Plimer exposed as a fraud

Ian Plimer’s performance in his debate with Monbiot has to be seen to be believed. Rather than admit to making any error at all, Plimer ducks, weaves, obfuscates, recites his favourite catch phrase, tries to change the subject and fabricates some more. When confronted with the fact that the USGS says (backed with scientific papers) that human activities emit 130 times as much CO2 as volcanoes, Plimer claims that the USGS doesn’t count underwater volcanoes. When told that the USGS specifically said that they do count undersea volcanoes, Plimer invented a story about how the nature of the rocks under the ocean proves that there must be unobserved emissions. Needless to say, this is not acceptable conduct for a scientist.

The University of Adelaide’s code of practice on research misconduct states:

Misrepresentation : A researcher or reviewer shall not with intent to deceive, or in reckless disregard for the truth:

(a) state or present a material or significant falsehood;
(b) omit a fact so that what is stated or presented as a whole states or presents a material or significant falsehood.

Elsewhere, James Randerson interviewed Plimer and

found him to be one of the most difficult and evasive interviewees I have spoken to in my career, frequently veering off on tangents rather than answering the question I had put.

Randerson has an another example of Plimer refusing to admit to even the most blatant error:

Elsewhere in the book, Plimer appears to have conflated a US temperature record and the global average temperature. On page 99 he writes “Nasa now states that [...] the warmest year was 1934.” The Nasa dataset he is referring to covers the US only but he seems to be referring to the world average.

Again, Plimer does not appear to accept that the world is warming. But in fact, the hottest year on record is 1998 and eight of the 10 hottest years ever recorded have occurred this century.

When I put the mistake to him he responded: “The 1930s in North America and probably the rest of the world were a hot period of time.” But what about increased global average temperature since then? “That has been disputed by many of my colleagues who I have a great regard for because they’ve been the people involved in putting measurements together … I do dispute that as do many other people who are far more qualified in atmospheric sciences than I.”

Bob Burton tracks down the story of how the AAP reported Plimer’s speech before it happened. As you might have guessed, the journalist did a cut and paste from a press release put out by a PR firm.

On Saturday the Sydney Morning Herald printed a report from Copenhagen by Ian Plimer on a news page. My letter to them:

Please cancel my subscription to the SMH.

The SMH simply does not care about the accuracy of what it publishes. You obviously did not bother to check whether there was any basis to Ian Plimer’s dishonest smears of climate scientist, allowing him to falsely accuse them of fraud and “mafia-type thuggery”.

I don’t know why you think your business model should involve deceiving your readers, but I’m not buying it or your paper any more.

Comments

  1. #1 Craig Allen
    December 16, 2009

    Aussiejoe,

    What is wrong with journalists trying to get a scientist to answer a simple questions pertaining directly to his own published writings?

    Plimer just squirmed and desperately changed the subject the whole way through that interview. And when that obviously wasn’t working he resorted to lame insults. The man clearly has not the slightest shred of credibility and in that interview his dishonesty was as plain as the nose on his face.

    Anyone who can watch that interview and claim otherwise is deluded or equally dishonest.

  2. #2 Chris O'Neill
    December 16, 2009

    John:

    Maybe you’re all being a big hard on Plimer. After all, he spends lots of time in the outback speaking with average people.

    If he’s telling average people that volcanoes generate more CO2 than human activity then we’re not being hard enough.

  3. #3 phillip soffermann
    December 16, 2009

    #75 Whirlywind… weather has a ‘we’ and an ‘at’ and a ‘her’…climate has an ‘ate’ and a ‘mate’ in it…all jolly phonics. You spell it with a ‘b’…’climbate’!

  4. #4 Chris O'Neill
    December 16, 2009

    I wonder where the trolls on this thread have come from? It needs some troll disinfection.

  5. #5 marcusj
    December 16, 2009

    It’s just fun to compare sofferman at 100 with same at 103. Mebbe he’s just mimicking Plimer’s sense of “breeding.”

  6. #6 Bernard J.
    December 16, 2009

    [Carrot eater](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/plimer_exposed_as_a_fraud.php#comment-2147539).

    With both free speech and academic freedom, you get both cranks and geniuses. That’s just life. I don’t approve of trying to improve matters by trying to shut the cranks up.

    The issue is not about silencing Plimer, it’s about not allowing him to attach the credibility of his professorship (and his implicit accompanying scientific bona fides) in (mining/coal?) geology to non-scientific claims in a discipline in which he is not only not experienced, but in which he distorts, misrepresents, and lies about the accepted understanding of the real experts.

    I think that [Fran](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/plimer_exposed_as_a_fraud.php#comment-2147507) has it pretty well framed.

    I too would defend Plimer’s right to speak his mind as an ordinary citizen, just as I have always said that I would defend a smoker’s right to smoke, with my life. However, in my own home and in public, a smoker’s right to smoke ends where my lungs start, and similarly in the public domain an idiot’s right to blather crap ends where science starts.

    Don’t discount the enormous damage that Plimer, and those like him, have done in muddying the public’s understanding of the state of climat science. The fact of the matter is that they do not appreciate the ‘tricks’ that the ‘scientific’ Denialists use, and they are happy to accept a title of “Professor” as sole evidence of credibility, without seriously critiqueing the scientific validity of the Denialist agenda.

    UoA has a mechanism to address the type of discredit to the institution that Plimer is bringing upon it. Why should it not enact that mechanism, especially when Plimer is bringing such conspicuous discredit upon the University, in an international arena and in an area so profoundly important to the well-being of humanity and the rest of life on earth in the future?

  7. #7 Bernard J.
    December 16, 2009

    [Pough](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/plimer_exposed_as_a_fraud.php#comment-2147574).

    You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

    Inconceivable!

  8. #8 Chris O'Neill
    December 16, 2009

    Danny Yee:

    Plimer is a dangerously demagogic deluder, but I don’t think it would be appropriate for his university to take any action against him.

