Ian Plimer responds to criticism with by calling his critics names and failing to address their arguments. In an interview on BBC Radio 4, Plimer spouts his usual outrageous falsehoods:

“We cannot stop carbon emissions because most of them come from volcanoes.”

Not true — even Martin Durkin’s Swindle retracted this one.

And when the interviewer brought up Michael Ashley’s devastating review of Heaven and Earth, we got this:

Plimer: “When you look at my critics — they are people who are rent seekers. They have everything to gain by continuing the process of frightening people witless, by following the party line, …”

Interviewer: “Do you say that they are deliberately fraudulent?”

Plimer: “Well I’m saying that they are taking advantage of the current situation. Now that’s understandable. In previous times people have got wonderful research grants in a war against cancer and they achieved a lot of money for that. Now we have a war against climate change and there is huge number of people out there that have their careers staked on it and are beneficiaries from this process. And Michael Ashley is one of those.”

Actually, Ashley is an astronomer and his career is not staked on climate change research at all. It is symptomatic of Plimer’s approach that he didn’t bother to check this and just made things up.

And notice how Plimer is now sounding like a cancer quack. Compare:


There was a woman whose daughter was in the advanced stages of brain cancer. She asked her oncologist if it was okay to give her daughter a superfood called blue green algae. Her doctor told her that it was no problem, that in fact a number of his patients had used that supplement with success in fighting cancer.

Naturally she wondered why he didn’t tell her about this product a year before when they came to him.

Unfortunately, he couldn’t tell her about this or any “natural or alternative health therapies” and stay employed. Insurance regulations would preclude such suggestions. And he could get into administrative trouble by recommending natural, non-drug treatments for cancer.

His advice is controlled by a large medical industry that makes mega money off expensive cancer fighting drugs and treatments. An industry that doesn’t look favorably on natural supplements or other cancer treatments as they cannot patent them to make high profits.

Also of interest to Plimerologists Andrew Adam’s report of Plimer’s undebate:

Ok, I’m back and it was a thoroughly depressing evening. As has been pointed out, although it was billed as a “debate” Plimer was the only speaker – of course Monbiot famously, and understandably, pulled out but surely they had plenty of time to find someone else. What’s more, the audience was overwhelmingly favourable to Plimer, ok probably unsurprising given it was organised by the Spectator, but to an extent which was pretty shocking even so. You might have thought that given the above it was incumbent on Neill to ask Plimer some searching questions himself. He did raise a couple of points but accepted Plimer’s answers even though they were disingenuous to say the least. It also took him a long time to realise that maybe he needed to seek out the opinions of those who disagreed with Plimer, and even then some people who put their hands up and were chosen actually supported Plimer. I had my hand up all evening and was finally called right at the end but probably due to my bad temper by that time and being hurried through lack of time didn’t make my point as coherently as I would have liked. There was only one other person who actually seriously challenged Plimer all evening. OK, I suppose I shouldn’t have known what to expect to a large extent but even so, I didn’t think it would be that bad.
Anyway, I will be writing a more detailed account for my blog, probably over the weekend, so I’ll post a link in case anyone wants to know more.

Comments

  1. #1 Bernard J.
    November 18, 2009

    Silkworm asked:

    “Denialati” – now the denialists are calling themselves names! What gives?

    Erm, not so much the denialists… rather, it might have something to do with my penchant for using the term in a rather sarcastic manner. I’m not sure when (or if) it predates the [first time](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/07/just_how_bad_is_chilingars_lat.php#comment-1758100) I came up with it on Deltoid, but I used it in response to Frank Bi referring to the nasty conspiratorial cabal that is the Climatati – that Secret Squirrel club of fraudulent scientists who are trying to convince the world that globabl warming actually exists…

  2. #2 silkworm
    November 18, 2009

    Bernard J. – I was unaware that it was you who came up with the term. I was responding to el gordo using it on himself. Still, I don’t think it is necessary to call them denialiati. Denialist is a better term, because it is accurate and objective. Even so, it seems to piss them off a fair bit, because they know we’ve pinned them.

  3. #3 Chris S.
    November 18, 2009

    “the Climatati – that Secret Squirrel club of fraudulent scientists who are trying to convince the world that globabl warming actually exists…”

    …and yet still can’t get their act together enough to produce a petition to rival the Orgone & Inhofe lists.

    Sigh, it seems they think it’s OK to refer to the science instead, poor deluded Climatati.

  4. #4 Dan Olner
    November 18, 2009

    Bringing it back to the thread for a moment: the UK’s science media centre, it turns out, worked hard to get a climate scientist on the Today Programme the following morning – had two to choose from, in fact – but the Today Programme declined. Given their awful performance the previous day, that’s shocking.

