Heaven and Earth, Global Warming: The Missing Science

by Roy C | June 24, 2009 at 01:55 pm

1637 views | 66 Recommendations | 16 comments

Two views of this new book by well-known Australian geologist and academic Ian Plimer well represent the breadth of opinion concerning the impact of Heaven and Earth, Global Warming: The Missing Science

The first one is an about-face by a global warming proponent who reviewed Pliner's book very positively. That reaction has fueled opposition to the bills pending in Australia for so-called "cap-and-trade", a way to exchange credits for pollutants that works very well for companies who pass onto other companies or people the requirement to produce less pollution because it is cheaper for the others to reduce the one pollutant, while the original polluter may reduce something the producer can reduce with maximum of cost effectiveness.

This system has been used in Southern California with great success.

Apparently as global warming has slowed down to a crawl, and the expense of the emissions trading schemes become apparent, backing for this difficult policy has waned.

And, this book, Heaven and Earth, Global Warming: The Missing Science, has had major impact on emboldening the climate skeptics and the non-believers as well. Right now, observers in Australia see the emissions trading scheme as dying on the vine.

Other experts, such as the University of Adelaide's Professor Barry Brook, disagree with Pliner, in spite of the array of arguments and evidence marshaled in Pliner's book.

One of the most remarkable changes occurred on April 13, when leading global warming hysteric Paul Sheehan—who writes for the main Sydney newspaper, the Sydney Morning Herald, which has done as much to hype the threat of global warming as any Australian newspaper—reviewed Plimer's book and admitted he was taken aback. He describes Plimer, correctly, as "one of Australia's foremost Earth scientists," and praised the book as "brilliantly argued" and "the product of 40 years' research and breadth of scholarship."

What does Plimer's book say? Here is Sheehan's summary:

Much of what we have read about climate change, [Plimer] argues, is rubbish, especially the computer modeling on which much current scientific opinion is based, which he describes as "primitive."…

The Earth's climate is driven by the receipt and redistribution of solar energy. Despite this crucial relationship, the sun tends to be brushed aside as the most important driver of climate. Calculations on supercomputers are primitive compared with the complex dynamism of the Earth's climate and ignore the crucial relationship between climate and solar energy.

To reduce modern climate change to one variable, CO2, or a small proportion of one variable—human-induced CO2—is not science. To try to predict the future based on just one variable (CO2) in extraordinarily complex natural systems is folly.

In response, this is Sheehan's conclusion: "Heaven and Earth is an evidence-based attack on conformity and orthodoxy, including my own, and a reminder to respect informed dissent and beware of ideology subverting evidence." This cannot be interpreted as anything but a capitulation. It cedes to the global warming rejectionists the high ground of being "evidence-based," and it accepts the characterization of the global warming promoters as dogmatic conformists.

The political impact has been manifested in a series of climb-downs as Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's government has been forced to delay its plans for cap-and-trade controls. On May 4, the government announced it would postpone the onset of the scheme until mid-2011, a year later than originally planned.

Here is what some of the critics of Pline's book, such as Professor Barry Brook, Director of the Research Institute for Climate Change & Sustainability, at the University of Adelaide, say:

Ian Plimer’s book is a case study in how not to be objective.

Decide on your position from the outset, and then seek out all the facts that apparently support your case, and discard or ignore all of those that contravene it. He quotes a couple of thousand peer-reviewed scientific papers when mounting specific arguments.

What Ian doesn’t say is that the vast majority of these authors have considered the totality of evidence on the topic of human-induced global warming and conclude that it is real and a problem. Some researchers have show that the Earth has been hotter before, and that more CO2 has been present in the atmosphere in past ages.

Yes, quite — this is an entirely uncontroversial viewpoint. What is relevant now is the rate of climate change, the specific causes, and its impact on modern civilisation that is dependent, for agricultural and societal security, on a relatively stable climate. Ian pushes mainstream science far out of context, again and again.

Ian also claims that a huge body of scientific evidence — indeed, whole disciplines such as geology and astronomy — have been ignored. This is an extraordinary proposition and quite at odds with the published literature, as reviewed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

I wonder if Ian has ever read their reports to find out what they actually do say. Terms like ’solar’ and ‘volcano’ get frequent mentions, and there is a whole chapter on ‘paleoclimate’.

Ian’s stated view of climate science is that a vast number of extremely well respected scientists and a whole range of specialist disciplines have fallen prey to delusional self interest and become nothing more than unthinking ideologues. Plausible to conspiracy theorists, perhaps, but hardly a sane world view — and insulting to all those genuinely committed to real science.

3 See all footage | View Slideshow

Share: email story | add to any | | facebook | stumbleupon

recommend This comment thread is now closed

Roy C

at 14:21 on June 24th, 2009

If you want to read a lot about this, I haven't seen a better site than Climate Debate Daily, a collection of articles from both sides.

Amy Judd

at 14:30 on June 24th, 2009

Interesting, am going to have to read further on this.

Art de Rivers

at 15:45 on June 24th, 2009

I've bookmarked that Roy .....Thanks for the article ..... Thought provoking ..

Babel-Fish

at 18:07 on June 24th, 2009

The problem is no one truthfully understands what is going on and only offer theories and some evidence such as rapid thawing of ice. In my lifetime I have seen theories concerning an approaching ice age, atomic war, deadly meteors and now the dreaded green house effect. Well I want clean air to breath cheap renewable power. So I am backing those that say the greenhouse effect is dangerous and is a threat to the human race.

QueensHart

at 18:24 on June 24th, 2009

I am willing to read a lot more before I jump on this cult of Al Gore. This scientist is not

the only one! He is outside the USA which helps him to get his word out before the

bandwagon riders snuff him out. Surely you know that there is not just one revealing this

Babel? I agree with you however it is not going to hurt to be conservative and "save", recycle

etc. It is just common sense to stop the extravagance of big private planes for one that just

comes to my tired mind tonite. So many issues are involved too for nature above all. I believe

in conservation but not when we have more gas than the middle east has oil. Is all this fighting

with the middle east because we won't infringe upon Polar Bears or Seals? It takes a

very well read person to stay on top of all of these things for our children and grandchildrens

sakes but then we have to get to the voters who have to influence the crooked politicians.

I feel overwhelmed with knowing too much as Jung said , we get to a place when we really

evolve we can't go back to naivity. Rhetorical questions , please ignore. Ignorance is bliss

but no , not really.

Roy C

at 18:28 on June 24th, 2009

Personally, I used to believe it was true, and now I have my doubts.

I don't know how any journalist can say he or she "knows" that Global Warming caused mostly by us humans is true.

Paschen

at 19:07 on June 24th, 2009

It is interesting and yet more speculative still.

It remains that we should stop looking for excuses and justifications to keep on polluting and start cleaning our act. In the end it is all about balance and stress factors, we Humans have a great influence on those stress factors that could tip the balance either way.

danesller0127

at 08:30 on June 25th, 2009

I liked this topic, about "environment" thanks very much Roy C. for sharing... :D

Roy C

at 08:33 on June 25th, 2009

You're welcome.

I used to be in the energy savings business when it was only about reducing ordinary pollution and saving money.

The global warming campaign is very different, and its proponents want draconian changes that I don't see as necessary.

danesller0127

at 08:49 on June 25th, 2009

My pleasure! :D

For more detailed information on a variety of climate change issues, including the economics of global warming, environmental impacts, potential solutions, policy implications and international issues, please see the Global Warming In Depth

(http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-basics/basic_science/)

bettermakings (not verified)

at 09:15 on June 27th, 2009

this will be like Saddam Hussein's "weapons of mass destruction" that Bush said was a threat to America, and people will hate Obama for supporting this "man-made climate-change" in a similar way, especially in a couple years when the new Ice Age begins.

if people actually went to a library and studied the earth's long history of climate change, they will laugh at the "man-made climate-change" theory as a joke!

studying archaeology, during the past few hundred thousand years (the time modern humans have been on earth), the average global temperature has changed as quickly as 20 degrees in a few decades, and it happened many many times. a couple degrees change in any direction over a hundred years is completely stable and normal. in fact, warmer is better for life on earth.

BUT, let me guess that Carbon Dioxide released by man's bonfires led to the "global warming" thousand & thousands of years ago.

neilabraham

at 20:30 on June 28th, 2009

There never has been any clear debate on this by qualified scientists. The global warming scare mongers say that the science is proven and there can be no more discussion.

The global warming skeptics say that more research is required and are asking for time to debate this in public. The scare mongers do not wish to debate this in public or anywhere as they are very afraid that they may indeed lose the debate.

The scare mongers know they are on shaky ground and do not want any further scrutiny. They have too much research funding hanging on their assumption that man-made global warming exists and is a fact.

The truth of the matter is out there for everyone to see. The earth has cooled and warmed all on its own thousands of years before man's industrial age. The climate records show this.

Man did not warm the earth. And for mankind to think that we are capable of doing this is clear arrogance. The world is a MUCH bigger place and our atmosphere is far more complex than people realize.

As Dr Ian Plimer rightly said, "To reduce modern climate change to one variable, CO2, or a small proportion of one variable—human-induced CO2—is not science. To try to predict the future based on just one variable (CO2) in extraordinarily complex natural systems is folly."

Two Senators here in Australia, Sen. Steve Fielding and Sen. Nick Xenophon are challenging the carbon credit scheme and are asking for more time to look into the "Real Science" behind the issue. They say it is too important for us and future generations to rush in and approve carbon credit legislation without proper, open, scientific debate first.

And when you think about it - why not debate this in public? If the scare mongers really do have scientific facts on global warming then let's see them debate this on live nation television for all to see. Their fear of public debate only adds to the suspicion that they have something to hide and an expectation that their "facts" won't actually hold up to open public scrutiny on the issue.

There is much more to be said about Global Warming and open debate is needed. (And they should hurry before the next ice age starts happening real soon due to lack of solar activity in the past decade. Why miss a good debate?)

Good article Roy C!!!!

L. E. Deaux (not verified)

at 20:06 on July 12th, 2009

Having read arguments on both sides, I find it compelling that Iam Plimer validates my own studies and data almost perfectly. I find the notion that CO2 drives climate change to be incredibly silly and nonsensical in light of real evidence. Finally a respected scientist comes forward and outlines the very ludicrous lies, distortions and fallicies put forth by the fractionally endowed climate priestcrafts that profit from touting the Pope's line while Galaleo fears buring for relying and....hmmm, real actual SCIENCE. Plimer, my hat is off to you. Brook, if you are truly so convinced of your indefensible position, then let's see you agree to give back all that government grant money that has been heaped upon you to come up with your completely stupid conclusions...along with the other 30-40 actual on-the-take toe-heads that are foisting their position on the world in hopes of achieving their new NAZI order. Sorry Brook, but science triumphs over your catestrophic climate dogma. The fact is, we should be far more worried about a continuation of the current geotime frame ice age than run-away sun bathing!

L. E. Deaux (not verified)

at 20:16 on July 12th, 2009

By the way, for the numnuts that didn't believe there were WMD's in IRAQ, perhaps you need to recheck your facts. Quietly released in July of 2007 was the evidence that the reason we went into IRAQ was to remove 550 Metric Tones of highly enriched uranium oxeflouride (basically one centrigugal step from being processed into pure uranium). Rather than tell the world why we were then and announce it openly, President Bush kept that relatively secret, known only to the former president (Clintons), DOD and the leaders of the House and Senate. It took the better part of 5 years securing that cache of "yellowcake" while it was packaged and removed to Basra and then by ship to Toronto, Canada where the Canadian Government had it processed into nuclear fuel rods for their reactors. No asking you numnits to be a bit open minded, Bush coulod have announced that was there and been vindicated, but like all men who have military backgrounds, he know that saving his own ass would put a LOT of Britich, American and Canadian military personnel in danger. The announcement was made last year after the last shipment was received in Canada....you can look it up on a wide variety of sites.

Of and for the idiots that refuse to believe the war was worth that, think of what a few tons of that material fashioned into dirty bombs lining trucks driven into Paris, London, Frankfurt, Saville, might have done....it would have killed tens of thousands with radiation poisioning. So the hnext time yo want to rag on President Bush over the lack of WMD's, you might want to do some fact checking right on the internet and get it right. Yes the war cost 4,000 American and Allied lives, but it probably saves tens of thousands of European lives and possibly American lives has a container bomb reached an American seaport in Long Beach (CA) or New Yourk, Philidelphia or Newport.

158

at 19:19 on August 4th, 2009

Very informative article.

LeeB3404 (not verified)

at 12:57 on August 25th, 2009

The contemptible arrogance shown by people unwilling to even debate the issue is without parallel. They alone are in possession of some 'divine' knowledge? The last time I saw a crowd like that they were flying planes into building in downtown NYC.