Will Maurice Newman be Australia’s Lord McAlpine? II

Recall this story:

ROBYN Williams: NOW what if I told you pedophilia is good for children or that asbestos is an excellent inhalant for those with asthma? Or that smoking crack is a normal part, and a healthy one, of teenage life and to be encouraged? You’d rightly find it outrageous. But there have been similar statements coming out of inexpert mouths again and again in recent times, distorting the science (of climate change).

There have been some extraordinary statements. I’m thinking of a couple of bankers who I have met, who have sat through a learned lecture by one of the most famous scientists in the world, and come out at the other end and said, ‘Well, of course it’s not proven.’ And I don’t know how much more evidence you want. And the former chairman of the ABC, Maurice Newman, who had been head of the stock exchange, came out with some drivel in The Australian newspaper a couple of weeks ago about how climate science is a religion.

Maurice Newman – quite understandably – didn’t take too kindly to that and complained to the ABC. But:

An ABC spokeswoman said the complaint was dismissed because the editorial context of the segment was reasonable, meaning “harm and offence” was justified.

In its direct response to Mr Newman, the ABC maintained it did “not equate climate change sceptics to pedophiles”.

I think The Australian’s headline sums it up:

It’s OK to link climate denial to pedophilia, ABC tells ex-chairman Maurice Newman

Mind you – as a former chairman Maurice Newman had plenty of opportunity to clean up the ABC and failed to do so. Here he is discussing his experience.

In March 2010 as chairman, I addressed an in-house conference of 250 ABC leaders. In a speech titled “Trust is the future of the ABC”, I asked, “how might we ensure in our newsrooms we celebrate those who interrogate every truth?” I lamented the mainstream media’s role as an effective gatekeeper. It was too conformist and had missed the warning signs of financial failure. I blamed group think and used climate change as an example. My mistake was to mention climate change.

While most company chairs would find the tenor of my talk unremarkable, Jonathon Holmes, the presenter of Media Watch, was so angry “he could not concentrate”. He found it an inappropriate forum for such remarks. I was interviewed by PM and teased as to whether I was a “climate change denier or not as obvious as that?” As a further censure, that night Tony Jones read a statement on Lateline saying: “Tonight, ABC management responded to Mr Newman’s speech, saying it stands by the integrity of its journalists and its processes.”

Journalistic integrity? Encouraging the leadership to achieve higher standards is to question its integrity? Surely wanting to improve performance is an elementary objective for any organisation, but rather than take on board the challenges I outlined, management decided to put a distance between us.

So did he fire the managers? Stop their bonuses for the year? Move them to “special projects”? Admonish them? Require them to attend “counselling”? I don’t know. Maybe the ABC Chairman can’t do those things, but if not, why not?

I retain a deep affection for the ABC. But, like the BBC, there are signs that a small but powerful group has captured the corporation, at least on climate change.

It is up to the board and management to rectify this.

Maurice – that was your job.

Anyway, quite rightly, Newman doesn’t believe the ABCs protestations.

Ordinarily it should be unnecessary to object to such appalling commentary. It should have been automatically withdrawn. But no. An ABC response used sophistry to satisfy itself “that the presenter Robyn Williams did not equate climate change sceptics to pedophiles”. Tell that to his listeners.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

85 Responses to Will Maurice Newman be Australia’s Lord McAlpine? II

  1. Alfonso

    Hilarious. Maurice was deeply part of the problem, feigning helplessness when in charge……now he wants to rewrite his ABC legacy for the ages. Maurice tried his best but the Chairman at the time was a seat warmer.

  2. Blogstrop

    He’s quite right to point out that they are falling well short of what their charter and their famous earlier heads set down as aspirational goals, to be non-partisan, to be above the hurly burly of arguments and to present things fairly while not taking sides. It’s Epic Fail, with extreme prejudice.
    He’s quite wrong to say that the corporation has been captured by a small but powerful group. It appears that you don’t get a gig at any level unless you are of the left culture. No individual, even at chairman level, can undertake the cleanout that is required of such a thoroughly “marched through” institution.
    I’d be less inclined to collapse the regional network and the Clssic FM branch, which do the job well. Radio National is a disgrace in so far as news and current affairs are concerned, and as usual, the bookish and arty programs are degraded to the point where they are practically shop windows for mates who’ve published recently, or used to push the trendoid philosophies which have brought our country to a sorry state.
    The News Radio branch started out relatively uninfected by ABC type PC, but is now just as bad as the rest.
    No quarter should be given until this nest of perverters of the course of democracy are rendered neutral or extinct ( not a death threat). It’s not a national broadcaster, it,s a shamefully distorted propagandist collective, at least in those important parts which try constantly to affect public opinion.

  3. Tintarella di Luna

    It’s not a national broadcaster, it,s a shamefully distorted propagandist collective, at least in those important parts which try constantly to affect public opinion.

    It’s taken 30 years for the ABC to become the shamefully distorted propagandist collective barracking for Labor that it is today. I remember when the ABC reported the facts without fear or favour.

    Those were the days. Where’s Dame Leonie Kramer when you need her.

  4. Biota

    I was brought up in a Liberal-voting household but we always listened to ABC radio. In the early days that was not inconsistent. It was in the late ’70′s that the creeping change became obvious to me and I concluded that it had become a propaganda arm of the left. With that sort of entrenchment, nothing short of demolition will effect change.

  5. Samuel J

    I’m not sure what influence he had as Chairman. I think that the Board selected the wrong CEO and senior management. But Newman was outnumbered on the Board – look at the attacks he received while Chairman from staff. No other Chairman of a company would be subject to such abuse. I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt – I think he tried to reform the ABC but was rendered powerless. Perhaps he should have resigned on principle. But the only way to reform the ABC is to abolish the ABC.

  6. Up The Workers!

    It is now 3 days until Juliar Gillard’s announced date for “the end of the world”.

    Would the A.L.P.B.C.’s resident scientific comedian Robin Williams, (“Mork form Ork?”) care to nominate on which of those 3 remaining days the world’s seas will all rise by “100 metres” as he famously claimed?

    There is as much “science” in Williams’ comical rantings as there is honesty and truth in the Prime Spin-ster’s statements, or economic sense in Wayne Swan’s cavernous head.

    There is a reason why A.L.P.B.C. T.V. ratings are as abysmally low as they are, and why the circulation figures and share price for the “Fauxfacts” organization are at rock bottom. That reason relates to the A.L.P.

    Nobody believes a word they say any more.

  7. Biota

    Privatising won’t work, look at Fauxfacts.

  8. johno

    From memory, Newman had the likes of Michael Kroger, Janet A, Ron Burton and the Cat’s very own Judith Sloan on his Board. That is an impressive array of talent.

    If that group couldn’t reform the ABC, then reform is NOT possible. The ABC (and SBS) must be sold off so it operates as any other broadcaster. There is no justification for government owned media in a liberal democracy. Leave that to the communists.

  9. Samuel J

    As I wrote before, Williams is a fool if he thinks that sea levels can rise 100 metres – that is
    impossible.

  10. johno

    Privatising won’t work, look at Fauxfacts.

    The issue isn’t that the ABC and SBS are left wing. The issue is that taxpayers are forced to pay for it. If th Left wants to buy the ABC and run it as a commercial success, good luck to them. At least I will not have to support them and they will not have th ecache of being the ‘offical, government sanctioned, national’ broadcaster.

  11. Tintarella di Luna

    I was brought up in a Liberal-voting household but we always listened to ABC radio.

    Same here. I haven’t listened to ABC Radio for about 7 years and gave up on ABC TV about 4 years ago. In 2008 I used to actually go in to the ABC to be in the studio audience of Q & A didn’t take long to realise what a joke it is.

    Haven’t bothered even watching unless there’s a chance of some entertainment with a rare appearance by someone like Brendan O’Neill or Mark Steyn who stand up to the over-talking and hectoring from the tilted panel and give as good as they get.

  12. Alfonso

    “..rendered powerless. Perhaps he should have resigned on principle.”
    Try instead, “he had no ethical choice but to resign but he wasn’t even up to that”.

    Makes Howard’s failure to act even more mysterious, if that is possible. He could have stacked the Board any way he chose except for the comrade staff member.

    My theory remains the only explanation. Their ABC permanently paralyses the Liberals to guarantee its agitprop remains taxpayer funded and untouchable because it has a picture of Menzies doing nasty things to a kelpie.

  13. HRT

    Johno – I’d pay money to watch privatisation of the ABC. It would be much better than watching ACTU Solo and Burke’s going down the S bend as Hawke (I’ll bring this country to its knees) Hawke leads the boffos in Solidarity Forever.

  14. Tom

    the only way to reform the ABC is to abolish the ABC.

    My main interest in the first months after Abbott’s election is whether he decides to leave in place this government-funded extremist political movement. His small target strategy leading into the election makes it impossible to tell, except to suspect he has no plan, as a result of which he will face a constant barrage of irrational criticism, negative commentary and white-anting by the ABC and Fairfax (for as long as the latter is still trading) throughout his first term.

    The deluded response from ABC management to Newman makes clear that “reform” is not possible. However, the more I think about it, the more I am convinced Abbott has no plan, except to trim funding and appoint an ombudsman.

  15. cohenite

    The coalition will not touch the ABC; and they will not touch the RET which is worse than the CO2 tax.

    I would be interested in Judith Sloan’s views about her experience when on the board.

    It is plain now that the ABC is not just an advocate of the left but the deep green left; its influence in changing community values [sic] and therefore poilicy cannot be underestimated.

    There are 3 options; closing it down, major restructure or fiddling at the edges.

