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 mb
    December 16, 2009

    Whenever I need to ascertain the efficacy of a theory I first sample the pleasantness of the participants in blog discussions. Everyone knows that communists are unpleasant people, and that incompetent scientists are communists, so simply by discerning which of the two sides of every debate is unpleasant I am able to say conclusively which scientists are incompetent. Let me just say am I glad I am not not sacrificing any ruminants this solstice with you warmers!

  2. #2 dhogaza
    December 16, 2009

    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.

    I’ve never actually seen GIsh gallop on video, but I can’t imagine he’s any better at it than Plimer. That was a trademark exhibition …

  3. #3 Bud
    December 16, 2009

    mb#181

    How dare you! None of us warmers would ever think of sacrifising one of mother earth’s creatures. That and taxes is what communism is all about!

  4. #4 GWB's nemesis
    December 16, 2009

    MB (#181): Yep, evangelical Christians are very nice people (they must be as Christianity is all about peace and love, right?), therefore intelligent design must be correct. If only Darwin had known! I must get on the phone to Richard Dawkins.

    On the other hand, Monckton was caught on video calling a group of young people, including one who is Jewish, the Hitler Youth (on two different occasions). This about as unpleasant as one can get without actually breaking the law, so…

  5. #5 Bud
    December 16, 2009

    nemesis #184, you miss the point. Monckton may indeed call fresh-faced Jewish enviroMENTALists “Hitler Youth”, but at least he does it politely. And in that trustworthy, irresistible aristocratic twang which just radiates warmth and truth…

  6. #6 mb
    December 16, 2009

    That was surely meant as a playful compliment. The current Pope was a member of The Hitler Youth, and according to you Christianity is about peace and love, so they must necessarily have been upstanding youngsters in their day, if a bit spirited. You wouldn’t call a man working on a cure for HIV unpleasant, would you?

  7. #7 el gordo
    December 16, 2009

    mb

    Keep up the positive thinking, but I’m afraid your words will fall on deaf ears around here.

  8. #8 mb
    December 16, 2009

    Whoever impersonated el gordo won. If I had been sipping tea when I read that I might have died. This sport is dangerous.

  9. #9 Bud
    December 16, 2009

    Whoever impersonated el gordo won.

    Yeah, I really wish I’d thought of that.

  10. #10 GWB's nemesis
    December 16, 2009

    Gosh, you know that it has only just occurred to me that coming from Monckton’s political perspective, calling someone a member of the Hitler Youth may actually be a real mark of respect. My whole world has just been turned upside-down! I need to have a lie down now.

  11. #11 el gordo
    December 16, 2009

    Slightly off topic, something Barnaby said about the US defaulting. If that comes to fruition it would turn all our world’s upside down and this is the problem.

    http://cohort11.americanobserver.net/latoyaegwuekwe/multimediafinal.html

  12. #12 trrll
    December 16, 2009

    I thought that the moderator did a moderately good job in keeping the debate focused in the face of Plimer’s attempt to filibuster, but he could probably have done better in terms of pointing out the Plimer had evaded every one of Monbiot’s questions about Plimer’s own sources, even though those questions that were provided to him well in advance.

  13. #13 Chris O'Neill
    December 16, 2009

    Betula:

    you failed to mention I misspelled Monbiot’s name.
    Slacker.

    Hmm. I wonder who said:

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

    You’re right. There’s no correction of Plimer’s name there.

  14. #14 TrueSceptic
    December 16, 2009

    171 Chris,

    I use WoodForTrees. See [plot](http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/trend/plot/wti/from:1998). The trend looks level but you can see the value in the [data](http://woodfortrees.org/data/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/trend/plot/wti/from:1998)

    Least squares trend line; slope = 0.000103617 per year

    We can show the [trend alone](http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/trend) but of course it’s auto scaled- see the x-axis range.

    So, It’s _just_ positive.

  15. #15 Hank Roberts
    December 16, 2009

    > … 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 ….

    Anyone familiar with clinical confabulation, where you may hear imaginativegap-filling in superficially fluent conversation, but with a different answer made up each time?

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

    el gordo:

    I’m afraid your words will fall on deaf ears around here.

    Thanks for providing the demonstration. The irony is a nice touch too.

  17. #17 TrueSceptic
    December 16, 2009

    186 188 mb,

    If you don’t already post at Denial Depot, please do so. :)

  18. #18 Chris O'Neill
    December 16, 2009

    it would turn all our world’s upside down and this is the problem.

    I wonder if there is a correlation between bad spelling and and impertinence.

  19. #19 Robin Levett
    December 16, 2009

    @Betula #175:

    Is there one?

    Your claim was that he “won’t allow debate, especially of his movie”; an article in the WSJ, hardly a neutral player in this, claiming that Gore decided not to be ambushed by Lomborg (whose own opus has been trashed) doesn’t get to first base in proving that claim. What the Stossel video goes to is hardly apparent; I donpt propsoe to sit though 8 minuets from an “investigative reporter” working for Faux News to try to find out. If your point is that there are scientists who disagree with the thesis of AGW – point out the scientists, don’t point to a journalist who claims that they exist.

    Now, about that “downright lie” in AIT? Any luck in finding it yet?

  20. #20 Bernard J.
    December 16, 2009

    [Phillip Sofferman](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/plimer_exposed_as_a_fraud.php#comment-2147933).

    Cut the crap and check out the [maximum anomaly stats](http://i49.tinypic.com/2lvd3ch.gif) for all of Australia – not just your cherry-picked areas. And whilst you’re at it… ask us all about the [minimum anomalies](http://i46.tinypic.com/20k8vbq.gif) around the country over last month.

  21. #21 phillip soffermann
    December 16, 2009

    JennieL#142~BJ# 200…Check out the BOM stats for EYRE (WA). On 9 Dec 2009 (8 days ago) the MIN TEMP was 0.2C. Three more days so far this month had MIN TEMPS there ranging from 1C to 1.7C !!! Too cold to pick cherries…welcome to the Great Australian Sceptics Summer!

  22. #22 j.kross
    December 16, 2009

    #132 Oh, and the Pope has shocked the faithful at Babelhagen declaring that the arctic would be free of ice in 5 years. That is an astronomical call and he is infallible. Truly earthshattering and no one here has heard it?

  23. #23 mb
    December 16, 2009

    Does anyone know Al Gore’s take on quantum chromodynamics? I need to know what to think about the Standard Model. The name suggest an appealing theory–not as much as say an Objective Model, but it is close. I was intrigued when I kept hearing eggheads talk about there being flavors of particles, but alarmed when I discovered that none of them were cookie dough. I was even more disturbed when the “scientists” began referring to their special unitary group, which sounded a bit too collectivist for science. Was any of this mentioned in Al Gore’s movie? I admit I never watched it, because it had “inconvenient” in the title, and why would I watch a movie that tells me that it is inconvenient? That’s just a waste of time!

  24. #24 JennieL
    December 16, 2009

    #201: Good god, man, give it up already.

  25. #25 Eli Rabett
    December 16, 2009

    Well, actually if like Lank @ 131,you were silly enough to say

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

    Some smart assed bunny might point out to you that sea floor volcanoes would leave a pH profile in the deep ocean that is opposite of what is observed today. If the CO2 was coming from down low, the pH in the ocean would decrease from bottom to top.

    However, the most subtle Plimmie was the incoherent claim that climate was warmer in the european medieval maximum and sea levels were the same as today. Neat trick how he kept the ice from melting.

    BTW, Plimer was called a fraud repeatedly by Monbiot. Hope he sues.

  26. #26 Vince Whirlwind
    December 16, 2009

    SOFFERMAN: You made a claim, I asked for a reference, you haven’t provided one.

    GRAPES GROWN IN ENGLAND:
    http://www.english-wine.com/content.html
    “There are nearly 400 commercial vineyards in England and Wales covering approximately 2000 acres of land in total. Nearly all are in the southern half of England and Wales. Most English and Welsh vineyards are small (less than 5 acres), many very small (less than 1 acre). Only a small number exceed 25 acres and just a handful 50 acres. The largest (Denbies, Dorking, Surrey) has around 200 acres of vines under cultivation.”

    So much for the “ANGLO-ROMAN VINEYARDS” proof of global cooling (or whatever their “logic” is).

  27. #27 TrueSceptic
    December 16, 2009

    206 Vince,

    But the Chinese shipped grapes from Greenland through the North West Passage to the Orient during the MWP. I read it at Denial Depot so I know it’s true!

  28. #28 Ken Fabos
    December 16, 2009

    It makes me laugh when people who point out that what Plimer says on a free-to-air broadcast is wrong get accused of attempting to silence dissent! I expect any comments he cared to make here would get through in full – I’d love to see what he has to say for himself – but he has to know his scientific arguments are scientifically indefensible and a good many people here will make the effort to check facts and sources and he’d be forced to try and defend his nonsense.

    The man’s arguments are so bad they deserve ridicule – as do some of the arguments in his defence. Volcanic CO2? So why is ocean CO2 content rising from the top down? The arguments are so bad even he couldn’t truly believe them. He’s a fraud.

  29. #29 jakerman
    December 16, 2009

    Betula writes:

    >*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.*

    Just as [I said](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/plimer_exposed_as_a_fraud.php#comment-2146745)

    >Plimer is copying the [Wrecking Crew](http://tcfrank.com/books/the-wrecking-crew/) tactics, which were used by those who were the force behind the Bush ascendency.
    >Its a win-win tactic, they get to trash science/government by being really bad at it, which proves their point, that public science/government is not to be trusted.

    Certain Ideologues fall for that trick in a big way.

  30. #30 phillip soffermann
    December 16, 2009

    Whirly#206…see my post@#201…then go to BOM(Australia) and check out say CEDUNA,SA~MIN TEMPS December 1-14,2009 and associated local climate data. JennieL should investigate all this too. Have a ‘Cool’ Christmas Chappies!

  31. #31 jakerman
    December 16, 2009

    David Duff shows his colours, Duff casually asserts 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!*

    This prompted my response:
    >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.

    While Duff’s earlier response demonstrated unfounded assumptions, his subsequent reply showed a callas disregard for evidence and inquiry, Duff writes:

    >*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.*

    Well it happens that people who can be “arsed” have looked at these questions, and you can find a [summary assessment here]( http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/publications/AR4/index.html).

    Then to cover his lack of supporting evidence Duff gives a Plimeresque reply with his own set of questions, on which Martin Vermeer, [nails Duff appropriately]( http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/plimer_exposed_as_a_fraud.php#comment-2148195)

  32. #32 newairly
    December 16, 2009

    No one seems to have mentioned that Plimer has directorships in a number of mining companies. It appears that he makes far more money from these than from his university pay, or the book.
    Representations to the boards of these companies pointing out the ethical standards of their fellow director might be effective.

  33. #33 Vince Whirlwind
    December 16, 2009

    SOFFERMAN: You made a claim. You have failed to provide a reference. Are you trying to plimer me?

    The graph of the mean maximum temperature at Ceduna.
    Add the filter for 2009 and it doesn’t show any cooling for December:
    http://reg.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/cvg/av?p_stn_num=018012&p_prim_element_index=0&p_display_type=statGraph&period_of_avg=ALL&normals_years=allYearOfData&staticPage=

    Here is Ceduna mean minimum temperature for 2009. Add the 1971-2000 average and I can’t see that it supports your assertion:
    http://reg.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/cvg/av?p_stn_num=018012&p_prim_element_index=8&p_display_type=statGraph&period_of_avg=ALL&normals_years=allYearOfData&staticPage=

    So, where is your reference on which you base your assertion about recent weather in SA?

  34. #34 Vince Whirlwind
    December 16, 2009

    I found this:
    http://reg.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/extremes/timeseries.cgi?graph=HD40&ave_yr=T
    “Average number of very hot days”. It shows a linear trend increase of 40% between 1957-2008.

    Changing the filters, the “Hot days” trend shows a 60% increase over 51 years.

    “Very Hot nights”: 47% increase.
    “Hot nights”: 28% increase.
    “Cold Days”: 22% decrease.
    “Very Cold Days”: 53% decrease

    “Average Warm Spell Duration” has increased by 170%

    So, SOFFERMAN, please show cause why I should refrain from calling you a cretin.

  35. #35 PJA
    December 16, 2009

    Now I live in Adelaide.

    Could Mr Sofferman tell us about November here? Unprecedented (for November) 10 day long heatwave and the hottest November on record by 3.5deg C! And there’s no global warming because the first week of December was cool? (It was 40.9 yesterday).
    Give me a break!

