Boswell ballistic

As I hinted in my post on the Senate Committee on Emissions Trading, Senator Ron Boswell went pretty much ballistic when I said that people who rejected the science of climate change had nothing useful to contribute to the debate. I was a bit surprised at his vehemence, but it turns out there was a good reason. Along with Barnaby Joyce, Boswell is launching Ian Plimer’s latest contribution to the delusionist literature
[1].

Comments from me, David Karoly, Ian Lowe and Ben McNeil .

To restate the conclusion of my last Fin column,

Until conservatives adopt a reality-based approach to climate change, as they have done in Europe and the UK, they cannot be taken seriously as an alternative government.

fn1. I don’t think anyone has yet had the patience to work through and identify all the errors in this deplorable work, but Tim Lambert has identified a couple of dozen Made of Honor hd . For anyone willing to be convinced, the fact that Plimer includes a graph from Martin Durkin’s ‘Great Global Warming Swindle’ which was so obviously wrong that even Durkin had to withdraw it is a pretty good measure of the level of scholarship Plimer has devoted to this.

26 thoughts on “Boswell ballistic

  1. I bet that made for an interesting day for you, JQ. Let’s just forget that the IPCC has examined all of the evidence and passed down a judgement for all goverments. Did Boswell arrive at the Senate venue in a horse drawn carriage?

  2. I shouldnt say it but votes from uneducated 5th generation tribal conservative boguns is all they are after.

  3. And if the conservatives (leadership) didnt go about disseminating nonsense and rubbish and encouraging it, the tribal voters wouldnt swallow it. It goes straight to the leadership and the leadership of the conservatives in this country has been riddled with unintelligent ideas and actively encouraged them.

  4. Charlie Veron and Ove H-G have responses, both posted at Ove’s excellent coral-focused Climate Shifts blog.

    Charlie: “[Plimer] has not wasted time reading. I turn to his treatment of corals and coral reefs: every original statement he makes is incorrect and most are the opposite of the truth. If he ever read anything on this vexing subject (cited or not) he either has a selective memory or just ignored it. This is unusual, even for pseudo-science[.]”

  5. Well you beat Murdoch! As at 7:53pm Friday, you have 4 comments compared to the news.com ‘greenblog’s 3!

    Yay.

    Why, Prof Q, do you believe that engaging with ANY branch of the Murdoch empire can possibly be productive or conducive to intelligent discussion?

    If you go and read the link you will see that, no matter how well intentioned the Graham guy at the news.com blog may be, it is simply a cross between greenwashing tokenism and providing a whipping boy for the more rabid readers. That is what the CO2 lobby pay so much for – BALANCE!

    And by even engaging with this you are (hopefully innocently) complicit.

    An alternative suggestion for a response to such a request from one of Murdoch’s elves:

    “Yes, Graham, it certainly is an extremely serious and important subject. Unfortunately, due to your organisation’s demonstrated lack of intellectual honesty in engaging this topic, and notwithstanding your own earnest intentions, I cannot discuss this topic any further with people whose readers’ minds are so closed to reality (especially when that close-mindedness is so deliberately cultivated and promoted by your colleagues).

    The position is made more difficult by the fact that your organisation has a deplorable record when it comes to presentation of truth. I understand that in a free market monopoly you have both the right and, perhaps, duty to your owners to maximise their influence, however I cannot in good conscience enable such an enterprise by contributing to this parody of a debate.”

  6. Why have lies become so horribly fashionable in the last decade??

    Its just beyond me. We read it. We know its lies. We gag on it and we seriously wonder about those who believe it. What gets published and spread about these days as if it is the “factual news” are not small lies at all. These are whopping big dangerous insane irresponsible lies.

    I just dont get it. They say the Romans went mad from lead in the water pipes. Could it be in the air?

  7. Steve# 5 Boswell is a dead loss riding a losing horse (and they wonder why they are losing the debate and the polls……really?)

  8. From time to time we see a scientist forsake his area of competence and suddenly become the world’s greatest expert in a field he does do not understand at all. It is the onset of a late life crisis. I think Mr Plimer should buy himself a red electric-powered sports car.

  9. PS. Boswell and Joyce are two of the biggest dopes currently in public life. Am I allowed to say that?

  10. Alice, anyone who is keeping their head whilst others are going bonkers signing on to the global warming cult, automatically gets a jersey.

    Boswell, whom I had previously thought a dead loss, has at least saved himself from total disgrace.

  11. Prof. Q. what is your response to the comments concerning five scientists, made by sherlock of Sydney, at the Fairfax site you linked us to?

  12. You can get a fairly complete list of scientists who criticise the mainstream view (anyone who has ever published in any scientific field and has stated disagreement with one or more of the principal conclusions of the mainstream scientific opinion on global warming) at Wikipedia. The total number is nowhere near the thousands claimed by Sherlock, a figure presumably derived from bogus efforts like the Oregon Petition.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

    See also
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_on_climate_change_controversy

    Among the names listed by Sherlock, I think Joanne Simpson at least has been misreprented.

  13. 12# Then Steve – Ill take the jersey (make it a good one) for keeping my head on this (GW not AGW) and you get the boobie prize for losing yours (AGW). Ill take my science and scientists straight up thanks – not the ravings of a book cashing in scoundrel and a couple of 2nd rate opportunistic politicians trawling the mud for a bite or two.

  14. Plimer has only offended me in one way,and it wasn’t really that personal,in that, he was on the ABC Science Show, when I heard him,and to the questions he addressed himself to ,it seemed pretty valid.I have a large coffee table book on the Earth through the eyes of geological matters and many footnotes,I cannot see how anyone,from reading a book like that with the vast ages of the planet in mind, the pressures of and in the Earth’s Biosphere in relationship to the more material mantle,could conclusively be drawn to a point of argument, that leaves out the Earth’s own history.Then a complete failure to see the importance of the Solar activity and sunspot matters how,whenever matters have been understood in geological type scientific pursuits how the correlates actually suggest much. I think sometimes the association with so called fossil fuel research money is not as dubious as some make out,whereas sometimes they are right.Obviously fossil fuel interests have to be sure of matters to exploit,that, doesn’t mean the scientists are lying,it may mean a deeper commitment to honest scientific endeavour,and troubling at that.Ly off the more smart-arse personal attacks,if you think this man is genuinely wrong. I don’t like Robin Williams.

  15. 16# Your same comment could be made on behalf of the genuine scientists who, on a global scale, from a large number of reputable organisations, greatly outnumber the disbelievers and sceptics. It could also be asked why they dont get the same media coverage as the “insufficiently researched” but “voluble” dissenters.

  16. I’d like to suggest the following reading for those wishing to reach out to the reality denying, and – not so much why they do so- but as to how they might be approached, Climate Change and the ‘Bad Faith’ delusion.

    People have inbuilt biases as to the nature of nature, often, where reality is in conflict with these biases many will stick to their bias, particularly if they have lived in an environment where it has never been seriously challenged before. [thinks] silly old male WASP engineers and lawyers and other men of the ‘real world'[/think]

  17. which means (ignoring vested interest non-science) that because these men “won the cold war’ they are right about everything else, (certainly explains the hubris of fools like George Bush and Dick Cheney)

  18. I watched some of the Senate Committee hearings online and Boswell’s behaviour was interesting to say the least. He did seem a bit more sensibly engaged when the green carbon roundtable discussion took place however.

    I’ve got far better things to do than read Ian Plimer’s book, but Andrew Glickson did a comprehensive rebuttal in Crikey, and Barry Brook has done a rebuttal as well.

  19. More on Boswell by Lenore Taylor writing in the Rentseekers Review:

    The Queensland senator, who recently wrote to the BCA to castigate it for not voicing a more negative view on the ETS, told the committee the BCA had “sold industry out”.

    “I think the BCA have sold industry out. I don’t know why anyone would pay them one cent. They should be absolutely ostracised by the mining industry, the steel industry and any other industry that pays their way. I just cannot believe we could be stabbed in the back by the BCA … they have led you down a path that’s got out of control,” he said.

    Boswell, who is concerned about the economy-transforming scheme’s effects on primary industries, has been asking people appearing before the committee across the nation about the case of the Golden Circle pineapple factory, which he says would struggle to compete against imported pineapples if it had to pay more for electricity.

  20. Steve
    No digging in permitted. You stated

    “Alice, anyone who is keeping their head whilst others are going bonkers signing on to the global warming cult, automatically gets a jersey.”

    Thats more than enouh to suggest you are losing it or in denial about GW Steve.

    Dont worry -you are not alone. Ask one of your mates to defend you, if you can. Sometimes there are two denialists workig in tandem in here.

  21. “….in here.”
    Where are we again? Is this like a thread ,a thread from another place?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s