UPDATE: The connection in Crownies to me is unmistakeable now, see update below.
Stranger than fiction shades of Ben Santer:
“Next time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat the crap out of him. Very tempted.” – Dr. Ben Santer in a Climategate email
I was aware of this TV show last week as a couple of alert readers brought it to my attention, but unfortunately I couldn’t comment on it for two reasons: 1) The draconian ABC (Australia) copyright policy prevents it from being viewed in the USA, so I couldn’t see the scene or get the dialog and 2) If I commented on it, people would say I was the only one who sees the comparison, and that it was self serving. Tim Blair of the Daily Telegraph solves both problems. He transcripts the dialog and writes:
Idealistic young lawyer: “He’s a lead author for the IPCC. He’s a climatologist who put together a global temperature reconstruction going back 12,000 years!”
Legal secretary: “So he’s a geek.”
Idealistic young lawyer: “He’s been on Four Corners.”
Legal secretary: “A huge geek.”
Idealistic young lawyer: “And on Oprah.”
Legal secretary: “Slightly cool. And the alleged assault?”
Idealistic young lawyer: “He punched a climate change sceptic, James Watt. Watt runs a blog, CO2 Fraud, a bunch of anti-science crap.”
Legal secretary: “Sounds like a fun day in court. You haven’t had a win yet, have you?”
Continue viewing to see the impressive physical differences between doddery old denier and punchy professor, who must be the only climatologist in history with a $250 haircut.
Former Greens candidate Clive Hamilton loved it:
At last, the ABC has broadcast a program that accurately reflects the debate over climate science.
Yep – cool guys versus jabbering idiots who deserve a beating!
The program in question is the episode of Crownies aired last Thursday night. In it, DPP solicitor Richard Stirling (played by Hamish Michael and one of Crownies’ real stars) reluctantly has to prosecute an eminent climate scientist who allegedly punched a climate denier in the face. The denier James Watt (played with disconcerting accuracy by Richard Healy) had been harassing Professor Tim Coghburn for years, turning up at every public event to demand answers to his inane questions lifted uncritically from some denialist website.
Hamilton didn’t watch very carefully. The Watt character – possibly a dig at Anthony Watts – runs his own site. And the climatologist is Steve Coburn, not Tim Coghburn. Clive can’t even get TV credits right.
When Watt, after disrupting a public lecture, followed Coghburn out of the venue haranguing, insulting and poking him in the chest, the scientist finally lost his rag and lashed out. Who hasn’t wanted to do that?
=========================================================
Read it all here at Tim Blair’s column
What is ironic is that when I gave public lectures in Australia, the only person who disrupted them was reef scientist turned activist Ove Hoegh-Guldberg.
Strangeness abounds. I’m not sure what to make of this. At least there is some comfort, according to my friends in Australia, the Crownies TV show appears to be tanking in the ratings. In a way though, the Watt character is an everyman, representing those who have doubts about the state of the science.
For anyone in Australia, here’s the episode, number thirteen.
Here’s the preview writeup.
=======================================================
UPDATE: I still can’t watch this show, but commenter “pwl” did, and adds some transcript. It seems unmistakeable now that I am the inspiration for the character:
From the show at about 15:20 into it.
“Was he aware that the modern temperature record was utterly corrupt? They put thermometers next to air conditioning units and on airport tarmacs.” – Fictional James Watts
“So you think a few thermometers at airports accounts for the late 20th century rise in recorded temperatures globally?” – Fake Idealistic young lawyer DPP solicitor Richard Stirling
“With El Nino thrown in, yes.” – Fictional James Watts
“And the rise in ocean temperatures, the receding glaciers, the earlier spring flowering, the earlier bird and animal migration, the collapse of arctic summer ice cover?” – Fake Idealistic young lawyer DPP solicitor Richard Stirling
“Was that in my police statement?” – Fictional James Watts
“Not really.” – Fake Idealistic young lawyer DPP solicitor Richard Stirling
“Oh, then why ask it?” – Fictional James Watts
“I’m demonstrating how upset professor may have been with your line of questioning. It goes to motive.” – Fake Idealistic young lawyer DPP solicitor Richard Stirling
“Hm.. right.” – Fictional James Watts
Oh, the professors book was being launched at the meeting where the fictional punch took place. The funny part is that the book is entitled “Boiling Frogs”.
Boiling Frogs aka Richard Stirling, fictional lawyer.
Steven Kopits says:
October 4, 2011 at 10:11 am
I have to admit to being shocked that an Australian program would appear to make a thinly-veiled attempt to suggest a physical attack on a known blogger. I don’t know what Australian standards are, but in the US I would imagine the producers would be in pretty hot water. I would expect ABC corporate to issue an apology/distancing letter from this sort of thing pretty quickly.
================
dont hold your breath waiting.
the ABC is govt funded.and though supposed to be fair and balanced.
roflmao!
the climate issue has really exposed just how biased and controlled by PTB they are, never realised How bad it was.
the upside is that you’ve obviously annoyed them:-)
and this is how they operate, SOP.
Tall Poppies. tend to be cut down.
just surprised they didnt have a go at Jo Nova at the same time. another episode I guess?
The ABC’s draconian copyright rules probably stem from the fact is has a profitable business distributing DVD’s of primarily BBC programs, but including its own programs here in Oz.
My local library is full of ABC published DVDs.
Anthony the ABC is despised here in Oz as a left leaning, global warming cheer squad. They cheered Gore’s mocko-docko and tore to pieces any one who dared to mention there might be another side to the story. They outsourced the production of “Crownies” but I am sure the brief to the producers would have included a direction to include some pro AGW and anti sceptic material. This is the sort of crap Australian taxpayers are getting in return for their hard earned money.
As to whether the reference to “James Watt” was meant to have a reference to the Scottish engineer, the fictional Watt says, “My ancestral namesake invented the steam engine, 1765”. (15:30 in the video)
It would have been more believable – and therefore funny – if the plot at least bore some semlance to reality.
My suggestion to ABC is to replace James Watts with “Phil” McAleer, a documentary movie maker, who dogs the footsteps of a certain Alex Gore, well known climate activist and former politician. He turns up at every meeting Gore is speaking at, and demands answers to “vexatious” questions like “how can the polar bears be threatened if their population is increasing?” After climbing on the stage and shoving Mr Gore away from the microphone whilst the body guards cower in terror, Mr Gore finally looses his rag and punches Mr McAleer in the face.
That at least would have some (albeit tenuous) connection with reality and therefore be engaging. The ABC version is about as entertaining – much less believable – as a story that had the Queen of England going on a drunken binge through the pubs of Kensington and finally getting arrested for throwing bricks through the windows of Harrods.
They say that the impersonation is the greatest flattery. Didn’t watch crownies (who does?) so I missed it. Didn’t make any impact in the (wild) west but that would be because were too busy saving the rest of the country from recession and thereby in the pockets of big mining and big oil. Still beggars shouldn’t be choosers should they Julia.
It is the greatest flattery Goldie. And I didn’t watch crownies too. That makes us two!
Forget the defamation – if you want to hit ABC where it hurts, write a letter saying that you demand your ‘likeness rights’ or ‘right of publicity’.
It is far easier to prove that your name, image, and so forth was clearly used without your permission than it is to try and prove libel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights#Australia
“It is far easier to prove that your name, image, and so forth was clearly used without your permission than it is to try and prove libel.”
Quite likely. In the UK some years ago, a telephone directory company called “118” used the image of two runners with long hair and drooping moustaches. They bore an uncanny resemblance to David Bedford. It was long before Bedford did in fact sue 118 for using his image without permission, and I believe he won. 118 still use the same image, so I guess they came to some sort of financial arrangement.
Action needs an Audience (Jimmy Eat World)
I’m hypnotized by rituals
now that I am on my own
Tranquilized like an animal
All because I lost control
Are you tuning in to our conversation
Oh yea you’ll get your chance
The bigger the brighter illuminated
Control the audience
The weight of the world has dragged you down
And took with it what you’ve earned
Communications lost to the radio
Burning all your bridges down
I may never be quite satisfied but that’s the only way I know
I am over come with sympathy for your pathetic soul
Breathe in the air while you still can
Take all that you have while you still can
Sleep all night while you still can
Breathe
Iana lawyer…
“The connection in Crownies to me is unmistakeable now”
That’s why a man who represents himself has a fool for a lawyer: it’s not how things appear to you
that matters, but how they appear to a reasonable man (and how they might appear to a Judge).
But given that,…
If the defamation is heard in England – and that’s a big “if”, then an English court will hear your complaint (it’s called “libel tourism” here). The defamation doesn’t have to heard by a lot of people. It’s enough that the show is visible in England (ie, it’s freely available on the internet –
which it appears to be http://www.abc.net.au/iview/?series=3266450#/series/3266450
four episodes are visible, but I’m on dialup – a broadbander needs to have a look (also Youtube))
and that it’s publicised in some way (eg., mentioned in the press – perhaps Facebook/Twitter is enough). (Something like this … http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/sydney-nsw/tv-burqa-plot-in-abc-tvs-new-drama-crownies-hits-raw-nerve/story-e6freuzi-1226093401176)
There are a few qualifying conditions;
you must be a “legal person” (as opposed to (say) a society) – which you are,
you must be famous (you must have fame before it can be diminished) – which you are.
English and Australian courts have a mutual enforcement of judgements agreement, so Australians are not out of reach of the English libel court.
English defamation law was designed to stop the press saying true-but-embarrassing things about the clergy and aristocracy – it’s brutal to defendants. (In theory, truth is a complete defence, but in practice defendants generally need something better than that.)
They’re rather close to being right in it, imo.