Examinator ,
Perhaps you need to look up the word “bias” first.
Plimer is no more an advocate for other agendas than many of those on the other side.

Q&A,
Plimer is no more profiteering from sale of books that James Hansen

[Both of the above posts says more about their authors, than Plimer]

Kenny,
“Pilmer ... learnt a thing of two from his creationist buddies"
But judging by the postings here, not as much as the true believers in AGW have learnt and adapted from the creationist belief system: heretics , saints and holy/infallible pronouncements(one dare not transgress/doubt), the AGW camps got it all –all they've changed are the names. [Hey, I wonder if the creationists will sue for the AGW advocates for plagiarism/copyright?]

CJ
“ Plimer was obviously lying and fabricating - not to mention evading and distorting”
While I do admit, you have had certain expertise in distorting and evading, leastways on OLO, which should make it easy for you to identify such . It is a bit rich you rabblerousing the stoning mob!

Steven
“What does that tell us about Plimer and his book?...If Plimer refrains from suing I can only conclude his book his hogwash”

So...let me get this right, until the Plimer-Monbiot incident you were believing Plimer could have a case –but, this little incident sowed the seeds of doubt?

And here I was thinking when I read this:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3285#77933
You were already spoken for;you’d already made up your mind --well I'll be!

Just goes to show you can't always believe what you read (even if it's not kosher and chic to question it!)

[ Oh , if any of the above-rebuked don’t like what I’ve said -- sue me!]

Dear Mr Plimer

Are you feeling like the canary in the coal mine who’s fallen from its lofty perch? Well up you get dear chap....oops....enough of those methane emissions. Ah....here we go. Now for the sake of intellectual honesty, just quit the counter-questioning and useless comments and answer Monbiot’s questions – there’s a good fella......

So, just for arguments sake,

Let's assume global warming is not in any way anthropogenic.

Given that Fourier was uncontestably correct about the thermal prpperties of certain gas mixtures, what methods are available to us to stop it?, slow it? reduce the magnitude, the rate of approach in any way?

Oh, yes! lets not add those gases to the mixture. That'd be one of the cheapest options possible. More elaborate second stages might be needed, but that is a cheap start.

Let's not forget the *geological* evidence that almost any change in the atmosphere is followed by an ice age. A minerals geologist may find that dull but farmers find it fascinating, as little grows in permafrost. The atmosphere *may* have been cooling gradually to an ice age in some hundreds or thousands of years. Do we really want to trigger a new one early by raising the reflectivity of the earth?

What about the cooling you ask? Well, we have this tested theory of gas mixtures. If we *really* *absolutely* *must* increase the ability of the atmosphere to trap heat, does anybody know of a way to increase greenhouse gases? How *big* a fire do you want? know anybody with matches?

Absolutely all my sarcasm is intended.

Rusty

All the hot air being emitted by AGW denialists can't be helping ;)

A fascinating insight into the remnants of the AGW “debate”. As we have seen with Al Gore, the IPCC, the BBC and now the ABC with George Monbiot, the common link is the missing “embarrassment gene”.

Whatever happened to good science, good research data, consensus, peer review, qualified scientists and compliant processes? A journalist for goodness sake? What on earth was the ABC thinking?

Is this really all that is left of the so called great moral debate? A howling journalist left to fight a rearguard action for the cause. I’m saddened that the ABC is busy trashing what little is left of its reputation by this grubby piece of journalism.

As for litigation, I doubt that the “offer” of a court case would be seen as anything other than a platform for distraction.

I suspect that serious legal action is likely to come from the US, a small case initially followed by class actions against those with deep pockets.

George Monbiot is presenting as panic stricken, he seems to know that his career and reputation are fast going down the gurgle. The Copenhagen debacle subsequent to this debate must have been devastating.

As Clint Eastwood might say, “are you feeling lucky punk?”

Examinator,

It is possible to be both a scientist and a businessman. Ian Plimer presented himself as a scientist. I'm taking him at his word.

He has been accused, on national television no less, of lying and fabrication. These are the worst accusation you can level against a scientist.

Monbiot has repeated these claims in the Guardian in UK. See:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/dec/16/ian-plimer-versus-george-monbiot

The UK is probably the most plaintiff friendly jurisdiction in the English-speaking world when it comes to defamation cases. If Plimer truly believes what he wrote he should now defend himself against Monbiot's accusations in court.

Horus,

I was never taken in by Plimer's book. but I thought it possible that HE believed in what he wrote.

Plimer's refusal to sue is a strong indicator that he does not believe he can defend his own twaddle.

Spindoc

See above. If Plimer believed in what he had written he would sue. If he refrains from suing that indicates to me he does not believe his own taurine fertiliser.

What does Plimer's refusal to sue Monbiot, the ABC and the Guardian after they have so thoroughly besmirched his reputation tell you about Plimer's belief in his own book?

If he could defend his book in court I think he would.