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 
Peter T, assuming you’re not some sort of concern troll, the simple answer is that you can’t assume that bulls**t can be simply ignored. If it isn’t rebutted, the bulls***tters are emboldened. Besides, Tony G isn’t the audience for the responses. We already know that Tony doesn’t believe the stuff he says. It’s the people who might otherwise believe Tony’s bullshit.
Given the conservative predeliction for coercion in every policy prescription for any subject you care to name, I don’t see why the majority should not apply the same methods to the rightwing denialists and fillibusters, and rapidly.
The science is plain, the opposition to it is purely ideological and political and seems to arise from primitive and irrational fears residing deep in the rightwing mentality, and should be treated as such.
@Peter T
Perhaps I can answer that. I gave TerjeP an answer to a question brought up by Tony G: TerjeP got something useful out of it, I think, and maybe some others did too. Tony G may or may not have, but that isn’t – for me – really the point. If Tony G gets too narky or for that matter anyone else, Pr Q sorts it out pretty quick smart and always has the option of exiling them to anywhere but here.
@Peter T
Ill be honest – a bit of argy bargy is fun. Mind you I wouldnt go to the trouble of posting any links for Tony G. No utility in that for me. I only do that for people who make sense, will genuinely consider and fly with something other than the stock standard (these days) conservative auto pilot brazenly (and frighteningly) dishonest opinions.
TerjeP:
and other cherry-picking such as ignoring land temperatures as in the example that Terje picks.
One of the techniques of the denial industry is to minimize signal and maximize noise and this is perfectly illustrated by the example that Terje picks, i.e. signal is reduced by restricting data to oceans which are warming more slowly than land and noise is also increased by restricting data to oceans whose temperature varies more with El Niño/La Niña noise than it does over land.
Contrary to what Terje says, the data is not open to interpretation when you consider all the data, i.e. the trend in GLOBAL Land-Ocean Temperature Index since 1998 is substantially positive.
Tony G:
The point was about what Keller actually claimed regardless of what data he used. This is the quote from Lateline:
Again, you’d have to be brainless or dishonest to not realize that Plimer did not state the truth about what Keller said or perhaps I should also have included, blind.
@Peter T
“…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?”
Fun and I really do believe that Tony G (and his ilk) know[s] when he [they are] is being humiliated. His humiliation might be a precursor to doing something he clearly does rarely, think.
Plimer is embarrassing and being defended by TonyG isn’t helping his cause. If Ocean CO2 content rising from the top down isn’t enough to stop the undersea volcanic CO2 argument, it’s clear that observation and measurement aren’t really what Plimer is about. But I knew that.
Personally I think he may have learned a valuable lesson in his encounters with creationists; that people will part with good money to read and hear what the most want to be true. He may believe that adaptation is better than mitigation and even that nothing he says will change things but I don’t believe that even he believes his own arguments show AGW isn’t happening. He is probably just engaged in a personal adaptation program; having more money will buffer him from the impacts of climate change and parting the gullible from their money is much more lucrative than teaching – or doing real scientific research.
@Ken
Plimer must have a particularly thick hide, and so must many of the other deniers. Most people are somewhat reluctant to knowingly make themselves into a laughing stock, especially on a world stage. I suppose money could salve this injury.
@SJ
Hmmm interesting view SJ…hadnt thought of that one. If true time (not too long either) will reveal all…
@SJ
But no I dont think so…SJ. A concern troll wouldnt suggest “Tony G wouldnt recognise a coherent argument if it was biting his bum off”! It would have to be a first in here. A concern troll would start by apologising politely and then ever so nicely start putting the boot into the form of someone’s argument instead of its content…with diversion of the track elsewhere being the main objective. This is far too blunt to be a CT!.
@Tony G
Interesting, Tony G, from his previous page posts, doesn’t seem to understand that if vast quantities of CO2 get into the atmosphere from undersea ‘Plimer’ volcanoes, then the CO2 must bubble up through the ocean. Or maybe he doesn’t think the bubbling through the ocean makes a difference? Tony, have you ever seen a fish tank? Notice the bubbles. That is how the water is ‘oxygenated’. Got it?
