Plimer as a geologist is not qualified to speak on Climate Change! Dear, dear! In fact geologists have a major gripe about the current orthodoxy on climate change because they are aware of just how different the world's climate has been in the past - and how those differences cannot be linked to carbon dioxide. As Plimer notes in his book, carbon dioxide concentrations has been high and low in the past and temperatures high and low but there is no correlation between the two.
For me the big revelation of his book is that there is overwhelming evidence that the medieval warm period was considerably warmer than now. Scholars know this by tracking the heights at which cultivation has occured in Europe - and have even correlated it with temperature.
That alone should be enough to entirely sink the present orthodoxy, but won't.

Plimer knows that man made global warming is crap because geologist like himself use fantasy when plucking dates for the earth's age. It is funny to see how he labels the environmentalist as religous when that is exactly what those people are who promote the pseudo science(fantasy) of evolution are. They are faith based. Mr Plimer has 3 fingers pointing back at him. Our Creator must be laughing (or crying) at mans stupidity and arrogance. Plimer is no different from the likes of Gore and Flannery. He has obviously seen an opening to exploit a well believed lie.

I though CFC's was supposed to be the end of civilization as we know it. How come no one talks about that anymore? Oh that's right, it too was a load of alarmist claptrap!

Good article and good to see that there have been no mass resignations, threats of leaving, declarations of lack of balance, hysterical curses or fatwas nor attempts at censorship (so far).

Things are improving, or are we all just adapting.

All the noise about this subject has certainly made a lot of people aware of the topic, and it is no longer an accepted scientific arena when it starts to impact our lifestyles and pockets. This is a good thing for science surely that so many people have taken an interest, even if it is to ultimately disagree with many, there is agreement with others.

Now at least there is some chance to develop a culture of adapting to changes without wanting to try to forestall or halt them. (Heaven help us if we were hit with a series of earthquakes, some folks would want to stop them as well!)

The great majority of scientific bodies that have endorsed governmental action on global warming are themselves government-funded; and their members have a vested interest in the actions they recommend.

But quite apart from that, science does not supply value judgements, remember?

*Nothing* follows from the positive science as a matter of policy.

To recommend great reductions in the fuels that currently supply mankind with food, shelter, clothing, medicines, transport and communications is to recommend that some people must die for the greater good. But no-one has the right to make such a decision.

The entire argument for political action on global warming is based on a pyramid of fallacies of every kind. Carbon is not a pollutant. The globe is not warming. Computer models are not evidence. And government is not God.

The tone of this article makes me suspect that this author, rather than being a Diogenes searching for truth and honesty and a way through the maze of yes/no, is/isn't, right/wrong on climate change, may in fact be a failed agnostic.
The faux "blank slate" tenor of this tome does little to disguise the author's obvious climate change skepticism and his enthusiasm for the Plimer position.