Tim Lambert (deltoidblog AT gmail.com) is a computer scientist at the University of New South Wales.
Bob Ward reviews Ian Plimer's Heaven and Earth in The Times:
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. ...
Possibly the funniest howler in the book also occurs in the first chapter. It is a graph that is supposed to show the global temperature record since 1880, with a marked and highly exaggerated phase of cooling between 1940 and 1975. Again, no source is cited for this figure, and it cannot easily be found in any textbook or scientific paper. However, one eagle-eyed blogger pointed out soon after the book was published in Australia that the graph was identical to one in The Great Global Warming Swindle, broadcast on Channel 4 on March 8, 2007.
The makers of the programme, which was subsequently ruled by the broadcast regulator Ofcom to be biased and inaccurate, conceded after its first showing that the graph had been extended by taking an original figure showing temperature up to the mid-1980s and stretching it to make it look as though it went up to the time of the research. They also acknowledged that the original figure was obtained not from an acknowledged scientific paper but from a pamphlet posted on a US website set up in 1999 to collect signatures on a petition against the Kyoto Protocol.
The book is littered with mistakes. Professor Plimer appears to believe that geologists have been ignored by all those assessing evidence on climate change. But even those chapters that deal with past climates, which are supposedly the author's strongest areas of knowledge, contain mistakes. For instance, he suggests that "by AD300, the global climate was far warmer than at present", with temperatures between two and six degrees Celsius higher than today. A supporting footnote references a book published in 1977.
Unfortunately for Professor Plimer, the study of ancient climates has progressed in the past 30 years and the latest research suggests that the last time global average temperatures were more than two degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels for a sustained period was three million years ago. Maybe he should have read the chapter on palaeoclimatology in the last assessment report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2007.
Plimer will, of cause, respond by calling Ward names and claiming that Ward is nit-picking. He isn't. The errors are Ward highlights are a fundamental part of Plimer's thesis that human emissions of CO2 do not cause warming.
Politics
Comments
Is this Ward of Ward and Brownlee ("Rare Earth")?
Posted by: Barton Paul Levenson | August 22, 2009 4:11 AM
No, that's Peter D Ward.
Posted by: Vagueofgodalming | August 22, 2009 5:32 AM
And the present climate, the reference, has warmed too.
Posted by: gravityloss | August 22, 2009 6:54 AM
I assume it's this Bob Ward
Posted by: TrueSceptic | August 22, 2009 7:48 AM
Bob Ward has a first degree in Geology, and an unfinished PhD. He seems to have spent most of his career in public relations for the organisations he has worked with.
Nothing wrong in all of that, however. But how come you think he is some kind of authority on climate change?
http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/granthamInstitute/whoswho.htm
Posted by: Dave Andrews | August 22, 2009 4:07 PM
Well, Dave, it proves that you don't need to be a climate researcher to recognise the fundamental flaws in Plimer's book!
Posted by: Bob Ward | August 22, 2009 5:37 PM
Re: Dave Andrews #5
You don't have to be an authority on climate change to appreciate that Heaven & Earth is the tombstone for Plimer's credibility.
Anybody who can understand a graph can see the problems straight away.
Anybody who can look up a reference can find the multitude of problems where Plimer says one thing, and the reference he gives says either nothing relevant or the opposite.
Anybody with more than a few neurons should realize that the sun isn't made of iron (H&E, page 116), that volcanoes don't emit large quantities of chlorofluorocarbons (page 217), that CO2 levels weren't higher in 1942 than they are now (page 416), and so on.
Here's a clue: if you agree with H&E, then you don't have sufficient understanding to analyze any scientific argument.
And as for Bob Ward's unfinished PhD. I found it refreshing that he admits that. Contrast that with Plimer who claims to have published numerous articles on climate in peer reviewed journals - can anyone find a single example?
Posted by: Dirk Hartog | August 22, 2009 5:47 PM
@Dave Andrews
Wait... surely that can't have been... a dreaded Ad Hominem??? But... but... I thought only CRAZY LIBERAL WARMISTS pulled that kind of dishonest shtick!
Posted by: Dave | August 22, 2009 6:15 PM
Plimer thinks the Sun is a big ball O' burnin' Iron.
Nuff said.
Posted by: bigcitylib | August 22, 2009 8:06 PM
Tiddles,
your comments show you refuse to apply basic understandings of climatology to your arguments. Go away.
Posted by: Roger Jones | August 22, 2009 11:17 PM
In fact, as even the US government's NOAA admits, there were virtually no weather records in Africa, quite a hot continent, before 1900, which means that all global base line temperature data before 1960, when finally global coverage reached 80%, were biased by absence of records from hot places like KInshasa, Kampala, Lusaka, and Dubai.
could someone please explain to him how the grid and anomalies work? he doesn t understand how temperature records are walking at all!?!
hepl! there are not enough stations in the antarctic, which is cold! global temperature is much too hot! help!
