Rightly or wrongly there appears to be a substantial consensus in the scientific community that man made CO2 emissions are driving a change in the climate.
What insights are you in possession of which the proponents of climate change have failed to take into account - and why have these insights not gained traction?
Why do the majority of scientists disagree with your point of view? If your point of view is correct, why is it not generally accepted?
What would it take to falsify your position on climate change?
Assuming your understanding of the climate change issue is correct, what needs to happen to bring about a change in the accepted orthodoxy?
What's your stance on Nuclear? Particularly in Australia, we have a massive desert with nothing interesting in the middle. We have a working-class population that is willing to do dirty, dangerous jobs in the middle of nowhere in exchange for good salaries. We have a third of the world's uranium and a large chunk of other materials, too. We have a third of the size of the UK population and more than 10 times the land surface area. And, as Marcia Langston points out, a non-trivial proportion of the mining industry pulls rural Aboriginal peoples out of poverty, and nuclear could do something similar. However, when I lived in Sandy Bay, Tasmania, Peter Dutton seemed to be hated more than Anthony Albanese and Pauline Hanson put together. This is despite the fact that, if we were able to debureaucratise nuclear to the same extent as the South Koreans, we could build a multi-reactor plant for around 5 billion dollars (i.e. about the same as an equally powerful new gas plant) that powers the entire city of Melbourne without any carbon emissions. 4 would be enough to power Melbourne, Sydney, the whole of QLD, the whole of SA, and the whole of WA, essentially making Australia permanently net zero without any of the costs that the current budget has. What is going on?
Just a little add-on. I learnt recently that the plutonium used in the WWII bombs was carried not in specialised vehicles, but in regular transport trucks. This means if there is worry about radiation, it is not justified. Especially seeing as building an underground bunker, like the Finns, would solve that problem for the next few centuries - more than enough time to figure out a long-term solution.
What role do you see advanced technologies — like AI-driven modelling — playing in reshaping the climate debate, especially when geological data spans millions of years?
Just a fantastic guest, you’ll find the most informative on this subject you will ever hear from. My question is a simple one “why have we not had a two sided debate with all the venues and News Opinion shows”. Keep it simple. 2 experts each side representing ‘Climate Catastrophe within the next 10 years’ 20 minute case presentation each of guests then 4 questions each side to the other side. Then say 3/4 hour of questions from an audience. BBC, GB News, ITV, New Culture Forum, Free Speech Union. TRIGGERnometry! I bet Elon would put up a lot of money to put this on. Audience, millions all over the world. Case for No Catastrophe..Ian Plimer, Lord Moncton. Case for Climate Catastrophe…anyone.
Mining companies in Australia have a very bad reputation. Australians seem to have more animus towards Mining giants than they do banks. What are the strongest arguments for and against this animus?
Seems like the west never really had free trade with China, but instead we had this arrangement where they produce goods and services in a net exchange for hard assets, which they have smartly accumulated. What percentage of global mining operations and leases are controlled by China? Who are the next biggest mining owners and operators outside of China?
European governments justified unilateral Net Zero action with the claim that moral leadership would induce developing economies to decarbonise. We now see China, India and much of the Global South increasing coal consumption, industrializing rapidly, and prioritizing energy security. Does this demonstrate that the “moral leadership” hypothesis was always flawed, or is there still a credible mechanism by which Western Net Zero policies could influence global behaviour?
The West appears to be on a suicidal path to oblivion via self loathing of its own rich cultural, and scientific innovations, together with its plummet toward economic suicide via "Net Zero” insanity. Is it possible to change the catastrophist climate narrative, given that voices of scientific reason, such as your own, are drowned out in a cacophony of corrupt media propaganda?
As a fellow Melbournian, I'm curious about which news outlets Professor Plimer trusts, if any. I grew up watching the ABC but have sadly not been able to watch it the past few years because of their bias. Are there any local news or media sources the Professor respects?
Do you think that the climate hoax is being driven by bad actors who deliberately over claim the impact of the data used?
For example, the Green Blob is dangerously using the huge advancements in analytical technology, to scare people into believing that there's a climate emergency, because, the levels of measurement can be down to parts per trillion (basically nothing) just by quoting the numbers but rarely mentioning the units. They are reliant upon the lack of science training, the gullibility and ignorance of the public.
This is quite evident in their approach to the aquatic environment, where biological parameters are ever tightened because, the chemicals can be individually identified and so must be reduced or eliminated via the imposition of chemical limits rather than biological limits. Ultimately, to the detriment of environment.
Ithought the climate scare would die 17 years ago, but it still drives government policy in Britain. When do you think the politicians and civil servants will finally realise there isn't a climate crisis?
1) How do we get the media to accept the fact that atmospheric CO2 levels follow temperature, not the other way around?
2) How do we get the media to accept the fact that 97.5% of scientists do NOT agree that human CO2 emissions are causing global warming? 99.7% of scientists do not have a professional opinion because climate change is outside their discipline.
I have challenged ChatGPT and grok on climate arguments. ChatGPT largely backed down after counter points Grok doubled down and said even if the population dropped to 500million people would still have to give up western lifestyle. My point. The next generation are being filled with fear about their future.
If pollution in the atmosphere can affect the climate, environment and life on earth, would 0% pollution in the atmosphere have affected on the climate, environment and life on earth? If so, how would it be affect and would to be good or bad for us?
Do you have a one sentence comment that would help to explain to those who think "man made global warming/existential climate change is going to kill everyone"....but it's not as much of a problem as it is said to be by the people who are calling it out?
Rightly or wrongly there appears to be a substantial consensus in the scientific community that man made CO2 emissions are driving a change in the climate.
What insights are you in possession of which the proponents of climate change have failed to take into account - and why have these insights not gained traction?
Why do the majority of scientists disagree with your point of view? If your point of view is correct, why is it not generally accepted?
What would it take to falsify your position on climate change?
Assuming your understanding of the climate change issue is correct, what needs to happen to bring about a change in the accepted orthodoxy?
I was going to ask the "falsifiable" question but you've beaten me to it.
What's your stance on Nuclear? Particularly in Australia, we have a massive desert with nothing interesting in the middle. We have a working-class population that is willing to do dirty, dangerous jobs in the middle of nowhere in exchange for good salaries. We have a third of the world's uranium and a large chunk of other materials, too. We have a third of the size of the UK population and more than 10 times the land surface area. And, as Marcia Langston points out, a non-trivial proportion of the mining industry pulls rural Aboriginal peoples out of poverty, and nuclear could do something similar. However, when I lived in Sandy Bay, Tasmania, Peter Dutton seemed to be hated more than Anthony Albanese and Pauline Hanson put together. This is despite the fact that, if we were able to debureaucratise nuclear to the same extent as the South Koreans, we could build a multi-reactor plant for around 5 billion dollars (i.e. about the same as an equally powerful new gas plant) that powers the entire city of Melbourne without any carbon emissions. 4 would be enough to power Melbourne, Sydney, the whole of QLD, the whole of SA, and the whole of WA, essentially making Australia permanently net zero without any of the costs that the current budget has. What is going on?
Just a little add-on. I learnt recently that the plutonium used in the WWII bombs was carried not in specialised vehicles, but in regular transport trucks. This means if there is worry about radiation, it is not justified. Especially seeing as building an underground bunker, like the Finns, would solve that problem for the next few centuries - more than enough time to figure out a long-term solution.
What role do you see advanced technologies — like AI-driven modelling — playing in reshaping the climate debate, especially when geological data spans millions of years?
What is the single, most important geological fact/event that disproves the consensus science that currently controls the Climate Change debate?
Just a fantastic guest, you’ll find the most informative on this subject you will ever hear from. My question is a simple one “why have we not had a two sided debate with all the venues and News Opinion shows”. Keep it simple. 2 experts each side representing ‘Climate Catastrophe within the next 10 years’ 20 minute case presentation each of guests then 4 questions each side to the other side. Then say 3/4 hour of questions from an audience. BBC, GB News, ITV, New Culture Forum, Free Speech Union. TRIGGERnometry! I bet Elon would put up a lot of money to put this on. Audience, millions all over the world. Case for No Catastrophe..Ian Plimer, Lord Moncton. Case for Climate Catastrophe…anyone.
Btw I collect extremely well qualified experts on the climate catastrophe hoax. I have 60 for anyone to note and follow.
Great question. :)
Greetings from a fellow Australian.
Mining companies in Australia have a very bad reputation. Australians seem to have more animus towards Mining giants than they do banks. What are the strongest arguments for and against this animus?
Seems like the west never really had free trade with China, but instead we had this arrangement where they produce goods and services in a net exchange for hard assets, which they have smartly accumulated. What percentage of global mining operations and leases are controlled by China? Who are the next biggest mining owners and operators outside of China?
European governments justified unilateral Net Zero action with the claim that moral leadership would induce developing economies to decarbonise. We now see China, India and much of the Global South increasing coal consumption, industrializing rapidly, and prioritizing energy security. Does this demonstrate that the “moral leadership” hypothesis was always flawed, or is there still a credible mechanism by which Western Net Zero policies could influence global behaviour?
second.
The West appears to be on a suicidal path to oblivion via self loathing of its own rich cultural, and scientific innovations, together with its plummet toward economic suicide via "Net Zero” insanity. Is it possible to change the catastrophist climate narrative, given that voices of scientific reason, such as your own, are drowned out in a cacophony of corrupt media propaganda?
As a fellow Melbournian, I'm curious about which news outlets Professor Plimer trusts, if any. I grew up watching the ABC but have sadly not been able to watch it the past few years because of their bias. Are there any local news or media sources the Professor respects?
Do you think that the climate hoax is being driven by bad actors who deliberately over claim the impact of the data used?
For example, the Green Blob is dangerously using the huge advancements in analytical technology, to scare people into believing that there's a climate emergency, because, the levels of measurement can be down to parts per trillion (basically nothing) just by quoting the numbers but rarely mentioning the units. They are reliant upon the lack of science training, the gullibility and ignorance of the public.
This is quite evident in their approach to the aquatic environment, where biological parameters are ever tightened because, the chemicals can be individually identified and so must be reduced or eliminated via the imposition of chemical limits rather than biological limits. Ultimately, to the detriment of environment.
Regards Ian
Ithought the climate scare would die 17 years ago, but it still drives government policy in Britain. When do you think the politicians and civil servants will finally realise there isn't a climate crisis?
G'Day Ian.
Loved "Green Murder".
Loved "How to Get Expelled From School".
1) How do we get the media to accept the fact that atmospheric CO2 levels follow temperature, not the other way around?
2) How do we get the media to accept the fact that 97.5% of scientists do NOT agree that human CO2 emissions are causing global warming? 99.7% of scientists do not have a professional opinion because climate change is outside their discipline.
I have challenged ChatGPT and grok on climate arguments. ChatGPT largely backed down after counter points Grok doubled down and said even if the population dropped to 500million people would still have to give up western lifestyle. My point. The next generation are being filled with fear about their future.
If pollution in the atmosphere can affect the climate, environment and life on earth, would 0% pollution in the atmosphere have affected on the climate, environment and life on earth? If so, how would it be affect and would to be good or bad for us?
Do you have a one sentence comment that would help to explain to those who think "man made global warming/existential climate change is going to kill everyone"....but it's not as much of a problem as it is said to be by the people who are calling it out?