{"id":330970,"date":"2024-06-03T08:54:45","date_gmt":"2024-06-03T06:54:45","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=330970"},"modified":"2024-06-03T08:54:48","modified_gmt":"2024-06-03T06:54:48","slug":"to-use-terms-like-global-boiling-is-clearly-absolute-nonsense","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=330970","title":{"rendered":"To Use Terms Like \u201cGlobal Boiling\u201d Is Clearly Absolute Nonsense"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From The Daily Sceptic<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

BY\u00a0HANNES SARV<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

\u201cDon\u2019t believe what Wikipedia writes about me,\u201d Professor Ian Plimer emails me when I arrange an interview with him. Of course, the first thing to do in this case is to check the Wikipedia article <\/a>about him. \u201cIan Rutherford Plimer (born February 12th, 1946) is an Australian geologist and Professor Emeritus at the University of Melbourne. He rejects the scientific consensus on climate change. He has been criticised by climate scientists for misinterpreting data and spreading misinformation,\u201d are the first sentences of the Wikipedia article about him.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Plimer is indeed an Australian geologist and Emeritus Professor of Earth Sciences at the University of Melbourne, where he once was Professor and Head of Earth Sciences. During his long academic career, he has also been a professor at the University of Newcastle, University of Adelaide, Ludwig Maximilians Universit\u00e4t in Munich, Germany, and has work relations with several other universities. He has published more than 130 scientific articles and was one of the editors of the comprehensive five-volume Encyclopedia of Geology<\/a><\/em>. Of course, not all of this information needs to be included in the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article about a renowned scientist, but the editor\u2019s choice to include a clear accusation that Plimer is somehow linked to \u201cspreading misinformation\u201d is not surprising, to say the least.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Wikipedia\u2019s \u2018tiny\u2019 error<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The humorous thing is, however, that the editors of the Wikipedia article about him have in fact made an embarrassing mistake in the very first sentence. \u201cThey\u2019ve got my birth date wrong. And if they can\u2019t get my birth date right, which you can get on common knowledge, then everything else has got to be ignored,\u201d Plimer comments. In fact, he was born in August of the same year.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, raising the topic of \u2018misinformation\u2019 issue at the beginning of a Wikipedia article about a scientist is most probably deliberate \u2013 the editors probably think that the first thing the reader should know is that the person in question has a different, even dubious, view of generally accepted positions. This approach is not at all unique to Plimer or even to climate science. The same applies, for example, to the doctors and scientists who, during the Covid crisis, were critical of the panic-mongering, and lockdowns, recommended cheap drugs available to treat the disease like ivermectin, and questioned the efficacy and safety of vaccines (see e.g. here <\/a>and here<\/a>). Although Wikipedia still calls many of them spreaders of misinformation, it is clear, especially in retrospect, that their claims had a solid factual basis, while those claims that were continuously propagated did not<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As for Plimer, despite the possible attempt to cast doubt on his credibility, the claims that he rejects the scientific consensus on climate change and that he has been criticised by climate scientists, are factually accurate. Plimer backs this up with his characteristic humorous remark. \u201cI thank Wikipedia for telling me that I\u2019m a true scientist. I\u2019ve never followed this consensus and the scientists have to use evidence. We don\u2019t use what our peers say,\u201d he says.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2018Global boiling is absolute nonsense\u2019<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

But precisely this \u2018scientific consensus\u2019 is always being cited when the world\u2019s most influential people talk to us about anthropogenic global warming and the catastrophe it represents. For example, at the end of July last year, UN Secretary-General Ant\u00f3nio Guterres said <\/a>that the era of global warming was over and the era of \u201cglobal boiling\u201d had arrived. \u201cAnd for scientists, it is unequivocal \u2013 humans are to blame,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cI\u2019ve been told many things in my life,\u201d Plimer comments on this. \u201cI\u2019ve been told there was Father Christmas. I\u2019ve been told, and this was a long long time ago, by young women that they love me. So you learn to be sceptical,\u201d he says, again with his trademark humour, and reiterates that he\u2019s always interested in the evidence. \u201cTo use terms like \u2018global boiling\u2019 is clearly absolute nonsense. This is a clear hyperbole to try to frighten us because by frightening us you then don\u2019t have to present evidence,\u201d Plimer points out.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Plimer has been criticising climate catastrophe predictions for decades. As a geologist, he says, he has been trained to observe and then analyse whether and how the observations relate to previous observations. Therefore, it is not possible for him to simply believe anything or anyone without evidence. Belief is also the wrong word when talking about science. \u201cBelief is used in politics, it\u2019s used in religion,\u201d Plimer says. You can believe, for example, in the end of the world, which is also predicted for us because of climate change. \u201cWe\u2019ve had thousands of years of people telling us the world is going to end. If just one of these predictions was correct, we wouldn\u2019t be here,\u201d Plimer points out.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Science and belief don\u2019t mix. \u201cScience is married to evidence and we come to conclusions based on evidence,\u201d Plimer says, adding that as new evidence comes to light, conclusions have to change. He cites the example of how he has had the pleasure to correct his own scientific conclusions as some of the research he had published years ago has subsequently had to be refuted by new data and a better understanding of the research topic at hand. \u201cI\u2019ve criticised myself and I think that\u2019s what science is about. It\u2019s all about criticism,\u201d he says. However, as soon as someone uses exaggerations about climate change, such as the oceans are boiling or so on, or talks about believing or not believing in climate change, it is not science, but propaganda, he explains.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What drives climate change?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

