Comments on: Propaganda & scepticism toward climate science

By: Media, Controls, Freedoms – Adventures in Jutland

Media, Controls, Freedoms – Adventures in Jutland — Sun, 10 May 2009 03:08:18 +0000

[...] Propaganda and Skepticism Towards Climate Science [...]

By: Media, Controls, Freedoms | Media Forms

Media, Controls, Freedoms | Media Forms — Sun, 03 May 2009 06:58:00 +0000

[...] Propaganda and Skepticism Towards Climate Science [...]

By: Ken Fabos

Ken Fabos — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 21:52:13 +0000

Paul, he surely knows none of his points can be sustained within the realms of scientific debate. He has to publish outside science, where there is no requirement for accuracy or truth let alone sound scientific arguments.

By: Paul Norton

Paul Norton — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 23:54:10 +0000

But Ken, if Plimer actually did try to do some serious science as you suggest, and sustained even one of his talking points (other than the trivially obvious ones about climate varying naturally over hundreds of millions of years), he’d have all the money and fame that comes with a Nobel Prize.

By: Ken Fabos

Ken Fabos — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 20:59:33 +0000

One thing is certain; I won’t be buying Plimer’s book, even secondhand. If he truly has anything serious and significant to contribute to climate science he can act like a real scientist and submit it to science journals and face having to get it over the high bar that publishing real science requires. If his arguments had true scientific merit he would do so and be able to affect the scientific debate about climate. Instead he is reduced to attempting to influence the political debate about science. Meanwhile, to borrow a low grade argument/accusation that’s often levelled at climate scientists, I think he’s in it for the money and fame; climate science denialism is popular and any arguments, no matter how lacking in scientific credibility are good enough for people who strongly want to believe science is wrong about climate. Plimer is just pandering to that credulous market before the long term warming trend of global average temperatures and real world evidence overwhelm shorter term variability

By: Is the Telegraph changing sides ?

Is the Telegraph changing sides ? — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 07:53:55 +0000

[...] [...]

By: Tim Curtin

Tim Curtin — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 05:04:20 +0000

Harry: reverting to your opening commendation of the EPA determination, I really think you should have studied the document itself along with its Technical (sic) Support Document. Both merely regurgitate the IPCC 2007, not least because the TSD had Gavin Schmidt (aka Belsen’s Bulldog) and Susan Solomon (aka Belsen’s b…?)as “expert (joke) reviewers”. The EPA determination is that emissions from new cars and engines in the US endanger the world, despite US emissions from the existing stock amounting to only 4% of total world emissions from all sources. Surely as an economist you should be asking what are the benefits from terminating just 4% of world emissions (nil unless the 96% are also banned) against the costs of putting the last nail into the US auto industry’s coffin as well as requiring all road transport to be by bicycle (horses being also bad in terms of emissions). Electric/hybrid vehicles using coal-fired electricity are hardly going to reduce that 4% on a net basis. So why did you endorse the EPA as a way of getting at Plimer?

By: Tim Curtin

Tim Curtin — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 13:00:44 +0000

More for John Mashey: do check out Bragg & Wagner “Protein carbon content evolves in response to carbon availability” for another refutation of your allegiance to Liebig’s out of date Law. It’s at Proceedings Royal Society. As ever, your contributions here and elsewhere are simplistic.

By: Tim Curtin

Tim Curtin — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 12:19:31 +0000

Well done, Harry, that fellow gives pests a bad name!

By: Been reading the Australian? «

Been reading the Australian? « — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 11:49:37 +0000

[...] Been reading the Australian? If so, you might have been relived to discover, last Saturday, that the Antarctic ice sheet is growing not receding, and that the scientist Ian Plimer has comprehensively demolished the ‘religion’ of climate change. You can find this rubbish debunked here. [...]