Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.

Settings

Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup

Term:

Settings

Beginner Intermediate Advanced No Definitions Definition Life:

All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Comment Search Results

Search for ian plimer

Comments matching the search ian plimer:

At a glance - Does breathing contribute to CO2 buildup in the atmosphere?

ubrew12 at 05:02 AM on 13 December, 2023

Ian Plimer: "If Senator Wong were really serious about her science she would stop breathing..." Not unless Senator Wong is eating 'Coal-Coal-Puffs' for breakfast, Professor 'I'm-Really-Serious-About-My-Science'.

We're heading into an ice age

John Hartz at 15:13 PM on 2 February, 2021

Recommended supplementary reading...

Video interview of Ian Plimer at Sky News falsely claims that a new study announces an incoming ice age, partly based on an incorrect Daily Mail headline, Edited by Nikki Forrester, Article Review, Climate Feedback, Jan 20, 2021

It's cosmic rays

MA Rodger at 22:19 PM on 2 August, 2019

Aldaron @106,

First a correction. I said @109 that one of the citations of Fleming (2018) was an error as it didn't cite Fleming at all. That was wrong. I was looking at the wrong PDF. Vuori (2019) does cite Fleming (2018) but cites it as being an exemplar of climate change denial.

And I have 'read' Fleming (2019) but not from start-to-finish as it is packed full of denialist nonsense as well as being, shall we say, less than coherent. (For instance in Section 3 it kicks off citing a reference which insists global warming is in the long term due to the weight of the atmosphere and then one of the GWPF 'experts' Ian Plimer who's reliability is more a joke than questionable.)

Fleming (2018) gives more detail of method than Fleming (2019) while being consistent with Fleming (2019) in demonstrating a failure to understand the mechanisms of GHG operation. Where it differs from Fleming (2019) is in not carrying out that final analysis of Fleming (2019) which used that unusual deffusion coefficient. Thus, unlike Fleming (2019), his main finding (that w.r.t. CO2 the atmosphere is effectively transperent to IR in-and-above the upper troposphere) is in tune with everybody else but his interpretation of this (that CO2 "contributes low level heating and allows upper level cooling for a zero net effect") is so-much gibberish.

2019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #17

nigelj at 07:03 AM on 28 April, 2019

Gregory Whitestone is a climate denialist author who has written a misleading book, and he is a geologist with interests in the mining and petroleum industy.

Just remembered Ian Plimer is a climate denialist who wrote the book heaven and earth attacking climate science, and its a misleading book, and he has interests in the mining and petroleum industry.

I detect a pattern here....

Breathing contributes to CO2 buildup

Tom Curtis at 16:50 PM on 13 April, 2017

Dr Bill Hoffman @95:

A) You say:

"As we breathe in 400 ppm CO2, we do not exhale "about ten times that amount", so the premise is incorrect. We exhale some 100 times that amount, about 40,000 ppm (4% CO2)."

That is correct, but it is not a claim made in the Original Post. Rather, it is an error by the AGW denier, "Ian Plimer" which was merely neglected as being trivial relative to the gross error rebutted in the OP, and which you appear to repeat.

B) You further say the IPCC is "...they focused entirely on industrial production...", but that is simply false as shown by the IPCC's summary diagram of the carbon cycle shown below:

Note that the non industrial elements are determined by in-situ surveys, satellite observations, changes in isotope ratios, all of which are used to validate models. For example, here is a paper analysing measurements of Dissolved Inorganic Carbon and comparing the result to earlier estimates. And here is a review of data relating to anthropogenic emissions from LUC. Your assertion in your video that "LUC" represents simply "a factor to allow adjusting" (8:44), ie, is merely used to balance the books is simply false. At best it represents an overwhelming ignorance of the topic on which you chose to lecture. The equation shown at that point in the video is also entirely of your own manufacture, so far as I can tell. The IPCC TAR (2001), for example, shows the following elements in the carbon cycle:

(For clear image of each panel, go here.)

As the IPCC TAR was the report immediately preceding your presentation, your employment of a truncated equation of the carbon cycle that does not even include vulcanism shows you to be, at best, completely ignorant of what the IPCC claims. Never-the-less, you feel qualified to make repeated false claims about what the IPCC purports to understand, and how they arrived at those conclusions.

C) Your model as shown on the video purports to show 100 Gt-CO2/yr (27.3 GtC/yr) emissions from respiration in 2004 (13:35). You then show an estimate of the increase in CO2 emissions by animals of about 10 Gt-CO2/yr (2.7 GtC/yr) by 2004 relative to 1900(?) (14:36), which you claim (15:54) to be about 50% of anthropogenic industrial emissions. Anthropogenic industrial emissions in 2004, however, were 7.78 GtC/yr. Your "accelerated conversion" was, therefore, just over a third of industrial emissions, and less than a third of industrial emissions plus LUC.

D) Whether or not that represents a genuine increase in emissions depends on what you calculated, which is very far from clear. To avoid excess length, I will discuss it in a following post.

Breathing contributes to CO2 buildup

Tom Curtis at 08:05 AM on 29 March, 2017

Grumpymel @91 and 92, the claim above is a rebutal of denier claims that human respiration is a direct source of the increase of atmospheric CO2, just as is the combustion of fossil fuels. That claim by deniers is typified by the quote from Ian Plimer, that

"If Senator Wong was really serious about her science she would stop breathing because you inhale air that's got 385 parts per million carbon dioxide in it and you exhale air with about ten times as much, and that extra carbon comes from what you eat."

Of course, if Ian Plimer was at all honest in his science (on global warming) he would have noted that the carbon in what we eat comes from CO2 in the atmosphere, and consequently Senator Penny Wong's, and our respiration causes no direct increase in CO2 concentration.

That is a seperate question as to whether or not human agricultural activity has changed atmospheric content. It has, and in complex ways. Of these the most important have been the increase in CO2 from deforestation, and the increase in CH4 from rice farming and cattle production. Nothing above denies this, and there is extensive discussion of this in comments above. Further, the IPCC takes account of CO2 and CH4 production from these scources.

For what it is worth, CO2 emissions due to Land Use Change (the title given to those emissions) represents about 10% of emissions from fossil fuel use and cement manufacture (another important source).

How climate science deniers can accept so many 'impossible things' all at once

Tom Curtis at 08:24 AM on 26 September, 2016

Art Vandelay @10, the issues you raise are discussed in the paper explicitly under section 1.4. In that section the authors point out that they have documented instances of incoherence in the positions of several individuals in Table 2, including Plimer (3 examples), Christy (1 example), Watts (2 examples) and Monckton (3 examples). Their table 2 is certainly not exhaustive in the cases of Plimer, Watts and Monckton, and is from my experience not exhaustive as to individuals demonstrating this sort of incoherence.

Further, they argue that even if the incoherence were within the group, but not within particular individuals, "...there are several reasons why this would not be reflective of “healthy debate” or “scientific diversity”". They go on:

"First, as we noted at the outset, science strives for coherence (e.g., Douglas 2013; Laudan 1984; Roche 2014; Thagard 2012) and there is little room for incoherent theories in science (and any incoherence contains within it an impetus for reconciliation). ... It follows that if climate denial were to constitute scientific reasoning—as is its purported purpose (e.g., Solomon 2008)—then it would exhibit coherence notwithstanding the presence of multiple agents and actors. The fact that it fails to achieve this and that incoherence is manifest at the aggregate (Table 1) as well as at the individual level (Table 2) leaves little doubt about the non-scientific nature of denial.
Second, the theoretical coherence of consensual climate science does not prevent robust debate. ... No such corrective processes can be observed in denialist discourse which focuses entirely on its opposition to mainstream science and does not entail any debate among the incoherent positions we have revealed in this article.
The absence of any corrective resolution process among climate contrarians raises the question to what extent incoherence is perceived or recognized as a problem by people who hold contrarian views. This question is difficult to answer with any degree of certainty, although one can attempt to make an inference by examining the “revealed preferences” (cf. Beshears et al. 2008) of contrarians. In the context of climate change, one way in which preferences might be revealed is by the willingness to incur financial risks to back one’s position in a bet. Bets have a long history as a tool to reveal people’s preferences.
...
It is notable that although contrarians readily claim that the Earth will be cooling in the future, most are unwilling to bet on their stated position (Annan 2005). ... The unwillingness to bet is thus indicative of the over-arching rationality of denial, notwithstanding its argumentative incoherence and non-scientific nature."

Obviously you should read the full text in the original rather than my quote alone, as I have ellided much of the text for brevity.

For myself, I have often noted within the "skeptical" community a tendency by individuals to comment appreciatively on any claim purported to refute AGW, even when such claims contradict the favoured theory of the individual. That indicates fairly clearly to me that the purpose of the theories advanced is not to vindicate those theories, but to "refute" AGW. If in fact the proponents of the diverse theories of AGW denial were primarilly motivated by the science, those who thought warming was caused by the rise in GHG, but that climate sensitivity was low would have as much of a problem with those who thought the warming was primarilly due to the Sun as do proponents of AGW, and similarly with those who thought the recent temperature increase was due to the PDO or AMO. Instead, there behaviour clearly indicates that they reject AGW, and will give a favourable reception to almost any theory that similarly rejects AGW, even when that theory is as incoherent with, or more inchorent with their own theory than it is with AGW. (This might be considered an aspect of the authors second point quoted above, but I think it is different.)

All that said, there are two fuzzy divides within the AGW denial community. First, there is that between those who reject the possibility of an enhanced greenhouse effect altogether, and those who do not. This is illustrated by another of Anthony Watts incoherences, for while he rejects the label "denier" as applied to himself as being a deliberate, and odious moral comparison with holocaust deniers (rather than an indication that his doubt is based on pseudoscience), he is happy to call the "dragon slayers", ie, those deniers who reject an enhanced greenhouse effect entirely deniers). The weaker barrier is between deniers who reject any possibility of AGW being either significant or harmful, and those who merely insist it will be moderate (ie, that the mean Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity lies between 1 and 3 C, and that increased damage with increased GMST is low). These categories are fuzzy because not all deniers accept that one or either category represents a significant division in the community, and because a number of those in the second category deliberately misrepresent their position by labelling it as belonging to the third category. It should be noted in passing that not all members of the third category, the "luke warmers" are in fact deniers, ie, those whose rejection of AGW shows the hallmarks of pseudoscience.

How climate science deniers can accept so many 'impossible things' all at once

nigelj at 06:45 AM on 26 September, 2016

Art Vandelay @10

Fair enough in general. However there is simply no homogenous collective implied and Chriskoz has summed it up. It is just a tendency for some sceptics to engage in conspiratorial thinking like "climate change is a socialist scam" and Trumps absurd claims that climate change all originated with the Chinese as a way to destroy American industry.

However I agree there are many reasons for climate scepticism including vested business interests, ignorance about science, a contrarian nature, genuine doubts about the science, a desire to be different and get noticed, loving your car, and political ideologies. Its a complex interplay of things, that probably varies from individual to individual.

We are of course looking for one core underlying reason for climate change scepticism, because thats what humans do. We look for reasons and we try to simplify and usually a chain of actions has some important core driving function, with other factors superimposed.

Political ideologies may be the core underlying reason for climate scepticism, but Im not 100% sure. I mean conservatism and small government, versus liberalism and an acceptance that economies need to be regulated, especially relating to environmental issues.

I have read Plimers book "Heaven and Hell". It is indeed contradictory, and also has several graphs that form the core feature of his argument. It's intereting that the graphs have no sources noted, and seem to show temperature trends and other trends quite different from the mainstream material I have seen.

How climate science deniers can accept so many 'impossible things' all at once

BaerbelW at 01:24 AM on 25 September, 2016

One of the "best" examples of the incoherence found in climate science denial - and Graham Readfearn mentions it briefly - is Ian Plimer at odds with himself even within the same book and often just a few pages apart. We have a page at Skeptical Science just for that and it's too good not be shared here. So, check out "Plimer vs. Plimer"!

Skeptical Science honoured by the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry

mancan18 at 12:59 PM on 18 October, 2015

Congratulations. This accolade is well deserved. The SkS site was and is a breath of fresh air in a country like Australia where the dialogue of Climate Change is dominated by the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA), the likes of Ian Plimer and Bob Carter, the Mining Council of Australia, the conservative contrarians in the ruling Liberal National Party of Australia and the Murdoch Press. I can at least now say to those who have been influenced by their contrarian line to go to SkS and do a bit of extra reading.

However, it is not all done and dusted. Even today, the Sunday Telegraph has run a column by Miranda Devine (one of the big three along with Andrew Bolt and Piers Ackerman) that extols the virtue of digging up fossil fuels to save poor people in poor countries, and that global warming is not happening and it is all a conspiracy. I am not sure how you overcome such an overwhelmingly one sided view in the popular media. Usually the contrian debate goes along political lines or merely pays lip service to perhaps there has been some mild warming but it isn't a problem. The only response you can make to such arguments is that the person needs to understand the science more and they need to do more research. Sks is an important reference for that reason.

Unfortunately, there seems to be two types of contrarians. There is the doubter, who may well argue with you on a purely scientific level, which is Ok. They are just demonstrating the natural skepticism of science, so Sks is important in giving them extra information; AND then there is the doofus, the blind denier, who just doesn't want to know, totally ignores it all, just isn't able to understand the scientific arguments, thinks it is all political or thinks it is all some sort of greenie/socialist conspiracy. You can easily tell who they are. They will call you a "warmist" or a "carbonite" or something. Not sure that Sks is going to be helpful informing people like these. Those people wouldn't go to the Sks site anyway and are likely to use derogatory language to describe the site and the scientists who write for it. Matt Ridley did, when describing John Cooke's 97% Consensus project as being discredited, in his recent contrarian article in the June 2015 edition of "Quadrant", by using parts of the IPAs latest contarian publication "Climate Science - The Facts" to make his case.

Anyway SkS and John Cooke, well done. Keep it up, even though I sometimes feel that some of the discussion in the threads becomes a bit too esoteric for the lay public to follow at times. Mind you, I do understand why this is. It is because Sks still has to maintain scientific integrity so it can remain a valuable resource in the continuing AGW CC debate.

Global warming deniers are an endangered species

mancan18 at 10:19 AM on 25 July, 2015

In Australia, Climate Change denial does pay. Australia is one of the world's largest coal exporters, a significant proportion of it's power generation comes from coal, and coal products are an important component the national income that underpins Australia's wealth. As a result, attitudes towards climate change follows party lines, with one party, Labor, promoting it as a serious issue and the other, Liberal/National Party, while giving it token support, take a "lukewarmer" position. This is the reason that the Government has implemented it's clayton's climate change policy, "Direct Action" and has attacked the climate advisory bodies, climate change funding arrangements for developing needed technologies, and promoted many climate change deniers to important positions upon it's economic advisory bodies.

