Hurry home early, hurry on home, “Boom boom” Monbiot’s fighting …

BPSDB Let battle commence! Climate change denialist ready for the fight

From Youngstown, Ohio, Ray “Boom Boom” Mancini
A lightweight contender, like father like son
He fought for the title with Frias in Vegas
And he put him away in round number one

So hurry home early hurry on home
Boom Boom Mancini’s fighting Bobby Chacon

Warren Zevon – Boom Boom Mancini

Actually it’s Ian Plimer and “Boom boom Monbiot” who are going to debate climate change, but I presume that for those who read this blog that’s actually more interesting. In fact, this one promises to be significantly more interesting than the standard public debate. In the left corner we have …

Plimer is a Australian geologist and climate change Denier who authored “Heaven and Earth”, in which

Plimer likens the concept of human-induced climate change to creationism and asserts that it is a “fundamentalist religion adopted by urban atheists looking to fill a yawning spiritual gap plaguing the West“.

Heaven and Earth (book) – Wikipedia

In other words, it is a ridiculous collection of distortions, fables, and outright fabrications with respect to climate science.  As is usually the case with such abominations, it has proved very popular with the Denialosphere, even being featured as a cover story for the Spectator in the UK.

In response to the Spectator article Monbiot discussed some of the more egregious crimes against reason in his Guardian piece “Spectator recycles climate rubbish published by sceptic” (a single article being insufficient to discuss all of them). Apparently this provoked Plimer’s ire and he challenged Monbiot to a public debate.

Public debates tend to be the preferred arena for those without any rational basis to their position. The debate format rewards performance over content because the lay audience cannot distinguish valid science from bald faced lies. Generally speaking it is where sound bites and slogans triumph over facts and the articulation of complex ideas. (here, here, and here).

Plimer just recently debated Professor Barry Brook, Director of Climate Science at The Environment Institute, University of Adelaide (Twitter Plimer on ice) and apparently it went reasonably well, albeit “The end result? An entertaining enough night out, but I doubt anyone changed their minds (a show of hands near the end backs up this hunch).” Unfortunately there is neither a recording nor a transcript of the debate.

For these and other reasons Monbiot was initially inclined to say no to the challenge, but then an alternative occurred to him, that:

I would take part in a face-to-face debate with him as long as he agreed to write precise and specific responses to his critics’ points — in the form of numbered questions that I would send him — for publication on the Guardian’s website. I also proposed that there should be an opportunity at the debate for us to cross-examine each other.

Why can’t the champion of climate change denial face the music?

This time Plimer initially declined, but also seems to have reconsidered.  So apparently the debate is on and Monbiot has posted his questions in “Let battle commence! Climate change denialist ready for the fight.”

For me there are three very interesting aspects of this debate:

1. Monbiot is clearly trying for an optimizing strategy and it will be very interesting to see how that plays out;
2. There is the opportunity for Barry Brook to compare and contrast his own experience with what happens with Monbiot; almost an experiment with a control group 🙂 ;
3. At the end of the day I am not sure it is going to make that much difference, for reasons that I will discuss last;

1) The “problem” with debates is that they generally tend to be a win-win proposition for the Deniers. If the challenge is accepted they simply run amok with tactics like the Gish gallop, and can usually  appear to have won the debate no matter how incoherent their arguments actually were (eg here).

If the challenge is declined then they spin it as a win because the pro-science side is “afraid” to engage them on the “fair, neutral” ground of a public debate. Debates are anything but fair and neutral, but the general public believes them to be, and for the Deniers that is all that is needed.

What Monbiot is clearly trying to do is accept the challenge to a debate while simultaneously undercutting the standard Denier tactics. The written answers and the opportunity to cross examine  will provide the opportunity to hold one another accountable for what they say.

I suspect Plimer may be somewhat naive at this game, or very masterful (see 3) below).  I cannot see Singer, Monckton, or Lindzen ever agreeing to this format, but then that may change depending on how this works out.

2) No explanation required, other than hoping that Barry is able to access some sort of recording of the debate and is inclined to write up an analysis of how it compared to his own experience.

3) I applaud Monbiot for pulling this off (assuming Plimer follows through) and think it is very important that he has done so, but remain skeptical that it will make much difference in the apparent outcome, at least in the short term.

For one thing this may be a one time gambit. If it proves to be highly successful there is zero chance that Plimer or any other Denier will agree to the same format again.  That refusal would simply be spun as their “being willing to participate in an honest, open public debate, whereas the ‘alarmists’ are trying to confuse people with … blah blah”

Of course the whole point of a debate is to attempt to sway public opinion. In that regard we may think of the audience as consisting of a mix of pro-science, Deniers,  and neutral with respect to the question of anthropogenic climate change.

As mentioned, the Deniers tend to be impervious to objective reality. Plimer could break down in tears, declare it all a fraud, retract everything he ever said, and Climate Despot would still report it as a Denier “win.” The claim would be accompanied by an account that was no more fictional than their usual reporting, and the rest of the Denialosphere would dutifully pick it up and propagate it just as they always do.

Not that anyone actually imagines that the Deniers would be influenced by anything like this regardless, but rather that the claim to victory would enter the Denier Canon of myths and fables. Since it would be no more fraudulent than the rest of them, it would be as just as credible to it’s target audience.

The pro-science side would also be unlikely to be much influenced, but for a very different reason. I suspect that most of them are educated enough to know that it really doesn’t matter what Monbiot says. What matters are the scientific facts; first, last and always. Monbiot could speak with the authority and wisdom of Solomon, or gibber like Monckton; it doesn’t change the truth either way.

Which leaves us with the neutrals.

In the first place I expect this group to be in the minority. Those who do not care enough to have looked into the matter sufficiently to form an opinion one way or another generally will not care enough to attend the debate (or subsequently watch/listen/read, depending on whether there is a record and of what kind).

Second, the public is generally unable to distinguish good from bad science. If they were we wouldn’t be in this mess in the first place. Claims are taken at face value because people are simply not aware of just how fraudulent the Denier Canon is.

That means Plimer can throw out citations like McLean, de Frietas and Carter or Chilingar, and as far as the public is aware these are valid science.  Worse, the fact that they are recent papers means i) they will be seen as all the more credible to the public because they equate “new” with “better”, and ii) the public does not realize that a challenge to cite a published peer-reviewed study that refutes them is completely unreasonable given the turn around time in the scientific literature.

Third, just because Plimer is on record does not mean he can’t just ignore it and gibber anyway. He has done so in the past (Plimer does the Gish gallop) and may well again. Monbiot and some others may notice, but the majority of the audience still won’t realize that it’s nonsense.

In fact the series Yes Minister did a handy little guide of how to ignore a direct question and obfuscate effectively, which a blog has kindly transcribed: EIGHT WAYS TO DEAL WITH DIFFICULT QUESTIONS. While the specific context is government, most of these will work in almost any situation, and we know that they do work.

However, even if all of the above plays out well, there is the remaining concern which was well articulated by Stephanie Zvan at Quiche Moraine

Scientists can talk forever. They can do it eloquently. They can express their passion and the wonder they find in discovery. They can be funny and clever and humble. But a listener who isn’t prepared to engage with the material will, at best, walk away with a slightly better view of scientists and about two and a half facts with which they can impress those of their friends who are impressed by that sort of thing.

This won’t prepare them to deal with the next scientist they come across, who might be a chemist working in an oil refinery who doesn’t “believe in” anthropogenic global warming, or maybe an astronomer entranced by the majesty of “the heavens” who tells them that evolution can’t result in new species. It won’t give them the tools to determine whether that scientist is someone to be trusted on that subject. It will just make them feel better about taking someone else’s word for things that make their life more comfortable. That doesn’t help us. It doesn’t help them.

So what can we do? Ah, that is the question, isn’t it?

A Skeptic’s View

Aye, there’s the rub.

Well, no one said this would be easy, but that’s a topic to discuss another day. In the meantime I will reaffirm that what Monbiot is trying to do is important, I applaud him for it, and I look forward to seeing how it turns out.

They made hypocrite judgments after the fact
But the name of the game is be hit and hit back
Hurry home early – hurry on home
Boom Boom Mancini’s fighting Bobby Chacon
Hurry home early – hurry on home
Boom Boom Mancini’s fighting Bobby Chacon

“Extreme” rainfall events now more frequent and even more extreme than they were in the 1950s. In the Great Plains, for example, the amount of rain that falls during the heaviest one percent of rainy days has grown by 15 percent over the last 50 years..  Earth Gauge

We give our consent every moment that we do not resist.

Denier “Challenge” aka Deathwatch Update: Day 287 … still no evidence.

IMAGE CREDITS:

Jocelyn Foye – Boxing and Ballet – Project Room G3 – Boxing Match 5

byAngels Gate

Jocelyn Foye – Boxing and Ballet – Project Room G3 – Boxing Match 6 byAngels Gate

Jocelyn Foye – Boxing and Ballet – Project Room G3 – Boxing Match 2 byAngels Gate

Jocelyn Foye – Boxing and Ballet – Project Room G3 – Boxing Match 3 byAngels Gate

(*) 25 – July – 2009 — Boxing Match byreway2007

Comment Policy

Comments that are not relevant to the post that they appear under or the evolving discussion will simply be deleted, as will links to Denier spam known to be scientific gibberish

• The “Mostly” Open Thread is for general climate discussion that is not relevant to a particular post. Spam and abuse rules still apply;
• The “Challenging the Core Science” Comment Thread is for comments that purport to challenge the core science of anthropogenic climate change.

Advertisement