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.
Simon says:
November 24, 2012 at 2:25 pm
…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?
____________________________________
AGAIN it is the ACTIONS of Penn State in covering up for both men that is being described. Mann did torture the data and Penn State darn well knew it but Mann, like Jerry Sandusky were raking in the money for the University and therefore these “Golden Boys” were protected no matter what they had done.
If you do not get that from the article you do have a reading comprehension problem… Oh wait, you believe Mann is actually an Honest Scientist ROTFLMAO snicker giggle.
This is very strange coming from the warmist camp. By equating skeptics with pedophiles they risk alienating pedophiles, who are certain to become an important activist group within the leftist coalition.
Perhaps Robyn WIlliams should be reported to the UN for human rights violations?
(I’m really not sure whether I’m being sarcastic or not)
If your degree was a Bachelor of Something, you are qualified to be a journalist.
If your degree was a Masters of Something, you are qualified to work for someone else.
If your degree was a PhD of Something, you have earned the right to know everything about nothing. In math, 0^infinity = 1 [if you weren’t taught that, it is because the arrogance of mathematicians is astounding].
I like CO2 being increased, for the plants. I like the additional heat due to the Sun. Storms will happen. Earthquakes will happen. Are they both due to CO2? If you live less than 30 feet above Sea Level, should I pay for your Flood insurance?
Power, Control in this world is given to the ‘hidden extremely wealthy’. The Catholic Church ruled Earth for 1800 years. Do you still think that they still don’t rule? They are afraid of WWIII. Through the UN via Global Warming [Carbon Taxes, etc], they will do anything to stop another war. They are afraid of nuclear weapons which can destroy them. What money or castle can stop of nuclear bomb?
We are not battling scientific proposals, or CO2, or Climate Change; we are ‘watching’ a massive power struggle to remove national sovereignty, and replace it with a Global Controlling Authority that thinks it can stop WWIII.
So you deniers, why do fight against the ‘hidden powers’. The last time this power struggle happened, it took 200 years before the Church stopped killing scientists. Are we more evolved now? Look to our journalists, they are the well educated intellectuals. What is your view?
For the ‘Global Warmists/Journalists’, your assistance to the ‘hidden powers’ will not be rewarded. You will be controlled like the rest of us.
The reaction to the show is, “Robyn Williams equates skeptics to pedophiles, people pushing asbestos, and drug pushers.”
Not quite, I think, but closer than I like. It started by presenting “pedophilia is good for children,” “asbestos is good to inhale,” and “crack-smoking is a normal part of growing up” as examples of absurd statements that nobody would take seriously. Then, they try to tar with the same brush statements like, “the climate is not changing/humans aren’t doing it and “CAGW is impossible or vanishingly unlikely.” The first three statements would be dangerous if taken seriously, implying that the latter ones would be, too.
It seems like the analogy for the pedophile would be a power plant, since that’s what directly damaging (or, for CAGW, allegedly so). Skeptics would be more like law enforcement, church officials, etc. who refused to believe what was happening and let the harm continue. This does not in any way mitigate the fact that using these analogies was astonishingly poor judgement. I’m hardly surprised that people would take it personally, and being a skeptic is not the only reason to do so.
I actually heard someone say recently that smoking was good for you. He owned a Mediterranean restaurant, and wanted to start operating as a hookah shop as well. This would have been a much better choice if they were trying to give an example of an illogical, harmful statement with which to make their argument.
Everyone has completely missed the point.
What Robyn Williams has said is that pedophilia is an acceptable practice. Given that dissent is a celebrated practice in all societies, Mr Williams has displayed his disgusting moral value.
Personally I think Simon has got a point.
The ABC program said that claiming “pedophilia is ok” is just as wrong as saying “the globe ain’t warming” or some such. They didn’t call anyone a pedophile.
And I’m quite sure this was inserted by Williams and Prof. L into the program precisely because it was the same thing that Mark Steyn at the National Review did in reverse. Both are playing the same game. I commented on this issue over at JoNova’s but before you all jump down my throat as you have Simon’s, I added in a follow up:
“To draw an analogy between a moral proposition (pedophilia is bad) and a scientific proposition (climate sensitivity to CO2 is lower than the IPCC claims) is sophistry design to invoke guilt by association.
“To give a more appropriate scientific analogy we might compare those who are skeptical about the IPCC’s position on climate sensitivity with those that are skeptical about the low reported incidence of child molestation by women. While both are likely to be controversial positions among some sectors of the community they can be seen for what they both are – legitimate matters for scientific inquiry.”
Science often investigates things that make people uncomfortable because the answers might undermine their belief systems.
Hmmm…. Here in America, accusations of being pedophiles and drug pushers are generally reserved for the gays. So, me being gay and a skeptic, does than mean the two cancel each other out, or am I turning that dial to 11 now????
I think inflammatory allegory is a low form of argument and leads to less than satisfactory debate. No matter which side engages in it.
Dear Professor Lewandowsky
lewan@psy.uwa.edu.au
I listened to your interview in the science show regarding denial of man made global warming.
I have a PhD in applied science and I am able to assess whether the climate data shows any change in its pattern after mid-20th century.
The three climate datasets HADCRUT3, HADCRUT4 & GISS show the following pattern:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/compress:12/plot/hadcrut4gl/compress:12/detrend:0.01/offset:-0.03/plot/gistemp/compress:12/offset:-0.1/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1884/to:2004/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/scale:0.00001/detrend:-0.96/offset:-0.71/plot/hadcrut3vgl/scale:0.00001/detrend:-0.96/offset:-0.46/plot/hadcrut3vgl/scale:0.00001/detrend:-0.96/offset:-0.96/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1884/to:2004/trend/offset:-0.03/detrend:0.01/plot/gistemp/from:1884/to:2004/trend/offset:-0.1/plot/hadcrut3vgl/scale:0.00001/offset:1.5
This data shows a uniform warming of ONLY 0.06 deg C per decade since record begun about 160 years ago in 1850. There is no change in the climate pattern after mid-20th century.
In addition, in its Fourth Assessment Report, the IPCC projected for a warming of 0.2 deg C per decade. Here is what the observation shows:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1998/trend/detrend:0.075/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1998/detrend:0.075/plot/gistemp/from:1998/trend/detrend:0.12/offset:-0.06/plot/gistemp/from:1998/detrend:0.12/offset:-0.06
The above is the result for the climate pattern since 1998 from five datasets. This result shows no warming since 1998, while IPCC predicted for a warming of 0.2 deg C per decade.
It is not due to our ideology that we deny man made global warming. Instead, it is because the data does not show man made global warming that we deny it.
Note that we don’t deny climate change, as it always changes.
Kind Regards
Girma Orssengo
PhD (Applied Science)
Gail Combs
Gail still seems convinced I has a reading comprehension problem…. me thinks she has a writing one…
“You should be reaming Penn State not Mark Steyn of the National review.”
I ain’t “reaming” anyone. And I thought this was a family show?
Steven Mosher;
Several misunderstandings.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
REPLY: Most of which appear to be yours. Seriously Mosher, physics is not your strong suit.
Steven Mosher
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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
REPLY: No, it s NOT. 1 watt/m2 of additional energy flux from the Sun is an ADDITIONAL watt/m2 that is going into the system as a whole. It is MORE energy than what the system was being exposed to before. It can have no other effect than to raises temps. When we speak of watts/m2 from CO2 increases, we’re talking about a redistribution of energy that is ALREADY in the system. THERE IS NO MORE ENERGY IN THE SYSTEM DUE TO CO2 DOUBLING THERE IS ONLY A CHANGE AS TO WHERE IT IS IN THE SYSTEM AT ANY GIVEN TIME!!!!
The IPCC makes it very clear in AR4 WG1 Ch2 that the concept of CO2 forcing can NOT, repeat *NOT*!!! be used to calculate surface forcing!!!!
Steven Mosher;
Sensitivity cannot be zero. If it were, the earth would not respond to an increase in solar forcing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
REPLY: Per above, an additional w/m2 from the Sun represents NEW energy input to the system. CO2 absorbing and re-radiating EXISTING w/m2 of LW adds ZERO energy to the system. The two CANNOT be equated in any way shape or form.
Steven Mosher;
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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
REPLY: These calculations are meaningless for the reasons already given above.
Steven Mosher
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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
REPLY: Per my points above, I repeat again: An increase in wattage from the Sun represents ADDITIONAL energy being put in to the system. CO2 merely absorbs energy that is ALREADY in the system, and re-radiates it such that the DISTRIBUTION of energy in the system changes, there is NO new energy in the system, the two are NOT equivalent.
Steven 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
REPLY: You keep saying this and I keep pointing out that it is dead WRONG. A cell phone signal works precisely because it passes through the atmosphere relatively uninhibited. Since we know that the signal received matches almost exactly the signal sent, we can codify information in the signal and transfer it between two points. This is NOT what happens with LW and CO2!
Unlike cell phone signals and radar, we CANNOT measure what we want to know directly. Oh sure, we can transmit a given amount of LW from point A and detect how much of the signal gets to point B, and from that we can calculate how much LW got absorbed by the system in between. Or can we? We CANNOT!
We don’t know if the LW was absorbed 10% of the way between two points, 40%, 80%, etc. We don’t know if a given photon that got to point B got there in one step, or if it was absorbed and re-radiated once, twice, a hundred, or a thousand time. We don’t even know for certain how much was absorbed! Why? Because we cannot differentiate between a photon from our source, and a photon from an entirely different source travelling at right angles to the path of AB that was absorbed and then re-radiated toward our detector. Since we’re only measuring INDIRECTLY what happens to the absorbed LW, we actually know very little about how it behaves.
Further, the 3.7 w/m2 calculated for CO2 doubling is ARTIFICIAL. If the sun’s radiance increases by 1 w/m2 at TOA, we can measure exactly 1 w/m2 at TOA. There is NO spot in the atmosphere where you can measure the change in w/m2 from CO2 doubling. These w/m2 are “smeared” across the atmospheric column and do NOT behave like they exist at a given altitude (because they don’t)
Steven Mosher;
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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
REPLY: The land mass exaggerates heating and cooling and so is a LOUSY place to look for the signal. Land mass has natural variability many times that of the ocean, so it is even HARDER to distinguish CO2 forcing from natural variation on land versus the ocean.
Steven Mosher;
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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The oceans are the ultimate arbiter of the planet’s temperature. The mass of the oceans is 1400 times that of the atmosphere. The atmosphere is like a tiny child being dragged by one hand through a busy mall by a large adult named “the ocean”. The child’s temper tantrum may get a lot of attention, but has zippo to do with which direction the child is going in. The atmosphere can vary within limits, and since we live in the atmosphere we notice that, but the point is there ARE limits. The atmosphere can only get so much hotter or cooler than the ocean, period. Where the oceans go, the atmosphere shall follow.
davidmhoffer,
Thanks for that very good explanation. CO2 is more of an insulator; it does not produce energy on its own.
Related to your explanation, here is an interesting chart that shows solar irradiance from around the LIA to current times.
Let me see if I can explain this another way. The temperature of a given object at equilibrium is related to the amount of energy being absorbed by the object. The formula known as the Stefan-Boltzmann Law is:
P = 5.67*10^-8*T^4
P in w/m2
T in degrees K.
So, for an earth exposed to say 390 w/m2, we’d get a T of 288K or 15 C. The confusing part is that the earth has an atmosphere. What we would find is that the surface of the earth would be warmer than that, the atmosphere on average cooler than that, but the average of the system as a whole would be 288K.
Now, let’s suppose CO2 doubles. This changes the amount of energy from the Sun by exactly zero. Not rounded off, zero. So, we put 390 into the formula again and calculate the temperature of the system AS A WHOLE and we get….
288K. Nothing changed. Quadruple CO2. Still 288. A hundred times, still 288. Nothing changed.
Well, probably it did. If we could measure T at millions of points between the surface and the TOA (Top of Atmosphere) we would probably find that some parts of it are warmer than they were before and some parts cooler than they were before. But the average of the system as a whole would still be 288K.
The science we are trying to understand is which altitudes change temperature, in which direction, and by how much. Trying to attribute a temperature change due to increasing CO2 levels to a change in solar radiance is, however, meaningless. One changes the temperature of the system as a whole, the other does NOT.
Awww and I was just getting used to “denier”, sad face ;(
So now climate skeptics are “pedos”?
Well it does show how badly they are losing the technical battle if they have to go this low. I didn’t think they could get lower than equating skeptics of what is supposed to be a scientific theory to holocost deniers but they surprise me again.
Here is an analogy that may help.
Suppose you have a thousand mile long highway. Cars are coming onto the highway at 60 km/h at one end, every 30 seconds. They leave the other end, a thousand miles away, at 60 km/h, every 30 seconds.
Now, suppose there are construction zones along the highway, requiring the cars to reduce speed. Obviously, the distance between the cars would be much reduced in these construction zones. If we were standing right at a construction zone, we could see the speed of the cars and the distance between them, and both would be a lot less than the rest of the highway.
Now, suppose the only observations you have though, are at the beginning and the end of the highway. Speed of cars going in, 60 km/hr. Distance between them, 1/2 km. Speed of cars leaving at other end, 60 km/hr. Distance between them, 1/2 km.
OK, based on the observations from the ends of the highway only:
How many construction zones are there? We don’t know.
How long on average is each construction zone? We don’t know that either.
To what speed does the traffic slow to when they encounter a construction zone? We don’t know!
What is the average distance between cars in the construction zones? Not a clue.
How far are the construction zones from the ends of the highways? Nope, can’t answer that either.
Are there cars leaving the highway between the two points, but being replaced by cars entering the highway in the same numbers? Unless we can identify the specific cars entering and leaving… we don’t know (and unlike cars, photons don’t have serial numbers).
Doubling CO2 is like adding additional construction zones to the highway. It doesn’t change the number of photons coming into the system, nor does it change the number of photons leaving the system. But at the “construction points” there will be higher concentrations of photons. We just don’t know exactly where these construction points are, or how many of them there are. We can probably surmise from the ocean temperature record though that a considerable number of them are leaning on their shovels and not getting much of anything done.
Gail Combs
We have a community radio program here and have advocated that our listeners use WUWT. For those not in Australia the political advocacy of catsrophic global warming theory and carbon taxes has been led by labor party apparachiks that are now desperately defending corrupt practices in the trade union movement and the disgraceful role of our present Prime Minister in establishing a trade union “slush fund”which was pillaged by a lover of hers some years ago. The corruption and craven opportunism of what is essential a service class for finance capital is exposed and workers are turning against the labor party in droves. I particulalry liked the light touch of Lewdenowsky at the end of his diatribe suggesting new investment opportunities in the bracing waters of catstrophic global warming theory.. Our Prime Minister made the same call in regard to carbon derivative trading for financial corporations recently in a particulalry disgraceful speech to Australian bankers. This service class of which Williams and Lewdenowsky are particulalry crass beneficiaries is becoming almostt daily more discredited in the eyes of decent Australian men and women. Gillard will be replaced in the early new year by her parliamentary caucus that is facing political oblivion at the next election. We can only hope that Williams is retired to the generous pastures of the public broadcaster’s pension scheme just as quickly. As for Lewandowsky there is a special place reserved for propagandists that posture as scientistis in the great big dumpster bin of history.
i disagree.
co2 is not an insulator, it is an absorber, a storer and, kinetically, a conductor.
ANY increase in the heat capacity of the working fluid in a heat exchanger WILL improve its efficiency.
this is, nevertheless, insignificant compared to any phase change fluid.
in any volume of atmosphere with 1% h2o gas and 500ppm co2, the water carries @ur momisugly 50,000 times more heat.
temperature is not a measure of heat, anyway
and phase change, which stores heat or releases heat, requires no temperature change whatsoever.
co2 is fetishism.
sincerely,
klimate kaffir
This are the typical tactics of communists.
Right from Stalinist Moscow Trials rulebook.
Or the other side of the coin National Socialists
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blomberg–Fritsch_Affair
Despicable.
HAS says:
November 24, 2012 at 7:01 pm
Personally I think Simon has got a point.
The ABC program said that claiming “pedophilia is ok” is just as wrong as saying “the globe ain’t warming” or some such. They didn’t call anyone a pedophile.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Try telling a priest, a rabbi, and an imam that believing in creationism is like saying that pedophilia is OK. Tell the pope that. Or maybe you’d prefer to tell the ayatollah that. Yeah, go with that one. I’ll even pitch in a few bucks to buy a ticket to Tehran so you can tell him in person.
The insinuation is ugly, ignorant, and as disgusting as it gets. Assessing science fact and drawing conclusions, right or wrong, is nothing like a moral position and implying otherwise suggests one of three options. The person trying to imply a relationship in this fashion could be:
1. Deliberately fanning the flames of prejudice and hatred.
2. Suffering from naturally induced diminished intellectual capacity.
3. Suffering from a determined effort to achieve diminished intellectual capacity.
Mosher keeps repeating his radars, cellphones, satellties and IR crap equating those physics with CO2 radiation physics. Nothing can be further than that as David M Hoffer has clearly shown not once, but many times. Yet, Mosher keeps repeating the same crap here and at Judy’s blog. Just like any AGW fanatic who who exists purely on faith and not science. There’s no difference between him peddling this crap and the dragonslayers peddling their crap about no greenhouse effect. Both are two sides of the same coin, no science.
start with this.
then get the book referenced.. chapter 2.
http://www.aos.wisc.edu/~aos121br/radn/radn/sld001.htm
Steven Mosher:
At November 25, 2012 at 1:11 am you respond to the several objections to your ‘straw man’ attack on Jim Cripwell by saying, in total
I reply to your response in similar manner to that response.
start with asking your Mum how grown ups behave
then try to understand it
Richard
“co2 is not an insulator, it is an absorber, a storer and, kinetically, a conductor’
Thank you, Gnomish 🙂
Question.
If the Sun delivers “P” energy per unit area, what is the average energy delivered to the hemisphere facing the sun?