The sound of pennies dropping

RuddWatch admits to enjoying spending time in bookstores. The larger the bookstore, the better.

So I was looking forward yesterday to visiting my favourite store, browsing for an hour or two, and then purchasing a couple of books that I'd had my eyes on for a little while.

One of these books is Heaven and Earth, by Ian Plimer, a professor of mining geology at Adelaide University and noted sceptic, including about human-caused climate change.

You know, the thing that Kevin Rudd thinks is the greatest moral issue of our times. Sort of like, dare we say, a religious thing.

Now already the detractors are writing his book off. Professor Barry Brook, the head of Adelaide University's Research Institute for Climate Change and Sustainability, said that Plimer had used evidence selectively, brought out the old 'he's saying the experts are deluded, self-interested and ideological' argument, says that the book is confusing and finally damns it as being a case study in how not to be objective.

Note well - Brook doesn't note a single flaw in Plimer's argument.

Brook goes on to say:

What Ian doesn’t say is that the vast majority of these authors have considered the totality of evidence on the topic of human-induced global warming and conclude that it is real and a problem. Some researchers have show that the Earth has been hotter before, and that more CO2 has been present in the atmosphere in past ages. Yes, quite — this is an entirely uncontroversial viewpoint. What is relevant now is the rate of climate change, the specific causes, and its impact on modern civilisation that is dependent, for agricultural and societal security, a relatively stable climate. Ian pushes mainstream science far out of context, again and again.

I want you to hold that thought in your head - I'll come back to it.

The querulous pixies at Crikey can only think of the book in terms of the place that they give it on the political spectrum - as if scientific argument can be pigeon-holed into a pre-fab schematic inappropriate even in student politics.

Meanwhile, rank stupidity appears to have broken out like an infectious virus among the political classes. Not only do we have St Kevin and gorgeous Penny Wong bleating about climate pollution (George Orwell, come back, we need you more than ever), and not only do we have poor misguided fools attacking coal trains (can you believe it) in their youthful exuberance, but we now have this:

The Administrator is proposing to find that the current and projected concentrations of the mix of six key greenhouse gases—carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6)—in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations. This is referred to as the endangerment finding.

This is now beyond a joke. It is moving beyond religion - under which one could condemn 'disbelievers' in order to shun them from polite society - and moving into cultish fanaticism - according to which, those who 'disbelieve' become harmful to the existence of the group, and must be either coerced into giving up their beliefs or else removed from society.

We might laugh at the morons attacking a coal train. But when they realise that no-one really cares, this realisation, and their ongoing belief in the need to halt climate change at all costs, will likely result in more drastic action against people and property. It's just the way of things - Baader-Meinhof and the Red Brigades and Armies being good examples. And the political classes should know better - their words, by fanning the flames of fanaticism, will come back to haunt those less able to defend themselves.

Anyway, what was that Professor Brook was saying a minute ago?

What is relevant now is the rate of climate change, the specific causes, and its impact on modern civilisation that is dependent, for agricultural and societal security, a relatively stable climate.

OK - rate of change, causes, and impacts on a society that needs a relatively stable climate.

Here is what Plimer's book addresses:

Professor Plimer argues that the undergoing climate change is not unprecedented in history and that the temperatures in the 20th Century are not outside the range of natural variability. He rejects the unscientific idea that the explanation of climate change can be reduced to one variable (CO2), the proposition that there is a strong relationship between measured temperature and CO2 emissions, and the almost religious belief that we will stop climate change by reducing CO2 emissions. He rightly assumes that humans will be able to adapt to any future coolings or warmings.

That is: the rate of change is within natural variability; the cause of the variation cannot be solely attributed to carbon dioxide emissions, let alone human carbon dioxide emissions, and that we will be able to adapt to future changes.

There, Professor Brook - does that address your concerns? Can we now have an argument about the science? You know, the argument that RuddWatch, and many others, have been waiting for for many years now?

Don't hold your breath. But in the meantime, read Jan Veizer's take on the science of climate change. Interesting, fresh, scientifically-based, and non-dogmatic.

Oh, and what about my search for the book?

Well, I enjoyed a little browsing at my favourite store, but I couldn't find Plimer's book. So I found its location on the store computer and went to the designated area. Not there! Nothing for it then - I went to the information counter.

'We're all sold out, sorry', said the young woman behind the desk - who sounded as though she'd said the same thing a hundred times before that day.

So I browsed other stores, and found the same thing - all were sold out. The supplier is sold out. Copies of Plimer's book can't be had for love nor money.

As I wandered out of that last bookstore into the street, I thought I could hear the sound of tens of thousands of pennies dropping, as people began to realise what an almighty and disgraceful fraud has been perpetrated upon them.