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 Marion Delgado
    November 15, 2009

    Fabian was good at retreating in a punishing way. Maybe the Fabian Socialists are taking over the world by losing, being jailed, giving up, surrendering, and leaving!

    Death by a 1000 parthian shots.

  2. #2 WotWot
    November 15, 2009

    What is of real concern is the inability of the conservative commentators to recognise the deft hand of the Fabian political movement behind the Climate Change Scare – and that is the whole point of the Fabian deception – to gull us into accepting their totalitarian utopia dressed up as a cllimate emergency and hiding their real intentions among the small print as recently discovered in the US.

    Seriously delusional. To the point where it is not even slightly funny.

  3. #3 Janet Akerman
    November 15, 2009

    WotWot,

    Science is not necessary when one can delve into the fantasy of imagination.

  4. #4 bi -- IJI
    November 15, 2009

    So was Margaret Thatcher actually in cahoots with the Fabians to concoct the Global Warmist Scare? Are the Evil Reptiles involved too?

  5. #5 el gordo
    November 15, 2009

    The Fabian connection cannot be taken seriously, but on a more serious note, according to a recent poll over 50% of UK’s citizens don’t accept AGW.

    Climate Change Secretary Ed Miliband has responded by saying efforts were being made to convince people.

  6. #6 Louis Hissink
    November 15, 2009

    El Gordo #105

    The Fabians cannot be taken seriously?

    So you believe their policies then.

  7. #7 bi -- IJI
    November 15, 2009

    Shorter Louis Hissink:

    You won’t just believe my conspiracy theory? Then you’re being fooled!

  8. #8 Louis Hissink
    November 15, 2009

    Wotwot re:#102

    So it’s so serious it has to be true?

    And better do some homework on the Fabians, dissembling is their MO as frequently stated publicly,

  9. #9 Louis Hissink
    November 15, 2009

    Tim

    “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.”

    Supported by no evidence.

  10. #10 Louis Hissink
    November 15, 2009

    #107

    Tall Idiot, I don’t believe in any conspiracy theory, only in the difficult to refute stupidity of progressive thinking.

  11. #11 bi -- IJI
    November 15, 2009

    Shoter Louis Hissink:

    The Fabians and Margaret Thatcher were/are involved in a massive plot to do bad stuff to the world by promoting Global Warmism. No, this is not a conspiracy theory. Hey, did I touch a raw nerve? You are stupid! Why don’t you focus on the evidence and science already?

  12. #12 Janet Akerman
    November 15, 2009
  13. #13 WotWot
    November 15, 2009

    So it’s so serious it has to be true?

    It is true that

    1) you have serious delusions about your capacity to understand the world, and

    2) there is nothing remotely amusing about that.

  14. #14 Louis Hissink
    November 15, 2009

    #112

    Janet Akerman,

    Interesting statement – but not a question, so no response is needed. Oh Yes I noted the “links” but, precious, I am not doing your work for you, so you need to do it yourself.

  15. #15 Janet Akerman
    November 15, 2009

    Very revealing Louis, thank for the confirmation.

    Now keep running away from the science, and don’t forget to comeback when you want to make up more BS so we can show you your errors again.

    ;)

  16. #16 sod
    November 15, 2009

    Supported by no evidence.

    what is not supported by evidence? the claim that Durkin revised his horrible “swindle” film? evidence can be found [here.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle):

    Influence of carbon dioxide on climate change. The film states that carbon dioxide comprises only a very minuscule amount – just 0.054% of the Earth’s atmosphere. According to the film, human activity contributes much less than 1% of that, while volcanoes produce significantly more CO2 per year than humans, while plants and animals produce 150 gigatons of CO2 each year. Dying leaves produce even more CO2, and the oceans are “the biggest source of CO2 by far.” Human activity produces a mere 6.5 gigatons of CO2 each year. The film concludes that man-made CO2 emissions alone cannot be causing global warming. (Durkin subsequently acknowledged that the claim about volcanic CO2 emissions was wrong, and removed the claim from later versions.[19]))

    the Plimer claim was taken apart by [tamino](http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/08/13/do-you-believe-ian-plimer/)

    Plimer is wrong. volcanoes are NOT the source of the additional CO2 in our atmosphere. FACT!

  17. #17 zoot
    November 15, 2009

    Nice try sod, but this is Louis Hissink you’re dealing with. You might be quoting facts as we know them in our universe, but in the parallel space-time continuum our hero occupies, facts are what he says are facts, no more and no less.

  18. #18 Stu
    November 15, 2009

    Louis, the fact that Swindle retracted the claim is fairly well known, and exceptionally easy to google.

    If you are going to demand that Tim or his commenters take the extra time to provide evidence for such claims like that (which of course has turned out to be true; Tim has integrity), i.e. commonly known or easily googled ones, then soon no-one is going to bother to take the time, and you’ll just get people going

    ‘Shorter Louis Hissink: I’ll believe anything so long as it’s not the mainstream scientific view, particularly if it’s peddled by a discredited geologist or a polemic unscientific film.’

  19. #19 TrueSceptic
    November 15, 2009

    98 Joel,

    Ah, but what if *all* the “sceptics” are really socks just seeing how far they can go without being rumbled?

  20. #20 TrueSceptic
    November 15, 2009

    104 bi,

    Of course! [David Icke](http://www.davidicke.com/index.php/) wouldn’t lie to us, would he?
    For those who don’t know of Icke, I suggest not attempting to eat or drink when reading his stuff.

  21. #21 TrueSceptic
    November 15, 2009

    109 Louis,

    You deny that one of Plimer’s claims is so obviously false that it was removed even from TGGWS? Actually, there’s another, the doctored “NASA” graph.

  22. #22 zoot
    November 15, 2009

    Tim

    “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.”

    Supported by no evidence.

    Let me Google that for you Louis: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=co2+volcanoes

    (Big thanks to [Dan Olner](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/global_warming_skeptics_score.php#comment-2068431) on the “Own Goal” thread)

  23. #23 TrueSceptic
    November 15, 2009

    116 sod,

    Even without that, we know it to be false. We know how much hydrocarbon we burn and we therefore know how much CO2 is produced. We know that the addition to the atmosphere is only about 1/2 of that so that other 1/2 is being absorbed by the oceans and biosphere. We also know from isotopic analysis how much CO2 is “ours”.

  24. #24 TrueSceptic
    November 15, 2009

    116 sod,

    We also see no spikes in the CO2 record (Keeling Curve) when known volcanoes such as Pinatubo erupt.

    (Oh, I forgot, the CO2 record is just part of the Great Global Warming Conspiracy!)

  25. #25 TrueSceptic
    November 15, 2009

    Tim,

    At his blog Crazy World, Louis is saying his posts here are being blocked. Is this a deliberate action or has he simply triggered a spam filter? Does he know that only 3 URLs per message are allowed?

  26. #26 el gordo
    November 15, 2009

    Sounds like spam filter, it’s unlike Tim to ban anyone. Except Girma, of course, for being too long winded and insulting the Gaia faith.

    There is no global warming conspiracy, it is perfectly natural for well intentioned individuals to get the science wrong.

    Not that it matters now, APEC has poured cold water on Copenhagen, which leaves our dear leader standing in it. Comrade Penny Wong may survive, but Malcolm Stumble ALP no longer has the luxury of a conscience vote.

  27. #27 Janet Akerman
    November 15, 2009

    Another science free comment by the Pope el gordo, whose faith is that climate science will someday be proved wrong, and who “knows” with equal faith that we are in a period of dangerous cooling

  28. #28 Tim Lambert
    November 15, 2009

    No comments from Hissink have been blocked. He’s a troll, but at least he’s entertaining.

  29. #29 TrueSceptic
    November 15, 2009

    128 Tim,

    Thanks. That means we are at liberty to respond here to his comments, both here and at Crazy World (ha!).

  30. #30 TrueSceptic
    November 15, 2009

    126 El Gordo,

    Do you have any idea how many messages Dr Orssengo was allowed to post here? You won’t find such tolerance in many blogs.

  31. #31 Janet Akerman
    November 15, 2009

    Louis seems to be telling porkies in an attempt to save face.

  32. #32 TrueSceptic
    November 15, 2009

    131 Janet,

    (Apologies to Tim if wholesale quoting is out of line but Louis is not allowing comments

    Comments

    Louis Hissink has turned off comments on this page.

    )

    It’s late here so ladies first.

    November 15
    Tim Lambert comments

    Seems I have been blocked by Lambert’s moderating policies – responding to posts in an efficient manner causes a censoring action to occur.

    C’est ca.

    8:10 PM | Permalink | Blog it | Climate

    The Monbiot-Plimer Debate

    Quadrant Online has posted up some opinion pieces on the Plimer-Monbiot non-debate and more linked at the front page.

    What is even more interesting are the comments made by the Tim Lambert Trolls to a comment I put there recently – the “Plimer calls his critics rent-seekers” post.

    Apparently I am “barking mad” and labeled with a number of different ad hominems – which I suppose is a reasonable reaction to my intentionally loaded comment. At least the trolls are a little more predictable than the weather forecasts used to form the basis of their holy computational litany. And like Monbiot and Plimer’s debating opponent in the AIG sponsored climate debate in Perth on the 9th of July this year, the Lambert Trolls, (LT’s) avoid the science, which I suppose is also reasonable since there isn’t any science behind AGW in the first place – lots of pseudoscience, but not science.

    There is also a somewhat benighted countering of the Fabian factor by the LT’s, which is to be expected since no progressive intellectual makes any effort to understand history, preferring to rewrite it in terms of the post-modernist perspective. For example one critic of Clint Eastwood’s movie criticized it because he did not use black actors in his flag raising scene in the Iwo Jima movie – “Spike Lee attempts to change history by criticizing Clint Eastwood for not using black people in his movie about the raising of the flag at Iwo Jima, when in fact there were no black people at Iwo Jima”, source.

    I also recall an article in the print version of Quadrant edited by the late Paddy McGuinness which summarised the hostile reception Keith Windschuttle got when debating his controversial book at a Sydney lefty bookseller’s premises in Glebe, (I think). The TL’s outpouring of vitriol at me on Tim Lambert’s blog seems no different to the reception Windschuttle got.

    The online vitriol on Lambert’s blog has confirmed one matter – my posts here on the Fabians and their ephemeral connection with AGW seems to have hit a raw nerve among the LT’s, hence their near incandescent reactions to my online musings here and the occasional lob into the Lambert commentary cesspit. (It will be fun reading their posts once this one is put up).

    The only thing I am grateful for is that I am not on Prime Minister Rudd’s public “hit list” of climate skeptics.

    7:03 PM | Blog it | Climate

  33. #33 el gordo
    November 15, 2009

    Calling us trolls is simply wrong, we are defending our home turf against aliens.

  34. #34 Chris O'Neill
    November 15, 2009

    el gordo:

    we are defending our home turf against aliens.

    That’s what the aliens always say.

  35. #35 Janet Akerman
    November 15, 2009

    Thanks TS (@132),

    I think they have a diagnosis for that sort of delusional cognitive-dissonance.

    Notice the complete lack of Louis’s agency in his self pitty recounting, nor his being called out on making stuff up. Nor recognition of his opening abuse “morons”, “idiot savants”.

    [I did refer to his “attempt” to save face].

  36. #36 Janet Akerman
    November 15, 2009

    PS. What’s a Fabian?

    Apparently for Louis its all at Fabians.

    Since Louis thinks they are bad, I’ll have to check them out.

  37. #37 silkworm
    November 15, 2009

    And what is your home turf, el barto?

  38. #38 Mark Byrne
    November 15, 2009

    >”And like Monbiot and Plimer’s debating opponent in the AIG sponsored climate debate in Perth on the 9th of July this year, the Lambert Trolls, (LT’s) avoid the science…”

    This is the nail in Louis Hissink’s pretence of an argument (if anyone needed another). Apparently “LT’s” [sic] are avoiding the science, when they link to the science to refute [Louis’s false claim](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/plimer_calls_his_critics_rent-.php#comment-2076682) that Tim’s statement about CO2 was “Supported by no evidence”.

    And Louis thinks that Monbiot is avoiding the science when he ask Plimer to backup his claims in writing to that the facts can be documented to avoid Plimer’s continued Gish Gallop.

    Louis, Louis, Louis. What a shame that you stoop to this. But Tim is correct again, at least reading Louis is entertaining, and he is an asset to the likes of us trying to communicate the science and the deceit employed by the likes of Louis.

  39. #39 Fran Barlow
    November 15, 2009

    Chris O’Neill

    re: El Gordo’s comment on defending his home turf against aliens.

    As is often the case, the comment, though absurd, reveals a truth. The drivers of climate change agnotology is best understood as the politics of culture war. They see mitigation as innumerable others trampling on their personal space and reconfiguring it in ways they don’t like. This is why the filth merchants have been so successful in muddying the waters. They appeal to socio-spatial angst and fear and invite cognitive dissonance as their ally.

    Fear of change is reflexive amongst conservatives so they have a natural “baseload” constituency to position the assorted kooks and nutbags around.

  40. #40 Bernard J.
    November 15, 2009

    Janet.

    [Fabians](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabian_Society).

    Being raised myself in a very conservative household, likely of the sort that would have Louis with his hands in his pockets just at the thought, I was taught that these surreptitious, crepe-soled ‘Them’ people were the political equivalent of the Freemasons in terms of secrecy, and that they were all going to quietly slip the yolks of socialist oppression over our shoulders whilst we slept, after the fashion of a horse-whisperer.

    It’s the Conservatives’ version of the frog in the boiling water.

    Turns out that it wasn’t quite like that, but as with other Fundamentalist conspiracy theories, it makes a darned good story.

    I seem to be saying that last bit quite a lot recently…

  41. #41 Nick
    November 15, 2009

    Fran,”socio-spatial angst”…I love it.The SSA,another index to follow.Is there a widget?

  42. #42 Fran Barlow
    November 15, 2009

    Fran,”socio-spatial angst”…I love it.The SSA,another index to follow.Is there a widget?

    So do I because it so accurately describes so many of the filth merchant infantry, but sadly, it’s not even in DSMV.

  43. #43 Gaz
    November 15, 2009

    Berard, you’ve nailed it with the “crepe-soled” bit, but you forgot to mention the brown corduroy.

    That’s always a dead giveaway when you’re out doing a bit of recreational Fabian-spotting.

    They also tend not to beat their children.

    Weirdos.

  44. #44 Janet Akerman
    November 15, 2009

    Thanks Bernard,

    The hand behind Janet’s sock was also was also brought up in a very conservative community. We used to vote based on the Christian values of candidates, and felt really challenged when I heard Sting sing the “Russians love their children too”. So I’d recognise that sense about the evils of (eek) the colour red.

    Then I came to realise that everything I’d been taught was evil about reds, was in practice in the dictatorial, authoritarian, centralised planned economies of concentrated power, that are the olligarchial massive corporations. And that their disproportionate power was not only distorting the free-market, but impinging on and corrupting our democratic process.

    So my revelation was in reverse order to JK Galbraith’s wonderful quote:
    >*Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it’s just the opposite.*

    So a bit of pink, or purple sound good to me now. Thought most compelling when viewed through the global lens (rather than just national) is a need for a big bucket of green. (I think that mix is starting to look a little grey?)

    So while solutions might look grey, characters like Hissink help clarify the trajectory that we need to move away from.

    Have you noticed how a high proportion of the anti-science denialist crowed accuse scientists of hysterical, alarmist scare campaigns, while running hysterical, alarmist scare campaigns about changing the current fraudulent elements of the our bankrupt economic order?

