It’s well written, packed with references, and has an unapologetic, irreverent tone.
If you are a skeptical teacher, this is an essential book; if you are an alarmist teacher, it’s doubly so. This is the ammunition that smart teenagers will use to point score against you. (Be prepared, eh?)
My only grievance with this book is that Plimer got this excellent title before me š
One hundred and OneĀ Questions for your teacher
Plimer has written chapters with graphs and references to back up these questions, and it isn’t going to work well if a student just plucks a couple from this site and thinks they can trump a teacher without learning the background. Q and A’s have a habit of being turned back on the questioner.
1. Is Climate Change Normal?
Yes. If the answer is not a very definite yes and thereĀ is diversion, discussions and exceptions, then your teacher is ignoring the past and is using classes for political purposes. No scientist denies thatĀ climate change is normal. If the answer is no, then your teacher does not know the basics and can not prepare you for life.
7. The temperature increase between breakfast and lunch is far higher than the 0.8 C temperature rise over the last 150 years. Why is such a small change over 150 years dangerous yet larger changes each day are not?
What can your teacher say? Maybe your teacher might argue that a 0.8 C temperature rise is a sign of terrible things to come. Who knows? Email me your teacher’s answer to ian.plimer AT adelaide.edu.au
24. If Carbon dioxide drives global warming, how is it that we have had six major ice ages in the past yet atmospheric carbon dioxide was far higher then than now?
This should make you extremely unpopular with an activist teacher. The aim of the question is to very quickly demonstrate that your teacher is an environmental activist using classes for political advocacy. How dare you ask a logical question based on knowledge that has been validated? Few school teachers have any knowledge of geology so the only way for an activist teacher to handle this question is to question your facts, slam you down, ignore you or throw you out for being disruptive. Don’t think that you will get an answer to this question. The teacher might be silly enough to try to argue that it is just geology and that processes that happened millions of years ago are too slow or do not operate today. Codswallop. The processes that operated in the past still operate today.
25. Will increased atmospheric carbon dioxide increase food production?
Yes. This we know from measurements and experiments in glass houses. This is a great opportunity for your teacher to ramble on about the limits to growth, depletion of resources and how we will all be doomed but none of this answers the question. …
Ā 47. Since thermometer measurements were made, there has been warming from 1860 to 1880, cooling from 1880 to 1910, warming from 1910 to 1940, cooling from 1940 to 1977, warming from 1977 to 1998 and cooling from 1998 until now. Which warmings and coolings were of human origin?
This is guaranteed to get you thrown out of class…. An honest teacher will state that it is not possible to work out which warming was natural…
(Note, if I was Plimer I would have said “warming from 1977 – 2001“, and not bothered to mention the last ten years. I mean, watch the trolls perform, 1998 is a red flag, they can’t help themselves, and when they do, can someone point out that “Whatever” — the choice of years, or even ignoring the last fifteen years completely, does not make any difference to Plimer’s main point?)
————————————————————————————————-
! Thanks to The Galileo Movement there are 300 free copies available for Australian teachers.
(Apologies to non-Australian teachers, our climate-propaganda situation is dire! But for just $29.95 plus post, you too can have a copy.)
Please pass this on to any teacher you know who is associated with an Australian school.
Case Smit from The Galileo Movement writes:
Last year we planned to make a movie, specifically for young people, to provide some factual education about the climate.Ā Unfortunately the money raised fell short of that needed.Ā Rather than accepting a refund, the donors have kindly agreed to allocate their funds to a similar cause, namely to distribute Prof. Ian Plimerās new book to schools.
Check the following website for some more information about this book, or if you want to order a copy for yourself click here:
We will keep the offer open until all 300 books are taken. The PDF asks for a school purchase order form, but some schools are already closed for summer, so teachers just need to state the school that they are teaching at.
——————————————-
“… experiments in glass houses.”
At last! The correct terminology.
30
Question 24 is a little like typical ‘climate science’, where facts have been distorted to achieve the required outcome.