    I reckon the coalition will tinker.

  16. Token

    Seriously, like Telstra, the ABC & SBS must be privatised to save the benefit the service provides to the public from being destroyed by the cancerous culture.

    I was listening to a great In Our Time broadcast about Astronomy & Empire from the wonderful series by Melvyn Bragg.

    It charts the rise of astronomy as a private endeavour notes that even in the 19th century it was found that something that started as a project which was lead by the government soon changed to an unchangeable institution that became stolid and diminished the profession as it was the home of plodders with agendas.

    All public organisations will travel that arc.

  17. Tintarella di Luna

    All public organisations will travel that arc.

    The constipated thinking repels imagination.

  18. Token

    There are 3 options; closing it down, major restructure or fiddling at the edges.

    I reckon the coalition will tinker.

    Agreed.

    I do hope that the continuing hubris of the dominant clique will lead to a serious crisis (e.g. BBC management’s culture of hiding Saville’s abuse of children).

    Once that happens I hope the Coalition will act to tear apart that toxic culture and reshape the organisation to actually serve the purpose it was initially created to do.

    As well, I believe the NDIS gives a good stick to reduce the ABC budget.

    If they had ticker they’d present this reality:

    1. Do Australians want serious program to address the mental health needs of the most vulnerable in our population, especially when their parents age, OR

    2. A 24 public TV channel & TV Australia?

  19. Token

    The constipated thinking repels imagination.

    Exactly, the fear of any individual outshining the collective and introducing risk to the group “constipates” creativity.

  20. Ant

    The ABC Charter is evidence of how pointless such charters are.

    You can write up a charter of nonsense and then blithely go on about your business of ignoring it.

    The ABC is a closed shop in so many ways. It’s easy to understand why they’re so protective of all the pillars of the Left in this country from the arts to unionism – regardless of how nutty and extreme they are. It’s not about truth for them. It’s about ideology.

    They’re like the old Soviet TASS News Agency or Pravda.

    The reporters who worked for those organisations weren’t all threatened with being hauled off to a Gulag in a cattle car. Most pushed the Party propaganda line because they either actually believed it in all its realworld horror, or they knew it was a crock but pushed in anyway because they felt that it was their duty to espouse the wonderfulness of socialism and its societal benefits as they strived for the ultimate Utopia the system promised.

    The ABC’s like that lot. And the Great Global Warming Racket is a perfect demonstration of how, for the ABC, any rational dissenter on the subject need not apply, and if you insist on defending incorrect thoughts on the matter, then being slimed as a paedophile is nothing more than you deserve!

    Be thankful that there isn’t a Gulag to which you could be dispatched – although they do their best to ensure that you are permanently exiled from being anywhere near the fine company they keep.

  21. Rodney

    the big risk to the ABC is that the pedophiles may sue.

  22. braddles

    ..there are signs that a small but powerful group has captured the corporation, at least on climate change

    Newman is wrong here. The group is not small; it has supporters throughout the organisation, in all departments from top to bottom. Creating his network has been the work of decades, and has reached the point where an openly conservative person would have little chance of getting a job of any influence at the ABC.

    The ABC can no longer be fixed. Best option is to sell the News division off so those who wish to support it can.

  23. Tintarella di Luna

    The ABC can no longer be fixed. Best option is to sell the News division off so those who wish to support it can.

    I agree, without fear or favour seems to have disappeared as a consideration for the ABC. Where is there a Dame Leonie Kramer when you need one

  24. GT

    It always amuses me greatly to see folks bloviate about how such-and-so a media organisation has a ‘liberal’ (i.e., leftist) bias – especially as it relates to .gov media (in this instance, the ABC).

    It has a POWER bias. Whoever’s in POWER calls the shots.

    The ABC – like the BBC – is part of the propaganda machinery of the State: that machinery gets its hoooks into ‘private’ media by dint of the hundreds of millions of dollars spent by the State on “Brought to you by the Commonwealth Government, Canberra” ads, which both add to media coffers AND help hold up advertising prices by competing for prime “slots”. The carrot is the dough itself, the stick is the implied threat that it can be taken away (more accurately, that the offending network’s share will fall).

    But the government broadcaster is what it says on the tin. It’s not “the people’s broadcaster”. You don’t get to a position of seniority ANYWHERE in the bureaucracy – including the State media – without being thoroughly vetted as ‘safe hands’.

    So what should we expect? We should expect the senior ranks of the ABC bureaucracy to be full of people who believe, in their heart of hearts, that the Masses are too stupid for their own good, and need an intellectual elite – a ‘vanguard of the proletariat’ if you will – to guide them to a new tomorrow… gently if possible, but by harangue and merciless rebuke if required.

    And they are mandarins, too – builders of little empires. This in turn means that they will sniff around the butthole of the degenerate, megalomaniacal sociopaths who seek to rule… the parasite-political class.

