Climate change deniers seem to be of two schools: they are either supported wholely by the oil industry or they are academic failures who attempt to gain attention through fringe positions.
It appears Australian geologist Professor Ian Plimer is one of the latter. He challanged George Monbiot to a debate. Mr. Monbiot knew the rhetorical tricks that these debates degenerate into so he insisted on a ground rule: Professor had to answer 11 questions pertaining to the key issues of climate change he claimed to have special knowledge about. The Professor, unfortunately, didn't have the goods.
So much for the intellectual depth of the lunatic fringe.
Creationists and climate change deniers have this in common: they don't answer their critics. They make what they say are definitive refutations of the science. When these refutations are shown to be nonsense, they do not seek to defend them. They simply switch to another line of attack. They never retract, never apologise, never explain, just raise the volume, keep moving and hope that people won't notice the trail of broken claims in their wake.
This means that trying to debate with them is a frustrating and often futile exercise. It takes 30 seconds to make a misleading scientific statement and 30 minutes to refute it. By machine-gunning their opponents with falsehoods, the deniers put scientists in an impossible position: either you seek to answer their claims, which can't be done in the time available, or you let them pass, in which case the points appear to stand. Many an eminent scientist has come unstuck in these situations. This is why science is conducted in writing, where claims can be tested and sources checked.
I told Plimer that I would accept his challenge if he accepted mine: to write precise and specific responses to the questions I would send him, for publication on the Guardian's website. If he answered them, the debate would go ahead; if he didn't, it wouldn't happen. The two exchanges would complement each other: having checked his specifics, people at the public event could better assess his generalisations.
Plimer refused. After I wrote a blog post accusing him of cowardice, he accepted. I sent him 11 questions. They were simple and straightforward: I asked him only to provide sources and explanations for some of the claims in his book. Any reputable scientist would have offered them without hesitation. But instead of answers, Plimer sent me a series of dog-ate-my-homework excuses and a list of questions of his own (you can read both sets on my Guardian blog). While mine address only what Plimer purports to know, his appear designed to be impossible to answer: they are less questions than riddles
This professor of denial can't even answer his own questions on climate change
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
