The Forum > Article Comments > Ian Plimer and George Monbiot: could litigation sort out their argument? > Comments
Ian Plimer and George Monbiot: could litigation sort out their argument? : Comments
By Stephen Keim, published 7/1/2010Professor Ian Plimer is famous for using litigation to settle disputes going to core beliefs.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Page 4
- 5
- 6
-
- All
On reflection, I don’t think it would be a good idea for Mr Plimer to sue. If the court found in the defendants’ favour – that is that Mr Plimer lied on TV and misled his readers, all those poor suckers who purchased his book may demand their money back and Mr Plimer would have to resurrect his begging bowl. What a disaster!
Posted by Protagoras, Sunday, 10 January 2010 10:07:16 AM
| |
Kenny, I have no idea what you are talking about. If you are talking about William Connolley his editing statistics are available on Wikipedia for all to see.
Here they are if you don't want to look yourself. Username: William M. Connolley User groups: autoreviewer, rollbacker First edit: Feb 07, 2003 11:46:59 Unique articles edited: 5,499 Average edits per page: 7.27 Total edits (including deleted): 39,969 Deleted edits: 1,301 Live edits: 38,668 Top edited articles: * 1047 - Global_warming * 334 - Global_warming_controversy * 297 - Greenhouse_effect * 242 - Global_cooling * 231 - Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change * 226 - Greenhouse_gas * 191 - Kyoto_Protocol * 187 - List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scienti... * 183 - Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change * 177 - Temperature_record_of_the_2nd_millennium No 'crazy talk' as you put it, just the facts. You asked have I bothered to find out what Scientists are saying in the Journals. Well, now that you mention it yes. If you want I can provide a list of over 400 scientific peer-reviewed articles which discount the AGW theory. But then again if you had been searching the literature you would already know this. Posted by Atman, Sunday, 10 January 2010 11:49:23 AM
| |
steven,
Undoubtedly one can be both. However, to be credible as a *scientist* one needs to be in one's field of expertise, be current and most of all accurate. Check this out to see if you agree with this. http://bravenewclimate.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/plimer2a0.pdf If the 300 'errors' are in fact, then Plimer does have a credibility issue. One can question either his objectivity, motives or competence, in the same way he and his fellow mindset travelers condemn others. Additionally, as I have pointed out before, IMO AGW draws its credibility from A. the basic science B. it provides an answer for the observable symptoms. C. It does acknowledge the observable, substantial impacts of Homo sapiens and the the obvious finiteness of the Earth. IMO His book's solution doesn't on all 3. He and others comments are more strategic than objectively scientific, they attack the analysis but don't offer a comprehensive explanation for item C. It is arguable that human impact is so significant as to not have precedent in geologic history. By their reasoning, to confirm or disprove a parallel would require waiting what an era. A bit late in order to determine 'yep it was unique geologic event after all'. IMnsO Both the weight of the AB&C are *Currently* more convincing in AGW than the non alternative of the negative. ______________________________ Horus, If you were aimed a charge of bias at me, two point. One: I'm not suggesting a science alternative merely examining the alternative and finding it wanting. I still wait to read a plausible alternative hypothesis and solution. Two: Note the wording of the last line in the above post Posted by examinator, Sunday, 10 January 2010 12:58:43 PM
| |
Plimer won't sue because he'd lose. I can't believe this mining company director and author of a work of fiction called Heaven and Earth doesn't know quite well that his arguments have no scientific credibility. Plimer is simply engaged in that purest form of free enterprise - separating suckers from their money by telling them exactly what they want to hear.
The last thing Plimer could want is careful, deliberate, critical examination of his claims by expert witnesses. Posted by Ken Fabos, Sunday, 10 January 2010 2:27:28 PM
| |
I love it, love it, love it.
It’s a bit like watching a 1,000 year old replay of the Vatican Inquisition as Cardinal George Monbiot “grills” poor Copernicus or Galileo. Whilst frothing at the mouth, Cardinal George screams, “Fabrication”, “lies”, fabricated science”. Heretics, heretics! Just like the good old dark ages when science was “tried” by the church. Well, I suppose since all the other religious “champions” have been slaughtered, we may as well give a foreign journalist a crack. Love it, love it, loooooove it Posted by spindoc, Sunday, 10 January 2010 5:20:31 PM
| |
Spindoc,
The analogy with Galileo is false. Plimer has a remedy. He can sue Monbiot and the Guardian to restore his good name. Probably he could sue the ABC as well. The onus will then be on the defendants to prove that Plimer was lying or fabricating. Note that very carefully. In the UK Plimer does not have to prove he was telling the truth. Even if it turned out that he got it wrong in his book he could simply plead that he was mistaken. To prevail Monbiot would have to prove DELIBERATE deception on Plimer's part. This is a heavy burden for the defendant. THE ODDS IN COURT ARE STACKED IN PLIMER'S FAVOUR. Yet Plimer apparently declines to sue. He is accused of lying and fabrication on national television and on a widely read English language news website. And he swallows it. Bear in mind that this is a man who has not hesitated to resort to the courts before. But despite having his name thoroughly blackened he declines to take any action. You have to be blind Freddy if you fail to see the significance of this. For interest's sake, here are the question Monbiot posed. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/aug/05/climate-change-scepticism BTW spindoc, I have no particular liking for Monbiot. I think he's a watermelon – green outside and red inside. Examinator, What exactly are we arguing about? We agree that despite his claims Plimer is not behaving like a scientist. And yes, the overwhelming weight of evidence – PLUS THE BASIC PHYSICS – point to the dangers of pumping ever more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Even if there was as yet no sign of actual temperature increase I would be worried about the risks of increasing greenhouse gas levels simply because of the basic physics. The climate change deniers here have no idea what they're talking about. But you know what Examinator? I hope the deniers are right. Because it’s obvious we're not going to do anything about it. Posted by stevenlmeyer, Sunday, 10 January 2010 6:16:01 PM
|