The Australian is notorious for its attacks on climate science and its hypersensitivity to criticism, so this segment on the Science Show on the psychology of the rejection of climate science where this Maurice Newman opinion piece in the Australian was (correctly) described as “drivel” was pretty well guaranteed to draw lots of responses. So far there have been eight published. On the front page of Tuesday’s paper we had the headline “It’s OK to link climate denial to pedophilia, ABC tells ex-chairman Maurice Newman” (search for it if you wish to read the article).  You have to read right to the end of the article to find out that the headline is completely false:

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

So they didn’t say it was OK, but rather denied doing it.  Because they didn’t.  Here’s what Robin Williams said on the Science Show:

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.

The example of a similar statement that Williams gives is Todd Akin’s claim that rape cannot cause pregnancy.  Williams did not equate Akin with a pedophile, but rather said that Akin made an outrageously false and unscientific claim,  A statement equating a group with pedophiles would look like this:

“The wind-farm business is bloody well near a pedophile ring. They’re f . . king our families and knowingly doing so.”

Of course, that wasn’t published by the ABC, but by The Australian (search for “Wind farm scam a huge cover-up” by James Delingpole) and yesterday The Australian was forced to publish this:

Third, it has concluded that the report of the anonymous remarks concerning paedophilia, a very serious and odious crime, were highly offensive. The Council’s principles relate, of course, to whether something is acceptable journalistic practice, not whether it is unlawful. They are breached where, as in this case, the level of offensiveness is so high that it outweighs the very strong public interest in freedom of speech

As you might expect, rather than admit that the two cases were different, The Australian’s Nick Leys complained that the ABC was being held to a different standard.  As did The Australian in an editorial.  And they also published a ridiculous rant from Delingpole making the same complaint (“Where free speech is as dead as the dodo”).  Also saying the same thing was a column by Christopher Pearson (“Climate lunacy rules at Aunty”).  I imagine there will be many more over the next few weeks.

The Australian also used this as an excuse to publish more drivel from Newman (“ABC clique in control of climate”):

We have seen the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change discredited. We know the science is less robust. And, for the past 16 years, mother nature has been kind to the sceptics. Because Williams says the entire globe is threatened in a way that is pretty dire doesn’t make it so. Yet the “weight of evidence” argument is often used as a licence to vilify holders of alternative views. As a taxpayer-funded organisation, the ABC shouldn’t even have a view on global warming. What it does have is a duty to all Australians to broadcast honestly the best available evidence on both sides of the argument so that we can make up our own minds. This is not happening.

You could make up your mind as to whether Newman’s claim that there has been no global warming for 16 years by looking at the data. Here, from, is a graph showing the temperature trend from 1980 to 1996 (the green line) and global temperatures since 1980. The data shows that in the last 16 years temperatures have been mostly above the trend line.

Newman also claims:

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

Actually, Newman’s mistake was to smear scientists, accusing them of lacking in moral and scientific integrity and basing all this on a some blog posts.

Update: The Australian refused to print a letter from the ABC correcting the record.


  1. #1 Chad
    December 27, 2012

    I know . Robin Williams ridiculous analogy could be easily applied to catastrophic global warming alarmists, who have no data to back their wildly inaccurate assertions. Basing an argument on climate modelling that empirical data continues to prove inaccurate is not the scientific method in practice. If a model fails in it’s predictive ability, obviously that model is flawed and should not be relied on. IPCC temperature projections did not even meet the low-end probability scenario, yet we see media releases recently that state the IPCC’s projections have been proven accurate. Then with absolutely no data to support it, alarmist sites bleat that there is a very high probability that there will be a 4 – 6 degree Celsius rise in temperature by 2100. That’s after the empirical data showing that with a substantial increase in CO2 we have not seen a commensurate rise in temperature that models claimed would occur. Temperature rise does not correlate with an estimated 30% increase in CO2 since 2000. Even if CO2 emissions had stayed at 1990 levels more warming was predicted than what eventuated. The IPCC, and it’s believers base it’s future climate outcomes on models, that data shows to be incorrect. It’s about time, considering the hundreds of billions of dollars wasted, and the sickening effort to try to restrict the third world to expensive electricity generation, that eco-narcissists stopped avoiding the empirical evidence just because it is inconvenient to their ideology.

  2. #2 Chad
    December 27, 2012

    Also I have a phobia of paragraphs.

  3. #3 chameleon
    December 27, 2012

    No Michael,
    I am commenting on the results of the behaviour.
    I agree that the analogy has nothing to do with the actual science.
    I actually did write that at the start.
    Considering the headline at this post is claiming it is about science I am now unclear what you think you are defending in relation to my comment.
    Perhaps Michael it has more to do with political opinions than science?
    That would explain why poor journalism is excused in one instance and not in another.

  4. #4 chameleon
    December 27, 2012

    my bad.
    Apologies for the double r instead of s.
    No disrespect intended.
    Pity you’re not as good at picking up the main point of my comments as you are at spotting spelling errors 🙂
    I was also not aware that you are a fortune teller who likes to ‘predict’ what others will say?

  5. #5 Michael
    December 27, 2012

    “I agree that the analogy has nothing to do with the actual science. I actually did write that at the start.” – chameleon.

    My response was this just the post before the comment above;
    “What’s accurate about this analogy when discussing aspects of climate science?” -chameleon.

    You might need to make up your mind as to wether you think the analogy with in relation tot he scienc eor not.

    As to accuracy – well, obviously it is. Could it be any simpler to understand – the analogy is to other important and obviously unfactual statements, that we wouldn’t entertain for a second as reasonable.

    Surely it’s not that hard to understand.

    But the question remains unanswered – why is it ‘inappropriate’. Specifics please.

  6. #6 luminous beauty
    December 27, 2012

    Lotharsson may or not be a fortune teller, but his prediction that chameleon would continue in the vein of tone trolling was spot on.

    Something chameleon, unfortunately hasn’t the self-awareness to recognize.

  7. #7 Lotharsson
    December 27, 2012

    I was also not aware that you are a fortune teller who likes to ‘predict’ what others will say?

    Only the ones that appear to be quite predictable.

    It’s a subtle hint that could provoke useful insight, but is unfortunately rarely grokked by those it is made about.

  8. #8 chameleon
    December 27, 2012

    Paedophilia is a horrible and unacceptable behavioural practice in our society.
    Debate about politics is common and accepted practice in our society.
    Scientists and other academics like to argue and that is also common and tolerated.
    Obviously, some here are also happy to tolerate questionable behaviour by jounalists or media personalities and think it is OK to invoke a comparison with paedophilia if the ‘intent’ was in line with one’s beliefs?
    My point remains that I don’t think the behaviour at the ABC in this instance is any better or worse than the behaviour at the OZ.
    I actually agree with most of the comments made about the media here. I just don’t believe behaviour at the ABC is any better/worse.
    I also don’t think any of it has much to do with science.

  9. #9 Michael
    December 27, 2012

    There was no “comparison with paedophilia”. It was analogy about making untrue statements – as has been pointed out to you repeatedly.

    This is confected concern built on a deliberate misrepresentation.

    Stick to the facts.

  10. #10 bill
    December 27, 2012

    What you’re failing to grasp, Michael, is that if Robin Williams used the word ‘pedophile’ in one sentence, and the Uriah Creep of the Telegraph used it in another, clearly that makes them exactly the same.

    To the kind of mind that embraces Denial, this all makes sense…

  11. #11 chameleon
    December 27, 2012

    I am loving how much you people can manage to write denial and/or denialist in your comments 🙂
    I have had fun discovering this site 🙂
    Good holiday entertainment 🙂

  12. #12 Michael
    December 27, 2012

    Troll it is.

  13. #13 Lotharsson
    December 27, 2012

    Troll it is.

    True, although it was obvious pretty early on 😉

  14. #14 Michael
    December 27, 2012

    I like to give the benefit of the doubt until said doubt is completely gone.

  15. #16 Lotharsson
    December 27, 2012

    I like to give the benefit of the doubt until said doubt is completely gone.


  16. #17 Lotharsson
    December 27, 2012

    There is some eye-popping crankery on that thread Connolley commented on.

  17. #18 chek
    December 27, 2012

    World class crankery indeed, including the obligatory and hardy perennial (maybe because it’s Christmas) scientists-got-it-all-wrong – engineer disproves AGW.

    What’s most apparent though is that if there’s one thing blog pseudo-scientists (oh yes, the Mosher’n’Fuller Roadshow shows up too) and worse, the fans of blog-pseudo-scientists loathe and detest it’s actual scientists.

    No surprise there.

  18. #19 Eli Rabett
    December 27, 2012

    Eli has a song for that and there are even T shirts.

  19. […] J at Detroid sets up  and gets to refute convincingly, in his eyes at least, the Contrarian attack on climate […]

  20. #21 Wow
    December 27, 2012

    Deniers are pretty damn predictable (as long as you don’t try and work out what they’re saying: it never makes any sense after the fact never mind before).

  21. #22 chameleon
    December 27, 2012

    May I offer some of you some advice?
    As a newcomer here I have been astounded at the name calling and the absolute blinkered view of the world.
    If you truly want people to understand more about your view of the current debate around the politics of mitigating CC may I suggest that you read David B’s and Yet Another Rob’s posts at the previous thread?
    They can manage to recognise the actual point of others’ comments and deal with those without resorting to name calling.
    Just because people may not agree with the current media and political hoo haa does not mean that they are trolls or denialists or any of the othef rude and dismissive insults you are so quick to throw around.
    Has it occured to you that your behaviour does very little to endear anyone to your case?
    Splitting hairs on definitions and leaping all over minor errors in expression or spelling or leaping to wierd and wonderful conclusions about others’ personalities & psychlogies just makes you appear as petulant and argumentative.
    I would also suggest that you might consider that scientists are first and foremost people. Most of them are also employees. As such, they are just as vulnerable as any other employed people. They are also capable of making errors, overstating a case or many other human foibles. Like the rest of humanity they are not above question.
    But hey, if nothing else, my visit here in the last few days has been a remarkable education in how NOT to treat a new person.
    Anyone more timid than I would feel highly insulted if not outright bullied.
    This may also explain why there are so few regular commenters here.
    But maybe you guys prefer it that way?
    Self congratulatory and self confirmation via pointless name calling and personal insults?

  22. #23 Michael
    December 28, 2012


    Has it ever occurred to you that your misrepresentation of the basic facts of a matter “does little to endear anyone to your case”??

    In any case your visit here has been a remarkable demonstration in how NOT to engage in good faith discussion…….and a remarkable demonstration of how certain individuals find it amusing to be annoying, then feign shock at others being becoming annoyed and wonder aloud art how those people can be rude as to act annoyed.

