It puzzles me, why climate change deniers always insist - of the many methods humans have to resolve differences - debate is the only one that should be used. Why not mediation? Consensus? Scientific discussion? No - for them it always has to be debate. Here's why
Debate is a highly specialised skill. It has its own rules and conventions, and it's possible to develop a high degree of skill in these, same as some martial arts people develop skill in one branch of tai-kwondo, or another person becomes a skilled watercolour artist. The deniers' requeist then is this: asking to meet others, always on the deniers home ground, at a game of the deniers choice, with a supporting crowd. In short, they have already stacked the odds.
Resolving issues by debate, is only useful in limited circumstances - where there are several ideas/views, and not much to choose between them, but one has to be chose.
However, issues tackled with science dont fit this model. it is possible to choose, get broad agreement on what is chosen, and why. Theories can be tested against what is actualy going on in the real world. In this way choices are made, and some ideas do turn out superior, as they encompass more,.
What is going on with world climate turns on science, not debate or rhetoric. Monbiot came not well out of a 'debate' - so what? That's like arguing you are the world champion at soccer - because you challenged your opponent to trivial pursuit and you beat them.
In calling for fair play you drop the ball immediately by referring to 'two academics' on the side of global warming but refer to Professor Plimer, a geologist who studies climate as 'Ian Plimer, a mining company director and noted global warming skeptic". Try harder please!
The point that Plimer has directorships, is very pertinent to assessing his output. Particularly if the public are likely to take his words, as coming from a scientist speaking using the perspectives, traditions and conventions of scientists and academics
Rather than as a company director/shareholder speaking using the perspectives, traditions and conventions, that company directors and shareholders usually use.
Judges too get caught in conflicts of interest. If a judge has shares - and is called to presides over a trial of that company - we dont think it acceptable, the judge can say he's pretty sure the shares didnt affect his judgement. Even for something as trivial as a parking fine - we'd consider that unacceptable. Yet that is precisely the excuse put forward here -Plimer believes the shares havent altered his judgement.
* * * * * * * * * *
Australian law presumably puts a legal duty on company directors, to make money for their shareholders - full stop. Whatever Plimer does, he is bound by that duty.
On the other hand, a professional position as professor/academic , also imposes certain duties - e.g a disinterested search for truth, communicating this to the public, so they understand what is goiong on in the real world. These duties have the force perhaps of terms of employment - or university statutes - those only.
Suppose certain scientific evidence is consistent with a certain theory on weather - in short, that theory is likely correct. Suppose also, if the theory if correct, that will lower Plimer's company's profitablity - directly - or indirectly via unfavourable legislation.
what should Plimer do? On the one hand, duties as director, require him to keep share price and profits high. For those ends, the less attention paid to the science, the better.
On the other, his responsibilities/ duties as professor at a public university, rrequire him to seek the truth about what is actually going on, in the real world ,and to communicate it fully and accurately to students and public.
The conflict is presuambly resolved in favour of the duties of director,. These have force of law (I think criminal law). The other duties have lesser force; civil law (terms of employment) or mere university regulations.
No problems there, as long as one understand, that someone is speaking in the role of director - not role of scientist.
Except Plimer's book doesn't always make this clear - and that in itself, is a valid reason for raising it here.
In short, what Plimer is saying presumably in the role of a director, by way of talking up company prospects and share price - runs the risk people will take it as from him in role of scientist.
Plimer perhaps does not intend such confusion - but the book is not open about this conflict of interest, and about disclosing the conflict . The biography makes much of Plimer's academic appointments- this only adds o the confusion of his readers. In addition Plimer mentions more often his academic appointments, than his commercial ones - even though it is largely the latter, that determine what he says in public.
<a href="http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/plimer_exposed_as_a_fraud.php">Plimer exposed as a fraud</a>
"Ian Plimer's performance in his debate with Monbiot has to be seen to be believed. Rather than admit to making any error at all, Plimer ducks, weaves, obfuscates, recites his favourite catch phrase, tries to change the subject and fabricates some more."
You want one person to attack Plimer's science?
I presume you are trying to distract us from the issue that Plimer is a company director - and that is relevant. In Australia, company directors are required by law, to maximise returns for their shareholders, as part of their duties. This duty sometimes conflicts with duties as scientists, particularly scientists holding professiroal chairs at publically funded universities, and with a role as public conscience, and to promote public understanding of science.
Say the real world the climate is actualy doing Z. Plimer can on the one hand, purshe his academic values, and explain that clearly and unambiguously to his students, and the public. What if what the climate is doing is likely to cause CBH's share price to fall - then Plimer cna on the other hand follow his duties as director, to say nothing. Which is he going to do? Speak out? Keep silent? Tell people half the truth. If the public get it wrong - does Plimer have a duty to set them straight as academic - or to keep quiet as director?
This is why Plimer's commercial role is important and significant to whatever scientific prose he writes. I was once a company director myself, so have some understanding of these things. And of teh conflicts of interest that arise. And of how unsatisfactory, are the current mechanisms, for dealing with these conflicts.
Nevertheless you want an attack on his science? Realclimate alreaedy considered this, you should look at that.
You want more? I am a senior lecturer at an Australian university - in medical science - , and I used to teach postgraduates skills of scientific writing. I am no expert in climate science, but that does not matter as we dont need to get down to details, to see the book has problems. . All Science has the same broad method. When authors make elementary errors and omisions, it's straightforward to spot them. In the same way , as you would know a car with only three wheels, had something wrong.
Part of the training to science students is to look at all sides of an argument - gather all available evidence - treat it equivalently - come up with a view or theory that takes account of it all. If a student doesnt do this, the fault is one of bias, or selectivity. That - selectivity - is one problem with the science.
Plimer's book claims, evidence supports a certain theory on climate . Plimer is a competent enough scientist, to know evidence is seldom 100.00% one way. Whatever theory one accepts, there will be some evidence apparently against it. How well one handles contrary evidence, is an important part of science.
Where I work, we teach postgraduate students to give contrary evidence, very serious consideration . They are not allowed to dismiss it - they have to mention it, strive to find out about it, to understand it. They must deal with it in as much depth, as the "pro" evidence. They must modify their ideas to take account of it. If possible they must accommodate it in their theory.
Whatever theory of climate chagne Plimer takes, there will be some evidence that appears to contradict it - and in science Plimer ought to take fair account of that. He doesnt.
In the section supposedly on contrary evidence - titled "What if I am wrong" - very little evidence gets considered. The section is short - a few pages. It appears to deal with the counter point, but it does not in fact deal with it scientifically. This differs completely from the rest where he cites large numbers of obsrvations , with footnotes in their hundreds.
The section dealing with supposedly contrary evidence = "What if I am wrong" is not Plimer giving his own analysis of data - it is a quote from Christopher Monckton, several pages long. The quote is verbatim, - elsewhere Plimer gives no such extensive quotes to others, even though he could. He instead prefers to paraphrase and summarise, . In short, he treated pro-evidence and anti-evidence in different ways.
A third problem with the science, is the pro-evidence is mostly facts quoted from papers. There are plenty of papers with facts that go against this - Plimer chooses not to cite them. This perhaps gives to readers a distorting impression of the true state of things - namey the existence of plenty of evidence consistent with AGW theory.
A fourth problem with the science - Monckton seems short on facts. My memory is most of his words, tend to be questions. Hardly scientific treatment, to treat one theory in terms of facts - the other in terms of questions. One gives positive information. The other merely raises doubts. Hardly fair and even handed.
A fifth problem with science are Plimer's figures. I teach postgraduates including writing theses and papers, and I ooked briefly at Plimer's figures the same way as I look at sudent drafts. Do all the axes have titles? Does the key, show what all the symbols mean? Is the scale clear? Are there any lines on the graph, we dont know what they stand for? Any of these are elementary errors. Many of Plimer's figures had them. Some other folk have commented in detail on this also.
A sixth problem is with attribution . It is a rule in science, anything you say is understood as your own observation or opinion. If it is not yours - you must reference it, ie say who made the observations, or whose idea it is. This is partly to give credit where due, partly to provide an audit trail of data back to original observations - and partly so you can avoid blame if it turns out wrong. From memory, at least one of Plimer's figures, the data was well outside Plimer's area of expertise so it is unlikely to be his own personal work. However the data is not attributed. The usual name for this, will be well known.
I guess you were hoping to bog me down in detailed criticism of the facts Plimer cites - no such luck. In order to see the overall science as dodgy, one doesnt need to engage : the book would still be unscientific - if its view of what's going on in the real world, was not accurate, or did not take account of all the evidence.
My apologies for not giving page references: I am currently at work, relying on memory, as my copy of Plimers book is at home.
Pages