Posted by: graemebird | December 17, 2009

George Monbiot Hiding Ten Billion Metres Worth Of CO2 Output.

I’ve just watched Plimer and Monbiot on Lateline. Monbiot kept claiming that Plimer hadn’t answered the question. But it was Monbiot that refused to answer any questions. Plimer said that the world has cooled since 1998. Thats just a fact. 1998 was the warmest year. 2005 was the only outstanding warm year since if we were going on the satellites. If we are going on the warmth embedded in the ocean, well they tend to hide them as an embarrassment. Since they turned colder after late 2003. Plimer had already stated that the climate had cooled since 1998. That was in fact the answer to the question. Some quibbling can be made with that but its essentially right. If you want to specify air temperature well thats right, with the year 2005 standing out as an unusually warm year. If you want to talk Arctic summer melting its 2007 which was the year that the summer sea ice got to its lowest. But thats only one place on earth. Not the whole of the planet. So Plimer answered the question whereas Monbiot ran a campaign not to answer any questions, at the same time pretending it was the other fellow. Then he lied outright about our century being warmer than the Roman warm period and the Medieval warm period. Lied flat out about it.

The 30’s appears to be the warmest decade of the twentieth century. We can be pretty sure of that but the figures haven’t been compiled. Only rigged figures have been used in all cases of the four fraudulent outfits paid to compile these figures. But indications are that a proper review of matters would conclude that the 30’s were the warmest decade. Not the 90’s. And certainly, for fucksakes, not this decade. In the US for example, its been shown that the 30’s were warmer.

http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200912/r487279_2511549.asx

For Monbiot to lie flat out like that on Australian national television is bad enough. But to lie like this AND evade the questions, and to cover it all up with a reversalist campaign, to make out it was the other fellow that was lying, evading and so forth, well this proves Monbiot to be a person of bad character. Monbiot surely ought never be allowed in this country on that basis. And what an idiot Tony Jones is. Failing to stop Monbiot interrupting and lying like that. That ridiculous moron has to be sacked from the ABC. Sackings from the public service are always good. They increase the probability that we may actually get people who can do the job.

Plimer also is of the opinion, that when taking the undersea volcanoes into account, the volcanoes wind up releasing more CO2 then what we release in industry. This is at least highly plausible. Given the thousands of miles of rift zones in the Pacific and elsewhere. Why would one dispute Plimer on this matter? He’s saying this on the basis of an inference made from the chemistry of rocks. Monbiot claims he is lying but on what basis? He says that Plimer is lying on the basis that someone employed by the United States Geological Survey said otherwise. Why would an employee get to establish the truth of this matter without showing his figures and assumptions transparently? And is he merely the employee of Monbiots choosing? So Monbiot would have it that humans create 130 times as much CO2 as volcanoes. Last I heard the alarmists were talking ten times. Not its 130 times thanks to Monbiot-the super scientist. The greatest scientist ever. He reckons its 130 times. Even if all those thousands of miles of continuous seabed rifting is counted.

That would appear to be ridiculous right there and I demand that this lying cunt George Monbiot make good with his scientific evidence. Because Monbiot’s scientific claim doesn’t even appear to be the least bit plausible. Do people realise how much volcanic activity there is in the Pacific? Plimer mentions 64 000 kilometres of continuous submarine rifting. These are not measured round the clock as to their output. How could they be? We don’t have that many submarines in this world. So on what basis is the great scientist Monbiot making his contrary claim?

Monbiot will not tell us what evidence he has and let us review his calculations. Just think about it. According to Monbiot, even forgetting the above ground stuff, the human beings are releasing the equivalent of 130*68000 kilometres of continuous rifting undersea volcano, in terms of CO2. So Monbiot would have it that we humans are producing vastly more CO2 then what 8, 840, 000 kilometres of more or less continuous rifting volcanic activity would produce. Thats without putting the above ground volcanoes into the calculation. Nor adding more in for the really big supervolconoes when they really blow their top. So I’ll conservatively claim that Monbiot is saying we humans put out at least the equivalent of what ten million kilometres of rift zone would produce if it were ringed endlessly around the world the coughing up gunk more or less continuously. Thats of course 10 billion metres. More than a metre for every human on the planet. And we humans manage to produce more CO2, in Moonbiots view then, then a metre of volcanic rift zone, working continuously. Right then. We are promiscuous with mother natures bounty are we not?

On what basis is the great scientist Monbiot making this extraordinary claim? On the basis that someone in the United States Geological Survey is alleged to have said so. Not on the basis that this fellow in the USGS presented his findings. Only on this basis that he is alleged to have made this claim. If Monbiot is right there sure as shit is an enourmous amount of industrial activity going on that I for one have not been apprised of.

But is this credible? Have any of you seen those rift zones? They are chugging out lava and bubbles all the damn time. So we are worth at least about ten billion metres of volcanic rifting as far as CO2 output is concerned, in Monbiot’s view. This is a big claim. No doubt Monbiot is misrepresenting the USGS and is lying. But in any case the stupid limey ought not believe everything he’s told. Since it appears to be a totally baseless figure. Whereas Plimer has told us what his proxy is. One proxy isn’t enough of course. But you would think that it would give us some idea, within an order of magnitude perhaps. But Monbiot says otherwise. Says that we release 130 times that of the volcanoes. Or at least what 10 billion metres of rifting volcanoes would do if they were ringed endlessly around the planet. Just ringed round and around the planet and chugging out all sorts of stuff, including CO2, the whole damn time.

Here we see that the people pushing the global warming fraud don’t appear to be even numerate. Why would one believe such a claim without reviewing the evidence? And what is the evidence? Is it just a claim by one man in one organisation?

Did the United States Geological Survey come up with any EVIDENCE for their contrary point of view? Plimer states outright how he infers this matter. But Monbiot won’t say what the basis is for the very suspicious different point of view of someone in the USGS. A suspicious, and if I may be so bold, highly implausible point of view. They don’t have people to go perform CO2 readings many kilometres deep in the water. So how is Monbiot so sure of himself that he is right and Plimer is wrong, lying, and committing science fraud? Monbiot won’t say.

Monbiot is just a fuckwit. Wouldn’t answer a single question. And used the exact same techniques you see on all the blogs. Refusing to answer questions, come up with evidence, and pretends its the other fellow.

Advertisements

Responses

  1. Graeme, every major scientific institution in the world dealing with climate, ocean, and/or atmosphere agrees that the climate is warming rapidly and the primary cause is human CO2 emissions.

  2. I know a lot of them say that Cyd. But when you go looking for the evidence they don’t have it. Or its rigged.

    It would be a very good thing were we warming the earth. And I originally thought that we were, and thought it was a good thing. But I had to stop making that claim because I cannot find the basis for it.

  3. Graeme
    I think you’ll find the answer to all your objections here.
    http://www.grist.org/article/series/skeptics/

  4. I”ve been to gristmill. I kept asking them for evidence and they threw me off. They don’t have it either. What they have is this non-scientist called Coby Beck. Who wrote this online book called;

    “How To Speak To A Climate Skeptic”

    It was a book full of snappy lines and tactics. But nothing in the way of actual evidence specific to hypotheses relevant to the cause. Relevant to making a case for cost imposition.

    So you try and persist, waiting for the snappy comebacks to run out and the evidence to start. But it doesn’t happen.

    Try it yourself some time. Pretend to be a skeptic wanting to find evidence one way or another. You’d be amazed how it looks from the other side.

  5. feel free to visit my non-political blog Graeme. it’s highly unlikely you’ll libel anyone there and it highlights the sort of stuff you’re actually good at talking about (not economics or politics)

    http://sickofpolitics.wordpress.com/

  6. Don’t bullshit people Jason. Economics is my best subject.

  7. Check this out. One of the dummies causing rampant unemployment in the US today. And he has not the slightest clue of it.

    http://alaskakid.wordpress.com/2009/02/28/christy-romer-02-27-09-fiscal-stimulus-likely-effects-of-the-arra/

  8. If you mean Christina Romer, she’s a woman

  9. http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/2007/07_02_15.html

    Here is a link where the USGS makes a claim that humans are putting out more than 100 times as much CO2 as volcanoes.

    “Our studies show that globally, volcanoes on land and under the sea release a total of about 200 million tonnes of CO2 annually.”

    But its bound to be just more lies. There is no tally here of what they are saying the massive undersea fault zones are producing. 68000 kilometres of rift zone. No separate breakdown at all. No links to find such a breakdown. No talk of methodology. No proxy studies or anything checkable. Just somebody using the brandname of the taxeater organisation to bullshit everyone.

    It has to be judged as just more of the same Gramscian project until they prove otherwise. Why would we believe the USGS website in the first place? Monbiot is a fool.

  10. Why would I mean Christina Romer. Its not her website. This dummy reckons he gets to talk to the usurper daily.

  11. If you think AGW is a hoax and non-existent then you’ve simply dealt yourself out of the main debate going on which is what to do about it AGW.

    By extension your abstentionism on this 1 issue will increasingly make your economic commentary irrelevant since adaptation and mitigation strategies addressing climate change will have economic repercussions that you can’t influence if you continue simply to negatively say nothing needs to be done.

  12. Who is the man in your gravatar?

  13. “If you think AGW is a hoax and non-existent then you’ve simply dealt yourself out of the main debate going on which is what to do about it AGW.”

    We cannot separate the two Cyd. Because since CO2 is good for the biosphere, and since it is a positive externality, ergo the economics tells us not to tax this substance, and to just graciously accept it as a free gift from industry.

    The science tells us that we have a CO2 shortage. And it would also appear that we can be in grave danger at any time of having a fall in CO2 levels which would starve many tens of millions of people.

    This is before disruption to energy production is taken into account which of course will prevent us from dealing with other problems as they arise.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    No taxis today. I missed my work Christmas party.

    So I thought I’d make an enquiry to George Moonbiot.

  14. “Who is the man in your gravatar?”

    Senator Joseph McCarthy. The ultimate whistleblower.

  15. omg

  16. “By extension your abstentionism on this 1 issue will increasingly make your economic commentary irrelevant since adaptation and mitigation strategies addressing climate change will have economic repercussions that you can’t influence if you continue simply to negatively say nothing needs to be done.”

    If any of these strategies are taken up the important thing will be to end them and find ways to make sure that they cannot be a threat ever again. If the problem is indeed an overheating planet, well that can be dealt with quickly and easily but not by reducing CO2 output from industry. Reducing CO2 output would be a diversion of resources, should we find for some reason that the planet was way too hot.

  17. “The science tells us that we have a CO2 shortage.”

    The science tells us that your opinion of your own abilities is in inverse proportion to your actual abilities.

  18. “If the problem is indeed an overheating planet, well that can be dealt with quickly and easily”

    Do tell, Mr Bird. Don’t hide your light under a bushel.

  19. Well as I see it we ought to not be using coal for electricity. That eventually if we got policy right, the nuclear power would crowd out coal for electricity leaving the coal free to be turned into liquified coal, with the aid of off-peak nuclear heat, electricity, electricity generated hydrogen and so forth throughout the process.

    In doing so the carbon resource is first gasified before its liquified and there is what they call a “scrubbing” process. This part of it I don’t understand. But in any case they “scrub” (thats the word they use) out the SO2 and the NO2 impurities.

    This means with a vibrant nuclear and liquified coal industry we have this huge amount of SO2 as a by-product. Of course the price of industrial sulphuric acid )H2SO4 will fall through the floor. But even then there will be all this cheap SO2 as a by-product.

    Whereas there is no evidence that CO2 can warm the planet … convincing evidence exists that if we punch SO2 into the stratosphere that will definitely cool the planet.

    Now in this story we have a vibrant international airline industry. And so all we do is when one of the international flights is passing over open water, somewhat near the equator, it just sends a small SO2 rocket into the upper stratosphere. And bingo, we have our cooling agent right there. Very cheap. And I would say “no need to tax carbon”. But if the planet was overheating taxing carbon would be a distraction from fixing the problem.

  20. “The science tells us that your opinion of your own abilities is in inverse proportion to your actual abilities.”

    No what the science tells us is that we have a shortage of CO2. Because we could double CO2 levels twice and be vastly better off and feed the poor, renew nature, green the deserts and so forth, we could double it a third time and still do well.

    We halve it once we all die.

    So thats a shortage.

  21. We halve it once we all die.

    In that case the obvious solution to global warming is to kill more people.

  22. There isn’t any global warming to have a solution to. As people keep pointing out it was warmer in the Roman and Medieval periods and warmer still in the Holocene Optimum.

    Warmer times are much better times. Because the way that water vapour, and microscopic airborne water work, in the warmer times the tropical and temperate zones are simply extended and the weather becomes less variable and harsh.

    In the colder times the water and sea level are all over the place and the world is unbelievably harsh, dry and nasty.

  23. The warmer times in Medieval period was due to local conditions.

  24. We live on a planet that is overwhelmingly biased towards freezing and becoming cold dry and nasty.

    Here is a thread that might help give you some perspective.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/09/hockey-stick-observed-in-noaa-ice-core-data/

  25. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=seven-answers-to-climate-contrarian-nonsense

    a new research paper by Mann and his colleagues seems to confirm that the Medieval Warm Period and the “Little Ice Age” between 1400 and 1700 were both caused by shifts in solar radiance and other natural factors that do not seem to be happening today.

  26. “The warmer times in Medieval period was due to local condition”

    No thats not right. It was warmer pretty much everywhere on the planet. This despite the evidence that the solar energy wasn’t quite as strong as in the 20th century.

    I proved this to Adrien absolutely. And the prick refused to admit it. Proved it to the nth degree.

  27. “Proved it to the nth degree.”

    Fuck birdie, you never prove anything other than the fact that your head is full of rampant nonsense.

  28. “Fuck birdie, you never prove anything other than the fact that your head is full of rampant nonsense.”

    Unlike your head which is full of nothing at all beyond abusive sneers and sick sexual fantasies.

    What a loser.

  29. “a new research paper by Mann and his colleagues seems to confirm that the Medieval Warm Period and the “Little Ice Age” between 1400 and 1700 were both caused by shifts in solar radiance and other natural factors that do not seem to be happening today.”

    What took these science frauds so long to catch up?

    Yes of course the little ice age was caused by natural shifts in solar radiation. What did they think? SUV’s?

    Its only that last sentence that makes no sense. Solar variation is happening today bigtime. We went through some of the most powerful solar activity in 8000 years. So of course its going to collapse on us. Solar activity is not going to just stay on that same high forever.

    Not unless this stuff about 2012 throws a wild card into the mix.

  30. “Unlike your head which is full of nothing at all beyond abusive sneers and sick sexual fantasies.”

    You say that like it’s a bad thing.

  31. it’s you nabs, right? reveal yourself

  32. Nabs is a pretty good suspect. Since in both cases we are talking lonely lonely men.

  33. “it’s you nabs, right? reveal yourself”

    The code of the ninja forbids it.

  34. Start making a contribution lonely lonely man or I’ll start thinning your posts out some.

  35. No Nabs doesn’t constantly talk in cliches, like BirdLab does. His sneers and fantasies are that of a robot.

    Nabs is highly original and very well read.

  36. I’m completely anti-nuclear Graeme, and I won’t change my opinion on that.

  37. I think my attempts at outreach to Quiggin may have ended. Here is an example why:

    “Update I must say the response of those on Plimer’s side of the debate has been thoroughly disappointing. Tribal loyalty might perhaps justify silence in the face of an embarrassing performance like this.

    On the other hand, no one appears to have the cheek to suggest that Plimer came out looking good, and few on the delusionist side are willing to admit that the most prominent scientist on their side came across as a total fraud.

    So we get two lines (a) It was really mean of Jones and Monbiot to keep on demanding that he answer the questions (which had been supplied in writing long in advance) (b) It’s too hard to tell. This is truly pathetic.

