Wow, Horus, CO2 a greenhouse gas, who'd a thunk it?

As far as I know, corn isn't grown in greenhouses. Plimer never mentions the difference between C3 and C4 photosynthetic plants and how they react differently to rising CO2 concentrations. Perhaps that's because he's a geologist, not a botanist or biologist eh?

For your own interest I would encourage you to look it up yourself as well.

Paragraph from Bipond News today:

“It appears… that developing countries have won the upper hand at the Copenhagen summit.”

This refers to Penny Wong’s displeasure at a summit- endorsed proposal (not a leaked ‘private’ deal like the last one) that suggests that developed countries would have to reduced carbon emissions by 25% up to 2020, and by 75%, at least, by 2050.

The developing countries, however, like China and India, would only have to cut their emissions if they were paid to! The biggest emitters like China could allow their emissions to continue their upward spiral, unless the developed countries paid them not to.

Either way, we lose, they win.

Some of the waffling and requests from the ‘G77’ countries and the ’42 islands’ group at the Conference have been straight from la la land: $400 billion into the pot from the United States alone, was just one from the African countries; a rise of 2% would wipe out Africa, and so on.

One good thing about the Copenhagen Conference is that we get to find out what most of the world’s loonies are thinking, if ‘thinking’ is the right word.

Some of the delegates are ‘hopeful’ and find the whole circus ‘exciting’. But, the hard nosed reporters are describing the Conference as ‘fractured’ from day four, and predicting a ‘zero’ result from it. Hopefully, they are right. Any agreement made in Copenhagen would be a lot more disastrous than climate change if what has been reported from there so far is anything to go by

Horus,

I think you missed the point,we don't live in a controlled experiment but an uncontrolled one. The reference was to the influences of CO2 levels on climate in general and the consequent effects on plant growth.Since crops are specific to regions,climate change will cause serious economic disruptions.
There are climate change sceptics and climate change 'sceptics',the latter are mainly people who have a large percentage of their portfolio investments in coal.Sometimes those heretics/dissenters are simply complete ratbags and their ideas are rejected for sound scientific reasons. I don't know why 'sceptics' are so agitated,nothing effective will be achieved at Copenhagen or any where else,so their wallets are safe,although some Pacific island states might not be.

For the time being I'll acknowledge geologists as authorities on geology,physicians on medicine and .... climatologists as experts on climate change.

No matter what we do now it will take around 200 years to see any change, the way i read it.
One science model says it is cyclic, but this time it is quicker than normal.
The best thing to do is do something for your self. Don't depend on govt; to fix any thing.
Find a cool room, where the family can go without the use of a/c.
Underground would be a good start.
Those who help them self will be more benefit than those who don't.

I think it is obvious what is going on. Plimer knows he has made a number of mistakes, but doesn't think they go to the heart of his argument. And he's right on that score.

Monbiot is trying to run the barrister's trick of catching his prey out on small details and then casting doubt on his entire credibility and therefore his argument. Plimer is not buying into that, which is wise.

None of Monbiot's questions have anything much to do with the vast amount of historical evidence that CO2 has had little to do with changes in climate. The fact that he purports to think they are seminal indicates that he is wise to rely on Plimer's refusal to answer as a reason not to debate. He's the one who would likely end up losing.

I think that is an exceptionally generous interpretation of the exchange there Graham, but then we all know where your biases lay.

I think that questions on statements presented as fact, but apparently fabricated and unsourced are quite relevant. Monbiots question 10 on Plimer's statement on volcanoes is relevant and goes right to the heart of Plimer's argument.

Monbiots questions, Graham are journalistic. As Monbiot is a writer and columnist. They are about Plimer's book. Discrepancies must be accounted for, yes? I mean, that's what everyone is saying about the 'Climategate' affair. One 'source' for the goose, another for the gander?

Monbiot asked questions about Plimer's book that Plimer should be able to answer easily,loaded or not, and account for discrepancies and provide references that may have been omitted, whether by accident or design. What does Plimer do? Replies with a series of nonsense irrelevant questions that a PhD in most sciences could not answer (and I seriously doubt Plimer can himself), i.e. a dickmove, just so that he can avoid answering the questions.

What little credibility amongst the scientific community Plimer had because of his status a professor is slipping away with his use of these sort of tactics. But then again, I somewhat doubt that Plimer cares for scientific credibility anymore, he has a well-selling book and alternative sources of income.

Scientists are such whores sometimes, but then they're only human and at least they're not journalists.