  5. #5 el gordo
    November 18, 2009

    Dan, I would like to see a link on that.

    Being called a denialist is nowhere near as attractive as being part of the Denialati. I stand firm in my belief that AGW is a crock.

  6. #6 Janet Akerman
    November 18, 2009

    >*I stand firm in my belief that AGW is a crock.*

    Keep the faith el gordo, your are an inspiration. Resolute.

  7. #7 Dan Olner
    November 18, 2009

    el gordo: eh? No link, an email from the science media centre. Not sure what the other two sentences were about – did they connect to what I was saying?

  8. #8 Marion Delgado
    November 18, 2009

    By the way, the CEC, the Australian LaRoucheite group, is out in force for some reason. I got an email from them as a news article *cough* today. The next open thread I’ll post some of it.

  9. #9 Chris O'Neill
    November 18, 2009

    el gordo:

    I stand firm in my belief that AGW is a crock.

    Yep, they don’t care about evidence, it’s just belief. And they have the hide to call AGW a religion. What hypocrites.

  10. #10 el gordo
    November 18, 2009

    Belief based on evidence, but that sounds just as hollow as both sides have evidence to support their argument.

    Most people believe as you do, global warming is upon us. The media is doing a very effective job in this regard.

  11. #11 Chris O'Neill
    November 18, 2009

    el gordo:

    both sides have evidence to support their argument.

    That’s just not true in the vast majority of cases. For example, where is Plimer’s evidence that volcanoes emit more CO2 than fossil fuel burning?

  12. #12 Donald Oats
    November 18, 2009

    Meanwhile, here in sunny South Australia, the jerky yet trending weather towards drier, hotter conditions continues…yeah yeah, it’s weather not climate, it has been cooling since 1998, CO2 is good for plants, blah blah.

    Today we have our shiny new BIG RED “CATASTROPHIC” WARNING level that it is 50% worse than the 1939 fire conditions (1939 bushfires are defined as 100 on the Index.). However, some parts of SA are actually rated as 100% above the 1939 fire conditions today so oops, we are running out of levels faster than we can colour them in.

    I propose that we add an even newer warning level: a really shiny BIG BROWN (as in, “brown jocks time”) “WTF? PLIMER SAID IT WAS ALL JUST TICKETY BOO! WHERE IS THAT SON OF A #@?!!*?”

    This would be fitting since SA (South Australia) is where Plimer is based, ie The University of Adelaide, SA. This state also houses some of the most intransigent politicians on climate change: Nick Minchin, the Head of Senate for the opposition, with his recent pronouncements of a conspiracy by eco-religio-facists on the ABC Four Corners program. From 4 Corners, Nov 9th 2009, ABC:

    NICK MINCHIN: For the extreme left it provides the opportunity to do what they’ve always wanted to do, to sort of de-industrialise the western world. You know the collapse of communism was a disaster for the left, and the, and really they embraced environmentalism as their new religion.

    SARAH FERGUSON: Minchin encourages his junior colleagues to speak out too.

    NICK MINCHIN: I don’t mind being branded a sceptic about the theory that that human emissions and CO2 are the main driver of global change – of global warming. I don’t accept that and I’ve said that publically. I guess if I can say it, I would hope that others would feel free to do so.

    Current prediction today: 43C for Adelaide, which if reached, will topple the 1962 record of 42.7C. And, it is still Spring!

    Lookin’ forward to Summer :-)

  13. #13 Dave Andrews
    November 18, 2009

    Mark Byrne,

    If you don’t know the myriad problems associated with GCMs then you obviously have not read widely enough in the scientific literature.

    Janet,

    Glad to see your faith in me is as strong as ever:-) By the way, why dont you go to CA and read the numerous posts on Mann’s novel statistics – it will improve your understanding and is only a click away!

    dhogaza,

    I’m not “dishonest” at all, just saying things as I, and countless others, see them. In fact, you probably understand this given your background. Its quite ironic that after all your work over the years battling the various supposed ‘consensuses’ you now find yourselve on the other side of the fence defending the supposed ‘consensus’

  14. #14 Dave Andrews
    November 18, 2009

    Janet,

    One final point. Just when have YOU EVER included scientific references in your posts?

  15. #15 Mark Byrne
    November 18, 2009

    To understand how Dave Andrews has avoided supporting the wild claims he makes readers can link back [to here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/10/dubner_falsely_claims_that_oce.php#comment-2080682).

    Dave I again invite you to support you claims were you say:

    “ultimately you are probably TOTALLY INCORRECT”

    On what basis do you make this statement? Please provide references that contradict the statement that:
    >Climate models are bound by physical properties that are quantifiable, unlike much of the soft sciences.
    *- Where the soft science include social sciences like economics..

    Put it this way Dave, I’m not aware of claims that any model is perfect, but that is a different issue than any model is totally incorrect. However the statement of mine that you weighed in on was that Climate models are more constrained by physical properties which makes them very different to economic models.

    >Climate models are bound by physical properties that are quantifiable, unlike much of the soft sciences.

    You’ve provided no argument let alone evidence to counter this yet you state that you I’m “*probably TOTALLY INCORRECT*”. I invite you to support this claim David.

  16. #16 Stu
    November 18, 2009

    David,

    Janet linked to the US Geological Survey further up this comment thread.

    Unless you don’t think they’re scientific…

  17. #17 dhogaza
    November 18, 2009

    If you don’t know the myriad problems associated with GCMs then you obviously have not read widely enough in the scientific literature.

    The problems are well-known, and are even better known for being overstated by people like yourself, who don’t know shit about modeling or specific GCMs.

  18. #18 dhogaza
    November 18, 2009

    I’m not “dishonest” at all, just saying things as I, and countless others, see them.

    You’re a serial liar.

    In fact, you probably understand this given your background. Its quite ironic that after all your work over the years battling the various supposed ‘consensuses’ you now find yourselve on the other side of the fence defending the supposed ‘consensus’

    The conservation work I’ve been involved in has *always* been science-based, as is my understanding of the dangers of climate change.

    The supposed ‘consensus’ among relevant science has never been that “northern spotted owls nest in automobile junkyards”, or “DDT doesn’t cause eggshell thinning in raptors”, or “clearcuts are better for wildlife than old growth forest”.

    Rather, the scientific consensus among relevant researchers has always backed up the kind of conservation work I’ve been involved with.

    So I don’t know WTF you’re talking about.

    At best you can accuse me (and people I worked with in the 1970s and 1980s) for being too complacent about the possible problems associated with AGW as we waited to see what kind of consensus would grow within science. I personally was betting on the low and slow side of early warnings from scientists. Unfortunately research and the knowledge that results have shown me to be too optimistic.

    Meanwhile, as I said above, you’re just a serial liar …

  19. #19 dhogaza
    November 18, 2009

    If you don’t know the myriad problems associated with GCMs then you obviously have not read widely enough in the scientific literature.

    “scientific literature” as understood by DaveA:

    CA

    WUWT

  20. #20 el gordo
    November 18, 2009

    dhogaza, is it true you fought against the consensus and now you are for it?

    Chris O’Neill: I didn’t read Plimer’s book, but as mentioned earlier there appears to be misinformation mixed with truisms. Under normal circumstances I would call that propaganda.

    When the book first came out I followed the critiques and my conclusion was that it’s a populist book with many flaws.

  21. #21 TrueSceptic
    November 18, 2009

    220 El Gordo,

    OK, so cite just one of Plimer’s claims that is nothing more than a lie (or delusional fantasy when he gets into “politics”).

  22. #22 Fran Barlow
    November 18, 2009

    Not the least offensive tactic of the filth merchant foot soldiers is the attempt to reduce a discussion about the nature of observable reality to a discussion of the relative merits of conforming and non-conforming ideas.

    As Dhogaza rightly points out above, it is the integrity of the science underpinning one’s position that is key, rather than whether one gets to play martyred “skeptic” or has to suffer being called an intellectual conformist.

    This style over substance approach simply underpins the reckless indifference to observable reality that the filth merchant lobby brings to all discussions that threaten what they see as their immediate and narrow interests.

  23. #23 Connor
    November 18, 2009

    Off topic, but can anyone point me in the direction of a sound demolition of John McLean’s E&E paper rubbishing the CSIRO for using “misleading” trends? I’ve searched this site and found a few titbits but most are in the comments and aren’t authoritative enough for me to smite my denier friends with.

    http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mscp/ene/2006/00000017/00000001/art00003

    Thanks in advance.

  24. #24 el gordo
    November 18, 2009

    Off the top of my head, his farting termites seem farfetched.

  25. #25 el gordo
    November 18, 2009

    What I meant to say is that Plimer supposedly claimed that termite methane emissions are 20 times more potent than human CO2 emissions. Now, without a cite, such a statement cannot be taken seriously.

  26. #26 Mark Byrne
    November 18, 2009

    Conner, I recalled a classic line from Bernard that provided a unquie serach term and help me [locate this](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/two_weeks_from_blog_post_to_pa.php).

    You’ll find Tim linked to the paper submitted by Foster et al.

  27. #27 dhogaza
    November 18, 2009

    dhogaza, is it true you fought against the consensus and now you are for it?

    No, I did not say that. What I said was that I was somewhat complacent about the potential problem when Hansen and a few others starting talking about it early on. Back then, there was no solid consensus that we were already seeing the AGW signal and quite a bit of controversy within the climate science community as to how quickly that signal would become distinguishable from noise.

    At least, as I understood things at the time (early 80s).

    Of course, things changed quite rapidly and as it did, my views changed.

    I was never a septic or denialist – in the 1980s there was a lot of debate about “how quickly” and “how strongly” due to a much greater uncertainty then compared to now regarding climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2. And the models were more primitive (in large part due to slow computers) than today, etc etc.

    As Dhogaza rightly points out above, it is the integrity of the science underpinning one’s position that is key

    Exactly. My views regarding AGW became more certain as the scientific case was strengthened. That’s called being rational.

  28. #28 el gordo
    November 18, 2009

    dhogaza: Oddly enough, back in those days I was in the same position as you, but now beg to differ on CC. It’s the alarmism which is muddying the waters.

    A good example is the claim by Penny Wong that sea level will rise one metre before the end of this century. The Minister is backed by science, so she is on safe grounds.

    Sorry to read that Randwick is vulnerable.

  29. #29 Janet Akerman
    November 18, 2009

    Dave Andrews, Since [you won't answer](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/plimer_calls_his_critics_rent-.php#comment-2086024) my questions, I assume these questions are difficult for you.

    So rather than follow your attempts to hide down various memory holes, I’ll restate the selected parts of the questions that you continue to avoid:

    >Dave, please tell us the precise errors in the sum total of Mann’s publications. Then put these errors into context by compareing Manns reconstructions with the worlds last 10 years of published temperature reconstructions.

    And a reminder, Dave Andrews has a long and consistent history of making unsupported statements, thus:

    >Readers could do worse than assuming anything written by Dave Andrews is bogus unless backed up with references.

  30. #30 Connor
    November 18, 2009

    Mark Byrne – Thanks for that, I remember seeing that when it came out, was following James and Jules blog post. But am more looking for a debunking of McLean 2007 and his criticism of CSIRO. Been scouring google with no luck so far.

  31. #31 Chris O'Neill
    November 18, 2009

    el gordo:

    When the book first came out I followed the critiques and my conclusion was that it’s a populist book with many flaws.

    i.e. you have no justification whatsover for claiming

    both sides have evidence to support their argument

    Pardon me for thinking you’re all talk and no substance.

  32. #32 rob
    November 18, 2009

    > quietly slip the yolks of socialist oppression over our shoulders whilst we slept…

    Sounds messy if nothing else…

  33. #33 Bernard J.
    November 19, 2009
  34. #34 Mark Byrne
    November 19, 2009

    Applogies Conner,

    Anyone here read the McLean 2007 paper that Conner is addressing?

  35. #35 dhogaza
    November 19, 2009

    A good example is the claim by Penny Wong that sea level will rise one metre before the end of this century. The Minister is backed by science, so she is on safe grounds.

    Well, I don’t know who the fuck Penny Wong is, but the one-meter sea-level rise this century is certainly reasonable.

    By saying she’s on safe ground to accept it, you seem to be implying that you’re unreasonable to oppose that position …

  36. #36 Bernard J.
    November 19, 2009

    [Mark Byrne](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/plimer_calls_his_critics_rent-.php#comment-2086426).

    I’d been waiting for Bob Tisdale to put his head on the block and present some concrete numbers about his ENSO/PDO/whatever-else theory before I linked to Foster et al myself, but perhaps now he’ll see where I was leading.

    If you’re reading this Bob, you might as well know that I was also curious about how you might respond to some of [Tamino's thoughts on the matter](http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/08/17/not-computer-models/).

    And regardless of the works of others, I am still curious about the Tisdale energy budget too…

  37. #37 dhogaza
    November 19, 2009

    Oddly enough, back in those days I was in the same position as you, but now beg to differ on CC. It’s the alarmism which is muddying the waters.

    What fatso seems to be saying is that he believes science, as long as the message isn’t bad.

    That’s an interesting filter to apply to science.

    Let me offer fatso a smoke …

  38. #38 David irving (no relation)
    November 19, 2009

    dhogaza, Penny Wong is our Minister for Climate Change. She’s a lawyer.

  39. #39 Mark Byrne
    November 19, 2009

    Bernard, yes I noticed Bob seemed to running around in circles trying breath his own exhaust. I suppose [Tamino's paper](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/two_weeks_from_blog_post_to_pa.php) would be an poetic rebuttle considering who the last author is, and how much Bob was [attempting to rely](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/tom_fuller_and_senator_inhofe.php#comment-2077068) on KET’s work.

  40. #40 Mark Byrne
    November 19, 2009

    >*It’s the alarmism which is muddying the waters.*

    On what do you base this opinion el gordo? Also please define the “alarmism” that you refering to, its quite a vague description and could relate to anything.

    [Here is](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/plimer_calls_his_critics_rent-.php#comment-2083338) a brief primer for my views on who is muddying the waters.

    [And here](http://www.defendingscience.org/Doubt-is-Their-Product-Introduction.cfm), and [here](http://www.desmogblog.com/climate-cover-up)

  41. #41 Donald Oats
    November 19, 2009

    I have read the pages discussing methane emissions and how various methanogenic creatures, including termites, release enormous amounts of methane – see pp428–432[Plimer, 2009]. From page 431, Ch “Air”:

    Many terrestrial arthropods such as termites, cockroaches, millipedes and scarab beetles have a hind gut that is colonised by methanogenic bacteria. These animals emit a huge but unknown amount of methane to the atmosphere^2155. There have been some attempts to calculate the amount of methane emitted by termites^2156.

    To complete the quote, I’ll provide References ^2155 and ^2156, from the footnotes:

    Hackstein, J. H. and Stumm, C. K. 1994: Methane production in terrestrial arthropods.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 91: 5441–5445.
    Zimmerman, P. R., Greenberg, J. P., Wandiga, S. O. and Crutzen, P. J. 1982: Termites: A potentially large source of atmospheric methane, carbon dioxide, and molecular hydrogen. Science 218: 563–565.

    In those four pages from Ch 9 “Air”, subtitled with the section heading “Methane and other Greenhouse Gases”, the only place where he gives the (approximate) methane relative concentration in the atmosphere is in Figure 53, pg 429. It shows the increasing methane concentration as increasing but slowly flattening off since 1998. I can’t copy the figure, but Plimer gives ^2144 as:

    Carbon Cycle Co-operative air sample network data.

    The caption to Figure 53, pg 429, is in full:

    Figure 53: Changes in atmospheric methane^2144 showing annual and 25-year trends. Note that the long-term trend has flattened since about 1998 despite and increase in methane-emitting domesticated animals hence there are unaccounted sources of methane unrelated to human activities.

    The highlighting of some text was done by me in the above quoted caption. I want to bring attention to the fact that if methane relative concentration is increasing per annum, then necessarily some other atmospheric gas must be reducing its relative concentration, in order that the total relative concentration adds up to 1.0, ie these are fractions of the total atmosphere. Possibly oxygen is one of the decreasing gases…worth a check.
    More importantly though, his claim that the long-term trend has flattened since about 1998, and his claim that there has been an increase in methane-emitting domesticated animals during the period since 1998, in no way warrants his conclusion, namely that there are unaccounted sources of methane unrelated to human activities.
    His first and second claims might be true; his conclusion might be true. But the two specific claims do not logically imply the conclusion.

    Establishing the conclusion requires the use of relevant claims, that are based on relevant evidence. Unfortunately, Plimer demonstrates inattention to the requirements of rational argument, ie choose the facts that support the claims, and use relevant claims to warrant the conclusion supposedly drawn from them. If Plimer was practicing true scepticism, he would also test the prospect that the claims are contradicted by others, or that his choice of supporting evidence has ignored strong, relevant contradictory evidence. In other words, he not only needs to establish the chain of supporting evidence => claims made => conclusion, but that no stronger, contradictory evidence exists which demonstrates that the conclusion isn’t warranted.

    Oh boy it is hot here!

    Anyone want to comment?

  42. #42 Dirk Hartog
    November 19, 2009

    Donald Oats, #241

    Anyone want to comment?

    Sorry, but your discovery of an irrational argument from Plimer is not newsworthy.

    Now, if you were to find a single paragraph in Heaven & Earth that actually made logical sense and was a useful contribution to the debate, then THAT would be astonishing.

    Oh boy it is hot here!

    You can draw comfort from the fact that at this precise moment, while you are sweltering in a heat wave in South Australia – unprecedented possibly for thousands of years (certainly since records have been taken) – Plimer is lecturing at the University of South Australia. As I mentioned on another thread, I’m hoping that the air-conditioning in the lecture theatre breaks down.

  43. #43 Chris O'Neill
    November 19, 2009

    el gordo:

    Most people believe as you do, global warming is upon us. The media is doing a very effective job in this regard.

    Yes, the media are doing such an effective job that they report well-known climate scientist Ian Plimer before he even gives his lecture.

  44. #44 Dave Andrews
    November 19, 2009

    dhogaza # 217,

    We’ve sort have had this conversation before, on Tamino’s I believe. Did you ever go and read Stainforth et al?

    http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/365/1857/2145.full

    Mark Byrne

    You might do the same.

  45. #45 Mark Byrne
    November 19, 2009

    Dave Andrews, I note that after repeated [invitations](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/plimer_calls_his_critics_rent-.php#comment-2086122) you have failed to present any supported argument let alone evidence to back your counter to my statement that:

    >*Climate models are bound by physical properties that are quantifiable, unlike much of the soft sciences.* (Where the soft science include social sciences like economics).

    Your only link was to a publication that is consistent with my statement that:

    >*I’m not aware of claims that any model is perfect, but that is a different issue than any model is totally incorrect. However the statement of mine that you weighed in on was that Climate models are more constrained by physical properties which makes them very different to economic models.*

    And it completely supports [dhogaza's statement](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/plimer_calls_his_critics_rent-.php#comment-2086253) that:

    >*The problems [with models] are well-known, and are even better known for being overstated by people like yourself, who don’t know shit about modeling or specific GCMs.*

    Readers can make their own assessmetns on your lack of supporting evidence compared to the strength of your wild claims.

    I would have thought an open up front retraction would have added some credibility to your name. Without this you look like someone who is not interested in evidence, reason or the pursuit of the truth.

  46. #46 Ian Forrester
    November 20, 2009

    Dave Andrews once again shows remarkable examples of his dishonesty, inability to understand what he reads and his attempts at disinforming the public.

    It is doubtful, of course, that he even read the paper but only cut and pasted the link from one of his favourite denier sites.

    Here is a quote from the conclusion of this paper, which, of course, says the exact opposite of what dishonest Dave claims it says:

    There is much to be done but information from today’s climate models is already useful. The range of possibilities highlighted for future climate at all scales clearly demonstrates the urgency for climate change mitigation measures and provides non-discountable ranges which can be used by the impacts community

  47. #47 Dave Andrews
    November 20, 2009

    Ian Forrester,

    “but only cut and pasted the link from one of his favourite denier sites.”

    That link was directly to the UK Royal Society website. Are you saying that they are deniers?

    I have read, and re-read, the paper many times and discussed it in several blogs. Their criticism is damning and comprises the major part of the paper rather than the few lines you quote. I could quote at a great deal more length than the few lines you mention, but would urge people to go and read the paper in its entirety.

    BTW, I’m sure your response indicates you did not do that.

  48. #48 Dave Andrews
    November 20, 2009

    Mark Byrne, #245,

    I don’t believe you even looked at Stainforth et al. You just write words to suit your beliefs.

  49. #49 IJI
    November 20, 2009

    Shorter Dave Andrews:

    I’ve studied this particular scientific paper a great deal, but I can’t tell you exactly what I’ve found out about it.

  50. #50 Ian Forrester
    November 20, 2009

    Dave Andrews you are both stupid and arrogant. How can you even think (you can think, at least a little bit, can you?) that my comment in any way was meant to imply that the Royal Society hosted a “denier” website?

    My comment was to show that you probably found the reference to the Royal Society paper being incorrectly interpreted on a denier site. You then cut and pasted the link without reading the paper and thus were incapable of seeing that your conclusions are not borne out by the actual paper, just as I pointed out you.

    You are a pathetic individual who appears to exist only to spread lies and misinformation about honest people .

    Get a life.

  51. #51 Mark Byrne
    November 20, 2009

    Dave Andrews,

    You’ve shown us your colours Dave (not pretty).

    Readers can judge for themselve who is more accurately representing the findings.

    < http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/365/1857/2145.full>

    What’s more, you’ve failed to addressed the [multiple invitations](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/plimer_calls_his_critics_rent-.php#comment-2088792) I have given you to support your claim against physical measures that make physics models very different to economic models.

    We can see through you Dave.

  52. #52 Janet Akerman
    November 20, 2009

    Dave Andrews,

    Have you seen a Doctor recently? Your writing is becoming increasingly deranged.

    >*You just write words to suit your beliefs.*

    Transparent Dave, nothing else required, no logic, no reason, no citations. Just plain empty words, from someone who seems to have self diagnosed his condition and can only deal with it by projecting it onto others.

  53. #53 Dave Andrews
    November 21, 2009

    Ian Forrester,

    You obviously did not read what I wrote. I will say it again, I have read the paper many times and, surprisingly, it says the same thing every time, ie there are considerable problems with the models.

    Furthermore, I have raised this paper on a number of blogs so I think I do have some inkling of what it says.

    I won’t bother responding to your ridiculous posts any more

  54. #54 Dave Andrews
    November 21, 2009

    Mark Byrne,

    Sure, people can read the paper, unlike you, and make up their own mind. I’m happy with that.

    Janet,

    I was keeping things simple. Mark uses wordsmithing and sophistry to avoid the issues people raise. His approach is ‘attack the messenger’, very much like yor own.

  55. #55 Janet Akerman
    November 21, 2009

    Dave, care to detail how its others that have employed sophistry? I see your deranged flights from subject to subject to avoid facing your errors.

    For example, you’ve clearly run away from the issue you [challenged Mark Byrne](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/plimer_calls_his_critics_rent-.php#comment-2091015) on (models being constrained by physical metrics). You gone on another flight of fancy and tried to change the topic.

    I really recommend you get help.

  56. #56 Michael
    November 21, 2009

    ..but…but…Dave reads The Guardian.

  57. #57 Janet Akerman
    November 21, 2009

    Another little trait of Dave Andrew’s pathology; notice how he is rude and provocative to people to are civil towards him. But turns all polite when people get snarky with him.

    Perhaps Dave feel like his achieved his goals if he can provoke a snarky response?

    Get some help Dave.

  58. #58 Ian Forrester
    November 21, 2009

    Dave Andrews said:

    I won’t bother responding to your ridiculous posts any more

    Too bad you won’t respond to honest comments about your atrocious behaviour. You have posted nothing but lies, misinformation, obfuscation and rotten garbage on so many blogs over the years I think that this should be a response to all your critics.

    Bye bye DA, you won’t be missed.

  59. #59 el gordo
    November 21, 2009

    Wonder what Michael Ashley has to say about the CRU hack in? Being of independent mind.

  60. #60 silkworm
    November 22, 2009

    Being of independent mind.

    You sound a little doubtful.

  61. #61 dhogaza
    November 22, 2009

    I will say it again, I have read the paper many times and, surprisingly, it says the same thing every time, ie there are considerable problems with the models.

    Of course there are, if there weren’t, there would be nothing for modelers to work on.

    NEWSFLASH FOR DAVE ANDREWS:

    There are considerable problems with the models used by manufacturers to design airplanes.

    I have the e-mails, though being ethical, I won’t post them verbatim. However, I will share the fact that the shortcomings of these models have been hidden from the public for years, and because there are considerable problems with them, the AirBus 380 and Boeing 787 are incapable of flight.

  62. #62 Michael
    November 22, 2009

    Well, I ain’t gonna fly on them until we’ve seen the code, the raw data and all the emails that went into the manufacture of those planes.

  63. #63 Dave Andrews
    November 25, 2009

    Michael, #262

    Excellent! You’ll be doing your ‘bit’ for the environment, even if its based upon misunderstanding.

    dhogaza, #261

    Don’t be silly!

  64. #64 dhogaza
    November 25, 2009

    Don’t be silly!

    I’m dead serious. There are considerable problems with every engineering and scientific model in existence, yet they’re still useful.

    As are climate models.

  65. #65 Janet Akerman
    November 25, 2009

    [dhogaza](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/plimer_calls_his_critics_rent-.php#comment-2102358) is right Dave,

    BTW, I notice your still running around in circles trying to [avoid backing up]( but despite those fightin’ words, the two papers actually did get in.) your claims?

    *Ye shall be know as “Dishonest Dave” the septic sully of the blogosphere until ye either retract your baseless assaults or substantiate them.*

  66. #66 Dave Andrews
    November 26, 2009

    Janet,

    “Ye shall be know as “Dishonest Dave” the septic sully of the blogosphere until ye either retract your baseless assaults or substantiate them.”

    I see you were a script writer for ‘Monty Python and the Holy Grail! Great film, but as based in reality as you are.

  67. #67 Janet Akerman
    November 26, 2009

    Ahha,

    Dishonest Dave, yeah are still yet well deserving of thy title, baseless assault mark thy path, a dreary path it is too. Unwell to substantiate, yet so well to smear.

    Yeah truly earn thy filthy rags, which yeah must wear until yeah change thy filthy ways.

  68. #68 Ian Enting
    November 29, 2009

    on 223, 224 (Mclean paper).
    Yes I have read it. If looks at relation between ENSO and
    global temperature — this is not news. A bit surprising that JGR published it, since it is old news and an unsophisticated analysis, but of course the available times series are a bit longer than when someone last published on this.

    They split off the within-year variations, and then analyse the rest of the variation as an ENSO effect plus a long-term trend (and find the sort of long-term trend that Senator Fielding denies). Indeed, the shorter, more recent satellite record shows a larger trend than the surface data, i.e. implying the rate of warming is increasing (but the analysis is too crude to read a lot into this).
    Since they look at “rates of change” the fast ENSO cycle
    shows up as more important than the trend. (If you look at actual changes, the ENSO effect averages to nearly zero
    and the trend dominates).

    The paper says what is pretty obvious, but the wording is such as to make it easy to subtly misquote it as disproving AGW.

