How sobering. The opinions of At-"aliens run our government"-man.

I, for one, would be very interested to see "a list of over 400 scientific peer-reviewed articles which discount the AGW theory". I'm placing my bet right now that the articles on that list have been taken out of context, and/or the clear majority of authors concur that man-made climate change is occurring.

I'd also like to see spindoc defend any of Plimer's scientific claims that are under question in this thread, rather than spam it up with, "2+2=4? Nyah, nyah! It doesn't, and I can prove it by blowing this raspberry! Blllhhhhh!"

Steven

Yep, you’re on the money. I too would like the so called "deniers" to be right. I am not optimistic.
_______

Horus

I can see heaps of published papers in climate journals in Hansen’s CV;

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/staff/cv/cv_hansen_200912.pdf

but no books.

I can only surmise you are referring to Hansen’s one and only book, “Storms of my Grandchildren” released last month.

I’ve read Plimer’s epic story and found it lacking, I am looking forward to reading Hansen’s

http://www.stormsofmygrandchildren.com/beyond_the_book.html

Have you read Plimer's H&E? Will you read Hansen's book?

______

Ken

“The last thing Plimer could want is careful, deliberate, critical examination of his claims by expert witnesses.”

Exactly!

_____

spindoc

<< I love it, love it, love it.

It’s a bit like watching a 1,000 year old replay of the Vatican Inquisition as Cardinal George Monbiot “grills” poor Copernicus or Galileo.

Whilst frothing at the mouth, Cardinal George screams, “Fabrication”, “lies”, fabricated science”. Heretics, heretics!

Just like the good old dark ages when science was “tried” by the church.

Well, I suppose since all the other religious “champions” have been slaughtered, we may as well give a foreign journalist a crack.

Love it, love it, loooooove it >>

You are sounding more shill by the day, spindoc.

Incidentally, it was Svanthe Arrhenius who over 100 years ago postulated the problems caused by the enhanced greenhouse effect – your ‘church’ has been “frothing at the mouth” ever since.

“I can provide a list of over 400 scientific peer-reviewed articles which discount the AGW theory.”

Are you sure about that Atman because several of these "sceptics" do not deny AGW but are disputing measurements and predictions? A couple of the peer-reviewed “sceptics” come to mind who have publicly acknowledged AGW – John Christy and Roger Pielke Jr so perhaps you need to re-phrase your statement?

I must say that “400 scientific” articles sounds impressive, however, many articles are written by the same few authors – the "usual suspects." How they were peer-reviewed is interesting since among the peer-reviewed are miners, economists, geographers, industry consultants, statisticians and computer buffs. Then there are others who have degrees in political science and so on. Perhaps I could join in the fray? I know heaps about motorbike frogs.

And there’s plenty of big bribes too… errrr… research grants snatched from the fossil fuel industry by these peer-reviewed gentlemen.

Anyhow wouldn’t you agree that taking hundreds of thousands of dollars from the fossil fuel industry (its members being the recalcitrant culprits responsible for global warming or at the very least, the destruction of our eco-systems) is the same as a juror taking a bribe from a defendant?

Now I wonder where the rest of those peer-reviewed scientists were when a group of these chaps and their campaigners met in Copenhagen recently to discuss “The biggest lie ever told.” There they were - all 30 of them – mostly grey-haired old codgers – “crammed” in at the Danish Writers' Union for a two-day "international" seminar on the fallacies of global warming.

And the old dears went cock-a-hoop over having the toast of Australia, the most "honourable" Mr Plimer, as a star attraction of the two-day event.

"I am speaking here about algal reefs, not Al Gore reefs, although by the way they are both a type of slime," snorted the guest of honour.

Oh he does do Australia’s science community proud and truly a worthy nominee for induction into Australia’s “Dirty Dozen” Hall of Infamy.

Protagoras - I think you mean some scientists believe warming is possible but not AGW. You mention John Christy, the former lead author of the IPCC report. He disagreed so vehmently with the UN IPCC conclusions but so desperate and cowardly was the IPCC they would not remove his name from the document. He had to threaten legal action to get it taken off. This is the organisation which you fervently trust and support.

In relation to oil interests, you may be unaware that the CRU sought money from big oil and Rajendra Pachauri, the climatically unqualified head (sometimes called head scientist) of the IPCC, was a board member of Indian Oil.

Where is your evidence of "bribes" paid to anti-AGW scientists? (From an independent source)

BTW Can you name 5 non UN climate scientists who support AGW?

“Protagoras - I think you mean some scientists believe warming is possible but not AGW.”

Atman – Please interpret my script literally.

I don’t intend to spend a couple of hours on your behalf, researching my massive archives to locate the sceptics who acknowledge AGW.

However, I'm reminded of Robert Balling Jr, a scientist (and a delayer, prone to publications of ambiguity) from the U of Arizona, who, after a request for information, acknowledged that he had received $408,000 in research funding from the fossil fuel industry. I believe his strategy is called "a bet both ways!"

The hacking criminals and the potential gaol birds (the recipients of stolen goods) slyly infer that the CRU are the rent boys to the fossil fuel industry when the overwhelming and indisputable evidence reveals the opposite. I trust Scotland Yard will tracks these thugs down.

The CRU disclosed its major donors for its establishment from its inception and those donors included “British Petroleum, and Royal Dutch Shell.”

In our commercialised Australian universities the largest benefactors, Xstrata, BHP Billiton, Rio Tinto Alcoa, the Coal Association, MCA, Woodside, Chevron Texacon etc etc, are now running the show, distributing their ill-gotten funding throughout the halls of every academic and research institute in the nation.

Now ethical scientists in Australia are bullied and threatened if they publish adverse findings on environmental and health issues.

Between 1998 and 2005 ExxonMobil granted $16 Million to global warming sceptic organizations, including a “one man” show. But hang about – the recipients were not climate scientists performing climate research at universities so what were their motives Atman? Why were they bank-rolling these useful idiots and continue to do so?

http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=ExxonFundsGlobalWarmingSkeptics9895&scale=1#ExxonFundsGlobalWarmingSkeptics9895

The gap between integrity and corruption is narrow indeed.

Your “New World Order” is in fact the old one Atman, controlled by greedy, multi-national corporations and the most destructive polluters on the planet, clinging desperately to the top of the greasy totem pole at the expense of humanity. And you are merely one of their puppets.

They say a man is judged by the company he keeps.

Steven,
You make much ado about nothing.

The AGWers seize on Plimers apparent reluctance to defend his “errors” and damn him with everything from being cowardly, to being ”old” !

If Plimer be a saint or a scoundrel --- what does it matter?
1) There is a little known principle –leastways it seems, little known on your side of the house – that, what matters is the thrust of the argument not the man, or even, every petty fact. And no one is 100% right all the time –not Einstein, not Darwin and (surprise !) not even Stevenmeyer, and
2)What if Plimer were to challenge and win , what difference would it make. The AGWers would likely do what they accuse everyone else of doing –simply ignore the inconvenient truth -- how many deserted Al Gore when he was shown to have factual errors in his film?

And who needs Plimer?
You don’t need to be a rocket scientist to discern that there are holes in the popular version of AGW.

And the more you look, the more holes you find…I came across this one last night..

Remember the mantra at Copenhagen: hold temperate increases to an average 2C.
John Houghton – Global Warming ,The Complete Briefing, which the blurb describes it as : “The most comprehensive guide available on the subject” graphs ( Page 57) “Departures in temperatures from the 1961 –1990 mean, over the period 1861-2003” ; from 1861 – 1938 mean temperatures range to .7 BELOW , 1939-1942 they range to .3 ABOVE , 1943 -1980 they range to .3 BELOW , from 1981-2003 they range to .6 ABOVE [dates are approximate as he uses five year blocks]
Where is the mythical (Garden Of Eden like) equilibrium ?
Where is the long term trend?

There is a world of difference between a specialist scientist who says: “ My research indicates X is happening” and AGWers who claim to put
all the disparate pieces together and divine our future.