This Lateline featuring Ian Plimer and George Monbiot has to be seen to be believed. More from Tim Lambert and from James Farrell at Troppo.
Update I must say the response of those on Plimer’s side of the debate has been thoroughly disappointing. Tribal loyalty might perhaps justify silence in the face of an embarrassing performance like this. On the other hand, no one appears to have the cheek to suggest that Plimer came out looking good, and few on the delusionist side are willing to admit that the most prominent scientist on their side came across as a total fraud.
So we get two lines (a) It was really mean of Jones and Monbiot to keep on demanding that he answer the questions (which had been supplied in writing long in advance) (b) It’s too hard to tell. This is truly pathetic.
And, as I’ve said before, this style of dishonesty, originating with the tobacco lobby’s attempts to obfuscate the health effects of smoking, now permeates right wing discussion of any issue you care to name, from the Iraq war to the Global Financail Crisis. It’s hard to see how any kind of political discussion can be sustained in the face of this kind of thing
John Quiggin 
Thank you James for providing the link to Ian Enting’s paper. It is yet another example of the amount of work required to disentangle the ‘narratives’ created by some people who manage to exploit the double meaning of this word.
I read only up to point 47. By that point, and speaking metaphorically, the temperature had risen to a point where the conclusion ‘Plimber is cooked’ was difficult to avoid.
Terje, you don’t need to read Plimer’s book. On page 413 he says: “Volcanoes produce more CO2 than the world’s cars and industries combined.” That’s the whole thing. He doesn’t give any cite to support this. And he was well aware of the USGS estimate and the fact that they include undersea volcanoes before he wrote the book. See this correspondence with Plimer back in 2007.
And Plimer hasn’t stopped making the claim. Just last month in an interview on Radio 4 he said: “We cannot stop carbon emissions because most of them come from volcanoes.”
‘Plimber’ should read Plimer, second last line, at #1, p 3
PZ Myers over a Pharyngula has provided a post detailing why tree ring data has become a poor proxy for temperature. It’s easy to comprehend so please take note denialists.
Well I watched the show, and thanks to the ABC for both hosting it and then allowing it to be downloaded. Good on Tony Jones being so well prepared as well.
I know I’m biased, but Plimer got absolutely slaughtered.
I for one would wish violence on a person (difficult to achieve via satellite link) if someone called me ill-bred and ill-mannered in the way that that pompous old fool did. He couldn’t lie straight in bed. Monbiot didn’t need to get angry, pity was a more appropriate reaction.
Anyone who has followed Monbiot’s attempt to get simple straight answers to direct questions regarding Plimer’s book out of the old fossil would have to realise just how out of his depth Plimer is. (see here for more about the questions fiasco).
Not that I feel at all sorry for him, and he is probably making a motza out of his book.
52% of Americans beleive that there is “significant disagreement within the scientific community over global warming”.
A significant portion of the population (and political representation) is not going to accept climate change (ever).
The implications of this are far reaching – including the possibility that no significant mitigation effort may occur until it is too late.
A new or different approach is probably necessary.
@iain
Sadly a lot of people will not be swayed much by science. It’s too hard, too boring and most people understandably don’t have the time to analyse the data and read the papers. The US population will probably be swayed more by extreme weather, even if it isn’t directly attributable to AGW. That is sadly going to be the most effective. Of that 52% some will never be convinced, but most probably don’t hold their position with much conviction.
It would be really good if some of the people who have purchased the Plimer book got together and launched a class action against Plimer for having misrepresented the contents of the book as scholarly and scrupulous analysis of the issues. The action could also include his publishers. He shouldn’t get away with profiting from is witting fraud. Maybe doing this would not be so difficult as several law firms do ‘no win no fee’ cases.
Also, some action should be taken against his for academic fraud.
People understand when someone has lost a court case or when they have been found guilty of academic fraud. This might be the way to deal with those who chose to use tobacco industry tactics. Unfortunately at present, Plimer is not only doing harm by perpetuating the lie that there is a ‘scientific’ debate on the issues, he is profiting by doing so. Targetting some of those profits is a good strategy.
TerjeP
The claims about volcanoes were not the most painfully obvious piece of dishonesty apparent in the Lateline interview. Plimer’s claim about Charles Keller’s statement in one of his recent papers is an obvious contradiction of what Charles Keller actually said, i.e. Charles Keller said:
“The recent data from satellites and radiosondes blows away the contention that there has been no further warming.”
Plimer in his book claimed Keller said:
“The recent data from satellites and radiosondes shows that there has been no further warming.”
