An Australian perspective on climate change
Discussion
I don't know if this has been posted on here before, but just received this in an email and thought I'd share it. Worth spending a minute skimming over it
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.
Born12 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)
DISCUSSION:
Where Does Carbon Dioxide Really Come From?
Professor Ian Plimer explains...
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 it 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 been rendered totally useless 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 dioxide.
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 being encouraged 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 the Australian 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' -- do 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.
But, hey, relax......give the world a hug and have a nice day!"
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.
Born12 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)
DISCUSSION:
Where Does Carbon Dioxide Really Come From?
Professor Ian Plimer explains...
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 it 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 been rendered totally useless 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 dioxide.
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 being encouraged 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 the Australian 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' -- do 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.
But, hey, relax......give the world a hug and have a nice day!"
Whatever you think of climate change, you may want to do some research on Prof. Plimer.
Long story short: it would seem that he should stick to understanding rocks and annoying creationists, both of which he is rather good at.
Long story short: it would seem that he should stick to understanding rocks and annoying creationists, both of which he is rather good at.
Michael Ashley - Professor of Astrophysics - reviewing Heaven And Earth said:
Plimer probably didn't expect an astronomer to review his book. I couldn't help noticing on page120 an almost word-for-word reproduction of the abstract from a well-known loony paper entitled "The Sun is a plasma diffuser that sorts atoms by mass". This paper argues that the sun isn't composed of 98 per cent hydrogen and helium, as astronomers have confirmed through a century of observation and theory, but is instead similar in composition to a meteorite.
It is hard to understate the depth of scientific ignorance that the inclusion of this information demonstrates. It is comparable to a biologist claiming that plants obtain energy from magnetism rather than photosynthesis.
Review at The AustralianIt is hard to understate the depth of scientific ignorance that the inclusion of this information demonstrates. It is comparable to a biologist claiming that plants obtain energy from magnetism rather than photosynthesis.
Eric Mc said:
A scientist who is also a director of several mining and mineral extraction companies?
Hmmm - not going to be devoid of vested interests, is he - even if I agree with his general points.
Most of the science in this little essay has been debunked. RealClimate has the details, if you're bothered.Hmmm - not going to be devoid of vested interests, is he - even if I agree with his general points.
WeirdNeville said:
Yup.
And there was quite an interesting study recently published pointing towards increased Biomass growth in Arid areas - particularly Australia and Africa, which was being attributed to the rise in atmospheric CO2.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-04/climate-chan...
We tend to think of the world as an unchanging thing that we should seek to preserve. The Earth is just fine. We only really need to be concerned for ourselves.
seems to me that this is a good thing, no?And there was quite an interesting study recently published pointing towards increased Biomass growth in Arid areas - particularly Australia and Africa, which was being attributed to the rise in atmospheric CO2.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-04/climate-chan...
We tend to think of the world as an unchanging thing that we should seek to preserve. The Earth is just fine. We only really need to be concerned for ourselves.
irocfan said:
WeirdNeville said:
Yup.
And there was quite an interesting study recently published pointing towards increased Biomass growth in Arid areas - particularly Australia and Africa, which was being attributed to the rise in atmospheric CO2.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-04/climate-chan...
We tend to think of the world as an unchanging thing that we should seek to preserve. The Earth is just fine. We only really need to be concerned for ourselves.
seems to me that this is a good thing, no?And there was quite an interesting study recently published pointing towards increased Biomass growth in Arid areas - particularly Australia and Africa, which was being attributed to the rise in atmospheric CO2.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-04/climate-chan...
We tend to think of the world as an unchanging thing that we should seek to preserve. The Earth is just fine. We only really need to be concerned for ourselves.
Eric Mc said:
The problem is credibility. If he is prone to believing some wacky and unsupported "scientific" theory, then his credibility in other areas can easily be called into question.
People like that do more damage to the "cause" than help.
I'm not so sure it's quite that simple... People like that do more damage to the "cause" than help.
I've worked with some supremely talented scientists that believe in a God. I've also worked with some supremely talented scientists that don't believe in God.
Whom should I trust?
Eric Mc said:
Does it matter?
As long as their science is affected.
I dunno, (sorry, don't know).As long as their science is affected.
I just pulled the words 'credibility', 'wacky' and 'unsupported' from your post and was immediately reminded of the stuff I posted above.
It does leave us at a point where we might ask ourselves; "Where does 'credibility' come from and more importantly, how should we value or measure it?"
If I use Prof Klimer as an example, and I do quite like him. He was interviewed by Pat Kenny on RTE1 (one morning back in the distant past, links were posted at the time), he was sat opposite some Guardian scientific editor/journalist and Plimer ripped him a new one. (So did Pat Kenny btw
)But aside - of course it boils down to 'who do you trust?'.
"A scientist who is also a director of several mining and mineral extraction companies?" or, as I said "A scientist who believes it is God's will"?
They both have vested interests, and now we are at a point where we should discuss the philosophy of science. A topic that is sadly lacking in this forum.
"The eruption in Iceland emitted a fairly small amount of CO2. In fact most recent estimates show that the flights that were grounded by the eruption would have emitted about twice as much CO2 as the volcano itself"
http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/1013_...
http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/1013_...
"Are you a vulcanologist?"
Senior research fellow in geosciences
Applied geology department
Mass spectrometry
Geochronology
Impact craters and large volcanic provinces
managing Ar Ar laboratory at Curtin
date all kinds of rocks, from volcanic rocks and meteorites and moon rocks
So that's a no then?
seems typically good at avoiding the answers to me
If he is, he'd say YES
If I was so would I
Senior research fellow in geosciences
Applied geology department
Mass spectrometry
Geochronology
Impact craters and large volcanic provinces
managing Ar Ar laboratory at Curtin
date all kinds of rocks, from volcanic rocks and meteorites and moon rocks
So that's a no then?
seems typically good at avoiding the answers to me
If he is, he'd say YES
If I was so would I
that 'cv' doesn't sound very much like a 'Vulcanologist' really.
Sounds like he dates rocks (geochronology), and possibly analyses their composition. (Mass spectronomy). I guess you might be able to make some guesses about what was emitted from a past volcanic eruption based on the composition of the rocks produced. But it wouldn't appear (IMHO) that he is an 'expert' in Volcanic eruptions.
Sounds like he dates rocks (geochronology), and possibly analyses their composition. (Mass spectronomy). I guess you might be able to make some guesses about what was emitted from a past volcanic eruption based on the composition of the rocks produced. But it wouldn't appear (IMHO) that he is an 'expert' in Volcanic eruptions.
Remember folks, we need global warming... 
If we can affect climate change (???), then it should be to try and prevent the polar caps meeting at the equator. This has happened at least twice in Earth's history so far, and would royally f
k up our lives today if it were to happen again.
If we can affect climate change (???), then it should be to try and prevent the polar caps meeting at the equator. This has happened at least twice in Earth's history so far, and would royally f
k up our lives today if it were to happen again.Pilmer said:
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.
Firstly: no credible person is seriously alleging carbon dioxide itself is evil.
Secondly: it is entirely possible for something to be both vital to life and harmful in large amounts, so the second part of that sentence is completely and utterly irrelevant to the matter he is contesting.
Including irrelevant information, and statements that imply something that is simply not the case, in the hopes a reader will believe you is the opposite of good scientific writing.
He may not be wrong, but to read any further is most likely just wasting your time. Unless of course you simply want to find ammunition to back up your argument instead of actually understanding something.
Edited by paranoid airbag on Friday 2nd August 12:38
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff