From: David Karoly Sent: Monday, 21 March 2011 5:20 AM To: Jonathan Holmes Subject: Review of Carter's Book in 2010
Hi Jonathan, I have received emails from several people asking me about my review of Bob Carter’s book, Climate: The Counter-Consensus, which is being prepared for Robin Williams Science Show. I have read the book twice but not yet completed my review in writing. A general comment on the book: While it has fewer gross errors than Ian Plimer’s book Heaven+Earth, it is a mixture of scientific facts with misinformation and misinterpretation, as well as outright errors, spun around a framework of personal opinion. Its conclusions are inconsistent with any scientific assessment of climate change prepared by any major national or international scientific body, such as the US National Research Council, the British Royal Society, the Australian Academy of Science, or the IPCC. His claims of a counter-consensus on climate change based on sound science are wrong. Best wishes, David ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Prof David Karoly School of Earth Sciences University of Melbourne, VIC 3010, AUSTRALIA ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

No science in Plimer's primer Michael Ashley From: The Australian May 09, 2009 12:00AM
Heaven and Earth By Ian Plimer Connor Court, 503pp, $39.95 ONE of the peculiar things about being an astronomer is that you receive, from time to time, monographs on topics such as "a new theory of the electric universe", or "Einstein was wrong", or "the moon landings were a hoax".

The writings are always earnest, often involve conspiracy theories and are scientifically worthless. One such document that arrived last week was Ian Plimer's Heaven and Earth. What makes this case unusual is that Plimer is a professor -- of mining geology -- at the University of Adelaide. If the subject were anything less serious than the future habitability of the planet Earth, I wouldn't go to the trouble of writing this review.

Plimer sets out to refute the scientific consensus that human emissions of CO2 have changed the climate. He states in his acknowledgments that the book evolved from a dinner in London with three young lawyers who believed the consensus. As Plimer writes: "Although these three had more than adequate intellectual material to destroy the popular paradigm, they had neither the scientific knowledge nor the scientific training to pull it apart stitch by stitch. This was done at dinner."

This is a remarkable claim. If Plimer is right and he is able to show that the work of literally thousands of oceanographers, solar physicists, biologists, atmospheric scientists, geologists, and snow and ice researchers during the past 100 years is fundamentally flawed, then it would rank as one of the greatest discoveries of the century and would almost certainly earn him a Nobel prize. This is the scale of Plimer's claim.

4. Have you been invited onto a commercial radio talk program in the last year but declined? If so, when was that, what program was it and why did you decline?
Yes - the invitation was general and I declined - John Law's program. I declined because based on my limited experience of commercial radio I do not think they are actually interested in being informed on the science. It is very hard to calmly respond to questions that are ill-informed and misrepresent anything vaguely scientific. It would be like asking a cardiologist to respond to the well known theory that humans do not have a heart and cardiologists only claim we have a heart so they can make lots of money claiming to operate on them. This is so utterly without foundation that it is actually hard to say anything but "that is stupid". If we respond like this to equivalent questions on climate science we are accused of being defensive or not knowing etc.

5. Why do you believe there aren’t climate scientists who believe in anthropogenic global warming with similar high profiles as Professor Plimer and Professor Carter in the commercial media sector in Australia? Do you think this is something that needs to be addressed and if so, how?
Climate science is complex. It takes us 10-20 years to get to a point that we think we understand it. Explaining science that complex is challenging at the best of times, doing it when a radio host is cutting in, huffing and puffing, clearly laughing at what is decades of sound science or simply asserting that lies like ClimateGate represent a serious problem to the science, or that climate models are demonstrably wrong is probably impossible. In contrast, stating to a welcoming radio announcer that there is no proof that global warming is a problem and NOT BEING contested on this point is child's play. Yes, this should be addressed. I happen to believe that the commercial media sector should have a standard equivalent to the ABC - a requirement for accuracy, balance, rigor. I might comment that this is likely to happen the week after hell freezes over

Please delete wrote on Mar 21^st, 2011 at 2:29pm:


No, just how precise the science used to obtain past temperatures prior to records.
And guessing isn't science.

Please delete wrote on Mar 21^st, 2011 at 2:29pm:


No, just how precise the science used to obtain past temperatures prior to records.
And guessing isn't science.

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2011 at 7:01am:


But that isn't restricted to NASA, that's everyone, every science, every scientist.

Were there dinosaurs? The evidence is compelling, but it is "just" evidence.

How did the universe form? Was there a Mediaeval Warm Period or a Little Ice Age? (Can't use those against GW if you are also going to question their occurrence, which has been deduced as much or more than measured).

You may as well go back to creationism to explain everything.

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2011 at 9:14am:

Ya gotta be sceptical: that is what good science is all about!