tip off

Climate sceptic HQ: undercover at Ian Plimer’s book launch

Ian Plimer’s latest book argues manmade climate change is not real and environmentalists are damaging the planet. Crikey infiltrated the book launch to see Plimer’s fans in action.

If I were an estate planner, I would definitely be sponsoring Professor Ian Plimer. Judging by the age of the audience at the launch of his latest book last night, they must need some help with their wills. And while they can’t help being old — it comes to us all — I’m still not sure why they were so angry. Surrounded by about 70 choleric, red-faced elderly blokes (there were only three women), I was terrified that one of them was going to have a stroke.

Not for Greens argues man-made climate change is a hoax, challenges the need for renewable energy, and argues environmentalists are damaging the planet. Yesterday and Friday Crikey published detailed critiques of the book by a climate scientist and renewable energy expert. Needless to say, this sixth outing from the University of Adelaide’s geology professor (he has no qualifications in climate science) gets a drubbing in those reviews.

Last night’s launch was held at the Tattersall’s Club in Sydney and hosted by the Sydney Mining Club, of which Plimer, who sits on several mining company boards, is a member. Crikey infiltrated the event. The evening felt like a Baptist revival meeting, with the 68-year-old academic as the high priest. Like a preacher, he related a long series of anecdotes about fighting the common enemies — the Greens, environmentalists, anyone who believes in climate change — to which the audience would respond with boos and jeers. But then he told us how he vanquished his foes with superior oratory and real science. Hooray, Ian will save us!

The content was immaterial, of course, as that audience has long since taken a position on this issue and is now untroubled by the facts. And by the time climate change has really taken hold most of them will be dead.

One audience member asked about getting Ian’s books into schools, complaining that she had been unable to get a previous tome onto the curriculum at prestigious eastern suburbs boys’ school Cranbrook. Plimer replied, with relish, that he had been banned from much more important places than Cranbook — in fact, he had been invited to speak at Buckingham Palace and then had his invitation withdrawn — and had the letter to prove it.

He had rewritten a previous book, Heaven and Earth, for younger readers, calling it How to Get Expelled from School, he said, and was considering turning the current book into an audio book for his mother, who was going blind. “But not blind to the truth!” an audience member exclaimed.

Another man suggested that if Ian wanted to get some favourable media attention, he should go onto Michael Parkinson and ‘come out’ (huge laughs)”

Schools were unreceptive to his ideas, he complained, adding that universities were “toxic”. When he was at the University of Melbourne, he and Geoffrey Blainey were the only two conservatives, he said.

Plimer told us he had addressed Queensland’s Liberal National Party conference in Brisbane last weekend, telling them that they should fund a Climate Cooling Institute so that all the climate scientists would change sides (that got a good laugh).

One man asked about how to get Ian’s message out to the general public, to which another suggested going on to the website of the NSW Minerals Council, where you can sign up to become a “Voice for Mining”. The site also allows you to send emails of support for the mining industry to your MP,  which I assume is a digital version of “I Dig and I Vote”. This audience member then said he’d sent several of these emails to broadcaster Alan Jones, who’d had the temerity to oppose mining in the Hunter Valley. This particular remark totally threw me — what? Wouldn’t this audience love Alan Jones? If radio shock jocks are now the enemy then I’m going to need a white board.

Another man suggested that if Ian wanted to get some favourable media attention, he should go onto Michael Parkinson and “come out” — prompting Plimer to say that that was a “that is a line I will not cross” (huge laughs).

The only time the good professor looked put out was when one of the audience asked the wrong question — “aren’t there some advantages to a warmer climate, what about more wheat being grown in Canada” — and received a swift put down. But the climate isn’t warming, he said sternly.

There was then a bit of a debate about how their views were being stifled (being queried on your dubious scientific theories is now a freedom of speech issue). Plimer suggested contacting the Institute of Public Affairs, which “definitely punches above its weight”.

He also said that he had been on a plane recently with Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young (sustained booing), who was not only wearing leather shoes but also carrying a crocodile-skin handbag. While this seems unlikely — crocodile skin bags cost an arm and a leg, and not just for the reptile — I did ask her about it on Twitter and am awaiting a reply. If the Greens are now saving sharks and wearing crocodiles, then that’s the sort of policy inconsistency that the IPA needs to investigate.

The questions were interrupted while someone replenished Plimer’s drink — it was never a dry argument — and he related the story of having a very long lunch in Kalgoorlie. Stumbling out onto the street at 8pm, he had been assisted by the local Uniting Church minister, he said, who persuaded him to donate the royalties of the book to the church. Which does make Crikey’s purchase of several copies (for its reviewers) slightly more bearable.

Although under strict instructions from Crikey management to bail up the good professor and quiz him, feeling like the last Catholic in Belfast, my nerve failed and I slunk out into the night. There are many things I will do for the Crikey readers but outing myself to 70 angry pensioners at an Ian Plimer book launch isn’t one of them. Call it Voiceless for Mining.

31
  • 1
    Avril Hannah-Jones
    Posted Tuesday, 15 July 2014 at 1:24 pm | Permalink

    I’m a little disturbed that the Uniting Church is going to receive any money from a climate change denier but maybe the money received can contribute to the support the Church offers those already affected by climate change, like the people of Tuvalu.

  • 2
    Ramble
    Posted Tuesday, 15 July 2014 at 1:54 pm | Permalink

    I have a signed pre-publication copy of said book and must admit that it sometimes appears to be better value than my Crikey Subscription. I would offer that given stability of temperatures over the past decade or so, that the people of Tuvalu ought to look closer to home with regard to their plight; apply a little geography/geology and hydrology perhaps.

  • 3
    Electric Lardyland
    Posted Tuesday, 15 July 2014 at 2:06 pm | Permalink

    Like a preacher, he related a long series of anecdotes about fighting the common enemies — the Greens, environmentalists, anyone who believes in climate change ” So, that common enemy would include Tony Abbott and all the coal-ition cronies, who whenever somebody bothers to ask, always claim that they believe in the science of climate change?
    Of course, to the modern rightard, years of constant and deliberate lying, is perfectly acceptable, if your goal is to rail against genuine science and vanquish professionally implemented climate policy.

  • 4
    mikeb
    Posted Tuesday, 15 July 2014 at 2:12 pm | Permalink

    It is reassuring that the average age of the Pilmer accolyte is just short of geriatric. I’m no spring chicken myself but it still amazes me how easily people dismiss the truth if it doesn’t suit them. Just like big tobacco they will die out and the kids are out hope.

  • 5
    Electric Lardyland
    Posted Tuesday, 15 July 2014 at 2:27 pm | Permalink

    Yes, mikeb, to quote famous physicist Max Planck, “Science advances one funeral at a time”.

  • 6
    zut alors
    Posted Tuesday, 15 July 2014 at 2:27 pm | Permalink

    It’s mystifying why the 70 attendees were angry bearing in mind they’ll be dodging the grasp of global warming before the ugly consequences fully hit. It would be interesting to be a fly on the wall as their beleaguered heirs discover copies of Plimer’s book while clearing out their estates.

  • 7
    Recalcitrant.Rick
    Posted Tuesday, 15 July 2014 at 2:36 pm | Permalink

    This is all about massive ego, look how important I am, I’m smarter than all those millions of other people! Pathetic! But of course there’s a 3% chance that he’s right!

  • 8
    zut alors
    Posted Tuesday, 15 July 2014 at 2:37 pm | Permalink

    Plimer & I are in accord on one thing ie: .the Institute of Public Affairs “definitely punches above its weight”. Well above…and that’s not meant to be a compliment.

  • 9
    MJPC
    Posted Tuesday, 15 July 2014 at 3:05 pm | Permalink

    Margot, thank you for this amusing report of the latest meeting of the flat earthers. Pilmer made a mistake putting Jones on the outer, all his followers would have swellled the ranks with blue rinsers had he given the book his tick of approval.
    No donations to the uniting church from me I’m sorry.
    Did you notice any of the current government there in disguise, I’m sure they all would have been invited.

  • 10
    LucyJr
    Posted Tuesday, 15 July 2014 at 3:14 pm | Permalink

    Margot, nevermind about not fronting him. Conflict is Plimer’s opiate and you would achieve nothing but his pleasure.

    It bugs me too that these “old men in cardies” still vote but will not live to feel the harm they impose on generations ahead. Rather like old war hounds of past eras.

    BTW, I too am surprised about the Uniting Church agreeing to take this coal-blood money. Maybe just another lie?

  • 11
    Posted Tuesday, 15 July 2014 at 3:34 pm | Permalink

    Spot any tinfoil hats? I wonder if Plimer has a well polished lump of coal in left pocket that he fumbles when he sees a young person.

  • 12
    MAREE WHITTON
    Posted Tuesday, 15 July 2014 at 3:34 pm | Permalink

    I think your piece is a nasty bit of “journalism”. It seems strange to me that whilst older Australian are expected to work longer, pay taxes all their working lives, look after grand children, financially help their children, they are not expected to speak or be interested in anything around them. At what age do ideas and commitment stop Margot. Maybe just maybe with what’s going on around the world they don’t think the world is in safe hands.

  • 13
    mikeb
    Posted Tuesday, 15 July 2014 at 3:38 pm | Permalink

    look after grand children” is the main priority for me at this stage in life. I’ve worried about myself for long enough. Time to be less self-centred methinks.

  • 14
    The Pedanticist
    Posted Tuesday, 15 July 2014 at 4:19 pm | Permalink

    Alan Jones is also a trenchant critic of CSG fracking and has been very vocal in his support for farmers against the likes of Santos, Metgasco, etc. He even gave a sympathetic interview to a Lock the Gate rep a couple of weeks back. Whoda thunk it?

  • 15
    Di Keller
    Posted Tuesday, 15 July 2014 at 4:35 pm | Permalink

    What is this thing about greens not wearing leather. ?? Leather is a byproduct it should be used :) Recycle FTW !!

    Btw all the women of a certain age, so much nicer than “old” haha], that weren’t there were probably off helping Getup :)

  • 16
    Posted Tuesday, 15 July 2014 at 4:40 pm | Permalink

    I see there was a handy article from Mark Diesendorf yesterday I missed too: http://www.crikey.com.au/2014/07/14/get-fact-testing-ian-plimer-on-wind-and-solar-power/

  • 17
    DiddyWrote
    Posted Tuesday, 15 July 2014 at 5:11 pm | Permalink

    Surrounded by about 70 choleric, red-faced elderly blokes (there were only three women), I was terrified that one of them was going to have a stroke.”

    They should keep their hands to themselves Margot.

  • 18
    AR
    Posted Tuesday, 15 July 2014 at 7:00 pm | Permalink

    The demographic seems identical to the CAN-Do group, patrons the Dames Flint & Jones.
    Yet oddly the organisation is tended to by hard eyed young men with a scary line in sociopathy and an eye for subs. & covenants.

  • 19
    paddy
    Posted Tuesday, 15 July 2014 at 7:18 pm | Permalink

    Lovely stuff Margot.
    Glad you survived the Plimer experience with your sense of humour intact.

    Crikey should have sent *you* that cake, instead of that “exclusive” bunch of wankers over at Holt St.

  • 20
    DIY_Sunrise
    Posted Tuesday, 15 July 2014 at 9:24 pm | Permalink

    So the writer ignores what Plimer said but writes a piece smearing him and his audience.
    There are 20 comments here doing the same thing.
    It is odd that a debate which is meant to be about science contains no facts, no logical analysis.
    You are all proud of the fact that you are impervious to reason.

  • 21
    Barnes Rob
    Posted Tuesday, 15 July 2014 at 10:54 pm | Permalink

    What an obnoxious piece. Crikey “infiltrated” did it - it was a public meeting. As the Sydney Mining Club website says “Attendance is FREE and the SMC will provide complimentary drinks before Prof Plimer’s presentation commences” You didn’t have to hide. Many of of the geriatrics you despise have spent their lives in difficult places to find the resources to keep the lights of and build your cars and home. And yes Plimer doesn’t believe in anthropogenic climate change but is well aware as are most geologists that climate has always been changing. But the book is not all about climate change but the hypocrisy of those who live with western comforts but refuse to accept that you have to mine stuff and dig up stuff to do it. And I’m sure most in the room would be more that happy to have free cheap power piped to their homes and look out over green fields.

  • 22
    Liamj
    Posted Tuesday, 15 July 2014 at 11:32 pm | Permalink

    What a silly comment, Barnes Rob. Just because people concerned about the impacts of ever more mining enjoy some of benefits of mining doesn’t make them hypocrits, it makes them responsible consumers.. whatever happened to conservatives who took responsibility for their actions? Similarly, I don’t begrudge Plimers aged cheersquad their socialist medicare medicine, even tho they probably claim to oppose it.

  • 23
    Kathryn
    Posted Wednesday, 16 July 2014 at 2:05 am | Permalink

    I wouldn’t read too much into Alan Jones’ opposition to CSG fracking. I think that originates solely from the fact that there is a company that wants to go fracking on the Darling Downs, in the area he was born and grew up in, and it was impinging on property owned by an old family friend (or something like that). I guess even Alan Jones recognises that if he is going to oppose them there, he has to appear to be consistent. Even if he is only usually consistently disgraceful.

  • 24
    DC
    Posted Wednesday, 16 July 2014 at 10:21 am | Permalink

    DIY_Sunrise, I guess you missed this sentence:
    “Yesterday and Friday Crikey published detailed critiques of the book by a climate scientist and renewable energy expert”, which links to two critiques of “what Plimer said”.

    Plimers climate denial is not based on reason, it is based on ideology and lies.

  • 25
    Lubo Gregor
    Posted Wednesday, 16 July 2014 at 11:48 am | Permalink

    Right back at ya DIY_Sunrise: It is odd that a debate which is meant to be about science contains no facts, no logical analysis. You are all proud of the fact that you are impervious to reason.

    Can’t seem to find any of your ‘facts’ under these articles dissecting the joke of an attempt for an scientific debate that Plimer’s book appears to be: http://www.crikey.com.au/2014/07/14/get-fact-testing-ian-plimer-on-wind-and-solar-power/ and http://www.crikey.com.au/2014/07/11/get-fact-how-accurate-is-ian-plimers-new-book/

    Where are the references in Plimer’s book? It simply does not stand up to any scientific scrutiny.

    Climate change is not there for you to believe in, it’s there to be understood. Otherwise you are purely in the domain of religion.

  • 26
    Dubious Virtue
    Posted Wednesday, 16 July 2014 at 2:09 pm | Permalink

    Just out of curiosity how many people reading this agree Plimer is wrong and GMOs are bad?

  • 27
    DIY_Sunrise
    Posted Wednesday, 16 July 2014 at 7:44 pm | Permalink

    So a self proclaimed ‘expert’ with an interest in pushing state subsidised ‘renewable’ energy writes a piece refuting Plimer. Once again, full of speculation and proclamation and short on facts.
    Did anyone here actually READ what this guy wrote before deciding that it had refuted Plimer??

    Get Fact: testing Ian Plimer on wind and solar power

    When SA closes all its fossil fuelled plants AND stops importing power from other states let me know.

    This notion has been refuted by hourly computer simulations “
    Oh God!! That is refutation?!?
    When it happens IN THE REAL WORLD where we have to live please let me know.

    When subsidies, however they are measured, are removed then I might take renewables seriously.

    etc

    How about dealing with the most fundamental fact - we have no way of predicting the climate and certainly no way of steering it. SO all this stuff is pure religious nonsense.

  • 28
    Liamj
    Posted Wednesday, 16 July 2014 at 8:20 pm | Permalink

    Oh well DIY_Sunrise, OF COURSE if you put your expostulations in all caps then you must be right. Works for Andrew Bolt, apparently.

    But am so glad to see you are against the piffling subsidies for renewables, then you must also be against the $1.9 trillion in subsidies (IMF, 2014) that fossil fuel industries get.

  • 29
    Graham Due
    Posted Thursday, 17 July 2014 at 7:38 am | Permalink

    If you want to read something really scary, look at the response to Robert Manne’s piece currently in “The Guardian”. Many AGW advocates advocate horrific punishment for “deniers”. Their comments read like some sort of Nazi or neo-fascist diatribe. Freedom of thought is NOT something that these people tolerate, let alone cherish.

  • 30
    Chris Hartwell
    Posted Thursday, 17 July 2014 at 8:01 am | Permalink

    Dubious - Plimer speaks outside his area of expertise, incorrectly when compared to those who are studied in that field, and GMOs are brilliant but, as with all technological advances, have potential for abuse and so require appropriate regulation and consumer protections.

  • 31
    O. Puhleez
    Posted Thursday, 17 July 2014 at 2:27 pm | Permalink

    Ramble: “I would offer that given stability of temperatures over the past decade or so, that the people of Tuvalu ought to look closer to home with regard to their plight…”

    Thermometry (from all the thermometer stations you like) cannot tell anything like the whole story as long as the Earth’s icecaps are there. The planet is actually a gigantic thermometer in its own right, measuring its own temperature, and whose ‘mercury’ is the planetary ocean, Satellite altimetry says that ocean is rising (at 3.2 +/- 0.4 mm/yr: http://sealevel.colorado.edu/).

    Plimer and other denialists explain this away in terms of hypothetical outgassing of steam from submarine volcanoes: anything but the increasing CO2 component of the atmosphere trapping incoming solar radiation, and in turn increasing atmospheric energy.

    But as a 74 years old ‘warmist’ and grandparent, I do none the less concur with Maree Whitton @12. Age has nothing to do with it.

    Plimer’s denialist writings are IMHO a magnificent contribution to Mediaeval literature. It’s just that he missed the most powerful denialist argument of all, which is that human activities cannot possibly be changing the Earth’s climate, because if they were, it would be bad for established business. End of story.

Womens Agenda

loading...

Smart Company

loading...

StartupSmart

loading...

Property Observer

loading...