By Robert Tracinski and Tom Minchin"The influence of Plimer's book is particularly interesting because it is not a light introduction to the topic. It is a thick book, chock full of science. Plimer's prose is spirited, but there's so much detail it can be a lot take in. Yet that is part of the point of the book. If the book is comprehensive in its scope, that is because everything science has discovered about "history, archaeology, geology, astronomy, ocean sciences, atmospheric sciences, and the life sciences"-Plimer's list-refutes the global warming dogma."
more
1 comment:
to balance the use of Ian Plimer's book then perhaps the authors might of read this
http://www.complex.org.au/tiki-download_file.php?fileId=91
Ian Plimer’s ‘Heaven + Earth’ — Checking the Claims
Overview
Ian Plimer’s book, Heaven + Earth — Global Warming: The Missing Science, claims to demol-
ish the theory of human-induced global warming due to the release of CO2 and other greenhouse
gases. Overall:
• it has numerous internal inconsistencies;
• in spite of the extensive referencing, key data are unattributed and the content of refer-
ences 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.
Ian Plimer’s claim that the human influence on climate can be ignored, relative to natural
variations, seems to rest on three main strands of argument:
a: the extent of natural variability is larger than considered in ‘mainstream’ analyses;
b: changes in radiative forcing from greenhouse gases have less effect than determined in
‘mainstream’ analyses;
c: the IPCC uses a range of misrepresentations to conceal points a and b.
Among the many errors made in attempting to establish these claims, are cases where Plimer:
• misrepresents the content of IPCC reports on at least 13 occasions as well as misrepre-
senting the operation of the IPCC and the authorship of IPCC reports;
• has at least 17 other instances of misrepresenting the content of cited sources;
• has at least 2 graphs where checks show that the original is a plot of something other than
what Plimer claims and many others where data are misrepresented;
• has at least 6 cases of misrepresenting data records in addition to some instances (included
in the total above) of misrepresenting data from cited source.
Post a Comment