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....
... 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. ...
... 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.Jo Nova - Skeptics equated to pedophiles ... Time to protest.
Anthony Watts - Climate Ugliness goes nuclear
Lubos Motl - Climate propaganda in Australia
6 comments:
"ABC science show host equates climate skepticism with pedophilia"
No he doesn't. He analogizes the denial of climate science with denying that pedophilia is harmful to children.
By the way, I'm having a hard time finding the post in which you expressed outrage that Vic Toews accused opponents of his online surveillance bill of standing with child pornographers. Toews comment, of course, wasn't an analogy.
Don't nitpick the semantics, Lenny, it's a headline.
I gather you were outraged by Vic Toews' accusation. If so, I expect you're equally outraged by the ABC Science Show's blatant smears. No?
It's not semantic nitpicking. There is a vast difference between drawing a moral equivalency between pedophilia and science denial, and equating the rejection of evidence required in both instances. But you know that.
Now, could you give me the link to your Toews piece?
Mark Steyn recently said Michael Mann might be "the Jerry Sandusky of climate change". http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/309442/football-and-hockey-mark-steyn
That seems like a more direct comparison than ABC's.
ujgxq [url=http://cheapbeatsbydreoutlet.co.uk]beats outlet[/url] dhkinq http://cheapbeatsbydreoutlet.co.uk edgog [url=http://salebeatsbydreoutlet.co.uk]sale beats by dre[/url] rouvpq http://salebeatsbydreoutlet.co.uk qjcic [url=http://salebeatsbydrestore.co.uk]beats by dre uk[/url] gfppbx http://salebeatsbydrestore.co.uk oixpr [url=http://cheapbeatsbydredr.co.uk]cheap beats by dre[/url] qcuoaq http://cheapbeatsbydredr.co.uk cacep [url=http://cheapdrdrebeatssale.co.uk]dr dre beats[/url] luazbd http://cheapdrdrebeatssale.co.uk fjwto [url=http://drebeatsheadphone.co.uk]beats headphone[/url] rzhshd http://drebeatsheadphone.co.uk deajn [url=http://beatsbydreoutletstore.co.uk]cheap beats[/url] urvcov http://beatsbydreoutletstore.co.uk vtbq
Equating the rejection of evidence required in both instances.
Air purification New Orleans
Post a Comment