Maurice Newman, the chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation has come out as a global warming denier in a speech to the ABC.

Michael Ashley replies here:

Scientists are fairly measured in their public statements. Years of training instils a care with words, and avoidance of value judgements. Well, sod that, I’m angry.

What has me fuming is your speech last week to ABC staff in which you accuse your senior journalists of “group-think” in favouring the scientific consensus on climate change. You refer to “a growing number of distinguished scientists [that are] challenging the conventional wisdom with alternative theories and peer reviewed research” and you claim that these poor folk are being suppressed in the mainstream media.

Who are these distinguished scientists? I don’t know of a single credible climate scientist who doubts human-induced climate change.

In his speech Newman claims:

Climate change is a further example of group-think where contrary views have not been tolerated, and where those who express them have been labelled and mocked. … This collective censorious approach succeeded in suppressing contrary views in the mainstream media, despite the fact that a growing number of distinguished scientists were challenging the conventional wisdom with alternative theories and peer reviewed research.

In fact, the mainstream media amplifies contrary views. Look at the massive coverage Ian Plimer gets. If you’re wondering how Newman could pretend that Plimer has been silenced despite massive media coverage, well, that’s how group-think works. And compare the media coverage (including the ABC) of Monckton’s visit to Australia with that of Hansen’s visit.

A contributing factor for the review was the revelation that the CRU emails were known to Paul Hudson, the BBC climate correspondent one month before the story broke – but not reported at the time.

That’s completely false. Since there was no basis to the story, the only mainstream media it appeared in was the Daily Mail and the (London) Daily Telegraph. Newman most likely got from a blog and like the bloggers he got it from, he never bothered to check if it was accurate. That’s group-think.

Newman continues:

More significantly, we see too how media have failed us by not being rigorous and questioning enough, resulting in many misrepresentations taking too long to be discovered.

Like Newman’s misrepresentation.

Then came the sensational revelations of unprofessional conduct by some of the world’s most influential climatologists exposed by the hacked or leaked emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Institute. This was followed by more evidence of dubious research and politicised advocacy contained in scientifically unsupported claims and errors in the IPCC 4th Assessment, including in the carefully vetted Synthesis Report. Questionable methods of analysis resulting in spurious temperature data have added further doubts on the underlying credibility of the science.

The lack of moral and scientific integrity shown by the IPCC serves only to reduce clarity and increase confusion, disappoint believers and give fuel to doubters.

It is Maurice Newman who lacks integrity for smearing scientists using Anthony Watts’ bogus analysis.

In defending the indefensible, Mr Gore, university vice-chancellors and those in the media, do a disservice to the scientific method and miss the point that no matter how noble your work, your first responsibility must always be to the truth.

If Newman cares about the truth he will retract his indefensible and false claims.

Comments

  1. #1 Mike
    March 18, 2010

    Wow! I mean wow!

    “This collective censorious approach succeeded in suppressing contrary views in the mainstream media, despite the fact that a growing number of distinguished scientists were challenging the conventional wisdom with alternative theories and peer reviewed research….”

    He cites just about every denier fantasy! Oh that’s right he was a Howard appointee. Next week, a fair balanced treated of the flat/round earth issue, the case against evolution and why vaccines cause autism.

  2. #2 Bill W.
    March 18, 2010

    Isn’t this the same ABC that recently published Clive Hamilton’s five-part series on the disinformation campaign? I’m thinking that series must have annoyed somebody rather powerful, who then had a word with Mr. Newman.

  3. #3 Ezzthetic
    March 18, 2010

    <Seinfeld>Newman !!!</Seinfeld>

  4. #4 Gaz
    March 18, 2010

    Maybe he is trying to get a job at the Australian.

  5. #5 cbp
    March 18, 2010

    >> growing number of distinguished scientists were
    >> challenging the conventional wisdom

    Not in this dimension they’re not.

  6. #6 Lotharsson
    March 18, 2010

    Holy crap!

  7. #7 Kevin
    March 18, 2010

    I listened to Mr. Newman’s comments with a sense of foreboding. The specious “facts” (unsupported in the peer reviewed literature)being advanced by denialists are aimed at creating confusion in those of us not able to access the relevant literature. One must question the reason for such actions. Are such comments as those made by Mr. Newman the result of a well researched and considered review of the evidence or is there a more sinister motive?

  8. #8 The other Mike
    March 18, 2010

    It’s kinda weird when someone accuses people of group-think by applying group-think.

    I too would like to see the list of the “growing number of distinguished scientists”. I have no doubt that some of the people he is thinking about have indeed “distinguished” themselves in their commentary on climate science, but not quite in the way he imagines.

  9. #9 David Irving (no relation)
    March 18, 2010

    Mike @ 1, I think we should also discuss the scandalous suppression of the phlogiston theory of combustion.

  10. #10 Mercurius
    March 18, 2010

    Maurice Newman has every right to express his views…as a private citizen; to which status he should now revert by resigning the Chair of the ABC at the earliest opportunity – that is, last week.

  11. #11 jakerman
    March 18, 2010

    >*Maurice Newman has every right to express his views…as a private citizen; to which status he should now revert by resigning the Chair of the ABC at the earliest opportunity -that is, last week.*

    Good point,

    Newman is abusing his position as Chair of our public broadcaster, to push is own opinions. This undermines any confidence in Newman’s ability to be a proper chair of this institution.

    As an aside, Newman’s opinions are riddled with distortions and misrepresentations.

  12. #12 ginckgo
    March 18, 2010

    That crickey graph is pure gold. Thanks.

    But of course, despite the antagonism of the Liberals, the apathy of Labour, and the incompetence of the Greens, the Climate Change Conspiracy has had full government support for the past 20 years, and consistently bullied the skeptics, right?

    Revisionist history at its finest.

  13. #13 jakerman
    March 18, 2010

    >*the antagonism of the Liberals, the apathy of Labour, and the incompetence of the Greens*

    And lets not forget the do-nothing politcal geniuses whinging and sniping from the sidelines, waiting for someone to make the political change for them.

  14. #14 James F
    March 18, 2010

    Tim,

    This is OT but related to the media. Did you happen to see Amy Holmes’ comments on Real Time with Bill Maher?

  15. #15 Bernard J.
    March 18, 2010

    [Mercurius](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/abc_chairman_smears_journalist.php#comment-2362149) and [jakerman](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/abc_chairman_smears_journalist.php#comment-2362205) pre-empted my own thought that Newman should resign, or be sacked.

    As Chairman of Australia’s national public broadcaster, he has a responsibility to understand the fundamentals of the nature of reporting on matters as profoundly significant as climate change. To this end he needs an informed and working lay understanding of the technical aspects of, of the politics of, of the journalism behind, and of the public psychology in response to, greenhouse gas science.

    In this he has starkly and abjectly failed, as is amply shown by the stinging scientific criticism of his comments. And no, this is not a part of the conspiracy – the simple adjudicable fact is that Newman’s denialist stance is refuted by the best science.

    As others have requested of him, if Newman believes what he says, let him point to the precise primary literature reporting the work that he believes supports his case. Let him list the recognised scientists who have been able to present data that withstands scrutiny, and let him also list the professional proponents of anthropogenic global warming whom he believes have been refuted in turn.

    He will not do this because he cannot do this, and his comments over the last week are a reflection of his unprofessional expression of bias, and of his incompentence in his capacity to speak with informed understanding of both the science and of the reporting thereof.

    If Phil Jones elected to stand aside whilst allegations of what are really just petty issues are sorted, then on this matter Newman should be given the heave-ho with no gilding of the handshake: his behaviour has been greivously substandard, and far worse than anything Jones may have done.

    I’d wonder if there is a way to FOI Newman’s emails and coprrespondence*? It would be interesting indeed to see what chatter occurred in the leading-up to his statements…

    (*the typo seemed to fit so well, I couldn’t bear to correct it! The implication might require some lateral thought though…)

  16. #16 foram
    March 18, 2010

    Technically shouldn’t it be coprospondence?

  17. #17 Steve Reuland
    March 18, 2010

    …despite the fact that a growing number of distinguished scientists were challenging the conventional wisdom with alternative theories and peer reviewed research.

    I hate to keep flogging the “these guys act exactly like creationists” angle, but good grief, this is just too easy.

    See what you get when you do a search for a “growing number of scientists” on the Discovery Institute’s website. You get 8 pages of stupid. This is possibly their favorite catch phrase.

    I guess when you start close to zero, it’s easy to get a “growing number” of scientists to support you. And as long as you lack the intellectual honesty to admit that every other scientist thinks you’re full of crap, that’s good enough.

  18. #18 MapleLeaf
    March 19, 2010

    Wow. What bernard J said @ 15.

    I can’t believe that Newman actually said that in public!? If the head of CBC said that then they would have been calls to have him sacked, or at least stand aside until they have completed an internal investigation. He is playing political games with a very serious subject here.

    Mr. Newman’s conduct is ridiculous, unprofessional and uncalled for of a person in his position. Maybe he can go and work for FauxNews and hang out with Palin.

    Please tell me someone is going to follow through on this.

  19. #19 Donad Oats
    March 19, 2010

    Nothing surprises me now, in Aus. :-(

  20. #20 spangled drongo
    March 19, 2010

    For you D.D.Doltoids not to admit that “our” ABC is wildly biased and has been for years is denial in extremis.

    And of course when someone who should know states the bleedin’ obvious he cops this sort of crap from the professional hemorrhagers.

    You could of course prove your case by giving an example of say, a balanced Q & A show or Media Watch or…

  21. #21 John
    March 19, 2010

    Drongo’s right, the ABC has a well-known bias towards reality.

  22. #22 jakerman
    March 19, 2010

    >*For you D.D.Doltoids not to admit that “our” ABC is wildly biased and has been for years is denial in extremis.*

    Drongo, why is it that the extreme right such as dominate the denialsits think they are the only ones didled by ABC bias. You hate the ABC because it is more moderate than you. You hate the ABC because it has editorial standards that bias it toward more fact checking than you.

    I dislike the bias of the ABC board stacked with right wing activitst such as Newman, Windschuttle, Albrechtsen.

    Do you think the head of any public broadcaster should push his personal opinions in the way Newman has?

  23. #23 Andrew
    March 19, 2010

    [drongo](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/abc_chairman_smears_journalist.php#comment-2362423) once again you try to distract from the point of this thread.

    It’s got nothing to do with Q & A or Media Watch and everything to do with the fact that there is not a

    >single credible climate scientist who doubts human-induced climate change.

  24. #24 el gordo
    March 19, 2010

    From my reading around the traps it looks like the left and right are both unhappy with the ABC, so I suggest we sell it off piecemeal until we find a balance that we can all agree with.

    Sad, we all grew up with Aunty, but the old girl appears to have lost the plot.

  25. #25 Andrew
    March 19, 2010

    Tim, I reckon you should send Newman the link to this post.

  26. #26 smithy
    March 19, 2010
  27. #27 jakerman
    March 19, 2010

    >*I suggest we sell it off piecemeal until we find a balance that we can all agree with*

    el gordo is ready with the exteme right corporatist solution. One straight out of the [wrecking crew](http://tcfrank.com/books/the-wrecking-crew/) playbook: defund, and disfuctionalise an instituition that you are opposed to then take it over or kill it.

    el gordo, I suggest you setup a political party and pursue your convictions, I doubt you’d get support beyond the lunatic fringe, we’re slowly wising up to these wrecking crew tactics.

  28. #28 codex
    March 19, 2010

    If scientists are studying and reporting that is ok but they are also

    a) entering the field of politics and

    b) requiring the average world citizens pay (collectively) trillions of dollars for what is at theory.

    It should be expected, it certainly is by myself that their work will be held up to the most scrupulous examination regularly.

    The problem here is that scientists are used to closed scientific communities where their inventions were eventually sold by or to entrepreneurs.

    It is unrealistic not to expect scrutiny.

    As for scientists opposing I googled and found a list on wikipedia.

    So to say there are none is a plain lie.

  29. #29 John
    March 19, 2010

    It should be expected, it certainly is by myself that their work will be held up to the most scrupulous examination regularly.

    You’re exactly right. Scientific work should be held up to “the most scrupulous examination”.

    You may be interested to know the 2007 IPCC report holds up to that examination.

    You may be interested to know that Ian Plimer’s Heaven + Earth doesn’t, and in fact, many pages have more errors than in the entire IPCC report. That is to say many pages have more than two errors.

  30. #30 John
    March 19, 2010

    As for scientists opposing I googled and found a list on wikipedia.

    So to say there are none is a plain lie.

    Oh, what he said was “I don’t know of a single credible climate scientist who doubts human-induced climate change.”

    So retract that or you will be the liar.

  31. #31 sod
    March 19, 2010

    From my reading around the traps it looks like the left and right are both unhappy with the ABC, so I suggest we sell it off piecemeal until we find a balance that we can all agree with.

    like the zoo-dilemma: the visitors are unhappy, because they can t really see a lot. the tigers are unhappy, because they can t eat the folks out there. there must be some middle ground…

    look gordo, i know that this one will go over your head. but these remarks by Newman are simply dumb. they show absolutely zero understanding of the topic, and it has been proven, that he got the facts wrong.

    http://media.crikey.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/climatemediamentions.jpg

    you of course missed the all of it. instead you think that the rights wish for more false claims in the press also is a legitimate request. it isn t.

  32. #32 sod
    March 19, 2010

    As for scientists opposing I googled and found a list on wikipedia. So to say there are none is a plain lie.

    the problem is with your reading comprehension. here is the claim again:

    I don’t know of a single credible climate scientist who doubts human-induced climate change.

    why don t you link to the results from your google search? the ones that contradict this claim? i will be holding my breath!

  33. #33 Lotharsson
    March 19, 2010

    Scientists are…
    b) requiring the average world citizens pay (collectively) trillions of dollars for what is at theory.

    Try again. Scientists have no power to do that – politicians do.

  34. #34 jakerman
    March 19, 2010

    >*[Scrutiny] should be expected, it certainly is by myself that their work will be held up to the most scrupulous examination regularly.*

    Which is not the same as a propaganda blitz pushed out why faux-news and illinformed bloggers. These types make erronesous assertions and never correct them. That is not proper scutiny.

    They you get the like of el gordo and drongo who want there veiws represented by people who are misrepresting and distorting information, and abusing their public position to makes false assertions on matters they are not competant to speak on.

  35. #35 truth machine
    March 19, 2010

    requiring the average world citizens pay (collectively) trillions of dollars

    Pay whom? The Martians? You ought to learn a little bit about economics.

    for what is at theory

    You ought to learn what that word means and how to use it. And again, learn some economics — theories don’t cost trillions of dollars, so that surely isn’t what such a sum would be paying for.

    If something needs to be paid for, it’s not scientists who require it, but rather empirical reality.

  36. #36 Eat The Rich
    March 19, 2010

    Great work Tim. I can see why Williams and Holmes were so upset by what he said. Newman is a disgrace.

  37. #37 adelaide boy
    March 19, 2010

    I’m reminded of Plimer’s 3-page spread in the feature section of the weekend Advertiser (Adelaide’s local paper) where along with the usual ramble he announced that climate scientists were just doing it for all the attention it gave them! The psychologists call this ‘projection’, I think you’ll find. Had you ever heard of Ian Plimer prior to him becoming Australia’s denier-in-chief? ( And how many times did he hold his book up during that ‘debate’ with Monbiot on Lateline? )

  38. #38 el gordo
    March 19, 2010

    ‘Should there be a view that the ABC was sheltering particular beliefs from scrutiny, or failing to question a consensus, I would consider it to be a dangerous perception that could lead to the public’s trust in us being undermined.’

    Too late!

  39. #39 J Bowers
    March 19, 2010

    I liked this comment at the Herald, from Al in Sydney quoting Charlie Brooker:

    “Charlie says it better than I…….

    “I’m no scientist. I’m not an engineer either, but if I asked 100 engineers whether it was safe to cross a bridge, and 99 said no, I’d probably try to find another way over the ravine rather than loudly siding with the underdog and arguing about what constitutes a consensus while trundling across in my Hummer.” – Charlie Brooker”

  40. #40 Marco
    March 19, 2010

    @smithy:
    thanks for making me laugh. The AEI showing its true colors once again.

    Oh, and did you know the AEI is actually cited in the IPCC report?

  41. #41 Paul UK
    March 19, 2010

    >For you D.D.Doltoids not to admit that “our” ABC is wildly biased and has been for years is denial in extremis.

    The fact that you see bias, or that anyone sees any bias, means that it is politicised, which is a failure of the media to understand the science. If you are seeking balance, then you are also seeking more politicisation of the science and missing what the problem is.

    The problem with ABC and other media outlets is that they are not interested in analysing the science and doing some real scientific investigative journalism, they are not capable of doing it, they just don’t have the expertise. If they did then they would come to one conclusion.

    There is only one scientific answer to the issue of climate science. The cause of climate change is not debatable, there is only one answer and someone is wrong, the others are correct. You can’t present a balanced view when there is only one answer.

  42. #42 Andrew
    March 19, 2010

    So now [el gordo #38](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/abc_chairman_smears_journalist.php#comment-2362611) has completed the circle and is quoting Newman to support his argument.

    You might as well cut out the middle man altogether el gordo and just reference yourself to substantiate your claims.

  43. #43 jakerman
    March 19, 2010

    >*’Should there be a view that the ABC was sheltering particular beliefs from scrutiny, or failing to question a consensus, I would consider it to be a dangerous perception that could lead to the public’s trust in us being undermined.’*

    Like Newman, el gordo’s got a [funny idea of scrutiny](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/abc_chairman_smears_journalist.php#comment-2362545). Newman needs to scrutinize the denialists. They are getting away with murder. We need more exposure of how [Newman's mate was able to do this](http://www.safecom.org.au/csiro-silence.htm), and [Howard's Harper](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/flogging_the_scientists.php#comment-2359655). Where is the scrutiny of the structural problems behind activist denialists abusing their power?

  44. #44 Donald Oats
    March 19, 2010

    The fallacy of (debating) balance when seeking scientific “truth” [Thanks New Scientist, "Battle over climate science spreads to US schoolrooms", Debora MacKenzie, pg11, 13 Mar 2010]:

    Schools in three US sates – Louisiana, Texas and South Dakota – have been told to teach alternatives to the scientific consensus on global warming.

    …and…

    …except in Louisiana, which in 2008 passed a law requiring “open and objective discussion” of warming, evolution, and human cloning. Kentucky is now debating a similar bill.
    In March 2009, Texas adopted school standards that both allow creationist claims and say students must “evaluate different views on the existence of global warming”.

