2. Prof. Ian Plimer on climate change debate and his new book Heaven & Earth

[chotaboy66]

Why do you need to read other peoples comments cant you logically think for yourself or are you a group thinker and please where is the overwhelming support in the literature.

The legitimate literature that is overwhelming actually dose not support man made global warming its only political lies and twisted media that portrays this to people that dont bother to question the motives of all involved. There is no one to blame except the people themselves for not questioning there own reality.

[mryellow123]

A bit of math for you all.

Count the number of times he raises the book he's selling.

Compare with the amount of questions he actually answers in any way other then saying "it's in the book".

Simple book saleman fraudster, there is 1 or 2 in every industry.

[chotaboy66]

@mryellow123 Have you read the book?

[mryellow123]

So I take it you've given this scammer money?

[chotaboy66]

So I take it you have no idea because you have not answered my question.

Ignorance is the false ego's defence against pure fear of reality

[mryellow123]

I answered your question.

I consider this guy a simple book scammer. There is no way I'd give him money.

So I have to buy the book before he'll answer a direct question? Tony bought the book and still didn't get one single answer.

I love the ignorance quote...... That one must make you feel special.

The guy is pure 100% bullshit.

[chotaboy66]

To answer your question "NO" I did not pay money but I have read the book.

And allot of Ian's info only confirms my research on climate change.

One would have to comprehend that tony is only a product of the diss info media campaign designed to miss guide the ignorant australians that are taking the mainstream propaganda as gospel.

Books do have educational value and Yes they do cost money as all books cost money ,so what you dont have to be a genius to work that one out.

[mryellow123]

Then why does he flat out lie so much?

You've been conned.

[chotaboy66]

Your asking 'why' are you confused my friend.

Is he lieing which you seem to dont comprehend WHY or dose he have merit which you might understand with conscious research of the book claims which you havent read or is this is your illogical illusion view on reality regarding clmate change talking here..

"Ignorance is the false ego's defence against pure fear of reality"

And yes I do feel special because I know the truth and I dont need control minds to make decisions and assumptions for me..

[mryellow123]

Stopped reading at "my friend".

His whole arguement is a constructed load of bullshit designed to be controversial to sell his book. His miss-quoting of sources has been pointed out by many of the sources themselves.

He's a book scammer. Simple.

Go buy "The Secret" or "DaVinci Code" you'll enjoy them lol.

[chotaboy66]

You seem to think this illusion is an argument now are you feeling ok.

I offer freindship and knowledge and your eyes close in fear of reality ,Im not here for an arguement Im here to try to figure out why you ridicule this man with out even reading or researching his litrature ,on this basis one would not even conceive a hostile attack on this man's character or his sources.

[mryellow123]

Why ridicule him?

Maybe cause he's an obvious book scammer?

If he answered ***ONE*** question in the whole interview then maybe I wouldn't consider him to be a douche.

[chotaboy66]

My final comment.

You cant be serious Your comment dose not make any logical sense.

Quote from the beginning of this clip.

Q;THis is fundamental to your whole argument isn't.

A;No it isn't ,What is fundamental

What planet are you from or are you some kind of spook here to discredit the factual evidence that throws the whole global warming conspiracy THEORY out the door with nothing more than your claim you think he's a book scammer,.

You sir are delusional & I'm sorry I cant help you.

[mryellow123]

That's fine, you're very caught up on "I know the truth".

This is a mistake many people seem to make, they get more caught up in how cool it is to be "different" and to know the "truth", then keeping their mind.

[mryellow123]

It's a simple formula for making money used by many authors. All it takes is no conscious or morals and the rest is easy.

[chotaboy66]

Thats why people buy newspapers that generally get discarded in the rubbish bin as these information scorces are trully missleading and have little to no credit other than the sports page.

[nationofjoe]

Paranoia incarnate. Whenever you disagree with something that is overwhelmingly supported by the scientific literature do you blame the NWO as well?

[nationofjoe]

ok reading your other comments have led me to conclude that you're just joking around.

[mryellow123]

Basic high school chemistry.

Equilibrium.

Dig up the stable stuff and make it reactive and you have a problem with the state of the system.

[faarkthelite]

The environmental debate and discussion has been hijacked by AGW and its proponents who all have an agenda of some kind, be that to make bazillions of dollars off the back of it or as a mechanism to impose their political beliefs on the rest of us who just want to live our lives without feeling guilty about it every second of the day. This means that real, useful and pragmatic discussion of the effects of the changing climate (which we can't control) and how to deal with them cannot be had.

[cristop5]

"For human arrogance to think we can change the way the planet operates is laughable"

I wouldn't underestimate the impact of turning HALF of the planet's forests into CO2. So you boost the concentration of CO2 while removing carbon sinks.

On top of that you extract billions of tonnes of coal and oil that were laid down over tens of millions of years, and turn that into CO2 too. So CO2 goes from 280ppm to 385ppm in just 200yrs.

Why wouldn't you expect this to have an effect on our climate?

[CDKS4]

cristop5

Point 1: NASA satellites have measured the amount of biomass (vegetation) on the planet and it has actually increased by 6.2% (despite deforestation) in the last 20 years. We're feeding plant life lots of CO2 so it's not much of a surprise. Of course we should still save forests for other reasons.

Point 2: CO2 efficacy is asymptotic.  This means that the more you put in the atmosphere, the less affect each new ppm has.

[cristop5]

Thanks for point 1, very interesting. I must say a 6.2% increase in net primary production sounds remarkable. I hope it continued past 1999.

Your second point is close to conjecture though. The world's climate is more complicated than a simple chemical system. There are many feedback mechanisms that might or do kick in as conditions warm.

e.g. tundra thawing, ocean outgassing, more forest fires, shrinking ice-fields etc.

[pseudotruth]

jerepah pt 2

The remainder of your claims are just as inaccurate!

As for the 31000 figure. That is bogus too. If you're talking relevant expertise, then all the engineers, physicians veterinarians etc. go.

That leaves:

Atmospheric Science (113); Climatology (39); Meteorology (341); Astronomy (59)

Astrophysics (26).

[pseudotruth]

jerepah pt 3

So only .1% of the individuals on the list of 30,000 signatures have a scientific background in Climatology. To be fair we can add in those who claim to have a background in Atmospheric Science, which brings the total percentage of signatories with a background in climate change science to a whopping .5%

I'm really impressed - not!

[RussellMcGilton]

How can you take anything Plimer says as fact when he's blinded by his own self interest...he owns three mining companies! No wonder he ducked out of a climate change debate with Monbiot, the gutless fraud!

[pseudotruth]

RussellMcGilton

Plimer's directorships encompass a number of mining companies. As far as can tell, only Ivanhoe produces coal. The other interests seem to be metal ore mines.

Google

Ian Plimer Ivanhoe mine director coal

Ivanhoe SouthGobi Energy Resources coal

The fact remains Plimer has a vested interest in undermining [!] the science of AGW.

Add to that plagiarism and telling outright lies - that makes his resumé really stand-out!

Ian Plimer Heaven + Earth checking the claims Enting

[pseudotruth]

jerepah

First of all you need to get your facts right.

The signatories signed a petition, yes, but what does the petition say? Does it say "..,manmade global warming as a 'scientific fraud'"?

No, it says:

"..,There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate..,"

You are being dishonest!

[pseudotruth]

Jerepah

'Exactly what science is that?'

There is clearly a disconnect between myth and reality. There is only one kind of science. It is objective, peer-reviewed and published in a web of science journal

Everything else is irrelevant. That means that your beloved Plimer's claims [even if they weren't bogus & plagiarised] would be irrelevant. As indeed are websites like McFraudit; μWatts; Junkscience etc. Additionally the WaPo; Fox News; CNN; Glenn Beck; Energy & Environment are all irrelevant

[jerepah]

Quote: 'More than 31,000 scientists from across the United States including more than 9,000 Ph.Ds from the fields of climatology, atmospheric science, earth science, and hydrology signed a petition rejecting manmade global warming as a 'scientific fraud'. This shattered the hopes of the so-called consensus that the mainstream [corporate-owned] media have been pushing for years, that every scientist on earth believed that manmade global warming was a fact.'

See aim org or pt.14 Fall of Repub

[pseudotruth]

It looks like Plimer is guilty of plagiarism.

Google

Ian Plimer is a con artist

Plimer the plagiarist

[jerepah]

Better still, have the intestinal fortitude (aka "guts") to watch Pts. 1, 2, 3 of Fall of The Republic which I've just uploaded, and comment? I wait with bated breath. Also what did you make of the Rauni Kilde video (current top of my 'favs')? Is she right? Any validity in what she says?

[pseudotruth]

jerepah

I note no support for Plimer who managed to make exactly the same errors as Ferdinand Engelbeen, but much later! And yet Plimer does not cite Engelbeen! Sounds like plagiarism to me!

Don't forget the catalogue of Plimer's climate tripe.

Google

Ian Plimer Heaven + Earth checking the claims Enting

I'm not interested in videos. I'm interested in the science and ensuring that deceivers get the recognition they deserve.

[jerepah]

"I'm not interested in videos." How convenient. "I'm interested in the science." Exactly what science is that? In the "Al Gore Slammed By Congress!" video above, Louisiana Senator Steve Scalise makes the valid point (at 1:55) that once Al's carbon trading scheme kicks in it'll cost millions of Americans their jobs which will go to China and India, and then that's where the carbon will continue to be emitted. Seems you're fully in favour of the demise of the American Empire? Who do you represent?

[pseudotruth]

jerepah

Since you clearly believe Plimer holds the key to collapsing the edifice of AGW:

Perhaps you could answer Monbiot's questions for Plimer, since the characteristically pugilistic Plimer was evidently too lily-livered to answer for himself!

Of course the most important question to ask Plimer is: Why have you become so shy all of a sudden?

google

Monbiot Let battle commence! Climate change denialist ready for the fight

[heloizyjhenifer]

"When you're finished interrupting yourself I'll [...]"

pwned

[pseudotruth]

There's a smell all right and it's coming from Plimer and his book of fiction masquerading as science.

Google ian enting Ian Plimers Heaven + Earth — Checking the Claims

For a point-by-point debunking of Plimer's pseudo-science. Unfortunately, you will need to get a copy of Plimer's book from the library - Don't buy it!

[killthealarmists]

Wow, broken record dude.

You really are the kind of person that is going to make us spend trillions of dollars on the rong response to clmiate change.

[pseudotruth]

killthealarmists

Why does Plimer refuse to debating his claims, when there's the chance he can't use his typical tactic of continually changing the subject?

If Plimer's science were as sound as he claims: why does he write an error-strewn book, rather than publishing his so-called evidence in the peer-reviewed scientific literature.

I'm no fan of the prospect of AGW. But wishful thinking won't make it go away. The science indicates a scary future.

Check Enting's list of Plimer's errors.

[killthealarmists]

I've checked a number of other authors that have written de-bunkings of Plimers book, but they are from professionals that are specialists in unrelated fields (biologists, astronomers, etc.). Climatology is a good idea for a specialty, but it should include all of the discilpines and considerations that Plimer draws attention to in his book. Current models ignore too much, and most of the "proof" of climate change relies experiments that are too narrow. He has had plenty of stuff peer reviewed.

[pseudotruth]

killthealarmists

Plimer is a geologist. NOT a climate scientist

He has made numerous specious arguments and refused to debate his claims when he could be cross-examined about their veracity. Thereby preventing his normal tactic of constantly switching from bogus claim to bogus claim, so nobody can get a word in edgewise

Why doesn't he blow climate science apart with an article in a premier peer-reviewed science journal like Nature?

Answer, because he knows it would be deservedly binned!