- ISBN13: 9781589794726
- Condition: NEW
- Notes: Brand New from Publisher. No Remainder Mark.
Product Description
Climate, sea level, and ice sheets have always changed, and the changes observed today are less than those of the past. Climate changes are cyclical and are driven by the Earth’s position in the galaxy, the sun, wobbles in the Earth’s orbit, ocean currents, and plate tectonics. In previous times, atmospheric carbon dioxide was far higher than at present but did not drive climate change. No runaway greenhouse effect or acid oceans occurred during times of excessively… More >>
I haven’t read this book, but I think it’s simply awful.
Everyone knows global warming is fact. There is no debate
about the subject, except from idiots like Plimer who dare
to question Al Gore’s great movie. And what a stupid publisher
for having foisted this trash on the public. Shame, shame.
Rating: 1 / 5
Plimer is correct about Global Warming (er, Climate Change) being a fraud perpetrated by wealthy interest groups, but he demonstrates a poor understanding of our local Suin and its total Plasma environment.
Rating: 1 / 5
I’m not a climate scientist. Neither is Ian Plimer. So I read a few web postings to try to find out why Plimer’s views are apparently so different from those of the “consensus” reported by the IPCC panel of thousands of scientists. Some of the postings accuse Plimer of bias, distortions, omissions and downright incorrect information. Plimer’s bias can be suspected from his close association with mining. He’s not very green to say the least. I would guess that, like society, he is in denial. It must be a bit painful to admit and easier to deny that your life work has been screwing up life for everybody from now on.
Four thoughts on such controversies:
1. Very smart people can have totally crackpot views.
2. A scientific consensus can be wrong, but Plimer’s book falls a long way short of making the case that the climate consensus is wrong in concluding that there is strong evidence humans are heating up the planet and we should stop for our own good.
3. Funny how views of the occasional Bjorn Lomborg or Ian Plimer get so much play in the pro-growth media and how little work the media do to try to check out the science through attention to actual research data. What they do instead is get other crackpots to say he’s done a great job in taking on the evil, greedy and misguided scientific establishment. That gives it more credibility if you aren’t paying attention to who’s commenting.
4. Man, we are in a lot of trouble when it is so easy to muddy the water and put off dealing with environmental issues.
Rating: 1 / 5
This is a disgraceful effort by a scientist to use numerous unverified assertions, wrong and debunked graphs, omitted or skewed data, and seemingly blatant lies to undermine a scientific theory he does not agree with. Skepticism is good, but Plimer’s rabid hatred of all things to do with Anthropogenic Global Warming appear to have driven him to utilise exactly the methods he alleges his opponents use to drive an agenda. Google this book and you will find numerous scientists stating that it is a great disservice to science.
Rating: 1 / 5
Everyone of course is entitled to his or her opinion. But nowadays, too many scientists also seem to feel qualified enough to present themselves as experts and arbiters on issues concerning climatology. No geologist, botanist, zoologist or archaeologist would accept a climatologist as a peer on scientific assessments in their respective fields. Yet, scientists from almost any field of study feel all of a sudden competent enough to write about the climate, as if to say “hey, this isn’t rocket science, is it?!” Well, I’ll let you in on a secret: it is. The reading public does not seem to bother though, as if to say “a scientist is a scientist is a scientist. What’s the difference? Close enough.” Yet who in their right mind would entrust an orthopedist or a dermatologist, let alone a biologist or zoologist, with their root canal treatment if they can have a dentist take care of it? I have never heard “close enough” from anybody in THIS context. Furthermore, to turn Michael Crichton’s Einstein quote (“It only takes one scientist to refute me.”) around: whose assessment would you rather trust when it comes to climate issues: one climatologist or ten geologists? Plimer’s book falls exactly into this category: here is a geologist who may write convincingly about climate change. However, competence does not derive from conviction but from expertise. In this sense his book is just another opinion of a lay person with respect to climatology who shares his convictions with the reading public. But truth be told, he has spent his career building an expertise in a scientific field other than climatology.
Rating: 1 / 5