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.

If four + independent specialists advised you that the bump on your rump was a carbuncle then you would do well to accept their advice.

If four + of Australia’s most eminently qualified scientists (Profs. Karoly, Walter, Lambeck, Brook etc) advised that the contents of Mr Plimer’s “Heaven and Earth” book were seriously flawed then you would do well to consider their advice.

When Mr Plimer publicly declared that “climate scientists are pompous and arrogant and are treating people as stupid”, then you would do well to challenge him on his assertions.

However, if one prefers to keep one’s head in the sand and in the event of litigation: Monbiot vs Plimer, one can always donate to the “ Professor I Plimer Fighting Fund.” As history reveals, I suspect the hapless Professor will need all the donations he can get his hands on:

http://www.e-sga.org/fileadmin/sga/newsletter/news4/art6.html

If Plimer was still telling off creationists as he did so well, I would cheerfully contribute. At the time I did.

Regarding climate change, Plimer is not arguing his case so well.

If he goes back to chipping fundies, I'll contribute again.

Rusty.

It is now 25 days since George Monbiot accused Ian Plimer of lying and fabrication. The accusation was levelled on national television.

Plimer has still not instituted action against Monbiot.

Why

Steven, I watched that exchange on 'Lateline', and I think the answer to your question is because Plimer was obviously lying and fabricating - not to mention evading and distorting.

CJ

Let me rephrase my last post.

Professor Plimer,

It is now 25 days since George Monbiot accused you of lying and fabrication. The accusation was made on national television. I find it difficult to conceive of a worse accusation that can be levelled against a scientist. Your reputation has been besmirched.

You have still not instituted action against Monbiot.

Why?

Plimer's email address is: ian.plimer@adelaide.edu.au

Email him and ask him why he has not sued Monbiot. I did.

Steven,

Define a scientist? He's an advocate definitely.

Wikipedia says "Ian Rutherford Plimer is an Australian GEOLOGIST,(my emphasis) academic and businessman."
"Plimer is a director of three Australian mining companies: Ivanhoe, CBH Resources and Kefi Minerals."

"Plimer is listed as an associate of the Institute of Public Affairs, a free market think tank. In 2007, Plimer was listed as an "allied expert" for the Natural Resources Stewardship Project, a Canadian anti-Kyoto Protocol advocacy group."

"In November 2009, Plimer was named as a member of the academic advisory council for Nigel Lawson's global warming skeptic group, the Global Warming Policy Foundation."

Examinator ,
Perhaps you need to look up the word “bias” first.
Plimer is no more an advocate for other agendas than many of those on the other side.

Q&A,
Plimer is no more profiteering from sale of books that James Hansen

[Both of the above posts says more about their authors, than Plimer]

Kenny,
“Pilmer ... learnt a thing of two from his creationist buddies"
But judging by the postings here, not as much as the true believers in AGW have learnt and adapted from the creationist belief system: heretics , saints and holy/infallible pronouncements(one dare not transgress/doubt), the AGW camps got it all –all they've changed are the names. [Hey, I wonder if the creationists will sue for the AGW advocates for plagiarism/copyright?]

CJ
“ Plimer was obviously lying and fabricating - not to mention evading and distorting”
While I do admit, you have had certain expertise in distorting and evading, leastways on OLO, which should make it easy for you to identify such . It is a bit rich you rabblerousing the stoning mob!

Steven
“What does that tell us about Plimer and his book?...If Plimer refrains from suing I can only conclude his book his hogwash”

So...let me get this right, until the Plimer-Monbiot incident you were believing Plimer could have a case –but, this little incident sowed the seeds of doubt?

And here I was thinking when I read this:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3285#77933
You were already spoken for;you’d already made up your mind --well I'll be!

Just goes to show you can't always believe what you read (even if it's not kosher and chic to question it!)

[ Oh , if any of the above-rebuked don’t like what I’ve said -- sue me!]

Dear Mr Plimer

Are you feeling like the canary in the coal mine who’s fallen from its lofty perch? Well up you get dear chap....oops....enough of those methane emissions. Ah....here we go. Now for the sake of intellectual honesty, just quit the counter-questioning and useless comments and answer Monbiot’s questions – there’s a good fella......

So, just for arguments sake,

Let's assume global warming is not in any way anthropogenic.

Given that Fourier was uncontestably correct about the thermal prpperties of certain gas mixtures, what methods are available to us to stop it?, slow it? reduce the magnitude, the rate of approach in any way?

Oh, yes! lets not add those gases to the mixture. That'd be one of the cheapest options possible. More elaborate second stages might be needed, but that is a cheap start.

Let's not forget the *geological* evidence that almost any change in the atmosphere is followed by an ice age. A minerals geologist may find that dull but farmers find it fascinating, as little grows in permafrost. The atmosphere *may* have been cooling gradually to an ice age in some hundreds or thousands of years. Do we really want to trigger a new one early by raising the reflectivity of the earth?

What about the cooling you ask? Well, we have this tested theory of gas mixtures. If we *really* *absolutely* *must* increase the ability of the atmosphere to trap heat, does anybody know of a way to increase greenhouse gases? How *big* a fire do you want? know anybody with matches?

Absolutely all my sarcasm is intended.

Rusty

All the hot air being emitted by AGW denialists can't be helping ;)

A fascinating insight into the remnants of the AGW “debate”. As we have seen with Al Gore, the IPCC, the BBC and now the ABC with George Monbiot, the common link is the missing “embarrassment gene”.

Whatever happened to good science, good research data, consensus, peer review, qualified scientists and compliant processes? A journalist for goodness sake? What on earth was the ABC thinking?

Is this really all that is left of the so called great moral debate? A howling journalist left to fight a rearguard action for the cause. I’m saddened that the ABC is busy trashing what little is left of its reputation by this grubby piece of journalism.

As for litigation, I doubt that the “offer” of a court case would be seen as anything other than a platform for distraction.

I suspect that serious legal action is likely to come from the US, a small case initially followed by class actions against those with deep pockets.

George Monbiot is presenting as panic stricken, he seems to know that his career and reputation are fast going down the gurgle. The Copenhagen debacle subsequent to this debate must have been devastating.

As Clint Eastwood might say, “are you feeling lucky punk?”

Examinator,

It is possible to be both a scientist and a businessman. Ian Plimer presented himself as a scientist. I'm taking him at his word.

He has been accused, on national television no less, of lying and fabrication. These are the worst accusation you can level against a scientist.

Monbiot has repeated these claims in the Guardian in UK. See:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/dec/16/ian-plimer-versus-george-monbiot

The UK is probably the most plaintiff friendly jurisdiction in the English-speaking world when it comes to defamation cases. If Plimer truly believes what he wrote he should now defend himself against Monbiot's accusations in court.

Horus,

I was never taken in by Plimer's book. but I thought it possible that HE believed in what he wrote.

Plimer's refusal to sue is a strong indicator that he does not believe he can defend his own twaddle.

Spindoc

See above. If Plimer believed in what he had written he would sue. If he refrains from suing that indicates to me he does not believe his own taurine fertiliser.

What does Plimer's refusal to sue Monbiot, the ABC and the Guardian after they have so thoroughly besmirched his reputation tell you about Plimer's belief in his own book?

If he could defend his book in court I think he would.

On reflection, I don’t think it would be a good idea for Mr Plimer to sue. If the court found in the defendants’ favour – that is that Mr Plimer lied on TV and misled his readers, all those poor suckers who purchased his book may demand their money back and Mr Plimer would have to resurrect his begging bowl. What a disaster!

Kenny, I have no idea what you are talking about. If you are talking about William Connolley his editing statistics are available on Wikipedia for all to see.

Here they are if you don't want to look yourself.

Username: William M. Connolley
User groups: autoreviewer, rollbacker
First edit: Feb 07, 2003 11:46:59
Unique articles edited: 5,499
Average edits per page: 7.27
Total edits (including deleted): 39,969
Deleted edits: 1,301
Live edits: 38,668

Top edited articles:

* 1047 - Global_warming
* 334 - Global_warming_controversy
* 297 - Greenhouse_effect
* 242 - Global_cooling
* 231 - Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change
* 226 - Greenhouse_gas
* 191 - Kyoto_Protocol
* 187 - List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scienti...
* 183 - Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
* 177 - Temperature_record_of_the_2nd_millennium

No 'crazy talk' as you put it, just the facts.

