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.
Robyn Williams has always been an out-of-control entertainer — exaggeration, especially obscene exaggeration, is his schtick, his modus operandi. Attacking him is a misdirection — you should instead ridicule, as a matter of course, those who solicit his input on a serious scientific and political issue. Something along the lines of, “Doesn’t everybody know this fellow is a COMEDIAN, for heaven’s sake?! Just who do they think they are kidding by having him on to make his patented outrageous and inappropriate comments?”
So, they’ve got to the bottom of the barrel as far as comparing skeptics to the most loathsome of all – Nazis, pedophiles… anybody or anything lower they haven’t used? I can’t think of any. But, of course, when that doesn’t work, they will have nowhere else to go but to action. All of their hate-filled propaganda is failing so they will see the need to take action (you have to remember, in their minds, denialists are the most evil and dangerous people in all of history and the truly righteous always standup to fight for the good). Now, we’ve started seeing unorganized bits of action on their part – the Gleick incident with Heartland immediately comes to mind but what we haven’t seen and is certainly on the way, is organized physical attacks and an increase in online attacks. Off hand, I’d say the most obvious target of violent protest would be the Heartland Conference but also, if ELF has taught us anything, violent, destructive attacks on individuals, their homes and their offices are on the way. For those that think the ilk of Williams will be diminished in the public eye by their bottom of the barrel propa-slime, I think you’re wrong. I think they are merely working toward the justification of physical attack – they don’t need the larger public for that, they need only a small, vicious band of disciples.
Making a revolting comparison to both shut down further scrutiny of CAGW (thereby continuing the government reorg of the economy in the name of necessity) while making it socially illegitimate to be a skeptic. Indeed a tactic of desperation.
Those expecting the university to censure do not appreciate the global role accreditation and the Orwellian named Quality Assurance programs have for spreading UNESCO and UNEP priorities globally via education. The model is that a combo of govt officials, Big Business, and Higher Ed institutions are to control the economies of the West using CAGW as the rationale. As I mentioned on a different thread, the idea we are not keeping to our respective silos and wondering why so many false narratives is very frustrating for our international class of parasitic schemers. Instead, we share the falsities and notice the commonalities. Naughty Prospective Serfs!
I used a piece from Friedrich Hayek’s 1944 Road to Serfdom book the other day to describe why both education and the media actually have every reason in the world to deliberately foster ignorance and inaccurate info anytime the government is seeking to make Statism and Dirigisme the preferred model. http://www.invisibleserfscollar.com/being-grateful-for-what-we-know-and-appreciating-why-it-matters/
The US Common Core has parallels in every country I cover including Europe, UK, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. I have tracked Kohlberg’s pernicious Stages of Moral Development into Hong Kong for goodness sake. In every caes it always tracks back to UN institutions and the World Bank and the OECD. Largely unaccountable bureaucrats with tax free salaries paid for by us deciding how everyone else ought to live and wanting central direction of economies.
What will the excuse be if CAGW falters in the public eye? Desperation clearly brings out desperate rhetoric to preserve the Justification for Control.
RE: Robyn Williams’ comments (which I didn’t listen to, not worth it to download the player for Mac): Doesn’t OZ have “free” healthcare? Does this include treatment for mental/emotional problems?
Skeptics equated to pedophiles?
As usual the carbon cult gets their facts backwards and is projecting their own failings onto everyone else. The facts are in, and it is the climate cult that is hiding and protecting pedophiles in their midst, as was aptly illustrated by the latest BBC scandal.
john says:
November 24, 2012 at 6:29 am
john, your comment cited above is out of line. I am surprised it passed moderation.
I think I would like to commend the ABC for presenting this interview. This is the true beauty of free speech. The ignorant, desperate, scientifically illiterate luminaries behind the CAGW scare can present themselves to the world and show their true colours.
Okay, now add this to the equation.
In some EU countries politicians have been fantasizing about allowing the police to use trojans. Yes, police should be allowed to plant a virus on a suspect’s computer to find out things about them, so they think. Of course, officially this would require a warrant, and an actual suspect. In reality this opens the door for massive abuse. All it would take is someone becoming a suspect for, let’s say pedophilia. Then the police puts a trojan on his computer. And, given how politicians influence the police these days, well… Good night.
I have been around corporate “science” disputes that went massively political. One thing I noticed is that the personal attacks projected by aggressive personalities in the massive wrong, repeatedly reflected their own faults and misdeeds. These were “clever” politically, stupid scientifically, dishonest and even pathological personalities, ruinous to the corporation but personally successful careerwise.
Wouldn’t be surprised if the accuser turned out to be the pedo.
Well, at least we have a choice between “Paedophiles” and “Urine stained alcoholic” badges, as in the earth photo caption from Tom Chivers Daily Telegraph article:
“Round or flat? What do YOU think, Professor of Astronomy? And you, Urine-Stained Alcoholic?”
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tomchiversscience/100189497/the-bbc-isnt-balanced-in-its-reporting-of-climate-change-but-the-facts-arent-balanced-either/
M. Nichopolis says:
November 23, 2012 at 10:02 pm
“Wow. Such naked psychological projection, hatred and bitterness. ”
Oh yes.
On the other way, interesting enough, 2 warmist camps have been prone with paedophile scandals.
Look at the University of Virginia with their bogus investigations, look at the BBC. Speak of projections…
I wonder if there isn’t really a connection here between warmists and paedophiles.
No, I do not mean directly, but indirectly through lack of proper controls, lack of ethics and lack of transparency. Just a thought.
Ok it needs to be said. The comparison to pedophiles is totally unacceptable. But this is not the first time it has been made. Mark Steyn of the National review had this to say.
“Mann could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science that could have dire economic consequences for the nation and planet.”
So come on WUWT contributors, either it is or it isn’t acceptable to play this game? I say it’s not ok no matter what side of the fence you sit. And yet many here were happy to accept these statements by Steyn when they were discussed here. I find that just a touch very sad and somewhat hypocritical.
Correction, it was Rand Simberg who actually made the pedophile comparison not Mark Steyn.
Cross-posted at AmbitGambit as comment 19.
“Name-calling in order to suppress debate” is right. It’s a familiar tactic now employed on a different battlefield from where I usually see it: American politics.
Jonah Goldberg, over at the National Review online has the other side of the name-calling coin: The GOP and Racism, Yet Again
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/333902/gop-and-racism-yet-again-jonah-goldberg
“…I don’t think the Republican party is racist now (and, historically, the GOP has a lot less to answer for than the Democratic party does). But that hasn’t stopped a lot of people from slandering Republicans as racist for one reason or another. Right now, many in Washington — particularly the leadership of the Congressional Black Caucus — insist that Republican attacks on U.N. ambassador Susan Rice are racist and, yawn, sexist. The basis for this claim is that some Republicans are calling Rice unfit for the soon-to-be-vacated job of secretary of state. More specifically, they’re cross with Rice for what they contend to be her dishonest and incompetent handling of the Benghazi scandal.
“And, because Rice is a black woman, well, bla, bla, bla. Racism! Sexism!
“Never mind that Republicans haven’t had a white secretary of state since Lawrence Eagleburger concluded his term two decades ago. Never mind that Republicans appointed the first black secretary of state ever (Colin Powell) and the first black female secretary of state ever (Condoleezza Rice, arguably the star of the GOP convention in August). Also, never mind that Rice’s handling of Benghazi — and several other matters — can quite defensibly be dubbed incompetent.
“That doesn’t stop Democrats or liberal pundits from crying racism.”
I doubt that the Republicans know how to fight, especially this type of slander fight. Fortunately for us, at the bottom of the CO2-AGW fight is science, and in science, calling the opposition to your pet theory a poopy-head or something has never been allowed as valid a scientific debate tactic.
AmbitGambit, Joanne Nova, and WattsUpWithThat are right. We must draw the line in the sand at these low-blow disgusting accusations and equivocations, and (in the press) beat whomever crosses that line again into a (figurative) bloody pulp.
Some people are making lists of what they deny. Let me add one that I allege. CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere supposedly started increasing rapidly due to the burning of fossil fuels around 1970. This additonal CO2 in the atmosphere supposedly causes global temperatures to rise at a greater rate than the rise due to natural causes. The rate of rise of temperatures due to natural causes has been approximately constant at around 0.06 C per decade ever since measured temperatures have been available. This rate of rise of temperatures has not changed since 1970. If global temperatures are going to get to catastrophic levels by the end of this century, then at some point the rate of rise of global temparatures must be at a rate significantly about 0.06 C per decade for a prolonged period.
There is no CO2 signal in the form of a significant rate of rise of temperature in excess of 0.06 C per decade in any temperature/time graph since 1970. Therefore there is a strong indication that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is indistinguishable from zero.
john robertson says, November 24, 2012 at 10:13 am … enjoy!
Chris D. says:
November 24, 2012 at 10:55 am
john says:
November 24, 2012 at 6:29 am
and john responds…
Fact of the matter is that the profile does fit. This does not necessarily imply anything except to say that the similarities (and tactics) used are similar between the two groups. I do believe that persons of reasonable sanity would never utilize such tactics and the educational value of the link I posted has merit. I have 3 grandchildren and will not tolerate them being molested in body or mind.
The Climate Liars get meaner, dirtier and nastier each year. They are at war with anyone who isn’t a member of their cult. Don’t underestimate the evil things these people will do to implement their crazy agenda.
Simon says: “The comparison to pedophiles is totally unacceptable.” “So come on WUWT contributors, either it is or it isn’t acceptable to play this game?”
Simon, can you post links to where you have declared and castigated Global Warming Alarmists on their websites for their totally unacceptable behavior?
As Orwell said: nobody could swallow it except an intellectual.
A few posters upthread are mixing up Robyn Williams, a male science reporter at the ABC, with Robin Williams, an (also male) comedian, or assuming that Robyn is a woman.
Given the nastiness involved in this episode, we need to be very clear as to whom we are talking about.
And Simon, the Steyn issue has already been extensively debated in another thread. Neither Steyn, nor anyone else, accused Mann of being a pedophile or being like a pedophile. Your reading comprehension needs work.
I think we should note that there are more than one Robin Williams. There is the actor who starred in Mrs. Doughtfire and Mork & Mindy. Then Robyn Williams AM is a science journalist and broadcaster resident in Australia.
Chinese proverb: He who throws dirt loses ground.
Hey, I don’t play FOOTBALL, I’ve never played FOOTBALL…(American Style), I rarely get excited about my hometown’s professional children…SO I have NOTHING that connects me to Michael Mann nor Jerry Sandusky. BUT I AM ONE OF THOSE WICKED DENIERS..
And I KNOW what should be done to me!
Simon:
Your posts at November 24, 2012 at 11:24 am and November 24, 2012 at 11:39 am are plain wrong.
Mark Steyn and Rand Simberg did not compare Mann to a paedophile and your quotation is misleading because it is out of context. As you say, Simberg wrote and Steyn quoted
But the context of that sentence is an article reporting that Mann and Sandusky were each cleared of wrong-doing by investigations on behalf of Penn State University which were conducted by the same person.
The article can be read at
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/309442/football-and-hockey-mark-steyn
Mann has attempted to claim the same as you and is taking a raft of people to court, see
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/23/yay-mike-mann-took-the-bait-intends-to-file-lawsuit-against-steyn-and-nro/
But there is a world of difference between
(a) comparing climate realists to paedophiles
and
(b) comparing the investigations of Mann and Sandusky by Penn State University.
Many (including me) hope Mann will continue his legal case because it will be good to see him exposed in court.
Richard
Put this into context. Despite a blitz of government propaganda the Australian electorate has overwhelming rejected the Gillard government’s energy policy based on the anthropogenic catastrophic global warming theory. We (by we I mean the majority of Australian working class) are just waiting for our next election. The institutionalised catastrophists are really quite isolated at the grass oots and they are becoming more desperate. This will be determined democratically. By the way I am a radical left wing activist and many of my comrades reject the catstrophists theory. Waiting for a call from Lewandowsky.