Mike Pope is wrong about the lack of citation about Polar Bears in Prof Plimer's Heaven+Earth.
Page 198/199 describe the polar bears range with footnotes 959, 960, 961
The polar bears that die in Gore's film, it is fairly clear that on page 443 the citation was the judgment of the UK court that condemned An Inconvenient Truth for its errors in fact.
Mr Pope is also wrong about the 5000 copies of Heaven and Earth sold.
Last I heard was that it was in its 5th reprint with each run getting larger. And that is just in Australia, with the UK and USA to follow.
Anyhow Mr Pope,considering the alarmist community is ridiculing Prof Plimer as a geologist writing on climate, what is an economist doing commentating on climate change?
What hypocrisy allows alarmists of any discipline to comment on climate change and condemn denialists who take up the same right.
I have found Heaven+Earth a good read it that it has widened my knowledge on the possible causes of climate changing over the millennia and through his footnotes the many thousand of scientists that are doing work on climate change who are never quoted by the alarmists.
Perhaps Mr Pope would explain his theory on what caused the previous ice ages to develop and recede.
I have come to the conclusion that the current popular science says that any above average temp is climate change and any below average temp is just the weather.
It seems the world is suffering a whole lot of weather at the moment.

Ian Plimer is one of many who do not believe that CO2 is the villain claimed by ‘human cause’ global warming fanatics.

Many of us, indeed, actually believe that the world is round.

As more common sense and truth about the unavoidable nature of climate change comes out, the likes of Mike Pope will need to desperately ‘deny what the “deniers” ‘say in a bid to maintain their fiction that man can control nature.

It is to be hoped that politicians wake up to the doomsday fictions before they afflict us with expensive, job-costing measures to ‘cure’ climate change. Senator Steve Fielding is the latest convert to common sense and clear thinking. Hopefully he, the Opposition and cross benches in the Senate will knock the Government’s lunatic scheme in the head

<Said elsewhere>

One of the claims that Ian Plimer likes to make is that as a geologist he takes time into account in a way that the IPCC does not, so it is worthwhile looking at what another geologist thinks of Plimer's “Heaven and Earth”

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2009/2586947.htm

Professor Malcolm Walter, Fellow of the Australian Academy of Science, concludes:

“There is fallacious reasoning. Take this statement (by Plimer): 'If it is acknowledged that there have been rapid large climate changes before industrialisation, then human production of carbon dioxide cannot be the major driver for climate change.' This would only be true if carbon dioxide concentrations were the only driver of climate change, something that no-one proposes, as far as I know.

This level of naiveté, if that's what it is, is hard to comprehend.

I think Plimer is entirely sincere in his efforts to argue against anthropogenic climate change. But he is misguided, and his interpretation of the literature is confused. Why do I have any credibility on this issue? Like Plimer I am a geologist, with a very long experience in basic fieldwork. I have particular experience in working on the evidence for severe glaciations in the past, and on understanding the early history of the Earth. I am also a planetary scientist with an interest in other planets in the solar system, including their climates.

Reviewing this book has been an unpleasant experience for me. I have been a friendly colleague of Plimer's for 25 years or more. I admired his support for innovative geological research during his early career as a mineral explorer in industry. I cheered him on when he took on the so-called creation scientists and their bogus nonsense, a crusade that cost him dearly in the end. I have enjoyed his always lively and entertaining lectures. But this time, in my opinion, he has done a disservice to science and to the community at large.”

Ian - as someone who has read Plimer's book (and spoken to the author), and followed the debate for the past 20 years or so I can say that little in the book that was suprising as such. Plimer summarised the bulk of the objections to the science behind the climate forecasting models and, although the text can be repetitious, he does a credible job.
The problem is that, as he notes, climate has frequently changed sharply on both large and small scales (we are arguing about a small scale change) before industrial times and is always changing. Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have also changed - both increasing and falling - but research shows those changes can in no way be said to drive the temperature changes. If anything it is the other way round. Further, no one is really arguing those points. Instead, the argument is that the recent, artifical increase is somehow different.
Well is it, and how do we know this? The models used to "prove" warming are useless in modelling any of those past changes.
For me the interesting point Plimer makes is that the medieval warm period was warmer than present temepratures, although scientists have managed to link modern temperature records with temperature proxies (tree ring measurements) to "prove" that modern temperatues are higher.
I was sufficiently intriged to follow up his references. Certainly there is archeological evidence (cultivation at higher altitudes, vineyards in England) to suggest the MWP was warmer, and perhaps the Roman warm period warmer again.
The fact that there has been adverse critical reaction to a book that covers ground familiar to anyone who has followed the debat ewith both eyes open reflects on the critics, not the authors.

I'm noting a significant shift in the number of AGW articles, the tone and the content. I smell panic and desperation as the scrambled egg approaches face.

This link is a serious scientific peer review of the IPCC conclusions. I doubt it will open any minds but it might, just might, open up the debate.

www.nipccreport.org/index.html

Everyone is entitled to an opinion however the condemnation of Prof. Pilmer by a Money Man seems somewhat askew , I mean what was he doing when our money was being lent out to people who didn't care or didn't understand what they were doing ; had he been on the ball and commenting on their fiscal irresponsibility our position might well have been somewhat less bankrupt than we are today .
Fiscal adventures can be calculated to the last cent unlike atmospherics , rainfall , emissions , droughts etc .
Money Men who fail were simply Gambling with our money or the weather
which ever way the Law apparently doesn't ascribe any remedies upon their ignorance .

I have not yet read Pilmers book so for me the Juries still considering climate change , none of the hype gets much traction with me , unfortunately I am too old to be sucked in by panic and hype ie; the Terrible Flu every year thousands get the flu whats so special about the current one perhaps Our OLO Money Man could run his mercurial eye over the Medical listings on the stock market might reveal the Crocodile responsible .