The Australian Government Broadcaster asks if we should ditch Democracy to ensure a climate change response

Photo: Climate Justice Now! Statement on Climate Change from COP-15, Copenhagen, December 2009. Photo: Neil White/Guardia

Story submitted by Eric Worrall: The Australian Broadcasting Corporation, a taxpayer funded media organization, has just asked whether we should consider restructuring democracy to ensure an efficient response to the climate “crisis”.

The first paragraph;

“Is it democracy that is blocking progress on climate change or the current limited version of it that pervades Western society?” pretty much sums up the rest of the article, which spends several paragraphs praising authoritarianism, before chickening out and trying to suggest that governments are acting contrary to the wishes of voters.”

The article quotes one of our old favorites, Naomi Oreskes, who celebrates China’s authoritarian political process; “China’s ability to weather disastrous climate change vindicated the necessity of centralised government … inspiring similar structures in other, reformulated nations.”

To me, what this bizarre effort suggests more than anything, other than a disturbing lack of commitment to democracy, is that Australian greens are still having trouble accepting that in the last election, they were soundly rejected. Greens are blaming imagined flaws in the democratic process, rather than trying to understand the reasons for their rapidly fading appeal to ordinary voters.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
September 6, 2014 6:18 pm

That’s why greens are called watermelons — green on the outside, red inside,

Reply to  Alan Poirier
September 7, 2014 3:50 am

You have forgotten the most important part, Brown seeds.

Reply to  AlexW
September 7, 2014 8:39 am

Sorry if I’m slow, but what do you mean by “Brown seeds”?

Reply to  AlexW
September 7, 2014 9:35 am

Fascists were known as “brownshirts”.

Reply to  AlexW
September 7, 2014 1:40 pm

They will obviously like living under sharia law.<:o)

September 6, 2014 6:20 pm

Sounds like they want a civil war, even though they probably think they are “just” trying usurpation to get a green dictatorship.

Reply to  mike
September 6, 2014 6:47 pm

In the vote in South Portland, ME, a greenie was trying to claim that they were voting to protect people (by blocking a pipeline). They couldn’t understand that the people did indeed want protection. From them and their economically destructive policies. After losing the vote to ban the pipeline, the city council banned it anyway.

Reply to  sdhess01
September 6, 2014 7:32 pm

The problem with pipelines is they can’t go through a built up suburb, and so they plan them through woods, and in New England that is usually “conservation land.” The fact people voted for the pipeline shows they know the need is urgent. Last winter a month of natural gas cost as much as a year did, the year before.
Despite the fact we can’t get enough propane, they are shutting down a coal-fired plant because the EPA is idiotic. We are in serious danger of not having enough power to go around, and having rotating black-outs in the coldest part of the winter. In the case of many heating systems, when the power goes off, so does the heat.
I’d say that city council is facing a very angry public by February.

Reply to  sdhess01
September 7, 2014 12:12 am

It is the same with wind farms they claim that 90% of people support them but they never actually ask the people that will be impacted by turbines. Greens do not mind destroying other peoples lives. Greens believe that all humans except them are the problem with the world, while they sit back sipping lattes in inner urban cafes.

Ian W
Reply to  sdhess01
September 7, 2014 5:33 am

If next winter follows the forecast of the Old Farmers’ Almanac and of Joe Bastardi, they may not have enough gas at any price and the council may have some explaining to do. Nothing like severe cold and no energy supply to concentrate the minds.

Robert of Ottawa
Reply to  sdhess01
September 7, 2014 5:55 am

Greens live in, and appeal to, the suburbs. A place far removed from nature. The wind and solar subsidy farms are in the countryside, not the suburbs.

Reply to  mike
September 7, 2014 6:08 am

And, yet, I prefer a government that allows fools like these ones to freely express themselves than a government of these fools that does not allow all of us to freely express ourselves

Reply to  Brute
September 7, 2014 6:26 am

Well said!

Reply to  Brute
September 7, 2014 8:30 pm

Good thing they are content to merely express themselves.

Reply to  Brute
September 8, 2014 4:59 pm

I agree. In a hundred years or two, Darwin will take care of it. One long cold winter …

Bob Diaz
September 6, 2014 6:20 pm

That pesky democracy, always getting in the way of radical tyrants who want to enslave the masses !!!

Reply to  Bob Diaz
September 8, 2014 10:10 am

Here is the problem of democracy in a nutshell.

Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”
Winston Churchill
(from a House of Commons speech on Nov. 11, 1947)

Greens are far from democratically minded when they don’t get YOU to do what THEY want.
Here they are in action – a dangerous lot.

September 6, 2014 6:21 pm

Marxism masquerading as environmentalism.
Australian Greens have become the nesting place of many former marxists and socialists.

Reply to  KJ
September 7, 2014 3:33 am

and aunty ABC is in full and vocal support of them! and Labor.
this isnt the first mention of this harebrained idea.
reckon it was their Big Ideas? show this was broached also.
they are the ones in denial:-)
they deny that the people of Aus voted the Labor /green coalition OUT! landslide
and Carbon Tax was THE big issue,
along with the rest of the green scams n rorts.

James (Aus.)
Reply to  KJ
September 7, 2014 4:11 am

Indeed, KJ.
One only needs to look at Stalinist Lee Rhiannon/Brown/Gorman/O’Gorman and her association with the ratbag Lenin School in Moscow, not to mention the execrable Communist Party of Australia.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  KJ
September 7, 2014 6:11 pm

At one time, they felt the need mask their Marxism. Now they parade it. Until a few years ago, you would never see such a thing as a call for suspending democracy or singing the virtues of China and North Korea’s ability to shepherd their people. Having seen many times in a long life soci-ial-isters eventually shoot themselves in the foot, exactly what is happening now.
They have the advantage of a more compelling advertising campaign than is possible for free enterprise/democracy. Standing up against the ‘monied class’ and the exploiters of the ordinary person’s labor at subsistence wages. “You have nothing to lose but your chains!” yada, yada, yada , while marching through the forest hand in hand with belalaikas twanging. This measured against, rising early and ‘seizing the day’, industry and effort, engage in the competition, pressing advantage, grabbing the brass ring.
The only thing is the duplicity of the anti-demo bunch is such that before they reach their goal, they reveal their contemptuous elitist selves and it falls apart. They are always in a hurry – act fast or were doomed. Then with resistance, “we know who you are; we know where you live;…. you be few and we be many” – this threat from the benevolent Greenpeace folks. WUWT carried this news but here’s another blog reference.
They’ve called for Nuremburg-type trials for skeptics, called for banning interviews of sceptics, barring publication of sceptic scientists’ papers, execution of sceptics…Finally it all out: suspension of democracy, which has been the real goal of these neurotics from the beginning (not that of their minions of gullible useful idiots in the press and social sciences and their probably unwitting, paid-for support from scientist lites). The game is in overtime.

September 6, 2014 6:22 pm

Hey Naomi I believe China is now producing more cars than the U.S.

Reply to  nc
September 6, 2014 8:11 pm

And they don’t meet California emission standard, either.

September 6, 2014 6:24 pm

Like Venuzela, North Korea, China or any other toltaliterian government really cares about anything other than itself?

Reply to  mjc
September 6, 2014 9:45 pm

The One and Only priority is to stay in Power. / Of course for the Benefit of the People / Sarc
(From inside China).

Reply to  mjc
September 6, 2014 11:38 pm

Venuzela, wether or not you like or agree with their politics, is a democracy but nearly wasn’t when a right wing coup imprissioned Chavez.
A popular uprising restored him to power and he was very popular and was later re-elected.
That is democracy.

Reply to  Greg
September 7, 2014 3:25 am

You make a very important point. It is important that people be able to chose their oppressors for only by doing so will they value democracy. Of course democracy is not only about the vote. It is about freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of information flow and the absence of fear of retribution if they don’t chose as required.
Venezuela and Zimbabwe spring to mind as being pseudo democracies where functioning countries were torn apart so that on voting day the right box was ticked.

Reply to  Greg
September 7, 2014 11:26 am

And this is the way in which democracy can be subverted from within. I believe the first master of this art was Louis-Napoleon Bonaparte. Chavez was certainly doing a good job of this, too.

Reply to  Greg
September 7, 2014 8:33 pm

Was that before or after he started imprisoning the media?

Brian H
Reply to  Greg
September 7, 2014 9:39 pm

Ugly writing.
its politics
4 boners in one short sentence!

September 6, 2014 6:27 pm

I would not give up democracy for anything he could dream up. My Father killed a bunch of Nazis and almost died so that this SOB could have the freedom to propose this BS. I did not kill anybody but was in RVN for the same reason. I hope he is not too disappointed that I am sure he is full of ****. Where did this idiot go to school? Did they teach history there? If so, did he pay attention? Very irritating, also, that the press would print anything about this guy but his obit, which cannot happen soon enough.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Ken
September 6, 2014 7:08 pm

What is the “RVN”?
(I’m an American. RAF, RAN etc. I’m familiar with, but RVN is a new one.)
PS And a thank you to you and your Dad for defending all of our freedom to choose.

George Turner
Reply to  Gunga Din
September 6, 2014 7:17 pm

I would think RVN is the Republic of Viet Nam

Reply to  Gunga Din
September 6, 2014 8:19 pm

Republic of Vietnam Nam is correct. I didn’t do much,

Reply to  Gunga Din
September 7, 2014 4:43 pm

You served your country. Regardless of the rights and wrongs of any particular conflict, regardless of whether you actually saw combat, I respect and feel gratitude towards those brave individuals who are prepared to place their bodies between my family, and a bad guy armed with a machine gun.

del boy
September 6, 2014 6:31 pm

In the dictionary green means unripe-immature and undeveloped so true. I would say they are a bunch of plonkers.

September 6, 2014 6:33 pm

The world is full of cranks. That is not surprising and they will always be there. What is surprising is how these cranks groups have overrun certain major media organisations.

Reply to  willnitschke
September 6, 2014 11:22 pm

Not surprising at all, willnitschke, they are bankster & govt/taxpayer funded & massively funded through most expensive TV campaigns like the WWF.
” Behemoth Big Green outstrips Big Oil by orders of magnitude — if you know how to follow the money.”
The push for One World Totalitarian Govt is most well funded. It is the Banksters deepest desire.

Reply to  jdseanjd
September 6, 2014 11:36 pm

And the mainstream media are 1%s owned : google : 6 corporations own the media.
We hear what the 1%s want us to hear, & see what they want us to see. It’s called the Matrix.

Reply to  jdseanjd
September 7, 2014 11:29 am

Then how did you escape it, wunderkind?
Speaking of “banksters” wanting a totalitarian order, does this include John Allison (author of “The Financial Crisis and the Free Market Cure”)?

Reply to  jdseanjd
September 7, 2014 12:14 pm

And if the “banksters” are behind it all, what do you make of the Wall St. Journal’s consistent skepticism regarding AGW? Don’t banksters read that journal any more? Don’t they have any control over their editorial page? But I thought they controlled practically everything.

Reply to  jdseanjd
September 7, 2014 1:15 pm

Try Googling : Bill Still Money Masters
A masterly 3.5 hr history of Banking.
Boring, it’s not.
Example : Napoleonic wars : one Rothschild brother finances the Frogs, while another finances Les Rosbifs.
Whoever wins. the Banksters win.
Google : All Wars are Bankers Wars. ~ 45 mins
Q : How did I escape the matrix, rt ?
A : I like to read. 🙂

Reply to  jdseanjd
September 8, 2014 7:10 am

Sorry jdseanjd. All you example shows is that one side will win and benefit while the other side will lose. Now if you example showed that both the Frogs financer AND the Les Robifs financers would win no matter who won the actual war. That would support your claim. The fact that the winning sides financial backers would benefit isn’t surprising.

Reply to  ddpalmer
September 10, 2014 1:58 am

Sorry, ddpalmer, I did not make my point clearly enough. When the losing sides bankers are guaranteed repayment through war reparations, that represents a win/win situation for the banksters.
This is directly akin to the 2008 World financial crisis : the fool banks overgambled & lost, were deemed “Too Big to Fail” & their debts were loaded onto the mug small taxpayers backs.
Iceland was the exception. The Icelanders stormed parliament & demanded the Banksters be put on trial, which they were. This was in the face of extremely stiff opposition from every European leader, in particular that of our own most traitorous Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, the One World Govt fanatic.
Iceland broke out of the Rothschild central banking matrix & is now prospering. The UK & USA are not.
A 28 mins interview with the President of Iceland :
Or, put in search box :
How Iceland defeated the Anglo – American Bankster Mafia.
Saddam Hussein & Gaddafi were on the path to breaking out of the Rothschild central banking cartel, which would have broken the hegemony of the US petrodollar as World reserve currency. Both were demonised in the presstitute Western media, invaded on the basis of lies & eliminated.
Other countries not in the cartel?
Russia, Iran, N Korea, Hungary.
Prime targets for the mad US Empire?
The RC Church v Rothschilds.
The two biggest robbers on the planet.

Reply to  jdseanjd
September 10, 2014 2:50 am

My reference below should be not .com.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  willnitschke
September 7, 2014 6:50 pm

The hateful anti-everything that is successful and productive is here to stay. It is a tax we have to pay. It is like the Ebola virus or the tornado, it has to be paid for. I wish we could just push these destructive people out of the way (gently) and keep moving forward. For some reason, we give these people too much sway, too much patience. For some reason, we pay the way of the huge anti-American bureaucracy of the UN, which once used to be a meeting place to prevent wars (Reagan stopped funding them for a while – why didn’t that take on a life). One has to also undo a measure of the miseducation our children receive (yeah, kid, that’s what they say but it’s baloney – make sure you give them the answer they want, though and get through it all with your critical faculties ticking over) Let them rant and march – give them a 100 mile parade license. You can be sure though that they wouldn’t accept a free one way ticket to China.

Mike Smith
September 6, 2014 6:33 pm

Yup, and we can make the trains run on time too. Support fascism!

September 6, 2014 6:34 pm

The ABC has a real track record of lying about Climate Change matters. Their handling of Professor Turney’s unfortunate expedition to the Antarctic was a disgrace!

Reply to  Timbo
September 6, 2014 7:24 pm

Expedition? i thought the word was “jaunt”

Reply to  old44
September 7, 2014 12:42 am
Reply to  Timbo
September 7, 2014 3:39 am

I want my 8 or whatever it is now.cents a day refunded!
we taxpayers fund this mob of lying a$$holes to the tune of many millions a year
anyone else curious why theyve also seemingly done deals with gaurdian and apple.
id like to send first dog on the moon right back, sans oxygen.

September 6, 2014 6:37 pm

Quote by Robert Muller, former UN Assistant Secretary General: “In my view, after fifty years of service in the United National system, I perceive the utmost urgency and absolute necessity for proper Earth government. There is no shadow of a doubt that the present political and economic systems are no longer appropriate and will lead to the end of life evolution on this planet. We must therefore absolutely and urgently look for new ways.”
Source: C3

Reply to  Streetcred
September 6, 2014 8:21 pm

I can think of one new way: get back in your hole and don’t come out.

September 6, 2014 6:40 pm

That’s United Nations-speak. The UN System is set up to create one world governance. Already its International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) has offices all over the world and they are, in fact, controlling cities and regions whose elected officials have been brainwashed by activist organizations, funded by billionaire foundations and others, into accepting the word of ‘experts’ about what is and is not sustainable.
Renewables are, of course, part of the grand scheme of things. They will help lead us back to something like a neolithic world in which red meat, appliances, automobiles and private ownership of land are “not sustainable”. They call it communitarianism. It is totalitarianism.

September 6, 2014 6:40 pm

Quote by Louis Proyect, Columbia University: “The answer to global warming is in the abolition of private property and production for human need. A socialist world would place an enormous priority on alternative energy sources. This is what ecologically-minded socialists have been exploring for quite some time now.”
Source: C3

Joseph Shaw
Reply to  Streetcred
September 7, 2014 6:34 am

Sure. Everyone knows what a high priority China and Russia/former USSR place on environmental issues and the interests and concerns of “the people”. How else could they have achieved such pristine air, water, and land. What’s not to like?

Nick in Vancouver
Reply to  Streetcred
September 7, 2014 8:27 pm

Hayek predicted that Socialism will always end in Totalitarianism and published his ideas in 1945 – he saw what Prussian statism had done to ferment war in Europe and predicted where Nazism and Marxism were going. His short book “The Road to Serfdom” is as relevant now as it was then.
The “statists” in government since 1945 have given us a false choice between “the right” – fascists/oligarchs and “the left” – Marxists/socialists. The main stream media perpetuates the idea that political parties in the West are opposites when they are essentially the same and operate through a revolving door of self-serving appointments – looking at you Goldman Sachs – subsidies, entitlements, nepotism and anti-competition regulation. This means we are sleeping into a future where individual freedoms and rights will (are) being eroded by successive governments. Read your Bill of Rights where the idea of individual rights – true Liberalism – is enshrined. Witness the doublespeak of modern politicians where “Liberalism” now means Socialism. This is a good example of how politicians have shifted discourse to the point where we have all forgotten the ideals of true Liberalism, where the inviolability of the person, the individual, is paramount and any attempt by elites to put “a community” above an individual must be resisted. We forget these truths at our peril. It is 70 years since the end of WW2. Freedoms lost are always regained at terrible cost.
The alarmists pushing their “war on terror”, “war on drugs”, “war on carbon” are all statist who would subvert us all and enslave us to their totalitarian nightmare.

September 6, 2014 6:43 pm

Reblogged this on Centinel2012 and commented:
Their gold is Very Strong Central Governments such as exist in China and Russia controlled by one party that is little different then a medieval kingdom, and we know how good that was!

Jim B
September 6, 2014 6:50 pm

You did think that was the plan all along?

September 6, 2014 6:57 pm

Here in California, professors at taxpayer-supported universities have the gall to campaign for political causes citing their university affiliations in support of their anti-public interested positions. The taxpayer supported Public Broadcasting Service reports only the Green side of the global warming issue. An appropriate response would be to deny taxpayer subsidies to universities and broadcasting services.

Reply to  Terry Oldberg
September 6, 2014 7:03 pm

PBS gets lots of its money from billionaire lefty foundations. Check the “brought to you by” announcements before and after programs. They are a program in themselves.

Gunga Din
September 6, 2014 6:59 pm

Ditch the will of the governed because the hockey stick hasn’t been a strong enough lever to make people willingly surrender their freedoms to the will of the elite who desire to govern?

Mike H.
Reply to  Gunga Din
September 7, 2014 10:26 am

Actually we’re not the governed. Under the Constitution the governed are the duly elected representatives of the people. They make law based on the will of the people who hired them. Under the Constitution.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Mike H.
September 7, 2014 12:03 pm

Interesting insight. Thanks!

September 6, 2014 7:00 pm

Yeah, that’ll work. Let’s just have a one-world totalitarian government with and handful of elites running the show and living large off the labor of the proles. (Of course we all understand that everyone is equal except, naturally, a few are a little more equal than the rest of us.) Heck, I’ll even share my one daily meal of lawn clippings with them… if I’m lucky and I can get lawn clippings to eat. Kumbaya, ya’ll.

Reply to  H.R.
September 6, 2014 7:08 pm

You might, if you’re lucky, get bug biscuits or cockroach salads. Because red meat is not sustainable, the UN has a suggestion for getting protein from insects. The idea is being hyped now in newspapers and on llne as sophisticated dining. Chefs in San Francisco are reported as going gaga for it. But the UN also has rationing in mind so maybe some days all you’ll get really are lawn clippings. Of course lawns will not be cut with electric mowers, according to their truly wicked schemes.
[The latest National Geographic has an insect menu already chosen inside. Planned release? .mod]

Reply to  imoira
September 6, 2014 7:25 pm

Good point regarding rationing, imoira. I’ll probably have to give up half my lawn clipping coupons just to get two crickets and 1/2 a rat’s tail… the skinny end, not the fat end… if they’re not out of rat tails by the time my place in line comes up. They’ll go fast, don’t you know.

Reply to  imoira
September 6, 2014 9:44 pm

After they run out of rat tails guess what the next part of the rat is , and they don’t give a rat’s …

Reply to  H.R.
September 6, 2014 11:45 pm

The Hunger games is what the 1%s & their green dupes have in mind for The Proles.

September 6, 2014 7:08 pm

Much of the appeal of environmentalism in the first place is the claim of superior motives.
“Because I am altruistic and you are greedy and selfish, I DESERVE power, and you do not. That arrangement of status is more important than trivialities like the vote.”

September 6, 2014 7:12 pm

Ditch democracy?
Let’s ditch the government instead.

September 6, 2014 7:19 pm

Not surprising that the ABC has cut off comments to this article. As far as I got down the list, there seemed to be about 50% supporting CAGW, and appealing to authority – although most did not use that label, and 50% supporting democracy.

a happy little debunker
Reply to  Dudley Horscroft
September 7, 2014 11:36 am

Nah, they posted late on Friday, then took off for the weekend.
The ABC staff don’t do weekends!

September 6, 2014 7:23 pm

I just finished reading Norman Naimark’s “Stalin’s Genocides.” He points out the violent intolerance inherent in apocalyptic utopianism, which exactly describes the green vision.
Naimark accounts for Stalin’s millions of murders (p. 129) as due to charismatic revolutionary leadership, “dictatorial powers, ideological motivations, and Promethean transformative aspirations [that] led them to use mass killings … to achieve the impossible future that defined their very essence.”
Does that not sound like the green dream? Do they not yearn for an impossible Promethean transformation? Does not Naomi Orestes long for exactly that dictatorial power? Can anyone imagine that cheering greens would not join en masse a charismatic leader who galvanized their utopia through violent revolution?
Godwin’s Law notwithstanding, Naimark equates Stalin and Hitler as two of a kind as regards their promises, their vision, their violent intolerance, and their mass murdering methods. There isn’t a 20th century social utopian movement that did not gestate these traits and, once in power, indulge mass murder to eliminate political opponents and anyone else opportunistically defined as not with the program.
Environmental radicals are not getting their way. They have become terminally frustrated because reality continues to slip away from their vision. Apocalyptic utopianism justifies extreme measures.
This is what we contemplate in Naomi Oreskes and her like. They lubricate the recrudescence of a monstrous evil in the name of a utopian good.
In the ABC, we have an example of their success. So reasonable-seeming have they made their obviously foolish ideas, that a major organ of a free press calmly countenances its own enslavement. And ours.

Reply to  Pat Frank
September 6, 2014 8:08 pm

If you read about the Moscow Processes, the extermination of all real and imagined opposition to Stalin in the 1930s, you will see that several leading Bolsheviks would agree to all accusations against them, no matter how absurd, even without torture, simply because they could not mentally accept that their precious theory could be wrong. They might fail as individuals, but the system could not fail, that was impossible for them to wrap their minds around. For these disturbed persons, it was better to admit guilt -even to themselves- rather than to raise painful questions about the dream around which they had built their lives.
It seems that present-day alarmists have a bit of the same mindset; the system can not be wrong, therefore I must be right. We saw the same warped ideaologies in the radical 70s, which culminated in the truly crazy ideas of the German terrorist Bader-Meinhof group. The overpowering need to believe in a cause, in a Western world which is predominately secularized, diverts these souls into political extremism, where in earlier days they might have been gently and harmlessly steered towards a more benign religious devotion.
As for Churchill, another of his wonderful quips goes like this: “Democracy is the worst of political systems. Except for all the others.”
Although he, like any statesman, might have yearned a bit for the luxury of unfettered power:
“All I ever wanted was compliance with my wishes, after reasonable discussion.”

Reply to  ConTrari
September 7, 2014 11:32 am

I’m not sure they weren’t tortured or at least thoroughly cowed – see “Moscow 1937” for a recent (excellent) summary of that amazing year.

Reply to  Pat Frank
September 7, 2014 12:20 am

Bollocks !

Reply to  Pat Frank
September 7, 2014 12:33 am

I have plenty of experience with editors, Peter. They choose which to publish from among available essays. The ABC editor chose to publish totalitarian advocacy.
You could have chosen, but didn’t, to include such as The Nation or Mother Jones as examples of those famous for extreme views. An unbiased observer would have provided a distribution of political exemplars.

