Remember how Ian Plimer claimed that he could not recall where his dodgy figure 3? Well now he has resorting to lying about the source. In a talkback radio debate (about 4 minutes from the end) with Steven Sherwood, Plimer claimed that the graph came from page 21 of Klimafakten, a book published by the German government in 2001. That’s a straight-up lie.

The graph came from Durkin’s Great Global Warming Swindle. I’ve overlaid the graphs below so that you can see that they are identical. Just put your mouse on the graph to change it to the Swindle one. Notice that he copied the labels on the graph and the comparison to the right.

i-e1aa2fd7c048a807e77dc6592a293231-plimerfig3.png

And no it’s not possible that Klimafakten copied the graph from the Swindle, since it was published before the Swindle. Nor is it possible that both got it from the same source, since Swindle copied it from the Oregon Petition, but got the horizontal axis wrong, an error that Plimer faithfully reproduced.

And the Swindle graph was only ever included
in the initial broadcast in the UK — it wasn’t in the version shown
in Australia or released on DVD. So Plimer didn’t get it directly from the
movie. He must have got it from one of the websites that posted
screenshots of the graph. But all of those pages were criticising
Durkin for posting an incorrect graph of temperatures. Plimer knew
that the graph was wrong and decided to include it in his book anyway.

And just to remove any doubt here, in a debate with Barry Brook before Plimer’s book was published, he showed the Swindle graph and Brook told him that it was wrong, and that even Durkin had retracted it.

The best match I can find to Plimer’s claimed source is this book. It was published in 2000, not 2001 and it wasn’t published by the German government but rather edited by someone who works for the German government, but by Plimer citing standards, that’s a perfect match.

If anyone can lay their hands on a copy and check page 21 for me, I’d much appreciate it. Plimer fans should have an especially strong incentive to do this, because if I’m wrong I’ll end up with egg all over my face. But I’m not.

Update: bluegrue tracked down a copy of Klimafakten:

I have located a copy of Klimafakten by Ulrich Berner. All data of the figures are sourced in the appendix. On page 21 you find two figures. Fig 2.9 depicts Friis-Christensen and Lassen (1991), temperature and solar cycle length. Fig 2.10 is Svensmark and Friis-Christensen (1997), cosmic ray flux and global cloud cover. In chapter 11 there are several figures using smoothed GISTEMP data around page 210. All of the figures are faithful reproductions of the original data, none of them has a fudged time axis like the figures of Durkin and Plimer. Berner’s Klimafakten is definitely not the source of Plimer’s figure 3.

Thanks to Jo Abbess, I have a copy of Berner’s figure 2.9:

i-c5cf573bc234fe48162ad99243fa3d71-klimafaktenfig2.9.jpg

That’s obviously different from Plimer’s figure 3.

Comments

  1. #1 Mark Byrne
    May 15, 2009

    Hi Tim,

    I don’t get Plimer fig comming up with mouse. Instead I get a little box with a cross and a label “Ian Plimer’s figure fiugre 3″

  2. #2 bi -- IJI
    May 15, 2009

    The Swindle diagram’s URL is borked. It should be this:

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/upload/2009/05/swindletempgraph.png

  3. #3 Tim Lambert
    May 15, 2009

    Ok, I fixed it.

  4. #4 Mark Byrne
    May 15, 2009

    What process would someone need to go through to copy this line into another formated chart? Would he ask them to do it by eye? In Photoshop? Where is the data?

    Did he think no one would mind if he used a bogus data?

    Maybe he’s just trying to expose all the delusionist who will grab any claim to butress their argument?

  5. #5 Ender
    May 15, 2009

    Tim – when you change between the 2 really quickly the last tiny part of the graph on the left hand side goes up slightly more on Pilmers graph than the Swindle I am sure. Perhaps now he can claim it was not from the Swindle :-)

    I need to get out more ……..

  6. #6 Mark Byrne
    May 15, 2009

    Has anyone got a link to the chart from the Oregan petition? What was their source?

  7. #7 aw
    May 15, 2009

    Klimafakten, by Ulrich Berner (who had published no previous original research in the field) was promoted by the German Assocation for Brown Coal (Verband der Braunkohleindustrie). It relied on a study by Friis-Christensen and Larsen which had already been superseded. Larsen’s erroneous 1991 graph was published in Der Spiegel in 2001. It doesn’t look like the Swindle graph, but who knows?

    http://www.francvert.org/ressources/images/2_3/rahmstrof_figure2.jpg

    In later books (such as Klimaentwicklung), Berner switched to denying the existence of warming, also denying that solar activity had increased.

  8. #8 Mark Byrne
    May 15, 2009

    Edner, I reckon that is just the line thickening, and optical illusion. the same thing happens when flicking and looking at the first edge (star point).

  9. #9 Barry Brook
    May 15, 2009

    Great work Tim — that overlay comparison is stunning (and damning).

  10. #10 mark Byrne
    May 15, 2009

    Even his bogus chart doesn’t support his cliam that it was warmer in the 1940s. What is going on in his head? I didn’t think it could be this bad. The world is amazing.

  11. #11 janama
    May 15, 2009

    maybe it came from this source – similar curve
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1900/to:2009

  12. #12 Bernard J.
    May 15, 2009

    maybe it came from this source – similar curve

    The same way that apples and oranges are similar?

  13. #13 mark.byrne
    May 15, 2009

    Janama,

    Keep grasping at straws. If he used Hadley data 1)he could have cited it and 2)we know when annualised that looks like this
    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif

  14. #14 Mark Byrne
    May 15, 2009

    Maybe Plimer and Durkin started with the hadcrut monthly data picked the months they liked and dropped ones they disliked?
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1900/to:2009

  15. #15 markhc
    May 15, 2009

    “maybe it came from this source – similar curve”

    See, the fuzzyier you make it the closer it is. Now close your eyes and they leave exactly the same impression on the back of your retina.

    Do you really want to associate yourself with this data?

  16. #16 aw
    May 15, 2009

    What process would someone need to go through to copy this line into another formated chart?

    It would probably be done using a vectorizer, without direct handling of any data.

  17. #17 Mark Byrne
    May 15, 2009

    Here is a reminder of how the chart came into existance: http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/04/22/swindlers-list/

  18. #18 janama
    May 15, 2009
  19. #19 aw
    May 15, 2009

    The superimposed graphs don’t match, and your reply doesn’t refer to anything I said.

  20. #20 Mark Byrne
    May 15, 2009

    Here is the chart that Steve McIntyre says was the used before the data was butchered by Durkin’s axis stretch

    Here is how McIntyre defends a dirty strawman by posting Durkin’s out of date but slightly adjusted chart to critique a complaint about the original wrong and unadjusted chart.

  21. #21 Trevor Williams
    May 15, 2009

    Tim, thank you for your efforts in exposing this shameful fraudulence.
    I have my own theories as to why Plimer thinks he can get away with this, and it’s all based on pure profit. I’m sure he sees the climate debate in Australia as a simple way to provide a saleable commodity to a tiny but vociferous mob of people desperate to lay hands on something -anything- that will support their rigid beliefs. And he’s willing to throw scientific honesty out of the window to do it. Why else would you?
    What a fraud.

  22. #22 Paul
    May 15, 2009

    It seems a bit suspicious that he wouldn’t say where the graph came from (couldn’t remember) and it just turns out it is practically an exact screen shot replica of the one in a UK TV programme cobbled together by some graphic artists!

    It is terribly amateurish.

  23. #23 Mark Byrne
    May 15, 2009

    That the way Janama, just squeez it a bit more , stretch it and mold it in a few places, you can make it fit.

  24. #24 Mark Byrne
    May 15, 2009

    Janama, is demonstrating all the qualities of a disciple of the Durking/Plimer school of fudging. Notice how Janama has raised the Hadley data 1940-1980 temperature anomaly midpoint about 2 degrees higher. Hence 1998 looks a full degree warmer than 1880.

    Science is so quick and easy when you can just make stuff up.
    Oh Janama when you show NASA should use the NASA data.

  25. #25 bluegrue
    May 15, 2009

    As Durkin originally claimed to have used NASA data, I have overlayed the Plimer plot and GISTEMP data using Excel. The GISTEMP data are centered 11-year mean values of the annual global, northern and southern hemisphere met station data, respectively. The data is plotted as interpolating line. If you go for shorter smoothing periods the plot gets noisier than Plimer’s, longer and you lose features like the minihump centered at 1911. The x-axis of the overlay goes from 1885 to 1988, i.e. the first data point is the 1880-1890 average and the last the 1983 to 1993 average.

    The higher frequency wiggles match very well, the low frequency changes fit a lot worse. Land ocean index fits even worse, as the 1940-1970 temperature decline is less than in the met station data. No idea, where the difference to Plimer comes from.

    The cyan lines depict, where 1940 and 1975 are according to Plimers x-axis. They match neither the arrows nor the shaded area.

  26. #26 bluegrue
    May 15, 2009

    P.S.: The graphic is free for grabbing. I can send the spreadsheet to Tim, if desired.

    @Mark Byrne:
    Many of your links in #20 and #24 are empty. Could you please repost them?

  27. #27 Mark Byrne
    May 15, 2009

    Janama, is demonstrating all the qualities of a disciple of the Durking/Plimer school of fudging. Notice how Janama has raised the Hadley data 1940-1980 temperature anomaly midpoint about 2 degrees higher. Hence 1998 looks a full degree warmer than 1880.

    Science is so quick and easy when you can just make stuff up.
    Oh Janama when you show NASA should use the NASA data.

    Links in order are:

    http://users.tpg.com.au/johnsay1/Stuff/woodtree_3.jpg

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1900/to:2000

    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif

    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif

  28. #28 Marion Delgado
    May 15, 2009

    I have to defend Dr. Plimer here. While it was quoted in a now-remaindered edition of Klimatfakten (a small footnote in the 2nd paperback edition), the graph was originally published in Euskara Klimazientzia, a prestigious Basque climate science journal. The author was Tibetan, but the abstract had been translated into Basque, which is how I was able to recognize it.

    Hope this helps.

  29. #29 bi -- IJI
    May 15, 2009

    Marion Delgado:

    That can’t be true. I could’ve sworn that the original paper was written in Swahili.

  30. #30 TrueSceptic
    May 15, 2009

    11, 18 janama,

    I’m sorry but I have to be blunt: it escapes me how any honest, rational, averagely intelligent person could present those links. Who do you imagine would be persuaded? Do you have any idea how to read a graph? Do you imagine that others here have no idea either?

  31. #31 TrueSceptic
    May 15, 2009

    I can remember when I first saw this graph (Durkin’s original) in TGGWS. Until then I was only vaguely aware of AGW Denial, and only as an extreme wingnut obsession, but at that point the scale of the shameless dishonesty became both obvious and worrying.

    It is beyond belief that *anyone* would use any version of the Durkin graph, and any GW “sceptic” who defends it, as McIntyre did in the thread Mark Byrne references, exposes their absence of real scepticism.

    (FWIW I think CA is far and away the best of a very bad bunch of “sceptic” blogs. McIntyre realises that the real nutters do him more harm than good.)

  32. #32 John Mashey
    May 15, 2009

    re: #30 TrueSkeptic

    You may wish to visit JM’s blog, with search for Plimer.

  33. #33 TrueSceptic
    May 15, 2009

    30 John Mashey,

    Surely you don’t mean the Marohasy Bog? The septic tank in which we find things most of us can only have nightmares about? ;-)

  34. #34 janama
    May 15, 2009

    TrueSceptic – first I posted a link to woodfortrees – Mark Byrne then posted the same link a few posts later.

    AW asked – “What process would someone need to go through to copy this line into another formated chart?”

    I showed him the process and how easy it was by posting the woodfortrees line into the original chart – what’s your problem?

  35. #35 TrueSceptic
    May 15, 2009

    33, janama,

    How easy is what? Are you talking about http://users.tpg.com.au/johnsay1/Stuff/woodtree_3.jpg ?

    But anyway, it’s clear that Plimer just used Durkin’s piece of garbage. What are you attempting to claim?

  36. #36 John Mashey
    May 15, 2009

    @32 TrueSkeptic

    The very same….
    I sort of generalized from your “It is beyond belief that *anyone*…” into “takes this book seriously”, but since it wasn’t beyond my belief, I thought it would check, with the expected results.

  37. #38 Mark Byrne
    May 15, 2009

    Janama,

    AW was answering my question (@4). I was in amazement at the process Plimer would go through to reproduce this dodgy curve.

    You could try again, your first reproduction was a bit fuzzy, not close enough, and needed to be slide up two degrees on the vertical access to make it look less worse (giving up any credibility to try and crowbar the data to fit).

    Have another shot, perhaps try the vectorization algorithms that AW suggests.

  38. #39 Mark Byrne
    May 15, 2009

    Bluegrue,

    Tim’s moderation settings appear to be stopping me posting the list of links at the moment, perhaps Tim can pass it threw when he checks.

  39. #40 bluegrue
    May 16, 2009

    #18 Janama,
    try again using an 11-year/132-months centered mean of hadcrut3
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1875/to:2005/mean:132
    This gives you about the same smoothness as the Plimer graph. Match the time and temperature scales of both plots. Ooops.

  40. #41 Greig
    May 16, 2009

    Tim, rather than call Plimer a liar over the sourcing of the graph, please advise: what is you point? Is the conclusion that Plimer reaches regarding the graph correct, or not. If not, what does the graph really look like, and why is Plimer’s conclusion therefore wrong.

    To be honest, accusing Plimer of lying sounds hysterical and very unprofessional. Even worse, considering it looks likely that Durkin and Plimer appear to have used the same source, Klimafakten (originally from Euskara Klimazientzia), exactly as Plimer says, ie he wasn’t lying but simply mistaken about the year of publication (2000 rather than 2001).

  41. #42 bi -- IJI
    May 16, 2009

    Shorter Greig: Socratic irony.

  42. #43 TrueSceptic
    May 16, 2009

    36 John,

    Gotcha. I must stop saying things like “beyond belief”. When it comes to science denialism, just about anything is possible. BTW did you see Joseph Romm’s article on ASS? http://climateprogress.org/2009/01/05/anthony-watts-up-with-that-anti-science-denier-website-weblog-awards/

  43. #44 TrueSceptic
    May 16, 2009

    41 Greig,

    I suggest you read http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/04/23/ian-plimer-heaven-and-earth/

    You can see where the graph came from, why it is fraudulent, why it was always unacceptable for anyone to use it, and why it is an utter disgrace that anyone would use it now.

    Are you claiming that it doesn’t matter how dishonest the “evidence” is as long as the “right” conclusion is reached, namely one that endorses the denialism you apparently support.

    As for “accusing Plimer of lying sounds hysterical and very unprofessional”, what do you imagine that denialists like him are doing when they claim that scientists are dishonest, corrupt, incompetent, and engaged in a conspiracy never seen before in the history of science?

  44. #45 Mark Byrne
    May 16, 2009

    Greig, Durkin source has been exposed. It was not from Klimafakten. Durkin manufactured his using an out of data chart and then doctored the axis. Plimer has used Durkin’s erroneous graph that even Durkin had been forced to retract.

    By all mean please through your energy into defending this. And explain why Plimer needs to depend on a made-up chart.

    Tim has shown Plimer’s chart to exactly match Durkin’s. Now it should be easy to prove Plimer is not lying- just produce his source. Should be easy if Plimer is not lying.

  45. #46 Bernard J.
    May 16, 2009

    Durkin manufactured his using an out of data [sic] chart and then doctored the axis.

    Mark Byrne, your slip has to be one of the most delicious I’ve seen in a long time.

    I don’t think that anything describes Plimer’s duplicity better than this!

  46. #47 bluegrue
    May 16, 2009

    Greig,
    see just as one of many examples my post #25 above, look at the image. The graph takes temperature data from 1880 to 1988 and passes them off as data from 1880 to 2003.

    Here’s what the graph looks like if you take all the available data:
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1875/to:2010/mean:132

    Fraud, pure and simple. What is worse: Durkin used the same fraudulent plot, was called on it and Plimer knows about this incident, see the original post:

    And just to remove any doubt here, in a debate with Barry Brook before Plimer’s book was published, he showed the Swindle graph and Brook told him that it was wrong, and that even Durkin had retracted it.

  47. #48 Greig
    May 17, 2009

    TrueSceptic. I can assure you I do not support “denialism”. And the fact that you leap to that conclusion only shows the inaccuracy of your nom de plume.

    On P25 of H+E, Plimer uses the figure 3 graph to make the following point:

    Fig 3: Thermometer temperature measurements in the 20th Century showing both cooling and warming. The cooling was during and after WW2 industrialization emitted increasingly large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. The 20th Century like any other time period was one of both warming and cooling.

    Now, Plimer could have used the Hadcrut or WoodforTrees.org graph, and arrived at exactly the same conclusion. Perhaps someone (preferably Tim Lambert) can explain why Plimer’s statement is incorrect, and provide an alternative graph to support that view.

    I stand by what I said. The claim that Ian Plimer is a liar sounds hysterical and unprofessional. This is compounded by the fact that the source of the graph is irrelevant to Plimer’s case, and makes it appear you are clutching at straws to demonise Plimer, rather than debate the conclusions that he is drawing. Are we debating climate change, or are we playing the man? I maintain, this blog is dedicated to the latter.

  48. #49 Lee
    May 17, 2009

    Greig – are you serious?

    The truncated and stretched graph does damage in several ways. Plimer (TGGWS) refers to cooling during the postwar industrial boom – the graphical data in his version of the graph supports that, cooling starts about 1945. But the real data shows that cooling starts about 1940 – 5 years of the cooling period are before the end of the war. He labels it correctly as 1940 in the graph, but the data and the label don’t match. Same at the ned of the graph – he moves the change back to warming to 1980, graphically even though it is labeled 1975. Just the label and axes mismatch tell you there is a serious problem with that graph.

    But more importantly, by truncating the data at 1988, but stretching it so it look like it goes to 2003, he eliminates abut 0.2C of warming, simply erases it from the graph. This not only substantially understates 20th century warming, it also makes the 1940 – 1975 cooling look like it was a greater amplitude relative to the overall warming of the last 100 years.

    Plimer was not only making the point that it cooled during those 35 years- he was making he point that the cooling was substantial, in relation to the warming we see. The fraudulent graph is intended to support that point – but the real data is much less support for it.

    And he knew – he had to know. He was told. That is fraud.

    Pointing out that the argument is fraudulent, and that the book if filled with this kind of error, is not playing the man. It is playing the argument. Plimer just happens to go down in flames along with the argument, because it becomes glaringly apparent when looking at the argument that Plimer was being grossly dishonest – and no scientist anywhere is going to overlook academic dishonesty of this kind.

  49. #50 Mark Byrne
    May 17, 2009

    Bernard J,

    :)

    I should have done that intentionally!

  50. #51 janama
    May 17, 2009

    If you think that chart is important, you have been confirmed into the Church of Global Warming. Now throw the dead Roo parts provided over your left shoulder.

    May your grandchildren live in fear.

    Bless you.

    Now quietly exit the room.

  51. #52 Greig
    May 17, 2009

    Lee,

    None of what you have said contradicts Plimer’s statement: “Thermometer temperature measurements in the 20th Century showing both cooling and warming. The cooling was during and after WW2 industrialization emitted increasingly large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. The 20th Century like any other time period was one of both warming and cooling.”

    Plimer did NOT make the point that the “cooling was substantial”. That is a fabrication on your part.

    There is no evidence presented that supports the unquantified claim that the book is “filled with this kind of error”, and therefore your view that it is playing the argument, rather than the man, is unsupported by the facts. Insisting that Plimer is a liar is not addressing the topic it is questioning the author’s integrity. It is argument ad hominem, pure and simple.

    Lee, you have not demonstrated that Plimer is being dishonest. Nor has Lambert. You are being hysterical, unprofessional and (dare I say) unscientific by making such unsupported claims.

  52. #53 Phila
    May 17, 2009

    There is no evidence presented that supports the unquantified claim that the book is “filled with this kind of error”

    You could try reading the last few posts, just for starters. I seem to recall seeing some evidence there.

  53. #54 Lee
    May 17, 2009

    from 47:
    “And just to remove any doubt here, in a debate with Barry Brook before Plimer’s book was published, he showed the Swindle graph and Brook told him that it was wrong, and that even Durkin had retracted it.”

    You guys are defending this crap? How… scientific of you.

  54. #55 Lee
    May 17, 2009

    Greig:

    So,if I don’t point out every error that has been demonstrated in my very own post, then those errors dont exist?

    Laughable

  55. #56 sod
    May 17, 2009

    The 20th Century like any other time period was one of both warming and cooling. Now, Plimer could have used the Hadcrut or WoodforTrees.org graph, and arrived at exactly the same conclusion. Perhaps someone (preferably Tim Lambert) can explain why Plimer’s statement is incorrect, and provide an alternative graph to support that view.

    the graph was provided to you already:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1875/to:2010/mean:132

    nobody would look at that graph and say: “there was warming AND cooling”.

    its just not supported by the facts. it is an artificial effect, that he left out the last 20 years of pretty dramatic data.

    printing wrong numbers on the axis of a graph, after being told, is not a minor error!!!

  56. #57 naught101
    May 17, 2009

    So Greig, would you say that on your reading of H+E, your impression was that “The 20th Century, like any other time period, was one of both warming and cooling.” implied that the cooling was A) comparable to the warming, B), more significant than the warming, or C), less significant than the warming?

  57. #58 bi -- IJI
    May 17, 2009

    Shorter Greig and janama:

    The source of the graph is not important! Anyone who points out that the graph is bogus is a hysterical warmist extremist! After all, there’s a very remote possibility that the bogus graph — which even Durkin had to retract — came from a Tibetan article written in an obscurely prestigious Basque science journal Euskara Klimazientzia (or is it Euskal Klimazientzia?), and the only reason there’s absolutely no trace of this journal anywhere is because it’s being suppressed by the Vast Worldwide Warmist Conspiracy.

  58. #59 Greig
    May 17, 2009

    [i] the graph was provided to you already:
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1875/to:2010/mean:132
    nobody would look at that graph and say: “there was warming AND cooling”.
    [/i]

    I would. There is a period form 1900-19210, and a period from 1940 to 1970 that show a clear cooling trend.

    [i]
    So Greig, would you say that on your reading of H+E, your impression was that “The 20th Century, like any other time period, was one of both warming and cooling.” implied that the cooling was A) comparable to the warming, B), more significant than the warming, or C), less significant than the warming?
    [/i]

    Plimer has made no such implication, one way or the other. And it is irrelevant to the point that Plimer is making, which is that CO2 levels do not correlate strongly with global temperature. ie on the basis of this alone the hypothesis is falsified. Observed global warming during the last 100 years cannot be explained by the increase of GHGs alone.

  59. #60 bluegrue
    May 17, 2009

    Greig,

    here is an overlay of Plimer’s figure 3 and proper 1880 to 2003 GISTEMP data (11-year centered mean), using the same temperature scaling as indicated in figure 3:

    http://i43.tinypic.com/ibw4k3.jpg

    In a scientific book plots are not just put in as decoration, but as reliable sources of information. If there is a chart like figure 3, you must be able to take a ruler and read off the actual data up to reading accuracy. In Plimer’s figure 3 the x-axis goes from 1880 to 2003, hence ostensibly showing data of that period. I have shown above in #25, that the data presented is actually from 1885 to 1988. This in itself, is already an embarrassing lie on Plimer’s part. It gets worse, when you quantify the impact, let’s put numbers to it. Any reader who relies on this book will conclude from figure 3:

    1) Warming from 1880 level to 2000 levels is 0.7°C, actual GISTEMP value is 0.8°C. Notice also the lower anomaly values in the period prior to 1900. That part alone is responsible for 0.1°C of Plimer’s 0.7°C.

    2) The cooling between 1940 and 1975 was 0.16°C, actual GISTEMP value is 0.13°C

    3) The amplitude of the cooling between 1940 and 1975 amounted to 23% of the overall warming, actually in GISTEMP it is 16%

    4) Warming from 1880 to 1940 is 75% of the 1880 to 2003 warming, actually it is 42%.

    5) Temperature increase is currently (2000-2003) leveling off.

    The visual impact of fraudulently inflating the relative cooling amplitude by 50% is dramatic. Furthermore, the extent warming up to 1940 relative to the overall warming is greatly excagerated (notice the two comparison bars to the right of the graph), it is boosted by 75%.

    >The 20th Century like any other time period was one of both warming and cooling.

    >Now, Plimer could have used the Hadcrut or WoodforTrees.org graph, and arrived at exactly the same conclusion.

    As Lee told you already, no he could not have made his point using the true data, as you mischaracterize his argument. Plimer argues, that the current warming is unsubstantial, and this argument can barely be supported even when using his own skewed plot. When looking at the actual data however, his argument falls flat on its face.

    This is compounded by the fact that the source of the graph is irrelevant to Plimer’s case

    I deliberately used the word “fraudulently” further up. When you prepare a plot you can either copy an existing plot or make it yourself. If you do it yourself and claim any shred of competency in the field, there is no way how – and I mean NO way – you can accidentally pass off 1885-1988 data as 1880 to 2003 data. How come then, that two deniers use the exact same fraudulent plot, Plimer knowing full well that the plot has been exposed to be fraudulent? Do you really consider this to be irrelevant?

    The source of figure 3 is not an argument against Plimer’s book, its content is, and it is just one of numerous misrepresentations of data in the book. The source does however illustrate the complete and utter disregard of Plimer for an honest presentation.

  60. #61 DavidK
    May 17, 2009

    Observed global warming during the last 100 years cannot be explained by the increase of GHGs alone.

    Who says this Craig?

  61. #62 naught101
    May 17, 2009

    So Greig, would you say that on your reading of H+E, your impression was that “The 20th Century, like any other time period, was one of both warming and cooling.” implied that the cooling was A) comparable to the warming, B), more significant than the warming, or C), less significant than the warming?

  62. #63 bluegrue
    May 17, 2009

    Observed global warming during the last 100 years cannot be explained by the increase of GHGs alone.

    Which mainstream climate scientist has actually made this claim? Is that your state of knowledge after reading Plimer’s book? Climate scientists consider CO2 only? In fact the models routinely consider changes in total solar insolation, changes in CO2, changes in aerosols (the culprit for the 1940-1970 cooling) and more. These forcings are discussed at length in the IPCC reports and in the scientific literature. Any competent book on climate change will tell you, that CO2 is not the only forcing that needs to be considered. If you get this basic issue wrong because of relying on Plimer’s book, you have just offered another condemnation of that book.

  63. #64 bluegrue
    May 17, 2009

    Sorry for the layout in #61, wordpress does not seem to handle paragraphs within blockquotes properly. The first blockquote citing Greig should include the part

    Now, Plimer could have used the Hadcrut or WoodforTrees.org graph, and arrived at exactly the same conclusion.

    I’d be obliged, if this formating error could be fixed.

  64. #65 Mark Byrne
    May 17, 2009

    Shorter Grieg: Its OK to used doctored charts, says nothing about ones credibility or ones point.

    Grieg, this example shows in a graphic way how Plimer cares not to source material from credible sources, rather he flings mud where ever found, and those who want to believe him swallow it.

    Now ask your self, why did Plimer not use up-to-date credible record of temperature? Like this one http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif

    What point could he be trying to make with the doctored chart that he couldn’t make with the real data?
    Could it have anything to do with the 1940s cooling being too small for his liking? Look at the real data and Plimer’s chart again. Tell us why Plimer needed the fake one, when the real data is so accessible?

    Neither is this a one off, its just a visual example of many blatant false hoods, distortions and down right mis-representations. See these links below for examples of many more. But being a graphic example it is harder to run away from, and easy to demonstrate to lay people.

    http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/04/23/ian-plimer-heaven-and-earth/

    http://bravenewclimate.com/2008/09/01/spot-the-recycled-denial-iii-–-prof-ian-plimer/

    http://bravenewclimate.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/plimer1a3.pdf

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/04/the\_science\_is\_missing\_from\_ia.php#c1636606

  65. #66 mark Byrne
    May 17, 2009

    Shorter Janama:

    Any thing that proves my folly is evidence of religious dogma.

    Janama, you do realise that the chart you now say is not important is the one you’ve been trying to defend?

  66. #67 Greig
    May 17, 2009

    [bluegrue] “In fact the models routinely consider changes in total solar insolation, changes in CO2, changes in aerosols (the culprit for the 1940-1970 cooling) and more. These forcings are discussed at length in the IPCC reports and in the scientific literature. Any competent book on climate change will tell you, that CO2 is not the only forcing that needs to be considered. ”

    Exactly. If you read Plimers statement with regard to figure 3, this is all he is saying, no more, no less. He is simply drawing attention to the fact that there are many factors at work.

    [Greig] “Observed global warming during the last 100 years cannot be explained by the increase of GHGs alone.”
    [DavidK] “Who says this Craig?”

    David, the IPCC says this, and all credible scientists, including Plimer.

    [Mark Byrne ]“Now ask your self, why did Plimer not use up-to-date credible record of temperature? Like this one http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif

    If Plimer had used that data, his conclusion would still be the same, and would still be completely correct and in line with current knowledge of climate change. That is why this blog, and Tim Lambert’s scurrilous attack, about the source of his graph is totally irrelevant to a debate on AGW, and represents solely an ad hominem attack on Plimer’s integrity.

  67. #68 sod
    May 17, 2009

    If Plimer had used that data, his conclusion would still be the same, and would still be completely correct and in line with current knowledge of climate change. That is why this blog, and Tim Lambert’s scurrilous attack, about the source of his graph is totally irrelevant to a debate on AGW, and represents solely an ad hominem attack on Plimer’s integrity.

    the claim that the fake graph and the real data would lead to the same conclusion is simply false.

    the graphs look completely different. in the real data, the “cooling” are minor bumps in the road.
    the real data didn t show what Plimer wanted to show. that is why he used a faked graph. fact.

  68. #69 DavidK
    May 17, 2009

    David, the IPCC says this, and all credible scientists, including Plimer.

    Exactly, that is what the AGW ‘deniers’ don’t seem to understand.

    Natural variability masks the impact of AGW.

    Unfortunately, Plimer distorts and misrepresents what the science is saying, in a book.

    If he had something serious to say about the “falsification”f AGW, he would say it in a paper submitted to a reputable journal. He hasn’t.

  69. #70 Chris O'Neill
    May 17, 2009

    [Mark Byrne ]“Now ask your self, why did Plimer not use up-to-date credible record of temperature? Like this one http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif

    Greig:

    If Plimer had used that data, his conclusion would still be the same

    But reaching the SAME conclusion is not a reason FOR using the “data” that he used instead of genuine data. It’s the same as saying “why do you do something? Answer: Because it makes no difference”. “No difference” is not a cause or a reason. The normal logic is “why DON’T you do something? Answer: Because it makes no difference.”

  70. #71 bi -- IJI
    May 17, 2009

    Shorter Greig:

    Plimer used the fake data instead of the real data, because he Knew™ — even without actually using the real data — that the conclusions obtained with the real data would be the same.

  71. #72 Mark Byrne
    May 17, 2009

    Grieg: “If Plimer had used that data [genuine data], his conclusion would still be the same [as the fake data], and would still be completely correct and in line with current knowledge of climate change. That is why this blog, and Tim Lambert’s scurrilous attack, about the source of his graph is totally irrelevant to a debate on AGW, and represents solely an ad hominem attack on Plimer’s integrity.”

    Grieg, your proposition doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. Plimer used Durkin’s chart to show the scale of warming and cooling. In Plimer’s fake data the warming and cooling look only a little different. The the real data warming far out weighs cooling. The fake equivalence between warming and cooling couldn’t be made with the real data.

    This attack on Plimer’s use of fake data is the exact opposite of ad hominem, go check your dictionary. Just like every one of dozen upon dozens of documented falsehoods discussed in the links I made before, these attack the arguments and errors he made. Plimer does enough damage to his own credibility.

    For an example of an ad hominid attack seem Jamana’s post @51. I.e. the resort of those who have run-out of logic.

  72. #73 Lee Harrison
    May 17, 2009

    Damn! This is so dissapointing. I remember back when I was in Uni I did an assignment on Plimer and was most impressed with the man’s big brass ones for being willing to financially ruin himself going after the bogus claims of the ‘Ark’eologists. To see him sell his credibility up the river like this is just awful.

  73. #74 Peter Smith
    May 17, 2009

    DavidK,

    You say that according to the IPCC: “Natural variability masks the impact of AGW.”

    Then why the heck would you worry about AGW if natural variability is the real culprit of all your doomsday concerns?

  74. #75 Dan L.
    May 17, 2009

    > Peter Smith: You say that according to the IPCC: “Natural variability masks the impact of AGW.”

    > Then why the heck would you worry about AGW if natural variability is the real culprit of all your doomsday concerns?

    Wow.

    Ya gotta hand it to deniers: invincible miscomprehension is a mighty tool.

  75. #76 Peter Smith
    May 17, 2009

    as are you for posting such a response.

  76. #77 Dan L.
    May 17, 2009

    > as are you for posting such a response.

    Tee-hee!

    As am I what?

  77. #78 Dave
    May 17, 2009

    English to Peter Smith:

    “Masks” means that something is hidden.

    Only tiny babies believe that if you hide something, it no longer exists.

  78. #79 John Mashey
    May 17, 2009

    Peter Smith:

    Technically, the world’s average temperature is a *noisy time series*, whose year-to-year noise masks the trend in any short period. Many people seem to think that if CO2 increases monotonically, then temperature must as well. That simply isn’t true as ocean oscillations like ENSO cause large enough jiggles that one needs 20-30 years to see a statistically significant trend.

    This has been covered often, such as at Dot Earth.

    or you can see a version with Excel spreadsheet animations at Capital Climate.

  79. #80 Peter Smith
    May 17, 2009

    DanL: as you are what? A mighty tool. (that is a gentle ribbing)
    A little more critical thinking would be helpful.
    Dave, if something is able to so easily “mask” something else then it is obviously by far the mightier force (and more relevant factor to consider). AGW is not a force to contend with the earth’s climate cycle.
    John, agreed the earth’s
    average temperature series is a noisy time series. Afterall, we are only .2 degrees celcius warmer today than we were in 1980 but .4 degrees celcius COOLER than we were in 1998.
    And it was warmer in the Medieval Warm Period (without large volumes of human produced CO2.)

  80. #81 bi -- IJI
    May 17, 2009

    Shorter Peter Smith:

    If there is noise in a signal with a upward trend, then the trend obviously doesn’t exist. The signal is so noisy, in fact, that individual samples of the signal are extremely meaningful.

    Therefore, there’s nothing wrong with Plimer using a fake graph.

  81. #82 sod
    May 17, 2009

    Afterall, we are only .2 degrees celcius warmer today than we were in 1980 but .4 degrees celcius COOLER than we were in 1998.

    and it was 10°C warmer here 6 hours ago.

    and it was 6°C warmer at the same time 5 years ago.

    even if your claim was true, it wouldn t matter at all.

    but a look at the data shows taht you are wrong

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1980/mean:12

  82. #83 Dave
    May 17, 2009

    Peter Smith:

    > Dave, if something is able to so easily “mask” something else then it is obviously by far the mightier force (and more relevant factor to consider). AGW is not a force to contend with the earth’s climate cycle.

    I suggest you look at eg. this graph of the daily temperatures in Alberta over a four week and a twelve month period.

    http://www.climate.weatheroffice.ec.gc.ca/climateData/charts/DailyTemperature_2009-05-17_18-44-59-245_e.jpg

    http://www.climate.weatheroffice.ec.gc.ca/climateData/charts/DailyTemperature_2009-05-17_18-41-42-19_e.jpg

    See how, despite the noise, the underlying trend becomes clear over time?

    By your logic, the daily noise which so easily masks the trend over short timescales is clearly the most important factor to consider, and thus we should ignore the earth’s axis of rotation when attempting to predict whether June will be warmer than December in the Northern Hemisphere.

  83. #85 Dan L.
    May 17, 2009

    > Peter Smith: DanL: as you are what? A mighty tool. (that is a gentle ribbing) A little more critical thinking would be helpful.

    Ain’t it the truth?

    You concluded that natural variability is the same thing as increasing CO2 forcing. That is deliberate miscomprehension or sheer laziness. Either way, you weren’t thinking.

  84. #86 Greig
    May 17, 2009

    [Mark Byrne] “Grieg, your proposition doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. Plimer used Durkin’s chart to show the scale of warming and cooling. In Plimer’s fake data the warming and cooling look only a little different. The the real data warming far out weighs cooling. The fake equivalence between warming and cooling couldn’t be made with the real data.”

    Plimer does NOT draw any conclusion on the scale of warming and cooling, and the “fake equivalence between warming and cooling” is a strawman that you have fabricated.

    [Mark Byrne] “This attack on Plimer’s use of fake data is the exact opposite of ad hominem, go check your dictionary.”

    I am not sure which dictionary you use, but in mine, calling someone a liar is ad hominem.

    [Mark Byrne] “Just like every one of dozen upon dozens of documented falsehoods discussed in the links I made before, these attack the arguments and errors he made. Plimer does enough damage to his own credibility.”

    Ian Enting has found a handful of factual errors, which to me is not unsurprising for a work with 1000s of references and footnotes. But most of Enting’s claimed “errors” are a matter of semantics and interpretation, and I could easily argue their relevance to the conclusions that Plimer draws.

    To refer to them as “falsehoods” implies that Plimer is deliberately lying.

    Mark, you and Lambert, and others here do yourselves a great disservice by making these emotive claims about Plimer. You sound hysterical. I wonder, did you devote as much time and emotion on attacking the “falsehoods” in Al Gore’s silly film?

  85. #87 janama
    May 17, 2009

    OK – let’s revisit clouds and Hansen’s projections.

    Here is a pdf of Dr John Christy’s testimony to the US House and Means Committee in February this year.

    http://waysandmeans.house.gov/media/pdf/111/ctest.pdf

    here is a recent interview with Dr Christy printed in Fortune.

    http://money.cnn.com/2009/05/14/magazines/fortune/globalwarming.fortune/?postversion=2009051412

    Here’s what Dr Christy has to say about clouds and computer models.

    “Current climate model projections assume that climate is very sensitive to CO2. We’ve
    found however, that during warming episodes, clouds step up their cooling effect. When
    model output is tested this way, not one model mimics this cooling effect – in fact the
    models’ clouds lead to further warming, not cooling as seen in nature. We hypothesize
    that poor cloud properties cause models to overstate warming rates. We’ve also found
    that current popular surface temperature datasets indicate more warming than is actually
    happening in the atmosphere because they are contaminated by surface development”

    and here’s a copy of the chart Dr Christy presented to the committee regarding Dr Hansen’s predictions.

    http://users.tpg.com.au/johnsay1/Stuff/Christy_testimony.jpg

    Here’s what Dr Christy said in the interview regarding Dr Hansen and his predictions.

    “During your House Ways and Means testimony, you showed a chart juxtaposing predictions made by NASA’s Jim Hansen in 1988 for future temperature increases against the actual recorded temperature increases over the past 20 years. Not only were the actual increases much lower, but they were lower than what Hansen expected if there were drastic cuts in CO2 emissions – which of course there haven’t been. [Hansen is a noted scientist who was featured prominently in Al Gore's global warming documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth."] Hansen was at that hearing. Did he say anything to you afterwards?

    We really don’t communicate. We serve on a committee for NASA together, but it only deals with specific satellite issues. At the Ways and Means hearing, he was sitting two people down from me, but he did not want to engage any of the evidence I presented. And that seems to be the preferred tactic of many in the alarmist camp. Rather than bring up these issues, they simply ignore them.

    (Contacted by Fortune, Hansen acknowledges that his 1988 projections were based on a model that “slightly” overstated the warming created by a doubling in CO2 levels. His new model posits a rise of 3 degrees Celsius in global temperatures by 2100, vs. 4.2 degrees in the old one. Says Hansen, “The projections that the public has been hearing about are based on a climate sensitivity that is consistent with the global warming rate of the past few decades.” Christy’s response: “Hansen at least admits his 1988 forecasts were wrong, but doesn’t say they were way wrong, not ‘slightly,’ as he states.” Christy also claims that even Hansen’s revised models grossly overestimated the amount of warming that has actually occurred.)”

  86. #88 bluegrue
    May 17, 2009

    Greig,
    > _I am not sure which dictionary you use, but in mine, calling someone a liar is ad hominem._

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ad%20hominem
    _1 : appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect_
    _2 : marked by or being an attack on an opponent’s character rather than by an answer to the contentions made_

    Plimer being a liar (his use of the fake figure 3 being just _one_ example) is a _conclusion_ we arrive at, _after_ having looked at the evidence, _not_ a preconception. That is _not_ an ad hominem.

    A little Gedankenexperiment: Suppose you want to invest in stock. At the beginning of his sales talk, your banker shows you a chart of the Dow Jones index[1] and advises you: _”Of course, there will always be ups and downs”_ . You happen to know the actual data and notice, that the time axis is labeled Jan 2007 to May 2009, whereas the data shown is the Jan 2006 to Dec 2006 only. Would you trust any further information given by the banker to you? Would you warn others?

    [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:DJIA_2000s_graph_(log).svg

  87. #89 nauhgt101
    May 17, 2009

    Greig: “I am not sure which dictionary you use, but in mine, calling someone a liar is ad hominem.”

    argumentum ad hominem (Latin: “argument to the man”).

    That MIGHT be an appropriate call if people were calling Plimer a liar. they haven’t. The only place the word “liar” appears in this entire thread is in your comments (and mine, now).

    People aren’t calling Plimer a liar. They are saying he lied. That’s a claim with significant evidence, and is not ad hominem, but rather an argument against Plimer’s data, presentation, and implications of his presentation.

  88. #90 bluegrue
    May 17, 2009

    Corrected link to the Dow Jones plot

  89. #91 naught101
    May 17, 2009

    bluegrue: you ruined my argument! :)

    Tim: could you please turn of the underscore italics? they ruin URLs

    Janama: do you think models haven’t improved at all in the last 20 years?

  90. #92 bluegrue
    May 17, 2009

    naught101, sorry about breaking your argument. :)

    However, I will still never argue “X is a liar, therefore his/her argument Y is wrong”, which would indeed be an ad hominem.

  91. #93 janama
    May 17, 2009

    nauhgt101: 91 – do you think models haven’t improved at all in the last 20 years?

    I don’t doubt they have and I’m sure Dr Christy would be aware of that.

  92. #94 Lee
    May 17, 2009

    Did Christy really say this crap (@87)?

    “”Current climate model projections assume that climate is very sensitive to CO2.”

    No,they don’t assume – they take sensitivity as determined from model runs. Not assumed, but determined, from models and from other physical measurements – you do know that there are many non-model-based determinations of sensitivity, don’t you janama? Christy does, despite his words here.

    “We’ve found however, that during warming episodes, clouds step up their cooling effect.”
    No, Christy, you havent “found” that. Lindzens Iris hypothesis is just that – a hypothesis, and it is a pretty badly mauled hypothesis at this moment. For Christy to say they have “found” this, that they know it, is simply not true. And Christy knows that.

    “When model output is tested this way, not one model mimics this cooling effect – in fact the models’ clouds lead to further warming, not cooling as seen in nature.”
    But it isn’t seen in nature – it is an untested prediction from a hypothesis that is at odds in some fundamental ways with what d=we do know from nature. Christy knows that.

    “We hypothesize that poor cloud properties cause models to overstate warming rates.”
    Yes, but you have next to no evidence for that hypothesis, just another hypothesis that is itself badly flawed. And Christy knows that.

    “We’ve also found that current popular surface temperature datasets indicate more warming than is actually happening in the atmosphere because they are contaminated by surface development”
    Found? How? What is the evidence for that?

    This is not an ad hom – I’m not saying Christy is dishonest, so therefore pay no attention to what he says.
    I’m saying that everything Christy says in this paragraph is untrue, in ways that Christy knows to be untrue, and that therefore he is not to be trusted.

    Just like we’re pointing out about Plimer.

  93. #95 janama
    May 17, 2009

    I’m saying that everything Christy says in this paragraph is untrue, in ways that Christy knows to be untrue, and that therefore he is not to be trusted.

    coming from who?? some poster on a blog called Lee.

    Dr Spencer appears to agree with him:

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/04/clouds-cool-the-climate-system%e2%80%a6but-amplify-global-warming/

    “One of the basic tenets of the IPCC view on global warming is that cloud feedbacks are positive. That is, clouds react to a warming influence by further amplifying the warming.

    This makes all the difference in the world for forecasts of global warming because the existence of negative cloud feedbacks could limit manmade global warming to less than 0.5 deg. C by late in this century, while positive feedbacks could result in ten times that amount of warming: 5 deg. C.”

  94. #96 Mark Byrne
    May 17, 2009

    Greig:

    “Plimer does NOT draw any conclusion on the scale of warming and cooling, and the “fake equivalence between warming and cooling” is a strawman that you have fabricated.

    Plimer drew his readers attention to warming and cooling and use the fake data to show the scale of what he was talking about. It is Plimer’s stawman build of fake data.

    Grieg:

    “I am not sure which dictionary you use, but in mine, calling someone a liar is ad hominem.”

    See Bluegrue @88.

    Grieg:

    Ian Enting has found a handful of factual errors, which to me is not unsurprising for a work with 1000s of references and footnotes. But most of Enting’s claimed “errors” are a matter of semantics and interpretation, and I could easily argue their relevance to the conclusions that Plimer draws.

    Grieg given your defence of Plimer’s use of this fake data, it would be interesting to hear which of Plimer’s errors, misrepresentations and distortions you would not defend, minimize or justify? What would Plimer need to do for you to consider it a lie?

    And why restrict yourself to Entings (excellent start) critique? What about Barry Brook’s or Lambert’s critique. They each raise lists. If you search you will find similar assessments from those competent in the fields that Plimer addresses.

    Grieg:

    Mark, you and Lambert, and others here do yourselves a great disservice by making these emotive claims about Plimer.

    Grieg you have constructed your view of this critique being “emotive” by hiding from the fact the criticism is about bad practice, bad data, and hence erroneous debate.

  95. #97 John Mashey
    May 17, 2009

    Lee: I observe:

    a) If someone doesn’t know much, they can believe anything.

    b) If they have actually published science, but not climate science, they may well believe silly things, but they ought to know how science works. This is an instance of “gone emeritus”

    c) If they have actually done research in climate science, BUT:

    a) If their peer-reviewed publications drop off in favor of websites, or if they don’t have much impact, or if they get refuted fairly quickly

    b) And especially if their websites and/or OpEds say things that just wouldn’t make it past peer review, and are different from what they write for peer review

    Then it’s a big red flag…

    Dr Roy Spencer is worth perusing, for example.

  96. #98 Ian Enting
    May 17, 2009

    Reply to Greig,
    Assuming that you are the same Greig who posted a comment on my letter in the Australian, my reply was that I agreed that version 1.2 did not represent a complete demolition of Plimer. However the australian will not accept my posts.
    What I would add now is that internal consistency is essential for any scientific theory, even more so than being able to account for all observations (because removing the need for consistency makes it possible to account for any possible observation). Thus, to the extent that Plimer is trying to propose an alternative to the theory of climate change caused by changes in radiative forcing, his own consistency becomes a core issue.
    Responses to some of the other queries on the australian letters blog (e.g why didn’t I attack Gore) are included in later versions of my document.

  97. #99 Lee
    May 17, 2009

    Look, Greig. that graphic was not included in Plimer’s book because he needed to fill up the page. It was there because it SAYS SOMETHING. It communicates. It conveys a message.

    That fraudulent graph is there because it says something, communicates, conveys a message THAT IS NOT TRUE. It misleads, because much of the important warming has been removed, causing the vertical and horizontal scales to be altered in way that exaggerates the cooling and minimizes the warming. It does this regardless of what Plimer says about it – because like all graphics it is itself a form of communication. And it isn’t a minor point – the warming record is at the center of the discussion.

    In fact, that graphic is a well presented, potent, persuasive piece of communication, all by itself. Look at all that cooling. Look at how little warming there was after WW2. That graphic, all by itself, makes a powerful case that there is something wrong with the claims of anthropogenic warming. The problem for Plimer’s factual case is, IT ISN’T FREAKING TRUE!!! And the problem for Plimer’s reputation and standing is, he knew it wasn’t true – it had been pointed out to him before publication that the graph was wrong and had been withdrawn.

  98. #100 Lee
    May 17, 2009

    oh, BTW, this:

    “coming from who?? some poster on a blog called Lee.”

    is an ad hom. Slightly veiled, but at heart it says “This guy is just some blog idiot – pay him no attention” as you go blithely on ignoring nearly everything I actually argued.

    good job.

1 2 3 5