Plimer calls his critics "rent-seekers"

Ian Plimer responds to criticism with by calling his critics names and failing to address their arguments. In an interview on BBC Radio 4, Plimer spouts his usual outrageous falsehoods:

"We cannot stop carbon emissions because most of them come from volcanoes."

Not true -- even Martin Durkin's Swindle retracted this one.

And when the interviewer brought up Michael Ashley's devastating review of Heaven and Earth, we got this:

Plimer: "When you look at my critics -- they are people who are rent seekers. They have everything to gain by continuing the process of frightening people witless, by following the party line, ..."

Interviewer: "Do you say that they are deliberately fraudulent?"

Plimer: "Well I'm saying that they are taking advantage of the current situation. Now that's understandable. In previous times people have got wonderful research grants in a war against cancer and they achieved a lot of money for that. Now we have a war against climate change and there is huge number of people out there that have their careers staked on it and are beneficiaries from this process. And Michael Ashley is one of those."

Actually, Ashley is an astronomer and his career is not staked on climate change research at all. It is symptomatic of Plimer's approach that he didn't bother to check this and just made things up.

And notice how Plimer is now sounding like a cancer quack. Compare:

There was a woman whose daughter was in the advanced stages of brain cancer. She asked her oncologist if it was okay to give her daughter a superfood called blue green algae. Her doctor told her that it was no problem, that in fact a number of his patients had used that supplement with success in fighting cancer.

Naturally she wondered why he didn't tell her about this product a year before when they came to him.

Unfortunately, he couldn't tell her about this or any "natural or alternative health therapies" and stay employed. Insurance regulations would preclude such suggestions. And he could get into administrative trouble by recommending natural, non-drug treatments for cancer.

His advice is controlled by a large medical industry that makes mega money off expensive cancer fighting drugs and treatments. An industry that doesn't look favorably on natural supplements or other cancer treatments as they cannot patent them to make high profits.

Also of interest to Plimerologists Andrew Adam's report of Plimer's undebate:

Ok, I'm back and it was a thoroughly depressing evening. As has been pointed out, although it was billed as a "debate" Plimer was the only speaker - of course Monbiot famously, and understandably, pulled out but surely they had plenty of time to find someone else. What's more, the audience was overwhelmingly favourable to Plimer, ok probably unsurprising given it was organised by the Spectator, but to an extent which was pretty shocking even so. You might have thought that given the above it was incumbent on Neill to ask Plimer some searching questions himself. He did raise a couple of points but accepted Plimer's answers even though they were disingenuous to say the least. It also took him a long time to realise that maybe he needed to seek out the opinions of those who disagreed with Plimer, and even then some people who put their hands up and were chosen actually supported Plimer. I had my hand up all evening and was finally called right at the end but probably due to my bad temper by that time and being hurried through lack of time didn't make my point as coherently as I would have liked. There was only one other person who actually seriously challenged Plimer all evening. OK, I suppose I shouldn't have known what to expect to a large extent but even so, I didn't think it would be that bad.
Anyway, I will be writing a more detailed account for my blog, probably over the weekend, so I'll post a link in case anyone wants to know more.

More like this

Crank magnetism is the tendency of someone attracted to one crank idea to be attracted to more. Ian Plimer, already notable for his acceptance of the iron Sun theory and the volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans theory has now been revealed as believing (like Christopher Booker) that white asbestos…
Via BigCityLib (whose post title I stole), the story of Richard Tol's approach to science: For the 2008 project, Tol co-wrote a paper along with Gary Yohe of Wesleyan University and two researchers from the Electric Power Research Institute, a US trade association. The two climate change proposals…
A recurring topic on this blog involves my discussion of stories about children with cancer whose parents refuse chemotherapy, thus endangering the children's lives. These stories usually take this general form: The child is diagnosed with a deadly, but treatable cancer that has a high probability…
About a month and half ago, we learned that über-quack Hulda Clark, the woman who said that she had the Cure for All Cancers, had died on September 3, 2009. I was criticized for entitling my post Requiem for a Quack, but, given how Clark's quackery had contributed to the suffering and deaths of…

"of course Monbiot famously, and understandably, pulled out"....
Yep a real famous 'trier' is your Mr Monbiot. But sounds like he was aptly represented by the bad tempered and less than coherent alarmist Adams.

The saddest thing is that in none of the transcripts of Plimer interviews I've read has anyone called him on his downright stupid position on CO2 and volcanoes, or any of his other completely wrong claims. For the most part what he says is accepted uncritically, which is just depressing because to the layman it makes it look like he's correct.

The person who came closest to exposing him in interview was Tony Jones: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/04/plimer_does_the_gish_gallop.php

"TONY JONES: Let's look at the evidence from this Hadley centre, the data for global mean temperatures. You've acknowledged they're reliable, they say 1998 is the hottest year on record, 2005 the second hottest year on record, the third hottest is 2003, the fourth 2002, the fifth hottest 2004, the sixth 2006.

Now, if these figures are right, isn't it reasonable to state that global temperatures remained on a remarkably high plateau rather than cooling, as you're suggesting?

IAN PLIMER: No, in the 1930s, it was much hotter. We had from 1920 to 1940 far less arctic sea ice than now, much, much warmer temperatures.

TONY JONES: But not according to the Hadley centre...

[some chat about La Nina, Jones making good points about how long you need for 'climate' to become meaningful]

...TONY JONES: And you claim that NASA now states the four top years of high temperatures are in fact the 1930s.

IAN PLIMER: That was in 1930, there was a date in the 1920s, and one in the 1940s.

TONY JONES: OK, you mean the hottest global temperatures were in that period.

IAN PLIMER: No, the hottest US temperatures, not the hottest global temperatures. They occur in mid-latitude deserts. They don't occur in areas such as the US, which is not mid-latitude desert."

Plimer apparently can't distinguish between global and regional temperature. Nor can he distinguish between absolute temperature and temperature anomalues. Despite trying, Jones can't persue it far enough to make the audience realise that Plimer really doesn't have a clue because Plimer keeps trying to change the subject.

There's also this:

"IAN PLIMER: I'm not. I'm arguing that when you look at the history of the planet - when you look at the history of the planet, climate is always changing. Now, you're pushing these points very hard, Tony. Now, if I embrace your party line...

TONY JONES: It's not a party line.

IAN PLIMER: Are you going to respect me in the morning, when I embrace your party line?"

Did he really say that? At least he's got a sense of humour!

Lank, any sensible sceptic who has been following developments since H&E was released will be putting as much distance between themselves and Plimer as possible.

Deniers still love 'im though, oh yes they do.

You're letting Plimer down, Lank. You forgot to point out that volcanoes emit more CO2 than fossil fuel burning.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 12 Nov 2009 #permalink

Chris O'Neil - I suppose that you know exactly how much CO2 the many thousands of active unexplored undersea volcanoes emit into seawater. I'm sure you will give us your very qualified opinion.

I suppose that you know exactly how much CO2 the many thousands of active unexplored undersea volcanoes emit into seawater. I'm sure you will give us your very qualified opinion.

The clear implication being that we just don't know how much volcanogenic CO2 is being produced. Okay. But if we don't know, then how can Plimer claim without any doubt that volcanogenic CO2 is responsible?

I'm sure you will give your opinion.

Yep Lank, and each one of them has increased its CO2 output just at human output was ramping up. Remarkable coincidence. Occam's razor and all that.

Beyond simple common sense, there is of course isotopic analysis that says it's us what done it. Not to mention that you'd think the US Geological Survey would know what they're talking about: http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/2007/07_02_15.html

Feel free to dismiss that evidence out of hand if you wish though. It wont make you right.

I'm starting to wonder if Monbiot's failing in the issue of debating Plimer was not so much in putting a condition on the debate and giving Plimer an out, but in not saying from the outset that it would be inappropriate for him as a journalist to debate a geologist, and would Plimer instead consider debating a scientist of Monbiot's choosing on the matter of climate change?

In this way, Monbiot could have said to Plimer, "If I organise a debate between you and [Hansen, Schmidt, Solomon, Brooks (very easy to do!), any number of others] and arrange for international coverage, will you accept? If not, why not?"

He could have simply kept offering names to Plimer until Plimer said yes, and then he would either have Plimer facing a growing list of his own refusals, or a pre-eminient scientist in climatology who wouldn't let Plimer's howlers pass as if they actually had any substance.

I'm sure that Monbiot could have persuaded some of the heavy guns to offer their expert opinions as a contrast to Plimer's own ideology... I would have loved to see Plimer have to refuse, with whatever lame excuse that he could muster, when confronted with any such offers.

Is it too late for Monbiot to challenge Plimer in this way?

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 12 Nov 2009 #permalink

Plimer must know what he is talking about. If he didn't, Adelaide University wouldn't employ him as a Professor of Geology. Would they ? If Plimer didn't know what he was talking about, Adelaide University would object to him using his association with the University, to promote himself and his views. Wouldn't they ?

By Richard McGuire (not verified) on 12 Nov 2009 #permalink

Hey Chris - why don't you tell us how many active unexplored volcanoes there are and how much CO2 they put out? If you don't know and cant find anyone that does then why regard them as insignificant. Only a tiny percentage of the many undersea active volcanoes have been sampled.

Probably too late Bernard, but why not suggest it to Monbiot or directly to any scientists of your choosing anyway? Throw in some of the crowing comments at the Independent/Spectator as proof that people are actually paying attention to and even lauding Plimer's work.

Quick question Lank, please answer. If volcanoes are the cause of the recent rise in CO2,

a) why is there no hint of anything similar happening in the ice core record?

b) why have undersea volcanoes woken up since the industrial revolution?

c) why does isotopic analysis show the increase to be organic (i.e. burnt fossil fuels), not volcanic, in origin?

Re #6.

I think the USGS would have a pretty good idea of all that. They suggest that volcanic CO2 emissions are less than 1 percent of anthropogenic emissions.

http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/2007/07_02_15.html

For the unknown undersea volcanoes to make up all that extra CO2, there would have to be a hell of a lot of them. And they would have had to have been very active to make up more than one hundred times the CO2 emissions of the known volcanoes. Then you would need to take off the cooling effect from the sulfur aerosols.

http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/s02aerosols.php

In a nutshell, Plimer has no idea.

Jimmy N@17 said:

Then you would need to take off the cooling effect from the sulfur aerosols/blockquote>

Not to mention the measurable impact on seawater composition associated with these releases.

By Fran Barlow (not verified) on 12 Nov 2009 #permalink

Let's leave the scientists out of the debate. Picture two journalists, both strident in their particular beliefs, confronting each other but restrained by a moderator.

With a mass viewing audience of millions - Monbiot versus Bolt will make the science more understandable to the person in the street.

Another reason we know the CO2 isn't coming from volcanoes is because atmospheric oxygen is decreasing. i.e. from combustion.

Gaz - from your link...'The changes in global CO2 concentration during the past 600,000 years have mimicked the changes in global temperature. And, after all, volcanoes are awesome natural forces that release lots of carbon dioxide (CO2) right? Could volcanoes be a significant global-warming villain?"

Of course they could. CO2 emitted from underwater volcanoes passes through a water column often over 4km (the average ocean depth). The CO2 is absorbed into the colder deep ocean waters and only released with changes of water temperature/pressure. To suggest that it is released directly into the atmosphere is crazy. As global temperatures rise, and surface water temperature increases, this dissolved CO2 is gradually released into the atmosphere.

The process of this CO2 reaching the atmosphere may take hundreds of years hence the lag of increasing CO2 concentration after rising temperature as shown in the ice core records.

Lank,

I'll just point out one problem (of many), where is our anthropogenic burnt CO2 going?

By Mark.Byrne@grad.com (not verified) on 12 Nov 2009 #permalink

Ratel, [That article](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/plimer_calls_his_critics_rent-…) was very informative, I had no idea plimer was making hundreds of thousands from his mining interests.

Plimer was [asked on Stateline](http://www.abc.net.au/stateline/sa/content/2006/s2547227.htm) (local ABC TV):

>IAN HENSCHKE: Weâve heard people talk like this before and the green groups say, âWell, theyâre paid for by mining companies and coal lobbies and various other groups.â Are you being paid by anyone to say this?

[Plimers answer](http://www.abc.net.au/stateline/sa/content/2006/s2547227.htm) was either decietfully evasive or totally misleading.

By Mark Byrne (not verified) on 12 Nov 2009 #permalink

Ian Plimer's [answer](http://www.abc.net.au/stateline/sa/content/2006/s2547227.htm):
>I'm being paid by the University of Adelaide and the South Australian Government also pays some of my salary. As you would gather, my views are somewhat contrary to the South Australian Government's view. And I see, thatâs what a universityâs about. But the rabid environmentalists have grasped onto this as a new religion. And they have their holy book, which is the IPCC books, which they havenât read, but most religious people havenât read the holy books anyway. They have their guru or their leader, which is Gore, and they blindly follow this without reasoning, without questioning. The basis of science is to question, itâs to be skeptical, it is to abandon your favourite theory and try to actually build something thatâs a bit more coherent - and that they donât do. And I guess the most important point is, and the purpose of this book is to say that the science is not settled. Nature is very, very savage, drives very rapid climate changes, drives them very hard. We humans have adapted to live in this, and to make major structural charges to society while weâve got such division in science, I think is folly.

By Mark Byrne (not verified) on 12 Nov 2009 #permalink

Lank.

You've really shot yourself in the foot, matey.

As [Fran points out](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/plimer_calls_his_critics_rent-…), if there were any significant undersea sources of CO2 beyond the submarine volcanoes that we are able to account for, we'd observe their emissions' signatures in the chemistry of the oceans' waters.

And [cce noted](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/plimer_calls_his_critics_rent-…) that the depletion of atmospheric oxygen reflects the anthropogenic emissions of CO2.

[Stu reminded](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/plimer_calls_his_critics_rent-…) you that there is no ice record of magic undersea volcanoes, that there is a mysterious increase of atmospheric CO2 correlating with the beginning of industrialisation, and that the isotopic signature reflects that of fossil fuels, rather than of mantle sources.

Oo, and [Mark Byrne points out](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/plimer_calls_his_critics_rent-…) that the human emissions must be going somewhere too...

So, with all that in mind, can you please construct a succinct rebuttal of each of the above points, and explain why humans are not responsible for the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 over the several centuries?

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 12 Nov 2009 #permalink

Luke, whilst it is part of science to float hypotheses such as "CO2 is produced by sub-sea volcanoes", science also requires that evidence and data be produced to support the idea. This requires thinking about the consequences of such an event and looking for data to support that consequence. For example, emitting CO2 at the bottom of a water column would cause a pH rise from bottom to top (ie more acid where the dissolved CO2 is highest). Other evidence might be swarms of earthquakes related to magma movement into these volcanoes. Then sub-sea volcanoes can produce copious pumice at the surface. Then there is the carbon isotopic evidence as mantle CO2 has a quite different signature from CO2 produced by burning organic carbon. So lots of opportunities to research and present evidence for the hypothesis. But Plimer puts forward no evidence & no data which indicates that it is not a hypothesis but rather assertion. And an assertion repeated whilst ignoring calls for the evidence is pretty weird. It always strikes me that the game Plimer plays is following the path of one Joseph Goebbels who said "âIf you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." Don't be sucked into believing nonsense Luke.

In fairness to Plimer, the "other Ian" still has people attacking my review on Amazon ... still! Wishart makes Plimer look like a rocket scientist.

By Marion Delgado (not verified) on 12 Nov 2009 #permalink

Wishart has admitted to being only a journalist, we are talking apples and pears.

Picture two journalists, both strident in their particular beliefs, confronting each other but restrained by a moderator.

With a mass viewing audience of millions - Monbiot versus Bolt will make the science more understandable to the person in the street.

Great idea. I suggest Bolt himself as the moderator. His objectivity and fairness is known to all.

Bernard J:

Gavin Schmidt, for instance, has pretty much sworn off public debates, because they shed more heat than light. The one involving him, Richard Sommerville, Brenda Ekwurzel, Lindzen, the late Michael Crichton, and Phillip Stott a couple of years ago, for instance, really let Crichton shine, because he understood that he was able to say way more than could be debunked over the course of a debate.

As far as I know, one of the points of forensics training is being able to "win" with either side of a proposition. It's likely you'd have a hard time finding a climate-related scientist who can "win" a debate, or even one interested in one.

By Marion Delgado (not verified) on 12 Nov 2009 #permalink

A comment about Plimer, not really new, but I googled a partial transcript and it seems to have been missed by most.

From ABC Perth 27 February, 2009
http://www.abc.net.au/local/audio/2009/02/27/2503621.htm

@ 9.35

Plimer: '..,now there are very very large numbers of papers contrary to this popular view and they don't even get acknowledged in the IPCC reports. In this latest book of mine, Heaven and Earth, which is coming out in about six week's time, I have 2311 scientific references in that book which are contrary to the popular view. You cannot argue there are hundreds or thousands of scientific papers that support this view, because there are hundreds or thousands of papers that are contrary to that view. It is just that science is absolutely and totally ignored. That I find is a very dangerous comment'

A little off-topic, but it shows that Plimer did make the bogus claim that his references were scientific.

Note:
Ian Enting [July 24th, 2009 at 11.35] heard a different interview which apparently referred to '2311 peer-reviewed papers':
http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/04/23/ian-plimer-heaven-and-earth/

By ScaredAmoeba (not verified) on 12 Nov 2009 #permalink

Where's Lank?

Have you guys scared him off? I wanted to see his answers to the questions he has been asked here.

Is he MIA?

Lank might be MIA but the likes of Ian Plimer and Bob Carter aren't going anywhere. Not while they can tout their associations with Adelaide and James Cook University. This debate is about science right ? There is only one correct answer, not two or half a dozen. Imagine if Plimer were promoting a quack cure for cancer or that HIV doesn't cause AIDS or that smoking is actually good for your health. Do any of you think Adelaide University would sit passively on the sidelines. Joe citizen and gormless journalists are never likely to challenge a university professor. Should not the university who employs Plimer not be asking how their professor publishes a graph in Heaven and Earth that was deemed not credible enough to feature in the Great Global Warming Swindle ? Likewise with Plimers claims about volcanoes and CO2 emissions. Remember this is a debate about science not philosophy. The Lanks of this world would not exist were it not for the Plimers and Carters of this world and the universities that unwittingly lend credibility to their junk science.

By Richard McGuire (not verified) on 13 Nov 2009 #permalink

silkworm...

Very amusing, but I was thinking someone like Jonathan Holmes as a moderator.

Bernard J: I asked Monbiot, he got back to me very swiftly saying -

"Plimer has debated scientists (eg Barry Brooks in Australia), and uses the Gish Gallop to devastating effect. Just as Crichton did in debating Schmidt etc. Scientists are actually at a particular disadvantage, because they can't help responding to the scientific howlers people like Plimer make, which means that (because it takes 100 times longer to debunk the howler than to make it) the Plimers can keep landing punch after punch.

Best wishes, George"

Personally, I think: why not just cut everything else out and just nail him down to that one insane claim about volcanoes and CO2, as Stu suggests? Surely that's possible? If someone can't get something so basic right, why should they be trusted on anything else?

I feel a letter to the editor coming on...

Thanks for that last link, ScaredAmoeba. The most polite demolition I've ever seen. Plimer has no shame.

Personally, I think: why not just cut everything else out and just nail him down to that one insane claim about volcanoes and CO2, as Stu suggests? Surely that's possible?

i don t think that this would work. it is a massive disadvantage, when you are trying to be precise and correct and scientific, while the other side is simply inventing stuff.

let us not forget, that Plimer's first claim was, that ["One volcanic cough can do this in a day"](http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/08/13/do-you-believe-ian-plimer/). while you try to disprove this, he is already moving to subsea volcanoes and cosmic rays...

Marion and Dan.

Ah yes, the Gish Gallop. That is certainly a problem in this context.

Perhaps this then indicates that the problem isn't so much that the science can't be communicated, but that it can't be communicated in a random and ad hoc fashion where unsubstantiated drivel has the opportunity to pass without appropriate scrutiny.

Perhaps what is required is a more structured type of discussion, where each proponent is allowed to present a priori a summary of a restricted number of points that they believe encapsulates their argument. During a face-to-face involvement they should be required to defend their arguments with primary evidence and peer-reviewed work, and to respond to any rebuttals and only to rebuttals.

Heck, I've just realised that I'm starting to describe a trial in Western law! Is this what it would take to keep gallopers such as Plimer to refrain from obfuscation?! Surely not.

The problem is, the more I think of it the more I find myself imagining a scenario where something like a trial might occur...

I don't know... Do we need to have specific questions put to both proponents - such as, for example, "is there a greenhouse effect?", "is CO2 a greenhouse gas?", "are humans responsible for the increase in atmospheric CO2 over the last several centuries?", "is the mean global temperature increasing?", "who coined the term 'climate change', and why?" - with a structured response involving each proponent's best evidence? How should misinterpretations, whether unintended or deliberate, be addressesed - immediately, or by subsequent perusal?

It seems that now more than ever the divide between understanding and ignorance is apparent, and that the day-to-day workings of scientific understanding are too complex, or simply too ideologically confronting, for a large proportion of lay people. It is apparent also that scientific communication, as it is currently practised, is failing in its task in this matter, and that current non-scientific methods for communication are woefully inadequate for the task as well.

If the inconsistencies in the Denialists' ideologies are to be picked apart under the glaring light of scientific scrutiny once-and-for-all, for all of the world to understand, perhaps a new approach is required.

The travails of Darwinism and evolution in the face of (faith-based) ideology and ignorance of the science is probably the best prior example of how science has failed to communicate the simple realities of a discipline. Ironically, the judicial system was at times brought into this arena too - I can hardly believe that it's just gone four years already since the [Dover decision](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District)! - but the issue of global warming seems to require something else again.

That is, at least, if Gish galloping and other hit-and-run obfuscation techniques are to be removed from a serious consideration of the science.

The alternative seems to be to live in a state of semi-suspended animation, with a series of "Great Global Warming Swindles", "Great Global Warming Swindle Swindles" and so on continuing to confuse those who do not have the education to interpret the science themselves, until it's all just too late.

I suspect that future generations will not thank us for that: somehow "oops" just doesn't seem to cut it as an answer as to why we couldn't sort out our shit a little better.

On this I do not think that I, as one person, have a workable answer myself, although I hope that I can come up with something a little better than "oops" if and when I am called to account for my own efforts to educate. Whatever the final outcome for the world though, more and more I am firming in my belief that whatever we do, it will not have been enough.

It's been said many times on Deltoid and elsewhere, but I'll repeat it again: the Denialati do not need to be right; they do not even need to win. They simply need to confuse the process for a sufficient amount of time in their efforts to achieve their own short-term ideological ends, that the final result is beyond humanity to adequately address.

Without a profound shift in our willingness to face the facts and to deal with them, we will all end up losing.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 13 Nov 2009 #permalink

Where's Lank?

Have you guys scared him off?

He probably OD'd on that blue-green algae superfood ...

Bernard J: great bit of writing there! I agree on the difficulty of the problem, I'm equally unsure of solutions. Probably one of the only approaches is simply to write a lot, talk a lot, counter where possible. The UK has -

http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/pages/

- but they don't seem to be doing very much (anything?) on the climate science front. I may ask them why, given the gravity of the issue. (Though what you do about e.g. the Telegraph's science policy, I don't know.)

What sort of context would be good for working through answers to some of your questions? I'm in the UK - what could we do here?

The most disturbing angle is - e.g. from DeepClimate today:

http://deepclimate.org/2009/11/12/understanding-climate-fraser-institut…

Deniers claim to believe in the spirit of Galileo, as the above education programme says. Quite what climate scientists have in common with the 17th century Catholic Church, I don't know - but this appeal to skepticism worries me more than anything else. It sounds so damn reasonable - if one hasn't e.g. actually looked at the IPCC's approach to uncertainty.

Maybe the answer, when debating, is to bypass Gish Galloping altogether and skip to the basics: uncertainty goes two ways, these people only tell you about one. Trends are dead easy: today was warmer than yesterday, does that mean Winter's not coming? I still hope it's possible, using such a simple approach, to actually allow people to think for themselves - as the deniers *claim* they want - and to be able to easily spot bullsh*t when they see it. Most AGW anti-science is not difficult to see through for anyone with even a basic grasp of the issues.

Of course, perhaps after Copenhagen, things will calm down for a bit. Probably not though, eh?

Sorry, nother rant: attention has to be consistently drawn to the one-sidedness the denialosphere. Example: Monckton goes on and on about that supposed email to Deming: "we have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period". Google the phrase and there's about 150,000 results. I've glanced through about 200 of them and, of course, they're all using it as a 'smoking gun'.

Imagine the reverse: Gore says he received an email from an anonymous blogger saying "we have to get rid of the hockey stick." Someone suggests it was McIntyre - Gore merely responds, "you might think that - I couldn't possibly comment."

The denialosphere would go into meltdown. Where's the email! Give us proof! Lies! Slander! With the reverse, I've yet to find anyone talking about it who even wonders, 'is that true? If so, what did the rest of the email say? Who was is really from?'

This kind of thing clearly illustrates the instinctive, deep political bias in the denialosphere. Maybe political is the wrong word - a deepseated refusal to countenance the idea that AGW is anything but a "MASSIVE LIE."

We can't hope to fight that level of internet insanity, I suppose. But this sort of thing helps illustrate the dynamic behind denial and the role the web plays.

The quickest and easiest thing to do is to point out the most glaring error the denier is making during the question & answer session. While it won't change the minds of the true believers who will start trying to rationalize the error, but it will make the undecided start to question what is being said.

Deniers can't do the Gish Gallop if they don't have a leg to stand on.

By Berbalang (not verified) on 13 Nov 2009 #permalink

I think there's something to be said for bringing a flipshart and noting down all the arguments Plimer makes. Then, taking the time to explain why the scattershot rhetorical technique is so dishonest and so weighted against a proper scientific response (that will take too long and doubtless bore the pants off everyone there - all Plimer needs to do is sow dissent, not actually prove anything *right*). Lead off with an accessible introduction to the indisputable basic physics of CO2-induced warming - don't start off on the back foot and allow Plimer to set the agenda, start with some very very basic and experimentally verified points, then point out which of Plimer's many points are either in direct contravention with the basic physics or are logically inconsistent/contradictory. Then pick one or two big ones (perhaps with audience participation choosing which are the most convincing) and demolishing them, all the while making sure it is clear that *none* of his arguments have any weight.

Heh. This is easy from an armchair...

CO2 can only absorb a limited amount of infra-red rays. Like trying to dissolve sugar in water, you get saturation after 200 ppmv (parts per million by volume, in case you are not scientists.)

We are at 385ppmv at the moment, and rising. If CO2 went to 500ppm there would be very little increase in temperature caused by CO2.

This is basic physics. CO2 cannot cause runaway warming. The idea was first put about by Baroness Thatcher in order to defeat the miners. You are still falling for it.

By mariwarcwm (not verified) on 13 Nov 2009 #permalink

By the time I could check out Heaven and Earth from my library, i was already sick of plimer. it's just the great global warming swindle in print form - and plimer did a worse job than durkin, astonishingly.

By Marion Delgado (not verified) on 13 Nov 2009 #permalink

mariwarcwm -

You know, you are completely correct and just came up with something that all the atmospheric scientists in the world over the past 50 years had overlooked.

As a prize, you can be first to step out of the capsule for the first manned mission to Venus. After all, solar radiation on venus is - thanks to the highly reflective clouds - the same as on Earth, so the temperature should be the same. Off you go..

By Andrew Dodds (not verified) on 13 Nov 2009 #permalink

Tim

When is my ban going to end?

It is very sad just to read the posts but not reply, especially when my camp is attacked without any defender.