Yes, carbon dioxide levels were higher in the past than today – but that was before the Pleistocene Ice Age began 2.6 million years ago. Also, at the bottom of these recent ice advances carbon dioxide levels were around half of what they are today. Saying 6 major ice ages and higher carbon dioxide levels in the same sentence is the sort of thing that allows alarmists to mock and wriggle out of yet another damning indictment.
The sceptics are slowly, but surely, winning the argument on climate change (for any alarmists reading this, that’s the natural process which has been happening for hundreds of millions of years and not suddenly occuring now because of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide). Little things like this can allow the alarmists to claw a little back; sceptics must never allow themselves to follow the normal ‘climate scientist’ tactics of raw data manipulation, cherry picking, hiding inconvenient facts and trumpeting distorted/tortured climate models.
20
This is a good start but I still think that a major event like a Royal Commission is the only way to make permanent change in the Education system.
The “facts” and objective scientific reality about man made Global warming are hard to come by on the internet and in most places you might seek enlightenment on the subject.
The media constantly makes use of the AGW paradigm in advertising, Green Politics uses it to attract votes and local Governments, under advice from a Federal Government sponsored institution, scare the hell out of people with threats of man made sea level rise.
Things are definitely moving in the right direction but a lot of harm is still being done in the name of global warming and decisive action is essential.
10
Hear Hear KK !!
A Royal Comission is the least these wankers could do….
20
This book is very welcome. I am currently working my way through it a second time in order to do a review of it for my own blog. Hoping to complete that this month. We ought to be very pleased that distinguished academics such as Prof Plimer have chosen to engage in this ‘debate’ (it is more of an onslaught by the alarmists, than a ‘debate’). There is a sacrifice here on their part, a putting to one side of their own research priorities in order to help clear shoddy-science and malevolent political exploitation out of our schools, and elsewhere for that matter. I daresay we shall need many more of them to join in with that task.
20
Hi John Shade,
Your comment on “malevolent political exploitation out of our schools, and elsewhere …” hits just the right note.
Too many people see the Climate Change industry as a harmless bit of misinformation and can’t grasp how heavily cemented it now is in our society.
The “elsewhere” could refer to our Universities.
The fact that most Australian Universities have, by stealth, developed Climate Change Departments should be of some concern to anyone who cares about academic integrity.
The problem is the politicization of science as is evident from the Faculty Pages describing their work.
A Climate Change faculty professes to comment on the environment, physics, hydrology, chemistry, engineering, geology and biochemistry.
There seems to be an aversion to working with the outside specialist departments which could provide correct input and instead they just “make up” whatever is necessary.
This just increases the amount of delusion science that emanates from Climate Change Faculties.
If you do Law now you can become a professor of “Climate Change Ethics”.
All of us involved in the search for reality here know what’s going on. The point is how do we stop this ongoing stupidity?
Most people in the Climate Change industry are totally unaware they they are living a lie.
Everyone around them believes that the Earth was ruined on the 1st of January 1947 when those grasping CO2 producing baby boomers started to infest the Earth.
A very public and striking END to the acceptance of this madness is required.
The coffers are being drained, science is being damaged, people are being deceived, all for money and power.
30
This book will be an excellent stocking filler for Christmas for any alarmist! š
On some other blogs it was amusing to hear some people get the “97% of scientists believe Climate Change is real line” and “it is consensus so it must be right”. All they could do is attack Plimer or Howard’s reputation. Firstly, Howard is 100x better than the current people we have in Parliament. Secondly, it is about the book and no Howard.
I think it is really quite sad how political our education system has become. No wonder the AEFP (Australian Eco Fascism Party) has become so large in Australia. It is thrown down kids throats. They start with things like Earth Hour, planting a tree to ‘stop climate change’ and then even at my school we had an environment captain who made us all do stupid initiatives ‘to raise awareness of climate change.
I also read a blog on “The Drum” from Bob Carter with people trying to smear his image because ultimately he has an alternate view. That’s all these people do, they don’t have a clue what they are talking about and it doesn’t suit their opinion so just throw the insults out.
