Defense of Plimer on CO2

[Lloyd]

'Heaven and Earth' by Prof. Ian Plimer
Friday, June 5, 2009 9:23 PM
From: Stephen J. Crothers

To: Professor Michael Ashley,
School of Physics,
University of New South Wales,

I refer to your article in The Australian on 9th May 2009, 'No Science in Plimer's Primer', ( http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/st ... 00,00.html ) wherein you attack Professor Ian Plimer, geologist, of the University of Adelaide, for his rebuttal, in his recent book 'Heaven and Earth', of the claim that man-made CO2 is a driver of climate change.

It is evident from the tone of your article and the final paragraph in it that you seem to think that Plimer does not know what he is talking about because you say he does not know what he is talking about, and because the consensus vote of scientists is that man-made CO2 is a driver or is the driver of climate change. However, despite your assertions, peer review and consensus do not make scientific facts. Nature does not abide by the democratic vote of scientists. Consensus has much vested interest to protect, and peer review is ever its resourceful defender of the realm ( and so cannot be taken seriously by anybody, except peer reviewers and their compliant subjects ). Anybody who thinks peer review is unbiased lives in fantasy-land.

As far as I can see, as a layman in matters of climate change, Plimer's book is a welcome counterweight to what has been a rather lopsided reporting in favour of the consensus view you so vehemently champion. The public at large, perhaps to your great displeasure, is entitled to have at its disposal the views of representatives of both sides of an argument, free of fear or favour, in more or less even proportion, in order to come to a conclusion based upon the balance of evidence. To date it is clear from the literature that the public at large has been fed mostly the consensus arguments, and therefore denied the full complement of evidence. Scientists who maintain that the public at large should just listen to them and disregard what their opponents have to say simply upon their say-so are not being scientific, to say the very least. Unfortunately, contemporary consensus science thinks that its resort to ridicule and ignorance is scientific method - but
it is gravely mistaken.

Now I note that you open your article with this rather arrogant remark:

'ONE of the peculiar things about being an astronomer is that you receive, from time to time, monographs on topics such as "a new theory of the electric universe", or "Einstein was wrong", or "the moon landings were a hoax".'

This is a rather interesting remark, since it is the astronomers and astrophysical scientists who have also claimed that "Einstein was wrong", despite the facts that invalidate their convenient claims. Being yourself an astronomer and 'professor of astrophysics', you must surely know that Einstein maintained that the idea of black holes is utter nonsense. Nevertheless, the astronomers and astrophysical scientists claim not only that "Einstein was wrong" on this account, but also that General Relativity predicts black holes and that black holes have been found all over the place. However, the irrefutable fact is that nobody has ever found a black hole anywhere, despite the now almost daily claims by the astronomers and astrophysical scientists for discovery of yet another here and there and everywhere; supermassive usually ( since the adjective 'supermassive' they seem to think adds considerable 'weight' to their vagarious proclamations ). It is routinely claimed by astronomers and astrophysical scientists that there is a black hole at Sagittarius A*. But astronomers at the Max Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics who have studied Sagittarius A* in detail, recently admitted that not only did they not find a black hole at Sagittarius A*, but also that nobody has ever found a black hole anywhere, amongst other admissions as to the falsity of various claims routinely made by the astronomers and astrophysical scientists concerning black holes. A detailed report of their admissions is online, here:

http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.c ... essen.html

That General Relativity in actual fact does not even predict black holes and the irrefutable fact that the 'Schwarzschild solution' ( from which black holes were conjured ) is not even Schwarzschild's solution ( which in fact forbids black holes ), have been reported at recent science conferences, much to the chagrin and dismay of the astronomers and astrophysical scientists who maintain such demonstrable nonsense as black holes:

RIEMANNIAN GEOMETRY AND APPLICATIONS - Riga, 2008 ( http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/RIGA-2008.pdf );

The 20th International Congress of The Jangjeon Mathematical Society, Bursa, Turkey, August 21-23, 2008 ( http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.c ... n-2008.pdf );

Physical Interpretations of Relativity Theory, UK, 2008 ( http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/PIRT-2008.pdf );

Conference On Precession & Ancient Knowledge, October 3-5, 2008, University of California, San Diego, USA ( http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.c ... le-1-1.pdf );

Mathematical Sciences for Advancement of Science and Technology ( MSAST 2008 ), Institute for Mathematics, Bioinformatics, Information Technology and Computer Science ( IMBIC ), Salt Lake City, Kolkata ( Calcutta ), India, December 22-23 ( http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.c ... others.pdf );

Verhandlungen der Deutsche Physikalische Gesellschaft ( German Physical Society ), Munich, March 9-13, 2009: Fachverband Gravitation und Relativitätstheorie ( http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/DPS-paper.pdf );

16th Natural Philosophy Alliance Conference, 25-29 May, 2009, University of Connecticut, Mathematics Department, USA ( http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/NPA-paper.pdf );

So your recent attack on Professor Plimer is I think a matter of one in a glass house throwing the proverbial stones. And let's not forget that you and Professor John Webb were the two supervisors of my PhD programme at UNSW, which ended ugly with my effective expulsion from UNSW for doing nothing but questioning the dogma of black holes, reported in full here:

http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/PhD.html

Res ipsa loquitur.

Yours faithfully,
Stephen J. Crothers.

[mharratsc]

I like it!

Mike H.

[ancientd]

yes the dogma involved in Australian institutes of higher learning is frightening. Its good to see Ian Plimer being gutsy enough to take on his own establishment which seems locked in some kind of religious fervour over the causes of climate change being mainly attributable to man. Keep it up LLoyd