    In case anyone does the Google… yes, my sister was a Senior Advisor to Gillard until recently (she left to make more money in the private sector). She does not endorse or contribute to my opinions: she is pretty apolitical, whereas I am opposed root and branch to the vile exploitative killing-and-theft machine known as the State.

  25. James of the Glens

    Cohenite (8:18am) is right.

    The RET is the one of the most iniquitous pieces of nation wrecking policy yet devised. That it has been allowed to apply to unlimited wind-farm scams is a travesty, and its ruinous consequences for consumers, manufacturers, rural communities, public health and the environment have already begun.

    (This morning I read that there is a march against austerity to be held in Spain, a country blighted by wind-farms and their subsidies’ debt financing. No surprise unemployment is 25% and climbing.)

    As for the “instantly annoying” (James Delingpole) prat Robyn Williams, I wonder that anyone still listens to him. The numbers must be very, very low.

  26. DaveF

    Hey wait!

    I was doing ‘special projects’ once.

  27. .

    2) No; Mr Farquhar was not acting at the direction or request of Mr Wran.

    I dispute that.

    There is plenty more material available for Underbelly, a Tale of Two Cities Part Two. Let’s call it “The Boss”.

  28. .

    My theory remains the only explanation. Their ABC permanently paralyses the Liberals to guarantee its agitprop remains taxpayer funded and untouchable because it has a picture of Menzies doing nasty things to a kelpie.

    Sadly, this is beginning to make a lot of sense.

  29. Sirocco

    Like Tintarella 7.06, I too have given up watching/listening to the ABC. In my case over a decade. My wife occasionally watches ABC News channel 21 and I peek, but the content is so puerile it merely confirms my original decision was correct.

  30. Rabz

    “Tonight, ABC management responded to Mr Newman’s speech, saying it stands by the integrity of its journalists and its processes.”

    The ALPBC ‘management’ wouldn’t recognise integrity if it got up and belted the lazy arrogant morons on the nose.

    Shut. It. Down.

    Sack. Them. All.

  31. hammygar

    It’s really good to see the ABC standing up to the bullying from the ratbag right. We certainly don’t want an other abomination like Alan Jones replicated on the people’s stations. Why should a tiny, tiny, minority of like the religious cult of climate denialism be represented in its News/Current Affairs programming? The science has been well and truly settled for many years now.

  32. Des Deskperson

    ‘I was brought up in a Liberal-voting household but we always listened to ABC radio’

    In the early eighties the Maoist rockers Redgum had a song whose name escapes me but was meant to be an ‘hilarious’, ‘irreverent’ and probably even ‘transgressive’ satire of the lifestyle of a rich young Adelaide tory. In the lyrics, the tory boasts:

    “I read the Bulletin every week, I watch the ABC”

    Redgum were always a bit slow off the mark in picking up on social and political trends and issues – it took them 10 years to work out that Vietnam veterans had been badly treated – but even so, it’s clear that even only thirty years ago, the ABC – not Alan Jones or the ‘shock jocks’ -was regarded by many ‘progressives’ – Redgum had a big fan group – as the media of choice for reactionaries.

  33. James of the Glens

    The usual immature trolling of Hammy has reached infantile proportions, or is he engaging in self-parody.

    Hammy might have lowly origins and not been educated among the dreaming spires, but his unclever list of stupidities makes a further mockery of himself.

  34. Lysander Spooner

    So. Let me get this right: Andrew Bolt gets a WEB, ABC gets a WEB and Gerard Henderson gets a WEB but we’re still here tirelessly working!?

  35. Biota

    Hammy has a stultifying case of idea envy.

  36. Lloyd

    The science has been well and truly settled for many years now.

    Bollocks.

  37. jupes

    However, the more I think about it, the more I am convinced Abbott has no plan…

    Certainly not while Turnbull is Shadow Minister for Communications. He loves the ABC, especially Q&A.

  38. thefrollickingmole

    The touchstone for ABC bias in a massively demonstrable way has to be the Asylum seeker/illegal issue.

    There is no comparing in either tone or coverage the difference between Howard era reporting agitprop and the current stuff.
    They are lying as doggo as they can, they still run criticism, universally from the left of Labours policies but there isnt the mention on every platform the ABC has.

    News, 7:30 report, 4 corners, lateline, every platform of news was reporting some new criticism.

    No longer does the ABC follow 12 ferals in a bus and make their protest headline news.

    I wonder why?

  39. Token

    The touchstone for ABC bias in a massively demonstrable way has to be the Asylum seeker/illegal issue.

    Over 1000 deaths and there no sign at the ABC of remorse or need to change their attitude.

  40. cohenite

    The science about AGW is indeed settled; it has settled that AGW is bullshit.

