BPSDBWhile organizing Monbiot vs Plimer debate (full background here) The Spectator put Monbiot in an impossible position which forced the cancellation of the event. They clearly knew more about Plimer’s intentions than they were telling. The only real question is whether they colluded with Plimer in doing this, as some evidence suggests, or if it was mere happenstance.
So what happened?
On 29 July 2009 Plimer directed the Spectator to organize the debate, including giving a specific date; this is before any debate had been agreed to. Why this date in particular? why in London? why not ask Monbiot if he was even available at that time? (he wasn’t) To me it reads very much like Plimer had other business in London about this time and it would be convenient for him as he would be there anyway.
Regardless, the date is being set before there is even an event. Monbiot has not agreed, in fact he states sooner would be more suitable IF a debate can be agreed to.
Conditions for written questions and answers are agreed to, but unfortunately Monbiot is not specific enough in designating exactly when Plimer was to respond with his “precise and specific responses”, which will prove an error. As we now know, Plimer would waffle and weasel for weeks, anything other than actually answer the questions.
The Spectator went ahead with scheduling a slightly earlier event. On 6 Aug 2009 this email from The Spectator to Plimer came to light:
Dear Ian, I would like to introduce myself, Phoebe Vela, I am in charge of the Events for the Spectator. As I sure you are aware, we finally managed to hold George Monbiot’s feet to the fire and get him to agree to debate with you on the topic on Wednesday 21 October 2009 in London. … I hope you will agree that Matthew d’Ancona taunted him on your behalf in order to guarantee a good event.
Despite Pheobe’s subsequent assurances to the contrary, “we finally managed to hold George Monbiot’s feet to the fire” and “Matthew d’Ancona [editor of The Spectator] taunted him on your behalf ” hardly sounds like a neutral third party.
Then on 21 August 2009 The Spectator says “we are going to start the marketing for the debate scheduled on 12 November 2009” even though there is no sign of Plimer answering the questions. This despite The Spectator being fully aware of the Plimer’s failure to do so, an issue they asked him about on 06 August 2009. We have no idea if and how he replied to them, merely that they were aware that it was an issue.
Monbiot had been having surgery, so it is not until 02 September 
2009 that he is able to tell them very clearly “Please be aware that Professor Plimer has not yet met my conditions for the debate and shows no sign of doing so. I repeat – it cannot go ahead until he has done so. So please do not market it yet: he will be wasting your time and money if he won’t meet my terms.”
Could not be clearer; as per the initial conditions for the debate, no answers, no debate, “do not market it yet.” Just to be sure he adds “Throughout our correspondence, you have given me the impression that you either haven’t listened to or haven’t understood a word I’ve said. So please confirm that you have read this email and understand its contents.”
Monbiot’s dilemma is clear. From an ethical perspective it is only fair to be absolutely clear with The Spectator. Further, once The Spectator “markets” the debate it will be virtually impossible to refuse later as i) he will be labeled as chickening out (too late) and ii) it is entirely possible they would hold him liable for financial damages if he withdraws once they have invested in it.
Finally, if at this point he has faint hope of ever seeing Plimer’s answers, then getting locked into debating regardless will mean he has no hope of ever seeing them. Since intellectual honesty and personal integrity clearly mean nothing to Plimer, this is the only lever Monbiot has left. Pressured by The Spectator Monbiot cannot simply let things proceed and keep waiting to see if Plimer will ever abide by his promise.
The plot thickens
On 07 September 2009 The Spectator says “Gentlemen: we have a debate to organise and marketing to begin and we cannot continue with this ceaseless exchange of e-mails. Too many pre-conditions are being laid down. George: we have reached a stalemate on pre-debate Q&As. You have always made it clear that you won’t debate without these answers.”
Excuse me? if Monbiot “always made it clear” that he “won’t debate 
without these answers” exactly what “pre-conditions are being laid down”? If they are referring to Monbiot, then obviously they know he is not laying down any new preconditions. If they are not referring to those, then what are they referring to?
Further, it’s been almost a week that they have known that Monbiot will not go ahead without the agreed upon terms, terms they have known about for month. What have they said to Plimer? what did he reply? How is it a stalemate and how do they know? Are they aware that Plimer has no intention of meeting the conditions?
Pardon my presumption, but it would seem to me that a neutral third party with money and prestige at risk would:
- recognize that the problem is Plimer not meeting the conditions he agreed to;
- be pressuring Plimer to meet them so that the event could proceed;
- communicate to Monbiot what they know of Plimer’s position eg whether he has told them anything, and if so, what?
So what does The Spectator do?
So we must proceed on the basis that you will not now be part of the debate. That is a great pity and many will wonder why the pre-conditions were necessary. But so be it. We’ll miss you — could have been a great debate.
Ian:
On the assumption that George will not now debate you, can we proceed on the following basis: on the agreed date of Thursday 12 November at 2 Savoy Place, London WC1, you will give a 30 minute lecture on global warming and then take questions/points from the audience for 60 minutes.
Wtf?
- The deadline (11th September) has NOT passed, yet it is clear that they know Plimer will not meet his obligations. How do they know that? With four days left for Plimer, how do they know he does not yet intend to fulfill his word?
- Why, given that there is time left, does the message to Plimer NOT include any inquiry about the status of the questions, whether he intends to fulfill his obligations, and just what he intends? It seems to me that these would be very logical questions that a neutral third party would be asking in this situation.
- They take it as a given that Plimer is coming anyway and will give a lecture instead. Granted it is posed as a question, but I find the tone more one of confirming details rather than negotiating a whole new and unexpected scenario.
- Why assume that Plimer will come and lecture? why not enquire whether Monbiot would care to give a lecture since it is Plimer who has (or will) default? Monbiot is in London anyway, whereas Plimer is in Australia; unless one had a lot more information it would seem that the logical assumption would be that Monbiot is the one most likely to be available.
Despite the fact that it is clearly Plimer who is at fault, The Spectator is only to eager to dump Monbiot and go with Plimer. Plimer is the one who has derailed the debate, yet Monbiot is the one they treat as at 
fault. We cannot know what actually went on, but it seems clear to me that The Spectator knew far more than they were telling.
Was the Spectator colluding with Plimer all along? Did they and Plimer both know from the start that Plimer would never answer the questions, and hence it was possible Monbiot would refuse? Was Monbiot the mark for a scam by a con man and his shill?
We cannot know, but something stinks here.
“Since 1982, spring in East Asia (defined here as the eastern third of China and the Korean Peninsula) has been warming at a rate of one degree Fahrenheit per decade.” Earth Gauge
We give our consent every moment that we do not resist.
Denier “Challenge” aka Deathwatch Update: Day 327 … still no evidence.
IMAGE CREDITS:
Three Card Monte by Runs With Scissors
Acep Hale, card tricks by canopic
danila does a card trick, of course by Shira Golding
Shibitzari/The Shell Game by rudlavibizon
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.
As we know, in late August, d’Ancona was replaced as Speccie editor by Fraser Nelson – well-known for his economic libertarianism, and a climate change denier who has publicly appealed to Inhofe’s list (seriously) to justify his denialism.
It is reasonable to suspect that the plot really thickened after Nelson’s hiring.
—-
Greenfyre,
It’s all very simple. ‘The Spectator’ is a right-wing rag. AGW “scepticism” is overwhelmingly a right-wing pursuit. For ‘The Spectator’, this is all just a means of advancing the “AGW is a hoax” nonsense. Why else would they promote Plimer’s book? Why else would they play any part in organising this “debate”.
Monbiot knows how these “debates” work; he knew that it was essential to get answers from Plimer in writing in advance to key questions. He also knew that Plimer could not answer them.
Plimer’s bluster and insults will be turned into claims that Monbiot has backed out and that Plimer has therefore won by default.
At some point, these lying SOS will need to be taken to court. [corrected typo]
—-
When it comes to Denydiots, there is no limit to what they believe.
It is only this that allows Poe’s Law to remain unfalsified at DD.
Yes, one cannot really compete with the real denialists. Plimer makes the commenters at DD appear like amicable geniuses.
What was touted as a debate was actually a game of brinkmanship. Having reviewed the communications I am now convinced, instead of speculating, that neither side behaved honourably.
—
Show us where Monbiot did not behave honourably.
No waffling. Just the facts.
Shorter barry:
Hey guys, please don’t attack me because I’m merely casting some aspersions on Monbiot, just like before.
— bi
Lets make things clear.
1. Monbiot is a journalist/media person who asked Plimer some reasonable questions about science.
2. Plimer is a scientist that makes some unusual claims about climate change who refused to answer the questions.
Question: What scientist who claims to know climate science refuse to answer questions from a media person about the subject???
Maybe one that isn’t very confident and has spread their knowledge a bit to widely!?
I wasn’t convinced that “barry’ was a concern troll last time. I am now.
Same here Mark.
Plimer is ready to travel around the world to debate his scientific conclusions in public. Monbiot will not even turn up to the debate, down the road from the Guardian offices! If it was a tennis match, a non-appearance forfeits the match. Plimer is the winner 🙂
The warmist rarely turn up to debate. They’re scared too, their arguments are not convincing. Try getting Hansen or Gore to a debate with skeptical climate scientist. They don’t accept, they never do.
—-
With that line of reasoning, you just claimed that the creationists are “right”. Dawkins doesn’t debate with them, Gould declined, too.
Oh, and Plimer merely tries to sell his book (which is why he won’t answer Monbiot, he’d expose the book as crackpottery).
Monbiot lives in Wales, not the Grauniad offices. Whilst not involving as long a journey as Plimer, it would still involve an overnight stay (assuming the debate would be held in the evening). What’s the point in that if your opponent has proven himself to be unreliable and a liar?
The denialists rarely turn up in the journals. They’re scared too, their arguments are not convincing. Try getting Plimer to submit a paper that will be peer-reviewed by a skeptical climate scientist. He won’t — he can’t support his statements.
Liars can ‘win’ debates — by making stuff up faster than it can be refuted, and fast talking “convinces” people.
This doesn’t make the liars right. It makes them effective.
Education is a slow process, at best.
If you think it’s not worth the time it takes to learn, try ignorance.
Sorry for taking so long to reply.
Monbiot had received a specific challenge to a debate including a topic. He did not post the topic nominated until over a month after the stoush had been ongoing. As we know from discussions in the previous thread about this, that omission led to assumptions by many that ‘there was no specific challenge’; that ‘Monbiot never agreed to any specific challenge’; that ‘the topic was the errors in Plimer’s book’.
All these were assumptions given out in the discussion in the previous thread, and they were wrong. People were mistaken because Monbiot was not forthcoming when he should have been. He used his public forum to manage perceptions. He did not use it – as he expounded to Plimer – as a platform upon which to be open and transparent.
I will give what I think is one clear example of manipulation in the narrative of events.
Plimer sends this:
Aug 3
Point 2 was the condition that Plimer answer Monbiot’s questions online. Point 3 was the cross-examination condition.
Notice here Plimer says he will be putting questions to Monbiot.
Monbiot insists on points 2 and 3 in a subsequent email and Plimer replies:
Aug 4
Plimer tacitly accepts the written part of the debate.
Notice he again advises he will be sending Monbiot questions as well.
Monbiot emails his questions to Plimer. Plimer responds:
Aug 7
Notice yet again Plimer advises he will be sending return questions. Does Monbiot respond to this advice in any of his emails? No. Does he mention to the public that Plimer is sending his own set of questions? No. When Plimer replies, it is with his own set of questions. When Monbiot next goes to print, this is how he describes the above email and his reaction to the following one.
Monbiot leaves us with the impression that Plimer has out-of-the-blue, unannounced, plopped a bunch of questions in Monbiot’s lap. That was the impression we all had after reading that article. That is deceitful.
Having seen the emails (Spectator/Plimer/Monbiot) and timed them, it’s clear to me that this is a game of brinkmanship that everyone has been playing, Monbiot included. Monbiot has a special regard because all the information about this was coming solely from his articles. As a responsible journalist, and in the interests of an open, honest debate, he had a duty of care to supply all relevant information about the debate in a timely maner. He did not.
I think Mike best caught the mood of the exchanges when describing Monbiot’s conditions as an opening move in a game of chess.
None of the above is meant to excuse Plimer’s awful book, his own mendacity in reply to Monbiot, the Spectator’s manipulation and distortion. I simply disagree with the view that Monbiot has been open and transparent in this. He played his audience. Now that he’s made the communiques public, it’s clearer to me how he did that. I don’t blame him for it. I’m just calling a spade a spade.
Shorter barry:
I’m merely insinuating that Monbiot is a liar, and that even if he’s not a liar, he’s merely playing to his audience. Therefore, Monbiot is a liar, and I’m an extremely honest and open-minded man.
— bi
barry/adam
The emails may be personally interesting, but objectively, I don’t agree that they have added anything really new to our previous understandings or offer any genealogical details.
The comments on the previous thread are consistent. The errors in Plimer’s book are what Plimer talks about as ‘the science’. And similarly, the real science, and combating Plimer’s nonsense, are the same thing for the purposes of ‘debating’ climate change with Ian Plimer.
You are the only person I have seen on the Internet who does not understand this. Admittedly, I don’t spend much time on the Internet. On the other hand, perhaps you have some sort of obsession or blind spot, and others’ points will come to you later.
Your persistence suggests that you do not feel you have been heard. I’m sorry about that.
You are concerned with openness and transparency; and indicate you believe that the explanation for the lack of appreciation for your concerns is a problem with a noncritical defense of Monbiot. You have also raised concern about a nonreflective stance in relation to the problem of public perceptions and the media in relation to the climate issue in general, on this and other blogs.
Fair enough.
Of course I expect everyone is aware that Monbiot is a journalist and seems to love his work and he is paid for this work. Moving on.
It is possible to underappreicate that Monbiot’s demonstrated approach to journalism includes the express intention of informing and providing space for critical public reflection, discussion and decision-making. His cultural writings suggest he does this with the understanding that you win some, you lose some. It is up to the public to practice democracy.
If some members of the public are sympathetic with a sexist authoritarian fossil such as Plimer, that is to be expected. It is 2009 and we have lost ground, not gained it. It doesn’t surprise me that in addition to difficulties reflecting on climate change, some people also have difficulty reflecting on some of the underlying political issues, such as patriarchy.
cheers
Martha,
Whatever barry’s concerned with, it’s obviously not transparency. He’s just repeatedly insinuating that Monbiot was being dishonest, which he ‘proves’ by simply quoting Monbiot and then subtly insinuating that Monbiot’s quotes were dishonest. He’s just casting aspersions.
— bi
“In return” doesn’t mean “in advance” — there was never any exchange at all. Plimer _had_agreed_, before the debate, to take and answer questions about his own book’s claims and sources (which are notoriously made up nonsense, but he can get away with that in a debate format, as he well knows).
He never asked Monbiot to answer questions before the debate. He sent some nonsense questions instead of the agreed-upon reply.
The guy is a debater. This is tactical stuff.
The people who are already predetermined to say he won are saying he’s winning. They’d say that even if he were just writhing and frothing, you know. He doesn’t have to make sense.
Hank, I pretty much agree, except:
Before Monbiot sent his questions, Plimer first said he would have his own questions for Plimer at the debate, then, when tacitly agreeing to answering questions online, he again said he would send Monbiot his own set of questions to be answered. Then, after Monbiot sent Plimer his questions, Plimer once more advised he would be compiling his own questions for Monbiot while preparing his answers. From a neutral standpoint, all this would be fair enough, as would both parties receiving their questions before answering.
But – Monbiot pitched the narrative differently to how it actually unfolded.
Monbiot knows that a face-to-face, general debate on the reality of climate change is too susceptible to rhetorical tricks – in fact, a stand-up debate is a terrible forum to champion or shed light on the facts of climate change. (That contention is generally held by contributors here)
So, he accepts the challenge to debate Plimer on ‘Humans induce climate change: myth or reality’, but makes it conditional on a course that would obviate the need for the debate. We cheer George for his intelligent gambit, particularly when Plimer agrees to the conditions.
But Monbiot exercises another kind of intelligence that I find dishonourable. He neglects to publicise the topic of the debate. He neglects to publicise the exchanges between himself and Plimer that would make clear Plimer expects recipricocity on the conditions. In this way, he manages perceptions, and, to my mind, his actions are gilded by those on his side in a similar, but not as rabid way, as Plimer’s are gilded by his supporters.
The take-home message for me is that we have to be up front and honest in getting the message out. We need to be strategic in our delivery, not tactical. Monbiot never seriously wanted a debate. He shouldn’t have pretended otherwise. He was right on course calling Plimer on his book, but off-course acceding (even with conditions) to a general debate in the first place.
The idea of a face-to-face debate is actually a side-show, and which, it appears we all agree, is a bad idea. What Monbiot really wants to do is put Plimer and his book in the dock and interrogate – it’s why he says he wants the debate in the form of a ‘trial’. But ‘debate’ is how Monbiot has pitched the stoush.
Martha,
thanks for that reply. I feel better understood. I am sure that previous misunderstandings owe to my poor expression more than anything else.
Shorter barry:
I’ll just repeatedly insinuate, insinuate, insinuate that Monbiot is being dishonourable and lying. In our quest towards climate action, we should refrain from doing what I’ve repeatedly insinuated that Monbiot was doing.
— bi
Monbiot and Plimer eventually got together in a clash on ABC Australia recently:
http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200912/r487279_2511549.asx
It’s being discussed over at Deltoid:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/plimer_exposed_as_a_fraud.php
—-