A Fish Oil Story

A Fish Oil Story
By PAUL GREENBERG
Published: December 15, 2009


If you are someone who catches and eats a lot of fish, as I am, you get adept at answering questions about which fish are safe, which are sustainable and which should be avoided altogether. But when this fish oil question arrived in my inbox recently, I was stumped. I knew that concerns about overfishing had prompted many consumers to choose supplements as a guilt-free way of getting their omega-3 fatty acids, which studies show lower triglycerides and the risk of heart attack. But I had never looked into the fish behind the oil and whether it was fit, morally or environmentally speaking, to be consumed.

The deal with fish oil, I found out, is that a considerable portion of it comes from a creature upon which the entire Atlantic coastal ecosystem relies, a big-headed, smelly, foot-long member of the herring family called menhaden, which a recent book identifies in its title as “The Most Important Fish in the Sea.”

The book’s author, H. Bruce Franklin, compares menhaden to the passenger pigeon and related to me recently how his research uncovered that populations were once so large that “the vanguard of the fish’s annual migration would reach Cape Cod while the rearguard was still in Maine.” Menhaden filter-feed nearly exclusively on algae, the most abundant forage in the world, and are prolifically good at converting that algae into omega-3 fatty acids and other important proteins and oils. They also form the basis of the Atlantic Coast’s marine food chain.

Nearly every fish a fish eater likes to eat eats menhaden. Bluefin tuna, striped bass, redfish and bluefish are just a few of the diners at the menhaden buffet. All of these fish are high in omega-3 fatty acids but are unable themselves to synthesize them. The omega-3s they have come from menhaden.

But menhaden are entering the final losing phases of a century-and-a-half fight for survival that began when humans started turning huge schools into fertilizer and lamp oil. Once petroleum-based oils replaced menhaden oil in lamps, trillions of menhaden were ground into feed for hogs, chickens and pets. Today, hundreds of billions of pounds of them are converted into lipstick, salmon feed, paint, “buttery spread,” salad dressing and, yes, some of those omega-3 supplements you have been forcing on your children. All of these products can be made with more environmentally benign substitutes, but menhaden are still used in great (though declining) numbers because they can be caught and processed cheaply.

For the last decade, one company, Omega Protein of Houston, has been catching 90 percent of the nation’s menhaden. The perniciousness of menhaden removals has been widely enough recognized that 13 of the 15 Atlantic states have banned Omega Protein’s boats from their waters. But the company’s toehold in North Carolina and Virginia (where it has its largest processing plant), and its continued right to fish in federal waters, means a half-billion menhaden are still taken from the ecosystem every year.

For fish guys like me, this egregious privatization of what is essentially a public resource is shocking. But even if you are not interested in fish, there is an important reason for concern about menhaden’s decline.

Quite simply, menhaden keep the water clean. The muddy brown color of the Long Island Sound and the growing dead zones in the Chesapeake Bay are the direct result of inadequate water filtration — a job that was once carried out by menhaden. An adult menhaden can rid four to six gallons of water of algae in a minute. Imagine then the water-cleaning capacity of the half-billion menhaden we “reduce” into oil every year.

So what is the seeker of omega-3 supplements to do? Bruce Franklin points out that there are 75 commercial products — including fish-oil pills made from fish discards — that don’t contribute directly to the depletion of a fishery. Flax oil also fits the bill and uses no fish at all.

But I’ve come to realize that, as with many issues surrounding fish, more powerful fulcrums than consumer choice need to be put in motion to fix things. President Obama and the Congressional leadership have repeatedly stressed their commitment to wresting the wealth of the nation from the hands of a few. A demonstration of this commitment would be to ban the fishing of menhaden in federal waters. The Virginia Legislature could enact a similar moratorium in the Chesapeake Bay (the largest menhaden nursery in the world).

The menhaden is a small fish that in its multitudes plays such a big role in our economy and environment that its fate shouldn’t be effectively controlled by a single company and its bottles of fish oil supplements. If our government is serious about standing up for the little guy, it should start by giving a little, but crucial, fish a fair deal.

Paul Greenberg is the author of the forthcoming “Four Fish: The Future of the Last Wild Food.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/16/opinion/16greenberg.html?em

Marijuana might cause new cell growth in the brain~ New Scientist

A synthetic chemical similar to the active ingredient in marijuana makes new cells grow in rat brains. What is more, in rats this cell growth appears to be linked with reducing anxiety and depression. The results suggest that marijuana, or its derivatives, could actually be good for the brain.

In mammals, new nerve cells are constantly being produced in a part of the brain called the hippocampus, which is associated with learning, memory, anxiety and depression. Other recreational drugs, such as alcohol, nicotine and cocaine, have been shown to suppress this new growth. Xia Zhang of the University of Saskatchewan in Saskatoon, Canada, and colleagues decided to see what effects a synthetic cannabinoid called HU210 had on rats' brains.

They found that giving rats high doses of HU210 twice a day for 10 days increased the rate of nerve cell formation, or neurogenesis, in the hippocampus by about 40%.
Just like Prozac?

A previous study showed that the antidepressant fluoxetine (Prozac) also increases new cell growth, and the results indicated that it was this cell growth that caused Prozac's anti-anxiety effect. Zhang wondered whether this was also the case for the cannabinoid, and so he tested the rats for behavioural changes.

When the rats who had received the cannabinoid were placed under stress, they showed fewer signs of anxiety and depression than rats who had not had the treatment. When neurogenesis was halted in these rats using X-rays, this effect disappeared, indicating that the new cell growth might be responsible for the behavioural changes.

In another study, Barry Jacobs, a neuroscientist at Princeton University, gave mice the natural cannabinoid found in marijuana, THC (D9-tetrahydrocannabinol)). But he says he detected no neurogenesis, no matter what dose he gave or the length of time he gave it for. He will present his results at the Society for Neuroscience meeting in Washington DC in November.

Jacobs says it could be that HU210 and THC do not have the same effect on cell growth. It could also be the case that cannabinoids behave differently in different rodent species - which leaves open the question of how they behave in humans.

Zhang says more research is needed before it is clear whether cannabinoids could some day be used to treat depression in humans.

Journal reference: Journal of Clinical Investigation (DOI:10.1172/JCI25509)

Record High Temperatures Far Outpace Record Lows Across U.S.

BOULDER—Spurred by a warming climate, daily record high temperatures occurred twice as often as record lows over the last decade across the continental United States, new research shows. The ratio of record highs to lows is likely to increase dramatically in coming decades if emissions of greenhouse gases continue to climb.

"Climate change is making itself felt in terms of day-to-day weather in the United States," says Gerald Meehl, the lead author and a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). "The ways these records are being broken show how our climate is already shifting."

http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2009/maxmin.jsp

Marijuana isn't so good for the brains of children but otherwise a universal panacea, imo

Marijuana opponents in the federal government are up against the wall and the wall is crumbling. The feds have fought marijuana use for decades, disregarding its medicinal applications, in a senseless war against the herb.
The demonized killer weed is turning out to be anything but that. As myths about this ancient herb are dispelled, scientists are using it to treat everything from chemotherapy-induced nausea to different cancers.
In August, The British Journal of Cancer published the results of a study that found THC (the main active component in marijuana) is effective in fighting prostate cancer. Reportedly, pot attacks prostate cancer cell types that do not respond to the usual hormone treatments.
A recent study by a team of Spanish researchers discovered THC kills various brain cancer cells by a process known as autophagy. Michigan's new law regarding marijuana use went into effect in April. Patients, with doctor's prescriptions, get a state-issued ID Card (a lot like California's) which allows them to grow and use marijuana to treat pain and other symptoms of cancer and multiple sclerosis.
In October 2003, the University of California, San Francisco, released the results of a study that said pot was effective when used in combination with opiate pain medications. Dr. Donald Abrams, MD, UCSF professor of Clinical Medicine and chief of the Hematology-Oncology Division at SF General Hospital Medical Center, told the press, “Marijuana uses a different mechanism than opiates and could augment the pain relief of opiate analgesics.”
The Marijuana Policy Project recently reported on a study that suggests moderate amounts of marijuana use reduces risk of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). This study suggests cannabinoids have potential anti-tumor properties.
A study released in July, “White matter in adolescents with history of marijuana use and binge drinking,” says marijuana use actually protects brain cells. The study involved adolescents with alcohol use disorders.
One group had just alcohol-drinking teens. The other group drank alcohol and used marijuana. The report said that binge drinkers who used marijuana retained more white matter than the other group. In other words, alcohol destroyed more brain cells when a person didn't use marijuana.
How many times have you heard someone say, “Pot destroys your brain cells”? If that's true, what about this study? Why do doctors use marijuana to fight brain cancer if it destroys brain cells? Remember the Spanish study?
In April of 2007, Harvard University researchers released the results of a study that concluded THC cuts tumor growth in common lung cancers and reduces the ability of the cancer to spread.
A study conducted by UCLA's medical school in June 2005 concluded smoking marijuana did not cause lung cancer. That impressive piece of news, along with the Harvard study, seems to have been ignored by most mass media outlets.
Fred Gardner, editor of the medical marijuana research journal, O'Shaughnessy's, recently wrote an article, “Smoking Marijuana Does Not Cause Cancer,” about this groundbreaking UCLA study that barely made headlines.
Gardner reported that an investigative team was contracted with the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) in 2002 “to conduct a large, population-based, case-controlled study that would prove definitively that heavy, long-term marijuana use increases the risk of lung and upper-airway cancers.”
Guess what? This study backfired! It turned out that increased marijuana use did not result in higher rates of lung and pharyngeal cancer. The study also concluded that tobacco smokers who also puffed on pot were at a slightly lower risk of getting lung cancer than those who didn't!
Perhaps the icing on the cake is the fact that UCLA Medical professor Donald Tashkin led the investigation. Tashkin has led government studies on marijuana since the 1970s and is well known for his belief that heavy marijuana use causes lung and upper-airway cancers. To his credit as a professional, he ended up disproving his own original hypothesis.
Despite the government's efforts to keep it illegal, it's apparent that marijuana does offer help in the battle to treat cancer. The facts about marijuana's medical potentials are finally causing cracks in the government's wall of lies built up over the years.
As It Stands, it's time to bring down that wall.
Dave Stancliff is a columnist for The Times-Standard. He is a former newspaper editor and publisher. Comments can be sent to richstan1@suddenlink.net or www.davesblogcentral.com

Such lies......

The man behind the latest entry to the climate legislation wars is H. Leighton Steward, a veteran oil industry executive, co-author of the “Sugar Busters!” dieting books, and winner of an Environmental Protection Agency award for a report on damage being done to Mississippi wetlands. Now retired, he says he wants to “get the message out there” that carbon dioxide, which the Supreme Court has ruled a pollutant and which most scientists regard as a dangerous greenhouse gas, “is a net benefit for the planet.”

Well, thank the Great Flying Spaghetti Monster that we have oil company bigwigs to steer us in the right direction, not only with these super-intelligent and truthful ads, but by pumping as much CO2 into the atmosphere as humanly possible.

Pilmer reference cred shattered here!

Ian Plimer’s ‘Heaven + Earth’ — Checking the Claims
Ian G. Enting

Version 2.0

ARC Centre of Excellence for
Mathematics and Statistics of Complex Systems

The University of Melbourne

Accessing this document

The intention is that the most recent version of this document will be accessible from:

http://www.complex.org.au/tiki-download_file.php?fileId=91


Overview

Ian Plimer’s book, Heaven + Earth — Global Warming: The Missing Science, claims to demolish
the theory of human-induced global warming due to the release of CO2
and other greenhouse
gases. Overall:

•
it has numerous internal inconsistencies;
•
in spite of the extensive referencing, key data are unattributed and the content of references
is often mis-quoted.
Most importantly, Ian Plimer fails to establish his claim that the human influence on climate can
be ignored, relative to natural variations.

Ian Plimer’s claim that the human influence on climate can be ignored, relative to natural
variations, seems to rest on three main strands of argument:

a: the extent of natural variability is larger than considered in ‘mainstream’ analyses;
b:
changes in radiative forcing from greenhouse gases have less effect than determined in
‘mainstream’ analyses;
c:
the IPCC uses a range of misrepresentations to conceal points a and b.
Among the many errors made in attempting to establish these claims, are cases where Plimer:

•
misrepresents the content of IPCC reports on at least 15 occasions as well as misrepresenting
the operation of the IPCC and the authorship of IPCC reports;
•
has at least 28 other instances of misrepresenting the content of cited sources;
•
has at least 2 graphs where checks show that the original is a plot of something other than
what Plimer claims and many others where data are misrepresented;
•
has at least 10 cases of misrepresenting data records in addition to some instances (included
in the total above) of misrepresenting data from cited source.
Details of these various types of flaw can be obtained via the relevant entries in the index.
A guide to how readers can independently check my claims is given on page 40.

1


Breadth of Science

In Plimer’s public appearances he has made the claim that climate scientists are ignoring geology.
This is untrue. Some of the geologists who are important in developing understanding of
climate and climate change have been:

•
H¨ogbom – who worked with Arrhenius;
•
Eric Sundquist of the USGS (with Sarmiento, resolved carbon budget ambiguity);
•
the many geologists who have contributed to the paleo-climate studies that Plimer misrepresents;
•
Henry Pollack, a borehole specialist, who has published an excellent book, Uncertain
Science ... Uncertain World, (CUP), pointing out that uncertainty about climate is much
less than the uncertainty surrounding many other important decisions;
•
and of course the American Geophysical Union which covers the gamut of Earth sciences
– atmospheric, oceanic, solid earth, space sciences and most recently biogeochemistry —
has strongly endorsed the reality of human-induced global warming:
http://www.agu.org/outreach/science policy/positions/climate change2008.shtml
Point by point

This list has been evolving, in part due to input from colleagues. The items are listed in order of
pages in Heaven + Earth and the page noted — the item numbering is changing as the document
is extended. An index for various topics is given, identifying both the item number and the page
in the present document. If you wish to quote items here, quote using the page number in
Heaven + Earth.1 Better still, don’t quote me at all — use this document as a guide to check it
out for yourself, even if you have to resort to buying the book. In cases where colleagues have
advised me of flaws in the book, this is acknowledged by noting initials after the particular item.
The acknowledgements section below identifies those involved. Material that is underlined is
presented as an exact quote from Heaven + Earth, except that Plimer’s footnote references have
only been retained when they are important for indicating misrepresentation of cited sources.
When I refer to ‘footnotes’ or ‘references’ this means Plimer’s footnotes not mine, unless I
explicitly indicate otherwise.2

1. In spite of Plimer being praised for the extensive referencing, many of the controversial
assertions have no supporting citation. These include: the claim that 102 studies found
that 78% found earlier periods, lasting at least 50 years, that were warmer than any period
in the 20th century [page 86]; frequent claims that the Medieval Warm Period was 2 to
3 degrees warmer than the present (for which some of the cited references do not even
address the Medieval period); and the repeated claim that the climate sensitivity is 0.5C.
1Page numbers and reference numbers refer to the Australian edition. I have not (as of September 3, 2009)
been able to establish whether these also apply to American and UK editions.

