George Howard takes another pop at Phil Plait and his 'consensus science rules' blog after he had a go at Chandra Wickramasinghe and the theory of Panspermia. George considers Panspermia to be a friendly cousin of neo-catastrophism and worthy of defence on the same grounds. Both subjects endure a lot of criticism, especially by people such as Plait who instinctively disapprove and oppose new ideas as if it is an affront on them personally rather than a different way of looking at things, in the spirit of science.
As in the climate debate, when sceptics challenge the greenhouse theory and the ability of co2 to warm the planet, they provoke a lot of resentment. So too has Wickramasinghe. He has increasingly been treated with condescending contempt by the likes of Plait, a scientist of small repute – go to http://cosmictusk.com/the-plait-affair-gross-contempt-for-ones-betters/
George includes a letter from Bill Napier to Phil Plait in which he questions the latter's credentials in relation to those of Wickramasinghe – which is worth reading just to get an idea of Plait's own affrontery in having the nerve to run down somebody as distinguished as Wickramasinghe and label him fringe. Plait is of course applying the same treatment he provides the Electric Universe theory and Velikovsky at his Bad Astronomy blog. We may also note that Plait is even so foolish as to think CAGW has credence – and he is not pocketing any of the loot from the gravy train. He is actually serious in what he says – not pulling the wool over peoples eyes in order to make a financial killing. That makes his support of CAGW even more hilarious. He is so completely faithful to orthodox science it is painful to read his offerings to cyberspace.