This is a really unhelpful contribution to the debate.

If the weight of scientific opinion is against Plimmer - and I believe it is – his opponents should explain how, giving reason and evidence. This article appeals to the authority of science to refute Plimmer but then gives not one scrap of argument or evidence to contest his claims. The very oppositve of a scientific approach.

Instead, Lyn resorts to ad hominem attacks:
“happily cashing in on his speaking tours’

stale rhetorical devices such as self-serving speculation about other people’s ulterior motives:
“Doubtless Plimer and they believe that, since God created humankind in his own image, we could not possibly be responsible for ‘planeticide’.”

Blatant red herrings:
“Doubtless Plimer and they believe that, since God created humankind in his own image, we could not possibly be responsible for “planeticide”.”

And prejudicial language:
“worshipfully”, “dark ages” “bitterly attack” “dared”, “clever buttons”

This kind of advocacy does its cause more harm than good

re: It is time to stand up for science, indeed it’s our only hope for survival of our species.
Yes science is our only hope. That is why many scientists are sceptical of the claims of the IPCC.
There has been too much fudging of information by that body. The famous hockey stick graph has disappeared from their repertoire and, if informtion available for the Port of Newcastle is correct, the oceam is rising by an inconsequential 0.15mm per year. Some of this rise is undoubtably due to human actions such as the actions which have lowered the water level in the Caspian Sea and lowered the water table wherever water has been extracted from underground reserves for irrigation purposes.
All such water ends up in the oceans. Those actions were nothing to do with climate change. They were mainly misdirected efforts to produce food for an ever increasing population.
I would be impressed if the Greens were prepared to at least look at the science and technology of nuclear energy, (follow the French example) a safe and reasonably clean energy and unlike that oxymoron, clean coal, with its carbon capture and storage, readily do-able now. Carbon in coal is too valuable as a reducing agent for future generations to be burned solely for its thermal content.

The pseudo science of gw is uncovered by many scientist and Lynn seems upset. She mentions Mr Flannery's whose past predictions has made the Jehovah Witness failed predictions actually look accurate in comparison.

Lynn concludes 'it is time to stand up for science, indeed it’s our only hope for survival of our species.'

Please don't make me laugh so much. If we really want to do something worthwhile we need to start with inward morality not outward shows.
True scientist must cringe when they hear such stupid statements.

That's an interesting rationale, Foyle. Do you mean to say that the IPCC is dodgy precisely because it *stopped* publishing a dubious graph?

How, then, do you feel about Plimer's use of a NASA graph that was edited by Martin Durkin to indicate the exact opposite of NASA's findings? Moreover, does it alter your opinion of Plimer that he included it in the book long after Durkin himself had withdrawn and apologised for the misleading graph?

Also, if this discussion is to include Ian Plimer's book, it should also include some links to scientific critiques that bury it and dance on the grave:

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

http://www.complex.org.au/tiki-download_file.php?fileId=91

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/04/the_science_is_missing_from_ia.php

A summary, from Enting's critique:

"Among the many errors made in attempting to establish these claims, are cases where Plimer:

- misrepresents the content of IPCC reports on at least 15 occasions as well as misrepresenting the operation of the IPCC and the authorship of IPCC reports;

- has at least 28 other instances of misrepresenting the content of cited sources;

- has at least 2 graphs where checks show that the original is a plot of something other than what Plimer claims and many others where data are misrepresented;

- has at least 10 cases of misrepresenting data records in addition to some instances (included in the total above) of misrepresenting data from cited source."

Would anyone care to address these shortcomings of Heaven & Earth without resorting to ideological name-calling?

It is staggering that Lynn is crying foul over the Murdoch papers reporting both sides of the argument.
When you read the one eyed reportage by the Fairfax journo's and the constant diet of "we are all going to die" stories on the ABC, BBC CNN etal, I read with amazement that Allison can claim that the alarmist point of view is not being aired (personally I blame Rudd for spreading this 'take no prisoners' style of politics and debate).
The debate is now at a level that you pick your team, alarmist or skeptic and you back them through thick or thin and damn the facts/fallacies that either side presents.
All debate about new research just breaks down to rancour and abuse without any attempt to actually get past the headline grab of the press release.
Sure, Plimar made mistakes in his book but compared to the clangers of Mann, Steig, Amman, Jones and the rest of that incestuous group of climate scientists have made it is trivial in the bigger scheme of things.
Plimar has at least encouraged the debate.
Expect more of the same in the ramp up to Copenhagen as alarmist try to force the politicians to do there biding.
How disappointed they will feel when the result will just be a committee compromise set to the lowest common denominator.

Lyn, you've been dispensew with. Go home & do something useful.

If the pension we pay you isn't enough, perhaps you could take in washing.

Much better than this rubbish you are spouting. Really, only room for the IPPC, & big All in the big lie. You'll have to find a different scam love.