Climate Cover Up and Top 10 Lists

Mon, 2009-11-16 11:40Kevin Grandia
Kevin Grandia's picture

Climate Cover Up and Top 10 Lists

Everyone loves Top Ten lists, so here’s a few that our book Climate Cover Up has made since it launched a few weeks back:

Best in BC: Being that Jim and Richard are both from the Province of Bristish Columbia in Canada it’s very cool to see that the book is listed as one of the Top Ten Bestsellers in BC.

On Amazon: While these Top Tens change very quickly, Climate Cover Up is currently a Top Ten bestseller in the categories of Media Studies and Weather.

This is, of course, just the start as we have a lot of publicity still to come from upcoming talks, media interviews and events, so hopefully I’ll have more Top 10’s to report in the weeks to come.

If you haven’t picked up a copy yet, please do. If you’re a blogger or journalist and would like a review copy, please email me at: [email protected] and I’ll have a copy sent right away.


(BTW, someone just called me from this new website Explore.org, which looks very cool)

Previous Comments

When are you coming out with the e-reader version?

Speak of the devil. We just asked the publisher that very question today. Will post it here when it’s available.

how did someone give that a minus? - I have to protest - It’s a basic info comment for heaven’s sake

I have recently read Professor Ian Plimers book about a climate coverup from the other side. I’d be interested in reading yours as well. Is it available across Canada?

As well would this not bias your comments regarding people getting money from “Big Oil” if you are also profiting form the other side of Global Warming? Perhaps you should put a caveat on your blog that you are now in the hands of “Big Global Warming Profiteers” just so people know the bias and don’t get the impression that items on the blog are presented from an impartial point of view.

I bumped into this interesting info on Plimers mining connections yesterday…

Ian Plimer’s Mining Connections
Submitted by Bob Burton on November 12, 2009
http://www.prwatch.org/node/8686

some excerpts..

“Recently, a volunteer editor on SourceWatch (hat-tip to Scribe), did some digging into Plimer’s directorships with three mining companies, Ivanhoe Australia, CBH Resources and Kefi Minerals.

Annual reports for the three companies reveal that:

* CBH Resources paid Plimer $A125,000 in 2009 and $181,003 in 2008. As of June 2009, Plimer also had options on 3,569,633 CBH Resources shares. At the early November 2009 share price of .10, Plimer’s options would be worth approximately $A356,963. However, CBH’s annual report does not list details of what price, if any, the options would be available at, or the time limit under which they would have to be exercised.

* As part of his employment agreement with Ivanhoe Australia, Plimer can forgo annual directors fees of $65,000 in return for a total of 100,000 share options “for nil consideration.” The options are available in four installments, on September 1 each year from 2008 through to 2011, subject to Plimer continuing in employment with the company.
………..
Plimer is also non-executive Director and Deputy Chairman of Kefi Minerals, a U.K.-headquartered mineral exploration company with gold and copper exploration projects in Turkey and, via a joint venture, gold projects in Saudia Arabia. According to the company’s 2009 annual report, Plimer has 250,000 shares in Kefi which, at the early November 2009 value of 2.25 British pence, would be worth over $A10,106. “

Tobacco scientists galore.

Radiative physics tells us that adding infrared absorbing gases to Earth’s atmosphere increases the surface temperature. The physical radiative model at night is set up like the outer layers of an onion.

At night, infrared radiation from the warm ground heads for space - and if there is an IR-absorbing layer, that layer also warms up, and then radiates energy back at the ground. The main local factor is water vapor, but the amount of water vapor in the air is a function of global temperature, which is primarily a function of atmospheric composition and pressure on one hand, and our distance from the sun on the other.

If you increase the greenhouse gas concentration in the atmospheric onion layers, do you increase the forcing? Yes - and the effect is strongest in the mid-upper troposphere where pressures are a little lower. This warms the surface, leading to a greater water vapor content in a warmer atmosphere, which increases the warming a little further - and that accounts for the rough estimates of a 3C increase at 2X CO2 at a CO2 increase rate of 1% per year.

You might argue that the effects of a 3C raise are livable, except that CO2 will not stop at 2X under business as usual, or even at 3X, but more likely at 4X. This requires the deliberate abandonment of fossil fuels before they run out - certainly a great challenge.

In any case, ignoring the basic radiation physics when making arguments about climate is a sure sign of a crackpot mentality.

Plimer has a vested interest denying the effect of CO2, because he profits from coal mining.

‘…The Ovoot Tolgoi coal mine is approximately 45 kilometres north of the Mongolia–China border. The mine is operating 24 hours a day, with four production crews.

During Q3’08, SouthGobi commenced initial sales of coal from the Ovoot Tolgoi mine to customers in China. Three coal products have been established for export from the Ovoot Tolgoi mine – thermal coal, premium thermal coal and metallurgical coal. Coal trucks were loaded at the Ovoot Tolgoi mine site and crossed the border into China on September 22, 2008. This coal shipment is part of a one-year contract, with 300,000 tonnes to be loaded at the Ovoot Tolgoi mine gate in 2008. A second sales contract also is in place for an additional 400,000 tonnes in 2008….’

http://www.ivanhoemines.com/s/NariinSukhait.asp

Then there is the plagiarism:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/10/plimer_the_plagiarist.php

Bogus claims:
“We cannot stop carbon emissions because most of them come from volcanoes.” http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8356000/8356114.stm#emp_8356369

The numerous problems with his claims:
Falsified data, bogus graphs, bogus claims etc., etc.
http://www.complex.org.au/tiki-download_file.php?fileId=91

Add that to this outrageous claim by Plimer [just one of many]:

Plimer: ‘..,now there are very very large numbers of papers contrary to this popular view and they don’t even get acknowledged in the IPCC reports. In this latest book of mine, Heaven and Earth, which is coming out in about six week’s time, I have 2311 scientific references in that book which are contrary to the popular view. You cannot argue there are hundreds or thousands of scientific papers that support this view, because there are hundreds or thousands of papers that are contrary to that view. It is just that science is absolutely and totally ignored. That I find is a very dangerous comment’

From ABC Perth 27 February, 2009
http://www.abc.net.au/local/audio/2009/02/27/2503621.htm
@ 9.35 onwards

It’s really hard to be impartial. Everybody has a conflict of interest.

You certainly can’t have a name and/or a livelihood in any way connected with climate issues without having a bias that goes with it.

So yes, being a desmog blogger means giving up the crown of impartiality.

No, it means facing facts and preferring evidence to lies and prejudice.

there exists a narrative - a staying within the lines. It’s political.

A real scientist is always impartial. When a coworker introduced the Friends of Science to me a few months ago, the first thing that struck me was their interpretation of the T-t curve and the brief time they reported it for (10 years). That stroke me instantly as not being valid. OK, their name struck me, too. Sounds silly, like a credibility hard sell, such as democratic republic of Kongo (not democratic), german democratic republic (also not democratic), (unfeathered) free market (not free for all but certainly for scheisters), libertarianism (sounds like liberal but really isn’t), etc. The general term for this could be bluff package of deceptive package (German: Mogelpackung). That’s where the bias comes in but it is only on the political side.

Obviously any group that names itself “Friends of Science” is highly likely to be an agenda driven group (unless it’s some kind of chess club or something)

But I’m not comfortable with elevating scientists above having agendas and being political.

Here is a review that is critical of Plimer’s science:

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/04/the_science_is_missing_from_ia.php

And links to more reviews: http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=Ian_Plimer

Will there be an Audiobook version? A word to the advertisement of your book above: Leonardo DiCaprio is as qualified as Chris Monckton - or even less. DiCaprio may foster sales but not improve credibility - and may even do damage. My copy is in the mail.