Pilmer will not do it, even his ego is not big enough for him to risk making a complete ffol of himself. Pilmer learnt a thing of two from his creationist buddies.

Not only does Pilmer get the climate science wrong, he get the geology wrong as well and that's his own field. If he can't win a debate with a journo how do you think hed going with someone who works in the field.

Agreed. Plimer's effort on Lateline was embarrassing.
I thought i was in a vivisection laboratory. Monbiot sliced diced and dissected him.

Steven Kiem, Lawyer, the author of this article, fails to report that in the UK it was ruled by a Court that an Inconvenient Truth could only be shown in UK schools if its errors were pointed out and that it was a 'political film'.

Monbiot refused to debate with Plimer saying he wasn't qualified to do so. But when he got a chance to debate in the protected environment of Tony Jones and the ABC he agreed. Childish interruptions, guffawing at points made by Plimer and screaming 'answer the question!' showed he had little to offer in the way of sensible logical debate. Plimer seemed to give up because of the continued interruptions. Oddly, Monbiot thought he 'did well'.

The questions posed by Plimer to Monbiot were standard University level questions which were thoroughly put down, not as Kiem says by scientists, but by radical pro-AGW scientists. The author naively links to Real Climate website to prove this point.

Real Climate is a seriously compromised pro-AGW website masquerading as unbiased opinion. One of the main Real Climate 'scientists' is computer modeller William Connolley who, through his involvement with Wikipedia rewrote or created 5240 articles concerning Global Warming. He is reported to have banned over 2000 contributors he disagreed with and eliminated 500 articles. Real scientists just do not do this type of thing.

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/12/18/370719.aspx

If OJ Simpson could win in a Court of Law, I guess Mr Kiem thinks Monbiot could too.

A very good summation by the author.
Plimer is making big bucks from his opus.
He would be more the fool to jeopardise this by litigation - once bitten, twice shy.

Some quotations from the Monbiot – Plimer debate on ABC. In every case I am quoting Monbiot as he attacks Plimer. The capitalisations are mine

Start:

"...straightforward FABRICATION. ...And actually, it's the height of bad manners Professor Plimer to LIE on national television about something that you know to be plain wrong."

"...it was yet another FABRICATION in his book. And to support that FABRICATION he's now giving us a whole load of new FABRICATIONS …And the only science which doesn't show that is the FABRICATED SCIENCE where Plimer has quite deliberately PULLED OUT FIGURES OR MADE THEM UP ALTOGETHER in his book.

"You made up what the reference said"

"...A classic example of Professor Plimer evading the question. The question was: did you reverse the findings of the reference that you cited. Answer: yes he did. …but you can't answer it because YOU HAVE MADE UP THE FACTS."

End.

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2009/s2772906.htm

Monbiot accuses Plimer of lying, of fabricating science and of making up data.

Clearly these statements are defamatory. Accusing a scientist of fabrication is about as bad as it gets.

Monbiot lives in the UK, which may just be the most plaintiff-friendly jurisdiction in the English-speaking world when it comes to libel or slander.

My guess is that Monbiot was baiting Plimer, hoping he would sue.

So far Plimer has refrained from suing.

Why?

Mobiot has accused Plimer of the worst possible thing it is possible to accuse a scientist of, fabrication.

Plimer's reputation has been besmirched on national television.

THE ABC KEEPS MONBIOT'S DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS ON ITS WEBSITE COMPOUNDING THE ORIGINAL LIBEL.

Is it not reasonable to infer that Plimer refrains from suing Monbiot and the ABC because he knows he could not defend under cross-examination the claims he makes in his book?

What does that tell us about Plimer and his book?

I detest Monbiot. He's a watermelon – green on the outside and red on the inside. But it's beginning to look as if his accusations against Plimer are correct.

If Plimer refrains from suing I can only conclude his book his hogwash.

Atman your level of ignorance is astounding. How about doing some research of your own and that’s does mean read what a right wing nut is charge of a group called Urban Renaissance Institute. Wiki has a little tab called the history tab for every article have you had a look at that. Have you bothered to find out what scientist are saying in Science journals and the squared that with what is being said on blogs and the media? Didn't think so, everyone else is free to go to Wiki and read the articles and the history and the

If you’re going to talk crazy don't be surprised when you’re treated like you’re crazy. Quoting people paid by the heritage group (you know those guys who said Ozone was a problem and smoking was fine) and not actually reading the primary sources is a sure sign you’re talking crazy.