But climate change, and even conditions that could be considered a climate crisis, are facts, Plimer says. He cites the example of the \u2018Little Ice Age<\/a>\u2019, which began around 1300 and lasted until around mid-19th century, depending on the source of the estimate. This was a serious crisis. Long, cold winters meant reduced yields and famines. Malnourished people were in poorer health and, for example, Europeans\u2019 growth also declined physically<\/a> during this period. Scarcity led to more wars and few would disagree with Plimer who says that our lives today are incomparably better than they were then.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Canals and rivers in Great Britain and the Netherlands were frequently frozen deeply enough to support ice skating and winter festivals during the \u2018Little Ice Age\u2019. (Dutch painter Hendrick Avercamp, \u2018A Scene on the Ice\u2019 from the first half of the 17th Century.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But if you look back thousands, hundreds of thousands, and millions of years, climate change has been happening on our planet all along. According to Plimer, the planet\u2019s climate changes cyclically and is influenced by a variety of factors \u2013 tectonic changes, astronomical changes, cosmic radiation, orbital cycles, changes in the distance and activity of the sun, changes in ocean currents, etc. According to Plimer, we have known and measured these natural cycles for a long time, but the climate is also influenced by phenomena we do not understand so well. \u201cA massive volcanic eruption can change climate and we\u2019ve seen this a number of times in the past,\u201d he says. At the same time, 70% of the Earth is covered by ocean, in fact, most volcanoes are underwater, and underwater volcanic activity directly affects the oceans by warming them and adding CO2<\/sub>. Plimer says we don\u2019t know exactly how this affects the climate. \u201cClimate is very complicated. It\u2019s not based on a simple gas, carbon dioxide,\u201d Plimer says, adding that the main greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is actually water vapour, and the clouds it creates directly affect our climate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

CO2<\/sub> does not drive climate change<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

But as for CO2<\/sub>, which Western countries are working to reduce in an effort to supposedly prevent climate change, Plimer says that although it does have some warming effect as a greenhouse gas, it cannot change the climate. In fact, the more CO2<\/sub> that is added to the atmosphere, the less each molecule that is added warms the atmosphere because the atmosphere gets saturated <\/a>with it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Plimer also points out that ice core studies have shown that every time the climate warms, the temperature rises first, and only then does the CO2<\/sub> level in the atmosphere rise. The reason why more CO2<\/sub> is getting released is because the ocean is warming \u2013 colder water withholds more CO2<\/sub>, and as the ocean warms more CO2<\/sub> is released. \u201cWe\u2019ve had six great ice ages in the history of our planet and six out of these six great ice ages started when there was more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than now,\u201d Plimer explains. Three of these ice ages were when we had 20% CO2<\/sub> in the atmosphere. Today, that level is about 0.04%. It is important to note that 97% of the CO2<\/sub> cycle is a natural process, and that anthropogenic CO2<\/sub> emissions account for only 3%, according to Plimer. So to prove that anthropogenic CO2<\/sub> causes global warming, it would also have to be shown that 97% of CO2 <\/sub>does not. \u201cThe whole argument is ridiculous from the start. It has never been shown that human emissions of carbon dioxide drive global warming. And why would we want to get rid of this carbon dioxide? It is plant food,\u201d Plimer says.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe only thing about renewable energy is that the subsidies are renewable\u201d<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

But it is precisely this man-made CO2<\/sub> that is at the heart of climate policies, and for this people will have to give up the reliable energy sources they have, replace them with less reliable ones, and be forced to limit their lives in other ways. \u201cI don\u2019t think it\u2019s got anything to do with the environment. I don\u2019t think it\u2019s got anything to do with looking after your fellow man. I think it\u2019s where unelected elites have seen a mechanism whereby they can make a huge amount of money and where they can control the average person, yet they don\u2019t have to face an election,\u201d he adds.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Part of this, Plimer says, has been the constant talk and scaremongering that fossil fuels are about to run out. \u201cWe\u2019ve had that argument going on for 60 years now about peak oil. I don\u2019t know about your country, but we have 3,000 years of coal in Australia, we have about 2,000 years of gas and we have more than 50 million years of uranium. It will take a very, very long time before we run out and by then we may be extinct or we may have different energy systems altogether,\u201d he says. Only recently, oil reserves larger than 50 years\u2019 worth of North Sea production were found<\/a> off Antarctica, and this has already got the major world powers arguing about who should own them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So according to Plimer, we won\u2019t run out of fossil fuels just yet. \u201cWhat we\u2019ve run out of is common sense. And they\u2019re trying to make us run out of money,\u201d he says, referring to the \u2018green transition\u2019 and Net Zero, in other words replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy such as wind turbines and solar panels. \u201cThe only thing about renewable energy is that the subsidies are renewable. The subsidies just keep coming. If we had no subsidies, we would have no so-called renewable energy. And if we had wind and solar competing on a level playing field with nuclear, with coal, with gas, with hydro, then we probably wouldn\u2019t see a wind turbine or solar facility anywhere in the world,\u201d Plimer says.<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"
Photo courtesy of Ian Plimer<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

The environmental damage of a \u2018green turnaround\u2019<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Another important factor that cannot be overlooked is the real environmental impact, or real environmental damage, of wind turbines, solar panels, electric vehicles and other \u2018green technologies\u2019 that are said to save the climate. Plimer gives some examples. Solar panels are made using metals such as lead and cadmium, which are toxic and are very likely to end up in the soil and groundwater after a relatively short life cycle as a solar panel. Because they do not decay, they create persistent pollution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

He gives another one for wind turbines. A toxic chemical called \u2018bisphenol\u2019 is used in the construction of wind turbine blades. The use of bisphenol is banned in almost all Western countries, according to Plimer. For example, continuous exposure to this chemical increases the risk of cancer. Now, when the wind turbines reach the end of their life cycle \u2013 which again is not very long, about 15 years \u2013 the blades will be removed from the wind turbines and can not be reused or recycled. Instead, it is customary for them to be buried<\/a>. From there the poison also ends up in the soil and groundwater.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n