tip off

The greatest segue of all time?

Piers Akerman may have pulled it off – he goes from “Wilson Tuckey” to “resilient sanity” in half a sentence.

He also makes this assertion:

The points made in Professor Ian Plimer’s bestselling book Heaven And Earth, as repetitive and scholarly as it may be, has not been demolished.

Even if we forgive his mangling of singular and plural in that sentence, his claim just might be ever so slightly wrong.

UPDATE: One of my favourite things about Piers – aside from his tendency toward writing incoherent columns – is that he responds to his commenters with venomous and ill-informed “rebuttals”. Two of my favourites from the current column:

Sceptic – I have yet to see Plimer’s book demolished. I have read personal attacks upon him but nothing to destroy the science his argument is based on. Lift your game.

Braveheart the greenouse argument relies on a CO2 layer in the atmosphere trapping sunlight energy. Why can’t this be found?

44
  • 1
    Evil Bill
    Posted July 23, 2009 at 10:48 am | Permalink

    Jesus H. Christ! Forget the inaccuracy of the statement, do they even have subs at newpapers any more?

  • 2
    Posted July 23, 2009 at 10:53 am | Permalink

    Akerman: The points made in Professor Ian Plimer’s bestselling book Heaven And Earth, as repetitive and scholarly as it may be, has not been demolished.

    And how does he know that? Easy: Ian said so.

  • 3
    confessions
    Posted July 23, 2009 at 10:55 am | Permalink

    Wilson Tuckey’s strident tones cut through with a resilient sanity.

    GOLD!

    he also segues to Phillip Adams – has Adams been in the news recently spruiking the ETS?

  • 4
    Posted July 23, 2009 at 11:09 am | Permalink

    Piers also mentions that Nature Geoscience questioned whether the global warming science was wrong in their most recent issue.

    Of course, their answer appeares to be no, but Piers made up a better answer – one he agrees.

    The articles are locked, but even the blurbs seem to confirm Nature Geoscience as global warming conspirators of the most insidious kind.

    Piers, did you even read the articles, or just see an out-of-context quote on a denialist site?

  • 5
    Joe Seeth
    Posted July 23, 2009 at 11:13 am | Permalink

    Evil Bill, “Forget the inaccuracy of the statement, do they even have subs at newpapers any more?”

    They probably just can’t find a sub willing to read Piers’ articles for what they’re paid.

  • 6
    Posted July 23, 2009 at 11:26 am | Permalink

    I believe this is the paper Piers is talking about. Based on the abstract, it appears to suggest that CO2 forcing doesn’t explain all of the warming from a particular historical period; if those conclusions are accurate, that might have implications for models projecting the amount of temperature change we can expect from increasing CO2 emissions. But as opposed to Piers, the paper doesn’t seem to argue that there is no evidence for a CO2-temperature connection.

  • 7
    confessions
    Posted July 23, 2009 at 11:31 am | Permalink

    If my reading of the literature is correct that article is consistent with the evidence, nothing outrageous there, and as you say they aren’t suggesting what Piers is attributing to them. Why do polemicists misrepresent stuff to suit their ideological viewpoint?

  • 8
    Posted July 23, 2009 at 11:40 am | Permalink

    John Surname: Piers also mentions that Nature Geoscience questioned whether the global warming science was wrong in their most recent issue.

    Of course, their answer appeares to be no, but Piers made up a better answer – one he agrees.

    Just like the creationists and this issue of New Scientist. “See?! We told you so!”

  • 9
    bertus
    Posted July 23, 2009 at 12:01 pm | Permalink

    What I’d love to know is, why are these Rightards so antsy about AGW in the first place?

    Have they never heard of Pascal’s Wager? Isn’t this a variant of Pascal’s Wager? Does it never occur to them that they might be wrong and the climate scientists right?

    Or is it simply that the idiots see it as a Lefty concern, therefore being from the Left it must be wrong and so should be opposed?

  • 10
    bertus
    Posted July 23, 2009 at 12:02 pm | Permalink

    I’m working on this bloody embedded link business. I’ll get it right next time.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager

  • 11
    monkeywrench
    Posted July 23, 2009 at 12:07 pm | Permalink

    So, for the pro-AGW argument, we have the IPCC, every Government science institute in the world, the overwhelmingly-vast majority of non-climate-specialised scientists, and the majority of the public worldwide.
    For the anti-AGW argument, we have Ian Plimer, “Lord” Christopher Monckton, Barnaby Joyce, Wilson Tuckey, Steve “Am I on Telly?” Fielding, Andrew Bolt and Piers Akerman. I can’t think of any more offhand.
    What a shower.

  • 12
    Posted July 23, 2009 at 12:14 pm | Permalink

    To be fair to Ironbar, he’s not arguing against AGW – his opposition is to the exemptions being handed out to polluters in the emissions trading scheme. Which means that Tuckey serves as another example of Piers claiming support for his global warming denial that doesn’t exist.

  • 13
    tee
    Posted July 23, 2009 at 12:16 pm | Permalink

    Tob:

    {Potentially defamatory statements and personal attacks on another author/site removed; comment on the issues or don’t comment at all – Toby}

  • 14
    skeptic
    Posted July 23, 2009 at 12:29 pm | Permalink

    That tee, he’s all class.

  • 15
    confessions
    Posted July 23, 2009 at 12:36 pm | Permalink

    @ monkeywrench: Tim Blair.

    on related note about misrepresenting the AGW science, John Quiggin recently linked to an article about moon landing deniers, noting the similarities with other anti-science thinking such as on AGW, AIDS etc. If you overlay the comments about conspiracy theorists by the sociology professor quoted in the article with commentary by piers, bolt, fielding etc, there is a certain synergy there….

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/14/science/space/14hoax.html?_r=2&partner=rss&emc=rss

  • 16
    Lee Harvey Oddworld
    Posted July 23, 2009 at 12:59 pm | Permalink

    If the moon landing had been a leftist triumph, presided over by an unassassinated JFK and vigorously opposed by Richard Nixon, say, then the rightards would be denouncing at as a massive waste of money and possibly a hoax.

  • 17
    bertus
    Posted July 23, 2009 at 1:19 pm | Permalink

    Tobias @ 12 – and Ironbar has a point. The CPRS (“Carry on Polluting Regardless Scheme”) is such a small step in the right direction. It’s not nearly enough, it’s not well directed and it lets most of the worst polluters off the hook.

    Yet look at the shrieks of outrage it is generating! Imagine if the ALP did come out with something genuinely efective and far-reaching, as Ironbar is calling for! The racket would be deafening. AkerBolt and cronies would go into meltdown (which of course is exactly what Ironbar wants in the first place).

    As I see it the CPRS has two functions, both almost purely political: The first is to put heat on the LNP by serving as a potential trigger for a double dissolution which could decimate the LNP if held soon, thus putting the LNP front bench between a (hot) rock and a hard place.

    The second is to get the ball rolling; to get Climate Change onto kitchen tables and around BBQs, to get people thinking about AGW, as a precursor to more effective action in the future.

    Should the ALP be playing politics with an issue as important as this? I don’t think they have a choice.

    Whether we have the time to bugger around until everybody wakes up is another matter

  • 18
    joni
    Posted July 23, 2009 at 1:26 pm | Permalink

    Is “best selling” in the same vein as the best seller by Peter Costello – and the soon-to-be best seller by Tony Abbott?

  • 19
    notallright
    Posted July 23, 2009 at 1:37 pm | Permalink

    Not sure if we’ve got nothing to lose (which is important for the Pascal wager). If we don’t warm the world then perhaps we’ll have an ice age in the next 50,000 years!!!!

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

  • 20
    tee
    Posted July 23, 2009 at 2:09 pm | Permalink

    Confess:

    Here’s the thing you don’t seem to understand by spouting this gilded superiority complex you seem to be afflicted by.

    AGW is not proven. No one can prove or rather has proved AGW at this stage. It’s a stong assertion but it hasn’t been proved.

    The argument about AGW is one of risk management and is an argument that strongly comports with taking out insurance and your house.

    To assert that it is proven science is just as silly as those who think there isn’t a reasonable scientific estimate that’s being made.

    Toby:

    Please spare the histrionics. Other commenters are ruder than I ever have been. You can be one sided of course, as it’s you’re right to support your tribe, however it’s hugely hypocritical to infer that I’m the only one or the worst offender.

    Wrench says:

    So, for the pro-AGW argument, we have the IPCC, every Government science institute in the world, the overwhelmingly-vast majority of non-climate-specialised scientists, and the majority of the public worldwide.

    However, as I said, they haven’t proved it and you seem to be missing is two huge qualifiers that still isn’t anywhere near being explained.

    1. What is the rate of change?

    2. What is the component of the warming and what it will be after we also taking 1 into account?

    Now the IPCC was very careful to say they had a 90% confidence that some of the warming we have experienced was AGW. However they didn’t say just how much as the science isn’t there yet to make a valid workable conclusion

  • 21
    Posted July 23, 2009 at 3:39 pm | Permalink

    UPDATE: One of my favourite things about Piers – aside from his tendency toward writing incoherent columns – is that he responds to his commenters with venomous and ill-informed “rebuttals”. Two of my favourites from the current column:

    Sceptic – I have yet to see Plimer’s book demolished. I have read personal attacks upon him but nothing to destroy the science his argument is based on. Lift your game.

    Braveheart the greenouse argument relies on a CO2 layer in the atmosphere trapping sunlight energy. Why can’t this be found?

  • 22
    silkworm
    Posted July 23, 2009 at 5:59 pm | Permalink

    One of the commenters at Piers’ blog calls himself “Death to the Left of Adelaide.” Does Piers approve of death threats on his blog?

  • 23
    Posted July 23, 2009 at 6:30 pm | Permalink

    Piers is a assault on my otherwise resilient sanities.

  • 24
    Posted July 23, 2009 at 7:32 pm | Permalink

    After a sane day at work what better than to check “Poison”?

    Give it up, $600,000,000.00 dollars and not a single house built under the Rudd failure government.

    At what point will you lefties get it? When Rudd prostitutes himself on Rove? When he had agreed to do the WA Labor Conference as the keynote speaker?

    When Rudd has done nothing despite a massive mandate to actually do something?

    When Rudd opens his trap about any little issue (artists etc).

    But despite sending a delegation to India to protect foriegn students can’t be bothered with a phone call on behalf of an Australian citizen? Despite actually speaking Mandarin?

    Opening up more Uranium mines, but goes “I think we agreed that”

    Rudd’s a lousy PM (I really enjoy you lefties “squirm”)

    PS Tobius love your work loser

  • 25
    Mobius Ecko
    Posted July 23, 2009 at 7:54 pm | Permalink

    “Here’s the thing you don’t seem to understand by spouting this gilded superiority complex you seem to be afflicted by.”

    That’s a black pot if I’ve read one.

  • 26
    confessions
    Posted July 23, 2009 at 8:08 pm | Permalink

    I have yet to see Plimer’s book demolished. I have read personal attacks upon him but nothing to destroy the science his argument is based on. Lift your game.

    And i’ve seen nothing that indicates to me Piers would recognise a scientific argument against Plimer if and when he ever sees one!

    This is the problem isn’t it, these highly paid, widely published columnists who have no specific expertise on such matters, but just blather away regardless. monkeywrench @ 11 captures this perfectly: the weight of scientific opinion and expertise versus a few unqualified blowhards, a couple of deeply discredited scientists, and a DON’T YOU KNOW WHO I AM?! politician.

    If the situation was reversed, and instead it was the loud, brackish polemicists who were pro AGW we would of acted on climate change years ago.

  • 27
    bertus
    Posted July 23, 2009 at 10:20 pm | Permalink

    Joel B1 @ 24:

    Ahh. Too sad for words.

    Why don’t you come back when you’ve got something, rather than continuing to make a complete fool of yourself?

  • 28
    mark hc
    Posted July 23, 2009 at 11:16 pm | Permalink

    tee incorrectly assert that,
    “Now the IPCC was very careful to say they had a 90% confidence that some of the warming we have experienced was AGW. However they didn’t say just how much as the science isn’t there yet to make a valid workable conclusion”

    The confidence is >90% (greater than 90%) that MOST of the warming of recent decades is due to AGW.

    tee, we can’t prove you will die from melanoma if you do not get one cut out early (though there is a high risk, greater than 90% chance), yet I’d take advice if and get it out if diagnosed by a doctor.

    We have overwhelming evidence of AGW, and we have costed mitigation at a few percent of GDP. That ‘s why so many people are in favour of strong mitigation. And why so many people have house or car insurgence (though the probability of needed to claim on insurance are no where near 90%.

  • 29
    tee
    Posted July 23, 2009 at 11:59 pm | Permalink

    Worm:
    One of the commenters at Piers’ blog calls himself “Death to the Left of Adelaide.” Does Piers approve of death threats on his blog?

    My guess is that he wouldn’t support death to anyone. Now that you bring it up do you support the placards of your leftist brothers and sisters wishing death on the Jews, American presidents and the jailing of AGW sceptics as Jim Hansen has suggested.

    Take a head count on who wishes death and makes death threats in terms of political groups, worm. Go ahead. Be my guest. Lol.

  • 30
    Posted July 24, 2009 at 1:03 am | Permalink

    Tim Lambert’s post (including photoshop) made me literally weep with laughter.

    Next week Piers lifts the lid on the ozone depletion con.

  • 31
    Posted July 24, 2009 at 1:09 am | Permalink

    Another good comment from Piers:

    Bionic make as many lists as you can and you will find that the number of credible scientists sceptical of the global warming garbage is longer than those who believe in the models.

    Source = himself.

  • 32
    Stephen Darragh
    Posted July 24, 2009 at 12:56 pm | Permalink

    Piers makes my head hurt.

    How can he still be published when all he does is invent outrageous claims to suit his position, and then boldly deny all evidence to the contrary – before sliding away to a new and even more absurd position.

    Gah. I have enough trouble with Bolt and Blair cherrypicking from data, but this business of making up “facts” out of whole cloth is a level above them.

  • 33
    tee
    Posted July 24, 2009 at 1:38 pm | Permalink

    And you link is qualified to speak as an expert, Surname? hahahahahaha You’re kidding right?

  • 34
    mark hc
    Posted July 24, 2009 at 3:11 pm | Permalink

    tee writes: “And you link is qualified to speak as an expert, Surname? hahahahahaha You’re kidding right?”

    Argument from authority tee? Not a good choice with the top acadamies, the top journals, the top scienctist in the world vs Peirs Akerman. Your authority would be? A petition from a ideological lobby group such as Heartland Instute?

  • 35
    tee
    Posted July 24, 2009 at 8:30 pm | Permalink

    Mark:

    What experts does surname’s link use? last time I looked he used an unemployed doofus, that went to Algore Univeristy, to refute a sceptic. ALgore university is the place of learning the cult uses to brain wash people.

    Seriously that who he linked to recently:

    About Me: Peter Sinclair is a long time advocate of environmental awareness and energy alternatives. An award winning graphic artist, illustrator, and animator, Mr. Sinclair runs Greenman Studio from his home [he's underemployed] in Midland, MI.
    Mr. Sinclairs (sic) cartoons and illustrations have appeared in newspapers around the world, and his work has been profiled in numerous publications, including the New York Times, The Utne Reader [LOL], and HaAretz (sic) of Jerusalem [HaAretz is bAsed in Tel Aviv, not Jerusalem].
    30 years of writing and activism in the areas of energy and environment, including extended study in Nashville with Al Gore and the worlds (sic) leading climate experts, in addition to skillful creation of audio visual presentations, have made Mr. Sinclairs (sic) presentation on Climate change and alternative energy one which has been called a must see!

    Scientists? Experts? … yea right. LOL

  • 36
    confessions
    Posted July 25, 2009 at 10:33 am | Permalink

    John Surname @ 30: gold in the comments on that thread. My favourite:

    Hey, potentially unfair criticism of Akerman here; it’s possible that he’s denying the existence of sunlight rather than that of CO2. And since his rejection of even the existence of rebuttal of Plimer implies that he reads with his eyes closed, it would be consistent.

  • 37
    mark hc
    Posted July 26, 2009 at 10:53 am | Permalink

    As I said tee, Argument from authority?

    AGW wins the argument from authority (the top acadamies, the top journals, the top scienctist in the world).

  • 38
    Posted July 26, 2009 at 11:50 am | Permalink

    Here’s tee’s thinking:

    Expert = someone who agrees with me.
    Non expert = someone who disagrees with me.

    Tee, are you saying Tim Lambert’s criticism of Akerman’s astounding claim that there is no Co2 in the atmosphere is wrong?

  • 39
    tee
    Posted July 26, 2009 at 1:14 pm | Permalink

    Surname, no.

    However I wasn’t talking about that link, was I? Unless your comprehension skills are worse than what i thought I was obviously referring to the illiterate cartoonist and ALgore devotee he previously linked. That “expert”… lol.

  • 40
    Posted July 26, 2009 at 1:20 pm | Permalink

    Let’s trace back shall we:

    I post a link to Lambert’s.

    You respond with: “And you link is qualified to speak as an expert, Surname? hahahahahaha You’re kidding right?”

    I respond: “Tee, are you saying Tim Lambert’s criticism of Akerman’s astounding claim that there is no Co2 in the atmosphere is wrong?”

    And now you say: “However I wasn’t talking about that link, was I?”

    No of course you weren’t talking about that link. Talking about that link would have made sense, not one of your strong points.

  • 41
    tee
    Posted July 26, 2009 at 1:59 pm | Permalink

    The point is that you could surely do better that use that linked source for any criticism of Ackerman. You missed that, obviously, which again lends weight to my earlier assertion that you have comprehension problems.

    Anyone who links to an unemployed, illiterate cartoonist and Gorecult follower is not a source of credibility to even suggest the sun sets in the evening. Is that clear to you now, John or does it need repeating in a different way.

    One other thing… since when is an IT teacher that hasn’t published in his own area for over a decade a source of expertise on anything … even IT?

  • 42
    Posted July 26, 2009 at 2:26 pm | Permalink

    And if you disagree with the video, how about you post a rebuttal instead of personal attacks.

  • 43
    Posted July 26, 2009 at 10:31 pm | Permalink

    “The point is that you could surely do better that (sic) use that linked source for any criticism of Ackerman.”

    Oh there was a point to your waffle. Silly me.

    What a shame you don’t single Akerman out for the kind of criticism you happily give Peter Sinclair (for no other reason than you can’t rebut him). Peter Sinclair, to my knowledge, thinks there is Co2 in the atmosphere. Akerman does not. Would you like some links to show that Co2 exists in the atmosphere, or am I to take measurements myself?

  • 44
    confessions
    Posted July 27, 2009 at 7:54 am | Permalink

    Peter Sinclair, to my knowledge, thinks there is Co2 in the atmosphere. Akerman does not.

    this is the big differenct between denialists and we more sane people: tee puts his faith in people like Akerman who invents stuff like there being no CO2 in order to support his ideology, instead of being sceptical about the claims made by those with no qualifications or expertise.

One Trackback

  1. By Piers does the time warp - Pure Poison on July 31, 2009 at 5:12 pm

    ...] a week after demolishing his credentials as a science commentator by saying there is no evidence of atmospheric carbon dioxide, Piers Akerman returns to demolishing his credentials as a political [...

Womens Agenda

loading...

Smart Company

loading...

StartupSmart

loading...

Property Observer

loading...