tip off
19

Get Fact: how accurate is Ian Plimer’s new book?

The climate sceptics’ hero, Ian Plimer, has a new book out. Climate academic Ian McHugh fact-checks some of his claims about climate change. And did Plimer plagiarise?

In 1988, Professor Ian Plimer  — accomplished geologist, author and company director — debated the theory of evolution with creationist Duane Gish. Gish so exemplified a particular debating strategy, stunning one’s opponent with a disorienting fusillade of factoids, that it became known as the “Gish Gallop”. Since then, Plimer has developed a knack for the Gallop that would leave the (late) master flat-footed.

And so it is with Plimer’s latest book, Not For Greens, to be launched on Monday. The book is a broadside against both the theory of anthropogenic climate change and accompanying arguments for a transition towards renewable energy. In terms of scientific content, little has changed since Plimer’s 2009 climate “sceptic” opus, Heaven and Earth (critiqued herehere, here, here, here, here and here). Plimer did not respond to these critiques, presumably because, in his own words, “Climate ‘scientists’ are certainly green activists but not scientists” (page 44 of Not For Greens). Heaven on Earth sold plenty of copies and can be found on many Coalition MPs’ bookshelves.

Not For Greens nevertheless claims to be scientific. Crikey thought the book was ripe for some scientific fact-checking. Let’s start with Plimer’s questioning of whether the rise in CO2 is human-induced.

Claim (page 26): “If annual total emissions of carbon comprise 33 molecules, only one is from human emissions and the rest is from natural processes.”

In 2012, human activity (fossil fuel combustion, land-clearing and cement production) produced approximately 9.7 gigatonnes (billion tonnes of carbon, or GtC). This is dwarfed by emissions from the terrestrial bioshpere (about 120 GtC) and the oceans (about 80 GtC). That makes human emissions around 1 part in 21. Plimer’s numbers need updating but it isn’t fatal to his point.

The problem is the accounting sleight of hand that follows. In typically uncompromising language (page 26): “… if human emissions drive climate change then it has to be demonstrated that this one molecule in 85,000 drives climate change and that the 32 molecules of carbon dioxide derived from natural processes do not.”

Uncompromising. Wrong. Plimer excludes a salient point. The earth has a carbon cycle. So carbon entering the atmosphere through natural processes cycles back to the biosphere and oceans via natural processes, so net natural emissions are zero (in fact, slightly less, since these reservoirs currently act as a sink for anthropogenic carbon). Thus the rise in CO2 concentration is drive by humans.

For clarity, I have rendered Plimer’s argument in diagram form below.

Figure 1: The emissions cycle according to Plimer.

Claim (page 27): “It has yet to be shown that the atmospheric increase in carbon dioxide is due to natural degassing or human emissions of carbon dioxide” and (page 66) “… a very slight change in ocean degassing easily accounts for increases in carbon dioxide.”

Again uncompromising. Again wrong. We know the CO2 composition of the atmosphere over the last 800,000 years from analysis of gas extracted from ice cores. For more than 10,000 years, it remained between 260 and 280 parts per million (ppm). In the late 17th century — around the time of the industrial revolution — it began rising slowly before accelerating through the 20th century. Nature would seem to be astonishingly attuned to the tide of human affairs.

Here’s Plimer’s argument in diagram form below, as done by me.

Figure 2: The Plimer interpretation of recent variations in CO2 concentration.

Plimer’s favoured natural CO2 source is volcanoes. But we also know something of the origins of the carbon from isotopic evidence. CO2 derived from organic matter (eg fossil fuels) has a distinct chemical signature, because plants preferentially absorb lighter forms (or isotopes) of carbon when they photosynthesise. The chemical signature for volcanoes is different. We also know that the carbon is old, because it contains almost none of the heaviest carbon isotope, which decays over time.

Further, the US Geological Survey published this article in 2011 with a best estimate of the ratio of human to volcanic CO2 emissions of 130 to 1. Plimer once claimed that human emissions were only 3% of volcanic emissions, but is less explicit here, possibly because of the comprehensive comprehensive debunking he received.

