Apr 14 2009
Australia’s Top Earth Scientist Dismisses Global Warming Theories
Crude and amateurish ‘science’ – that is how I sum up the views of one of the world’s top Earth Scientists regarding the debunked alarmist theories of man-made global warming. The conclusions of Dr. Ian Plimer are found in the article from down under (WUWT posted the whole article – which I believe is not proper unless they have republication rights). The conclusions are damning  and can be found in a new book Plimer has written (which I also intend to go buy):
The subject of this column is not small. It is a book entitled Heaven And Earth, which will be published tomorrow. It has been written by one of Australia’s foremost Earth scientists, Professor Ian Plimer.Â
…
The book’s 500 pages and 230,000 words and 2311 footnotes are the product of 40 years’ research and a depth and breadth of scholarship. As Plimer writes: “An understanding of climate requires an amalgamation of astronomy, solar physics, geology, geochronology, geochemistry, sedimentology, tectonics, palaeontology, palaeoecology, glaciology, climatology, meteorology, oceanography, ecology, archaeology and history.”
…
If we look at the last 6 million years, the Earth was warmer than it is now for 3 million years. The ice caps of the Arctic, Antarctica and Greenland are geologically unusual. Polar ice has only been present for less than 20 per cent of geological time.Â
…
Is dangerous warming occurring? No.
Is the temperature range observed in the 20th century outside the range of normal variability? No.
…
“To reduce modern climate change to one variable, CO2, or a small proportion of one variable – human-induced CO2 – is not science. To try to predict the future based on just one variable (CO2) in extraordinarily complex natural systems is folly. Yet when astronomers have the temerity to show that climate is driven by solar activities rather than CO2 emissions, they are dismissed as dinosaurs undertaking the methods of old-fashioned science.”
Over time, the history of CO2 content in the atmosphere has been far higher than at present for most of time. Atmospheric CO2 follows temperature rise. It does not create a temperature rise. CO2 is not a pollutant. Global warming and a high CO2 content bring prosperity and longer life.
The settled ‘science’ of man-made global warming is about to become very unsettled indeed.
Are any data officially published for this most recent winter?
I understand that you Americans had a very bad winter and even here in London it was colder than it has been for years.
England is not a wintry country but we had a month of solid snow, below zero (C). We do not ever get below zero (F).
I think this last winter is proof that the earth is cooling down.
I think maybe soon, it will become what you call hate speech, to
say no global warming. I understand. It is a means to an end.
I believe they used to say that the end justifies the means.
And that is why I can not any longer support the left.
There was a time when I wanted to win, but not like this.
AJ;
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but until this administration and the leaders (Obama, Pelosi and Reid) understand items like this, we WILL have cap-and-trade, limits on coal and oil electrical plants, etc.
Every time I hear a politician say “electric cars”, my engineering mind says don’t these people know, electricity doesn’t grow on trees. You need more power plants, nuclear, cogeneration, coal and oil. President Bush pushed each year, in his state of the union address, for more nuclear and other power plants. Obama wants to save the planet based on “junk science”.
I feel bad for our future generations, they will be the ones burdened with this nonsense.
Daniel,
Next report comes out tomorrow and I will likely blog about it. We seem to be suffering from bad data though, which has this a very warm winter in the minds of many.
Hard to see how this could come out as a “warm” winter – Lake Superior froze over completely a month or so back, and that rarely happens.
Having a couple of kids, I have tried to understand both sides of the global warming/climate change debate [based on what I have read, I’ll probably be dead before being materially impacted if the proponents of the theories are proven correct].
The excerpts from this individual’s views in your article are interesting but [for the most part] do not seem relevant.
The fact that CO2 has been higher in the past, as well as temperatures, and that polar ice has often been less or non-existent then it is today, does not seem relevant to the core element of the debate [which I believe is the current shore-line].
I am not convinced that [at current or future levels of CO2 production] major portions of Greenland and Antarctica will melt faster than they would have without human produced CO2. I do accept that it is possible that this could be happening and sea levels could rise significantly in the next century [faster than they may have otherwise; which would be a catastrophe for many countries – including the US].
I am risk averse by nature, so, for the sake of my kids [and theirs], I believe we need to do more to reduce CO2 emissions [just in case, err on the side of caution].