UPDATE: View the letters in response to Sandiford’s article here (thanks to reader Bruce in the comments).
Writing in The Australian Mike Sandiford takes a pop at Ian Plimer. Just by way of background, Sandiford:
- approvingly quotes Naomi Oreskes, whose book, Merchants of Doubt, lumps in climate sceptics with those who deny the link between smoking and cancer
- claims last year was the hottest “on record” (don’t forget, he’s a geologist)
- writes for “The Conversation” (link) alongside such infamous names as David Karoly, Stephan Lewandowsky, Ian Enting, Ross Garnaut and Ove Hoegh-Guldberg
- is a signatory to an open letter from Australian warmists: “Climate change is real” (link)
- writes alarmist articles for the Silly Moaning Herald (link)
so I will leave you to draw your own conclusions. Looks like Sandiford has had a problem with Ian Plimer for a while – another article in The Aus covering similar ground is here.
GINA Rinehart notoriously claims she has never met a geologist who believes “adding more CO2 to the atmosphere will have any significant effect on climate”.
To listen to prominent “contrarian” geologists such as Ian Plimer, you might imagine she never could.
But, despite the bluster, our contrarian geologists are out of kilter with their own community and seem deeply confused about the way the greenhouse effect – by adding more CO2 to the atmosphere, for example – has shaped both the past and the present.
All geology students learn of the importance of the greenhouse effect. It’s simply impossible to understand the geological record without it. [Read more...]