When Kurt Lambeck criticized Ian Plimer on Ockhams Razor, he gaves specific examples of Plimer’s errros of omission and commission. I gazed into my crystal ball and wrote:
I predict that Plimer will respond to this by denying that his science has been criticised, claiming that Lambeck’s criticism was merely an ad hominem attack, and by making personal attacks on Lambeck.
Yesterday on Ockham’s Razor we had Professor Ian Plimer replies to his critics:
Polemical criticism of my book Heaven and Earth has been savage because there are a large number of career climate comrades who frighten us witless about climate change and who would be unemployable outside taxpayer-funded climate institutes. …
From my experience of challenging creationism, I argue that the global warming movement is an ascientific urban religious fundamentalist movement detached from the environment. …
They anonymously criticise my book Heaven and Earth, but have not read it. …
The most dangerous aspect of this new fundamentalist religion is that it ignores history and has hints of totalitarianism.
Take that, Professor Comrade High Priest Anonymous Lambeck!
Plimer finishes with seven questions that he reckons the anonymous commie priests can’t answer. I know Plimer isn’t big on answering questions, but I thought I’d have a go at answering his.
What is the right temperature for the Earth?
Unless you are a dinosaur or something, it’s the temperature we had when we built our current civilization.
What is the right carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere?
Unless you are a dinosaur or something, it’s the concentration we had when we built our current civilization.
How should enormous economic pain be imposed?
I think we should avoid the enormous economic pain that significant global warming will cause by mitigating emissions.
Why is carbon dioxide increasing, yet temperature is decreasing?
Temperature isn’t decreasing.
Why have climate models not been run backwards to replicate all we know?
Why have major Earth processes been omitted from models?
They haven’t been.
Why is scientific dissent demonised?
That wasn’t hard at all!