Global Warming - So What

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Originally posted by kelbol View Post
    Somebody with a bit more authority saying what I mentioned earlier:
    "the vast bulk of the scientific community, including most major scientific academies, is prejudiced by the prospect of research funding".
    "The IPCC process is related to environmental activism, politics and opportunism" and "the IPCC process is unrelated to science".

    Ian Plimer has basically no 'authority' at all and is 'projecting' his own failings on to others.

    I genuinely mean no offence, but what you have done here is a prime example of confirmation bias by cherry-picking. You have 'homed in' on a few quotes that agree with your opinions, and I would say that you have done that without any proper consideration of the context shown by rest of the information on the Wikipedia page.

    Key points include the following:
    1. Unlike many 'climate change critics', Plimer is actually a scientist who has work published in the peer reviewed literature, which means that he knows that science requires proper publication of evidence and citation of sources.
    2. He has NO published peer-reviewed work about any aspect of climate.
    3. His career, and peer-reviewed publications, including his current income, is tied to Australian mining (mainly minerals, but also with links to fossil fuels). He has made a very decent amount from these mining interests - and believes that proposals to reduce carbon emissions could decimate The Australian mining industry.
    4. The claims that he has made about climate change have been widely disputed by scientists whose careers have involved climate, and who do publish climate research in peer reviewed journals. These scientists say that he misrepresents the scientific position.
    5. Plimer has also been critical of 'creationism', but his behaviour when challenging them has been criticised even by people who agree with his anti-creationist position.
    6. In the late 1990s he lost an expensive legal case against a creationist (although it doesn't say this on the Wikipedia page, Plimer said at the time that he would have to declare himself bankrupt).

    Putting all this together, Plimer has no expertise on climate issues and the people who do have expertise disagree with him and say that he isn't representing the science honestly.
    He was pretty much made bankrupt in the late 1990s but is now making quite a lot of money from an industry that he thinks will be decimated by measures that are proposed to reduce carbon emissions.
    As a genuine scientist (at least formally) he is well aware that scientists have to support their claims by providing supporting evidence - and that this, and the methodologies that should allow others to confirm their findings are what is published in peer reviewed papers. Knowing this means that he is well aware that no scientist can get away with simply publishing papers that they believe will support what the people funding the research want to hear.

    There is a reason why people like Plimer (and Monkton who the Wikipedia page says he is associated with) don't publish their claims about climate change in peer reviewed journals, and instead push them by publishing books and on blogs, Youtube, and in the media. It is NOT because there is a conspiracy against them, it is because they lack the evidence to support their assertions (it's very, very easy to do an online search to find honest scientists, and other people who are scientifically literate, 'debunking' the claims made by Plimer). Just one example of a scientists debunk here:

    And an example of how Plimer actively tries to evade having to actually support his claims here (something that no scientist who thinks he has a reasonable argument would do):

    Originally posted by kelbol View Post
    Sounds familiar. Wasn't there a medical researcher stating in The Lancet that Covid was not created in a lab? And then it was found he had links to this research and made this claim because he didn't want funding cut. Scientists are human, first and foremost.
    Was there?
    It's possible, but unless you can provide a citation that allows this claim to be investigated it's nothing more than an unsupported allegation - exactly the sort of unsupported claim that conspiracy theorists love to run with.

    Originally posted by kelbol View Post
    I wonder how many people have been turned off this green crusade after seeing the hypocrisy of leaders in their private jets at COP26.
    Probably quite a few - but that's largely because they don't use any genuine critical thought.

    The majority of people in positions of power (particularly clowns like Bo Jo) DON'T want to give up private jets, frequent holidays abroad, and all of the other extravagances that they enjoy. With the exception of Donald Trump, who really was just a dumb puppet, they aren't stupid though - even Bo Jo has enough sense to realise that he will be seen as a hypocrite, he's just arrogant enough to believe that he can get away with it (and currently he probably can).

    The idea that climate change is nothing more than a huge global conspiracy to make people pay more taxes is preposterous. Governments don't get along with each other well enough to pull anything like that off, they don't need to try and run a global conspiracy if they want to increase taxes, and they wouldn't choose one that goes against their own interests (let alone pay scientists enough to make it worth hundreds of thousands of them all involving themselves in a conspiracy of this type).


      Originally posted by Ted.E.Bear View Post
      "...Plimer has stated that his business interests do not affect the independence of his beliefs"
      The important point here is that he wouldn't need to just "state" this if there was actually any scientific basis for his position - he would be able to demonstrate that his position was valid by reference to supporting evidence that could withstand criticism.

      The fact that he has never done that speaks volumes.



        Now you need to consider what this demonstrates.

        If anything, what it shows is that even a relatively small scientific project (probably involving, at most, a few hundred people in two countries (perhaps with some additional consultants elsewhere) can't hide potentially false claims when people want to see them exposed.

        Whether or not Covid-19 came from a lab is off topic on this thread, but this pretty much proves that a huge climate change conspiracy just to get funding wouldn't stand a snowball's chance in Hell.


        Latest Activity