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.
At Johanna
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.
Oh P L E A S E. There is nothing wrong with my reading comprehension. Can you explain how your reading comprehension does not get that he is saying Mann’s actions are as bad as those of a sex offender?
“Mann could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data”
My point is you can’t have it both ways. Either this game is dirty, or it’s not. Any clear thinking person with reasonable reading comprehension would believe, I think, that it stinks. The fact you somehow justify it only shows your bias.
Oh really.
The head of the IPCC has lied in the past.
Other References
http://reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.net/
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/tssts-1.html
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/11/22/pachauris-rhetoric-vs-reality/
Here is another lie.
[my bold]
References:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/about-that-overwhelming-98-number-of-scientists-consensus/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/what-else-did-the-97-of-scientists-say/
Cripwell:
“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”
Several misunderstandings.
The climate forcing due to doubling C02 is 3.7Watts.
Climate sensitivity is measured as the change in temperature for a given forcing in watts.
Such that, if the sun increases by 1 watt, and we see temperatures increase by .5C then the sensitivity is .5 sensitivity is the change in C PER WATT.
temperature is the response (C)
Watts are the forcing.
Sensitivity cannot be zero. If it were, the earth would not respond to an increase in solar forcing.
Now, there are various ways we estimate the response in C to a change in watts. But lets just pick .5 as an example. Suppose the climate system has a sensitivity of .5.
What’s that mean in terms of sensitivity to doubling c02. it means this. 3.7 * .5 = 1.85c
If the climate sensitivity is .5, then the sensitivity to doubling c02 will be 1.85C.
The only way the sensitivity to C02 can be zero is if
1. the climate sensitivity is zero
2. the forcing from c02 is zero.
We know that climate sensitivity cannot equal zero. If it was, the earth would not change temperature. Remember climate sensitivity is the change in temperature per change in watts.
If the sun doubled in wattage, we would expect to see a change in temps.
the forcing from c02 is not zero. the phsyics used to radars, and cell phones, and IR missiles, and satillite pictures of the earth, that physics ( tested, calibrated, validated with field tests ) tells us that doubling c02 gives us 3.7watts.
As for the C02 signal in the record. best place to look is in the land record. That record responds to forcing more quickly than the ocean which can bury heat.
When you look at c02 versus time and the land record versus time.
hmm.
well, I wil say this, if somebody showed this curve with solar data ‘explaining’ the temperature, youd all be convinced. but since its c02, you will not see it
http://berkeleyearth.org/images/annual-with-forcing-small.png
I forgot, here is the reference for Pachauri’s lie.
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2009-11-10/india/28069084_1_himalayan-glaciers-climate-change-global-temperatures-rise
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 are correct it is the top vs. bottom. To confuse the bottom the “Keft vs Right” puppet show has been set up. Dr. David Evans calls it the Regulating Class (those who profit via government including corporations granted “special laws” vs the tax payer.
You might want to use this cartoon from 1911. It says it all link
Here is a whole tome of lies from Al Gore.
http://algorelied.com/
http://ilovecarbondioxide.com/2009/10/nine-lies-of-al-gore.html
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/11/21/fibbing-about-his-viewership-al-gores-credibility-took-another-beating-this-week/
John Bell says:
November 24, 2012 at 5:41 am
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.
_________________________________
When you are dealing with them in person, tell the leader to put their money where their mouth is. Tell them: Give me your car keys, your house/apartment key and remove any and all clothing that is not ALL silk, wool cotton and handspun and woven…. If they are not willing to to live by what they are preaching then they are complete hypocrites. They will generally turn a bright shade of red and sputter. Their audience will laugh. Pointing out the feet of clay works wonders. Someone should try it on all these holier than thou ‘Climastrologists’
I wonder if he is still worried.
Maybe this is one of the reasons for the desperation. Their time is running (or has already) out fast. The fat lady is in the make-up room and is ready to come on stage. The emperor is without clothing.
As a resident of NSW, I sent in a complaint to the ABC today. If it is not factually correct, hopefully someone here will correct me. After the basic details of programme, date and time, I said:
“Absolutely revolting and sickening slurs were broadcast on this programme – eg. “What if I told you pedophilia is good for children, or that asbestos is an excellent inhalant for those with asthmatics, or that smoking crack is a normal part and a healthy one of teenage life, to be encouraged? You’d rightly find it outrageous, but there have been similar statements coming out of inexpert mouths, distorting the science.
These distortions of science are far from trivial, our neglect of what may be clear and urgent problems could be catastrophic and now a professor of psychology at UWA has shown what he says is the basis of this unrelenting debauchery of the facts…”
Guest speaker Stephan Lewandowsky continued with more disgusting statements, eg. “They are also rejecting the link between smoking and lung cancer, and between HIV and AIDS”.
Statements like these have no place anywhere, certainly not on ABC, and especially not on a supposed science programme. Scepticism is the life-blood of science. Without it there can be no science. In the case of climate science, the claims made by the IPCC and some other climate scientists have gone beyond the supporting scientific evidence, and the “sceptics” are correctly calling them to account.