    As one regular commentator here likes to say:
    Oh, the Stupid! It Hurts!

  45. #45 Rixaeton
    March 19, 2010

    #44 “Oh the Stupid! It Hurts!”

    heh: I thought the phrase was “Teh Stupid: It Burns!”

    If only it did :) Then with enough denialists we could solve global warming by burning Teh Stupid instead of coal.

  46. #46 Dunc
    March 19, 2010

    “[T]he University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Institute“? Jeez, if you can’t even get the name right…

  47. #47 Bernard J.
    March 19, 2010

    Ah, [drongo](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/abc_chairman_smears_journalist.php#comment-2362423), so you’re still quietly lurking in the dark corners, eh?

    When are you going to address [your long-standing homework](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/the_australians_war_on_science_47.php#comment-2326580)? After all, if you can’t make a decent case with that material, why should anyone give one itsy-bitsy smigdin of an iota of credence to the things that you spout here?

  48. #48 spangled drongo
    March 19, 2010

    When “our” ABC stack the panel and the audience with lefties and continually interrupt the [usually] lone conservative who’s invited along to give them all a ball to kick, Doltoids and ABC both consider that balance.

    Usually when you pick a team you’re allowed to have the same number as the opposition.

    Wonder why “our” ABC doesn’t do that? They claim they know about fair play. With Doltoids of course it’s to be expected.

  49. #49 Michael
    March 19, 2010

    This is one of the hallmarks of the post-modernist-parody disease infecting political conservatives – they think everything is just opinion, even science, so ‘balance’ is achieved by having even numbers on two ‘sides’.

  50. #50 spangled drongo
    March 19, 2010

    Michael,

    Even science eh?

    You prove my point magnificently.

  51. #51 Michael
    March 19, 2010

    Glad to have helped….god knows you struggle to make any coherent argument on your own.

  52. #52 jakerman
    March 19, 2010

    >*ABC stack the panel and the audience with lefties*

    Everyone left of extremist like Bolt, Ackerman, Devine and Albrechtsen is a “lefty” to drongo.

    Drongo, the reason the loons at Quadrant [need a subsidy](http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/12/21/culture-wars-part-2-quadrant-blames-political-decision-for-funding-cut/) and [CIA funding](http://jacketmagazine.com/12/pybus-quad.html)is because real thinking people don’t buy into the junk you are pushing.

    You only get people to listen by slipping your propaganda between the celebrity scandal and sports pages in your master’s tabloids like [The Australian](http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/03/15/over-half-your-news-is-spin/).

  53. #53 Don Wigan
    March 19, 2010

    ‘When “our” ABC stack the panel and the audience with lefties and continually interrupt the [usually] lone conservative who’s invited along …’

    Drongo, obviously you’ve never seen “Insiders”, or listened on Radio National to Michael Duffy’s “Counterpoint”, albeit from where you sit on the spectrum, even those programs might seem a bit leftist. Looks like to avoid apoplexy you’ll have to stick to Fox News and Alan Jones.

  54. #54 spangled drongo
    March 19, 2010

    janet,

    You’ll get an idea tomorrow what percentage is conservative.

    What percentage did your mate Clive-5-articles get?

    Don Wigan,

    When they offer balance as they only do on counterpoint they have to hide it away and call it a name that won’t upset the lefties [gotta love that name].

    Insiders is only stacked 2:1 for the lefties and that’s as balanced as it gets on ABC TV.

  55. #55 Fran Barlow
    March 19, 2010

    I can’t but wonder at those who say the ABC is sympathetic to lefty causes. It’s not as if they have any actual evidence.

    Then again, lack of evidence isn’t relevant when you see society as a leftist plot, and climate change as the pointy end of the conspiracy.

    The conservative predisposition on ABC news is often so thick I have to head off to music to get away from it. This morning those Liberal stooges Grattan and Kelly were at it again, running the Liberal talking points.

    With the ABC so under the thumb of the Murdoch agenda that the Liberals are still behind just shows how rubbish they are.

  56. #56 jakerman
    March 19, 2010

    >*You’ll get an idea tomorrow what percentage is conservative.*

    Really Drongo do come clean, are you saying that the Liberal party are pretending or misleading voters when [they say that](http://www.liberal.org.au/~/media/Files/Policies%20and%20Media/Environment/100202%20The%20Coalitions%20Direct%20Action%20Plan%20%20Policy.ashx) they want to cut emissions to “deliver significant environmental outcomes”

    What are the Liberals doing when [they tell voters](http://www.isobelredmond.com.au/Portals/0/March%20Environment%20and%20Conservation.pdf) that:

    >*The Liberal Party has consistently supported a targeted reduction of greenhouse gas emissions of 60% by 2050.*

    And promising;

    >*A State Liberal Government will [r]eview the State’s greenhouse targets to ensure that they are in line with
    scientific consensus.*

    Is it just dog whistling are they trying to con the public? How ever will I know who is conservative?

  57. #57 Bernard J.
    March 19, 2010

    Drongo.

    Two questions: why won’t you [do your homework](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/the_australians_war_on_science_47.php#comment-2326580); and whom in the Australian media do you consider to be more ‘right wing’ than are your own ideological inclinations?

  58. #58 jakerman
    March 19, 2010

    BTW Drongo, I’m [more conservative](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZEN61KgTrk) than you.

    Your views are way out with the loons. And your climate arguments are either rejected or need to be coded in dog whistle in even the nation’s right-wing party.

  59. #59 MikeH
    March 19, 2010

    It can be a bit bizarre at times watching the ABC or the SBS news. If they do a specific piece on climate change, “balance” requires them to get a talking point from a flat-earther saying climate change is not happening.

    Then later in the bulletin they might do a straight piece on bushfires or weather or farming and as part of the story interview a scientist. Of course the scientist (seemingly oblivious to the controversy) is just telling it as it is and so quite often climate change will come up as a necessary part of the explanation.

    In my experience the majority of people are smart enough not to be taken in by the looney conspiracy theories from the deniers. You would have to living under a rock not to be aware that all the anti-science crap is coming from the far right. Today at work all the talk was about Melbourne having a sequence of [100 warmest days on record](http://www.theage.com.au/environment/climate-change/citys-hot-100-smashes-record-for-run-of-warm-days-20100318-qid4.html). No-one was talking about how it has been getting colder since 1998.

