Good article. The levels of carbon dioxide due to volcanic have been much higher in the past yet life survived. The volatility of climate change is such that governments will be unable to compensate.

My experience has been that when opponents to your view resort to ad hominem attacks you are generally on the right track.

Mr Cook, you write:
"Tipping points are a non-scientific myth," snorts Plimer.

Perhaps you can point me to the page in Mr Plimer's opus where he bolsters this opinion, so that I can have a browse, next time I pass a bookshop near me.

Let the games begin!

My prediction is that it will be pointed out, ad nauseam, that Plimer is a geologist, not a climatologist, and therefore supremely unqualified to share his views with the world.

I seem to recall that the little boy in the crowd, commenting on the Emperor's new clothes, was not a tailor, either.

Try thinking about this with your mind switched on

(quote)
Stephen Schneider, the author of "The worst case scenario". This article envisages hundreds of millions fleeing from cities flooded by a 10-metre rise in the sea level and the extinction of half of known plant and animal species. "An interesting chap," he says. "In the 70s Schneider was telling us we were all going to die due to global cooling. Now he tells us we're all going to die due to global warming."
(end quote)

Obviously, an article entitled "The _worst_ _case_ scenario" does NOT tell us what _will_ happen, it tells what _might_ happen.

Thanks for this warning against taking notice of what else Plimer says
(though if anyone reads his book and finds what of the scientific literature he has actually read, before writing his book, I'd be interested to know about it)

As for tipping points - sure, indirect (feedback) effects are more speculative than the basic science of how greenhouse gases trap heat.
Which is why the large uncertainty in climate scientists' estimates (which they don't attempt to deny, as anyone who actually reads their work knows).

As for the word "pollution", who cares about its exact meaning? Anyhow, I've heard denialists bring it up as a red herring more than I've heard climate scientists actually use it.

Pericles, that's an interesting point. One rarely hears it mentioned that Tim Flannery, Al Gore, Nicholas Stern or Ross Garnaut for instance, are not climatologists either.

That whole line of attack - from either side - strikes me as a bit of furphy. Surely much science is - or should be - necessarily interdisciplinary?

I also find it annoying that the detractors of folk like Ian Plimer or Bjorn Lomborg go ballistic - often before their work is even published - and accuse them of being blinded by pecuniary interest, while ignoring the fact that their own poster boys are just as potentially beholden to financial interests of their own.

It's a pointless p*ssing contest that completely ignores the matter at hand.

The author is right to be suspicious of ‘experts’; so-called experts have their own agendas, too. In the case of scientists trying to make us think they know all about climate change and what caused it, it is more money for their research and their pockets.

And, we should not forget the constant blah how science is under-rated and often ignored in Australia; how it is not given the ‘respect’ it deserves.

Scientists have an axe to grind.

Plimer has done the world a service by putting out a real alternative to the self-interest and arrogance of ‘experts’ who think everyone should believe them and put Australia into even more debt to ‘solve’ something that only nature can change.

Plimer as a geologist is not qualified to speak on Climate Change! Dear, dear! In fact geologists have a major gripe about the current orthodoxy on climate change because they are aware of just how different the world's climate has been in the past - and how those differences cannot be linked to carbon dioxide. As Plimer notes in his book, carbon dioxide concentrations has been high and low in the past and temperatures high and low but there is no correlation between the two.
For me the big revelation of his book is that there is overwhelming evidence that the medieval warm period was considerably warmer than now. Scholars know this by tracking the heights at which cultivation has occured in Europe - and have even correlated it with temperature.
That alone should be enough to entirely sink the present orthodoxy, but won't.

Plimer knows that man made global warming is crap because geologist like himself use fantasy when plucking dates for the earth's age. It is funny to see how he labels the environmentalist as religous when that is exactly what those people are who promote the pseudo science(fantasy) of evolution are. They are faith based. Mr Plimer has 3 fingers pointing back at him. Our Creator must be laughing (or crying) at mans stupidity and arrogance. Plimer is no different from the likes of Gore and Flannery. He has obviously seen an opening to exploit a well believed lie.

I though CFC's was supposed to be the end of civilization as we know it. How come no one talks about that anymore? Oh that's right, it too was a load of alarmist claptrap!

Good article and good to see that there have been no mass resignations, threats of leaving, declarations of lack of balance, hysterical curses or fatwas nor attempts at censorship (so far).

Things are improving, or are we all just adapting.

All the noise about this subject has certainly made a lot of people aware of the topic, and it is no longer an accepted scientific arena when it starts to impact our lifestyles and pockets. This is a good thing for science surely that so many people have taken an interest, even if it is to ultimately disagree with many, there is agreement with others.

Now at least there is some chance to develop a culture of adapting to changes without wanting to try to forestall or halt them. (Heaven help us if we were hit with a series of earthquakes, some folks would want to stop them as well!)

The great majority of scientific bodies that have endorsed governmental action on global warming are themselves government-funded; and their members have a vested interest in the actions they recommend.

But quite apart from that, science does not supply value judgements, remember?

*Nothing* follows from the positive science as a matter of policy.

To recommend great reductions in the fuels that currently supply mankind with food, shelter, clothing, medicines, transport and communications is to recommend that some people must die for the greater good. But no-one has the right to make such a decision.

The entire argument for political action on global warming is based on a pyramid of fallacies of every kind. Carbon is not a pollutant. The globe is not warming. Computer models are not evidence. And government is not God.

The tone of this article makes me suspect that this author, rather than being a Diogenes searching for truth and honesty and a way through the maze of yes/no, is/isn't, right/wrong on climate change, may in fact be a failed agnostic.
The faux "blank slate" tenor of this tome does little to disguise the author's obvious climate change skepticism and his enthusiasm for the Plimer position.

“If you are an ignoramus like me, the credibility of global warming is supported by a few inconvenient truths..”

Mr Cook, If you are an “ignoramus” then perhaps you should not be writing articles on GW but rather, join the rest of we punters in general debate because as a rule, “ignoramuses” do not have the ability to detect a “few inconvenient truths.”

“…. has been cooling down since 1998.”

That Mr Cook is an inconvenient myth for the mean global temperatures are not cooling. You like “Curmudgeon” and Plimer will of course throw in the red herring of El Nino during 1998, however the La Nina 2008 remains one of the hottest years on record as the following graph provided by expert, climate scientists reveals:

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/temp/jonescru/global.dat

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/temp/jonescru/graphics/glnhsh.png

Nevertheless the planet may cool in later years and the uncertainty remains but there's no uncertainty regarding the planet's ecosystems which are under constant and escalating pressure from carbon pollution, emitted by humans, where many ecosystems are on the brink of collapse.

Furthermore, carbon A/aerosols are well known for affecting climate and seemingly you know little about particulates, soot, atmospheric pollution or the impacts of sulphur dioxide on climate?:

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GISSTemperature/giss_temperature4.php

Mr Plimer appears to have had a fabulous academic position in a university. I sincerely wished I'd had a boss like his for Mr Plimer has spent most of his time preening himself on screen, speaking into microphones, writing books, addressing litigious matters, cracking rocks or addressing gatherings of climate sceptics. Has the taxpayer subsidised his university salary?

But this is a gentleman who likes to mine lead and we all know what lead does to humans and the earth’s biodiversity. In addition, he is a director of CBH Resources and I understand at last years AGM, the board of CBH Resources incurred the wrath of shareholders who voted down the directors' greedy remuneration packages.

If mining geologist, Plimer persists in declaring himself an expert on climate change, then I would suggest he discloses his conflict of interests even to the chagrin of the merchants of greed who support him.

Good article Michael, I don’t need to read Plimer’s book, I know the ending.

Ian Plimer’s book, like that of Richard Dawkins-God Denial, it is just another manifestation of the anti-Christ. For rationalists it makes perfect sense. For the “croakers” it will become the target for ever more complex mumbo-jumbo, vilification and irrational venom.

The good news is that as scientists increase their understanding of our climate, the AGW’ers will fade away into the sunset to quietly enjoy the scrambled egg conveniently stored on their faces.

The bad news is that they will eventually find some other “great moral imperative” by which they can again drive rationalists to gnaw off their own limbs in frustration. Can anyone suggest a benign cause to which we could direct their energy?

How about?

“Darwin’s Origin of Species as a creationist theory on the introduction of carbon as a personified interventionist God in the form of a gas, distributed throughout the universe to balance the neural network as a means of compensating for tendencies to sin, thus avoiding the need for legislation, law enforcement, the judiciary and the penal system.”

Please pass these idea’s to anyone you know who has nothing in particular going on in their life and needs to get one, a life that is.

Protagoras, did Hugh Morgan or Lang Hancock run over your puppy when you were little? There must be some explanation for your irrational outbursts directed against anyone involved with the mining industry.

On the subject of people speaking outside their strictly professional jurisdiction, and of the possibility of pecuniary interests influencing opinions, I know we've been down this road before, but your side really shouldn't be throwing stones on that one.

After all, the poster idols for climate alarmism stand to make an awfully big pile of the old filthy lucre too, if they successfully spook everyone into doing what they say (which, oddly, is so often the polar opposite of what they actually do - yes, it is good to have a private plane, isn't it Oprah!).

Global cooling will prove to be more disasterous than warming.If we go into an ice age,then food production will fall dramatically.We would see death and destruction never invisaged in our wildest dreams.

We may have to generate more so called AGW gases in order to save the planet.

In the past we have had CO2 18 times the present concentrations and the world did not end.At one point of 10 times the present CO2 concentration,we even had a serious ice age.

The complexity of climate just leaves too many open doors for conjecture of various interest groups to push their agendas.

In the realm of improbability,believe in nothing of what you hear and only half of what you see.

good god. experts may have agendas, but so do ignoramuses. i would suggest that people read scientific reviews of plimer's book. people may find that it is in fact plimer who has no clothes, 2311 footnotes notwithstanding.

Clownfish

I would question who is the irrational one. There is little you can tell me about mining. I was born into mining, bred into mining, held senior positions in publicly listed and private mining companies, collated a myriad of quarterly and annual mining reports and my best friends and several relatives are miners. I have also spent many hours at meetings in the boardrooms of miners therefore, what do you mean by “my side?”

Please refrain from your ongoing, foolish attempts to “sell ice to an Eskimo!” I have no intention of deifying one of the largest polluters on the planet, nor do I intend defending the staggering human and environmental toll, wreaked on developed and developing nations around the globe from the mining industry for the sake of my mining affiliates, at the expense of humanity or of the common good.

The problem with climate change science is that it is bloody difficult. As a layman, I have followed a number of blog discussions amongst scientists about the validity of the science and I could not tell for the life of me what they were talking about.

The layperson really has no hope of fully understanding the science, which is why we have bodies like the IPCC and people like Pilmer to do the heavy lifting for us.

Unfortunately, nothing can be done about climate change unless Joe Public gets on board, so we have a situation where we all take the IPCC conclusions as an article faith, and work from there to cut emissions.

We really don't have any choice but to rely on the "consensus" position of the scientific community. I just hope the scientific community gets it right.

It may be time for all those posting on this subject to take a few deep breaths and contemplate this little bit of wisdom from Thomas Colvin,boat designer,builder and voyager.

(1)If anything can go wrong,it will go wrong.

(2)When left to themselves things always go from bad to worse.

(3)If there is a possibility of several things going wrong,the one that will go wrong is the one that will do the most damage.

(4)Nature always sides with the hidden flaw.

(5)Mother nature is a bitch

(6)If everything seems to be going well,you have obviously overlooked something.

Hence,Colvin's Law of the Six Ps - Prior Planning Prevents Poor Performance,Possibly.

The Global warming junket is wholly attributed to one Mr Albert Gore – back in the eighties when he became Vice President – The paper trail is very thick and abundant.
It was made clear then that if you do not agree with the recommendations and the Conclusions set before them, and provides adequate summarisation and equations that suit that conclusion- : Then you were made redundant and or defunded.

It is a notion that has existed in Academia for about 50 years, and it sharply relates to the structure of scientific revolution – Revolution is the Bullet word here.

David stove answers the question – and how it has become the Sociology study of Science – and Not Deductive notions of study and findings.
“Essay Replicated Here-“

http://majorityrights.com/index.php/forums/viewthread/139/

And if anyone has some spare time , and to read the following Guttenberg Reproduction of a book in the late 18th century ;, to illustrate what I have indicated how corrupt the Academic and Political Circle has become;- It is a extencive lesson in Geophysics and Geology you will not forget in a hurry ;- The search for the Lost island of Atlantis is a side marker , Note and understand the Geophysics involved and recounted-
They only had books and notes – we have Computers and servers – Why have we become so dumb?
Enjoy;

http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/4032

O'toole's commentary on Murphy's law:
MURPHY WAS AN OPTIMIST!

This is all rather simple Plimer has worked with creationist and new agers for years he knows as well as anybody that there is one born every minute. Writing a book rather than say a paper for a science journal is a sure fire way of knowing that he is in it for the money and more likely for him the notoriety. Plimer has a history of trying to get his name into the press, what do they call it, relevance depredation. Quite apart from what this supposedly neutral reviewer say there has been plenty of dissenting voices in the scientific journals, the fact is the evidence is on the side of the AGM’ers. Get over it Plimer has turned into his own nightmare. He is telling the rest of us that the science community is involved in a giant hoax to secure funding or world domination, that scientist cannot be trusted, now where have we heard that before. All the author has done with this book is make a bit of money, got his face on the tell one last time, and joined the ranks of the creationist, flat Earthers, AIDS or holocaust deniers that live on the fringe of science and society.

