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.


  1. #1 Chris O'Neill
    December 17, 2009

    David Duff:

    Where have I been unpleasant

    You’re a jerk. You can’t even keep your trolling to an open thread.

  2. #2 David Duff
    December 17, 2009

    Jeff Harvey, taking your points in reverse order, you will notice that Michael Tobis is on my links and there was a time when RealClimate, Punk Science and even, ‘Shlock-Horror’, this site were up there, too. Alas, the latter three went in for censorship and I’ll be damned if I’ll list any site on any subject that is owned by people too cowardly to hear an opposing argument. I should add that no-one is more surprised than me that I have now been re-admitted to the hallowed halls of Deltoid without my comments being scrambled. If that is the new policy here then I welcome it and for what it’s worth (not much) Deltoid can look forward to being re-listed at Duff & Nonsense (‘a poor thing, sir, but mine own’).

    “those wishing to extrapolate generalizations from deterministic systems”. Ah, but that’s the point, climate is not deterministic beyond the trivial, such as, if you heat something it expands, etc. There are, it seems to me, far too many unknowns in climate science, and most important of all, no one knows all of the facts which go towards defining the opening condition. Without resorting to tired old cliches about butterfly wings in Brazil, tiny variations will lead to large variations.

    There is a further difficulty because climate science, according to you and others, is closely concerned with human activities. Almost all ‘extrapolated generalisations’, from Malthus onwards, concerning future human behaviour go wrong because they do not, and cannot, factor in future human behaviour – because it is unknown and unknowable. When I was born Neville Chamberlain was prime minister, could anyone then have foreseen the world we live in today?

    You go on to say “it is much easier to predict how the systems will respond to perterbations or changes, provided we have some understanding of what the various components of the system are contributing to it, and my response to that is that from the outside looking in the scientific fraternity appear to have huge gaps in their knowledge concerning the behaviour and interconnections beteeen “the various components – and the honest ones admit it.

    Finally you touch upon the fraught topic of modelling. To paraphrase an old saying about governing, ‘to model is to choose’! You, the scientist, must choose constantly. You have raw but complex and messy data, you must ‘choose’ how to adjust it, then you have to ‘choose’ which data goes in and which stays out, then you have to ‘choose’ which elements are likely to effect your data in the future and ‘choose’ the level of interference that probable – and so on and on. I hasten to add that I find nothing wrong in any of that, just the opposite, provided the end result is offered in a spirit of humility and the conclusions described as tentative. That really does not describe the offerings from you ‘warmers’ which are handed to us as a ‘diktat’ to which no opposition must be permitted.

    Alas, Jeff, I remain unconvinced.

  3. #3 Jeff Harvey
    December 17, 2009

    David Duff,

    You remain unconvinced in my opinion because it suits your pre-disposed political and philosophical views. I would expect nothing else from you having given a cursory look over your blog site. The fact that you link with denialist web sites like “Junk Science” and people like Ann Coulter is proof of that. If not, show me otherwise. Some of your other comments on this thread illustrate that you believe in cornucopia and that whatever assaults humans inflict across the biosphere, no worries, humans have evolved far enough to be beyond limits imposed by natural systems.
    Of course this is folly and scientifically vacuous, given human dependence on a range of services emerging from nature that are at threat as the human enterprise continues to expand. Your inability to understand the difference between determinism, stochasicity, and scale is also a clear sign that your posts here are an exercise in futility. To suggest that climate systems “are not deterministic beyond the trivial” is wrong, wrong and more wrong. Your only refuge for such a statement is that humans have actually the capacity to force climate out of short-term equilibrium, but this requires a major forcing, clear evidence that humans are a global force.

    To be honest, remarks like that is what in my view precludes you from being taken at all seriously.

  4. #4 Jeff Harvey
    December 17, 2009

    phillip soffermann,

    Read my last post to David Duff. It apparently applies to you, as well. If you think Tree Mugger’s posts reflect intellectual discourse, then this tells me all I need to know about your understanding of complex adaptive systems. Some of THs posts were so appallingly shallow that it was difficult to know where to begin deconstrcuting them.

    Moreover, I am sure that Orwell would turn over in his grave if he were to know that a contrarian of all people was using his own words and accusing others of doublespeak. Pure hypocrisy. Given the fact that the denialists have been shifting the AGW goalposts for years in support of a brazenly political (e.g. deregulatory, profit-driven) agenda, its a bit rich for you to wade in here with your pennie’s worth of wisdom.

  5. #5 Chris O'Neill
    December 17, 2009

    David Duff:

    Alas, Jeff, I remain unconvinced.

    Who cares. You’re beyond reason. You don’t even accept that climatic global warming is occurring.

    phillip soffermann:

    you are a denier

    That’s right. You are denying that climatic global warming even exists when you crap on about temperature records here and there.

    unwavering orwellian mindsets

    What a hypocrite.

  6. #6 phillip soffermann
    December 17, 2009

    I, Phillip Soffermann,hereby declare that we human beings have very little or NO INFLUENCE on the record cold temperature winds emanating from Antarctica and sweeping across Southern Australia as we speak… signed Phillip Soffermann, Australia,18 Dec 2009

  7. #7 Ken Fabos
    December 17, 2009

    David Duff, you sound reasonable but it’s a poor argument; Ocean heat content is rising, average sea level is rising, glaciers are retreating, summer arctic sea is diminishing, iceshelves are breaking up and not reforming, icesheets are thinning, phenological effects show clear evidence of warming but you want to argue that temperature measurements might be wrong and the warming they show could be spurious. And of course the various institutions that study climate are presumed to have made no effort to make sure the measurements they use have any veracity. This is just trying to cloud the issue with doubt when measurements of temperature are entirely consistent with real world changes. It really is warming and it’s time we started seriously dealing with it.

  8. #8 jakerman
    December 17, 2009

    David Duff,

    >*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”?*

    David, why would you try spread your shameful behaviour to Mr Lichtenberg? Do you have any evidence that he was trolling, baiting, denying the existence and implications of the overwhelming weight of evidence?

    Do you think your callous disregard for the impacts of global heating is not unpleasant? What about your own admission of can’t be “arsed” to look at the evidence? What your efforts at time wasting here, your sexism?

    You David have demonstrated your own very unpleasant approach. That you take Mr Lichtenberg’s quote and practice it in this way is your own interpretation of its meaning. And it gives us further insight into you, that is what I was [commenting on](

  9. #9 Stu
    December 17, 2009

    Phillip Soffermann,

    Congratulations. Through the course of this thread you have demonstrated an aptitude for recognising weather events.

    But, erm, what do individual weather events have to do with climate change? There is an actual scientific answer to this that isn’t simply ‘nothing’, bonus points to anyone who gets it.

  10. #10 TrueSceptic
    December 17, 2009

    269 Louis Hissink,

    You are a delusional moron. (I can’t accuse you of being a liar as I doubt that you actually know reality from fantasy.)

  11. #11 David Duff
    December 17, 2009

    Oh, Janet, is it over – and before we even got started? Now you’ll never know what you missed! But before I go, do try and lighten up a little, all that intensity will give a girl lines, I mean, look at poor old Chris O’Neill, he started scowling the day McIntyre opned his blog and now it’s etched in his face forever and children run and hide when he enters a room. Please don’t let that happen to you.

    Oh, and if you’re in Copenhagen, do wrap up warm, it’s arctic up there – heh, heh, heh!

  12. #12 TrueSceptic
    December 17, 2009

    292 DD,

    It’s December in Denmark.

    Oh, and we are getting snow here in the eastern UK tonight. Whodathunk it? In the winter?

    Damn. I don’t have snowshoes. Or snowchains for the car.

  13. #13 Vince Whirlwind
    December 17, 2009

    DUFF: Please explain what the connection is between today’s weather in Denmark, and Ian Plimer’s exposed misrepresentations and lies?

    Are you providing a diversion/distraction from the facts of the matter? Are you Plimering?
    Perhaps *you* can explain why almost nothing in Plimer’s book is actually factual?

  14. #14 jakerman
    December 17, 2009

    David Duff, I stand corrected. I was wrong when I said Martin Vermeer’s [appropriate smack-down]( nailed you appropriately.

    Martin’s post was an approprate analysis, however while his discriptors of “pleasant and suave” apply to some, I was wrong to imply that they match your demeanor.

    To addapt Martin’s post to you David, I would use the words, contrived, glib and phony and tranparent.

    And before you metophorically rub your crouch on me any further you should know that Janet Akerman is a blog name, a long standing joke name. However you have shown that gender is important to you in this “debate”. Your rampent sexism has given me further empathy for that faced by the sisters.

    David Duff you are prize creep!

  15. #15 Donald Oats
    December 18, 2009

    At first I thought David Duff was channelling Ian Plimer, but then it hit me: he actually thinks he is Ian Plimer. Or maybe he is Plimer and he is using a pseudonym. Or perhaps Plimer thinks he actually is David Duff? No matter, they both got thrashed on Lateline. Takedown!

    Tell us again about the iron core in the sun, David Duff (or is it Ian?), LOL.

  16. #16 Phillip soffermann
    December 18, 2009

    285 again… The Jeff Harvey’s of this world DENY THE RIGHT of anyone to hold an opinion…unless it is the opinion of Jeff Harvey!

  17. #17 Jeff Harvey
    December 18, 2009


    Opinions are like backsides. Everybody has one. To be honest, I could not care less what laypeople like you think about antyhing, least of all science, which is apparently well beyond your competence. The reason I venture into blogs like Tim’s is to set the record straight, to counter the kinds of anti-scientific crap that you and a few other spew out relentlessly.

    The fact that you defend the posts made by nincompoops like Tree Mugger tells me all I need to know about the “accuracy” of your opinions. So go ahead, pontificate all you want. But do not be surprised when I and many others pull the rug well out from under your feet.

  18. #18 Marco
    December 18, 2009

    @Phillip Soffermann:

    Either show where and prove that Jeff Harvey denies you the right to hold an opinion, or apologise to all people on this blog for lying.

    An *honest* person would meet my challenge, a Plimerian will come with attempts to diffuse. Which group do you belong to, Phillip: Honest people or Plimerians.

  19. #19 phillip soffermann
    December 18, 2009

    The Marco’s of this world…DENY THE RIGHT of anyone to hold an opinion…unless it is the opinion of Marco!

  20. #20 phillip soffermann
    December 18, 2009

    The Jeff Harvey’s of this world spew vitriol at their opponents…much like the huge submarine volcano I saw on the news tonight…then lambast them with potty ad hominem disparagements. And get this.Then they declare themselves the ONLY authorities in the world on their chosen ‘belief-systems’…” and we will burn all your books…and you will repent for your sins…and you will seek penance…your children’s children will burn in Pergatory.”..glooomm…gloomm…gloom…oom…mm…m…….sounds familiar???

  21. #21 Bernard J.
    December 18, 2009

    The Phillip Soffermans of this world deny the validity of any science that challenges their ideology; and this is not opinion, it is simple and demonstrated fact.

    Sofferman: a challenge to you that you might like to address, as you seem reluctant to respond with any serious comment to your [previous homework](… In one form or another [I have asked similar questions]( of others, but perhaps if I simplify it you might be able to manage a credible answer – can you present to us in, one paragraph or less, what you consider best argument of Plimer’s that indicates the non-validity of AGW?

    If Plimer doesn’t shake your tree, what is your best argument in general that refutes AGW?

  22. #22 Chris O'Neill
    December 18, 2009

    I, Phillip Soffermann,hereby declare that we human beings have very little or NO INFLUENCE on the record cold temperature winds emanating from Antarctica and sweeping across Southern Australia

    It is a well known fact that Antarctica and the ocean surrounding it have warmed and were expected to warm very slowly because of the thermal inertia of the surrounding ocean. Thus it is no surprise that air that comes from Antarctica is virtually as cold as it ever was and that it still causes cold records occasionally.

    However, just because cold records keep happening, that doesn’t mean there is no average warming. The paper cited here shows that there are a lot more hot records than cold records in the US and that the ratio has increased as time goes by.

    So ongoing cold records does not mean there is no global warming. To get some significance just from records you have to look at the ratio of hot to cold records.

  23. #23 phillip soffermann
    December 18, 2009

    BJ…indeed,I have done my homework…but I won’t be doing yours for you. We live in an Interglacial Period…but neither of us will be around to see the next Ice Age arrive! Now…there’s some common ground we can stand on…

  24. #24 Chris O'Neill
    December 18, 2009

    David Duff:

    I mean, look at poor old Chris O’Neill, he started scowling the day McIntyre opned his blog

    Prove it duffer. Trivial if it’s true.

    children run and hide when he enters a room

    What a pathetic creep.

  25. #25 Chris O'Neill
    December 18, 2009

    David Duff:

    do try and lighten up a little, .. look at poor old Chris O’Neill, .. children run and hide when he enters a room.

