The Empiricist

Recently, some science bloggers debunked a series of articles in the Australian. Today The Australian defends itself. (hat tip Tim B).
Meanwhile Tim Lamberts Deltoid blog has been busy finding mistakes in Plimer’s book. He’s up to 59.
I read the 59 errors, and did quick classification. By my count,

• 12 are for missing citations or errors in the details of the citation
• 10 are for citing people or studies that Deltoid doesn’t think should count
• 6 are for claiming the hockey stick is a fraud, dishonest, infamous, and discredited
• 3 are for citing people who disagree with Plimer’s interpretation of their findings
• 17 of Plimer’s claims are “refuted” by linking to old posts on Deltoid. Sorry, but using yourself as the refuting source isn’t exactly convincing.

Regardless of the legitimacy of Lambert’s 59 strikes against Heaven and Earth, the whole exercise seems petty. A work of that size and scope is going to have some errors. Here’s an article by well-known philosopher Daniel Dennett describing 19 mistakes in one of his own books. I’m sure someone who dislikes Dennett intensely would be able to come up with a much longer list.

If they want to be taken seriously, Plimer’s critics need to address the substance of the book and its arguments, not nitpick at the edges. So some of the citations are missing. So what? Are these things central to Plimer’s arguments? Lambert doesn’t say, because he never describes Plimer’s arguments in the first place. What are Plimer’s main points? What evidence does he marshall in support of those claims, and how much of that evidence can be challenged? All we get is a proof-read, not a critique.

Bring on the critics, please.