Heaven and Earth: Global Warming, the Missing Science
ISBN:9781589794726 read summary

I liked this book a great deal despite it's sometimes technical aspects. It showed how simplistic, ideological and political the IPCC is when it comes to science. I have read alot about Michael Mann's and hockey stick chart and it's good to know there are many serious scientists out there diligently working away.

What I did not like:

1) Too disjointed in parts; could have been boiled down a bit in places.
2) Occassional assertions that while editorially entertaining are not fully substantiated by the data.

What I did like:

1) Excellent and comprehensive deconstruction of the premises of anthropogenic global warming from the perspective of a variety of physical sciences.
2) Insistence on the scientific method - and his scathing dressing down of those who push "the science is settled" line.

This book is not an easy read. Frankly, it is quite wordy and repetitious. On the good side there are over 2000 references that can be used to examine Plimer's points in detail. On the bad side there are over 2000 references that slow down your reading a lot. Plimer is at times inconsistent in his writing. He cites a book "Useless Arithmetic" as a criticism of mathematical modeling of geophysical phenomena. Apparently, he is oblivious to the fact that the book ends with a ringing endorsement of climate models (cf., Amazon reviews). He also exhibits a form of irrationality that is a tired feature of his opponents, i.e. my cited correlations mean something and yours don't; my cited proxy measurements are true and yours aren't.

The geology sections are reasonably well written and the arguments seem plausible enough. Chapter 3, The Sun, is a mess. He seems to place great value in Svenmark's theory of cosmic ray fluxes producing clouds. As far as I know it is still just a theory, and a not a very good one in my opinion. Theories have to be falsifiable to be theories. Plimer also repeats an argument that has also puzzled me to no end when he states that there is some critical level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and any carbon dioxide amount added in excess of this level has no effect on absorption. He offers the analogy of drawing a curtain across a window to shut out the sunlight. Once you have one or two curtains drawn then the difference of adding any more is negligible. This is an argument without an explanation. I am pretty sure Gilbert Plass refuted this same argument in 1956 (cf. Wikipedia).

I am sympathetic to Plimer's conclusion - being somewhat of a skeptic myself - but his attempt illustrates the dangers of stepping outside of your domain of knowledge when you rely on the interpretations and analyses of others. I think his project would have been better served if he had co-authored the book with a working climate scientist.

The book is easy to read and very interesting. Lots of foot note to back up data. Very good history of the earths climate changes

Plimer has created a tome that will will gravely mislead the reader unless that reader has the time, energy, and expertise to check on all of the outrageous statements in this book. Many incorrect claims are made, such as asserting that an important overview of climate change (Keller 2007) points out the putative discrepancy between surface temperatures and radiosonde/satellite temperatures. In fact, within the FIRST TWO PARAGRAPHS, Keller 2007 points out that the supposed discrepancy has been resolved. Did Plimer simply not read the Keller paper, or was Plimer intentially attributing to Keller the OPPOSITE of what Keller actually said? You decide. How about the laughably absurd claim (pg. 148) that "Earth has less carbon and water than other planets...."? What excuse for such rediculous claims can be offerred? Plimer makes countless assertions about the IPCC and its various reports, many of which are patently false. There is little to justify such a screed. I only hope this rant will not mislead too many people.