User:Tillman/Plimer book controversy


 * Neutrality: The article as a whole is not too bad now, though it started out pretty blatantly POV; see (for example) this earlier version. The Criticism section has specific POV problems, as follows:

Colin Woodroffe's critique is here, and opens as follows: "“This is an interesting book, written in a confrontational style, and sure to create a stir." -- and continues with mixed praise & criticism: a mixed review.

Here is the current version in our article (no wikilinks):

Professor Colin Woodroffe, a coastal geomorphologist at the University of Wollongong, and a lead chapter author for the IPCC AR4, writes that the book has many errors and will be "remembered for the confrontation it provokes rather than the science it stimulates." Woodroffe notes Pilmer's "unbalanced approach to the topic," and concludes by saying that the book was not written as a contribution to any scientific debate, and was evidently not aimed at a scientific audience.

Not much trace of Woodroffe's original mixed review remains. Other examples of POV problems are listed above on this page.

Editor KD Peterson (below) brings up some new issues. I will reply to his comments there, when time permits. I am leaving on a business trip early tomorrow.


 * Senator Fielding, an engineer by training: Fielding has technical training, which is pertinent to his investigation of the scientific background to AGW. Fielding himself mentioned his training in his Australian article, which is cited in our article: "As an engineer, I have been trained to listen to both sides of the debate in order to make an informed decision about any issue. Any scientist worth their salt will tell you that in order to form a conclusive view about any topic, you need to properly explore all available possibilities."


 * Political impact in Australia. Here is the contribution in question:

Plimer's book is credited with contributing to a "a series of climb-downs as [Australian] Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's government has been forced to delay its plans for cap-and-trade controls."