BPSDB
Update: Here
There has been a development of sorts in the “debate” between George Monbiot and Ian Plimer (climate change / global warming Denier de jour), which is to say Plimer has sent Monbiot a series of questions for Monbiot to answer.
In response to Monbiot’s Queen pawn opening Plimer has answered “I like turtles.” Or more accurately, his actual response is not even remotely that coherent, rational, or relevant.
Of Plimer’s questions Monbiot said:
“Fascinating as these questions doubtless are, … My answer to questions 1-13 is: “you’re asking the wrong person”.”
I disagree. In and of themselves the questions are not fascinating; they are pure juvenile bafflegab. I won’t dignify the full set with repetition, but just so you can get a sense of how absurd Plimer is being, here is the text of the first question:
1. From the distribution of the vines, olives, citrus and grain crops in Europe, UK and Greenland, calculate the temperature in the Roman and Medieval Warmings and the required atmospheric CO2 content at sea level to drive such warmings. What are the errors in your calculation? Reconcile your calculations with at least five atmospheric CO2 proxies. Show all calculations and justify all assumptions. (see update)
They are all like that, pure irrelevant nonsense. Monbiot quite reasonably asked specific questions relevant to claims Plimer made in his book. Plimer responds by pulling out of thin air a bunch meaningless demands for impossible and irrelevant answers.
As commenter pessce noted:
At least one question (#13) is just stupid – I think he’s just trying to sound impressive.
There are numbers of little peaks between 1 and 10 microns for water vapor – which peaks near 2.5 and 7 microns does he want? Liquid water has peaks at 3 and 6 microns, so “use the 25µm, 7µm and 2.5µm wavelengths to calculate the effect that gaseous, liquid and solid H2O have on atmospheric temperature” just doesn’t make sense. Ice has a broad band around 2 microns.
There’s a CO2 absorption band at 4 microns which doesn’t exist for water vapor, so if you try to examine “How does the effect of H2O compare with the effect of CO2 derived from the same sources?” you’ll get something completely meaningless.
In any event the answer is pretty simple – all this water vapor will get precipitated out pretty quickly so it won’t have much of an effect. Pessce
“Trying to sound impressive” is exactly right. Plimer obviously wants to create the impression of erudition with the sophomoric tactic of throwing out a lot of nonsense cribbed from a text book he never read and doesn’t understand. It is the pre-pubescent swagger of an inferior intelligence attempting academic bullying with juvenile sophistry. It’s pathetic and insulting.
It’s not an attack at all, but rather an admission of defeat. Clearly 
Plimer can think of nothing intelligent to ask Monbiot, so he opts for Red Herring fallacies. He is clearly not mature enough to engage honestly and in good faith, nor to submit gracefully.
The questions are fascinating only in the sense of the insight they give us about an immature personality suffering from delusions of adequacy. I cannot think of a more dramatic display of the Dunning-Kruger effect (and here) playing itself out.
If Plimer had any clue at all, the last thing he would want would be this evidence of both his ignorance and immaturity to be made public. Instead he uses it in a context that ensures the widest possible audience for his self-inflicted humiliation. It’s just breath taking for its profound lack of self-awareness.
Of Monbiot’s “you’re asking the wrong person”; actually Monbiot is exactly the right person for Plimer to send his inadvertent confession of intellectual bankruptcy and emotional immaturity. Now at least Monbiot has a clearer sense of the Plimer’s character and the kind of stupidity he can expect in this encounter.
That being said, I did suggest that there was a good chance that Plimer would try to not allow himself to be held accountable for his book and simply spout nonsense instead. Naturally this will play well in the Denialosphere since his response has many words with more than one syllable and the Deniers will take that as proof that he knows what he is talking about.
Unfortunately it may also be somewhat effective with the general public in that the lay audience has no way of knowing that these questions are idiotic nonsense. They sound “scientific” and seem to use the right terminology, so many people will take them at face value. On that basis they will conclude that Monbiot’s failure to answer questions fully is evidence of Plimer’s superior authority on climate issues. However one hopeful sign is that many of the commenters at Monbiot’s blog clearly recognize Plimer’s nonsense for what it is.
Three no trump?
Which begs the question of how Monbiot should respond. Plimer chooses to play the fool and Monbiot is more or less obliged to answer or forfeit. One or more possible responses are to
- Deconstruct the questions exposing the juvenile sophistry for what it is, and/or
- Since there is no requirement that Monbiot’s answers be correct, it is possible to answer them in the spirit in which they were asked, ie juvenile contempt, by
- ask for clarifications, ie the answers depend on specific context and conditionalites, so it is fair to respond with quite complicated and convoluted requests for clarification of a broad variety of variables that would be equally impossible (and pointless) to answer, and/or
- Give answers equally convoluted and nonsensical; use impossible formulae that go on for dozens of pages, divide by zero and multiply by the root of -1, give calculations and explanations that hinge on events that occurred in the first 10-43 seconds of the universe, and then just tack on any old answer at the end (sensu McLean, de Frietas and Carter) … and put the burden on Plimer to prove the answers are wrong.
Plimer had an opportunity to engage in good faith and defend his 
claims, and instead he opts to piss it away by parading his immaturity and lack of intellectual substance. In one bold stroke his reputation as intellectually dishonest and incompetent has dropped to that of being beneath contempt.
Others have been following this (eg Monbiot vs Plimer « Open Mind, Richard Littlemore | Ian Plimer Watch: Update – Debate set with George Monbiot) and I look forward to seeing what they make of this, and what they and others suggest may be an appropriate response.
Andrew Dodds analysed the questions and really they’re just the same old Denier memes. This means Monbiot can “cut to the chase” and ignore the ridiculous demands for impossible detail by just giving Plimer the standard refutations of these stupidities. Done and done.
The comment thread at Tamino’s is already worth reading and will undoubtedly get even better … it usually does.
Chris Colose has done a deconstruction of some of Plimer’s questions in Ian Plimer’s questions to George Monbiot « Climate Change which walks you through what vacuous nonsense it is (and the rest are no different). As Chris concludes:
“It’s unfortunate that skeptics wanted to “debate” for so long and now have this clown representing them, who is just throwing up sciency-sounding but intellectually vacuous smokescreens.”
My bad 😦 , Deltoid has been following this (Plimer chickens out : Deltoid) and is keeping up with it Plimer fails to answer Monbiot’s questions : Deltoid. Here too the comments are often worth your while.
memes
“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 288 … still no evidence.
IMAGE CREDITS:
Head for Chess 62:365 byandreasnilsson1976
conch and chess board byJoel Bedford
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.
Greenfyre's 
I think you, along with a lot of people, are ignoring one basic fact.
Plimer isn’t stupid. You are treating this response as though he is, but he isn’t.
He is inteligent, whatever anyone thinks of his views. He is also experienced in taking on people who disagree with him.
There has to be a strategy.
—-
Yes, but maybe not a particularly clever one.
A lot of the poster to the original article put up comments like “Plimer is clever than Monbiot, he’ll eat him for breakfast” or “he’s a professor, you’re not”.
I imagine Plimer is just playing to this crowd, who know no science themselves and who can now go away and boast about their boy’s big brain.
Harry Flahsman,
I think you, along with a lot of people, are ignoring one basic fact.
Even people with intelligence can still be capable of mind-boggling stupidity.
Plimer has proved that, beyond any doubt.
Mike
Plimer is ripping the piss out of Monbiot. He is intelligent enough to have a sense of humour. Monbiot is utterly lost in the face of humour. [1]
Q1 )
Only in the bum pal world of ‘you peer review my back, I’ll peer review yours’ would anyone believe that the historical records from the medieval and Roman periods weren’t extremely significant events. Even in the unlikely scenario that Mann was correct, temperatures in the northern hemisphere rose for a reason. [2]
P.S. I know what peer review is. I have attended science presentations at university (one very significant one) and have a brother who has published several papers in The Lancet. [3]
—-
tamino
Plimer wrote a politically biased popular book. He made some mistakes. [1] Only in the rabid pages of RealClimate blogs would he be vilified for them to this degree.
Monbiot is a Co2 fanboy. He had a high degree of credibility as an environmental activist. By working for a major global brand corporate newspaper and behaving like the Homer Simpson of journalism, (yah boo deniers !) his credibility is now considerably less. [2]
—-
I dunno.
Point awarded to Monbiot. He is a popular essayist… and has succeeded in generating some very interesting content.
Hope he does more of these.
—-
Mike
You obviously have less of a clue than me and you are less qualified than me to understand physics. I have a maths/physics degree from a top 10 UK university. [1] Yes that’s in Europe – across the big water. You didn’t answer Pilmer’s questions. You are hiding behind the big boys. [2]
You are 99% slime and 1% substance.
In parting
I sincerely hope someone puts his boot right through your repuslively ugly, sneering little geek face. It’s a shame it’s against the law.
The Peace Centre did you say ? What kind of demonic little peace gremlin are you ? [3]
—-
If you can refute the documented errors (here and here) with current, peer-reviewed science, then do it, but STOP wasting everyone’s times with these idiotic claims.
WTF are you talking about. No one is defending Plimer. It’s just a sneer fest for repuslively little geeks like yourself.
—-
I think Monbiot should stick to his guns and insist that Plimer answer his questions. The debate is not forfeited, but is on hold until real answers are submitted. This is a head fake, and Monbiot should not be sucked into the abyss.
Plimer should be ashamed of himself for not being able to support his statements – that’s the message that should be delivered.
—-
On the surface Plimer’s tactic appears to be “If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance bury them in bullshit.” However, it is possible that Plimer’s questions actually reflect what is going on in his mind. The questions are drivel because his thought processes are drivel, but people around him rationalize it as really deep thought because they don’t understand it. Watch the movie “Being There” to see what I’m talking about.
—-
What kind of response is it? It’s a deliberately aimless, unproductive, and worthless response that shows zero commitment to dialogue.
What kind of explanation is there? Well, I imagine Plimer’s bank account is set to swell, with the money the mining sector might be willing to pay such an advocate.
What kind of information do we need to be competent judges of the climate crisis? We need accurate information, and anyone with an Internet connection can easily search out the facts of the science rather than read Plimer’s factless book.
When Monbiot merely tries to establish the basis for Plimer’s nonsense claims by asking for specific sources, Plimer makes no effort to demonstrate that his opinions are well-informed. That is because they aren’t and he knows it.
The tactical point is Monbiot’s, for letting Plimer show the public that Plimer feels no responsibility whatsoever for what he says.
cheers
—-
“I imagine Plimer’s bank account is set to swell, with the money the mining sector might be willing to pay such an advocate.”
I believe Plimer is the Director of two mining companies of his own.
But think of the dollars rolling in for Plimers book as the deniosphere snap up their new bible. Plimer now getting continuous coverage in the Guardian.
—-
Mike,
I am glad to see you are well engaged in productive activities.
Best,
A
For a better graphic and more explanation of the term (quite relevant, it now seems, to dealing with Plimer), see Playing Chess With Pigeons. The aim of that blog is antievolutionists, rather than climate, but much transfers directly.
—-
Monbiot deleted my comment on his blog saying that Plimer was using something Monbiot would never understand, humour. Same applies to the rest of the RealClimate piranha geekosphere.
Plimer is a right wing nobody who wrote a popular book for Australians. That’s the whole story.
—-
Eric –
Strange, because his book is being held up the world over as a smackdown of AGW, just as TGGWS was before.
Actually, I have a post pending on Tamnio’s blog where you can see that these apparently complicated questions are just dressed-up restatements of common or garden denialist talking points.
==========================================
Actually.. if you analyze the questions, they very quickly reduce to the Official Standard Skeptic Talking points that they come from..
Translations:
1) The romans grew grapes in the UK, so it must have been warm then.
2) All the CO2 comes from Volcanoes.
3) There is uncertainty over the effects of clouds, therefore there is no CO2-greenhouse effect.
4) All the CO2 comes from Volcanoes. [Truly bizarre attack on the isotope evidence proving otherwise]
5) There was more CO2 in the air in previous ice ages [when the sun was fainter], therefore CO2 does not drive temperature.
6) The increase in CO2 comes from the oceans heating, not the other way around.
7) There is some uncertainty over aerosols, therefore there is no CO2-greenhouse effect.
8) I’m pretty sure that MORB circulation systems don’t metamorphose rocks to GS facies, the pressures are far too low; Pilmer has his geology wrong in this meaningless question.
9) I think he is trying to claim that sea level rise is due to the last deglaciation.
10) See 6).
11) Models are all unreliable and wrong. And if you don’t know absolutely everything about climate change, then you don’t know anything.
12) Is really a rehash of ‘If CO2 is responsible for climate change now, it must ALWAYS be responsible for EVERY climate change’.
13) Water vapour is the only important GHG.
The fact that he’s dressed them up and demanded silly levels of precision dosen’t change the fact that he is just retreading the same arguments we’ve seen tima and time again..
—-
Shorter Andrew Dodds: Plimer is putting lipstick on the denialist pig.
—–
Although there’s probably no reason a game couldn’t be played with the starting position shown, did any one else notice that the dog is cheating? Great picture, by the way.
—-
I hadn’t – but you’re quite right. Well spotted. 🙂
—-
Not to mention cross-dressing between the clergy and the military hierarchy.
Surely it’s against the Geneva convention for Knights and Bishops to swap garments on the field of battle?
And is that a dog, or could it be a dingo?
I wouldn’t call that a “pooch”. It’s a husky isn’t it?
Great look, though: “So, I’m using an unconventional layout. Well? Your point is?”
On second thoughts it can’t be a dingo – they are usually yellow in colour.
It’s a Siberian Husky, or at least mostly that.
Gorgeous dogs.
Well done, Andrew. I recognized what Plimer was trying to do with the questions, and just shook my head in frustration.
Monbiot — to use a curling term — has the hammer. He gets the last shot.
I would do what journalists do — answer the questions by asking the experts to supply the facts. And I’d try to do what Monbiot does so so very well*… Use scientific facts to make Plimer look like the scientifically illiterate hack that he is. Make him look embarrassingly bad. [1]
And then get back on track. Demand that Plimer uphold his end of the bargain.
*He does it well, and makes it look easy, but it isn’t. He’s very, very good.
—-
Mike,
Details of Plimers mining Directorships can be found at:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Ian_R._Plimer
—-
All well and good greenfyre. But I’m still waiting for the sea level to rise and the climate to warm. How long do I have to wait ?
I put to you smart ‘warmist’ guys that you cannot see the wood for the trees.
—-
> …basement?
Blub… blubblub… blubblubblub…
Is there a copy of Plimer’s initial challenge to debate Monbiot?
Because if Plimer wanted to debate climate science, rather than his book, then it seems reasonable that he should send Monbiot his own set of questions. If Monbiot agreed to debate science, and then tried to narrow the frame to the details of Plimer’s book with his questions, Plimer’s under no obligation to restrict his commentary.
That doesn’t make Plimer any more honest, but it may mean that Monbiot put his foot in it from the get-go.
But I’d have to see a copy of Plimer’s original challenge to determine whether George has played his hand well or not.
—-
Plimer is a scientist, Monbiot is not.
Plimer can actually debate the science on climate, Monbiot can’t – he is dependent on others.
Plimer has a history of debating in public, Monbiot has not.
Plimer does not need to indulge in ad hominem, Monbiot is infamous for ad hominem.
Finally who actually has read Ian Plimer’s book Heaven and Earth in full? Certainly not Monbiot!
In truth this debate has no value.
It is far more appropiate for Ian Plimer to debate climate science with say Gavin Schmidt.
Likewise it would be far more appropriate for George Monbiot to debate the public dissemination and the spinning of climate science with Marc Morano. (I would pay good money to see that!)
—-
Australia’s Senate today voted to reject legislation that would have curbed the amount of greenhouse gas pollution the country emits, but the government said it would resurrect the bill later this year.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/aug/13/australian-senate-rejects-greenhouse-gas-curbs
Plimer won. The grown ups won. The intelligent people won. No one listened to the collective denizens of geek world.
Notice that the government doesn’t like democracy because there is a global agenda going down here and the little science people are ‘Only pawns in Their Game’ (Bob Dylan).
Eric,
The Greens also won:
http://greensmps.org.au/blog/the-cprs-collapse-a-great-opportunity
>”The CPRS would have locked in failure with its inexcusably weak targets and its $16 billion handouts to polluters. It would have sent a clear message to polluters and investors that they should keep going as they are. Three in four Australians supported the Greens’ moves to toughen up the scheme before agreeing to pass it.
>”The CPRS would have seen our emissions keep rising for two years and not fall below today’s levels until 2013! Now that it is off the books in the Senate, we can move on with action to reduce Australia’s emissions fast – immediately implementing policies to boost renewable energy, protect forests, move to clean transport and upgrade our building energy efficiency – before putting a price on carbon pollution with a meaningful and effective emissions trading scheme.
DELETED for Violation of Comment Policy
viz Personal attacks
It’s maybe a little over-the-top to say that the Greens won, but the Greens voted against the bill. (We all lose by not putting up a decent bill in the first place).
The CPRS was a dud and would not have curbed emissions for years, and most of the nation wants tougher action.
Hence the Greens are spoiling for a double dissolution election were they are likely to win balance of power and force a new government to toughen the bill. Democracy might just work, we’ll wait and see.
“Nasty little upper class pom”
Are you putting up the white flag and resorting to name calling?
BTW, why wont your champ Plimer answer simple questions like where his dodgy figure 3 comes from? Should be simple if it is from a credible source. (Rather than Durkin’s dud fabrication).
But fabricated data won’t stop many cheering him on I guess, just so long as he gives them their preferred answer.
Mark Byrne,
Given that Eric Smith has already said,
and
we know the sort of person he is.
Billy Bob,
Here’s your answer:
Oh and warming, the warming trend is the reason you couldn’t win that bet.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/07/piers_akerman_takes_denial_to.php#comment-1807460
Mac writes:
“Plimer has a history of debating in public, Monbiot has not.”
Then Mac, you should have nothing to worry about, an easy victory!
“Plimer does not need to indulge in ad hominem, Monbiot is infamous for ad hominem.”
We’ll just take your word for that shall we? Not (Was that an ad-hom on Monbiot)
“Finally who actually has read Ian Plimer’s book Heaven and Earth in full? Certainly not Monbiot!”
I doubt your correct on this assertion either. And here is sample of those who have read Plimers error filled book, incase you are willing to test a few critiques of Plimer book:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/global_warming/plimer/
“In truth this debate has no value.”
Its value is in forcing Plimer to backup wild claims that he makes without citing evidence. So it is of no value for those who think Plimer should be able to make outrageous claims without need for back them up.
Plimer ran into serious money problems (see HERE)
One wonders if his financial problems has anything to with his pro-industry stand on carbon dioxide emissions
—-
greenfyre:
Well, nope, it’s still not.
The simple fact is that Plimer had (subsequently) promised specifically to answer Monbiot’s questions, and he has not fulfilled his promise.
— bi
—-
Quote, Monbiot, “Flying across the Atlantic is as unacceptable, in terms of its impact on human well-being, as child abuse.” – Guardian, 7/22/1999.
Quote, Monbiot, “Even if I were to strip out the occasional flights I take—hypocritically or paradoxically, depending on your point of view—in order to speak about climate change in other countries, and even though I cycle and take the train, my own emissions are three or four times higher than the sustainable level.” – New Left Review, May-June 2007.
If the environmental movement needs a champion then George Monbiot is NOT it.
—-
Violation of Comment Policy
Comments that purport to challenge the core science of anthropogenic climate change belong in the “Challenging the Core Science” Comment Thread.
The fact is that Plimer is substantially correct
—-
*You had numerous opportunities to make relevant points and chose instead to waste it making idiotic and transparently false claims, most of them irrelevant and many of them abusive. My patience has ended.
And yes, I just deleted another one of your comments. All future comments that are similar ie
i) make ridiculous claims with no credible sources and/or
ii) are irrelevant to the post, and/or
iii) are abusive
will go the same way …
Do you wish to have someone who equates flying to child abuse, but excuses his own behaviour, to represent the environmental movement?
Questioning the relevancy, “And this is relevant … how?”, allows me to answer for you, “Yes you do!”
Monbiot is a shoot-from-the-lip self-publicist who revels in his own hypocrisy. He is no different from a redneck right-wing shock jock that causes public offence.
Monbiot is damaging your cause. Get a new eco-champion.
—-
So much for all the ‘skeptical’ screaming of Ad hominem! Ad hominem! … eh? I guess it’s some sort of weird juujutsu when hypocrites start accusing others of hypocrisy…
The fact is that Monbiot asked some extremely simple questions about where Plimer got his ‘facts’ from, and Plimer has tried to avoid answering them, and now we have this goon trying to defend Plimer by making irrelevant vitriolic attacks on Monbiot.
— bi
—-
Interesting reading about Plimer’s court battles with creationists. It gives me some sympathy for him, but I think he is making a big mistake if he is trying to cover his expenses by shilling for the deniers.
@ The Ego Has Landed
“Do you wish to have someone who equates flying to child abuse…?”
Does questioning the morality of the lifestyle we enjoy in the “developed” world disturb you? At least Monbiot is being honest, both intellectually and publicly.
Searching for ‘Plimer’ at The Geological Society of London reveals that:
He is an ‘Honorary Fellow‘ (or was on 18-Aug-2008, they seem to have trouble holding on to honorary fellows)
His sole contribution to the Journal appears to be an obituary of Eugen Friedrich Stumpfl
He is (sort of) cited in one article, where he is named as one of the contributing authors of one of the articles in the ‘Encyclopedia of Geology’
Next, I tried a Google Scholar search on ‘Ian Plimer’. 435 hits, which is not too bad – he is not a leader (my daughter has more hits), but he certainly has published in the peer-reviewed literature.
I have not read all 435 of them, I gave up after about 100. But as far as I can tell he has never written a peer-reviewed article on climate.
Obviously Plimer is not afraid of peer review.
Unless it concerns Climate Change.
Would anyone care to point me to any peer-reviewed papers by Plimer that prove me wrong?
I’ve no desire to resurrect Plimer’s character (or throw stones) and would like to see an honest debate.
I am also interested in how this has played out publicly – as are the commenters here. It would seem that there is quite a lot of passion surrounding the sequence of events, which can be attested to by visiting the higher-profile climate blogs. As well as being interested in an exercise in “what is true and what is not”, the internet discussion has also been about credibility of response in the to and fro. I think that discussion has been a little lop-sided, and drives my caontribution here.
Plimer’s return questions are silly, but so is Monbiot for accepting a general debate on climate change. Monbiot really wants to do a hostile interview with Plimer on his book, which is properly within Mobiot’s job description. That’s what he should have arranged with Plimer instead of trying to narrow the terms of ‘debate’ with his questions. Monbiot’s acceptance was not given in good faith. That leaves a lot of wiggle room for Plimer, I think.
Yes, this is about tactics, not the bare facts, but journalist Monbiot initiated that ‘game’ first by agreeing to debate a scientist about science, and then tilting the field towards a journalistic ‘debate’ with his with his conditions.
I haven’t read Plimer’s book, but I have read the numerous criticisms making it pretty clear this is a shoddy work. I wish Monbiot had served us better by pursuing the errors in Plimer’s book within his remit as an investigative journalist.
“I wish Monbiot had served us better by pursuing the errors in Plimer’s book”
barry,
That is the precisely the focus of his questions to Plimer.
Other comments are all very interesting and since Plimer clearly is almost clueless regarding the science, we do need to consider what is causing his distortions.
An online twirl around the Australian media reveals that he is not only an embarrassment as a mining sector advocate (because he denies the facts of climate science and therefore is not assisting industry along with the rest of society to manage the risks associated with climate change), but is also a darling of rightist cultural media.
His interviews and speeches typically focus on ‘environmentalists’ and the claim that they are rich or evil or both and have managed to co-opt the global scientific community and convince the world’s people that what they are observing is a crisis (rather than ‘perfectly normal’) so that ‘they’ can get their hands on the wheels of government and then… and then… well, I’m afraid that part’s not so clear. Oh… and anyone who accepts the reality of climate change and says they are observing the impact of climate change, is a socialist.
Of course, he could be a bonbon of the denialosphere, and have an evident personality disorder, and be right about the science – one doesn’t want to be accused of ad hominem arguments.
However, in media interviews about the book, he references long-debunked pseudo-science nonsense to support his claim that climate change is not real, along with bizarre ideas of various non-scientific kinds (what on earth is he talking about, regarding Mars?).
Frankly, he seems to have not only a truly weak knowledge of climate science, but a problem with any objective awareness of his deficiency.
It is a wonder that anyone with any Internet research skills (Hello, Eric Smith) could possibly see Plimer as anything but the village idiot.
p.s. Eric, my brother, that Dylan title refers to racism, and Bob Dylan is as active in relation to education on the issue of climate change as he was (and still is) in relation to human rights. You see, the two issues are related.
cheers
barry:
Oh, duh, spare us all the usual platitudes about ‘polarization’, which I must have heard at least a hundred times. And spare us all your pretenses to ‘balance’ and ‘civility’, and your concern trolling.
You repeatedly insist on twisting the facts by misrepresenting what Monbiot said and what Plimer promised.
Again it’s very simple: Plimer had promised specifically to answer Monbiot’s questions, and he has simply not fulfilled his promise.
— bi
“That is the precisely the focus of his questions to Plimer.”
I’ve followed the story pretty well. Plimer said, “let’s debate climate science” (I assume – still haven’t seen the challenge). Monbiot said, “you’re on, but I’d like you to answer these questions first”.
Monbiot should have done that without agreeing to participate in an open debate in which he is unqualified. [1] In the context of a debate, Monbiot’s conditions were a gambit to bend the discussion his way. [2] It’s lamentable for us that Plimer didn’t accede without his own provisions, but Monbiot made the debate public [3] and he made it a tactical game. [4] I’m strictly talking about the PR, which, if you care about the message, is important to not to stuff up. While I’ve no doubts that Plimer’s book is atrocious and would like to see it publicly demolished, I don’t think Monbiot deserves to be lionised on this matter.
—-
barry:
You need to stop contradicting yourself in a single sentence.
And maybe you can refer to some actual facts of the case, instead of blabbering vacuously about ‘polarization’ and ‘balance’.
— bi
I’m a little surprised at the reactions to Barry’s posts.
He did made it clear (I think) that he has little or no respect for Plimer. Yes, he did say that Monbiot was “unqualified” – but I didn’t read that as a suggestion that Plimer was “qualified”. The tone of Barry’s earlier posts suggest otherwise.
Yes, Barry did day “I assume – still haven’t seen the challenge” – but I think that is probably the truth. I haven’t seen it either – Monbiot didn’t include the text of their email conversations in his blog posts, and I’m happy to accept that the challenge was made – but we don’t yet know what the words were.
And as for frankbi’s
As far as I can tell Barry never mentioned ‘polarization’, ‘balance’ or ‘civility’.
Maybe I’ve missed something. Maybe Barry has a history that I haven’t noticed.
If that isn’t the case, then are you not being a little too harsh on him?
—-
Well I don’t understand the hostility. First thing I did in this thread was ask for directions to a copy of Plimer’s challenge. Having found none and had no reply here, I assumed there isn’t one.
I’ve read Monbiot’s columns, much of the comments beneath, and Deltoid, desmogblog, Colose, and Coby Beck (to name a few), previously on Plimer’s book along with a few australian news items. and now on this. I think I’m up with the story. It’s not convoluted.
Monbiot wants to make Plimer accountable before they even meet. I’ve never seen an honest debate where a condition was that one of the participants should first fill out a questionnaire designed by the other. If I have it backwards and Monbiot has it all over Plimer, he should have accepted the debate without conditions instead of leading a dance. The sooner Plimer faces the music the better.
—-
barry,
>>Monbiot wants to make Plimer accountable before they even meet.
Conditions of a productive debate would be, among other things, that both individuals feel responsible to the public for what they say and that they do not make irrelevant arguments and present false information.