Reply to  Pat Frank
September 7, 2014 12:49 am
Reply to  Pat Frank
September 7, 2014 12:18 pm

Connor Duffy did not present the “dominant science,” Peter, but merely the dominant view.
There is no science supporting the AGW position. I can demonstrate that and have done before trained audiences, some of which included climate scientists. I very much doubt that Connor Duffy understands anything of the science, so his views on presenting it fairly will not be informed by actual knowledge.
Mr. Duffy’s article, for example, refers sympathetically to the CSIRO’s “careful” presentation of Australian temperatures, whereas Jennifer Morahasy has shown that the CSIRO adjusted Rutherglen data so as to turn a 0.4 C cooling trend into a 1.7 C warming trend. Their ultimate excuse was that they’re using known algorithms that have produced a temperature trend for Australia consistent with trends found elsewhere.
Mr. Duffy is also sympathetic to the IPCC, which has presided over a thoroughly corrupted process that has long countenanced lies, such as Ben Santer’s 1995 self-admitted lie (pdf) about a discernible human influence on climate, and has modified its reports to suit the politicized demands of governments and NGOs.
Why wouldn’t non-bias in a journalist be predicated on a willingness to report on that?
When pressed, AGW asserters’ final tack is to say that, well, after all, CO2 *is* a greenhouse gas, as though that’s enough by itself to validate the whole climate warming claim. It’s not.

Reply to  Pat Frank
September 9, 2014 3:06 am

3 more. Then take a break, until one of us catches up with your threadjacking. And keep in mind that my comments are replies to your specious nonsense. So they cannot be called threadjacking. Yours are. Stop it.

September 6, 2014 7:24 pm

Have you seen pictures of the ghost cities in China? They were part of the building frenzy there. The plan is to move the peasant farmers into dense vertical housing in the sustainable cities – planned with bicycle paths and streets too narrow and winding for regular vehicular traffic. The design is similar to what ICLEI and one its sister organizations, the American Planning Association are using in American and Canadian cities. The farm holdings in China will be take over by government corporations.
In rural parts of America, Canada and Australia, governments are taking over private property to be used as wild lands and wet lands or heritage lands that will be off limits to citizens. The government breaks up the asphalt leading to the once private properties and puts locked gates to previous road access. In some places, the wild lands are being stocked with wolves to make sure people won’t trespass. The wolves, however, trespass on farming land and attack sheep and, I guess, other livestock. All of this is being done to move people from the rural areas – and to save Earth from man.
Am I making this up? Talk to friends and relatives in your state – except Alabama where Agenda 21 has been de-agended by the state.

Reply to  imoira
September 6, 2014 9:56 pm

You are not making it up, it was tried here in our small community about ten years ago. But thankfully it was stopped but I also see (as the current old timers pass on, and they were the ones that stopped it) the new generation will cave.

September 6, 2014 7:27 pm

The original article was written by a regular lefty academic contributor to the ABC (who I won’t bother naming) from a lefty University in South Australia. Why does he get air space on the publicly funded ABC? Probably some deal done when the former Gillard government dished out extra largess to it. Coincidently Gillard was offered a cushy “academic” job at the same university when she was ousted from office.

Walter Sobchak
September 6, 2014 7:27 pm

Not original. Tom Friedman of the NYTimes made the same play about 2 years ago.
I guess that it would not be sporting to point out that the real Chinese government (not the fantasy one in their heads) has no use for AGW hysteria, and has systematically torpedoed every effort to reach an international carbon control treaty.

Reply to  Walter Sobchak
September 6, 2014 8:43 pm

Greens regularly express disdain for democracy, but something doesn’t have to be original to be newsworthy.

Walter Sobchak
Reply to  Eric Worrall
September 6, 2014 8:57 pm

Once is an accident. Twice is a coincidence. Three times is enemy action. They are outing themselves as the enemy.

Reply to  Walter Sobchak
September 7, 2014 12:39 am

China already has the totalitarian govt system the ‘green’ movement slavers for.
There, they are opening up China to enterprise, to prevent revolution.
They are afraid of the pitchforks.
Here in the West, the 1%s are busy shutting down enterprise & progress, & dragging what remnants of mankind they allow to survive, back to some pre-industrial nightmare where ‘they’ dream of clinging to power & riches forever.
Madness, of course.
‘They’ are afraid of the pitchforks also.
The mad “Green” troops are just dupes.
Control freak cowards, the lot of them, the 1%s dream of an impossible situation of pre 1789 power, privilege & wealth without the coming turmoil, while the ‘dupe troops’ dream of their equally impossible religion, or political philosophy, or whatever they want to call it, their Communist Nirvana.
Running away from the future, I call it, back to an impossible past.
And both wings of the “progressive” (what an Orwellian term) movement willing to slaughter untold millions of their fellows to gain their unspeakable ends.
Still, the word spreads, there is hope.
We live in the most interesting times.

michael hart
September 6, 2014 7:30 pm

They really should be more careful what they wish for.

September 6, 2014 7:30 pm

The Brave New World …

September 6, 2014 7:31 pm

Isn’t it sad that they have to lie
To make things sound bad, they’ll see what can slip by
The “87% of Australians” they quote
Is just 57 — it’s “greenhouse gas bloat.”

“For example, 86 per cent of people in Canada and 87 per cent of people in Australia believe in human-caused climate change (even in America where the climate denial movement is strongest, this belief is still at 57 per cent).”

I’ve not tracked down the other claims yet
But they lie here so [often], more lie’s the safe bet
In this case, this number appears in linked words,
But it’s just 87 percent — of two-thirds.
===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

Reply to  Keith DeHavelle
September 6, 2014 10:01 pm

Where did you get the “86% of Canadians believe in human-caused climate change” number from?Down Town Office of the NDP? or their Ottawa affiliate? WHOAAAH. That is not correct! Go check in Edmonton Alberta!

Shawn from High River Alberta
Reply to  asybot
September 7, 2014 9:34 am

Agreed! 86% certainly sounds like a number pulled outta their rear!

Reply to  asybot
September 7, 2014 9:51 am

You’d probably find more than 86% of posters here ‘believe in human-caused climate change’. We just don’t think the human race should go back to the caves because CO2 might have a tiny impact on the weather.
So those polls are just typical Leftist-speak, where they take the answer to one question and use it to imply something completely different.
What puzzles me is why governments continue to send taxpayers’ money to these Regressive left-wing national broadcasters? What possible benefit is there?

Reply to  asybot
September 7, 2014 6:47 pm

Unfortunately all our Provincial Premiers are onside with the Climate Conn
Premiers endorse climate change plan

Reply to  Keith DeHavelle
September 6, 2014 10:51 pm

Clean up on Aisle McIntyre.

mark l
September 6, 2014 7:32 pm

And the CAGW crowd still proclaim that their decisions are scientific and not political based.

September 6, 2014 7:33 pm

We’ll have WordPress editing ‘ere I find my coffin
Please change above “after” to be instead “often”
===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle
[not “ever-after”, as in a fairy tall? 8<) .mod]

Reply to  Keith DeHavelle
September 6, 2014 11:58 pm

I bet you even talk in rhyme at the dinner table. ( To youself ).
Very irritating.

Reply to  Greg
September 7, 2014 7:26 am

Nobody forces you to read this, or reply to it. You can take you irritation and stuff it.

Jeff L
September 6, 2014 7:35 pm

If you ever had a doubt CAGW was all about politics & not science, this should post should convince you that you should have no doubt CAGW is all about left wing politics, full stop.

September 6, 2014 7:40 pm

China’s ability to weather disastrous climate change vindicated the necessity of centralised government
If dear Naomi would learn to use Google she would have noticed China’s coal consumption has increased from 1.5 billion tonnes per year in 2000 through 2.0 billion tonnes in 2004, 3.0 billion tonnes in 2009 to 4.0 billion tonnes in 2012.
in one way she is right, centralised authoritarian regimes can achieve things democratic government cannot, usually by “re-educating” their opponents or just plain shooting them.

Reply to  old44
September 6, 2014 8:29 pm

Yes, and the Soviet State made everything simple and rational: One shoe factory, one shoe model. Who needs two types of shoes? It just makes you waste potentially productive time choosing between them.
Oh wait, maybe there were two factories; one for right foot shoes in Utopinsk, and one for left foot shoes in Brutograd. Using the blueprint of the first factory of course. Only problem was, the Central Committee order to mirror image the blueprint of the right foot shoe design, in order to make left foot shoes, never percolated down to the local level.

Reply to  ConTrari
September 7, 2014 4:52 am

I’ve heard a true story along these lines. Apparently there was a standard lift (elevator) built in Russia. It only had 7 floor buttons, and was just blocked if the building was less than 7 floors tall. As buildings became taller, they still had to use the same lift. What they had to do was move the lift a multiple of floors for each button, and you then get off above your floor and walk down (or up if you wish). You had to know how many floors were in the building, calculate the correct lift button to reach your destination, and hope you got it right.
That is communism action, the ‘one size fits all’ approach. I hate that approach. In my experience, it is ‘one size fits everyone except me’, although I suspect I am in the majority.

Mike McMillan
September 6, 2014 7:45 pm

The article quotes one of our old favorites, Naomi Oreskes, who celebrates China’s authoritarian political process; “China’s ability to weather disastrous climate change vindicated the necessity of centralised government … inspiring similar structures in other, reformulated nations.”

September 6, 2014 8:01 pm

Yup, and we can make the trains run on time too.
Actually they allege, contrary to all evidence, that it would be a simple matter to have us all use public transport to get around, rather than individual cars.
That it would be immensely impractical, taking twice as long to do anything, does not concern them. We have to be uncomfortable, so that we can wallow in our guilt for wanting nice things.

September 6, 2014 8:02 pm

Funny how these fake environmentalists, love democracy, until the majority reject their stupid schemes.
Just like our oh so progressive folk are all about their rights, until other peoples rights get in their way.
These Greens, low life, deluded do-gooders one and all.

September 6, 2014 8:08 pm

So what they’re admitting is that “Climate Change” is a communist plot all along.
They have to get rid of democracy to implement it.
They’re finally cutting to the chase.

Leo G
Reply to  RockyRoad
September 6, 2014 9:18 pm

Dr Burdon recommends an end to Australia’s present system of representative democracy in favour of representation by people chosen in the manner of Athenian demos of the 5th century BC- effectively representation by individuals selected by soviets.

September 6, 2014 8:10 pm

Leftist ideology always ends up in the same place. Sooner or later totalitarianism takes the stage. Like clockwork.

September 6, 2014 8:33 pm

Wow. So Naomi the village idiot wants to move to China? She actually uses China as a “good example” when talking about the environment?

James Bull
Reply to  JBP
September 6, 2014 11:25 pm

I thought the same when I read her quote, isn’t China one of the “developing” nations that is supposedly poisoning the planet with all the nasty coal fired power stations it’s building.
James Bull

Reply to  James Bull
September 7, 2014 7:34 am

Well, it is clear that China has the CAPABILITY to implement the effective “climate change policy”. That they (and any other totalitarian regimes like them) have absolutely no desire to do so is completely irrelevant to her and those like here.

Mark and two Cats
September 6, 2014 8:50 pm

…ditch Democracy to ensure a climate change response
It’s already happening in the United States.

September 6, 2014 9:20 pm

James Lovelock: Humans are too stupid to prevent climate change
The Guardian, Monday 29 March 2010 13.15 BST
One of the main obstructions to meaningful action is “modern democracy”, he added. “Even the best democracies agree that when a major war approaches, democracy must be put on hold for the time being. I have a feeling that climate change may be an issue as severe as a war. It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while.”
Matt Briggs deconstructs the Prophet Lovelock
Since it is Lovelock’s comment about human ignorance that is our subject today, it is well to point out that Lovelock himself lacks the mental capacity to see the inconsistencies in his theory, despite being given plenty of time to notice them, and being given the able assistance of many critics.

charles nelson
September 6, 2014 9:26 pm

Defund the ABC.

Reply to  charles nelson
September 7, 2014 5:11 am

Canada’s CBC is reluctantly “restructuring” (i.e., downsizing) in response to economic realities. I’m not sure if “Kooks go first” is the policy though.

Krudd Gillard of the Commondebt of Australia
September 6, 2014 9:27 pm

The ABC. *Sigh*. Biting the hand that feeds it as usual. Their sense of entitlement is sickening.

September 6, 2014 9:32 pm

German TV show mocks green policies of grand coalition
You may think this is just a parody, but …It really is a religion. Still, it is hilarious.

Reply to  Dennis Kuzara
September 7, 2014 5:17 am

German imitation of the “Daily Show”; but not produced by a (crony) capitalist broadcaster, but by the state media. In terms of badness, I can discern little difference to the original.

September 6, 2014 9:55 pm

Oreskes:“China’s ability to weather disastrous climate change vindicated the necessity of centralised government … inspiring similar structures in other, reformulated nations.”
Chinese Totalitarians burning as much coal as possible in order to overcome disastrous underdevelopment inspired other, now “reformulated” into Totalitarian nations to do the same? No doubt this ends up lessening the”obscene inequality between the rich and poor nations” and thus appeases Gaia, who then backs off on the CO2 Apocalypse! However, it’s still back to the Stone Age under Obama Justice for us here in the USA according to the principles of Activist Justice to achieve Climate Justice via Social Justice. After all, it’s only Fair according to the principles of Justice Gibberish:means=ends=Thought Control Justice.

Doug Proctor
September 6, 2014 10:30 pm

Perhaps Putin could provide an expert opinion on this subject.

Reply to  Doug Proctor
September 6, 2014 11:00 pm

It’s embarrassing to admit, but at least Putin would have valid scientific advice on climate:
Sir David King’s Queenie Fit
Sir David apparently walked out with his delegation in mid-answer to one question. Commenting on this display, Illarionov said, “It is not for us to give an assessment to what happened, but in our opinion the reputation of British science, the reputation of the British government, and the reputation of the title ‘Sir’ has sustained heavy damage.”

Reply to  brent
September 7, 2014 12:16 am

“The Times’s economics editor has written that the environmentalists pushing these policies “are like the medieval monks who favored self-flagellation as the road to virtue. ”
Horsehair shirts are a good, natural “low carbon” clothing option.

Reply to  Doug Proctor
September 6, 2014 11:16 pm
Reply to  Doug Proctor
September 7, 2014 12:49 am

Worth revisiting in full Andrei Illarionov comments linked from Donna’s article:
July 8 Press Conference with Andrei Illarionov (Presidential Economic Adviser)
The next point brings us directly to the Kyoto Protocol, or more specifically, to the ideological and philosophical basis on which it is built. That ideological base can be juxtaposed and compared, as Professor Reiter has done just now, with man-hating totalitarian ideology with which we had the bad fortune to deal during the 20th century, such as National Socialism, Marxism, Eugenics, Lysenkovism and so on. All methods of distorting information existing in the world have been committed to prove the alleged validity of these theories. Misinformation, falsification, fabrication, mythology, propaganda. Because what is offered cannot be qualified in any other way than myth, nonsense and absurdity.
And maybe the last touch. During the discussion of the economic impact of the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol and of when Russia will achieve the 1990 emission level, one of the representatives of this official British team of scientists and government officials said quite bluntly: Russia cannot expect an increase in the population, on the contrary, the population will decrease. And as long as you reduce your population, you can meet the Kyoto Protocol requirements.

September 6, 2014 10:46 pm

Unfortunately I missed the opportunity to comment on this at the ABC site. I suggest we sack the lot of them and introduce a taxpayer funded broadcasting agency that is representative of the people in this country. Even their lying attempt to suggest that 87% of Australian believe in climate change is a gross misrepresentation of the facts taken from the self-appointed know nothings at the Climate Institute – yes that’s right the people who were sacked by the current democratically elected government. Don’t stop there Tony sack the ABC too! They are a total liability and have gone out of their way to bad mouth Australia and Australians around the world to the detriment of Australia and its interests.

September 6, 2014 11:05 pm

This is quite a misleading take on what was published and by whom.
Sure it was published on the ABC “Drum” site. This is not an endorsement by the public broadcaster as it accepts pieces from all sides for publication which are open for comment.
The author is:
Dr Peter D Burdon is a senior lecturer at the Adelaide Law School. He is currently a visiting Scholar at the University of California Berkeley.
More apropos is his comment:
“Put more directly, I contend that it is not democracy that stands in the way, but the dominance of money and corporate interests in politics.”
He may be a Greenie and lean to Bob Brown’s (retired Green Party leader) aspirations to a World Govt but his article hardly endorses the misleading interpretation posited here.

Michael in Sydney
Reply to  tonyM
September 7, 2014 12:58 am

The Drum is a sounding board for all the ABC’s favorite ideologues with a smattering of conservative commentators to give the bleeding hearts in Newtown and Balmain something to be shocked about. This is not a misleading take on the what was published and it is an endorsement. Anybody who didn’t think so is a fool or a liar.

Reply to  Michael in Sydney
September 7, 2014 1:29 am

Michael in Sydney:
I meant to post here.
Michael, before you label others of being liars or fools first look to yourself more closely if you can be sufficiently introspective. Judging by your remarks I certainly doubt that.
The title “The Australian Government Broadcaster asks if we should ditch Democracy to ensure a climate change response” is a sad and sorry deception of a private article in an Opinion section of the ABC (Drum) which is open for comment.

Berényi Péter
September 6, 2014 11:24 pm

Comrades, I trust that every animal here appreciates the sacrifice that Comrade Napoleon has made in taking this extra labour upon himself. Do not imagine, comrades, that leadership is a pleasure! On the contrary, it is a deep and heavy responsibility. No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?

September 6, 2014 11:38 pm

The ABC and the Greens in Australia have now reached terminal stupidity. Instead of asking : “Is it democracy that is blocking progress on climate change or the current limited version of it that pervades Western society?”, they should be asking, “Is it the intelligence and clear thinking of the general population in Australia, that is rejecting progress on climate change”.
People are not as stupid as the ABC or the Greens and can see that there has been no ‘Climate Change” for about twenty years. Certainly there has been weather change and climate change, but people know that this is not the same as “Climate Change” as caused by CO2. Farmers, especially, are delighted with the extra CO2 as it boost their crops..

stas peterson
September 7, 2014 12:07 am

It is becoming increasingly clear that the “Watermelons” are revealing themselves to be nothing but would-be totalitarian mass killers.
Since when has any of the marxist world actually given a damn about the environment or the phony CAGW? The worst cesspools of environmental degradation exist there. Speak to me of the pristene AIr Quality in China, Mouthpiece Ms. Oreskes, and the product of the superiority of totalitarianism.
They are would-be mass murderers on the loose, who concede their program includes killing on a mass scale in the multi-billions to get humanity down to a number that is ever shifting and undefineable but “sustainable”, and controllable. They brag of the “Big Die Off” they would initiate and deem necessary, and glory in it. Pol Pot and Adolph Hitler both Socialists, published such tripe before they came to power too.
Naomi and the rest deserve Nuremberg trials; and then mass hangings. Before they are in a position to expand the Gulags on a grand scale once more.
As for the ABC, the very existence of a government news media answers a question long since become irrelevant. There is no scarcity of thought or expression, which was once feared, except in the government bureaucracies so populated with leftist ideology. The answer ? Simply defund it; and watch it become, Gone with the Wind…

Reply to  stas peterson
September 7, 2014 1:38 am

I’ve an alternative suggestion while awaiting those trials, Stas. I’d dearly like to see Stony Bliar in the dock.
How about banning them to an uninhabited & inhospitable Island where they can organise each other endlessly into a communist paradise, on a Codex Alimentarius diet, of course, & with all the renewable energy they could cobble together themselves?

September 7, 2014 1:26 am

Michael before you label others of being liars or fools first look to yourself more closely if you can be sufficiently introspective. Judging by your remarks I certainly doubt that.
The title “The Australian Government Broadcaster asks if we should ditch Democracy to ensure a climate change response” is a sad and sorry deception of a private article in an Opinion section of the ABC (Drum) which is open for comment.

Reply to  tonyM
September 7, 2014 1:42 am

The title of the ABC article is “Is democracy hurting our climate change response?”

Reply to  Eric Worrall
September 7, 2014 2:11 am

You still don’t get it.
Firstly the title is a question. Further the Drum is an opinion section of the ABC where this article is sourced from an author independent of the ABC; it is not endorsed by the ABC. Further the author himself stated:
“Put more directly, I contend that it is not democracy that stands in the way, but the dominance of money and corporate interests in politics.”
What more do you need????

Reply to  Eric Worrall
September 7, 2014 2:55 am

If you read what I wrote, you’ll see I described this switch from praising authoritarianism to questioning the structure of democracy, and my perception of the article, which in my opinion was entirely too sympathetic to the authoritarian option.

Reply to  Eric Worrall
September 7, 2014 4:48 am

Ah the famous question mark in headlines. It is a device to push an opinion or story without valid supporting evidence or for avoiding any responsibility or accountability for what the story or opinion implies. It is meant to provoke or mis-inform not enlighten.
TonyM, claiming the question mark as an excuse for the title “Is democracy hurting our climate change response?” is either disingenuous or naive. The editors at ABC were pushing that opinion.
Furthermore you provide this quote, “Put more directly, I contend that it is not democracy that stands in the way, but the dominance of money and corporate interests in politics.”
I don’t know that this dissolves the ABC of responsibility for being stupid either. Does ABC only want a democracy turned into dictatorship if ABC disagrees with the voters of that democracy?
Note the question mark.

Reply to  Eric Worrall
September 7, 2014 5:21 am

September 7, 2014 at 4:48 am
“Ah the famous question mark in headlines. It is a device to push an opinion or story without valid supporting evidence or for avoiding any responsibility or accountability for what the story or opinion implies. It is meant to provoke or mis-inform not enlighten.”
It is a device to implant an idea; to make something unthinkable acceptable. It will be followed by Orwellian word redefinitions and endless iterations of human reprogramming until the idea can be put on the table and rubberstamped. Sowing the seeds of Glorious Revolution.

Reply to  Eric Worrall
September 7, 2014 5:37 am

If you are not Australian you might be excused. If you are familiar with the Drum you will be aware that it is an opinion section and has little relevance to the ABC opinion or editorial.
Your piece clearly implicates the ABC as if the article was endorsed by the ABC which is nonsense. Look at your headline and also the opening paragraph. They have no relevance to the ABC as media organization. You are clearly claiming the ABC has adopted and endorsed the opinion of an independent writer by cliaming:
“The Australian Broadcasting Corporation, a taxpayer funded media organization, has just asked whether we should consider restructuring democracy to ensure an efficient response to the climate “crisis”.
In this sense it does not matter that it was posed as a question which I then pointed out was negated in the posting. The ABC did NOT ask the question and did NOT endorse the article.
By its charter the ABC is obliged to deal in an even handed way with diverse opinion. Whether the article is “entirely too sympathetic to the authoritarian option.” as you claim is immaterial; it is not for the ABC to decide what sympathy should be appropriate if the article meets standards for publication.
Equally, you are entitled to submit an article directly opposing this and there would be questions asked if it met publication standards but was not allowed.
For example, Anthony Watts would have ample scope to submit a piece that was topical and receive favourable consideration (I don’t believe it is restricted to Australians). Nutticelli and Mann have had pieces published. So too have Cook and Jo Nova each with their own biases.
This also addresses Alx comment.

Reply to  Eric Worrall
September 7, 2014 6:15 am

Re the ABC Drum publishing, these extracts are self explanatory.
“The Drum publishes opinion and analysis by ABC journalists and people from across the Australian community.”
“The Drum is the ABC’s opinion and analysis website. It presents writing from ABC staff and members of the public.
Opinion pieces must endeavour to be provocative with the ultimate aim of generating public debate.
The Drum is an online space for contributors to present their own opinions. The ABC does not take responsibility for the opinions or facts presented by non-staff writers.”

Reply to  Eric Worrall
September 7, 2014 6:19 am

Sorry if it seems out of place but the extracts from the Drum publication requirements is pertinent to a piece awaiting moderation.

Reply to  Eric Worrall
September 7, 2014 4:37 pm

If it will make you feel better, the article was originally published in the ABC Environment section.
Does this make it more, or less, permissible to say “the ABC asks…”?

