How ones feelings on a theory should be left-wing or right-wing is beyond me. This is another tactic to belittle the debate.

It’s not the scientists doing the politicisation, it’s the lobbyists, special interests and parts of the libertarian right (see Climate Cover Up). The “debate” is not about the science (otherwise Plimer would have no need to so badly misrepresent it), it’s about what to do. That’s quite properly the realm of politics.

“It is not “merely” atmospheric scientists that would have to be wrong” – Its not true that all ‘atmospheric’ scientists agree on climate change

That’s not what the original quote is saying. The reviewer is taking issue with Plimer’s notion that it is the climatologists who are involved in some sort of hoax or conspiracy. The reviewer is pointing out that there would have to be thousands of scientists from many different disciplines involved in the conspiracy if it existed.

Which is more likely, that thousands of scientists are part of a global conspiracy that has somehow eluded detection for nearly 30 years, or that majority is right and the handful of contrarian scientist really are wrong after all?

Of course, we know that you would have us believe in the conspiracy, but that’s because there are squirrels living in your brain, R2.

R2D2, you ask for criticism of what is actually said in the book… there’s plenty of substantive rebuttal of the assertions made in the book. See Ian Enting’s document, for starters. There’s plenty more around.

One of the most revealing points made about H+E, I think (though it’s irrelevant to the climate change aspect) is that made by Michael Ashley, demonstrating just how jaw-droppingly ignorant Plimer can be:

Plimer probably didn’t expect an astronomer to review his book. I couldn’t help noticing on page120 an almost word-for-word reproduction of the abstract from a well-known loony paper entitled “The Sun is a plasma diffuser that sorts atoms by mass”. This paper argues that the sun isn’t composed of 98 per cent hydrogen and helium, as astronomers have confirmed through a century of observation and theory, but is instead similar in composition to a meteorite.

It is hard to understate the depth of scientific ignorance that the inclusion of this information demonstrates. It is comparable to a biologist claiming that plants obtain energy from magnetism rather than photosynthesis.

“It is not “merely” atmospheric scientists that would have to be wrong” – Its not true that all ‘atmospheric’ scientists agree on climate change

“Ian’s stated view .. whole range of specialist disciplines have fallen prey to delusional self interest and become nothing more than unthinking ideologues.” – Nice, rather than critique the premise, simply portray it as lunacy. This quote is an unfair paraphrase.

“If this had been written by an honours student, I would have failed it” – enough said

“it should be classified as science fiction in any library” – along the lines of “what debate???”. As sad as this is I am willing to bet some posters on this blog would actually agree.

“It is easy to see why this book has attracted attention, particularly from right-wing commentators who have long believed that man-made climate change is a conspiracy theory.” – And the politicising of AGW by the believers continues. How ones feelings on a theory should be left-wing or right-wing is beyond me. This is another tactic to belittle the debate.

Can you provide any criticism of what is actually said in the book? Or only summerise the disgusting nature of what currently qualifies as journalism?