Ian Plimer's volcano claims vaporise under questioning on Australian TV

Ian Plimer's volcano claims vaporise under questioning on Australian TV

www.guardian.co.uk

Climate denier finally airs his weaknesses with inaccurate statements on science and 'bullying' among academics.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Plimer, an Australian professor of geology and a climate change denier loved and quoted by the right wing media was on the ABC's Lateline program.
view the event here.
www.abc.net.au...

Plimer tried every tactic to evade real questions about his claims and denial over Global Warming, but in the end it was obvious that his cherry picked findings had no basis in real scientific fact.

www.guardian.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by prof-rabbit


you know
I saw this story the exact opposite

I saw 2 journalists not letting him answer a question and then when a Qusetion was put forward going in the opposite direction he was closed down and the question itself was ignored by both journalists.

I don't agree with 100% of what Plimer says, but I trust journalists even less

Yeah, I saw it that way too. Especially when , as a scientist he wanted to get into the Medieval Warming Period and other past climate anomolies. They only seemed interested in grilling him about the last 10 years of hot climatic weather for some oddball reason. They seem to be totally disinterested in any bizarre weather patterns pre industrialisation. The journos agenda was quite clear.
It became clear to me that Pilmer was frustrated in having to deal with morons like those 2.

[edit on 17-12-2009 by Flighty]

Originally posted by prof-rabbit


climate change denier

Unbelievable.

WE ARE NOT DENYING CLIMATE CHANGE IS HAPPENING, ONLY THAT MAN IS CAUSING IT.

Is that really so hard to understand?

It's a sad, sad indictment on the AGW crowd that they have to resort to lies about what we even believe in order to make a point.

[edit on 18/12/2009 by Kryties]

Originally posted by Kryties

Originally posted by prof-rabbit


climate change denier

Unbelievable.

WE ARE NOT DENYING CLIMATE CHANGE IS HAPPENING, ONLY THAT MAN IS CAUSING IT.

Is that really so hard to understand?

It's a sad, sad indictment on the AGW crowd that they have to resort to lies about what we even believe in order to make a point.

[edit on 18/12/2009 by Kryties]

Sorry but maybe you aren't but many are. Many will say its global cooling and not global warming or that it's all just made up. There is lots of groups so you may not be part of it but that group is out there.

It's very obvious, if you study the long-term trends in climate-change cycles over the previous few hundred thousand years, or even few tens of thousands of years that (#1) the earth is NOT warming significantly - if at all (likely cooling slightly), that (#2) we should be a little warmer to be normal, to grow more crops and stop the droughts and spread of deserts, and (#3) there hasn't been any REAL climate change in about 8000 years. REAL climate change is a rapid-intense change of AT LEAST 10 degrees C in less than 50 years, and usually more like 20 degrees in 10 years (which has happened naturally many times).

When looking at REAL climate-change, it's fair to say we are stable right now. The polar bears have survived warming and cooling much greater. The glaciers just as well.

Originally posted by whoshotJR


Sorry but maybe you aren't but many are. Many will say its global cooling and not global warming or that it's all just made up. There is lots of groups so you may not be part of it but that group is out there.

The operatiove words in my last post were "Climate Change" - not Global Warming or Cooling - they are inclusive thereof.

Anyone who denies that our climate is changing AT ALL is kidding themselves. Yes, our climate is changing - but as a result of normal cyclical changes over the course of Earth's lifespan, not anything to do with us arrogantly claiming we caused it.

Why would anyone expect a creationist to see the evidence for global warming, (which Pilmer denies except as a minor perturbation,) let alone anthropogenic global warming, when he's too stupid to see the evidence for Earth being more than 6000 years old?

Ian Plimer appears to me to be little but a tool looking for notoriety by going against the grain for the sake of going against the grain. I haven't read any papers by him, nor evaluated their merit as proposed in those papers - but after watching this sad display, I get the impression that they won't be anything substantial. He evoked 10 year old issues without demonstrating that he had any relevant or new data collected from the interim time or any real insightful pearls to back up those claims. Then he gets into a banal pissing match with a journalist trying to duck a few issues he could have slam dunked home if he had been prepared or had a proper answer to.

Even though I disagree with Lindzen's views and contentions at times - I at least have to respect the man for trying to keep an air of respectability and reason to his arguments while being prepared enough to back up his assertions (right or wrong) with cited sources in the midst of the exchange. Plimer, in contrast, comes off as an irrational buffoon. Perhaps more eloquent and metered in delivery than Lindzen, but lacking the content and professional demeanor.



Those two never should have been put on the air to throw logical fallacies around to an audience which largely can't even tell the difference between climate patterns and weather patterns.



Then again... there was that Lindzen interview against Bill F'rickin Nye as the "Science Guy". Ugh.... /facepalm.

[edit on 18-12-2009 by Lasheic]

Originally posted by Kryties
Unbelievable.

WE ARE NOT DENYING CLIMATE CHANGE IS HAPPENING, ONLY THAT MAN IS CAUSING IT.

Yep its the man made global warming that people deny, not climate change, lol.

There is no such thing as man made global warming, and gore it a great case of it being all hot air.

Originally posted by whoshotJR

Originally posted by Kryties

Originally posted by prof-rabbit


climate change denier

Unbelievable.

WE ARE NOT DENYING CLIMATE CHANGE IS HAPPENING, ONLY THAT MAN IS CAUSING IT.

Is that really so hard to understand?

It's a sad, sad indictment on the AGW crowd that they have to resort to lies about what we even believe in order to make a point.

[edit on 18/12/2009 by Kryties]

Sorry but maybe you aren't but many are. Many will say its global cooling and not global warming or that it's all just made up. There is lots of groups so you may not be part of it but that group is out there.

It all depends upon what you are speaking of in terms of Geologic Time-scales, and Cyclic Periods. Let me speak about the Arctic for instance, which is most often touted as the Pinnacle Point of AGW effects. If you base your observations on the NOAA 30 Year Cycle data, then the Arctic DID warm up until around the turn of the Millennium. It has been dropping in temperature ever since though (Which coincides precisely with the pre-recorded cycles). If you look at the Geological Time Scale however, portions of it ARE at a Warmer Period than 12,000 Years Ago, and compared to 400,000 Years Ago it is downright tame in nature (If it was not warmer, then just about every square inch of Sub-Arctic/Arctic land mass would be under enormous glacial coverage right now).

It is all about relativity here, and however you look at it, the Naturally recorded cycles are so far holding true. We are actually at the crest of one of a handful of Upward trends in the 400,000 years of past History, and we should absolutely be grateful for such (Otherwise we would have glacial coverage all the way down to Pennsylvania right now).

reply to post by Kailassa

Why would anyone expect a creationist to see the evidence for global warming, (which Pilmer denies except as a minor perturbation,) let alone anthropogenic global warming, when he's too stupid to see the evidence for Earth being more than 6000 years old?

Uuhm...

Plimer is a lot of things, and claims to be an expert on things he doesn't have a clue about, but a creationist he is not.

He has even tried to sue a creationist 'think tank' for false and misleading advertising (over raising money for a search for the Ark as I recall) and lost unfortunately.

Edit: oh, yeah. Plimer is a geologist; his work has had to do with mining. I'm pretty sure he knows enough science to know that the earth is more than 6000 years old.


[edit on 22/12/2009 by rnaa]

reply to post by munkey66

you know
I saw this story the exact opposite

I saw 2 journalists not letting him answer a question and then when a Qusetion was put forward going in the opposite direction he was closed down and the question itself was ignored by both journalists.

WTF?

I have to assume that English is not your first language. How you could watch that interview and come to that conclusion is impossible to fathom by any other assumption.

Plimer was asked several straightforward questions, that required simple straightforward answers.

• Do you stand by your claim that there is cooling over the last decade? (he refused to answer, he wasn't stopped, but his waffling was unresponsive and the interviewer moved on to another question)
  
• USGS explicitly says it is counting undersea volcanos, what is your evidence that they are not (he refused to answer, he wasn't stopped, but his waffling was unresponsive and the interviewer moved on to another question)
  
• did you or did you not misrepresent the Keller paper conclusion and claim the exact opposite of the actual conclusion (he refused to answer, he wasn't stopped, but his waffling was unresponsive and the interviewer moved on to another question)
  
• is it reasonable that a journalist should ask a question of a scientist and expect a straight forward answer. (this is the only direct answer he gave all night, he said "I'll have to check that in my book".
  

Just out of curiosity, have you seen the questions that Monbiot published? And did you see Plimer's questions? Monbiot asked simple questions that a scientist should be able to answer, like: Can you point me to your source for that claim on page x about y?

Plimer, apparently insulted that a lowly journalist should ask for simple background information, wrote back in pique asking for 13 Doctorate theses, with complete references of course, on topics that when looked at in detail made almost no sense at all. Seriously look it up, you should be able to google it, Monbiot published the entire correspondence on his blog.

The simple fact is that it is the journalists job to ask questions, and it is the scientists job to answer those questions as honestly as they can (unlike a politician whose job it is to avoid answering questions).

Plimer obviously doesn't like journalists that do their job because he is so lousy at his.


[edit on 22/12/2009 by rnaa]

Irregardless of your view on global climate change, I think it is pretty obvious that Ian Plimer merely recycles the same trash, over and over again. His evidence is incorrect.

Professor Barry Brook's blog...

[edit on 22/12/2009 by C0bzz]

brrrrrrrrrr chilly chilly in Belfast


Enjoy your fake religion and brandish your bible of "scientific consensus"- utter nonsense you are no better than the jehovahs at my door