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

You Beaut

£25? Hope you got a free copy for the advert.

alex

Relax:its been revealed the Spectator has become a satirical magazine a la Viz or Private Eye...
so who do you believe, the Royal Society, the oldest scientific society in the world, or the motley collection of Lomborg, Plimer and a man who would name his daughter 'Nigella', and you people are going to be running the country soon, God help us

Rhoda Klapp

Well, this is a start.

This morning, against my usual practice, I happened to hear the fool Miliband (sorry I can't narrow it down to which one) on the Today programme. He and his mates have agreed to limit temperature rise to only 2 degreees C. What a Cnut.

THX1138

Wingnut journo interviews geologist not a climatologist in a right wing journal and we're supposed to take this seriously- pleeeease.

Jez

"that the CO2 in the atmosphere — to which human activity contributes the tiniest fraction — is only 0.001 per cent of the total CO2 held in the oceans"

That's the big one.

Sea temperature rises- it releases the CO2.

(saw it on National Geographic... or was it in Heat magazine?..)

Rhoda Klapp

THX, what, a geologist can't report his observations in his own field which conflicts with what climatologists say? But they can safely igonre his observations because THEY are climatologists, and don't know anything about geology or the history of the earth?

Incidentally, there are very few climatologists. Nearly everybody working in the field has a degree in some other subject, climatology has not long been offered as a subject in itself. On thr other hand, it involves effects on the climate from many sources. Physics, Chemistry, Astronomy and so on. It is a frequent tactic of the AGW crowd to discredit the people who have opinions they disagre with. This is not the way scientific debate is done.

Jez, the sea has got colder recently, according to the argo buoys, the first accurate way of measuring dea temperatures at depth.

jaz

What I love about deniers like Delingpole - a man whose scientific credentials are ... oh he doesn't have any ... is the way they cling to any scientist who expresses doubts, but blithely dismiss all of the scientists who express concern. Given one Australian scientist, or the combined weight of the UK's most prestigious scientific body, the Royal Society, I know who I am more likely to believe.

andrew Martin

@THX1138 "Wingnut journo interviews geologist not a climatologist"

Whereas Al Gore knows exactly what he's talking about? There's a lot of people, on both sides of the argument, who are loud and prominent but not climatologists.

Bickers

Alex: surely by now you should have learned to be sceptical of the many so called 'learned' institutions and Government quangos' who have misled (nay lied to us) over the last couple decades. Along with a large section of the MSM they have scared us about:

DDT
Millenium Bug
SARS
AIDS
Bird Flu
WMD

These all fizzled out as World threatening events - AGW is just the latest but by far the largest trumped up scare. Governments, academic institutions and the likes of the UN (IPCC) see AGW as a means to accrue power, money (taxes and grants) and in some cases control over the lives of citizens.

What's galling, as Pilmer and others have shown, is that there is no evidence (using the accepted scientific method) that CO2 causes any discernible warming. Sure, computer models can show any scenario you like (GIGO - garbage in garbage out) - funny that they consumately failed to show the recent cooling - but that's OK because they're really accurate at predicting the climate a 100 years from now - believe that and you're a fool.

We need to focus our energies on solving real world problems such as starvation, disease, poverty and lack of democracy. That'll make a real change to peoples lives in the Third World - having a Canute like belief that we can alter the climate to any meaningful degree is not only foolhardy it'll do nothing for the World's poorest. However, pushing AGW will line the pockets of the likes of Gore (who's a partner in an investment company that backs green tech companies)

Barry

alex at 9:07am: "...so who do you believe, the Royal Society, the oldest scientific society in the world..."

And the BBC is one of the oldest broadcasting organisations in the world - so what?

Eddie Hallahan

I've read the book and would say to those who immediately start spouting the usual climate-deniers flatearther dogma to actually read the book.

The simple fact of the matter is that when you look at the actual scientific evidence as opposed to computer simulations then we find that;

1) CO2 does not drive Global Temperature

2) Global Warming is just part of a cycle that is completey natural and not influenced by Man at all.

3) We have now moved from a warming trend to a cooling trend.

4) Climate Change alarmists are wrong.

Consensus is not part of the scientific method - consensus is part of the political method.

Too risky baby! :)

We had a meeting around a year ago in the depths of the West End just off Oxford Street. This was with a Consultancy we work closely with.

It went well- and toward the end, as converstation turned to a lighter note one of our clients asked;

"How did you find the journey?"

"Fine." I answered. "We flew in. It took no time."

"What?!" She looked at me as though i had two heads.

"I'm only joking. We drove!" I quickly attempted to recover the situation.

"Thank goodness. I thought you were serious. I'm thinking of the carbon footprint!" The lady informed me.

I'd never really taken much notice of that word until then.

Coming from the humble beginnings, to say to anyone that you've flown from one point in the UK to another, for a meeting is quite out of the ordinary- and would certainly get a few laughs down the Rovers Return whilst whippet juggling, i can tell you.

To our clients though, this concept was quite a feasable day to day practice.

It has opened up a gold chest of oportunities though.

The key to all this is all down to that word again;

Greed.

The bankrupt political elite have pounced. Getting their grubby little hands all over this oportunity for personal or (in the governments case) the vilest forms of self serving finacial 'damage limitation'.

The green/eco front must be approached sensibly and rationally.

No magic wands.

Israel combines small wind turbines with solar heating panels reducing energy bills by 40% (yep, i know it's sunnier there but amalgamate insulation technology to UK homes and you balance this maybe).

Supply cutting edge fertilisers to the third world and try to wean them off meat production to the levels that chew up acres of rain forest per hour.

Sustaining/investing in sound existing mechanical technology in this country- then (instead of wasting the money) re-invest it into the UK to develop more cost effective, practical and sustainable technology to *export*.

And there you have it.

Scott

Say, when is this guy going to be interviewed by the BBC?

Sheila

It is just wonderful to watch this 'global warming' trash crumbling into dust.

The reason why some people won't give up on it is because of all the time and money they have to admit they've wasted on it.

Get a beer and enjoy the sun.

Jez

Rhoda Klapp;

"Jez, the sea has got colder recently, according to the argo buoys, the first accurate way of measuring dea temperatures at depth."

Really?

Let me confirm that i'll be choosing a little more carefully the womens magazine i will be reading whilst queing for the cashout at Morrisons this weekend!

Where the hell do they get their scientific analysis from, the charlatans!

;)

(Seriously Rhoda- that's a positive then. A global extinction is not on the cards)

Charlie

Most scientists are not independent but depend upon the government for money. Galileo Newton, Maxwell, Darwin and Einstein did not depend upon the government for money.

Alison

Scott: "Say, when is this guy going to be interviewed by the BBC?"

When climate change causes Hell to freeze over.

Hereford

Wingnut journo interviews geologist...

Typical response from the AGW side. Any argument against us is from a loonatic who is either mad or bad (in the pay of the oil companies)...

Any argument, no matter who from (Al Gore, George Monbiot (credentials for these opinions please THX)) is obviously true.

A quick reminder - once only a few people claimed, against all scientific, religious and political pressure, that the world was indeed round and that it revolved around the sun. They were right. The consensus was... ...well wrong actually.

Your assertions THX, as opposed to those of the Wingnut, as you so scientifically categorise Plimer, are uneducated and based entirely on what other people tell you.

In a comparison of understanding of the subject, who I wonder, would turn out to be sort of winngy and nutty?

c chapman

Climate change killed off dinosaurs. Must have been all those huge 4 wheel drives they used to get around

alice

The more interesting environmental point is that the world has finite resources, and the world a growing population / increasing resource use per head (in particular in developing countries). That's why we need to increase use of alternative energy sources, be more careful about pollution, deforestation etc (see 'Collapse', 'Limits of Growth') - regardless of whether global warming is significant/real or not.

gerry

Well said Ian Plimer, whom I have long admired. The main movers in climate change are solar activity and plate tectonics. What our species are the cause of is the 6th and current Major Mass Extinction Event.

Nelthon

So Delingpole: why the descent into pseudoscience? Plimer's book is unmitigated junk.

Even my 5-year-old niece could have Googled to see how it was received.

TY

It is amusing how the sides line up on this debate along strict ideological lines. Greens are "metropolitan elites". Deniers are "right wing flat earthers". Climate change is a scientific not a political issue and should be treated as such - By BOTH sides. Read the book, read the IPCC science, and decide for yourself, objectively and always with an aim to challenge rather than reinforce your beliefs, before you comment.

Rikrox

Goodness, what rocks have you guys been living under? Denying anthropogenic climate change seems to be a religion these days, ie it is not based on any known evidence. Plimer's book is so full of errors a school student could spot several of them. How can a theoretically sensible journal believe any of this rubbish? Get a life, climate deniers!

PaulieboyCUFC

Every "right-on" politician in the West wants to ruin our way of life in pursuit of a scientifically-bankrupt ideal. Yes, there is a correlation between high temperature and high CO2, but it is NOT the CO2 that causes temperature to rise. It's the temperature that causes CO2 to rise! Yes, the other way round. Failure to grasp this basic fact will cost us all. Climates change: live with that. Man has experienced far warmer conditions in prehistoric times. Funny, I'm still here. Are you?

George Monbiot

Plimer's book has already been completely discredited by scientists in Australia. Here's a summary:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/jul/09/george-monbiot-ian-plimer

Liam Cavin

1998 is a year you commonly hear mentioned by people who wish to cherry pick data to suit their own agenda. Why? Because 1998 was the hottest year on record, allowing you to argue that the trend following is one of cooling. However, it should be pointed out that 6 of the 10 hottest years on record have occured since 1998. So wheres the cooling trend that has obliterated the past 30 years of warming? This article is full of such misinformation, but dont take my word for it - the global temp record is available online at the Climatic Research Unit.

Will Humphreys

I can't believe people would actually pay for this rubbish. Very funny.

Maximilian

Glad to see the Speccie had the courage to put this on your cover. The Algorism troofers are howling with impotent rage already, I see.

Gregg Shick

@Liam Cavin

Please post the source of your "6 of the 10 hottest years on record are after 1998" because I call BS on that one.

Liz Palmer

Its tragic really that this book sold more than one copy, or that the Spectator would waste more than one word of print in such a load of unjustified, scientifically incorrect errors.

Reputable publishing houses refused to publish the book because its of these errors, not from fear of reprisals! The so-called climate-change deniers would do well to read up a bit more on their facts before stepping up in support of these theories, or run the risk of looking even more stupid. I hadn't thought there would be that many left, but optimistically not everyone in Australia believes this bunk: Bundanoon just voted to ban plastic bottles from their town! Maybe its' just a waiting game, see who's right. Sadly though, the outcome will result in massive loss of life, habitats, species etc.

Come on people, think about it rationally. Sustainable living makes sense on every level.

Brian

Fact is there are way too many people on this planet to consider the collective effect of our actions to be negligible.

Fact is the rate at which we are digging up carbon from the ground and dumping it in the atmosphere as carbon-dioxide is now of the same order of magnitude at the natural circulation, so an increase of atmospheric carbon-dioxide is to be expected.

Fact is the physical properties of carbon-dioxide are such that the more of it there is in the atmosphere the more heat will be retained.

Fact is the geological record indicates there has never been such a large and numerous species as us which has done what we're doing.

Fact is temperatures wobble up and down at all time scales and reliably picking out a century-scale trend from the year-scale noise is not easy.

So I don't know for sure if AGW is real, but the facts indicate it's much more likely than not, and all a responsible geologist can say is it's never happened before.

Dwight Vandryver

There is a political principle which states that a politician can promote a policy, but that there is absolutely no requirement for that politican to believe personally in the policy put forward.
With that said, it is understandable why Obama has reversed America's stance on AGW. The cost to the U.S. of imported oil was about $450bn in 2008, and set to rise. American industry needs a new technological impetus, now that it is losing the "car wars" to the Japanese and Germans. And a revival of consumerism is vital to restart the American economy.
Climate science may well have been corrupted by the economic imperative, but the Americans see AGW as a vast business opportunity, not primarily as a means of increasing taxation. Convincing the people that they need to trade in the old for new energy efficient products could help to solve the three problems that America faces.
Thus AGW scare stories should be treated with scepticism - it's usually propaganda. It is, however, important to realise that the new technologies and alternative energy sources must be developed before the global oil and gas reserves finally become depleted.

Lionel

I have never believed that man is responsible for 'global warming'.

I do know that, in my 79 years, the climate has changed and I remember the severe winters and glorious summers we had when I was a lad. It will probably continue to change if man doesn’t otherwise destroy the planet.

The claim that man is the cause makes money for some - who probably have too much already - but it is a con.

Bob Ward

I am curious about the claim that "two years of global cooling erased nearly 30 years of recorded temperature rises". That simply isn't true. According to the World Meteorological Office, 2008 was 10th warmest year since records began in 1850, and 2007 was the seventh warmest. In fact, eight of the ten warmest years on record have all occurred since 2000. So average temperatures are climbing, heat waves and droughts are increasing, glaciers and ice caps are melting and sea levels are rising. Where is the evidence of global cooling?

Bob Ward

I am curious about the claim that the last two years of global cooling have erased nearly 30 years of temperature increase". That simply isn't true. According to the World Meteorological Office, 2008 was 10th warmest year since records began in 1850, and 2007 was the seventh warmest. In fact, eight of the ten warmest years on record have all occurred since 2000. So average temperatures are climbing, heat waves and droughts are increasing, glaciers and ice caps are melting and sea levels are rising. Where is the evidence of global cooling?

Rhoda Klapp

I haven't read Plimer. I susepct those who are knocking him here haven't either. Correct me if I'm wrong. I wouldn't go by Monbiot as a guide to whether Plimer is right or wrong. Monbiot is IMO not as honest and upright as he should be in argument.

I have read Lomborg, and I find warmist criticism of his work not to match up to its content in any way. Lomborg is no AGW sceptic. He believes in greenhouse effect. His main case concerns whether we ought to be alarmed about it, and whether spending billions trying to avoid minor changes in global temp is a good use of our money and effort. He'd rather spend money on clean water for poor people in under-developed nations, among many other things showing a clear and immediate benefit. If you have been told Lomborg is a denier, you cannot trust that source.

Like TY, I can't see why this is a left/right discussion, but it seems to be. Let's make the scientific case and see. But if anybody tells you the science is settled, the debate is over, that is an indication of a political agenda, and cannot be countenanced.

Herbert Thornton

"....geologists have always recognised that climate changes over time. Where we differ from a lot of people pushing AGW is in our understanding of scale. They’re only interested in the last 150 years. Our time frame is 4,567 million years. So what they’re doing is the equivalent of trying to extrapolate the plot of Casablanca from one tiny bit of the love scene. And you can’t. It doesn’t work."

That seems to me to be a most cogent and weighty observation.

Adrienne

Two words: Thank you!

I'm glad people are starting to speek up! Let's spread this kind of talk to other issues that are happening.

Keep up the good work!

:)

A. MacAulay

Any one out there remember "acid rain"? Weren't our forests supposed to be dead by now? The Green party pols who made a career here in Germany with this twaddle got elected, started wearing Armani suits and not a few got caught out booking their flight-miles personally when flying at public expense to and fro from Berlin. Notably Cem Özdemir, now a Green oberfuzzi, who had to spend several years in the European parliament until his expenses scandal had fallen from the public eye.

Isn't it really about time that we grown-ups stopped falling for this Chicken Licken stuff?

Luddite

Less then eleven thousand years ago ice covered most of Britain was that man made.

Englishman Abroad

alex at 9:07am: "...so who do you believe, the Royal Society, the oldest scientific society in the world..." et al

An august an deeply wonderful organisation though The Royal Society may be; but did you ever think to question where its funding came from? £52,000,000 last year I believe.

He who calls the piper......

Ed

I don't know if it is the journalist who doesn't know anything about science (hardly unusual) or the author who makes various factual but spurious points, eg:-

* The carbon held in the atmosphere is only a tiny fraction of that in the earth and oceans (true) therefore that in the atmosphere doesn't matter (false).
That's a bit like saying the salt content of the human body is a miniscule fraction of the salt in the ocean (true), therefore it doesn't matter for human health what the salt content of the body is (false).

* That the Earth has been far warmer in the past is well known but has no bearing on whether we are causing warming ourselves. That's another failure of logic. No-one denies that climates change naturally, what is suggested is that man-made change is occuring on top of that and at a far greater rate.

* "Carbon dioxide isn't a pollutant it is a plant food" - laughable. No-one serious doesn't recognise that many natural things can be pollutants in excess. Or a simpler analogy: water is essential for life (true), therefore flooding can't be bad (false). There is no contradiction between carbon dioxide being a "plant food" and a pollutant. Ever heard of rivers, lakes, coral reefs being ruined by the plant foods of fertilisers and sewage?

John Law

I am a little sceptical of AGW and the behaviour of some of the protagonists, drives me closer to that view (Gordon Browns precision in the face of this planetary problem is laughable, presumably he believes Gods’ lessez faire attitude, has made a mess of things and needs further government intervention and regulation).

Mankind really does have a major resource (and population) problem and some of the ideas from the warmists are indeed what we need. More efficient use of resources, use of a bigger range of energy technologies (where these make scientific and real economic sense) are good ideas. On the other hand use of agriculture (as opposed to agricultural waste) to create transport fuels, looks set to create some fairly heavy duty hunger, for those in the third world. So let’s have a grown up debate and a bit more consensus, where it is appropriate, in our political response to proven problems, many of which will have a positive environmental impact. Science should no involve juvenile name calling.

If the earth really is going to see us off it is probably already too late to do much about it.

Augustus

Climate just happens, and we're all heading towards the next ice age in a few thousand years, because we're now in the middle of an inter-glacial period. In the next few decades we may also experience a mini-ice age due to a diminutive solar magnetic field.

Iceman

In his criticism of Professor Plimer’s views in the Guardian George Monbiot says that the concentration of the CO2 in the atmosphere has increased from 280ppm (pre-industrial world, some 200 years ago) to 387ppm (now). In other words, particles other than the CO2 made up 99.972& of the atmosphere then, and 99.9613% now.

Am I to believe that this infinitesimal change in the level of CO2 will raise sea levels six meters, kill polar bears, and turn Britain into a desert? And what about pigs? Will they finally manage to fly?

Dr. Booda

For those who claim that the planet hasn't cooled, here is a link to the satellite data since 1979. This work is from the University of Alabama-Huntsville via the NOAA-15 satellite.

The hoax is dying thanks to nature.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

Brute

I hear what the AGW crowd is saying, but what I'm seeing is that it's getting colder. It's summer in Canada and I haven't turned the furnace off yet. It's too darn cold out. I'll be buying a copy of the book.

Sheila

Thanks for an article against all the alarmism. I think most of us are more responsible than we used to be, and are tired of hearing all the catastrophic scenarios the alamists keep throwing at us. When does anyone get that computer models are only that ... reality works differently. The Earth is a magnificent creature that somehow corrects the imbalances. We are not dying today or tomorrow, the icecaps are not going to melt and drown us all ... get over it.

I for don't want to pay double what I pay now to drive and heat my house just cause a bunch of enviromentalist think computers are always right. Garbage in Garbage out ... millions of years of life trumps any computer model using about 100 years of data at most.

Yeah lets clean up our act, but enough with the alarmism. And yeah, the "denier" really need to take the stage here for awhile to get public policy back in line with reality.

Bruce, UK

Well done that man. AGW is, as has been said, is the biggest con-trick ever played.

John Trainor

It is a left-rignt issue because the main push behind the phony IPPC 'science' is political. Maurice Strong (Cdn UN apparichat) has said publicly several times that the science should never get in the way of the end goal.....the redistribution of wealth and power from the hated West to others more deserving....Russia, China, the Mid East...thats how the world order will change and that is the goal of the Climate Change extremists. It has nothing to do with science as is evidenced by the complete discreditation of Gore's crockumentary by real scientists worldwide. For example....the dry Aral Sea...not man made warming my children....the Russians drained the rivers which flow into it to grow cotton...the malaria bs....fact is the worst outbreak of malaria in recorded history occured in Siberia, above the artic circle in the early 1930's when millions died....mosquitos don't mind the cold at all....it goes on. For the believers, environmentalism is the religion and Gore is the pope....how dare you doubt my faith!

Page

Remarkable that all the moonbats hold firm in their fantasy belief in AGW when there is still ZERO evidence for AGW despite the increasing billions spent looking for a trace of it. Zero evidence. And plenty of evidence that we are entering a natural cooling phase.

A mass delusion caused by those who are wishing that it was true - the Humans Off Earth Now Squad.

Try 'The Deniers' by Solomon.

Simon Templar

Greater taxation, regulation and protectionism and government control of markets..that sums it up! The idiot liberals suck this crap up. Never waste a crisis even one that you have made up. There solutions in solving these problems are worse than the problems themselves...as usual.

Jack lynch

At last, someone who is prepared to take on the vested interests of climate change.
Yippee!

Jupiter

Wow, the tree hugging trolls are out in force today. When are you nutters going to get it into your thick heads that the climate has always changed and always will. It is extremely arrogant of you to think that humans have the power to change the weather.

James Currin

If I remember correctly, Sir Peter Medawar once remarked that Freudianism was the greatest confidence trick of the twentieth century. In my opinion, Marxism is a close second. There is now little doubt that AGW will take the honours for the 21st. These frauds have two characteristics in common. First, they are largely unfalsifiable, unless you count the collapse of the economies of Eastern Europe and the USSR as a falsification of Marxism. Second they have been embraced by the same segments of society—in particular by academics and artists (especially the least talented), not all of whom are fools. To paraphrase Gibbon, these delusions are to the masses equally true, to the skeptical, equally false, and to our political masters, equally useful.

Fran Cudlipp

Thank goodness there are a few EcoHeretics left among us! I, too, have been very sceptical about this new religion, which is intent on stifling all criticism, and is attempting to implement many schemes whose full implications haven't been addressed. Thank you, Ian Pilmer, and James Delingpole, for challenging the EcoOrthodoxy.

THX1138

Rhoda Klapp Good Post I have also read Cool It and I'm surprised that Lomborg is used by deniers as a champion too.

I also agree that this should not be a left right fight, however unlike you from everything I have read I do believe the science is settled and I'm getting increasingly worried about my children's future.

Can I suggest that you read the new Lovelock book The Vanishing Face of Gaia- A Final Warning a great and important book and mercifully short

Anya Conway

When we want to increase yield on our tomatoes, we increase the amount of CO2 in the greenhouse - they thrive on it. If AGW exists (and it's a big if in my book), why are we producing so many people who not only breathe out the gas, but also need housing which concretes over the green stuff that transforms CO2 into sugar, fibre etc? We're taxing those who travel, heat their homes and produce goods to pay others to breed! Some anti-AGW strategy!

Eric Hester

Many people make their living out of so-called climate change and so the arguments of this books will not be refuted - the book will be ignored; I predict it will not be mentioned on the BBC. When I was a headmaster in the 1970s we were told that the earth was definitely cooling and if we did not agree we were flat-earthers etc.

guthrie

The list of errors made by Plimer in his book which therefore sink any claim he might have to his book showing that AGW is a myth is here:
http://www.complex.org.au/tiki-download_file.php?fileId=91

Dixon

"Nelthon
July 9th, 2009 1:36pm
So Delingpole: why the descent into pseudoscience? Plimer's book is unmitigated junk.

Even my 5-year-old niece could have Googled to see how it was received."

Plimer would...according to Delingpole..say "So why did you breed?"

Paul McCauley

RE: Bob Ward
July 9th, 2009 4:21pm

I have not read Dr. Plimer's book, but believe I can answer your very good questions:
1.“the last two years of global cooling have erased nearly 30 years of temperature increase". Anyone who spends any time examining NASA based Global GISS Surface Temperature (GISTEMP) anomalies you find this most publicized record includes using land based stations subject to urban heat island (UHI) temp raising influences (pavement, AC units, buildings, etc.) and the data itself is subject to many debatable “corrections” that always further increase the final data. This has resulted in consistently skewing the temps along a controversially steeper increase over the last thirty years and driven many away from considering these data seriously. Instead, most serious observers prefer to rely upon the UAH MSU Lower Troposphere Temperature (TLT) anomalies which are satellite based. Referring to the UAH MSU TLT anomaly temps Dr. Plimer is correct and the current temps are in fact at those of thirty years ago, and so this claim IS, in fact, true. These comparisons are thoroughly discussed and demonstrated at: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/24/a-comphrehensive-comparison-of-giss-and-uah-global-temperature-data/#more-8881
2.Similarly, as far as 2008, 2007 etc. being the warmest years are very much debatable as earlier annual comparisons bring the 1940's into a higher range than the current temperatures. Regardless, the cooling being widely announced currently is based upon the agreed upon decline in global temps since the recent high for 2005 and the relative flat-lining of temps for the last 12-8 years, depending on your preference. The global temps have, in fact, rolled over and are declining, although AGWers only reference temps through 2003, at the latest in order to avoid the recent temp decline.
3.“Heat waves and droughts are increasing” - are caused by various major climate drivers (ENSO, SDO, planetary/solar interactions with a recent revival by CERN of the apparently great correlation of cosmic rays and temperature data.
4.Glaciers, ice caps, and sea levels are similarly effected by the above, however, it has been documented that, again, in the last few years glaciers and ice caps have grown significantly, polar temps have set all time record lows and sea levels have continued increasing basically at their 3mm rate, if that, since the last Little Ice Age. Even if the sea levels were to rise significantly faster with any warming it would not present any human danger as increases would be spread over more than a hundred years and folks should be readily able to distance themselves from the shores at that pace.
In conclusion, Bob, there is the cooling and you should feel safe while you lay back and enjoy learning from the lifetime experiences of the Realistically revered Dr. Plimer – as I look forward to doing.
All the best,

Paul McCauley

Ps: have you noticed that many European countries are abandoning their unsuccessful support of the CO2 reductions while they have been deepening their economic demise – for nothing?

Mike

James, you might have mentioned that 2 two Nobel prizewinners were Australian as well.

BrunoBehrend

Global Cooling evidence

http://www.scrippsnews.com/node/44463

Lower solar activity, lower warming or more cooling.

Common sense trumps lefty "scientists" seeking grants.

When the world figured out that 'workers controlling the means of production' was an "Animal Farm" hoax, then needed another excuse to enslave the masses...

and the union-owned, dumbed-down public education system complied, delivering a cohort of pseudo-educated shock-troops doing what socialized education told them to do.

The sheep will figure it out. One hopes they figure it out in time.

Severn

PaulieboyCUFC: "Yes, there is a correlation between high temperature and high CO2, but it is NOT the CO2 that causes temperature to rise. It's the temperature that causes CO2 to rise! Yes, the other way round."

What if both are true (that is, CO2 causes increasing warming AND warming causes increasing CO2 in the atmosphere)?

This is in fact the case, and climatologists have to take this into account.

Josiah Gradgrind

The world's population increase is the real problem, not the ersatz case for global warming.

Namrog M

Before paying for Professor Plimer's book, read this scientific essay for free: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/m.gorman/gwarmnat.htm

Then do read Plimer's book, since it is from a real geologist rather than an ex-student of the subject.

severn

Iceman: "CO2 in the atmosphere has increased from 280ppm (pre-industrial world, some 200 years ago) to 387ppm (now)" That's 38%, not infinitesimal! And largely human-generated, contrary to this article.

Plimer refers to changes of climate over geological spans of time (which no-one doubts) but the issue which concerns us is the large change over a few decades - more relevant human life and economy.

I just had to read a few paragraphs of this article and I clutched my head in despair. So many people have put so much effort into clarifying these issues, and Plimer and Delingpole still produce stuff like this that is so muddled it is "not even wrong" because there is no sense in it at all.

A. D. Osborne

Good to see the other side getting to put its case, i.e., AGW not.

Anything, by definition, based on computer models has to be suspect and that seems to be the only form of proof ever wheeled out by the AGWers. Does anyone really want to pay more tax based on computer predictions? Think of the now discredited Mann hockey stick.

Brian Klappstein

Noting the comment of Guthrie above, I delved into (skimmed) his link. I noted a large number of alleged errors made by Plimer are repeats of his comments on models and clouds and characterization of the IPCC.

Firstly characterization of the IPCC isn't really an "error" in the scientific sense, so shouldn't really be included in such a list.

Based on alleged "clouds and models" errors however, Plimer appears to have intuitively latched onto a concept which is the soft underbelly of AGW theory.

The models which have so studiously replicated 20th century climate history, have only one significant natural forcing (it's also very short lived) and that is major volcanic eruptions.

That being true, they would be incapable of modeling the decade/century scale fluctuations of the Holocene we can see in the advance and retreat glaciers and so on. These are fluctuations of a magnitude and frequency which cannot be explained by orbital driven changes in insolation, and must have been driven by some natural forcing.

The obvious candidate for the forcing of these fluctuations is indirect solar effect. However, the models don't include this potential forcing.

The implication is this: if the models don't include indirect solar effects, but these effects were signficant modulators of climate in the last century, then some other forcing or feedback must be wrong, or overstated.

T.Budreo

Gore states that the oceans will rise 20 feet due to the warming aspect. Anyone out there figured how much ice would be needed to fulfil that garbage. There is approx 150 million square miles of ocean so someone do the math

Bryan Leyland

" It is, however, important to realise that the new technologies and alternative energy sources must be developed before the global oil and gas reserves finally become depleted."

We do not need to invent any new technologies. We have one effective large-scale technology available to us that will solve the energy problem. It is called nuclear power. I first got interested in man-made global warming because the people who promised us that the world would fry if we did not reduce carbon dioxide were fanatically opposed to nuclear power.

Their real interest is in killing economic growth because they believe it is bad for the environment. Man-made global warming is a very convenient way of achieving this end. So they won't debate the science because it is incidental to their objective.

Ian Plimer has done the world a wonderful service.

John of Canberra

Thank you James Delingpole and the Spectator for publishing this interview. Here in Australia there has been a repellent effort to censor him by the AGW fashionistas in the moralising latte set and "our ABC" has been openly hostile. This even extended to some book chains not stocking his book - even though they stocked Gore's tendentious DVD which was declared to contain serious errors by a UK court. Despite comments one hears about free speech being in danger in the UK this article shows that some Brits are still committed to that ideal. Congratulations.

Pedro

It's curious that a decade ago Ian Plimer was the darling of the left-liberal chatterers who applauded him in Oz universities and much of the media. That's when he was giving the anti-Darwin creationists a belting for their deluded clap-trap. Now that he's giving a similar belting to the climate-change alarmists those supporters are now hostile and derisory. It seems both the creationists and the climate-change alarmists have a faith-based religious delusion.

Mike O'Connor

I have searched Google in vain for the quote, but I once read that it was the Duke of Hanover who said that "these professors can be bought like whores". I refer not to Dr. Plimer, but to the average university professor whose government grant task reads "explore the human-caused extent of global warming", or the like.

Were the politicians to direct agency staff to let grants equally to those postulating anthropogenic climate change and also to those wanting to research the error in such theories, the returned papers would be a balanced presentation of claims and counterclaims, which together would amount to insufficient cause for global-warming legislation.

My point is that politicians along with assorted leftist and media cohorts have controlled the outcome of the "debate" from the outset. The supposed consensus has been achieved simply by political choice of grantees.

John

In my region and others of the USA, climate experts regularly have difficulty accurately predicting the weather 3 to 5 days in advance. What is the likelihood that they can be any more accurate in their weather predictions for 50 or 100 years into the future?

Liam Cavin

@ Gregg Schick

Sorry its taken so long for me to respond, I was working. I cited the source in my original post. "Climatic Research Unit" is part of the Uni of East Anglia, they post climate information free and open access. It turns out you were right, I made a mistake. It is in fact 8 of the 10 warmest years on record since 1998. Check for yourself. The text of this book review is riddled with scientific innacuracies, dont just buy into it because it supports your preconceptions, go check it out for yourself. The CRU provides information sheets to give the interested layperson a basic grounding in climate science.

Independant Thinker

Our so-called-experts can't even reliably predict the weather one month from now and we're supposed to believe they can tell us what the Earth's temperatures are going to be ten years from now? Any independent thinker can research this on their own and come to the conclusion that this is a bunch of hot air.

Mike in California

I have an MS in geosciences. The good professor is saying exactly what my Climatology professor, and every meteorologist I've ever personally known says.

There's nothing really knew here. AGW isn't even a theory, it's an unproven hypothesis.

Rhoda Klapp

Liam Cavin, the CRU publishes that temp data, but they do not publish the raw data they use as a source nor the methods they use to create an 'adjusted' data set for publication. This means that others are unable to check their workings or criticize their results. Even in the face of Freeedom of Information requests, they won't cough up the data. This is not how scientists are supposed to work, and in any other discipline they would not get away with it.

With all of these temperature datasets (there are four which are widely used) the temps you see are adjusted, not actual temps. Nothing wrong with adjustments, provided they are done openly and based on a published method. However, you may wonder why NASA adjustments can cause temps from before WW2 to be adjusted colder over consecutive versions of the set because of new temps for the present coming in. It's inexplicable to me. For NASA, the source data is available, the methods are not. For CRU, we just have to take their output and there is no way to question it. The man responsible is Phil Jones from UEA. He will not release the data to any critic. We UK taxpayers are shelling out for this?

itstrueekse

A story from down here in Mandelaland. My best friend and colleague was considering a new car - a monster V8 with a carbon footprint as big as
Texas just to make the bloody thing. When I chided him about our new responsibilities to think green, he said - "I'm over 60 and after a lifetime of Scottish parsimony I want some fun at last. The next generation can look after the bloody environment" He didn't buy the car because he was shot to death in a hi-jack for his present car. The vast majority of South Africans are dirt poor and don't have any kind of car and you could use this to justify the reasons for my mate's murder and conclude the following - A selfish environmental decision has been prevented by a re-distribution of wealth. Nonsense, of course, but no more silly than much of the debate that is going on about climate change - bad reasoning has no place in scientific enquiry. Until we can establish that man can in fact affect the global climate to an extent that is as significant as natural climate change cycles, any attempts to reverse something that may not even be happening are simply stupid. Especially if they deny resources to where they can be better employed and so help to limit inequality and thereby stop me being murdered for my car. Logic is great, not so!?

Richard

My father (an economics prof at the LSE) explained to me as a boy how booms engender false theories of environmental crises caused by economic growth. In the late 60s, I, as an economist for a company saw the signs again and researched it to find it was true, and all (from Malthus on) proved wrong. When the world claimed exhaustion of fossil fuels by 1980 I shrugged, and once the "oil crisis" crash was over the theory was discretely fogotted - as were those on the ozone hole, and acid rain: but in their time all believed by the scientists and the population.

As for policy impoverishing ourselves to stop it, that would be mad even if the theory were true. The underdeveloped world has ten times the population of the developed, and will certainly not be prevented from increasing their emissions by at least ten-fold, so swamping any of our policies - even were we to cut to zero.

Chris Peterson

A. McAuley makes a great point about "acid rain"; this is perhaps the strongest method to expose the fallacy of the "climate change" lobby. I was in school in the late 80s and remember it well from science lessons: pollution from factories, cars, etc was supposedly mixing with clouds, causing their rain to become acidic. The strength of the acid would increase with pollution, and in 20 years crops would be rendered inedible, buildings would be collapsing, and people would have to wear masks and cover their skin to go outside (hmm, perhaps Allah was right...)

Of course, 20 years later, "acid rain" is long forgotten, as the left have graduated onto the more global "climate change" as a method for expropriating money and control over our lives from us.

Paul Tingen

This feature makes An Inconvenient Truth look like Einstein's Theory of Relitivity.

I know this is for the purpose of stirring up controversy, but this is pretty pitiful.

What I also find hilarious is all this talk of a 'conspiracy' by well-funded shady organisations, when the oil industry have been denying anthropogenic warming for decades and have been forced to bow to consensus.

And I like windfarms.

James Delingpole

Is it just me, or are most of the contributions from people who agree with Plimer good humoured,correctly spelt, and grounded in common sense, basic scientific understanding and economic reality? And the ones from people who disagree just a bit, well, shrill, angry, illiterate or mad?

Roger Angove

So. G. Monbiot has condemned it. Monbiot earns (or rather cons) his living by disseminating and inventing propaganda for the ecofascists. Nuff said.

Bob Ward

I do like the idea that the Earth is cooling because 2005 was the second warmest year on record, but 2006 was only the sixth warmest, 2007 was seventh warmest and 2008 was the tenth warmest. So look back at the temperature record in the early 1990s, when 1990 was the warmest year on record, but 1991 was only the second warmest and 1992 was the fourteenth warmest. Didn't global warming stop then as well?

Internet Commentman

Wow, this guy doesn't sound like a crank at all. Strong work, the Spectator.

Richard Sanders

I can't help being a bit sceptical of the claim that "the Romans grew grapes and citrus trees as far north as Hadrian’s Wall" does anyone know of a reference to support this, or better thr reference from Pilmer's book?

Andy Powell

For all those who say that a few years of cooling don't discredit 30 odd years of warming, why then does 30 years of warming mean anything in the context of a 4.5 billion year old climate system?

What's good for the goose......

Mr Grumpy

Reading this thread as a genuine climate agnostic I'm left wondering whether anyone ever makes up their mind on this based on anything other than their prior prejudices. Depressing.

patricia

You funky free marketeers!

Who sponsors you, Mad Mel and all the other reality refusniks?

Tell all!

Maximilian

@ James Delingpole (today at 11:24 am)

The answer to your question is No. It's not just you. Some of the reactions are reminiscent of a certain accusation ending in "-phobia" that, in a different context, is commonly hurled around a propos of not very much at all. Perhaps they're going to come up with a new coinage, Warmophobia? Climatechangeophobia?Algorphobia?

ronald White

Hmm, the reference to grape cultivation at Hadrian' Wall is all very well, but that was 2,000 years and an Industrial Revolution ago.

GiVeUp

There is such a mix of bull in this article that it's almost impossible to know where to start.
We'll try to do it slowly.

- The gas CO2 is known to have the effect of trapping heat (Or is he denying this too?)
-ATMOSPHERIC CO2 is the only CO2 that counts for the temperature, your reference that it is a tiny portion of the CO2 in the world is worse than irrelevant because:
-As the temperature increases, CO2, which as you (rightly) say is trapped in the ocean, will be released. This is because the potential gases that water can hold decreases as the temperature increases. Also:
- We have added nearly an extra 50% of the CO2 to the atmosphere from pre industrial levels, from 240ppm to 347ppm.

On another track
-There is such a mess of conspiracy theories thrown in here it's unreal. The biggest industries in the world have always been the oil companies. They combined have much much much much much more power than the likes of greenpeace, who have been campaigning to protect the planet from our excesses to no personal gain... remember that they're a charity?

Who there really has a vested interest?

-Also, whether or not there have always been climate fluctuations is a moot point, this is the first time we have to deal with it.

This is so ignorant it's unbelievable. Check your facts. Stop accepting this meaningless dribble.

ron White

I am puzzled by what we are supposed to do about global warming, whether man made or part of the natural cycle. There isn't really much comfort to be gained by people living at or just above sea level, including some of Plimer's Pacific neighbours. Presumably, he'll welcome climate change refugees with open arms.

GiveUp

Plus, of course people are going to be pleased to hear this in droves. Once again, like the financial situation, they've been told it's not their fault (which mainly it isn't) but also that they don't have to do anything about it. Just like anything else, we'd rather believe anyone who says it's not our fault than anyone who actually knows a damned thing about it.

GiveUp

Oh, and it just goes to show, you can't be too careful.

http://www.complex.org.au/tiki-download_file.php?fileId=91

Ray Fisher

For those that would like to see real climatologists views visit www.wattsupwiththat.com
and then ask again whose fooling who?

Julian Evans

I'd love to be convinced that climate change is not man-made, that we're not heading for disaster. What could be better news!

I'm also open to arguments as to why the consensus is wrong - it has certainly been wrong in the past.

But this article doesn't provide a single argument supporting its bold claim, and if you're going to attack a consensus as lacking in evidence, you need at least SOME evidence to support that.

For the two sides to just slag each other off seems pointless. Present us with the arguments and let us try to make up our own minds.

Graham

Grow up James. It's no longer funny or clever or "contrarian" to pretend that the vast majority of scientists don't know what they are talking about. This isn't a political left-right issue (and I speak from the right). Global warming is an established fact; its long-term effects can't be precisely calibrated, but there's enough science to tell us that we ignore the potential effects at our considerable peril. Most of all it's resolvable-- and resolvable without anyone having to give up their happily materialist existence. It requires only that we marry our enormous inventiveness to some political balls.

NHP

I'm not sure which aspect of this insults me more. Is it the poorly researched, juvenile journalism on show (citing South Park, how old are you Delingpole? 12?)
Is it the arrogance and stupidity of the object of the piece - Plimer is a known quack, who loves to distort the question to suit his purpose. With everyone bleating on about Climate change being a leftist con could it not just as easily be said that this man is out for a quick buck with a controversial thesis? His line that Greens shouldn't reproduce is a classic example. It's true the greatest thing we could all do to save the planet is stop reproducing. No more people, no more problem. But the question isn't about saving the planet, it's about sustainable living, it's about preserving the earth's resources so we can continue to enjoy the lives we currently lead.

Plimer clearly holds no regard for scientific enquiry, his argument is riddled with holes, and the spectator and James Delingpole should be ashamed for passing up the chance to challenge his ideas.
Is it the arrogance and stupidity of the object of the piece - Plimer is a known quack, who loves to distort the question to suit his purpose. With everyone bleating on about Climate change being a leftist con could it not just as easly be said that this man is out for a quick buck with a controversial thesis? His line that Greens shouldn't reproduce is a classic example. It's true the greatest thing we could all do to save the planet is stop reproducing. No more people, no more probelm. But the question isn't about saving the planet, it's about sustainable living, it's about preserving the earth's resources so we can continue to enjoy the lives we currently lead.

Plimer clearly holds no regard for scientific enquiry, his argument is riddled with holes, and the spectator and James Delingpole should be ashamed for passing up the chance to challenge his ideas.

Melinda Tilley

Could I put in an early bid please. When Al the Goracle gets control of the climate, could we please have nice weather here in Oxfordshire.!

ronald White

I guess the inhabitants of Easter Island didn't really see much wrong with denuding the place of forests , either, and where are they now?

Kenneth Perry

Surely Professor Plimer's greatest point is that of "The Perspective" For most of my long lifer I was supposed to worry about an inevitable future Ice Age.

Martin

'They’re only interested in the last 150 years. Our time frame is 4,567 million years. So what they’re doing is the equivalent of trying to extrapolate the plot of Casablanca from one tiny bit of the love scene. And you can’t. It doesn’t work.'

Three paragraphs later...

'There is no problem with global warming. It stopped in 1998. The last two years of global cooling have erased nearly 30 years of temperature increase.’

Whoops

Ferret

The other week I heard Polly Toynbee, on some gob-fest or other, lumping climate change denial in with racism and gay bashing.

Given that the old trout is wrong about most things - I would not write this off just
yet.

Captain Flint

The climate has changed naturally throughout geological time, so it is obviously not possible that human activity, by emitting vast quantities of a known greenhouse gas, can have any climatic effect whatsoever.

This is like saying that because many thousands of species naturally became extinct during prehistory, it is obviously not possible that human activity could ever cause a single species to become extinct ...

Do you see how utterly stupid this argument is? Yet deniers cling to it like a drowning man to a straw. Minds closed, argument over.

D

All you religous fanatics - direct me to or show me three graphs or any evidence that proves man made global warming is real.

I hear "..his book is full of errors" - name three.

You keep spitting out this mindless dribble, "..he's mad", "..I believe the Royal (government funded I bet) Society over him", well then where is the evidence - this is why all of your prophets refuse to debate people like Ian Plimer - because they know he will sink them with in minutes. These prophets are not stupid people, they know how to get money out of the taxpayer, pity you cant say the same for their followers.

Maltster

Hey it's always a bit hotter this side of the planet. Can they make it 3C lower instead of 2 C? I think it's unfair to decide upon 2 degrees C without making a global referendum. I definitely want it to be 3 C below what it is now. Now, with no tongue-in-cheekiness: The UN have gone stark mad.

Helene Davidson

Having a misspent youth as an archaeologist, I can only second the points made by the professor. We spent several seasons at a major site in the Jordanian desert and it was extremely (and also v. precisely) clear the repetition of sequences of climate. You could track periods of damp, dry, cold and blazing following a sequence going back to several centuries BC and continuing down to the Middle Ages (when the settlement was largely abandonned). All of this predated any impact of carbon and had more to do with agricultural patterns in some instances, and shifts to more appealing agrarian land in others. A bit like the impact of deforestation (for brickmaking purposes) on the Indus plain in ancient India.

Shivering through yet another indifferent summer in London, meanwhile, there is a pretty heft chorus of "Where's the warming?". Its good natured enough now, but as the costs of trying to hold back the tides (which in any even appear to be being misread) become clear, that good nature may turn as icy as the increasingly cold climate.

A final point to the defender of the Royal Society and the BBC. A brief review of their records would show their advocacy in the past for positions proved woefully wrong or misplaced.

A concern about pollution is justified, and a cause for action. A theory about global warming remains (in my mind) contentious.

Rupert Wyndham

George Monbiot:
Plimer's book has already been completely discredited by scientists in Australia.

Really? Having been in Sydney during the opening rounds of the debate in the Australian media, allow me to state categorically that nothing could be further from the truth. My own small contribution follows:

Sir

I have read Prof. Michael Ashley's rather unpleasant review of Heaven and Earth by Prof. Ian Plimer. I am also in the course of reading the book. Whilst your reviewer will no doubt consider it obtuse, as an interested scientific layman, I have always understood that, in contrast to religion, say, the scientific endeavour was marked by a number of commitments. Amongst these are intellectual rigour, objectivity, personal integrity, transparency in the sense of disinterestedness and, following therefrom, a willingness to engage in open debate. Lastly, science is marked by one other unique attribute, a spirit of persistent scepticism; in a nutshell, if it's settled, it's not science.

When dialogue is of the essence, it is always a surprise, therefore, to encounter a scientist who declares that a contribution to open debate constitutes "an enormous disservice to science" . But, of course, after watching the evolution of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis for over thirty years, it is impossible not to note that so called climate change orthodoxy is dedicated to the proposition that science is validated by consensus, the very antithesis of the hitherto long accepted Huxley dictum. It is also offensive, is it not, to find one scientist declare of another practitioner of considerable distinction that: "It is hard to understate the depth of scientific ignorance that the inclusion of this information demonstrates." - en passant, a shame too that your reviewer's command of the subtleties of his own mother tongue is insufficient to enable him to grasp the contextual distinction between 'understate' and 'overstate'.

But anyway to specifics. There are many to choose from. The one I have chosen appears on page 165, and the choice is informed by a desire to select an example from Prof. Plimer's own specialisation, namely geology, of which I trust that he will not be accused of ignorance. It is selected also because it goes to the very heart of the controversy. He writes as follows:

"The proof that CO2 does not drive climate is shown by previous glaciations. The Ordovician-Silurian (450-420 Ma) and Jurassic-Cretacious (151-132 Ma) glaciations occured when the atmospheric CO2 content was more than 4000 ppmv and about 2000 ppmv respectively. The Carboniferous-Permian glaciation had a CO2 content of about 400 ppmv, at least 15 ppmv greater than the present figure. If the popular catastrophist view is accepted, there should have been a runaway greenhouse when CO2 was more than 4000 ppmv. Instead, there was glaciation. Clearly a high atmospheric CO2 content does not drive global warming, and there is no correlation between global temperature and atmospheric CO2."

He continues:

"This has never been explained by those who argue that human additions of CO2 will produce global warming."

For Prof. Ashley there are two separate but related questions, are there not? Does he dispute the factual accuracy of these statements? Is he willing to engage with Prof. Plimer in a courteous dialogue in open forum?

Speaking personally, I suspect that the answer to both questions is "No". I shall be agreeably surprised if I am wrong.

It would, however, also be instructive to see the writer of this comment debating the issues with Prof. Plimer or indeed, with several Nobel laureats I could name, who shared the accolade conferred upon the IPCC. Given Mr. Monbiot's notoriety, I believe that this might quite possibly be capable of arrangement. If I'm right, would Mr. Monbiot agree? Most likely not, one suspects.

RW

T Massingham

Everyone else is airing their personal anti-AGW fact here, but no one has mentioned the 'divergence issue' yet.

One 'proof' of AGW was that official temperature figures showed us getting warmer. These figures were never provided raw, but always after some 'corrections' had been added, and what those corrections were was never revealed.

However, in 1979 satellites starte providing temperature figures as well - ones which were not 'corrected'. And, lo and behold, the satellite temperature measurements have been 'diverging' from the GISS and HADCRUFT sets, by an amount which has become very embarrassing. No one addresses this issue, but you can see the effect of 'correcting' the figures to try to prove AGW - you soon end up with unbelievable figures....

Bickers

You know the nutters have taken over the asylum when the G8 say they won't let the global temperature rise by more than 2 degrees C - has King Canute travelled through time!!

How mankind can have the deluded audacity to think he can control the climate beggars belief. And who's decided what the right temperature is, even if we could control it, and on what scientific basis/lifestyle basis.

We're now seeing the consequences of the mainstream political class backing a pseudo science, liberal backed scam - carbon trading. A lot of people (mainly those backing AGW) will get rich (The Goracle already is by perpetrating this hoax) whilst the poorest in our World will be denied their right to use abundant energy to raise themselves out of poverty and improve their lifestyles. The West in general will be screwed by taxation and other greenwash tax scams that will do absolutely nothing to reduce harmless CO2 emissions or reduce temperatures by any meaningful amount.

The reality is that the climate is contunually changing (AS IT'S DOING ON OTHER PLANETS)and whilst we need to be good stewards of our planet we don't need to be subjected to the green unproven propoganda that is being shoeved down our throats daily. Most politicians, Government institutions, NGO's and many academics have been shown to have their snouts in the trough and have tried with the support of the MSM to scare us before: DDT, AID's, SARS, Bird Flu, WMD anyone?

Rob Cremona

What a load of triffle!

Everyone knows that the world started to end the moment we discovered it!

Let's get on wth more important issues like contracaption for rats, middle-class misguided arrogance and halfpenny-worth know-it-alls who think that religious views are applicable to all.

Chris Coulter

the science, the science, the science . . . you can't deny the science -Albert Gore, Master Illusionist

nilesmc - Boston, Mass. U.S.A.

Yes! Climate Change is REAL!!! I know. I was the guy who drove all those gas-guzzling SUV's to reverse all those ICE AGES(plural...more than one)back in the day.

So, do whatever Al Gore and the UN tell you to do. After all, it's only money...right?

Klem

When it comes out in Canada I'm buying a copy. But don't expect too much support from the Canadian media, they are clearly on the doom and gloom left side.

Jimmy Haigh

To THX1138

Define "climatologist". My definition is a new age pseudoscientist who makes a nice living thank you very much off of the crumbs that fall from Al Gore's table.

I know what a geologist, such as Ian Plimer, is: I am one myself. What are you? And whay are you afraid to post your real name?

Bensaude

Personally I think Plimer and Booker and their allies are correct. But assuming that peak oil theories are also correct, and that fossil fuels will become rare and uneconomic over the next fifty years, we will end up will-nilly in a low carbon world pretty soon.
Unless Obama and the rest of the nuts are in truth just trying to prepare us for this unavoidable future, it seems totally mad to ruin our economies with dubious and complicated taxes.

Robin Guenier

alex and jaz have suggested we should listen to the Royal Society rather than Professor Plimer. Maybe – if we knew what the RS believed. But we don’t. Go to their website and look at the headline statement on climate change. It’s clever in that it appears to support current dogma without actually doing so. It refers to the alleged “scientific consensus” without saying whether it agrees with it. Anyway, the RS knows better than any that science is not a matter of consensus – that was a principle of the Enlightenment. Then the statement goes on to refer to “possible consequences” and disasters that “could” happen. This may sound scary but it says nothing about what the RS believes is likely. Given the huge importance of this question, I regard this equivocation as a sad betrayal of an honourable tradition.

Professor Plimer, in contrast, makes his position wholly clear. And does so convincingly.

Pavo Absolutus

All the predictable alarmist twaddle goes into hyperdrive to repudiate something quite well-known in the REAL scientific world - genuine scientists - ie those not in the pay of major interests ( including government conditional grants ) actually agree with Professor Delingpole, who is by reason of his study area very competent to evaluate weather patterns globally ( for that is what we are talking about - remember ? )

The good Professor must be quite amused to read the Pro-Global-Taxation-Scam MMerchants up in arms at his pronouncing of scientific FACT instead of the officially sanctioned garbage published by so many of the pseudoscientist class, and Doctors of Political Woodwork !

The "Onus probandi" ( obligation of proof ) lies with those imposing the worldwide scam upon us all - their answer to that is a "Computer generated game" for goodness sake !! Wake up to the real world - 'they' can make it 'prove' anything they want - as in every other computer generated game written by profit oriented programmers !!

Robin Guenier

Ed: you misunderstand the three points you cite.

* Plimer reminds us that manmade CO2 is a minute fraction of the atmosphere to rectify the generally false impression that it is a substantial part of it. He doesn’t say that CO2 therefore “doesn’t matter”.

* He rectifies the (again) false impression often given by dangerous man-made warming proponents that today’s temperatures are unprecedented by reminding us of earlier warm periods. That’s all – he doesn’t say that that proves the proponents wrong.

* It’s frankly absurd to regard CO2 as a pollutant. Your analogy is sound – water can be dangerous but it is not therefore classified as a pollutant.

But you’ve missed Plimer’s essential point – there is no real world empirical evidence verifying the hypothesis that further CO2 emissions will cause dangerous atmospheric warming. Computer models are useful but are not evidence. In any case, the current financial crisis should surely have taught us that complex computer models can be disastrously misleading.

R Sanders

"Is it just me, or are most of the contributions from people who agree with Plimer good humoured,correctly spelt, and grounded in common sense, basic scientific understanding and economic reality? And the ones from people who disagree just a bit, well, shrill, angry, illiterate or mad?"

"The other week I heard Polly Toynbee, on some gob-fest or other, lumping climate change denial in with racism and gay bashing.

Given that the old trout is wrong about most things - I would not write this off just
yet."

Yes!

Robin Guenier

GiveUp: you rudely describe James as being “so ignorant it’s unbelievable”. You urge him to “Check your facts. Stop accepting this meaningless dribble”. The ignorance, however, is yours. The essential facts are simple: there’s clear empirical evidence for a recent increase in global temperatures and simple physics shows that CO2 contributes to the “greenhouse effect”, and thus to atmospheric warming. But there’s no empirical evidence verifying the hypothesis that CO2 emissions are the main cause of warming and, as I mention above, that further such emissions will cause dangerous future warming. So it remains a hypothesis. Simple really.

paulgilboy

Well that was all going swimming until you put the bit in the middle about OZ going broke if they don't mine coal and uranium.
Its such a fundamental mistake i'll not even bother pointing it out.
As every friutloop in town will rip your essay too bits.

Adam Adamson

Two of my ignorant contributions have been kicked out, so here goes for the third time. In his repudiation of Professor Pilmer’s views, the UK guru on things globally warm quotes two figures, namely that whilst in the pre-industrial world the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere stood around 280 ppm (parts per million), it hit 387 ppm recently. In other words, C02 levels were 0.0280% then, and are 0.0387% now, or to reverse the composition, particles other than CO2 accounted for 99.972% before the humans put their act together. Today, according to Mr. Monbiot, the concentration of atmospheric particles other than C02 dropped to 99.9613%.

Nor being a scientist what I cannot fathom is this: The C02 levels didn’t get hiked by one percent, not even by one tenth of one percent, but merely by around one hundredth of one percent. And this is supposed to be killing life as we know it.

Is it truly beyond the wit of our leading scientific minds to run an experiment demonstrating how much more heat (primary or deflected) does an atmosphere trap if its CO2 content shifts by one hundreds of one percent?

Shaun Hexter

Where is the scientific evidence for global warming? Models do not make evidence - they try to extrapolate from measurements. Where are the measurements of more than 250 years ago? Not there. So if the climate change doom-mongers are so certain, why is that? Follow the money! The scientists are basing research grant applications and their salaries on climate change. The politicians don't understand the science, but realise this is one big tax raiser. The civil servants are all for bigger budgets (and taxes). The greens and their friends are also following the money. Even industry is getting in on the act. If climate change is not real (and it will take some time for them to realise), where is their money going to originate? David Bellamy is a good example of a climate change denier (he is on a pension not a research grant). He is also a pretty fair scientist. My background is also scientific - at the best university in Britain. Too many academics are afraid of the truth. They are suffering peer pressure as well as money pressure. The band wagon is one giant juggernaut - let's hope the wheels come off soon and everyone realises.
For an alternative view to Monbiot's one, read the review on Amazon http://www.amazon.com/Heaven-Earth-Warming-Missing-Science/dp/0704371669
If you have any doubt about the religious nature of climate change believers, read Monbiot's blogs http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/gallery/2009/mar/09/climate-change-deniers-monbiot-cards?picture=344343776
and wonder why the politics of his opponents differ from his. This is a political and religious argument - based on good old fashioned money - the science just gets in the way!

Climate Change Con

Try googling Dr John Theon, who for 12 years was the Head of NASA's climate programme and one of the most eminent climate scientists in the World.

Theon rejects AGW as a political fraud and his views fit with those og Ian Plimers.

Theon was also James Hansen's boss and he is a sharp critic of Hansens motives and flawed scence

Truppe1

I find it rather amusing and also enlightening that, at least here in the USA, the term "Global Warming" which frightened children for nearly two decades has over the past year or so seamlessly changed into "Climate Change" - I suppose it was becoming far too easy to disprove the "facts" about GW and so the term was altered - as the climate always changes and always has changed, there can be no way to disprove CC. And over here the sheeple accept the new term without a single thought. Political correctness reigns - but let us hope that this reign is soon terminated.

Seth

"that the CO2 in the atmosphere — to which human activity contributes the tiniest fraction"

Oopsie, someone just got caught lying about rock-bottom-basic scientific facts.

In 400,000 years CO2 has never gone above 300PPM despite many climate cycles. Since the industrial revolution humans have raised that to almost 200PPM.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_the_Earth's_atmosphere

"All this is scientific fact"

Only if you consider "lie" and "fact" to be synonyms.

Dave G

I wonder how Professor Pliner would react if a climate scientists told him that his geology work was wrong.

severn

Climate Change Con: I did google John Theon a long time ago, and it turned out he was not what he claimed to be. Not Hansen's boss and retired in 1994 and not much in touch with current science. A lot of 'authorities' who are quoted by denialists seem to turn out to be not what they claim.

Fearless Frank

@Jez and others: "Denier"... isn't that something to do with ladies' stockings?

Oh, you mean "heretic".
Your position becomes clear now!

Robin Edwards

Quite a selection of views/opinions here make interesting reading for anyone with a real sense of what is going on in the world of climate analysis. I have to presume that all of the contributors are personally familiar with the available data, and have done their own analyses. If they have not their contributions are founded on hearsay. Please DO NOT believe that the big climate "authorities" get things right. They do not. There's been much talk of hidden adjustments, secretiveness regarding data and so-called analytical methods that are less than transparent to put it mildly. I recommend collecting data from several sources and drawing your own graphs and running time series analyses. Even if not all the data are pristine (unsullied by adjustments) or precise and accurate - data never are - you will get a real feel for what has been happening. Just remember the fiasco at the Met Office early this year when they had to admit to a blatant and elementary mistake in their analysis method for temperature change. I immediately knew that they were wrong and so would anyone else who studied the data. Please, Professor Jones, do release your full data and analytical methods. Remember that we've funded you.

Bravo, Prof Plimer.

Dixon

Seth: "In 400,000 years CO2 has never gone above 300PPM despite many climate cycles. Since the industrial revolution humans have raised that to almost 200PPM."

So, according to Seth, Humans have "raised" Co2 to LESS than the level it was at before...doh!!!!!!!!!

CO2 produced by Human activity is not claimed by any source to be more than about 9% of the total, possibly as low as 5%.

Dixon

The "is it aint it " ( real ) question is really misleading . The real question is "why the hell should I care".

The predicted effects of anthropogenic climate change are laughably trivial compared to other environmental changes that Human societies have effectively shrugged off as inconsequential in the past.

Take but one example. Last weeks "New Scientist" carried a cover feature that shrieked hysterically that the effects of rising sea levels will be more apocalyptic than anything before imagined. Reading the actual article, however, it was discovered that the dire prediction was that some 60 million people...in the entire world...were anticipated to be living in areas affected by rising sea levels by the next century. Ahem, thats less than 0.01% of the present population. And who the hell imagines that the populations of those areas will continue to increase to that number ( from the even lower present figure, as the author presupposed ) in the event that such encroachment indeed occurs?

Thats illustrates one of the underlying errors in the scare-mongers vision: leaving out the compensating migration of populations between more or less positively affected regions as inevitably would occur over almost a century.

But I remain tickled pink by that net figure: a global catastrophe affecting less than 0.01% of the worlds population! None of them being anyone I know personally or should give a proverbial monkeys about!

Jason S

The list of psychological problems necessary to buy into man-made climate change is long and distinguished. I only hope the people who engineered our current economy (for which we Americans shelled out nearly a trillion in direct costs, not to mention the indirect costs of higher interest rates and inflation soon to come) have no say in any climate change legislation. The "we need the money now or we will all die" approach will not work this time. Thankfully the economy is giving everyone much better perspective on just how silly all this man-made climate change rubbish has been. The need to eat will always trump the need to feel important and involved in something meaningful like "saving the planet". My advice for the folks suffering from this lack of purpose in life is to find something a little bigger than a politician to believe in. Jesus worked miracles, and I have as much scientific proof supporting that statement as you do supporting the arrogant notion that humans can have any meaningful impact on our climate.

Bruce Clarke

Absolutely bloody correct.

Alex Dick

I must try to get the book.

Now perhap someone of standing will grasp the nettle and point out publicly that the real danger(to themselves and everything else) is too many humans.

It will take courage, because there are really dreadful vested interests, not least religions, in that field.

Perhaps I am lucky in being 82.

M. Simon - Rockford, Illinois, USA

The resources of the Earth are finite and amount to around 600,000,000 metric tons per person.

That is .6 billion metric tons per person. We are doomed. Especially if it falls on us.

Colin MacDonald

"There is such a mess of conspiracy theories thrown in here it's unreal. The biggest industries in the world have always been the oil companies. They combined have much much much much much more power than the likes of greenpeace, who have been campaigning to protect the planet..."
I hear this line trotted out all the time. Now, working in North Sea Oil I hate the beastly oil companies as much as anyone. However here's the thing, these same companies have to spend their billions finding and producing oil and a return for their shareholders. Greenpeace on the other hand can chuck there entire $300 million annual income into propoganda.

M. Simon - Rockford, Illinois, USA

In 500 million years CO2 has never gone above 10,000 PPM despite many climate cycles.

And during some million year eras it has never gone above 1,000 ppm

The CO2 level on the Earth is getting dangerously low. Some plants stop growing below 200 ppm. Save the plants. Burn coal.

Rob-on-the-job

The true position will forever be lost on doom-mongers.

Gareth Edward Jones

Ultimately you can chat about this all you want, the world is changing, the sea level is rising, the artic is melting, the poor are dying, due to increased drought and sea level rise. Of course humans have an impact, look at Chernobyl, look at Bhopal, Aral Sea... everything has an impact on the environment from the smallest creature to human kind.

You can deny all you want but it won't help anything, nor will it save you. Not to say doing anything about it will either mind you, but logically iit has to be better to try.

Believe science? believe this book? I prefer to put my money on a favorite. Better odds of coming in. The favourite today is the 1000s of climate scientists around the world that have all come to the same conclusion. Oh and the insurance companies of course :)

Andy Cunningham

Poor George Monbiot, Savonarola in Specsaver frames. Here's some Monbiotisms to test his credibility against that of Ian Plimer. Oh, and yes all of Monbiot's writing has already been completely laughed out of court, mocked, ridiculed and discredited by sane people all over the planet. Here's a summary of some of George's loopier pronouncements to illustrate:

"Home ownership causes homelessness." Of course.

"Flying across the Atlantic is as unacceptable, in terms of its impact on human well-being, as child abuse". Really, George.

On the benefits of the GFC "Why would we want to leave this place in order to explore the blackened waste of consumer frenzy followed by ecological collapse? Surely the rational policy for the governments of the rich world is now to keep growth rates as close to zero as possible?" Stay in Wales then.

On Climate Change "it is a campaign not for more freedom but for less. Strangest of all, it is a campaign not just against other people, but against ourselves." Huh?

Yes, hang in there people, for the firm hand of George will deliver us from evil and guide us to the light.

Rupert Wyndham

James Delingpole
July 10th, 2009 11:24am
Is it just me, or are most of the contributions from people who agree with Plimer good humoured,correctly spelt, and grounded in common sense, basic scientific understanding and economic reality? And the ones from people who disagree just a bit, well, shrill, angry, illiterate or mad?

Mr. Delingpole, you are quite right. Indeed, given that The Spectator, regardless of individual political affiliations, is reputed to be an up-market, literate and intellligent journal, some of the contributions to these Comments are truly depressing.

RW

Bob

Its a good ruse to predict something dire is going to happen a hundred years from now when none of us will be around to witness it or not as the case may be. The AGW theorists never defend their argument but always attack the man and duck scientific debate. So lets remember Karl Popper and just ask them one question.

What evidence would be required to DISPROVE the AGW hypothesis?

If no answer is forthcoming then AGW theory cannot be verified by experiment, is not scientific and should never be treated as anything other than a belief system.

Alan

There is anthropogenic created climate change and it is caused by fine particulate matter [aerosols] from the burning of fossil fuels, not the messenger elevated CO2. Aerosols are creating global hazes which are wreaking havoc with the weather everywhere. The most dense and damaging haze is located in the equatorial Indian Ocean region. Where it is cooling sea surface temperatures and preventing evaporation for the formation of clouds.

Undoubtedly, the dense populations of Asia create most of the problems with their fossil fuel burnings, ably compounded by forest fires and coal industrialisation.
The soot/black carbon component of aerosols settling on snow/ice when warmed by the sun is enough to cause accelerated melting.

So if you want ice to remain intact for polar bears and weather normalise, eliminate emissions of soot from fossil fuel burnings.

BFJ

Who do you believe indeed?
The scientists paid by the state who, surprise surprise, come up with 'findings' that justify further expansion of the state? And who form the official 'consensus' purely because they all have the same paymaster - spending, btw, 99% of all money dedicated to climate science.

Bill Vaughan (Australia)

Ian Plimer is Professor of Mining Geology at The University of Adelaide and Emeritus Professor of Earth Sciences at The University of Melbourne where he was Professor and Head (1991 – 2005). He was previously Professor and Head of Geology at The University of Newcastle (1985 -1991). His previous book, ‘A Short History of Planet Earth’, won the Eureka Prize.

Hardly a looney as described by the chicken littles of the sky is falling school of thought!

EcoScareFatigue

@Paul Tingen:

"...forced to bow to the consensus..."

That neatly summarises that the AGW proponents are not engaging in a scientific debate but a moral crusade. This is not science it is a rejection of the enlightenment.

Suki

Gareth Edward Jones: 'the sea level is rising' - it isn't.

Where are you getting this guff from?

Valentinus

You know, I've never been personally politically sympathetic to TS, but I have consistently recommended it to my students as a fluent articulation of a respected and influential political and cultural position. That just ended today, when you decided to venture into National Enquirer territory. This is a shameful episode in this distinguished periodical's history, confirming the worst fears about 'two-cultures' scientific illiteracy in British journalism. I am no AGW alarmist, but the basic scientific howlers in this book, combined with its mendacious graphs and tables, and its genuinely flaky theorising about the physics of the sun, render it a lasting embarrassment to The Spectator. How did this get on to your front page?? If you had presented The Da Vinci Code as a breakthrough in biblical scholarship, it would not have been more absurd. It will take you years to recover from this one.

Dallas Beaufort

Independent rational thought finally trumps political correct hogwash!

Enduser

Alex: "so who do you believe, the Royal Society, the oldest scientific society in the world, or the motley collection of Lomborg, Plimer and a man who would name his daughter 'Nigella', and you people are going to be running the country soon, God help us"

Let's go back in time a few hundred years and rewrite the previous comment:

So who do you believe, the Holy Catholic Church (God's representative on earth) or that motley collection of Copernicus, Galileo,etc....

Mr. Enjoying the Comment Box

Way to check the references in his book geniuses! Oh no, I'm sorry that was uncalled for, that would require an ounce of journalistic credibility and, well, effort. That's okay, I get lazy too sometimes. Of course, whilst my laziness usually involves opening a glass of wine and watching some weekly sitcoms, yours just puts at risk your own reputation and people's understandings of a complex and nuanced world issue. But that's fine guys! Don't worry about it, take a load off and have fun, that's what this is right? A nice big party to celebrate over the slow choking of the concept of a modern news magazine that doesn't equate full sentences and repeating nonsensical rantings as journalism! Yeah, sure! Enjoy it, because after that story you're working on about the moon landings being a big crock and Galileo being a drunk catholic-hater, after that you may well find there isn't a huge amount of work out there for what I can only assume are monkeys whacking at keyboards with glow-sticks... is it just me or is it getting hot in here?

Richard Mackey

Science and democracy thrive on the vigorous debate about ideas, evidence and truth.

James Delingpole and the Spectator show themselves to be true to the deep values of a free society and sound science by promoting debate about our planet's climate dynamics.

It is this willingness, this preparedness to promote debate, shown by the extensive review of Ian Plimer's scientific book, by featuring it, that places James Delingpole and the Spectator as guardians of scientific truth and democracy.

One must get fearful when scientists try to stifle scientific research that produces results that are contrary to their beliefs. One must get even more fearful when politicians try to silence the promotion of scientific research that is contrary to their ideology or their preferences about scientific findings. One must be even more fearful when so many in the fourth estate refuse to investitgate scientific/political controversy and report findings without fear or favour, but instead take partisan sides, and belittle those who disagree with them or even give space and time to the views of those who disagree.

How did the advanced democracies and the scientific academies get to this appaling situation?

Some have mentioned that the Royal Society of London is a dedicated enthusiast of the IPCC.

The Royal Society has on several occasions made an historic fool of itself. One occasion that comes to mind was the refusal for more than 100 years to recognise the true role of Liebniz in the discovery and development of the calculus, an attitude that kept Continental maths out of England for over 100 years with the result that mathematics in England stagnated for over one century.

Bear in mind that no agency has yet undertaken an objective evaluation of all the theories and evidence for our planet's climate dynamics.

The IPCC did not and could not as its terms of reference confined it to an examination of human caused climate warming. Yet the Royal Society takes the word of the IPCC that human beings are responsible for the modest warming experienced by the planet since the 1970s! And the motto of this Society is "Nullus in Verba" ie "Take nobody's word for it".

The Royal Society of London was supposed to be about establishing the truth of scientific matters through experiment rather than through the citation of authority.

If the Royal Society cared about establishing scientific truth in this area through experiment and the vigorous contest of ideas, it could hold a series of seminars in which there would be papers that show that the warming that commenced in the 1970s arose in large part because the rotation of the Earth increased a little; that the planet's climate experiences periodicities because of the interactions of the several and vast atmospheric/oceanic oscillations; that the Sun, through its output of radiation and matter (ie plasma) and its variable gravitational and electromagnetic fields - and especially through the interaction of these variables - gives rise to much climate variability, often strongly regional rather than uniformally global; that there is substantial evidence of the likelihood of the planet cooling, perhaps more compelling evidence of this than for a continuation of the modest warming that began in the 1970s,and that their is a real need to apply Ockham's razor to trim away the IPCC's suspect hypothesis.

One might expect that on a matter of such widespread interest as our planet's climate dynamics the Royal Society of London would be THE champion in promoting vigorous debate of all of the evidence, all of the theories so as to help reveal the truth. One might expect the Royal Society to hold seminars in which papers were presented that brougjhto light the many flaws in teh IPCC's work and, of course, invie the IPCC to address these publicly in a contestable setting.

Thank goodness there are journals like the Spectator and journalists such as James Delingpole who are doing this as the Royal Society of London is so publicly and shamefully taking the IPCC's word about the nature of and explanations for our planet's climate dynamics.

Tom

Fact:- The polar caps on Mars have recently been declining at pretty much the same rate as the Earths! Caused by man too huh?? This proves that the SUN is the culprit, and not CO2. I agree that the global warming argument is one of the biggest money making cons of all time. How can 0.04% CO2 have an effect on global temperatures? The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is so miniscule it quite simply cannot have any affect at all.(Yes and I am a Geologist too!!). The Earth's climate changes time and time and time again we geologists know that I just wish that the alarmists would too. We are actually in a warm age at the moment, and soon the Earth's climate shall plunge into yet another an ice age...this is the reverse of what the alarmists are claiming. Then it will become 'Global cooling LOL'.

Maximillian

The yearning for the validity of Climate Change scepticism expressed above is distressing for its illumination of the baseness and triviality of the human race. Its all about ME,my existence, my self-fulfilment, my self-expression, MY WAY, and how dare the nature of reality even propose to endanger this all-important, exalted endeavour.

Take a look at a photograph of the Earth, and how much of it is covered in salt water oceans. Now consider that polar and mountain ice is already melting at an accelerating rate, freshening the salt water of the Great Ocean Conveyor at key points. It doesn't even matter if the cause is natural or human-induced warming. With a continuation of this process, the ocean conveyor, which is the engine of global climate, is likely to slow to the point where it will no longer carry heat energy from the south to the north. If this fully happens, the resulting cooling will bring agricultural colapse to North America, Great Brittain, and Europe. The other event that will turn the oceans into the greatest enemy the human race has ever recognised will be the release of deep-sea methane deposits, which may result in the possible extinction of most life on Earth. It has happened before in the geologically "documented" past, and can take as little as a few years to happen. Change in our universe is often exponential: very slow and gradual for a long time then, suddenly, rapid and substantial. You children are bickering about who or what is responsible for an unstoppable freight-train hurtling towards the abyss, not understanding that nothing the human race does at this point will stop what is already inevitable.

I am not of you, and you are not my people.

Fearless Frank

Seems to me the AGW believers have given themselves an argument they can't lose... if we're overwhelmed by AGW catastrophe, they can say "told you so'.
If, more likely, we're not, they can say 'those anti-carbon measures really do work'.
At what point will they claim victory over CO2? Or is this the war that will never end?

Robin Guenier

A bad bet, Gareth Edward Jones.

Unfortunately, the research has not been conducted to determine the conclusion reached by your “1000s of climate scientists around the world”. But, if were, I think it would find they agreed (a) that the world has warmed over the past 160 years or so (by around 0.65 deg C – hardly alarming) and (b) that CO2 is a “greenhouse gas” and thus contributes to atmospheric warming. But it would not find an agreement that human CO2 emissions were the main cause of warming. Why? Because no one has yet published a peer-reviewed paper setting out the empirical (verifiable by reference to the real world) evidence verifying the dangerous man-made global warming hypothesis.

Your reference to poverty is important. In recent years, the alleviation of poverty has been most marked in two countries: China and India. That has resulted from a massive growth in their economies – based almost entirely on energy from fossil fuels, mainly coal. Meanwhile, poor people in the third world, especially sub Saharan Africa, are being left behind. For them, more expensive energy (an inevitable consequence of CO2 restriction) would mean that yet more already desperately poor people would be unable to access clean water, fresh food, better health care (cold storage for medicines), better education, etc, etc … Almost everything they need would cost more.

How many Africans would you allow to die for the sake of an unsubstantiated hypothesis?

(And, Valentinus, I congratulate the Speccie for having the courage to give this prominence.)

John Halstead

Lomborg should not be tarred with the same brush as fools like Pilmer and Delingpole. Lomborg does not deny climate change. He agrees with the IPCC on their predictions. His crucial message is that prioritisation to save lives may entail not spending very much on reducing carbon dioxide. A fair point, and a largely economic not scientific one.

Jerseyman

I notice that those who use the "denier" rhetorical device do so without any shame whatsoever. Conflating anti-semitism and Holocaust denial with climate change skepticism is a dirty tactic.
Those of us who are history buffs- not scientists- just readers, continue to ask how the Medieval Warming is explained by anthropogenic warming enthusiasts. That is if they've ever heard of it.

Rupert Wyndham

Richard Mackey: The Royal Society has on several occasions made an historic fool of itself.

Absolutely right. In fact so discredited has Carlton House Terrace become that even a scientific layman such as I was able to bring about the closure of website debating forum, not just in relation to global warming but in entirety. A far fetched and empty claim? Through The Spectator I'll be glad to supply chapter and verse to anyone who may be interested.

But to revert to Goerge Monbiot - will he agree to put his money where his mouth is, and actually debate the issues with Prof. Plimer, Mr. Delingpole or (God help us all!) at a pinch, even such as I and do so, moreover, in a measured, rational manner which eschews insolence and innuendo? Or, like the Olympian Mr. Gore or the oracle of Clarence House, will he prefer the soft option of polemical self-indulgence, taking care not to have to wrestle with inconvenient contra-indications to his proclaimed orthodoxy?

One route requires a bit of courage and integrity, the other mere huff 'n puff and chicanery. That's the challenge to Mr. Monbiot. Is he up for it?

RW

WJP

The Climate Sceptics(Party)are going to challenge Gore to debate the science of AGW on Monday 13/07/2009, Melbourne, Australia. Manne's falsified hockey stick will be exhibit A.

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/global-warming/sceptics-to-hassle-al-gore-20090710-dg2u.html

So all you UK climate sceptics, go to our website,

http://www.climatesceptics.com.au/

join or donate. We intend to contest the senate the next federal election in as many states as possible. Help us to help you!

harbinger

I think the Hadley Centre, the Tyndall Centre and the Government should be allowed a say here:
"Stabilising climate to avoid dangerous climate change" — a summary of relevant research at the Hadley Centre January 2005

"What constitutes ‘dangerous’ climate change, in the context of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, remains open to debate.

Once we decide what degree of (for example) temperature rise the world can tolerate, we then have to estimate what greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere should be limited to, and how quickly they should be allowed to change.

These are very uncertain because we do not know exactly how the climate system responds to greenhouse gases.

The next stage is to calculate what emissions of greenhouse gases would be allowable, in order to keep below the limit of greenhouse gas concentrations.

This is even more uncertain, thanks to our imperfect understanding of the carbon cycle (and chemical cycles) and how this feeds back into the climate system."

And the science is settled? Before anyone says that was 2005 and they have learned more, we have been told the science is settled repeatedly for the last 15 years.

How about Tyndall? These extracts from a 2004 paper provide an insight into their propaganda agenda.

"The Social Simulation of the Public Perception of Weather Events and their Effect upon the Development of Belief in Anthropogenic Climate Change" September 2004.

"Global warming (or climate change) is, without elaboration, a much debated and contested issue. Not only is it contested among scientists, but also among all those with vested interests.

We suggest that, in the realm of the public, forces act to maintain or denounce a perceived reality which has already been constructed. That is, an issue introduced by science (or media for that matter) needs continual expression of confirmation if it is to be maintained as an issue.

In this paper, we explore under what conditions belief in global warming or climate change, as identified and defined by experience, science and the media, can be maintained in the public’s perception.

As the science itself is contested, needless to say, so are the potential policy changes. So how then do people make sense or construct a reality of something that they can never experience in its totality (climate) and a reality that has not yet manifest (i.e. climate change)?

To endorse policy change people must ‘believe’ that global warming will become a reality some time in the future.

Only the experience of positive temperature anomalies will be registered as indication of change if the issue is framed as global warming.

Both positive and negative temperature anomalies will be registered in experience as indication of change if the issue is framed as climate change.

We propose that in those countries where climate change has become the predominant popular term for the phenomenon, unseasonably cold temperatures, for example, are also interpreted to reflect climate change/global warming."

Sound familiar? The Institute for Public Policy Research, Labour's favourite think tank,had this advice in 2006 for public agencies interfacing with the public.

"Treating climate change as beyond argument"
..it is our recommendation that, at least for popular communications, interested agencies now need to treat the argument as having been won.

This means simply behaving as if climate change exists and is real, and that individual actions are effective.

The ‘facts’ need to be treated as being so taken-for-granted that they need not be spoken.

The certainty of the Government’s new climate-change slogan – ‘Together this generation will tackle climate change’ (Defra 2006) – gives an example of this approach.It constructs, rather than claims, its own factuality.

Millions of pounds of money are spent on social engineering to get us to accept environmental taxation, to “save the planet”. Unfortunately the opposition are fully signed up as well.

Carpenter

I am not a scientist. CO2 emissions seems to be an area where evidence suppporting either viewpoint can be presented convincingly to laymen. This is clearly a problem and one which makes me feel vulnerable - just like I feel when I take my car in for repairs. Mostly I have to rely on the professional opinion of whichever business I patronize.

But can the anthropogenic aspect of deforestation be denied? Is it not beyond question, that deforestation is just very bad (a simple word for a complicated thing) and that underground and surface fresh water supplies are dwindling?

Mike

Are you seriously suggesting that more than 150 years of industrialisation has had no effect on the biosphere? Do you think your children and grandchildren will thank you for your contrarian-for-the-sake-of-it analysis?

Either way, what's wrong with putting sustainability at the heart of everything we do?

MAGB

The references in Ian Plimer's book show clearly that global climate is complex, chaotic, and poorly understood. Anyone who thinks they can model it is seriously deluded.

Stephen Wilde

For a series of relevant articles about the climate mechanisms and designed for lay readers please see here:

http://climaterealists.com/index.php?tid=37

Ray Taylor

As I live in Adelaide, I intend not only to buy Pilmer's book, but I intend to shake his hand and get him to autograph it. I was a Y2K sceptic too. The world has too much hysteria and political correctness.

While I don't think human activity is the cause of any global warming that has occurred I agree there are too many of us and we need to be aware of our polluting effect. All those carcinogens spewed by diesel engines [including those on Bio-diesel] worry me...

helen goulden

debunked here
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/04/the_science_is_missing_from_ia.php

Valentinus

Guenier––do you really want me to begin listing the schoolboy science errors in this one? If a GCSE student were to mistake the Sun's rotation for orbital motion around the solar system's centre of gravity, he would get 0 out of 4 in the 2007 GCSE Physics Paper. Shall I go on? How about the view that the sun isn't composed of 98 per cent hydrogen and helium, but is instead similar in chemical composition to a meteorite? This is a view that was widely promoted in the 1920s by the Hollow Earth hypothesisers. Tell me this, straight up––do you believe it? Because if you do, then your views on AGW have about as much validity as my cat's.

Clothcap

I challenge every scientist, government and dogma bitten commenter to prove CO2 produced by humans is harmful to climate. Over 2 decades of the best minds and tens of billions in funding. Still waiting.
THERE IS NO PROOF
Just lies, deceit and exaggeration.
Sawdust for brains that need to be spoon-fed facts need to read this:
http://joannenova.com.au/globalwarming/skeptics_handbook_2-1.pdf

Clothcap

PS Thanks Ian Plimer and
James Delingpole.

erthbcoolin

The problem with you Globalists is that while you believe that we are fast using up the worlds resources, you do not mind using Arab oil. You stop us digging up the almost infinite resources in the earth in the U S,U K and Canada - oil,coal,uranium,natural gas,while paying to ship oil from the Arabs. They then use the cash to fund extremist hate-mongers all over the world. God help us all! (I just said that to anger the God-haters!)

stephen cohen

I have read some of the criticism of Plimer's book, which claim that he has made many scientific errors, some of a quite elementary nature. However, the key fact is that global warming has stopped 10 years ago. None of the AGW group can explain this in a satisfactory manner.

Robin Guenier

Carpenter: I too am not a scientist. But I find that simple logic helps to understand the facts about human CO2 emissions. First, it’s surely obvious that “proof” that the world is warming is not proof that human CO2 emissions caused it. So much for allegations about declining polar bears, rising sea levels, etc. Second, the fact that lots of important-sounding people are alleged to agree about something (the so-called consensus) doesn’t mean it’s true. Science is not democratic.

No, since the Enlightenment, science has progressed by the Scientific Method - i.e. that a hypothesis remains a hypothesis until it is verified by empirical evidence (from the real world, not computer models or the laboratory). So, ask for the empirical evidence that, if we emit more CO2, it will force temperatures up to dangerous levels. If there is no such evidence, cap-and-trade, emissions trading, carbon sequestration, etc. are no more than an expensive waste of money.

You don’t have to prove anything. Just insist on that evidence. You’ll find that there isn’t any.

Crystal Bullet

Unless God himself came down to the surface of the planet and categorically assured us the climate was perfectly self-regulating by design, the doubt will continue. It is not climate change or worry about it that is responsible for the economic business cycle or the “boom and bust” wave in history. It is an unidentified malaise that effects confidence and has at its roots disquiet at social ills that were not being adequately answered even at the height of the previous boom. Our ill is that by eschewing nuclear energy an enormous amount of wealth has transferred to Arab nations without requiring them to endorse the spirit of capitalism, but rather spread religion.

Suppose this downturn is bigger than in 1929? We should be asking ourselves that. What does a bigger 1929 mean? We need to stop pre-emptying the scale of this current crisis as being measurable within the previous measure. It was 80 years ago! If the current crisis is not going to be bigger, it suggests in 2089 future man will still be making comparisons with 1929. In our current year of 2009 we are still au fait with the technology of 1929, the motor car. It will not be central to transport debate in 2089.

Plimer is an Australian version of Rime of the Ancient Mariner: “Uranium, uranium everywhere and not a drop to drink”. Should all electricity where possible be generated by uranium fission? Should fossil fuels be reserved for where they are most efficient: the internal combustion engine? As a geologist, what does Plimer think on the viability of electric cars? Is supply of Lithium for batteries realistic? Freeman Dyson is another vehement critic of IPCC. But he has advantage of being privy to nuclear secrets that Plimer doesn’t.

Imagine in 2089 another financial crash. This time it is spread across several worlds, colonised by human beings. Now the issue of fiscal and political independency from “mother earth” raises its ugly head. But they make comparisons with the great crash of 2008. 1929 is irrelevant to them. 2008 was bigger and because the importance of internal combustion engines is forgotten. Freeman Dyson’s nuclear rocket ship is the dominant transport of the day, enabling trade between these worlds.

Which theoretical hurdles need jumped for it to be true? Without a Theory of Accelerative Relativity a spaceship reaching a star quickly would crush the crew as flat as a pancake. Nuclear science is like economics, key to relativity is the yardstick chosen. 1929 was not worst possible. Is there sentient life present on planet outside universal earth gravity? If not, a yardstick to decline relativity exists. Since 1929 the story of oil contrasts strongly against non-exploitation of nuclear. Secrets aside, Dyson and Plimer could question together how Plutonium makes us fear nuclear electricity. They might however consider all aspects of the atomic boon, for which Dyson, a prominent physicist on The Orion Project (1957-65), keeps the oil-lamp burning.

Robin Guenier

Er, Valentinus (whoever you are), perhaps you might consider what I actually said (5:04PM yesterday) instead of sounding off offensively about something else. Whether or not Plimer’s book contains “basic scientific howlers” is irrelevant. My comment was about the Delingpole interview and I commended the Speccie for giving prominence to a barely appreciated fact – that, despite the alarmist stories appearing throughout the mainstream media, the dangerous man-made warming hypothesis has not been verified by reference to empirical evidence.

It’s an important issue. As I said to Gareth Edward Jones, how many Africans would you allow to die for the sake of an unsubstantiated hypothesis?

Travis Bickle

Deniers and Ecofascists alike.

Newsflash ; None of these posing G8 leaders actually give a stuff. (or for a start they'd meet by video conferencing) AGW is simply the current most convenient vehicle for them to control us and sting us for taxes (flying abroad £40 green tax (rising to £85 and more) to plug my budget deficit, thank you very much). It also makes a fortune for the likes of arch hypocrite Al Gore and Stern.

Scientific concensus backs the horse carrying the research grants.

And since few of us will be around in 50 years anyway, who's going to say "told you this was all a waste of time"

Yep the climate is changing, as it always has, will screwing increasing amounts of tax out of us change that, unlikely, but seems to make some of us feel good. Does the science matter - NOT A JOT....

PS If people are so worried about climate change why do they have home computers? Bit of an oxy moron there surely...

R Sanders

Richard Mackey says
"One must get fearful when scientists try to stifle scientific research that produces results that are contrary to their beliefs."

Can you supply even one example of scientists try to stifle scientific research that produces results that are contrary to their beliefs in the field of climate change? If you cannot then you should withdraw that remark.

A. MacAulay

The scepticism of the doubters goes much deeper than the pushing back and forth and search for indisputable facts as evidence. Contributor Bob's reference, for which we should be thankful, to Popper should give all cause to stop hurling un-unproved theories at each others heads.

And is not the divide between the believers and (us)infidels lastly a philosophical one? The natural and robust canon of conservative values called "common sense" perhaps spiked with a little empiricist philosophy balks at the unreflected vehemence and moral supremacy of the believers. We all know, and all history shows it, that this mind-set, no matter which ideology or religion or science it has latched on to, always leads to tears and often enough to tyranny and the letting of blood.

When the institutions which uphold our liberties are infected with this kind of pernicious nonsense then the sky falling on us is nothing as compared to the effort required in putting the world to order again.

Keith

"Environtmentalism is the last refuge of the socialist" Discuss.

Paul

It seems to me that most of today's greens are yesterday's reds. They tried to control our lives then, and they're trying to control our lives now. These neo-Puritans are determined to curb freedom.
Either the climate change mob are wrong, and all the restrictions on our lives are for nothing; or we're doomed anyway and there's nothing we can do about it. So why make our lives less enjoyable in the time left to us?
The one contribution we can all make is to restrict our breeding. That will be of definite benefit to the planet.
Paul in Sunderland.

J Smith

There are no citations, either for the graphics or for the data sets, in figures 1, 3, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 31, 37, 42, 44, 50 and 52.
Why is that ? Is this meant to be a scientifically serious book or not ?

Rhoda Klapp

"Can you supply even one example of scientists try to stifle scientific research that produces results that are contrary to their beliefs in the field of climate change? If you cannot then you should withdraw that remark."

OOh, OOH, me sir.

The supression of a papaer by Ababneh following up research on treerings by returning to the same trees used to produce the hockey stick graph. Her results were suppressed. She got the degree, but when asked for the data she referred to her lawyers.

Here's one reference http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2310

Plenty more on that site. Many other examples too.

Boris Karamazov

The good old Sir Thomas Huxley defined science as 'common sense at its best. Rigid accuracy in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic'. The AGW theory fails on both counts.

Take as an example the famous hockey stick. If I have two shirts and buy another one my shirt assets grow by 50%. If I own 100 shirts and acquire another one, the increase is merely 1%. The charting of the shirt asset growth follows a logarithmic curve. So should the relationship (if there were one) between the level of CO2 and the resultant temperature. An increase of 20ppm from 280ppm level should have produced a greater hike in temperature that a similar increase from 360ppm. No question about it.

We would be better off to accommodate to a climatic change rather than attempting to stop it by messing up with the economic engine that made us more comfortable than any other past generation.

Valentinus

Well, Robin, it really is hard to know where to begin with that. Anyone who believes that there is no empirical evidence for AGW either does not know what constitutes empirical evidence or is simply closed to the conclusions one must draw from the relevant facts. There is massive, overwhelming evidence empirically to verify that CO2 levels are rising, that they are in turn raising global temperatures and that the principal cause of that is the industrial activities of human civilization. All this tosh about research grants and consensus cannot disguise this fact. Point me to one major climate study furnishing evidence of AGW that you believe has been corrupted in this way. Since you are such a great empiricist, provide us with the empirical data.

AGW is beyond dispute. But I am with the sceptics in rejecting all the solutions so far proposed and in having marginally more faith that we will find a technological fix to our problems before they overwhelm us.

As for it being 'brave' to promote Pilmer. It would be 'brave' for next week's cover to endorse the view that the 1969 moon landing was a hoax. It would be equally fatuous.

louis beckers MD

While Australians always were my favorite people, because of the indiscipline and their efficiency as the best soldiers during the first world war, I like this professor in particular, because het thinks in exactly the way I do, and because he is right

Richard Sanders

Rhoda

They don't appear to have done a very good job of supressing it.

www.geo.arizona.edu/Antevs/Theses/AbabnehDissertation.pdf

Any more?

Richard

spollo

i remember very well the millenium bug...when the clock struck midnight...planes would fall out of the sky etc.etc. I have an impending disasters file in my office/swine flu/heat wave/millenium bug/ i have been on courses(blow your nose,don't wear an overcoat'drink more water)I manage an old persons home,there is a whole industry built up around bogus threats...it is all about control and taxation and lots of people are falling for it and colluding with it,climate change is natural it is not our fault,spend some of your righteous energies on denouncing real things such as the murder of civilians in wars that we engage in,instead of being spineless gutless namby pamby eco-tosspots.

MP

Funny how people cling to the idea that the Royal Society can't be wrong because it's the Royal Society. This is the same Royal Society who supported the Eugenics movement and initially claimed that powered flight was impossible.

Anthropogenic Global Warming is a myth which, contrary to popular belief, is not supported by the majority of respected scientists working in the field. It's not just Ian Plimer, there are thousands of others including the late Reid Bryson - the Father of Climatology - and one the scientists who originally envisioned the failed theory of AGW.

what's the message here?

I am not a scientist, but I know how to read and I am educated. I will start by acknowledging that I have not read Mr Plimer's book and am only basing my comments on this highly supportive article (which does not stimulate me to read the book).

There are a number of issues in this article I find questionable. We all know that there have been huge climatic shifts in the earth's history. However, Mr Plimer (and the gullible Delingpole) seem to be skirting neatly around the fact that there is no historic base line for the kind of human activity we have been seeing over the last 150 years. More surprisingly, Mr Plimer appears to dismiss the validity of other studies focussing on this period. How can he purport to be benchmarking the activities of the last 150 years against historical evidence when this type of activity was never in the picture? From secondary school science I recall that you need to be very careful about setting up a control to test a theory.

I defy Mr Plimer to refute the evidence that, with increasing wealth, prosperity and the comfort of modern technology, the human species has become wasteful to an unprecedented scale. Western civilisation has actively segregated itself from any kind of natural process. We have been creating compounds not normally found in Nature. Of course Nature will win over time, but the last time I looked most scientific theory conforms to ACTION and REACTION. What is the cost of our actions?

I am also not clear on whether Mr Plimer is justifying our clearly wasteful ways? I agree that extinction is a normal life function - when a species is no longer fit for the environment it finds itself in. But what about those species that are being actively eradicated by another short sighted species (are we the new dodo?). Any extinction changes an ecological balance. Is Mr Plimer's theory that we should just let things be and NOT use our superior brain power to ensure own own survival...? No one can deny that The Gore Theory and the reaction to it has been wide ranging and in some cases extreme. However, any social scientist will tell you this is also normal - people position themselves over a wide ranging spectrum. But is the focus of the message to reduce waste a bad one? I think not.

