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.
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/
‘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.
Let me condense Glover’s argument: “Some one should make all of those nasty deniers shut up.”
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.
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…..
We simply must do something about that whole freedom of speech thing.
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.
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”.
He’s right. From now on, I’m just going to use the internet for porn like it was originally intended!
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.
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???
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.
“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.
Even Obama wants to control the internet………….
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.
I thought we were the people at the barbeque putting up the contrary view,saying “There’s another side.”
Erm, guys, check the publication date…
“Not with a bang but with a *whinger*??
Al never imagined the creation of the internet would lead to the collapse of his CAGW theory!
Oh the Irony!
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.)
Please tell me it’s a late April fools joke and not some Joker making a fool of himself in April.
“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.
Obama’s going to help, by shutting down data.gov and other government transparency sites. They’re claiming lack of money, but they probably mean they’re spending the money elsewhere.
http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/datagov_7_other_sites_to_shut_down_after_budgets_c.php
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”:
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.
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.