  36. #36 peterd
    December 16, 2009

    Betula @163, who wrote “Pilmer appears to like many scientists” and “Monboit would look like a jackass and Pilmer like Al Gore” reminds me of a story a now-retired colleague recently told me. In his street, they held a party and he met neighbours, one of whom (an accountant, apparently) told him he was reading the new book by “Pilmer”.
    I don’t know why, but I find the idea of dyslexic people getting their ideas on climate from a book by “Pilmer” to be hilarious. And sad.

  37. #37 peterd
    December 16, 2009

    Lank (@various): yes, the UGSG estimate may be inaccurate. BUT, the estimate would have to be a couple of orders of magnitude too low to affect the conclusion. The reasons it is unlikely to be so much in error have been nicely summarized by Bernard, Chris O’Neill, and Eli Rabett.

  38. #38 phillip soffermann
    December 16, 2009

    Whirly… 2 days the mainstream media in SA reported that the first 2 weeks of this December were the coolest on record (BOM Stats)…no mention of fancy filters or prime element indexes. Suggest you take your query to the SA Ombudsman.

  39. #39 Michael
    December 16, 2009

    PJA @215,

    That is clearly a trend of cooling.

    Beware the coming ice-age.

  40. #40 Vince Whirlwind
    December 16, 2009

    SOFFERMAN: Still no reference to support your weather-related assertions.
    I have wasted another period of time searching the archives of the Adelaide Advertiser.
    I found no reference to support your assertion.
    I found:
    http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,26490264-2682,00.html – bookies taking bets on whether it will exceed 40degC today

    http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,26485838-2682,00.html – rainfall record shows evidence of climate change.

    http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,26488023-911,00.html – Climate Ninjas scale Opera House.

    SOFFERMAN – please show cause why I should refrain from calling you a vacuous, evasive, lying cretin.

  41. #41 el gordo
    December 16, 2009

    The interesting thing about the weather lately is the turbulence in the mid-latitudes. Which is probably what you would expect as a cool trend develops.

    mb has to practice his art somewhere, what harm in a bit of light relief?

  42. #42 Vince Whirlwind
    December 16, 2009

    El GORDO: “turbulence in the mid-latitudes…probably what you would expect as a cool trend develops.”

    Reference/data to support both supposed observation and hypothesis?

  43. #43 phillip soffermann
    December 16, 2009

    TO ALL HOTHEADS NOW… yes,we did have a heatwave in November… caused by 2 large HP Systems blocking the movement of air over much of the southern half of Australia. As it does, the SUN beamed down on the ‘sunburnt country’ across the sweeping plains … of drought and flooding rains… and in the ragged mountain ranges (Flinders Ranges)…and a few days climbed over 40C. The affected air was cloudless, free of pollution and contained infinitesimal levels of CO2. The heat was created by a process known, to some people, as SOLAR RADIATION EXCITING MOLECULES OF MATTER on the ground and in the air. The ground temperature was way hotter than the air…so guess where that heat dissipated to? Now, the recent cool-spell was caused by a speedy flow of frigid air from Antarctica…not a sudden drop in CO2 levels!

  44. #44 tree mugger
    December 16, 2009

    The mile-high Mount Baw Baw in Australia saw a dusting of snow in December (summer)!!!!!
    Record early snow in San Antonio and Texas?
    LONDON — Snow fell in London and much of the southeast on Wednesday, pushing bookmakers to slash the odds on a white Christmas as forecasters warned of
    Early season snow spells holiday weekend relief for Tahoe ski resorts
    Sun Blamed for Warming of Earth and Other Worlds
    The warmer’s seem to deny !!!!!!

  45. #45 zoot
    December 16, 2009

    @223
    You’re confusing weather and climate. Your ignorance is showing.

  46. #46 Vince Whirlwind
    December 16, 2009

    SOFFERMAN: Still no reference from you.

    “Now, the recent cool-spell was caused by a speedy flow of frigid air from Antarctica…not a sudden drop in CO2 levels!”

    I must have missed the scientific paper which claimed recent weather was caused by a sudden drop in CO2 levels. Well done for debunking it, but can you provide a reference to it please?

  47. #47 GWB's nemesis
    December 16, 2009

    Shorter Sofferman (#223) and tree mugger (#224): there’s weather out there, so that proves you all wrong.

    Pathetic! They make Plimer (and Curtin actually) look positively rational!

  48. #48 tree mugger
    December 16, 2009

    New measurements from a NASA satellite show a dramatic cooling in the upper atmosphere that correlates with the declining phase of the current solar cycle. For the first time, researchers can show a timely link between the Sun and the climate of Earth’s thermosphere, the region above 100 km, an essential step in making accurate predictions of climate change in the high atmosphere.
    http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/nasa-shows-quiet-sun-means-cooling-of-earths-upper-atmosphere-79432252.html

  49. #49 tree mugger
    December 16, 2009

    Climategate has already affected Russia. On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.
    The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory.
    http://en.rian.ru/papers/20091216/157260660.html

  50. #50 amused
    December 17, 2009

    Meanwhile in troposphere-relevant climate news today:

    In another major finding, scientists using AIRS data have removed most of the uncertainty about the role of water vapor in atmospheric models. The data are the strongest observational evidence to date for how water vapor responds to a warming climate.

    “AIRS temperature and water vapor observations have corroborated climate model predictions that the warming of our climate produced as carbon dioxide levels rise will be greatly exacerbated — in fact, more than doubled — by water vapor,” said Andrew Dessler, a climate scientist at Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas.

    Dessler explained that most of the warming caused by carbon dioxide does not come directly from carbon dioxide, but from effects known as feedbacks. Water vapor is a particularly important feedback. As the climate warms, the atmosphere becomes more humid. Since water is a greenhouse gas, it serves as a powerful positive feedback to the climate system, amplifying the initial warming. AIRS measurements of water vapor reveal that water greatly amplifies warming caused by increased levels of carbon dioxide. Comparisons of AIRS data with models and re-analyses are in excellent agreement.

    “The implication of these studies is that, should greenhouse gas emissions continue on their current course of increase, we are virtually certain to see Earth’s climate warm by several degrees Celsius in the next century, unless some strong negative feedback mechanism emerges elsewhere in Earth’s climate system,” Dessler said.

    < http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091215194218.htm>

  51. #51 Vince Whirlwind
    December 17, 2009

    Hmmmm…who to trust, ScienceDaily or Pravda? I wonder….

  52. #52 dhogaza
    December 17, 2009

    Shouting ‘fire’ in a crowded theatre is usually considered dangerous – and rather bad form!

    Unless, of course, there’s actually a fire …

  53. #53 dhogaza
    December 17, 2009

    New measurements from a NASA satellite show a dramatic cooling in the upper atmosphere that correlates with the declining phase of the current solar cycle. For the first time, researchers can show a timely link between the Sun and the climate of Earth’s thermosphere, the region above 100 km, an essential step in making accurate predictions of climate change in the high atmosphere.

    And yet, as they point out, the troposphere is still warming …

    There’s a reason for this, and it’s not the one you want to hear. Though apparently you’re not bright enough to understand, they’re saying that their satellite observations further substantiate the basic physics underlying our current understanding of climate.

    Own goal. Don’t let it hit you in the nuts.

  54. #54 dhogaza
    December 17, 2009

    Hmmmm…who to trust, ScienceDaily or Pravda? I wonder….

    The fact that Russia is banking much of her economic future on expanded exports of oil and natural gas couldn’t have any effect on Pravda’s reporting, could it?

    I can’t imagine that enlightened, objective, ruler of Russia – Putin – to allow himself to be corrupted by all that money, can you?

  55. #55 dhogaza
    December 17, 2009

    On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report

    We know more about science that scientists do! Just like Sarah Palin! Just like Anthony Watts.

  56. #56 tree mugger
    December 17, 2009

    dhogaza your a carbon trader !
    how many CO2 gobbling trees have you planted ? Me, 10000, you zero !
    have you worked in the blistering sun, the snow and the rain ?
    how much time have you spent under the night sky ? Not much eh ! spending too much time on your pc protecting your carbon investments

  57. #57 Bernard J.
    December 17, 2009

    Phillip Sofferman and ‘tree mugger’.

    You guys really do not understand what a big pile of shit it is that you are attempting to push up a hill – and with a teeny weeny little stick…

    Consider the trends in:

    1. [very hot days](http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/extremes/trendmaps.cgi?map=HD40&period=1970)
    2. [hot days](http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/extremes/trendmaps.cgi?map=HD35&period=1970)
    3. [very hot nights](http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/extremes/trendmaps.cgi?map=HN25&period=1970)
    4. [hot nights](http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/extremes/trendmaps.cgi?map=HN20&period=1970)
    5. [cold days](http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/extremes/trendmaps.cgi?map=CD15&period=1970)
    6. [very cold days](http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/extremes/trendmaps.cgi?map=CD10&period=1970)
    7. [cold nights](http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/extremes/trendmaps.cgi?map=CN05&period=1970)
    8. [frost nights](http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/extremes/trendmaps.cgi?map=CN00&period=1970)
    9. [warm days](http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/extremes/trendmaps.cgi?map=TX90&period=1970)
    10. [warm nights](http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/extremes/trendmaps.cgi?map=TN90&period=1970)
    11. [cool days](http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/extremes/trendmaps.cgi?map=TX10&period=1970)
    12. [cool nights](http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/extremes/trendmaps.cgi?map=TN10&period=1970)
    13. [hightest maximum temperature](http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/extremes/trendmaps.cgi?map=TXmx&period=1970)
    14. [hightest minimum temperature](http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/extremes/trendmaps.cgi?map=TNmx&period=1970)
    15. [lowest maximum temperature](http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/extremes/trendmaps.cgi?map=TXmn&period=1970)
    16. [lowest minimum temperature](http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/extremes/trendmaps.cgi?map=TNmn&period=1970)
    17. [warm spell duration](http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/extremes/trendmaps.cgi?map=WSDI&period=1970)
    18. [cold spell duration](http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/extremes/trendmaps.cgi?map=CSDI&period=1970) (compare especially the durations, with respect to the warm spell durations)
    19. [growing season length](http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/extremes/trendmaps.cgi?map=GrSL&period=1970)
    20. for Australia since 1970.

      Look at all the red cirlces, and look at all the blue circles. What does the relative proportion of red to blue tell you? Hmmm? Well?

      It’s interesting to consider that where there are increases in ‘frost nights’, this is usually related to the fact that there is less night cloud cover than previously, which permits greater radiation of stored ground heat to space after sunset.

      I grew impatient with pasting links, so I’ll leave it to you idiots to figure out the mind-bogglingly complex process for bringing up the various precipitation maps. Once you crack this nut, you might like to consider the implications for Australia’s agriculture, horticulture, potable water supplies, and ecosystem functions.

      If you have a dispute with the clear warming, drying trends in Australia, please be very explicit in exactly what it is that you are saying, because the bloody evidence would say otherwise.

  58. #58 tree mugger
    December 17, 2009

    In the words of the two Arizona State University Office of Climatology researchers, the adjustments that were being made to the raw USHCN temperature data were “producing a statistically significant, but spurious, warming trend” that “approximates the widely-publicized 0.50°C increase in global temperatures over the past century.” It would thus appear that in this particular case of “data-doctoring,” the cure was much worse than the disease. And it likely still is! In fact, it would appear that the cure may actually be the disease.
    http://www.co2science.org/articles/V12/N50/C1.php

  59. #59 tree mugger
    December 17, 2009

    CARBON DIOXIDE AND SOLAR FLARE EFFECTS

    In addition to the above findings, these Swiss scientists have also determined that the sun’s solar flare activity has been greater in the last 60 years than in the previous 1,000 years.

    Despite the controlled media’s claims to the contrary, carbon dioxide emissions do not cause global warming.

    Such warming effects are instead due to increased solar activity which in turn causes an increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
    http://www.truth-it.net/solar_flare_effects.html
    WHERE’S ALL THE CARBON TRADERS ????

  60. #60 amused
    December 17, 2009

    #241 cites a seven year old pile of ordure dropped by buffoons. #241 has no relevance to Tim’s post on Ian Plimer the climatically delusional fraudster.

    tree mugger you’re a Plimer wannabe as desperate as the great man himself to duck the Plimer matters of proven dishonesty and ineptitude, to get back to just making shit up and passing it off to Fox newsers. Carry right on it’s amusing me.

  61. #61 tree mugger
    December 17, 2009

    Um….. Bernie, that’s only a piddly little time frame, how old are you ?
    38 yrs data might seem like, ancient, but in the scheme of things it is insignificant, drought comes and goes as does the sunspot cycle.
    NO not your bicycle !!!!!!

  62. #62 Chris O'Neill
    December 17, 2009

    tree mugger:

    http://bourabai.narod.ru/landscheidt/new-e.htm

    If you’re going to cite discredited research by Friis-Christensen and Lassen (1991) then I’ll cite why it is discredited, e.g.:

    The Lure of Solar Forcing:

    “Sometimes even papers in highly respected journals fall into the same trap. Friis-Christensen and Lassen (Science, 1991) was a notorious paper that purported to link solar-cycle length (i.e. the time between sucessive sunspot maxima or minima) to surface temperatures that is still quoted widely. As discussed at length by Peter Laut and colleagues, the excellent correlation between solar cycle length and hemispheric mean temperature only appeared when the method of smoothing changed as one went along. The only reason for doing that is that it shows the relationship (that they ‘knew’ must be there) more clearly. And, unsurprisingly, with another cycle of data, the RELATIONSHIP FAILED TO HOLD UP.

    By the way, you haven’t yet told us where you are going to hide when HadCrut3’s estimate of global average temperature anomaly shows that it has been warming since 1998.

    So far you’ve been nothing but a credulous troll propagating intellectual diarrhea that has nothing to do with Plimer’s fraud and lies. Unless you want to say something in this thread about Plimer’s actions then get lost.

  63. #63 phillip soffermann
    December 17, 2009

    Bernard & Whirly…check out the BOM stats for ELLISTON S.A. (Dec. 1-14, 2009). NB 9Dec!(Record coldest December day EVER!)

  64. #64 tree mugger
    December 17, 2009

    chris, that was a crack up how gore made a fool of himself at Copenhagen,
    and do you remember the one about the polar bears, hahaha, like they’ve never eaten cubs before ! and what about the hockey stick, hahahaha some people will believe anything.
    eh chris, are you a carbon trader ?

  65. #65 Thunderbelly
    December 17, 2009

    I think its worthwhile pointing out that the Institute of Economic Analysis referred to by tree mugger is an economic thinktank founded and presided over by Andrei Illarionov, a libertarian economist and well known climate change denier. He is also a senior fellow of the Cato Institute, another rightwing thinktank with close links to oil companies. You can checkout his views on his [climate change blog](http://www.aillarionov.livejournal.com). I fail to see any reason to view the IEA as a credible authority on climate change.

  66. #66 tree mugger
    December 17, 2009

    I have been probing the arguments for global warming for well over a decade. In collaboration with a lot of excellent coauthors I have consistently found that when the layers get peeled back, what lies at the core is either flawed, misleading or simply non-existent. The surface temperature data is a contaminated mess with a significant warm bias, and as I have detailed elsewhere the IPCC fabricated evidence in its 2007 report to cover up the problem. Climate models are in gross disagreement with observations, and the discrepancy is growing with each passing year. The often-hyped claim that the modern climate has departed from natural variability depended on flawed statistical methods and low-quality data. The IPCC review process, of which I was a member last time, is nothing at all like what the public has been told: Conflicts of interest are endemic, critical evidence is systematically ignored and there are no effective checks and balances against bias or distortion.
    http://www.financialpost.com/story-printer.html?id=2056988

  67. #67 Bernard J.
    December 17, 2009

    ‘[Tree mugger](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/plimer_exposed_as_a_fraud.php#comment-2149939)’.

    Are you saying that 40 years (1970-2009 = 40 years) of national weather data is not sufficient to indicate that there has been a warming trend? What is the bloody point then of [this post](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/plimer_exposed_as_a_fraud.php#comment-2149850), or [this one](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/plimer_exposed_as_a_fraud.php#comment-2149760), or [this one](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/plimer_exposed_as_a_fraud.php#comment-2147821)?

    Do you even know what point it is that you are attempting to make?

    [Phillip Sofferman](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/plimer_exposed_as_a_fraud.php#comment-2149950).

    You really are having trouble seeing the wood for the trees, aren’t you?

    Do you even know what point it is that you are attempting to make?

  68. #68 Bernard J.
    December 17, 2009

    I have been probing the arguments for global warming for well over a decade.

    Prove it.

    In collaboration with a lot of excellent coauthors…

    Prove it.

    …I have consistently found that when the layers get peeled back, what lies at the core is either flawed, misleading or simply non-existent.

    Prove it.

    The surface temperature data is a contaminated mess with a significant warm bias, and as I have detailed elsewhere the IPCC fabricated evidence in its 2007 report to cover up the problem.

    Prove it.

    Climate models are in gross disagreement with observations, and the discrepancy is growing with each passing year.

    Prove it.

    The often-hyped claim that the modern climate has departed from natural variability depended on flawed statistical methods and low-quality data.

    Prove it.

    The IPCC review process, of which I was a member last time…

    Prove it.

    …is nothing at all like what the public has been told: Conflicts of interest are endemic, critical evidence is systematically ignored and there are no effective checks and balances against bias or distortion.

    Prove it.

  69. #69 Stephen Gloor (Ender)
    December 17, 2009

    Tree mugger – “I have been probing the arguments for global warming for well over a decade.”

    Good on you mate so you of course can provide a link to all the peer reviewed papers you have written describing all the problems.

    BTW have you done any original research? Built a computer climate model? Done anything actually useful?

  70. #70 Michael Ashley
    December 17, 2009

    Meanwhile, The Australian has weighed in with [an editorial mentioning the Plimer/Monbiot encounter](http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/the-parallel-universe-with-a-life-of-its-own/story-e6frg71x-1225811211859) this morning:

    Equally disappointing was ABC TV’s Lateline effort on Tuesday night when Australian geologist Ian Plimer and British journalist George Monbiot fronted for a debate moderated by Tony Jones. Dr Plimer is an Adelaide geologist who argues that rather than taking a 150-year time span to assess the problems of global warming, we need to look back several million years. That longer timeframe, he argues, shows that far from heating up to dangerous levels, the planet is in a lull in an ice age that began 37 million years ago. In that period, we have seen many spikes in temperature, including, for example, the Medieval Warm Period of AD800-1300. Dr Plimer’s book, Heaven and Earth, argues that atmospheric scientists, who have dominated the debate, lack this long-term perspective.

    That Dr Plimer failed on Lateline to address some of the alleged errors in his book was unfortunate, but that should not detract from his central work of revealing the fragility of much global warming science. Yet the program seemed more intent on labelling this sceptical scientist a liar rather than engaging objectively with his thesis.

    I wrote a letter to the editor: “Please, select any argument from Plimer’s book. I can guarantee that real climate scientists will demolish it convincingly and lucidly, unlike the ducking and weaving that viewers saw on Lateline.”

    Perhaps I should have just said: The Stupid, It Burns.

