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 > The rocks man and the columnist > Comments

The rocks man and the columnist : Comments

By Stephen Keim, published 11/12/2009

Is Ian Plimer, author of 'Heaven and Earth', a climate change sceptic or a misguided idealogue?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. All
Does this come under "dissent will not be tolerated" ..?

So if you can't beat the science, rather than admit the man is quite rightly a skeptic, then relabel the heretic?

I have seen several posters recently all trying to change the definitions here - thus "skeptic" is now out of favor as it reflects a rational and natural abhorrence of the AGW "Consensual Church of the Settled Scientist" system.

The preferred term is of course "denier" and if you couple that with an allusion that anyone who questions AGW is questioning science itself, it all fits their belief system nicely.

You've twisted all the facts nicely so it might look like Plimer is being tricky, but it was Moonbat being tricky wasn't it - the moment he was challenged to a debate, he wanted something else (bait and switch, and you fell for it, Plimer didn't, he engaged on the same grounds and challenged Monbiot's actual qualifications to debate at all, a very good comeback nes pa?), so Monbiot quite clearly was trying to dodge the debate completely - the way you make it out, it was Plimer who didn't want to debate - far far from the truth.

The questions that Monbiot came up with, it was rightly suspected, did not come from him and that he was incapable of assembling them, which is why Plimer decided to see if he really had a clue, turns out he doesn't eh?

It all makes sense when you take off the AGW goggles doesn't it?

Do have fun in your little world of reassembled facts, it's what most AGW believers are famous for.

The more you try to remanage information, the more you look like data adjusters, which helps the skeptics case, thank you.
Posted by odo, Friday, 11 December 2009 9:44:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What a surprise! Monbiot’s questions for Plimer were OK, but Plimer’s questions for Monbiot “…read like a smokescreen.”

Why didn’t Keim simple say that he thinks that Plimer is wrong and Monbiot is right? He is perfectly entitled to do this but, no, he has to rabbit on, adding nothing to the umpteen discussions that have occurred over climate change which have in no way made a jot of difference to the beliefs of either side of the argument.

Kleim finishes his ‘non-event’ piece by saying that he is “… thoroughly disappointed that he (Plimer) has failed to answer even one of the charges brought against him.”

Well, big deal! Many of us are ‘thoroughly disappointed’ by the failure of scientists and Kevin Rudd to answer the charges we have made against them on climate change and its causes.

If Plimer is guilty as charged by Kleim, then so is Kleim himself, and people like Monbiot and other climate hysterics
Posted by Leigh, Friday, 11 December 2009 10:20:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The previous posts seem to miss a point: that Monbiot's questions challenged Plimer on alleged defects of his paper, and if the paper was not defective as alleged, the questions could be answered easily. (Most were along the lines of "What is your source for this information?").

Plimer's questions for Monbiot were not simple questions but looked like somewhere between lengthy homework assignments and research projects. Plimer alleged that Monbiot's presumed inability to answer them suggests that he is unqualified to write about the subject.

That's nonsense. If he's scientifically unqualified to write the actual articles he has written, the remedy for this is to make specific detailed criticism (ie quote the specific errors).

As for the proposed debate - it depends what it would have been about. If it was to be about which science is accurate then it should be between Plimer and another professional scientist. Would Plimer propose that, I wonder ?

The most horrifying aspect of the Plimer-Monbiot correspondence (see http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/09/14/correspondence-with-ian-plimer/)
is where Plimer says
"If you can not answer my questions of science, you are not qualified to ask me questions of science because my scientific answers therefore become pearls to swine".
This man is a Professor at the University of Adelaide. One wonders how he responds to questions asked by his students.
Posted by jeremy, Friday, 11 December 2009 11:12:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Plimer's arguments sound like like a version of the "argument from authority" fallacy,Plimer is a scientist therefore he's an authority on climate change,I suppose it's an improvement on economists and political scientists offering a "critique" of the global warming hypothesis.It's basically an attempt to undervalue the rigor and scientific creditentials of climatology,by people who don't have the wisdom of Socrates.
Once most of the smart money has shifted from the CO2 polluting industries to the new "clean, green and renewable" industries,it will be difficult to find an AGW "sceptic".
Posted by mac, Friday, 11 December 2009 11:37:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There is a cure for all of those who, through blind faith, (because there is no science to prove it) argue that CO2 is a pollutant.
Close your mouth and don't exhale that CO2 for sixty seconds, every minute. There, you're cured!
As far as normal people are concerned, we don't need to alter temperature graphs to prove that the world has been cooling for some time.
Also, if the world population is to increase as the UN believes then we need more CO2 to increase crop production.
Oh! Didn't you listen to your science teacher at school? CO2 is not only essential for all life on this planet, it is also a natural plant food.
If AGW has any substance it is because of over population.
Posted by phoenix94, Friday, 11 December 2009 11:43:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Monbiot is full of hate and bile in his column, he slags off at everyone he doesn't like - slagged off at Plimer and got challenged.

He should have thought of the consequences of his loud mouth shouldn't he.

Then once challenged, he goes off to find some way out when what he should have done is either accept the challenge, or reject it. But his ego got in the way.

Trying to be a smart ass has made this bigger than it should be.

Plimer should have just laughed at his attempt to dodge a debate, and not issued his own questions. His ego got in his way as well.

Monbiot is the source of this farce, he's the one with egg on his face.

The author is trying to attack Plimer using Monbiot as a proxy, yet another dishonest "believer", using yet another method to try to undermine skeptics.

If your case is so bulletproof, why are you all so worried and frightened by skeptics, why the need to recreate them as demons and anti-scientific?

More and more of the population is now coming down on the skeptical side, you used to have the numbers before and now have lost the audience, so you're lashing out at skeptics. you should be crediting the growing skepticism to acts like this of Monbiot, of people like this author, of the folks at CRU and all the rabid protesters currently on the edge of violence in Copenhagen.

Maybe it's time for a rethink, on the benefits of skepticism?
Posted by Amicus, Friday, 11 December 2009 2:09:56 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
The answer to your dilemma is simple. Plimer would believe he is fighting for science on both occasions and its you who has changed sides.

Monbiot is a journalist and Lambert is a Computer Scientist. Neither have a hope of debating the issues with Plimer who is a Professor of Geology. Neither could pretend to have better than a layman's understanding of the issues.

Monbiot refused to debate and, in an attempt to put Plimer on the back foot, asked a number of questions which presumed Plimer was already in the wrong. But how sure was he of his position? I guess if a person was sure of their position they would engage Plimer in a debate. The fact that it hasn't happpened says a lot.
Posted by Atman, Friday, 11 December 2009 2:17:02 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
no, atman. in fact the consistency is that plimer made an idiot of himself on both occasions.

*) yes, plimer could have chosen to ignore monbiot, but he did not. he challenged monbiot to a debate. monbiot chose to put a condition on that debate and so did plimer.

but it is not symmetric. monbiot's questions were specific and pointed, addressed to plimer's book and addressed to a purported expert. plimer's questions were general and vague, and it was absurd to address them to monbiot, who never claimed to be an expert.

*) in regard to the creationist debate, plimer pissed off a lot of atheists by making the creationists look like the good and reasonable guys. one hell of an achievement.
Posted by bushbasher, Friday, 11 December 2009 3:32:28 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
From what I've seen of Plimer recently on TV he comes across as borderline loony - being abusive and shrill like a troll. He seems to have picked up the politicians' trick of repeating his mantra 'CO2 is plant food' ad nauseum, but he doesn't seem to have cottoned on that, just like 'working families' and 'great big tax', it soon becomes so irritating that the message is lost. His statements are so simplistic that either he thinks he is talking to fools, or he is one - most unseemly in a Professor.

Does anyone know if he has answered the criticisms of his book by other scientists?
Posted by Candide, Friday, 11 December 2009 7:19:36 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
Here’s another example of a journalist/columnist allowing her own prejudices to get the better of her reporting:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/plimer-the-toast-of-copenhagen-sceptics-meeting/story-e6frg6xf-1225808821955
Posted by Horus, Saturday, 12 December 2009 7:09:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
bushbasher,

Yes,Plimer's behaviour in taking a creationist to court was an embarrassment for unbelievers everwhere,I thought that was the last we'd hear from him.

Candide,

Plimer's statements in regard to CO2 levels are bizarre, he seems to think that since a particular level of CO2 is an required for plant growth, more is even better. Any compound's toxicity is related to its concentration.
Posted by mac, Saturday, 12 December 2009 7:20:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“Plimer's statements in regard to CO2 levels are bizarre, he seems to think that since a particular level of CO2 is an required for plant growth, more is even better. Any compound's toxicity is related to its concentration.”
[another wooden stake through the heretics heart!]

And then we have this:
http://www.hortnet.co.nz/publications/science/n/neder/co2_nr1.htm#top

Whoops!
Perhaps the jury is still deliberating.
Posted by Horus, Saturday, 12 December 2009 9:00:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Wow, Horus, CO2 a greenhouse gas, who'd a thunk it?

As far as I know, corn isn't grown in greenhouses. Plimer never mentions the difference between C3 and C4 photosynthetic plants and how they react differently to rising CO2 concentrations. Perhaps that's because he's a geologist, not a botanist or biologist eh?

For your own interest I would encourage you to look it up yourself as well.
Posted by Bugsy, Saturday, 12 December 2009 10:07:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Paragraph from Bipond News today:

“It appears… that developing countries have won the upper hand at the Copenhagen summit.”

This refers to Penny Wong’s displeasure at a summit- endorsed proposal (not a leaked ‘private’ deal like the last one) that suggests that developed countries would have to reduced carbon emissions by 25% up to 2020, and by 75%, at least, by 2050.

The developing countries, however, like China and India, would only have to cut their emissions if they were paid to! The biggest emitters like China could allow their emissions to continue their upward spiral, unless the developed countries paid them not to.

Either way, we lose, they win.

Some of the waffling and requests from the ‘G77’ countries and the ’42 islands’ group at the Conference have been straight from la la land: $400 billion into the pot from the United States alone, was just one from the African countries; a rise of 2% would wipe out Africa, and so on.

One good thing about the Copenhagen Conference is that we get to find out what most of the world’s loonies are thinking, if ‘thinking’ is the right word.

Some of the delegates are ‘hopeful’ and find the whole circus ‘exciting’. But, the hard nosed reporters are describing the Conference as ‘fractured’ from day four, and predicting a ‘zero’ result from it. Hopefully, they are right. Any agreement made in Copenhagen would be a lot more disastrous than climate change if what has been reported from there so far is anything to go by
Posted by Leigh, Saturday, 12 December 2009 11:03:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Horus,

I think you missed the point,we don't live in a controlled experiment but an uncontrolled one. The reference was to the influences of CO2 levels on climate in general and the consequent effects on plant growth.Since crops are specific to regions,climate change will cause serious economic disruptions.
There are climate change sceptics and climate change 'sceptics',the latter are mainly people who have a large percentage of their portfolio investments in coal.Sometimes those heretics/dissenters are simply complete ratbags and their ideas are rejected for sound scientific reasons. I don't know why 'sceptics' are so agitated,nothing effective will be achieved at Copenhagen or any where else,so their wallets are safe,although some Pacific island states might not be.

For the time being I'll acknowledge geologists as authorities on geology,physicians on medicine and .... climatologists as experts on climate change.
Posted by mac, Saturday, 12 December 2009 3:33:41 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
No matter what we do now it will take around 200 years to see any change, the way i read it.
One science model says it is cyclic, but this time it is quicker than normal.
The best thing to do is do something for your self. Don't depend on govt; to fix any thing.
Find a cool room, where the family can go without the use of a/c.
Underground would be a good start.
Those who help them self will be more benefit than those who don't.
Posted by Desmond, Saturday, 12 December 2009 4:13:18 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 think it is obvious what is going on. Plimer knows he has made a number of mistakes, but doesn't think they go to the heart of his argument. And he's right on that score.

Monbiot is trying to run the barrister's trick of catching his prey out on small details and then casting doubt on his entire credibility and therefore his argument. Plimer is not buying into that, which is wise.

None of Monbiot's questions have anything much to do with the vast amount of historical evidence that CO2 has had little to do with changes in climate. The fact that he purports to think they are seminal indicates that he is wise to rely on Plimer's refusal to answer as a reason not to debate. He's the one who would likely end up losing.
Posted by GrahamY, Saturday, 12 December 2009 9:12:09 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
I think that is an exceptionally generous interpretation of the exchange there Graham, but then we all know where your biases lay.

I think that questions on statements presented as fact, but apparently fabricated and unsourced are quite relevant. Monbiots question 10 on Plimer's statement on volcanoes is relevant and goes right to the heart of Plimer's argument.

Monbiots questions, Graham are journalistic. As Monbiot is a writer and columnist. They are about Plimer's book. Discrepancies must be accounted for, yes? I mean, that's what everyone is saying about the 'Climategate' affair. One 'source' for the goose, another for the gander?

Monbiot asked questions about Plimer's book that Plimer should be able to answer easily,loaded or not, and account for discrepancies and provide references that may have been omitted, whether by accident or design. What does Plimer do? Replies with a series of nonsense irrelevant questions that a PhD in most sciences could not answer (and I seriously doubt Plimer can himself), i.e. a dickmove, just so that he can avoid answering the questions.

What little credibility amongst the scientific community Plimer had because of his status a professor is slipping away with his use of these sort of tactics. But then again, I somewhat doubt that Plimer cares for scientific credibility anymore, he has a well-selling book and alternative sources of income.

Scientists are such whores sometimes, but then they're only human and at least they're not journalists.
Posted by Bugsy, Saturday, 12 December 2009 9:58:40 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
The errors, omissions, distortions and misrepresentations in Plimer's book, Heaven & Earth, were made clear to him by both his peers and those more expert in particular fields that he is not.

These errors, omissions, distortions and misrepresentations were not corrected in any of the overseas publications subsequent to the Australian print run. He chose not to correct them, for what it appears, purely selfish and misguided reasons - his choice.

His book is entertaining at best, but to market it as a scrupulous and scholarly attempt to refute the overwhelming evidence that AGW is significant and poses a very real threat is more than selfish, it is irresponsible and borders on the delusional.

In my humble opinion, Ian Plimer has rocks in his head - metaphorically speaking of course.
Posted by Q&A, Saturday, 12 December 2009 11:10:12 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
the tipping point is that fossil fuels are running out anyway.
Posted by whistler, Saturday, 12 December 2009 11:48:29 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
So the usual brigade turns-up, this time to put the knife into Plimer. Bugsy and Q&A, where were you guys when an Inconvenient Truth was released where the inaccuracies do go to the heart of the movie, including the use of the Hockey Stick graph.

Why aren't you screaming about the malfeasance of scientists revealed by the "Climate Gate" leak and demanding that their work be deleted from the next IPCC report?

So tell me, which of Monbiot's claims invalidates Plimer's central thesis that there is nothing unusual about the current times, and that therefore anthropogenic CO2 is not the culprit?

The issue of volcanoes, which appears to be the only nit pick of any substance, doesn't invalidate it, that's for certain.

When this debate is dominated by people like you who will play the man and not the ball I think Plimer has every right to be strategic about what he will engage in and what he won't. You guys are involved in politics, not science, so a political response is what is required.
Posted by GrahamY, Sunday, 13 December 2009 6:51:41 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bugsy,
--“ Plimer never mentions the difference between C3 and C4 photosynthetic plants and how they react differently to rising CO2 concentrations. Perhaps that's because he's a geologist, not a botanist or biologist eh?”

And, you, knew nothing about measuring CO2 emissions from volcanoes –though it was of fundamental importance to the proposition you were defending. Perhaps that’s because you’re not a geologist,eh?

Mac,
--“We don't live in a controlled experiment but an uncontrolled one”
Which is precisely why many are wary of AGW computer modeling of real world systems , by modelers who cannot even *know* let alone effectively factor-in, all of the variables.

--“The reference was to the influences of CO2 levels on climate in general and the consequent effects on plant “
In your first post, Pilmer’s position was being misrepresented to make it sound that he had proposed that there was no toxicity level for CO2. When what he had really said was some additional levels of CO2 could have a positive effect on plant growth. And as we saw in the link I posted, Pilmer could indeed be right!

--“I don't know why 'sceptics' are so agitated,… their wallets are safe,although some Pacific island states might not be.”
Who’s agitated? I’m cool!
I’ve already snapped up three seaside properties for a song, from spooked sellers.
And I’ve got my eye on another, a nice little waterside cottage in Kirribilli—woooie! it’s got the lot; opposite the opera house, own mini marina , and its gardens…the best location to have a barbie and watch the new-years-eve fireworks . I’ve heard it’s current residents, are world warming worriers.When they decide to hightail it to a hilltop position in Katoomba I’ll be adding that to my portfolio too.
Pssst! Don’t tell them, but each night I go past I drop a few big boulders into their lily pond to make it appear the water levels rising.

Q&A
Criticises Pilmer for lack of substance .Then contributes 100 ways of saying “Pilmer speaks bullsh1t” ---and not a line or word of refutation.
Posted by Horus, Sunday, 13 December 2009 7:23:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I suspect Ian Plimer of looking to his own personal climate adaptation plan; getting the world to shift to low emissions looks so hard as to be impossible, he's managed to make more money easier by writing books based on controversy than by being a teacher and researcher, the more money he can make the better off his family will be in a climatically challenged world and there's no subject better suited to a controversial best seller than climate change. Maybe his experience with debating creationism has taught him how much gullible people will pay to hear the things they most want to believe.

I can't believe 'Heaven and Earth' truly represents any kind of real research on the subject on Plimer's part; I suspect that Pr. Plimer, wearing his teachers hat, would reject, with scorn, any student's work so full of blatant and brazen errors.
Posted by Ken Fabos, Sunday, 13 December 2009 7:52:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Actually Graham, I have always thought that AIT was just a brilliant piece of propaganda, attaining more critical acclaim than Durkin’s equally propagandising The Great Global Warming Swindle – the former a “movie”, the latter a “documentary”? Frankly my dear, I don’t give a damn (about either of them) – but go ahead, enjoy your popcorn.

Why aren’t I screaming (like a Bolt banshee) about the malfeasance of scientists revealed by the "Climate Gate" leak and demanding that their work be deleted from the next IPCC report?

As I’ve said elsewhere

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3282#78309

Besides, I prefer that the investigations be conducted and completed before I pass judgment. It seems you, on the other hand, shoot first and ask questions later - thank God you don’t work in border protection!

Delete work from a report that hasn't even been written yet, Graham? You're coming across a tad paranoid Graham, what next ... thought police?

You say Plimer's central thesis is “that there is nothing unusual about the current times, and that therefore anthropogenic CO2 is not the culprit” and ask which of Monibiot’s claims invalidates it? I’m not playing that game with you Graham, I will however provide a critique of Plimer’s opus, certainly his nest egg:

http://bravenewclimate.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/plimer2a0.pdf

You “think Plimer has every right to be strategic about what he will engage in and what he won't.” Yep, bang on – he engages with the likes of Barnaby in community halls all over the countryside - with a boot load of books, a boot load of money, and a boot load of kudos from people he's bamboozled and befuddled.

“You guys are involved in politics, not science, so a political response is what is required.”

I have repeatedly said that the bun fight is not about the science, it’s about politics, economics and socio-cultural background. I am a scientist, I can’t give you a political response. If I could, I’d be at Copenhagen, not on your OLO.

_______

Horus, see you on the other thread – right now, I’m off to big smokey.
Posted by Q&A, Sunday, 13 December 2009 9:18:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Graham,

Your observations on Mombiot's deviousness are spot on. They will use any little trick to take the heat off themselves and to escape from actually explaining themselves and their notions. They throw it back on their questioners, by posing their own questions (no matter how irrelevant) then scuttle away, once again, without carrying out their obligation to explain themselves on matters which will have massive consequences for the world.
Posted by Leigh, Sunday, 13 December 2009 12:35:19 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
GrahamY and Co.
The question is not if journalist V Geologist who is the best to discuss
*"the relevant"* science they're both outsiders with quite apparently peripheral understanding. The journalist is interested in entertainment, selling copy...over the top..exaggerating for effect.

Plimer is a geologist they talk in time frames of ages, eras and eons these science can't be specific enough to be overly relevant to this topic. Ask a geologist to define the date or century of any age, era.

AGW science is ridiculed because one source made an error of 3 decimal points of a degree. Yet its time frame is multiple decades far more precise than Geology.

*I have posted several sites that conservatively and academically deal with the indisputable science involved* this has included actual uni science degree lectures.

The less than admirable behaviour of one source of many to some apparently, instantly negates thousands of scientists and confirmed science, what happened to objectivity?

I've yet to see a counter credible scientific criticism of the science, that clearly shows, too much CO2 is more than the smoking gun.

The models all give a range of temperatures.(that is where the academic dispute is *not the existence of AGW*). The IPCC reports have chosen the lowest.

Even Einstein, brilliant as he was, wrongly opposed Quantum Mechanics, and recent science discoveries are tending to show that his surviving theories fail under extremes. Note the wording.

How about dealing with the *SCIENCE*, prove that wrong. Even Abbott hasn't bothered to be informed on the science( Lateline) 'In God we trust' perhaps? "I'm a politician (not a scientist)". Sorry, any wonder why the "Mad Monk" is apt.

BTW GY I'm not impressed with Rudd either but Abbott is anti something he isn't competent to be anti on, great for a potential PM.
Posted by examinator, Sunday, 13 December 2009 1:40:06 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
Horus,

Plimer wasn't being misrepresented - is it a valid position for a geologist to say increased CO2 is an advantage to plant growth in controlled conditions so it might be advantageous on a global scale,with thousands of variables in the natural environment,variables which might affect the toxicity of CO2-it's a matter of credentials. I'd rather have the opinion of a plant physiologist,Plimer might indeed be correct,as a coincidence,so I'd take his opinion with a grain of salt. Cane toads were a great idea---in the lab.

Speaking of misrepresentation,one of the favourite straw man arguments of the climate "sceptics"/sceptics is that the hypothesis is based entirely on rubbery models,it is not,there is plenty of evidence (biological,geographical, record droughts) for a current warming trend,this is reported on a regular basis,what happens in the long term, and its cause, is open to question, of course.
I'd quite happily buy coastal land as well,it's all a matter of lead time.Who gives a rat's for future generations,"spend the cash in hand".
People will soon be able to book a voyage through the North West passage,that's a prospect worth contemplating.
I suggest you look for a less quixotic champion for your cause,perhaps someone who actually has some expertise in the field. Why are you sceptics all rallying around a geologist and not climate scientists,where are the legions of climatologist sceptics?
Posted by mac, Sunday, 13 December 2009 2:55:51 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
Graham, I don't have to put a knife into Plimer, he does a great job of that himself.

The only people screaming about malfeasance in the "Climategate" affair are bloggers who already made up their minds that they didn't believe in climate change, no matter what the science says.
What I’ve read in those emails says nothing about malfeasance to me.

I’ve never defended Al Gore, and personally don't really care for him, and I've never seen An_Inconvenient_Truth. However, I don’t think Al Gore ever claimed to be a climatologist or scientist of standing, as Plimer does.

By his own words and criteria, Plimer denigrates himself to not 'doing science' but being political:

"Blog and WWW sites are quite correctly the places for anonymous unbalanced unsubstantiated opinion which is why my one and only blog entry was to challenge you to a debate. Until blog and WWW sites are edited, peer reviewed and transparent, they remain an outlet for ignorance, anger and misinformation and do not constitute the process of science. Scientists who spend time on blogs and their own narcissitic WWW sites are not undertaking science. They are involved in political activism, which is not a process of science."

