Plimer worked in igneous and metamorphic rocks, now is a climate scientist?

Someone pointed out. . .confusions. . .in Plimer’s book.

https://www.geolsoc.org.uk/Geoscientist/Letters/2012/Ian-Plimer-confused-on-fundamental-issues

Jovial Monk wrote on Jan 17^th, 2024 at 9:36pm:

Plimer worked in igneous and metamorphic rocks, now is a climate scientist? Someone pointed out. . .confusions. . .in Plimer’s book. https://www.geolsoc.org.uk/Geoscientist/Letters/2012/Ian-Plimer-confused-on-fundamental-issues

Did you post, that juvenile wanker?

Hello Sore End, I am not a member of the British Geological Society so, nope.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jan 17^th, 2024 at 10:00pm:

Hello Sore End, I am not a member of the British Geological Society so, nope.

So who posted that drivel after your own heart, juvenile?

Sorry got carried away.


Can’t resist denying AGW, can you?  ;D ;D ;D

Never mind, accept you posted in error.

Frank wrote on Jan 17^th, 2024 at 10:10pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Jan 17th, 2024 at 10:00pm: Hello Sore End, I am not a member of the British Geological Society so, nope. So who posted that drivel after your own heart, juvenile?

How about discussing the letter?

Plimer gets lots of things about climate wrong, as the letter suggests.

Plimer seems not to have the vaguest scientific notions
of what causes global warming, or CO₂ emissions or their
sequestration.

Plimer says scientists have never proved that human
emissions of carbon dioxide drive global warming.

Proof does not exist in science but experts say the evidence
puts the theory beyond any reasonable doubt.

https://www.aap.com.au/factcheck/geologist-misleads-with-climate-change-proof-claim/

https://www.aap.com.au/factcheck/professor-double-counts-with-claim-australia-is-already-at-net-zero/

Plimer likes to argue that his position on global warming
is dismissed by mainstream scientists because they are
part of a "fundamentalist religion" and a "mafia". In fact,
his arguments are rejected because they're just plain wrong.

Yup, if he was a stratigrapher or palaeontologist you could accept more of what he is talking about. He worked in igneous and metamorphic rocks/provinces like the Broken Hill lead/silver/zinc mines.

All this crap about CO2 is only 421ppm how could it do anything—N2, O2 and Ar do not absorb IR, CO2, water vapor, CH4, O3 etc do absorb IR.

AusGeoff wrote on Jan 17^th, 2024 at 11:55pm:

Plimer seems not to have the vaguest scientific notions of what causes global warming, or CO2 emissions or their sequestration. Plimer says scientists have never proved that human emissions of carbon dioxide drive global warming. Proof does not exist in science but experts say the evidence puts the theory beyond any reasonable doubt. https://www.aap.com.au/factcheck/geologist-misleads-with-climate-change-proof-claim/ https://www.aap.com.au/factcheck/professor-double-counts-with-claim-australia-is-already-at-net-zero/ Plimer likes to argue that his position on global warming is dismissed by mainstream scientists because they are part of a "fundamentalist religion" and a "mafia". In fact, his arguments are rejected because they're just plain wrong.

Laughable.  Science is not a court case. Reasonable doubt is irrelevant and citing it is very misleading.

Falsifiability and repeatable experimentation are the key to scientific theories.
Having only one planet in one solar system,  experimentation is not possible. Only modeling is. Modeling, by its nature, is always incomplete. Sceptics, like Plimer, provide 'falsification' of the modelling by pointing out that the modelings are deficient as they do not explain past climate changes for which there is evidence, and therefore the models are not reliable for the predictions for present and future climate changes.


To say that an emeritus professor of geology "seems not to have the vaguest scientific notions of what causes global warming" is Bbwianesquely conceited, Guff. The hyperbole unmoors you every time. Ridiculous.

We know:

1. The Earth revolves around the sun which warms it.

2. The surface of the Earth emits IR which would cool the surface.atmosphere/oceans when it reaches space

3. We know (since the 1850s FFS!) that CO2, CH4 and water vapor absorb IR.

4.1. After absorbing a photon of IR the GHG molecule is more energetic—e.g. the two O atoms in the CO2 molecule vibrate around the carbon atom.

4.2. The energised CO2 molecule collides with a N2, O2 or Ar molecule and transfers its energy to that molecule—more kinetic energy = more heat.

—This is quantum mechanics: you will need to invalidate that science to overturn the AGW theory

6. Because of this absorption/collision the lower part of the atmosphere, the troposphere warms and the upper layer, the stratosphere cools. The top of the stratosphere is where GHG molecules finally emit IR to space. See the IR spectrum top of atmosphere:

---

Having an atmosphere makes a difference—the atmosphere absorbs some and reflects (aerosols, clouds) some sunlight back to space.

Look at the diurnal temperature swings on the moon and on Earth.

Bush/wildfires will grow fiercer and burn more often.

The West Antarctic Ice Sheet is having its ice shelves—its brakes—melted as the Southern Ocean warms more quickly than the other ocean basins.

To claim that a geologist has suitable qualifications in order
to talk about climatology is the equivalent of saying that
nurse educator "Dr" John Campbell is sufficiently qualified
in order to talk about the COVID pandemic and its vaccines.

Both step way out of their technical knowledge zones.    >:(