Mark,

i was in no way abusive. I was merely asking for consistency. Playing the man not the ball is par for the course though.

I would merely like you to apply the same standards of accuracy that you apply to Diamond to Carter and Plimer.
See this article isn't about Diamond, he is a trojan horse for you to attack climate change advocates.

I think it would have been better – in terms of readability if Mark had stated his agenda first – that is that he is critiquing Diamond because he thinks he has deceived the public in some way about climate change - and then provided the argument.

Mark writes ‘A closer look at the material he (ie Diamond) presents, however, suggests that much of what he puts forward is speculative.” But all pronouncements by all archaeologists about how people behaved in the past are speculation based on a very small amount of physical evidence and this speculation is based on the speculators own ‘world view’ – ie the set of assumptions a person makes about why and how we are here. That is all one can do in this academic field.

Googling ‘criticism of Jared Diamond’ reveals quite a few sites so I’m sure he didn’t go uncriticised as was suggested. And perhaps the reason for the double standard Mark sees, is that the consequences for being factually wrong about the science of climate change are serious, whereas the consequences for being wrong about a speculative claim about what people did in the past with their resources does not have the same importance.

What I’d like to hear from the author is an explanation of why he chooses to agree with the minority of scientists in the climate science field rather than accept the (huge) majority ‘opinion’.

Nice book review.

It also highlights the fact that in order to sell non-fiction one has to make the subject matter interesting to the readership.

Diamonds hypotheses are often speculative and refutable, indeed many examples of such refutation are given, but they also provide the framework for further research. A good book does not necessarily have to be true in every detail, just true enough to the authors knowledge and be able to fire the readers imagination.

This is how books sell and debates are promoted. Diamond is an interesting and prolific author and has enough scientific credibility to be not put in the 'nutbag' category. Even if he is wrong.

Mark Lawson here
shal - I wasn't accusing you of being abusive; I was accusing you of applying a double standard. Plimer and Carter already have plenty of people attacking them. Nor is the article about climate as such. Diamond's theories are about the effects of climate change on society.

Mollydukes - the article has nothing to do with the causes of climate change. Diamond's stuff is about the affects of climate change on societies, and failure to respond and so on. So its a bit off topic to talk about climate change itself. However, I have, written a whole book on the debate 'A Guide to Climate Change Lunacy - bad forecasting, terrible decisions'. As the book points out the fact that a majority of climate scientist endorse the orthodoxy is simply irrelevent to the debate, unless they have an established forecasting track record. If you want to find out more you can mail order the book. Failing that, I have also written various articles on this site on the issue.

Bugsy - I am delighted to see we are not quite disagreeing. True a few mistakes can be forgiven, and if it fires the imagination that is all to the good. But Diamond is simply too unreliable to take seriously. I didn't place him in the nutty catagory, but said that his chapter on Australia was so erratic and badly researched as to be considered nutty..

Nice article, well researched. I think the lack of criticism of Diamond is not necessarily just related to his pro Global waming stance. Of recent times, any author who comes to the conclusion, (with or without sufficient evidence), that man is basically a destructive force on himself or the 'environment' is generally uncritically accepted because this belief has been the dominant madness of our times.

It has also been a convenient theme for the media and politicians to push because they can both see financial benefit from it. I think, though, that people in the West are fatiguing of being blamed for everything from starving children, to tiger hunting to causing the earths temperature to increase,particularly when they see that the end point seems to be all about giving their money away to make up for their sins. We may soon see a strong backlash against the prosletyzers, like Diamond, whose ideas seem to about man's damnation than discussing the scientific evidence.

Meh, what's to disagree with Mark? But there's a bit of 'so what?' element in all these criticisms listed. If it's supposed to have a broader implication that the man himself is not at all credible, then I think you've a long way to go.

True, you have not described Diamond himself as a nutter...here. But you have often described him as a nutter in previous comments.

It's nice to see you put in so much effort to do a full 2 page critique of a guy you think is a nutter we should all ignore.