Has Ian Plimer published peer-reviewed research supporting his climate views?

1. Plimer’s platform: books, speeches and edited collections

Ian Plimer’s recent visible outputs are books and public lectures rather than a catalogue of peer‑reviewed climate‑science papers. Sources show he launched Climate Change: The Facts 2025 — a multi‑contributor volume edited by others in which he is a prominent participant — and regularly speaks at events organised by think tanks like the Institute of Public Affairs ^{[4] [7] [8] [5]}. DeSmog and promotional pieces emphasise these book projects and public appearances as the main vehicles for his challenges to the consensus ^{[6] [5]}.

2. What mainstream fact‑checkers and scientists say about his claims

Independent fact‑checks and climate researchers say Plimer’s public claims on CO2 and causation are misleading. AFP and AAP fact‑checks characterise statements made by Plimer at conferences and in writings as false or designed to mislead; climate scientists quoted in those pieces point to the IPCC and peer‑reviewed literature as robust evidence for human‑caused warming ^{[2] [3]}. SkepticalScience and other watchdog summaries document recurring scientific rebuttals to the arguments he promulgates ^[9].

3. Peer‑reviewed research: what the provided reporting does — and does not — show

Available reporting in this set does not list peer‑reviewed climate‑science studies authored by Plimer that support his sceptical conclusions. The sources repeatedly reference his books, public talks and a long history of critique, but they do not cite a body of recent peer‑reviewed climate‑science articles by Plimer that underpin his public claims ^{[5] [6] [1]}. DeSmog and government responses note that formal rebuttals to his questions were written by other scientists using peer‑reviewed literature, implying Plimer’s positions are mainly advanced in non‑journal venues ^[6].

4. How critics characterise his scientific standing

Reporting and profiles make clear climate scientists criticise Plimer’s interpretation of data and say he misrepresents research. The Guardian and Wikipedia summaries record that climatologists have described his reasoning as flawed and misleading, and that government and academic bodies have responded to his public claims with detailed, peer‑reviewed evidence countering them ^{[10] [1] [6]}. Those critiques form the principal documented scientific opposition in the provided sources.

5. Institutional and ideological context

Plimer’s recent activities are closely tied to ideologically aligned organisations: his 2025 launch events appear on Institute of Public Affairs platforms and the book contributors include other known sceptic voices ^{[4] [5]}. DeSmog and other summaries flag his association with campaigns and groups that amplify contrarian views, which matters because institutional context shapes where and how arguments are published and promoted ^[6].

6. What is documented and what remains unaddressed

The provided sources clearly document Plimer’s books, public speeches and repeated criticism from mainstream scientists and fact‑checkers ^{[7] [4] [3] [2]}. They do not, however, provide a direct list of peer‑reviewed climate‑science studies authored by Plimer that substantiate his sceptical conclusions; therefore I cannot assert whether such peer‑reviewed papers exist beyond what these sources report — "available sources do not mention" a supporting peer‑review corpus authored by Plimer ^{[6] [5]}.

7. Reader takeaway

If your question is whether Plimer publishes his climate scepticism primarily in peer‑reviewed climate journals, the documents supplied show his influence mainly through books and public fora and show systematic scientific rebuttal to his claims ^{[4] [6] [2]}. For an authoritative catalog of his peer‑reviewed publications, consult academic databases or his university profile; that search is not covered in the provided reporting and so is not included here ^{[1] [6]}.