Thanks Bushbasher,

Here are some links to perspectives on the debate and the publishing event. Should anyone wonder about my position, I tend toward Science Magazine (published by AAAS) for the majority of my evidence , analysis and policy information on global warming.

http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/04/20/plimers-heaven-and-earth-a-conservative-coup/
Very funny, especially the end paragraphs about Peirs Ackerman, who is also very entertaining on "Insiders", every Sunday morning.

http://novakeo.com/?p=3931
provides an entry to the reviews and rebuttals of the Tenured Dr Plimer's latest opus, written by folks who are not so consumed by monomania that they need a periscope to view the world from the depths of their own back passages; or who are at least able to stay mainly on topic in what they consider to be a science-based debate.

http://blogs.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/environmentclimate/
"Breaking news and analysis from the world of science policy", which is OK if you have enough sense not to confuse science policy with scientific evidence-gathering

Green politicians have lost their ability to deliver sustainable thoughts.

I'm no scientist so I get a bit lost in the details, but it certainly seems that the planet is going through some sort of change and that we are not well placed to cope. Our carbon sinks are being cut down (like the Amazon) or worse, burnt down as in the Indonesian fires, Australian fires and frequent Californian fires. If CO2 is part of the problem it is feasible that a very small contribution from human activity could push us over the brink. Anyone who has used balance scales knows that a tiny imbalance can have a big effect. Even if we and the planet are churning out the same old amount of carbon, that same amount can no longer be reabsorbed as it used to. Global dimming could be masking the true heating effect of our current atmospheric mix. CO2 is acidifying the oceans, no matter where it comes from, which has huge implications for the future of coral reefs, shell forming creatures including krill (ie the ocean food chain) and therefore huge implications for us humans. Which of course brings us to our good friend the population elephant, sitting quietly in the corner of the room.

Candide: "I'm no scientist so I get a bit lost in the details..."

No mate, you just went MIA in the big-picture stuff - never mind the details. We'll send out a search party, somewhere to that "CO2-acidified ocean" stuff..

OLO really has become "denialist central" as far as climate change goes, hasn't it?

Yep. CJ's spot on. AGW/CC/Gaia worshippers are still in chronic denial about:

1) the planet's cooling temperatures;
2) the refusal to allow or even recognize scientific dissent, instead lying about "the consensus", "nobody seriously disputes...", etc., and
3) bankers' and monopolist privatizers' dominance, coercion and control around said "consensus" and its prospective ETS/CRTS/fart tax bubble.

Kenny,

Your attack on Plimer's character and motivations doesn't seem very well thought through. If he was in it solely for the money, he'd write a book called "Doomed!", "50 Ways to Save the Planet", or "How to Survive The Coming Global Warming", which would walk off the shelves. A 500 page tome with over 2000 references isn't the kind of book that generally cracks the bestseller list. Besides, according to Protagoras he's making enough money from his corrupt mining interests.

Of course, if Heaven and Earth wasn't going into its fourth printing with 20000+ sales, you'd accuse him of being a fringe scientist with no relevance. It's damned if you do, damned if you don't when "the mob" rely so heavily on ad hom attacks. Perhaps the people buying this book are independent thinkers who are interested to read what a Professor of Earth Sciences at Melbourne Uni has to say on the subject.

But I've bought into your diversion, which is where debate is usually led by the cynical conspiracy mob, rather than actually reading and discussing the substance.

globalists are anticipating their new bubble[bbc is reporting 80 to 100 dollars..a ton carbon[even the petro-chemical dude inter-viewed..lol..anyhow even the petro/spokes-person is looking forward to the tax..[why ?..because the petro/industry has a lot of plans...lol

plans..we tax-payers will be paying for..[via this new tax]..so who benifits from the..new-tax..clearly is industry..[who will get issued free carbon/credits by govt..[they will sell to the securities/speculators..[who will speculate'their'..new windfall.into 100 dollars a ton]

govts wont be getting the benefits..[and the tax wont be going back to the people]..[they]..WE will just pay it on top of EVERYTHING..the elites wont be paying for it/because the company/credit-account will be paying it..for them

industry has produced many of the wolds problems..[this tax will allow buisness to rebuild..for free..[to keep on doing the same..[just look at the same posters posting in favour..[the same lot who blog for gmo,..big buisnes..[look at who is saying the same-thing..and..[playing the man/not the ball]

we have not had the debate about carbon/caused global-warming[lol..climate-change]..beyond doudt the industry was causing the cooling..[as all them smoke filled clouds cut-off the sun..[note the intro of..cleaner air../regulations,..neatly coincides with the turning trend..from cooling to warming.

im seeing a simular con here..[to the non-smoking debate]that sadled the smokers with smoking taxes..[to avoid setting up a double disolution the libs will go along with the deception..sold us by the media..[look at the absurd links some of these..doomsdayer carbon-based global/warming doomsayers..are putting up here

[the last one had a polar bear sitting on a wedge of ice hunting seals[but the photo suggests the last of the ice..[the very point heaven and earth rebuts]

JUST THE PHOTO..INDICATES the level the media is going to[for their global money masters]..[needing this new global/industry-tax]..[just as the turncoat[turnBULL-into votes]..wants a smoking tax..[so his elite mates can get govt-welfare..subsidised..PRIVATE/health-care..govt..subsidised drugs,docters..[paid for by the pensioner doing without food..to buy their last innocent pleasure,smoke]..that big buisness has pumped full of nicoteen..[to make more money]

well..welcome to the next big-businness cash-cow..[carbon-tax]..again mainly paid by the poor people..[not big/buisness-poluters getting it..[and its sure inflating]..gain..for free

Climate change has been happening for millenia, or eons. The only difference this time around is that it has been hijacked by the "New Millenium Money Grab." Seems, just like the Y2K bug, every man is trying to make a quick buck, or defraud the public in some way or other, to transfer wealth to themselves without actually providing anything of any real value in return - because they can't - provide an end to climate change.

Most people buying Plimer's book will treat it as a 'bible' and he the high priest of the church of denial.

No doubt it's a lot easier reading a novel than reading something like AR4 or PNAS, which you won't find at Walmart, Tesco, Big W or Target.

Here's what Plimer's colleague up the corridor has to say:

http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/04/23/ian-plimer-heaven-and-earth/

"Ian’s book contains over 2,000 references to the scientific literature ... What the unsuspecting reader might not realise is that a large number of the scientists he cites in footnotes agree with the mainstream consensus..."

