Comments on: Environmentalism Is the New Religion – Ian Plimer

By: wolfandcub0070

wolfandcub0070 — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 17:30:22 +0000

I don’t see how the professor’s mining interests invalidate his views. certainly his presentation here is cogent and logical. We all have interests, our families and careers, our hobbies and pastimes …. presumably there is nothing wrong inherently in having an opinion that is consistent with our interests?

By: jeykeUK

jeykeUK — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 17:17:18 +0000

The scientists getting millions in govt grants from the IPCC also have a rather obvious conflict of interest.

By: Myschly

Myschly — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 16:20:48 +0000

Well I think that a scientist willing to distort facts and research for money would do better working in the private sector, than the public…

I don’t get this whole ‘conspiracy’ of scientists faking global warming to get grants… I mean, surely this is a worse plot than Bush creating 9/11 to invade Iraq? Getting grants for climate change research has been a very arduous struggle as far as I know.

I mean, ExxonMobil alone spent $16 million (as far as we know) to fund “skeptics” etc..

By: austdata

austdata — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 15:28:53 +0000

You would be more believable if you weren’t a zealot.

The problem, as I see it, is both sides appear to be run by zealots and zealots should never be believed.

By: dmlauffer

dmlauffer — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 14:57:39 +0000

@austdata

How is he a zealot? he is a skeptic.

By: SufferOutLoud

SufferOutLoud — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 14:14:25 +0000

At last, someone who speaks the truth.

By: Mechanized0

Mechanized0 — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 13:34:54 +0000

One might think that even the simplist of those among us would be able to comprehend the truth of your statement jeykeUK.

By: pokerstaaars

pokerstaaars — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 13:17:41 +0000

He’s not completely incorrect but he’s also off target IMO. Because a scientist or athiest is passionate they are priests or dogmatic? I don’t think so. Science doesn’t need to be believed, it’s observed and the evidence speaks for itself. However, if your on the streets preaching evolution and anti-theism, then yes, one may call you such things.

By: PalleSchultz

PalleSchultz — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 12:38:50 +0000

@pokerstaaars
If you look at the reaction against sceptics, it is almost always very aggressive and personal. That in itself points toward Plimers argument as being generally true.

By: rockshop115

rockshop115 — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 12:35:09 +0000

Ian Plimer is one of the greatest men on the planet. Despite constant criticism and controversy, he continues to fight valiantly against the forces of false science. The sheep from the Church of Climatology must be saved from their folly, before it destroys their lives!