I’ve just received an invitation from the Brisbane Institute to participate in a debate with Ian Plimer and Lord Monckton. Having seen Plimer’s Lateline performance, I can’t imagine that this exercise will add much to the sum of human knowledge. OTOH, the event will go ahead regardless. Any thoughts?
Clarification I should say straight off that I have no intention of attempt to debate climate science. Although I’m probably better qualified to discuss the key issues (many of which involve statistics) than either Plimer or Monckton, that’ s not saying much. In any case, discussing these issues in a debate format with dishonest antagonists is pointless, as has been shown many times.
So, the only way to approach it is to address the underlying conspiracy theory directly. If Monckton and Plimer are right, all the major scientific bodies in the world are engaged in a conspiracy to introduce communist world government by (drumroll!) auctioning tradeable carbon emissions permits. The question is, can I convince an audience sympathetic to delusionism that this is a really silly thing to believe?
Update Without advising me that my invitation had been withdrawn, the Institute made another invitation, to Barry Brook, who accepted. So, the decision has been made for me. I did, however, think about the approach I might take if I accepted.
I planned to elaborate Monckton’s conspiracy theory, announce myself as part of the global conspiracy, and conclude by pointing to Margaret Thatcher (Monckton’s former employer) as the originator of the whole thing (she has a great 1990 speech putting forward the case for urgent action based on the precautionary principle). At the end I would have played it straight for a minute or so, asking the audience whether they want to believe this black helicopter nonsense or the alternative that the scientists have it right. Would this have worked? We’ll never know.
Regardless, I certainly hope that Barry Brook and Graham Readfearn (the Courier-Mail environment blogger who will also appear on the pro-science side) stick it to Monckton and Plimer for their political axe-grinding, long track record of lies, and general nuttiness, rather than giving this deplorable event any credibility.
John Quiggin 
You have better things to do than waste your time with delusional freaks and conspiracy nuts. Like you’ve said many times on your blog, we have moved on from debating the science of climate change.
No air. Debate why the universities are hosting charlatans instead.
If you ‘believe’ in this AGW BS, then have the courage of your convictions and stand up for your beliefs.
BTW, if you decide to go let me know how I can get tickets, so I can go and cheer for my side.
John,
the members of Climate Scientists Australia http://www.climatescientistsaustralia.org.au/ will not debate denialists becuse we believe that it is the wrong medium to counter simple lies with complex truths. We turned down a CEDA event in December for that very reason.
On the other hand, if you joined Christopher and Ian and contributed a stand-up comedy routine to complement their biting satire of the scientific method, I would be there with bells on!
@Tony G
There is only on “side” in this phoney debate and you are definitely on it.
@Tony G
I meant “one side” not “on side”.
I agree with those who advise not to participate. Monckton and Plimer are egotisitc charlatans and frauds, but in a setting like this they will be entertaining and seemingly impregnable. Let the Brisbane Institute fly its new colours without the benefit of token “balance”. Then we can all freely question what it is on about.
That’s what it comes down to for you, Tont G, tribal ‘sides’.
If forced to choose between science and the scientific method on one hand, and a vast global conspiracy on the other, hmmm, well that’s a tough choice.
John – if AGW is an incorrect theory, or significantly flawed, it does not follow that all the major scientific bodies in the world are engaged in a conspiracy. It does not even follow that all the major scientific bodies engages in climate science are engaged in a conspiracy. It merely entails that the later group have made some misjudgements, been mislead or otherwise got things wrong. I’m incredibly sceptical of any grand conspiracy theory but it does not prevent me also being sceptical of AGW.
@TerjeP (say Tay-a)
Most of the scientists working in climate related science are not on a “side”, they are not all in total agreement with each other and they are not all putting forward a narrow unifying theory, despite the way they are being grouped into a straw man by mischief makers.
I have no vested interest in AGW being proven true, in fact life would be easier if it could be comprehensively refuted. But the counter arguments haven’t convinced me, especially when they are made by the likes of Plimer who continually evade questions.
The AGW debate Plimer is engaged in is a phoney side show that is wasting everyones time. The real work and the real debate takes place through peer reviewed research. The accusations of collusion and conspiracy speak more about Plimer than his straw man opponent.