    You do know it’s all been done before, right?? That’s why some here just skip right over the ‘give-the-new-guy-a-chance’ as soon as they get the first wiff of the above tactics.

    Those who want a discussion in good-faith, will conduct themselves with good-faith, something you demonstrated that you had no interest in.

  23. #24 chameleon
    December 28, 2012


  24. #25 bill
    December 28, 2012

    Ah, the traditional pompous, self-righteous homily from a pure troll who’s only here to annoy people. A hypocrite as well as a fool. Feel free to sod off.

  25. #26 Lotharsson
    December 28, 2012

    May I offer some of you some advice?

    No thanks.

    You have demonstrated from almost the very first comment that you are not here for a good faith discussion, have engaged in a bunch of tone trolling, and now you’re doing the concern troll dance, complete with still more false assumptions on which you base some of your “advice”.

    As Michael says we’ve seen it all before – and done much better than you do it – and it wasn’t persuasive then either.

    May I offer you some advice?

    If you want to pursue your particular kind of trolling and message promotion, try it somewhere where the readers are more likely to be persuaded by repetition of unsubstantiated and counter-factual claims than by the evidence, even when the evidence that undermines your claims is posted in response for all to see. There are any number of forums where your message will be received with open arms and very little critical examination.

  26. #27 chameleon
    December 28, 2012

    So you do prefer it that way?
    Explains a lot.
    It’s OK. You are free to form your opinions of others.
    The reason it does nothing to endear people to your case is you draw quite definite conclusions about people you don’t know yet expect these same people to agree with you about everything else because you only ever base your arguments on logic and irrefutable evidence according to yourselves.
    So according to you I need to accept I am a troll, a moron, lacking in mental capabilities, a denialist, lacking in a desire for a good faith discussion etcetera before I can hope to make a comment?
    How can you be so ‘certain’ that these things you claim are true about me or my supposed type?
    You seem to base such absolute statements on no concrete evidence.
    So consistently berating me for ‘opinions’ looks rather shallow folks.
    Maybe I could do a stat run on the frequency of the usage of words like troll and denialist and to which ‘type’ of commentating style we can see an occurence of staistical significance?

  27. #28 Michael
    December 28, 2012


    No one is asking or expecting to you to agree with anything.

    People do expect good faith in discusioin, and when it is absent, give short shrift.

    Your lack of good faith simply means that no one could care less what you say, think or feel, and you get the response you deserve. No more, no less.

    People who come here to discuss science, and do so with proper regard for objective reality, will find a respectful, if robust, forum.

  28. #29 Lotharsson
    December 28, 2012

    So consistently berating me for ‘opinions’ looks rather shallow folks.

    Comprehension of nuance – as has been adequately demonstrated – is not your strong suit. One might almost describe your comprehension level as “shallow”.

    You are generally not being berated for your opinions.

    Your opinions about matters of science which you appear to assert as factual are being berated as unsupported or even wrong – complete with supporting evidence for the berating.

    Your unwillingness to discuss these observations and your reiteration of those claims is strong evidence of bad faith on your part. Your bad faith leads many people to dismiss many of your opinions on subjective matters (as opposed to various objective matters – see previous paragraph).

    You seem to base such absolute statements on no concrete evidence.

    Au contraire. The concrete evidence is in your contribution to a number of threads here, and several commenters have all reached the same conclusion about that evidence.

    How can you be so ‘certain’ that these things you claim are true about me or my supposed type?

    It’s a judgement, based on the evidence you have provided to date.

    And based on that evidence, it is quite likely to be correct a.k.a. certain enough for now.

    Commenters who act as you do extremely rarely change their spots and start discussing the science in good faith. I’m struggling to recall any one who did so (and managed to sustain it – there were one or two who appeared to do so for a time but couldn’t actually change their basis for interaction).

    If more evidence is provided that influences that judgement, my judgement of you will change. But that’s up to you. I predict you won’t do so (a very good chance, based on extensive past experience) – but I’m more than happy to be proved wrong on that point.

  29. #30 chameleon
    December 28, 2012

    But Lotharsson,
    go back and read your first comments to me.
    Who was the one who passed absolute judgement?
    My point still remains that invoking an analogy with paedophilia ( and Michael, an analogy is a literary comparative device so by definition it is in fact a comparison) is no better or worse behaviour than the OZ.
    The headline at this post implies it was all about the science or denying the science.
    I disagree.
    It is more about the behaviour of the media and politics surrounding the science.
    The ABC has not been exemplary in this instance and many others.
    But neither has the OZ.
    I’m unclear why me making this basic observation has created such a storm of personal attacks and insults?
    Maybe you guys work for the ABC and that’s what caused you to become so over defensive????
    Look at the results of the behaviour of all of them (including the ABC).
    What good outcome has it achieved? How has it helped to encourage a rational debate about anything, let alone the science?

  30. #31 Michael
    December 28, 2012

    “Michael, an analogy is a literary comparative device so by definition it is in fact a comparison)” – chameleon

    There’s nothing we can do about your illiteracy.

    The comparison is not in the thing (paedophilia), but in the obvious untruthfulness of the statement about the thing.

    I just find it hard to believe that such a simple concept can be misunderstood, unless you strive to do so.

    You simply continue to demonstrate that you argue in bad faith.

  31. #32 Lotharsson
    December 28, 2012

    go back and read your first comments to me.
    Who was the one who passed absolute judgement?

    Well, that would be you first by a country mile.

    Don’t believe me?