2There are no explicit references to my own footnotes in versions through to 2.0.

2


2. In his efforts to down-play the extent of warming from CO2, and exaggerate the relative
role of water vapour, Plimer ends up implicitly attributing so much warming to water
vapour, that the planetary temperature in the absence of water vapour would be nearer
the temperatures of the outer planets. In some cases the numbers given by Plimer are
exaggerated to such an extent as to imply that without water vapour, Earth’s temperature
would be below absolute zero — a physical impossibility. The exaggerations fall into two
groups: those that relate to anthropogenic CO2
and those that relate to total CO2. In each
case, inconsistency arises when the exaggeration in the relative proportions is combined
with values for absolute warming.
i: exaggerations concerning anthropogenic CO2:
The implications of the claim that CO2
derived from human activity produces 0.1% of
global warming is analysed in item 90.
ii: exaggerations concerning total CO2:
The inconsistency in attributing 18C of warming to total CO2
[page 366] while stating
in the caption of figure 44: About 98% of the greenhouse effect in the atmosphere is due
to water vapour, is noted in item 60.
3. A large fraction of the graphics are given without any attribution of the sources of the
data. Figures 2, 22, 36, 41, 43, 45 are schematics, where a citation is not needed, unless
to acknowledge authorship by others (e.g. Figure 45 should be acknowledged as a minor
variant from Figure 1.2 in the IPCC TAR (WG1 report), or preferably by referring to the
Keihl and Trenberth reference cited therein). Figures 6, 7, 14, 17, 30, 32, 33, 35, 46, 47,
53 do include explicit citations while in figures 4, 19, 27, 28, 34, 38, 39, 40, 42, 48, 49,
51, 54 relevant data might be traceable by those with a reasonably good knowledge of
the relevant field (e.g. when there is a unique data set held in an established central data
repository).
Appropriate citations should be either for the graphic as a whole or for the data sets that
are plotted (or both). Cases where neither of these is done are figures 1, 3, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11
(particularly for lower part), 12, 13, 15, 16, 18, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 31, 37, 42,
44, 50 and 52. Problems with axis labelling (wrong numbers, missing numbers, incorrect
labels) occur in figures 5 [item 16], 8 [item 17], 12 [item 30] and 14 [item 32]. (For
comparison, the comparable issues with graphics in An Inconvenient Truth are a totally
unquantified graph on page 89, no units on the plot on pages 78–79, and no temperature
scale for the lower line on pages 66–67.)3

4. In general the graphics are poorly linked to the text, with the text making no explicit
mention of the graphics in virtually all cases. Apart from the issues of lack of citations
and mislabelling of axes, noted in item 3, there are significant problems with the content
of many of the graphs. By figure number, these are:
1: Misrepresents the HadCRUT data set and uses fabricated data for 2008 — [see item
6].
3: The data are distorted — [see item 13].
5: Falsified time axis, thus giving no indication of the Younger Dryas, in contradiction
3Comments on An Inconvenient Truth refer to the book unless otherwise indicated.

3


with text — [see item 16].

10: Lack of specifics makes the plot meaningless — [see item 18].
11 (upper): ‘Hockey stick’ data have been distorted — [see item 26].
11 (lower): values for 20th century have been distorted, end of MWP inconsistent with
abrupt end described in text — [see item 26].


14: While a citation is given, comparison with the cited source shows that one of the
curves is not what Plimer claims it to be [see item 32].
15: Time series truncated to shift relative degrees of correlation — [see item 34].
29: The content is misrepresented — [see item 47].
38, 39, 40: Plotted on different scales to support the assertion that different time-averaging
leads to different trends (an assertion that violates the basic laws of arithmetic) — [see
item 56].
5. In analysing the details that follow, remember that Heaven + Earth is being promoted4 as
a scrupulous and scholarly analysis.
6. p. 11, figure 15: This graphic has several misrepresentations. The bold line purports to
be temperature data from the HadCRUT data set (see page 30 below). This is not true.
The HadCRUT data are closer to the lighter solid line which is labelled, UAH LT (adj to
Sfc).6 More seriously, at least for the HADCRU data7, the 2008 data that are shown are
fabrications. The HadCRUT data set shows 2008 as being only 0.081C lower than 2007
— [BB].
7. p. 21: (referring to Ben Santer) The lead author then added references to his own work
which showed warming from 1943 to 1970.17
However, when a full set of data from 1905
to after 1970 was analysed by others, no warming was seen.18
. Here Plimer is misunderstanding
the argument and misrepresenting both sides.
i: The argument is not about warming per se, but mainly about the stratosphere-troposphere
temperature difference as an indicator that the mechanism identified by Arrhenius is operative,
and the corresponding pattern of temperature change from aerosols;
ii: Reference 17 refers to the period 1963 to 1987, not 1943 to 1970 as claimed by Plimer.
This misrepresentation falsely implies that Santer et al were claiming warming at a time
of relative cooling.
iii: Reference 18 (by Michaels and Knappenberger) analyses the period 1958 to 1995,
not the period from 1905 onwards. The primary claim by Michaels and Knappenberger
was that Santer et al. were cherry-picking by choosing a start-date around the time of
cooling from the eruption of Mt. Agung. An additional criticism published following
reference 18 made similar comments suggested that the role of ozone depletion had been
neglected. Immediately following this was the response by Santer et al. noting that both
these comments used a questionable data set.
4Cover ‘blurb’ by Lord Lawson of Blaby, on paperback edition.
5Until version 2.0, this was incorrectly noted as figure 11.
6Presumably: University of Alabama Huntsville, Lower Troposphere (adjusted to surface).
7See page 30.


4


8. p. 21–22: Biased comparison of IPCC ‘balance of evidence’ vs a survey that found only
10% of scientists certain that global warming is a process that is underway.
9. p. 22: asserts that during the Medieval Warming, the global temperature was a few degrees
warmer than today. This claim is asserted in various forms at many places through Heaven
+ Earth, mostly without any justifying citation. Many examples of changes for various
regions are noted with citations, but there is no analysis of the overall results. The main
places where the claim for a large and widespread Medieval warming is backed with citations
are on page 63 [citing footnote 239] and page 490 [citing footnotes 2282 and 2283].
As noted in item 20, reference 2398 shows only a single time series for temperature. Item
109 notes that reference 2282 makes no mention of the MWP and reference 2283 (the
first IPCC report) contains only a schematic with no temperature scale assigned. Similarly,
item 21 notes that reference 255, cited in support of 2C cooling from MWP to LIA
only analyses the period 20,000 BP to 10,000 BP.
10. p. 22: Misrepresents IPCC treatment of Little Ice Age (LIA), Medieval Warm Period
(MWP). (See later — item 27).
11. p. 22: Referring to the ‘hockey stick’ in the 2001 IPCC WG1 report: It was highlighted
on the first page of the Summary for Policymakers and was shown another four times in
the 2001 Summary for Policymakers. Since there are only five figures in the 2001 WG1
SPM, this would imply that all figures in the SPM include the ‘hockey stick’. This is quite
simply false.
12. p. 22:
The IPCC, without explanation, quietly withdrew the “hockey stick” from the
Summary for Policymakers in subsequent publications and had it buried in a scientific
chapter of the 2007 report. with the footnote 24 noting as one of the reconstructions
of past climate. The reconstructions, including that from Mann et al., are also in the
technical summary (figure TS.20) of the 2007 report — [DK].
13. p. 25, figure 3: The graph has been distorted and misplotted. The line has the 1998 peak
in about the right place relative to the scale, but the 1940 peak (labelled as such) appears
in the 1950’s and the 1975 trough is plotted nearer to 1979. (The Brave New Climate web
site identifies this fabrication as coming from The Great Global Warming Swindle).
14. p. 25: There is no problem with global warming. It stopped in 1998. The last two years
of global cooling have erased nearly thirty years of temperature increase. The last 30
years of temperature increase have not been erased. The HADCRU data set9 shows that
both 2007 and 2008 have annual temperatures higher than any year prior to 1997 in the
instrumental record.
15. p. 32: within a glacial period that has already lasted tens of millions of years, identified
in footnote 38 as Pleistocene glaciation, sometimes called the Quaternary glaciation —
implying a tens of millions of years duration for the ‘Pleistocene’ and ‘Quaternary’ that
might surprise Plimer’s geological colleagues.
8Version 1.6 incorrectly referred to reference 9 at this point.
9File hadcru3gl.txt, see description on page 30.


5


16. p. 33, figure 5: Caption reads:
The amount of temperature and temperature change ....
This is two different things, but only one line is plotted. In addition, this unattributed
graphic lacks any indication of the rapid cooling and warming associated with the beginning
and end of the Younger Dryas [c.f. pages 42–44 and figure 10)]. Since the graph
extends to the point labelled Today at 2000 on the time-scale, the description Time (years
ago) is incorrect. However,10 comparisons with other publications indicates that this is
rates of change from the GISP-2 ice core. However, in the ‘original’ graphic the time-
scale was non-linear (possibly linear in depth), and the linear time-scale has been imposed
by Plimer (with, as noted, the endpoint being inconsistent with the labelling). This is one
of the weirder cases of distorted graphics since Plimer’s falsification of the time axis acts
counter to his argument by removing the changes around the Younger Dryas.
17. p. 40, figure 8: lower part lacks numbers on horizontal axis.
18. p. 43, figure 10:
The plot of ice accumulation is meaningless without saying where.
Clearly, 0.2 metres/year for the last 10,000 years is not a global average.
19. p. 59: In the section on The Roman Warming Plimer states By 300 AD, the global climate
was far warmer than at present.217. Reference 217 is a 1977 book by H. H. Lamb which
says little about Roman times. The strongest statement seems to be on page 4 saying
that By late Roman times, particularly in the fourth century AD, it may well have been
warmer than now, with ‘now’ meaning the mid 1970s.
20. p. 63: In the Medieval warming, it was far warmer than the present and the warming was
widespread.239
The citation for this (reference 239) is the book: The Little Ice Age. The
index identifies four references to the MWP. One is a passing reference, one refers to sea
level and one notes a subsequent cooling of 0.7C to 1500. The most detailed discussion
is on page 376 which presents only one time series of temperature estimates — 1000 years
from central England. In addition, proxy series from Greenland and North America are
shown without any temperature calibration, and combined into a ‘North Atlantic index’
again without any temperature scale assigned.
21. p. 66:
Boreholes give accurate temperature histories for about 1000 years into the past
because rock conducts past surface temperatures downward only slowly. In the Northern
Hemisphere, borehole data shows the Medieval Warming and a cooling of about 2C from
the Medieval Warming to the Little Ice Age.255
— comparison with reference 255, a paper
by Steig et al., reveals multiple misrepresentations by Plimer:
i: the paper refers to data from a core extracted from ice, not a hole drilled into rock;
ii: the ice core is from the southern hemisphere, not the northern hemisphere;
iii: the paper does not analyse the Medieval Warm Period. All data plots refer to the
period from 20,000 BP to 10,000 BP — there appears to be absolutely no discussion of
the Medieval period.
22. p. 66–67:
A study of 6000 bore holes on all continents has shown that temperature in
the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than today and that the temperature fell 0.2 to
10Clarification added in version 1.9.

6


0.7C during the Little Ice Age.256
The cited reference (footnote 256) actually says that
temperature declined until about 200 years ago, reaching a minimum of about 0.2–0.7 K
below present-day. (i.e. the 0.2 to 0.7 K is the amount of offset from ‘present-day’, not
the amount of fall from the MWP). The words that Plimer completely ignores are in the
preceding passage, saying (relative to the period 1300–1600 BP): A warming followed,
yielding temperatures that averaged 0.1–0.5 K above present-day in the interval 500–
1000 years ago. The reference does not specify the time interval that represents ‘presentday’,
but this global-scale estimate clearly differs from Plimer’s repeated unsubstantiated
assertion that the MWP was 2 to 3 degree warmer than present. A later paper (by the
authors of reference 256) A late Quaternary climate reconstruction based on borehole
heat flux data, borehole temperatures data and the instrumental record. in Geophysical
Research Letters, 35, L13703 (2008) states As the authors of HPS97 we can be criticized
for not stating explicitly in HPS97 that the ‘present’ (the zero on the time axis) really
represents something like the end of the 19th century, rather than the end of the 20th
century. The range of reconstructions in the 2008 paper, show a peak warming between
500 and 800 years ago, whose peaks, relative to to 1961–1990 mean, range from about
-0.4C to 0.3C.11

23. p. 87: If it is acknowledged that there have been rapid large climate changes in the past,
then human production of CO2
cannot be the major driver for climate change. This makes
the false assumption that there is an either/or choice between human and natural causes
that applies at all times and on all time-scales.
24. p. 87: In the IPCC Second Assessment Summary for Policy Makers in 1996, a diagram
showing the past 1000 years of Earth temperatures from tree rings, ice cores and thermometers
showed the Medieval Warm period, the Little Ice Age and the Late 20th Century
Warming. The SAR SPM does not include any diagrams. The temperature reconstruction
in the Technical Summary of the SAR only goes back to 1400.
25. p. 88: Essentially repeats (in a slightly less specific form) the earlier false claim (on page
22) that ‘hockey stick’ occurs a total of 5 times in the IPCC 2001 SPM, [see item 11] —
[DK].
26. p. 89, figure 11:12 In the upper part, the ‘hockey stick’ curve has been displaced upward
relative to the version shown in the 2001 IPCC report, in spite of claiming to be the same
reference period and having the 1998 instrumental values the same. In the lower part of
figure 11, the depiction of the Medieval Warm Period is inconsistent with the claim on
page 128 that The Wolf minimum heralded the end of the Medieval Warming and the
beginning of the 600 year Little Ice Age. It took only 23 years to change from a warm
climate to a cool climate. In addition the 20th century temperature data have been falsified
by showing the 2000 temperature as almost exactly the same as the peak circa 1940 rather
then 0.6C higher.
11The main issue here is that Plimer misrepresents reference 256, not that he failed to appreciate the significance

of the upper 100 metres of data not being used.
12Prior to version 1.7, the page was incorrectly given as 99.

7


27. p. 91: This makes a succession of claims about IPCC treatment of the Medieval Warm
Period (MWP) , Little Ice Age (LIA) and hockey stick:
i: the 1996 IPCC report showed the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age
ii: Mann’s “hockey stick” was used in the IPCC’s 2001 report and the Medieval Warm
Period and the Little Ice Age were expunged
iii: In the next IPCC report the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age mysteriously
re-appeared (i.e. the 2007 report).
In reality, the only reconstruction in the 1996 report appears to be the Bradley estimates
(figure 10 in the technical summary, reappearing with thermometer measurements superimposed
as figure 3.20, page 175 in WG1 SAR) which only went back to 1400 (i.e.
after Plimer’s definition of the end of the MWP). (Figure 3.21 shows proxies without any
temperature relation and with poor coherence around the time of the MWP). Thus the
MWP was not in the 1996 report to be ‘expunged’ in 2001. The ‘reappearance’ in 2007
is to have multiple reconstructions, none of which show a MWP even 1C warmer than
the second half of the twentieth century, let alone the 2C that Plimer claims. The LIA
can be seen in all 3 reports, with most reconstructions suggesting about 0.5C below mid
20th century levels. In the 2007 report, a small number of reconstructions suggest LIA
temperatures nearer to 1C cooler and MWP a few tenths of a degree cooler. (Note that
all this refers to the northern hemisphere).

28. p. 98:
The GISS director398
claimed that nine of the ten warmest years in history have
occurred since 1995, . . . Since reference 398 is a paper published in 1999, the misrepresentation
is obvious.
29. p. 99: Following soon after the previous passage . . . NASA had to reverse its position . . . .
NASA now states that the top four years of high temperatures are from the 1930s (1934,
1931, 1938 and 1939). The warmest year was 1934. Shortly afterwards: Similarly the
UK’s Meteorological office has now confirmed a fall in global temperatures. . . . Nowhere
in this discussion of global temperatures is the acknowledgement that interpolation about
the high temperatures in the 1930s (the subject of the NASA revision to statements about
extremes) refers to the USA and not the whole world. The revision to the USA data
changes the global numbers by a few thousandths of a degree. 13 — [also in TL list].
30. p. 110, figure 12: The lower plot on this figure has a label referring to late twentieth
century warming, with a time line in ‘years before present’. However the line ends at
about 60 years ago. Maybe Plimer is anticipating the book being in print, without revision
in 2060! However the real howler in this plot is that the temperature increase is shown
as about 40C. In addition, the relation between upper (10000 years of C-14) and lower
(1100 years of temperature) parts of the figure is unclear.
31. p. 121: the sun rotates around the centre of gravity of the solar system about every 11.1
years. Plimer is confusing rotation (about once every 25 days) with orbital motion around
the center of gravity. According to Einstein’s principle of general relativity, such orbital
13The transcript of the Lateline interview where Ian Plimer tries to evade this issue, can be found on:
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2008/s2554129.htm

8


motion can have no detectable effect. There can be tidal effects, but these will have a
frequency given by the difference: 1=25
-
1=(365
×
11:1)
per day, i.e. not much less than
once every 25 days.

32. p. 126, figure 14: A correlation of cycles over less than 2 cycles is of no significance.
Many proposed correlations between climatic variations and sunspot cycles have failed
as additional data became available (A.B. Pittock, formerly of CSIRO: personal communication
based on published work and work in progress). Note that the curves are
labelled ‘sunspot numbers’ and ‘Grain price’ while the vertical axes are labelled ‘number
of sunspots’ (meaningless unless the time interval specified) and ‘W/m2’ — a novel unit
for grain prices. However, Tim Lambert’s comparison with the original source [figure
7.41 in reference 550] reveals a more complicated degree of falsification:
i: The curve reproduced as Sunspot numbers is ‘solar insolation’ (Sonneneinstrahlung in
the reference 550) and is quantified on the right-hand axis which has the same numerical
values as in Heaven + Earth in W/m2
.
ii: In the original, the left hand axis is prices, Getreidepreise (Mariengroshchen pro
100 kg), with the range 100 to 200, i.e. the numbers that Plimer relabels as Number
of sunspots.
33. p. 131, figure 15: This has multiple problems:
i: unidentified source and data;
ii: selective data use;
iii: Incorrect description in caption [item 34];
iv: highly smoothed CO2
record added for comparisons;
v: erroneous statement about correlations.
34. p. 131, figure 15 (caption): Plot of the last 140 years . . . no it isn’t. The plots, starting
at 1860 end a little after 1980 (although the time axis extends beyond 2000). Truncating
the plots in this way serves to reduce the correlation between temperature and CO2
and
enhance the correlation between temperature and sunspot cycle length.
35. p. 132:
Greenhouse gases act only as amplifiers. In using the word only, Plimer fails
to explain how greenhouse gases can have a (amplifying) warming effect when the gas
increase is due to other climate change (as in the mainstream interpretation of glacial-
interglacial cycles) and yet not have a warming effect when the gas increases are due to
human inputs.
36. p. 133: States: Ice cores from Greenland show the temperature was warmer at 1000 AD.
while the cited reference (footnote 595) indicates that the data are not from the ice core
(i.e. the ice extracted from the drill-hole), but are from measurements of temperatures in
the hole — [contributed suggestion].
37. p. 148: Earth has less carbon and water than other planets, asteroids and comets A very
strange statement, particularly for Mercury, Mars and the asteroids — [DK].
38. p. 195: On the global scale satellite measurements of vegetation between 1982 and 1999
showed that plant growth increased by 6% in response to slightly increased rainfall and
9



slightly increased temperature, but the major change was due to slightly increased CO2.
There is no reference directly associated with this passage but the preceding passage cites
the paper Climate-driven increases in global terrestrial net primary production from 1982
to 1999 [footnote 936] by Nemani et al. (2003). This paper did not provide any specific
satellite-derived estimate of the effect of CO2.

39. p. 198: In fact the sea-ice has expanded and high winds during an Arctic storm killed four
polar bears .. Indeed saying sea-ice has expanded may well be true if one writes during the
northern winter. The end-date of the record shown as the lower curve in Figure 29, suggests
such ‘cherry-picking’. However, the purported Arctic data are a misrepresentation
of the source. The curve is a global anomaly — see item 47.
40. p. 217: Mt Pinatubo . . . released 20 millions tonnes of sulphur dioxide .... and very large
quantities of chlorofluorocarbons. . . . The reference cited for this [footnote 1075] makes
no such claims and is not reporting observations of anything. It is about a modelling study
that compares the chemical effects of Pinatubo emissions to the effect of chlorofluorocarbons
— [also in TL list].
41. p. 219:
An almost entirely eruption-free period from 1912 to 1963 coincided with an
average global warming of 0.5C. It is quite possible that the atmosphere warmed due
to the lack of a normal quote of volcanic aerosols. Precisely. This statement completely
undermines Plimer’s arguments that CO2
can’t be causing later warming because there
was too little CO2
increase at the time of early 20th century warming.
42. p. 229: In about 9000 years time, perihelion will occur in the Northern hemisphere and
aphelion will occurs in the Southern hemisphere, the reverse of today. This is absurd.
Perihelion and aphelion are points on the Earth’s orbit and do not occur in a specific
hemisphere.
43. p. 230: claims that climate models don’t do seasonal variation of insolation, i.e. neglect
the ellipticity of the Earth’s orbit. The mean figure of 1367 watts per square metre is
used in climate models, thereby omitting the effects of orbit on the change in solar input.
This is untrue (personal communication from CSIRO climate modellers). An older, but
verifiable and more accessible reference is CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research
Technical Paper no. 26, available on-line from the CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research
website. Numerous studies have been done with climate models using different
values of ellipticity (and different orientations of the Earth’s axis) in order to study other
stages of the Milancovi´

c cycle. Such studies would be impossible of the shape of the
earth’s orbit is ignored.

44. p. 237: There is neither a significant loss nor a gain to polar ice, alpine valley glaciers, and
sea ice. One of many unsupported claims in introductory sections, which the subsequent
detailed discussion justifies on the basis of flawed assertions. See item 46 regarding cited
reference on alpine glaciers. — [DK].
45. p. 277:
The initial analysis of the Vostok ice core used samples spaced at intervals of
hundreds of years. The initial conclusions were that high CO2
in the atmosphere led to
10



high temperatures. This is untrue. The initial conclusions over 20 years ago were that
the cycles were initiated by orbital changes with changes in CO2
having a consequent
amplifying role. In the relevant paper, the abstract (quoted in full in the discussion below
on the Vostok core, see page 33) says CO2
changes have had an important climatic role
.... in amplifying the relatively weak orbital forcing.

46. p. 281:
The good news is that alpine valley glaciers are not retreating. Measurements
of retreats and advances from glaciers in the period 1946–1995 for 246 glaciers show
that there is no sign of any recent global trend towards increased glacier melting.1441
The
first sentence does not follow from the first: reference 1441 does find that glaciers are
retreating, but fails to find evidence of an increased rate of retreat — [TL].
47. p. 287, figure 29: A graph that claims to be area of global sea ice with total area of
Antarctic sea ice (upper curve) and Arctic sea ice variations (lower graph) shows negative
values for the arctic. In reality, the curve seems to be taken from the site:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
This identifies the lower curve as daily global sea ice anomaly and not Arctic sea ice
variations (lower graph).

48. p. 297 (also on p. 294):
El Ni˜no events are not factored into models of future climate.
This is untrue. In the WG1 AR4 report, figure 8.13 shows the performance of a range
of the climate models in simulating the statistical characteristics of El Ni˜no. Since the
El Ni˜no is recognised as part of the chaotic behaviour of the climate system (in spite of
Plimer’s claim, item 97, that the IPCC denies this) the sequence of individual El Ni˜
no
events is unpredictable and the relevant test is of the intensity and frequency distribution

— [DK].
49. p. 303: In the three years before the flooding associated with hurricane Katrina devastated
New Orleans in August 2005, the city and surrounding area had undergone rapid subsidence
of about one metre. There is no reference associated with this claim. However, when
the claim is repeated on page 409 a reference is cited, but the subsidence reported in that
reference represents an average of 16:8
±
7:5
mm over the three years — see item 73.
50. p. 312:
Al Gore’s Oscar winning movie predicted that sea level would increase by 6
metres in the near future Gore does not put a date on when a 20 foot rise would happen
(nor specify what circumstances). In my view this is one of the serious omissions in
Gore’s book. My recollection is that a similar view of this omission was taken by the
judge in the UK court case over Gore’s film and book.
51. p. 324, caption of figure 34:
These bottom waters are undersaturated in CO2
hence can
dissolve the monstrous amounts of CO2
emitted by submarine volcanoes. This fails to account
for what happens when this water is upwelled to the surface, become oversaturated
due to the lower pressure.
52. p. 325:14 The sentence An upper limit on how much CO2
concentration in the atmosphere
will rise if all the available fossil fuel is burned can be calculated. Is followed immediately
14In versions prior to 1.6, this issue was incorrectly noted as being on page 235.

11


by In order to permanently double the current level of CO2
in the atmosphere and keep
the oceans and atmosphere balanced, the atmosphere needs to be supplied with 51 times
the present amount of atmospheric CO2. The shift in the argument is the inclusion of
the word permanently, making the comparison misleading. Indeed without specifying
the time-scales, the comparison is meaningless. On the time-scales of tens of millions of
years, the geological evidence suggests that the factor of 51 is too small. On timescales
of millennia, geological analysis suggests that the factor is in the range 5 to 10. On
the century timescale, the factor is closer to 2. A good conceptual analysis of these
issues is given by Eric Sundquist of the US Geological Survey in his chapter Geological
perspectives on carbon dioxide and the carbon cycle [Plimer’s footnote 2117].

53. p. 325:
If humans burned all the available fossil fuels over the next 300 years there
would be 15 turnovers of CO2
between oceans and atmosphere and all the additional
CO2
would be consumed by ocean life and precipitated as calcium carbonate in sea-floor
sediments.1682
Reference 1682 is a one-page comment from 1990, discussing uncertainties
in climate sensitivity, projected emission rates and satellite-derived temperature data.
It mentions neither CO2
turnover, nor sediments.
54. p. 332: Claims: If any more CO2
were added to the oceans then calcium carbonate would
precipitate.1738
Reference 1738 is about carbon budgets and its analysis of sediments is
about the possibilities of sediments dissolving, not new sediment forming. The relevant
chemical reaction is:
H2CO3
+ CO=
3
3

.
2HCO-
so that increasing CO2
(and thus H2CO3) tends to shift the balance to increasing 2HCO-
3
by removing CO=
3
and so making carbonate sediments more soluble. (The conclusion
in reference 1738 was that this was not an immediate threat over significant areas of the
ocean floor.)
55. p. 338: There is no such thing as a “tipping point” (or even a “precautionary principle”)
in science. The precautionary principle is proposed for the conduct of human affairs.
No-one seriously proposes it as a scientific principle. (If it was a scientific principle
there would be no need to argue for its use — it would just happen). There is such a
thing as a “tipping” point in science, but the more technical name is “catastrophe”. An
accessible account is given in the book Catastrophe Theory by V. I. Arnold (Springer-
Verlag, 1984, 1986). Since not all things that are catastrophes in the mathematical sense
are catastrophic in the human sense, the use of a less ambiguous term such as “tipping
point” seems desirable for public communication.
56. p. 346–347, figures 38, 39, 40:
Annual averages show sea surface temperature rises
whereas monthly averages do not. and in the caption of figure 40: The three diagrams
show that the data can easily be manipulated to create a desired outcome. Actually no.
In particular the linear trend will be almost the same in each case, with small differences
coming from a few months at the end. Fitting a trend to monthly, 5-monthly or
12-monthly averages involves (apart from the ends and some rounding of times) the same
sums over the same months, whether or not one deals with averages. Using 5-month averages
just means that each month gets added in 5 times (and divided by 5). From the
12



basic laws of arithmetic, the sum of a set of numbers does not depend on the order in
which they are added. So why do the graphs seem to have different trends: because they
are plotted on different scales. Each actually shows about 0.7C increase over the 40-odd
years. This same scam was used by Michael Crichton in State of Fear comparing US and
global data — see section 3.2 of Twisted.

57. p. 350: The El Ni˜no most commonlyoccurs inlate December, lasts for a month or so ...
compared to p. 352 El Ni˜no lasts for 1 to 2 years.

58. p. 365: Clouds are not factored into climate models. Untrue. See for example sections 12
and 13 of CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research Technical Paper no. 26, available online
from the CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research website. Also many textbooks.
59. p. 366: assertion of the 0.5C climate sensitivity with no citation and contradicting other
values given by Plimer [items 93, 112] — [TL].
60. p. 366:
The Earth has an average surface temperature of about 15C, followed a few
sentences later by If the atmosphere had no CO2
far more heat would be lost and the
average surface temperature would be about –3C. The implication of attributing 18C of
warming to CO2
while saying [caption of Figure 44] About 98% of the greenhouse effect
in the atmosphere is due to water vapour is to imply that in the absence of CO2
and H2O,
the temperature would be 900C lower, i.e. well below the physical limit of absolute zero.
61. p.
367: However, Arrhenius was not aware of the carbon cycle . . . . Arrhenius’ 1896
paper explicitly includes geological aspects of the ocean carbon cycle, drawing on the
work of geologist Arvid H¨
ogbom, going to the extent of providing a summary translation
of some of H¨ogbom’s work at the end of his own paper.

