Attenborough abandons his polite silence re: creationism and climate change deniers.

[alchemy333]

Wrong. Not among scientists it isn't.

Who are the credible men and women against it?

Prof Robert Carter is a good place to start.

 

[alchemy333]

Prof Judith Curry is an American climatologist who strongly opposes the "consensus" of AGW and climate doom and gloom. http://judithcurry.com/

 

[Hollow Knight]

Bet she's making a killing from it too.

 

[Partridge]

Prof Judith Curry is an American climatologist who strongly opposes the "consensus" of AGW and climate doom and gloom. http://judithcurry.com/

Indeed.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Judith_Curry_blog.htm

 

[alchemy333]

Physicist Freeman Dyson... http://noconsensus.org/scientists/freeman-dyson.php

Or the other 1350+ peer reviewed papers that support arguments against AGW alarm... http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

 

[alchemy333]

Bet she's making a killing from it too.

Lol, like Al Gore. Except she is qualified to comment on the debate. Plus, ad hominem attacks detract from the targeted persons actual content.

 

[Partridge]

A member of the IPA, funded by the vested interests of mining and coal - he's hardly an impartial voice when it comes to climate change even if he is a scientist (hydrologist).

Any impartial skeptics? Genuine question, I can't recall many (if any).

You'll find eventually the denialists are funded by either coal or oil money. Follow the money as the expression goes - and it is so accurate.

 

[DivideandMultiply]

Indeed.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Judith_Curry_blog.htm

Ouch.

 

[Hollow Knight]

Except she is qualified to comment on the debate.

Didn't say she wasn't qualified.

 

[alchemy333]

Ian Plimer is another local Professor at The University of Adelaide. http://www.desmogblog.com/ian-plimer

 

[MrCharisma]

Good enough for IPCC to ask him to be an expert reviewer.

It sounds very fancy, but being an "IPCC expert reviewer" doesn't mean much at all. It means that he has asked see the draft report and has signed an agreement to not publicly talk about the report. It doesn't mean the IPCC have asked him to review it.

 

[MrCharisma]

Prof Robert Carter is a good place to start.

"Carter is on the payroll of the Heartland Institute, which itself is funded by polluting industries (Exxon, Scaife Foundations and Koch Family Foundations)

According to the Sydney Morning Herald in 2007, Carter was "on the research committee at the Institute of Public Affairs, a think tank that has received funding from oil and tobacco companies, and whose directors sit on the boards of companies in the fossil fuel sector" and believed, SMH said, that "the role of peer review in scientific literature was overstressed."

Carter's own website claimed, as recently as 2012, that he received no funding from "special interest organisations", but this was shown to be untrue with the release of private Heartland Institute documents in February 2012, which showed Carter was funded by this one front group alone to the tune of approximately $20,000 annually. Carter brushed off the revelation with the statement that being truthful about one's funding is "a very quaint and old fashioned practice". http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bob_Carter


Yet again denialists fail to find anyone credible whom isn't funded by Heartland.

 

[MrCharisma]

Ian Plimer is another local Professor at The University of Adelaide. http://www.desmogblog.com/ian-plimer

Thanks for the link.



Plimer Published Heaven and Earth in 2009. The book asserts that the temperature changes we have observed in the 20th century are within the "normal range of variability," that significant global warming is not happening and that there is negligible human impact on warming.

His book was received critically, having been debunked numerous times by scientists.[13], [14]

Some critics have even accused Plimer of plagiarism. [15]

In his review of Heaven and Earth for The Australian, astronomer Michael Ashley wrote:[16]

"Plimer probably didn't expect an astronomer to review his book. I couldn't help noticing on page 120 an almost word-for-word reproduction of the abstract from a well-known loony paper...[that] argues that the sun isn't composed of 98 per cent hydrogen and helium, as astronomers have confirmed through a century of observation and theory, but is instead similar in composition to a meteorite.

"It is hard to understate the depth of scientific ignorance that the inclusion of this information demonstrates. It is comparable to a biologist claiming that plants obtain energy from magnetism rather than photosynthesis."

The Guardian's George Monbiot criticized Plimer's book, saying "Since its publication in Australia it has been ridiculed for a hilarious series of schoolboy errors, and its fudging and manipulation of the data." Plimer responded by challenging Monbiot to a public debate. [17]

Monbiot then challenged Plimer to give a set of "precise and specific responses" to his critics' points. Plimer rejected this challenge. [18]

Monbiot called Plimer "a grandstander, who wants nothing more than to make as much noise as possible in the hope that it will drown out the precise refutations published by his book's reviewers." Plimer subsequently reversed his earlier refusal, saying he would answer the questions in return for a live debate. [19]

Instead of answering the questions that Monbiot posed, Plimer responded with his own set of questions. No official debate was actually held. [20]

The two did debate, however, on ABC's Lateline in December, 2009. Monbiot concluded that Plimer had "used evasion and distraction when faced with straight questions," and that the overall view was that "Plimer had been soundly thrashed." [21]

Affiliations

• Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) — Member, "Academic Advisory Council." [26]
  
  
• The Heartland Institute — "Expert." [27]

 

[MrCharisma]

Physicist Freeman Dyson... http://noconsensus.org/scientists/freeman-dyson.php

Or the other 1350+ peer reviewed papers that support arguments against AGW alarm... http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

Been debunked many times. That site is run by an IT douchebag - who has posted here ( under "poptart") It's a collection of papers he thinks supports his arguments, but don't.

Harold E. Brooks says

"I just noticed I’m the lead author on one of the papers on the list. I have absolutely no idea how that paper could be construed as “skeptical of man-made global warming.” I have no idea how it could be construed as saying anything at all about man-made global warming."


The criteria is laughable.

http://itsnotnova.wordpress.com/2011/06/30/poptechs-list-of-confusion/

1. The author may disagree with having his paper on Poptech’s list.
2. The paper can agree with the IPCC and mainstream climate science but disagree, even if only slightly, with some aspect of CAGW as defined by anyone, even a newspaper or internet article.
3. The paper may confirm fundamental properties of AGW.
4. The paper may be alarming, but somehow still make the list.
5. The papers on the list can hold completely opposing views with each other.
6. The paper can be seriously flawed.
7. Peer-reviewing yourself is acceptable
8. Old incorrect research is okay
9. The author of the paper may have subsequently admitted the science was flawed, but Poptech will continue to list the paper.
10. The paper doesn’t have to be from a climate scientist, political views are ok.
11. Dozens of the papers support high climate sensitivity.
12. The paper may not be peer-reviewed.
13. The “paper” can be just a “letter” of no significant importance.
14. Poptech, doesn’t have to agree with the findings of the paper.

 

[clogged]

So are you going to ignore his points and just use names like a petulant toddler. Attack the ideas not the person they come from.

LMAO. Never ever change, Seeds

<3

 

[radiojake]

It's about time someone started acknowledging the benefits of being able to all communicate with each other. Maybe now we can stop forcing kids to learn another language and dedicate more of their studies to things of value like science, maths, English, ethics, psychology and economics.

F*ck that -

I don't want complete homogonisation of the entire planet, and English is a bastard language anyway -

There is plenty of benefits we can all gain through learning multiple languages

 

[Partridge]

Thanks for the link.

Plimer Published Heaven and Earth in 2009. The book asserts that the temperature changes we have observed in the 20th century are within the "normal range of variability," that significant global warming is not happening and that there is negligible human impact on warming.

His book was received critically, having been debunked numerous times by scientists.[13], [14]

Some critics have even accused Plimer of plagiarism. [15]

In his review of Heaven and Earth for The Australian, astronomer Michael Ashley wrote:[16]

"Plimer probably didn't expect an astronomer to review his book. I couldn't help noticing on page 120 an almost word-for-word reproduction of the abstract from a well-known loony paper...[that] argues that the sun isn't composed of 98 per cent hydrogen and helium, as astronomers have confirmed through a century of observation and theory, but is instead similar in composition to a meteorite.

"It is hard to understate the depth of scientific ignorance that the inclusion of this information demonstrates. It is comparable to a biologist claiming that plants obtain energy from magnetism rather than photosynthesis."

The Guardian's George Monbiot criticized Plimer's book, saying "Since its publication in Australia it has been ridiculed for a hilarious series of schoolboy errors, and its fudging and manipulation of the data." Plimer responded by challenging Monbiot to a public debate. [17]

Monbiot then challenged Plimer to give a set of "precise and specific responses" to his critics' points. Plimer rejected this challenge. [18]

Monbiot called Plimer "a grandstander, who wants nothing more than to make as much noise as possible in the hope that it will drown out the precise refutations published by his book's reviewers." Plimer subsequently reversed his earlier refusal, saying he would answer the questions in return for a live debate. [19]

Instead of answering the questions that Monbiot posed, Plimer responded with his own set of questions. No official debate was actually held. [20]

The two did debate, however, on ABC's Lateline in December, 2009. Monbiot concluded that Plimer had "used evasion and distraction when faced with straight questions," and that the overall view was that "Plimer had been soundly thrashed." [21]

Affiliations

• Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) — Member, "Academic Advisory Council." [26]
  
  
• The Heartland Institute — "Expert." [27]

It gets better and better with this clown.

He's the director of not one, not two, but SEVEN mining companies:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Ian_Plimer#Conflict_of_interest_-_mining_company_directorships

So he makes money - a lot of money - from the fossil fuel industry. But he has no vested interest. Sure.
His climate denial book he wrote aimed at schoolchildren (he's almost like the Climate Denial version of Ken Ham) was so outrageous in its lies and incompetence, that the Australian Government released a specific set of answers to all of his questions:

http://www.climatechange.gov.au/accurate-answers-professor-ian-plimer

So basically, if you wanted the opinion of a climate scientist, he's pretty much the last person on Planet Earth you'd want to believe.

 

[Poptech]

Been debunked many times. That site is run by an IT douchebag - who has posted here ( under "poptart") It's a collection of papers he thinks supports his arguments, but don't.

No need for the childish name called as the list has never been debunked. Please read the "Rebuttals to Criticism" section,

"Criticism: The list has been debunked.

Rebuttal: The list has never been debunked. All known criticisms of this list have been rebutted or a change made to correct the issue. The existence of a criticism does not make it true, as invalid criticisms of the list have been repeatedly shown to be based on lies, misinformation or strawman arguments. In most cases these long rebutted criticisms are now years old and have no relation to the current version of the list. Changes include; clarifications and corrections made to the list when necessary. All corrections made have been insignificant and have never affected the list count."

Harold E. Brooks says: "I just noticed I’m the lead author on one of the papers on the list. I have absolutely no idea how that paper could be construed as “skeptical of man-made global warming.” I have no idea how it could be construed as saying anything at all about man-made global warming."

Lie 1. The author may disagree with having his paper on Poptech’s list.

The list has nothing to do with an author's personal opinion but whether a paper supports a skeptic argument against ACC/AGW Alarm. This is explicitly stated in the disclaimer on the list,

"Disclaimer: The inclusion of a paper in this list does not imply a specific personal position to any of the authors. While certain authors on the list cannot be labeled skeptics (e.g. Harold Brooks, Roger Pielke Jr., Roger Pielke Sr.) their paper(s) or results from their paper(s) can still support skeptic's arguments against ACC/AGW alarm."

Harold Brook's "criticism" is a strawman argument. His papers were not listed because they support skepticism of AGW but rather they support a skeptic argument against ACC/AGW Alarm. In this case the environmental and economic effects of ACC/AGW in relation to tornado activity.

Does Global Warming Influence Tornado Activity? (PDF)
(Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union, Volume 89, Issue 53, pp. 553-554, December 2008)
- Noah S. Diffenbaugh, Robert J. Trapp, Harold Brooks

"The number of tornadoes classified as the most damaging (rated F2–F5 on the Fujita scale) actually appears to have decreased over the past five decades." - Harold Brooks

What alarmist argument does this support? That the decrease in the most damaging tornadoes is caused by AGW?

Normalized Damage from Major Tornadoes in the United States: 1890–1999
(Weather and Forecasting, Volume 16, Issue 1, pp. 168-176, February 2001)
- Harold E. Brooks, Charles A. Doswell III

"Using wealth and inflation adjustment, it seems clear that the most damaging tornado in U.S. history was the 1896 Saint Louis–East Saint Louis tornado, which produced damage equivalent to $2.9 billion in modern terms. ...We find nothing to suggest that damage from individual tornadoes has increased through time." - Harold Brooks

What does this one support that a lack of increase in damage from tornadoes is caused by AGW?

The criteria is laughable.

http://itsnotnova.wordpress.com/2011/06/30/poptechs-list-of-confusion/

1. The author may disagree with having his paper on Poptech’s list.
2. The paper can agree with the IPCC and mainstream climate science but disagree, even if only slightly, with some aspect of CAGW as defined by anyone, even a newspaper or internet article.
3. The paper may confirm fundamental properties of AGW.
4. The paper may be alarming, but somehow still make the list.
5. The papers on the list can hold completely opposing views with each other.
6. The paper can be seriously flawed.
7. Peer-reviewing yourself is acceptable
8. Old incorrect research is okay
9. The author of the paper may have subsequently admitted the science was flawed, but Poptech will continue to list the paper.
10. The paper doesn’t have to be from a climate scientist, political views are ok.
11. Dozens of the papers support high climate sensitivity.
12. The paper may not be peer-reviewed.
13. The “paper” can be just a “letter” of no significant importance.
14. Poptech, doesn’t have to agree with the findings of the paper.

The only thing laughable is the link you cited. Which one of these do you wish to debate so I refute it in explicit detail? The author you cited is so incompetent that he did not even read the list correctly (Lie #4) or understands that "Letters" is a term used to describe a type of peer-reviewed scientific document format in certain scholarly journals such as Nature (Lie #13). What you posted is of epic embarrassment to anyone that knows the information.

Rebuttal to "Poptech's list of Confusion"

This is all available in the "Rebuttals to Criticisms" section. Did you not read it before you posted this nonsense?

 

[MrCharisma]

You whistle and he comes.

 

[Poptech]

"Carter is on the payroll of the Heartland Institute, which itself is funded by polluting industries (Exxon, Scaife Foundations and Koch Family Foundations)

Why are you making things up?

Heartland - Reply to our Critics

The Heartland Institute has not received any funding from ExxonMobil since 2006. Most of our work on climate change (other than reporting on the debate in Environment & Climate News) started in 2008, after ExxonMobil stopped funding us. Heartland received a single donation from the Charles G. Koch Foundation in the last decade: $25,000 in 2012 for our work on health care policy, not climate or energy policy. Funding from fossil fuel and tobacco companies has never amounted to more than 5 percent of Heartland’s annual income.

There is absolutely no evidence, anywhere, that our relationships with Altria, ExxonMobil, the Koch Foundation, or any other donors was anything other than honorable and professional. This is merely an attempt ...to smear Heartland by association – helped by a mainstream media that constantly demonizes these companies. [...]

And speaking of funding, the Sierra Club received $25 million from Chesapeake Energy, a natural gas company; the National Academy of Sciences is getting $350 million from BP, the oil company; and Rajendra Pachauri, the chairman of the IPCC, has received more money from oil companies to support his annual Delhi Sustainable Development Summit than Heartland has raised from them in all 30 years of its existence. So… should we not believe the Sierra Club, the NAS, or the IPCC?”

The Heartland Institute and the IPA are both think tanks that simply support free enterprise. Dr. Carter however has impeccable credentials,

Robert M. Carter, B.Sc. (Hons) Geology, University of Otago (1963); Ph.D. Palaeontology, University of Cambridge (1968); Senior University Scholar, University of Otago (1962); Commonwealth Scholarship, British Council, University of Cambridge (1964-1967); Assistant Lecturer, Department of Geology, University of Otago (1963); Senior Lecturer, Department of Geology, University of Otago (1968-1980); Nuffield Travelling Fellowship, Nuffield Foundation, University of Oxford (1974); Hochstetter Lecturer, Geological Society of New Zealand (1975); Professor and Head, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, James Cook University (1981-1999); Visiting Experts Program, Carrington Polytechnic Institute (1994); Honorary Fellow, Royal Society of New Zealand (1997); Special Investigator Award, Australian Research Council (1998); Outstanding Career Award, Geological Society of New Zealand (2005); Adjunct Research Professor, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, James Cook University (1999-2011); Adjunct Research Professor, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide (2001-2005); Member American Association for Advancement of Science (AAAS); Member, Geological Society of America (GSA); Member, Geological Society of Australia (GSA); Member, Geological Society of New Zealand (GSNZ); Member, International Association of Sedimentologists (IAS); Member, Society of Sedimentary Geology (SSG)

 

[Poptech]

You whistle and he comes.

I am still waiting for you to pick a single nonsensical "argument" from your cite so I can obliterate it here for you. Surely you have one, I mean it could not be possible that every single one off that website is either a lie, misinformation or a strawman argument?

 

[Lester Burnham]

One of a very small %. As compared to an overwhelming consensus.

So you retract your claim that Franks is not qualified?

 

[MrCharisma]

Yes, Andrew, nice try.

From a few pages back: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort/

I am still waiting for you to pick a single nonsensical "argument" from your cite so I can obliterate it here for you. Surely you have one, I mean it could not be possible that every single one off that website is either a lie, misinformation or a strawman argument?

I'm not waiting for you, mate. I'm pretty sure the internet has had enough of your trolling.

Interesting, your name is mentioned and you're on here within 20 minutes. What software are you using? Or do you still just have too much time on your hands?

I have no interest in having a 'discussion' with someone who has an affiliation to a group such as yours, and is on this forum solely to push a political agenda.

 

[Lester Burnham]

A member of the IPA, funded by the vested interests of mining and coal - he's hardly an impartial voice when it comes to climate change even if he is a scientist (hydrologist).

Any impartial skeptics? Genuine question, I can't recall many (if any).

This topic came up on the Q&A where the ABC gave David Suzuki his own show.

SUZUKI : Well, the groups of scientists are generally not climatologists. I mean if you look, it has been very, very well documented in Merchants of Doubt by Naomi Oreskes and Jim Hogan's, what was it, Climate Cover-Up, that when you look at the sceptics or the deniers or whatever we want to call them, the people that don't really believe the evidence is there, many of them, in fact, are being supported by the fossil fuel industry

FRANKS : All I can say is I am a scientist. I started off, I got into this, because I did believe in it and through that process of looking at the science and being objective, not emotional and certainly I’m not funded by big coal or big oil, my car is 20 years old. It cost me three grand. I am not a rich man. I'm not funded to say the things I do. It is actually a belief in science, rather than a belief in pure environmentalism and there are so many more...

 

[Poptech]

So you retract your claim that Franks is not qualified?

He should as Dr. Franks is more than qualified,

Stewart W. Franks, B.Sc. (Hons) Environmental Science, Lancaster University, UK; Ph.D. Environmental Science (Thesis: "The representation of land surface - atmosphere fluxes for atmospheric modelling"), Lancaster University, UK (1997); Environmental Engineer, Empresa General des Aguas Valenciana S.A. (EGEVASA), Spain (1994); Research Assistant, Centre for Research on Environmental Systems, Lancaster University, UK(1995-1997); Lecturer, Department of Environmental Engineering, University of Newcastle, Australia (1997-2003); Senior Lecturer, Department of Environmental Engineering, University of Newcastle, Australia (2003-2006); Australian National Representative, International Association of Hydrological Sciences (2005-Present); President, International Commission on Coupled Land Atmosphere System (2005-Present); Associate Professor, Department of Environmental Engineering, University of Newcastle, Australia (2006-2013); Dean of Students, University of Newcastle, Australia (2009-2011); Professor of Environmental Engineering, University of Tasmania (2013-Present); Foundation Chair of Environmental Engineering, University of Tasmania, Australia (2013-Present)