Graham,

Your observations on Mombiot's deviousness are spot on. They will use any little trick to take the heat off themselves and to escape from actually explaining themselves and their notions. They throw it back on their questioners, by posing their own questions (no matter how irrelevant) then scuttle away, once again, without carrying out their obligation to explain themselves on matters which will have massive consequences for the world.

GrahamY and Co.
The question is not if journalist V Geologist who is the best to discuss
*"the relevant"* science they're both outsiders with quite apparently peripheral understanding. The journalist is interested in entertainment, selling copy...over the top..exaggerating for effect.

Plimer is a geologist they talk in time frames of ages, eras and eons these science can't be specific enough to be overly relevant to this topic. Ask a geologist to define the date or century of any age, era.

AGW science is ridiculed because one source made an error of 3 decimal points of a degree. Yet its time frame is multiple decades far more precise than Geology.

*I have posted several sites that conservatively and academically deal with the indisputable science involved* this has included actual uni science degree lectures.

The less than admirable behaviour of one source of many to some apparently, instantly negates thousands of scientists and confirmed science, what happened to objectivity?

I've yet to see a counter credible scientific criticism of the science, that clearly shows, too much CO2 is more than the smoking gun.

The models all give a range of temperatures.(that is where the academic dispute is *not the existence of AGW*). The IPCC reports have chosen the lowest.

Even Einstein, brilliant as he was, wrongly opposed Quantum Mechanics, and recent science discoveries are tending to show that his surviving theories fail under extremes. Note the wording.

How about dealing with the *SCIENCE*, prove that wrong. Even Abbott hasn't bothered to be informed on the science( Lateline) 'In God we trust' perhaps? "I'm a politician (not a scientist)". Sorry, any wonder why the "Mad Monk" is apt.

BTW GY I'm not impressed with Rudd either but Abbott is anti something he isn't competent to be anti on, great for a potential PM.

Horus,

Plimer wasn't being misrepresented - is it a valid position for a geologist to say increased CO2 is an advantage to plant growth in controlled conditions so it might be advantageous on a global scale,with thousands of variables in the natural environment,variables which might affect the toxicity of CO2-it's a matter of credentials. I'd rather have the opinion of a plant physiologist,Plimer might indeed be correct,as a coincidence,so I'd take his opinion with a grain of salt. Cane toads were a great idea---in the lab.

Speaking of misrepresentation,one of the favourite straw man arguments of the climate "sceptics"/sceptics is that the hypothesis is based entirely on rubbery models,it is not,there is plenty of evidence (biological,geographical, record droughts) for a current warming trend,this is reported on a regular basis,what happens in the long term, and its cause, is open to question, of course.
I'd quite happily buy coastal land as well,it's all a matter of lead time.Who gives a rat's for future generations,"spend the cash in hand".
People will soon be able to book a voyage through the North West passage,that's a prospect worth contemplating.
I suggest you look for a less quixotic champion for your cause,perhaps someone who actually has some expertise in the field. Why are you sceptics all rallying around a geologist and not climate scientists,where are the legions of climatologist sceptics?

Graham, I don't have to put a knife into Plimer, he does a great job of that himself.

The only people screaming about malfeasance in the "Climategate" affair are bloggers who already made up their minds that they didn't believe in climate change, no matter what the science says.
What I’ve read in those emails says nothing about malfeasance to me.

I’ve never defended Al Gore, and personally don't really care for him, and I've never seen An_Inconvenient_Truth. However, I don’t think Al Gore ever claimed to be a climatologist or scientist of standing, as Plimer does.

By his own words and criteria, Plimer denigrates himself to not 'doing science' but being political:

"Blog and WWW sites are quite correctly the places for anonymous unbalanced unsubstantiated opinion which is why my one and only blog entry was to challenge you to a debate. Until blog and WWW sites are edited, peer reviewed and transparent, they remain an outlet for ignorance, anger and misinformation and do not constitute the process of science. Scientists who spend time on blogs and their own narcissitic WWW sites are not undertaking science. They are involved in political activism, which is not a process of science."

Books are not peer-reviewed either and are a used to get around the peer-review process. As far as I am aware, Plimer hasn't published his thesis in peer-reviewed literature either, hence is no better than the bloggers.
The major difference being though, Plimer makes money by selling his books and engaging in his own brand of political activism.

I think Plimer made a big mistake when he declared: "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",
because Monbiot didn't ask him questions of science, he asked questions on information sources, to clear up unreferenced claims and to explain the differences between his scientific opinion and actual climatologists scientific opinion.

Plimer writes like he’s unaware that anyone else is reading. It’s very unbecoming of the “person-of-standing” he believes himself to be.

Bushbasher
I stand by the point that Plimer believes he is representing science on both occasions. Whether you or anyone else believes that he is or not is not really the issue

Monbiot ducks the debate by trying to dictate the terms to suit himself and then accusing Plimer of avoidance when PLimer denies Monbiot the right to dictate the terms. Ultimately, Monbiot failed to front up to a debate on flimsy grounds.

Bushbasher- you said Monbiot didn't claim to be an expert. This is not in fact true. He is implicitly claiming greater expertise and knowledge.

GrahamY got it right about the attempt by Monbiot to use legal methods to discredit. Science does not work that way.