Carbon threat? Global warming BS

[clearconscience]

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.
Born
12 February 1946 (age 67)
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)


Where Does the Carbon Dioxide Really Come From? Professor Ian Plimer could not have said it better! If you've read his book you will agree, this is a good summary.


PLIMER: "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 bull 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.

Read More

 

[clearconscience]

Must ban volcanoes

 

[BAMCIS]

It is simply impossible to argue facts with someone who makes their opinion based on emotion rather than logic. But that won't keep me from trying.

 

[Swedish K]

how bout banning politicians who start their career in Chicago - they seem to blow hot air equal to a volcano

 

[Both Eyes Open]

A little research and it seems this guy has been disproved several times. Interesting reading though.

 

[Kevinkris]

it should be pointed out that he is a geologist, not a climatologist. furthermore he has made it very clear in his own writings that he is fighting against the climate change science to save the mining industry, which he is paid a great deal of money by each year. just so everyone knows the global climate has not cooled by .7 degrees in the past century, if anyone wants to understand a bit more from a climatologist, here is a video.

 

[rick benjamin]

Mother of all theories, who's the father?
Has the Big Bang theory been busted? | Space, Military and Medicine | News.com.au

 

[Jerry]

The Climate Issue: Widespread agreement and the choice of a moral policy.

The issue of global warming (or climate change or weather disruption or whatever the current
label is) is often put forward as a moral issue, but this does not change the need to pay attention
to the science. Indeed, the latter is a crucial prelude to the former. The situation here may not be
as complex as is sometimes suggested. Frequently the questions posed in public discussions are
so reductionist as to be silly. Is it warming or not? Is CO2 increasing. Is climate changing? Is
summer sea ice decreasing? Such questions actually disguise what are the real policy-relevant
questions. These are inevitably quantitative rather than yes-no in character.

Though it would be difficult to speak of universal agreement over any aspect of the issue, it is
nonetheless the case that there are many areas of agreement among most of the scientists on both
sides of this issue. Such agreement hardly insures that these views are correct, but, for the
moment, they are a reasonable starting point.

There is general agreement that there has been a relatively small and irregular increase in global
mean temperature anomaly over the past couple of hundred years; by ‘relatively small' I mean
relative to the actual variability of this quantity at any given location or even region. There is
also agreement that this quantity has not risen for the past 17 years or so. Over the past two
centuries the warming has been less than 1C.

There is general agreement that climate is always changing. To be sure, climate is more than
simply the global mean temperature anomaly.

There is agreement that there is a greenhouse effect, and that doubling CO2, in the absence of
any feedbacks, will lead to warming on the order of 1C; this is generally felt to be unalarming
and perhaps even beneficial. The issue of feedbacks is crucial. Alarm requires, at the least, that
these feedbacks actually greatly amplify the impact of man's contribution to greenhouse gases.
There is agreement that CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing, and that current levels are about
35% greater than pre-industrial levels; there is agreement that much of this increase is likely due
to industrial emissions.

There is agreement that when combined with other increasing greenhouse gases (like methane,
nitrous oxide, etc.), the total greenhouse forcing is about 80% of what one expects from a
doubling of CO2. That is to say, we are effectively pretty close to a doubling of CO2 in terms of
greenhouse impact.

While there is significant disagreement as to whether feedbacks will diminish or amplify the
effect of CO2, there is virtually no disagreement that the impact of each added amount of CO2
diminishes relative to earlier amounts. This is referred to as the logarithmic regime.

There are two more points which I find substantial agreement over within the climate research
community, but which might be contested by environmental activists:

Namely, that increases in CO2 will not jeopardize the planet, itself, and that any relation of
increases in global mean temperature anomaly to such more relevant issues such as regional
climate, storminess, extreme weather, etc. are not evident in the data nor are they robust features
of models.

It is worth noting that none of the above point to alarm. Nevertheless, there has been a huge
effort to implement mitigation policies. The presumed basis is essentially the precautionary
principle. Despite the fact that there is no evidence for alarm, neither can it be rigorously
rejected. The arguments for alarm are, moreover, frequently based on the misuse of scientific
statements. For example, the IPCC iconic statement that there is 90% certainty that most of the
warming of the past 50 years is due to man's emissions. While one may legitimately question
the subjective assignment of a probability to such a statement, the statement, itself, is again
completely consistent with there being no problem. To say that most of a small change is due to
man is hardly an argument for the likelihood of large changes.

Such misuse of language and logic bring to mind Orwell's comment on the political implications
of language: "It becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the
slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts." As to political
language, itself, Orwell notes that it "is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder
respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind."

Turning to policy, there is widespread agreement that mitigation measures, such as the Kyoto
Protocol, will have no discernible impact on climate regardless of one's position on feedbacks.

Much more extreme measures will have no discernible impact on climate unless the most
pessimistic and least supportable estimates of climate amplification are correct, and the proposed
measures are universally adopted. All such measures, moreover, will have negative impacts on
income, development, the environment, and food availability and cost – especially for the poor.

We know these impacts are real because we are already seeing them and have been doing so for
some time. That these measures are endorsed by the environmental movement is hardly
reassuring. The movement has racked up an impressive record of endorsing measures that have
led to the death and debilitation of millions of the world's most vulnerable. The complete
banning of DDT and its impact on malaria is a notable but not unique example.

Under the circumstances, it would appear that the reasonable and moral policy would be to foster
economic growth and well being in order that societies be better able to deal with climate change
regardless of its origin. Mitigation policies appear to have the opposite effect without
significantly reducing the hypothetical risk of any changes in climate. While reducing
vulnerability to climate change is a worthy goal, blind support for mitigation measures –
regardless of the invalidity of the claims – constitutes what might be called bankrupt morality. It
is worse than bankruptcy when the proposed measures are counterproductive. It is not sufficient
for actions to artificially fulfill people's need for transcendent aspirations in order for the actions
to be considered moral.

Richard Lindzen
September 16, 2013


And here....http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013...dly-overestimated-global-warming-study-finds/

 

[Redcap]

 

[drew]

Don't worry, Al Gore is on it.

 

[Page.k]

They keep hitting the pipe hard. I think the Pole shift hypothesis corrects the errors of the random weather that's been happening.
Solid Scientific Evidence we are Headed for a Pole Shift! (FULL LENGTH) - YouTube
Geomagnetic reversal will win!!!

 

[Sgt Nambu]

HaHaHaHa! He said Pinatubo!