TerjeP, you’d have to be brainless or dishonest to not realize that Plimer did not state the truth about what Keller said. You’d have to be brainless or dishonest to not realize that Plimer evaded answering why he did not tell the truth in his book about Keller’s statement on Lateline. And you’d have to be brainless or dishonest to not realize from the interview that Plimer knew he did not tell the truth about Keller’s statement in his book.
Freelander, you should be careful what you wish for.
Plimer assertions in a court of Law. Proof will have to be “Beyond a reasonable doubt Generally the prosecution bears the burden of proof and is required to prove their version of events to this standard. This means that the proposition being presented by the prosecution must be proven to the extent that there is no “reasonable doubt” in the mind of a reasonable person that the defendant is guilty. There can still be a doubt, but only to the extent that it would not affect a “reasonable person’s” belief regarding whether or not the defendant is guilty.”
Of course an impartial climate change savvy judge, TV rights, Journalist of Monbiot and Bolt caliber as witnesses. It would be a political circus, big ratings and more sales for Plimer. The winner(s) take all. I would finally have a reason to watch TV, pure entertainment.
@Freelander
If anyone wants to point out that a certain director of CBH Resources Ltd is running amok making a laughing stock of himself on TV and on radio and not just in Australia, don’t let me stop you from sending an email to that company! After all, their environmental policy states quite unequivocally:
and it is pretty challenging to reconcile the words in the final sentence (in bold) with that director’s stand against dealing with AGW – future generations, ‘n’ all that.
Perhaps the other directors on the board might review their staffing needs to a more appropriate ahh level. Just an idle daydream, it surely wouldn’t happen.
@Ubiquity
Why don’t you learn something about the law? The law is ‘balance of probabilities’, that is, which side is more likely, not beyond a reasonable doubt, ****. Put in your own word there. With your standard of knowledge, maybe you should represent Plimer?
With 80% of all volcanic activity occurring under the ocean scientists hope to learn a great deal from the discovery……For the first time scientists witnessed molten lava flowing across the ocean’s bottom and discovered a new type of lava
Maybe you clowns might realise that scientists know very little about 80% of the worlds volcanos, a source of a great deal of carbon, as Pilmer was alluding to.
@Donald Oats
I doubt any of them would be willing to lift their heads up so their snouts are out of the trough long enough to take any notice of any email I sent them, unfortunately. The way those troughs operate, as recent revelations on executive remuneration seem to indicate, there is strong tribal loyalty with the other piglets. Hell, he may even be from the same litter.
@Tony G
Maybe you ‘red nosed’ ones would realise that real scientists, rather than some obscure geology clown, know enough to dismiss the ridiculous claim about ‘unknown undersea volcanoes’. If these mysterious volcanoes were releasing CO2 in the vast quantities the delusional Plimer speculates, it would be apparent in the ocean chemistry. Or does the totally discredited delusionist claim that these mysterious undersea volcanoes miraculously release the CO2 without it bubbling through the oceans? Maybe? If so maybe Plimer is the Messiah, or better still God, because that indeed is a miraculous and hence immaculate conception.
@Tony G
My bet is that he is “just a naughty boy.”
@Tony G
I suspected he was mad – but he resorts to underseas volanoes as the source of C02 rise??…..yeah right Tony G ha ha ha ha….what about the piglets like you and all the C02 you emit? (C02 = cheat, obfuscate and multiply).
@Alice
You might be on to something Alice. It is all exhaled Co2.
The additional CO2 is actually caused by an unbelievable massive number of CO2 exhaling aliens who live in the sea and come up to the surface to exhale. That is why their CO2 is not bubbling through the ocean and is not having a direct impact on its chemistry. But why didn’t someone as clever as Prof Plimer think of the explanation first?
@Tony G
Maybe Tony knows as much as Plimer?
Just in case you were out of town Tony, Plimer could not confirm that what he said is true
@Freelander
LOL Freelander – some sort of giant squid that surfaces once a year to exhale a vast quantity of CO2 into the atmosphere. What as I thinking?? Nobody ever noticed the giant squid except Plimer and Tony G. !!
@Alice
Yes. And it is all part of a conspiracy by them to get humans to institute a world government. They want us to have a world government because it will make things easier for them when they eventually take over.
Myself:
I’m waiting to see what Tony G has to say about the Keller citation and thus inform us whether he is brainless or dishonest or both.
The only people who are “dishonest” Chris are the ones who ignore 80% of all volcanic activity when they program their climate models. Anyone who takes notice of their fraudulent climate models is either “brainless or dishonest or both”.