Books are not peer-reviewed either and are a used to get around the peer-review process. As far as I am aware, Plimer hasn't published his thesis in peer-reviewed literature either, hence is no better than the bloggers.
The major difference being though, Plimer makes money by selling his books and engaging in his own brand of political activism.

I think Plimer made a big mistake when he declared: "If you can not answer my questions of science, you are not qualified to ask me questions of science because my scientific answers therefore become pearls to swine",
because Monbiot didn't ask him questions of science, he asked questions on information sources, to clear up unreferenced claims and to explain the differences between his scientific opinion and actual climatologists scientific opinion.

Plimer writes like he’s unaware that anyone else is reading. It’s very unbecoming of the “person-of-standing” he believes himself to be.
Posted by Bugsy, Sunday, 13 December 2009 4:40:48 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
Bushbasher
I stand by the point that Plimer believes he is representing science on both occasions. Whether you or anyone else believes that he is or not is not really the issue
Posted by Atman, Sunday, 13 December 2009 6:39:36 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
Monbiot ducks the debate by trying to dictate the terms to suit himself and then accusing Plimer of avoidance when PLimer denies Monbiot the right to dictate the terms. Ultimately, Monbiot failed to front up to a debate on flimsy grounds.

Bushbasher- you said Monbiot didn't claim to be an expert. This is not in fact true. He is implicitly claiming greater expertise and knowledge.

GrahamY got it right about the attempt by Monbiot to use legal methods to discredit. Science does not work that way.
Posted by Atman, Sunday, 13 December 2009 8:06:53 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
I don't believe Plimer represents anything scientific; sciency sounding, yes, and clearly plenty of people, who want to believe AGW isn't real, think it's science. I think Plimer knows what he says has no scientific value and that he has picked out and assembled arguments for a target audience of non-scientists. I just can't believe he fails to know his position has no scientific credibility. He may believe that our current wealth and prosperity, so dependent on fossil fuels, can't be maintained by other means and even that adaptation is a better course than mitigation but I don't think he truly believes his own arguments that AGW is false. He may believe that all the debate and what he writes and says won't make any significant difference (thus absolving himself of any sense of responsibility) but I don't think he's a genuine sceptic and I don't believe he's a genuine idealogue; I think he's a charlatan who is enriching himself by fanning the flames of controversy.
Posted by Ken Fabos, Monday, 14 December 2009 7:17:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Plimer is stirring the pot for his own gain. He has consistently been unable to propoerly explain his stated positions. There have been a number of detailed critiques of his work that highlight major flaws in his assumptions. I have yet to see a detailed response by Plimer to any of these critiques (I could be wrong on this and I'm happy to be corrected).

The argument most skeptics are pedalling has changed from 'there is no global warming' to 'there is no AGW' because the evidence of a warming climate is fairly compelling. Very few people want to accept responsibility (as the human race) for the changes that need to happen, and I think this is now driving more than any real problem with the science. Politicians are happy to latch on to this opinion because they see it as a vote winner
Posted by Phil Matimein, Tuesday, 15 December 2009 11:57:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am reading with interest the people who believe that the man was being unfair to Ian Plimer- I would like the people to explain- Monbiot asked the man to explain his position to cite the evidence for his claims- some of the claims have been proven false! Yet no citing of evidence and simple evasion-

if you are going to be FAIR you need to be FAIR TO BOTH SIDES Monbiot has asked Plimer a very easy set of questions- and it is this that this article is talking about- instead of answering he replied with a bunch of crap that monbiot sent off to other scientists to gauge their opinions - and it was their considered opinion that the response provided by Plimer was a evasion and non sensical- now if you people can not figure this very simple set of dialogues - i am not surprised you still hold out hope that plimer is right! Next thing you will want us to believe is that we can turn gold into lead! or that we would want to!
Posted by CanadianBear, Tuesday, 15 December 2009 2:28:50 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
CanadianBear From my reading of the email trail it was Plimer who suggested the debate. Monbiot clearly evaded a live debate saying he was "not an expert" which was a rather lame point of view considering he was constantly challenging Plimer on academic points. He then attempted to push Plimer into a battle through his media column, which Plimer rightly claimed to be an inappropriate and unsuitable medium. After clearly evading the battle, Monbiot attempted to suggest it was actually Plimer who was evading a debate - a strange point to make since he had actually requested one! Plimer states that he was happy to answer all questions in the debate but not according the Monbiot's rules which were not agreed to but dictated by Monbiot to gain an advantage. Monbiot posed questions to Plimer but refused to answer basic level university questions about climate saying they were too obscure and he was not an expert. As far as I can ascertain Monbiot was way out of his depth and he knew it but to save face he continued to "throw stones" and make threats and accusations while running away.
Posted by Atman, Tuesday, 15 December 2009 6:55:08 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 am replying here with the advantage of having seen Lateline last
night on the ABC.

