(typically grumpy, old, irrelevant and male, with susceptibility to flattery).
Hmmm, I had better watch out...
this was a piece I wrote about a decade ago when I had a few public spats woith Ian including in the OZ. eg.
theaustralian.com.au/national-affai…
To listen to prominent "contrarian" geologists such as Ian Plimer, you might imagine she never could.
But, despite the bluster, our contrarian geologists are out of kilter with their own community and seem deeply confused about the way the greenhouse effect - by adding more CO2 to the atmosphere, for example - has shaped both the past and the present.
All geology students learn of the importance of the greenhouse effect. It's simply impossible to understand the geological record without it.
In his 2001 award-winning book A Short History of Planet Earth, Plimer has numerous references to the greenhouse effect.
He explains what all young geologists learn as the faint young sun paradox:
"The early sun had a luminosity of some 30 per cent less than now and, over time, luminosity has increased in a steady state.
"The low luminosity of the early sun was such that the Earth's average surface temperature would have been below 0C from 4500 to 2000 million years ago. But there is evidence of running water and oceans as far back as 3800 million years ago."
Plimer goes on to explain: "This paradox is solved if the Earth had an enhanced greenhouse with an atmosphere of a lot of carbon dioxide and methane."
Here's another quote from Plimer, referring to a time 100 million years ago when the dinosaurs roamed the planet: "The peak of 6 per cent carbon dioxide was at the time of a protracted greenhouse and maximum sea level.
The problem is, although his temperature estimate is about right, his CO2 estimate is about 50 times too high. CO2 levels were more like 0.12 per cent.
Jump forward to 2009 and in his book Heaven and Earth Plimer seems to have quietly forgotten those geological lessons in stating: "Over geological time there is no observed relationship between global climate and atmospheric CO2."
Exactly which Plimer are we
to believe?
Scientists are notoriously sceptical of the data collected by others. But ignoring a respected source is reprehensible. Cherry-picking only the data that fits is borderline.
Here's an example. In a section from his new book, How To Get Expelled from School, as reprinted in The Weekend Australian recently, Plimer claims: "Antarctic ice core (Siple) shows that there were 330…
Plimer goes on to say: "Either the ice core data is wrong, the Hawaiian carbon dioxide measurements are wrong, or the atmospheric carbon dioxide content was decreasing during a period of industrialisation."
The implication is there must be something terribly wrong with the orthodox climate science and we are all being taken for a ride.
The problem is that the primary data sources explicitly state the Hawaiian Mauna Loa CO2 measurements for 1960 were in the range…
Who has been taken for a ride?
Sadly, this is not an isolated case. Plimer has…
Another common meme promoted by our contrarian geologists is that it is now a fact that the climate is cooling.
But may we ask by whose data is this a fact?
Certainly not NASA's, which showed last year was the hottest on record, followed by 2005, 2007, 2009 and 1998. In fact, NASA ranks nine of the hottest 10 years ever recorded between 2001 and last year.
Variations on decadal timescales are more relevant to climate trends than annual variations.
With an increase of more than 0.5C over the past 40 years, the decadal trend is now warming faster than ever.
Our contrarian geologists also avoid the devil in the detail. NASA's data shows that winters are warming faster than the summers and the Arctic faster than the tropics.
These characteristics provide diagnostic fingerprints of the heat trapping expected for a greenhouse effect.
the cause, and rule out warming because of additional heat input from the sun.
Could that be why you won't hear our contrarian geologists refer to such data?
If so, it wouldn't be a first, as Naomi Oreskes points out in her recent book Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke…
Now here's a point for those who, like Rinehart, think all geologists toe Plimer's contrarian line.
Oreskes is a noted geologist. Having published groundbreaking research on the origin of the giant South Australian Olympic Dam deposit, she has…
Now just imagine a meeting between Rinehart and Oreskes - that would be interesting!