His attempt to take Monbiot to task for being true to his word and the conditions set for the debate is such a brain dead, duplicitous outrage that it deserves vivisection.
As documented in my “Spectator cancels” post, The Spectator is 100% aware that:
- the reason for the cancellation of the Monbiot vs Plimer debate was Plimer defaulting on his part of the agreed upon conditions for the debate;
- those conditions were set before any debate was agreed to;
- It was The Spectator itself that forced the issue by insisting that a firm commitment had to be made so that marketing for the event could proceed;
- It was The Spectator that took it as given that the debate was canceled even though four days remained before the deadline.
I also document that it seems very likely that The Spectator knew that Plimer had absolutely no intention of honouring his obligation, and they had made plans with Plimer on the assumption that Monbiot would be true to his word and refuse to debate as a result. Indeed this whole thing may very well have been a setup.
Despite knowing this to be true, Nelson has the gall to blame Monbiot for the debates failure.
Today, in what is an act of desperation for any columnist, he [Monbiot] has published private emails showing an exchange he had with Matthew d’Ancona, Nelson
Is it an “act of desperation” to document what actually happened? particularly given that Deniers are prone to lying and dishonesty? Hard to believe, but maybe Monbiot feared that someone might be so deceitful and unethical as to actually try and blame him for the debates failure … now who might try something that cheap and dishonest?
Nelson goes so far as to write his piece as though it were speculative analysis of why “alarmists” are afraid to debate. To pull this off he necessarily has to lie and and mislead.
False: Alarmists vs scientists
Part of their litany is a desire to avoid coming face to face with academics or scientists who are specialists in their subject and might be able to debunk their prejudices. Nelson
It is the scientists armed with facts and science who are “the Alarmists.” By contrast, the Deniers are a few dozen industry shills, a few geriatric crackpots who never did climate research in their lives, plus a dozen or so who can’t let go of their pet theories even though science has shown them to be totally wrong. (see here, here, here, and here).
All this pack of charlatans has to offer is the same brain dead fables, frauds and hoaxes (see here, here, here and here) that have long since been shown to be nonsense. As one of those charlatans Plimer is not a “specialist in” climate, and his book is well documented as being scientific gibberish (and here).
I wonder what he [Monbiot] makes about this US Senate list of 700 scientists who dissent over man-made global warming Nelson
Since Monbiot is not an idiot and is capable of using a search engine he is undoubtedly aware that the list is a fraud.
Whether Nelson also knows it and offers it anyway, or is so pathetically gullible that he does not fact check (and who expects an editor to do that? Obviously Spectator editors don’t) is another question.
False: “Monbiot doesn’t really have an answer”
Monbiot that he may well be right but what’s the harm in debating? Monbiot doesn’t really have an answer, … Nelson
Monbiot has been absolutely clear in his column and in the very emails that Nelson cites as to why (more on debates here and here). Rather than engage those points honestly Nelson choose to err with a Fallacy: Appeal to Ridicule by attempting to belittle Monbiot for “setting prissy conditions.” Since Nelson knew perfectly well what Monbiot’s reasons were we can only assume that he was unable to respond to them intelligently, and instead opted for a more prepubescent tactic.
False: “If he hoped to scuttle our debate,”
As documented it was the The Spectator and/or Plimer who scuttled the debate. To be perfectly frank, it looks very much like 1) The Spectator planned a November talk by Plimer all along and that this entire debate was a setup, and 2) The Spectator was perfectly aware that Plimer would default.
False: But what should we do about Monbiot?
But what should we do about Monbiot? I’m tempted to plonk an empty chair on the platform, to signify part of this ‘debate’ which only dares to make its point from behind the shelter of newsprint. Nelson
Of a certainty what you won’t do about Monbiot is be honest and forthcoming about what actually happened and who was culpable, that much is clear. As I have already stated, “it dares to makes it’s point” with facts and science, but that is only obvious to those not made totally irrational by their ideology.
But what should we do about “jounalists” who lie and deceive? If I may quote from my critique of Manthrope‘s pathetic fawning on Plimer:
If a man can be judged by his actions, then this piece has significantly lowered Nelson in my estimation. I am not ashamed to have rational empiricists for my brethern; but I would be ashamed to be connected with a man who used his position as an editor to obscure the truth.
Perhaps The Spectator should plonk an empty head on their banner, to signify the quality of the journalism which only makes it’s point with lies and deception?
Nowhere in this lying, dishonest excuse for an editorial does Nelson wonder if maybe the reason honest, ethical people are reluctant to debate Deniers is that they think Deniers tend to be dishonest liars … now where would they have gotten that impression?
After Nelson …
Nelson’s rant prompted Mehdi Hasan at The New Statesman to write “Fraser Nelson’s climate change denial” in which he focuses on debunking the Inhofe 700 fraud. This in turn drew the ire of Tom Harris who states:
What really gets on my nerves … those on the left believe in the Al Gore analysis
Further, while there is a political bias to the issue, there are huge numbers of conservatives who are not idiots and who accept the scientific facts. There are also large numbers on the left who do not.
And what is it with the Denier obsession with Gore? Is it some kind of Oedipal competition with a father figure kind of thing?
and are utterly dismissive of those who disagree with it, contemptuously and arrogantly dismissing them as “climate change deniers”.
False: We are dismissive of those who refuse to acknowledge the science and engage with it honestly, and instead wallow in cheap rhetorical tricks like pretending there are things like “the Al Gore analysis.” Those who rationally and intelligently discuss the facts we refer to as “skeptics” regardless of their conclusions.
This is an offensive and stupid term,
seeking to associate even those with genuine doubts about the scientific consensus with neo-Nazi holocaust deniers
False: the reason you had to specify ‘holocaust’ Deniers is because “Denier” refers to a range of behaviours, but until you add the adjective there is no way to know whether the object it refers to is climate change, HIV, the moon landing, etc. This argument is part of the climate change Denier attempt to portray themselves as victims, when in fact it is them who use terms like ‘enviro-nazis’ with abandon.
The row between Monbiot and Nelson/Plimer is infantile. A lot of people would be interested, I think, in watching an informed and civilised debate between the two camps,
Who in the Denier camp is ” informed and civilised?” Certainly not Plimer. Nor are you from what I read in your post. How about you spend less time writing polemics about other people’s alleged ignorance and instead try to inform yourself ?
“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.
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