It is not wrong to challenge orthodoxy anywhere but the work of Plimer is unscientific and both irresponsible and dangerous – he has provided a social diservice. The extensive publicity he has received has had an entirely undeserved impact.
Forget Plimer, read the science.
In the Oz of all places, a demolition of Ian Plimer so scathing, and so convincing, that it’s hard to imagine how he can salvage any kind of academic reputation, other than by a full retraction (which would be a pretty impressive move, admittedly). …
If there are any genuine sceptics left among those who doubt the findings of mainstream science, this piece ought to convince them that Plimer’s work offers them no support, and should lead them to also to dismiss, as unable to tell science from nonsense, the many peddlers of delusion who have promoted this work, such as William Kininmonth. But, at this point, I can confidently predict that nothing will shift the remaining delusionists.
Credit where credit is due, CL. He’s a computer graphics teacher. This means he may have helped put Pac Man in video arcades.
The Deltoid piece is standard MO. So Plimer quoted some dodgy source. We aren’t told how important that particular source is to the overall argument that Plimer is making. He had some piece a few weeks ago too where he was nitpicking misquoted sources, etc. So perhaps Plimer’s editors need to lift their game. Still no actual engagement with the argument, whatever it is.
So Plimer’s numerous howlers are not his fault but those of his editors. And maybe he put a whole bunch of stuff in his book that was irrelevant as well as wrong. And while Soon can’t say what Plimer’s argument is, he’s sure that critics have not engaged with it. (Hint for Soon: if you want to find out what Plimer’s argument is, trying reading the first paragraph of my review.)
Soon continues with:
For the record I have no interest in any of this stuff and tend out of laziness to take the consensus view on warming. But Lambert has hardly ‘demolished’ anything. let’s see him write a book of similar length on a subject outside his specialty (putting Pacmans on screens) and see how he goes.
A lot better than Plimer I would think. Because I would run my stuff past folks with expertise in the area and listen to what they say. This is just basic scholarship and the fact that Plimer did not do it does not excuse the mountain of stuff he got wrong, it makes it worse.