Heaven and Earth: Global Warming: The Missing Science by Ian Plimer

Heaven and Earth: Global Warming: The Missing Science Reviews

• 
  Blair

  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 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 that 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 rather 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." Rather, its causes were internal political and external military pressures on the Roman Empire and its successors. The extreme events he describes appear to be a single volcanic eruption (with "meteor and comet swarms" no less), not 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 300 AD the global climate was far warmer than at present" is misleading because only the European climate is known in any detail. A regional climate change often has only a small global impact. The 1977 book used as a reference (instead of the 1995 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." If you bother to scan down to read the two references given, one is a paper on the prairies in North America, the other is about the west coast of Spain and Portugal. 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." This chart covers a six year time span. 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 361 that "in Australia, 40 major floods were recorded from 1900 to 1982. Of these, 24 occurred during the first cycle of a double sunspot cycle and 16 in the second cycle, again showing the very strong relationship between solar activity and climate." This small amount of data has no statistical significance.
  
  An example of the desperate attempt to find any cause of warming other than carbon dioxide is found on page 209, "as the oceans contain 22 times more heat than the atmosphere, ocean heat contributes greatly to driving climate and the unseen submarine volcanism can have a profound effect on the surface heat of the Earth." In fact, the oceans contain one thousand times more heat than the atmosphere. As for under-sea volcanoes affecting the climate, the reference he gives is a 1979 paper on a single submarine volcanic vent system. The paper only says (imagine, actually checking a reference!) the plume becomes undetectable 150 meters above the bottom. 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 416, "between 1812 and 1961, there have been more than more than 90,000 measurements of atmospheric CO2 by the Pettenkofer method. These showed peaks in atmospheric CO2 in 1825, 1857 and 1942. In 1942 the atmospheric CO2 content (400 ppmv) was higher than now." The reference is to a non peer-reviewed journal. 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.
• 
  Robert Melnyk

  Excellent book on the topic of Global Warming. This is a fairly slow read because it is very detailed, scientific, and well documented, but well worth the read. I have always felt that the whole "global warming/climate change" thing was a bunch of BS, and this book confirms it. The climate IS changing. It has changed since the earth was formed over 4 billion years ago. It changed, with both warming and cooling long before humans existed, and it will continue to change long after we are gone. There have been periods when the earth was far warmer and also periods where the earth was far cooler than it is today. Periods where the earth was warmer were actually beneficial to live on earth, so a warming trend is NOT a significant problem for humanity. Humans putting CO2 into the atmosphere is not what causes climate change. The climate changes due to many factors including solar activity, plate tectonics, the wobble if the earth rotating on its axis, and the position of the solar system within the galaxy. Any man caused influence on climate change is so miniscule as to be insignificant. If you think that man has any significant impact on climate change, then you do not have an understanding of the geological and archeological history of the planet.
• 
  Ray

  To be honest, I quit on this book. From what little I actually read at the beginning, I just didn't believe the rest of the book was going to be any more accurate than the beginning. By accurate, I mean that the author (a geologist and director of several mining companies) had made several statements, purportedly according to the mainstream science, which was contrary to what the science actually showed. I only know that because I've taken several college classes on climate change, and was familiar with the findings of the IPCC and major scientific bodies. So I did a quick google search on the author and the book, and found that most reviews were consistently negative.
  Those reviews were was enough to convince me to put the book down, and instead look for books written by people who do actual climate science, and without links and conflicts of interest with coal mining operations.
  
  For example, one review from Sourcewatch (ref:
  http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/...) pointed out and documented numerous errors and misrepresentations in Plimer's book. They noted that Plimer's denialist book on global warming was published in 2009 and sold about 20,000 copies in Australia and a similar amount in the USA. The book was universally panned by scientists as full of errors and even accused of plagiarism. One reviewer, Ian Enting, compiled an extensive "list of errors" for the book (Ian Plimer’s ‘Heaven + Earth’—Checking the Claims) which makes for an interesting review for anyone interested in proving the point.
  
