George Monbiot debates Ian Plimer part 3

[@charlestait5303]

Monbiot interrupts and calls names, this gives him zero credibility !

[@evanpenny348]

This reminds me so much (as an antipodean) of the debates in Westminster about Brexit. One side is trying to achieve Brexit with a deal, the other side is doing every thing it can to frustrate that aim by insisting that it will only cooperate with it's own agenda. Ian Plimer is trying to say that relative to what is known scientifically we are not in an especially warm period, and Mr Manbiot is picking as a series of small points which totally ignore what the Professor is saying. Its a case of looking through the telescope backwards. Incidentally I am especially frustrated by agencies saying that this is the hottest (fill in your own time period) "on record". What is meant by these statements? By picking the start date of your "record" you can prove anything. What Ian is saying is that the Earth has been hotter, and the atmospheric CO2 content has been much higher than today. At the early part of the twentieth century the North - West Passage was open. No significant anthropocentric influence involved! How can anyone simply leap frog over that FACT and conclude that human emissions are now somehow magically "to blame"? Perhaps, just perhaps, the CO2 hypothesis is simply wrong!

[@notheusernameiwanted]

One of the bigest problems with the temperature debate is that over time, more and more data points have been added around the world. Comparing averages that cover different locations and come online at different times in the data set is quite innacurate. I would prefer to see comparisons that only include the temperature measurements that can be trusted, and that were done from the same location from the earliest time possible, ice cores included but seperate to thermometer data.

[@4kirsten]

He is just waving the book and it may as well be any book - he doesn't summarise the argument from the book, he doesn't refer us to a page, he just waves the book. One may reasonably conclude that he doesn't know what's in it. And when he responds to a well-framed arguement by attacking the questioner rather than addressing the ideas, then one again is drawn to the conclusion that there is nothing of substance in his book, or, dare I say it, in his ideas.

[@Lilliz91]

Kirsten Anker monbiot is ducking and attacking him like no tomorrow and calling him a liar. When plumes says ok answer these questions and he never does but keeps attacking him. Its fucking ridiculous.

[@colinlegg2736]

@@Lilliz91 Monbiot accuses Plimer of scientific fraud and provided him with the accusations in advance of the interview. Yet Plimer fiddles and mumbles about getting back to them later and fails to directly address any of the accusations. That very clearly suggests guilty as charged.

[@benthejrporter]

All Monbiot did was keep on and on about a single page in Plimer's book. Probably Plimer made a mistake there, but he's not diverting, he's trying to broaden the issue and Monbiot refuses to repond. It is Monbiot who obfuscates! Ironically in his debate with David Ray Griffin it's Monbiot who says: "Don't bog us down in details!" Monbiot used to be a good guy who wrote good books like "Captive State", but now he's turned into a nasty little liberal Zealot. No wonder he wriytes for the Guardian!

[@CampingAndPhilosophy]

I know from scientist friends of mine- these sorts of questions cannot be answered as 'yes' or 'no'. There are layers of detail vastly deeper than Monbiot can understand as a journalist. Come twenty years time it will become clear what a fool Mombiot has been. I will be there making sure he, and all the arrogant twats are publicly embarrassed for it.

[@4kirsten]

Whenever someone begins his presentation by attacking the other person and purports to support his argument by waving his own book in the air, I conclude that he lacks intellectual rigour and am not inclined to be persuaded by him.

[@mattbutler458]

Ian Plimer is absolutely right!

[@djinghiskhan9199]

lol ok

[@arsjth]

well done Ian Plimer. Great manners. I see that Monbiot has no reply to the sheep farming in Greenland issue. Has it been warmer before? absolutely. will it be cooler again? of course.

[@denisdaly1708]

I don't find lying good manners.

[@notheusernameiwanted]

Monboit only picks on 2 things in a massive book full of both fact and opinion. So what if he said one thing in the book which has since been argued as being wrong (the cooling, which is more like a levelling), that's a part of science, he was quoting data he believes was more accurate at the time. The hockey stick graph has since been shown to be wrong too, does that make everything said by climate scientists wrong? No. He also misinterpreted a paper (1 of 2000+), get over it, read the rest!

[@StunnedByStupidity]

Monbiot has the patience of a saint. How the hell he says so calm I dont know.

[@DeafFret]

Why are people obsessed with Al Gore? I just know him as some American politician who got voted President once.

[@Zantorc]

Hallingstad Vineyard just south of Oslo is about 500 miles from the Arctic circle. There's vineyards in Alaska too.

[@blokeVB]

Ian can't be fired. Retired professor

[@Minttzz]

Do you understnd the difference betwen wether and climate?

[@jonathanhockey9943]

I like how Monbiot talks of ducking and diving a question while in the process of ducking and diving a question.

[@notheusernameiwanted]

Agreed. Don't only look at the sources though, look at the analysis applied to the data from those sources, and the quality/applicability of the sources also. Only then can we get a true picture and a true understanding of the depth of uncertainty in the results. This applies to both sides of the debate.

[@Kuswasinnam]

What patience from Monbiot.

[@DeafFret]

my favourite example: look for "2000 year temperature comparison" at globalwarmingart or wikipedia. That shows about 8 different independent, peer reviewed studies that produce more or less the same result as the supposedly infamous "hockey stick".

[@DeafFret]

@scrollandkey interesting theory. But if it works, why aren't vulcanologists always predicting volcanoes then? How come astronomers aren't always predicting imminent asteroid collisions or supernovas? Why are climate scientists different?

[@DeafFret]

@wayall1 AGW theory is: increase in anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere causes global temperatures to rise. And they have risen. This rise does not correlate AT ALL with solar radiance, sunspots, cosmic rays, volcanoes (despite Plimer's vague allusion), tectonic plate movements, orbital variations, or any crackpot theory you can cite. It does correlate well with increases in CO2. I don't know why you think some post 1995 acceleration is somehow the lynch pin to the whole idea.

[@DeafFret]

@RL36D If you say so. All I saw was that he refused to say, whether or not he still stood by his statement that global warming "stopped in 1998". He could have terminated this "interrogation" by citing some evidence (which he's been asked to do numerous times before), but he evidently prefers to keep the flame burning. His call. Same with his claim that volcanoes produce more CO2 than fossil fuel, but instead he just muttered something insubstantial about ocean sediment. Again, his call.

[@ericgwalsh]

And now we know palmer was right.

[@DeafFret]

@arsjth nobody in this debate is saying that the climate hasn't changed before. The only point of contention is over why it's changing now. Fact is that you can rule out solar causes, orbital changes, tectonic plate movements, and (as Plimer suggests) volcanic activity, or any of the natural causes we've observed in the past.

[@meercatdotcom]

Still can't work out does Plimer still stand by the claim global warming stopped in 1998?

[@vinniechieco4266]

The crux of the disagreement here seems to be the scale of time used. Using a timeframe of 150 years or so to assess changes versus using thousands of years. Both sides can be correct in what they assert as they are using different points of comparison.

[@DeafFret]

@notheusernameiwanted I don't accept anybody's word unquestioningly. So as long as they cite their own sources, and it's possible to trace those sources, I'm happy.

[@DeafFret]

@wayall1 I am just getting so bored of explaining this again and again. What Jones actually said is that if the prior 15 years is taken IN ISOLATION the warming is not "statistically significant". The warming trend actually starts from 1979 though, which is considerably longer than 15 years, isn't it.

[@DeafFret]

@mentelle48 ok that's impressive sounding technical talk, but there is no cyclic nature to the present observed rapid warming around the planet. That is to say, temperatures have risen dramatically and rapidly since 1979, and the changes do not correspond to any cycle, solar or otherwise.

[@notheusernameiwanted]

This may or may not change the results or the debate, but I would just like to point out that it does only talk about the northern hemisphere also, so it can hardly be deemed a global warming. Even though it does cover a number of countries, especially in Mann's 08 paper, we are still taking pretty sparse readings and jumping to big conclusions.

[@4kirsten]

But WE DON'T. So he shold be able to summarise the particular part he wants to use in the debate, or even just refer us to a page or section, so we can go and read it. That's just what other people do, who are familiar with the content of books they have written....

[@Lilliz91]

Kirsten Anker did you not fucking listen to him. He did say his book and even a fucking page in the interview. I see you weren't listening at all this entire interview.

[@benthejrporter]

Dave, I don't know if Pons and Fleischman were bought off or threatened off. But the good news is that these inventors are now getting organized. There's Keelynet and Stephen Greer's group, can't remember its name. This gives the individual a bit of solidarity when the government or oil industry sends in their goons to destory their work.

[@DeafFret]

@mentelle48 and "people like you" think you can measure global temperatures from your bedsit. Temperature actually varies from point to point around the planet you know. Come back when you've done some reading on the subject.

[@fiandrhi]

Wow, the denialists who say Plimer "won" this debate are comically deluded. He's asked repeatedly to defend his claim that there has been cooling in the last 10 years, and, damned if he doesn't hold up his own book and tell us he needs to read it! WTF? And that's simply one of a series of jaw-dropping evasions...any one of which would have been irrecoverable.

[@jareddiamond6607]

Answer the question Mr Plimer, the gestapo is in a hurry.

[@plevyman]

Clearly won the debate, dear oh dear. He was asked several specific questions about claims he's made in his book - questions he's been asked before - and he tried to weasel out of answering every one. If you can't see that he's a liar, then reality is clearly evading you.

[@johnfreeborn979]

It's interesting to check the UAH satellite data since this interview took place. It validates Plimmer.

[@DeafFret]

John Freeborn eh? According to Roy Spencer's blog, global temps have gone up 0.2c. www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

[@DeafFret]

@scrollandkey sounds like a remake of Invasion of the Body Snatchers.

[@wayall1]

@DeafFret I've already shown you that the warming from 1860-1880 and 1910-1940 is identical to 1975-1998 warming. These occurred before atmospheric CO2 began to seriously increase in 1940. From 1940-1975, while CO2 levels increased, global cooling ensued. The 20th century cycles of warming and cooling do not correlate well with CO2. Even if they did correlate well, this wouldn't prove causation. In geologic time there is also a poor correlation-one Ice Age had 10X current CO2 levels.

[@DeafFret]

The only reason Plimer looks like he's being interrogated is because he doggedly refuses to answer simple straightforward questions. That's his call. The fact that he elicits sympathy from some is a tribute to his skill as a sophist.

[@martinreese7373]

And here we are 14 years later with Australia experiencing one of their coldest periods for a hundred years

[@wayall1]

Phil Jones, one of the leading climate alarmist scientists, admitted in Feb, 2010 that there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995. So Plimer was essentially correct on this point! No warming for 15 years, while CO2 emissions have steadily increased casts reasonable doubts regarding the validity of alarmist science and predictions.

[@denisdaly1708]

only a complete fool, who never did science would conclude that after just 5 years. It is 2022 now, tan dot warming trend has not just continued, but accelerated.

[@DeafFret]

@impoid It's a bit of a strawman argument. Nobody denies whatsoever that climate change has occured in the past. The relevant question is: what's causing it now? You can pretty much rule out all natural causes, and the only thing the current warming trend correlates with is an increase in man made CO2. As for the data from Hadley, it's pretty well backed up by every other major source of global temp data, including Satellite readings.

[@mrflibble5717]

Plimer is a discredited Geologist, not worthy of the title Prof.

[@Lilliz91]

MrFlibble Penguin haha you know he's quite correct on good amount of things.

[@notheusernameiwanted]

Still, 11 points out of how many? I have read most of the other disections of Plimers book also and while they do make some valid comments and raise valid concerns, there is still a lot of uncertainty on both sides. Maybe I shouldn't have said proven wrong, but the IPCC have certainly backed down on the reliance of the graph in report 4 after a lot of doubt was cast on the statistical method and the proxies. Recent studies have been less certain about the degree of warming.

[@notheusernameiwanted]

You should really read the history section of plimers book. There are global phenomenon coinciding with the MWP. Not exactly the same time, but that isn't how the world works. Where I live we are having quite wet summers and quite mild winters, but a few years ago we had a drought for a number of years and very cold winters, while in England the whole country is experiencing a cold winter. Heat transfer isn't instantaneous, and if there is extra heat it doesn't just mean everywhere gets warmer.

[@notheusernameiwanted]

Our problem will be the current societies inability to adapt. We are more tied down than ever before, and humans seem to have an amazing desire to resist change. Whether it is man made or not, whether it's getting hotter or colder (which is historically associated with famines, disease, etc.), most of the planet will have a hard time adapting because of our apparent ignorance and stubbornness and lack of respect for the earth. Realistically, doesn't matter what happens now the sun will die.

[@DeafFret]

So are you saying that climate change isn't really happening?

[@affintlewoodlewix]

Interesting looking at this video from the perspective of 2016 which show how unequivocally wrong Monbiot was and how spot on Plimer was. Monbiot's tactic is always the same, he goes for the personal attack rather than presenting evidence.

[@jamespyke6764]

Yep Plimer's cooling has resulted in global warming!!! That make Plimer spot on? Plimer presents fake facts, distortions and lies, just like he's paid to do. He just got caught out. Plimer is a paid up sleaze bag with no manners. upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/Global_Temperature_Anomaly.svg

[@MultiMoomoo2]

And where has that graph come from that shows the temperatures? Anybody living in the uk, especially more north of the country, will be able to tell u how fecking cold its been over the past decade. We're lucky to get a weeks worth of good weather in the summer...still waiting for these hottest yrs on record to appear. Climate change is one of earth's natural cycles and can't be stopped...not caused by man and we should be looking at ways to adapt to the changes that will occur rather then being taxed heavily for carbon emissions which is in effect, killing the trees and plant life seen as they need Co2 to survive!

[@jamespyke6764]

mooster that one came from wiki which got it from NASA GISS. try www.woodfortrees.org/plot/ you can plot your own from the major research centres. If you want real information about the UK rather than your feelings try the met office. www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/2017-set-to-be-fifth-hottest-year-on-record-a3728616.html Climate Change is caused by changes in the Sun's output and feedbacks such as levels of GHGs such as CO2. This has naturally caused changes in the pasts. So to think CO2 levels can't change the climate now, simply because the source is Man made, rather than volcanic, rock weathering or from large coal seams catching alight and burning for thousands of years etc is simply stupid. You do also realize what "global" in global warming is don't you? Here global temperature change (including a warming UK) from 1880-2014. kzbin.info/www/bejne/nXiyq3uMirZ2rZI So how will limiting CO2 levels to ABOVE what they are NOW kill trees?? So you really believe that, as 200 years ago CO2 levels were 1/2 of what they are expected to be in the not to distant future and about 50% less than now, that there were no trees 200, 1000 years ago? Your FF talking points are ridiculously stupid. It's better to adapt?? Do you not understand evolution? How do organisms adapt? By those less adapted dying off and those better adapted passing their genes on. Humans breathe O2 not CO2 and you want to REDUCE the [O2]. So you grow plants and kill people? Real humanitarian ain't you. You do also realize plants get their nutrients from the soil, not atmosphere? SOME plants may grow, yet others not. Then you have increased fires, droughts and floods which kill plants (and animals). So while making Greenland "better" you increase deserts and make large parts of the world virtually inhabitable. globalwarming.berrens.nl/globalwarming.htm As most of the worlds population is on the coast, countless $trillions in real estate and property are at risk. Bloomberg did a study and found the cost to limit temp rise to 2 C would be about $12.1 trillion in INVESTMENT over the next 25 years. Compare this to the estimated loss to GDP (if nothing more is done) of $30 trillion and RISING. Then you have the medical costs and the 9 million people who die each year from FF pollution and the $trillion wars to protect FF interests. The real kicker is the FF industry received $5.3 trillion in tax payer funded government welfare handouts in 1 year alone. (in 2.5 years the TOTAL INVESTMENT needed in RE over 25 YEARS). Strange how you don't want to pay a tax to save the planet but love paying a far far greater tax to the FF industry to destroy it. So over the same 25 year period $132.5 trillion in TAXES YOU ALREADY PAY get handed straight to the FF industry. So, INVEST $12.1 trillion on RE, don't give handouts to the FF industry and SAVE $120 trillions in taxes. Reducing deaths, wars, disease and save another $30+ trillion in lost GDP. Create jobs, reduce the cost of electricity and let the investment pay dividends and with increasing the tax base, pay for itself anyway, stop drowning of cities, reduce fires, floods and droughts. So how exactly is it better to adapt???? Better for who??? Just the FF industry!!

[@MultiMoomoo2]

James Pyke FF Industries?? Fossil fuel industries? I don't pay any tax cos I know where a lot of it goes....to funding illegal wars in the name of regime change by the US and Uk governments. Global warming, which is now climate change, has been going on since time began...it was one of the contributing factors to the collapse of the bronze age and forgive me if im wrong but I don't think they had industrialisation back then. They have been saying for the past 20yrs about sea level rises...by their own models these coastal areas should already be under water but guess what...they're not! The only thing that has come from all this climate change rhetoric is more regulations and taxes for us, oh, and it has now been signed in2 international law that the UN has control over the deep seas which will no doubt be used for mining more resources which they will have control over. Alot of these big environmentalist groups are funded by big oil companies....obviously they have something to gain from it all. But please, do keep quoting me statistics that mean jack shit cos climate change cannot be stopped!!

[@jamespyke6764]

You don't pay taxes? Got your money in off shore accounts? Don't pay sales tax or fuel excise? So if you don't pay taxes you obviously won't have to pay a carbon tax anyway, so why cry over something that doesn't affect you anyway? Continual global temperature change eg global warming leads to CC. That is caused by changes in solar out put AND changes in [CO2]. That's been in the past and will be in the future such as build up of [CO2] in the atmosphere over thousands oy years (eg the Siberian Traps which led to the mass extinction call "the Great Dying"). As yet you and every other anti science denier have not been able to explain how CO2, just because it comes from Man somehow, by magic, suddenly stops being a Green House Gas and changes the Climate just like it HAS in the PAST. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian%E2%80%93Triassic_extinction_event Show me the climate models that predict coastal areas should be under water. Some places are, some places like Miami spend a fortune pumping the sea back out to stop this. More FF talking points. CC can't be stopped but the magnitude and damage can, that's the point. Environmental groups funded by big oil??? Proof please. And more winging about taxes you claim you don't pay. Please!!!! UN controls the deep sea???? How? So the largest cheapest oil deposits are under ice at the poles, so who would benefit from them melting?? Oh the environmental groups who.......do what exactly? How do they make their $trillions again saving the planet? Why do you want people to create pollution, fight wars and kill people just to pay more taxes in FF handouts rather than paying LESS? Show me the most wealthy environmental companies and show me the most wealthy FF companies.....hmmmm. Again your FF talking points are ridiculous, no wonder you don't like me quoting reality. It doesn't fit with your FF talking points. Why do you put the FF industry above the planet?

[@notheusernameiwanted]

No, I'm not saying that at all. In fact, anyone who says that has no idea what they are talking about, because climate change is always happening, and always has been. Maybe you should read the history section of plimers book. It gets a little boggy to read, but that's because it is a complex topic. Even his evidence shows of warming in the 1800's, etc. but what he is saying is it's not unusual, and we have had hotter, and hotter seems to coincide with prosperity.

[@TheLeadster]

Prof. Plimer clearly won this debate, despite being outnumbered 2 to 1. Tony Jones is a global-warming advocate and not a journalist. The "natural climate change deniers" should explain how the Domesday Book could record 46 vineyards in England over a thousand years ago. The ISA (International Standard Atmosphere) is 15 degrees C at sea level. What is the "correct" temperature? 14 degrees? 16 degrees? What temperature should we aim for this century?

[@denisdaly1708]

nope. he lost it on facts, and lying, and avoiding answering.

[@DeafFret]

@RL36D Well now you yourself are doing exactly the same thing as Plimer, i.e, making big statements without bothering to supply any supporting evidence at all. That's religion in a nutshell IMO.

[@HarpoSpoke]

Well at least AGW supporters get a dose of the "evading questions" tactic for a change. Plimer was pretty political here...that's not going to convince anyone.

[@notheusernameiwanted]

How does zoology compare with geology in climate science?!?! Climate over time is recorded in rocks, sediments, ice, etc. The effects on animals is a result of climate change, but it knows nothing about why the climate changes. If you want facts read his book and just ignore the references or statements you think are based on these references, it won't change the book much.

[@Lupi33z]

Monbiot is well schooled in the 25 rules of disinformation, he uses half of them throughout this debate.

[@torontokid2006]

@PhysicalsimForever - actually it still is considered global warming however the term climate change is used because at present and in the near future climates around the world will react differently. This is largely due to THC (I believe it's called) where the ocean circulation system will be shut down once the arctic warms. When the ocean circulation stops warm currents will cease to be carried into certain parts of europe causing an iceage in those parts and so on...

[@DeafFret]

@PhysicalsimForever wtf? According to GISS 2009 was the second hottest on record, and the other two were in the top 10. According the NOAA the last 3 years were all in the top 10 hottest too. Where are you getting your information from?

[@joecushley]

@topologyrob Classic evasion. Lying repeatedly, as Plimer does, is bad manners in my book.

[@wayall1]

@joecushley Well, here's another Trenberth email from Oct. 14, 2010: "we are no where close to knowing where energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter. We are not close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!". Is this "out of context" too?

[@williamaitken4544]

'Professor' Plimer keeps referring to his book and waving it around for emphasis. In fact it has ended up in the bargain bin of Amazon.co.uk., retailing at £0.00 (kindle edition) or £0.99 (hard copy). This is presumably because it is now so discredited that it is considered next to worthless.

[@DeafFret]

@websnozzle I don't know what Al Gore is obsessed about, and don't care. I'm just interested in the scientific evidence, I'll let you be the expert in what Al Gore thinks. What obfuscation are you accusing me of?

[@DeafFret]

@websnozzle I'm quite serious. I am only interested in the scientific evidence. If you don't believe me, try discussing he actual evidence for a change. Are you going to finally tell me what act of "obfuscation" I've supposedly committed? Or would you prefer I stay in the dark about what it is I'm accused of?

[@DeafFret]

@mentelle48 You are applying a false dichotomy. Nobody is saying that the climate hasn't changed in the past. The only question is what is causing it to change now. We know it doesn't correlate with volcanoes, solar output, sunspot activity, cosmic rays, PDOs, or tectonic plate movements. But it does correlate beautifully with a build up of man made CO2 in the atmosphere.

[@fiandrhi]

*THE data are stochastic.

[@thedannyjenkinsman]

This interview is not aging well for Monbiot, or a lot of the comments below..

[@DeafFret]

@meercatdotcom My theory is that he's an incoherent, babbling idiot.

[@DeafFret]

@mentelle48 what solar experts say it is caused by those things? Look up the Solar Center at Stanford University, the Max Planck Institute for Solar Research, and the PMOD in Switzerland, because they all say there is no correlation between solar activity and modern global warming. As for geologists, there's only a handful of contrarians like the pathetic arseclown above, who misquotes the USGS, and when taken to task mutters something about ocean sediments.

[@joecushley]

@scrollandkey And so money doesn't drive the petro-chemical industry?! Please get some balance into your worldview. The petrochemical industry, you know the guys who essentially let millions of barrels of crude oil pour into the Gulf of Mexico because they cut costs and safety measures so they could MAKE MORE MONEY.

[@walshy1952]

Plimer, typical car saleseman, Politician... The more he lies, the uglier his false grin becomes...

[@DeafFret]

@wayall1 Again, the climate has been warming for longer than 1995. It has warmed since then too. But nobody has ever claimed that CO2 is the only climate forcing, and that the relationship between CO2 and temperature is always going to be perfectly linear. You are attacking a strawman.

[@wayall1]

@joecushley Lovelock also states " The great climate science centres around the world are more than well aware how weak their science is. If you talk to them privately they're scared stiff of the fact that they don't really know what the clouds and the aerosols are doing. They could be absolutely running the show. We haven't got the physics worked out yet." Again, your own scientists are well aware of the problems with AGW hypothesis, but you continue to "deny" it.

[@denisdaly1708]

well your comment was just one big lie. The last 30,000 peer reviewed journal articles that went into IPCCAR6 all showed man made climate change.

[@Lupi33z]

Monbiot is a dog "ANSWER the QUESTION"

[@Minttzz]

There are vineyards in England now. I live a couple of miles from Breaky Bottom. French winemakers are buying up land in England to grow wine. Monbiot addressed the issue of the medieval warming period at 0:55. "A new fabrication". The MWP was not global. The global temperature for that time was lower than today.

[@Min-xm8tp]

GREENLAND!

[@djinghiskhan9199]

If his book is anything like his debate skills - then it may well make great toilet paper.

[@notheusernameiwanted]

Again 2 things out of a huge book. Try reading it with an open mind, like I have done with the IPCC reports.

[@plevyman]

"All he had to say was what I said". He didn't say it, because it isn't true and he knows it. This interview makes it absolutely clear that it's Plimer who's lying.

[@RaffAlexM]

@gourdonboy plimer is so win =D shadddddddddddddddduuuuuuppppppppppppp