I was lucky to get a signed copy of the new book by Ian Plimer called Heaven+Earth.
This man and his book may be the turning point for Australia and the issue of climate change. A number of politicians and media sows have also purchased copies. The first two print runs sold out.
At the book release he gave a 45 minute talk, without notes, citing facts and figures one after the other. He dealt with the questions honestly but decisively. This is a man who has carried out the research both in the library and in the field. He uses over 2000 references for his book that took 8 years to put together and based on 40 years of experience. People forget that geology for example (his field) is in many ways is the history of climate. His book will perhaps finally start the debate on CO2 and anthropogenic climate change.
You could do worse than picking up his book (if you can find one in a store, they sold out the first and second print runs).
Compare his background and experience with one of his detractors Barry Brook who heads up the "Research Institute for Climate Change and Sustainability." He criticizes Plimer's book on the grounds that it does not focus on a single point, uses "selective evidence" and is "confusing" and a case study.
Firstly Brook heads up a group that only exists if man made climate change is a reality so there are strong vested interests.
Second he has not read the book or completely missed the point of it. It is a coverage of the many facets of climate from galactic, to solar to those influences on earth. The thesis is that climate is subject to a host of complex factors and to focus on a single point or issue means missing the whole picture. The book uses history rather than computer modeled future predictions (all of which have failed to date)
Prof. Plimer cites over 2000 papers. Given that climate is influenced by at least 100 fields of science to do anything other than be selective would mean a book with thousands of pages and this book is for the masses.
Lastly and most importantly is that Brook used the standard attack patter for the believer and alarmist, he attacked the book and the man without providing any evidence that might refute the thesis. He never mentions what point Pliner 'should' have focused on for example.
Like many before him like Flannery you can all but ignore what he says.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You are wrong that Brook has not read the book. He's just done a detailed review of it here:
ReplyDeletehttp://bravenewclimate.com/2009/04/23/ian-plimer-heaven-and-earth/
His analysis of Plimer's figures is telling.
Brook must have spent a lot of time reading the book in a very short time, I'm impressed.
ReplyDeleteOne immediate note on the comments. The graph he uses and the one that Tim Lambert uses stops around the 1998-200 mark as the temperatures flatten out and start to drop. I am always wary when critics use this kind of graph.
The second point is that anything from GISS is automatically suspect since Hansen is Gore's adviser and his position has been protected by him, according to his recently retired boss. GISS data has been debunked as fiddled by a number of sources I have read and when people refer to GISS they tend to ignore all of the satellite series and ignore the latest UHI papers.
I need to read the response more closely but regardless of the details I have yet to see a single paper published in the past ten years that supports the underlying thesis that CO2 drives temperature changes or that any CO2 we add has any effect.
Further notes on Tim Lambert's article. Any individual that is still supporting the Hockey Stick graph has not read the extensive multi-source systematic destruction of that graph and the story behind it. The story behind the subsequent reinstatement of the graph is a startling commentary on all that is currently wrong with science and the scientific process as being taken over by political concerns.
ReplyDelete