The Australian twin to Wishart’s Air Con is Professor Ian Plimer’s Heaven and Earth: Global Warming, the Missing Science, published last month. According to Bob Carter (in all his oleaginous glory here) on Leighton Smith’s Newstalk ZB programme recently it’s “an excellent book”. Carter assures Smith that “the authoritative science is in Ian Plimer’s book”. Fortunately, to save Hot Topic the chore of wading through Plimer’s prose, The Australian (noted for a tendency to push crank arguments) has published a most interesting review of Plimer’s opus by Michael Ashley, a professor of astrophysics at the University of New South Wales. What does he make of Plimer’s “authoritative science”?
Perhaps we will find a stitch-by-stitch demolition of climate science in his book, as promised? No such luck. The arguments that Plimer advances in the 503 pages and 2311 footnotes in Heaven and Earth are nonsense. The book is largely a collection of contrarian ideas and conspiracy theories that are rife in the blogosphere. The writing is rambling and repetitive; the arguments flawed and illogical.
Just like Wishart then.
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.
[Hat tip: Deltoid]
See also; Prof Barry Brooke’s review of Plimer’s book.
[Belinda Carlisle]
ACT’s former president Garry Mallett had a half page advertisement last week in Hamilton’s community newspaper hailing Plimer’s book with great excitement. The Church of Global Warming is falling apart under such assaults!
I notice this morning’s Herald carries an article from Michel Jarraud, Secretary-General of the World Meteorological Organisation in Geneva responding to Chris de Freitas’ recent article mentioned here on Hot Topic. Its opening words: “The observed increase in global surface temperatures is unequivocal and a clear manifestation of global warming.”
I’m getting seriously concerned about the potential diliterious health effects on Gareth and Bryan of reading this growing number of pseudo-climate-science books.
Great to trash them, but aren’t they driving you insane?
No doubt this latest round will bring more babbling hysteria from other blogs.
Don’t worry about us cindy. We’ve got thick skins and finely-tuned bullshit detectors. And there are plenty of good books to cover: Bryan’s doing the other Gareth, I’ve got to write up Mark Bowen’s Thin Ice, and I’m reading Bill McKibben’s Deep Economy at the moment…
NZ Herald ran my response to de Freitas last week.
text here:
Dear editor
Oh for the day that the Herald adopts the type of responsible journalism on climate change as described in a discussion paper on the subject by the former editor of both Time and Fortune Magazines, now visiting fellow at a Havard school of press and public policy, Eric Pooley.
Pooley describes some coverage on climate as a “he said she said” type of journalism, where the media acts like a stenographer.”
“To give their stories drama and a feeling of balance, [editors] seek opposing views even if the majority of experts agree and the dissenters lack credibility,” he says.
This is no doubt the attitude which allows Chris de Freitas to argue “balance” and you to publish his nonsense.
But then, says Pooley, there are the quality journalists, who “should help the public decide who is right and who is wrong in a debate where the stakes—our economy, our planet—could not be higher….. reporters who aim to serve as honest referees—keeping score, throwing flags when a team plays fast and loose with the facts, explaining to the audience what’s happening on the field and why—serve a crucial purpose in the debate.”
Where is the Herald’s editor’s warning note on de Freitas’ article stating that the majority of the statements have been proven wrong? Where are the factcheckers? Are you a paper which prides itself on quality journalism, or do you allow your paper to play fast and loose with the facts?
Maybe you could start by publishing a link to Pooley’s paper, which I think would be enlightening to your readers.
http://www.hks.harvard.edu/presspol/publications/papers/discussion_papers/d49_pooley.pdf
Joseph Romm has a post on Pooley which could serve as a halfway house between Cindy’s letter and the full article for those who are daunted by the latter’s length.
Cindy, I hasten to assure you I don’t spend much time on offerings from the denialist camp. I made myself persevere with Wishart, but it became tedious work, and I doubt I’ll be putting myself through that kind of experience again.
there seem to be so many books on climate these days – but agree, Wishart worth persevering with…
Good post on climate progress… for anyone outside the US the detail of the study not that interesting (except for the major point that the media picked up the anti-bill line on economics and never bothered to check it – hmmm – sound familiar?).
should send it to every chief reporter/editor in the country and MAKE them read it. Too few serious climate journalists in the mainstream media here. Too much opportunity for editors to listen to whining cranks.
Speaking of deniers and their ways, Mr. Wishart’s book set me wondering about exactly how climate change denial had become a required article of faith for the religious right.
Luckily, a friend put me on to this fascinating excerpt from a book about precisely that: Divine Destruction: Dominion Theology and American Environmental Policy, by Stephenie Hendricks. It came out in 2005, but looks like it’s just what I was after…
Unless i’m very much wrong, being part of the ‘religious right’ does not preclude subscribing to AGW – plenty of evangelical church types out there who do. ‘Small government’/free market types (notable exception Jeffrey Sachs) seem to be the most ‘religious’ about anti-AGW, though not sure if that includes Wishart or not.
Quoting response from NZ Herald:
‘ But then, says Pooley, there are the quality journalists, who “should help the public decide who is right and who is wrong in a debate where the stakes—our economy, our planet—could not be higher….. reporters who aim to serve as honest referees—keeping score, throwing flags when a team plays fast and loose with the facts, explaining to the audience what’s happening on the field and why—serve a crucial purpose in the debate.†‘
Can Pooley name these “quality journalists” in Establishment mainstream newspapers like the NZ Herald?
‘ “To give their stories drama and a feeling of balance, [editors] seek opposing views even if the majority of experts agree and the dissenters lack credibility,†he says. ‘
Great observation Mr Pooley – we had noticed this ourselves in the opinion pieces of Garth George and company.
Pooley was writing about US journalists not NZ. But his comments are still relevant… the NZ mainstream media simply takes the “stenographer” role. Hence, as you say, Garth George and Chris de Freitas getting their rubbish aired.
Or indeed the NZPA and Stuff running with this story from the Kansas City Star which manages to mangle and misrepresent a lot what we understand about solar/climate influences…
“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”
Heh… Immanuel Velikovsky and Erich von Daniken feature prominently in my MA thesis on how myth and science fiction can morph into psuedoscience and pop cults. It was titled, ‘The Attraction of Sloppy Nonsense’.
I’m starting to sniff a PhD thesis, here…
people Great to trash them, but aren’t they driving you insane?”
Dylan,
I think the right-wing influence is more important than the religious one. Plenty of left-leaning religious types value such things as peace, social justice and environmental protection very highly. They’re thoroughly fine people.
As I’m sure many people have noticed, it’s hard to find a right-winger who isn’t also a denier, as they see adjustments to climate change as an affront to their sacrosanct personal freedom. This is borne out by a couple of public opinion surveys I’ve seen which showed a clear difference between the attitudes and values of ACT party supporters and the rest. Fortunately there aren’t too many of them – 3.4% of the party vote?
As you pointed out, being both religious and right wing is a particularly deadly combination.
A thought provoking piece from Mike Hulme of the Tyndall Centre here. Very much at odds with the Monbiot approach.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/audio/2009/may/11/science-weekly-podcast-climate-change
Carol, thanks for drawing attention to Mike Hulme. I’ll be reviewing his book Why We Disagree About Climate Change in the near future, if Fishpond’s advice of progress is reliable. The podcast was a useful introduction.
Bryan,
Fishpond couldn’t deliver a goldfish on time so good luck with Hume. The last technical book I ordered from them took 6 weeks and their customer service is, without doubt, the worst of any online book company that I have dealt with and I buy a few books.
Slightly of topic, but I thought it might be something Carol could take for a walk to a slightly related blog not too far from this post. Especially for folk who think man is too puny to have any effect on climate, the last 5 minutes is really worth taking note of.
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/david_keith_s_surprising_ideas_on_climate_change.html
Yes, that is an interesting talk. Thanks Laurence. David Keith is also taking part in a geoengineering talk tonight in London which looks interesting, if remote.
His central point, that we might want to use geoengineering such as his mesosphere intervention to “blunt” the effects of warming while we get emissions under control is a good one, but he also reflects on the main difficulty: who decides?
Worth watching, certainly.