Climate sense from The Sydney Morning Herald

No, you did read that correctly, and it's not from Miranda Devine. In a balanced and intelligent article about Ian Plimer's latest book, Heaven and Earth, the author, Paul Sheehan, openly questions his own views on "climate change":

What I am about to write questions much of what I have written in this space, in numerous columns, over the past five years. Perhaps what I have written can withstand this questioning. Perhaps not. The greater question is, am I - and you - capable of questioning our own orthodoxies and intellectual habits? Let's see.

This is the point which most believers in AGW are unable to get beyond. Ian Plimer's arguments against the alarmism of AGW are compelling:

"To reduce modern climate change to one variable, CO2, or a small proportion of one variable - human-induced CO2 - is not science. To try to predict the future based on just one variable (CO2) in extraordinarily complex natural systems is folly. Yet when astronomers have the temerity to show that climate is driven by solar activities rather than CO2 emissions, they are dismissed as dinosaurs undertaking the methods of old-fashioned science."
...
The setting up by the UN of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 1988 gave an opportunity to make global warming the main theme of environmental groups. "The IPCC process is related to environmental activism, politics and opportunism. It is unrelated to science. Current zeal around human-induced climate change is comparable to the certainty professed by Creationists or religious fundamentalists."

It's a small step, but an important one. The book is published tomorrow and I hope to get a copy as soon as possible.

Read it here.