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 20, 2009

    Greig writes:

    [ChrisK] Durkin got it from the Oregon Petition, Plimer got it from Durkin, either directly or indirectly.

    Says who? I would suggest some form of proof should be provided, rather than expect me to simply accept this. I am disinclned to agree (on his word alone) with someone who would create a web page dedicated to calling a respected scientist a liar, and without proper proof.

    Says Durkin in [The Independent](http://environment.independentminds.livejournal.com/106709.html): “The was a fluff there”

    “However, further inquiries revealed that the C4 graph was based on a diagram in another paper produced as part of a “petition project” by the same group of climate sceptics. This diagram was itself based on long out-of-date information on terrestrial temperatures compiled by Nasa scientists.

    However, crucially, the axis along the bottom of the graph has been distorted in the C4 version of the graph, which made it look like the information was up-to-date when in fact the data ended in the early 1980s.

    Mr Durkin admitted that his graphics team had extended the time axis along the bottom of the graph to the year 2000. “There was a fluff there,” he said.”

  2. #2 Barton Paul Levenson
    May 20, 2009

    Greig, temporarily high on himself, writes:

    BP Levinson, I am gobsmacked, are you seriously saying you don’t understand this?

    No, I’m saying YOU don’t understand it.

    Ocean circulation is directly linked to previous abrupt climate change observation in the paleoclimate record. For one example, it is generally considered that the closing of the Isthmus of Panama about 3 million years ago may have ushered in the present period of strong glaciation over North America by ending the exchange of water between the tropical Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. ie change in ocean circulation is the root cause of ice ages.

    That would come as a surprise to Milutin Milankovic, and pretty much every climatologist and planetary astronomer in the world.

    [BPL] Changes in ocean circulation can affect regional temperatures, but unless the composition of the atmosphere or the albedo of the ocean changes, or perhaps the amount of aerosols it gives off, changes, it’s not going to affect the mean global annual surface temperature.

    Complete rubbish. Ocean circulation and mixing can and does affect mean global temperatures. Levinson, go back to school. The fact that you don’t even know this, and that it is not fully incorporated in IPCC modeling, demonstrates my point exactly.

    The fact that I “don’t know” a fact you made up? Your attention to detail is demonstrated by the fact that you can’t even spell my name right. As for going back to school, I have a degree in physics and have been writing atmosphere models for twelve years. Have you?

    What is more, there is a strong correlation (94% confidence) between global temperature anomaly and observed cyclical ocean air pressure variations (as demonstrated by NASA’s Roy Spencer),

    You mean hot air expands? WOW! WHAT A DISCOVERY!!!

    As usual, Spencer has cause and effect reversed. BTW, was this latest revelation published in a peer-reviewed science journal, or on Spencer’s blog? Let me guess.

    [BPL] If I wanted to argue about a scientific point, I’d study the science–and that means reading textbooks and peer-reviewed articles about it, or even taking a course in it–not getting stuff off tendentious web sites or popular books addressed to laymen. Get off your lazy butt and actually learn some climatology. I can recommend good sources IF you want to get started.

    [laughing] So arrogant, and yet so ignorant. Clearly a feedback loop.

    In other words, you have no intention of actually trying to learn climatology, but intend to continue spouting off about a topic you’re unfamiliar with.

  3. #3 ChrisK
    May 20, 2009

    Greig,

    >[ChrisK] Durkin got it from the Oregon Petition, Plimer got it from Durkin, either directly or indirectly.
    >
    >[Greig] Says who? I would suggest some form of proof should be provided…

    We know Durkin got his graph from the Oregon Petition, because he acknowledges this (after initially trying to pass it off as NASA). Plimer’s is identical to Durkin’s, including errors introduced by Durkin. Now, what is the chance he got it from another source and introduced those exact same errors?

    > [Greig] Therefore the source of and accuracy of the graph is irrelevant to Plimer’s argument.

    See Dirk Hartog’s excellent post above.

    Is it really that unreasonable to ask for accurate data from a scientist? After all, shouldn’t he know how to consult more reliable sources?

  4. #4 Greig
    May 20, 2009

    [BPL] “That would come as a surprise to Milutin Milankovic, and pretty much every climatologist and planetary astronomer in the world.

    I doubt it. Whilst Milankovitch cycles are obviously the primary forcing mechanism of cyclical change, ocean circulation is also strongly implicated in global climate change events. Also, it should be noted that it is the land mass / ocean configuration which determines the establishing of glaciation in the N Hemisphere, which is fundamental to the current pattern of ice ages. Hence my comment about oceans being “the root cause of ice ages”.

    Note the following:

    http://www.nytimes.com/1992/02/04/science/ocean-currents-tied-to-timing-of-ice-ages.html

    “SCIENTISTS have uncovered strong evidence supporting a theory that sudden and dramatic shifts in big ocean currents play a critical role in the waxing and waning of ice ages.”

    http://www.co2science.org/articles/V5/N20/EDIT.php

    “Recent modeling work by Ganopolski and Rahmstorf (2001, 2002) and Alley and Rahmstorf (2002) suggests that the North Atlantic branch of the global thermohaline circulation possesses two potential modes of operation during glacial times”

    http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/thc_fact_sheet.html

    “History of the THC: Sediment data document that the THC has undergone major changes in the history of climate (e.g., [21, 22]). Three major circulation modes were indentified: a warm mode similar to the present-day Atlantic, a cold mode with NADW forming south of Iceland in the Irminger Sea, and a switched-off mode ([23]). The latter appears to have occurred after major input of freshwater, either from surging glacial ice sheets (Heinrich events) or in form of meltwater floods (e.g., Younger Dryas event). The most dramatic climate events recorded in Greenland, the Dansgaard-Oeschger (D/O) events, were probably associated with north-south shifts in convection location, i.e. transitions between warm and cold modes of the Atlantic THC. Recent simulations of such shifts show encouraging agreement with paleoclimatic data ([24]). ”

    Note: Stefan Rahmstorf is a lead author of the IPCC 4th Assessment

  5. #5 Chris O'Neill
    May 20, 2009

    Greig:

    [Chris O'Neill] “Assuming Greig’s assertion of uncertainty (which also ignores other sources of information about climate sensitivity) means we do not know if increasing atmospheric CO2 is correct policy and thus is a risky policy.”

    Trying to reduce CO2 emissions is an inherently risky policy because it increases the cost of energy, which undermines the global economy, and impacts the fundamental basis for human standard of living.

    There is no law of economics that says that choosing a more expensive product will “undermine” the global economy, whatever that means. Economics is about the most efficient way to satisfy our choices, not that any particular choice is “bad”. I note that you don’t disagree that increasing atmospheric CO2 is a risky policy, so there’s no debate about that, but you have ignored the fact that it’s not just atmospheric modelling that indicates what climate sensitivity is likely to be. I refer you to James Annan’s paper to provide figures and cites for observation-based estimates of climate sensitivity. Observational confirmation of atmospheric modelling means that there isn’t just an unquantified risk that increasing CO2 could be dangerous, it means that it’s very likely that it’s dangerous.

    Some people think this is irrelevant, but they are usually rich, spoiled individuals who are unaware that 5 billion humans currently live in poverty.

    Those 5 billion humans are probably responsible for less than 50% of GHG emissions so they bear nowhere near the responsibility for the problem that the well-off fraction do. There is no excuse for rich countries not dealing with the problem considering that they are the main cause of the problem.

    To make the decision to reduce CO2 emissions we must have solid demonstrable proof of the benefits of reducing those emissions. This proof of benefit has not yet been sufficiently quantified, because the science is incomplete.

    I can make self-righteous speeches too, e.g:

    To make the decision to continue CO2 emissions we must have solid demonstrable proof of the safety of continuing those emissions.

    And I can correct your rhetoric appropriate for your second statement:

    This proof of safety has not yet been sufficiently quantified, because is hasn’t been done AT ALL. In addition to this, both observations and theoretical understanding largely agree on the extent of danger.

  6. #6 Greig
    May 20, 2009

    Mark Byrne @ 200

    “We have found CO2 to be the dominant factor of current warming. ”

    I don’t believe that we have found any such thing. The IPCC has said they are 90% sure CO2 is causing >51% of the warming. So I think it is more reasonable to say that CO2 is implicated in observed global warming, along with many other factors.

    “We now face a series of major amplifying feedbacks with no know regulating feedbacks on the horizon. ”

    And this is the point that I am making when I said:

    “GHGs may enhance warming, they do not dominate the process. If GHGs dominated the process, then there would be a runaway feedback effect (in the paleoclimate record, as discussed by Caillon et al).

    There are clearly negative feedback mechanisms. ”

    The fact that we do not (yet) know exactly what those negative feedback mechanisms are, whether ocean currents, clouds, evaporative cooling, we know that they eventually dominate the enhance greenhouse effect and prevent runaway warming.

  7. #7 Greig
    May 20, 2009

    [Chris O'Neill] “Those 5 billion humans are probably responsible for less than 50% of GHG emissions so they bear nowhere near the responsibility for the problem that the well-off fraction do. ”

    You have missed the point, Chris. This isn’t about guilt or blame. It is about how to lift those 5 billion people from poverty ASAP, and thereby resolve overpopulation. Enforcing the use of expensive energy is NOT the way to do it, and besides, those 5 billion people don’t give rats arse about you, me or AGW. So it doesn’t matter what rich countries do. If we can’t find cheap low-emissions technology that competes with fossil fuels on price, CO2 emissions are not going to reduce.

    I am an optimist. I think such technology can be found. And I also believe we do not need to panic, we have the time to implement it properly and cost effectively. The key is not to pick winners on the basis of ideology, nor to act as a nation unilaterally or prematurely.

  8. #8 bluegrue
    May 20, 2009

    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.

  9. #9 bi -- IJI
    May 20, 2009

    Shorter Greig:

    Lack of money (poverty) is a bigger problem than loss of arable land! And, the best way to combat global warming is to wait for some magic-pony energy technology that doesn’t exist yet. There’s nothing else we can do, and even if there is, we shouldn’t do it.

  10. #10 Chris O'Neill
    May 20, 2009

    Greig:

    [Chris O'Neill] “Those 5 billion humans are probably responsible for less than 50% of GHG emissions so they bear nowhere near the responsibility for the problem that the well-off fraction do. “

    You have missed the point, Chris. This isn’t about guilt or blame. It is about how to lift those 5 billion people from poverty ASAP, and thereby resolve overpopulation. Enforcing the use of expensive energy is NOT the way to do it,

    No, you have missed the point, Greig. I’m not saying it is enforcing the use of expensive energy on those 5 billion people. They just don’t use that much or they won’t use that much while they’re still in poverty. And removing poverty is not a necessary or sufficient condition for resolving overpopulation either BTW.

    So it doesn’t matter what rich countries do.

    Amazing. The rich countries generate most of the GHGs and have far higher GHG emissions per capita and Greig believes it doesn’t matter what they do. I’m waiting for him to tell us that black is white.

    If we can’t find cheap low-emissions technology that competes with fossil fuels on price, CO2 emissions are not going to reduce

    and the world is stuffed. Sounds like a great plan. And to a large degree for the sake of rich countries not having to pay to reduce GHG emissions attributable to their consumption.

    I am an optimist. I think such technology can be found.

    Whatever it is, it won’t be a bizarre idea like “clean” coal. Nomatter what anyone does, it will ALWAYS be more expensive to perform an additional process, like pumping CO2 into the ground, than not bothering to and just letting it go into the atmosphere.

  11. #11 Bernard J.
    May 20, 2009

    Bluegrue at #208 has delivered a palpable hit.

    Now watch Greig and his friends move the goal-posts.

  12. #12 Dirk Hartog
    May 20, 2009

    For everyone’s interest, here is a transcript of the relevant
    section of Plimer’s interview on the subject. It begins 24m 17s
    in. The MP3 is downloadable from
    http://www.2gb.com/index.php?option=com_podcasting&task=view&id=29&Itemid=41

    SS is Professor Steven Sherwood

    IP is Professor Ian Plimer

    CS is Chris Smith, the 2GB presenter


    SS: I was looking through Professor Plimer’s book yesterday and he
    doesn’t actually show a graph that just shows temperatures for
    the last 200 years properly showing that they’ve been going up.

    CS: Ian?

    IP: Figure 3 you obviously didn’t get past page 21. Figure 3
    comes from the German government 2001 book called Klimafacten and
    that diagram derives from page 21 of an internationally published
    book put out by the German government in 2001.

    SS: Well it doesn’t look right to me, it looks like it’s hand
    drawn and it’s not from the right year. It doesn’t look like any data
    set that I’ve seen.

    IP: Well whether it does look right or not I’m sorry but that is
    a valid source and the references are in the book … I suspect
    that you didn’t get very far in the book.

    CS: I should say for Figure 3 you’ve got 1975 this is the end of
    the post-war economic boom and we’ve got a colder temperature
    that we had at the beginning. That’s his Figure 3.

    IP: It’s from Klimafacten put out by the German government in
    Hannover Germany 2001.

    Some of the mistakes from Plimer in this section: Figure 3 isn’t
    on page 21 of his book, it is page 25. Klimafacten was not a
    publication of the German government. Klimafacten was not
    published in 2001, it was published in 2000. From what we have
    heard, there is nothing comparable to Plimer’s Figure 3 on page
    21, or in fact any page, of Klimafacten. As far as I can see, there
    is no reference to Klimafacten in Plimer’s book, certainly not close
    to his Figure 3.

    This error rate, more than one error per sentence, is broadly consistent with the rest of Plimer’s book.

  13. #13 TrueSceptic
    May 20, 2009

    187 Greig,

    You have repeatedly demonstrated the most common symptoms of AGW denialism. What else should I call you? You are certainly no sceptic.

    It is astounding that you don’t know what “my point is”. It is
    1) that Plimer’s graph, even if it does originate where he claims, is a mispresentation of the true picture to a degree that it can only be called propaganda of the most blatantly dishonest kind;
    2) the defence of the use of such a graph is something only the most deluded denialist or shameless liar would do;
    3) how can any conclusion based on a fake graph be correct?

    We know that Plimer’s graph, with its axis change, annotation, and range arrows, looks *only* like the first version of Durkin’s graph. Not the graph Durkin based his on. Not the amended version Durkin replaced it with after the first broadcast of TGGWS. It is not credible that Plimer’s version could be *coincidentally* such an exact replica of the original TGGWS version.

    I see that bluegrue has looked at ‘Klimafakten’ and found no support for Plimer’s claim.

    As for “what does the graph really look like?”, you’ve been given many sources. Sources that anyone genuinely interested in the truth would not even need to be told about.

  14. #14 bluegrue
    May 20, 2009

    > Klimafacten was not a publication of the German government.

    You are correct in the sense that the book was not explicitly issued by the government, however it _was_ [published](http://www.bgr.bund.de/cln_092/nn_335066/sid_D9EB362B5D4588C809334242F035BA92/nsc_true/EN/Themen/Klimaentwicklung/Produkte/produkte__inhalt__en.html?__nnn=true) by a [government agency](http://www.bgr.bund.de/cln_092/nn_337276/sid_D9EB362B5D4588C809334242F035BA92/nsc_true/EN/Allgemeines/Wm/UeberUns/Aufgaben/aufgaben__node__en.html?__nnn=true)
    > The Federal Institute for Geosciences and Natural Resources (BGR) is the geoscientific center of excellence within the federal government and part of its scientific and technical infrastructure. BGR is a federal institute accountable to the Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology (BMWi). We provide neutral and independent advice and information about all geoscientific and natural resource issues. With this, we support the federal government in their following objectives:
    > * Stimulating economic development
    > * Long-term protection and improvement of the quality of life
    > * Enhancing technical and scientific expertise

    Note that the institute is not affiliated with the [The Federal Ministry of Education and Research](http://www.bmbf.de/en/8493.php)

    I can’t say, that I’m happy with the sources the author chose in many cases; most of the temperature data is linked to http://www.co2science.org instead of directly linking to Goddard or Hadley. And of course it trots out the familiar pseudo-skeptical tropes:
    * Look at the ups and downs (cutting off the data in 1988)
    * Look at the correlation with solar activity (cut off in ~1985)
    etc. etc.

  15. #15 Tim Lambert
    May 20, 2009

    Thanks bluegrue. I’ve updated the post and added Berner’s figure 2.9 to it.

  16. #16 Greig
    May 20, 2009

    My hat is off to bluegrue for doing the research, he beat me to it. It appears that Plimer has got his sourcing wrong, exactly as Lambert has said.

    However, on viewing fig 2.9, it seems that all Plimer had to do was use that graph and it would have illustrated his point even better than the graph he actually showed.

    So its pretty obvious what has happened. Plimer had intended the Friis-Christensen and Lassen (1991), temperature and solar cycle length graph to be at fig 3. In Durkin’s words “There was a fluff there”.

  17. #17 TrueSceptic
    May 20, 2009

    216 Greig,

    See 211 Bernard J.

  18. #18 sod
    May 20, 2009

    However, on viewing fig 2.9, it seems that all Plimer had to do was use that graph and it would have illustrated his point even better than the graph he actually showed.

    this is rubbish.

    you simply can NOT publish a graph about a well measured subject up to 1980, in the year 2009.

    a paper using such bad data would not pass any serious examination.

    So its pretty obvious what has happened. Plimer had intended the Friis-Christensen and Lassen (1991), temperature and solar cycle length graph to be at fig 3. In Durkin’s words “There was a fluff there”.

    no. what happened is, he copied a false graph from a bad denialist piece and he didn t correct it, when he was told that it was wrong.

    i even haven t seen any evidence that he admits that it is complete rubbish up till NOW.

    will you ever get tired of defending this nonsense?

  19. #19 Greig
    May 20, 2009

    [Chris O'Neill] “I’m not saying it is enforcing the use of expensive energy on those 5 billion people. They just don’t use that much or they won’t use that much while they’re still in poverty. ”

    Oh good, so as long as everyone is poor, we don’t have a problem. Do you not realise that in their desperation to survive, the world’s poor are cutting down all the forests? Have you ever been to a developing country, and observed all of the open wood and dung fires? What do you think that is doing to the ennvironment, not to mention health?

    [Chris O'Neill] “And removing poverty is not a necessary or sufficient condition for resolving overpopulation either BTW.”

    Certainly. Perhaps we can impose draconian laws on the world’s poor to ensure that they only have one child, and so nobody to look after them in their old age. Perhaps the UN will come on board for that? Great solution Chris. Not.

    [Chris O'Neill] “The rich countries generate most of the GHGs and have far higher GHG emissions per capita and Greig believes it doesn’t matter what they do.”

    Guilt trip. We can self flagellate for you Chris, if you like.

    The fact is, as the developing world advances, their emissions will overrun anything we do now, unless we can find a way to deploy low cost low-emissions technology.

    [Chris O'Neill] “and the world is stuffed.”

    Unless we can resolve overpopulation, yes. The good news is, the world is heading in the right direction. The rate of population increase is slowing as the Chinese and Indians develop, and this looks likely to continue.

    But the army of environmentalist ideologues trying to enforce expensive renewable energy is a road block.

  20. #20 jemima
    May 20, 2009

    At #151 above bluegrue almost has a fit reporting a self-detected error in something he or she’s said.

    Think about it honest people: Ian Plimer is a full professor of science at a university who just makes up and publishes stories to suit his predetermined conclusions. He writes a book that has so many errors, half-truths and outright falsehoods that it would earn a “fail” for any school student who submitted it in a politics class (_no_ student would submit such garbage in a science class). Result: Plimer has antiscience defenders all over the tabloid press and the blogosphere who think his behaviour is laudable and that his ends justify his means.

    The point is that bluegrue is an _anonymous commenter in the blogosphere_ who’s more concerned for his or her reputation and for the truth of what he or she says than the high-profile professor with a book just published in his name.

    What a joke!

  21. #21 Greig
    May 20, 2009

    [Sod] “you simply can NOT publish a graph about a well measured subject up to 1980, in the year 2009.”

    Of course you can. Especially when presented in combination with Fig 4 (which is not in dispute). As long as the data is correct and it illustrates your point, there would have been no problem if Plimar had published the Christensen and Lassen (1991), temperature and solar cycle length graph.

  22. #22 jemima
    May 20, 2009

    Even Greig (#221) is by now writing the word “liar” into his rendition of Plimer’s name (“Plimar”).

  23. #23 Steve Chamberlain
    May 20, 2009

    Greig (207):
    If we can’t find cheap low-emissions technology that competes with fossil fuels on price, CO2 emissions are not going to reduce.

    I look forward to your announcement that you are lobbying government to subsidise solar, wind and other low-emissions generation technologies at the same level they are currently subsidising coal, oil and gas extraction…

    And:
    The key is not to pick winners on the basis of ideology, nor to act as a nation unilaterally or prematurely.

    Even shorter Greig: We shouldn’t do anything till They** do.

    ** What if “They” are saying the same thing about us…?

  24. #24 Steve Chamberlain
    May 20, 2009

    Greig (216):
    So its pretty obvious what has happened.

    If it’s so obvious, how come all the proof-reads**, rewrites, drafts and revisions failed to pick it up?

    ** Assuming any were done that is – going on the innumerable errors and misrepresentations listed above I have to wonder.

  25. #25 Gaz
    May 20, 2009

    Greig #221: “Especially when presented in combination with Fig 4 (which is not in dispute).”

    Bullshit it isn’t in dispute. I disputed it at #188.

    Figure 4 is a graph, covering just under 6 1/2 years of monthly data, which purports to say something about the relationshsip between global temperatures and atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

    The caption says: “Temperature determinations (thermometer and satellite) from the Hadley Centre and the University of Alabama (Huntsville) showing a decrease in temperature in the early 20th century. By contrast, atmospheric CO2 is increasing thereby showing no relationship between global temperature and CO2. This graph shows that the hypothesis that human emissions of CO2 create global warming is invalid.”

    The graph shows nothing of the sort and I find it hard to believe anyone who isn’t a complete and utter bonehead would think it does.

    The claim implied by Plimer’s use of this graph is that if CO2 was causing rising temperatures, then CO2 and temperature ought to move closely in line from month to month.

    And that would only be true if CO2 concentration was the ONLY influence on global surface temperature AND its effect was instantaneous. And no-one has ever claimed that, which means it’s an attack on a straw man.

    The graph and its caption clearly misrepesents mainstream climate science.

    It shows nothing more than that temperature is not well correlated with CO2 over relatively short time frames. Big deal. No-one ever claimed otherwise. This is well known to anyone with even a passing interest in climate science.

    This graph, Figure 4, is a perfect example of the sort of disingenuous nonsense that’s caused Plimer’s book to be heaped with well-deserved derision.

    Yes, Greig, Figure 4 is in dispute.

  26. #26 Mark Byrne
    May 20, 2009

    Grieg writes

    “We have found CO2 to be the dominant factor of current warming. ”
    I don’t believe that we have found any such thing. The IPCC has said they are 90% sure CO2 is causing >51% of the warming. So I think it is more reasonable to say that CO2 is implicated in observed global warming, along with many other factors.

    Grieg, your dancing a pretty jig. You are saying that “The IPCC has said they are 90% sure CO2 is causing >51% [most] of the warming”, but in the next sentence saying that this means that CO2 is not dominating the current warming.

    That is absurd.

    Then straight back to the Vostok deglaciation, where CO2 did not initiate warming, its release was over millennia, and never exceeded 300ppm. This is Grieg’s evidence that CO2 does not currently (nor apparently ever) dominates warming.

    I think I’ll stick with [the evidence](http://www.ipcc.ch/graphics/graphics/syr/fig2-4.jpg) rather than Greig’s delusional claims.

  27. #27 Mark Byrne
    May 20, 2009

    Grieg @ 206

    There are clearly negative feedback mechanisms.
    The fact that we do not (yet) know exactly what those negative feedback mechanisms are, whether ocean currents, clouds, evaporative cooling, we know that they eventually dominate the enhance greenhouse effect and prevent runaway warming.

    Oh my. Grieg, does it matter that regulating feedback mechanism may take 100,000 years as the PETM indicates?
    Grieg, does it mater that we can identify several tipping points that will have consequences for at least centuries if not millennia.

    What time frame are you expecting these unknown regulatory feedbacks to do their job? Or are you suggesting we ignore the best current evidence and hope that some unknown thing will step in and save us in a timeframe that prevents calamity?

  28. #28 Tim Lambert
    May 20, 2009

    Grieg, figure 4 is a cherry pick — it starts in 2002. Are you really trying to tell us that in a book about global warming it is OK not to show what happened to temperatures between 1980 and 2002?

  29. #29 Lee
    May 20, 2009

    Greig, why do you keep talking about runaway warming?
    Positive feedback does NOT necessarily predict a runaway. If the gain is less than 1, then the feedback will converge, create amplification to a new stable higher level. That does not require negative feedbacks to intervene – it requires that the positive feedback converge rather than diverge.

    And, are you seriously – SERIOUSLY ???- defending a graph that shows 6 1/2 years of temperature and CO2 data, and claims based on that 6 1/2 years that it has demonstrated that [CO2] does not affect temperature?
    6 1/2 years?

  30. #30 bi -- IJI
    May 20, 2009

    Shorter Greig:

    When Plimer said that ‘the graph that is in the book came from Klimafakten‘ he really meant ‘the graph that should be in the book came from Klimafakten‘, so he’s being perfectly honest!

  31. #31 Mark Byrne
    May 20, 2009

    Grieg @216

    It appears that Plimer has got his sourcing wrong, exactly as Lambert has said.
    …So its pretty obvious what has happened. Plimer had intended the Friis-Christensen and Lassen (1991), temperature and solar cycle length graph to be at fig 3. In Durkin’s words “There was a fluff there”.

    That is so sweet. It’s lovely how Grieg is so doting and forgiving. “Plimer had intended” to use the Friis-Christensen and Lassen (1991) chart, but he slipped and accidently dropped Durkin’s chart in its stead. (What is the piece of software required to copy a curve exactly again? A Vectorization algorithm?)- just an accident mind you.

    Grieg, Did Plimer make a fluff too when he told 2GB listeners during a debate that his source was from page 21 of Klimafakten? [Listen @24:20 minutes:seconds]( http://www.2gb.com/index2.php?option=com_podcasting&task=playaudio&id=29&f=1)

  32. #32 frankis
    May 20, 2009

    Gaz # 222: that is just _unbelievable_! Plimer is competely beyond the pale, he’s a scandal.
    Come in, spinner Greig – the professor could use some more of your incomparable help!

  33. #33 Richard Simons
    May 20, 2009

    Grieg wrote

    [Sod] “you simply can NOT publish a graph about a well measured subject up to 1980, in the year 2009.”

    Of course you can. Especially when presented in combination with Fig 4 (which is not in dispute). As long as the data is correct and it illustrates your point, there would have been no problem if Plimar had published the Christensen and Lassen (1991), temperature and solar cycle length graph.

    No. If you are an honest scientist you can’t restrict yourself to only showing a graph that is limited to the data that support your conclusion. You have a duty to also show the full extent of the available data, especially if it contradicts your conclusion. That is one essential difference between a scientist and a propagandist.

    To make the decision to reduce CO2 emissions we must have solid demonstrable proof of the benefits of reducing those emissions. [# 179]

    Assuming that science can prove anything (can you give an example?), I don’t think you have ever stated what you would consider to be solid proof of the benefits of reducing CO2 emissions. Perhaps you would care to elaborate?

  34. #34 Bernard J.
    May 20, 2009

    Greig.

    I will add my voice to Gaz’ at #225: Figure 4 is in dispute, and for the reasons that Gaz succinctly describes.

    Face it Greig – Plimer has as good as fabricated a story that has as much to do with real science as von Daniken’s work does.

    You are not only shifting the goal-posts, you are shifting the whole football field. I’m sorry, but science doesn’t work like that. Ideology/politics might, but not science.

    I find it curious that Plimer has not taken the initiative and sought to address, on any of the fora that discuss them, the many rebuttals of his book. I, for one, would love to have seen the [Lateline](http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2008/s2554129.htm) interview held around now, and with several climate scientists present to raise the points that have been covered by Tim Lambert, Barry Brook, Ian Enting and others. I suspect that Plimer might have been much less enthusiastic to engage in an analysis of his work had there been as much prior reading of the book, as there has been now.

    I note that Barry Brook spends time here in addition to maintaining his own site. Given that Plimer is certainly aware of both blogs, I do wonder why he steadfastly refuses to ‘set the record straight’.

    Come on Ian – the challenge is there. Justify the many erros in your book.

  35. #35 Richard Simons
    May 20, 2009

    When I gave a basic science course to adult education students it included a section on weather and climate. It was a trivial matter for me to go to the appropriate web sites to get the most recent official monthly data for temperature anomalies, CO2 concentrations, sun spots and so on, download the data and prepare graphs I could show to the students (with the data source acknowledged, of course). I see no reason to copy someone else’s graph of the same data unless it had dishonest features you wanted to exploit.

  36. #36 Janet Akerman
    May 20, 2009

    What the alarmists are trying to do here is attack the credibility of Professor Plimer. Most of you haven’t read his excellent book, and likely get your information from blog sites. You have no understanding of what you are talking about.

    You don’t want debate, and you are attacking Ian Plimer’s right to free speech. You want a Stalinist state and have your green roots in NAZI Germany. You hate black children and will let them die for your ideological cause.

  37. #37 bi -- IJI
    May 20, 2009

    Shorter Janet Akerman:

    Plimer claimed to get his bogus graph from Klimafakten when it was clearly Durkin’s retracted graph? Who cares! What matters is, it’s FREE SPEECH!!! And greens are NAZIS!!!

  38. #38 Janet Akerman
    May 20, 2009

    Too much?

    Should I have used my pseudonym Piers Blair?
    ;)

  39. #39 Markhc
    May 20, 2009

    After reading pLImAR,

    I can’t help seeing
    Klimate fake in Klimafakten

  40. #40 Richard Simons
    May 20, 2009

    You don’t want debate, and you are attacking Ian Plimer’s right to free speech. You want a Stalinist state and have your green roots in NAZI Germany. You hate black children and will let them die for your ideological cause.

    Surely a troll or a nutter. No sane person could honestly combine this level of ignorance and spite in one brief comment.

  41. #41 Gaz
    May 20, 2009

    Janet Akerman: “You don’t want debate, and you are attacking Ian Plimer’s right to free speech.”

    I may not agree with the disingenuous, misleading, illogical, unsupported claims he makes but I will defend to the death his right to make them.

    By the way, I take your claim that his book is “excellent” as evidence that you haven’t read it either.

  42. #42 jemima
    May 21, 2009

    Go Janet at 236 & 238! – that was pretty good :)

  43. #43 Steve Chamberlain
    May 21, 2009

    Janet Akerman (#238):
    Too much?
    Should I have used my pseudonym Piers Blair?

    Come on, stop hiding, we all know your real identity, don’t we Piers, or should I say “Tim Albrechtsen” 8^)

  44. #44 Janet Akerman
    May 21, 2009

    ;)

    The next question, is Jamana is really sincere or a Satirist?

  45. #45 bluegrue
    May 21, 2009

    Janet, Greig,

    care to address _any_ of the points about Plimer’s arguments that I have raised in [comment #172](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/05/ian_plimer_lies_about_source_o.php#comment-1642544)?

  46. #46 Janet Akerman
    May 21, 2009

    bluegrue,

    No, I’d prefer to hurl abuse at you and your warmist NAZIs types.

    And I don’t think Greig wants to show himself here ever again.

  47. #47 Steve Chamberlain
    May 21, 2009

    @244:
    Probably the former, the latter requires at least a nodding acquaintance with humour and a sense of the ridiculous 8^)

    bluegrue, Richard Simons, Gaz et al: think… what do the surnames Akerman, Blair and Albrechtsen and the forenames Janet, Piers and Tim have in common?
    ;-)

  48. #48 Gaz
    May 21, 2009

    “bluegrue, Richard Simons, Gaz et al: think..”

    Sigh. Another demonstration of the vanishingly fine line between crude satire and earrnest denial.

    You guys…

  49. #49 Janet Akerman
    May 21, 2009

    Before we end the fun, I would like to argue that you warmist are trying to kill poor black children.

    If it wasn’t for our access to abundant cheap fossil fuels we would have food shortages [like this.](http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article3423734.ece)
    And if give up are fossil fuels we will get [disease like this.](http://www.who.int/healthinfo/global_burden_disease/GBD_report_2004update_part2.pdf)
    And if we change our current relationship with developing countries we lose benefits such [as these.](http://assets.panda.org/downloads/eirsalsummarydec03.doc)

  50. #50 bluegrue
    May 21, 2009

    Sometimes I’m a bit slooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwwwwwwwwww on the uptake. Laughing at myself right now.

  51. #51 Gavin Hansen-Flannery
    May 21, 2009

    Janet, it is totally outrageous that you would accuse us of trying to kill poor black children. That makes us look like racists. How dare you.

    The diversion of the world’s agricultural lands to the production of carbon-eating trees and gasolene berries will affect all poor children equally.

  52. #52 Janet Akerman
    May 21, 2009

    WTO, IMF and World Bank prescriptions have been successful raising average global income (through exploitation of fossil fuels). But no, that’s not good enough for you. I’d bet that some of you ignorant Commies would even consider ideas of development economists such as Ha-Joon Chang [might have value ](http://www.fpif.org/papers/03trade/index.html) in promoting so called development in poor nations.

    Greig knows the truth, we need to burn all our coal to save the poor. And Gobal warming is a Trogen Horse for Communist domination.

  53. #53 Greig
    May 21, 2009

    Steve Chamberlain #223

    Subsidizing wind and solar power does not make it low cost.

    Also, both solar and wind receive far greater subsidies than coal (on the basis of MWh of electricity generated).

    “We shouldn’t do anything till They** do”

    Correct. Multilateral response requires agreement. That’s what Copenhagen is about.

  54. #54 Greig
    May 21, 2009

    [Mark Byrne] “Grieg, does it mater that we can identify several tipping points that will have consequences for at least centuries if not millennia. ”

    Please indicate in the paleoclimate record where these tipping points have resulted in catastrophic warming. References please.

    No proof, no banana.

    The science is not settled.

  55. #55 Greig
    May 21, 2009

    [Tim Lambert] “Grieg, figure 4 is a cherry pick — it starts in 2002. Are you really trying to tell us that in a book about global warming it is OK not to show what happened to temperatures between 1980 and 2002?”

    If you want to mislead someone, you could cherrypick a graph of temperature vs CO2 from 1970 – 1998. And from that graph you might deduce that CO2 correlates very strongly with temperature. But Tim, you would agree, such a cherry pick would not show the whole picture.

    Fig 4 (and 48) show that temp and CO2 do not correlate AT ALL for the period 2002-2008. This does not prove that CO2 does not cause warming, but it proves that CO2 is clearly not the SOLE cause of warming. Hence there are OTHER FACTORS THAT IMPACT CLIMATE CHANGE.

    So, Plimer shows us that the big picture is that there must be factors other than CO2 that influence climate change. Plimer acknowledges throughout his book that CO2 is probably but one of many factors. That is his thesis. In my opinion a reasonable and accurate position, and he has used the data well to show that this is the case.

    Finally, Plimer includes data for SST anomaly vs time for 1960-2005 in figs 38 and 39.

  56. #56 Dr Dave
    May 21, 2009

    Greig
    For goodness sake, how many times does this have to be explained to you? Cherry picking 2002-2008 and plottingtime series of CO2 and temperature together says nothing (and I mean nothing) about climate. This is weather. Showing that CO2 has no relationship with short term weather is not a surprise and says nothing about climate. Why can’t you / won’t you understand this?

  57. #57 sod
    May 21, 2009

    Also, both solar and wind receive far greater subsidies than coal (on the basis of MWh of electricity generated).

    such a comparison is bogus.

    in totals, coal of course receives [more](http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2094/2202667904_fe8341839b.jpg)

    and fossile fuels together receive even much much more, that renewables (which basically always are put into one category..)

    if you want to compare them by share, then, why not take a [historic perspective?](http://renewableenergy.typepad.com/a_germans_perspective/images/2008/10/12/german_subsidies_for_coal_and_renew.png)

    subsidies for coal are in decline. those for renewables are still growing.

  58. #58 bi -- IJI
    May 21, 2009

    With all due respect to Janet Akerman, global warming isn’t actually an invention of Adolf Hitler. It was, in fact, invented by none other than Confucius himself, after which it was co-opted by Karl Marx, and possibly further developed by Mao Tse-Tung.

    Hey come on, people, it all makes such perfect sense…

  59. #59 bi -- IJI
    May 21, 2009

    Shorter Greig:

    It’s OK for Plimer to lie about his graph’s source — look, here’s a bunch of unrelated talking points!

  60. #60 Steve Chamberlain
    May 21, 2009

    Greig #253:
    Subsidizing wind and solar power does not make it low cost
    All I suggest is we subsidise renewables at the same rate fossil fuels are (and have been for many decades). One other reason coal, oil etc appear “low cost” in comparison is because so-called externalities (CO2 emissions, pollution of waterways, water usage, loss of biodiversity, topsoil and arable land, &c ad nauseum) are not accounted for.

    Also, both solar and wind receive far greater subsidies than coal (on the basis of MWh of electricity generated)

    Source? Citation? Or is this just opinion? OTOH the NSW (Australia) State govt alone has subsidised coal mining at about AU$1bn a year between 1998-2007: see Section 3 at http://miningdirt.org.au/coal/speeches

    Section 4 of the above suggests subsidies to renewable energy amount to about 6.7%pa of the amount shovelled into the coffers of the coal industry. Sound like a “level playing field” to you?

    “We shouldn’t do anything till They** do”
    Correct. Multilateral response requires agreement. That’s what Copenhagen is about.

    And if Copenhagen were run by Greigs, everyone would spend three weeks arguing about who goes first, with the result that no-one did.

  61. #61 GWB's nemesis
    May 21, 2009

    Frank – bi,

    I am disappointed at you. Environmentalism is a plot that started in the Koran, which says “Do not kill women, elders, children, civilians or trees”. Clearly the global warming scam is just part of a grand plot to convert the world to Islam…

    The statement above clearly links human rights, the trade union movement, the UN, the greens, age equality, sexual equality, the Iraq body count and every nasty left wing philosophy directly to the Prophet.

    I am surprised you didn’t know this (or are you deliberately hiding the truth…)

  62. #62 bluegrue
    May 21, 2009

    bi, you get it _all_ wrong. Of _course_ Plimer did not lie about the source of [his ___intended___ figure 3](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/05/ian_plimer_lies_about_source_o.php#comment-1646696), Friis-Christensen/Lassen from _Klimafakten_. And besides, how dare you fault Plimer in the first place for the fact, that Durkin’s weasely plot sneaked its way into Plimer’s book. It is Durkin’s plot, after all, and Durkin should keep better watch over where his embarrassing plot is crawling around. You make it sound as if Plimer were actually _responsible_ for the contents of his book. Dig deeper and you will likely find, that it was some alarmist ninja, who sabotaged Plimer’s work and slipped the graph into his book and his talk in an attempt to discredit the skeptics movement.

  63. #63 Steve Chamberlain
    May 21, 2009

    OK OK, game’s up, Janet wins. I have to confess – I am a failed modeller.

    Methods: Some time back I spent many years constructing several models.

    Observations: All three ships (HMS Daring, HMS Ark Royal and HMS Cardiff at 1:50 scale) sank (I blame substandard glue supplied by Airfix), the Chieftain tank (1:40 scale) failed abysmally to survive the first mortar round fired at it and various 1:25 and 1:50 scale aircraft (irrespective of type, engine configuration or nationality) when launched off the shed roof plummeted to the floor and broke into hundreds of bits.

    Discussion: All these individual data points were logged, and fed into the Spurious Causality Errors and Partial Tinkering Inference Cluster (SCEPTIC) statistics package.

    Conclusion: Extrapolating from the results (alpha = -0.1, p = 0.0000000001, chai-squared = very hot tea), we can readily conclude that all models (derived from oceanic, terrestrial and atmospheric datasets) are rubbish, since they obviously don’t work when placed in real-world scenarios.

    Hey ho…

  64. #64 Greig
    May 21, 2009

    [Gaz, regarding fig 4] “It shows nothing more than that temperature is not well correlated with CO2 over relatively short time frames.”

    I agree.

    [Gaz] “Big deal. No-one ever claimed otherwise. This is well known to anyone with even a passing interest in climate science.”

    Your comment shows your intellectual arrogance. There are many people reading Plimers book who know nothing about global warming, and so do not know that there have been recent periods of both cooling and warming, and that other factors influence climate. Whilst it may be obvious to you Gaz, it is NOT OBVIOUS TO EVERYONE. And Plimer is writing the book for everyone.

    Gaz, Tim Lambert and others appear to be arguing that Plimer is obligated to show something that satisfies their personal view. Fig 4 doesn’t do that, so it should be verboten. Why does Plimer include this graph, and not the graphs that Lambert and Gaz like? The clue is in the books title. H+E Global Warming: The Missing Science.

    Before I had read H+E, I had never seen the fig 4 graph before. I think it adds weight to the view that temperatures have been cooling for the last 10 years. I think that information is important in quantifying our understanding of observed global warming.

    The debate continues…

  65. #65 nauhgt101
    May 21, 2009

    Gaz, Tim Lambert and others appear to be arguing that Plimer is obligated to show something that satisfies their personal view.

    NO. Not their personal view. Data. Facts. Reality.

    Plimer is quite welcome to have his own interpretation of actual data, as is everyone else. He is not welcome to present incorrect data as correct, especially when he knows the data is incorrect. That is unethical, immoral, and a lie.

    If he presented the REAL data, and then said “See? There have been cooling periods in the last 150 years.” then he would be entirely correct, and would be telling the truth. It would also be obvious that that truth is more or less irrelevant due to the small magnitude of those cooling periods.

  66. #66 Mark Byrne
    May 21, 2009

    Greig @ 254

    Please indicate in the paleoclimate record where these tipping points have resulted in catastrophic warming. References please.

    Greig, you could start with [Chapter 6 of IPCC](http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter6.pdf) for a summary. Then move through [Nature](http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v442/n7103/abs/nature05043.html) and [Science]( http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/316/5824/587) and [other journals](http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/30/12/1067) for [various discussion](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V61-4JWMT9M-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=657ae9c63ed9a8dfa1ac31ffb9900510) on the PETM. The 6 degree global warming is understood be initiated by a CO2 or methane release leading to tipping points of more previously sequestered CO2 and methane. The total slow release (over millennia) of CO2e is estimated to be equivalent to BAU emissions for this century.

    Three significant differences between now and then:
    Firstly, we have since released a large fraction the fossilised carbon that had been locked up for 150 million years. Secondly we now face greater albedo feedbacks as 55 Mya there was already less ice. Finally, we are set to liberate the same about of CO2 in a century that nature released in between 1 and 10 thousand years.

  67. #67 Janet Akerman
    May 21, 2009

    I’m with Greig,

    Plimer is under know obligation to tell the truth to his readers. He should also be able to tell porkies on radio debates. It is a matter of free speech that Plimer should be able to show people that the planet has warmed as much as it’s cooled.

    And Grieg should be able to back Plimer up on this. So what are you fairies going to do about it hey? We own the press. Who sets the media agenda hey? We report and you can take it for leave it.

    Suffer in your jocks losers!

  68. #68 Jenet Akerman
    May 21, 2009

    I don’t think Greig goes far enough.

    Plimer should just use data that stops a 1980, he should use the temperature record but start it at 1940. Showing more than this just plays into the prejudice of warmists.

  69. #69 Dave
    May 21, 2009

    Greig:

    > I think it adds weight to the view that temperatures have been cooling for the last 10 years.

    So… why not use a graph that actually covers the last ten years, namely a plot of 1999-2008?

    Give me *one* good reason that an argument for a temperature trend over a period of ten years would not be bolstered by a graph actually covering those ten years unders discussion.

  70. #70 TrueSceptic
    May 21, 2009

    Janet Akerman,

    Thanks. Excellent spoof/parody of the extreme ASS sufferer. Exactly how I would do it. :-)

  71. #71 jemima
    May 21, 2009

    You people can carry on playing with the troll as you like, but don’t you think that you’re enabling one of the worst exponents of antiscience you’ve ever seen? It’s not funny. This degree of unapologetic, in your face fraudulence is somehow wicked. Something rotten has shaken itself out of the slime and slouches our way.

    It’s too much for me, at least wash your hands carefully when you’re done playing.

  72. #72 TrueSceptic
    May 21, 2009

    271 jemima,

    What do you suggest? If we simply ignore them, passers-by might imagine that we can’t refute their delusional tripe. If the blog owner blocks them, they will post anyway in forums and blogs that support their nonsense and where few of us would bother going, so they are unlikely to be refuted by anyone. They will also complain rabidly about being censored by “fascist warmers”.

    I know that Tim blocks some extreme cases such as GMB, but isn’t it good that he’s so tolerant of denialists posting here?

  73. #73 Barton Paul Levenson
    May 21, 2009

    Greig writes:

    The fact that we do not (yet) know exactly what those negative feedback mechanisms are, whether ocean currents, clouds, evaporative cooling, we know that they eventually dominate the enhance greenhouse effect and prevent runaway warming.

    There was never any danger of “runaway” warming. You appear to think that positive feedbacks, like the water-vapor feedback on CO2-induced global warming, must run away. Wrong. It’s a converging series, not a diverging series.

    A diverging series would be

    1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5…

    Because the more terms you add, the higher the sum gets, without limit. The same is true of

    1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1…

    But it is NOT true of a series like

    1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16…

    The sum of that series will never get beyond 2 no matter how many terms you add.

  74. #74 jemima
    May 21, 2009

    TrueSceptic this one is worse, this one is not delusional or ignorant or uneducated. This one, like Plimer himself, simply doesn’t care about the fraudulence and untruthfulness of its statements. That makes it a troll but it’s worse than those you’ve seen before.

    It calls itself Greig, but it’s also misspelt Plimer’s name as “Plimar”. Suppose it’s purposely misspelling “Grieg”, a name most famous for the Peer Gynt Suite (composed on the play by Ibsen). Peer Gynt is about a lot of things but one of them is trolls. A bit from Wikipedia:

    “Out there, where sky shines, humans say: ‘To thyself be true.’ In here, trolls say: ‘Be true to yourself-ish.’” Egoism is a typical troll-trait in this play. From then on, Peer has this as his motto, claiming as time passes to be himself, whatever that is.

    and

    Peer looks for a priest to confess his sins, and a character named the Lean One (who is probably the Devil), turns up. He believes Peer cannot be accounted a real sinner who can be sent to hell. He has not done anything serious. Peer despairs in the end, understanding that his life is forfeit. He understands he is nothing.

    You may not find very plausible or interesting my connection of troll Greig with a few ugly trolls of Norwegian literary and musical history, that’s OK. But I agree with John Quiggin’s comment today. I won’t give this troll any more of the attention it craves, and without which it’s nothing. I thought it was funny for as long as I thought that it knew no better but now I see things differently. There are wicked things at work in the world today and this troll reeks of them as badly as does Plimer himself.

  75. #75 Barton Paul Levenson
    May 21, 2009

    Greig posts:

    But the army of environmentalist ideologues trying to enforce expensive renewable energy is a road block.

    Wind power is cheaper than coal or nuclear NOW. And the “cost” of coal and oil doesn’t factor in the damage they do to the environment, nor the threat they pose to collapse human agriculture through global warming.

  76. #76 Barton Paul Levenson
    May 21, 2009

    Greig posts:

    [Sod] “you simply can NOT publish a graph about a well measured subject up to 1980, in the year 2009.”

    Of course you can. Especially when presented in combination with Fig 4 (which is not in dispute). As long as the data is correct and it illustrates your point, there would have been no problem if Plimar had published the Christensen and Lassen (1991), temperature and solar cycle length graph.

    I think what Sod meant is that you can’t do so honestly if later data exists–especially when, as in this case, the later data shows the “relationship” diverges significantly after the cut-off date. It makes using such a cherry-picked graph a form of lying. In any statistical test, you have to use ALL the points–not just the ones that seem to support your view.

  77. #77 Barton Paul Levenson
    May 21, 2009

    Janet Akerman, apparently on drugs, posts:

    What the alarmists are trying to do here is attack the credibility of Professor Plimer. Most of you haven’t read his excellent book, and likely get your information from blog sites. You have no understanding of what you are talking about.

    What part of “what the guy says is demonstrably wrong” do you not understand?

    You don’t want debate, and you are attacking Ian Plimer’s right to free speech.

    Nope. Never. Plimer has the absolute right to say whatever he wants, absent special cases such as libel or crying fire in a crowded theater. But we have just as much right to reply to his nonsense. YOU are trying to attack OUR right to free speech by saying Plimer should be beyond criticism.

    You want a Stalinist state and have your green roots in NAZI Germany.

    As someone with relatives who died in the Holocaust, and other relatives who died in the GULAG, your assertion is not only grossly wrong but offensive and stupid.

    You hate black children and will let them die for your ideological cause.

    Seriously, were you high when you wrote this?

  78. #78 TrueSceptic
    May 21, 2009

    274 jemima,

    I understand what you are saying but I’m still not sure of the best way to deal with them, as I said in 272.

    I can normally recognise outright liars (we have a few in the JREF forums), but it seems to me that cases like ‘Greig’ might still be highly delusional rather than simply dishonest.

  79. #79 Sally Johnson
    May 21, 2009

    No such thing as free speech on this blog – only what Lambert and his cronies wish to see represented. See my other posts to note censorship.

  80. #80 Barton Paul Levenson
    May 21, 2009

    Janet Akerman writes:

    Before we end the fun, I would like to argue that you warmist are trying to kill poor black children.

    And I would like to see you receiving medication and counseling.

    If it wasn’t for our access to abundant cheap fossil fuels we would have food shortages like this.

    Attention: Global warming will cause increased drought in continental interiors, therefore likely leading to less agricultural production. That plus changes in rainfall and the loss of fresh water to a billion people in Asia as glaciers receded, could cause the complete collapse of human agriculture within 50 years.

    Is that what you want? Do you want to kill black children?

    And if give up are fossil fuels we will get disease like this.

    You know, we could get our energy from other sources than fossil fuels. Where did you get the idea that fossil fuels were in and of themselves indispensable?

    And, BTW, if you’re right, we’re all screwed, because sooner or later those fuels are going to run out. We hit peak oil a while back, if you remember.

    And if we change our current relationship with developing countries we lose benefits such as these.

    Change it in any way?

  81. #81 Barton Paul Levenson
    May 21, 2009

    Greig, exhibiting a deep, irrational anger towards the late Ray Bolger, writes:

    Fig 4 (and 48) show that temp and CO2 do not correlate AT ALL for the period 2002-2008. This does not prove that CO2 does not cause warming, but it proves that CO2 is clearly not the SOLE cause of warming. Hence there are OTHER FACTORS THAT IMPACT CLIMATE CHANGE.

    NO SHIT, SHERLOCK!!! Nobody ever said differently, least of all climate scientists. What we are saying is that carbon dioxide is the major cause of the recent global warming.

    http://www.geocities.com/bpl1960/Correlation.html

  82. #82 Sally Johnson
    May 21, 2009

    As we all know, substitute CO2 for the price of US postage stamps and you get the same correlation.

    No proven science here.

  83. #83 bluegrue
    May 21, 2009

    {Barton Paul Levenson}
    > Seriously, were you high when you wrote this?

    Janet fooled a few of us, including myself; see #238 – #248 and #270. I am sorry, for the losses that your family has suffered.

  84. #84 Barton Paul Levenson
    May 21, 2009

    Greig writes:

    I think it adds weight to the view that temperatures have been cooling for the last 10 years.

    Greig, here are the global land-sea temperature anomalies, from the Hadley Centre CRU, for the last 10 years:

    Anom	Year
    0.296 1999
    0.270 2000
    0.409 2001
    0.464 2002
    0.473 2003
    0.447 2004
    0.482 2005
    0.422 2006
    0.405 2007
    0.323 2008

    A simple linear regression gives a coefficient of 0.007763636 to the year term. Not statistically significant. But it’s up, not down. There is no cooling over the last ten years. You’re just wrong, and Figure 4 does nothing to prove the point in contention.

  85. #85 Barton Paul Levenson
    May 21, 2009

    I didn’t realize until I read some of her later posts that “Janet Akerman” was having us on. I’m a bit thick when it comes to parody sometimes. Apologies.

    But it shows, I think, how easily such parodies can be mistaken for the real thing. Check out JoAnne Nova’s Australian “JoNova” blog to see a bunch of people who talk like “Janet Akerman” but appear to be dead serious.

  86. #86 bluegrue
    May 21, 2009

    #278 TrueSkeptic
    > I can normally recognise outright liars (we have a few in the JREF forums), but it seems to me that cases like ‘Greig’ might still be highly delusional rather than simply dishonest.

    I would have agreed with you at the beginning. By now Greig has posited, that Klimafakten’s figure 2.9 was Plimer’s intended figure 3 to avoid calling Plimer a liar. That kind of twisted rationalization puts him squat into the troll camp. On the off-chance, that my assessment is wrong, I can only hope that Greig takes this as a wake-up call.

  87. #87 TrueSceptic
    May 21, 2009

    285 BPL,

    That’s the problem with ASS-wholes: the real thing is so absurd that it is almost beyond parody.

  88. #88 TrueSceptic
    May 21, 2009

    286 bluegrue,

    Could still be highly delusional. I’ve seen similar behaviour at ClimateFraudit, WattsUpWithMyBrain, and the Marohasy Bog, where the inmates have no need to troll because they are “at home”. I’m not saying that you are not as, or more, likely to be right, though.

    Oh, and thanks for your many excellent posts here. :-)

  89. #89 Sally Johnson
    May 21, 2009

    Looking at the anomolies:

    0.473 (2003) **>** 0.447 (2004) < 0.482 (2005) **>** 0.422 (2006) **>** 0.405 (2007) **>** 0.323 (2008)

    Appears to be a lot of global cooling according to the recorded data. **Sound the ALARM!!!**

  90. #90 Chris O'Neill
    May 21, 2009

    Greig:

    [Chris O'Neill] “I’m not saying it is enforcing the use of expensive energy on those 5 billion people. They just don’t use that much or they won’t use that much while they’re still in poverty. ”

    Oh good, so as long as everyone is poor, we don’t have a problem. Do you not realise that in their desperation to survive, the world’s poor are cutting down all the forests? Have you ever been to a developing country, and observed all of the open wood and dung fires? What do you think that is doing to the ennvironment, not to mention health?

    You’re missing the point, as per usual. I didn’t say they had to stay poor.

    [Chris O'Neill] “And removing poverty is not a necessary or sufficient condition for resolving overpopulation either BTW.”

    Certainly. Perhaps we can impose draconian laws on the world’s poor to ensure that they only have one child, and so nobody to look after them in their old age. Perhaps the UN will come on board for that? Great solution Chris. Not.

    I didn’t say that was necessary either. And of course you ignore the fact that it’s not sufficient.

    [Chris O'Neill] “The rich countries generate most of the GHGs and have far higher GHG emissions per capita and Greig believes it doesn’t matter what they do.”
    Guilt trip. We can self flagellate for you Chris, if you like.

    For God’s sake, reducing emissions is not self flagellation.

    The fact is, as the developing world advances, their emissions will overrun anything we do now, unless we can find a way to deploy low cost low-emissions technology.

    A “two wrongs make a right” argument. This doesn’t stop rich countries from reducing their emissions which will make a substantial difference if they are brought down to a reasonable per-capita level.

    [Chris O'Neill] “and the world is stuffed.”
    Unless we can resolve overpopulation, yes.

    And unless your mythical magic technology arrives, yes.

    BTW, if these are issues you want to debate, why do you feel it necessary to defend someone telling lies that are intended to deceive the public?

  91. #91 bi -- IJI
    May 21, 2009

    Shorter Sally Johnson:

    Linear regression? Sounds elitist! Anyway, it’s cooling!

  92. #92 bluegrue
    May 21, 2009

    Sally Johnson:
    > Appears to be a lot of global cooling according to the recorded data. __Sound the ALARM!!!__

    Lot’s of noise there. 7-year trends are too short to tell you something about climate, they are weather. This has been covered [over](http://atmoz.org/blog/2008/05/19/7-year-trends-falsify-what/) and [over](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/01/uncertainty-noise-and-the-art-of-model-data-comparison/) and [over again](http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/05/18/decadal-trends/).

  93. #93 Greig
    May 21, 2009

    Mark Byrne @ 266,

    Thanks for the references to the PETM. And thanks for at least one post that does not talk down to me, it makes debate more pleasant.

    As you know, CO2 alone cannot explain the PETM warming event, and current theory relies on the massive release of methane from the melting of sub Arctic clathrates. This requires special circumstances of ocean circulation and warming, a CO2 trigger alone cannot and does not explain the process, and there is no evidence that the special circumstances for rapid clathrate release exist now.

    Also, the warming occurred over a long period (10,000 years), and there is no evidence that methane emissions from clathrates can occur more rapidly.

    Therefore the PETM does not necessarily mean that we face immediate and rapid (“dangerous”) global warming, eg over the next century. And considering the impact on humans of the return of then next ice age, then perhaps a period of warming over the next 10,000 years could be a blessing.

    Perhaps this last paragraph will shock the Gaians here. However, considering the fact that the Chinese and Indians are showing no interest in reducing their emissions, I am very keen to discuss what might occur if we were to reach 550ppm CO2 or more, which in my opinion will certainly happen.

  94. #94 Greig
    May 21, 2009

    [Dave] “So… why not use a graph that actually covers the last ten years, namely a plot of 1999-2008? Give me one good reason that an argument for a temperature trend over a period of ten years would not be bolstered by a graph actually covering those ten years unders discussion.”

    I have seen plots that include the period 1998 – 2008, and in my opinion they strengthen the view that there is cooling over the last 10 years. However, you also have to explain the massive El Nino in 1998, which is a weather event, and that complicates the matter somewhat. I can only assume that Plimer did not want to show 1998, because it would confuse the issue of weather and climate. And Plimer’s book focusses on periods of thousands and millions of years.

    Throughout this thread, there is general agreement that a 10 year trend is weather (and proves nothing, so should be dismissed) yet a 30 year trend (eg from 1970 to 2000) is climate, and is very important. That is cherrypicking. All data is important in attaining an understanding of climate change.

  95. #95 Greig
    May 21, 2009

    [Barton Paul Levenson] “Wind power is cheaper than coal or nuclear NOW.”

    Incorrect. Nuclear is much cheaper, including waste management and decommissioning. And it is more scalable because it is not intermittent. Ask Barry Brooks.

    [Barton Paul Levenson] “And the “cost” of coal and oil doesn’t factor in the damage they do to the environment, nor the threat they pose to collapse human agriculture through global warming.”

    Wow, collapse of agriculture? And they call me a troll?

  96. #96 bluegrue
    May 21, 2009

    > Throughout this thread, there is general agreement that a 10 year trend is weather (and proves nothing, so should be dismissed) yet a 30 year trend (eg from 1970 to 2000) is climate, and is very important. That is cherrypicking. All data is important in attaining an understanding of climate change.

    I’m sorry, Greig, but it is comments like this one that _cause_ others to talk down on you, as they show your lack of experience and understanding (nothing, that can not be overcome). Please read the material that I have linked to in #292. In short, the temperature record is very noisy as a consequence of the inherent variability of the atmosphere-ocean system. If you take a part of the temperature time series you will always be able to calculate a linear fit to the data. However, you then need to test whether this line fit is significant, i.e. meaningful or not. Observation shows you, that only longer periods of observation of the order of 30 years give you meaningful trends. You’ll find the details in the links supplied, and presented in a better way than I have just done. It is not prejudice or “cherrypicking” but experience which leads us to disregard 10 year “trends” as weather in favor of longer term climate trend.

  97. #97 Greig
    May 21, 2009

    One final post before I go to work, not on the subject of climate science.

    It appears that about half of this blog is dedicated to parody and outrage that a person (me) has wandered into a blog full of AGW true believers, ie a group who are utterly convinced that anyone who is in the least bit sceptical of the conclusion that CO2 is certainly going to destroy the planet, is “antiscience” or “delusional” or a “troll”.

    For the record, I am quite convinced that the basic science of climate change demonstrates that CO2 is implicated in observed global warming, but that more work needs to be done to determine what is going to happen as CO2 rises to 550 ppm and beyond. The science is not settled. I am not convinced that it will result in catastrophe, and that is the extent of my scepticism.

    Most of you also seem completely convinced that Plimer deliberately lied about the Fig 3 graph. Clearly he was MISTAKEN. But that does not mean he LIED. There is a difference, and I would suggest that my position is one of assuming the best of an eminent scientist and author, rather than leaping to conclusions about that person’s intentions.

    To illustrate this, let me ask. How many of you have engaged in the open ridicule and vilification of Al Gore for his “mistake” about the Vostock ice core samples in An Inconvenient Truth. How many declared Gore to be a liar. Hands up! Spot the hypocrite.

    You all, including Tim Lambert, should be ashamed of the way you conduct yourselves in this public forum. It is hypocritical, disrespectful, indulgent and rude. I am quite glad I don’t know any of you personally.

  98. #98 Dave
    May 21, 2009

    Greig:

    > I have seen plots that include the period 1998 – 2008, and in my opinion they strengthen the view that there is cooling over the last 10 years.

    Except that a) such graphs don’t show cooling unless you draw them incorrectly and b) that’s an 11-year trend. I’m interested to know why you a) brought up the whole notion of a 10 year trend and then b) switched to 11 years instead.

    > I can only assume that Plimer did not want to show 1998, because it would confuse the issue of weather and climate.

    1998 is not in the 10 years under discussion Greig, I said so in my original question. You’ve yet to give me any reason for omitting an actual 10-year plot in a discussion of 10 years of data – but your over-indulgent Plimer fawning is once again noted.

    > Throughout this thread, there is general agreement that a 10 year trend is weather (and proves nothing, so should be dismissed) yet a 30 year trend (eg from 1970 to 2000) is climate, and is very important. That is cherrypicking. All data is important in attaining an understanding of climate change.

    I *cannot* believe that you’ve blatantly cherry-picked two specific timescales that you think show what you want (6-year and 11-year) and then have the sheer nerve to accuse climate scientists of cherry picking by using the *mathematically more robust* standard of 30 years. How are you not too ashamed to type things like that?

  99. #99 Dave
    May 21, 2009

    > Most of you also seem completely convinced that Plimer deliberately lied about the Fig 3 graph. Clearly he was MISTAKEN. But that does not mean he LIED.

    He used a graph in his book that he had previously referenced in a debate, that was sourced from Durkin, that he knew was incorrect – and when questioned, he indicated that it came from a different source, which, in fact, it did not. That’s lying.

    > There is a difference, and I would suggest that my position is one of assuming the best of an eminent scientist and author, rather than leaping to conclusions about that person’s intentions.

    And yet you ignore the opinion of many many more eminent scientists whose work has been rubbished and misrepresented by Plimer.

    > To illustrate this, let me ask. How many of you have engaged in the open ridicule and vilification of Al Gore for his “mistake” about the Vostock ice core samples in An Inconvenient Truth. How many declared Gore to be a liar. Hands up! Spot the hypocrite.

    Al Gore’s simplification of interglacials and the Vostok data was definitely a topic of discussion – see eg. this summary on Realclimate (although it does come down on the side of he was making a valid, if simplified, point) : http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/05/al-gores-movie/ . It’s a different situation though – he’s using a correct graph, from a correct source, and making a point that is correct, but that glosses over some details. While the fact that there is a lag is important, in that it means that the interglacial is not triggered by a rise in CO2, it does not harm the understanding that the subsequent rise in CO2 causes further warming. He presents a simplified message that that – to my mind – warrants quite a lot more explanation, but it is quite a long way from being “wrong” or “a lie”.

    > You all, including Tim Lambert, should be ashamed of the way you conduct yourselves in this public forum. It is hypocritical, disrespectful, indulgent and rude. I am quite glad I don’t know any of you personally.

    The feeling is entirely mutual.

  100. #100 bluegrue
    May 21, 2009

    > Most of you also seem completely convinced that Plimer deliberately lied about the Fig 3 graph. Clearly he was MISTAKEN. But that does not mean he LIED.

    Plimer is a scientist. He is to be held to higher standards when it comes to data presentation. The temperature graphs of GISTEMP and HadCrut are fundamental data in the field of current climate and thus need to be well known to any scientist writing about climate. It’s like expecting a car driver to know and understand street signs. To a trained scientist like Plimer (or myself for that matter, I’m a solid state physicist) figure 3 is so different from the original data, that it looks odd, even without direct comparison to the actual data (note Sherwood’s reaction to that figure), and that would compel any scientist to verify the plot. The plot is doctored in a way that can not happen by accident. These plots are nowadays created on your PC using dedicated programs. It takes a ___determined___ effort to change the labels of the time scale to read 1880 to 2000 instead of 1885 to 1988. Figure 3 in itself is a LIE. Its inclusion in a paper for a peer-reviewed journal would be reason enough to reject/retract that paper. It would seriously damage the authors reputation and could even cost him his job, as creating this misleading forgery and passing it off as true data constitutes serious scientific misconduct. What is even worse, Plimer accuses another innocent scientist (Berner) to be the source of this plot.

    I can also tell – by taking a closer look at the temperatures in the early 10s to 30s – that the data used to create the graph is from the 1990s and not a current copy from [NASA](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/). It is at the minimum a curious decision on part of a scientist, to not use the most up to date data available, but that’s a minor point. If you choose to do so, you owe your reader a reasoning, why you are disregarding more up to date data, as the GISTEMP graphs differ not just by the inclusion of more recent years, but in the early years, too, due to correction of errors and use of additional data.

    > To illustrate this, let me ask. How many of you have engaged in the open ridicule and vilification of Al Gore for his “mistake” about the Vostock ice core samples in An Inconvenient Truth.

    Are you talking the graph mix-up or the 800 year lag? The graph mix-up should not have happened, but is something very different from Plimer’s figure 3. In Gore’s case the incorrect data was so similar to the correct data, that you need to be either extremely familiar with the data or make a direct comparison. Omitting the 800 year lag (thermal inertia of the ocean, CO2 amplification of the initial orbital forcing) is a defensible didactic decision. It would have cost Gore another 10 minutes to treat this lag properly and it does not change the facts, that CO2 is a GHG and that its current levels are dramatically higher than at any period of time covered by the ice core.

    Finally, IIRC you admitted, Greig, that Plimer’s book is the first time that you read up on climate and the book is more or less your entire source of knowledge. I find it very offensive, that given your shallow pool of knowledge in this field, you insult the majority of the people here as _”true believers”_, in the sense that they are no longer capable of critical thought.