He does what he does, and I hope he earns a crust from it. You can tell by the dim, agreeing comments on his blog that he's used to his small army of fans (8 Facebook likes and 16 comments on his review!!!) simply telling him how wonderful he is and how stupid everyone who challenges the orthodoxy must be. But you're right - throughout his review he simply "counters" arguments by stating the orthodox version... as if the orthodox version were solid evidence in itself and not just an argument that *also* needs winning.
My contention here was - no matter how badly I came at it with all guns blazing - he is no more or less qualified to review this work than anyone else. His take on it is welcome, but he is not an expert, and should not have been presented as such by the OP on here.
There are many self-appointed voices out there in the blogosphere, so I wonder why Scotts publishers gave an advance copy to someone who was almost certain to dismiss it from the orthodox point of view?