factors (rather than the whole picture) with a myopic fixation on human CO2. Plimer has his periods well-defined and documented. I think his historical knowledge is quite good, but you seem to disagree. Do you have any specific criticisms of his historical climate observation? The unsuccessful IPCC attempt (in TAR) to "eliminate" a historically well documented MWP with the since discredited Mann et al. Hockey stick is a true case of falsification of data (forget the "distorted" Plimer graphs). The bevy of "copy hockey sticks" that have been published since then (and cited by IPCC in AR4) are a rather shameful example of trying to keep a blatant lie alive. Forget the "oranges in northern England" story, Peter. It does not apply to Plimer's latest book and is irrelevant in any case. There are, however, documented records that show that oranges were grown in provinces of China during the global MWP, where this is impossible today. Peter, I would not claim that Plimer's book has "all the answers". Together with Peter Taylor's recent book, "Chill", these are two important critiques of the current so-called "mainstream view" on AGW. I personally feel that we are being over-bombarded by media releases about impending disasters, 1,000+-page IPCC "sales pitches" masquerading as "science", etc., and that books, such as these, serve to give a bit of a balance to the whole story. Both books point out some basic problems with the premise that our climate had been essentially unchanged for thousands of pre-industrial years,