Plimer's bluff called

I think the purpose of Plimer's strange questions was to give himself a pretext to avoid answering Monbiot's questions, but Gavin Schmidt has countered this ploy by addressing Plimer's questions at RealClimate.

More like this

Just as I thought, Ian Plimer's questions for Monbiot were a pretext to avoid answering Monbiot's questions. Monbiot writes: Creationists and climate change deniers have this in common: they don't answer their critics. They make what they say are definitive refutations of the science. When these…
Instead of answering Monbiot's questions, Plimer has responded with his own set of questions. I suspect that this is a tactic so he can weasel out of answering Monbiot's questions. My favourite question from Plimer is this one (which isn't even a question): 6 From ocean current velocity,…
After George Monbiot panned Plimer's book for his grotesque scientific errors, Plimer challenged Monbiot to a face-to-face debate. Of course, Plimer would do his usual Gish gallop with such a format, so Monbiot agreed with just one condition: Last week I wrote to Professor Plimer accepting his…
George Monbiot has the details on Plimer's latest attempts to evade answering Monbiot's questions. Plimer wrote to him: There are seven versions of Heaven and Earth and only my Australian publisher and I know the differences in diagrams, references and text between the seven. It has taken some…

Perhaps there should be an online poll that goes like this:

> Is Ian Plimer being chicken?

> ( ) Yes ( ) No

Protecting the poll from being rigged by crazy nutjobs will be a problem, though.

The purpose of Plimer's questions was to delegitimize Monbiot as an interlocutor.

The purpose of Plimer's questions was to delegitimize Monbiot as an interlocutor.

Well, that backfired then :) Plimer ended up doing a nice job of delegitimizing himself (though, arguably, to anyone reasonably well informed, that job had already been done when "Heaven + Earth" appeared).

Plimer is just messing with our heads. His questions are some kind of inside joke.

If people are sceptical concerning anthropogenic global warming (aka AGW), yet still want to learn some climate science (without the politics), then you need to avoid books by people like Plimer. Plimer is pushing his own agenda, which broadly coincides with a narrow conservative politics.

There are some quite good books about climate science, or about ancient human pre-history and history, that don't stray into the political minefield. On the other hand, Plimer's "Heaven and Earth" presents hypotheses of Plimer's as though they are fact, and then argues his case as a defence against his imagined political opponent. It is a good example of polemic masquerading as scientific analysis, but not a "good example" in any way that is constructive.

By Donald Oats (not verified) on 25 Aug 2009 #permalink

The US Chamber of Commerce comes to Plimer's rescue! They're asking for a debate (or rather, a mock trial) with the EPA.

How many debates do they need in order to settle the science on climate change anyway? Why do 'skeptics' keep giving out so many invitations to debate? It's as if they're not trying to settle the science, but are just craving for attention!

Althougn it's not likely to happen, I reckon that the request should be rapidly and enthusiastically accepted, with assurance of much publicity and the capacity for the participation of expert witnesses.

If Plimer's bluff is called enough times, he's bound to make a fatal public mistake sooner or later. It's past time thjat he was cornered and held to account for his nonsense.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 26 Aug 2009 #permalink

There are some quite good books about climate science, or about ancient human pre-history and history, that don't stray into the political minefield.

There is nothing political about the scientific evidence for global warming. It just is.

By Douglas Watts (not verified) on 27 Aug 2009 #permalink

If Plimer's bluff is called enough times, he's bound to make a fatal public mistake sooner or later.

He's already made quite a number of "fatal" public mistakes. Unfortunately, neither he nor his supporters seem to have noticed.

There's little point in trying to debate somebody who can't (or won't) recognise either facts or reason.

*[Duplicate post removed]*

Girma writes:

>THERE IS NO GLOBAL WARMING WITH INCREASE IN CO2

Girma yes there is Girma see the correlation [here](http://bartonpaullevenson.com/Correlation.html).

There is internal variablity such as El Nino (surface warming) and La Nina (surface cooling). But like many forcing factors these are cycles. Unlike these cycles CO2 growth continues forcing the climate in one direction. So over the long term (30 year mean) the CO2 forcing [dominates](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/plot/hadcrut3vgl/mean:360/…).

But you've already been told this many times. And it been explain many times that you are comparing a the last El Nino (1998) with the 2008 La Nina. Which is a problematic as comparing last summer to this winter or last night to today. To measure climate you need to measure the long term aveage to account for natural cycles that dominate short term fluctuation.

By Mark Byrne (not verified) on 29 Aug 2009 #permalink

*[Duplicate post removed]*

Girma is the worst troll i have ever met so far. i seriously urge everyone to ignore him.

you will definitely have a better discussion about climate with your kitchen table, than with him.

again: please ignore him.

Yes and the data shows the correlation between CO2 and Temp to be strong.

The data also shows short terms cycles and a long term trend. So the data is not consistent with your conclusion. The data is consistent with the conclusion of the IPCC.

By Mark Byrne (not verified) on 29 Aug 2009 #permalink

> No explanation, no excuses, no hand waving required.

Weird, because if just one page is enough to debunk all of climatology, then why did Plimer have to write a 500-page book and avoid answering Monbiot's simple questions?

Can we put Girma into an open thread already? Maybe call it "Siberia", just to satisfy these folks' penchant for persecution complexes.

What has happened with Plimer and Monbiot's questions? Has Plimer totally bailed out?

By Mark Byrne (not verified) on 29 Aug 2009 #permalink

It is true to say that Plimer's supporters tend to ignore his flaws, because we are in a political bun fight and nobody is giving an inch.

Most of you believe in human induced global warming, but I suspect few would support the idea of simulating a volcanic eruption to reduce temperatures.

So you will turn a blind eye to the engineering aspirations of some scientific ratbag on your side of the fence. They call it 'Plan B', just in case the politicians can't get their act together in Copenhagen.

Plimer is to be applauded for his courage in the face of msm hostility around the world.

From my perspective, a blank sun, cold PDO and still-born El Nino, suggests your side of politics is in for a thrashing.

..we are in a political bun fight and nobody is giving an inch.

Political bun fight? The atmosphere and the oceans and the ice sheets couldn't give a rat's arse who we vote for. Why is a political fight for you, el gordo?

That's a dopey piece of blather, el gordo. If you think Plimer's dogged wrongness is courageous then you have no 'perspective'.

Gaz

The Greens came to fruition in Germany during the 80's, the rump then became mainstream when Helmut Kohl needed their votes.

It has always been political, but what the sceptics and denialists are saying is that the 'science is not settled'.

It's a 'political bun fight' in the sense that we are arguing about climate, nothing too serious, but a nasty change in the weather will see the chattering classes wondering who sold them this AGW porky.

Nick...you will never get into troll school with that wit.

It is really breathtaking the way those in abject denial can reduce the scale of environmental disruption that is unfolding to "a nasty change in the weather".

El gordo (more like el tonto), long after the lingering uncertainties surrounding climate science have been resolved, our greatest minds will still be puzzling over just what it is that motivates such utter wankers as you.

Why's it still so warm with all these chilling factors on the surface temperature?

El gordo doesn't care, Mark, don't waste your time.

Shorter el gordo:

It's OK for Plimer supporters to spout nonsense, because we're at War™ against Greenies™.

Therefore, I'm now going to spout some more nonsense. Which is OK.

Mark...we accept that global warming has been taking place since the beginning of the industrial revolution, but we claim its from natural causes.

The world has been climbing out of the depths of the Dalton Minimum and we have just passed the Modern Climate Optimum, global cooling is just beginning.

Keep your minds focussed on the big picture.

Oh so you are saying you made a small minded error when you said?

>*From my perspective, a blank sun, cold PDO and still-born El Nino, suggests your side of politics is in for a thrashing.*

Care to elaborate on any other of your fantasies.

By Mark Byrne (not verified) on 31 Aug 2009 #permalink

>*we accept that global warming has been taking place since the beginning of the industrial revolution*

...but we know its not CO2 driven and that the overwhelming evidence of CO2 temperature forcing must be set aside for a counter theory of....nothing really cohesive?

By Janet Akerman (not verified) on 31 Aug 2009 #permalink

Janet...its the sun silly.

Come on Janet, don't go confusing Fatso with yucky facts.

Shorter el gordo:

It's the sun! It's the sun! It's the sun! Evidence and facts are for small-minded people! Big-picture people don't need any of those!

Thank you Janet. We have no problem with the graph, temperatures have been rising and CO2 has been lagging behind. All perfectly natural, but I was suprised to see the sunspots falling off so early.

There is a link between the sun, cosmic rays, aerosols and clouds. It is a modulation mechanism.

Less solar activity means earth is bombarded with more cosmic rays, which create more clouds and cooler temperatures. The creation of the cloud nuclei is caused by ionization and resembles the processes in a cloud chamber.

So the data doesn't fit your theory?

By Janet Akerman (not verified) on 01 Sep 2009 #permalink

Well, I had always assumed that sunspot activity may have been a little higher during the 80's and 90's.

Saw an article the other day on 'global dimming' which said the last 15 years have been dimmer, but found that difficult to accept.

When I work out Tim's linking process the evidence will be forthcoming.

El gordo.

If you can't follow the plain one sentence instruction on how to post a link, you cerainly do not have the capacity to review and interpret complex science.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 01 Sep 2009 #permalink

I like this one too el gordo:

>*temperatures have been rising and CO2 has been lagging behind. All perfectly natural...*

So which temperature rise caused us to burn fossil fuels on a scale that produces more 20 billion tonnes of CO2 each year?

By Mark Byrne (not verified) on 01 Sep 2009 #permalink

>*...but I was suprised to see the sunspots falling off so early.*

>*...I had always assumed that sunspot activity may have been a little higher during the 80's and 90's.*

Yes Plimer doesn't show this data does he. Wonder why?

Global dimming also has a major contribution from aerosol emissions. Including the Asian aerosol plume.

The aerosol influence is consistent with the pause in [stratospheric cooling](http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadat/images/update_images/global_upper_air…). Hence the concern that removing these aerosols will unmask more warming.

By Mark Byrne (not verified) on 01 Sep 2009 #permalink

Gaz,

I assume by his warm welcome that "Fatso" has already developed a reputation as a.. ehm... a troll?

By Mark Byrne (not verified) on 01 Sep 2009 #permalink

I'd say it's just an example of an alternative perspective to reality. In other words, recycle phrases that have been associated with scientifically discredited notions. Phlogiston should be coming soon. Call it off-topic, except it's a perfect example of Plimer's work. - It's not happening, it's not us, it's CO2 from volcanoes, it's termite farts, it's measurement error - switch as each claim is shut down, and repeat indefinitely. Real Climate's takedown was excellent.

Shorter el gordo:

It's all very complex, and I wave my hands a lot, therefore the Greens are wrong. Unfortunately, the margin is too small for me to write down the actual argument.

Whoa...back off you lot, i'm not a Bolter refugee out for a troll.

Thanks for all the helpful links. I'm actually a big fan of Britain's Royal Society who think we should implement 'plan B' if Copenhagen fails, ie. simulate a volcanic eruption to force temperatures down.

That should give the world breathing space until CO2 is driven lower.

It has to be fairly big, like Mt Pinatubo, and we may need a few small nukes to get things moving in the right direction. Apart from that, finding a volcano to suit could be a problem. Somewhere in the northern hemisphere close to American, because they have been the most recalcitrant?

el gordo:

i'm not a Bolter refugee out for a troll.

So you say the CO2 rise is "all perfectly natural" and you think you're not a science deying-troll?

Sure.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 01 Sep 2009 #permalink

That should give the world breathing space until CO2 is driven lower.

And just how do you propose we drive CO2 down, O Corpulent One?

Gaz...Until they get the renewables up and running we should seriously consider plan B. A well timed volcanic eruption will drive temps down a couple of degrees for a year or two.

It seems fairly clear now that the Copenhagen gathering will not succeed in reaching agreement. In the off-chance that Australia goes it alone with a cap and trade model, then we should also stop exporting coal. We are morally bound to save the planet.

Chris...the rise in CO2 is perfectly natural, but the argument is that the excessive input by humans will create an unnatural tipping point.

Perhaps an overly warm Pacific holds the answer.

El Gordo, I think you're talking out of your rather ample bum.

1) Mt Pinatubo reduced global temperatures by, what, 0.1 degree C or so, for a year or two.

2) CO2 won't suddenly disappear as soon as humans stop emitting CO2, because the CO2 already added to the atmosphere will stay there for a long, long time not matter what we do after it's emitted. Have you seen that paper that predicts there's now so much CO2 in the atmosphere that the next ice age, due to start in 20-30,000 years, won't happen, nor will the following three or four that would have been expected every every hundred thousand years or so after that? We're going to be pretty good at this artificial volcano caper by the time all this is over half a million years from now.

3) Artifically emitted aerosols bring with them their own problems, as you'd expected if you try to block out the sun with airborne chemicals. That's even if you don't use nuclear explosions in the process.

4) The rise in CO2 is not "perfectly natural" - what the fuck are you talking about, bonehead?

5) An "overly warm Pacific" is not the answer, it's the result of what we are doing.

Shorter el gordo:

CO2 emissions are not a problem, so we should switch to renewables to reduce CO2 output, but before then we must use some nukes. Nukes nukes nukes!!!

El Grodo:

we accept that global warming has been taking place since the beginning of the industrial revolution

YOU might. I don't think there's any we about it. There's plenty of nutcases out there who think that the thirties was hotter than now, let alone the "skeptics" seem to think 1998 was the end of an era.

naught101

Have you noticed that Cristy has backed down on SST, this should give your side plenty of cheer.

Go to WUWT and all will be revealed.

NOAA got it right and backed up by NASA's Argo buoys. I'm overjoyed that the end of the world is nigh.

> Chris...the rise in CO2 is perfectly natural, but the argument is that the excessive input by humans will create an unnatural tipping point.

Yes, combustion of petroleum products quite naturally produces CO2.

And CO2 quite naturally produces warming.

And we quite naturally don't want to fuck up the only planet we have to live on.

So quite naturally, we should stop burning petroleum products.

Shorter el gordo:

Yeah, yeah, you Warmist-Marxists got the facts right, but that just means you really want the world to end! Oh, and don't look at the facts; look at the Big Picture.

>Chris...the rise in CO2 is perfectly natural

says the guy who can't tell his tailpipe from a hole in the ground

By t_p_hamilton (not verified) on 02 Sep 2009 #permalink

el gordo :

I'm overjoyed that the end of the world

i.e. the end of burning-up fossil fuels as fast as we like

is nigh.

el gordo is just another mitigation alarmist.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 02 Sep 2009 #permalink