62. p. 370, figure 44: As noted in item 60, the exaggerated proportion of warming attributed
to water vapour in the graphic and caption, implies that water vapour is warming the
planet from a temperature below absolute zero — [also in TL list].
63. p. 371: assertion of the 0.5C climate sensitivity with no citation and contradicting other
values given by Plimer [items 93, 112] — [TL].
64. p. 374:
Once there is 400 ppm of CO2
in the atmosphere, the doubling or tripling of
CO2
content has little effect on atmospheric temperature because CO2
has adsorbed all
the infra-red it can adsorb. The term ‘adsorb’ is defined (Macquarie Dictionary) as “ to
gather a gas, liquid or dissolved substance) on the surface of a condensed layer . . . ”, c.f.
‘absorb’ for which the same dictionary’s definitions include: 5. to take or receive in by
chemical or molecular action while Chambers Twentieth Century dictionary’s definition
of ‘absorb’ includes: “to suck in, to swallow up, ... to take up and transform (energy)
instead or transmitting or reflecting”. An consistent failure [see item 83] to distinguish
between ‘adsorb’ and ‘absorb’ does not inspire confidence.
13


65. p. 375, figure 50:15 As with many of the graphics, this is poorly described with no attribution
of the numbers (see item 3). However above 100 ppm the values seem to be inversely
proportional to concentration as expected for incremental change when temperature has a
logarithmic dependence on concentration (which Plimer acknowledges on p. 338). Thus
a better label for the vertical axis would be ‘incremental warming’. This means that
the claim in the caption once the atmosphere is at its present 385 ppm, a doubling or
quadrupling will have very little effect on the atmospheric temperature is untrue. (Note
also similar statement on previous page — item 64). Each doubling will have the same
effect on temperature until concentrations get so high that the logarithmic relation breaks
down. The trend in Figure 50 shows no sign of this happening around 400 ppm. The
bars would imply that the increments correspond to each additional 20 ppm of CO2. This
would imply a climate sensitivity of 0.35C. While the origin of the numbers is not given,
the discussion on page 30 below notes that they can be explained by using 0.5C for the
climate sensitivity (the lowest of Plimer’s other values) and then having a factor of 1.44
error through neglecting to consider the change of base of logarithms.
66. p. 379:
In fact, satellites and radiosondes show that there is no global warming.1910
.
Reference 1910 is a 2007 overview by Charles F. Keller which updates his 2003 report
(CFK03). The words in reference 1910 are: The big news since CFK03 is the first of
these, the collapse of the climate critics’ last real bastion, namely that satellites and radiosondes
show no significant warming in the past quarter century. Reference 1910 describes
the issues with the satellite and sonde data that gave the incorrect appearance of
no trend.
67. p. 382: In fact, satellites and radiosondes show that there is no global warming.1918
Reference
1918 is the same reference as 1910 and so the comments in item 66 apply equally
here — [TL].
68. p. 398:
attempts to use only stalagmite ring widths to ascertain climate variation shows
that there is no relationship between stalagmite ring width and tree rings in the same
area.1990
when in fact reference 1990 makes no mention of tree rings — [email contribution].
69. p. 401: Ice cores also record human activity. ... The increase in CO2
2001
and methane2002
is also recorded. Reference 2001 refers to measurement of samples from the atmosphere,
not from bubbles in an ice core.
70. p. 402: There was no “tipping point” and the temperature-CO2
plots clearly showed that
the rise in temperature was stopped by something other than CO2. 2007
— comparison with
reference 2007, a paper by Wunsch, reveals that the paper does not discuss any aspect of
CO2.
71. p. 402: New high resolution studies over the last 450,000 years of Vostok core show that
at all times of cold to warm transitions, temperature rise is followed by a rise in CO2
some
800 years later.2009
Reference 2009 only analyses a period between 230,000 and 255,000
15Prior to version 1.4, this was incorrectly noted as fig 5.

14


years ago (spanning ‘Termination III’), thus does not analyse the last 450,000 years and
so does not justify claims about all times of cold to warm transitions.

72. p. 407:
Actual measurements for 2007 show that it was one of the coldest years this
century and the coldest since 1995. Compare to figure 1 on page 11 of Heaven + Earth.
The claim ‘coldest since 1995’ is clearly untrue. Calling it ‘one of the coldest this century’
(i.e. not even the coldest) is fairly insignificant with only 8 or 9 years (depending on
whether you regard the century as beginning on 1/1/2000 or 1/1/2001).
73. p. 409:
New Orleans sunk rapidly by about 1 metre in the three years before Katrina
struck. This time (unlike page 303, item 49) a reference is cited: by Dixon and others Nature,
441, 587–588 (2006) from radar satellite altimetry. They report a three-year average
of ..5:6
±
2:5
mm/year, with a maximum of ..29
mm/year (negative values indicating
subsidence). They note that if the motion is interpreted as purely vertical, the mean and
maximum subsidence become 6.4 mm/year and 33 mm/year.
74. p. 411:
Carbon dioxide is a colourless odourless non-poisonous gas. If taken literally,
this is dangerously misleading. Some of the relevant toxicity data from Chemwatch #1003
(1999)16 are:
7% to 10%: unconsciousness within minutes;
5% fatal dose for inhalation;
2% adverse pulmonary effects;
and various adverse effects from continuous exposure at lower concentrations around 1%.
75. p. 412: Plimer notes that limestone contains 65,000,000 billions tonnes of carbon (65,000,000
GtC) forgetting that his own figure of 200 GtC per year in CO2
from volcanoes would imply
that limestone sediments are, on average, being turned over every 325,000 years.
•
The 200 GtC/year figure is from A sceptical look at greenhouse, by Ian Plimer in
The Skeptic17, vol. 13, pp 11-17, 1994.
•
In Heaven + Earth, Plimer seems to evade the issue of giving an estimate of volcanic
CO2
emissions, but on p. 413 says Volcanoes produce more CO2
then the world’s
cars and industries combined — [DK, TL]. and
•
Volcanoes add far more CO2
to the oceans and atmosphere than humans (p. 328) —
[DK]. and
•
p. 472: massive volcanic eruptions (e.g. Pinatubo) emit the equivalent of a years’
human CO2
emissions in a few days. No citation is given. Actual data shows that
the CO2
growth rate declined after the Pinatubo eruption — [TL].
76. p. 413:
Animals produce 25 times as much CO2
as cars and industry. Irrelevant and
untrue. A common irrelevant argument used by doubt-spreaders. Animal CO2
production
doesn’t affect climate because it is putting back carbon taken out of the atmosphere by
plants. However 25 by 7 GtC/year is exaggerated. Even if no plant material decayed
16The summary is for illustrative purposes. Health and Safety issues should be addressed by reference to the
full chemical data sheets.
17Publication of the Australian Sceptics Society.

15


directly to CO2, or decomposed by bacteria or burnt by wild-fire, Plimer’s figures would
have animals chomping through plant material at about 2 or 3 times the rate (the Global
Net Primary Production of 50 to 100 GtC per year) at which plants remove the carbon
from the atmosphere — thus eating all the world’s biomass in a few decades.

77. p. 415: The C14
proportion of total carbon in the atmosphere is decreasing, suggesting that
there is an increased biological contribution of CO2
to the atmosphere. The proportion of
atmospheric 14C is decreasing because atmospheric CO2, with 14C from nuclear testing is
being taken up into the oceans and replaced by (old) CO2
upwelled from the deep oceans
and so uninfluenced by the nuclear testing. Note that this interpretation of the 14C data
lies behind some of the estimates of air-sea gas exchange that Plimer mis-interprets as
estimates of ‘CO2
lifetime’.
78. p. 417: ..the observatory was evacuated for a few months and there was a gap in the data
record which represented a period of no measurements. There are now no gaps in the
Mauna Loa data set. To refer to the Mauna Loa (CO2) data set, is misleading since there
are three main records: The Scripps in-situ IRGA measurements established by C. D.
Keeling; the NOAA in-situ IRGA measurements and the NOAA flask program which is
part of a global network for which flasks of air are shipped back to the central NOAA
laboratory in Boulder, Colorado. The main archive/access location for CO2
data is the
Carbon Dioxide Information and Analysis Center (CDIAC), in Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
Other programs such as CSIRO also produce records from Mauna Loa as part of the ongoing
validation activity. The graphic at:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/Mauna Loa CO2.jpg shows extensive gaps in
the early part of the Scripps record.
79. p. 417:
The annual mean CO2
atmospheric content reported at Mauna Loa for 1959
was 315.93 ppmv. This was 15 ppmv lower than the 1959 measurements for measuring
stations in northwestern Europe. Measured CO2
at Mauna Loa increased steadily to
351.45 ppmv in early in 1989. The 1989 value is the same as the European measurements
35 years earlier by the Pettenkofer method.... Plimer’s references for the European program
are two papers by Bischof in 1960 and 1962 [footnotes 2094 and 2095 respectively].
The 1960 paper quotes annual means of — 1955: 326 ppm; 1956: 321 ppm; 1957: 323
ppm; 1958: 315 ppm; 1959: 331 ppm. For such a short passage, Plimer is showing a
remarkably high number of errors:
i: 1959 to 1989 is 30 years, not 35 years;
ii: 15 ppm above 315.9 ppm is 330.9 ppm, close to the annual mean reported for Mauna
Loa for 1975, not 1989.
iii: during 1959 the Swedish group switched to the more precise Infra-Red Gas Analyser
(IRGA) with precision determined as 1
ppm, while they found the precision of the
chemical method to be 3
ppm — thus the 1959 data were not all from the chemical
method;
iv: the whole comparison is biased by comparing a high altitude site with surface data.
The relevant comparison is with the data reported by Bischof (1962), sampling air during
aircraft flights. The values for air from above about 1km are from 308 ppm to 320 ppm
with a mean of 314 ppm, very close to the 315 ppm at Mauna Loa.
16


80. p. 417–8: Furthermore, the measurement at Mauna Loa is by infra-red analysis and some
of the ice core measurements of CO2
in trapped air were by gas chromatography. Exactly.
There are two techniques, IRGA and GC, with good precision and which agree with each
other, and a third (chemical) technique with inherently lower precision which requires
great experimental skill to achieve accuracy.
81. p. 418: land-derived air blowing across the sea loses about 10 ppm of its CO2
as the CO2
dissolves in the oceans. High-CO2
air from over land often has the concentration drop
due to vertical mixing. A more realistic estimate of how much drop can be caused by the
oceans (over large areas) is obtained by comparing measurements of CO2
at Cape Grim
Tasmania which, when measured in air coming off the ocean averaged about 1 ppm lower
than air measured by CSIRO on flights over Bass Strait.
82. p. 419:
The lowest figure measured since 1812, the 270 ppm figure, is taken as the
pre-industrialisation yardstick. The IPCC want it both ways. They are prepared to use the
lowest determination by the Pettenkofer method as a yardstick yet do not acknowledge
Pettenkofer method measurements showing CO2
concentrations far higher than now many
times since 1812. The IPCC does not use 270 ppm as the pre-industrial CO2
concentration.
The value used is 280 ppm. In the various WG1 reports, see SPM table 1 in 1990,
technical summary (TS) table 1 in SAR, TS table 1 in TAR, and page 2 in SPM of AR4.
This number is based in measurements of air in ice bubbles (mainly using IR techniques)
and excluding anomalously low values from the time of the Little Ice Age. For ice cores,
the volume of air available is too small to use the less precise chemical (Pettenkofer)
method.
83. p. 421:
CO2
molecules will be removed fast from the atmosphere to be adsorbed in
another reservoir — inability to distinguish ‘adsorbed’ from ‘absorbed’ yet again — see
item 64.
84. p. 421: For CO2, The IPCC asserts that the lifetime is 50–200 years. The IPCC has been
criticised because the lifetime is not defined. In reality the IPCC (1990) says in the SPM
The way in which CO2
is absorbed by the oceans and biosphere is not simple and a single
number cannot be given and in the footnote to table 1: The “lifetime” of CO2
is given
in the table is a rough indication of the time it would take CO2
concentrations to adjust
to changes in emissions. (see section 1.2.1 for further details), with section 1.2.1 stating
The turnover time of CO2
in the atmosphere, measured as the ratio of content to the fluxes
through it is about 4 years. ... This short time scale must not be confused with the time
it takes for the atmospheric CO2
level to adjust to a new equilibrium of sources or sinks
change.
85. p. 422: Calculations of the lifetime of atmospheric CO2
based on natural C14
give lifetime
values of 3 to 25 years (18 separate studies), dilution of the atmosphere from fossil fuel
burning a lifetime of 2 to 7 years (two separate studies), atomic bomb C14
lifetime value
of 2 to more than 10 years (12 separate studies) . . . . This is referenced by footnote 2117
at the beginning and footnote 2118 after additional cases not quoted above. This makes
it difficult to identify which citation applies to which group of claims. In the case of reference
2117 (Eric Sundquist’s article Geological perspectives on carbon dioxide and the
17



carbon cycle, noted above in connection with item 52), the misrepresentation is particularly
clear. Sundquist describes carbon balance and the decay of perturbations in terms of
competition between the flux to and from the atmosphere. In these terms his estimates are
of the one-way fluxes, i.e. Plimer is omitting half of Sundquist’s calculation, thus turning
approximate balance into a claim of rapid net loss of CO2
from the atmosphere.

86. p. 422: There is considerable difference in the atmospheric CO2
lifetime between the 37
independent measurements and calculations using six different methods and the IPCC
computer model. This discrepancy has not been explained by the IPCC. As noted in
item 84, Plimer is misrepresenting estimates of turnover time as being estimates of a
characteristic lifetime for CO2
perturbations. The difference has been explained in IPCC
reports — see in particular section 2.1.4 of the WG1 Second Assessment Report. (Of
course, in criticising the IPCC computer model, Plimer is referring to something that
doesn’t actually exist).
87. p. 422:
If the CO2
atmospheric lifetime were 5 years, then the amount of the total
atmospheric CO2
derived from fossil fuel burning would be 1.2% not the 21% assumed
by the IPCC. This would appear to conflict with Oceans, soils and plants already absorb
at least half the human CO2
emissions on page 472. In fact both statements are roughly
true — the conclusion that resolves this apparent conflict is that a 5-year ‘atmospheric
lifetime’ does not characterise atmospheric CO2.
88. p. 422: In order to make the measurements of the atmospheric CO2
lifetime agree with the
IPCC assumption, it would be necessary to mix all the CO2
derived from the world’s fossil
burning with a different CO2
reservoir that was five times larger than the atmosphere.2123
— Reference 2123 (which is also reference 1738) does not support such a claim. It gives
an outline of the atmosphere-ocean-biosphere carbon dynamics which is quantitatively
similar to current mainstream understanding, even though this 1979 analysis pre-dates
both the IPCC (and its alleged ‘assumptions’) and the availability of CO2
concentrations
from ice cores. Indeed, the ability to understand the carbon cycle using radiocarbon
data, without reference to CO2
concentrations from ice-cores, seriously undermines the
significance of attacks on the ice-core data. As a measure of the accuracy, endnote 13
of reference 2123 estimates that human activity had increased CO2
by 35 ppm. Ice-core
data would indicate that the increase to that time was nearer to 45 ppm. This is about a
30% error, not the factor of 5 or more claimed by Plimer.
89. p. 425: The IPCC 2007 report stated that the CO2
radiative forcing had increased by 20%
in the last 10 years. Radiative forcing puts a number on increases in radiative energy
in the atmosphere and hence the temperature. In 1995, there was 360 ppmv of CO2
whereas in 2005 it was 378 ppmv, some 5% higher. However each additional molecule
of CO2
in the atmosphere causes smaller radiative forcing than its predecessor and the
real increase in radiative forcing was 1%. The IPCC have exaggerated the effect of CO2
20-fold. As Plimer notes, radiative forcing is about increases. The IPCC (see AR4
WG1 glossary) defines radiative forcing as the change relative to the year 1750. This is
also noted in footnote 2 of the SPM when the concept of radiative forcing is introduced.
Using the logarithmic formula to account for the diminishing effect of additional CO2,
18



=log(378/280)/log(360/280)
in a spreadsheet, gives a 1.194 multiplier from 1995 to
2005, i.e. a 19.4% increase. This does not depend on the value of the climate sensitivity.
The same result is obtained with any of Plimer’s 3 values (0.35C from figure 50, the
0.5C that he asserts without citation, or the 1.5C to 1.6C from the long-term historical
data that he cites, e.g. item 93). (A value of 20% is obtained if the 1750 concentration is
taken as 282 ppm.) — [also in TL list].