The reason for this is actually quite simple. One of the main Liberal/National party policy think tanks is the Institute of Public Affairs (the IPA). It is Australia's equivalent of the George C Marshall Institute. The IPA, along with other Liberal Party policy think tanks like the Menzies Research Centre and the H. R. Nicholls Society, all actively promote Climate Change denial. Scientists like climate change deniers, Ian Plimer and Bob Carter are attached to the IPA, providing advice related to climate change policy. Plimer is also an important member of the Mining Council of Australia, having been it's chairman, and he influences it's political stance. Gina Reinhart, Australia's wealthiest person, who made her money from huge mining projects, is also related to the IPA. She funded a Christopher Monkton speaking tour of Australia, at the height of the ETS/Carbon Tax debate when Labor tried to introduce an ETS. The IPA is also an important source of climate change denial material and underpins the political stance of Murdoch media outlets who reach around 83% of the Australian population, where right wing commentators like Andrew Bolt, Miranda Devine, and Piers Ackereman, and right wing shock jocks like Alan Jones and Ray Hadley, disseminate IPA inspired climate change denial material to their readers and listeners.

Also, the IPA, through it's journal, provides climate change material to its readers, and it's latest effort comes in the form of a book called "Climate Change - the Facts 2014" with contributions from Ian Plimer, Richard Lindzen, Bob Carter, Nigel Lawson, Bill Kininmonth, Willie Soon, Christopher Monckton, Garth Paltridge, Richard Tol, Brian Fisher, Bob Carter, Donna Laframboise, Anthony Watts, Alan Moran amongst others and other climate change deniers. Also, this book seems to form the basis of Matt Ridley's latest essay in June's Quadrant magazine "How the Climate Wars Undermine Science", where John Cook's Consensus Project is discredited, (in their eyes), by referring to it as being biased and unrepresentative.

Now I don't know about you, but, I don't think that climate change deniers are being marginalised in Australia. If anything, they are still pre-eminent due to the IPA's political and media reach. Trying to take effective action to tackle climate change in Australia has already seen the toppling of two prime minsters and a leader of the Liberal Party who did think that the issue was important. It will be a significant issue in the next election but whether the electorate will embrace it, after a fear campaign related to the hip pocket nerve and xenophobic fears related to asylum seekers, is questionable.

While it is easier to have a debate with like minded people; what is happening in Australia, while the Sydney Morning Herald and the Guardian do present material properly conveying the 97% consensus; demonstrates why climate change advocates need to be more engaged with the climate change deniers from the IPA, the Murdoch press, and the right wing shock jock community, because, at the moment the denier/lukewarmer argument is still pre-eminent and not getting it's proper voice with Australia's public.

Lomborg: a detailed citation analysis

mancan18 at 17:37 PM on 26 April, 2015

Tom Curtis

I am not saying that being wrong in science is a problem. Its not. In fact it normally leads to better understanding and a science that is more robust. I am also not saying that the h index is not an important measure to determine the credentials of professional academics. I was being devil's advocate in suggesting a SLC (safe level of carbon dioxide) index for those who enter the climate change argument. While the h index should be enough amongst professional academics to assess credentials, it does not help those outside academia in assessing credentials. Some form of SLC index would at least inform outsiders about the merits and positions of the various advocates. Or perhaps some CSC (Climate Science Credibility) credential based on the Consensus Project might be more useful in assessing climate scientists. Again I am being devil's advocate. Amongst climate science commentators, there is a huge difference in climate science credentials between the likes of Andrew Bolt, Richard Lindzen, Ian Plimer, Bob Carter, David Karoly, James Hansen, Judith Curry, Al Gore, Tim Flannery, Bjorn Lomborg and the various scientists who regularly contribute to sites like SkS. Unfortunately, for outsiders, there is a lot of noise which is hard to penetrate and creates doubt that allows any politically motivated denier to drive a truck through the arguments. There needs to be a simpler measure for the wider public to make an assessment as to the quality of what is being claimed. After all, those who believe the level of CO2 is not the key issue in the whole debate probably should not be given any credibity in the discussion. Because at the moment, we are right on track to release the CO2 that was naturally sequestored in the Earth's crust over millions of years in a little over 300 years putting CO2 levels not seen since the dinosaurs. Now anyone suggesting that this is a good thing needs to have their arguments closely scrutinised.

Climatology versus Pseudoscience book tests whose predictions have been right

mancan18 at 09:27 AM on 28 February, 2015

Dana, I haven't read your book, I do intend to read it, but I was wondering whether anyone has studied the views on climate change by the "hard yards" researchers who actually collect the data that is used by everyone else to make their arguments pro or con regarding climate change. It seems to me that the views of the researchers who actually camp on the ice flows to collect ice-cores or measure glacial melts; or trek into the jungle to study species extinction, diversity and range; or spend countless time creating and refining the computer models that simulate the climate and weather; or those who monitor the stations that collect the temperature and carbon dioxide data etc; what are their views?

For instance, I know that the climate change advocate, Tim Flannery, early in his scientific career, used to crawl around the jungles of New Guinea studying frogs and it was the changes in that environment that he observed over the years that led him into the field of climate change. Also, I know that Ian Plimer, the mining executive and prominent climate change denier, used to argue that undersea volcanoes were the cause of the rise in carbon dioxide. But I don't remember Plimer actually being on any expeditions that looked for those undersea volcanoes that he used in his argument. Are there any primary researchers who put in the hard yards collecting and analysing the data who doubt that climate change is actually happening? It is easy just to sit at a computer screen, run your statistical software on the data or search for papers that support your view, it is an entirely different situation for the people who actually collect and analyse the data. Wondering if there are any deniers amongst the "hard yards" data collectors. The ratio of those who agree to those who don't would be very interesting. I suspect it would be 100%.

Nigel Lawson suggests he's not a skeptic, proceeds to deny global warming

Ken in Oz at 17:50 PM on 31 July, 2014

Ocean heat content - or more correctly, global heat content within the climate system, of which ocean is the largest component - is a more direct measurement of something fundamental. I also think it's more generally comprehensible as direct evidence of a warming world. And I don't think you can pick out a period even as short as 5 years within the past few decades that could be claimed to show a pause or slowdown. Meanwhile, surface air temperatures look more like a secondary consequence of sea surface temperatures and subject to a lot of variability because of phenomena that move and mix ocean water around.

We can and should try for more ocean temperature coverage, especially of deep ocean that is not well covered but what is known surely does not, for example support Ian Plimer's undersea volcanoes heating the world from below; on the contrary it is quite consistent with warming from above.

What we can't or shouldn't do is vacillate whilst we wait for every cubic metre to be measured continuously and every cool spell, cold spot or instance of glacial advance is understood and explained to the satisfaction of people like Nigel Lawson. We know more than enough to know we need to commit to action on emissions reductions.

Of course, in the current political climate - at least in my nation of Australia, and apparently in USA and Canada - if any part of the ocean, or world for that matter, doesn't show continuous and incremental warming it will be used by opponents of action on climate to distract and deceive and promote inaction. Recall the "world is cooling" hype when the eastern USA had a winter that was colder than average, despite far more of the world simultaneously showing much warmer than average conditions.

Brandis confuses right to be heard with right to be taken seriously

Composer99 at 00:43 AM on 7 May, 2014

To elaborate a bit on the characteristics of denialism, and how creationists, climate science deniers, and anti-vaccine activists share them in common, let me provide some examples:

1. Fake or Misleading Experts

Creationism - Ken Ham, Dr Michael Egnor (a neurosurgeon), William Dembski

Anti-Vaccine Activism - Andrew Wakefield, Dr Jay Gordon (*), Dr Vera Scheibner (a micropaleontologist)

Climate Science Denial - Christopher Monckton, Dr Roy Spencer (*), Dr S. Fred Singer (*), Dr Richard Lindzen (*), Ian McIntyre

(*) denotes misleading experts - people with pertinent expertise in the subject (e.g. Dr Jay Gordon is a pediatrician) but who are using their credentials to support or propagate false or misleading information, in the public sphere at least, if not in the literature (e.g. Dr Spencer and the Cornwall Alliance). (Some creationists I have named above might be misleading experts; but I'm not familiar enough with them to say so.)

2. Cherry-Picking & Misrepresentation

Creationism - claims about radiocarbon dating, this article showing distortion of so-called "No Free Lunch" algorithms, claims about the eye, or flagellum, making Charles Darwin out to be a proto-eugenicist, etc.

Anti-Vaccine - Wakefield's (retracted) 1998 Lancet paper (I don't recall seeing that one get trotted out as much since its retraction), some rubbish papers by Laura Hewitson et al (also retracted), claims about various ingredients in vaccines (formaldehyde, aluminium, etc.), the "Fourteen Studies". I could go on - maybe search the vaccine topic thread on Science-Based Medicine for some more examples.

Climate Science Denial - the "pause" in global warming (cherry picking a small portion of the surface temperature record while ignoring the behaviour of 95+% of the climate system), the obsession over outdated papers (Hansen et al 1988 and Mann et al 1999), Anthony Watts' "surface stations project".

3. Logical Fallacies

Creationism - false dichotomy (either their misrepresentation of evolutionary processes must be true, or God/an "Intelligent Designer" did it), ad hominem or similar argument (e.g. accepting evolution leads to the Holocaust, courtesy of Ben Stein).

Anti-Vaccine - ad hominem (what Dr David Gorski calls the "pharma shill gambit"), red herrings (appeals to the issues surrounding thalidomide, Vioxx, or, say, the Tuskegee experiments).

Global Warming Denial - ad hominem (pretty much whenever Al Gore or David Suzuki's names come up), strawman argument ("CAGW"), appeal to popularity (here's a good example, or you could bring up the Orgeon Petition), guilt by association (Donna Laframboise's book about the IPCC).

4. Conspiratorial Ideation

Creationism - In Expelled, Ben Stein alleges that the scientific community conspires to ruin the careers of those who express any doubt in the "scientific orthodoxy of Darwinism" (quotes used to denote sarcasm, not direct quote). Especially religious creationists are liable to discern the influence of Satan or other supernatural forces of wickedness in the widespread acceptance of evolution among biologists.

Anti-Vaccine - One activist, Jake Crosby, is famed for trying to playing "six degrees of separation" to try and tie pro-vaccine advocates to pharmaceutical companies. Conspiracy theories are also called upon to explain why public health departments & researchers would continue to support vaccination programs despite the alleged harms of vaccines.

Global Warming Denial - The allegations that the UEA-CRU hack exposed fraud, or that the subsequent inquiry findings were whitewashing. Any time the claim is made that climate scientists are engaged in a hoax or fraud for the purpose of securing grant money. Any time the claim is made that climate science is part of a wider "eco-fascist", "Marxist", or what-have-you plot to establish despotism.

5. Impossible Expectations/Shifting Goalposts

Creationism - I'm not as well-read on creationist tactics on this front, but I understand that creationists have made a big fuss about lack of certain transitional forms, or even set up impossible expectations for what sort of transitional forms might be found (e.g. the "crocoduck"). The shift to "Intelligent Design" as the primary public vehicle of creationism is a goalpost shift.

Anti-Vaccine - Despite its unethical nature, many anti-vaccine activists call for a double-blind trial of vaccinated and unvaccinated populations. Anti-vaccine activists occasionally demand 100% certainty of the safety or efficacy of vaccines. I have personally had an anti-vaccine commenter demand that science either develop the capacity to predict who would be harmed by vaccines (an impossible expectation at present).

Climate Science Denial - The "quantum" behaviour of denial as recently discussed on Skeptical Science is a perfect example of shifting goalposts. A good example of impossible expectations would be Judith Curry's "Uncertainty Monster", or similar claims that we just need to do more research for a few more years/decades before we can make policy decisions (because it's all so uncertain).

CO2 effect is saturated

Tom Curtis at 11:08 AM on 20 June, 2013

I have been looking more carefully at the PDF which is the detailed explanation of the WUWT story which is the basis of Stealth's comments. The inconsistency and, frankly, the dishonesty of the author, Ed Hoskins, is shown in the fifth chart of the PDF (page 3). It purports to show the expected temperature response to increases in CO2 according to a group of "skeptics" (Plimer, Carter, Ball, and Archibald), and three "IPCC assessments" by three authors. It also shows a "IPCC average", but that is not the average value from any IPCC assessment, but rather the average of the three "IPCC assessments" by the three authors.

The first thing to note about this chart is that it gets the values wrong. Below are selected values from the chart, with the values as calculated using the standard formula for CO2 forcing, and using their 100-200 value as a benchmark for the temperature response:

Concentration Skeptic Lindzen Krondratjew Charnock “IPCC” Mean IPCC
100-200______0.29____0.56____0.89________1.48______0.98_______3
200-300______0.14____0.42____0.44________1.34______0.73
Calc 200-300_0.17____0.33____0.52________0.87______0.57_______1.76
400-1000_____0.15____0.7_____1.19________1.78______1.22
Calc 400-1000_0.38___0.74____1.18________1.96______1.29_______3.97

The "Calc" values are those calculated using the standard formula for radiative forcing, with a climate sensitivity factor determined by the claimed temperure response for a doubling of CO2 from 100-200 ppmv. The '"IPCC" Mean' column is the mean of the three prior columns.

Clearly the values in the table are not consistent with the standard formula, typically overestimating the response from 200-300 ppmv, and underestimating the response from 400-1000 ppmv. That pattern, however, is not entirely consistent, being reversed in the case of Kondratjew. Other than that odd inconsistency, this is just the same misrepresentation of temperature responses shown in my 211 above.

More bizarre is the representation of the IPCC by Lindzen, Kondratjew and Charnock. As can be seen, their values, and the mean of their values significantly underrepresent the best estimate of the IPCC AR4 of 3 C per doubling of CO2. That is a well known result, and the misrepresentation can have no justification. It especially cannot have any justification given that neither Kondratjew nor Charnock are authors (let alone lead authors) of any relevant chapter in the IPCC AR4. Nor are they cited in any relevant chapter of the IPCC AR4. Presenting their work as "IPCC assessments" is, therefore, grossly dishonest.