Cheers

*[Your ban isn't ending any time soon. I'm sorry that reading the posts without replying saddens you, but I've found your replies to be worthless and to detract from the discussion. Why not find somewhere else to comment? Tim]*

When is my ban going to end?

Someone doesn't understand the concept of being banned ...

Seems like mariwarcwm just stumbled across Beer's law for the first time; I saw him just make the same statement elsewhere, also on a completely unrelated thread.

By carrot eater (not verified) on 13 Nov 2009 #permalink

@Carrot eater: I think mariwarcwm has just had Beer's law in his freshman chemistry class. I'm a bit surprised nobody called Lank out on his attempt to include the "prove it does not exist!"-argument...

Should not the university who employs Plimer not be asking how their professor publishes a graph in Heaven and Earth that was deemed not credible enough to feature in the Great Global Warming Swindle ?

Yes, Plimer can get away with a lot more than Durkin because of Plimer's association with the university. To put a different slant on an old saying, universities are the last refuge of a scoundrel.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 13 Nov 2009 #permalink

> Monbiot famously, and understandably, pulled out...

Monbiot did not "pull out". His conditions for participating were not met.

Note that the BBC are doing a bit of fire-fighting over giving Plimer air time - and hiding behind the totally false premise that they need to represent "both sides of the argument".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2009/11/a_balanced_approach_to_cl…

trollpoints for the week:

CO2 can only absorb a limited amount of infra-red rays

http://jjap.ipap.jp/link?JJAP/47/325/
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2007/07/temperature-anonymice-gave-eli-new.h…

Like trying to dissolve sugar in water, you get saturation after 200 ppmv (parts per million by volume, in case you are not scientists.):

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/simple.htm#L_0141

We are at 385ppmv at the moment, and rising. If CO2 went to 500ppm there would be very little increase in temperature caused by CO2.

http://www.desmogblog.com/skeptics-handbook-carbon-dioxide-climate-chan…

This is basic physics. CO2 cannot cause runaway warming.

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/venus/greenhouse.html

The idea was first put about by Baroness Thatcher in order to defeat the miners. You are still falling for it.

http://www.innovations-report.de/html/berichte/geowissenschaften/berich…

By Marion Delgado (not verified) on 13 Nov 2009 #permalink

Back to the topic. Everyone knows big volcanic eruptions cause global cooling, because of blanketing, so CO2 is fairly irrelevant in the equation. Particularly as CO2 does not trap in heat.

Bernard, you wrote: "It's been said many times on Deltoid and elsewhere, but I'll repeat it again: the Denialati do not need to be right; they do not even need to win. They simply need to confuse the process for a sufficient amount of time in their efforts to achieve their own short-term ideological ends, that the final result is beyond humanity to adequately address."

And so, when necessary (keeping in mind Gavin S.'s advice), we need to do a reverse Gish Gallop. First, simply emphatically respond "Wrong!" every time a bogus claim is made. I saw David Karoly take down Bob Carter quite effectively with this tactic. This helps keep things get too confused. And then establish epistemological supremacy: who are you willing to believe, all other things being equal, when you need open heart surgery: the up-to-date heart surgeon or the podiatrist who, by the way, hasn't published or practiced in years. Most important is the reverse GG: go on the offense, launching an unrelenting, rapid fire assault on all the claims made by the denier. Refuse to stop unless the denier wants to focus on a specific point, and even then keep demolishing that specific point in as many ways as possible, as quickly as possible. The point is "no more mr. nice guy" but to do it in as charming a fashion as possible (which Karoly did by smiling broadly at the audience every time he asserted, loudly, "Wrong!"). If others claim that this is an example of contrarian views being ignored, marginalized, or shut out, simply laugh and respond that (a) they have plenty of opportunities, (b) the scientific literature and process welcomes and displays plenty of dissent, and (c) the deniers marginalize themselves by all their silly tactics, and it is they, not the scientists, who have adopted a metaphysical, religious approach to climate change.

The only way you could have a half-decent debate is with a properly trained debating speaker-of-the-house moderating things. Otherwise, yeah, Gavin has a good point. Avoid debates.

El Gordo,

What's blanketing?

Anyway, Plimer's comment was on the source of CO2, not on the source of climate change. Volcanoes are demonstrably not the cause of the recent rise in CO2 concentration. The upside here is that this claim does not necessarily include climate change at all - it's simply 'where does the gas come from?'.

Plimer has been shown to be wrong on this. You definitely haven't shown him to be right.

Tim:

I was replying to a comment, and my only contribution was to put debunking URL links after each quoted line. Therefore, I assume, I was put in moderation, since spammers post only links. Did I mess up by not putting nofollow or something? Or is it just a bad idea to post links-only comments?

By Marion Delgado (not verified) on 13 Nov 2009 #permalink

> Particularly as CO2 does not trap in heat.

Posted by: el gordo | November 13, 2009 6:26 PM

Enough with the stupid, OK?

By luminous beauty (not verified) on 13 Nov 2009 #permalink

Thanks, Stu @ 63.

Hey guys, I'd appreciate some support for my review of Heaven and Earth on Amazon... the votes are going well against me...

el gordo:

Particularly as CO2 does not trap in heat.

so CO2 is fairly irrelevant in the equation.

That's why Plimer keeps telling us most CO2 emissions come from volcanoes.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 13 Nov 2009 #permalink

luminous beauty:

Enough with the stupid, OK?

Careful, don't be offensive.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 13 Nov 2009 #permalink

Rent-seeker is a Randite legacy insult. Just as capitalists stole the Landlord's Game from a Georgean economist woman, assigned it to an intellectual-property-seeking man, and turned the point of it inside out as a (pro-)Monopoly® game, early discussions on the inequity of actual rents - that is, using differential access to land and resources, backed up by state power, as a source of income - were inverted to claim that every attempt to keep commercial enterprises from harming people or defrauding them or degrading the commons was a form of deriving profit from "rents" - meaning regulations, laws or tariffs. The Austrians - as usual - were gaga for the concept.

Surprisingly, none of them ever had the intellectual integrity to denounce, say, the FCC in the United States going around and enforcing monopoly access to radio frequencies (instead of letting the rough and tumble of the market work itself out) with government violence and threats of confiscature and imprisonment.

It's the Humpty-Dumpty quality of the meaning of the term rent-seeker that endeared it to the Randites, since playing definitional games was and is their bread and butter.

By Marion Delgado (not verified) on 13 Nov 2009 #permalink

Unsuccessful in denying global warming, the denialists have reimaged themselves, and are now denying the greenhouse effect. They are trying to drag everyone back to the nineteenth century.

Plimer's BBC spot makes for extraordinary listening. The relentless errors and the casting of himself as a catalyst of an apparently suppressed "debate",the slander of Michael Ashley and the pomposity.... The conviction that he and his fellow geologists are carrying the rest of us is pretty stomach-turning. He's certainly extracting his rent from this issue.

Rent-seeker is a Randite legacy insult.

I wonder if another insult will be "elitist".

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 13 Nov 2009 #permalink

I will not confuse photosynthesis with the greenhouse effect.

I will not confuse photosynthesis with the greenhouse effect.

I will not confuse photosynthesis with the greenhouse effect.

I will not ...

Marion, if you put more than three links in a comment, it goes into moderation.

I've been off the net for a day, so I've only just cleaned up the Girma outbreak.

Luminous beauty: great experiment link. Any more like that? I'm trying to compile anything that shows you can test aspects of climate theory yourself. Knowing how to place results, errors and non-results in their correct context - a pithy guide on this would be amazing (& would show why eg watts picking only stories from one end of the tail and shouting "bombshell!" is bad science.

>"...In previous times people have got wonderful research grants in a war against cancer and they achieved a lot of money for that..."

Interesting, cancer is real.
So is global warming.

A strange comparison to make. Is that a foot I see in his mouth?

There are three possible explanations for Plimer's behaviour. Either 1) he is evil, and wants to maximise the impact of climate change for some nasty ulterior motive such as personal aggrandisement, or 2) as per 1), only operating out of some altruistic ulterior motive or 3) he is a complete fool, unable to recognise evidence even when forced upon him. The more I read and hear of the man, the more I'm moving toward 1). Although, as the multi-decade existence of Stalinism as a governance model shows, there isn't necessarily much to differentiate 1) from 2).

Seems none of you here are scientists, let alone familiar with the rigours demanded by the scientific method.

While not idiot savants, to whom we might label Andrew Glickson as, morons seem more accurate a term.

None of you would pass Physics 101, Chem 101, let alone Geol 101.

By Louis Hissink (not verified) on 13 Nov 2009 #permalink

I wonder if, for people like Plimer, having wealth is the best form of insurance if he turns out to be wrong. Wealth is the best form of 'adaptation' for climate change and selling books and lectures is his best and surest way to acquire that wealth.
Having begun with strong disbelief in climate change there is no personal incentive to actually get seriously educated on the real scientific basis for AGW; from that starting point all can be framed as debate that's about perceptions, beliefs and politics and nothing to do with the physical reality of what's happening to our climate.
I don't know about one on one debates - superior debating skills seem essential prerequisites there - but in the written media I've suggested, and continue to suggest, that credentialed scientists in particular write in response to every bit of denialist BS that gets published. Every institution that has climate and climate change as it's primary subject and perhaps even more so, those that work in related fields, that are intrinsic to climate science but don't work directly - ie paid for doing climate research - should make it part of their routine to write corrections and responses to articles in the mainstream media - and do so as officially as possible.
So where are the Volcanologists and seismologists when Plimer says it's all volcanic CO2? Where are the chemists and physicists who study atmospheric gases, or marine chemistry or whatever? They ought to be flooding the letterboxes with rebuttals. If they can't debate well they ought to at least be able to write. The future of our planet is at stake and making such an effort looks essential.

By Ken Fabos (not verified) on 13 Nov 2009 #permalink

Shorter Louis Hissink:

If you are dumber than me you are a moron, if you are smarter than me you are an idiot savant. Either way, I passed Geology and that makes me tops: naanaa na naanaa!

By Janet Akerman (not verified) on 14 Nov 2009 #permalink

Another shorter Louis Hissink:

When Plimer lies about his sources, fails to answer simple questions about his book, falsely accuses other of being rent seekers while being evasive with the public about his mining interest, it is all OK.

I will demonstrate why this is OK for Plimer, here goes:

>If you are dumber than me you are a moron, if you are smarter than me you are an idiot savant. Either way, I passed Geology and that makes me tops. And Plimer is a geologist which makes him tops, and the IPCC ignore all the science.

By Janet Akerman (not verified) on 14 Nov 2009 #permalink

That would be Louis, "Nobody studied the sky before the telescope was invented", Hissink would it?

Perhaps,Louis,Plimer's been broken by 'the rigours demanded by the scientific method',which would explain his sloppy useless book...you'd be with Ian in feeling an oblivious world doesn't deserve the selfless nobility and foresight of the geologist and miner,eh?

That would be Louis, "I'm not particularly convinced by evolution", Hissink would it?

Dave:

Or, Louis "global warming is Margaret Thatcher's plot to kill the coal mines" Hissink. Or Louis "global warming is false because the Bible blah blah blah" Hissink.

But saying that will be too ad hominem. The proper scientific way to rebut Hissink is to do what he does, i.e. simply call him an idiot. QED!

That would also be the [Louis Hissink](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/12/650_international_scientists_e…) of the [electric universe](http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/003062.html) bent.

When Hissink says:

None of you would pass Physics 101, Chem 101, let alone Geol 101.

one should immediately turn the gain of one's irony-o-meter down to zero lest its needle twist itself into a pretzel attempting to register the content of Hissink's comments...

For those new to Hissink, follow the links above - enough said.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 14 Nov 2009 #permalink

The demise of the Marohasy blog sees Louis looking for fresh pastures on which to deposit his partly-digested ruminations.

67 silkworm,

"now denying the greenhouse effect"? Some of them have always done that. Some have invented a whole Nu Fizix to go along with it. The Marohasy Bog has been a good place for that stuff but Jen's off wandering and it's all gone quiet.

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 14 Nov 2009 #permalink

69 Chris,

You're too late ;) Already in use. Take the old "ivory tower", add some NWO and "political" research grants and there you have it.

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 14 Nov 2009 #permalink

92 Dan,

(Devil's Advocate) But that's 100% CO2! Nothing like the minute 0.038% in the real atmosphere!

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 14 Nov 2009 #permalink

74 HAL9000,

You missed "highly delusional", but when books can be sold, sheer avarice must play a part too.

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 14 Nov 2009 #permalink

Dan #49

I followed your Monbiot link (thanks) and in turn the one there to that BBC Today with Justin Webb. I got as far as Plimer saying, '...CO2 is plant food' and realised from whom I had heard this script before, yes our ol' friend Christopher Walter (aka Monckton of Brenchley). At that point I lost interest as I have seen all to clearly how well received the sayings of these goons has been received in certain North American quarters where cognitive dissonance appears to be rampant.

Michael #85
Looks like Hissink has passed for entry into

Room 101.

[BBC Room 101](http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A519482)

From # 41

"I've been off the net for a day, so I've only just cleaned up the *Girma outbreak*"

Thats wonderful.

How about we refer to any comedy lines/trolling etc from deniers et al such as Louis's recent pre christmas gifts as.... "Girma Outbreaks". If only to make me laugh.

88 zoot,

Some choice examples.

But the debate isnât about science but politics and the use of scientism to force us into an eco-totalitarian socialist society.

What is of real concern is the inability of the conservative commentators to recognise the deft hand of the Fabian political movement behind the Climate Change Scare â and that is the whole point of the Fabian deception â to gull us into accepting their totalitarian utopia dressed up as a cllimate emergency and hiding their real intentions among the small print as recently discovered in the US.

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 14 Nov 2009 #permalink

41 Jeremy,

But why does Girma want to post here? To help us poor deluded souls out of our ignorance?

Surely there's lots of other places where his statistical...err...techniques will be appreciated? Surely he doesn't need one of use to tell him about them?

Does anyone know if "Girma" has a soft "G"? If so, we could have The Girma Theory of whatever, like the Germ Theory of Disease.

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 14 Nov 2009 #permalink

So now it is the Fabians that are out to get us all? That is one of the most unlikely conspiracy theories I've heard in a long time.

Would that be Fabians armed with guns or with dinner parties coupled with rat-a-tat repartee?

Though I have been told that at Sydney Fabian Society meetings when Paul Keating turns up things can get loud.

The Fabians appear to be Labor in green wrap, which is perfectly natural, but in reality I believe there is division over global warming.

I am waiting for the day when Plimer reveals that this has been all a big hoax to see how ridiculous he could make his arguments and still get "AGW skeptics" to tout his book.

Of course, I am also still waiting for Gerlich and Tscheuschner to reveal that their paper was all a hoax to see what nonsense they could get published in an actual physics journal!

By Joel Shore (not verified) on 14 Nov 2009 #permalink

Jeremy C

Perhaps your Fabian friends could let us know if Keating is with the government on the CPRS? My search has turned up a blank.

Tim:

Thanks for the heads-up. More than three is easy to remember. I often tell people, don't reply on your own, link to the already available response. I should add, but don't look like a link spammer.

By Marion Delgado (not verified) on 14 Nov 2009 #permalink

Fabian was good at retreating in a punishing way. Maybe the Fabian Socialists are taking over the world by losing, being jailed, giving up, surrendering, and leaving!

Death by a 1000 parthian shots.

By Marion Delgado (not verified) on 14 Nov 2009 #permalink

What is of real concern is the inability of the conservative commentators to recognise the deft hand of the Fabian political movement behind the Climate Change Scare â and that is the whole point of the Fabian deception â to gull us into accepting their totalitarian utopia dressed up as a cllimate emergency and hiding their real intentions among the small print as recently discovered in the US.

Seriously delusional. To the point where it is not even slightly funny.

WotWot,

Science is not necessary when one can delve into the fantasy of imagination.

By Janet Akerman (not verified) on 14 Nov 2009 #permalink

So was Margaret Thatcher actually in cahoots with the Fabians to concoct the Global Warmist Scare? Are the Evil Reptiles involved too?

The Fabian connection cannot be taken seriously, but on a more serious note, according to a recent poll over 50% of UK's citizens don't accept AGW.

Climate Change Secretary Ed Miliband has responded by saying efforts were being made to convince people.

El Gordo #105

The Fabians cannot be taken seriously?

So you believe their policies then.

By Louis Hissink (not verified) on 14 Nov 2009 #permalink

Wotwot re:#102

So it's so serious it has to be true?

And better do some homework on the Fabians, dissembling is their MO as frequently stated publicly,

By Louis Hissink (not verified) on 14 Nov 2009 #permalink

Tim

"Ian Plimer responds to criticism with by calling his critics names and failing to address their arguments. In an interview on BBC Radio 4, Plimer spouts his usual outrageous falsehoods:

"We cannot stop carbon emissions because most of them come from volcanoes."

Not true -- even Martin Durkin's Swindle retracted this one."

Supported by no evidence.

By Louis Hissink (not verified) on 14 Nov 2009 #permalink

#107

Tall Idiot, I don't believe in any conspiracy theory, only in the difficult to refute stupidity of progressive thinking.

By Louis Hissink (not verified) on 14 Nov 2009 #permalink

Shoter Louis Hissink:

The Fabians and Margaret Thatcher were/are involved in a massive plot to do bad stuff to the world by promoting Global Warmism. No, this is not a conspiracy theory. Hey, did I touch a raw nerve? You are stupid! Why don't you focus on the evidence and science already?

So it's so serious it has to be true?

It is true that

1) you have serious delusions about your capacity to understand the world, and

2) there is nothing remotely amusing about that.

#112

Janet Akerman,

Interesting statement - but not a question, so no response is needed. Oh Yes I noted the "links" but, precious, I am not doing your work for you, so you need to do it yourself.

By Louis Hissink (not verified) on 15 Nov 2009 #permalink

Very revealing Louis, thank for the confirmation.

Now keep running away from the science, and don't forget to comeback when you want to make up more BS so we can show you your errors again.

;)

By Janet Akerman (not verified) on 15 Nov 2009 #permalink

Supported by no evidence.

what is not supported by evidence? the claim that Durkin revised his horrible "swindle" film? evidence can be found [here.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle):

Influence of carbon dioxide on climate change. The film states that carbon dioxide comprises only a very minuscule amount - just 0.054% of the Earth's atmosphere. According to the film, human activity contributes much less than 1% of that, while volcanoes produce significantly more CO2 per year than humans, while plants and animals produce 150 gigatons of CO2 each year. Dying leaves produce even more CO2, and the oceans are "the biggest source of CO2 by far." Human activity produces a mere 6.5 gigatons of CO2 each year. The film concludes that man-made CO2 emissions alone cannot be causing global warming. (Durkin subsequently acknowledged that the claim about volcanic CO2 emissions was wrong, and removed the claim from later versions.[19]))

the Plimer claim was taken apart by [tamino](http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/08/13/do-you-believe-ian-plimer/)

Plimer is wrong. volcanoes are NOT the source of the additional CO2 in our atmosphere. FACT!

Nice try sod, but this is Louis Hissink you're dealing with. You might be quoting facts as we know them in our universe, but in the parallel space-time continuum our hero occupies, facts are what he says are facts, no more and no less.

Louis, the fact that Swindle retracted the claim is fairly well known, and exceptionally easy to google.

If you are going to demand that Tim or his commenters take the extra time to provide evidence for such claims like that (which of course has turned out to be true; Tim has integrity), i.e. commonly known or easily googled ones, then soon no-one is going to bother to take the time, and you'll just get people going

'Shorter Louis Hissink: I'll believe anything so long as it's not the mainstream scientific view, particularly if it's peddled by a discredited geologist or a polemic unscientific film.'

98 Joel,

Ah, but what if *all* the "sceptics" are really socks just seeing how far they can go without being rumbled?

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 15 Nov 2009 #permalink

104 bi,

Of course! [David Icke](http://www.davidicke.com/index.php/) wouldn't lie to us, would he?
For those who don't know of Icke, I suggest not attempting to eat or drink when reading his stuff.

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 15 Nov 2009 #permalink

109 Louis,

You deny that one of Plimer's claims is so obviously false that it was removed even from TGGWS? Actually, there's another, the doctored "NASA" graph.

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 15 Nov 2009 #permalink

Tim

"Ian Plimer responds to criticism with by calling his critics names and failing to address their arguments. In an interview on BBC Radio 4, Plimer spouts his usual outrageous falsehoods:

"We cannot stop carbon emissions because most of them come from volcanoes."

Not true -- even Martin Durkin's Swindle retracted this one."

Supported by no evidence.

Let me Google that for you Louis: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=co2+volcanoes

(Big thanks to [Dan Olner](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/global_warming_skeptics_score.p…) on the "Own Goal" thread)

116 sod,

Even without that, we know it to be false. We know how much hydrocarbon we burn and we therefore know how much CO2 is produced. We know that the addition to the atmosphere is only about 1/2 of that so that other 1/2 is being absorbed by the oceans and biosphere. We also know from isotopic analysis how much CO2 is "ours".

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 15 Nov 2009 #permalink

116 sod,

We also see no spikes in the CO2 record (Keeling Curve) when known volcanoes such as Pinatubo erupt.

(Oh, I forgot, the CO2 record is just part of the Great Global Warming Conspiracy!)

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 15 Nov 2009 #permalink

Tim,

At his blog Crazy World, Louis is saying his posts here are being blocked. Is this a deliberate action or has he simply triggered a spam filter? Does he know that only 3 URLs per message are allowed?

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 15 Nov 2009 #permalink

Sounds like spam filter, it's unlike Tim to ban anyone. Except Girma, of course, for being too long winded and insulting the Gaia faith.

There is no global warming conspiracy, it is perfectly natural for well intentioned individuals to get the science wrong.

Not that it matters now, APEC has poured cold water on Copenhagen, which leaves our dear leader standing in it. Comrade Penny Wong may survive, but Malcolm Stumble ALP no longer has the luxury of a conscience vote.

Another science free comment by the Pope el gordo, whose faith is that climate science will someday be proved wrong, and who "knows" with equal faith that we are in a period of dangerous cooling

By Janet Akerman (not verified) on 15 Nov 2009 #permalink

128 Tim,

Thanks. That means we are at liberty to respond here to his comments, both here and at Crazy World (ha!).

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 15 Nov 2009 #permalink

126 El Gordo,

Do you have any idea how many messages Dr Orssengo was allowed to post here? You won't find such tolerance in many blogs.

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 15 Nov 2009 #permalink

Louis seems to be telling porkies in an attempt to save face.

By Janet Akerman (not verified) on 15 Nov 2009 #permalink

131 Janet,

(Apologies to Tim if wholesale quoting is out of line but Louis is not allowing comments

Comments
Louis Hissink has turned off comments on this page.

)

It's late here so ladies first.

November 15
Tim Lambert comments
Seems I have been blocked by Lambertâs moderating policies â responding to posts in an efficient manner causes a censoring action to occur.

Câest ca.

8:10 PM | Permalink | Blog it | Climate

The Monbiot-Plimer Debate

Quadrant Online has posted up some opinion pieces on the Plimer-Monbiot non-debate and more linked at the front page.

What is even more interesting are the comments made by the Tim Lambert Trolls to a comment I put there recently â the âPlimer calls his critics rent-seekersâ post.

Apparently I am âbarking madâ and labeled with a number of different ad hominems â which I suppose is a reasonable reaction to my intentionally loaded comment. At least the trolls are a little more predictable than the weather forecasts used to form the basis of their holy computational litany. And like Monbiot and Plimerâs debating opponent in the AIG sponsored climate debate in Perth on the 9th of July this year, the Lambert Trolls, (LTâs) avoid the science, which I suppose is also reasonable since there isnât any science behind AGW in the first place â lots of pseudoscience, but not science.

There is also a somewhat benighted countering of the Fabian factor by the LTâs, which is to be expected since no progressive intellectual makes any effort to understand history, preferring to rewrite it in terms of the post-modernist perspective. For example one critic of Clint Eastwoodâs movie criticized it because he did not use black actors in his flag raising scene in the Iwo Jima movie - âSpike Lee attempts to change history by criticizing Clint Eastwood for not using black people in his movie about the raising of the flag at Iwo Jima, when in fact there were no black people at Iwo Jimaâ, source.

I also recall an article in the print version of Quadrant edited by the late Paddy McGuinness which summarised the hostile reception Keith Windschuttle got when debating his controversial book at a Sydney lefty booksellerâs premises in Glebe, (I think). The TLâs outpouring of vitriol at me on Tim Lambertâs blog seems no different to the reception Windschuttle got.

The online vitriol on Lambertâs blog has confirmed one matter â my posts here on the Fabians and their ephemeral connection with AGW seems to have hit a raw nerve among the LTâs, hence their near incandescent reactions to my online musings here and the occasional lob into the Lambert commentary cesspit. (It will be fun reading their posts once this one is put up).

The only thing I am grateful for is that I am not on Prime Minister Ruddâs public âhit listâ of climate skeptics.

7:03 PM | Blog it | Climate

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 15 Nov 2009 #permalink

Calling us trolls is simply wrong, we are defending our home turf against aliens.

el gordo:

we are defending our home turf against aliens.

That's what the aliens always say.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 15 Nov 2009 #permalink

Thanks TS (@132),

I think they have a diagnosis for that sort of delusional cognitive-dissonance.

Notice the complete lack of Louis's agency in his self pitty recounting, nor his being called out on making stuff up. Nor recognition of his opening abuse "morons", "idiot savants".

[I did refer to his "attempt" to save face].

By Janet Akerman (not verified) on 15 Nov 2009 #permalink

PS. What's a Fabian?

Apparently for Louis its all at Fabians.

Since Louis thinks they are bad, I'll have to check them out.

By Janet Akerman (not verified) on 15 Nov 2009 #permalink

And what is your home turf, el barto?

>"And like Monbiot and Plimerâs debating opponent in the AIG sponsored climate debate in Perth on the 9th of July this year, the Lambert Trolls, (LTâs) avoid the science..."

This is the nail in Louis Hissink's pretence of an argument (if anyone needed another). Apparently "LT's" [sic] are avoiding the science, when they link to the science to refute [Louis's false claim](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/plimer_calls_his_critics_rent-…) that Tim's statement about CO2 was "Supported by no evidence".

And Louis thinks that Monbiot is avoiding the science when he ask Plimer to backup his claims in writing to that the facts can be documented to avoid Plimer's continued Gish Gallop.

Louis, Louis, Louis. What a shame that you stoop to this. But Tim is correct again, at least reading Louis is entertaining, and he is an asset to the likes of us trying to communicate the science and the deceit employed by the likes of Louis.

By Mark Byrne (not verified) on 15 Nov 2009 #permalink

Chris O'Neill

re: El Gordo's comment on defending his home turf against aliens.

As is often the case, the comment, though absurd, reveals a truth. The drivers of climate change agnotology is best understood as the politics of culture war. They see mitigation as innumerable others trampling on their personal space and reconfiguring it in ways they don't like. This is why the filth merchants have been so successful in muddying the waters. They appeal to socio-spatial angst and fear and invite cognitive dissonance as their ally.

Fear of change is reflexive amongst conservatives so they have a natural "baseload" constituency to position the assorted kooks and nutbags around.

By Fran Barlow (not verified) on 15 Nov 2009 #permalink

Janet.

[Fabians](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabian_Society).

Being raised myself in a very conservative household, likely of the sort that would have Louis with his hands in his pockets just at the thought, I was taught that these surreptitious, crepe-soled 'Them' people were the political equivalent of the Freemasons in terms of secrecy, and that they were all going to quietly slip the yolks of socialist oppression over our shoulders whilst we slept, after the fashion of a horse-whisperer.

It's the Conservatives' version of the frog in the boiling water.

Turns out that it wasn't quite like that, but as with other Fundamentalist conspiracy theories, it makes a darned good story.

I seem to be saying that last bit quite a lot recently...

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 15 Nov 2009 #permalink

Fran,"socio-spatial angst"...I love it.The SSA,another index to follow.Is there a widget?

Fran,"socio-spatial angst"...I love it.The SSA,another index to follow.Is there a widget?

So do I because it so accurately describes so many of the filth merchant infantry, but sadly, it's not even in DSMV.

By Fran Barlow (not verified) on 15 Nov 2009 #permalink

Berard, you've nailed it with the "crepe-soled" bit, but you forgot to mention the brown corduroy.

That's always a dead giveaway when you're out doing a bit of recreational Fabian-spotting.

They also tend not to beat their children.

Weirdos.

Thanks Bernard,

The hand behind Janet's sock was also was also brought up in a very conservative community. We used to vote based on the Christian values of candidates, and felt really challenged when I heard Sting sing the "Russians love their children too". So I'd recognise that sense about the evils of (eek) the colour red.

Then I came to realise that everything I'd been taught was evil about reds, was in practice in the dictatorial, authoritarian, centralised planned economies of concentrated power, that are the olligarchial massive corporations. And that their disproportionate power was not only distorting the free-market, but impinging on and corrupting our democratic process.

So my revelation was in reverse order to JK Galbraithâs wonderful quote:
>*Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite.*

So a bit of pink, or purple sound good to me now. Thought most compelling when viewed through the global lens (rather than just national) is a need for a big bucket of green. (I think that mix is starting to look a little grey?)

So while solutions might look grey, characters like Hissink help clarify the trajectory that we need to move away from.

Have you noticed how a high proportion of the anti-science denialist crowed accuse scientists of hysterical, alarmist scare campaigns, while running hysterical, alarmist scare campaigns about changing the current fraudulent elements of the our bankrupt economic order?

Where are the Hissinks and Plimers on too-big-to-fail corporate institutions? Or on where are they on the vital issue of rorts via externalising costs? Or multi-trillion dollar bailouts for the richest few? Or ecological accounting? Apparently if we get closer to full cost accounting we must be Reds or watermelons and should be feared and denounced?

By Janet Akerman (not verified) on 15 Nov 2009 #permalink

Nick (141), dunno about a widget, but if you plot SSA vs time, the line shows a steep rise the closer we get to Copenhagen. Almost hockey-stick shaped in fact...

By Steve Chamberlain (not verified) on 15 Nov 2009 #permalink

I wonder if Louis is coming back? I hope technology hasn't defeated him, it certainly wasn't Tim's 'block comments' option that did it.

His blog piece is quite hilarious, one good bit being that "Lambert Trolls, (LTâs) avoid the science, which I suppose is also reasonable since there isnât any science behind AGW in the first place" - this, despite the many links to scientific sources that the more patient of Tim's commenters have provided, eg. saying

"Janet Akerman,

Interesting statement - but not a question, so no response is needed. Oh Yes I noted the "links" but, precious, I am not doing your work for you, so you need to do it yourself."

Seems Hissink makes a habit of not reading what people link him to, pretending to have not seen it and as a result being able to continue deluding himself. This behaviour has continued since at least 2004, when Louis chose to ignore real measurements of geothermal heat flux.

The other amusing thing about his blog post is the following statement: "Apparently I am âbarking madâ and labeled with a number of different ad hominems â which I suppose is a reasonable reaction to my intentionally loaded comment." - a bit of an understatement, no? You can expect to be called all sort of things when you a) charge into a blog with what's basically an insult and b) ignore and belittle the scientific content of the posts of the few hardy souls who actually want to engage with you.

True Sceptic (132):

Louis Hissink citing Keith Windschuttle makes me want to cry with laughter. Windscuttlebutt's book "The White Australia Policy" was once characterised as avoiding "primary evidence" in many respects, and that "...you get the impression that he is a former Marxist - turned political conservative - who is waging a personal war on the very left-wing interpretation of Australian history that he once both embraced and proclaimed... Yet, because his history contains a substantial degree of personal polemic, it sometimes lacks empathy." That this less than wholly sympathetic review was written by none other than Gerard Henderson, the Exec Director of The Sydney Insyitute and sometime advisor to John Winston Howard ought to indicate how badly right-skewed is Hissink's posture.

As to scientific credibility, perhaps Hissink might want to reflect on the fact that his hero Windscuttle got caught with his trousers down by a scientific hoax. Credibility or credulity?

By Steve Chamberlain (not verified) on 15 Nov 2009 #permalink

Plimer needs the support of scientists like Louis. [Here](http://geoplasma.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!C00F2616F39D0B2B!828.entry) he convincingly demonstrates why the concept of average temperature is meaningless:
>When a surface temperature is recorded, a measurement is made of the thermal state of two objects in thermal equilibrium â the calibrated thermometer and the object whose temperature we wish to know. A simple spreadsheet example will demonstrate this. *(spreadsheet snipped)*

>Two statistics can be derived from the data set -the simple mean of the temperatures, 12.5 degrees Celsius which is the mean temperature of the thermometers themselves, (assuming identical thermometers) while the mean temperature of the various volumes of matter, is 1.08 degrees Celsius. Which is correct? Both - depends on which group of objects you want to compute the thermal state of - thermometers or volumes of matter.

>Climate science restricts itself to calculating conclusions from the mean temperature only - an aggregated intensive variable that has, in reality, no physical meaning. Both the warmers and sceptics blithely use this, albeit mathematically precise, statistic to argue their positions.

Readers may recognise the magazine Quadrant at the publisher of Tim Curtinâs distorted filtering on Carbon dioxide. Others may be aware that Quadrant was [funded by the CIA]( http://books.google.com.au/books?id=VNSMrps8mpcC&pg=PA216&lpg=PA216&dq=…) as part of its Cold War efforts to influence Australian politics.

It is notable that that Robert Manne an anti-communist previous editor of Quadrant [ripped the heart out]( http://www.utas.edu.au/library/companion_to_tasmanian_history/F/Fabrica…) of the distorted fabrications from Louis Hissinkâs hero, the current Editor of Quadrant Keith Windschuttle. (Windschuttle's claim to fame being his denial of atrocities committed against Aboriginal Australians. As coincidence would have it Windschuttle's views were quite liked by a bunch of privileged elites; who, not wanting a burden of guilt, took Windies work and used it to attack the "Black Armband view of History".

Then Prime Minister John Howard like Windschuttle's story so much that he gave Windy the Pime Minister's prize for History (just like he gave climate denialist Bob Carter the prize for science). Howard then put Windy Keith on the Board of the ABC (who was a joined by Janet Albrechtsen to weed out Moaists (perhaps on the basis of it takes one to know one).

Some people feel quite motivate to prevent a discussion who has profited from the displacement of Aboriginal Australians). Louis, do miners (and their faithful geologist ) want to discuss who has who has profited from the displacement of Aboriginal Australians?

Windschuttle followed a somewhat similar political path to Martin Durkin and as the Quadrant Hoax hightlighted heâll publish uncheck, bogus guff as long as it meets his political prejudice.

By Mark Byrne (not verified) on 15 Nov 2009 #permalink

"the Pime Minister's prize for History (just like he gave climate denialist Bob Carter the prize for science"

You are kidding aren't you? Carter, I mean. C'mon thats an exaggeration too far. Tell me THATS NOT TRUE.

It might be entertaining having Louis et al around but they are a distraction. Does this mean that at least Marohasy's blog was perfomring a public service.

BTW has Louis gone MIA?

I think Louis made up the thing about being blocked by Tim so he wouldn't have to face the barrage of truefacts that we were presenting. He can't deal with truefacts.

Jeremy, that should be Bob Carter was [awarded the job](http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bob_Carter) of selecting the prize winners for [excellence in environmental communication](http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Australian_Government_Peter_…).

So Bob gets (or got?) to decide for the Australian Government who is the best:
>*"Australian journalist(s) or communicator(s) whose work is assessed as having most effectively communicated environmental issues to the public"*

Which is as farcical as Windschuttle's Centenary Medal for [services to history](http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/08/24/1061663672750.html).

By Mark Byrne (not verified) on 16 Nov 2009 #permalink

Stu:

Ah, Stu, the very fact that you refuse to believe Louis Hissink's claim shows that you've bought into Tim Lambert's PROPAGANDA. Do you know that Tim Lambert is, in fact, an Evil Reptile under the control of Margaret Thatcher, the Fabians, and the Phantom Soviet Empire? Of course, there's no evidence for that, but that's only because the Evil Reptiles have successfully hid every bit of evidence that they're Evil Reptiles. Do not trust their propaganda.

BTW Quadrant appear to having a [delusion party](http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/) over the 'Monbiot affair'. I guess that's in part where Louis learned how to not deal with the truth.

Apparently they've confused themselves and are applying Plimer's well earned cred of "froth and bubbles" to Monbiot.

Then another joker says Monbiot "chickened out". It appears he manufactures this fraud by selectively publishing part of the email exchanged, of which Monbiot [publishes](http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/09/14/correspondence-with-ian-plim…) in [full](http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/09/14/correspondence-with-the-spec…).

By Mark Byrne (not verified) on 16 Nov 2009 #permalink

And what do the Council of the University of Adelaide say about the distortions of Plimer?

And what do the academic staff of the discipline of Geology and Geophysics in the School of Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of Adelaide have to say about Plimer and his distortions, especially his

We cannot stop carbon emissions because most of them come from volcanoes

quote?

Should they be issuing disclaimers and corrections on their websites?

Or are these just embarrassing elephants in the room that the University of Adelaide staff are succeeding in ignoring?

I'm actually OK with Quadrant spreading the delusion amongst their nutbag readers that Monbiot 'chickened out' of a 'debate' with Plimer.

Everytime you run into one we can simply laugh in their faces and cite the debunking using the published correspondence, and accuse them of cherrypicking.

Being lied to by your own side in ways that cause you embarrassment is even worse than being shown to be personally careless and wrong.

By Fran Barlow (not verified) on 16 Nov 2009 #permalink

Nick, #68

I didn't hear the Plimer interview, but you and others have said he 'slandered' Ashley. If this is true is Ashley doing anything about it? Or are you and others here simply responding in your usual hysterical way?

By Dave Andrews (not verified) on 16 Nov 2009 #permalink

>Or are you and others here simply responding in your usual hysterical way?

That is Dave Andrews code for responding by pointing out facts and exposing deceit.

By Janet Akerman (not verified) on 16 Nov 2009 #permalink

Dave Andrews, here's what Plimer said

Plimer: "Well I'm saying that they are taking advantage of the current situation. Now that's understandable. In previous times people have got wonderful research grants in a war against cancer and they achieved a lot of money for that. Now we have a war against climate change and there is huge number of people out there that have their careers staked on it and are beneficiaries from this process. And Michael Ashley is one of those."

Which boils down to saying that climate scientists have their careers staked on the veracity of global warming and would lie and commit scientific misconduct to see it perpetuated. He directly accuses Ashley of this - despite, as Tim says, Ashley being an astrophysicist whose career is not at all staked on global warming. So it's another case of Plimer either being ignorant or lying... probably the former.

Ashley, I would guess, doesn't know about this comment or if he does he doesn't care (it is only Plimer after all, and only people who for some reason can't find better evidence against AGW believe him). The rest of us just look on thinking 'typical Plimer'. I'm certainly not hysterical about it.

Stu,

Can you imagine Dave Andrews response if Ashley did sue Plimer?

He's trying to silence dissent!

By Janet Akerman (not verified) on 16 Nov 2009 #permalink

RE: P. Lewis #155

And what do the Council of the University of Adelaide say about the distortions of Plimer?

And what do the academic staff of the discipline of Geology and Geophysics in the School of Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of Adelaide have to say about Plimer and his distortions

Irony alert

I am sure that The University of Adelaide is happy to have Plimer as a distinguished member of their staff. From [the Australian Climate Science website](http://www.auscsc.org.au/about_us.htm) we learn that Prof. Plimerâs current duties at The University of Adelaide are more that of an entrepreneur, promoter, inspirer of young students and staff, university public face and political lobbyist rather than that of a traditional academic.

Clearly the students and staff at The University of Adelaide look up to Prof. Plimer for inspiration, and the university is delighted to have him as its public face.

We are also told that Prof. Plimer is a mentor to numerous PhD students - how glad they must be for his insights into how the the Sun is mostly composed of iron, how CFCs (thought by the misinformed to be a man-made chemical) are actually emitted in vast quantities by volcanoes, and how the CO2 content of the atmosphere has gone down since 1942.

I have suggested before that U. Adelaide capitalize on the publicity from Prof. Plimer's insights by establishing a Center of Excellence in Global Cooling. They could also consider a Center of Excellence in Dowsing and Water Divining.

I am sure that the many alumni of the University of Adelaide are happy that their alma mater's reputation is being improved by Prof. Plimer's inspirational leadership. They should express their gratitude for the University's unwavering support of Prof. Plimer by emailing The Head of Earth and Environmental Studies head.ees@adelaide.edu.au, the Dean of the Faculty of Science faculty.sciences@adelaide.edu.au, the Vice-Chancellor vice-chancellor@adelaide.edu.au, and the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic) dvca@adelaide.edu.au. Here are those email addresses again in an easy-to-cut form:

head.ees@adelaide.edu.au,faculty.sciences@adelaide.edu.au,
vice-chancellor@adelaide.edu.au,dvca@adelaide.edu.au

By Dirk Hartog (not verified) on 16 Nov 2009 #permalink

Fran, the best way to deal with the nutbags is to laugh at them. The dumber ones will try to attack you. That is a sign you have won. Then you can claim victory.

The best way to celebrate your victory is to laugh in their faces.

Silkworm,

The victory I want is a long way off yet.

Best not to invest too much in these jokers, their main value for us is their transparency. But they have negative effects as exemplified by phillip sofferman and Louis who really believe the trash they are feed by such organisations.

By Mark Byrne (not verified) on 16 Nov 2009 #permalink

Dirk Hartog, if your quote about Plimer's "current duties...are more that of an entrepreneur,...,and political lobbyist than traditional academic" is accurate, then it really begs the question as to whether Plimer is entitled to hide behind academic freedom, since his current duties aren't those of a traditional academic.

PS: I feel strongly on his messing around like this, as a graduate and alumni of the University of Adelaide.

By Donald Oats (not verified) on 16 Nov 2009 #permalink

Dave Andrews, #157

I didn't hear the Plimer interview, but you and others have said he 'slandered' Ashley. If this is true is Ashley doing anything about it?

I was aware of the interview on 13 November and immediately contacted the BBC Today program to point out the errors. They responded that they are looking into the issues and will reply in due course.

Of course, as Tim points out, my career is not staked on arguing against climate denialists, nor am I frightening people witless, nor do I have anything to gain from any of this. The sort of person who would be a beneficiary would be someone who, e.g., has a book to promote, or, e.g., has $300K+/annum in mining company directorships.

As an astrophysicist you have every right to talk about climate change, just like a geologist. It is unfortunate that there is so much ill feeling, which has spilled out into the public arena.

That's politics!

Oh Gawd - Quadrant.

Seems that the Q-folk are aiming to see how far to the right they can go without tipping, and how ideological they can be and still call it 'rationality'.

Note Tim Curtin's horror at the amount of CO2 that humans exhale every year. Somehow it has escaped him that he is referring to biomass carbon that has been recycled within the biosphere for æons, and hence represents a neutral contribution to the increase that results from anthropogenic emissions.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 16 Nov 2009 #permalink

Bernard,

I just popped over to quadrant and now I feel all dirty. Still, Tim's piece was quite amusing, although I think you'll have to spell out your rebuttal in simpler terms if he is to understand.

It was nice to see that quote from John Boehner again: "The idea that carbon dioxide is a carcinogen that is harmful to our environment is almost comical. Every time we exhale, we exhale carbon dioxide."

Makes me smile every time. Still not sure whether he deliberately constructed the strawman of 'carcinogenic' CO2 or whether he's just woefully misinformed, either way it's pretty funny :-))

El Gordo, #166

As an astrophysicist you have every right to talk about climate change, just like a geologist.

I can talk about it, but I don't want anyone to take on trust anything I say on climate. You should ask climate scientists who have published recently and regularly in top peer-reviewed journals.

However, as an astrophysicist, and having taught a course on stellar structure, I am able to comment with reasonable authority on Plimer's claim (H&E, pp 115-116) that the Sun consists largely of heavy elements. Needless to say, it is ludicrous.

Thanks for the laugh Dirk.

>Seems that the Q-folk are aiming to see how far to the right they can go without tipping...

Those guys have tipped. Unless they want to believe distorting and misrepresenting science is now a right wing function.

By Janet Akerman (not verified) on 16 Nov 2009 #permalink

Michael Ashley

If Plimer says the sun is composed mostly of heavy elements, then he is undoubtedly wrong.

El Gordo, #172

If Plimer says the sun is composed mostly of heavy elements, then he is undoubtedly wrong.

Yes, and there are many dozens of other examples where experts will tell you that Plimer is wrong. However, the Plimer supporters just reply with "you are nitpicking, any book with 500+ pages is bound to have a few errors, why don't you concentrate on the big picture of what he is saying?"

Well, after sifting through all the scientific errors and illogical nonsense in his book, you are left with ... nothing.

Why doesn't Plimer, or one of his supporters, distill the single most persuasive argument from the book and publish it in the peer-reviewed literature? All we need is just one argument. What is it?

I don't know if Boehner has deliberately constructed the "carcinogen" strawman, but somebody has done it. They've taken note of the fact that Congress is now calling CO2 a "pollutant," and they've deliberately misconstrued this as "poison" or "carcinogen."

Michael Ashley's last commennt is a perfect and succinct criticism for Plimer or any other denialist.
I will be saving it for future reference.

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 16 Nov 2009 #permalink

The trouble is Vince, that we people are probably subverting a damages claim that Ashley could bring against Plimer and the BBC.

If we can establish that Michael Ashley's reputation has not been trashed in the eyes of the reasonable man or his peers and that only unhinged morons or disingenuous scoundrels would retail this nonsense then Plimer's lawyers could adduce this to defend themselves.

And wouldn't I love to see that ...

By Fran Barlow (not verified) on 16 Nov 2009 #permalink

I agree 100% with Louis Hissink.

While it's true that most of us here have passed at least one of those courses, and probably most of us have passed all three, and with change, that was in OUR world.

I guarantee you, in Louis's world, we would be washed out immediately. For instance, doing a basic reduction of lead to tin using phlogiston and toadskin, you would - admit it - try to fudge it because you forgot to bring hairless albino bat wings. You'd imagine that trimming the fur off with a shears was good enough, wouldn't you? And when it gave a great *whoom* and you ruined the alembic, well, there goes your Chem 101 grade, my friend.

By Marion Delgado (not verified) on 16 Nov 2009 #permalink

You know, you can understand why Plimer lost against the creationists in that court battle.

He may have lost, Jeremy C, but he learned a lot.

Knowing nothing about the court battle I did a search and found Plimer is an outspoken critic of creationism. He is famous for a 1988 debate with creationist Duane Gish in which he asked his opponent to hold electrical cables to prove that electromagnetism was only a theory.

Gish accused him of being theatrical, abusive and slanderous, calling it "the most disgusting performance I have ever witnessed in my life."

Yes, Hal9000, he learned a lot.

el gordo,

You missed the bit about learning the Gish Gallop.

Refer to Plimer's correspondence with Monbiot.

By Mark Byrne (not verified) on 17 Nov 2009 #permalink

Having observed and admired Michael Ashley's knife work Eli believes that Plimer may have bitten off more than he can chew here. In the Drudge sense "Developing"

I propose that all those who've spotted errors of fact and forms of non-attribution in Plimer's Heaven and Earth: Global Warming - The Missing Science should collaborate in collecting their findings together and publish a book entitled Plimer's Heaven and Earth is Missing the Science.

Perhaps the original publisher could market it as a companion volume. And perhaps sites such as Amazon could market it in the fashion of "People who bought this book bought Plimer's Heaven and Earth is Missing the Science instead".

Oops! That last bit should have read:

And perhaps sites such as Amazon could market it in the fashion of "People who thought to but this book bought Plimer's Heaven and Earth is Missing the Science instead".

If it were a dog el gordo, the irony would bite you on the nose. Those that question the mainstream understanding of climate due to its political implications play on the ambiguity of the word 'theory', just as those that question the mainstream understanding of biology for its political implications do. Those that promote creationism also point to holes in evolutionary theory as evidence of its invalidity, despite the fact that these very real holes do not point up competing theories, merely the need for additional research, i.e. 'normal science'.

There are indications available to the layman that would lead one to the conclusion that something was amiss with the Plimer-esque camp out there, and many of them. One example: an economist by the name of Cochrane of the Chicago school recently wrote a riposte to Paul Krugman's New York Times Magazine article lamenting the state of the profession. In it, he likened the Neo-Keynesian camp, a.k.a. the saltwater economists, to climate denialists. Not by way of compliment, btw.

That didn't stop the climate denying AEI/Laffer types from hailing it as a masterstroke from a genius, (e.g. National Review Online), given that it was also critical of the Obama administration's approach to handling the economy and scathing of the conservative bugbear Krugman, (not to mention wrongheaded and precious, but that's another story). That was quite the spectacle- to see a bunch of people singing the praises of a letter that had them as backward believers in the fantasy teachings of yore. More to the point, its something you would never see from the other side, certainly without strenuously disapproving comment.

If only the public were better tuned to reading such tea leaves, maybe we'd be able to move on from this denialist silliness and onto the crucial and actually debatable topic here, which is what makes for efficient economic policy under the reality of anthropogenic climate change.

By Majorajam (not verified) on 17 Nov 2009 #permalink

Michael Ashley's [observation](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/plimer_calls_his_critics_rent-…) about lack of distillation of "sceptic's" argument raises a question: If doubt is the product they wish to push, why would they want to clarify their argument?

Coincidentally "sceptics" and denialists can't even convince themselves of a [coherent argument](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/03/shorter_heartland_conference.ph…). They need to remain moving targets to avoid fatal rebuttal.

By Mark Byrne (not verified) on 17 Nov 2009 #permalink

Michael Ashley,

Your appeal for people to respect peer reviewed climate science, whilst understood, is too late since climate science no longer operates through scientific journals but is now firmly a political process embodied in the UN.In a sense, the scientific papers are an adjunct only.

Besides, there have been a number of problems raised with several of the supposed 'iconic' climate change papers (Mann's several efforts, in particular, spring to mind here).

Moreover, if you read the main body of scientific work undertaken in AR4, for example, you will see that it often bears no resemblance whatsoever to the Summary provided for 'Policy Makers'.

As a scientist surely you can see that climate science is actually no longer about science?

By Dave Andrews (not verified) on 17 Nov 2009 #permalink

The denialati think the tide is turning in their favor and word is they won't be taking prisoners.

Over at the Bolter's they have Flummery down as 'alarmist of the month', with Professor Clive Hamilton 'hypocrite of the month'.

Both sides are cherry-picking with 'early snows in China again' and 'heatwave in Adelaide unprecedented'. All very exciting and good clean fun, but Kevin would be mad to run in this political climate.

Dave Andrews:

...since climate science no longer operates through scientific journals but is now firmly a political process embodied in the UN.In a sense, the scientific papers are an adjunct only.

How long will Dave continue to faithfully regurgitate denialist talking points while denying he is a denialist?

That's right folks, the IPCC didn't just distil the science from the published research, but it's all some kind of political conspiracy involving the UN. Black helicopters anyone?

It's amazing how much political naviety and general stupidity it takes to say this kind of thing. Though in Dave's case, I'll accept that there's no stupidity involved, just malice.

Though in Dave's case, I'll accept that there's no stupidity involved, just malice.

DaveA is flat-out dishonest, and has been as long as he's been involved in such discussions (years).

Both. Squiggy's consistent, though. That must count for something.

By luminous beauty (not verified) on 17 Nov 2009 #permalink

(whistles appreciatively) So Dave Andrews is a rougue and a fool. Impressive.

By David Irving (… (not verified) on 17 Nov 2009 #permalink

Dave Andrews is a discredited and completely unrelaible commentar.

>*climate science no longer operates through scientific journals but is now firmly a political process embodied in the UN.In a sense, the scientific papers are an adjunct only.*

This comment is so absurd that it beggars belief.

Dave is trying to slip in some of the same bogus claims that [he couldn't backup](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/tom_fuller_and_senator_inhofe.p…) and [ran away from earlier](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/tom_fuller_and_senator_inhofe.p…).

And Dave, please tell us the precise errors in the sum total of Mann's publications. Then put these errors into context by compareing Manns reconstructions with the worlds last 10 years of published temperature reconstructions.

Readers could do worse than assuming anything written by Dave Andrews is bogus unless backed up with references.

By Janet Akerman (not verified) on 17 Nov 2009 #permalink

climate science no longer operates through scientific journals but is now firmly a political process embodied in the UN.

coughBULLSHITcough

"Denialati" - now the denialists are calling themselves names! What gives?

Just because we need some denialist laughs: Willis Eschenbach reworks the global energy budget.

It seem that he believes this needs to be done because he can't add. Now by my math 324 + 168 = 492 and 24 + 78 + 390 = 492. Now my understanding of this may be wrong but incoming radiation in w/m-2 should be equal to outgoing radiation in w/m-2 for the surface to be in equilibrium and 492 has always equaled 492. For some reason Willis doesn't think this, so I could be wrong.

By Rattus Norvegicus (not verified) on 17 Nov 2009 #permalink

A phrase worthy of a Fascist Octopus Award.

Posted by: Hank Roberts | November 17, 2009 4:29 PM

Doh! Biologist's brain was in overdrive - I've been discussing maternal energy investment in eggs, in some of the species I study, and the theme seems to have stuck...

On reflection though, I have to admit that I like the mixed metaphor! Is there a presentation ceremony for 'nominees'? ;-)

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 17 Nov 2009 #permalink

Silkworm asked:

"Denialati" - now the denialists are calling themselves names! What gives?

Erm, not so much the denialists... rather, it might have something to do with my penchant for using the term in a rather sarcastic manner. I'm not sure when (or if) it predates the [first time](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/07/just_how_bad_is_chilingars_lat…) I came up with it on Deltoid, but I used it in response to Frank Bi referring to the nasty conspiratorial cabal that is the Climatati - that Secret Squirrel club of fraudulent scientists who are trying to convince the world that globabl warming actually exists...

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 17 Nov 2009 #permalink

Bernard J. - I was unaware that it was you who came up with the term. I was responding to el gordo using it on himself. Still, I don't think it is necessary to call them denialiati. Denialist is a better term, because it is accurate and objective. Even so, it seems to piss them off a fair bit, because they know we've pinned them.

"the Climatati - that Secret Squirrel club of fraudulent scientists who are trying to convince the world that globabl warming actually exists..."

...and yet still can't get their act together enough to produce a petition to rival the Orgone & Inhofe lists.

Sigh, it seems they think it's OK to refer to the science instead, poor deluded Climatati.

Bringing it back to the thread for a moment: the UK's science media centre, it turns out, worked hard to get a climate scientist on the Today Programme the following morning - had two to choose from, in fact - but the Today Programme declined. Given their awful performance the previous day, that's shocking.

Dan, I would like to see a link on that.

Being called a denialist is nowhere near as attractive as being part of the Denialati. I stand firm in my belief that AGW is a crock.

>*I stand firm in my belief that AGW is a crock.*

Keep the faith el gordo, your are an inspiration. Resolute.

By Janet Akerman (not verified) on 18 Nov 2009 #permalink

el gordo: eh? No link, an email from the science media centre. Not sure what the other two sentences were about - did they connect to what I was saying?

By the way, the CEC, the Australian LaRoucheite group, is out in force for some reason. I got an email from them as a news article *cough* today. The next open thread I'll post some of it.

By Marion Delgado (not verified) on 18 Nov 2009 #permalink

el gordo:

I stand firm in my belief that AGW is a crock.

Yep, they don't care about evidence, it's just belief. And they have the hide to call AGW a religion. What hypocrites.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 18 Nov 2009 #permalink

Belief based on evidence, but that sounds just as hollow as both sides have evidence to support their argument.

Most people believe as you do, global warming is upon us. The media is doing a very effective job in this regard.

el gordo:

both sides have evidence to support their argument.

That's just not true in the vast majority of cases. For example, where is Plimer's evidence that volcanoes emit more CO2 than fossil fuel burning?

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 18 Nov 2009 #permalink

Meanwhile, here in sunny South Australia, the jerky yet trending weather towards drier, hotter conditions continues...yeah yeah, it's weather not climate, it has been cooling since 1998, CO2 is good for plants, blah blah.

Today we have our shiny new BIG RED "CATASTROPHIC" WARNING level that it is 50% worse than the 1939 fire conditions (1939 bushfires are defined as 100 on the Index.). However, some parts of SA are actually rated as 100% above the 1939 fire conditions today so oops, we are running out of levels faster than we can colour them in.

I propose that we add an even newer warning level: a really shiny BIG BROWN (as in, "brown jocks time") "WTF? PLIMER SAID IT WAS ALL JUST TICKETY BOO! WHERE IS THAT SON OF A #@?!!*?"

This would be fitting since SA (South Australia) is where Plimer is based, ie The University of Adelaide, SA. This state also houses some of the most intransigent politicians on climate change: Nick Minchin, the Head of Senate for the opposition, with his recent pronouncements of a conspiracy by eco-religio-facists on the ABC Four Corners program. From 4 Corners, Nov 9th 2009, ABC:

NICK MINCHIN: For the extreme left it provides the opportunity to do what they've always wanted to do, to sort of de-industrialise the western world. You know the collapse of communism was a disaster for the left, and the, and really they embraced environmentalism as their new religion.

SARAH FERGUSON: Minchin encourages his junior colleagues to speak out too.

NICK MINCHIN: I don't mind being branded a sceptic about the theory that that human emissions and CO2 are the main driver of global change - of global warming. I don't accept that and I've said that publically. I guess if I can say it, I would hope that others would feel free to do so.

Current prediction today: 43C for Adelaide, which if reached, will topple the 1962 record of 42.7C. And, it is still Spring!

Lookin' forward to Summer :-)

By Donald Oats (not verified) on 18 Nov 2009 #permalink

Mark Byrne,

If you don't know the myriad problems associated with GCMs then you obviously have not read widely enough in the scientific literature.

Janet,

Glad to see your faith in me is as strong as ever:-) By the way, why dont you go to CA and read the numerous posts on Mann's novel statistics - it will improve your understanding and is only a click away!

dhogaza,

I'm not "dishonest" at all, just saying things as I, and countless others, see them. In fact, you probably understand this given your background. Its quite ironic that after all your work over the years battling the various supposed 'consensuses' you now find yourselve on the other side of the fence defending the supposed 'consensus'

By Dave Andrews (not verified) on 18 Nov 2009 #permalink

Janet,

One final point. Just when have YOU EVER included scientific references in your posts?

By Dave Andrews (not verified) on 18 Nov 2009 #permalink

To understand how Dave Andrews has avoided supporting the wild claims he makes readers can link back [to here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/10/dubner_falsely_claims_that_oce…).

Dave I again invite you to support you claims were you say:

"ultimately you are probably TOTALLY INCORRECT"

On what basis do you make this statement? Please provide references that contradict the statement that:
>Climate models are bound by physical properties that are quantifiable, unlike much of the soft sciences.
*- Where the soft science include social sciences like economics..

Put it this way Dave, I'm not aware of claims that any model is perfect, but that is a different issue than any model is totally incorrect. However the statement of mine that you weighed in on was that Climate models are more constrained by physical properties which makes them very different to economic models.

>Climate models are bound by physical properties that are quantifiable, unlike much of the soft sciences.

You've provided no argument let alone evidence to counter this yet you state that you I'm "*probably TOTALLY INCORRECT*". I invite you to support this claim David.

By Mark Byrne (not verified) on 18 Nov 2009 #permalink

David,

Janet linked to the US Geological Survey further up this comment thread.

Unless you don't think they're scientific...

If you don't know the myriad problems associated with GCMs then you obviously have not read widely enough in the scientific literature.

The problems are well-known, and are even better known for being overstated by people like yourself, who don't know shit about modeling or specific GCMs.

I'm not "dishonest" at all, just saying things as I, and countless others, see them.

You're a serial liar.

In fact, you probably understand this given your background. Its quite ironic that after all your work over the years battling the various supposed 'consensuses' you now find yourselve on the other side of the fence defending the supposed 'consensus'

The conservation work I've been involved in has *always* been science-based, as is my understanding of the dangers of climate change.

The supposed 'consensus' among relevant science has never been that "northern spotted owls nest in automobile junkyards", or "DDT doesn't cause eggshell thinning in raptors", or "clearcuts are better for wildlife than old growth forest".

Rather, the scientific consensus among relevant researchers has always backed up the kind of conservation work I've been involved with.

So I don't know WTF you're talking about.

At best you can accuse me (and people I worked with in the 1970s and 1980s) for being too complacent about the possible problems associated with AGW as we waited to see what kind of consensus would grow within science. I personally was betting on the low and slow side of early warnings from scientists. Unfortunately research and the knowledge that results have shown me to be too optimistic.

Meanwhile, as I said above, you're just a serial liar ...

If you don't know the myriad problems associated with GCMs then you obviously have not read widely enough in the scientific literature.

"scientific literature" as understood by DaveA:

CA

WUWT

dhogaza, is it true you fought against the consensus and now you are for it?

Chris O'Neill: I didn't read Plimer's book, but as mentioned earlier there appears to be misinformation mixed with truisms. Under normal circumstances I would call that propaganda.

When the book first came out I followed the critiques and my conclusion was that it's a populist book with many flaws.

220 El Gordo,

OK, so cite just one of Plimer's claims that is nothing more than a lie (or delusional fantasy when he gets into "politics").

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 18 Nov 2009 #permalink

Not the least offensive tactic of the filth merchant foot soldiers is the attempt to reduce a discussion about the nature of observable reality to a discussion of the relative merits of conforming and non-conforming ideas.

As Dhogaza rightly points out above, it is the integrity of the science underpinning one's position that is key, rather than whether one gets to play martyred "skeptic" or has to suffer being called an intellectual conformist.

This style over substance approach simply underpins the reckless indifference to observable reality that the filth merchant lobby brings to all discussions that threaten what they see as their immediate and narrow interests.

By Fran Barlow (not verified) on 18 Nov 2009 #permalink

Off topic, but can anyone point me in the direction of a sound demolition of John McLean's E&E paper rubbishing the CSIRO for using "misleading" trends? I've searched this site and found a few titbits but most are in the comments and aren't authoritative enough for me to smite my denier friends with.

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mscp/ene/2006/00000017/00000001/a…

Thanks in advance.

Off the top of my head, his farting termites seem farfetched.

What I meant to say is that Plimer supposedly claimed that termite methane emissions are 20 times more potent than human CO2 emissions. Now, without a cite, such a statement cannot be taken seriously.

dhogaza, is it true you fought against the consensus and now you are for it?

No, I did not say that. What I said was that I was somewhat complacent about the potential problem when Hansen and a few others starting talking about it early on. Back then, there was no solid consensus that we were already seeing the AGW signal and quite a bit of controversy within the climate science community as to how quickly that signal would become distinguishable from noise.

At least, as I understood things at the time (early 80s).

Of course, things changed quite rapidly and as it did, my views changed.

I was never a septic or denialist - in the 1980s there was a lot of debate about "how quickly" and "how strongly" due to a much greater uncertainty then compared to now regarding climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2. And the models were more primitive (in large part due to slow computers) than today, etc etc.

As Dhogaza rightly points out above, it is the integrity of the science underpinning one's position that is key

Exactly. My views regarding AGW became more certain as the scientific case was strengthened. That's called being rational.

dhogaza: Oddly enough, back in those days I was in the same position as you, but now beg to differ on CC. It's the alarmism which is muddying the waters.

A good example is the claim by Penny Wong that sea level will rise one metre before the end of this century. The Minister is backed by science, so she is on safe grounds.

Sorry to read that Randwick is vulnerable.

Dave Andrews, Since [you won't answer](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/plimer_calls_his_critics_rent-…) my questions, I assume these questions are difficult for you.

So rather than follow your attempts to hide down various memory holes, I'll restate the selected parts of the questions that you continue to avoid:

>Dave, please tell us the precise errors in the sum total of Mann's publications. Then put these errors into context by compareing Manns reconstructions with the worlds last 10 years of published temperature reconstructions.

And a reminder, Dave Andrews has a long and consistent history of making unsupported statements, thus:

>Readers could do worse than assuming anything written by Dave Andrews is bogus unless backed up with references.

By Janet Akerman (not verified) on 18 Nov 2009 #permalink

Mark Byrne - Thanks for that, I remember seeing that when it came out, was following James and Jules blog post. But am more looking for a debunking of McLean 2007 and his criticism of CSIRO. Been scouring google with no luck so far.

el gordo:

When the book first came out I followed the critiques and my conclusion was that it's a populist book with many flaws.

i.e. you have no justification whatsover for claiming

both sides have evidence to support their argument

Pardon me for thinking you're all talk and no substance.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 18 Nov 2009 #permalink

> quietly slip the yolks of socialist oppression over our shoulders whilst we slept...

Sounds messy if nothing else...

Applogies Conner,

Anyone here read the McLean 2007 paper that Conner is addressing?

By Mark Byrne (not verified) on 18 Nov 2009 #permalink

A good example is the claim by Penny Wong that sea level will rise one metre before the end of this century. The Minister is backed by science, so she is on safe grounds.

Well, I don't know who the fuck Penny Wong is, but the one-meter sea-level rise this century is certainly reasonable.

By saying she's on safe ground to accept it, you seem to be implying that you're unreasonable to oppose that position ...

[Mark Byrne](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/plimer_calls_his_critics_rent-…).

I'd been waiting for Bob Tisdale to put his head on the block and present some concrete numbers about his ENSO/PDO/whatever-else theory before I linked to Foster et al myself, but perhaps now he'll see where I was leading.

If you're reading this Bob, you might as well know that I was also curious about how you might respond to some of [Tamino's thoughts on the matter](http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/08/17/not-computer-models/).

And regardless of the works of others, I am still curious about the Tisdale energy budget too...

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 18 Nov 2009 #permalink

Oddly enough, back in those days I was in the same position as you, but now beg to differ on CC. It's the alarmism which is muddying the waters.

What fatso seems to be saying is that he believes science, as long as the message isn't bad.

That's an interesting filter to apply to science.

Let me offer fatso a smoke ...

dhogaza, Penny Wong is our Minister for Climate Change. She's a lawyer.

By David irving (… (not verified) on 18 Nov 2009 #permalink

>*It's the alarmism which is muddying the waters.*

On what do you base this opinion el gordo? Also please define the "alarmism" that you refering to, its quite a vague description and could relate to anything.

[Here is](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/plimer_calls_his_critics_rent-…) a brief primer for my views on who is muddying the waters.

[And here](http://www.defendingscience.org/Doubt-is-Their-Product-Introduction.cfm), and [here](http://www.desmogblog.com/climate-cover-up)

By Mark Byrne (not verified) on 18 Nov 2009 #permalink

I have read the pages discussing methane emissions and how various methanogenic creatures, including termites, release enormous amounts of methane - see pp428--432[Plimer, 2009]. From page 431, Ch "Air":

Many terrestrial arthropods such as termites, cockroaches, millipedes and scarab beetles have a hind gut that is colonised by methanogenic bacteria. These animals emit a huge but unknown amount of methane to the atmosphere^2155. There have been some attempts to calculate the amount of methane emitted by termites^2156.

To complete the quote, I'll provide References ^2155 and ^2156, from the footnotes:

Hackstein, J. H. and Stumm, C. K. 1994: Methane production in terrestrial arthropods.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 91: 5441--5445.
Zimmerman, P. R., Greenberg, J. P., Wandiga, S. O. and Crutzen, P. J. 1982: Termites: A potentially large source of atmospheric methane, carbon dioxide, and molecular hydrogen. Science 218: 563--565.

In those four pages from Ch 9 "Air", subtitled with the section heading "Methane and other Greenhouse Gases", the only place where he gives the (approximate) methane relative concentration in the atmosphere is in Figure 53, pg 429. It shows the increasing methane concentration as increasing but slowly flattening off since 1998. I can't copy the figure, but Plimer gives ^2144 as:

Carbon Cycle Co-operative air sample network data.

The caption to Figure 53, pg 429, is in full:

Figure 53: Changes in atmospheric methane^2144 showing annual and 25-year trends. Note that the long-term trend has flattened since about 1998 despite and increase in methane-emitting domesticated animals hence there are unaccounted sources of methane unrelated to human activities.

The highlighting of some text was done by me in the above quoted caption. I want to bring attention to the fact that if methane relative concentration is increasing per annum, then necessarily some other atmospheric gas must be reducing its relative concentration, in order that the total relative concentration adds up to 1.0, ie these are fractions of the total atmosphere. Possibly oxygen is one of the decreasing gases...worth a check.
More importantly though, his claim that the long-term trend has flattened since about 1998, and his claim that there has been an increase in methane-emitting domesticated animals during the period since 1998, in no way warrants his conclusion, namely that there are unaccounted sources of methane unrelated to human activities.
His first and second claims might be true; his conclusion might be true. But the two specific claims do not logically imply the conclusion.

Establishing the conclusion requires the use of relevant claims, that are based on relevant evidence. Unfortunately, Plimer demonstrates inattention to the requirements of rational argument, ie choose the facts that support the claims, and use relevant claims to warrant the conclusion supposedly drawn from them. If Plimer was practicing true scepticism, he would also test the prospect that the claims are contradicted by others, or that his choice of supporting evidence has ignored strong, relevant contradictory evidence. In other words, he not only needs to establish the chain of supporting evidence => claims made => conclusion, but that no stronger, contradictory evidence exists which demonstrates that the conclusion isn't warranted.

Oh boy it is hot here!

Anyone want to comment?

By Donald Oats (not verified) on 18 Nov 2009 #permalink

Donald Oats, #241

Anyone want to comment?

Sorry, but your discovery of an irrational argument from Plimer is not newsworthy.

Now, if you were to find a single paragraph in Heaven & Earth that actually made logical sense and was a useful contribution to the debate, then THAT would be astonishing.

Oh boy it is hot here!

You can draw comfort from the fact that at this precise moment, while you are sweltering in a heat wave in South Australia - unprecedented possibly for thousands of years (certainly since records have been taken) - Plimer is lecturing at the University of South Australia. As I mentioned on another thread, I'm hoping that the air-conditioning in the lecture theatre breaks down.

By Dirk Hartog (not verified) on 18 Nov 2009 #permalink

Dave Andrews, I note that after repeated [invitations](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/plimer_calls_his_critics_rent-…) you have failed to present any supported argument let alone evidence to back your counter to my statement that:

>*Climate models are bound by physical properties that are quantifiable, unlike much of the soft sciences.* (Where the soft science include social sciences like economics).

Your only link was to a publication that is consistent with my statement that:

>*I'm not aware of claims that any model is perfect, but that is a different issue than any model is totally incorrect. However the statement of mine that you weighed in on was that Climate models are more constrained by physical properties which makes them very different to economic models.*

And it completely supports [dhogaza's statement](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/plimer_calls_his_critics_rent-…) that:

>*The problems [with models] are well-known, and are even better known for being overstated by people like yourself, who don't know shit about modeling or specific GCMs.*

Readers can make their own assessmetns on your lack of supporting evidence compared to the strength of your wild claims.

I would have thought an open up front retraction would have added some credibility to your name. Without this you look like someone who is not interested in evidence, reason or the pursuit of the truth.

By Mark Byrne (not verified) on 19 Nov 2009 #permalink

Dave Andrews once again shows remarkable examples of his dishonesty, inability to understand what he reads and his attempts at disinforming the public.

It is doubtful, of course, that he even read the paper but only cut and pasted the link from one of his favourite denier sites.

Here is a quote from the conclusion of this paper, which, of course, says the exact opposite of what dishonest Dave claims it says:

There is much to be done but information from today's climate models is already useful. The range of possibilities highlighted for future climate at all scales clearly demonstrates the urgency for climate change mitigation measures and provides non-discountable ranges which can be used by the impacts community

By Ian Forrester (not verified) on 20 Nov 2009 #permalink

Ian Forrester,

"but only cut and pasted the link from one of his favourite denier sites."

That link was directly to the UK Royal Society website. Are you saying that they are deniers?

I have read, and re-read, the paper many times and discussed it in several blogs. Their criticism is damning and comprises the major part of the paper rather than the few lines you quote. I could quote at a great deal more length than the few lines you mention, but would urge people to go and read the paper in its entirety.

BTW, I'm sure your response indicates you did not do that.

By Dave Andrews (not verified) on 20 Nov 2009 #permalink

Mark Byrne, #245,

I don't believe you even looked at Stainforth et al. You just write words to suit your beliefs.

By Dave Andrews (not verified) on 20 Nov 2009 #permalink

Shorter Dave Andrews:

I've studied this particular scientific paper a great deal, but I can't tell you exactly what I've found out about it.

Dave Andrews you are both stupid and arrogant. How can you even think (you can think, at least a little bit, can you?) that my comment in any way was meant to imply that the Royal Society hosted a "denier" website?

My comment was to show that you probably found the reference to the Royal Society paper being incorrectly interpreted on a denier site. You then cut and pasted the link without reading the paper and thus were incapable of seeing that your conclusions are not borne out by the actual paper, just as I pointed out you.

You are a pathetic individual who appears to exist only to spread lies and misinformation about honest people .

Get a life.

By Ian Forrester (not verified) on 20 Nov 2009 #permalink

Dave Andrews,

You've shown us your colours Dave (not pretty).

Readers can judge for themselve who is more accurately representing the findings.

What's more, you've failed to addressed the [multiple invitations](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/plimer_calls_his_critics_rent-…) I have given you to support your claim against physical measures that make physics models very different to economic models.

We can see through you Dave.

By Mark Byrne (not verified) on 20 Nov 2009 #permalink

Dave Andrews,

Have you seen a Doctor recently? Your writing is becoming increasingly deranged.

>*You just write words to suit your beliefs.*

Transparent Dave, nothing else required, no logic, no reason, no citations. Just plain empty words, from someone who seems to have self diagnosed his condition and can only deal with it by projecting it onto others.

By Janet Akerman (not verified) on 20 Nov 2009 #permalink

Ian Forrester,

You obviously did not read what I wrote. I will say it again, I have read the paper many times and, surprisingly, it says the same thing every time, ie there are considerable problems with the models.

Furthermore, I have raised this paper on a number of blogs so I think I do have some inkling of what it says.

I won't bother responding to your ridiculous posts any more

By Dave Andrews (not verified) on 21 Nov 2009 #permalink

Mark Byrne,

Sure, people can read the paper, unlike you, and make up their own mind. I'm happy with that.

Janet,

I was keeping things simple. Mark uses wordsmithing and sophistry to avoid the issues people raise. His approach is 'attack the messenger', very much like yor own.

By Dave Andrews (not verified) on 21 Nov 2009 #permalink

Dave, care to detail how its others that have employed sophistry? I see your deranged flights from subject to subject to avoid facing your errors.

For example, you've clearly run away from the issue you [challenged Mark Byrne](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/plimer_calls_his_critics_rent-…) on (models being constrained by physical metrics). You gone on another flight of fancy and tried to change the topic.

I really recommend you get help.

By Janet Akerman (not verified) on 21 Nov 2009 #permalink

..but...but...Dave reads The Guardian.

Another little trait of Dave Andrew's pathology; notice how he is rude and provocative to people to are civil towards him. But turns all polite when people get snarky with him.

Perhaps Dave feel like his achieved his goals if he can provoke a snarky response?

Get some help Dave.

By Janet Akerman (not verified) on 21 Nov 2009 #permalink

Dave Andrews said:

I won't bother responding to your ridiculous posts any more

Too bad you won't respond to honest comments about your atrocious behaviour. You have posted nothing but lies, misinformation, obfuscation and rotten garbage on so many blogs over the years I think that this should be a response to all your critics.

Bye bye DA, you won't be missed.

By Ian Forrester (not verified) on 21 Nov 2009 #permalink

Wonder what Michael Ashley has to say about the CRU hack in? Being of independent mind.

Being of independent mind.

You sound a little doubtful.

I will say it again, I have read the paper many times and, surprisingly, it says the same thing every time, ie there are considerable problems with the models.

Of course there are, if there weren't, there would be nothing for modelers to work on.

NEWSFLASH FOR DAVE ANDREWS:

There are considerable problems with the models used by manufacturers to design airplanes.

I have the e-mails, though being ethical, I won't post them verbatim. However, I will share the fact that the shortcomings of these models have been hidden from the public for years, and because there are considerable problems with them, the AirBus 380 and Boeing 787 are incapable of flight.

Well, I ain't gonna fly on them until we've seen the code, the raw data and all the emails that went into the manufacture of those planes.

Michael, #262

Excellent! You'll be doing your 'bit' for the environment, even if its based upon misunderstanding.

dhogaza, #261

Don't be silly!

By Dave Andrews (not verified) on 25 Nov 2009 #permalink

Don't be silly!

I'm dead serious. There are considerable problems with every engineering and scientific model in existence, yet they're still useful.

As are climate models.

[dhogaza](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/plimer_calls_his_critics_rent-…) is right Dave,

BTW, I notice your still running around in circles trying to [avoid backing up]( but despite those fightin' words, the two papers actually did get in.) your claims?

*Ye shall be know as "Dishonest Dave" the septic sully of the blogosphere until ye either retract your baseless assaults or substantiate them.*

By Janet Akerman (not verified) on 25 Nov 2009 #permalink

Janet,

"Ye shall be know as "Dishonest Dave" the septic sully of the blogosphere until ye either retract your baseless assaults or substantiate them."

I see you were a script writer for 'Monty Python and the Holy Grail! Great film, but as based in reality as you are.

By Dave Andrews (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

Ahha,

Dishonest Dave, yeah are still yet well deserving of thy title, baseless assault mark thy path, a dreary path it is too. Unwell to substantiate, yet so well to smear.

Yeah truly earn thy filthy rags, which yeah must wear until yeah change thy filthy ways.

By Janet Akerman (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

on 223, 224 (Mclean paper).
Yes I have read it. If looks at relation between ENSO and
global temperature -- this is not news. A bit surprising that JGR published it, since it is old news and an unsophisticated analysis, but of course the available times series are a bit longer than when someone last published on this.

They split off the within-year variations, and then analyse the rest of the variation as an ENSO effect plus a long-term trend (and find the sort of long-term trend that Senator Fielding denies). Indeed, the shorter, more recent satellite record shows a larger trend than the surface data, i.e. implying the rate of warming is increasing (but the analysis is too crude to read a lot into this).
Since they look at "rates of change" the fast ENSO cycle
shows up as more important than the trend. (If you look at actual changes, the ENSO effect averages to nearly zero
and the trend dominates).

The paper says what is pretty obvious, but the wording is such as to make it easy to subtly misquote it as disproving AGW.

By Ian Enting (not verified) on 29 Nov 2009 #permalink

Joel Shore, 98
"I am waiting for the day when Plimer reveals that this has been all a big hoax to see how ridiculous he could make his arguments and still get "AGW skeptics" to tout his book."

A few of us have been bouncing this idea around for a while.
Against:
It would have meant a decade of deep-cover denialism by Plimer (or a rapid and recent improvement in his level of understanding).
For:
If one was writing a climate book that was the equivalent of the Ern Malley hoax poems or the Sokal hoax on post-modernist abuse of scientific terminology, it is hard to see how it would differ (except maybe in length) from what Plimer has done.

By Ian Enting (not verified) on 29 Nov 2009 #permalink

184; P. Lewis
"I propose that all those who've spotted errors of fact and forms of non-attribution in Plimer's Heaven and Earth: Global Warming - The Missing Science should collaborate in collecting their findings together and publish a book entitled Plimer's Heaven and Earth is Missing the Science."

Nice idea. One set of collected findings is at:

http://www.complex.org.au/tiki-download_file.php?fileId=91

but this represents less than half of what I and others have found. As it stands, it is a boring catalogue of a low point in Australian science and I have no serious intention of getting it ou in any other form. I see it as a resource for Monbiot, England, Karoly etc. If anyone has a book project on this, I am happy to talk to them.

By Ian Enting (not verified) on 29 Nov 2009 #permalink

This just in ...

Fielding wants a commission chaired by Plimer and Garnaut to check out what's causing global warming ...

You have to laugh ...

By Fran Barlow (not verified) on 29 Nov 2009 #permalink

Mark Byrne and Bernard J.:
Foster et al are one of numerous papers that assume that the relationship between ENSO and global temperature is linear. It clearly is not. It may be for the Eastern North Pacific:
http://i33.tinypic.com/w8w1hg.jpg

And there may be a linear relationship between ENSO and the Eastern South Pacific and South Atlantic:
http://i35.tinypic.com/mtwh9x.jpg

And there's even one between ENSO and the Western Indian Ocean:
http://i34.tinypic.com/33udefq.jpg

BUT the relationship between ENSO and the East Indian and West Pacific Oceans is not linear, far from it:
http://i50.tinypic.com/28ro7kk.png

So Foster et al simply confirms that the authors don't understand or choose to misrepresent the instrument temperature record. Here's a gif animation of a map of the East Indian and Pacific Oceans that shows the dipole relationship between the Eastern Pacific and the East Indian/West Pacific Oceans. One map is for the SST anomalies in Nov 1997, the peak of the 1997/98 El Nino, and the other is for Nov 1998, the peak of the 1998/99 portion of the 1998/99/00/01 La Nina. Note how the West Pacific and East Indian Oceans cool during El Nino events and warm during La Nina events, contrary to what Foster et al are implying. The East-West Pacific dipole during ENSO events is well known, yet subtracting a scaled ENSO index from global temperatures cannot account for it.
http://i48.tinypic.com/xc6s0l.gif

Nor can it account for the ENSO residuals in the East Indian and West Pacific Oceans that are shown in my fourth linked graph.

Also, Bernard J, there is no discussion of ENSO or El Nino/La Nina by Tamino in the link you provided.

Last, based on the discussions here last month, Iâve written two posts that should help clarify your misunderstandings about ENSO:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/11/more-detail-on-multiyear-afteref…

http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/11/more-detail-on-multiyear-afteref…

One last note, Trenberth et al (2002) acknowledged the existence of the residual effects of ENSO events. They wrote, âAlthough it is possible to use regression to eliminate the linear portion of the global mean temperature signal associated with ENSO, the processes that contribute regionally to the global mean differ considerably, and THE LINEAR APPROACH LIKELY LEAVES AN ENSO RESIDUAL.â [My caps for emphasis.] Trenberth et al chose not to illustrate the effects of the residuals but I have.

Regards

[Bob Tisdale](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/plimer_calls_his_critics_rent-…).

I did not say that there were any ENSO references on that link to Tamino. I simply wanted to know how you discount his attribution of warming to non-ENSO phenomena - after all, if your theory is correct, then there must be errors in analyses such as Tamino's.

Oh, and if you really, really needed to see an ENSO-type discussion at Open Mind, you could have UTFSE and found [this](http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/07/24/old-news/) or [this](http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/08/04/influence-of-the-southern-oscill…-
temperature/).

Of course, any comments on Tamino's work are still welcomed.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 07 Dec 2009 #permalink