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 > Global warming zealots are stifling scientific debate > Comments

Global warming zealots are stifling scientific debate : Comments

By Ian Plimer, published 26/7/2007

Science is apolitical, and when it has submitted to political pressure in the past, it has been at great human cost.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. ...
  7. 26
  8. 27
  9. 28
  10. All
Who is Ian Plimer?

He is the man who took legal action against an “authority” who provided geological “proof” that Noah’s Arc settled on Mt. Ararat in Turkey.

Plimer lost on a technicality. In his efforts to protect the public from religious-based “science”, he lost his house.

Good luck Ian.
Posted by healthwatcher, Thursday, 26 July 2007 9:59:34 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
Science as genuine free enquiry is definitely apolitical.

The trouble is that most of the science that is done is sponsored by, and serves the interests of, those in power. The captains of industry who always do whatever it takes to serve their own short term interests. It is well known that most if not all of the climate change skeptics (rather true believers) are paid up apolgists for big business.
Posted by Ho Hum, Thursday, 26 July 2007 10:07:46 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
THE REAL POLITICAL CENSORSHIP HAS BEEN IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION

Dear Ian,

You're absolutely right about the ABC's screening of Durkin's mockumentary. It was a serious mistake to select a film packed with glaring factual errors for a panel discussion. Channel 4's decision to commission the film was mostly down to perceived obligation for "balance" and, conversely, a deliberate attempt to incite controversy. The ABC played the same ratings game.

Sadly, despite the removal of some of the most embarrassing pieces of the original 75-minute documentary (such as quoting Carl Wunsch out-of-context on ocean currents), many of the errors were retained in the 50-minute ABC version.

The panel discussion was indeed a farce. Commentators on both [political] sides of the debate had decent scientific points to make. The ABC could have done much better (though at greater expense) commissioning a skeptical Australian scientist like Prof. Bob Carter to present his own views -- Carter would not have made the mistakes made by the charlatan Durkin. As it was, Carter made some admirable points in defence of the indefensible: what a waste of talent.

It is not the case that "political interference" spoiled the debate; the whole thing was a joke from the start.

The real political censorship is in the other direction, and far more subtle than the TV panel-show circus we saw. The most recent IPCC report would have been far *more* alarmist without political interference, which removed all reference to positive feedbacks from the executive summary, and removed water vapour from the list of significant radiative forcing components -- making the report rather less credible unless you read the fine print.

http://www.meridian.org.uk/_PDFs/IPCC.pdf

http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/scientific_integrity/Atmosphere-of-Pressure.pdf

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/04/10/the-real-climate-censorship/
Posted by xoddam, Thursday, 26 July 2007 10:32:16 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
Ian Plimer gives a concise evaluation of the current state of play in the heavily politicized area of climate science. I have to agree with everything he writes in this article.

"Science has no consensus, science is anarchistic as it submits to no authority, and the latest scientific view is only transitory. Science is apolitical, and when it has submitted to political pressure in the past, it has been at great human cost."
The scientific consensus lends no weight to the assertion that humans a largely responsible for global warming in the last century. The politicization of the science is indeed worrying and the human costs that may be borne out under it is yet to be seen. Lets hope for mankinds sake that the cost is not too high. Especially since the future of the science is far from certain and in fact is likely to be wrong. Time will tell.

"Plimer lost on a technicality. In his efforts to protect the public from religious-based “science”, he lost his house."
A man who is prepared to put his money where his mouth is. Few and far between.

xoddam yes there errors in TGGWS, some glaring, they were also there for all to see in the Hollywood horror "An Inconvenient Truth" yet barely a squeak was heard.

"a deliberate attempt to incite controversy"
Well it is a fairly controversial subject, far from settled.

"Carl Wunsch out-of-context"
He wasn't really...he still speaks out against silly notions like the Gulf Stream stopping.

"The most recent IPCC report would have been far *more* alarmist "...and scientifically wrong but don't let that stop you

"making the report rather less credible"
Hard to do.
Posted by alzo, Thursday, 26 July 2007 10:40:53 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
Three cheers for Ian Pilmer.

The ABC and the hard-left goons posing as environmentalists are starting to look really silly and desperate.

This is a good thing. The pushier they get, the more even people who don't take much interest in anything get to see how foolish and wrong it is the blame humans and carbon emissions for climate change.
Posted by Leigh, Thursday, 26 July 2007 10:47:19 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
I am sure the author is thoroughly aware that the change in global temperatures over the past 150 years is more significant than the Little Ice Age, the Medieval Warm Period and and Roman Warm Period.

It would appear that both denial and assertions can be shrill.
Posted by Lev, Thursday, 26 July 2007 10:58:04 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage 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. ...
  7. 26
  8. 27
  9. 28
  10. All

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