10
Yes, I saw that Drum posting by Bob Carter. The responses were of the following:
1) Bob Carter works for IPA and is just an uneducated stooge of the big oil ‘denialist’ industry and variations thereof.
2) Wandering off onto very esoteric scientific arguments of dubious merit, given the simplicity
3) Unicorn spotting/Straw Man erecting such as ‘2011 was the hottest year ever’
4) Endless argument about the 96%/97%/98% ‘climate scientists believe’ figure, without realising the point he was trying to make is that science is never consensus, it is fact.
5) Ranting on about ‘you just want to all rape and pillage the earth and destroy the environment’.
It looked very difficult to get a debate going there, as it was all a lot of teenage shouting.
20
A Question that may annoy Ian as much as the teacher.
102. Could Earth ever become saturated with hydrocarbons like Saturns moon Titan if humans do not burn them faster than they appear to be created by planets?
http://www.science20.com/news_articles/cirrus_clouds_ontitan-75914
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/crispin8.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJdNqYeVwX4
Lance Pidgeon
10
“Firstly, Howard is 100x better than the current people we have in Parliament”
please avoid multiples… anything time zero is still zero
10
Well, like or dislike Howard at least he actually stood for somethings unlike many of our current politicians on both side(especially ALP) who flip-flop on every issue.
10
An extension of question 25.
“Will increased atmospheric carbon dioxide increase food production?”
Yes
103 So does that mean increased CO2 will cause prosperity and send population into decline thus reducing pollution?
10
Can we send Prof Lewandowsky a copy? He desperately needs to get a grip on reality and this might help.
10
I hope Lewandowsky pops his head over the parapet – he’s about due another kicking from Jo!
10
Giving 300 books to teachers will save them from having to buy the books to keep
them away from their students.
—————————-
Doug – I can see numbers are not your thing. They print thousands. — Jo
10
Thanks.
Teachers are not my thing either.
Doug.
10
Would anyone like to BUY a Royal Commission into Climate Change.
10
“This is the ammunition that smart teenagers will use to point score against you. (Be prepared, eh?)”
Until you read the many Plimer files at Deltoid and are hospitalised after a laughing fit. Jo just gave anyway any pretense at objectivity.
12
OK GW, if you want to engage in debate instead of slinging insults, perhaps you could give us your answer to this question:
It should be easy for you seeing as the source of the question is so discredited.
20
Careful BRC. What if Deltoid can show that the sun was paid off by big oil before the industrial revolution? Then only hypothermia will quieten down their laughter.
10
Nonsense.
As all good Pastafarians know, it’s caused by minor fluctuations in the number of pirates.
10
Hi Go Ho,
I looked at some of the supposed refutations of Ian’s first brilliant book when it came out.
One or two were typographical errors, which given the density of detail, were minor problems for educated readers.
Most though were either just abuse and criticism for the sake of being critical or misunderstandings on the part of the critic.
These latter showed the poor level of science held by most Warmer Supporters.
O/T Funny, that last statement conjures up the image of Jock Strap.
10
Excellent choice of name, “Govt Whore”. Suits perfectly.
10
How often do Govt whores use their Deltoids, anyway?
(seems like a fair enough question, given the one whore asks)
10
Only 101 questions?
10
Actually, it’s a binary number.
Modern teachers can only count to five.
Nobody explained about using the other hand, you see.
20
Now MV.
Don’t be so uncharitable.
They have been brainwashed and that has been the fate of most of us at some time or another.
10
No it’s true – they can only count on their left hand.
They won’t have a bar of anything from the right.
20
MV,
I didn’t get back here to see your reply until today. But I’ll give you a bunch of “thumbs up” for it. I love it.
š
20
This is terrible news. Plimer is the worst sceptic I’ve ever met and his books are full of elementary errors and contradictions. His style and substance shows that he learned a lot from the creationists.
Do you as sceptics really think that this book is worth promoting? Is it just because he is a sceptic and is promoting your view of things and anything else about it doesn’t matter? I just hope that the teachers are as sceptical as I am and not as he is.
11
Hi Gee Aye
Nice to have you back.
I must agree that while Ian does have the outward appearance of a “Sir Les Patterson” lookalike, it is a reflection on the accuracy of his Scientific Comment that forces the Warmenistas to focus on his physical appearance.
If we “real scientists” had commented on Penny when she was minister for Crime Change we would have been abused left , right and centre.
The other wonderful thing about Ian is that, like Mr Bolt, he does have a really annoying effect on the Greenies.
Merry Christmas.
O/T
Everyone should experience Christmas in Saigon.
Packed with millions of CO2 emitters riding bikes around town looking at each other and the light show.
Magic.
20
If it wasn’t worth promoting you wouldn’t need to be here trying to can it.
The fact that you are proves that it is.
Thank you.
20
Nicely done.
10
That’s some crazy logic there MV. I guess the fact that this website exists to debunk climate science must prove that it is worthwhile reducing emissions.
10
Yeah – I learned logic in Climate Science class.
10
Gee Aye
The fig took some figuring and I’ve learned what the gesture ‘to fig’ means. Is that what the fig is symbolising? Have you any proof that the evolutionary theory is no longer a premise yet to be proven? It might take some time but the Truth will trump deception and lies everytime time.
10
THere’s quite a good take down of this book on Deltoid at the moment. http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/12/the_australians_war_on_science_78.php
It not only appears that Plimer has some seriously wrong numbers, but that he also plagiarised his explanation/interpretation of those wrong numbers.
I guess plagiarism and incompetance at reading graphs really could get you in trouble at school. Maybe not expelled.
10
I can’t see why.
Mann and the Goracle seem to have both made quite a living out of it.
Unlike poor old Phil Jones, who we now learn can’t even get Excel to produce one.
10
So did wrong spelling of “incompetence”.
10
Which reminds me – you finished that Plan B yet Matt?
10
āThere are two world histories. One is the official and full of lies, destined to be taught in schools ā the other is the secret history, which harbors the true causes and occurrences.ā Honore deBalzac
10
It does have to be said that it will be great for science teachers to better understand climate science by taking and respecting the student’s answers, doing some research, and providing the answers in due course.
Just the ones above:
1) yes the climate has changed for a variety of reasons since the dawn of time. But everyone knows that so what’s the point of the question.
7) In summer you could experience waking up to about 10 degrees, rising to 45 degrees in the day – that’s 35 degree celcius span. If you had a bowl of water it would look pretty much the same at both temperatures. However if you had a bowl of water at 1 degree and cooled it to -1 degree it would turn from water to ice. I say this to you, young Master Plimer, to indicate that temperature change needs context.
24) Carbon dioxide levels are not the only determinant of temperature. There are many well known and understood phenomena that have been responsible for historical temperature and climate. CLass – for homework could you please research climate cycles, solar output, milankovich cycles, and present to class what you have learned about the many reasons that climate may have been different in the past.
25) Look in a situation where all other things required for a plant to grow are available – water, fertiliser, soil etc, then sure in many cases more CO2 can lead to greater plant growth. The trouble is that the earth is not such a system. If CO2 increases don’t lead to temp changes then you could well be right, but while there is some skeptical debate about the temperature changes that may occur, a lot of scientific research in the plant sciences tells us that under IPCC predicted climate scenarios the “warmer” climate will be detrimental to agricultural production. L:ets put it this way young Master Plimer… Hot Dogs are people food – but if you choke on one it will kill you. So again context is the key.
47) As per previous discussions there are a whole range of quite well understood cyclical climate changes that effect the planet. On occasions these will cool and warm, on top of the underlying global warming trends. If you look at this graph (hold up graph) you can see that the temperature trend over the period you reference is upwards, but it is not always upwards for smaller sections of the time period. There are a range of reasons (check wiki on ipad when kids are not looking).
I mean are those the best questions Plimer has? One assumes Gina Rineheart pretty much copied a draft of plimers in her recent dreadful piece in that mining publication.
10
‘Carbon dioxide levels are not the only determinant of temperature. There are many well known and understood phenomena that have been responsible for historical temperature and climate. CLass ā for homework could you please research climate cycles, solar output, milankovich cycles, and present to class what you have learned about the many reasons that climate may have been different in the past.’~ mattb
Are you saying that those cycles no longer function, and have NO effect on today’s climate? If so, why?
10
Otter, of course things like solar output and Milankovich cycles still apply. Its just that they are being a bit overwhelmed by the extremely rapid increase of CO2 in the last century.
10
And your proof of that is…….?
10
effing obvious.
10
“….and it’s just that CO2 is being a bit overwhelmed by the sudden discovery of extra aerosols in the atmosphere”….
….and it’s just that if aerosols also make us out to be liars, we’ll think of something else like….like….oh gawd how we’d love a really big tropical volcano right now, that’ll explain the cooling and keep us out of jail hopefully until we die…”
Merry christmas John
and a merry Christmas to all of Jos bloggers n lurkers.
10
of course I’m not saying that you dimwit.
10
Ahhh, ad homs. Just like your kind….
10
that’s an ad hom btw.
10
Look, sorry if you took offence, but seriously you must be a dimwit if you could get “Are you saying that those cycles no longer function, and have NO effect on todayās climate? If so, why?” from anything I wrote.
Dimwitted or maliciously ignorant. Your pick.
10
On point one, the reason why he has asked that question is because what people say, you’d think climate change is this new phenomenon. Clearly it isn’t.
10
Only if you are a dunderhead, Juliar. I, like you, learned about ice ages in school. You could hardly learn about ice ages and not be aware the climate had changed in the past. However orthodox thinking for a long time was that these changes happened very slowly. It is only quite recently that the idea of rapid changes to climate have been accepted.
10
‘However orthodox thinking for a long time was that these changes happened very slowly.’
Are we talking about the same people who have claimed that the Earth once had a precipitous drop in temps over three years, thanks to the Gulf Stream collapsing?
Besides, people like you Count on the majority of the human race being dunderheads.
Now I really must be going. Hobby farms require early morning work.
10
Do you know….I’ve never really been able to get my head around this. A bit like not ‘really’ knowing what it feels like to drive a F1 race car in a race. We know it’ll feel fast and exhilerating but we don’t know much more than that.
John can you help me out here, help me get some bearings.
What rapid changes John?
How do we know if these “are” rapid changes?
Who has and how was ‘rapid’ defined?
What effect will these rapid changes have, how do we know?
What are the error margins, how were they arrived at?
It was already suggested to me that I should read the IPCC AR4 for the answers. I did that but didn’t read any solid answers. Maybe you’ve got some different sources or new information?
10
This rapid change you speak about, is it the change to wet and cold that we are enjoying.
I was looking forward to global warming as I ride a motor cycle, here we are in Melb, Syd and Bne, cold with a wet arse and dodging hail stones,that are big enough to kill.
This must be the new paradigm climate disruption, nothing to do with the sun having a sabatical, for according to the hockey team the sun is an unvarying heat lamp. CO2 is a magic molecule and the climate around 1985 is what should remain constant forever.
Obviously it is all our fault, just pay the new taxes and the climate will revert to 1985.
Get over it John the magic science has been outed.
10
47. Since thermometer measurements were made, there has been warming from 1860 to 1880, cooling from 1880 to 1910, warming from 1910 to 1940, cooling from 1940 to 1977, warming from 1977 to 1998 and cooling from 1998 until now. Which warmings and coolings were of human origin?
During this time, was the overall trend warming or cooling? Why do you think this is?
Why are some people desperately trying to insist that CO2 in the atmosphere has little or nothing to do with climate?
Examine the “skeptic” tactics and compare to the tobacco industry last century.
Discuss the safety of asbestos with a few mesothelioma victims. Ask them what they think of Plimer’s blustering on what is and is not asbestos.
Ian Enting read Plimer’s “Heaven & Earth”, and listed “n” errors. Another person did the same and listed “m” errors. On checking, “p” of these errors were in both lists. Use probability to estimate the actual number of errors in “Heaven & Earth”.
Examine the more extreme predictions of global warming, and list the worst of these, with references to the IPCC reports and other reliable sources of information. Why do you think people make extreme predictions that aren’t backed by evidence?
There are a lot of good questions you could ask, rather than Plimer’s rubbish.
10
‘Why do you think people make extreme predictions that arenāt backed by evidence?’~ jbrooks
Because they have an ideaology to advance.
Because they were dense enough to allow themselves to be set up as scapegoats for that ideaology.
And / or because of the money, prestige and power.
There’s more but I’ve little time, perhaps someone else can fill in the blanks for johnny?
Anyway, j, thanks for admitting that they have NO evidence to back their wild claims. But those of us following all the new papers proving AGW is WRONG, already knew that.
10
I’ll give you a “D” for that answer Otter. You really should do some research. What is the history of apocalyptic predictions? Are such predictions ever correct?
Take the Roman empire. I’m sure people predicted its demise, probably many many times before it happened.
Those of a literal religious bent could cite Noah.
I wonder what the conversation on Easter Island was like as they chopped down the last of the trees.
But I haven’t done any research – but some smart person here will fill in some details…
10
‘What is the history of apocalyptic predictions? Are such predictions ever correct? ‘
Well now, algor predicted 4 years ago, that we had five years. Interesting as to how he tried to subtly tie the end of the world to a Faux Mayan ‘prophecy.’ We should be seeing it fail in about 12 months, less a day or two if I am not mistaken.
But hey! People in the Southwestern US had a pretty decent civilization 1000 years ago, right about when the global MWP was reaching its’ height, so I guess we shall see how this round of global warming- what, the 6th in 10,000 years? More than 6? and not even the Warmest- goes.
And now, off to work for me.
10
JB
Just a few questions:
1. Are you going on holidays earlier or later as a result of climate change?
2. Is the Kangaroo Paw flowering earlier or later as a result of climate change?
3. Is the Swan River water level is lower or higher as a result of climate change?
But I havenāt done any research ā but you may fill in some detailsā¦
10
John Brookes @ 18.1.1
Then I suggest you do some research.
For instance, the “chopping down the last tree” environmental disaster myth for Easter island is exactly that – a myth.
No, I’m not going to provide a link.
The story is hardly secret, and Google is your friend.
10
“Foot; meet bullett”
Let me just adjust your sentence a little John.
But this time it will aye John, it weelie weelie twuly will.
10
THE REAL ASBESTOS HORROR STORY
In a little-noticed article in the Washington Monthly in March 1984, Jim Sibbison, a former press officer for the Environmental Protection Agency, boasted about how easy it was to use gullible reporters to spread scare messages. A former Associated Press reporter, Sibbison joined EPA in 1970, under Administrator William Ruckelshaus, and stayed there through 1981.
“One of the first things I learned in the job is that reporters take too much on faith what the government tells them,” Sibbison wrote. “In those days, the idea was to get the media to help turn the EPA into an enforcer that struck fear into the heart of polluters… Few handouts, however, can be completely honest, and ours were no exception…….”
http://spiderjohnson.com/asbestos.html
10
John Brookes – “Discuss the safety of asbestos…..” –
See – “The biodurability of Chrysotile asbestos” –
http://www.minsocam.org/ammin/AM77/AM77_1125.pdf
Ian Plimer is correct, John Brookes is spreading falsehoods.
10
Seriously? That link says
a) that Chrysotile is asbestos, (right in the title) which Plimer was saying it’s not.
b) that it is carcinogenic, which Plimer was reluctant to either agree or disagree with: “Significant increases in lung cancer rates occur 10-14 yr after the first exposure”
If you’re going to post links to back up your arguments, at least make sure they do back up your arguments rather than refute them.
10
CLASS!!
For homework you will answer ALL the above questions by MattB, John Brookes and any other cultists.
Your sole source material, as always on matters of “climate science”, must be the excellent study guides produced by The Australia Institute – http://www.tai.org.au .
The material is available here:
http://www.teachingclimatechange.com.au/
These tutorials and lecture guides are, after all, the most widely recommended and used “climate science” material in Australian primary and secondary learning institutions today.