I was disappointed that Prof Plimer was unable to answer the primary
question about decline since 1998.
Having seen the graph which the argument is about, if 1998 was removed
it is hard to see much more that a pause in temp increase.

However it was the wrong argument to take up. There are a number of
other points that would have been more enlightening.
Much more important is whether the present temperatures are truly
something to worry about.
Another question is CO2 above, say 500 ppm really something to worry about ?
Are there other times when temperatures have been reasonable and yet
CO2 has been well above present levels.

These are the questions I would like to see answered.
What was the the CO2 level during the Middle Ages Warming ?
These are the sort of questions I would like to see answered.
I was disappointed that Lateline did not produce such answers.
Posted by Bazz, Wednesday, 16 December 2009 6:43:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bazz I agree that Lateline was disappointing. I also found Plimer underwhelming. I'm wondering what the debate was supposed to be about. Was it just an opportunity for Monbiot to put the questions to Plimer that Plimer had already refused to answer? Pretty unsatisfactory all round. If it was supposed to shed light it was only doing it in the IR spectrum.

And Jones basically ganged-up on Plimer with Monbiot, letting Monbiot get away with a few frauds of his own, such as the claim that it has never been warmer than at the present. (Mind you, if Plimer wanted to get Jones onside insulting him wasn't a smart move).
Posted by GrahamY, Wednesday, 16 December 2009 7:09:53 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
i recommend that everyone go to the abc website and watch the lateline exchange.

>> Was it just an opportunity for Monbiot to put the questions to Plimer that Plimer had already refused to answer?

you say that as if it is a bad thing.

>> And Jones basically ganged-up on Plimer with Monbiot,

nonsense. the whole point between monbiot-plimer is that plimer claims to be the expert, makes claims, and continually refuses to answer questions about those claims. plimer's performance last night was classic plimer.

last night, plimer was repeatedly asked questions because he repeatedly evaded answering them. jones did what any decent journalist would do. if anything, he was too tolerant of plimer's continual obfuscation and misdirection.

>> I also found Plimer underwhelming.

graham young found plimer "underwhelming". heh heh heh.
Posted by bushbasher, Wednesday, 16 December 2009 8:53:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Clearly Ian Plimer, in his exalted position as a Scientist, considers it beneath him to answer questions from a mere journalist. Therefore he wouldn't stoop so low as to deal with the issues on a program like Lateline.

In that case it's about time he allowed his analysis to be properly tested by other important people (presumably other Scientists). This would be fairly easy - he would just need to submit some papers on global warming to scientific journals for peer review.

But given his work is so full of glaring errors, it's much simpler (and more profitable) to publish it in a book, pretend it's science and ignore the critics.
Posted by Cazza, Wednesday, 16 December 2009 10:37:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
it's hardly surpising Pilmer supporters are disappointed by his performance on Lateline,
the guy's a shonk, a total fraud waving around a book of fairytales he's trying to sell.

thanks for the exposition Graham.
Posted by whistler, Wednesday, 16 December 2009 10:55:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I personally am a bit mystified why Pilmer still has credibility. Granted Pilmer has always said that "Heaven and Earth" is a work of advocacy rather than science. But after reading responses from people whose work he "quoted" in there it become evident he went well beyond honest advocacy. There were more than a few who said he was outright lying about their work and views. Surely this was obvious from what was reported at the time.

Bazz: "Another question is CO2 above, say 500 ppm really something to worry about ?"

My understanding the problems stem more from the rate of change rather than the change itself. CO2 is rising faster now than at any time in Earths history. The worry seems to be two fold. First is the water. Changing weather means rain ends up in different places. The monsoon disappearing in the worlds most populous area (Asia) is a possibility. The water will fall somewhere else - but Asia would starve. And dry / wet cycles get longer. Think the 10 year drought we just had turning into 20 years. Even at this early stage water is the principle cause of consternation here in Australia.

The second problem is the ability of the biosphere to cope with such a change, as evolution works more on the scale of millennia. If is doesn't we could see mass die offs in our food chain.

But back the importance of rate: if these changes happened over a millennia like they usually do, it would not be a problem. But if it happens in decades ... well you can't move billions in decades.

Bazz: "Are there other times when temperatures have been reasonable and yet CO2 has been well above present levels."

Yes. Approx 3 times now (900ppm) at the end of the Permian. Don't take too much comfort from that though. The Permian ended with the biggest mass extinction the planet has seen, 95% of species and 99.5% of individuals dying.
Posted by rstuart, Wednesday, 16 December 2009 1:34:50 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've now seen the 'Lateline' segment, and I must say that Plimer came across as a pompous, evasive git. Monbiot, on the other hand, acknowledges the damage done recently to the public perception of climate scientists while calmly insisting that Plimer address the very striaghtforward questions asked about claims he made in his book.

Even Tony Jones comes across as reasonable compared to Plimer. I think that any credibility Plimer might have had with respect to climate change science has gone completely down the gurgler.

The climate delusionists need to find a new poster boy.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Wednesday, 16 December 2009 2:53:20 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
rstuart,

I'm also amazed that Plimer has "credibility" with climate change "sceptics". You might find this link interesting.

http://www.badscience.net/2009/12/copenhagen-climate-change-blah-blah/

The scepticism is psychological rather than intellectual.
Posted by mac, Wednesday, 16 December 2009 3:00:39 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
I watched some of the lateline exchange, though not with my undivided attention and I thought Monbiot presented better than Pilmer.

That said, I can imagine that some people seeking a position on AGW may have switched off the TV while thinking a pox on both their houses. Neither came across as particularly impressive for who I'd throw my vote in without more research. The whole combativeness of the debate may be making people put it in the to hard basket.
Posted by JL Deland, Wednesday, 16 December 2009 5:15:43 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
Some people reading this thread might not know what others are talking about re: Lateline.

Well, I guess someone has to link to it. Watching is 'enlightening', but so is the transcript.

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2009/s2772906.htm
Posted by Q&A, Wednesday, 16 December 2009 6:07:49 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
Also,

I found it disturbing (but not surprising) that Professor Plimer (the author of the best selling Heaven & Earth) appeared less familiar with his own book than did Tony Jones, the journo who freely admits (like Monbiot) he is not a scientist.

Indeed, Tony Jones did some homework, unlike that of the 'scrupulous' academic - a tad hypocritical, if not disingenuous, if not on his own mission, hey what?
Posted by Q&A, Wednesday, 16 December 2009 7:35:22 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
Atman and all who say that Monbiot is out of his depth,

Seriously, Monbiot published the full string of emails about the debate- when Plimer send Monbiot the questions about science, Monbiot sent those questions to scientists that were qualified to answer them and asked them to do just that, but there response to monbiot was that the questions were really just tripe and nonsensical non science so Monbiot gave that as his answer and again tried to ask Plimer for his references for the claims made in his book!

I don't know if you all watched the debate on lateline between Plimer and Monbiot the other night but when plimer was confronted with a clear error in his citiation where plimer cited a specific reference that when Monbiot contacted the author of the paper cited the conclusion Plimer came to was exactly the opposite to the one the author arrived at- now when Monbiot pressed Plimer on this specific error in his citation - plimer would not answer! he evaded, ducked and dived- again, on other specific information cited within plimer's book when asked for specific references plimer ignores the questions-

this is not what a man who can cite a legit arguement does- if you have proof that your opponent is clearly wrong you bash him over the head with his mistakes- with your proof that he/ she is wrong and why!

Plimer does no such thing- he just insults, evades and makes up stories and prejudices - this is not what a man does who is standing on solid evidence.

Climate change is real- we can see it in evidence all over the world from rising ocean acidity, to the rapid increase in rates of glacier melts- to the thawing of the tundra etc- all these alone do not confirm the theory of man made global warming- but taken together and taken with undertanding of systems theory they make a more than reasonable argument that we humans are pushing the global ecosystem into uncharted territory....
Posted by CanadianBear, Friday, 18 December 2009 1:02:46 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
to all those who think global warming is just part of a natural cycle,

carbon is one of the most abundant molecules in the earth's system. there is a natual carbon cycle, NO DOUBT ABOUT THIS-

but if you understand anything about systems theory- which trys to explain how complex compent within systems interact then you will not be surprised to find out that even a small increase in one varible in a large complex system like the global carbon cycle is enough to change the entire systems fucntionality....

for example we are begining to see the rising ocean acidity- this is due to the natural ocean carbon exchange with the atmoshpere begining to show signs of higher concentrations of co2 in the atmoshpere- why is is this important? already we see the higher acidic ocean effects on coral reefs and other small lifeforms that form shells- for the weak carbonic acid is making it difficult for them to form thick shells- this is effecting the baseline food chain phytoplankton- the root of the foodchain in the ocean- so with the change of one varible- we are capable of having broad systemic changes through out all the subsystems that interact with the crabon cycle!

Since we are unable to see where this is going to lead, I believe all cautious and responsible people should advocate a bit of caution in continuing further increases in carbon concentrations in the atmoshpere. AKA- come off fossil fuels and define growth and value in new ways that literally does not risk the experiement of higher intelligence on Earth.
Posted by CanadianBear, Friday, 18 December 2009 1:19:17 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
Hear hear Canadian bear! Nicely put.
Posted by JL Deland, Saturday, 19 December 2009 2:24:16 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. ...
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. All

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