    What does it take for action to be taken against Plimer? Karoly only has to say “there is no credible peer-reviewed research that overturns the theory of human-induced climate change” and he receives a formal complaint of academic misconduct.

  9. #9 Dirk Hartog
    December 16, 2009

    Re: #106, Bernard J:

    UoA has a mechanism to address the type of discredit to the institution that Plimer is bringing upon it. Why should it not enact that mechanism, especially when Plimer is bringing such conspicuous discredit upon the University

    Come on Bernard, the UoA Academic Code of Conduct is just for show, it isn’t meant to be taken seriously! The University has made this very clear by its lack of action against Plimer despite numerous blatant transgressions.

    There is a good legal argument that Plimer would be quite justified in assuming that UoA approved of his actions. For UoA to take action against Plimer at this late stage could be argued as entrapment.

    In fact, to clarify its position, it would help if the University of Adelaide simply issued an updated Code of Conduct, e.g.,

    An academic at the University of Adelaide may

    — ignore normal standards of integrity

    — misquote scientific papers

    — commit scientific fraud

    — accuse other scientists of fraud, with no evidence, or with fabricated evidence

  10. #10 Aussiejoe
    December 16, 2009

    My name is Jo E… I am a 50 year old grandmother with a vested interest in the issue being discussed. It was the overbearing rudeness of the Lateline journos that caused my doubts about their general intelligence.

    You see, the foul logic by Mercurious (no. 99) in the form of uncalled for personal abuse, absolutely confirms that the level of intelligence being applied by one side of the debate indeed debases it. When you have a strong point of view, argue it well. Try not to embarrass yourself.

    Referring to a mature woman as an internet troll (a male wrote that? Perhaps one of very, very short stature?) I have broad shoulders, it was not too worrisome, more so unnecessarily aggressive.

    As a retired academic, I don’t see how the general tenor of personal abuse actually contributes anything at all beneficial to the subject matter.

    If the rough-talking posters are indeed males, then no wonder our institutions are failing.

  11. #11 Hot & Bothered
    December 16, 2009

    The silence is deafening in the “sceptic” echo chamber. Even they know this one went bad.

  12. #12 Hot & Bothered
    December 16, 2009

    The silence is deafening in the “sceptic” echo chamber. Even they know this one went bad.

  13. #13 Hot & Bothered
    December 16, 2009

    The silence is deafening in the “sceptic” echo chamber. Even they know this one went bad.

  14. #14 Hot & Bothered
    December 16, 2009

    The silence is deafening in the “sceptic” echo chamber. Even they know this one went bad.

  15. #15 Hot & Bothered
    December 16, 2009

    The silence is deafening in the “sceptic” echo chamber. Even they know this one went bad.

  16. #16 Hot & Bothered
    December 16, 2009

    The silence is deafening in the “sceptic” echo chamber. Even they know this one went bad.

  17. #17 Hot & Bothered
    December 16, 2009

    The silence is deafening in the “sceptic” echo chamber. Even they know this one went bad.

  18. #18 Hot & Bothered
    December 16, 2009

    The silence is deafening in the “sceptic” echo chamber. Even they know this one went bad.

  19. #19 Hot & Bothered
    December 16, 2009

    The silence is deafening in the “sceptic” echo chamber. Even they know this one went bad.

  20. #20 Hot & Bothered
    December 16, 2009

    The silence is deafening in the “sceptic” echo chamber. Even they know this one went bad.

  21. #21 Hot & Bothered
    December 16, 2009

    The silence is deafening in the “sceptic” echo chamber. Even they know this one went bad.

  22. #22 Hot & Bothered
    December 16, 2009

    The silence is deafening in the “sceptic” echo chamber. Even they know this one went bad.

  23. #23 Hot & Bothered
    December 16, 2009

    The silence is deafening in the “sceptic” echo chamber. Even they know this one went bad.

  24. #24 Hot & Bothered
    December 16, 2009

    The silence is deafening in the “sceptic” echo chamber. Even they know this one went bad.

  25. #25 Hot & Bothered
    December 16, 2009

    The silence is deafening in the “sceptic” echo chamber. Even they know this one went bad.

  26. #26 Hot & Bothered
    December 16, 2009

    The silence is deafening in the “sceptic” echo chamber. Even they know this one went bad.

  27. #27 Hot & Bothered
    December 16, 2009

    The silence is deafening in the “sceptic” echo chamber. Even they know this one went bad.

  28. #28 Hot & Bothered
    December 16, 2009

    The silence is deafening in the “sceptic” echo chamber. Even they know this one went bad.

  29. #29 Hot & Bothered
    December 16, 2009

    The silence is deafening in the “sceptic” echo chamber. Even they know this one went bad.

  30. #30 Hot & Bothered
    December 16, 2009

    The silence is deafening in the “sceptic” echo chamber. Even they know this one went bad.

  31. #31 WotWot
    December 16, 2009

    Chris O’Neill @ 108

    Wow. They are really diving headfirst into the sewer of vicious hypocrisy.

  32. #32 jakerman
    December 16, 2009

    [Bernard](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/plimer_exposed_as_a_fraud.php#comment-2147313),

    Its my assumption that vodcast would be avalible in the downlaod format for only a brief period. Unless I’m mistaken, in the past they disapear after a week or so. But you may be able to stream them longer.

    But for certian this inteveiw was ‘a keeper’. One for the pool room.

  33. #33 aussieannoyed
    December 16, 2009

    So AussieJoe, retired academic, there’ll be no apology from you for an admission that you make up your mind on matters of grave importance to the future of your grandchildren according to how sweetly to your ears sound a stranger’s words?

    You ought to be ashamed of yourself for that and for taking us for fools.

