Ian Plimer responds to criticism with by calling his critics names and failing to address their arguments. In an interview on BBC Radio 4, Plimer spouts his usual outrageous falsehoods:
“We cannot stop carbon emissions because most of them come from volcanoes.”
And when the interviewer brought up Michael Ashley’s devastating review of Heaven and Earth, we got this:
Plimer: “When you look at my critics — they are people who are rent seekers. They have everything to gain by continuing the process of frightening people witless, by following the party line, …”
Interviewer: “Do you say that they are deliberately fraudulent?”
Plimer: “Well I’m saying that they are taking advantage of the current situation. Now that’s understandable. In previous times people have got wonderful research grants in a war against cancer and they achieved a lot of money for that. Now we have a war against climate change and there is huge number of people out there that have their careers staked on it and are beneficiaries from this process. And Michael Ashley is one of those.”
Actually, Ashley is an astronomer and his career is not staked on climate change research at all. It is symptomatic of Plimer’s approach that he didn’t bother to check this and just made things up.
And notice how Plimer is now sounding like a cancer quack. Compare:
There was a woman whose daughter was in the advanced stages of brain cancer. She asked her oncologist if it was okay to give her daughter a superfood called blue green algae. Her doctor told her that it was no problem, that in fact a number of his patients had used that supplement with success in fighting cancer.
Naturally she wondered why he didn’t tell her about this product a year before when they came to him.
Unfortunately, he couldn’t tell her about this or any “natural or alternative health therapies” and stay employed. Insurance regulations would preclude such suggestions. And he could get into administrative trouble by recommending natural, non-drug treatments for cancer.
His advice is controlled by a large medical industry that makes mega money off expensive cancer fighting drugs and treatments. An industry that doesn’t look favorably on natural supplements or other cancer treatments as they cannot patent them to make high profits.
Also of interest to Plimerologists Andrew Adam’s report of Plimer’s undebate:
Ok, I’m back and it was a thoroughly depressing evening. As has been pointed out, although it was billed as a “debate” Plimer was the only speaker – of course Monbiot famously, and understandably, pulled out but surely they had plenty of time to find someone else. What’s more, the audience was overwhelmingly favourable to Plimer, ok probably unsurprising given it was organised by the Spectator, but to an extent which was pretty shocking even so. You might have thought that given the above it was incumbent on Neill to ask Plimer some searching questions himself. He did raise a couple of points but accepted Plimer’s answers even though they were disingenuous to say the least. It also took him a long time to realise that maybe he needed to seek out the opinions of those who disagreed with Plimer, and even then some people who put their hands up and were chosen actually supported Plimer. I had my hand up all evening and was finally called right at the end but probably due to my bad temper by that time and being hurried through lack of time didn’t make my point as coherently as I would have liked. There was only one other person who actually seriously challenged Plimer all evening. OK, I suppose I shouldn’t have known what to expect to a large extent but even so, I didn’t think it would be that bad.
Anyway, I will be writing a more detailed account for my blog, probably over the weekend, so I’ll post a link in case anyone wants to know more.