Good luck on finding anything much other than “it’s all caused by man-made CO2”.
A “special” prize involving an extended stay at a re-education camp is avialable to any student who finds any realistic mention of “solar output” and “Milankovich cycles” in the approved material.
DISCLAIMER:
This post wasn’t sponsored by anybody.
But the crap posing as “science” and as taught in our schools today that is available at the links above was sponsored by Australian Ethical Investment – a Superannuation company (http://australianethical.com.au)
Who’d a thunk?
10
Did I mention Australian Ethical investment specialises in investing YOUR superannuation dollars in “green” projects – like wind and solar farms?
10
Comment on āThe Spatial Extent of 20th-Century Warmth in the Context of the Past 1200 years.
Abstract
Osborn and Briffa (Reports, 10 February 2006, p. 841) identified anomalous periods of warmth or cold in the Northern Hemisphere that were synchronous across 14 temperature-sensitive proxies. However, their finding that the spatial extent of 20th-century warming is exceptional ignores the effect of proxy screening on the corresponding significance levels. After appropriate correction, the significance of the 20th-century warming anomaly disappears.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/316/5833/1844.1.full
20
On Saturday 17 December 2011 the Australian published an extract from Professor Ian Plimerās book: How to Get Expelled from School: A Guide to Climate Change for Pupils, Parents & Punters. entitled āGlacial Chill: Ebbs and Flowsā.
In this article , Plimer asks the question: āthe alarmist media stresses that changing sea ice and continental glaciers indicate rapid global warming. Is this really so?ā
What follows is far from fact. Plimer cuts and pastes (with a little commentary) his first seven paragraphs from a press release by the University of Copenhagen. Rather than agreeing with Plimerās point of view, the study indicates that: āOur studies show that there are great natural variations in the amount of Arctic sea ice. The bad news is that there is a clear connection between temperature and the amount of sea ice. And there is no doubt that continued global warming will lead to a reduction in the amount of summer sea ice in the Arctic Ocean. He continues on with supposed data from glaciers. Particularly, the Bolivian Telata glacier. Here is a press release from the CNRS: the French National Centre for Scientific Research who funded the Bolivian Study: The moraines were dated by measuring the concentration of certain elements(3) in the rocks, thus making it possible for the first time to reconstruct the history of the glacier during the Holocene, in other words over the past 10 000 years. During that period, the surface area of the glacier decreased and its front retreated by 3 km. The glacial retreat, which was initially slow, has accelerated since the beginning of the 19th century, retreating by 2 km since 1820ā¦.This is the first time that a study shows that the melting of these glaciers during the Holocene was closely connected to variations in surface temperatures of the tropical Pacific Ocean. The research therefore confirms the exceptional nature of the rapid melting observed since the industrial revolution. Melting since 1820 is not linked to variations in insolation but to other mechanisms. This work shows the extreme vulnerability, over the next decades, of these tropical glaciers, which are located at high altitude in an area where warming in the 21st century is predicted to be at its highest (4-5 Ā°C in the Telata region). And for further information on glaciers, iceācores etc, Prof Plimer could have gone here: Charney lecture: Past and Contemporary Climate Change: Evidence From Earth’s Ice Cover Presented by E. S. Mosley-Thompson, Byrd Polar Research Center, Ohio State University and Department of Geography, Ohio State University
And hereās some snippets of what she had to say:
The tropical ice core composite carries the signature of 20 th century warming particularly the last twenty years. Glaciers between elevations of 4 1/2 to 6 Km all show characteristics of melt. The Tibetan ice-core composite shows no Mediaeval Warm Period nor a Little Ice Age (because they were largely North Atlantic phenomena) EPICA ice core data shows modern CO2 concentrations (from data for the last 800,000 years) to be outside natural variability. Mt Kilimanjaro has lost 85% of itās ice cover since 1912 and 20% since 2000. Similar rates were experienced in the Papuan glaciers near Puncak Jaya.
