Listen up, “deniers”! Your Internet use is destroying the planet

Personally, I’ve always thought that the key to an advanced and open society was freedom of information. Apparently too much freedom for certain labeled groups of people is going to destroy the planet. Gosh. Australian media really has gone off the edge of the Earth since Gillard took over. Oh in case you haven’t seen it, here’s the leaked Gillard game plan to teach those Australian “deniers” to accept a new carbon tax. Damn that Internet and those meddling kids!

From Jammie Wearing Fool (via Chris Horner) who sums this farce up quite nicely.

===============================================================

Great News: The Internet Will Destroy the Planet

Now how exactly will Al Gore’s masterful invention go about destroying the planet? Why, by giving climate change “deniers” a voice to oppose the environmental wackos.

Broadcaster and Sydney Morning Herald columnist

excerpts:     …

The planet may not be so lucky. It’s increasingly apparent that the internet may bring about the death of human civilisation, beating out previous contenders such as nuclear holocaust and the election of George W. Bush.

The agents of this planetary death will be the climate-change deniers who, it’s now clear, owe much of their existence to the internet. Would the climate-change deniers be this sure of themselves without the internet?

Somehow I doubt it. They are so damn confident.

They don’t just bury their heads in the sand, they fiercely drive their own heads energetically into the nearest beachfront, their bums defiantly aquiver as they fart their toxic message to the world. How can they be so confident, in the face of so much evidence to the contrary?

It’s the internet, of course, and the way it has given climate-change deniers the perfect forum — one in which groups of quite dim people can swap spurious information, reassuring each other there’s no evidence on the other side, right up to the point they’ve derailed all efforts to save the planet. Call it ”mutually reassured destruction”.

In decades past, the climate-change deniers would have swapped theories in the pub or at a barbecue. But at the barbecue there was always one person willing to put a contrary view, to say: ”There’s another side.” And unless the barbecue was particularly nutty, there was no one handing out gestetnered sheets of dodgy science for people to take home.

The net allows the climate-change deniers to bleat about the scientists and whine about a price on carbon without fear of ever hearing a different voice, right up to the point of planetary collapse. To reformulate T.S. Eliot: ”This is the way the world will end — not with a bang but a whinger.”

On the upside, when it all does end it’ll spare us from reading nonsense like that.

==============================================================

Gosh, those intellectual media types are so smart. Oh wait, I’m a “broadcaster and columnist” too. Hmmm. I thought about leaving a comment on his blog as a courtesy just to let him know that some deniers took notice of what he wrote, but he doesn’t accept comments. Good thing too, the wrong people could get ideas that way.

Maybe we could all send Mr. Glover the The big self parodying “climate change blame” list.

Problem is lately, the “deniers” as we are called, outnumber the “believers” when opinion polls are taken.

/sarc

UPDATE: Some commenters have questioned whether Mr Glover isn’t simply writing a sarcastic piece. There’s two reasons why I don’t think so:

#1 While it is often difficult to detect sarcasm in writing, there appears to be no hint of it here in this piece that I can detect.

#2 He’s written about his dislike of the Internet and people who use it before, specifically Twitter. In March 2009 he claimed it would be gone in 3 months. Here it still going strong is two years later, more successful than ever.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/entertainment/tv–radio/you-could-bring-back-the-hula-hoop-if-you-found-a-way-ofconnecting-it-to-the-net/2009/03/20/1237055064186.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

This quote from that article rather sums up his world view when it comes to technology use by people:

The 1970s were full of innovations that were meant to change the world forever but then retreated to the fringe, providing little more than a safe habitat for nutters.

Reality about Twitter is far different than Mr. Glover’s opinion, see this:


Source: http://venturebeat.com/2010/06/10/twitter-growth-125-million-users/

About these ads

147 thoughts on “Listen up, “deniers”! Your Internet use is destroying the planet

  1. ‘There is so much evidence out there'(?)

    Ok then what is it?

    Oh! I forgot your evidence is based on supposition not observable fact. And you have seen my evidence but choose not to believe it because my evidence proves that CO2 does not drive climate and you want it to.

    There will never be any meeting of minds over this issue.

  2. Let me condense Glover’s argument: “Some one should make all of those nasty deniers shut up.”

  3. Apologies to all,
    having to yet again read such muck..
    Isn’t it odd?
    for decades we have had the Mainstream proAGW shoved down our throats and it’s ramped up dramatically lately, in Aus ABC is in full collusion mode.
    yet dare we show sound and in any way oppositional data, and the data IS shown and available.. how novel:-)
    then thats a crime…we
    re heretics to be burned at the stake of AGW
    oh
    that’d produce some carbon wouldnt it?
    a nice eco burial in a bio friendly coffin. to suit them.
    10;10 all over again.

  4. One day they might apply the term “climate-change deniers” to the correct people.
    Personally I think the climate is changing now, has changed in the past (both recent and distant) and will change in the future. CAGW proponents on the other hand…..

  5. Am I the only person who feels like they are in a 1950s ‘B’ movie?

    It seems that almost every day someone comes out with another loony idea.

    The warmist ‘science’ has been totally discredited and their fraud can easily be explained yet they don’t give up.

  6. their bums defiantly aquiver as they fart their toxic message to the world

    Reading this garbage gives me indigestion. Where can I send a sealed bag of my “defiant message”.

  7. He’s right. From now on, I’m just going to use the internet for porn like it was originally intended!

  8. Hard to imagine that people get paid to spew such dimwitted nonsense.

    FTA: But at the barbecue there was always one person willing to put a contrary view, to say: ”There’s another side.”

    And, the difference with respect to the Internet is what exactly then Richard?

    The newspapers are losing control of the fountain of information, and the journos don’t like it. Their columns and opinions are no longer read by millions and devoured without thought. The ability to cross-check facts and references now occurs at light speed. In years past, letters to the editor may or may not have been published, but when so, that would have been the end of the conversation. A contrary opinion to last week’s column, might be published and that would be the end of it.

    Now the conversation can occur in real time, and journos are no longer the gatekeepers.

  9. I have a question.. If Richard Goofball Glover is so worried that the internet is destroying the planet then why in hell is he using the Internet?

    Doesn’t he care about mothership Earth???

  10. No doubt due to his desire to save the planet by denying everybody the right of reply, the comments on his article have been helpfully turned off.

