"He has over 1000 references to scientific papers etc in his book to
support his claims."
It does have links to things ripped out of context and with no actual understanding of CLIMATE science. Geologists are prone to getting money from the very industries that have been documented funding anti-science campaigns. Plimer is a fraud. There are good geologists. Plimer is not one of them.

“Ian Plimer’s performance in his debate with Monbiot has to be seen to be believed.

Rather than admit to making any error at all, Plimer ducks, weaves, obfuscates, recites his favourite catch phrase, tries to change the subject and fabricates some more. When confronted with the fact that the USGS says (backed with scientific papers) that human activities emit 130 times as much CO2 as volcanoes, Plimer claims that the USGS doesn’t count underwater volcanoes.

When told that the USGS specifically said that they do count undersea volcanoes, Plimer invented a story about how the nature of the rocks under the ocean proves that there must be unobserved emissions. Needless to say, this is not acceptable conduct for a scientist.”

http://www.desmog.com/2009/12/16/ian-plimer-exposed-fraud/

hi Armchair,
Your video was about a carbon tax. (Yawn.)
We're talking about the science. Especially, bad scientists like Plimer that some here seem to worship as a denier-in-chief.

Never before have so many wanted to read so much anti-science crap produced by so few.

"Canadian broadcaster John Moore said it was "widely criticised by fellow scientists as just another collection of denier hits."[24] The Adelaide Advertiser stated that among other scientists, "Plimer is all but out in the cold".[14]

Barry Brook of Adelaide University's Research Institute for Climate Change and Sustainability, who is at the same university as Plimer and has debated climate change issues with him,[25] described the book as a case study "in how not to be objective" and accused Plimer of using "selective evidence". Brook said that Plimer's "stated view of climate science is that a vast number of extremely well respected scientists and a whole range of specialist disciplines have fallen prey to delusional self-interest and become nothing more than unthinking ideologues. Plausible to conspiracy theorists, perhaps, but hardly a sane world view, and insulting to all those genuinely committed to real science."[26] He said that Plimer's assertions about man's role in climate change were "naive, reflected a poor understanding of climate science, and relied on recycled and distorted arguments that had been repeatedly refuted."[27] Brook also suggested that many of the scientific authors cited by Plimer actually support the consensus view and that their work is misrepresented in Plimer's book.[27] Susannah Eliott, the chief executive of the Australian Science Media Centre, encouraged colleagues to read the book and comment on it, but took the view that "there isn't anything new in there, they are all old arguments".[28]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven_and_Earth_(book)

We're talking about the science.
- Yeah well I was talking about the science of robbing the general public Max and making them slaves to this stupid global agenda

Waaaaaaaa,
Armchair hates the nawty science...
waaaaaaa!

Dude - when you want to talk about something sciencey and adult let me know. But please hold back the whining - it's not a good look.

You can always go and glue yourself to a road mate, dont let me stop ya.
Good baby impression by the way.