Thursday, 29 November 2012

AMBIT GAMBIT great blog!! RE M. NEWMAN ET AL

http://www.ambitgambit.com/2012/11/24/paedophilia-climate-science-and-the-abc/


AMBIT GAMBIT

Opinion on politics and social policy
from across the board

November 24, 2012 | Graham

Paedophilia, climate science and the ABC


In today’s Science Show Robyn Williams smears climate change sceptics by comparing scepticism of the IPCC view that the world faces catastrophic climate change because of CO2 emissions with support for paedophilia, use of asbestos to treat asthma, and use of crack cocaine by teenagers.
Don’t believe me? Then listen to the broadcast.
It is hard to believe, just at a moment of heightened sensitivity about offensive speech, and only a week or so after the commonwealth government announces a royal commission into the sexual abuse of children. Even harder to believe is that he specifically links former ABC Chair Maurice Newman into his comments and refers to his ideas on climate change as “drivel”.
But this is what you get when federal ministers like Greg Combet, licence abusive attacks on sceptics by referring to the Leader of the Opposition’s scepticism as “complete bull shit”.
Indeed it is worse than that. The government, via the Australian Research Council is involved in suppressing dissent.
Williams’ comments are part of an interview he conducted with Stephan Lewandowsky, a professor of psychology who has received over $2 million worth of ARC funding to support his  efforts to equate climate change scepticism with mental disorder.
“Punitive psychology” as it is called, was widely used in the Soviet Union to incarcerate dissidents in mental institutions. In modern Australia the walls of the prison are not brick or stone, but walls of censorship, confining the dissident to a limbo where no-one will report what they say for fear of being judged mentally deficient themselves.
Williams wants to put some more bricks in the walls by making climate scepticism as respectable as paedophilia.
Williams is a serial offender on the abuse of his opponents, as you can see from these posts:
Lewandowsky is making a career of it, although on the basis of very shoddy science. His latest effort is a paper where he attempts to equate belief that the moon landing was faked with scepticism of catastrophic climate change using a survey instrument.
I have the survey data and was shocked to find that this conclusion is based on the responses of 10 respondents – it has no significance at all.
Heads must roll over this, including Williams’. But the problem is obviously more widespread and involves the University of Western Australia, where Lewandowsky holds his chair, the ARC, the ABC, and possibly even the government.

Posted by Graham at 5:12 pm | Comments (36) |
Filed under: Environment,Media

36 Comments »

  1. Graham, you have summed it up well. You are so right. We must not let this go.
    If they had evidence they wouldn’t need to resort to these desperately cheap smear tactics to “win” the debate.
    The ABC, the Science Show, and the ARC are using taxpayer funds to push their own personal ideology with inept, unresearched, illogical material.
    It’s an anti-science as it gets. You must obey the government-paid-experts-consensus, ignore the independent scientists, ignore the voters. If you question The Word of the Department, we will smear your name and associate you with the lowest of the low.
    Comment by Jo Nova — November 24, 2012 @ 5:39 pm
  2. [...] Graham Young writes in Paedophilia, climate science and the ABC [...]
    Pingback by Climate Ugliness goes nuclear | Watts Up With That? — November 24, 2012 @ 6:21 pm
  3. Jo is spot on. This is an OUTRAGE.
    Comment by Turtle — November 24, 2012 @ 6:24 pm
  4. The paper that lewandiwsky recieved lots of publicity for.
    Has still NOT been published, ie many many criticidms of it were made
    could someone ask the editor of Psychologicsl Science journal the status of thst paper as its unpublished ‘results’ appear to be, now used to smear people.
    It is nor FOUR months dince the psper was trumpeted to coleagues and the media. But it has NOT been published
    Comment by Barry Woods — November 24, 2012 @ 6:35 pm
  5. The real truth of all this is that you cannot HEAT water from above, you can of course radiate it, the sun does it every day, but HEAT will not pass from the atmosphere into the ocean because of surface tension. The irony is that if you want to put physical HEAT into water you must cover the sutface with a floating object to break down the surface tension, only then will HEAT pass. This means that even if you have an unusually hot day, the “excess” HEAT cannot be stored by the ocean’ The ocean responds only to radiation from the sun and nothing else. AGW does not exist. People who believe in it are fools.
    Comment by robert barclay — November 24, 2012 @ 7:07 pm
  6. Robert,
    “People who believe in it are fools” seems a little inappropriate under the circumstances!
    Comment by John McCabe — November 24, 2012 @ 7:31 pm
  7. John McCabe says:
    “Robert,
    “People who believe in it are fools” seems a little inappropriate under the circumstances!
    ”
    Quite. One might say they have been fooled, that they have been duped, or that they have quite simply been misled by their Governments funding of an Academia , that has got rather carried away with itself, to the extent that it seems they cannot now afford to make an objective assessment of the evidence.
    Comment by joe V. — November 24, 2012 @ 8:22 pm
  8. Robert says above about not being able to pass heat from the atmosphere to the ocean.
    Such a proposition does seem rather implausible.
    If for instance I fill my bath with cold water, and leave it sitting in a warm room , wont it warm up , eventually ?
    Of course the warmth is contained in the room, but if the warmth is simply the warmth of a comfortable outside temperature, with the window open, then isnt the warmth coming from the atmosphere.
    Now I’d grant you , people have for generations put stubbies under water to keep them cool, and surface tension may be having an effect, in slowing the transfer of heat, but I should say , I thought that was because heat rises.
    In the same way that it might seem obvious to an observer that clouds keep us warmer, by slowing the loss of heat, I could perhaps accept that surface tension slows the transfer of heat downwards.
    However, that it prevents transfer of heat altogether seems as ridiculous an assertion as that of clouds or CO2 causing runaway warming.
    I do wish people wouldnt peddle with such assurance, that which they have heard but have little understanding of.
    Comment by joe V. — November 24, 2012 @ 8:49 pm
  9. Their comments are remarkable for their ignorance. AGW is a belief based on a failed hypothesis. It has failed because anthropogenic forcings have no apparent impact on sea surface temperature and ocean heat content.
    Comment by Bob Tisdale — November 24, 2012 @ 9:01 pm
  10. The sensationalism at the beginning of the broadcast smacks of desperation. Then the so-called scientist from UWA comes out with all his politicised notions of why people are wrongthinking , dropping in all the sciency sounding words, careful to maintain his relaxed coffee talk manner.
    What’s this doing on a science program.
    Is not just trash TV, but trash TV with an agenda ?
    Do the ABC think people are stupid enough to be taken in by it ?
    Or is it just designed to appeal to those educated lefties who are more likely to be taken in by anything, as the referred to research by Dr Walker suggests.
    Comment by Joe V — November 24, 2012 @ 9:27 pm
  11. I have sent the following comment to the ABC;
    I was very disturbed by the tone of your so-called science show on the subject of climate change recently, where you attempted to discredit non-believers in the climate change fraud.
    I thought the interviewer (Williams) was totally disgusting.
    The othe guy (Lewandowski) was even further out in space, pretty well on another planet. He is another one with his snout deep into the public climate change trough.
    This global warming fiction has been scientifically debunked over and over; yet it still pops up on the ABC regularly, and is claimed to be a fact.
    I am a scientist and an engineer, I also am very knowlegable about this subject, so cannot be fooled by all the ficticious claims like the ones made on your show.
    You all at the so-called “Science Show” need to know the following before you go on air next time and make a total fool of yourself again;
    1) The human signal as far as our effect on world temperatures is not known, even approximately. In fact we do not even know if our net effect is that of warming or cooling.
    2) ALL the projections of sea level and temperature rises by those on the alarmist side have so far proven to be totally wrong; I can produce a lot of evidence on this.
    3) The case for dangerous human-caused global warming exists only inside computer models; models which have been proven to have the wrong settings. (see above)
    4) There is no “consensus” of 98% of scientists; that is complete fiction too. I can present lots of polls done on this which prove this idea to be totally incorrect.
    5) Science does not work by consensus anyway; it works by the scientific method,which has never been used by the IPCC’s so-called climate scientists.
    5) The climate sensitivity is low, and has been shown to be low in many empirical studies, all peer-reviewed.
    6) There are over 1,100 scientific peer-reviewed papers which refute the need for any sort of so-called “action” in a futile attempt to alter the planets climate.
    7) The biggest lie of all is that of eustatic sea levels. We are likely to see no more than 10cm of sea level rise by 2100.
    Hope I will see a return to some real science soon on the science show.
    Robert Holmes
    Comment by Robert Holmes — November 24, 2012 @ 10:16 pm
  12. ‘My Dear Bernie, as you have a scientific training you should know there can be no CO2-AGW. The ~100 m IR emission/absorption depth of the atmosphere is within 1 K of the Earth’s surface so its thermal IR, near enough black body, switches off IR in those same bands at the surface apart from a few water vapour sidebands.
    No IR absorption, no ‘GHG blanket’, no CO2-AGW. This is basic radiation physics. Unfortunately, meteorologists like Trenberth are taught incorrect physics and imagine ‘pyrgeometers’, IR pyrometers, measure a real energy flux, not a temperature signal. So, the models exaggerate warming by ~6.8x.
    Please tell the loonies at DECC there can be no CO2 climate change, the Earth is cooling as the sun’s magnetic field heads below 1500 Gauss and cloud cover increases and we should be planning for ice blocking the Northern ports from ~2020. This has been the biggest scientific and commercial fraud in history and DECC is at the heart of it.’
    On the back of an envelope, but easily proven by MODTRAN, I have shown that the IPCC ‘consensus’ is baseless. There is no positive feedback. The science is Poynting’s Theorem, the first axiom from Maxwell’s Equations. look at thr est of the mistaken physics and it’s clear that Houghton’s mistakes were translated into fraudulent science.
    Comment by AlecM — November 24, 2012 @ 10:19 pm
  13. Lewandosky it is who is sick. No doubt about it – he’s personality disordered, Narcissistic Personality Disorder, methinks. I’ve met his like before, and they truly are dangerous and repulsive.
    Comment by Jeremy Poynton — November 24, 2012 @ 11:18 pm
  14. When “inexpert mouths” come together on the ABC, outcome is indeed “unrelenting debauchery of the facts”.
    No surprise to hear this pre-Xmas special. Both peas in a (post-modern) pod.
    Both also deep in argument-by-false analogy/red herring business.
    Timing not coincidental, weekend before COP-18 and this event:
    AGU Fall Meeting sessions on social media, misinformation and uncertainty
    Posted on STW 16 July 2012 by Stephan Lewandowsky & John Cook
    “We have proposed several sessions for the AGU Fall Meeting in San Francisco on 3-7 December: on uncertainty, misinformation and social media. AGU members are invited to submit abstracts for the sessions – the deadline to submit an abstract is August 8.”
    An Orwellian strategy of “smearing/psychologising-climate-denialism, etc” being rolled out here – and internationally – for high (reputational & ideological) stakes.
    ABC RN’s Anthony Fennel on about similar themes on this week’s “Future Tense”:
    Comment by Alice Thermopolis — November 24, 2012 @ 11:34 pm
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)