Does this come under "dissent will not be tolerated" ..?

So if you can't beat the science, rather than admit the man is quite rightly a skeptic, then relabel the heretic?

I have seen several posters recently all trying to change the definitions here - thus "skeptic" is now out of favor as it reflects a rational and natural abhorrence of the AGW "Consensual Church of the Settled Scientist" system.

The preferred term is of course "denier" and if you couple that with an allusion that anyone who questions AGW is questioning science itself, it all fits their belief system nicely.

You've twisted all the facts nicely so it might look like Plimer is being tricky, but it was Moonbat being tricky wasn't it - the moment he was challenged to a debate, he wanted something else (bait and switch, and you fell for it, Plimer didn't, he engaged on the same grounds and challenged Monbiot's actual qualifications to debate at all, a very good comeback nes pa?), so Monbiot quite clearly was trying to dodge the debate completely - the way you make it out, it was Plimer who didn't want to debate - far far from the truth.

The questions that Monbiot came up with, it was rightly suspected, did not come from him and that he was incapable of assembling them, which is why Plimer decided to see if he really had a clue, turns out he doesn't eh?

It all makes sense when you take off the AGW goggles doesn't it?

Do have fun in your little world of reassembled facts, it's what most AGW believers are famous for.

The more you try to remanage information, the more you look like data adjusters, which helps the skeptics case, thank you.

What a surprise! Monbiot’s questions for Plimer were OK, but Plimer’s questions for Monbiot “…read like a smokescreen.”

Why didn’t Keim simple say that he thinks that Plimer is wrong and Monbiot is right? He is perfectly entitled to do this but, no, he has to rabbit on, adding nothing to the umpteen discussions that have occurred over climate change which have in no way made a jot of difference to the beliefs of either side of the argument.

Kleim finishes his ‘non-event’ piece by saying that he is “… thoroughly disappointed that he (Plimer) has failed to answer even one of the charges brought against him.”

Well, big deal! Many of us are ‘thoroughly disappointed’ by the failure of scientists and Kevin Rudd to answer the charges we have made against them on climate change and its causes.

If Plimer is guilty as charged by Kleim, then so is Kleim himself, and people like Monbiot and other climate hysterics

The previous posts seem to miss a point: that Monbiot's questions challenged Plimer on alleged defects of his paper, and if the paper was not defective as alleged, the questions could be answered easily. (Most were along the lines of "What is your source for this information?").

Plimer's questions for Monbiot were not simple questions but looked like somewhere between lengthy homework assignments and research projects. Plimer alleged that Monbiot's presumed inability to answer them suggests that he is unqualified to write about the subject.

That's nonsense. If he's scientifically unqualified to write the actual articles he has written, the remedy for this is to make specific detailed criticism (ie quote the specific errors).

As for the proposed debate - it depends what it would have been about. If it was to be about which science is accurate then it should be between Plimer and another professional scientist. Would Plimer propose that, I wonder ?

The most horrifying aspect of the Plimer-Monbiot correspondence (see http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/09/14/correspondence-with-ian-plimer/)
is where Plimer says
"If you can not answer my questions of science, you are not qualified to ask me questions of science because my scientific answers therefore become pearls to swine".
This man is a Professor at the University of Adelaide. One wonders how he responds to questions asked by his students.

Plimer's arguments sound like like a version of the "argument from authority" fallacy,Plimer is a scientist therefore he's an authority on climate change,I suppose it's an improvement on economists and political scientists offering a "critique" of the global warming hypothesis.It's basically an attempt to undervalue the rigor and scientific creditentials of climatology,by people who don't have the wisdom of Socrates.
Once most of the smart money has shifted from the CO2 polluting industries to the new "clean, green and renewable" industries,it will be difficult to find an AGW "sceptic".

There is a cure for all of those who, through blind faith, (because there is no science to prove it) argue that CO2 is a pollutant.
Close your mouth and don't exhale that CO2 for sixty seconds, every minute. There, you're cured!
As far as normal people are concerned, we don't need to alter temperature graphs to prove that the world has been cooling for some time.
Also, if the world population is to increase as the UN believes then we need more CO2 to increase crop production.
Oh! Didn't you listen to your science teacher at school? CO2 is not only essential for all life on this planet, it is also a natural plant food.
If AGW has any substance it is because of over population.

Monbiot is full of hate and bile in his column, he slags off at everyone he doesn't like - slagged off at Plimer and got challenged.

He should have thought of the consequences of his loud mouth shouldn't he.

Then once challenged, he goes off to find some way out when what he should have done is either accept the challenge, or reject it. But his ego got in the way.

Trying to be a smart ass has made this bigger than it should be.

Plimer should have just laughed at his attempt to dodge a debate, and not issued his own questions. His ego got in his way as well.

Monbiot is the source of this farce, he's the one with egg on his face.

The author is trying to attack Plimer using Monbiot as a proxy, yet another dishonest "believer", using yet another method to try to undermine skeptics.

If your case is so bulletproof, why are you all so worried and frightened by skeptics, why the need to recreate them as demons and anti-scientific?

More and more of the population is now coming down on the skeptical side, you used to have the numbers before and now have lost the audience, so you're lashing out at skeptics. you should be crediting the growing skepticism to acts like this of Monbiot, of people like this author, of the folks at CRU and all the rabid protesters currently on the edge of violence in Copenhagen.

Maybe it's time for a rethink, on the benefits of skepticism?