In the Monbiot Plimer debate, both were given roughly equal time of reply. HOWEVER: Monbiot interrupted Plimer an astonishing eighteen (18) times. To which Jones intervened only twice after the event. Jones himself interrupted Plimer three (3) times. This behavior does NOT show up in transcript, only in the footage. Plimer interrupted Monbiot once. Both called the other side fraudulent, only Monbiot called Plimer a liar. Both Jones and Monbiot had the look of cats who had drunken their fill of milk after the mauling. Monbiot’s interruptions with adjudicator Jones’ complicity ensured Plimer could not get a reply in edgeways.

So to sum it up, it was Tony Jones of the ABC whose abyssmal performance stands out, followed by Monbiot for lack of any social grace. Plimer, reeling, but integrity intact, would have won by default, but for the star performer whom only the alert audience would have observed: the live footage of icy weather on the white snow-covered streets of Copenhagen behind Monbiot’s satellite screen.

His work isn’t complete. it is flawed, his claims about the IPCC and the science are untrue. In-fact his claims about the science are suspect and are completey at variance with the science. Such as CO2 and volcanoes.

There are a number of detailed debunkings of Plimer’s flawed arguments.

Ian Plimer’s ‘Heaven + Earth’ — Checking the Claims
Ian G. Enting
Available from:
http://www.complex.org.au/tiki-download_file.php?fileId=91

I find your analysis in these areas insightful, and sound.

Therefore, I was surprised to find NO mention of the purloined data from CRU, and the implications that can derived from its calculations, and its code and documentation.

Remember, trenchant analysis should be applied against areas you agree with was well as those with which you disagree.

Have you Say is unavailable for this story

Presumably unavailable is denialspeak for disabled.

‘CLIMATE CHANGE ROCKED’
Wednesday December 2,2009
By John Ingham

‘THE scientific consensus that mankind has caused climate change was rocked yesterday as a leading academic called it a “load of hot air underpinned by fraud”.

Professor Ian Plimer condemned the climate change lobby as “climate comrades” keeping the “gravy train” going.
In a controversial talk just days before the start of a climate summit attended by world leaders in Copenhagen, Prof Plimer said Governments were treating the public like “fools” and using climate change to increase taxes….’

He said carbon dioxide has had no impact on temperature and that recent warming was part of the natural cycle of climate stretching over billions of years.

Prof Plimer told a London audience: “Climates always change. They always have and they always will. They are driven by a number of factors that are random and cyclical.”

Professor Plimer said climate change was caused by natural events such as volcanic eruptions, the shifting of the Earth’s orbit and cosmic radiation. He said: “Carbon dioxide levels have been up to 1,000 times higher in the past. CO2 cannot be driving global warming now.

“In the past we have had rapid and significant climate change with temperature changes greater than anything we are measuring today. They are driven by processes that have been going on since the beginning of time.”

He cited periods of warming during the Roman Empire and in the Middle Ages – when Vikings grew crops on Greenland – and cooler phases such as the Dark Ages and the Little Ice Age from 1300 to 1850.

No mention was made of his Directorship with Ivanhoe mines and the fact that Plimer therefore profits from coal mining. Some people might draw the conclusion that Plimer’s observable lack of objectivity regarding climate science is compromised by financial gain.

Professor Plimer certainly isn’t making any efforts to get the science right or out to make friends, is he!

As for your claim: ‘Since 1998 the level of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased yet global temperature has reduced’

First of all temperatures continue to increase. Your selection of 1998, a super el-nino, shows you cherry-picked a particular year.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif

Secondly, no-one with any sense claims that CO2 is the ONLY driver of climate. There numerous factors, but CO2 is currently the most important one.

Thirdly, there is the chaotic weather fluctuation. We are talking climate. Climate is long-term trends, 30 years is the standard. The warming over decadal periods is too small to show through the weather ‘noise’.

Regarding your claim: ‘Increased CO2 in greenhouse tests have resulted in more vigorous plant growth’.

CO2 starvation is NOT a limiting factor in plant growth outdoors. However the predicted climatic effects will include shifting patterns of rainfall and temperature. Either of which can severely curtail plant growth.
The available evidence does NOT support more CO2=increased agricultural output.

What the future holds for us is uncertain.
We know that:
CO2 is causing warming,
the warming will disrupt natural systems
the CO2 is man-made
Population is growing, but the planet’s capacity is finite.

While we do not know everything [we never will], we know more than enough to know we must stop emitting CO2. Population must be stabilised.

I doubt very much that your ‘innocent’ question was indeed as innocent as you suggest.

Following Ian Plimer’s error-strewn article in ‘The Spectator’, George Monbiot in ‘The Guardian’, slated Plimer’s errors ‘Spectator recycles climate rubbish published by sceptic’.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/jul/09/george-monbiot-ian-plimer

Plimer challenged Monbiot to a face-to-face debate:
Monbiot responded in ‘Why can’t the champion of climate change denial face the music?’
“Last week I wrote to Professor Plimer accepting his challenge, on the condition that he accepts mine. I would take part in a face-to-face debate with him as long as he agreed to write precise and specific responses to his critics’ points — in the form of numbered questions that I would send him — for publication on the Guardian’s website. I also proposed that there should be an opportunity at the debate for us to cross-examine each other.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/aug/03/ian-plimer-climate-change-denial

Plimer then responded by rejecting a debate under Monbiot’s conditions.

Plimer reconsidered and accepted the challenge:
‘Let battle commence! Climate change denialist ready for the fight’
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/aug/05/climate-change-scepticism

But now, true to form Plimer hasn’t answered Monbiot’s questions, because he realises that whether he answers truthfully or dishonestly, Plimer’s anti-science will be revealed as a tissue of lies and deceptions.

Plimer has instead posed questions for Monbiot to answer. This is clearly a diversionary tactic.
‘Plimer resorts to attack as the best form of defence’
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/aug/12/climate-change-climate-change-scepticism

—

Hat-tip to Tim Lambert at Deltoid.
‘Plimer chickens out’
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/plimer_chickens_out.php

I’d appreciate it if someone who has read the book would mosey over to Opinionations and let me know if the comments I quoted are an accurate representation of the book. If so, it’s pretty shocking; this is stuff someone has quoted to support their argument that climate change is a hoax and made a right fool of themselves.

I too watched the Dover doco, and the similarity between Creationists and Denialists is uncanny. Ironically our ‘friend’ cohenite tried to put AGW proponents in the same place as the dover defendants in a thread at Deltoid: it fascinates me that he doesn’t understand why it is that he has an inverted take on the whole AGW/evolution comparison.

Oh, and I’d love to stick my hand up for a copy of the PDF if that’s OK Barry. Sounds like a very interesting paper.

Elliott, Louis P & Brook, Barry W. (2007) Revisiting Chamberlin: Multiple Working Hypotheses for the 21st Century. BioScience, 57: 608-614.

Abstract
The method of multiple working hypotheses, developed by the 19th-century geologist T. C. Chamberlin, is an important philosophical contribution to the domain of hypothesis construction in science. Indeed, the concept is particularly pertinent to recent debate over the relative merits of two different statistical paradigms: null hypothesis testing and model selection. The theoretical foundations of model selection are often poorly understood by practitioners of null hypothesis testing, and even many proponents of Chamberlin’s method may not fully appreciate its historical basis. We contend that the core of Chamberlin’s message, communicated over a century ago, has often been forgotten or misrepresented. Therefore, we revisit his ideas in light of modern developments. The original source has great value to contemporary ecology and many related disciplines, communicating thoughtful consideration of both complexity and causality and providing hard-earned wisdom applicable to this new age of uncertainty.

Keywords: BAYESIAN STATISTICS; HYPOTHESIS TESTING; MODEL SELECTION; PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE

I’ll be happy to send you the PDF of the full paper (or anyone else that is interested).

The modus operandi is to
1) set up the Popperish straw man of needing only one fact or observation to falsify a scientific theory
2) find some inconsequential divergence between theory and observation (e.g. that last month was cooler than average; an extreme example to illustrate the point)
3) triumphantly announce that this renders the entire edifice of AGW/Darwinian theory invalid
4) imply that the alternative (sunspots/natural variability/creationism) must be correct.

Note that none of this involves equivalent scrutiny of said alternative paradigms. This is where naive Popperism falls down in the realm of complex systems such as earth and life sciences. In these instances it’s much more apposite to talk about competing system models and which best fit reality across a suite of observations, otherwise you just end up in an infinite loop of falsification.

I distinctly remember thinking during the debate I saw that Plimer might have spent a little too long grappling with creationists, so redolent were his arguments of theirs.