Debate with Professor Plimer on his Book: Heaven and Earth: Scientific Documentation or Misrepresentation

I include this information for anyone who may wish to challenge Professor Plimer on the conflict of interest between his private interests and professional work, examples include the distortion of science in his recent book, including lack of accuracy and academic integrity, intellectual honesty and sensitivity.

Heaven and Earth: Scientific Documentation or Misrepresentation
1. Introduction
Plimer’s book starts with the conclusion that there is no "evidential basis" that humans have caused recent warming and that the theory that humans can create global warming is contrary to validated knowledge from solar physics, astronomy, history, archeology and geology. Plimer appears to accept any reports that supports his conclusion and rejects any evidence that contradicts this conclusion. In some cases Plimer alters the conclusions of the cited reports to support his opinions.

2. Public Statements by Professor Plimer

2.1 Plimer has stated publicly the following:
“From my experience of challenging creationism, I argue that the global warming movement is an ascientific urban religious fundamentalist movement detached from the environment.”

“Adherents uncritically accept information from the web, Wikipedia and blog sites, yet have little knowledge of integrated interdisciplinary science”
"One group of scientists the Atmospheric scientists dominate climate science."

“What’s in it for climate scientists, follow the money, it’s a cause, a fad.”

"You don’t die because of temperature increase, humans adapt. Temperature change is not going to kill us."

Plimer claims “it is not possible to ascribe a carbon dioxide increase to human activity".

3. Plimer’s Data on Global Mean temperatures

3.1 Presentation of Graphs Fig 1.
The first graph in your book (page 11) figure 1 un-sourced (but is from the Handley centre Fig 1b) based on a graph in AR4WGI Technical Summary. This graph presents a incorrect drop in global mean temperatures of 0.3C between 2007-2008. This inaccuracy and distortion of scientific fact comes from using the temps for the first half of 2008 to represent all of 2008. In reality the fall is 0.089C. Has Plimer explained the discrepancies?

3.2 Figure 3
Figure 3 (Page 25) in your book presents to prove that CO2 doesn't cause warming because of all the cooling in the "post-war economic boom" you use a graph, without reference produced for the Great Global Warming Swindle on Channel 4.
It was shown that the programme altered the timeline, creating the false impression that most of the rise in temperature last century took place before 1940.
Subsequent editions of the programme corrected the timeline (see below IPPC 2007). But Plimer leaves the graph – and its convenient error – intact.

Yet on page 467 Plimer addresses their request claiming they did so because that deemed Swindle to present an "incorrect moral outlook", therefore you were well aware of what was wrong with the Swindle graph but nevertheless used it anyway.

3.3 Scientific Integrity
The presentation of information in the aforementioned manner questions the scientific integrity, ethical sensitivity and intellectual honesty of Plimer’s research. The conclusions that can be taken from using the graph one that was a schematic and was not based on data about temperatures in the 20th century are based on incomplete, old and apparently intentionally falsified data, and were used clearly to mislead the public regarding the status of current scientific knowledge.

Plimer is ignoring all of the peer reviewed research that has been done since then, you are intentionally misleading the public about the science of the reconstruction of past climate.

4. Volcanic Emissions of Carbon Dioxide

4.1 Mount Pinatubo emitted as much CO2 as humans in a year.

Plimer states that in June 1991, the second largest volcanic eruption of the twentieth century at Mount Pinatubo emitted as much CO2 as humans in a year. (page 472)

This claim is not referenced. Where is the data to support this claim obtained from, what is the scientific reference? Monitoring data from the atmospheric monitoring station at Mauna Loa Observatory and others do not support your statement.


4.1.1 Scientific Evidence states otherwise

According to the British Geological Survey: "Measurements of CO2 levels over the past 50 years do not show any significant rises after eruptions. Total emissions from volcanoes on land are estimated to average just 0.3 Gt of CO2 each year – about a hundredth of human emissions."

4.2 Volcanoes produce more CO2 than humans.

Plimer states that volcaneous prodce more C02 than humans. This fact is not supported with any scientific reference.

4.2.1 Scientific Evidence states otherwise
According to the US Geological Survey humans produce 130 times more CO2 than volcanoes.

4.3 US GS does not include underwater volcanoes.
Plimer has since stated that the figure for the US GS does not include underwater volcanoes.

4.3.1 Scientific Evidence states otherwise
Dr. Terrance Gerlach of the USGC says that the 130 figure does include the underwater volcanoes so your comments are incorrect.

