Oh, I don't know, Plimer did a very comprehensive and thorough disembowelling of Young-Earth Creationist crap a few years ago. Solid endorsement of the chap in my opinion.

The question is: Why do any twits think lots of pollution is good anyway? Many more immediate pollutants have been found to be a bad idea, and whole industries reworked to accomodate. If the models are not good enough to satisfy critics that various emissions are a problem, why do they accept just any old crap that suggests it may be good? The model is *surely* not good enough to *endorse* pollution, particularly not the *exact* amount we just happen to make. That's just self-serving.

Rusty.

Ms Allison inadvertently reinforces Plimer's oft heard defence that most of the attacks upon him are ad hominem attacks, not attacks on his logic, by again attacking the man. It is ludicrous for her to attempt to link him by inference to conservative Catholics when he lost his own home defending Science against religious zealots and Creationsism in court.

As the community tires of hearing of predictions of climate disasters, Ms Allison is discovering that even the 'ramped up' message is now being ignored. Predictably, the alarmism has now backfired as it nearly always does.

Ms Allison is attempting to blame Plimer for the failure of the message by connecting him with all her imaginary bogey men from Rupert Murdoch to the Catholic church (though her logic is weak) in an attempt to create further disquiet and to avoid the fact that she and her ilk are clearly responsible for the current lack of interest in her message whether it be true or not.

The report that Lyn Allison supposes to have been ignored isn’t from the IPCC: it is a synthesis of the papers presented to the International Scientific Congress on Climate Change organised in Copenhagen last March by the International Association of Research Universities.

In a letter published in Science on 15 May, eleven of the the Congress’s session chairs - led by Mike Hulme, Professor of Climate Change at the University of East Anglia - complained of the journal’s coverage of the meeting (“Projections of climate change go from bad to worse, scientists report”, 20 March, p. 1546). They charged Science with following “the dominant mode of media reporting that has emerged in the weeks following the conference – that of impending doom.”

These 11 experts drew attention to the “large and growing body of research about climate change from the social sciences and humanities”, and argued that the insights from this source are “more engaging, empowering, and fruitful than a discourse of catastrophe.” The experts saw it as important that these insights be “given much more prominence in climate change science-policy interactions and in media reporting.”

Professor Warwick McKibbin of the ANU also chaired one of the Copenhagen sessions. Subsequenly, Warwick’s paper “Climate change scenarios and long term projections” (co-authored with David Pearce and Alison Stegman) has been published in the leading journal “Climatic Change” (18 August 2009).

The three Australian economists reported their support for “the argument presented by Castles and Henderson, that the use of [market exchange rates] in the SRES [scenarios] represents a serious analytical error.” Other leading economists in Australia and overseas have also supported the Castles and Henderson position.

“Science” published the letter from Hulme et al under the heading “Conference Covered Climate from All Angles.” Lyn Allison should also seek to cover climate from all angles and abandon her sectarian prejudices.

The former IPCC Co-Chair, Sir John Houghton, an evangelical Christian, is to be honoured with the World Cultural Council’s Albert Einstein Award of Science in November for his scientific achievements, not for his religious beliefs. The beliefs of leading sceptics are equally irrelevant.

It ought not to become as a surprise Ian, after all it is their Post Modern occult , and a sociology study of science ; http://majorityrights.com/index.php/forums/viewthread/190/
David Stove articulates the point well here; http://majorityrights.com/index.php/forums/viewthread/139/
The problem that we are faced with is that these occult members are in positions of power and influence , and in many cases are what is the Post Modern Occupation forces ; Quite Alien to the concepts of Logic and reason ; as what it use to be in some distant passed time , defined as Government ; That theory of Government these days is a Logical Fallacy .

Lyn Allison does not have the scientific intellect to debate the issues,so the next best thing is to try and discredit the man by alluding to paedophiles and making associations with capitalists such as Murdoch.Pretty pathetic really.

Posters on this thread (and others) defending the duplicitous Plimer, cannot spell his name – “Plimar, Plimner, Plimmer!”

Plimer is the laughing stock of the science community yet the rent-a-crowd here have not the vaguest conception of the incredible magnitude of the folly and the ignorance which their statement reveals.

Should Plimer respond truthfully to commentators, his claims would be revealed as misleading and fraudulent as exposed by the perceptive Tony Jones on Lateline.

Plimer has many conflicts of interest being a director of several mining companies and he's also a lead miner. The upper limit of airborne lead allowed in Australia is now 10 times higher than permissible levels in the US since that nation's environmental watchdog dramatically lowered the limit to protect the health of children and the environment.

The objective of the international coalition of eco-vandals (predominantly Canadian, American and Australian based miners) is to continue plundering the resources of many countries, regardless of the environmental costs. A ream of evidence reveals that these mining corporations are in litigation around the planet for human rights abuses and environmental desecration.

Australia’s Gorgon Gas JV partners are Chevron, Exxon and Shell. These companies continue to be involved in litigation around the planet on charges of human rights abuses, contaminating land, sea, air and destroying wild life and people's livelihoods.

In July, twelve fake letters were sent to members of the US Congress, urging them to vote against the U.S. energy and climate change bill. The letters were supposedly from grassroots organizations.

It's alleged that those writing under an assumed identity included none other than BHP Billiton and Chevron Mining.

Some thirty thousand indigenous people in Papua New Guinea are suing BHP Billiton for $5 billion for destroying their rivers, soils, crops and health. Experts estimate it could take 300 years for these ecosystems to repair themselves – if at all.

Yet while this coalition of greedy, corporate vandals and their sycophants remain largely responsible for heating the planet, corrupt governments are not holding them to account for putrifying and destroying the fragile ecosystems on which all life depends.