'Green Murder' Professor Ian Plimer

[Charles Pegge]

97% of CO₂ emissions come from geological processes. Whereof Net Zero?

IPA Encounters: Professor Ian Plimer and John Roskam on Destructive Green Environmentalism

Institute of Public Affairs

3 dec 2021

[Theo Gottwald]

Even 97% is a number that is overestimating the influence of people.
There are more then 19.000 Volcanoes below the Ocean. A few of these would easily spit more CO2 out then all people together whatever they do.

Besides that "Earth Bacteria" has the largest Co2 Emission far and wide.
They are everywhere in Nature, everywhere where is natural earth.

[José Roca]

More lies.

Claim that volcano emits more greenhouse gas than humans is false.

https://www.aap.com.au/factcheck/claim-that-volcano-emits-more-greenhouse-gas-than-humans-is-false/

[José Roca]

Viral tweet spreads misinformation about volcanoes and climate change

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/climate-change-volcanoes-viral-tweet-spreads-misinformation/

[José Roca]

I can't wait for you to publish a post saying that the Earth is flat.

[José Roca]

The Australian publishes "deeply ill-informed" opinion on climate by Ian Plimer

Analysis of "Repeat after me: carbon dioxide is good for us"
Published in The Australian, by Ian Plimer on 7 Aug. 2018

Eight scientists analyzed the article and estimate its overall scientific credibility to be 'very low'.
 
A majority of reviewers tagged the article as: Biased, Cherry-picking, Flawed reasoning, Inaccurate, Inappropriate sources, Misleading.

SUMMARY
This op-ed published by The Australian, written by Ian Plimer, makes a large number of claims that run counter to science and observations or are the expression of fallacious reasoning. The title of the op-ed—"Repeat after me: carbon dioxide is good for us"—reflects how it rejects evidence of harmful consequences of human-caused climate change and only cherry-picks a few possible benefits.

Scientists who reviewed the story found that it distorted or ignored published research on many topics. Plimer also does not support his extraordinary claims with evidence or research.

More: https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/op-ed-in-the-australian-gets-nearly-every-fact-wrong-ian-plimer/

[José Roca]

Accurate Answers to Professor Plimer's 101 Climate Change Science Questions

This document provides answers to the 101 questions on climate change posed by Professor Ian Plimer in his latest book, How to get expelled from school: a guide to climate change for pupils, parents and punters (2011). Many of the questions and answers in Professor Plimer's book are misleading and are based on inaccurate or selective interpretation of the science. The answers and comments provided in this document are intended to provide clear and accurate answers 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

[Theo Gottwald]

More lies.

Claim that volcano emits more greenhouse gas than humans is false.

https://www.aap.com.au/factcheck/claim-that-volcano-emits-more-greenhouse-gas-than-humans-is-false/

As always you like to call to "Fake Scientists" who are paid Organizations by George Soros & Co. to spread this "Human made Climate Change "Bullshit.

In fact that article is pure Propaganda under the hood:

Lack of Quantitative Data: The article does not provide specific quantitative data on the amount of CO2 emitted by Mount Agung during its eruption. It would be more scientifically rigorous to include this data.

Comparative Analysis: The article does not provide a comparative analysis of CO2 emissions from different sources. It would be more credible if it included a comparison of CO2 emissions from various volcanoes, human activities, and other natural sources.

Citation of Primary Sources: The article cites several experts and organizations, but it does not directly link to the primary sources of these statements. Direct citations would increase the credibility of the information.

Lack of Counterarguments: The article does not present any counterarguments or alternative viewpoints. Including these would make the argument more balanced and robust.

Generalization of Human Activities: The article broadly states that human activities emit more CO2 than volcanoes, but it does not break down these activities. A more detailed analysis of different human activities and their respective CO2 emissions would be more informative.

Lack of Context: The article does not provide context on the overall impact of CO2 emissions on climate change. It would be more comprehensive to discuss the role of CO2 in global warming and the relative impact of different CO2 sources.

Temporal Scope: The article does not clarify whether it is comparing current human CO2 emissions to current volcanic emissions, or if it is considering historical emissions as well. This could potentially lead to confusion.

Unclear Definitions: The article does not clearly define what it means by "greenhouse gas". While it seems to focus on CO2, greenhouse gases also include other gases like methane and nitrous oxide.

Lack of Peer Review: The article does not mention if the statements made by the experts have been peer-reviewed. Peer review is a crucial part of scientific research and adds credibility to the findings.

Absence of Methodology: The article does not explain the methodology used by the experts to arrive at their conclusions. Providing this information would make the article more transparent and reliable.

Why do you like to fall for such cheap articles, if a single look out of an Airplane flying over a Volcano could possibly cure that nonsense in this articles?

[José Roca]

Where are in your posts all these requirements that you demand?

Do not abuse of ChatGPT.

[Theo Gottwald]

Haha, why is is it abuse if i ask it for the truth.
Did you know that meanwhile 50% of the size of the new Llama 2 AI-Model from "Meta" is only for
"SAFETY"?
Which means it will never tell you something that is politically incorrect.

Yet they found doing so make AI more thumb.

Its official: ChatGPT getting worse because of "Safety" (Censorship).