Ian Plimer Interview

An Interview with Ian Plimer by Robert Tracinski and Tom Minchin Aug 05, 2009

In our recent article on the "intellectual climate change" in the global warming debate in Australia, Tom Minchin and I mentioned the key role played by geologist Ian Plimer of the University of Adelaide.

Plimer's book Heaven and Earth, which is now available in America, is an authoritative scientific refutation of the claims of human-caused global warming, and it has helped turn the tide of public opinion down under against the environmentalist hysteria.

This is crucially important in Australia, a nation that derives 80% of its electricity from coal and would suffer an economic catastrophe under any version of "cap and trade" energy rationing.

It's also important for us here in America, because it shows that it is possible to counter the all-pervasive global warming propaganda campaign.The influence of Plimer's book is particularly interesting because it is not a light introduction to the topic. It is a thick book, chock full of science.

Plimer's prose is quite readable, but there's so much detail it can be a lot take in. Yet that is part of the point of the book. It is not so much a primer as a comprehensive reference, with chapters organized around answering all the questions an intelligent layman might have about the factors that influence climate, under the headings of "History" (of warmings and coolings), "The Sun," "Earth," "Ice," "Water," and "Air."

If the book is comprehensive in its scope, that is because everything science has discovered about "history, archaeology, geology, astronomy, ocean sciences, atmospheric sciences, and the life sciences"—Plimer's list—refutes the global warming dogma.

Tom and I recently corresponded with Professor Plimer and asked him a few questions about his book, about what the evidence really tells us about the climate, and about the political and cultural aspects of the global warming debate. His reply, like his book, is notable for a kind of cantankerous independence, a part of the Australian character that particularly resonates with the American sense of life. Our exchange is below.—

RWTTIA: The most striking thing about your book—and the reason it has caused such a stir—is that you are not a climate "skeptic." You don't have a few doubts or quibbles about human-caused global warming—you think it's all bunk. What makes you so certain that the global warming theories are wrong?

Plimer: The past is the key to the present. Previous rapid and large climate changes were not related to carbon dioxide.This has occurred on all scales of time. This century temperature has been decreasing, yet CO2 has been increasing. Over the last 150 years, temperature has increased (1860–1880, 1910–1940, 1976–1998) and decreased (1880–1910, 1940–1976, and 2002 to the present), yet CO2 has been increasing. If CO2 has been increasing, how can CO2-driven warming have driven cooling? Over historical times, there were the Minoan, Roman, and Medieval warmings, when temperature was a few degrees higher than at present. Sea level did not change. Over archaeological time, ice cores show that temperature peaks some 800 years before CO2 peaks, hence CO2 could not have driven temperature rise.In geological time, there have been six major ice ages. During five of these six, the CO2 content was higher than now, and for two of these six, the CO2 content has been up to 1,000 times higher than now. If high atmospheric CO2 drives warming, then how could there be an ice age during times of high CO2? Furthermore, two of these six ice ages were at sea level at the equator.Over the history of time, climate changes have been driven by galactic, solar, orbital, tidal, and tectonic processes, and there has been no climate change in the past driven by CO2. The [current] rate of sea level change, CO2 release, and temperature rise and fall are well within variability, hence modern times are little different from past times.

TIA: What do you think of the scientific literacy of those who refer to carbon as a pollutant? Can you summarize why it is not a pollutant?

Plimer: Carbon dioxide is plant food and the basis of life. If CO2 is less than 200 parts per million, then plant life struggles and dies. By contrast, pollution shortens your life and kills life.

TIA: We've noticed a few other geologists among the public opponents of global warming. Is there something about your field that makes you particularly disposed to reject the global warming claims?

Plimer: Geologists use integrated interdisciplinary science and look at planetary cycles over the history of time. Anything catastrophic that can happen has happened over the last 4,567 million years, and such events are preserved in the geological record. It is only if time is ignored that we can conclude that humans change climate by CO2 emissions.

TIA: The idea that global warming is caused by human emissions of carbon dioxide is always taken for granted as the default assumption, and if you don't agree with it, you have to explain yourself. Let's reverse that presumption and put the burden of proof where it belongs: is there, or has there ever been, any evidence that CO2 drives the climate? Is this a theory that should ever have gotten off the ground?

Plimer: The hypothesis that human emissions of CO2 [drive the climate] is invalid because on all past time scales, CO2 has never driven climate. There is a minor greenhouse contribution of CO2 (and a major contribution by water vapor), and the history of time shows us that CO2 changes follow climate change and do not drive it. Furthermore, over the history of time, CO2 has been sequestered from the atmosphere into sediments, sedimentary rocks, altered rocks, oceans, soil, and life to its current level of 385 parts per million; [the atmosphere] once contained about 30% CO2

TIA: Do we know what drives the climate?

Plimer: A combination of cycles—galactic, solar, orbital, and tidal—and random event, volcanoes, changing ocean floor shapes, changing planetary shape, opening/closing of seaways, etc.

TIA: Is climatology a mature science, one that is actually capable of identifying fundamental causes and making reliable predictions about the future?

Plimer: Climatology suffers from the same fads, fashions, dictators, and fraud that other fields of endeavor enjoy. In order to be funded well, climatology needs to be fashionable, and it is. The fundamental causes have been known for a long time, but predictions are only based on computer models that have very incomplete input. The IPCC models of 1990 and 1995 did not predict the 1998 El Nino nor the 21st century cooling. So how can we use these to predict climate a century in advance? Prediction in science is rather courageous, because there are always factors about which we have no knowledge.We can not use models when we do not understand the inputs. The models have been spectacularly wrong, yet they are still used with no humility.

TIA: Is there really a scientific "consensus" about global warming—and should we care?

Plimer: I doubt if there is a consensus, and consensus does not mean that global warming derives from human activity. Consensus is a word of politics. Science is married to evidence, which constantly changes, hence science is always at the boundary of what we know and what we don't know.

TIA: You write that all of the normal rules of science have been suspended when it comes to global warming. In what way?

Plimer: Because contrary evidence is blissfully ignored.

TIA: Global warming alarmists co-opted science to their cause very early. Why has it taken so long for authoritative refutation—such as Heaven and Earth—to surface? Why haven't more scientists spoken out with the same kind of certainty, and do you expect more of them to do so?

Plimer: Most scientists are dependent upon governments for research funding, most universities have a large proportion of funding for climate research, and to challenge the popular paradigm is to guarantee suicide. It is really only retired scientists or those few like me who are fearlessly independent who dare to question the popular paradigm, put up with the incessant ad hominem attacks, and who are prepared to represent those that fund them, i.e., taxpayers, not governments.Heaven and Earth was started in 2002. I have a huge full-time teaching-administrative-research load and I had some 10 meters of scientific papers. The book was released when I finished it, and it is quite coincidental that this was at an important time politically. I would love to take credit for perfect timing but I cannot.

TIA: You have argued that the proper approach of a scientist is to seek and respect the facts. What should be the proper approach of a politician to passing laws that depend on a scientific theory?

Plimer: To understand that all science is contentious, where there is one theory there is a competing theory, and that as a legislator one must look to keeping maximum gainful employment of the electorate.

TIA: Australia has a lot at stake if cap-and-trade legislation gets passed. What would the consequences be for the Australian economy? What is at stake for the rest of the world?

Plimer: Cap-and-trade legislation in the US will seriously add costs to the wealth-generating enterprises of agriculture, mining, manufacturing, and energy generation. By contrast, the more draconian legislation in Australia will send many productive enterprises broke. The end result is that efficient, low-polluting, low-cost enterprises will be shifted to either the Third World or to subsidized economies (i.e., Europe). In effect, the proposed legislation is a massive transfer of hard-earned wealth and employment from countries with a responsible ethical, corporate, and regulatory regime to unregulated jurisdictions.

TIA: Would you welcome an opportunity to address the partyrooms [i.e., meetings of lawmakers of one party for agenda discussions] of both political parties in Australia and the US? If so, what would you say?

Plimer: I would welcome the opportunity and would give exactly the same address to both sides of politics in whatever country I address those politicians, because science is unrelated to politics. The difficulty for politicians is that science is now politicized in the bureaucracy, universities, and research institutes and in many ways is forced to arrive at a predestined conclusion. We now live in a research environment where Einstein, Watson, Crick, etc., would never be funded, as curiosity no longer drives research.

TIA: You say that global warming has become a new religion for "urban atheists." What are the characteristics of religion that you see in the modern environmentalist movement?