    Let’s check the historical record, shall we? Please note that by the time I first commented to you, you had already made eight comments on that thread (starting at Dec 18). You opened with an allegation that “The point of disagreement has sweet FA to do with ‘science’.”, which was clearly incorrect with respect to the previous parts of the thread that discussed the difference between science and pseudo-science. Score 1 “absolute judgement” to you.

    You continued with “Trying to pretend that the IPCC got it right either predictive or postdictive is looking sillier year by year.” which is your second absolute judgment (with a bonus point for embedding the false claim that the IPCC does predictions), one which a careful look at the record would reject.

    You continued with #3 claiming that “It is becoming increasingly evident that ‘real time’ data does not support the hypothesis that ACO2 is a powerful agent in climate change and/or SL variation.” Yep, the data refute your 3rd absolute judgement too.

    #4: “By all means keep updating the data, but please stop screeching unsupported alarmism.”

    #5: “The latest evidence is NOT alarming, in fact it appears that the hypothesised SLR trend was way too overstated.”

    #6: “Good job of missing the point Wow.” This one was highly amusing – Wow was completely on point in his critique of your unsupported and frequently clearly wrong claims.

    #7 is pretty judgemental: “Those IPCC models APPEAR to have grossly overstated the case for ACO2.” And also wrong.

    #8: “The emergjng evidence is falling below the predicted ranges.” Er…no, it’s not, as was subsequently pointed out to you and which you refused to acknowledge.

    I’ve left out a bunch. There are a whole bunch of implied absolute judgements in your claims about the models and the evidence as Wow pointed out. There are judgements on your part about the motivations of the other commenters. And so on.

    #9: “Not interested in talking about reality…” ROFL! You were the one clinging to unsubstantiated claims by that point, most of which run counter to a whole load of evidence. Yet your absolute judgement was that people trying to set you straight were “not interested in talking about reality”.

    You then tried the regretful exit “Anyway, unless recommended to do so, I won’t be visiting again as I find the supercilious attitude here rather distasteful.” but failed to stick the flounce. And kept commenting anyway.

    You then claimed that your hairdresser was expressing “shock” and laughter at “the rude behaviour”, at which point I made my first comment. Here it is, quoted in entirety.

    Ah, yes, the classic “citing my hairdresser” gambit.

    Has it ever garnered any credibility in a discussion about science, or is it merely employed in an attempt to distract readers from the incorrectness and uninformedness – never mind the unsupportedness – of your claims about climate science?

    Speaking of which, how about you attempt to support those claims? Your initial foray here provides no actual sign of your claim to be “interested in looking at evidence” – just the opposite, in fact – and your subsequent efforts don’t do much for your claim either.

    You can complain about judgement all you like, but by that point in time any “judgement” in that comment was strongly supported by the evidence you had so kindly provided in your eight previous comments.

  32. #33 Lotharsson
    December 28, 2012

    My point still remains that invoking an analogy with paedophilia ( and Michael, an analogy is a literary comparative device so by definition it is in fact a comparison) is no better or worse behaviour than the OZ.

    And I have responded to your point by noting that it still remains premised on unsubstantiated assertions and dismissing key differences as unimportant.

    Heck, you did it in that comment itself. The analogy on the ABC wasn’t an analogy with paedophilia, it was an analogy to a hypothetical unsubstantiated (and strongly rebutted) claim that paedophilia is good for children. See, the fact that the claim runs strongly counter to the evidence is key to its appropriateness as an analogy. If you erase that inconvenient aspect you’re not discussing the analogy that was actually used. Berating people for failing to salute your strawman only undermines any attempt at credibility.

    (And it’s not like this point hasn’t already been made to you several times already!)

    If you don’t see the difference and why the difference matters then it’s not surprising that you don’t seem to be able to understand the critiques people are making of your claims. If you can’t see the difference and why it matters then it suggests you simply aren’t equipped to do the kind of analysis you are trying to do.

    It is more about the behaviour of the media and politics surrounding the science.

    Ah, finally you’re getting the core focus of the blog! (Although you don’t seem to have twigged that discussing this necessitates discussing what is and what is not scientific.)

    What good outcome has it achieved?

    There’s no evidence here that it’s made your opinion of climate science any less accurate than it already was, for example. And since you haven’t done anything like survey the readership and listenership, it’s hard to know. It may have caused a bunch of people to re-evaluate where they are getting their beliefs about the science from, which could be a very good thing indeed.

  33. #34 chameleon
    December 28, 2012

    n. correspondence or partial similarity;
    a process of arguing from similarity in known respects to similarity in other respects;
    the resemblance of function between organs essentially different;
    from Latin analogia or french analogie.
    The result as far as I can see is just more arguing about non specifics.
    Using paedophilia as an analogy was not very appropriate no matter which side of the debate you may sit.
    But I also agree that the OZ article was similarly unproductive.

  34. #35 Michael
    December 28, 2012


    Crikey you’re dense (or persistently disingenuine).

    We know what an analogy is.

    Both myself and L. have just explained that the analogy was about obviously false statements, ie a claim that paedophilia is not harmful.

    Yet, you again repeat nonsense.

    Bad faith – you continue your petty (and simply wrong) tut-tutting on style to ignore the point.

    And you wonder why no one is even slightly convinced by your transparent charade?

  35. #36 Lotharsson
    December 28, 2012

    The result as far as I can see is just more arguing about non specifics.

    That seems to be one of your fallback strategies when you’ve got no way to rebut the argument. It continues to remain unconvincing.

