By Jo Nova
The latest plan to get better weather in a hundred years, is to cut down trees and dump them in the ocean.
The great northern boreal forest has expanded by 12% since 1984. Which means it has locked up all this extra carbon in it. Instead of waiting for it to catch fire and burn, the thinking is that we could cut it down now, and throw the logs in a river that leads to the Arctic ocean where they will sink (eventually, maybe) and take carbon to the sea floor.
New Scientist thought this was a good idea. Future anthropologists may file modern eco-science with arsenic cures, and radium toothpaste.
In order to save the environment, we need to cut down 180,000 square kilometers of forest and toss it into the river (every year).
How many trees do we have to kill to stop a cyclone in 2100AD?
…
These researchers and journalists are the kind of people who’ll check everything — except the core underlying assumptions that their fantasy is based on:
How many solar powered chain-saws are there in the world? Is that zero?
There is a very good reason why I cancelled my subscription to New Scientist years ago.
I also cancelled Scientific American.
Both became fully dumbed-down and woke and their reduced subscriptions reflect that.
570
Me too.
231
And the treasured National Geographic, once Climate Change became its clarion call, the end of the world. So much for ending the last ice ages only 10,000 years ago. Slight warming is now the greatest threat to life on earth since life on earth.
340
To save the planet I suggest we chuck around 500 dumbass scientists into the Arctic Ocean every year. The Universities of the world are producing more than 500 “ science experts “ per annum so the practice will also provide employment for those who’re really wanting to clean up pollution!
370
New Scientist was good value in the 1970s. A cheap weekly aimed at professional scientists in the UK, it was eagerly perused by students in Australia and elsewhere. Content was news of developments in science and industry, odd thought-provoking articles and a bit of humour, all in B&W.
Decline came with serial changes of ownership ending up with the Daily Mail group; appealing to a wider and less educated readership with coloured pictures and every woke topic imaginable.
240
New Scientist in the 1960s was edited by the excellent Nigel Calder. He was always a skeptic, and indeed even went on years later to write a book called The Chilling Stars in 2003 with Henrik Svensmark. He was the reason New Scientist was once scientific and not just a Blob propaganda rag which is what it had become by the 1990s.
Vale Nigel Calder!
https://calderup.wordpress.com/
210
A long time ago, around the time of the opening of the Information Superhypeway, “New Scientist” was already ridiculed as “Nude Socialist”.
I allowed my subscription to lapse even before that as there was diminishing value and too much pulp.
120
Is this a preview of the April issue?
Timber submerged in water STILL “decays / is consumed , producing CO2.
Next bit of “political science”?
50
New Scientist and Scientific American are now both rags (New Scientist was dead to me after the end of the Grimbledon Downs cartoon strip), but the slightly greater worry is that the article is a repeat of a “thought experiment” published in Nature.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s44168-025-00327-1
Interestingly, but probably unsurprisingly, the authors commend the annual felling of 180,000 km2 of forest without extending their ‘thought experiment’ to see how much it might cost. Or whether it might be even remotely practical.
Grok can assist: high latitude forrest carries about 100,000 trees per km2 and it would likely cost between A$1,000 and $10,000 to fell, snip, and snig the logs to a local centre.
So, AI ballpark, somewhere between A$18 trillion and $280 trillion.
Annually.
And then the global cost of diverting resources at such scale into wholly unproductive work.
Top Men.
110
It’s bizarre.
We have Herr Starmer’s plan to blot out the sun.
And this plan to cut down the trees.
How are the trees going to grow without adequate sun?
And where are the trees to burn in the Drax power station going to come from?
410
Forget it, Jake.
It’s a DEATH CULT.
120
Cutting down the Brazilian rainforest to be replaced with solar panels featured as a news item within this dystopian feature called “Beyond the Reset”.
https://youtu.be/vWkepoLUZfs
See from 3:17.
170
No doubt some of these “scientists” have PhDs so we need to ask who taught them to be so stupid. Forrest Gump said ” Stupid is as stupid does”. Stupidity is related to the absolute desire to belong to a group no matter how crazy or illogical the reason for the group to exist and climate change sure has brought out the looniest and bat crazy people. Groupthink abounds while the truth lays with the independently minded folk like those that come here. The Blob’s worst dreams are inhabited by those who can think for themselves.
350
They must have been very thoroughly educated to become that stupid.
210
As Einstein said “ there is genius & there is stupidity, the difference being that genius has its limits “.
Stupidity has ( fill in whatever takes your fancy ). ,!!
220
I’ve heard that he also(?) said, “two things are infinite, human stupidity and the universe, and I’m not sure about the universe.”
110
I guess that most of us can grasp – to our horror , the standards required to graduate from our tertiary institutions. Marking exams at the turn of the century told me all I had to know about student literacy. Many are now the educators teaching in our schools.
130
Maybe all (Australian?) university graduates need to have achieved a “passing” grade on the IELTS (not just the foreign students)
50
The target has always been 2100 for restoring perfect weather. That is now down to 74 years. The target for NetZero is 2050. That is now down to 24 years.
For China to achieve NetZero by 2050, they would need to be reducing coal consumption each year by 208Mt. Roughly 5X Australia’s annual consumption every year.
How would China supply Australia with solar panels, batteries, bird mincers, BEVs, flat screen TVs etc without burning coal.
290
China is building two coal power stations per week.
Unlike wind, solar and Big Battery plantations they are not semi-disposable, but properly engineered long-life structures with service lives of at least 50 years. Those built today will still have operational lives of about another quarter century, at least, come 2050.
It’s unlikely they would be stupid enough to blow them up as we do in Australia.
250
China takes out an old coal plant every two weeks. So they are constantly renewing their overall fleet as well as expanding it.
Australia has a handful of 50 year old clapped out machines that we absolutely rely on for essential electricity and will do for the foreseeable future..
Australia could have achieved a dramatic saving in coal consumption by progressively renewing the coal fleet in the past 25 years instead of the organised theft from consumers.
330
No doubt about it these so called scientists are barking mad and are probably advising B O Bowen, Labor the Greens and Teals parties.
You can be sure that China and the NON OECD countries will carry on and invest in BASE-LOAD energy while most of the OECD will destroy their environments and invest in expensive, toxic, unreliable W & S. Then repeat every 15 to 20 years if they’re very lucky.
160
Neville, the prime examples of our scientific advisors are the CSIRO and BoM plus Climate Council, all are woke and follow the AGW climate crisis ideological narrative that humans are causing global warming. Sceptics of this stupid narrative know, it is all nonscientific garbage, but it pays well to articulate it in your reports to the bureaucrats who interpret the data for ignorant politicians like Bowen to guide their policy decisions.
30
The main problem with this idea is that trees have a specific gravity less than half that of water so the trees will float. Timber rafting is a method of transporting felled tree trunks by tying them together to make rafts, which are then drifted or pulled downriver.
220
You know it, most of us here know it, Maori adventurers & colonial loggers knew it, even Canuck lumberjacks knew it, yet today’s blouses in high-heels and puke-stained hair think it’s a smashing idea 💡
Asylum > meet > inmates.
270
ApathyRulesTheWorld
I honestly think this idea has bigger problems than that.
Anyhow, it’s easily solved: just weigh the logs down with spent/unwanted EV battery packs. Should sink them fine, and reduces the chance of the batteries going incendiary.
170
Yes. They’re counting on the logs floating to transport them via the river. But I assume the logs eventually absorb enough water to sink. And I assume they have figured the logs get to the desired destination before taking on enough water to sink.
I don’t know if the term “waterlogged” comes from the loss of logged timber that sank due to becoming waterlogged.
40
Water logged with fresh water. Less dense than salt water. Perhaps osmotic pressure will eventually increase the salt content of the logs once in the Artic.
00
All the better for the next scam endless taxpayer’s money needed
10
A few years ago I started following CSIRO via their ( then ) Twitter feed. Thought I might get some important sciency type information. Boy, did I get a shock! So apart from posting about wombats and endless promotion of rainbow days, they would very often highlight junk science like this. I think I unsubscribed when they posted about a large machine that removed CO2 from the air, because this had the potential to stop climate change, or something. As the awakening of the great climate hoax gets more apparent, I think we are going to see more of these nutty claims.
250
In the last week of December 1986 I was assured by a CSIRO meteorologist that atmospheric CO2 levels had reached “runaway greenhouse levels” in March of that year.
That’s how long CSIRO has been into this idiocy.
170
As per Jo’s article, I should have described it better. It’s a “Direct Air Capture Machine” or DACM, for short. My memory of that episode is that CSIRO actually got some funds and built a small version at one of its facilities. I should probably do a web search or ask AI, but I cant be bothered. Care factor about zilch.
70
Let me see if I have this right because only really smart people could believe anything this stupid.
1. The trees have removed CO2 from the atmosphere in order to grow.
2. When they die the CO2 will be released back into the atmosphere.
3. This is a problem because CO2 is bad.
4. The solution is to kill the trees now.
Somebody get them a Junior Science book on the Carbon Cycle. And read it to them. One syllable at a time.
Oh and let them know that they can stop their personal CO2 emissions if they stop breathing.
240
I expect they think rotting will stop in the frozen artic ocean, stopping point 2.
However the arctic ocean is above 0C. No ocean is frozen. And since the carboniferous period, many lifeforms have evolved to eat wood. Which is why coal is no longer forming.
These lifeforms include bacteria, termites, moulds, wood worms. As we saw with the Exxon Valdez, while countries spend billions cleaning beaches, those beaches which were not cleaned cleaned themselves, almost as quickly.
And in the long summer where the sun never sets, the Artic ocean explodes with wildlife and the ice vanishes. While the while polar bears have to go hungry on dirt for months, it’s a feast for everyone else as a massive food chain establishes, starting with phytoplankton, then krill and grows to baleen whales. All the animals head north too for the great feast.
But a few fake scientists think trees will be preserved forever. What a load of ignorant rot!
210
And I will repeat what should be the most basic ocean facts. The oceans cover 72% of the earth’s surface. If you count water frozen 3.5km high in Antarctica and Greenland , 75%. And below the surface, oceans never freeze as they have no way to release energy. So most of the solar radiation hits the water and the Greenhouse effect doesn’t work as they hardly radiate. Not like the land with 80C hot rock surface which cool by infra red radiation.
Then the mass. The oceans weigh one atmosphere per 10 metres, as divers know. With an average depth of 3.5Km, that’s the weight of 350 atmospheres.
Then the specific heat. Water absorbs 4x as much heat for the same change in temperature, so it is never as hot.
But the heat trapped permanently in the oceans is 350 x4 or 1600 times as much as in the oceans. Any frozen bits float to the surface anyway.
Then expansion, water hardly expands at all with temperature. Hot air expands rapidly and dramatically producing great lift and creates whirlwinds, tornadoes, thunder storms.
By comparison, the oceans can have warm currents on one level and cold on another, like the two way river Bosphorous between the Black Sea and the Sea of Marmara. Different salt, different minerals, different temperatures, different directions. Often little mixing.
The Gulf stream is example of an unmixed river of heat in the Atlantic. 2,000km long, 100km wide and 1km deep, 9km/hr. A massive river of Caribbean hot water all the way to Norway along the Great Circle past Greenland driven by Coriolus forces from rotation. Which demonstrates in plain sight that heat travels vast distances in the oceans. And CO2 for that matter.
What do these Climate Scientists believe? Apparently that the air is our weather, thus Global Warming. It gets hot during the day and cools down at night and so forms our Climates. That’s wrong.
All our weather, rain, storms, climates comes directly from the vast oceans. And very mobile hot air including evaporated water has a comparable lifting force to hydrogen, powering massive wind storms kinetically. We see this with hot air balloons.
So do ‘Climate Scientists’ model? The air. What is the cause of all weather? The sun and oceans.
And these are the people who think wood doesn’t rot in the frozen Arctic ocean.
And that small variations in CO2 controls our weather, not the sun and the oceans?
What are they teaching in school? What planet are they on?
300
They spent billions on that clean up and yet nature would have done the job without the destruction and huge expense of pressure washing and bagging and burying oily sand.
The only thing that really needed ti be done was to clean up contaminated birds.
