Climate Ugliness goes nuclear

From Jo Nova, just unbelievable. Of course Lewandowsky is involved too:

Skeptics equated to pedophiles — Robyn Williams ABC. Time to protest.

Hat tip to Graham Young editor of Online Opinion. Follow his twitter account.

These comments by Williams are far worse than what Alan Jones said in October that created a national storm.

News just in: This morning on the “science” show Robyn Williams equates skeptics to pedophiles, people pushing asbestos, and drug pushers.

Williams starts the show by framing republicans (and skeptics) as liars: “New Scientist complained about the “gross distortions” and “barefaced lying” politicians come out  with…” He’s goes on to make the most blatant, baseless, and outrageous insults by equating skeptics to people who promote pedophilia, asbestos and drugs.

Full story here:

One wonders how many alarmists will stand idly by while this goes on. One wonders if the University of Western Australia will have the integrity to censure Stephan Lewandowsky for his ugly remarks and for his outright lies cloaked under the approval of the University ethics department.

They have become the merchants of hate.


Graham Young writes in Paedophilia, climate science and the ABC

In today’s Science Show Robyn Williams smears climate change sceptics by comparing scepticism of the IPCC view that the world faces catastrophic climate change because of CO2 emissions with support for paedophilia, use of asbestos to treat asthma, and use of crack cocaine by teenagers.

Don’t believe me? Then listen to the broadcast.

“Punitive psychology” as it is called, was widely used in the Soviet Union to incarcerate dissidents in mental institutions. In modern Australia the walls of the prison are not brick or stone, but walls of censorship, confining the dissident to a limbo where no-one will report what they say for fear of being judged mentally deficient themselves.


newest oldest most voted
Notify of

Such comments are like comparing someone to Hitler. It diminishes the reality of evil. The social conscience becomes jaded and the reality of evil is lessened until the understanding that pedophilia is evil becomes meaningless.

M. Nichopolis

Wow. Such naked psychological projection, hatred and bitterness. Pity them, for they are in desperate need of help.


“One wonders if the University of Australia will have the integrity to censor ”
That should be University of Western Australia…


Williams stopped learning science when he joined the ABC 40 odd years ago.
He has gone downhill since then, rapidly in the last few years.
He is now just a propaganda journalist.

Jimmy Haigh

They are getting more and more desperate as times goes on and as they are being continuously being proven wrong.

James Allison

Excellent. They will appeal to a very small cadre of like minded extremists but alienate themselves even further from mainstream thinking. If Lewandowsky doesn’t complain about being associated with such nonsense he would have to be a real piece of work.


censor – should be ‘censure’?
REPLY: Yes voice recognition software issue – A

I was directly encountered with the following nonsense at the only other Internet site that I regularly contribute comments at, and I found it very upsetting to me because of the misrepresentation of the debate. This is why I fight.
“This is getting boring.
The debate over whether climate change is happening or not won’t be solved on C9, so discussing it here is pretty pointless.
For the record – other pointless discussions that won’t be solved here include:
* When will atheists realize they’re wrong and accept that Jesus drove a humvee?
* Is the US federal support for the communist agenda of evolution really just national pride by Obama, the Nigerian? And wouldn’t the US debt be lower if he stopped handing out our taxes in billion dollar hand-outs via emails through the Nigerian national bank?
* Why is so little scientific funding given to the study of whether earthquakes are caused by gay people?
* How come nobody’s noticed that all democrats have been hypnotised by communist illuminati-funded aliens who seek to rid us of our right to possess firearms to make their invasion plans easier?
* When will scientists stop using liberally biased things like facts and math to prove things, when it’s so obvious that gut-feelings are way better (I mean, gut feelings must beat math and facts at least 80% of the time I’d say)”

Lew Skannen

I tried to send a message from that page and it refuses. All fields are filled in but it refuses to send.
Nice problem solver for the ABC…


Agreed that U. Western Australia ought to act, but I think the word you want is “censure” rather than “censor” (both are from the same Latin root, but in English “censure” is about criticism or official reprimand while “censor” is about outright banning or prohibition — universities are not generally supposed to be in the censor-ship business even if they do lapse into it from political correctness):
cen·sure (snshr)
1. An expression of strong disapproval or harsh criticism.
2. An official rebuke, as by a legislature of one of its members.
tr.v. cen·sured, cen·sur·ing, cen·sures
1. To criticize severely; blame. See Synonyms at criticize.
2. To express official disapproval of:


Correction, James Allison. Lewandowsky IS a real piece of work.


