What point is it for George Monbiot to be interested in this subject if he is not interested in the details of the science? He is making claims for science. He is claiming that its now really hard science. And he is claiming that humans put out 130 times as much CO2 as volcanoes. That sounds OK if it were just the above ground volcanoes. But he is claiming that this includes all the undersea stuff as well. If he’s going to make such a claim I want to see the breakdown. Because I would have thought that the undersea stuff might be a hundred or a thousand times as volumnous as the above ground stuff. The earths crust on the sea floor is so much thinner and younger and the rift zones are where the crust is at its weakest. For this reason I would have thought the undersea stuff would just dwarf the above ground stuff. But him and Tony Jones appeared to be sneering that this was all included in their claim.
This is what I asked George. Let us see if he can at least give us some detail as to why he thinks his claim would be plausible. Some breakdown of how his estimate was made. Not looking for absolute proof of course. Just some sort of due diligence. Some sort of breakdown. If I am going to quote his expertise on this matter authoritatively I would just want to have some idea of how this matter was calculated.
Any way here is what I asked him:
“I want to verify this claim you have been making about human CO2 output being 130 times more than volcanic. What is the breakdown for that? How is human output compared to just land alone? Just sea alone?
What is the estimate for the various undersea fault-zones. Like those massive rift-zones in the Pacific? Is there some sort of per kilometre estimate? How was this found?
We need some sort of a breakdown to check the plausibility of it if you are going to being making claims like this.
Supposing you have 68 000 kilometres of rift-zone under the water? And you say that the human total is 130 bigger than the volcanic total all up?
So how much bigger is it than the underground rift-zones alone? 150 times? 500 times?
Lets try 150 times. So you are making the claim then that humans would put out more CO2 than the equivalent of 150*68000 kilometres of rift-zone with that conservative way of calculating it right?
So in other words you are saying that humans are putting out the equivalent at least of what 10 million two hundred thousand kilometres of continuous volcanic rifting zones would be putting out if we had that much rifting zones encircling the globe many times.
This what you are saying.
You better give us the breakdown for that champ. Its not OK to lie just because the lie isn’t starting with you. Its still a lie when you pass it on. ”
We shall see if he answers the question. He refused to answer any of Plimer’s questions. He also claimed that our climate was warmer than in the Medieval warm period and in the Roman warming period. This habit of lying, just because others have done so is way beyond plausible-deniability for George Monbiot. I would suggest the Guardian distances themselves from this pretender, if they want to get back to their former status as reasonably credible leftist rag.
Now it seems that Monbiot has established truth, not by evidence, but by ringcraft and in association with Tony Jones. Here is Ian Plimer, a scientist all his life, with expertise in chemistry, geology and also as a debunker of various science frauds. And he’s taking his estimate from assumptions to do with rock formation and from their chemistry. Where is Monbiots version of the science taking its assumptions from?
This didn’t stop Monbiot from crowing:
“Ian Plimer’s volcano claims vaporise under questioning on Australian TV”
Really? What was the counter-evidence? None given? Some allegation that a journalist talked to someone in a government department. The science is settled in Monbiots view, on that basis alone.
Lets have a look at what this loony-toon is now crowing about:
“Jones took up my charge and asked Plimer whether he stood by his claim that volcanoes produce more CO2 than all the world’s cars and industries.
Plimer replied “I’m very heartened that a journalist is correcting me on my geology”, then launched into a disquisition on how I know nothing about science. Both of us pressed him to answer the question. So Plimer said that neither of us had read his book. We both replied that we had and pressed him again.
Plimer tried to argue that the US Geological Survey only measured emissions from terrestrial volcanoes – not from submarine volcanoes. Jones, who had plainly done his homework, pointed out that a UK journalist (I think he was referring to the Guardian’s James Randerson) had gone back to the USGS and asked them whether or not submarine volcanoes were included in its calculations. They were.
Plimer went off at a tangent, starting to list the numbers and kinds of submarine volcanoes. This, I soon found, was a characteristic tactic: when faced with a tricky situation, he starts throwing out random facts. I pointed out that he had been told many times that the USGS figures include submarine volcanoes: he was making a claim on national television that he should know is wrong”
So Plimer, a scientist, is just supposed to believe? He has his estimate and he said what proxy it was based on. Now we know that you need at least three lines of evidence before you can treat anything as revealed truth. But the point is he said what he was basing his view on. And Monbiot just mentioned somebody answering a question of another journalist. And we are all supposed to believe this idiocy?
Was Monbiot brought up a red baby or something? How can you explain such stupidity? How can he know the veracity of the claim of some fellow in a government department that he did not talk to himself and who provides no detail as to the reasoning behind his conclusion?
Lets go over the key point from this idiot.
“Plimer tried to argue that the US Geological Survey only measured emissions from terrestrial volcanoes – not from submarine volcanoes. Jones, who had plainly done his homework, pointed out that a UK journalist (I think he was referring to the Guardian’s James Randerson) had gone back to the USGS and asked them whether or not submarine volcanoes were included in its calculations. They were.”
Three journalists. Hearsay that one journalist (whom Monbiot isn’t even sure who it is) was alleged have been told something, without any more detail than that. Well Plimer did talk about why he thinks that Volcanic output is higher than human output of CO2. He mentioned 240 000 volcanoes. 240, 000 volcanoes has no reality to unscience idiots like Tony Jones and George Monbiot. It has some reality to me. Plimer mentioned 68,000 kilometres of undersea riftzones. I got the point straight away. To me these are vivid facts and make his estimate plausible just by mentioning these facts. But Tony and George, having no affinity for science, were only interested in what some fellow in some government department had allegedly said to some third party.
You see what the problem is here? People like Tony Jones and George Monbiot venturing into territory they don’t understand. When the only thing they are good at is snowballing someone when the camera is rolling. To all the readers who are reading this who actually saw the interview? Did you know there were 240,000 undersea volcanoes? Did you know there were 68,000 kilometres of volcanic riftzones under the sea? Did you get the point of why Plimer mentioned these facts? Tony and George did not seem to. Someone told someone something else. And thats the science settled right there.
Can we get an average CO2 output for undersea volcanoes George? Can we then multiply that average by 240 000 without statistical bias? Can we get an average for CO2 output for a kilometre of rift-zone George? Can we multiply that by 68,000 and get a pretty good ballpark figure? Or is that not necessary now that you heard some story about someone telling someone else something? How can the Guardian let this idiot keep going at this subject when he is clearly not up to the task?