Monbiot rips Plimer and Plimer blames DeSmogBlog

In late December, Guardian columnist George Monbiot squared off on ABC Australia with the climate-change expert wannabe, Ian Plimer.

Monbiot rips Plimer, and it’s very amusing to watch Plimer pretend he’s an expert in climate science, despite the fact  that he has no academic background in climate change research and is on the board of directors of no less than three very large mining companies.

Regardless, I hadn’t had a chance to see the entire video and just had a chance to watch it in it’s entirety. Nobody had told me that near the end of the debate Plimer smears and lies about DeSmogBlog, saying that:

“Why does Mr. Monbiot use blog sites, where the bloggers are paid to smear scientists, this is DeSmogBlog which is paid for by the Suzuki Foundation.”

Sorry, Plimer, we don’t smear scientists, we simply point out the lack of expertise and fossil fuel industry ties of people like you who are spreading misinformation about the realities of climate change.

DeSmogBlog has never received a single penny from the Suzuki Foundation and Monbiot has never “used” DeSmogBlog.

Here’s the last 3rd of the debate, Plimer lies about DeSmogBlog at the 7 minute mark:


I am just as glad that they aren’t here – but where did all of the trolls go? Do they think they’ve “won” over the leaked emails, and don’t bother to post anymore? Maybe they are taking a winter holiday, or they are all members of PM Harper’s caucus so they are busy recalibrating the economy and don’t have time to post.

Just wondering … There’s an unfamiliar vacuum in the comments threads …

I was wondering the same thing. Funny how all the concerned citizens went home after Copenhagen. Mission accomplished, I guess.
On a grimmer note, did you see the poll at Daily Kos yesterday?

Read it and weep. The uphill struggle continues…

I don’t know for sure why they are not all over this like a rash. Maybe, just maybe even they can sense Plimer is a lost cause.

I watched that video interview soon after it hit Australian TV. For somebody to suggest that Monbiot, ‘…should learn some manners young man…’ whilst evading questions again, and again and again demonstrates Plimer’s contempt for the truth. So should Plimer be treated, with utter contempt.

OTOH I have had trouble getting posts up here since about Boxing day, with only one of a number appearing, most being in reply to JR putting him straight on UK rainfall trends as he appears totally clueless here from a number of angles.

I can vote on post appreciation counters but not that for the articles themselves. All very strange.

Will this appear I wonder.

The trolls are losing steam, considering their limited choices.

If you read the denier blogs down under, you will see that the deniers have lost faith in Plimer. They consider that in this interview, and also in the Australia tour, Plimer is a liability.

Monckton, however, manages to entertain the masses.
However, once he talks about his AIDS cure and other weird ideas, smart people disassociate themselves from him.

The conservative opposition leader of Australia outlined his climate policy the other day, and met with Monckton today. He refrained however from making any comments after their meeting.

If you read the denier blogs in Australia you notice that Ian Plimer is a lost ticket. They admit that the interview against Monbiot was a disaster (for Plimer). In addition, during the tour, Plimer looks out of place.
It is bad when someone has no arguments and worse when he cannot pretend he has them.

(I think that comments in this blog are being lost. Once a comment is sent, is it shown immediately?)

I don’t know. I thought they would have been over this like a rash but maybe even they can see that Plimer is a lost cause.

I watched this video session shortly after it first went out and find it hard to believe why anybody should take further notice of Plimer.

Seriously, anybody who patronises with, ‘…learn some manners young man…’ whilst evading any one question again, and again and again deserves to be treated with disdain.

I am trying this with Firefox as IE seems to have a problem letting me post. Only one post out of many since Boxing Day has made it, most were in reply to JR on his astonishing lack of understanding, at a number of levels, of UK rainfall patterns and of the correct methodology for extracting useful information.

It’s the moderation Fern. The change from free commenting to moderation makes all the difference. Generally people are less inclined to read articles if they can’t comment or if their comments are put on ice for a while.

The media is often complicit in this kind of deceit. You see it all the time in Washington. If I was a member of the Washington Press Corp, all my questions would be “Could you please answer the previous reporters questions?” Every once in a while, a reporter asks a really hard question, but then when it gets evaded, they don’t go back and demand an answer.

That host should have shut Plimer down. It’s one thing if he was just interviewing both men, but this was supposed to be a debate. How can you have a debate when one side simply refuses to answer the questions put to him?

I think that the anti-spam filter is too strict. I sent several comments which appeared to be accepted but were never shown on the blog.
Now I am using different browser settings. Let’s see this one.

The site is pretty quiet without the troll type, so how about this..

have two comment boards, positive and negative, if you rate the post +, you may post on the + side, rate negative, you may post on the - side

That way if said troll wants his post on the positive side, he or she will have to give the article a positive rating, which may cause some conflicting emotions, perhaps even kickstart their concience to look at why they deny

Food for thought b