Not ony but also...

Climate change theory West's 'new religion'

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25681856-30417,00.html
A PROMINENT geologist Ian Plimer has labelled climate change theory an "ascientific, urban, religious, fundamentalist movement" promoted by academics and activists who would be "unemployable outside taxpayer-funded climate institutes".

The University of Adelaide professor argued that climate change was a cyclical process and not the fault of human emissions in a speech at the NSW Parliament House last night.

Professor Plimer made the speech, put on by the Sydney Institute, to promote his new book Heaven and Earth, which argues that climate change has become the new Western religion.

"This movement has the elements of failed European socialism and Christianity, imposes guilt on the community, creates a fear of damnation, demands appeasement by selling indulgences to the faithful, ignores any contrary information, demonises dissenters," he said.

"It's a great way to keep society controlled by frightening them."

In his speech, he said Earth had a history of warming and cooling well before human industrialisation, and he attributed the cycle to natural phenomena such as cosmic rays, volcanoes and meteor impacts.

"It's an extraordinary proposition that humans can twiddle the dials and control the climate," he said. "Climates always change and there have been greater and more rapid changes in the past and we've had carbon levels 1000 times higher than now."



No transcript of thye babove talk yet  but here's an interview with Plimer from late last month.

http://www.abnnewswire.net/multimedia/en/60780/VIDEO:-Professor-Ian-Plimer-Autho...
Transcrtipt of this interview is on the Quadrant website.

Plimer's doing quite well thankyou.

I love your factual refutations and proofs... 

muso wrote on Jun 25^th, 2009 at 8:15am:



You do sound like an advocate Muso. An advocate already knows the answer. A scientist asks nature how well obervations match a theory. The denigration of skeptics of the AGW theory with lables such as 'denier', in the pay of the fossil fuel industry', 'he's (Pilmer) committed professional suicide' and so on aren't what science is meant to be about.

pjb05 wrote on Jun 25^th, 2009 at 8:31am:


He hasn't actually done anything scientific here. The book is intended for the public. It's a book by a layman for the layman.

In terms of climate science, he has essentially demonstrated his ignorance- not only of climate science, but of the basic laws of physics. There have been enough of his colleagues coming forward recently to add voice to the fact that he has made a complete ass of himself by publishing something outside his area of expertise.

The book is worthless, and he has embarrassed some of his colleagues so much that they felt compelled to speak up.

I don't mind science. We need to define the details and the boundaries of this issue.

I do however, take exception to pseudoscience.

pjb05 wrote on Jun 25^th, 2009 at 8:31am:


OK. Let me ask you a question - Are you an advocate for the Round Earth Conspiracy?

- or do you need to read through the information on the website I linked to on my last post in order to make an informed decision?

There are limits. In the field of climatology, we have about the magnitude of consensus on AGW as we do on the fact that the Earth is an ablate spheroid.

muso wrote on Jun 25^th, 2009 at 11:58am:


That site is a parody Muso - I dare say put up just for the pupose you are using it for. That great gift to science, Al Gore, used the flat earther's tag in a recent interview so your not very original:

On CBS 60 Minutes program last weekend, Al Gore compared those who don't believe in man-made global warming to members of the Flat Earth Society, and conspiracy theorists who claim the moon landing was a hoax.

Perhaps so, but if you fit into that group -- doubters in global warming caused by humans -- you join a rarified group of scientists, including:

Dr. Edward Wegman–former chairman of the Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics of the National Academy of Sciences–demolishes the famous “hockey stick” graph that launched the global warming panic.

Dr. David Bromwich–president of the International Commission on Polar Meteorology–says “it’s hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now.”

Prof. Paul Reiter–Chief of Insects and Infectious Diseases at the famed Pasteur Institute–says “no major scientist with any long record in this field” accepts Al Gore’s claim that global warming spreads mosquito-borne diseases.

Prof. Hendrik Tennekes–director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute–states “there exists no sound theoretical framework for climate predictability studies” used for global warming forecasts.

Dr. Christopher Landsea–past chairman of the American Meteorological Society’s Committee on Tropical Meteorology and Tropical Cyclones–says “there are no known scientific studies that show a conclusive physical link between global warming and observed hurricane frequency and intensity.”

Dr. Antonino Zichichi–one of the world’s foremost physicists, former president of the European Physical Society, who discovered nuclear antimatter–calls global warming models “incoherent and invalid.”

Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski–world-renowned expert on the ancient ice cores used in climate research–says the U.N. “based its global-warming hypothesis on arbitrary assumptions and these assumptions, it is now clear, are false.”

Prof. Tom V. Segalstad–head of the Geological Museum, University of Oslo–says “most leading geologists” know the U.N.’s views “of Earth processes are implausible.”

Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu–founding director of the International Arctic Research Center, twice named one of the “1,000 Most Cited Scientists,” says much “Arctic warming during the last half of the last century is due to natural change.”

Dr. Claude Allegre–member, U.S. National Academy of Sciences and French Academy of Science, he was among the first to sound the alarm on the dangers of global warming. His view now: “The cause of this climate change is unknown.”

Dr. Richard Lindzen–Professor of Meteorology at M.I.T., member, the National Research Council Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, says global warming alarmists “are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn’t happen even if the models were right.”

Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov–head of the space research laboratory of the Russian Academy of Science’s Pulkovo Observatory and of the International Space Station’s Astrometria project says “the common view that man’s industrial activity is a deciding factor in global warming has emerged from a misinterpretation of cause and effect relations.”

Dr. Richard Tol–Principal researcher at the Institute for Environmental Studies at Vrije Universiteit, and Adjunct Professor at the Center for Integrated Study of the Human Dimensions of Global Change, at Carnegie Mellon University, calls the most influential global warming report of all time “preposterous . . . alarmist and incompetent.”

Dr. Sami Solanki–director and scientific member at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Germany, who argues that changes in the Sun’s state, not human activity, may be the principal cause of global warming: “The sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures.”

Prof. Freeman Dyson–one of the world’s most eminent physicists says the models used to justify global warming alarmism are “full of fudge factors” and “do not begin to describe the real world.”

Dr. Eigils Friis-Christensen–director of the Danish National Space Centre, vice-president of the International Association of Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, who argues that changes in the Sun’s behavior could account for most of the warming attributed by the UN to man-made CO2.

(list from The Deniers by Lawrence Solomon in The National Post, as noted by commenter "Michael G" in the New York Times Dot Earth blog.)

That list is a good mixture, ranging from the lunatic fringe to genuine workers in the field.

Many of these scientists are not actually confusionalists. Their remarks have been taken out of context.

For example: Sami Solanki


I've posted this before, but you continue to spew this nonsense:

A misleading account of my views was published in the Toronto National Post in March, 2007 (and is to be found at different places on the web). In contrast to what is written there I am not a denier of global warming produced by an increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases. Already at present the overwhelming source of global warming is due to manmade greenhouse gases and their influence will continue to grow in the future as their concentration increases. The same newspaper already misquoted other scientists on this topic. See, for example, the home page of Nigel Weiss of Cambridge University http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/now/

http://www.mps.mpg.de/homes/solanki/nonsci.html

David Bromwich is another such example just scanning that list.

Psst Soren - These sites you cut and paste from LIE

- and the fact that I pointed this out before and you chose to ignore it is a reflection of your integrity.