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: http://joannenova.com.au/2012/11/breaking-skeptics-are-like-paedophiles-drug-robyn-williams-abc-time-to-protest/
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.
http://www.abc.net.au/contact/complain.htm
UPDATE:
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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Not alone i seemingly demonising others – see this lead on the BBC News site:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20474120
“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?
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.
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.
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!
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).
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:
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/climate3a-who-denies3f/4381756
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.
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.
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