In general the graphics are poorly linked to the text, with the text making no explicit mention of the graphics in virtually all cases. part from the issues of lack of citations and mislabelling of axes, noted in item 3, there are significant problems with the content of many of the graphs. By figure number, these are: 1: Misrepresents the HadCRUT data set and uses fabricated data for 2008 — [see item 6]. 3: The data are distorted — [see item 13]. 5: Falsified time axis, thus giving no indication of the Younger Dryas, in contradiction
with text — [see item 16].
10: Lack of specifics makes the plot meaningless — [see item 18].
11 (upper): ‘Hockey stick’ data have been distorted — [see item 31]. 11 (lower): values for 20th century have been distorted, end of MWP inconsistent with abrupt end described in text — [see item 31]. 14: While a citation is given, comparison with the cited source shows that one of the curves is not what Plimer claims it to be [see item 37]. 15: Time series truncated to shift relative degrees of correlation — [see item 39]. 29: The content is misrepresented — [see item 54]. 38, 39, 40: Plotted on different scales to support the assertion that different time-averaging leads to different trends (an assertion that violates the basic laws of arithmetic) — [see item 65].
In analysing the details that follow, remember that Heaven + Earth is being promoted4 as a scrupulous and scholarly analysis.
p. 11, figure 15: This graphic has several misrepresentations. The bold line purports to be temperature data from the HadCRUT data set (see page 41 below). This is not true. The HadCRUT data are closer to the lighter solid line which is labelled, U H LT (adj to Sfc).6 More seriously, at least for the H DCRU data7, the 2008 data that are shown are fabrications. The HadCRUT data set shows 2008 as being only 0.081◦C lower than 2007
7. p. 21: (referring to Ben Santer) The lead author then added references to his own work which showed warming from 1943 to 1970.17 Howeve , when a full set of data from 1905 to after 1970 was analysed by others, no warming was seen.18. Here Plimer is misunder- standing the argument and misrepresenting both sides. i: The argument is not about warming per se, but mainly about the stratosphere-troposphere temperature difference as an indicator that the mechanism identified by rrhenius is op- erative, and the corresponding pattern of temperature change from aerosols; ii: Reference 17 refers to the period 1963 to 1987, not 1943 to 1970 as claimed by Plimer. This misrepresentation falsely implies that Santer et al were claiming warming at a time of relative cooling. iii: Reference 18 (by Michaels and Knappenberger) analyses the period 1958 to 1995,
4 5 6 7
Cover ‘blurb’ by Lord Lawson of Blaby, on paperback edition. Until version 2.0, this was incorrectly noted as figure 11. Presumably: University of labama Huntsville, Lower Troposphere (adjusted to surface). See page 41.