This article from the Sydney Morning herald came with the message from Bruce saying: “a brick through the AGW window in Australia”. After reading it, and seeing that it is based on a book Heaven and Earth soon to be released by prominent Australian geologist Dr. Ian Plimer, I’ll have to agree. But as usually happens, he’ll probably be labeled a “denier” or an “advocate” as Gavin calls them, and ignored. Still, it is worth reading, since the journalist that has written it seems to question his own past writings. – Anthony
Beware the climate of conformity
Paul Sheehan Sydney Morning Herald
April 13, 2009
What I am about to write questions much of what I have written in this space, in numerous columns, over the past five years. Perhaps what I have written can withstand this questioning. Perhaps not. The greater question is, am I – and you – capable of questioning our own orthodoxies and intellectual habits? Let’s see.
The subject of this column is not small. It is a book entitled Heaven And Earth, which will be published tomorrow. It has been written by one of Australia’s foremost Earth scientists, Professor Ian Plimer. He is a confronting sort of individual, polite but gruff, courteous but combative. He can write extremely well, and Heaven And Earth is a brilliantly argued book by someone not intimidated by hostile majorities or intellectual fashions.
The book’s 500 pages and 230,000 words and 2311 footnotes are the product of 40 years’ research and a depth and breadth of scholarship. As Plimer writes: “An understanding of climate requires an amalgamation of astronomy, solar physics, geology, geochronology, geochemistry, sedimentology, tectonics, palaeontology, palaeoecology, glaciology, climatology, meteorology, oceanography, ecology, archaeology and history.”
The most important point to remember about Plimer is that he is Australia’s most eminent geologist. As such, he thinks about time very differently from most of us. He takes the long, long view. He looks at climate over geological, archaeological, historical and modern time. He writes: “Past climate changes, sea-level changes and catastrophes are written in stone.”
Much of what we have read about climate change, he argues, is rubbish, especially the computer modelling on which much current scientific opinion is based, which he describes as “primitive”. Errors and distortions in computer modelling will be exposed in time. (As if on cue, the United Nations’ peak scientific body on climate change was obliged to make an embarrassing admission last week that some of its computers models were wrong.)
Plimer does not dispute the dramatic flux of climate change – and this column is not about Australia’s water debate – but he fundamentally disputes most of the assumptions and projections being made about the current causes, mostly led by atmospheric scientists, who have a different perspective on time. “It is little wonder that catastrophist views of the future of the planet fall on fertile pastures. The history of time shows us that depopulation, social disruption, extinctions, disease and catastrophic droughts take place in cold times … and life blossoms and economies boom in warm times. Planet Earth is dynamic. It always changes and evolves. It is currently in an ice age.”
If we look at the last 6 million years, the Earth was warmer than it is now for 3 million years. The ice caps of the Arctic, Antarctica and Greenland are geologically unusual. Polar ice has only been present for less than 20 per cent of geological time. What follows is an intense compression of the book’s 500 pages and all their provocative arguments and conclusions:
Is dangerous warming occurring? No.
Is the temperature range observed in the 20th century outside the range of normal variability? No.
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. Yet when astronomers have the temerity to show that climate is driven by solar activities rather than CO2 emissions, they are dismissed as dinosaurs undertaking the methods of old-fashioned science.”
Over time, the history of CO2 content in the atmosphere has been far higher than at present for most of time. Atmospheric CO2 follows temperature rise. It does not create a temperature rise. CO2 is not a pollutant. Global warming and a high CO2 content bring prosperity and longer life.
The hypothesis that human activity can create global warming is extraordinary because it is contrary to validated knowledge from solar physics, astronomy, history, archaeology and geology. “But evidence no longer matters. And any contrary work published in peer-reviewed journals is just ignored. We are told that the science on human-induced global warming is settled. Yet the claim by some scientists that the threat of human-induced global warming is 90 per cent certain (or even 99 per cent) is a figure of speech. It has no mathematical or evidential basis.”
Observations in nature differ markedly from the results generated by nearly two dozen computer-generated climate models. These climate models exaggerate the effects of human CO2 emissions into the atmosphere because few of the natural variables are considered. Natural systems are far more complex than computer models.
The setting up by the UN of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 1988 gave an opportunity to make global warming the main theme of environmental groups. “The IPCC process is related to environmental activism, politics and opportunism. It is unrelated to science. Current zeal around human-induced climate change is comparable to the certainty professed by Creationists or religious fundamentalists.”
Ian Plimer is not some isolated gadfly. He is a prize-winning scientist and professor. The back cover of Heaven And Earth carries a glowing endorsement from the President of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Klaus, who now holds the rotating presidency of the European Union. Numerous rigorous scientists have joined Plimer in dissenting from the prevailing orthodoxy.
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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
One other thing would be to (even if you are buying a copy for yourself) request that the local library get a copy. If enough people gang up on them in an area they might make it more readily available.
Where is my post addressing MattN?
It was entirely reasonable…
REPLY: Spam filter, patience.
Mike Bryant, Michael
“about the comparison of warmists to religionists.”
As a Catholic, I’m deeply aware of the danger of mixing Science and Faith. I try to be very careful to refer to the “problem children” as “AGW adherents” and “Creationists.” Activist Creationists represent a minority of Christians, and certainly don’t speak for me. Clearly, they don’t speak for either of you.
They share a similar problem: In order to advance their version of “science,” they have to deny elements of science. Since the entire body of science is interconnected, ultimately they have to displace all disciplines, and especially, in the case of AGW, those involved with developing tools and techniques. Thus, Creationists have to displace astronomy and geology, but wind up displacing physics, microbiology, etc. Similarly, AGW adherents must thoroughly corrupt modeling and simulation as an engineering discipline, as well as displace thermodynamics, physics, etc.
Paul R (17:36:40) :
Fair point about the correlation between agenda’s, I just happen to think the overpopulation doesn’t need to be dumped into the climate change argument to make ground.
Climate change happens naturally and the debate about our significance into that process is open (hence this site).
Our use of resources on this finite plant has to be dealt with for its own sake.
I’ve been discarded as a bad date before but never for being bad data – thank you for providing my new experience for today :>
I have to say, this thread was grand entertainment this morning.
Thanks to Matt Bennett I have now been informed that “Dr Suzuki”, who I assume is David Suzuki, is a “measured thinker” as opposed to an agenda driven hippy radical popularist.
This has caused great entertainment this morning at the office, as everyone who lives in Canada knows that “Dr Suzuki” has never been anything but an alarmist and environmental cause-jumper of the highest order.
But hey, just go on believing that this guy, who comes across as a major nut-job in person by the way, has anything more than pseudo-scientific mumblings to his credit. In fact, part of my reason for mocking the warmists is my belief that the US counterparts of Suzuki (Gore, Hansen, et al) are similar to Suzuki, especially in areas of flexibility, openness to ideas contrary to their own, and honesty.
If there was a “flammery index”, Suzuki would rate above whatever the highest number is.
Slightly O/T:
I was at the library yesterday so my kids could get some books to read. While I was waiting I picked up a climage change book. The opening statement went something like this:
“The Earth has been warming and most scientists believe humans are responsible for most of the warming”
Aren’t systems that require you to believe in something called religions?
Perhaps we are not only entering in a Maunder Minimum but in an era of Darkness, where , like in the Middle Ages, a belief controls everything…
Global Warmers have the power, they own the media, their church, The Green Church is gaining adepts all over the world. We must surrender to the sanctity of its Pontifices Maximum and accept his teachings as uttered Ex-cathedra.
John W,
Still, no one should be made fun of because of their religion. As a Catholic you are as big a target for the progressives as are fundamentalists are. Allowing the type of comparisons between AGW alarmists and Fundamentalists, I believe puts all people of faifh upon a slippery slope. Also I don’t believe those comparisons help the cause of freedom. I would also like to say that collectivism, socialism, fascism and the unholy alliance of government and science are far more dangerous to real scientific progress than any type of religion.
Science, as well as religion, can only thrive under freedom. Since I believe that is true, each person must decide whether they would like to live where people can believe as they choose and science is free from government tampering, or where some religions are ridiculed and science is the true religion of the state.
““Atmospheric CO2 follows temperature rise. It does not create a temperature rise.”
This is classic school-boy error.”
Indeed, waking up and finding oneself in the wrong lecture!
Next time, quietly gather up your things and nodding apologetically to the professor, sneak away.
“Muphry’s Law strikes again :-)”
I was thinking the same thing!
@ur momisugly Graeme Rodaughan (02:00:52) :
I am not Chad, but here are my thoughts as a climate dabbler.
[1] It’s all about rates. CO2 is without a doubt a greenhouse gas and helps to amplify (or degrade) natural variations.
[2] There is really no saturation point, unless you mean something different than what I am thinking wrt saturation.
[3] Water Vapor is a greenhouse gas, and warmer air can hold more water vapor.
[4] Weather is not climate? Why can it be -20 in winter and 100 in summer in Fargo North Dakota?
[5] Weather is not climate?
[6] We are still in an ice age.
[7] Both would be bad for different reasons.
[8] Doesn’t it happen on both sides of the discussion?
[9] See 1.
[10] Lots of science uses models. We put satellites into space using models, we model chemical reactions and prescription drug effects, geochemical evolution of magmatic systems, etc all using models. Typically we look at the model and compare it to real data. I don’t think people understand how much modeling is a part of ALL science, it just gets a particularly bad rap with respect to climate.
[11] Corrections for the urban heat effect are relativity simple? Oh, and corrections to data happen all the time in science, just like models, wrt to climate science corrections get a bad rap.
[12] http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/052.htm#2221
(Some evil ipcc junk science)
[13] I wouldn’t call it a pollutant.
[14] The same as now. I will ask, how much food can be produced when aquifers run dry due to over use? This is a little mentioned thing in the media and the blog-o-sphere/interwebs.
[15] Not me.
“Paul Sheehan has demonstrated himself to be a man of quality and a man of integrity. He has provided an example of how to handle being provided with information that does not support his beliefs…”
“I think it would be helpful to write up some procedure, to give our green friends the language to concede the reality about the AGW movement in as painless a way possible.”
Well, Mike Bryant has translated the Twelve Step Plan, and I’ll be pleased to add this to my Primer, if that’s ok with you Mike.
Another little gem of a book is the new cartoon childrens book by Marc Hendrickx, another Aussie geologist, converted last year: The Prince of Precaution – go to http://littleskepticspress.blogspot.com
“(As if on cue, the United Nations’ peak scientific body on climate change was obliged to make an embarrassing admission last week that some of its computers models were wrong.)”
Does anyone have a link to this story?
Australia begs to differ….
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-climate-change-australia9-2009apr09,0,7128426,full.story
Lucy Skywalker,
Not only may you add it, but you may revise it as you see fit.
Mike
I haven’t found it either, but you can find plenty of IPCC admissions of error. Look at any of their big reports, other than the first, and you find many mentions of how much more they’ve learned since the previous report. Look for words such as “improved” and “understanding”. The believers ignore how ignorant the IPCC says the climate scientists have been; it’s somehow assumed that right now everything is known.
Any schoolboy can look at the graph and suspect whether CO2 follows temperature. The red line is CO2.
AnnaV,
I like the change to #10 that you suggested perhaps Lucy will incorporate that into her Primer.
Mike
Matt Dernoga (11:00:14) In the cited article warm=drought, that is wrong, warm=evaporation=rain
mr.artday,
You projected that reducing global population by 1 billion people would require killing 1 million/day for 1000 days (not counting births). I couldn’t resist running the numbers myself.
Assuming 1.188% global population growth and a current population of 6,706,993,152 (2008 CIA World Factbook), it would require 5.75 years (2,102 days) murdering 1 million fellow humans per day to reduce the human population to 5 billion. Put another way, all we have to do is re-fight World War II 42 times (every 50 days) to pull this off by New Year’s 2015.
@ur momisugly Graeme Rodaughan (02:05:27) :
“…Wake up – it’s typically below replacement level. The drivers are economic development and personal freedom. Once people have the capacity to limit breeding in a meaningful way – they typically do so. Women in developed countries average less than 2 children each….”
and this has been going on for a long time:
“…Poverty, though it no doubt discourages, does not always prevent marriage. It seems even to be favourable to generation. A half-starved Highland woman frequently bears more than twenty children, while a pampered fine lady is often incapable of bearing any, and is generally exhausted by two or three. Barrenness, so frequent among women of fashion, is very rare among those of inferior station….”
Adam Smith
An Inquiry into the Nature And Causes of the Wealth of Nations
1776
Book One, Chapter VIII
Adam Smith also analyzes why, for example, our courts now behave the way they do, and so the IPCC. Extremely worthwhile reading. Follow the money and the power.
i’ve noticed that no one seems to ever defect from the deniers side to the side of the believers? now where have i seen this before……..oh yeah, that’s right….the Cold War.
Matt Bennett (02:39:55) :
And what happens if the stats for 2009 come back with a global temp anomaly greater than or equal to ‘98/’05, despite our US friends having had to huddle a little closer to the hearth this season? I can just hear the cries of foul play already – everyone has a tendency to give unwarranted weight to their personal experience. We’ll see….
You are probably right as far as any unthinking sceptics are concerned. However, there are many among the “realist” sceptics, who would prefer temperatures to stay up or even increase a little (indeed I’ve seen that opinion expressed on this blog a number of times). Natural forces could take temperatures in any direction. It is just unfortunate, for those of us who find their understanding of the science and observations to date don’t support the mm CO2 calamity theory, that a rise in temperature would make that understanding more difficult to communicate, even though there were no proof of CO2 causation (in the relatively short term anyway).
Troppo (04:48:12) :
Graeme Rodaughan…I too would like to see Mr Chad respond to your list of fifteen questions!
Just one comment on question 13 though….you quote the pre-industrial level of CO2 as just under 300 ppm. If you follow the link from Smokey’s post [13:22:53] to one of Dr Pilmer’s lectures, Pilmer makes a seemingly convincing case to argue that 280 ppm is far too low for pre-industrial CO2 levels. His graph shows that as recently as 1820 it was more like 440 ppm!
Thanks Troppo – I am aware of the discrepency – the point is “What AGW Alarmists Believe” and can they back it up with evidence, or reason from that position without tripping over.
Dean Burgher (13:26:32) :
It is not a matter of FAITH but just of not being a fool while others make a lot of money with your believing in their Creed.
Papertiger wrote: I think it would be helpful to write up some procedure, to give our green friends the language to concede the reality about the AGW movement in as painless a way possible.
We could all do without rubbing their noses in the boo boo.
That’s a very good idea. Something along the lines of…?
“Now that I have stopped reading the Guardian/Independent/NameYourRag I have discovered/realised in blinding flash of light/comprehension/insight that there are two/three/several different points of view about global warming/climate change rather than just one, as I had been led to believe. I blame my newsagent/Al Gore/Jim Hansen/other people in general.”
Steve Schapel (16:45:05) :
“This is unlike so many AGW alarmists who, presented with increasing evidence over recent years that CO2 is not a significant factor in dangerous climate change, have responded with increasing irrationality. ”
Steve, an excellent point. Which unfortunately fuels the fanatic and stereotype monikers hung on the alarmists. We are watching a fascinating exercise in behaviorism, ironically expedited by a digital world. Dr. Plimer’s book “Heaven and Earth” and Paul Sheehan’s remarkably adroit review – give me, for one, hope. Were this a cosmic test of human maturity and self-esteem, I suggest we are poised to pass with flying colors! Sheehan’s summation indicates the talents of an extraordinary, honest journalist and individual:
“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.”