@Chris O’Neill
In your quote above the term should read <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiosonde"radiosondes
Doubtless a transription error by some junior person who wasn’t familiar with it.
Fran – two fantastic typos in one burst
I love the poetry of ‘our specious they are’
and then read
@Fran Barlow
as ‘transpiration error’ which gives a lovely image of some junior flunky sweating away at the grindstone
@Freelander
CO2 from undersea volcanoes would be dissolved, not bubbling and would have to make it’s way to the surface via upwelling. The whole undersea volcanic CO2 argument is completely at odds with observable reality. But Plimer never intended to persuade marine scientists – or any kind of scientists who have views on these matters grounded in observable reality – his target audience is the uninformed with the intention of misinforming.
Come back TonyG, we want you to stay and defend this point.
@Ken
Even if bubbling, significant quantities would be dissolved anyway. I imagine that, given depth and pressure, and depending on rate of release, chances are that most if not all would be dissolved. Either way, given the vast quantities Plimer claims, the result would be clearly different from CO2 having been released directly into the atmosphere and then, some of it, getting into the ocean.
It is difficult to imagine that Plimer is serious unless he is completely nuts. Why the University of Adelaide allows him to continue, unscathed, to engage in what many identify as academic fraud, on the topic of climate change, is a mystery. Surely they have some academics and scientists there?
@Freelander
Money Freelander – Uni Adelaide probably getting a cut of the book deal. Why else?
@Ken
says ” his (Plimer’s) target audience is the uninformed with the intention of misinforming.
per Voltaire (this is my quote of the week folks!(
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
The Plimers of the world are dangerous. More dangerous than we ascribe to them.
I really think that it would be good if a petition or something were started on the issue. A petition to urge the university to take action against Plimer for academic fraud. I also think that if there isn’t a class action against Plimer for misrepresenting his book as a work of non-fiction it would be good if complaints were made to the ACCC. Surely the misrepresentation must breach the Trade Practices Act? I don’t have the energy to do this but maybe some of those who are going on hunger strikes might.
Can anyone on this blog answer what increase in warming has actually occurred above 0.77deg since 1998?
@KJ
Que?
That sounds like a silly Plimer type question. The type of silly question that Plimer set for Monbiot.
For starters it is not clear what you mean, or if you are even looking for an answer. Do you mean to say that there has been a warming of 0.77 since 1998? And what increase has occurred above this since 1998? Your question doesn’t even seem to make sense. Anyway, why are you asking it here. We are unlikely to be the people who have that information. Although, many of the people here do believe the people who would know. That is why they are not anthropogenic climate change deniers.
SJ said; “It’s the people who might otherwise believe Tony’s bulls….”
SJ, if you:
could prove causation, no one would be calling AGW BS;
had rising temperatures instead of falling temperatures since 1998, no one would be calling AGW BS;
had an ETS that actually reduced carbon emissions, instead of a scheme that doesn’t reduce carbon emissions and only taxes people and then redistributes that wealth to the poor and the 3rd world, no one would be calling it BS;
State that water vapour, relative humidity and air pressure have little effect on air temperature. Leaving these items out of your climate models leaves only one item in your climate model…BS.
Making rash generalisations about tipping points whilst totally ignoring the existence of 80% of the worlds volcanoes can only be construed as BS.
Chris;
If Keller said “the recent data blows away the contention that there has been no further warming.” I agree with him as it blows away warming.
“Snowstorms and subfreezing temperatures have battered Europe, killing 29 people in Poland alone, and wreaking havoc on air, train and car travellers……..Meanwhile, in the US, the Federal Government was closed yesterday after a record-breaking snowstorm swept across the north-east of the country.”
Wilful said
“Come back TonyG, we want you to stay and defend this point.”
No, there is nothing to defend until you come up with the figures on the submarine volcanoes.
Ken, Wilful and Freelander.
There is a S… load of tetonic plates with associated volcanoes under the oceans that your climate models totally ignore (This ignorance has been admitted by NOAA). The climate models fail to deal with the carbon that submarine volcanoes release and also the climate models fail to account or even attempt to calculate the energy they release. They do not know how many or where these submarine volcanoes are, although they have been trying for 25 years to study them. If you had any data on how they affect fluxing and emissions (which you don’t) it would be taken apart as BS like the rest of your BS AGW hypothesis.