  11. “The net allows the climate-change deniers to bleat about the scientists and whine about a price on carbon without fear of ever hearing a different voice”

    If these warmists were so smart, why don’t they to learn to use the internet properly, engage in the conversation via open comment threads, instead of bleating and whining their propaganda without allowing communication.

    Logic Fail.

  12. He played his card at the very beginning. … a slam at “George W Bush” !!!

    I hang out on a political blog, and the perspective is indicative of a left wing nutjob. There’s no thought whatsoever, just emotional ranting that is based in opinion, usually on topics that don’t even involve Climate.

    It never occurred to him .. that at the barbeques of the Alarmists .. they ban that “one person” who may interject that there is another side to the story. What a joke.

  13. I thought we were the people at the barbeque putting up the contrary view,saying “There’s another side.”

  14. Al never imagined the creation of the internet would lead to the collapse of his CAGW theory!
    Oh the Irony!

  15. The Monument to Climate Change Denial is the “hockey stick”, which denies the existence of two historical events: the Medieval Warm Period; and, the Little Ice Age.
    Its construction also required hiding two declines which Kieth Briffa found inconvenient, using “Mike’s Nature Trick”.

    “If liberals/progressives accuse the other side of doing something, you can be sure that something is precisely what the liberals/progressives are doing.”, Rush Limbaugh (In this case, denying the existence of historical events.)

  16. Please tell me it’s a late April fools joke and not some Joker making a fool of himself in April.

  17. “How can they be so confident, in the face of so much evidence to the contrary?”

    Exactly!
    Why is that? Do some thorough research and find the answer to that question.

  18. Puritan:”One who goes to bed at night with the gnawing fear that somewhere,
    someone is happy.” -H.L. Menken.
    This Klown is a Puritan in the worst sense. To illustrate this religious belief in the fires of AGW I present the “Quiverers”:

  19. Warmists: “Give us absolute power over every aspect of your life or The Planet is doomed! And stone the unfaithful monkeys!”

    Any resemblance between these guys and, say, Communists or Islamofascists is purely in the sick minds of the deniers. Of course.

  20. All we’re saying about the CO2 hypothesis of Man made climate change is ‘evidence, not supposition’ please.

    What’s so wrong about that?

    Unless of course the CAGW proponents ‘proofs’ aren’t really proof.

    Tell me, how many alarmist predictions have come true so far? Thought not.

  21. The internet that uses about 1% of our energy..if you consider the energy needed to cool server farms…and that same energy used to power and cool computing clusters for climate research and archiving the data (which would be nice if they actually did)?

    Anyone familiar with the famous documentary produced by Three Dead Trolls in a Baggie (note that they didn’t get an Oscar!!) on The Internet is for Porn knows that the internet is here to stay. It’s a permanent fixture.

    If climate is a real concern, then ironically, it’s the falsified and improperly adjusted climate data that should be dumped to reduce unnecessary energy consumption.

  22. I thought his opening sentence was appropriate, “Idiots used to be corralled in places called pubs, in which they could bore each other with their crazy opinions while drinking themselves into alcoholic dementia but now — suddenly — they are everywhere.” However, probably not in the way he intended it. I mean, who let him out of the corral?

  23. I have sent him an email asking him what evidence he is on about because I know of none apart from output from computer models which have never yet been correct in their predictions. I also said that I found it strange because the people he labels climate change deniers actually do believe that the climate does change, completely naturally, and most of us ‘deniers’ believe that world temps have been slowly and steadily rising since the end of the little ice age about 200 year ago. We just don’t think that man’s influence in this has been very significant, that’s all.

  24. There’s a real intellectual challenge here. A lot of media folk are poor at science. How does someone who is poor at science write about contentious scientific issues? If you’re ignorant, the logical thing to do is seek the best experts there are and construct arguments that appeal to their authority. When you’re in a position of ignorance on scientific matters, what else can you do?

    The next problem is to decide who those best experts are. Clearly if one is a scientific ignoramus, this decision cannot be made on scientific grounds. One cannot evaluate the arguments of competing experts. The logical thing to do is select the ones with the best branding. Nobel prizes, IPCC stamps of authority, being a genuine ‘climate’ scientist (as opposed to a pesky physicist or geologist or meteorologist or statistician) – that’s the ticket.

    The final stage of solving this problem is to parrot the arguments of the experts you have identified as being the Ones. And attack anyone who disagrees with them. Of course anyone who disagrees with them must be wrong. The Glovers of the World lethally believe that though they are scientifically ignorant, they are smart – smarter than deniers – and cannot have made a mistake about their choice of experts. And once they’ve committed to a position, any U-turn makes them look stupid – there is no way that will happen.

    There will be a lot of rage as this scam unravels – it will be the rage of the dummies, realising they’ve been had, and they’re not as smart as they thought they were. This will be fun

  25. Almost every alarmist site deletes and or censors any contrary views. They effectively prevent what this guy is banging on about: freedom of communication.

    I’m not making it up. I’m not being paranoid. That is what happens all over. It is the most telling argument against the alarmists I have ever come across. It is thoroughly convincing. If you need to gag the opposition, you are losing, fair and square.

  26. Glover’s moaning about the Internet is a case of shooting the messenger that brings the (for him) bad news. Even without the Internet the warmist position would eventually have been seen for what it is. The Internet just helped get the truth out sooner.

  27. Could be paraphrased as:
    “The Internet is bad because it lets people I don’t like say things I don’t like!”

    Welcome to the real world, chum.

  28. People who drink booze and meet in taverns should not be allowed on the internet because they will destroy the world.
    Think of where we would be if the scribes in the ancient world had been cut off from pen and ink, if the printing press had been destroyed and forbidden to use, if the typewriter with carbon paper that allowed the growth of industry through affordable and quick record keeping had been forbidden and now the internet with all its benefits is looked at as the fall of all of mankind by this person who lacking an argument would silence opposition by outlawing this great tool. And on top of all that if all booze had been outlawed.

    Enforcing his logic back to the Stone Age he would not have a job but I am sure he was only talking about censorship to save the world, not loss of his job. Or is he, the internet thrives on profit not censorship and censorship will kill off profit and the internet as a benefit to mankind.

  29. “It’s the internet, of course, and the way it has given climate-change deniers the perfect forum — one in which groups of quite dim people can swap spurious information, reassuring each other there’s no evidence on the other side, right up to the point they’ve derailed all efforts to save the planet. Call it ”mutually reassured destruction”.”

