The errors, omissions, distortions and misrepresentations in Plimer's book, Heaven & Earth, were made clear to him by both his peers and those more expert in particular fields that he is not.

These errors, omissions, distortions and misrepresentations were not corrected in any of the overseas publications subsequent to the Australian print run. He chose not to correct them, for what it appears, purely selfish and misguided reasons - his choice.

His book is entertaining at best, but to market it as a scrupulous and scholarly attempt to refute the overwhelming evidence that AGW is significant and poses a very real threat is more than selfish, it is irresponsible and borders on the delusional.

In my humble opinion, Ian Plimer has rocks in his head - metaphorically speaking of course.

the tipping point is that fossil fuels are running out anyway.

So the usual brigade turns-up, this time to put the knife into Plimer. Bugsy and Q&A, where were you guys when an Inconvenient Truth was released where the inaccuracies do go to the heart of the movie, including the use of the Hockey Stick graph.

Why aren't you screaming about the malfeasance of scientists revealed by the "Climate Gate" leak and demanding that their work be deleted from the next IPCC report?

So tell me, which of Monbiot's claims invalidates Plimer's central thesis that there is nothing unusual about the current times, and that therefore anthropogenic CO2 is not the culprit?

The issue of volcanoes, which appears to be the only nit pick of any substance, doesn't invalidate it, that's for certain.

When this debate is dominated by people like you who will play the man and not the ball I think Plimer has every right to be strategic about what he will engage in and what he won't. You guys are involved in politics, not science, so a political response is what is required.

Bugsy,
--“ 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?”

And, you, knew nothing about measuring CO2 emissions from volcanoes –though it was of fundamental importance to the proposition you were defending. Perhaps that’s because you’re not a geologist,eh?

Mac,
--“We don't live in a controlled experiment but an uncontrolled one”
Which is precisely why many are wary of AGW computer modeling of real world systems , by modelers who cannot even *know* let alone effectively factor-in, all of the variables.

--“The reference was to the influences of CO2 levels on climate in general and the consequent effects on plant “
In your first post, Pilmer’s position was being misrepresented to make it sound that he had proposed that there was no toxicity level for CO2. When what he had really said was some additional levels of CO2 could have a positive effect on plant growth. And as we saw in the link I posted, Pilmer could indeed be right!

--“I don't know why 'sceptics' are so agitated,… their wallets are safe,although some Pacific island states might not be.”
Who’s agitated? I’m cool!
I’ve already snapped up three seaside properties for a song, from spooked sellers.
And I’ve got my eye on another, a nice little waterside cottage in Kirribilli—woooie! it’s got the lot; opposite the opera house, own mini marina , and its gardens…the best location to have a barbie and watch the new-years-eve fireworks . I’ve heard it’s current residents, are world warming worriers.When they decide to hightail it to a hilltop position in Katoomba I’ll be adding that to my portfolio too.
Pssst! Don’t tell them, but each night I go past I drop a few big boulders into their lily pond to make it appear the water levels rising.

Q&A
Criticises Pilmer for lack of substance .Then contributes 100 ways of saying “Pilmer speaks bullsh1t” ---and not a line or word of refutation.

I suspect Ian Plimer of looking to his own personal climate adaptation plan; getting the world to shift to low emissions looks so hard as to be impossible, he's managed to make more money easier by writing books based on controversy than by being a teacher and researcher, the more money he can make the better off his family will be in a climatically challenged world and there's no subject better suited to a controversial best seller than climate change. Maybe his experience with debating creationism has taught him how much gullible people will pay to hear the things they most want to believe.

I can't believe 'Heaven and Earth' truly represents any kind of real research on the subject on Plimer's part; I suspect that Pr. Plimer, wearing his teachers hat, would reject, with scorn, any student's work so full of blatant and brazen errors.

Actually Graham, I have always thought that AIT was just a brilliant piece of propaganda, attaining more critical acclaim than Durkin’s equally propagandising The Great Global Warming Swindle – the former a “movie”, the latter a “documentary”? Frankly my dear, I don’t give a damn (about either of them) – but go ahead, enjoy your popcorn.

Why aren’t I screaming (like a Bolt banshee) about the malfeasance of scientists revealed by the "Climate Gate" leak and demanding that their work be deleted from the next IPCC report?

As I’ve said elsewhere

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3282#78309

Besides, I prefer that the investigations be conducted and completed before I pass judgment. It seems you, on the other hand, shoot first and ask questions later - thank God you don’t work in border protection!

Delete work from a report that hasn't even been written yet, Graham? You're coming across a tad paranoid Graham, what next ... thought police?

You say Plimer's central thesis is “that there is nothing unusual about the current times, and that therefore anthropogenic CO2 is not the culprit” and ask which of Monibiot’s claims invalidates it? I’m not playing that game with you Graham, I will however provide a critique of Plimer’s opus, certainly his nest egg:

http://bravenewclimate.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/plimer2a0.pdf

You “think Plimer has every right to be strategic about what he will engage in and what he won't.” Yep, bang on – he engages with the likes of Barnaby in community halls all over the countryside - with a boot load of books, a boot load of money, and a boot load of kudos from people he's bamboozled and befuddled.

“You guys are involved in politics, not science, so a political response is what is required.”

I have repeatedly said that the bun fight is not about the science, it’s about politics, economics and socio-cultural background. I am a scientist, I can’t give you a political response. If I could, I’d be at Copenhagen, not on your OLO.

_______

Horus, see you on the other thread – right now, I’m off to big smokey.