Chris, You can beleive in this nou?veau alchemistic AGW crap, but just like the alchemists of old who had a cure for all diseases, the Alarmists will eventually be proved a fraud.
The alarmist fraudsters on this blog get very touchy when confronted with people like Plimer pointing out their many fraudulent alarmist claims. Maybe Plimer was getting close to the bone.
@Tony G
The modellers don’t ignore 80 per cent of all volcanic activity in their climate models. What they do ignore is delusional denierist ‘facts’ that some completely discredited geology clown pulls out of his posterior.
With even rudimentary knowledge of chemistry it is obvious that tens of thousands of scientists could not overlook the massive CO2 contribution Plimer claims (that they have not identified) that comes from under the sea.
Amongst other things there is the little matter of adding up. Real scientist, amongst other things, do measure contributions.
It is known how much CO2 is in the air. It is known how much comes from various sources and it is known where the CO2 goes. The changes in these measurments add up. Nothing is missing.
To account for the Plimer explanation would require rewriting the laws of addition. Maybe this is simple enough for you? Or maybe not?
Ho, ho, ho…
He’s not repeating that shibboleth.
tsk shakes head.
Tony G:
So you’re saying that Plimer contradicting Keller when claiming to cite him is not dishonest? You are either brainless or dishonest or both.
Thanks Tim.
The Lateline interview was the first occasion on which I had ever heard Plimers claim about volcanoes. With hindsight it is a bit of a surprise because I thought this debate had been settled following TGGWS when the same claim was made and then withdrawn. I have always accepted that humans are causing the rise in CO2 and other than TGGWS and Plimers Lateline claim I don’t recall having seen any serious questioning of this (plently have questioned the historical relationship between CO2 and warming).
Unless Ian Plimer somewhere answers the volcano question in a satisfactory way or changes his position then I’m content to concede that he is being intellectually dishonest.
Hey! Mann takes on Sarah in the WAPO (sorry in advance if this is trolling).
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/17/AR2009121703682.html
TerjeP (say tay-a), you can add Tony Abbott’s name to Plimer’s ‘intellectually dishonest’ list for both lack credibility and as Gary Morgan says: “Today’s first face-to-face Morgan Poll taken since Tony Abbott became the new Opposition Leader shows little change to the two-party preferred vote with the ALP (59%, up 0.5% from November 28/29, 2009) maintaining a strong lead over the Opposition (41%, down 0.5%). But in my opinion the Coalition are worse off since ousting Turnbull and going backwards.
@TerjeP (say tay-a)
The undersea volcano claims by Plimer have several flaws:
* As pointed out by others already, it has been examined by vulcanologists/marine geologists as to what amount of volcanic activity typically is occurring undersea. As examinations get more detailed no doubt more will be learned, at which point it will be reported in the traditional way by scientific article. Other posters here have pointed to references so I won’t in this case.
* Let’s play devil’s advocate for the moment and take Plimer’s claim that more CO2 is emitted undersea than humans do above land, oh say by a factor of 100 times. Here are the consequences based on observed CO2 fluxes.
Before human industrialisation and going right back 1 million years or so (10,000 years will do as that is just before widespread human agriculture) atmospheric CO2 levels were very stable, only changing in a tight band around the 270-280ppm concentrations. In this situation the contribution to atmospheric CO2 by underwater volcanoes must be balanced by something else removing the same amount of CO2 per year, year after year for a million years or so.
When the industrial revolutions starts and humans are emitting fossil fuel originated CO2 – which has a distinct isotopic signature – in relatively known quantities (we know figures for fossil fuel consumption on a global basis, thanks to economists), the atmospheric CO2 climbs 40%, to the present day 383ppm or so. Undersea volcanoes, to the best of my current knowledge, did not suddenly change their behaviour since the start of the industrial revolution, so it is fair to say that their contribution to atmospheric CO2 annually, has remained as before.
Therefore, even if underwater volcanoes emit (say) one hundred times more CO2 per annum than humans do, since the volcanic undersea emission is in balance, it nets out of the picture leaving the human atmospheric CO2 emissions. Hence, undersea volcanic activity might be imperfectly known, but that doesn’t mean the effect on atmospheric CO2 is unknown.
* Now to look at the fluxes (flows) of CO2 out of the ocean and into the ocean. This has been measured in net terms (flux out – flux in) and it is negative. That means in simple terms that the ocean is a net remover of CO2 from the atmosphere. Further evidence of this is from the acidification of upper layers of ocean and increases in dissolved CO2 in the upper layers. Therefore the acidification and the increased CO2 are further supporting evidence of the negative flux.
