Professor Plimer is a Geologist, who'es actual knowledge of climate science could probably be written on the back of a postage stamp using a crowbar for a pen?
As a geologist, he and his ilk earn most of their income from the fossil fuel/mining industry? His so-called scientific OPINION is probably priceless, but particularly to the 4+trillion dollar a year fossil fuel industry, in which he and his ilk have a profound vested interest.
His opinion is therefore, extremely likely to be highly biased?
Thus far, most of the ice melt is that of floating ice. As every one knows, when floating ice melts the water levels can actually drop; given water is actually denser than ice!
Ice reflects radiant heat, water conversely absorbs it!
The ice is melting far more rapidly than that predicted in any of the models and when all the ice melts, the ocean could be as much as 70 metres higher.
Yes life can adapt up to a point. But the time required for that adaptation is millions of years, not hundreds or a few dozen decades.
An interesting science based experiment places a frog in cold water, which is very slowly brought to the boil. At no stage does the warm and comfortable frog jump to save its life; and its goose is usually pretty well cooked before it reacts. It's hard to observe the actual, [if routinely denied,] changes taking place, if the head is buried in the sand or somewhere else more fundamental.
Professor Plimer would arguably be well advised to return to his core knowledge discipline, if only to discern the true nature of the rocks in his head?
I watched The Professor at one of his now legendary Lectures.
His frequent reliance on extremely complicated mathematical models, seemed to confuse rather than enlighten the lay person/journalistic audience?
I was impressed by one interesting feature,inasmuch, at no time during the entire dissertation, did his bug eyed head, actually leave his shoulders, and would have been very funny had the subject matter not been so serious. Rhrosty.

G'day Sp.. It seems we agree on all fronts then. I too think the Carbon Tax is an ill thought response. Sadly, it appears our wonderfully imaginative representatives are capable of only 2 responses to innovation or unprecedented problems; tax it or regulate it.
Hey Spindoc, enjoy your little hissy fit? Perhaps you should take a Bex and have a good lie down.
Saying that I love a quote by Michael Ashley is merely an observation, and as such perfectly permissible (I believe) on a forum called 'online OPINION'.
Hardly an attack, I would suggest.
As for being 'gutless', well, I Peter GRIMley, still love the quote, and I just don't feel like being cowed by a terribly courageous -if completely anonymous- bully.
Wanna meet me behind the toilet block?
Brainless? I thought Ashley's quote was rather clever. Ashley, BTW, is an astronomer who as far as I am aware, has never published anything on climate change, for either side. The quote concerned a comment by Plimer in his book regarding his 'scientific opinion' on the composition of the sun.
As for your little rules, by all means make up as many as you like, if that lights your fire.
Just don't expect anyone to care. I certainly don't.
Hasbeen, you're probably right about the 400 years. Not because this much touted figure isn't based on current energy usage, or that it ignores the right of the Chinese and Indian populations to enjoy the same standards of living that we and Americans enjoy -which would on current trends see their individual energy expenditure increase 10 and 20 times; a fair whack for 2 billion people.
No, the reason we may still have 400 years is largely because we are -slowly- using less and less energy to enjoy our standards of living.
This drive towards energy efficiency is of course entirely due to the efforts of the so-called 'warmists', bless their panicky little hearts.

BTW, found an interesting PDF:
http://www.climatechange.gov.au/en/climate-change/understanding-climate-change/response-to-prof-plimer.aspx
Of course, being a Gummint document, it could hardly be as reliable or objective as something written by a director of a coal mining company.
It claims to offer answers to the 101 questions Plimers asks in his most recent book
“How to get expelled from school: a guide to climate change for pupils,parents and punters (2011)”
Apparently a recommended read for all true disbelievers, who aren't too worried about genuine peer reviewed science.
(Oops, did I just break one of your little rules, Spindoc? I forgot to check.)
Despicable of me to mention peer-reviewed science in a discussion about Plimer, I know.

Bugsy, Grim, Rhosty, thanks.

Not one of you lost by default as per condition 3. So you are home and hosed because you responded. As with the great race or MKR, you are now through to the next round, now that wasn’t too hard was it?

Between the three of you there were about 1,000 words. This is curious because all you needed to do was respond to my three main assertions with either agree or disagree, true or false, whatever.

Perhaps you could explain why the collective 1,000 words were needed yet still failed to respond to anything? We didn’t notice your substitute of volume for content, really?

Just to remind you that not one of you tackled the three assertions I presented, which were;

• The only official orthodoxy in the world is CO2 based CAGW.
• The UN has exclusive authority and governance.
• The application of only the science that supports the UN’s single orthodoxy is permitted.

So without another collective 1,000 words, where do you all stand on these simple points? Perhaps you could all work together on a response?

Surely such simple, concise and direct statements cannot be THAT hard to respond to?

The answer to the universe according to Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy used to be 42. Actually it’s 28. (Based on the primary vote that the ALP can expect at the next election, 28%). So you get 28 goes before you get to walk away from this thread without losing face and taking your wickets home. This is a sensational offer never to be repeated. On past form we expect you all to bail out at about 3 or 4.

You can now demonstrate to fellow OLO’ers that you do have a response, you do not need to invoke either of the divisive and contentious scientific perspectives you borrowed to establish your case and that you do not need to rely upon the rhetoric of a retired railway engineer to make your case.

Or you can do a Grim, “Look at this Unicorn, I’ve found an interesting PDF”

Door Bell!

Or perhaps the reason we didn't respond to you is because we think you are a dill.
"Never argue with a fool. They will drag you down to their level, and beat you with experience".

touché