Between Science and Politics Lies the Environment.
See also:
See also:
Paul Sheehan at the Sydney Morning Herald, wrote an overview of the book Heaven and Earth by Ian Plimer. His article is titled Beware the climate of conformity. He says that he has been guilty of conformity in the past.
I think the 500 pages (230,000 words with 2311 footnotes) will be interesting to read. Plimer, who is “Australia’s most eminent geologist,” says “Past climate changes, sea-level changes and catastrophes are written in stone.” And since he’s a geologist he takes the very long view of Earth. One of his conclusions: Planet Earth is “currently in an ice age.”
Plimer will not be as easy to dismiss, perhaps, as Freeman Dyson or Michael Crichton, though I’m sure true believers will try. As he says, “The IPCC process is related to environmental activism, politics and opportunism. It is unrelated to science. Current zeal around human-induced climate change is comparable to the certainty professed by Creationists or religious fundamentalists.”
The title of this post comes from Norman Maclean’s A River Runs Through It, “[The river] runs over rocks from the basement of time.”
Paul Sheehan at the Sydney Morning Herald, wrote an overview of the book Heaven and Earth by Ian Plimer. His article is titled Beware the climate of conformity. He says that he has been guilty of conformity in the past.
I think the 500 pages (230,000 words with 2311 footnotes) will be interesting to read. Plimer, who is “Australia’s most eminent geologist,” says “Past climate changes, sea-level changes and catastrophes are written in stone.” And since he’s a geologist he takes the very long view of Earth. One of his conclusions: Planet Earth is “currently in an ice age.”
Plimer will not be as easy to dismiss, perhaps, as Freeman Dyson or Michael Crichton, though I’m sure true believers will try. As he says, “The IPCC process is related to environmental activism, politics and opportunism. It is unrelated to science. Current zeal around human-induced climate change is comparable to the certainty professed by Creationists or religious fundamentalists.”
The title of this post comes from Norman Maclean’s A River Runs Through It, “[The river] runs over rocks from the basement of time.”
I mentioned a scientific paper the other day that is making its way through peer review titled, Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics by Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner.
It seems there may be other laws of physics that have been slighted, see On the First Principles of Heat Transfer: A Note from Alan Siddons on Jennifer Marohasy’s blog. I’ve learned heat transfer laws many times but it’s good for the refresher. Heat transfer is one of the first principles taught in any fire training because knowing how stuff catches fire and how to stop stuff from burning ranks high on the firefighter’s list of “stuff to know.” Water makes a good extinguisher because it can hold lots of heat especially compared to gas.
I’m not saying that the Earth is not heating up. I’m saying we should rigorously examine the cause.
The term “gyppo” (or “gypo”) is not necessarily the same as the Irish Traveller, though the etymology seems to share the same root. The term is thought to come from the term “gypsy,” from the days when log skidding would be contracted out to itinerant operators with a team of horses.
Syn packsacker (pine country)
See also:
The term “gyppo” (or “gypo”) is not necessarily the same as the Irish Traveller, though the etymology seems to share the same root. The term is thought to come from the term “gypsy,” from the days when log skidding would be contracted out to itinerant operators with a team of horses.
Syn packsacker (pine country)
See also:
Authors Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner argue that within the frame of physics there can be no greenhouse effect.
Abstract: The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that many authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), and Arrhenius (1896), and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist [emphasis added]. Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature it is taken for granted that such mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientific foundation. In this paper the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying physical principles are clarified. By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 degrees Celsius is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.
When you get down to it, this discussion of facts and their applicability is what makes science fun. Science should not be subverted by politics and ideology.
Here’s a draft of their paper, Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics:
If you visited recently tried to look at a graphic and it wasn’t there, my apologies. I pressed the wrong button a few days back and have been working at getting everything on line.
Any time there is a discussion about forests, someone brings up the possibility of substituting hemp for paper and for petroleum products. I read on one discussion forum,
“[Industrial hemp] can be harvested every four months while traditional varieties of trees are allowed to grow to maturity, preserving forest ecosystems.”
Help me out here. In what way is a monoculture that needs fertilizers and pesticides better than a tree plantation? Plantations have no/low fertilizer need and no/low pesticide use. No agricultural crop can claim to be as environmentally friendly as a plantation of trees. Even though plantations may be less complex than ‘wild’ stands, tree plantations contain more biodiversity than any agricultural crop.
[Hemp] does best on loose, well-drained loam soils with high fertility and abundant organic matter. Plants require plentiful moisture throughout the growing season … [and] substantial amounts of available nutrients to produce high yields … numerous fertilization studies [etc.] conclude that hemp requires liberal fertilization for high fiber yields. Source: US Dept of Agriculture report, Industrial Hemp in the United States: Status and Market Potential
And every four months is so optimistic as to border on ludicrous. Try a four-year rotation to prevent soil depletion:
A three-year, but preferably a four-year rotation, such as cereals, clover for green manure, corn, hemp and then back to cereals is recommended to help maintain soil fertility.” Source: Government of Canada; Agriculture Canada: Report on Hemp, Bi-Weekly Bulletin, December 16, 1994 Vol. 7 No. 23, by Gordon Reichert.
[Hemp] extracts more nutrients per hectare than grain crops, removing about two to three times as much nitrogen, three to six times as much phosphorus, and ten to twenty-two times as much potassium per hectare, owing to fast biomass production.
Lastly, since land will be needed in either case, wouldn’t trees be the more environmentally agreeable choice?
Nullius in Verba 