Then there is the utterly phony deafness to others trying to correct him on his (unsubstantiated, and dare I say it, unsubstantiatible claims on undersea volcanoes):
Ian Plimer has been repeatedly corrected on the record (twice on Lateline alone!) concerning the undersea volcano claims and he has been asked for evidence that supports his claim (about a million times by all sorts of people) and he will not provide it! He quite literally remains silent or changes the subject. Now a claim made by a scientist, which when challenged has no supporting evidence provided by the originator of the claim, is not a scientific claim because it doesn’t meet the minimum standard of being warranted by some line of evidence.
Plimer repeatedly posits this claim as fact (Lateline earlier this year), and as a fact relevant to the amtospheric CO2 emissions, in spite of all of the above.
That certainly meets my standard for this to be either a case of bulldust^fn1 or bald face lying.
Finally, it needs to be made clear that the above is with regards to undersea volcanoes. In his novel Plimer also discusses land volcanoes including supervolcanoes. There are a whole set of reasons that his (rather disjointed) line of argument concerning land-based volcanoes is ruinously flawed. But I’ve had enough for now…maybe later in Weekend Reflections.
Footnote 1: “Bullshit and Philosophy”, Gary L. Hardcastle and George A. Reisch (Eds), Open Court, Chicago (2006).
guys, great news!
According to this morning’s “The Whorestralian”, scientists are crying wolf over the Great Barrier Reef. if it gets too hot… the reef will just up and move south to Brisbane!
by the way, that is the front page story on the dead-tree paper, which I saw at wordsmiths this morning (while waiting for my latte – ha! just kidding, it was a flat white).
The editorial is about “the Africans”, who have “the least stake” in a global agreement (because most of Africa’s emissions apparently come from volcanoes), are “hijacking” Copenhagen.
A great follow up to the half-arsed editorial defense of Pilmer’s “unfortunate” Lateline performance that Donald Oats posted earlier up.
Hurry up and just go bankrupt already, News Limited.
Gerard, chill out.
As the reef continues its peripatetic progress South, its ultimate destination may become clearer. Think what it may mean, as it ultimately takes up options for a good posi (site is everything!), anchored off the Derwent Estuary.
Consider the implications.
Why, Gunns will pack in murdering whole catchment areas, not to mention Tassie Devils, but take up shares in a new Hayman Island Ferry fleet, that becomes the salvation of the Tas economy
Plimer claims that there are more CO2 emissions from volcanoes than from people, in the face of an estimate from the US Geological Survey, which states that humans produce 130 times more CO2 than the world’s volcanoes. Trying to reconcile this claim, Plimer states that they did not consider that 85% of the world’s volcanoes are submarine. If correct, this is still only amounts to a 6.6 fold adjustment to CO2 estimates and is a long way short of the 130-fold adjustment necessary to reconcile his claims with CO2 estimates from the US Geological Survey.
TerjeP:
In my view there is a big difference between people who, while they question the relationship between temperature and CO2, accept direct consequences of data ovservations, such as humans being the cause of additional atmospheric CO2 and that global warming is happening, and people who, like Plimer, deny such direct consequences.
The former are open to argument while the latter are probably beyond reason. Facts will not change the latter’s attitude.
Even if the 80% underwater volcanoes are, as Tony G insists, excluded, we would need to reconcile that figure with the one I heard on Lateline of people emitting 130? or so times the amount of CO2 as volcanos.
Assuming that the 130 x is only looking at the 20%, then that other 80% (only four times the “know” volcanoes) needs to emit a massive amount to overhaul that ratio and bring it back to less than 1. That takes some assuming.
If you get my drift.
Chris, what does Keller actually claim considering he uses various data sets with manual corrections to obtain his results? If Plimer does the same thing without the corrections and strangely low and behold he obtains a different cooling result, he is label a fraud by the very people who coined the fraudulent term AGW. The AGW label that had to be changed to Climate Change, as it yet can’t be proved the world is actually getting warmer.
If 1998 was the hottest temperature recorded in recent times and it is cooler now, then it has cooled over time since then. This doesnt include less recent periods many centuries ago, when they were growing crops in Icelend or grapes in the UK, when it was obviously hotter than 1998.
Freelander and Donald
When you have the Co-Chief Scientist Bob Embley of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) one of the chief scientific proponents of AGW/Climate always Changes, saying they know virtually nothing about underwater volcanic activity (80% of volcanic activity) and “for the first time” we “hope to learn how the earth recycles material when one tectonic plate subsides under another” you have to ask yourself the question, if they do not know what is going on now, how can they input ‘that’ data into a climate model to predict the future?
NOAA’s admits a “lack of knowledge” regarding volcanic activity occurring under the ocean, considering Plimers geological qualifications, his ‘deduced’ figures are as good as anybody else’s ‘deduced’ figures.
The science of the Climate always Changes, is blowin’ in the wind and is pure alchemy.
(Plimer & Tony G ” ‘AGW ‘, AKA the biggest scientific fraud in history”)
@Tony G
The fugacity of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is higher than the fugacity of the carbon dioxide in the ocean. Carbon dioxide is being absorbed by the oceans. If volcanoes were the source of the carbon dioxide in the ocean, the fugacities would be the other way around.
For a simple definition of fugacity, see
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/221428/fugacity
If you have done some introductory level mathematics and physical chemistry, see
http://www.geol.umd.edu/pages/facilities/lmdr/fug.html
If you could understand the more thorough treatment at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugacity
you would not be making such asinine comments in the first place.
Donald – what you are saying seems quite reasonable. I’m happy to dismiss the Plimer claim as being wrong. The idea that the rise in CO2 is caused by humans seems pretty rock solid. I’ve never contested it.
It was pathetic the way Plimer was waving his book into view at any oppornumity. The silly old fool must have thought he was on the shopping network. What is it with these old people anyway. Plimer and Wilson Tuckey should go and run a pub. I can imagine what the front bar conversation would be like.
@Tony G
Tony you are missing the point on the undersea volcanoes. Even if we don’t know anything at all about undersea volcanoes – and we do, in spite of the quotes given so far – what we do know is that the oceans are a net sink of CO2. In other words, more CO2 goes into the ocean than comes out of it, so on average it is accumulating CO2 from the atmosphere over time. I had hoped to make that clear in my previous post, but I’ll concede it was potentially confusing.
Oh,
and what @Alan said. But maybe don’t read Wikipedia reference, it will do your head in – unless you like stat mech for breakfast, lunch and dinner.
Nice try Alan, Nobody is saying if “volcanoes are the source of the carbon dioxide in the ocean,” The supposed concern is about the increase in atmospheric carbon.
Don maybe they are a nett sink, but to ignore the under water volcanic activity is not OK to say the least.
The ocean absorbs CO2 from the atmosphere in an attempt to reach equilibrium by direct air-to-sea exchange. This process takes place at an extremely low rate, measured in hundreds to thousands of years. However, once dissolved in the ocean, a carbon atom will stay there, on average, more than 500 years, The ocean absorbs very little carbon from undersea volcanic activity and as such most of it goes into the atmosphere. In fact there is a higher capacity for a liquid to hold a gas with a lower temperature than with a higher temperature. This means that when cold deep ocean water heats up due to volcanic activity it rises to the surface, the warmer water then actually releases CO2 into the atmosphere, instead of holding it down for over 500 years.
Considering NOAA’s admits to a “lack of knowledge” regarding volcanic activity occurring under the ocean, they probably omit to take into account the carbon released from the deep cold water disturbed by the volcanic activity as well as ignoring the carbon form the underwater volcanic activity.
It is mind-boggling how the lemmings on this site blindly follow without question the GIGO climate models that are based on the admitteed “lack of knowledge” data put forward by NOAA.
@Tony G
You are dreaming Tony G. Underwater volanoes? That is insane. As insane as your denials. But then some of us in here know that and dont bother feeding you.
@Tony G
The only lemming is you Tony G except everyone knows even a lemming is smarter.
From what I saw, Pilmer doesn’t accept that temperatures are rising, so the man-made question doesn’t arise. Why else go on about the 1998 thing?
Dolly – the recent trend is open to some interpretation based on timeframes selected and start and end points selected.
Given that JQ is first an economist, and that economic arguments often get an airing here, can those who have replied at length to Tony G (and others of his ilk) satisy my idle curiosity and say why they do so? It is obvious to me that Tony G cannot recognise either coherent argument or the standards required to establish the truth of some observable reality – and would not do so if these were biting his bum off. Pointing him to references he is determined to ignore, or setting out simple calculations he will not accept are surely a waste of time and effort. What’s the utility in it? BTW, I’ll accept any of “fun” and “it teaches me something” and “practice for talking to the ignorant rather than the determinedly stupid” as answers without further query – I really am curious.