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 »

Older Posts »