    The former One Nation supporters who make up the bulk of the denialati may prefer to get their science from Andrew “many of these issues are over my head” Bolt but most people prefer to get their science from real scientists.

    The recent articles from Michael Ashley and [Stephan Lewandowsky](http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2842091.htm) and the statement from the CSIRO and BOM do get read and do influence opinion. So all you climate scientists – sharpen your pencils.

  60. #60 sod
    March 19, 2010

    Usually when you pick a team you’re allowed to have the same number as the opposition.

    yes.

    and there are so many shows with policemen, and barely a criminal present to speak about their side. the next discussion on killing sprees should obviously have less psychologists nad policemen and more killers!

    and talking about experts, why always invite clever people? and educated ones? where is the balance in stupid and uneducated people on important panels? my vote is on drongo!!!

  61. #61 sim
    March 19, 2010

    >*Insiders is only stacked 2:1 for the lefties and that’s as balanced as it gets on ABC TV.*

    “Lefties” is Drongo’s code for 6 figure corporate centrists working for the press consolidated between Murdoch and Fairfax.

    So the breakdown on insiders is usually 0:2:1

  62. #62 John
    March 19, 2010

    Insiders is Murdoch Central. By a “lefty” Drongo means some who isn’t a right-wing opinion columnist.

  63. #63 Erasmussimo
    March 19, 2010

    Usually when you pick a team you’re allowed to have the same number as the opposition.

    This statement reveals the fundamental flaw in rabid right-wing thinking: that there are good guys and bad guys and all politics is a battle between good (the rabid right) and evil (everybody else, labeled “lefties”).

    The ideal is selecting a board for such a situation is to get a representative distribution of thinkers, with mostly centrists, some center-right people, some center-left people, and then one flat-out right-winger and one flat-out left winger. However, you don’t ever want to include an extremist of either wing. Mr. Drongo would never qualify for such a position.

  64. #64 Sean A
    March 19, 2010

    In his ABC Online blog last October Chris Uhlmann wrote a piece called In praise of the sceptics. ‘“Climate science we are endlessly told is “settled”’ he wrote.

    The ones who keep saying over and over that we are being told the science is settled are… the denialists.

  65. #65 Jeremy C
    March 19, 2010

    I don’t understand why right wingnuts are so obsessed with the ABC? In Australia they have three other city TV networks and countless radio talk jocks giving shape to their right wing outlook and ideologies in living colour. Why do they want the ABC so bad when it doesn’t even seem to rate as much as the commercial networks. I would’ve thought they would be happy with the world view encapsulated by such thought provoking and stimulating programs on the commercial channels such as; series 37 of Funniest Home Videos, The Footy Show and the worlds most acclaimed current affairs show….Today Tonight which, to be fair, receives only slight more acclaim than that other current affairs show of great gravitas, A Current Affair.

  66. #66 Dave Andrews
    March 19, 2010

    What really amazes me is the amoumt of time you Aussies seem to spend watching tv.

  67. #67 Rixaeton
    March 19, 2010

    #65: Good questions, Jeremy. Why are wingnuts obsessed with the ABC?

    Despite the claims of lefty-bias from the wingnuts, what they really crave is the credibility that comes with reporting from the ABC. They know, deep in their shriveled little black hearts, that the ABC has credibility and is generally trusted by the public. The right-wing denialists want it for the same reason they jump onto and loudly shout any fragment of science that, if given the right spin, shows that they might be right, all the while claiming that 90% of scientists are biased and cannot be trusted. Since the real science wins out by having credibility, all they can do is grasp at straws, make men out of them, and then beat them down widely in the media while claiming they are being repressed.

    The truth is, they have no credibility while denying what the science tells us, and by doing so, in my mind, they have removed any right to be listened to. They have the right to speak, but I also have the right to ignore them. By their actions and their words, they obstinately deny evidence, fabricate controversy, and try to smear the reputations of hard working people. Until they come back to reality they have nothing to contribute, and should therefore be ignored.

    So, spangled drongo, el gordo and others of their ilk; while you have nothing of interest to say, I say we should just ignore you. You are the loud, obnoxious guests at the party and are an embarrassment to the rest of us.

    I would even prefer the default response to denialist posting to just be something like: “Denialist Posting #n: Ignore.” This would save time as we have been here before, and I would prefer a default posting to wasting time arguing over and over again the same refutations with someone that has such a stubbornly warped view of reality and such a petty attitude. The wingnut position of “That smell like left-wing stuff, so it is wrong.” is tedious and uninteresting. It is ideology before reality, and solves nothing.

  68. #68 Rixaeton
    March 19, 2010

    #66 What really amazes me is the amoumt of time you Aussies seem to spend watching tv.

    It’s an antipodean thing. We are fascinated by this new fangled movin’ picture gismo, and it is way more interesting than watching the pictures on the electric wireless :)

  69. #69 Donald Oats
    March 19, 2010

    #66 What really amazes me is the amoumt of time you Aussies seem to spend watching tv.

    Dave Andrews, you should see the crowds at my place since I got the first colour TV on the block.

  70. #70 The other Mike
    March 19, 2010

    I’m quite fascinated by the spangled drongo hypothesis: that scientific discussions/debates are only “fair” if they have 50% for and 50% against.

    One of the currently insurmountable problems is that it is extremely difficult to find an equal number of commenters who are “against” the science underpinning climate change and who also have the faintest idea what they are talking about.

  71. #71 Lotharsson
    March 19, 2010

    In his ABC Online blog last October Chris Uhlmann wrote a piece called In praise of the sceptics. ‘“Climate science we are endlessly told is “settled”’ he wrote.

    Scientists say it’s not (and the IPCC AR4 clearly demonstrates this). But then propagandists are less nuanced than scientists. Perhaps there’s a reason for that?

  72. #72 bruced
    March 19, 2010

    Richard Glover has a nice take on his boss (ABC chairman) in today’s SMH (available at http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/the-lara-bingle-of-climate-change-20100319-qlzz.html
    2nd para ” What happens when Maurice Newman, climate agnostic and ABC chairman, goes to the doctor? Does he storm from the office when they diagnose chickenpox and seek second, third and 99th opinions until he finds a doctor who will give him the all clear? And does he then decry the first 98 doctors as victims of “group-think”?

