After Ian Plimer reneged on his agreement to answer Monbiot’s questions, the folks at the Spectator have reacted just like Plimer does to criticism — with name calling and nothing to address the criticism.
Spectator columnist Rod Liddle
Moonbat … You pompous, monomaniacal, jackass. … reminds me a little of the hardline creationists you find jabbering in the backwoods of the Appalachian Mountains
Novelist James Delingpole, the man that the Spectator decided was best qualified to review Plimer’s book:
ineffable barkingness of George Moonbat …. if anyone ever chooses to take any of the self-hating Old Stoic’s ravings seriously, we’ll soon all be living in caves, travelling round in coracles, and dining on nettles and ground acorns … Moonbat
The editor of the Spectator Fraser Nelson endorses Liddle’s comments and added:
high priests of climate change alarmism fear debate … setting prissy conditions
None of them even acknowleged the existence of the questions that Plimer cannot answer. If he really wanted a debate, why didn’t Nelson try to get Plimer to answer them?
2) Figure 3 (page 25) is a graph purporting to show that most of the warming in the 20th Century took place before 1945, and was followed by a period of sharp cooling. You cite no source for it, but it closely resembles the global temperature graph in the first edition of Martin Durkin’s film The Great Global Warming Swindle. Durkin later changed the graph after it was shown to have been distorted by extending the timeline.
In your book it remains unchanged.
Tim Lambert has reproduced the graph here.
a. What is the source for the graph you used?
b. Where was it first published?
c. Whose figures does it use?
d. How do you explain the alteration of both the curves and the timeline?
Update: Monbiot comments:
Just as significant as what Fraser Nelson wrote is what he didn’t. At no point, as far as I can see, has he pressed Ian Plimer to honour our agreement and ensure that the debate could go ahead by answering my questions. Fraser attacks me for publishing my evidence, but says nothing about Plimer’s failure to publish his. In organising this debate, the Spectator was supposed to be neutral. But the referee has taken sides throughout the game. Quite why this magazine continues to champion Ian Plimer, who can’t answer the basic questions I sent him and whose book contains page after page of hilarious schoolboy howlers, remains a mystery.