Comments for to be precise

Comment on Debunking Ian Plimer’s “Heaven and Earth” by matt

matt — Thu, 17 Nov 2011 07:19:24 +0000

Hi Alan, have you read Ian Enting’s paper on the Plimer book?
If not, you really should, to get a bit of perspective on the quality of Plimer’s assertions: http://bit.ly/entingplimer

Comment on Debunking Ian Plimer’s “Heaven and Earth” by Alan Chew

Alan Chew — Wed, 16 Nov 2011 07:54:28 +0000

Oops….not sure how to haul it back…..
Let us focus on the big picture here……which in my view is the logical issues surrounding causal linking.
Part of my work as an engineer involves solving problems associated with the failure of high tech control systems. My company designs, builds, installs and maintains these systems on a world wide basis. Another part of my experience is the writing of mathematical models to study the failure modes of complex process systems.
These two matters have provided me with skills which are particularly closely aligned to the current debate and the logic which relates to it.
One of the most important criteria which must be met in trouble shooting and modeling is to be able to accurately explain the past in an historical sense. If this can not be done to a very high level of certainty, the hypothesis fails.
Ian Plimer makes this point on numerous occasions throughout the book. It is the challenge which the climate change model fails to meet on every count.
Further, Ian Plimer sets out to emphasize that he does not have the answers, but he does have the questions.
Can the modelers explain (using only one version of the parameters) the variations in climate over (let’s make it simple) say, the last 50,000 years? (And of course demonstrate the causal link to man made CO2 and the climate change).
For the zealots the argument is not actually about climate change but about the causal link between climate change and man made CO2 ( it is not even about CO2).
I have noticed that none is challenging the point raised regarding the fundamental shift in the IPCC dialogue from global warming to climate change, carbon pollution to carbon reduction and so on. These are subtle yet significant changes in the conversation.

Alan Chew

Comment on Debunking Ian Plimer’s “Heaven and Earth” by Alan Chew

Alan Chew — Wed, 16 Nov 2011 07:27:36 +0000

Congratulations to Ian Plimer on placing a large about of solid logic on the table regarding the man made CO2 debate and it’s effect on climate change. His book Heaven and Earth addresses so much of the debate it appears to be futile to cover the same ground. I have read the book twice now and do not pretend to be qualified to attempt a peer review of the science. I note that some of his critics have the audacity to admit that have offered criticisms of the contents of the book, based on comments by others yet have read the book themselves. What a startling and amazingly stupid statement to make.
I recommend that people read the book with an open mind before forming any consensus view.
It may will be true that the book contains errors……for the nit pickers this is a big deal. I think they make much ado about nothing. Let us focus on the big

Comment on Caffè Camardo coffee by Ze Queen

Ze Queen — Fri, 28 Oct 2011 12:14:02 +0000

I’m not a coffee fan but this is really great!

Comment on Delta Chicco D’oro coffee by Jeannine

Jeannine — Thu, 29 Sep 2011 06:20:16 +0000

I just bought the coffee under discussion. Usually buy Fair Trade coffees but brought this one home to remind me to look it up on the internet! Where do the coffee beans come from?

Comment on Debunking Ian Plimer’s “Heaven and Earth” by John Curtis

John Curtis — Wed, 03 Aug 2011 18:44:02 +0000

The moment information is transferred to another party,It is there either true or untrue. Both sides of this very emotional anthropomorpic global warming debate are inclined to ridicule the other side. ridicule will not help. Is not science about asking why and how.
If someone suggests a different reason should that not be tested. Unfortunately money and reputations and politics has gotten involved with this problem and I distrust all 3 of these things.
my 2 cents worth is that our world is changing very fast for us and at present it will pan out like this; Co2 will not be a worry because the oil crisis will put a hault to that. Then our travelling companions Famine Disease and war will kick in followed by a drop in our population which was the main problem in the first place. Why can,t our wise ones solve overpopulation in a peaceful way Educated self imposed birth control.

Comment on Delta Chicco D’oro coffee by greg heinsen

greg heinsen — Wed, 13 Jul 2011 20:46:23 +0000

wows have stopped selling the 1kilo beans in airlie bch, where can i buy it now, thanks

Comment on Delta Chicco D’oro coffee by Joe

Joe — Tue, 12 Jul 2011 13:28:10 +0000

Man, are you on drugs? That is possibly the most pompous attempt at trying to be clever writing that I have ever seen

Comment on Debunking Ian Plimer’s “Heaven and Earth” by Mary Nokleby

Mary Nokleby — Tue, 21 Jun 2011 17:52:11 +0000

Reading the scientific rebuttals was helpful…and informative……..but good gracious….some of the comments amaze me.

1. Being a “scientist at heart” doesn’t make you qualified to read the data…….and reams of data is coming in from all over the world…..our computers make the gathering and collating of it easier and more far reaching than ever before. Yes, science begins with hypothesis…instead of “forgone conclusions”…but it persists in gathering the data…lots of data…and those hypothesis move, under the influence of the data…into theories….and then into versions of scientific fact. the process is a long one, time consuming, precise: a life work.
Being a scientist at heart, as one commentator claimed…should mean knowing this process, and having some respect for it.

2. Science is different from “common Sense”…people writing in to say they are using their common sense to refute “the false gods of climate change” make me want to cry…..as a retired school teacher I have to take some responsibility for their silly conflating of categories. Hundredes of years ago, common sense suggested the sun moved around the earth: It doesn’t….and it was science that proved the common sense picture of how the world worked, wrong.
A simple suggestion: When reading claims that we have nothing to worry about…do a quick check on the credentials of these “scientists”………find out who they work for…….and how long they’ve been at it.
But also………..look at the scientific consensus…global warming is not the brainchild of a few renegades in the scientific community…….its the conclusion that follows evidence gathered in many places over the last 25 years.

Just to be objective: consider the possibility that most of these men and women might be honest professionals…….and that the scammers might be on the corporate side of the ledger. Corporatism is something different from science.

Try to figure out the differences…when you are weighing the data

Comment on Delta Chicco D’oro coffee by linda

linda — Mon, 13 Jun 2011 01:37:43 +0000

I have been drinking Delta Chicco D’oro for a few years and it is always available in Woolworths. Sometimes I manage to get the bargain pack which someone else mentioned. Unbelievable value! I love it when coffee aficianados drink it and tell how wonderful my coffee is!