4.4 Further Reference: Volcanic Contributions to the Global Carbon Cycle. British Geological Survey 2005.
This report focuses on just the volcanic contribution to the global carbon cycle and is intended to provide a reference work for future studies. “Present day geological emissions of CO2 include volcanic emissions (both passive, from volcanoes in repose, and those related directly to eruptive activity) and non volcanic – direct emissions from the earths crust and litosphere. The contribution to the present day atmospheric CO2 loading from volcanic emissions is however relatively insignificant, and it has been estimated that subaerial volcanism releases around 300MT/Yr CO2, equalivent to just 1% of anthropogenic emissions (Morner & Etiope, 2002)”

5. Humans and Carbon Dioxide

5.1 Plimer claims that only 4% of the CO2 in the atmosphere is produced by humans.

5.1.1 Carbon in the Atmosphere
Over the last 150 years, carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations have risen from 280 to nearly 380 parts per million (ppm). Atmospheric CO2 concentration increased by only 20 ppm over the 8000 years prior to industrialization. Emissions of CO2 from fossil fuel use and from the effects of land use change on plant and soil carbon are the primary sources of increased atmospheric CO2.

Since 1750, it is estimated that about 2/3rds of anthropogenic CO2 emissions have come from fossil fuel burning and about 1/3rd from land use change. About 45% of this CO2 has remained in the atmosphere, while about 30% has been taken up by the oceans and the remainder has been taken up by the terrestrial biosphere. Observations demonstrate that dissolved CO2 concentrations in the surface ocean (pCO2) have been increasing nearly everywhere, roughly following the atmospheric CO2 increase.

One way that we know that human activities are responsible for the increased CO2 is simply by looking at historical records of human activities. Since the industrial revolution, we have been burning fossil fuels and clearing and burning forested land at an unprecedented rate, and these processes convert organic carbon into CO2.

Careful accounting of the amount of fossil fuel that has been extracted and combusted, and how much land clearing has occurred, shows that we have produced far more CO2 than now remains in the atmosphere. The roughly 500 billion metric tons of carbon we have produced is enough to have raised the atmospheric concentration of CO2 to nearly 500 ppm. The concentrations have not reached that level because the ocean and the terrestrial biosphere have the capacity to absorb some of the CO2 we produce.

However, it is the fact that we produce CO2 faster than the ocean and biosphere can absorb it that explains the observed increase. Another, quite independent way that we know that fossil fuel burning and land clearing specifically are responsible for the increase in CO2 in the last 150 years is through the measurement of carbon isotopes.

Burning fossil fuels produces carbon dioxide enriched with carbon isotope 12C and reduced 13C and essentially no 14C, in other words you can ascribe the increase directly to human activity. CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels or burning forests has quite a different isotopic composition from CO2 in the atmosphere. This is because plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes (12C vs. 13C); thus they have lower 13C/12C ratios. Since fossil fuels are ultimately derived from ancient plants, plants and fossil fuels all have roughly the same 13C/12C ratio – about 2% lower than that of the atmosphere. As CO2 from these materials is released into, and mixes with, the atmosphere, the average 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere decreases.

Isotope geochemists have developed time series of variations in the 14C and 13C concentrations of atmospheric CO2. One of the methods used is to measure the 13C/12C in tree rings, and use this to infer those same ratios in atmospheric CO2. This works because during photosynthesis, trees take up carbon from the atmosphere and lay this carbon down as plant organic material in the form of rings, providing a snapshot of the atmospheric composition of that time. If the ratio of 13C/12C in atmospheric CO2 goes up or down, so does the 13C/12C of the tree rings. This isn’t to say that the tree rings have the same isotopic composition as the atmosphere – as noted above, plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes, but as long as that preference doesn’t change much, the tree-ring changes will track the atmospheric changes.

Sequences of annual tree rings going back thousands of years have now been analyzed for their 13C/12C ratios. Because the age of each ring is precisely known we can make a graph of the atmospheric 13C/12C ratio vs. time. What is found is at no time in the last 10,000 years are the 13C/12C ratios in the atmosphere as low as they are today. Furthermore, the 13C/12C ratios begin to decline dramatically just as the CO2 starts to increase — around 1850 AD. This is exactly what we expect if the increased CO2 is in fact due to fossil fuel burning. Furthermore, we can trace the absorption of CO2 into the ocean by measuring the 13C/12C ratio of surface ocean waters. While the data are not as complete as the tree ring data (we have only been making these measurements for a few decades) we observe what is expected: the surface ocean 13C/12C is decreasing. Measurements of 13C/12C on corals and sponges — whose carbonate shells reflect the ocean chemistry just as tree rings record the atmospheric chemistry — show that this decline began about the same time as in the atmosphere; that is, when human CO2 production began to accelerate in earnest.
In addition to the data from tree rings, there are also of measurements of the 13C/12C ratio in the CO2 trapped in ice cores. The tree ring and ice core data both show that the total change in the 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere since 1850 is about 0.15%. This sounds very small but is actually very large relative to natural variability. The results show that the full glacial-to-interglacial change in 13C/12C of the atmosphere — which took many thousand years — was about 0.03%, or about 5 times less than that observed in the last 150 years.
Studies of carbon isotope 12 conclude that varying degrees of carbon isotopic equilibration between atmospheric CO2 and surface water DIC during the industrial increase of atmospheric pCO2 reflect the dynamic response of the carbon cycle to human interference with magnitudes and rates of change that are unprecedented for the last 600 years and probably for the whole Holocene.

5.2 Plimer states "it is not possible to ascribe a carbon dioxide increase to human activity"

5.2.1 Climate change what and Isotope geochemists say.
“Varying degrees of carbon isotopic equilibration between atmospheric CO2 and surface water DIC during the industrial increase of atmospheric pCO2 reflect the dynamic response of the carbon cycle to human interference with magnitudes and rates of change that are unprecedented for the last 600 years and probably for the whole Holocene.”

5.2.2 What the INTERACADEMY Panel on International Issues a global network of 75 Science Academies state on Anthropogenic Carbon Emissions.

Over the past 200 years, the oceans have absorbed approximately a quarter of the CO2 produced from human activities. This CO2 would otherwise have accumulated in the atmosphere leading to greater climate change.

However, the absorption of this CO2 has affected ocean chemistry and has caused the oceans (which are on average slightly alkaline) to become more acidic. Carbonate ion concentrations are now lower than at any other time during the last 800 000 years.

Global atmospheric CO2 concentrations are now at 387 ppm. If current trends in CO2 emissions continue, model projections suggest that by mid-century CO2 concentrations will be more than double pre-industrial levels and the oceans will be more acidic than they have been for tens of millions of years.

The current rate of change is much more rapid than during any event over the last 65 million years with profound consequences for marine plants and animals.

At current emission rates models suggest that all coral reefs and polar ecosystems will be severely affected by 2050 or potentially even earlier;

Marine food supplies are likely to be reduced with significant implications for food production and security in regions dependent on fish protein, and human health and wellbeing; Ocean acidification is irreversible on timescales of at least tens of thousands of years; We must:

• Recognise that reducing the build up of CO2 in the atmosphere is the only practicable solution to mitigating ocean acidification;

• Recognise the direct threats posed by increasing atmospheric CO2 emissions to the oceans and therefore society, and take action to mitigate this threat;

• Implement action to reduce global CO2 emissions by at least 50% of 1990 levels by 2050 and continue to reduce them thereafter;

5.2.3 Ice-core studies, Climate change and Carbon Dioxide

A recent study “Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica” whose authors included:
• Institute of Geography, Moscow
• School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, University of Miami
• Department of Geosciences, Princeton University, Princeton
• Arctic and Antarctic Research Institute, Russia
• Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l'Environnement, France

The study examined the ice record of atmospheric composition and climate to the past four glacial–interglacial cycles.

The study concluded that: “Present-day atmospheric burdens of these two important greenhouse gases seem to have been unprecedented during the past 420,000 years”


6. Satellites and Radiosondes show that there is no global warming

Plimer states that Satellites and Radiosondes show that there is no global warming (Page 382) citing the following reference: Global Warming 2007. An Update to Global Warming: The Balance of Evidence and Its Policy Implications Authors: Keller, Charles F. Journal: The Scientific World JOURNAL


6.1 Report Abstract does not support Plimer Claim

The report states the following “Most notable the middle troposphere is seen to be warming apace with the surface. The big news is, the collapse of the climate critics' last real bastion, namely that satellites and radiosondes show no significant warming in the past quarter century… But now both satellite and in-situ radiosonde observations have been shown to corroborate both the surface observations of warming and the model predictions. Thus, while uncertainties still remain, we are now seeing a coherent picture in which past climate variations, solar and other forcings, model predictions and other indicators such as glacier recession all point to a human-induced warming that needs to be considered carefully.”

Plimer has somehow managed to reverse the findings of the published paper?



