Jul 11, 2014

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.

Free Trial

You've hit members-only content.

Sign up for a FREE 21-day trial to keep reading and get the best of Crikey straight to your inbox

By starting a free trial, you agree to accept Crikey’s terms and conditions


Leave a comment

19 thoughts on “Get Fact: how accurate is Ian Plimer’s new book?

  1. Matthew of Canberra

    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

    Is it meant to be Non-Fiction?

  3. Patrick

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

  4. Anthony David

    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

    Forward by Lord Bunkton?

  6. Anthony David

    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

    “Tamas Calderwood was unavailable for comment”

  8. Barney Backfore

    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

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

  10. Liamj

    ‘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.

Share this article with a friend

Just fill out the fields below and we'll send your friend a link to this article along with a message from you.

Your details

Your friend's details