    And, as I’ve said before, this style of dishonesty, originating with the tobacco lobby’s attempts to obfuscate the health effects of smoking, now permeates right wing discussion of any issue you care to name, from the Iraq war to the Global Financail Crisis. It’s hard to see how any kind of political discussion can be sustained in the face of this kind of thing”

    Totally the other way around. Plimer, when he could get a word in edgeways attempted to explain where he was coming from. And Monbiot point blank refused to come up with any evidence. Lied about the Roman and Medieval warmings, based his contradicting Plimer on the matter of Volcanoes on less then nothing.

    See this is why you must never humour Keynesians Jason.

  38. “I’m completely anti-nuclear Graeme, and I won’t change my opinion on that.”

    Right but why? I’m not trying to change you or your opinions. But why on this one?

    We Westerners have been the warriors of note for some time now. I don’t think we can afford to be flippant about our defense any more. And if we don’t want to be using all our carbon paternity up and have very few options, we really want to channel that energy from the nucleus.

    The Americans are falling apart and cannot be relied upon to stand between us and the people who would attack this continent and steal our women. Nor ought we expect them too. I don’t think the window is still open for us to get rid of these nuclear weapons.

    I think we have to learn to live with them. That means we have to have a different city-country arrangement. We have to be able to defend against nuclear weapons, and survive an extended nuclear war and moving forward all the time.

    But besides all that. Its in the nucleus where we have the greatest reserves of energy.

  39. It’s unsafe from go to whoa in a nutshell.

    No more Three Mile Islands.

  40. No-one was injured in three-mile-island. The barrier did what it was supposed to do

    From a statistical point of view it would have to be the safest and cleanest electricity generation there is. And the cheapest.

  41. You actually think that pumping SO2 into the atmosphere is a viable way of cooling the earth if necessary?

    I KNOW ITS A VIABLE WAY OF COOLING THE EARTH. BUT THE EARTH DOESN’T NEED COOLING AND WILL NOT NEED COOLING UNLESS THERE IS SOME NASTY CORONAL MASS EJECTION.

    Have you even heard of acid rain?! ACID RAIN – caused by the release of SO2. That is PROVEN beyond even your doubts surely.

    NO THE ACID RAIN WASN’T PROVEN. IT WAS ANOTHER BEATUP. BUT UNLIKE IN THIS CURRENT BEAT-UP, IT ACTUALLY LEAD TO A GOOD OUTCOME. THE WESTERN COUNTRIES COAL GENERATION WOUND UP REDUCING SO2 OUTPUT AND MOSTLY DURING THE 90’S. AND SO2 AUTHENTICALLY CAUSES COOLING. WHICH IS A BAD THING ON A FRIGID EARTH. SO IN THIS ONE CASE WE HAD GOOD OUTCOMES FROM WHAT WAS ESSENTIALLY A DISHONEST CAMPAIGN. ITS APRIORI CORRECT THAT SO2 RELEASE OUGHT TO HAVE SOME SORT OF EFFECT IN REDUCING PH. BUT IT MUST BE VERY SMALL SINCE IT DID NOT HAPPEN.

    And you think that doubling CO2 would help the world? You think that would “turn deserts into forests”?

    THERE IS NO DOUBT ABOUT THAT.

    Do you also think that fossil fuels will never run out? What are you going to do then?

    FOSSIL FUELS WON’T RUN OUT. BECAUSE THEY AREN’T FOSSIL FUELS. BUT ITS TRUE THAT OIL PRODUCTION WILL CONTINUE TO GET TIGHTER, AND TOWARDS THE END OF THIS CENTURY GOOD QUALITY COAL WILL PROBABLY START GETTING QUITE EXPENSIVE IN A PERMANENT SORT OF WAY.

    Do you know how much it takes to handle nuclear waste – how much ENERGY it takes to bury it kilometres underground?

    YOU DON’T NEED TO BURY NUCLEAR WASTE VERY FAR UNDERGROUND. IN FACT TWENTY METRES WOULD DO IT, SINCE IF IT WAS STILL SUBSTANTIALLY RADIOACTIVE YOU COULD REPROCESS IT AND USE IT FOR FUEL. THE MAIN PROBLEM WITH NUCLEAR WASTE CAME IN THE 70’S WHEN JIMMY CARTER FOOLISHLY OUTLAWED CERTAIN TYPES OF NUCLEAR REPROCESSING.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: