Plimer addresses Copenhagen

[Baron von Richthofen]

What can I say
http://au.news.yahoo.com/queensland/a/-/world/6564394/plimer-addresses-copenhagen-heretics/

[JethroB76]

"One swallow does not make a summer"...but "its been freezing in Perth and bucketing down"

Thats me convinced.

[White Rabbit]

It's good that there is an opposing point of view, but I thing you just have give earth the benefit of the doubt on this on.

[Nightshift]

I couldnt agree more with this guy, I am convinced the whole "Green Hoax Effect" is rubbish, I am positive that any climate change occuring is normal and cyclic. I am sick of hearing the media beat up on this topic and tired of seeing the sheep that follow this band of fools.

This is one gutsy guy that gets my highest stamp of approval.

Dennis.

[multiweb]

This climate debate to me is not disimilar in some points to the "hidden weapon of mass destruction" prior to Iraq invasions in the way it's drummed in our heads by the media. Any skeptic will be branded as an heretic. :P

[DJDD]

yes, or how about:

"and the weather seemed hotter to him as a child."

it's good to see that anacdotal evidence is still as valuable today as it ever was...



"...when i was a child we had to walk five miles to and 10 miles home from school because every afternoon it rained so hard that the river swelled up and the crocs were biting and we had to walk the long way home..." :lol:

[michaellxv]

Neither side has proved their case in my view. The human response will be determined by $$$ and politics. The only thing I am sure of is that we will be made to pay, and for the foreseeable future we will continue to increase the global rate of polution.

[AstralTraveller]

Yes the whole "Green Hoax Effect" is rubbish; there is no Green Hoax and the claim that there is is peddled by parties who prefer slander to debate.

If you have evidence that proves we are in a natural cycle I'd love to see it. Write it up and send it to:

http://www.nature.com/authors/submit_manuscript.html

Plimer certainly has a lot of guts but most of it is gall. If the topic wasn't so serious he'd have people rolling in the aisles.

[Gerald Sargent]

As geologist of long standing, and having worked on sea.level changes,
and having read Plimer's Heaven + Earth I agree totally with his views.
The cuurent CO2 "hoax" is just the latest of the "scams" being pulled
on a gullible public by "crises driven" "power crazy" politicians with
whom Kevin Rudd seeks to "strut the stage" Gerald.

[Ric]

While the argument continues and we continue to send the Earth down the celestial gurgler because it's too expensive and complicated to solve.

Just remember the mess we'll be leaving for our children and grandchildren to clean up if they can.

Chances are that it will be way too late.

[renormalised]

The problem with "greenhouse" or "green hoax", whatever you want to call it, is that the general public don't know enough to really have a properly considered debate on the matter. The science behind it would leave most people bewildered anyway, considering just how much they actually learn from school. The media don't help, because they're pushing agendas left, right and centre. Scientists don't help because they're doing the same thing.

Being a geologist myself, but also having a good background in climatology as well, I'm in a position to see both the pros and cons of the debate. GCM's (Global Cimate Models) are only as good as the data you enter into them, and also only as good as the algorithms you use to create models of a detailed enough resolution, taking in as many variables as can be calculated. Increasing CO2 content is a major variable in the equations but it's not the only one, nor is it necessarily the most important, depending on how you use the models to calculate what you are trying to find.

The climate is an extremely complicated beast and whilst pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere isn't going to help, it's not the only cause of any warming which is occurring. There are far more pressing reasons as to why we should reduce our CO2 output, but having it contribute to a warming of the atmosphere isn't going to help.

[AstralTraveller]

Gerald,

You cite your qualifications and research history to butress your views. May I look a little closer? When you say 'geologist of long standing' you mean 'a geologist long since retired'. Do you stay abreast of the literature in peer reviewed journals? Or is your knowledge stuck in the mid-80s?

You also state you have worked on sea-level change. A search of the databases found one paper by you (I presume there are others that the databases have missed) entitled 'Side Scan Sonar Records of the Brisbane River and the Interpretation of Ancient Sea Levels' ('Ancient in this context refers to the late Pleistocene). While determination of the high-stand sea-level of previous interglacials using geomorphology is worthwhile research I really can't see how it is relevant to the topic.

If you want to play this game I'll walk down the corridor and bump into a few profs who's research is much more relevant to the debate (including one who is an authority on 20th century sea-levels) who are convinced AGW is real (and who are not receiving a brass razoo of 'greenhouse' money).

BTW can you give an example of the other 'scams being pulled
on a gullible public'. I'd be quite interested.

[sjastro]

David,

Let's make it more specific. How does a natural cycle result in the Earth's lower stratosphere to cool while the troposphere is warming up.

Anyone who wants to explain this is going to have to refute thermodynamics (or use the nonsense argument that stratospheric cooling is only due to ozone reduction:))

Steven

[avandonk]

If Plimer and others like him think they have the scientific answers why do they not publish in peer reviewed journals? A bit of hand waving drivel which his book mostly is will only fool the scientifically illiterate. Nearly all of his references are quoted out of context or twisted when it really matters.

If you do not trust climate scientists then next time you fly on international airliner maybe the passengers can vote for the most reasonable non pilot who gives a convincing story as to what the real pilots should do next. I am sure you would all feel a lot safer!

I am really tired of hearing people/commentators/denialists say ' I am not a scientist but ( insert outlandish non scientific hearsay statement here)... '.

All of the denialists rubbish the models with the simple statement 'garbage in garbage out'. Not one of them understands the basic mathematics needed to begin to understand the models such as partial differential equations and their integrals, Greens Theorem, double/triple integrals, Fourier series/analysis and far more. I would go so far as saying they do not understand even simple spreadsheets. They are the sort of people who call arithmetic maths.

I won't mention the general denialist faith in non existent invisible friends and then have the nerve to accuse scientists of believing in a quasi green religion.

Meanwhile if I get a brain tumour I should bone up on 'Brain Surgery for Beginners' as you cannot trust these doctors as they do not have all the answers.

I only mentioned the war once but I think I got away with it.

Bert

[iceman]

I'm quite sure we don't need another global warming / climate change thread.

There's already one going and I certainly don't have the patience to read two of them.