Note: I'm hoping to get this into ABC Drum so I've written it with a more mainstream bent. So please critique it with that in mind, it's meant to be for a general audience (and more casual, colourful then our usual blog posts) rather than the more informed SkS readership:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Plimer-vs-Plimer-one-man-contradiction.html

Plimer is Harvey Dent? Ha, ha, boom, boom!

A good easy read.

The second last paragraph is a bit superfluous or need to be restated. The analogy with Harvey Dent is very appropiate but cherry picking is true only in a few cases, others are just plain contrdictions. Also, many of his claims are not even partially true, not even wrong. Or maybe I'm being "too scientific" here.

JC. I have to admire your restraint. You didn't even touch his references to Manuel Oliver's Iron Sun theory. I even saw some comments from Oliver on a blog suggesting that there might even be a Neutron Star at the heart of the Sun. How does that tickle an old Solar Physicists fancy?

More seriously, what is the purpose of this post? Plimer seems to have dropped off the radar a bit after publishing Heaven & Earth. What is the point you are trying to make on The Drum. Shoot down Plimer (Fish, Barrel, Pull) or use him as a prop to make a wider point? The Drum has its usual cast of Climate Change Denizens - Pro & Anti and they will flock around. but what wider point are you trying to make?

Plimer is still around, having an influence. George Pell just posted a piece in The Australian, citing Plimer and is heavily influenced by him. I suspect many Aussie liberal politicians are still influenced by him. And he has a new book coming out targeted at children.

My goal is primarily to discredit him, have him considered an unreliable source of information. And provide a resource (Plimer vs Plimer) for people to refer to whenever he rears his ugly head.

A book for children!? Fairy stories I hope.

If it is about discrediting him - a worthwhile goal in itself - have you looked through Ian Enting's list of his BS.

Discrediting him is a good idea: It's like cleaning up pollution at the source.

Very good and I agree with Glenn that Ian Enting's detailed rebuttal is worth a look, or even inclusion as a link.

Nice job John.  How about adding an image of one of the Plimer vs. Plimer quote battles at the end of the post?

In fact, it was partly Ian's document that inspired this. At the end of Ian's document, he has a small section 'inconsistencies' which consists of pairs of numbers. You have to flick back and forth all over the document in order to compare the contradictory quotes. It's a great resource but not very user friendly - you really need a strong visual handing people the inconsistencies on a silver platter if you want to get traction with the public. Thus P vs P was born.

Plimer vs Plimer reminds me of Spy vs Spy in MAD magazine.

Embargoed until 17 August 2011?  I suggest you change the date stamp on the post: some search engines rank articles by recency, so that would end up very low down the list.

Minor typo spotted in Plimer vs Plimer:

The early Sun had a luminosity of some 30 per cent less than now and, over time, luminosity has increased in a steady state. The low lumunosity of the early Sun ...

Luv the graphic. Why not include it directly in the main post. Big, but it would look SO GOOD.

Also, send this to every member of the Australian Coallition parties, Particularly Tony Abbott. He has said that he has read 'some' of Plimer's book. Maybe send a copy to Greg Combet's office pointing out the link.

Just emailed this off, made some minor tweaks, here's the version I sent:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Plimer-vs-Plimer-one-man-contradiction.html

Will wait to see what happens with the Drum before doing anything else with this. If they publish it, I'll do a blog post on SkS featuring an excerpt and a screenshot of the page as a nice graphic.

Was thinking about doing a printable PDF of the graphic also - could attach that to the Drum article if I did send to Coalition members. Something to think about. Have any SkSers got their contact details handy?

John,

What contact details are you talking about? If you mean Australian federal parliamentarians, I have an Access database. I need to update it for the senators that took their seats in July, but it is pretty good for doing mail merges.

John,

The Plimer-vs-Plimer graphic is terrific. Plimer has long had this coming. I think we have to get this under the noses of Australian politicians. A printed version would be best, but it would need to be spread over two A4pages. I am willing to pay for the postage.

Can I offer a humerous explanation as to why Plimer so frequently contradicts himself? That’s what you would happen if you copied and pasted a book together from the blogosphere!

As logicman states, the date of the post needs to be updated. Currently it looks weird:

Posted on 17 August 2011 by John Cook

On 30 October, Ian Plimer wrote to The Weekend Australian,.....

You might get questions about "crystal balls" or other mediums to make you able to forsee the future.

'Tis true. Now if it were written by Nealstradamus.............

Rob,

I hardly ever get specific about dates: They're usually adjustable.

The one time I did predict a date: It was the night of Bush I's assault on Iraq (Gulf War I): My military friend was saying the US military would wait another few months, and let the sand grind away at the gears of Saddam's tanks. My prediction: "The next dark night."

It was the next new moon.

Their schedule is full this week so try again next week.

Hell, I've sat on this feature for months, what's another week?

Hmm, or I could try ABC Environment? But they don't get the traffic of the Drum. Think I'll wait.

And they said they'd run it sometime by the end of this week which is good news. Unfortunately they don't email you to notify when your article gets published so will have to keep checking the ABC Drum website regularly for the next few days.

"Is Plimer the climate version of Harvey Dent (aka Two Face from Batman), flipping a coin to decide which side of the science to present?" should possibly be 'which side of the argument to present' otherwise a good read :-)

Great stuff, John. Plimer is long overdue for this sort of treatment. At first I was disappointed that I couldn't see the graphic, but then I found the link. I hope visitors to Drum don't miss it. If you post the piece elsewhere, a graphic link might entice the reader.

have updated the blog post, just included an excerpt and a Plimer vs Plimer graphic:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Plimer-vs-Plimer-one-man-contradiction.html

That's what I'm talkin' about.  I like the Plimer font by the way.  Looks like an old western Wanted poster.

Shouldn't this be changed to a more current date?

Will update it to the current date when I go live. Wow, I really did start that post a long time ago - I've been sitting on this for WAY too long!

Dana, yeah, I love that font too. Design wise, I'm going through a grunge phase at the moment, get all excited whenever I see a grungy font or texture.