  41. Pedro

    I’m with the ABC on this one. They didn’t link AGW denial to pedophilia, they just said denying AGW is as obviously crazy as supporting pedophilia. Clearly they are wrong, but the suggestion they were imputting a link between AGW denying and kiddie fiddling is obviously stupid.

  42. Alfonso

    Bwaaa.

    “But there have been similar statements coming out of inexpert mouths.”

    Seems clear that rubbishing the hysterical CAGW belief system is described as a “similar” statement, the unsaid bit is “by a similar person”….100 metres Robin doesn’t go into how “similar”.

    Is that like how CAGW “denier” is not a sly attempt to tar the skeptic with the mana of a “holocaust denier” ?
    Of course not, pedophile, holocaust denier…..all innocent associations…… mere co-incidences.

  43. but the suggestion they were imputting a link between AGW denying and kiddie fiddling is obviously stupid

    If they weren’t, they wouldn’t have brought it up. Imputing, who knows. Forming an association in the minds of listeners, absolutely.

  44. Jannie

    Nothing lasts forever, and the end of the ABC is in sight, if still in the distance.

    The ABC makes no pretence to be balanced, it does not need to be, they are in power. Its pure hubris, and certain to fail.

    I dont think anybody would buy it, its rotten to the core, and the staff simply don’t care about making a profit. Sell it for scrap.

  45. For laughs, just merge the existing organisation in under the SBS, and create a new ABC from the ground up.

  46. The central accusation is that those who deny climate change,in particular Sinclair Davidson, are anti-science is correct. They simply do not engage with understanding the science of the climate system, and seek to misrepresent it whenever possible. Demonstrate, this proposition is incorrect.

  47. Harold

    wmmb, what exactly does Sinclair Davidson deny? I’m not him so I can’t speak for him, but you obviously feel sufficiently clued up that you can cast aspersions his way so I trust you can elaborate on that point.

  48. SteveC

    Newman is a big girl’s blouse.
    The ABC is quite correct, “it did “not equate climate change sceptics to pedophiles””.
    His complaint that it did was absurd, as was all the argument on this blog a few weeks ago. He was offended ,by being equated – in his words – with flat earthers, which was not even implied by the comments. Tough titties. I thought most on this blog did not believe there was any right to not be offended?

  49. Alfonso

    You can’t win ‘em all wm.
    Alas, I agree with Bob.

    The poor unscientific son of a bitch that he is.

    Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology He has published more than 200 scientific papers and books. He was a lead author of Chapter 7, ‘Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks,’ of the IPCC Third Assessment Report on climate change.

    He believes there are political pressures on climate scientists to conform to what he has called climate alarmism.

    He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences and the Science, Health, and Economic Advisory Council at the Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy. Educated at Harvard University (Ph.D., ’64, S.M., ’61, A.B., ’60), he moved to MIT in 1983, prior to which he held positions at the University of Washington (1964–1965), Institute for Theoretical Meteorology, University of Oslo (1965–1966), National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) (1966–1967), University of Chicago (1968–1972) and Harvard University (1972–1983). He also briefly held a position of Visiting Lecturer at UCLA in 1967.[8] As of January 2010, his publications list included 230 papers and articles published between 1965 and 2008, with five in process for 2009. He is the author of a standard textbook on atmospheric dynamics, and co-authored the monograph Atmospheric Tides with Sydney Chapman.[9]

  50. BM

    That wmmb makes that claim without even a pretense of supplying evidence says a lot about wmmb and the CAGW cause pushers in general.

  51. wmmb, the current “non-debate” can be simplified into the following;

    Empirical evidence vs forecasts
    Fact vs theory
    History vs anecdotes
    Science vs ideology
    Argument from evidence vs Argument from authority
    Known vs unknown
    Correlation vs causation

    Man, you on da wrong side ‘o da ledger!!!

  52. Alfonso, but they define him as not being a climatologist because his papers don’t fit the narrative, then claim his papers are invalid because he’s not a climatologist!!

    Now there’s an oxymoron for you – “circular reasoning”!

  53. .

    Tough titties. I thought most on this blog did not believe there was any right to not be offended?

    Really? Then I want to opt out of funding the ABC.

    You are also saying that such an equivocation was made.

  54. “I thought most on this blog did not believe there was any right to not be offended?”

    Most do, but, call me old-fashioned, I believe that should apply to both sides, not just the “other” side. You see, the whole point of such ambiguity is that it can be applied asymmetrically ie punish your enemies while denying the same tactic to your opponents. Stop being disingenuous.

  55. Alfonso

    Bwaaa….tiny bit hard for the hysterics to run that argument Beer, when the IPCC obviously thought otherwise….

    “He was a lead author of Chapter 7, ‘Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks,’ of the IPCC Third Assessment Report on climate change.”

    Note ‘Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks’.

    This is fun.

  56. Bruce of Newcastle

    wmmb – There is strong scientific evidence that CAGW is precluded:

    1. Experimental measurement of empirical 2XCO2 (ie inclusive of all feedbacks) at around 0.7 C/doubling means you have to go over 3000 ppmV pCO2 to get 2 C more of warming. Not going to happen, we don’t have enough fossil fuels to do that.

    2. About 1/3rd of the temperature rise during the 20thC was due to a slow oscillation in the oceans. Even Micheal Mann has a paper on this linking it to the thermohaline cycle. You can see the cycle in the AMO, PDO, ENSO, tree rings and even sea level data. And in the HadCRUT dataset where it is responsible for about 0.28 C “rise” due to selection of the dates 1900 and 2000 AD.

    3. About an additional 1/2 of temperature rise during 20thC, 0.4 C, is due to the combined solar effect, comprising magnetic influence, TSI and UV, as we’ve seen in the leaked AR5 chapter 7. The foremost hypothesis for this comes from Svensmark of the Uni of Aarhus, with additional experimental support from Kirkby’s team at CERN. Nevertheless the empirical relationship is quite clear.

    Add #2 and #3 and subtract this from the 0.82 C rise across the 20thC and the remainder fits a 2XCO2 of 0.7 pretty closely.

    This is also consistent with the current temperature trend downwards for the last 10 years. IPCC climate scientists have no alternative explanation for this.

    I can of course provide citations to peer reviewed papers for all of these, and I’ve personally replicated each temperature correlation from primary data.

  57. Pedro

    SteveC, yes implication is of abject stupidity on Newman’s part, and that is certainly a valid thing for him to complain about. I think a couple of rights have to be respected, the right to offend, and the right to snot (metaphorically) someone who offended you. The argument about freespeech is against censorship, not for turning the other cheek.

    “I believe that should apply to both sides, not just the “other” side.”
    Sure, but your mum told you not to stoop to their level, so don’t!

  58. cohenite

    This womb fuckwit says this:

    Demonstrate, this proposition is incorrect.

    I’ve already linked to this but it bears repeating.

    Some of the main papers disproving AGW are discussed here.

  59. cohenite

    steve says:

    The ABC is quite correct, “it did “not equate climate change sceptics to pedophiles””.

    That’s just complete bullshit; Williams said this with the imprimateur of the abc:

    “What if I told you pedophilia is good for children, or that asbestos is an excellent inhalant for those with asthmatics, or that smoking crack is a normal part and a healthy one of teenage life, to be encouraged? You’d rightly find it outrageous, but there have been similar statements coming out of inexpert mouths, distorting the science.”

    Williams is saying that sceptics of AGW crap are like those who advocate pedophilia; no other meaning can be placed on that statement.

  60. SteveC

    cohenite how did you ever pass law when you can’t pass a simple logic test? They drew an analogy between nonsensical positions such as pedophilia is good for children, asbestos is good for asthmatics, crack etc… and the nonsensical inexpert positions of some climate sceptics. They did not “equate climate change sceptics to pedophiles”

    So two things, firstly the analogy (which was broader than just the pedophile analogy) clearly did not “compare climate sceptics to pedophiles ‘more generally’” (Newman’s complaint). It compared inexpert climate sceptics who distort the science to equally absurd inexpert opinions. If you are offended by that then tough shit to you too. There’s no law against offending people.

    Secondly, Newman then went on to claim he had been defamed, becuase later in the article it said “[Newman] came out with some drivel in The Australian newspaper a couple of weeks ago about how climate science is a religion.” Which is exactly what he said. His claim to defamataion was he has been likened to a pedophile or drug pusher. Well if he thinks he was defamed, go ahead and sue and watch him get laughed out of court.

  61. tgs

    The central accusation is that those who deny climate change,in particular Sinclair Davidson, are anti-science is correct. They simply do not engage with understanding the science of the climate system, and seek to misrepresent it whenever possible. Demonstrate, this proposition is incorrect.

    For someone supposedly championing the cause of science you should know that the burden of proof is on the person making the claim…

  62. SteveC

    dot,

    Really? Then I want to opt out of funding the ABC.

    aren’t you a student living frugally? Your contribution to the ABC would be three fifths of fuck all.

  63. cohenite

    Steve says:

    There’s no law against offending people.

    Tell that to Bolt.

    And this:

    They drew an analogy between nonsensical positions such as pedophilia is good for children, asbestos is good for asthmatics, crack etc… and the nonsensical inexpert positions of some climate sceptics. They did not “equate climate change sceptics to pedophiles”

    This is wrong. The ‘logic’ of William’s analogy was that the position of sceptics was NOT a nonsensical position; Williams goes onto say:

    These distortions of science are far from trivial, our neglect of what may be clear and urgent problems could be catastrophic and now a professor of psychology at UWA has shown what he says is the basis of this unrelenting debauchery of the facts

    …”

    Note the use of the word ‘debauchery’; it continues the primary analogy of sceptics to pedophiles and expands it. Williams is making it plain that sceptics are just as bad as pedophiles.

