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.
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:
"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.
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.
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.
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.'
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.
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
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 "
"Peter K" wrote in message
$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?
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.
Money ain't everything.
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...?
Check out my Electronics Engineering Video Blog & Podcast:
** Who makes his LIVING and stakes his academic reputation on PROMOTING the hypothesis of AGW as fact.
** 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.
I still clearly remember the night in the late 1980s that Sir Marcus Oliphant
took Robin Williams apart on his own ABC TV interview show.
**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.
**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.
**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.
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.
**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
**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.
**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
**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.
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.