DON Aitkin, a former member of the Australian Science and Technology Council and Foundation Chairman of the Australian Research Council, wrote to Kurt Lambeck, President of the Australian Academy of Sciences, concerning his public criticism of Ian Plimer’s new book Heaven and Earth. Professor Aitkin waited ten days for a response, and, in its absence, has decided to release his letter more widely.
Date: Sun, Jun 7 2009 7:03 pm
From: Don Aitkin
Dear Kurt,
It was a coincidence that I started to write a set of comments about your review of Ian Plimer’s book when The Canberra Times told me of your Queen’s Birthday honour, for which I congratulate you. I’ll make a further tiny comment about that at the end.
I didn’t hear your talk, but I have read the transcript, and make some comments about it, given Robyn Williams’ remark, in introducing you, that ‘the stakes couldn’t be higher’. I might have simply read, shrugged and passed on, had it not been for your comment that ‘Heaven and Earth is not a work of science, it is an opinion of an author who happens to be a scientist’. I puzzled over that line. It’s the kind of remark I would make about the IPCC authors’ statement that they were 99 per cent certain, or whatever the figure was, that the warming we were having was the result of human activity. That was not science, if you will allow me to say so. It was the opinion of scientists. My own feeling is that the claim would have been better expressed as ‘We are pretty sure that…’
Indeed, the IPCC reports, the last two of which I have read, seem to me very similar, in that respect, to ‘Heaven and Earth’. There is abundant use of refereed journal articles, and that’s fine. The science there described is used for the purposes of the IPCC. And that’s fine too. We use what others have done for our own purposes. What then distinguishes the 4AR from Heaven and Earth? Ian Plimer uses what he can find to build a case, and so do the IPCC authors. Both think they are right. I can’t myself see a difference.
I agree with you (and I am sure that Ian Plimer would too) that ‘climate change’ is such a complex process that no single individual can do the work necessary to explain it all. But that is why we use the work of others, knowing that we cannot do everything, but hoping that we have made a contribution — and knowing also that later someone else will come and show faults in what we have done. I see no reason to suppose that the IPCC process is necessary, and you have quite frankly recognised some of the faults in it. There are many others, and they don’t give me great confidence in the output.
Nor do I see any need for consensus — and that is the second remark you made that prompted this comment. As I see it, science is never about reaching consensus — that’s a political process. Science is about formulating hypotheses and testing them experimentally. Inasmuch as there is consensus about anything (the kind that allows textbooks to be written) it too is understood to be subject to review and dislodgment if the evidence points elsewhere. And Plimer’s book offers abundant examples of that kind of evidence.
You argue that non-consensus views ‘get tested in the peer-reviewed literature, and if the hypothesis stands up to this probing, it becomes incorporated in subsequent analyses’. I have two comments here. The first is that there is little evidence that ‘the IPCC process’ has taken seriously the work by scientists that does not support the AGW position. There is, for example, no chapter or section where the various inadequacies of the IPCC’s own argument, and the contrary evidence indicated in other peer-reviewed articles, are discussed and dealt with. It is though nothing like that needs to be done. The same could be said about your later criticisms of Ian Plimer’s choice of references. The supposed comment to an honours student you provide later could, it seems to me, be levelled with great accuracy at the IPCC’s own reports. And that is why Plimer’s book (which I have also read, from cover to cover) has to be dealt with seriously, not dismissed as though, as a single scientist, he can’t possibly know anything about something so complex as climate.
Third, ‘the concept that hundreds of researchers are conspiring to defraud the world’s policy-makers’ is a straw man. It does not appear, to my recollection, in Ian Plimer’s book. I certainly don’t believe in such a conspiracy. I do equate AGW with ‘conventional wisdom’, and I think that he would too.
Fourth, the IPCC claims, and you endorse the claim, that ‘Only the addition of greenhouse gases lead[s] to a satisfactory explanation of what has been observed…’ I have never been able to find a convincing reason for that claim. I thought that Ian Plimer’s book provided a series of explanations of why such a claim is not necessary. Again, I think that this is the nub of it: given that we are warming up from a past cool period, why is the AGW argument necessary to explain the warming?
