Heaven and Earth By Ian Plimer Connor Court, pp, $ ONE of the peculiar things about being an astronomer is that you receive, from. Today I attended the formal launch of Professor Ian Plimer’s new book “Heaven and Earth” (held in the historic balcony room of South. Heaven and Earth has ratings and 30 reviews. Blair said: Ian Plimer is a professor of Geology at the University of Adelaide in Australia, specializin.
|Published (Last):||8 February 2012|
|PDF File Size:||6.68 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||1.68 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Goodreads helps you keep track of books you want to read. Want to Read saving…. Want to Read Currently Reading Read.
Refresh and try again. Open Preview See a Problem? Thanks for telling us about the problem. Return to Book Page. Preview — Heaven and Earth by Ian Plimer. The Missing Science by Ian Plimer. In this controversial new book Australia’s leading geologist makes the case that carbon dioxide is just one of many factors that drive climate– and a relatively insignificant one at that. Heaven and Earth engagingly and comprehensively synthesizes what we know– or think we know– about the sun, earth, ice, water, and air.
Heaven and Earth is a powerful argument against m In this controversial new book Australia’s leading geologist makes the case that carbon dioxide is just one of many factors that drive climate– and a relatively insignificant one at that.
Heaven and Earth is a powerful argument against many of the punitive– and expensive– laws that are now being passed to ‘protect’ our environment–Sources other than Library of Congress. Hardcoverpages. To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up. To ask other readers questions about Heaven and Earthplease sign up.
How climate change sceptic Ian Plimer dodges valid criticism
Lists with This Book. May 25, Blair rated it did not like it Shelves: Ian Plimer is a professor of Geology at the University of Adelaide in Australia, specializing in mining geology. This book, his view of the science of climate change, is a difficult read, with a large number of footnotes sometimes taking up half the page. The text often wanders, perhaps to use up some of the references he has accumulated. For readers unfamiliar with climate science, or science in ans, this may create an impression of an expert author with a vast array iwn evidence to back up Ian Plimer is a professor of Geology at the University of Adelaide in Australia, specializing in mining geology.
For readers unfamiliar with climate science, or science in general, this may create an impression of an expert author with a vast array of evidence to back up his writing, which is not necessarily the case. The History chapter, the one closest to his actual expertise, is a detailed account of the many changes ewrth have occurred in climate, mainly over the past few thousand years.
Unfortunately, that history is not known to nearly the same level of detail in which it is presented. As in any science, there is much debate and uncertainty about the magnitude and timing of these events.
Throughout the book Plimer rarely gives any hint to any such uncertainty. According to Plimer’s account, every plague or collapse of a civilization was directly caused by a climate change event. In reality, there is much debate among historians about the role of climate change, and it is only sometimes considered to be a contributing factor.
The extreme climate determinism here is heavem curious, given that it is usually those concerned with anthropogenic climate change who invoke images of civilizations collapsing due to climate. The historical events do not always align with the climate changes that supposedly caused them. For example, the decline of the Roman Empire began well before the peak of the Roman Warming. Contrary to Plimer, the “Dark Ages” was not a climatic period, or even a “terrible time to be alive.
Ian Plimer – RCwiki
The extreme events he describes appear to be a single volcanic eruption with “meteor and comet swarms” no lessnot the general climate of the period. Rather than people starving, agriculture became more productive due to the invention of a superior plow.
If Europe was freezing in the dark, why did the center of power migrate northward from Italy to France, then to Germany during this period? A statement such as “by AD the global climate was far warmer than at eath is misleading because only the European climate is known in any detail. A regional climate change often has only a small haven impact.
The book used as a reference instead of the version, available for free online could not have had any information on the global climate of the period. But although much of the detail is wrong, the general picture of a variable climate in the past is valid. In particular, warming climates are often not always associated with improved agriculture, while cooling often leads to droughts and stormy weather. An informed and balanced discussion of the relevance of this to a warming climate in the future would be welcome, but it is not to be found here.
Instead we get told the false dichotomy that because climate changed naturally in the past, human caused change is not possible in the future. As another example of the quality of the references, on page 59 we are told that during the Roman warming “tropical rains in Africa caused huge flooding of the Nile and many great buildings were inundated.
These changes in rainfall, river flow and lake levels were widespread. In general, references tend to be given for minor items, while major and controversial statements get none.
The remainder of the book, departing ever further from his expertise, is about promoting all possible causes of climate change except carbon dioxide.
Extreme and unsubstantiated statements are common, such as “there is no such thing as the greenhouse effect,” or there is no correlation between carbon dioxide levels and global temperature. In fact, there is a good correlation wherever there is reasonably certain data on all but the shortest time scales. So on page 26 we are shown a chart of temperature compared to carbon dioxide levels, and are told “this diagram shows that the hypothesis that human emissions of CO2 create global warming is invalid.
