If leftist Governments around the world had not been so gullible in swallowing the gw fantasy then this article would be hilarous. Fancy an economist whose computer models failed to predict the boom or more importantly the bust trying to defend 'environmentalist' computer models. Please come up with some true science or give us a break from this crap.

Am in the process of reading Plimer's book, and whilst I am frustrated with some of the gaps in his references, his article is way better referenced that Mike Pope's critique. It seems to me Mike Pope is misrepresenting much of what Plimer asserts to make his opinions seem far fetched - e.g. apparently parraphrasing Plimer (without reference):

1) "the more CO2 we add to the atmosphere, the better off we are..."

2) "if the atmosphere were being polluted we would all be in the dark because “carbon is black”"

Other Misleading criticisms:

1) Tim Lambert's detailed, destructive demolition, upon a brief review, makes a number of criticisms which are hardly relevant - eg) Plimer's use of a graph which shows a 20 year cooling period corresponding with the post war boom (when presumably CO2 emissions rapidly increased), asserting that this graph had been debunked. However, when you follow the links to the debunking, you find that it was debunked as misleading because it originally included data only up until 1980, not because there was no significant cooling period in the post war 'boom' period. It follows that Plimer's use of the graph, however unfortunate, does not detract from the validity of his argument. Whilst I'm sure that some of the 60 plus criticisms may be valid, in a book of 500 pages with something in the order of 2000 citations, 60 criticisms is hardly a "demolition".

2) The "devastating critique" in the Australian was written by an Astrophysicist critical of Plimer's lack of qualifications of climate science, amongst other things. Pity the critic was also lacking qualifications in 'climate science' (whatever that is - could someone please define it for me?).

Whilst I have no doubt that Plimer's work is imperfect (arn't all human works?), to dismiss it as the work of a looney because it contains errors whilst studiously ignoring some of the valid points only serves to deprive the author of credibility. He doth protest too much.

I have yet to read Plimer's book, so I can't speak specifically on it - although I must say I would be sadly disappointed if Plimer has indeed performed so badly as is being made out. Then again, having seen the flurry of hysterical over-reaction to Anthropogenic Global Warming heretics before, I'm definitely reserving judgement here.

What I can say, is that if Plimer's book is full of inaccuracies, then this article certainly fares no better. It's so full of bu11sh!t, I needed my highest pair of gumboots to wade through it.

I can't believe the author is peddling that tired furphy about polar bears, with a straight face.

And then there's the false and misleading ads this site is *still* running from those lying eco-fascists Greenpeace.

Two wrongs, as my mother always told me, don't make a right.

Plimer's point about previous warm periods should be simple and obvious to anyone but a diehard AGW proponent:

If global temperatures have gone up during periods of no increase in anthropogenic CO2 then some other factor or combination of factors must have made that happen -- call it/them Factor X.

So in order to prove that increasing CO2 caused the warming which stopped in 1998, it is necessary to a) identify Factor X and b) demonstrate that it is NOT responsible for that particular result; neither of which the AGW lobby have succeeded in doing.

Similar results usually have similar causes. If my shed has fallen down from termites four times, I'd be crazy to blame little green men with disintegrator rays when it goes down for the fifth time.

I, like most people, have not read Pilmers book. But I have read extensive arguements by big hitters on both sides. The thing that strikes me is that they all have an agender of their own.

The Coal lobby says there is no problem with CO2 but to appease the mouth minority we'll make "clean coal?" The Free Energy mob espouse Solar,or wind or Hydrogen. (Nobody want that machinery on their patch. Solar soaks up sunlight & the flower won't grow. Windmills hurt birds & make noise & hydrogen is a fantasy). The Greenies... well they can't seem to make up their mind what they want. (What ever it is we're against it). Continued

I subscribe to groups like this one, Get Up (I'm going to my first meeting tonight), & some others. I received some litrature from a PLAC TV. They're against Free Energy & for Nuclear Generators as made by General Electrics Corporation. Other groups support are supported by other similar organizations.

So you see, every player has their own agender to make money out of scareing gullable people & the terrible thing is that there are lots of gullable people out there. They know that.

The history of this Planet goes back for about 15 billion years (unless you belong to some christian teleban group, then only 6000 years) The ice cap, comes & goes. The sea, goes up & down. That's nature. So what if the sea engulfs Manhattan Island & a few Pacific Islands. That what it does. That's nature. Oh!... the Money Men will lose a lot of money. Now there's an, Ah Ha!, moment.

continued.
What are we going to do about the Continents shifting? If I believe the Geologists, eventually Australia is destined to become part of Japan in a few million years. Should'nt we start to do something about stopping the Continental drift now?

Mind you. Yes I would like to see a reduction in the amount of pollution. That would be a good thing, so I'd support that. Take a trip to Hanoi or Saigon to see why. I support the use of alternate energy systems & the investigation into new forms of energy. We should utilize them all. Even nuclear. Eventually some one will find a way to use the waste product for the good of mankind. They found a use for the poisonous waste product of making Aluminium, flouride, didn't they. Feed it to humans. There an agender for everything if it involves making money.

So, the whole arguement is really just one big scam by big business & gullable sensitive people take the bait every time.