  After the publication of his book met with harsh criticism from The Guardian's George Monbiot, who derided the book, saying that "Since its publication in Australia it has been ridiculed for a hilarious series of schoolboy errors, and its fudging and manipulation of the data". Plimer and Monbiot eventually crossed swords on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation program Lateline in December, 2009. The video showed Plimer obfuscating, refusing to answer questions, and clearly discomforted when his erroneous scientific statements about global warming were directly challenged. Peter Jackson of the Canadian paper, The Telegram, summarised the debate as follows: "For Plimer, it was an unmitigated disaster. He fudged and distracted at every turn like a senile old goat. In the end, he refused to answer a single question put to him by Monbiot or the moderator. His credibility - and that of his book - withered away into oblivion."
• 
  Jonathan Hockey

  I can sense areas where his commitment to being anti the mainstream global warming agenda leads him to exaggerate his claims, but for most part, putting that aside, I found this to be a very interesting book on the much more complicated reality of climate change of our planet earth. compared to the over-simplistic, politically motivated accounts of human induced global warming based on CO2. These serve to swipe over any details that do not fit in line with its narrative and do a disservice to our understanding of climate, by creating moral and emotional fears and panic around it. Catastrophising, as a way to scare people into handing over resources to centralised global institutions. We have little to be guilty about, this book suggests. CO2 levels are much lower than they have been at past times on planet earth, and furthermore, increased CO2 actually aids plant growth. The most remarkable thing to me is how they ever managed to pull the wool over so many people's eyes with global warming guilt tripping. I was included myself at one time. Its a case study in controlling the narrative and shutting down opposition, and proliferation of its propaganda. You can't blame them for trying this ruse, it was a great way to manipulate a lot of people, but I think people are now beginning wake up from that particular scare story. Hopefully more people can buck the trend like this book and author, and we can begin to look into the intricate science of climate change with a more humble eye.
• 
  Douglas Ross

  If you think you understand Global Warming and that's because you formed your opinion information from the information that was in the popular press and the opinions of political leaders like Gore, you really need to read this book.
• 
  Nehem

  This is my 4th or 5th book on current climate change debate that I have read. This presents thorough documentation and cogent argument. I'd say it is not worth 5 stars but >4.5 stars for sure. In the next two decades or so, if sanity is restored in this world, this book will be proved correct.
  
  Basically, it is not anthropogenic CO2 that drives the global climate. (The Roman Warming, Medieval Warming periods, and the Little Ice Age can't be explained by man's CO2 input. And these facts are totally ignored by the Hockystickers.) The major driver seems to be *surprise, surprise* the variations in solar radiation.
  
  A side benefit of this book is its offer of a good look at how fallible the scientific community is and how politicization ruins the peer-review process, touted to be self-correcting and thud idolized by folks on the inside of each sub-field.
  
  Again, give it a few decades and we could see another shift in the mainstream media and the "scientific consensus" from the imaginary global warming to an impending ice age.
• 
  John

  While reading this book I couldn't help being reminded of the following:
  
  "In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity."
  
  "The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present -- and is gravely to be regarded."
  
  From President Eisenhower's Farewell Address to the Nation, January 17, 1961.
  
  This text is virtually unknown and immediately follows Ike's very well known admonition against the military industrial complex. Here though he is warning of the dire pitfalls of an academic research complex that is just as disastrous and devastating.
  
  Plimer substantiates Eisenhower's fears when he states that the current "climate science lacks scientific discipline, that an understanding of climate requires an amalgamation of astronomy, solar physics, geology, geochronology, geochemistry, sedimentology, tectonics, palaeontology, paleontology, glaciology, climatology, meteorology, oceanography, ecology, archeology and history." These are the disciplines that Plimer addresses in the book to make his argument that the "scientific method" is flagrantly lacking in the current climate debate.
  
  Eisenhower continued: "Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite."
  
  The author again critically focuses on this point by imploring "that Science is not dogmatic and cannot be resolved by authority or consensus. Scientific evidence is unrelated to politics, ideology, popular paradigms, worldviews, fads, ethics, morality, religion and culture and to argue that humans can differentiate between human induced climate changes and natural climate changes is naive."
  
  Unfortunately, we have fallen into the maelstroms Eisenhower warned us about of an academic research complex and a scientific-technological elite that is caught in a web of spending and arrogance with faulty conclusions and non scientific research. The current discussions on global warming are defined in the public arena by partisanship and ideology rather than rigorous empirical thought and forthright analysis and discussion.
  
  Plimer has done an excellent job with this book and writes with understanding, without hype and gives a thorough discourse of Earth's history, the climate and the forces and factors facing our planet today. In his Et Moi he concludes that "evidence that supports the established belief ie. global warming is readily accepted. Evidence to the contrary is ignored or dismissed. Belief is a word of religion and politics; it is not a word of science and skepticism is fundamental to science."
  