Posted by: sod | August 22, 2009 11:21 PM
OK enough's enough I think ..... Tim this is a request to please put tiddles (Tim Curtin) back in his playbox in his own thread. I assume he's travelling and that his posting IP is not his normal one. He seems to think he's being clever and getting away with it. Please just ask him to either admit the charge and get back in the box voluntarily, or deny that he (tiddles) is also known as Tim Curtin. If he won't deny it then back to the TC thread with him, please.
If you do deny it tiddles then I'm calling you a liar. Why do people want you confined to your own thread? - because you're a mendacious mental mess-up and evil troll, that's why. Nothing intelligent to add, no manners to ask honest questions of people who could help you, and ineducable on the subjects you pontificate about. The best permanent placing for you would be in the encyclopedia, illustrating "Dunning Kruger effect".
Posted by: frankis | August 22, 2009 11:29 PM
PS that for those of you without a clue was how ad hominem looks :)
Posted by: frankis | August 22, 2009 11:31 PM
Shorter Tiddles:
Plimer's wrong, but Clinton Did It Too™, therefore Plimer's right.
Posted by: bi -- IJI | August 23, 2009 12:07 AM
Bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
Posted by: pough | August 23, 2009 1:42 AM
'To the extent that there is warming, it is wholly due to to the increasing global utilisation of energy from all sources, including wind and solar, in accordance with the First Law of Thermodynamics, that use of energy creates heat. It follows that even if all human use of energy derived only from wind and solar sources, there would then be just as much global warming as there is now,.'
Haahahahahahhaahahahah ha
I knew there was a reason, it was so simply, just like TC.
Posted by: jonno | August 23, 2009 2:57 AM
My friends, I say this once more: the Debate™ over the severity, the causes, and the responses to climate change has become so Polarized™, that a Voice of Civility and Moderation™ is sorely needed.
Certainly, Bob Ward cannot be that voice, because
Therefore, my friends, to maintain our Civility™, Reason™, Rationality™, Open-Mindedness™, and Freedom from Authority™, we must strive to prevent ourselves from being tainted by any of Ward's writings, or indeed any mention of Ward's writings. For if we fail to do so, then we will have sunk ourselves to the same level as the global warming denialists, and we will have become our own enemy.
I want the climate activists to win. I genuinely, honestly want the climate activists to win. Being the honest person that I am, I proclaim in all honesty that my honest statement was completely honest. However, I realize that while Bob Ward is on my side, what he's doing is Clearly Wrong™ -- and I Know™ this while being free from any knowledge of what he's doing.
Posted by: bi -- IJI | August 23, 2009 3:51 AM
17 bi-IJI,
It is clear that all experts on the subject must be ignored because of group-think, bias, peer pressure, etc. The only neutral observers are those with no formal expertise in the subject, or indeed any related subject. Anyone who mindlessly applies so-called established physics or mathematics is automatically disqualified.
Blog Science is the only reliable and trustworthy arbiter.
Posted by: TrueSceptic | August 23, 2009 6:11 AM
Frankis, tiddles is Tim Curtin. Not only are his bizarre subjects and his style dead givings-away, but Curtin himself told us that he would be in Europe in August.
This is the same trip upon which he suggested that he might present his ideas to an audience at Jeff Harvey's institution, but where, after being pressed on the organisation of such a talk, Curtin retreated with lame excuses and no attempt whatsoever to make it so.
Curtin was told weeks ago to think about the conditions that affect local climate expression, but he failed to respond. As to he understanding of thermodynamics, well, it is absent.
I note though that our esteemed host has finally pulled the pin. Can't say that I'm sorry, although I hope that we have the opportunity to rebutt Curtin if and when his 'paper' on CO2 comes out in October.
Posted by: Bernard J. | August 23, 2009 6:22 AM
Trolling on another continent. That's dedicated. South America here I come.
Posted by: John Winston | August 23, 2009 10:12 AM
It is also abundantly clear that Toddles / Tim has not the slightest idea of what is meant by Talib by the term "black swan". A black swan is a very high magnitude but unpredicted event. The claimed lack of warming at Mauna Loa is certainly not a black swan; a sudden, dramatic shift in the climate would be such an event.
Tim's determination to use concepts without understanding them defies belief. Talib's book is even available in my local, chain bookstore on special offer, so there is no excuse. Incidentally, the book itself is somewhat unimpressive, in my view.
Posted by: GWB's nemesis | August 23, 2009 11:30 AM
Bob Ward #6,
I wouldn't disagree. But by the same token one does not have to be a climate scientist to recognise flaws in papers and books published by the aforementioned.
Climate Audit has numerous examples as I'm sure you are aware.
Posted by: Dave Andrews | August 23, 2009 4:39 PM
RE: Dave Andrews #22
Climate Audit has made no significant contributions to the science.
