Ian Plimer in this months SC.

[David L. Jones]

It had to happen I guess, Ian Plimer has a big feature letter in this months
SC.
After being scarred from reading his book recently I couldn't make it past
the first paragraph, my mind instantly when back into limbo again.
How many issues is that now about carbon polution and energy etc?

BTW, I couldn't help screen grabbing this when I saw it:
http://www.alternatezone.com/images/SCeditorial.png
Either it's poor ad placement or Leo has had a make-over!

Dave.
--
================================================
Check out my Electronics Engineering Video Blog & Podcast:
http://www.eevblog.com

 

[Trevor Wilson]

"David L. Jones" <altzone@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:IpVwm.11862$ma7.1764@newsfe04.iad...

It had to happen I guess, Ian Plimer has a big feature letter in this
months SC.
After being scarred from reading his book recently I couldn't make it past
the first paragraph, my mind instantly when back into limbo again.
How many issues is that now about carbon polution and energy etc?

BTW, I couldn't help screen grabbing this when I saw it:
http://www.alternatezone.com/images/SCeditorial.png
Either it's poor ad placement or Leo has had a make-over!

Dave.

**Poor old Leo has really lost the plot. Did you read his comments about
Steve Fielding (Family First)? Yikes! Fielding is hardly a towering
intellect, what, with all that God stuff. Leo is actually putting this moron
forward as an example of an intelligent politician. His belief in the
supernatural rules him out of any discussion about logic, reason and
science.

Wake up and smell the coffee, Leo. Plimer got it wrong when he claimed the
CO2 levels lag temperature rises. He was proven wrong and he steadfastly
avoided dealing with the facts.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[KR]

On Oct 1, 1:32 pm, "David L. Jones" <altz...@gmail.com> wrote:

It had to happen I guess, Ian Plimer has a big feature letter in this months
SC.
After being scarred from reading his book recently I couldn't make it past
the first paragraph, my mind instantly when back into limbo again.
How many issues is that now about carbon polution and energy etc?

Several. Good to see too.


Dont feed the troll though. (Tosspot)

BTW, I couldn't help screen grabbing this when I saw it:http://www.alternatezone.com/images/SCeditorial.png
Either it's poor ad placement or Leo has had a make-over!

Dave.
--
===============================================> Check out my Electronics Engineering Video Blog & Podcast:http://www.eevblog.com

 

[Roger Dewhurst]

Wake up and smell the coffee, Leo. Plimer got it wrong when he claimed the
CO2 levels lag temperature rises. He was proven wrong and he steadfastly
avoided dealing with the facts.

No. Plimer did not get it wrong. In fact all parties pretty much agree
that CO2 levels lag temperature rise; some just try and explain that
away, not very successfully.

A number of mechanisms are required to explain climate change and CO2 is
the least of these. Continental drift, now more fashionably but less
descriptively known as plate tectonics, is involved in locating the
continents to permit the necessary deep oceanic currents which transfer
heat. The Milankovitch cycles are are an obvious but not sufficient
contributor. There are the solar cycles of which the best known is
about 11 years. There are other longer cycles. The reversals and
changes in the earth's magnetic field are probably a factor. Much of
the radiation from space is trapped in the Van Allen belts. This
radiation gets through when the Van Allen belts collapse along with the
geomagnetic field.

R

 

[Trevor Wilson]

"Roger Dewhurst" <dewhurst@wave.co.nz> wrote in message
news:ha39s3$g83$1@lust.ihug.co.nz...

Wake up and smell the coffee, Leo. Plimer got it wrong when he claimed
the CO2 levels lag temperature rises. He was proven wrong and he
steadfastly avoided dealing with the facts.

No. Plimer did not get it wrong. In fact all parties pretty much agree
that CO2 levels lag temperature rise; some just try and explain that away,
not very successfully.

**Bollocks. Plimer just repeated other bollocks promoted by others. The
stats tell a completely different story. CO2 levels lead and lag temperature
rises with approximately similar frequency. Right now, we are experiencing a
CO2 rise which is preceding the temperature rise. Here is the data that
Plimer and Simpson carefully avoid dealing with:

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/

A number of mechanisms are required to explain climate change and CO2 is
the least of these.

**Without any CO2 in the atmosphere, this planet would be a cold,
unihabitable rock. No one disputes this fact. Therefore, CO2 is as important
as any other influence on climate. Removing any one influence will spell
disaster. Disregarding the influence of CO2 is just foolish.

Continental drift, now more fashionably but less

descriptively known as plate tectonics, is involved in locating the
continents to permit the necessary deep oceanic currents which transfer
heat. The Milankovitch cycles are are an obvious but not sufficient
contributor. There are the solar cycles of which the best known is about
11 years. There are other longer cycles. The reversals and changes in
the earth's magnetic field are probably a factor. Much of the radiation
from space is trapped in the Van Allen belts. This radiation gets through
when the Van Allen belts collapse along with the geomagnetic field.

**All of which, and more, allow this planet to be capable of supporting life
as we know it. One of those factors is the CO2 levels we have evolved with.
Increase those levels and things will go awry.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Roger Dewhurst]

**Bollocks. Plimer just repeated other bollocks promoted by others. The
stats tell a completely different story. CO2 levels lead and lag temperature
rises with approximately similar frequency. Right now, we are experiencing a
CO2 rise which is preceding the temperature rise. Here is the data that
Plimer and Simpson carefully avoid dealing with:

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/



**All of which, and more, allow this planet to be capable of supporting life
as we know it. One of those factors is the CO2 levels we have evolved with.
Increase those levels and things will go awry.

There is not a shred of evidence in support of that proposition.

R

 

[Roger Dewhurst]

**Bollocks. Plimer just repeated other bollocks promoted by others. The
stats tell a completely different story. CO2 levels lead and lag temperature
rises with approximately similar frequency. Right now, we are experiencing a
CO2 rise which is preceding the temperature rise. Here is the data that
Plimer and Simpson carefully avoid dealing with:

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/

Nine years old. More recent and more detailed study shows that CO2
always lags temperature.

Currently CO2 does not correlate with temperature at all.

Increase those levels and things will go awry.

There is not a shred of evidence to support that proposition.

R

 

[Roger Dewhurst]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

Are you the Trevor Wilson who used to post loony ideas about gun control?

If so have you switched your loony tunes?

R

 

[Trevor Wilson]

"Roger Dewhurst" <dewhurst@wave.co.nz> wrote in message
news:ha3e4j$iqn$1@lust.ihug.co.nz...

**Bollocks. Plimer just repeated other bollocks promoted by others. The
stats tell a completely different story. CO2 levels lead and lag
temperature rises with approximately similar frequency. Right now, we are
experiencing a CO2 rise which is preceding the temperature rise. Here is
the data that Plimer and Simpson carefully avoid dealing with:

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/

Nine years old. More recent and more detailed study shows that CO2 always
lags temperature.

**Feel free to provide more current information.

Currently CO2 does not correlate with temperature at all.

**Let's see your cite first, before we jump to any conclusions. The data I
supplied may be 9 years old, but the the data it refers to is more than
400,000 years old.

Increase those levels and things will go awry.

There is not a shred of evidence to support that proposition.

**Then you need to explain (precisely) the influences that have given us the
rapid temperature rise we've noted over the last 200 years. Don't foget:
Solar variability has already been factored in at around 20% of the total.
You need to explain the other 80%. I'm going with CO2 level rises, but I'll
interested in hearing your thoughts.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Trevor Wilson]

"Roger Dewhurst" <dewhurst@wave.co.nz> wrote in message
news:ha3e85$iqn$2@lust.ihug.co.nz...

Trevor Wilson wrote:

Are you the Trevor Wilson who used to post loony ideas about gun control?

**Depends. What "loony ideas" do you refer to? (A precise answer is required
please)


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Roger Dewhurst]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

"Roger Dewhurst" <dewhurst@wave.co.nz> wrote in message
news:ha3e4j$iqn$1@lust.ihug.co.nz...
**Bollocks. Plimer just repeated other bollocks promoted by others. The
stats tell a completely different story. CO2 levels lead and lag
temperature rises with approximately similar frequency. Right now, we are
experiencing a CO2 rise which is preceding the temperature rise. Here is
the data that Plimer and Simpson carefully avoid dealing with:

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/
Nine years old. More recent and more detailed study shows that CO2 always
lags temperature.

**Feel free to provide more current information.

Do your own legwork.

Currently CO2 does not correlate with temperature at all.

**Let's see your cite first, before we jump to any conclusions. The data I
supplied may be 9 years old, but the the data it refers to is more than
400,000 years old.

There are more than 500 cites in the first third of Plimer's book. Help
yourself.

Increase those levels and things will go awry.
There is not a shred of evidence to support that proposition.

**Then you need to explain (precisely) the influences that have given us the
rapid temperature rise we've noted over the last 200 years.

Recovery from the Little Ice age for starters.

Don't foget:

Solar variability has already been factored in at around 20% of the total.

By whom?

You need to explain the other 80%. I'm going with CO2 level rises, but I'll
interested in hearing your thoughts.

You can go with Gough Whitlam for all I care. Be careful though; who
knows what you might catch.

R

 

[Trevor Wilson]

"Roger Dewhurst" <dewhurst@wave.co.nz> wrote in message
news:ha4bd8$42j$1@lust.ihug.co.nz...

Trevor Wilson wrote:
"Roger Dewhurst" <dewhurst@wave.co.nz> wrote in message
news:ha3e4j$iqn$1@lust.ihug.co.nz...
**Bollocks. Plimer just repeated other bollocks promoted by others. The
stats tell a completely different story. CO2 levels lead and lag
temperature rises with approximately similar frequency. Right now, we
are experiencing a CO2 rise which is preceding the temperature rise.
Here is the data that Plimer and Simpson carefully avoid dealing with:

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/
Nine years old. More recent and more detailed study shows that CO2
always lags temperature.

**Feel free to provide more current information.

Do your own legwork.

**Already done. The cite stands. You are unable to supply alternate data, so
mine is all you have.

Currently CO2 does not correlate with temperature at all.

**Let's see your cite first, before we jump to any conclusions. The data
I supplied may be 9 years old, but the the data it refers to is more than
400,000 years old.

There are more than 500 cites in the first third of Plimer's book. Help
yourself.

**You seem unable to supply any cites.

Increase those levels and things will go awry.
There is not a shred of evidence to support that proposition.

**Then you need to explain (precisely) the influences that have given us
the rapid temperature rise we've noted over the last 200 years.

Recovery from the Little Ice age for starters.

*Lack of precision, duly noted.

Don't foget:
Solar variability has already been factored in at around 20% of the
total.

By whom?

**Science.

You need to explain the other 80%. I'm going with CO2 level rises, but
I'll interested in hearing your thoughts.

You can go with Gough Whitlam for all I care. Be careful though; who
knows what you might catch.

**Your inability to back up your claims is duly noted.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[KR]

On Oct 1, 9:01 pm, KR <kenreed1...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Oct 1, 1:32 pm, "David L. Jones" <altz...@gmail.com> wrote:

It had to happen I guess, Ian Plimer has a big feature letter in this months
SC.
After being scarred from reading his book recently I couldn't make it past
the first paragraph, my mind instantly when back into limbo again.
How many issues is that now about carbon polution and energy etc?

Several.  Good to see too.

Dont feed the troll though.  (Tosspot)

BTW, I couldn't help screen grabbing this when I saw it:http://www.alternatezone.com/images/SCeditorial.png
Either it's poor ad placement or Leo has had a make-over!

Dave.
--
===============================================> > Check out my Electronics Engineering Video Blog & Podcast:http://www.eevblog.com

Too late, the cockspanker has started.

 

[Trevor Wilson]

"Roger Dewhurst" <dewhurst@wave.co.nz> wrote in message
news:ha3e85$iqn$2@lust.ihug.co.nz...

Trevor Wilson wrote:

Are you the Trevor Wilson who used to post loony ideas about gun control?

If so have you switched your loony tunes?

**Still waiting for your answer.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Trevor Wilson]

"Roger Dewhurst" <dewhurst@wave.co.nz> wrote in message
news:ha4bd8$42j$1@lust.ihug.co.nz...

Trevor Wilson wrote:
"Roger Dewhurst" <dewhurst@wave.co.nz> wrote in message
news:ha3e4j$iqn$1@lust.ihug.co.nz...
**Bollocks. Plimer just repeated other bollocks promoted by others. The
stats tell a completely different story. CO2 levels lead and lag
temperature rises with approximately similar frequency. Right now, we
are experiencing a CO2 rise which is preceding the temperature rise.
Here is the data that Plimer and Simpson carefully avoid dealing with:

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/
Nine years old. More recent and more detailed study shows that CO2
always lags temperature.

**Feel free to provide more current information.

Do your own legwork.

Currently CO2 does not correlate with temperature at all.

**Let's see your cite first, before we jump to any conclusions. The data
I supplied may be 9 years old, but the the data it refers to is more than
400,000 years old.

There are more than 500 cites in the first third of Plimer's book. Help
yourself.

**Your inability to supply cites to back your claims is duly noted. Claims
rejected.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au