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.
- Log in to post comments
Devils Advocate is doing a fine job of representing Plimer on this thread.
We have plagerism, bluster, distortion, misrepresentation and just making stuff up!
P. Lewis.
Oops, my bad for omitting a name. The culprit is Devils [sic] Advocate, not cohenite.
I doubt that even cohenite would be that stupid...
Dang, it seems I just called DevAd another name! Oh well...
Then apologies to cohenite for the misattribution -- for this particular episode anyway. (Made Jakerman's comment understandable too :-)
It's difficult sometimes trying to gauge (from sane respondents) who is being quoted. I make more liberal use of the [kill] file than I used to (amazing what it does for your BP ... and proper work output) and I'm no longer of a mind to go delving amongst the [kill]ed correspondents when I see something quoted that I think is worth commenting on. (Perhaps I should not mention names in future unless it's absolutely clear.)
Keep up the good work BJ (et al.)... when you can.
P Lewis maybe if you spent less time reading tea leaves you might be able to come up with some real scientific evidenceâ¦.
âIt was possible to estimate the flux of steam and thereby the heat flux involved in the diffusive degassing process.â
Notice they said âestimate theâ¦.â they did not say âcalculate the actualâ¦.â
As stated above, all the links thus far are highly qualified. I will concede they are âeducatedâ guesses on the emissions from underwater volcanoes as opposed to just guesses, but guesses all the same. You might call guessing the scientific method, but Einstein reckons God doesnât play dice with the universe and I tend to agree with him. Eventually you should be able to work the emissions without guessing, so when you do get back to me.
Re Bernard @ 484
Back to the âmicro fraction of the actual atmosphere is measured for temperatureâ and how much is extrapolated.
If we use the Karmen line as our boundary (the boundary is actually a lot further) we get a figure of about 51,000,000,000,000,000,000 cubic meters of atmosphere.
Can you tell me Bernard, how many cubic metres of the atmosphere do we have a thermometer in and how many cubic metres of atmosphere do we extrapolate (guess) the temperature?
I think we can extrapolate (guess) the answer to that question; thermometers are in a very very small fraction of the atmosphere.
Oh, how wonderful, Devils Advocate uses the "we don't know much, so we don't know anything" line of reasoning.
Ever heard of representative sampling?
For more reasons than I can count, this gem from Bedevilled Arrogant is one of the funniestlines of scientific clangerism that I have read in a considerably long period.
Please, please, please stop me wondering and confess that you are a Poe - there can surely be no real denialist who would actually subscribe to the arguments that you write!!
Oo, and good news - after a bit of haranging I have a 'puter with which to shovel troll poop, for at least another day or so. So I have something to keep me amused between poopy nappies and heat-wave days of sweating.
@505
Louis Hissink used to run a similar argument that "proved" there was no such thing as average temperature.
Bedevilled Arrogant, has set aside his defense of Plimer's volcano misrepresentations and now tries a [different trick](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/plimer_exposed_as_a_fraud.php#c…).
DA are you planning on repeating each of Plimer's bluster-and-bunk tactics on this thread?
Jackerman @ 504 said
"Ever heard of representative sampling?"
Isn't that where the sample is representative of the volume and nature of the material being sampled?
Are you sure your o.oooo...1% sample of the atmosphere is true representative of the volume and nature of the atmosphere?
We know your emissions figures for underwater volcanoes is not a true representative of the volume and nature of emissions for underwater volcanoes, as your samples are a micro fraction of the emissions for a small fraction of the volcanoes.
Bedeviled wrties:
>"Jackerman @ 504 said *"Ever heard of representative sampling?"*
Bedeviled is up to his usual standards. Misattribution fits well with [his plagerism](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/plimer_exposed_as_a_fraud.php#c…).
It looks as thought Bedeviled is intent on reproducing a representative sample of [Plimer's traits](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/plimer_exposed_as_a_fraud.php#c…).
Bedeviled are you really Louis Hissink?
"Bedeviled are you really Louis Hissink"
No, but I will take that as a compliment, as I like the many who frequent this blog are mere intellectual pigmies when compared to Louis.
I am just an individual who knows the fact that the scientific evidence for AGW is inconclusive and people who assert otherwise are lying. People who purport to be able control the weather by adding carbon to the atmosphere to make it warmer and cooler by removing it are either lying or demented pagans worshiping some reincarnated Aztec sun/weather god. If we had that amount of control over the weather it would be a good thing, but it is dishonest to assert we have.
Poe.
Bedeviled writes:
>*I like the many who frequent this blog are mere intellectual pigmies when compared to Louis*
How self-depricating of you. Yet I won't argue with you, since anyone who states that Louis Hissink makes other look like intellectual pigmies, really proves their own point.
What, someone apparently believes that Hissink is a scientific giant?! [Yeah, right](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/12/650_international_scientists_e…)...
As [jakerman](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/plimer_exposed_as_a_fraud.php#c…) points out though, your humility:
is bang on the mark.
I don't suppose any of you have come up with any evidence for this global warming racket yet?
Didn't think so.
Tommy Karanga-roos-in-the-top-paddock, exposing his clulessness, asks:
Oh, goody, another scientific illiterate to whom I can pose my long-running series of questions - with no hope of serious answers that support the Denialist cause...
Karanga, consider [these questions pertaining to the empirical signs of global warming](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/firedoglake_book_salon_on_jame…), and then explain how the physical evidence does not indicate increasing temperature, or how the evidence does not exist in the first place.
I'd bet that you can't do so - better trolls than you have already failed at the task.
Tommy writes:
>*I don't suppose any of you have come up with any evidence for this global warming racket yet? Didn't think so.*
Correct, no evidence yet of a global warming racket. But [pleanty](http://www.skepticalscience.com/What-happened-to-the-evidence-for-man-m…) of evidence [for AGW](http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html).
Re racket, James Hoggan has a [good book](http://www.desmogblog.com/climate-cover-up) that exposes some of the racket run by funding from massive fossil fuel interests.
The following information is offered as relevant to the discussion above regarding the existence of emission measurements from underwater volcanoes:
Joseph A. Resing et al., 2004, CO2 and 3He in hydrothermal plumes: implications for mid-ocean ridge CO2 flux, Earth and Planetary Letters, vol. 226, pages 449-464.
This study sampled and measured CO2 in hydrothermal plumes and hydrothermal fluids from volcanoes of mid-ocean ridges. Measurements are along extentensive segments of the mid-oceanic ridge. The results indicate a mid-ocean ridge CO2 flux of (0.5 - 2)x10^(12) moles per year, or 22-88 million metric tons CO2 per year. Resing et al. state these emission estimates are consistent with previous estimates, including those based on extrapolating geochemical studies of mid-ocean ridge lava samples. Thier results are consistent with Gerlach [1991] and Kerrick [2001].
While we're at it, here's the research policy for UAH, where one Dr. Spencer conducts his work:
http://www.uah.edu/facsen/Faculty%20Handbook/APPENDN.htm
The silence is deafening in the "sceptic" echo chamber. Even they know this one went bad.
The silence is deafening in the "sceptic" echo chamber. Even they know this one went bad.
The silence is deafening in the "sceptic" echo chamber. Even they know this one went bad.
The silence is deafening in the "sceptic" echo chamber. Even they know this one went bad.
The silence is deafening in the "sceptic" echo chamber. Even they know this one went bad.
The silence is deafening in the "sceptic" echo chamber. Even they know this one went bad.
The silence is deafening in the "sceptic" echo chamber. Even they know this one went bad.
The silence is deafening in the "sceptic" echo chamber. Even they know this one went bad.
The silence is deafening in the "sceptic" echo chamber. Even they know this one went bad.
Dr. Lambert, the only thing Plimer had to duck and weave from was George Monbiot constantly interrupting him...
The Monbiot Plimer debate on ABC was notable for more than Monbiot's ad hominem attacks and Plimer's poor memory. Tony Jones the Australian ABC TV host gets an honorable mention for another character assasination of non-compliant scientists. He previously smeared Prof. Frederick Singer and gave him no right of reply, in the prelude to the "Swindle Debate" featuring four skeptics and eight warmists, which it appears was stage-managed by panelist Robyn Williams, the ABC's climate science gatekeeper.
In the Monbiot Plimer debate, both were given roughly equal time of reply. HOWEVER: Monbiot interrupted Plimer an astonishing eighteen (18) times. To which Jones intervened only twice after the event. Jones himself interrupted Plimer three (3) times. This behavior does NOT show up in transcript, only in the footage. Plimer interrupted Monbiot once. Both called the other side fraudulent, only Monbiot called Plimer a liar. Both Jones and Monbiot had the look of cats who had drunken their fill of milk after the mauling. Plimer did not stand a chance.
So to sum it up, it was Tony Jones of the ABC whose abyssmal performance stands out, followed by Monbiot for lack of any social grace. Plimer, reeling, would have won by default, but for the star performer whom only the alert audience would have observed: the live footage of icy weather on the white snow-covered streets of Copenhagen behind Monbiot's satellite screen.
Oksanna, your post is a razor sharp satire of how deranged denialists are so delusional that they'll swallow anything. I commend you.
Oksanna, let me add my congratulations. You've captured the delusional rhetoric perfectly. Pity it took you a year to come up with it.
Oksanna:
Yet another delusional who thinks people are more interested in their rant than the subject that their rant is about.
Another day, another drive-by spammer.
Rocco, very interesting. Thank you.
"Plimer did not stand a chance."
The delusional rarely do.
Rocco said:
The silence is deafening in the "sceptic" echo chamber. Even they know this one went bad.
The silence is deafening in the "sceptic" echo chamber. Even they know this one went bad.
The silence is deafening in the "sceptic" echo chamber. Even they know this one went bad.
The silence is deafening in the "sceptic" echo chamber. Even they know this one went bad.
The silence is deafening in the "sceptic" echo chamber. Even they know this one went bad.
The silence is deafening in the "sceptic" echo chamber. Even they know this one went bad.
The silence is deafening in the "sceptic" echo chamber. Even they know this one went bad.
The silence is deafening in the "sceptic" echo chamber. Even they know this one went bad.
The silence is deafening in the "sceptic" echo chamber. Even they know this one went bad.