>> The internet discussion has been lopsided (against Plimer)
The implied concern is about balance in the discussion. Plimer’s efforts to perpetuate lies and frauds and confuse the public is well-documented on this and the other climate blogs. Since you suggest that you are up to speed on the story and on climate science, I assume you can see that. In addition, since he is currently a popular speaker and local ‘debater’, you can find numerous online transcripts of his interviews in various Australian media. He likes to say he talks about the science, but for the most part he doesn’t – as I indicated to you, above. When he does occasionally discuss climate science, he relies on long-debunked nonsense and familiar denier fables to advance his irrational and ill-informed views. Again, since you identify yourself as quite well up to speed, I guess you know all this, too. As such, your concerns on behalf of Plimer regarding balance are contradictory.
>>Monbiot is silly for accepting a general debate on climate change.
He didn’t accept a general debate on climate change, and since we are discussing Monbiot’s counter-conditions and the questions that he wished to use to frame the terms of the debate, I find this statement is also contradictory.
>>Monbiot really wants to do a hostile interview with Plimer on his book, which is properly within Mobiot’s job description.
>>Monbiot’s acceptance was not given in good faith.
Monbiot’s blog reports that he didn’t ask to interview Plimer. Plimer reportedly contacted him after his critical review of claims in the book and challenged him to a debate. Monbiot felt free to impose limits and asked to expand the debate to include climate scientist’s criticism of Plimer’s claims. Plimer declined this. Monbiot pursued it at that point and we have the current situation. Both your comments are, I suggest, contradictory.
>>That’s what he should have arranged with Plimer instead of trying to narrow the terms of ‘debate’ with his questions.
This is contradictory to what you say you already know.
>>Monbiot initiated that ‘game’ first by agreeing to debate a scientist about science, and then tilting the field towards a journalistic ‘debate’ with his with his conditions.
Monbiot has been following the climate crisis for years and demonstrates a good grasp of the climate science community’s evidence for why the crisis is real. As such, he is more competent to comment than a scientist who knows nothing about climate science. Given his insistence that the proposed public debate have as its framework the actual science and climate scientists’ criticisms of Plimer’s claims, Monbiot was clearly not “tilting the field towards a journalistic debate with his conditions”. Quite the contrary. He tilted it to a debate about the science. You have read his questions. It is not possible to claim otherwise. This is contradictory.
Monbiot says he accepted Plimer’s challenge to a public debate and his actions suggest that he wished to expand the discussion to include climate scientists, and to ensure that Plimer would take responsibility for what he says about the science (and this is reinforced by the request that he also agree to have his responses posted on the Guardian website).
Anyone sincerely interested in the science and problem of climate change would either not engage Plimer’s b.s., or would put limits on a ‘debate’ with the mining sector’s village fool to ensure that it is productive, relevant, and honest. That is called democratic discussion and it is what the public deserves.
Frankbi,
I agree.
cheers
Correct me if I’m wrong, but at no time did Monbiot suggest they should each prepare a set of preliminary questions for the other. That component was one way. Monbiot did suggest a mutual ross-examination, which was to have happened on the day of the debate. Two separate things. If I’m as ignorant as people seem to think, I’d appreciate some references to enlighten me. Meanwhile, this is what I’m running with from Monbiot’s column.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/aug/03/ian-plimer-climate-change-denial
As I said, I’ve never seen an open, honest debate where one person is required to answer preliminary questions and the other is not. [1] This is more in the form of an interview. On the other hand, if I’ve read it wrong and Monbiot suggested that they both submit questions to the other, then there should be no problem with Plimer sending his own set (which, when received by Monbiot, who was clearly not expecting them, disappointed him). [2]
No, I think I have the sequence of events better than you. Or can you explain what makes you believe that Monbiot’s questions were offered as part of a mutual, preliminary formality? If you’re wrong about that then I humbly suggest you reflect on why. Therein lies the kernel of my contribution here. I want to make us better advocates, where much of the blog commentary has seemed more like cheer-leading. This doesn’t help our cause.
(Martha, your description of events is exactly how I see them. We simply have different interpretations – about the viability of responses in the context of an open debate)
I assume those quotes are not meant to be a cite of anything I’ve said, [3] but rather a characterisation. I don’t accept your interpretation.
I would be grateful if you would lay out exactly what you think is my dark purpose regarding the ‘disingenuous innuendo’ you believe I’m dissembling with.
Fair enough. It was a stray thought reflecting on a post upthread (rightly) accusing Plimer of responding with a PR exercise. I think Monbiot is just as conscious about how his choices ‘play’. In this case, Monbiot is at an advantage, having a stage from which he can frame the narrative of events. It would be foolish to contend Monbiot has just innocently tabled facts.
<blockquote.[4] The Deniers pretty much always play it as a tactical game, and if anything Monbiot’s condition was quite obviously meant to lessen that element of it.
It’s disingenuous. If Plimer answers those questions, there will be no need for a debate. Monbiot will already have won. [4] That would be great, but let’s call what’s going on here properly. Asking for references that will be published in a column before the debate – and not offering to do the same – no debate I’ve ever heard of proceeds under such one-way conditions. [5]
And yes, I am aware the denialists play a tactical game, too. And that 95% of their argumentation is specious, ill-informed, agenda-driven and/or selective.
I clicked on this: http://www.anecdotage.com/index.php?aid=8880
And enjoyed the anecdote! But I don’t think it works well as an analogy. [6] If Plimer would is cast as Pound, who issued the challenge, then clever Abercrombie is the slippery character. In any case, we do not know the nature of the challenge Plimer offered.
Indeed it would make it harder for Plimer to dissemble, but no, that is not what I am saying. Your rhetorical statement here is a good demonstration of what disingenuousness is. [7]
I don’t think Monbiot’s questions are ‘unfair’. I think that making them a one-way condition is bad faith to open a debate.
No one here has read Plimer’s challenge verbatim. So everyone is operating under a little ignorance. I would have liked to see monbiot publish Plimer’s challenge, but perhaps privacy issues prevented him. That would have been fair, instead of publishing only Plimer’s questions (which are bafflegab and tacitical – no argument from me there).
You’ve got me pegged wrong, greenfrye. S2 gets me. Except that I do take exception on issues of ‘balance’, but not as some upthread have characterised it.
You know that feeling when denialists start making straw men out of your points, questioning your objectivity and putting words in your mouth? Honestly, I’m getting that feeling here. [8]
—-
Martha,
Then you must know what the challenge was. [1] I’d be grateful if you would cite it or paraphrase it, preferably with an accompanying link, if possible. I could easily accept I have presumed wrongly – it would be good to have that clearly demonstrated.
—-
S2:
Well, barry did say
When barry made the complaint about “lop-sided” “discussion”, isn’t it as clear as day that he was giving the usual bogus plea for ‘balance’?
And the talk about the “passion surrounding the […] events” — is that not an extremely thinly-disguised form of the usual talk about ‘polarization’ of the ‘debate’ and a thinly-veiled plea for ‘civility’?
* * *
But he did include the text of his own response to Plimer’s previous reply:
If Plimer felt that this was a misrepresentation of Plimer’s promise, Plimer could’ve said ‘Hey George! You’re misrepresenting my promise!’ and barry could’ve pointed it out.
But no. Instead, we get barry’s long-winded ranting about how “I [barry] have the sequence of events better than you”, and how Monbiot is clearly trying to narrow the terms of the debate unilaterally and unfairly, blah blah blah. And all this without referencing a single concrete fact about this sequence of events.
I’m calling concern trolling on this one.
— bi
bi, I have referenced facts by quoting Monbiot, and in so doing I believe I have properly corrected a misconception (that Monbiot offered equal terms). If you would like to correct any errors of fact I have committed, please do so. I have already acknowledged I am operating under the assumption Plimer challenged Monbiot to debate the science. I consider the matter unresolved but will play devil’s advocate until I become better informed.
You say:
In my last post I said:
“I don’t think Monbiot’s questions are ‘unfair’. I think that making them a one-way condition is bad faith to open a debate.”
In previous posts I gave no reason to think that I contended as you put it – unless you doubt my sincerity. Please characterise what I say accurately.
There is absolutely no need for name-calling. While I have been critical, I believe I have been polite. I would hope to have that courtesy returned.
Except for the bogus part, you come close here to my purpose. Let me put it explicitly.
In promoting the well-buttressed mainstream view of climate change and contributing effectively to the general debate, we must not allow ourselves to fall into the kind of partisanship with which deniers bedevil the conversation. We must not become like them. It plays right into their hands
We all agree on the ‘what’. I am taking issue with the ‘how’.
Should have added: I think Monbiot is well-informed and an excellently useful advocate for the mainstream – in all but this episode. I believe a more neutral (call it fair-minded or balanced if you like) assessment of the events would make us more effective in our aims.
barry:
You mean you quoted evidence to prove the exact opposite of what it says. Monbiot said (emphases mine),
And somehow you manage to construe it as a “one-way condition”. Excuse me?
* * *
Let’s see: so you mean this is name-calling:
And yet this is not name-calling:
And this is not name-calling:
And this is not name-calling:
And this statement of yours is also not name-calling:
So what does count as name-calling to you, barry? We could really use some definitions of terms, and given that you claim to be so neutral, so fair-minded, so balanced, so civil, and so polite, I’m sure that you’ll agree, eh?
You want civility? Yes, Sir, please, go ahead.
— bi
And regarding ‘civility’ and ‘politeness’, I’ll just repeat something I wrote a while back:
>>Then you must know what the challenge was
I said Monbiot didn’t accept a general debate on climate change. That was in response to barry stating that “Monbiot is silly for accepting a general debate on climate change”.