    Also: if you don’t recognise in Plimer’s performance throughout that interview a liar, fraud and charlatan slandering honest scientists in a field where he has no professional standing himself – no published papers in climate science being the very least of his sins – then I’ll go further and say you never had any business teaching anything to students yourself. Call me rude but please do go away.

  34. #34 LemonSlice
    December 16, 2009

    That interview was certainly telling of Plimer. He didn’t answer questions, attempted to redirect uncomfortable questions off to tangents, rambled off and pussyfooted around, and outright spouted falsehoods repeatedly when he was caught out.

    Whatever little was left of Plimer’s credibility – Plimer just destroyed it.

  35. #35 David Duff
    December 16, 2009

    As a sceptic, I agree that Plimer came off badly, and over at my place I made clear my admiration for Monbiot, as a convinced ‘warmer’, putting the boot into the corruption at CRU. However, what seemed clear from that exchange was what I have thought for some time, that the heart of the problem lies in the quality of the raw data and then the adjustments made to them.

    I think Anthony Watts blew away any faith a reasonable man might have in the quality of land-based data, and the CRU imbroglio has utterly destroyed anyone’s faith in the subsequent ‘adjustments’. Equally, a reasonable man has to be cautious on satellite data because the satellites themselves have different orbits and moreover the orbits are changing, to say nothing of the fact that they measure temperatures in the atmosphere not at ground level, which leads, quite properly, to yet more adjustments having to be made.

    Surely everyone can agree that global temperatures have waxed and wained over time, indeed, it is a good thing that they have because stasis would have been a real disaster. Picking out exactly and precisely how much of recent warming is due to Man is, I suggest, an impossibility at this particular moment. If the ‘warmers’ are right, the change will be gradual and Man can make adjustments as and when the effects are felt. Shouting ‘fire’ in a crowded theatre is usually considered dangerous – and rather bad form!

  36. #36 Lank
    December 16, 2009

    Well said Aussiejoe#110. Some of the commentators on this site are rude and arrogant. Many will attack and name call anyone who dissents from climate alarmism.

    PeterD#50…”Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1991).” but almost 90% of current active volcanoes are on ocean floor and many of these are below 4km water depth and never been observed or sampled. Anyone considered that the CO2 released from these is mostly absorbed by the cold deep water to be released over time as the water rises and warms?

    Petrologists are able to show that CO2 is a major gas released from these cooling magmas by studying composition of the volcanic rocks dredged from the sea floor volcanoes or by comparison with older rocks which have formed in similar settings and are more easily sampled.

  37. #37 lord_sidcup
    December 16, 2009

    I notice Plimer uses every opportunity to hold up and advertise his book. It is a shame he wasn’t challenged on his evidence for the Roman and Medieval periods being warmer than now. I’ve never been convinced that evidence of farming on Greenland or evidence of Roman and Medieval viniculture in Britain proves that it was warmer in Roman or Medieval times than it is now (either locally or globally). Particularly as the evidence of past viniculture in Britain is ALWAYS massively exaggerated by denialists.

    Listening to Plimer is so much like reading the like reading the very worst amateur blog scientist. It is really hard to believe that he holds an academic post within a university.

  38. #38 Chris O'Neill
    December 16, 2009

    Aussiejoe:

    It was the overbearing rudeness of the Lateline journos

    There was only one Lateline journo and that was Tony Jones. I didn’t find him rude at all.

    that caused my doubts about their general intelligence.

    I presume you are referring to Monbiot. I have a question for you. If someone continually lies to your face, how polite are you to them?

  39. #39 Dan Olner
    December 16, 2009

    Just watched the debate: Oh my God. Plimer is truly unbelievable.

  40. #40 Chris O'Neill
    December 16, 2009

    Aussiejoe:

    uncalled for personal abuse, absolutely confirms that the level of intelligence being applied by one side of the debate indeed debases it.

    Whatever else you might say about Kevin Rudd, do his examples of personal abuse that have been publicized show that he has a low level of intelligence? The opposition accuses him of a lot of things but low intelligence is not one that I can recall.

  41. #41 jakerman
    December 16, 2009
  42. #42 zoot
    December 16, 2009

    Like lord_sidcup @118 I am a bit bemused by the “grapes being grown in England during Roman times” meme and its relevance to AGW. On a site dedicated to English Wine I found this:

    The period from the end of the First World War to shortly after the end of the Second World War may well be the only time in two millennia that vines to make wine on a substantial scale were not grown in England or Wales.

  43. #43 peterd
    December 16, 2009

    Lank@117: The issue at hand is Plimer, and his continual evasions of direct questions posed to him by me, by George Monbiot, and (it appears) by many others, about the basis for his claim that submarine volcano emissions of CO2 outweigh those by humans. You appear not to have understood the USGS statement. Let me try again. According to the USGS, their “…estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts.” You are simply repeating Plimer’s claim, without advancing the discussion one iota. You give no evidence for the amounts of CO2 involved. The submarine emissions are explicitly taken into account in the USGS estimate and can be seen to be very much smaller than the human emissions. If you have some evidence to the contrary, I suggest you write it up and submit to a reputable journal.

  44. #44 Bud
    December 16, 2009

    Lank#117: Is it the rudeness and arrogance of people here that intimidates you from ever saying anything of note, ever?

    Anyone considered that the CO2 released from these is mostly absorbed by the cold deep water to be released over time as the water rises and warms?

    A process that, presumably, must have started in earnest at right around the time humans began large-scale industrialisation…

    You really will believe anything, won’t you.

  45. #45 Lank
    December 16, 2009

    #118….”I’ve never been convinced that evidence of farming on Greenland or evidence of Roman and Medieval viniculture in Britain proves that it was warmer in Roman or Medieval times than it is now”…… well thats it then, the science is settled.

    Why would these facts suggest it was colder at those times? Of course there are volumes of other examples to show clearly warmer times …such as ice core data.