Oil is naturally in the environment from seeps and plenty of organisms have evolved to eat oil.
As usual it comes down to the Green movement and Left not understanding the real science of the situation. They think crude oil is not biodegradable.
250
Carbon compounds as in trees are the essence of biochemistry and all biology, carbon, hydrogen compounds and the only store of vast amounts of solar power.
But in the world of non science people, carbon means pollution. Like CO2. Like diamonds, like food, like humans, like Green chlorophyll, breathing, all based on carbon.
And we are paying endless carbon taxes. Now someone has decided to chop down all the trees and throw them in the ocean. Genius.
150
The people who responded to the Exxon Valdez oil spill should have studied what happened after the Torrey Canyon oil tanker hit rocks off the coast of Cornwall 22 years earlier. That would have saved a lot of wasted effort.
20
“As we saw with the Exxon Valdez, while countries spend billions cleaning beaches, those beaches which were not cleaned, cleaned themselves, almost as quickly.”
It simply would not do to be seen standing around idly while oil coats the poor sea birds and the pristine shorelines, oh no, not at all, we must get busy spraying dispersants so it looks on the news channel that everything is in hand, yes that’s the ticket, be seen to be busy ‘doing stuff’, even if it causes more damage to the environment that doing zilch.
30
What about land rites for gay whales, these “scientists” are barking mad. Collect them and transport them to the moon.
130
I don’t believe these are scientists. Science is not what it was before Liberal Arts decided that science was the enemy and mathematics was racist and logic was exclusionary and that history was irrelevant and facts simply a nuisance in a narrative. Give me an old fashioned meteorologist as a real, practical, science based adviser, not someone who think science started with Karl Popper and has Al Gore as a hero.
180
Have climate scientists actually heard of Karl Popper? When have those carrying out “attribution studies” ever shown any concern for attempting to falsify their theories?
00
No, but they don’t respect Rational science. And Karl Popper gave the inverted logic for the idea that no science was proven. It has swept through the universities and education as a way to cancel all proven science and give life to non science like Climate Science, The Science. And self appointed Climate Scientists who imply that their opinions are as good as anyone else’s proven science. Who needs degreed meteorologists when a self appointed jounalist’s view is as good science. This author has no science qualifications at all. Zero.
20
Mmmmm my initial reaction to the article was concern for the mental health of the proposers.
90
That’s too expensive, send them to Antarctica or Greenland where they will never have to experience any real `global warming’.
00
Given Jo’s post on 1st February on fake science papers from China and Iran being published, I can only assume that the editors aren’t paying attention.
Having said that, Alec Luhn is a long-time environmental journalist who went hiking, on his own, on a Norwegian glacier last year, and was injured. It took four days to find him. So, he’s not the sharpest tool in the kit.
130
He is, however, a tool.
90
I wonder how Alec pronounces his last name? It might be a descriptor.
10
A bit sad, that they found him I mean.
10
Yes. Quite effective on quantity, not so good on quality. Same pattern as Aboriginal welfare, NDIS, etc.
140
These Green proposals have now gone far beyond the limits of sanity or rational thought. We need them like a hole in the head.
150
A quick search shows the boreal forest to have a lot of straight, tall trees. Why not simply log it for profit?
91
… or why not let them continue to grow?
Just like carbonphobics seem to think the atmosphere would be static without evil manmade carbon dioxide emissions, they also seem to think that trees are static and just stop sinking carbon as they age.
As long as a tree is healthy, it will grow. If these idiots want to do something useful, they could aggressively cull dead and dying trees while leaving the healthy ones alone. If they want to sink those dead/dying trees in the Arctic so they don’t rot, have at it (as long as they do it on their own dime).
80
A tree is just wood. Cut ‘n mill it – it becomes timber, a thing of beauty you make furniture and houses outa.
40
Profit? How DARE you!
50
The only ones allowed profit are the ones running the scam
50
This has to be the most ridiculous idea ever. What are these “scientists” drinking?
Perhaps they are the ones who have graduated by never having to go to lectures or laboratories to obtain a BSc?
As a primary school teacher said to my grandson re his grandad being a geologist “Ya can’t make money out of rocks” and cut his time short when he had taken a few mineral specimens to school for a show and tell morning.