Finally, your gong is well-merited for all sorts of reasons, but I hope you will allow me to say, in offering congratulations, that I would not put your contributions to public policy in this area ahead of your other claims for recognition. I am deeply concerned about the future of humanity too, and have the appropriate assemblage of children and grandchildren to worry about. In my view we are only at the beginning of an understanding of ‘climate science’, and to rush in and propose quite extraordinary public policies, which would greatly reduce our own quality of life and condemn the world’s poor to a continuation of their lot, on the basis of arguments from science which are not well demonstrated by observation or experiment, does not endear me to the IPCC and those who run it. I regret that you have moved the Academy in support of these measures, and wish you had not done so, given the great standing that the Academy has in our society.
With best wishes,
Don Aitkin
Canberra
*************************
Notes and Links
Comments on ‘Heaven and Earth’: Global Warming: The Missing Science, Today Professor Kurt Lambeck, president of the Australian Academy of Science, discusses Professor Ian Plimer’s book Heaven and Earth.
with Robyn Williams, http://www.abc.net.au/rn/ockhamsrazor/stories/2009/2589206.htm#transcript
To order the book through Connor Court Publishing: http://www.connorcourt.com/catalog1/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=103&zenid=c9cb640a08f4bb1a73fa4694484f85d9
William Kininmonth has written separately to Kurt Lambeck:
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/06/in-defence-of-heaven-and-earth/
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Beautifully put.
Aitken has not referred to single criticism of Plimer’s science made by Lambeck. Lambeck is not the only person to have pointed out errors, there are numerous people finding mistakes and errors of logic, and misrepresentations of the case for AGW.
So what is Aitkin doing by criticising the IPCC and ignoring all the errors in Plimers book that so many, many people have pointed out.
Look don’t forget the big difference between denialists and peole who work with the science, i.e…..
Denialists don’t want AGW to be happening and all the rest don’t want AGW to be happening. Big, big difference between the two that I don’t see being resolved unless the denialists stop this stroking their egos.
SJT, probably you write what you do because you have not understoof Aitken’s criticism of Lambeck. English comprehension hasn’t been taught in our schools for a few decades now. Sad really.
“and all the rest don’t want AGW to be happening.”
Oh, C’mon JC! You wouldn’t want it any other way.
And how can you imagine a “denialist” gets an ego trip out of trying to keep the loonies out of the control tower?
Jeremy C,
How about listing all the errors in Plimer’s book here, complete with citations so we can check your honesty.
Clearly you have as much difficulty understanding Aitken’s letter as SJT – Aitken said both the IPCC and Plimer’s works are equivalent, meaning they both have errors, except that Plimer looked at the pros and cons of the issue, while the IPCC only the pros.
So we conclude that you are still in barn playing with straw.
Sigh – go knock yourself out Sinkers – there are 14 – yep 14 !! – separate critiques on Plimer over at Deltoid http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/global_warming/plimer/
Must we go over it again. Let’s not.
Let’s just quietly walk away and never speak of it again.
Luke,
Post them here with citations or put up.
Ball is in your court chief traffic light.
(in case anyone can’t understand the traffic light term, Luke is green because he is to yellow to admit being red.)
You insist we are after your money, Louis, but I’m not aware you have any.
Shonky old geologists stick together – nice attempt at bluster Sinkers – but we’re not going to waste a second on rubbish that hasn’t even been proof read.
We know your editorial standards are rubbbish. So matey boy – you start at Deltoid 1 to 14 and tell us when you’re done. Although you’re already done like a dinner – so why don’t you just give it away while you’re still ahead.
Go on – way away now. Don’t start reading or you’ll realise that ol’ mate has had his day.
Luke I visited deltoid once and found that it was time wasted. From the way that you and others are carrying on I suspect that the book is causing you real problems. Perhaps I’ll order it on Monday aught to be worth a read.
Gee I visited Deltoid once and found Coho being pooned like a newb.
SJT:
“You insist we are after your money, Louis, but I’m not aware you have any.”
Que?
Jan,
What I miss are the visual effects – mouth frothing, for example. Oh that You Tube could be deployed.
Luke
“Gee I visited Deltoid once and found Coho being pooned like a newb.”
Being sodomised by Lambert’s acolytes is hardly a recommendation,
It’s the kind of remark I would make about the IPCC authors’ statement that they were 99 per cent certain, or whatever the figure was,
he doesn t expect to be taken serious, does he?
this remark alone disqualifies all his further comments..
SJT is right. not a single error is addressed. this is a classic case of non-denial.
and the comparison with the IPCC report does not name a single error either.
is this the best, that sceptics can do, defending this crappy book?
Louis: “What I miss are the visual effects – mouth frothing, for example”
I get more than enough of that at work don’t need to go to deltoid for it. In any case it doesn’t do a lot for credibility.
“Luke I visited deltoid once and found that it was time wasted. From the way that you and others are carrying on I suspect that the book is causing you real problems. Perhaps I’ll order it on Monday aught to be worth a read.”
The only problem is how a prominent sceptic who took on the creationsists could fail so badly. He commits every mistake the creationists make, starting with misrepresenting the case against him.
Well Will that settles it ” He commits every mistake the creationists make,”
With your propensity for getting things wrong getting the book and reading it for myself is a must. The most fundamental mistake creationist make is that they don’t learn Hebrew and find out what the source book really says. Somehow I don’t think that’s relevant with climate issues.
Jan,
Notice how little Wil and his traffic light mates plagiarize everything? Never an original contribution made.
And SJT thinks I have no money – however the ATO does and are getting it in large lumps, but not willingly, of course. Oh I received an on site report on the Wong-Fielding meeting of the other day – by one who was present. I’ll put it up.
” however the ATO does and are getting it in large lumps, but not willingly, of course.”
I don’t even think of that as unwilling or willing just inevitable. Personall I think that since the AGO has let the Pennies down and not given them the answers they need they should be sacked and give the money to NSW State Health (which is broke) and increase my salary :- at least I do useful work.
” I’ll put it up.”
Give us a link please?
Well Louis – pretty piss weak effort looking after your mate – 14 Deltoid posts on Plimer’s book and you have haven’t been able to refute a single criticism. SJT – looks like he’s thrown in the towel (again).
Luke,
“We know your editorial standards are rubbbish. So matey boy – you start at Deltoid 1 to 14 and tell us when you’re done. Although you’re already done like a dinner – so why don’t you just give it away while you’re still ahead”.
‘Fraid not Luke, as R.F. Beck has frequently shown Deltoid to have problems distinguishing fact from fiction, so I shan’t bother wasting my time.
But you, SJT and the other traffic lights are obliged to demonstrate it here, not by plagiarizing someone’s work. It means actually reading Plimer’s book, which you will never do since you would never buy it in the first place.
You remind me a little of Harlow Shapley 60 years back – condemned a book but never read it. Another Harvard lefty.
Luke,
I haven’t been able to refute any because I have not looked at any of Lambert’s faux comments.
Jan link http://joannenova.com.au/2009/06/19/the-wong-fielding-meeting-on-global-warming/
Louis is chicken – what a scaredy kat – can’t refute Deltoid. It’s not even Deltoid himself – it’s various guests – even geologists who’ve had enough of goons like yourself.
Like most foreigners – you don’t even have a grasp of the Queen’s English – “plagiarizing” means knicking someone else’s work and pretending it’s your own – we’re citing mate. Oh that’s right – you’re not used to publishing except in your trade rags where any sludge can masquerade as science. We’re clearly citing sources.
Mate your failure to step up to the plate simply means you’re a flake ! who wouldn’t even defend his mate !
One of the major areas for promotion of science by the AAS is supposed to be: “education and public awareness”.
You would therefore think that Kurt Lambeck would do something a little more constructive about the AGW theory and hold a proper debate. Something on-going that would bring in new science as it is being progressively understood and recorded.
Luke,
As I don’t have Plimer’s book and the references, it isn’t possible for me to refute Deltoid – so your comments are baseless. (Nor do I intend to buy Plimer’s book, for that matter).
The rest of your diatribe is simply a scurrilous ad hominem.
So you have already lost the argument.
Louis: I think you should give up because
is something that Luke and friends are never likely to comprehend. In fact they and the deltoid crowd think it’s clever.
Little Lukey,
“Like most foreigners – you don’t even have a grasp of the Queen’s English – “plagiarizing” means knicking someone else’s work and pretending it’s your own – we’re citing mate.”
That is what plagiarizing is called today then?? CITING?? Sounds like a phrase a criminal picks up from his attorney in a movie!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
You warmers keep me continually amused!!
Jan,
I intend to do that – actually I have, more or less, done so and moved to other places.
How frigging pathetic is that – typical bloody dutchman. So you’ve been wussing on about something you don’t know about (AGAIN).
Jan – Louis doesn’t need to “give up”. He never started. Poor Louis unable to defend a single argument for his mate. What a toss !
And KookyKat – citing isn’t plagiarizing you numb nuts. It’s the opposite.
