Brian Harrison emailed me a book review of Ian Plimer's book that he's submitting to a website and asked if any of the SkS team could check it for accuracy.

Here's a PDF of the book review.

Here's some comments from Brian:

1. The review will go on a website primarily aimed at Accountants. They can be expected to be literate, numerate, but not necessarily be “scientific” savvy so the writing tries to recognize this.

2. There are intentionally zero references in the review. The site will provide links to more information. (Yours would be helpful if you have no objection.) Visitors will have the right to ask specific information if the links do not satisfy them.

3. I have seen Ian Enting’s review and have read the comments in your book both of which certainly tell a story. I was appalled at the absence of balance and objectivity in the Professor Plimer’s book so the attached, I hope, deals with these kinds of issues.

Two words: it sucks!

It seems Plimer abandons the results of spectroscopical measurements of the properties of CO2. This indicates he does not trust the methods used in the identification of geological samples, so one may ask if he is a professer of geology. At least it sounds like he would be a bad teacher of geology, and I for one would not be taking a course Plimer has been appointed to instruct based on this incoherence alone.

One minor point:

"The concept of the “Tipping point” has been shown to exist in physics, climate, sociology and politics so there is reason to believe that it could exist in climate."

I think the word climate should not be in the first list or he is just stating the obvious (if it has been shown that tipping points exist in climate, it is obvious that it could exist in climate).