    Thats a hell of an observation, I’m educated to Msc level and I’m often left feeling like an intellectual pygmy compared to some of the contributors here.

  30. Ed Reid

    Absolutely right!

    Without the “Medieval Warm Period”, it was not possible with the Norse settlements in Greenland …

    Without the “Little Ice Age”, the south of Sweden would still be Danish territory. (Without the ice, no “March across the Belts 1658” for Karl X Gustav, king of Sweden 1654-1660.)

  31. Glover is right about one thing, but he’s too dumb to realize what would happen if he got his wish.

    The net does make it too easy for each side to talk exclusively to its own friends, without ever having to face down an opponent personally.

    This whole dispute would end quickly if a formal and public face-to-face debate ever happened. Eschenbach vs Glover would be a good pairing. Eschenbach vs anybody would be a good pairing.

    The debate must be FORMAL. The moderator must be ready to instantly stop any ad hominem nonsense or eye-rolling sighs, and the live audience must be important people who are REQUIRED to pay attention. For example, a debate held in Congress, with each politician required to take a pop quiz afterward. Anyone who can’t list the basic arguments presented by each side will be disqualified from voting on any climate-related laws.

  32. Yes, this is truly rich nonsense and it deserves a laugh.

    On the other hand, an article nearly as nonsensical was shocased here the other day, arguing that the real enemy of humanity (by way of CO2) is the “hysterical” reluctance of society to surrender to the beauty of nuclear power, which, if it had been allowed to proliferate freely without opposition, as it should have been, and with an even more lavish public subsidization of its liabilities (since no insurance company on the planet will insure a nuclear plant) — it would have saved us from all that horrible warming created by our CO2 production. Yet that article was presented as serious, no warnings about its nonsense, and it even received the approving nod of some of the wisest minds around here.

  33. There’s this old saying, something about the more buttons in the front that are left undone, the lower the IQ…seems to suite this little brainy-yak.
    After skimming that sad site all I can see is a feeble mind, followed up with a strongly embedded weak character.

    He bemoans free speech by mealy mouthing those that truly support it – oh gosh, paint me surprised.

    These people have no shame that they have no merit.

  34. May I suggest that despite polls favorable to realism in climate, politicians and the businesses behind the green movement are forging ahead. In Australia the move is obvious. In Canada the move is subversive and covert, through astroturfed associations pretending to represent citizens and lobbying municipal governments to pass restrictive bylaws, through utility companies funding these astroturfed associations, promoting the WWF agenda at taxpayer expense, through lawyers linked to some Foundation established by a CBC broadcaster and the public relation firm from its Chairman who benefitted from a contract with the power utilities to promote the WWF agenda attacking retired scientists who know too much about the Canadian scene…
    Freedom of information, of thought is under attack and it has nothing to do with science anymore.

  35. Pretty cowardly of him to post such attacks, and not accept comments. He’d probably censor anything he didn’t like anyway.

    Of course, I always ask the alarmists who use the web, why they are still using modern conveniences if they really think we’re undergoing a CO2 catastrophe. They usually come back with “I take mass transit and use curly bulbs” as if their job is now done and they can then go on disparaging people who are trying to make the science open and transparent.

  36. Continuing with the B-movie theme, the warmists are rather like the characters who have been taken over by alien spores, or mind-washed by some mysterious cult, and the truth is firmly in the hands of the rational members of the community who have yet to become infected. But as in the movies, those who still resist the onslaught of the possessed have a hard time convincing politicians and the media.

    But shock horror – the political class and the media have also been infiltrated!

    Where’s little Jimmy and his friendly astronomer to help save the day.

  37. The reason we are more and more sceptical is due to the performance of the AGW crowd thus far. As prof Bob Carter say’s….”Science is not about consensus it is about testing a hypothesis”.
    So let us test a few and look at some of the many AGW theories that have failed the test.
    Hansen – Manhattan Island will be under 10 ft of water by 2010 – failed the test.
    CO2 increases after war but temp falls – failed the test.
    CO2 increases through the 90’s and into the new millenium but temps then flatten and start to fall back – failed the test.
    Snow will be a rare occurence – loads of it and many records broken – fails the test.
    Mid Troposphere should warm up due to AGW – no evidence – fails the test.
    And much more.

    If AGW has lost it’s way it is not our fault – the current hysteria reflects that the truth is dawning and that the whole nonsense is falling apart. With it will go reputations, careers, funding, green religion, global governement, global taxes and the very real threat of court action, fines, jail sentences and the re-payemnt of taxes.
    The one good thing about the EU is the European Court of Human Rights.
    As and when AGW finally falls apart the litigation will be enormous.

    Our Australian cousins are witnessing the truth dawning…..it appears that on a recent ABC late night programme the AGW presenter and guests were completely, totally and utterly put to the sword by a more rational scientist and afterwards the presenter concerned well and truly thew his toys out of the pram.
    It’s called stress!!!!

  38. “They don’t just bury their heads in the sand, they fiercely drive their own heads energetically into the nearest beachfront, their bums defiantly aquiver as they fart their toxic message to the world. How can they be so confident, in the face of so much evidence to the contrary?”

    Everyday this year has seen above average NH snow cover. Tropical cyclone activity at 33 year low. Rate of sea level rise is not accelerating. Arctic ice has not gone into a death spiral since 2007. The biosphere is greening. Natural disasters are not on the rise, boreal forest fires have been declining. Global malaria has been declining and so on…………………………………..

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/trend

  39. By the way the internet (invented by Gore) helps weaken propaganda and allows people come to their own conclusions. Without the internet this scam would go on and on.

  40. What? IPCC models do not drive Nature? Breathe easily. Carbon Dioxide, which you exhale, is not a pollutant in spite of that designation by the Supreme Scientists of the United States in the Massachusetts v. EPA decision.

    Dr. Courtillot unashamedly uses the Sun as a global warming/climate change/climate chaos/climate whatever scape-goat.
    —————————————————————————————Prof. Dr. Vincent Courtillot Präsentation

  41. Anthony said: Personally, I’ve always thought that the key to an advanced and open society was freedom of information.

    I’ve always said that truth will set the world free, so we obviously agree! The fastest way to true enlightenment is for cheap energy, and cheap access to information. This is nothing new, and civilizations have advanced quickly with each new technology, all driven by available energy.

    One problem: This logic assumes we all live with the attitude “Live and let live” and/or “Live free or die.”

    Unfortunately, we still have people with a strong thirst for power over others. We still have people who think it’s OK to vote for leaders that will promise to control others, whilst they look away. We have people who think it’s OK to force the wealthy to share their wealth. We have people who think “equal outcome” is equivalent to equal opportunity.”

    I know this blog is a “science blog,” and it focuses on Climate, Weather and Geology, but the bottom line is that all of it comes down to power and control. The warmist side is trying to use science to support its controlling agenda, and the skeptic side is trying to show that the science isn’t even science!

    I have not seen one person who was moved from “skeptic” to “warmist,” but I’ve heard of dozens the other way around. That comes from individual thinking, and ease of information flow. It’s easier than ever for a person to find all of the information, good and bad, and make their down decision. If there’s not enough info to make a decision, yet people still “choose sides,” then we’ve moved from science into religion. “I feel this way” vs “I know it to be this way.”

  42. Most of us aren’t all that sure of ourselves at all. Most of us are fairly sure of our facts though. (we have to be, because if we aren’t the alarmists will say that we are idiots). What we say is “where in those facts do you see the direr consequences you claim for 100 years from now”.
    It’s the alarmists who are so sure of themselves they are they ones who say “we must make drastic changes now because of what the climate will be 100 years from now”. We are the ones who say “how can you be so sure about the climate 100 years from now”.

  43. Well, good thing the internet is equipped with filters, like mouses and keybads, which enable people like us to avoid dangerous web sites such as Richard Glover’s editorials. Who knows what could happen if we were forced to read any more of this garbage.

  44. That guy really lost it. The warmists show nerves. That means they feel that they’re losing.

  45. D. Holliday says:
    April 3, 2011 at 7:40 am
    “I thought his opening sentence was appropriate, “Idiots used to be corralled in places called pubs, in which they could bore each other with their crazy opinions while drinking themselves into alcoholic dementia but now — suddenly — they are everywhere.””

    Even funnier, all the guys and gals i meet in the pub once in a fortnight are always quite surprised by my complete dismissal of the CO2 AGW hypothesis – they are AGW believers because that’s what the telly tells them.

  46. If the evidence is so obviously clear, why not let that speak for itself? Is not science supposed to be rational and not emotional? Instead of saying “you are wrong, you idiot”, why not say “let me show you the evidence”?

    How is this rant, or any other rant decrying the freedom of opinion on the internet, not like what China is doing. I’m sure Richard Glover envies the “great firewall of China”, and the Soviet propaganda machine, and Joseph Goebbels.

    “Whoever controls the media, controls the mind.” – Jim Morrison

  47. The web is a threat to the consensus of the great and good. Don’t underate his comments. To these people, freedom of speech means you are free to say anything as long as you conform. The assault on the web began some time ago with certain regimes attempting to control access and usage. Freedom has to be fought for every day. The Fascists are always there trying to control you.

  48. “Listen up, “deniers”! Your Internet use is destroying the planet.”

    lol

    “Personally, I’ve always thought that the key to an advanced and open society was freedom of information.”

    Apparently, only if such information leads one to the “right” conclusion. If not, freedom of information is bad, very bad.

  49. Shouldn’t that end with sarcasm off? It must be a joke. The opening paragraph is very funny; the Internet may bring about the death of human civilisation beating out previous contenders such as nuclear holocaust and the election of George W. Bush.

  50. groweg says:
    April 3, 2011 at 7:59 am

    …….Even without the Internet the warmist position would eventually have been seen for what it is. The Internet just helped get the truth out sooner.

    They seem to think that it’s the sceptics that are ruining their grand scam. The truth is that they are ruining it for themselves. The weather has also played its part. And you are right – the truth has to emerge sooner or later. Sooner is better so as to avoid the damage.

    Increased Knowledge About Global Warming Leads To Apathy, Study Shows

    Doomsday Messages About Global Warming Can Backfire, Study Shows

  51. Stop Common Purpose says:
    April 3, 2011 at 6:48 am
    “Am I the only person who feels like they are in a 1950s ‘B’ movie?”

    No. It’s called Attack Of The 150m Wind Turbines.

  52. I guess it’s all for the best. I don’t think that I want to live in his world , where you can only speak to agree with him, anyway. Or perhaps he would like to jettison himself to another planet and live by himself where there won’t be anyone around to disagree.

  53. Tyrants and Natural Climate Change deniers want to control or shutdown the internet.

  54. If AGW is not observable, then it must be because of the presence of dark heating and dark CO2.

  55. “It’s increasingly apparent that the internet may bring about the death of human civilisation, beating out previous contenders such as nuclear holocaust and the election of George W. Bush.”

    It’s O.K Richard….come back inside now.

    http://tinyurl.com/27d4o35

  56. He’s right! We should tear ourselves away from surfing the intertubes, and take some time to visit our local pub or host a barbecue. Or, at least I think that’s what Rick’s rambling article is telling us.
    /sarc

  57. “They” are indeed destroying “the planet,” obviously since “everyone” (everyone scientific, anyway, meaning agreeing with the alarmists) says so.

    Catch is, “the planet” is an imaginary one in which humans and other life forms are not carbon-based. Here on Earth, carbon is the essence of life, its chemistry is called “organic chemistry,” and carbon dioxide leads to a flourishing of life–and not only of plants, and thus food for animals. On planet Earth, animals require carbon dioxide for their own metabolisms and wild creatures seek out nests in which carbon dioxide can build up to many times ambient. The longest-lived creatures are the ones which succeed best.

  58. This is an excellent example of religious faith in CAGW connected to far left wing political views. Notice the implicit sexual references to the bare buttocks and bodily functions. In this case Mr. Glover may also be frustrated over other hot button political issues in the US like same sex marriage and the “argument” for CAWG gets commingled into a confused and messy overall political view point. He obviously doesn’t like George Bush, does not like the free exchange of scientific thought and has a deep belief in CAWG. How he can have confidence in what he believes to be true about CAWG is a mystery to me if he is just going to take “accepted wisdom” as fact. If Copernicus and Galileo had accepted the conventional wisdom of their day then I guess we would be better of in Glovers opinion?

    These folks are a very real threat to advancement of scientific understanding and quality of life issues in my opinion. One way to keep these poor souls relegated to the back waters of political and social thought is to engage young people in the schools. Young students need to be told that science does not take political or social issues into account. Science is uninterested in what so called authorities say is true. Science is a method for thinking of ideas, testing and documenting them and then sharing them freely. Science is a discipline that uses math as a main tool for looking at questions through numbers. Any science education that has been commingled with political, social or environmental opinion is tainted and does a disservice to students. If we do a good job of introducing the true nature of science and the scientific method to young people then I’m confident misinformation from people like Glover will not be taken seriously in main stream thought.

  59. Well it is true I guess that, with the internet, all the terrorist extremists around the world can now find each other and reinforce their own closed little mindsets.

    The argument though is that on average, a free medium tends to be a net positive for the world. More people can become better educated in most any topic they take an interest in.

    Sure the wackos that want to believe nutty things can isolate themselves more. But if you’re open minded and interested in learning, then the internet is just fabulous.

    Looking round here most everyone seems pretty open minded and rational. If greens disagree with views expressed here, they can’t really blame it on a closed mindset. They’ll have to argue over data, reasoning, and assumptions.

    Look, here’s a link, just click it and have a look around.

    http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/

  60. Every Member of The Union(s) of Journalists/Broadcasters has been shown The Ultimate Truth:

    Their Pensions will only Pay Out if Total Fear of Carbon overcomes reason.

    (add gratuitous exclamation points here)

    The fourth estate was the first to be infiltrated/infested.

  61. I think the article writer is having a little FUN with us! I think this is sarcasm directed towards the AWG folks AND their condescending attitudes.

    This is the old “double play” on words.

    Becareful about being a “literalist” on this.

    Max

  62. sunderland steve says:
    April 3, 2011 at 8:14 am

    Thats a hell of an observation, I’m educated to Msc level and I’m often left feeling like an intellectual pygmy compared to some of the contributors here.

    Me too. PhD in one of the pesky sciences (geology).

    I also agree with Polistra’s observation that a formal debate while forbidding ad hominem “could” be constructive…

  63. I thought it was the liberals that said the internet would be the best thing since white bread….

    …now it’s the liberals calling for censorship

    Imagine that….

  64. I guess free speech is easier to accept when you and the people who think like you are the only ones that are allowed to speak.

  65. This is the sort of factless, evangelical rant that proves that AGW is the new left wing religion.

  66. John F. Hultquist says:
    April 3, 2011 at 9:21 am
    “. . . quite dim people . . .”

    The wonderful art of public put-downs isn’t what it was.

    http://www.quotes.ubr.com/subject-quotes/p/put-downs.aspx

    http://bertc.com/subfour/truth/putdowns.htm

    ———————————————————-
    Thanks for those excellent links.

    My favorite:

    “They never open their mouths without subtracting from the sum of human knowledge.”

    -Thomas Brackett Reed

  67. Glover says “The agents of this planetary death will be the climate-change deniers who, it’s now clear, owe much of their existence to the internet. Would the climate-change deniers be this sure of themselves without the internet?”
    ——————————————————————

    Well, I suppose as a clapped out writer hack, he has got some reason to be concerned that people now use the internet to communicate. They can by-pass his drivel in droves and leave him without an audience. Wind bags like Glover need oxygen from the MSM to survive. All he is getting now is the co2.

    Douglas

  68. Yes indeed! “The agents of this planetary death will be the climate-change deniers…”

    Rats get so nasty when they’re cornered.

  69. If the Article is genuine Richard Glover should be the first give up his freedom to use the Internet for giving his opinion on what ever hell he’s rattling on about.

    Richard Glover should note that years before “Blogs” even before web-browsers & Google, the majority of Internet users back then would use the Internet as a forum to discuss scientific issues or any other topic of the day for that matter, without ever reading a useless piece of illiterate BS like the article I’ve just read at:

    “smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/why-the-internet-will-destroy-the-planet”

    Back when network tariffs and Computers were more expensive & less user friendly there was 99% less of Mr. Glover’s kind of vile propaganda. User friendly technology and the scent of financial gain has brought a new breed of traveling snake oil salesmen into town (be it a virtual one) peddling a wealth of magic tonics, tailored for the 21st century’s gullible.
    What Mr. Glover appears to be so afraid of and is witnessing happening in real time around the planet virtually through Internet is the 21st century’s version of the Towns folk rounding up the traveling snake oil con-men and running them out of town.

  70. Hmmm… thinking of Australia I am reminded of South Park’s warning about the danger of ‘gingers.’ In this case their ginger PM is a blatant liar and, given her rise to power in her own party, a real weasel. Or, as they say, a lying weasel. And it looks like her puppets like Glover are squealing on command.

  71. I think your mistaken here. Glover is a genius of sarcastic commentary. I love reading his columns.

    Regards

    Michael (who lives in NSW where he comes from)

  72. To Richard Glover.
    Why the Internet will destroy the planet

    Quite the contrary Richard the Internet will and has saved the world and us from the likes of you and every other socialist control freak, and it hurts like hell doesn’t it!

    I read your column with disgust. It smacks of gas chamber elitism, a scorn for all humans, the smiling face that hides the evil that is the FINAL SOLUTION. We Skeptic are more than an inconvenience to you, because we are well informed and knowledgeable and it just burns you up!

    We are not going to allow you or your kind to frog march us down the road to financial ruin, re-education camps, AGW fraud, Carbon tax, Cap and trade or any of the endless doom and gloom predictions you drone on about. You’re all about the party line and indoctrination about the dangers of CO2 in publications and Public broadcasting and print media.

    We will not allow you to filter, control or shutdown the Internet; It’s the one thing that gives all people a voice we have never had before puts us on a more level playing field. Your editorial is a disgrace to the humanity, but I welcome it, it shows your true colors to perfection, you’re words smack of Stalin’s and Hitler’s hate speech. You would be at home in George Orwell’s 1984. You could fit very well in a black leather coat as the commandant in the thought police or possible one of the goon squad members from the ministry of Truth (Truth as only you see it)

    You look with intellectual disdain on anybody disagrees with you, or has the intelligence, temerity or rigor to stand toe to toe with you. Or god help them, an average hard working Joe who likes a pint in a pub (The Idiots you called them). You are an intellectual midget as all big government lovers are. You see all people as trolls, pawns, sheeple or useful idiots to be manipulated. You are incapable of open discussion or debate of the facts or the science behind the earth’s history or climate science, or probably any other subject matter.

    It’s a shame you don’t have a comments section, people who understand the pen and real science are mightier than a DIM WITT low paid columnist like yourself, we would shred you with informed and fact based comments, A scary thought for you isn’t it.

    Below are some of the publications like-minded mental midgets like you have published as you can see there really isn’t a condenses at all:
    Below are just a few things caused by man-made Global Warming Climate Change Global Climate Disruption Excessive Climate Change Research Funding.
    Etc………

  73. Please – before any more indignant comments, go look at Richard Glover’s other essays: this is a VERY tongue-in-cheek guy…quite funny, too.

  74. Yes, if it was not for the internet anarchy and the ABC would reign.

    Richard’s Glover’s little innuendos and leftist views on his tax funded afternoon drive show would go uncontested;

    Fran Kelly’s daily climate change sermon would go unchallenged;

    Tony Jones line up of prophets of doom on Lateline would remain unopposed;

    The un-ending stories of creatures facing oblivion on ABC News would be undisputed.

    And we would live is peace and security as our windmills gently whir away at the top of the hill.

    Hey wait a minute Richard, what about the ABC Drum? Aren’t you putting the message out there? Richard, that IS the Internet. Richard, you are ON the internet.
    Oh I see, you cannot CONTROL the internet – oh, what a shame.

  75. Mr. Glover’s opening paragraph seems to be a projection of his current life experience.

    He feels that he is an idiot who corrals himself in a pub, bores others with his crazy opinions while drinking himself into alcoholic dementia and projects his personal habits to those around who disagree.

    “OMG, this is such crap” is a succinct description of his article, Why the internet will destroy the planet.

    This is the first contact with Mr. Glover’s writing, but I suspect that perhaps all of Mr. Glover’s writings have a scatological tinge. Not to worry. I have some Vigamox eye drops.

    Mr. Glover seems to include himself in the despotic group that believes their rights and privileges should be denied to others who disagree with the despotic view.

    Mr. Glover speaks of nuclear holocaust and the election of George W. Bush as maybe bringing about the death of human civilization but ignores the ongoing presidential disaster that the United States of America is currently experiencing. This seems to verify his membership in the despotic class.

    Mr. Glover complains about Twitter and YouTube.

    Mr. Glover, decline to use either as many do. It is often referred to as FREEDOM OF CHOICE, a grand ole American concept.

    All in all, Mr. Glover has nothing to say and says it very well.

  76. Yet another AGW true believer who, when push comes to shove, has no respect for human rights.
    CO2 obsession is apparently, for many, a serious moral disorder.

  77. Control the media and you control the people!

    So far the Internet is not controlled the democracy is working.

    My father and grandfather lived in a time of total control and a wrong word at a wrong place and you end up in prison or other place. Even they realized what was going on at some stage and that without Internet.

    AGW articles and argument give you very often hints that the argument is wrong and farfetched.

    The Internet is a voice to tell the other side of the story freely and does not require an underground activity.

  78. On great public put-downs – the classically educated English politicians of the 18th and 19th centuries are hard to beat…

    Benjamin Disraeli:
    The difference between a misfortune and a calamity is this: If Gladstone fell into the Thames, it would be a misfortune. But if someone dragged him out again, that would be a calamity.

    Supposedly Gladstone to Disraeli, actually between Montagu and Foote:
    John Montagu: “Foote, I have often wondered what catastrophe would bring you to your end; but I think, that you must either die of the pox, or the halter.”
    Samuel Foote: “My lord, that will depend upon one of two contingencies; — whether I embrace your lordship’s mistress, or your lordship’s principles.”

    I had always recalled the latter as “embrace your politics or your wife” – but on checking, Foote was not so unkind – the mistress, however, is apparently fair game.

  79. Freedom of information was always the dictator’s main enemy. The pen is mightier than the sword. At least they realize that internet is finally, for the first time in all human history, destroying a big of that nauseating corrupt pseudoscience that mainstream media and academia gave us in these democratic societies.

    IMHO WUWT is writing the book on how to destroy that pseudoscience, I have said that ad nauseam here

  80. Why go to such great length at trying to antagonizing the opposition by just being vulgar. Since there’s not even a hint of trying to write intelligently I think that he’s just frustrated.

    He should at least try and respect the clean slate intelligence of the ones he’s trying to antagonize by making them laugh at being antagonized. :p

  81. For those of you who think Glover is sarcastic, consider this little gem:

    “The agents of this planetary death will be the climate-change deniers who, it’s now clear, owe much of their existence to the internet. Would the climate-change deniers be this sure of themselves without the internet?”

    Sounds to me like he intends serious criticism. Where is the humor I am missing?

  82. Richard Glover is quoted as writing:

    “The net allows the climate-change deniers to bleat about the scientists and whine about a price on carbon without fear of ever hearing a different voice, right up to the point of planetary collapse. To reformulate T.S. Eliot: ”This is the way the world will end — not with a bang but a whinger.”

    Richard, sweety, you and all pro-AGW people have always been invited to post here and debate until you drop. None will. They cannot stand scrutiny for five minutes. In your case, you don’t have to try it; it just happened to you.

  83. To illustrate my previous point and – ooooooh, this is delicious irony – newspaper pulp is being turned into biofuels, ha ha ha. Fortunately, toilet paper’s keeping the sector afloat, so to speak:

    http://biofuelsdigest.com/bdigest/2011/02/18/pulp-non-fiction-biofuels-a-ray-of-sunshine-in-a-gloomy-season/

    A brief extract:

    “Packaging, modest growth. Writing paper, bad. Newsprint, awful. Direct mail, hanging on, “it will be the last thing to go”. Magazines, down. Catalogues, unspeakable. Directories, crumbling. The internet has just hammered the sector. Out of respect, we took our meeting notes by hand on notepaper they had provided, and kept our trusty iPad safely tucked away in a briefcase.

    Gesundheit!

    You know the sector’s in the toilet when the brightest sector in the current industry outlook is the demand for tissue paper, driven by the demographics of a rising world population.”

  84. I peeled a good few prawns for a Thai salad on Saturday.

    After reading this, I reckon that any one of the discarded heads could have provided Mr. Glover with a far better brain than he currently possesses.

    I am filled with regret for the profligate waste.

  85. Reading his other work, this Glover guy is hilarious and full of pooh-pooh on purpose.
    Anthony you should invite him to guess post as a raging AGWer. I think your readers would be in for a treat and the rag he writes for would probably get some better press.
    Seriously…
    It’s increasingly apparent that the internet may bring about the death of human civilisation, beating out previous contenders such as nuclear holocaust and the election of George W. Bush.
    For all those who got taken, isn’t George a Past President by now?

  86. The internet will destroy “print” papers like the SMH, Glover just got it the wrong way around. Haven’t stopped laughing !

  87. Michael I also live in NSW and perhaps you have a short memory. Glover was exposed on Media Watch for plaigarism. In his case he was actually plaigarising himself. There is a word for that.

  88. Looks like he tries to be funny through sarcasm, but without irony. I had to look that up – i always thought sarcasm always involves irony. Turns out it doesn’t have to.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm

    So, he really means it – but he thinks it’s funny if he uses extreme metaphors. What a dolt.

  89. So a bunch of dummies with Internet access can beat a bunch of PhD’s with massive funding? And it’s not because their science is bogus????

  90. It appears that some folks think it’s alright to discredit others intelligence so long as it’s couched in satire or irony. Only my friends are allowed that honor.

  91. Don E says:
    April 3, 2011 at 9:49 am
    “Shouldn’t that end with sarcasm off? It must be a joke.”

    Sorry, no; he’s got form. He’s in the category of people who argue that if you have problems with your brake pads you would consult a car mechanic. He doesn’t notice that the previous seven times you consulted the mechanic the brakes still didn’t work after they were “fixed”, that the cost kept escalating after each failure and it is now several times the value of the car. I think in that case he would seek a second opinion and perhaps not from a mechanic from the same franchise.

    Something very odd happens with cAGW. Some people who otherwise seems reasonably balanced (which I think Glover is in general) take the kind of extreme position he demonstrates in this article. Anyone know anything about the investment portfolio of the ABC and SMH pension funds? I listen to his radio program sometimes and he definitely doesn’t need to do this sort of stuff to maintain an audience. His idea of a big comitment is to go for a month without using shampoo to see if it really makes a difference.

    On the question of the confidence of skeptics it needs to be clarified what we are generally confident about. There is a hypothesis, cAGW, that human caused emission of CO2 is causing catastrophic global warming and that this calls for drastic action perhaps all the way to the dismantling of industrial civilisation.

    What most of us are confident about is that there is no serious evidence for this hypothesis. And we are also confident that drastic action should not be taken until there is some credible evidence. We are not confident that we can predict climate or weather years ahead. Just as we can be confidence that the mechanic hasn’t fixed the brakes when we find that they still don’t work, even while we are not confident that we could do the job ourselves.

    Articles like this one just support that confidence on the lack of credible evidence. Here is someone with the opportunity to put a serious argument in a widely read newspaper. He could set out the compelling reasons why he believes what he does and invite critical comment. But no, he doesn’t do that. Why not? Well, it’s clear to me he has no case. If this was just an isolated example of omission, it would not be of consequence. But the entire commentariat just repeats this type of article with slightly different analogies (mechanics, cancer specialists), or different ways of appealing to authority, different levels of abuse, different ways in which We’re All Gonna Die.

  92. Although I do not share his general alarmist viewpoint, I do note the generally light, entertaining, and non-serious tone of his commentry. While I can’t stand the herald, I shall continue to enjoy glover’s radio broadcasts.

  93. I was very disappointed when I read this article – I’m an admirer of Richard Glover because, until now, he has always appeared to remain fair and balanced and that’s rare on the ABC.

    In fact I was so upset by the article I sent him an email of complaint.

  94. Richard Glover is correct. The Goracle gave us both the internet and global warming, Like Cain and Able, one will kill the other.

  95. The pen is mightier than the sword.
    But the swordsman doesn’t fear the writer who is within reach of his sword. He fears only the writer who has the means to publish and to do so with impunity.
    The internet is mightier than the pen.
    As the swordsman fears the writer beyond the reach of his sword to suppress, so the writer fears the blogger who cannot be silenced.

    The pen is as obsolete as the sword. The writer, feeling power slipping from his grasp, lashes out at his foe the internet, in a gesture as futile as the swordsmen who tried to cling to power by imprisoning writers.

  96. Please – before any more indignant comments, go look at Richard Glover’s other essays: this is a VERY tongue-in-cheek guy…quite funny, too.
    ————————————————————————–
    Well, I read his full diatribe here in the SMH and all I can say is he must be short of ideas for things to write about. Nothing funny – just rather pathetic and sad. Still I guess he gets paid and that’s all that matters I spose.

    Douglas

  97. I do believe history is already beginning to repeat:

    “It is the absolute right of the State to supervise the formation of public opinion.”
    — Joseph Goebbels

    Isn’t that exactly what they want? Of course they assume that the State will only censor “climate deniers” and right-wing extremists. But it never ends there.

    “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
    — Joseph Goebbels

  98. Oh dear…he’s NOT kidding…? As sarcasm, that’s kind of amusing; if he’s serious – as it appears he is – that’s…well…really idiotic.

  99. “…they [climate-change deniers] fiercely drive their own heads energetically into the nearest beachfront, their bums defiantly aquiver as they fart their toxic message to the world…” a ranting Glover.

    That’s what is now laughingly called “quality journalism” at the SMH.

    No wonder Fairfax Media (the parent company) shares have dropped from over A$5 to just over A$1 in the last 4 years with an average return to shareholders of about -20% per annum.

  100. Keith G says: “…Turns out that he is a humorist: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Glover_%28radio_presenter%29”

    You may think he is, and Glover may think he is, but you’re both wrong. His diatribe is full of hate masquerading as humor.
    ****************************************************
    Jorge, I was just pointing out that Wikipedia says he is a humorist. He’s written several humor books (not that I’ve read them). Satire and humor are generally linked. And my beloved Wikipedia says this about the most famous satire, “A Modest Proposal” by Jonathan Swift.

    “Readers unacquainted with its reputation as a satirical work often do not immediately realize that Swift was not seriously proposing cannibalism and infanticide, nor would readers unfamiliar with the satires of Horace and Juvenal recognize that Swift’s essay follows the rules and structure of Latin satires.”

    Being unfamiliar with his work, I just assumed that Glover was not being serious. It just seemed too ridiculous to be anything other than a goof. His column was a series of over-the-top insults without mentioning facts. Quivering, toxic buttocks? Pubs extolled as examples of rational and even-sided discourse? Some have called what he wrote self-parody, it just struck me regular old parody. I glanced at a few of his columns, and he was advocating things like flogging school children and toughening up children’s immune systems by having them drink spoiling milk. He seems to say outlandish things just to incite others.

