JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).



The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Ficklestein strikes again — Here’s a prime example of why regulating free speech is a hypocritical bad joke.

Let me see if I’ve got this straight — the Australian Press Council manages media standards in Australia, but isn’t doing it well enough according to Mr Finklestein (and fellow regulators), who want it overhauled. They want newspapers to be regulated so they can be as trusted as the ABC “is”.*  So Finklestein thinks the ABC complaints process works well, and the APC one is too weak.

This week the ABC announced it was fine to equate skeptics to pedophiles as a researched comment by a host on a “science” show, while at the same time, the APC ruled that it was not fine for a skeptic who used loose satirical colourful language in a newspaper column to repeat a quote from an angry farmer who used the word pedophile to describe wind-farm operators.

 ABC sets lower standards bar

DRAWING comparisons to pedophiles to attack your opponents is acceptable under the ABC complaints process – held up as the ideal model by media inquiry head Ray Finkelstein – but has been ruled out of order by the newspapers’ existing regulatory body.

But two decisions this week reveal the APC is tougher on commentators who compare opponents with pedophiles.

James Delingpole wrote an article on May 3 about windfarms:

(he) … quoted an unnamed sheep farmer who said that the “wind-farm business is bloody well near a pedophile ring. They’re f . . king our families and knowingly doing so.”

In response Delingpole says: Australia you are so totally gay. “Australia handed in its testicles to the progressives long ago.” (the)  state broadcaster ABC is so hysterically left-wing it makes the BBC look like Fox News… ” like the anonymous sheep farmer I quoted, I feel that the “level of offensiveness” is entirely justified when applied in the context of perhaps the vilest, greediest, most corrupt, mendacious and wantonly destructive industries currently operating anywhere in the world.”

Me, I’d prefer if people left the word pedophilia for debates about pedophiles. But that is for the public to discuss, not a committee to decide. The point here is the hypocrisy of “regulators”. The APC is supposedly not strong enough, but it objected to Delingpole using the term “a kind of government-endorsed Ponzi scheme” to describe how union superfunds profit from wind farms that would not exist if governments didn’t force Australians to pay for them. Was that in the public interest?

The APC found those comments above by Delingpole on May 3 were highly offensive and not justified in the public interest. But these comments below, made on the ABC during something called a “Science” show, are, according to the ABC, quite ok.

During a November 24 broadcast of The Science Show, Williams said: “What if I told you that pedophilia is good for children, or that smoking crack is a normal part and a healthy one of teenage life, to be encouraged? You’d rightly find it outrageous. But there have been similar statements coming out of inexpert mouths again and again in recent times, distorting the science.”

An ABC spokeswoman again defended its decision when asked if the APC adjudication meant the ABC might review it. “The ABC acknowledges there are climate scientists who question the core thinking about climate science. The ABC gives them . . . air time. The weight of our coverage, however, rests with the weight of the broad consensus, focusing on the extent of the impact of climate change and the speed and nature of human interventions required in response.”

The ABC gives skeptics “air time”? Sure, any time the ABC can mock, pillory, or misrepresent skeptics, it does, and any time it can inform the public, investigate the issues raised by skeptics, or interview Novel Prize winning skeptics, it goes out of its way not to (we even caught them at it on camera, in our house, look out for that Uncut video, next…).

Finklestein wrote the 400 page Finklestein report,  for the Independent Media Commission. Mr. Ray Finkelstein QC, a left-wing former Federal Court Judge with no media experience wants not-just-newspapers, but bloggers with as many as 40 hits a day to be regulated. (Except the ABC and SBS  of course — which the regulating class are quite happy with already, thank you.)

John Roskam weighs in:

he APC today declared that it was unacceptable to compare renewable energy to a Ponzi scheme, and that journalists should not be allowed to quote people who equate others with pedophiles. According to the APC “the level of offensiveness is so high that it outweighs the very strong public interest in freedom of speech.” It follows a decision last week where the APC dictated to Andrew Bolt what he is allowed to write about climate change.

“This is extraordinary on two levels. Firstly, there should never be an ‘offensiveness’ test for freedom of speech. Freedom of speech means nothing at all if it doesn’t allow for discussion that some people find offensive. Secondly, only this week the ABC declared there is nothing wrong with equating climate sceptics to pedophiles. This is a clear case of double standards depending on which side of the climate debate you are on,” says Mr Roskam.

Who are the targets of Finkelstein?

Make no mistake, the axis of evil who expose the libertarian flaws of free speech are climate skeptics and the Murdoch Press (which publishes the propaganda, but allows skeptics a voice too. The crime!). The reason for the “regulation” was to target “News limited” see point 1.6, 3.11, 3.12, 4.32, 4.35, 4.9 and the top media problem was climate bias (but their problem is not with the bias — where pro-government bias is fine, but with the “balance” — meaning skeptics should be silenced) see points 1.6, 4.20, 4.31, 4,34, 4.35 4.41, 4.42. (See the Finklestein report).

Who needs an independent media commission? Not the people of Australia

Here’s a newsflash for the regulators:  there is already an an Independent Media Commission — it’s entirely voluntary and fully self-funding, and there are 22 million members, and they are free to tune in, turn off, or complain when they see that someone in the media “got something wrong”. They are even free (at least for the moment) to start blogs reporting on how awful and biased the news reporting is (like ABCnewswatch, AustralianClimateMadness and today too, Catallaxy, Jennifer Marohasy, PindanpostClimateScepticsParty, Climatenonconformist & The Stockmans View.) That’s as independent as it gets.

There is nothing independent about a government mandated “independent” commission. It is just another arm of big-government.

How much of our right to speak will they take away?

As much as we let them take.

———————————————————

ON FINKELSTEIN

* Spot the unreason. How do we know the ABC reports accurately? It is  “trusted” apparently, and Finklestein cites surveys going all the way back to 1966. As if a 46 year old survey of political bias still mean something about the current multichannel, billion dollar online hydra that the ABC has become.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.4/10 (71 votes cast)
Ficklestein strikes again -- Here's a prime example of why regulating free speech is a hypocritical bad joke., 9.4 out of 10 based on 71 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/ccs7zz4

207 comments to Ficklestein strikes again — Here’s a prime example of why regulating free speech is a hypocritical bad joke.

  • #
    Keith L

    Once again it seems that a ‘loss’ for Delingpole has been a bit of a win.
    It has exposed with perfect timing the absolute double standards being applied to the two sides of the debate.


    Report this

    440

  • #
    Mike The Bot

    My advice is hit them in the timesheet – hours of responding to emails:

    http://about.abc.net.au/talk-to-the-abc/lodge-a-complaint/

    If you get a response and you don’t like it – demand (as a tax payer funding their salary) to get it hiked up the food chain. Demand to speak to the respondees manager or supervisor. And ask for an email in response. Make a paper trail.

    And always remember to be polite but firm.

    The system is there, it’s time to make it work for us ;)


    Report this

    250

    • #
      Keith L

      Always include the line -

      “This is NOT repeat NOT a death threat. I merely wish to politely register a point of disagreement on an issue.”

      You know how hypersensitive these people can be…


      Report this

      130

    • #
      memoryvault

      If you get a response and you don’t like it – demand (as a tax payer funding their salary) to get it hiked up the food chain.

      No go, Mike. There is no “food chain”.

      You complain to the ABC, they fob you off, and there is NO formal appeals process (apart from ACMA – and then only in certain very narrow circumstances, and ultimately they will tell you to drop dead too).

      Your only “informal” course of action is to complain to Stephen Conroy, Minister for Communications, who will ignore you, or to Malcolm Turnbull, Shadow Minister of Communications, who will also ignore your complaint, and instead put you on his spam email list so you can receive regular, unwanted reminders of what a great person he is.


      Report this

      130

  • #
    JMD

    Delingpole is English, no? If he wants to see a Ponzi scheme he could start by looking in his own backyard – The Bank of England.


    Report this

    128

    • #
      Keith L

      He actually started in his own back yard with wind farms.
      Problem?


      Report this

      300

    • #
      ExWarmist

      JMD – that’s a little obscure and logically problematic.

      Do you have a specific reason for thinking that the Bank of England is a Ponzi scheme.

      And even if the BOE was/is a ponzi scheme – that does not mean that windmill farms are not a fraud, or scam.

      Note that a ponzi scheme is a specific form of fraud/scam, and that windmill farms can still be a fraud/scam without being a ponzi scheme.

      Could you please try to be more precise, I have trouble working out what you are trying to say.

      Thanks

      ExWarmist


      Report this

      180

    • #
      turnedoutnice

      The windmill scandal in Australia differs from the UK’s in one important aspect. In the UK it’s the Mafia who controlled Labour politicians to get the subsidies. In Australia, it comprises the union executives with Gillard under their thumb.

      In a wider context, I’ve been trying to get into the minds of the Doomsday cultists, the urban elite carbon religionists and their lackeys like Finklestein. These people, who have swapped their birth religion for the windmill God, the new Easter Island Statue cult, are hell bent on imposing windmills in the belief that only then will their collective angst be salved. Yet because of fundamental heat transfer physics ignored by climate science, there can be no CO2-AGW. The dolts know it, the eco-fascists are ignoring it.

      The windmills save no fossil fuel use because of the efficiency curve of CCGTs which means as wind energy increases as a proportion of demand, the efficiency of the rest of the system falls in exact proportion. In the UK, Davey and Barker are planning for a 40% reduction of electricity use to be forced on the old and vulnerable young by higher prices. Only last Spring, the government’s Chief Scientist warned Davey there can be no CO2 saving by windmills unless we install massive pump storage, driven at peak times by nuclear power.

      Davey reportedly rejected the advice for idealogical reasons. That such people in charge have personal or family interests in getting a share of the extra carbon taxation appears not to be a problem in our corrupt government. And of course, that begs the question about the honesty of the rest of those with snouts in the trough.

      The eco-fascists want to kill millions, the new Pol Pots; the freeloaders, senior executives of WWF, Greenpeace, FoE, Christian Aid, ABC, BBC, Met Office, DECC, IPCC, UNEP, the UK Committee on Climate Change which represents the major carbon World traders, who want to profit from many deaths as our society goes back to the Third World in the new Little Ice Age.


      Report this

      240

      • #
        The Black Adder

        Well Said TON!!
        I agree with every thing u say!!
        Delingpole is an extension of where we are???
        Which is to say to JMD,
        Bring it on Climate Illiterate…
        You are going down…
        I’m grabbing the popcorn :)


        Report this

        31

  • #
    John Brookes

    Robin Williams’ remarks were sensible. No one in their right mind would complain about them.

    But lest it have escaped some readers attention, he did *not* compare climate change “skeptics” to dead BBC presenters. It was an analogy.

    Some pedophiles are so deluded they think they are “helping” the children they molest (despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary). Some climate “skeptics” sing the praises of CO2 (plant food), and a warming world, as though burning fossil fuel is “helping” us (despite pretty compelling evidence to the contrary).

    Can you spot the similarity? Yes, both groups go on the front foot, and not only defend themselves, but claim they do good.

    And to that extent *only*, some climate “skeptics” are akin to some pedophiles. And to that extent, the analogy is sound, and I see no problem in the ABC using it.
    ———————————————

    In every debate on every topic there are people who think they are “helping”, but are wrong. When you call them pedophiles or equate them to pedophiles (what’s the difference?), it slowly but surely makes the word meaningless. How does that help the real victims when the word they need becomes the smear-attack of choice for every unproven, unsubstantiated half-wit with a cause? You’re polluting the language, debasing the real struggle of children and victims. You owe them and everyone here an apology. What evidence can you name that shows even one skeptic has hurt one child through their skepticism, let alone any damage “akin” to what one sole pedophile (out of thousands) has done. – Jo PS: See MV.

    483

    • #
      Keith L

      Oh an analogy?
      Like the analogy used by the sheep farmer then.

      And of course the fact that CO2 is harmful is just so obvious and proven beyond doubt.

      Only ignorance can supply someone like you with such confidence.


      Report this

      351

    • #
      turnedoutnice

      Don’t talk bollox. No process engineer who sees the heat transfer cock-up in the IPCC modelling agrees that these models can predict climate. It’s easy to prove that the thermal emission from the atmosphere of the 15 micron CO2 band IR almost exactly annihilates the surface IR in that band.

      There can never be any CO2-AGW. It’s a confidence trick based on the ‘GHG blanket’ illusion, which cannot work because there is no surface IR in the main CO2 band to be absorbed.

      No CO2-AGW means there can be no ‘positive feedback’, the source of the second part of the scam, the claim dating back to Houghton that lapse rate warming is the GHE. This means the real GHE is ~9 K. with ~24 K from gravity.

      These people, Houghton, Hansen, Trenberth etc. have committed the biggest scientific fraud in history and to combat it required hard-bitten engineers like me who were the first to investigate the real properties of GHGs in metallurgical plants 50 years ago.

      Bottom line – No CO2-AGW is possible. Finklestein may put me in jail fro saying this only because he too is a fascist hiding behind the new Marxist-inspired Holy Writ of Hansenkoism. If honest scientists and Engineers have to expect persecution for their views, so be it.


      Report this

      332

      • #
        turnedoutnice

        PS The other part of the scam is to claim that 15 micron CO2 band depression at TOA proves absorption of surface IR emission in that band.

        This is ludicrous because the surface emission, if the re was any, would have been absorbed in the first ~100 m. The real cause of the depression at TOA is self-absorption of that band produced by thermal emission from the upper atmosphere, he last absorption path.

        A rider to this is why is there no such self-absorption in the DOWN IR? The answer is a subtle bit of physics and it appears that MODTRAN, a proprietary product, has been tweaked to eliminate it.


        Report this

        130

        • #
          Andrew McRae

          The mind boggles with questions.

          It looks a bit odd that you used to cite MODTRAN as evidence of why there wouldn’t be an ACO2-GHE and yet now that it’s making predictions that conflict with your theory you are saying MODTRAN is wrong, and not even consistently wrong but wrong in the one single manner that would co-incidentally support your theory if it were “right”.

          For reference here is some HiTran model data on absorption lines.

          You say there’s no outgoing surface IR at 15um available for CO2 as though this disproves the orthodox GHE…

          It’s easy to prove that the thermal emission from the atmosphere of the 15 micron CO2 band IR almost exactly annihilates the surface IR in that band. ….
          The real cause of the depression at TOA is self-absorption of that [15 micron] band produced by thermal emission from the upper atmosphere, he last absorption path.

          So you have easily proven there is a CO2 greenhouse effect, because CO2 has blocked a portion of the outgoing spectrum. You say it can’t get directly from the surface to upper atmosphere, yet ironically the more steps it had to go through to get to TOA from the ground then the more effective the GHE is.

          It is lucky the US Navy agrees with you that the atmosphere blocks IR around 15um, due to CO2.

          the ‘GHG blanket’ illusion, which cannot work because there is no surface IR in the main CO2 band to be absorbed.

          Are you saying the real surface emissions spectrum greatly differs from the theoretical S-B curve for 285K? Because blackbody wavelengths from 4um to 25um are fair game for CO2, and 285K has a fair amount of 15um radiation in it, even a slight overlap at 4.1um band of CO2.

          It all seems quite straightforward. (Insert standard IPCC/warmist explanation here.) The only twist you’re adding is that 15um radiation makes several stops along the way in going from Surface ==> H2O ==> CO2 ==> TOA.

          why is there no such self-absorption in the DOWN IR? The answer is a subtle bit of physics

          Erm, no, it’s not subtle at all. It’s simple. CO2 has most of its absorption lines longer than 2um and shorter than 20um. Insolation at TOA has almost no energy longer than 2um as it is all shortwave. There’s almost nothing for CO2 to intercept on the way down. Standard GHE theory there.

          There can never be any CO2-AGW

          This does not logically follow from anything you have said so far. You proved CO2 blocked outgoing IR! Are you trying to say only that it is a minor effect?

          Since your theory says there is a 15um notch at TOA, and mainstream orthodox GHE says there is a notch at TOA, doesn’t that mean that your theory makes no prediction that isn’t already explained by orthodoxy?

          As for the path length argument, surely this only matters if CO2 at 285K does not emit at all the same wavelengths as ocean and dirt at 285K. That seems quite important, but I can’t find any references that say that CO2 in bulk emits as a non-blackbody (eg in specific emission bands). What are the facts about that?

          What repeatable experiment would demonstrate that the mainstream is wrong about the relative strength of back-radiation versus dry lapse rate (“gravity”) in producing the observed temperature vertical profile? (Is that even what you are saying?)

          Do you have a more complete summary anywhere else of this theory? Perhaps a prior comment on this blog of where you explained it a bit better? Because just a few days ago you were saying there IS a CO2 Greenhouse effect but it operates by decreasing atmospheric emissivity and increasing back scattering, or something like that.

          Do you have a computer model of it?

          Can you explain it in a 30-second soundbite? Because if you’re right we’re going to need it on the evening news.


          Report this

          20

          • #
            turnedoutnice

            The difference signal is OK. What I am looking at is why DOWN views show no self absorption of 15 micron CO2 yet this appears in UP views.

            DOWN and UP MODTRAN matches observation very well therefore the error is in the instrumentation.

            Look at Bo Leckner’s 1970s work on emissivity of GHGs and you’ll find he observed something very interesting. We metallurgists were doing this stuff long before dumb climate science……:o)

            i am writing the paper on this, not easy, but the real GHE is very different from the Houghton/Hansen claim because there is no link between CO2 and water vapour effects if there is no CO2 IR from the surface!

            I could be wrong though….


            Report this

            30

          • #
            cohenite

            The spectrum difference between up and down is pronounced.

            I am unsure what self-absorption is; could you explain?


            Report this

            10

          • #
            Andrew McRae

            there is no CO2 IR from the surface!

            There is. Look at the S-B curve predicted for 285K, then look at the “LOOKING DOWN” spectrum linked above by Cohenite, it shows a blackbody spectrum of the same shape which certainly had 15um radiation in it before … a funny thing happened to it on the way to the theatre!

            Cohenite: thanks for the link, I’ve never seen that before. Do you know if it is model output or observation?

            I am perplexed and I see the problem TON is talking about.
            The trick is to find a single physical model that can explain both the top and bottom spectra.

            When CO2 absorbs a photon at 15um, does it immediately emit it again at the same wavelentgh, or else is it converted to thermal KE and re-radiated at S-B curve for local temperature?
            Perhaps in bulk it is both, depending on what any given molecule was doing at the time it gets hit.

            Looks to me like the photon is re-emitted later at local temperature, because that explains the “Looking DOWN” curve, because the 15um band is just another section of blackbody curve emitted by CO2 higher up in the atmosphere where it is cooler, and -50 Celsius looks exactly right.
            In the surface “Looking UP” spectra, the air is so dense that most of what’s received is coming from air within a few hundred metres of the surface, so the curve is close to surface temperature, and the thermal emission contribution is far greater than molecular emission lines. BUT you can still see a tiny raised line on 15um which MAY be (WAG) where some CO2 re-emitted photons immediately after they were absorbed (preserving the wavelength).
            H2O shows non-thermal absorption lines at the surface, but CO2 doesn’t, because although CO2 is a 10x stronger absorber at 15um, there is between 25 and 100 times more water vapour than CO2 near the surface. So that difference is because H2O is stealing CO2′s limelight.

            What did I miss? Does that hypothesis account for both diagrams and other known evidence?


            Report this

            10

          • #
            cohenite

            Source of graphs.

            The difference between the down and up spectrums is probably explained by the difference between the excitation and relaxtion times of CO2 absorption; at the surface with a much thicker atmosphere collisional deexcitation would play a much greater role; higher up with a much thinner atmosphere, not so much.

            TON, thanks for the definition; that sounds like Miskolczi’s Aa=Ed equation.


            Report this

            10

        • #
          turnedoutnice

          Reply to cohenite: self absorption is when the new emission in any slice equals the absorption of the same radiation in that slice. the threshold is ~200 ppm for CO2, ~3% RH at ambient for water vapour.

          Water vapour responds by pushing energy into lots of side bands.


          Report this

          10

    • #
      ExWarmist

      Robin Willaims is using the rhetorical device/logical fallacy of poisoning the well.

      Which is…

      Poisoning the well (or attempting to poison the well) is a rhetorical device where adverse information about a target is pre-emptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing everything that the target person is about to say.

      The idea that Robin Williams presents is that being skeptical of the official climate science is as outrageous as advocating pedophilia, and just as we would dismiss an advocate of pedophilia, we should also dismiss climate skepticism with equal vehemence.

      Note also that Robin begins his presentation with this idea. Which is the logical location for a “poisoning the well” attack.

      Robin Williams resorts to such rhetorical devices and logical fallacies because he is unable to be convincing or credible, when trying to argue from the available empirical evidence that human emissions of CO2 and other GHGs will cause catastrophic global warming.

      The first key question John, is why were you (1) unable to spot Robin Williams use of this technique, and (2) draw the next logical step, of it’s implication of Robin Williams inability to argue effectively from the empirical evidence?

      The second key question John, is why are you comparing CAGW skeptics with pedophiles?

      Can you spot the similarity? Yes, both groups go on the front foot, and not only defend themselves, but claim they do good.

      “Can you spot the similarity” – Well, no I can’t, and I expect an apology from you in the near future.

      First you say Robin Williams isn’t “doing it”, and then you promptly go ahead and “do it”. Do you have any self awareness?


      Report this

      362

      • #
        Dave

        .
        ExWarmist:

        Well said – I was so angry at JB’s comment – I just typed.

        JB can just FU(k off as far as I am concerned. I am sending his comment to as many people as I can (and phoning UWA tomorrow). Directly associating me with a “Child sexual predator” is the apparently the norm for this FLITH who calls himself JOHN BROOKS. He just follows the ABC’s Robyn Williams without the cleverness. He is now the worst example of the CAGW lovers I have ever seen.

        P!SS off John Brookes – you sicken me.


        Report this

        313

        • #
          Otter

          I’ve been disgusted with him ever since he stated he sees no problem with michale mann’s attempt(ing) to ruin the life of a very decent person, over an extremely minor joke. That’s why I sometimes refer to brooksie as the [self-snip] beater. I have nothing but Contempt for him.


          Report this

          201

        • #
          gnome

          Yep – them fliths will do that every time.


          Report this

          90

          • #
            Otter

            And don’t forget, mimsy were the borogroves.


            Report this

            50

          • #
            gnome

            Fliths are the worst though, Otter. A marauding flith will swoop on a peacefully grazing flock of tofus and frighten the life out of them. And it’s no use telling them to toughen up, who wants a tough tofu steak?

            It’s heartbreaking, the terrified bleating of innocent tofus threatened by a flith.


            Report this

            10

          • #
            ExWarmist

            I don’t know… roast flith, wrapped in very thin slices of mimsy, and stuffed with innocent tofus, and served with a borogroves jus can be very satisfying…


            Report this

            10

    • #
      Otter

      ‘Some pedophiles are so deluded they think they are “helping” the children they molest’ ~ brooksie

      Kind of like the UN, Greenpeace and a host of others are “helping” the planet.