    Where are the Hissinks and Plimers on too-big-to-fail corporate institutions? Or on where are they on the vital issue of rorts via externalising costs? Or multi-trillion dollar bailouts for the richest few? Or ecological accounting? Apparently if we get closer to full cost accounting we must be Reds or watermelons and should be feared and denounced?

  45. #45 Steve Chamberlain
    November 15, 2009

    Nick (141), dunno about a widget, but if you plot SSA vs time, the line shows a steep rise the closer we get to Copenhagen. Almost hockey-stick shaped in fact…

  46. #46 Stu
    November 16, 2009

    I wonder if Louis is coming back? I hope technology hasn’t defeated him, it certainly wasn’t Tim’s ‘block comments’ option that did it.

    His blog piece is quite hilarious, one good bit being that “Lambert Trolls, (LT’s) avoid the science, which I suppose is also reasonable since there isn’t any science behind AGW in the first place” – this, despite the many links to scientific sources that the more patient of Tim’s commenters have provided, eg. saying

    “Janet Akerman,

    Interesting statement – but not a question, so no response is needed. Oh Yes I noted the “links” but, precious, I am not doing your work for you, so you need to do it yourself.”

    Seems Hissink makes a habit of not reading what people link him to, pretending to have not seen it and as a result being able to continue deluding himself. This behaviour has continued since at least 2004, when Louis chose to ignore real measurements of geothermal heat flux.

    The other amusing thing about his blog post is the following statement: “Apparently I am “barking mad” and labeled with a number of different ad hominems – which I suppose is a reasonable reaction to my intentionally loaded comment.” – a bit of an understatement, no? You can expect to be called all sort of things when you a) charge into a blog with what’s basically an insult and b) ignore and belittle the scientific content of the posts of the few hardy souls who actually want to engage with you.

  47. #47 Steve Chamberlain
    November 16, 2009

    True Sceptic (132):

    Louis Hissink citing Keith Windschuttle makes me want to cry with laughter. Windscuttlebutt’s book “The White Australia Policy” was once characterised as avoiding “primary evidence” in many respects, and that “…you get the impression that he is a former Marxist – turned political conservative – who is waging a personal war on the very left-wing interpretation of Australian history that he once both embraced and proclaimed… Yet, because his history contains a substantial degree of personal polemic, it sometimes lacks empathy.” That this less than wholly sympathetic review was written by none other than Gerard Henderson, the Exec Director of The Sydney Insyitute and sometime advisor to John Winston Howard ought to indicate how badly right-skewed is Hissink’s posture.

    As to scientific credibility, perhaps Hissink might want to reflect on the fact that his hero Windscuttle got caught with his trousers down by a scientific hoax. Credibility or credulity?

  48. #48 zoot
    November 16, 2009

    Plimer needs the support of scientists like Louis. [Here](http://geoplasma.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!C00F2616F39D0B2B!828.entry) he convincingly demonstrates why the concept of average temperature is meaningless:
    >When a surface temperature is recorded, a measurement is made of the thermal state of two objects in thermal equilibrium – the calibrated thermometer and the object whose temperature we wish to know. A simple spreadsheet example will demonstrate this. *(spreadsheet snipped)*

    >Two statistics can be derived from the data set -the simple mean of the temperatures, 12.5 degrees Celsius which is the mean temperature of the thermometers themselves, (assuming identical thermometers) while the mean temperature of the various volumes of matter, is 1.08 degrees Celsius. Which is correct? Both – depends on which group of objects you want to compute the thermal state of – thermometers or volumes of matter.

    >Climate science restricts itself to calculating conclusions from the mean temperature only – an aggregated intensive variable that has, in reality, no physical meaning. Both the warmers and sceptics blithely use this, albeit mathematically precise, statistic to argue their positions.

  49. #49 Mark Byrne
    November 16, 2009

    Readers may recognise the magazine Quadrant at the publisher of Tim Curtin’s distorted filtering on Carbon dioxide. Others may be aware that Quadrant was [funded by the CIA]( http://books.google.com.au/books?id=VNSMrps8mpcC&pg=PA216&lpg=PA216&dq=cia+funded+quadrant&source=bl&ots=XGa5_ehCfg&sig=64D3xgdjiMwBQLQboF3WRuzBX20&hl=en&ei=NBIBS-3_I9CikAWygOXuCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CCMQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=cia%20funded%20quadrant&f=false) as part of its Cold War efforts to influence Australian politics.

    It is notable that that Robert Manne an anti-communist previous editor of Quadrant [ripped the heart out]( http://www.utas.edu.au/library/companion_to_tasmanian_history/F/Fabrication.htm) of the distorted fabrications from Louis Hissink’s hero, the current Editor of Quadrant Keith Windschuttle. (Windschuttle’s claim to fame being his denial of atrocities committed against Aboriginal Australians. As coincidence would have it Windschuttle’s views were quite liked by a bunch of privileged elites; who, not wanting a burden of guilt, took Windies work and used it to attack the “Black Armband view of History”.

    Then Prime Minister John Howard like Windschuttle’s story so much that he gave Windy the Pime Minister’s prize for History (just like he gave climate denialist Bob Carter the prize for science). Howard then put Windy Keith on the Board of the ABC (who was a joined by Janet Albrechtsen to weed out Moaists (perhaps on the basis of it takes one to know one).

    Some people feel quite motivate to prevent a discussion who has profited from the displacement of Aboriginal Australians). Louis, do miners (and their faithful geologist ) want to discuss who has who has profited from the displacement of Aboriginal Australians?

    Windschuttle followed a somewhat similar political path to Martin Durkin and as the Quadrant Hoax hightlighted he’ll publish uncheck, bogus guff as long as it meets his political prejudice.

  50. #50 Jeremy C
    November 16, 2009

    “the Pime Minister’s prize for History (just like he gave climate denialist Bob Carter the prize for science”

    You are kidding aren’t you? Carter, I mean. C’mon thats an exaggeration too far. Tell me THATS NOT TRUE.

    It might be entertaining having Louis et al around but they are a distraction. Does this mean that at least Marohasy’s blog was perfomring a public service.

    BTW has Louis gone MIA?

  51. #51 Stu
    November 16, 2009

    I think Louis made up the thing about being blocked by Tim so he wouldn’t have to face the barrage of truefacts that we were presenting. He can’t deal with truefacts.

  52. #52 Mark Byrne
    November 16, 2009

    Jeremy, that should be Bob Carter was [awarded the job](http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bob_Carter) of selecting the prize winners for [excellence in environmental communication](http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Australian_Government_Peter_Hunt_Eureka_Prize_for_Environmental_Journalism).

    So Bob gets (or got?) to decide for the Australian Government who is the best:
    >*”Australian journalist(s) or communicator(s) whose work is assessed as having most effectively communicated environmental issues to the public”*

    Which is as farcical as Windschuttle’s Centenary Medal for [services to history](http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/08/24/1061663672750.html).

  53. #53 bi -- IJI
    November 16, 2009

    Stu:

    Ah, Stu, the very fact that you refuse to believe Louis Hissink’s claim shows that you’ve bought into Tim Lambert’s PROPAGANDA. Do you know that Tim Lambert is, in fact, an Evil Reptile under the control of Margaret Thatcher, the Fabians, and the Phantom Soviet Empire? Of course, there’s no evidence for that, but that’s only because the Evil Reptiles have successfully hid every bit of evidence that they’re Evil Reptiles. Do not trust their propaganda.

  54. #54 Mark Byrne
    November 16, 2009

    BTW Quadrant appear to having a [delusion party](http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/) over the ‘Monbiot affair’. I guess that’s in part where Louis learned how to not deal with the truth.

    Apparently they’ve confused themselves and are applying Plimer’s well earned cred of “froth and bubbles” to Monbiot.

    Then another joker says Monbiot “chickened out”. It appears he manufactures this fraud by selectively publishing part of the email exchanged, of which Monbiot [publishes](http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/09/14/correspondence-with-ian-plimer/) in [full](http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/09/14/correspondence-with-the-spectator/).

  55. #55 P. Lewis
    November 16, 2009

    And what do the Council of the University of Adelaide say about the distortions of Plimer?

    And what do the academic staff of the discipline of Geology and Geophysics in the School of Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of Adelaide have to say about Plimer and his distortions, especially his

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

    quote?

    Should they be issuing disclaimers and corrections on their websites?

    Or are these just embarrassing elephants in the room that the University of Adelaide staff are succeeding in ignoring?

  56. #56 Fran Barlow
    November 16, 2009

    I’m actually OK with Quadrant spreading the delusion amongst their nutbag readers that Monbiot ‘chickened out’ of a ‘debate’ with Plimer.

    Everytime you run into one we can simply laugh in their faces and cite the debunking using the published correspondence, and accuse them of cherrypicking.

    Being lied to by your own side in ways that cause you embarrassment is even worse than being shown to be personally careless and wrong.

  57. #57 Dave Andrews
    November 16, 2009

    Nick, #68

    I didn’t hear the Plimer interview, but you and others have said he ‘slandered’ Ashley. If this is true is Ashley doing anything about it? Or are you and others here simply responding in your usual hysterical way?

  58. #58 Janet Akerman
    November 16, 2009

    >Or are you and others here simply responding in your usual hysterical way?

    That is Dave Andrews code for responding by pointing out facts and exposing deceit.

  59. #59 Stu
    November 16, 2009

    Dave Andrews, here’s what Plimer said

    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.”

    Which boils down to saying that climate scientists have their careers staked on the veracity of global warming and would lie and commit scientific misconduct to see it perpetuated. He directly accuses Ashley of this – despite, as Tim says, Ashley being an astrophysicist whose career is not at all staked on global warming. So it’s another case of Plimer either being ignorant or lying… probably the former.

    Ashley, I would guess, doesn’t know about this comment or if he does he doesn’t care (it is only Plimer after all, and only people who for some reason can’t find better evidence against AGW believe him). The rest of us just look on thinking ‘typical Plimer’. I’m certainly not hysterical about it.

  60. #60 Janet Akerman
    November 16, 2009

    Stu,

    Can you imagine Dave Andrews response if Ashley did sue Plimer?

    He’s trying to silence dissent!

  61. #61 Dirk Hartog
    November 16, 2009

    RE: P. Lewis #155

    And what do the Council of the University of Adelaide say about the distortions of Plimer?

    And what do the academic staff of the discipline of Geology and Geophysics in the School of Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of Adelaide have to say about Plimer and his distortions

    Irony alert

    I am sure that The University of Adelaide is happy to have Plimer as a distinguished member of their staff. From [the Australian Climate Science website](http://www.auscsc.org.au/about_us.htm) we learn that Prof. Plimer’s current duties at The University of Adelaide are more that of an entrepreneur, promoter, inspirer of young students and staff, university public face and political lobbyist rather than that of a traditional academic.

    Clearly the students and staff at The University of Adelaide look up to Prof. Plimer for inspiration, and the university is delighted to have him as its public face.

    We are also told that Prof. Plimer is a mentor to numerous PhD students – how glad they must be for his insights into how the the Sun is mostly composed of iron, how CFCs (thought by the misinformed to be a man-made chemical) are actually emitted in vast quantities by volcanoes, and how the CO2 content of the atmosphere has gone down since 1942.

    I have suggested before that U. Adelaide capitalize on the publicity from Prof. Plimer’s insights by establishing a Center of Excellence in Global Cooling. They could also consider a Center of Excellence in Dowsing and Water Divining.

    I am sure that the many alumni of the University of Adelaide are happy that their alma mater’s reputation is being improved by Prof. Plimer’s inspirational leadership. They should express their gratitude for the University’s unwavering support of Prof. Plimer by emailing The Head of Earth and Environmental Studies head.ees@adelaide.edu.au, the Dean of the Faculty of Science faculty.sciences@adelaide.edu.au, the Vice-Chancellor vice-chancellor@adelaide.edu.au, and the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic) dvca@adelaide.edu.au. Here are those email addresses again in an easy-to-cut form:

    head.ees@adelaide.edu.au,faculty.sciences@adelaide.edu.au,
    vice-chancellor@adelaide.edu.au,dvca@adelaide.edu.au

  62. #62 silkworm
    November 16, 2009

    Fran, the best way to deal with the nutbags is to laugh at them. The dumber ones will try to attack you. That is a sign you have won. Then you can claim victory.

    The best way to celebrate your victory is to laugh in their faces.

  63. #63 Mark Byrne
    November 16, 2009

    Silkworm,

    The victory I want is a long way off yet.

    Best not to invest too much in these jokers, their main value for us is their transparency. But they have negative effects as exemplified by phillip sofferman and Louis who really believe the trash they are feed by such organisations.

  64. #64 Donald Oats
    November 16, 2009

    Dirk Hartog, if your quote about Plimer’s “current duties…are more that of an entrepreneur,…,and political lobbyist than traditional academic” is accurate, then it really begs the question as to whether Plimer is entitled to hide behind academic freedom, since his current duties aren’t those of a traditional academic.

    PS: I feel strongly on his messing around like this, as a graduate and alumni of the University of Adelaide.

  65. #65 Michael Ashley
    November 16, 2009

    Dave Andrews, #157

    I didn’t hear the Plimer interview, but you and others have said he ‘slandered’ Ashley. If this is true is Ashley doing anything about it?

    I was aware of the interview on 13 November and immediately contacted the BBC Today program to point out the errors. They responded that they are looking into the issues and will reply in due course.

    Of course, as Tim points out, my career is not staked on arguing against climate denialists, nor am I frightening people witless, nor do I have anything to gain from any of this. The sort of person who would be a beneficiary would be someone who, e.g., has a book to promote, or, e.g., has $300K+/annum in mining company directorships.

  66. #66 el gordo
    November 16, 2009

    As an astrophysicist you have every right to talk about climate change, just like a geologist. It is unfortunate that there is so much ill feeling, which has spilled out into the public arena.

    That’s politics!

  67. #67 Bernard J.
    November 16, 2009

    Oh Gawd – Quadrant.

    Seems that the Q-folk are aiming to see how far to the right they can go without tipping, and how ideological they can be and still call it ‘rationality’.

    Note Tim Curtin’s horror at the amount of CO2 that humans exhale every year. Somehow it has escaped him that he is referring to biomass carbon that has been recycled within the biosphere for æons, and hence represents a neutral contribution to the increase that results from anthropogenic emissions.

  68. #68 Stu
    November 16, 2009

    Bernard,

    I just popped over to quadrant and now I feel all dirty. Still, Tim’s piece was quite amusing, although I think you’ll have to spell out your rebuttal in simpler terms if he is to understand.

    It was nice to see that quote from John Boehner again: “The idea that carbon dioxide is a carcinogen that is harmful to our environment is almost comical. Every time we exhale, we exhale carbon dioxide.”

    Makes me smile every time. Still not sure whether he deliberately constructed the strawman of ‘carcinogenic’ CO2 or whether he’s just woefully misinformed, either way it’s pretty funny :-))

  69. #69 Michael Ashley
    November 16, 2009

    El Gordo, #166

    As an astrophysicist you have every right to talk about climate change, just like a geologist.

    I can talk about it, but I don’t want anyone to take on trust anything I say on climate. You should ask climate scientists who have published recently and regularly in top peer-reviewed journals.

    However, as an astrophysicist, and having taught a course on stellar structure, I am able to comment with reasonable authority on Plimer’s claim (H&E, pp 115-116) that the Sun consists largely of heavy elements. Needless to say, it is ludicrous.

  70. #70 P. Lewis
    November 16, 2009

    Thanks for the laugh Dirk.

  71. #71 Janet Akerman
    November 16, 2009

    >Seems that the Q-folk are aiming to see how far to the right they can go without tipping…

    Those guys have tipped. Unless they want to believe distorting and misrepresenting science is now a right wing function.

  72. #72 el gordo
    November 16, 2009

    Michael Ashley

    If Plimer says the sun is composed mostly of heavy elements, then he is undoubtedly wrong.

  73. #73 Michael Ashley
    November 16, 2009

    El Gordo, #172

    If Plimer says the sun is composed mostly of heavy elements, then he is undoubtedly wrong.

    Yes, and there are many dozens of other examples where experts will tell you that Plimer is wrong. However, the Plimer supporters just reply with “you are nitpicking, any book with 500+ pages is bound to have a few errors, why don’t you concentrate on the big picture of what he is saying?”

    Well, after sifting through all the scientific errors and illogical nonsense in his book, you are left with … nothing.

    Why doesn’t Plimer, or one of his supporters, distill the single most persuasive argument from the book and publish it in the peer-reviewed literature? All we need is just one argument. What is it?

  74. #74 silkworm
    November 16, 2009

    I don’t know if Boehner has deliberately constructed the “carcinogen” strawman, but somebody has done it. They’ve taken note of the fact that Congress is now calling CO2 a “pollutant,” and they’ve deliberately misconstrued this as “poison” or “carcinogen.”

  75. #75 Vince Whirlwind
    November 17, 2009

    Michael Ashley’s last commennt is a perfect and succinct criticism for Plimer or any other denialist.
    I will be saving it for future reference.

  76. #76 Fran Barlow
    November 17, 2009

    The trouble is Vince, that we people are probably subverting a damages claim that Ashley could bring against Plimer and the BBC.

    If we can establish that Michael Ashley’s reputation has not been trashed in the eyes of the reasonable man or his peers and that only unhinged morons or disingenuous scoundrels would retail this nonsense then Plimer’s lawyers could adduce this to defend themselves.

    And wouldn’t I love to see that …

  77. #77 Marion Delgado
    November 17, 2009

    I agree 100% with Louis Hissink.

    While it’s true that most of us here have passed at least one of those courses, and probably most of us have passed all three, and with change, that was in OUR world.

    I guarantee you, in Louis’s world, we would be washed out immediately. For instance, doing a basic reduction of lead to tin using phlogiston and toadskin, you would – admit it – try to fudge it because you forgot to bring hairless albino bat wings. You’d imagine that trimming the fur off with a shears was good enough, wouldn’t you? And when it gave a great *whoom* and you ruined the alembic, well, there goes your Chem 101 grade, my friend.

  78. #78 Jeremy C
    November 17, 2009

    You know, you can understand why Plimer lost against the creationists in that court battle.

  79. #79 Hal9000
    November 17, 2009

    He may have lost, Jeremy C, but he learned a lot.

  80. #80 el gordo
    November 17, 2009

    Knowing nothing about the court battle I did a search and found Plimer is an outspoken critic of creationism. He is famous for a 1988 debate with creationist Duane Gish in which he asked his opponent to hold electrical cables to prove that electromagnetism was only a theory.

    Gish accused him of being theatrical, abusive and slanderous, calling it “the most disgusting performance I have ever witnessed in my life.”

    Yes, Hal9000, he learned a lot.

  81. #81 Mark Byrne
    November 17, 2009

    el gordo,

    You missed the bit about learning the Gish Gallop.

    Refer to Plimer’s correspondence with Monbiot.

  82. #82 Eli Rabett
    November 17, 2009

    Having observed and admired Michael Ashley’s knife work Eli believes that Plimer may have bitten off more than he can chew here. In the Drudge sense “Developing”

  83. #83 Lionel A Smith
    November 17, 2009

    Who provides Plimer with rent?

    Bob Burton over at PR Watch has this:

    [Bob Burton on Plimer’s Mining Connections](http://www.prwatch.org/node/8686)

  84. #84 P. Lewis
    November 17, 2009

    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.

    Perhaps the original publisher could market it as a companion volume. And perhaps sites such as Amazon could market it in the fashion of “People who bought this book bought Plimer’s Heaven and Earth is Missing the Science instead”.

  85. #85 P. Lewis
    November 17, 2009

    Oops! That last bit should have read:

    And perhaps sites such as Amazon could market it in the fashion of “People who thought to but this book bought Plimer’s Heaven and Earth is Missing the Science instead”.

  86. #86 Majorajam
    November 17, 2009

    If it were a dog el gordo, the irony would bite you on the nose. Those that question the mainstream understanding of climate due to its political implications play on the ambiguity of the word ‘theory’, just as those that question the mainstream understanding of biology for its political implications do. Those that promote creationism also point to holes in evolutionary theory as evidence of its invalidity, despite the fact that these very real holes do not point up competing theories, merely the need for additional research, i.e. ‘normal science’.

    There are indications available to the layman that would lead one to the conclusion that something was amiss with the Plimer-esque camp out there, and many of them. One example: an economist by the name of Cochrane of the Chicago school recently wrote a riposte to Paul Krugman’s New York Times Magazine article lamenting the state of the profession. In it, he likened the Neo-Keynesian camp, a.k.a. the saltwater economists, to climate denialists. Not by way of compliment, btw.

    That didn’t stop the climate denying AEI/Laffer types from hailing it as a masterstroke from a genius, (e.g. National Review Online), given that it was also critical of the Obama administration’s approach to handling the economy and scathing of the conservative bugbear Krugman, (not to mention wrongheaded and precious, but that’s another story). That was quite the spectacle- to see a bunch of people singing the praises of a letter that had them as backward believers in the fantasy teachings of yore. More to the point, its something you would never see from the other side, certainly without strenuously disapproving comment.

    If only the public were better tuned to reading such tea leaves, maybe we’d be able to move on from this denialist silliness and onto the crucial and actually debatable topic here, which is what makes for efficient economic policy under the reality of anthropogenic climate change.

  87. #87 Mark Byrne
    November 17, 2009

    Michael Ashley’s [observation](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/plimer_calls_his_critics_rent-.php#comment-2081245) about lack of distillation of “sceptic’s” argument raises a question: If doubt is the product they wish to push, why would they want to clarify their argument?

    Coincidentally “sceptics” and denialists can’t even convince themselves of a [coherent argument](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/03/shorter_heartland_conference.php#c2083202). They need to remain moving targets to avoid fatal rebuttal.

  88. #88 Hank Roberts
    November 17, 2009

    Belatedly:

    > yolks of socialist oppression

    A phrase worthy of a Fascist Octopus Award.

  89. #89 Dave Andrews
    November 17, 2009

    Michael Ashley,

    Your appeal for people to respect peer reviewed climate science, whilst understood, is too late since climate science no longer operates through scientific journals but is now firmly a political process embodied in the UN.In a sense, the scientific papers are an adjunct only.

    Besides, there have been a number of problems raised with several of the supposed ‘iconic’ climate change papers (Mann’s several efforts, in particular, spring to mind here).

    Moreover, if you read the main body of scientific work undertaken in AR4, for example, you will see that it often bears no resemblance whatsoever to the Summary provided for ‘Policy Makers’.

    As a scientist surely you can see that climate science is actually no longer about science?

  90. #90 el gordo
    November 17, 2009

    The denialati think the tide is turning in their favor and word is they won’t be taking prisoners.

    Over at the Bolter’s they have Flummery down as ‘alarmist of the month’, with Professor Clive Hamilton ‘hypocrite of the month’.

    Both sides are cherry-picking with ‘early snows in China again’ and ‘heatwave in Adelaide unprecedented’. All very exciting and good clean fun, but Kevin would be mad to run in this political climate.

  91. #91 Michael
    November 17, 2009

    Dave Andrews:

    …since climate science no longer operates through scientific journals but is now firmly a political process embodied in the UN.In a sense, the scientific papers are an adjunct only.

    How long will Dave continue to faithfully regurgitate denialist talking points while denying he is a denialist?

    That’s right folks, the IPCC didn’t just distil the science from the published research, but it’s all some kind of political conspiracy involving the UN. Black helicopters anyone?

    It’s amazing how much political naviety and general stupidity it takes to say this kind of thing. Though in Dave’s case, I’ll accept that there’s no stupidity involved, just malice.

  92. #92 dhogaza
    November 17, 2009

    Though in Dave’s case, I’ll accept that there’s no stupidity involved, just malice.

    DaveA is flat-out dishonest, and has been as long as he’s been involved in such discussions (years).

  93. #93 luminous beauty
    November 17, 2009

    Both. Squiggy’s consistent, though. That must count for something.

  94. #94 David Irving (no relation)
    November 17, 2009

    (whistles appreciatively) So Dave Andrews is a rougue and a fool. Impressive.

  95. #95 Janet Akerman
    November 17, 2009

    Dave Andrews is a discredited and completely unrelaible commentar.

    >*climate science no longer operates through scientific journals but is now firmly a political process embodied in the UN.In a sense, the scientific papers are an adjunct only.*

    This comment is so absurd that it beggars belief.

    Dave is trying to slip in some of the same bogus claims that [he couldn’t backup](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/tom_fuller_and_senator_inhofe.php#comment-2056581) and [ran away from earlier](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/tom_fuller_and_senator_inhofe.php#comment-2063987).

    And 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.

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

  96. #96 Mark.Byrne
    November 17, 2009

    Dave Andrews, You’ve made some pretty wild claims about climate models (re. physical measures that contrain the models). I’ve [invited you](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/10/dubner_falsely_claims_that_oce.php#comment-2080682) to support your claims.

  97. #97 WotWot
    November 17, 2009

    climate science no longer operates through scientific journals but is now firmly a political process embodied in the UN.

    coughBULLSHITcough

  98. #98 silkworm
    November 17, 2009

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

  99. #99 Rattus Norvegicus
    November 17, 2009

    Just because we need some denialist laughs: Willis Eschenbach reworks the global energy budget.

    It seem that he believes this needs to be done because he can’t add. Now by my math 324 + 168 = 492 and 24 + 78 + 390 = 492. Now my understanding of this may be wrong but incoming radiation in w/m-2 should be equal to outgoing radiation in w/m-2 for the surface to be in equilibrium and 492 has always equaled 492. For some reason Willis doesn’t think this, so I could be wrong.

  100. #100 Bernard J.
    November 18, 2009

    A phrase worthy of a Fascist Octopus Award.

    Posted by: Hank Roberts | November 17, 2009 4:29 PM

    Doh! Biologist’s brain was in overdrive – I’ve been discussing maternal energy investment in eggs, in some of the species I study, and the theme seems to have stuck…

    On reflection though, I have to admit that I like the mixed metaphor! Is there a presentation ceremony for ‘nominees’? ;-)

Current ye@r *