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”
Claire Spencer
You have to appreciate that climate science is never going to be able to give you the definitive proof that you ask for – there are too many variables, it’s just impossible to be precise. Yes, there have been higher temperatures in the past – but the temperature is higher than it should be for a cooling period. Further, based on how CO2 behaves in the atmosphere, viewed alongside the increased concentrations of CO2 (measured from air trapped in ice cores: http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c1/page_6.shtml) since the Industrial Revolution, it is reasonable to infer that we could be in a lot of trouble if we don’t wean ourselves off fossil fuels.
I’m happy to look at the evidence, but you are not showing me anything new. You say you want young people to challenge the establishment – but our entire society is based on oil and consumption! Why shouldn’t we challenge that? After all, we’re going to run out anyway – we might as well leave it before it leaves us!
Claire Spencer
I would also add that you are being very rude to Shamik, and I don’t think it is necessary.
Claire Spencer
I need to stop feeding trolls over at @leftfootfwd. But they are really quite anger-making… http://bit.ly/JPS2o
Joss Garman
The Royal Society has a handy guide to the myths about global warming – some of which have been trotted out here in the comments thread.
See: http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?id=6229
My question to you deniers –
If you wont believe the Royal Society or NASA or the two thousand independent climate scientists who make up the UN’s IPCC or the literally thousands of peer reviewed climate science papers arguing the link between co2 and climate change… is there anybody you actually will trust?
Does it not seem more likely to you that these authoritative voices are perhaps more dependable than a bunch of headbanging blogs by loony tune conspiracists?
Billy the Kid
Claire – I need to look over the data on your link.
On the oil and consumption bit – it’s true but who cares? Clearly not this government. A friend of mine contacted the DTI with an invention to cut electricity usage but they didn’t even ring him back or reply to his mail.
I think we should wean ourselves off oil but only because I hate the pollution it causes not because of any belief I have from the sanctimonious Climate Change Brigade that (man made) CO2 is effecting global temperatures.
Personally we should be funding the race to Nuclear Fusion but mention the word Nuclear to people and they immediately start off on something else equally tedious.
Regarding Shamik I think it is the height of rudeness to accuse a person of not answering a question whilst refusing to answer one himself. If a person posts comments in a blog they should (provided they are polite as people should be) stand by and answer their posts – or not post them.
The problem Shamik and other contributers have on this blog is the dogmatic blinkered view they have for this current government means that their own personal decency stops them defending the actions of this lot.
It is frankly indefensible to smear the good name of an opponent with lies as Damian McBride did, from the same office as Brown, the week his disabled son died.
Shamik, like everyone else knows that behavior is wrong but instead of saying so he keeps trying to avoid the question which is annoying and in my mind rude.
My problem with that action is that Brown has no right to not respect the high office he holds in our country. Can you see Callaghan, Churchill or Thatcher allowing such disgraceful behavior to take place?