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.
By equating child abuse with scientific skepticism and freedom of expression the comments clearly have the effect of diminishing the seriousness of child abuse and the effect it has on victims. Do Lewandowsky and Williams really think that child abuse is simply something with which to abuse those they disagree with?
Child abuse is extremely serious as an issue on its own as the 28Gate BBC is finally having to accept after many years of ignoring child abuse carried out by one of it’s most prominent stars, the late J Saville.
I wonder whether such comments are related to feelings of guilt due to the CAGW activist video of exploding children and the recent Climate Reality experiment where a child sets dolls alight. It may also be a hysterical attempt at retaliation due to the Mann law suit concerning comments about Sandusky.
However before using such stupid comparisons against those who have every right in a free society to express their views, Williams and Lewandowsky should look closer to home:
“Western Australia has the highest rate of substantiated cases of child sexual abuse, well ahead of New South Wales which has the second highest rate at 11 per cent,” Ms Ellery said.
“In every other state and territory the rate of substantiated child sexual abuse is less than 10 per cent.
“The number of WA children falling victim to sexual abuse has risen from 253 in 2007-2008 to 298 this year.”
http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/western-australia/wa-has-worst-rate-of-child-abuse-report/story-e6frg13u-1225822209261
He that cannot justify his case without insult loses the argument.
I hope this gets prominence in the Sunday papers and The Australian etc etc ……..the best offence against these guys is to let people know what they are saying ……they are becoming more and more infantile as time goes on …..
I’m listening to that feature on ABC right now. Main point seems to be that ideology controls people’s choice of belief. Since the speaker’s brain is utterly destroyed by his own murderous genocidal ideology, he’s unable to see anything from an objective viewpoint.
But he’s perfectly correct in saying that ideology determines scientific belief. It’s a well-known fact that about 90% of all academics, in all fields, are hard-line blood-fetish Stalinists who love death above all else, and who wish to see the human species destroyed. So it shouldn’t be surprising that this 90% consensus of broad genocidal ideology among academics should be reflected among the “climatology” subspecies of academics, and this ideology shapes their “science”. In climate we have a choice between a theory that requires the death of all humans, versus a theory that sees humans as just another part of nature. These universal killers will of course pick the religious CO2 theory that requires genocide, and “deny” the factual observation of complex natural cycles, which implies that humans are nothing special.
Four more:
25. That outsiders can’t make informed criticisms of consensus climatology
26. That the hockey stick has been validated and Michael Mann exonerated
27. That the Climategate emails are insignificant and that their participants have been exonerated
28. That significant “acidification” of the oceans has or will occur and/or has been or will become harmful
Scarface says:
November 24, 2012 at 2:12 am
Don’t forget rewriting history
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/11/23/smoking-gun-that-ushcn-adjustments-are-fraudulent-2/
A CHALLENGE FOR ANTHONY WATTS, AND ALL HIS FANS!!!
===================================================
I’ve been tentatively planning to write a diary about the “Exxon-Mobil dog that DIDN’T bark”, and posting it at the progressive website, firedoglake.com (where I’ve posted extensively, also as metamars, often about climate science; as you can imagine, I’m often accused of working for Exxon Mobil, Koch brothers, etc. As in, just yesterday, by some fact-free smear merchant who attempted to hijack a diary of mine that had nothing to do with climate change.). However, it’s quite clear to me that, with Exxon-Mobil’s budget, they could EASILY fund an educational program – slick TV advertisements and all – educating the public about the climate science at odds with CO2 climate catastrophism. The fact that they do NOT do so, plus knowing about how the plutocratic class generally controls corporations via interlocking boards, plus other lines of reasoning and evidence that I don’t want to get into now, tells me that Exxon-Mobil is just fine with Carbon Taxes and Carbon Trading schemes. In fact, I expect them to get cut in, and profit, somehow, which is not implausible, given the Goldman Sachs angle in carbon taxation schemes. (Interlocking boards, though, implies that explicit quid pro quo is not necessary to act in a conspiratorial manner.)
I’m more of a populist and independent than a progressive. I don’t view our problems mostly about left vs. right, but rather top vs. bottom. I’m quite happy to read smart, so-called “extreme” lefties like Noam Chomsky, as well as smart, so-called “extreme” righties like Srdja Trifkovic at chroniclesmagazine.org.
Hence, I’m quite happy to see Tea Partiers gain political muscle, and wish progressive would get organized to make their desires have real political leverage. In particular, their desires that oppose plutocracy (which tend to be acceptable to populists.)
To that end, I’ve often suggested to progressives that they pamphlet schools (see here, and here, e.g.), which in suburbs – where so many of us live – are just about the only public gathering places there are, where public proselytizing is possible. (Main street has long since been eclipsed by privately owned shopping malls, who tend to suppress political activity, of all stripes.)
Well, I’ve been think about targeting conservatives with a diary or two about THEM pamphleting schools. In particular, on the subject of climate change science.
I HEREBY CHALLENGE WUWT, THE HEARTLAND INSTITUTE, THE TEA PARTIES, AND ANY OTHER CONSERVATIVE, LIBERTARIAN, OR SINGLE INTEREST GROUP TO ORGANIZE A NATIONAL PAMPHLETING OF SCHOOLS, SPREADING THE SCIENTIFIC TRUTHS ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE, INSTEAD OF CEDING NOT JUST THE SCHOOLS, BUT THE HOUSEHOLDS IN WHICH THE STUDENTS LIVE, TO THE ONE SIDED CO2 CLIMATE CATASTROPHIST CROWD. (OK, A FAIRER HEARING FOR REAL CLIMATE SCIENCE MAY BE HAD AT FOX NEWS, BUT THAT IS NOT GETTING THE JOB DONE – RIGHT?)
Computers and personal printers are ubiquitous, and most Americans are within either a short walk or short drive to their nearest high school and junior high school. Organizing a national school pamphleting effort basically involves creating a series of downloadable .pdf files, networking with activist and political groups (such as Tea Parties) to act in a coordinated fashion, and somehow divvying up the local schools between the grassroots pamphleters. If you could get Tea Parties to embrace this effort, many of them have already established relationships with neighboring Tea Parties, and have enough structure to them to pull this off.
ANTHONY WATTS:
YOU’VE SHOWN MARVELOUS LEADERSHIP, ON AN OBVIOUSLY LIMITED BUDGET, IN FIGHTING OFF THE CLIMATE CATASTROPHIST WOO. ALTHOUGH I HATE TO THROW EVEN MORE WORK ON YOUR SHOULDERS, THE SIMPLE FACT IS THAT YOU HAVE A PLATFORM THAT CAN REACH MILLIONS, AND MOST OF US DO NOT. SO, PLEASE CONSIDER TAKING A LEAD IN AT LEAST GETTING YOUR CONTACTS AND ALLIES TO BREAK THROUGH THE BOTTLENECK OF MAINSTREAM MEDIA AND THE SCHOOL SYSTEM.
DEAR ANTHONY AND FANS, HERE’S ANOTHER REASON FOR NOT TAKING THIS LYING DOWN: YOU DON’T KNOW HOW BAD THIS IS GOING TO GET. E.G., WILL ANTHONY BE SET UP, BY SOME KIND OF BLACK OP, TO BE ACCUSED OF BEING A PEDOPHILE? I PERSONALLY DON’T PUT SUCH LOW-LIFE TACTICS BEYOND THE SORTS OF PEOPLE THAT WANT TO FURTHER DEGRADE OUR NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY AND HAND IT OVER TO SOME BEAUREAUCRATS, WITH FABULOUS SUMS OF MONEY SLOSHING AROUND, ALL THE BETTER TO REWARD SOME JACKASS FOR DESTROYING A LEADER FOR TRUTH. (YES I KNOW THIS SOUNDS PARANOID. WELL, TOO BAD. TAKE THIS THEORETICAL ARGUMENT HOWEVER YOU LIKE – THE NEED TO EDUCATE THE PUBLIC ON REAL CLIMATE SCIENCE DOESN’T DEPEND ON IT.)
(Note: By “pamphlet schools”, I don’t mean an effort to enter the schools, where you generally have no business. Rather, I mean standing on the public sidewalk next to a school, and giving pamphlets to students and parents as they come by.)
[Reply – Not sure that Anthony will agree with your suggested tactic, much less take you up on it, but thank you for posting ~Mod]
Four more:
29. That our primary motivation is political (e.g., a knee-jerk rejection of governmental intrusion for the common good)
30. That our primary motivation is psychological (e.g., the consequences of warming are too scary to think about)
31. That we’re uninformed
32. That we won’t listen to reason
My disgust can only be expressed by saying [snip] [snip] [snip] [snip] [snip] [snip] [snip] [snip] [snip] [snip] [snip] [snip] [snip] [snip] [snip] [snip] [snip] [snip] ……..[snip] !
I listened to the broadcast, and was amazed at what I heard. The psychologist researcher advocating “argumentum ad populum” as the way to go.
Four more:
33. That the endorsement of the IPCC’s conclusions by many of the world’s scientific societies is as significant as it appears
34. That the motives of climate change activists are entirely unpolitical (in a broad sense)
35. That climatologists have no vested interest in alarmism
36. That contrarian criticisms of the consensus have been refuted
First they take your guns, then they take your money, then they take your right to dissent. That’s how freedom dies.
A tiger can’t change his stripes, a leopard can’t change his spots, and alarmist can’t change who he is either. It is not about science; it is about control. What bothers me the most is those who want to control us always exclude themselves from the rules they tell us to follow. If you are unwilling to live a certain way, don’t ask me to either.
But of course all the faithful still drive cars, heat their homes, use electricity, fly on jets, etc. They are the worst kind of hypocrites.
“One wonders how many alarmists will stand idly by while this goes on.”
I think I can help here, providing I can ask one question.
How many alarmists are there?
I have read through the comments, and no-one seems to realize what fantastically GOOD news this is. The warmaholics are getting REALLY desperate. On both the political and scientific fronts, everything has been, and still is, going wrong for them. I am sure on this forum I dont need to spell out the details. However, I do notice that this year, as opposed to the previous two, the Met. Office in the UK has not jumped the gun before the Doha meeting of the UNFCCC, in predicting the average global temperature for 2012. Maybe they have learned that these doom and gloom predictions have no basis in science.
I know it has been quoted many times, but I think Ghandi’s words are worthwhile repeating. They are as true today as they were when he spoke them. “First they ignore us; then they laugh at us; then they fight us; then we win”. This latest tirade is surely a sign that we skeptics are well on the road to victory.
u.k.(us) says:
November 23, 2012 at 10:59 pm
“I’ve heard that you shouldn’t approach cornered animals.
So now what?”
For higher order animals, adopt a heroic pose, and recite from Shelly:
“My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!”
For outraged pond rabbits, rapid moles and rabid voles (or climate lemmings), grab your
hockey stick and swing away Merrill.
The Global Warmists seem to fit this profile to a tee.
http://www.childluresprevention.com/pdf/Profile-of-Molester.pdf
Isn’t McKibben a Sunday School teacher? Doesn’t Al Gore use children in his video propaganda? What about the BBC?
Maybe it’s time for a WUWT anti-defamation page that catalogs, calls out, and refutes all these slanderous statements.
metamars says:
November 24, 2012 at 4:43 am
“I’m more of a populist and independent than a progressive. I don’t view our problems mostly about left vs. right, but rather top vs. bottom. I’m quite happy to read smart, so-called “extreme” lefties like Noam Chomsky, as well as smart, so-called “extreme” righties like Srdja Trifkovic at chroniclesmagazine.org.”
You’re the second guy I hear of who thinks Chomsky is smart.
Nigel S says:
November 23, 2012 at 11:42 pm
And with this, it is obvious Warmism is now at war with science.
And logic.
And decorum.
And it’s their loss. Ahoy!
Scientific weakness exposed
Such comments by Williams and Lewdanowsky et al. clearly show that the evidence is weak for catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. Instead, it increasingly shows natural variations dominate anthropogenic impacts, and that climate sensitivity is much lower than feared, exposing alarmist models as based on the argument from ignorance. We may even have some global cooling in the next few decades. Consequently, climate alarmists (“greens”) are pushing climate models that do not fit the data, harping on “extreme weather” with little evidence. The situation has become so desperate that climate alarmists are now retreating to rhetorical appeals and descending to ad hominem attacks of climate realists (“skeptics”) who avoid joining in their alarms. See:
Compare the legal advice:
Pound the Facts, Pound the Law, Pound the Table
Golden Book Magazine 1934: Jacob J. Rosenblum on what every lawyer knows.
The Rotarian 1925:
See the Quote Investigator for references and for more recent condensed versions.
The science will show itself in time. After all this isn’t about an ideology that is competing with another ideology. Sometimes I think we forget that there is only one true fact about our subject of interest and it isn’t about for example which economic system is the best or who is more fun, blonds or brunettes. If we are correct, eventually we will be proven correct.
On the other hand, what no one has ever said before, at least I have yet to read it anywhere, is that if we are wrong, and the scientific data clearly shows that the alarmists are right, then it will be very, very easy to reduce emissions, to get people throughout the world to do what is necessary. The world will not heat up as much as some claim, because we would act, and do so enthusiastically.
However, currently all the thousands of hours that I have spent researching just the topic of global warming / climate change alone has informed me that it would actually be a good thing to increase the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Nevertheless, there certainly isn’t any valid reason to be worried, etc.
Well, there they go again. Linking Penn State to Michael Mann.
The truly insane are now running the asylum. My God help us all.
This is a good time to review the recent history of persecution.
This quote from the above article stands out:
Blockquote> Famous artists and scientists played an important role in this campaign of dispossession and party labeling of literature, art, and science.
History is repeating….