Wilful;
Members of Climate Scientists Australia are saying;
“Making sense of scientific information on climate and climate change can be a daunting task: the key scientific topics are complex and MULTIDISCIPLINARY, and the huge amount of information on them is often overwhelming or conflicting.”
The reality is that the scientific evidence for AGW is inconclusive and until that fact changes we are going to have DEBATES, so there is going to be sides it is not tribalism,.
Plimer is a professor in an earth science, so he is more than qualified to debate his view point, Mockton is looking at the political implications and John is qualified in a political science, so he is should be able to articulate his view point.
What do you want to do stick your head in the sand? the AGW issue is far from settled.
John, I think it is worth “debating” with them, perhaps joining forces with someone who has a command of the more technical material. Joining up with someone who has paleo-geology expertise relevant to climate science would throw Plimer I reckon. Maybe a paleontologist like Peter Ward, if he is game?
As for the conspiracy theory, you could hit them with the reciprocal case where they are basically following the “Tobacco is good for you” mob and their “Doubt is our business” line. The manner in which the Tobacco lobby’s hired guns (a big PR firm that run interference strategies for organisations, can’t remember the name) ran their campaign from 1954 until recently is pretty much the template for the recently re-grouped Australian denialists. Get Plimer et al to explain why they aren’t the guys running interference for our Australian coal and oil guys. Someone must know if/who the PR mob is behind the new more on-message Aussie denialists.
Final thought: the denialist crowd also parallel the “Intelligent Design” mob in some aspects of strategy. The IDers differ from the Creationists in that the Cers tried to attack evolutionary theory while holding fast to a literalist reading of Genesis – the 4004BC flood, whatever – and the IDers simply aim for “teaching the controversy”, meaning that they want “Intelligent Design” to be part of the Biology curriculum as a counterpoint to evolution, but they are willing to concede ground on evolution so long as the “grand design” is kicked off by a creator (tacit in their educational material but the teachers know what to say to the students on this). Maybe some direct comparison here could help – something along the lines of noting the history of their rejections of AGW, eg how they’ve back-pedalled on the “since 1998 it’s been cooling”, to (Bob Carter’s) “since 2002 it has been cooling”, then the way in which they counter 2005 being the hottest year by saying 1934 was (but conveniently forgetting the bit about that being only the USA, all of 2% of the global surface area), and then finally (Bob Carter again) “recently it has been cooling”. Whew!
Or you could troll Plimer into going off topic himself, inviting him to defend his “iron sun” thesis or explain what was wrong with Wegener and continental drift theory, or to explain his own rather daffy theories on oceanic ridges, or point to weak and sloppy argumentation in his earlier book on the debunking of the creationists.
This last especially should be a great wedge for the audience, since many of them will be religious fundies. Maybe you should get George Pell into the panel and wedge him against Plimer?
just joking Don’t do it. Don’t wrestle that pig. [/metalepsis]
Ah, I notice that Tony G has already covered “the science isn’t settled” meme, the “if there is one item that is uncertain in AGW, it is all uncertain” logic error that is ubiquitous. As a good source book for virtually all of the errors of logic and reason made by the paid-up AGW denialists is – strangely enough – “The Atheist Universe”, in which the arguments against atheism are systematically blown apart. But there you go.
BTW John, if you do decide to debate Plimer and the Monckton, make sure your servers are well secured 🙂
In the first interview on Lateline in 2009, Ian Plimer was asked about his book, and he explained that it wasn’t a book of science, or words to that effect, and he then follows on by saying it was written for the layperson who knows there is a smell about the AGW theory etc. In other words, Plimer was absolving himself of the need to be scientifically accurate (honest?) in his book; if this is the case then Plimer should not be able to get away with using his professional credentials as a geologist to sell the book. How to duck responsibility (for the errors in his book) by claiming it isn’t a science book, and yet to use one’s credentials to lend authority to that book and it’s extravagant claims – Plimer is the pre-eminent expert.
Maybe this should be explored in a debate.
Sorry, I must have missed all that non-consensus in the scientific literature.
Clearly this is two against one Professor Quiggin, unless the interviewer is biased on your side. Nothing good can come out of it for you. I’m a big fan of Ian Plimer (pause for boos and hisses) and I like Lord Monkton too. But this ought not be your fight. Let someone else be the patsy. Right now the last thing we need is you risking your standing when what we want is you helping put a moratorium on these outrageous trash and splurge versions of privatisation.
Even if your version of the science is right and mine is wrong, nature has intervened with a period of cooling, making it not quite the time-pressed situation that a lot of you guys have recently thought. Even if you are right, we would then have to consider that its a medium-to-long term issue and not the pressing emergency that it recently seemed to so many people to be.
And this privatisation and infrastructure issue, is not a thing separate and distinct from energy efficiency. In the old days a horse could pull cargo along a canal the likes of which it would take 20 horses to pull overland. If this warming, which I don’t think is an issue, is actually more of a medium term issue …………….. then getting infrastructure right in the next two or three decades would be crucial, for this self-same carbon emissions issue. Hence this privatisation business would then be pivotal.
I hate being proven wrong. And it wasn’t but 15 years ago that I was spouting off to anyone too tactful not to listen that whilst the 19th Century was the century of rail and the 20th was not, I was confidently asserting that the twenty-first century would see the triumphant return of rail.
I look around and read the papers and I don’t see a massive investment boom in wharves or shipping or rail. We don’t have the legal structure right for this infrastructure investment. We don’t have the private/public demarcation right when it comes to infrastructure. We don’t have the private eminent domain at premium. We don’t have anything we need to have to make the most effective (and energy efficient) transport mediums boom like any just God would have it.
Clearly before we can get there we need the moratorium you are calling for and the subsequent massive public debate that only the halt on sales can possibly bring, to get this stuff right, once and for all. To have serious people like Henry Ergas and yourself and others working full-time on getting all aspects of this right. Not in an anti-private way. Or in a knee-jerk crony way. Or in a way which denies that there might be some things which we are just not yet ready to have in private hands, if this is indeed the case.
Infrastructure is about energy-efficiency to a great degree. So its about CO2 emissions indirectly one supposes. One aspect of infrastructure is also about fresh water. And if we have more fresh water than we can possibly use we have a cheap carbon sink right there.
I want to see Plimer and Monkton win this one. They don’t need to win against you. You ought to keep your powder dry.
“Or you could troll Plimer into going off topic himself, inviting him to defend his “iron sun”…”
Good thesis. “or explain what was wrong with Wegener and continental drift theory….”
In short: The continents fit together both ways and not just only one way and there is no wishing this away nor can this fact be rightly ignored. Wegener himself recognized this. But he also must have recognized that the academy was not in the least bit ready for this revelation. Continental drift, until recently, implied that the Atlantic was new and that therefore the Pacific must be old, with massive subduction zone and an ancient floor bed. Turns out that when they actually looked the Pacific floor was young and instead of subduction they had the ring of fire rift-zones.
They had ignored that the continents fitted both ways in error. And they continue in the same error.
It seems that AGW denialists fall into two slightly overlapping groups. On one hand you have the conspiracy theorists (Larouche etc) and on the other there are the armchair pseudo-scientists. An advantage of being a conspiracy theorist is that you do not have to engage in scientific debate (the data is all cooked, they are all liars etc) but the disadvantage is that you look, well… insane. Armchair pseudo-scientists can claim to be reasonable, but the disadvantage of this position is that they actually have to justify their position scientifically. If somebody were to believe that scientific AGW was ‘significantly flawed’ they would require very substantial evidence to overturn thousands of peer reviewed research papers from the world’s top experts.
Terje- if you are in possession of this kind of evidence I suggest you write a series of technical papers for Nature and Science and settle the issue. If you did I’m sure you would receive a Nobel peace prize for your trouble. If you don’t have significant, hard (i.e. non-refuted) evidence for your position then one has to wonder how you justify it without having to resort to bizarre conspiracy theories.
I’m with Alice@52. No air.
Never argue with a fool. The audience may not be able to tell the difference.
I suspect that if Professor Quiggin were to refuse this invitation, the supporters of the Moncktons and Plimers would commandeer the Murdoch media saying “Nyah nyah nyah! He gets invited to a debate, and he wimps out”. Therefore, if it were left to me and if I were in Professor Quiggin’s position, I would accept the invitation: simply to be able to say “Here is what I maintain, what is the problem with that?”. Being a complete ignoramus on the topic myself, I have nothing more concrete to contribute on the subject than this.
@Nick R
Monckton is definitely a conspiracy theorist, first and foremost. Plimer is mostly a pseudo-scientist (his past research in geology is irrelevant to what he is saying here except as a source of status) but does the conspiracy thing from time to time.
Monckton is one of the finest comedians on the planet. If you don’t believe me, read this. He is beyond parody.
Plimer does not understand the scientific method, believing in Platonic ideals of “truthiness” (and moreover, knows exactly what it is). He has a Newtonian view of linear causality and tries to apply that to complex systems, does not understand feedbacks and does not appreciate that the main role of skepticism is to overcome cognitive bias, instead being a slave to it.
A scientist can get away with being a contrarian (and sometimes it is an advantage) but full-on psychological denial is something else.
From wikipedia:
Wow. This is a hard call John
Maybe a few basic points to consider. What you might do if you accepted.
1. Your principle purpose here would be to strike some blows for the debate here in Australia. Monckton will jet away but Plimer carries weight here, particularly with a certain Abbott (or was that Mad Monk). This will be before an Aussie audience, and the transcript will be available for dissemination. If it simply had the effect of removing one of the supports that TMM could lean on, that would make this all worthwhile. Its a pity it’s not Carter up there instead of Plimer. He is probably an easier target and more influential.
2. What will the format of the ‘debate’ be. Lots of interactive Q&A with a moderator, or larger set-pieces where you can make a case. Would it be just you vs both of them in which case they could tag-team you and that might get ugly. Having a partner who can handle some of the more technical stuff as Donald sugested would help. But if you have a partner, you guys need to tag team as well.
3. You say that debating the conspiracy theory is the primary goal. I don’t get the sense that the conspiracy theory is the dominant facet of general uncertainty about AGW in the general populace here – in the blogosphere thats a different story. Perhaps rather debate the motivations and psychology behind the people who created the conspiracy theory; the rejection of institutional sources of data – separate the anti-government wacko’s from the simply conservative right wing.
4. And when targetting Plimer, don’t fall into Monbiot’s trap of trying to paint Plimer as a Liar and getting him to respond. Paint him as a fool and let others draw other conclusions. Use the logical fallacies in his book against him – you could wave his book around instead of him. Have a play list of key, major, and simple points and then be a pollie – stay on message. For example, he discusses the slow rising trend in solar output over the life of the solar system but only in a cursory way. Then later he shows 600 My of temperature and CO2 levels with CO2 much higher in the past with fairly constant temps, and claims that this refutes the idea of CO2’s importance, without reference to what 600 My of increases in solar output means. If Solar output is going up, why isn’t temperature? You don’t mention that Professor? Could it be that reducing CO2 levels are what compensate for rising solar output to keep temps steady? Throw Plimer back at Plimer in front of his audience
Do this as Professor to Professor, all very civil, so that he can’t do the wounded puppy thing, attacked by lessor mortals. Highlight logical fallacies and that you, as a professor yourself, wouldn’t accept this from YOUR students.
4. And note that I haven’t mentioned Monckton much. He is the lesser target. A target of opportunity if it arises. And use your background and standing as a Professor of Economics to go after him. Don’t debate Monckton on climate change at all. Debate him on the economics of our response.
5. Do you have the killer instinct? Can you go into that room knowing that your intention is to rip someones throat out? And how cool are you under pressure?
6. And can you handle getting a bloody nose if it doesn’t work out? Among anyone whose opinion of you matters, that won’t count, but it could happen. How is the state of your ego today?
God, I would love an opportunity like this although I would probably give a poorer account of myself than you would. But Nothing Ventured, Nothing Gained.
But the format of the debate is paramount and don’t go 2 against 1. And attack (in the most civil, debating style of course) is the only option. They are the targets, not you. Your not there to beat them. You are there to win the audience (any part of it you can get), anfd the audience isn’t just the people in that hall.
Also Donald’s point about protecting your servers. Maybe also be wary about anything said on this blog – they will read it before the debate. Maybe even go so far as, if you accept, closing this discussion and deleting it. Come back after the debate and post the full transcript. This is war John, and it aint pretty.
Its tricky – I like to say that if you don’t vote you can’t complain about the outcome. That extrapolates to meaning that you should accept the invitation and put your views up to scrutiny or else keep them to yourself henceforth.
This having been said, there is a lot of force in the arguments that this is a no win scenario.
My feeling is that you should go nonetheless.
If you do go along, be sure not to interrupt Plimer, after all it is “the height of bad manners”
The Monckton-Plimer tour is being underwritten by engineer John Smeed and retiree Case Smit to the tune of $100,000. $20,000 will go into Monckton’s pocket. Given this, should you decide to participate in this glorious “debate,” demand a $1000 speaking fee, and tell them you will donate the money to environmental causes. See if they still want you. If they won’t pay you speaking fees, tell them you’ll participate, but then don’t show up. That may help waste some of their resources.
I see that Fran Barlow beat me to that tagline about pigs: If you wrestle with pigs, you’ll end up in the mud.
As I have said here before, I am not very interested in AGW discussions. I have no relevant qualifications and am willing to accept what seems to be the consensus view.
Some aspects do bother me. Several commenters have said for JQ to participate in the discussion is a “no win” situation. Is it become one of those adversarial battles where winning each debate is important?
I am also bothered by the decision of Climate Scientists Australia not to debate what they call denialists.
Surely if you believe something and it’s important to you you should be willing to say what you believe at every opportunity – no matter who else is speaking. And no matter how you might look.
It is a great pity if this has become one of those political games where you have to be sure you will win or you won’t play.
Surely it is too important for that.
I would have thought that JQ and the members of Climate Scientists Australia should appear wherever there might be a chance of convincing one person.
So you will be prepared I ahve pasted this from http://www.climatesceptics.com.au
“Public Presentations on Climate Change
January and February
Christopher Lord Monckton Tour
Global Warming?
Why did Copenhagen Fail?
Why has global warming science failed?
Why are the alarmists wrong?
Why does the government still want to introduce
a global warming tax which could bankrupt the nation?
International commentator and former science and economic policy advisor
Christopher Lord Monckton will explain why.
Lord Monckton will be introduced by Professor Ian Plimer, leading academic and author of “Heaven and Earth”.
A meeting sponsored by the Climate Sceptics party will be held in Newcastle on Thurday 28th January 2010
at The Banquet Room, New Castle City Hall, King St., Newcastle.
Admission $2 payable at the door.
Other meetings are presently being organised around Australia. The itinerary is still to be detailed, but what has been agreed with Lord and Lady Monckton so far is:
Sydney, January 26 & 27,
Newcastle, January the 28th,
Brisbane, January 29th,
Noosa, January 30th & 31st,
Melbourne, Feb. 1st & 2nd,
Canberra, Feb. 3rd,
Adelaide, Feb. 4th & 5th,
Perth, Feb. 8th
The cost of these meetings are being underwritten by concerned individual Australians and so donations towards the cost would be immensely helpful. If you would like to help your donations should be directed to:
Westpac Bank – Lord Monckton Tour account
Bank BSB: 035612
Account: 253068 ”
Donations will be appreciated as it is hard to fight big brother.
There is quite a lot of evidence pointing to the dirty tricks and misrepresentations of data from prominent media savvy denailist vs. some hacked emails showing not much at all. You don’t have to look very far to find it. See books by Guy Pearse, Ian Enting, James Hoggan and Richard Littlemore. Scienctists should debate scientists and economists should debate economists. Plimer and Monckton aren’t serious and have not published any original research on the topic. This is not an opportunity to convince people, it is a farce.
@silkworm
Yes. Demand a significant speaking fee. $10,000 at least. If they don’t meet your fee then it is they who wimped out.
Dawkins and Gould took the line that they wouldn’t debate creationists, because the creationists would count it as a “win” just to be taken seriously enough to be debated.
With Plimer, not even the other denialists take him seriously. You don’t see much of Bob Carter, Chris de Freitas, David Evans etc defending Plimer, and only a vague supportive letter to the Oz from Bill Kininmonth.
However, it may be worth asking for $10,000 and taking the risk of them actually accepting.
Presumably you know of my analysis:
http://www.complex.org.au/tiki-download_file.php?fileId=91
It gives over 20 other examples of type of misrepresentation that Plimer got confronted with on Lateline.
I’d go with the speaking fee idea as well. Of course they’ll use it to say you’re greedy, but if you phrase it as “On condition of payment equivalent to what Monkton is being paid for the trip, divided by his number of appearances, to be paid to xyz charity” that can only go so far. If they accept, then the value of the money to a well chosen cause will be far more than any damage they get out of the fact you debated them. And you might sway a few undecideds in the audience.
If they refuse, it makes clear the double standard that’s being played. The Brisbane Institute might say they’re not the ones paying Monkton, so say to them that since they’re dancing to Smeed and Smit’s tune, those two should cough up.
C’mon folks, be sensible. The Brisbane Institute is a non profit think tank sponsored by the University of Queensland, Brisbane City Council and other worthy organisations.
How do you think it would look for JQ to demand a substantial speaking fee from it?
They don’t need to pay for the speaking fee. The climate change deniers could pay for it. And anyway, JQ could donate the fee to some worthwhile cause like the IPCC. I wouldn’t imagine that the ‘Brisbane City Council’ is aptly described as a worthy organisation, maybe worthwhile, and even if it were, mere sponsorship by them does not, of itself, confer worthiness. If the Brisbane Institute is like most think tanks it is not likely to be worthy and if they sponsor or organise a venue for a crude climate denialist propaganda tour by a pair of self-interested fiction-as fact spouting right-wing ratbag loonies, then they certainly are not worthy.
Moreover, $10,000 is hardly a substantial speaking fee. JQ could always get advice on what would be an appropriate fee from some of those who do it for a living. Every opportunity to get some not-hard earned right-wing money into non-right-wing hands should be grasped.
The CIS, the IPA and maybe the Heartbreak Institute could have a whip-round to come up with the speaking fee.
No air and no sideshow fee. Beneath your dignity and reputation JQ. Its nothing but a sideshow for boguns and rednecks.
@Tony G
Apparently, they don’t know what begging the question is. Surely in the series of questions they could include “When did you stop beating your wife?”?
Expect dumb things to be said.
@Tony G
Meetings are being underwritten by ‘concerned Australian individuals’. They are always ‘individuals’; although they like to hunt in packs. Concerned they should be, because evidently they have plenty of problems.
If they are underwriting things then they won’t mind shelling out for Prof Quiggin’s nominal speakers fee. $10,000 shouldn’t be too hard for them to scrape together.
What is your time worth? This is a situation where it is unlikely to have any positive. Those who are prepared to pay to come along to hear people with well known views are “believers” who are capable of cognitive dissonance.
All of the well known views about conspiracy, religious belief etc reflect their own state of mind. You have a long standing policy on this site not to engage in the delusional views of deniers because it is a waste of time and energy and isn’t productive. Unless there was a big fat fee this would apply to this situation as well.
At the moment it seems that there is nothing in this offer for you as you will have no control of the situation; and you will be used as the straw man for a hostile crowd of true believers who have only come along to hear their gurus; and you will be donating your time to enhance the reputations of people who need no encouragement.
Nick R – we are not allowed to discuss AGW science on this blog. As and when JQ lifts that ban I’d be happy to discuss the factors that make me a skeptic. Please note however that even though I’m a skeptic I’m not claiming that the AGW theory is wrong, merely that it isn’t conclusively settled. I’ve stated several times that I would support a revenue neutral carbon tax and that nuclear power should not be prohibited. I’m not sticking my head in the sand.
JQ
Monbiot vs Plimer, was clearly Monbiot and Jones vs Plimer and it went well for Monbiot I thought. In this case I get the impression you are out numbered, this could be a disadvantage. Furthermore no amount of “truth telling” will win you many points in this debate. I suggest that it is in your best interest to protect your reputation first and foremost. Reputation is everything. Tell them you will meet them on neutral ground.
Of course if you must debate then make sure you get them to agree to a re-match on your turf. It is only fair. Ask them why they picked you to debate and what they expected to achieve. Reinforce your credentials and how you can contribute to the debate on Climate Change, remind them you are an economist not a climate sicentist. Ask Plimer how his book sales are going then mention that it was a marvelous piece of fiction. Ask Plimer why he bought Monckton along, and was he familiar with Monckton solution to the Aids epidemic. Never address Monckton directly, that will irritate him.
Your responses should mirror theirs, keep the responses short, the less you say the more credibility apparent. This debate is not about the science, you won’t win on science here, you will be dissapointed if you try. This is politics and I despise it for the dishonesty it delivers.
Of course I am still a skeptic.
1) Don’t do it, so something else (3) below.
2) It may be possible to have a live debate about science when the participants are actually arguing the merits of several points of view. I really don’t know how to have a remotely sensible debate when one side wants to create confusion and the other clarity – the field is too tilted.
If I had to “win” a debate, I would always take the “confusion” side. For example, if I had 5 minutes, I’d just recite as many memes from John Cook’s Skeptical Science as I could, and dare you to refute me in your 5 minutes. All it takes for me to win is for each person in the audience to have one of those stick in their minds. “Mars is warming? hmmm…”
3) SO, what I would do is write a cogent short piece explaining why such debate formats are about the dumbest thing going, point at a few of Monckton & Plimer’s videos (assuming such available) to illustrate the absurdity.
Ask BI why they are promoting anti-science with a format that guarantees such outcomes.
Ask them to prove why think this sort of debate format makes the slightest sense, except possibly as creation of ignorance. Is that BI’s mission? Maybe tell them you’ll come if they can publish a convincing set of arguments in the face of past data. But stop playing defense.
4) I don’t think your problem is the tag team of Plimer & Monckton, it’s BI…
and people might be asking hard questions about why they are doing this. They will still be there when P+M have gone…
5) See my comment at RC for why such debates are bad ideas, with a pointer to a somewhat-reasonable blog-debate, and why it was different.
As one who could be called an (unofficial) conspiracy theorist, I would certainly like to seem more debates such as that which occurred between Monbiot and Plimer.
I have been assailed in recent months by a range of superficially plausible arguments by Global Warming Deniers, whose views on other issues I largely respect. Some even consider themselves committed environmentalists.
It would be nice to see them put to rest as quite a few seemed to be by Monbiot (although I wouldn’t particuarly mind being proven wrong about Global Warming either ).
Whether the debate at at the Brisbane Institute can be as useful as that between Monbiot and Plimer, with all the difficulties mentioned, is not clear. I hope someone plans to record in on video or at least on sound if it does proceed.
@TerjeP (say Tay-a)
As you say, I discourage discussion of climate science, except from those qualified to discuss it. I do however, encourage derision directed at those (including you, it seems) who take it on themselves to form opinions contrary to the findings of mainstream science on issues on which they lack the requisite knowledge to read and understand the scientific literature.
John, I’ve changed my mind. If there is a second speaker with the appropriate scientific background and presentation skills I think it could be a productive encounter. Seeing how Plimer did himself in on Lateline when subject to well-informed and persistent questioning, the public exposure of these two frauds could be a very positive thing. Focusing on the global scientific and red-green dictatorship conspiracy theories will be a good strategy. I guess it depends a bit on the format. No speaker fee of course! I’ll buy you a beer as a concerned Australian.
John – the derision encouragement has been noted. In terms of fostering respectful dialogue I’ll see what I can do to reciprocate.
JQ.
Probably you’re better off without it, but if the conspiracy thing comes your way again:
1. There’s a nice book”The Flat earth” by Christine Garwood (Macmillan 2007) that
notes the claims of conspiracy by “globulists” such as Isaac Newton to misrepresent
the shape of the earth.
2. For AGW, communist world government is not the only thing meant to be motivating
climate scientists – there are:
* funding (hence Mike Tobis’ “only in it for the gold” blog)
* front for nuclear industry
* establishing a new pantheistic/pagan religion
* genocide (see CEC for details).
@Ian Enting
Ian (I assume that is Prof’)
If John accepts the challenge, maybe you could be his second as suggested by some here. You could both be up there waving Plimers book around and shooting it full of holes