An income stream for Plimer in his retirement? Possibly.
However, it's unfortunate he hasn't published any critique in the scientific literature ... there's no money in that though.

oh dear q+a quote<<Ian’s book contains over 2,000 references to the scientific literature...What the unsuspecting reader might not realise is that a large number of the scientists he cites in footnotes agree with the mainstream consensus...">>wow no poop?

using others figures and numbers is now a crime?..[what the faulty con-colusion now owns the facts?..to the ex-clusion of others using the same facts TO REBUT..their faulty CON-CLUSION...lol

you guys are short on actually rebutting the fact's..[your tired inuendo's are so revealing of a falicious debate] facts can be used by BOTH suides..to draw their own conclusions,

q+a...i expected more reasoning..[logic]..fact from you

ps..if you use any of my words..you cant
i own them...lol

its so sad bro..[you cant tell collusioned deception from science[think of all the cash..those supporting this cash/grab will get if you guys pull of the big con..

cli-mate change..isnt egsactly about small/change..if they pull it off it will be the biggest tax based cash/grab in histry

[most certainly those wanting..a bit of the huge cash/pie..will lie down with demons..[demonic autocracies]..to get their fithy lucre]

do the number's 10's of billions of tons..[co2]sold for $100 per ton=trillions,...10,s of trillions of tons of co2..becomes quadrillions..[the current burst/bubble cost/..lost 2.5 quadrillion,..

hence..all stops out..for the new cash/cow..[they just need to not let the real debt out of the bag..before the carbon securities hit the derivitives bonus on-sellers..[carbon traders/traiters]bankers

Q &A Says "An income stream for Plimer in his retirement? Possibly.
However, it's unfortunate he hasn't published any critique in the scientific literature ... there's no money in that though"

Obviosuly Q&A is not aware that many of the darlings of the AGW sphere havnt published either.

You know, people like Gore,Flannery et al, both of whom won awards for not doing so. Others who have published have been caught out producing rubbish anyway eg Hansen and Mann etc.

As for making money, if Plimer was really after money he do what Gore has done. Produce a work of exagerrations and unscientific clap trap,get the scientific fraternity to back it, and then trot it around as a Prospectus.

Has made millions out of his various ventures all designed to supposedly solve a beat up he conspired to create in the first place.

Ha!! Apparently, scientists are now only allowed to cite the work of people they agree with 100%. Q&A betrays himself and the very concern many have about the closed shop peer review club of so-called climate science. Of course, if Plimer hadn't cited these he would be accused of ignoring the literature. You can be pretty sure that if someone is damned if they do, damned if they don't, it's because people like Q&A know that he's someone of substance.

Looks like I might have been right.

Can't detect any argument against Plimer that actually addresses the material he presents.

Instead we have a list of reasons why that material must, by definition, be wrong.

Even though none of it is actually referred to, cited or otherwise identified.

Good going, AGW groupies.

Dallas: << Green politicians have lost their ability to deliver sustainable thoughts. >>

Tell that to the voters in Fremantle, dipstick.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/05/17/2572646.htm

pericles, please tell me you're joking.

The garbage generated by those tweaking immense funding from their pals in temporary power causes us all to remain living in misery.
When I was young I was stupid enough to believe that nuclear war could erupt at any second.
I was too young to understand that Bundaberg, Qld was the armpit of the universe and that no-one would target my region.
Took some while to work out it wasn't worth the shot!
Since then, God save us - the absolute drivel shoved down our gullets by the propaganda machine has caused us all immense constipation.
Do I have to list the drivel - nuclear winter - global winter anyway - choking to death in an atmosphere without oxygen - screeching about until dropping dead in an atmosphere with TOO MUCH OXYGEN - spontaneous combustion of humans - this plague - that plague - mould monsters attacking patients in hospital.
I exaggerate?
Or do I?

I’m told that I nearly died of the ‘Hong Kong ‘Flu’ in 1970.
I can say that I lost about three days of my life before I recovered.

Then our geographical location.
My home town is situated on a flood plain beside a DORMANT VOLCANO. Repeat – a dormant volcano.
At any time soon our city might disappear into the goop along with a fair portion of the Eastern Seaboard if that turnout decided to erupt.

What do I try to say here?
Goes this way.
Stuff us all moaning and griping about tweaky little concerns overseas.
We have our people and the land we occupy.
I humbly suggest that we begin dealing with what may cause us grief here at home.
That way we might be better situated to take on some lovely people from sunken islands – floating icefloes – and occasional hotspots.
Surely that makes sense!
Wouldn’t it be nice if we could welcome them here?

In about the same way we welcomed this continent’s original inhabitants when we invaded their homeland

Not really, bushbasher.

>>pericles, please tell me you're joking.<<

My position was that this thread would concentrate on Mr Plimer's unsuitability to pronounce on climate change, rather than address the points he puts forward.

So far we have scored a few hits.

Protagoras provided this:

"Mr Plimer has spent most of his time preening himself on screen, speaking into microphones, writing books, addressing litigious matters, cracking rocks or addressing gatherings of climate sceptics. Has the taxpayer subsidised his university salary?"

Kenny added:

>>Writing a book rather than say a paper for a science journal is a sure fire way of knowing that he is in it for the money and more likely for him the notoriety.<<

Sir Vivor points us to an "analysis" from crikey.com.au that said precisely nothing about the book's content.

"it is a cute insight into the way conservative commentators are starved for shreds of evidence to support their theories and how a small backroom publisher can easily satisfy their needs"

Sir Vivor also points to a supposed critique of the book by scientists which, if you read it all, does nothing more than re-state the conclusions for which Plimer provides alternatives.

Q&A simply suggests a motive for the book.

>>An income stream for Plimer in his retirement?<<

I honestly have no idea who is closer to reality in this argument. What I can say with certainty is that neither side has a monopoly on the truth. And while this remains the case, I feel that asking questions is still a good thing.

But I do see self-serving activists doing what self-serving activists enjoy doing, which is to stir up the public with arguments that seem, on the surface, to be carefully thought through. Then, when someone pops up and says "wait a minute, there", they do everything in their power to close down the argument and belittle the source.

A habit, I feel, that has been learned from generations of career politicians.

Poor old Protagoras: Self loathing is a terrible cross to bear.

Presumably overburdened by a crushing sense of guilt resulting from his complicity as a former high-flyer in the wicked mining industry, Protagoras seems to have transferred his self-hatred to Ian Plimer, and now loses no opportunity to excoriate Plimer.

But, as noted in another thread, Protagoras will do anything to avoid providing a direct answer to a simple question. Nevertheless - and even though we've pointlessly wandered down this path before - I'll try again:

If, as you continually declaim, Ian Plimer's opinion is hopelessly corrupting by his financial interests, does it not equally follow that the opinions of, say, Al Gore or Tim Flannery are equally corrupted by the fact that they stand to profit handsomely from the climate policies that they espouse?

You also attack Plimer for his career in popular science media and publishing; of course, neither Gore or Flannery have ever besmirched themselves likewise, have they?

I might add, as I said before, that I dislike dragging Tim's name into this; he's a nice bloke, and I do it not out of personal animosity, but merely by way of example. I don't actually accuse him of being motivated by profit-seeking, I merely point out that if you want to accuse others of being so, then the corollary must stand.

Al Gore, on the other hand, is a hypocritical, slef-righteous windbag preacher, so I'll gladly take the stick to him.

pericles,

kenny and protagorus and sir vivor and q&a can respond if they wish. though i also disagree with the characterisation and relevance of plimer's motives, i think you've deliberately slanted and cherry-picked what they've written (and ignored what i've written). and you've said nothing of the nature and content (?) of the pro-plimer contributions here.

who has claimed anything like plimer, "by definition", is wrong or that plimer is "unqualified to share his views"?

frankly, pericles i'm astonished. i regard you as one of the most careful, thoughtful and clearheaded writers at OLO. here, you've taken an obtuse and snarky line (clotheless emperor? for god's sake). it ignores the nature of scientific debate, and it seems to deliberately confuse a person's right to present their views with the question of how much anyone should bother to listen to those views.

i have no idea what you expect an OLO debate on plimer's book to be. can you tell me the points plimer puts forward, and how you would have people address them here? do you care to look over the past OLO debates on AGW, and tell me the quality and the value of those debates?

Pericles

Plimer raised some 'points', they had issues and are addressed here:

http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/04/23/ian-plimer-heaven-and-earth/

I am not limited by word/post limits there.

You are right about one thing, although I would frame it a little differently ->

There are a lot of people out there who know diddly-squat about 'climate science' but are quite prepared to "belittle the source" ... not even attempting to read and understand the scientific literature or a published paper.

These same people even "belittle" the messenger, the IPCC, without ever having read the IPCC reports. They rely on the 'denialosphere' for their prime source of information - you know, 'denialist' blog sites and the shock-jocks in the popular press.

Clownfish is right, Al Gore is a "windbag preacher" who has captured the minds of a lot of people by his propagandist methods.

While Gore did focus the eyes of the world on climate change, he disenfranchised a lot of people just by the simple fact he was a Democrat. Ergo, people didn't like his political ideology so didn't like his concerns about global warming.

Plimer does make assertions in his book and uses many footnotes to back up them up. What I find very disconcerting is the fact that many of those cited refute Plimer's assertions yet he twists and distorts their refutations to add weight to his own opinions - that's not science, that's dishonesty.

Q&A, you are correct that there are those who rely solely on the "denialosphere"; I would assert that there are just as many who rely solely on the "alarmosphere".

As unimpressed as I am with those who claim that climate change is just not happening, I'm equally unimpressed with the fools who scurry about shrieking that the very existence of life on earth is in dire peril.

I think you're letting Al Gore off a little lightly: It's not the fact that he's a Democrat that irks me about him at all - if anything, that's my natural side of the political divide.

What I despise about Al Gore is his dishonesty and his towering hypocrisy. Ditto Sting, Prince Charles, Leo DiCaprio, Oprah Winfrey or any other climate alarmist poster idol who deigns to hector the masses from the comfort of their carbon-spewing private jets.

If they want to promote environmental issues, then please do it without hypocrisy, and most important of all, without lies or distortions: Polar bears are not drowning because of global warming, the Amazon is not "the lungs of the planet" nor is it disappearing, we are not going to lose 40% of species in the next century, and just because the IPCC includes worst cases in its range of scenarios, that doesn't mean that they're the unavoidable future either.

So Q&A are you Barry Brook or Ian Enting? You refer us to a website but there's a choice of AGW evangelists there.

I note both are government/university employees.

Does this matter when you sneer at someone else's work, or only when you produce your own?

extracted from
http://money.cnn.com/2009/05/14/magazines/fortune/globalwarming.fortune/index.htm#

..the surface temperature readings upon which global warming theory is built have been distorted by urbanization...Due to the solar heat captured by bricks and pavement and due to the changing wind patterns caused by large buildings,..Christy says.

The only way to control for such surface distortions is by measuring atmospheric temperatures...And when Christy and his co-researcher Roy Spencer,..analyzing temperature readings from NOAA and NASA satellites,..they found much slighter increases in atmospheric temperatures than what was being recorded on the surface.

Christy and Spencer also found that nearly all the increases in average surface temperatures are related to nighttime readings

..The daytime temperatures..show virtually no change over the past 100 years,..while the nighttime temperatures indicate the developed Valley has warmed significantly while the undeveloped Sierra foothills have not,"

Why did you help write the 2001 IPCC report and the 2003 AGU statement on climate change..if you disagreed with their fundamental conclusions?

We just said that human effects have a warming influence,and that's certainly true..There was nothing about disaster or catastrophe...It was about alarmist as you can get.

Generally people believe what they want to believe,so their minds will not change...However, as the issue is exposed in terms of economics and cost benefit..in my view, it's all cost and no benefit -
I think some of the people will take one step backward and say,..Let me investigate the science a little more closely.

In laymen's terms,..what's wrong with the surface temperature readings that are widely used to make the case for global warming?

First is the placement of the temperature stations...They're placed in convenient locations that might be in a parking lot or near a house and thus get extra heating from these human structures.

Over time, there's been the development of areas into farms or buildings or parking lots...Also, a number of these weather stations have become electronic,..and many of them were moved to a place where there is electricity,.which is usually right outside a building.

As a result,there's a natural warming tendency,..especially in the nighttime temperatures,..that has been misinterpreted as greenhouse warming.
see also
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfdwa4YED-k

Yes, OUG.

Or maybe such readings are just different kinds of "feedback loops"?

“First is the placement of the temperature stations...They're placed in convenient locations that might be in a parking lot or near a house and thus get extra heating from these human structures.”

UOG , just like pollution detector units, temperature stations can be moved so this appears to be a fatuous argument supposedly by Christy and Spencer and the author of the link you provided appears to be speaking as an authority on climate change but he’s better known for the two books he wrote:

1. “Best Jokes From Talk Radio”, is a compilation of risque jokes heard on talk radio.

2. “How to Find and Fascinate a Mistress”, is a fictionalized version of Wattenburg's exploits with young women in the 1970s.

Perhaps you could supply us with direct links to the godbotherers' websites?

Gathering by expert critiques to date of Plimer's book I'd say his credibility is looking very shaky and we may soon see him heading for the hills. Of course we have in the past, seen this man self-destruct in splendid fashion:

“Perhaps we will find a stitch-by-stitch demolition of climate science in his book, as promised? No such luck. The arguments that Plimer advances in the 503 pages and 2311 footnotes in Heaven and Earth are nonsense. The book is largely a collection of contrarian ideas and conspiracy theories that are rife in the blogosphere. The writing is rambling and repetitive; the arguments flawed and illogical.

