(H/T to Christopher S. and Max B., each of whom sent me a link to this article in the last 8 hours…)

Professor Ian Plimer, an Australian geologist, has written a book that’s taken his country by storm – and should soon do the same here and in Europe. It’s called “Heaven and Earth: Global Warming, the Missing Science” and it’s now available in the US.

The article which was sent to me is on the web site for the UK’s Spectator magazine, and it’s a discussion with and about Dr. Plimer. You can read the article here:
http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magazine/features/3755623/meet-the-man-who-has-exposed-the-great-climate-change-con-trick.thtml

One interesting things with books like this which intended to gore (pun intended) someone’s ox is the reviews they get. And there has clearly been a push in the early days of the book to put out bad reviews, such as the customer reviews on Amazon. Of the 14 reviews posted at the time of my writing this note, 8 were either 4 or 5 stars (out of a possible 5) and 6 were 1 star.

What’s particularly interesting is that the six 1-star ratings were the first 6 ratings posted, implying to me a political, possibly concerted (though only 6 would cast some doubt on that hypothesis) effort to discredit the book early. (If you don’t want to take the time to read about the essentially bogus 1-star ratings, at least read the last paragraph below, about one of the 1-star ratings in particular.)

The very first 1-star rating begins “I haven’t read this book, but I think it’s simply awful.” ‘nuf said about that one.

The second 1-star rating says “I’m not a climate scientist. Neither is Ian Plimer. So I read a few web postings to find out why Plimer’s views are apparently so different from those of the ‘consensus’…” (Did anybody tell this guy that Plimer is a geologist and that the long-term study of climate is an integral part of that science?)

The third 1-star rating says “Plimer is correct about Global Warming (er, Climate Change) being a fraud perpetrated by wealthy interest groups, but he demonstrates a poor understanding of our local Sun and its total Plasma environment.” Hmmm….hardly a reason to give the book one star if its fundamental premise is correct. The sun’s plasma must be a close relative of the comment’s author.

The fourth 1-star rating is an aggressive attack: “This is a disgraceful effort by a scientist to use numerous unverified assertions…” It’s fairly clear from the “review” that the reviewer has not read the book but rather “Google(d) the book", as he suggests we do, to find detractors.

The fifth 1-star rating is a longer version of the second. He basically argues that since Plimer is a geologist rather than a climatologist, he’s not qualified to write about the subject. This guy gives a 1-star ranking without actually criticizing anything in the book – but how could he, because he almost certainly didn’t read it.

And my favorite, and the most recent 1-star rating, is from one Matthew Andrews who writes a litany of charges including that “the book is full of fundamentally misleading statements” and that Plimer has “engaged in flat-out deception in some cases.” However, Andrews does not cite one actual sentence of the book. Instead like most or all of the other 1-star ratings, he seems to have just read criticisms by scientists and others who are part of the global warming alarmist bandwagon – and who have something to gain from it. Which, by the way, is precisely the case with Mr. Andrews who is a New Zealand-based lawyer and lobbyist who stands to generate big fees when a complex “cap and trade” system is instituted, causing private companies to need to lobby government for favors and hire lawyers to help them comply and understand the law. Andrews is, much like Al Gore, simply another climate huckster, or in this case shyster.