Reasons to doubt Plimer

Plimer unbloodied and certainly unbowed | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

Andrew Bolt thought that last Friday's debate on Radio National didn't hurt Plimer at all. I must admit, I didn't think that Veron was very effective, but then again, as he only had the book for an hour before the exchange, you couldn't expect him to be well informed on its contents.

But the main problem was that (as I understand it) Veron is an expert on reefs, which gives him an interest in global warming, but doesn't really make him a direct expert on climate science.

One thing of note did come out, however, and that is that it appears (as I suspected) that Plimer leaves ocean acidification pretty much out of the debate. (Veron said he had trouble finding any references to it, but eventually did find a brief mention.)

Anyway, a much better refutation of Plimer's book, at least in one specific field, was on Radio National this morning. You can listen to it here.

Tim Lambert already has his list of obvious faults or omissions, and a more recent post indicating a sarcasm misfire that appears in the book.

While we are still waiting to see a more detailed review from some experienced climate scientists, I don't see any reason as to why skeptics should think that this book represents any form of breakthrough.

UPDATE: Andrew Bolt hasn't commented on this story from last week, as far as I know, but it's one that seems worthy of the attention of any AGW skeptic who wants to be taken seriously.