Monbiot versus Plimer - the bizarre conclusion
Ian Plimer is what many would regard, from looking at his CV, as a very reputable scientist. He has a PhD and as worked in academia since 1991, most recently as Professor of Mining Geology at the University of Adelaide.
He recently wrote a book called "Heaven and Earth" that argued against the scientific consensus on climate change.
On the face of it, this should be powerful stuff. But, as I remarked in my previous post, George Monbiot asked a number of questions about the sources for dubious claims in the book.
Do you think, as I do, that any reputable scientist would readily answer such questions?
Instead, the story unfolds as George Monbiot reports on his website (see posts around 14 September 2009).
It is clear that Plimer has to date refused to answer what are reasonable questions. What can the reason for this be? Surely it is reasonable to conclude that to answer the questions would discredit his position. His response, by the way, is bizarre.
Monbiot includes an analysis of the tactics of climate change deniers and publishes correspondence with the Spectator. I think this whole story needs to be publicised as widely as possible.
He recently wrote a book called "Heaven and Earth" that argued against the scientific consensus on climate change.
On the face of it, this should be powerful stuff. But, as I remarked in my previous post, George Monbiot asked a number of questions about the sources for dubious claims in the book.
Do you think, as I do, that any reputable scientist would readily answer such questions?
Instead, the story unfolds as George Monbiot reports on his website (see posts around 14 September 2009).
It is clear that Plimer has to date refused to answer what are reasonable questions. What can the reason for this be? Surely it is reasonable to conclude that to answer the questions would discredit his position. His response, by the way, is bizarre.
Monbiot includes an analysis of the tactics of climate change deniers and publishes correspondence with the Spectator. I think this whole story needs to be publicised as widely as possible.