  69. #69 Ian Enting
    November 29, 2009

    Joel Shore, 98

    “I am waiting for the day when Plimer reveals that this has been all a big hoax to see how ridiculous he could make his arguments and still get “AGW skeptics” to tout his book.”

    A few of us have been bouncing this idea around for a while.

    Against:
    It would have meant a decade of deep-cover denialism by Plimer (or a rapid and recent improvement in his level of understanding).

    For:
    If one was writing a climate book that was the equivalent of the Ern Malley hoax poems or the Sokal hoax on post-modernist abuse of scientific terminology, it is hard to see how it would differ (except maybe in length) from what Plimer has done.

  70. #70 Ian Enting
    November 29, 2009

    184; P. Lewis
    “I propose that all those who’ve spotted errors of fact and forms of non-attribution in Plimer’s Heaven and Earth: Global Warming – The Missing Science should collaborate in collecting their findings together and publish a book entitled Plimer’s Heaven and Earth is Missing the Science.”

    Nice idea. One set of collected findings is at:

    http://www.complex.org.au/tiki-download_file.php?fileId=91

    but this represents less than half of what I and others have found. As it stands, it is a boring catalogue of a low point in Australian science and I have no serious intention of getting it ou in any other form. I see it as a resource for Monbiot, England, Karoly etc. If anyone has a book project on this, I am happy to talk to them.

  71. #71 Fran Barlow
    November 30, 2009

    This just in …

    Fielding wants a commission chaired by Plimer and Garnaut to check out what’s causing global warming …

    You have to laugh …

  72. #72 Bob Tisdale
    December 4, 2009

    Mark Byrne and Bernard J.:
    Foster et al are one of numerous papers that assume that the relationship between ENSO and global temperature is linear. It clearly is not. It may be for the Eastern North Pacific:
    http://i33.tinypic.com/w8w1hg.jpg

    And there may be a linear relationship between ENSO and the Eastern South Pacific and South Atlantic:
    http://i35.tinypic.com/mtwh9x.jpg

    And there’s even one between ENSO and the Western Indian Ocean:
    http://i34.tinypic.com/33udefq.jpg

    BUT the relationship between ENSO and the East Indian and West Pacific Oceans is not linear, far from it:
    http://i50.tinypic.com/28ro7kk.png

    So Foster et al simply confirms that the authors don’t understand or choose to misrepresent the instrument temperature record. Here’s a gif animation of a map of the East Indian and Pacific Oceans that shows the dipole relationship between the Eastern Pacific and the East Indian/West Pacific Oceans. One map is for the SST anomalies in Nov 1997, the peak of the 1997/98 El Nino, and the other is for Nov 1998, the peak of the 1998/99 portion of the 1998/99/00/01 La Nina. Note how the West Pacific and East Indian Oceans cool during El Nino events and warm during La Nina events, contrary to what Foster et al are implying. The East-West Pacific dipole during ENSO events is well known, yet subtracting a scaled ENSO index from global temperatures cannot account for it.
    http://i48.tinypic.com/xc6s0l.gif

    Nor can it account for the ENSO residuals in the East Indian and West Pacific Oceans that are shown in my fourth linked graph.

    Also, Bernard J, there is no discussion of ENSO or El Nino/La Nina by Tamino in the link you provided.

    Last, based on the discussions here last month, I’ve written two posts that should help clarify your misunderstandings about ENSO:
    http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/11/more-detail-on-multiyear-aftereffects.html

    http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/11/more-detail-on-multiyear-aftereffects_26.html

    One last note, Trenberth et al (2002) acknowledged the existence of the residual effects of ENSO events. They wrote, “Although it is possible to use regression to eliminate the linear portion of the global mean temperature signal associated with ENSO, the processes that contribute regionally to the global mean differ considerably, and THE LINEAR APPROACH LIKELY LEAVES AN ENSO RESIDUAL.” [My caps for emphasis.] Trenberth et al chose not to illustrate the effects of the residuals but I have.

    Regards

  73. #73 Bernard J.
    December 7, 2009

    [Bob Tisdale](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/plimer_calls_his_critics_rent-.php#comment-2124610).

    I did not say that there were any ENSO references on that link to Tamino. I simply wanted to know how you discount his attribution of warming to non-ENSO phenomena – after all, if your theory is correct, then there must be errors in analyses such as Tamino’s.

    Oh, and if you really, really needed to see an ENSO-type discussion at Open Mind, you could have UTFSE and found [this](http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/07/24/old-news/) or [this](http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/08/04/influence-of-the-southern-oscillation-on-tropospheric-
    temperature/).

    Of course, any comments on Tamino’s work are still welcomed.

Current ye@r *