“Incredible as it may seem, this quality of argument is typical of the book. While the text is annotated profusely with footnotes and refers to papers in the top journals, thus giving it the veneer of scholarship, it is often the case that the cited articles do not support the text.

"Plimer repeatedly veers off to the climate sceptic's journal of choice, the bottom-tier Energy and Environment, to advance all manner of absurd theories: for example, that CO2 concentrations actually have fallen since 1942.” (Michael Ashley is professor of astrophysics at the University of NSW.)

CO2 concentrations fallen, says the professor? Is this guy for real?:

http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicators/CO2/2008_data3.htm

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,25433059-5003900,00.html

Dallas wrote;

“Green politicians have lost their ability to deliver sustainable thoughts”

CJ wrote;

“Tell that to the voters in Fremantle, dipstick.”

As a former Queensland Greens member and candidate in 1995, I’m inclined to agree with Dallas.

It’s very nice to see the Greens win Fremantle, after Labor domination since 1924! But CJ, did ‘sustainable thoughts’ have anything to do with the victory? For that matter, have the Greens had any real sustainable thoughts for the last ten years ?? ( :>/

proto-gore-as quote<<UOG ,just like pollution detector units, temperature stations can be moved so this appears to be a fatuous argument supposedly by Christy and Spencer>>no great rebuttal of the facts PLEASE EXPLAIN YOUR USE OF SUPPOSEDLY..[and BTW..clever deceptive/linkage..lol linking the auther of the article..to the scientist quoted..IN THE ARTICLE

<<and the author of the link..you provided appears to be speaking as an authority on climate change..but he’s better known for the two books he wrote:>>..the books the pilger guy..[auther of the article..NOT SOURCE OF THE INFO]..wrote are irrelivant to the intervieuw...of the SCIENTIST he writes ABOUT!

quoting two books written by a reporter..dont rebut the scientist..[NOR THE SCIENCE]..he is writing about

its typical of the clever non-rebuttal..of you end time global warming prophets[..playing not the autority but the reporter daring to write about the scientist..[respected climate scientist revealing simple truths

[you didnt[couldnt rebut what was said..so distract with comments about a reporter]..who cares a damm about other stuff the reporter wrote about

rebut the science[if you can]

[how come you think to know better than a scientist]

why is this debate focused so much on distractions..name calling mere reporters..lol..[

you global/carbon tax bloggers are looking so clever..till the rebuttals you lot post are revealed..as a non response..or worse the deliberated distraction,..your postings commonly are revealed to be..

...designed to misslead those not reading the minutia being reported

written by who,..for what reason..your oh so clever..non-rebuttals..,on a complicated topic..where true cred-ability of authorities must be based on faith.

the huge-con is complicated enough to comprehend..to the average passive layman,..without all you dis-info..global warning supporters put up...distraction framed as debait]... hoping your distractions pass as rebuttal of the facts MADE BY SCIENTIST's

Ludwig: << As a former Queensland Greens member and candidate in 1995, I’m inclined to agree with Dallas. >>

With respect Ludwig, given some of your ideas, as a current Qld Greens member I'm rather glad you've disassociated yourself from us. The Greens have grown somewhat since they'd run any oddball who was a financial member and who was willing to stand, and it's starting to be reflected in electoral results. Admittedly, Queensland's a bit behind the other States, but we get closer with each election.

I would say that much of that is because voters see those Greens politicians who have been elected elsewhere, and who offer the only coherent policies with respect to real 'sustainability' in the Australian political context.

With respect Ceej, you again have completely avoided the questions that I asked of you, as you did the last time I asked you direction questions: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8841#140187

Presumably the ideas that you attribute to me that you feel would be inappropriate for a Greens member are to do with asylum seekers and border protection. But this is the very subject on which you found my questions too difficult to respond to the last time we crossed paths. BTW, you can still respond. The ’Playing the asylum seeker blame game’ thread is still open: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=8841

Perhaps it is the Greens that need to be dragged into reality over this issue, as they do in regard to the basic principles of sustainability!

The Greens are concerned about rising temperatures, sinking islands and disappearing ice-shelves and glaciers. But they don’t seem too concerned about ever-rising human populations or our crazy economic system that is predicated on endless expansionism.

You’ve agreed with me about population and other sustainability issues. So you’d surely have to admit that the Greens just don’t cut it as a genuine environment / sustainability party.

My questions remain:

Did ‘sustainable thoughts’ have anything to do with the Fremantle victory?

For that matter, have the Greens had any real sustainable thoughts for the last ten years?

Ludwig,
My contacts in WA tell me that the Greens win in Fremantle was like the Greens win in Cunningham, NSW, some time back. The locals abandoned the ALP head office imposed candidate in protest because they wanted to nominate a local. In NSW the Greens member was outed at next election by a locally chosen ALP candidate.

The situation has nothing to do with growing support for the Greens.

So, if that is correct, one should not read anything into the Greens win in Fremantle. A read of the Greens policies shows how far from reality they are.

I think the urgency of the situation we face might be easier to visualise in more personal terms.
If your doctor sent samples from an odd growth you had on your arm to researchers around the world they tell you that "we can say with 90% confidence your growth is cancerous"; would you really want to sit around talking about the other ten per cent?
Or would you just get on with treating it? I'm for the latter

CathHarp - that reminds me of a joke, you'll like this. So this bloke has these terrible top of back pains, goes to doctors, surgeons, specialists etc (I'm cutting it back here, you can wring this one right out) who all recommend he gets one agate (testicle) cut off. So he does that, but the pain goes on .. back to the docs etc, and they convince him he should get the other one cut off - which he does. He's been off work for weeks now doing all this.

He recovers, no more top of back pain, goes back to work, but can't find his old overalls - so goes to the store and asks for a new set, the storeman asks, what size are you, a 4 he says - no says the storeman, you're a 5 - if you wear a 4, you'd get a pain at the top of your back.

The moral being, specialists and experts can be wrong, have been wrong before and what is leading edge science today may be looked upon similarly to witch doctory in years to come.

Take the researcher in Australia who defied the world with his thinking that stomach ulcers were a biologic problem, when 99% of the worlds medical science thought it was stress related - and were wrong, and he was RIGHT, Nobel prize.

Don't be fooled with this "consensus" thinking, it's not always correct. Retain a little scepticism and questioning, it's good for you.

CathHarp, what I find more interesting is your leaping to a pathological/diagnostic metaphor.

Protagoras: "Of course we have in the past, seen this man [Plimer] self-destruct in splendid fashion:"

Could you tell me to what you are referring.

