I don't believe Plimer represents anything scientific; sciency sounding, yes, and clearly plenty of people, who want to believe AGW isn't real, think it's science. I think Plimer knows what he says has no scientific value and that he has picked out and assembled arguments for a target audience of non-scientists. I just can't believe he fails to know his position has no scientific credibility. He may believe that our current wealth and prosperity, so dependent on fossil fuels, can't be maintained by other means and even that adaptation is a better course than mitigation but I don't think he truly believes his own arguments that AGW is false. He may believe that all the debate and what he writes and says won't make any significant difference (thus absolving himself of any sense of responsibility) but I don't think he's a genuine sceptic and I don't believe he's a genuine idealogue; I think he's a charlatan who is enriching himself by fanning the flames of controversy.

Plimer is stirring the pot for his own gain. He has consistently been unable to propoerly explain his stated positions. There have been a number of detailed critiques of his work that highlight major flaws in his assumptions. I have yet to see a detailed response by Plimer to any of these critiques (I could be wrong on this and I'm happy to be corrected).

The argument most skeptics are pedalling has changed from 'there is no global warming' to 'there is no AGW' because the evidence of a warming climate is fairly compelling. Very few people want to accept responsibility (as the human race) for the changes that need to happen, and I think this is now driving more than any real problem with the science. Politicians are happy to latch on to this opinion because they see it as a vote winner

I am reading with interest the people who believe that the man was being unfair to Ian Plimer- I would like the people to explain- Monbiot asked the man to explain his position to cite the evidence for his claims- some of the claims have been proven false! Yet no citing of evidence and simple evasion-

if you are going to be FAIR you need to be FAIR TO BOTH SIDES Monbiot has asked Plimer a very easy set of questions- and it is this that this article is talking about- instead of answering he replied with a bunch of crap that monbiot sent off to other scientists to gauge their opinions - and it was their considered opinion that the response provided by Plimer was a evasion and non sensical- now if you people can not figure this very simple set of dialogues - i am not surprised you still hold out hope that plimer is right! Next thing you will want us to believe is that we can turn gold into lead! or that we would want to!

CanadianBear From my reading of the email trail it was Plimer who suggested the debate. Monbiot clearly evaded a live debate saying he was "not an expert" which was a rather lame point of view considering he was constantly challenging Plimer on academic points. He then attempted to push Plimer into a battle through his media column, which Plimer rightly claimed to be an inappropriate and unsuitable medium. After clearly evading the battle, Monbiot attempted to suggest it was actually Plimer who was evading a debate - a strange point to make since he had actually requested one! Plimer states that he was happy to answer all questions in the debate but not according the Monbiot's rules which were not agreed to but dictated by Monbiot to gain an advantage. Monbiot posed questions to Plimer but refused to answer basic level university questions about climate saying they were too obscure and he was not an expert. As far as I can ascertain Monbiot was way out of his depth and he knew it but to save face he continued to "throw stones" and make threats and accusations while running away.

I am replying here with the advantage of having seen Lateline last
night on the ABC.

I was disappointed that Prof Plimer was unable to answer the primary
question about decline since 1998.
Having seen the graph which the argument is about, if 1998 was removed
it is hard to see much more that a pause in temp increase.

However it was the wrong argument to take up. There are a number of
other points that would have been more enlightening.
Much more important is whether the present temperatures are truly
something to worry about.
Another question is CO2 above, say 500 ppm really something to worry about ?
Are there other times when temperatures have been reasonable and yet
CO2 has been well above present levels.

These are the questions I would like to see answered.
What was the the CO2 level during the Middle Ages Warming ?
These are the sort of questions I would like to see answered.
I was disappointed that Lateline did not produce such answers.

Bazz I agree that Lateline was disappointing. I also found Plimer underwhelming. I'm wondering what the debate was supposed to be about. Was it just an opportunity for Monbiot to put the questions to Plimer that Plimer had already refused to answer? Pretty unsatisfactory all round. If it was supposed to shed light it was only doing it in the IR spectrum.

And Jones basically ganged-up on Plimer with Monbiot, letting Monbiot get away with a few frauds of his own, such as the claim that it has never been warmer than at the present. (Mind you, if Plimer wanted to get Jones onside insulting him wasn't a smart move).