jump to navigation

Global warming? Don’t wait up! The Earth has her own tricks to keep the carbon count in control. By Professor Ian Plimer November 29, 2009

Posted by honestclimate in Discussions.
Tags: , , ,
1 comment so far

Global warming? Don’t wait up! The Earth has her own tricks to keep the carbon count in control

Professor Ian Plimer

Professor Ian Plimer
Mail Online, November 28, 2009

Perhaps it is comforting to believe that science is an absolute discipline: immune from fads, fanatics and frauds, untroubled by extremists, evangelists, glory-seekers and bigots. But it is not. It is as vulnerable to the vested interests and biases of its practitioners as any corporate entity or political party.

Uncomfortable truths are suppressed and dubious evidence given undue prominence.

Nowhere is this more worryingly obvious than in the science of climate change. As a field of research it has become so heavily politicised that opposing views are spoken of in terms of religion: believers and non-believers, with the accent being on the righteousness of the former and the benighted state of the latter.

Those who believed scientists to be relentless seekers of the truth will have been shocked by the row sparked by a hacker who got hold of emails sent by staff at the University of East Anglia.

It has been claimed that the emails exchanged by members of the university’s Climate Research Unit showed statistics had been finessed using ‘tricks’ and material that didn’t fit the computer model of Climate Change presented to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was allegedly suppressed.

In my book Heaven And Earth, I hinted at the existence of this sort of activity and was pilloried by those who have everything to gain from keeping the climate-change gravy train rolling. Because that is what it has become.

Sensationalist theories are generated by scientists who have evolved into professional alarmists who can influence the IPCC and reap rewards in research grants and fame. The trouble is that the only way to protect this position – and transmit their message of doom and gloom – is for the elite little coterie of climate comrades in the UK and United States to ignore geology, archaeology, history, astronomy and solar science. You see, these are the things that don’t fit.

The reality is that the Earth has been here before, it has been here through worse and it is still, resolutely, here today. Climate-change theory and the dire prognosis given by its proponents is just wrong.

Read the rest here

To order Professor Plimer’s bestseller “Heaven and Earth” click here

Heaven and Earth: Global Warming, the Missing Science – Audio Interview with Professor Ian Plimer October 24, 2009

Posted by honestclimate in Discussions.
Tags: , , ,
1 comment so far

Heaven and Earth: Global Warming, the Missing Science

Via Financial Sense, October 24, 2009

For audio interview click here

Climate, sea level, and ice sheets have always changed, and the changes observed today are less than those of the past. Climate changes are cyclical and are driven by the Earth’s position in the galaxy, the sun, wobbles in the Earth’s orbit, ocean currents, and plate tectonics. In previous times, atmospheric carbon dioxide was far higher than at present but did not drive climate change. No runaway greenhouse effect or acid oceans occurred during times of excessively high carbon dioxide. During past glaciations, carbon dioxide was higher than it is today. The non-scientific popular political view is that humans change climate. Do we have reason for concern about possible human-induced climate change?

This book’s 504 pages and over 2,300 references to peer-reviewed scientific literature and other authoritative sources engagingly synthesize what we know about the sun, earth, ice, water, and air. Importantly, in a parallel to his 1994 book challenging creation science, Telling Lies for God, Ian Plimer describes Al Gore’s book and movie An Inconvenient Truth as long on scientific misrepresentations. Trying to deal with these misrepresentations is somewhat like trying to argue with creationists, he writes, who misquote, concoct evidence, quote out of context, ignore contrary evidence, and create evidence ex nihilo.

Ian Plimer, twice winner of Australia’s highest scientific honor, the Eureka Prize, is professor in the School of Earth and Environmental Sciences at The University of Adelaide and is author of six other books written for the general public in addition to more than 120 scientific papers.

For audio interview with Professor Plimer click here

To order Heaven and Earth click here

Meet the man who has exposed the great climate change con trick July 10, 2009

Posted by honestclimate in Discussions.
Tags: , , ,

Meet the man who has exposed the great climate change con trick

By James Delingpole
The Spectator, 8th July 2009

James Delingpole talks to Professor Ian Plimer, the Australian geologist, whose new book shows that ‘anthropogenic global warming’ is a dangerous, ruinously expensive fiction, a ‘first-world luxury’ with no basis in scientific fact. Shame on the publishers who rejected the book

Imagine how wonderful the world would be if man-made global warming were just a figment of Al Gore’s imagination. No more ugly wind farms to darken our sunlit uplands. No more whopping electricity bills, artificially inflated by EU-imposed carbon taxes. No longer any need to treat each warm, sunny day as though it were some terrible harbinger of ecological doom. And definitely no need for the $7.4 trillion cap and trade (carbon-trading) bill — the largest tax in American history — which President Obama and his cohorts are so assiduously trying to impose on the US economy.

Imagine no more, for your fairy godmother is here. His name is Ian Plimer, Professor of Mining Geology at Adelaide University, and he has recently published the landmark book Heaven And Earth, which is going to change forever the way we think about climate change.

‘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,’ says Plimer, and while his thesis is not new, you’re unlikely to have heard it expressed with quite such vigour, certitude or wide-ranging scientific authority. Where fellow sceptics like Bjorn Lomborg or Lord Lawson of Blaby are prepared cautiously to endorse the International Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) more modest predictions, Plimer will cede no ground whatsoever. Anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory, he argues, is the biggest, most dangerous and ruinously expensive con trick in history.

To find out why, let’s meet the good professor. He’s a tanned, rugged, white-haired sixtysomething — courteous and jolly but combative when he needs to be — glowing with the health of a man who spends half his life on field expeditions to Iran, Turkey and his beloved Outback. And he’s sitting in my garden drinking tea on exactly the kind of day the likes of the Guardian’s George Monbiot would probably like to ban. A lovely warm sunny one.

Read the rest here

In Defence of ‘Heaven and Earth’ (Part 2) June 21, 2009

Posted by honestclimate in Discussions.
Tags: , , ,
1 comment so far

In Defence of ‘Heaven and Earth’ (Part 2)

Jennifer Marohasy blog, June 19, 2009

DON Aitkin, a former member of the Australian Science and Technology Council and Foundation Chairman of the Australian Research Council, wrote to Kurt Lambeck, President of the Australian Academy of Sciences, concerning his public criticism of Ian Plimer’s new book Heaven and Earth.  Professor Aitkin waited ten days for a response, and, in its absence, has decided to release his letter more widely.

Date: Sun, Jun 7 2009 7:03 pm
From: Don Aitkin

Dear Kurt,

It was a coincidence that I started to write a set of comments about your review of Ian Plimer’s book when The Canberra Times told me of your Queen’s Birthday honour, for which I congratulate you. I’ll make a further tiny comment about that at the end.

I didn’t hear your talk, but I have read the transcript, and make some comments about it, given Robyn Williams’ remark, in introducing you, that ‘the stakes couldn’t be higher’. I might have simply read, shrugged and passed on, had it not been for your comment that ‘Heaven and Earth is not a work of science, it is an opinion of an author who happens to be a scientist’. I puzzled over that line. It’s the kind of remark I would make about the IPCC authors’ statement that they were 99 per cent certain, or whatever the figure was, that the warming we were having was the result of human activity. That was not science, if you will allow me to say so. It was the opinion of scientists. My own feeling is that the claim would have been better expressed as ‘We are pretty sure that…’

Indeed, the IPCC reports, the last two of which I have read, seem to me very similar, in that respect, to ‘Heaven and Earth’. There is abundant use of refereed journal articles, and that’s fine. The science there described is used for the purposes of the IPCC. And that’s fine too. We use what others have done for our own purposes. What then distinguishes the 4AR from Heaven and Earth? Ian Plimer uses what he can find to build a case, and so do the IPCC authors. Both think they are right. I can’t myself see a difference.

I agree with you (and I am sure that Ian Plimer would too) that ‘climate change’ is such a complex process that no single individual can do the work necessary to explain it all. But that is why we use the work of others, knowing that we cannot do everything, but hoping that we have made a contribution — and knowing also that later someone else will come and show faults in what we have done. I see no reason to suppose that the IPCC process is necessary, and you have quite frankly recognised some of the faults in it. There are many others, and they don’t give me great confidence in the output.

Nor do I see any need for consensus — and that is the second remark you made that prompted this comment. As I see it, science is never about reaching consensus — that’s a political process. Science is about formulating hypotheses and testing them experimentally. Inasmuch as there is consensus about anything (the kind that allows textbooks to be written) it too is understood to be subject to review and dislodgment if the evidence points elsewhere. And Plimer’s book offers abundant examples of that kind of evidence.

Read the rest here

Professor Ian Plimer’s new book Heaven and Earth has gone into its fifth print run! June 13, 2009

Posted by honestclimate in Discussions.
Tags: , , ,

Professor Ian Plimer’s new book Heaven and Earth has gone into its fifth print run!

From Publisher’s Weekly – US
Rowman and Littlefield Acquires Aussie Bestseller
By Rachel Deahl — Publishers Weekly, 6/10/2009 7:37:00 AM

Rowman and Littlefield Publishing has acquired North American rights to In Heaven and Earth: Global Warming: The Missing Science, by leading Australian geologist Ian Plimer. In the book, Plimer makes the scientifically controversial argument that carbon dioxide has an insignificant role in affecting climate. Heaven and Earth was originally released in Australia in May by Connor Court Publishing and has already gone through five printings, after hitting local bestseller lists there. According to R&L, as of May 15, Plimer’s title was #1 on Bookdata, the Australian equivalent of BookScan.

R&L said Plimer refutes much of the science Al Gore presented in his bestselling primer on global warming, An Inconvenient Truth. In a statement from the publisher, Plimer said Gore’s book and documentary are rife with “misrepresentations” and that “trying to deal with these misrepresentations is somewhat like trying to argue with creationists, who misquote, concoct evidence, quote out of context, ignore contrary evidence, and create evidence ex nihilo.”

R&L, through its Taylor Trade imprint, is crashing the book for July 1 and expects the title to stir up debate. Jed Lyons, CEO of R&L, added that the book’s message is particularly urgent. “When our children are being taught that carbon dioxide—food for plants—is a pollutant, and that climate change is somehow unnatural, then clarifying views need to be heard.”

To order book, click here

The modern heresy of true science June 2, 2009

Posted by honestclimate in Discussions.
Tags: , , ,
add a comment

The modern heresy of true science

The Spectator, 1st June 2009
By Melanie Phillips

Every so often, a book is published which, it is instantly clear, is the definitive last word on the subject. Such a book has just appeared on the global lunacy of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). In his devastating study Heaven and Earth. Global Warming: The Missing Science (Quartet) Ian Plimer, Professor of Mining Geology at the University of Adelaide and previously Professor of Earth Sciences at the Universities of Melbourne and Newcastle systematically shreds the theory and the hallucinatory propaganda industry it has spawned. There is simply nothing left of it when he has finished – and he does so from the perspective of real science which the theory has so shockingly betrayed.

Having painstakingly out the actual scientific facts and evidence involved in the study of climate, he concludes his book with a sustained peroration of fury and contempt at the way such scientific evidence has been dismissed in a breathtaking campaign of ‘cognitive dissonance’. As he says, there is not one shred of actual scientific evidence to sustain the claim of AGW, which rests in its entirety upon charlatanry, fraud, ignorance and ideology. Here are some tasters of this invaluable book.

‘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’

he writes. The world has been warming, slightly and intermittently, and also cooling, since the Little Ice Age. Nothing new there. Sea level, ice sheets and life on earth have also changed slightly. Nothing new there. The claims that the seas are rising and the ice retreating in any extraordinary fashion are all demonstrably false. The theory rests on the categorical assertion that rising carbon dioxide levels result in a warming of the atmosphere. Yet although carbon dioxide levels have been increasing, there has been no significant warming since 1995 and none at all since 1998.

That is because the claimed cause and effect between carbon dioxide and global warming is simply false. History shows us that there is no relationship between carbon dioxide and temperature. Proponents of the theory, he writes, have to explain why the Minoan Warming, Roman Warming and Medieval Warming all produced warmer temperatures than now. Why the temperature rose from 1860 to 1875, decreased from 1875 to 1890, rose until 1903, fell until 1918 and then rose dramatically until 1941. Why the rate and amount of warming at the beginning of the 20th century was greater than now despite lower carbon dioxide emissions. Why the world cooled from 1941-1976, the year of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. Why the temperature rose from 1976 to 1998, then cooled. And so on.

As he says, the whole theory was created not by the scientific methods of observation and gathering actual evidence but by dubious computer modelling. These models suggested constant warming until the end of time but predicted neither post 1998 cooling nor El Nino events.

Read the rest here

Must see interview with Professor Ian Plimer May 30, 2009

Posted by honestclimate in Videos.
Tags: , , ,
1 comment so far

Interview with Professor Ian Plimer

Excellent 3 part video interview with Professor Ian Plimer. Professor Plimer is one of Australia’s top geologists and recently released his book Heaven and Earth: Global Warming  – The Missing Science. His book has been selling like hotcakes and has been a talking point across Australia.

H/T Gore Lied for the videos

Ian Plimer says science, not religious zeal, should govern the climate change issue May 8, 2009

Posted by honestclimate in Discussions.
Tags: , , ,
1 comment so far

Ian Plimer says science, not religious zeal, should govern the climate change issue

AC | May 7 2009

Professor Ian Plimer speaking at the
Melbourne launch of Heaven and Earth.


When the long history of planet Earth is considered, “we can see that climate has always changed,” Professor Ian Plimer told about 300 people at the Melbourne launch of Heaven and Earth, his climate change best seller.

“What would be extraordinary is if we had no climate change.”

Professor Plimer said the planet came out of an ice age in 1850 and has been warming since.

“A little bit of cooling in the First World War time, [it] warmed again to 1940, then it cooled to 1976, then it warmed up to the great El Nino of 1998, then it was static for a while and it’s been cooling since 2003.

“Now I find it absolutely extraordinary that that fabulous story of history, archaeology and geology gets denigrated to where we say there’s one parameter, that is, [a] small amount of carbon dioxide … coming from us is changing climate.

“Because we’ve seen so many massive climate changes in the history of time, driven by everything except carbon dioxide, and to denigrate that to just one factor in a very complex, multi-component system, I think is a non-scientific argument.”

Professor Plimer said the collapse of Western socialism and the ineffectiveness of Western Christianity has left a spiritual vacuum which has been filled by the environmental movement.

“People have to believe in something … and I think that what we are seeing is a religious movement that has embraced a number of factors which are common to Christianity. Guilt, for example.”

“I argue very strongly that science is married to evidence.”

He pointed to chapter eight of his book, where he argues:

“Science where a majority of votes by climate scientists determines a scientific truth is politics, not science. And that is exactly what human-induced global warming is: politics. After the consensus method fails one too many times, there will be a quiet advance to real science. In the interim we have to live with the carping of ascientific unelected political pressure groups who behave like scalded cats should anyone have the temerity to argue that global warming is not a man-made phenomenon. Some scientists have placed science on the platform of religious dogma.”

Read the rest here

The publishers who rejected Plimer’s bestseller May 6, 2009

Posted by honestclimate in Discussions.
Tags: , , ,

The publishers who rejected Plimer’s bestseller

Andrew Bolt, Herald Sun
Thursday, May 07, 2009

Professor Ian Plimer‘s Heaven and Earth – a book sceptical of global warming theory – has been an instant bestseller, already selling 20,000 copies in just a fortnight.

Some have wondered how it came to be published by a small Melbourne firm, Connor Court Publishing, and critics (such as the ABC’s Fran Kelly) have hinted that it’s to Plimer’s discredit.

In fact, the discredit belongs entirely to the bigger publishers who turned down the book, so sure of their faith in global warming that they were unable or unwilling to see there was a big market of sceptics desperate to hear the other side of a debate that the mainstream media had insisted for years was “over” and “settled”.

Here is a list of the publishers who turned down Plimer’s book, even though he already had a proven record of success, having produced best-sellers such as Telling Lies for God (Random House, around 23,000 copies) and A Short History of Planet Earth (ABC Books, around 16,000 copies), which won him a Eureka Prize:

– ABC Books

– Random House

– Allen and Unwin

– East Street

Here’s the latest book Allen and Unwin chose to publish on global warming instead:

The Clean Industrial Revolution

The race is on to find ways to reduce our impact on the environment. Ben McNeil shows us how we can make the most of our natural advantages and how Australia businesses can benefit economically when adapting to the new environmental realities.


‘A passionate and informative demonstration of how mitigating climate change can be compatible with economic growth’ – Professor Ross Garnaut, the Garnaut Climate Change Review

Heard of it?

Here’s the latest global warming title published by East Street:

Cool Hunting Green

By Dave Evans…

This, the second book in the Cool Hunting series, recognises the hottest designs right now are those that promote a cleaner, greener and more beautiful planet. Designers all over the world are hailing ‘green’ as the new ‘black’ and taking up the call to reduce, reuse and repurpose existing resources in their products to inspire a greener world.

Detecting a pattern already?

Here, now, is how Random House, a ”carbon aware business”, describes its “green policy”:

At Random House Australia we believe that, like all businesses, we need to examine and assess our environmental impact… We encourage our employees to support our local community, treasure our local environment and behave responsibly within society at large.

Here are three pages of titles Random House published recently that come up when you type “climate change” in its search function. Here’s the three pages of Random House titles you get when you search for “global warming”.  Not one, you’ll see, puts the sceptical case.

And here’s the three pages of book and DVD titles that ABC Books offers on climate change – only one of which, a foreign-published DVD, argues (at last!) against the alarmism.

Debate? How lucky you are to have it.

Hot-air doomsayers May 6, 2009

Posted by honestclimate in Discussions.
Tags: , , ,
add a comment

Hot-air doomsayers

Article from: The Australian

IN Heaven and Earth – Global Warming: The Missing Science, I predicted that the critics would play the man and not discuss the science. Initial criticism appeared before the book was released three weeks ago.

Well-known catastrophists criticised the book before they actually received a review copy. Critics, who have everything to gain by frightening us witless with politicised science, have now shown their true colours. No critic has argued science with me. I have just enjoyed a fortnight of being thrashed with a feather.

Despite having four review copies, ABC’s Lateline photocopied parts of chapters and sent them to an expert on gravity, a biologist and one who produces computer models. These critics did not read the book in its entirety. The compere of Lateline claimed that he had read the book yet his questions showed the opposite. When uncritical journalists have no science training, then it is little wonder doomsday scenarios can seduce them.

In The Age (Insight, May 2), David Karoly claims that my book “does not support the answers with sources”. Considering that the book has 2311 footnotes as sources, Karoly clearly had not read the book. Maybe Karoly just read up to page 21, which showed that his published selective use of data showed warming but, when the complete set of data was used, no such warming was seen.

Robert Manne (The Weekend Australian, Inquirer, April 25-26) claims to be a great democrat yet demonises dissent on a matter of science. He is not a scientist. The gains made in the Enlightenment, the scientific method, history and integrated interdisciplinary science are all ignored in an ideological push to remodel the economy.

Primary producers should be very worried about an emissions trading scheme underpinned by incomplete science. Unions in industrial centres may even make conditional financial support of the ALP because the workforce they represent will be lambs to the slaughter with an ETS.

Capital city ABC and newspaper media outlets have treated the public with disdain. They have used arrogant pompous scientists who talk down to the public and yet these scientists forget that the public employs them. My critics are never asked: Who funds them? What have they to gain by following their party line? Why have they ignored a huge body of contrary science? What are their political associations? What unelected groups support them? Yet I am constantly asked these questions.

The huge number of recent letters tell me that there are winds of change. The average punter has been told for more than two decades that we are all going to fry. He is not stupid and is blessed with a rare commodity missing in many academic circles: common sense.

Life experiences of rural people are very different from those of city folk who have little first-hand experience of nature. My correspondents feel helpless and disenfranchised with the unending negative moralistic cacophony about climate change. They know it smells but they cannot find where the smell comes from. The reason why the book has been a publishing sensation is because the average person knows that they are being conned and finally they have a source reference.

The hypothesis tested in my book was that increased atmospheric CO2 creates global warming. This was shown to be invalid on all time scales and by a diversity of methods.

In the past, climate change has never been driven by CO2. Why should it be now driven by CO2 when the atmospheric CO2 content is low? The main greenhouse gas has always been water vapour. Once there is natural global warming, then CO2 in the atmosphere increases. CO2 is plant food, it is not a pollutant and it is misleading non-scientific spin to talk of carbon pollution. If we had carbon pollution, the skies would be black with fine particles of carbon. We couldn’t see or breathe. Climate Change Minister Penny Wong appeals to science yet demonstrates she does not have a primary school understanding of science.

The atmosphere contains 800 billion tonnes of carbon in CO2. Soils and plants contain 2000 billion tonnes, the oceans 39,000 billion tonnes and rocks in the top few kilometres of the crust contain 65,000,000 billion tonnes of carbon in carbon compounds. The atmosphere only contains 0.001 per cent of the total carbon in the top few kilometres of the Earth.

If all the fossil fuel on Earth were burned, the atmospheric CO2 would double. The Earth has been there before and high atmospheric CO2 has accelerated plant growth and increased biodiversity. It is the sun, water vapour, rocks and oceans that have stopped a runaway greenhouse or a permanent snowball Earth.

I would like to see some fundamental questions answered by the climate catastrophists. If CO2 drives temperature, why were there past ice ages when the atmospheric CO2 content was many times greater than at present? Why has the role of clouds been ignored, especially as a 1per cent change in the amount of cloudiness could account for all the changes measured in the past 150 years? If natural forces drove warmings in Roman and medieval times, how do we know that the same natural forces did not drive the late 20th-century warming? Why didn’t Earth have acid oceans and a runaway greenhouse when the atmospheric CO2 was hundreds of times higher than now? Is the present increase in atmospheric CO2 due to the medieval warming?

It is human arrogance to think that we can control climate, a process that transfers huge amounts of energy. Once we control the smaller amount of energy transferred by volcanoes and earthquakes, then we can try to control climate.

Until then, climate politics is just a load of ideological hot air.

To argue that human additions to atmospheric CO2, a trace gas in the atmosphere, changes climate requires an abandonment of all we know about history, archaeology, geology, solar physics, chemistry and astronomy. We ignore history at our peril.

I await the establishment of a Stalinist-type Truth and Retribution Commission to try me for my crimes against the established order and politicised science.

Ian Plimer, a professor at the University of Adelaide, is author of Heaven and Earth – Global Warming: The Missing Science (Connor Court).

To order Professor Plimer’s book, click here