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.

Ok lets talk lies.

Are man made CO2 emissions the primary driver behind global warming?

muso wrote on Jun 25^th, 2009 at 5:52pm:


It's a pity you didn't read further Muso as he goes on to say this:

"On the other hand, since the Sun is by far the largest supplier of energy to the Earth's surface, any change in the radiative output of the Sun also affects the energy balance of the Earth's surface and atmosphere, so that at some level it influences our climate, too. But how strongly does the Sun vary and to what extent does it influence the Earth's climate? It is important to find a firm answer to these questions in order to estimate the solar contribution into the global warming and in particular to determine its weight relative to that of the man-made greenhouse gases."

Sound's like he's saying there's room for questions regarding AGW to me! I would also point out his area of research is Solar and heliospheric physics, in particular solar magnetism Sun-Earth relations and physics of the solar atmosphere. So the effect of greenhouse gases and non solar aspects of climatology are not his field it would seem. So how much of the statement supporting AGW merely paying lipservice to the orhtodoxy I wonder?

Grendel wrote on Jun 25^th, 2009 at 6:08pm:


Which period in time are you referring to, Grendel? I gave you a nice link with coloured pictures that explains the whole thing in simple form.  Try reading it again. If you don't understand it, get your grandkids to explain it to you. It will be more important to them than it is to you anyway.

muso wrote on Jun 25^th, 2009 at 7:16pm:


Well this might add some more 'context':

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=15385

PRESS RELEASE
Date Released: Thursday, October 28, 2004
Source: Max Planck Institute


An international team of scientists has reconstructed the Sun's activity over the last 11 millennia and forecasts decreased activity within a few decades.

The activity of the Sun over the last 11,400 years, i.e., back to the end of the last ice age on Earth, has now for the first time been reconstructed quantitatively by an international group of researchers led by Sami K. Solanki from the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research (Katlenburg-Lindau, Germany). The scientists have analyzed the radioactive isotopes in trees that lived thousands of years ago. As the scientists from Germany, Finland, and Switzerland report in the current issue of the science journal "Nature" from October 28, one needs to go back over 8,000 years in order to find a time when the Sun was, on average, as active as in the last 60 years. Based on a statistical study of earlier periods of increased solar activity, the researchers predict that the current level of high solar activity will probably continue only for a few more decades.

The research team had already in 2003 found evidence that the Sun is more active now than in the previous 1000 years. A new data set has allowed them to extend the length of the studied period of time to 11,400 years, so that the whole length of time since the last ice age could be covered. This study showed that the current episode of high solar activity since about the year 1940 is unique within the last 8000 years. This means that the Sun has produced more sunspots, but also more flares and eruptions, which eject huge gas clouds into space, than in the past. The origin and energy source of all these phenomena is the Sun's magnetic field.

Because the brightness of the Sun varies slightly with solar activity, the new reconstruction indicates also that the Sun shines somewhat brighter today than in the 8,000 years before. Whether this effect could have provided a significant contribution to the global warming of the Earth during the last century is an open question. The researchers around Sami K. Solanki stress the fact that solar activity has remained on a roughly constant (high) level since about 1980 - apart from the variations due to the 11-year cycle - while the global temperature has experienced a strong further increase during that time. On the other hand, the rather similar trends of solar activity and terrestrial temperature during the last centuries (with the notable exception of the last 20 years) indicates that the relation between the Sun and climate remains a challenge for further research.

Ok lets talk lies.

Are man made CO2 emissions the primary driver behind global warming?

Nope.

Try again.

Grendel wrote on Jun 26^th, 2009 at 9:17am:


I don't suppose you're going to have the decency to tell me why I didn't answer your question either.

Maybe I should just give up. That's probably what you'd prefer.

Still no proof I see... 

The number of skeptics is swelling everywhere.
By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL

Steve Fielding recently asked the Obama administration to reassure him on the science of man-made global warming. When the administration proved unhelpful, Mr. Fielding decided to vote against climate-change legislation.

If you haven't heard of this politician, it's because he's a member of the Australian Senate. As the U.S. House of Representatives prepares to pass a climate-change bill, the Australian Parliament is preparing to kill its own country's carbon-emissions scheme. Why? A growing number of Australian politicians, scientists and citizens once again doubt the science of human-caused global warming.

Among the many reasons President Barack Obama and the Democratic majority are so intent on quickly jamming a cap-and-trade system through Congress is because the global warming tide is again shifting. It turns out Al Gore and the United Nations (with an assist from the media), did a little too vociferous a job smearing anyone who disagreed with them as "deniers." The backlash has brought the scientific debate roaring back to life in Australia, Europe, Japan and even, if less reported, the U.S.

In April, the Polish Academy of Sciences published a document challenging man-made global warming. In the Czech Republic, where President Vaclav Klaus remains a leading skeptic, today only 11% of the population believes humans play a role. In France, President Nicolas Sarkozy wants to tap Claude Allegre to lead the country's new ministry of industry and innovation. Twenty years ago Mr. Allegre was among the first to trill about man-made global warming, but the geochemist has since recanted. New Zealand last year elected a new government, which immediately suspended the country's weeks-old cap-and-trade program.

The number of skeptics, far from shrinking, is swelling. Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe now counts more than 700 scientists who disagree with the U.N. -- 13 times the number who authored the U.N.'s 2007 climate summary for policymakers. Joanne Simpson, the world's first woman to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, expressed relief upon her retirement last year that she was finally free to speak "frankly" of her nonbelief. Dr. Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese environmental physical chemist who contributed to a U.N. climate report, dubs man-made warming "the worst scientific scandal in history." Norway's Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics, decries it as the "new religion." A group of 54 noted physicists, led by Princeton's Will Happer, is demanding the American Physical Society revise its position that the science is settled. (Both Nature and Science magazines have refused to run the physicists' open letter.)

The collapse of the "consensus" has been driven by reality. The inconvenient truth is that the earth's temperatures have flat-lined since 2001, despite growing concentrations of C02. Peer-reviewed research has debunked doomsday scenarios about the polar ice caps, hurricanes, malaria, extinctions, rising oceans. A global financial crisis has politicians taking a harder look at the science that would require them to hamstring their economies to rein in carbon.

Credit for Australia's own era of renewed enlightenment goes to Dr. Ian Plimer, a well-known Australian geologist. Earlier this year he published "Heaven and Earth," a damning critique of the "evidence" underpinning man-made global warming. The book is already in its fifth printing. So compelling is it that Paul Sheehan, a noted Australian columnist -- and ardent global warming believer -- in April humbly pronounced it "an evidence-based attack on conformity and orthodoxy, including my own, and a reminder to respect informed dissent and beware of ideology subverting evidence." Australian polls have shown a sharp uptick in public skepticism; the press is back to questioning scientific dogma; blogs are having a field day.

The rise in skepticism also came as Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, elected like Mr. Obama on promises to combat global warming, was attempting his own emissions-reduction scheme. His administration was forced to delay the implementation of the program until at least 2011, just to get the legislation through Australia's House. The Senate was not so easily swayed.

Mr. Fielding, a crucial vote on the bill, was so alarmed by the renewed science debate that he made a fact-finding trip to the U.S., attending the Heartland Institute's annual conference for climate skeptics. He also visited with Joseph Aldy, Mr. Obama's special assistant on energy and the environment, where he challenged the Obama team to address his doubts. They apparently didn't.

pt1.

Wow, what a shock, another "brilliant"???? bible basher, buys the bulldust.
They will be pedalling this line of bs in pulpits across the globe, and the faithfully ignorant will lap it up, like they do all the other dross placed before them.

When religions mobilise mass stupidity for political reasons, it is just another reason to consider them as a negative force in society.

Felding is a loser at best and a danger to Australia's future.
These confusionalists are very dangerous people, this bible bashing confusionalist goes to the USA to meet with other confusionalists and its all sponsored by the fossil fuel industry.Is he, like those confusionalists here ,really that stupid or are they a danger to our countries future, I believe they are terrorists and should be treated as such.

Quote:


I'm not so sure that the fossil fuel industry is actually sponsoring the disinformation. If they are, then it's a lot more subtle now than it used to be. Most of the oil companies and coal producers are publically behind  the move to reduce carbon emissions. However it would make sense that they would want to engineer the public response.

I get the feeling that a lot of the groundswell comes from small business associations nowadays, but that could be because they are seen to be independent of fossil fuel industries.

I went to a public meeting once on Global Warming. The speaker was sponsored by a Coal producer and she was part of the Al Gore publicity thing. This was only advertised locally, yet we had a guy turn up out of the blue with newspapers that pushed the denialist/ confusionalist point of view.  He wasn't from the area, and he must have taken the trouble to organise transport and accommodation.

After the talk, we expected that he would get vocal. He didn't say a word.  This was probably because there were quite a few environmental scientists and engineers present that would have ripped his points to shreds, and he knew it.

The strange thing was that he knew where to turn up. I still have a sneaking suspicion that the Coal producer had organised his presence.

Quote:


Dear me...  can't answer the question eh?  Don't want to answer the question.

So needs to change the question.

Just answer the bloody question Muso and stop being a wanker.

As for the rest of your crap and pedantry...  just answer the bloody question don't reinterpret it.

Not married  

Just answer the question...  
Afraid to admit the truth?

It is not anything like the wife beating question.  Which is BTW...  HAVE YOU STOPPED BEATING YOUR WIFE YET?

Seems to me you are beating something...  perhaps you should stop that b4 you go blind.

Grendel wrote on Jun 30^th, 2009 at 11:20am:



See! you're just avoiding answering the question You're even  changing my original question because you didn't like it. I knew you wouldn't be able to resist it  

Grendel, 

CO2 keeps our planet warm so that it is not covered in ice'. There is ample geological evidence of increased CO2 causing climate change, such as the Palaeocene-Eocene thermal maximum about 55 million years ago.  Land and sea temperatures increased by five to ten degrees with associated extinctions of life' when methane was released into the atmosphere due to geological processes and rapidly converted to CO2.

So based on that, there is ample evidence that increases in CO2 can drive climate.

Do you agree with that analysis?

pjb05 wrote on Jul 1^st, 2009 at 4:25pm:



Oh sorry PJ. I neglected to say that I cut and pasted that particular text from 'Heaven and Earth' by Ian Plimer. You're right. It's not very accurate.

Grendel wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2009 at 2:45pm:


ROTFLMAO 

You can get it here:

http://www.bittorrent.com/   

Do you want page numbers? It's around page 415-417. Not sure of the exact verse 

Well that link didn't work.

It only talks about CO2?  There's a fair amount of Pot, Kettle, Black happening there.

Pssst....  I know what the atmosphere does BTW.  I know that the greenhouse effect is also beneficial to life.  How about you?

You Bozo....

Sorry you can't do better than that.

No wonder you've been copping a beating.