“First is the placement of the temperature stations...They're placed in convenient locations that might be in a parking lot or near a house and thus get extra heating from these human structures.”

UOG , just like pollution detector units, temperature stations can be moved so this appears to be a fatuous argument supposedly by Christy and Spencer and the author of the link you provided appears to be speaking as an authority on climate change but he’s better known for the two books he wrote:

1. “Best Jokes From Talk Radio”, is a compilation of risque jokes heard on talk radio.

2. “How to Find and Fascinate a Mistress”, is a fictionalized version of Wattenburg's exploits with young women in the 1970s.

Perhaps you could supply us with direct links to the godbotherers' websites?

Gathering by expert critiques to date of Plimer's book I'd say his credibility is looking very shaky and we may soon see him heading for the hills. Of course we have in the past, seen this man self-destruct in splendid fashion:

“Perhaps we will find a stitch-by-stitch demolition of climate science in his book, as promised? No such luck. The arguments that Plimer advances in the 503 pages and 2311 footnotes in Heaven and Earth are nonsense. The book is largely a collection of contrarian ideas and conspiracy theories that are rife in the blogosphere. The writing is rambling and repetitive; the arguments flawed and illogical.

“Incredible as it may seem, this quality of argument is typical of the book. While the text is annotated profusely with footnotes and refers to papers in the top journals, thus giving it the veneer of scholarship, it is often the case that the cited articles do not support the text.

"Plimer repeatedly veers off to the climate sceptic's journal of choice, the bottom-tier Energy and Environment, to advance all manner of absurd theories: for example, that CO2 concentrations actually have fallen since 1942.” (Michael Ashley is professor of astrophysics at the University of NSW.)

CO2 concentrations fallen, says the professor? Is this guy for real?:

http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicators/CO2/2008_data3.htm

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,25433059-5003900,00.html

Dallas wrote;

“Green politicians have lost their ability to deliver sustainable thoughts”

CJ wrote;

“Tell that to the voters in Fremantle, dipstick.”

As a former Queensland Greens member and candidate in 1995, I’m inclined to agree with Dallas.

It’s very nice to see the Greens win Fremantle, after Labor domination since 1924! But CJ, did ‘sustainable thoughts’ have anything to do with the victory? For that matter, have the Greens had any real sustainable thoughts for the last ten years ?? ( :>/

proto-gore-as quote<<UOG ,just like pollution detector units, temperature stations can be moved so this appears to be a fatuous argument supposedly by Christy and Spencer>>no great rebuttal of the facts PLEASE EXPLAIN YOUR USE OF SUPPOSEDLY..[and BTW..clever deceptive/linkage..lol linking the auther of the article..to the scientist quoted..IN THE ARTICLE

<<and the author of the link..you provided appears to be speaking as an authority on climate change..but he’s better known for the two books he wrote:>>..the books the pilger guy..[auther of the article..NOT SOURCE OF THE INFO]..wrote are irrelivant to the intervieuw...of the SCIENTIST he writes ABOUT!

quoting two books written by a reporter..dont rebut the scientist..[NOR THE SCIENCE]..he is writing about

its typical of the clever non-rebuttal..of you end time global warming prophets[..playing not the autority but the reporter daring to write about the scientist..[respected climate scientist revealing simple truths

[you didnt[couldnt rebut what was said..so distract with comments about a reporter]..who cares a damm about other stuff the reporter wrote about

rebut the science[if you can]

[how come you think to know better than a scientist]

why is this debate focused so much on distractions..name calling mere reporters..lol..[

you global/carbon tax bloggers are looking so clever..till the rebuttals you lot post are revealed..as a non response..or worse the deliberated distraction,..your postings commonly are revealed to be..

...designed to misslead those not reading the minutia being reported

written by who,..for what reason..your oh so clever..non-rebuttals..,on a complicated topic..where true cred-ability of authorities must be based on faith.

the huge-con is complicated enough to comprehend..to the average passive layman,..without all you dis-info..global warning supporters put up...distraction framed as debait]... hoping your distractions pass as rebuttal of the facts MADE BY SCIENTIST's

Ludwig: << As a former Queensland Greens member and candidate in 1995, I’m inclined to agree with Dallas. >>

With respect Ludwig, given some of your ideas, as a current Qld Greens member I'm rather glad you've disassociated yourself from us. The Greens have grown somewhat since they'd run any oddball who was a financial member and who was willing to stand, and it's starting to be reflected in electoral results. Admittedly, Queensland's a bit behind the other States, but we get closer with each election.

I would say that much of that is because voters see those Greens politicians who have been elected elsewhere, and who offer the only coherent policies with respect to real 'sustainability' in the Australian political context.

With respect Ceej, you again have completely avoided the questions that I asked of you, as you did the last time I asked you direction questions: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8841#140187

Presumably the ideas that you attribute to me that you feel would be inappropriate for a Greens member are to do with asylum seekers and border protection. But this is the very subject on which you found my questions too difficult to respond to the last time we crossed paths. BTW, you can still respond. The ’Playing the asylum seeker blame game’ thread is still open: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=8841

Perhaps it is the Greens that need to be dragged into reality over this issue, as they do in regard to the basic principles of sustainability!

The Greens are concerned about rising temperatures, sinking islands and disappearing ice-shelves and glaciers. But they don’t seem too concerned about ever-rising human populations or our crazy economic system that is predicated on endless expansionism.

You’ve agreed with me about population and other sustainability issues. So you’d surely have to admit that the Greens just don’t cut it as a genuine environment / sustainability party.

My questions remain:

Did ‘sustainable thoughts’ have anything to do with the Fremantle victory?

For that matter, have the Greens had any real sustainable thoughts for the last ten years?

Ludwig,
My contacts in WA tell me that the Greens win in Fremantle was like the Greens win in Cunningham, NSW, some time back. The locals abandoned the ALP head office imposed candidate in protest because they wanted to nominate a local. In NSW the Greens member was outed at next election by a locally chosen ALP candidate.

The situation has nothing to do with growing support for the Greens.

So, if that is correct, one should not read anything into the Greens win in Fremantle. A read of the Greens policies shows how far from reality they are.