribution to greenhouse gasses (of which CO2 is only one, methane being far more potent at warming) is inconsequential without knowing the sensitivity of the system and without having a complete picture of the interplay of the constituents. As time goes on it is becoming ever clearer that some elements are less sensitive and some very much more sensitive than we had first thought.

    The farcical position that we are now in is that we are so used to polluting our environment and ignoring the effects the burden of proof has been put on climate scientists to prove that we are having an effect. It should be that the large emitters have to prove that they are not causing changes. In response to the Australian geologist mentioned above it would be interesting to see him take the evidence amassed and prove, with 95% certainty, that human emissions are not responsible for some of the changes we are experiencing.

    The IPCC report gives a range of scenarios, not all of which are gloomy. If we get on and invest in renewables, even though they cost more, reduce emissions and curb consumption we might actually be able to mitigate the worst effects of climate change. However, if we give up and carry on with ‘business as usual’ and procrastinate about all the changes and about how the government is doing an awful job and about how everyone else should be doing more then we will get what we deserve.

    A final point to mention about the developing countries that are consuming large amounts of resources. Who is it that buys all of their goods? Who has got them to where they are now? Who has ‘out-sourced’ their carbon emissions to these developing countries? We need look no further than the mirror. We in the west have created markets based on cheap commodities from these countries so it is a bit rich for us to criticise them. In spite of their large increases in emissions the per capita emissions are still way lower than ours. Again, we are not in a position to criticise.

    We are all lucky to be intelligent, educated, relatively wealthy and able to influence those around us. We have a responsibility. Let’s do what we can to initiate the necessary change.

    ….. How does that grab you? Any takers?

  12. Pingback: More facts for Glynsky’s climate | Glynsky and Pete

Comments are closed.