@Freelander
A. I came across this site via a recommendation from one of John’s former work colleagues.
The banter looks robust if not a little bit overly emotional .
It’ not a hard question, (what increase has occurred above this since 1998?) Is probably more concise, thanks!
From my own personal experience it is the answer that is more of a challenge.
“Anyway, why are you asking it here. We are unlikely to be the people who have that information. Although, many of the people here do believe the people who would know.”
This statement was exactly what I thought 3 years ago when I voted in Rudd. Having listened to the ABC for a couple of years , having previously done front line forest activist campaigns,front line G20 protests, organised and site managed tree planting events before finally moving to a reasonably self sufficient block in a mountain ash forest. Am I somehow less concerned with good stewardship of the planet than you ?
Of course not! My somewhat ‘hands on’ insider perspective is that the enviro movement is not all it’s glossy veneer would seem. My wife’s perspective as a former scientist for the UN is similar.
What is so wrong with the answer. We all know it. “A. None” It’s the implications of saying that answer that stops people. I was one who wouldn’t answer it previously and then I did.
Have you read the cop15 document? One can never truly be ‘free’ if you cant vote out a government that rules over you ? Doesn’t that concern you ‘freelander’?
Think for yourself! Look up that answer and ask more questions. The UN is essentially “immoral” eg. Gadaffi getting voted in as head of Human Rights Commission !what a joke!
All it’s(UN) sub branches sponsor research into how The UN can Save the world. Nearly every policy document requires them to takeover and manage the problem. Funny that.
As an environmentalist I’m more interested in reducing the gov’t footprint on my kids democratic rights . In reading dozens of UN policy documents I’ve never seen ‘democratic principles” feature heavily.
Good stewardship of the planet relies on ‘fact based logic’ not a ‘belief system’. Observed data over climate model theories.
I encourage you to suspend your beliefs to take up that challenge.
@KJ
Yes. I thought you were nuts. The silly question gave it away.
@KJ
Is the answer “a. none”? Given that there wasn’t even a well formed question, there is no answer. Taking a guess at what you are trying to say… If you think that the ‘factual’ evidence is that global warming stopped in 1998, I think only you and the other crazies believe that one.
As for the UN being essentially immoral, do you think you are saying anything that isn’t widely known? Politics is essentially immoral, nationally and internationally. Copenhagen was a great example. Might is right.
Many people have concluded that AGW is not true simply because the solution involves collective action. But wishful thinking isn’t the way to get a good grasp on reality.
@Tony G
More extreme events is exactly what has been predicted. Instead of recognising that recent weather in Europe is completely consistent with climate change you seem to think that somehow it is evidence against.
@Freelander
Freelander KJ was here a few weeks ago under another name……..as a used to be environmental activist. He writes….
“having previously done front line forest activist campaigns,front line G20 protests, organised and site managed tree planting events before finally moving to a reasonably self sufficient block in a mountain ash forest. Am I somehow less concerned with good stewardship of the planet than you ?”
These are very similar to lines used by Sea Bass (is that you Sea Bass? “I used to be a lefty”). Nothwithstanding….its probably on page 53 of the troll and sock puppet manual….
1. enter blog 2. post seemingly innocuous question 3. respond to first response with incredibly extended response….4. make sure you convince people of your “concern troll” credibility by posing as an environmental activist…5. finally slam any and all government or institutional actions on the environment.
ALS troll.
Freelander, proposing that warmer temperatures as opposed to colder temperatures produce ice and snow, clearly indicates you are an over zealous follower of the religion of Environmentalism.
Modern environmentalism “the religion of choice for urban atheists … a perfect 21st century re-mapping of traditional JudeoChristian beliefs and myths.”
Environmentalism is a religion where its main tenet is “raw nature” as god-like, and Mankind as a plague infecting it. If you support environmentalism, the fact is that you’re supporting an ideology that promotes the destruction of Mankind – and concretely, that includes yourself and everyone you care about.
The bottom line: The most consistent, dedicated environmentalists want me, and everyone else, to die. It’s as simple as that. They value the life of trees over that of humans.
