Oops Your Peer Review is Slipping

The Professor from the Uni of NSW keeps hammering that Plimer can only be taken seriously if his work has been peer reviewed.

You peer review papers not books and unlike the so called peer review process inside say the IPCC this needs to be carried out by those members outside of the clique that worked on the original paper.

A book is something you write for the general public, a paper is something you write for a tiny minority of academics that the general public will never read. The language and approach used are not conversational in nature and have a very specific goal in mind, to defend or present a given thesis, often based on the work of others.

A book like Plimer's works in the same way, you take information from various sources and you write a book. The references are there for people to check, this rarely happens.

In the processes surrounding their global warming 'debate' on one side there is little or no peer review carried out or even required. Many senior and respected scientific IPCC reviewers left the IPCC's fold because their reviews were ignored. The average individual cannot get hold of any of the underlying papers and details that make up the IPCC process.

Al Gore managed to get a Nobel peace prize for completely non reviewed work and to this day he refuses to debate any of the assertions he continues to make on his speaking tours.

The assertion that only the work of deniers should be subject to peer review is a self destructive positions, the argument itself is enough to invalidate that position.