  71. #71 Michael Ashley
    December 17, 2009

    After writing my earlier comment above I couldn’t resist sending another letter to The Australian:

    Your editorial (“The parallel universe with a life of its own”, 17/12), asks scientists to engage objectively with Ian Plimer’s thesis.

    Which thesis is that? Is it that the sun is made of iron, or that
    volcanoes emit chlorofluorocarbons, or that CO2 concentrations were
    higher in 1942 than they are today, or that thermometer measurements
    don’t show that the earth is warming?

    I challenge the editors to identify a single cogent argument in
    Plimer’s book that casts doubt on human-induced global warming.

  72. #72 Chris O'Neill
    December 17, 2009

    phillip soffermann:

    check out the BOM stats

    Soffermann is a stage 1 denialist, i.e. he tries to imply that there might not be global warming, contrary to the data, let alone human causation. As such he is not capable of rational consideration.

  73. #73 Chris O'Neill
    December 17, 2009

    tree mugger:

    eh chris, are you a carbon trader ?

    No, but you’re a f…wit. You have not said one thing about Plimer’s lies and fraud. I can only conclude that you have no problem with Plimer’s lies and fraud and thus don’t care about lying to us. We know for a fact you’ve put up some bullshit and we don’t know if you’ve done anything other than spray this thread with lies.

  74. #74 Gaz
    December 17, 2009

    Tree Mugger #247:

    critical evidence is systematically ignored

    Gee that’s shocking, Tree.

    By the way, which critical evidence would that be?

    Just one example would be nice, just so I know what I should be feeling so shocked about.

  75. #75 Jeff Harvey
    December 17, 2009

    This one by Tree Mugger had me on the floor:

    “In collaboration with a lot of excellent coauthors I have consistently found that when the layers get peeled back, what lies at the core is either flawed, misleading or simply non-existent.”

    As Bernard said, prove it, show us your esteemed credentials. Given the comic-level book gibberish you spew out here in large quantities, this is all a load of hot air (excuse the pun).

    By “Collaboration” I assume that you have a lengthy publication list in peer-reviewed journals. So, tell us all here what these studies show and where they are published.

    You know what? I bet you can’t. That is because I have a feeling that you have not published a darned thing in your entire life. Certainly no scientific papers. But, heck, prove me wrong.

  76. #76 David Duff
    December 17, 2009

    Jane, I really feel we’re beginning to get along, don’t you? So it’s a pity, really, that I must introduce an element of friction into what looks like a blooming friendship! Now, I do realise that logic is not high on the list of skills aquired by those of the feminine persuasion – which is just as well because I can’t think of a single logical reason why women would marry men, but I digress – which is made all too clear by your list of questions to me. You see, all of them pre-suppose that global warming is a given. But it is not, despite the fervor from the congregation of ‘The Church of Scienceology’, so many of whom, with delicious irony, fail to understand science.

    The fundamental, absolute basis, the bedrock, of science is measurement which is why mathematics is so crucial. My advice to anyone interested in this particular climate branch of science is to just concentrate on the measurements, both the means used to obtain them, and the means used to adjust them. Everything else can be set aside until that has been absolutely and conclusively proven to be open and above board. I have no desire to rehearse the arguments about whether or not the leading scientists in this controversy (on both sides) have behaved properly but at the very least, and from their own keyboards, it is self-evident that they have not been, shall we say, completely scrupulous. And again, I would suggest, echoing the words of people with greater knowledge than me, that the means available to obtain raw data for measurement are, putting it mildly, not clear cut and utterly dependable.

    I began taking an interest in this field about 4 or 5 years ago with absolutely no pre-conceived ideas and certainly no expertise. The only fact I knew was that the temperature of earth has always varied – thank God, otherwise we wouldn’t be here! I have read both sides of the argument and I can only tell you in absolute honesty that you, the ‘warmers’, have failed to make a convincing case. This, in and of itself, does not disprove global warming, it remains like a verdict in a criminal case in the Scottish courts “unproven”.

    Finally, I am always amused that so many ‘warmers’ apply the word ‘sceptic’ as an insult. It is, of course, not only a great compliment when applied to any scientist in any field, but an absolute necessity as a quality, otherwise how would science progress without scientific sceptics?

  77. #77 Janet Akerman
    December 17, 2009

    David Duff writes:

    >*I am always amused that so many ‘warmers’ apply the word ‘sceptic’ as an insult.*

    David more rubbish, you can’t even get your terms correct. Those who base thier position on the overwhelming weight of evidence do not use sceptic as an insult. Skepticism is refreshingly rare from denialist. E.g skepticsism is entirely lacking from your [recent contributionthis](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/plimer_exposed_as_a_fraud.php#comment-2149573).

    Duff then drops this one:

    >*I have read both sides of the argument and I can only tell you in absolute honesty that you, the ‘warmers’, have failed to make a convincing case.*

    David Duff, you’ve got a short memeory, you’ve just demonstrated to us that you haven’t looked at the evidence and. And you also told us You can’t even be “arsed” to look at the evidence. Your claims are disingenuous.

  78. #78 jakerman
    December 17, 2009

    [Jeff](Ihttp://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/plimer_exposed_as_a_fraud.php#comment-2150178), I agree, and also with Edner and Bernard,

    Tree mugger busted my BS detector with [that load](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/plimer_exposed_as_a_fraud.php#comment-2150049).

  79. #79 tree mugger
    December 17, 2009

    Sorry, the peer review process of the IPCC is definitely compromised.
    Those of you who have been fooled by the IPCC’s attempt to spread fear and doom to the population of the world need to come to term’s with the fact that because of your one-eyed gullibilities
    you have only been able to see what fit’s your own belief’s, to scared to admit how moronically stupid you people are for being suckered into the second biggest scam in the world’s history.
    I’ve given you some other side’s of the story, and now i’m going out to PEER off the verandah

  80. #80 jakerman
    December 17, 2009

    tree mugger, yeah we get that your asserting [this stuff](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/plimer_exposed_as_a_fraud.php#comment-2150213). We are now asking your to back it up. You’ve been called on it at least three times now!

    Show us the evidence.

  81. #81 Chris O'Neill
    December 17, 2009

    David Duff:

    all of them pre-suppose that global warming is a given.

    David Duff is a stage 1 denialist, i.e. he denies global warming exists let alone human causation. As such, he is beyond reason. Consistent with not caring about Plimer’s lies.

  82. #82 Jeff Harvey
    December 17, 2009

    First, Tree Mugger:

    You are cannily like Plimer. Please answer the qwuestions posed to you by Bernard and myself. You make a series of claims but do not back them up. What are you scientific qualifications?

    To David Duff: writing as a senior scientist, scepticism is a natural aspect of our profession. Scientists rarely agree on anything, but the more important point is that public policy must be based on consensus. And there are few areas of empirical research today that exhibit such broad support amongst the scientific community as human-induced climate change. No, I am more than happy to refer to many – perhaps most – of those who attack the broad consensus on climate change as “denialists”. This is because many of them are distorting science to promote a pre-determined world view and political (e.g. deregulatory) agenda. In other words, science is only being (ab)used as a tool to achieve this goal. Science is not on you side, pal, and has not been since the beginning. The fact that many in the denial camp have repeatedly switched their approach as more data have come in is a case in point. First of all global warming was a doomsday myth, then it was happening but was due to the sun or part of natural cycles, then it was good for us, then it stopped warming in 1998, then we will adapt anyway, then the rate of rise is not significant, then it was warmer in the MWP *et al ad nauseum*. For the denialists, the goal posts can endlessly be moved around because the agenda has remained the same from the beginning. DO NOTHING.

  83. #83 Chris O'Neill
    December 17, 2009

    tree mugger:

    term’s

    fit’s

    belief’s

    side’s

    Classic ignoramus.

  84. #84 tree mugger
    December 17, 2009

    [massive off-topic cut and paste trimmed. tree mugger is now on moderation. Tim]

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20091209&articleId=16467

  85. #85 Bernard J.
    December 17, 2009

    Congratulations [David Duff](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/plimer_exposed_as_a_fraud.php#comment-2150179).

    I began taking an interest in this field about 4 or 5 years ago with absolutely no pre-conceived ideas and certainly no expertise.

    You now have absolutely all preconceived Denialist ideas, and still, most certainly, no expertise.

    You must be so proud.

  86. #86 jakerman
    December 17, 2009

    Tree Muggger,

    Re post # 265 Let us know when Warrick Hughes has found something.

    Re post #266:

    *Myth one Average global temperature (AGT) has increased over the last few years.*

    Well Bob Carter will be sad to learn that [that aint a myth](http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1970/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1980/to:1987/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1987/to:1995/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1998/to:2002/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2002/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1973/to:1979/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1970/trend/plot/none)

    Lets deal with Myth 2 and 3 together

    *Myth 2 During the late 20th Century, AGT increased at a dangerously fast rate and reached an unprecedented magnitude.*

    *Myth 3 AGT was relatively unchanging in pre-industrial times, has sky-rocketed since 1900, and will increase by several degrees more over the next 100 years (the Mann, Bradley & Hughes “hockey stick” curve and its computer extrapolation).*

    *Facts 3 The Mann et al. curve has been exposed as a statistical contrivance. There is no convincing evidence that past climate was unchanging, nor that 20th century changes in AGT were unusual, nor that dangerous human warming is underway.*

    Bob Carter got that wrong. From [Moberg’s temperature reconstructions]( http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/moberg2005/moberg2005.html) for the last 2000 years, the mean anomaly is -0.35 K with StDev of 0.22 K (relative to 1961-90 average).
    Plotting Moberg’s mean with +/- 3StDev gives [this control chart]( http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/mean:12/plot/hadcrut3vgl/scale/offset:-0.3537/plot/hadcrut3vgl/scale/offset:0.3062/plot/hadcrut3vgl/scale/offset:-1.013).
    We are already above the +3 sigma range.

  87. #87 David Duff
    December 17, 2009

    Janet, calm down, dear, it’s really not the end of the world. Please re-read your questions to me and then tell me if I am wrong to describe them as being based on the belief that global warming is a given.

    Incidentally, if anyone here is interested (anyone . . ?) in reading an example of exemplary science in which measurement is tested to see if it leads to the conclusions posited by the measurers, I urge you all to go to Lucia’s blackboard:

    http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009/gisstemp-for-november-0-68-c/

    and also read the comments thread which is a civilised, rigorous and good-humoured discussion on the subject.

    However, there is much humour to be derived from this threa here. For example, Mr. Harvey, above, who is, he tells us “a senior scientist” and offers these contradictory thoughts:

    scepticism is a natural aspect of our profession. Scientists rarely agree on anything” Excellent, excellent!

    public policy must be based on consensus. And there are few areas of empirical research today that exhibit such broad support amongst the scientific community as human-induced climate chang” Eh?! You mean the truth of a scientific proposition depends on a show of hands? So, in the 19th c. belief in phlogiston was the correct scientific stance. So where does the scepticism you praised above come in?

    Sorry, Janet, apparently lack of logic is not confined to women – but you knew that anyway, didn’t you?

    Finally Mr. Harvey goes into rant mode and what gave me a nice chuckle was that virtually everything he accuses the sceptics of, they accuse him of it, too. So that really takes the debate onwards and upwards, doesn’t it?!

  88. #88 Louis Hissink
    December 17, 2009

    Tim

    Ian Plimer’s performance in his debate with Monbiot has to be seen to be believed.

    You are a liar

  89. #89 mb
    December 17, 2009

    In many places it takes four years to acquire a minimum survey of a scientific field to begin an intensive study in one specialty over the years to come. However with alternative methods of learning it takes an initial five years, but when you have completed the program you would receive absolutely no benefit from additional study. You pay a little more upfront, sure, but the rewards last a lifetime.

  90. #90 jakerman
    December 17, 2009

    Tree Mugger, Unfortunately it is quicker to spout BS than debunk it. So do me a favour, can you provide citations to back each of Carters claims in your Gish Gallop cut and paste above. I reckon most of it is bogus. Show me how much is supportable with the weight of current evidence.

  91. #91 Bernard J.
    December 17, 2009

    Myth 1.

    Vomitting long lists of Denialist crap will so overwhelm the evidence supporting real climate science, that those who actually understand what it is about which they speak, will give up and run away.

    Facts 1 and 2.

    Tree molester is so wrong that he is not even wrong, and there is no bottom to his Stupid.

    It is with extreme regret that I do not have the time just now to rub your nose in the sticking piles of poop that you shat out during [your rant](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/plimer_exposed_as_a_fraud.php#comment-2150286), but I know that others here will take up cudgels and beat the rest of the crap out of you.

    If there are any piles not attended to, I’ll help scrape the floor of your excrement tomorrow.

    Oh, and as with so many other uneducated, uninformed denialati here, you [have homework](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/plimer_exposed_as_a_fraud.php#comment-2150074). [Lots of it](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/plimer_exposed_as_a_fraud.php#comment-2149912). Perhaps you could even do [the homework](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/firedoglake_book_salon_on_jame.php#comment-2134083) that Dave Andrews, Wee Willie Wallace, Betula, el gordo, and other denialists are too afraid to touch.

  92. #92 Jeff Harvey
    December 17, 2009

    Tree Mugger,

    Still have not answered my question. So that means I am right – you have no scientific acumen. Many thanks for confirming it.

    This “Fact” you produced is further proof: *Within error bounds, AGT has not increased since 1995 and has declined since 2002, despite an increase in atmospheric CO2 of 8% since 1995*.

    Two points to dismiss this kindergarten level science. First, climate systems across the biosphere are largely deterministic. Stochastic processes occur at small scales, but as these are aggregated they exhibit more and more deterministic properties. This means that changes in deterministic systems are often only detectable over many years; 30 years or more in global climate regimes. Cherry picking any year over the past 10-20 to make a point is therefore meaningless. Second, like other deterministic systems, there is a pronounced lag between a variable and its effects on processes that emerge over large scales. As a scientist, I cringe when I see utter laypeople like Tree Mugger try to infer that an 8% increase in atmsopheric C02 levels must be accompanied by a statistically significant rise in global temperatures over the same period as evidence for his wafer-thin hypothesis. Lags are characteristic of deterministic systems. The extinction debt is one such lag whereby the loss of habitat or ecosystem area “x” may take many years, perhaps as long as 400, to manifest itself on the population demographics of species “y”.

    Those who wheel out the scientifically vacuous arguments of Tree Mugger and his ilk brazenly expose their ignorance for all to see. But this is typical of the denial community, whose rank and file are often not scientists and have no basic grounding in the fields they routinely distort. They are driven by their political views into fields well beyond their competence, and these may be any that involve public policy where private profit is involved.

  93. #93 frankis
    December 17, 2009

    Tree mugger has spammed this thread with every foolish distraction it could think of, acting just like Plimer himself.

  94. #94 Bernard J.
    December 17, 2009

    [Louis Hissink](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/plimer_exposed_as_a_fraud.php#comment-2150328).

    It’s all well and good to accuse Tim Lambert of being a liar (and for the simple ‘crime’ of saying that Plimer’s interview has to be seen to be believed!), but perhaps you could actually explain why you believe him to be so.

    Or are you too afraid to atually present any substance in case you’re refuted to within an inch of your life?

  95. #95 jakerman
    December 17, 2009

    David Duff, you might like to pretent you didn’t say it but my response included addressing this baseless and fallacious claim you made:

    >*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!*

    BTW David, how is Watts going with disproving the temperature measures. Are those photos still dominating your thinking?

  96. #96 Bernard J.
    December 17, 2009

    Tree botherer.

    After you’ve pulled all of the splinters from your old fella you might consider looking up Dr Jeff Harvey’s bona fides and publication record.

    He is a very well-respected scientist in his field, and I would bet a hundred bucks that he has more scientific training, experience, and/or publications than yourself.

    Stump up your confirmable bona fides in the next 24 hours so that we might determine whether or not this is so.

  97. #97 jakerman
    December 17, 2009

    Jeff in case you were in any doubt about David Duff’s intentions with his none to subtle baiting, here is a quote that he promotes as his banner mission statement:

    >“That one can convince one’s opponents with printed reasons, I have not believed since the year 1764. It is not for that purpose that I have taken up my pen, but rather merely to annoy them, and to give strength and courage to those on our side, and to make it known to the others that they have not convinced us.”

    I’m picturing how unpleasant he must be.

  98. #98 David Duff
    December 17, 2009

    Janet, I’m hurt! Where have I been unpleasant, especially to you, to whom I thought I had practiced my undeniable charm?

    And why would the words of G. C. Lichtenberg, the first man to hold a chair in experimental physics in Germany, make him, or me, “unpleasant”? Incidentally, Lichtenberg was a member of the Royal Society, a pal of Goethe and Kant and even the mathematician Gauss attended his lectures. He made some hefty discoveries in the field of electrics and pre-supposed the modern notion of fractals. True, he had a fancy for lower class women, but hey, we all have our weaknesses, do we not – oh, well, excepting Mr. Harvey, of course. Here are some more of his words which I admire:

    The more experience and experiments are accumulated during the exploration of nature, the more faltering its theories become. It is always good though not to abandon them instantly. For every hypothesis which used to be good at least serves the purpose of duly summarizing and keeping all phenomena until its own time. One should lay down the conflicting experience separately, until it has accumulated sufficiently to justify the efforts necessary to edifice a new theory. (Lichtenberg: waste book JII/1602) So hang on in there even as your theories falter!

    Wise words but what do you think, Janet?

  99. #99 Jeff Harvey
    December 17, 2009

    David Duff,

    Basically, you are saying we ought to shut down experimentation, if your last comment is anything to go by. The quote you cite may be relevant for those seeking to make generalizations from mechanistic studies of stochastic processes. But mechanistic studies do help us to understand the machinery of nature in quite diverse ways. More importantly, the quote is largely irrelevant to those wishing to extrapolate generalizations from deterministic systems. In this case, systems function based on the sum of their parts and it is much easier to predict how the systems will repsond to perterbations or changes, provided we have some understanding of what the various components of the system are contributing to it. Certainly modeling can play a major role in this.

    So let us be polite. That is what you claim to want, although your posts are laced with sarcastic barbs. Perhaps this is because your web page links to web logs that include several whose discourse is anything BUT polite. Shrill, more like. This should not be lost on you. A bit of hypocrisy, perhaps? However, being ‘polite’, I will say that your posts are essentially simplistic and lack scientific underpinning. Good enough for you?

  100. #100 Jeremy C
    December 17, 2009

    Louis,

    “Ian Plimer’s performance in his debate with Monbiot has to be seen to be believed.

    You are a liar”

    Wonderful Stuff! A real Girma breakout moment.

    Louis, please, please post details of why you say Tim is lying about the Plimer interview. I watched the interview and saw a man demolish himself. But perhaps, instead, my comprehension of the english language, the meaning od words and phrases and how information is handled is faulty, in which case you can only help me by saying why you think Tim is lying.

    Or alternatively,could we all be mistaken here and there is another interview with Plimer that you can link to for us?

    Louis if you are unbale to answer us then perhaps Janama can answer on your behalf.

Current ye@r *