  In the final analysis I prescribe to the belief of the Milankovitch Cycles, magnetic reversals and more. We are now in an interglacial and soon, very soon, the Earth will again succumb to a full blown Ice Age. But for today take heart in Plimer's words that Planet Earth has been a warm wet greenhouse volcanic planet for 80% of time and therefore polar ice has been present for only 20% of its life.
  
  
  
• 
  Kiri

  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 all of the relevant sciences). I have found it both educational and frustrating so far; the 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 planetary heating/cooling are also interesting. 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 scientists, 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:
  
  http://bravenewclimate.files.wordpres...
  
  Conclusions! Plimer has put together a perhaps too-comprehensive summation of all the geological, climatological, cosmological factors that influence climate change on earth. I now have a much greater understanding of how much climate has fluctuated (even in relatively 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 of many other factors on climate change are important.
• 
  Rob McLaverty

  As a student of geology, I find this book hard to take seriously. The very arguments Plimer uses against the global warming paradigm he also uses to back up his own case. Selectively choosing data from academic studies where it is often misinterpreted.
  
  Claims such as "Carbon in the atmosphere constitutes 0.001% of the total carbon in the upper crust" (found in the opening chapter) may be true, and can be backed up by the literature, but is the kind of sensationalism undermines the essence of science. Yes there is a lot of carbon in the crust but it is atmospheric CO2 which causes the greenhouse effect, and carbon in the crust makes no difference.
  
  I found the book to be easy(ish) to read, although some of the most powerful and interesting parts of planetary/climate science are ignored. I would suggest people do not draw their conclusions from this book, but let it be a warning to show how someone can manipulate evidence provided by the scientific community and arrive and wildly different interpretations.
  
  I also actively refute what Plimer claims in the final chapter about the majority of studies not supporting the general theory that human-induced warming can or does exist. The overwhelming scientific community agree the the effects of increased CO2 from anthropogenic sources will cause large effects on the oceans and the climate. Scientists are interested in finding out the truth, and nothing else.
• 
  Tyson Adams

  This book is one of the most misleading and grossly fraudulent books on the topic of climate change and global warming. Ian has a book filled with contradictions, claims that are unsupported with references, referencing that is deceptive or fraudulent, and some flat out lies (solid iron core of the sun, seriously!?).
  
  It is hard to take a non-fiction book seriously when it contradicts itself so many times. The best example is his statements about CO2: Temperature and CO2 are not connected (p278). Yet he also says; Together with water vapour, CO2 keeps our planet warm (p411).
  
  For a further breakdown of his flawed book refer to this:
  Plimer vs Plimer
  Professor Ian Enting also covered the flaws:
  http://www.complex.org.au/tiki-download_file.php?fileId=91
  
  Anyone who wastes their time on this book will only be dumber and more confused for the experience. I'll be sticking with the peer-reviewed science rather than this rubbish. Funded by his mates in the Aussie oil industry.
• 
  Cheryl

  This is an excellent book on climate science. It includes so much information about past climate change and the influence of the Earth’s position in the galaxy, the Sun cycles, wobbles in the Earth’s orbit, ocean currents and plate tectonics on climate change. The book is long and slow read because it is loaded with scientific information, graphs and references.
  
  The author, Ian Plimer is a twice winner of Australia’s highest scientific honor, the Eureka Prize and is professor in the School of Earth and Environmental Science at the University of Adelaide as well as the author of more than 120 scientific papers. The science of climate change has been politicized and many experts have chosen to ignore or minimize many other contributing factors in addition to carbon dioxide and human activities. Plimer sheds light on so much more that is involved in explaining climate change.
  
  This is not an easy read but for those who are scientifically inclined it is a very interesting read.
• 
  Terachet Rojrachsombat

  Pseudoscience
• 
  Jerry

  Excellent book presenting the scientific case against the popular theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AWG).
  
  Each chapter presents a series of questions that are answered with evidence. For example:
  "Question: Are the speed and amount of modern climate change
  unprecedented? Answer: No.
  Question: Is dangerous warming occurring? Answer: No.
  Question: Is the temperature range observed in the 20th Century outside the range of normal variability? Answer: No."
  
  "During the last interglacial period, sea level was 6 metres higher than today. Air temperature was anything from 2°C to 6°C warmer. The ice sheets retreated but did not completely melt. Alpine valley glaciers retreated. Vegetation and animal habitats changed. Trees advanced up slope and to higher latitudes and there was no extinction of life. Life on Earth thrived and there were fewer cold snaps. There was no industry emitting CO2 at that time so this warming can only be natural."
  
  "Since the late Pleistocene Epoch there have been about ten alternating colder and warmer periods, the warmest being the Atlantic time corresponding to the late Neolithic and Bronze ages in human history. This period was warmer than the twentieth century and global sea level was about 10 to 12 feet higher. Climate turned cooler when the Sub-Boreal time started at about the time the Bronze Age turned to the Iron Age. The current Sub-Atlantic time warmed starting about 500 BCE. Within the current Sub-Atlantic time there have been still smaller shifts such as the Medieval Warming from about 1000 CE until the 1300's, and a cooler time known as the Little Ice Age running to the mid-1800's."
  
  "In the Roman Warming from 250 BC to 450 AD, temperature was at least 2°C higher than today. It was a period of global warming. Population increased, there was excess wealth and warm climate agriculture could be undertaken in areas at much higher latitudes and altitudes than now. Forests expanded. This warming could not be due to human emissions of CO2
  The Dark Ages followed. This was a bitterly cold period of crop failure, famine, disease, war, depopulation, expansion of ice and increased wind. During the Dark Ages there was great social disruption and murderous climate refugee gangs wandered Europe looking for food. Civilisations such as the Mayans collapsed.
  The Medieval Warming (900-1300 AD) was a wonderful time for life on Earth. Ice sheets, glaciers and sea ice contracted, enabling sea exploration and settlement at high latitudes. Grain crops, cattle, sheep, farms and villages were established on Greenland which was at least 6°C warmer than today. Although there was a cold period of 40 years in the Medieval Warming, crop failures and famine were rare. The population increased and there was enough food to feed the additional tens of millions of people. Excess wealth created over generations was used to build cathedrals, monasteries and universities. The Medieval Warming was global. This warming could not possibly be due to human emissions of CO2."
  
  "Question: Do thermometer measurements show the planet is warming?
  Answer: No.
  Q: Do other temperature measurements show the planet is warming?
  Answer: No.
  Question: Is atmospheric CO2 of human origin increasing? Answer: Possibly.
  Question: Is atmospheric CO2 approaching a dangerous level?
  Answer: No.
  Question: Do higher sea temperatures cause more hurricanes?
  Answer: No.
  Question: Do clouds influence climate? Answer: Yes."
  
  "There is no such thing as the greenhouse effect. The atmosphere behaves neither as a greenhouse nor as an insulating blanket preventing heat escaping from Earth. Competing forces of evaporation, convection, precipitation and radiation create an energy balance in the atmosphere.
  Historical thermometer measurements are flawed, contain bias, have a low order of accuracy, do not cover the planet's surface equally and are a combination of land surface measurements, the effects of urbanization and the effects of changing land use patterns. The data quality is not research quality hence no conclusions about future trends can be made.
  Satellite and balloon measurements provide a more accurate data set. These show that there is no global warming. Temperature proxies give general climate trends and are not accurate enough for global temperature predictions."
  
  A similar book that I liked better is:
  The Whole Story of Climate, What Science Reveals about the Nature of Endless Change by E. Kirsten Peters.
  
• 
  Angus Mcfarlane

  Apparently Ian Plimer enjoys stirring and the issue of CO2 induced warming and the IPCCs dogma is a pot worth worth stirring. Whilst demonstrating that we are being served up a scientifically meatless gruel, the mess created by his rushed and internally contradictory text and over-cooked reactions (particularly in subsequent interviews), leaves his alternative dish unappetising.
  
  There are certainly positive components of this book. Understanding global climate change has been a core part of geological sciences for over 200 years and increasingly sensitive methods have been developed to allow us greater insight into the Earth's cooling and warming along with the forces driving change. The complexity is humbling and the inspires gratitude for the stable and moderate conditions we continue to enjoy: "Nature continues to surprise and belittle us and every new discovery shows that science is never settled". The contention that Earth has experienced warmer periods than the present in both prehistoric and historical times is well accepted through such studies. How is this different, if at all, with respect to the last 200 years of warming is an important question to answer if we are to respond to modern circumstances with good environmental policy.
  
  Another positive is the reference to nearly 2000 publications mostly from mainstream journals, however, this has a downside also. In an interdisciplinary field, it is difficult to be thoroughly across all the detail and this seems to come through. At times the references seem to accumulate to support arguments through weight of numbers. elsewhere disputable alternative theories are lined up to contend with 'established' ones (e.g. cosmic radiation induced cloudiness), which is interesting (in a Velikovskian, or Gribbonish way) but seems a poor way of building a solid base of credulity. If nothing else, the sheer amount of information, as well feeling repetitive, detracts from lucididity for the core arguments. It feels as if urgency to publish and passion for the topic has overwhelmed the dispassionate objectivity expected and valued in professional scientists.
  
  I am not sufficiently familiar with the details of either the pro- or anti-CO2 basis for global warming to know my final verdict on Plimer's thesis. To an extent, time will tell. It has certainly enabled me to know where some of the issues lie for both sides. As I write this, the IPCC is undergoing restructuring to ensure less dogma and more transparency - it seems that the consensus is that we should do away with consensus agendas. Meanwhile, the complexity demands that we can't easily conclude that CO2 is not responsible either, despite Plimer's confidence, and that the search for better science and better policy needs to continue. Perhaps the advice of former Gore advisor, Roger Reville, is the place to start: "if we take any action, it should be an action that we can justify completely without global warming" (p486).
• 
  Mike

  Plimer does a spectacular job of pointing out the weaknesses in man made global warming theory, and the accompanying panic that "The end is near". Among the best researched, and most highly footnoted books I have ever read, he points to the faulty measuring methods and poor execution, the fact that geological and geothermal activity alongside astronomical phenomena play much greater roles in the heating and cooling of our planet than we could ever hope to. The climate has gone through major swings back and forth as far back as measurements are able to be taken. Past warming periods of much greater influence than what we may now be experiencing have lead to times of human prosperity and thriving growth, with increased crop yields for most places on the planet. A must read for anyone who wants to hear another side of the story. Part of the nature of science itself is that it is never "settled" or "Incontrovertible" as many advocates of man made global warming theory keep telling us. Now, THAT'S just bad science!
• 
  Tim Renshaw

  Great book with TONS of reference material to hundreds of supporting papers and even court documents showing the utter fraud that is the Global Warming scare. Far from arguing that we know what is going to happen with utter certainty, this books points to even those holes in the story of the IPCC themselves. The point is that current models don't take into account significant sources of actual climate change. Why don't they? Is it possible to model something as huge and truly intergalactic in scope?
  
  These and hundreds of other questions that need to be addressed before we all allow our lives, economies, public policies, etc. to be radically changed to effect a change that is completely unnecessary. So why the rush to change without addressing these questions? Lots of spins on those answers, but the answers have nothing to do with affecting the climate.
  
  Read it if you dare. If you dismiss it out of hand, you clearly admit your unscientific approach sliding over into a religious stance of "faith" and "belief" as the facts are not on your side.
• 
  Tyson Adams

  This book is one of the most misleading and grossly fraudulent books on the topic of climate change and global warming. Ian has a book filled with contradictions, claims that are unsupported with references, referencing that is deceptive or fraudulent, and some flat out lies (solid iron core of the sun, seriously!?).
  
  It is hard to take a non-fiction book seriously when it contradicts itself so many times. The best example is his statements about CO2: Temperature and CO2 are not connected (p278). Yet he also says; Together with water vapour, CO2 keeps our planet warm (p411).
  
  For a further breakdown of his flawed book refer to this: [...]
  Professor Ian Enting also covered the flaws: [...]
  
  Anyone who wastes their time on this book will only be dumber and more confused for the experience. I'll be sticking with the peer reviewed science rather than this rubbish. Funded by his mates in the Aussie oil industry.
• 
  Lisa

  This is an extremely important book. Whether Plimer is correct in his science or not, it only demonstrates somebody is wrong. Considering Plimer is a scientist with nothing to lose and seems to have no political agenda there is a good chance he is not wrong. His is a compelling argument that the climate changes due to natural forces and not due to human activities. I have heard some of his arguments from others but in general this information is hard to find and might even be thought of as suppressed as not being in vogue. The science that Plimer presents makes sense to me and it seems dangerous that science is serving an agenda when it comes to climate change. A must read for both sides of this debate.
• 
  Harley

  If you've ever had any questions about the validity of the popular claims on global warming, etc, then this book should help clarify your thinking. The author provides extensive data (over 2000 footnotes) showing that climate change is a normal and natural part of nature. My main difficulty with this book was how technical and scholarly it was, it made for difficult reading.
• 
  Ray Pace

  I read parts and was very impressed with how little or no report by anyone how shaky the Man-made global warming is based. Book was well referenced and discussed some of the same data used by activest but realy did not show the definitive conclusion reported by media.
• 
  Peter

  All You need to know about the Man Made Climate Change myth. The facts and nothing but the facts.
• 
  Garret Seinen

  that there are a number of misinformed people pushing their misinformation