I met John Quiggin today and had a short discussion re: the comment I made on his blog a few days ago.
I tried to explain that CO2 is rapidly absorbed by plants, and that his simple multiplication was therefore unlikely to be valid. Unfortunately, he jumped almost headlong into a personal attack, suggesting that my perspective on climate change facts is driven by "ideology", and he then made remarks about "people on 'my side of the fence'".
I had to assure him politely but firmly that I'm a scientist and driven ONLY by the truth. I'm on NOBODY'S SIDE. I couldn't care less about anyone's views that are not evidence-based.
He informed me that he had read the IPCC reports in detail, and that IPCC only uses peer reviewed citations. I informed him the IPCC has used many citations from people who are either not adequately trained or belong to advocacy groups. We agreed, then, that only the "majority" of IPPC citations are peer reviewed, not all.
He attacked Ian Plimer, suggesting that Plimer's work had been debunked. I assured him that I don't care either for Plimer or anyone else, but only for the facts and validity of the arguments. (And from what I recall, Plimer has cited HUNDREDS of peer-reviewed articles in his book. In any event Plimer is NOT my only reading on this subject.)
I promised John that I'll publish two pieces of evidence on this blog:
a) that CO2's half-life in the atmosphere is not universally agreed by scientists, and that some believe – with good reason – that it has a very short half life; and
b) that IPCC has not been using peer-reviewed work in many cases (which he seemed to agree, but I'd like to compile all relevant information on this topic).
He kept referring to "top quality" peer reviewed journals as his standard of proof. I indicated to him that peer-review means nothing, in the end. There is so much rubbish published after being peer reviewed – particularly in the field of economics! We need to exercise great judgement in determining the validity of any published report. Peer review is nice to have, but not a guarantee of the truth.
Anyway, I'm currently over-whelmed with a 100 other commitments on my plate, and would appreciate if any readers are able to support me in compiling evidence for (a) and (b). I've got a fair idea about both these issues, including some material published on this blog, but if you can provide additional enlightenment through your knowledge, that would be very useful.
[PD, my response to you on FPTP will need to wait. That's not urgent, anyway.]
The complete discussion
- I'm sorry Australia has such a disappointing person on its Climate Change Authority
- Strip Al Gore and IPCC of their Nobel Prize and give it to these people
- If Kevin Rudd continues to abuse those who ask questions, then Australia should bid goodbye to science
- It is not Donna Laframboise but Rajendra Pachauri who is a HUGE liar
- Now John Quiggin says that the world's top scientists are stupid! This is getting absurd.
- John Quiggin, IPCC's peer review process is riddled with holes. I now expect a detailed correction on your blog.
- John, thanks for withdrawing your allegation against Donna's integrity. Here's other stuff you and I should know.
- The total mess that is IPCC. This is very serious stuff. Please do read.
- John (Quiggin), Donna's methodology is totally transparent. Please PROVE she is a liar.
- Now John Quiggin says that Donna Laframboise is lying. I'll ask her about it.
- Second point for John Quiggin: to what extent does IPCC use peer reviewed literature?
- Response to John Quiggin re: longevity of "man-made" CO2 in the atmosphere
- Very important new study that rebuts IPCC generated panic
- Inviting input from readers re: climate change facts, to conduct a debate with John Quiggin
- John Quiggin, I suggest you review your estimate of the impact of Australian CO2 reductions
If you found this post useful, then consider subscribing to my blog by email: