Plimer and Silicon Chip

[Peter K]

Plimer and his pseudo-scientific nonsense were dealt with on the ABC Science
Show not long ago.

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2009/2593166.htm


I gave up reading SC (usually at the stand in the News Agent) after seeing
projects in it which were clearly written by technically incompetent people.
eg. the water tank level gauge.

SC now appears to be trying to consolidate a fading readership that includes
far-right ratbags. Would not be surprised to see it go the same way as EA.

Pete
--

 

[Phil Allison]

"Peter K"

Plimer and his pseudo-scientific nonsense were dealt with on the ABC
Science Show not long ago.

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2009/2593166.htm

** The ABC Radio's "Science Show" is an utterly discredited sham run by a
obviously anti-science & half-witted pommy journo - ie Robin Williams.

It once used to be entertaining, now it is just irritating, pseudo science &
populist crap.

Like the item you just linked.

I gave up reading SC (usually at the stand in the News Agent) after seeing
projects in it which were clearly written by technically incompetent
people.

** Now YOU would not be one of those too - would you ?

SC now appears to be trying to consolidate a fading readership that
includes far-right ratbags. Would not be surprised to see it go the same
way as EA.

** Most of SC readers are over the age of 50, often much older.

So they did not grow up believing in whatever some computer told them.

Unlike total fools like you.


....... Phil

 

[David L. Jones]

Peter K wrote:

Plimer and his pseudo-scientific nonsense were dealt with on the ABC
Science Show not long ago.

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2009/2593166.htm


I gave up reading SC (usually at the stand in the News Agent) after
seeing projects in it which were clearly written by technically
incompetent people. eg. the water tank level gauge.

Well, gee, how about YOU contribute a project then?
Or is that too much to ask?

Dave.

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

 

[Peter K]

More than happy to contribute.

How much do I get per page? Have you contributed and if so what were you
paid?

Remember the old saying. Pay peanuts, get monkeys.

By the way I read your contribution on the solar heater. Sorry but I found
this was just a repeat of may other articles prior to yours.

Pete

--

"David L. Jones" <altzone@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:WKgym.93278$nQ6.27168@newsfe07.iad...

Peter K wrote:
Plimer and his pseudo-scientific nonsense were dealt with on the ABC
Science Show not long ago.

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2009/2593166.htm


I gave up reading SC (usually at the stand in the News Agent) after
seeing projects in it which were clearly written by technically
incompetent people. eg. the water tank level gauge.

Well, gee, how about YOU contribute a project then?
Or is that too much to ask?

Dave.

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

 

[Peter K]

If your sick of this guy's ravings then follow the link and raise an
objection with his ISP

http://members.iinet.net.au/~rutlidge/alanindex.html


Pete
--

"Phil Allison" <phil_a@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:7ithb5F32tr7rU1@mid.individual.net...

"Peter K"

Plimer and his pseudo-scientific nonsense were dealt with on the ABC
Science Show not long ago.

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2009/2593166.htm


** The ABC Radio's "Science Show" is an utterly discredited sham run by
a obviously anti-science & half-witted pommy journo - ie Robin
Williams.

It once used to be entertaining, now it is just irritating, pseudo science
& populist crap.

Like the item you just linked.


I gave up reading SC (usually at the stand in the News Agent) after
seeing projects in it which were clearly written by technically
incompetent people.


** Now YOU would not be one of those too - would you ?


SC now appears to be trying to consolidate a fading readership that
includes far-right ratbags. Would not be surprised to see it go the same
way as EA.


** Most of SC readers are over the age of 50, often much older.

So they did not grow up believing in whatever some computer told them.

Unlike total fools like you.


...... Phil

 

[Peter K]

The ABC Science Show about Ian Plimer is laregely an interview with David
Karoly, Federation Fellow on Climate Change at Melbourne University.

