C02 and the climate hoax someone's agenda ...

[727Sky]

Ian RutheIaIan 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 Encyclopaedia of Geology.  Sounds pretty learned/credible, don't you think?
 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)
 
Where Does the Carbon Dioxide Really Come From?
 Professor Ian Plimer's book in a brief 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 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, 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, and the well-recognized 800-year global heating and cooling cycle, which keeps happening despite our completely insignificant affect sclimate change.
 And I do wish I had a silver lining to this volcanic ash cloud, 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 in our world for the next two to three years. And it happens every year.
 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.

[Kenzo]

@727Sky


Make carbon dioxide great again

[loam]

In the early days, I was suckered into all of that bullshit... That was until I learned the IPCC monkeyed with the data.

That woke me up.

Now the agenda is as plane as day to me.

[EndtheMadnessNow]

Ian RutheIaIan 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 Encyclopaedia of Geology.  Sounds pretty learned/credible, don't you think?
 These are his extensive credentials:

I'm gonna frame that one. Do you have a link to it?

[p358]

The sun, that big hot light bulb in the sky, has a lot to do with climate change and volcanoes.

If i point this out to some people, they get all miffed and call me a science denier.

At which point, I laugh.

WHen you think of volcanoes, don't forget to think about the Sun emitting micro-waves that heat below the surface ... where the magma sits ... heating up nicely.

There is a nice meme that I can't find at the moment that explains all about the big heater. Pic of the solar system with 'you are here'. Puts it in perspective. I have seen the meme in the last week or so.

P

[727Sky]

Good speech IMO

[Kenzo]

There has been most likely foul play with the thermometers itself ..


What if the airport radar was generating false record-high temperatures through random electrical noise?



And also by having wrong location where the thermometer is can give false readings....I.E too close to something that reflects heat to thermometer etc..like having solar panel too close reflecting sun/heat to sensor

[727Sky]

There has been most likely foul play with the thermometers itself ..


What if the airport radar was generating false record-high temperatures through random electrical noise?



And also by having wrong location where the thermometer is can give false readings....I.E too close to something that reflects heat to thermometer etc..like having solar panel too close reflecting sun/heat to sensor

All cities are heat sinks. Drive (convertible) from the country to a city at night and you will feel the considerable heat bubble of the city as you approach... Also it does not help that most of the temperatures are taken from that same heat sink of a city. Climate change happens but this bunch of WEF and agenda 2030 idiots are in it for other means; none of which is good for the average citizen IMO..

[Kenzo]

There has been most likely foul play with the thermometers itself ..


What if the airport radar was generating false record-high temperatures through random electrical noise?



And also by having wrong location where the thermometer is can give false readings....I.E too close to something that reflects heat to thermometer etc..like having solar panel too close reflecting sun/heat to sensor

All cities are heat sinks. Drive (convertible) from the country to a city at night and you will feel the considerable heat bubble of the city as you approach... Also it does not help that most of the temperatures are taken from that same heat sink of a city. Climate change happens but this bunch of WEF and agenda 2030 idiots are in it for other means; none of which is good for the average citizen IMO..

Yeeh heat sinks

The climate has allways been going up and down , it`s a cycle.  Now if someone would start recording the temperature at point where the cycle has lowest/ coldest temperature and changing again to go up to warmer, it could be presented as "  man made
climate change "  or blame carbon dioxide etc.....

[EndtheMadnessNow]

Good speech IMO
https://youtu.be/ljUg2D-vBak

Gotta luv that banner the GestapoTube just has to insert. 



Thanks for posting that vid.

[xuenchen]

**

butwhatabout "The Czar"?


Slashing farm emissions critical to fighting climate change, John Kerry says

“We can’t get to net zero, we don’t get this job done, unless agriculture is front and center as part of the solution,” Kerry, the special presidential envoy for climate, said

Hopefully Kerry himself will be at "net zero" by 2030 

**

[quintessentone]

Freija invited me here to give opposite opinions and/or facts to equalize the playing field here. Anyway, the consensus on the consenus is that climate change is caused by humans activity.

