PDA

View Full Version : Geologist Informs UK Govt On Climate Change Lies



Xhat1
09-14-2013, 08:57 PM
4rLRObEhC4I

Enjoy.

Protege385
09-14-2013, 10:47 PM
But . . . But .. . .

The science is settled.


Theres a scientific census



99% of climate scientists agree


etc

fitnessislife
09-14-2013, 10:48 PM
lol

Xhat1
09-14-2013, 11:01 PM
But . . . But .. . .

The science is settled.


Theres a scientific census



99% of climate scientists agree


etc

There's a thousand climate models floating around, so there couldn't be a consensus. Never mind that not a single one of them has able to be accurately predictive.

AfroPope
09-15-2013, 12:08 AM
Plimer is an idiot, and, again, as a geologist, not an expert in the field.

Credibility seems to really be an issue for you guys. Climate scientists are all agreed on the issues. Geologists, gynecologists, weathermen, and priests aren't.

But like, on any other issue, I just have to believe that you'd consult an expert in the field. You don't have to keep digging in your heels. You're allowed to say you were wrong. It's okay.

If you'd like a PDF of him having his **** completely ruined for sixty-four pages where every claim he's made throughout his entire career is debunked by actual climate scientists, it's right here:
http://www.complex.org.au/tiki-download_file.php?fileId=91

Overview:

Ian Plimer’s book, Heaven + Earth — Global Warming: The Missing Science, claims to demolish the theory of human-induced global warming due to the release of CO2 and other greenhouse
gases. Overall:
• it has numerous internal inconsistencies;
• in spite of the extensive referencing, key data are unattributed and the content of references is often mis-quoted.
Most importantly, Ian Plimer fails to establish his claim that the human influence on climate can
be ignored, relative to natural variations.
Ian Plimer’s claim that the human influence on climate can be ignored, relative to natural
variations, seems to rest on three main strands of argument:
a: the extent of natural variability is larger than considered in ‘mainstream’ analyses;
b: changes in radiative forcing from greenhouse gases have less effect than determined in
‘mainstream’ analyses;
c: the IPCC uses a range of misrepresentations to conceal points a and b.
Among the many errors made in attempting to establish these claims, are cases where Plimer:
• misrepresents the content of IPCC reports on at least 15 occasions as well as misrepresenting the operation of the IPCC and the authorship of IPCC reports;
• has at least 28 other instances of misrepresenting the content of cited sources;
• has at least 2 graphs where checks show that the original is a plot of something other than
what Plimer claims and many others where data are misrepresented;
• has at least 10 cases of misrepresenting data records in addition to some instances (included in the total above) of misrepresenting data from cited source.

Xhat1
09-15-2013, 12:11 AM
Plimer is an idiot, and, again, as a geologist, not an expert in the field.

Credibility seems to really be an issue for you guys. Climate scientists are all agreed on the issues. Geologists, gynecologists, weathermen, and priests aren't.

But like, on any other issue, I just have to believe that you'd consult an expert in the field. You don't have to keep digging in your heels. You're allowed to say you were wrong. It's okay.

If you'd like a PDF of him having his **** completely ruined for sixty-four pages where every claim he's made throughout his entire career is debunked by actual climate scientists, it's right here:
http://www.complex.org.au/tiki-download_file.php?fileId=91

Overview:

Do you think geology is unrelated to climate?

ness1216
09-15-2013, 12:14 AM
Plimer is an idiot, and, again, as a geologist, not an expert in the field.

Credibility seems to really be an issue for you guys. Climate scientists are all agreed on the issues. Geologists, gynecologists, weathermen, and priests aren't.

But like, on any other issue, I just have to believe that you'd consult an expert in the field. You don't have to keep digging in your heels. You're allowed to say you were wrong. It's okay.

If you'd like a PDF of him having his **** completely ruined for sixty-four pages where every claim he's made throughout his entire career is debunked by actual climate scientists, it's right here:
http://www.complex.org.au/tiki-download_file.php?fileId=91

Overview:

Isotope geology, quaternary geology etc... not even once

AfroPope
09-15-2013, 12:15 AM
Do you think geology is unrelated to climate?

