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 > Heaven, Earth and science fiction > Comments

Heaven, Earth and science fiction : Comments

By Mike Pope, published 11/6/2009

To avoid following the polar bear to extinction, 'homo sapiens' would do well to reject the science fiction espoused by Professor Ian Plimer.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. ...
  9. 43
  10. 44
  11. 45
  12. All
The key point to get from Plimer's book, which most people seen unaware of, is the way that climate change is a natural and regular phenomenon.
http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/temperature-and-co2-concentration-in-the-atmosphere-over-the-past-400-000-years

The above link is to graphs plotting temperature and CO2 levels as measured by the Vostok Ice Core samples, relied upon by blogger John D in another thread, to show a corelation between CO2 levels and temperature over a period of around 400,000 years.

Whilst it undoubtedly shows there is a strong relationship (though not necessarily causal) what is also apparent is that the spike in temperatures we have experienced over the last 20,000 years is typical of a roughly 100,000 year cycle.

Can someone, Q&A perhaps as you seem quite well informed, explain why a temperature and CO2 trend that has been going on for about 20,000 years, which accords with an apparently regular 100,000 year cycle, is suddenly being attributed predominantly to human activity? Also, by what mechanism were the previous spikes in temperature and CO2 levels reversed, and why should we not expect that same reversal to occur in the present case? I'm genuinely interested.
Posted by Kalin1, Thursday, 11 June 2009 1:47:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I didn't find Pilmer's book a gripping read but neither did I throw it in the fire in disgust. I tend to side with those who say climate change may be man made and that whatever the case, lowering carbon emissions is a good idea.

What I haven't found in the debate is old fashioned falsification. Aren't scientists trying to prove their theories incorrect? Maybe I'm way out there with Karl Popper on this one.

It seems a battle of 'my opinion leaders/scientists' versus 'yours'.

The pictures of ice shelfs falling in to the sea are graphic, so you'd reckon that the sea level must rise. Not a millimetre. Does anyone else find that odd?
Posted by Cheryl, Thursday, 11 June 2009 3:13:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Another of the increasingly hysterical and alarmist articles by the author.

Clearly panic is setting.

If you're all so sure of yourselves why do you bother with all the personal attacks, surely the "science" stands in its own?

It will be interesting in years to come to see what is thought of this current age of panic and science bullying. Each age believes they know everything and this one is no different, our own arrogance will be our downfall, not the climate which changes whether we like it or not. Shouting at each other will not turn things around.

Mike, go write your own book on climate change, see if you can do better than Dr Plimer. (See how many say, motor mechanics diss you.)
Posted by odo, Thursday, 11 June 2009 3:23:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Q&A states that no-one he knows thinks CO2 concentrations are the only driver of climate change. Yet Pope refers to a supposedly "strong" and "close" correlation between atmospheric CO2 and temperature over the last 600,000 years to refute Plimer. If there is such a strong correlation between two variables, but there are other driving factors, isn't it normal in such scenarios, whether one is looking at climate or the mating habits of lima beans, to suspect a third factor driving both variables?

Even if there is a causal influence - an enhancement - as the story goes, this would seem to me little more than just that. It's like closing the doors on a hot day and saying the doors are causing the warming. The threat is of a spiralling feedback loop, exponentially, tipping pointingly, heating the world to hell. But CO2 concentrations have been higher before. What prehistoric ETS fixed the problem? From whence the return to Ice Ages? Seems obvious to me that the primary driver is something else, probably the sun, the source of all earth's energy. Perhaps we should be looking into a Solar Heat Irradiation Trading Scheme (or SH...never mind)

I add that the whole tone of this article and the jibe about royalties makes me doubt Pope's motivations more than Plimer's. Anyone who thinks books of reassurance sell better than alarmism is simply wrong, and desperately looking for any angle to discredit the author.
Posted by fungochumley, Thursday, 11 June 2009 6:22:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
One need only read the transcript between Tony Jones and Ian Plimer to realise that Plimer is a duplicitous toad. He set out to fool Jones that global temperatures had cooled and that the 30s had the hottest temperatures. Then it was hot in the 20s and the 40s.

When Jones persisted that Plimer support his assertions, Plimer, dragged, kicking and screaming, admitted he was referring to temperatures in the United States. What a sneaky piece of work he is:

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2008/s2554129.htm

And those who perpetuate the same myth (like Curmudgeon,) may like to refer me to one scientist trained in any of the appropriate disciplines - anywhere on the planet will do, who has favourably critiqued Plimer's Heaven and Mirth. What self-respecting scientist would risk his credibility (or his career) by supporting such a fraud?
Posted by Protagoras, Thursday, 11 June 2009 10:36:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I find it interesting that it's the economists that fall most heavily for tha AGW myth. Could it be that when you have devoted your life to voodoo, in the form of economics, it's easy to believe this other voodoo of AGW?

Perhaps, when you pretend to be able to predict the future, in one area, you have to believe others who claim to be able to predict it in other areas.

How can you expect others to accept your bull sh1t, if you won't accept theirs?
Posted by Hasbeen, Thursday, 11 June 2009 11:08:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. ...
  9. 43
  10. 44
  11. 45
  12. All

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