"Could you tell me to what you are referring."

I regret Fungochumley that I decline your request. I do not wish to waste my time on a troll - a troll who spends his time on OLO, surfing from one thread to another to make mischief. I have no desire to supply you with any information - particularly since you appear incapable of remaining on topic or contributing anything relevant or worthwhile to any debate.

On reflection and in consideration of your continuous blowhard blustering, could we utilise you as a windfarm?

Yeah. Anyone. When and where did Plimer "self-destruct" in the past?

I don't care about whether we can qualify the "splendid fashion" part. But such a claim seems very relevant to this article and thread.

Protag: "I regret Fungochumley that I decline your request....I have no desire to supply you with any information."

Well, nothing new there. A typically evasive reply and a shame as, on this rare occasion, I was vaguely interested in something you wrote. I guess I'll just have to mark it down as another unsubstantiated smear.

On surfing from one thread to another making mischief, that is your unfortunate interpretation when caught out and put on the spot (as in the species dialogue below - an example please). So reminiscent of that spoiled princess, dickie, whereabouts unknown.

It must be concerning that a "resident dimwit" like myself can catch you out so easily.

I suspect that Protagoras may be referring to Plimer's unsuccessful court action, with Dave Fasold, against Creationist Allen Roberts and Ark Search.

Plimer and Fasold charged copyright infringement and trading in misleading and deceptive information against Roberts and Ark Search.

It seemed - in my admittedly non-legal opinion - that the judge, perhaps wishing to avoid an ugly confrontation with religionists - erred on the side of caution in deciding that although Ark Search indeed breached copyright and produced misleading and deceitful material, they were not *technically* a business, ipso facto, they couldn't be convicted.

The judge commented that if Ark Search *had* been a business, and thus been found to be trading in this material, they *would* have lost the case.

Nice.

Obviously, charging money to lecture to the faithful, peddling DVDs and books, and (as Plimer observed in "Telling lies for God") stashing away biscuit tins full of unaccountable cash doesn't count as "trading".

Looks like L. Ron Hubbard was right about religion and making a million.

clownfish, i think you're right. but the concerns go well beyond the fact that plimer lost a court case (and also settled a defamation action against him out of court).

plimer, incredibly, made the creationists look like the good and reasonable guys. there are many people fighting the good fight against creationism and intelligent design who were appalled at plimer's conduct.

Democrats Fast-track Cap and Trade Bill
(CNSNews)
http://republicbroadcasting.org/?p=2031

the/Energy and..Commerce..Committee/put their cap and trade global warming bill–on..the fast-track..Monday.

“..our majority colleagues..can rise proudly to the challenge of global-warming..by moving out smartly,..before a suspicious public takes notice..and well ahead of any consultation with voters.”

Democratic leaders decided to work behind closed doors.

Barton showed a public largely ignorant of what cap and trade is.

“My goal is to conclude consideration of the legislation on Thursday, May 21.”Waxman wrote.“Members should be prepared to work late on Tuesday and Wednesday evenings.”

The bill would require drastic cuts in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions by cutting emissions across the entire economy to 17 percent of 2005 levels by 2050,meaning that the economy would be forced to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 83 percent by 2050.

In a compromise with industrial-state Democrats,..Waxman and Markey agreed to allow the Environmental Protection Agency to distribute..rather than auction..emissions caps..to energy-intensive industries.

Under this proposal..,electricity producers would be..given..35 percent of the caps,..natural gas companies would get..GIVEN..nine percent, five percent..given to environ groups/combating international deforestation,..and 10 percent would go toward the states.

In all,85 percent of the caps would be given away,in direct opposition to President Obama’s plan,..which called for 100 percent of the caps to be auctioned...[then traded in the market/by securities traders..

Under the Democratic compromise,..15 percent of the caps would be auctioned,with the proceeds going toward low-and moderate-income households to help offset..the inevitable rise in energy prices.thats the'cap'part..[industry gets the rest for free..[to trade with]

Waxman said the choice between a robust economy and clean energy was false,saying that Republican warnings about the bill’s negative economic consequences were nothing but..“doomsday predictions.”

Republicans,he said,“will argue that this bill will undermine our economy.(They)will claim that there is a fundamental conflict between economic growth and clean energy...are inextricably linked..That is a false choice.

We have seen these same doomsday predictions before,”..Waxman said in his opening statement.

Barton argued that the environmental benefit was minimal while the economic damage could be massive,“We know the cost is significant...We know the environmental benefit is basically nonexistent
http://republicbroadcasting.org/?p=2033
http://republicbroadcasting.org/?p=1786

Thanks for the links UOG. I trust Obama’s policies on climate change can be implemented without too much interference from the greed merchants who remain sufficiently deluded in believing that they’re still in charge.

The Spencer/Christy mission to defame the climate scientists has been done to death but they’re still going after Hansen who wisely resists getting into a bun fight with these guys. Christy, I once thought, was an ethical scientist who I'd hoped could have resolved some of the uncertainties about CC. Unfortunately, he’s looking a bit shabby these days and the scientific community are largely ignoring him. As my mum used to say: “Lay with dogs and you get up with fleas,” and Christy’s association with the fool Spencer has done little for his career.

Christy acknowledges that global warming is partly the result of human activity and has also acknowledged that he’s no “climate expert.”

Nevertheless, he prefers to remain embroiled in the US’s urban heat island controversy , however even correcting this phenomena in the US has proven that the overall warming remains unaffected and makes no difference to global mean temperatures.

http://cce.890m.com/temperature-record/

http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/22/should-you-believe-anything-john-christy-or-roy-spencer-say/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/20/AR2006052001151.html

http://www.desmogblog.com/roy-spencer

How intriguing that some ten links have been supplied on this thread – all relevant to the Plimer topic yet they have been ignored – including the reviews of Plimer’s book by three of Australia’s top scientists.

Now those who obfuscate, rally to feast off the gossip, lead by the troll. Nevertheless UOG, you may wish to assist the gentleman Plimer who it appears, is in dire financial straits. His persistent and public outbursts against "greens", the scientific community, environmentalists and creationists has perhaps seen his eugenics’ mission hit a brick wall - methinks?

However, if you wish to donate to his “fighting fund” to assist in the bomb and destroy mission against the creationists, the following address is provided for your convenience. Thanks for your generosity UOG:

"The Prof. I.R. Plimer Fighting Fund"
Broken Hill Community Credit Union Ltd (Bank no. 802377), account no. 56679
Broken Hill, NSW, Australia

Thank you clownfish. Interesting. We can only assume this is what Protagoras was referring to. She is happy to spray her bile far and wide, so I pay little attention. Yeah, yeah, troll, the lepers bell, fleas, fools, blah blah blah blah...

Forgive my stating the obvious, but there's one very “off” aspect in protag's “self-destruct” defamation against Plimer: it implies that the case's creationist “science” and “archaeology” had genuine scientific merit or, at least, that challengers had little if not none.

Then there's the slagging-off sleaze of “eugenics” as if associated with Plimer! This protag is one poisonously dishonest piece of work.

Keep it coming protag: it's good to see just what the AGW Cult yields after so many years' lavish funding by The Greed Merchants.

Btw fungochumley: it seems to me that dickie has morphed into a couple of sequentially separate OLO characters these past several months.

"What I despise about Al Gore is his dishonesty and his towering hypocrisy. Ditto Sting, Prince Charles, Leo DiCaprio, Oprah Winfrey or any other climate alarmist poster idol who deigns to hector the masses from the comfort of their carbon-spewing private jets."

Al Gore, the patron saint of vapour trails. It's got a certain ring to it.

RobP: Perhaps Al Gore's most clearly diabolical work was his determined push in Congress - and overseas - against generic AIDS medicines. The effects in Africa, Asia and Latin America have been genocidal, which kinda matches the apparently intended effects of his AGW garbage on a yet bigger and longer-term scale.

From its fraudulent "science" to its symbolic con-artistry, Gore's "Unspeakable" movie has it all. His bogus use of ice-core data was one of the funniest examples I've ever seen of plain stupidity over scientific research. But his repeated use of such imagery as the "desperate" polar bear on a melting ice cap is just sickening. The polar bear population has thrived, while such imagery is just another deception away from a simple fact of life: seasonal changes compel all polar bears to become good swimmers. It's called "Summer"!

Fraud, hoax, scam...

Protagoras, how could Ian Plimer be in such dire financial straits - being a paid mouthpiece of the Evil Polluting Resources Industry, and all?

Ah, must be one of "The Greed Merchants" see? As distinct from the altruistic and ascetic fund managers pushing ETS, depopulation, etc.

By protag's special perspective, Plimer must never get enough stuff.

C'mon protag - send us some more!

mil-observer

I heard an observation/joke recently.

Q. What was good about George W. Bush as US President?
A. He saved the world from Al Gore.

RobP: Maybe it's not even a joke! Seems more like an inconvenient truth.

Against all his very expensive publicity, Gore is one of the most reviled figures in US political history.

The real juice on Fat Al Gore came from South Park via their "ManBearPig" analogy with Gore's back-to-front, meta-historical fairy tales over CO2 and warming.

"C'mon protag - send us some more!"

My dear mil-o – please forgive me for the delay in responding to your request for I know how anxious you are to keep the “damage control” spin afloat. And I am sorry that you have nothing else to latch onto but the “probabilities” in science.

Take EQ’s declaration: “The levels of carbon dioxide due to volcanic have been much higher in the past yet life survived.”

Ah…is EQ guilty of spruiking “probabilities?” I think so mil-o but he fails to address the hypothesis of many eminent scientists who believe that carbon dioxide including the dust and ash from a massive volcanic eruption was responsible for the species extinction during the Cretaceous era. Larger animals (over 25 kg) were all wiped out.

The largest extinctions would be the "Permo-Triassic" extinction. In this obviously catastrophic event an estimated 90% of all species living at that time were extinguished. Scientists are fairly sure that the extinction was due to many changing environmental conditions at that time, but that too is a “probability.”

However, species extinction is currently occurring at a much faster rate than ever before.

Now our most respected scientists estimate that humans are emitting 150 times more CO2 than volcanoes. Naturally, the sausage bangers, mesmerized by the fossil fool industries, would not acknowledge that and besides these hypotheses are all mere scientific “probabilities,” just like smoking gives you lung cancer though not all smokers develop lung cancer.

So mil-o what did you want me to debate? We’ve alluded to Plimer’s fraudulent “Heaven and Mirth” book; the shocking reviews it has received and the “probability” that Plimer has become the laughing stock of the scientific community.

In charitable fashion, I have also advised the bank account details for you to assist the pitiful Plimer, therefore allow me now to give you an update on how your beloved fossil fuel industry is surviving the onslaughts from the planet's inhabitants, whose livelihoods and ecosystems have been destroyed by the greed merchants in the oil industry:

contd…

Why are the self-appointed "leaders" of AGW and neo-Malthusian depopulation all so OTT pompous? Why can't they use plain English? Some jibes or taunts are to be expected in any debate, but these people always condescend without apparently aware that they appear to outsiders as pretentious narcissists and pseudo-intellectuals.

I suspect it's universally a class obsession thing (in some cases that's obvious), but the phenomenon seems to betray also some particular patterns of thought, emotion or even behavioral anomaly. Is it a fetish or sexual preference thing perhaps? Bizarre.

Mil-O, Did you know that the largest oil polluter at the moment is Shell, who’s been dragged kicking and screaming into court this week (I must seek an update.) Shell would have appeared before a US federal court on charges of torture, extra-judicial killing and crimes against humanity.

“Oil companies, including Chevron and Shell, have repeatedly used the Nigerian military to violently repress Delta inhabitants’ peaceful protests, causing deaths and injuries, and creating an environment in which ordinary citizens are unable to exercise their rights to free expression.

“ In 2006, the Niger Delta Natural Resource Damage Assessment and Restoration Project (an independent team of scientists from Nigeria, the U.K. and the U.S.) characterized the Niger Delta as “one of the world’s most severely petroleum-impacted ecosystems."

(2): The U.S. Supreme Court last year, cleared the way for lawsuits to go forward by apartheid victims seeking damages exceeding $400 billion from 23 foreign multinationals for having aided and abetted the perpetration of gross human rights violations in South Africa under apartheid by equipping and financing the apartheid government’s military and security agencies.

Defendants include but are not limited to: British Petroleum, PLC, Chevrontexaco Corporation, Chevrontexaco Global Energy, Inc., Exxonmobil, Shell Oil Company, Rheinmetall Group AG and Rio Tinto Group.

(3): The Alaska Native village of Kivalina, are suing two dozen oil, coal and power companies they claim have caused their land and homes to slide into the Chukchi Sea. Named in the lawsuit are BP PLC, BP American Inc., BP Products North America, Inc., Chevron Corp. Chevron U.S.A. Inc., ConocoPhillips Co., ExxonMobil, Royal Dutch Shell PLC and Shell Oil Co.

(4): In 2007, New York State sued Exxon Mobil Corp to force the cleanup of a decades-old, 17 million gallon oil spill in New York City. "Force?" Note how utterly irresponsible and immoral the fossil fuel industry is?

Word count restriction now Mil-O so I bid you adieu and may the fleas of a thousand camels infest your carcass and those of others who continue to sow the seeds of deception.

Toorooloo.