    If he doesn’t believe in AGW, then it is funny in a cruel way, like “Borat”. If he does believe in AGW and his column was in fact written to discredit those who hold a different opinion, then the man appears to be unhinged.

  101. “It’s increasingly apparent that the internet may bring about the death of human civilisation… The agents of this planetary death will be the climate-change deniers”

    The internet is just a tool of communication and information. If the overwhelming consensus of scientists and politicians cannot use the internet to effectively communicate their message and compete with a small minority of climate-change deniers, despite having “so much evidence to the contrary”, then something must be wrong with their message. Either that, or they are sorely lacking in communication skills. But even then, when the scientific process is open and transparent, the truth will eventually win out. Maybe that’s what these Gore disciples are afraid of.

  102. I’m still not sure if his sarcasm in in overdrive or not but in response to this:

    “The agents of this planetary death will be the climate-change deniers who, it’s now clear, owe much of their existence to the internet. ”

    I’m pretty sure I owe most of my existence to my mum and dad; the internet is only something I waste my life on.

    Regards

    Michael

  103. Keith G says:
    April 3, 2011 at 10:27 pm

    Keith, go read his other stuff. I spent an hour or so yesterday reading his other columns and on other topics he says things I can appreciate, empathize with, sympathize with and even agree with. Nothing deep, really… but AGW really does have him unhinged. He knows nothing and wants to know nothing…. connecting the dots is one day going to earn some journalist a pulitzer… but not this one…. and he’s no satirist.

  104. UPDATE: Some commenters have questioned whether Mr Glover isn’t simply writing a sarcastic piece. There’s two reasons why I don’t think so:

    I haven’t read a single comment thus far and I can immediately think of one reason why Anthony is still wrong: he has never listened to Richard Glover on radio.

    I used to listen to his afternoon programs on ABC quite often and he always began his show with a sarcastic comment about the day’s issues just like the one above.

    Richard Glover isn’t the kind of person that would be serious about what he said above. If anything, he is the kind of person that would be extremely skeptical about a looming climate doomsday, even if he believes in AGW.

    REPLY: Then his mistake is in thinking his writings don’t have a worldwide audience from which to take away his particular brand of satire. You can tell such things in voice usually. I use the satire tag in postings that I intend as such to avoid such confusion. SMH should do the same if that is the intent -Anthony

  105. “The 1970s were full of innovations that were meant to change the world forever but then retreated to the fringe, providing little more than a safe habitat for nutters.”

    The 2000`s were full of invocations that were meant to heat the world forever, but we returned to the frigid, providing no safe habitat for nutters.”

  106. Even more interesting… Former Australian Prime Minister the now Foriegn Minister Kevin Rudd, just stated that members of the cabinet were wanting the ETS to be scrapped completely last year during the period when he was removed as PM. This is on ABC’s Q & A show tonight. I wonder if he will stay a minister in the current cabinet now. Now of course the same people are wanting an ETS.

  107. Anyone who actually believed that the election of George W. Bush could bring on the end of civilization itself, isn’t to be taken seriously on any subject.

  108. Twitter grows because:

    1) People who work at desks always want a distraction.
    2) People who work in exciting jobs always want to show off how awesome they are.
    3) People who are famous always need another outlet for their narcissism.

    Not that twitter doesn’t have uses. Any form of communication will, given a long enough timeline, find or create a bubble of culture in which it must exist. Twitter has already found that, so it’s not going away. I don’t use it, but I can understand why some people might.

  109. MR Richard Glover is Funny!! He’s So Funny because he writes Articles full of what he actually believes to be true, the Irony is that he believes he writes funny articles.

    Oh the Irony!!

  110. Satire is the witty and wry reporting of actual events, and to become a successful satirist requires very considerable intelligence and talent; this person’s efforts come across as billious rants caused by either heartburn or a total lack of wit. Not funny, not accurate, not clever, not even intelligent. There is enough stupidity and ignorance in the world without encouraging the talentless to produce more. Mark? Fail.

  111. ‘But at the barbecue there was always one person willing to put a contrary view, to say: ”There’s another side.’

    He got it exactly right – except he was standing in front of a mirror…

  112. Christopher Hanley says:
    April 3, 2011 at 10:08 pm

    No wonder Fairfax Media (the parent company) shares have dropped from over A$5 to just over A$1 in the last 4 years with an average return to shareholders of about -20% per annum.

    This is mostly due to Craig’s List + the attractiveness of the Internet, not to a fall-off in the quality of newspapers.

  113. “This is mostly due to Craig’s List + the attractiveness of the Internet, not to a fall-off in the quality of newspapers.”

    What? Are you serious or did you forget your sarc tag?

  114. REPLY: Then his mistake is in thinking his writings don’t have a worldwide audience from which to take away his particular brand of satire. You can tell such things in voice usually. I use the satire tag in postings that I intend as such to avoid such confusion. SMH should do the same if that is the intent -Anthony

    Well, Anthony, you run a wonderful website that has a worldwide audience. Yet, whenever someone raises the issue of the US-centricness of WUWT, the first retort they get is something like “this is a website intended for an American audience”.

    Richard Glover writes for Sydney Morning Herald… part time. Sydney-siders know him in his day job as an ABC radio shock-jock. Like a Rush Limbough and Glenn Back, if you wish. Maybe he ought to have put ‘/sarc off’ at the end of his piece for the SMH, but how could he know people at the other end of the world would be reading him?

    Honestly, Anthony. This is just one time you have to concede that you got the humour wrong in good spirits>. It happens a lot on the web. Back at Bishop Hill, I took the issue with a fellow who claimed an Irish postman could predict how bad the winter was going to be. I felt like a fool the whole bloody month.

  115. I hear him of a day on the radio and it really isn’t clear that this article is satirical. I think probably not. Its timed to coincide with the Carbon Tax debate in Australia as is the current Climate Conference. There’s no way this guy would be a climate skeptic particularly working at the ABC.

    He also is anything but a ‘shock jock’ as one poster suggested. He is a run of the mill ABC presenter who has a ‘fun’ radio show with quizzes etc.

  116. …. but how could he know people at the other end of the world would be reading him?

    Perhaps when he actually clicked the ‘post’ button to publish his words on the internet, a medium that in itself is suppose to be all about ‘connecting us all’ in ‘global communications’. However I assumed as well, I thought that someone employed in the media business might grasp this concept, my bad I guess.

Comments are closed.