Climate change 'fraud'

[Gill]

THE scientific consensus that mankind has caused climate change was rocked yesterday as a leading academic called it a “load of hot air underpinned by fraud”.

Professor Ian Plimer condemned the climate change lobby as “climate comrades” keeping the “gravy train” going.

In a controversial talk just days before the start of a climate summit attended by world leaders in Copenhagen, Prof Plimer said Governments were treating the public like “fools” and using climate change to increase taxes.

He said carbon dioxide has had no impact on temperature and that recent warming was part of the natural cycle of climate stretching over *billions of years.

If you have to argue your science by using fraud, your science is not valid.

Prof Plimer told a London audience: “Climates always change. They always have and they always will. They are driven by a number of factors that are random and cyclical.”

Daily Express | UK News :: Climate change 'fraud'

WOW! I thought this would all be swept under the rug, and it has by the main stream media, but it is really starting to get some legs now. Thankfully, this has all the makings of a good story, hacking (maybe) of data from a leading university, revelations of deception on an international scale, and even threats of bodily harm.

I now believe this will go on for a long time as the content of the emails and computer code dribble out. Some scientists are calling for the banishment of the main characters from any further IPCC studies. They are definitely sweating bullets now as their entire careers are in jeopardy.

 

[niftydrifty]

Has Plimer ever produced a peer reviewed paper? (try saying that several times very fast).

Or is he yet another skeptic with strong ties to industry, and obvious conflicts of interest?

Fraud, indeed.

 

[Gill]

Has Plimer ever produced a peer reviewed paper? (try saying that several times very fast).

Or is he yet another skeptic with strong ties to industry, and obvious conflicts of interest?

Fraud, indeed.

According to Wiki, he's published over 60 scientific papers.

I hardly find criticism from someone that was too cowardly to debate Plimer compelling.

As far as the other link, I took a quick look at it and the first "error" I noticed that they claim Plimer made was regarding Arctic ice extent. Plimer claimed Arctic ice is expanding and they laughingly said it was not and cited a NASA paper as proof.

Unfortunately, the NASA paper makes no claims regarding Arctic ice extent, only ice thickness, which Plimer did not comment on.

Fail.

 

[niftydrifty]

Those pesky details.

According to Wiki, he's published over 60 scientific papers.

Peer reviewed?

I hardly find criticism from someone that was too cowardly to debate Plimer compelling.

Please tell me what you're smoking. I want to avoid it. How you can arrive at that conclusion is evidence of cognitive bias. Wow. You can actually read their debate. It exists online. Just like the guy said, in the article you just looked at. Monbiot.com Correspondence with Ian Plimer

As far as the other link, I took a quick look at it and the first "error" I noticed that they claim Plimer made was regarding Arctic ice extent. Plimer claimed Arctic ice is expanding and they laughingly said it was not and cited a NASA paper as proof.

Unfortunately, the NASA paper makes no claims regarding Arctic ice extent, only ice thickness, which Plimer did not comment on.

The word used in the article was "grow," not "expand." Height is an example of how things grow. When sea ice gets thinner, it is not growing.

 

[Gill]

Those pesky details.

Peer reviewed?

Please tell me what you're smoking. I want to avoid it. How you can arrive at that conclusion is evidence of cognitive bias. Wow. You can actually read their debate. It exists online. Just like the guy said, in the article you just looked at. Monbiot.com Correspondence with Ian Plimer

The word used in the article was "grow," not "expand." Height is an example of how things grow. When sea ice gets thinner, it is not growing.

Here is what Plimer actually said. Perhaps next time you should look at the words of the author rather than a biased source's interpretation.

In reality, these dire predictions about the Arctic sea ice were hopelessly wrong. On 11 August 2008, the area of the Arctic Ice was 30% greater than on 12 August 2007. Ice grew in almost every direction, with a large increase north of Siberia. The Northwest Passage has seen a significant increase in ice.

Next time, read the actual comments of the author rather than the rantings of someone that promotes a one-world government. It's easy to see how his nickname became "moonbat".

A poor attempt at twisting the word "grow" also doesn't help your cause. It is Clinton-esqe.

 

[niftydrifty]

Here is what Plimer actually said. Perhaps next time you should look at the words of the author rather than a biased source's interpretation.



Next time, read the actual comments of the author rather than the rantings of someone that promotes a one-world government. It's easy to see how his nickname became "moonbat".

A poor attempt at twisting the word "grow" also doesn't help your cause. It is Clinton-esqe.

What the guy's nickname is. The guy's opinion about something else entirely. That I am Clinton-esque according to you. These are not arguments. Yes I know what Plimer said. And actual evidence and data contradicts him.

More:

Ian Plimer climate book

 

[Gill]

What the guy's nickname is. The guy's opinion about something else entirely. That I am Clinton-esque according to you. These are not arguments. Yes I know what Plimer said. And actual evidence and data contradicts him.

More:

Ian Plimer climate book

Are you actually claiming that Arctic sea ice extent has not grown in the past few years????

The comments in your link are mostly opinion. Many of these opinions are being dispelled as we speak based on disclosures in the Climate Gate scandal.

Another interesting tidbit is that Australia is now in full revolt regarding any cap and trade legislation.

 

[Manc Skipper]

I suppose a university placed 28th equal (with Liverpool) out of 100 or so could technically be said to be a "leading" one. How Clintonesque.

 

[Gill]

I suppose a university placed 28th equal (with Liverpool) out of 100 or so could technically be said to be a "leading" one.

The University of East Anglia placed 28th?? I'm not sure how relevant that is to the topic.

How Clintonesque.

I really don't think you know what this term means....:roll:

 

[Middleground]

Those pesky details.

Peer reviewed?

Please tell me what you're smoking. I want to avoid it. How you can arrive at that conclusion is evidence of cognitive bias. Wow. You can actually read their debate. It exists online. Just like the guy said, in the article you just looked at. Monbiot.com Correspondence with Ian Plimer

The word used in the article was "grow," not "expand." Height is an example of how things grow. When sea ice gets thinner, it is not growing.

That was an interesting read. This Plimer is a nut. :rofl

Gill... did you read it? And if you did, how can you back this guy up?

 

[niftydrifty]

That was an interesting read. This Plimer is a nut. :rofl

Gill... did you read it? And if you did, how can you back this guy up?

How can he back him up? Easily. according to Gill, conclusions based upon evidence are merely "opinions." according to Gill, what is happening in Australian politics has an effect on global climate! Etc.

 

[Gill]

How can he back him up? Easily. according to Gill, conclusions based upon evidence are merely "opinions." according to Gill, what is happening in Australian politics has an effect on global climate! Etc.

Are you still claiming that Arctic ice extent is not expanding.... or are you going to continue dodging??

 

[niftydrifty]

Are you still claiming that Arctic ice extent is not expanding.... or are you going to continue dodging??

I'll answer your question again if you answer mine at all! :lol:

 

[Gill]

I'll answer your question again if you answer mine at all! :lol:

There was a question in your diatribe???