      Report this

      272

    • #
      memoryvault

      Some pedophiles are so deluded they think they are “helping” the children they molest (despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary). Some climate “skeptics” sing the praises of CO2 (plant food), and a warming world, as though burning fossil fuel is “helping” us (despite pretty compelling evidence to the contrary).

      Some pedophiles are so deluded they think they are “helping” the children they molest (despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary). Some climate “cultists” insist the planet is still warming, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. They sing the praises of wind turbines, as a renewable source of alternative energy, as though wind turbines were “helping” us (despite pretty compelling evidence to the contrary).

      Can you spot the similarity?

      So,

      (So) some climate “cultists” are akin to some pedophiles. And to that extent, the analogy is sound, and I see no problem in memoryvault using it to describe me and the other trolls here.

      That about sum it up, JB?

      .
      MattyB
      In the light of JB’s excellent analogy, you gonna run off snivelling to Jo threatening to instigate legal action against her, if I refer to you as a pedophile from now on? – Like last time?

      Or do you disagree with JB’s “analogy”?


      Report this

      282

    • #
      Streetcred

      Brooksie, whenever you try to explain something you just get your one foot wedged firmly in your mouth and the other firmly up your behind – it takes a special kind of person to achieve that. But, let’s not overlook the link of your leftist buddies and paedophilia at the BBC … they covered it up for years, and guess what they’re now whitewashing their responsibilities ! Robin Williams is a grub of the lowest order and he specifically set out to equate climate rationalists with the behaviour of your paedophile mates of the socialist left.


      Report this

      171

      • #
        Streetcred

        For what it’s worth Brookise, I’d be mortified if anything happened to you … nobody deserves that unless they’re calling the shots, like Williams for example.


        Report this

        10

    • #
      llew Jones

      I take it that this what Williams actually said:

      “What if I told you pedophilia is good for children, or that asbestos is an excellent inhalant for those with asthmatics, or that smoking crack is a normal part and a healthy one of teenage life, to be encouraged? You’d rightly find it outrageous, but there have been similar statements coming out of inexpert mouths, distorting the science.”

      “These distortions of science are far from trivial, our neglect of what may be clear and urgent problems could be catastrophic and now a professor of psychology at UWA has shown what he says is the basis of this unrelenting debauchery of the facts…”

      Williams did not put JB’s interpretation on it. What part of the science was he referring to? There is no mention of the obvious truism that CO2 is good for plant growth. That is an observed given. No, Williams gives his context and it is about Catastrophic climate change caused by human activities.
      Williams is obviously piqued because “inexpert” voices are ridiculing and muffling his alarmist interpretation of the science.

      Who are the “inexpert” voices? Try say John Christy, Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer for starters. Just as the alarmist Williams gets his interpretation of the science from alarmist climate scientists so those who reject CAGW or catastrophic climate change get their doubts about the effect of human induced climate change confirmed by highly credentialed “skeptical” climate scientists.

      Thus Williams was indulging in a bit of low life stupidity in introducing those irrelevant analogies. Those spiteful little gems proceed out of his frustration that “skeptics” don’t embrace the alarmist nonsense that he does.

      In the end it is not really about the science as Williams would have us believe but about one’s interpretation of it.


      Report this

      81

    • #
      Keith L

      Just as a matter of interest John are there any more secrets of paedophiles you would like to share with us?
      I never knew that about them believing that they are helping children but then I don’t have your experience.


      Report this

      120

    • #
      Truthseeker

      Well Johnny Boy, I did complain about Robyn Williams comments and I am in my right mind.

      By the way an analogy is a comparison. An analogy brings in additional content and meaning to give the comparison more impact. That is why they are used and that is why Robyn Williams used pedophilia so as to bring in that associated disgust and connotations of evil to paint climate skeptics with that brush.

      You are a complete fool John and now I know you have no moral compass whatsoever.


      Report this

      151

    • #
      cohenite

      You’ve really revealed your true colours John:

      But lest it have escaped some readers attention, he did *not* compare climate change “skeptics” to dead BBC presenters. It was an analogy.

      Weasel words to defend the indefensible. Definition of ‘analogy’:

      a similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based

      IE: a sceptic and a pedophile

      Williams is a vile person and so is anyone who defends him.


      Report this

      171

      • #
        The Black Adder

        JB….

        You have really outdone yourself this time u knucklehead!

        I have 3 beautiful kids aged 5, 3 and 2…

        This year for Xmas my eldest son wrote a letter to Samta Claus.

        It said…

        Dear Santa,

        Please hurry up!

        Love Ky.

        What a Classic!! Innocent , young, beautiful!

        What life is all about!

        Now for you, you lowlife to associate that love of my children to a skepticism of man made climate change to Pedophilia?? What the??

        JB u cannot b serious ?

        You are an embarrassment to the Australian Nation.

        Goodnight Knucklehead!


        Report this

        140

    • #

      Jo censored my description of JB’s work at UWA in an earlier thread because people could jump to the wrong conclusion.


      Report this

      60

    • #

      By your example, I could say that “warmists” are communists who just want to kill all the people on the planet and “warmists” are trying to save the planet. To you, these are equivalent, it seems.
      Short lesson: Fred states climate change is not occurring and uses the IPCC data to show this (yes, it can be done–thank goodness statistics can prove anything one wants). George says climate change is real and anyone who argues against it is guilty of homicide of future generations. Fred has a valid argument. George is trying to intimidate. George has no case and knows it.
      Inflammatory language and comparisons to evil people or events are not science. They are intimidation tactics–also know as bullying. Call them what they are.


      Report this

      71

    • #
      Grant (NZ)

      JB

      I think your best course of action is to read the comments in response here and then respond with a contrite apology.


      Report this

      70

      • #
        Mark D.

        If he does, I’ll have a heart attack from the surprise. A key identifier of extreme Leftism is the absolute disdain for doing an apology (much less a contrite one).


        Report this

        101

      • #
        Brian of Moorabbin

        Didn’t JB once promise he’d leave this blog forever if he got over 250(?) down votes on a single comment? A target which was surpassed in a thread not so long ago?

        And yet here he still is, in defiance of his own promise… Then again, he supports Julia “There will be no Carbon tax under a government I lead” Gillard and Wayne “The budget will be back in surplus in 2012/13, come hell or high water” Swan so why anyone expects him to follow through on anything he promises is beyond me.

        As for expecting him to apologise after his laughable ‘defence’ was skewered from multiple angles… Oy vey…


        Report this

        50

    • #
      mc

      A deeply and profoundly repellent comment john brooks.


      Report this

      80

    • #
      Angry

      And here the inner totalitarian in John Brooks is unmasked in all its ugliness for all to see…..


      Report this

      50

    • #
      Angry

      The same can be said about the eco communists use of the tag “denier”.

      This is reserved for those that actually deny that natzi holocaust and genocide against the jews in WW2.

      Using it in any other way demeans the deaths of all those innocent victims and is highly offensive to their memory !!


      Report this

      30

      • #

        The term deniers is now used with anyone who disagrees with science mainstream. That would include people who question ANY part of evolution and/or the age of the earth. It’s first widespread use may have been with the holocaust, but it has been applied to evolution and age of the earth beliefs for at least three years. It really is not reserved for anything–it’s just a term. The biggest problem with the term is implies that an historical event and a bunch of algorithms run through a computer are equal in truth value. It’s not the use of the term–it’s that you are comparing an historical event to an hypothesis or theory. Problem is, science’s fallibility makes it tough to compete with religion, so they appointed themselves gods and can accurately tell the age of the earth, where man came from and that it’s going to get warm. (That last theory is compatible with some religion’s view of the afterlife…..)


        Report this

        20

    • #
      Graham Due

      The analogy is unsound because pedophilia is immoral. “Misrepresenting ‘the’ science” is – so far – not immoral. To claim the latter is to head straight for 1984. Anology is the last refuge of the inane.


      Report this

      40

    • #
      Lars P.

      “but claim they do good”. This is exactly what you do John. You see the irony? You know what you look like? Yes, you do.

      Go get a book and learn how plants do with CO2:
      “The uptake of carbon by vegetation and soil, that is the terrestrial productivity during the ice age, was only about 40 petagrams of carbon per year and thus much smaller: roughly one third of present-day terrestrial productivity and roughly half of pre-industrial productivity.”
      read the paper at WUWT here:
      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/21/carbon-on-the-uptake/
      The biosphere increased about 1/3 due to more CO2 and warmer temperature since the LIA. But no, John knows it cannot be, his high priests told him CO2 is bad.

      And again as Jo said regulating free speech is a hypocritical bad joke. It is good that you have free speech even if you make a fool of yourself as above. It is good for others to see how you think and also to see other feedbacks, how do other people see things. Censoring is bad.


      Report this

      20

    • #
      Sean

      John, clearly your sense of what being “in a right mind” is skewed to mean “adhering to the dogma” as opposed to the accepted meaning of “not bonkers”.

      This upside down definition of yours is apt, given your own mental state. Maybe you should just stick to being a secretary for your school’s half-baked physics department and leave thinking to those with the innate capacity for it.


      Report this

      10

  • #
    ExWarmist

    We should equalise the media market.

    Privatise the ABC and SBS.

    Let them sink or swim in the real world based on their capacity to sell advertising space. Surely with all the brilliant talent in their organizations they will be able to compete with the inferior products created by the commercial media companies…


    Report this

    131

    • #
      John Brookes

      Don’t mess with the ABC! Commercial TV, driven by ratings and advertisers, does some things really well. But there are great things made by non-commercial broadcasters that commercial TV won’t touch.

      Don’t let an ideology blind you to the good the ABC does.


      Report this

      445

      • #
        Keith L

        Free propaganda for CAGW kind of ‘good’ you mean?


        Report this

        272

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        … there are great things made by non-commercial broadcasters that commercial TV won’t touch.

        For once John, I agree with you.

        Those things are quality drama, sport, culture, fine art, and a wide range of music and other performance arts. The things that are literally “non commercial”.

        The things I would exclude from the list, would include news and commentary, and any other subject that could carry a political bias masquerading as fact.

        The ABC (like the BBC in the UK), has always been seen by the Government as a propaganda vehicle. That is why the Government pays for it. In fact, most Governments have their own equivalent of the ABC or BBC, and the war of words through these vehicles was a major weapon in the Cold War.

        If you don’t believe me, have a look at the history of the BBC during the Second World War, and then later, during the Cold War. The BBC World Service was established solely as a Propaganda mouthpiece, and often had news that was entirely different to the story broadcast within the UK.

        The same can be said for the ABC, which is why Ficklestein et al, want to find ways of controlling, or shutting down, the alternative news and opinion channels, like the independent blogs and newsletters.

        The Government pays for the organisation, so why shouldn’t they control it and oversee what it broadcasts? I agree, why not, so long as the Government does not used it as a propaganda weapon against their own citizens.


        Report this

        172

        • #
          Mark F

          Canada’s CBC, on the other hand, sucks up government largesse and dispenses filtered and biases propaganda aimed at deposing the current (anti-socialist) party in power. I’m very partial toward NPR in the USA, but some of their APR (and obviously PBS, as well) stuff seems to kiss major donors’ butts (Soros anyone?).


          Report this

          00

        • #
          Manfred

          The Government pays for the organisation, so why shouldn’t they control it and oversee what it broadcasts?

          …so long as the Government does not used it as a propaganda weapon against their own citizens

          I am chillingly reminded: “power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely,”

          or perhaps better understood in context:

          “Unlimited power is apt to corrupt the minds of those who possess it”

          A Government of the people by the people may well choose to fund a broadcaster. On no account however, does IT (not ‘they’) have any right beyond arguably ascribing a programme rating designation to influence the content, disposition, interpretation or commentary of the programming. To suggest otherwise is to embark on the journey whose destination is witnessed in the subject matter of this thread.


          Report this

          10

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        A colleague has pointed out (insists) that I include Voice of America in the above list. (Damn Yankees!


        Report this

        20

      • #
        memoryvault

        Don’t let an ideology blind you to the good the ABC does.

        No doubt you’re referring to the ABC’s ideological decision NOT to report on the record cold and storms ravaging Northern Europe at the moment, because it doesn’t fit their ideology, and NOT reporting the major raid on Deutsche Bank HQ in Frankfurt, in relation to a major fraud involving carbon credit trading, because it doesn’t fit their ideology, as examples of “the good the ABC does”.

        Well tough titty John. If I’m going to forced to pay for the ABC to push ideology, then it has to the ideology of actual “facts”, NOT what some snotty-nosed Lewandowsky graduate decides “what’s best” for me to know.


        Report this

        290

      • #
        Streetcred

        ABC driven by socialist extremists … let’s cut off the head of the snake !


        Report this

        111

        • #
          Angry

          The abc (Australian BULLSHIT Commission) must be defunded of all Australian taxpayer funding ASAP.

          If they think that they have a message that Australians want to hear then they will succeed as a private organization.

          If not then they will fold.


          Report this

          20

      • #
        john robertson

        Yes so true, all the news we think you should be allowed to view. There is a reason for censorship and attempting to muzzle the internet, makes the states lies so much harder to spot.
        Question here, who is the state? ABC is pure propaganda,who benefits? Defending the indefensible is a key mark of character .
        Canadian joke, How can you tell when a liberal is lying? Their lips are moving.
        Of late the news not reported is the giveaway.


        Report this

        30

      • #

        Don’t let an ideology blind you to the good the ABC does.

        The most dangerous villains are those who cloak themselves in good deeds.


        Report this

        60

  • #
    janama

    Much has I have no time for him Robyn Williams did not compare skeptics to pedophiles.

    He compared the bad climate change science of skeptics to the bad science of suggesting “pedophilia was good for children” or the bad science of “asbestos was good for your lungs”.


    Report this

    616

  • #
    Dave

    .
    Pedophiles

    think they are “helping” the children they molest

    Skeptics

    sing the praises of CO2 (plant food), and a warming world, as though burning fossil fuel is “helping” us

    JB – you have gone deeper than the ABC report by Williams, by use of the word “HELPING” to clarify your disgusting belief.

    You sicken me with your final statement:

    both groups go on the front foot, and not only defend themselves, but claim they do good


    Report this

    201

  • #

    I think it may be time to say goodbye to JB.


    Report this

    200

    • #
      Otter

      Now That comment deserves 100-Plus thumbs up!


      Report this

      90

    • #
      Father of Josh

      He has a right to speak his mind – what mind he has.


      Report this

      40

    • #
      handjive

      In a moral free world where the leader of our country goes around sleeping with married men, like the slapper/trollop it is, facilitates instances to steal from fellow unionists, breaks all the pledges made to be elected, when that sort of person crawls out from where ever it came, even lower forms of life will follow.

      And, so we have something spineless like John Brooks, empowered with the belief that it’s time is nigh.

      I may not agree with what John Brooks says, but I will defend it’s right to say it.

      It is a reflection of what it is.

      Pity it. That will only infuriate it further.

      That it is allowed near young people to poison them with it’s sick thinking is a concern.


      Report this

      121

  • #
    Dave

    I have just emailed (copy to Mods at JoNova) my letter of complaint (written letter to follow) to Mr. John Brookes employer at the UWA Faulty of Life & Physical Sciences stating my disgust at this person exressing his belief and equating me to a child sexual preadtor?

    The person (head of dept) has been asked if it is acceptable to express opinions such as Mr. John Brookes gave above, is acceptable staff conduct? That’s all I asked along with a link to Mr. John Brookes comment.

    I’ll keep you informed on any replies.

    ——

    Since John was not commenting here in any official capacity as a rep of UWA please keep responses here on the blog. Please don’t bring his workplace into this. This is not the same as a prof recieving grants to call us names. — Jo


    Report this

    110

    • #
      Streetcred

      JB is just a fluffer for his UWA comrades.


      Report this

      60

    • #
      Keith L

      Really??
      You mean that guy holds down a job???
      Really?!
      Oh. At a university?!
      Oh OK.
      That is believable…


      Report this

      71

      • #
        John Brookes

        I take it you are retired Keith.


        Report this

        118

        • #
          memoryvault

          .
          Today I heard a commotion, and glanced out the window, and there was a group of young teenage girls walking up the street, pulling letters out of letter-boxes, ripping them open to see if there was any money in them, and tearing up the letters and Christmas cards that did not reward their expectations. They then simply threw the result of their destruction to the wind, to be blown away.

          There was nothing covert about this; they were screaming to each other about their finds and disappointments, in language that would make a Sergeant Major blush.

          I called the police who duly arrived about two hours later, then went out and picked up as many remnants of letters and cards as I could find, in the distance that I can now walk. Tomorrow I will hand-deliver the remnants to the people the letters and cards were intended for, as near as I can make out.

          To cut a long story short, I have spent the rest of today wondering how children get turned into these kinds of sub-human uncaring animals.

          Then tonight, I have read Pedo Bear Brooke’s comments, and I think I finally understand.


          Report this

          291

        • #
          Sonny

          Hey John,

          You disgust me.


          Report this

          100

        • #
  • #
    Andrew McRae

    the axis of evil who expose the libertarian flaws of free speech are climate skeptics and the Murdoch Press

    I recommend replacing “flaws” with “benefits” to improve clarity – by making the intended meaning take priority over the sarcastic meaning.
    It’s a benefit to our dear reader but is only a flaw to the Dear Leader.


    Report this

    50

  • #
    rukidding

    I see here time and time again people having a go at the ABC and while I will be the first to agree that their coverage of AGW is extremely biased I also note that very few here respond to articles on the drum or the environment or science.While it may be very safe and sure to sit here on Jo’s blog and take pot shots it does not get the job done.You will never win a fight if you won’t get in the ring.
    How many people here have put up an article to the drum or opinion for publication I would if I could but I don’t have the ability.

    How do those lyrics go.
    There is a dog sitting all forlorn because he’s sitting on a thorn and he’s to damed lazy to get off it.

    Currently there is about 30% of contributors to the ABC’s opinion pieces that support there is no climate change.So the more we have the better.
    Oh and to those who say they don’t get published may I suggest a little tact.The bull in a china shop approach is probably not the way to go.
    And no I don’t use this name on ABC blogs.


    Report this

    41

    • #
      The Black Adder

      Hey RuK…
      I write constantly to my local paper and mostly get published!!
      The fight ain’t over yet, especially with knuckleheads like JB loose on civilisation…
      Keep it up Bro!!
      Merry Xmas :)


      Report this

      41

  • #
    Robert

    Jo, the ABC is getting a bit scary actually unless you are a brain dead leftie. Is there any way we can get Delingpole’s article published in an Australian paper. It is brilliant! Sure calls it as he sees it!


    Report this

    91

    • #
      John Brookes

      Delingpole is a turkey. He will no doubt self implode one day…

      246

      • #
        Truthseeker

        Johnny Boy …

        DelingpoleJohn Brookes is a turkey. He will no doubt self implode one day…

        There, fixed it for you.


        Report this

        291

      • #
        The Black Adder

        Delingpole is a POM!! JB!

        And like The Lord Monckton, a jolly good one by the look of him!

        You are a Tosser!!

        Have I missed anything?


        Report this

        110

      • #
        Catamon

        Delingpole is a turkey.

        Bit of a slur on turkeys that at a time of year when they are provide much pleasure. :(

        And as a partisan communicator, Dellingpole is doing his job by keeping the outrage levels among the cranky and credible right up there. :)


        Report this

        018

        • #
          Lars P.

          Interesting, is it only an impression or our trolls got more desperate? Only insults, no trace of reasoning in their comments?
          It must be sad for them to see their religion going slowly down, in line with the temperature… Gaya must be testing their faith…


          Report this

          31

      • #
        Sonny

        [snip - no more UWA comments about Brookes. - Jo]


        Report this

        41

      • #
        Debbie

        Good grief JB.
        Is it all about unfounded ‘predictions’ in your world?
        No doubt?
        On what evidence do you base such absolute certainty?
        Do you have a stat model that would create such certainty about Monckton’s future?
        No offense but I would suspect that Monckton has a much more successful and/or influencial life than you or me.
        I would also suspect that ‘self implosion’ is not listed in his future plans.
        But of course I have nothing to prove that.
        That would merely be my opinion no doubt?
        It causes me much mirth when you grizzle that people who are employed scientists/statiticians who are filling their job descriptions are not given enough respect and then you immediately shoot from the hip at others who have perfectly decent quals.


        Report this

        10

  • #
    william

    A bit OT, but a request to Tony from OZ.
    To settle a family discussion on the reality of renewable energy,I am attempting to formulate an analogy to compare the cost and efficiency of electricity provided by conventional coal fired power stations verses wind power.Would you be so kind as to provide more accurate figures to the following?
    Two competing makes of cars of the same size and engine capacity.Car A the ecomobile(wind turbine) costs $100,000, developes 30 horsepower and has a life expectancy of 40,000 kilometres.
    Car B,the Toynissonda (coal fired powerstation)costs $5000,developes 150 horsepower, and has a life expectancy of 100,000kilometres.


    Report this

    10

    • #
      john robertson

      Never mind the numbers, where I am its -25C cloudy and no wind. All the govt subsided alternates are contributing…Zero kW.
      So the comparison is more like, A you’re outstanding in the cold,poor and naked. B You’re driving to your destination, with cash to spend when you arrive.
      Actually they heat the transmission on the windmills, so they are a negative .


      Report this

      50

    • #

      If you click on my name, I changed the website designation to my wind site. I have a lot of information there that might help.


      Report this

      20

    • #

      John is entitled to be a pain if he wishes. He seems to thrive on it. Why then, do commentors suddenly stoop to his level (one they don’t like, I would note) and call him names.
      No one actually said skeptics are pedophiles–the commentor who said it’s called “poisoning the well” is correct. There was no valid argument for climate science, so the speaker choose inflammatory language to intimidate. It’s officially called bullying. Perhaps if people regarded the comment as an admission there is no evidence, instead of name-calling, they could just point out that the emperor has no clothes. If John thinks the emperor is actually dressed, he can try to prove it. The only way to deal with bullying with words is to stay on topic: AGW is a scam. Keep repeating it until the speaker gives up or concedes. Sure, John seems to have plenty of time to type answers, but I am betting we can keep typing as long as he can.


      Report this

      54

    • #
      gnome

      On Clyde Mountain a few weeks ago. They have road warning signs with solar and wind power to operate them. A foggy morning- lucky there was nothing to warn about because the signs were dead. Waste of money? No, surely not.


      Report this

      00

    • #

      While off topic, william raises an interesting challenge, and for the purposes of william having to explain it to people who don’t really understand the facts behind electrical power generation, it’s a little more complex than just comparing two similarly alike cars.

      So, keeping that in mind, let’s then just do a comparison with an equally sized ‘bucket of money’, and this may even be equated with cars in a way, eg, if you had say 75K, would you purchase a top of the range Holden HSV with everything, or a Mercedes Benz, so see the point here by way of comparison.

      Now, for this ‘bucket of money’, let’s go with, umm, ….. $2 Billion, and yes, two Billion.

      Again, something like this is esoteric, so it needs some explanation, and I’ll try and keep it simple.

      For Wind let me refer you to the new proposed King Island Wind Plant which comes in at $2 Billion, and notice here how the blurb from Green supporters is that the more of these things you build, then the cheaper they become, so King Island immediately gives the lie to this, as it shows that these Plants are in fact becoming more expensive, which is in fact the truth of the matter.

      For coal fired power, let’s then spend that same $2 Billion on a new tech USC coal fired plant. Let’s put it where Bayswater is now, so they have easy access to coal, where they own the coal in fact. These plants can run larger generators, but let’s just go with what Bayswater already has in the way of power generation.

      For the purposes of this exercise, I’ll do what the green side does here, and quote best case scenario for Wind, and worst case scenario for coal fired.

      Now, the only thing I want you to look at here is the total power supplied to the grids for consumption.

      WIND.

      600 MW of Nameplate Capacity, at a 30% Capacity Factor, and for a 25 year life span.

      So, for your $2 Billion for Wind Power the lifetime power delivered to the grid comes in at 40TWH, (or 40 Billion KWH)

      COAL FIRED.

      2700MW of Nameplate Capacity, at a 75% Capacity Factor, and for a 50 year life span.

      So, for your $2 Billion for Coal Fired Power, the lifetime power delivered to the grid comes in at 890TWH, (or 890 Billion KWH)

      22+ times as much power.

      Go worst case scenario even further for coal fired power. Heavens above, double the initial construction cost, lower the Capacity Factor from that 75%, considering most of these new tech plants are consistently making 85% currently, and you still get considerably more power. Tell the plants that they now have to pay top market price for the steaming coal they already own. Add in the further restriction of the CO2 Tax/ETS. You still get more power at a cheaper price than Wind could ever hope in their wildest dreams to equal.

      Tell me Wind can actually make it to 25 years when some people even in the trade say that 15 years is probably a better target. That 30% CF for Wind is at initial stages, so that is even optimistic for the full 25 years.

      It’s more complex than comparing a Holden HSV to a Benz, and in fact probably even more stark a comparison than that even.

      It’s actually no contest.

      Tony.


      Report this

      50

    • #
      Lars P.

      Well William, the efficiency comparison should be done like to like, not KW generated to KW generated, but KW generated when there is demand.
      Worldwide there have been more then 1000 billions invested in “renewables”
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy
      add the numbers:
      2008 130
      2009 160
      2010 211
      2011 257
      2012 250+
      How many standard power-stations have been replaced through this immense investment into renewables?
      None.
      There has been no “fossil fuel” power-station shut down due to “renewables”. This is a hard and very inconvenient truth.

      Now if one builds a fossil fuel power-stations, all these renewable can be shut down. Simple as that. Scrapped.
      So all these 1000 billions were simply wasted. It is not that it costs a bit more. It is simply waste.

      One can talk about “renewable” when it has a concept to fulfil load as requested, not when it works as a parasite on the other powerstations.
      Simply as that.


      Report this

      20

  • #
  • #
    John Brookes

    Someone here decided it would be a good idea to email my boss. He invites him to look at this post. But to save him some trouble, he says to:

    “Go to Mr. John Brookes comment where he surpasses Robyn Williams example of equating Climate Skeptis to Pedophiles and states that skeptics are pedophiles.”

    How anything I wrote can be interpreted as above, I can’t begin to understand.

    Look. I post here under my own name. I don’t try and hide. And I rely on the common sense of the decent people here to not abuse this information.

    I disagree with much of what is posted on this blog, and I sometimes say so rather directly. But I don’t mean anyone any harm. I’m just stirring. There is absolutely no need to go to my employer, putting words in my mouth, and trying to get me into trouble.


    Report this

    631

    • #
      The Black Adder

      Haha JB!!

      You directly associated my realism ( not denialism ) with your rant!

      I remember going to see the Vice Chancellor of Adelaide Uni back in 91.

      I was shitting myself…. When I saw he had a file on me an inch thick!

      I hope you have the same feeling tomorrow!

      Merry Xmas JB…


      Report this

      131

      • #
        Catamon

        I remember going to see the Vice Chancellor of Adelaide Uni back in 91.

        I was shitting myself…. When I saw he had a file on me an inch thick!

        Wow, i could see that a file thicker than your skull would be intimidating.

        So, you were an obnoxious twit way back then as well?

        021

        • #
          The Black Adder

          No!! I was not an obnoxious little twit!

          I was a normal Aussie male, aged 21 with high testosterone , who loved Cricket, Footy, Women and skipping lectures every now and then to learn something about the real world! and a belief in the free spirit and intellectuality of Man/ Woman!

          You have succumbed to the Borg… And it is so sad!!


          Report this

          111

          • #
            Catamon

            Ahh, you were one of the ones there for the booze and parties then.

            Funny, even now we get those wastes of space in classes? They generally do poorly they do in the prac classes and doG’s how embarrassing they are when they have to try field work.

            Then they squeal and just dont understand when they get failed on a unit. LoL!

            You have succumbed to the Borg…

            7 of 9 was a Borg. :)


            Report this

            013

          • #
            The Black Adder

            Catamonsgthmen.

            Stop trying to be superior!!

            Sigh…


            Report this

            50

    • #
      Catamon

      And I rely on the common sense of the decent people here to not abuse this information.

      Actually, there may be slight flaw in your reasoning there. :(


      Report this

      112

    • #
      Sonny

      You wrote that some skeptics are akin to some pedophiles.

      How any university employed professional would have the STUPIDITY to post such vile bullshit, I cannot begin to understand.

      Just stirring? Is this your excuse? Making analogies between people debating a scientific topic and people sexually abusing children is just playful stirring to you?

      What a serious error of judgment. Someone needs to put you in your fucking place.


      Report this

      202

      • #
        ExWarmist

        Sonny says…

        university employed professional

        Unfortunately you will have to lower the bar.

        You currently have the bar set to high, and as JB has revealed through his actions, that there is a clear gap between your expectations and reality.

        You have two options.

        [1] Adjust your expectations downwards to match observed reality, or

        [2] Successfully initiate a widespread reform of the Australian Tertiary education sector that lifted competency and behavior to a sufficiently high standard to meet your expectations.

        Both options are possible, one is considerably more difficult than the other.


        Report this

        30

    • #

      To readers here, please bear in mind John does write with the name connected to his work and family. That puts him a big step above the anonymous cowards who can say anything, and disappear and return with a new meaningless moniker.

      To john, you said: “And to that extent *only*, some climate “skeptics” are akin to some pedophiles.”

      So you said that skeptics are hurting children and in ways akin to pedophiles — satisfying crass personal needs with no consideration for the damage done to the defenceless.

      Which is worse, “being” a pedophile, or being as self-serving, harmful or mentally deficient as one?


      Report this

      240

      • #

        BTW: I added this inline to the original comment.

        In every debate on every topic there are people who think they are “helping”, but are wrong. When you call them pedophiles or equate them to pedophiles (what’s the difference?), it slowly but surely makes the word meaningless. How does that help the real victims when the word they need becomes the smear-attack of choice for every unproven, unsubstantiated half-wit with a cause? You’re polluting the language, debasing the real struggle of children and victims. You owe them and everyone here an apology. What evidence can you name that shows even one skeptic has hurt one child through their skepticism, let alone any damage “akin” to what one sole pedophile (out of thousands) has done. – Jo PS: See MV.


        Report this

        220

      • #
        The Black Adder

        But he is doing the Lewandosky thing!!

        It ain’t science, it’s an insult!!


        Report this

        142

      • #
        gnome

        I agree entirely. I posted for a while here under my full name but after making my perennial complaint about rural internet services and getting heaps (!!) of phone calls from scammers who wanted to fix it (no money, just press a few keys whilst online), decided anonymous is safer. Now that I am unlisted I could go back, but all my friends and neighbours know who I am, and who else matters? He is obviously of stronger stuff, inviting the ire of strangers.

        JB is often offensive, he does it deliberately, but that is what free speech is all about. Often, I wish he didn’t exist, but he does- learn to live with it. Confected outrage only makes the outragee look ridiculous.


        Report this

        40

      • #
        John Brookes

        I always try to be clear, but don’t always succeed. I equated “skeptics” and pedophiles in only one way – that some seek to portray any harm that may come from their actions as not being harmful, but beneficial. Its a type of self justification that is easy to use. A bully deludes himself that he’s helping by toughening the wimp up (this would apply especially to teachers…). A used car salesman sells a lemon, and deludes himself that he’s saved a mug from buying an even bigger lemon. Its human nature to try and convince yourself that your failings have not hurt others. It just goes a bit far when you say that you’ve actually done good.


        Report this

        26

        • #
          MaxL

          Interesting John.
          Please tell us more about how the “others” delude themselves.


          Report this

          20

        • #

          And there we have it, the sanctimonious “It’s just that you poor little unenlightened people are damaging society and I, God of science, know better. You don’t mean to be stupid and uneducated, you were just not tapped by God Almighty and given the special knowledge.” I can’t believe John waited this long to pull out that one.
          Note: Passive-Aggressive behaviour is still bullying, as is belittling people as ignorant while claiming you are all-knowing. Bully’s often claim they are innocent and it’s the kid with the black-eye that really stated it and they were “just defending themselves”.
          Check the mirror…….


          Report this

          50

        • #
          Dente di Leone

          You mean like WWF does to save us from global warming, climate disruption, and what not?
          .
          They were in cahoot with British Petroleum lobbying for deep sea drilling to save us and the animal kingdom from dirty oily shores should catastrophe happen.
          .
          In Indonesia and Borneo they were the master schemers to turn wonderful lush rainforest into palm oil plantations. Yet again to save us and the animal kingdom from utter doom and gloom.
          .
          Then it turns out the deep sea drilling project kind of didn’t go according to their calculations.
          .
          And as it turns out, in Borneo the Orangutans are getting driven to extinction by palm oil plantations. In Indonesia, just like in Borneo a shit load of other species aren’t doing to good either. And in both places the projected emission of CO2 from palm oil plantation is bordering on redonkulous amounts, comparing to 30 million cars in Indonesia alone (and is expected to double that in the coming years).
          .
          And like you state, yet again WWF and the climate hysterics try and portray it as not harmful. So what you did was, apparently, just projecting your self-proclaimed climate-saviours onto others.
          .
          If Greenpees and WWF dressed up as santa for x-mass they’d probably, as likely and as paradoxically madfullness, explode the heads of the kids to save the kids of the future from maybe experiencing a tad bit warmer christmas. Cheers. :p


          Report this

          20

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      JB, today you discovered what it is like for your free expression to be suppressed by intimidation and spiteful reprisal attack.

      Now will you become a tireless campaigner to stand up for the skeptics’ right to free expression, free from political intimidation and employment reprisals, particularly by having the intimidatory label “climate denier” removed from the public discourse?

      Will you learn from your lesson?

      Because today you got a taste of our year.


      Report this

      201

    • #
      ExWarmist

      John says…

      How anything I wrote can be interpreted as above, I can’t begin to understand.

      You intended one thing, you caused something else. – A decent, and sincere apology will allow you to clean this mess up.

      (As per the supplied link) I do it when I have made a mistake – why not you?


      Report this

      100

    • #
      Streetcred

      Brooksie, you are in no position to complain … the warmista Taliban have used this tactic to remove anybody with an opposing view to theirs, refer ClimateGate emails and various journal editors. If you comment to offend then there are those that will be deeply offended and the consequences are yours to carry. However, given the evident support by UWA of Lewandowsky I would anticipate a promotion for you.


      Report this

      162

    • #
      Truthseeker

      Johnny Boy, actions have consequences.

      Your earlier comments were thoughtless and showed a complete lack of moral integrity. It has now come around to bite you. You may disagree with much that is being said on this site but you still have an obligation not vilify by association or even defend those that do. You say “I’m just stirring. ” but that makes it worse. You do the blogging equivalent of poking an ant’s nest to get a reaction, and then you stick you toe in a bull-ant’s nest and complain when you get bitten.

      Actions have consequences. Defending the indefensible was the action that caused this. Blame no-one but yourself.


      Report this

      170

    • #
      Dave

      JB,

      I sincerely apologise for my inappropriate behaviour of involving your workplace and any hardship it has caused. And also apologies to other JoNova Blog commenters I may have offended.
      I was very wrong to do this – anger was no excuse.

      Dave


      Report this

      80

    • #
      Lars P.

      I am not endorsing the idea with the email to your boss.
      However you made some despicable comments above trying to defend the indefensible.
      I ask myself, would any other comment have brought you to reflect on what you said and apologise? I fear not.

      Being skeptic, I do not try to justify my way of living and find excuses for humans. You are looking at the wrong reasons and you do not understand skepticism.
      If I try to understand what moves you to post absurdities, if I look at you and Lewandowsky I begin to ask myself if the UWA does not have an echo-chamber of climate taliban who want to impose their world-view aggressively to the students and to all?
      You think you are doing the good, the right thing, but is it the right to impose by force and authority your world-view to young people? Or are you there to try to help young people learn and understand science and form their own opinion? In my view this makes you much closer to the exact example that you used. No skeptic is trying to impose his worldview by force, but tries to inform and understand the science. Skeptics raise questions of the science being used. Do you see the difference? Guess not, you have a pre-formed idea that this is just justification to continue to use cheap resources and do not try to question your dogma.

      There is a video with Lewandowsky explaining his position:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=C8wVfxoPqPA
      Look at this top down despising position of one who calls himself a scientist and how he talks about other scientists in a branch of science that he does not understand and does not even try to understand but tries to impose his point of view. Is this a way to educate young people to evaluate and understand science?
      His work and statistics about skeptics do not hold, it is really an embarrassment to see what has been produced.
      http://manicbeancounter.com/2012/12/06/lewandowsky-on-radio-4-missing-out-basic-human-psychology/


      Report this

      30

    • #
      Chris M

      John, you are not ‘just stirring’ but actively trying to undermine people’s attempts to combat the vile CAGW status quo, because that does not fit with your entrenched ideology. As a committed leftist (probably a Marxist from many comments you have made) you are blinded by by your faith, and that rigidity of thinking directly led to your support of Williams’s analogy. It did not matter to the old-style communists that their ideology resulted in the deaths and enslavement of hundreds of millions of people in the USSR, China and their proxies. No, the glorious socialist revolution would still lead to a perfect society!

      Please grow up John and move with the times; the green religion as a stalking horse for the socialist agenda has just about run its course. In Europe where all sides of politics got sucked into the CO2 mitigation scam they are now starting to re-examine the harmful effects of those policies. I suggest that you take the ideological blinkers off and do the same.


      Report this

      10

  • #
    Sonny

    John Brookes:

    “Some climate skeptics are akin to some pedophiles.”

    You know what you are “akin” to?

    A vile piece of [snip I realize you are mad. Better to explain why he's wrong, than call him names. - Jo]

    ———————————————


    Report this

    101

    • #
      janama

      go away – take your turgid abuse somewhere else and stop defiling Joanne’s wonderful site.


      Report this

      110

      • #
        Sonny

        janama,

        Perhaps if you were the victim of an adult sex offender as a child and have that fuck up your entire life you would see just how offensive, hurtful and innapropriate John Brookes comments really are. My response is nothing in comparison.
        I am exactly the type of skeptic John is equating to a pedophile. It makes me absolutely livid.


        Report this

        160

        • #
          Andrew McRae

          So basically, you are allowed to swear and curse on Jo’s blog because THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!

          And because Wookiees do not live on Endor.

          Uhuh.

          Does not logically follow. Invalid argument. You have no excuse for foul language.


          Report this

          35

          • #
            Sonny

            I hereby unreservedly apologize for my abusive language. I am sorry Jo and to readers of your blog. I will try to contain my anger in future.


            Report this

            140

          • #
            Andrew McRae

            That was a quick 180, Sonny. I am impressed.

            Climate change is a family show. We want the audience to come back next week.

            Attract a better class of customer, that sort of thing.


            Report this

            90

  • #
    janama

    I couldn’t care a damn – your abuse is undignified.


    Report this

    18

    • #
      Sonny

      Whatever dignity I may have had once has been stripped from me, then stripped from me again by the likes of John Brookes. I agree my abuse is not dignified, but I couldn’t care less. My indignation is real. I don’t need to tolerate being likened to a pedophile by scumbags spruking a political agenda.


      Report this

      160

      • #

        Sonny, I’m so sorry you are hurting. I think a lot of us understand where you are coming from and we understand both your upset and your anger. You show great fortitude when you apologized to everyone here for your outburst. You far outshine those here today who deliberately hurt and then come back in to deliberately hurt again. I’m trying to say don’t let them hurt you, but it’s hard to find the right words. I only know that some here will deliberately target you again simply because they can hurt you and know it now. They are not worth your time. You are better than they are. You really are, not least because you are caring where they are cold.


        Report this

        70

    • #
      Streetcred

      But then the abuse of Skeptics by the warmista Taliban is less than dignified … it is sustained and it goes all of the way up to the high priests.


      Report this

      80

  • #

    RSS The Australian 21/12/12 12 am:

    “ABC, SBS pull out of FOI submission” ( by the Right To Know coalition).

    Bit surprising they supported it in the first place?


    Report this

    20

  • #
    The Black Adder

    Sorry to hijack your post, Martin .


    Report this

    20

  • #
    Sonny

    Jo,
    I have to disagree with you that John’s actions on this blog should be treated as separate from his professional engagements with the UWA. He has chosen to comment under his real name and has provided his connection with the UWA. While this is respectable, (I would do the same if It weren’t for the historical precedent of state sanctioned persecution of dissidents.), his actions reflect back on his university in the same way that a school boy who can be identified as such is held to the standards of his school.

    The question is:
    Does the UWA endorse or condone such analogies made by their staff on public forums?

    No. See my reply at #21. – Jo


    Report this

    112

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      So what you’re saying is, all signs of trust are an invitation to attack.

      Try again?

      If you have any commitment to proper debate in a meritocracy then the opponent’s real name and place of employment can only used in a manner contrary to your own principles.

      To imagine that JB published such personal information because he wouldn’t mind disagreements on one issue to be spitefully used against him in a completely unrelated capacity is to presume JB to be a masochist of… the… highest…    order… yeah I can see what you’re getting at, actually.


      Report this

      13

  • #

    To all commenters here, since John Brookes did not comment in an official capacity, nor represent his workplace, please don’t bring his workplace into it. It is inappropriate.

    He made the comments in a personal capacity. He is not getting grants to call us names, nor does he do media interviews to smear us while waving the credibililty of an institution.

    Keep your anger at John Brookes on this thread.

    Better yet, channel that anger against someone that is getting your tax dollar and who is paid to serve the public. They have the most serious case to answer.


    Report this

    174

    • #
      John Brookes

      Thanks Jo.


      Report this

      14

      • #
        Heywood

        That being said John you must see that it was a little silly to try and defend ANY comparison between ANYONE and a pedophilia (unless of course they are one).

        Robyn Williams could have used any number of anecdotes to make his point but he chose that particular one deliberately to invoke offense and reaction.

        I see your point that he was not directly calling skeptics pedophiles, but there was no reason at all to mention pedophilia at all.

        You really are attempting to defend the indefensible.

        It is a shame that someone decided to contact your employer regarding your post. I agree that it is a bit of a bastard act, but surely you can see that even giving the impression that you are equating skeptics with possibly the most hideous crime imaginable can cause an emotional reaction.

        My 2 cents worth anyway.


        Report this

        61

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    Listen up people:

    In my time, I have moved in the highest social circles and also associated with some of the worst scum you will find on this planet. It was my job.

    I disliked both extremes equally, and the middle wasn’t much better, either. But you have to engage with all levels of society in order to get a balanced view of the world. If you don’t take the trouble to do that, you are simply working from your own prejudices.

    And that is what has happened on this thread. You guys are arguing about the labels, not the underlying motivations. Epic fail.

    John was taking a step that I have taken many times – put yourself in the mind of your opponent, and try to see the world from their eyes. If you can do that, you will gain a whole lot more insight into the way the world really works. That process is the practical definition of the word “wisdom”.

    There are very few people that I like and respect in this world, because we are all flawed, and we all have our little dark secrets (me probably more than most). But I do like and respect Jo for what she is trying to do on this site.

    But while you guys fight amongst yourselves like two rival packs of dogs over something as trivial as individual interpretations of words you provide no service to Jo, or what this site is about.

    Enough already!


    Report this

    123

    • #
      john robertson

      Oft stated that evil loves to get the good folk to fighting almost themselves.
      Trying to put myself in the mind of others works sometimes, murder, arson, rape and larceny I can sort of wrap my mind around, but this pedophile stuff, no can do. Best quote on that,
      “There is nothing about a pedophile that 40 000 Volts won’t cure”.
      And the internet Trolls job is to divide, disrupt and divert. Brookes does this well.


      Report this

      20

    • #
      Grant (NZ)

      A voice of reason. I would go one step further though and counsel John to apologise. As Andrew says in #15.5 John should now have an appreciation of being on the receiving end of the vile output of the AGW faithful who use disparaging terms to discredit their opposition.

      All we want is the AGW crowd to acknowledge that the evidence is against them. The IPCC in AR5 has almost done it for them.


      Report this

      50

    • #
      Truthseeker

      Rereke,

      You often bring wisdom and intelligence into a discussion but there is one aspect about this that you are wrong about.

      Labels matter. They matter because they include a lot of connotative information that adds depth to the meaning of the simple word itself. Pedophile is just such label. Arguing about the use of that label is precisely the point, as Jo herself has pointed out when she refers to “polluting the language”.

      Seeing the world from the other person’s viewpoint is a powerful tool. John is not doing that. He is, by his own admission, “just stirring” and is not showing any wisdom whatsoever. It was not a valid argument or even a valid interpretation of someone else’s argument.

      Have some people become too emotional? Absolutely.
      Should this have left the realm of this blog? Absolutely not.
      Has he got to accept responsibility for his illconsidered comment that has evoked a strong emotional response? Absolutely.

      Throughout all of this Jo has acted with tolerance, wisdom and integrity. The same cannot be said about many of the people who make comments on this site.


      Report this

      80

  • #
    John O'Hagan

    Both Williams and Delingpole used similarly melodramatic references to paedophilia. According to The Australian, the former was an affront, while the latter was side-splittingly hilarious.

    As far as the “free speech” bit goes, you’re comparing apples and oranges. The Press Council, not the ABC, found against Delingpole; the ABC, not the Press Council, rejected complaints against Williams. If you’re worried about it, complain to the Press Council about Williams. No doubt he’ll get his wrist slapped like Delingpole.

    BTW, you should try complaining to The Australian about anything – I’m sure the ABC process is bureaucratic, but with the Oz it’s like dropping a stone into a well.


    Report this

    41

    • #
      ExWarmist

      Hi John,

      I went to some trouble to respond to one of your comments on a post a couple of days ago, would you care to respond?

      Thanks

      ExWarmist


      Report this

      20

    • #

      John, you said the Australian wouldn’t publish your letter. They did. If writing to the Australian is like “dropping a stone in a well” you have a strange (and ungrateful) idea of what non-responsiveness is.

      PS: The APC rules over Newspapers. They don’t care what the ABC says.

      ACMA does however have the power to ask the ABC to apologize.


      Report this

      61

      • #
        John O'Hagan

        Yes, they do publish material outside their editorial line from time to time, but it’s about ten to one. Strangely, after ignoring me for months, they printed two letters in a row. Possibly they felt a pang of guilt because in one unpublished letter I pointed out their one-sided letter selection, I don’t know.

        However, I don’t think I need to be “grateful” if they publish one: they’re getting material for free and I get my two cents out there; it’s win-win!

        My remark was about The Australian’s complaint procedure, as opposed to writing a letter to the editor, in relation to the discussion of the ABC’s complaints procedure. Two or three times I complained – in one case because they had edited a published letter of mine very unsympathetically, removing the key point, and also about their disgraceful, self-serving and protracted crucifixions of Robert Manne and Larissa Behrendt – and heard nothing back.

        I stand corrected on the role of the APC, but not on the apples vs oranges.


        Report this

        30

    • #
      Alice Thermopolis

      PROTESTETH TOO MUCH, METHINKS?

      “BTW, you should try complaining to The Australian about anything – I’m sure the ABC process is bureaucratic, but with the Oz it’s like dropping a stone into a well.”

      Yet, John, you did complain on 19th December and your letter was published under Talking Point: “Lack of balance causing immense damage to the ABC”?

      Assumption: you are the same “John O’Hagan” from Preston, Victoria?


      Report this

      31

  • #
    Colin

    I have to admire JB’s skill as an “agent provocateur”. He makes some outrageous statement that no sane person could possibly actually believe, then stands back and watches the scrum. It’s like throwing a smelly bone into a pack of wild dogs!

    This is a cheap psychological trick we used to play in primary school – ‘let you and him fight’. The wise dog would smell the bone, decide it’s poisoned and walk on by.

    Just treat outrageous provocation with the contempt it deserves. Ignore it.


    Report this

    31

  • #

    Excuse me while I go pound my head on the wall…..This is like kindergarten all over again. How about some actual discussion and use your scientific words, not your insults.


    Report this

    32

  • #
    Bruce

    I fail to see what is wrong with Williams somehow associating climate skeptics with pedophiles if he so wishes. He should have the right to do that, even if he offends some people. The problem is that skeptics are not allowed, because of selective application of the law, of associating Williams’ position on climate warming with pedophilia. As no doubt the readers here know, Bolt, Jones among others have been censored for expressing opinions that did not meet favor by the political left. Consistently, Mr Williams has not been censored. With few exceptions, the idea of freedom of speech remains in a rudimentary form in this country.
    PS. I have no time for Mr Williams, and what I am inclined to say about his work on the ABC would get this comment snipped!


    Report this

    64

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      There is no doubt that Williams intended to be offensive, but so what? Use the off switch. I stopped listening to him more than 20 years ago because I thought that he wasn’t that good about science, not because he was an obvious left winger.

      He feels free to insult the public who pay his salary because the ABC likes to pretend that it isn’t biased and that any charge of offence will be dismissed by the Tribunal because it comes from the wrong sort of people.

      I can’t see any way that the ABC will change or be changed. Their only problem is that after the election the Government won’t see the need to maintain a Government broadcaster that is against the government, especially if it reduces the inherited deficit by hundreds of millions.


      Report this

      30

    • #
      Winston

      Bruce,

      I reprint my letter of complaint to the ABC which I feel states why such a smear is worthy of recrimination.

      By equating Climate Skeptics with Paedophiles, Robyn Williams has, whether deliberately or not, legitimised Paedophilia. He has done so by suggesting by inference that the raping of children is equated merely with a form of civil disobedience, a lifestyle choice which reflects one’s ideology, and by doing so Williams has directly insulted and harmed victims of child sexual abuse by diminishing their suffering to the level of a political or sociological disagreement. To infer that, in his position as a presenter on a taxpayer funded programme, is inconsistent with the charter of the ABC, and has given comfort to every child rapist who listened to his programme that they are not criminals per se, merely that they dissenters from social normalcy. You see it is not climate skeptics whom he has most insulted, but the innocent victims of this insidious and widespread crime, which he has sought to equate those who disagree with him on points of Science.

      I’m quite certain that these statements devalue the crime of pederasty, and victims of child sexual abuse are no doubt insulted that their pain and suffering is used as a tool to denigrate someone’s opinion.

      John Brookes and Robyn Williams lack any empathy for victims of child sexual molestation and abuse, some of whom no doubt may also be climate skeptics. What would either of them have to say to those who fall into this category?


      Report this

      102

      • #
        ExWarmist

        Winston – that is an excellent point.

        Thanks ExWarmist


        Report this

        22

      • #
        John Brookes

        Winston, that is a very strange way of looking at it. Williams only equated the self-justification of pedophiles to the self-justification of climate “skeptics”. He didn’t, and I don’t, equate child molestation with having a non mainstream view of climate science.

        If anyone reading this blog somehow mistook what I said to mean that I was making that sort of equation, then I apologise. Pedophilia is abhorrent, and a crime. Having different views on climate change is your right.


        Report this

        38

        • #

          Your non-apology is helpful, but you still deny the undeniable.

          Williams said that people who say skeptical things about the climate are saying outrageous things just as bad as people who say pedophiles are not hurting children.

          You said: ” some climate “skeptics” are akin to some pedophiles.”

          Even if you only mean to the “extent” of harm done by words no one could “mistake” your meaning unless you did not mean to say those words. You have not said that. You’ve “apologized” on behalf of “errors” other people may have made in reading words that you still agree with. You have not apologized for anything you did.

          Winston is exactly right. How would a victim of a pedophile feel if someone saying that they were “helped by their attacker” is only as bad as someone who questions the accuracy of climate sensitivity? Would they feel you were p***ing all over their pain?

          You diminish the crime.


          Report this

          112

        • #
          ExWarmist

          Hi JB,

          An apology along the lines of “Well if anyone misunderstood what I was saying… well I’m sorry.” – Well actually your words were clear, no sense trying to pretend the meaning was somehow different, or that the impact should be reduced by your “good intentions”.

          It’s not a real apology – I suggest that you try the same “structure” with your wife, and see if you don’t have to start ducking for cover…

          I would suggest that you need to own your actions in full, take responsibility for the impact of your words and apologize – without reservations.

          Good manners are the grease between human relationships – please don’t throw grit between the cogs…

          Cheers ExWarmist


          Report this

          40

        • #
          Grant (NZ)

          I don’t think an apology is all that is required. John, I think you need to do some more reflection. That reflection should take you to the point where you are as outraged as many here are by the words of Robyn Williams, and you should take up a campaign against him. Coming from your point of view it would have more effect than any of us. And in the end any right thinking person would have already done this.


          Report this

          40

        • #
          Sonny

          This is not a genuine apology John.
          You are just shifting the blame to the victim.
          Gentlemen don’t give half assed apoligies while offering justifications for the hurt they have caused. Evidently you are not a gentleman.


          Report this

          31

  • #
    pat

    it’s the information ABC fails to report that is most telling:

    EU carbon market seen shrinking by a third in 2012
    LONDON, Dec 20 (Reuters) – Europe’s carbon market is set to lose a third of its value this year as an oversupply of permits worsened, battering average prices and increasing pressure on European governments to provide support…
    http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/reutersnews/1.2110591?&ref=searchlist

    NZ carbon falls to fresh low despite supply curbs
    BEIJING, Dec 20 (Reuters Point Carbon) – Spot permits in New Zealand’s Emissions Trading Scheme fell 5.1 percent over the week to close Thursday at a record low NZ$2.50, as new rules to curb offset use failed to lift prices…
    http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/1.2109760?&ref=searchlist


    Report this

    30

  • #
    pat

    a new level of CAGW insanity:

    21 Dec: Bloomberg: Ruth Greenspan Bell/Barry Blechman: Global Warming Experts Should Think More About the Cold War
    (Bell is Public Policy Scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. Blechman is co-founder and a distinguished fellow at the Stimson Center. They are among the authors of Building International Climate Cooperation published by World Resources Institute)
    After the failure of the 18th such event earlier this month in Doha, diplomats and organizers should focus less on the UN exercise than on combing history for a more suitable model.
    They might find at least three lessons from the history of arms control…
    For climate change, the few major carbon polluters could whittle away at emissions without waiting for full unanimity by following similar routes that weapons negotiators took…
    To be sure, the international community has not eliminated all nuclear weapons, and arms control and climate negotiations are not a perfect comparison. Applying an analogy first suggested for fiscal deficits, the first problem is like a wolf knocking on the front door; the second is akin to termites eating away at the foundation…
    If storms like Sandy or droughts like the U.S.’s in 2012 prove to be wake-up calls equivalent to the Cuban missile crisis — a big if — then a new, nimbler, distributed climate diplomacy might arise capable of tackling this global challenge piece by piece. We hope so. Last-minute brinksmanship won’t work with climate change: Climate “war” has already begun.
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-20/global-warming-experts-should-think-more-about-the-cold-war.html

    wouldn’t be surprised to see ABC chase up Bell & Blechman for interviews! the only thing that might save us is the fact our regular abc personnel are on their EXTENDED holidays at present.


    Report this

    20

    • #
      Streetcred

      History like this for example:

      U.S. National Academies Find Greenhouse Effect Doesn’t Exist

      America’s prestigious National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and related government bodies found no greenhouse effect in Earth’s atmosphere. Evidence shows the U.S. government held the smoking gun all along – a fresh examination of an overlooked science report proves America’s brightest and best had shown the White House that the greenhouse gas effect was not real and of no scientific significance since 1979 or earlier.

      h/t ClimateRealists


      Report this

      31

      • #
        Andrew McRae

        LOL.

        Scientists at PSI who have carefully studied the document assert this to be the most compelling physical evidence ever found …

        But he was very scientific about it. (chortle)
        He even did a “full word search”.

        BWAAHAHAHAAAA.

        Rule number three of the climate debate surely must be: never say anything that is easily disproved by John Cook using LOGIC ALONE.

        the issue here is that John O’Sullivan’s key point, expressed in his headline, is that the National Academy of Science denies the greenhouse effect in this report. However, regardless of whether they use the specific phrase “greenhouse effect” or not, it’s clear from statements like “doubled CO2 causes 3 degrees of warming” that they do endorse the greenhouse effect. Hence O’Sullivan is misrepresenting the National Academy of Science.

        How embarrassing!
        For skeptics this is hilarious. Just sitting on the sidelines watching two packs of mad dogs bite each other.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    Angry

    A bit OT but global warming FRAUD related.

    Climate-change Computer Models Fail Again — and Again, and Again…….

    http://thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/13975-climate-change-computer-models-fail-again-and-again-and-again


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Angry

    U.N. body now says humanity is causing warming AND cooling. No matter what, it’s all YOUR fault……….

    http://antigreen.blogspot.com.au/

    This anti human “united nations” must be disbanded !!!!!!!!


    Report this

    11

    • #
      Manfred

      I heard recently on the BBC World Service that the UN had launched an appeal for funds to assist Syrian refugees. I mused how they have successfully ‘acquired’ millions $ from a criminally pointless ETS scheme.

      Words fail me, much as the UN fails in its task to relieve human suffering and misery. A return to ‘core business’ as opposed to the political preoccupation with Agenda 21 would indeed be a worthy mission.


      Report this

      30

  • #
    Brill

    I am a regular silent reader of Jo’s blog. This post has forced me to tell how I see it.

    Please note, I am in agreement with the skeptical point of view. I enjoy reading Jo’s posts and some of the comments. I particularly learn a lot about energy from Tony. However some of the other comments are a waste of space.

    So. my observations are:

    1. Without the ‘trolls’ (JB, Catamon, JFC, etc) the comments on this site would deteriorate (and often does) into a self congratulatory society. It would be (and sometimes is) a very boring non illuminating read.
    2. When the trolls do comment, the blog deteriorates into abuse. This is particularly clear in this post. Ironic really, as it is about protecting free speech. Yet some people on this blog have the same attitude they are protesting against.
    3. Some posters should pull their head in and get some perspective. Angry, you are one. I understand many posters are angry about the whole issue and I sympathize because I have been too (and can still be if I allow myself to be). Maintain your rage quietly, rationally and with dignity. Do not allow yourself to sink to their low level. Abuse achieves nothing, except enemies.

    There are many many quiet skeptics. We do not need those who cannot control their emotions to make enemies for us.


    Report this

    130

    • #
      Sonny

      Brill,
      I agree with you entirely but sometimes I cannot control my rage.
      The public has yet to fully comprehend the wide scale damage that the AGW scam has caused/ is causing a great number of people both collectively and individually. People who promote this scam should be held responsible for their actions. This is beyond an issue of freedom of speech. This is about an international syndicate of state sanctioned criminals who have infiltrated our society and are ruining lives.


      Report this

      40

      • #
        John Brookes

        You gotta learn Sonny! Too much road rage around at the moment.

        I was talking about this with a cycling friend today. We agreed that road rage in Perth had increased, and that it seemed people were more stressed than before. Possibly this is related to the feeling of economic uncertainty – with many people not sure if they’ll have a job next year, or if, like so many, they are on a short term contract, what sort of hours they will be offered when their current contract expires.

        A regular income, a half decent workplace, and a stable home are pretty basic needs, but not that easy to get these days…


        Report this

        24

      • #

        Sonny–No, this in not beyond freedom of speech. What this is about is that countries allowed people with a political agenda to becomes teachers and professors and judges. People stood back and did nothing when schools became more interested in pushing the government’s social agenda than teaching math. Parents were too busy or lazy to deal with this, or talked themselves into believing it wasn’t happening. The reason universities are environmentalist propaganda machines is that environmentalists got degrees and filled the jobs. It’s that simple.
        Skeptics seem to want to blame someone for all of this–and cut off free speech, etc. That is the WRONG answer. For one thing, you are just advocating we do what the warmists did–snag enough political power to suppress opposition. Play King of the Mountain based on brute strength. Great way to start wars, bad way to advance science.
        If you do not want climate change to take hold, you have to present THE MOST COMPELLING ARGUMENT. If you just dazzle people with your smile, you end up like warmists are now, bullying, lying and intimidating in a effort to hold on to a lie. If the lie is all you have, someone can come along with a bigger lie. Just check out all of politics–the biggest lie usually wins. It’s a bad system, but until we teach people to think and not just emote, it will be the top system.
        Warmists may do all of us a favor and self-implode. That’s what happens when the lies start coming out and you can’t keep track of what the lie-of-the-day is. Plus, lying is so much harder than truth–you need a score card. Today is the end of the Mayan calendar and yet I am still typing. The problem with apocalyptic movements, of which warmists are certainly one, is the when the apocalypse fails to materialize, you can only move the date forward for so long.
        Take a breath, Sonny, ignore the arrogant “cycling” reference John threw in to make himself more Godlike, and remember, in the end the one with the truth wins. (Again, mostly because the liars lose their scorecards, but you take what you can get. Who knows, maybe that why the saying was made up in the first place.)


        Report this

        40

  • #

    The APC said

    “…the level of offensiveness is so high that it outweighs the very strong public interest in freedom of speech.”

    How do you measure the level of “offensiveness”?
    I would suggest that this is the net harm that this will do. That in turn depends on the offender(s) and the offendee(s). If the offenders have status, financial interest or political interest, or belief system to protect in offending against those who the allegations are made, then censoring should be stronger than if the offender was on the periphery of society. Furthermore, the relative size of the groups should be taken into account. If the offenders are from the majority and the offendee(s) are from a small minority, then censoring should be stronger than if the positions were reversed.
    But most of all, censoring of a view should depend on whether they are going against something is true or not. If you use the standard of consensus viewpoint, then the it is opinion polls that matter. But on that basis, new ideas would not overtake old. A recent example might help. In Britain, I remember seeing a program about an eccentric Aussie junior doctor, Barry Marshall. He had the crazy idea that bacteria could exist in the strong acids of the stomach, and one such bacteria was the likely cause of stomach ulcers that caused great long-term distress. This guy was so sure of himself, that he drank a goo of the helicobater pylori bacteria and (a few days later) passed a camera down his throat to show the stomach ulcers developing. He then cured himself using quite basic medication. The only drug that could successfully alleviate it was by a British pharmaceutical company. As it did not cure the problem, millions of people were on the drug long-term, making the patented drug the world’s most profitable.
    Under current press rulings, the maverick Aussie would have be censored. There were massive complaints made against his highly controversial views. These were deeply offensive to the beliefs of many in the medical profession world-wide. In 2005 Dr Barry Marshall, along with fellow Australian Dr J. Robin Warren, were awarded the Nobel Prize in medicine for this pioneering work.


    Report this

    20

  • #

    I suggest we refocus

    ACMA handles broadcasting complaints
    1. ABC and SBS get exempted (what a surprise) except for where they breach their own charter.
    2. You must complain to the broadcaster first.

    Links provided….

    —————————————————————

    ACMA Broadcasting complaints

    The ACMA administers the complaints system set down in the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (sections 147 to 151).

    The ACMA can only accept a complaint about a matter covered by a code of practice if you have already made a written complaint to the particular station.

    Complaints about a radio or TV broadcaster’s compliance with a licence conditions or standard can be made directly to the ACMA.

    The ACMA broadcasting complaints form can be downloaded here in PDF (57kb) or Word (344 kb) formats.

    The following pages contain additional information about making a complaint to the ACMA.

    What complaints need to be made to the broadcaster first?
    What complaints can be made directly to the ACMA?
    What type of complaint does the ACMA not handle?
    What if your complaint is about the ABC or SBS?
    What if your complaint is about an advertisement?
    What will the ACMA do with your complaint?
    Who else can help?

    Complaints about the ABC or SBS

    The ABC and SBS each has a code of practice.

    If you make a complaint to SBS or the ABC on the grounds that it has acted contrary to its code of practice, you may refer the matter to the ACMA if you consider the broadcaster’s response to be inadequate or if you have not received a response within 60 days after making your complaint. This applies only to content broadcast on radio or TV.

    Note that licence conditions contained in the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 do not apply to ABC services. The ABC and SBS each has its own Act of Parliament and charter.
    ————————————————-

    The ABC Charter

    ABC Code of Practice (as at 11 April 2011)
    Other ABC policy documents.
    What governs and guides the ABC


    Report this

    30

  • #
    Alice Thermopolis

    THE SCIENCE SHOW: Attitudes to climate change

    Broadcast: Saturday 24 November 2012 12:05PM (view full episode)

    “If 95, 96 or 97% of scientists say that human activity is driving the world temperature higher, why is it that some people reject the view of the overwhelming majority? Stephan Lewandowsky has studied scepticism. In the field of climate science the so-called sceptics he says are not sceptical, they are rejecting the evidence for ideological reasons, and a personal world view. He says extremist market ideology leads people to reject climate science. They are rejecting the enlightenment, and all that has been achieved over hundreds of years. He says there is a false consensus effect and the media has done a terrible job at representing climate science. News Limited publications in Australia systematically misrepresent climate science. Denial is a way of wishful thinking. He says solutions need to be highlighted along with new entrepreneurial opportunities as climate changes and the challenges increase.”

    Maurice Newman mentioned Professor SL’s absurd claims in his OZ article, but media/blog spotlight now firmly on RW and ABC RN – and not on RW’s interview with SL.

    Meanwhile, Meagan Tyler,lecturer in Sociology at Victoria University, expert in the “social construction of gender and sexuality”, wrote in a post at The Conversation on 17 December: “Claims of pornography’s benevolence look like climate change denial.”

    Professor SL described ”climate denialists” as a “troupe of cranks straight out of central casting” in a post from San Francisco (AGU meeting) in early December on the same site. They are apparently living in a “fantasy world” and ought to be tried for crimes against humanity (James Hansen – standing ovation) or re-educated in “de-biasing” gulags.

    Why do so many academic social scientists (and others) prefer smear to debate? Why are they permitted to post this (non-peer-reviewed) stuff on a site where UWA and other agencies are Founding Partners?

    Perhaps Professor SL’s colleague, Mark Edwards, former clinical psychologist and Oreskes fan (now in UWA School of Business), has the answer? From his recent posts on UWA-funded Shaping Tomorrows World site about the “new (economic) merchants of doubt”:

    “I believe that it is from this quarter, from those who agree with Human-induced CC and, at the same time, deny the interventionist role of government, who present the biggest obstacle to taking the level of action required to seriously address the climate crisis.” Etc etc

    Whatever the reason, as one progressive emu said to another: “sticking our heads in the sand is no longer an option.”


    Report this

    21

  • #
    old44

    Ve hav vays off making you think!


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Drapetomania

    “Can you spot the similarity” – Well, no I can’t, and I expect an apology from you in the near future.
    First you say Robin Williams isn’t “doing it”, and then you promptly go ahead and “do it”. Do you have any self awareness?

    I answer to your question..No it doesnt.
    Classic put down..!!
    It would also be connected to the dirty coal powered grid for power..and drive a car..but thinks it above others by lecturing.
    And that absolves its guilt..
    Thats how clueless these people are..
    I think the term is useful idiot..
    Arguing with it..is like playing chess with your dog..the dogs knows your doing something in front of it..but has no idea what just happened.


    Report this

    01

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    What a strange thing! I don’t get time to look in for a few days and — are you ready, better get a firm grip — it all stays the same in the world of politics, education, news media, science and… and… and…

    The only perceptible change is the rate of change for the worse. The first derivative of downhill is getting larger by the minute.

    In retaliation let’s do something they won’t expect us to do.

    LET’S ALL HAVE A MERRY CHRISTMAS AND A HAPPY, PROSPEROUS NEW YEAR!


    Report this

    60

  • #
    J Martin

    Comparing a climate sceptic to a pedophile, in other words a foot fancier, can hardly be construed as offensive. Unless of course you meant paedophile.

    I doubt that the Greek meaning of ‘ped’ came to displace the more usual latin ‘paed’ from conscious choice, more likely failure of the Americans to correctly spell ‘paed’.

    There are however other American mispellings that annoy me more, such as missing the ‘s’ off maths. Mathematics when shortened remains plural and so the ‘s’ should remain.

    The American ‘fall’ lacks color, whereas the English ‘autumn’ ‘autumnal’ is so much more colourful.


    Report this

    10