Possibly during the road show, they somewhat aligned their views.
But if you go to the original sources, you will find that M's main claim is that CO2 has less impact than thought by mainstream. He does however accept much of AGW science from what I can tell, including the concept of climate forcing that I think you are still not convinced about.
Plimer claims are all over the place, inclusive of climate having a very high sensitivity to non-CO2 factors, and, especially pre-book, denying GW happening at all. I struggle to explain to you what his position is, perhaps you would care to read his book and explain it back to me as I gave up after reading a few chapters.
The views are clearly contradictary. We could debate each of their ridiculous claims forever, but I don't think it is useful to compare two sets of nonsense.
