Posts Tagged ‘Ian Plimer’


100 reasons to be appalled

Appalled that anything so transparently stupid as the Daily Express article “Climate change is natural: 100 reasons why” would appear anywhere other than as a failed junior high school paper.  Michael Le Page at New Scientist has kindly dealt with the first 50 in “50 reasons why global warming isn’t natural“, undoubtedly having gotten ill reading so many.

Liberal Conspiracy picks up some of the slack by debunking #s 88-100 in Con Home’s Climate Crock Rundown (88-100). They also provide some background on the European Foundation “think tank” (think ‘Heartland Institute’ with tea) that put this drivel together in Revealed: Top Tories linked to climate change denialism report.

Seriously, this such an unbelievable collection of basic logical errors and pure idiocy it defies belief, for eg:



Read Full Post »

293-365 SILENCE = DEATHBPSDBGiven the rather bizarre nature of the ongoing Plimer vs Monbiot debate saga I have been curious about how the climate change Deniers have viewed it.

Monbiot describes the lack of response from Plimer as “Answers Come There None.” As it happens “silence” is the best description for the typical climate change Denier response to this whole issue. In that respect it’s very reminiscent of the lack of attention given to Anthony Watts’ self-inflicted humiliation.

I was interested in the Denier reaction particularly with regard to:

  1. Plimer’s failure to answer Monbiot’s simple, straight forward questions. Answers that should have been in his book in the first place, but regardless should be less than an hour’s work to answer fully;
  2. Plimer’s sophomoric attempt to appear learned by asking nonsense questions cloaked in pseudo-scientific bafflegab;
  3. Plimer’s pathetic excuses, silence, craven display of cowardice and immaturity, and the consequent calling off of the debate by The Spectator.


Read Full Post »


Since posting “Spectator cancels Monbiot vs Plimer debate” I have encountered Fraser Nelson’s (The Spectator‘s new editor) disingenuous and utterly dishonest post “An empty chair for Monbiot.”

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:


Read Full Post »

Three Card MonteBPSDBWhile 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.


Read Full Post »

Talmadge Smoot

BPSDBAs part of analysing the Plimer Monbiot debate I thought it would be useful to critically examine Plimer’s final communication with Monbiot. As Plimer’s letter is rather lengthy I am posting this as a separate piece. Having set this debate in motion Plimer is caught and is  seeking a way out, but we’ll let Plimer speak for himself.

Dear Mr Monbiot,

I return from abroad, interstate and outback to a very large number of emails, including a number from you.

As you are aware, I challenged you to debate me. Contrary to normal debate procedure, you imposed a condition (i.e. I answer your questions)

As has been discussed previously and repeatedly,

  1. the condition was unusual, but nothing more;
  2. Plimer was free to refuse or negotiate further, he was under no obligation to accept;
  3. He accepted, so abide by it like a grown up.


Read Full Post »

BPSDB “1998 Revisited”

Even some of our most distinguished journalists …” 😆

In the latest Climate Denial Crock of the Week Sinclair has once again debunked the ‘Climate change ended in 1998’  aka ‘it’s been cooling for a decade’ etc climate change Denier meme. If you missed his earlier one Party like it’s 1998 here it is:


Read Full Post »

Caution - The Clueless Will Be ImpaledBPSDB

Is the climate change Denialosphere running some sort of “Incoherence Contest” that the rest of us are unaware of? Granted Deniers are never a source for much in the way of rational thought, but how to understand the flood of gibberish and convoluted bafflegab that we are experiencing today?

Just a quick update on the Plimer debate.  Those who have been following it know that climate change Denier Ian Plimer challenged George Monbiot to a debate. At the moment we are all still waiting for Plimer to answer some questions (which had been agreed to previously) about Plimer’s book, and then we can move on to the actual debate. Don’t forget that you can follow it on Delagado’s Wikia page as well. (more…)

Read Full Post »

HMS Pinafore (10)

BPSDB The Plimer / Monbiot debate saga continues.  In brief, climate change Denier Ian Plimer challenged prominent (climate) journalist George Monbiot to a debate. Monbiot accepted but with the condition of the submission of written questions prior to the debate. Monbiot submitted a rational and reasonable set of questions directly related to Plimer’s book. Plimer responded with juvenile and irrelevant bafflegab.

What does the Plimer Monbiot debate tell us about how we approach educating the public about climate change / global warming? Is there anything more of interest to learn from the Plimer farce? can his recent infamy inform our efforts to better educate the public? are there any take away lessons?

Drops the wind and stops the mill

As reported earlier Deep Climate submitted a complaint to the Australian Broadcasting Company about giving Plimer a soapbox when they know full well he is distorting and misrepresenting the facts. Predictably the outcome is not satisfactory.


Read Full Post »

Darth Vader


.Last week Ian Plimer seemed to be just another climate change Denier who apparently wouldn’t know real science if it chewed his leg off.

Now with the evolving debate with Monbiot it seems to me that there are three major aspects to the Plimer story, which like all good stories is really about meta-stories playing themselves out in small.

The Phantom Science

First there is the issue of the well documented lack of actual substance to Plimer’s “science” generally. A case in point is back in May when Deltoid very helpfully sourced one of Plimer’s graphs to that appalling piece of garbage “The Swindle” (Plimer claimed he couldn’t recall where he got it).  It’s worth going to Deltoid and playing with the graphic 😉 Three points to make, what kind of researcher:

  1. can’t recall/didn’t document the source for a significant piece of evidence for his main point?
  2. uses a source well known to be a fiction/fraud?
  3. lies about 1. to try and hide 2.

Seriously … this person is supposed to be a research scientist? for real?


Read Full Post »


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)

Plimer resorts to attack as the best form of defence


Read Full Post »

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

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

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

Warren Zevon – Boom Boom Mancini

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

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

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

Heaven and Earth (book) – Wikipedia

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

Read Full Post »

BPSDBThe “George Will Defense” is, having been caught in a series of flagrantly ridiculous lies, tell some more in an attempt to justify them.  It seems that Manthrope’s uncritical idolizing of Ian Plimer’s climate change Denial discussed in Vancouver Sun: Perpetual Motion Works, Earth is Flat! has upset some of the Vancouver Sun‘s readers. So much so that a response seemed called for.

Unfortunately we do not get a thoughtful and honest reflection on the whys and wherefores of having published drivel. Far from it. The title “Opposing views draw scientists’ scorn” tells you exactly how Manthrope is going to try to spin it.

You see, the problem is not that the Plimer’s book is a load of unscientific nonsense, or that Manthrope was either incompetent or unethical (or both) as a journalist in his partisan and unabashed promotion of Plimer. Oh no, the problem is that scientists are intolerant of “opposing views.” We’re not talking about facts and science here, we’re talking about “views”, opinions, and tolerance.


Read Full Post »

I love PR (public relations)BPSDB The headline may as well have read like that since the actual one was just as idiotic; “Global warming is the new religion of First World urban elites.” The article in question is allegedly reporting on the “science” of Ian Plimer, “an unremitting critic of “anthropogenic global warming”.”

The article by Jonathan Manthorpe is so fawning and gushing that it would be embarrassing as text for Plimer’s book jacket, never mind as an Opinion piece or book review. For breathless and brainless worship it’s about on a par with an adolescent’s Hannah Montana Myspace fan page. Yet according to the Vancouver Sun, this article was supposedly “News”?

In and of itself it’s just another piece of popular media climate change Denierism which has already been responded to by others. However, since the piece is so extreme in several senses I thought it might be a good example to use to look at the issue of climate science in the media generally.

Let’s begin with Plimer and his book. “Heavan and Earth” was published back in April and has been thoroughly reviewed by a number of reputable scientists (see ‘Plimer, a sampling’ below), including a point by point critique (38 page pdf). Real Climate’s summary pretty much covers the response by scientists:


Read Full Post »