"Heaven + Earth" has not been demolished by "scientific" reviewers. The only people who would think that they had 'demolished' it are the climate hysterics who have not used due scientific rigour and peer review to prove their own as yet unproven waffle.

The same people who no longer mention the infamous and thoroughly discredited (by totally independent reviewers) 'hockey stick' diagram which the IPCC used to 'prove' that the most warming in has occurred in the 20th century. This 'proof' came at the totally unscientific expense of leaving out data concerning the Medieaval Warming and the Little Ice Age.

The reviewers had to take legal action to obtain the raw data used by the fraudulent producer (a scientist) of the diagram, so reluctant was he to be proven a fraud.

The 'hockey stick' mysteriously disappeared from the IPCC agenda.

More attention paid to alternative and real scientists would save you from continually making a fool of yourself, Sancho.

Mikk,
There are numerous articles on Wiki about the logarithmic effect
of co2 on temperature.
There is one in particular that shows a graph and from the graph you
can see how doubling the amount of CO2 has a tiny effect on temperature.

I could not find that article quickly and she who must be obeyed is
after me to take her to the shops so I'll leave it to you.

It will explain to you why more CO2 does not necessarily mean more temperature.

The proof is in the Ice coring. Rising temp's (sunspots) and then rising co2's. The ocean is the greatest co2 sink. So what is the worry?
Can we not concentrate on more important issues...like NWO, and not being purposely distracted by these illitists?

Bazz

It's true. The higher the concentration of CO2, the less impact it will have on temperature rise.

However, what a lot of people (including yourself) don't seem to understand, is that this logarithmic relationship is only really significant on climate sensitivity at very high concentrations of CO2. There is much in the literature (not just wikki) about this.

We are no where near these levels yet.

A relatively significant temperature rise is a very real possibility within 100 years.

Put another way, the planet has experienced much higher temperatures in the distant past with higher levels of CO2. Venus too.

_______

eftfnc
Your comment typifies 'anti-science' dogma. Have you nothing else to be constructive about?

Leigh
You misrepresent and distort the scientific literature and legal findings for your own ideological agenda ... as usual.

Leigh: "Heaven + Earth" has not been demolished by "scientific" reviewers.

Demolished is such an emotive word. The book has prompted the usual frenzy of attacks and counter attacks, including claims it was demolished. There is nothing unusual in any of this, and besides methinks demolishment is in the eye of beholder.

What is a bit unusual is where the criticism has come from. It is not just from the usual peanut gallery. It is from people who prefixed their remarks along the likes (paraphrased from memory) "this is hard for me. I regard Ian as a friend and college, someone who I have spent many happy hours with investigating [some geological theory]", and then proceed to accuse Plimer of being deliberately miss leading. They also come from the current president of the Australian Academy of Sciences, who says his own work is quoted in the book - but in a way that twists completely the point he was trying to make.

I fact I have never seen so many people with the words "current Professor at Australia's XXX University" after their name step up to skewer a fellow college. He really hit a nerve in them. They say they have been betrayed, their words, their papers, their life's work miss quoted and turned into something unrecognisable. They are made to look as though they agree and support something they passionately disagree with.

The world desperately needs a book like "Heaven and Earth" to lay out a good argument against taking strong action against climate change. But Heaven and Earth ain't it. After seeing the intellectual depths Plimer had to plummet to in order to support his argument, it had the reverse effect on me.

No Q&A, not the answer I was looking for, I was after something useful.

I will agree with you that we will have to adapt to climate change, although weather hotter or colder is yet to be determined.

Your bland "reduce dependence on fossil fuels" is rather useless, unless some suggestion of how is included.

I first read that fossel fuels were about to run out in about 73. It was to happen around 79. Beauty I thought, as a bloke who had bred horses while at school, I loved the idea of usefull horses again. A damn good thing I didn't rush in, or I'd have had a lot of useless horses.

In the early 80s, while I was rushing around the great barrier reef, in 2,500 BHP, 30 knot catamarans, full of tourists, it was on again. Beauty I thought, as a bloke who prefered sail to power, this will be good. I can build a small sailing cargo ship. & carry the produce of our coastal towns to the city. A damn good thing, etc again.

This time I know it's rubbish. We have at least 100 years of petroleum in the ground, along with shale, tar & gas.

I am damn sure that Mikk is totally wrong with his belief that AGW is a fact.

I sure hope he is wrong, not for me, I'll get by with my horses, & fresh water river front remote home, but for our city folk.

There is no way modern Oz can operate without cars & trucks, although they don't have to be petroleum fuelled. I'm afraid my horses would never handle the food in, & rubbish out of a modern city. They would have even less chance transporting the people.

Cities that grew with the car can not convert to public transport, at least not without knocking down at least a third of them. Even if they could, public transport uses more fuel per passanger mile than the private car, so not too much help there.

I would love to hear your answers, if you have any.