    Using paedophilia as an analogy was not very appropriate no matter which side of the debate you may sit.

    I don’t think what you keep asserting I should think, no matter how many times you repeat it.

    Do you find these tactics work for you in other places or do you simply have no other ideas for how to confront reasoned objections to your claims, or (in the case of subjective judgements) dissent from your opinion?

  36. #37 Wow
    December 28, 2012

    “So consistently berating me for ‘opinions’ looks rather shallow folks.”

    chammy, so you would say about someone with the opinion that paedophilia is harmless and should be legalised should not be berated and should be treated with respect for their opinion?

    Except you demand exactly the opposite and demonise that opinion.

    I guess you only like opinions that are your own. If so, say it.

  37. #38 chameleon
    December 28, 2012

    Good job of missing the point Wow,
    The analogy was inappropriate IMHO and did not do the ABC any favours.
    Perhaps the ‘intent’ can be seen by some as a reason to ‘excuse’ it.
    But as I keep saying, I don’t think the behaviour at the OZ is any better/worse.
    While you may not like it or agree, debate over the politics surrounding CC is quite acceptable.
    Paedophilia is not.

  38. #39 chameleon
    December 28, 2012

    And Lotharsson,
    I’m seriously not interested in ‘tactics’ or engaging in insults or in making personal comments.
    I merely want to offer my perspective re the reactions to the ABCs behaviour.
    As far as I am aware I am free to offer that as you are free to offer yours.

  39. #40 Wow
    December 28, 2012

    “The analogy was inappropriate IMHO”

    And why is that of any import? Don’t like it? Who cares?

    But it looks like you just want to berate people for opinions they hold, it seems.

    If they think the analogy is fine, you really just hate all over them.

    Tell me, do you know what hypocrite means?

  40. #41 Wow
    December 28, 2012

    “or engaging in insults or in making personal comments.”

    So why did you start off here with insults and personal comments?

  41. #42 Wow
    December 28, 2012

    “Paedophilia is not.”


  42. #43 Lionel A
    December 28, 2012


    maybe this will help you straighten out your conceptual framework: Australian Press Council Criticizes Climate Denier Columnists For ‘Highly Offensive’ Comments.

    Now can you see the differences between your opinions distorting the facts and the facts themselves?

  43. #44 chameleon
    December 28, 2012

    I’m not interested in having a discussion about paedophilia and why you think it was OK to use it as an analogy.
    As you said….who cares?
    My point was the use of that particular analogy did not do the ABC any favours and that I haven’t found their presentation any better/worse than many other media representations.
    But if you want to have a semantic argument about why it could be argued that invoking an analogy with paedophilia did something constructive for the scientific debate…you’re trying to engage the wrong person.
    I have clearly stated that I don’t think either that analogy or the response from the OZ did anything constructive to advance a rational debate about anything at all; let alone the science.
    But you seem to want to argue that means something else entirely about me?
    It doesn’t.
    I was just making an observation about the outcomes from that type of behaviour.
    I doesn’t bother me that you don’t agree.

  44. #45 Wow
    December 28, 2012

    “I’m not interested in having a discussion about paedophilia”

    Then why have you been talking about it?

  45. #46 chameleon
    December 28, 2012

    Seriously Wow?
    Is it possible to go so far off tangent?
    What are you trying to achieve?
    I have not talked ABOUT paedophilia.
    My point remains the same despite you trying to pretend it is about something else.
    The ABC’s choice to use it as an analogy did not achieve good results (IMHO) and further, IMHO, it is no better/worse than the the behaviour at the OZ.
    Why are you trying to read something else into that rather basic point?

  46. #47 Wow
    December 28, 2012

    “I have not talked ABOUT paedophilia.”

    Yes you have:
    December 28, 2012
    …Using paedophilia as an analogy was not very appropriate…

    What do you hope to achieve by lying so openly?

  47. #48 Wow
    December 28, 2012

    Mind you, you’re doing the exact same sort of blatant lie on the other thread.

    Who’d’ve guessed. A denier pretending to be “fence sitting” and lying their arse off every time they post?

  48. #49 Wow
    December 28, 2012

    I think chammy here is Joan with a new pair of socks.

  49. #50 Lotharsson
    December 28, 2012

    I’m seriously not interested in ‘tactics’…

    …except for talking about other people’s tones or the analogies used in the media – but apparently talking about your own is just gauche. How precious!

    … or engaging in insults…

    Except when it’s you doing it (usually by implication).

    You really don’t appear to be very self-aware – or don’t care.

    As far as I am aware I am free to offer that as you are free to offer yours.

    How very odd. No-one has indicated otherwise.

    But if you want to have a semantic argument about why it could be argued that invoking an analogy with paedophilia did something constructive for the scientific debate…you’re trying to engage the wrong person.

    Er, wouldn’t you be the person who asked:

    What good outcome has it achieved? How has it helped to encourage a rational debate about anything, let alone the science?

    So in future should we assume that either (a) when you ask a question, you’re not actually interested in other people’s answers, or (b) you may disclaim tomorrow what you claim today, so it can be happily ignored until you’re a little more sure about it?

  50. #51 David B. Benson
    December 29, 2012

    This thread turned boring.

  51. #52 David B. Benson
    December 29, 2012

    I forgot the link. Here it is:

  52. #53 David Horton
    December 29, 2012

    Well, the chameleon was remarkably good at trolling, eh guys?

  53. #54 chameleon
    December 29, 2012

    yes David B,
    I think I agree; and I loved the funny link 🙂
    I also liked the one at the previous thread 🙂

  54. #55 ianam
    December 30, 2012

    As the renowned genius Rita Mae Brown said, insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. That includes debating with stupid, ignorant, dishonest AGW-denying trolls like janama — who thinks that, if you don’t share his grossly mistaken beliefs about Arctic storms or volcanoes then you haven heard of them — and chameleon — who can’t distinguish being vitriolic from being wrong, just can’t stick that flounce, the poor dear, and is one of those imbeciles who can’t grasp that what’s relevant in an analogy are the shared characteristics, not the distinct ones; in this case what is shared is a complete inversion of the truth, as in the notion that pedophilia is good for children — it has nothing to do with pedophilia itself. The point of using using pedophilia as an example is that it is so undeniable … even the stupidest and most dishonest person won’t argue that pedophilia is good for children (unlike how morons like janama will argue that GW might be a good thing).

    Now what was my point again? Oh yeah, that taking the time to counter the arguments of these cretins with the hope that it will bring about any change in their thinking or behavior is a form of insanity. Oops …

  55. #56 ianam
    December 30, 2012

    when you ask a question, you’re not actually interested in other people’s answers

    Like all of these cretinous unning-Krugerite trolls, all her questions are rhetorical because she can’t even imagine being wrong.

  56. #57 ianam
    December 30, 2012

    Oops, icky eyboard.

  57. #58 ianam
    December 30, 2012

    I’m not interested in having a discussion about paedophilia and why you think it was OK to use it as an analogy.

    Right, you’re only interested in having a monologue about why you think it wasn’t.

  58. #59 ianam
    December 30, 2012

    n. correspondence or partial similarity;
    a process of arguing from similarity in known respects to similarity in other respects;

    Does the imbecile even realize that these are two different definitions, and that only the first applies in this case? The second definition is of an argument by analogy … which this is not an example of. An example of argument by analogy is Paley’s argument from design, which says that, because entities with complex functions such as watches require an intelligent designer, all entities with complex functions (such as biological organisms) require an intelligent designer. But no one is claiming that AGW deniers are pedophiles or like pedophiles because of some similarity they have with pedophiles.

  59. #60 ianam
    December 30, 2012

    an analogy is a literary comparative device so by definition it is in fact a comparison

    Wrong, imbecile, analogies are parallel constructions. For instance, one can argue that it isn’t necessary for a intelligent computer to function like a human brain by noting that airplanes don’t have wings … but there is no comparison between computers and airplanes, or humans and birds, in that analogy.

  60. #61 ianam
    December 30, 2012

    Like all of these cretinous [D]unning-Krugerite trolls, all her questions are rhetorical because she can’t even imagine being wrong.

    And a prime example is

    Who was the one who passed absolute judgement?>

    Despite Loth’s 8-point demonstration, this foul putrid disgusting lying conniving shitstain on humanity — “cameleon” — still believes herself to be an innocent party. I’m almost inclined to share the godbot sentiment that GW will be a good thing because it will cleanse the Earth of this garbage. (But I realize that letting the place be overrun with real cockroaches isn’t really an improvement.)

  61. #62 Fran Barlow
    December 31, 2012

    An insurmountable problem with making the claim that the segment quoted above entails comparing deniers with p&edoph|les is the composition of the class. One has to argue that the classes containing those who argue that p&edophi|ia is good for children or that asbestos is a good inhalant for those with asthma or that crack cocaine is a healthy part of a teenager’s lifestyle is composed respectively, entirely, or almost entirely, of p&edophi|es, asbestophiles, or crack cocaine-o-philes.

    To the best of my knowledge, there is nobody who argues any of these cases, still less about their life choices, so we simply have no way of making an inference about whom the ABC was comparing deniers to. The giveaway here is that the complainants ignore the other comparisons because in the case of the last two, there isn’t even a name for people who might think that.

    As unlikely as they are, one can imagine such arguments. If put, they would be seen as outrageous or extraordinary. The analogy, as Lotharsson points out, is to outrageous or extraordinary propositions and the likely responses these would elicit. It takes high levels of disingenuity and special pleading to ignore the obvious and compelled reading of words and to prefer a reading that makes no sense.

    Extraordinary claims — we have heard it often enough in these discussions — demand extraordinary proof. If someone says something extraordinary, they’d better bring astonishing and compelling evidence if the claims are to be believed or even entertained. That’s really all Williams is saying.

    I recall many years ago tittering at Peter Cook and John Cleese doing a skit called “Interesting Facts” in which Cook puts the idea that the whale is not a fish at all –the audience giggles before Cook delivers the punchline — It’s an insect, and it lives on bananas. General laughter followed. Cleese responds: The whal and insect? I’ve never heard such nonsense! Cook follows drily … no, it’s a joke.

    It wasn’t his only claim. He claimed that “arable land” was “land what is tilled by Arabs” and that the intestines amounted to “four miles of tubin’ in your stomach” and that it was a special material “so they can cram it all in”.

    Perhaps Williams should have used this skit for his analogy: That hedidn’t doesn’t found the claims of the filth merchant defencers of course.

  62. #63 Vince Whirlwind
    January 2, 2013

    Fran, you have 3 classes of people to deal with:
    1. Those who see that Williams’ analogy is nothing like The Australian’s labelling of wind farm advocates as paedophiles and who accept that fact.

