*Flame "bad scientists" - tick, poor old Ian even gets his personal beliefs questioned, as if that cheapens his scientific view, isn't that a little old fashioned Lyn? That's old attack the man not the ball, that you were against in a previous life, how things change when you need an income eh?

*Flame big oil for spending money - tick (really, is $1.6M such a big worry - what's the income of your new organization?)

*Identify how reasonable are the "good scientists" - tick (BTW, Barry Brooks who evidently says, "it's silly to debate the science" then devotes a large part of his website (Government funded) to coach on how to deal or debate skeptics. Is Barry religious, does it matter, if he's a good scientist?)

*Insist that the press is censored - tick, would you like Murdock papers to only reflect his views, or are you in favor of an open press - or is it optional on your whim?

*Accusations of undermining scientific consensus - tick. Science is not democratic, questioning of science should be welcomed, not seen as a crime.

This seems to follow the template of so many eco clubs attacks on open debate.

I heard this one today, and it seems to fit so well ..

A priest, a rabbi and an AGW hysteric walk into a bar ..

Rantings like this do more damage to the climate change pushers, than does the science. I'm afraid the almost rabid rantings of the former Senator make me so grateful that she no longer has any seat in the Parliament.

For instance calling George Pell a "notorious" Catholic. Heck Lyn, I'm sure you know who he is (wears the frock and all).

Those from the "climate change is real" side continue to push the line that if you don't believe it, then you're a heretic. Well Lyn, there are plenty of them around and they seem to be growing. Shall we burn them at the stake? Of course after purchasing the correct carbon offsets of course!

Let there be debate on the matter. It's the expression of democracy and extremely important if the issue is as a important as Lyn says.

A wonderful example of why Lyn Allison and the Democrats are political cadavers.

"Professor Ian Plimer, a mining geologist, is one such scientist happily cashing in on his speaking tours".
He might be crying all the way to the bank. How does Ms Allison know what Professor Plimer feels when he receives payment from his speaking tours? As much as she knows about nearly everything else I guess.

Excellent article, rational, considered; an insightful analysis of the blatant corporate propaganda machine that is denial.

"It is time to stand up for science, indeed it’s our only hope for survival of our species."

Since when did 'standing up for science' mean 'shouting down the opposition and blindly following the loudest group'? AGW proponents may be right, but they have yet to prove it. And if we're going to play the man and not the ball, how much has Tim Flannery made out of his doomsaying, I wonder?

"further undermining current science and polarising the debate..."

So 'polarising' means 'demonstrating that something has two sides' now, eh? This is a new meaning I haven't encountered before.

Nothing to see here, really; just an AGW fellow-traveller ticking the box to show she's paying attention.

Who's funding Lyn's man made global warming hypothesis? and would it pass university graduation exams in the form of a properly structured thesis, yes, without principle facts or evidence, probably yes.

It would be a PhD and under the guise of our forums own; “Pericluless”; Published in the Useless Idiotry Journal -; and aren’t those Journals growing big.

It is just a pity Stupidity has overtaken Reality;
And then ; - What comes next?

Lyn Allison should look at the figures she quotes in her own article as they substantially undercut her argument. She talks of powerful energy interests and how they gave $1.6 million to one group to pay scientists to critique AGW arguments. Bwhahahahah! Billions upon billions of dollars flowing into greenhouse research giving scientists a real incentive to pump up whatever evidence they can find linking carbon to greenhouse effect, and ignorning contrary evidence - otherwise no more funding - and Allison is seriously pointing to such a measley amount as evidence of anything.
All that amount, and the use to which it was allegedly put, really shows is that the opposition to the AGW scare campaign has been both feeble and disorganised.
The fact that the IPCC had the cheek to produce a report recently, saying that the situation is even worse than first thought, given what's been been happening with temperatues in the past decade is beyond belief. They could at least have been a bit humble about the lack of results..

The author actually owes Plimer a debt of gratitude, for his book confirms that denialists have absolutely no regard for science or accurate data of any sort.

Heaven & Earth is founded on a collection of howling scientific errors and long-disproved arguments - some of which have been dead almost a century.

These absurdities have been pointed out dozens of times, even in the pages of that Liberal Party promo sheet, The Australian newspaper, yet denialists carry on as though Plimer's arguments are solid and uncontested.

Better, the mistakes fundamental to Heaven & Earth aren't in areas of uncertainty or conjecture, but in solid principles that have simple, clear and abundant evidence that demonstrates Plimer's ignorance. He could be no more in error if he argued that the earth is flat, or that Uluru is made of chocolate.

If publishers wanted to make even more out of Plimer, they'd bundle his book with another volume detailing the gratuitous and embarrassing mistakes that underpin his argument.