And in finality, the last few sentences of the extract comment thus:
āAntarctic ice core (Siple) shows that there were 330 parts per million of carbon dioxide in the air in 1900; Mauna Loa Hawaiian measurements in 1960 show that the air then had 260ppm carbon dioxide. Either the ice core data is wrong, the Hawaiian carbon dioxide measurements are wrong, or the atmospheric carbon dioxide content was decreasing during a period of industrialisation. As in all other areas of science, uncertainty rules.ā
If Plimer has done his research properly, he would, no doubt, take note of the following: From the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Centre (CDIAC):
Historical Atmospheric CO2 record derived from the Siple Station ice core āAn atmospheric CO2 record for the past 200 years was obtained from the Siple Station ice core. At shallow depths, atmospheric air still circulates through the open pores (Friedli et al. 1986). The enclosed air was younger than the surrounding ice because the enclosure of air in bubbles occurred only between depths of 64 and 76 m. On the basis of porosity measurements, investigators determined that the time lag between the mean age of the gas and the age of the ice was 95 years and that the duration of the close-off process was 22 years (Schwander and Stauffer 1984). Neftel et al. (1985) concluded that the atmospheric CO2 concentration ca. 1750 was 280 +or- 5 parts per million by volume (ppmv) and that it increased by 22.5% to 345 ppmv in 1984 essentially because of human factors. Graphs in Friedli et al. (1986) also reported that the preindustrial (pre-1800) CO2 concentration was ~280 ppmv.ā
And also this:
Atmospheric CO2 concentrations (ppmv) derived from in situ air samples collected at Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii
Source: C.D. Keeling T.P. Whorf, and the Carbon Dioxide Research Group
Scripps Institution of Oceanography (SIO) University of California Year Annual 1959 316.00 1960 316.91
So Plimer, in a few short sentences, has made the most palpable errors. The ice-core data is right, the Hawaiian (Mauna Loa) data is right and the atmospheric carbon dioxide content is still increasing.
These manifest errors in Plimerās substandard and unscientific polemic in no way support his contention that that glacier and ice-core data are not indicative of a changing climate.
Isnāt it time that Professor Plimer, his supporters and backers: including Alan Jones of 2GB, Andrew Bolt Of the Herald Sun and sponsoring organisations such as the Galileo Movement and the Institute of Public Affairs admitted their errors. If this is any indication of other Plimer arguments presented in his book: then this statement āAre pupils, parents and the public being fed political propaganda on climate change? Now is your chance to find outā is absolutely true. But Plimer is the feeding station for this political propaganda and in this regard he has proven to be an abject scientific failure.
10
“Mt Kilimanjaro has lost 85% of itās ice cover since 1912 and 20% since 2000.”
The temperature atop Mt Kilimanjaro remains as cold as it ever was – the humidity is a lot less because of surrounding deforestation, hence less precipitation.
20
Oddly enough Silly CO2 measurements were taken chemically over this time and recourse to the ice cores is not needed. Problematically they differ some what and were higher and then went down. These accurate measurements are thus not allowed in AGW science for they are like the dreaded RWP and the MWP and must be hidden.
10
You are right, of course, sillyfilly. The huffing and puffing by Messrs Moore & Job is just hot air (or maybe cold air?)
10
“These manifest errors in Plimerās substandard and unscientific polemic in no way support his contention that glacier and ice-core data are not indicative of a changing climate.”
I suppose he meant an abnormally changing climate. Climate change over long periods of time is normal but when you view it as you have – “After appropriate correction, the significance of the 20th-century warming anomaly disappears.”
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/316/5833/1844.1.full
10
YO, MATTB!
You might find this thread interesting, it talks about YOU http://joannenova.com.au/2011/12/climate-alarmists-might-just-be-captive-to-basic-emotions/
And in response to your ad hom: I’ve got a degree in Geology and 20-Plus years reading up on climate change science.
‘dimwit’? That is YOU, jackass.
Here’s to watching your climate gods go down in flames over the next few years, as the world continues to do Exactly what it has always done.
10
I still cant buy this book on Amazon for my kindle, Ian is missing out on 100,000s of sales here.
10