science. He asserts that No critic has argued science with me. He rejects David Karoly’s claim that the book is not supported by sources.46
In itrolic climate in academic hothouse (May 29, 2009 in The ustralian) Plimer attacks his critics. Using almost exactly the same words as in the Kininmonth and itken letters to Lambeck he asserts There has never been a climate debate in ustralia. Only dogma. His response to criticisms47 is In my book I correctly predicted the response. The science would not be discussed, there would be academic nit-picking and there would be vitriolic ad hominem attacks by pompous academics out of contact with the community.
Plimer had a letter published in the 2009/10/3 edition of Silicon Chip:
111681/article.html with a covering editorial
dorsing it: http://www.siliconchip.com.au/cms/
Plimer’s letter includes comments that seem to go beyond what is in his book, referring t o p r e v i o u s w a r m i n g s w i t h a n a t m o s p h e r i c t e m p e r a t u r e s o m e 5 ◦ C h i g h e r t h a n n o w ( e g Minoan, Roman, Medieval). . . and claiming Five of the six major ice ages occurred when , t h e a t m o s p h e r i c C O 2 c o n t e n t w a s u p t o 1 0 0 0 t i m e s h i g h e r t h a n a t p r e s e n t . . . . O f c o u r the use of up to 1000 times higher makes this statement rather meaningless — it can include cases, e.g. quaternary glaciations, when CO2 was lower than at present. s e
The program Professor Ian Plimer replies to his critics was broadcast on Ockham’s Razor on October 18, 2009. Much his reply consists of repeating claims in Heaven + Earth. Some of his comments on criticisms are:
Great institutions such as the
BC, CSIRO, some professional societies
and many university institutes have now become totally politicised.
Dispassionate, independent, fearless advice from government departments now no longer seems possible.
I never thought I would see the day when the only balance on a matter of science derives from commercial radio.
Major capital city newspapers promote a doom and gloom scenario and The valiantly tries to present a diversity of opinions.
Polemical criticism of my book Heaven and Earth has been savage because there are a large number of career climate comrades who frighten us witless about climate change and who would be unemployable outside taxpayer-funded climate institutes.
The total politicisation of science, as demonstrated by the use of consensus and ’the science is settled’ has been easy because of the dumbing down of the education system, the lack of critical and analytical thinking and instant information, most of which is unvalidated.
and later These are the same folk that brought us toxic derivatives and now they want to impose a guilt tax on the very substance that allows life on Earth.
46 47 Karoly has particularly noted the lack of attribution of sources in most of the graphics. Like many of the footnotes of Heaven + Earth this ‘quote’ is quite non-specific and I have been unable (as at March 23, 2011) to find such a prediction in Heaven + Earth.