Ian 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 Encyclopedia of Geology.
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 have 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, folks, 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 efforts to affect climate 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.
Just remember that your government just tried to impose a whopping carbon tax on you on the basis of the BOGUS 'human-caused' climate-change scenario.
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.
But, hey, go give the world a hug and have a nice day.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This article in the WSJ's editorial page, dated Feb 22, highlights something I have discussed. There is a mismatch between democracies and dictatorships/terrorists that often gives the edge to the latter. Why? Unilateral behaviour.
Putin is in charge and as a dictator he can make unilateral decisions whereas in the west multi nationalism always leaves open the question of achieving and maintaining unity.
While we are busy building football arenas dictators are engaged in weaponizing their countries.
Putin lacks breadth of vision. Perhaps the singularity of his perspective has been so shaped by his years in the KGB he cannot change his perception. Thus, reality escapes him. The same could be true for those who work in the CIA. Perhaps too many only see enemies bent on doing harm.
In time, most dictators fail once those who seek freedom get their act together but all too often we initially choose the path of Chamberlain and/or drag our feet to preparation.
I believe there is some truth to what Putin had to say yesterday. America has been actively working at shaping the world to it's liking. Why not? GW was right, in my opinion, when he stated man inherently wants to be free.
The problem is, in order for man to be free, America chose to engage those who were positioned against freedom in wars which we could not bring ourselves to win and/or perhaps were unwinnable and this caused great tragedies, dislocation and a multitude of refugees and physical destruction.
Another mis-match favoring American "evil doers" is they work 24/7 at their goal of achieving power, control etc, whereas, those opposed resort to the ballot box which comes and goes in cycles.
Finally, I believe the current picture began with Carter, progressed with Clinton and became locked in place by Obama . All three signal America was/is unwilling to to pay the price of victory and instead has spent untold sums of money and blood pursuing defeat. I also believe Kissinger's era as Secretary of State made acceptance of defeat acceptable. I am not questioning his brilliance or the mandate he was given. I believe, however, his Germanic background did not square with the American spirit and culture.
To be German meant you had a history of accepting the imposition of defeat. Until recently, American's have never embraced the concept of defeat. "Fifty Four Forty or Fight." "We shall return." "I have just begun to fight," "Give me liberty or give me death," and "Nuts" are all preferable American retorts to the siren song of "are you willing/prepared to surrender."
And now we come to pathetic Biden. He moves our forces around like pieces on a chess board all the while, pre-announcing he has no intention of capturing the king.
+++
Why Putin Is Outfoxing the West
Russia’s president is willing to take risks his opponents would never consider.
By Walter Russell Mead
As Western leaders struggle to respond to Vladimir Putin’s unexpectedly dramatic challenge to the post-Cold War order in Europe, the record so far is mixed. The West has assembled something approaching a united stance on the limits of the concessions it is prepared to make and on the nature of the sanctions it is willing to impose should Mr. Putin choose war. Neither hyperactive grandstanding in Paris nor phlegmatic passivity from Berlin has prevented the emergence of a common Western position. This is an accomplishment for which the Biden administration deserves credit.
Yet this is a defensive accomplishment, not a decisive one. As Mr. Putin demonstrated in his speech Monday, the Russian president is still in the driver’s seat, and it is his decisions, not ours, that will shape the next stage of the confrontation. Russia, a power that Western leaders mocked and derided for decades (“a gas station masquerading as a country,” as Sen. John McCain once put it), has seized the diplomatic and military initiative in Europe, and the West is, so far, powerless to do anything about it. We wring our hands, offer Mr. Putin off-ramps, and hope that our carefully hedged descriptions of the sanctions we are prepared to impose will change his mind.
At best, we’ve improvised a quick and dirty response to a strategic surprise, but we are very far from having a serious Russia policy and it is all too likely at this point that Mr. Putin will continue to outmaneuver his Western rivals and produce new surprises from his magician’s hat.
The West has two problems in countering Mr. Putin. The first is a problem of will. The West does not want a confrontation with Russia and in any crisis the goal remains to calm things down. That basic approach not only makes appeasement an attractive option whenever difficulties appear; it prevents us from thinking proactively. When Russia stops bothering us, we stop thinking about Russia.
The second is a problem of imagination. Western leaders still do not understand Mr. Putin. Most of them see that he is not just another colorless timeserver who thinks that appointing a record number of female economists to the board of his central bank constitutes a historic accomplishment. They are beginning to see that he is in quest of bigger game and that he means what he says about reassembling the Soviet Union and reviving Russian power. But they have not yet really fathomed the gulf between Mr. Putin’s world and their own—and until they do, he will continue to confound their expectations and disrupt their agendas.
Mr. Putin is, first and foremost, a gambler who is accustomed to taking large risks against long odds with a cool head. He is not infallible by any means, but he has years of experience in taking calculated risks, defying the odds, and imposing his will on stronger opponents. Like Napoleon Bonaparte, he can surprise and outmaneuver his opponents because he is willing to assume risks they would never consider, and so to attack in times and ways they can neither imagine nor plan for.
Beyond that, Mr. Putin is a Soviet nostalgist. He is the product of a system in which power produced truth and truth reinforced power. Soviet power rested on lies that state power imposed on society as unquestionable truths. If Comrade Stalin said that the sun was green and the sky was pink, his ability to impose such outrageous falsities on a captive society only demonstrated and reinforced the extent of his power. Exposing Mr. Putin as, by our standards, a liar does not weaken him at home or, in his view, in Ukraine.
In the same way, accusing Mr. Putin, even accurately, of planning or committing atrocities may weaken him among human-rights activists in the West, but it may strengthen him at home and in Ukraine. Stalin’s well-earned reputation for utter ruthlessness did not undercut his power. Letting the world know that Mr. Putin has a kill list for Ukraine is more likely, Mr. Putin may believe, to reduce resistance to his rule in Ukraine than to boost it.
Mr. Putin is an immensely skilled ruler, the most formidable Russian figure since Stalin, but he has his problems, too. Russian power remains limited by material and demographic constraints—and the rise of China is a geopolitical factor that no ruler in the Kremlin can permanently afford to ignore. If Western leaders can overcome their post-historical parochialism and develop coherent strategies for the actual world as opposed to the world of their dreams, effectively countering Vladimir Putin is an eminently achievable goal, though in no way a simple or a trivial one.
+++++++++++++++++++
Truer words were never posted.
| ||||
| ||||
|
No comments:
Post a Comment