I thought it was obvious that I was responding to the (hidden) assumption in barry’s statement that Monbiot accepted a general debate on climate change. It is barry who apparently thinks he knows what the challenge was, since this would follow from his own statement — not my response. He needs to ask himself what evidence he has that Monbiot accepted a general debate on climate change. If there is no such evidence, it is not only a hidden but an unsupportable or false assumption.
Perhaps it would be helpful to further flush out the trouble to ensure that I don’t have to repeat it.
I said Monbiot didn’t accept a general debate on climate change. I have suggested that the evidence for this is that we (and he, and also Plimer) are reacting to the questions that Monbiot provided to Plimer as the framework for the debate.
In other words, the existence of the questions and surrounding discussion are fairly good evidence that Monbiot did not agree to a “general” debate on “climate change”, but rather, that he agreed to what we might much more accurately describe as a ‘specific debate’ on ‘Plimer’s claims about climate change’.
Further evidence could be that Plimer isn’t claiming that Monbiot accepted a general debate on climate change.
To summarize, neither the available objective evidence nor the parties themselves suggest that Monbiot accepted a general debate on climate change.
True, we don’t have a transcript of their private interaction and contact with one another from start to finish and all the way through; nor can we read minds. Nontheless, we humans often manage to figure things out. 😉
Barry seems to want to say that something bad has happened to Ian Plimer. All of our discussion suggests something bad has most certainly been happening and it is called Ian Plimer’s self-appointment as climate change expert, his contempt of other citizens taking responsibility for climate change, his paranoia about government legislation to reduce emissions, and of course his lies and frauds regarding the science. From a clinical perspective, I gently suggest that it might also be called evidence of personality disorder.
I think George Monbiot’s actions are demonstrably supportive of ethical, democratic and rational public debate for the reasons I already identified.
To be sure, at this point it wouldn’t surprise me if barry continues to post away and sticks to polite but baseless questioning around the perimeters of discussion, perhaps to avoid deletion. A self-effacing, repetitive, unreasonable and tedious pursuit of minutiae is characteristic of a familiar variety of backdoor denier, so it is understandable if he is leaving this impression.
Frankbi,
The closest he comes to indicating his views on climate change is to obliquely refer to the “well-buttressed mainstream view on climate change” that “we” are “promoting” and the need to “contribute effectively to the debate”. Hmm. There is certainly no broad and solid or “well-buttressed” commonly-held and dominant or “mainstream” view, thanks to the efforts of industry denialists and other interests that have suppressed and confused the public discussion so long that intervention is now at a crisis point in order to manage risks. The evidence is overwhelming and there is no “debate” about the science. I wonder why he says such things? 😉
cheers
No, not really.
I can’t understand why you think otherwise based on his posts here.
Earlier Barry wrote:
Wise words, I think.
—-
I’m chiefly interested in how effective this exchange has been. Surely all the focus boils down to whether he (and we) sways opinion. I don’t think Monbiot’s going to win over any deniers. I came to that conclusion after playing devil’s advocate in my own mind and that ‘s what drove my thoughts here.
I concede that ‘open’ and ‘honest’ was rhetorical use.
So,
Confirming that my chief interest is the effectiveness of the exchange between George Monbiot and Ian Plimer;
Agreeing that Monbiot’s counter-challenge was not unfair, or sneaky, or persniffian or unethical;
And deploring Plimer’s book and its uncritical apologists;
I posit that the point of the exercise – to expose Pllimer and his book for the frauds they are to people who are suckered (and succoured) by this nosense – is not well-served.
It’s not really about the probity of the actors, but how they will be perceived where it matters. Mainstreamers will rightly cheer Monbiot and scoff at Plimer, and denialists will See Monbiot as tricky and their hero as cleverer.
To me, an interesting development. To deniers, a dodge by Monbiot. A one way dodge if he doesn’t answer Plimer’s question.
Maybe in some intellectually abstract universe but not on main street.
I think you’re reaching. Monbiot was clearly not expecting a set of questions from Plimer. Monbiot’s description of the counter challenge included no reference to Plimer submitting a set of questions, and I rather think it would have had it been made – to assure the public of even-handedness. [1]
And if Plimer was invited to send his own set of questions…?
Nothing, except for how it plays, which is the point I’m interested in. And if Plimer was not invited to send his own set of questrions but did anyway…?
Agreed.
I think “concern troll” fits the bill, frankbi. I looked it up to make sure what you meant.
Public figures are fair game. And I don’t think ‘silly’ and ‘may have put his foot in it’ really count as epithets. It’s how we talk to each other that matters.
But that I could have been much clearer, that was a good exchange, greenfyre. Thank you.
I’m not sure we were running with the same topic. That may be also be the case between P & M. 🙂
—-
barry,
To be honest with you, I think if you email Monbiot, he will tell you exactly what each of them said. I’m sure it simply hasn’t occurred to him that it might be important to a few members of the public to hear the exact words. It probably sounded something like:
Plimer: George, let’s do a debate. I’m angry about your dissing the claims in my book.
Monbiot: Ian, no. I’m not going to do that.
Monbiot: Ian, yes. But I will only do that if you answer your critics in the form of questions.
Plimer: George, no. I don’t like that.
Monbiot: Ian, go to the URL, your questions are there.
Plimer: (silence)
Monbiot receives Plimer’s response.
Sometimes a transcript is very important e.g. in a court of law. But you are lost in minutiae, barry. I appreciate that you have wished to press your point. You have been clear about it. However, no one else seems to be ‘picking up’ on it, so you need to think about that.
Here’s what might be helpful. Apply your idea. Observe public and media discussions. Check on whether that point seems to be influencing perceptions of the dynamics of the situation between Plimer and Monbiot, or perceptions of the issue. Since you say your concern is how this ‘plays out’, you must be observing things very closely on the Internet and in the media. What do you see?
I don’t want to overlook the possibility that you are an astute observer of propaganda and can put that interest to good use. I think you will find it is not pertinent, but see for yourself.
What’s really troubling me is that your discussion here has felt disingenuous because it is, shall we say, ‘experimental’.
So, you deplore the book, and want George to win?
Monbiot has attempted to expand the proposed ‘debate’ into a public discussion. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the European context.
You say you don’t think Monbiot is interested in debating climate science with Plimer.
No, barry, he’s likely not even slightly interested. Why would he be? Why would anyone with a genuine interest in discussion of climate change want to debate Plimer? Nontheless, it came up and he is now trying to make it worthwhile to the public interest.
It is unwieldy at this point, that’s for sure.
I agree with you that Monbiot may not have suggested or anticipated that Plimer answer with his own set of ‘questions’. Plimer clearly sees it as a game, so anyone dealing with him really has no idea what he’ll do — that is why Monbiot initially refused, then for whatever reason thought he’d try to get some control over it with a structure that he felt would be productive. But Monbiot is, after all, not a mental health expert. He may not have anticipated that the response would be this bizarre.
Perhaps we can also agree on the moral of the story is familiar: democratic discussion is difficult in a large, highly bureaucratized, power-divided society. Nontheless, citizens need to participate in decision-making about important issues and be provided with opportunities to deliberate with those who can inform the discussion. Part of that is recognizing deceit.
cheers
barry:
barry, that’s not a definition of what (you think) constitutes name-calling and what doesn’t. You’re merely asserting that you’re not engaging in name-calling while others aren’t. That’s not a definition, that’s a circular argument.
Also, I didn’t say “concern troll”, I said “concern trolling”. Big difference there.
You know, that’s the very definition of “concern trolling”. It’s exactly what you’re doing, and it’s an accurate description of your behaviour.
* * *
greenfyre:
Well said!
— bi
James Wolcott describes concern trolling:
And I say again, barry: “concern trolling” is a perfectly accurate description of your behaviour.
— bi
Frankbi,
You know, I don’t disagree. Still, perhaps we can’t really be sure of the purpose of barry’s interaction. Maybe it’s pretty much as he says, and he’s been toying with us for his own amusement whilst he explores his pet interest in PR.
One thing is for sure, though. barry doesn’t communicate a fraction of the energy or concern about the urgent issues around climate change that he expresses regarding an essentially utter non-issue in the ‘debate’.
If he is actually interested in the problem of propaganda and the ethics of public discussion and debate, he has chosen to learn absolutely nothing from us — other than what he has decided has reinforced his own special idea about what is most wrong regarding the debate.
He believes there has been injustice to Plimer and he believes he alone has found a special detail that demonstrates that this is true. It doesn’t matter to him that the detail is truly irrelevant to anything, and even defies the evidence and logic. Never mind that it is trivial, in the big picture, even if it is true. Starting to sound familiar?
By the way, since Plimer is championing a particularly outrageous cooptation of progressive values in his new book, I expect ‘concern’ about the ethical issues is becoming a more fashionable strategy. Yes, deniers are the ones most ‘concerned’ about the public. Plimer argues that climate change is a myth manufactured by urban elites to gain more power; and that mitigation and specifically legislation to lower C02 emissions will lead to the death of millions of farmers and rural poor. I kid you not.
Cheers my friend!
Trust that what I said was my purpose is actually what it is. greenfyre has me aright, now, and it was my own fault I didn’t lay it out more concisely to begin with. I started here with a question and built my case regardless that no one could answer it.
The issue for me is effective communication of the mainstream view and prising denialists away from their hobby-horses (and heroes). To that end I post at WUWT and other places, where I’m usually much clearer. It’s a different audience here and I felt I could safely pursue concerns with the P/M wrangling and the response to it in the semi-popular debate.
Frankbi is right that I’ve a moderate voice, but I’ve seen the results of immoderate voices and believe my approach is more effective.
barry:
So, instead of defending your earlier claim that I was engaging in name-calling, and instead of disputing that you were engaged in concern trolling…
…you simply go back to your concern trolling. Nice.
Also, I notice you’ve never denied that you were “concern trolling”; you merely said you didn’t like the term. So, is that an admission that you were, in fact, concern trolling after all?
* * *
Martha:
Yep, and in addition (as the Heartland Institute is wont to remind us), climate regulation is a plot by Obama to implement “wealth distribution” to “people who don’t pay taxes”. There is absolutely no contradiction here, no ma’am. 😉
— bi
I think Robert Grumbine laid out a good way to operate. I couldn’t find the post I’m thinking of, but here’s one much like it.
http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/2008/08/discussion-vs-debate.html
I’ve always felt that an inclusive approach, trying to work with someone, understanding where they’re coming from having listened attentively, is the best way to have an effective dialogue. Going on the attack almost always entrenches the ‘opposition’. When the opposition is entrenched anyway, I see no problem with being less congenial, except that on public boards it’s not just the recipient who reads the reply. If you’re familiar with climate change blog discussions you’ll know how third parties are likely to react. Unfortunately, contribution is weighed on tone as well as content. It’s not ideal, but that’s how it is.
Hopefully I haven’t strayed too far from the topic.
I emailed Monbiot about Plimer’s challenge, BTW, and will update here if I receive a reply.
George Monbiot,
I was discussing the wrangling between yourself and Ian Plimer online, and it occured to us that we were in the dark as to the nature of Ian Plimer’s challenge to a debate with you.
Would you be so kind as to include the topic and terms (if any) Plimer offered, either by publishing it verbatim or paraphrased in your next post on the matter? Or do the same in reply to this email? That would be most helpful.
Sincerely,
…
Relevant to the strategy of denial and delay, checkout the four strategy meoms linked to from Bill Moyers
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07102009/profile.html
Martha,
I see – at best – a couple deniers acknowledging that Plimer’s reply was not the best, but that doesn’t change their views. Otherwise, it’s as I’ve stated.
Yes, I’m observing it closely. How do you think I got to this thread? Via Open Mind, Deltoid, Desmoblog, and Coby Beck’s blog, to name a few, having read nearly all the comments in various threads on this unfolding story, as well as the Guardian posts and many of the comments that followed them. I can also tell you that the conversation is happening on ‘our’ turf more than climate denial blogs. There are no posts on the issue at WUWT and climateaudit, for example.
I live in Sydney, was born in Adelaide and went to the university Plimer works at. I also read the local rags here that published stories on Plimer’s book.
My main interest is the science, not the PR or politics, which is probably why I had trouble articulating my thoughts. I’m on unfamiliar ground. Ask me about the climate dynamics of late quaternary glacial terminations and I’d be much more concise! 🙂
My concern is genuine. My execution was poor. My very first post here was a question about the nature of the challenge Plimer made to Monbiot. If the reply had simply been “we don’t know”, I reckon we’d have made a better fist of things.
If you are right – and I don’t know if you are – can you not see how that makes Monbiot’s agreeing to a debate a little disingenuous? Whatever the case, my feeling is that we are not being impartial in our assessment, which makes us poorer advocates.
Indeed it is, in many fora. Being better at it is what drove my interest here.
barry,
You keep repeatedly insinuating that Monbiot unconditionally agreed to Plimer’s initial challenge (even though it’s been repeatedly pointed out to you that this is false).
You keep harping on the importance of knowing Plimer’s initial challenge, even though Monbiot never once agreed to it unconditionally.
You keep insisting on twisting the facts and portraying yourself as an impartial, even-handed observer.
Why?
— bi
Frankbi,
I don’t mean to, and don’t know whether it’s the way I’ve expressed my thoughts or the habits of the minds that are reading them that’s causing the confusion. Perhaps a combination of both.
I want to everything there is to know, including the nature of the challenge to Monbiot so that I can better judge what’s going on, and I personally have no problem with Monbiot’s conditional acceptance. It’s the ‘optics’, as Mike put it, that concerns me. On the rest we’d probably agree.
Actually, I portrayed myself as a devil’s advocate. You’d prefer an echo chamber? And I’ve managed to unlace a couple of assumptions held here by doing so – albeit untidily.
I’d argue that walking in the critic’s shoes every now and then makes one more apt to be ‘an impartial, even-handed observer’.
My lack of reply on other issues you’ve brought up is a measure of my interest, not my opinion. Generally, I think you’re twisting my words.
I said:
barry replies:
Oh, so you were only accidentally insinuating — again and again, accidentally — that Monbiot unconditionally agreed to Plimer’s initial challenge, when no such thing happened.
Seriously, stop praising yourself already.
— bi
Seriously, stop praising yourself already.barry,
Yes, bi. It’s bad. I’m trying to understand it. 😦
>>I see – at best – a couple deniers acknowledging that Plimer’s reply was not the best, but that doesn’t change their views. Otherwise, it’s as I’ve stated.
No, it isn’t. I did not ask you to go out and observe the denialosphere and the climate blogs. You have not listened to what I said and have not understood. For some reason, it has been like that with every one of your comments. Since you are doing that with everyone rather than only with me, I assume the problem is not a gender dynamic.
You are very fixated on the picture that interests you yet you project the complaint of myopia onto others.
>>I can also tell you that the conversation is happening on ‘our’ turf more than climate denial blogs.
Yes, barry, that is correct and completely predictable. Did you have a question about that?
>>It’s a different audience here and I felt I could safely pursue concerns.
Safety goes both ways, my brother.
>>can you not see how that makes Monbiot’s agreeing to a debate a little disingenuous
No. We often have to do things in life that we don’t really want to do. He has been candid and his intentions are rather well known to both the public and to Plimer.
Acceptance of climate change is NOT the mainstream view, at present. Personal and government action to mitigate the crisis are NOT the mainstream actions, at present. I hope we get there.
barry,
Yes, I am aware you post at Watts’.
Do you think people are responsible for the warming trend?
What impact do you think warming will have on the planet?
M.
You’re asking what side of the climate change fence I sit on? What has that got to do with the discussion?!
I’m definitely talking to partisans!
I accept the mainstream (science) view of climate change according to the IPCC. I have no idea what that’s got to do with the topic.
Barry seems to be saying and doing a lot of things he actually isn’t. Do you guys realize how many straw men you’re putting up? Stop talking about what you imagine I’m doing and deal with what I’m actually saying.
I am NOT saying that something ‘bad’ has happened to Plimer. Sheesh.
Perhaps I didn’t. This is what you said.
The off-line media isn’t picking up on the story. Pretty much all the commentary is on the blogs and in Monbiot’s Guardian column. I also read the Australian papers, but they haven’t covered this development. I haven’t gone out and done street interviews. Apart from that what do you think I’m missing?
No, it isn’t [as I’ve stated].
Do you want to educate me or just contradict me? How about a link or two? It would be good to know that some denialists are being turned from the dark side by Plimer’s insouciance.
“No, it isn’t [as I’ve stated].”
should have been in quotes – quoting Martha.
>>”I am not saying that something bad has happened to Plimer.”
>>”Barry seems to be saying and doing a lot of things he actually isn’t. Do you guys realize how many straw men you’re putting up? Stop talking about what you imagine I’m doing and deal with what I’m actually saying.”
This is tiresome, barry. 😦
“Monbiot really wants to do a hostile interview with Plimer on his book”
This implies personal hostility toward Plimer, which is ‘bad’.
“Monbiot’s acceptance was not given in good faith.” Opposite: Bad faith. ‘Bad’.
“Monbiot wants to make Plimer accountable before they even meet.”
It is apparently ‘bad’, then, for Plimer to be accountable.
“I think Monbiot is just as conscious about how his choices ‘play’. In this case, Monbiot is at an advantage, having a stage from which he can frame the narrative of events”.
I think Monbiot’s choices reflect social and political realities. Anyway, you make it clear that you perceive it as an ‘advantage’, over Plimer. In other words it is unfair. ‘Bad’.
“It’s disingenuous. If Plimer answers those questions, there will be no need for a debate. Monbiot will already have won.”
Something disingenuous or dishonest (‘bad’?) has been levelled at Plimer.
“No one here has read Plimer’s challenge verbatim. So everyone is operating under a little ignorance. I would have liked to see monbiot publish Plimer’s challenge, but perhaps privacy issues prevented him. That would have been fair,”
It was unfair (‘bad’) treatment of Plimer.
“I have already acknowledged I am operating under the assumption Plimer challenged Monbiot to debate the science.”
You assume something fundamentally and demonstrably incorrect. Plimer challenged Monbiot to debate his (Plimer’s) lies and frauds about the science. There is a difference. Plimer does not want to talk about the science and/or is incompetent to do so.
So much for straw people arguments.
Regarding your fieldwork:
I can’t give you a ‘link’ for reflection.
Does it appear relevant or significant to the general public? The answer is ‘no’, since you are observing that the discussion is rimarily on climate blogs. The explanation is that most members of the public only follow issues in their local media; most climate blogs follow internatonal and alternative media and activist issues, in addition to offering a hub for popular public education. While Plimer is a darling of the denialosphere, the debate is not going to be discussed there because Monbiot is informed and highly intelligent but Plimer is ill-informed and an idiot. In other words, the denialosphere does not wish to draw alot of attention to an objective comparison of the two.
Regards. I hope that helps you.
So the deniers keep denying and the public is unmoved. On this at least I don’t think we’re at odds, Martha.
If you recontextualize quotes you inevitably create straw men.
A signature of straw men is that they are less nuanced than the original concept. I’m not sure what strange logic convinces you that my criticism of Monbiot means something ‘bad for Plimer’, but that it is applied to each of my quotes regardless of what I was talking about should raise a red flag. You are working with an erroneous premise and trying to make my words fit. I’ll give just one example.
That Monbiot has a high-profile column in a popular tabloid from which to expound on events as they have unfolded, while Plimer does not, is obviously an advantage for Monbiot. Nothing to do with fairness, it’s just the way it is. My point was (different from your interpretation) that Monbiot is not some innocent in the PR war – critical of a suggestion upthread that Plimer is the only one who is trying to manage perceptions. This is the context you’ve excised from the quote.
Context is everything.
I think the erroneous context you are working with is that I’m a Plimer apologist because I’m criticising Monbiot. Do you think it was ‘bad for Plimer’ when greenfyre criticised Monbiot’s choice in the top post? Or is a Democrat voter defending Republicans when they criticise Barak Obama?
I find it odd that Monbiot felt free to publish Plimer’s counter-challenge verbatim, but not the original challenge. I would think the appropriate thing to do when listing a public debate is to publish the topic, preferably the challenge verbatim. This was Monbiot’s responsibility. He has the megaphone. (And that’s another reason why I don’t think Monbiot is innocent of the PR stakes in this contretemps. I think we’re agreed on that)
I disagree with greenfyre that Monbiot did not accept the original challenge and issued a brand new one. Monbiot’s own words are that he accepted Plimer’s challenge with a condition.
And more recently…
I find it hard to believe that Plimer sent Monbiot an email saying, “I challenge you to a debate” – and that was it. Plimer’s an old hand at debates and is unlikely to have left himself open by not establishing a topic. It’s not to Monbiot’s credit that he selectively reproduces Plimer’s challenges.
Please verify.
BTW,
* Heaven and Earth is riddled with distortions, cherry-picking, huge innacuracies (lies) and bad sources, or distorted good sources where there are any.
* Plimer is unqualified to speak on climate science and his book recycles common contrarian talking points. Unfortunately he is an earth scientist, which has made him a poster boy for the unskeptical skeptics.
* Plimer generally parrots contrarian talking points – with a lot of waffle thrown in.
* His latest ploy is immature and cynical.
I hold these things to be true.
I may be the only one on our side of the fence that doesn’t esteem Monbiot with the highest regard in this fracas. I think, sister, that the rest of our family have stars in their eyes.
>>A signature of straw men is that they are less nuanced than the original concept
No, the signature is really that an argument is deliberately misrepresented for the purpose of dismissing it without actually examining it.
I haven’t engaged your ‘arguments’ because to be honest with you, your reasoning and conceptual ability isn’t the best. Your obsessive and repetitive concerns and perceptual distortions do not count as substantial ‘argument’, for me.
>>You are working with an erroneous premise and trying to make my words fit. I’ll give just one example…
I was making social observations and giving impressions. I think it is rather obvious why anyone (including you) would have the impression from all your comments that you feel Plimer has been disadvantaged — and unfairly so. My suggested point was this: Monbiot cannot be seen as at an advantage if one’s perspective is the big picture, namely, that his actions at least partly represent the public, who are seriously (even criminally_ disadvantaged (by Plimers’ lies and frauds”). That is the big picture. My comments have all been about the big picture, and my impression of your concerns.
I find your comments are all suggestive of a shared view but are also remindful of carefully scripted denialism.
It seems obvious that it would be helpful if you would link us to your history of comments on Watts’, where you have indicated you regularly post your opinon on climate change.
Thanks.
Here it is in black and white. Your replies to me have been enitrely coloured by who you think I am. I thought as much. Said as much.
I was tempted to post links to exactly that from time to time in this discussion, but I withheld because it is entirely orthogonal to the discussion. It is disappointing to see the wretched tactics and closed-rankedness of so called ‘skeptics’ being taken up by activists. If you can push me away, a like-minded participant, on a topic you think has little impact, how will you draw in those ill-disposed to our view when the matter is more urgent?
If you want to see some posts of mine at WUWT, I post there under the name Adam Grey. Go to this link, hit CNTRL and F together, and type GREY in the box.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/06/long-debate-ended-over-cause-demise-of-ice-ages-solar-and-earth-wobble/
Note particularly the one at 18:53:32 on 10/08/09.
It is a sorry thing to be asked to show my colours in order to have my arguments taken at face value. Pity the honest skeptic, should ever they meet you. I expect the cloud of suspicion will remain, regardless of my evidence, until I’m burned for a witch. I’m going back to WUWT to try and change minds. I may have better luck there. Say hello if you’re there with me, fighting the good fight. Don’t get stuck in echo chambers.
One last hoorah.
Indeed. You have been rather too concerned with impressions of my concerns. For the umpteenth time now – I want Monbiot to expose Plimer for the fraud he is. Does that mean I cannot criticise the method in which this is being done? No! Rather, my concern is the greater because I want George to succeed. It is not my way to switch off my brain and march in lock-step when I disagree with a comrade. Nor do I expect my comrade to call me enemy just for disagreeing with him.
Go well, Martha.
Thank you barry/adam. That does settle it.
Shorter barry: My friends, I am a rational skeptic. I am, naturally, critical of idiots like Plimer because I do not wish to be compared to such idiots. I’m very smart and that is why you don’t understand anything I say (even I don’t understand everything I say — that’s how smart I am!).
‘Adam Grey’ on Wattsupmybutt:
“I get no satisfaction from accepting the mainstream view. Who wants to tighten their belts when there is so much uncertainty? But there has been no debunking of the mainstream view – despite jubilation over its death throes here. The real debate is about projections, not whether the globe is warming. And that’s just it – a debate. To paraphrase a sensible critic of the IPCC and mainstream view – Roger Pielke Snr – it is not that we know what will happen, it is that we do not know. Things could be worse or better: or the mid-range projections could be very close to what happens. We must act to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels in any case for reasons that go beyond the concerns of global warming. Fossil fuels are finite, we are tied to unsavoury governments for their procurement and securing access is a factor in military policy (I don’t claim that it is inevitably carried out, but it is certainly a feature). There are also positive reasons for changing our energy source – economies are powered by innovation and entrepreneurialism: we should be ahead of the curve.
I’ve strayed from the topic here: my apologies! I didn’t mean to play the advocate. But having this perspective, I think there are pressing reasons to work with the science we have rather than wait for the science that might be. If indeed we discover long-term signals in ocean patterns that account for the last century’s general warming, then that might be a *good thing* – or it might not. Radiation physics isn’t going to change much, I think, and we will still have a warming signal that lasts while we burn fossil fuels.
Despite my drift into advocacy there (rather unusual for me) I am chiefly interested, as a layman, in the emerging science, as well as understanding the established science. If a long-term signal is discovered as you’re speculating, then I know that I’ll read about it here.
I don’t know the answer to your question about sunlight/winds and SSTs. I’ve probably read about it – my interests are broad. I could google it, but I thought I’d be frank. My guess is that many factors play here, but I wouldn’t know how to prioritize their contribution.”
Barry, Adam, or whatever your nom de plume — that was helpful. Please do go re-join your friends at Watts.
Why thank you for that cheerful advice.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/20/sea-surface-temperatures-warmest-on-record-but/#comment-176172
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/20/sea-surface-temperatures-warmest-on-record-but/#comment-176178
Barry/Adam,
You might find that shoving links from climate change denier Anthony Watts’ site at people is not helpful.
Why you choose to read your climate change science on climate change denier Anthony Watts’ site is odd. Clearly, you value telling individuals there when they have made a mistake here and there on their reading of the charts, and so on. You are comfortable in that role and it seems important to you. I agree, it is important.
Yes, I see that you acknowledge the climate science community’s view that the main driver of the current warming is C02 i.e., human-caused. It’s very hard to argue otherwise, given the overwhelming evidence. As you say, you have been studying the matter in all your spare time for the past 2 ½ years.
I also see that you accept human-caused warming but seems to hedge on the urgency and scale of needed emissions reductions and assistance to citizens. Perhaps you feel that would put people off, or you are not comfortable discussing those things. To each their own.
Here, I continue to find your attitude of superiority and backhanded dismissal of the ‘cheerleaders’ on the frontlines of the climate crisis to be problematic.
At times, your presumption of authority and indifference to the intelligence and analysis of others has bordered on contempt. You might want to consider updating your personality. No wonder you were mistaken for a vulgar denier. For my contribution to that misperception of you, I wish to apologize.
To be clear, you are not going to be friends. But unity is needed on this issue.
Kind regards.
Plimer has finally responded to Monbiot (hat tip to Deltoid).
Monboit’s response is here.
I’m not going to comment further, make your own minds up. 🙂
—-
I finally discovered Plimer’s initial challenge to Monbiot
http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magazine/the-week/5186003/letters.thtml
So we know the intital challenge. Monbiot’s counter-challenge is perfectly fine, and while Plimer’s is vexatious for all the reasons we know, knowing the context of the debate topic illuminates it in another way.
—-
Mike, Monbiot says in all his posts he accepted Plimer’s challenge – with conditions. He’s now linked to the verbatim Plimer challenge (July 15 Letter in The Spectator) in his latest post, as the script over the link advises. I don’t think there’s wiggle room here.
I don’t know how consequential this is. I just don’t like hedging.
Here’s Monbiot’s latest post. See for yourself.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/sep/01/heaven-earth-answers-plimer
—-
Plimer challenged Monbiot.
