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.
Thanks for the correction, guys. For once, it really is worse than I thought!
From what I have read around the blogs recently, the ABC, the BBC and the Canadian BC are peas in a pod when it comes to climate reporting. The worst of it is, they do it with money that is forcibly extracted from us. At least the free enterprise sections of the media pay their own way, and mostly do not pretend to be holier-than-thou.
This is yellow, gutter ‘journalism’ at its worst.
Oscar Bajner says:
November 24, 2012 at 6:20 am
Love the M. Night reference and the message.
The desperation is palpable. They alienate themselves. The general public can sense the hatred.
Filthy but not unexpected. It appears unlikely that Robyn Williams will ever recapture the originality of his “Mork and Mindy” period. Particuarly like the “Green Khemer” tag.
It was bound to come. Pedophiles are universally hated. Any “open-minded, non-judgemental” person will froth at the mouth if you dare say the “P” word. We brand them (mentally ill though they are) with electronic scarlet “P’s”. Since a large number of younger people may not understand the “deniers” term and how evil that makes skeptics due to Hitler and WWII and all that boring history stuff, switching to a term that evokes intense hatred by virtually every person in society makes sense. It’s the ultimate hate tactic from people who outlawed negative speech against those of certain races and sexual orientations (protection). Climate science now trumps most religions for use of fear and guilt to demand people believe. So much for religion lacking facts and being punitive and guilt motivated. Religions are now rank amateurs in the game.
That came from the same side as had the exploding kids video.
Reblogged this on News You May Have Missed and commented:
Climate Ugliness goes nuclear
Roger Knights says:
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.
21. That only crank or crooked scientists oppose the consensus. (For a rebuttal, look at the list of notable scientists opposing the consensus on Wikipedia.)
22. That contrarians are a cat’s-paw 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
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
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
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 apolitical (in a broad sense)
35. That climatologists have no vested interest in alarmism
36. That contrarian criticisms of the consensus have been refuted
Four more?
37. That “when we are” being at the end of an interglacial is irrelevant.
38. That the missing hot spot is irrelevant.
39. That the lack of warming in the last decade+ is irrelevant.
40. That temperature responds linearly to heat flux changes given the Stefan-Boltzmann curve.
DirkH says:
November 24, 2012 at 2:22 am
….. asbestos”
Promoting asbestos? Who does that?
_________________________________
The people who realize that in certain applications asbestos is the better product. Ask any older truck driver who has had to jump out of his truck with a fire extinguisher to put out a brake fire because the new material used in brakes BURNS. Asbestos is a rock it does not burn and it does not melt except at high temperatures, between 1200C and 1500C.
Smoking and asbestos exposure is the deadly combination because smoking wipes out the cilia that move debris from the lungs and it does so permanently. (Very old info from teachers on why not to smoke) link
http://www.asbestosnetwork.com/exposure/ex_smoke.htm
As usual nothing is ever black or white and hysteria should not be used to make important decisions.
He he,
they are in the last stage of a conversation after that they will be marginalized because they are pegging themselves as nasty bigots who can’t hold a simple clean conversation.
I gave up on them long ago because they are like the dirty pigs who continually ask skeptics to join them in their mud hole and squeal in delight they when snared one who foolishly falls for it.
I have stopped debating with warmists now because they have developed the art of the lie and self deception.They simply fail to see the reality that is in front of them and their replies are of the smear,lies and distortions kind topped with some cruel words.
The last time I talked to a CAWG believer he tried hard in his lies to convince me that Temperature FOLLOWS CO2 changes on the 6-12 month scale.I knew then he was willing to ignore the absurdity of his claim because of the impossibility of what he proposed.
Lets face it people we are dealing with propagandists who are nakedly trying to tie up the skeptics wih a barrage of baloney.
Another thought on asbestos. The early studies could not find any deaths among non-smokers. Later studies were all over the place and some showed the smoking – asbestos link did not exist. I really wonder if the non-smokers in the later studies were actually reformed smokers who had given up smoking but whose cilia was missing. Really depends on how “non-smoker” was defined doesn’t it?
“Skeptics equated to pedophiles — Robyn Williams ABC”
This is good news for us skeptics, because it shows the Alarmists are losing their minds over losing the argument over AGW.
Dang. John West and Roger Knights have convinced me I’m a Denier! Well done, Messers West and Knights.
Maybe that’s why Robyn Williams et al are all so ticked off! That’s the normal reaction when fools are exposed.
John West says:
November 24, 2012 at 8:26 am
Roger Knights says:
We Deny:
I would add at the end of your denials ….
“But we believe in natural climate change”
An Aussie desmogger call Monckton a liar doesn’t hold a candle to the pedophile story, but it is another example of climate ugliness going nuclear. For over three weeks this story has topped out in my IPCC Google news search:
“Climate Science Denialist Lord Monckton’s IPCC Appointment That Wasn’t! (see:
http://www.desmogblog.com/2012/11/01/climate-science-denialist-lord-monckton-s-ipcc-appointment-wasn-t)
It’s an old WUWT question but it deserves asking again. Why was this desmogger’s story awarded such high ranking by Google News? For over three weeks! Reader demand surely didn’t keep it on top. The story received only three comments, all on November 4th. Google says freshness, diversity, rich content, and originality are used by ‘non-humans’ to rank its stories (see: http://news.google.com/). Journalism must be beyond my grasp. All I can figure is Google’s non-human news-bots are also programmed to reward creative hatchet jobs by Aussies against Brits.
The ‘desmogger’ did give us an interesting hint about his source …. an ‘IPCC secretariat’, he says. A secretariat is a government office, isn’t it? Not a person. You don’t suppose he meant Pachauri, do you?
“The lady doth protest too much, methinks.”
Friends:
Some here seem to think that defiling climate realists is new. It is not. It has been the ‘stock in trade’ of AGW-supporters from the start.
AGW-supporters assume that such defamations work in their favour because they live in a bubble of like-minded idiots who applaud such statements as that made by Robyn Williams; e.g. they fail to see anything wrong with Hansen’s infamous “death trains” assertion, see
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/15/hansen-on-death-trains-and-coal-and-co2/
In common with all cultists, the AGW-supporters are amused by any horror against heretics to their faith, so they think it will amuse others; e.g. the infamous 10:10 ‘red button’ video, see
http://www.bing.com/search?q=10%3A10+video&qs=n&form=QBRE&pq=10%3A10+video&sc=0-22&sp=-1&sk=
Indeed, AGW-supporters assume that breaching Godwin’s Law works in their favour and use it as a common assertion against climate realists. And they are shocked when it works against them; e.g. as it did in the St Andrews Uni. debate, see
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=2938
Which is worse to be likened to paedophiles or to be likened to Mengele who defiled both children and adults? But those AGW-supporters failed to understand why the comparison was a major reason why they lost the debate.
In my opinion, the smears of climate realists by AGW-supporters are useful because the smears discredit those who do the smearing: people who do not share their faith are appalled at the smears.
Richard
It is ironic that this is being said during the week that thousands of people will be catching flights into another exotic location to discuss the “problem”. Literally, millions of air miles and countless limos, to say nothing of the logistics to support them. I’m not sure, but I doubt that they’ll be eating food that’s grown locally through sustainable agricultural practices. Somehow, they find it necessary to do this every year.
When you question one of the true believers about the hypocrisy of these annual gatherings, the answer is usually something along the lines of “Well, it’s a necessary evil if they are to save the planet”. I’m always amused by that response, especially coming from people who advise me that I should be willing to embrace windmills and solar panels despite their glaring imperfections, but seem to find web conferencing unappealing and kludgy. I can understand their frustration. It’s really hard to get a gourmet meal or good bottle of wine at a web conference.
One would hope that they would look at what surrounds them in Doha and realize that whatever legitimate concerns they may have once had about the climate have been completely overwhelmed by money and influence peddling. Whatever idealistic values may have led them to believe that the world would be better without fossil fuels should leave them feeling very unsettled as they witness the circus in Qatar.
What’s the name for the people who think that the world is going to end on December 21, 2012? That’s what these hysterics need to be called.
Where are the academic psychologists when there is really something to study. Oh yeah and where ares the usual trolls and warmist cheer leaders when there is a thread like this. If the latter want any respect, they should also be jumping all over this terrible stuff. Does Real Climate and Open Mind actually agree with this R. Williams stuff? Comon, man up you guys – you might get a bit of respect.
Gerald Machnee says: November 24, 2012 at 8:12 am
That came from the same side as had the exploding kids video.
Several people attempted to make a small museum of warmist psychosis.
There is a saying in the Netherlands that translates pretty much into the following:
“What you say of others you are yourself.”
This CO2-religion is now forcing UK power stations to burn wood thereby destroying many other industries. I wrote this the the UK’s Department of Energy and Climate Change:
http://blog.decc.gov.uk/2012/11/22/using-wood-for-bioenergy/#comment-58080
‘My Dear Bernie, as you have a scientific training you should know there can be no CO2-AGW. The ~100 m IR emission/absorption depth of the atmosphere is within 1 K of the Earth’s surface so its thermal IR, near enough black body, switches off IR in those same bands at the surface apart from a few water vapour sidebands.
No IR absorption, no ‘GHG blanket’, no CO2-AGW. This is basic radiation physics. Unfortunately, meteorologists like Trenberth are taught incorrect physics and imagine ‘pyrgeometers’, IR pyrometers, measure a real energy flux, not a temperature signal. So, the models exaggerate warming by ~6.8x.
Please tell the loonies at DECC there can be no CO2 climate change, the Earth is cooling as the sun’s magnetic field heads below 1500 Gauss and cloud cover increases and we should be planning for ice blocking the Northern ports from ~2020. This has been the biggest scientific and commercial fraud in history and DECC is at the heart of it.’
The meltdown will get louder and uglier, the cynics have made their money and pulled away from climate alarmism, leaving the true believers to carry the fall out. True believers do what they do, the more reality intrudes into their beliefs and conflicts with those beliefs, the more rigid the believers become. But I am waiting for the penny to drop, when the followers realize they have been used, screwed and tattooed, which means they will be the easily identified scapegoats as this scam crumbles. Lots of unhappy taxpayers already, looking for those to blame for massive destruction of public wealth and lapse of common reason by our leaders and civic employees.
Ma Nature has a sense of humour, co2 up = Temps down. If you are going to use the hot 1/2 of a cycle to promote a scam, you have to pull it off before the cool 1/2 starts. Times up and games over, hence the panic, fear and projection. If you believe that the means justifies the ends, lying for the cause is Ok, exaggeration normal and integrity is for old fools, well your prediction of other peoples reactions will be based of your values. Meaning terror is loose in the alarmist camp, remember these people have fantasies of prison, education camps, war crimes trails and blowing the heads off children and any one else who questions the divine wisdom of CAGW. Now they seem to fear, because of projection, that society will treat them as they intended to treat the doubters.
And I say they should be very frightened.. ala Arthur Dent. The internet never forgets, so the UN now intends to seize the internet, all private firearms and probably introduce triple-speak as they have already double-speak as their norm. Immunity from prosecution for advising the UN IPCC?
Interesting times ahead,I predict our governments are about to get the hemorrhoidal treatment they are due, there is no room for trust in institutions that have let us down so badly as this hysteria over CAGW/Climate Change.
These bloated organisms have turned on their host, thats us, and are destroying the culture from which they grew,a little govt is necessary , a lot of govt is corruption on steroids. The parasite has killed the economy, sucking so much lifeblood that that nothing moves.
Sarcastic comment of this week, “Your opinion of your govt and its minions, will never be higher than it is today.” Because what underlies the Climate-gate emails is systematic corruption of govt agencies and practices, as I see it our watchdogs have been used to attack us. I am old school if a dog bites me without provocation, thats the last thing it bites. Which brings to mind the media, what a bunch of prancing ninnies, their attempts to deflect blame from themselves will be gems of twisted rationalizing. We were dead for tax purposes? The money was too good? Or but we really cared for nature, so we had to lie to you? It was our religious right to spread the faith? Best response to the media alarmists is to play or sing Tiny Tim , The Ice Caps Are Melting, and rub in the date of manufacture.
I’m inspired by what Roger Knights says above, but think his Contrarian’s Credo should be limited to the science alone and not include comments about the character or behavior of “warmists” or the likely behavior of policy makers. So, my suggestion for the credo is:
I deny:
1. That our global temperature measurements are of sufficient history and extent to show a global rise in temperature from CO2 and other gases emitted by man.
2. That any temperature changes that might have occurred can be confidently be attributed to CO2 or other gases.
3. That the climate system incorporates positive feedback mechanisms that will catastrophically amplify the effect of additional CO2 as the global climate models are constructed to have.
4. That science has a good grasp of the known and unknown unknowns of the climate and that global climate models are of sufficient quality to explain temperatures or rain around the global and that projections of even 10 years from now are sufficiently good for purposes of policy planning.
5. That CO2 is a pollutant, in the ordinary sense of the term.
Some others have added details which, true or not, amount to technical details or minor points that amplify one or more of these points of science or are objectionable as outside of the science.