    No. Because it would be mental.”
    The rest is worth reading for a different perspective on the denialist side.

  73. #73 Lotharsson
    March 19, 2010

    Why do they want the ABC so bad…

    Because cognitive dissonance can be dealt with by eliminating one offending information source?

  74. #74 Lotharsson
    March 19, 2010

    No. Because it would be mental.

    That pithy phrase sounds like it could catch on ;-)

  75. #75 Mike
    March 19, 2010

    @ Bruced post 73

    Priceless article, the quote sums it up nicely.

  76. #76 adelaide boy
    March 20, 2010

    ‘No. Because it would be mental.’ Love it!

  77. #77 Steve C
    March 20, 2010

    Gaz (4): “Maybe he is trying to get a job at the Australian.”

    I sincerely hope he gets it.

    Tangentially, Jonathan Holmes’ (Media Watch) perspective on The Drum makes interesting reading:
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/03/04/2835977.htm?site=thedrum

    “…there’s no doubt that climate change is concentrating ABC minds. What makes the issue more complicated than most is that the degree of scepticism in the community at large bears little relation to the degree of doubt that exists in the scientific community. Those who know the most are the least dubious that anthropogenic climate change is happening, and perhaps faster than they forecast just a few years ago.”

    The last two paras are on the money for me:
    “But if I were running a science show on the ABC, I might well feel that what should guide me is the science, not shifts in popular opinion. And so far, for all the sound and fury, the vast majority of climate scientists remain convinced that the evidence for anthropogenic warming is getting stronger, not weaker, every year.

    Why they think that, surely, is the really important scientific story. Isn’t it? Or should I give time to dissident scientists out of all proportion to the weight of their views within the scientific community, because they reflect views held by a substantial proportion of non-scientists among my listeners?”

    Oh for an ABC chairman with such ‘balance’.

  78. #78 David Duff
    March 20, 2010

    Alas, I’m too busy worry about the real threat to the globe posed by all those exploding meteorites for me to plough through all of this thread so if I repeat a point already made by someone else, I apologise. Anyway:

    Maurice Newman, the chairman of the Australian Brodcasting Corporation has come out as a global warming denier. (My emphasis)

    Can I now take it, on the authority of our distinguished host, no less, that calling someone a “denier”, with all its connotations, is not a smear?

  79. #79 Michael Ralston
    March 20, 2010

    A denier is someone who reflexively denies reality on some topic. That is, of course, a bad thing. But when it’s an accurate description of that person, I really don’t see how it could be a smear.

  80. #80 Neven
    March 20, 2010

    Did the the chairman of a national Broadcasting Corporation really say this? Wow, that’s amazing. Somehow I feel really sorry for Australians of good will.

  81. #81 sod
    March 20, 2010

    Can I now take it, on the authority of our distinguished host, no less, that calling someone a “denier”, with all its connotations, is not a smear?

    the only people who constantly speak about the connotations of the term denier, are those who are in deep denial of the basic physics and the current scientific consensus on the topic of climate change. (yes, there is some consensus, in contrast to what denialist websites tell you)

  82. #82 David Duff
    March 20, 2010

    Now, now! Let’s not pussyfoot around. To describe someone as a “denier” instantly brings to the mind of anyone with a modicum of general historical knowledge a connection to the self-deluded scum who insist that several million Jews were not slaughtered during WWII; and even if that someone was not aware of that connotation via general knowledge, it has been remarked upon so many times on so many blogs that ignorance cannot be claimed as an excuse. There are plenty of other epithets that ‘warmers’ could deply to describe their opponents and I, for one, do not object if they are rude (so long as they are witty) but “denier” is despicable and anyone who uses it should be ashamed.

  83. #83 Dave Andrews
    March 20, 2010

    sod,

    “there is some consensus”

    As you well know ‘consensus science’ is a tautology and history is littered with consensuses that have since been demonstrated to be wrong.

    The obvious one is that the sun revolved around the earth.

    Then there was the belief that ice ages did not occur and that moraines etc were deposited during flooding episodes when icebergs floated down from the Arctic and dropped them.

    Then it was widely believed until the early 20thC that the core of the sun was composed of iron (I note that this one has recently been revived LOL)

    Then there was a ‘consensus’ that plate tectonics was not realistic.

    In the medical field there are also numerous examples of a ‘consensus’ view being overturned.

    What then makes you so sure that the current supposed ‘climate consensus’ will not meet the same fate?

  84. #84 Fran Barlow
    March 20, 2010

    Dave Andrews amused me by saying:

    As you well know ‘consensus science’ is a tautology and history is littered with consensuses that have since been demonstrated to be wrong.

    I decided it would be more amusing if nobody pointed out what was wrong with this claim from his point of view, and let him figure it out so we could laugh at his own goal. Please — nobody with a grasp of English spoil the humour.

    On the substantive point, Dave misses the rather obvious problem that what happens when a consensus in science is proved to be flawed is that it is replaced with a new consensus. We call that scientific progress. In each case, the old consensus was not discarded because it fell out of fashion, or because people realised that science was littered with discarded consensuses, but rather, because a more compelling account that overturned the prior one arose based on rigorous work with the existing scientific consensus tools.

    I note Dave’s allusion to the “iron core” of the sun. Perhaps you will remind us which hater of consensus is promoting this one now, and of where you stand on the claim? Again, nobody who knows should point this out.

    Although it is not key, I do note the loose way Dave gathers what he takes to be the scientific consensus. It is doubtful if any such thing as a scientific consesnsus can have existed prior to about the 1800s, for the simple reason that there was not an organised scientific community of sufficient expertise to actually do what we know call science. There were individual scientific thinkers — Ptolemy, Aristotle, Parmenides, Copernicus and so forth but the idea of consensus science could only arise post-Enlightenment and post the development of the underpinning methodological tools and professional culture i.e what we now by consensus, describe as good scientific practice. That is one consensus that will never be overturned.

    The final point that Dave misses is that this is not merely a scientific question, but a public policy question. And when one must make a desicion based on scientific evidence and modelling, as when every choice, including doing nothing may have costs, one can choose between acting arbitrarily or following the consensus. I prefer the consensus to fiat and beleive that if the consensus warrants refinement or overturn, we should then adjust policy to meet the implications of the new consensus.

