The answer to your dilemma is simple. Plimer would believe he is fighting for science on both occasions and its you who has changed sides.

Monbiot is a journalist and Lambert is a Computer Scientist. Neither have a hope of debating the issues with Plimer who is a Professor of Geology. Neither could pretend to have better than a layman's understanding of the issues.

Monbiot refused to debate and, in an attempt to put Plimer on the back foot, asked a number of questions which presumed Plimer was already in the wrong. But how sure was he of his position? I guess if a person was sure of their position they would engage Plimer in a debate. The fact that it hasn't happpened says a lot.

no, atman. in fact the consistency is that plimer made an idiot of himself on both occasions.

*) yes, plimer could have chosen to ignore monbiot, but he did not. he challenged monbiot to a debate. monbiot chose to put a condition on that debate and so did plimer.

but it is not symmetric. monbiot's questions were specific and pointed, addressed to plimer's book and addressed to a purported expert. plimer's questions were general and vague, and it was absurd to address them to monbiot, who never claimed to be an expert.

*) in regard to the creationist debate, plimer pissed off a lot of atheists by making the creationists look like the good and reasonable guys. one hell of an achievement.

From what I've seen of Plimer recently on TV he comes across as borderline loony - being abusive and shrill like a troll. He seems to have picked up the politicians' trick of repeating his mantra 'CO2 is plant food' ad nauseum, but he doesn't seem to have cottoned on that, just like 'working families' and 'great big tax', it soon becomes so irritating that the message is lost. His statements are so simplistic that either he thinks he is talking to fools, or he is one - most unseemly in a Professor.

Does anyone know if he has answered the criticisms of his book by other scientists?

Here’s another example of a journalist/columnist allowing her own prejudices to get the better of her reporting:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/plimer-the-toast-of-copenhagen-sceptics-meeting/story-e6frg6xf-1225808821955

bushbasher,

Yes,Plimer's behaviour in taking a creationist to court was an embarrassment for unbelievers everwhere,I thought that was the last we'd hear from him.

Candide,

Plimer's statements in regard to CO2 levels are bizarre, he seems to think that since a particular level of CO2 is an required for plant growth, more is even better. Any compound's toxicity is related to its concentration.

“Plimer's statements in regard to CO2 levels are bizarre, he seems to think that since a particular level of CO2 is an required for plant growth, more is even better. Any compound's toxicity is related to its concentration.”
[another wooden stake through the heretics heart!]

And then we have this:
http://www.hortnet.co.nz/publications/science/n/neder/co2_nr1.htm#top

Whoops!
Perhaps the jury is still deliberating.