Ian Plimer last nights launched his book, How to Get Expelled from School, and it has found its way into the mainstream media. Professor Plimer appeared on The Project tonight and faced a barrage of questions from the panel. Fair enough, he should be able to defend his claims, but I wonder if Tim Flannery would be subjected to the same scrutiny. In fact, Flannery gets a free ride every time I see him on that show (formerly the 7PM Project), such is the left-leaning bias of the hosts.
Charlie Pickering put the claims of a Professor Ian Enting to Plimer, namely that he cherry-picks, fails to reference and misleads his readers. I wonder, how does Pickering expect someone to answer such claims without knowing exactly where he is meant to have gone wrong? He can’t defend his book if he doesn’t know what specifically is being criticised. Did no one ask Enting what his particular grievances were, or have they basically accepted this criticism as a thorough debunking of Plimer’s work?
Warmist commentator Tory Shepard has labelled the book as “juvenile” and compared it to the actions of creationists, a blatant attempt to associate skeptics with unscientific dogma.
Plimer has tried to battle scientists, and failed. His claims have been contested time and time again. If you want to have that argument, see here, here and here [I think there are meant to be hyperlinks here- Ed].
So he’s picked an easier target, and says a teacher that can’t answer his loaded questions is proof of the big conspiracy.
Teaching kids to be curious, inquisitive and to question everything they hear is not a tool to humiliate teachers. In fact, when teachers can’t answer some of the questions, they might be inclined to do their own questioning, their own research.
Shepard then gets pretty vicious and shows her sheer hatred for skeptics.
That will mean more kids being more susceptible to the scams of the anti-science lobby, more people believing that almost all the scientists of the world are corrupt. More disbelief in climate change. Less action.
I’ve just checked Shepard’s three links which she thinks prove Plimer is a crank. They are working on the version of the article at The Punch. One is Skeptical Science’s Arguments page, where John Cook presents skeptical arguments in the most mundane way possible before providing an eloquent response. Why does Shepard accept Cook’s word instead of scrutinising his claims as she would Plimer? Look here are some arguments that prove my point. Debate over. A little investigating would have led her to some counter arguments. It pays to read both sides of the debate.
Another link is to a page which purports to disprove evolution, a continuation of that insulting comparison.
The only one of the three which is even relevant to Plimer is Ian Enting’s home page, where the language employed reveals his hatred of skeptics. Once again, Shepard is merely accepting Enting’s word that Plimer has been discredited.