The Weekend Australian published an Op-Ed by Professor Mike Sandiford on the 31st December 2011 in which he criticised Professor Ian Plimer’s latest book. An abridged reply by Professor Ian Plimer was published on the 4th January 2012 by the Australian, and Plimer’s unabridged reply is posted below.
Science blinded by political ideology
Rather than an ad hominem attack (Weekend Australian 31.12.2011-1.1.2012, Inquirer, p. 14), Mike Sandiford should have addressed some basic science to support his case. Why didn’t he declare that there are some 1500 terrestrial volcanoes that emit small amounts of carbon dioxide yet there are more than 3 million submarine volcanoes that emit huge amounts of carbon dioxide? To refer to a lone US Geological Survey author who just happens to conveniently ignore these 3 million annoying carbon dioxide-emitting volcanoes is a window into how the climate industry is blinded by ideology. Or worse.
Why didn’t Sandiford declare that the geological record shows no relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide and temperature? Why did he not acknowledge that there is a close relationship between the Earth’s climate, the Sun and the Earth’s orbit? Why didn’t he state that there have been six major ice ages and all were initiated when atmospheric carbon dioxide was higher than now? Ice core measurements show that after natural warming events, atmospheric carbon dioxide increases 800 years later. Why didn’t Sandiford mention this? Why did he not declare that to form the very common rock dolomite, the atmospheric carbon dioxide content had to be orders of magnitude higher than at present? Why did he not declare that the atmospheric carbon dioxide content has been decreasing for hundreds of millions of years because of natural sequestration in sediments?
Why didn’t Sandiford state that in historical times there have been warmings (Roman, Medieval) and coolings (Dark Ages, Little Ice Age) when there was no relationship between temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide? Or do we just ignore the past. Why didn’t he declare that for the last 150 years there have been three warmings and three coolings and that there is no relationship between these events and human emissions of carbon dioxide? Why didn’t he show that the effect of a minor greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, is minuscule compared to the massive effect of water vapour?
For years, such basic scientific omissions of established facts have crippled the credibility of the climate industry. This is why the punter does not accept pronouncements from upon high that so clearly defy common sense. And not a word from Sandiford about the IPCC fraud, the fraudulent ‘hockey stick’, Climategate 1, Climategate 2 and the litancy of failed IPCC predictions. Why not? Is Sandiford not up to date, is he blinded by political ideology or does he just ignore the embarrassingly messy bits? Does he really believe that an incredibly complex system such as climate is driven by human additions of traces of a trace gas? After all, the IPCC states that 3% of the total annual emissions of carbon dioxide are of human origin. Sandiford and catastrophist colleagues have yet to prove that this 3% drives global warming and the 97% does not. Why didn’t Sandiford declare that his university department is lavishly funded by the climate industry, as I showed in my book How to get expelled from school? If he lived outside the closeted academic world, the lack of such a declaration would have been illegal.
Why is there no mention of the role of the Sun and climate? Since the end of Little Ice Age, there has been a significant increase in solar irradiance until the end of the 20th Century. Has Sandiford ever considered that the great ball of heat in the sky we call the sun might actually have something to do with global temperature? How does Sandiford explain global warming on other planets where, last time I looked, there were no carbon dioxide emitting industries. Why didn’t Sandiford mention that there are solar-related cycles of air and ocean temperatures and that the sun drives the water cycle which in turn drives the carbon cycle? Climate is about energy, not a trace gas, and this energy comes from the sun. Does he not consider that the post-Maunder Mininum (1645-1715 AD) temperature rise might be due to the sun? There have been a number of periods in the last 150 years when human emissions of carbon dioxide increased strongly yet temperature decreased. Why hasn’t Sandiford shown a simple correlation between human emissions of carbon dioxide and temperature? The answer is simple. He can’t. There is no such correlation. He would know that without correlation there is no causation.
Oceans contain far more heat that the atmosphere and have a profound effect on climate. Why did Sandiford choose to ignore that sea surface temperatures have been declining? He didn’t even call upon his area of expertise, tectonics, to show that heat is also added to the oceans from below and that climates change enormously with shifting continents. Sandiford was quite happy to quote NASA. He also just happens to omit that in the 20 years since the global warming scare was launched, human emissions of carbon dioxide have risen by 50% yet global temperatures measured by NASA satellites are only 0.1°C warmer than the average throughout the 32 years since satellite measurements began. I only have to move a few metres to experience such catastrophic warming!
As for quoting Mrs Gina Rinehart stating that “she has never met a geologist who believes that adding more CO2 to the atmosphere will have any significant effect on climate”, maybe the climate industry should get away from their computer models that use other people’s data and get outside. Mrs Rinehart’s geologists find new resources, add wealth and create employment by using exactly the same empirical interdisciplinary science that confirms that human-induced warming is not in accord with observed data. These geologists just also happen to provide the taxation base from which the climate industry operates.
My book How to get expelled from school has 101 simple scientific questions for pupils, parents and punters to ask those who make catastrophic ideological predictions. I ask Sandiford an easy one: Which part of the last 330-year trend of warming is natural and which part is human-induced? If Sandiford has an answer, it will need to be supported by empirical evidence. Don’t wait up.
The threat of human-induced global warming comes from computer models that spit out pre-programmed predictions. Does Sandiford tell the reader that these models use ‘adjusted’ temperature data and just happen to ignore geology, history and clouds. No. Why not? There is far from general acceptance about the feedback effects of clouds and water vapour. The IPCC models assume that increased water vapour from more atmospheric carbon dioxide would greatly increase temperatures yet many scientists show that this feedback is unlikely to increase temperature and may even lower temperature. Why didn’t Sandiford state that there are huge uncertainties in trying to model very complex natural systems or does he just uncritically accept anything displayed on a computer screen?
I don’t accept these climate computer models because they are not in accord with measurements across the breadth of the natural sciences. If the climate industry can produce validated repeatable measurements to show that global temperature is caused by human additions of carbon dioxide, then I am quite happy to change my opinion. However, I think I will die waiting.
Science is married to evidence, skepticism, doubt and uncertainty and, by contrast, I am happy to be part of this process. What Sandiford did show is that the science of climate is not settled, there is no scientific consensus and that the issue has nothing to with science and is about politics. Some of us have been saying this for decades.
Ian Plimer is Emeritus Professor of Earth Sciences at The University of Melbourne.