90. p. 425: IPCC does not acknowledge that CO2
derived from human activity produces 0.1%
of global warming.18 Using Plimer’s preferred (but unrealistically low) climate sensitivity
of 0.5C, typing =1.44*0.5*LN(385/280)*1000
into a spreadsheet gives a warming of
229C, implying that without human and natural greenhouse gases, the temperature of the
earth would be like that of the outer planets. Using the empirical (but still unrealistically
low) estimate of 1.5C quoted by Plimer on page 426 would imply that without human
and natural greenhouse gases, the temperature of the Earth would be below the physical
limit of absolute zero.
91. p. 425:
During times of ice ages such as 140,000 years ago, the CO2
content of the
atmosphere was higher than the pre-industrial revolution figure of 270 ppmv.2134
This is
‘cherry-picking’ from two different estimates of the Vostok dating. According to reference
2134 (published in 1990), 140,000 years ago, the CO2
concentration was around
270 ppm, but the world was no longer in an ice age. According to more recent dating19,
140,000 years ago CO2
was below 200 ppm and significant warming did not begin until
about 500 years later — [DK].
92. p. 425:
The current CO2
content of the atmosphere is the lowest it has been for thousands
of millions of years, .. which is clearly inconsistent with noting a current concentration
around 385 ppm and many occasions noted by Plimer (e.g. on p278) with CO2
around
180 ppm within the last millions years.
93. p. 426:
The variation in CO2
shows that a climate sensitivity of greater than 1.5C has
probably been a robust feature of the Earth’s climate system for over 420 million years.
This contradicts his frequent undocumented assertion [items 59, 63, 106] that the climate
sensitivity is 0.5C.
94. p. 432: When discussing ozone depletion and the Montreal Protocol, Plimer asserts: One
of the critical molecules, dicholorine peroxide, appears to break down far slower than was
though[sic].2158;2159;2060
Reference 2060 is the paper announcing the discovery of the ‘Ozone hole’ and so is not
directly relevant to the global-scale ozone depletion which the Montreal Protocol aims to
mitigate. In particular, reference 2060 makes no mention of dichlorine peroxide.20

95. p. 437: If governments had read the fine print of the crucial chapter 5 of the IPCC AR4
(Humans responsible for climate change) they would have realised that it was based on
18The summary in versions up to 1.5 incorrectly gave Plimer’s number as 1%.
19Using the dataset described on page 33.
20Cl2O2
or ClOOCl, also termed chlorine peroxide.


19


the opinions of just five independent scientists. This implies that the chapter is called
Humans responsible for climate change. This is untrue. In the AR4 WG1 report chapter
5 is called Observations: Oceanic Climate Change and Sea Level. The words Humans
responsible for climate change are not the title of any section or subsection of chapter 5
(nor the title of any other chapter in the AR4 WG1 report). The executive summary of
chapter 5 does not include any discussion of attribution of responsibility for the changes
that are described. The total number of authors is 13, coming from 9 different countries
with Corrinne Le Qu´er´e spending part of her time in a 10th country. Similarly, in the AR4
reports from working groups 2 and 3, neither chapter 5 nor any other chapter has the title
Humans responsible for climate change — [also in TL list].

96. p. 438: The IPCC has essentially ignored the role of natural climate variability. In reality
the various IPCC WG1 reports have chapters entitled: 7: Observed Climate Variations
and Change (1990); 3: Observed Climate Variability and Change (1996); 2: Observed
Climate Variability and Change (2001); 6: Paleoclimate (2007).
97. p. 439: referring to the 2001 report the report of the IPCC claimed that, based on computer
model simulations, climate has only limited variability and hence was not dynamic,
non-linear and chaotic. Actual words [page 95, WG1 report, TAR] are: Since the pioneering
work of Lorenz in the 1960s, it is well known that complex non-linear systems
have limited predictability, even though the mathematical equations defining the time evolution
of the system are perfectly deterministic. The climate system is, as we have seen
such a system ....
98. p. 439: In discussing the role of chaos: Five simulations were undertaken for the period
1860–2000 using the same general circulations models that are used by the IPCC. Each
simulation had slightly different initial conditions, but otherwise was the same. Very
small differences in the initial conditions of climate resulted in large differences in large
variations in later climate.2178
This has minor misrepresentations: there was only one
model, and the initial conditions were different weather ‘snapshots’ from a control run
with only internal climate variability21. The serious misrepresentation is that of large
differences in later climate. There were, as expected, large differences in subsequent
weather variations, but the later climates (i.e. multi-decadal averages and trends) were
quite similar.
99. p. 443 [footnote 2181]: repeats Monckton’s claims about An Inconvenient Truth without
mentioning that most were rejected by the court.22 More precisely, what the judgment23
says of the plaintiff’s counsel is that Mr. Downes produced a long schedule of such alleged
errors and waxed lyrical in that regard. and later: In the event I was persuaded that
only some of them were sufficiently persuasive to be relevant for the purposes of his
argument, and it was those matters — 9 in all — upon which I invented Mr Chamberlain24
21and as always, the false claim that the IPCC ‘uses’ the models
22The first sentence of this item was included as a contribution from Tim Lambert and temporarily dropped until

I had time to expand on the word ‘rejected’.
23Available from http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/admin/2007/2299.html
24For the defence.

20


to concentrate. There-after, the judgement uses quotation marks around the word “errors”.

100. p. 450: There was a statistical study to show that the 20th century was unusually warm2185
... and .. another paper showing that appropriate tests that link climate proxy records to
the observational data were not utilised and, as a result, the unusual warmth of the 20th
century disappeared2186
. What reference 2186 actually says is that the significance of
the 20th-century warming anomaly disappears. — the change is not in the 20th century
warming but rather in the level of statistical significance (95% rather than over 99% as
suggested in reference 2185).
101. p. 472:
Oceans, soils and plants already absorb at least half the human CO2
emissions
Uptake of just over half of human emissions by the oceans, soils and plants is the view of
mainstream science. The reason to note this statement by Plimer is that it is inconsistent
with Plimer’s claims about CO2
lifetimes and large emissions from volcanoes. In particular,
with the 4-year lifetime that Plimer claims, the only way half of human emissions
can be in the atmosphere is if most emissions have occurred within the last few years.
102. p. 477–478: The discussion of Stern’s work quotes a paper by Klyashtorin and Lubushin
(footnote 2221) when referring to data from many sources. The Klyashtorin and Lubushin
paper is often cited (and mis-quoted) by pseudo-sceptics/doubt-spreaders. It finds no
correlation between detrended series for temperature and fuel use. It is not comparing
temperature to fossil carbon emissions. It is comparing temperature to what the carbon
emissions would have been if all energy use (including nuclear) had come from oil. As
described in Twisted, a number of other aspects of the fit act to reduce the type of correlation
that would be obtained. However, in Heaven + Earth the citation is essentially
irrelevant.
103. p. 479: Footnote 2235 is a repeat citation of footnote 2221, the Klyashtorin and Lubushin
paper [see item 102]. Since its sole climate analysis is comparing temperature to energy
use (and finding no true linear correlation in the detrended series), this citation provides no
meaningful support for the statement that the next major climate change will be cooling.
104. p. 484: The 2007 IPCC SPM showed cooling for 100 of the last 160 years, during which
time greenhouse gases were increasing. Up to version 1.4, my response was: Possibly
true but irrelevant — what matters is if net year-to-year increase is significantly positive.
However, on the basis of random walk statistics, my vague scepticism in saying possibly,
should be changed to highly unlikely and irrelevant. A more complete comment is highly
unlikely, irrelevant and yet another fabrication. The SPM figure is repeated in chapter 3
(in the FAQ section) of WG1 AR4, where the source of the numbers is identified as the
HadCRU3 data set. Looking at the year-to-year changes25 reveals 80 increases and 78
decreases. (The ‘variance reduced’ HadCRU3 set has 78 decreases and 80 increases) —
[also in TL list].
105. p. 485: The Montreal Protocol used the precautionary principle to attempt to ban chlorofluorocarbons
because these gases destroy ozone. However we use chlorine every day to
25File hadcru3gl.txt, see description on page 30.

21


make water fit to drink and yet chlorine also destroys ozone. There is no such thing as the
precautionary principle in science. This misrepresentation of the precautionary principle
is discussed in item 55. The passage misrepresents the role of chlorine, in that reactive
chlorine compounds are removed in the lower atmosphere (mostly ending up as water
soluble compounds that dissolve in rainwater) while unreactive compounds such as CFCs
are only destroyed in the stratosphere (due to higher UV levels) and where rain-out does
not occur. It is the chlorine from CFC breakdown that destroys ozone — Plimer’s use of
the word ‘also’ suggests that he doesn’t understand this — [also in TL list].

106. p. 488: another undocumented assertion of the 0.5C climate sensitivity.
107. p. 488: the IPCC models just don’t do clouds — false — see item 58.
108. pp. 489–493: Choosing to end with a summary from someone (Viscount Monckton) who
is not a scientist is a strange choice. Some of the points [items 109, 111] are particularly
questionable.
109. p. 490: present temperature is ..
up to 3C below the Minoan, Roman and Medieval
warmings2282;2283. The cited references (2282 is for Vostok ice core data and 2283 is the
1990 IPCC report) do not support this claim of up to 3C. The Vostok paper does not refer
to the MWP and the IPCC report has only a schematic [figure 7.1] with no units on the
temperature scale.
110. p. 490: The January 2007–January 2008 fall was the steepest since 1880. 2298
where footnote
2298 reads GISS, Hadley, NCDC, RSS, UAH: all 2008. If the steepest is taken as
the largest drop over a 12-month period, then Plimer’s statement is false. In the Hadley
record, larger decreases over 12 months occur from Dec. 1891 to Dec. 1892 [0.647C],
Aug. 1945 to Aug. 1946 [0.639C] and Feb. 1973 to Feb. 1974 [0.681C] – [thanks to
AJG].
111. pp. 491–492: Sea level may rise by 1 foot to 2100, not 20ft as Gore claims. A variant on
the incorrect claim made on page 312, see item 50. Gore does not put a date on when a
20 foot rise would happen (nor specify what circumstances). My recollection is that this
omission was noted by the judge in the UK court case over Gore’s film and book, a case
in which Monckton was involved.
112. Plimer asserts that the world was only 7C warmer with 20 times the amount of atmospheric
CO2. This give impression that the effect of CO2
on climate is small, but ignores
the logarithmic dependence. This dependence has been known since Arrhenius, acknowledged
by Plimer on p. 338 (with the consequent incremental changes illustrated in figure
50) and often cited by greenhouse pseudo-sceptics such as Bob Carter as a reason for not
worrying. If taken at face value, this assertion would imply a climate sensitivity of 1.6
degrees — just over half Hansen’s estimate and below the lower end of the IPCC range,
but still not insignificant. This can be easily checked by typing =
7.0*log(2.0)/log(20.0)
into a spreadsheet.
22


Cherry picking

Cherry-picking is the common term of selective use of data to achieve a pre-intended result
(or for comparable selective citing of references). The distinction between when a reference
is being ‘cherry-picked’ and when it is being outright misrepresented is of course somewhat
arbitrary.

Various forms of cherry picking include:

•
selecting subseries from a data record when the full record fails to support the claim;
•
using old data, when newer data fail to confirm the claim;
•
selective quoting from references.
113. p. 26, footnote 25: The use of a newspaper as the source of the claim that 2008 was an
exceptionally cold year, rather than use any of the data records plotted in figure 4 on the
same page.26
114. Item 22 notes the selective quoting of reference 256, ignoring the words A warming
followed, yielding temperatures that averaged 0.1–0.5 K above present-day in the interval
500–1000 years ago.
115. An example of cherry-picking terminology is with respect to acidification.
Acidity is
measured on the pH scale with a pH of 1 meaning highly acidic, a pH of 14 meaning
highly alkaline and pure water having a pH of 7. The two possible meanings of ‘acidification’
are (a) a reduction in pH (the usual meaning in discussions of impacts of CO2),
and (b) reducing the pH to below 7 (apparently Plimer’s usual interpretation).
•
p. 338: reference 1786, gives change in pH (i.e. they are using meaning (a)) while
Plimer asserts that the studies claim that oceans will become acid (i.e. meaning (b))
— thus Plimer is ‘cherry-picking’ the alternative meanings in order to misrepresent
the study.
116. p. 402: New high resolution studies over the last 450,000 years of Vostok core show that
at all times of cold to warm transitions, temperature rise is followed by a rise in CO2
some 800 years later.2009
. Apart from the misrepresentation noted in item 71, reference
2009 is ’cherry picked’. The abstract states The sequence of events during Termination
III suggests that the CO2
increase lagged Antarctic deglacial warming by 800 ±
200
years and preceded the Northern Hemisphere deglaciation Plimer ignores and preceded
the Northern Hemisphere deglaciation. — [DW].
117. p. 425: Item 91 notes Plimer’s use of two different estimates of the dating the Vostok ice
core, to support the claim that CO2
was over 270 ppm in a glacial time.
26As an aside, the link given in footnote 25 was no longer accessible on 2009/9/1.

23


Contributed comments

This section contains contributions from Tim Lambert from the list on his Deltoid blog [TL],
Steven Sherwood [SS]. The source of each item is indicated by the author’s initials. This section
and the following section have comments in outline form. Where I have expanded this type of
contribution to a more complete version it is in the main list.

118. Figs. 1, 3 and 4 are all very inconsistent, esp. 1 and 4 which purport to use the same
dataset (HadCRU3). [SS]
119. p. 113: claim that research shows cosmic rays are important for cloud formation are
not supported by the cited studies; some of the studies (Udelhofen and Cess) claimed to
support relationship between cloud and cosmic rays actually refute it — [SS].
120. p. 286: claims IPCC has no evidence to support statement that glaciers are retreating –
see section 4.5 in TAR for evidence — [TL].
121. p. 316: claims that 1-m sea level rise would be consistent with post-glacial rise rate, but
a few sentences later says that has been dropping for the last 3000 years not rising at all.
In the next paragraph he claims that rates of change of several metres per century were
common during the holocene, but the references quoted actually show that 1-m changes
occurred in parts of Australia and that global sea level fell steadily over the last 6000
years by a total of 2m — [SS].
122. p. 367: confused about how the earth warms. How does he think a blanket works?
—
[TL].
123. p. 421: claims only 4% of CO2
in atmosphere is from humans — [TL].
Conduct of science

This section and the following section are split off in response to critics of early versions of this
document, who felt that this sort of thing dilutes the arguments about science. Misrepresentations
of the operation of the IPCC and the authorship of its reports are included here, while
misrepresentation of the content of IPCC reports is in the main section.

124. p. 14: Hypotheses are invalidated by just one item of contrary evidence ... yes but only
once it has been ascertained that the contrary evidence is being correctly interpreted.
125. p. 15: Studies of the Earth’s atmosphere tell us nothing about future climate — so much
for Plimer’s claim that an inclusive approach is needed.
126. p. 15:
Collection of new scientific data by observation, measurement and experiment
is now out of fashion — patently ridiculous, given NASA budget, NOAA, CMAR, EU
CarboEurope etc.
24


127. p. 15: Aristotle’s principle quoted as First we must seek the facts, then seek to explain is
one view — it contrasts to Charles Darwin’s view that a fact is of no value unless it is for
or against some theory [approximate wording].
128. p. 19: In the 2007 report, the health effects of global warming were expertly dealt with
by two lead authors, one of whom was a hygenist and another a specialist in coprolites
(fossil faeces).
The relevant chapter is Human Health, chapter 8 of the Working Group 2 contribution
to AR4. The eight lead authors are: Ulisses Confalonieri, Bettina Menne, Rais
Akhtar,Kristie L. Ebi, Maria Hauengue, R. Savi Kovats, Boris Revich and Alistair
Woodard.

129. p. 25, footnote 25: Given Plimer’s past interactions with religious groups, choosing the
Washington Times as a source of his climate data seems strange.
130. p. 112:
IPCC computers don’t do clouds — totally unsurprising — IPCC computers
don’t do climate modelling — presumably they do things like e-mail, desktop publishing,
accounting etc. The climate modelling used by the IPCC is done by major research groups
using models that do include clouds — see item 58.
131. p. 437: Item 95 notes misrepresentation of the authorship of WG1 chapter 5 in the IPCC
AR4 as well as misrepresentation of content.
132. p. 444: The IPCC claims that its reports are written by 2500 scientists. In fact they are
written by 35 who are controlled by an even smaller number. As described in page 34 the
IPCC gives specific directions as to who should be acknowledged as the authors. This is
far fewer than 2500 people — the IPCC reports make no such claim as 2500. However,
these acknowledged authors total far more than 35 people. The ‘control’ is unspecified.
The real control on IPCC authors is the knowledge that their work will be widely read by
scientific peers and that any errors will be widely publicised. — [also in TL list].
133. p. 445
the growth of the global warming industry has replaced the collection of primary
field data, measurement and experiment. — essentially a repeat of the risible claim noted
in item 126.
134. p. 454: On the subject of tide data: it is hard to market a publication to a journal editor
on the basis that nothing has happened. The one time that a ‘nothing happened’ result
is readily ‘marketable’ is when there is a wide-spread expectation that something would
happen. The Michelson-Morley experiment (failure to detect Earth’s motion through the
ether) is a famous example. If the tide-gauge data really cast significant doubt on the
mainstream view of human-induced climate change, then publication would be much
easier.
135. p. 454: No scientific journal today would have published a paper submitted by an unknown
patent clerk on a fundamental breathtaking new concept of physics. Einstein did have a
few things going for him, beyond being an unknown patent clerk when he submitted his
paper on relativity:
25


i: he had several papers previously published;
ii: much of the mathematics already existed — Einstein’s great insight was to understand
what it meant. Indeed so much of the mathematics already existed that (a) the equations
still carry the name ‘Lorentz transformations’; (b) one strand of ‘Aryan Science’ argued
that relativity was discovered by Lorentz rather than the Jewish Einstein (although the
more common ‘Aryan Science’ view was to dismiss relativity as ‘Jewish superstition’);
iii: Einstein had under simultaneous consideration a paper on the photo-electric effect
that appeared less confronting, but of a quality that gained Einstein the Nobel Prize in
physics.27
136. p. 454: Some 50 or 100 years ago, great science breakthroughs were common events. Not
so today. This seems to ignore the sequencing of the genome of homo sapiens (and other
species); discovery of a new state of matter (the Bose-Einstein condensate); discovery of
extra-solar planets; cloning mammals; new allotropes of carbon (buckey-balls etc.) and
the proof of Fermat’s last theorem.
Some silly stuff

137. p. 20: [on IPCC authors, apparently meaning the ‘contributing authors’] Some of them
used their given name in one part, used an initial in another part and an abbreviation in
another. Apart from the incorrect assertion that these people ‘used’ their names (it was
the lead authors — those who wrote the chapters — or the editors, who would ‘use’ the
names of contributors), this sort of ambiguity is extremely common. For example, the
book Heaven + Earth by Ian Plimer, cites as reference the books A Short History of
Planet Earth — [footnote 564] and Telling Lies for God — [footnote 2202] both by one
I.R. Plimer.
138. p. 83, footnote 345: Deducing climate trends from paintings of clouds is fraught with
problems (and essentially restricted to Europe). Previous studies of cloud paintings have
analysed fractal dimension to show bias in representation — painters choose ‘interesting’
clouds, reflecting what Plimer notes as the role of artistic license. Also fashions change.
Turner’s Val d’Aosta would probably not have been painted in an earlier time and prior
to Mark Rothko and like-minded artists, a painting of marine stratus would be unlikely to
have been regarded as art.
139. p. 362–363: The story of ‘Graham bank’, the volcanic island that rose and sank, adds
nothing to the argument. The claim The rock is worth nothing, is of no use as a territorial
possession. . . is questionable. Territorial possession of various small outcrops around
the world is asserted as the basis of exclusive economic zones, e.g. for fishing and oil
extraction — [PW].
140. p. 464:
Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake for supporting the Copernican theory
of a Sun-centred universe. This one is trotted out from time to time by those who try to
27The ‘less confronting’ was only appearance — what followed from work such as Einstein’s analysis of the
photo-electric effect was so weird that Einstein never fully accepted it.

26


claim that rejection of their claims represents prejudice rather than reasoned arguments.
An article, The Copernican Myths, in the December 2007 of Physics Today notes that
Bruno was condemned mainly for theological heresies. The follow-up correspondence
in Physics Today captured more of the complexity of the myths of science vs. religion,
containing the hint that the myths were fostered by Catholics and Protestants each trying
to paint the other side as the ‘bad guys’.

141. p. 467:
The environmental religion has no music ... — how could anyone forget about
Peter Garrett??
142. p. 468:
Sustainability creates a miserable existence, poverty, disease, depopulation and
ignorance. Historical evidence would suggest that these are the consequences of unsustainabilty.
143. p. 468: Self-denial and a return to the past led to the 600-year Dark Ages. . . — a remarkable
assertion of human influence on climate?
Other critiques

•
The book review No Science in Plimer’s Primer by Michael Ashley picks up on issues
such as the temperature data, CO2
measurements and in particular some of Plimer’s
weirder claims about the composition of the Sun, (page 116). I have noted some such
issues on CO2
measurements as items 78, 79, 80 and 82 — see also index. The index also
indicates various issues regarding temperature data.
•
Robert Manne, writing in the Weekend Australian of 25–26/4/2009 as Zealotry not in
the public interest, presented the view of someone who, like most of the public and the
editors of the Australian, is not an expert on climate science. He suggested that the
public (and editors) cannot rationally choose to believe the views of a handful of pseudo-
sceptics rather than those of tens of thousands of scientists researching and publishing
in this field. Noting the role of industries that rely on fossil fuel emissions he asserted
that Pseudo-sceptical scientists such as Plimer, who falsely help convince citizens that the
scientific knowledge in this field is fiercely disputed and basically unsettled, are among
their most valuable assets.
•
Professor Kurt Lambeck, president of the Australian Academy of Science, was interviewed
on Ockham’s Razor on 7 June 2009. Transcript at:
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/ockhamsrazor/stories/2009/2589206.htm
Going straight to the point, he noted Heaven + Earth is not a work of science. He identifies
a number of issues which, while in isolation could be seen as minor, collectively indicate
carelessness at best, and at worst an attempt to undermine the integrity of the science
case.

•
The transcript of a Lateline interview (where Ian Plimer tries to evade this issue of US vs.
global temperatures — see item 29) can be found on:
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2008/s2554129.htm
27


•
From Tim Lambert’s blog:28 I cross referenced Ian’s list of 33 problems [i.e. version 1 of
the present document] with my own list of 59 and there were only 5 things in common. So
I can estimate the total number of errors if I assume that we have produced independent
samples from the population of Plimer errors: (33x59)/5 = 390 problems. Almost one for
every page! Blogged at:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/05/ian enting is checking plimers.php
As well as 5 being a small sample, there are a lot of reasons why the samples are not
independent — some would lead to lower estimates, some to higher estimates. There are
additional comments by Tim and myself on Tim’s blog, but the bottom line is not to take
the number seriously. (Of course after version 1.2, the lists stop being independent.)

Defences of Plimer

In Australia, much of the media support for Heaven + Earth came from The Australian.

•
A extensive supporting statement on the back cover by V´aclav Klaus (at the time President
of the European Union) praises the book as powerful clear understandable and extremely
useful.
•
Similarly, on the back cover Nigel Lawson (Lord Lawson of Blaby) describes the book as
a scrupulous and scholarly analysis of both the climate science and what is truly known
of climatic history. . .

•
In the Brisbane launch (19/5/2009), Senator Ron Boswell observed29 Regardless of Copenhagen
our ETS will impose a carbon cost on our business which our trading competitors
will not have to pay. We have to move heaven and earth to stop this happening. Reading
‘Heaven and Earth’ is one way to begin.30
•
Writing in The Australian on 18/5/2009, Janet Albrechtsen attacked criticisms of Plimer,
saying to cast his book aside as an unworthy contribution to this debate tells you something
about the stifling consensus and what Plimer rightly calls the ‘demonisation of dissent’
on this critical issue.
•
In a press release on 21 April 2009, the National Farmers’ Federation welcomed Prof
Ian Plimer’s contribution to the climate change discussion and debate concluding Rigour
underpins getting the science right ... Prof Plimer is part of the mix.
Plimer’s responses

•
Plimer’s op-ed Hot-air doomsayers in (The Australian) 5/5/2009) has the subheading Geologist
Ian Plimer argues that critics of his climate change book should respond with
28In his series on The Australian’s War on Science.

29Downloaded from ronboswell.com, 26/06/2009.

30Far from promoting open discussion of the claims, launching Heaven + Earth in the context of a current party
political debate had the effect of precluding some of the largest groups of climate scientists in Australia, those in
CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology, from commenting, except as individuals in their private capacity.

28



science. He asserts that No critic has argued science with me. He rejects David Karoly’s
claim that the book is not supported by sources.31

•
In Vitrolic climate in academic hothouse (May 29, 2009 in The Australian) Plimer attacks
his critics. Using almost exactly the same words as in the Kininmonth and Aitken letters
to Lambeck he asserts There has never been a climate debate in Australia. Only dogma.
His response to criticisms32 is In my book I correctly predicted the response. The science
would not be discussed, there would be academic nit-picking and there would be vitriolic
ad hominem attacks by pompous academics out of contact with the community.
Additional information

The RealClimate website provides links to various critiques of Heaven + Earth.

http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=Ian_Plimer


The Wikipedia article on Heaven + Earth has links to many comments on the book.

31Karoly has particularly noted the lack of attribution of sources in most of the graphics.

32Like many of the footnotes of Heaven + Earth this ‘quote’ is quite non-specific and I have been unable (as at
September 3, 2009) to find such a prediction.

29


Temperature data

Normal practice, appropriate for a scrupulous and scholarly analysis, is to reference the original
sources of data that are used. One reason for this is to simplify the process of checking —
facilitating the usual and genuine scepticism in science. The other reason is to ensure that those
who did the real work get the credit. This is becoming increasingly important as computer-
generated metrics are increasingly applied to decisions on funding and career advancement.

Several of the analyses in this document use data downloaded from:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/

•
file hadcru3gl.txt, downloaded 1/6/2009, is monthly global mean temperature anomalies.
The website from which the data were downloaded indicates that the appropriate scientific
citations for these data are:

•
Brohan, P., J.J. Kennedy, I. Harris, S.F.B. Tett and P.D. Jones, 2006: Uncertainty estimates
in regional and global observed temperature changes: a new dataset from 1850. J.
Geophysical Research 111, D12106, doi:10.1029/2005JD006548 — Available as PDF.
•
Jones, P.D., New, M., Parker, D.E., Martin, S. and Rigor, I.G., 1999: Surface air temperature
and its variations over the last 150 years. Reviews of Geophysics 37, 173-199.
•
Rayner, N.A., P. Brohan, D.E. Parker, C.K. Folland, J.J. Kennedy, M. Vanicek, T. Ansell
and S.F.B. Tett, 2006: Improved analyses of changes and uncertainties in marine temperature
measured in situ since the mid-nineteenth century: the HadSST2 dataset. J. Climate,
19, 446-469.
•
Rayner, N.A., Parker, D.E., Horton, E.B., Folland, C.K., Alexander, L.V, Rowell, D.P.,
Kent, E.C. and Kaplan, A., 2003: Globally complete analyses of sea surface temperature,
sea ice and night marine air temperature, 1871-2000. J. Geophysical Research 108, 4407,
doi:10.1029/2002JD002670.
Climate sensitivity

The climate sensitivity is defined as the amount of equilibrium warming caused by a doubling of
CO2
(or equivalent change in radiative forcing). Over the concentration range of most interest,
this relation can be approximated as a logarithmic function (as Plimer acknowledges on page
338). Thus about the same warming is expected for doubling from 200 ppm to 400 ppm as from
300 ppm to 600 ppm. Denoting the climate sensitivity as X, means that the temperature change
as a function of concentration change from C1
to C2
can be written as:


T1;2
=
T
(C2)
-
T
(C1)=
X[log2(C2)
-
log2(C1)]
=
X
×
log2(C2=C1)


This logarithmic relation has been known since the time of Arrhenius (1896) (who estimated
X= 5C). It can be written in terms of natural logarithms (logarithms to base e) as


T1;2
=
X[loge(C2)
-
loge(C1)]
×
log2
e
˜
1:44X
×
loge(C2=C1)=1:44X
×
ln(C2=C1)


30



The IPCC has given a range of 1.5C to 4.5C. James Hansen (e.g. Bjerknes lecture at 2008
AGU Fall Meeting) estimates X
=3:0
±
0:5C. The logarithmic relation won’t apply at low
concentrations — a linear dependence is expected. The logarithmic dependence will also break
down at sufficiently high concentrations.

Plimer’s treatment of this lacks consistency. On a number of occasions he claims X
=
0.5C

(e.g. page 488), while on page 426 (see item 93) he claims 1.5C, and his example above (see
item 112) of 7C for 20 times CO2
implies 1.61C. (Note that since a division of logarithms is
involved, the result of the calculation 7
×
log(2:0)/
log(20:0)
does not depend on what base is
used for the logarithms, as long as the same base is used in both cases).
For a fixed initial concentration C1, one can look at how much the temperature increases for
each unit increase in the concentration, C2:

.
1:44X


T2
=


@C2
C2


This will have units of degrees C per unit of CO2. Plimer’s plot in figure 50 (page 375) which
lacks any supporting citation, seems to reflect this (remembering that the @T
.
1=C
relation

@C


won’t apply at low concentrations) with:

•
taking the CO2
unit as 20 ppm jumps as implied by the bars (i.e. the plot is of temperature
increase for each extra 20 ppm CO2);
•
assuming that X
=0:5C;
•
incorrectly omitting the factor of 1.44 (i.e. log2
e) that comes from going from base-2 to
base-e
logarithms.
Accuracy Precision and Standards

All scientific measurements are subject to error. Even when an instrument repeatedly measures
the same object or sample, the results will not all be the same. For example Bischof [reference
2094] reported a precision of 3
ppm for measurements of CO2
made by the chemical method.
In contrast using the Infra-Red Gas Analyser (IRGA), they found a precision of 1
ppm for
measurements of CO2.

While precision quantifies the measurement-to-measurement repeatability, a serious concern
for any measurement is the question of ‘accuracy’. Do all the measurements exhibit a
systematic bias, such that the (average) measured value differs from the true value of what is
meant to be measured?

Many measurements actually involve comparison of a sample to a standard. Consequently
the accuracy of such a measurement is tied to the accuracy of the standard. Thus when Bischof
switched to using the more precise IRGA method, he could cross-calibrate with the chemical
method. (Averaging multiple chemical measurements of the standard will overcome the inherently
lower precision of the chemical method). Thus Bischof’s agreement between chemical
and IRGA measurements could be essentially guaranteed. However in producing standards for
their IRGA program, Bischof’s group used an independent approach bases manometric techniques
— mixing gases from precisely calibrated volumes (described in the same issue of Tellus

31



as Bischof’s paper). Bischof’s ability to merge results from the two techniques represents a validation
of the type that Plimer claims did not exist. The independent check on the accuracy
is provided by the agreement of the Bischof’s higher altitude results [see reference 2095] and
Keeling’s results from Mauna Loa — both indicating about 315 ppm. Keeling also prepared his
standards using manometric techniques.

The ‘Hockey Stick’

The term ‘hockey stick’ refers to the climate reconstruction, produced by Michael Mann and
colleagues and featured in the 2001 IPCC report. This was criticised by McIntyre and McKitrick
on methodological grounds. In response to requests from US legislators the ‘hockey stick’
analysis was reviewed by two expert panels. Although considerable partisanship was involved
in establishing the panels, the core mathematical conclusions of the panels are essentially the
same.

For the most part, my criticisms of Heaven + Earth will address the issue of whether Plimer
has exaggerated the conclusions of the more critical of the reports, i.e. the Wegman report.

Plimer usually settles for describing the ‘hockey stick’ as infamous. However, on a number
of occasions he explicitly describes it as fraud, a charge not sustained by either of the expert
reviews. Plimer’s claim that the IPCC knowingly included results that were known to be wrong,
is disproved by comparing his account on page 91 with what is actually in the IPPC reports [see
item 27].

32



Temperatures, CO2
concentrations and methane concentrations from
the Vostok ice core. The horizontal axes are in years before present.
Graphic from Twisted: The Distorted Mathematics of Greenhouse Denial
(figure 27). The vertical scales of the concentration curves are in
approximate proportion to the amount of warming expected from each
gas in the absence of feedbacks between climate and gas concentrations.
These should be taken as indicative — the main uncertainties are in the
value of the climate sensitivity used to scale the curves and the global
representativeness of the estimated temperatures.

The abstract of 1987 paper on this data (back when the analysis only reached back to the
previous interglacial) said Vostok climate and CO2
records suggest that CO2
changes have had
an important climatic role during the late Pleistocene in amplifying the relatively weak orbital

33Petit, J.R., et al., 2001, Vostok Ice Core Data for 420,000 Years, IGBP PAGES/World Data Center for Paleoclimatology
(NOAA/NGDC Paleoclimatology Program, Boulder CO, USA). Data Contribution Series #2001-076.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/vostok.html

33


forcing. The existence of the 100-kyr cycle and the synchronism between Northern and Southern
Hemisphere climates may have their origin in the large glacial-interglacial CO2
changes.
[Genthon et al., Nature, 329, 414–418 (1987)].

This interpretation essentially reflects the mainstream climate science interpretation over the
ensuing decades: the climate CO2
connection is that of a feedback loop with CO2
changes amplifying
the effects of changes in insolation due to orbital changes. The reasons for regarding
this as a two-way interaction rather than direct causality in either direction are:

Why CO2
changes are not the sole cause of ice ages:

i: The gas changes are too small. In preparing the diagram for Twisted... I followed a suggestion
from the RealClimate website and plotted the concentration curves in proportion to the expected
temperature changes.
ii: There are no plausible mechanisms for linking concentrations to orbital changes, except via
climate changes over large regions.
Why orbital changes are not the sole cause of ice ages::

iii: The changes in insolation are too small:
iv: Many of the insolation changes act with opposite signs in the two hemispheres and so the
approximate hemispheric synchronisation is hard to account for except through an amplifying
factor (such as greenhouse gas concentrations) that is common to both hemispheres.
Thus having concentration changes lag behind temperature is entirely to be expected under
this mainstream view, while the opposite result would have been extremely difficult to account
for.

In addition to the reasons noted above:

v: the abrupt nature of the deglaciation, unlike the smooth variations in orbital forcing, points
to ‘tipping point’ behaviour characteristic of a non-linear coupled system.
Al Gore’s book largely ducks the issue and calls the relation complicated.34

The IPCC

Plimer’s overall approach to the IPCC reports is one of “shoot the messenger”. This attack
involves extensive misrepresentation of the content of the IPCC reports [items 10, 11, 24, 27,
82, 86, 89, 95, 96, 97, 104].

One aspect of the IPCC reports that Plimer repeatedly misrepresents is the authorship of the
chapters. The IPCC’s instructions on how chapters should be cited give a specific definition of
authorship, i.e. those who should get the credit (or take the blame) for what is in the chapter
and who are responsible for addressing review comments. These are those people listed as ‘lead
authors’ and ‘convening lead authors’. These people a characterised by Plimer as scientists and
environmental extremists [page 98] without actually naming any people in the latter category.

34In the interests of precision and ability to check issues, I mainly work with the book version of An Inconvenient
Truth. My recollection is that the content of the book (i.e excluding the preface) and film are very similar apart
from the film’s early line I used to be “The next president of the United States”, and, of course, the stunt with the
hoist.

34



Summing up

Ian Plimer’s claim that the human influence on climate can be ignored, relative to natural variations
seems to rest on three main strands of argument:

a: the extent of natural variability is larger than considered in ‘mainstream’ analyses;
b:
the effects of changes in radiative forcing are smaller than values used in ‘mainstream’
analyses;
c: the IPCC uses a range of misrepresentations to conceal points a and b.
The most obvious point to note is that if there was a valid case to be made for any of these
claims, then there would have been no need for Plimer to resort to systematic misrepresentation.

a:
The extent of natural variability is being misrepresented, particularly through an exaggerated
emphasis on the Medieval Warm Period (MWP). The cited references for large-scale
Medieval warming fail to support the claim and in several of these cases seem not to
mention Medieval warming at all — [items 20, 21, 109]. The one reference that seems
most relevant to global-scale changes (at least over land) is the paper on the borehole data
[footnote 256]. The quote from this paper is selective and inaccurate [see item 22]. The
main results of the paper indicate MWP temperatures higher by 0.1 to 0.5C, rather than
the 2 to 3C claimed by Plimer [item 22].
b:
The effect of radiative forcing is being misrepresented by repeated claims of a climate sensitivity
of 0.5C [items 59, 63, 106] even when Plimer’s own examples show climate
sensitivities of 1.5C to 1.6C [item 93], his denial of an effect beyond 400 ppm [items
64, 65] even when he acknowledges the logarithmic relation [page 338] and presents a
graph [figure 50] consistent with that relation [item 65].
The human contribution to changes in the Earth’s radiation balance are extensively misrepresented
through misrepresentation of CO2
measurements and misrepresentation of
carbon exchanges.

c: For the IPCC there is extensive misrepresentation of:
— the content of the IPCC reports [items 10, 11, 24, 27, 82, 86, 89, 95, 96, 97, 104];
— the operation of the IPCC assessment process and the authorship of reports [items 130,
95]; and
— the characteristics of climate models that form the basis of some of the science presented
in the IPCC reports [items 43, 58, 107].
In support of these three main strands of argument are presented extensive references, many
of which either fail to support the claims [items 20, 21, 22, 38, 40, 79, 109]; explicitly contradict
the claims [items 66, 67, 73, 89]; are irrelevant to the claims [items 70, 102]; or otherwise
misrepresent the cited reference.

In addition the various misrepresentations of the IPCC and the content of IPCC reports in
Heaven + Earth, the introduction above noted:

35


•
it has numerous internal inconsistencies [items 57, 87] as well as the inconsistencies noted
above regarding climate sensitivity;
•
in spite of the extensive referencing, key data are unattributed, particularly for the graphics,
and the content of references is often mis-quoted [items 40, 73]. Simply citing entire
books (or entire IPCC reports) for a specific point, without giving section or page numbers
does not reflect a well-referenced book.
Finally, as well as the inconsistencies and misrepresentations there are also a modest number
of minor errors that should ideally have been picked up by adequate editing. Author’s names are
given incorrectly: should be G. S. Callender on p 17, Bacastow, Keeling and Whorf, in footnote
2093. Footnote 1253 (page 251) gives title only, with no bibliographic details. The confusing
of ‘absorbs’ and ‘adsorbs’ is noted in items 63 and 83. Footnote 2237 gives the wrong page
number. On page 299, ‘interannular’ should be ‘interannual’. Furthermore, the editing process
should have detected the various problems identified in item 3 to do with labelling of axes.
Probably a careful editor would have removed most of the things identified in the section on
‘Silly Stuff’ [items 137 to 143].

Acronyms and abbreviations

AR4 Fourth Assessment Report (of the IPCC).
BP Before present.
CDIAC Carbon Dioxide Information and Analysis Center. (Oak Ridge, USA).
GISS Goddard Institute for Space Studies.
GC Gas chromatograph(y). An instrument/technique used to measure greenhouse gases (and


many other things).

GGWS The Great Global Warming Swindle.

GtC Gigatonnes of carbon. One gigatonne is one billion (109) tonnes.

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

IRGA Infra-red gas analyser.

LIA Little Ice Age.

MSU Microwave Sounding Unit. Instrument for measuring atmospheric temperature from

satellites.

MWP Medieval Warm Period.

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration. (USA).

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (USA).

36


SAR Second Assessment Report (of the IPCC).

SPM Summary of Policy Makers, i.e. summary of an IPCC report.

TAR Third Assessment Report (of the IPCC).

TS Technical Summary, i.e. summary of an IPCC report.

UAH University of Alabama, Huntsville.

WDCGG World Data Centre for Greenhouse Gases. (JMA, Japan).

WG1 Working Group 1 (of the IPCC).

Acknowledgements

This analysis draws on the work of various colleagues. Many errors in Heaven + Earth were
brought to my attention by Barry Brook, A.B. Pittock, A.J. Guttmann, Michael Ashley, Tim
Lambert, Steven Sherwood, David Karoly and Penny Whetton. This input is acknowledged
by initials after various items. Generally this does not cover cases where several of us have
independently noted the same flaw. My grateful thanks for this input should not be taken as
implying that they agree with every detail of how I have discussed the concerns that they identified.
Item 13 includes a comment from the Brave New Climate website. Particular thanks are
due to Richard Brak who organised a ‘re-direct’ when The Australian inserted an extra dash in
the URL that I sent them.

Version history

Typeset September 3, 2009

The intention is that the published URL shall always refer to the most recent version of this
document.
The current version is:
Version 2.0, with my itemised and indexed discussion of 112 items and a number of other
contributed items giving a total of 123, still with ‘conduct of science’ and ‘silly stuff’ split off.

The various versions (with approximate times of availability) have been:

•
Version 1.9 with a total of 106 ‘science’ items, with ‘conduct of science’ and ‘silly stuff’
split off: MASCOS 12:00, 29/6/2009.
•
Version 1.8 with a total of 96 ‘science’ items, with ‘conduct of science’ and ‘silly stuff’
split off: MASCOS 15:10, 9/6/2009.
•
Version 1.7 with a total of 92 ‘science’ items, with ‘conduct of science’ and ‘silly stuff’
split off: MASCOS 09:00, 2/6/2009.
37


•
Version 1.6 with a total of 77 ‘science’ items, with ‘conduct of science’ and ‘silly stuff’
split off: MASCOS 16:00, 25/5/2009.
•
Version 1.5 with a total of 61 items concerning the science with additional discussions
relating to conduct of science (and some silly stuff) split off from the main discussion.
MASCOS 08:17, 22/5/2009.
•
Version 1.4, with my itemised and indexed discussion of 46 items and other contributions
bringing the total to 58 (plus comments on some silly stuff): about 18:00 on 16/5/2009
(BNC site) and about 10:40, 18/5/2009 (MASCOS).
•
Version 1.3, with itemised and indexed discussion of 40 of my items and 3 other contributions:
15/5/2009 (BNC site only).
•
Version 1.2, with itemised and indexed discussion of 39 items: 14/5/2009.
My letter about this document was published in The Australian on 15/5/2009 with the
underscore character in the the URL that I sent in my letter replaced by a ‘dash’ in the
printed version and a double hyphen in the electronic version. A ‘re-direct’ was established
at the University of Melbourne so that the document could be accessed from the
published address, but did not deal with the fact that the two forms of publication involved
two different incorrect URLs. My posts to the Australian’s letters blog were not accepted.
•
Version 1.1, with itemised and indexed discussion of 34 items was uploaded for test purposes
about 16:30 13/5/2009, unfortunately resulting in a failed test, with the URL not
being preserved (but removing version 1).
•
Version 1, with itemised and indexed discussion of 33 items, was submitted to the MASCOS
website on 12/5/2009 and available from mid-morning 13/5/2009.
Due to problems on the MASCOS site and the incorrectly published links in The Australian,
various versions were mirrored on the Brave New Climate website.

•
version 1.9: 13:00, 29/6/2009;
•
version 1.8: 01:10, 10/6/2009;
•
version 1.7: 17:50, 1/6/2009;
•
version 1.6: 21:30, 25/5/2009;
•
version 1.5: 01:45, 22/5/2009;
•
version 1.4: at about 18:10, 16/5/2009;
•
version 1.3: late on evening of 15/5/2009;
•
version 1.2: on 14/5/2009;
•
version 1.1: from about 21:00, 13/5/2009.
38


Response to criticism of my analysis

A number of these criticisms come from the letters blog of The Australian. Since The Australian
did not accept my posts of replies, even when I kept my comments separate from the URL issue,
a few short comments are given here:

Why didn’t I attack Al Gore in the same way?

i: I wasn’t engaged in public debate until early 2007 when I started writing Twisted: The
Distorted Mathematics of Greenhouse Denial.
ii: Plimer claims to be writing as a scientist and his op-ed Hot-air doomsayers (5/5/2009 in The
Australian) challenges scientists to address the science. I am taking him at his word. As noted
above, Heaven + Earth is being promoted as a scrupulous and scholarly analysis.35 Gore is a
politician and An Inconvenient Truth is largely a political book, arising from the difficulties of
responding to ‘politically-inconvenient’ science.
iii: Even if one thinks that Justice Burton was wrong and one accepts all the errors claimed in
the UK court case, Gore’s book has many fewer scientific errors than Heaven + Earth. (This
assessment was based on my own notes. Earlier versions, 1 to 1.3, did not document enough of
the errors in Heaven + Earth to demonstrate that claim.)
Concentrating on Plimer’s inconsistencies is nit-picking that doesn’t address scientific
issues
A theme that I tried to get across is Twisted is that for a scientific theory, a lack of internal
consistency is even more fatal than discordant observations. Thus, to the extent that Plimer
claims to be proposing an alternative theory36, his own lack of consistency becomes an issue of
science and not just an issue of editorial quality.

My literal interpretation of ‘IPCC computers’ (in item 130) is disingenuous (or silly)
Part of Plimer’s ‘shoot the messenger’ attack on the IPCC is to portray is as a corrupt ‘bogeyman’.
Creating a bad impression about something that exists only in Plimer’s (and others’)
imagination frees him for nasty constraints like facts. In talking about ‘IPCC models’, ‘IPCC
climate models’ or ‘IPCC climate modellers’ he is talking about something that doesn’t actually
exist. The IPCC doesn’t:

•
run climate models,
•
develop climate models, or
•
fund climate models.
When Plimer adopts this approach of criticising something that doesn’t really exist, I go for
closest meaning — presumably the one he is hinting at. Mislabelling the models as ‘IPCC
models’ gives him a two-fold attack — he not only misrepresents the content of the models,
but by mis-attributing them he also links them to his various misrepresentations of the IPCC
(see page 34). However, unlike ‘IPCC climate models’, ‘IPCC computers’ really do exist and
so rather than interpret an indirect implication (which is done elsewhere), I interpret his actual
words. The real issue is Plimer’s bogey-man approach — it is of course nice and safe — you
can say all sorts of nasty stuff about a group that doesn’t exist — since the group doesn’t exist,
they won’t sue you.

35From cover blurb on paperback edition, by Lord Lawson of Blaby.
36as opposed to spreading doubt and confusion for political purposes


39


Checking my claims

If you can’t accept the assessments of the IPCC after all the care and detailed review, then there
it would seem unlikely that you would take my word for the claims above without checking.37
The selection of flaws described in this document is intended to maximise the extent to which
individuals can check my claims for themselves.

Plimer’s inconsistencies: Here the only resource that you need is a copy of Heaven + Earth,
and maybe a calculator (or a spreadsheet). This will allow you to check the claims that
I make in items 26, 35, 41, 48, 57, 60, 77, 87, 90 and the various inconsistent values for
climate sensitivity discussed in items 59, 63, 65, 93, 106, 112.

Other flaws: Similarly, a copy of the book is all that is need to check various graphics flaws
such as axis labelling, [see item 3 for summary] and things such as items 8, 23, 28, 32, 35,
37, 42, 64 (with the aid of a good dictionary) as well as most of the things in the section
on ‘Silly Stuff’ (page 26).

Plimers misrepresentation of the IPCC: Many of these are easily checked, since the full Third
and Fourth Assessment Reports are available as downloads from the IPCC website. A
figure such as 8.20 indicates a figure in chapter 8 (with TS indicating the Technical Summary).
This will enable you to check (at least in part) items 10, 11, 12, 27, 82, 25, 89,
95, 96, 97. Checking items 24, 86 requires obtaining access to one or both of the first two
assessments as do some aspects of items 27, 82, 96, 109.

Using other internet resources: Most of the data sets discussed in this document can be freely
accessed.

•
The various HadCRU temperature data sets are available from:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/
This will enable you to check items 6, 14, 72, and (with reference to IPCC report to
verify my identification of the data set) 104.
•
The plot, http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/Mauna Loa CO2.jpg, from the
Carbon Dioxide Information and Analysis Center (CDIAC) shows that at the primary
repository for these data, the gaps in the Mauna Loa data set have not somehow
mysteriously disappeared — item 78.
•
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
will show that the lower plot in figure 29 is not what Plimer claims [item 47].
In addition:

•
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/admin/2007/2299.html is the judgment in the
UK court case on An Inconvenient Truth, enabling you to check item 99.
Libary references: A number of Plimer’s references are to books and journals that are only
found in specialist libraries. However the journals Science and Nature are quite widely

37After all, I have been a lead author of an IPCC chapter.

40


available and so much of my checking of references inHeaven + Earth has concentrated
on these journals.38

Access to Nature will enable you to check 39 references 17, 18 [item 7], 2056 [item 73],
2134 [item 91].

Access to Science will enable you to check references 255 [item 21], 595 [item 36], 1075
[item 40], 1682 [item 53], 1738 [item 54], 1990 [item 68], 2009 [item 71], 2123* [item
88], 2178 [item 98].

Other journal access Some scientific journals make older material freely available on-line.
In addition, a number of journals allow authors to post copies of their articles on their
personal web-sites.

Disclaimer

This discussion, its contents and style, are the responsibility of the author and do not represent
the views, policies or opinions of The University of Melbourne.

38A * after the reference number indicates that this reference is the same paper as one earlier in the list.
39In version 1.9, several citations of papers in Science were incorrectly listed in this section as being in Nature.

41



Index

-In this document

Accuracy, precision and standards, 31

Acknowledgements, 37

Acronyms and abbreviations, 36

Additional information, 29

Breadth of Science, 2

Checking my claims, 40

Cherry picking, 23

Climate sensitivity, 30

Conduct of Science, 24

Contributed comments, 24

Defences of Plimer, 28

Disclaimer, 41

Other critiques, 27

Overview, 1

Point by Point, 2

Response to criticism, 39

Some silly stuff, 26

Summing up, 35

Temperature data, 30

The hockey stick, 32

The IPCC, 34

The Vostok ice core, 33

Version history, 37
An Inconvenient Truth

far fewer errors than Heaven + Earth, 39

flawed graphics

item 3, 3

future sea level

item 50, 11

item 111, 22

UK court case

item 99, 21

item 111, 22

Vostok data ‘complicated’, 34

acknowledgements, 37
acronyms and abbreviations, 36
adsorb vs absorb

item 64, 13

item 83, 17
Arrhenius, Svante

item 61, 13

cherry-picking, 23
data source
item 113, 23
deglaciation
item 116, 23
selective quote on MWP
item 114, 23
terminology
item 115, 23
Vostok ice core dating
item 117, 23
chlorine
item 105, 22


chlorofluorocarbons (CFC)
item 40, 10
item 105, 22


citation doesn’t support claim
item 88, 18
item 94, 19
item 102, 21
item 103, 21


climate data from art
item 138, 26
climate sensitivity, 30


incremental plot
item 65, 14


Plimer’s inconsistency
claims 0.5C: item 59, 13
claims 0.5C: item 63, 13
claims 0.5C: item 106, 22
claims above 1.5C: item 93, 19
implies 1.6 C: item 112, 22
plot implies 0.35C: item 65, 14

CO2
measurement, 31
validation: IRGA vs chemical, 32
CO2, pre-industrial

item 82, 17
conduct of science, 24
contradicts own case


CO2
measurement

42


item 80, 17
early 20th century warming
item 41, 10
Younger Dryas missing/moved
Fig. 5, item 16, 6
cooling
item 104, 21
cosmic rays
item 119, 24

Dark Ages
caused by self-denial
item 143, 27
distortion of data plots
item 13, 5

El Ni˜

no
inconsistent about duration
item 57, 13
misrepresents models
item 48, 11

geology

input to climate science, 2
item 52, 12
item 61, 13
item 85, 18

graphics, falsified axes
fig 5: item 16, 6

graphics, falsified content
fig 1: item 6, 4
fig 14: item 32, 9
fig 29: item 47, 11

graphics, falsified data
fig 1: item 6, 4
fig 3: item 13, 5
fig 11: item 26, 7

graphics, inconsistent with description
fig 5: item 16, 6

graphics, inconsistent with text
fig 5: item 16, 6
fig 11: item 26, 7
fig 44: item 62, 13

graphics, meaningless
fig 10: item 18, 6
fig 14: item 32, 9

graphics, mislabelled axes
fig 8: item 17, 6
fig 12: item 30, 8
fig 14: item 32, 9


graphics, misleading comparison
figs 38, 39, 40: item 56, 13
graphics, misrepresents content
fig 15: item 34, 9
graphics, no citation
listed in item 3, 3


HADCRU temperature data, 30

hockey stick, 32
item 11, 5
item 27, 8


howlers
40 degree warming


fig 12: item 30, 8
grain prices in W/m2
fig 14: item 32, 9


less water than asteroids
item 37, 9
perihelion in Northern Hemisphere
item 42, 10
self-denial led to Dark Ages
item 143, 27
hypothesis testing
item 124, 24

inconsistency
Aryan science
item 135, 26
importance of consistency, 39
inconsistency by Plimer
abrupt end of MWP
item 26, 7


absolute vs. relative warming
item 60, 13
item 90, 19
summary: item 2, 3

climate sensitivity
claims 0.5C: item 59, 13
claims 0.5C: item 63, 13
claims 0.5C: item 106, 22
claims above 1.5C: item 93, 19
implies 1.6 C: item 112, 22

43


plot implies 0.35C: item 65, 14
CO2
lifetime
item 87, 18
early 20th century warming

item 41, 10
El Ni˜no duration
item 57, 13


greenhouse gas warming
item 35, 9
interpretation of 14C decrease
item 77, 16
past CO2
item 92, 19
IPCC, 34
hockey stick
item 27, 8

key claims undocumented
listed in item 1, 2

lifetime vs turnover time
item 84, 17
Little Ice Age
IPCC is misrepresented
item 10, 5

Mauna Loa
item 78, 16

Medieval Warm Period
item 9, 5
item 20, 6
misrepresents boreholes

item 22, 7

misrepresents IPCC
fig 11: item 24, 7
item 27, 8


misrepresents Taylor Dome
item 21, 6
mis-applied logic
assumes single cause
item 23, 7

misleading comparisons
item 8, 5
item 52, 12
item 56, 13
item 79, 16

misrepresents astronomy
item 37, 9
item 42, 10


misrepresents carbon exchanges
item 76, 16
item 77, 16
item 81, 17

misrepresents cited sources
analysis of proxy data
item 100, 21
borehole data
item 22, 7


carbon sediments
item 53, 12
item 54, 12

CFCs from Pinatubo
item 40, 10
chaotic variability
item 98, 20

CO2
measurements
Europe: item 79, 16
South Pole: item 69, 14

CO2
turnover time
item 85, 18
cosmic rays
item 119, 24
deglaciation
item 71, 15
ice-core comparison
item 70, 14

Medieval Warm Period
item 9, 5
item 20, 6
item 109, 22

New Orleans subsidence
item 73, 15
ocean pH changes
item 115, 23

paleo-data
item 21, 6
item 36, 9
item 68, 14


pattern analysis
item 7, 4
Roman warming

44


item 19, 6
satellite vegetation data
item 38, 10
temperature changes
item 104, 21

temperature data
item 66, 14
item 67, 14


temperature extremes
item 28, 8
Vostok data
item 91, 19
misrepresents CO2
toxicity
item 74, 15
misrepresents data records

20th century temperatures
item 26, 7
item 110, 22

1934

item 29, 8
European CO2
item 79, 16
glacial retreat


item 46, 11
Mauna Loa CO2
item 78, 16


sea ice
item 47, 11


temperature changes
item 6, 4
item 14, 5
item 104, 21

misrepresents IPCC

authorship of reports
item 95, 20
item 132, 25

content of reports
item 11, 5
item 9, 5
item 12, 5
item 10, 5
item 24, 7
item 25, 7
item 27, 8
item 82, 17


item 86, 18
item 89, 19
item 95, 20
item 96, 20
item 97, 20
item 104, 21
item 109, 22


role
item 130, 25
misrepresents laws of arithmetic
item 56, 13
misrepresents models
chaos
item 97, 20


clouds
item 58, 13
item 107, 22


CO2
lifetime
item 86, 18
El Ni˜


no
item 48, 11
insolation
item 43, 10
misrepresents UK court case
item 99, 21
Monckton
item 108, 22
Montreal Protocol
item 105, 22


New Orleans
item 49, 11
item 73, 15


other critiques of Heaven + Earth, 27

Pinatubo
item 40, 10


precautionary principle
item 55, 12
item 105, 22


questionable data sources
2008
item 129, 25


radiative forcing

45


item 89, 19

radiocarbon (14C)
item 77, 16
item 85, 18

response to criticisms, 39

sea ice
incorrect data plotted
item 47, 11
item 39, 10
sea level

future
item 50, 11
item 111, 22


solar wobble
item 31, 9
Stern report

item 102, 21
summary, 35
sunspots

item 32, 9

temperature data, 30
misquoted
item 72, 15
tipping point, 34
item 55, 12

uptake of CO2
item 101, 21

version history, 37

Vostok ice core, 33
item 45, 11
no support for MWP in paper

item 109, 22

Wegman report, 32

Younger Dryas
item 16, 6