The flaws that they have found in papers are unimportant. No conclusion has been affected. E.g., the hockey stick is robust, as is obvious from looking at the data.
By contrast, the flaws in Plimer's work are fundamental. Once you remove the flaws, there is nothing left.
He thinks that the Sun is mainly composed of heavy elements such as iron. How much more ludicrous does Plimer have to be before the denialists realize that something isn't quite right?
Posted by: Dirk Hartog | August 23, 2009 7:19 PM
Hat tip to Bi IJI, I really enjoyed that!
Posted by: Janet Akerman | August 23, 2009 7:59 PM
TrueSceptic, Janet Akerman:
Thank you very much for your kind words, Sir and Madam.
At this point, I must also praise Mr. Dave Andrews for being such a staunch defender of Freedom™, Reason™, Rationality™, Common Sense™, Open-Mindedness™, Balance™, and Moderation™. By ensuring that he's seraphically free from Bob Ward's writings, he has shown himself to be the most open-minded, balanced, and even-handed person on our planet since Galileo.
Posted by: bi -- IJI | August 24, 2009 4:03 AM
Why drag Galileo into it?
Posted by: John Quiggin | August 24, 2009 9:28 AM
Because denialists and other anti-science types (whom Frank is parodying) love to compare themselves to Galileo and/or Einstein. For example see here and here.
Posted by: Dave R | August 24, 2009 10:24 AM
When more apt comparisons would be to Erich von Daniken, Wilhelm Reich and Gavin Menzies.
Posted by: Jim Eager | August 24, 2009 12:51 PM
Ah, it looks like my reference to Galileo has touched a raw nerve in Dr. Quiggin's elitist Inquisition-like psyche!
Indeed, extremists on Both Sides™ of the issue of climate change, such as Ian Plimer, Rush Limbaugh, Bob Ward, and John Quiggin, have unfortunately hijacked the Debate™ and caused it to become Polarized™. This is where I, the Honest™ Broker™, comes in -- for only I, the skeptical ignorant onlooker, can cast off all Preconceived Notions™ and all Prior Assumptions™ to provide an Unbiased View™ of the state of climate science.
And this is also why, again, we must free ourselves from any knowledge of Bob Ward's writings.
Posted by: bi -- IJI | August 24, 2009 1:25 PM
Apologies if someone has already posted this:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/08/plimers-homework-assignment/
It's an analysis of Plimers questions sent to Monbiot.
Posted by: Paul UK | August 24, 2009 5:00 PM
bi -IJI.
Thanks for the acknowledgement, but it would be far better if you stayed with your scantily clad women.
Posted by: Dave Andrews | August 24, 2009 5:37 PM
Paul @ 30, thanks for the link to another well-executed demolition job by RC. Should keep Ray, Dave Andrews & co busy for a while (if they bother to read it...)
Posted by: Steve Chamberlain | August 25, 2009 1:49 AM
What's Plimer's degree in again, DA?
Posted by: Mark | August 25, 2009 5:48 AM
@me #26 and subsequent comments
I think my subtle allusion to Whistler might have been missed here.
Posted by: John Quiggin | August 25, 2009 5:39 PM
Mark,
Although it may not account for much (in your eyes) at least Plimer has got his PhD and has been a Professor at two Universities.
I've nothing, per se, against people who work in PR like Bob Ward, but now and again you do have to wonder.
Posted by: Dave Andrews | August 25, 2009 5:55 PM
Steve Chamberlain,
I often read RC but dislike their tendency to censor posts that question them, and often to 'take their ball away' when the going gets bit tough.
Do you ever read CA, by the way?
Posted by: Dave Andrews | August 25, 2009 6:08 PM
Dave Andrews:
No they don't you liar.
Posted by: Dave R | August 25, 2009 6:41 PM
Dave Andrews @36,
Are you seriously trying to claim plimer has the authority of science and is up against the power of PR?
Plimer who can't even cite his sources and is backed by PR lobby groups such Heartland and the IPA. Versus the national accadamies of science in every major nation, the top journals, and the top scientist in the feild.
Ehm... grit those teeth Dave, even you might find that hard to swallow.
Posted by: Mark Byrne | August 25, 2009 9:43 PM
I think your reference to Whistler was a bit too subtle, Prof Q (at least till you made it explicit), but Jesus, that's beautiful on so many levels!
Posted by: David Irving (no relation) | August 25, 2009 11:03 PM
Dave Andrews:
Thank you for your argument by supposed authority.
Posted by: Chris O'Neill | August 25, 2009 11:21 PM
Please answer the question, DA:
What is Plimer's degree and PhD in.
Posted by: Mark | August 26, 2009 6:22 AM
Dave Andrews (36): "Do you ever read CA, by the way?"
No. Why? 1) See the first part ofDirk Hartog's post.
2) In the unlikely event I was interested in CA propaganda I can just read your summaries.
Posted by: Steve Chamberlain | August 31, 2009 2:00 AM