I have read as far as page 20 of the PDF version[1] I linked to in my previous post.[2] I plan on finishing it. Unlike the snowball earth site[3] that Mr. Vincas Ciziunas sent me to, it is accessible to a non-geologist like myself. Yet, it is packed with references to peer reviewed scientific papers, so that it serves as much as a survey of the supporting research as it does as a paper presenting an idea.
Those more accustomed to thinking in terms of the peer review process (I am aware of it, having worked with scientists at the National Institutes of Health, but it is not my world), will no doubt tell me that references are not sufficient. It is, after all, entirely possible to misrepresent a paper when citing it. These papers may not, in fact, offer the support that Mr. Monckton claims they do.
Yet it seems to me that anyone with a modicum of intelligence must realize that if you are going to present a controversial essay, attacking the scientific establishment, that you will get caught, and be publicly condemned if you falsify your references. It takes a great deal of arrogance to assume that your opponent is by definition stupid just because [s]he disagrees with you. That sort of assumption is, I must admit, often found in the writings of some on the other side, such as Mr. Richard Dawkins, but I think any truly open minded person must eschew such thoughts, and give us the benefit of the doubt.