You saying that you don't fall into that category Grendel?

I know you say you are left wing, but for the sake of argument, we will call you a left winger, who happens to very strongly support many ultra nationalist, right wing opinions, OK?
And if you are trying to tell me you don't get down and dirty with a bit of a "Halleluha", and a "Praise The Lord", then I will accept your word on it.

Well I will accept you as the exception to my rule then Grendel.

I just get used to silly right wing bible bashers going for it with their anti-science stuff.

Here's a review of Prof Pilmers book. Note Paul Sheehan of the SMH has been promoting AGW in his writings up until now.

Beware the climate of conformity
Paul Sheehan
April 13, 2009

Page 1 of 3

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.)

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.

Plimer's book would be good if it were true.

What the reviewer doesn't mention is that there has been a virtual avalanche of reviews by leading scientists, and they all say very similar things about it.

- and they are not impressed. The errors are fundamental, and the treament of astronomy is bizarre to put it mildly.

This guy is well past his use-by date. His ideas are decidedly "on the nose".

If he's right, we'll have to change most of the laws of physics for a start.

A recent comment by Professor Kurt Lambeck, president of the Australian Academy of Science sums it up nicely:

If this had been written by an honours student, I would have failed it with the comment: You have obviously trawled through a lot of material but the critical analysis is missing. Supporting arguments and unsupported arguments in the literature are not distinguished or properly referenced, and you have left the impression that you have not developed an understanding of the processes involved. Rewrite!

I would then identify a number of specific issues which, while in isolation could be seen as minor, collectively indicate carelessness at best, and at worst an attempt to undermine the integrity of the science case.....
........................
....The science community has the responsibility to provide the best evidence to help our policymakers reach conclusions that are founded in science, that are based on our best current understanding. This is in the interests of society as a whole, not only of particular interest groups. Spreading confusion through poorly argued science does not help in addressing this question.

Grendel wrote on Jun 29^th, 2009 at 6:00pm:


Dave needs to learn the basics too.

Grendel wrote on Jun 29^th, 2009 at 6:59pm:

- and get a real job. You see, there is overwhelming evidence.

- I'll let Google take over for once. This site explains it as well as I can:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm

Quote: