We quite often see geologist Ian Plimer interviewed in Australia: the only person who could be termed a 'climate scientist' who is interviewed. But, of course, the ideological-driven net zero/CO2 hysterics and gullible, mainly Leftist, general public doesn’t want to know what he has to say.

WTF?
ttbn refers to his climate guru Plimer.

Plimer gets traction in - you guessed it - youtube videos.

As it has been pointed out before Plimer is out of step with just about reputable scientific organisation.

The one glimmer of hope for Plimer lies with the fact that he is a vocal opponent to those "young Earth" zealots who, for some reason, are becoming very vocal of late.

WTF?

The author of this article could easily be mistaken as a scare monger - it is that time of year after all.

ttbn is often critical of those posts that reflect non-Australian authorship yet the Canadian, Tom Harris, is a regular contributor on this forum.

Earlier this year he wanted to blame battery back up failure for blackouts in Ottawa - it was in fact the hydro systems that caused the problem.

At the time he published his article on OLO the latest blackouts in Ottawa had been caused by storm damage - nothing to do with batteries.

Tom Harris has also tried to parley climate change discussions as an attack on the pro-life movement.

Quite strange indeed - just who is the scare monger here?

The obvious point is that eons ago there weren't 8 bn hominids all depending on just in time water and food supply. They also care for their sick and frail and have nurseries for their young. If the climate didn't suit in one region primitive creatures and plants just relocated. No fences or property rights. I doubt that dinosaurs had hospitals for the frail where the temp was kept at 26C; they were just left to die.

Of course those hominids are now burning the carbon accumulated during the high CO2 periods like the Carboniferous. Perhaps the smartest species isn't quite smart enough. As to 420 ppm or 0.04% CO2 being a trivial amount tell that to the police if you breathalyze alcohol over 0.08%. Officer that amount is too small to make a difference.

It's been well known for well over a decade that geologists in general and their professional body in particular have rejected the alarmist claims.
That's why, for example, geologists were among the first scientists to be excluded from the calculations in the Doran/Zimmerman 97% consensus claim as these charlatans sought to conjure up their 97% fudge. I've mentioned before that the original survey received over 3000 responses but came up with a result unsuited to the authors aims. So whole groups of scientists were exclude, among them being geologists and solar scientists. Eventually the 3000+ responses were reduced to 79 and the 97% number so beloved of the perpetually alarmed.

So claims like "Plimer is out of step with just about [every?] reputable scientific organisation" are immaterial since he is in complete agreement with his own professional body.

WTF?

Taking just one of Plimer’s arguments as and example:

Plimer claims that volcanoes, particularly, those on the ocean floors, emit large amounts of CO2 and that the influence of the gases from these volcanoes on the Earth's climate is under-represented in climate models.

 However,claims that volcanoes, especially submarine volcanoes, produce vastly greater amounts of CO2 than these estimates are not supported by any papers published by the scientists who study the subject.

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration fossil fuels emissions numbers are about 100 times bigger than even the maximum estimated volcanic CO2 fluxes.

That fact that Plimer's views are not supported by the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the United States Geological Survey, the United States Environmental Protection Agency nor the American Geophysical Union would suggest that his opinions are very much outside of current scientific research.