“My job here appears to be done.”
Wasn’t that a quote from a superhero or something similar?
(Looks out window to see Dave zooming away, cape flapping in the breeze).

(FYI – Expecting to debate you, I was going to attack your reference to the expert in mineral deposits Ian Pilmer. The fact he does not support peer revue, and claiming that a whole field of science consisting of 1000′s of scientists around the world dedicating their lives to discovering the truth about their particular niche of knowledge are all simply wrong? Then I was going to relate him to “Lord” Monckton and the fact that he is not a lord, is not a scientist, has not won a nobel prize, has not discovered a cure for aids, and has no expertise in climate change science. I was going to mention the loads of money they are both earning travelling the world spreading their lies. Then I was going to highlight the desperation of the climate change skeptics trying to find any scraps of evidence that may appear to support their argument and having only out of date debunked arguments from Pilmer and Monckton to choose from. Possibly mention Bolt and Jones here as well. I was going to relate how climate skeptics are now begining to change their arguments to fit the new truth just as religions have done for eons. Then I was going to finish off trying to describe the vast bulk of data that is being recorded by numerous experiments around the world and in space every month, the resulting scientific papers that are published for peer review and the greater accuracy in predictions and calculations that are constantly adding to our knowledge…but thank god I dont need to mention all of that now. Have a nice day and I wish this party success as long as it doesnt spread lies.)

“you have all ready backed down claiming this story was all simply a joke”
– I haven’t “all ready [already] backed down”, because the very first post I made on this article was pointing out that this post was clearly humourous, which it is in several places. So I haven’t “backed down”, have I?

What I did do was post some links that queried the accuracy of the article that you got all het up about, because you seemed too lazy to do so.

“Group hug” and so on is clearly tongue in cheek. As are other parts of it.

Didn’t anyone else pick up on the author’s usage of “42″ as being a reference to the “Ultimate Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, The Universe, and Everything” from The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy? I mean, c’mon.

It is sooooo obvious that the author is out to poke fun at people. It probably started off as an email that went viral, but some people like you take it seriously (fancy that, hey) without seeing that it is clearly tongue in cheek.

So, as I first said, chillax dude.

“Save Australia”

Or it should be deleted.

Here are some articles that counter what this article says (especially the top 2 or 3):

Iceland volcano causes fall in carbon emissions as eruption grounds aircraft

Volcanic Gases and Climate Change Overview (look at “Volcanic versus anthropogenic CO2 emissions”)

Planes or Volcano?

Volcanoes and climate changes

Eyjafjallajökull volcano on Iceland erupts

You still should post the link to the article you were talking about.

You provide no proof of what you’re saying. A vague “I first read it in a New Scientist issue” isn’t actually proof or a link to an actual article – you do know the difference, right?

And giving a link to a YouTube page of 64 videos is not proof of a point either – it’s just a bunch of videos on a wide range of climate change issues. It’s like someone giving you a link to a climate sceptics site and saying “See, told you so”.

Interestingly, Ian Pilmer says “Over the past 250 years, humans have added just one part of CO2 in 10,000 to the atmosphere. One volcanic cough can do this in a day.”
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/29320.html
Surely there must be stuff out there to counter his argument, so why don’t you give a link to something like that?

But yeah, it was obviously a humourous email, e.g. “sitting up til midnight to finish your kid’s “The Green Revolution” science project”: yep, that’s humour.

Most of the articles on this site are obviously not humourous, most are serious and give references. This one doesn’t have any references re. the info in it, so that’s probably a bit of a clue right there.

It does make sense that an active volcano releases lots of carbon into the atmosphere; “How much?” and “What is the carbon footprint?” are the pertinent questions.

What is the carbon footprint of the Icelandic volcano eruption? Or of the other volcanic eruptions? I don’t know, nor have I ever pretended to know – what I do know is that the article was funny.

If you think you’re right, then just post the proof. I’m willing to read what you say, if you’re willing to back up what you say.

As for…
“TOTAL FABRICATED LIES … The grounded aircraft around the world would have released much more pollution then what was released by Volcano Eyjafjallajökull”
…that sounds like some pretty interesting information there, please post the links to the science journal that published this info.

Or were you just telling us some “TOTAL FABRICATED LIES” ???

“Save Australia”