I popped into my local Paper Plus at the end of last week, and noted that were a few copies of Ian Plimer’s Heaven + Earth stacked up in the pre-Christmas display. Described by the NZ publisher (Ian Wishart’s Howling At The Moon imprint) as “the world’s #1 climate change book”, it makes a good companion for Air Con on any crank’s Christmas wish list. Unlike Air Con, however, Plimer’s book has been extensively reviewed in Australia and elsewhere, and so — as a public service — here are a few extracts that may help members of the reality-based community to decide whether to buy a copy…
Professor Michael Ashley, in The Australian:
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.
Professor Barry Brooke, at Brave New Climate:
Ian’s stated view of climate science is that a vast number of extremely well respected scientists and a whole range of specialist disciplines have fallen prey to delusional self interest and become nothing more than unthinking ideologues. Plausible to conspiracy theorists, perhaps, but hardly a sane world view — and insulting to all those genuinely committed to real science.
Professor Kurt Lambeck, president of the Australian Academy of Science, on ABC’s Ockham’s Razor:
If this had been written by an honours student, I would have failed it with the comment: You have obviously trawled through a lot of material but the critical analysis is missing. Supporting arguments and unsupported arguments in the literature are not distinguished or properly referenced, and you have left the impression that you have not developed an understanding of the processes involved. Rewrite!
Professor David Karoly, on ABC’s Science Show:
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.
Bob Ward in the Times (London):
It is easy to see why this book has attracted attention, particularly from right-wing commentators who have long believed that man-made climate change is a conspiracy theory. But this book is so full of errors that readers who believe its content could be seriously misled about the causes and consequences of climate change.
Tim Lambert at Deltoid has much, much more. Plus: you can download a 46 page document prepared by Professor Ian Enting detailing all of Plimer’s errors and misrepresentations.
No surprises, then, if I reveal that it won’t be on my Christmas list…
Thanks Gareth, those quotes provide a useful insight to the bias of the Australian media, and to the remorseless nature of the attack one is likely to receive if they challenge the CO2 orthodox.
“It is not “merely†atmospheric scientists that would have to be wrong” – Its not true that all ‘atmospheric’ scientists agree on climate change
“Ian’s stated view .. whole range of specialist disciplines have fallen prey to delusional self interest and become nothing more than unthinking ideologues.” – Nice, rather than critique the premise, simply portray it as lunacy. This quote is an unfair paraphrase.
“If this had been written by an honours student, I would have failed it” – enough said
“it should be classified as science fiction in any library” – along the lines of “what debate???”. As sad as this is I am willing to bet some posters on this blog would actually agree.
“It is easy to see why this book has attracted attention, particularly from right-wing commentators who have long believed that man-made climate change is a conspiracy theory.” – And the politicising of AGW by the believers continues. How ones feelings on a theory should be left-wing or right-wing is beyond me. This is another tactic to belittle the debate.
Can you provide any criticism of what is actually said in the book? Or only summerise the disgusting nature of what currently qualifies as journalism?
That’s not what the original quote is saying. The reviewer is taking issue with Plimer’s notion that it is the climatologists who are involved in some sort of hoax or conspiracy. The reviewer is pointing out that there would have to be thousands of scientists from many different disciplines involved in the conspiracy if it existed.
Which is more likely, that thousands of scientists are part of a global conspiracy that has somehow eluded detection for nearly 30 years, or that majority is right and the handful of contrarian scientist really are wrong after all?
Of course, we know that you would have us believe in the conspiracy, but that’s because there are squirrels living in your brain, R2.
R2, you are reliable, at least. Read the linked reviews. You will find that they actually bend over backwards to be fair to Plimer — read Barry Brooke’s, at the very least, to see how a close colleague approached the review. The sad fact is that Plimer mangled the science, and it’s his peers pointing that out — not the media.
It’s not the scientists doing the politicisation, it’s the lobbyists, special interests and parts of the libertarian right (see Climate Cover Up). The “debate” is not about the science (otherwise Plimer would have no need to so badly misrepresent it), it’s about what to do. That’s quite properly the realm of politics.
An excellent way of confirming your ignorance – supporting the rubbish propounded by Plimer. You have no credibility at all.
I requested a review copy of this book – and got sent Air Con instead! Strange lot.
Tim Lambert today has another story on Ian Plimer: turns out he plagiarised some of the material in “Heaven and Earth” (and did so in such a way that completely changed the intention of the source material).
R2D2, you ask for criticism of what is actually said in the book… there’s plenty of substantive rebuttal of the assertions made in the book. See Ian Enting’s document, for starters. There’s plenty more around.
One of the most revealing points made about H+E, I think (though it’s irrelevant to the climate change aspect) is that made by Michael Ashley, demonstrating just how jaw-droppingly ignorant Plimer can be: