Looks like I might have been right.

Can't detect any argument against Plimer that actually addresses the material he presents.

Instead we have a list of reasons why that material must, by definition, be wrong.

Even though none of it is actually referred to, cited or otherwise identified.

Good going, AGW groupies.

Dallas: << Green politicians have lost their ability to deliver sustainable thoughts. >>

Tell that to the voters in Fremantle, dipstick.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/05/17/2572646.htm

pericles, please tell me you're joking.

The garbage generated by those tweaking immense funding from their pals in temporary power causes us all to remain living in misery.
When I was young I was stupid enough to believe that nuclear war could erupt at any second.
I was too young to understand that Bundaberg, Qld was the armpit of the universe and that no-one would target my region.
Took some while to work out it wasn't worth the shot!
Since then, God save us - the absolute drivel shoved down our gullets by the propaganda machine has caused us all immense constipation.
Do I have to list the drivel - nuclear winter - global winter anyway - choking to death in an atmosphere without oxygen - screeching about until dropping dead in an atmosphere with TOO MUCH OXYGEN - spontaneous combustion of humans - this plague - that plague - mould monsters attacking patients in hospital.
I exaggerate?
Or do I?

I’m told that I nearly died of the ‘Hong Kong ‘Flu’ in 1970.
I can say that I lost about three days of my life before I recovered.

Then our geographical location.
My home town is situated on a flood plain beside a DORMANT VOLCANO. Repeat – a dormant volcano.
At any time soon our city might disappear into the goop along with a fair portion of the Eastern Seaboard if that turnout decided to erupt.

What do I try to say here?
Goes this way.
Stuff us all moaning and griping about tweaky little concerns overseas.
We have our people and the land we occupy.
I humbly suggest that we begin dealing with what may cause us grief here at home.
That way we might be better situated to take on some lovely people from sunken islands – floating icefloes – and occasional hotspots.
Surely that makes sense!
Wouldn’t it be nice if we could welcome them here?

In about the same way we welcomed this continent’s original inhabitants when we invaded their homeland

Not really, bushbasher.

>>pericles, please tell me you're joking.<<

My position was that this thread would concentrate on Mr Plimer's unsuitability to pronounce on climate change, rather than address the points he puts forward.

So far we have scored a few hits.

Protagoras provided this:

"Mr Plimer has spent most of his time preening himself on screen, speaking into microphones, writing books, addressing litigious matters, cracking rocks or addressing gatherings of climate sceptics. Has the taxpayer subsidised his university salary?"

Kenny added:

>>Writing a book rather than say a paper for a science journal is a sure fire way of knowing that he is in it for the money and more likely for him the notoriety.<<

Sir Vivor points us to an "analysis" from crikey.com.au that said precisely nothing about the book's content.

"it is a cute insight into the way conservative commentators are starved for shreds of evidence to support their theories and how a small backroom publisher can easily satisfy their needs"

Sir Vivor also points to a supposed critique of the book by scientists which, if you read it all, does nothing more than re-state the conclusions for which Plimer provides alternatives.

Q&A simply suggests a motive for the book.

>>An income stream for Plimer in his retirement?<<

I honestly have no idea who is closer to reality in this argument. What I can say with certainty is that neither side has a monopoly on the truth. And while this remains the case, I feel that asking questions is still a good thing.

But I do see self-serving activists doing what self-serving activists enjoy doing, which is to stir up the public with arguments that seem, on the surface, to be carefully thought through. Then, when someone pops up and says "wait a minute, there", they do everything in their power to close down the argument and belittle the source.

A habit, I feel, that has been learned from generations of career politicians.

Poor old Protagoras: Self loathing is a terrible cross to bear.

Presumably overburdened by a crushing sense of guilt resulting from his complicity as a former high-flyer in the wicked mining industry, Protagoras seems to have transferred his self-hatred to Ian Plimer, and now loses no opportunity to excoriate Plimer.

But, as noted in another thread, Protagoras will do anything to avoid providing a direct answer to a simple question. Nevertheless - and even though we've pointlessly wandered down this path before - I'll try again:

If, as you continually declaim, Ian Plimer's opinion is hopelessly corrupting by his financial interests, does it not equally follow that the opinions of, say, Al Gore or Tim Flannery are equally corrupted by the fact that they stand to profit handsomely from the climate policies that they espouse?

You also attack Plimer for his career in popular science media and publishing; of course, neither Gore or Flannery have ever besmirched themselves likewise, have they?

I might add, as I said before, that I dislike dragging Tim's name into this; he's a nice bloke, and I do it not out of personal animosity, but merely by way of example. I don't actually accuse him of being motivated by profit-seeking, I merely point out that if you want to accuse others of being so, then the corollary must stand.

Al Gore, on the other hand, is a hypocritical, slef-righteous windbag preacher, so I'll gladly take the stick to him.