Who's funding Lyn's man made global warming hypothesis? and would it pass university graduation exams in the form of a properly structured thesis, yes, without principle facts or evidence, probably yes.

It would be a PhD and under the guise of our forums own; “Pericluless”; Published in the Useless Idiotry Journal -; and aren’t those Journals growing big.

It is just a pity Stupidity has overtaken Reality;
And then ; - What comes next?

Lyn Allison should look at the figures she quotes in her own article as they substantially undercut her argument. She talks of powerful energy interests and how they gave $1.6 million to one group to pay scientists to critique AGW arguments. Bwhahahahah! Billions upon billions of dollars flowing into greenhouse research giving scientists a real incentive to pump up whatever evidence they can find linking carbon to greenhouse effect, and ignorning contrary evidence - otherwise no more funding - and Allison is seriously pointing to such a measley amount as evidence of anything.
All that amount, and the use to which it was allegedly put, really shows is that the opposition to the AGW scare campaign has been both feeble and disorganised.
The fact that the IPCC had the cheek to produce a report recently, saying that the situation is even worse than first thought, given what's been been happening with temperatues in the past decade is beyond belief. They could at least have been a bit humble about the lack of results..

The author actually owes Plimer a debt of gratitude, for his book confirms that denialists have absolutely no regard for science or accurate data of any sort.

Heaven & Earth is founded on a collection of howling scientific errors and long-disproved arguments - some of which have been dead almost a century.

These absurdities have been pointed out dozens of times, even in the pages of that Liberal Party promo sheet, The Australian newspaper, yet denialists carry on as though Plimer's arguments are solid and uncontested.

Better, the mistakes fundamental to Heaven & Earth aren't in areas of uncertainty or conjecture, but in solid principles that have simple, clear and abundant evidence that demonstrates Plimer's ignorance. He could be no more in error if he argued that the earth is flat, or that Uluru is made of chocolate.

If publishers wanted to make even more out of Plimer, they'd bundle his book with another volume detailing the gratuitous and embarrassing mistakes that underpin his argument.

"Heaven & Earth, sir? Have you checked the comedy section?"

What a wonderful, succinct and appropriate summary of where we are at in the AGW debate. Thanks Lyn. Despite the deplorable science emanating from that most dilapidated domicile of dodgy data, the Heartland Institute and their pissant postulaters like Plimer, Carter,Evans, Kininmonth etc, the 'Browner than Howard Brigade' still try to argue the science from an apostolic viewpoint, that of too much faith and too little fact. Again and again they spew forth their vitriol, with no scientific backing nor valid argument. More methane from the morons, with no "bright sparks" for combustion.

I'm a bit suprised at Allison's wierd launch into Pilmner's religion.

Just what the environment needs, more divisiveness. I'm sure that the Catholics who are working their rear ends off against climate change probably are also taken abit aback.