I'm not sure I would describe the sources as 'from here to the moon' On reading many of the sources, it was apparent that they did not provide particularly solid evidence to back up the points he was making. It was also obvious that there was a huge amount of cherry picking going on.
I thought some of his arguments were very weak and, even where he had decent points, he did not make his case in a compelling way. However, I don't think he should have been disciplined and certainly not fired. Those who disagree should refute his arguments.
I thought some of his arguments were very weak and, even where he had decent points, he did not make his case in a compelling way. However, I don't think he should have been disciplined and certainly not fired. Those who disagree should refute his arguments.