To be honest, I quit on this book. From what little I actually read at the beginning, I just didn't believe the rest of the book was going to be any more accurate than the beginning. By accurate, I mean that the author (a geologist and director of several mining companies) had made several statements, purportedly according to the mainstream science, which was contrary to what the science actually showed. I only know that because I've taken several college classes on climate change, and was familiar with the findings of the IPCC and major scientific bodies. So I did a quick google search on the author and the book, and found that most reviews were consistently negative.
Those reviews were was enough to convince me to put the book down, and instead look for books written by people who do actual climate science, and without links and conflicts of interest with coal mining operations.

For example, one review from Sourcewatch (ref: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Ian_Plimer#Conflicts_of_interest) pointed out and documented numerous errors and misrepresentations in Plimer's book. They noted that Plimer's denialist book on global warming was published in 2009 and sold about 20,000 copies in Australia and a similar amount in the USA. The book was universally panned by scientists as full of errors and even accused of plagiarism. One reviewer, Ian Enting, compiled an extensive "list of errors" for the book (Ian Plimer’s ‘Heaven Earth’—Checking the Claims) which makes for an interesting review for anyone interested in proving the point.

After the publication of his book met with harsh criticism from The Guardian's George Monbiot, who derided the book, saying that "Since its publication in Australia it has been ridiculed for a hilarious series of schoolboy errors, and its fudging and manipulation of the data". Plimer and Monbiot eventually crossed swords on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation program Lateline in December, 2009. The video showed Plimer obfuscating, refusing to answer questions, and clearly discomforted when his erroneous scientific statements about global warming were directly challenged. Peter Jackson of the Canadian paper, The Telegram, summarised the debate as follows: "For Plimer, it was an unmitigated disaster. He fudged and distracted at every turn like a senile old goat. In the end, he refused to answer a single question put to him by Monbiot or the moderator. His credibility - and that of his book - withered away into oblivion." ( )

2311 citations in footnotes but no bibliography section. ( )

This book is one of the most misleading and grossly fraudulent books on the topic of climate change and global warming. Ian has a book filled with contradictions, claims that are unsupported with references, referencing that is deceptive or fraudulent, and some flat out lies (solid iron core of the sun, seriously!?).

It is hard to take a non-fiction book seriously when it contradicts itself so many times. The best example is his statements about CO2: Temperature and CO2 are not connected (p278). Yet he also says; Together with water vapour, CO2 keeps our planet warm (p411).

For a further breakdown of his flawed book refer to this: [...]
Professor Ian Enting also covered the flaws: [...]

Anyone who wastes their time on this book will only be dumber and more confused for the experience. I'll be sticking with the peer reviewed science rather than this rubbish. Funded by his mates in the Aussie oil industry. ( )

This book is one of the most misleading and grossly fraudulent books on the topic of climate change and global warming. Ian has a book filled with contradictions, claims that are unsupported with references, referencing that is deceptive or fraudulent, and some flat out lies (solid iron core of the sun, seriously!?).

It is hard to take a non-fiction book seriously when it contradicts itself so many times. The best example is his statements about CO2: Temperature and CO2 are not connected (p278). Yet he also says; Together with water vapour, CO2 keeps our planet warm (p411).

For a further breakdown of his flawed book refer to this: [...]
Professor Ian Enting also covered the flaws: [...]

Anyone who wastes their time on this book will only be dumber and more confused for the experience. I'll be sticking with the peer reviewed science rather than this rubbish. Funded by his mates in the Aussie oil industry. ( )

Ridiculous book from fossil fuel promoter ( )