Australian Politics Forum - How do people reject climate science?

rules_of_the_game New Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 24 Gender:	Re: How do people reject climate science? Reply #15 - Sep 6^th, 2012 at 8:28pm NASA has been openly attacked by its OWN scientists over its incredibly biased climate position. or did you miss the email and publicly released letter?
Back to top	IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: How do people reject climate science?
Reply #16 - Sep 6^th, 2012 at 8:29pm

Upton Sinclair wrote on Sep 6^th, 2012 at 7:50pm:

Soren wrote on Sep 6^th, 2012 at 7:45pm:

I, for one, am hugely skeptical of tendentious, gimmicky bollocks like this.

People who come out with this sort of sh!te obviously feel very threatened, threatened to the core of their belief system, by skepticism. Bollocks merchants like this feel compelled to dream up hyperbolic bvllshit like this to shelter their worldview from critical examination.

So, tell me, what is it you dispute exactly?

Here, boy, mouth it:

I, for one, am hugely skeptical of tendentious, gimmicky bollocks like this.

geddit?

Back to top

IP Logged

rules_of_the_game

New Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 24
Gender: male

Re: How do people reject climate science?
Reply #17 - Sep 6^th, 2012 at 8:30pm

rabbitoh07 wrote on Sep 6^th, 2012 at 8:25pm:

rules_of_the_game wrote on Sep 6^th, 2012 at 7:58pm:

<<One of the loudest contrarian voices in Australia is Ian Plimer, a geologist who has not published a single peer-reviewed paper on climate change. Nevertheless, he is the go-to guy for public voices such as Gina Rinehart, Cardinal George Pell and Tony Abbott.>>

and the two loudest voices for the climate change crowd are an ECONOMIST and a PALEONTOLOGIST. At least Pilmer is in a climate field. the others arent.

Do you even know how many REAL climate scientists there are in the world? almost none. There are thousands working in very narrow fields of climate and sometimes it feels like we are hearing the views of that mythical group of blind men describing and elephant by feel. none were totally wrong, but none were anywhere near to right.

I assume you are referring to Ross Garnaut and Tim Flannery?

To my knowledge - Garnaut has not published any work relating to the science. He is not a scientist. He is however perfectly qualified to speak in his area of expertise which is the economic impact of climate change and the development of policies to improve our future prospects.

And yes - Flannery is a paleontologist. Why don't you look that word up and have a think about how that may relate to the study of the impact of changing climate on ecosystems. Like geology - it is a relevant and related field of study.

Though, you mention Plimer. Yes he is a geologist - but one wonders why a qualified geologist would come out with nonsense like:

"I think people who argue that the human component of carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere, which is about 3 per cent of the annual carbon dioxide emissions from natural sources - the human emission is very very small and one single big volcano can completely change the carbon budget.

WTF is that all about!?!?! If he is going to speak about geology - he could at least try to get it right.

In fact, humans release roughly 135 times more carbon dioxide annually than volcanoes do, on average, according a new analysis. Put another way, humans emit in under three days the amount that volcanoes typically release in a year, according to the best estimates of volcanic emissions.

While not necessarily disputing the estimates of CO2 from volcanoes, all you have done in this is EXACTLY what I criticise which is to mock scientists who disagree with you and laud those that do. What ever happened to BEING RIGHT?

Back to top

IP Logged

rabbitoh07

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2783
Gender: male

Re: How do people reject climate science?
Reply #18 - Sep 6^th, 2012 at 8:31pm

rules_of_the_game wrote on Sep 6^th, 2012 at 8:19pm:

Upton Sinclair wrote on Sep 6^th, 2012 at 8:06pm:

rules_of_the_game wrote on Sep 6^th, 2012 at 7:58pm:

<<One of the loudest contrarian voices in Australia is Ian Plimer, a geologist who has not published a single peer-reviewed paper on climate change. Nevertheless, he is the go-to guy for public voices such as Gina Rinehart, Cardinal George Pell and Tony Abbott.>>

and the two loudest voices for the climate change crowd are an ECONOMIST and a PALEONTOLOGIST. At least Pilmer is in a climate field. the others arent.

Do you even know how many REAL climate scientists there are in the world? almost none. There are thousands working in very narrow fields of climate and sometimes it feels like we are hearing the views of that mythical group of blind men describing and elephant by feel. none were totally wrong, but none were anywhere near to right.

A 'climate scientist' is any scientist who actively conducts research that relates to the climate - climate science is a field, not a discipline.

The only thing that matters in the climate 'debate' is published research, which can be tested and allowed to stand or fall on its merits. Apart from a very small handful of exceptions the 'experts' touted by the denier movement do not, nor ever have, published anything related to the field. People like Plimer are expressing opinions, which are meaningless, the only thing that matters is the evidence. And the vast body of evidence pertain to the climate supports or accepts the notion of AGW as a fact. No amount of opinion can change that, no matter how well qualified the opinion-holder may happen to be.

As a fellow gentleman who deals in facts I thought this would have been self-evident?

You define 'fact' far too loosely. Plimer is not some crackpot. You may not agree with him and some have criticised his work, but the mere fact that credentialed experts like Plimer (and dont degrade yourself by rejecting his credentials in such a cavalier manner) find fault with the concensus position should beg some thought.

Logically speaking, is it really credible that the only real climate scientists and the only ones we can trust are those that support the orthodoxy? Is it anything more than medieval catholic rejection of science to dismiss scientists and their views soley on the basis of the side of a global debat on which the align themselves? There are a LOT of scientists who question the orthodoxy including several astronauts (real scientists) and many in the various fields within climate science.

Why dont you ask the question of why, if the science is settled and the outcomes so undeniable that real scientist question them and in some cases, reject it entirely?

And the polarisation of the debat by the climate evangelists is a disgrace. Any scientist that questions one fact, one word in the IPCC is pillored - just as you have done - even if they support tha basic tnor of the hypothesis. This kind of merciless persecution of some is idiotic and the blind acceptance of any study that supprts the orthodoxy is likewise a disgrace to science. The perfect example of this is the hockey-stick graph. One MIT professor commented that if M Mann had brought this to him as part of his PhD work he would have failed him. It is a statistical embarrassment of high order and the underlying science of temperatur by proxy so unreliable and grossly discredited that it was terrible work. But it is now part of the gold-standard in climate change gospel. Thats what happens when you laud those who agree with you and punish those who dont with little reflection on their actual work.

No - none have criticised his work - because has not published any papers on the subject to be criticised.

As far as I can tell, he has only published a non-peer reviewed book of silly made-up nonsense about volcanos and CO2

Potentially more damaging – because geoscience is his specialist field – is his claim that volcanoes are responsible for more CO2 emissions than human activities. The US Geological Survey says that humans in fact create 130 times the CO2 volcanoes do. Plimer now claims that the USGS figure only includes volcanoes on land, not undersea eruptions at mid-ocean ridges. But Dr Terrence Gerlach of the USGS said the 130 figure includes the underwater volcanoes.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/04/climate-sceptics-public-opinion

Back to top

IP Logged

rules_of_the_game

New Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 24
Gender: male

Re: How do people reject climate science?
Reply #19 - Sep 6^th, 2012 at 8:34pm

UPTON: just a comment on your 97 out of 100 graphic. that implies by your own biased material that at least THREE PERCENT of climate scientists disagree. Thats a lot more than NONE as you previously claimed.

Or are you going to say that the definition of climate scientist includes supporting the orthodoxy? If so... you need to apologise to the Catholic Church over its treatment of Gallileo. By your standards, they did the right thing.

Back to top

IP Logged

rabbitoh07

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2783
Gender: male

Re: How do people reject climate science?
Reply #20 - Sep 6^th, 2012 at 8:34pm

rules_of_the_game wrote on Sep 6^th, 2012 at 8:30pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Sep 6^th, 2012 at 8:25pm:

rules_of_the_game wrote on Sep 6^th, 2012 at 7:58pm:

<<One of the loudest contrarian voices in Australia is Ian Plimer, a geologist who has not published a single peer-reviewed paper on climate change. Nevertheless, he is the go-to guy for public voices such as Gina Rinehart, Cardinal George Pell and Tony Abbott.>>

and the two loudest voices for the climate change crowd are an ECONOMIST and a PALEONTOLOGIST. At least Pilmer is in a climate field. the others arent.

Do you even know how many REAL climate scientists there are in the world? almost none. There are thousands working in very narrow fields of climate and sometimes it feels like we are hearing the views of that mythical group of blind men describing and elephant by feel. none were totally wrong, but none were anywhere near to right.

I assume you are referring to Ross Garnaut and Tim Flannery?

To my knowledge - Garnaut has not published any work relating to the science. He is not a scientist. He is however perfectly qualified to speak in his area of expertise which is the economic impact of climate change and the development of policies to improve our future prospects.

And yes - Flannery is a paleontologist. Why don't you look that word up and have a think about how that may relate to the study of the impact of changing climate on ecosystems. Like geology - it is a relevant and related field of study.

Though, you mention Plimer. Yes he is a geologist - but one wonders why a qualified geologist would come out with nonsense like:

"I think people who argue that the human component of carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere, which is about 3 per cent of the annual carbon dioxide emissions from natural sources - the human emission is very very small and one single big volcano can completely change the carbon budget.

WTF is that all about!?!?! If he is going to speak about geology - he could at least try to get it right.

In fact, humans release roughly 135 times more carbon dioxide annually than volcanoes do, on average, according a new analysis. Put another way, humans emit in under three days the amount that volcanoes typically release in a year, according to the best estimates of volcanic emissions.

While not necessarily disputing the estimates of CO2 from volcanoes, all you have done in this is EXACTLY what I criticise which is to mock scientists who disagree with you and laud those that do. What ever happened to BEING RIGHT?

Yes. What ever happened to BEING RIGHT? Plimer is wrong. His volcano claim is nonsense.

If he has something to add to the body of scientific knowledge - why doesn't he publish a paper on it?

Back to top

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: How do people reject climate science?
Reply #21 - Sep 6^th, 2012 at 8:35pm

philperth2010 wrote on Sep 6^th, 2012 at 8:19pm:

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Is that the same NASA whose moon landing claims are denied by the most vocal Gaia-protectors, doom mongers and one-wold kumbaya merchants?
The same NASA that is often painted as just one more manifestation of the military-industrial complex? Or a different NASA?

Back to top

IP Logged

rules_of_the_game

New Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 24
Gender: male

Re: How do people reject climate science?
Reply #22 - Sep 6^th, 2012 at 8:35pm

rabbitoh07 wrote on Sep 6^th, 2012 at 8:31pm:

rules_of_the_game wrote on Sep 6^th, 2012 at 8:19pm:

Upton Sinclair wrote on Sep 6^th, 2012 at 8:06pm:

rules_of_the_game wrote on Sep 6^th, 2012 at 7:58pm:

<<One of the loudest contrarian voices in Australia is Ian Plimer, a geologist who has not published a single peer-reviewed paper on climate change. Nevertheless, he is the go-to guy for public voices such as Gina Rinehart, Cardinal George Pell and Tony Abbott.>>

and the two loudest voices for the climate change crowd are an ECONOMIST and a PALEONTOLOGIST. At least Pilmer is in a climate field. the others arent.

Do you even know how many REAL climate scientists there are in the world? almost none. There are thousands working in very narrow fields of climate and sometimes it feels like we are hearing the views of that mythical group of blind men describing and elephant by feel. none were totally wrong, but none were anywhere near to right.

A 'climate scientist' is any scientist who actively conducts research that relates to the climate - climate science is a field, not a discipline.

The only thing that matters in the climate 'debate' is published research, which can be tested and allowed to stand or fall on its merits. Apart from a very small handful of exceptions the 'experts' touted by the denier movement do not, nor ever have, published anything related to the field. People like Plimer are expressing opinions, which are meaningless, the only thing that matters is the evidence. And the vast body of evidence pertain to the climate supports or accepts the notion of AGW as a fact. No amount of opinion can change that, no matter how well qualified the opinion-holder may happen to be.

As a fellow gentleman who deals in facts I thought this would have been self-evident?

You define 'fact' far too loosely. Plimer is not some crackpot. You may not agree with him and some have criticised his work, but the mere fact that credentialed experts like Plimer (and dont degrade yourself by rejecting his credentials in such a cavalier manner) find fault with the concensus position should beg some thought.

Logically speaking, is it really credible that the only real climate scientists and the only ones we can trust are those that support the orthodoxy? Is it anything more than medieval catholic rejection of science to dismiss scientists and their views soley on the basis of the side of a global debat on which the align themselves? There are a LOT of scientists who question the orthodoxy including several astronauts (real scientists) and many in the various fields within climate science.

Why dont you ask the question of why, if the science is settled and the outcomes so undeniable that real scientist question them and in some cases, reject it entirely?

And the polarisation of the debat by the climate evangelists is a disgrace. Any scientist that questions one fact, one word in the IPCC is pillored - just as you have done - even if they support tha basic tnor of the hypothesis. This kind of merciless persecution of some is idiotic and the blind acceptance of any study that supprts the orthodoxy is likewise a disgrace to science. The perfect example of this is the hockey-stick graph. One MIT professor commented that if M Mann had brought this to him as part of his PhD work he would have failed him. It is a statistical embarrassment of high order and the underlying science of temperatur by proxy so unreliable and grossly discredited that it was terrible work. But it is now part of the gold-standard in climate change gospel. Thats what happens when you laud those who agree with you and punish those who dont with little reflection on their actual work.

No - none have criticised his work - because has not published any papers on the subject to be criticised.

As far as I can tell, he has only published a non-peer reviewed book of silly made-up nonsense about volcanos and CO2

Potentially more damaging – because geoscience is his specialist field – is his claim that volcanoes are responsible for more CO2 emissions than human activities. The US Geological Survey says that humans in fact create 130 times the CO2 volcanoes do. Plimer now claims that the USGS figure only includes volcanoes on land, not undersea eruptions at mid-ocean ridges. But Dr Terrence Gerlach of the USGS said the 130 figure includes the underwater volcanoes.

Actually he has been published. Why dont you do yourself a favour and look them up. Stop simply assuming that anyone that disagrees is inherently wrong.

Back to top

IP Logged

rabbitoh07

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2783
Gender: male

Re: How do people reject climate science?
Reply #23 - Sep 6^th, 2012 at 8:36pm

rules_of_the_game wrote on Sep 6^th, 2012 at 8:34pm:

UPTON: just a comment on your 97 out of 100 graphic. that implies by your own biased material that at least THREE PERCENT of climate scientists disagree. Thats a lot more than NONE as you previously claimed.

Or are you going to say that the definition of climate scientist includes supporting the orthodoxy? If so... you need to apologise to the Catholic Church over its treatment of Gallileo. By your standards, they did the right thing.

Are you aware that the Catholic Church is not actually a scientific organisation?

Back to top

IP Logged

rabbitoh07

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2783
Gender: male

Re: How do people reject climate science?
Reply #24 - Sep 6^th, 2012 at 8:39pm

rules_of_the_game wrote on Sep 6^th, 2012 at 8:35pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Sep 6^th, 2012 at 8:31pm:

rules_of_the_game wrote on Sep 6^th, 2012 at 8:19pm:

Upton Sinclair wrote on Sep 6^th, 2012 at 8:06pm:

rules_of_the_game wrote on Sep 6^th, 2012 at 7:58pm:

<<One of the loudest contrarian voices in Australia is Ian Plimer, a geologist who has not published a single peer-reviewed paper on climate change. Nevertheless, he is the go-to guy for public voices such as Gina Rinehart, Cardinal George Pell and Tony Abbott.>>

and the two loudest voices for the climate change crowd are an ECONOMIST and a PALEONTOLOGIST. At least Pilmer is in a climate field. the others arent.

Do you even know how many REAL climate scientists there are in the world? almost none. There are thousands working in very narrow fields of climate and sometimes it feels like we are hearing the views of that mythical group of blind men describing and elephant by feel. none were totally wrong, but none were anywhere near to right.

A 'climate scientist' is any scientist who actively conducts research that relates to the climate - climate science is a field, not a discipline.

The only thing that matters in the climate 'debate' is published research, which can be tested and allowed to stand or fall on its merits. Apart from a very small handful of exceptions the 'experts' touted by the denier movement do not, nor ever have, published anything related to the field. People like Plimer are expressing opinions, which are meaningless, the only thing that matters is the evidence. And the vast body of evidence pertain to the climate supports or accepts the notion of AGW as a fact. No amount of opinion can change that, no matter how well qualified the opinion-holder may happen to be.

As a fellow gentleman who deals in facts I thought this would have been self-evident?

You define 'fact' far too loosely. Plimer is not some crackpot. You may not agree with him and some have criticised his work, but the mere fact that credentialed experts like Plimer (and dont degrade yourself by rejecting his credentials in such a cavalier manner) find fault with the concensus position should beg some thought.

Logically speaking, is it really credible that the only real climate scientists and the only ones we can trust are those that support the orthodoxy? Is it anything more than medieval catholic rejection of science to dismiss scientists and their views soley on the basis of the side of a global debat on which the align themselves? There are a LOT of scientists who question the orthodoxy including several astronauts (real scientists) and many in the various fields within climate science.

Why dont you ask the question of why, if the science is settled and the outcomes so undeniable that real scientist question them and in some cases, reject it entirely?

And the polarisation of the debat by the climate evangelists is a disgrace. Any scientist that questions one fact, one word in the IPCC is pillored - just as you have done - even if they support tha basic tnor of the hypothesis. This kind of merciless persecution of some is idiotic and the blind acceptance of any study that supprts the orthodoxy is likewise a disgrace to science. The perfect example of this is the hockey-stick graph. One MIT professor commented that if M Mann had brought this to him as part of his PhD work he would have failed him. It is a statistical embarrassment of high order and the underlying science of temperatur by proxy so unreliable and grossly discredited that it was terrible work. But it is now part of the gold-standard in climate change gospel. Thats what happens when you laud those who agree with you and punish those who dont with little reflection on their actual work.

No - none have criticised his work - because has not published any papers on the subject to be criticised.

As far as I can tell, he has only published a non-peer reviewed book of silly made-up nonsense about volcanos and CO2

Potentially more damaging – because geoscience is his specialist field – is his claim that volcanoes are responsible for more CO2 emissions than human activities. The US Geological Survey says that humans in fact create 130 times the CO2 volcanoes do. Plimer now claims that the USGS figure only includes volcanoes on land, not undersea eruptions at mid-ocean ridges. But Dr Terrence Gerlach of the USGS said the 130 figure includes the underwater volcanoes.

Actually he has been published. Why dont you do yourself a favour and look them up. Stop simply assuming that anyone that disagrees is inherently wrong.

I am not assuming that anyone that disagrees is inherently wrong.
I am stating that anyone who claims that volcanoes are responsible for more CO2 emissions than human activities are wrong.

I think you should stop simply assuming that anyone that writes a non-peer reviewed book that supports your conspiracy theory is inherently right.

Back to top

IP Logged

rules_of_the_game

New Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 24
Gender: male

Re: How do people reject climate science?
Reply #25 - Sep 6^th, 2012 at 8:39pm

rabbitoh07 wrote on Sep 6^th, 2012 at 8:34pm:

rules_of_the_game wrote on Sep 6^th, 2012 at 8:30pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Sep 6^th, 2012 at 8:25pm:

rules_of_the_game wrote on Sep 6^th, 2012 at 7:58pm:

<<One of the loudest contrarian voices in Australia is Ian Plimer, a geologist who has not published a single peer-reviewed paper on climate change. Nevertheless, he is the go-to guy for public voices such as Gina Rinehart, Cardinal George Pell and Tony Abbott.>>

and the two loudest voices for the climate change crowd are an ECONOMIST and a PALEONTOLOGIST. At least Pilmer is in a climate field. the others arent.

Do you even know how many REAL climate scientists there are in the world? almost none. There are thousands working in very narrow fields of climate and sometimes it feels like we are hearing the views of that mythical group of blind men describing and elephant by feel. none were totally wrong, but none were anywhere near to right.

I assume you are referring to Ross Garnaut and Tim Flannery?

To my knowledge - Garnaut has not published any work relating to the science. He is not a scientist. He is however perfectly qualified to speak in his area of expertise which is the economic impact of climate change and the development of policies to improve our future prospects.

And yes - Flannery is a paleontologist. Why don't you look that word up and have a think about how that may relate to the study of the impact of changing climate on ecosystems. Like geology - it is a relevant and related field of study.

Though, you mention Plimer. Yes he is a geologist - but one wonders why a qualified geologist would come out with nonsense like:

"I think people who argue that the human component of carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere, which is about 3 per cent of the annual carbon dioxide emissions from natural sources - the human emission is very very small and one single big volcano can completely change the carbon budget.

WTF is that all about!?!?! If he is going to speak about geology - he could at least try to get it right.

In fact, humans release roughly 135 times more carbon dioxide annually than volcanoes do, on average, according a new analysis. Put another way, humans emit in under three days the amount that volcanoes typically release in a year, according to the best estimates of volcanic emissions.

While not necessarily disputing the estimates of CO2 from volcanoes, all you have done in this is EXACTLY what I criticise which is to mock scientists who disagree with you and laud those that do. What ever happened to BEING RIGHT?

Yes. What ever happened to BEING RIGHT? Plimer is wrong. His volcano claim is nonsense.

If he has something to add to the body of scientific knowledge - why doesn't he publish a paper on it?

what, you dont think a scientist is ever wrong???? Where have you been??? Science and scientists are usually wrong and that is the process of discovery.

Eisteins Special theory of relativity is not right. It is in complete contrast to Quantum Mechanics and especially Quantum Gravity. Does that make Einstein a bozo? OF course not. It makes him a brilliant scientist whose amazing work is only now being tested and found wanting.

You seem to have a very limited view of the scientific process. 'The science is settled' was perhaps the most dangerous and idiotic statement yet made on climate change.

Back to top

IP Logged

rules_of_the_game

New Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 24
Gender: male

Re: How do people reject climate science?
Reply #26 - Sep 6^th, 2012 at 8:40pm

rabbitoh07 wrote on Sep 6^th, 2012 at 8:36pm:

rules_of_the_game wrote on Sep 6^th, 2012 at 8:34pm:

UPTON: just a comment on your 97 out of 100 graphic. that implies by your own biased material that at least THREE PERCENT of climate scientists disagree. Thats a lot more than NONE as you previously claimed.

Or are you going to say that the definition of climate scientist includes supporting the orthodoxy? If so... you need to apologise to the Catholic Church over its treatment of Gallileo. By your standards, they did the right thing.

Are you aware that the Catholic Church is not actually a scientific organisation?

Did you not get the metaphor or what???

BTW if you did research (there's that word again!) the Church WAS responsible for most science done at the time. So welcome to the state of being wrong AND not understanding the metpahor.

Back to top

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: How do people reject climate science?
Reply #27 - Sep 6^th, 2012 at 8:42pm

Upton Sinclair wrote on Sep 6^th, 2012 at 7:27pm:

A growing body of research has found that when a person’s worldview is threatened by scientific evidence, they interpret the science in a biased manner. One issue where this influence is strongest is climate change.

That applies equally to all the vociferous amateur AGW boosters. They are not believed - so they get all bitchy, touchy and miffed. Their core belief system is questioned and so their entire self-perception and value system is threatened.

See?? Right back at ya, numpties. It's so easy to play the pop-psychological passive-aggressive bvllsh!t game.
What you have is some stats, wild prediction, none of which has ever come to pass, and some emotional incontinence about it all which you take every opportunity to parade and preen in public. Mostly the latter.i

Back to top

IP Logged

rabbitoh07

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2783
Gender: male

Re: How do people reject climate science?
Reply #28 - Sep 6^th, 2012 at 8:42pm

rules_of_the_game wrote on Sep 6^th, 2012 at 8:35pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Sep 6^th, 2012 at 8:31pm:

rules_of_the_game wrote on Sep 6^th, 2012 at 8:19pm:

Upton Sinclair wrote on Sep 6^th, 2012 at 8:06pm:

rules_of_the_game wrote on Sep 6^th, 2012 at 7:58pm:

<<One of the loudest contrarian voices in Australia is Ian Plimer, a geologist who has not published a single peer-reviewed paper on climate change. Nevertheless, he is the go-to guy for public voices such as Gina Rinehart, Cardinal George Pell and Tony Abbott.>>

and the two loudest voices for the climate change crowd are an ECONOMIST and a PALEONTOLOGIST. At least Pilmer is in a climate field. the others arent.

Do you even know how many REAL climate scientists there are in the world? almost none. There are thousands working in very narrow fields of climate and sometimes it feels like we are hearing the views of that mythical group of blind men describing and elephant by feel. none were totally wrong, but none were anywhere near to right.

A 'climate scientist' is any scientist who actively conducts research that relates to the climate - climate science is a field, not a discipline.

The only thing that matters in the climate 'debate' is published research, which can be tested and allowed to stand or fall on its merits. Apart from a very small handful of exceptions the 'experts' touted by the denier movement do not, nor ever have, published anything related to the field. People like Plimer are expressing opinions, which are meaningless, the only thing that matters is the evidence. And the vast body of evidence pertain to the climate supports or accepts the notion of AGW as a fact. No amount of opinion can change that, no matter how well qualified the opinion-holder may happen to be.

As a fellow gentleman who deals in facts I thought this would have been self-evident?

You define 'fact' far too loosely. Plimer is not some crackpot. You may not agree with him and some have criticised his work, but the mere fact that credentialed experts like Plimer (and dont degrade yourself by rejecting his credentials in such a cavalier manner) find fault with the concensus position should beg some thought.

Logically speaking, is it really credible that the only real climate scientists and the only ones we can trust are those that support the orthodoxy? Is it anything more than medieval catholic rejection of science to dismiss scientists and their views soley on the basis of the side of a global debat on which the align themselves? There are a LOT of scientists who question the orthodoxy including several astronauts (real scientists) and many in the various fields within climate science.

Why dont you ask the question of why, if the science is settled and the outcomes so undeniable that real scientist question them and in some cases, reject it entirely?

And the polarisation of the debat by the climate evangelists is a disgrace. Any scientist that questions one fact, one word in the IPCC is pillored - just as you have done - even if they support tha basic tnor of the hypothesis. This kind of merciless persecution of some is idiotic and the blind acceptance of any study that supprts the orthodoxy is likewise a disgrace to science. The perfect example of this is the hockey-stick graph. One MIT professor commented that if M Mann had brought this to him as part of his PhD work he would have failed him. It is a statistical embarrassment of high order and the underlying science of temperatur by proxy so unreliable and grossly discredited that it was terrible work. But it is now part of the gold-standard in climate change gospel. Thats what happens when you laud those who agree with you and punish those who dont with little reflection on their actual work.

No - none have criticised his work - because has not published any papers on the subject to be criticised.

As far as I can tell, he has only published a non-peer reviewed book of silly made-up nonsense about volcanos and CO2

Potentially more damaging – because geoscience is his specialist field – is his claim that volcanoes are responsible for more CO2 emissions than human activities. The US Geological Survey says that humans in fact create 130 times the CO2 volcanoes do. Plimer now claims that the USGS figure only includes volcanoes on land, not undersea eruptions at mid-ocean ridges. But Dr Terrence Gerlach of the USGS said the 130 figure includes the underwater volcanoes.

Actually he has been published. Why dont you do yourself a favour and look them up. Stop simply assuming that anyone that disagrees is inherently wrong.

Really?!?

Before reading any further, I examined Plimer's publication list on the University of Adelaide website to see what he has published in refereed journals. There are a scant 17 such papers since 1994, two as first author with the titles "Manganoan garnet rocks associated with the Broken Hill Pb-Zn-Ag orebody" and "Kasolite from the British Empire Mine". Absolutely nothing on climate science.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/ian-plimer-heaven-and-earth/story-e6frg8no-1225710387147

Perhaps you could direct us to some of the Professor's papers relating to climate science?

Back to top

IP Logged

rabbitoh07

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2783
Gender: male

Re: How do people reject climate science?
Reply #29 - Sep 6^th, 2012 at 8:47pm

rules_of_the_game wrote on Sep 6^th, 2012 at 8:39pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Sep 6^th, 2012 at 8:34pm:

rules_of_the_game wrote on Sep 6^th, 2012 at 8:30pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Sep 6^th, 2012 at 8:25pm:

rules_of_the_game wrote on Sep 6^th, 2012 at 7:58pm:

<<One of the loudest contrarian voices in Australia is Ian Plimer, a geologist who has not published a single peer-reviewed paper on climate change. Nevertheless, he is the go-to guy for public voices such as Gina Rinehart, Cardinal George Pell and Tony Abbott.>>

and the two loudest voices for the climate change crowd are an ECONOMIST and a PALEONTOLOGIST. At least Pilmer is in a climate field. the others arent.

Do you even know how many REAL climate scientists there are in the world? almost none. There are thousands working in very narrow fields of climate and sometimes it feels like we are hearing the views of that mythical group of blind men describing and elephant by feel. none were totally wrong, but none were anywhere near to right.

I assume you are referring to Ross Garnaut and Tim Flannery?

To my knowledge - Garnaut has not published any work relating to the science. He is not a scientist. He is however perfectly qualified to speak in his area of expertise which is the economic impact of climate change and the development of policies to improve our future prospects.

And yes - Flannery is a paleontologist. Why don't you look that word up and have a think about how that may relate to the study of the impact of changing climate on ecosystems. Like geology - it is a relevant and related field of study.

Though, you mention Plimer. Yes he is a geologist - but one wonders why a qualified geologist would come out with nonsense like:

"I think people who argue that the human component of carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere, which is about 3 per cent of the annual carbon dioxide emissions from natural sources - the human emission is very very small and one single big volcano can completely change the carbon budget.

WTF is that all about!?!?! If he is going to speak about geology - he could at least try to get it right.

In fact, humans release roughly 135 times more carbon dioxide annually than volcanoes do, on average, according a new analysis. Put another way, humans emit in under three days the amount that volcanoes typically release in a year, according to the best estimates of volcanic emissions.

While not necessarily disputing the estimates of CO2 from volcanoes, all you have done in this is EXACTLY what I criticise which is to mock scientists who disagree with you and laud those that do. What ever happened to BEING RIGHT?

Yes. What ever happened to BEING RIGHT? Plimer is wrong. His volcano claim is nonsense.

If he has something to add to the body of scientific knowledge - why doesn't he publish a paper on it?

what, you dont think a scientist is ever wrong???? Where have you been??? Science and scientists are usually wrong and that is the process of discovery.

Eisteins Special theory of relativity is not right. It is in complete contrast to Quantum Mechanics and especially Quantum Gravity. Does that make Einstein a bozo? OF course not. It makes him a brilliant scientist whose amazing work is only now being tested and found wanting.

You seem to have a very limited view of the scientific process. 'The science is settled' was perhaps the most dangerous and idiotic statement yet made on climate change.

Einstein published his work where it was reviewed and added to by other scientists.

Plimer published a non-peer reviewed bookaimed directly at the uneducated masses containing appalling errors.

I think it is pretty clear who has "a very limited view of the scientific process."

Back to top

IP Logged