Fairytale-Facts: The Age takes 1600 words trying to rubbish Plimer
Funny, but I didn't notice The Age going to such extremes to pick apart the science in An Inconvenient Truth, which is the climate science colander of our times: full of holes. But it shouldn't surprise us. The Fairfax editors made up their minds years ago on climate change, and now have their brains firmly locked down to anything that dissents.
Amusingly, The Age also resents the fact that Ian Plimer has received "uncritical publicity", which is utter nonsense given every journo in the country has been trying to smack him down - think the ABC's Tony Jones, for example. If you want a real example of uncritical publicity, try Al Gore and AIT.
As usual, The Age focuses on one small fact, and ignores everything else, namely that temperatures have dropped since 1998. Take out the 1998 El Niño, and The Age triumphantly announces that:
The fact is that since about 2001, temperatures have declined. But also, since the earth is slowly recovering from the Little Ice Age, you would expect there to be "global warming" on a century scale. The argument is over whether it is human-induced.
Then, having "won" the argument on that, The Age launches into the usual warmist tactic of the ad hominem attack, describing Plimer as:
The Age lines up some rent-a-quote warmists (e.g. David Karoly) to rubbish the claims in his book, backing the IPCC and telling some real porkies in the process. Matthew England from the UNSW Climate Change Research Centre defends the IPCC:
So why did the IPCC models fail to predict the cooling since 2001? Maybe it's because the effects of the sun are played down to almost nothing, and hardly figure in IPCC models, and neither does cloud cover. And also think Michael Mann and hockey sticks - erasing the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age in order to advance a political agenda - one of the worst examples of scientific dishonesty in history. (And, of course, if you conceded that climate change was natural and there was nothing we could do about it except adapt, you'd be out of a job.)
As a final flourish, the article quotes David Easterling of the US National Climatic Data Centre at length, but in the last few lines concedes:
It's getting harder and harder for The Age to defend it's blinkered, warmist agenda against the cool facts.
Read it here.
Amusingly, The Age also resents the fact that Ian Plimer has received "uncritical publicity", which is utter nonsense given every journo in the country has been trying to smack him down - think the ABC's Tony Jones, for example. If you want a real example of uncritical publicity, try Al Gore and AIT.
As usual, The Age focuses on one small fact, and ignores everything else, namely that temperatures have dropped since 1998. Take out the 1998 El Niño, and The Age triumphantly announces that:
the line turns upward. Global warming before your eyes.
The fact is that since about 2001, temperatures have declined. But also, since the earth is slowly recovering from the Little Ice Age, you would expect there to be "global warming" on a century scale. The argument is over whether it is human-induced.
Then, having "won" the argument on that, The Age launches into the usual warmist tactic of the ad hominem attack, describing Plimer as:
rambling and hard to pin down... his conversation is a grab-bag of arguments against human-induced climate change drawn from science and popular debate [nice touch - Ed]. It veers here and there...
The Age lines up some rent-a-quote warmists (e.g. David Karoly) to rubbish the claims in his book, backing the IPCC and telling some real porkies in the process. Matthew England from the UNSW Climate Change Research Centre defends the IPCC:
"That is an absolute no-brainer. He shouldn't be getting away with saying the IPCC ignores the past, it's absolutely untrue," he says. "The IPCC includes all relevant information from geology, geophysics, solar processes, oceanography, glaciology, right through to paleoclimate. Every area he claims he is bringing in for the first time is already there."
So why did the IPCC models fail to predict the cooling since 2001? Maybe it's because the effects of the sun are played down to almost nothing, and hardly figure in IPCC models, and neither does cloud cover. And also think Michael Mann and hockey sticks - erasing the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age in order to advance a political agenda - one of the worst examples of scientific dishonesty in history. (And, of course, if you conceded that climate change was natural and there was nothing we could do about it except adapt, you'd be out of a job.)
As a final flourish, the article quotes David Easterling of the US National Climatic Data Centre at length, but in the last few lines concedes:
Easterling hasn't read Plimer's book, but his analysis published last weekend also challenges Heaven + Earth.
It's getting harder and harder for The Age to defend it's blinkered, warmist agenda against the cool facts.
Read it here.
posted by Simon from Sydney at
7:34 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Comments are moderated and may take some time to appear on the blog. Publication of a comment does not indicate endorsement or approval by Australian Climate Madness.
Please note that this blog is a humorous and satirical look at climate change propaganda in Australia and around the world. Please comment accordingly! Thanks.
<< Home