Global Warming (GW) is a very complex issue.
Simplistic arguments such as “it’s been unusually cold here” or “it’s been unusually warm”, etc. prove nothing.
If the science of GW was that easy, there would be no dispute.
The GW sceptics have been doing their best to discredit the work of the thousands of scientists world wide who claim that GW is a very serious issue & is caused by human activity.
An example is the Australian sceptic Prof. Ian Plimer who wrote a book “Heaven + Earth – Global Warming: The Missing Science”
An objective critique of this book by Prof. Ian Enting, University of Melbourne, can be found at:-
**broken link removed**
Click on the link “Read more”
I borrowed Plimer’s book from the library and read it in conjunction with Enting’s paper.
In his overview, Enting states & I quote:-
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:
1. 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;
2. has at least 28 other instances of misrepresenting the content of cited sources;
3. 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;
4. 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 48.
-----
It is difficult to follow Enting’s comments without being able to see Plimer’s Figures. However, I took photos of them, so if anyone wants a copy of any or all figures, send me a PM & I’ll email them to you.
Simplistic arguments such as “it’s been unusually cold here” or “it’s been unusually warm”, etc. prove nothing.
If the science of GW was that easy, there would be no dispute.
The GW sceptics have been doing their best to discredit the work of the thousands of scientists world wide who claim that GW is a very serious issue & is caused by human activity.
An example is the Australian sceptic Prof. Ian Plimer who wrote a book “Heaven + Earth – Global Warming: The Missing Science”
An objective critique of this book by Prof. Ian Enting, University of Melbourne, can be found at:-
**broken link removed**
Click on the link “Read more”
I borrowed Plimer’s book from the library and read it in conjunction with Enting’s paper.
In his overview, Enting states & I quote:-
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:
1. 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;
2. has at least 28 other instances of misrepresenting the content of cited sources;
3. 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;
4. 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 48.
-----
It is difficult to follow Enting’s comments without being able to see Plimer’s Figures. However, I took photos of them, so if anyone wants a copy of any or all figures, send me a PM & I’ll email them to you.