    2. Those like Tony Abbott who are smart enough to see the truth of 1. but declare publicly that “it’s crap”.

    3. Those like cardinal Pell or Maurice Newman who are too stupid to tell fact from fiction but unquestioningly follow the public statements of right-wing lunatic liars as in 2.

    In each of the above 3 cases, your cogent and apt explanation achieves nothing.
    We live in a society that celebrates belief over fact and lies over learning.

  63. #64 Olaus Petri
    January 5, 2013

    Austrailia’s carbon tax has paved the way for more snow, even record levels:


  64. #65 Wow
    January 5, 2013

    Wow, more idiot. Just what we needed.

  65. #66 Olaus Petri
    January 5, 2013

    And now Wow calls himself an idiot, Tarzan style:

    “Wow, more idiot.”

    To comfort you Wow, I don’t think its possible. 😉

  66. #67 bill
    January 5, 2013

    Gee – try looking at May, June, July, etc., you pillock!

    Another auto-humiliator who ain’t here for the hunting…

  67. #68 Wow
    January 5, 2013

    Olap, who admits they don’t know how you’d measure a change in temperature, obviously is out of their depth when it comes to understanding WINTER.

    It’s just not fair to mock the afflicted.

    But when they’re demanding mocking this badly, it’s hardly our fault.

  68. #69 Wow
    January 5, 2013

    He also fails hard at reading comprehension.

    His Sugar Daddy isn’t here to read him his bedtime story :-O

  69. #70 Olaus Petri
    January 5, 2013

    Sorry Bill, the climate scare context seems lost to you:

    “However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.

    “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.”

    Portentology Deltoid way. 😉

  70. #71 Olaus Petri
    January 5, 2013

    Wow, my post to Bill is for you too. Winter it is – indeed. 😉

  71. #72 bill
    January 5, 2013

    What, and that makes those clear trends go away, does it?

    Are you being this stupid for a bet?

  72. #73 bill
    January 5, 2013

    And here’s someone who actually knows what they’re talking about when it comes to calculating trends.

    Read it and gibber, monkey boy! Thanks for giving us the opportunity to rub your nose in it yet again!

  73. #74 Olaus Petri
    January 5, 2013

    Dear Bill, I suggest you take your probelms to Dr. Viner. 😉

  74. #75 Wow
    January 5, 2013

    That’s Olap. Always able to give out more shit that his nose can be rubbed in.

  75. #76 Wow
    January 5, 2013

    “It actually can get to be too cold to snow.

    The atmosphere’s ability to retain moisture ( what we know as relative humidity) changes with the lowering of the temperature. If you notice your coldest days/nights, they are usually cloudless or have clouds extremely high in the stratosphere. When the air is super cold, there is no way for moisture droplets to condense, because there isnt enough moisture TO condense

    When you are witnessing a snow event, you often times will see the temperature RISE, and the best snow events usually have a temperature that is between 25-28 deg Farenheit when they start, and often times the temp at the surface will pop just above freezing, and it still be snowing.

    You will see that lower temperature limits for snow are somewhere around 10-15 Deg F.”

    Olap thinks that there is no warming if you go from -30C to -20C !!!!

  76. #77 Wow
    January 5, 2013

    Olap, since you’re the one claiming this, why can’t you stand behind the words you proffer?

    Just too chicken? Too stupid to understand it? Or merely avoiding any culpability in your idiocy, preferring to blame it on others?

  77. #78 Olaus Petri
    January 5, 2013

    Wow, why are you picking on me instead of Dr. Viner? 😉

  78. #79 Wow
    January 5, 2013

    Because you’re the one lying through their arse, Olap.

    Or is it that you don’t think Viner is right, therefore you can’t know anything about his statements veracity as you have characterised them?

  79. #80 Wow
    January 5, 2013

    Anthony Watts admits 92% of Global warming Man made.

  80. #81 Olaus Petri
    January 5, 2013

    So it was me who predicted no snow, not Dr. Viner? I have been clear from the beginning that I don’t preferr portentology. 😉

    I notice your reading ability hasn’t improved since your examined the moonson paper. 🙂

  81. #82 Wow
    January 5, 2013

    Yes, it IS you who is predicting no snow.

    Dr Viner isn’t.

    Meanwhile Anthony Watts admits 92% of Global warming Man made.

  82. #83 Wow
    January 5, 2013

    Should be:

    Yes, it IS you who preded no snow.

  83. #84 Wow
    January 5, 2013

    Should be:

    Yes, it IS you who predicted no snow.

    Backspace and enter are close.

  84. #85 Olaus Petri
    January 5, 2013

    Still not able to read what Dr. Viner claims Wow. And now I’m predicting no snow. Hilarious. 😀

  85. #86 Wow
    January 5, 2013

    No, I’m perfectly able to read his claims AND UNDERSTAND THEM.

    However, those claims have NOTHING to do with snow this winter in the northerm hemisphere.

    Something YOU fail to accept.

    Meanwhile, even Anthony Watts agrees that AGW is real.

    When you’re getting lonelier and lonelier in your insanity, ever wondered whether you’re losing?

  86. #87 Wow
    January 5, 2013

    And yes YOU are the one who has predicted no snow.

  87. #88 Wow
    January 5, 2013

    Of course, you may be saying nothing at all.

    Is that what you’re doing, Olap? Posting and demanding people ask Vines because you came here posting several times a whole load of nothing?

    Are you finally admitting that none of your posts have any purpose or meaning at all?

  88. #89 Olaus Petri
    January 5, 2013

    Wow, your are somehting extra. The moonson sure is blowing uninhibited through your donkey ears. Dr. Viner said what he said, regardless of your skills in excegetics. 😉

    Get back rading your moonson-paper will ya, my friend. 🙂

  89. #90 Wow
    January 5, 2013

    Yes, Dr Viner said what he said.

    Well done for spotting the obvious.

    So what?

  90. #91 Wow
    January 5, 2013

    So far, from the wisdom of Olap, we have:

    1) It snows in winter.

    2) Dr Vines said what he said.

  91. #92 Lotharsson
    January 5, 2013

    Well, that is about as much wisdom as Petri possesses, so I think we can thank him for performing at his absolute peak and ask him to return to the only thread he is allowed to comment on.

  92. #93 bill
    January 5, 2013

    And what is the trend in NH snow cover since the mid 1960s, you extraordinary little man? And is this, or is this not, consistent with AGW, regardless of the one quote you’ve managed to fish from the chum heap?

    Thank you for drawing this further evidence of AGW to everyone’s attention. Those hoping to actually learn something – e.g. is this a measure of the overall volume of snow, or the merely the area covered by it? – can read Tamino’s article, and the discussion below it.

    In the meantime; Olaus – you can get out your crayons if you promise not to draw on the walls.

    Here’s a little secret. This has blown up in your face, fool. But like the simpleton on the other thread, you’re just going to dig your little hole deeper and deeper.

    What do you imagine you’re achieving? Seriously. The greatest single contribution you could make to your cause would be to keep your mouth shut.

  93. #94 Wow
    January 5, 2013

    “regardless of the one quote you’ve managed to fish from the chum heap? ”

    Remember, spanking donkeys here isn’t saying anything about what Dr Vines said MEANS.

    It has nothing to do with anything else, spanking dingleberry is merely posting random stuff with absolutely no meaning to their presentation.

    Consider it to be the internet troll version of “Look! Squirrels!”.

  94. #95 Wow
    January 5, 2013

    Folks, this is why deniers always put half-statements forward.

    You then have to work to find out what the hell they are *trying* to say (which is impossible, since they are saying nothing), then explain why they are wrong (which is a fools errand since they do not hear any discouraging words like that) and then they get to pretend they didn’t say anything.


    Spanking Stupid here has so far posted

    1) It snows in winter
    2) When people have said something, they have said something (note: even tautologies are a blinding insight as far as these morons are concerned)
    3) Hass never said anything

    What we need to do is to get them to say what the hell they mean FIRST.

    This will be, like all attempts to get RATIONAL discussion from denier idiots, completely impossible because of their intransigence (and, frankly, intelligence: they merely parrot what they heard, which probably ARE only fragments of thoughts of others).

    But given that ANY rational discussion with them is impossilbe, this is no big loss.

  95. #96 Lotharsson
    January 5, 2013

    What we need to do is to get them to say what the hell they mean FIRST.

    Good strategy.

    In almost every case it will soon become evident they don’t know what they mean to say or they are unwilling to come right out and say it (exhibit A: chameleon) – or they’re arguing something foolish.

  96. #97 Wow
    January 5, 2013

    “or they’re arguing something foolish.”

    Which is the reason for so many of them to be “unwilling to come right out and say it (exhibit A: chameleon)”.

    Others don’t want to say anything since that can then be shown wrong.

    Joan is too dumb to be worried about that, however.

  97. #98 Lotharsson
    January 5, 2013

    Speaking of Jonas N et al, I had a quick skim of the last couple of pages of his eponymous thread, and Teh Stupid Still Burns.

    Jonas appears to be refusing to define “hiatus” just like Curtin did. Maybe if and when he does so someone can point out the ocean heat accrual over the “hiatus” period which undermines his entire claim.

    Then there was that whole “passive masses between you and a heat source provide cooling” thing, which was astonishingly asserted by one of the usual suspects to apply to the atmosphere with respect to the sun. Apparently they’ve never heard of the concept of “transparent to shortwave infrared radiation”.

    And someone seemed to be implying an argument from the 2nd law of thermodynamics that the greenhouse gas cannot exist, and someone else arguing that the 33 degrees C we experience above the non-greenhouse planetary temperature is not due to GHGs, and so on…

    At this rate it will still be going for another year…

  98. #99 chek
    January 5, 2013

    He was given the prompt with regard to the record arctic melt this summer (and the slower collapse in previous years) happening in the current phase of this alleged ‘hiatus’, but that was grandly brushed off as an irrelevance, but actually an inconvenience to the fairy story du jour.

  99. #100 bill
    January 9, 2013

    I stand by every word of the piece – especially the bit about paedophiles. I would concede that the analogy may be somewhat offensive to the paedophile community. Nevertheless, like the anonymous sheep farmer I quoted, I feel that the “level of offensiveness” is entirely justified when applied in the context of perhaps the vilest, greediest, most corrupt, mendacious and wantonly destructive industries currently operating anywhere in the world. If Jimmy Savile were alive today he would definitely be heavily into wind farming.

    I don’t think this full update from the vile Delingpole has been noted to date.

    So, here we have again perhaps the most prominent leader of the Denier community in the UK – at least since Monckton moseyed off to join Sheriff Arpaio and the Birthers – spouting the worst sort of slanderous hatespeech, with the repulsive Australian as active accomplice, and to no condemnation whatsoever from the wingnut community.

    And people wonder why I think you lot have issues! BFPM / Chammy – ignore it as you will – these are your peers. You can have them.

New comments have been temporarily disabled. Please check back soon.