I think that they're related, but that's not enough to make him an expert in the field. In particular I think that the words of a geologist with a history of misinterpreting and fabricating data to fit his worldview [see linked document in post 5] don't hold as much weight as, y'know, actual climate scientists.

AfroPope
09-15-2013, 12:25 AM
Here's the thing about Climate Change Denial, for me. Let me use a metaphor, I guess.

Let's say you've been smoking cigarettes your entire life, and you start to develop a very bad cough as you get older. Let's say you're about fifty. You go to a doctor. You trust him, he knows his stuff - good education, specializes in coughs and that sort of thing. He tells you you've got lung cancer. Maybe you have ten years to live if you don't quit smoking and get help. Well, you don't like this idea, so you keep smoking. In fact, you start smoking more. One pack, two packs, three packs a day sometimes. Two years later, your cough gets worse and you go see your doctor. He tells you he means it, you've got five years now. You don't like his opinion, so you seek a second opinion. The second doctor, he's a nice guy. Has his own practice, Harvard grad, he tells you the same thing. He says maybe you've got six years, maybe you've got four years. Who knows. But you don't have much longer unless you quit. Well, you don't like his opinion either, so you go see another doctor. You keep this up until you see nine different doctors. They all tell you you're dying of lung cancer and you need to quit smoking or you're going to die, they just don't know how long it'll be.
Stay with me, here.
On your way home from the ninth doctor, you duck into an alleyway, and a guy with a lab coat pulls you aside. He tells you he's a doctor. He leads you down a dingy little corridor into his apartment, where he's got all manner of medical tools laid out. He's a doctor alright, but he got a Doctorate in Computer Science from DeVry. He lights up a cigarette - he gets 'em for free, he works for Philip Morris part time - and says he'll check your lungs. After poking around your chest for a little bit with a pair of tweezers, he says there's no way you have lung cancer, and he can prove it. He says he's not sure what's wrong with you, but it's definitely not lung cancer. If it was lung cancer, they'd know exactly when you were going to die. To the second. They'd have to. Those other doctors? They want your money. Want you to keep buying nicotine patches or something. You'll be fine. He gives you one of his packs of Marlboros - he gets 'em for free, no big deal - and sends you on your way.

Climate deniers are the ones who listen to the last guy. The rest of us realize we're ****ing dying of cancer and we're trying to quit smoking.

newtothelift
09-15-2013, 12:27 AM
Yes a geologist..........

OP do you go to a nutritionist when you break your leg?

w00tasaurus
09-15-2013, 04:17 AM
itt: one scientist that agrees with us > thousands who don't

w00tasaurus
09-15-2013, 04:22 AM
Also, I'm sure the director of multiple mining companies isn't biased at all.

According to a columnist in The Age, Plimer earned over $400,000 (AUD) from several of these companies, and he has mining shares and options worth hundreds of thousands of Australian dollars.

Let's see what other scientists have to say about Plimer's work:

"His book has been criticised by mainstream scientists as riddled with errors and misrepresentations of climate data. The first graph in the book purports to use temperature data from the Met Office's Hadley Centre and the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, but many of the data points are in the wrong place.

Another graph in the opening pages shows the global temperature record during the 20th century. Plimer does not give a source in the book but it looks remarkably similar to a graph used by Martin Durkin in his documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle. The programme was castigated for its inaccuracies by Ofcom and the graph was subsequently withdrawn by Durkin.

Potentially more damaging – because geoscience is his specialist field – is his claim that volcanoes are responsible for more CO2 emissions than human activities. The US Geological Survey says that humans in fact create 130 times the CO2 volcanoes do. Plimer now claims that the USGS figure only includes volcanoes on land, not undersea eruptions at mid-ocean ridges. But Dr Terrence Gerlach of the USGS said the 130 figure includes the underwater volcanoes."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Plimer
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/dec/04/climate-sceptics-public-opinion

w00tasaurus
09-15-2013, 04:23 AM
In conclusion: OP, there ARE a few (very few) climate skeptics who are actually credible. Use them to make your point instead of a rich businessman who profits from denying science, and whose work has been ridiculed by the scientific community.

Streetbull
09-15-2013, 04:40 AM
4rLRObEhC4I

Enjoy.

Billions of dollars wasted, industries ruined or being ruined (coal), all because these Leftist/Marxist criminals used environmentalism as a weapon against the West...and we believed these swindlers and devils.

Xhat1
09-15-2013, 07:14 AM
Well, my opinion of this man's credibility is raised by all the ad hominem responses. If anyone has a rebuttal to his actual points made please let me know. I promise not to hold my breath.

Protege385
09-15-2013, 09:11 AM
Well, my opinion of this man's credibility is raised by all the ad hominem responses. If anyone has a rebuttal to his actual points made please let me know. I promise not to hold my breath.

strong this

ImproperOne
09-15-2013, 09:31 AM
Well, my opinion of this man's credibility is raised by all the ad hominem responses. If anyone has a rebuttal to his actual points made please let me know. I promise not to hold my breath.

There have been numerous rebuttals in this thread. The man is using data that is known to be falsified, that means that any conclusion drawn from that data is by definition wrong.

That he has a motive for doing so only makes the argument stronger and is in no way an ad hom attack.

Next up tobacco company shareholder that is an expert (in neurobiology) says smoking doesn't cause cancer and you can't attack his credentials, false dataset nor his motives for presenting it. Rebut that if you can.

riptor
09-15-2013, 10:21 AM
Watched the video, half expected to see some new groundbreaking evidence, heard the same old tired claims that have been trotted out by others before, wasted 15 minutes of my life. Anyway, I will give brief rebuttals to Plimer's main arguments.

Plimer's main point seems to be that climate has changed in the past. This isn't news, I don't know why the "skeptics" keep bringing this claim up. This is like saying that since erosion has occurred before humans existed, therefore humans can't contribute to erosion. Basically we know what causes the climate to change naturally, these aren't occurring right now, and we know that greenhouse gases are one of the things that can cause climate to change.

Another point made was that CO2 was higher in the past. True, in some cases it was. But you would have to take into consideration everything else about the climatic system at the time as well. For instance, in the distant past the sun was weaker, so higher CO2 levels would have helped keep the earth warmer than it would have been if the levels were lower.

Plimer makes the statement that CO2 levels are at dangerously low levels for plants to thrive. I would be interested in reading any peer reviewed studies that show this. All I could find was a blog that cherry picked a study that found that some plants do thrive in a higher CO2 environment. Some insects also thrive in a warmer climate, and many are detrimental to plant life.

Plimer states that the scientific community has failed to take in other factors, including the effect of supernovas on the earth's climate. He also says that continental drifts affect on climate have been ignored. This is just nonsense, even the IPCC report discusses the impact of the sun, and there is even a chapter dealing with paleoclimate.

Next, he says that volcanoes produce more CO2 than humans. This is wrong. The USGS states (http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php) "Human activities, responsible for a projected 35 billion metric tons (gigatons) of CO2 emissions in 2010 (Friedlingstein et al., 2010), release an amount of CO2 that dwarfs the annual CO2 emissions of all the world’s degassing subaerial and submarine volcanoes (Gerlach, 2011)." I'm glad the USGS mentioned submarine volcanoes, because in his talk Plimer blatantly states that these aren't taken into consideration.

Another one of Plimers main points was that temperature drives CO2, not the other way around. In some cases in the past, CO2 didn't initiate a warming trend, but it did contribute to it. A forcing like solar activity caused some warming, which causes carbon sinks to release CO2 which in turn caused more warming. So greenhouse gases can cause warming, but they don't always initiate it.

Plimer also mentions the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period. These were local phenomena confined to the Northern hemisphere. These were caused by natural phenomena, like a reduction in volcanic activity, that led to the warming. These things are not now currently happening.

So all in all Plimer says nothing new. Some of his statements, like warming can't be harmful because people can travel to a northern latitude to a southern one without dropping dead, is just down right stupid.

Newbtime
09-15-2013, 11:11 AM
So essentially hes saying because we are here today, despite the previous astronomical levels of carbon dioxide/heat (millions of years ago) relatively low levels surely cannot cause any harm to current life forms?



uhm....

kusok
09-15-2013, 11:20 AM
I don't understand what the problem is. If those of you nimrods who believe the lies of the government sponsored funded and bought off scientists and totally fabricated lies and all the Al Gore and Club of Rome crap, Great! Stop the biggest polluter and contributor to climate change - government.


Just don't tell me that I can't take a hot bath or have to pay Al Gore carbon tax or any of that. When his electric bill goes down to what mine is, than I'll pitch in.

TheJimmyRustler
09-15-2013, 11:34 AM
Global warming or not, it makes sense to look for alternative energy sources. Somewhere down the line we're gonna run out of the schit we're pulling out of the ground, so alternative energy most definitely has its place in society and should be something that's looked into and taken seriously.

riptor
09-17-2013, 03:09 PM
I like how the OP challenges people to refute the points in his video, and when I take the time to do so not a single "skeptic" takes the time comment. Typical CTer tactic.

Xhat1
09-17-2013, 03:13 PM
I like how the OP challenges people to refute the points in his video, and when I take the time to do so not a single "skeptic" takes the time comment. Typical CTer tactic.

Where did I make this challenge?

riptor
09-17-2013, 03:16 PM
Post #15. You said "If anyone has a rebuttal to his actual points made please let me know. I promise not to hold my breath." I made a rebuttal, it was ignored.

Xhat1
09-17-2013, 03:20 PM
Post #15. You said "If anyone has a rebuttal to his actual points made please let me know. I promise not to hold my breath." I made a rebuttal, it was ignored.

Sorry bro, Sunday's are mostly family time for me. I promise I'll reply to your post.

Xhat1
09-17-2013, 04:59 PM
Watched the video, half expected to see some new groundbreaking evidence, heard the same old tired claims that have been trotted out by others before, wasted 15 minutes of my life. Anyway, I will give brief rebuttals to Plimer's main arguments.

Plimer's main point seems to be that climate has changed in the past. This isn't news, I don't know why the "skeptics" keep bringing this claim up. This is like saying that since erosion has occurred before humans existed, therefore humans can't contribute to erosion. Basically we know what causes the climate to change naturally, these aren't occurring right now, and we know that greenhouse gases are one of the things that can cause climate to change.

Another point made was that CO2 was higher in the past. True, in some cases it was. But you would have to take into consideration everything else about the climatic system at the time as well. For instance, in the distant past the sun was weaker, so higher CO2 levels would have helped keep the earth warmer than it would have been if the levels were lower.

Plimer makes the statement that CO2 levels are at dangerously low levels for plants to thrive. I would be interested in reading any peer reviewed studies that show this. All I could find was a blog that cherry picked a study that found that some plants do thrive in a higher CO2 environment. Some insects also thrive in a warmer climate, and many are detrimental to plant life.

Plimer states that the scientific community has failed to take in other factors, including the effect of supernovas on the earth's climate. He also says that continental drifts affect on climate have been ignored. This is just nonsense, even the IPCC report discusses the impact of the sun, and there is even a chapter dealing with paleoclimate.

Next, he says that volcanoes produce more CO2 than humans. This is wrong. The USGS states (http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php) "Human activities, responsible for a projected 35 billion metric tons (gigatons) of CO2 emissions in 2010 (Friedlingstein et al., 2010), release an amount of CO2 that dwarfs the annual CO2 emissions of all the world’s degassing subaerial and submarine volcanoes (Gerlach, 2011)." I'm glad the USGS mentioned submarine volcanoes, because in his talk Plimer blatantly states that these aren't taken into consideration.

Another one of Plimers main points was that temperature drives CO2, not the other way around. In some cases in the past, CO2 didn't initiate a warming trend, but it did contribute to it. A forcing like solar activity caused some warming, which causes carbon sinks to release CO2 which in turn caused more warming. So greenhouse gases can cause warming, but they don't always initiate it.

Plimer also mentions the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period. These were local phenomena confined to the Northern hemisphere. These were caused by natural phenomena, like a reduction in volcanic activity, that led to the warming. These things are not now currently happening.

So all in all Plimer says nothing new. Some of his statements, like warming can't be harmful because people can travel to a northern latitude to a southern one without dropping dead, is just down right stupid.

Okay, I think you need to keep in mind he's talking to politicians, so whether or not they know these things that you find so repetitive is highly questionable. As for the rest, I haven't had the time to look any of it up but I'll take your word over his and assume those statements you say are incorrect, are incorrect.

I think the comments about the history of climate change as well as the extremely underwhelming consequences touted even by alarmists lately are relevant because it provides perspective and context of the very small amount of data we are focusing on. It is less than 1% of the entire history of the planet's climate we are zeroing in on, is it not?

Maybe not the strongest position ever, but it doesn't have to be. The alarmist camp has lost considerable steam over the last few years between climate gate and it's consistent inability to agree on a climate model. Which is of course because none of the climate models have been successfully predictive. You may feel the urge to shout 'CONSENSUS' at that but personally I will go with data over opinion any day.

riptor
09-19-2013, 03:09 PM
Okay, I think you need to keep in mind he's talking to politicians, so whether or not they know these things that you find so repetitive is highly questionable. As for the rest, I haven't had the time to look any of it up but I'll take your word over his and assume those statements you say are incorrect, are incorrect.

Even if he is speaking to politicians he should try to be as correct as possible. Plimer just wrote a new book on the subject, called "Heaven and Earth". It doesn't seem to be based on any new research, he's just repeating the same talking points used by others.


I think the comments about the history of climate change as well as the extremely underwhelming consequences touted even by alarmists lately are relevant because it provides perspective and context of the very small amount of data we are focusing on. It is less than 1% of the entire history of the planet's climate we are zeroing in on, is it not?

What's important is the more recent history. It's true that the further one looks back in time, the less certain one can be. But from using various proxy records the current warming isn't normal to that past 100,000 years. To claim that the current warming isn't something to be investigated simply because the earth was at a different climatic history 100 million years ago isn't that great of an argument. From studying past climates we can learn that things often change quickly once a forcing begins. So the past shows us just how sensitive the climate can be.


Maybe not the strongest position ever, but it doesn't have to be. The alarmist camp has lost considerable steam over the last few years between climate gate and it's consistent inability to agree on a climate model. Which is of course because none of the climate models have been successfully predictive. You may feel the urge to shout 'CONSENSUS' at that but personally I will go with data over opinion any day.

If by alarmist you mean actual scientists who study the subject, no steam has been lost. Climate gate found nothing of importance, it was just a few cherry picked quotes that showed that some researchers could be jerks in their private conversations, but that's about it. Research continues and all the new research points in the same general direction. That includes models. Models are only as successful as the data entered, some are better than others, but that's true of all models. Models have shown that the oceans are warming; the stratosphere is cooling; how volcanic eruptions have a cooling effect; among other things. It is true that some models are off (http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-4.htm), but the are often too conservative and don't match what is later observed. And I never said anything about consensus. I go with actual peer reviewed data, not conspiracy theories and easily disproved assertions.

AfroPope
09-19-2013, 05:51 PM
Even if he is speaking to politicians he should try to be as correct as possible. Plimer just wrote a new book on the subject, called "Heaven and Earth". It doesn't seem to be based on any new research, he's just repeating the same talking points used by others.

Yep. The link I posted above (post five) is a complete deconstruction of everything he says in the book with empirical peer-reviewed data about why he's wrong.