Ian Plimer Watch: Update - Debate set with George Monbiot

Thu, 2009-08-06 14:48Richard Littlemore
Richard Littlemore's picture

Ian Plimer Watch: Update - Debate set with George Monbiot

Update: In the face of a challenge from UK Guardian columnist George Monbiot, Ian Plimer has agreed to answering a series of specific questions about his (highly questionable) new book - as a rn-up to a face-to-face debate with Monbiot. BProf. Plimer. I can't wait to read your answers. (And thanks Brian D for the tip.)



But Monbiot later reconsidered and said, sure, let's debate twice - once face to face and once on line, in a forum that allows for questions to be recorded and answers to be vetted by impartial third parties. That's when Plimer checked out.Monbiot's account of his correspondence with the unaccountable Plimer is here. As he says, Plimer has made no effort to correct, apologize or account for the numerous errors and lavish overstatements in his book. Why should he when journalistic ingenues like Jonathon Manthorpe are swallowing Plimer's palaver as if it was actual science. Admitting that his text is flawed from front to back would surely undermine his (currently mindless) support.





classic games

Rent a car

But of course you all realize that Monbiot is just a fancy variety of denier himself. It's all talk as he admits himself.

from a quick check at wikipedia we get this:

"Monbiot wrote: ‘flying across the Atlantic is as unacceptable, in terms of its impact on human well-being, as child abuse’.[22] Later he conceded that he did himself fly 'hypocritically or paradoxically, depending on your point of view'.[23] Accused of hypocrisy by Julie Burchill, Monbiot defended himself in a column, 'Hypocrites unite!'

(end quote)



Rick James wrote: "But of course you all realize that Monbiot is just a fancy variety of denier himself. It's all talk as he admits himself."




This question of hypocrisy is a troubling one. I believe there's merit in "walking the talk." But, as Monbiot points out, it often seems that fossil fuel use by people they call "warmists" is the only form of hypocrisy that matters to Denialists.

It also occurs to me that ending this particular form of hypocrisy would curtail the ability to push for general reductions in CO2 emissions. Al Gore, for example, would have to stop flying all over the world. Are videoconferences as effective as face-to-face meetings? I doubt many "movers and shakers" would agree. (For the record, Gore has made his house far "greener" than it was a year or so ago.)


It makes for a strange world when the climate breakdown folks (the term "climate breakdown" is from Monbiot) have no choice but to burn excessive jet fuel and the doubters like me maintain a minimalist carbon footprint.


Monbiot has just noted Plimer's reply.
FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt for those unfamiliar with the expression. An old sales tactic when the client seems to prefer the other chap's bid.)

Monbiot had painted Plimer into a corner and Plimer knew it.

Whether Plimer answered Monbiot's questions truthfully, or dishonestly, the anti-science in 'Heaven and Earth' and Plimer's reputation would collapse like a house of cards.

Plimer's only escape was to attempt to distract attention by asking questions unanswerable by a journalist as a diversionary tactic. If his deceitful book is any guide, I suspect that Plimer couldn't answer them honestly either.






read more