The Today programme have given another climate change denier airtime - unchallenged. ‘Scientist’ Ian Plimer sees no link between carbon dioxide and temperature.
For the second time in a matter of weeks, the Today Programme this morning offered a platform to a climate change denier. Once again, the person invited on was somebody without any credentials to talk about climate science since they are not a climate scientist and have never published a peer reviewed paper on the subject.
Australian contrarian author Ian Plimer was left unchallenged to spout nonsense on the primetime BBC slot despite his argument having been systematically pulled apart by real climate scientists over at realclimate.org – a commentary site on climate science by working climate scientists.
He said:
“The fundamental point is that over the history of time, climates have always changed, we’ve had rapid changes, they’ve been large, they’ve been driven by extra-terrestrial forces, they’ve been driven by many other forces in the past, but not one great climate change in the past has actually been driven by carbon dioxide, and carbon dioxide is plant food, we cannot stop carbon emissions because most of them come from volcanoes, it is a normal element cycled around in the earth, and, my science, which is looking back in time, is saying we have had a planet that’s been a warm, wet greenhouse planet for more than 80 per cent of the time, we’ve had huge climate changes in the past, and to think that the very slight variations we measure today are a result of our life, we really have to put ice blocks in our drink.
“If you put 2 and 2 together, then you have to explain the three periods of cooling since the little ice age finished and during those three periods of cooling we’ve actually had carbon dioxide increase, so there is a disconnect between carbon dioxide emissions and temperatures because since 1850, we’ve had a warming period from 1860 to 1880, then we’ve had a cooling until 1910, then we had a warming until 1940 – in fact the North-West passage was open – then we had a cooling until the 1970s, and the people who are trying to frighten us witless now about runaway global warming were in fact those who were frightening us witless about an oncoming glaciation in the 1970s, then we’ve had a warming, up until the late 90s, now we’re in a cooling phase, so if we’d only had warming, then there would be a connect between carbon dioxide and temperature. There is not.”
Plimer added:
“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 … I’m saying that they are taking advantage of the current situation … Now we have a war against climate change and there’s a huge number of people out there that have their careers staked on it and are the beneficiaries from this process … The word belief is a word of politics and religion, it’s not a word of science; my scientific opinion is married to evidence…”
Leading NASA climate scientist, Gavin Schmidt, who has dissected Plimer’s argument in detail, found it to be based amongst other things on a “basic logical fallacy”. Needless to say nobody from NASA, the IPCC, the Royal Society or the Met Office was invited on to explain why Plimer was talking rubbish. Neither did Justin Webb, interviewing, explain Plimer’s lack of authority on the subject.
Listen to the interview in full below and download it here:
76 Responses to “Today give carte blanche to ‘scientist’ who denies link between CO2 and temperature”
Billy the Kid
Hey Shamik I haven’t made any claims regarding my background but what’s quite clear here is the numbers of people willing just to go along with their mouths hanging open reciting facts they accept at face value while we get fed more and more unproven drivel from the Climate-Control-Nutters.
People in our country dish out inaccurate and alarmist views that have no basis in science. Flawed opinions are dealt out as fact.
Gordon Brown and his “56 days before Copenhagen to save the world”?
We all know this unelected, dithering and useless fool has a record of delusion in his comments but even he takes the biscuit here. No pun intended.
The fact is it’s just another “cause” that costs the workers in tax and I ask again if the government really believed this hogwash why approve the new runway at Heathrow? Or coal fired power stations (carbon capture is a theory at the moment).
If any person *really* believed it the fact their own children and grandchildren would be affected they wouldn’t do it. I know this governments moral compass spins faster than they do but even they couldn’t be that bad.
In fact why fly to this climate change conference at all? What’s wrong with Video Conferencing?
Shamik – I’m not sure what you want on Nick Griffin – he got thousands more votes as party leader than Brown did – is that enough or are you back dancing on the head of your pin again?
Julian G – don’t worry about the climate chaos – the world keeps getting colder and has done for a decade and Enting works “primarily on modelling the global carbon cycle” so he’s hardly unbiased is he and his calculations (again) don’t include the effects from the sun.
Billy the Kid
Henry – my credentials are not in “Blind, unquestioning obedience to the Dear Leader”.
“Useful Idiots” Lenin called people like you lot. He must be turning in his grave at the apathy from the youth today. No critical questioning anymore?
Where’s Bob Dylan when you need him?
Rupert Read
Finally, after loads of complete nonsense, ‘Billy the Kid’ has made one good point. It IS inappropriate for world leaders to fly massive delegations and themselves to Copenhagen, if they really want to show climate-leadership. They need to show by their actions that they MEAN it about reducing carbon emissions. They should be sending smaller delegations / travelling by plane / using video-conferencing more.
It was an outrageous decision for the BBC to make this scheduling move. See http://www.facebook.com/note.php?created&&suggest¬e_id=337212490300
RupertRead
http://bit.ly/fG9GR BBC gives unchallenged platform to climate-denier, again! Trying to please right-wingers http://bit.ly/4svBPH
Billy the Kid
Aw shucks Rupert, your comments have left me with a warm glow… thanks man. My faith in the humanity of Left Wing blogs has been restored.
Personally no one recycles like me – done for longer than half the commentators on this blog have been alive (Judging by the childish comments they place).
I hate biofuels because I love animals, especially Orangs. In the US 10% of the mix is ethanol – I disliked it because I had no choice when I filled the tank but it did come from US crops… no animals were harmed etc
I HATE energy saving lamps for obvious reasons (as an engineer you’d understand and if you are an environmentalist you’d agree with me) and wish the idiot governments had pushed LED instead, as they have in Japan.
I hate Unleaded petrol because of the greenhouse effect compared to the old 4 star.
I dislike being told what to support in Global Warming terms because until the effects of the sun are included in the calculations and someone tells me why this planet just keeps getting colder that’s my position.
What is dispiriting is the “YOU’RE WRONG” and “we won’t listen to you” debates here. I assumed younger Leftys would have their own brains and be autonomous in their opinions. Shame really.