"Heaven & Earth, sir? Have you checked the comedy section?"

What a wonderful, succinct and appropriate summary of where we are at in the AGW debate. Thanks Lyn. Despite the deplorable science emanating from that most dilapidated domicile of dodgy data, the Heartland Institute and their pissant postulaters like Plimer, Carter,Evans, Kininmonth etc, the 'Browner than Howard Brigade' still try to argue the science from an apostolic viewpoint, that of too much faith and too little fact. Again and again they spew forth their vitriol, with no scientific backing nor valid argument. More methane from the morons, with no "bright sparks" for combustion.

I'm a bit suprised at Allison's wierd launch into Pilmner's religion.

Just what the environment needs, more divisiveness. I'm sure that the Catholics who are working their rear ends off against climate change probably are also taken abit aback.

This is a really unhelpful contribution to the debate.

If the weight of scientific opinion is against Plimmer - and I believe it is – his opponents should explain how, giving reason and evidence. This article appeals to the authority of science to refute Plimmer but then gives not one scrap of argument or evidence to contest his claims. The very oppositve of a scientific approach.

Instead, Lyn resorts to ad hominem attacks:
“happily cashing in on his speaking tours’

stale rhetorical devices such as self-serving speculation about other people’s ulterior motives:
“Doubtless Plimer and they believe that, since God created humankind in his own image, we could not possibly be responsible for ‘planeticide’.”

Blatant red herrings:
“Doubtless Plimer and they believe that, since God created humankind in his own image, we could not possibly be responsible for “planeticide”.”

And prejudicial language:
“worshipfully”, “dark ages” “bitterly attack” “dared”, “clever buttons”

This kind of advocacy does its cause more harm than good

re: It is time to stand up for science, indeed it’s our only hope for survival of our species.
Yes science is our only hope. That is why many scientists are sceptical of the claims of the IPCC.
There has been too much fudging of information by that body. The famous hockey stick graph has disappeared from their repertoire and, if informtion available for the Port of Newcastle is correct, the oceam is rising by an inconsequential 0.15mm per year. Some of this rise is undoubtably due to human actions such as the actions which have lowered the water level in the Caspian Sea and lowered the water table wherever water has been extracted from underground reserves for irrigation purposes.
All such water ends up in the oceans. Those actions were nothing to do with climate change. They were mainly misdirected efforts to produce food for an ever increasing population.
I would be impressed if the Greens were prepared to at least look at the science and technology of nuclear energy, (follow the French example) a safe and reasonably clean energy and unlike that oxymoron, clean coal, with its carbon capture and storage, readily do-able now. Carbon in coal is too valuable as a reducing agent for future generations to be burned solely for its thermal content.

The pseudo science of gw is uncovered by many scientist and Lynn seems upset. She mentions Mr Flannery's whose past predictions has made the Jehovah Witness failed predictions actually look accurate in comparison.

Lynn concludes 'it is time to stand up for science, indeed it’s our only hope for survival of our species.'

Please don't make me laugh so much. If we really want to do something worthwhile we need to start with inward morality not outward shows.
True scientist must cringe when they hear such stupid statements.

That's an interesting rationale, Foyle. Do you mean to say that the IPCC is dodgy precisely because it *stopped* publishing a dubious graph?

How, then, do you feel about Plimer's use of a NASA graph that was edited by Martin Durkin to indicate the exact opposite of NASA's findings? Moreover, does it alter your opinion of Plimer that he included it in the book long after Durkin himself had withdrawn and apologised for the misleading graph?

Also, if this discussion is to include Ian Plimer's book, it should also include some links to scientific critiques that bury it and dance on the grave:

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

http://www.complex.org.au/tiki-download_file.php?fileId=91

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/04/the_science_is_missing_from_ia.php

A summary, from Enting's critique:

"Among the many errors made in attempting to establish these claims, are cases where Plimer:

- misrepresents the content of IPCC reports on at least 15 occasions as well as misrepresenting the operation of the IPCC and the authorship of IPCC reports;

- has at least 28 other instances of misrepresenting the content of cited sources;

- has at least 2 graphs where checks show that the original is a plot of something other than what Plimer claims and many others where data are misrepresented;

- has at least 10 cases of misrepresenting data records in addition to some instances (included in the total above) of misrepresenting data from cited source."

Would anyone care to address these shortcomings of Heaven & Earth without resorting to ideological name-calling?