  46. #46 Chris O'Neill
    December 16, 2009

    Lank:

    but almost 90% of current active volcanoes are

    blah, blah, blah. Just let us know when you’ve published all your research in a scientific journal Mr pretend scientist. Then we will know that we aren’t certainly wasting our time reading you assertions.

    Anyone considered that ..

    Ahaha. As if Lank is capable of considering anything. If Lank wants to consider something, he could consider what an amazing coincidence it is that all these volcanoes decided to start generating vastly more CO2 in the last 200 years, coinciding exactly in time with human emissions.

  47. #47 peterd
    December 16, 2009

    Lank@117, again: “…rude and arrogant”? You mean as rude as Plimer, who (it has been claimed) gate-crashed creationist gatherings and tried to shout down the gathered faithful? Or arrogant, like Plimer, who refuses to answer straight questions, while touting his own omniscience?
    “Many will attack and name call anyone who dissents from climate alarmism.” Attack, as in issue death threats, as has been alleged has happened to certain prominent “AGW-consensus” scientists?
    Come on, Lank. Don’t be so sensitive, old chap.

  48. #48 j akerman
    December 16, 2009

    I’m calling for nominations on the best defence of Plimer so far.

    * We’ve had Aussie Joe, that Plimer wins cos he’s not rude (forget the bad breeding quips)

    * We’ve had this from William Wallace: *Climate change denial….lol. It is AGW denial, and it’s a lot like homeopathy denial*

    * We’ve had Betual with Al Gore made a mistake

    * We had Owl, lamenting that he/she is English and ashamed ;

    * Phil Sofferman, claiming record cold temperatures ( in Plimer’s home state), but then disappearing when asked for a reference;

    * Then we get the full spectrum bingo from j.kross, claiming:

    >1) First. Monbiot concedes that science is not settled by engaging Plimer.

    >2) *Its all about taxes and more money & nothing about the environment.*

    >3) *Science was raped (CRU etc) to create a global taxing machine.*

    >4) *The rest of the debate is a no brainer; a journalist and geologist arguing over climate.*

    >5) *The climate must be allowed to reach extremes as it has done for centuries or we’re in serious trouble.*

    >6) the population is getting wise on *dodgy science and partying world leaders trying to impoverize ordinary folk for Al Gore’s religion of global warming*

    * And David Duff arguing that:
    >1) *Anthony Watts blew away any faith a reasonable man might have in the quality of land-based data*

    >2)* the CRU imbroglio has utterly destroyed anyone’s faith in the subsequent ‘adjustments’.*

    >3) *a reasonable man has to be cautious on satellite data […with] yet more adjustments having to be made.*

    >4) *Surely everyone can agree that global temperatures have waxed and wained over time,*

    >5) *Picking out exactly and precisely how much of recent warming is due to Man is, I suggest, an impossibility at this particular moment.*

    >6) *If the ‘warmers’ are right, the change will be gradual and Man can make adjustments as and when the effects are felt. Shouting ‘fire’ in a crowded theatre is usually considered dangerous – and rather bad form!*

    Any other nominees?

  49. #49 lord_sidcup
    December 16, 2009

    Lank #127 “…there are volumes of other examples to show clearly warmer times …such as ice core data.”

    I would be willing to pay attention to evidence from ice cores. The point is that in the video clip Plimer does not cite that kind of evidence, he cites the usual anecdotal evidence of farming on Greenland and vineyards in Britain in Roman and Medieval times. This is the kind of flimsy evidence that has been around on the Internet for years – long before Plimer even published his book. It is not good evidence and not the kind of evidence a supposed scientist should rely on.

  50. #50 Lank
    December 16, 2009

    Peterd#125 “the USGS…estimate” …they do not measure but essentially guess. They have no way of accurately measuring the CO2 from these volcanoes. The bulk of sea floor active volcanoes have NEVER BEEN OBSERVED so how can you, USGS or anyone put an accurate figure on these emissions. Submarine emissions have occurred for billions of years. Totalled over the last few tens of thousands of years these are far more than total human emissions. You have a problem with time scale since the CO2 from seafloor volcanism can accumulate in seawater over many years and may not be added to atmosphere for many hundreds/thousands of years after they were released during volcanic activity.

  51. #51 Jeff Harvey
    December 16, 2009

    j.kross, writing apparently with a straight face, says in defense of inaction on climate change that, “Its my planet too!”

    Judging by the vacuous responses that j.kross made earlier, what is he or she really means is that “It’s my planet *to plunder and pillage* too!” (Empahsis mine).

    To j.kross: spare us the ignorant pedantics by arguing that the scientific evidence behind AGW is some conspiracy aimed at creating a global government that wishes to suppress individual freedoms and increase taxes. This is grade-school level thought. The fact is that human beings are pushing complex adaptive systems towards a point beyond which they will be unable to sustain us (and much of the planet’s other biota).

    Take it from me, pal: if we continue on the current path you won’t have to worry about limitations being imposed on your “freedoms” by government; natural systems will do that all by themselves. And they will not be forgiving. In fact, conditions for all of us will be worse than you ever imagined.

  52. #52 David Duff
    December 16, 2009

    J. Akerman appears to be suffering with A(D)DD (Attention (to Details) Deficit Disorder! I was not defending Plimer, just the opposite, I wrote, “I agree that Plimer came off badly“.

  53. #53 Jeff Harvey
    December 16, 2009

    j.akerman @ #130.

    Great post. You about cover all of the scientific layperson denialists who have entered (or shall I more appropriately say contaminated) this thread with their wilful ignorance. Some (Lank, Wallace, Betula) are old hands at this sort of thing; others (j.kross, Owl), from my perspective are new arrivals. But they are all, in my opinion, like moist of the contrarians who write on Deltoid intellectual lightweights. The only reason I find some of them amusing is that their arguments are often so absurd that they are funny.

    What is becoming clear is that the thread to which the denial community clings is getting shorter and shorter by the day. It does not help their veritably vacuous cause that they have to wheel out the same, tired, cliche ridden discredited nonsense of old: that it is cooling since 2000 (it is not), that the general scientific community was concerned about global cooling in the 1970s (not true), that the current warming is due to the sun (wrong) and many others.

    Every thread discussing climate change on Deltoid is populated by at least a few of these comedians; I suppose the threads will become duller as their ranks continue to decline.

  54. #54 el gordo
    December 16, 2009

    Is that really you Mr Harvey? Haven’t heard from you since that lecture you gave on spoof.

    Plimer was embarrassing, as we thought he would be. He has published a book with many flaws and should be confronted, as Tim has done successfully here.

    Abbott says bring on a referendum election on climate change, he thinks he can win. Clever advertising will destroy the AGW theory and this is how they will go about it.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFbUVBYIPlI

  55. #55 Bernard J.
    December 16, 2009

    [Lank](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/plimer_exposed_as_a_fraud.php#comment-2147728).

    Consider:

    1. if volcanoes emit much more than humans, it is a remarkable coincidence that their emissions over time mirror the quantities emitted by humans since the Industrial Revolution. Exactly how does this work?
    2. the isotopic signature of CO2 emissions in the atmosphere indicate a fossil fuel source
    3. the mass balance (= loss) of oxygen in the atmosphere reflects the stoichiometry of the combustion of fossil carbon – the extra CO2 in the atmosphere comes from human-burned sources. There is no need, nor is there any evidential indication, for introducing the volcanic-CO2 canard
    4. humans emit more carbon every year than ends up in the atmosphere. If volcanoes are emitting more than humans, then the oceans would be sucking in so much carbonate that they would be much more acid than they otherwise are, and/or the forests of the world would have to be fixing and diverting from the carbon cycle much more carbon than is accounted for. If one argues that volcanoes do emit more than humans, one has to account for the massive sinks that are implicit in the overall carbon cycle budget. Where is the evidence for such?

    Your repetition of Plimer’s nonsense fails Ockham’s razor on multiple counts.

    Oh, and you have [overdue homework](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/firedoglake_book_salon_on_jame.php#comment-2134083).

  56. #56 tree mugger
    December 16, 2009

    no warming since 1998,
    where are you mugs gunna hide when your global climate does not support your
    lunatic ideas ?

  57. #57 jakerman
    December 16, 2009

    After reading [Duff's appeal](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/plimer_exposed_as_a_fraud.php#comment-2147809), I have decided to re title [my request](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/plimer_exposed_as_a_fraud.php#comment-2147795) as **”the best defense of Plimer and those who would throw Plimer under the bus yet continue to ignore the overwhelming weight of evidence and ignore the [misrepresentations of Watts](http://climateprogress.org/2009/07/29/the-video-that-anthony-watts-does-not-want-you-to-see-the-sinclair-climate-denial-crock-of-the-week/)”**

  58. #58 jakerman
    December 16, 2009

    Tree mugger @137, your late submission is noted, and is upto par.

  59. #59 Muzz
    December 16, 2009

    Thanks jackerman @123. That covers the basics. But Plimer seemed a hair’s breadth from saying something like “USGS don’t know how to measure CO2 from ocean vents & eruptions in the first place” and throwing out their whole methodology for that aspect.
    It’s bound to come up in a debate sooner or later (He’s a Geologist OMG!) and Lank seems to be taking that up a few posts back.
    What does Plimer think he’s got on them, technically speaking, in disputing that point?

  60. #60 Jeff Harvey
    December 16, 2009

    Tree mugger @ # 137 says, “no warming since 1998, where are you mugs gunna hide when your global climate does not support your lunatic ideas?”

    Yup. Just as I said a few posts before that. More support for my hypothesis. The denialists are clinging to their discredited notions. And Tree mugger is the latest utter layman to enter here in order to do so…

    Gordo: Yes, I am back. I was never away, actually, except for 3 weeks in Japan (and a 2 month sabbatical there before that). It is just that I have a lot of papers to review and others to write, plus a PhD thesis to read over.

  61. #61 JennieL
    December 16, 2009

    Ugh. The Plimer interview was atrocious. I find the psychology of such behaviour utterly mystifying. I mean really: what on earth is wrong with the guy?

    Not that it particularly matters, but re. the claim

    South Australia, during the first 2 weeks of December just passed, recorded the LOWEST December ‘first-fortnight’ temperatures ever measured (over 150yrs).

    Well the last couple of days have been pretty hot! Data for Adelaide Kent Town show that the mean maximum for December to date is 25.4C, as compared to a long-term average of 26.9.

    Also, the November mean maximum temperature for 2009 was 31.1, 6 degrees above the average of 24.9. At that link you can see a summary of November weather in SA, including the first recorded November heatwave and a whole slew of highest ever temperatures.

    And Barry Brook: Two years, three record heatwaves in South Australia has some nice context and explanation regarding SA and Australian weather events.

  62. #62 Paul UK
    December 16, 2009

    Plimer immediately gives the game away by immediately talking about taxes at the start instead of any science.

    He is ugly and fat as well.

  63. #63 WotWot
    December 16, 2009

    Abbott has not a snowball’s chance in deep Catholic hell of winning an election, unless Rudd and half the Labor party are caught in flagrante delicto at a ritual Satanic baby sacrifice orgy.

  64. #64 Jeff Harvey
    December 16, 2009

    el Gordo,

    I looked at the comedy video you linked to on you tube. More contrarian gibberish; note that it is probably not peer-reviewed (at least as far as I can tell). Hardly new. I am sure that you could wheel out videos arguing that the Earth is flat, that people actually can walk on water and that the moon is made out of green cheese.

    Again, I suggest that you look for your credible scientific information in rigidly peer-reviewed journals, and shy away from the contrarian sites. You have had a disturbing tendency to do this ever since I first encountered you on Deltoid, probably because it is easy to access web sites and harder to slice through articles published in scientific journals. But ease of accessibility does not make the information you endlessly cite here remotely correct.