    Dave, like most deniers, deliberately muddies the water between consensus science and science based public policy so as to taint the former with the controversies of the latter and destroy both, but the real quaetion is why the deniers, if we take them at their word, would advocate intellectual nihilism as the basis for public policy or even for the resolution of purely prosaic problems. If someone broke his leg or went into anaphylactic shock, would he want the medical consensus to be used or would he like the people treating to turn the patient into a first of a kind research project?

  85. #85 el gordo
    March 20, 2010

    The ‘consensus’ will falter eventually, but in the meantime the mopping-up will be such fun.

    If using the term ‘denier’ is a problem, because of its horrible connotations, just call us the Denialati. Being part of this radical movement is an honor and not offensive.

  86. #86 Carlo Adovarmi
    March 20, 2010

    Great post fran … I found this on the scientific consensus and I reckon its pretty good …

    Certain domains, such as the approval of certain technologies for public consumption, can have vast and far-reaching political, economic, and human effects should things run awry of the predictions of scientists. One might observe though, that in so far as there is an expectation that policy in a given field reflect knowable and pertinent data, and well attested and accepted models of the relationships between observable phenomena, there is little good alternative for policy makers than to rely on so much of what may fairly be called ‘the scientific consensus’ in guiding policy design and implementation, at least in circumstances where the need for policy intervention is compelling. While science cannot supply ‘absolute truth’ (or even its complement ‘absolute error’) its utility is bound up with the capacity to guide policy in the direction of increased public good and away from public harm. Seen in this way, the demand that policy rely only on what is proven to be “scientific truth” would be a prescription for policy paralysis and amount in practice to advocacy of acceptance of all of the quantified and unquantified costs and risks associated with policy inaction.

    Such considerations informed the development of ‘the precautionary principle’ most famously as Principle 15 of the Rio Earth Summit of 1992. This stated that lack of scientific certainty was no reason to postpone action to avoid potentially serious or irreversible harm to the environment. Those who oppose robust and ubiquitous action to mitigate what the IPCC-led consensus sees as driving climate change frequently cite ‘skepticism’ as at the heart of ‘true science’ in an attempt to imply that concepts such as ‘scientific consensus’ can have no standing and thus play no role in public policy.[citation needed] Yet where this argument is not simply an instantiation of special pleading for ‘business-as-usual’ policies one can argue that this simply makes a false amalgam between scientific methodology as an intellectual discipline and scientifically informed policy formation, which is the benchmark for rational public policy in all areas where debates about the quality and significance of measurable real-world phenomena are pertinent

    No part of policy formation on the basis of the ostensible scientific consensus precludes persistent review either of the relevant scientific consensus or the tangible results of policy. Indeed, the same reasons that drove reliance upon the consensus drives the continued evaluation of this reliance over time—and adjusting policy as needed.

  87. #87 Fran Barlow
    March 20, 2010

    Dave also asked:

    What then makes you so sure that the current supposed ‘climate consensus’ will not meet the same fate?[my emphasis]

    If you have to ask then you shouldn’t be commenting. The last 150 years of work makes us so sure. It’s a compelling account and it’s hard to imagine any rival account being plausible. If a rival account were plausible, given the huge amounts of money available to anyone who could provide a rival theory and the massive speculation on the alternative possibilities, we would have seen one person do it.

    As yet, nobody has. We have seen a good many rocks thrown but all of them have turned out to be made of paper and thrown by angry blind men with weak arms.

    PS: Thanks Carlo

  88. #88 Zibethicus
    March 20, 2010

    #85

    If using the term ‘denier’ is a problem, because of its horrible connotations, just call us the Denialati. Being part of this radical movement is an honor and not offensive.

    (end quotes)

    You are the Deniosaurs. That’s all. If you take that as an honour, then you’re welcome to it.

  89. #89 The other Mike
    March 20, 2010

    Dammit. I was interrupted while drafting a response to Dave’s gross misunderstanding of the history of science and Fran stole my thunder!

    Anyway, to summarise what I was going to write, science today is a very different animal from “science” several hundred years ago. There is simply no comparison. Huge advances such as Galileo’s fan-dangled magnifying contraption fundamentally changed the way we think about such things as planetary motion. Incidentally, it was also that advance which first changed the understanding of what the sun is made of too (though one particular individual seems to want to go back to the 1500s in astrophysical terms).

    As for “denialists” – whether or not the term should be contrued offensively depends entirely on what is being “denied”. I find holocaust denialists deeply offensive and quite frankly, mentally deranged. Other types of denialists are fairly harmless, even if they are a bit daft. AGW denialists are an interesting bunch who mostly have a very poor understanding of concepts in atmospheric physics and an even poorer understanding of what actual evidence is out there. When you couple that with very strong views on one particular side of the political spectrum, you get the recipe for AGW denialism. It’s a unique “I don’t like what the science says, so it must be wrong” point of view.

  90. #90 The other Mike
    March 20, 2010

    Sorry, I just realised I “miswrote” and if you want to be technical, geocentrism pretty much died from Copernicus’ writings of the same era, but my point stands regarding the scientific advances and the effect they had on how we viewed the evidence.

  91. #91 Zibethicus
    March 20, 2010

    PRIMARY IDENTIFYING CHARACTERISTICS OF DENIOSAURS:

    Extremely small heart and brain. A cluster of nerves around the area of the Wallet is thought by some observers to provide supplementary cognitive function.

    Rugose pachydermal hide. Serves as armour against demonstrations of logic and scientific clarity. Also useful to the Deniosaur for concealment from itself of its own wild illogic, broken claims and perpetual logical inconsistencies. Also provides insulation against increasing heat – until it’s too late…

    Unconscious bias towards the Right. Often causes the animal to go around in circles. When this trait is pointed out, rage and the characteristic denial ensue.

    Red/Green colourblindness. Congenitally incapable of differentiating these colours, the Deniosaur sees them as identical. This lead to many errors, including in many cases a form of paranoia in which the colour Red is seen everywhere, particularly under beds. This is best observed in Deniosaurs whose hide has been finally penetrated by the realisation of their own inconsistencies or those of their favoured ‘authorities’ such as non-scientists and British tabloid journalists. Many Deniosaurs in this situation will resort to an atavistic tendency to foam at the mouth and rant about ‘a socialist one-world UN bureaucracy’ or something depressingly similar.

