News 
 National Rural News 
 Agribusiness and General 
 Finance 
 NFF backs climate change dissenter 

NFF backs climate change dissenter

21 Apr, 2009 10:43 AM
The National Farmers' Federation has thrown its backing behind controversial climate change dissenter, Professor Ian Plimer, whose new book aims to debunk the theories and dire predictions of some within the scientific fraternity.

In Heaven and Earth: Climate change – the real science, Prof Plimer, from the School of Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of Adelaide, notes that climatic change is "the norm", sea levels rise and fall all the time, and that climate cycles are driven by massive forces completely unrelated to carbon emissions.

"Climate changes in the past have been far greater and far more rapid than anything measured in the present," he writes.

"Not one previous climate change has ever been driven by carbon dioxide.

"To talk of carbon pollution shows an appalling ignorance of basic school science.

"Carbon dioxide is plant food, without it humans could not exist."

Prof Plimer will be a keynote speaker at the NFF's upcoming National Congress in Brisbane in June.

While not explicitly supporting the position Prof Plimer takes, NFF president David Crombie said it was time the climate change debate heard more from those with dissenting opinions.

"We've heard ad nauseam from those scientists convinced that climate change will ruin us all and, seemingly, hell-bent on making grim doomsday predictions," Mr Crombie said.

"But we've heard precious little from those experts for whom the jury is still out, or, in the case of Professor Plimer, say their research shows extreme climate change predictions are over-stated.

"Now, before I'm carted to a stake for public torching, I'm not saying Professor Plimer is right, nor that his colleagues with differing views are wrong.

"Just that it’s about time we had a balanced, informed discussion and debate... free from vilification of those who dare to question conventional wisdom."

In his book, Prof Plimer claims that every scientific argument ever used to show that humans change climate is wrong and cites over 2300 scientific references in support of his claims.

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size


RELATED COVERAGE

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
Finally we start to get balanced reporting on the subject. Thankyou NFF. Maybe the balanced reporting will infect others like the ABC in the near future, then maybe we can have an informed debate instead of only the Government mantra about little Australia saving the world from impending destruction.
Posted by John Michelmore, 21/04/2009 12:17:23 PM
Sorry, John Michelmore, I can't agree. This is a high-risk NFF strategy relying on ignorance and a so-called debate. Plimer has no qualifications in meteorology, climatology or hydrology. http://kmccready.wordpress.com/
Posted by kmccready, 21/04/2009 5:00:55 PM
"Carbon dioxide is plant food, without it humans could not exist." I agree with what he said. I studied basic science at school in a developing country many decades ago and we were told and encouraged to plant the trees to help mother earth recycle CO2 that animals and human produce from their metabolism an human activities. How much do we know about this planet earth in regards to the changing of an atmosphere.
Posted by people from another part of the planet, 21/04/2009 8:59:44 PM
Good to see the NFF taking a more sensible approach to the climate change hysteria coming out of the cities. The vast majority of rural residents I speak to are very sceptical of GW by man-made means. Sure the climate changes, but it has done since time immemorial and will continue to long after we all die. Have to agree with the above in regards to reporting from the ABC and other major media outlets, the bias and rubbish being supplied to the masses is laughable.
Posted by mick, 21/04/2009 10:17:07 PM
Australia and the rest of the world need to rapidly come to the conclusion that any and all hype about mankind's carbon dioxide emissions is based on the incorrect application of science. Carbon dioxide has a nil effect on the global climate and does not cause climate change in any way, shape or form. This will go against all the established interpretations, including those of many sceptical scientists, yet is based entirely upon the proper application of scientific principles, especially those of observation based evidence, none of which has yet been presented to cast doubt, in even the most circumstantial manner, upon the opposite of what is presented in this article: http://tech-know.eu/uploads/EPAIn put.pdf
Posted by Hans Schreuder, 22/04/2009 1:14:34 AM
The so-called "climate change" is still only a theory. This theory has no backing and as Mr Plimer says, we are ignoring basic science. There have been several climate changes. The south pole was a tropical jungle. The Sahara was a sea. These were massive climate changes and no carbon emissions where to blame. It's just another weather cycle we do not understand. It's that simple. The debate on climate change does need some examination, that's for sure.
Posted by Gregtops, 22/04/2009 5:48:48 AM
I would like to also add that it IS about time humans cleaned up our act a lot anyway. We can do with less carbon emissions and pollutants. These are good things coming from the "climate change" policies regardless if it's fact or not.
Posted by Gregtops, 22/04/2009 5:51:54 AM
And presumably the multitude of new-age anthropologists, economists, mathematicians and their computer models and even drug-adled rock stars can support their particular one-world view of wealth ransfer fom the developed to the undeveloped world with some sound scientific research? Any time the proponents of global warming, er, I mean climate change, are challenged to present the scienctific research they have undertaken on climate change they claim to have undertaken, they refuse to on the grounds that the sceptics only flame it. Any scientific claim that can’t stand up to peer review is just opinion.
Posted by Peter, 22/04/2009 6:12:40 AM
About time. If we don't hear both sides of the argument, then the world is still flat. Of course we will experience climate change, but that has been happening since the earth formed and before man walked on it. No scientist will debate that. Beware of absolute faith in one theory, that is a true evil. The climate change industry has much to lose should actual evidence shed doubt on it's validity. It's unfair to make people suffer mass starvation and unnecessary hardship for a cause yet to be backed with evidence.
Posted by Rebecca Dance, 22/04/2009 8:30:38 AM
Sorry kmcready, I can't agree. How can open and honest debate be bad for climate science. Tim Flannery has no qualifications in meteorology, climatology or hydrology! How could a mammalogist or palaeontologist be believed when it comes a debate about climate science? To try to junk Professor Plimer through lack of qualifications is absolutely laughable.
Posted by walta, 22/04/2009 8:52:33 AM
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6  |  next >

post a comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
 
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.
NFF president David Crombie
NFF president David Crombie
Related Coverage
ARTICLES
MULTIMEDIA
POLL
Q: Do you think tree changers generally have realistic expectations of rural life when they move to the bush?

Yes
(9.8%)

No
(89%)

Other
(1.2%)

Total Votes: 764
Poll Date: 19 April, 2009

Most popular articles

Ray White Rural MON0152
 
IRRIGATION CONFERENCE 2010
 
2010 Beef & Cattle Directory
 
S&L Subscriptions
 
Rural Bookshop
 
S&L Twitter
 
S&L Facebook
 
photo gallery


 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...