Monbiot accepted with conditions.
Plimer accepted the conditions (but has thus far failed to meet them).
Plainly, no wriggle room – but as far as I know neither protagonist has thus far claimed that there was.
I don’t understand the “I just don’t like hedging” bit?
Yes, that’s how I see it.
S2, I’ve been told here that Monbiot’s conditions were the topic of the debate, that the topic was “a debate”, and even that the topic was Plimer’s book. I’ve been told that Monbiot didn’t even accept Plimer’s challenge. I was told this when no one actually knew what Plimer’s challenge was. Now that Monbiot has finally clarified this in his last post (I emailed a request that he iterate the Plimer challenge because it seemed strange that he hadn’t), I’ve been told that “the initial challenge may not be what was subsequently agreed upon”. Clearly, Monbiot agreed to the challenge he linked to, which is what I quoted a couple posts ago.
The proper answer to my first question on this thread – “Is there a copy of Plimer’s challenge” – would have been, “I don’t know”. Instead – so it honestly seems to me – people have gone to strange lengths to explain or dismiss that odd omission from the narrative. I call this hedging. Particularly so when Monbiot just cleared the matter up and still people say something different.
For me it’s simple. If you announce a public debate, and it has a topic, you say what that is. Then you iterate any counter-challenges. Anything else smacks strange. Monbiot ‘hedged’ in a way, by omitting the debate challenge and publishing only the details of his counter-challenge. Maybe that was an innocent omission, but it’s sown confusion (with a little help from my ‘obsession’).
Imagine Gaving Schmidt emails Anthony Watts, challenging him to a debate. Watts publicly announces his acceptance without iterating the specific challnge, but instead publishes a list of questions – his counter-coditions – fishing for sources that he’s always complaining about (like the HadCRU raw station data). The denizens of WUWT respond to your questions about what the topic was by saying, “Watts never accepted them”, or, “the topic is the HadCRU data set”. We find out a month later that Schmidt’s challenge was ‘Global Warming: robust or not?’ Wouldn’t we find Watts’ public tactics a bit smelly?
I can accept no one else finds this interesting or pertinent (but I’ve received an awful lot of replies for a non-starter). I’ll let it go. I’ve got the answer to my first question now. I’m satisfied with that.
Peace.
Thanks (I think).
I agree that it would be useful to see the full exchange of emails between the two protagonists, but that isn’t the case. I guess that they both respect privacy.
The link to the Spectator doesn’t really tell us anything we didn’t already know, surely?
It does. Let me quote greenfyre from further up the thread.
People here (and a couple other blogs) believed there had been no specific challenge from Plimer because Monbiot omitted that from his discourse until a few days ago, a month later. Hardly ‘up front’. In this way, I believe he has massaged perceptions. It’s why some people think the debate topic is ‘Plimer’s errors’.
None of this changes anything about Plimer’s mendacity, nor am I suggesting that Monbiot’s conditions are somehow inappropriate.. But it occurred to me that Monbiot has also played the ‘optics’. I thought we were being a little one-eyed about the affair.
I meant not to continue this conversation, but you asked a direct question.
It doesn’t tell us anything we didn’t already know. I don’t know why he thinks it does.
It was already understood that the initial challenge by Plimer was to debate the reality of climate change, since Plimer is a climate change denier, and that is the point of his book, and his usual claims (repeated in the book) are what Monbiot was commenting on when Plimer demanded a debate. Monbiot chose to ensure a framework for debate that would specifically address Plimer’s false claims about the science as they appear in the book, include the criticisms of these claims, by scientists, and provide an opportunity for public discussion (which is consistent with how Monbiot usually conducts his work on democracy and education) rather than permit Plimer to wander off in highly individualistic, psuedo-scientific directions as he is well known to do in his public debates and discuss all kinds of tangential opinions rather than his specific and demonstrably false claims about climate science. Plimer’s thought processes are highly disorganized.
The question of Plimer’s exact words has been of no significant interest to most observers familiar with Plimer, Monbiot, the topic at hand, or the pattern of ‘debates’ Plimer has most recently pursued i.e., since the publication of the book.
The explanation for the lack of interest in barry’s point is not the absence of critical analysis.
p.s. barry doesn’t like to say that the climate issue is urgent. That means he is a type of denier. In fact, he is now the most common type of denier at Watts’.
cheers
>>People here (and a couple other blogs) believed there had been no specific challenge from Plimer because Monbiot omitted that from his discourse until a few days ago, a month later. Hardly ‘up front’. barry
There is nothing to suggest Monbiot ‘omitted’ anything, at least not intentionally. The letter to the Spectator was not exactly private. U.K. blogs linked to it and you are expected to read the relevant magazines and papers.
The ‘specific’ challenge is not specific. And the debate topic is Plimer’s errors – with or without Monbiot’s conditions – since that is all Plimer has as a basis for arguing that human-caused climate change is a myth. Monbiot was ensuring that Plimer’s errors would actually be addressed, so in that sense, too, it is (even more fully) about Plimer’s errors.
I am now seeing the extent to which you do not understand what is said to you.
You are just arguing for the sake of arguing, and it shows.
I was confused by these statements upthread.
https://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/08/12/monbiot-is-wrong-about-plimers-questions/#comment-4328
https://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/08/12/monbiot-is-wrong-about-plimers-questions/#comment-4359
https://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/08/12/monbiot-is-wrong-about-plimers-questions/#comment-4446
I may have misunderstood you. Monbiot agreed to the challenge (the debate topic) and Plimer agreed to the conditions (answer questions/cross-examination).
As we know, Plimer is reneging on his agreement.
—-
While I respect GreenFyre’s request for quits, I prefer to end my own interaction. 😉
>> It was already understood that the initial challenge by Plimer was to debate the reality of climate change.
Yes, barry, I said that. No other general challenge was likely given the context.
>>He [Monbiot] didn’t accept a general debate on climate change
Yes, I said that, too. The meaning of this statement is made clearer if you contrast the word ‘general’ with ‘specific’. Monbiot declined the initial general challenge (or debate) then accepted with conditions that ensured a specific challenge (or debate) and the details would be the claims in Plimer’s book.
>>I said Monbiot didn’t accept a general debate on climate change. That was in response to barry stating that “Monbiot is silly for accepting a general debate on climate change”.
Yes. See above. Or the explanation provided to you in the conversation you took this from, but if my thoughts were of any interest to you I guess you would have actually read them and taken time to understand what I said instead of repetitive shadowboxing.
>>Plimer challenged Monbiot to debate his (Plimer’s) lies and frauds about the science.
Yes, I said that. My meaning was obviously cynical rather than literal: Plimer has nothing but lies and frauds to offer, it wouldn’t matter what title he gave the debate in his initial challenge.
Barry, I appreciate some of the shared misery of miscommunication and the difficulty of communicating across perspectives.
However, I have to be honest. As I have already said, I feel that your indifference to the intelligence of others borders on contempt. I don’t know why you think so highly of yourself, or why you think you deserve to receive so much of other people’s valuable time. What I see is that you try to be polite about your superiority. That is a mark of social class – not knowledge.
I encourage you to review your ‘discussion’, from start to finish. If you already know that you have no capacity or no interest in seeing things from a different perspective, however, you won’t get much out of that exercise.
Over at Wattsupmybutt, you are the sort of denier who accepts human-caused climate change but not the scale of the crisis or the need for immediate action.
Yet you have chosen to visit a new climate site. Good. I don’t value your input, so far, but that is absolutely unimportant. Unity is needed on the issue and if you want to stay and you take the time to read past posts and discussions, you will increase your knowledge of a broad range of issues.
I think you will receive support, despite your negative start; but you will need to actually read something other than this thread, and show some respect for others’ experience and knowledge.
We are equals, here.
Good luck.
—-
[…] at Real Climate. Tim Lambert’s comments Greenfyre’s – here and here Chris […]
“From the distribution of the vines, olives, citrus and grain crops in Europe, UK and Greenland, calculate the temperature in the Roman and Medieval Warmings and the required atmospheric CO2 content at sea…”
What on earth does Monbiot hope to achieve with such a complex question? It crosses several disciplines, and zoology sure isn’t one of them (Monbiot’s field of study). Neither is it Plimer’s (geology).
Therefore, Plimer can’t answer the question, and Monbiot wouldn’t understand the answer if he did.
Wait – I know the answer to my question – given that the receipt of these answers was a condition of a debate, it gives Monbiot an excuse to chicken out of a debate with Plimer…..
—-
ooops – I got it backwards – Plimer asked the silly questions. I haven’t seen Monbiot’s questions….
Mark,
So, how does that change your last para?
This is getting a bit more subjective, but I much prefer the Zune Marketplace. The interface is colorful, has more flair, and some cool features like ‘Mixview’ that let you quickly see related albums, songs, or other users related to what you’re listening to. Clicking on one of those will center on that item, and another set of “neighbors” will come into view, allowing you to navigate around exploring by similar artists, songs, or users. Speaking of users, the Zune “Social” is also great fun, letting you find others with shared tastes and becoming friends with them. You then can listen to a playlist created based on an amalgamation of what all your friends are listening to, which is also enjoyable. Those concerned with privacy will be relieved to know you can prevent the public from seeing your personal listening habits if you so choose(Christian Louboutin Wedges).
[…] Greenfyre defines Plimer’s questions as “pure juvenile bafflegab” that should not be “dignif[ied]…with repetition“. Perhaps. Why then repeat that very same concept FOURTEEN times? It certainly looks like dignifying them to me […]