Quick tell the ABC II

Recall 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).

We have followed this story here, here, here and here.

Well it seems the ABC takes notice of what happens outside their little world. This morning Michael Millett – ABC Director of corporate affairs – wrote a letter to the Australian. It seems they didn’t do nothing to nobody.

Contrary to the assertion in the front page story on December 18 (“It’s OK to link climate denial to pedophilia, ABC tells ex-chairman”), repeated on December 20 (“ABC sets lower standards bar”), the ABC’s independent Audience and Consumer Affairs did not rule that it was acceptable to equate climate change sceptics to pedophiles. Nor did it state that in the program at issue harm and offence were justified.

The precise finding was that, when taken in context, the introductory comments by presenter Robyn Williams “did not equate climate change sceptics to pedophiles”. Also, that since Williams’s personal criticism of Maurice Newman was limited to Mr Newman’s opinion piece in The Australian, there was no breach of the standards regarding harm and offence.

This is markedly different to the Press Council adjudication against The Australian over the use of the word “pedophile”, despite the best efforts of the newspaper to link the two judgments. In the case of the offending article in The Australian, the Council clearly ruled that there was a deliberate attempt to link wind-farm proponents with pedophiles and that this was offensive and unjustified.

Note the weasel words “when taken in context”. I’m just wondering in which context it is appropriate to “equate climate change sceptics to pedophiles”? Alas I fear Michael Millett may have a bit more explaining to do.

The bottom line is this: an ABC presenter likened climate change deniers to pedophiles and there is only one appropriate response the ABC can undertake. Abject apology. Anything else that is not an abject apology is spin and should be rejected with utter contempt.

Remember, your tax dollar pays for this.

(HT: William Bragg in comments)

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

140 Responses to Quick tell the ABC II

  1. Rousie

    Ah Leftie Land. That magical place where one thing can mean another.
    Sorry Enid but time to cut down the Faraway Tree and all the mooching folk who live in it.

  2. Johno

    An abject apology is the bare minimum, but for the Left, apologies are what nasty right wingers have to do or, if someone on the Left is to make an apology, then it is only for moral vanity, such Krudd’s ‘apology’ to the so called ‘stolen generation.’

    As the Left can do no wrong, they have no need to apologise for personal deeds.

  3. Jannie

    The ‘taken out of context’ sophistry does not work unless its also translated from Arabic. But the ABC doesn’t care anyway, they own the place.

  4. William Bragg

    The bottom line is this: an ABC presenter likened climate change deniers to pedophiles…

    Where? All Williams’ words do is ‘liken’ sceptics to someone who makes a false comment about pedophilia (or asbestos or crack) – they do not liken sceptics to pedophiles.

    Sinc has been taken to task on his claim(+) several times, yet instead of showing us where and explaining how Williams equated, or even likenned, sceptics to pedophiles, he simply quotes Williams’ words and hopes that, by not thinking too hard about them, Cats and others will buy his patently false interpretation. Perhaps that’s a fair assumption regarding regular Cats, but this approach is simply embarrassing before people with open minds and the ability to read.

    —-

    + Not that in Sinc’s post of 20 December, he said that the ABC “thought nothing of calling climate deniers pedophiles” (emphasis added). In this post, Sinc tried to edge away from that statement, using the weaker word ‘likenned’. It doesn’t save him, though.

  5. Sinclair Davidson

    William Bragg – I’m not backing away from anything. The ABC has verballed people and has the choice of apologising of facing the consequences. I’m hoping they choose the consequences.

  6. blogstrop

    The precise finding was that, when taken in context, the introductory comments by presenter Robyn Williams “did not equate climate change sceptics to pedophiles”.

    Bald assertion made, hands dusted, walk away.

  7. I have to agree with William here. It is an extremely long bow to say that they “likened” or “linked” skeptics to pedophiles.
    If the basis of the analogy had been that they both sexually abuse people not competent to give their consent then yes the “likening” or “link” would have warranted abject apology. But clearly the context includes a list of comparisons and the analogy they obviously seek to draw is that they are all claims that would be rejected by any clear thinking person with access to and an understanding of the evidence (and therefore why doesn’t the same happen with climate change etc).
    Their analogy is completely absurd of course, but for reasons that go to the (poor) quality of the (scant) evidence for climate change and the clouding of the issue with the constant appeal to authority.
    The use of the word “pedophile” is certainly intended to get the readers’ attention, but I think the finding is correct.

  8. Gab

    Hilarious. The ABC enables and allows dimwits to liken people who dare question the “science” of the climate fundamentalists to being ped0philes, crack whores and as dangerous as asbestos. And the taxpayers keep on forking out $1 billion for the privilege of a one-sided debate. I didn’t believe the ABC could sink so low. Now I see they are capable of resorting to anything in order to further the AGW “cause”. No science, no evidence, just vitriol. Hmmm…similar to the Islamic call “Behead the Infidels”.

  9. blogstrop

    I have to agree with William here. It is an extremely long bow to say that they “likened” or “linked” skeptics to pedophiles.

    Why even mention them at all then? The link was made, no point going into denial about it.

  10. Gab

    Why even mention them at all then?

    Naturally when one thinks of AGW “skeptics” one’s mind automatically goes to ped0philes, crack whores and agents of asbestos. It’s only logical.

  11. Chris M

    Well the ABC are obsessively pro-homosexual so one can imaging them over time warming to paedophilia.

    I think they also came down hard on Cory Bernardi’s anti-beastiality remark, there may be a shadow of sympathy emerging to those with a beastial tendency also?

    Your ABC – opposing paedophobes and beastophobes….

  12. I am the Walrus koo koo k'choo

    As I suggested in the previous post on this topic, just give them some of their own back. For example,

    “Allowing a climate loon like Robin Williams to talk on the ABC about the dangers of anthropogenic global warming is like letting a paedophile talk on the ABC about the benefits of pederasty.”

    Easy. Two can play at this game. And the ABC and Williams can’t complain – after all, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

    Don’t get mad. Get even.

  13. JC

    Billy Braggs

    Williams has done this stuff one too many times.

    The parents of his appalling individual were communists… this at a time when Stalin was the sov leader and the equally murderous Mao was in charge in China.

    Now the son of these appalling human garbage is essentially playing their tricks of demonizing people he disagrees with.

    He ought to be shunned, yet you’re trying to give him a free pass. You arsehole, Braggs. You complete arsehole.

  14. thefrollickingmole

    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 ABC mouths again and again in recent times, distorting the News (No challenge to Rudd, Carbon tax promise, pink bats, live export trade ban, supertrawler ban, surplus, need I go on?).

    Can any of our trolls point out a show with right wing slant on the ABC in the last year or so?

  15. JC

    Honey

    He linked sceptics to pedos. The intention was to make sceptics appear them.

    This is the sort of thing his parents would have done when discussing capitalists.

    This garbage is being paid for by the taxpayer.

    Williams deserves the boot.

  16. Johno

    Chris, thanks for reminding me about their ABC’s attack on Senator Bernardi. ‘Taken in context’ Senator Bernardi’s comments didn’t mean what their ABC alleged they meant.

    Bragg and Honey can argue all they like about whether Williams’ exact words liken climate skeptism to pedophilia or not. The bottom line is that their ABC has one standard for their employees of the Left and another for those who they disagree with.

    Williams must apologise.

    And so should their ABC for not demanding an apology straight away.

  17. Dexter Rous

    I tried to take Williams to task over this, soon after the broadcast, which I heard;scarcely believing what I was hearing.
    Williams wouldn’t have a bar of any criticsm; inviting me to listen “carefully” to a recording of same.
    Wish I’d kept his reply, but I deleted it in frustration, not realising that it would escalate as it has now.

  18. JC

    Williams must apologise.

    Bullshit. The son of stalin sympathizers needs the size 10 hobnail up the arse and any benefits revoked.

    This is why the Libs answer is perhaps a good one. Have a public broadcaster ombudsman with the ability to fire. Stick someone like me in there in that role and 99% of the staff would be gone in the fist few days. In fact I’d pay the government for the job.

    I’d keep the receptionist if she’s pretty though.

    Honestly, take no prisoners and fuck them over big time and keep hurting them. They have to learn fear at the ABC.

  19. William Bragg

    William Bragg – I’m not backing away from anything. The ABC has verballed people and has the choice of apologising of facing the consequences. I’m hoping they choose the consequences.

    It is self-evident that you’re not backing away Sinc. What you are doing is digging yourself into a deeper hole.

    It is you who have verballed people – claiming that Williams called climate change deniers pedophiles when he clearly did not. He did not even liken them to pedophiles, yet in the face of clear evidence that that is so, and without a credible argument for your imprudent statements, you choose to ‘dig in’. It is you who should apologise or, at least, admit your error. There is no shame in occasionally getting it wrong (although, of course, by Catallaxy standards, that is enough to class you as a ‘liar’ so perhaps that it why you are so reluctant to man up on this one).

  20. Greg James

    Nothing is going to change at the ABC.

    The only way to deal with its grotesque left wing bias is to disband the entire institution. Sell it. The lot of it.

    But the only way this will happen is if sufficient enough Coalition MP’s come to understand that there is broad support for this.

    And the only way they are going to come to this view is if enough of their constituents communicate that view to them.

    It worked in getting rid of Turnbull, and it can work in getting rid of the ABC, but only if enough people demand it.

  21. JC

    Billy , you piece of shit.. he associated/linked sceptics to pedos. That’s it, no more discussion. Now fuck off and peddle your shit somewhere else you apologist arsehole.

  22. Sinclair Davidson

    William Bragg – Well, I have a simple choice. I can believe what the ABC says or my own eyes.

  23. JC

    Greg

    Selling it doesn’t do the trick. Propaganda against such a thing would stop it.

    Destroy it slowly by reducing funding and keep doing it until all they can show are 30′s English movies in peak time. Make it so that it becomes irrelevant. Then shut it down and salt the earth where the buildings stood.

  24. Gab

    He did not even liken them to pedophiles,

    In the same breath as talking about “deniers” Willams sprouts on about pedophiles. Why?

  25. William Bragg

    JC, your attempt to defend Sinc is touching, but even you can probably almost differentiate between “associating” or “linking” someone to pedophiles, and “calling” them pedophiles and “likening” them to pedophiles.

  26. William Bragg

    William Bragg – Well, I have a simple choice. I can believe what the ABC says or my own eyes.

    There’s another choice Sinc – you could take some remedial English.

  27. roger

    Ok, so he only associated Global Warming sceptics with paedophiles rather than called these “deniers” (a very stupid term, in turn meant to associate GW sceptics with Holocaust deniers, by the way) paedophiles.
    Still close enough, and still him who has to do the apologizing. Anything else is unnecessary hair-splitting.

  28. Gab

    I notice Stalinist Billy couldn’t answer my question.

  29. JC

    Billy

    In a right wing Finkelstien world you’d be doing 10 years in a labor camp for the bullshit you’re attempting to spin… with no parole time.

    In a way, you remind me of Homer who was pushing the line that Skanky ho was really Skanke Ho, an Asian warlord’s mistress (not wife, as he once corrected me).

    You’re that imbecilic, Billy.

  30. Williams was trying to do a weasel word sentence construction that he could step away from when fronted, but still leave the linkage of the two issues.
    He hoped he could drop in a Tar Baby then walk away sniggering.
    One of our regulars does this quite often and snares newbies.
    Guess who it is?

  31. Bruce of Newcastle

    WB – Keep in mind the context here, which is Mordy Bromberg’s finding against Mr Bolt, just for offending a group of people.

    I am personally offended by Mr Williams use of pedophile and climate sceptic in the same paragraph. I myself try with some care to not use such slimy insinuations in a debate which I’d hope would be a debate, not a childish name calling exercise. Mr Williams is a long serving science journalist. Why should he offend me a long serving scientist by criticising my expertise and making out that I’m an asbestos purveyor or cocaine dealer?

    And I might add that I am also personally offended by the use of the term ‘climate denier’ because of its context.

    If the ABC stays in its own state of ‘see no evil’ despite really insulting the sensibility and intelligence of more than half the population, then they ARE risking being defunded. PBS in the US is a miserable little service which spends much of its time touting for cash. Mr Williams, do want the ABC like that? If so, keep digging mate.

  32. dover_beach

    Williams is slyly associating the ridiculous claim that pedophilia is good for children with any claim that might be made by climate sceptics about climate change. The whole enterprise here is rhetorical. It happens across the various issues that Leftists engage in and they do this terribly well. The intent is to make it increasingly difficult for their opponents to ever make an favourable impression on audiences because they are encumbered with these malign associations.

  33. brc

    Stick someone like me in there in that role and 99% of the staff would be gone in the fist few days. In fact I’d pay the government for the job.

    I’d keep the receptionist if she’s pretty though.

    LOL

    JC you’re on good form today. Got some good news lately, or perhaps just opened a good vintage?

    I say fight fire with fire. Must be some public places were Williams gets comments on his pieces. Just post a couple of comments suggesting that allowing Williams to talk about AGW is somehow not linked to, but can be discussed in the same sentence as, pedophilia and asbestos victims.

  34. “JC, your attempt to defend Sinc is touching, but even you can probably almost differentiate between “associating” or “linking” someone to pedophiles, and “calling” them pedophiles and “likening” them to pedophiles.”

    Pure semantics.

    If they were concerned about such preciseness of language, Bernardi’s comments would have been ignored. But they didn’t. In attacking Bernardi, they set the standard in not putting two labels in the same sentence that were not proveable as being characteristic of each other.

    They now have broken this standard, presumably because it no longer suited them. And when it suits them to drop the semantics, they will.

    The whole point is about double standards. One rule for them, and another rule for their opponents. Any pretending this is not the case is disingenuousness on your part, and is about as opaque as Julia’s glass house.

  35. Actually bringing up the Cory Bestiality issue is good. They made a great meal out of the fact that the words “gay” and “bestiality” both appeared in something that Cory Bernadi said, and they left it for the confused and inflammable public to fill in the detail and conclude – absurdly – that he was suggesting homosexuals are also inclined to have sex with animals. Anyone who took the time to read Bernardi’s original comments (and with the capacity to understand plain arguments) would know that he wasn’t implying any such thing.
    As I said Williams used the word “pedophile” to shock or get attention, but only a member of the confused and inflammable public would also conclude that he was implying something about the sexual preferences of someone who doesn’t accept the AGW fraud.
    I assumed that would exclude most of the commenters here…

  36. Biota

    Interesting to see the contortions of the defenders of the indefensible. Williams point was that denying AGW was as bad as saying that paedophilia etc were OK. That is the lowest of low accusations. The ALPBC then perpetuates it with mealy mouthed semantics.

  37. m0nty

    The precise finding was that, when taken in context, the introductory comments by presenter Robyn Williams “did not equate climate change sceptics to pedophiles”.

    Note the weasel words “when taken in context”. I’m just wondering in which context it is appropriate to “equate climate change sceptics to pedophiles”?

    None. Millett was not saying that there is such a context, and you would have to twist his words beyond their meaning to think so, in order to take offence where none is given.

  38. Sinclair Davidson

    m0nty – so how do you explain Williams’ original statement?

  39. stackja

    ABC has a total annual budget of A$1.18 billion!
    For what?

  40. Interesting to see the contortions of the defenders of the indefensible. Williams point was that denying AGW was as bad as saying that paedophilia etc were OK.

    Biota, I am hardly defending Williams, I agree with almost all assessments of him as a loony crypto Marxist fellow travelling fuckwit etc.
    But this is simply an exercise in clear thinking.
    Did he intend to imply that it is “As bad as” because it actually entails the moral evil of sex with children? No.
    Did he hope masses of fools would form a vague impression that it somehow did? Probably, and that’s the sort of thing that should drive the termination of tax funding for the ABC, but very difficult to prove.
    Is he able to claim with a straight face that he simply meant that they are all outrageously incorrect on factual grounds. Yes he is.
    We need to defeat these pernicious tax-leeches. But we won’t do it by behaving like the audience that willingly consumed the Bernardi/bestiality sliming.

  41. Sinclair Davidson

    Is he able to claim with a straight face that he simply meant that they are all outrageously incorrect on factual grounds. Yes he is.

    His ability to maintain a straight face while speaking is of limited interest.

    The ABC has an institutional structure that assumes we are idiots. I can see no reason why we should tolerate this sort of thing.

  42. m0nty

    m0nty – so how do you explain Williams’ original statement?

    We’ve already been through this in a previous thread. As I said:

    It’s an analogy, Sinclair. Williams is saying NAMBLA’s intellectual position has about as much scientific credibility as Newman’s. He is not saying Newman is a member of NAMBLA.

    I don’t know why you need this simple application of logical thought to be explained to you.

    JC’s comments about Williams’ parents show once again that this concerted campaign of haranguing academics and lefties is thinly veiled neo-McCarthyism, and it doesn’t take much encouragement for one of you to take it all the way to classic McCarthyism.

  43. ella

    Their is anoter choice Sinc – you can take some remedial English

    Williams is linking the thinking capacity of climate sceptics with those of ped0fiiles. He hopes the destination of his message will see the close family resemblance.

    If climate sceptics share one attribute with ped0filess, then his readers are left to consider what other attributes they may share.

    If your bored over the holiday period, Bragg, their is always Lakoff’s “Metaphors we Live By” or Olaf’s ognitive theory of metaphor.

    Bugger the “remedial” stuff, Braggs.

  44. val majkus

    Yep, I’m with Sinc too!
    (who is Robyn Williams BTW?) Is he a scientist with peer reviewed published papers? If not, why take any notice? Oh … he’s taxpayer funded unlike Marc Morano who was treated so distainfully by Rose.
    And Morano was trying to be as likable as he could be!

  45. Sinclair Davidson

    thinly veiled neo-McCarthyism

    Another analogy m0nty? So it’s conservatives asking the question “Are you now or have you ever been a pedophile?”?

  46. JC

    Fat Boy,

    I’m not the one equating and linking sceptics as pedos like the communists’ son has done on the tax funded broadcaster. He has and it’s straight out of Stalinist and Maoist “running dogs 101″, which is something he quite likely (in my opinion) learnt from his worthless parents.

    It’s an old leftie commie trick… analogize a perfectly plausible position with something totally outlandish.

    Pathetic switcheroo fat boy.

    Go devour 3 boxes of Dunkins and raise your sugar levels.

  47. “JC’s comments about Williams’ parents show once again that this concerted campaign of haranguing academics and lefties is thinly veiled neo-McCarthyism, and it doesn’t take much encouragement for one of you to take it all the way to classic McCarthyism.”

    Monty, McCarthy was the establishment at the time, but in our time in this country, as in others, the leftards are the establishment. The problem with Williams’ comments is that they demonise dissent, setting us up for persecution down the track. The mentioning in the same breath is to make a connection between the two. Us climate sceptics are the new jews, to be vilified such that eventual persecution will be more easily accepted. Arguing trivial points of language is besides the point, which is precisely the point of trolling.

  48. JC

    JC’s comments about Williams’ parents show once again that this concerted campaign of haranguing academics and lefties is thinly veiled neo-McCarthyism, and it doesn’t take much encouragement for one of you to take it all the way to classic McCarthyism.

    I don’t have to even try, fuckhead. His worthless parents were full on retard self admitted commies during the height of the worst massacres and atrocities in human history. We’re not talking about a few thousand people being wiped out, but perhaps a 100 million or so… give or take 50 million (obviously more take than give). I have no need to accuse them of what they were as they proudly wore the label.

    To most reasonably minded people that would be the same thing as being a supporter of the NAZI party.

    Think about it, Fat Boy… they were commies at the height of the industrial sized killings and butchery.

  49. Gab

    haranguing academics and lefties

    hahahaha these would be the ones like Williams who equated sceptics to ped0philes. There is no limit to your gall and dishonesty, montysaurus.

  50. Rabz

    People – get it right, please!

    His correct moniker is robin “100 metres” williams.

    I shouldn’t need to remind people why the malignant marxist moron has earned that sobriquet.

  51. m0nty

    Another analogy m0nty? So it’s conservatives asking the question “Are you now or have you ever been a pedophile?”?

    It’s JC the spineless old fool running a scare campaign about reds under the bed. Contemptible behaviour in a civilised society, really, especially from those who purport to be champions of free speech.

  52. Abu Chowdah

    NOW what if I told you pedophilia is good for children [...] 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).

    Bragg, you’re the one with the comprehension deficit. Williams clearly is drawing a parrallel between pedos and AGW skeptics, using it as a means to demonise them by equating the horrific mindset of pedos with the horrific mindset of deniers. You are engaged in pure sophistry, as is the ABC.

    Now fuck the fuck off back to fucktardylvania you fucking fuckwit.

  53. JC

    Yep, they were commies at the height of the industrial sized killings and butchery and their son is now basically equating and linking a group of people scptical of an uncertain branch of new science as being similar to pedos, possibly the gravest moral and criminal offense we know.

    This rotten venomous apple hasn’t fallen too far away from the tree, has it?

    In my opinion this is like the son of NAZI criminals more or less repeating what his parents would have said about da Jews and others they didn’t like.

    In other words it’s quite revealing.

  54. m0nty

    Us climate sceptics are the new jews

    You actually went there. Amazing amount of chutzpah (ironically).

  55. Gab

    It’s JC the spineless old fool

    As usual, folks, montysaurus resorts to being nasty when he has lost. Um, monty, JC revealed he has a problem with a disc in his spine so it’s very daft of you to call him “spineless” isn’t it. You’re not very clever.

  56. Gab

    You actually went there. Amazing amount of chutzpah

    who was it the other day – some academic – that called for the slaughter of AGW sceptics?

  57. JC

    It’s JC the spineless old fool running a scare campaign about reds under the bed.

    Lol.. Scare campaign? His parents were worthless commies, you numbnut. That point isn’t questioned. And who exactly is scared of Williams?

    I’m just pointing out the facts, fat boy.

    Contemptible behaviour in a civilised society, really, especially from those who purport to be champions of free speech.

    You’re disgusting, Fat Boy in all sorts of ways. We have someone sucking on the public tit equating and linking sceptics to pedos and we have a so called academic advocating the death penalty for them too… and you have the hide to defend these creatures.

    You have the morals and civility of a snake, Fat Boy… A very fat one.

  58. Alfonso

    Their ABC have a permanent smirk….they know PM Tony will do nothing except posture and appoint more impotent Board members.

  59. JC

    There is no limit to your gall and dishonesty, montysaurus.

    along with appalling eating habits and not knowing when to say no to 39 dunkins donuts in a sitting.

  60. cohenite

    I can’t believe there are still fuckwits maintaining Williams did not equate sceptics to pedophiles; William’s full statement is here:

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

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

    What if I told you pedophilia is good for children

    And:

    there have been similar statements coming out of inexpert mouths, distorting the science

    So, the literal meaning of William’s statement is that sceptics are like those who say pedophilia is good for children.

    This literal interpretation is what the trolls and justifiers of William’s obscenity are relying on.

    But the implications are equally plain.

    Those who justify pedophilia are no better than pedophiles because to excuse something is to not discourage and even encourage it.

    The justifier and apologist for pedophilia is just as culpable as the pedophile; so if you said specifically that someone justifies pedophilia then the imputation would be just as actionable as saying they were a pedophile.

    Ask any defamation lawyer.

    It is plain that it is the implied meaning which Williams is meaning; the use of the word “debauchery” in the 2nd paragraph shows that. In William’s eyes sceptics are as bad as pedophiles.

    Williams should not be in his position and I would hope the first action of any coalition government is to fire him and those who have defended him and by inference endorsed his comments.

    In the meantime, I would think any prominent sceptic would have grounds for suing Williams for the straightforward and manifest imputation which I have described.

  61. JC

    Their ABC have a permanent smirk….they know PM Tony will do nothing except posture and appoint more impotent Board members.

    Not so sure about that, Alfonso. The bush telegraph is basically saying they will appoint an outside ombudsman with the ability to fire any staff if it’s seen they broke protocol. I’ve heard this from a number of insiders and independently too.

    The ABC is in their sights in a big way.

    The funding is also going to be cut quite drastically.

  62. m0nty

    Um, monty, JC revealed he has a problem with a disc in his spine so it’s very daft of you to call him “spineless” isn’t it.

    JC can defend himself, you know. He doesn’t need to hide behind your skirt.

    Evidently he feels the need to compensate for his lack of actual spine by pretending that he has a spine online with constant abuse.

  63. Gab

    hehehe hit a nerve did I, monty? lol

  64. m0nty

    Did you actually complete high school, Gab?

  65. JC

    No, I like Gab defending what I said, Fat Boy. I adds to the color of the debate and she also hits home too.

    I’m not abusing 100 meter Williams at all. I’m simply suggesting that the rotten poisonous apple hasn’t fallen that far from the tree and the tree in this case were his worthless destructive parents who followed Communism at its worst.

    Fat Boy, it really surprises me that you’re “shocked”, “shocked” by my comments while defending “100 meter’s” pedo/sceptic analogy.

    Have you any shame? No, of course you don’t otherwise you wouldn’t be 50 kilos overweight and boasting about how much money you’ve made while casually forgetting about those “Ausboned” investors whose money you lost as CEO of that sorry little bankruptcy.

  66. manalive

    The ABC’s and Millett’s use of “equate” is semantic sleight of hand.
    Williams’s introduction linked climate sceptics (whatever they are) to pedophilia and that’s ok according to the ABC’s internal standards-setters, while Delingpole’s article quote linked wind-farm promoters to pedophilia and that’s not ok according to the Press Council.

  67. Alfonso

    Oh sure they will JC….the statute of limitations on Scotty and his comrades will be the day previous or the place has nothing left but the cleaners.
    Any action by an ombudsman means the ombudsman or his kids careers will be targeted by the MSM, academics, Unions, Labor lawyers and a fair selection of the judicary……can you imagine a Mordy type sitting on the first legal challenge of dismissal of an ABC luuvie by the obudsman?

    The bar will be so high as to be useless.

    An ombudsman is more deliberate helplessness by the Liberals.

  68. Gab

    Did you actually complete high school, Gab?

    LOL why yes, yes I did monty. But what has mu education to do with Willams calling sceptics pedophiles, monty?

  69. JC

    PETER THOMPSON: So, your dad and mum were committed communists. Which, of course, in those days, wasn’t all that rare but never the less. Did they really want to see the world turned upside down?

    ROBYN WILLIAMS: It was a very strange experience ’cause I’d go to school and all the other kids’ parents weren’t, of course. And they were relaxed and not having to justify every kind of strange situation with a political comment. And I’d go home and they’d have this catechism. And it was…

    PETER THOMPSON: Catechism? The Marxist catechism, was it?

    ROBYN WILLIAMS: More or less. And my dad would come up with a statement that the Soviet bomb was OK…………

    Yep, they were commies at the height of the killings. Nothing I’ve said is inaccurate unless 100 meters is lying in the interview.

    It’s like more or less admitting one’s parents were full retard NAZI’s.

  70. Gab

    Don’t get too excited, JC. It’s not that I was defending you as much as I was highlighting monty’s dumb trolling.

  71. m0nty

    JC, if you had shame you would have renounced your worthless, bloodsucking activities years ago and done something useful or constructive with your career. You’re the last one here who can lecture about shame.

  72. m0nty

    LOL why yes, yes I did monty. But what has mu education to do with Willams calling sceptics pedophiles, monty?

    You sound uneducated.

  73. Sinclair Davidson

    You sound uneducated.

    Let’s stay on topic.

  74. Gab

    Williams’s introduction linked climate sceptics (whatever they are) to pedophilia and that’s ok according to the ABC’s internal standards-setters, while Delingpole’s article quote linked wind-farm promoters to pedophilia and that’s not ok according to the Press Council.

    But Manalive, it’s different when they do it.

  75. Gab

    Yes, yes, monty go with the insults when you lose an argument, it’s always that way with you. Hey, at least I never failed at uni, unlike you.

    And a reminder:

    Constant insults are tiresome.

    - m0nty

    17 Nov 12 at 8:36 pm

  76. JC

    Fat Boy,

    I never lost anyone their capital… like you.

    I haven’t ever tried to compare my net worth to others in a boastful way.. like you… forgetting of course about the losses accumulated in “Ausboned”.

    Add up the capital you’ve lost to the capital you’ve accumulated and then explain to me how could you ever consider you’re obese presence on this earth as more worthwhile than a regular moocher.

    Stop it with the analogies of bloodsucking etc. as you’re sounding more and more like the person you’re defending… “100 meters” Williams.

    Don’t forget your diabetes pill before the 39 Dunkins donuts, Fat Boy.

  77. m0nty

    It is amusing that when on the odd occasion I decide to hurl some insults back in the face of an unceasing barrage, you lot start whining something fierce. I can’t recall Sinc chipping JC for getting off topic in his legion of posts full of personal insults directed towards me. This double standard is typical of the Cat, and of Sinc’s modding style. (Yes yes, tell me to GTFO, yawn.)

    BTW, this is one thread where insults are actually on topic, since it’s about a perceived insult by Williams. :)

  78. Gab

    on the odd occasion I decide to hurl some insults

    LOL

  79. m0nty

    Now I’m off to laze about in a pool for the rest of the afternoon. Insult each other for a while.

  80. Sinclair Davidson

    Not GTFO but FIFO.

  81. “You actually went there. Amazing amount of chutzpah ”

    Why not? There are many more sceptics than those of the Jewish faith. Are we not under threat? Likened to pedophiles, thought of as worthy of tattooing and gassing, I didn’t start the analogy, the would-be persecutors did.

  82. JC

    It is amusing that when on the odd occasion I decide to hurl some insults back in the face of an unceasing barrage, you lot start whining something fierce.

    Whining? Are you in some sort of parallel Diabetes induced universe?

    I can’t recall Sinc chipping JC for getting off topic in his legion of posts full of personal insults directed towards me.

    There’s a good reason, Fat Boy. That’s because I’m rarely off topic, but when I am Sinc also cuts my comment as you will see further up the page, you fucking idiot. Take a look at comment 2.45 PM as an example, you moron.

    This double standard is typical of the Cat, and of Sinc’s modding style. (Yes yes, tell me to GTFO, yawn.)

    There’s no dublestandard dickhead. It’s a fact that you’re almost always trolling and leading a thread off topic. There are ample examples of people complaining about you.

    BTW, this is one thread where insults are actually on topic, since it’s about a perceived insult by Williams.

    Fuck, you’re a dickhead

  83. JC

    Now I’m off to laze about in a pool for the rest of the afternoon. Insult each other for a while.

    I honestly hope the nearby homes are on stilts then.

  84. Sinclair Davidson

    JC – buddy. Let it go.

  85. big dumb fu

    Well played JC. Well played.

  86. Tom

    People who want to see what Williams is up to — using the Science Show to conduct a political campaign against people whose political views he hates — should just read the fucking transcript.

    Williams does an extended interview with another zealot, Lewandowski, who is also abusing his academic position to conduct a political war on people whose political views he hates.

    In Williams’ introduction to the interview with his fellow political zealot, which includes a political attack on News Limited, he says:

    What if I told you that paedophilia 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, 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.

    What follows is an extended interview with Lewandowski attacking people who question the junk science – models, lack of a proven causal link between CO2 and temperature, lack of recent warming – used to justify the pointless attack on the Australian economy through the air tax.

    CAGW is a political doctrine and Lewandowsky is a very poor quality academic who has engaged in crude, amateur statistical “research” to discredit political opponents, as Williams is doing.

    That is the “context” that ABC PR flak Michael Millett (a former journalist who didn’t have the bottle to stay in the industry and decided to become one of its enemies in his current role) is talking about.

    Williams and Lewandowsky directly connect the idea of pedophilia with climate scepticism. Both should be sacked for abusing their positions.

    As for communist zealots like the troll who brought the topic up, it’s so typical of the oppositionist ghetto of irrelevance he comes from: forget context, nitpick and attempt to win minor technical points, lie and twist the facts. It’s what you expect from the delinquent children of the left. Fuck off back to you do-nothing imagined world in Fitzroy, you mouth-breather.

  87. JC

    Oh shit, that’s even worse than i thought. He had that lunatic Lewandowski who came up with that laughable, widely discredited swill on a science program proclaiming sceptics are like pedos?

    Lol.. This would be like Stalin Interviewing Mao.
    Tom is right, these two lowlifes ought to be sacked.

    Lewandowski is a psychology professor FFS.

  88. cohenite

    Right, so it’s settled then; Williams compared sceptics to, amongst other vile groups, pedophiles.

  89. blind freddy

    Sinc
    Can anyone comment on the possibility of Newman making a case for defamation —–it was his skeptic position on AGW , that was equated with ‘NOW what if I told you pedophilia is good for children or that asbestos is an excellent inhalant for those with asthma?’!!

  90. kae

    I gather FIFO isn’t for “fly in, fly out”…

    Oh, poor mUnted.

  91. blogstrop

    Another pile of … “contributions” from monty lies steaming in the hallway, smelling up the place, and Sinc still invites him in every day. Is it some sort of exhibit? Ecce Homo Sinistre? An exemplary bit of street theatre in self-beclownment?
    Billy Bragg had a go, but is rather an effete, BBC-ish fading phantom. And most likely a kitchen sink socialist like his singing doppelganger, and a voracious consumer of Ken Loach films.

  92. MattR

    Lol, Williams said that saying “paedaphilia is good” is the same as questioning ‘the science’ of climate change (by ‘the science’ he means his religious views of course). That is equating approval of paedaphilia to climate change ‘denial’.

    Anyone who says he didn’t do this is a complete idiot. It’s there for all to see. The ABC will never admit it though. In ABC land, they are balanced and everyone else is an extreme right winger.

  93. jumpnmcar

    I gather FIFO isn’t for “fly in, fly out”…

    He could be from Ohio. ( yes, I looked it up )

  94. Mk50 of Brisbane

    Oh, my.

    Last time I heard that I was in a vehicle (full of drunken Airborne in very good humour) somewhere in Pennsylvania…

  95. wreckage

    The usage is a comparison. Is the ABC trying to change the rules of English? Oh I see. Did not EQUATE. It only noted that they were comparable, and did not assert that they were exactly the same thing.

    Riiiiiiiiiiiight. So it’s totally A-OK to compare anyone you like to a paedophile.

    “The ABC seems to me to be in a way very much like some hypothetical large organisation full of paedophiles” would be perfectly fine, then.

  96. Steve of Glasshouse

    So, if I were to equate the ABC with being the Christian Brothers of the journalistic club, how would that go down ???

  97. Harold

    I’m tempted to ask NAMBLA, who think pedophilia is good for children, to outline their official position on climate change. Could go either way!

  98. Steve of Glasshouse

    THUNK..Faaark. Monty jumping into his AGW empty pool..

  99. manalive

    …. or that asbestos is an excellent inhalant for those with asthma …

    Just as an aside, smoking ‘anti-asthma’ cigarettes was recommended for sufferers 100 years ago as mentioned in Proust’s letters to his mother. I had it as a child in the 40s and ‘anti-asthma’ smokes were still around, although not recommended by medicos.
    Also, asbestos is a generic name which covers a number of minerals, some far more dangerous than others particularly if inhaled by people who smoke. Even brief exposure to blue or brown asbestos because of the sharp fibres, can lead to cancers.
    White asbestos which has a ‘curly’ shape, the form most commonly combined in cement building products during the 50s 60s & 70s, is relatively benign if left undisturbed but that hasn’t stopped the asbestos removal industry from exploiting the hysteria.

  100. cohenite

    What I would like to see is a group of prominent sceptics – Plimer, Carter, Franks, Ridd, Salby, Stockwell, Evans, Nova. O’Brian, McClean, Jensen, Minchin etc – bring a joint defamation action against Williams and the ABC which, given their outrageous support of this man, means they are not just innocent diseminators but complicit in the imputation contained in William’s statement.

    The point about this is that it would establish parameters for the alarmists who are now acting without restraint.

  101. blogstrop

    Having grown up with broken fibro as frisbees, I might one day be singing, like Billy Joel, “I know that you’re gonna get me, somewhere along the line”, but at my age I can’t complain. It’s been a good life.

  102. kae

    manalive
    Blue and brown asbestos can’t be dissolved by the body and also trigger the cancer in the lungs. The white one can be broken down in the body and apparently isn’t harmful, and it’s the one in the old fibro.

  103. Jarrah

    What Williams did was wrong, offensive, and counter-productive. But he didn’t do what he’s accused of here.

    “As for communist zealots like the troll who brought the topic up,”

    Sinclair wasn’t trolling in this instance, though it skirts the boundaries. But he’s certainly no communist.

    “it’s so typical of the oppositionist ghetto of irrelevance he comes from: forget context, nitpick and attempt to win minor technical points, lie and twist the facts.”

    Harsh but fair. Sinclair ignored the context, ignored the plain meaning of the words, lied about what was said, and twisted the fact that pedophilia was mentioned into a fantasy about people being called pedophiles.

  104. Sinclair Davidson

    Jarrah – how can I possibly have lied about what was said? It is a block quote.

  105. I presume then that it’s the white asbestos that was used in teapot pads? Mum had one until the late 70′s, but it was more grey-ish from memory.

  106. Tom

    I understand why you’re feigning offence, Jarrah. You’re a carbon copy of the pissant point-scoring troll who raised the subject. It’s why you’re here. You exist for no other reason but to oppose anyone who isn’t a zombie like you. But mostly you’re just a smartarse. Pretty boy indeed. Which makes you vain as well. What a fabulous personality.

  107. Abu Chowdah

    Harsh but fair. Sinclair ignored the context, ignored the plain meaning of the words, lied about what was said, and twisted the fact that pedophilia was mentioned into a fantasy about people being called pedophiles.

    Mate, are you retarded? He compared the position of skeptics with people who would seek to support paedophilia. He sought to draw a line to skepticism as being equally as morally reprehensible and intellectually incomprehensible.

  108. Jarrah, the context was clear. An analogy was made between denying catastrophic global warming (which hasn’t happened, clearly) and espousing paedophilia, as in being of equal abhorrence. Saying deniers were not said to be paedophiles is a strawman argument, and it was not the basis of the complaint, but the analogy which equated denialism with paedophilia.

    The distinctions are mere semantics.

  109. What is this – tag team trolling? Hammy -> Braggart -> Monty -> Jarrah? Let us know when you run out of trolls.

  110. cohenite

    What Williams did was wrong, offensive, and counter-productive. But he didn’t do what he’s accused of here.

    Yes he did, but entertain us jarrah, what did he do, in your view?

  111. Rousie

    Whisperer -
    It’s Compulsive Justification Disorder. Or in common parlance, leftism.

  112. What can I say? I like shooting fish in a barrel.

  113. rafiki

    Williams drew an absurd analogy (cf Ooh Ooh Honey) that was calculated (intentionally I suspect) to lead the listener to think that critics of the warminists were in the same class as pedophiles. This should be the point of complaint. The ABC defence that Williams did not say that the critics were pedophiles misses this obvious point.

    Do you not think that there is something in this point William Bragg? (And I disassociate myself from the foul abuse to which you have been subject).

  114. rafiki

    Or Jarrah, since you appear to be blogging at this time.

  115. blogstrop

    Neither Jarrah nor Bragg are to be mourned should they become road kill.

  116. JC

    (And I disassociate myself from the foul abuse to which you have been subject).

    Oh yea, get equated to pedos, have people like Billy Braggs defend the commie progeny ….oh but I don’ want to be associated with “foul abuse”.

    Stop bending over rafki… you do that sort of stuff in private, not public.

  117. cohenite

    analogy:

    a form of reasoning in which one thing is inferred to be similar to another thing in a certain respect, on the basis of the known similarity between the things in other respects.

    Williams made an analogy between people supporting pedophiles and sceptics; as I explain above the strong implication from William’s statement is that sceptics are like pedophiles.

    A reasonable person would believe that Williams meant to eqaute sceptics with pedophiles.

    That would be the basis of any action against Williams and the ABC.

  118. blogstrop

    I’ve over-run book time, so au revoir, bonsoir, adieu.

  119. Lazlo

    Scrolling through this thread, not having been around for a while, I was wondering why Jarrah had not contributed his usual sophistry on matters climate.

    But then he came through. All’s well with the world..

  120. William Bragg

    Williams drew an absurd analogy (cf Ooh Ooh Honey) that was calculated (intentionally I suspect) to lead the listener to think that critics of the warminists were in the same class as pedophiles. This should be the point of complaint. The ABC defence that Williams did not say that the critics were pedophiles misses this obvious point.

    Do you not think that there is something in this point William Bragg? (And I disassociate myself from the foul abuse to which you have been subject).

