X hits on this document

PDF document

Ian Plimer’s ‘Heaven + Earth’ — Checking the Claims - page 32 / 64





32 / 64

claim that rejection of their claims represents prejudice rather than reasoned arguments.

n article, The Copernican Myths, in the December 2007 of Physics Today notes that

Bruno was condemned mainly for theological heresies.

The follow-up correspondence

in Physics Today captured more of the complexity of the myths of science vs. religion, containing the hint that the myths were fostered by Catholics and Protestants each trying to paint the other side as the ‘bad guys’ new biography37 of Bruno (Giordano Bruno: Philosopher/Heretic, by I. D. Rowland) lists his offences as: refusing to accept the trans- formation of the mass into the body of Christ, arguing that hell did not exist and that no-one is damned to eternal punishment, asserting that praying to saints was a waste of time and that no church beliefs could be proved. Rowland also proposes that the legend of Bruno as a martyr for science was largely a 19th century construct of the emerging

Italian state in its battles with the Vatican.

162. p. 467: The environmental religion has no music ... Peter Garrett??

  • how could anyone forget about

163. p. 468: Sustainability creates a miserable existence, povert , disease, depopulation and ignorance. Historical evidence would suggest that these are the consequences of unsus- tainabilty.

164. p. 468: Self-denial and a return to the past led to the 600-year Dark ges. . . able assertion of human influence on climate?

  • a remark-


This section is included mainly to aid those who want to check my claims in tracking down items that are incorrectly referenced.

  • uthor’s name should be G. S. Callender on p 17.

  • For reference 220, the correct volume is 213, not 2134 and first page is 63, not 53.

  • Referencing seems wrong; discussion of Svalbard linked to reference 304, but actual

paper with Svalbard data is 305.

  • Footnote 1253 (page 251) gives title only, with no bibliographic details

  • Ref. 1778: Volume, page numbers cited correspond to paper with completely different


  • uthors’ names should be Bacastow, Keeling and Whorf in footnote 2093.

  • Footnote 2237 gives the wrong page number.

  • See item 134 for Michael

shley’s comment on referencing of the ‘iron Sun’ claim.

37Versions up to 2.1 used the review (in Physics Today, (September 2008) at this point.


Document info
Document views240
Page views240
Page last viewedSun Jan 22 08:57:32 UTC 2017