    Stentorian voice. Causes the less-evolved Deniosaurs to BELLOW in CAPITALS on INTERNET FORUMS. This is thought to be due to a chronic incapacity to distinguish between volume, repetition and actual quality of information.

    Backwards-facing vision. Together with the strong tendency to refuse new information which threatens to penetrate the hide to eventually reach some part of the ‘brain’, this causes a fascination with, and fixation upon, the past as an ideal, most usually an idealised vision of 1950s America. In conjunction with the tendency to circumnambulation, this defect of vision can lead to the most unfortunate results. The remains of entire herds of these ungainly creatures have been discovered in postures and conditions which suggest that a delusion of this sort arose within the herd (they usually travel in clusters for safety), causing them to trundle backwards in circles until they died from starvation, thirst or acute paroxysmal positional vertigo.

    And, finally:

    Inevitably destined for extinction. It should be clear enough that this is an unavoidable consequence of the unfortunate creature’s own unrealised defects. The great question of our times is how many other species it proposes to drag along into oblivion with it.

  92. #92 Gaz
    March 20, 2010

    I find holocaust denialists deeply offensive and quite frankly, mentally deranged. Other types of denialists are fairly harmless, even if they are a bit daft.

    I don’t think AGW deniers are harmless. The damage they may cause to human civilisation, not to mention the environment, is immense.

    The comparison of holocaust deniers and AGW deniers is in inappropriate, though.

    Holocaust deniers are arguing about history, what happened in the past and cannot be undone.

    AGW deniers are denying what is happening right now, and which will continue to happen in the future if they are successful in finding widespread support for their wilful idiocy.

    Years ago I had a conversation will a young man who was a dedicated Maoist – he was a customer at a coffeee shop where I worked – which meant he felt obliged to support the Pol Pot regime.

    When challenged about Pol Pot’s mass murders, which were happening at that time, he shuffled his feet, looked sideways and said “Well, you have to understand that after a revolution there are always excesses…”

    I think AGW deniers would be better compared with him, someone whose ideological position blinded him to a catastrophe all the evidence showed was unfolding at the time.

    Is there a Godwin’s Law equivalent for Pol Pot?

  93. #93 Tim Lambert
    March 20, 2010

    Calling someone a “denier” is not a smear if [its is accurate](http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/media/climate-balance-urged-at-abc/story-e6frg996-1225839329115):

    >Sources said while Mr Newman claimed publicly he was agnostic on the issue, he was a passionate climate-change denialist in private. Mr Newman has told journalists he doesn’t believe in the science of man-made climate change.

  94. #94 The other Mike
    March 20, 2010

    You’re right Gaz. The “fairly harmless” denialists I was referring to are not AGW denialists. Denialists come in all flavours and harm comes in many types. AGW denialists are somewhere in between IMHO.

    We saw a glimpse of the effects of human denialism with the Canadian Cod Fishery collapse. Despite scientific concerns the “business as usual” principle based on individual selfishness and human activity being far too insignificant to have major environmental effects went ahead full steam (sound familiar?).

    So when the fishery collapsed and was closed, then failed to recover, denialist attitudes really bore denialist fruit in the form of thousands of job losses, a major change in the ecosystem, and the self-destruction of an entire industry. Environmental Denialists (of which AGW denialists are of course one group) just have inherent problems coping with reality and sustainable activity, but I’m not sure what it is that makes them that way.

  95. #96 Bernard J.
    March 20, 2010

    [David Duff](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/abc_chairman_smears_journalist.php#comment-2365151 ).

    So, you’re struggling with vocabulary again, huh?

    In spite of your insistence otherwise, a denier is a person who denies something, anything – unless an adjective is placed to precede the noun. That is why the term was used to describe those people who latterly decided to deny the existence or the extent of the holocaust. A generally descriptive verb/noun (e.g. denialism/denier) does not become dedicated to a particular narrow adverbial/adjectival definition simply because one noun is placed in front of it at some point in history. All the more so if that word is in general use in other contexts.

    There are posters on Deltoid who had relatives killed by the Nazis, and they have stated that they themselves do not confabulate the general term with the holocaust context. I believe that your wont to so do is a deliberate ruse engaged in an attempt to defuse the very fact that the denial of climate science is exactly that – denial, and a deliberate ignorance of, the fact of the real science.

    It’s actually a despicable act to attempt to embarrass those supporting the science by falsely implicating them in such cross-referencing – the real grubs in this enterprise are those people who say that anyone referring to climate change denialism is imputing a relationship, however convoluted, bizarre, and irrelevant, to the holocaust.

    You seriously need to get over yourself. When I use the terms denier and denialism, I have not a hint of association with the holocaust in my mind. I use the terms because they most accurately reflect the actions of those doing the denying: none of the synonyms with which I am familiar actually mean exactly what ‘deny’ means, so I fully intend to not accede to the dirty tactics of those such as yourself, and allow my capacity to communicate to be diluted a la Newspeak.

    [Dave Andrews](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/abc_chairman_smears_journalist.php#comment-2365160).

    [Fran](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/abc_chairman_smears_journalist.php#comment-2365194) has already admirable deconstructed your guff, but I would add one more point…

    The obsolete paradigms to which you refer, and that were overturned, were so done using much less evidence than exists in support of anthropogenic climate change. In fact, the proposition of AGW itself overturned the uninformed thinking that human activity could not impact climate.

    Thus your example is not only a strawman, but one that appeals to error of fact. But then, you have always struggled in understanding fact when it comes to climate change, haven’t you…?

    I see that other posters have pretty much gazumped me on both points, so I won’t belabour them any further.

    I did enjoy [Zebithicus](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/abc_chairman_smears_journalist.php#comment-2365376)’ post though!

  96. #97 Marion Delgado
    March 20, 2010

    El gordo is the LaRouche/Spiked kind of rightist – the dishonest kind that will neve
    r come out openly

  97. #98 luminous beauty
    March 20, 2010
  98. #99 Lotharsson
    March 20, 2010

    Shorter David Duff: any unqualified noun connotes all possible qualifications.

  99. #100 Lotharsson
    March 20, 2010

    Some time ago I won the internetz for the day. I’ve been hanging on to them until a worthy recipient announces themselves, so I’m happy to announce that Zibethicus wins the internetz for the week!

Current ye@r *