If the science is indeed correct, then the way to deal with scepticism is by openness and by proper evidence. Not by hurling wild and offensive insults.
Please sack Robyn Williams right now, and replace him with a civilised person who properly understands the nature of science.“
Steven Mosher:
At November 24, 2012 at 2:42 pm you quote Jim Cripwell saying at November 24, 2012 at 11:55 am:
And you reply:
Your reply is a clear example of the ‘straw man’ fallacy.
Cripwell did not say
“there is a strong indication that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero”.
He said
“there is a strong indication that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is indistinguishable from zero”.
And he is right.
Empirical – n.b. not model-derived – determinations indicate climate sensitivity is less than 1.0deg.C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 equivalent. This is indicated by the studies of Idso from surface measurements
http://www.warwickhughes.com/papers/Idso_CR_1998.pdf
and Lindzen & Choi from ERBE satelite data
http://www.drroyspencer.com/Lindzen-and-Choi-GRL-2009.pdf
and Gregory from balloon radiosonde data
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/OLR&NGF_June2011.pdf
These independent determinations each suggests that climate sensitivity is ~0.4deg.C for a doubling of CO2 equivalent
If climate sensitivity is less than 1.0deg.C for a doubling of CO2 equivalent, then it is physically impossible for the man-made global warming to be large enough to be detected because natural variability is much, much larger. If something exists but is too small to be detected then it only has an abstract existence; it does not have a discernible existence that has effects (observation of the effects would be its detection).
Climate sensitivity of CO2 is measured to be indistinguishable from zero. Live with it.
Richard
I hope you realise that you hit the nail on the head in one short sentence (or two). These liars have been caught red-handed with their greedy hands in the cookie jar. 15 years of non-warming, less snow, more snow, accelerating sea level rise – AWOL, lack of sufficient evidence of extreme events trending up etc. Time is running out for these scam artists and they know it. That’s why the weather has now become the climate.
Philip Lee says:
November 24, 2012 at 10:26 am
I’m inspired by what Roger Knights says above, but think his Contrarian’s Credo should be limited…
_______________________________
Short is better.
Do not forget the 7 Seconds Rule for Newspaper Ads You have seven seconds to ‘sell’ your idea.
(And yes I am horrible at it.)
Steve Mosher: ‘the phsyics used to radars, and cell phones, and IR missiles, and satillite pictures of the earth, that physics ( tested, calibrated, validated with field tests ) tells us that doubling c02 gives us 3.7watts.’
No it doesn’t. What it does is to assume that the absorption of IR by CO2, of which there is no dispute, would give 3.7 W/m^2 warming if it was directly thermalised. But direct thermalisation is impossible at Local Thermodynamic Equilibrium. Instead the emission of a similar photon from an already thermally-activated molecule ejects the extra energy out of that local volume, ultimately pseudo-diffusing it to heterogeneities, There will be some heat transfer from clouds to the local air but much is lost through the atmospheric window from the grey body thermal spectrum.
All the other phenomena are correctly modelled but because the two-stream approximation is wrong [only net IR can do thermodynamic work], it’s because the errors cancel out.
I’m not one to turn the other cheek, sorry. I fight fire with fire.
Stop these people now before it all gets out of hand. It may not seem so now but just you make the mistake of giving them more power than they already have and they will become even more extreme.
On the subject of cancer causing agents like asbestos need I remind Mr. Williams that the BBC Pension is invested into at least 3 tobacco companies. Not to mention drug companies, auto companies and BIG OIL. Heh, heh. 😉
http://www.bbc.co.uk/mypension/sites/helpadvice/pages/top-100-investments.shtml
It’s interesting to recall the hypocrisy and 20/20 hindsight witch hunting over the use of asbestos in Australia. The main outlet for asbestos rage being the ubiquitous James Hardie who were the main manufacturers of asbestos reinforced cement building products(colloquially known as ‘fibro’), as well as a range of asbestos disc pads and brake linings generally(Ferodo brakes). We all recall with fondness the annual Hardie Ferodo Bathurst race meet where Morris Mini Cooper Ss would mix it with V8 GTHO Ford Falcon and GMH Monaro muscle cars.
Lots of fun while the more serious slow trickle of asbestosis and mesothelioma was entering the consciousness and building up a head of water that would finally break the dam wall of everyone’s consciousness. Such are the ways of epidemiological risk and everyone’s an expert after the event and although a multitude of past consumers had absconded with the cheap private cost of fibro and asbestos brake pads, rather than paying their true social cost, no matter, the current shareholders and employees of James Hardie would pay the price most recently.
Now here’s the rub. JH stopped manufacturing asbestos products completely in 1983 after busying themselves perfecting an alternative cellulose reinforced fibre cement product range. So much the better but the long tailed asbestos diseases would take much longer to come back and haunt them. By the time it really did there’d hardly a be a shareholder or worker left from the bad old days but no matter, if the lawyers and outraged 20/20 hindsight politicians and union leaders couldn’t get at a multitude of those absconded consumers, then the current JH entity would have to do.
Well while the outraged moral majority railed and lawyered and legislated against the whipping boy of epidemiological risk, there was just a small matter of hypocrisy in all their rantings and ravings and parading out of sick asbestos victims. They were all driving their kiddies to kindergartens and schools and depositing the evil dust every time they applied their brakes until a ban on asbestos brake linings at the end of 2003. Yes folks 20 years after JH had seen the light the hypocrites were still putting all the kiddies futures in jeopardy. Why? Because industry hadn’t come up with a suitable replacement for asbestos brake linings til then and you know how it is folks? Can’t have the kids walking to school now can we?
It was a singular misfortune that chrysotile fibers were named “asbestos”. The use of chrysotile in pipes and roofing sheets has been a boon for mankind and the incidents of mesothelioma from chrysotile are vanishingly small.
That said, everybody in the world just hears “asbestos” and panics.
He who slings mud is losing ground.
Arrgh! ‘their’ for ‘there’ in a couple of places because the comments box aint exactly user friendly for proof reading longer comments.
A couple of points re JH. They were right to want to try and protect their largely innocent current shareholders and workers from the moral majority on the warpath but instead of standing up and telling it like it was, they squibbed it and ran away to the Netherlands. Current management deserved to get the sack for that gutlessness, although it was somewhat understandable, given the hysteria.
However this example does pose a serious moral dilemma for those true believers in global warming/climate change/ extreme weather/ dirty weather now. How much more tragic in outcome is your ‘proven’ global catastrophe now and what are you doing about it personally? Throwing your car keys in the bin and recycling your car right now? What should the enlightened uni student do who is working part time at the local servo (gas station) trying to make ends meet through uni now? Tell the boss he can’t do it anymore because he knows now it’s no good for his future? When exactly should an enlightened catastrophist put his money where all the consensus experts mouths are?
Fanatics regularly engage in attribution of motive and projections of guilty actions. This ABC article is a pretty good example, I think.
Simon says: “There is nothing wrong with my reading comprehension.”
By over welling consensus of WUWT commenters, you are in Denial. 😉
Perhaps this will help your Skeptical understanding – Pedophiles by definition are not molesters and tortures of data. Whereas, torturing and molesting data is a mann thing. 😉
I do notice the increasingly aggressive and galling comments from alarmists, even from such as Phil Jones. They can be rather nasty.
Those of us with a scientific and rational mind can be assured that this is not language used to debate scientific matters
Lars P. says:
November 24, 2012 at 11:19 am
….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.
_____________________________________
You can add a lack of integrity, arrogance and the believe that humans are nothing but animals (Animal rights activism) at best and the the scourge of the Earth at worst. I think Are Humans the virus species? shows this quite well.
If you hate the human species do you really care about that species offspring?
Steven Mosher writes “tells us that doubling c02 gives us 3.7watts.”
Even if we assume you are correct, which is doubtful, there is no way to convert the 3.7 Wm-2 to a change in global temperatures. The IPCC attempt to do so is based on the highly dubious physics of using no-feedback climate sensitivity, which is an abortion in physics, and has no meaning. I have no objection to people using dubious physics to arrive at some physical quantity, like total climate sensitivity, but only if the final number arrived at has been confirmed by the measurement of the actual data; which for total climate sensitivity has not been done. My attempt is one of the few that has tried to use empirical data to come to a measure of total climate sensitivity. The Hansen paper using paleo records does not seem to be able to prove that the observed rise in temperature was actually caused by rising CO2 levels, and does not use the word “measure”, but the weasel word “infer”.
As to your graph, how many times has it been said that correlation does not mean causation? Where is the proof that the observed rise in CO2 concentration caused the observed rise in land temperatures? But I tried to find exactly what this graph means, and how it was derived. I could not find it. The legend says “Simple fit based on CO2 concentration and volcanic activity”, whatever that means. It does not seem to be a graph of CO2 concentration, and there is no scale associated with the red line. So, precisely what is the red line, and how was it obtained?
And Richard has [answered] for me. I NEVER said the climate sensitivity of CO2 was zero; I said it was indistinguishable from zero. I do wish you would actually read what I wrote
[“no feedback” or “amplified feedback” ? Mod]
Simon says:
November 24, 2012 at 11:24 am
Ok it needs to be said. The comparison to pedophiles is totally unacceptable….
_____________________________
You should be reaming Penn State not Mark Steyn of the National review. It is Penn States’s cover-ups for both men that is the basis for the whole subject.
connolly says:
November 24, 2012 at 2:08 pm
… By the way I am a radical left wing activist and many of my comrades reject the catstrophists theory.
_____________________________________
Glad to see you here. We should not allow this to be manipulated into a Left – Right issue. Dr. David Evans was correct it is the Regulating Class who are manipulating the whole issue so they can rip off the rest of us.
You might tell your friends to come and comment here so there is more balance apparent.