I know this is old news, but I just found the youtubes of this debate. You will recall how Plimer declined to answer some very straightforward requests for evidence of a handful of his most egregious fabrications that George Monbiot put to him as a precondition of a debate. Well, not because Plimer decided to be forthcoming, the debate went ahead in December with no preconditions.
It can be viewed in three parts below.
If you don't have time for it all (~24 minutes) I would recommend starting at part 2.
Is anyone impressed with Plimer's evasivness. He might as well have just plead the 5th, and refused to answer on the grounds he might incriminate himself! Monbiot struck just the right tone, IMO.
Plimer is the Sarah Palin of climate science.
This debate is even better with hindsight. That "tax the rabble" Copenhagen conference sure is draining our coffers right now. It's amazing what they pulled off.
Sorry, but I think this was a waste of otherwise perfectly good blog space. The recommendation is a possibly a good one, had to stop watching the 1st one, but haven't had the stomach to start again.
I still can't believe Monbiot fell for the whole "climategate" email saga. So he actually believes all the unsupported interpretations made by denialists?
The Monbiot Plimer debate on ABC was notable for more than Monbiot's ad hominem attacks and Plimer's poor memory. Tony Jones the Australian ABC TV host gets an honorable mention for another character assasination of non-compliant scientists. He previously smeared Prof. Frederick Singer and gave him no right of reply, in the "Swindle Debate" featuring four skeptics and eight warmists, which was stage-managed behind the scenes by Robyn Williams, the ABC's climate science gatekeeper.
In the Monbiot Plimer debate, both were given roughly equal time of reply. HOWEVER: Monbiot interrupted Plimer an astonishing eighteen (18) times. To which Jones intervened only twice after the event. Jones himself interrupted Plimer three (3) times. Plimer interrupted Monbiot once. Monbiot delighted in ad hominem attacks, calling Plimer a liar and a fraud. Both Jones and Monbiot had the look of cats who had drunken their fill of milk after the mauling. Plimer did not stand a chance.
So to sum it up, it was Tony Jones of the ABC whose abyssmal performance stands out, followed by Monbiot for lack of social grace. Plimer would have won by default, but for the STAR performer whom only the alert audience would have observed: the live footage of icy weather on the white snow-covered streets of Copenhagen behind Monbiot's satellite screen.
It is amazing that the original poster of this blog is recommending us to "... start from Part 2 ... " because Part 1 talks about the leadked IPCC emails issue on which Monbiot says that there is "no excuse" ( explanation ) for whatever had been going on in those emails ... !
Is there any point in viewing part 2 and 3 after this ?
The second amazing point :
The thousands and thousands of other scientists and their papers/suggestions/ reviews have been conveniently kept out by IPCC top brass like Jones et al. and still Mobiot wants us to believe that there is Strong Evidence of man made global warming ?
Pradix, pradix, pradix,
I think it says to start at part 2 if (IF) by chance, you don't have time for the whole enchilada.
Perhaps your argument would be better received if you were actually keeping to the facts?
And, in keeping with facts, perhaps you could cite one (or three) of these "papers" which have been "kept out"?
It always makes for more interesting reading when one is certain of your intended claim.
(And happy new year)
Pauline complaining: Perhaps your argument would be better received if you were actually keeping to the facts?