Any other supposed goals are a means to that ultimate end; the destruction of industrial civilization around the world means the death of the vast majority of current humanity. They know this. Every single smaller goal of environmentalism is consistent with that ultimate goal; do not be deluded into thinking that environmentalism is about improving your life or any human life.
Rolling blackouts and insanely high land costs in many parts of Australia caused by environmentalist regulations are only the start. To the environmentalist religion, as long as a single human being lives, the Earth has a problem. This is what you support every time you repeat an environmentalist slogan – every time you donate your time or money to Greenpeace, The Australian Conservation Society, or similar organizations.
@Alice
If I had to guess, I’d say KJ was a LaRouchite. The patter sounds very much on their page. Then again. TonyG also sounds like he’s from that neck of the woods …
Hmmm
@nanks
Ah … typos … the bane of online existence …
They really offend my desire for tidiness.
to tony G
Well yes many people are driven by faith commitments to engage on issues of climate change and many of them curiously enough are Christians who operate on the understanding that we are responsible for what we do with the gift of live and world of which we are a part.
Part of that responsibility is to live within limits, that is with restraint and respect for the world of which we are a part. Dust we are and to dust we shall return.
Many of the poor and marginalised of the world are now suffering directly from the greed and excess of western consumerism and many of them quite rightly are drawing that fact to our attention.
If you want to understand the arguments underlying such an ethic let me commend to you the writings of Wendell Berry, a Kentucky farmer who has developing sucg an ethic.
The question you need to ask yourself is why so few of the people you are criticising would see your account of what they stand for as an accurate account of what they stand for.
Many of the people I know who hold strong views on the need for an active approach to renewing the earth are actively involved with the poor of the world in places like Bangladesh helping them to find ways to adapt to the impact of climate change.
How would your argument account for this reality?
@Tony G
Yeah, right. Freelander did not state nor imply nor require that warmer temperatures cause ice and snow, Tony G, and you surely know that.
As anyone who has performed even the rudimentary intellectual reflection necessary to understand the concept of Mean Global Temperature would know, local temperature is not the same thing. Doh! In case you don’t understand Tony G, I’ll say it again: Doh!
The entire USA constitutes a miniscule fraction of the Earth’s surface (1 to 2%, haven’t got the most accurate figures on me). Therefore even a majorly cold winter there isn’t going to move the mean global temperature by much, is it Tony G?
The converse question that entirely escapes Tony G is this: If a majorly cold winter in the USA and parts of Europe only decreases the mean global temperature by say 0.05C to 0.1C, what the Hell does it take to increase the mean global temperature by 1.0C, 1.5C, 2.0C, 3.0C!!! If for sake of argument the mean global temperature was 13.5C at the beginning of the 20th Century, just what the Hell is going to happen if/when it reaches 15.5C?
Well, once we leave the land of Minchin’s morons and return to the real world, we can probably appreciate that even a 1.0C increase in mean global temperature may mean serious changes to our way of life. A 2.0–3.0C increase will mean it! At 6.0C I’m gonna be living on the highest peak of Antarctica, quite enthusiastically fighting off the marauding hordes of Tonies who are still looking for someone to blame…
@Tony G
Of course I am not suggesting that warmer temperatures, as opposed to colder temperatures cause ice and snow, nit wit. With more energy in the system not only does the average go up but there are more extreme events. The job of the weather system, in redistributing the energy coming in from the sun becomes greater. There wouldn’t be as much of a problem if the increase in temperature was uniform across the planet and around the year. How about making a rash attempt to think for a change?
The weather system is a tad more complicated than a climate change denier’s thought bubbles.
@Freelander
That said, your point about volatility is sound. If for example, the Gulf Stream slows due to meltwater from sheets of ice on land entering the North Atlantic, then warm water will pool around the Carribbean with its own consequences even as both sides of the North Atlantic experience temporarily chillier conditions.
So a secondary effect of global warming would be tempoerary seasonal regional cooling driven by disruption of water transport.
@Fran Barlow
Maybe….Fran. It was the “Im more interested in reducing the gov’t footprints on my kids democratic rights’ that made me think ALS but you could be right…a la rouchie…anyway hes gone…another one bites the dust. Just where Tony G is coming from?….well that is an even more interesting ponder.
@Fran Barlow
Fran…I tips me hat to those who devote (and have devoted) countless posts to the proper education of Tony G tho! I guess some students never learn.
Doug said,
Many of the people I know who hold strong views on the need for an active approach to renewing the earth are actively involved with the poor of the world in places like Bangladesh helping them to find ways to adapt to the impact of climate change.
How would your argument account for this reality?
Dougie, that is the paradox for the hypocritical religion of choice for urban atheists, environmentalism. Industrialisation is the only way to lift a Bangladeshi out of poverty, but according to them, that entails supporting an ideology that promotes the destruction of the planet.
So what is it to be Dougie? Environmentalism that throws away industrialisation reducing human life expectancy back to the 30 year average of a Bangladeshi . Or the Christian virtue of giving the Bangladeshi the full benefit of modern resources and technology that would increase his life expectancy to our 65 year average?
@Tony G
Tony G – have you noticed anyone (like eg the free market) giving Bangladeshis any technology or industrialisation lately?
@Tony G
That is a completely false choice derived from right wing think tanks. You are so predictably full of denialist talking points. Reducing climate change should focus on using energy more efficiently and finding the cheapest way to reducing AGW pollution. I have cut my own energy use without disavowing technology, development or progress. You speak for vested energy interests not developing countries who are more exposed to the effects of climate change and asking for cuts in carbon emissions produced by developed countries.
@Tony G
Large icebergs from antartica floating at higher latitudes, more evidence of global cooling? And I agree with Alice’s last comment, I don’t see your unfettered free market types having anything but contempt for the poor or those in the third world.
Denying reality is not an effective way of addressing reality.
SJ at #1, Alice at #10 – how many kinds of troll are there?
Tony G clearly is one, which makes the general effort to “educate” him laudable but surprising.
I see a recent Neilson’s survey showed 42% of Australians believed in evolution, 55% in creationism or intelligence design. This after more than a century of compulsory education, plenty of simple explanations, lots of good books, a dinosaur craze that has lasted 30 or so years, and no formal teaching of either creation of intelligent design in science classes. See http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/2009/12/23/politics-and-faith-a-nielsen-poll/.
I would not be surprised if, 100 years from now, the few surviving intellectual descendants of Tony G are not still protesting from some overheated swamp that it was all a hoax. But since I am not inclined to play silly games at the expense of my grandchildren’s lives, I wonder if we are not reaching the point where something stronger than gentle argument is needed.
@Peter T
Lots of different types of Trolls…ask JQ – he did have a category list somewhere.
Charles F. Keller .. said that the recent data from satellite and radio sondes, which are weather balloons, the recent data blows away the contention that there has been no further warming.
Tony G: “I agree with him as it blows away warming.”
Tony G, you’re an idiot.
@Alice
Definitely not a concern troll, Alice!
@Donald Oats
Yep – unconcerned troll Don.
Chris,
Generally, the derider has an inflated view of themselves of which they are trying to mask. More specifically, derision is used in a debate to hide deficiencies in a party’s assertion.
When your time series shows 1998 as the hottest year and every year following is cooler than 1998; and Keller uses the ambiguous statement;” the recent data blows away the contention that there has been no further warming.”; it is safe to assume there actually has been “no further warming”. Under such circumstances it would be difficult in a debate to assert there has been warming and as such it is understandable that derision would be your only option.
What an amazing piece of interpretation – in which a statement which clearly points to x being the case is interpreted by Tony G to mean that x is not the case.
On Bangladesh I simply make the point that climate change is happening now and that people are currently engaged in assisting them to cope with that reality and that people are doing so not out of some “religion” of environmentalism but out of a conviction that we are called to care for our neighbour.
@Tony G
Derision is often used on the worthy objects of derision. You have long been derision worthy.
The 1998 was the hottest therefore its been cooling since then is an incredibly silly argument and either you know it or you don’t. Either way you are worthy of derision. If you know how silly it is why are you trotting it out and if you don’t, well, say no more.
You have said such silly things on this blog that either you are simply trying to annoy, you are some kind of masochist who wishes to invite derision, or you are just not too bright. I would guess you are not in the last category, so which of the other two are you in?