Finally his comments quoted in the article are pretty telling and I find myself asking even more questions: Is Mr Plimer so committed to his profession that he is afraid how its future must evolve if we are able to find better sources of energy over fossil fuels. Is he one of those people who, because they were very poor growing up, feel they have now earned the right to waste? The comment that his publishers were so poor they couldn't even afford curtains is egoistic, condescending and a pretty primitive analogy (BTW Mr Plimer - I don't have curtains and am still doing OK!), which causes me to question the rigour he applies in developing any of his theories.....

What is Mr Plimer's ultimate message? Everything is OK and let's carry on without evolving?

tired of pagans

Look at the temperatures, you goronic, self-deluded, CO2 producing and therefore hypocritical AGW scare mongers. I am fed up with foul-mouthed attacks that come back to us from climate alarmists so decided to return some - see how you bozos like your own medicine.
What a pack of idiots!!! You believe the Royal Society of humans who are capable of lies but not the actual measurements of real world (not idiotic computer model) temperatures, produced by an absolutely honest natural environment, the very thing you claim to want to protect. If hypocrisy has a name, it is Al Gore, and if stupidity has a personality, it is the dirt worshipping manner of a deluded environmentalcase.

Stephen Wilde

Plimer and other sceptics have no problem with accepting that humans need to prevent unnecessary pollution, conserve resources and eventually stabilise population and per capita consumption at a sustainable level.

What is wholly unacceptable is the nonsensical panic over emissions of CO2 which is wholly beneficial for life on Earth and most unlikely to be a significant climate driver.

The wrong diagnosis will lead to desperately wrong decision making and that is where the sceptical position becomes irrefutable.

Robin Guenier

Well, Valentinus, let’s establish first where we seem to agree. Yes, I accept that there is overwhelming empirical evidence that CO2 levels are rising. I accept also the simple physics shows that adding CO2 warms the atmosphere – so, to that extent, AGW is indeed beyond dispute. But I believe there is no such evidence that industrial activities are the principal cause of recent warming – or that our adding further CO2 to the atmosphere will cause dangerous “climate change”. Believe me, I’ve looked for that evidence – not least by dragging myself though the long and turgid pages of the IPCC’s AR4 report and by reading other pro dangerous AGW material. Plainly you have no doubts. So I’d be most interested if you could refer me to any published research demonstrating unambiguously that the hypothesis (that mankind’s continuing to add CO2 to the atmosphere will cause a dangerous increase in global temperature) has been subjected to rigorous testing against empirical (i.e. physically observed, not theoretical) evidence and has survived such testing intact. The evidence should be publicly available and the testing capable of independent replication.

BTW I do not claim that major AGW research has been corrupted.

(In contrast, spollo, the millennium bug was undoubtedly a real problem.)

SteveH

I saw one of the Milliband boys on the Andrew Marr show this morning talking about his upcoming Climate Change Bill and how we must make sure that a predicted 4` rise in the Earths temperature is restricted to just a 2` rise. This by carpeting the country with windmills and getting everyone to put in loft insulation.
But can someone please answer these questions for me that no one seems to put to anyone who spouts off about a 2 or 4 degree rise in temperature?
1. How do you tell the temperature of the Earth?
2. What is it now?
3. Who is going to say when we have amazingly restricted the Earths rise to just 2 degrees?
4. What happens if say the Northern Hemisphere stops rising at 2 degrees but the Southern Hemisphere goes on rising? The more you think about it the more ridiculous it sounds. Am I missing something?

Wilfred

Oh Delingpole, you are such a lightweight prat. You've really done Cameron's green conservatism a gross disservice with this article. Did it ever occur to you to wonder whether a professor of MINING might not be the best person to try to do a Lomberg? Did you attempt to find out whether he has any links with mining companies? From what you write about his attempts to bring down the Rudd government over the Emission Trading Scheme, Plimer is hardly the disinterested scientist. What a fool you are, Delingpole. Stick to TV reviewing.

Crystal Bullet

A time to say “green-shoots” and mean it is when “green” is a dirty word. The heart of the matter is how long the Chinese or Arabs are going to bankroll Anglo-Saxon green lunacy? If you fell into a coma and re-awoke an unknown time later, you'd instantly know if the economic recovery had begun from your hospital bed. That is by watching TV and finding nothing remotely about "green initiatives" being reported. Until then roll-on governments with wherever utter lack of common sense cares to take you!

DaveP

AGW may be right or may be wrong. The subject of climate change though, is far too complicated for anyone to really be an expert. All people can do is to extrapolate from measurements, or run model based algorithms. Again, the assumptions, simplifications, and dropping of certain parameters in a model, markedly affects the result. This is not the fault of the researchers – it is simply a consequence of the fact that the science, such as it is at the moment, is very young, and still developing.

Given these, making decisions on predictions, which do not have the basis of solid science behind it, has the potential to destroy the economies of the West (the East is not buying AGW, and will do so only if it handsomely compensated), is foolhardy.

There is far too much alarmism and hysteria in the debate, most of it deliberately done for self-serving purposes. It has already been pointed out that politicians and energy companies will gain from AGW. In the end though, all will have to pay for haste, when caution would have been far better.

Ayrdale

Wonderful stuff. Green guilt and the green wish list are starting to disgust many of us, and their gamble on the acceptance of CO2 as the driver of an environmental apocalypse is collapsing. Unfortunately for the green/left behind brigade they have bet the house on it...

Steve The Rock

As a geologist and parent, I am split. Personally, I think we should adopt everything that the IPCC and Greenpeace wants. Then when the world is shivering in 30 years time with widespread Third World famine and collapsed western economies, it may also result in the collapse of the pseudo-intellectual left wing "one-world" movement (a movement that is never critical of people like Mugabe). Like the collapse of Communism, these people defended their system to the very end, and no amount of science is going to change their political agenda of control. Sometimes one must let the truth become self-evident. So just let it happen, and when the executions start, maybe we can return to sanity. The pity is, no-one wants to trash the planet, but if a new Maunder arrives, that could be the end of the Green movement forever. As a parent, it grieves me to write this.

Ben Anixter

A breath of fresh air. Keep pushing.

Michael Roberts

Climatologists are no scientists', they are leeches making a living out of junk science. I would listen to a geologist over them any day. Even Obama has seen the light and is backing down along with the Senate on this absurd tax on production and life.

John Childs

I am currently reading Ian Plimer's book. I am not a scientist and neither are some of those who want to attack the book because it does not fit with their view of the cause of climate change. I do not know if Al Gore is correct nor if Ian Plimer is correct but, is'nt it time we stop screaming subjective comments and start being objective and actually look at what is happening to the climate and why? It is about time that actual scientists who work in the area stand up and speak out either for the argument or against it, as they will be doing us all a big favour rather than those who want to have "their" view as the only one acceptable. To do this they must also justify their stand with facts not ideals.

Ted from Sydney

Plimer's book is excellent, as it comes from a scientist whose pedigree and reputation are beyond question. In addition, his research is meticulous and his arguments are powerful. The thrust of his argument is that true science works against consensus, while politics needs consensus. Politicians seek to persuade us that the hypothesis that warming is caused by humans is now 'settled', when Plimer's evidence shows that there is no real consensus at all and that the hypothesis, on many counts, is invalid. Not only that, he proposes several other alternatives to explain warming.

He is a very brave man and the vitriol he has had to endure only adds weight to his arguments, in my view. Plimer's book illustrates that the onus of proof lies on the people who claim that human activity is causing global warming - and that they have not yet proved their case. This is not the first time that clever people have tried to hoodwink others with false claims - Y2K was a massive fraud, for example - and won't be the last.

John Barrett

To those concerned: Paleoclimatology is a branch of Geology (the study of the Earth including it's history). Most of these so-called climatologists(AGW funded probably) produce and rely on biased models not real data. In fact, these models have failed to predict the global cooling in the last decade.

Robin Guenier

I note, Valentenus, that you have yet to provide a reference to the evidence I’m seeking. If you cannot, and I suspect that may be the case, we are facing in the UK a most extraordinary situation.

On Wednesday, Ed Miliband (our – hmm – “Energy and Climate Change Secretary”) will introduce a White Paper requiring us to build 7,000 gigantic offshore wind turbines by 2020. That is, two per day – a practical impossibility. The cost of this vast enterprise will be recovered by a huge levy on our already dreadful energy bills.

Yet this absurd scheme is based on no more than an unverified hypothesis.

Paul Maynard

I stopped buying the Speccie about two years ago for the same reason that I stopped reading The Economist. Both had fallen for the "science is settled argument" and were not challenging Dave and the government's green terror.

This article has restored my faith. I hope Matthew D'Ancona is looking at this blog and the clear majority in eloquent support of Delingpole and Plimer. I have taken a new subscription.

If any doubtful readers wish to look at a complete demolition of the AGW propaganda they should look at the NIPCC report on The Heartland.org website

Regards

Paul

Rhoda Klapp

Richard Sanders, the suppression of Ababneh's data lies in the fact that further papers have been published about the trees by people in the paleoclimatology field who have not used her data, even though it is available, because it doesn't produce a graph showing warming in recent years since the first samples were taken. In other words, they are cherry-picking to get the result they want, rather than mess up the modern end of the hockey-stick graph, which has a high profile in the 'proof' of AGW. When I say suppressed I don't mean men in trechcoats making threats like in the movies, or mysterious accidient. These are not required, when the advocates of a position have control of what gets published. One of the problems is that some groups who should be scientifically neutral have assumed an advocacy stance. When that happens the value of 'peer-review' goes out of the window. This is the end of science and the beginning of politics.

Robin Guenier

Ted from Sydney: Y2K was not a “massive fraud”. It was a serious problem and was largely (not entirely) fixed by the dedicated work of thousands of medium ranking IT professionals doing a mind numbingly boring job – while their more flashy colleagues were busy pumping up the dotcom bubble. Criticise the dangerous AGW scare by all means – you’ll see from my earlier posts that I agree with you – but ill-informed references to Y2K don’t help.

Hamish Pringle

I enjoyed James' article and set about trying to track down Ian Plimer to invite him to speak to the IPA 44 Club, when I found a very detailed rebuttal by Barry Brook:

http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/04/23/ian-plimer-heaven-and-earth/

Not sure where to go from here!

alan smith

Hopefully, someone with clout will be able to do a Globalwarming-gate and expose the scam. The relentless lies about this con have permeated the whole of our media. I do hope the truth will out sooner rather than later

neil

Robin Guenier
July 12th, 2009 4:24pm

Robin I agree with you, lets look at some facts:

Human activity is increasing atmospheric CO2.

CO2 absorbs infra red radiation and heats the surrounding air.

The global air temperature has been increasing for the past century.

It is pretty easy to convince an untrained individual that those facts show a cause and effect.

A trained person will ask show me the science, physics, chemistry, maths that closes the energgy balance and confirms the cause and effect.

How much CO2 is from human activity? How much energy can it absorb? how much can that raise the temperature?

When you do the science the biggest number you can generate is 0.05C! but the planet has warmed 0.7C? IPCC modellers simply put in a fudge factor then predict the future.

Ignoring a few problems:

The warming period started 200 years before industrialisation.

The geographical record shows that CO2 was at 400ppm (380 now) at the onset of the last iceage. And with the previous two iceages the CO2 was 2000 and 4000 ppm respectively

The planet was 2 deg warmer 2000 years ago when CO2 was at 280ppm

The earths orbit causes a 100K year temperature cycle and we are near the end of the warming phase.

I could go on and on, but man-made climate change alarmists insist, in fact demand that CO2 is the only cause.

In the words of Al Gore:
"Skeptics do not add value to the debate"

Apparently it's only a debate if everyone agrees with him!

John Thomas

Whatever may have been the origin of AGW alarmism - it may even have been honourable - the whole thing was long ago hi-jacked by politicians (of all persuasions), because for politicians, it's like gold - a Trojan horse by which they can con the people into allowing all kinds of reductions to freedom, extensions to State power, taxation unlimited, and all manner of control over their lives (and great personal wealth for themselves, obviously, as Al Gore). No Stalin, or any other totalitarian leader, could have dreamt up anything so beautifully simple and effective. If I were Ian Plimer, I'd be expecting a hitman (CIA directed, or from a hundred other sources) any day. I hope he gets a Nobel prize - but it'll surely be posthumous.

neil

Hamish Pringle
July 13th, 2009 11:04am
"a very detailed rebuttal by Barry Brook:"?

Barry Brook questions the accuracy of a single graph when compared to a graphic representation from a TV documentary and you think that is "a very detailed rebuttal"? What is his detailed rebuttal to the other 492 pages, several hundred other data based graphs and several thousand references?

Antonia

Please, stop mentioning global warming. The soundbite of today is climate change for the obvious reason: not warming any more but cooling.

Fact: scientists around the world make their living from governments' handouts. If they ever proposed a project on global cooling, they wouldn't see a penny.

Advice about CO2: stop breathing and breeding.

James Delingpole

Very much enjoying your comments so far everyone. But especially those of the ones who think TV reviewers shouldn't be taken seriously about anything that's not on TV/the Royal Society is right about everything because its old and dinstinguished its got Royal in the name/the Spectator has fallen victim to an outrageous practical joke from an Aussie con man aided and abetted by a gullible journalist/1000s of scientists can't be wrong/Al Gore is the fount of all wisdom and knowledge/a Professor of Mining Geology must perforce be in the pay of the evil and sinister mining industry/found a page on the internet with a few nitpicking (and as it happens) erroneous criticisms of Plimer's book on the internet by parti-pris computer modelers/fervent warmists and decided you needn't read any further etc. If one of you bothered to read Professor Plimer's book, that would be nice. But in the mean time your rage is bringing me great joy (though please be careful: one very angry man I met once got so cross he burst his sphincter.) As to all you people who are on mine, Plimer's, and by extension the world's and the global economy's side, thanks for your encouragement and wisdom. I think we're winning here by what, about 80 to 20?

Tom Dunne

Robin Guenier.

No you are wrong. Y2K was a fraud.

I was overseeing the required Y2K program at my, then, employer - a Footsie 100 company. It was clear from early days of scoping the project that it was a fraud. The cost was bourne as a window dressing excercise.

Examples of many countries (think Italy for one) where there was virtually no preventative work done on Y2K. The were zero ramifications.

I suspect your passion is due to the fact that you were a "middle ranking IT consultant" slaving over this for a couple of years and became completely myopic.

I was similar, but willing to accept it as 2 years of my working life wasted.

Lance

I have read a large number of the blogs on this thread and obviously very few of the people commenting have read the book, which means their comment is uninformed. I have read the book which runs to 500 pages and contains 2300 references to scientific papers most of which would have been peer reviewed.
Plimer has a distinquished career including Professorial postings at 3 Australian Universities. I doubt that many of the critics on this blog could match his qualifications.
Global temperatures have been falling since 1998, ocean temps. have been falling for the past 5 years, the antarctic ice shelves have been increasing in area for the past 30 years, during which time CO2 levels have been steadily increasing.
Global temperatures were significanty warmer (1 to 2 C) during the medieval warming period (about 1000 yrs ago) and the Roman warming period than today even though there was no industry producing CO2.
How come there was an ice age in the late Ordovincian period while CO2 levels were 12 times higher than today (ie 4,400 ppm).
The AGW idea is a giant hoax.

James

@Bickers
Just to set the record straight: Canute did not believe that he could "turn the tide" - it was his courtiers that thought he could. He was showing them that he was not all powerful. Unfortunately now we are governed and informed by the courtiers and there is no leader with the wisdom of Canute.

As a geologist I am much more likely to believe that Ian Plimers work is closer to a truth rather than climatologists whose work spans a couple of centuries at most.

I can recommend Ben Goldacres book "Bad Science" to those who are not aware of the scientific methods (peer reviews, open access to original data etc.) so that they can make more informed decisions about the various issues here.

Robin Guenier

Look, Tom Dunne, I’m tempted but this isn’t the place to start a Y2K debate. (Google me and you’ll see who I was.) But, yes, a lot of preventative work was done in Italy. And, yes, there were ramifications – but not many, thank goodness. Here’s one from the NHS: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1541557.stm. And, to stay on topic, here’s one re global warming: http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/08/1998_no_longer_the_hottest_yea.html

For an overall view re finance, see this from the Bank of England: http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/news/1998/024.htm

Escovado

Looks like the enviro-nazis are having a hissy fit: a sure sign that Dr. Plimer is on the right track.

Robert G

Look at some of the qualifications of people we keep listening to on AGW

Al Gore, B.A. Government (no science degree)
Alanis Morissette, High School Diploma
Bill Maher, B.A. English (no science degree)
Bono (Paul Hewson), High School Diploma
Daryl Hanna, B.F.A. Theater (no science degree)
Ed Begley Jr., High School Diploma
Jackson Browne, High School Diploma
Jon Bon Jovi (John Bongiovi), High School Diploma
Oprah Winfrey, B.A. Speech and Drama (no science degree)
Prince Charles of Whales, B.A. (no science degree)
Sheryl Crow, B.A. Music Education (no science degree)
Sienna Miller, High School Diploma

ABC - Sam Champion, B.A. Broadcast News (no science degree, not a meteorologist)
CBS - Harry Smith, B.A. Communications and Theater (no science degree)
CBS - Katie Couric, B.A. English (no science degree)
CBS - Scott Pelley, College Dropout
NBC - Ann Curry, B.A. Journalism (no science degree)
NBC - Anne Thompson, B.A. American studies (no science degree)
NBC - Matt Lauer. B.A. Communications (no science degree)
NBC - Meredith Vieira, B.A. English (no science degree)

Al Sharpton, College Dropout
Alicia Keys, College Dropout
Alicia Silverstone, High School Dropout
Art Bell, College Dropout
Ben Affleck, College Dropout
Ben Stiller, College Dropout
Billy Jean King, College Dropout
Brad Pitt, College Dropout
Britney Spears, High School Dropout
Bruce Springsteen, College Dropout
Cameron Diaz, High School Dropout
Cindy Crawford, College Dropout
Diane Keaton, College Dropout
Drew Barrymore, High School Dropout
George Clooney, College Dropout
Gwyneth Paltrow, College Dropout
Jason Biggs, College Dropout
Jennifer Connelly, College Dropout
Jessica Simpson, High School Dropout
John Travolta, High School Dropout
Joshua Jackson, High School Dropout
Julia Louis-Dreyfus, College Dropout
Julia Roberts, College Dropout
Kanye West, College Dropout
Keanu Reeves, High School Dropout
Kevin Bacon, High School Dropout
Kiefer Sutherland, High School Dropout
Leonardo DiCaprio, High School Dropout
Lindsay Lohan, High School Dropout
Ludacris (Christopher Bridges), College Dropout
Madonna (Madonna Ciccone), College Dropout
Matt Damon, College Dropout
Matthew Modine, College Dropout
Michael Moore, College Dropout
Nicole Richie, College Dropout
Neve Campbell, High School Dropout
Olivia Newton-John, High School Dropout
Orlando Bloom, High School Dropout
Paris Hilton, High School Dropout
Pierce Brosnan. High School Dropout
Queen Latifah (Dana Elaine Owens), College Dropout
Richard Branson, High School Dropout
Robert Redford, College Dropout
Rosie O'Donnell, College Dropout
Sarah Silverman, College Dropout
Sean Penn, College Dropout
Ted Turner, College Dropout
Tommy Lee (Thomas Lee Bass), High School Dropout
Uma Thurman, High School Dropout
Willie Nelson, High School Dropout

J Smith

I hope people do take up this book as a sort of Bible for those who deny AGW because it will make opposing them so much easier - there are so many mistakes in this book that any reference to it will be shot down in flames within seconds.

I hope people do try to claim (as Plimer does) that Mt Pinatubo emitted as much CO2 as humans do in one year.
All anyone has to do is quote a proper geology site :

"Human activities release more than 130 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of more than 8,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 3.3 million tonnes/year)! (Gerlach et. al., 2002)"
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/index.php#CO2
(CLICK ON 'EFFECTS')

Bring it on !

Matthew Hague

At the age of 63., my biggest regret is that I will not be here to tell the ecofacists that they are wrong, gullible and doing immessurable damage to our futures. I live in an area that the Wind Industry is exploiting- at our expense using the arguments of the likes of Gore and Monbiot on a largely scientifically illiterate public. Well done Plimer- lets see if the BBC gives it coverage

Matt

herseyk

What happened to the Ozone hole?

Vivian Godfree

How shocking that a reputable magazine such as The Spectator would publish an article on climate change that contains so many scientific errors. Do you not check the facts before you publish? I had always understood that your magazine was of the highest quality, now I believe that you have fallen prey to a scam. Surely you would understand that a typical denier's technique is to make it sound as though overwhelming evidence is a conspiracy theory. This is a low point in the history of your magazine.

Steve The Rock

Er, do not underestimate Mt Pinatubo. The only years that NZ's greatest winery, Te Mata, did not produce its flagship Coleraine was - 1992 and 1993. Why? Mt Pinatubo. Since then the vintages have been getting steadily better! How about Tambora and "The Year Without Summer"? I'll take warm over cold anyday. Here in NZ, we are shivering our boots off,my Lime tree is in serious trouble and the winters have got colder each year for the past 3 years.

Pedro

Hamish Pringle:
You have come across the opinions of Barry Brook.
Barry Brook is a colleague of Ian Plimer's at Adelaide University. He holds the chair of Climate Change.
You won't be surprised to know this chair is recent. Nor will you be surprised if a true-believer in climate change and in all things "greeny" was appointed to such a chair. He is also a true believer in computer modelling, which is his "big thing".
It was Barry Brook who turned me from a neutral listener into a sceptic over this climate change issue. Not because I have any scientific qualifications but because Barry Brooks' many comments in the media come across as those of a blind true believer and greenie crusader. To Barry Brook there is no time to waste on further argument, the science is settled, the opponents are crackpots, and the end of the earth is nigh. He's as much a doomsdayer as Al Gore. I'm no scientist but I understand the scientific method. So I'm now a sceptic and I'm hearing Ian Plimer.

Paul Shallard

James Delingpole in “Meet the man who has exposed the great climate change con trick” [Spectator 8th July 2009] quotes Professor Ian Plimer, the Australian geologist and supposed master of exposé of the falsehood of global warming, as saying in his opening gambit,
“I’m a geologist. We geologists have always recognised that climate changes over time. Where we differ from a lot of people pushing AGW [anthropogenic global warming] is in our understanding of scale. They’re only interested in the last 150 years. Our time frame is 4,567 million years. So what they’re doing is the equivalent of trying to extrapolate the plot of Casablanca from one tiny bit of the love scene. And you can’t. It doesn’t work.”

This raises some very interesting questions.

By saying “We geologists” is Plimer not trying to commandeer all other geologists in a single bold presumptive flourish into a sort of grand geological class action against his imagined opposition: those “people pushing AGW [anthropogenic global warming]”? Having moved at a stroke to the royal “We” [geologists of the world!], is he not also implying that he has an irrefutable anchor in the whole 4567 million years of geological history and is thus indulging in big-noting with the largest number he can lay his hands on?

By declaring from his 4567 million year self-assumed superior perspective, that his opposition, the “people pushing AGW“ are “only interested in the last 150 years”, is he not simply trying to write them down the the smallest number he can think of, to make them look as small minded and lame-brained as he can? This trick is essentially a straw man argument in which imaginary unnamed people are simply set up, minimised and then knocked down by asserting the bleeding obvious i.e. that “It [their imagined argument as defined by Plimer] doesn’t work.”? Well of course it does not work, but who ever said it did? Well, errr, only you, Ian Plimer! What shades of Don Quixote...

I am a bloody Aussie too, Ian, and you know that in Oz we tend to call a spade a spade, if not a bloody shovel! I cannot but put it to you straight, mate: your opening statement in Delingpole's article is what is commonly known in Antipodean parts as “pure bullshit.”

Come off the grass, mate, these AGW geezers have actually been known to study data on CO2 concentrations going back at least 670,000 years and generally rest their cases on studies covering many more millions of years. You do not have a monopoly on the past, Ian! This 4567 million versus 150 horse-shit argument of yours is just a set-up. It does not mean you are 4567 million versus 150 times more correct than they are, which is what you seem to be angling at! Honestly, mate, if you can't get through your first paragraph in an article in the Speccie without resorting to false projections and grandiose delusions like this, what hope have you got? Tell you what, it fair gives me the ta-tas about reading your bloody book.

But I'll tell you what mate, you've got this Delingpole cove conned real beaut. He's gone on and on for six pages [in the online edition] shovelling himself further and further in as he goes. Notice how he has hardly got any references to independent scientific findings or objective rational discussion. No it's all mainly just down-putting assertions and ad hominem arguments against your manufactured imaginary opposition. Almost perfect! You even gave him the raw prawn about there being no global heating since 1998 and he didn't even notice or bother to quote you the plethora of data that shows this loony claim is a false. He let the whole post-1998 Arctic meltdown go by without a mention: man that's rich! How did you blind him? In ancient Rome they called this “selling the smoke”. I've got to hand it to yer mate, you're a real pro.

Now I want yer to get in touch with me mate cos we could do a book about them gallahs that perch on gum trees in such numbers that when they all get a fright and all take off together [and forget, as they do, to let go of the branch they're on], they fly away into the sunset with their gumtrees in tow..., and how the Sydney City Council employs special Gallah Officers to keep them off the Harbour Bridge and the Opera House least they perch on them and get a fright and fly off into the sunset with them too.... Not everyone knows what a big problem synchronised nervous gallah take-offs are in Australia...

And yer know their flapping warms the atmosphere up one hell of a lot. Not many people know that this is the main cause behind global warming, which rises, as all heat does, up from Downunder to go all around the northern hemisphere. That's why the Arctic's been melting so much faster that the Antarctica, which will never melt, cos it's so cold down the bottom of the world, yer know. All this bullshit about lots of ice falling off into the sea down there is pure lies, yer know.

But on the gallah issue, we could claim to be the Gallah Monitors of Australia and could attest to this rising heat source just by being the first to claim it, like you've done with all yer geologists, eh! Listen mate, if you can get this Delingpole cove to do us a review, like the one he's done on your climate bullshit book, but on The Gallah Effect, I reckon we could clean up big time. I tell yer, there's money in it.

Give us a call, mate,

Paul Shallard
Auckland
New Zealand

Me

RE: "...that it was caused by a bacteria."

That should be: "...that it was caused by a bacterium."

Ben South

Thanks for joining the 30,000 or so ignored scientists that refute global warming as any kind of science....

Here in the U.S.A. government has determined that absolute control must be exercised over the citizenry...and the global warming hysteria is one way to make massive inroads into further enslaving the "people"

God help us all....

Semper Fidelis,
Ben South

Steve Meikle

Do you really want Plimer to champion any cause you take seriously? His book "telling lies for God" was nothing but an ad hominem rant, think on logic and large on venom.

Yes, Human caused Global Warming is a ruinous myth. And along comes a venomous name caller like Plimer. What good will his spleen do here?

Campbell M

We may need resources to help those affected by the (historically slight) sea level rises we can expect in this end-of-a-post-ice-age period. Mainly because we've been a bit silly and built things in the wrong place. However - where is it all going to go? More government, more bureaucracy, and to satisfy the fantasies of those who think they should be at the centre telling everybody else what to do. So if the expected (historically low) eight inch rise is a problem - well, by the time we get they, the economy will be kind of not exactly able to cope with it.
No body wants to live in a dirty planet. Given the means, people clean up. Listening to this lot, you'd think C02 was S02 or plutonium. Now what we have now is serious moral confusion over basic hygiene.

Al Ford

It is good to see some common sense entering the 'climate change' debate. Why don't politicians inject some honesty into the debate and explain that all they are trying to do is to wean people off imported oil!

Corsican Pirate

No surprise here... the politician's specialty has always been "hot air"..

Mark Heneghan

I'd have been more impressed if he'd presented some data rather than criticisms over time scale, dissuasion through pointing out how much global warming measures cost - arguments by cost alone are pretty spurious, food costs money but I'm willing to pay it - and finally an argument by analogy, that of H Pylori, that sometimes the consensus is wrong, especially as he implies that stomach acid isn't implicated in peptic ulcers, when it clearly is, as anyone taking acid suppression drugs will point out. Show us your facts.

James P

Good article, JD. I was pleased to read the reference to stomach ulcers, which I have often used myself to balance conventional wisdom. Interesting, too, that Barry Marshall, the doctor who demonstrated the action of the h.pylori bacterium was also Australian. It took 30 years for the medical establishment* to accept the proof, however, so I guess we shouldn't hold our breath over AGW!

*Veterinary medicine knew about this 60 years ago, but of course, doctors never talk to vets...

Pops

One of the dirty little secrets in climate science is that the ground-based temperature record, used to assert that recent years have been much warmer than the past, is "adjusted" before making such determinations. Furthermore, if one subtracts the unadjusted numbers from the adjusted numbers, the result - which represents the adjustment itself - is a hockey stick! In other words, the adjustments to the numbers produce the warming, not the actual measured temperature.

Alex

"so who do you believe, the Royal Society, the oldest scientific society in the world, or the motley collection of Lomborg, Plimer and a man who would name his daughter 'Nigella'"

Surely, one's daughter's name is highly relevant argument in the 'climate change' (aka 'global warming', aka 'new ice age' aka ....) debate, which, of course - is over.

Sounds a lot like something one would expect to find in the Inquisition's indictment of Galileo.

The only thing one can say is - eppur si muove

Winston

I suppose toxic waste is not a problem either. Dumping it into oceans? Cutting down trees to cook food? Making more oxygen consuming engines? Making more useless for more useless... ah forget it.

Richard

I am American; I like Nigella Lawson. Her dad seems like a decent sort. Rotten teeth, but you don't get "Lord" in front of your name with white choppers. To my ears Lord Lawson seems well enough educated and very reasonable. I know he served in government for many years and didn't get caught stealing or abusing prostitutes so how bad could he be?

Bryan_K

Well done Mr Plimer...I whole heartedly endorse your sentiments...the next ice age is what they should be concerned about..it could happen very quickly and have devastating effects...global warming..bring it on....no..it is all about a "new" way to tax the moronic masses..since when has any politician had any interest in what happens after his or her term in office...power companies will simply pass the tax on to the eager to pay, conscience stricken public...and whilst they are willing to pay the tax...the power companies never will renew their equipment..our prime minister, Rudd the dud has started something that he would rather forget about..he knows that the tax burden would harm the economy...but he has to carry on to save face....I'm in my 70's but if I were 30 years younger I would be very concerned... What I find amusing is when power companies try to interest you in buying "Green Energy"...people are suckers enough to fall for it ....I remember when in the UK in the 50's..we had to have a handkerchief up to our nose because of the coal fires...many parts of the world are still like this..and we should try to help them to clean up their environment...
Oh!..I nearly forgot...what will the tax be spent on...they don't tell you that do they...absolutely useless exercise....Keep it up Mr Plimer..there is a growing voice of support for you..

Gareth

I would suggest checking out monbiots blog

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/jul/09/george-monbiot-ian-plimer

Antipodian

Mark Heneghan

What century do you live in Mark? Are you still drinking butter milk for your stomach ulcers? I know you poms think you invent everything but how long have you been living in your time void?

Dr Barry Marshall and Dr Robin Warren received the Nobel prize for medicine in 2005 for discovering a bacterium that causes gastritis and stomach ulcers in 1982! No Australian has had stomach ulcers for 25 years!

Mark go see your doctor and tell him your symptoms and he will prescribe anti biotics that will fix you in a week!!!

Thorfinnss

Al (Augustine) Gore's 'A Convenient Lie', defines the post-modern equivalent of Original Sin. Why do we hate ourselves so much? Is this why Lucifer took pity on us and brought us the fruit of the tree of knowledge, self-awareness?

Robin Guenier

Winston:

Yes, toxic waste is a dreadful problem – as are dumping it in oceans and deforestation. Other dreadful problems are the emission of particulates and various dangerous pollutants by internal combustion engines. Yet we are spending vast sums concentrating on eliminating CO2, one of two non-polluting emissions. (The other is water vapour, ironically the main greenhouse gas.) Much the same applies to coal-fired power stations. Genuine “clean burn” power stations could almost eliminate today’s harmful emissions and would be more efficient, reducing the amount of coal burned for a given amount of power. But, instead of focusing on that, we are investing vast sums in nonsensical “carbon capture” systems which may not work and, if they did, would burn more coal, increase costs and, because of the energy used to extract the extra coal and “capture” and store the carbon, probably negate any reduction in CO2 emission.

Mankind produces many toxic pollutants that could be largely eliminated. But instead we are expending vast sums on reducing CO2, a benevolent gas. It’s all quite absurd – and all done on the basis of an unsubstantiated hypothesis. Groan.

Jon

People may find the following website interesting and wonder why these people didn't get the same coverage as the so called IPCC "scientists".
http://www.petitionproject.org/

Andrew Adams

As a geologist I am much more likely to believe that Ian Plimers work is closer to a truth rather than climatologists whose work spans a couple of centuries at most.

I can recommend Ben Goldacres book "Bad Science" to those who are not aware of the scientific methods (peer reviews, open access to original data etc.) so that they can make more informed decisions about the various issues here.

You are aware that the vast majority of peer-reviewed papers on the subject support the notion of AGW, right?

Andrew76

A quick reminder for those quick to dismiss this article under a deluge of "consensus," ie: "Don't you know that LARGE bodies of scientists agree that AGW is real!?"
Science, true science, has absolutely *nothing* to do with democratic consensus. Quite often, scientific models are changed by one person acting alone, or a few individuals acting in concert. Their research challenges the status quo and the text books are rewritten. Point being, go stuff your scientific consensus because it is utterly meaningless in the realm of scientific inquiry, no matter how "royal" the consensus is. You're a fool who does not understand Science if you believe otherwise. AGW is a complete farce.

Andrew Bourget

Reducing carbon emissions means we can continue using those finite resources for longer. Thus I view the "limitations" beeing placed on the release into our atmosphere of carbon, long withdawn from it, as very positive. As for taxes, well, for those not burning any CO2 it doesn't change anything. And for those that are high "CO2 burners" they will change their ways of life and some industries will thus close while others will boom. Human economy, like the climate, changes.... :-)

Jon Hargis

see:
http://www.petitionproject.org

31,478 real American scientists have signed this petition which goes against the fraudulent claims of so called 'environmentalists',
including 9,029 with PhDs.

The real consensus goes against the laughable 'manmade CO2 causes global warming'.

12 years of cooling while CO2 has been rising. That dog don't hunt.

Jon

Robin Guenier

Andrew Adams: since you seem to have reviewed “the vast majority of peer-reviewed papers” (phew – quite an undertaking!), perhaps you’d be kind enough to refer me to those that demonstrate from empirical evidence that our adding further greenhouse gases to the atmosphere will cause dangerous global warming. Thanks.

Jason

I think climate change is mostly out of mankind's hands. But Ian makes it really hard to take his books seriously when you do some research on his background and other sensationalist claims. He has a habit of misrepresenting facts to support his pre-conclusions (just like the people he attacks!).

I'd love to think his book was spot-on good science, but I really can't. I wish it were true, but it isn't.

Human's actually do have an effect on the global climate. We may be overshadows by geologic or cosmological events, but we do have a measurable impact.

It is in our best interests to be more conscientious of how our decisions may help or harm the environment. It is a luxury of the well-off, something the poor can't afford to consider. While we are well-off, we damn well better think about it.

Yank G

The past 20 years as seen a dramatic rise in piracy off the coast of Africa.

Global Warming has been on the increase during the same period.

Obviously, pirates are the cause of Global Warming.

Peter Fitzgibbon

And now Hansen's temperature figures are now shown to be falsified - increasing summer temps and reducing negative temps. Nasa has now stated that the actual temperatures will be used.

Jonathan

I was wondering when this wackjob would turn up in the Spectator; he's been beguiling the rightwing press down in Oz for months.

Here's a link to a nice, clean rebuttal of Ian Plimers latest work, featured in The Australian which is usuaully a platform for climate change deniers.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,25433059-5003900,00.html

Merlyn

As usual both sides have a point.
"Climate change" due to our activities may be a lie, but its time to have cleaner air and environment for all our sakes. We also need to stop being put over a barrel by the Arab nations. Algae is being used as a great alternative.
http://www.israel21c.org/bin/en.jsp?enDispWho=Articles^l2025&enPage=BlankPage&enDisplay=view&enDispWhat=object&enVersion=0&enZone=Technology

tony kirkby

Thank heaven for Prof. Pilmer. I shall get 20 copies of this book into my wife's bookshop right now.
Speaking as an engineer in the energy industry (which means I'm fortunate to work day-to-day with rock doctors - weird bunch, great company, though...) the selectivity of information presented on global warming (sorry, climate change - couldn't be that's to cope with figures since 1998, could it?) and the simplification of information presented in a good deal of the media - specially the BBC - on this subject to something just below mindless stupidity have left me feeling, well, as Prof. Pilmer says: disenfranchised.
Good on 'yer, professor.

Andrew Adams

Robin Guenier,

I never said that I had personally reviewed them?

See

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

And of course it's the job of the IPCC to review peer-reviewed research and summarise the current state of scientific opinion on the subject.

Andrew Adams

Quite often, scientific models are changed by one person acting alone, or a few individuals acting in concert. Their research challenges the status quo and the text books are rewritten.

Yes, of course. But currently we have a consensus not because the world's scientists are collectively deciding that AGW is real, but because large numbers of scientists acting alone, or acting in concert with a few other individuals, have all independently come to the same conclusion.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with talking about a consensus in that sense.

Andy Cunningham

Jonathan here's my rebuttal to your rebuttal. And funnily enough the ad hominen attacks in your linked rebuttal (and in much of the criticism of Ian Plimer) meld perfectly with your own hectoring style. Just another reason that there are more and more reasonable people listening to the climate change sceptics. My rebuttal to your rebuttal follows.
http://australianclimatemadness.blogspot.com/2009/05/australian-michael-ashley-reviews-ian.html

Nik

Even if polar ice has only been present for 20% of the history of the earth, its melting would nevertheless be a catastrophe for the thousands of coastal cities that have been there for even less time.

Climate changes cannot be both cyclical and random. Unless you are a scientific illiterate, like Mr Delingpole.

CO2 is not a pollutant in normal quantities. But the proportions of it in the atmosphere have been steadily growing since the industrial revolution. The ratio between atmospheric and other CO2 is a sublime irrelevance inserted for rhetorical, rather than logical purposes.

Nik

And where is the contrasting evidence? The whole article just states baldly that there is no evidence for global warming, while never telling us why the instances usually put forward as examples don't count. An island in the Pacific was evacuated last month as rising sea levels made it uninhabitable. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2o2AapO6rK8 Ice shelves at both poles are retreating at dramatic rates. http://bit.ly/lVSsv These are not 'doomsday scenarios' churned out by 'computer models' - they are happening right now.

Unkle Al

Check out this link: http://www.oism.org/pproject/GWReview_OISM600.pdf
Very detailed scientific review of the literature...their conclusion is "There are no experimental data to support the hypothesis that increases in human hydrocarbon use or in atmospheric carbon dioxide
and other green house gases are causing or can be expected to cause unfavorable changes in global temperatures, weather, or landscape. There is no reason to limit human production of CO2, CH4, and other minor green house gases as has been proposed (82,83,97,123)."

ungulate

An an aussie I had to have a chuckle at the bit where he claims (heh, talk about being alarmist) that we'll all go broke thanks to the cap n trade system. The reality is that the government is handing free credits to every large industry so the actual shift in prices is likely to be minimal in the short term. The real story here is the campaign being waged (you guessed it) by the coal and aluminium industries.

NH

Feh, we've not needed anyone to tell us that GW is a hoax perped by the globalists one worlders to tax us, we knew it all along...

Randall

DDT-still dangerous to the environment.
Millenium Bug-fully human created and stopped by.
SARS-still a danger.
AIDS-still infecting and killing mainly in Asia and Africa leaving many orphans.
Bird Flu-could become a dangerous pandemic at any time.
WMD-a fiction made up by the allies to attack Iraq.

Acid rain was reduced when the industries were forced to clean up their smoke stacks. No myth there just reality.

Many have died from heart failure, when you are struck by a bullet in the heart is it normal? The heart stopped like many others before and since or is it artificially made to happen?

CO2 is a component but also methane release was instrumental in the Permian extinction and Cretaceous extinction too, probably. Should the frozen methane hydrate should thaw it would instantly turn to a gas and bubble up to the surface and increase the warming by many orders of magnitude. Don't forget nitrous oxide and many industrial gases that are thousands of times more potent than just CO2.

Just 6 degrees C up or down could radically change whether it is hot house or frozen earth. Just 6 degrees.

We should have been in a cooling trend but are not.

nikki noodle

The only relevent point in this whole debate is the impact on HUMAN CIVILIZATION.

Globablly, we know that temperatures rise and fall and that iceages come and go. AGW has nothing to do with the weather - that does not matter.

But whether 110 million people in Bangladesh, the Pacific rim and parts of Europe have to be relocated does matter.

Regardless whether the actual science is 100% or not.

[And its not polar ice melting that causes sea level rise - it is thermal expansion of the sea water].

Graeme Codrington

As a long time reader of The Spectator, I have always enjoyed and respected your contributor's wonderful use of the English language, good humour and intelligent analysis.

It was therefore surprising - and distressing - to see this article as a lead in your magazine. Plimer and his book have had detailed critique from some eminent scientists, and he has been exposed as a shoddy scientist. At best he has made grave errors, at worst he has deliberately attempted to deceive.

The best compilation of refutations can be found at http://www.aussmc.org/IanPlimerclimatebook.php

This is an unfortunate episode for your otherwise excellent magazine.

Jay

Tax and control is what its all about.
I'm
just waiting for a time in the near future when the ice caps are at record levels, temperatures have plunged, and we will be told that it an effect of global warming,
War is peace.
Freedom is slavery
Ignorance is strength
Global cooling is caused by global warming
(please visit infowars.com)

John Powell

Great to see a book like this. Great to expose the fraud of generating more taxes to waste by invoking green-guilt

Brute

Global Warming/CO2 Emission Regulation, the ultimate political boondoggle.

George Orwell was right.

Marx would be proud of today’s political class.

Nineteen Eighty-Four (sometimes abbreviated to 1984) is a classic dystopian novel by English author George Orwell. Published in 1949, it is set in the eponymous year and focuses on a repressive, totalitarian regime. Orwell elaborates on how a massive Oligarchial Collectivist society such as the one decribed in Nineteen Eighty-Four would be able to repress any long lived dissent. The story follows the life of one seemingly insignificant man, Winston Smith, a civil servant assigned the task of perpetuating the regime's propaganda by falsifying records and political literature. Smith grows disillusioned with his meager existence and so begins a rebellion against the system that leads to his arrest and torture.
The novel has become famous for its portrayal of pervasive government surveillance and control, and government's increasing encroachment on the rights of the individual. Since its publication, many of its terms and concepts, such as "Big Brother", "doublethink", and "Newspeak" have entered the popular vernacular. The word "Orwellian" itself has come to refer to anything reminiscent of the book's fictional regime.

Robin Guenier

This is addressed to those, such as Andrew Adams and Nic, who seem convinced the dangerous AGW hypothesis is settled science. It isn’t. Yes, the world has warmed over the last 160 years or so – by a less than alarming and not unprecedented 0.65 deg. C. Is that a problem? Maybe, but probably not. But problem or not, unprecedented or not, the hypothesis that mankind is the culprit is not supported by empirical (real world) evidence; therefore the dangerous AGW hypothesis remains an unsubstantiated hypothesis.

For a fresh perspective, consider Darwin. At an early age, he thought that the diversity of life was the result of evolution by natural selection. He didn’t claim his hypothesis was valid because lots of distinguished people agreed with him, nor because the creationists who said God created all life 6,000 years ago were wrong as the earth was patently much older, nor that his was the only answer that seemed to fit the facts, nor because no one could prove him wrong, nor because his opponents held foolish views on other subjects, nor because no one had proposed a better answer – i.e. the various arguments put forward by dangerous AGW proponents. No, he went out and investigated nature and collected supporting evidence in meticulous detail, making it available to other scientists for comment and verification. Only then did he claim that his hypothesis was valid and publish "On the origin of species". That's how science has been practiced from Galileo and Harvey over 350 years ago to the researchers who established the smoking/cancer link or are searching for the Higgs boson today. There is no reason for the dangerous AGW hypothesis to be treated any differently.

It's absurd and cruel to impose a massive additional burden on our already shattered economy and to add to the miseries of many of the world's poorest people on the basis of an unsubstantiated hypothesis. It's certainly not science.

J SMITH

Robin Guenier wrote : 'For a fresh perspective, consider Darwin. Only then did he claim that his hypothesis was valid and publish "On the origin of species".'

OK, what is the proof (or what you consider the best piece of evidence) that would convince a Creationist that evolution is FACT ?

P Wilson

Whoever wrote up there: Who would you trust - the Royal society or a bunch of sceptics - or words to that effect - this is tantamount to asking would you trust Galileo or the Church with the truth about Astronomy. The Royal society isn't a serious scientific institution and never strictly has been. They act as a spokesman for the current fashionable theory. Theories are not facts

Robin Guenier

J SMITH – you asked: “what is the proof (or what you consider the best piece of evidence) that would convince a Creationist that evolution is FACT?”

Well, there’s plenty of evidence that should convince them. But I doubt if there’s any that would.

Enrique

I find it truly remarcable that a professor in geology, used to look at earth's natural history over eons, dismisses observed -and well documeted - changes in temperatures over many decades just by observing two years of differing data. Times series building the correlation between temperature increases and human emissions of CO2 can be found at any decent meteorologic institute. By the way, are geologists also experts in meteorology? I'm sure there are, but Mr. Dr. Plimer only claims to work on geology, so excuse me if I doubt his self-claimed expertise on the subject matter. I also find it truly amazing that this man claims that climate change is a fraud invented by environmentalists and some dubious green-energy companies to get rich at the expense of everyone else. Where have I heard that before, that climate change is a bunch of bull*#@* invented by some con-artist to terrorize the rest of the world and get rich in the meantime, and that we have really nothing to worry about?? Oh yes, I've heard it from coal mining industries, oil companies and others that employ geologists!!

Robin Guenier

Enrique: you write about a “correlation between temperature increases and human emissions of CO2”. But correlation does not prove causation.

In any case, there is no correlation. CO2 concentration has risen by over 30% since 1940 (by 8% since 1990). Yet temperatures fell from 1940 to 1970, rose to 1998 and fell thereafter. That’s 40 years of cooling and 28 of warming.

Enrique

Robin: I wonder where you get your information from, pitty you don´t say... but I guess you argue based on Mr. Plimer´s book. Take a look instead at these average annual temperature changes since 1880. I hope you don´t fail to see the tendency to increase...unless of course you think NASA is full of fake scientists and the only reference we need is Prof. Dr. Plimer. Or maybe your monitor is upside down...

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

Wait a minute, here´s another source, but it´s probably also fake since it´s from the Max Planck Institute

http://www.mpg.de/english/illustrationsDocumentation/documentation/pressReleases/2005/pressRelease200509301/index.html

Robin Guenier

Enrique: you’re right there’s been a “tendency to increase” since 1880 (and before): from 1850, the global temperature has increased by (a hardly alarming) 0.65 deg. C or so. A good reference is the UN IPCC’s latest AR4 report (as are your NASA graphs – although they don’t start until 1880). I chose 1940 because that’s when man’s GHG emissions started to accelerate (see Figure SPM 1 of the AR4 Working Group 1 report) and any correlation should therefore be particularly noticeable. It isn’t. Given your interest in correlation, however, you may wish to note that in 1860-1879 and 1906-1940 the global temperature warmed just as fast than it did in 1976-1996 – despite the far lower CO2 concentration (again see the AR4 report).

Another reference (UK Met Office) is here: http://rankexploits.com/musings/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/hadcrut3_bar.png

And, to see the recent relationship of temperature and CO2 emissions, see this: http://icecap.us/images/uploads/MSUCRUCO2.jpg

So much, I suggest, for correlation. In any case, as I said before, correlation doesn’t prove causation. Surely you know that?

Enrique

Dear Robin: It´s really interesting that you refer me to icecap.us. Surely you have read this too: http://icecap.us/docs/change/Land%20Use%20and%20Climate%20Change.pdf
And quoting from your own source, with reference only to land use change:
“change and variability in land use by humans and the resulting alterations in surface features are major but poorly recognized drivers of long-term global climate patterns …these
spatially heterogeneous land use effects may be at least as important in altering the
weather as changes in climate patterns associated with greenhouse gases.”
Interestingly you also deliberately avoid to mention that the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere coincides with the intensification of the use of fossil fuels, especially after 1950. Many do see quite a valid correlation there between human activity, the increase in atmospheric CO2 and climate change. Among those who see a correlation, and a direct influence on climate variability is the IPCC, and their fourth assessment report (which you cite) states on page 14 "Global GHG emissions due to human activities have grown since pre-industrial times, with an increase of 70% between 1970 and 2004". Furthermore you can read in the same report on page 11 "Changes in the ocean and on land, including observed decreases in snow cover and Northern Hemisphere sea ice extent, thinner sea ice, shorter freezing seasons of lake and river ice, glacier melt, decreases in permafrost extent, increases in soil temperatures and borehole temperature profiles, and sea level rise, provide additional
evidence that the world is warming". This coincides with an increase of the concentration of GHGs, namely CO2. On page 14 of the same report, you will see a nice graphic depicting the sources of CO2, of which the bulk accrues to the use of fossil fuels, second place is given to deforestation. Now, who is responsible for these two? Humans? Indeed! Here´s the reference to the IPCC´s fourth assessent report for you (or anyone else) to peruse: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf

Finally, quoting your comment from july 12th you state " Yes, I accept that there is overwhelming empirical evidence that CO2 levels are rising. I accept also the simple physics shows that adding CO2 warms the atmosphere", the only fact you have troule accepting is that humans play a key role in the increase of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. But the data is there for anyone to see. The problem is not going to go away by simply saying "no that´s not true, and the evidence is not conclusive enough". Surely there is a lot that still needs to be understood about climate change, but to pretend that human activity does not play a role in it just because we don´t fully understand it´s impact is rather negligent.
So, I´d love to stay arguing but I have more entertaining things to do. I wish you all a nice, warm summer.

Sourcier

WOW! You certainly opened a can of worms here. The pseudo-religious Green Meanies are pretty upset at being exposed as the gullible nitwits they are. It is encouraging to learn that a geologist feels compelled to point out that most of the scientific evidence available proves the AGW believers wrong. The record of the rocks indicates what has happened to the planet in the past, and the research carried out by Milutin Milankovitch indicates believable cyclical effects which control the polar ice caps and the seasons.
Who are the deniers now? I reckon the meanies fit the bill!

J SMITH

Robin Guenier wrote : "Given your interest in correlation, however, you may wish to note that in 1860-1879 and 1906-1940 the global temperature warmed just as fast than it did in 1976-1996 – despite the far lower CO2 concentration (again see the AR4 report)."

I'm no expert in trends and statistical significance, but why are you comparing periods of different lengths ? Wouldn't it be more significant to choose periods of equal length if you want to make a closer comparison ?
Also, why have you chosen not to include 1998 in your final period ?

john sylvain

Thanks Mr Plimer for writing the truth about the huge con game that will cripple the world if it is not shown for what it is

P. Wilson

Enrique. I'd ignore the IPCC'sconclusions. They fit the paradigm, which is political, but not the facts, which are scientific. If 3%pa of c02 is anthropogenic, then its physically impossible for total c02 exchanges to be anthropogenic. Ib FACT they are mainly oceanic and natural vegetation based, both diurnally and seasonally. Also, c02 elevations at the moment are from long term ocean changes. There is a delay between prior warming and its release into the atmosphere

Liam O'Neill

OMG! Plimer ought to talk about 'torturing the data'(I love that) and scientific fasionistas. Hasn't it been the same with evolutionary theory since Darwin and quantum physics since Einstein? Is Prof. Plimer, the ardent anti creationist theory crusader now admitting we actually don't know everything? Well I'll be a monkeys uncle.

Curtis Turner

If we follow AL Gore's thinking, we can all become neanderthals, live in caves and save the earth from disaster. Al Gore is becoming rich on our stupidity. Gore is not a believer because he does not walk the talk.

P.Wilson

As to whether c02 can cause temperature change or not - its quite rudimentary. C02 absorbs 15 microns of long wave radiation, after which its "saturation window" closes. The effect of any more c02 after that is not existant. That is, more c02 doesn't absorb more heat, as its a logarithmic process. So no, c02 doesn't affect the temperature.

P.Wilson

As to whether c02 can cause temperature change or not - its quite rudimentary. C02 absorbs 15 microns of long wave radiation, after which its "saturation window" closes. The effect of any more c02 after that is not existant. That is, more c02 doesn't absorb more heat, as its a logarithmic process. So no, c02 doesn't affect the temperature.

Robin Guenier

J SMITH:

You will have noticed from my exchange with Enrique that his position was that, because A happened when B happened, A must have been caused by B. That is clearly illogical (although he ran off to do “more entertaining things” still insisting upon it). I referred to 1860-1879 and 1906-1940 as an illustration not as a statistical analysis: I thought it might help him to note that, twice in the past 160 years, A (i.e. global warming) happened when B (i.e. the accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere) was present to a significantly lesser extent than now; therefore it seems probable that some other factor(s) (D and/or E and/or F …) caused A then, and may also have caused it more recently.

As to 1998, its inclusion would make no difference to my point. I excluded it because it appears uncontroversial that that year was an outlier when warming was either caused or exacerbated by an unusually strong El Nino. Sceptics like to exclude it because it lessens the warming trend up to 1998 and AGW proponents because it lessens the cooling trend after 1998.

Robin Guenier

The deniers, Sourcier, are those who deny that recent warming may have had natural causes.

Josh

"up to my neck in s***".
Indeed.

Josh

I hope everybody enjoyed the irony here. Plimer firstly claims that most climate scientists are wrong because they lack "understanding of scale", just concentrating on the last 150 million years. Then he tries to claim we're in a cooling phase because some recent years were slightly cooler than 1998. Note that the following 9 years were in the all time top ten hottest; 1997, 1998, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2006, 2007 and 2008.
Also note that our species have only been about for 200,000 years, a blink of an eye, so the fact that "ice has been present on earth for less than 20% of geological time" is not very comforting.

Josh

A question for those who agree with Plemin! can someone briefly explain to me why the governments of the world are promising (reluctantly) to curtail their releases of carbon dioxide, at HUGE cost to the carbon-hungry economies, if there are smart chaps like Plemin who can show that they don't need to? Why isnt every government and every international fuel guzzling corporation throwing millions at scientists like him to prove the mainstream wrong?

P.Wilson

As to whether c02 can cause temperature change or not - its quite rudimentary. C02 absorbs 15 microns of long wave radiation, after which its "saturation window" closes. The effect of any more c02 after that is not existant. That is, more c02 doesn't absorb more heat, as its a logarithmic process. So no, c02 doesn't affect the temperature.

P.Wilson

if you do some proper research, the hottest years on record were in the 1930's and only three from the top 20 were in the last 20 years. NASA admit their logarithmic calculation errors in reaching the prior conclusion of the record of the last 20 years. Yet none surpass the hottest year of 1900

Robin Guenier

Josh: you ask “why the governments of the world are promising (reluctantly) to curtail their releases of carbon dioxide …”. An excellent question – although (a) it applies only to the developed Western economies and not, for example, to China and India and (b) Western governments’ promises do not appear to be even reluctant. A tip: you may perhaps have noticed that Western governments not uncommonly take actions that turn out to have been mistaken and where they might have done well to listen wiser counsel. I suggest that recent examples are their invasion of Iraq and their encouragement of banking excess.

But I think you may find the answer to your question here: http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=202. It’s a comment, interestingly enough, on another article in the Speccie, this time by Cass R Sunstien, author of the much-admired “Nudge” and an adviser to Obama.

And, Josh, I’m not sure what your point is in referencing what you describe as “the all time top ten hottest” years. “All time” since when? It was almost certainly warmer only a few hundred years ago. Moreover, the years you mention were only so “hot” (a tiny increase of 0.65 deg C since the end of the Little Ice Age around 1850) because they were built on the periods of warming experienced in 1860-1879 and 1906-1940 (when mankind’s CO2 emissions were modest): see my posts to Enrique and J SMITH above. In any case, it remains a fact that the world has been cooling since the beginning of this century.

Rob-on-the-job

@ Josh
Why isn't every government and every international fuel guzzling corporation throwing millions at scientists like him to prove the mainstream wrong?

Your above question does not need an answer as everybody knows that no one really gives a moo about all that poo.

J SMITH

Robin Guenier wrote : "As to 1998, its inclusion would make no difference to my point. I excluded it because it appears uncontroversial that that year was an outlier when warming was either caused or exacerbated by an unusually strong El Nino."

So, does that mean you would expect such a high temperature anomaly to be exceeded in the near future or not ? Also, do you believe that this decade will be the hottest decade on record, i.e. hotter than the 90s, which included that 'outlier' ?

Robin Guenier

J SMITH:

You asked me if I expected the temperature anomaly of 1998 “to be exceeded in the near future or not”. I have no idea. I am unable to forecast temperature. Likewise, I have no idea about the likely temperature of the current decade, except to observe that, so far, it has fallen slightly.

I would, however, refer to my answer to Josh at 4:28pm: “It was almost certainly warmer only a few hundred years ago. Moreover, the years you mention were only so “hot” (a tiny increase of 0.65degC since the end of the Little Ice Age around 1850) because they were built on the periods of warming experienced in 1860-1879 [0.39degC] and 1906-1940 [0.56degC] (when mankind’s CO2 emissions were modest): see my posts to Enrique and J SMITH above.” I think no sensible person disputes the fact that the world has warmed since about 1850. So it's no surprise that it's warmer now than it was then..

The question that matters, however, is not whether the temperature has warmed, but why it has warmed. Various hypotheses have been suggested, but none has yet been validated by empirical evidence.

J SMITH

Robin Guenier wrote : "Likewise, I have no idea about the likely temperature of the current decade, except to observe that, so far, it has fallen slightly."

As you seem to be someone who knows something about these things, I can't see how you can write that. You know, as well as I do, that this decade so far has a higher trend than last decade. Are you really denying that ?

J SMITH

Robin Guenier wrote : "It was almost certainly warmer only a few hundred years ago."

Are you stating that as a fact or as a supposition ? If the former, could you let me know where you get your information from ?

J SMITH

Robin Guenier wrote : "The question that matters, however, is not whether the temperature has warmed, but why it has warmed."

Are you saying that the temperature is warming or cooling at the moment ?

Bart Brooks

We accept that if you put your hand out and it's raining; that its raining. I live in Canada. The last three winters have been colder and colder. If it was getting warmer the global warmers would be first to point to it. Why won't they accept that despite everything, it's getting colder?

J SMITH

Bart Brooks wrote : "I live in Canada. The last three winters have been colder and colder. If it was getting warmer the global warmers would be first to point to it. Why won't they accept that despite everything, it's getting colder?"

What part of Canada do you live in ? I ask because I was under the impression that the Winter of 2006/7, for example, saw cities like Quebec and Ottawa with their first snow-free Christmas in decades. Is this not correct ?

Also, the observed temperatures from the Canadian Weather Office shows warmer/normal temperatures during Winter, except for a swathe of the South last year :

http://www.weatheroffice.gc.ca/saisons/charts_e.html?season=djf&year=2005&type=t

http://www.weatheroffice.gc.ca/saisons/charts_e.html?season=djf&year=2006&type=t

http://www.weatheroffice.gc.ca/saisons/charts_e.html?season=djf&year=2007&type=t

http://www.weatheroffice.gc.ca/saisons/charts_e.html?season=djf&year=2008&type=t

I guess it feels different when you are on the ground ?

Robin Guenier

J SMITH:

You seem to be obsessed with my view on whether the world is warmer now than it was a few years ago. No problem: if you compare the current temperature with that in, say, the 1990s, it is. Moreover, the world was warmer in the 1990s than in the 1890s. So the centennial trend is clearly upwards.

The important question, of course, is not *whether* it’s warmed but *why* it’s warmed.

J SMITH

Robin Guenier wrote : "The important question, of course, is not *whether* it’s warmed but *why* it’s warmed."

But the IPCC (based on thousands of studies) and most studies since, have stated that it is mainly due to CO2 released by us.
What do you think it's due to and what do you base your belief on ?

Robin Guenier

J SMITH:

You ask what I think is the cause of global warming. I don’t know.

It’s interesting that you base your belief that it’s mainly caused by CO2 released by us on the IPCC and its “thousands of studies”. You should find it easy, therefore, to direct me to just one item of published research, referenced by the IPCC, that demonstrates unambiguously that the hypothesis (that mankind’s continuing to add CO2 to the atmosphere will cause a dangerous increase in global temperature) has been subjected to rigorous testing against empirical (i.e. physically observed, not theoretical) evidence and has survived such testing intact. The evidence must be publicly available and the testing capable of independent replication – i.e. normal scientific procedure.

A tip: the reference should be in AR4, Chapter 9. I’ve looked and I can’t find it.

Liam VENNER

Remember The KYOTO Protocol, based on the work of the Montreal Accord is an effort by the World Bank thru the auspices of the United Nations to empower those Member States that want to, to Tax and Regulate their Citizens using the Environment as the excuse.

Robin Guenier

J SMITH: further to my latest post, if you cannot locate a study compliant with my definition in the IPCC report, please identify an appropriate study from amongst your “most studies since”. Thanks.

J SMITH

Robin Guenier wrote : "You should find it easy, therefore, to direct me to just one item of published research, referenced by the IPCC, that demonstrates unambiguously that the hypothesis (that mankind’s continuing to add CO2 to the atmosphere will cause a dangerous increase in global temperature) has been subjected to rigorous testing against empirical (i.e. physically observed, not theoretical) evidence and has survived such testing intact."

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_wg1_report_the_physical_science_basis.htm
(Chapters 2 to 5)

However, as you previously noted :

"Well, there’s plenty of evidence that should convince them [CREATIONISTS]. But I doubt if there’s any that would."

Does that apply to those who deny the effects of man-made CO2 ? Maybe your reply will reveal all.

Robin Guenier

J SMITH:

Providing a link to the contents list of the IPCC report is pathetic: a contents list isn’t evidence. Surely you understand that.

I’ve read that report (have you?), some of it several times. I was unable to find any reference in it to published data as I defined at 3:40 this afternoon. Presumably you think it’s there. OK – all you have to do is identify it for me (as i said before, it should be in Chapter 9). Thanks.

J SMITH

Robin Guenier wrote : "I’ve read that report (have you?), some of it several times. I was unable to find any reference in it to published data as I defined at 3:40 this afternoon. Presumably you think it’s there. OK – all you have to do is identify it for me (as i said before, it should be in Chapter 9). Thanks."

As you wrote previously : ""Well, there’s plenty of evidence that should convince them. But I doubt if there’s any that would."

In this instance, I would use 'denier of man-made Climate Change' for 'them', and I thank you for confirming your own assertion. As you have stated, no evidence would ever convince those who don't want to know but I still urge you to read those Chapters I mentioned previously.

Robin Guenier

So, J SMITH, it seems you cannot find that evidence (as defined at 3:40 yesterday) in the IPCC report. Interesting.

Unlike you it seems, I’ve read those chapters and I assure you they contain many examples of the report’s inability to provide empirical evidence demonstrating that adding further GHGs to the atmosphere will cause dangerous global warming. Here’s one:

It admits to areas of uncertainty – notably solar forcing and cloud feedbacks, where its assumptions have not been validated in the real world, but by computer models. Further, it’s based exclusively on the period 1976 to 2000, thus ignoring the factors applicable to previous temperature changes (see my earlier comments on this). Therefore, the report is not unambiguous (compare, for example, the certainty of the evidence for the smoking/cancer link), not empirical and not capable of independent replication. In particular, it fails to demonstrate empirically a link between adding further GHGs to the atmosphere and a dangerous increase in global temperature. And that’s the link that matters.

Robin Guenier

Here, J SMITH, is another example of the IPCC report’s inability to provide empirical evidence demonstrating that adding further GHGs to the atmosphere will cause dangerous global warming:

It refers to “projections of future climate change”. It's specific about this, making it clear that “projections” are not “predictions” – so it doesn’t even try to show that adding GHGs *will* lead to a dangerous increase in temperature. Yet that’s the essence of what’s required.

Robin Guenier

Here, J SMITH, is another example of the IPCC report’s inability to provide empirical evidence demonstrating that adding further GHGs to the atmosphere will cause dangerous global warming:

It refers to projections “for a range of SRES emissions scenarios”. But these (from IPCC “Special Report on Emissions Scenarios”) were defined in 2000 and were much criticised by economists even then. Yet here we are nine years later and the global economy is utterly changed. So the whole “projection” edifice (see my previous post) is built on a meaningless base.

Robin Guenier

Here, J SMITH, is another example of the IPCC report’s inability to provide empirical evidence demonstrating that adding further GHGs to the atmosphere will cause dangerous global warming:

Its first “projection” is that, for the first two decades of the 21st Century temperatures will increase by “about 0.2 deg C per decade”. Not completely impossible, I suppose, but so far it looks exceptionally unlikely. That alone seriously undermines its credibility.

Robin Guenier

Here, J SMITH, is another example of the IPCC report’s inability to provide empirical evidence demonstrating that adding further GHGs to the atmosphere will cause dangerous global warming:

Look at the report of Working Group 1 and especially at Table SPM2 on page 8. You’ll see it lists seven “Phenomena” – including, for example, “Warmer and fewer cold days and nights over most land areas” and “Warmer and more frequent hot days and nights over most land areas”. Of these, for five the “Likelihood of a human contribution” is assessed as “more likely than not” and, for the other two, as “likely”. Not one is assessed as even “very likely”. Most important, however, is that the assessment (according to the column’s heading) is of “a human contribution”. That’s all – not “due to” or some other reference to causation. After all, a “human contribution” could be as little as 1%. So it isn’t remotely close to showing that human GHG emissions are the cause of anything. Moreover, for four of the seven phenomena, a footnote (f) says “Attribution for these phenomena based on expert judgement rather than formal attribution studies”. This last appears to amount to little more than guesswork and doesn’t begin to meet my request that the “evidence must be publicly available and the testing capable of independent replication”.

Robin Guenier

J SMITH: I could add to the above but it’s becoming tedious. Quite obviously the IPCC report does not meet my request for an unambiguous demonstration from empirical evidence that our continuing to emit GHGs will cause dangerous warming.

If that’s really the best you can do, I suggest your only logical conclusion is to accept that you must become, at least, an agnostic on this issue.

J SMITH

Robin Guenier wrote : "If that’s really the best you can do, I suggest your only logical conclusion is to accept that you must become, at least, an agnostic on this issue."

As you wrote previously : "Well, there’s plenty of evidence that should convince them. But I doubt if there’s any that would."

There is plenty of evidence for evolution and man-made global warming (and no definitive proof) but, as we both acknowledge, you cannot convince those who don't want to know. Same with the theories of gravity and the Big-Bang.
I guess there are some who just cannot believe, for their own personal reasons. What are yours ? Is it to do with not wanting to pay extra taxes ?

J SMITH

TO ROBIN GUENIER :

Realising that you have probably already dismissed anything by the IPCC, so any proof in there will not be recognised by you, I have another link for you to look at, from the PEW CENTER and released in June 2009.
As in the theory of evolution (which you seem to believe in, even without the definitive proof for it), this just adds to the body of knowledge which points towards man-made global warming :

http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/Key-Scientific-Developments-Since-IPCC-4th-Assessment.pdf

Robin Guenier

J SMITH: I’m not looking for proof – apart from the mathematical sciences, science doesn’t require proof. Science progresses by establishing solid verifiable empirical evidence supporting a hypothesis. If you had specifically identified such evidence from the IPCC report, I would certainly recognise it. But you haven’t. The Pew Report contains references to a lot of interesting research into the effects of warming but, re human causation of that warming, only assertion, “attribution” and “links” based on computer models. Solid empirical evidence isn’t there.

My position is this: (1) I agree that the world has warmed since at least the mid-19th Century; (2) I agree that physics shows that adding more CO2 to the atmosphere warms it; but (3) as I have not yet seen any empirical evidence (i.e. the type of evidence that verifies evolution or the smoking/cancer link) that man’s CO2 emissions were the main cause of recent warming, I remain unconvinced about dangerous AGW.

When I see that evidence, I’ll change my mind. You’ve failed to provide it.

Lenore Smith

Wonderful article. Can't wait to get enough money to get a copy. Probably have to order it though since the local bookstore is so "AGW" oriented that this book would probably not even be stocked. Glad to here his argument about time, one of my favorites to use when I'm talking with people who don't bother to bone up on anything once they have left high school. Just think what is being spoonfed to our children.

J SMITH

Robin Guenier wrote : "...as I have not yet seen any empirical evidence (i.e. the type of evidence that verifies evolution or the smoking/cancer link) that man’s CO2 emissions were the main cause of recent warming, I remain unconvinced about dangerous AGW."

Could you let me know the type of evidence that verifies evolution ? I ask because if it exists, even a Creationist couldn't deny it, surely ? It would be helpful for the next time I have a discussion with a Creationist, if I could say 'Here we are, this proves it beyond reasonable doubt'. It should stump even the most die-hard Creationist !

Robin Guenier

J SMITH: you asked me to let you know “the type of evidence that verifies evolution”. Very simply, it would be empirical (real-world, physically observed) evidence. And a vast quantity exists – from the fossils of the land-based ancestors of whales, through Darwin’s Galapagos finches to the chromosomes of the great apes and DNA sequencing in the SARS virus. Of course, none of this is proof – but, as I’ve said, except for the mathematical sciences, science doesn’t require proof. I doubt, however, if it would convince your creationist friends: as we’ve noted, their position is essentially based on belief, not science.

What is especially relevant to our discussion, however, is the overwhelming difference between the character of the above evidence, drawn robustly from the outside world and verifiable by independent research, and that of the alleged “evidence” you refer to (you still haven’t identified anything specific) in the IPCC and Pew reports which is based on assertion, opinion, conjecture and the outputs of computer models.

Your continued refusal to acknowledge this difference suggests to me that your belief in dangerous AGW is akin to your friends’ belief in creationism.

Rupert

I am not sure whether Plimer should be very pleased or desperately saddened by this article and the responses to it.

Pleased: front page promotion and two page glowing article in a national magazine. "Land mark book", "change forever we the way we think". How good can it be? Not bad for someone who is being 'suppressed'.

Disappointed. I haven't read the book and this piece of hagiography has nothing in it to give me a reason to do so. Delingpole's article fails to mention one single insight or new fact. The article repeats inane points (yes, we all know the earth's temperature has changed over time: that is neither news no an argument one way or another over AGW) or hilarious misunderstandings to the level Prof Plimton could probably sue for libel, unless he is happy with such errors.

The same is true of most of the posts in this discussion.

There may well be a debate about climate change, but most of these comments need to do a bit more research before they can add to it.

Ideas like "long term trends" as opposed to "short term variation" shouldn't be news to the readership: so why do people point to last years weather as though it proved anything about a 200-year pattern? If the FTSE went up yesterday does that prove the economy is actually doing fine after all?

The science behind climate change comes from proven fact (CO2 is a 'one way valve' for heat), logic (if there is more CO2 that one-way valve will trap more heat) and observation (CO2 level increases 50-100%) then it will trap 50-100% more heat.

Anyone disagreeing with AGW needs to do something about that chain of logic (dating back 150 years by the way, not a recent 'hippy' idea).

The fact that temperatures were indeed higher in geologic time and there were mass extinctions, as Plimer notes, is a source of worry, not reassurance.

person in New York

My guess is that all the global warming alarmists will admit they are wrong about the same time the Obama voters admit they were wrong.

J SMITH

Robin Guenier wrote : "And a vast quantity exists – from the fossils of the land-based ancestors of whales, through Darwin’s Galapagos finches to the chromosomes of the great apes and DNA sequencing in the SARS virus. Of course, none of this is proof – but, as I’ve said, except for the mathematical sciences, science doesn’t require proof."

Glad to see that you acknowledge that there is no real proof for evolution, as there isn't for man-made global warming - simply a vast amount of scientific evidence. Your 'proof' for evolution (which convinces you, anyway) is obviously no such thing, if anyone wants to argue against it. Fossils are not proof of any link between whales and land-based creature - just accepted theory. The Galapagos finches have no connection with the evolution of man. The chromosomes of the Great Apes could, of course, just be coincidence. DNA sequencing of a virus has no link to man's evolution.
See, no real evidence - just theories, consensus and science that we all have to trust is being reported correctly by the scientists involved. Just like man-made global warming so thanks for making that connection.
How about the Big Bang theory ? What is it, despite the lack of empirical evidence, that convinces you to believe what you are being told ?

Rob

Rupert

"The science behind climate change comes from proven fact (CO2 is a 'one way valve' for heat), logic (if there is more CO2 that one-way valve will trap more heat) and observation (CO2 level increases 50-100%) then it will trap 50-100% more heat.

Anyone disagreeing with AGW needs to do something about that chain of logic (dating back 150 years by the way, not a recent 'hippy' idea)."

In that case, problem solved, AGW is false. Your statement that CO2 is a one-way heat trap is plainly false. If it were true, the Earth would have overheated long ago.

Rupert

I am not sure whether Plimer should be very pleased or desperately saddened by this article and the responses to it.

Pleased: front page promotion and two page glowing article in a national magazine. "Land mark book", "change forever we the way we think". How good can it be? Not bad for someone who is being 'suppressed'.

Disappointed. I haven't read the book and this piece of hagiography has nothing in it to give me a reason to do so. Delingpole's article fails to mention one single insight or new fact. The article repeats inane points (yes, we all know the earth's temperature has changed over time: that is neither news no an argument one way or another over AGW) or hilarious misunderstandings to the level Prof Plimton could probably sue for libel, unless he is happy with such errors.

The same is true of most of the posts in this discussion.

There may well be a debate about climate change, but most of these comments need to do a bit more research before they can add to it.

Ideas like "long term trends" as opposed to "short term variation" shouldn't be news to the readership: so why do people point to last years weather as though it proved anything about a 200-year pattern? If the FTSE went up yesterday does that prove the economy is actually doing fine after all?

The science behind climate change comes from proven fact (CO2 is a 'one way valve' for heat), logic (if there is more CO2 that one-way valve will trap more heat) and observation (CO2 level increases 50-100%) then it will trap 50-100% more heat.

Anyone disagreeing with AGW needs to do something about that chain of logic (dating back 150 years by the way, not a recent 'hippy' idea).

The fact that temperatures were indeed higher in geologic time and there were mass extinctions, as Plimer notes, is a source of worry, not reassurance.

Robin Guenier

J SMITH:

You say that “there is a vast amount of scientific evidence” for man-made global warming. Of course it’s true that, if you release CO2 into the atmosphere, it will warm it. That’s simple physics. But will that warming be dangerous? Well, far from “a vast amount”, there is no empirical evidence supporting the hypothesis that it will. It seems you disagree. OK – produce some. So far you’ve failed.

Your blind refusal to acknowledge the huge gulf between “the vast amount of empirical evidence” supporting (not proving) the theory of evolution and the complete lack of empirical evidence supporting the dangerous AGW hypothesis, is interesting. As I said before, it seems your belief in dangerous AGW is akin to your friends’ belief in creationism.

J SMITH

Robin Guenier wrote : "As I said before, it seems your belief in dangerous AGW is akin to your friends’ belief in creationism."

It's interesting you should link AGW and Creationism : Creationism is the denial of the body of evidence and consensus on evolution; Denial of AGW is the denial of the body of evidence and consensus on Global Warming. They are very similar, aren't they, and are even directly linked by a scientist call Roy Spencer who is a Creationist who denies AGW. One seems to follow naturally from the other, and many who are Creationists also deny AGW. I wonder why that is ?

You didn't reply to my other question : If you believe in the Big-Bang theory, why do you do so without any empirical evidence ? Or do you, as in AGW, deny the Big-Bang theory for that reason ?

Robin Guenier

J SMITH: I suggest you try doing some homework. Produce some specific empirical evidence for dangerous AGW – not just references as to where it might be – and I’ll take you seriously. Not otherwise.

Steve Ford

Irritatingly, neither Plimer nor any of the contributors to this thread are going to live long enough to say 'told you so!' - whichever way it turns out.
My own view of the words I have just read is that Plimer is unconvincing - there is, in any case, so much more to environmentalism than climate change. We are in the midst of a concatenation of adverse developments, downgrading even one of the larger ones does not alter the urgent need for change in the way we look after the planet.

Rob

J Smith

"It's interesting you should link AGW and Creationism : Creationism is the denial of the body of evidence and consensus on evolution; Denial of AGW is the denial of the body of evidence and consensus on Global Warming."

What utter rubbish. The evidence for evolution is currently incontrovertible and does not rely on any consensus. The Earth is (roughly) round; consensus has no bearing on this fact. AGW doesn't have any evidence, only hypothesis and modeling, whereas evidence for natural climate change is available in abundance, as Dr Plimmer clearly understands and J. Smith does not.

Sceptics do not deny the evidence for AGW; they assess it and point out that it's mostly inadequate or just plain wrong.

There is a large body of science that suggests AGW alarmism is unwarranted and it is AGW supporters that are denying this evidence. Those who refuse on principal to read Dr Plimmer's book are cleary indicating that they wish to deny any evidence that doesn't support AGW. They have complete "faith" and no evidence could ever change their minds.

For the record, I am not a creationist.

neil

J SMITH

What evidence? That's all we hear from AGW proponents "the over whelming body of evidence" The only thing missing is the evidence. What is it? where is it? how does it work?

No AGW supporters ever actually answer those simple questions they use vague rhetorical replies like, "no reputable sceintists disagree", "there is no point in wasting my time telling you because you are a denier". No more rhetoric, show me the money! WHAT IS THE EVIDENCE!!

J SMITH

Rob wrote : "The evidence for evolution is currently incontrovertible and does not rely on any consensus."

Could you show me where I can see the evidence for the jump from non-life to life ?
Could you show me where I can see the evidence for the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees ?

Robin Guenier

Rob and neil: you’re both right about the lack of real-world evidence for dangerous AGW. BTW, I wouldn’t bother getting into an off topic debate with J Smith about creationism etc. See my post yesterday at 4:37pm: only take him seriously when he produces some evidence (or accepts that he cannot).

Thomas N. Sluyter

Right within our solar system is the reason for long and medium term climate changes.
It also indicates that we are only a few years away from the start of a new glacial period.

George

Good piece of work. I worry about committees and govt lack of science knowledge. I am a geologist by training. I don't buy the IPCC view. The earth may be warming up but that happens anyway.
I would love to see all the supporters answer basic questions like - how much CO2 is there in the atmosphere? What is the most dangerous gas in the air? (try O2).
We need to wake up and have a free and open debate before we all succumb to anti science faschism.

J SMITH

Neil wrote : "What evidence? That's all we hear from AGW proponents "the over whelming body of evidence" The only thing missing is the evidence. What is it? where is it? how does it work?"

As has been shown with regard to evolution (i.e. a large volume of evidence, much of it non-empirical), those who don't want to believe (i.e. who prefer Creationism) will not accept anything but 100% proof - which does not exist. The same goes for the Big Bang theory, which most accept, despite the almost complete lack of empirical evidence, and the fact that it is scientists who know the most and who we have to accept as the experts. Funny how people are prepared to give scientists the benefit of the doubt there, but not with regard to AGW. Why is that ?

For the large body of evidence with regard to AGW, start here :

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_wg1_report_the_physical_science_basis.htm
(Chapters 2 to 5)

http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/Key-Scientific-Developments-Since-IPCC-4th-Assessment.pdf

Please state which parts you disagree with.

John Westman

Thank God for the likes of Ian Plimer.
All I ask is that all those "pro warmers", do what I did. That was to embark on a study of the issue. As I was aware of changes in Earth's climate over the years prior to the Industrial Revolution, it soon became clear to me that both Gore and the IPCC are a nonsense. Perhaps Gore should be in jail for misrepresentation.
Ask yourself, "what is Gore's interest", in this issue? You may be surprised

John Westman

After reading many of the posts I have become somewhat intrigued by the many aspects of human nature and behaviour and the associated belief systems. There is an unquestioning and blind belief!...Ah, but then perhaps that is politics!

I did make a "blue" in my previous post as I made a reference to "Global Warmers"; so to clarify. "Global Warmers" was a reference to those clowns who made the forcast and their sycophants, of catastrophic global warming about 20 years ago when there was talk of increases in temperature and that we only had a few decades before we would all be fried! The Mann hockey stick was the "proof"!

I did make my previous post in some haste!

The huge problem we face today is the lack of scutiny of the so called AGW concept and the relationship with industrial CO2. This has been exacerbated by a compliant media, which does not question; politicians of doubtful motives and quality, and simply dumb people who neither question nor find out for themselves, but are lazy and prefer to believe what their politician tells them.

It is logical that the world be in a warming trend as we have been emerging from a mini ice age. During this mini ice age the Thames in London actually froze over for a month and the canals in Holland froze. This caused great hardship! Perhaps the potato famine in Ireland, caused by the potato blight, was the result of a series of cold wet summers. No one really knows how many died but it could have been in the millions. We have much to be afraid of with a cooling planet and it's implications for food production. Remember, cool air hold less water vapour that warm air and therefore cannot give as much rain. There are good prospects that a cooling trend will lead to more drier periods(my comment)

Some claim that the medieval warm period did not exist. Greenland was settled by the Vikings who also farmed the land. There are Viking villages still buried under the ice. The Vikings abandoned Greenland when it became too cold with the onset of the mini ice age.

It was announced, some time ago in the media, that the Northwest Passage was about to open for the first time. The fact is that Edward Parry in about 1819, was almost through the passage but had to turn back. As the passage had not been surveyed at this time, he was unaware of his close success. During the 20th century there have been many crossings of the passage.

Some clown, in the media, recently made the claim that polar bears were on the verge of extinction and that some recently dead polar bears found in the open sea were dead because they had to search for food too far out to sea. The reality is that the bears were driven out to sea by strong polar winds. There are 3 times as many bears in the Artic today, than there were 60 years ago.

Let's us make a critical examination of AGW/CO2 and not be glib and fall for what we are necessarily told by persons with vested interests. If we don't and carbon cap and trade is introduced, without good reason, we will be in big trouble financially and I suggest politically, for the world.

Thanks for stirring the debate Robin Guenier

Antipodes

I am a scientist and as such a skeptic about AGW and pretty well anything. Let me relate 3 observations: (1) Ian Plimer is a serious scientist who, i.a., blew creationist claims for Noah's Ark out of the water. (2)The majority of scientists (I know a lot of them, including Plimer) and pretty well all geologists are skeptics. (3)The Royal's case for AGW rested very much on the now discredited "hockey stick" - now they have removed this graph but failed to alter their conclusions.

Ian Walsh

One of the most disturbing things that is happening at the moment on the AWG issue is that there is no good scientific debate taking place in the public domain. Good science is about looking at the pro's and con's of a theory and putting each piece of evidence to the test. That "testing" is being supresse at the moment. Those scientists who disagree with the "politically correct" version of climate change, can't even get their studies published in main stream science journals. That is a sad and dangerous state of affairs. I would like to see far less hysteria and name calling replaced with good honest debate. I am a farmer of 45yrs experience, farming in an area that is supposed to be getting drier and hotter. My records show that the last 10yrs have been the wettest 10yr period since I have been farming, I no longer grow wheat because I was loosing too many crops to frost and we have seen good regeneration of flora and fauna on my property. I have also been heavily involved in conservation, revegetation and salt land rehabilitation over all my farming life, ie I am a conservationist! I live with the effects of the climate every day. I have seen much climate variability but no climate change.

Robin Guenier

John Westman: J SMITH is a good example of the laziness you mention. Unable to produce a specific example of empirical evidence for dangerous AGW, he points to acres of text (I doubt if he’s even read it) and says, “It must be in there somewhere”. (Neil: don’t take him seriously.)

manacker

The article starts out: "Imagine how wonderful the world would be if man-made global warming were just a figment of Al Gore’s imagination."

In actual fact, it is.

But this figment is being sponsored by the powerful and rich of the world, with the ultimate aim of making them even more powerful and wealthier at the expense of everyone else.

Professor Plimer has it right. It's a con trick.

Max

manacker

Having been a "lurker" here, I have noticed an interesting phenomenon.

The exchange between Robin Guenier and JSmith is interesting.

Guenier asks for empirical scientific evidence to support the premise that AGW is a potentially serious threat caused by humans adding CO2 to the atmosphere.

JSmith replies by simply citing the IPCC AR4 report as empirical scientific evidence and then making the comparison between creationists who deny Darwin's theory with those who are skeptical of the AGW premise.

Having followed this debate on several sites I see that this is a rather typical exchange.

The AGW supporters do not have any empirical scientific evidence to support the premise that AGW is a potentially serious threat caused by human CO2 emissions because this evidence is not there.

So they are forced to side-step with irrelevant discussions that have nothing to do with the issue being debated.

Max

neil

J SMITH
Your response to:
"What evidence? That's all we hear from AGW proponents "the over whelming body of evidence" The only thing missing is the evidence. What is it? where is it? how does it work?".

Is:
As has been shown with regard to evolution (i.e. a large volume of evidence, much of it non-empirical), those who don't want to believe (i.e. who prefer Creationism) will not accept anything but 100% proof - which does not exist. The same goes for the Big Bang theory, which most accept, despite the almost complete lack of empirical evidence, and the fact that it is scientists who know the most and who we have to accept as the experts.

Allow me to summarise:
I asked for solid scientifice evidence of AGW and you responded that because you're not convinced by the evidence that supports evolutionary theory, and you don't understand Stephen Hawking, AGW is a proven scientific theory! And then you throw in a couple of IPCC links.

So you can't show mew the science, you can explain how CO2 causes warming! Which is my whole point. NO ONE CAN!! Not even the 52 climate scientists paid by the IPCC. YES there is only 52 of them!!

SHOW ME THE SCIENCE:
I posted this earlier in this blog.

Lets look at some facts:
Human activity is increasing atmospheric CO2.
CO2 absorbs infra red radiation and heats the surrounding air.
The global air temperature has been increasing for the past century.
It is pretty easy to convince an untrained individual that those facts show a cause and effect.
A trained person will ask show me the science, physics, chemistry, maths that closes the energgy balance and confirms the cause and effect.
How much CO2 is from human activity? How much energy can it absorb? how much can that raise the temperature?
When you do the science the biggest number you can generate is 0.05C! but the planet has warmed 0.7C? IPCC modellers simply put in a fudge factor then predict the future.
Ignoring a few problems:
The warming period started 200 years before industrialisation.
The geographical record shows that CO2 was at 400ppm (380 now) at the onset of the last iceage. And with the previous two iceages the CO2 was 2000 and 4000 ppm respectively
The planet was 2 deg warmer 2000 years ago when CO2 was at 280ppm
The earths orbit causes a 100K year temperature cycle and we are near the end of the warming phase.
I could go on and on, but man-made climate change alarmists insist, in fact demand that CO2 is the only cause.
In the words of Al Gore:
"Skeptics do not add value to the debate"
Apparently it's only a debate if everyone agrees with him!

SHOW ME THE SCIENCE!!!!

J SMITH

Robin Guenier wrote : "John Westman: J SMITH is a good example of the laziness you mention. Unable to produce a specific example of empirical evidence for dangerous AGW, he points to acres of text (I doubt if he’s even read it) and says, “It must be in there somewhere”. (Neil: don’t take him seriously.)"

Typical, if I may be allowed to state this and be published, of those who deny : AGW or Evolution. Have a go at the person and not the science : a very poor distraction which shows a lack of self-belief in one's own arguments.
There is plenty of evidence contained in the IPCC report I referenced and in the follow-up Pew Center report. Those who deny (AGW or Evolution) don't wish to look at this sort of evidence (as those who wished to deny Galileo's theories, refused to look down his telescope and see for themselves), but would rather claim that they only want clear 'proof' - unobtainable in any scientific endeavour. If you wish to deny, in order to feel safe and sound in your own beliefs, fair enough; but don't then claim that you haven't seen what you don't WANT to see. I have provided the proof and await anyone who can scientifically disprove it. Can anyone do so ?

manacker

Bob Ward

You wrote:

“According to the World Meteorological Office, 2008 was 10th warmest year since records began in 1850, and 2007 was the seventh warmest. In fact, eight of the ten warmest years on record have all occurred since 2000.”

And then added:

“Where is the evidence of global cooling?”

The temperature record tells us that the globally and annually averaged land and sea surface as well as tropospheric temperature anomaly (whew!) have cooled on average at a rate of 0.1°C per decade since the 21st century started (January 2001).

The climate models cited by IPCC had predicted warming at the rate of 0.2°C per decade and the UK Met Office even had a warming forecast of 0.3°C per decade (before they cut it back to 0.2°C).

So IPCC and the Met Office were wrong. It stopped warming and started cooling instead. The evidence of global cooling is the temperature record, even from those thermometers out there next to AC exhausts or asphalt parking lots. Will it continue to cool? Who knows?

Now the argument comes, “Yeah, but 2008 was still among the 10 warmest years.”

This argument is true, but irrelevant. We are not talking about an absolute value but a trend.

According to Hadley, 2008 was the “10th warmest year” and according to UAH it was the “9th warmest year”.

So let’s see what happens if the temperature continues to cool by 0.1°C per decade (or 0.01°C per year).

2009 will then become the “11th warmest year” (both Hadley and UAH).

2010 will become the “12th warmest year”

2011 the “13th warmest year”.

Etc.

But it will be cooling at a rate of 0.1°C per decade, when the climate models all say it should be warming at 2 to 3 times this rate.

And that is what is relevant. We will be experiencing global cooling instead of global warming, despite all-time record increases in atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

And, let's face it, the absolute values are meaningless.

Max

J SMITH

manacker wrote : "The temperature record tells us that the globally and annually averaged land and sea surface as well as tropospheric temperature anomaly (whew!) have cooled on average at a rate of 0.1°C per decade since the 21st century started (January 2001)."

January 2001 to July 2009 (which is where most of us are) is a total of 8 and a half years, by my reckoning. How did you work out your 'cooling of 0.1C per decade' ? Don't you need to take the average over 10 years ? Perhaps you need to allow another year and a half to elapse before you can state that ?

Robin Guenier

Manacker:

AGW proponents love to trot out the "2008 the 10th warmest year" mantra to "prove" global temperatures are not cooling. Suppose you and they were climbing a hill in the mist. After six hours, the path levels out and then descends. After half an hour of this, you point out that you seem to be going down. Presumably they would reply - "Oh no: we're higher than we were three hours ago and much higher than six and a half hours ago - so you're wrong, we're quite obviously still going up". Perhaps they would. Ho hum.

John Westman

I note that we now have Charles Darwin's concept of evolution entering the debate versus the concept of creationism.

Perhaps it would enlighten many people, by reading (studying) some of Charles Darwin's works (in particular "On the Origin of Species" and "The Descent of Man". Both these works give an insight into how new scientific thought is postulated and how that thought is backed up by empirical evidence (ie hard facts and meticulous observation, which are recorded assiduously)

Darwin, at the time bucked most of the scientific establishment and was aware that he had to present a case that was difficult to refute. Even so, he had is "AGW types" who ultimately ended up in the basket with the "flat earthers".

Along with Ian Plimers book "Heaven + Earth" you now have 3 quality and informative books for study.

It is wonderful to see the debate that is raging-this is the only way that the truth will ultimately appear. The AGWers appear afraid of this!

Let us have "Death to Dogma"!

But I have digressed! Can someone tell me how it is that after 70 years of burning all those fossil fuels the level of CO2 in the atmosphere has reduced from 400ppm in 1940 to about 385ppm today?

James P

"AGW or Evolution" (JSmith)

That's a tad hubristic, is it not? Evolution is a bona fide, tested every which way, theory that keeps on turning up new supporting evidence. AGW is at best a hypothesis that appears to rest on the consensus of people who either haven't thought about it very much, or who have a vested interest in its acceptance.

The ever-increasing problem for its supporters would appear to be how to distance themselves from it without looking a bit silly...

J SMITH

John Westman : "But I have digressed! Can someone tell me how it is that after 70 years of burning all those fossil fuels the level of CO2 in the atmosphere has reduced from 400ppm in 1940 to about 385ppm today?"

You are mistaken. The concentration in 1940 was 310.4.

See here :

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/co2/lawdome.smoothed.yr20

You didn't get your figure from the Plimer book, did you ? If so, we'll have to mark it up as another mistake he made.

John Westman

J Smith: I note that in the link that you mentioned there was the word "smoothed". Is this referring to data that has been massaged?

Those figures I quoted did not come from Ian Plimers book.

Did you find those figures in his book? I hope so, because this shows that your mind is at least partially open, and this must be applauded!

James P

"The concentration in 1940 was 310.4"

You do know that's a 20-year smoothed value? That irons out the bumps nicely...

manacker

JSmith

You asked how I worked out the cooling of 0.1C per decade for the 21st century.

Open the Hadley record for the 21st century (January 2001 to July 2009).

Download it into Excel.

Draw the linear trend line.

You will see that it shows a cooling rate of 0.01+ degrees C per year (which equals a decadal cooling rate of 0.1+ degrees C.

It's easy to do.

Whether or not the current cooling rate will continue, and if it does for how long is anyone's guess.

Solar scientists plus guys who study ENSO swings, etc. believe it will continue cooling for a while and then go back to the long-term warming trend we've had since 1850 of 0.041 degrees C per decade.

AGW aficionados plus IPCC climate modellers think it will start warming again very soon at a rate of 0.2 degrees C per decade.

Only time will tell who is right. You don't know. I don't know. James P. Hansen and Al Gore don't know. Neither do the GCMs cited by IPCC or the Met Office.

I'd guess that we will probably stay on the long-term trend line of 0.041 degrees C per decade with multi-decadal warming/cooling cycles of around 60 years as we have had since the modern record started in 1850.

What's your guess?

Max

manacker

J Smith

For pictures showing how the observed long-term temperature trend has developed in cycles and how IPCC projects the future see:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3332/3436203110_77f7070b27_b.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3375/3411826039_d291acca96_b.jpg

Max

neil

J SMITH

I'm waiting!

The science.

The evidence.

The facts.

We are all waiting.

The reason you have not presented ANY!! evidence to support AGW is because there isn't any!!

Come on! SHOW ME THE SCIENCE!

J SMITH

neil wrote : "Come on! SHOW ME THE SCIENCE!"

Well, I gave you a couple of links to the evidence but if you need me to actually lead you to some of it, here are a few links :

Attribution of polar warming to human influence, Gillett et al
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v1/n11/abs/ngeo338.html

Detection of human influence on twentieth-century precipitation trends, Zhang et al
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v448/n7152/full/nature06025.html

Human-Induced Changes in the Hydrology of the Western United States, Barnett et al
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1152538

Methane bubbling from northern lakes: present and future contributions to the global methane budget, Walter et al
http://www.sscnet.ucla.ed