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.
I just want to say that this crew is by and large a very civil and good natured bunch of posters.
I run a fine site full of fine people so I know. Anthony, Charles and most of the posters here deserve a lot of appreciation for not only the content but the quality of community.
Really. Well done folks.
Mark Young
Traders-Talk.com
Benjamin P. (10:07:46) :
…
[6] We are still in an ice age.
Benjamin – thanks for the reply and pending time I will endeavour to provide you with some substantive responses.
However point 6 above stands out. You are the first person I have come across who has asserted that we are “still in an ice age”.
My original question was [6] Was the world warmer than now at any time since the end of the last ice age? If not, on what evidence do you base the conclusion that the current period is warmer than any period since the end of the last ice age approx 10K to 12K years ago?
I’ll read your point as refering to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternary_glaciation i.e the current Ice Age… so technically you are correct and I grant the point.
However – I was referring to the current holocene interglacial http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene “as opposed to” Glacial periods Ref http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glacial_period
The point of the question is to highlight the fact that the climate is not stable to the point of stillness as described by the hockey stick of Michael Mann and to prompt inquiry in that direction.
Cheers G
@Graeme Rodaughan (16:51:36) :
To answer your question more specifically, the earth is likely as warm today as in other interglacial periods. Perhaps a bit warmer, perhaps a bit cooler, but the further you go back, the more uncertainty you have with the proxies. And depending on the proxy, perhaps some have uncertainties that we don’t even know.
I think as long as folks are open and honest and follow the data the truth will be ours at the end of the day. Unfortunately, i think many folks on both sides of the conversation have already determined that the “Science is settled” which is clearly not the case.
I’d argue that science, in any field, is seldom settled.
Ben
Benjamin P. (17:34:27) :
Agreed.
CodeTech,
And David Attenborough? Is it just senility kicking in? You forgot to address his cautious approach which now leaves him no room for doubt…. I’d say he’s been round the block a few times and knows a fad from a genuine warning. Or do you have a better ecological sense of perspective than he?
My point remains unchallenged, there are/have been literally millions of smart people moving in the direction that MattN said had seen NONE. I’d stay silent too after that clanger.
There are lies, damn lies, statistics and computer models.
There are liars, damnlairs, and outliers.
No one wins from making it harder for people to come to an honest assessment of the evidence for/against AGW.
Part 1: Reach out and knock them back against the ropes.
Part 2: Offer them a friendly hand up.
Part 3: Don’t leave out Part 1.
Matt Bennett (18:56:27) :
CodeTech,
And David Attenborough? Is it just senility kicking in? You forgot to address his cautious approach which now leaves him no room for doubt…. I’d say he’s been round the block a few times and knows a fad from a genuine warning. Or do you have a better ecological sense of perspective than he?
My point remains unchallenged, there are/have been literally millions of smart people moving in the direction that MattN said had seen NONE. I’d stay silent too after that clanger.
If we compare David Attenborough with David Bellamy – perhaps the key difference is a willingness to engage in prostitution of their science.
One – Bellamy – is not willing: Ref http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/69623
Of the other – no one knows, perhaps he believes the evidence free drivel he comes out with these days.
Women in developed countries average less than 2 children each.
You are also leaving out the “human nature” reason: In the undeveloped world, children remain highly profitable (indeed, necessary). In the developed world, children are an — extreme — expense.
The key to solving the worlds population problem is sustained economic development and the promotion of individual liberty.
Yes.
In fact, I cannot think of one prominent scientist or even journalist that started out a “skeptic”, reviewed the science, and then became a proponent. Not one…
I have also noticed this.
Lots of science uses models. We put satellites into space using models, we model chemical reactions and prescription drug effects,
Those are simple problems by comparison. Orbits are easy. Trying to model climate “bottom to top” using supercomputers is akin to trying to model the Russian front in WWII using Sniper rules. I.e., less than meaningless.
F=ma is a model. The question is – how well does it comport with reality.
Pretty well. And how about F = G * m1* m2/r^2 . That works pretty well.
Now solve a three body problem. After a while (depending on the problem) the model diverges from reality. And that is for a simple system. So how soon will a climate model diverge from reality with all its complexities? A year in model time? A week?
So. What is the Lyapunov time for a climate calculation for a system that is known chaotic to begin with? Not very long to be sure.
I’d argue that there is no such thing as settled science.
If it is settled it is not science.
Graeme,
From you linked article:
“The sad fact is that since I said I didn’t believe human beings caused global warming I’ve not been allowed to make a TV programme. ”
What first class BS. From what I’ve heard, Bellamy was pretty much on board with the climate change consensus until into the ‘noughties’, by which time he hadn’t done much BBC since about 1995. So how he could accuse the BBC of not allowing his views any airtime, starting from the mid-ninties, because of a position he didn’t hold until 5-6 years later is beyond me. I’ll admit I may have the exact dates out by a year or two, as I don’t have time to google right now, but I’ll welcome any clarification on this.
evanmjones (21:50:28) :
Well, I am sure some folks in the chem and pharma industry may disagree! Perhaps orbits are ‘relatively’ straight forward.
And I think folks are too eager to write off models completely with respect to climate science. It is hard to argue that we have not learned many a valuable things from climate models.
LOL – Matt, you’re funny… and the best part is, I think you’re actually being serious!
For the record, I have no idea who David Attenwhoever is… but I have met Suzuki several times, and “thoughtful” is not a word that gets anywhere near him. Suzuki rides whatever bandwagon gets him more viewers, end of story.
Actually, your advice about “staying silent” is advice your kind never take for themselves…
there are/have been literally millions of smart people moving in the direction that MattN said had seen NONE.
Bennett, give me just ONE example of a prominent scientist or science writer that began a skeptic and switched to the AGW side. Just one. You say there are millions, so give us one, (and be prepared to prove it.)
For the record, I have no idea who David Attenwhoever is
For the record, he is and has been for the past 40 or 50 years the public face of British naturalism. He has produced series after series of TV programmes about the natural world. He has brought to millions his enthusiasm for wildlife of every kind, and helped shape a generations’ attitudes, in Britain at least. And he has become a greatly respected grand old man.
He’s never been an advocate. He’s never been an ideologue. His love for all living things just shines out of him. He never goes shoving his beliefs down people’s throats. If he is lending his support to the global warming scam, it’s almost certainly because he’s been put under pressure to do so.
His brother is the actor Richard Attenborough, who I last saw in Jurassic Park.
“If it is settled it is not science.”
Your ‘model’ is the best illustration we’ve seen!
In the end, this is not an academic debate, because we and our children are part of the experiment. The consensus among scientists (yes, with a few exceptions, as is always the case in science) that we should decarbonise our economy as a matter of urgency.
Say we decarbonise our economy, and it turns out that IPCC view is wrong? Well, we will have created hundreds of thousands of jobs in insulation and manufacturing and taken thousands out of fuel poverty. Not bad, but that’s not all. We will also have reduced the shock of Peak Oil and Peak Gas. And addressed our energy security problems. And prosperity in hot countries. Not bad.
Say we go the way of the denialists/sceptics advocate? We will have problems with energy security, Peak Oil, Peak Gas, fuel poverty, unemployment, poverty, civil unrest and finally, massive, catastrophic climate disruption from droughts, floods, crop failures, disease, and war. With massive migration caused by environmental collapse. Not good.
If I were a betting man, I would put my money on decarbonising the global economy. AGW. I’m sure Pascal would agree.
Replying to…
chad (23:57:28) :
The claim that co2 doesn’t cause warming, which is a claim this guy makes, is akin to claiming the Earth is only 6000 years old. It is so divorced from the weight of evidence that it just calls into doubt the credibility of the other claims made. Spencer and Lindzen do not subscribe to such nonsense, accepting that co2 rise does have a warming effect.
The fact is that over the entire Phanerozoic Eon (the last 650 million years) there is no long-term correlation between CO2 and temperature. Of the Phanerozoic’s four major ice ages, two occurred with far higher CO2 levels…Ordovician (4000-4500 ppm) and Upper Jurassic to Lower Cretaceous (2000-2500 ppm)…And two ice ages with low CO2 levels Pennsylvanian to Lower Permian (200-1000 ppm) and Upper Tertiary to Quaternary (200-1000 ppm). We are currently living in the Quaternary ice age…We just happen to be enjoying an interglacial. There’s an online publication called “Plant Fossils of West Virginia.” This publication includes a chapter on Carboniferrous climate; in which you’ll find a very nice graph that shows the total lack of correlation between temperature and CO2 since the Cambrian Period.
From a geological perspective, the only evidence of a “correlation” between CO2 and temperature is found in Pleistocene-aged ice cores. However, the changes in temperature always precede the changes in CO2 by an average of 800 years. Even Real Climate Dot Org acknowledges the lag-time problem…Well they acknowledge it and dismiss it.
As far as Lindzen and Spencer go…My understanding of their views is that they believe that anthropogenic CO2 has a minimal effect on climate forcing and that natural drivers overwhelm any anthropogenic effects and that the climate’s feedback mechanisms to CO2 are more likely to be negative; rather than positive. Spencer also correctly asserts that Kyoto-style remedies won’t cool the planet and will waste trillions of dollars and the misdirection of gov’t spending will harm people – particularly poor people.
As a geoscientist, I’ve come full-circle on this issue. Twenty years ago, I did not believe that anthropogenic CO2 had any influence on climate. By 1998, I started to accept the fact that maybe it did…It seemed to be getting hotter and hotter…Mann’s paleoclimate reconstruction sure looked convincing and some of the initial correlations of CO2 and temperature in ice cores made be think that CO2 was a significant driver. Since then, the Earth has begun to cool, Mann’s work was shown to be seriously flawed and the lag-time in the ice cores became obvious.
Since then, Svensmark and others have clearly demonstrated the correlation of solar cycles, cloud cover and climate…I’ve discovered that plant stomatal data contradict the ice core data (CO2 has routinely been 300-500 ppm throughout Pleistocene interglacials and the early Holocene) and the ad hominem attacks against dissenting scientific opinion on the part of people like Al Gore has grown to a McCarthy-esque scale.
I’m now convinced that Anthropogenic Global Warming is akin to the Ptolemaic Solar System. It’s only a matter of time until it collapses under its own version of retrograde motion. Hopefully it will collapse before the politicians waste too much of our money.
On the matter of the IPCC remember the IPCC don’t create the science they report on it. The models include TSI forcing and there is no other quantifiable mechanism for solar forcing. So the argument that the models “ignore” some well known significant solar forcing is false. You can’t make any calculations based on unquantified forcing and so you can’t claim they “ignore” such.
The IPCC proactively ignore most solar forcing…particularly the cloud/albedo effect. They mention Palle’s paper on albedo forcing in the 4th AR (or was it 3rd?) and then summarily dismiss it because it doesn’t fit the models and another way of measuring albedo effects fit the models.
What I find amazing is that people are willing to attack my arguments when I made them earlier, seemingly simply because, as one person put it -they thought I was an “activist” – and I guess that means I have to be challenged on every single point, irregardless whether my point is valid.
I have to admit that my initial reaction to your post was that you were an activist.
Replying to…
Richard Lawson (08:36:57) :
In the end, this is not an academic debate, because we and our children are part of the experiment. The consensus among scientists (yes, with a few exceptions, as is always the case in science) that we should decarbonise our economy as a matter of urgency.
Science is not a consensus building process. Prior to the Ptolemaic Solar System’s collapse under the increasing weight of contradictory observations, the “scientific consensus” was that the solar system orbited around the Earth. Plate Tectonics were first hypothesized in the early 20th century…It was 70 years before the evidence supporting it overwhelmed the geosynclinal theory. In the late 1960’s, the “scientific consensus” for mountain-building was that sediment load dumped into synclines pushed up mountain ranges behind those synclines. That consensus was sold right up until the weight of the contradictory evidence toppled it.
And there is no “scientific consensus” that de-carbonization of the economy is urgent. The consensus is that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are a primary factor in climate change…That paradigm will shift in the next 10 years as the Earth continues to cool. If anything the “consensus” is that the talk of urgency is counterproductive to reducing carbon emissions because the alarmism is unwarranted.
Say we decarbonise our economy, and it turns out that IPCC view is wrong? Well, we will have created hundreds of thousands of jobs in insulation and manufacturing and taken thousands out of fuel poverty. Not bad, but that’s not all. We will also have reduced the shock of Peak Oil and Peak Gas. And addressed our energy security problems. And prosperity in hot countries. Not bad.
De-carbonize with what? The only viable alternative of sufficient scale for electricity generation is nuclear fission. Who’s going to pay for this de-carbonization? Draconian carbon tax schemes will only serve to make the world’s most economical energy sources more expensive…This will sap the wealth of rich nations and permanently impoverish the poor nations – if no lead to genocide in the Third World.
Say we go the way of the denialists/sceptics advocate? We will have problems with energy security, Peak Oil, Peak Gas, fuel poverty, unemployment, poverty, civil unrest and finally, massive, catastrophic climate disruption from droughts, floods, crop failures, disease, and war. With massive migration caused by environmental collapse. Not good.
If you go the way that the free market advocates…Fossil fuels will eventually be replaced because market forces make the alternatives more economically attractive.
The climate will do what the Sun, the stars and plate tectonics basically tell it to do irrespective of what mankind does.
If I were a betting man, I would put my money on decarbonising the global economy. AGW. I’m sure Pascal would agree.
Pascal would agree with what? De-carbonizing or AGW? If Pascal was a geoscientist, he’d know that AGW has no scientific foundation; and therefore Pascal’s Wager would not apply.
“I would put my money on decarbonising the global economy. AGW. I’m sure Pascal would agree.”
Pascal over Descartes? You will profit little on that bet.
Give me a Scotsman over a Frenchman any day, thank you; Hume to be exact.
Your bets from evidence, please, not dreamy.metaphysical.fairytale.unicorns-with-wings.moonbattery.
Dave Middleton (09:12:36) :
Replying to…
chad (23:57:28) :
Dave – Excellent Post.
Cheers G
On the population question.
Some comment http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=324516647690251
Suggest further reflection on dropping fertility levels should be considered before touting alarmist “Overpopulation will destroy us all” mantras.