At risk of repetition I noted at Jo Nova’s:
The thing to gun for here is the use of Prof L. to criticise those that misuse science for ideological reasons to justify their cause. The fact the Prof L. recently did exactly this with his publication on climate blogs (and demonstrated what a lightweight social scientist he is) should be what should be shoved up the science establishment in the ABC.


I’ve heard that you shouldn’t approach cornered animals.
So now what?

Probably the most vile thing I have ever seen.

I find this sort of thing very depressing. I think there is still a great deal to learn about climate change, and that the opinions of individuals matter very little if we fail to understand the processes that might…or might not…be causing changes. Slung mud can harden in the heat or slump in the cold rain…but are we getting better at prediction on that score?


“If Lewandowsky doesn’t complain about being associated with such nonsense he would have to be a real piece of work.’
Described to a tee, you caught his character in one sentence.!!


There must be an immense sense of frustration that nobody wants to buy their monkey woven shag carpet of delusion.


It’s totally disgusting what is going on in Australian academic institutions. All universities and colleges have code of ethics policies ESPECIALLY around verbally abusing/insulting people on “company time” using “company IT assets”. Written complaints appear to have little effect to stop it.

Nigel S

Science has always been at war with Warmism.

I love observing the infantile workings of the Warmist mindset in action. Although they are in the pay of Big Banks, big Energy and Big Government, they accuse us of being secretly funded by shady corporate interests. Likewise, when one of the high priests of their religion ‘Cardinal Mann’ is getting widespread notoriety as the ‘Jerry Sandusky of Climate Change’ because of his vindication by the same committee at Penn State that gave Jerry a clean bill of health…how do they respond? Simple. They try to smear skeptics with their own dirt.
On the subject of Robyn Williams, his Science Show is poorly named. The Magic Hour would be more appropriate!


As an Australian, I sent in my complaint. The ABC will do nothing, they are a BBC mini-me and do not tolerate dissension with the official policy.

Steve C

A message to Robyn Williams and his acolytes,
from me via one of my favourite musicians:
What’s the ugliest
part of your body?
What’s the ugliest
part of your body?
Some say your nose,
Some say your toes,
But I think it’s your mind,
I think it’s your mind …

(Frank Zappa, We’re Only In It For The Money, 1967)

Complaint also sent to ABC. We have a program here called Media Watch on teh ABC where they pillory media including their very own hosts for poor reporting and nonsense such as this should be nipped in teh bud. – Complaint also forwarded to them too.

Peter Miller

This is just another reason to label those who benefit from, and regurgitate the propaganda of, the Global Warming Industry as alarmists.
‘Huns’ might be a better word, as they were also involved in the mindless destruction of the western world’s economies.

Bob in Castlemaine

This is the same bloke who with a straight face professes to believe a 100 metre rise in sea level rise in the next century is a possibility:

Andrew Bolt: I ask you, Robyn, 100 metres in the next century…do you really think that?
Robyn Williams: It is possible, yes. The increase of melting that they’ve noticed in Greenland and the amount that we’ve seen from the western part of Antarctica, if those increases of three times the expected rate continue, it will be huge, but the question…
Andrew Bolt: I’m scared that you think that because the latest studies in Greenland suggest that little spurt of warming that you base some of this has stopped, and it just depresses me that someone like me, I come on…I haven’t said anything here that’s wild or anything, I get the grilling, but someone like Tim Flannery is treated like God and made Australian of the Year for saying the most absurd things that are laughed at, even by climatologists.
Robyn Williams: Well, as I say, what I’m more concerned about is how someone who is in journalism manages to deal with this vast amount of information. But one thing that does occur to me about those who are critics, given the urgency which seems likely to a reasonable person, is what if you’re wrong? What if they have not exaggerated? What if they’ve understated the problem that we face? How much do you think about that when you’re writing your critical material?
Andrew Bolt: I do think about that, and that’s exactly my argument; that we should weigh the risks but the risk of both sides. If you do something like close the coal industry, now that is a certain pain, but is it a certain gain? Far from certain there will be any gain at all. You could close Australia down today and you will not see a flicker in the temperature reading for the globe. So that’s what I’m really looking at. I’m begging for a return to reason. I’m not a climatologist but I do have a bull detector through being a journalist, and all I really do is counterpunch. When I see the most absurd claims being made I check it against the best evidence, including the IPCC, and I just ask. Don’t you think it’s scary when people can go around saying 100 metre seas without ever being held up to ridicule? I find we are in a sort of retreat from the enlightenment ideal and a retreat from reason. I find that rather scary.

Following Williams pedophile slime, we await with interest the Australian Communications and Media Authority’s response. It’s worthy of note that the ACMA recently chastised Alan Jones of Sydney radio 2GB, requiring him to undertake training on “factual accuracy and significant viewpoints”, to wit:

Jones’ offence was to make an arithmetic error on three occasions in 2010 and 2011 about the percentage of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which is produced by humans.
He said it was 0.001 per cent when the correct figure is 3 per cent. It was a stupid mistake, as he freely admits. He was castigated by Media Watch, corrected the error on air, and has provided the correct figure often since.
He made a mistake. His point remained valid, that carbon dioxide from natural sources makes up the vast majority and no carbon tax will curb it.

I hasten to add we won’t be holding our breath!


Not alone i seemingly demonising others – see this lead on the BBC News site:
“UKIP couple have foster children removed from care”
Now, the BBC isn’t my favourite oganisation of all time. And we have a particular problem in England [I think the whole UK] placing foster – or adopted – children.
But this – on the face – seems to be fairly bigoted, too.
What if I said that Labour members shouldn’t be able to foster – or vote – because of the things they actually did to the UK?

Doug UK

Whilst this is clearly very very ugly indeed.
It does underline the absolute paucity of the alarmists argument and the fact that many on the extremist side of Alarmism have lost their moral compass.
In fact you could ask, did they ever have one?


You guys are debating, they’re not.
You’re playing different games. And probably always will.
40 years and you still don’t get that they’re playing for control, regardless of the information?
This has always been about ‘war by other means” for them.
This is not even the worst of it. Just wait.


These are nazi practices. Dehumanization of alleged enemies of their agenda in order to make draconic measures against certain people look logical and inevitable, as if destroying vermin. A frightening development. Never forget the preview of their plans given in the 10:10 video.
The Green Khmer is what I call these extremists. The resemblance with the Red ones is incredible: anti-capitalistic, anti Western society, not accessible to reason, no respect for human life.

UK Sceptic

That pile of fetid dingos kidneys says more about them than it does about us. If that’s all they have left with which to answer their critics then they really have lost the plot.
Perhaps we should feel sorry for creatures so afflicted with hatred and frustrated ambition they have ceased to function as normal members of human society.


Also, BTW Anthony, it looks like the voice rec is working well *most* of the time, to the point where I forgot about it.


“He’s goes on to make the most blatant, baseless, and outrageous insults by equating skeptics to people who promote pedophilia”
Those are usually leftists – Roman Polanski apologists; European pirate party founders etc.
“, asbestos”
Promoting asbestos? Who does that? I guess asbestos salesmen, right? Are there still any?
” and drugs.”
Again, those are usually leftists (calling for a stop to the War On Drugs and Marijuana legalization).
So that seems to be the most arbitrary smear one can come up with. Anyway, when you get a lot of flak, you’re over the target.
Carry on.


A new Krystalnacht is in the works, and I don’t give a [self-snip] about godwin.

Man Bearpig

My complaint to ABC
Subject: References to Paedophilia in Science Program Your
Comments: Not only is this the most abhorrent and disgusting slur against any group of people whatever their scientific thoughts are. For this person to try to take advantage of what many children have to suffer in my opinion is the worse sort of propaganda that anyone could have thought of. What sort of people do you actually employ that seem to think that child abuse is a political weapon ? eh ?
So while children suffer at the hands of paedophiles this person is smirking and laughing about something he said knowing full well it would upset people.
So my bottom line is, this person is doing nothing more than using the genuine suffering of children for their own purposes. Shame on them, shame on all those involved.
In the UK we have a massive Paedophile case opening and I hope Robyn makes some jokes about that and has a good laugh about that too.
I will be making this known to international childrens’ charitiy organisations showing exactly what your reporters think about there suffering.
God, I am so angry about this.


u.k.(us) says:
November 23, 2012 at 10:59 pm
“I’ve heard that you shouldn’t approach cornered animals.
So now what?”
Carry on. In Germany, the warmist ftd, Financial Times Deutschland – a kind of wannabe economist, malthusian environmentalist bizarro paper – just called it quits. 350 people will have to find a productive job. Boo-ya!

Ian H

Every time the word “denier” is used it we are equated to holocaust deniers. Has repetition perhaps dulled the sheer offensiveness of this comparison?


His hardly the first to try and make this link , the Guardains own Monboit has in the past told how people how fly are equated to paedophiles , the fact that shortly after making this claim the fact he went on North American book selling tour , and so racked up the air miles, is just a side issue .
So we have been hear before were deep greens have had no issue with using such silly and insulting claims to deal with those with ‘incorrect ‘ views .


Robyn Williams is the guy who claimed that due to AGW we are facing 100 foot sea level rises over the next century.
He is the ABC’s most senior science reporter.
It is utterly shameful, but hardly surprising.


Well I complained very strongly and asked for a response, so it’s the gulags for me I suppose.


Unfortunately @Johanna, Robyn “You’re all paedos” Williams did NOT agree with Flannery’s claim that 100 foot sea level rises are a possibility.
It was 330 feet (100m).

Keith AB

What a dick. I am certain that most of the warmists must be dicks too if they don’t call Williams on this.

That’s an awful thing to say about anyone, typical smear attacks. It’s almost becoming a hate speech. I believe in free speech, no if’s or buts. I guarantee tho, he wouldn’t get away with saying something like that in my company. Well… Unless it was intended as a bit of funny banter.


They have posted a short bit about it on their site:
I’ve left them a comment but doubt it will be posted. Will not be surprised if not a single dissenting comment gets past their censuring censors.


Well they did warn you all you were in for some serious ‘Dirty Weather’, particularly after the climate had changed on them. Extreme or dirty it’s all the same to them now.

I think people who vent this way against contrarians and think of us as deniers of the plain facts, such as Gary Mount above, have been misled by the “global-warming deniers” equivocation that the alarmists use. I.e., that because:
A. The climate has warmed rapidly since 1980
B. Man’s CO2 emissions have risen rapidly since 1980
C. CO2 is a greenhouse gas
D. Sea levels have risen, and ice has melted, since 1980
E. 97% of scientists agree that those emissions have significantly raised the temperature
F. “Science” also projects continued warming as more CO2 is added by our emissions
It is therefore perverse, or denialistic, for us to argue that there’s no real threat from CO2. They’d be right if we did deny the above. But we don’t. What we deny are things like these. We Deny:
1. That there is no other good explanation than more CO2 for most of the temperature increase
2. That the insulating effect of additional CO2 is linearly additive
3. That the climate system incorporates positive feedback mechanisms that will catastrophically amplify the effect of additional CO2
4. That science has a good grasp of the known and unknown unknowns of the climate
5. That most climatologists are well-versed in the intricacies of the “attribution” (WG1) topic and the counter-arguments to the mainstream, IPCC’s reasoning
6. That the practitioners of climatology are objective and trustworthy
7. That the IPCC is objective and trustworthy
8. That the MSM’s environmental reporters are objective and trustworthy
9. That environmental organizations are objective and trustworthy
10. That the ordinary corrective mechanisms of science are in operation
11. That the contrarian case has been given a fair hearing
12. That projected impacts IF global warming occurs are evidence that global warming WILL occur
13. That renewables are, or soon will be, a cost-effective CO2 mitigation method
14. That renewables are “clean”
15. That CO2 is a pollutant, in the ordinary sense of the term
16. That we must move to renewables soon anyway
17. That poor countries will agree to, and abide by, significant limits on their CO2 emissions
18. That unilateral limitation of CO2 emissions by developed countries will have a significant effect on the rise in global temperatures and/or will inspire poor countries to follow in our footsteps.
19. That the public will long endure the cost of the mitigation measures warmists propose
20. That the economies of developed countries can afford the cost of renewables.
I dub this the Contrarians Credo. (We need a word for a negative credo.) I wrote it off the top of my head, so there are surely other equally significant things we deny. I urge Anthony to start a thread wherein WUWTers are invited to add to it, and modify it, to create a complete-enough Contrarians Credo of what we subscribe to. (A dirty two-dozen maybe.) It would make a handy quick-counterpoint we could copy and paste into many an online argument, or use in a slide in a PowerPoint presentation.

Fred Love

Johanna, you are slightly wrong. Williams famously asserted that sea level could rise by 100 metres in this century, just a few times more than 100 feet. The rest of your post is spot on.

Matt G

Robyn Williams and you wonder why the team are struggling with why people don’t believe their alarmist views when you come up with this rubbish. You sir are a disgrace to ABC and people like you only help the side of the skeptics. Typical with environmentalists or greens, attacking people while having serious science ignorance issues.


A dissenter from established religious dogma is a heretic, not a denier.

That was actually quite frightening, really. Everyone really ought to listen to that.

Four more:
21. That only crank or crooked scientists oppose the consensus. (For a rebuttal, look at the list of notable scientists opposing the consesnsu on Wikipedia.)
22. That contrarians are a catspaw for Big Oil and/or that there is a “well-organized, well-funded denial machine.”
23. That extreme weather is really such and/or that it is primarily due to warmer temperatures
24. That the data climatologists rely on is as reliable as they think