The Oil Drum: Australia/New Zealand | A Letter To The Editor

A Letter To The Editor

Posted by Big Gav on October 25, 2009 - 2:23am in The Oil Drum: Australia/New Zealand

Here's a guest post from kiashu, in the form of a "Letter to the Editor" (or in this case, a journalist at The Age) about a review of Ian Plimer's pseudo-academic novel, "Heaven and Earth".

Gidday James Kirby,

You write in today's Age,

"Heaven and Earth is absurdly long - 500 pages, 2000 footnotes - with enough factual inconsistencies and ill-advised references to some ''loopy'' thinkers to give his critics plenty of ammunition." [http://www.theage.com.au/business/going-against-the-current-climate-20091024-he2t.html]

You then express surprise that he found it difficult to get his book published. As I understand it, you are primarily a financial journalist. Let's imagine then that someone who was not qualified in economics wrote a book critiquing modern economics, and it was full of "factual inconsistencies and ill-advised references to some "loop" thinkers", do you think that person would have difficulty in getting the book published?

Would that difficulty truly be a result of the author's "radical" views, or a result of their poor writing and research?

From your article, it does not appear that you've actually read his latest book. In your Age article, you are careful to note that you are not a scientist. However, you are a journalist, and a good journalist checks facts and references. That is after all the purpose of footnotes in any work with at least pretensions to academic worth: it lets you check for yourself.

As Deltoid has noted [http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/11/silenced_plimer_somehow_appear.php], for someone who has been "silenced", Plimer appears on radio, tv and in newspapers rather a lot. You seem to be under the misapprehension that Plimer's claims have not been addressed by mainstream science. Again, a bit of research on your part - just a simple google search or two - would quickly show this not to be so.

To take just two examples, he's been refuted in Crikey [http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/05/05/plimer-wants-to-talk-science-ok-here-goes/], and on the ABC by the President of the Australian Academy of Science [http://www.abc.net.au/rn/ockhamsrazor/stories/2009/2589206.htm].

Even the normally pro-denialist Australian published a review by an astronomer rubbishing Plimer's book [http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,25433059-5003900,00.html]. As Ashley notes in that review,

"While the text is annotated profusely with footnotes and refers to papers in the top journals, thus giving it the veneer of scholarship, it is often the case that the cited articles do not support the text."

This is why I referred to the duty of a journalist to check facts. Had you read the book and checked some references, you would have seen the same as Ashely. Plimer also claims that volcanoes emit chloroflurocarbons - yep, those CFCs restricted by the Montreal Protocol, which are entirely artificial and man-made.

A further resource, where you can find all the most popular denialist arguments refuted with scientific references (that actually say what the referrer says) is here - http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php Particularly relevant are "Did scientists predict global cooling in the 1970s?" Answer, no, only a few popular media articles [http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm] and "Did global warming stop in 1998?" Answer, no, it didn't.

RealClimate.org is an excellent resource for discussion of climate change, and of course addresses denialist arguments. But even they get tired of saying the same thing again and again [http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/06/groundhog-day-2/].

Lastly, you mention that the CEO of Caltex doesn't believe in global warming. Even if bamboozled by Plimer's pseudoscience, I would have expected a finance journalist to pick this one up. I am sure that the CEO of Bear Sterns does not believe lack of regulation caused the subprime mortgage crisis, the CEO of EA Games does not believe violent video games cause real-world violence, and the CEO of Hustler thinks pornography is good for marriages and sex education. They may be right or wrong, but they have a financial interest in saying what they say, so we can safely ignore it, and listen to disinterested people instead.

Plimer did not have trouble publishing his book because his ideas were too radical for those conservative old fuddy-duddy eggheads. He had trouble publishing his book because it's rubbish. I suggest that in future you read the book you're defending, and do some fact-checking.

The climate change debate is not over anymore than the debate on evolution is over. But let us not misunderstand what the "debate" is: nobody really argues the basic trends, only the details. Asking why nobody listens to Plimer is like asking why astrogeologists don't listen to the guys who say the Moon landings were faked. "Don't bother studying that so-called Moon rock, it's fake, too!"

A Letter To The Editor

PDF version

9 comments

Kiashu on October 25, 2009 - 2:38am Permalink | Comments top

For reference, here is Kirby's article. I didn't include it in the letter because I assumed Kirby knew where his own article was published, though given his credulous response to Plimer and his complete lack of fact-checking, that is perhaps an overly-generous assumption.

Mash on October 27, 2009 - 6:43am Permalink | Parent | Comments top

you, sir, crack me up.

Kiashu on October 27, 2009 - 11:27pm Permalink | Parent | Comments top

Kirby replied.

"Thanks Kyle."

Profound. Between that and his original article, well next time old Rupert wonders why people are abandoning newspapers, we can tell him: because they're shit. Unpaid ordinary Bruces and Sheryls with an hour and an internet connection can do better research and produce more detailed, searching articles than the typical newspaper journalist.

Of course we don't get to go to quite so many lavish lunches with businessmen, so maybe Kirby and his mates know something we don't. Schmooze the captain for the sweet, sweet desserts; rock the boat and someone might push you out.

Kiashu on October 28, 2009 - 8:13pm Permalink | Parent | Comments top

Kirby gave another reply,

Hi Kyle

Thanks for your letter and your interesting arguments re caltex etc
I make no apologies as you might expect
Everyone's opinion should be heard
he had a track record as a successful non fiction author
the book was rejected because of bias
that is a story that should be told
I told it in a balanced way

All the best

I returned,

Gidday James,

It's evident you didn't read the linked articles. It's not a matter of "sides", but a matter of actual evidence, plagiarism, fabrication, and so on. See for example http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/global_warming/plimer/ - though I doubt you'll read it.

It's not "bias" to reject something with poor writing.

It's a pity that you don't listen unless the person buys you a nice dinner. But this I suppose is an occupational hazard in modern journalism.

Cheers,
Kyle

That finance journalists refuse to look at evidence presented to them, and believe whichever friendly guy in a suit buys them dinner, explains a lot about how we were so "surprised" by the recent financial crisis. "But the CEO of Lehmann Brothers told me CDOs were a great investment!"

SP on October 28, 2009 - 12:42pm Permalink | Parent | Comments top

His response to my email was:

"Thanks Shane

I believe both sides should be heard.

JK"

My response to that was:

Hi James,

Thanks for answering. Did you get much other "abuse"?

Ah, yes... sides...

They should be heard but should they be given equal weighting or time in the media?
Do we do this for ALL arguments?
No.
Why this one?

You know, I think all this hysteria over germs and bacteria is overrated. Germs have always been there. Cycles of disease and death are a natural phenomena. And there is no evidence that if I shit in the street that you will be affected.
Surely I should be allowed to shit where I please? Why should the public suppress my individual freedoms. It is a natural act! The models that show that more people shitting in the street might lead to an epidemic and disease are potentially flawed. They are only statistic models. The "public health" debate has been captured by a self serving group of "do gooders" whose real agenda is to ride the "public health" gravy train by formenting irrational fears so that they can profit. I think its only fair that I be given equal time in the media to express my controversial views rejecting all of mainstream medicine. We wouldn't want to suppress debate now. Ill even be larikinish.

...sides... but whose and why? Whose side is Plimer really on? Its a fair question.

I hope you are truly genuine in your "doubts" and I hope you make the effort to examine some of the source literature available via google scholar.

I spent some time the previous day making a little document with several graphs etc which I sent to him making the simple point that there are multiple lines of evidence that need to be refuted and that Plimer is not the man for that job... as he is an idiot.

Kiashu on October 28, 2009 - 7:16pm Permalink | Parent | Comments top

Excellent response.

Now, why does the climate change argument get this "fair" treatment? Self-interest, obviously.

Nobody wants lots of shit in the street. But lots of people want to take their SUV to the burger drivethru.

It's a bit like how when someone sees a personal trainer who is not big and buff, they'll say, "see? he doesn't do it, how can I? and what does he know anyway?" But nobody expects the football coach to be the best player on his team. That's because the football players want to change to play better, but the personal trainer client is often looking for excuses not to change.

With our "climate scepticism", we are looking for excuses not to change. Because walking to the shops and eating less meat is so hard, mate.

SP on October 28, 2009 - 9:09pm Permalink | Parent | Comments top

He appears to have read my emails out of sequence... maybe his inbox IS full.

The response to the first email with attached data and links was simple this:

"I am sure it will all be very useful

JK"

So there you have it... open minded journalism.
I read that tone is "fcuk off Im not reading it" - but I could be wrong.

Below is most of the rest of the first email that I sent.

"There has always been warming and cooling, and there has been no evidence of warming since 1998."

#1 the second phrase is false. FULLSTOP

cru-2005.gif

1998 was just an exceptionally warm year.

#2 there has always been murder and mayhem - may I shoot you now? Do you see the problem with this argument? This argument says there has been warming and cooling in the past - so what does it matter if we do it now... Well you/I/Humanity might suffer... that's what matters.

"TIME magazine ran a cover story on global cooling."

#3 Since when has "Time" been a peer reviewed journal? Time is nothing more than glorified opinion pieces with colour pictures. The Age currently has a writer talking about climate alarmism as if it is a fact. There were no peer reviewed articles that suggested "global cooling"... only the "alarmist" commercial media outlets looking for some spin to push the product.

Next you'll be saying that Y2K was a hoax because nothing happened to you... even though the 2 years prior to Y2K were spent fixing the problem! {NOTE EDIT it may have been overrated but thats a different story]

"a winner of the prestigious Eureka Prize"
#4 Prestige is no guarantee - greater eminences then Plimer have ballsed up. Einstein made mistakes but had the grace to admit it. Argument from authority is one of the weakest forms of debate.

"Plimer claims that many of the forecasts that underpin global plans for sustainability programs or carbon pollution programs are based on flawed computer modelling."

#5 Almost 20 years ago the first model outputs from the IPCC were published... and guess what? Reality has tracked those predictions. So Plimer is wrong. These are not predictions that just started today... they started 20 years ago and have been shown to be about right.

"climate change is a debate in which one side has dominated media coverage"

#6 Which side, the side with the full weight of scientific evidence or the small band of noisy (or is that an "abrasive larrikin style") fossil fuel funded "sceptics"?

"Like most investors or business people, I am not a scientist and I can't tell if either side is fudging the figures."

#7 What would motivate climate scientists to "fudge the figures", are they doing it for a Laaf!

"But I know that when a highly qualified scientist is sidelined and demonised to the point he can't get a book published - and that book later becomes a bestseller - we may not be getting the full story."

#8 He is a mining geologist - he can publish outside his field but his not "highly qualified" in it.

"and that book later becomes a bestseller"

#9 Go on, follow the credulous crowd. No story is more popular than the one we want to hear.
I say congratulations to Random House for having the integrity to not be associated with his book.

Plimer has done his job, casting his miasma of doubt over you, and now you spread that fatuous fog through The Age.

Kiashu on October 29, 2009 - 2:11am Permalink | Parent | Comments top

As to its being a bestseller, via Deltoid we see Ben McNeil saying that up to May 2009 the sales were about 3,700, not the tens of thousands claimed by Andrew Bolt at that time and James Kirby more recently - it's unclear from Kirby's article whether he had his own sales figures or was just parrotting Plimer's claims like most of the rest of his article.

Successful by Aussie standards, but not really enough for Plimer to give up his tenure at the uni just yet. Typical royalties are 10%, so... 3,700 x 0.10 x (?) $30 = around ten grand.

Big Gav on October 25, 2009 - 6:34am Permalink | Comments top

Tim Lambert seems to have a running commentary going on on Mr Plimer's media appearances :

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/global_warming/plimer/