Ian Plimer exposed as a fraud

Wed, 2009-12-16 08:43Kevin Grandia
Kevin Grandia's picture

Ian Plimer exposed as a fraud

From Tim Lambert’s Deltoid blog:

“Ian Plimer’s performance in his debate with Monbiot has to be seen to be believed.

Rather than admit to making any error at all, Plimer ducks, weaves, obfuscates, recites his favourite catch phrase, tries to change the subject and fabricates some more. When confronted with the fact that the USGS says (backed with scientific papers) that human activities emit 130 times as much CO2 as volcanoes, Plimer claims that the USGS doesn’t count underwater volcanoes.

When told that the USGS specifically said that they do count undersea volcanoes, Plimer invented a story about how the nature of the rocks under the ocean proves that there must be unobserved emissions. Needless to say, this is not acceptable conduct for a scientist.”

Check out the rest of Lambert’s post here: Plimer exposed as a fraud

Here is our research database entry on Ian Plimer.

Comments

I was appalled by Plimer's behaviour here, standing on ceremony of politeness whilst rudely evading questions.

Perhaps it is time he was 'put out to grass', by the UofAdelaide, in his 'outbacks'.

But not before being tarred and feathered which was once thought fit punishment for dishonesty.

First Monckton in meltdown and now Plimer.

Must be the heat.

The truth will get them all in the end, even if it is when most of the US, those parts not underwater, is drought stricken. As for Australia – well, who knows!

That later spelled out in Elizabeth Kolbert's book 'Field Notes from a Catastrophe' , which is now a couple of years old and thus probably now understating the scale of the problems.

... except it won't, will it? They'll always be able to argue "it's not us" or "it doesn't matter" even if they can't avoid "it's not happening". Don't think the physical reality of climate change itself will ever turn the heads of these people.

Grapes growing near Hadrians wall, crops growing in Greenland.. most uninformed viewers can figure out that it was warmer before, thus undermining the concept that SUVs are causing the earth to warm, an inconvienient truth!

All this is aside from the rediculous situation of the kettle calling the pot black(Monbiot is happy with Mann et all cherry picking, but whines when Plimer does it!)

But, overall, Plimer did poorly against this "journalist", who is just a warmist cheerleader.

Have a look at this web site, Ed. The location is Plockton -- lovely spot in Scotland, about 2 degrees further north than Hadrian's Wall, and as you can see there are palm trees growing on the main street. I've been there & seen them. There are still wineries in the UK, you know.

http://www.lochalsh.co.uk/plockton.shtml

Fern Mackenzie

And growing crops in greenland? How about the "iceman" that got unfrozen from the glacier in Switzerland?

if you aren't prepared for the answer: the Government of Greenland has a Ministry of Fisheries, Agriculture and Hunting. Go check it out: http://www.greenlandexpo.com/content/us/trade_in_greenland /fisheries_agriculture_and_hunting_in_greenland

And as for the "iceman", he probably fell into a crevasse and has been recently exposed due to the melting glaciers.

Fern Mackenzie

The Romans could have made wine in the Hebrides except for those pesky Scots..

. . . when there's uisge baugh ("water of life", aka whiskey)

Fern Mackenzie

Please demonstrate where and how Mann has cherry picked.

Plimer is a professor who has lied about global warming in a publication! Scandal! This proves that the entire science of AGW is false!

Oh, wait. He's arguing for the denialists.

Never mind.

nice shot Mark. my style.

The sad or perhaps happy truth is it really doesn't matter what Plimer says. He can say the moon is made out of cheese if he wants and nobody cares, because he's not asking us to do anything other than buy his books.

Whereas AGW theory asks us to give up cheap fossil fuel and the good stuff that goes with it. So we demand impossibly high standards of it's proponents.

It's tough to be the guy thats trying to change the whole world.

Ian could have heralded a better performance but overall it was pretty close. Monbiot is emerging as the key debater for the alarmists. He was the only one that had a decent performace in the monk debates where they got clobbered mostly due to Elizabeth May. I would love to see Monckton go head to head with Monbiot.

The one downside Monbiot has is that he is completely illiterate of the junk science that surrounds him and he doesn't even try to get educated. Marc Morano Vs. Monbiot would be good too.

Sheeesh! Do you live in fantasy land.

Too much of ol' uncle Walt softens the brain.

Must be kind of dispiriting though, all your heros turning out to be cranks, liars and incompetents. Even for a denialist that's gotta hurt.

I thought we wernt going to use that term here.

Double post

"Interrupting is the height of rudeness
get yourself some manners young man"

Ha! - all quite entertaining

Just spotted this at Deltoid in comment 31 by J Akerman:

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/vodcast.htm

At 10 on the list when I visited.

Mark Francis, that's pretty interesting. Hey, hey! They got the same results using different data sets! Are you serious? Are you trying to ruin your case? Do you know how foolish that sounds? "They got the same result with different data". To all the desmog editors, mark francis is making you guys look bad

Every time you post here you demonstrate how little you understand scientific method. Surely you can grasp Mark's point that it isn't just tree ring data that shows the "hockey stick" trend? The same results have been found using all kinds of different proxies and sources of data. To suppose that everything hangs on one source of information or a single scientist's work is naive in the extreme.

The disappointing thing about the debate is that the subject matter (AGW) took a backseat to the personal confrontation. It also took a backseat to the veracity of Plimer's book - certainly the claims of errors in Plimer's book need to be addressed by Plimer, in a manner that they were not by Plimer on the night.

I also note on this site the sarcasm and innuendo that does nothing for open debate.

As a scientist myself, the issue is very clear: I see no evidence that a trace gas like CO2 is making any measureable contribution to the earth's climate. If a causal link can be proven, I'll join the protestors and lobbyists. In its absence, I am a sceptic (which should be the default position of any scientist).