Poorly is the right word. A lot of it wouldn't be providing much of a rating today. I still get to see a lot of this stuff weekly and its cheap imported rubbish stuffed into ceilings.
Maybe the pink batt scheme, as poorly implemented as it was, was designed to do just that, insulate us against the increasing severe heatwaves.
Where Does the Carbon Dioxide Really Come From?
Professor Ian Plimer could not have said it better!
(my bolds)In late 2011, Professor Ian Plimer—a geology professor and expert mineralogist with no background in climate science—released his latest book: How to get expelled from school: a guide to climate change for pupils, parents and punters.
In response to Professor Ian Plimer's 101 questions on climate change science, the department provides the document: Accurate Answers. The answers and comments provided are intended to give clear and accurate responses to Professor Plimer's questions. The answers are based on up-to-date peer-reviewed science and have been reviewed by a number of Australian climate scientists.
And Tim Flannery's qualifications in climate science are????Every once in a while, a university - even one of the "World's Best", so they claim - gets it wrong and awards someone a professorship, who, after closer scrutiny and with the benefit of hindsight, maybe should have failed a few steps on the way.
Every once in a while, a lecturer with some grounding in one subject - say, mineralogy - considers her/himself sufficiently competent in another field that - to the dabbling lay person - appears closely enough related. Let's face it, most lay persons will view all subjects that have an "-ology" in their name as near enough identical. Likewise, subjects with "-matics", etc.
Prof emeritus Plimer seems to fall into the "-ology" category: Geology, Mineralogy, Meteorology, Climatology, Proctology, Biology ... one size Prof fits all.
Except, it doesn't. Read here: http://www.climatechange.gov.au/accurate-answers-professor-ian-plimer
(my bolds)
Now THAT would be something to quote from and put on our Budgie Smuggler's Must Read list.
If you really don't know, a good starting point to answer your question would be here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_FlanneryAnd Tim Flannery's qualifications in climate science are????
Comment: Volcanic versus anthropogenic carbon dioxide: The missing science
“Volcanoes add far more carbon dioxide to the oceans and atmosphere than humans.” So says geologist Ian Plimer of the University of Adelaide in his 2009 best seller “Heaven and Earth: Global Warming ”” the Missing Science.” With this assertion, Plimer brings volcanic carbon dioxide degassing front and center in the climate change debate, reviving and reinforcing this wildly mistaken notion.
Although discussions of volcanic carbon dioxide emissions make up less than 5 percent of “Heaven and Earth’s” text, the alleged predominance of volcanic over human carbon dioxide emissions is one of its most publicized takeaway messages. And one that will reverberate in the media and blogosphere ”” no matter how vociferously professionals who investigate volcanic carbon dioxide emissions bristle and huff about how appallingly at odds Plimer’s claim is with our research findings.
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.
Several studies containing these estimates are among its 2,311 citations, but the estimates themselves are never divulged. Moreover, the book and other purveyors of this myth never explain, nor cite sources that explain, how it is known that volcanoes wholly outdo humans in adding carbon dioxide to the oceans and atmosphere.
Published estimates based on research findings of the past 30 years for present-day global emission rates of carbon dioxide from subaerial and submarine volcanoes range from about 150 million to 270 million metric tons of carbon dioxide per year, with an average of about 200 million metric tons,
These global volcanic estimates are utterly dwarfed by carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel burning, cement production, gas flaring and land use changes; these emissions accounted for some 36,300 million metric tons of carbon dioxide in 2008, according to an international study published in the December 2009 issue of Nature Geoscience. Even if you take the highest estimate of volcanic carbon dioxide emissions, at 270 million metric tons per year, human-emitted carbon dioxide levels are more than 130 times higher than volcanic emissions.
Looks like noco goes on 'Ignore' on this subject.
Not all carbon is equal
Carbon is released into the atmosphere from a variety of sources including respiration of plants and microbes, bushfires, volcanoes, and burning fossil fuels. Some of these mechanisms have a distinct carbon isotopic signature.
