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 > Why is it so difficult to answer three simple climate questions? > Comments

Why is it so difficult to answer three simple climate questions? : Comments

By Bob Carter, published 22/6/2009

Australians owe Senator Fielding a vote of thanks for having the political courage to ask in parliament where the climate empress's clothes have gone.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. Page 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. 10
  12. All
"If the subject were anything less serious than the future habitability of the planet Earth, I wouldn't go to the trouble of writing this review."
The author of this review (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,25433059-5003900,00.html) shoots himself in the foot in the first few lines! Hardly an unbiased point of view.
Posted by Sparkyq, Tuesday, 23 June 2009 4:36:59 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
Sorry, Sparkyq. I couldn't see the part of your post where you point out some factual errors in the review, or explain why Plimer plagiarised work and used statistics that even the most committed AGW denialists binned years ago, and why that doesn't trash his whole thesis.

Is your strongest argument that the reviewer sees no reason to disagree with the huge majority of qualified scientists - the ones that actually submit their work for review and criticism?

Put those goalposts back. I still want to see Leigh miss them.
Posted by Sancho, Tuesday, 23 June 2009 7:51:39 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
Sancho, your review mentions Plimer recycling Durkin's graph, "neglecting even to make the changes that Durkin made following an outcry over the fact that the past two decades of temperature measurements had been mysteriously deleted."

Interesting, as something Ashley doesn't mention is that had he done so, it would show that the past two decades now show virtually no net change in temperature over that period.

What we were fed in the media via the IPCC's activist core was a 0.3 degree increase per decade. I think the public has a right to ask why this hasn't happened, and whether the certainties of climate science are as rock solid as portrayed.

Given what is being demanded of the world by the IPCC, the attention given to Plimer's book shows a curious choice of targets to scrutinize.
Posted by fungochumley, Tuesday, 23 June 2009 11:05:10 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 should point out an error in my previous post - late at night and not necessarily thinking straight. The decline in total energy in the global system doesn't mean that more heat is escaping into space, although it could. More likely it means that less energy is getting in from space. Whether this is because of aerosols, cloud formation, fluctuations in solar energy, or something else, who knows, but it challenges the central role that has been given to CO2.
Posted by GrahamY, Tuesday, 23 June 2009 11:36:30 PM
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
>> "Interesting, as something Ashley doesn't mention is that had he done so, [the graph] would show that the past two decades now show virtually no net change in temperature over that period." <<

Correct - which is why Durkin changed it. The NASA data that Durkin's graph purports to represent showed a sharp and significant increase in temperatures during those two decades. But that information would completely undermine the GCCS's core argument. Noticing the discrepancy, Durkin showed respect for both science and the public by correcting the graph before using it in his documentary.

Just kidding! What he actually did was chop off 20 years of inconvenient data and present it as fact. This is what we call "fraud" or "a lie". Although that obviously didn't stop Plimer using it in his book.

Now, you would know all this already, fungo, which makes it simply unbelievable that Plimer didn't. There are bazillion websites where you can see the graphs side by side and read Durkin's specious explanations.

So, correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be saying that Durkin's version of the graph should be used, not because it represents genuine data, but because it's favourable to AGW denialism.

That, of course, is the de facto position of AGW "skeptics", but it's nice to see someone being open about it. Coupled with Leigh's self-absorbed whining about his precious pennies, we have the denialist philosophy in a nutshell: "To hell with truth and the environment. Tell any lie you need to, just as long as it doesn't cost me any money".
Posted by Sancho, Wednesday, 24 June 2009 3:54:53 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
And just for the record folks, all these GW believers use solar powered computers. The also go to bed when the sun goes down and rise at dawn. They are vegans. They walk everywhere and only cook on sunny days in a solar powered oven. They have a pedal powered pump to pump rain water through their shower heads.

I'm sure this is true, because if they really believed they would be doing their utmost to help the environment and not indulging in any form of activity that would lead to further carbon emmissions.

I rest my case
Posted by Sparkyq, Wednesday, 24 June 2009 6:49:41 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. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. Page 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. 10
  12. All

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