Plimer: Environmentalism has many of the hallmarks of failed European socialism and Western (failed) Christianity. It has a holy book which few have read (IPCC reports), has prophets (Gore) who cannot be challenged, relies on dogma, ignores contrary evidence, has armies of wide-eyed missionaries who have no knowledge of the holy book or the structure of religion; imposes guilt, has a catastrophist view of the planet, and seeks indulgences.In modern urban environments where people have no connection with nature, they often search for a spiritual meaning to life and environmentalism gives this to them with little trouble—i.e., they do not have to study for decades, they need no knowledge, they can indulge in symbolism, can worship nature yet have no contact with nature.

TIA: What advice do you have for laymen who support your conclusion that there is no established connection between temperature and man-made carbon-dioxide? What can they do to help this fact penetrate the political debate?

Plimer: Continually pester your politicians, make radio/TV/newspaper comment, write letters to the editor and start a groundswell of opinion. This needs to start like a guerilla war in rural, smokestack, and mining areas and to be brought into the cities, where there are queues lining up to make a fortune on cap-and-trade activities. A tax on thin air is what we are begin asked to approve.

Robert Tracinski writes daily commentary at TIADaily.com. He is the editor of The Intellectual Activist and TIADaily.com. Tom Minchin is a writer, researcher, and businessman in Melbourne, Australia.

Snowy Hydro

In 2006 the NSW, Victorian and Australian Governments attempted to privatise the cash strapped Snowy Hydro organisation. An extraordinary campaign of resistance was mounted with leading Sydney radio commentator Alan Jones very prominent. That well known poet "Anon" penned the following piece of dogrel.

The Man From Snowy Hydro (With apologies to A.B. Paterson)

There was movement at the media for the word had passed around that the Snowy Hydro privatisation was astray,
It had joined the masses radar and could easily be beat-up, and all the media power would be on display,
All the tried and noted players from the (radio) stations near and far had mustered to the action over right,
For the Parrot loves hard riding where the national icons are and the populist “pollies” sniff the battle with delight.

There was Heffernan who lost his style when Kirby beat the slight,
the bush warrior with his redemption all aglow,
Few could go against him when his blood was fairly up,
Ask Barnaby and Fiona, they ought to know.
Bill sees water as his saviour and claims to know it all, with Cubbie Station firmly in his sights,
It really is much safer than homophobia and all, and anyway power recovery is his by right.

And Little Johnnie back from Ireland, three elections in his (saddle) bag, knows in truth the three Governments should get out,
I’ll be firm says he, they trust me, I’ll turn this around, a token gesture here and there, just watch me clout.

But the Parrot rode to wheel him, he was racing on the wing, it well might make the boldest hold their breath,
He drove his spiel right through them and he made the ranges ring, with his rhetoric in full audacious flight,
Howard and Iemma copped a lashing how inadequate they felt, and Nairn says Eden-Monaro will be death,
The air waves were electric, how the populace was swayed, it really was a movement to asight,
.

How could they even think of it, this dastardly plan, to sell an Aussie icon such as Snowy,
After all, the people own it and retention is a must, never mind the Railways and the PMG.
Governments can run things, just look at Cuba and all, don’t trust those nasty markets of the free.
We know Russia’s ‘gone to market’ and China’s freeing up, but clearly they must have got it wrong.
The pollies went to water, Johnnie pulled the plug, and all the rest is history.



Sometimes we must be reactive, give the populists a win.
“I have listened to the people just as democrats should do, it really never hurts to change your mind”;
Just like breaking non-core promises, ‘tis only a minor sin,
And it has the compensation of putting Iemma in a bind.

We must win the next election, me or Pete, it is just so important to get our priorities tall,
To do whatever’s needed to keep the masses on our side, a compromise here or there wont really hurt,
You give a bit and take a bit that’s the game we play; we know we cannot win them all,
We’ll take a bit of flack from the brightest in the land, but they’ll get over it and forgive us for the dirt.

So who are the real culprits, the ones who let Australia down and forced us down the road to the fall?
Where was the voice of reason, of the ones who really understand, the true bastions of the free?
Their silence was so deafening, they never said a word, why were they never heard at all?
If only Alan had not done arts at Oxford, and had not adopted the economics of the L.S.E.,

And down by Snowy Hydro, Terry Charlton holds his head, how to turn my vision really on?
It really is perplexing, are sovereign Governments so weak, they would ultimately control us after all,
Governments are all powerful, it is they that make and the rules, and without their Snowy shares their conflict would be gone,
There ain’t no funds to grow us, to take those foreign generators head-on; I was so looking forward to the brawl.

Snowy was built by immigrants, a truly global exercise, with lots of Yankee contractors their machinery and tools,
It could be something so much stronger, creating more wealth for us all, paying taxes, employing more people and playing by the rules,
Australia will always “own” it, whoever holds the shares, and with new capital it could really make a bigger mark,
But no, we are so jingoistic and myopic, afraid to let market forces have free reign. Sometimes we can behave like bloody fools,
We should live to regret it, but then perhaps we’ll never know, but let’s hope we don’t all end up in the dark.

The Guitar

Global Warming Theology-Open Email to Senator Fielding

Dear Senator,
I would like to congratulate you and encourage you on the stance you are taking on this subject. The arrogant dismissal of legitimate questioning of the science behind the conventional position has been appalling. It is my view that we humans are inclined to overstate our impacts and our level of control. I think we delude ourselves to believe we can change the climate of the earth (for better or worse) which has always been beyond man's puny impacts and efforts.

Whether I am right or wrong, all science should be open to question. Throughout history it has been the so called 'sceptics' who have questioned accepted science and led the way to man's progress.

In politics, 'players' need to decide whether they are going to be reactive to perceived public opinion and simply play political games or be pro-active in taking a leadership role when they are firmly of the belief that the majority public opinion may be misinformed.

This takes courage, but is the mark of true leadership and when proven correct carries great reward.

I believe there are many in the Federal Parliament who are personally not convinced by what seems to be the majority opinion, but believe it would be harmful to say so. Your stance of calling for open-minded questionning should encourage these people to be more forthright.

Best wishes and good luck.

David Boyd

A Favourite Quote

"This is my long-run forecast in brief:

The material conditions of life will continue to get better for most people, in most countries, most of the time, indefinitely. Within a century or two, all nations and most of humanity will be at or above today's Western living standards.

I also speculate, however, that many people will continue to think and say that the conditions of life are getting worse." (Julian Simon 1932-98).

Toorale Water is Different

At Senate Estimates on Thursday night, Penny Wong's officials said that the water saved at Toorale from the February flow comprised 5,900 megs from the Darling and 1,300 megs from the Warrego-a total of 7,200 megs.

Bill Heffernan asked them where they gauged it and for the Warrego River was told at Ford's Bridge. With the Warrego not much more than a shallow gutter, there are always huge stream losses between Ford's Bridge and the Darling junction.

Data shows that, due to water losses in the river system and the Menindee Lakes storages, for every megalitre of water that flows past Bourke only 0.3ML can be expected to appear as regulated flow in the Lower Darling or to contribute to flow in the Murray.

Apparently Toorale water is different as the whole 7,200 megs has been allocated to the various Murray environmental iconic sites!

Infrastructure

"What a funny world!

1) The central unique physical characteristic of Australia is massive rainfall variability.

2) Consequently, 'available water' is largely a consequence of efficient storage.

3) Huge rainfall is occurring in Northern NSW and South-east Queensland.

4) We are in the midst of the biggest infrastructure spend in Australia's history.

5) The planning does not include a single new dam!"

Irrigation Facts

Thursday 28 May, 2009 - 21:27 by David Boyd

• Irrigated agriculture contributes approximately 25 per cent of the gross value of Australian agricultural production, 3% of GDP, 22% of exports, but only uses 0.4 per cent of Australia’s farming area (Source: CSIRO, 2006)
  
• Australia utilises about 8% of its available water for industry, agriculture and support of the population, with agriculture using about 65% of this, or less than 6% of Australia’s water (Source: National Land and Water Audit 1997 – 2002)
  
• In their ‘natural’ state, the rivers located in the southern half of Australia experience more variable flows than virtually any other rivers in the world (Murray-Darling Basin Commission 2005)
  
• Between 1885 and 1960, the Darling River stopped flowing at Menindee on 48 occasions – well before irrigation existed on the river or its tributaries (Australian Farm Institute).
  
• Data shows that, due to water losses in the river system and the Menindee Lakes storages, for every megalitre of water that flows past Bourke only 0.3ML can be expected to appear as regulated flow in the Lower Darling or to contribute to flow in the Murray.