This is a collection of scientific assessments and commentaries on Heaven and Earth: Global Warming: The Missing Science, a book by Ian Plimer which attempts to deny that human activities are responsible for potentially dangerous climate change.
Kurt Lambeck, earth scientist and president of the Australian Academy of Science, comments on ABC Radio National’s “Ockham’s Razor” about Heaven and Earth. Audio with transcript. (Short link: )
To give his arguments a semblance of respectability the book is replete with references. But the choice is very selective. Plimer will quote, for example, a paper that appears to support his argument, but then he does not mention that the conclusions therein have been completely refuted in subsequent papers. Elsewhere, he refers to a specific question raised in published work but does not mention that this issue has subsequently been resolved, has been incorporated in subsequent analyses, and is no longer relevant. Or he simply misquotes the work or takes it out of context. An example of this is a reference to my own in the Mediterranean where he gives quite a misleading twist to what we actually concluded.
Other examples can be identified in this section, and throughout the book. Together they point to either carelessness, to a lack of understanding of the underlying science, or to an attempt to see the world through tinted spectacles.
Climate scientist Barry Brook has a page of notes on Heaven and Earth, including links to other commentaries. (Short link: tinyurl.com/plimer )
Ian Plimer’s book is a case study in how not to be objective. Decide on your position from the outset, and then seek out all the facts that apparently support your case, and discard or ignore all of those that contravene it. He quotes a couple of thousand peer-reviewed scientific papers when mounting specific arguments. What Ian doesn’t say is that the vast majority of these authors have considered the totality of evidence on the topic of human-induced global warming and conclude that it is real and a problem.
[I]t may well be held up as an example for the future. An example of just how deluded and misrepresentative the psuedo-sceptical war against science really was in the first decade of the 21st century.
Mathematician Ian Enting has produced Ian Plimer’s ‘Heaven + Earth’—Checking the Claims, a 31-page document listing the errors and problems in Heaven and Earth. (Short link: )
Overall:
• it has numerous internal inconsistencies;
• it often misrepresents the operation of the IPCC and the content of IPCC reports;
• in spite of the extensive referencing, key data are unattributed and the content of references is often mis-quoted.
Most importantly, Ian Plimer fails to establish his claim that the human influence on climate can be ignored, relative to natural variations.
Earth scientist Andrew Glikson responds with Plimer wants to talk science? OK, here goes… in Crikey (Short link: )
Plimer’s book claims current global warming is a natural event consistent with climate variability through time and attributed primarily to the sun.
The book negates the well documented consistent relations between climate and carbon gases, which through the Earth’s history resulted in temperature changes in the range of several degrees C , including abrupt climate changes and related mass extinction of species .
Climate scientist David Karoly reviews Heaven and Earth (audio with transcript):
Given the errors, the non-science, and the nonsense in this book, it should be classified as science fiction in any library that wastes its funds buying it. The book can then be placed on the shelves alongside Michael Crichton’s State of Fear, another science fiction book about climate change with many footnotes. The only difference is that there are fewer scientific errors in State of Fear.
No science in Plimer’s primer by astronomer Michael Ashley in The Australian. (Short link: )
Plimer has done an enormous disservice to science, and the dedicated scientists who are trying to understand climate and the influence of humans, by publishing this book. It is not “merely” atmospheric scientists that would have to be wrong for Plimer to be right. It would require a rewriting of biology, geology, physics, oceanography, astronomy and statistics. Plimer’s book deserves to languish on the shelves along with similar pseudo-science such as the writings of Immanuel Velikovsky and Erich von Daniken.
The science is missing from Ian Plimer’s “Heaven and Earth” by computer scientist and climate change commentator Tim Lambert. (Short link: )
He accepts any factoid that supports his conclusion and rejects any evidence that contradicts his conclusion.
A review by geologist and planetary scientist Malcolm Walter on The Science Show, ABC Radio National. Audio. (Short link: )
He has done a disservice to science and the community at large.
Mike Pope does a nice job at Online Opinion of debunking Plimer’s central claims in Heaven, Earth and science fiction, concluding:
To avoid following the polar bear to extinction, homo sapiens would do well to reject the science fiction espoused by Plimer. That may be a bit harsh on science fiction writers whose work is often prescient, even plausible. No such claims can be made for Ian Plimer’s book.
Short link for this post:
#1 by Philip Machanick on July 23, 2009 - 7:35 pm
Quote
I debunked some claims that evidently were based on Plimer’s book at Kevin Rudd’s blog (http://www.pm.gov.au/PM_Connect/PMs_Blog/Climate_Change_Blog), and repeated the main ones at my personal blog http://opinion-nation.blogspot.com/2009/07/monty-python-climate-change-phrasebook.html — since I haven’t read the book, I’m ready to be corrected but since no one has so far, I assume the person I was correcting was quoting correctly from the book.
#2 by Ian MacDougall on September 11, 2009 - 7:38 pm
Quote
I have read the book and have reviewed it in some detail on my site NOAH’S RAINBOW SERPENT.
Interestingly, Plimer’s Publisher Conor Court http://www.connorcourt.com/catalog1/index.php?main_page=page&id=14&chapter=0
lists only three favouable reviews, all of which are by right-wing journalists of the denialist persuasion (Christopher Pearon, Miranda Devine and Paul Sheehan). By way of contrast, Matt on this site has listed about ten highly critical reviews, mainly by practising scientists.
The most logical explanation of this discrepancy is that Conor Court has not had its attention drawn to them, as the fact that Plimer himself is a professional scientist (holding two chairs in geology, each at a major Australian university) has not exactly gone unemphasised in the PR campaign organised by that publisher.
I cannot think of any other possible reason.
#3 by Killthealarmists on October 14, 2009 - 11:18 am
Quote
I am an engineer and a scientist at heart. Just looking at the occupations associated with each of the “debunkers” above I would not trust them for a second, most have a vested interest in climate change. Plimers arguments are common sense backed up by research findings. You don’t have to agree with the outcomes of research to use them with other data to produce other findings. Combining data to get a bigger picture should be the aim of all scientific endeavours. Climate science isn’t based on the whole picture, which is the point of Ian Plimers argument.
Don’t make it about carbon, climate will change regardless, as proven over millions of years, focus on creating a societal structure that can adapt to it. Concentrate on limiting our effects on microclimates. For instance, land clearing for farms and urban sprawl should be stopped (go up not out, height restrictions are a cause of climate change!). some farm regions would get more rain if there was a mixture of managed production forests and farms, which would increase their average production and reduce man-made impacts. Simple things, but it will require government mandates and a part reversal of thousands of years of land use evolution.
#4 by Sin Fong Chan on October 18, 2009 - 9:48 am
Quote
What’s the point to write in if “Your e-mail (required, will not be published)”?
To be precise, it should read “Your e-mail address (required, will not be published)”
Many climate change / global warming theories claimed to be so, but they are nothing more than hypotheses. Many scientific facts can easily be viewed as fictions.
If a rise in a couple of degrees can cause such detrimental effect to lives on earth, then how can anyone or anything survive the fluctuation of temperatures between summer and winter in many countries, or city like Melbourne having four seasons in one day?
Commonsense tells us that millions of joules of energy have been pouring in from the sun each day. The ocean water can only be warmed up, and so does the earth’s atmosphere. Unless the heat is dissipated beyond our atmosphere, our climate will only change in one direction – rise in temperature.
Unfortunately many people pray to false gods of climate change. Have those so-called eminent speakers on climate change the proper data to back them up? They also speak on borrowed statistics. The view of Edward De Bona who wrote the book “I’m right, you are wrong” seems to apply to opposing parties of climate change / global warming. May I suggest that instead of having all the current talk fests on global warming, it’s about time all the do-gooders invest in research on global cooling, if this is the goal to reverse the trend?
Rise in sea level should not be viewed as catastrophic, for rising water will only help to fill the many dried-up lakes and rivers, rejuvenating inland aquatic lives, fauna and flora. Larger land mass covering with water will result in more water evaporation, and hence higher rainfall, thus producing cooler temperature for many parts of the world. Isn’t this the outcome we are looking for?