The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%–100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper. Those results are consistent with the 97% consensus reported by Cook et al (Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024) based on 11 944 abstracts of research papers, of which 4014 took a position on the cause of recent global warming. A survey of authors of those papers(N = 2412 papers) also supported a 97% consensus. Tol (2016 Environ. Res. Lett. 11 048001) comes to a different conclusion using results from surveys of nonexperts such as economic geologists and a self-selected group of those who reject the consensus. We demonstrate that this outcome is not unexpected because the level of consensus correlates with expertise in climate science. At one point, Tol also reduces the apparent consensus by assuming that abstracts that do not explicitly state the cause of global warming (‘no position’)represent nonendorsement, an approach that if applied elsewhere would reject consensus on well-established theories such as plate tectonics. We examine the available studies and conclude that the finding of 97% consensus in published climate research is robust and consistent with other surveys of climate scientists and peer-reviewed studies.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.10...048002/pdf

So we see that the OPs choice of expert is proported to be a nonexpert in climate science by the consensus on consensus. And if we really think about it rationally what types of scientists are required to make educated claims in this area? I would think many different types of scientists from many different disciplines.

[Chiefsmom]

I never understood why all the fuss.

Why not just do what they taught us in middle school science?


Plant more trees.

They clean the air.

It is literally their job.

[F2d5thCav]

Climate change?

When I was a GI in Germany back in the Cold War, I used to freeze my a** off in the cold, forested hills we maneuvered in.

This year, I went back to where I was stationed at that time.  I went up some of those same hills for old times sake.

Guess what?  I froze my a** off, and spring was just around the corner!

Yeah, local weather seems jankier than it used to be.  Nothing convinces me, though, that that effect is down to manmade influence.

Cheers

Chiefsmom--

Did you ever plant a tree for arbor day?  I did that once in school.  For once, it felt like a well spent day at the school.

Cheers

[BIAD]

I watch the weather reports daily and the guy/gal in front of the green-screen offers the same comment
they have since I was a kid. "The weather is about right for this time of the year".

I'm 63 in December, if Ms Thunberg and Mr Gore's climate change was as impactful as they wail
about, those weathermen/women over the years must've been singing from the wrong song sheet!

[quintessentone]

I watch the weather reports daily and the guy/gal in front of the green-screen offers the same comment
they have since I was a kid. "The weather is about right for this time of the year".

I'm 63 in December, if Ms Thunberg and Mr Gore's climate change was as impactful as they wail
about, those weathermen/women over the years must've been singing from the wrong song sheet!

Well we will get different weather reports in different world regions.

Just the other day on the news was a warning that snowpacks on mountains has dwindled so much yearly that wildlife are threatened because of it. So I guess it just depends on who and where the weather reports hail from.

[Chiefsmom]

Climate change?

When I was a GI in Germany back in the Cold War, I used to freeze my a** off in the cold, forested hills we maneuvered in.

This year, I went back to where I was stationed at that time.  I went up some of those same hills for old times sake.

Guess what?  I froze my a** off, and spring was just around the corner!

Yeah, local weather seems jankier than it used to be.  Nothing convinces me, though, that that effect is down to manmade influence.

Cheers

Chiefsmom--

Did you ever plant a tree for arbor day?  I did that once in school.  For once, it felt like a well spent day at the school.

Cheers

Yep, we did that!

And I am practicing what I preach at home.  I've cut down some crappy maple trees in the yard.  They were shading the garden.  But they are being replace, in the side yard, with White Pines, which do a much better job of air cleaning than maples anyway.

[727Sky]

Without looking it up there was a European man by the name of Alfred who after looking at a map (1915-ish) saw how the continents seemed to all look like a jig saw puzzle so he cut the map and sure enough many of the pieces fit together rather nicely.. So there was a big meeting and he was a scientist so he proposed that once upon a time there was a super continent that broke apart and which gives the current map.. Needless to say the experts almost laughed him out of the auditorium claiming impossible etc etc. so his theory was not well received and revoked. Many years later after many of the old well educated set in their dogma idiots died he was proven right.

Found a video on the subject

[Ninurta]

Freija invited me here to give opposite opinions and/or facts to equalize the playing field here. Anyway, the consensus on the consenus is that climate change is caused by humans activity.

The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%–100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper. Those results are consistent with the 97% consensus reported by Cook et al (Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024) based on 11 944 abstracts of research papers, of which 4014 took a position on the cause of recent global warming. A survey of authors of those papers(N = 2412 papers) also supported a 97% consensus. Tol (2016 Environ. Res. Lett. 11 048001) comes to a different conclusion using results from surveys of nonexperts such as economic geologists and a self-selected group of those who reject the consensus. We demonstrate that this outcome is not unexpected because the level of consensus correlates with expertise in climate science. At one point, Tol also reduces the apparent consensus by assuming that abstracts that do not explicitly state the cause of global warming (‘no position’)represent nonendorsement, an approach that if applied elsewhere would reject consensus on well-established theories such as plate tectonics. We examine the available studies and conclude that the finding of 97% consensus in published climate research is robust and consistent with other surveys of climate scientists and peer-reviewed studies.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.10...048002/pdf

So we see that the OPs choice of expert is proported to be a nonexpert in climate science by the consensus on consensus. And if we really think about it rationally what types of scientists are required to make educated claims in this area? I would think many different types of scientists from many different disciplines.

Here's the problem: consensus does not always equate to "fact". It's just a consensus opinion. Furthermore, in academia these days one can buy just about any result he is willing to pay for. No "scientist" wants to jeopardize his grant money by reporting findings inconsistent with the will of whomever is footing his bills. We see the same thing on the petroleum side of the debate, so is it really surprising that we find it on the authoritarian side of the debate as well?

Logical thought, exercised by combining the results of a broad range of sciences - climatology, physics, geology, astronomy, etc. will show that the climate actually IS warming up, although not yet anywhere near the "normal" temperatuire Earth has held for most of it's lifetime. In comparison, we are still in an ice age, have been emerging from it for almost 12.000 years steadily, and soon will come to the downward, cooling, arc of that cycle again. If the authoritarian tax collectors have their way, however, that natural cycle will be disrupted in favor of an already cooler climate, and the net result will be that the next ice age will be far worse than the last one.

But really, what do WE care about that? It's not like WE will live to see it. That honor will befall our grand children and great grand children, not us... so what do we care? Besides, there is money to be made off of THEIR future misery right NOW, so why worry about them if we'll never live long enough to see it ourselves?

Just kick that can down the road - it's human nature.

.

[Ninurta]

I never understood why all the fuss.

Why not just do what they taught us in middle school science?


Plant more trees.

They clean the air.

It is literally their job.

Oddly, as CO2 levels increase towards their historic norm, as they get closer to that norm, the Earth is getting greener as trees and other plant life respond favorably to the increased CO2 levels. So we don't even really have to plant anything - the Earth will take care of itself as it seeks and moves towards it's historic equilibrium.

I was recently looking at a couple of photos taken from the same spot in my front yard, but about 55 years apart, I can actually see the greening of the planet - or at least my little part of it - over that time period. All of the forest I am completely surrounded by here has grown over the last 50 years or so... and it's pretty damned impressive!

Same for the place I grew up. I went back there a couple years ago, and what was barren land back then is now grown into a massive cedar forest, one that would rival that cedar forest in Lebanon.

The Climate Killer crowd would end all that lush greenery in favor of enriching themselves at our expense, and the expense of the planet. I find that to be crass, and utterly wrong. I LIKE breathing!

.