Computer teacher Tim Lambert has a history of beclowning himself when it comes to analysing those things he disagrees with.
For example, he denies there's a UN ban on DDT and, anyway, even if there isn't then mosquitoes are resistant to it so there's no point using it.
Facts, you see, are not one of Lambert's strong points.
DDT is listed as a persistent organic pollutant by the UN and if a country wants WHO funding then they can only get it if they don't use DDT.
Lambert does not believe this is the case. One of my close relatives was directly involved in the issue, working in Africa and representing the UN. What he told me, and showed me, proves Lambert and other DDT detractors dead wrong. When my relative retires from working and is not subject to the blowback of disclosure then I'll give the details.
Anyhow, Lambert has undertaken to critique Ian Plimer's new book, Heaven and Earth, subjecting it to exactly the sort of scrutiny they should be undertaking on anything produced by Hansen, the Hokey Stick team, Lonnie Thompson and the rest of the useless scientists that support the IPCC's ridiculous position on global warming.
Check out the latest posts:
Ian Plimer lies about source of his figure 3
Ian Enting is checking Plimer's claims
Sales of Heaven and Earth
Reaction to Ashley's review of Plimer
An astronomer reviews Ian Plimer's book
The Australian's War on Science 38: more denial from Ian Plimer
Ian Plimer 'can not recall' where his graph came from
Plimer does the Gish gallop
Ian Plimer and the health effects of mercury poisoning from land mines
The science is missing from Ian Plimer's "Heaven and Earth"
The fact that the left has reacted so violently, and irrationally, to the success of Heaven and Earth demonstrates how worried they are that the so called science supporting their position is about to be exposed for the sham it is.
Lambert is a self professed computer expert and I have no doubt he has a fair bit of skill in that area.
Why doesn't he analyse how climate models are created and why they have a zero percent successful forecasting rate?
That would be the intellectually honest thing to do if he really wanted to make a contribution.