Heaven And Earth: Global Warming - The Missing Science [Hardcover]

Ian Plimer has had a distinguished career in academia, presently holding the position of Professor of Mining Geology at the University of Adelaide and Emeritus Professor of Earth Sciences at the University of Melbourne, where he was Professor and Head from 1991-2005.

At almost 500 pages (and 2311 footnotes), Plimer takes the reader through a geological and environmental history of the planet. His recounting of geological history is linked closely to human societal trends, where he makes the close link between climate and the relative successes and failures of human society. He asserts that periods when the climate was "warm" were ultimately positive for societies, with colder periods linked to population declines, wars and, in some cases, extinction of whole civilisations.

Plimer argues that climate change is not occurring, or at least that any climate change that is occurring is not directly attributable to man. He argues that the climate today is in fact "cooler" than in more recent periods, such as the times when the Roman Empire was emerging and was at its cultural and economic peak.

Plimer sets out a convincing but self-evidently controversial argument, attacking declarations about carbon pollution and carbon dioxide emissions, the evidence presented in the UN's IPCC reports and the questionable benefits of emission-trading and carbon reductions systems. His argument centres on climate being far more sophisticated and complex than some have asserted. He argues that looking at atmospheric climate alone, without proper consideration of the entire environmental system, is flawed.

In 2007 a High Court judge ruled that An Inconvenient Truth, "Al Gore's award-winning climate change documentary was littered with nine inconvenient untruths". With the film grossing over $50m and Gore charging $100,000 per lecture the notion that global warming was more of a political than an environmental issue is a difficult one to dismiss out of hand. Yet, according to Ian Plimer, the whole concept of global warming through human activity is essentially a political issue with little scientific evidence to support it. Echoing what is happening in many areas of modern science he suggests that "science is becoming a belief system wherein the belief with the greatest number of followers becomes the established fact and received knowledge. This belief is sustained by consensus and authority." However, as Plimer points out, "consensus is not a scientific fact, it is a political process."

Plimer dismisses the claim that humans are creating a massive change in the earth's temperature and argues that "other facts such as major Earth processes, variable solar activity, solar wind and cosmic rays appear to have a far more significant factor on the Earth's climate than previously thought." He suggests that some scientists have misled the public with incomplete and false data by ignoring the history of climate change, in particular, "that during the Medieval Warming (900-1300 AD) the global temperature was a few degrees higher than today". As this was before industrialisation the idea that humans have created climate change cannot be supported.

Although the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is an "ascientific political organisation" its agenda has been set by "environmental activists and government representatives... for a variety of reasons including boosting trade, encouraging protectionism, adding costs to competitors and pushing their own sovereign barrow." He supports Irving Langmuir's argument that, "there is good science, pathological science and psuedoscience" with the last two named failing satisfy the demands of the scientific method. Quoting Charles Babbage, the inventor of the first mechanical computer, he identifies three forms of scientific dishonesty: trimming, bias and forging and suggests supporters of climate change have used all three top buttress their case, particularly in the use and presentation of data.

Plimer presents his case in detailed fashion, covering the history of global warming and providing chapters on the influence on climate change of the Sun, Earth, Ice, Water and Air, posing relevant questions regarding the role of each in global warming. He also makes the accusation that some have confused climate change with the impact of human activity on the weather. He disputes the accuracy of computer models and points out that nature is still capable of providing surprises which humankind does not anticipate. Although "there is a good correlation between temperature and CO2 from 1976 to 1998. Correlation does not mean causation."

Drawing on examples from history Plimer shows that those who have predicted the end of the world have a dismal record when it comes to accuracy. The source of the predictions have changed from religious to scientific conviction but there is no reason to suppose that modern day predictions are any more accurate than their predecessors, although they convey the same moral overtones of penance and changing our ways. In this respect Plimer argues that extreme environmentalism is a new religion which has emerged to fill the space left by the decline of Christianity in the religious sphere and socialism in the secular world. He concludes, "Human induced global warming is an unproven scientific hypothesis yet it has become an article of scientific dogma," cocooned from reality by its own self appointed priesthood of peer reviewers.

In reply the propagators of the global warming theory have labelled Plimer and others as "climate change" deniers which does tend to reinforce the idea that the whole question is political rather than scientific. Indeed, one cannot deny the evangelical zeal with which climate change supporters attack anyone who dissents from their opinion. In response Plimer retorts by asking the question, "What if I'm wrong?", a question he suggests climate change supporters fail to ask of themselves.

Once politicians get hold of an idea truth tends to go out of the window. In this instance the use of science for political ends reflects what is happening in other areas of science. On that basis I have sympathy for Plimer's argument and would suggest that everyone interested in the subject should read his extensive volume to examine the argument against human contributions to climate change. It's well worth the effort. Five stars for the book.

I would say it is a well written but very badly edited book - if that is possible. I like the author's style - but he does repeat himself an awful lot. It's almost as if the author felt the need to constantly "construct the argument" - but in a book in which you have already constructed the argument before - you don't have to keep doing it.

"And this evidence contradicts the case for co2 being a driver of climate....." sounds like a mantra. He doesn't need to keep saying that - the context of what he is writing says it for him. I think the book would be far more effective and compelling if the message was more understated - just allow the evidence to speak for itself

At 500 pages I decided to select a few chapters rather than read through the whole thing.. The Introduction and the History chapter was really interesting. I then looked at the chapter on Ice (to see what he had to say about the alleged disappearing Ice sheets) - but I found this chapter difficult to follow - but then on jumping to the concluding chapter found a paragraph that neatly summed up the issue - namely that the ice breaking off the shelf is simply ice that has come to its 1000 year journey of glacier flow - whilst the ice sheet as a whole is thickening.

The concluding chapter was really good apart from an irrelevant aside about apocalyptic predictions of the past. This book would be seriously improved by getting rid of all the repetitions and presenting it in a slightly less pejorative fashion. It probably only needs to be 200 - 250 pages - not 500. It's the old adage - the more time you spend on something - the less you need to write

But anyway - I have for a long time been suspicious of the global warming alarmism - and really enjoyed what this book had to say about it - and for that alone it gets 5 stars from me - and thanks to a previous reviewer - I have just ordered Nigel Lawson's book

One thing that would have been good to stress more would have been the sources. I know these are probably available in the footnotes - but I'm hardly likely to trowel through academic papers to support a case. It would have been good if more of the sources were mentioned in the text itself. If I am going to quote this book in a discussion with someone the first thing they are going to ask is where the information comes from.

In summary: 10/10 for content - 5/10 for form.