This Lateline featuring Ian Plimer and George Monbiot has to be seen to be believed. More from Tim Lambert and from James Farrell at Troppo.
Update I must say the response of those on Plimer’s side of the debate has been thoroughly disappointing. Tribal loyalty might perhaps justify silence in the face of an embarrassing performance like this. On the other hand, no one appears to have the cheek to suggest that Plimer came out looking good, and few on the delusionist side are willing to admit that the most prominent scientist on their side came across as a total fraud.
So we get two lines (a) It was really mean of Jones and Monbiot to keep on demanding that he answer the questions (which had been supplied in writing long in advance) (b) It’s too hard to tell. This is truly pathetic.
And, as I’ve said before, this style of dishonesty, originating with the tobacco lobby’s attempts to obfuscate the health effects of smoking, now permeates right wing discussion of any issue you care to name, from the Iraq war to the Global Financail Crisis. It’s hard to see how any kind of political discussion can be sustained in the face of this kind of thing
John Quiggin 
I agree, absolutely unbelievable. What do you call someone who states what seem to be falsehoods which he refuses to defend with evidence or argument? Careless? A fool? A liar?
Monbiot’s questions were responded to with irrelevancy that seemed to be a deliberate attempt to throw smoke on incompetent or deceitful analysis.
Plimer is testimony to the intellectual bankruptcy of the delusionist movement. Also testimony to problems within the higher education system.
Monbiot was a waste of space because Tony Jones was asking the same set of questions anyway. Given that the main topic was Plimers heterodox claims I suspect that the only benefit in having Monbiot there was for the theatre of it all. I thought it generated more heat than light.
Indeed, I staying with some friends in Adelaide when this interview (if that is the right word for it) started on TV. One of my friends had wondered what Plimer was really like – well, Plimer did not disappoint, that’s for sure! Monbiot had his case made by Plimer’s utter refusal to answer even the most simple of questions. Plimer attacked the lack of qualifications of Monbiot: not about answering questions but about Monbiot’s qualifications to pose the questions to Plimer! Come in Number 3, come in number 3, your time is up!
Plimer knows he is winning in the rural areas and towns so why bother answering a serious scientific question or even an easy one? It raises the question of why he even bothered turning up to Lateline if he wasn’t going to bother properly responding to reasonable questions.
Terje, I’m disappointed that even this unbelievable display of evasion on Plimer’s part can’t elicit anything from you, other than yet more evasion and misdirection.
@TerjeP (say tay-a)
Im constantly being disapointed by Terje as well…. Terje has loyalty to libertarianism despite all evidence of sensible policy to the contrary. I could almost agree with your desires for a government “about the same size as we had in 1901” were it not for all the other irresponsible “lack of interventions” you espouse, down to climate science denialism and almost complete abrogation of progressive taxation initiatives. Even were the government to be smaller Terje, it still has responsibilities to act in the interests of the majority. This is a point you appear to fail to acknowledge.
Heh I just watched this.
It’s obvious Plimer doesn’t believe a word he’s saying.
It’s obvious he is lying.
It’s obvious the man is wholly owned and bought by King Coal. We know all this apart from the content of what he’s saying, from his voice, demeanor and eyes. LOL!
I’m sending this everywhere.
Plimer was pathetic. He sounded more like someone protecting his directorship on various mining companies than putting forward a reasoned argument. Yeah, he makes lots of mullah of those directorships. Has he ever declared this?
People like Plimer typically have an incredible level of narcissistically fuelled conceit. This seems to be a defining characteristic of those in the denialist (and libertarian) movement. That is why they hold to cranky ‘original’ views in the face of obvious refutation and despite apparently being equipped, intellectually, to see that they are wrong. (It is also why someone like Plimer wants to win, against Monbiot, not with his evidence and arguments, but on the basis of his ‘qualifications’.) Taking a cranky view gives them a level of fame they would not obtain otherwise. They believe they are special. And they want the world to know it. But they are special. But not in the way they think. It would simply be sad, were it not for the harm they are doing.
I actually think that Ian Plimer may have lost it. His language and inability to argue a case seem very telling. He and Monbiot have been ‘dancing’ with each other for some time and you would think that surely Plimer would come to an interview with his adversary well prepared, whether with evidence or high quality subterfuge. But he actually ended up looking rather pathetic.
Plimer fought a good fight against Creationists years ago, but you have to wonder about his underlying psychological makeup. Does he actually live in the same world as us.
A far more dangerous AGW denialist, precisely because he can do ‘high quality subterfuge’ is Bob Carter. And his willingness to start doing the rounds among conservative politicians rather than jetting off to ‘alternative’ Copenhagen conferences is telling. Carter focuses on where he can do the most damage, not just grandstand to try and sell books.
@Freelander
Yes Freelander. The snaps at Monbiot as just a journalist where as he is a scientist and the snap at ‘young man’ – Afronted self-rightious pomposity. Its a trait I have seen in any live interview I have seen with him. A smirking smile, and the pronouncement from on high from the great professor. His on-line responce to Monbiots set of questions was rude patronising insult from ‘the great man’ putting down a rude upstart. Its almost as if he feels he doesn’t have to justify his words. The Professor has Spoken
I think there may be a lot going on in Ian Plimers head. But not much of it is about Science. And a lot of it is about Ian Plimer.
Sad really.
I watched it online this afternoon. I agree with Terje. Both sides used obfuscation and at least one side used smear and I am now none the wiser.
@John H
Ian Plimer has declared three directorships of mining and/or mining related companies. From the inside flap of his book, where he declares them (at least he does declare them):
CBH Resources Ltd, Ivanhoe Australia Ltd, and Kefi Minerals plc. He has also worked for North Broken Hill Ltd.
What is more important is the around-the-world tours and outback trips he takes. While people don’t see him on mass, those that do remember the simplistic slogans he dispatches, and they repeat them at dinner, at the pub, and out with mates. That is how the half-baked denial of AGW is spread. It isn’t from a rational analysis of the greenhouse effect and myriad other details. It spreads the same way many other ideas spread.
The only fix for this is to do the same kind of tours, visiting people in rural areas and giving them an unvarnished but straight-forward picture with lots of catchy-but-honest slogans to displace the Plimertism that has taken hold. He is not the only one doing these tours, by the way. Interestingly the coalition has been assisting the process. Time will reveal all.
@Glenn Tamblyn
With regards to Carter: exactly.
@Senexx
Only one side used obfuscation and smear Senexx. But obfuscation and smear are both polite words for a pack of absolute lies…and that was Plimer’s contribution to the debate.
If you are none the wiser, it is entirely your own intellectual shortcomings.
@Senexx
How did George Monbiot use obfuscation? I remember he had to insist on Plimer answering the question repeatedly, specifically because Plimer would sweave, equivocate, invoke the great ad homenim, smirk, and worst of all, simply repeat lies as stated by Monbiot. The evidence of this is amply documented across the internet and in scientific articles.
What is so sad is that there are a number of arguments that Plimer could have presented on their merits, based on available evidence, that would make sense. They might turn out to be incorrect in the end, but that would be the scientific approach to investigating climate science. Instead Plimer chooses a combination of rhetoric and leading people to draw an incorrect conclusion on things he knows (as a professional and practising Academic Lecturer in Geology for goodness sake) are simply false on all available evidence.
@Donald Oats
Don – twist, turn, duck, weave, squirm, avoid evidence, avoid giving references, slime his way out, use a patronising derisive tone, in short try every trick in the devils book except the truth or facts (but then thats not ib the devils handbvooks) – you know something ? Plimer reminds me of some libertarians in here?
Well I know where Plimer will end up if there is a god, but then people like Plimer probably thinks they can twist people’s views against god and get paid for it along the way, anyway.
Plimer used the classic tactic of bullies since time immemorial which is to accuse those who he in fact is bullying of acting “inappropriately” (loathsome word), or rudely, in this case Monbiot firstly and then his mental audience.
Which as we all know are most viewers of this interview in their untold numbers whom it’s fair to guess are not climate change refuseniks like this mining industry courtier and patsy but concerned citizens aghast at and rightly contemptuous of this craven bully’s grotesque and transparent theatrics.
@Donald Oats
Someone like Plimer would be almost unable to resist his directorships because they are evidence of ‘what an important person he is’. A very sad display with Monbiot. I must agree with Glenn. There may be a lot going on in Plimer’s head.
@Alicia
Alicia – Plimer employed the hackneyed authoritarian patriarch routine so favoured by hired business lobbyists…
Unfortunately for Plimer and blessedly for us the shrill, condescending authoritarian patriarch routine goes down today with women of all ages about as well as does Tony Abbott’s lewd and lame attempts to wind around our ovaries his sticky rosaries.
The Monbiot-Plimer stoush was a set piece, don’t forget.
For months a debate has been in the offing, involving these two. After much obfuscation mainly apparently from Plimer, the thing has happened, but not under the revealing glare of British TV as originally proposed.
My guess is Plimer was giving it a trial run, to see if he could cope with Monbiot.
I do not think there will be a debate on BBC, after “Lateline”.
Paul this will have gone all around the world.
Plimer’s involuntary rabbit in the headlights performance is polemical gold. It’s chortle territory for us.
@paul walter
I dont think so either Paul – Monbiot came off looking heaps more normal and sane (mainly because he is)….. I doubt Plimer, who is pretty damn sneaky and pretty self absorbed, even with his self interested arrogance / studied ignorance, will be backing back up for another shot at Monbiot.
I thought Plimer started well and did a great job keeping calm and might have won the debate in the eyes of people who are susceptible to denialist rubbish. However, by the time his evasions piled up he looked hopeless and only someone utterly committed to denial could have remained convinced by his performance. Well done Jones and Monbiot.
Bugger, just lost a post.
But you all have apparently discussed already Terje ‘s appallingly misleading comment, already, so now I need not worry. Thanks.
Not on Britsh TV. But it didn’t take long for Monbiot to report back to his followers, and he has an enormous following. They’ll all watch the video.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/dec/16/ian-plimer-versus-george-monbiot
@nanks
Good summary Nanks…pretty well agree..he sunk as it went on.
What kind of a name is Monbiot, is it French for left wing F wit scum? One thing he made abundantly clear is that he certainly is not a scientist, as he knows F-all about science.
Oh no – we have woken up the living dead of denialism….
Senexx:
It’s worth pointing out Plimer’s worst or second worst lie highlighted in his “debate” with Monbiot is where Monbiot asks Plimer about his corrupted quotation of a statement in one of Charles Keller’s recent papers. Monbiot says Keller’s paper says:
“The recent data from satellites and radiosondes blows away the contention that there has been no further warming.”
and Monbiot points out that Plimer corrupted this to:
“The recent data from satellites and radiosondes shows that there has been no further warming.”
When asked why he made this corruption, Plimer goes off on a tangent and starts talking about the difficulties in measuring temperatures using satellites.
This is Plimer’s standard procedure. When asked about one of his lies or misinformation, he ignores the question and starts talking about a peripheral issue.
I am astounded that Senexx is none the wiser about Plimer after this and that TerjeP thinks Jones was asking the same questions.
@Alice I am a mere layman trying to understand the subject. I recognise my considerable intellectual shortcomings on this issue. Thank you for your response.
@Chris O’Neill
They both caved to ad hominem attacks detracting from the issue. I am none the wiser on the issue. Many thanks for your response.
Sorry, new link needed.
The zombies have come out to play…..Tony – is that left wing F scum you object to, or science? I suggest you go back to the USSR if you want to fight the commies (and those poor people were victims of a fascist regime anyway).
Just go to bed….and say to yourself …there is no “red threat” and “climate change is real” and in a few days you will be fine and over your hallucinations.
@Senexx
Thats OK Senexx – just trying to help out.
@Senexx
Senexx – when the only person in this blog you agree with is Terje (the minority) I can assure you, you dont fool any of us. You are no layman so cut the crap.
First sign of a troll – an apology or a note of thanks for pointing out their ignorance.
Its so predicatble.
“climate change is real” Alice the climate has always changed, whats new?
@Tony G
Tony – you know and I know the climate is cahinging but you are not.
@Tony G
Tony – you know and I know the climate is changing but you, unfortunately, will not.
Two trolls in one night – its almost too much fun!
quiggin,
a more professional reporting of the program would be useful. but as a Fabian delusionist, your delivery into the public domain was predictable.
Alice we finally agree on something, yes the climate is changing, it is nothing new, it has always changed and it will continue to do so. There is nothing you or I or anybody else can do about it.
Proves it takes one to know one.
Michael Are U 1?
Senexx
I posted this [see below] at Oz Election Forum, addressed to another person, yesterday.
You posted today in the same thread [on a different point].
Later still today you made your comment #11 above .
I am hurt and disappointed that I offer such pearls of wisdom and perspicacity and you either do not bother to read them or read and ignore.
“Monbiot was ‘rude’ because Plimer was all over the shop filibustering and dropping red herrings because he could not deny that he had written lies in his book.
When confronted with his deliberate misquoting of a referenced text, the error re volcanic gases which the US Vulcanism authorities specifically refuted and the blatant deception of using 1998 as the base point for his clearly false claim of the earth actually cooling in the last decade, Plimer resorted to obvious bluster in an attempt to cover up.
He was ‘called’ on it.
As he should be.”
@Tony G
Interesting how members of the ‘dead pillocks society’ once trained to mumble on with some meaningless prattle, for example, “the climate is changing, it is nothing new, it has always changed and it will continue …” do so with boring rapidity. Wouldn’t it be nice if they could be more entertaining? Is that asking to much? For example, if suggesting that Monbiot is of French extraction, could we at least hear something, again, like “cheese loving surrender monkey”? Please?
@Tony G
Yeah Tony G, is that all you’ve got? Pretty lame.
“the blatant deception of using 1998 as the base point for his clearly false claim of the earth actually cooling in the last decade, ”
So to you people out there freezing your balls off, the world isn’t cooler than it was in 1998, disregard what your your thermometers say, the temperature was not hotter in 1998 than it is now and Monbiot is not a cochon.
Re James Farrell’s comment (thanks for link), the one thing Monbiot neglected to mention in that summary the eventual rightist retreat to the back foot, in the form of claims or insinuations of environmentalist conspiracies and mafias, to venally corner the market on research grants, etc.
And, as for what they’d do to the poor farmers, why that was too horrifying to contemplate.
This is because this has me in mind of other comments above relating to Plimer’s own outside “interests”, outside his “day job”.