Luke – there’s no point posting at Deltoid – if they disagree with you, they ban you. Pathetic.
why don’t you take your rude arrogance back to Deltoid from whence you came, you are creating a bad odour on this site and I’m about to stop coming here because I can’t stand the smell!
“Jan – Louis doesn’t need to “give up”.”
Obviously he does.
Boring Banana-PJs – he can post here. It goes like this
1. Rebuttal point 1 – they’re wrong coz…
2. Rebuttal point 2 – they’re wrong coz
but all we can hear are crickets coz we’ve called the bluffer’s bluff. He’s got nuttin’ to say in defence of Plimer.
Is this you at Doltoid, Luke? Could you be so honest?
92
Here’s some more:
“Hence IPCC >90% confidence in CO2e being the dominant driver of current warming trend.”
Is the missing 10% a fair representation of the science we don’t yet understand?
Of course not! Really, how could you not be skeptical?
Posted by: Earthtide | June 20, 2009 6:30 AM
Yeah Janama,
You really made fool of yourself on Deltoid didn’t you……. for all the world to see unlike here. I did beg Tim Lambert to bring you back for a specific moment but he is a more serious and balanced guy than me. But you know I must say, all power to you and Cohenite for going out of your comfort zone by going to Deltoid (Don’t worry there was another denialist after you who was making even sillier statements than you). Now all you have to do is come out of your comfort zone with your thinking and who knows all those wonderful ‘shorter Janama’ statements may disappear.
Spangles – ““Hence IPCC >90% confidence in CO2e being the dominant driver of current warming trend.”
This is deduced from the obvious fact that changes in solar irradiance isn’t enough to explain the observations. Quite correct – it isn’t, but what they don’t realize is the electromagnetic connection, and when that is added to the various “forcings”, CO2 becomes irrelevant. EM forces are 10^39 greater than the others, but ignoring this force leads to the absurdity of believing that a trace gas can explain the observations.
Happens when the science isn’t grounded on an empirical basis and you adopt a geoscentric view.
Jeremy C, “You really made fool of yourself on Deltoid didn’t you”,
I think it’s called having empathy. Deltoid is, after all, a ship of fools, so Janama was just being courteous and doing when in Rome what the Romans do.
Janama:
“why don’t you take your rude arrogance back to Deltoid from whence you came, you are creating a bad odour on this site and I’m about to stop coming here because I can’t stand the smell!”
That is Luke’s goal – to stifle dissent by abusing people so they leave this blog.
Luke was polite and worked hard to provide evidence. He was continually abuse, and the work he did was completely ignored. He’s just playing your game. Come up with something better than lunatic conspiracy theories about Luke and myslef, and things might improve. Your the ‘sceptic’, set the standard or stop your whinging.
“Luke was polite ”
What???
SJT,
“Luke was polite and worked hard to provide evidence.”
It is brunch time over here, and you just made me spew coffee everywhere.
Thanks for the laugh,
SJT,
And your fixation on conspiracy theories as a way to pretend skeptics are not not real is getting a bit obsessive. I am concerned. Can you see some Dr. about a pill for that?
Here, by the way, is a nice review of how stupid ideas like AGW flourish:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/20/historic-parallels-in-our-time-the-killing-of-of-cattle-vs-carbon/
Hunter,
When I read that I just had to send it to a few special people.
It is so typical of the “sacrifice syndrome” that has been prevalent in societies for as long as we can recall.
However, we previously thought they were only primitive, uninformed societies but now we are seeing it in our so called “enlightened” times.
spangled drango,
I am coming to believe that it is the elites of any given society who are more vulnerable to destructive memes. Leading skeptics is like herding cats.
We look back on ancient stories, like Noah’s Ark, and think how primitive and silly those people were. And by our standards, they in many ways were. But those stories were collected by, preserved by and taught by, the elites of their day.
The tragedy of the Xhosa was not that naive peasants bought into the self destruction, but that their best leadership bought into it.
Eugenics was adopted by and promoted by the elites of the late 19th and early 20th century.
Eugenics inspired legislation was, like all legislation in democratic societies like Australia and the US and much of Europe, instituted by acknowledged leaders. AGW is no different.
Hi folks
Could someone please refer me to any research, published in a reputable peer-reviewed journal, that provides evidence that parachutes reduce the incidence of death or injury amongst people who, voluntarily or involuntarily, exit from an aircraft.
Thanks in advance.