Ah. The old deflection strategy eh ?
All Pilmer is doing is proving how little he knows about the subject and the scientific methods required.
Thousands and thousands of professional well trained subject matter experts around the world using correct scientific methods vs a rock doctor who isn't .
.
These articles highlight show unscientific Pilmer actually is.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2009/dec/14/climate-change-sceptic-ian-plimer
" In reviewing the article last November, University of New South Wales professor Katrin Meissner wrote: “This article is an impressive collation of the well known, scientifically wrong, and overused denier arguments. It is ideologically motivated and, frankly, utter nonsense.”
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/jul/24/news-corp-columnists-climate-denialism-called-out-by-press-council" But the claim is misleading. Proof does not exist in science and scientists do not set out to prove anything. Instead they offer theories backed up by – often overwhelming amounts of – evidence.
Experts told AAP FactCheck that Prof Plimer’s claim is not only meaningless but misleading. They said no scientist would ever be able to answer his question and said he is playing on the difference between a scientist’s meaning of the word proof and that of the general public. "
https://www.aap.com.au/factcheck/geologist-misleads-with-climate-change-proof-claim/
https://skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Ian_Plimer.htm
Then there's the 97% claim explained here.
https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2019/07/30/co2-drives-global-warming/