  65. #65 phillip soffermann
    December 16, 2009

    David Duff#116… As much as I agreed with most of your lucid post…I don’t think Plimer ‘came off badly’ at all! He was surrounded by ‘the enemy’ and yet, single-handedly, fought off the ‘Invaders of Truth’ by implementing sharp evasive manoevres and snuck up behind them… while their heads were buried in… ‘The Sands of 1998′. If Mondiot listened carefully…he would find the answer to his question in all of Plimer’s answers!

  66. #66 Janet Akerman
    December 16, 2009

    Muzz @140,

    Plimer is a hairs breadth away from [saying anything](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/global_warming/plimer/). If he had something to back up his assertions he should have said it last night or cited supporting evidence in his book.

    Instead, in the opportunity given him last night he chose to to repeat discredited claims such as USGS don’t count emissions from under-sea volcanos.

    Did you read [Bernard's reply](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/plimer_exposed_as_a_fraud.php#comment-2147817) to Lank?

  67. #67 Paul UK
    December 16, 2009

    I see another David Bellamy in the making.

  68. #68 David Duff
    December 16, 2009

    Mr. Akerman, I suggest a little snooze, you’ll feel better when you wake up and you’ll be able to understand simple statements, and better still, you will be able to write them, too!

    Let me repeat, I am not defending Plimer, nor am I suggesting he be thrown under a bus, so alas, I am not eligible for your, no doubt, eagerly sought-after prize. I assume that your phrase “overwhelming weight of evidence is intended as irony – such a difficult thing to pull off in writing, don’t you think? As for Mr. Watts, I will allow you a slight confusion because in an effort not to be too long-winded I failed to make clear that is the hundreds of photographs of US weather stations that convinced me never to bet the deeds of the house on their accuracy, not Mr. Watts’s words on the subject.

    By the way, what an ill-humoured lot you are, glad I’m not spending Christmas with any of you!

  69. #69 Paul UK
    December 16, 2009

    Plimer: “For gods sake, get some manners young man”!

    Classic, what a twit.

  70. #70 jakerman
    December 16, 2009

    Apparently it’s the photos of stations that count for David Duff? Funny I thought the [analysis of reliablity](http://www.skepticalscience.com/Is-the-US-Surface-Temperature-Record-Reliable.html) of those stations would have been important?

  71. #71 Jeff Harvey
    December 16, 2009

    David Duff,

    I just checked your blog site and its clear that you wear your contrarian heart on your sleeve. Your blogroll is a potpourri of libertarian/right wing and denialist sites.

    JAkerman has you described to a tee. Your arguments, if one may call them that, are vacuous. Suggesting that the current rate of warming is gradual “if the warmers are right” lacks any empirical base. How do you define gradual? And what about the effects on our global ecological life-support systems? Or is that irrelevant in your view? What do you understand about the relationship between biodiversity, ecosystem functioning, and human welfare? What do you know about spatial and temporal scales and global change? All of this is highly relevant to the current debate.

  72. #73 John
    December 16, 2009

    no warming since 1998, where are you mugs gunna hide when your global climate does not support your lunatic ideas ?

    Ohio.

  73. #75 zoot
    December 16, 2009

    Lank @131:

    They have no way of accurately measuring the CO2 from these volcanoes. The bulk of sea floor active volcanoes have NEVER BEEN OBSERVED …

    So where’s Plimer getting his data from?

  74. #76 jakerman
    December 16, 2009

    In addition to Jeff taking David Duff to task on the baseless claim that:

    >If the ‘warmers’ are right, the change will be gradual and Man can make adjustments as and when the effects are felt. Shouting ‘fire’ in a crowded theatre is usually considered dangerous – and rather bad form!

    David’s claim above shows he has not looked seriously at the question. Here are some important questions for you David, to competent to make such a claim you should also be competent to answer the following, if “the warmers” are right:

    1) How long will it take to halt further warming?

    2) How much more warming is locking in due to radiative imbalance?

    3) What areas will be most affected by the predicted warming this century?

    4) How will various regions be affected?

    5) What regions already receive disproportionately low access to food, and how will these vulnerable areas be affected by warming?

    6) What is the immigration policies for Canada and Russia? What would the response of governments be to 500 million climate refugees?

    7) And here is one [I’ve googled for you](http://tinyurl.com/ycmjc97). Have a browse.

  75. #77 Chris O'Neill
    December 16, 2009

    tree mugger:

    no warming since 1998,

    This meme, where it is based on HadCrut3 anomalies, is most likely about to go into the rubbish dump of history when the HadCrut3 anomaly for November is released. The anomaly only needs to be greater than the average since 1998 for the trend since 1998 to go positive. Considering that the GISS anomaly for November is 0.15°C higher than its average since 1998 and UAH’s November is a record high for November, it would appear likely that HadCrut3′s November anomaly will also be above the average since 1998.

    where are you mugs gunna hide when your global climate does not support your lunatic ideas ?

    Oh, the irony. You should ask yourself the same question, in particular, where are you going to hide when HadCrut3′s estimate of global average temperature anomaly shows that it has been warming since 1998?

    BTW, if GISS’s December anomaly comes in at more than 0.65°C then 2009 will be the second warmest calendar year on record. The cool spell of late 2007/2008/early 2009 will be well and truly over.

  76. #78 phillip soffermann
    December 16, 2009

    Danniel#142
    Check out the stats for South Australia…not just URBAN Kent Town…and while you’re at it… ask us all about the LOWEST MAXIMA around the Eucla(WA) region over the last couple of months?

  77. #79 Muzz
    December 16, 2009

    Janet Ackerman @147 Yes thanks, I did read that. Might take a while to sink in.
    It seems so about Plimer’s record. I had thought maybe he elaborated in his book (and there might be good refutations around). If he can’t even do that, his gallop from “They don’t include undersea volcanoes” “Yes they do” “Well they don’t include all of them.” “Yes they do, by looking at the ocean” “Well they’re doing it wrong then” is fairly pathetic.

  78. #80 Chris O'Neill
    December 16, 2009

    David Duff:

    Let me repeat, I am not defending Plimer, nor am I suggesting he be thrown under a bus

    So WTF are you writing here, apart from being a troll?

    By the way, what an ill-humoured lot you are,

    OK, you’re a duffer. That’s pretty funny.

  79. #81 Robin Levett
    December 16, 2009

    @lord-sidcup, zoot (#118 and 123):

    Interestingly, the evidence of the rise and fall of vineyards in England from Roman to Mediaeval times can be pretty much entirely explained by economics, politics and pandemics.

    Our Roman and Norman overlords came from wine-drinking cultures; and during the Roman occupation and for some time after the Norman invasion, importing wine cheaply in any quantity was impractical. Hence (despite Tacitus’s (?) comment that Britain was too cold and damp to grow decent olives or grapes) in Roman times grapes were grown and wine made; prior to the invasion they had been imported.

    Following the Norman invasion wine production again ramped up – but it fell away in the 13th century because Eleanor brought Aquitaine with her when she married Henry II – and Aquitaine includes Bordeaux, hence claret being the favourite wine of the British aristocracy for centuries.

    During succeeding centuries, of course, we had the Black Death and the Dissolution of the Monasteries, both of which affected winemaking.

    For giggles, though, ask a denialist what evidence there is of vineyards in England during, say, the 17th century. Pepys wrote of visiting one at Greenwich in May 1665; and Trandescant planted a vineyard on Salisbury’s estate in Hertfordshire, north of London, in that same century.

  80. #82 Betula
    December 16, 2009

    Pilmer appears to like many scientists.

    Arrogant, condescending and unable to admit mistakes or apologize when confronted with his own lies. He also has the tendency to shrug off the statements of those who are not scientists, therefore not as smart as he…

    Sound familiar? Ahem.

    Let’s gather around and have a debate with Al Gore about the errors, exaggerations, fabrications and perhaps downright lies of “An Inconvenient Truth.”

    Oh wait, we can’t. He won’t allow debate, especially regarding his movie.

    Pilmer’s mistake was not following Gore’s example by surrounding himself with kiss asses, while being shielded from any tough questions or debate.

    Why didn’t Pilmer just say the “debate is over” from the beginning? That way Monboit would look like a jackass and Pilmer like Al Gore…

  81. #83 Chris O'Neill
    December 16, 2009

    phillip soffermann:

    I don’t think Plimer ‘came off badly’ at all! He was surrounded by ‘the enemy’ and yet, single-handedly, fought off the ‘Invaders of Truth’ by implementing sharp evasive manoevres

    More like, fought off the ‘Invaders of Truth’ by telling bald-faced lies.

    If Mondiot listened carefully…he would find the answer to his question in all of Plimer’s answers!

    Sure. If you say so.

  82. #84 Robin Levett
    December 16, 2009

    @Betula #163:

    Oh wait, we can’t. He won’t allow debate, especially regarding his movie.

    Is that so? Any, like, evidence or citation for that claim?

    Now – how’s about you produce a “downright lie” from AIT?

  83. #85 Chris O'Neill
    December 16, 2009

    Betula:

    Pilmer appears to like many scientists.

    Arrogant, condescending and unable to admit mistakes or apologize when confronted with his own lies. He also has the tendency to shrug off the statements of those who are not scientists, therefore not as smart as he…

    This is Betula’s version of the “my advocate is indefensible therefore your advocate is indefensible” argument.

    BTW, I wonder how many people watch the video and not notice what Plimer’s name is.

  84. #86 Chris O'Neill
    December 16, 2009

    Bernard J.:

    the mass balance (= loss) of oxygen in the atmosphere reflects the stoichiometry of the combustion of fossil carbon – the extra CO2 in the atmosphere comes from human-burned sources. There is no need, nor is there any evidential indication, for introducing the volcanic-CO2 canard

    I think it’s worth emphasizing this for Lank’s benefit. Where Lank, pray tell, did the missing oxygen go? By an amazing coincidence, it just happens to equal accurately enough the amount of oxygen needed to burn the consumed fossil fuels and cleared forests. Talking with Lank is starting to feel like talking with Tim Curtin.

  85. #87 sod
    December 16, 2009

    the Hadcrut3 [trend since 1998](http://www.woodfortrees.org/data/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998) already is positive.

    the video is a real pain to watch. it is very difficult to corner a person, who will simply avoid the most direct question, and is willing to lie into the face of people.

    i think the only way to do it, is by bringing posters with exact quotes along. and the faked graphs.

    words alone don t seem to be able to penetrate so much dishonesty.

  86. #88 Chris O'Neill
    December 16, 2009

    I think it’s worth pointing out Plimer’s worst or second worst lie highlighted in his “debate” with Monbiot where Monbiot asks Plimer about his corrupted quotation of a statement in one of Charles Keller’s recent papers. Monbiot says Keller’s paper says:

    “The recent data from satellites and radiosondes blows away the contention that there has been no further warming.”

    and Monbiot points out that Plimer corrupted this to:

    “The recent data from satellites and radiosondes shows that there has been no further warming.”

    When asked why he made this corruption, Plimer goes off on a tangent and starts talking about the difficulties in measuring temperatures using satellites.

    This is Plimer’s standard procedure. When asked about one of his lies or misinformation, he ignores the question and starts talking about a peripheral issue.

  87. #89 David Duff
    December 16, 2009

    Janet, first apologies for changing your sex but fear not I have changed it right back again, and second, thank God for someone here prepared to converse as opposed to those Elizabeth Bott impersonaters who simply “thcream and thcream ’till I’m thick“!

    As to your, er, fascinating questions my answer to all of them, except #7, is that I have no idea and I care even less. I cannot address #7 because I simply can’t be arsed to go and look at it. However, in the spirit of mutual, er, well,perhaps not admiration but shall we say, tolerance, let me pose what I consider to be the truly important questions:

    1: How reliable is the raw data for the last 200 years in coming to a conclusion concerning that mysterious entity known as the average global temperature?

    2: How trustworthy are the people who have subjected this raw data to various, er, alterations (I choose a neutral word with care).

    3: How reliable are the various proxies chosen by experts in this or that speciality who claim that this provides an historic record?

    4: And likewise how reliable are their conclusions when based on data which has subsequently been altered?

    5: How much is understood of the sun’s influence on the globe, not just in astronomical terms but in terms of physics and chemistry?

    6: From the evidence of this thread, why are so many ‘warmers’ obviously very deeply unpleasant people?

    No, no, I think you can ignore that last one, just me teasing, but honestly, I can almost see the flecks of foam round their lips from here!

  88. #90 Chris O'Neill
    December 16, 2009

    the Hadcrut3 trend since 1998 already is positive

    That’s interesting, the one I regress on is http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/monthly

  89. #91 Chris O'Neill
    December 16, 2009

    David Duff:

    6: From the evidence of this thread, why are so many ‘warmers’ obviously very deeply unpleasant people?

    If you can take a break from your “pleasant” trolling, not to mention hypocrisy, perhaps you can explain how pleasant your experiences are of being lied to?

  90. #92 sod
    December 16, 2009

    1: How reliable is the raw data for the last 200 years in coming to a conclusion concerning that mysterious entity known as the average global temperature?

    the raw data is close to useless for such a purpose. could someone please give the raw ingredients for the 4 courses menu to Duffy, and ask him how the menu will taste?

    2: How trustworthy are the people who have subjected this raw data to various, er, alterations (I choose a neutral word with care).

    we are talking about A LOT of people here. they are mostly scientist. they are as trustworthy as the person who build your house, constructed your car or the computer you are now working on.

  91. #93 Betula
    December 16, 2009

    Robin @ 165…

    Perhaps you could provide me with the Gore AIT debate transcript to help me along.

    While I’m waiting..

    1. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB116909379096479919.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

    2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOvCCTEfypk

  92. #94 Betula
    December 16, 2009

    Chris,

    Thanks for the Plimer correction, but you failed to mention I misspelled Monbiot’s name.

    Slacker.

  93. #95 Marco
    December 16, 2009

    Since Plimer is mentioned at least once, I guess it’s ok to place this link here:
    http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/146138
    I’m at a loss of words for so much stupidity.

  94. #96 Martin Vermeer
    December 16, 2009

    David Duff, let me answer only question 6: it’s easy to be pleasant and suave when you don’t give a damn. Many sociopaths are socially very pleasant, and they always seem to get the females. Who then end up chopped into pieces in plastic bags on garbage dumps, or buried in cement… But I digress.

  95. #97 Lionel A Smith
    December 16, 2009

    It is extremely rude to interrupt.’

    ‘You want to bully people….’

    ‘For God sake get some manners young man’.

    Plimer, for goodness sake answer the questions!

    What a devious, boorish character Plimer is.

    I now wonder if he actually wrote his book as he does not appear to be that familiar with its contents.

  96. #98 David Duff
    December 16, 2009

    “6: From the evidence of this thread, why are so many ‘warmers’ obviously very deeply unpleasant people?”

    eg: Mr. Vermeer, above. I mean, what a truly repellent little comment.

    Mr. O’Neil asks, “perhaps you can explain how pleasant your experiences are of being lied to? Oh, I get over it, and watching them wriggle during the forthcoming academic enquiries as their reputations swirl down the toilet will be such fun.

    And the other thing that keeps me cheerful is the occasional chink of honesty that shines through the fanaticism in ‘The Church of Scienceology‘, for example, ‘sod’s’ comment above in which, quite rightly in my view, he tells us that adjusted data is a concoction similar to turning raw ingredients into a dinner! Couldn’t have put it better myself, ‘Sod’, we all know the hugely variable outcome of that exercise – do you mind if I use that metaphor elsewhere? (Incidentally, ‘SoD’ is the acronym I use for ‘Son of Duff’, no relation are you? Take that as a ‘no’, shall I?)

    ‘Sod’ continues, “they are as trustworthy as the person who build your house, constructed your car or the computer“. Happily, they have been building houses for millenia so they mostly get it right butnot always! Alas, as for cars, every few months, it seeems, I hear of yet another range being withdrawn because of some major fault – and they’ve been making those for over a hundred years. As for computers, well, to be kind perhaps you would like some time to come up with a rather better example of Man’s infinite skill and wisdom!

  97. #99 WotWot
    December 16, 2009

    @ 66

    Exactly. If there is no data (or at least insufficient data) on undersea volcanogenic CO2, then how can Plimer make any reliable claims about it at all?

    ask us all about the LOWEST MAXIMA around the Eucla(WA) region over the last couple of months?
    phillip soffermann @ 159

    As I said @ 94, and which you conveniently ignored:

    Ooh, can I play this game too? Darwin just had its hottest recorded October, and the hottest recorded minimum night time temperature.

    You have no shame at all, do you? Any blatant cherry picking lie will do, as long as it serves your ideology.

  98. #100 Paul UK
    December 16, 2009

    Duff said:
    >1: How reliable is the raw data for the last 200 years in coming to a conclusion concerning that mysterious entity known as the average global temperature? etc.

    I think the question should be is how reliable is the conclusion and data of any alternative explanation?
    Given that there is no reliable alternative explanation for all the climate change observations around the world (because no ‘denier’ is interested in proposing a scientific explanation that stands the smallest scrutiny), then one can not risk taking no action.