pressed opinions concluding he has done a disservice to science and to the community at large. Transcript at: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2009/2586947.htm
David Karoly reviewed Heaven + Earth on The Science Show, broadcast 2009/6/13, not- ing in particular that Many of the figures have mistakes, either in the caption or in the data, and have no sources provided. His conclusion began: Given the errors, the non-science, and the nonsense in this book, it should be classified as science fiction in any library that wastes its funds buying it. The transcript is at: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2009/2593166.htm
In Melbourne, The
ge published a review by Prof. Chris Turney from the University
of Exeter on June 27 2009, under the title Grevious heavenly harm, strongly critical and noting . . . the litany of misleading statements in Heaven + Earth is disturbingly high: . . .
Professor Kurt Lambeck, president of the
cademy of Science,
viewed on Ockham’s Razor on 7 June 2009. Transcript at: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/ockhamsrazor/stories/2009/2589206.htm
Going straight to the point, he noted Heaven + Earth is not a work of science. He identifies a number of issues which, while in isolation could be seen as mino , collectively indicate carelessness at best, and at worst an attempt to undermine the integrity of the science case.
The transcript of a Lateline interview (where Ian Plimer tries to evade this issue of US vs. global temperatures — see item 34) can be found on: http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2008/s2554129.htm
Tim Lambert’s Deltoid blog begin with The science is missing from Ian Plimer’s ”Heaven
and Earth Posted on:
pril 23, 2009 2:26 PM, by Tim Lambert at:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/04/the science is missing from ia.php
Tim Lambert’s blog:38 continued I cross referenced Ian’s list of 33 problems [i.e. ver- sion 1 of the present document] with my own list of 59 and there were only 5 things in common. So I can estimate the total number of errors if I assume that we have produced independent samples from the population of Plimer errors: (33x59)/5 = 390 problems. lmost one for every page! Blogged at: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/05/ian enting is checking plimers.php s well as 5 being a small sample, there are a lot of reasons why the samples are not independent — some would lead to lower estimates, some to higher estimates. There are additional comments by Tim and myself on Tim’s blog, but the bottom line is not to take the number seriously. (Of course after version 1.2, the lists stop being independent.)
Tim’s blog has continued with additional analysis of Plimer’s book. Two significant con-
38In his series on The
ar on Science.