The main points he raises in relation to Plimer are as follows:

1. "He claims 'it is not possible to ascribe a carbon dioxide increase to
human activity' and 'volcanoes produce more CO2 than the world's cars and
industries combined'. Both are wrong. Burning fossil fuels produces carbon
dioxide enriched with carbon isotope 12C and reduced 13C and essentially no
14C, and it decreases atmospheric oxygen, exactly as observed and as Plimer
states on pages 414 and 415. Scientists have estimated emissions from
volcanoes on land for the last 50 years and they are small compared with
total global emissions from human sources.
2. Plimer even argues that the recent sources must be underwater volcanoes.
This is not the case, because the net movement of carbon dioxide is from the
atmosphere to the ocean, based on measurements that the concentration of
dissolved carbon dioxide in the ocean is less than in the atmosphere. In
addition, measurements show that the concentrations of two other long-lived
greenhouse gases with human-related sources, methane and nitrous oxide, have
increased markedly over the last 200 years, at the same time as the
increases in carbon dioxide. This is not possible due to sources from
underwater volcanoes.

3. Next, he states that CO2 does not drive climate. He then contradicts
himself by writing 'CO2 keeps our planet warm so that it is not covered in
ice'. There is ample geological evidence of increased CO2 causing climate
change, such as the Palaeocene-Eocene thermal maximum about 55 million years
ago. He writes 'land and sea temperatures increased by five to ten degrees
with associated extinctions of life' when methane was released into the
atmosphere due to geological processes and rapidly converted to CO2.

4. Plimer writes repeatedly that global warming ended in 1998, that the
warmth of the last few decades is not unusual, and that satellite
measurements show there has been no global warming since 1979. He is correct
that on time scales of the last 100 million years, the recent global-scale
warmth is not unusual. However, it is unusual over at least the last 1,000
years, including the Medieval warming. Plimer makes the mistake of using
local temperatures from proxy evidence rather than considering data from the
whole globe at the same time. The report of the US National Academy of
Sciences in 2006, cited by Plimer, states 'Presently available proxy
evidence indicates that temperatures at many, but not all individual
locations, were higher during the past 25 years than during any period of
comparable length since AD 900.'

5. We do not expect significant warming to always occur for short periods,
such as since 1998. Natural climate variations are more important over short
periods, with El Nino causing hotter global-average temperatures in 1998 and
La Nina cooler global temperatures in 2007 and 2008. Global-average
temperature for the current decade from surface observations and from
satellite data is warmer than any other decade with reasonable data
coverage. Plimer is wrong to write 'Not one of the IPCC models predicted
that there would be cooling after 1998'. Actually, more than one-fifth of
climate models show cooling in global average temperatures for the period
from 1998 to 2008.

6. Plimer writes that solar activity accounts for some 80% of the global
temperature trend over the last 150 years. This doesn't fit the
observational evidence. Increases in solar irradiance would cause more
warming in the daytime, in the tropics and in summer, as well as warming in
the upper atmosphere, and these are not observed. Changes in solar
irradiance and cosmic rays show a large 11-year sunspot cycle and negligible
trend, but observed global temperatures show a large warming trend and small
11-year cycle.

7. Plimer is wrong again when he writes 'An enrichment in atmospheric CO2 is
not even a little bit bad for life on Earth. It is wholly beneficial.' This
is contradicted when he writes that the Palaeocene-Eocene thermal maximum
was associated with mass extinctions. There are many other errors, both
large and small, including volcanoes emitting CFCs and that the Sun consists
mainly of the same elements as the rocky planets. Many of the figures have
mistakes, either in the caption or in the data, and have no sources
provided.

Given the errors, the non-science, and the nonsense in this book, it should
be classified as science fiction "

Pete
--

"Peter K" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:4ac98073$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...

Plimer and his pseudo-scientific nonsense were dealt with on the ABC
Science Show not long ago.

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2009/2593166.htm


I gave up reading SC (usually at the stand in the News Agent) after seeing
projects in it which were clearly written by technically incompetent
people. eg. the water tank level gauge.

SC now appears to be trying to consolidate a fading readership that
includes far-right ratbags. Would not be surprised to see it go the same
way as EA.

Pete
--

 

[KR]

On Oct 5, 3:13 pm, "Peter K" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:

Plimer and his pseudo-scientific nonsense were dealt with on the ABC Science
Show not long ago.

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2009/2593166.htm

I gave up reading SC (usually at the stand in the News Agent) after seeing
projects in it which were clearly written by technically incompetent people.
eg. the water tank level gauge.

SC now appears to be trying to consolidate a fading readership that includes
far-right ratbags. Would not be surprised to see it go the same way as EA.

Pete
--

A hardcore left-wing propaganda machine like the current ABC is hardly
an impartial or reliable source of review or credibility. I got so
sick of their blatantly biased spin on their news / current affairs /
business programs in the last 12 months or so, that I have had to give
up watching most of these programs, or be ready to hit the channel
change button. There is virtually no balance in their presentation.
The science show is turned to absolute crap, I'm surprised you even
mention it as a "source". If they rubbish Plimer, that is like
handing credibility to the man. Kind of like what the soviets did to
Kondratiev. Even if right, if it doesn't fit in with the party line,
then its "off with your head".

The absolute low point for me was seeing a promo for
"Compass" (religious doco) lumping pro AGW propaganda on its audience.
I would put the ABC's extinction (and probably most of the ABC) on the
cards if it wasn't for taxpayers having to prop it up.



While SC is definitely not perfect, and have at times made "silly" or
impractical projects, and/or design errors, overall I would give SC,
it's staff, contributors and readership (who on average would be well
above the average everyday person in intelligence, educational level,
ability to think logically, problem solve, have real world electrical,
electronic and mechanical skills, as well as getting off their arse
and be doing something productive) much more credibility than the
ABC.

If the projects are so bad, maybe you need to submit your designs or
improvements ? This would help a lot of people out there
(particularly beginners and students) who aren't as "clever/skilled"
as you are. You might even get paid. Remember publications like this
are probably one of the best ways for people to self learn
electronics, find part suppliers, and knowledge.
For most things published in there, a ready to assemble kit of parts
is available so even a beginner has a good chance of getting something
going and learning from it in the process. This is of a lot of
benefit, and much better than listening to moronic crap


EA collapsed not because of any left / right wing views (I don't
remember them even discussing politics), but simply because it changed
its content from a technical based format down to a gutter press brain
dead "consumer" format. It lost (and enraged) it's core tech audience
instantly, (even having to hand back loads of subscription fees) and
didn't gain a brain dead consumer audience fast enough (if at all) to
fill the void. They misread the market, and Bang, gone just like
that.


The pro AGW ship of fools has sprung quite a few leaks in the last
year or so as more and more ordinary people wake up to the fact that
they are being had, realise that its just a cover for another massive
tax hike, and power grab - that wouldn't even do a thing to address
the imaginary "problem" even if it was real, but will just destroy our
economy and their jobs in the process. Lets hope it sinks fast with no
survivors - for the sake of everyone else.

 

[Phil Allison]

"Peter K"

Plimer and his pseudo-scientific nonsense were dealt with on the ABC
Science Show not long ago.

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2009/2593166.htm

** The ABC Radio's "Science Show" is an utterly discredited sham run by a
obviously anti-science & half-witted pommy journo - ie Robin Williams.

It once used to be entertaining, now it is just irritating, pseudo science &
populist crap.

Like the item you just linked.

I gave up reading SC (usually at the stand in the News Agent) after seeing
projects in it which were clearly written by technically incompetent
people.

** Now YOU would not be one of those too - would you ?

SC now appears to be trying to consolidate a fading readership that
includes far-right ratbags. Would not be surprised to see it go the same
way as EA.

** Most of SC readers are over the age of 50, often much older.

So they did not grow up believing whatever some fucking computer told them.

Unlike steaming great fools like you.

Fuck off.


...... Phil

 

[Phil Allison]

"Peter K"

If your sick of this guy's ravings then follow the link and raise an
objection with his ISP

** The regulars here can DEAL with this smug, anonymous pile of

top posting shit - any how you like.




..... Phil

 

[David L. Jones]

Peter K wrote:

More than happy to contribute.

How much do I get per page?

$100 per page is the going rate, tax free.
Not a huge amount, but say $800 for an average 8 page article ain't so bad.
Pays for your prototype at least, gives you a free warm fuzzy feeling seeing
your project in print, something extra to put in your resume perhaps, and
then possibly gives you the right to complain because you've actually helped
contribute.
A guy like you should be able to churn out a great article in no time, yes?
SC will usually put good articles in pretty quick, within a month or two. So
we look forward to it within say the next 4 months. Just so there is no
confusion, the "K" stands for?

Have you contributed and if so what were you paid?

Yes. 3 construction projects in SC, another 3 part article, and over half a
dozen projects in the old EA.
SC have also turned down one of my projects.
I've also got another one ready but am deciding if I'll actually get that
one published or not.

Remember the old saying. Pay peanuts, get monkeys.

Money ain't everything.

By the way I read your contribution on the solar heater. Sorry but I
found this was just a repeat of may other articles prior to yours.

Perhaps, there have been many around the world, but I'd like to think mine
had a different slant. Renew thought it good enough to publish. Which ones
in particular did you think were similar?
Although the 15,000 or so hits per month, many thankyou emails every week,
and many people and schools copying and referencing my design probably puts
your opinion in the minority I'd say.
And your contributions to Renew are...?

Dave.

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

 

[Phil Allison]

"Peter Karoly "

The ABC Science Show about Ian Plimer is laregely an interview with David
Karoly, Federation Fellow on Climate Change at Melbourne University.

** Who makes his LIVING and stakes his academic reputation on PROMOTING
the hypothesis of AGW as fact.

The main points he raises in relation to Plimer are as follows:

** Mr Plimer was not in the ABC's studio nor allowed to counter anything
that was wrongly asserted by Karoly.

Blatant example of Robin Williams setting up some cheesed of pal who is
CLEARLY riding high on the AGW gravy train to take a whooping free kick at
Plimer.

Good thing the public do NOT listen to nor trust anything on the ABC Science
Show.

BTW:

I still clearly remember the night in the late 1980s that Sir Marcus
Oliphant

( see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Oliphant )

took Robin Williams apart on his own ABC TV interview show.

Made the smug Williams look a right pratt.




...... Phil

 

[Trevor Wilson]

"Peter K" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:4ac98073$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...

Plimer and his pseudo-scientific nonsense were dealt with on the ABC
Science Show not long ago.

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2009/2593166.htm

**Plimer has been dealt with several times, by several commentators. One
scientist found in excess of 300 (three HUNDRED) errors in his book. For my
part, I've noted the plimer has failed miserably to support his nonsensical
claim that CO2 levels ALWAYS lag temperature rise. Examintation of ice core
data refutes this claim of Plimer's. It would seem he has spent too much
time reading fossil fuel propaganda, rather than the science.

I gave up reading SC (usually at the stand in the News Agent) after seeing
projects in it which were clearly written by technically incompetent
people. eg. the water tank level gauge.

**In fairness to SC, it must be getting pretty damned difficult to find
appropriate projects. Back in the dark ages, one could build an amplifier
(for instance) at considerably lower cost than purcahsing retail. That is
not the case now. Same deal with test equipment and a whole host of other
stuff. Personally, I find many of the articles well written and interesting.
I do, however, miss the regular automotive electronics segments.

SC now appears to be trying to consolidate a fading readership that
includes far-right ratbags. Would not be surprised to see it go the same
way as EA.

**No. The reason for the far right bias is just due to the scientific
illiteracy of the editor. More dissappointing is that Simpson has failed to
place other arguments in print, preferring, instead, to showcase the
unsupportable twaddle sprouted by Plimer.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Roger Dewhurst]

**Plimer has been dealt with several times, by several commentators. One
scientist found in excess of 300 (three HUNDRED) errors in his book. For my
part, I've noted the plimer has failed miserably to support his nonsensical
claim that CO2 levels ALWAYS lag temperature rise. Examintation of ice core
data refutes this claim of Plimer's. It would seem he has spent too much
time reading fossil fuel propaganda, rather than the science.

The book has faults. There are errors and it is difficult to read. I
think that he should have used fewer examples and been more selective
about those that he chose. The book should have been half the length.
The book is a compromise between a broad brush approach for the general
public and something for the scientifically literate. It is almost
impossible to combine the two and not surprisingly Plimer has not
achieved total success. Nevertheless his general argument is
substantiated. I was pleasantly surprised to find a number of arguments
documented which I had nutted out for myself but which I had not seen
proposed elsewhere.

R

 

[Trevor Wilson]

"Roger Dewhurst" <dewhurst@wave.co.nz> wrote in message
news:hadsdg$mp2$1@lust.ihug.co.nz...

**Plimer has been dealt with several times, by several commentators. One
scientist found in excess of 300 (three HUNDRED) errors in his book. For
my part, I've noted the plimer has failed miserably to support his
nonsensical claim that CO2 levels ALWAYS lag temperature rise.
Examintation of ice core data refutes this claim of Plimer's. It would
seem he has spent too much time reading fossil fuel propaganda, rather
than the science.


The book has faults.

**Not the least of which are the outright lies that relate to claims about
the IPCC reports. Sea level rises, for one. His cherry-picked data is hardly
scientific. It also explains why Plimer has not chosen the route of allowing
his work to be peer-reviewed.

There are errors and it is difficult to read. I

think that he should have used fewer examples and been more selective
about those that he chose.

**What would have been better, is that Plimer could have been honest and
objective, rather than dishonest.

The book should have been half the length.

The book is a compromise between a broad brush approach for the general
public and something for the scientifically literate. It is almost
impossible to combine the two and not surprisingly Plimer has not achieved
total success. Nevertheless his general argument is substantiated.

**Only if the reader manages to avoid reading some science. Plimer's
approach appears to be that of bombarding scientific illiterates with lots
of data, whilst ignoring data which proves Plimer to be scientifically
dishonest. His lies are many.

I was pleasantly surprised to find a number of arguments

documented which I had nutted out for myself but which I had not seen
proposed elsewhere.

**There's a good reason for that. He'd be laughed out of any scientific
peer-review process. Of course, for scientific illiterates, his work seems
to be really sciency. In reality, it comprises many lies, cherry-picked data
and a whole bunch of misleading statements.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Davo]

KR wrote:

On Oct 5, 3:13 pm, "Peter K" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
Plimer and his pseudo-scientific nonsense were dealt with on the ABC Science
Show not long ago.

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2009/2593166.htm

I gave up reading SC (usually at the stand in the News Agent) after seeing
projects in it which were clearly written by technically incompetent people.
eg. the water tank level gauge.

SC now appears to be trying to consolidate a fading readership that includes
far-right ratbags. Would not be surprised to see it go the same way as EA.

Pete
--

A hardcore left-wing propaganda machine like the current ABC is hardly
an impartial or reliable source of review or credibility. I got so
sick of their blatantly biased spin on their news / current affairs /
business programs in the last 12 months or so, that I have had to give
up watching most of these programs, or be ready to hit the channel
change button. There is virtually no balance in their presentation.
The science show is turned to absolute crap, I'm surprised you even
mention it as a "source". If they rubbish Plimer, that is like
handing credibility to the man. Kind of like what the soviets did to
Kondratiev. Even if right, if it doesn't fit in with the party line,
then its "off with your head".