There are three types of carbon isotopes ”” molecules of carbon with different atomic weights: carbon-12 (12C), carbon-13 (13C) and carbon-14 (14C).
Carbon-12 is the most common form found in nature. Carbon-13 is about 1 per cent of the total. Carbon-14, which is produced in the upper atmosphere, accounts for an even much smaller amount.
Plants take up all forms of carbon in the process of photosynthesis, but they prefer the lighter carbon-12, leaving carbon-13 behind in the atmosphere.
"That enriches carbon-13 in the atmosphere compared to carbon-13 in the biosphere, which is why carbon-13 is more abundant in the atmosphere," says Fraser.
But measurements of the composition of CO2 show a decline in the ratio of carbon-13 to carbon-12 in the atmosphere of about 3 per cent per year, says Fraser.
"The decline in carbon-13 is consistent with the carbon-13 composition of fossil fuels that are released to the atmosphere when they're burnt," says Fraser.
So how do we know that rising CO2 levels are caused by burning fossil fuels and not phenomena such as bushfires?
Fossil fuels ”” coal, oil and gas ”” are made out of ancient plants and microorganisms ”” so they are also depleted in carbon-13. The key difference is that, unlike living plant material, fossil fuels contain no carbon-14.
"Carbon-14 decays in the atmosphere at a known half life [of around 5,700] years, therefore fossil fuels, which are millions of years old, contain no carbon-14," explains Fraser.
Inconvenient truth Noco. They are desperate to discredit Plimer, but his considerable scientific CV withstands scrutiny. They think 20 year old activists at IPCC (remember them) know better.Where Does the Carbon Dioxide Really Come From?
Professor Ian Plimer could not have said it better!
If you've read his book you will agree, this is a good summary.
PLIMER: "Okay, here's the bombshell. The volcanic eruption in Iceland . Since its first spewing of volcanic ash 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.......
Inconvenient truth Noco. They are desperate to discredit Plimer, but his considerable scientific CV withstands scrutiny. They think 20 year old activists at IPCC (remember them) know better.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-01-30/seven-reasons-cheap-oil-can-t-stop-renewables-nowSeven Reasons Cheap Oil Can't Stop Renewables Now
Oil is cheap. So is gas. Neither matters
Oil prices have fallen by more than half since July. Just five years ago, such a plunge in fossil fuels would have put the renewable-energy industry on bankruptcy watch. Today: Meh.
Joe, both Noco and myself (and Prof Plimer) have been vilified in this post, our offence being to hold a different point of view.Are you just as cognitively impaired as Noco Logique? Perhaps more so because you have had the benefit of checking the information that shows how dishonest Professor Plimer is with his statements.
In what universe do people accept the assertion of one scientists, with no supportive evidence, against every other scientist in the same field who with reams of research identify the realities of the situation ? Obviously this one..
Simple denial.
Joe, both Noco and myself (and Prof Plimer) have been vilified in this post, our offence being to hold a different point of view.
In your opinion as Mod, does this constitute abusive posting.
I think that basilio has stepped over the line here and should focus on attacking his opponents arguments, rather than insulting them personally.
I trust this was just an aberration, and that there will not be any further posting of this kind, either in this thread or in any others.
I do know. The point of my comment is that his educational background, the BA in English and the doctorate in Palaeontology for his work on the evolution of kangaroos, apart from the Earth Science degree, would appear to make him no more especially qualified to be an expert on climate change than many other scientists.If you really don't know,
+1Civility costs nothing.
You might like to point out Tim Flannery's specific qualifications in meteorology or climate science (as distinct from positions related to those sciences.)Prof Pilmer seems well qualified in mineralogy, but not meteorology or climate science, so as others have pointed out his opinions on climate change only seem of value to those who want to agree with him because it makes them feel more comfortable, while ignoring the contrary opinions of those more qualified.
I think that is called "confirmation bias".
I seem to remember you pleading for reduction in abusive posts, basilio.Are you just as cognitively impaired as Noco Logique?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?