Grendel wrote on May 18^th, 2009 at 3:43pm:


There is no heavan pup, thats your first mistake.

Grendel wrote on May 18^th, 2009 at 4:01pm:


Wow, I cant spell, you don't have a spell checker either do you pup? I'll make sure I pick you up each time you make a mistake puppy.
This will be fun.
As for your other s hit, dwmt. you aren't up to it since your little nervous breakdown.

Grendel wrote on May 18^th, 2009 at 4:14pm:

The feeling is mutual .

muso wrote on May 18^th, 2009 at 1:49pm:



Hate or love takes to much of energy, by-product of which is CO2, which is may be not so bad for biomass grows but I am energy conservationist and say biomass to biomass, energy to energy and in that way you are correct I don't care but neither does the Environment.

Grendel wrote on May 18^th, 2009 at 3:26pm:


Changes in global climate were primarily driven by changes in irradiance from the sun prior to the industrial age. The main causes were changes in the Earth's orbital parameters and changes in solar activity.

We understand these parameters pretty well nowadays, to the extent that we can measure solar irradiance directly and extrapolate it back through the ages.

Nobody can use the word 'proof' in a scientific pretext, especially non-scientists. To say that there is no proof is a bit like saying that there is no proof that we receive infrared radiation from the sun.

I have no proof that you exist. For all I know, you could be a computer virus, written by somebody who has way too much time on their hands.

In the same way that we have overwhelming evidence that we do get infrared radiation from the sun, we have overwhelming evidence that continuing to burn fossil fuels will result in a plethora of unwanted effects, including disastrous changes in ocean pH and global warming.

Now, are you saying that we don't have overwhelming evidence? Tell me more, without cutting and pasting nonsense.

Here's a review of "Heaven and Earth"

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,25433059-5003900,00.html

Perhaps we will find a stitch-by-stitch demolition of climate science in his book, as promised? No such luck. The arguments that Plimer advances in the 503 pages and 2311 footnotes in Heaven and Earth are nonsense. The book is largely a collection of contrarian ideas and conspiracy theories that are rife in the blogosphere. The writing is rambling and repetitive; the arguments flawed and illogical.



It is hard to understate the depth of scientific ignorance that the inclusion of this information demonstrates. It is comparable to a biologist claiming that plants obtain energy from magnetism rather than photosynthesis.

Plimer has done an enormous disservice to science, and the dedicated scientists who are trying to understand climate and the influence of humans, by publishing this book. It is not "merely" atmospheric scientists that would have to be wrong for Plimer to be right. It would require a rewriting of biology, geology, physics, oceanography, astronomy and statistics. Plimer's book deserves to languish on the shelves along with similar pseudo-science such as the writings of Immanuel Velikovsky and Erich von Daniken.

Michael Ashley is professor of astrophysics at the University of NSW.


Another review:

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/04/the_science_is_missing_from_ia.php

The science is missing from Ian Plimer's "Heaven and Earth"

Another review:

http://novakeo.com/?p=3931

I found others - too numerous to post. Some people enjoy tearing this nonsense apart. They probably need to get out more.

Thanks Muso, I'm glad I didn't wast my money.

Think I'll buy Jared Diamond's "Collapse" instead.

Well that's a point I've made with you ad nauseum but it has never stopped you from crying out the mantra ad nauseum ad infinitum.
Perhaps you should stop being a hypocrite.

I expect the book to be attacked by the climate industry just as it has been and people like you to be in denial of anything it has to say.