You asked have I bothered to find out what Scientists are saying in the Journals. Well, now that you mention it yes. If you want I can provide a list of over 400 scientific peer-reviewed articles which discount the AGW theory. But then again if you had been searching the literature you would already know this.

steven,
Undoubtedly one can be both. However, to be credible as a *scientist* one needs to be in one's field of expertise, be current and most of all accurate. Check this out to see if you agree with this.
http://bravenewclimate.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/plimer2a0.pdf
If the 300 'errors' are in fact, then Plimer does have a credibility issue. One can question either his objectivity, motives or competence, in the same way he and his fellow mindset travelers condemn others.

Additionally, as I have pointed out before, IMO AGW draws its credibility from

A. the basic science
B. it provides an answer for the observable symptoms.
C. It does acknowledge the observable, substantial impacts of Homo sapiens and the the obvious finiteness of the Earth.

IMO His book's solution doesn't on all 3. He and others comments are more strategic than objectively scientific, they attack the analysis but don't offer a comprehensive explanation for item C. It is arguable that human impact is so significant as to not have precedent in geologic history. By their reasoning, to confirm or disprove a parallel would require waiting what an era. A bit late in order to determine 'yep it was unique geologic event after all'.

IMnsO Both the weight of the AB&C are *Currently* more convincing in AGW than the non alternative of the negative.
______________________________

Horus, If you were aimed a charge of bias at me, two point.

One: I'm not suggesting a science alternative merely examining the alternative and finding it wanting. I still wait to read a plausible alternative hypothesis and solution.

Two: Note the wording of the last line in the above post

Plimer won't sue because he'd lose. I can't believe this mining company director and author of a work of fiction called Heaven and Earth doesn't know quite well that his arguments have no scientific credibility. Plimer is simply engaged in that purest form of free enterprise - separating suckers from their money by telling them exactly what they want to hear.

The last thing Plimer could want is careful, deliberate, critical examination of his claims by expert witnesses.

I love it, love it, love it.

It’s a bit like watching a 1,000 year old replay of the Vatican Inquisition as Cardinal George Monbiot “grills” poor Copernicus or Galileo.

Whilst frothing at the mouth, Cardinal George screams, “Fabrication”, “lies”, fabricated science”. Heretics, heretics!

Just like the good old dark ages when science was “tried” by the church.

Well, I suppose since all the other religious “champions” have been slaughtered, we may as well give a foreign journalist a crack.

Love it, love it, loooooove it

Spindoc,

The analogy with Galileo is false. Plimer has a remedy. He can sue Monbiot and the Guardian to restore his good name. Probably he could sue the ABC as well.

The onus will then be on the defendants to prove that Plimer was lying or fabricating. Note that very carefully.

In the UK Plimer does not have to prove he was telling the truth. Even if it turned out that he got it wrong in his book he could simply plead that he was mistaken.

To prevail Monbiot would have to prove DELIBERATE deception on Plimer's part. This is a heavy burden for the defendant.

THE ODDS IN COURT ARE STACKED IN PLIMER'S FAVOUR.

Yet Plimer apparently declines to sue. He is accused of lying and fabrication on national television and on a widely read English language news website. And he swallows it.

Bear in mind that this is a man who has not hesitated to resort to the courts before. But despite having his name thoroughly blackened he declines to take any action.

You have to be blind Freddy if you fail to see the significance of this.

For interest's sake, here are the question Monbiot posed.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/aug/05/climate-change-scepticism

BTW spindoc,

I have no particular liking for Monbiot. I think he's a watermelon – green outside and red inside.

Examinator,

What exactly are we arguing about? We agree that despite his claims Plimer is not behaving like a scientist.

And yes, the overwhelming weight of evidence – PLUS THE BASIC PHYSICS – point to the dangers of pumping ever more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

Even if there was as yet no sign of actual temperature increase I would be worried about the risks of increasing greenhouse gas levels simply because of the basic physics. The climate change deniers here have no idea what they're talking about.

But you know what Examinator?

I hope the deniers are right.

Because it’s obvious we're not going to do anything about it.

How sobering. The opinions of At-"aliens run our government"-man.

I, for one, would be very interested to see "a list of over 400 scientific peer-reviewed articles which discount the AGW theory". I'm placing my bet right now that the articles on that list have been taken out of context, and/or the clear majority of authors concur that man-made climate change is occurring.

I'd also like to see spindoc defend any of Plimer's scientific claims that are under question in this thread, rather than spam it up with, "2+2=4? Nyah, nyah! It doesn't, and I can prove it by blowing this raspberry! Blllhhhhh!"

Steven

Yep, you’re on the money. I too would like the so called "deniers" to be right. I am not optimistic.
_______

Horus

I can see heaps of published papers in climate journals in Hansen’s CV;

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/staff/cv/cv_hansen_200912.pdf

but no books.

I can only surmise you are referring to Hansen’s one and only book, “Storms of my Grandchildren” released last month.

I’ve read Plimer’s epic story and found it lacking, I am looking forward to reading Hansen’s

http://www.stormsofmygrandchildren.com/beyond_the_book.html

Have you read Plimer's H&E? Will you read Hansen's book?

______

Ken

“The last thing Plimer could want is careful, deliberate, critical examination of his claims by expert witnesses.”

Exactly!

_____

spindoc

<< I love it, love it, love it.

It’s a bit like watching a 1,000 year old replay of the Vatican Inquisition as Cardinal George Monbiot “grills” poor Copernicus or Galileo.

Whilst frothing at the mouth, Cardinal George screams, “Fabrication”, “lies”, fabricated science”. Heretics, heretics!

Just like the good old dark ages when science was “tried” by the church.

Well, I suppose since all the other religious “champions” have been slaughtered, we may as well give a foreign journalist a crack.

Love it, love it, loooooove it >>

You are sounding more shill by the day, spindoc.

Incidentally, it was Svanthe Arrhenius who over 100 years ago postulated the problems caused by the enhanced greenhouse effect – your ‘church’ has been “frothing at the mouth” ever since.

“I can provide a list of over 400 scientific peer-reviewed articles which discount the AGW theory.”

Are you sure about that Atman because several of these "sceptics" do not deny AGW but are disputing measurements and predictions? A couple of the peer-reviewed “sceptics” come to mind who have publicly acknowledged AGW – John Christy and Roger Pielke Jr so perhaps you need to re-phrase your statement?

I must say that “400 scientific” articles sounds impressive, however, many articles are written by the same few authors – the "usual suspects." How they were peer-reviewed is interesting since among the peer-reviewed are miners, economists, geographers, industry consultants, statisticians and computer buffs. Then there are others who have degrees in political science and so on. Perhaps I could join in the fray? I know heaps about motorbike frogs.

And there’s plenty of big bribes too… errrr… research grants snatched from the fossil fuel industry by these peer-reviewed gentlemen.

Anyhow wouldn’t you agree that taking hundreds of thousands of dollars from the fossil fuel industry (its members being the recalcitrant culprits responsible for global warming or at the very least, the destruction of our eco-systems) is the same as a juror taking a bribe from a defendant?

Now I wonder where the rest of those peer-reviewed scientists were when a group of these chaps and their campaigners met in Copenhagen recently to discuss “The biggest lie ever told.” There they were - all 30 of them – mostly grey-haired old codgers – “crammed” in at the Danish Writers' Union for a two-day "international" seminar on the fallacies of global warming.

And the old dears went cock-a-hoop over having the toast of Australia, the most "honourable" Mr Plimer, as a star attraction of the two-day event.

"I am speaking here about algal reefs, not Al Gore reefs, although by the way they are both a type of slime," snorted the guest of honour.

Oh he does do Australia’s science community proud and truly a worthy nominee for induction into Australia’s “Dirty Dozen” Hall of Infamy.

Protagoras - I think you mean some scientists believe warming is possible but not AGW. You mention John Christy, the former lead author of the IPCC report. He disagreed so vehmently with the UN IPCC conclusions but so desperate and cowardly was the IPCC they would not remove his name from the document. He had to threaten legal action to get it taken off. This is the organisation which you fervently trust and support.

In relation to oil interests, you may be unaware that the CRU sought money from big oil and Rajendra Pachauri, the climatically unqualified head (sometimes called head scientist) of the IPCC, was a board member of Indian Oil.

Where is your evidence of "bribes" paid to anti-AGW scientists? (From an independent source)

BTW Can you name 5 non UN climate scientists who support AGW?

“Protagoras - I think you mean some scientists believe warming is possible but not AGW.”

Atman – Please interpret my script literally.