Moving on, Hoskins shows another chart on page 2, which helps explain at least one cause of his error. It is a reproduction of a chart produced by David Archibald, purportedly showing the temperature response for succesive 20 ppmv increases in CO2 concentration. Looking at Archibald's article, he claims it is a presentation, in bar graph form, of a chart posted by Willis Eschenbach on Climate Audit:

As a side note, the forcing shown is 2.94 log(CO2)+233.6, and hence the modtran settings used do not correspond to the global mean forcing. The method used by Eschenbach, therefore, cannot produce a correct value for the global mean forcing of CO2. As it happens, his values produce a forcing per doubling of CO2 of 2 W/m^2 per doubling of CO2, and hence underestimates the true forcing by 46%. Note, however, that it does rise linearly for each doubling of CO2, so Hoskins has not even mimmicked Eschenbach accurately.

Far more important is that it is a plot of the downward IR flux at ground level with all non-CO2 green house gases (including water vapour) present. The IPCC, however, defines 'radiative forcing' as "... the change in net (down minus up) irradiance (solar plus longwave; in W m–2) at the tropopause after allowing for stratospheric temperatures to readjust to radiative equilibrium, but with surface and tropospheric temperatures and state held fixed at the unperturbed values". (My emphasis.)

It does so for two reasons. First, the theory of radiative forcing is essentially a theory about the energy balance of the planet. Therefore it is not the downward radiation at the surface that is at issue, but the balance between incoming and outgoing radiation at the top of the atmosphere.

Second, the temperature at the tropopause and at the surface are bound together by the lapse rate. Therefore any temperature increase at the tropopause will be matched by a temperature increase at the surface. Given reduced outward radiation at the tropopause, the energy imbalance between incoming solar radiation and outgoing IR radiation will result in warming at the surface and intermediate levels of the atmosphere. Adjustments in the rate of convection driven by temperature differences will reestablish the lapse rate, maintaining the same linear relationship between tropopause and surface temperature (ignoring the lapse rate feedback). The net effect is that the same effective temperature increase will occure at all levels, resulting in a larger downard radiation at the surface than the initial change at either the tropopause or the surface.

So, Eschenbach (and Hoskins) derive their values incorrectly because they simply do not understand the theory they are criticizing, and which is accepted without dispute by knowledgeable "skeptics" such as Lindzen and Spencer. They are in the same boat of denying simple physics as are the "skydragon slayers" who Watts excoriates. Watts, however, publishes pseudo-scientific claptrap on the same level as the "skydragon slayers" on a daily basis, however, because he also is completely ignorant of the theory he so vehemently rejects.

This is Global Warming - A Lesson for Monckton and Co.

Albatross at 14:08 PM on 30 December, 2012

Ron @60,

"...should not be attacked for not being a climate scientist by people who aren't climate scientists."

Your red herring argument dismisses one and all critiques made by non-climate scientists in this faux debate? You are conceding that the opinions Monckton, Watts, McIntyre, Ridley, McKitrick, Morano, Michaels, Pielke Jnr., Inhofe, Bastardi, Douglass, Knox, Singer, Easterbrook, Peiser, McLean, Jo Nova, Montford, Mosher, Baliunas, Loehle, Tom Harris, Muller, Liljegren, Condon, Happer, Lewis, Plimer, Soon, Idso, Tisdale, Dyson and many, many other fake skeptics and contrarians are to be ignored when it comes to climate science.

For the record, in science it is not considered an "attack" to note legitimate and noteworthy errors and flaws in arguments made by fake skeptics and those in denial. Trying to invoke that hyperbole in a scientific debate is conceding that you have lost and are grasping at straws.

Hurricane Sandy: Neither weather nor tide nor sea level can be legislated

Bernard J. at 16:02 PM on 30 October, 2012

Indeed Uncle Pete.

And not to forget the real estate industry's liaisons with the likes of David Archibald, Ian Plimer, and Bob Carter.

Climate skeptic claims prebunked by Keeling

EliRabett at 22:27 PM on 21 August, 2012

Oh yes, you can see the variability in the MLO record at one of the links above, with a link to where you can download the hourly data, so no Paul, that dog don't hunt neither

http://rabett.blogspot.com.au/2009/10/ian-plimer-is-con-artist-one-of.html

Climate skeptic claims prebunked by Keeling

bit_pattern at 18:55 PM on 20 August, 2012

Here we go, one of my prouder moments ;) It's amazing where forum discussions can go!

http://rabett.blogspot.com.au/2009/10/ian-plimer-is-con-artist-one-of.html

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/10/25/plimer-the-plagiarist/

Nil Illegitimi Carborundum

JohnB at 16:42 PM on 1 July, 2012

Don't listen to the cowardly threats of these mercenaries of the oil and resources industries.
Earth's future depends on people like you providing facts that expose the propaganda of powerful evil corporations for what it is -selfish greed.

In Australia recently, a past prime minister (a "closet denier") speaking at the launch of an new Ian Plimer book, objected to the term "Denier" being used to describe those who reject anthropogenic global warming, because of it's past association with Hitlers evil attempted extermination of a race of people.
On the contrary, I think it is a very apt term to describe those, who through misrepresentation of scientific facts cause the continuation of CO2 generating industries, with the near certainty of destroying Earths habitable environment.
Billions of people, are expected to be unable to survive resulting climate change over the next 100 or so years - not to mention the devastating effect on animal life.
Hitler's extermination efforts pale in comparison!!

Keep up the good work - the essential truth must prevail.

John Bloomfield, Australia.

Ian Plimer Pens Aussie Geologist Gish Gallop #2 of the Week

dana1981 at 08:56 AM on 9 June, 2012

HR @10 - Skeptical Science covers both climate science and solutions. The Australian carbon pricing system is a climate solution. Discussing climate policy is not equivalent to discussing politics. For example, we did not criticize Plimer for his extreme political rhetoric, we simply corrected his factual errors when describing the policy solution.

Discussing climate policy/solutions is entirely consistent with SkS guidelines. Discussing political motivations is not.

Ian Plimer Pens Aussie Geologist Gish Gallop #2 of the Week

HumanityRules at 07:21 AM on 9 June, 2012

Dana,

"As is our usual practice at Skeptical Science, we will not comment on Plimer's political rhetoric, but instead will focus on the many climate science myths contained in his piece"

The whole section marked 'Misrepresentation of the Australian Carbon Pricing System" is about tax, legislation, jobs and energy pricing. Since when is this climate science and not politics?

Ian Plimer Pens Aussie Geologist Gish Gallop #2 of the Week

chriskoz at 22:06 PM on 2 June, 2012

rpauli,

This article is about Ian Plimer's misrepresentations. I don't see any misrepresentations about CO2 in his gish gallop discussed here, therefore your post is a double-violation of comments policy by being off topic and an unqualified statement.

So I'm surprised Tom acted as a commenter rather than the admin on it.

Just look around. You do not have to search far to find OnT thread: just 2 days back where your comment would have been perhaps excplicitly qualified and could draw interesting discussion...

Ian Plimer Pens Aussie Geologist Gish Gallop #2 of the Week

macoles at 16:29 PM on 31 May, 2012

The section "Misrepresentation of the Australian Carbon Pricing System" applies not just to Plimer, but to nearly all the Liberal aligned commentators I've seen in the Australian media.

An examination of the Clean Energy Bill (Securing a Clean Energy Future - Appendix C: Fiscal tables) shows the following budget for the fixed price "Carbon Tax" period (first 3 years):

Forward estimates (Total to 2014-15 period, rounded numbers)
Total Revenue = $27.3 Billion
Total Spending = $31.2 Billion

Spending breakdown:
Household assistance measures = $15.4 Billion
Support for jobs (Industry assistance including free permits) = $10.3 Billion
Energy security and transformation = $3 Billion
Land and biodiversity measures = $1.2 Billion
Clean Energy Finance Corporation = $0.9 Billion
Governance = $0.4 Billion

So unless the government cancels other existing "green" schemes (because of real or perceived duplication) then the CEF package actually costs the government $3.9 Billion over three years.

The only plausible criticism of the CEF package is that low incomes earners will be overcompensated via the "Household assistance measures", and that could be seen as vote buying.

101 responses to Ian Plimer's climate questions

Composer99 at 01:02 AM on 16 May, 2012

Carbon500 @17:

You appear to be confusing or conflating linguistic accuracy with precision.

As long as there is a global-scale energy imbalance causing accumulation of energy within the world ocean (causing the ongoing increase in global oceah heat content), then the statement

The oceans are warming

is entirely accurate.

Increasing resolution and documenting or discussing temporal or spatial variation in the accumulation of ocean heat content adds to the precision of this statement but does not change its accuracy.

As far as encouraging investigation & critical thinking in the classroom goes, Plimer's How To Get Expelled From School is a decidedly inferior tool. Indeed, the way the questions are worded it appears to encourage disruption in the classroom and thoughtless contrarianism among students - rather than a spirit of critical inquiry based on reviewing theoretical, experimental and empirical findings in the sciences.

101 responses to Ian Plimer's climate questions

Carbon500 at 22:09 PM on 14 May, 2012

Although I haven’t as yet obtained a copy of Plimer's publication, as judged by the Australian government’s response on your website his questions raise interesting points.
It’s essential that children learn to think, question, compare and contrast sources, and form opinions of their own in science.
The governmental response lacks detail and references - for example, in the answer to question 8, it states ‘the oceans are warming’. Yet on page 48 of the IPCC’s Climate Change 2007 is the statement ‘ Whilst the global trend is one of warming, significant decadal variations have been observed in the global time series, and there are large regions where the oceans are cooling.’ A rather more complicated picture than the government presents, isn’t it?
Then there’s the matter of oceanic pH.
The government answer to question 95 states that ‘the pH of seawater has historically remained at about 8.2 ’ This is followed by the claim that human activities have ‘caused the pH of ocean surface waters to drop by 0.11 pH units.’
There’s no reference for this, but on page 405 of Climate Change 2007 the IPCC state ‘The mean pH of surface waters ranges between 7.9 and 8.3 in the open ocean, so the ocean remains alkaline (pH>7) even after these decreases.’ The government’s use of the words ‘equivalent to 30 percent increase in acidity’ is misleading.
So how has this increase of surface ocean waters been measured? Climate Change 2007 states on p48 that ‘the overall pH change is computed from estimates of anthropogenic carbon uptake and simple ocean models.’ Computations from estimates! Mercifully, they follow this with ‘Direct observations of pH at available stations for the last 20 years also show trends of decreasing pH, at a rate of 0.02 units per decade.’ Empirical data, thank goodness.
The answer to question 68 paints a rosy picture of computer modelling, yet on p21 Climate Change 2007 gives a more realistic ‘there is still an incomplete understanding of many components of the climate system and their role in climate change. Key uncertainties include aspects of the roles played by clouds, the cryosphere, the oceans, land use and couplings between climate and biogeochemical cycles.’
I’ll be interested to see Ian Plimers’s answers to his own questions. I hope that the science teachers in Australia do their homework well!

101 responses to Ian Plimer's climate questions

monkeyorchid at 18:36 PM on 10 May, 2012

The Geological Society website has a ridiculously uncritical review of Plimer's book, by Julian Vearncombe, at the link below. The review even makes a virtue of having "few references, hidden at the back". How is that a good thing?

http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/gsl/geoscientist/page11359.html

Not the society's finest hour!

101 responses to Ian Plimer's climate questions

cliffd at 11:42 AM on 10 May, 2012

@ 2. I don't think Plimer actually sent copies of his book to schools; I think it was the Institute of Public Affairs, an Australian right-wing "think-tank" which does not disclose its donors.

101 responses to Ian Plimer's climate questions

bill at 11:00 AM on 10 May, 2012

Many of the questions and answers in Professor Plimer’s book are misleading and are based on inaccurate or selective interpretation of the science

chriskoz, the format of Plimer's book - and it is a book - is to pre-arm the kiddies with the 'correct' answers to the questions, that they then may go well-equipped to waylay their potentially errant, overworked and warmism-addled teachers with a succession of 'gotchas!' All for the greater good, of course.

Hence this counter-response from the Australian Government.

And hence I think your 'acknowledgement' is rather too kind.

Should you wish to subject yourself to the original it's available here.

(I did get a chuckle when I observed the second publication in the 'Customers who bought this product also purchased...' list! ;-) )

Interestingly, Graham Readfearn reports that review copies were refused to some news outlets.

101 responses to Ian Plimer's climate questions

chriskoz at 23:52 PM on 9 May, 2012

Looking through thte linked PDF, out of 101 questions I counted 20 classified as incorrect/misleading and 2 as irrelevant. So, some acknowledgement to Plimer is in order: at least he keeps his dicourse sensibly to the topic in 98%. This is opposed to some other contrarians (e.g. Monckton) who operate by trolling & gish-gallopping with the only visible aim of confusing the listener rather than conveying any coherent information, even if false one.

I would like to check Plimer's "expected answers" to this questionaire. Does anyone know if Plimer did publish his answers? It would be interesting to compare them, just to see the talking points of his followers in the interest of easier debunking if needed.

Cliff Ollier: Swimming In A Sea of Misinformation

indulis at 20:22 PM on 25 April, 2012

Prof Cliff Ollier is also part of the Australian Climate Science Coalition which includes such well known and respected thinkers in the climate field such as:
- Prof Bob "My logic is impeccable CO2 lagged temperature rises in the past, so it can't be the cause now" Carter
- Dr David "I will ignore BEST and continue to claim that 'heat islands' are being used to "inflate official temperatures" Evans
- Professor Ian "The CO2 is mostly from volcanoes, I will ignore carbon isotope analysis of atmospheric CO2, and any facts to the contrary from the USGS- anyway the world is not warming!! Plimer

Not one of whom has published a single scientific paper in a reputable (peer reviewed) journal.

The ACSC web site also has links to the Heartland Climate Conference and other denier hangouts.

Climate Change Denial and the Media - Banishment of Science Reality

Tom Curtis at 12:37 PM on 21 January, 2012

(un)skeptikal @14, what you have just produced is called a Gish Gallop. It is the typical marker of the very unskeptical AGW deniers that frequently visit site, post their Gish Gallop and then disappear when they find out that reasonable standards of rational discourse are actually required here (see the comment policy).

The purpose of the Gish Gallop is to "... drowning the opponent in such a torrent of half-truths, lies, and straw-man arguments that the opponent cannot possibly answer every falsehood that has been raised." Well, consider me drowned. I do not have time to respond to all the half truths and full false hoods you have spewed forth. I will, however, address two.

You claim that "Climate scientists stand to lose their research grants if the increase in temperature proves to be a natural variation." Well, possibly, but as most of the well respected Climate Scientists have tenure, that would make no appreciable difference to their income. More importantly, of the many careers in science, Climate Science is one of the least attractive in terms of financial gain. Much better to go into chemistry, or medicine where there is the potential of a big payoff from patentable discoveries. Or better yet, become a geologist specializing in oil, where the salaries are better and a successful career will lead to paid positions on the boards of mining companies. That gives you the prospect of being a muli-millionaire like Ian Plimer. The fact that any person has chosen to be a climate scientist therefore means that person has chosen the pursuit of knowledge over the pursuit of income as a primary motivator in their life. In contrast, choosing a career in fossil fuels shows that you have made the reverse choice. So don't try setting up your false equivalencies here. We are not that gullible.

You also claim, "I tend to distrust data that has been manipulated ...". Well, I have bad news for you. All data is "manipulated". We cannot measure temperature directly. Instead we measure a distance, specifically the expansion of a metal (mercury) in a glass tube, and then convert that into a temperature scale. Granted the thermometers we use have the distance scale marked as degrees for our convenience, but it is still a conversion of a distance measurement into a temperature measurement, and hence a "manipulation".

The case is even worse for satellite temperature measurements, which take a measure of electrical current induced by microwaves, and after some manipulation produce a measure of radiation intensity, which is then, with further manipulation turned into a measure of temperature. Spencer and Christy do not get the credit they deserve among fake AGW skeptics for the level of mathematical sophistication (ie, manipulation) involved in their product. Yet the same fake skeptics who claim that they do not trust manipulated data prefer the far more manipulated UAH temperature product to the very minimally manipulated HadCRU surface temperature product (or the slightly more manipulated, but more accurate GISTEMP product).

Finaly, in the very unlikely case that you are not a fake skeptic, but merely gullible and misinformed, instead of posting screeds at your first appearance, read the various articles here at SkS and post specific and relevant questions at those articles where you have further questions. But if you are going to instead quack like a ~~fake skeptic~~ duck, remember it's always duck hunting season here at Skeptical Science.

2011 Year in Review (part 1)

Tom Curtis at 21:38 PM on 31 December, 2011

tonyabalone @7 no such luck. The Australian published a similarly devastating review of "Heaven and Earth", but that has not stopped them from publishing his articles in opinion pages, and citing him as an expert in their news articles. Therefore I expect no change in their editorial policy or practice.

Plimer vs Plimer: a one man contradiction

Tom Curtis at 12:28 PM on 31 December, 2011

There is a new review of Plimer's latest in The Australian by geologist Mike Sandiford. He also has picked up on the many contradictions in Plimer's works, and a few fundamental errors. Well worth the read.

Plimer vs Plimer: a one man contradiction

catamon at 01:15 AM on 17 December, 2011

This Plimer guy is a bit of a berk really.

There was an article by him the the Australian today:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/glacial-chill-ebbs-and-flows/story-e6frg6z6-1226224280587

In it he states:

"Antarctic ice core (Siple) shows that there were 330 parts per million of carbon dioxide in the air in 1900; Mauna Loa Hawaiian measurements in 1960 show that the air then had 260ppm carbon dioxide.

Either the ice core data is wrong, the Hawaiian carbon dioxide measurements are wrong, or the atmospheric carbon dioxide content was decreasing during a period of industrialisation."

I looked up info on the CO2 record from that core:

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/siple.html

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/siple-gr.gif

Shows CO2 in 1900 @ 296 ppm approx. So, look to his source and he seems to be misquoting it.

Plimer vs Plimer: a one man contradiction

Doug Hutcheson at 16:47 PM on 14 December, 2011

Bernard J.@3: I read the article you linked and all I can do is cringe! As a non-scientist, the rabid Right must be treating me as if I were also a non-thinker.

It is the blatancy of the misinformation from allegedly intelligent people like Rinehart, Plimer and Monckton which makes me despair of our civilisation. I'm not saying they are top of the class, but they are clearly smart enough in their own ways. At least John Howard has the excuse of only being a politician and thus susceptible to whatever little birdie last whispered in his ear, but a depressingly large number of parents might give Plimer's new book credence because Johnny helped launch it.

As a species, we are showing nothing which fits us, or entitles us, to survival, present company excepted. Sad, really: I quite enjoy being alive and assume my descendants would have felt the same, given half a chance.

Debunking Climate Myths from Politicians

newairly at 14:38 PM on 14 December, 2011

I nominate John Howard for saying during his launch of Ian Plimer's latest book that teachers should offer the view in schools that climate change is not man-made.

Also the Archbishop of Sydney, George Pell, who says that climate change “extremism” is the work of “pagans"

(Fahrenheit) 451 ppm

BillEverett at 23:45 PM on 11 December, 2011

"CO2 does not 'lag' temperature. That's a simplistic, inaccurate and indiscriminate view of a complex interaction."

Analysis of time series data for the last 800,000 years from Antarctic ice cores indicates that the temperature at time t, T(t), is most highly correlated with the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration at time t+2000 years, [CO2](t+2000). We than therefore say that CO2 does in fact lag temperature for those time series. Certainly, any statistic is "simplistic" in the sense that it is some kind of reduction of data. But you can call it inaccurate only if you can show an error in calculating the statistic. For many purposes, we need "simplistic" information such as "average global temperature" or "mean sea level." How discriminating a person should be depends on the purpose. Statistical relations between variables can only suggest what might be and what probably cannot be. In other words, an adequate model of a complex dynamical system with many variables, with nonlinear interactions, and with variable time lags in feedbacks should produce outcomes with statistics similar to the statistics of the system being modeled.

If increased CO2 did not initiate historical temperature rises to an interglacial period, then what GHG, if any, was involved? An abrupt increase in the atmospheric CH4 concentration from the region of 350 to 400 ppb to the region of 700 to 800 ppb seems to slightly precede the steep temperature rise on the exit from a deep ice age (glacial period).

Here is Fig.3 in a paper by Alexey V. Byalko on the paleoclimate published in the journal Priroda [in Russian] (No.12, 2009, pp.18-28). The entire issue is downloadable as a pdf file (5 Mb).

Cross-correlations (covariances): The blue curve is temperature and CO2, the red curve is temperature and CH4, and the green curve is CO2 and CH4.

Here is an English translation of Byalko's discussion of that figure in the paper referenced above: "The cross-correlations (covariances) of these variables give even more information. They are presented with a higher time resolution because the shift of the maxima of these functions forward or backward from zero indicates which variable is leading, which is lagging, and with what characteristic time. As Fig. 3 shows, temperature and [CO2] are closely coupled at small times with a maximum covariance equal to 0.88 reached with the temperature leading by about 2 ky relative to [CO2](t). The accuracy of calculating lags and leads, regrettably, is not yet good, being around 0.5 ky. The temperature and methane concentration turned out to be almost synchronous, but their maximum covariance is lower, equal to 0.82. Finally, CO2 concentration lags behind [CН4] with a 1.5 ky average lag; their maximum covariance is equal to 0.74. The logic of this time lag can be explained by the process of oxidizing methane into carbon dioxide."

Methane release from Arctic permafrost was probably not involved in past major warming episodes, at least not until the Arctic ice sheet had receded. It seems likely to me the significant increase in atmospheric CH4 preceding those warming episodes involved releases from the benthic methane hydrate stores. So now I have the question (which can only be answered speculatively at the present): What if the CO2-induced warming leads to release of CH4 from both benthic and permafrost stores? Would this lead to a major warming episode, of which several have occurred in the past 800,000 years, but starting this time from a warm interglacial plateau and not from the depths of a deep ice age?

One research project has been involved in trying to find related answers. I quote a couple passges, one long and one short, from their webpage. The long passage: "This effort will develop, for the first time, a tool for the systematic quantification of the potential impact of dissociating marine hydrates on the global climate. The results of this study will be important in testing the validity of the Clathrate Gun hypothesis, and the corollary hypothesis that rapid hydrate dissociation can have a cascading effect resulting in enhanced hydrate dissociation and accelerating global warming, with potentially catastrophic physical and economic consequences."

The short passage: "Current Status (November 2011): All project research has been placed on hold due to ongoing funding issues."

Plimer vs Plimer: a one man contradiction

Mercury Scientist at 04:33 AM on 10 December, 2011

I wasn't familiar with this Plimer dude, so I did a google scholar search on him (plimer i r). Looks like his background is in hard rock geology and mineralogy. In the first 5 or so pages of google scholar hits, I did not see a single peer reviewed paper that appeared to have anything to do with paleoclimate. His papers have titles like "Tourmalinites from the Golden Dyke dome, northern Australia;" "Exhalative Sn and W deposits associated with mafic volcanism as precursors to Sn and W deposits associated with granites;" "The origin of the albite-rich rocks enclosing the cobaltian pyrite deposit at Thackaringa, NSW, Australia;" etc. If there's a climate connection in any of them, I hope someone will point it out. Google scholar does, of course, include his "Heaven and Earth--Global Warming: the Missing Science." I would bet that this book was not subject to rigorous peer review. I will concede that he must be quite knowledgeable on geology - particularly minerals & rocks - but his specific area of expertise seems quite disconnected from what he writes about in his popular book. I contend that "the Missing Science" is the fact that nothing on his own CV suggests any stature or relevant research experience in the paleoclimate field.

Richard Milne separates skepticism from denial

Ian Forrester at 05:39 AM on 3 November, 2011

Matt Ridley is on the Academic Advisory Council of The Global Warming Policy Foundation alongside such well known AGW deniers as Ian Plimer, Richard Lindzen, Robert Carter, Ross McKitrick, William Harper and many others. As such, anything he says is not based on science but on his libertarian ideology.

As an aside he was Chairman of Northern Rock the first Bank to face problems in the UK, problems which appear to be blamed on Matt Ridley.

Sorting out Settled Science from Remaining Uncertainties

daisym at 17:35 PM on 2 November, 2011

Thanks for your feedback.

Please see:

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

This link will provide names of scientists who disagree that the science is settled. There's no point to include the Oregon Petition or Sen. Inhofe's list of 700. Others have already managed to discredit ALL 30,000 names on the Oregon Petition, and Inhofe's 700, as well. Make sure any such list includes the names of Professors William Happer, Harold Lewis, Ivar Giaever, Fred Singer, Roy Spencer, Patrick Michaels, Bjorn Lomborg, Ian Plimer, John Christy, and Roger Pielke, Sr.

Also see:

www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/icdc7/proceedings/abstracts/gruberFF335Oral.pdf (Oceanic Sources and Sinks for Atmospheric CO2 -- Gruber et al). Apparently, outgassing of CO2 is occurring in some areas, with uptake occurring in other areas. Do the oceans outgas only manmade CO2?

I find it curious that no one commented on a question I raised: If natural forces are powerful enough to cool and offset warming attributed to manmade CO2, why aren’t they also powerful enough to cause the warming attributed to manmade CO2 to seem greater than it really is? It’s the $64,000 question.

Modern scientists, following in Galileo’s footsteps

Albatross at 14:10 PM on 30 September, 2011

Stevo @29,

Thanks. You made me look closer at the Galileo Movement, and what I read is very interesting/disturbing. Look who the advisors are for the Galileo Movement in Australia:

Professor Tim Ball
Warwick Hughes
Professor Fred Singer
Professor Dick Lindzen
Bill Kininmonth
Professor Bob Carter
Professor Ian Plimer
David Archibald
Professor Peter Ridd
Professor Garth Paltridge
Dr Vincent Gray
Dr Jennifer Marohasy
Jo Nova
Des Moore
John Nicol
David Flint
Andrew Bolt
John McLean
David Evans
Pat Michaels
Joe D'Aleo
Viscount Monckton

[Source]

Their purported guiding principles ironically include:
"Honesty: rely on factual data, ensure decisions are based on facts;
Fact based science: protect and use science, a key to human progress, objective and fair decisions and freedom"

and under "Purpose and Aims" ironically include:
"Protect science and restore scientific integrity"

Sounds great does it not? But, there is a very big problem with those proclamations, because unfortunately those lofty ethics and goals do not seem to be endorsed or even practised by several of their advisers, as has been demonstrated multiple times here at SkepticalScience and elsewhere. Some of the names on that list shocked me. What are Drs. Lindzen and Gray thinking?

Understanding climate denial

milka at 10:21 AM on 29 September, 2011

John

There's a 6th common characteristic of the denialist movement: the profit motive. Just as Big Tobacco knew the dangers of smoking, Big Carbon know their polluting days are numbered. Denial helps ensure profits continue for as long as their propaganda holds up.

Does anyone really believe reputable Fin Review journalists like Trevor Sykes (Pierpont) are genuine climate skeptics? Sykes is Patron of the Sydney Mining Club and a Board member of Austex Oil. No pressure there! Doesn't mean he doesn't write witty or brilliant articles, just that he has a vested interest in spreading the skeptic propaganda. He's no different in this respect from people like Peter Mitchell, the man behind the Landscape Guardians who successfully sent investment in wind farms into freefall recently in Victoria or any other right winger with mining interests. Ian Plimer is on no less than 4 mining boards. No-one really believes they're stupid enough not to "get" global warming. They just want to put off regulation for as long as possible by pretending there is a "debate" about the science.

The BBC has now decided there is no phony "debate" and skeptics get little media attention in the UK now.

The Ridley Riddle Part Two: The White Queen

Captain Pithart at 23:12 PM on 7 August, 2011

ridley has a new article up in WSJ, full version at "Hockey Schtick".

in it he states: »But then the total carbon-dioxide emissions from biological sources—animals, plants, fungi and microbes—dwarf those from fossil fuels and amount to some 800 billion tons a year. So although it is a myth that volcanoes produce more carbon dioxide than fossil fuels do, the natural world far outpaces our cars and factories. Roughly 97% of the carbon dioxide entering the atmosphere each year is from nature, not human activity.«

but he does note that Ian Plimer's opinion on volcanoes is fringe.

p.

Monckton at odds with the very scientists he cites

Tom Curtis at 01:53 AM on 19 July, 2011

Rob Honeycutt @22, you obviously like your humor black.

Not only is he (as you put it) an all round bad seed, he is also intimately connected with all the major deniers in Australia. These are the "independent advisers" of the ironically named "Galileo Movement":

Professor Tim Ball
Warwick Hughes
Professor Fred Singer
Professor Dick Lindzen
Bill Kininmonth
Professor Bob Carter
Professor Ian Plimer
David Archibald
Professor Peter Ridd
Professor Garth Paltridge
Dr Vincent Gray
Dr Jennifer Marohasy
Jo Nova
Des Moore
John Nicol
David Flint
Andrew Bolt
John McLean
David Evans
Pat Michaels
Joe D'Aleo
Viscount Monckton

Jo Nova in particular, has been sharing the podium with Monckton on his speaking tour. While she has been saying,

"We sceptics are not calling for anyone to be silenced."

he has been getting up and saying:

"So to the bogus scientists who have produced the bogus science that invented this bogus scare I say, we are coming after you, we are going to prosecute you and we are going to lock you up!"

Apparently they do not see the disconnect. What is transparently lacking is responsible media who put to those involved why they are willing to associate with a man like Monckton (no more accurate description can be given with in comment policy).

Examining Dr. John Christy's Global Warming Skepticism

KR at 13:11 PM on 15 June, 2011

jonicol - Given your knowledge of the connections, common PO box, phone number, and shared staff (Executive Director <> secretary, incidentally) with the AEF, your statement "The Australian Climate Science Coalition, though, is not in any way connected to the AEF or to the IPA." is, in fact, wholly untrue.

Your denial of this connection is, quite frankly, a falsehood.

The AEF is a lobbying front group for the IPA, and the Australian Climate Science Coalition (ACSC) appears to be a website and science group created for the purpose of presenting the views of the IPA/AEF to the world in a less visibly connected fashion - the purpose being to raise doubt about climate change and slow government actions thereof. The inclusion of Plimer, Carter, Evans, Archibald, and Kininmonth in the Scientific Advisory Panel only reinforce this - they are all well noted for promoting skeptical fallacies such as discussed on this website.

The ACSC is an advocacy group, as I stated before - while I will not outright dismiss the data and opinions presented by such advocacy groups, I will take them with the appropriate grain of salt, much as I took anything presented by the "Tobacco Institute" or take those representing "Clean Coal".

In regards to the science of CO2 physics, IR interactions, etc., I am (and I believe others are) more than willing to discuss those with you on a material and factual basis. At the very least such a discussion will be educational for all readers. To remain topical, I might suggest the CO2 effect is weak, CO2 emissions do not correlate with CO2 concentration, CO2 only causes 35% of global warming threads, or others as appropriate (see the Search link at the top of the page).

Geologists and climate change denial

CoalGeologist at 14:26 PM on 11 June, 2011

This discussion seems to be drifting a bit off topic, but I'll attempt to tie various issues together by observing that it has been my impression that many of my colleagues initially approached the issue of climate change from a skeptical perspective, but unwittingly slid down the slippery slope of "Denialism".

In this regard, it's important to recognize the role Denialist web sites, and books such as Ian Plimer's "Heaven and Earth", have played in perpetuating misunderstanding of the scientific arguments. (One of my colleagues actually purchased numerous copies of Plimer's book to mail to his friends in an effort to convince us that AGW is a fraud. Unfortunately for him, the book taught me more about Denialism than it did about climate science.)

Any sincere skeptic can potentially find out what science has to say on specific issues through web sites such as SkS. If they then remain doubtful of the validity of the prevailing view, this is what science is all about (assuming it is for legitimate reasons).

At the same time, it's important to recognize the corrupting role that "cherry picking" and "affirmation of beliefs" plays in this process, and why bias is so difficult to avoid. If in an overly zealous effort to question the prevailing theory, one immerses one's self in "Denial World", and if this is all one sees day after day, it becomes easy to believe there's no valid scientific basis for AGW.

There are reasonably well defined criteria to distinguish skepticism from Denialism, and continued arguments that "Denialist" is nothing but a meaningless insult become very tedious. Any sincere skeptic should acknowledge that AGW Denialism is real, and should distance themselves from it as much as possible.

Unfortunately, this is a step few ardent Denialists are willing to take, as they quickly discover that outside of "Denialworld", the arguments against AGW are as thin as Arctic sea ice.

I also would like to emphasize the important contributions geologists have made to science in general, and to climate science in particular.

Geologists and climate change denial

ginckgo at 12:10 PM on 10 June, 2011

I'm a geologist/palaeontologist myself, and know many geologists here in Australia, and overseas. The majority of them accept that AGW theory correctly describes what's going on (a few are skeptical that we can do much about it anymore); Mike Sandiford, my lecturer in metamorphic geology, now at Melbourne Uni, is a strong advocate of AGW (Ian Plimer used to work at Melbourne Uni, but there is little respect for his academic prowess here, partly due to his very meagre publication recordl; and yet he is touted as Australia's most renowned geologist). I have actually collaborated closely with Bob Carter in the late 90s, and have respect for his work in marine geology, so it is disappointing that he is undermining another field of science, blatantly due to political convictions (Heartland Institute, srsly?).

Geology is vitally important in understanding what's going on (I'm involved in organising a conference on the relevance of palaeoclimate on today's climate change in the next year), and geologists should be very involved in the whole thing. But scientists must understand that expertise in one subject does not automatically translate to others. And interestingly, the geologists more closely involved with climate (palaeontologists, palaeoclimatologists, etc) are much more likely to agree with AGW theory than those who are far removed: economic geologists can get a degree (or just go straight to a job) without ever doing any classes outside of ore formation or hard rock geology, which are as relevant to climate as inorganic chemistry is to evolution. Indeed, we see similar patterns in lists that supposedly show scientists denying evolution.

Tony Abbott denies climate change and advocates carbon tax in the same breath

Stevo at 08:52 AM on 9 June, 2011

Moderator #11. Here's the link to the Tony Abbott interview on ABC Lateline.
My apologies for misquoting in my earlier posting. Abbott did not say the actual words, "I'm not across the science" but from the interview it is plainly the case that he is not.
When asked if he had read the science or IPCC report he responded, "No, I don't claim to have immersed myself deeply in all of these documents. I'm a politician. I have to rely on briefings - I have to rely on what I pick up through the secondary sources".
He then went on to quote Plimer and some cherry picked short term data and claimed that it was valid because the numbers came from the Hadley Centre.

There's no room for a climate of denial

Lars Rosenberg at 19:05 PM on 8 June, 2011

Beware of too much theorizing. A large quota of denialists are in fact reasonably normal persons playing games. To most people climate is a boring subject, but the debate offers an arena for inventing insults and being provocative as a hobby, a great fun to many. Some players even reach celebrity status, like Monckton or Plimer. The disturbing thing are those populist politicians who adopt the stupidity of denialism to win votes.

Carter Confusion #1: Anthropogenic Warming

Marcus at 21:55 PM on 23 May, 2011

Just a few points John Nicol.

#1: Being a meteorologist-no matter how distinguished-is not the same thing as being a climate science. This is a distinction which still appears to be utterly lost on the members of the Denial-o-sphere.

#2: Weather is chaotic & hard to predict; long-term climate is relatively stable & easy to predict *if* you know what the long-term inputs & feedbacks are-because all the chaos of individual weather events tend to cancel out over periods of years to decades to centuries. Heck, if *weather* were so unpredictable over the longer-term, then we'd have no such thing as *Seasons*-but seasons represent one form of long-term stability that climate represents.

#3: Whatever William Kinninmonth's past calling, his current close ties with organizations like the Lavoisier Group & now ACSC-both organizations fully funded by the Fossil Fuel Industry-makes any statements made by him highly suspect & incredibly biased. Same is true of Plimer & McLean, both of whom have shown a willingness to misrepresent the data to advance the denialist agenda.

You see, John, your little song & dance might get you loads of attention from your mates at The Australian, but here we hold contributors to a much higher standard of evidence-& evidence is something which Carter, Kinninmonth, Plimer & McLean have never had.

Carter Confusion #1: Anthropogenic Warming

Marcus at 09:51 AM on 23 May, 2011

...oh, & Ian Plimer is in the ACSC as well. They do say that you can judge a man by the company he keeps....doesn't say much for John Nicol, I must say.

Coral atolls and rising sea levels: That sinking feeling

Richard McGuire at 06:09 AM on 20 May, 2011

An interesting and informative article, particularly as it relates to the following comments in Ian Plimer's Heaven and Earth. On page 310 "the ocean floor around Tuvalu is sinking" and on page 321, "Tuvalu's problems have nothing to do with global climate change."

How climate change deniers led me to set up Skeptical Science website

JMurphy at 17:58 PM on 4 May, 2011

Marcus wrote : "I will say this much, though. Its true that Plimer & Monckton have become slightly *less* important, in the eyes of the Denialist Community, since the start of this year-maybe because their comments are so blatantly embarrassing that even their fellow travelers are beginning to want nothing to do with them."

Due, no doubt in large part, to sites like this which pick apart their outpourings and show them up for the propagandist disinformers they really are. Previously, the so-called skeptics used to lap-up whatever they said or wrote because it sounded good (coming as it did from supposed experts, albeit self-described ones) and made their denial seem more science-based.
Now that they have been shown to be nothing more than wafflers and purveyors of ill-thought out ideas, some of the so-called skeptics are embarrassed and are now trying to deny all knowledge of these people - especially by pretending that it is sites like these that are giving them publicity, as opposed to the reality that sites like this are reacting to, showing-up and countering the disinformation.

Older Australians of a certain political persuasion still seem to lap-up their nonsense, though...

How climate change deniers led me to set up Skeptical Science website

Marcus at 14:37 PM on 4 May, 2011

"Marcus at 18:24 PM, you are confirming my point."

How so? I don't exactly seek out mentions of Monckton, Plimer or any of those other hard-core Denialists in The Australian, they're there in Black & White in every single Op Ed piece that is devoted to the issue of Climate Change. The Editorials also frequently make mention of these "stars" of the denial movement, as do many of the journalists who work for The Australian. If you've missed these frequent mentions, then I can only suggest that its because you're trying to read the *braille* version of the newspaper.

How climate change deniers led me to set up Skeptical Science website

Marcus at 18:24 PM on 3 May, 2011

Well John D, you might want to ask that bastion of "Skepticism"-The Australian-why they frequently devote so much space to the rantings of Monckton & Plimer? Also, why is Monckton frequently invited to give testimony at Congressional Hearings in the US, & why do the various skeptic conventions around the world frequently feature one of these two people as Guest Speaker? You might not credit them with too much importance or influence, but I'm afraid you're still in a minority amongst your fellow "skeptics".

How climate change deniers led me to set up Skeptical Science website

chris1204 at 17:38 PM on 2 May, 2011

DB: Thank you for your courteous response.

Wouldn't the Judith Curry citation alone (admittedly from another Skeptical Science thread) qualify under the Comments Policy as an ad hominem remark?

I guess so much of reality is in the eye of the beholder. However, Ken's integrity was fiercely attacked especially in the Flanner thread. I've never met Ken, have never corresponded with him, and indeed know nothing about him save what I have gleaned from his comments.

I really don't want to regurgitate the arguments. However, looking at the Miriam-Webster definition of “ad hominem,” I note two meanings:

1) appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect

2) marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions

I suspect rightly or wrongly that the website moderators might be relying on the literal meaning as in (2) sometimes referred to as “Play the man and not the ball.” However, I think there has been evidence aplenty of appeals to feelings (if not prejudices) rather than intellect on this and other threads. Marcus' most recent comments ("I will simply continue to dismiss [Ken] as a one-eyed contrarian") possibly fall into this latter category.

As someone who has spent the better part of a professional lifetime writing reports and giving expert evidence in court, I've learnt that courtesy and politeness even towards people with whom you strongly disagree is integral to good argument. Knowing and acknowledging the weaknesses of your own position/ hypothesis is equally vital. In relation to the latter, I don't recall any sceptic here citing Plimer or Monckton in support of their positions both of whom I find somewhat an embarrassment (but I'm happy to stand corrected).

I've also learnt that labelling others' arguments as "ridiculous" or "bad" invariably spills over into an inference that the proponents of these arguments are being deliberately obtuse or posting only to make trouble. It is far better to state that an argument is "flawed" and to point out the flaw without rhetorical flourishes. Simple formulae on the lines of "With respect" are essential lubricants of a genuine civil discourse. Other formulae on the lines of "You may have overlooked this" or "Have you considered such and such?" are equally helpful. It takes a patience and consideration but it’s always worth it in the end.

I note a couple of contributors have suggested that I ought to look at what takes place on other sites. With respect, I’m not that naïve. I know the blogosphere is all too often a feral place. However, it doesn't need to be.

CO2 is plant food? If only it were so simple

David Horton at 20:00 PM on 28 April, 2011

Presumably the main point of the "CO2 is a plant food" denier meme is that plants will grow faster and faster and bigger and bigger and take up more and more of the CO2 that selfless giant corporations are making available to them out of the goodness of their hearts. So, problem solved eh? In fact under this approach we should, if possible, speed up the emissions, none of this renewable energy nonsense - get the coal out faster and faster, get into the oil shales without delay, get the methane in the permafrost released as fast as possible. Because it seems in the view of people who keep trotting out this phrase (who was it said "you call it pollution I call it life"? I can't keep the names of these people in my head for some reason) this is a win-win situation. The poor people, and the rich people I suppose, will get more and more food to eat at no cost to themselves, while at the same time all these giant cabbages will just pull the extra CO2 out of the air therefore solving the imaginary greenhouse gas problem.

But hang on a moment. Hold your horsepower. If those massive Brussels Sprouts do reduce the CO2 then surely all the plants that were benefiting from it stop growing so fast, in which case the CO2 rises again. And since all the cauliflowers get eaten after one year and all that CO2 excreted again, or die and rot after one year, same result, then the following year, with another injection of CO2 (see benevolent corporations above) into the atmosphere we either have to plant even more broccoli, or the ones we do plant have to grow even bigger.

But I must be misunderstanding something, surely. If this is what is going on then why oh why do the levels of CO2 keep rising and rising and rising as the years and decades of this warming planet go by? And if this is the mechanism that is going to stop us frying eggs on the top of thermometers in parking lots then why didn't it work in the past? temperatures should have stayed pretty constant for millions of years, but didn't Ian Plimer say ... oh, I can't keep track of this.

My head aches, why can't I get it? Oh, I know that if the good plants are growing and aiming to feed a billion new people every decade, then so are the weeds which are competing with them for light and water and (I suppose) CO2. Probably competing extremely well since the weeds, being weeds, have all evolved to thrive on the smell of an oily rag and a bit of water every few years, and with the new higher CO2 levels it's summertime and the living is easy for thistles and any other weed you want to name.

And if the weeds thrive then so will the other individual plants in the farmer's field. if every Kale plant is twice the size it used to be because of more CO2, then don't we get half as many Kale plants in the same space? Or do we make paddocks twice (4 times?) as big. Which means 4 times as much water and fertiliser.

And then there's those pests. Boy, round here one good La Nina has seen Cabbage white butterflies so abundant the roads at times seem to have snow on them from all the white bodies hit by cars. And there are butterflies and moths I haven't seen before, munch munch munching away. Bigger kohlrabi leaves mean more space for caterpillars don't they?

Still, one good La Nina doesn't make a summer, and in all the years leading up to this annus mirabilis, the low rainfall, dry ground, harsh winds, high temperatures meant that there was bare ground everywhere - even the grass wouldn't grow, and tough native heaths were dying - in spite of all the extra Co2 the big energy companies had been putting into the air for years for these ungrateful plants

I must be dumb I guess, just don't get it. Not as keen as mustard I suppose.

Learning from the Climate Hearing

Riduna at 11:52 AM on 7 April, 2011

My comment refers to climate scientists. Professor Flannery though very well informed is not a climate scientist, and his recent appointment has yet to demonstrate any success in public education, let alone education of those who govern us. Like you, I wish him every success in his February, 2011 appointment as Climate Commissioner.

What I am critical of is the role of climate scientists over the past 3-5 years in providing information to our politicians – and of politicians for not seeking such advice and the gullibility of those who accept the views of the likes of Plimer in preference to the findings of climate science.

Monckton Myth #11: Carbon Pricing Costs vs. Benefits

Riduna at 18:36 PM on 14 February, 2011

A compelling refutation of Monckton (who read Classics at Cambridge, not Economics) and one which concludes with the all important question … what exactly are we waiting for?

From government, we are waiting for political will and realisation that continued failure to adopt meaningful CO2 reduction targets and introduce an ETS, designed to prevent undermining its purpose (eg through trading in off-sets of little value), is not and never has been an option.

Prime Minister Gillard appears more resolute than her predecessors. Given the scientific advice she is receiving and pressure from the Greens, she has little option but to seek passage of legislation and its implementation in 2011.

Opposition insistence that adapting to climate change, paying the business sector to reduce emissions and adoption of a meaningless CO2 reduction target (5% below 2000 levels by 2020) makes them irrelevant. Acceptance of science based advice rather than that provided by climate change deniers (Monckton, Plimer et al) is unlikely.

The Opposition has yet to explain how we can adapt to increasingly global warming and ocean acidification or pay for their effects. In reality, the attitude of the Opposition towards climate change and its consequences makes them irrelevant.

Excluding fossil fuel industries, the business sector appears more interested in maintaining its competitiveness in domestic and international markets. It is likely to oppose an ETS or Carbon Tax which does not give them comfort in this regard, largely because it is ill-informed, particularly about new commercial opportunities

The fossil fuel and coal fired energy industries faced with reduced domestic use of their products by 2020 and significant fall in exports by 2050 will not support measures hastening decline of very lucrative markets.

In summary, the Australian government will act to abate CO2 emissions in 2011 and assist development of alternative energy sources, gas and geothermal, to replace fossil fuels. Transition to a low (then no) carbon economy will pose challenges for both government and industries dependent on fossil fuel use. They can and will be met with in-depth planning, so far not evident. Is Minister Combet the man for the job?

CO2 lags temperature

JMurphy at 21:16 PM on 7 February, 2011

Funny (but unsurprising, going by past form) to read Poptech 'correcting' others (this time Scopus) and telling them the 'truth' as he sees it - just like he did with Pielke Jr when he decided (against Pielke's wishes) to include his papers in his little list of what he believes confirms his own version of AGW 'alarm' - whatever that is.

No matter. He will believe what he wants to believe and no-one else can tell him otherwise.
And he does have to do his utmost to defend E&E, because so much of his little list rests on papers from that source, but we can look at some quotes to do with E&E, with links from the same WIKIPEDIA page that Poptech failed to acknowledge :

"On our Energy and Environment paper from 1999, had we known then how that outlet would evolve beyond 1999 we certainly wouldn't have published there. The journal is not carried in the ISI and thus its papers rarely cited. (Then we thought it soon would be.) We were invited to submit a piece in 1997 or 1998 and we had this in prep and sent it in."
Roger Pielke Jr again
(Wait for Poptech to 'correct' Pielke Jr...)

"Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen[Editor of E&E], a reader in geography at the University of Hull, in England, says she sometimes publishes scientific papers challenging the view that global warming is a problem, because that position is often stifled in other outlets. "I'm following my political agenda -- a bit, anyway," she says. "But isn't that the right of the editor?""
Chronicle of Higher Education, 4 September 2003

"Plimer repeatedly veers off to the climate sceptic's journal of choice, the bottom-tier Energy and Environment, to advance all manner of absurd theories: for example, that CO2 concentrations actually have fallen since 1942."
Michael Ashley, Professor of Astrophysics at the University of NSW

Monckton Myths - a one-stop-shop for Monckton misinformation

Lou Grinzo at 01:47 AM on 2 February, 2011

I've made the assertion several times on my own site and elsewhere online that we should not leap to conclusions about the beliefs of the high-profile deniers like Monckton, Plimer, various politicians (especially in the US), et al. While I can't prove it, I strongly suspect that for most or all of them CC is nothing more than a convenient means to an end: Achieving fame, getting (re-)elected, selling books or themselves for speaking engagements, or whatever.

If it weren't for his involvement with CC, would any of us even know who Monckton is? For most of us he would be a colorful gentleman from the UK who claims to have cured a bunch of diseases and invented some game.

My point is that it's not enough to say, "the deniers aren't restricted to the facts and don't feel obliged to be consistent", as that understates the situation. They actively look for ways to exploit the topic to serve other ends, which has non-trivial tactical and strategic implications for everyone involved.

By the way -- great work on this, John.

Monckton Myths - a one-stop-shop for Monckton misinformation

Andy Skuce at 15:30 PM on 1 February, 2011

About 22 minutes into the BBC documentary, we see Ian Plimer giving Christopher Monckton a geology lesson in the Australian outback. Monckton squirts some acid on a lump of carbonate rock and marvels because it fizzes, gasp, CO2. The two men share a chuckle about the environmental damege they are doing with this experiment. Plimer hints that such an effect has been kept secret because it reveals some truth about paleoclimate that the elites would prefer to keep from the innocent public.

The Skeptical Science policy forbidding ad hominem remarks prevents me from commenting any further.

Monckton Myths - a one-stop-shop for Monckton misinformation

David Horton at 12:33 PM on 1 February, 2011

"Does Monckton have a reputation?? He claims he does, but then it is self proclaimed." Well, yes Ville, but also proclaimed on denier blogs and in shock jock columns an radio shows, and then taken seriously by politicians and the "main stream media" - it's an effortless way to become an expert.

The frustrating, the really frustrating thing, about Monckton's approach (and that of several others of his ilk, is the contradictory nature, as John points out, of the arguments. Plimer and Carter's big deal was that climate had changed so wildly and so extremely in the past that the little itty bit of change seen in the last thirty years was nothing to worry about at all. But this of course totally contradicts the Monckton and Lindzen proposition that sensitivity is teeny weeny because negative feedbacks quickly kick in and keep us not too hot, not too cold, just right.

Similarly "Mörner who claims it's physically impossible for sea level to rise much above its present rate" is obviously contradicted by the people who suggest that a few mm here, a few there, this century, not enough to be noticed by a middle aged surfer on Bondi Beach, is overshadowed by the huge changes in the past, especially over the Holocene.

So which is it Lord M? Bit of a Catch-22 you've got yourself into I'm afraid.

OK global warming, this time it's personal!

Marcus at 11:16 AM on 18 January, 2011

The difference, KL, is that AGW is supported by *all* the physical evidence, whereas Monckton's position is pure unadulterated Propaganda. Yet funny how the contrarians ignore the *many* *glaring* errors made by Monckton, yet rant & rave about even the most minor errors made by the other side. Of course, its not just Monckton who is engaging in blatant falsehoods-just look at the dodgy claims made by Ian Plimer & William Kinninmonth. Yet guess who gets all the air-time here in the mainstream media? Yep, people such as Monckton, Plimer & Kinninmonth. That is why we need an entire website to debunk them & their Zombie Memes!

Do high levels of CO2 in the past contradict the warming effect of CO2?

rockytom at 10:12 AM on 24 December, 2010

Plimer has done cherry picking. As one goes back in time, one sees less and less detail. Certainly carbon dioxide was higher in the past but many things were different in the Ordovician than they are at present. One example is that all land was in the Southern Hemisphere at that time. Ocean and atmospheric circulations were different and mountain ranges were lower with the possible exception of the Taconic Mountains. The Sun was certainly dimmer. Steve O'Connor's post is a very good one. We need to address the deniers every time they open their mouths or put pen to paper. The science is sound and conclusive.

What do you get when you put a climate scientist and 52 skeptics in a room?

John Chapman at 00:58 AM on 9 September, 2010

On the weblink page, at the bottom, is a link to a Lateline transcript between George Monbiot and Ian Plimer. It's quite entertaining
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2009/s2772906.htm and Monbiot plus the presenter tackle Plimer on why he continues to use wrong (made-up) data and false interpretations. It's fascinating to see how Plimer evades the questions and no doubt he will trot out the same arguments if on stage tomorrow.
Oh and on the Schneider program I thought the bank balance analogy was better than the bathtub one!

Confidence in climate forecasts

Pete Ridley at 02:23 AM on 7 August, 2010

In my previous comment I emphasised the change made by the IPCC to its AR2 WG1 Chapter 5 “Climate Model Evaluation” when replacing “prediction” with “projection”. It is worthwhile considering the important distinction between these two words, clarified in a definition buried in AR3 Appendix I - Glossary. “Projection (generic)  A projection is a potential future evolution of a quantity or set of quantities, often computed with the aid of a model. Projections are distinguished from predictions in order to emphasise that projections involve assumptions concerning, e.g., future socio-economic and technological developments that may or may not be realised, and are therefore subject to substantial uncertainty. See also Climate projection; Climate prediction.”

“Climate projection:  A projection of the response of the climate system to emission or concentration scenarios of greenhouse gases and aerosols, or radiative forcing scenarios, often based upon simulations by climate models. Climate projections are distinguished from climate predictions in order to emphasise that climate projections depend upon the emission/concentration/ radiative forcing scenario used, which are based on assumptions, concerning, e.g., future socio-economic and technological developments, that may or may not be realised, and are therefore subject to substantial uncertainty.”

Climate prediction:  A climate prediction or climate forecast is the result of an attempt to produce a most likely description or estimate of the actual evolution of the climate in the future, e.g. at seasonal, interannual or long-term time scales. See also: Climate projection and Climate (change) scenario.

As I indicated previously, these distinctions, although conveniently overlooked by supporters of The (significant human-made global climate change) Hypothesis, are by no means trivial. On the contrary, they are fundamental to the debate. As far as projecting changing global climates are concerned the most important words providing that clarification are “assumptions .. subject to substantial uncertainty ..” particularly in relation to uncertainty and assumptions about radiative forcing.

Kevin Judd underplays this high level of uncertainty and the associated highly dubious assumptions made by supporters of The Hypothesis. He says “Of course there will always be some doubt and uncertainty about how the details of climate change will play out, but there is no doubt on the basic story that the earth's average temperature is going to rise 2 to 3 degrees over the next 50 to 100 years. Anyone who says otherwise, either does not understand how science works, or is being deliberately misleading..” He is wrong. Those projections of 2-3C rise in mean global temperature are pure conjecture. As Professor Barry Brook (Note 1), Sir Hubert Wilkins professor of climate change at Adelaide University said over a year ago, “There are a lot of uncertainties in science, and it is indeed likely that the current consensus on some points of climate science is wrong, or at least sufficiently uncertain that we don’t know anything much useful about processes or drivers” (Note 2 – please read the whole paragraph for the full context). It is that poor scientific understanding of global climate processes and drivers that forces supporters of The Hypothesis to speculate about future trends and other agenda unrelated to climate change that causes them to speculate about a catastrophic trend.
Those Implications by Kevin Judd (is this Professor Kevin Judd of the University of Western Australia?) that today’s computer models are able to predict global climate change are totally misleading. Because of those unfounded assumptions made as a result of the significant uncertainties in the underlying sciences upon which the models are based, any attempts at predicting global climates are little better than fortune telling through gazing into crystal balls.
John Cook’s lead article on the “How reliable are climate models?” thread says that sceptics argue “Models are unreliable .. “. This understates what many skeptics say, which is that climate models are incapable of predicting global climates. Specious claims are repeatedly made by supporters of The Hypohesis about the ability of climate models to predict global climates. In a plethora of comments on that thread the claim is made that this is substantiated by mean global temperature change predictions attempted by Dr. James Hansen in 1988. In these, one of the three scenarios produced results that show some alignment with claimed global temperature changes to 2000. The fact that this alignment disappears for the period 2000-2010 is conveniently overlooked.

Because of the enormous scientific uncertainties about global climate processes and drivers, no climate model can be considered capable of predicting anything relating to global climates until it has reliably predicted global temperature trends over the accepted minimum period of 30 years. This test run would have to be undertaken under strict control procedures monitored by independent validation professionals before sceptics would accept that the models are reliable.

Until that has happened climate models have no more validity that the fortune teller’s crystal ball.

NOTES:
1) see http://www.adelaide.edu.au/directory/barry.brook
2) see http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/04/23/ian-plimer-heaven-and-earth/

Best regards, Pete Ridley.

Visually depicting the disconnect between climate scientists, media and the public

Phil at 20:44 PM on 1 August, 2010

There is a common misconception in the graphic which is that correlation (of the media and public perception) implies causation (i.e. the public think that because the media have told them) Indeed one could argue the other way; that the media, so intent on retaining their customer base, are simply reflecting what their readership think.

My own, rather pessimistic, belief is that much of the denier-sphere, free of any real constraint to think logically, often back-think along the lines of "I like driving and flying, I don't like being made to feel guilty about it therefore I'll grab any half-arsed argument to rubbish AGW, and then I can fly guilt free" Its from such thinking that the pensions of people like Ian Plimer and Nigel Lawson are secured.

It doesn't really help that tackling climate change is somewhat confused in the public mind with "being green" which in turn often suggests a hippy-style, mother earth lifestyle with too much interest in sewerage. Many people don't like it and so the back-think tendancy kicks in.

So, as great a job as Skeptical Science, Real Climate, Science of Doom etc do, and no matter how often people demonstrate that deniers really don't understand the second law of thermodynamics, it is changing the perception of the lifestyle changes that will really shift public opinion.

What do you get when you put 100 climate scientists in a room?

Pete Ridley at 17:35 PM on 28 July, 2010

That’s a very interesting response (from John?) to #134 which perhaps warrants a thread dedicated to defining what a “climate scientist” is. Professor Rancourt had this (and much more) to say (Note 1) about climate science “I also advance that there are strong societal, institutional, and psychological motivations for having constructed and for continuing to maintain the myth of a global warming dominant threat (global warming myth, for short). I describe these motivations in terms of the workings of the scientific profession and of the global corporate and finance network and its government shadows ..
I argue that by far the most destructive force on the planet is power-driven financiers and profit-driven corporations and their cartels backed by military might; and that the global warming myth is a red herring that contributes to hiding this truth. In my opinion, activists who, using any justification, feed the global warming myth have effectively been co-opted, or at best neutralized”. There is another side to this interesting fellow (Note 2) – enjoy.

If a physicist specialising in spectroscopy is considered not to have a place among “climate scientists” (whatever they may be) I wonder if biologist Professor Barry Brook (Note 3) would be allowed into the room. As far as I can ascertain Professor Brook has not published any more peer reviewed research on climate science than Professor Rancourt yet he not only has been accepted into the “climate scientist” ranks but even advises the Australian government on the subject.

Of course, when talking about climate science I’m referring to the numerous scientific disciplines involved in trying to improve our poor understanding of those horrendously complicated processes and driver of global climates. Just over a year ago Professor Brook acknowledged that “ .. There are a lot of uncertainties in science, and it is indeed likely that the current consensus on some points of climate science is wrong, or at least sufficiently uncertain that we don’t know anything much useful about processes or drivers. .. ” (Note 4).

Professor Brook went on to say “But EVERYTHING? Or even most things? Take 100 lines of evidence, discard 5 of them, and you’re still left with 95 and large risk management problem”. This appears to me to be implying that we are uncertain of only 5% of what needs to be known, but he provides no evidence to support such a figure. I tried to pursue this matter of uncertainty about those processes and drivers with him on his blog but he declined to engage in the debate.

BTW, I understand that Professor Brook gets irritated when only parts of his statements are quoted so please read the article for a full picture of the context of that quote which some may argue was just cherry-picked by me.

NOTES:
1) see http://activistteacher.blogspot.com/2010/06/some-big-lies-of-science.html
2) see http://bayblab.blogspot.com/2009/03/dr-denis-rancourt.html
3) see http://www.adelaide.edu.au/directory/barry.brook
4) see http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/04/23/ian-plimer-heaven-and-earth/

Best regards, Pete Ridley

Models are unreliable

Pete Ridley at 19:52 PM on 26 July, 2010

Jmurphy, ref. comment #210, I suspect that you aren’t aware of a relevant statement by a senior executive of the Met. Office during the first of the UK’s whitewash enquiries into the Climategate scandal. The question put by a member of the Science and Technology Select Committee was “Is there a problem with scientific software? We have had emails from Professor Darrel Ince and from Professor Les Hatton saying that there are severe problems with scientific software. Do you think that is a general problem in UK or world science?”. Met Office Chief Scientist Professor Julia Slingo (Note 1) said “At least for the UK the codes that underpin our climate change projections are the same codes that we use to make our daily weather forecasts, so we test those codes twice a day for robustness”(Note 2). So the “codes” used for UK weather forecasting are the same as those used for global climate projections - shortly after that that the Met. Office discontinued its long-range forecasts because they were so useless. (The rest of that testimony is worth reading.)

It is worthwhile listening to what Professor John Beddington had to say in January (Note 3), which included the gross understatement “..that scientists had perhaps not been as good at communicating the value of uncertainty to the general public .. ”. Professor Barry Brook of Adelaide University and scientific advisor to the Australian Government on climate change was less reticent when saying over a year ago (Note 4) “There are a lot of uncertainties in science, and it is indeed likely that the current consensus on some points of climate science is wrong, or at least sufficiently uncertain that we don’t know anything much useful about processes or drivers”. Brook is a staunch supporter of The (significant human-made global climate change) Hypothesis so then goes on to try to imply that 95% of the science is understood.

As Boddington said in January (Note 5) “I don’t think it’s healthy to dismiss proper scepticism. Science grows and improves in the light of criticism. There is a fundamental uncertainty about climate change prediction that can’t be changed”.

Phil (Scadden), ref. comment #212, I am not enquiring here into the validity the design of the software or the validity of the underlying science of those climate models. What I am questioning is the extent to which the models have been validated and their starting parameters are “tweaked” and “re-tweaked” before a run produces an output that resembles reality. I do not have enormous confidence that those with a vested interest in convincing others that their research findings or software development skills produce useful models will present an unbiased opinion on the validity of any model forecasts. There are plenty examples in areas where the underlying sciences are much better understood than are those involved in unravelling the complexities of global climate processes and drivers where vested interest has resulted in false claims. There is no good reason to think that things are different for climate forecasting.

Let’s not overlook the fact that scientists and software engineers not saints but humans with human failings. As the late Stephen Schneider said

Your opinion of me is irrelevant and is bound to differ from mine. You are a staunch supporter of The (significant human-made global climate change) Hypothesis whereas I am a sceptic.

Ref. comments #41/48 & 50 on the “Rebutting skeptic arguments in a single line” thread, you (and others here) ought to be aware by now that the IPCC shares Dr. Gray’s opinion that those models do not provide predictions of future global climates, merely projections (based upon that unsound science). If the global mean temperature estimates produced by the Hadley Centre etc. are to be trusted (“lies, damned lies and statistics”) we may have already had over 10 years of “flat or negative temperatures while GHGs rise” so may not have much longer to wait in order to “clearly invalidate AGW”. In your humble opinion “Hansen 1988 did very well for a model so primitive.”. In mine he hit lucky to get closeish with one of his scenarios for 10 years then failed miserably after that.

actually (thoughtfull?). does that answer your questions in comment #195?

NOTES:
1) see http://www.nerc.ac.uk/about/work/boards/council/biographies.asp
2) see http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/387b/38724.htm
3) see http://www.actoncopenhagen.decc.gov.uk/en/ambition/achievements/february/john-beddington-audio
4) see http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/04/23/ian-plimer-heaven-and-earth/
5) see http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7003622.ece

That’s enough for now. I’ll respond to others soon.

Best regards, Pete Ridley

The nature of authority

chris1204 at 13:28 PM on 23 July, 2010

I've shared my ambivalence about the 'authority' of science on this site before.

Oddly enough, the first book I ever read on global warming was Plimer's 'Heaven and Earth - the Missing Science.' It all sounded pretty convincing though sometimes a tad repetitious and circular - but I was slightly perturbed by the fact that a couple of graphs seemed to be unsourced. I was initially inclined to be charitable and put it down to oversight.

I understood that the book had attracted controversy. I later linked into a video of the ABC debate between Plimer and Monbiot. Monbiot seemed a very angry young man - rather intense and zealous (he presents as much more genial in the recent Guardian debate). Plimer was rather pompous and seemed not to answer questions giving the interview a very disconnected quality.

Significantly, Monbiot accused Plimer of misquoting a reference. Plimer simply ignored the question. I thought I'd do a little bit of homework and checked the reference. Plimer had in fact blatantly misrepresented his sources.

I learnt incidentally that Plimer had been accused of misrepresenting references in his debunk of Creation Science. I didn't follow up that particular issue - however, after seeing what I had found in 'Heaven & Earth,' I would not touch anything by Plimer.

I would normally have regarded Plimer as an 'expert.' He has higher academic qualifications and his book, whole not peer reviewed, seemed to fall broadly within his field of expertise.

However, he lost any claim to 'authority' in my eyes because the scale of misrepresentation of his source was difficult to explain in terms of anything other than dishonesty.

In trying to make up my mind about an expert, I look for 'coherence' or consistency (both internal and external - ie, with other sources), honest presentation of data, and where possible, consistency with personal experience of an issue.

Personally, I think McIntyre has been much demonised. Interestingly, Monbiot in the recent Guardian debate described him as 'an information libertarian' rather than as a 'sceptic.' McIntyre's principal remit has been a critique of the statistics underpinning the hockey stick (which in fact lies well in his area of expertise). He can come across as worrying a bone to death (though this could be seen as dogged perseverance - pun intended). Of course, if I found out that he had done a Plimer with his sources, I would change my views very rapidly.

It bears pointing out that much of what we rely on to form judgments in day to day life never goes through peer review - consider your daily newspaper or other media reporting. In the sciences, we use textbooks which again haven't been peer reviewed (though they are subject to non-peer reviewed reviews in the journals and praised or panned as the case may be).

On this site, Spencer Weart is all to often cited as highly authoritative despite not being peer reviewed. I enjoyed Weart's introduction though I have to confess I found it slightly lightweight which is understandable given the book is intended primarily as an introduction for the layman (however, he certainly writes with coherence).

The nature of authority

kdkd at 12:45 PM on 23 July, 2010

HR #12

"I'm pretty sure McIntyre et al do not prioritize publication"

That's essentially because a lot this group's motivations appear political rather than scientific, which is why they end up in the mainstream (political) press rather than in the scientific press. When they do publish stuff (e.g. Carter's recent nonsense) it's always or at least very often rubbish in substandard journals like Energy and Environment. You can see this from McIntyre's point of view if you listen to the admittedly polite and softly spoken, but misinformation ridden statements at the Guardian's climategate debate. Plimer, Watts, Monkton et.al. are even worse.

Another litmus test for this. Lindzen's recent writings have been misleading op-eds in the right wing press, not quality scientific reporting.

The nature of authority

miekol at 09:46 AM on 23 July, 2010

Blooming marvelous, for a moment I thought I was reading the word's Ayn Rand's John Galt might have written in "Atlas Shrugged."

I read all of John's comment "The nature of authority," I thought it excellent. However I wondered whether or not John has read Professor Ian Plimer's book.

Michael on the Gold Coast

Archibald’s take on world temperatures

Riduna at 10:32 AM on 6 July, 2010

Esop – 7

As you point out, the highest global temperatures have been recorded during a low period in the solar cycle. What should concern everyone is the effects that more pronounced solar activity will have on global temps. Presumably Archibald thinks that the measurements provided by satellites such as GRACE are wrong?

Archibald’s claims of a cooling world really are at odds with empirical data and do little more than repeat assertions made by such luminaries as Lord Monckton and Ian Plimer. One wonders why they make claims which are so easily shown to be wrong?

Abraham shows Monckton wrong on Arctic sea ice

chris1204 at 18:40 PM on 2 June, 2010

From:

Christian Haas, Stefan Hendricks, Andreas Herber: Synoptic airborne thickness surveys reveal state of Arctic sea ice cover GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 37, L09501, 5 PP., 2010

While summer Arctic sea-ice extent has decreased over the past three decades, it is subject to large interannual and regional variations. Methodological challenges in measuring ice thickness continue to hamper our understanding of the response of the ice-thickness distribution to recent change, limiting the ability to forecast sea-ice change over the next decade. We present results from a 2400 km long pan-Arctic airborne electromagnetic (EM) ice thickness survey in April 2009, the first-ever large-scale EM thickness dataset obtained by fixed-wing aircraft over key regions of old ice in the Arctic Ocean between Svalbard and Alaska. The data provide detailed insight into ice thickness distributions characteristic for the different regions. Comparison with previous EM surveys shows that modal thicknesses of old ice had changed little since 2007, and remained within the expected range of natural variability.

I haven't splurged out to go beyond the abstract. It's just another random paper which leaves me thinking that the jury's still out.

My main reservation about some of the fascinating and informative scientific argument on this site lies in the assumption that lots of trends pointing in the same direction suggest a robust conclusion (effectively metaanalysis). Metaanalysis has numerous limitations and can obscure as much as it can illuminate (for example, comparing apples and oranges).

Equally, I have very little time for the Monckton/ Plimer modus operandi (the former claiming authority and expertise which is manifestly lacking while the latter being less than rigorous in his referencing to say the least) which equally oversimplify to the point of making sensible discussion impossible.

Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans

Riccardo at 02:19 AM on 31 May, 2010

JSFarmer,
apart of Ian Plimer, (professor of mining geology and director of a few mining companies in Australia) and Mark Durkin (director of the infamous "The Great Global Warming Swindle") I don't think you can find many others disagreeing with your question #1.
As for question #2, i've never heard criticism on the numbers.

Ocean acidification: Global warming's evil twin

rydell at 06:23 AM on 22 April, 2010

I don't disagree with any of the statements in this paper but I do take issue with the graph. I've just read some very detailed arguemtnts refuting the inaccuracies in Ian Plimer's book. One of the major concerns wah his improper use of graphs.
I think it behooves us to also take care with the graphs presented. If you look at the graph presented herein, supposedly showing acidification of the ocean and increasing CO2 (present level is I believe 380 ppm) this graph does no such thing. The graph should reflect the text and vice versa. A small point perhaps but but we should be consistent.

Earth's five mass extinction events

watchingthedeniers at 19:55 PM on 16 April, 2010

@ 41

Re KT/Cretaceous extinction: see my post @ 34 in which 2010 Science paper confirms Chicxulub as cause of dinosaur extinction here.

Cite your references, not popular TV show.

Re Deccan Trap theory the stress is on *may*:

"Eventually, most paleontologists began to accept the idea that the mass extinctions at the end of the Cretaceous were largely or at least partly due to a massive Earth impact. However, even Walter Alvarez has acknowledged that there were other major changes on Earth even before the impact, such as a drop in sea level and massive volcanic eruptions that produced the Indian Deccan Traps, and these may have contributed to the extinctions."

Your post: "So I don't know how pro AGW people use the past geological record to scare us about short human lifetimes. It's like a biologist scaring us about our rate of speciation..."

~ Actually, if we are talking about viruses then, yes speciation could be alarming. AIDS is a perfect example where it made the species jump from host it's chimpanzee population into the human population. The virus itself mutates with alarming frequency, thus developing many strains.

Re using the geological record, to be frank the state of exobiology is such that we only have *one planet* in which to base our speculations on. As a consequence, it is perfectly reasonable to use the geological and paleontological record as a basis for drawing conclusions.

Re Plimer, he is a geologist NOT a paleontologist or biologist. Just like his views on climate change, he is operating well outside his areas of expertise. As a consequence, his understanding of mass extinction events,their causes and the like are limited.

Re you last comment:

"What matters is the time periods involved"

Again, I think my point about you falling into the naturalistic fallcy is correct.

Ironically, you use the supposed length of time of extinction events to somehow prove your point but then chastise us "alarmists" for using the geological and paleontological data ourselves.

Earth's five mass extinction events

thingadonta at 19:02 PM on 16 April, 2010

A few points:
re 39 Steve L.
"I think you are misinterpreting #35. Or maybe I am. It seems that #35 says that less total CO2 released, but released quickly over a short period of time, cannot have a similar impact as a lot of CO2 released over a longer time period. I believe this is wrong. "

I am skeptical when you want to change an entire ocean's chemistry in less than tens of thousands of years, taking the geoligical record as a starting point. This is how long the geological record generally says it takes, even under extreme scenarios. So I dont know how pro AGW people use the past geological record to scare us abvout short human lifetimes. It's like a biologist scaring us about our rate of speciation.

This is one of the main skeptic arguments -ie the time it takes to change the oceans, warm the planet etc etc (add it to the list), and is similar to the arguments in palaeontology and biology over gradual evolution versus punctuated equilibrium. That is, how fast is 'rapid/punctuated' versus 'gradual' when you are referring to geological time periods? It's a question of semantics really, eveyone agrees that the rate of evolution can change, but gradualists are very skeptical of any 'jumps' or 'jerks' or 'rapid' rate changes. (It also harks back to the days of the catastrophists and the uniformitarians in the 19th century -Darwin was a a uniformatirian and got it wrong with regards to 'mass extinction' events (he thought they were just gaps in the fossil record), Cuvier was a catastrophist- like nearly all pro-AGW people, and got it right with to mass extinction events).

But as for mass extinctions, we are talking in most cases, of hundreds of thousands of years. Skeptics, therfore, contend that for somnething like ocean acidification by C02, it will take about that long to do it, which makes current humnan activities regarding ocean acidification, irrelevant. We can never release the kind of amount of gases that Siberian and Decaan Traps volcanism can do over several hundred thousand years in order to change ocean chemistry. Skeptics contend that various pro AGW researchers have vastly ignored and downplayed the time periods involved with most mass extiction events, and exagerated their own figures to scare people (like Jones with Siberian temperature data). Skeptics also contend that by the time the ocean acidifies (if it does at all, it is well buffered in many other respects in its interactions with volcanoes, sediments, Mid oceanic ridges etc etc?) from human c02, say in about 10,000++ years
(?), we will have long ago given up our reliance on fossil fuels. (If this figure seems way too long, that is what is usually meant by 'geologically rapid', conveniently distorted by some coral reef researchers).

As for K/T and #34,
bolide impact pushed species over the edge after Decaan Traps volcanism had already weakened many ecosystems and which had begun several hundred thousand years earlier. Species were already in decline, especially marine species. This is well established. It was not one or the other (volcanism or bolide impact), it was both.

re #32
The Chicxulub impact did not cause Decaan Traps volcanism, becuase it was already well underway (several hundred thousand years) before the asteriod/comet hit Mexico. Species were in decline already for about the previous few million years (including the dinosaurs-have a look at eg the "Walking With Dinosaurs" series-this is well established in peer reviewed literature, volcanic gases/effects were already killing the eg dinosaurs before they were pushed over the edge to oblivion by the asteroid. It was a one-two punch, which is why it was such a major extinction event).

You can understand it this way, mass extinctions are by nature worse when a combination of factors are involved. There have been many large impacts in earth hoistory with no mass extinctions.

re#36
"Accelerated release is not contingent upon causation being either "natural" or "human induced". What matters is the chemistry/physics. "

What matters is the time periods involved. Mass extinction events take hundreds of thousands of years to change the chemistry of the oceans. Ask a volcanologist (which is one reason why Plimer is such a skeptic-one of his pet topics is volcanology-and he is more informed about what they do to oceans, as Veron is not).

If someone wants to counter most of the above, they have to show how the past geological record shows the oceans can acidify in a few hundred years from changes in c02 levels. As far as I know, it says no such thing.

Are we too stupid?

Marcus at 21:58 PM on 7 April, 2010

embb accuses me of setting up a "convenient straw man" in blaming the Oil Industry for the bulk of the skepticism out there. In truth, I'm just telling it as I see it. Look at the evidence:

Exhibit A: Heartland Institute. Major skeptical organization, has received funding from the Fossil Fuel industry over the years-particularly Exxon.

Exhibit B: George C Marshall Institute. Major skeptical organization which receives money from Exxon, amongst others, & has a former Exxon lobbyist, William O'Keefe, as its CEO.

Exhibit C: Global Climate Coalition. Another Skeptic Organization-now defunct-had members from a number of large oil & automobile companies, as well as a lobbyist for Exxon. It also received considerable funding from the Oil industry in particular.

Exhibit D: The Lavoisier Group. Key members are current or former members of Western Mining Corporation, Alcoa & other coal/mineral companies.

Exhibit E: major skeptics, such as Ian Plimer, William Kininmonth & Garth Paltridge are all members of the group named in Exhibit D.

So we see that, though not the source of *all* skepticism, the oil, coal & aluminium industries are definitely deeply involved in the skeptic "movement"-mostly because action against climate change will go against their short term interests. This isn't a straw man, its just THE FACTS!

Lessons from the Monckton/Plimer debate

Albatross at 16:19 PM on 31 January, 2010

Monckton and Pflimer do not only contradict each other, they often contradict themselves. This seems to be a common theme of those in denial and of those who choose to try and muddy the waters. A case in point, recently the "Friends" of Science in Canada ran two misinformation ads across the country. In the one ad the were saying that the globe has been cooling for the last ten years. Yet in the second ad they claimed that the observed warming was because of the sun! Well, please do make up your mind. But as transparent as these ads may be to scientists, the ads worked and were very effective at confusing people and forming public opinion.

Marcus made the very good point @65 that the observed cooling of the stratosphere is not consistent with the argument put forth by Monckton that the TSI is increasing; not only that but Monckton is making that claim while at the same time claiming that the sun governs global SATs and that the globe has not warmed for 15 years. In contrast, Plimer claims that this warming is just part of a natural warming cycle. Or they concede that it is warming and that anthro CO2 is partly to blame, but don't worry, climate sensitivity is not as high as claimed (despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary) so there is nothing to worry about. So on and so forth it goes. These guys are all over the map, and I do believe that they do so on purpose, because their chameleon-like behavior allows them to adapt to the question and/or the crowd and then pluck the 'answer' which they think best fits the situation and/or question at hand, knowing full well that the lay person will never be able to keep up with their continued and varied deception.

Monckton especially seems to live in a land of opinion and rhetoric, and very few of his comments are grounded on solid, reputable science. He may be able to work a largely uninformed crowd at a public gathering, but that is no substitute for science. I challenge Monckton and Plimer to give a talk at the annual AGU, AMS or RMS meetings and to allow at least 60 minutes for questions, and for the entire "debate" to be recorded on video.

We all know the modus operandi of Monckton and Plimer is to confuse and distract and never concede. The last point is especially annoying because reputable scientists or groups like the IPCC correctly issue corrections or concede if their work is not supported by their peers or latest science, or does not satisfy the unrealistic perfection demanded by the 'skeptics'. Monckton et al. answer to no one it seems when it comes to factual correctness-- their double standard and hypocrisy is astounding. Regrettably, their rhetoric seems to resonate with many, and when viewed in isolation can be convincing.

What is truly saddening and alarming is that the media are not taking Monckton et al. to task on their hopelessly sloppy pseudo science. Monbiot has, but he is in the minority. It is easy for professional climate scientists to dismiss Monckton or Plimer as cranks, but that is not enough. The Monckton's of the world need to be repeatedly subjected to the same scrutiny and standards on the world stage that they love to demand of others. Blogs help, but in the end one needs the media on board, that is how one reaches the masses, and there are sadly far too few reputable journalists or media outlets out there right now who seem motivated to do so. Just where are the critically minded media and journalists on this file, and what is the infatuation with reporters like David Rose with those in denial about AGW? How do we turn this around so that journalists are more interested in the pursuit of truth and science rather than fawning over contrarians?

Lessons from the Monckton/Plimer debate

MP at 23:16 PM on 30 January, 2010

Yet another article that fails to stimulate a more informed debate between the main protagonists of the pro and anti AGW camps.

Why was Ian Plimer not invited to respond directly to the contents of this article and the subsequent postings?

Who knows, we all may learn something from such an exchange of views which could help us to inch forward in creating a broader consensus of the issue of climate change and the most appropriate mitigating measures that should be implemented.

Lessons from the Monckton/Plimer debate

CoalGeologist at 09:00 AM on 30 January, 2010

re: stevecarsonr (Post #3):

Your comment and John's reply, address one of the most difficult and frustrating aspects of the climate change debate. I don't believe it's possible to understand the scientific issues without understanding the difference between skepticism, which is based on scientific reasoning, and denialism, which is based on ideology, yet even using these terms "raises hackles" and causes animosity. But unless one recognizes that denialism is a) real and b) not about scientific evidence, it will be very difficult to ever sort out truth from fiction. I know too many people—decent, intelligent people—who have effectively been sucked down into the vortex of "denialism world", where they give credence to arguments that are not scientifically defensible, and can become fixated on "debunking the myth" of anthropogenic global warming. No matter how sincere their intentions initially were, or are currently are, I do not believe they retain the ability to recognize how biased their approach to the topic has become.

One colleague of mine, with the very best of intentions, sent me a copy of Ian Plimer's book as a Christmas gift, hoping that it would help me grasp the truth about climate change. How can I convey to him how biased and misleading the science content is without offending him, which I really don't want to do?

I agree that there are many people who are legitimately confused and sincerely want to understand the scientific evidence, which is why I so resent the denialist approach. Denialism doesn't increase understanding. Rather it sews confusion. Worse, it nurtures suspicion and mistrust.

The issue here is not about being "smart" or "dumb". Rather it's about the ability to recognize bias. This is often very difficult. Understanding the scientific evidence can be challenging enough but when you add in all the bogus arguments and faulty reasoning of denialism, a topic that starts out as merely “challenging” can quickly become overwhelmingly confusing.

A key question is whether we sincerely want to understand the science, or whether we are simply looking for validation of what we would like to be true. It's so easy to do the latter, while believing we are doing the former. I have no other way of explaining “skepticism” among many (although certainly not all!) of my colleagues in the fossil energy industry. Yet how can I possibly say this without alienating the very people I would most like to reach?

I don't have an answer.

The upcoming ice age has been postponed indefinitely

Jim Eager at 03:53 AM on 30 January, 2010

But neither a Toba/Yellowstone nor a Siberian/Deccan traps event are happening right now, so Plimer's point is just another distraction.

Lessons from the Monckton/Plimer debate

ScaredAmoeba at 20:38 PM on 29 January, 2010

John, I'm sure you're aware of it, but Plimer has been ambushed, about his claims about volcanoes and CO2 and shown to be dishonest, but he prevaricated and tried very hard to distract and change the subject. Plimer has no shame.

Partial [edited] transcipt

GEORGE MONBIOT: .... Take, for example, his claim that human beings produce more carbon dioxide than volcanoes. Now, the US geological survey shows that human beings - sorry, he suggests that volcanoes produce more carbon dioxide than human beings. The US geological survey shows that human beings produce 130 times more carbon dioxide than volcanoes. And yet again and again, however many times it is pointed out to him, Ian keeps reporting this straightforward fraud, this fabrication that volcanoes produce more CO2.

...

IAN PLIMER: Well I'm very heartened that a journalist is correcting me on my geology. Now Mr Monbiot wrote to me when I asked him some questions of science and said he was not qualified to answer these questions of science. So he's a journalist and he's asking me a scientific question. He has not read this book ...

....

IAN PLIMER: Well, let me make two points on this. On the chapter called Earth I talk about two volcanoes. One are the terrestrial volcanoes, which is the USGS reports on emissions of carbon dioxide, but more than 85 per cent of the world's volcanoes we do not measure, we do not see, these are submarine volcanoes that release carbon dioxide and we deduce from the chemistry of the rocks how much carbon dioxide is released.

TONY JONES: Can I ask you a question about that, if you don't mind? Because one British journalist whom you quoted those exact figures to went back to the US geological survey after you told him about this 85 per cent figure, and asked he them to confirm their claim that actually 130 times the amount of CO2 is produced by man than volcanoes. The volcanologist Dr Terrance Gerlach confirmed that figure and said furthermore that in their counting they count the undersea volcanoes. So your response to that.

IAN PLIMER: My response is that there are 220,000 undersea volcanoes that we know about. There's 64,000 kilometres of undersea volcanoes which we do ...

GEORGE MONBIOT: Which they have counted.

IAN PLIMER: It is the height of bad manners to interrupt. Please restrain yourself. And we have 64,000 kilometres of volcanoes in submarine environments with massive super volcanoes there. We do not measure them. And the figures that I have used are deduced from the chemistry of rocks which erupt on the sea floor.

TONY JONES: OK. Now, that's that point dealt with. George Monbiot, a quick response to that and then we'll move on to other questions.

GEORGE MONBIOT: Yeah, sure. I mean, it's, again, straightforward fabrication. Ian produces no new evidence to suggest that the USGS figures are wrong. He keeps citing this statement that they don't include submarine volcanoes. It's been pointed out to him many, many times that the USGS figures do include submarine volcanoes. And actually, it's the height of bad manners Professor Plimer to lie on national television about something that you know to be plain wrong.

You get the flavour.

The transcript is at:
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2009/s2772906.htm

The upcoming ice age has been postponed indefinitely

Tom Dayton at 01:32 AM on 29 January, 2010

Ubique, Ian Plimer is a poor choice to hold up as an "eminent geologist." His opinions on climate are complete nonsense--not just wrong, but really far, far off. Just one of many places you can find detailed rebuttals to his claims is Deltoid.

The albedo effect

Henry Pool at 06:03 AM on 17 November, 2009

Steve, to answer your questions:
1)
The Astrophysical Journal, 629:1175–1182, 2005 August 20: quote from abstract:
Water vapor and molecular oxygen signals in the visible earthshine,
and carbon dioxide and methane in the near-infrared, are more likely to be powerful probes.
2)
You can study carefully the sun's solar radiation spectrum and the earth's upgoing radiation spectrum and the atmospheric absorption bands. Put them on top of each other. It will show you that ozone reflects a lot of the sun's radiation where the area below the sun's curve is the biggest. Nevertheless, ozone also traps some radiation of earth at exactly 10 um. My gut feeling from these graphs is that the net effect of ozone is cooling. So the more ozone, the cooler it will get. The same argument goes for CO2 although here my feeling is that it is pretty much evens. There is reflection at 1.4, 1.8; 2.3 um and even at 4 (because the sun is still emitting there). Recent discoveries also show that CO2 absorbs in the UV. Some entrapment of earth radiation of CO2 can be seen at 14 um but water also absorbs here.
I think you cannot really say for sure what the net effect is of the cooling and warming properties unless unless you have done some actual testing

3)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/6553592/Climate-change-sceptic-Ian-Plimer-argues-CO2-is-not-causing-global-warming.html

Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Settings

Term Lookup

Settings

Latest Posts

Comment Search Results