    It is a plain imputation; an imputation defames someone because it impugns their reputation; I cannot think of a worse imputation than comparing someone to a pedophile.

    My conclusion has nothing to do with logic but is based on a plain and reasonable interpretation of what Williams said.

    On a personal note you are a shithead for arguing otherwise.

  64. I am sure with a small effort, not to ask too much, you can be civil and rational without resorting to name calling. I know that is the standard set here, but try to rise above it. I appreciate you must be very emotional on this subject so I make allowances.

    Thanks for the links. I will read them carefully. The immediate question I have if the theory is wrong, why is it still accepted almost without exception by those those climate engaged in proposing research, undertaking the observations and measurements, and then evaluating the research. There would be some implications that followed about the scientific process, and they ought to made explicit.

    I can think of at least one historical example where a scientist has not accepted conventional wisdom, admittedly in this case a paradigm shift, but his position can be seen understandable and productive.

  65. cohenite

    What a condescending prick you are! Anyway this isn’t a civil and rational ‘debate’. You say:

    The immediate question I have if the theory is wrong, why is it still accepted almost without exception by those those climate engaged in proposing research, undertaking the observations and measurements, and then evaluating the research.

    Why? Money, power, ego and ideology. You really couldn’t figure that out? Not very bright are you; now peruse some of the papers and come back and prove me wrong.

  66. What I should have said is I do not believe anything important is proved by emotional attributions.

    We might accept not everybody has the same cognitive ability or skills, but everybody is of value and has gifts, which is reason to respect them.

    My purpose is not to prove you wrong, but to discover what is true.

  67. jupes

    …but everybody is of value and has gifts, which is reason to respect them.

    Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Osama.

    You respect them do you wmmb?

  68. cohenite

    My purpose is not to prove you wrong, but to discover what is true.

    Right, off you go Diogenes and let us know how you go.

  69. Bruce of Newcastle

    The immediate question I have if the theory is wrong, why is it still accepted almost without exception by those those climate engaged in proposing research, undertaking the observations and measurements, and then evaluating the research.

    Wmmbb – When I was a kid I was taught at school that the Pacific Ocean was the hole left when the Moon was formed. This was early ’70′s. By that time Wegener’s hypothesis was accepted by the proverbial 97%. But it takes a while for this sort of thing to sink in to human brains, especially in country NSW.

    Same goes with heliobacter pylorii, despite Barry Marshall. Although the antibiotic treatment is so effective this is diminishing faster than holdouts for continental drift. Yet he had terrible opposition when he proposed the bacterial hypothesis for ulcers: he was fighting a billion dollar nostrum-selling industry.

    There is a further issue, which is a degree of wishful thinking. Naoim Klein said this last year:

    Heartland’s Bast puts it even more bluntly: For the left, “Climate change is the perfect thing…. It’s the reason why we should do everything [the left] wanted to do anyway.” Here’s my inconvenient truth: they aren’t wrong.

    My emphasis of her own words. In other words pure unadulterated confirmation bias. The strongest and worst I’ve ever seen. I know how powerful this is having worked in R&D for thirty years, it is really really hard to put down your own failed hypothesis and move on.

    But the thing is that science doesn’t care, it just is. The data shows that cloud feedback ameliorates most of the Arrhenius CO2 effect. It makes sense that this is the case, but for a part of society which wants to save the world this is not very convenient. Scientists have save the world syndrome in the worst way (including my younger self, heh!), you have to be slightly driven to go into it as a career. But climate science adds money and fame to that basic psychology, which just adds up to the most powerful drive imaginable. I too have taken climate money. There is just so much sloshing around it is unbelieveable. But no CAGW is not happening.

  70. manalive

    The immediate question I have if the theory is wrong, why is it still accepted almost without exception …

    The theory is based on two fundamental statements:
    “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal” and
    “Most [over 50%] of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.” (IPCC Fourth Assessment Report).
    No room for doubt there eh? — it is “… a subjective judgment by groups of scientists, who in effect reach their verdict by a ‘show of hands’ … such a process is the domain of social and political science, and should play no part in a true, traditional scientific report…” Donna Laframboise.

  71. thefrollickingmole

    Bah, my long comment just got befuckled by internet expolererd to death…

    So instead heres a link to a long battle I had with the ABC reguarding a serial anti-semite and poster on unleashed.

    Heres one of the most offensive blood libels…

    The fact that some of the Jews involved were Holocaust survivors is as irrelevant as the fact that some were veterans of the Wehrmacht, which, despite everything, deployed thousands of German Jewish soldiers during the war. The use of the Judeocide as some sort of justification for murder, dispossession and ethnic cleansing is, in my opinion, deeply morally repugnant. And the Mufti seems to have been a Nazi sympathiser alright, but so too was half the British establishment and Robert Menzies.

