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

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.

Page 1 of 3 | Next page

Tags: , , ,

Categories: Books, ENVIRONMENT

19 Responses

Comments page: 1 |
  1. 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.

    by Matthew of Canberra on Jul 11, 2014 at 1:27 pm

  2. Is it meant to be Non-Fiction?

    by klewso on Jul 11, 2014 at 1:56 pm

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

    by Patrick on Jul 11, 2014 at 1:59 pm

  4. 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.

    by Anthony David on Jul 11, 2014 at 2:13 pm

  5. Forward by Lord Bunkton?

    by klewso on Jul 11, 2014 at 3:36 pm

  6. 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”.

    by Anthony David on Jul 11, 2014 at 4:52 pm

  7. Tamas Calderwood was unavailable for comment”

    by fractious on Jul 11, 2014 at 5:46 pm

  8. 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.

    by Barney Backfore on Jul 11, 2014 at 6:17 pm

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

    by Jaybuoy on Jul 11, 2014 at 7:46 pm

  10. 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.

    by Liamj on Jul 11, 2014 at 8:28 pm

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

    by Ian on Jul 11, 2014 at 8:39 pm

  12. 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.

    by PDGFD1 on Jul 13, 2014 at 3:32 am

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

    by George Fisher on Jul 13, 2014 at 11:10 am

  14. 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.

    by fractious on Jul 13, 2014 at 5:40 pm

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

    by Ian on Jul 13, 2014 at 7:50 pm

  16. 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.

    by AR on Jul 13, 2014 at 8:23 pm

  17. 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

    by Itsarort on Jul 14, 2014 at 2:20 am

  18. 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.

    by Jeremy Williams on Jul 14, 2014 at 7:32 am

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

    by mulgapug on Jul 14, 2014 at 4:30 pm

« | »