    Just incredible. Duff proves he’s a hypocrite within the one sentence.

  26. #26 Jeff Harvey
    December 18, 2009


    You must have one hell of an imagination. Where did I say this: *Then they declare themselves the ONLY authorities in the world on their chosen ‘belief-systems’*

    If truth be told, I am only agreeing with the overwhelming majority of climate science researchers with respect to AGW. It is you who are out on a limb with your ‘belief-systems’, not me. Time you woke up to realities of science instead of manufacturing your own ‘reality’ based on your personal inherent political and philosophical biases.

    As I said before, you can waffle on all you like, but until you can empirically challenge the science climate change you and your ilk will continue to be marginalized.

  27. #27 Chris O'Neill
    December 18, 2009

    Bernard J.:

    If Plimer doesn’t shake your tree, what is your best argument in general that refutes AGW?

    Bernard, you should lower you expectations with soffermann. He’s a stage one denialist. You’d be optimistic enough to ask him what is his best argument that refutes global warming regardless of cause.


    Poor old Tim…want to shoot the SMHessenger now do we?

    In case you haven’t yet noticed, SMH is a chooser of messages and that’s what Tim has been paying it to do. If it becomes incompetent at its job by choosing messages written by proven liars then people have the right to stop paying it. soffermann seems to think people should keep being paid when they become incompetent.

    Apart from that…I thought the Lateline Debate went well

    Yes, it went well in the sense that it showed, just from Plimer’s contradiction of the Keller cite, that Plimer was a liar, that he knew he was a liar and that he makes no excuse for being a liar.

    Some scientists say the last 10 years have cooled

    There are no competent scientists who say the last 10 years have cooled because it’s just not true. You have been sucked in by Plimer or some other liar.

  28. #28 Marco
    December 18, 2009

    Phillip Soffermann, a true Plimerian. Evading the question, showing himself to be the liar he really is.

  29. #29 mb
    December 18, 2009

    I thought the debate would have been better if they had offered to wait in silence while Plimer tracked down his reference in his book. It would have been illustrative to watch him, like watching a child search their backpack for the homework they never did.

  30. #30 Chris O'Neill
    December 18, 2009

    I thought the debate would have been better if they had offered to wait in silence while Plimer tracked down his reference in his book.

    Yes, I thought so too because Plimer said he only needed 10 seconds to do that but then waffled on for far longer.

  31. #31 Michael Pyshnov
    December 18, 2009

    If anyone thinks that code of practice on research misconduct matters, he is making a big mistake. Below, is a glaring example.

    The Committee on Publication Ethics is currently promoting its guidelines on retractions. However, the actual judgements of the Committee differ drastically from their stated policies. In my case, the Committee blatantly falsified the very definition of plagiarism, excluding from it plagiarism of unpublished research. After some further exchange of letters, the Committee apologised and said: “We probably did make a mistake with our interpretation of the term ‘plagiarism’…”. But, moreover, reading my correspondence with the Committee will clearly show that the words in their policy: “The main purpose of retractions is to correct the literature and ensure its integrity…” are simply not applicable to their own actions: they made all, quite fraudulent, efforts to ensure that an obviously plagiarised paper is not retracted. Please, see my correspondence with the Committee at

    You can look at my web site and see how university conducted a fraud that would seem completely impossible. And you will see that government supported this fraud, that the Editor-in-chief of the journal supported the fraud. What matters now in academia is political interference and apparently bribes. The codes do not matter.

  32. #32 MikeB
    December 18, 2009

    Monbiot might have given Plimner a good smack, but we are still losing the battle, as Monbiot pointed out at the start of the interview.

    The Daily Express (here in the UK), has both the bizarre ‘100 reasons why Global warming isn’t true’ and ‘Russians say Met Office manipulated figures’ in the same week. The Daily Mail had a story pulling in everything from the Siberian tree proxies, CRU, and every other denalist crud imaginable (my parents sent me a package with the paper as packaging – my wife was right, reading the Mail only makes me upset), and Fox is running ‘Climategate’ every night.

    Even the BBC has got in on the act. Interviewers on the flagship ‘Today’ programme have asked various scientists (including David King) if climate change ‘is real’? On the same day that King was asked this, the same interviewer asked if marine creatures threatened by ocean acidification could evolve to overcome this, over a time-scale of 50-60 years.

    And in a discussion about the film, ‘The Age of Stupid’ , the three interviewees were Lindzen, Bob Watson (hardly a tree hugger), and Lomborg, who is apparently both an expert on climate change and (to the BBC) in the reasonable middle on what should be done about AGM. And greens are ‘too radical’

    If it wasn’t for these comments,, I would just write off my fellow citizens as basic morons.

    We are losing. Big Time. Stupid is about to win. Of course having lazy journalists and a decent sense of PR to help you is an advantage, but if the BBC is screwing up, what is there left to do?

  33. #33 Bernard J.
    December 18, 2009

    [Phillip Sofferman](

    BJ…indeed,I have done my homework…

    Bull shit.

    Show us one example, one example, where you have, [as I have repeated asked you to so do](, proffered your considered best piece of science that refutes global warming.

    [Chris O’Neill]( is right – you’re recalcitrant in your denialism, although I’d describe you as a type 1 denialist, rather than a stage 1 denialist, because the latter implies that there might be some transition – and with your sort, there is never any hope of enlightenment, no matter the weight of scientific evidence.

  34. #34 P. Lewis
    December 18, 2009

    Actually, MikeB, the question about whether

    marine creatures threatened by ocean acidification could evolve to overcome this, over a time-scale of 50-60 years

    is not a daft question of itself.

    Viruses (though there are reasons to exclude them from such rapid evolution debate) and bacteria can evolve very rapidly. And, more germane to this particular questioning, there are examples of rapid (decades) evolution among insect, plant, bird and mammal species. The peppered moth comes to mind, and recent findings about the UK blackcap’s beak changes.

    Regarding marine animals and ocean acidification, I note that Tunnicliffe et al. recently reported on a variety of mussel, Bathymodiolus brevior, that lives in the acid waters around volcanic hydrothermal vents. Of course, this is not an example of rapid evolution in the mussel on a decadal scale (not that I’m aware of anyway), and this may ultimately be an exercise that is doomed should a predator of the mussel emerge in that hostile environment, a scenario that would certainly be all too familiar for similarly affected species in a more benign marine environment.

    But, of course, to expect more than one or two species (speaking figuratively) out of all affected species to be able to evolve on a scale of decades is almost certainly wishful thinking.

    The best course is to prevent rapid ocean acidification.

  35. #35 jakerman
    December 18, 2009

    >*We are losing. Big Time. Stupid is about to win. Of course having lazy journalists and a decent sense of PR to help you is an advantage, but if the BBC is screwing up, what is there left to do?*

    What is there left to do? Something different.

    But what are you/we prepared to put on the table? Are we prepared to up the anti? Or are we bound by mortgages? How much will any of us to put on the line? A lot of us are pretty soft, in pretty cooshy positions. We in among the richest most powerful positions relative to the world. Yet we don’t know what to do. Contrast that with those in South America, far poorer than us, yet they know what to do.

    We are losing because we are sitting back ant letting politicians and lobbyist do all the work.

    We are losing because the public still see the debate through the corporate media, leading to drip feed people like Tom and the Drudge swarm believing that those with most concentrated power are pushing the AGW agenda, rather than an unusually broad alliance of scientist, community sector and global democracy interest, battling against those with most concentrated power, and those who have swallowed the alternative narrative sold them.

    People in South Africa knew what to do. And they did it despite facing far greater risks than us. No one is pointing a gun at us yet. So what are we prepared to do?

    As long as we keep doing just the same thing, we lose.

    What did Gandhi need at his back? Who had Dr King’s back? What was giving strength to Mandela?

  36. #36 Bernard J.
    December 19, 2009

    I reckon that [threeMugger]( is a sockpuppet of [alin]( – they both have the same uneducated quirks of vocabulary and grammar…

    1. lower case for first letters of a sentence
    2. possessive apostrophes for plurals
    3. sentences that are lists separated by commas
    4. the use of upper case hysterical emphases

    It is indeed sad when ideologues have conversations with themselves in a effort to seem both informed, and numerous, when they are in fact neither.

  37. #37 Bernard J.
    December 19, 2009

    5. exclamation marks preceeded by a space

  38. #38 jakerman
    December 19, 2009

    freepluger AKA treepluger/Mugger and alin,

    I’ve answered your question earlier. Weather is [short term](

    Climate change is the [longer term shift](

    I could go into details about how GHG forcing produces small changes over short periods compared to larger cycles, but that over longer periods GHG is the turtle that passes the hair, as cycles are not trends.

    But you are an obvious troll so I wont bother.

  39. #39 phillip soffermann
    December 19, 2009

    322Jaker… that’d be ‘hare’ not ‘hair’. 321Freeplugger…Here’s a suggested slogan for a white T-shirt… ’25 BELOW IN HOKKAIDO! DECEMBER RECORD!’ …and another one… ‘EYRE IS COOL!0.2! DECEMBER RECORD! Isn’t that amazing! They’re almost POLES APART and they BOTH hit December LOW TEMP records! That reminds me, I must make the pilgrimage and see the famous Sapporo Ice Festival before a few metres of lush powder snow makes it inaccessible…except by skis. 314BernardJ… I thought I made this clear weeks ago…I am NOT a GLOBAL WARMING DENIER… and I am NOT a CLIMATE CHANGE DENIER. These are both NATURAL PROCESSES. I refuse to be scared witless by some bum sitting all day at a computer developing dodgy predictive climate models when he can’t even reliably predict cooling or warming events anytime in the future…except, perhaps, tomorrow!

  40. #40 Bernard J.
    December 19, 2009

    [Phillip Sofferman](

    If context is so beyond you that you need it spelled out in order to comprehend the thrust of a question, place a-n-t-h-r-o-p-o-ge-n-i-c in front of [global warming]( and try again.

  41. #41 phillip soffermann
    December 19, 2009

    BJ…get your question straight…you asked me about GW, not AGW. Yes! Let’s get rid of all the pollution and crap out of the AIR,GROUND and WATERWAYS/OCEANS that us silly humans put there…but don’t flagellate yourself over it. Calm down and lead the way with decisive and praiseworthy action that sets an example for others to follow. I notice you spend your time fearing the future, so much, that you ignore the current circumstances surrounding recent GLOBAL~COOLING WEATHER EVENTS!!!

  42. #42 jakerman
    December 19, 2009

    Tree Mugger aka peer Shrugger,

    If you could substitute your assertions for evidence then you would have case.

    But alas you are an empty tool, one that happens to be assisting the those with most concentrated wealth and power.

  43. #43 TrueSceptic
    December 19, 2009

    292 DD,

    Wow, that is some feeble kind of ad hominem you got there!

    Shame it’s not even funny.

  44. #44 TrueSceptic
    December 19, 2009

    309 Marco,

    I think many here have got Sufferman all wrong. He’s a child who thinks he’s as clever as the grown-ups.

  45. #45 phillip soffermann
    December 19, 2009

    329marco/ts…Your first sentence is correct. Your second sentence is even a kind of compliment… it’s better than being a ‘Brat Adult’ behaving like a ‘Brat Child’!

  46. #46 silkworm
    December 19, 2009

    We should be calling the AGW denialists what they really are – greenhouse effect denialists (GEDs).

  47. #47 TrueSceptic
    December 19, 2009

    331 silkworm,

    Too simple, and it doesn’t cover the field. The permutations are mind-boggling, especially when so many are contradictory. They have endless arguments, none of which make sense, and especially taking into account the contradictions with their other arguments.

    They don’t even realise this, of course.

  48. #48 Chris O'Neill
    December 19, 2009

    phillip soffermann:

    can’t even reliably predict cooling or warming events anytime in the future

    soffermann just doesn’t get it. Climate is not events. It is statistics of events. Complaining that weather events aren’t predicted is like complaining a dice roll isn’t predicted even when we predict the average of dice rolls in the future.

  49. #49 jakerman
    December 19, 2009

    phillip sofferman,

    Instead of spamming this thread with poorly-supported opinion, why not try a different tact?

    Why not vindicate Plimer, who has been exposed as a fraud by repeatedly failing to producing evidence to support his claims?

    One starting approach would be to vindicate Plimer on one single issue; find the citation measuring the missing carbon that Plimer claims is not counted by the USGS. Specifically, were does he get his figure from that declined to cite in the debate with Monbiot?

    BTW thanks for the spelling correction.

  50. #50 phillip soffermann
    December 19, 2009

    334jaker…the joker… Prove to me… that you, the USGS or even Plimer, knows how many submarine volcanoes/vents exist or how much CO2 gets vented to the atmosphere…like the one on TV News last Friday? But they do! Prove to me… that ‘The Roman Warming’ was caused by, higher-than-now, CO2 levels which facilitated their growing of grapes as far north as Hadrian’s Wall! Prove to me…that the ‘Little Ice Age’ didn’t produce very fine-grained(slow-growth) Mountain Spruces and Ashes to enable Antonio Stradivari to craft a great violin… because the CO2 levels suddenly dropped!? Prove to me…that the Roman Empire did not succeed and expand as a direct result of favourable climatic conditions i.e. higher temperatures and lower CO2 levels than now. Prove to me… that you fully understand the relationship of various Atmospheric CO2 concentrations and their ambiguities in relation to GLOBAL WARMING AND GLOBAL COOLING…BOTH! BTW: I’m off on a long sleigh right now… so I won’t be replying anytime soon…stay cool!

  51. #51 jakerman
    December 20, 2009

    USGG [cite thier evidence](, Plimer just runs away!

    Quite a difference don’t you think?

  52. #52 zoot
    December 20, 2009

    I’m off on a long sleigh right now… so I won’t be replying anytime soon…

    Thank Goddess for that.

  53. #53 Bernard J.
    December 20, 2009

    Calm down and lead the way with decisive and praiseworthy action that sets an example for others to follow.

    You’re [late]( to the [party](, aren’t you?

    Prove to me… that you, the USGS or even Plimer, knows how many submarine volcanoes/vents exist or how much CO2 gets vented to the atmosphere…like the one on TV News last Friday? But they do!

    To what end? It has already been pointed out to you [here]( and [here]( that volcanoes have nothing to do with the rise of atmospheric CO2.

    If you have a case, make it using factual science.

    Otherwise, accept the fact that you are a simply yabbering idiot.

  54. #54 Bernard J.
    December 20, 2009

    I’m off on a long sleigh right now…

    I’ll raise you.

    Last night I had a Christmas dinner with my neighbours, a glaciologist and an atmospheric physicist. We started the evening in a very genteel manner – gins (Bombay Sapphire, of course) and tonic.

    The ice in our Gs&T came from bergs in the Antartic, brought back on one of their annual trips to the southern polar bases. Riddled with parallel striations of gas, and thus strangely porous in a way that refridgerated ice can never be…

    We spent hours discussing human-induced global warming (it’s as obvious to them as a spring snow melt might be to a lay person living in less extreme latitudes), and the disconnect between the real science and the fevered ideology of those whose closest experience to polar and/or atmospheric research is puffing out clouds of condensation on a skating rink. What was really rammed home to me during our long conversation was just how ignorant you and your ilk are of the fundamentals of the actual science.

    Forgive me if I dismiss you as a puerile armchair ‘expert’, but if you can’t stump up some real substance to support your incessant babbling about the apparent absence of the elephant in the room that is about to plaster you against the floor underneath its bum, I don’t see why anything you say shouldn’t be dismissed quicker than Bradman in his last innings.

    I’ll [repeat again](, if you have anything that you consider to be a ‘killer’ piece of evidence that refutes AGW, then please present it.

    Apparently this is an impossible task for you, because I am now losing count of the number of times that I’ve challenged you to do this. Perhaps this say more about your tenuous understanding of basic science, than it does about any weakness in climatological understanding…

  55. #55 Bernard J.
    December 20, 2009

    Seems that the tree molester (and his sundry sock-puppets) crumbled in a pile of non-substance when pressed to justify his vacuous statements.

    How strong his case, eh?

    And what is with the homosexual fixation that all of these deniers have?! It seems that [Tom]( is not alone in his suppressed anxiety over a person’s orientation, no matter that it is irrelevant to the subject at hand.

    I’m reminded of that painful animation Beevis and Butt-head, in which a scene progesses:

    David VanDriessen: You know, this could be a real positive experience for you guys. There’s a wonderful and exciting world out there when we discover that we don’t need TV to entertain us.
    Butt-head: Huh huh huh. He said, “Anus.”
    Beavis: Entertain us, anus. Oh, yeah.
    David VanDriessen: Have you guys heard a word I’ve said?
    Butt-head: Uh, yeah. Anus.
    Beavis: [chuckling] Yeah, yeah. Yeah, I heard it, too.

    Speaking to treeMugger, to his aliases, and indeed to any of his Denialati mates, is about the same as trying to speak to Beevis and Butt-head…

  56. #56 peter
    December 20, 2009

    Where is all the heat ? The heat is disappearing and cannot be assumed to be
    simple climatic weather events as the cold is too widespread. Our esteemed scientists need to re-evaluate the synergy of all the factor’s that are causing this, climate forcing does not cut it. CO2 will be vindicated of this ?

  57. #57 jakerman
    December 20, 2009

    Where is all the heat?

    We just had the hottest November [on record](!

    And that despite a long drawn solar minima! Why is so hot when the Sun in in a lull?

  58. #58 MikeB
    December 20, 2009

    #315 – Although there might indeed be circumstances where some mussels might be able to adapt to some extent, the reality is that within a decade, parts of the marine ecosystem could simply start to disappear.

    My point was that for a BBC interviewer to ask such a stupid question in the first place really pointed up the lack of rigour regarding science in much of the mainstream media. Even a casual viewer of an Attenborough programme or two would know that adaption would be very difficult over such a small time scale.

    Unfortunately, we see at the BBC a perfect example of the divide between specialists (Roger Harrabin, Tom Fielding, David Shukman, et al), who are all very good, and the generalists, like the ‘Today’ programme presenters (although John Humphries is actually excellent), and their editors/producers/bookers.

    Presenters such as Webb and Naughtie would never have as their first question ‘Did Shakespeare really write Hamlet, because someone thinks it was Bacon?’ when any discussion of Shakespeare came up. Guests would simply think they were stupid or mad, and listeners would write in their thousands. Yet both those presenters have continually asked the question ‘is climate change real?’ of climate scientists. By the time they’ve answered the question (sadly, normally far less directly than the media savvy David King), half the interview has gone, and the seed has been planted in the mind of listeners that perhaps it isn’t true, otherwise why ask the question.

    If even the BBC, on its premier news programme (which can and does set the news agenda for the day), feels it has to question AGW out of some misguided sense of ‘balance’ or simply because the ‘arts-graduate’ (in Ben Goldacre’s phrase) editors feel that they want heat rather than light, then the rest of the media is going to be no better and almost certainly worse.

    Plimer had a hard time in that Australian interview because the interviewer had done his homework, and had enough nous to stay with the main points. Unfortunately, there are just too few of these in the media at the moment.

    Jakerman has it cold – ‘We are losing because the public still see the debate through the corporate media, leading to drip feed people like Tom and the Drudge swarm believing that those with most concentrated power are pushing the AGW agenda’.
    And until the scientific community starts mixing it with the media, and pushing back (like Hansen and King), we are going to continue to lose. We are still in the ‘Age of Stupid’.

  59. #59 silkworm
    December 20, 2009

    It’s been a week now since Plimer has been shown to be a fraud, and what have we seen? Some of the denialists may have dropped out: it’s hard to tell. However, the remaining denialists are still in denial about climate change, even in denial that there own position has been proven fraudulent. I think this proves that the remaining denialists are clinically insane.

  60. #60 tailwagga
    December 21, 2009

    Tim, get your finger away from that moderation button !!!! please !
    silkworm, both side’s of the argument have their reason’s for believing what they do.
    I myself have a skin as thick as the skulls of the warmers and the insults have bounced off me,
    due to this i have followed many of the links provided to me to try to understand the viewpoint
    of the warmers and what really are their agendas, most on both sides of the fence are just sheep,
    I’m a sheep from the denial camp but I am now up on the fence looking over and I probably
    would climb over to your side except for the fact that I along with a large amount others
    feel that climate science has made a pact with the devil, I know there has been a lot of
    dis info from both sides but you can’t deny that the carbon trade, the politicians and their
    carbon tax schemes have had a lot to do with the mistrust that people like me now have
    with the whole ongoing saga.
    If your science is correct then do as jakerman said, take it to the next level,
    that would be for the leaders of climate science to tell the pollies and the money
    grabbing Gore’s of the world that the carbon trade and tax will only steal money
    off you and me and the CO2 emmision’s will still rise, OH NO you say, they will
    lose their funding and their jobs and they will just put some PR man in their job,
    hmmm……what to do ? insults sure aint gunna fix it.
    climate science has too many croc’s in the water and proper solutions need to be
    implemented if the science is correct.

  61. #61 silkworm
    December 21, 2009

    Wise up, mate. You’re embracing fraud.

  62. #62 tailwagga
    December 21, 2009

    saturniid moth you are flying aimlessly around the candle flame of global warming and will harden the resolve and increase the numbers of the deniers. If you recognize what is driving their opinions and focus more on the problems at the top of the climate food chain you may have success in swelling your numbers. Maybe some contemplation on the fraud aspect ?

  63. #63 jakerman
    December 21, 2009

    tailwagga aka everyother ndp writes:

    >*myself have a skin as thick as the skulls of the warmers and the insults have bounced off me*

    My Orwell double-speak-ometer just went off the dial.

    And tailwagga, just so you know, fraud requires more than assertions from a coordinated propaganda campaign, the fact that you and others bring no evidence of fraud, but shout it incessantly is quite telling. Time to look in the mirror tailwagga then reassess your information sources.

  64. #64 tailwagga
    December 21, 2009

    jakerman I’m always open to reassess
    new info, so if you know of any sources of information that scientifically proves that Carbon emissions trading and the introduction of the CPRS is going to have any significant impact on CO2 emissions I’d like to read it, as far as I can see the impact would be negligible and I am keen to learn otherwise.
    PS> Don’t bother with any links to UNIPCC, too many fingers in the pie.

  65. #65 jakerman
    December 21, 2009


    I don’t support the CPRS nor carbon trading, becasue of the complexity and potential for rorting (particular in our current environment of concentrated power and plutocracy). I support a [CAP and Dividend](, were part of the externalised costs of carbon are internalised at first point of sale. Far simpler and transparent. And for those small government ideologues it is revenue neutral. Thougth I would support some revenue being directed to coordinated action.

    As far as proof of the effects of a price on carbon. Its basic economics, so long as energy monopolies are kept from rigging the market wind and solar and other low carbon alternatives will become cheaper relative to the dirty coal. As will investment in conservation and efficiency.

    And entrepreneurial people and companies will finally be able to benefit from genuine progress, better aligning our economic success with sustainability, rather then the current perverse situation where internalising the costs of carbon are penalised with higher relative costs.

  66. #66 Chris O'Neill
    December 21, 2009


    information that scientifically proves that Carbon emissions trading .. is going to have any significant impact on CO2 emissions

    Science has nothing to do with it. If the law requires you to have a permit to emit CO2 then it’s just the law. The government sells/gives away just enough permits to limit the CO2 emissions to what it wants to allow.

    The potential shonkiness arises when private enterprises are allowed to “create” emission permits through schemes that supposedly reduce or absorb carbon emissions somewhere else in the world. I think privately created permits, if they are allowed, should be scrutinized very, very carefully.

    Also, if generating permits through, say, reforestation takes immediate pressure off the need to reduce fossil fuel burning then that’s not ultimately going to help minimize atmospheric CO2. That said, anything is better than nothing because at the moment the world is sailing along as if global warming is not happening.


    I support a CAP and Dividend

    Note: Hansen’s name for his preference is Tax and Dividend, not CAP and Dividend. He writes the following statement on his title page:

    ‘Tax and Trade’ is pseudonymously and sometimes disingenuously termed ‘Cap & Trade’

  67. #67 Fran Barlow
    December 22, 2009

    Che=ris said:

    ‘Tax and Trade’ is pseudonymously and sometimes disingenuously termed ‘Cap & Trade’

    This is the first time I’ve heard it called “tax and trade”. The word cap refers to the upper limit on the commodity being regulated, surely.

  68. #68 tailwagga
    December 22, 2009

    jakerman, “basic economics”, have a look at price rises in food, petrol/LPG and housing for the past 5 or 6 years, the price of these commodities has probably/maybe doubled and despite minimal wage rises most consumers haven’t changed their eating habits , nor have they stopped driving,
    you’ve probably also noticed that houses and land are still selling like hotcakes,
    based on these 3 examples I can’t imagine another price rise will have an impact on consumption unless it is big enough to cause recession, another tax certainly will not work in the medium to long term.
    So have the maggots with the most to gain been corrupting the science and hyping the doom and gloom ? as I have said there would be more confidence in the science if practical not money grabbing solutions were being devised.

  69. #69 Chris O'Neill
    December 22, 2009

    This is the first time I’ve heard it called “tax and trade”.

    This is what Hansen calls it. Read what he says but he’s saying that calling it “tax and trade” is more honest than calling it “cap and trade”.

  70. #70 Fran Barlow
    December 22, 2009

    As I understand it, Hansen prefers the idea of a multi-lateral carbon tax plus landing tariff. I don’t suppoise it’s possible that his choice of nomenclature was intended to make it seem as if the cap and trade scheme proposed under Waxman-Markey was essentially a tax.

    I note that here in Australia, the reactionary opponents of the CPRS like calling it the ETS a tax.

  71. #71 Chris O'Neill
    December 22, 2009


    “basic economics”, have a look at price rises in food, petrol/LPG and housing for the past 5 or 6 years, the price of these commodities has probably/maybe doubled

    Bullshit. Property is not a commodity and the others have not doubled in price.

    and despite minimal wage rises most consumers haven’t changed their eating habits , nor have they stopped driving,

    A lot of them reduced driving when the price of petrol was high but it’s not high anymore.

    you’ve probably also noticed that houses and land are still selling like hotcakes

    Property is bought mainly with borrowed money and interest rates are still low.

    Come back when you’ve got your facts right before you want to argue basic economics.

  72. #72 jakerman
    December 22, 2009

    >look at price rises in food, petrol/LPG and housing for the past 5 or 6 years, the price of these commodities has probably/maybe doubled and despite minimal wage rises most consumers haven’t changed their eating habits , nor have they stopped driving […]

    Tell that to General Motors. Petrol is back down to where it was before the sharp spike, but people now recognise the risk of buying guzzling SUVs.

    Time is an important part of the adjustment. We need to be sending signals now for entrepreneur to tool up. Were only know seeing the new efficient cars come to market some 2-3 years after the spike start.

    And because it takes time to deliver alternatives to the carbon intensive infrastructure I support direct coordinated spending in mass transit, efficiency and and low carbon power generation. This is just skimming the surface as this list could go on and on.

    Again you assert corruption in the science with no evidence. That is empty propaganda. The maggot with most to gain are [corrupting the science]( We’ve been calling them on it for years.

  73. #73 fingerwagger
    December 22, 2009

    Chris an astute reader would have realized that I was generalizing the 3 together, if he also was able to expand on his limited knowledge he would see that housing and properties are indeed “articles of commerce”, particularly if he had bought and sold a number of these at a profit, these also require
    electricity, gas, water, now also pumps for harvested water to dunnies maybe even water circulation to solar hot water panels these use power also,
    energy is also a commodity. Did you stop driving or going to work when the fuel prices were high ? I sure as hell didn’t and don’t know anyone who did.
    Sorry my quote wasn’t up to your pedantic standards.

    jakerman that document was submitted to the Inquiry into the Senate Select Committee on Climate Policy, No. sub609 on this page
    I don’t think it will see the light of day here, I agree and think it looks much better than the non carbon reducing theft that they want to burden us with.

  74. #74 Chris O'Neill
    December 22, 2009


    Did you stop driving or going to work when the fuel prices were high ? I sure as hell didn’t and don’t know anyone who did.

    Aka, proof the laws of economics are wrong because it didn’t happen to everyone.

  75. #75 WotWot
    December 22, 2009

    FerChrissake, folks, phillip sofferman is very clearly a deliberately time wasting, bile inducing troll, who is getting exactly the outraged responses what he wants.

    You are playing right into his attention seeking hands. Just ignore the farker.

  76. #76 bi -- IJI
    December 26, 2009

    Shorter Lamark:

    You’re wrong! I’m right! Anyone who knows that I’m right will know that … I’m right!

    The fact that I can’t even my climate science claims shows that Global Warmists are closed-minded! Look, it’s clear that Plimer did substantiate the claims he made in his book! And the source for the claims in his book is … his book!

    Anyway, this shows that Global Warmists are closed-minded! Any attempt to portray this as an act of “projection” is itself an act of projection, which is, well, Leftist. You know, like, when Jonah Goldberg said “The White Man is the Jew of Liberal Fascism”, which shows that anyone who protests against anti-Semitism is a Pinko Marxist Communist. Or something.

  77. #77 Johnmacmot
    December 26, 2009

    I’ve read some astonishing rubbish from some denialist characters on here over the last few weeks, but your post is startlingly deluded. Yout twisting of language is Orwellian.
    “So it was Monbiot and Tony Jones, shown to be idiots on this matter and not Plimer. Anyone with any affinity for science would have understood that. What a Pavlov’s dogs you all are. Responding to an obvious rigup like this. Watch the show again and this time for goodness sakes use your brain. Stop being mindless zombies for once.”

    Brilliant. Just had a moment’s doubt….this is satire, isn’t it? You can’t actually be serious.

  78. #78 bi -- IJI
    December 26, 2009

    s/even my/even spell out the source of my/

  79. #79 dhogaza
    December 26, 2009

    Lamarck: we know how much fossil fuel we burn. We know that carbon combines with oxygen during combustion to form CO2. We know that CO2 concentrations are going up at roughly 50% the rate at which we add it to the atmosphere. Sinks, primarily the ocean, take up the other 50%.

    If Plimer’s right, that volcanos emit 130x as much CO2 as our burning of fossil fuels, then sinks are taking up 99.6% of the CO2 released to the atmosphere.

    If this were true, oceans would be acidifying at a stunningly fast pace.

    But … it’s not. We know this from observations.

    So where is all that CO2 going?

    Nothing about Plimer’s claims makes any sense.

  80. #80 dhogaza
    December 26, 2009

    And, Lamarck, if you believe Plimer, then you must also believe that these undersea volcanos began spewing excess CO2 at exactly the same time as the start of the industrial revolution, when large-scale burning of coal began. And you must also believe that the increase in CO2 emissions by volcanos just happen to increase at exactly the same rate at which we increased combustion of fossil fuels.

    Of course your handle screams “troll”. Just in case you aren’t, remember that while Lamarck correctly recognized the fact of evolution, his proposed mechanism was hooey.

  81. #81 dhogaza
    December 26, 2009

    Graeme Bird, well-known crank, posted almost exactly the same words as our “Lamarck” over at Deep Climate.

    Mr. Bird has a wonderful post over at his blog, well worth reading (snicker):

    We Have Got To Get Rid Of This Bogus Doctrine To Do With The Conservation Of Mass And Energy.

    Not satisfied with overturning evolutionary biology, modern medicine, and climate science, the crazies have overturned physics, as well!

  82. #82 Chris O'Neill
    December 26, 2009

    Monbiot has refused to answer a single climate science question that was asked of him.

    When are these morons going to realize that Monbiot is not the one making claims about climate science. Plimer has a whole book full of claims.

  83. #83 dhogaza
    December 26, 2009

    If you are going feed the troll by arguing with him at least make a good fist of it. Plimer did not contend that volcano’s spewed out 130 times as much CO2 as humans. Rather Monbiot contends that humans put out 130 times as much CO2 as volcanoes. An entirely baseless claim on Monbiots part. One that he cannot sustain.

    Pardon me for misunderstanding the exact crankdom put forth by Plimer. He only claims it’s so large that human contributions are insignificant. Maybe he believes it’s 1,000 times as much from volcanoes …

    Monbiot quoted the USGS, not Jones.

    CO2 from undersea and terrestrial volcanoes: 200 million tons annually

    Human contributions, as of 2003: 26.8 billion tons.

    26.8 billion / 200 million = 134.

    Monbiot’s right.

    You embarrass yourself by relying on this no-nothing as an authority.

    I don’t rely on Monbiot. I rely on the USGS, whose findings he accurately reported.

    Monbiot has refused to answer a single climate science question that was asked of him.

    He claims to only accurately report the findings of climate science, not to be a climate scientist himself.

    And then he comes out with a ludicrous factiod like the one he insisted on to do with volcanoes.

    Nothing ludicrous. If you believe it is, take it up with the USGS. Dick-waving in the wind isn’t going to convince anyone.

    Also clearly Jones coming up with the same nonsense to do with volcanoes points to obvious collusion.

    When a reporter says “According to the USGS, the proper figure is …” he’s *reporting*. That’s what reporters do. It’s not “collusion”.

    God, what planet do these crazies live on?

  84. #84 Chris O'Neill
    December 26, 2009

    We Have Got To Get Rid Of This Bogus Doctrine To Do With The Conservation Of Mass And Energy.

    The only comments on that were from Bird himself. He describes the Plimer-Monbiot debate as “rigged”. What a mental case.

  85. #85 dhogaza
    December 26, 2009

    The only comments on that were from Bird himself.

    Yes, apparently he deletes comments, then comments on them. Very bizarre.

  86. #86 dhogaza
    December 26, 2009

    It’s the USGS, not Tony Jones, Graeme.

    I could’ve sworn that Graeme Bird was banned from this site … ???

    Oh, more Graeme Bird weird physics – he apparently believes in the existence of something like the old ether, since he does not accept the existence of the photon and therefore believes light requires a medium for transmission.

    And he also believes that Lamarck was somewhat right regarding the transmission of acquired characteristics to offspring.

    All-around crackpot.

  87. #87 Chris O'Neill
    December 26, 2009

    cyclone tracy:

    A lot of posts are deleted from here also, maybe the truth hurts ?

    Maybe deleting EVERY post except your own is getting just a bit too obvious, donchathink?

  88. #88 dhogaza
    December 26, 2009

    Let’s see … who do I believe … the USGS or Graeme Bird.

    That’s such a tough question …

  89. #89 Chris O'Neill
    December 26, 2009


    He has an estimate based on the chemistry of oceanic sedimentary rocks.

    So volcanoes originate from sedimentary rocks.

    Its an informed estimate.


    Looks like Tim will have to get out the troll disinfectant.

  90. #90 jakerman
    December 26, 2009

    Graeme Bird, aka Lamark writes

    >*Monbiot made an idiot of himself. It was Monbiot who refused to answer any questions on climate science. Whereas Plimer wrote a book on the matter and answered the questions in the book.*

    Graeme, I think you should promote the video of the debate widely to help emphasise the point you are making.

    People are not sufficiently aware of the cognitive dissonance that are employed by one side of this issue, nor the capacity for double speak to be employed in order to call black as white.

    I think you expose this rather well, and would support your efforts to get out and expose these issues to the wider public.

  91. #91 Tim Lambert
    December 26, 2009

    I’ve zapped a pile of nonsense from [Graeme Bird](

  92. #92 dhogaza
    December 27, 2009

    Feel free to zap many of the responses, too …

  93. #93 jakerman
    December 27, 2009

    I’, going to [watch the debate]( again to remind myself of though devious tactics used by Monbiot.

    And Tony Jones shouldn’t have let Monbiot ask Plimer to substantiate claims he made in his book. And the fact that Jones Asked Plimer about stuff he had written in his book was unprofessional. Did you notics that Jones had actually prepared for the debate by reading the book and checking out some of Plimers claims. This is not consistent with standard practice in journalism these days.

    When will the ABC learn that when someone writes a book the contents are sacrosanct and beyond debate. The fact that Plimer avoided peer review makes no difference.

  94. #94 jakerman
    December 27, 2009

    >*The idea that Plimer is lying does seem to hinge on the notion that we put out 130 times the amount of CO2 as the volcanoes.*

    Oh Tommy, you’re too generous. [Plimer is lying]( about [a lot]( more [than just that](!

  95. #95 jakerman
    December 27, 2009

    Tommy aka Jonty,

    Thanks for your evidence in post @376, @377 and @378. I think this represents your case quite fittingly.

  96. #96 Devils Advocate
    December 28, 2009

    Re Gerlach, 1999, 1991 estimated figures put forward by the USGS as evidence for volcanic CO2 emissions quoted above.

    Under the section “Comparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. human activities” the USGS quotes Gerlach, 1999, 1991:

    “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). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts.” (Effects Tab)

    80% of the worlds volcanoes are submarine, yet the “estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts.”

    People around here appear to be relying on erroneous figures that state that underwater volcanic CO2 release is equivalent to above ground CO2 release, this is clearly wrong.

  97. #97 zoot
    December 28, 2009

    Devils Advocate, better take that up with USGS. They obviously don’t know what they’re talking about.

  98. #98 Marco
    December 28, 2009

    @zoot and Devils Advocate:
    Just a little hint: Gerlach et al do not assume that there are equal numbers of submarine and subaerial volcanoes.

    Another starting point is here:

  99. #99 dhogaza
    December 28, 2009

    Marco, you know that denialists like Devils Advocate don’t need to read the paper. They *know* it’s commie crap 🙂

  100. #100 Devils Advocate
    December 28, 2009

    Thanks for the link to Kerrick’s paper Marco, it confirms that the primary source for atmospheric carbon/CO2 is outgassing from the Earth’s interior at midocean ridges, hotspot volcanoes, and subduction-related volcanic arcs. That was to be expected as 95% of atmospheric carbon comes from sources not related to anthropogenic activities.

    Can someone please explain how it is possible that human activities emit 130 times as much CO2 as is outgassed from the Earth’s interior through volcanic activity, considering that only 5%. of atmospheric carbon comes from anthropogenic activities?

New comments have been temporarily disabled. Please check back soon.