It is staggering that Lynn is crying foul over the Murdoch papers reporting both sides of the argument.
When you read the one eyed reportage by the Fairfax journo's and the constant diet of "we are all going to die" stories on the ABC, BBC CNN etal, I read with amazement that Allison can claim that the alarmist point of view is not being aired (personally I blame Rudd for spreading this 'take no prisoners' style of politics and debate).
The debate is now at a level that you pick your team, alarmist or skeptic and you back them through thick or thin and damn the facts/fallacies that either side presents.
All debate about new research just breaks down to rancour and abuse without any attempt to actually get past the headline grab of the press release.
Sure, Plimar made mistakes in his book but compared to the clangers of Mann, Steig, Amman, Jones and the rest of that incestuous group of climate scientists have made it is trivial in the bigger scheme of things.
Plimar has at least encouraged the debate.
Expect more of the same in the ramp up to Copenhagen as alarmist try to force the politicians to do there biding.
How disappointed they will feel when the result will just be a committee compromise set to the lowest common denominator.

Lyn, you've been dispensew with. Go home & do something useful.

If the pension we pay you isn't enough, perhaps you could take in washing.

Much better than this rubbish you are spouting. Really, only room for the IPPC, & big All in the big lie. You'll have to find a different scam love.

Oh, I don't know, Plimer did a very comprehensive and thorough disembowelling of Young-Earth Creationist crap a few years ago. Solid endorsement of the chap in my opinion.

The question is: Why do any twits think lots of pollution is good anyway? Many more immediate pollutants have been found to be a bad idea, and whole industries reworked to accomodate. If the models are not good enough to satisfy critics that various emissions are a problem, why do they accept just any old crap that suggests it may be good? The model is *surely* not good enough to *endorse* pollution, particularly not the *exact* amount we just happen to make. That's just self-serving.

Rusty.

Ms Allison inadvertently reinforces Plimer's oft heard defence that most of the attacks upon him are ad hominem attacks, not attacks on his logic, by again attacking the man. It is ludicrous for her to attempt to link him by inference to conservative Catholics when he lost his own home defending Science against religious zealots and Creationsism in court.

As the community tires of hearing of predictions of climate disasters, Ms Allison is discovering that even the 'ramped up' message is now being ignored. Predictably, the alarmism has now backfired as it nearly always does.

Ms Allison is attempting to blame Plimer for the failure of the message by connecting him with all her imaginary bogey men from Rupert Murdoch to the Catholic church (though her logic is weak) in an attempt to create further disquiet and to avoid the fact that she and her ilk are clearly responsible for the current lack of interest in her message whether it be true or not.

The report that Lyn Allison supposes to have been ignored isn’t from the IPCC: it is a synthesis of the papers presented to the International Scientific Congress on Climate Change organised in Copenhagen last March by the International Association of Research Universities.

In a letter published in Science on 15 May, eleven of the the Congress’s session chairs - led by Mike Hulme, Professor of Climate Change at the University of East Anglia - complained of the journal’s coverage of the meeting (“Projections of climate change go from bad to worse, scientists report”, 20 March, p. 1546). They charged Science with following “the dominant mode of media reporting that has emerged in the weeks following the conference – that of impending doom.”

These 11 experts drew attention to the “large and growing body of research about climate change from the social sciences and humanities”, and argued that the insights from this source are “more engaging, empowering, and fruitful than a discourse of catastrophe.” The experts saw it as important that these insights be “given much more prominence in climate change science-policy interactions and in media reporting.”

Professor Warwick McKibbin of the ANU also chaired one of the Copenhagen sessions. Subsequenly, Warwick’s paper “Climate change scenarios and long term projections” (co-authored with David Pearce and Alison Stegman) has been published in the leading journal “Climatic Change” (18 August 2009).

The three Australian economists reported their support for “the argument presented by Castles and Henderson, that the use of [market exchange rates] in the SRES [scenarios] represents a serious analytical error.” Other leading economists in Australia and overseas have also supported the Castles and Henderson position.

“Science” published the letter from Hulme et al under the heading “Conference Covered Climate from All Angles.” Lyn Allison should also seek to cover climate from all angles and abandon her sectarian prejudices.

The former IPCC Co-Chair, Sir John Houghton, an evangelical Christian, is to be honoured with the World Cultural Council’s Albert Einstein Award of Science in November for his scientific achievements, not for his religious beliefs. The beliefs of leading sceptics are equally irrelevant.

It ought not to become as a surprise Ian, after all it is their Post Modern occult , and a sociology study of science ; http://majorityrights.com/index.php/forums/viewthread/190/
David Stove articulates the point well here; http://majorityrights.com/index.php/forums/viewthread/139/
The problem that we are faced with is that these occult members are in positions of power and influence , and in many cases are what is the Post Modern Occupation forces ; Quite Alien to the concepts of Logic and reason ; as what it use to be in some distant passed time , defined as Government ; That theory of Government these days is a Logical Fallacy .

Lyn Allison does not have the scientific intellect to debate the issues,so the next best thing is to try and discredit the man by alluding to paedophiles and making associations with capitalists such as Murdoch.Pretty pathetic really.

Posters on this thread (and others) defending the duplicitous Plimer, cannot spell his name – “Plimar, Plimner, Plimmer!”

Plimer is the laughing stock of the science community yet the rent-a-crowd here have not the vaguest conception of the incredible magnitude of the folly and the ignorance which their statement reveals.

Should Plimer respond truthfully to commentators, his claims would be revealed as misleading and fraudulent as exposed by the perceptive Tony Jones on Lateline.

Plimer has many conflicts of interest being a director of several mining companies and he's also a lead miner. The upper limit of airborne lead allowed in Australia is now 10 times higher than permissible levels in the US since that nation's environmental watchdog dramatically lowered the limit to protect the health of children and the environment.

The objective of the international coalition of eco-vandals (predominantly Canadian, American and Australian based miners) is to continue plundering the resources of many countries, regardless of the environmental costs. A ream of evidence reveals that these mining corporations are in litigation around the planet for human rights abuses and environmental desecration.

Australia’s Gorgon Gas JV partners are Chevron, Exxon and Shell. These companies continue to be involved in litigation around the planet on charges of human rights abuses, contaminating land, sea, air and destroying wild life and people's livelihoods.

In July, twelve fake letters were sent to members of the US Congress, urging them to vote against the U.S. energy and climate change bill. The letters were supposedly from grassroots organizations.

It's alleged that those writing under an assumed identity included none other than BHP Billiton and Chevron Mining.

Some thirty thousand indigenous people in Papua New Guinea are suing BHP Billiton for $5 billion for destroying their rivers, soils, crops and health. Experts estimate it could take 300 years for these ecosystems to repair themselves – if at all.

Yet while this coalition of greedy, corporate vandals and their sycophants remain largely responsible for heating the planet, corrupt governments are not holding them to account for putrifying and destroying the fragile ecosystems on which all life depends.

"In July, twelve fake letters were sent to members of the US Congress, urging them to vote against the U.S. energy and climate change bill. The letters were supposedly from grassroots organizations.
It's alleged that those writing under an assumed identity included none other than BHP Billiton and Chevron Mining"
Wow we have some revealing comments here. It's "alleged". Really? By whom?

“Wow we have some revealing comments here. It's "alleged". Really? By whom”

Blairbar – Why do you find a “wow” factor in this information? Could it be due to a total ignorance on the topic?

Or perhaps you condone the duplicitous and hypocritical Plimer’s alignment with the Godbotherers who, worshipping an imaginary supernatural deity, believes that science is for fanatics and that empirical evidence is an optical illusion of heretics. On reflection I wonder who’s paying Plimer’s university salary while he’s flitting around the world flogging his “Heaven and Mirth” book?

Furthermore Blairbar, any member of the rent-a-crowd, who questions my integrity, usually gets more than they bargained for:

http://www.smh.com.au/business/bhp-billiton-caught-in-us-climate-change-scandal-20090812-eicr.html

http://www.bismarcktribune.com/articles/2009/08/08/news/columnists/duggan/191727.txt

http://cooberpedyregionaltimes.wordpress.com/2009/08/13/bhp-billiton-linked-to-u-s-climate-change-bill-scandal/

http://clericalwhispers.blogspot.com/2009/08/bhp-billiton-philippines-mine.html

http://current.com/items/90685295_clean-coal-gets-dirtier-lobbyists-resort-to-forgery.htm

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Coalition_for_Clean_Coal_Electricity

http://www.corporatewatch.org.uk/?lid=3165

Cheers

Furthermore Blairbar, any member of the rent-a-crowd, who questions my integrity, usually gets more than they bargained for:

All Hail Mighty PROTAGORAS .. Queen of Online Threats. Hip Hip ...

Dear Protagoras
Thanks for answering my question. Now I and other readers know who alleged that BHP Billiton and Chevron Mining wrote the fake letters. None other than Protagoras.
Protagoras: "It's alleged that those writing under an assumed identity included none other than BHP Billiton and Chevron Mining"
SMH: August 13, 2009:"But a Washington lobby firm working on behalf of the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity admitted that an employee forged the letters and faxed them. BHP Billiton is a prominent member of the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity along with Peabody Energy, America's biggest coal company which owns mines in NSW and Queensland, and Chevron Mining which has two major gas projects in north west Australia."
I look forward to reading more of your insightful comments.
And as to your puerile threat I have complete faith in your medication and on-going treatment to keep me from serious harm.
Regards
Blair