Here’s Plimer’s argument in diagram form.

Figure 3: The Plimer interpretation of anthropogenic versus volcanic CO2 production ratio.

Claim (page 9): “As CO2 is increasing and temperature is not, therefore this gas could not be driving global warming.”

Uncompromising. Wrong. This would only be true if no other factors influenced temperature. But as Plimer emphasises, other factors (primarily ENSO, aerosols and solar variation) are important. Straightforward statistical analysis shows that most of the recent variation in temperature can be explained by these factors — in combination with CO2. Moreover, as Plimer himself states (page 10): “The oceans contain a lot of heat, far more than the atmosphere.” True. Then this (page 10): “The key to climate change is the oceans …”. So — is the ocean warming? Yes. My last diagram (this time without Plimer ‘s input) presents changes in energy content of the atmosphere, ocean, land and ice. The oceans store 90% of the additional energy being retained by earth (as opposed to about 2% into the atmosphere). No sign of a slowdown.

Figure 4: Energy accumulation in earth system components (IPCC WG1 AR5)

The above is a small selection of the many dubious claims made in the book. But this is probably irrelevant. The target audience will buy this book because they select their spokespeople in the same way as Plimer selects his facts: those which are convenient to their interests.

Science aside, much of Plimer’s rambling prose is devoted to insulting his imagined ideological foes, as here (page 4): “Past experience shows that the greens’ response to criticism is to plagiarise and repeat the rantings of others …”

I wouldn’t go so far as to charge plagiarism, but sometimes the echoes ricocheting around in the climate contrarian echo chamber can be of remarkable fidelity. Here’s Deepak Lal in the Business Standard (July 17, 2007):

Today, the peer reviewed process of funding and validation of scientific research in climatology is equally controlled by the modern equivalent of the Collegium Romanum (the Vatican’s Institute of Research), the Inter-government Panel of Climate Change (IPCC).  They in turn answer to the equivalent of the Inquisition, the Green ideologists, who, mercifully, can only torment through derision or denying the heretics research funding, and not the frightening instruments of torture.”

And here’s Plimer in Heaven and Earth (2009, page 463):

The peer review process in climatology research is controlled by the Collegium Romanum, the IPCC. They in turn are answerable to the Inquisition, the global warming fundamentalists, who in today’s world cannot yet resort to torture.”

Spooky, isn’t it?

19

Please login below to comment, OR simply register here :



  • 1
    Matthew of Canberra
    Posted Friday, 11 July 2014 at 1:27 pm | Permalink

    It’s a bit odd. I’d expect somebody as intelligent as Ian Plimer who actually believed in his case could come up with better arguments and evidence than these. This stuff isn’t any better than the sideshow that Chris “it’s stochastic so you can’t put a slope on it” Monckton trucks out.

  • 2
    klewso
    Posted Friday, 11 July 2014 at 1:56 pm | Permalink

    Is it meant to be Non-Fiction?

  • 3
    Patrick
    Posted Friday, 11 July 2014 at 1:59 pm | Permalink

    Late breaking news … publisher plans to release under new title “Crap for Liberal Parliamentarians”

  • 4
    Posted Friday, 11 July 2014 at 2:13 pm | Permalink

    The Heartland Comedy Conference is on this week and I was surprised to see Prof Plimer missing from the list of usual suspects speaking. Perhaps he was manning his book stall out in the foyer, nestled amongst the slot machines.

  • 5
    klewso
    Posted Friday, 11 July 2014 at 3:36 pm | Permalink

    Forward by Lord Bunkton?

  • 6
    Posted Friday, 11 July 2014 at 4:52 pm | Permalink

    Matthew, Monckton gets a lot of his hokey science from Plimer. Getting the Snowball Earth carbonate story backwards is pure Plimer. Plimer has done a lot of good work in understanding the complex story that is Broken Hill. Once he strayed from that, he is all over the shop. His attempt to shoot down Duane Gish went down so badly that he missed the fish and the barrel. His performance inspired an article “How Not to Argue with Creationists”.

