Arctic Ice – A favourite of Bolt

Andrew Bolt (and others) has a few pet issues with Global Warming, one of them being the amount of ice at the North Pole. He says things like this (from Dec 2008):

In fact, the Arctic’s ice cover this year was almost 10 per cent above last year’s great low, and has refrozen rapidly since. Meanwhile, sea ice in the Southern Hemisphere has been increasing. Been told either cool fact?

Here is a short clip that shows that the issue is not the ice cover (which is area) but is the amount of ice (volume).

There are a few other videos in this series that I will put up over the next few weeks.

Advertisements

231 Responses

  1. Be careful, you’ll be accused of being obsessed with Bolt.

  2. Bolt is using Plimer’s book “Heaven and Earth Global Warming: The Missing Science” as his newest authority to discredit GW.

    Pity that Plimer’s book is so bad and full of errors (much a deliberate misrepresentation of the data and the scientists quoted) that it is being savaged at the moment.

  3. joni,

    You really are bored over there aren’t you 😉

    Those Climate Denial you tube movies are good though.

  4. Be careful, you’ll be accused of being obsessed with Bolt.

    Well, not as obsessed as some, although he’s already been mentioned on two threads here today.

    He’s also been linked by LP today, and one mustn’t forget everyones favourites Bolt-botherers, El Poisoneros, who devote every other thread to him.

  5. Tony,

    I must say, your posts here are much more thoughtful and better argued than the ones you used to make over at Bolt’s.

    Bolt deserves most of the criticism directed at him. He purports to be mainstream media (and is by the fact he is a regular columnist at the Herald Sun and a regular on Insiders) so he should be scrutinised as much as any other MSM columnist (which is what LP was doing today). I’ll agree that PP do devote a lot of attention to him but I must say that most of it has been valid criticism (they even gave him some credit the other day, unfortunately most of the people posting on his blog undid much of that).

    If you have some valid criticisms of the video in joni’s posts, I’d like to read them.

  6. For good reason Tony as he dominates the opinion writers posting many articles a day, most that are misleading, erroneous, deliberately provoking racial stereotypes and much more that is wrong. No other opinion writer is as prolific with most of the others lucky to put out one piece a week and a couple who do one piece a day.

    PP has also praised a couple of Bolt articles that have been sensible and factual.

    Anyway back to one of Bolt’s favourite misleading items that he regularly trots out no matter how many times the data he uses has been shown to be irrefutably wrong, melting/disappearing ice.

  7. Bolt’s up for it Tony.

    His chin is out there & from a “leftard” point of view it is almost impossible to post anything but the most demure of contrarianisms over there.

    Calling it “obsession” reminds me of the same sort of blanket dismissals of anyone anti-GWB as believers in the Obamessiah religion. It’s very easy to disagree with Bolt without having to be “obsessed”. His sheer volume of commentary invites reply.

  8. Melting ice, not-melting ice; rising sea-levels, not-rising sea-levels; rising temperatures, not-rising temperatures. None of these affect my position, either way:

    The climate has always changed. There have been ice ages, and periods where temperatures have been higher than today. I have seen or heard nothing that would convince me humans are able to alter these natural cycles.

  9. Ah, yes. A frozen wasteland: The Mind of Andrew Bolt.

    Here’s hoping for a Spring thaw.

  10. Calling it “obsession” reminds me of the same sort of blanket dismissals of anyone anti-GWB as believers in the Obamessiah religion. It’s very easy to disagree with Bolt without having to be “obsessed”. His sheer volume of commentary invites reply.

    Toiletboss. I agree that Bolt is by far the most prominent right-wing columnist cum blogger in the country, and his opinion is difficult to avoid.

    I’m not here to defend Andrew Bolt, and I’d be the first to agree that he tailors his presentation of his posts to a particular audience, but I can’t think of a more accurate word to describe Pure Poison’s ‘interest’ in our Herald Sun writer.

    I know you’re a regular at Pure Poison, as is Adrian. From a somewhat disinterested observer’s point-of-view, it appears odd to me that a blog (with a group of relatively intelligent and lucid authors) exists almost entirely to criticise Andrew Bolt. Yes, Tim Blair, Piers Ackerman and others get a run, but it’s primarily about Bolt.

    Obsession, and obsessive, I believe it is.

  11. Pity that Plimer’s book is so bad and full of errors (much a deliberate misrepresentation of the data and the scientists quoted)
    Mobius Ecko, on May 22nd, 2009 at 8:08 pm

    Adrian i wonder if you have read the book. If so could you please give me an example of this misrepresentation.

  12. Fair enough Tony. I think we’re looking at opposite sides of the same coin.

    Apologies for being off topic.

  13. Also Toiletboss some of the articles are not on Bolt per se but on his mindless minions and the unbelievable hate and bile they post, often deliberately provoked by Bolt who needs this rabid response in large numbers to get his hits, but just as often mindless spite not related to what Bolt had written but against anyone who dares to offer a lucid debate that is in opposition to Bolts contention, even one that is a valid contention.

    Sad thing is that there are actually a few good and intelligent debaters over there but for every logical and lucid post they make it’s drowned out by a plethora of mindless drivel that Bolt’s moderators allow through.

    And that’s the other valid criticism of Bolt, the completely unfair and devious way his blog is moderated.

  14. Oh my god Neil where to start.

    For starter try the scientist he quoted as presenting a set of main data in a certain way but when the scientist was contacted he states that he has been completely misquoted and his data misrepresented.

    That’s just one of dozens of stuff ups throughout his book.

    Have you read it Neil, if so could you tell what is actually factual about it?

    Here are some links to go on:
    http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/04/23/ian-plimer-heaven-and-earth/
    http://bravenewclimate.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/plimer1a5.pdf
    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/04/the_science_is_missing_from_ia.php
    http://www.aussmc.org.au/IanPlimerclimatebook.php

    Even the Australian published an article critical of the bad science in Plimer’s book: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,25433059-5003900,00.html

    That’s just the tip of the iceberg. There’s another scientist going through every paragraph, but more importantly every footnote and reference (and Plimer’s book has lots of them) because he’s found that what Plimer purports the reference says or contends is not what it does at all. So he’s listing every single one of these disjunctions which is a big job as there are so many.

    Then there is this beauty at the end of his book, and mind you this is from a scientist who has railed against the Christian religion in the past:

    The influence of human activity on planet Earth needs some perspective. In the words of Pope Benedict XVI:
    “It is important for assessments in this regard to be carried out prudently, in dialogue with experts and people of wisdom, unihibited by ideological pressure to reach hasty conclusions, and above all with the aim of reaching agreement on a model of sustainable development capable of ensuring the well-being of all while respecting environmental balances”

    Human stupidity is only exceeded by God’s mercy, which is infinite.

    Turns out the book was published by a Christian publishing house.

  15. Also Toiletboss some of the articles are not on Bolt per se but on his mindless minions and the unbelievable hate and bile they post

    Are you serious, Adrian? The authors write posts about Andrew Bolt’s commenters? Now that is wierd:

    Hey, did you see what Toiletboss said to Miglo over at Blogocrats today? What about that Tony guy – what a freakin’ moron.

  16. Yes fair enough Tony and the others do get a run, even one or two outside that main group, but relative to the amount of articles they are about equal. If Ackerman was as prolific as Bolt and because of Ackerman’s penchant to be even more deliberately misleading then he would have as many if not more critical articles in PP.

    How can you have a dozen threads against an opinion writer who does just one article a week against one who does as many as six or more a day, with nearly every one deserving to have their misleading facts and racial undertones revealed?

  17. That’s not it at all Tony.

    Bolt quite plainly states that his moderation doesn’t allow certain posts because of vilification or because they make threats of or incite to violence against certain groups or individuals.

    Now if joni stated that this blog was moderated as strict policy to not allow racial vilification and certain posters were regularly allowed to post the most vile of racial vilification in response to leading articles on race by joni, then it would be more than apt to point out and write articles on those who constantly do this.

    It also highlights where quite legitimate, civil and in no way abusive posts are regularly snipped by Bolt’s moderators (even having their words changed) purely for pointing out something wrong in Bolt’s article, whilst these regular vilifiers and hate mongers that Bolt states he doesn’t allow continue to have their responses published.

  18. OK, Adrian, if I understand you correctly, what you’re talking about is a moderation policy – not the “mindless minions” you mentioned earlier. (That’s something ShaneOfQld said he had an issue with too, by the way.)

  19. Mobius

    Where you get the cool avatar from?

    And if we trace you on one side do we come back on the same side? Are you actually a Escher picture?

  20. Yes Mobius i have purchased the book but have only started reading it.
    At first glance Plimer seems to be saying that climate has always changed. For example he gave an example of growing grapes in England.

    He says that according to the Doomsday book grapes were grown in areas where they could not be now grown because it is too cold.

    It will take me a while to read by he says that there is no evidence that humans have induced global warming.

    It is just a natural cycle.

  21. Neil

    This is a furphy – none of the climate change scientists deny that the climate has not changed, the issue here is the rate of change, and the influence that man is making on that rate of change. In the past, the ecosystems have had a chance to adapt by the gradual change – now they will not have a chance.

  22. Gee, if you have such a problem with Bolt why don’t you go over to his blog and challenge his opinion?

    Or is it that you might be in the minority which would be a too brave a move, especially if you do not have the irrefutable facts to back up your opinion???

    I’m over this never ending debate because there is no definitive proof either way, it is a matter of faith based on personal ideology if man has the capability or not to alter the climate.

    Our wise government who has very fine predictive powers concerning the GFC is running with it and all they have to do is get their fine legislation through the senate because they need the revenue to help balance their books, opposed to actually achieving anything so they have a lot riding on it.

    It is all about money and control now.

  23. Gee, if you have such a problem with Bolt why don’t you go over to his blog and challenge his opinion?

    Because (a) rational debate is not possible on that site – the majority of posters attack people personally rather than any of the arguments; and (b) messages too damaging to Bolt’s claims are deleted.

    This is a widely acknowledged problem with Bolt’s “moderators”, even you would have heard of that.

  24. Give it a go then…post a comment here then there and we will see if indeed there is any truth in your accusation.

  25. Tolputt, even better, give me something to post and I will submit it.

  26. So instead of dealing with the topic (Arctic Ice) the issue is we should post on Bolt’s site?

    :/

  27. Joni,

    Bolt is part of the topic.

    😉

  28. I know – I used him and his comment as a hook to get the video up. That is all.

  29. Which is utterly wrong Neil and the evidence he uses to back his proposals has been well and truly refuted piece by piece. This was going to be the book that once and for all put paid to global warming, but it has done no such thing.

    But worst of all is that Plimer has deliberately misrepresented legitimate scientists, science (some of his stuff is loony bin) and he has doctored data or used data that has been known to be doctored and long since discredited.

    If you are reading it I hope you are willing to check up on the data he presents and most especially all the footnotes and references he cites, because that’s where his greatest flaws lie. Time after time he quotes or uses a source, footnotes it but when what he has written is checked against the source there is a disconnect. In some cases what he states is in the source cannot be found in the source anywhere. As I stated all these are being chased up one by one, and as much as possible the sources are being contacted to find out if firstly Plimer contacted them and secondly to see if what Plimer says they mean is what the meant or inferred. So far it is looking very bad for Plimer.

    Lastly he uses data which he doesn’t source at all yet which is known to be false and/or refuted, but he presents it as new or reputable information.

    There are reputable scientists out there who refute man as the cause for climate change and that is where this debate should be taking place. Plimer putting out utter garbage like this, as a lot of the denialists have been, does not do the legitimate debate any favours whatsoever.

  30. You linked to his blog site too.

  31. Plimer putting out utter garbage like this, as a lot of the denialists have been, does not do the legitimate debate any favours whatsoever.

    Nor does the use of emotive terms like denialists to describe those on the ‘other’ side of the debate.

  32. But why should we be told to put our comments up on Bolt’s blog? does that mean that for every link that we put up we should go to that site to make our comments?

  33. I thought a denialist was a politician that could not say “billion”?

  34. I thought denial was a river in Egypt?

  35. Not at all, joni.

    As a reader I have seen plenty of comments over there challenging his opinion.

    Saw Shaun the other day making a fist of it.

  36. A river in Egypt?

    I deny that!

  37. scaper…, on May 23rd, 2009 at 9:21 am Said:

    Gee, if you have such a problem with Bolt why don’t you go over to his blog and challenge his opinion?

    That’s the point scaper you can’t go over to Bolt and challenge his opinion because you mostly get snipped (the Bolt’s moderators term for cutting or altering posts).

    Even if you post something that is not abusive, is lucid and logical you get shouted down by dozens of his minions in a wave of abuse and vitriol. But the opposite is not the case in PP.

    Bolt’s minions are invited to debate and stick up for Bolt (and one or two do) in PP with no alteration of posts or snipping unless they become abusive or vitriolic, especially if the racially slur. It appears that it is Bolts minions who are the cowards, who make snide an disparaging remarks in Bolt’s blog (without censorship or snipping) but refuse to make the same remarks in PP. When PP posters go to Bolt’s blog they are mostly snipped so cannot debate there. I have had one of my posts just disappear with no explanation. I was very careful to just address the topic, not be abusive and was polite, yet the post disappeared, but all the abusive replies to my post and those hurling nasty personal abuse remained.

    You tell me scaper who are the cowardly?

    How about you doing it scaper? Make a post in a Bolt thread disagreeing with his viewpoint or sticking up for the Rudd government. Just see what eventuates if your post is allowed through and if it stays unaltered.

  38. Wait scaper – you said that if I have a problem then I should “go over to his blog and challenge his opinion”.

    I will put my comments and posts up on here.

  39. But why should we be told to put our comments up on Bolt’s blog? does that mean that for every link that we put up we should go to that site to make our comments?

    You are missing the point, Joni. Some are claiming that their comments don’t get through moderation at Bolt’s, particularly if they disagree with or refute Bolt’s point.

    Scaper proposed an experiment to test this theory.

  40. (First paragraph above is quoting Joni.)

    Formatting kindly fixed by the Kamahl-editor

  41. What topic do you propose, Adrian?

    Climate change, this government’s performance, the Israel conflict or the decline of society?

    I don’t agree with some of his stuff but that is no reason to deride him personally.

  42. So Adrian,

    Your argument is: your comments are not allowed through – except when they are; and when they are there are all these other commenters who want to argue with you and get all personal?

    Doesn’t sound like any blog I’ve ever been to.

    / sarcasm

  43. Joni, the shrinking in volume of sea ice in the Arctic is anecdotal evidence of that which is uncontested. That the Earth’s atmosphere underwent a degree of warming for an extended period. Of course ice will melt. It is contended that said warming has plateaued. Perhaps even turned to a small level of cooling in recent times. This suggests to us sceptics that CO2, which has continued to increase in atmospheric volume, at least to the extent of mankind’s contribution to its levels, would appear not to have been the cause of the warming as claimed by the proponents of AGW theory. Perrenial sea ice is not going to return any time soon, because it is perrenial. It can’t be counted in volume until it’s been there long enough to be described as perrenial. The discussion about sea ice from the sceptics is simply that hysterical claims that Arctic sea ice will completely disappear, or should have by now, have been proven false.

    As to Bolt, I have posted there many times in support and against his arguments. I have been snipped once when I suggested Robyn Riley should have been sacked for her article on Pauline Hanson. I have also had a few email exchanges with Andrew Bolt, initiated by him, where he sought further information on subjects about which I had posted. He has always been courteous in such exchanges.

    I also find it interesting that on many of the axes Bolt has ground over the years, history has proven him to be largely correct. I’d really love for a proponent of AGW theory to provide a date beyond which we can say, “Ok, we were wrong about that one”. Because CO2 emmissions aren’t dropping any time soon and I’m keen to buy some coastal property.

  44. James of North Melbourne, on May 23rd, 2009 at 10:35 am Said:

    Tolputt, even better, give me something to post and I will submit it.

    What using your alias and IP address? That’s not going to work.

    Here’s an idea, how about reading Pure Poison? There is plenty of sourced information on this directly linking to Bolt threads and replies by his minions. You can’t go the other way because Bolt refuses to not only link to PP, he has it snipped whenever it is used in a reply, though every now and again “Pure Poison” falls through the cracks in a post.

    Who were you saying are the cowards scaper? Bolt won’t even allow the name of another blog on his blog for fear people will go over to it and have a look at the deconstruction of his bull.

  45. Formatting kindly fixed by the Kamahl-editor

    Why are you so kind?

  46. joni
    “This is a furphy – none of the climate change scientists deny that the climate has not changed, the issue here is the rate of change, and the influence that man is making on that rate of change. In the past, the ecosystems have had a chance to adapt by the gradual change – now they will not have a chance.”

    Plimer and the IPCC are not on the same wavelength. Plimer is looking at the big picture drawn over billions of years, the IPCC is looking a split second of that time, perhaps a split millisecond is more accurate.Can anyone analyse the past so accurately as to get a day by day account of how the climate changed millions of years ago, because if you can’t then you can’t say the rapid rates of change never occurred back then, or whether there were many false starts, just as one cold wet day in May does not make it winter, before the larger and more significant change occurs.
    The fact that critics of Plimer have to get down and consider his argument sentence by sentence, and then focus on what might be inaccurate, rather than standing back and looking at the bigger picture knowing and accepting that there are going to be gaps and inconsistencies, tells me that those very people do not have the mindset or mental capacity to get their minds around the much bigger picture of climate change. They may be very well versed about a single issue, but as their depth of knowledge deepens so their breadth of knowledge lessens.
    The theory that as CO2 increases, the earths temperature increases is very simplistic, simple enough for most people can get their minds around that, but so simple that it could not be true. Climate is far more complex than that, and trying to understand all the factors that drive it probably rivals trying to understand the origins of the universe.
    Oh, I forgot it all began with the “Big Bang”, I guess you can’t get simpler than that, and there is a general consensus amongst scientists worldwide that it is true also, so I guess we shouldn’t question that theory either.

  47. Adrian, I have linked to this site quite a few times and it got through every time except when a moderator scrubbed it once because it was construed as a ‘blog plug’.

    I alerted Bolt to the Pure Poison blog because one deserves the right to reply to derision of oneself!

  48. James also history has proven Bolt to be wrong on many occasions. Right or wrong, which is the majority (as you state by using “largely”) is subjective to say the least, especially as Bolt is not often direct in what he states but makes innuendoes or suggests what is fact.

    When it comes to him using science to make a point he has been “largely” proven wrong. Like you I am not a scientist, neither is Bolt, but he makes out he is an authority (on many things actually). That is where this argument on climate change should reside, with the scientists of which a vast majority are in agreement, without the radicals and self serving parties on both sides hijacking it.

  49. We’ll agree on an alias and I’ll do it up at the Internet cafe. How about you post here what you posted that got abused and snipped. If it’s as innocent as you claim, let’s see what happens.

    As to Pure Poison, it’s simply an exercise in schoolyard bullying. I had a look over there yesterday. Apparently one Jay Santos posted there before being hounded out of the place to hysterical laughter. You need to sign up to post. And what of their exercise in posting abuse at Bolt’s to prove their point. That Jeremy Sears character reminds me of the old schoolyard bully. No substance, just snide abuse.

  50. To me, the fact is that there is climate change. During the 19th century there were white moths which changed into black moths due to the soot from the factories. However, we humans cannot evolve quite as quickly as moths. In fact we almost got wiped out during the last Ice Age.

    Therefore to me, the argument about who has caused climate change is purely academic..the problem being, what do we do about it.

  51. scaper. You alerted Bolt, you have to be kidding?

    Bolt was told about Pure Poison upfront by Pure Poison. Bolt doesn’t give a right of reply to “derision” but refuses to reply at all, refuses to acknowledge the site and ignores challenges for open and lucid debate on his topics or on Pure Poison.

  52. Adrian, pray tell where he has been proven wrong?

    As to qualifications, I assume you would make the same comments about Tim Lambert?

  53. James, I went over to Pure Poison when it first kicked off.

    I wrote something concerning playing the message instead of the man and got told to “fuck off to underneath my rock!”

    CLASSIC!

  54. Adrian, confirmation will be sent to joni.

    He was not made aware before they started on him!

    Sent now to the Blogocrats email.

  55. Has the new religion of GW put the ‘house full’ sign out yet or is it still door knocking? Does it have totems like other religions, i.e., holy communion, confession, Sunday mass, prayer mats, a muzzein, wearing coffee filters on the head etc? What do the GW ‘priests’ wear?

  56. You haven’t read it well if that is what you are going on about on Jay Santos. Look at the whole story, and QQIC or Jay has been challenged to debate openly and honestly without derision for a long time now but refuses to.

    That is another of the Boltites tricks, sock puppets and posting under several aliases on his site. A few have been picked up on it.

    And it is very telling that you assert Pure Poison hounded a Boltite off the site but just ignore the mountains of actual derision that is the norm for his blog. Also you state it is an exercise in schoolyard bullying (you certainly have your bullies arse about tit) which again shows you really don’t read that blog at all.

    ————————-
    The topic I posted in is now months old and anything posted there won’t be looked at. So how do you want to play this? I can pick a new Bolt article that I’m genuinely in opposition to or have a disagreement with something he stated in the article, the give you my reply. But as it’s now obvious you are an avowed Boltite, having personal contact with him, how do I know that you will not give him a heads up?

    As I said the easiest way is to go through the topics in Pure Poison. There are lots of sourced and linked posts and threads there that illustrate absolutely what we are stating on Bolt’s moderation of his blog.

  57. scaper…, on May 23rd, 2009 at 11:20 am Said:

    James, I went over to Pure Poison when it first kicked off.

    I wrote something concerning playing the message instead of the man and got told to “fuck off to underneath my rock!”

    CLASSIC!

    I’m linking this topic in Pure Poison so if you could link to where this happened it would be appreciated.

  58. Stephan.

    My god the old religion bit, the worst and most inane denialist attack of the lot.

  59. You have my word I won’t give him a heads up. I will post as “refuge cove” an alias I have never used on his blog.

    You are right, I don’t much read Pure Poison, but I have a couple of times. I find it simply an exercise in schoolyard sneering and not worth the time.

    Personal contact does not necessarily make one an avowed “Boltite”, but nice attempt at playing the man. I had far more personal contact with Dunlop and we hardly agreed on anything. I have also had an email exchange with Jill Singer, and I’ll dig that one out one day because it gives poison a whole new meaning.

  60. I don’t have access to that site but I can give you a date.

    23-2-09

    Boy, did I get attacked here around then…got called a liar and it was intimated that I was a sicko but yesterday I vindicated myself on another thread here!

  61. James, speaking of vindication of being called a liar, can you verify the evidence in your inbox?

    I suspect the moderators are out.

  62. Well just by saying you will post as refuge cove here you may have alerted Bolt.

    If you believe it is just an exercise in schoolyard sneering then you haven’t read it (or read it with a preconceived notion) and really don’t know what it’s about.

    ——————-
    scaper

    Which thread did you vindicate yourself “here”.

    When you say here are you referring to PP and what site haven’t you got access to? Your last post is confusing.

  63. Adrian, linking would be good…noticed that the hit counter has spun a few thousand this morning?

    Wonder why???

  64. Ok, Adrian. Send Joni an email or send one to refuge_cove@yahoo.com.au. Give instructions as to what name I should use and what I should post. Don’t make it abusive, stick to the known rules.

  65. Adrian, yesterdays matter is now closed and the sooner it is forgotten, the better.

    I don’t have access to PP because I forgot my password.

  66. scaper…, on May 23rd, 2009 at 9:21 am Said:

    …I’m over this never ending debate because there is no definitive proof either way, it is a matter of faith based on personal ideology if man has the capability or not to alter the climate.

    ……….

    And there you have it scaper, that is all that the ‘denialists’ argument has, that there is not irrefutable proof. After that, the only ones practising ‘faith’ instead of science appear to be the denialists. Plimer has proved he has faith, not science in his arguments, as, from looking at the research, his conclusions are drawn from false arguments. This is not to say that his conclusions are wrong, but his method of getting there is wrong. Most anecdotal evidence now supports what was once considered an extremist theory as now highly probable.

    Arguments that have attempeted to refute it have been themselves exposed in their weakness. Plimers book is a prime example.

    There are true sceptics out there, but most of these still accept that the case is unproven either way. For someone like Plimer to state that AGW does not exist is wrong, he can no better prove that than an AGW zealout can prove that it does.

    It is just that the case that it does exist is so much stronger than that against. And that is what we have to work with. That is why the majority (read, consensus) of scientists now agree that AGW is proven to such an extent that it is prudent for governments to take action against it.

    In my opinion, Plimer has done the denialist cause a huge disservice. It does not present scientific fact.

    bolt is irrelevant to the discussion, the only ones who listen are those who’s minds are made up (hence the term denialist), the only ones who post against his rubbish over there are those that want an easy laugh. I would fall into the later category. But, in his defense, I have never been moderated out. Some of the replies perhaps should have been, but I was glad they weren’t. The only problem is, all my posts had valid arguments, which were rarely addressed. It is not a forum for discussion.

  67. If we’re talking about the bushfire episode, I can confirm that the story now told is significantly different from that originally presented.

  68. http://blogs.crikey.com.au/purepoison/2009/02/page/2/

    That’s the archive for the 23-2-09

    If you can point out where you were abused as I can’t find a single poster who was abused as you say you were? In fact on that day there was no abuse at all and even scubsteve had a reasoned debate with the posters.

    Toiletboss was very prolific on that day so maybe he remembers where a poster was so abused as to being told to fuck off. I have not read every topic on PP since it started but in all the ones I have read I have not seen any poster being told to “fuck off”. Maybe they have if they were being particularly abusive and obnoxious but I have never seen it happen.

  69. Here is the link to scaper being told to “f@ck off back under your rock”.

    http://blogs.crikey.com.au/purepoison/2009/02/20/legal-reasons-suspended/#comments

    If you read it you’ll notice that when put in the context of scapers apparent need to try & dress me down on another blog then I think this statement, from above, is a little disingenuous…

    “I wrote something concerning playing the message instead of the man and got told to “fuck off to underneath my rock”

    …as there was a bit more behind scaper’s comment than just “playing the message instead of the man” as anyone who is familiar with our interactions here over the last few months will know.
    …bertus (who I had never encountered before) took exception to scaper’s comment. Probably no need to tell him to fuck off back under his rock but swearing is regularly permitted over there.

  70. (I am at work and cannot access my personal emails nor the blogocrats one… maybe reb will be about to help).

  71. Not trying to open up more conflict with you here BTW scaper. It is buried as far as I’m concerned & I only linked to support your assertion that you were told to F2ck off under your rock.

  72. Yes I can confirm that Scaper alerted Bolt to the aptly named Pure Poison blog.

  73. Toiletboss, I don’t harbour any grudges, life is too short for that.

  74. Bolt certainly does regularly snip comments that are contrary to his views, not always but often.
    It is more of a concern that he lets through some of the crap from his supporters who are clearly held to different standards.

    Believe it or not, it is the case & I’m not sure why any of you would think I need to lie about this.

    I would say that with the advent of PP it is somewhat easier to get a post up at Bolt’s. Perhaps he is being a bit more careful with knowledge that his “habits” are well scrutinised from outside?

    Honestly, if you do get a contrary comment through you’ll generally get two or three intelligent replies amidst a torrent of abuse along the lines of “leftard”, “moron” etc.

  75. Toiletboss, I agree…there are a lot of fine people over there amongst others that get a tad abusive, I just skim over that type of comment.

    I see that everywhere I go on blogs which is a reflection of society in general.

  76. Thanks Toiletboss.

    Yes scaper you were told to fuck off and it was wrong and I was wrong for not believing you. Notice you left the site in a hissy fit though whilst denigrating Bolt’s blog for being as bad, yet you felt the need to snitch to Bolt about Pure Poison, something he was told about anyway.

    PP was not hidden or secretive, for one the original Bolt/Blair attack site made open reference to a new blog being started at Crikey that would hold opinion writers to account for their misleading topics.

  77. Snitch???

    I believe it was his right to be informed!

    You have personally inferred that I lied twice today and proven wrong on both occassions, then come at me with a school yard jibe?

    I believe you are better than that.

  78. Thanks for that link Toiletboss.

    I note that the Mayor referred to me during that exchange (again).

    I’ve pointed out to the Mayor that I only participate here.

    Heavens, it is difficult enough trying to maintain some sense of balance here, with all the communists, welfare cheats and public servants that contribute. I’d have no time if I tried to impose a sense of order on all these other sites as well!

    Still, I noted the sage advice provided to the Mayor. Sound and balanced. Where’s that rock?

  79. “…communists, welfare cheats and public servants…”…. hey, don’t us pinko-poofs get a mention?

  80. I’d only add that re Jay Santos…he has thick form at Bolt’s & any derision he draws is well deserved.

    Anyone who has ever been set upon by him will know what I mean.

    I actually don’t comment at PP that often but do read it. To me it is where you go to find the rebuttals to Bolt etc. which you usually will not be able to find at their own blog.
    There are some very intelligent commenters at PP, much better substantiation than I can offer. A lot of disgruntled “leftards” who are fed up with being SNIPPED or outright banned.
    If you’re familiar with their work at Bolt’s prior to banning you’d see that they were polite, lucid & supported by counter evidence.
    This is why I think PP is a legitimate site.

    I don’t know much about Jeremy, Scott or others history but judging by the ire that they draw from Bolt/Blair apologists I’d say that they have ruffled some feathers along the way.

    Soz for adding to the derailment of this thread. Back to Arctic Ice?

  81. Joni – “hey, don’t us pinko-poofs get a mention?”

    Apologies, I wasn’t intending to be prejudiced on the grounds of sexual preference. I used the term “communists” to include all pinko-poofs.

    However, in future I’ll make a point of including that particular demographic.

  82. LOL Tom – cause at times reb and myself feel left out (and we are delicate flowers as you know).

    Kamahloderator: Topic please!

    Sorry Kamahloderator….

  83. I apologised scaper, but it is your right to rub it in.

    What do you mean his right to know about something that wasn’t secret and that announced to the world what it was going to do before it did it, including by Crikey.

    Very telling that you thought it necessary to tell someone about something that was public knowledge and that they were going to be rightly held to account for some of the stuff they were publishing and some of the racism they were allowing on their blog, or is that not how you framed it?

  84. Actually I didn’t call you a liar twice, especially over the fuck off bit. I only asked where it was and when you gave the date looked for it, posting a link to the archive for that date. Toiletboss knew of it because I couldn’t find it.

    Admittedly I didn’t believe you and for that I apologised and you have my apology again, but I didn’t call you a liar over it, just asked for you to give proof.

    It proved one thing though in searching for that one post, abuse like that is rare on PP (and it’s wrong), as Toiletboss states most of the regular posters there make perspicuous posts on points of contention without resorting to abuse and only ask the same be given to them elsewhere or those from elsewhere do the same on PP.

  85. johnd, on May 23rd, 2009 at 11:08 am

    That is not right John.

    Plimer stated his book would once and for all refute global warming using science. It did nothing of the sort as his science was mostly bogus.

    The big picture thing is now an excuse being dredged up because Plimer has been so badly caught out. That people can go in sentence by sentence, source by source and footnote by footnote and find error after error and one deliberate misrepresentation after another has nothing to do with a “big picture”.

    As to being able to tell past climate over millions of years, they certainly can and do all the time . All the major ice ages and warmings are plotted and the cycles are very clear. What has happened over the last 200 years is not part of any natural cycle, which is what alerted climatologists that something was up and to look for a cause. It’s not that there isn’t a non-cyclic climate change occurring, most of the scientific debate is to the cause of the non-cyclic change that is occurring; AGW or something else.

    Plimer is just wrong and no excuses about a “big picture” will make him right. He even goes into some hoodoo science about the sun at one point that would have science students going “what the?” This from a scientist is inexcusable.

    Some info on the breaking of cyclic patterns in the link and why this doesn’t mean global warming is not happening. I’ll add the note that this is where the debate on climate change should take place and whatever is argued outside of the science and government is done so mostly out of ideology (notice how it mostly breaks down into ideological lines) or ignorance, which is where I sit, though as much as possible I’m attempting to enlighten my knowledge on the subject.

    http://www.ifm-geomar.de/index.php?id=4192&L=1

  86. I don’t know either way about AGW, quite often because of the inescapable and untestable forward and backward inductions being deployed in arguments. And it may not matter either way, if the noosphere is up to something else like, say, acquiring for itself alternative energy sources or eficiencies (and you’ll see those kinds of arguments quite a bit from the ‘don’t know’ skeptics). However, on the matter of possible confusions of areas v. volumes, it does remind me of a strategy which some manufacturers like to use, where less is still more or at least the same.

  87. Toiletboss,

    Just had a look over at PP, and noticed your interesting question.

    You might find this of interest.

    It could be the opening argument for the proposition: “Hitler was a leftoid a leftist of the left.”

    Sorry for not addressing this over there, but I couldn’t be bothered registering.

    Sorry for the off-topic comment, Kamahloderator.

  88. “I don’t know either way about AGW, quite often because of the inescapable and untestable forward and backward inductions being deployed in arguments”Legion

    My sentiments exactly.

    TOSY, do you personally thiny that Hitler was of the left? I’d be surprised if you do.

  89. Um & if you don’t thiny he was of the left do you “think” he was?

  90. Toiletboss,

    The more I read about the history of these groups in the early part of the 20th century, the more credit I give to such arguments. The linked article makes a very compelling case. I would be interested to hear what you and others have to say about it.

  91. Adrian, so when is the Latrobe Valley going to flood. Please. Give me a date so I can then say at that point “Nah, it was all shit”. Or Tuvalu sink, or the Maldives sink, or the Great Barrier Reef die, or the Arctic Ice Cap disappear, or Polar Bears become extinct, one of them. Just one that we can hang our hat on and say, “Yep, they predicted this and it happened”. Because the scoreboard so far is looking very thin for your side.

  92. Tony, on May 23rd, 2009 at 2:19 pm

    I vill achieve my (socialist) ends (which are various, and defined per espoused ideology, and others per their appreciations of that ideology) via fascistic means; ze polar continuum vill be bent to run full circle in both directions. Ve are confusing ze ends of ze ideology vith implementation of ze ideology, perhaps. Ve could just as easily sprechen some on ze ideological Left use ze tools of ze Right to achieve zeir ends, and say Marx was of ze Right not of ze Left.

  93. Tony

    I haven’t read the linked article, and probably won’t. I find this debating about ‘were they this or that’ with a present day political spin tedious.

    I will just say that, as a complete novice in these things, I do remeber someone once saying that the political spectrum represents more a circle than a straight line, and that, as a result, the extremes of both left and right have more in common with each other than they do with the centre. In todays politics, this may or may not be true.

    This does not mean that they are the same, but i think many current day political commentators cherry picks facets, and then attribute them to the opposing team.

    The Nazis went right, and the Russians left, and both came to a point that closely resembeled each other (ignoring of course some glaring specifics). Easy today to try and re-align them with the opposition.

  94. Tony, on May 23rd, 2009 at 2:19 pm

    An addendum. Arguably, extreme variants of Left and Right ideologies fall better under a common notion of Totalitarianism, without specifying the contents of their ‘totalising’ ideologies. Interestingly, perhaps, such notions of ‘totalisation’ appear to (dialectically?) confound another set of appreciated ‘normal’ social-relational types, in the ideas of gemeinschaft and gesellschaft, which are again to be contrasted with ‘ideal(ised)‘ types.

  95. Scaper

    I think that your comment on Bolt’s blog was out of line. My original comment here was that Bolt keeps coming up with the line about Arctic Ice – and that his comment is on area and not volume. The clip I posted refuted that with hard science. I did not make any snide comments about Bolt.

    If you do not like the topics or commentors on this blog then you should not come here. I am tired of the arguments that you start on here and I am getting close to taking action to keep this blog a civil place.

    I am tired of all of this.

    In fact – I am actually contemplating shutting down the blog.

  96. I don’t think scaper’s proposed experiment is necessary. Unless we’re going to call three members of this forum liars (including Toiletboss, who came to your aid in proving a remark of yours) – it is not in doubt that Bolt &/or his mods will snip posts they find too confronting to their point of view.

    That there was a need to make a blog documenting these occurences would lend alot of weight to the fact it happen often. I’ve had it occur before (when I was posting under another alias) but, not being anally retentive, did not keep track of it. The occurence was enough for me to stop bothering on the blog (not a hard decision given the bile that is allowed to go uncontested over there as well).

  97. @joni:

    In fact – I am actually contemplating shutting down the blog.

    That would be a major shame, but given some of the crap that has gone down recently (which I am aware I have been mixed in), I can understand your point of view.

    @scaper:
    Honestly, I get the feeling you’re into blogging for the arguments (as opposed to debates) you can cause. At least lately (I never really have kept track of your posts prior to this week – so I may be wrong).

  98. Joni – “I am getting close to taking action to keep this blog a civil place.”

    Please don’t take this type of drastic action.

    And if you decided to close this blog, I’d be disappointed.

  99. For what it’s woth, I too would be disappointed if this Blog closes. Joni and Reb do a great job.

    Perhaps a COMMENTS POLICY?

  100. ‘worth’

  101. This is in a large part my fault. I bought up PP on Bolt because Bolt was the topic in relation to his disingenuousness on climate change.

    I also didn’t believe scaper for which I again apologise.

    I believe that keeping this thread will not achieve anything. There is already a blog that holds opinion writers to account and we don’t need to do it here as well.

    Looks like I have come back and caused all sorts of shit, sorry for that as well but I’m not taking a step back. I should take a lesson out of Tom’s book on how to debate forcibly but fairly whilst standing up for what you believe.

  102. I think a comments policy is a good idea, and probably a good topic for a thread.

    How about a weekly “have it out here” thread? So that those that want engage in some impolite exchanges can be directed there. the rest of us can pop in as spectators. But the exchange does not have to dominate the orderly discussion that people like me enjoy.

    Adrian, welcome back (again).

    Never take advice from me, and if I’ve ever been fair to anyone, it was inadvertent or unintentional.

    As for the earlier exchange, I can’t see a particular reason for any dummy spitting, so please don’t apologise to him again.

  103. James of North Melbourne, on May 23rd, 2009 at 2:47 pm

    Oh please James, if you are going to debate then debate on merit and science. You know you have nothing when you resort to that type of nonsensical retort.

    And the Maldives are sinking now,or don’t you watch 60 Minutes.

    Also how do you explain all the flora and fauna shifting around the planet?

  104. Crikey shifted a couple of very heated exchanges to their own area, and one was on climate change. It stopped all the off topic stuff and those subjects/posters dominating everything.

  105. I will try and get a thread up on a comments policy – and I am also thinking about only allowing comments from registered users. That way whoever is a user will have to agree to abide by the comments policy. Either that or all comments will be moderated – which is not something I want to do.

    Now I am not against personal attack per se, it is just when they get past a certain point that I get upset.

    It must be pretty bad for me to even hesitate to come here to see what is happening.

  106. Mobius Ecko, on May 23rd, 2009 at 2:14 pm

    Mobious, Plimers book it may be, however it is not Plimers science, but it was always and specifically about the bigger picture. He merely catalogued evidence of the evolution of the planet to illustrate a dynamic environment that is constantly trying to establish some equilibrium as each stage evolves. The cooling of the earth involved some major changes and these are onging with volcanoes and earthquakes constantly changing the status quo today. Throw in variable inputs from our own solar system, and who knows what is yet to be discovered from beyond, making any idea that mankind might be able to actually control the environment to the extent that he can actually stabilise it in it’s present form, rather optimistic and naive. It’s the “greenies” over again, they don’t care what the environment may have been like in the past, or what it might be naturally evolving to in the future, they just want to preserve it in it’s present day state, thankfully they weren’t around when we were all living in caves fighting off dinosaurs.
    How do you know that what has happened in the last 200 years is not part of a cycle? There is no reason to expect that any cycle is going to be an exact repeat of any previous cycle, just as we can’t expect any annual season to repeat the conditions of the same season last year, they rarely are. We don’t know even if there is a cycle of some sort until several previous cycles have passed.
    What we do know that our planet has a gigantic thermostat, the weather. It works by trying find an equilibrium by moving heat around as the planet heats and cools unevenly. It is always lagging but works with some kind of fuzzy logic, but like even the thermosat on your aircond, it may overshoot, going too cold, or letting it get too hot, like when someone leaves the door open too long, but give it time and it will compensate.

  107. johnd,

    Nicely put, and welcome aboard.

  108. Greenies please. It is science and nothing to do with greenies.

    If you are going to argue it, argue it at the scientific level.

    What you are saying by blaming the greenies is that there is a massive world wide conspiracy going on involving tens of thousands of scientists and most of the world’s governments because of a greenie scam, yet not one of the people involved in this supposed unprecedented massive scam has revealed it in the last two to three decades it has been going on.

    If Plimer was attempting to give the “big picture” then why did he think it was so necessary to misrepresent the science and scientists, bodge data and actually put in science theory on solar radiation that is outright wacky?

    Why did he predicate the launch of his book by saying its science would put paid to AGW once and for all, yet nothing about it being about a big picture with lots of shaky and bodgie science.

    Sorry John but what has happened over the last 200 years is unique in the history of this planet’s climate, which means it must be investigated and its cause found because if it is anthropogenic then something can be done about it, if it’s not then not a lot has been lost and a lot of good for the environment has ensued.

    The world isn’t like a giant thermostat, that’s simplistic in the extreme, and its about climate not weather, though weather anomalies are an indicator of the climate.

    That’s one of the problems, global climate is so complex that no modelling can accurately represent all of its variables, though this is improving all the time, especially with satellite data being incorporated. Because there is no definitive (and might never be) it allows for doubt, which allows entities with agendas to play on the doubts and unknowns, which is exactly what they have done. This has spawned radicals on both sides, usually divided down ideological lines (isn’t that strange, climate divided on your political view) but there are good articles around the traps as to why mostly conservatives are so dead set against acknowledging a climate change.

    But you would be naive to believe that 6,781,521,494. and rapidly growing humans on this planet destroying its forests, acidifying its oceans and polluting its atmosphere with billions of tons of crud is not having an effect on global climate. The question is how much and is it enough to cause the planet to heat up.

  109. johnd, on May 23rd, 2009 at 7:02 pm Said:

    Throw in variable inputs from our own solar system, and who knows what is yet to be discovered from beyond, making any idea that mankind might be able to actually control the environment to the extent that he can actually stabilise it in it’s present form,

    This is not at all what is being presented by the majority of the worlds scientists. In no way do any of them say they want to ‘control’ the environment. What they do not want is for mans activities upon the planet to trigger another shift in climate, shifts that have happened naturally in the past. We cannot stop nature modifying climates, but we are able to stop it being changed from our activities.

    Unfortunately, that is Plimers defense in his whole book, AGW is/cannot happen, because climate has changed before. What a pathetic excuse. Earthquakes have happened before, but does that mean that we cannot create them ourselves? Or should? Check out some earlier experiments with Geothermal power.

    And his ‘catalogued evidence’ has been proven to have so many errors that the book should be (is) totally ignored as a scientific work. He could have proven that climate has changed using validated data, jesus, even the IPCC have shown that. What he has not done is provide any evidence against his claim that this is all a big conspiracy theory. It is merely his opinion, as a denialist.

  110. So I gather Tony in praising John you believe Plimer’s book is a legitimate scientific publication on climate change even though it deliberately screws and misrepresents science?

    I also gather you believe the whole global warming proposition is a massive scam of such monumental proportions it involves tens of thousands of the world’s best scientists and just about all of the world’s governments over several decades?

  111. joni, you should keep this blog going. I for one enjoy the cut and thrust of blogocrats. Sure it gets a little heated but when people are passionate about their views it will always be that way. Perhaps the language becomes a little raw but that’s no-holds-barred blogging.

  112. Adrian,

    So I gather Tony in praising John you believe Plimer’s book is a legitimate scientific publication on climate change even though it deliberately screws and misrepresents science?

    I’m currently reading the book, and I believe it is a legitimate contribution to the public debate.

    There was a ready-made market for a book like this because many people suspected there was another side to the story they weren’t being told – they certainly weren’t getting it from organisations like the ABC, the SMH and The Age.

    I won’t answer the second half of that question because I don’t accept your proposition.

  113. “I don’t accept your proposition.” (Or your premise.)

  114. While I disagree with Adrian’s all or nothing view on global warming (disagreeing with the conclusions does not necessarily mean you think there is a conspiracy); he does have a point about the book. I’ve started reading the book (took a little time to get a hold of it), but given the faults I’m finding in his logic (let alone the incorrect science I don’t know about), I don’t think it is a “legitimate contribution to the public debate”.

    To me, for it to be legitimate, it would need to be information presented without deception. Regardless of which side of the debate you stand on, once you start deliberately deceiving others – you are no longer a legitimate participant in a debate – just another mud slinger.

    Also, just because there is a “market” for something, does not in fact legitimise the subject matter / opinion it is selling into. Scientology sells alot of material for alot of money. I don’t necessarily think that means there is a legitimate basis for the government to start planning for war with aliens or utilising our nations “body thetans” for generating super powers.

    Now I’m waiting for Tom Cruise to attack this site with the wrath of Xenu!

  115. Mobius Ecko, on May 23rd, 2009 at 8:16 pm Said:

    Mobius, I don’t think Joni was endorsing or otherwise my views, rather the manner in which they were presented ie playing the ball and not the man.
    Most people are most likely struggling to get their minds around the complexities of climate, so it is easy to find safety in numbers and go along with the mob. But having 10,000 people supposedly agreeing doesn’t always give credibility. The Bush administration comprised many times that number of experts, now how much credibility did they have on economic matters, (an infinitely less complex field than climate), with all their calculations, projections and extrapolations. They couldn’t even maintain that scam until the end of Bush’s term so they could all blame the failure on his successor.

    Mobius, about the last 200 years, well what about it? Here in Australia many people see they latest drought as evidence of climate change. How? The first half of the 1900’s were hot and dry, the second half wetter and cooler. Since then drier and warmer. But what about the 1800’s, there are many indications that they were drier than the 1900’s. In fact much of the conflict between the settlers and the aborigines in the mid 1800’s came about due to each trying to maintain control over dwindling water supplies as major rivers dried up.
    The problem is that most people born post WW2 believe the wetter and cooler conditions they grew up in were the normal. They are wrong, the period 1947 until 1977 was more likely abnormal, and the droughts of the 1800’s, pre WW2 and post 1977 the normal for Australia. A good reference for looking at that big picture is a chart put out by the Queensland Government Natural Resources and Mines. So the question really is are we heading into never before conditions, or have we just got back to normal.

  116. Ben,

    To me, for it to be legitimate, it would need to be information presented without deception. Regardless of which side of the debate you stand on, once you start deliberately deceiving others – you are no longer a legitimate participant in a debate – just another mud slinger.

    If it offers something new, it’s a legitimate contribution to the debate. Whether it’s correct or not, time will tell.

    And just because you, Adrian, and Tim Lambert agree that Plimer is deceiving his readers, doesn’t make it so.

  117. For johnd, and any other new readers: Mobius Ecko is Also-Known-As Adrian.

  118. (To avoid confusion.)

  119. If it offers something new, it’s a legitimate contribution to the debate. Whether it’s correct or not, time will tell.

    Well, you & I then have different definitions of the word “legitimate” then.

    For example, I could blame the climate change on a secret conspiracy of solar monkey-men or that Andrew Bolt secretly knows that climate change is man-made but is simply serving the Saudi oil barons paying off his private island in the Pacific.

    Both of which are “offering something new” whilst also being outright lies / deception by myself. I wouldn’t classify them as legitimate additions to the debate (even if alot of anti-Bolters latch onto my second supposition 😛 ).

    And just because you, Adrian, and Tim Lambert agree that Plimer is deceiving his readers, doesn’t make it so.

    Agreed. However, when scientists quoted either directly by the book or through a report they have written come out publicly to state that Plimer is distorting their words / research – I think that qualifies. I’m a simple reader of his work – the quoted scientists are the “sources” of his work and know alot more about what they did than either you or I would. I’d trust them over Plimer… after all, he trusted them enough to use their research!

  120. Tony, on May 23rd, 2009 at 10:05 pm Said:

    If it offers something new, it’s a legitimate contribution to the debate

    But there is nothing new offered here, all that is offered is another voice.

    All that he has done is collect various data (of extremely dubious quality), and said what all scientists say, climate changes. What is so new?

    Oh, and he thinks there is a global conspiracy on the part of the vast majority of the worlds scientists. Not overly new. Not backed up with any evidence either.

  121. For example, I could blame the climate change on a secret conspiracy of solar monkey-men or that Andrew Bolt secretly knows that climate change is man-made but is simply serving the Saudi oil barons paying off his private island in the Pacific.

    All of which could be rebutted by reasoned argument in the course of that legitimate debate.

    That’s what a real debate is. You put your argument, and I will endeavour to rebut. If your argument is strong, it will grow and flourish. If not, it will wither on the vine.

  122. and said what all scientists say, climate changes. What is so new?

    Precisely.

  123. Tony, you might consider what it means to ‘know’. ‘Reasoned argument’ is much more problematic than you realise or admit.

    As a starting point, try this link, and yes it’s from Wiki:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology

    Cheers.

  124. N5,

    Interesting.

    Or it would be in a discussion about philosophy or metaphysics.

    Relevance to this (more) earthly conversation? None.

  125. All of which could be rebutted by reasoned argument in the course of that legitimate debate.

    Not really. You cannot prove the non-existence &/or non-activities of my omnipotent solar monkey-men (a problem with all “faith-based” arguments). After all, solar monkey-men work in mysterious ways.

    Also, without knowing all the details in regards to Andrew Bolt’s finances – it would be impossible to prove he is not in league with the Saudi’s. It took some time to prove the research companies in the employ of Big Tobacco after all. At the time, there was a similar debate as to the merits of research for & against the “health risks” of cigarettes & the like.

    Gotta hit the sack for the night. So won’t be able to reply until the morning. G’night folks.

  126. Night Ben-boy, night joni-boy.

  127. Night boys.

    Not me though. I’ve got an opened 5 litre beer keg to deal with.

    And Joni, enough of that closing the blog nonsense. You could be famous!

    Seriously, though, your and Reb’s work is much appreciated.

    OK, you attract a few scallawags through your laid-back, let-’em-all-come attitude, but that’s part of the charm of this place.

    Sweet dreams.

  128. Tony – I am staying around too.

    Shall I put a music thread up and we can trade youtube songs?

  129. Yes do! Are you still in SG?

  130. And I have a glass of red left and then some port

  131. Yeah – in a hotel room still. Chatting to bf on adium.

  132. B.Tolputt, on May 23rd, 2009 at 11:02 pm Said:

    It took some time to prove the research companies in the employ of Big Tobacco after all. At the time, there was a similar debate as to the merits of research for & against the “health risks” of cigarettes & the like.

    It will come as no surprise then that one of the leading research companies employed by big tobacco is employed by big energy, and they are using similar tactics of muddying the water, including the hiring of scientists to misconstrue data and find for a specific outcome. Scientists who by the way turned against their employers the other month in what was one of the biggest blows to the GW opponents ever.

  133. and said what all scientists say, climate changes. What is so new?

    Precisely.

    Misconstrued Tony (deliberately?).

    For all of the false and misrepresented data Plimer put in his book that was going to irrefutably disavow AGW, Plimer comes up with climate changes. He doesn’t answer why at the time not long after the start of the industrial revolution did the climate change at unprecedented outside massive catastrophes levels and has been continuing that unprecedented change.

    Climate does indeed change, but it changes in different ways over different periods for different reasons. The current change and it’s rate has no precedented reasons, which is what alerted scientists that something was up and why they must find the cause, for if the cause is preventable then we must prevent it.

    I just cannot understand this ostrich mentality of burying your head in the sand and hoping when you pull it out everything is great. It’s more akin to playing Russian roulette.

    Finally you must ask yourself why Plimer thought it necessary to fill a book he stated would be the refuter of AGW with so much obvious shonky science and to go as far as deliberately misconstruing science and scientists?

  134. Tony, on May 23rd, 2009 at 10:05 pm Said:

    And just because you, Adrian, and Tim Lambert agree that Plimer is deceiving his readers, doesn’t make it so.

    No Tony, the book is full of deliberately misleading science and even goes as far as to misquote scientists and attribute to them things they never stated.

    It is not just us but a whole bunch of scientists that are pulling that book apart and it’s not pretty sight as its so full of errors and manipulation of data.

    No excuses about “big picture'” or “time will tell” will excuse this piece of utter ideological nonsense and the book will go down as as the worthless pulp it is.

    Problem is that so many denialists were hanging their faith on this book after the energy scientists association recanted against their employers the other month, and now it’s turned out to be such a dud, no worse than a dud, they are attempting to clutch at straws to make excuses for it.

    This book was marketed as a leading scientific tome of repute, yet when it came up against the most casual scrutiny and peer review it failed miserably. It would be one thing if the science failed (like his ludicrous theory on solar radiation) but it is something else entirely that he has deliberately manipulated data and misrepresented other scientists. That is unforgivable, and that he had to go to those lengths proves irrefutably he had nothing or little to back up his scientific contentions or ideological view on climate change.

    This book has done more to harm the opponents stance on climate change than it has to vindicate it, and they know it, which is why they have come out with this big picture nonsense, which also doesn’t hold up to casual scrutiny.

  135. He doesn’t answer why at the time not long after the start of the industrial revolution did the climate change at unprecedented outside massive catastrophes levels and has been continuing that unprecedented change.

    That’s another furphy. Plimer gives numerous examples of similar and more rapid changes in climate.

    Here’s an idea: why don’t you actually read the book about which you claim to have so much knowledge?

  136. johnd, on May 23rd, 2009 at 10:01 pm

    John you are making the same mistake most opponents do and using the Bush economic analogy is not a very good one. We are talking an entire different thing here with tens of thousands of scientists over many decades and often independent of each other coming to the same conclusions.

    Three sets of scientists in three different countries within days of each after September 11 2001 came up with almost identical findings and published independently without knowing what the others had found. Why that time was important is too involved to go into, but think of what one of the first actions was after the attacks on the World Trade towers.

    My point is that for this to be in anyway a scam or for this much science to be wrong it would mean all these groups and governments would have to be working in collaboration on the same sets of data using the same methodology. That is not the case at all.

    As to your mistake, you are taking individual weather events and comparing them to individual weather events of the past.

    Weather is not Climate.

    What you should be doing is looking at weather anomalies, which is what the scientists do when they refer to droughts, storms, floods, fires etc. being a probably indicator of climate change. They do not use an individual or localised weather to assert as proof for global warming but the fact the globe is warming at an unprecedented rate and a consequence of that are weather anomalies.

    Also the one question I have not had answered is that if there is no unprecedented climate change occurring how do you explain the unprecedented behaviour of the globes flora and fauna over the last 200 years, behaviour in many long term species that never occurred in past ice ages and warmings. Again too involved to explain here but look it up, there’s tons of data on it, from tropical mosquitoes being found in northern Europe for the first time ever to warm water fish being found in far southern and northern latitudes for the first time ever.

  137. Tony, on May 24th, 2009 at 8:46 am Said:

    That’s another furphy. Plimer gives numerous examples of similar and more rapid changes in climate.

    All discredited and raised previously in other scientific papers and refuted after peer review.

    How about you go through the pdf link I posted (and I’ll give an update soon as it’s growing by the day) and look at all the valid repudiations to his so called science and examples?

    Though I haven’t read a hardcopy of the book I’ve read most of its passages online. I’m certain I won’t gain any further insight by reading the actually paperback and why would I want to pay for something that has been proven to be so bogus.

    Are you trying to say Plimer’s science is mostly valid and he hasn’t deliberately misrepresented facts or misstated other scientists?

  138. Tony, on May 23rd, 2009 at 8:49 pm Said:

    I’m currently reading the book, and I believe it is a legitimate contribution to the public debate.

    Yet it wasn’t sold or marketed as a legitimate contribution to public debate but as the irrefutable put down of AGW on a scientific basis.

    It was sold on its science and on the reputation of a scientist. It is that science that has mostly failed and worse found to have been deliberately manipulated to show a preconceived outcome on purely ideological lines.

    If Plimer had marketed the book as a non-scientific tome to engage public debate then fair enough, but he didn’t do that.

    This is yet another example of deliberately muddying the waters, especially coming on the back of the science association that works for big energy recanting against big energy and the climate change opponents last month or so.

  139. Adrian, you’re purporting to be an expert on a book you admit to not having read. Any objective observer can see what an absurd position that is, even if you can’t.

  140. Tony,

    “you’re purporting to be an expert on a book you admit to not having read”

    Some things never change……

  141. Mobius Ecko, on May 24th, 2009 at 8:59 am

    Mobius, please explain how you define weather vs climate.

    You also know as well as the rest of us, EVERY time there is a disasterous weather event, sombody uses it to prove accelerated climate change. This latest drought is the perfect example, however a little bit of research reveals that rather than being an unusual or unprecedented event, it is more like the normal, for Australia at least. That is the real mistake, confusing what is a new experience for the individual, with what is a new experience for the environment.
    A little bit of research regarding record temperatures of various towns around Victoria and southern NSW published by the “Weekly Times” last year revealed that many record high temperatures set nearly a century ago are still standing, whilst many record low temperatures have been newly set in more recent times. Last year we also saw record frosts in various parts of Victoria significantly greater than any previous records. If the IPCC theory of increased CO2 increases the temperature, then how can those frosts be explained? Perhaps just a hole in the greenhouse let the heat escape, more likely a hole in the IPCC CO2 theory.
    As for flora and fauna, their survival depends on, and always has, on their being able to adapt to a changing environment. Perhaps you can explain why fish or mosquitos should not adapt to a totally different environment. Just as one winter is never an exact repeat of the previous winter, neither is any flora and fauna an exact replica of it’s parent. Nature has a funny way of always throwing in a wildcard that the environment will determine whether it is going to fly or flounder. If tropical people can adapt, why can’t tropical flora and fauna?

  142. Well, Tony, while not completely through the book (I have kids, family, and other fun things to occupy my time *laugh*); I am readinig it and I can see some problems in it.

    I’m not an expert, so I will make no claims about that. However, I will ask – have you looked at the list of deception, misconstrued data, &/or lies that have been put up by others yet? I have a link that I’ve been following through as I read the book.

    Regardless of whether it was sold as a “scientific tome” (which the book flap implies) or simply as an addition to public debate – the shear number of distortions and outright falsification pretty much kills this as a legitimate source for me.

    If someone in a court room is proven to have lied, distorted the facts, &/or misled the judge/jury – their credibility is damaged such that they cannot be believed about the others things they say. While there may be some legit science in Heaven & Earth, his credibility is so damaged by the rest of his book’s deception as to make an uncredible source for any of it.

  143. If someone in a court room is proven to have lied, distorted the facts, &/or misled the judge/jury – their credibility is damaged such that they cannot be believed about the others things they say.

    What? You mean like this guy? 😉

  144. What? You mean like this guy?

    Yup, like that guy. Note, I haven’t used him as a reference. Having failed to apply misdirection – are you willing to look at the list of errors (much more than nine) for his book &/or accept that his credibility has been damaged beyond a “legitimate” addition to the debate?

  145. Yes, sure Ben. Give me your favourite link on the topic and I’ll look at it when I have the time and inclination.

  146. Mobius Ecko, on May 24th, 2009 at 9:17 am

    “Yet it wasn’t sold or marketed as a legitimate contribution to public debate but as the irrefutable put down of AGW on a scientific basis.”

    Mobius, I attended one of his book launches and you have it totally back to front. Plimer and the people introducing him made it clear that the intention of the book was to provide an alternative (big picture) view in order to stimulate thought and debate. Their was never any claim that it was his, Plimer’s, science, nor I believe any intention, or possibility, of breaking down the events that occurred over billions of years into what occurred in any particular decade.
    I don’t think anyone, (not meaning you as you haven’t read the book) who submerges themselves in the book looking for spelling mistakes or the expected errors, and exceptions, has the mindset to grasp the whole concept of climate change. If the potholes in the road becomes a fixation, and therefore more important than fact that the road is taking you to an eventual destination, then the whole point of the journey has been lost. It’s the destination, not the journey that is relevant.
    Some people are capable of dealing with large complex issues, but many, perhaps the masses, are only capable of dealing with simple single issues, and it is those that Al Gore and the IPCC targetted with their incredibly simplistic CO2 theory.
    It is impossible to prove that AGW does not occur, but only one fact is needed to prove it. So far that one fact has not been identified, it is still all theory.

  147. joni…I think it is a bit precious of you to carry on about this site being put under the spotlight when you did exactly that to Bolt’s site which is really the underlying topic of this thread.

    I need to reveal a little bit of my history here to prove my point.

    I joined the environmental movement in 1976, it was the Friends of the Earth, then Greenpeace and the Wilderness Society.

    I was very active on issues and ploughed a lot of money into those organisations to keep them active and to this day still have a few friends in those organisations.

    Over this time I watched the environmental movement turn into a Green movement that has been radicalised to a point that many of us founding members resigned and distanced ourselves because we were marginalised due to our view that there has to be a compromise to achieve a balance, not a complete reversal of our lifestyles that is the agenda of the movement.

    It was ugly, if one disagreed one was verbally abused for attempting to initiate debate and slowly disfranchised from the process…I snapped when I was accused of not being a ‘GREEN!”

    To me it is akin to the phrase…”YOU ARE NOT A TRUE MUSLIM!”

    I’m sure you will understand what I’m getting at.

    I’ve been sitting on the fence on this issue for reasons that I care not to reveal here and I consider myself to hold strong convictions which is a delimma in itself.

    My view on AGW is that I don’t have enough untarnished science to make any judgement but I can tell you this…I am against the Green movement, an ETS and this government because they don’t give a shit about the environment because it is about power, money and control of society!

    I’m sick and tired of being told what to eat, drink less, stop smoking, buy a smaller car, what I can view on the Internet and to wash my hands by this fascist government who don’t have any right to hold the moral high ground because my observations and first hand accounts indicate that they are talentless and undeserving of the respect engendered by the broader community!

    My old friends have all dropped out because of their disallusionment with the Green movement and society in general.

    I could just drop out myself as I have the resources to live out my days in relative comfort but I won’t…I’ll just keep chipping away to attempt to effect change and if and when I fail I will be able to say that I gave it my best shot!

    I care deeply for the future of this nation and at times I feel alone.

  148. It was not me being precious. I am still not happy with you actions on here.

  149. I started using this page as it contains quick and easy links to online debunking sources.

    However, I have just started using this PDF as it is more indepth.

    Note: I am not stating that all the errors they pick up on are worth reading. Rather, the sum total of small distortions, deliberate obfuscations, and outright pseudo-science (e.g. the sun as an “atom filter” is completely bonkers) discredits him as a legitimate debater. If he was legitimate, he would not need to prop up his side with untruths and pseudo-science.

  150. @joni:
    You are not alone in this, for the record, I’m not going to rise to the bait of certain posters in the near future; but I don’t believe you were being precious (as I felt similar).

  151. “I am still not happy with you actions on here.”

    The way I see it is we will have to sort it out one way or the other!

    Either email me or on this thread…I’m easy.

    You have another option as it is your blog!

  152. Scaper,

    I don’t think Joni’s being precious at all.

    Your claims over at Andrew Bolt’s site that Joni has attacked the “man” (ie Bolt) rather than the subject at hand is just nonsense.

    In fact, your style here at Blogocrats is often in the manner of maligning the individual. You have launched pretty vicious and unwarranted personal attacks against two posters here (that I know of), and these two individuals are probably two of the most moderate people around.

    Sometimes you come across as quite a passionate and strongly opinionated individual which is fine, but when you just launch highly personal attacks against people who happen to disagree with your views then this just goes too far.

    I’ve avoided entering into this debate for a couple of days now, but your conduct over at Frolykz the other day was uncalled for, and it’s not an isolated incident.

    It’s really becoming quite tiresome.

    To avoid this type of “blow up” on the blog, either Joni and I need to start moderating all comments, which frankly I certainly don’t have the time or inclination to do. And I imagine Joni doesn’t either.

    Or, maybe you would feel better off just posting views somewhere else if you find the way we conduct ourselves around here so objectionable.

    In case I’m not making myself clear, this is an invitation for you to just leave.

    And don’t take this comment as some reason to get all worked up into a frenzy again, because I really can’t be bothered.

    joni: thanks reb – said it better than I could.

  153. B. Tolputt,

    Thanks for those links. I’ve had a very quick scan of both, and there appears to be a mixed bag. Some debatable positions taken by Plimer are claimed to be outright false by Lambert.

    For example:

    p22 Claims hockey stick to be a fraud

    Now, I don’t know how much reading you’ve done on the infamous hockey-stick graph, but I’ve doneplenty, and I’d have to say that in my opinion Plimer is 100% correct on this.

    Presumably there will be much more opinion-as-fact to be found in the Lambert et al ‘debunking’ of Plimer’s book, but right now I don’t have the energy to look for them.

  154. p349 the hockey stick is “infamous”

    This is debunking Plimer’s science?

  155. OK, where are you up to in the book? Have you reached any of the pure bunkum science yet? Around page 120 he quotes the abstract of a paper that claims the sun is made up of the same composition as asteroids / meteorites.

    As for the hockey-stick graph, there is a difference between fraud and misleading. Given that two (Republican weighted) expert panels in the US came to much the same conclusions as was presented in the Michael Mann’s initial paper. Even assuming the methodology was flawed (something I am not qualified to judge either way), “fraud” is a pretty strong word not supported by powerful people wanting to make such a case!

  156. With all due respect now Tony, unless you are the world’s quickest reader, you are obviously looking for problems in the list rather than actually following through on any of them.

  157. The PDF is much better at debunking only the science – hence the reason I switched to it.

  158. Ben I had already selected a random item from the PDF: Number 14, and did a search for the footnoted study. I arrived at an abstract of the study, which is behind a Science pay wall.

    Now that might be fine for some Melbourne Uni maths lecturer who can charge the fee to the uni account, but not much good for amateur sleuths like ourselves.

    I’m not willing to take Lambert’s or Enting’s opinions on such research as final.

  159. Around page 120 he quotes the abstract of a paper that claims the sun is made up of the same composition as asteroids / meteorites.

    I don’t recall reading that, and can’t find it on or around p120. Can you please have a look at your copy and give me directions?

  160. Thanks Kamahl.

    Kamahloderator: I work in mysterious ways… 🙂

  161. B.Tolputt, on May 24th, 2009 at 10:56 am

    I’ve had a look at the link and also find it a mixed bag. No doubt someone will come out and debunk it, and so on.

    But what about the other matters raised by Plimer, the points not contested far outweigh those that are. Surely the final judgement is being made by the thinking person on the weight of the points that are not being challenged rather than those that are.

    Having heard him speak, I believe that Plimer and the IPCC are not on the same wavelength. The IPCC’s focus is confined to what occurs in the troposphere, the realm of our weather, and on very short term events. Plimers focus is mainly on what happens almost everywhere else, and on events anything but short term.
    The IPCC is the daytrader on the stockmarket, and Plimer the long term investor, and we all know who the wealth always end up with. Contrarians always do well. The day traders also have the hockey stick, but as they learn, “the trend is your friend until the bend at the end”.

  162. The IPCC is the daytrader on the stockmarket, and Plimer the long term investor, and we all know who the wealth always end up with.

    Management…. hehe

  163. B.Tolputt, on May 24th, 2009 at 10:56 am Said:

    I started using this page as it contains quick and easy links to online debunking sources.

    I went to that page and am left a bit confused about the controversy over the graph used by Plimer from Durkin’s Great Global Warming Swindle. Granted he used the original graph rather than the one that was apparently updated in 2007 as claimed by Tim Lambert. However if you compared the original graph and the updated graph to a graph at http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/ it appears to me that the original graph conforms to the Met Office graph covering the same period, and the updated one does not.
    Study them carefully and allow for the fact that they use different base lines.
    The Met Office Hadley Centre graph shows a generally negative temperature anomaly almost right from 1850 until 1980, 130 years. Since then it has been generally positive. There is a big difference in plotting temperature and temperature anomalies and I’m not sure that Tim Flanders is aware of the difference, or just being deceptive.

  164. Tim Flanders.

    Heh. Any relation to this guy?

  165. Another economic analogy to climate John, and another bad one.

    Plimer does no such thing and that’s a cop out. The IPCC and other climate organisations are not just looking at short term events nor just the troposphere at weather. That is a false statement.

    You keep coming back to calling it weather when what they are looking at is global climate, which is why it’s called climate change and not weather change.

    Far from just the troposphere being looked at, the whole gamut from oceans (including deep sea salinity which is increasing because of ocean CO2 saturation), ocean acidification, water surface and currents, sea and land ice to stratosphere and beyond are all considered in their science.

    Plimer is just coming up with a grand meaningless long term statement with no backing science. You keep coming back to that John, but Plimer’s book is supposed to be a scientific tome, based on verifiable and credible data, and sorry it’s not that. To now frame it as being a grand over arching long term statement is disingenuous. And worse that is not verifiable or credible science, just faith based nonsense.

  166. Tony, on May 24th, 2009 at 12:00 pm Said:

    I’m not willing to take Lambert’s or Enting’s opinions on such research as final.

    Yet you are willing to take Plimer’s opinion on his research as final?

  167. So Tony going through it passage by passage and checking the criticisms is not a legitimate method of looking at a book?

    As you read the book are you verifying all that it is claiming or do you just believe it outright because it is written by a denier with the same view as yours? So how does your reading it make it any more valid than my reading the dissections of all the passages, including the graphs, data and the footnotes? Bet you haven’t gone through the footnotes to ensure they match the statement he makes, of course not it would take you months. So I’m reading dissections that are doing that already and have all the sources and exact references to where the problems with the book lies.

    All this talk of a grand statement is meaningless in the context of science. It is either credible science or it’s bunkum. And to say the points contested outweigh those that are is disingenuous. Any scientist that put in a peer reviewed journal or paper with parts that are verified false, to be misrepresentations or manipulated to obtain a set outcome would not be considered credible because some parts appear to stack up, and mostly because they haven’t been fully checked yet.

    Sparta pot calling kettle black puts his two bob in, adds nothing to the debate as usual.

  168. I’ll add another thing.

    I assert that if Plimer wrote a book full of similar dodgy science, misleading facts and manipulated data supporting the global warming contention, and made a grand over arching long term statement, those who are now attempting to stick up for Plimer would be lambasting him for all he’s worth and canning the whole global warming science because of the unconvincing books like this it produces.

    These same people would be dissecting it (read or not read) and pointing to all the faults in the book, not overlooking a single one as they are now overlooking the bodgie science presented. Those scientists who did the dissecting would be proffered as credible and fully justified in what they are doing, instead of being dismissed out of hand as those who are currently dissecting Plimer are.

  169. Mobius Ecko, on May 24th, 2009 at 2:41 pm

    Mobius, can you define the difference between weather and climate because you make it seem that one operates in isolation to the other.
    The whole IPCC position is based specifically on rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Without that they have no case.
    We know water vapour, the main greenhouse gas is what drives our weather, no, more than that, it is our weather. CO2 exists alongside water vapour in the troposphere. So how can CO2 not be weather related and only climate related?

  170. Mobius, can you comment of Plimmers use of the graph supposedly taken from Durkin’s Great Global Warming Swindle. He is being accused of using the original version and not the updated version. However it appears to me that it is the original, and supposedly discredited version, that most closely resembles the graphs from the Met Office Hadley Centre http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/ and thus validates Plimmers assertions.
    Perhaps you can make your own comparisons and comment on what you find.

  171. Yet you are willing to take Plimer’s opinion on his research as final?

    No, Adrian. I’m willing to read and understand the narrative, without obsessing over every disputed detail.

  172. jonhd, You ask mobius to explain thing to you that are readily accessible with google. You ask about the difference between weather and climate (apparently not explained in Plimers book?). I went to wikipedia for a quick refresher on the two. I think you should too.I know mobius has been put in this situation before where others make challenges outside of the debate.
    It is obvious you disagree with agw and want confirmation ( through people like Plimer) fair enough. If people can read the bible without question anything is possible.

  173. sorry johnd for typo of name

  174. Tony
    But if the science and premise behind the narrative is flawed you are just taking the narrative on face value. This is a science tome Tony, not a novel, though it’s looking more like science fiction all the time.

    You should be reading it as science, looking at the data, information and references he supplies as part of that reading, otherwise you are just taking what he states as a narrative and not as credible science.

    Lucky for us others are doing the hard yards as Plimer decided to flood his book with references and footnotes, so instead of reading it as a narrative we can go to those who are dissecting the science and sources in the book, thus we gain a better knowledge of both the narrative and the science.

  175. (Take two)

    Lucky for us others are doing the hard yards as Plimer decided to flood his book with references and footnotes, so instead of reading it as a narrative we can go to those who are dissecting the science and sources in the book, thus we gain a better knowledge of both the narrative and the science.

    Thanks Adrian,

    I feel comforted knowing that.

  176. johnd, on May 24th, 2009 at 3:37 pm Said:

    Mobius, can you comment of Plimmers use of the graph supposedly taken from Durkin’s Great Global Warming Swindle

    Because the graphs aren’t the same and you nailed it when you said “appears to most resemble”.

    Is it the same or isn’t John? You certainly can do a comparison for yourself and see the differences for 1940 and 1975.

    As pointed out, Plimer uses the discredited The Great Global Warming Swindle graph which was deliberately distorted and incorrectly plotted specific peaks. From the way I read it the peaks are in the wrong place namely 1940 peak appearing around 1950 and 1975 peak around 1979.

    There is the updated graph available that Plimer should have used, so why did he decide to use the acknowledged distorted one? Maybe an honest mistake so it’s fair to give him the benefit of the doubt if he corrects it in the future.

    By the way as you have posted a link to that graph. Since the industrial revolution has the earth cooled or warmed?

  177. Its bloody nice to have ya back again, Adrian, even if I have no idea what you are talking about…

    Water tank’s full again – 130mm in my suburb alone last week

    Solar system is working like a charm – 33 units onto the grid already and reduced my power consumption…by 25% (all for $185…thanks to government assistance, magick)

    Solar hot water system – hot water this calendar year less five days power booster…

    Trouble is I’ve been researching the cost of producing stainless steel (water tank), solar panels, electric cable, plastic – the list goes on, by the time all that is taken into consideration it is a very expensive excercise – in carbon emissions…round and round we go…

    …sequestration of carbon or, storage of uranium waste seems to be the only practical solution…’cause present alternatives don’t seem to be able to provide enough power to make the products that are supposed to provide the alternative energy that make the etc.

    Not personally in favour of nuclear waste in my back yard nor the possible/probable consequences…

  178. handyrab, it’s all about trying to see things from the other persons perspective. It’s not about me looking for a definition of weather and climate but wanting someone to articulate how they see it because there appears a lot of confusion with many believers of AGW using irregular weather events to justify AGW. For instance, droughts. How many times have you heard someone claim that the most recent drought is proof of AGW? There are plenty of indications that droughts were more severe and more regular during the 1800’s, so if the climate is changing, which way is it changing if droughts are an indicator?
    Is drought a function of the weather or the climate? If weather and climate are different as many claim, then on which side does drought fit? Severe droughts are not exactly a recent occurrence.
    It appears to me that the ones who might read the bible without question are the same ones blindly following the popular opinion. Lets face it, few people, if any would have the capacity to get their minds around such a complex subject of climate change. Even the most brilliant minds will have traded off breadth of knowledge for depth of knowledge in their specialised field. Add to that new discoveries all the time that add another dimension not previously known. For instance, whilst the El-Nino of the Pacific Ocean has been long known about, it was only in 1999 that Japanese researchers identified, and named, the Indian Ocean equivalent, the Indian Ocean Dipole. As people are now learning this system is a major driving force of weather in central and southern Australia. Research now shows how previous droughts were a function of events in the Indian Ocean, and that our weather is tied in with the weather in Indonesia, India and eastern Africa further opening up the opportunity to better understand our past weather and climate from studying the past weather and climate of those places.
    One thing is certain, it is not possible to carry on a rational debate until each person understands the foundations on which the other persons perspective is built, and that can’t be found out by Googling.

  179. A further thought: It’s enlightening that all these people are combing over Plimer’s book looking for errors (many which are merely points of contention).

    Evidently their own work has not been compelling or convincing enough to satisfy everyone – witness Plimer’s thousands of readers – so they are now devoting countless hours criticising their opposition (not a clever thing to do in the real world, but, hey, this is climate science).

  180. So tell me johnd ,what is your understanding of weather and climate? It may help the debate.
    If I had the skills I would produce some links to assist but alas…I don’t.

  181. “By the way as you have posted a link to that graph. Since the industrial revolution has the earth cooled or warmed?”

    Mobius,I don’t think Plimmer identified the graph as being Durkins, other people assumed that. It seems that he might have appropriated the layout used by Durkin.
    The point Plimmer was making was not whether the earth had warmed or not over the period in question, but when did it warm the most? The graph I linked to supports his assertion regarding the rate and amount of warming prior to 1940, and if you carefully compare the rate and amount of warming subsequent to 1975, the graph indicates that the slope of the increases are almost identical, but the magnitude of the increase immediately prior to 1940 exceeds the magnitude of the increase post 1975. Therefore when you then compare that to the increasing amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, his assertion is shown to be correct. Surely also the falling temperatures prior to 1975, and in the most recent years, all whilst CO2 is still rising, further validates his assertion.

  182. johnd, on May 24th, 2009 at 3:16 pm

    John you seem to like to misrepresent what the IPCC actually does in relation to this or just pick very narrow charters of their work and attribute that to their entire work.

    The IPCC is looking at total global CO2, not just atmospheric. CO2 saturation of the oceans is just as important as atmospheric saturation, with many oceanographers and climatologists saying more important.

    And you bring in the water vapor furphy. All this has been debated so many times before and has been answered, so either you are stirring the pot or have never come across debates on this. Do a search on atmospheric water vapor and how long it lasts as compared to CO2. Now whilst you doing that look up how much water vapor is a radiation forcer as compared to CO2 and you might was well look at methane whilst you’re doing that as its actually worse than CO2.

    Now answer me this. Of all the greenhouse gasses piling up in the atmosphere which ones have the longest persistence and which ones can mankind influence in either increasing them or alleviating them, and which ones can they do nothing or very little about?

    I’m not going to write tomes on weather and climate, as handyrab stated the info is more than readily accessible. Whenever you see someone say a drought, flood, hurricane etc. is caused by global warming then you can bet they are most likely not a climatologist. What scientists say is the an increase in global temperatures (which is indisputably happening whatever the cause) means an increase in weather anomalies, which is also indisputably happening, whatever the cause.

    So if you want to look at climate and weather in relation to it then look at climate and weather anomalies, not just weather. The basic difference between climate and weather is time, so it’s no use talking about isolated weather events in relation to climate unless you are talking about them tracked over long periods of time. In many parts of the world Spring has been consistently coming earlier than it did 30 or more years ago. That is a climate change. If Spring where I live comes earlier this year than last, that’s weather.

    So instead of looking at localised one off weather events, look at weather anomalies. Droughts appearing more often, lasting longer and being more severe than they were decades ago. Floods and other severe weather happening more often and being more severe than they were in the past and all these things happening in increasing numbers. The reaction of flora and fauna to increased weather anomalies. That is a sign of a heating globe as it is heat that is the driver of these weather events.

    As to you fobbing off the flora and fauna bit as being natural. Surely animals and plants appearing in areas they’ve never been as proven by fossil records, even insects like mosquitoes that have not changed in tens of thousands of years or plants that are specifically adapted to warm climates now turning up in areas they have never been indicates something has changed, and sorry it’s not the flora or fauna in such a short time. There are species of tropical or sub-tropical shark that were rarely found as far south as Sydney that are not only spotted as south as Sydney but have been spotted in Bass Strait off Port Phillip Bay and it is projected they might move around to Perth to join up with the Western cousins.

    That is but the smallest examples of a plethora of flora and fauna now moving into what were areas that were too cold for them to survive, and of cold adapted flora and fauna retreating higher into mountains and much further south and north towards the poles.

    It is this science I read about that makes me lean towards the proponents of global warming, and until the opponents can come up with as much credible scientific data and logically explain what’s happening to the globe at the moment then I will remain on the side of the fence I’m on. But I also look at it from the point of view (which that excellent YouTube vid illustrated) that it is better to err on the side of caution in this than to bury your head in the sand an hope nothing is happening. In one case we have little to lose and a lot to gain in new industries and clean environment, in the other we have an awful lot to lose at great cost.

  183. No it doesn’t John, and if the 1940 and 1975 peaks have been shifted then that changes what you have just asserted, which is why they were deliberately distorted in the first instance.

    Why doesn’t Plimer attribute where he got the graph from when he has taken such care to put footnotes and sources for other data. And that’s not the only data he does not source, and in each case it is thought to be data that is discredited, which is why he doesn’t credit it.

    Look John you are again bringing up stuff on CO2 and its lag and forcing that has been well and truly debated and where information is readily available elsewhere. I have already posted one link from a German climatology centre that explains the slight cooling and why that is more than feasible with increasing CO2.

    You go on about finding out the foundation of where others stand but what is your foundation and background? You go on about things like one off droughts that people claim as proof of global warming but that is not what most scientists claim. So do you take the word of some non scientific commentator over that of the scientists because that is what you seem to be bringing up all the time.

    So what are you going to do, just keep asking question after question on things that can be readily found and without satisfactorily answering any yourself?

    Tony
    Plimer’s thousands of readers. Now I know you are clutching at straws just as those readers are who bought the book on the promise of it being their salvation against the proponents, and now find it being discredited ignore the flaws and go on about grand statements and insight.

  184. handyrab, weather is what is happening now, and climate is the average of the extremes that the various measures of weather generally remain within the majority of the time. It obviously refers to a certain region or geographical area that experience similar patterns and extremes. Climate relates to the longer term, weather to the shorter term.
    Weather in all it’s forms is all about the transference and redistribution of heat.
    Now all you have to work out is whether events such as the Pacific Decadel Oscillation which cycles over 6 or 7 decades, is that a weather cycle or a climate cycle.

    Now that I have answered your question, can you explain to me why you think climate and weather are two different things?

  185. Plimer’s thousands of readers. Now I know you are clutching at straws

    Why Adrian? Four thousand is considered a best-seller in Australia. This book is in its fifth print run, of around 5,000 per run.

  186. TB Queensland, on May 24th, 2009 at 5:38 pm

    There are some very promising nuclear power technologies around the corner, some in early use now.

    Sequestration is a farce dreamt up by the coal industries to delay them having to clean up their act. And the tax payer mostly pays for it.

    When are the polluters going to pay for their pollution, when is a price going to be put the damage they have done and are doing instead of the tax payers always ending up for the cost of it?

    E.g. Two UK old nuclear power plants. Initially government then privatised and the energy company heavily tax payer subsidised throughout the life of the plants whilst charging considerable fees and rates for their electricity generation. End of reactors life, no longer viable to refurbish. Private company walks away with pockets overflowing, UK taxpayer left with £40 billion to clean up both sites and to fence and guard the sites for hundreds of years to come.

  187. Tony
    My point exactly. And the bible is the number one selling book in the world, so it must be all true and based on fact.

    You talk about climate change proponents being religious zealots, you need look no further than those who have bought Plimer’s book as they are doing it on the faith of this Plimer claim:

    Plimer said his book would “knock out every single argument we hear about climate change”, to prove that global warming is a cycle of the Earth. “It’s got nothing to do with the atmosphere, it’s about what happens in the galaxy. You’ve got to look at the whole solar system and, most importantly, we look back in time.”

    And to believe that it must be the faith because it ain’t the science.

  188. Tony and John,

    Not sure if this link has been posted by Adrian already but please have a read of it – this is what some of the top scientists in Australia have to say about Plimer’s book:
    http://www.aussmc.org/IanPlimerclimatebook.php

    Adrian’s right about the Plimer graph. Whether he got if from Durkin’s movie or some other source, the fact is, the graph is so similar to the one that Durkin’s that it must incorporate the same errors. Here is a comparison of the Durkin Graph and Plimers:
    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/05/ian_plimer_lies_about_source_o.php
    The problem isn’t so much the source (ie, I’m not saying it’s wrong simply because it came from Durkin) but rather that the graph itself is flawed (which Durkin himself recognised and corrected!).

    Trying to rely on this graph to assert that what Plimer is saying in his book is right is to rely on an error- it does your argument no credit at all johnd.

  189. Now you’re just being a smartarse John. You have been loading posts with leading questions.

    How about you answer the question for handyrab as you certainly know the answer, so why ask it? Oh that’s right to belittle handyrab because he posted this:

    So tell me johnd ,what is your understanding of weather and climate? It may help the debate

    And it turns out you had the answer all along whilst you kept going on about what is the difference between climate and weather.

    If you want to debate then debate, but don’t play this stupid game of gotcha by posting one leading question after another on things you already know the answer to.

  190. @Tony:
    Contact me off the blog – we can go through these things offline where we’re not interrupting the flow of the debate.

    RE: Balance of Facts
    I do not feel a “balance” can be applied here. If Plimer has deliberately distorted even 25% of what he has presented – then he has discredited himself beyond the support of a “narrative”. I am always surprised that people (on both sides) will allow someone get away with 20% lie/distortion rate so long as 90% of what they say supports their own prejudices.

    This is why I don’t (ever) use Gore as a reference. I don’t care that he supports my side of the Global Warming debate – the guy made deliberate distortions discrediting himself.

  191. Fine list Dave; each has his own particular axe to grind and patch of dirt to protect.

  192. Yeah, forgot that one.

    Just because an idea is popular and/or people are willing to pay for it – does not validate the concept.

    Scientology reaps millions from the sale of Dianetics manuals. The bible outsells all scientific publications by a large margin. Seriously, to maintain that there is a “hole in the facts” or similar because people will buy a book supporting their ideology is ludicrous.

  193. Adrian,

    Geosequestion is not a farce. Check out the first of the IPCC reports on this page (I won’t link to the report because it is too big) for some info on the science behind it. That it hasn’t yet been proven to be possible at scale doesn’t mean it won’t actually work.

    That is not to say that it is economically feasible for every power station. Here in NSW, there are a number of potential storage sites but at the moment there aren’t any promising ones close to the point sources meaning large pipelines will be needed. When these costs plus the costs of capturing the CO2 are taken into account, it may simply be cheaper to go to other renewables and phase out coal power stations here. It will be a viable alternative for some areas though and the success of this will be beneficial for Australia in that it enables continued income form coal resources.

    If I was going to bet on which of geosequestration and geothermal was going to work in NSW. I would place my money on geosequestration. Geothermal requires a lot of clean water to work.

    Mineral carbonation is probably the most promising though. NSW has large supplies of serpentine and the abandoned Woodsreef asbestos mine near Barraba would provide sufficient material to sequester massive amounts of CO2 with useful by-products as well.

  194. B. Tolputt,

    Contact me off the blog – we can go through these things offline where we’re not interrupting the flow of the debate.

    If it’s relevant to this topic, we can talk about it here. I prefer to limit my involvement in these kinds of discussions to the blog.

  195. Just because an idea is popular and/or people are willing to pay for it – does not validate the concept.

    It does, however, give a good indication that a significant section of the electorate are not buying ‘the science’.

  196. Tony,

    Does that make what they say any less correct. I don’t see that they are grinding their axes though, and their comments are directed at their area of knowledge.

    The biggest problem (and this is what they point out) is that Plimer created a straw man argument that the IPCC hasn’t considered the paleoclimate and astronomy to justify he input to the debate; unfortunately, the straw man argument is wrong: the IPCC and climate scientists have considered these issues – extensively. It also does nothing to help Plimer’s argument to delve into areas of astronomy of which he has absolutely no expertise and then rely on a theory of the sun that has been discredited for over 80 years.

    There are aspects of Plimer’s book which could add to the collective scientific knowlegdge used to work out what is going on – unfortunately, Plimer has chosen not to publish this work in peer reviewed journals. For all that Plimer asserts that the scientific process is being undermined by some sort of conspiracy (my words not his), why hasn’t he worked within the scientific process that he asserts is necessary?

  197. “The PDO waxes and wanes every 20-30 years.” (source NASA) .
    Don’t disagree with the first para. A regions climate can be describe as, well, subtropical, but a the same time the weather at some times may hardly indicate this.
    I have never agreed (as mobius said) that a particular weather event is evidence of agw.
    I mean the current flooding in northern NSW is a reasonably frequent weather event. Major flooding every !0 years or so (just guessing, although I lived there for 15 years.) The floods, of course are not as devastating as previously due to mitigation measures. So maybe this weeks flood by volume of water, would have exceeded previous 100 year floods. I don’t know.

  198. Tony,

    It is obvious that there are people who don’t ‘buy the science’ – you, Bolt and johnd are a case in point. But why do you consider yourself qualified to question the science. Bob Carter and Plimer fair enough, but as far as I can tell, none of the three of you have any scientific training (fortunately I’m not being hypocritical saying this). The problem with Carter and Plimer is that, while they may have something to add to the scientific debate, they aren’t writing in peer reviewed journals which is where the scientific debate is happening. Writing a book and appearing on TV Radio and writing newspaper articles is populism, not science.

    Oh, and I don’t rely on Gore either so any analogy to Gore does nothing to further any argument in support of Plimer as an authority because I don’t see Gore (or Flannery for that matter) as an authority either.

    BTW, how many people say Gore’s movie or read Flannery’s book?

  199. But why do you consider yourself qualified to question the science.

    It’s in my nature Dave. You might call it curiosity.

  200. handyrab,

    One thing to add to what you have said; most scientists who know what they are talking about don’t attribute extreme events like the recent floods in NSW/Qld and fires in Vic to climate change but rather say that these events are consistent with climate change predictions. It is often non-scientists (esp green groups and media organisations) who make the link and give it more significance than it warrants.

    Re Nth NSW floods, none of these floods are as large as the floods in 1950. That said, the Bellinger has reached major flood level three times this year at Bellingen and Thora. I know this river systen and that is a significant statistic. The whole theory about climate change is that these sort of events will become more common and the flooding in NSW and Qld this year is consistent with the theory (ironically, it also results in lower temps which are often jumped at by those arguing that AGW is a load of sh!t).

  201. Tony, on May 24th, 2009 at 7:17 pm Said:

    It does, however, give a good indication that a significant section of the electorate are not buying ‘the science’.

    No it doesn’t.

    It only indicated a few thousand out of an electorate of millions are not buying the science, and those are like you who are just seeking confirmation of their already made up mind and are almost exclusively buying it on ideological grounds not scientific, which is what Plimer claimed his book was about.

    In another forum someone else argued that the climate change debate was dead because a phone poll had a majority of respondents saying it was not important to them.

    Yeah the scientists are all going to hang up their hats and call it a done deal because a poll of non-scientists found a majority weren’t that interested and a few thousand Australian non-scientists bought a book full of flawed science.

  202. B. Tolputt,

    Any luck with my earlier query?

  203. No it doesn’t.

    It only indicated a few thousand out of an electorate of millions are not buying the science

    I, of course, disagree. Logic – and a basic knowledge of consumer behaviour – suggests that those who have actually bought the book are themselves only a small portion of a much larger like-minded group.

  204. And I’ll add that they bought the book because of the marketing that stated in using irrefutable science it would once and for all put paid to the AGW proponents science. How many ideologues bought the book because they thought they were getting the ultimate source of knowledge in their quest to vanquish the climate change proponents?

    They were dudded.

  205. Unless you do an independent poll Tony you are just pissing in the wind. You or anybody else haven’t a clue as to how many those who bought the book represent and if they are drawn purely along ideological lines or not, thus representing a broad diaspora or just a narrow self interested demographic.

    And we don’t know how many bought the book simply on the marketing that had them believe they would be getting THE irrefutable answer, AGW is proven wrong by science.

  206. Tony, on May 23rd, 2009 at 10:58 pm Said: re epistemology and its relevance to this discussion

    Or it would be in a discussion about philosophy or metaphysics.

    Relevance to this (more) earthly conversation? None.

    I beg to differ. ‘What it means to know’ (epistemology broadly defined) applies to all conversations or debates. Without that ‘understanding’ discussion often descends to ‘faith’ (religion) below ‘rationality’ and certainly below science (public testability) as a way of knowing. Indeed an epistemological position is inescapable as you demonstrate with your comment:

    I’m willing to read and understand the narrative, without obsessing over every disputed detail.

    disputed detail? understand the narrative? How does one ‘understand the narrative while ignoring the detail? Isn’t the resolution of detail fundamental as to how ‘knowledge’ proceeds?

    While I agree that it is impossible to ‘investigate’ or attribute ‘meaning’ devoid of an ‘a priori’ world view, most researchers are prepared to abandon, or at least modify, positions that are totally out of whack with the best available evidence.

    Personally, I think Plimer is taking the piss (and the money). As you would be aware Plimer had a very interesting and expensive stoush with the ‘creationists’ and for the evidence I refer to:

    It is not “merely” atmospheric scientists that would have to be wrong for Plimer to be right. It would require a rewriting of biology, geology, physics, oceanography, astronomy and statistics. Plimer’s book deserves to languish on the shelves along with similar pseudo-science such as the writings of Immanuel Velikovsky and Erich von Daniken

    The reference is here, but has already been provided http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,25433059-5003900,00.html

    While science is ‘democratic’ in the sense that it proceeds on the basis of the replication of experiments, it is not democratic in the sense of book sales or ‘what I want to believe’.

    Just saying.

  207. How does one ‘understand the narrative while ignoring the detail?

    Don’t know, and, since you had just quoted me in your comment, you know that’s not what I said.

  208. Please explain. If i misquoted you, I aplologise. I simply game a meaning to what I thought you’d written.

  209. gave.

  210. and apologise.

  211. BTW Tony, I’ve just gone back to your original statement which reads:

    No, Adrian. I’m willing to read and understand the narrative, without obsessing over every disputed detail.

    And that’s word-for-word. But you subsequently say:

    Don’t know, and, since you had just quoted me in your comment, you know that’s not what I said

    you know that’s not what I said Really? Again, please explain.

  212. “Whenever you see someone say a drought, flood, hurricane etc. is caused by global warming then you can bet they are most likely not a climatologist.”

    Mobius, here is a link to a BOM page where the lastest drought is partly blamed on climate change.
    http://www.bom.gov.au/announcements/media_releases/climate/drought/20090204.shtml

    Now I had to have a laugh as I read their announcement when they mentioned the 2007/2008 La Nina. During that time BOM were constantly and confidently forecasting the imminent developement of a significant La Nina event. Go back through old newspapers you will see that is so. Many farmers took BOM at their word and took what appeared to be timely and prudent action confidently planting crops etc.
    At that time BOM were not giving any weight to any data being collected in the Indian Ocean, this is just 2 years ago fremember, their focus was always on the Pacific Ocean and the SOI. However Japanese researchers who had been studying the IO and had created models that enabled them to form accurate forecasts saw a different story. A unique situation that had only arisen once before, in 1967, a major drought year, was developing that completely contradicted the BOM forecast. Much discussion went on between the researchers as to whether or not they should release their forecast, and eventually decided that given it was such a gloomy outlook that could confuse or upset people given the upbeat BOM forecast, they decided not to release it, though it was available on the internet for those in the know.
    As it turned out their forecast was spot on and BOM completely wrong. It was all written up in papers such as the “Weekly Times” when they got onto the story.
    BOM cost a lot of farmers a lot of money, but at least now BOM are starting to recognise the significance of the IO, but they are decades behind where they should be.
    So when they start telling me about future climate change and what they claim are indicators, especially a single drought as they have done in this announcement, I give careful consideration to what they are saying before I give any credibilty to it. For someone whose business is forecasting, I will say that they have very good hindsight, just as all those other forecasters of climate change who are now adjusting their positions to accommodate the falling temperatures of recent years as if they knew all along it was going to happen.

  213. handyrab, on May 24th, 2009 at 7:24 pm Said:
    “The PDO waxes and wanes every 20-30 years.” (source NASA)

    Handyrab, just to clarify, each phase is about 3 decades, the total cycle is therefore about 6 decades.

  214. N5,

    Compare what I actually said:

    I’m willing to read and understand the narrative, without obsessing over every disputed detail.

    With your characterisation of what I said:

    How does one ‘understand the narrative while ignoring the detail?

    Notice anything?

  215. Tony, on May 24th, 2009 at 10:26 pm Said:

    Notice anything?

    Indeed I do. Are you now claiming that the ‘detail’ is important? Like, it matters?

    Why this ‘double standard’? Why should Plimer’s lack of accurate ‘detail’ be dismissed but my supposed lack of same be now important? Just asking?

  216. Nature 5,

    I’ve said what I wanted to say in the words I wanted to use. I am not going to respond to you every time you feel like assigning your preferred meaning to my words. No-one else seems to be having trouble understanding what I say. Now please go and annoy someone else.

  217. Tony, on May 24th, 2009 at 10:44 pm Said

    Can’t disagree with that. As for

    like assigning your preferred meaning to my words.

    Are you saying that I should be ‘getting meaning’ from what you write rather than ‘giving’ meaning to same? Is ‘meaning’ transmitted or is it given? No answer required.

    As for:

    No-one else seems to be having trouble understanding what I say

    Really? But there are plenty who have trouble in what you say. I wonder why. But on this no-one else issue, is it the case that this is just another example of ‘science’ via popular vote?

    BTW, Tony, real education is always about annoying entrenched positions. And I always thought sceptics understood that. Lol

    Kamahloderator: attempted to fix, but not sure of first part. Anyway – it looks a lot better now. I am so kind.

  218. Can anyone fix the technical stuff-up. Thanks in anticipation

  219. Tony

    With respect, I think what N5 is saying is that you want to pick him up on detail, but you are willing to allow Plimer’s work to have mistakes in detail.

    And that I think is the salient point. Plimer allowed the impression to take hold that his book would be provide irrefutable proof that AGW is not what is happening, but when the detail (that he relies on) is examined, it falls down.

    For me, I will still believe the bulk of scientists who think that we need act drastically and urgently to prevent the climate going over the tipping point.

  220. For me, I will still believe the bulk of scientists who think that we need act drastically and urgently to prevent the climate going over the tipping point.
    joni, on May 24th, 2009 at 11:11 pm

    Then why did you vote for Showpony???

  221. Did I?

  222. Thanks joni. I really did stuff it up. Actually, I blame you for telling me ‘how to do it’. Lol.

    Btw, the first part was simply a direct quote from Tony’s post along the lines of ‘in the words I wanted to use’.

    Put simply in the epistemological sense, one can ‘intend’ meaning but one has no control over the ‘meaning that is ‘given’.

    Kamahloderator: it was me not that traveller joni who did the moderating – he knows nothing about anything 😉

  223. Did I?- Joni

    Well i assume you did. If you voted “greens” this is still a vote for the ALP.

    I always knew that the ETS was an election stunt. The ALP needs the greenoid vote so it says it will do something better than the LIbs Re: environment.

    However when you suckers then caste your vote it then does nothing.

    Sucked in leftoids

  224. Time for bed because Neil has arrived. Then again every village has .. Old joke!

  225. So Neil – you still do not have a clue how I voted then do you? Do you know my electorate?

    But – your logic seems to be, because someone wanted climate change to be addressed, voting for a party that denied it was even real was a better option? Oh dear, that is a bit odd.

  226. So Neil – you still do not have a clue how I voted then do you? -Joni

    I assume it was for the ALP/Greens. You didn’t vote for the Libs did you???

    I started reading Plimers book. After reading the first chapter he seem to be saying that climate has always changed and that the changes we now see would have happened anyway.

    According to Plimer we has Roman warming(250BC-450AD), Dark ages (cooling, 535-900AD), Medieval Warming (900-1300AD), Little Ice age (1280-1850AD) and Late 20th Century warming 1850AD- present)

    If you plot this on a graph the line goes up, down, up, down and then up at the end.

    He says that fraudulent scientist have removed all the up and down bits until we get to the end. They have left the bit going up at the end so the graph now looks like a hockey stick and therefore the increase must be due to industrialisation.

    Interestingly all the up and down bits were removed and the final figure published in Nature, the worlds preeminant science journal.

    No wonder Plimer is being criticised. He has said that the people who published the hockey stick graph are frauds. They must be leftoids.

  227. Ah – an assumption on how I voted.

    I think that we now need a new thread to deal with issues like the “Medieval Warming” – but will we see a debate on the science?

  228. “The biggest problem (and this is what they point out) is that Plimer created a straw man argument”

    I am sorry but this “straw-man” excuse is getting very old already. It use to be that when you were unable to defend your position it was simply that but now we have people always claiming straw-men when they cannot refute a claim. You mean like constantly referring to “thousands of scientists” over and over again? The number of “scientists” somehow adds credence to the argument; all with paychecks now dependent on that “support”? I am sure it has nothing to do with grant funding or anything, it is all in the interest of mankind……

    Anyhow, it is really hilarious to think that some actually purport to understand the “weather” with a 150 year snap shot of a planet that is over 4.5 billion years old even with “ice core” data putting their argument in doubt along with historical evidence like mini ice ages and warming periods without the benefit of manmade carbon output (what about those rates of change Joni). What about that Vostok ice core data anyway?

    “These findings confirm the idea, suggested a decade ago, that greenhouse gases, by amplifying the variations initiated by the orbital variations of the Earth, were also responsible for the glacial/interglacial changes. The actual mechanisms still remain to be determined.”

    Hmm…….but I thought the debate was over?

    http://www.cnrs.fr/cw/en/pres/compress/mist030699.html

    Yes, the computer models should take president over “physical evidence” after all models created but the proponents is very objective indeed; without the risk for bias of any kind…Even more entertaining is that some of the biggest critics of religion here are also those telling us to ultimately have a bit of “faith” when you get down to it. Even if the theory of AGW was ultimately proven true, there is nothing we can do as human beings to change the course we are on for the next 100 years, no matter what the scheme. Governments know this but hell; we have an excuse for more taxes/industry now don’t we, conveniently a new “boogey-man” to motivate us…….I am all for the advancement of mankind through scientific investigation but when we start profoundly altering our economies and lives based on a “theory” with obvious holes, I mean give me a break. We might as well start preparing for the “second coming”…..LOL

  229. voting for a party that denied it was even real was a better option?- Joni

    Maybe they were being more honest. i don’t think the ALP believes in it. They obviously don’t because in power have done nothing.

    Their research would have shown that they could increase their vote by 5% by saying they would do something. Its all about winning the election.

    Sucked in leftoids

    As for Plimer he says that all the data for the warming, cooling, warming and cooling periods has been removed.

    They have just left the warming bit at the end. Big claim to make that data has been falsified.

  230. whoops…….”created by the”

  231. I will shut down the comments on this thread so that we can start on the new thread. Please don’t take this that I am trying to stop the debate – I just want us to move onto the new thread.

    😀

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: