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/
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.”
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”.
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.
That guy really lost it. The warmists show nerves. That means they feel that they’re losing.
Seems a bit hysterical, doesn’t he?
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.
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
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.
“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.
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.
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“
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.
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.
Tyrants and Natural Climate Change deniers want to control or shutdown the internet.
Prof. Dr. Nir Shaviv Präsentation
If AGW is not observable, then it must be because of the presence of dark heating and dark CO2.
“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
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
“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.
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.
True Believers are such a PITA!
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/
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.
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
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…