The absolute low point for me was seeing a promo for
"Compass" (religious doco) lumping pro AGW propaganda on its audience.
I would put the ABC's extinction (and probably most of the ABC) on the
cards if it wasn't for taxpayers having to prop it up.



While SC is definitely not perfect, and have at times made "silly" or
impractical projects, and/or design errors, overall I would give SC,
it's staff, contributors and readership (who on average would be well
above the average everyday person in intelligence, educational level,
ability to think logically, problem solve, have real world electrical,
electronic and mechanical skills, as well as getting off their arse
and be doing something productive) much more credibility than the
ABC.

If the projects are so bad, maybe you need to submit your designs or
improvements ? This would help a lot of people out there
(particularly beginners and students) who aren't as "clever/skilled"
as you are. You might even get paid. Remember publications like this
are probably one of the best ways for people to self learn
electronics, find part suppliers, and knowledge.
For most things published in there, a ready to assemble kit of parts
is available so even a beginner has a good chance of getting something
going and learning from it in the process. This is of a lot of
benefit, and much better than listening to moronic crap


EA collapsed not because of any left / right wing views (I don't
remember them even discussing politics), but simply because it changed
its content from a technical based format down to a gutter press brain
dead "consumer" format. It lost (and enraged) it's core tech audience
instantly, (even having to hand back loads of subscription fees) and
didn't gain a brain dead consumer audience fast enough (if at all) to
fill the void. They misread the market, and Bang, gone just like
that.


The pro AGW ship of fools has sprung quite a few leaks in the last
year or so as more and more ordinary people wake up to the fact that
they are being had, realise that its just a cover for another massive
tax hike, and power grab - that wouldn't even do a thing to address
the imaginary "problem" even if it was real, but will just destroy our
economy and their jobs in the process. Lets hope it sinks fast with no
survivors - for the sake of everyone else.

Sorry you got the wrong newsgroup. This is an electronics newsgroup.
There are other groups available for politics.

 

[Davo]

Duong Nguyen wrote:

TEST - please ignore.

Test successful.
You have been ignored.

 

[Trevor Wilson]

"KR" <kenreed1999@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:aa3674a4-ebca-4bd7-9e18-7ad8af283f36@e4g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 6, 9:10 am, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au>
wrote:

"Roger Dewhurst" <dewhu...@wave.co.nz> wrote in message

news:hadsdg$mp2$1@lust.ihug.co.nz...



**Plimer has been dealt with several times, by several commentators.
One
scientist found in excess of 300 (three HUNDRED) errors in his book.
For
my part, I've noted the plimer has failed miserably to support his
nonsensical claim that CO2 levels ALWAYS lag temperature rise.
Examintation of ice core data refutes this claim of Plimer's. It would
seem he has spent too much time reading fossil fuel propaganda, rather
than the science.

The book has faults.

**Not the least of which are the outright lies that relate to claims about
the IPCC reports. Sea level rises, for one. His cherry-picked data is
hardly
scientific. It also explains why Plimer has not chosen the route of
allowing
his work to be peer-reviewed.

There are errors and it is difficult to read. I

think that he should have used fewer examples and been more selective
about those that he chose.

**What would have been better, is that Plimer could have been honest and
objective, rather than dishonest.

The book should have been half the length.

The book is a compromise between a broad brush approach for the general
public and something for the scientifically literate. It is almost
impossible to combine the two and not surprisingly Plimer has not
achieved
total success. Nevertheless his general argument is substantiated.

**Only if the reader manages to avoid reading some science. Plimer's
approach appears to be that of bombarding scientific illiterates with lots
of data, whilst ignoring data which proves Plimer to be scientifically
dishonest. His lies are many.

I was pleasantly surprised to find a number of arguments

documented which I had nutted out for myself but which I had not seen
proposed elsewhere.

**There's a good reason for that. He'd be laughed out of any scientific
peer-review process. Of course, for scientific illiterates, his work seems
to be really sciency. In reality, it comprises many lies, cherry-picked
data
and a whole bunch of misleading statements.

--

That sounds exactly like what you and your kind do,
except you don't actually quote any science.

**On the contrary. I HAVE supplied the science. YOU managed to ignore it.
Keep your head buried in the sand and believe the claptrap handed to you by
Plimer if it makes you happy.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Roger Dewhurst]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

"KR" <kenreed1999@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:aa3674a4-ebca-4bd7-9e18-7ad8af283f36@e4g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 6, 9:10 am, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au
wrote:
"Roger Dewhurst" <dewhu...@wave.co.nz> wrote in message

news:hadsdg$mp2$1@lust.ihug.co.nz...



**Plimer has been dealt with several times, by several commentators.
One
scientist found in excess of 300 (three HUNDRED) errors in his book.
For
my part, I've noted the plimer has failed miserably to support his
nonsensical claim that CO2 levels ALWAYS lag temperature rise.
Examintation of ice core data refutes this claim of Plimer's. It would
seem he has spent too much time reading fossil fuel propaganda, rather
than the science.
The book has faults.
**Not the least of which are the outright lies that relate to claims about
the IPCC reports. Sea level rises, for one. His cherry-picked data is
hardly
scientific. It also explains why Plimer has not chosen the route of
allowing
his work to be peer-reviewed.

There are errors and it is difficult to read. I

think that he should have used fewer examples and been more selective
about those that he chose.
**What would have been better, is that Plimer could have been honest and
objective, rather than dishonest.

The book should have been half the length.

The book is a compromise between a broad brush approach for the general
public and something for the scientifically literate. It is almost
impossible to combine the two and not surprisingly Plimer has not
achieved
total success. Nevertheless his general argument is substantiated.
**Only if the reader manages to avoid reading some science. Plimer's
approach appears to be that of bombarding scientific illiterates with lots
of data, whilst ignoring data which proves Plimer to be scientifically
dishonest. His lies are many.

I was pleasantly surprised to find a number of arguments

documented which I had nutted out for myself but which I had not seen
proposed elsewhere.
**There's a good reason for that. He'd be laughed out of any scientific
peer-review process. Of course, for scientific illiterates, his work seems
to be really sciency. In reality, it comprises many lies, cherry-picked
data
and a whole bunch of misleading statements.

--

That sounds exactly like what you and your kind do,
except you don't actually quote any science.

**On the contrary. I HAVE supplied the science. YOU managed to ignore it.
Keep your head buried in the sand and believe the claptrap handed to you by
Plimer if it makes you happy.

You may think that you have supplied some science but since you would
not recognize science if it bit you on the bum your comments are
somewhat useless, much as your rants on firearms of a few years ago.

R
>

 

[Phil Allison]

"Trevor Wilson"

**Plimer has been dealt with several times, by several commentators. One
scientist found in excess of 300 (three HUNDRED) errors in his book. For
my part, I've noted the plimer has failed miserably to support his
nonsensical claim that CO2 levels ALWAYS lag temperature rise.
Examintation of ice core data refutes this claim of Plimer's.

** Data obtained from ice core samples IS dodgy at best - all sorts of
elaborate * hypotheses * ( ie not proven facts ) are used to interpret what
is found in them.

Ice cores are not used because they are such good evidence of the past state
of the atmosphere - but rather because they are the ONLY evidence.

Reading the future from tea leaves is about as scientific.

Nevertheless, the Wiki on ice cores flatly contradicts TW and supports
Plimer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core#Ice_core_data

" Nonetheless, recent work has tended to show that during deglaciations CO2
increases lags temperature increases by 600 +/- 400 years."


BTW " deglaciations " are periods when the place is getting warmer.



...... Phil

 

[Duong Nguyen]

TEST - please ignore.