Lakshman Menon’s review of Ian Plimer’s ‘Heaven and Earth’ (August 6) is filled with righteous indignation at the fraud being perpetuated on global society by climate alarmists. Mr Menon is carried inexorably towards this conclusion by the impeccable scientific credentials of the author whose book he is reviewing. The problem with relying on scientific credentials is that there are a few thousand other scientists out there, also with impeccable credentials, who come to the opposite conclusion on every count.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been debating this issue for two decades on the basis of an exhaustive survey of peer-reviewed science. The IPCC is necessary because the science of climate change is so complex that any single discipline or institution, let alone any single scientist, can hope to process all the information.
It is deeply ironic that while making an argument for critical thinking and debate, Mr Menon has not bothered to check whether there is any debate on Plimer’s work. A cursory search would have revealed that Plimer’s assertion on average temperatures in the past few decades are based on a graph that has been comprehensively shown to be wrong. His assertion that it is not possible to ascribe increased carbon dioxide to human activities is wrong — scientists do track the relative composition of different isotopes of carbon to separate fossil fuel sources and other sources. His argument that a few years of global cooling undercuts climate science is wrong — IPCC science does allow for occasional cooling as part of a longer warming trend. Interested Business Standard readers, may wish to consult, for example, a review of Plimer’s book at www.abc.net.au/rn/science show/stories/2009/ 2593166.htm. In general, a good source for serious debate on climate science is www.realclimate.org.
Processes like the IPCC are not perfect. As consensus processes, they tend to exclude the outliers — those who believe human-induced climate change is not occurring and those who think that the end is nigh — in favour of an evidence-supported middle. Unless one is willing to discard the credibility of the scientific peer-review process, the IPCC is probably our best bet towards understanding climate science.
In my view, Mr Menon’s uncritical parotting of Plimer’s conclusions is downright irresponsible. The irony is that Mr Menon concludes with a wail about the need for honest debate. An honest reviewer would have bothered to check a few facts.
Navroz K Dubash, New Delhi
Readers should write to:
The Editor, Business Standard,
Nehru House,
4, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg,
New Delhi 110 002,
Fax: (011) 23720201;
letters@bsmail.in
