Plimer and Silicon Chip - Page 11

Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary

Translate This Thread From English to

Threaded View
Re: Plimer and Silicon Chip


In article <50c65d14-2aaf-4d6a-a37e-fa3395a295d8
@h14g2000pri.googlegroups.com>, snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com said...
<snip>
:> 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.
:
:A hardcore left-wing propaganda machine like the current ABC is hardly

When are people like you two fools going to realise that simplistic
labelling of people as "far-right ratbags" and "hardcore left-wing" has
become meaningless and even worse, increasingly misleading? Makes you
feel better to have a boogyman to blame for <insert issue here>?

People like you are the real problem: so easy to exploit at the voting
booth.



Re: Plimer and Silicon Chip



Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Indeed. As I recall, an investigation set up by the previous Liberal
government recently found that the ABC had a slight bias TOWARDS the Liberal
Party. Moreover, anyone who watched last week's Four Corners is left in no
doubt about the impartial attitude of the ABC towards (NSW State) Labor.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



Re: Plimer and Silicon Chip


Quoted text here. Click to load it

I saw that, and it was quite a surprise, though if NSW Labor govt, its
anything like QLD Labor, - things have got so bad and corruption is so
blatant, obvious and deep-rooted that there. probably isn't anything
media can do but criticise.  The lack of any coverage of any of the
the state opposition parties (QLD) by the media shows another media
bias.
Even the ordinary person can see the mess that is around them has
become so bad that being told lies by the media about it being "all
good and wonderful" simply won't work anymore, that its probably
become a case of "pick the least worst problem and report it".

IF you have to make a bad report on something, a story on poor
standards of public transport (people have griped about this for as
long as I can remember) is a lot better for the government than a much
needed re-run of the "moonlight state" report that they did on the
Bjelke-Petersen government 20 year back. If anything, these problems
have got 10 times worse, and reach out far beyond a few corrupt cops
accepting payouts from brothels, illegal gambling clubs and SP
bookies, right into the lives and futures of the everyday person.

Its also interesting how on a federal level the reporting is exactly
the opposite.
Mr. Rudd and Co. can do no wrong. There is no balanced reporting. A
few years back it was Little Johnny who could do no wrong.

With the newspapers becoming rapidly a thing of the past and
struggling to get sales, and probably similar situation with the TV,
losing audience to the net, quality and bias of reporting may all
become irrelevant anyway.


Re: Plimer and Silicon Chip


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
--

We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: Plimer and Silicon Chip



"Peter Karoly "

Quoted text here. Click to load it


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


Quoted text here. Click to load it


** 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
 



Re: Plimer and Silicon Chip



Quoted text here. Click to load it

**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.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**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.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**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



Re: Plimer and Silicon Chip



Quoted text here. Click to load it

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

Re: Plimer and Silicon Chip



Quoted text here. Click to load it

**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
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**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.
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**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
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**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



Re: Plimer and Silicon Chip


TEST - please ignore.

Re: Plimer and Silicon Chip


Quoted text here. Click to load it

Test successful.
You have been ignored.

Re: Plimer and Silicon Chip


Quoted text here. Click to load it

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




Quoted text here. Click to load it


Re: Plimer and Silicon Chip



wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

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




Re: Plimer and Silicon Chip


Quoted text here. Click to load it

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
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Re: Plimer and Silicon Chip



Quoted text here. Click to load it

**LOL! I suggest you read some science sometime. Plimer (and you) have zero
idea. You have failed to supply any cites. Not one.

 your comments are
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**And again, you fail to supply cites or evidence to support your
assertions. You are full of shit.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



Re: Plimer and Silicon Chip


Quoted text here. Click to load it

Whilst I believe global warming caused by man made sources *IS* a problem, I
also believe trying to counter it by increasing the 7+Billion people on the
planet is far worse than King Canute, and a FARRRRR more expensive failure
to boot!

And while I've forgotten the "rants on firearms" your recent rants about GPS
usage were hardly "scientific". Cherry picking of data, and incorrect,
biased conclusions are not exclusive to Plimer it seems :-)

MrT.



Re: Plimer and Silicon Chip

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Absolutely no argument from me. The Rudd government and the previous
Howard government are/were environmental vandals in this respect.
Australia's population is already beyond capacity. Allowing it to grow
larger, is stupid. It is worse for most of the rest of the planet.
Population control is utterly essential. The sooner the better. Immigration
must cease and encouraging people to procreate beyond replacement is
obscene. Clear enough?

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**I'm still waiting for that idiot, 'Roger Dewhurst', to supply some
justification of his comments in this matter.

 your recent rants about GPS
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**I'm not perfect. My OPINIONS about whether GPS units are just that:
OPINIONS. They are opinions, based on an unfortunate experience and some
soberbering statistics. I accept that others will have different opinions in
that matter. Plimer is dressing opinions up as fact. And idiots like
Simpson, Allison and Dewhurst are sucking it all up. Fundamentally, these
idiots need to be convinced about the fact of AGW, before population control
measures can be implemented.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



Re: Plimer and Silicon Chip

Quoted text here. Click to load it

BZZZZZZT - Fail!

Hey Tosspot, you've claimed HOW many times on APG that you "only deal
in facts"?



Re: Plimer and Silicon Chip



Quoted text here. Click to load it

Fair enough.

control

Unfortunately hardly any government, political party, or individuals are
willing to link the two and do anything about the real cause of climate
change in any case. I'm TOTALLY sick of paying their baby bonuses AND carbon
"taxes". Pick ONE or the other!!!

MrT.



Re: Plimer and Silicon Chip



Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Not entirely the case. Here are a couple of examples of influential people
and organisations who are thinking:

http://greens.org.au/node/792

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/australias-population-fairytale-20090927-g7o5.html

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/its-the-ecosystem-stupid-20090922-g0h1.html

We should support these and other people and organisations who speak the
(uncomfortable) truth. Sadly, we have idiots like Plimer, Simpson, Allison,
'Dewhurst', 'KR' and others who take a head-in-the-sand attitude towards the
very serious problems that beset us.

 I'm TOTALLY sick of paying their baby bonuses AND carbon
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Agreed. Baby bonus, indeed!


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au





Re: Plimer and Silicon Chip




Quoted text here. Click to load it

That is just as bad and meaningless as a Rudd speech. Pile of self
contradictatory claptrap. As well, an elected member of The Greens has NO
freedom to act in the best interest of their constituents.  


Quoted text here. Click to load it
fairytale-20090927-g7o5.html

Tom Keneally is a blinkered fool who doesn't know what he is talking
about. He fails to understand the great difference between Australian
before WWII and after and why more people are not going to be good for
this country.
 
Quoted text here. Click to load it
g0h1.html

Ross Gittins is an economist who thinks everything can be fully measured
and valued by its dollar worth.

Site Timeline