The bright side of all this is when I collected him from school eight of his mates crowded around wanting more information and stories of my rock collecting adventures!
210
How does that teacher think Australia makes money?
70
Perhaps that ‘teacher’ isn’t Australian.
50
May be clues in the vernacular – ‘primary school’, ‘mates’.
10
It’s not what they are drinking, it’s what they are smoking.
10
Its the same old scam rip the poor taxpayer off
10
Again, the annual world co2 emissions have increased by about 16.7 billion tons since Dr Hansens BS speech in Washington DC, so what’s their problem?
Again, that annual co2 emissions increase is about the same as the annual co2 emissions increase from China and the rest of the so called developing NON OECD countries.
Again what’s their problem when the OECD countries annual co2 emissions today are now less than their annual co2 emissions in 1988?
So why aren’t they ripping into China and other NON OECD countries etc for all of the extra annual co2 emissions over the last 38 years?
See our Aussies’ co2 emissions at the bottom and actually ZERO because the entire SH is a co2 NET SINK. See their CSIRO data I’ve linked to for years.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co2-emissions-per-country?country=OWID_WRL~OECD+%28GCP%29~Non-OECD+%28GCP%29~AUS
50
This year is going fast already but I hadn’t realised we had reached April the 1st so quickly?!
120
The most effective carbon sequestration would be to dump every copy of New Scientist in the Arctic Ocean. That would lock up ‘deadly’ carbon as well as consign bumpf science to the cold, dark deep.
110
These scientists must wield incredible power.
But actually, no scientist is planning to do this.
What do you think Strop?
29
I don’t think it will be done. But I wouldn’t be so sure that no scientist is planning it. There’s a lot of money in planning stuff.
First you come up with the idea and get paid to work out how much CO2 you extract by growing new trees and how much you avoid by not letting them burn in a wild fire. This is to convince funders looking further into it is worthwhile.
Then you get paid to do a study on the effects on the vegetation diversity of doing it.
Then you get paid to do a survey of the numbers of blue-eyed yellow-arsed five-legged bucket throated tree frogs in the world to establish they’re endangered. Then you get paid to determine whether any exist in these forests and whether it would be detrimental to their existence.
Then you get paid to study the effects on water courses that carry large loads of logs.
Then you get paid to study areas that already have had wood dumped and how they’re progessing.
Then you get paid to study a crash helmet design for sea lions.
Then you get paid to study the mating habits of beavers that see potential dam material freely floating down the river in case it triggers some natural reproductive urge suppression due to trauma of wasted dam opportunity.
The list of earning possibilities for scientists seems almost endless, and my keyboard is running out of ink so I’ll stop at this short but very incomplete list. So the possibility that some scientists somewhere are planning this, I wouldn’t dismiss that. Even if I dismiss the actual project occurring.
A magazine with scientist in the title has seen fit to put it out there. So ya never know.
Thanks for asking.
But I was just here for the free biscuits, which I ended up having to buy. And the discussion on log buoyancy at #7. The latter being affected by the sex of the ants that have infested it. If the logs sink then infestation was girl ant. But if it floats then it must be ….
160
She’s a witch!!!
60
Your odd rhetoric aside. Here is the original publication that might help. Maybe suggest to jo to put it up the top.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s44168-025-00327-1
And no. Scientists don’t have the money to plan it.
08
Lighten up. For some reason you “oddly” addressed me with a direct question. So I thought I’d have a bit of cynical fun with it.
But on reading the conclusion to the study you linked, I see that my “odd rhetoric” is perhaps closer to the mark than you thought.
My bolding.
So there you have it. Yes, it’s a “thought experiment”. This supports my thought that it probably won’t get off the ground. But they do say, “we propose”. Which means they (scientists?) are proposing something. And then they say but we need to investigate a whole lot of stuff. Which, like I suggested, is probably the purpose of their “thought experiment”. To see what additional thoughts need experimenting and funding.
I nearly added investigating indigenous land matters but didn’t want to get done for hate speech. But there it is in the report.
If you’re suggesting this report is materially different to Jo’s summary then maybe re-check. It is actually very similar and Jo would likely happily include it. It specifically goes into harvesting, reforestation CO2 capture, and depositing material on the “ocean floor”. Maybe you just read “driftwood” and thought that just means hiding fallen material deep in the ocean before it decays on land or shore and releases CO2?
60
Oddly? You always answer first so I thought I’d honour that.
Not materially different especially as the original article is a thought experiment so there is not much meat in it. Links to the original are always useful.
Basically they are just suggesting that ramping up what is already happening could make a material difference. That’s about it really.
There is no plan or a plan of a plan and the fact that Russia would need to put in a whole lot of effort to make this work is just one of many hurdles it would face even if seriously pushed by someone.
08
Thanks mate. I am honoured.
I’m always happy to talk to you.
You are humorous and it’s no good only talking to those we agree with.
40
I find it interesting the reticence by some to disagree with, “those we agree with”, even when they are writing total nonsense.
10
Humour is not so easy to label – look at the ABC for example, they no longer understand humour although they churn out show after show and worship their so called comedians as if they actually make people laugh – fat chance!
Socialists don’t do humour unless it is involving killing people which they seem to revel in.
20
Not so much socialism (its a broad church) and more to do with virtuous wokes.
‘The tedium of so much contemporary film and television that markets itself as comedy reveals the effect on this genre all too plainly. Less obvious is the destruction it is imposing on freedom of expression, or how what passes as the left today is closing down any criticism through humour of the client groups on whom it relies for support.’ (Tom Switzer / Oz)
10
And again this comes down to warmists having a staticist view of the world, thinking it never changes, even though it has done so in historical times (e.g. Minoan, Egyptian, Roman, Medieval climate optima).
100
Here is a recent paper on the Beaufort Sea and its clear the Holocene is drawing to a close.
https://notrickszone.com/2026/02/16/new-study-a-4c-warmer-beaufort-sea-had-no-sea-ice-11700-8200-years-ago/
32
Might be only a couple of thousand years to go.
30
That is a safe bet, but of course over those 2000 years we should expect a couple of mini ice ages, each lasting around 500 years.
We are only half way through this modern climate optimum, yet sometimes it can be cut short by a combination of factors. The Medieval Warm Period is a good example, volcanic eruptions around the last decades of the 13th century definitely brought on the early LIA.
21
And there will be some droughts on the Millenial scale.
If only we knew when , then there would be no problem. Provision could be made.
And we have no idea of human population.
I would just like to know when is the next drought, and when will be the next 100 year flood.
But so far we have little to go on.
Rick Wills work on temperature looks promising.
Now do moisture.
20
Don’t know when the next drought will hit NZ, but if AI is given the correct data it should reduce the uncertainty factor.
I’m more interested in the atmospherics, I feel in my water that a Modoki El Nino is a distinct possibility in 2026.
Looking back to the Little Ice Age in NZ the winds were predominately south westerlies.
‘A comparison of the composites to climate mode archetypes suggests LIA summer climate and atmospheric circulation over New Zealand was driven by increased frequency of weak El Niño-Modoki in the tropical Pacific and negative Southern Annular Mode.’ (Lorrey et al 2014)
00
This is how El Nino Modoki impacted New Zealand in 1978.
‘ … 1978’s drought certainly ended in April with a bang 😆 , at Spotswood (Canterbury) for April, the rain total was more than 500% above the average with Marlborough, Kaikorua and Canterbury having more than 200% – 300% above. For Canterbury/Otago, the 6 month period from April – October was a very wet period with excesses above the averages.’
00
CO2 stored in the oceans… meh, it has been done before.
50
And the search for intelligent life in the universe continues. 😱🤪🤪😵🥴
60
Fertilizing the ocean with iron sulfate produces massive increase in photosynthesis in many parts of the open ocean
The work done by Russ George he used it to enhance the salmon fishery in parts of the north pacific while removing co2
They are not talking about this wonder why, the money would be made by those not in the club
This would bee much more beneficial than the silly act of sinking logs
31
Godzone is noted globally for erosion , being recent uplift.
We punch above our weight when it comes to iron fertilisation of the ocean.
40
“One has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe things like that: no ordinary man could be such a fool.” or more simply “Some ideas are so absurd only intellectuals could believe in them”
Eric Blair aka
80
ISTR this sort of thing being proposed nearly 30 years ago.
AI search initially tells me that it was around 2000. i.e. around the time that more wagons were added to the gravy train of dubious research.
60
The average wet density of ALL the typical Boreal forest species is less than 1000kg/m3, often much less …. so how are we going to get them to sink in sea water which has a density of 1025kg/m3??… particularly if they dry out at all between felling and dumping in the ocean.
Oh and to be fair, there ARE battery powered chainsaws (which could, theoretically be charged by solar) ….but these are typically of modest power and not suitable for logging.
60
Wait. No, wait; I have a better idea:
A series of communes of creatives, turning mature forest trees into bespoke furniture and artworks that people will want to keep for centuries – combining beauty and sequestration.
It will be self supporting once it’s up and running – it just needs a kickstart Arts Council grant.
No, really…
40
Sorry to tell you that the oak tree from which the banquet table will be made , and endure for a hundred years, will incur carbon emission penalties the minute it is felled.
The fact that the emissions may be 100 years in the future, or later even, does not absolve this heinous act.
30
I’ve seen these trees floating: 46.259387, -122.280931
These are trees in Castle Lake, about 5 miles from Mt. St. Helens. The 2011 view shows them bunched up a bit differently. Wind does that.
Spirit Lake, in front of the blast, has a lot more. Go 7.7 miles ENE from the previous spot. The eruption was May 18, 1980. Again, they move around with the wind.
60
Too hot, too cold, its climate change.
https://quadrant.org.au/news-opinions/doomed-planet/no-business-like-snow-business/
32
Trump said the same thing. Climate change has everything covered.
The only way climate change could be defeated logically would be when every year was identical to every other year. And groundhog Punxsutawny Phil would be out of a job held by groundhogs since 1887. The idea that any variation in weather from one year to the next or one decade to the next is the fault of increased carbon dioxide and solely from fossil fuels is not science. It’s not rational.
70
Yes, Trump is calling out the Thugs and thuggery in the words of Climate CHANGE.
30
“and throw the logs in a river that leads to the Arctic ocean where they will sink and take carbon to the sea floor.”
Wooly thinking is as kind as I can be.
20
A bit sheepish.
20
Sadly, the monthly magazine from The Institution of Engineers called ”create” [sic — note not capitalised] is also woke. It’s forever banging on about saving the planet with wind and solar etc.
I’m retired now. I tried to resign from the Institution but it seems I’m a member for life and so I keep receiving my monthly dose. Sure, there are some very interesting articles but it still irks me to see how much nonsense they also peddle.
40
You’ve finally noticed? or like me hardly read it any more – Have the same with the Institution of AGRI engineers and our other Agri media and info types – they don’t like my comments.
20
“How many solar powered chain-saws are there in the world? Is that zero?” That would be a Nett Zero.
20
“Alec Luhn is a Wisconsin-born journalist and foreign correspondent specializing in Russia, Eastern Europe, and climate change.
He is known for his work as a reporter for The Guardian and other international outlets.
Education: Graduated from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, where he studied journalism and Russian language and civilization.
You would think anyone needed actual scientific qualifications to discuss science. But not Al Gore(politics), Dr Adam Bandt (Communism), Dr Tim Flannery (English, Earth sciences). And now Dr Twiggy Forrest and Dr Jill Biden.
Clearly New Scientist accepts opinion and recommendations from non scientists as serious informed science commentary.
40
pin the blame for disasters – from floods to heatwaves – on specific companies…. so says another article in that pile of dross. Magazines promoting this drivel are THUGS
I’m not even to going to read much of their articles. “Look & Learn” and other good stuff.
10
You see this wrongly. The alarmists think ahead, not just a century but a few hundred million years. You see, that sunken wood will be covered by sediment and again and again. It will in the course of geological time be heated and pressured and turn into good old anthracite coal. Which will be discovered by whatever intelligent species is around at the time and be used to fire an industrial revolution. Which in its turn will spawn a luddite alarmist movement. So you see its all about passing on the heritage.
20