    Dozens of reports, a couple of phone calls and going through their process…No case.

    Burn the place to the ground.

  72. Louis Hissink


    The immediate question I have if the theory is wrong, why is it still accepted almost without exception by those those climate engaged in proposing research, undertaking the observations and measurements, and then evaluating the research. There would be some implications that followed about the scientific process, and they ought to made explicit.

    Oh that is easy – it’s not a scientific theory in the first place, but dogma which has its adherents. Dogma is emplaced by consensus. Scientific hypotheses are accepted by the compulsion of evidence, not consensus.

    CAGW is essentially pseudoscience.

  73. Biota

    CAGW is analagous to most religions. A common element in religion is that humankind are sinners and the only way to atone for this is to adhere to the particular belief system. CAGW adherents believe humankind has sinned against the earth by emitting too much CO2 and must change its ways or be damned.

    Now religions base their beliefs on so-called spiritual writings generally interpreted by those in the know (like gnostics of old). The religion of CAGW has as its sacred writings certain publications and the output of the holy priesthood, the IPCC. History repeats itself and CAGW is a crusade.

  74. SteveC

    When I was a kid I was taught at school that the Pacific Ocean was the hole left when the Moon was formed. This was early ’70′s.

    Bruce, I was a kid at school in the 70′s too. You must have had a pretty whacky science teacher. I recall reading a book when I was a kid by a nutter that had that kind of theory. But it certainly wasn’t considered “science”.

  75. SteveC

    cohenite, your confusion of the use of the word debauchery and pedophilia is a bit disturbing. But then:
    “My conclusion has nothing to do with logic”. Hey, you said it.

  76. Gab

    I wonder if the lefties here would be so adamant in their defense had Lord Monckton been the one who compared climate alarmists/IPCC to ped0philes in the same manner as Williams did.

  77. Chris M

    Tony Abbott needs to be clear to all Australians – “there will still be an ABC under a government I lead” ;)

  78. There are a few others that could have been included so I wonder why Harry Truman was left off jupes list.
    Good pick-up. My position would need qualification.

    I suspect,denying the GHG theory invalidates most, if not all, the published and peer reviewed research. That is a stretch. So the climate is a dynamic and complicated system. There is much to learn.

    Political orientation is involved in the acceptance of the implications that follow from the findings and the subsequent investigations. That probably explains the emotion the subject generates and so it is understandable.

    Here is something I found that may be of interest. It is the Tyndall Lecture given by Ray Pierrehumbert, from the University of Chicago (which should appeal to economic rationalists)at the recent AGU meeting. The lecture was entitled,“Successful Predictions”.

  79. dover_beach

    wmmb, Ray Pierrehumbert is part of the RealClimate cabal. I take it you’re not very familiar with the controversies over the last decade or so.

  80. Bruce of Newcastle

    I suspect,denying the GHG theory invalidates most, if not all, the published and peer reviewed research. That is a stretch.

    Wmmbb – The point about GHG theory is that global warming can be large and dangerous or small and harmless.

    The IPCC claims large and dangerous. This is not supported by the data. For example the current temperature trend is down, not up, which cannot be explained if CO2 has the large net effect claimed for it.

    The net effect is the important one. If CO2 was left alone to do its thing (ie the Arrhenius calculations) it would cause a 1.1-1.3 C rise per doubling of concentration.

    But measured 2XCO2 is about 0.6 or 0.7 C per doubling. Which means only a small rise.

    And that is why the temperature is slightly falling, because solar activity has slowed and the oceanic cycle has flipped over to the cooling phase, which overcomes the small net impact of CO2.

    That is the empirical view, which as it happens fits the data very well indeed, whereas the IPCC computer models have failed notwithstanding Dr Pierrehumbert’s spin.

    It is actually harmful for the left of politics to keep pushing the CAGW line in the face of real world data because it discredits the whole progressive message. I recommend to people of the left side of politics to ditch CAGW while you can and move to a different cause.

  81. Pedro

    cohenite, sorry but you’re wrong. Williams called him a very stupid person for denying the gospel of AGW.

  82. cohenite

    My conclusion has nothing to do with logic”. Hey, you said it.

    My conclusion has nothing to do with YOUR logic, numbnuts.

    No Pedro, Williams compared sceptics to pedophiles; the logic is irrefutable; expressed syllogistically this is what Williams said:

    pedophillia is bad

    AGW denial is bad

    Therefore deniers are as bad as pedophiles.

    What steve the scumbag is doing is fiddling with the literal context and ignoring the inference which is so pronounced only a mental deficient, or a person who is prepared to condone anything if it supports his religious belief, would say otherwise.

  83. Thanks Bruce for a concise summary of your position. Thanks to all for the constructive comments. Obviously, I have to catch up and reconsider and seek further information.

  84. Pingback: ALTERNATIVE VIEW OF REALITY « DUCKPOND

Comments are closed.