The thrust of this article seems to be not so much that the science is bad ("I could discern nothing rebellious in his careful work as a scientist"), but that t

The thrust of this article seems to be not so much that the science is bad ("I could discern nothing rebellious in his careful work as a scientist"), but that the book doesn't portray a balanced view of the good science that's out there on both sides. It may, perhaps, fall into the Kuhn-inspired trap that the revolutionary, paradigm-shifting scientists are to be explicitly sought out, but hopefully at least some of those scientists are resistant to that mantle.