Has anyone ever asked why we need the icy poles, besides keeping the current polar animals alive? If scientists really believe that they can learn so much from studying the ice layers, and there is a fear of all the ice being melt away within the next two to three decades, scientist of future generations will have no way to tell of our current climate fluctuation.
ETS will not solve the current “problems”. Money and time spent on climate cooling will!
#5 by Graeme Bird on January 1, 2010 - 1:05 pm
Quote
My goodness Monbiot made an idiot of himself. He would not answer any science questions. And he put about this idiocy that emissions from underwater volcanoes is about the same as emissions from those above the ground.
This is self-evidently a lie. It amounts to claiming that the magma wants to flow through a tall mountain, above sea level, where the crust is thicker, in preference to magma wanting to go through rift-zones, in the deep ocean, where the crust is more thin.
When I heard this fraudulent claim I immediately tried to find out where it came from. The liars involved in this new scandal had to go back to 1991 to find anyone stupid enough to make such a claim. And the claim itself is not based on any direct evidence. Its not as if there was any survey involved with the Gerlach 1991 study.
Nevertheless this has not stopped the usual fraudsters locking this claim in as the revealed truth. Though it is self-evidently wrong and they can find no evidence for it.
#6 by Mary Nokleby on June 22, 2011 - 3:52 am
Quote
Reading the scientific rebuttals was helpful…and informative……..but good gracious….some of the comments amaze me.
1. Being a “scientist at heart” doesn’t make you qualified to read the data…….and reams of data is coming in from all over the world…..our computers make the gathering and collating of it easier and more far reaching than ever before. Yes, science begins with hypothesis…instead of “forgone conclusions”…but it persists in gathering the data…lots of data…and those hypothesis move, under the influence of the data…into theories….and then into versions of scientific fact. the process is a long one, time consuming, precise: a life work.
Being a scientist at heart, as one commentator claimed…should mean knowing this process, and having some respect for it.
2. Science is different from “common Sense”…people writing in to say they are using their common sense to refute “the false gods of climate change” make me want to cry…..as a retired school teacher I have to take some responsibility for their silly conflating of categories. Hundredes of years ago, common sense suggested the sun moved around the earth: It doesn’t….and it was science that proved the common sense picture of how the world worked, wrong.
A simple suggestion: When reading claims that we have nothing to worry about…do a quick check on the credentials of these “scientists”………find out who they work for…….and how long they’ve been at it.
But also………..look at the scientific consensus…global warming is not the brainchild of a few renegades in the scientific community…….its the conclusion that follows evidence gathered in many places over the last 25 years.
Just to be objective: consider the possibility that most of these men and women might be honest professionals…….and that the scammers might be on the corporate side of the ledger. Corporatism is something different from science.
Try to figure out the differences…when you are weighing the data
#7 by John Curtis on August 4, 2011 - 4:44 am
Quote
The moment information is transferred to another party,It is there either true or untrue. Both sides of this very emotional anthropomorpic global warming debate are inclined to ridicule the other side. ridicule will not help. Is not science about asking why and how.
If someone suggests a different reason should that not be tested. Unfortunately money and reputations and politics has gotten involved with this problem and I distrust all 3 of these things.
my 2 cents worth is that our world is changing very fast for us and at present it will pan out like this; Co2 will not be a worry because the oil crisis will put a hault to that. Then our travelling companions Famine Disease and war will kick in followed by a drop in our population which was the main problem in the first place. Why can,t our wise ones solve overpopulation in a peaceful way Educated self imposed birth control.
#8 by Alan Chew on November 16, 2011 - 5:27 pm
Quote
Congratulations to Ian Plimer on placing a large about of solid logic on the table regarding the man made CO2 debate and it’s effect on climate change. His book Heaven and Earth addresses so much of the debate it appears to be futile to cover the same ground. I have read the book twice now and do not pretend to be qualified to attempt a peer review of the science. I note that some of his critics have the audacity to admit that have offered criticisms of the contents of the book, based on comments by others yet have read the book themselves. What a startling and amazingly stupid statement to make.
I recommend that people read the book with an open mind before forming any consensus view.
It may will be true that the book contains errors……for the nit pickers this is a big deal. I think they make much ado about nothing. Let us focus on the big
#9 by Alan Chew on November 16, 2011 - 5:54 pm
Quote
Oops….not sure how to haul it back…..
Let us focus on the big picture here……which in my view is the logical issues surrounding causal linking.
Part of my work as an engineer involves solving problems associated with the failure of high tech control systems. My company designs, builds, installs and maintains these systems on a world wide basis. Another part of my experience is the writing of mathematical models to study the failure modes of complex process systems.
These two matters have provided me with skills which are particularly closely aligned to the current debate and the logic which relates to it.
One of the most important criteria which must be met in trouble shooting and modeling is to be able to accurately explain the past in an historical sense. If this can not be done to a very high level of certainty, the hypothesis fails.
Ian Plimer makes this point on numerous occasions throughout the book. It is the challenge which the climate change model fails to meet on every count.
Further, Ian Plimer sets out to emphasize that he does not have the answers, but he does have the questions.
Can the modelers explain (using only one version of the parameters) the variations in climate over (let’s make it simple) say, the last 50,000 years? (And of course demonstrate the causal link to man made CO2 and the climate change).
For the zealots the argument is not actually about climate change but about the causal link between climate change and man made CO2 ( it is not even about CO2).
I have noticed that none is challenging the point raised regarding the fundamental shift in the IPCC dialogue from global warming to climate change, carbon pollution to carbon reduction and so on. These are subtle yet significant changes in the conversation.
Alan Chew
#10 by matt on November 17, 2011 - 5:19 pm
Quote
Hi Alan, have you read Ian Enting’s paper on the Plimer book?
If not, you really should, to get a bit of perspective on the quality of Plimer’s assertions: http://bit.ly/entingplimer
#11 by Adrian Vance on December 11, 2013 - 3:21 am
Quote
I have read only a small bit of Plimer’s work, but from the critiques here can well tell what he is saying by what is said about it by whom; scientists that are dependent on government funding.
CO2 is a “trace gas” in air, insignificant by definition. It absorbs 1/7th as much IR, heat energy, from sunlight as water vapor which has 188[falsehood redacted] For this we should destroy our economy?times as many molecules capturing 1200 times as much heat making 99.9% of all “global warming.” CO2 does only 0.1% of it.
The Medieval Warming from 800 AD to 1300 AD Micheal Mann erased to make his “hockey stick” was several degrees warmer than anything “global[falsehood redacted] It was 500 years of great abundance for the world.warmers” fear.
The Vostock Ice Core data analysis show CO2 increases follow temperature[falsehood redacted]increases by 800 years 19 times in 450,000 years. That makes temperature change cause and CO2 change effect; not the other way around.
Carbon combustion generates 80% of our energy.
Control and taxing of[falsehood redacted]carbon would give the elected ruling class more power and money than
anything since the Magna Carta of 1215 AD.
Most scientists and science educators work for tax supported institutions eager to help governent raise more money for them. They love being seen as “saving the planet.”
[self-promoting bullshit completely redacted]
[There, fixed it for you.]
Pingback: Australia’s (latest) war on the environment | ConservationBytes.com
Pingback: Australia’s (latest) war on the environment | Gaia Gazette
#12 by Rodger Schoonover on June 25, 2014 - 2:20 pm
Quote
“I debunked his claims” has the same logical substance as “trust me.” The same for statements about scientific consensus. The other expression for scientific consensus is “cognitive herding.” Perhaps some specifics as to how Plimer’s data is incorrect? Example, the volcano. How about actual measurements that show Plimer completely missed the mark?
Pingback: Shark Tank’s Steve Baxter joins climate science deniers and islamophobes for Australian LibertyFest
#13 by William DeMott on June 22, 2023 - 2:59 am
Quote
I am an ecology professor with enough interest in climate science to read significant amounts of the peer-reviewed literature. I also read parts of Plimer’s book (Heaven and Earth) and was horrified by the misinformation, distortions, and blatantly false assertions. I found this website in my efforts to respond to a Facebook friend who posted something quoting Ian Plimer. The people who posted above supporting Plimer should have at least some obligation to actually read some of his work and to find out why most scientists are appalled by his dishonesty.