7. Climate Change and Human Health

7.1 Malaria
Plimer claims malaria is common in cold climates (page 199)

7.1.1 The Centre for Disease Control and Prevention state that
“at temperatures below 20°C (68°F), Plasmodium falciparum (which causes severe malaria) cannot complete its growth cycle in the Anopheles mosquito, and thus cannot be transmitted” Where is the evidence to support your claim?

7.2 Temperature
Prof Plimer Claims " don’t die because of temperature increase, humans adapt. Temperature change is not going to kill us"
European public health officials believe that more than 52,000 Europeans died from heat in the summer of 2003, making the heat wave one of the deadliest climate-related disasters in Western history

8. Climate change and Glaciers

8.1 Alpine Glacier
Plimer claims Alpine glaciers are not retreating. Ref p281 and references a scientific paper to support this opinion
Ref: Glacier mass balance: the first 50 years of international monitoring. Roger J. Braithwaite, School of Geography, The University of Manchester.

8.1.1. Report Conclusions
What this Report actually stated was:“There is no sign of any recent global trend towards increased glacier melting”
No mention was made of many other recent scientific studies on glacier retreat including:

8.2 International reports on Glacier Retreat

8.2.1 Recent Global Glacier Retreat Overview
Which states “Since 1980, glacier retreat has become increasingly rapid and ubiquitous, so much so that it has threatened the existence of many of the glaciers of the world. This process has increased markedly since 1995”

8.2.2 The World Glacier Monitoring Service
Which has noted 17 consecutive years of negative mass balances, that is volume losses. Preliminary mass balance values for the observation periods 2005/06 and 2006/07 have been reported now from more than 100 and 80 glaciers worldwide, respectively. The World Glacier Monitoring Service reported that ”The average mass balance of the glaciers with available long-term observation series around the world continues to decrease…The new data continues the global trend in accelerated ice loss over the past few decades.”

9. Climate change and Temperature
9.1 Statements by Plimer on Temperature and Climate Change

• “global temperatures have cooled since 2003”

• “atmospheric temperatures have been decreasing in the 21st century, despite an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide”

• “We've had a warming, up until the late 90s, now we're in a cooling phase.”
On page p391 Plimer claim the Hadley Centre has shown that warming stopped in 1998.

9.1.1 What The Handley Centre States:
“11 of the last13 years were the warmest ever recorded. Average global temperatures are now some 0.75 °C warmer than they were 100 years ago. Since the mid-1970s, the increase in temperature has averaged more than 0.15 °C per decade. This rate of change is very unusual in the context of past changes and much more rapid than the warming at the end of the last ice age Longer term analyses have shown that current warming is being caused mainly by human emissions of greenhouse gases which have accumulated in the atmosphere and intensified the greenhouse effect by absorbing more of the thermal radiation emitted by the land and ocean”

9.2 What the IPPC State: Global Average Temperatures

The IPCC state that “2005 and 1998 were the warmest two years in the instrumental global surface air temperature record since 1850. Surface temperatures in 1998 were enhanced by the major 1997–1998 El Niño but no such strong anomaly was present in 2005. Eleven of the last 12 years (1995 to 2006) – the exception being 1996 – rank among the 12 warmest years on record since 1850.”


10. Antarctic Climate Change & the Environment

This report published by the Scientific committee on Antarctic research. Nov 2009 includes contributions from one hundred experts in Antarctic science and reviewed by over 200 scientists.

The report highlights 'the profound impact that the ozone hole has had on the Antarctic environment over the last 30 years, shielding the continent from much of the effect of global warming. However, this situation will not last. Over the next century we expect ozone concentrations above the Antarctic to recover, but if greenhouse gas concentrations increase at the present rate then temperatures across the continent will increase by several degrees and there will be about one third less sea ice.'

10.1 Carbon in the Oceans

The reports states 'The carbon in the ocean is a mixture from both natural and anthropogenic sources. The anthropogenic fraction comes from human-induced emissions of CO2 into the atmosphere that have continued at an increasing rate since the start of the industrial revolution"


11. Who stands to gain from doubt?

This is one of the most important questions to ask when establishing the context for debate about any complex scientific issue. Interestingly, it is often nonscientists or scientists aligned with nonscientific agendas that raise objections to global warming, for example, lobbyists for the energy and automotive industries and groups have generally opposed government regulation. Much of the nonscientific, popular debate (and denial) centers on values and responses rather than facts, for example the importance of jobs for workers in the coal industry.

In the case of global warming, what is the agenda that justifies efforts to cast doubt on the consensus claims? If global warming becomes widely accepted, some of the consequence may be that:
• federal and state governments might establish more emissions regulations; and
• industries that emit large amounts of carbon dioxide might be required to invest in cleaner technology, etc.
Critics with a stake in those positions have political and economic motives to resist the conclusions of global warming experts. Of course, the strength of an alternative scientific hypothesis is not diminished by the mere motivations of its proponents. If global warming is not occurring, or it is independent of human activity, then the data will support that conclusion regardless of who gathers and interprets those data. What this article shows is that Plimer’s data is lacks transparency and is scientifically inaccurate and misleading.
11.1 Conflict of Interest between private interests and Professional work
Plimer is a director of three mining companies and therefore could be seen to be representing the mining industry not the science. The following statement by Plimer questions the critical judgement and ethical sensitivity of the author clearly demonstrativing his motivations in publishing such a book.

Quotation: Prof Plimer ABN Newswire Interview Brian Carlton
By accepting climate change.. “we will put ourselves out of work, we will put our children out of work, we will shift businesses in Australia, which have a great advantage like mining, smelting and energy industries we will shift them offshore. So if you want to be cautious about the future, don’t put yourself and your children out of work.”

12. The Science of Climate Change
Our planet's climate is anything but simple. Yet despite all the complexities, a firm and ever-growing body of evidence points to a clear picture: the world is warming, this warming is due to human activity increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and if emissions continue unabated the warming will too, with increasingly serious consequences.With so much at stake, it is right that climate science is subjected to the most intense scrutiny. What does not help is for the real issues to be muddied by discredited arguments or wild theories.

12.1 Carbon dioxide is a Greenhouse Gas
We know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas because it absorbs and emits certain frequencies of infrared radiation. Basic physics tells us that gases with this property trap heat radiating from the Earth, that the planet would be a lot colder if this effect was not real and that adding more CO2 to the atmosphere will trap even more heat. The level of CO2 is determined by the balance between sources and sinks, and it would take hundreds of years for it to return to pre-industrials levels even if all emissions ceased tomorrow. Put another way, there is no limit to how much rain can fall, but there is a limit to how much extra CO2 the oceans and other sinks can soak up.

12.2 Climate Science
Climate science is a multidisciplinary field that involves research in ecology, chemistry, geology, glaciology, meteorology, atmospheric science, marine biology, volcanology, computer modeling, and many other disciplines.
Few people—including scientists, who do not specialize in climate science—are qualified to tackle the technical issues in all these areas—at least in any depth.
Science is the most objective method we have for investigating the natural world, but it does not establish certainty and absolutes.
It leads to scientific knowledge that is tentative and incomplete, but consensus develops around well-supported hypotheses, which generally become stronger over time.
Science operates within a framework of explanations of observable phenomena limited to the natural world.
It is crucially based on two characteristics:
1. replicability, i.e., using well-accepted experimental systems and procedures
2. peer review and publication.
Science is not perfect, but it is self-correcting over time because other experts critically examine the work of colleagues and challenge weaknesses in methods and conclusions.

12.3 So is the consensus opinion of experts in climate change ?
An examination of scientific journals shows that the scientific consensus is undeniable. Of over 1000 published papers none of the authors disagreed with the consensus position. There have been arguments to the contrary, but they are not to be found in scientific literature, which is where scientific debates are properly adjudicated.
The IPCC 2007 final report goes even further, stating:
“There is very high confidence that the net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming.”
Furthermore the National Academies from every major county which includes the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine, and the National Research Council and scientific institutions from every continent on the planet have all published statements supporting the consensus that human activity is modifying the climate.

13. Australia: The Worlds Largest Coal Exporter
Australia is the hottest and, bar Antartica, driest continent on Earth. Parts have been embroiled in record drought for the past decade, leaving reservoirs empty and agriculture decimated. Things got so bad that thousands of camels besieged a Northern Territory town last week in search of water. Even the "ships of the desert" couldn't cope.

Australians have the highest per capita carbon emissions of any major developed country thanks to its sprawling suburbs and heavy coal use. According to figures submitted by Canberra to the UN, Australia's emissions from burning fossil fuel have risen 30% from 1990 to 2007 – more even than the US.

Also, Australia is the world's largest coal exporter. Coal exports are worth a staggering 25 billion dollars a year to the Australian economy and make up 30% of the total world coal exports. Industrialists have lobbied loudly against any limits on their emissions. Last year the Business Council of Australia called Rudd's cap-and-trade climate plan a "company killer", and declared war on the policy. In the past month they have seen off the Liberals' Malcolm Turnbull, because he backed that plan.