  • 7
    fractious
    Posted Friday, 11 July 2014 at 5:46 pm | Permalink

    Tamas Calderwood was unavailable for comment”

  • 8
    Barney Backfore
    Posted Friday, 11 July 2014 at 6:17 pm | Permalink

    There must be a huge doubt lurking in Ian Plimers mind that maybe, just maybe he is wrong. Obviously he keeps that doubt well and truly suppressed. One technique to bolster the suppression and keep that niggling doubt out of consciousness, is to write a book. This helps to reaffirm the belief to oneself and if others support the book, all the better. Sounds like religion, doesn’t it.

  • 9
    Jaybuoy
    Posted Friday, 11 July 2014 at 7:46 pm | Permalink

    Fractious you are comedy gold..isn’t Tamas Bernard Keane..

  • 10
    Liamj
    Posted Friday, 11 July 2014 at 8:28 pm | Permalink

    Science advances one funeral at a time.’ We should be compassionate about old fools, it must be hard to admit error on such a grand scale when they have so little time left.

  • 11
    Ian
    Posted Friday, 11 July 2014 at 8:39 pm | Permalink

    Don’t buy the book whatever you do. That is what the fraudster really wants after all.

  • 12
    PDGFD1
    Posted Sunday, 13 July 2014 at 3:32 am | Permalink

    Thanks for the precis Ian - will be extremely helpful when F-in-law starts his usual cheer-squad-for-Plimer nonsense at Sunday lunch.
    This time I’ll save my breath, hand out copies and answer questions.
    By the way… any chance you might write a full-length rebuttal? I couldn’t stand reading another of Plimer’s books frankly.

  • 13
    George Fisher
    Posted Sunday, 13 July 2014 at 11:10 am | Permalink

    Sounds like the usual deliberately-wrong nonsense, only Plimer has upped the sneering to celebrate the incumbency of this science-averse government.

  • 14
    fractious
    Posted Sunday, 13 July 2014 at 5:40 pm | Permalink

    I would have thought it well past time the Uni of Adelaide made Plimer redundant (or ‘Emeritus’ at least), if only for the absolute claptrap he peddles on volcanic eruptions, a subject well within his bailiwick. And if that’s not enough, he has a history of fabricating and deceit.

  • 15
    Ian
    Posted Sunday, 13 July 2014 at 7:50 pm | Permalink

    Fabrication and deceit”? Sounds like Plimer could easily find a job as an Israeli lobbyist.

  • 16
    AR
    Posted Sunday, 13 July 2014 at 8:23 pm | Permalink

    Thanks for the precis - I, like many above would appreciate more detail to obviate the contamination of touching. never mind reading the tedious tome.
    One small point - “In the late 17th century — around the time of the industrial revolution - as your figure #2 shows, you meant late 1700s, ie 18thC.

  • 17
    Itsarort
    Posted Monday, 14 July 2014 at 2:20 am | Permalink

    Being an atheist, I bought Plimer’s ” Telling Lies For God” and sat down to read it with smug satisfaction and glee. However, I couldn’t read much of it because it was so poorly written! If “Not For Greens” is half as bad, Plimer will be doing greenies a favour

  • 18
    Jeremy Williams
    Posted Monday, 14 July 2014 at 7:32 am | Permalink

    All just fodder for dumb rednecks they are trying to convince, wouldn’t surprise me if plimer bolt etc don’t believe this rubbish themselves.

  • 19
    mulgapug
    Posted Monday, 14 July 2014 at 4:30 pm | Permalink

    so sad that fools like Plimer try and make fools of the majority of scientists…

Please login below to comment, OR simply register here :



Womens Agenda

loading...

Smart Company

loading...

StartupSmart

loading...

Property Observer

loading...