    There could be something in the point, rafiki, but that would first require that a ‘reasonable person’ would take Williams’ words in the way you suggest. While most of the responses from Cat regulars above do misconstrue Williams’ words in that way, that does not prove how a reasonable person would take them.

    Personally, I think most reasonable people would have taken Williams’ words as they are: that is, as an analogy between different arguments of an affronting and spurious style. Accordingly, I do not accept that what you see as the ‘obvious’ point is so.

    In any case, Sinc stated that the ABC had been guilty of “calling” climate change deniers pedophiles. On this point, like The Australian, Sinc clearly got it wrong, and the ABC was entirely correct in pointing that out.

  121. JC

    Bragg
    What was the purpose of the commie progeny analogizing pedos and sceptics? Ummmm

  122. Jarrah

    “Saying deniers were not said to be paedophiles is a strawman argument”

    No, saying Williams called deniers pedophiles is the strawman argument, made about six times by Sinclair, eg in this blog post:

    The bottom line is this: an ABC presenter likened climate change deniers to pedophiles

    His analogy about the respective merits of deniers’ arguments and pedophilia apologists’ arguments was offensive, so why don’t people criticise that, instead of some made up bullshit?

  123. Jarrah

    “Saying deniers were not said to be p*dophiles is a strawman argument”

    No, saying Williams called deniers pedophiles is the strawman argument, made about six times by Sinclair, eg in this blog post:

    The bottom line is this: an ABC presenter likened climate change deniers to pedophiles

    His analogy about the respective merits of deniers’ arguments and pedophilia apologists’ arguments was offensive, so why don’t people criticise that, instead of some made up bullshit?

  124. William Bragg

    What was the purpose of the commie progeny analogizing pedos and sceptics?

    He wasn’t.

  125. Jarrah

    “Yes he did, but entertain us jarrah, what did he do, in your view?”

    He said some sceptical arguments are equally as outrageous as the three other examples he gave.

    Besides being objectively false, he chose deliberately inflammatory comparisons (ie, he was trolling) that were likely to cause offense even to those who understand English, unlike most of Catallaxy, and which also guaranteed that his argument was lost in the reaction to his way of framing it.

  126. Jarrah

    “What is this – tag team trolling?”

    Beer Whisperer, you seem to be having trouble with the meaning of words. Let me help you.

  127. Gab

    But there have been similar statements coming out of inexpert mouths again and again in recent times, distorting the science (of climate change).

    So anyone disagreeing with Williams’ belief in AGW is, in Williams’ opinion, as murderous as someone prescribing asbestos as treatment for asthma; as repulsive and revolting as someone getting kids hooked on cocaine; and as morally reprehensible as someone who would advocate for ped0philia - now who would do this other than a ped0phile?

    Clearly Williams demonstrates that in his opinion people who are “deniers” are to be regarded as morally abominable as ped0philes. There is no getting away from this and there is nothing anyone can say that will change what Williams said.

  128. JC

    Bragg

    You’re a pathetic liar.

  129. val majkus

    here’s one of those pesky people distorting the science of climate change – one of the many official “expert reviewers” of the UN-IPCC

    In AR5, this comparison involves just one graph in a chapter on “Attribution.” Yet the IPCC studiously avoids discussing the several striking examples where observations disagree with climate models: no global warming during at least the past decade — in spite of rapidly rising CO2 levels; Antarctic is cooling — not warming; absence of the model-predicted “hot spot” in the tropical atmosphere, and others.

    There is good news and bad news about climate. The good news is that science evidence has made it quite clear that the human contribution to a possible global warming is minor; in fact it cannot even be identified in the data record. The bad news is that the media and politicians pay no attention whatsoever to the science

    S. Fred Singer is professor emeritus at the University of Virginia and director of the Science & Environmental Policy Project. His specialty is atmospheric and space physics.

    Not a climate scientist then

  130. MattR

    He said some sceptical arguments are equally as outrageous as the three other examples he gave.

    One of which was “paedaphilia is good for kids”! He said that skeptics arguments were the same as saying paedaphilia is good for children. He also compared skeptical views to other horrible things.

    If he wasn’t comparing skeptics to paedaphiles, what was he doing then? Oh that’s right, he was comparing ‘absurd’ arguments to each other, those arguments? Man doesn’t affect climate change, paedaphilia is good, etc…

    It takes a certain level of denial to refuse to accept what Williams did here. The quote says it all. He made a ridiculous statement, made a complete fool of himself (again) and got called out. Now warmists are all doing their best to damage control.

  131. Tom

    Our trolls are trying to say that Williams didn’t link climate scepticism to pedophilia because he didn’t do it explicitly as a subject-verb-object in the same sentence. That was the whole purpose of the program, you lying clowns: to associate climate scepticism with sexual perversion. Normal people in the real world don’t play cute leftist word games: they see what is really being said. The zombie dissemblers see it, too, and they’re thrilled how their clever heroes have called their opponents pervs without actually saying it, but they bawl like babies and lie their heads off like you two when it is pointed out.

  132. cohenite

    Jarrah and this other dickhead braggs are using in reverse the ‘scintilla’ argument which is often used in legal matters to generate a connection between a case or claim and a principle where at first blush there is none; that is, in this instance Williams did not call sceptics pedophiles, he said they were like people who support pedophiles.

    That scintilla of difference, based entirely on a literal interpretation of William’s statement, and not as Braggs stupidly says, a reasonable person standard, simply does not hold water when reasonable consideration is given to the implied meaning and therefore the imputation of William’s statement.

    Williams meant to say sceptics were pedophiles; that he said that with an analogy and the filter of people supporting pedophiles is both glaringly obvious and indicative of William’s, and alarmists more generally, lack of concern about the consequences of both their position in supporting the scam of AGW, and the vile methods they use in supporting AGW and attempting to suppress legitimate opposition to AGW.

  133. candy

    What he said was in extreme poor taste, and he doesn’t sound scientific at all, more just overly emotional about his cause.

    But if it had been Tony Abbott who said something like that we’d never hear the end of it and the ABC would have him in jail.

Comments are closed.