Reply to  Eric Worrall
September 7, 2014 5:58 pm

Look closely at the “Environment” department. What section does this article come under? Is it a surprise to you that it reads “OPINION?”
It’s in bold and underlined at the head of the article. Does it surprise you that such opinion is quite divorced from the opinion of the ABC – however one might define such a collective opinion?
This was never an issue with whether I am to feel better. You have embarked on an erroneous depiction of the ABC policy, editorial and content. Had you put your piece on the Drum you would by now have been slaughtered, not by the ABC, but by the comments from the community of readers.
You would have gained little traction because we can differentiate between individual opinion and opinion tolerated within the charter of the ABC with its own reporting standards. The ABC has an obligation to the public to allow diverse opinion to be expressed; it provides a citizens’ forum for such open expression.
My main issue is that you have introduced this into a forum where people are not familiar with our system and can’t be expected to form that judgement. This is why I said that you can be excused if you are not Australian.
The Australian people are rightly proud of our ABC. Pride alone is not sufficient reason to defend it; it must meet its obligations judged in an objective manner.

Reply to  Eric Worrall
September 7, 2014 7:02 pm

I’m Australian Tony. The ABC does not speak for me, and neither do you.
You can wriggle all you want, but if WUWT had published an “opinion” piece which discussed totalitarianism in positive terms, I doubt you would have been so understanding.

Reply to  Eric Worrall
September 7, 2014 7:29 pm

You are squirming.
As an Aussie, you should know better than to make silly, misleading comments or trite comparisons of a private forum to a public organization subject to scrutiny under its charter.
That charter makes no comment about speaking for you, personally, and the ABC did not try to do so. If you have a problem with it you are free to pursue it through the appropriate channels.
Bluntly, you have no case. If you did you would not have used this forum where most of the readers are unfamiliar with our system. You would have tried to make a case in the Australian media, which is diverse.
I find it a cowardly, deceptive attack on the ABC for whatever purpose you have. This sort of sensationalism makes me wonder whether the BBC has not been similarly treated; it is just a thought as I have no experience there.
In Oz, you are wrong!! But, you are free to be wrong and hide from scrutiny here which would not have as high an Oz readership to know and respond.

Reply to  Eric Worrall
September 7, 2014 8:22 pm


richard verney
September 7, 2014 1:37 am

“Is it democracy that is blocking progress on climate change or the current limited version of it that pervades Western society?”
I do not know what they meant by that comment, but if it was intended to note that we do not have democracy in the West, then it is very true; sad but true.
In the West by no stretch of the imagination do we have any thing resembling democracy. probably the nearest one come to it is Switzerland, where they have a habit of referring matters to referendem to see what the people think of discrete issues.
Perhaps the time has come to adopt a very small state and an adversarial system, whereby government merely manages essential services such as the police, fire service etc, but have no control of wider policies, and every major issue is put to the people to decide by voting say online via the internet or mobile phone.. The government would employ experts one for the case and one against the case, and these expert’s views would be aired on the News (alotted equal time to each expert) so that the public can see both sides of every arugment, and then let the people decide which way they want to go.
One needs to do something to wrestle power away from the niche political class, and put it back in the hands of the people, so that there is government by the people for the people.

Reply to  richard verney
September 7, 2014 11:45 am

Our federal government was never intended to have near as much power as it has. As a Republic (not a strict democracy) almost all powers were supposed to reside in the states. However, over time the Federal government has amassed more and more power, to the point the US is about to become a dictatorship. So much power has been given to the Executive branch agencies that we are on the verge of losing it all.

Reply to  alcheson
September 7, 2014 11:47 am

We have the EPA writing and enforcing regulations, at gun-point if necessary, without needing approval from Congress. We have the DOJ choosing which laws to enforce and which ones not to enforce, and deciding which ones them deem constitutional and which ones they don’t. We have the IRS targeting individuals and groups they don’t politically agree with.

Jaakko Kateenkorva
September 7, 2014 1:46 am

Why is it that in these types of pictures the participants can be counted in two seconds? A bit like the 30 or so Super-human who were carrying paper filled boxes with the power of one hand only.

September 7, 2014 2:08 am

Whenever you hear the words ‘for the good of the people ‘ that is when you should start to worry , for they are often heard from those who intended no good and are certainly not for the people at all. Throughout history no tyrant has ever started by claiming that they hate others and want them died , they all start with the claim with what they are doing is ‘good ‘ for the country, people , tripe or whatever and that if some have to suffer that is price worth paying .
The Greens merely follow in that long ignoble trend .

September 7, 2014 2:21 am

The greens wishes for a global government have already been tried in the form of the League of Nations. It was dissolved right after some Austrian and Georgian mustache guys prioritized their centrally governed utopia over democracy. Supported by a handful of reality-immune idealists with national and/or international ambitions.

September 7, 2014 2:26 am

IN my opinion, great progress is being made in the ‘battle against climate change’. Democracy, especially via the internet, is educating millions of people that they shouldn’t trust what Governments tell them without finding independent sources to verify what they are told. In short, the skills of traditional journalism is slowly being transferred as a core skill to Joe Schmo, his sister Joe Schmoette etc etc.
I think we should distinguish between ‘progress toward tyrannical world government’ and ‘progress in human relations on earth’ when discussing this matter.
Whilst progress toward one world government is progress down a particular path, it is incontrovertibly not progress in the move away from feudal governance toward inclusive government by consent.

September 7, 2014 3:09 am

in Australia the ABC is second rate and I don,t know anybody that takes any notice of the BS they pedaling

September 7, 2014 3:19 am

United we’ll stand and divided we’ll fall should be the war cry of a solid social democracy . BUT we live in a world were the military controls our lives and they use divide and concour. The backbone for a good democracy is a trustworthy media. The problem is that we live in a world were people will sell their soul for a dollar or two. The way to control the masses is to control knowledge or knowing by the use of propaganda. The first thing a nation does when they have invaded another country is burn all their books and replace it with their own literature.

September 7, 2014 3:23 am

Typical of the lovey, gay liberals who inhabit and run the BBC and ABC. (Effeminates, attracted by the performing arts.) They are often authoritarian, as long as the proposed authority is extreme gay and liberal. But you should hear them curse and swear if you suggest that the authoritarian regime should be extreme right wing.
Having said that, when you get authoritarian regimes, right and left seem to blend into one. Stalin, Mao and Castro were communist socialists, but not very gay, while H!tler was also a socialist.

Reply to  ralfellis
September 7, 2014 10:01 am

Because unlike people of your beliefs, this site does not censor. If you don’t like a comment, you can respond in your own way.

Reply to  ralfellis
September 7, 2014 8:24 pm

Also happens to be right.

September 7, 2014 3:32 am

Yes, but keep in mind that while the ABC is totally out of control, and acting against Australia`s intersts, Tony Abbot is allowing it to happen.
Tony Abbot: friend of the ABC?

September 7, 2014 4:20 am

Should Australia ditch the ABC to preserve democracy?

September 7, 2014 4:32 am

The left contemplates authoritarian centralized government because they see themselves doing it. Kind of like authoritarian, centralized science. Dissent is bothersome.

September 7, 2014 5:08 am

The green vote needs to stay below 10%. At that rate, they have a voice but they have no real power to damage the economy, the government, the democracy and the people. They are not competent enough to have more than a voice.
If you are in one of those unfortunate countries where they have more than 10% of the vote, they are doing damage. It won’t stop until you can get your fellow voters to stop voting for or giving money to incompetent green parties (or parties that have a large green component to them exceeding 10%, the Democratic Party in the US?).

September 7, 2014 5:40 am

These guys want to enslave us under the New World Order. Why can’t they just come out and say it?

Frank K.
September 7, 2014 6:02 am

I am truly amazed at the number of left wing, extremist progressives that have shown up here to defend totalitarianism in the name of “climate change”. Truly stunning. There was a time when such an article would have been too repulsive for a mainstream news/entertainment outlet like the ABC to publish. But not any more. Extremist views are the norm now in the mainstream media.
We all need to keep fighting this menace – don’t buy their newspapers, magazines, or other products. Complain loudly to the news organization in question and their sponsors/enablers. Remove all their links from your phone, ipad , and computer. And suggest to your friends and neighbors that they do the same…

September 7, 2014 6:14 am

The green true believers will never accept that they could be wrong or that they have any obligation to consider the wishes of the electorate. So they will respond to this setback by blaming the people. They will conclude that the ignorant masses are suffering from false consciousness and don’t know what’s good for them. Therefore it is not only permissible to ignore what the people say they want but a positive duty to do so. The more the greens get rejected at the ballot box the more openly anti-democratic they will become.

September 7, 2014 6:23 am

One constant with leftists, they don’t believe that people should be permitted to disagree with them.
BTW, isn’t China the country that is opening a new COAL fired power plant every week and that has air pollution so bad that people are dying from it? How on earth could any sane person cite them as an environmental model for the rest of us to emulate?

Tom in Florida
September 7, 2014 7:23 am

You already have the DPRK now you can have the DPRA.

September 7, 2014 7:51 am

If the ABC is funded fully or in part by the government in Australia, it seems to me that the country’s authorities should have enough clout with the ABC to force some heads to roll if this extremism in the ABC is viewed widely enough as a threat to Australian democracy and the human rights of the Australian people. The Australian govt’s tolerance of this extremist element (however large that element is) within the ABC and the country’s green leftist and climate alarmist movements should not be taken lightly if the people of Australia truly cherish democracy and human rights as much as we do here in the U.S.
As an American, Australia is one of the countries outside of the U.S. that I admire the most. If I had to live outside the U.S., Australia would be my number one choice. As an Australian, I would almost certainly be willing to take part in any effort to bring this issue to the national forefront and demand action to circumvent it.
Here in the U.S. of course we have the same problem with our green leftist and climate alarmist movements. We unfortunately have a president right now who more than likely would not see any problem with the totalitarian element in those movements, without regard to the size of it. We do have a “green party” here, but they don’t get enough votes at the ballot box (do they even get on the ballot in all 50 states?) to give them any clout here. With the green leftist and climate alarmist elements in the Democratic Party though, the political clout of the greens is routed through them.
In both of our countries, we can only hope that the extremist totalitarian elements in these movements remain small enough that they do not become a serious cause for concern. God help us if it does. G’day mates.

Reply to  CD (@CD153)
September 7, 2014 8:56 am

The ABC has been portrayed in a totally misleading light by this story; I have elaborated above.
Rest assured that it still is a robust organization subject to public scrutiny.
It is fully Govt funded but that should not be the means to determine whether it has achieved the right balance. Tony Abbott has enough sense not to allow that to intrude on more objective tests. It and its sister SBS are still the best broadcasters in town. They are free to air.
Censorship of opinion is not the answer; we have fought in wars to try to guarantee that right of opinion. You have that right as part of your constitution.
A better way to counter is to write a better piece of writing :).

Ralph Kramden
September 7, 2014 8:03 am

Instead of ditching democracy use a common sense approach, make the climate response proportional to the rate of global warming. A lot of global warming a large response, a little warming a little response, no warming no response.

September 7, 2014 8:46 am

This being PRECISELY the end-game that the UN has been accused of engaging in.

Tom J
September 7, 2014 8:51 am

They have no idea whatsoever as to what it is they are proposing. It is not new under the sun. Countless societies since, and probably prior to, the dawn of civilization have always conjured up threats to their existence whether those threats were real or imagined. And, to deal with those threats all forms of interventions, as ghastly as considered necessary, become tolerated, but perhaps the worst intervention of all being the proposal for an authoritarian regime which is granted the features of being unquestioned, unanswerable, and all powerful, so as to be adequately able to deal with the supposed threat.
While not openly advocating a war these people want all the base trappings of such: the thought restrictions, emergency measures, and the delegation of power to authoritarians. Do not for a second think that democracy is a protection against this. As Erdogan of Turkey has said; democracy is like a streetcar, once you get to your destination you get off. Since a democracy is rule of the majority, and a majority always holds absolute power, any representative elected by that majority holds absolutely power. As has been said repeatedly; democracies always elect a tyrant.
As Thomas Jefferson said: A government that is afraid of its people is the guarantee of liberty; but people who are afraid of its government is the presence of tyranny. Democracy does not insure that. Only a limited government, operating within the constraints of the rule of law, rotation within office, and a constitutionally backed republican (not to be confused with the party) system of governance, can provide liberty. And in so doing it provides the greatest, and yet gentle, security.

September 7, 2014 11:13 am

Socialists love to throw around the word “democracy”, but by that they mean Cuban democracy. You should be able to vote for anyone who has the correct political views.

September 7, 2014 11:34 am

Peter ” I am saying that unequivocally the ABC is the most trusted news organisation in Australia.”
Ah, but lets not mix apples and oranges here. Is ABC the most trusted news source when it comes specifically to AGW??

September 7, 2014 11:48 am

In all of this it’s important to realize (especially when comparing with past movements that led to totalitarian states) that today’s leftwing zealots are either wine-and-cheese types or spoiled-brat-SAs. They’re really cut from a different cloth than the Bolshevik (and other) revolutionaries in pre-revolutionary Russia or Erich Rohm’s WWI-battle-hardened storm troopers.

David S
September 7, 2014 12:55 pm

These are the same people who said we shouldn’t call people who go around beheading their fellow humans terrorists. Who left the door to the asylum open?

September 7, 2014 1:38 pm

What should be changed is the Australian government broadcaster.

September 7, 2014 2:42 pm

Where did this story come from? Sources please.

Reply to  gccross
September 7, 2014 4:38 pm

The blue text in the post is a web link to the original article.

Reply to  Eric Worrall
September 7, 2014 6:52 pm

How did I miss that? It’s all clear now ” the dumb” explains it all <:o)

September 7, 2014 3:04 pm

Of course it should…
The mere idea that poor people should have a vote; it’s like going back to the 20th century.

September 7, 2014 5:35 pm

I find it hilarious that Naomi Oreskes uses China as an example for Western govts to follow regarding CAGW “abatement”, when China is destined to lose about $500 billion in low-interest loans to wind/solar corporate start-up costs…
Moreover, China ironically continues to get most of its electrical power from coal plants, which they’re opening at a pace of 2 a week to meet growing energy demands…
To appease Western political hacks, China continues to hold ribbon-cutting ceremonies for expensive and inefficient wind/solar projects, but these are just for show and contribute almost nothing to their power needs.
Way to pick ’em Oreskes…. “Impeccable” leftist “logic” strikes again.

September 7, 2014 10:01 pm

Those who seek absolute power, even though they seek it to do what they regard as good, are simply demanding the right to enforce their own version of heaven on earth. And let me remind you, they are the very ones who always create the most hellish tyrannies.
Barry Goldwater – a man the MSM hated

September 7, 2014 10:09 pm

Can we ditch the ABC to ensure a science approach?

Chris Riley
September 7, 2014 10:22 pm

It was inevitable that sooner or later the CAGW activists would expose themselves as nothing more than what the Chinese would call “running dogs” for the enemies of the individual. Thank you Thank you Thank you ABC

September 8, 2014 12:19 am

Dear naomi should do the world a favour and wear a burka.<:o) please

Bob Kutz
September 8, 2014 7:17 am

While I strongly agree with free speech, a government funded broadcasting company questioning whether or not to ‘ditch’ democracy in favor of a form of government more ‘able to deal with’ climate change or anything else, ought to be defunded.
A democracy ought not pay for propaganda that advocates for totalitarianism.
Taxpayers ought not have to fund fascist propaganda. In the name of saving the environment, peace, or any other cause.

September 8, 2014 7:31 am

if only the American left could be so easily dispatched as the Australians were, we would be in much better shape.

September 8, 2014 8:38 am

Totalitarianism has always been the goal of the deep pockets and special interests that fund climate change “research.” The true believers in AGW are their “useful idiots.”

September 8, 2014 3:37 pm

That reminds me. We have ditched democracy in Germany(*), and it’s getting cold already. So that seems to work.
(*) Try finding a party that is against any of the EU’s policies. Yes there is one small one emerging (AfD), but all the conventional ones are absolutely identically pro-pan-European (Die Linke, Greens, SPD, CDU, FDP (RIP)).

%d bloggers like this: