Here’s a piece in this week’s Spectator magazine – a right wing political journal here in the UK.
They’ve interviewed Ian Plimer, the Professor of Mining Geology at Adelaide University, who says :
“The hypothesis that human activity can create global warming is extraordinary because it is contrary to validated knowledge from solar physics, astronomy, history, archaeology and geology”
His views aren’t new – but they have been given prominence here and he has his supporters. George Monbiot, who has been on WHYS a few times, isn’t one of them .
“In one of the gravest misjudgments in journalism this year, today the Spectator has made the book’s British publication its cover story, with the headline “Relax: Global Warming is all a myth”. Its story consists of a hagiography of Plimer by James Delingpole, a man who knows – and cares – less about science than I do about Formula One.”
and he publishes reviews damning Professor Plimer’s book.
Now, i haven’t made enquiries as to whether Prof Plimer will come on the show – i have no idea whether he would or not, but do you think we should invite him ? Would you like to put your questions to him ?
Or do you think his theories have been so comprehensively trashed that it would serve no value ?
RSS feed
BBC World Have Your Say 
You had a member of a terrorist organization on the show, so I don’t see why you wouldn’t have him on. I really don’t know his views, but he might just espouse the views that humans contribute to global warming, but don’t cause it, as the world has warmed up, and cooled down, on its own before, long before humans ever existed.
Science is good but so unrealiable, one discovery or research is soon or later proved wrong. What is causing all the environmental changes so widely spread if not Global Warming as casused by humans? In Zambia, the generally arid Southern Region now receives excessive rain, which clearly underlines globl warming. Pls do invite him
Would be interesting to hear what he has to say especially if you can also have an equally opposing argument from someone with a similar background and education. I would love to hear the science for and against the theory of global warming.
Battle of the nerds— assuming they both have a Ph.D.
Thanks Deryck, do you want an adversarial debate then ? rather than you all putting questions to him ? (as i say, we haven’t approached him yet- this could be an irrelevant post)
and Steve- his views are in the Spectator and i’ve put the link in the post.
If the BBC broadcasts a hostile interview with someone, then it should also present a friendly interview with the same someone
This would fulfil the obligations set down in the 2006 Agreement Between Her Majesty’s Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and the British Broadcasting Corporation. Clause 64.6.a) of which requires that the World Service includes “the provision of an accurate, unbiased and independent news service covering international and national developments”. That agreement is enforceable under L.A.W. There is NOTHING in the agreement that exempts the English language edition of the World Service from the terms of that agreement.
I am fed up with the BBC’s adversarial style, there are interviewing techniques that will draw out the interviewees ideas, beliefs and theories without the interviewer getting into an argument or adopting a hectoring or ridiculing attitude, please consider there use!
hi, it would be very interesting to hav this man on the show today to know wht he hav for us as youth and the world as a whole on global worming
Absolutely in agreement with Deryck. I would love to have both opposing views explained, although I may emerge more confused than ever!
You absolutely should put him on because anyone who has studied even one year of college geology knows that Plimer is correct and that man-made Climate Change, f/k/a Global Warming, is one big political hoax perpetuated upon a gullible generation by fools (or co-conspirators) like Al Gore.
It is so frustrating to see an under-educated world buying into one of the biggest con-jobs in human history. Of course we should always be looking for clean, alternative sources of energy–even Plimer wouldn’t take issue with that. But those who wish to use this issue for personal financial gain are clearly and cynically going straight for the hearts of the guilt-laden, self-hating, and naive among us, to promote class, economic, and generational warfare.
Please have Plimer on and please be polite and fair to him, because I know that on certain issues, some of you at WHYS refuse to let facts and truth stand in the way of a favored left-wing political cause.
It’s clear: you need to get Professor Plimer on alongside George Monbiot.
Let’s hear both sides of the argument regarding ‘anthropogenic global warming’, instead of being told that one side is right and moral and anybody who dissents from their orthodoxy is evil, stupid and mad (“Or do you think his theories have been so comprehensively trashed that it would serve no value?” – indeed!)
We’ve had one-sided propaganda so far, inspired more by political fanaticism than by science (and what science there is has been largely-based on very dubious computer-generated scenarios, programmed to generate precisely what the enviro-fanatics want to see).
A real debate, calling upon expertise on both sides, is well over-due.
VictorK is absolutely right. All you ever hear is that humans cause global warming, and you get accused of being a nutjob if you even question that humans cause global warming. I think you’d be a fool to say that humans don’t contribute to global warming, but we certain don’t cause it, as it has happened in the past long before humans ever existed. The earth gets warmer, the earth gets cooler on its own. The Great Lakes in north america were formed when glaciers retreated north, because the world was getting warmer. No humans existed when this happened. The world has gotten colder on its own as well. One period scientists believe existed, called Snowball Earth, when almost the entire surface of the earth was covered in ice. Obviously, if that did indeed happen, it has gotten warmer since then given most of the earth is not covered in ice today. Yet, no humans existed.
There is not enough understanding and evidence to validate either side. That is why there is a debate. Pursuing this aspect is just blowing hot air around. The right thing to pursue is to limit our impact on nature. This should not be done as a holy crusade or an expensive technological bleeding edge quest. It needs to be part of an evolving practical philosophy. It will not work if the short term cost is too high or if it goes against our short attention spans.
The more I here from people like Ian Plimer, the more I am convinced that there is a world conspiracy to stop global growth (ultimately driven by eco do gooders who have their own agenda i.e. stopping globalisation and capitalisation). Whilst not wanting to start a whole debate on the virtues of capitalisation, by blindly assuming we are the cause of global warming, not only will misallocate resources to causes that will not benefit mankind, but will prevent developing countries in sharing in the wealth that the western world has so conveniently enjoyed over the last few hundred years at their expense.
I have heard other “debates” on the BBC between nay-sayers and proponents of the global warning theory. From my view, these have been wasted time with one wall bashing against another wall and no resulting new enlightenment. The nay-sayers have had their chance during the past 8 + years to convince governments that global warming is a myth. They lost. To revisit the “debate” as if it still were one is time better spent on issues that actually would benefit from debate.
I think bringing him will merely extend democracy that demands that one should be heard. Having said that, I doubt whether he is all that creadible. We have differing phenomena with regards to global issues. Here in the third world, we would differ with him given that, we are certain that, human activity contributes to global warming. Yes, we have criminally cut vegetation through lumbering and Arg. Extention only to find the fina effect is warming and drying of once cool and green environment.
He is not denying that there is increase in warmth, but does he give a plausible reason. I still think nature has been tampered with and you can’t deny that the unexpected consequences are anything to be comfortable with. Right now we wish the world went practical rather than rehtorical for we fear that one evil might render us inactive.
Its good to hear him since cosmetic too has its own place in the scheme of things human.
Yes. All you hear is one side of the global warming theory, I’d LOVE to hear someone who knows what he is talking about on the other side!
-Anthony, LA, CA
Is it a myth that for many thousand of years, Global warming has been a fact since the Ice Age?. So what is different now?. Should we try and find ways to reverse the process so that we can get back to the Ice Age.
If he could make it simple and straight, I would love to hear from him. Same with anyone having contrary views. Should be simple and straight.
Yes, please do invite him on the show. It’s high time for some objective scientific discussion, rather than the feeding frenzy of politicians and their groupies.
The fundamental issue is so simple. In the daily exchange of CO2 in the ecosystem, how much of it is caused by human activity? Simple question. The answer will probably amaze a lot of listeners, and ought to put in doubt all the plans for burying CO2 and other such astonishing ideas.
Let’s not dispute whether global wrming is happening, since that ALWAYS derails the discussion. Let’s simply ask whether CO2 produced by human activity is the CAUSE.
The technology of Solar Physics Solar energy Geology Global Warming rain water Water refining (River sea well water ) comes with all refining .We have engineers Technologists and Journalists to execute it. what they have learned is in its own place and it do exist there (minus order from Almighty God although we have permission) However Ice is melting ozone layer destroyed water polluted resource depleted petroleum oil Iron ore being removed and forest lumber and wood is being cut with water bottle sales up. In seminars Govt Buildings it is being debated. But do we have solution? In order to have solution you have to have knowledge of above adverse technological field. Do we have even one Person with combined knowledge of all above? In the holy book God Almighty said:”God will save humanity even if you can find one with combined one above knowledge”.Is it possible ? The answer is Yes (presumably).
I’d say yes ONLY if he’s willing to not speak in right-wing talking points. Otherwise, frankly it’s a waste of time. And I’d hate to see a massive drop in WHYS’s ratings.
It would be interesting to hear his views.
However, I would appreciate the BBC finding new voices to appear on the show with him.
Where are all the young scientists with challenging views and observations?
Are there any from places other than tne US and Europe?
There are extremists on both sides of the argument,don’t invite a loony on the show just to discredit the climate change sceptics.
Why don’t cross the road ,out of the back door of Bush House ,to the Kings College London Geography department and ask someone about current academic research on the issue,may be they might have something intereseting for you.
Would love to hear a valid debate….not sure I’d just want to hear the guy totally trashed by callers.
I have a very hard time understanding the ‘anti-global warming’ side….would like to hear what he believes truly supports his views, but in a balanced honest debate.
Sure, invite him on and invite other people with similar “Climate Change” expertise, like Paris Hilton, Britney Spears, and Jessica Simpson.
Sheesh.
Thanks for the giggle Tom 🙂
We live in 21st century where real experts take back seat and celebrities take the central stage whether it is climate change or world economic forum or poverty reduction. Le tus not forget Michael Jackson and Bob Geldof moved the world for Band Aid for ethiopean famine in 1983? I see the participation of film stars in issues like climate change must be seen in this light and not a laughing matter in my view but i value comments by Ann since she seem to be a passionate participant of WHYS.
Thanks Tom!!!
Yeah, the lot of them can set us straight on all this scary stuff. Earth’s resources are infinite – they will expand to fill our needs as we may define them. Earth’s population can continue to increase exponentially because people are good to have and there’s always room for one or two billion more. Endangered species, peak oil, peak water, and global warming are all “contrary to validated knowledge from solar physics, astronomy, history, archaeology and geology.”
Double sheesh!
Hello again
And hello Louisa. Big mistake.
Love Jim
I think Steve is right, WHYS has had a diverse pool of people on the show. Why not have this man on the show? I could think of much worse people!
P.S.
Just because someone thinks global warming is a sham doesn’t mean one is “anti global warming” or even “anti-environment”.
I think global warming is a reality but let us listen to him and invite some experts who produced the IGPCC reports also to put their scientific arguments. I think his professors variables are mostly external to the earth and what the IGPCC appear to base on immediate impacts on earth as a result of man’s greed for carbon based energy for more than100 years and the sea level rise and changing pattern of floods and droughts are all there to see. Reduction of rainforest for 3 decades are not externao factors like solar flares and astromy and so on.
Please ask Professor Plimer to air his views. Nearly everyone has opinions about the state of the global climate, maybe this guy has facts. If he does not, then this should become apparent to your listeners.
Somewhere within this controversy are facts. The extremes are clear! Either the Earth is warming, or it is not. Either we are the cause, or we are blameless. Only the middle grounds need discussion. If we are the cause of global warming the news is good; we might be able to institute a fix. If we are not the news is also good; we can take measures to lessen its impact. In the final analysis, the cause of any putative calamity is only of academic interest; but our response to it may be of intense, practical interest – our survival.
g
Of course he should be on the programme. There is far too much censorship of dissenting from the politicaly correct views.
Global warming is a natural event that occurs every so often. Perhaps it could be argued that mankind’s activities have accelorated the current warming trend.
The present debate owes more to ludite views and a government determined to find new sources of money. If it can be called Global Warming, we can tax it over and over seems to be there position.
No, you should not have him on. I’m pretty sick of the media giving airspace to these idiots for the sake of ‘debate’.
This would be the sensible decision, but from many of the comments, it seems that people are ready to grasp any notion that will reassure them that they can continue taking no action, continue to stand by while corporations abuse and exploit Earth, and continue to ignore the obvious onset of global warming. In any debate, these people will hear only what they want to hear and continue with their heads in the sand, which is heating up around their ears.
Now if you have him debate with someone with a similar educational background and equally opposing argument, I would like that you do a background check on the organizations they work for and tell the listeners. This will place their opinions into perspective especialy if they are linked to organizations that have significant but tacit political and business links.
I’m with VictorK on this one.
There’s no debate to be had – humans are a contributing factor to climate change (not the only one, but the only one we have any control over) We need to be finding ways to reverse the damage, not letting blowhards spout more hot air.
Well said! We humans don’t have time to continue an endless discussion. Assurances from this joker won’t make global warming go away!
As long as you bring on scientists who represent the other side, yes, sure, bring him on. Honestly, though, by giving voice to people like this, the media is making the dire changes we need to make globally even harder because people get their backward ideas about science validated by retrograde views like this one.
If anyone actually believed that yet another “debate” would make any difference, I’d be all for welcoming him. However, the last thing we need is more noise, name calling and predictable talking points.
His presumption that we humans can gleefully pour multi-thousands of tons of pollutants into the atmosphere with no effect seems bizarre beyond belief.
This “debate” reminds me of the “debate” over Civil Rights in the USA – there are those who oppose and fear change and those who are convinced that change is far over due.
At it’s core though, I marvel at the inherent approval of environmental irresponsibility by the global warming deniers. Their attitude towards human history is truly frightening. Any justification for a slash and burn lifestyle seems to be their real motive.
If you want to question “Ian Plimer, the Professor of Mining Geology at Adelaide University,” about Mining Geology, sure, ask him to come on, but you wouldn’t invite Britney Spears on to talk about Mining Geology, would you? And you shouldn’t ask Plimer to talk about how to sing pop songs or anything else in which he has no expertise and that includes Climate Change.
There are many examples of otherwise very intelligent people who have expertise in one area of knowledge and who believe wrongly that that makes them experts in other areas of knowledge. Micheal Crichton was one such, he was a Medical Doctor and a very good writer but he asserted wrongly that he had expertise in other areas of science.
Sure, why not, let’s do a “crackpot” show and ask many and various nutcase types who assert expertise in areas that they obviously are wrong about and let the WHYS community play with and make fun of them with questions and comments.
But frankly I don’t like the idea of humiliating people for public spectacle and laughs so I wouldn’t advocate for a “crackpot” show.
Yes, it would be nice to hear Professor Plimer talk on WHYS. I have attended a conference last spring in Warsaw, Poland, at which a lady spoke with the issue that Professor Plimer holds. She quoted statistics since the Rainaissance, which showed that global warming had been on and off and the present global warming may be more accute than earlier but it is nothing new. It would be interesting to hear a summary of a grounded talk on the forecast of the prospects of the present global warming. Politicians either tend to be indifferent or abuse the situation to gain money. In both cases it is expensive to the people outside political circles. A grounded forecast would be very welcome to orientate the people who pay. Thank you.
Marija Liudvika Rutkauskaite
Hello again
This would be a surprising question if it weren’t for the fact that, in my experience WHYS has the habit of censoring those comments that IT does not like.
Of course the future of the planet we live on is of concern to everyone. Different people have different ideas so why shouldn’t we, the public, hear what professor Plimmer has to say. I would certainely like to put some questions to him.
Jim
Why not?
The “experts” among us who refuse to listen to arguments from the other side – even the most extreme – are the ones I have the least time for. You cannot present a challenging point of view if you don’t allow it to be challenged head-on itself. And that applies not only to science, but also to politics, religion, history, etc.
Listening to the case someone else makes does not necessarily imply that you are aligning with their arguments. But not listening means you cannot challenge them.
The argument for not inviting people with extreme viewpoints seems to be that those who cannot think for themselves will become easily influenced. If that was a valid point then you could also apply it to democracy and not allow “stupid” or gullible people to vote!
Hello again
And WHYS listen to VoxAppeal and let the world have its say and stop censoring my comments. I would go one step further in saying that by censoring you are afraid to rise to the challenge of reason. It’s a bit like the middle ages when people like Galileo were afraid to publish their findings because it was not politically acceptable at the time. Now one doesn’t need to be afraid one is simply censored. The result is the same. The suppression of thought, the suppression of ideas.
Jim
I would love for WHYS to have Prof. Plimer on the show. It makes no sense to ignore a perspective that is shared by so many people. On the contrary, it always makes sense to explore any evidence or reasoning that people have for their positions.
I would like to have a greater understanding of the now-politically-incorrect perspective on global warming. People aren’t inherently wrong because they disagree with the popular opinion.
I do not know what to believe. All I hear from the mainstream media is that humans cause global warming, but every time someone tries to contest it, they are branded radical or extreme or “nutjob”. So are all these scientists wrong? Is there really still global warming? Why won’t people let them enter a fact-based debate? Are they scared? The UK has already had to issue disclaimers with “Inconvenient Truth” that is required viewing in schools. So, why do we keep looking at outdated statistics and ignoring other non-carbon based explanations? I want to hear the truth. I believe that we should be less polluting, but if carbon is not the cause, then we shouldn’t be passing legislation and UN sanctions based on carbon. Somebody please have a real conversation and don’t just shrug an opposing view off.
This subject has been discussed too much. The characters have already been lined up: the scientific consensus is that global warming is really and human made. A small (but very vocal) number of scientists disagree. Various people have various beliefs and love to argue over them, often without knowing what they’re talking about. Do we really need yet another argument?
Sorry Aaron, consesus is not science.
I think people the world over need to get one thing straight, “global warming” is a slightly alarmist euphemism for “climate change”, which we all know is happening. As for the argument that human influence is or isn’t the cause is a pretty juvenile argument. The case of human influence is like that of the influence of tobacco on human anatomy. For some bizarre reason for generations smokers have had their heads in the sand, refusing to accept that inhaling smoke and nicotine into their lungs (and that of their passive guests) wasn’t bad for all our health – we can disregard the litter and contamination that they are still imposing on us all. It has to be obvious to any one capable of rational thought that inhaling that junk doesn’t make you fitter, stronger, heathier – and confers no physical benefit (and never did). Similarly all the gases emitted by everything the humans have manufactured, all the junk we have buried and poured into our water courses – can only have one effect on our planet – and you guessed it – its bad!
If you want to read a scare story, read about Thomas Midgeley, we can thank him for unnatural levels of airborne lead and CFCs, then you will appreciate the damage that individual cranks (like Ian Plimer) can cause.
Yes, please have professor Plimer on.
We have all been bombarded by the non scientific view . Mr Al Gore is not a scientist, for instance. The science behind the global warning scare with expert scientists representing the counter consensus is essential. Our Climate Change Minister Penny Wong (Australia), recently had three questions put to her regarding this matter. Her written answers (and with her own scientific advisers) proved to be woolly and full of elementary errors We must get informed. plus of ..course , riding our bikes more!.
YES…I would like to have WHYS send out the invite to this gentlemen!!!
~Dennis Junior~
Note the sleight-of-hand by which an alternative and minority view is described as ‘extreme’, ‘loony’, ‘a waste of time’, ‘cranky’ and on an intellectual level with Paris Hilton (and that by people who don’t possess anything like Professor Plimer’s academic credentials in this area). And all of this not because the alternative viewpoint is incoherent or lacks facts to support it: simply because it’s different.
The fact that supporters of human-induced global-warming more often react with fury, moral outrage, hatred and name-calling to anybody who disagrees with them, than with reasoned arguments, makes me suspicious.
You can always tell what WHYS think of an issue or person when – despite paying lip-service to the need for standards of civility on this forum – they happily allow posts that are no more than insults and spiteful abuse. Is the hope that Professor Plimer will have a look at the blog and decide that he’d rather not have anything to do with the show?
Why not have Ian Plimer as a guest? You don’t learn anything from people who agree with you (Yes Men).
I would ask Mr. Plimer how you can cover a great amount of the earths surface with cement (mega cities,airports and freeways) an not effect the environment?
However, If Mr. Plimer can convince me otherwise, I am willing to change my mind. In the pursuit of truth (reality) and knowledge what can I gain by holding ideas that someone else can prove (or convince me) that are wrong.
To be closed to new ideas are only for those who must protect a fragile ego.
When does CO2 cease to be the vital gas that enables life to exist on this planet and become a pollutant and poison? How can the tiny amount of CO2 that mankind adds to the atmosphere possibly cause [ according to the Green Stupids/Plane Stupids and Political Stupids] catastrophic climate change. Climate was never, ever a stable item. Our weather has varied since records began. What we have now in this drive to eliminate ‘Carbon’ has as much relevance as did Tulip Trading or Fools Gold in the past. And the Al Gores and Goldman Sachs of this world are profiteering by politicians ignorance and desire to control – everything. Let Nature take its course, drive cars, fly aeroplanes, sail ships – it will not change the planet’s climate.
The profligate waste of money erecting wind turbines and solar panels will deny a lot of 3rd world mouths the chance of something to eat however. And the average Ist world citizen will pay through the nose to combat a concept as esoteric as the Emperor’s Clothes. And only the Al Gores of this world will benefit.
Prof Plimer is on the right track and we would do well to let people like him have a say at the highest level and get the UN to retract all the garbage it has spewed out and fed the Media all it needs to splash banner headlines that are without any foundation of truth or fact.
Remember CO2 is not a poison or pollutant and without it we die. Someone tell Prince Charles his clothes are like the Emperors and in 96 months time he will have to justify his stupid predictions.
I find it ironically interesting that Conservatives are so into the figurative metaphor of imitating Ostriches by keeping their heads buried in the sand about Global Climate Change that they carry that metaphor to the extreme of asking a Geologist, a person who literally studies rocks and how rocks are formed, to inform them about the atmosphere, an area literally completely outside and above the expertise of a Geologist, a man who figuratively keeps his head buried in the rocks!.
Yow! Ha ha ha! That is soo funny!
There are real atmosphere weather and climate scientists who disagree about humans causing Global Climate Change, so if you want to hear countering views why wouldn’t you ask them to come on and give their opinions?
Yes we should invite him.
My question to him:
Europe is thinking of putting large [number + size] solar panels on the deserts of North Africa for their energy need. Indeed a human activity.
How this will affect on other climatic behavior?
[just to give you a background of asking the question: we put dams on rivers to get renewable energy. But we cause some other damage which we all know what.
May be Prof. Plimer knows what happens to the Solar Energy falling on the deserts. It must be doing something to maintain a balance of things that is there or elsewhere (say, causing strong winds to blow in Europe, probably).
I was given a primer on Chaos Theory that in a balanced world, if a butterfly moves its wings inside Amazon Jungle, a severe storm might occur in Japan!.
We want to reduce Carbon Oxidation suddenly when the whole civilization is based on it. For me it looks scary and bad science.
I hope Prof Plimer’s observation is right (human activity contributes insignificantly towards major Environmental Phenomena like El nino, Ice age, Dinosaur disappearance, Earth quacks, volcano eruptions, Tsunami etc. But I can’t explain killer diseases, drying of Colorado River and similar things]
Some scientific “facts” we have accepted in the past have turned out to wide of the mark. A recent example is the millennium bug which was predicted to cause all sorts of chaos to computers and data bases but as we all know, nothing very serious resulted. Now the world seems to be sold on this global warming issue and man’s part in it. I am one of those who are convinced we are not treating mother earth properly. But if some other scientist has contrary views, he should be allowed to expound on them including on WHYS if he is willing to participate. The world of science thankfully is not like the world of religion where “mine is the right way” often clouds issues and sometimes results in violence.
Yes! And collect questions before hand from listeners and have them both answer the same question. It will be like watching a sports game. I’ll have popcorn ready.
For those who would like to hear Plimers views there’s a non-adversarial interview that can be listened to here.
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/counterpoint/stories/2009/2550682.htm