Any trend can be generated by cherry picking the right six years, as any practicing geologist should know. Similarly, no mathematically literate scientist could make the extraordinary statement on page that “in Australia, 40 major floods were recorded from to Of these, 24 occurred during the first cycle of a double sunspot cycle and 16 in the second cycle, again lan the very strong relationship between solar activity and climate.
An example of the desperate attempt to find any cause of warming other than carbon dioxide is found on page”as the oceans contain 22 times more pllmer than the atmosphere, ocean heat contributes greatly to driving climate and the unseen submarine volcanism can have a profound effect on the surface heat haeven the Earth. As for under-sea volcanoes affecting the climate, the reference he gives is a paper on a single hdaven volcanic vent system.
The paper only says imagine, actually checking a reference! It is only examining the effect of the heat on local biology, not the global climate. But the ultimate departure from reality is found on page”between andthere have been more than more than 90, measurements of atmospheric CO2 by the Pettenkofer method.
These showed peaks in atmospheric CO2 hevenand pli,er In the atmospheric CO2 content ppmv was ezrth than now. If there was any truth to this, the entire case for global warming would be falsified, and the rest of the book would not be necessary.
But almost no scientist, even those most skeptical about global warming, would take this nonsense seriously. My question is, how can a scientist with a good reputation in his own field write a work that is so full of errors and every possible class of logical fallacy?
The examples I give are representative of what is found on almost every page, backed by a horde of references that do not actually support his statements. This is the pseudo-science of a post-modern artist, for whom facts are merely the raw materials to construct a personal fantasy of both what climate science is, and the data that may or may not support it.
This book may be of use someone who is looking for examples to make critics of climate change look foolish. Those looking for “ammunition” to support a preconceived view that global warming is a complete fraud may also think this book useful, but consider the consequences of making a “Pettenkofer method” type of statement to an informed audience. Anyone who actually wants to understand more about the global warming controversy is advised to look elsewhere.
Dec 21, Kiri rated it liked it. I’m reading this because my father recommended it. After my first session of reading I would say that Plimer presents his book as offering up the first comprehensive overview of climate science covering annd of the relevant sciences. I have found it both educational and frustrating so far; poimer information about the ways in which global warming and cooling have fluctuated greatly throughout planetary history is interesting and comprehensive.
The data about sun cycles and their effects on planeta I’m reading this because my father recommended it. However, Plimer could have used a better editor – his attempt to present a “superior” scientific overview is marred by frequent generalizations about the deluded state of all opposing eartg, and terse, angry statements. A warm period is once described as “stinking hot”; not a phrase I expect from a piece of scientific literature.
I’m going to keep reading it, of course. Before offering up a final review I will have to do further reading to explore Plimer’s conclusions. A piece of relevant information for anyone reading this book: Plimer has plimerr together a perhaps too-comprehensive summation of all the geological, earhh, cosmological factors that influence climate change on earth.
I now have a much greater understanding of how much climate has fluctuated even in pllimer recent history and the extent to which non-CO2 influences seem to have significant influence. I refer to his book as perhaps too-comprehensive because he really rambles on a great deal and sometimes off on tangents that seem significantly less relevant to his central message.
His book will reach a smaller audience because of this, which is too bad; there is information here that more people should be aware of.
Plimer does repeatedly stress the inherent unpredictability of climate, and the bottom line is really that we don’t know and don’t have sufficient data to predict what is really happening with climate change.
Despite the shortcomings of his book and I think the critiques of it make valid, scientifically based points his central message of climate uncertainty and the significant influence pllimer many other factors on climate change are important.
Convinced me that Al Gore global warming alarmism is nothing but a lie and is motivated not by a concern for welfare or resources but for political manipulation and revenue. It carefully answers the true aspects of climate change which by themselves can be proven, but disproves the popular stringing together of these in the familiar mantra of ‘man-made, catastrophic, unprecedented, Co2 emissions triggering a runaway greenhouse effect. The bulk is very heavy on sc 1 book to give to a greeny friend.
The bulk is very heavy on scientific jargon, if you have done at least one science class in yr 11 and 12 you should be able to follow, otherwise there are good historical reasons given as well as modern data manipulation. Dec 07, Zarnesh Kanojia rated it it was amazing. Dec 30, Jerry rated it liked it Shelves: Each chapter presents a series of questions that are answered with evidence.
Are the speed and amount of modern climate change unprecedented? Is dangerous warming occurring? Is the temperature range observed in the 20th Century outside the range of normal variability?
The ice sheets retreated but did not completely melt. Alpine valley glaciers retreated. Vegetation and animal habitats changed. Trees advanced up slope and to esrth latitudes and there was no extinction of life. Life on Earth thrived and there were fewer cold snaps.