Letter in The Australian: CLIMATE SCIENCE NOT BLINDING IDEOLOGY

There is debate among scientists about everything. “Science is a mystery” especially cosmology, climatology, etc.
The Universe remains mysterious alright! I have always been fascinated by trying to imagine its infinity!

I found this letter below,in The Australian (4/1/'12) referring to this issue as being most interesting. It is consistent with what I heard from the British cosmology lecturer on board our cruise ship ‘Queen Elizabeth’ last March.
Professor Plimer of Adelaide Uni., is answering another letter from a scientist but which I have not seen.
I am reproducing it below as an adjunct to my original post:
http://anivlam.blogspot.com/2011/03/suns-effects-on-earths-climate-weather.html

Prof. Richard Holdaway,Director of Space Science and Technology, Rutherford Appleton Laboratories, was the lecturer.-

In the end, I agree with Holdaway that Governments will not miss out on a tax if they can help it,- but its effect on climate is purely theoretical and in the minds of the beholders!
Ideology is independent of reality! Big Bang theories or whatever theory,- it is ideology which will prevail in the laymen’s minds! We scientists will remain skeptical,- though the politicians will follow the populist beliefs just to remain in power.The believers will gladly pay for it.

I am all for quality of life though and removing pollution from our atmosphere, plus all ecological systems which need to be preserved.

MM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE LETTER:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------BASIC SCIENCE IS THE ANSWER. NOT BLINDING IDEOLOGY.

“Rather than an ad hominem attack, Mike Sandiford (“Cherry-picking contrarian geologists tend to obscure scientific truth. Inquirer 31/12-1/1/12) should have addressed some basic science to support his case.
Why didn’t he declare that there are some 1500 terrestrial volcanoes that emit small amounts of CO2 (carbon dioxide), yet there are more than 3 million submarine volcanoes that emit huge amounts of CO2?
Why didn’t Sandiford declare that the geological record shows no relationship between atmospheric CO2 and temperature? Why did he not acknowledge that there is a close relationship between the Earth’s climate, the sun and the Eartyh’s orbit? (N.B. Exactly what our lecturer told us on the QE!)
Why didn’t he state that there have been 6 major ice ages and all were initiated when atmospheric CO2 was higher than now? Ice core measurements show that after natural warming events, atmospheric CO2 increases 800 years later?
Why did he not declare that the atmospheric CO2 content has been decreasing for millions of years because of natural sequestration in sediments?
Why didn’t Sandiford state that in historical times there have been warmings (Roman, medieval) and cooling (Dark Ages, Little Ice Age) when there was no relationship between temperature and atmospheric CO2? Or do we just ignore the past? Why didn’t he declare that for the past 150 years there have been 3 warmings and 3 coolings and that there is no relationship between these events and human emissions of CO2? Why didn’t he show that the effect of a minor greenhouse gas, CO2, is minuscule compared to the massive effect of water vapour? (N.B. Again just as my QE professor said!)

Oceans contain far moreheat than the atmosphere and have a profound effect on climate. Why did Sandford choose to ignore that sea surface temperatures have been delining? He didn’t even call on his area of expertise, tectonics, that heat is also added to the oceans from below and that climates change enormously with shifting continents.
Sandfor was quite happy to quote NASA. He also just happens to omit that in the 20 years since global warming scare was launched, human emissions of CO2 have risen by 50% yet global temperatures measured by NASA satellites are only 0.1C warmer than the average throughout the 32 years since satellite measurements began.

(Signed) IAN PLIMER , Professor of mining geology, University of Adelaide, S.A.
COMMENT FROM DAVID:

Most climatologists discredit Ian Plimer. The most effective article I saw re Ian Plimer was based on two points. He massaged data to fit his conclusions, and he contradicted statements he made in the past. The statement that global temperature has risen only .1 degree in the past twenty years is doubtful.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

Global warming refers to the rising average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans and its projected continuation. In the last 100 years, Earth's average surface temperature increased by about 0.8 °C (1.4 °F) with about two thirds of the increase occurring over just the last three decades.[2] Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and scientists are more than 90% certain most of it is caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases produced by human activities such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels.[3][4][5][6] These findings are recognized by the national science academies of all the major industrialized countries.[7][A]

You can go to the site and check the reference. Global temperature has risen about .5 degrees in the last twenty years rather than .1 according to Plimer. Check further before you put Plimer in your blog.

David