Saturday, July 20, 2019


By email this morning from one who I regard as a real down to earth citizen of the world. Busy day here so read or ignore.

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. Sounds pretty learned/credible, don't you think?

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, 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 "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 light bulbs... that 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 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 and mention the effect of natural solar and cosmic activity, 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 for you, but the fact of the matter is that the wildfire season across the western USA and Australia this year alone will negate your efforts to reduce carbon dioxide 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'. It's because the planet has COOLED by 0.7 degrees in the past century and these global warming advocates 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 by your government, 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.


James said...

It's a religion.

As a religious man myself (staunch Anglican) I recognize the signs of fundamentalist devotees. In fact I appreciate the example they set so that I can test myself and ensure my faith doesn't overcome objectivism in my life as it goes for the earth worshipping green fanatics.

All I'm saying is that objective sceptics like Prof Plummer won't be listened to any time soon.

Add an aside, I can highly recommend his book from 2008 called 'Heaven and Earth - Global Warming: The Missing Science'

Psycho Milt said...

Sounds pretty learned/credible, don't you think?

On the subjects of geology and mining, yes. On the subjects of climate and AGW, he's as credible as anyone else with an opinion.

His comments about volcanoes in the OP are bullshit propaganda. Here's the scam:

Yes, any volcanic eruption blasts CO2 into the atmosphere in amounts that ridiculously outweigh any individual human's attempts at emission reductions. Thing is, there are 8 billion individual humans, and some of them are running large-scale industrial or agricultural enterprises, not just a household. Any volcanic eruption is dwarfed by the activities of those 8 billion people. Here's what the US Geological Society has to say about it (something that geologist Plimer should be well aware of):

All studies to date of global volcanic carbon dioxide emissions indicate that present-day subaerial and submarine volcanoes release less than a percent of the carbon dioxide released currently by human activities.

(Emphasis in original)

Plimer may have credibility within his industry, but on this subject he's a peddler of easily-refuted propaganda.

Lord Egbut Nobacon said...

Heaven and Earth.....

The treatment of volcanic versus anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions in this book illustrates one of the pathways by which myths, misrepresentations and spurious information get injected into the climate change debate. Like several climate skeptic publications, blogs and websites, “Heaven and Earth” does not provide the published estimates of the present-day global carbon dioxide emission rate from volcanoes. These estimates are, ironically, “the missing science” of a book professing to rectify supposed excesses of missing science — a book that appears impressively authoritative by citing a mountain of scientific literature.

This argument that human-caused carbon emissions are merely a drop in the bucket compared to greenhouse gases generated by volcanoes has been making its way around the rumor mill for years. And while it may sound plausible, the science just doesn’t back it up.

"According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the world’s volcanoes, both on land and undersea, generate about 200 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) annually, while our automotive and industrial activities cause some 24 billion tons of CO2 emissions every year worldwide. Despite the arguments to the contrary, the facts speak for themselves: Greenhouse gas emissions from volcanoes comprise less than one percent of those generated by today’s human endeavors."

Dodger, if you are going to put an argument forward at least research contrary opinions.

Anonymous said...

This is all so prosaic when you consider the following facts:
- carbon dioxide is only 410 parts per million in the atmosphere. (Allegedly 2019 willsee CO2 “soar” past 411ppm when it was 405ppm in2017)
- climate records show CO2 concentrations follow warming, not lead it.
- there is absolutely no evidence that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
- none of the dire climate predictions of the past 40 years have come to fruition.

Logic is not a strong suit for the warmists.


Lord Egbut Nobacon said...

Given your last few attempts at "facts" I would slap a Parental warning on your post.

Anonymous said...

Eggie, that’s a bit strong considering your posts are pretty much fact free zones. For example - care to come back to us with any evidence China’s GDP has gone backwards?


Psycho Milt said...

This is all so prosaic when you consider the following facts:

Of those, only the first one is a fact and you appear to be drawing a completely unwarranted conclusion from it. The second and third ones are propaganda from wingnut sites. The fourth one might or might not be a fact, depending on what definition of "dire" is applied.

Snowflake said...

Subnormal doesn’t understand any of this, but his ideology tells him the laws of physics must be false, therefore he scours the internet for “facts” that supposedly support this and he excretes them here. An idiot? You decide.

Anonymous said...

Sadly Snowflake you wouldn’t know a law of physics if you fell over it. You can’t tell us how the laws of thermodynamics work, and consequently have no idea your empower has no clothes.

Ok PM, show me the evidence CO2 is a greenhouse gas. The only “evidence” is computer models that are further wrong with every passing year.

Ok let’s take dire out of the fourth sentence, and yet again the warmists are relying purely on faith for their beliefs. I can remember seeing maps showing how different Auckland would be due to sea level rise within 30 years. I was really concerned as we were living in a house on Cockle Bay beach at the time. Now guess what, 40 years later our old house is still there under no threat at all from the sea.


Psycho Milt said...

Ok PM, show me the evidence CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

Skeptical Science has a handy piece on it:

In 1861, John Tyndal published laboratory results identifying carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas that absorbed heat rays (longwave radiation). Since then, the absorptive qualities of carbon dioxide have been more precisely quantified by decades of laboratory measurements (Herzberg 1953, Burch 1962, Burch 1970, etc).

That paragraph has a bunch of links in it on the Skeptical Science site, but I can't be arsed rebuilding them all in this comment. Feel free to go to the site and follow the links from there.

More debunking of the claims that human-generated CO2 can't affect the climate is available via Scientifican American.

Snowflake said...

ROFL Subnormal just got sonned! His next tack will be to attack the source. Scientific American! In it for the cash! Ian Plimer on the other hand is an impeccable source and not at all compromised by being handsomely remunerated by the mining industry.

Anonymous said...

No Snoflake, my next point is to ask you how the thermodynamic laws apply. Here’s a hint, the heat is radiated as quickly as it is absorbed, unlike water vapour, which is still the main greenhouse gas that allows life to flourish on what would otherwise be a cold rock in space.

Remember CO2 is mainly present in the lower atmosphere at low concentrations that cannot do the greenhouse gas job you ascribe to it. That is the evidence that is lacking in this whole AGW religion. CO2 just cannot do what is being ascribed to it.

You would have it that CO2 is pollution. It isn’t pollution as it is a life gas.


Snowflake said...

You can triple down on the stupid if you like, subnormal, but Googling Wattsupwiththat for the answers just doesn’t cut it. You’re using words you don’t understand, and while that’s cute, it’s also a bit embarrassing.

“It isn’t a pollution, as it is a life gas” it squeaks. That’s simply a right wing chant, a bit like the Nicene Creed. Your attempt at a scientific explanation for why CO2 is not a greenhouse gas is risible. You didn’t follow PM’s links did you? I can understand why not, as you’d find it confronting.

Kimbo said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Kimbo said...

...a bit like the Nicene Creed...

Yes, but with or without the filioque clause? Boom, tish! 😀

Sorry, folks, a theological in-joke. I guess you had to be there. I’m here all night, try the veal...

Anonymous said...

Snowflake, I did follow PMs link. Just because you find science difficult to understand doesn’t mean others have your issues. I realise you find people stating facts that conflict with your religion confronting.

You see the thing is the link showed that when you heat things up they get warm. It’s the leap of faith you take after that that is the problem.


Snowflake said...

You haven’t provided any evidence at all to support your so-called “facts”, subnormal. Not one. You have simply made a series of ridiculous statements. You may as well have said that the sun is a giant light bulb and mocked everyone who calls you wrong and provides evidence as to why. So, please proceed.

Anonymous said...

Evidence Snowflake - how about the evidence you’re already aware of and ignoring.

CO2 has increased steadily over the past 30 years (from approx 320ppm to approx 415ppm) and yet temperature has flatlined, or in the UNs terms “plateaued”. Pretty evidential the link between warming and CO2 you claim doesn’t exist.


Steppen Wolf said...

Vast stretches of Earth’s northern latitudes are on fire right now. Hot weather has engulfed a huge portion of the Arctic, from Alaska to Greenland to Siberia. That’s helped create conditions ripe for wildfires, including some truly massive ones burning in remote parts of the region that are being seen by satellites.

A lot of those fires are being fueled by dried out peat that is releasing more CO2, of course, paranormal will claim that "this is natural"whilst shutting his/her/its eyes to the fact that the peat has only dried out due to climate change.

This morning, the Bureau of Meteorology issued a warning for bushfires in parts of New South Wales with July temperatures set to come close to the hottest ever.

“As bizarre as it sounds midwinter — parts of NSW are likely to see elevated bushfire risk today,” the BOM tweeted this morning.

But nothing to see here, is there para?

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Step Hen

You have excelled yourself.

I am indebted to you for informing me the Arctic, Alaska, Siberia and Greenland are ablaze!

But but but what about northern Canada. What's their secret?

RosscoWlg said...

I think Step Hen and SnoCone have confused ordinary everyday weather with some sort of cataclysmic event...

I meant to say in North America they have only just issued their first heat wave warning, and its late July.

Cant wait to see Hen Peck and SnoCone interpret this weather!!

Wheres Eggie when you need him?

RosscoWlg said...

Eat these stats Hen Peck and't gonna luv Para 3 below

According to the Fourth U.S. National Climate Assessment, the average duration of warm spells (heat waves) has declined from around eleven days during the 1930s to 6.5 days during the 2000s (Figure 5).³ In other words, the average duration of heat waves have declined by nearly 41% since the 1930s.

In addition, the average maximum temperature during any given heat wave has also declined in the U.S. from 101°F in the 1930s to 99°F since the 1980s

The 1930s remains the warmest decade in U.S. history. It also had some of the hottest summers that the country has ever seen since records began.

Snowflake said...

I get it now, subnormal is just really really stupid (like Rossco, only without the drinking problem). Firstly the earth has warmed over the last 30 years, so your claim is once again false. Second, the relationship between climate and CO2 is complex, gradual and non-linear, but still, you know, correlated and consistent with observed physical laws (which you deny the existence of when it suits you). So stop lying and dissembling. It’s unbecoming.

RosscoWlg said...

Sno ConeHead.. you are of course talking about the IPCC models that predicted that from a base in 1980 the earth would be 6 degrees warmer by 2100. Well as you may or maynot know the earth is barely 1 degree warmer after nearly 30 years and well below your IPCC trend lines.

In my opinion 30 years is way too short a time to measure these stats, you need 100's of years of reliable data.

The earth could be cooling, and that is the position of many scientists.

As for your stupid CO2, start a greenhouse and grow plants at 1200 ppm like everybody else..

Psycho Milt said...

RosscoWlg: posting cherry-picked, irrelevant facts you found on wingnut sites might make you feel better, but it serves no other purpose.

Steppen Wolf said...

When your only "evidence" comes from Ian "I don't understand climatology" Plimer and Watt The Fuck is Science? you're on shakier ground than Christchurch.

Steppen Wolf said...

I guess there is a reason why CO2 is used in greenhouses and why it is referred to as a greenhouse gas. But I don't know of any farmers who think they grow better beef by overloading cattle with CO2.

Adolf Fiinkensein said...


Have you read the comments policy for this site?

Can you read?

RosscoWlg said...

Oh Jesseeez Hep Step you don't use CO2 to grow cattle you use it to grow plants in a greenhouse.....errrrrr that's a rectangle with a pitched roof on it clad in glass. Commercial growers run them at 1200ppm CO2.

I wont tell you why they run at 1200ppm but my next comment may give you a clue.

But indirectly cattle use CO2 to grow because at 412ppm the grass they eat grows a lot faster and more abundantly.

Now there is a link somewhere to scientific proof, real scientists, not Al Gore sycophants like Milt, SnoConehead, etc, that's shows over the last 40 yeas the equivalent vegetation the size of 2 x North Americas has been added to earth,(measured by satellite, and that the Sahara has been shrinking, or greening.

Miltie really suggest you remove that Al Gore signed photo from your toilet wall, and stop drinking his cool aid, you're really just a cultist chanting...

Snowflake said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Psycho Milt said...

...real scientists...

Comedy gold. Here's a clue for you - "real scientists" don't cherry-pick data from wingnut sites.

Anonymous said...

Hmmm Snowflake it seems we agree on something. Weather and climate are highly complex chaotic systems and to simplistically suggest one element is the silver bullet to cure all the ills would be foolish.


Steppen Wolf said... simplistically suggest one element is the silver bullet to cure all the ills would be foolish.

And who is suggesting that? Oh yes, the deniers, the pretend skeptics, the ill informed who think that all will be well if left alone.

In the meantime, real scientists are still doing the research and publishing papers showing that periods of warming and cooling have happened in the past but they were nowhere near the magnitude or the speed of the current warming.

They have also debunked the claims of climate change deniers who often point to periods such as the Little Ice Age as evidence the climate is in constant flux. Rather, unusual conditions were typically confined to regions.

You can read these papers in Nature and Nature Geoscience, or you can wait for the WotsUp lies and cling to your blankie.

Anonymous said...

Steppen, are these the real scientists that have to collude in erroneously altering data to reach the results they want? The problem is your lot so invested in an outcome the ends justifies the means.


Psycho Milt said...

Actually, the reverse is true - scientists in the US public sector who won't lie to support the Trump administration's climate-change denial put their jobs at risk. It takes courage to be a "real scientist" these days.