I don’t intend to spend a couple of hours on your behalf, researching my massive archives to locate the sceptics who acknowledge AGW.

However, I'm reminded of Robert Balling Jr, a scientist (and a delayer, prone to publications of ambiguity) from the U of Arizona, who, after a request for information, acknowledged that he had received $408,000 in research funding from the fossil fuel industry. I believe his strategy is called "a bet both ways!"

The hacking criminals and the potential gaol birds (the recipients of stolen goods) slyly infer that the CRU are the rent boys to the fossil fuel industry when the overwhelming and indisputable evidence reveals the opposite. I trust Scotland Yard will tracks these thugs down.

The CRU disclosed its major donors for its establishment from its inception and those donors included “British Petroleum, and Royal Dutch Shell.”

In our commercialised Australian universities the largest benefactors, Xstrata, BHP Billiton, Rio Tinto Alcoa, the Coal Association, MCA, Woodside, Chevron Texacon etc etc, are now running the show, distributing their ill-gotten funding throughout the halls of every academic and research institute in the nation.

Now ethical scientists in Australia are bullied and threatened if they publish adverse findings on environmental and health issues.

Between 1998 and 2005 ExxonMobil granted $16 Million to global warming sceptic organizations, including a “one man” show. But hang about – the recipients were not climate scientists performing climate research at universities so what were their motives Atman? Why were they bank-rolling these useful idiots and continue to do so?

http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=ExxonFundsGlobalWarmingSkeptics9895&scale=1#ExxonFundsGlobalWarmingSkeptics9895

The gap between integrity and corruption is narrow indeed.

Your “New World Order” is in fact the old one Atman, controlled by greedy, multi-national corporations and the most destructive polluters on the planet, clinging desperately to the top of the greasy totem pole at the expense of humanity. And you are merely one of their puppets.

They say a man is judged by the company he keeps.

Steven,
You make much ado about nothing.

The AGWers seize on Plimers apparent reluctance to defend his “errors” and damn him with everything from being cowardly, to being ”old” !

If Plimer be a saint or a scoundrel --- what does it matter?
1) There is a little known principle –leastways it seems, little known on your side of the house – that, what matters is the thrust of the argument not the man, or even, every petty fact. And no one is 100% right all the time –not Einstein, not Darwin and (surprise !) not even Stevenmeyer, and
2)What if Plimer were to challenge and win , what difference would it make. The AGWers would likely do what they accuse everyone else of doing –simply ignore the inconvenient truth -- how many deserted Al Gore when he was shown to have factual errors in his film?

And who needs Plimer?
You don’t need to be a rocket scientist to discern that there are holes in the popular version of AGW.

And the more you look, the more holes you find…I came across this one last night..

Remember the mantra at Copenhagen: hold temperate increases to an average 2C.
John Houghton – Global Warming ,The Complete Briefing, which the blurb describes it as : “The most comprehensive guide available on the subject” graphs ( Page 57) “Departures in temperatures from the 1961 –1990 mean, over the period 1861-2003” ; from 1861 – 1938 mean temperatures range to .7 BELOW , 1939-1942 they range to .3 ABOVE , 1943 -1980 they range to .3 BELOW , from 1981-2003 they range to .6 ABOVE [dates are approximate as he uses five year blocks]
Where is the mythical (Garden Of Eden like) equilibrium ?
Where is the long term trend?

There is a world of difference between a specialist scientist who says: “ My research indicates X is happening” and AGWers who claim to put
all the disparate pieces together and divine our future.

It is now 34 days since George Monbiot accused Ian Plimer of lying and fabrication. The accusation was made on national television.

Monbiot has since repeated these accusations on the website of the Guardian newspaper.

Plimer has yet to institute legal action against Monbiot, the ABC or the Guardian.

What does Plimer's apparent reluctance to sue say about his, Plimer's, own opinion of the quality of the Science in his own book, Heaven and Earth?

Atman, a bit late so I don't know if you are still watching but I am keen to see your list of 400 peer reviewed articles. I did a search for this and all I turned up was a claim that 400 scientists were supporting some political thing in the US (involving Senator Inhofe).

You can post it here http://opinion-nation.blogspot.com/2009/07/monty-python-climate-change-phrasebook.html as a comment if it exceeds the word limit of this site. Alternatively contact me direct: philip.machanick AT (edited to cut spam) gmail.com.