The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Carbon dioxide, public enemy No1? > Comments

Carbon dioxide, public enemy No1? : Comments

By Pierre Jutras, published 11/2/2010

The carbon dioxide paradox; or how the greatest hero of life’s history unjustifiably came to be known as public enemy No1.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
It is disappointing to see articles like this. The main point of his article, which is summed up in the last sentence is perfectly valid. But why, oh why undermine entire thing with claims that are outright false (glaciers aren't retreating), dubious (the ice caps won't retreat), or irrelevant (biofuels).

How on earth can someone with such scant regard for the facts end up as a Professor of Geology? Maybe he is like Plimer and is near retirement, and has given up on his academic career to go on some quasi religious crusade about AGW.
Posted by rstuart, Thursday, 11 February 2010 9:25:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Who is this Geologist who presumes to know so much about the accumulation of CarbonDioxide?

He is an apparently competent geologist who specialises in the investigation of oil and coal deposits in a number of locations around the world.

http://tiny.cc/lMDfq



<<<< Dr. Jutras has been doing research on the tectonostratigraphy of the Chaleur Bay area,the north-westernmost sector of the upper Paleozoic Maritimes Basin. His research has led to the identification of several previously unrecorded tectonic and sedimentary events
in that area. His perhaps most important contribution was the identification, within Carboniferous sediments, of a rare type of groundwater calcrete that had previously only been recognized within Quaternary deposits of Central Australia. These calcretes
seem to be genetically associated with the periphery of evaporitic basins, which are important targets for both the mining and petroleum industries.

His present work includes:

• The evolution of the Windsor Sea margins
during the Viséan (early Carboniferous).
• Sedimentology, tectonostratigraphy and
pan-Atlantic Canada correlation of conti-
nental units at the Viséan-Namurian
(early-mid-Carboniferous) boundary.
• Distribution, stratigraphic position and
petrology of thick and massive ground-
water calcretes within the Maritimes
Basin.
• Tectonic evolution of the Maritimes
Basin during the Late Devonian and
the Mississippian.
• Early Carboniferous mafic dykes and
associated peperites in southern Gaspésie.
• The petrology of siderite bands above
Pennsylvanian coal seams in Nova Scotia. >>>>

I applaud OLO for finally producing an article sceptical of climate change that has been written by someone other than journalists or British Lords. A shame however, when this sceptic turns out to be a geologist for the fossil fuel industry who claims to know more about climate than climatologists. Is this the best science that is available from the business-as-usual crowd?
Posted by Severin, Thursday, 11 February 2010 9:31:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Err, rstuart and severin. Both of your comments are light on facts and long on ad hominem. Can you please cite specific instances, with current, non-debunked references, that demonstrate that Pierre Jutras has made incorrect statements.

Good on OLO for allowing another side to the discussion. In fact, it would be interesting indeed to hear the comments of Andrew Glikson.
Posted by Herbert Stencil, Thursday, 11 February 2010 10:41:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Errrr, Herbert

I have not cast any personal aspersions to Pierre Jutras, simply pointed out the FACT that he is a geologist who specialises in locating deposits of fossil fuels.

As for his belief that increasing levels of carbon dioxide are harmless, that is merely his opinion it is not based on the fact of ocean acidification:

http://ioc3.unesco.org/oanet/index.html

<<<< The ocean absorbs approximately one-fourth of the CO2 added to the atmosphere from human activities each year, greatly reducing the impact of this greenhouse gas on climate. When CO2 dissolves in seawater, carbonic acid is formed. This phenomenon, called ocean acidification, is decreasing the ability of many marine organisms to build their shells and skeletal structure. Field studies suggest that impacts of acidification on some major marine calcifiers may already be detectable, and naturally high-CO2 marine environments exhibit major shifts in marine ecosystems following trends expected from laboratory experiments. Yet the full impact of ocean acidification and how these impacts may propagate through marine ecosystems and affect fisheries remains largely unknown. >>>>

Nor is his blithe dismissal of arctic and antarctic melting as "melting glacier fronts are in fact not alarming at all, as glacier fronts are always experiencing melting" adequate explanation - again conjecture on his part.

Nasa observations find:

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/20100108_Is_Antarctica_Melting.html

<<<< Gravity data collected from space using NASA's Grace satellite show that Antarctica has been losing more than a hundred cubic kilometers ... of ice each year since 2002. The latest data reveal that Antarctica is losing ice at an accelerating rate, too. How is it possible for surface melting to decrease, but for the continent to lose mass anyway? The answer boils down to the fact that ice can flow without melting. >>>>

Suggest further reading, Herbert
Posted by Severin, Thursday, 11 February 2010 11:43:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Herbert Stencil: "Can you please cite specific instances"

Sorry Herbert. I didn't realise there would be people reading my comments here that weren't as up to speed on the state of the planet. Just about everybody here who has been involved in the numerous discussions on OLO must to be. God knows, we have been over it enough.

All the stuff I talked can be looked up on Wikipedia. I suggest you take the trouble to look it up there yourself before asking for references.

Wikipedia is not a reference source itself of course, but most articles list of them at the bottom and give a pretty good overview of the current state of play as well. So if you want to read "specific, current, non-debunked references" go to the bottom of the pages I give below. I am assuming by "debunked" you scientifically debunked, as in there haven't been a host of peer reviewed papers published claiming the contrary.

Glacial retreat: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850 Clearly, the glaciers are retreating.

Ice caps: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_ice_packs The issue here is the Arctic ice cap has been shrinking by about 7.7% per decade, although some say it may have accelerated from 2007. In the face of the fact that the Arctic ice cap *is* shrinking, the claim by Jutras that the ice caps won't shrink seems odd.

Biofuels: I questioned its relevance. Obviously their uptake wasn't triggered by AGW, as it happened during the highest price spike in history in the thing the replace - petroleum.

It is good idea to google any claims you see on OLO, whether they be in articles or the comments. What Jutras has done here is not at all uncommon. For example, I heard Monckton on the radio the other day. To my utter surprise what he said made sense. This was in stark contrast to the near hysterical article he published on OLO. People say the oddest things on OLO. Maybe they think the word "opinion" in its name grants them a poetic licence.
Posted by rstuart, Thursday, 11 February 2010 11:45:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Come on rstuart, you can't quote wikipedia, & then complain about others giving unsubstantiated opinions. Deffinately not now that we have learned of the rorts that have been going on there.
Posted by Hasbeen, Thursday, 11 February 2010 12:14:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy