I just listened to the debate on the Pat Kenny show on Wednesday between Australian mining magnate and climate change denier Ian Pilmer and Irish Times journalist Pat Kenny. It is really hard to know whether Kenny is as ignorant on the subject of climate change as he makes out or whether he to is directly or indirectly in the pay of Big Oil/Gas/Coal etc..
He claimed the next day that only one comment was received by the show in support of John- is that in any way credible?! I couldnt listen on the day but heard the archived version of the show today and sent in my response to the pat Kenny show:
Dear Pat I just listened to the “debate” between Ian Pilmer and John Gibbons which was broadcast on your show on Wednesday December 2nd. At this stage in the game, with the evidence for anthropogenic climate change so clear and the predictions form the climate models that Pilmer dismisses coming in right on time- viz the recent flooding due to increased sea surface temperature in the this country- it is truly shocking to have the national broadcaster be involved with such a misrepresentation of the science. The climate is changing right under our very noses, destroying lives and livelihoods not just for the poor in far away places but our very own friends and neighbors here at home. Pilmer is indeed a charlatan and John was very brave to call him that on air; he has already been completely discredited by George Monbiot whose criticisms of his book have not been in any way addressed by Pilmer; you are surely aware of this. While it is completely obvious that many in the mining industry have clear vested interests, and the evidence for an orchestrated climate denial industry has been clear since before Kyoto, the suggestion that Gibbons and other journalists have a vested interest in fear-mongering is outrageous and absurd. Your stance of “showing both sides of the argument” is completely corrupt ; you may as well ask respectable scientists and journalists to debate the flat earth society for “balance”. The damage you are doing as a climate change denier to the public understanding of the most important scientific issue of our time is severe; in my opinion you have forfeited your right to play the role you have and wiled the influence you you. You should resign from your position on RTE and retire to your home where you at least will be presumably sufficiently well healed to survive the coming catastrophe.
Sincerely Graham Strouts
The charge of a religious faith-based approach on the side of the established science is one we are familiar with whenever debating quackery or pseudo-science; an excellent overview of how science actually works is found here on RealClimate.