Q&A tonight: Bill McKibben on the same panel with LNP sceptic Cory Bernardi – more media generated false balance?

Science advocate and sceptics: more false balance?

Science advocate and sceptics: more false balance?

Tonight’s Q&A should be interesting: author and activist Bill McKibben will be on tonight’s panel with climate sceptic and LNP Senator Cory Bernardi.

It is worth noting a few things about Bernardi;

In late 2012 Bernardi was forced to step down as LNP Party Secretary for arguing same-sex marriage would lead to bestiality. Typical of right-wing extremists, he thinks “Islam is a problem”.

He is a one-man Tea Party, an enthusiast for nearly every fringe view from the extreme right.

The question I have is this.

Why is it necessary to “balance” McKibben with Bernardi? Surely it is not a coincidence the two are on tonight’s panel?

We can have a debate – but why not get someone from the LNP to debate the different approaches to mitigation and adaptation?

Let’s have a good, robust discussion about the LNP’s Direct Action Plan – a policy designed to reach the same outcomes as the ALP’s “carbon tax”.

That’s the discussion we really need to be having.

I’ll wait and see before passing judgement.

FYI – I’ll be watching and live tweeting.

112 thoughts on “Q&A tonight: Bill McKibben on the same panel with LNP sceptic Cory Bernardi – more media generated false balance?

  1. john byatt says:

    Great, thanks for that

  2. john byatt says:

    we can ask the question here

    http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/

    anyone? or me

    • Watching the Deniers says:

      I have already😉

    • john byatt says:

      They got the message

      Thanks. Your question has been submitted. We read all the questions and publish almost all, but can only use a few on TV. Thanks for sharing your question

    • astrostevo says:

      They hardly ever seen to actually use questions from there though – very frustrating. They do screen tweets at the bottom during the show nearly continually however.

  3. Eric Worrall says:

    Is your climate alarmism so fragile that it can’t stand a little public criticism? If you are right, surely having critics on air is simply an opportunity to expose them as anti science frauds.

    This insistence by alarmists on trying to censor the message is one of the more disturbing aspects of this whole debate.

    • Chris O'Neill says:

      Just a pile of strawmen.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        Addressing “false balance” is your term for censorship – trying to deny people who disagree with you from having access to public airtime.

      • Nick says:

        Your masters already own a large chunk of media which they have surrendered to the fossil fools,and Bernardi is a public figure with a media budget. Any idea that he is denied airtime is just risible,any idea that ‘opposing voices’ are stifled is just offensive…shades of the idiot Bolt,the world’s noisiest voiceless person. LOL

        In fact the only person to deny Bernardi public airtime has been Tony Abbott,telling him to get his crazed boofhead act under control…censored by the boss!

        Eric,you are a joker!

      • Chris O'Neill says:

        Since when have “alarmists” tried to censor scientific debate? This is just one of your strawmen.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        Since when have “alarmists” tried to censor scientific debate? This is just one of your strawmen.

        Its like shooting fish.

        The following Climategate email has Santer waxing lyrical about Climate Research allowing a paper to be published without inviting him as a reviewer, to give him a chance to reject it, despite the fact the paper was a rebuttal of one of his papers (the issue of possible conflict of interest doesn’t occur to these clowns).

        Mann and Wigley discussing plans to punish the offending journal for not allowing their mates to act as gatekeepers for the journal, even when the paper being considered was a rebuttal of one of their papers, by telling everyone in the club to avoid it, leaving it to “wither away into oblivion and disrepute”.

        http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=1057941657.txt

        … Douglass chose to ignore all of the comments
        we made in this exchange, as he later ignored all of the comments we made in our
        reviews of his rejected JGR paper.

        Although the Douglass et al. Climate Research paper is largely a criticism of
        our previously-published JGR paper, neither Tom nor I were asked to review the
        paper for Climate Research. Nor were any other coauthors of the Santer et al.

        Based on Kinne’s editorial, I see little hope for more enlightened editorial
        decision making at Climate Research. Tom, Richard Smith and I will eventually
        publish a rebuttal to the Douglass et al. paper. We’ll publish this rebuttal in
        JGR – not in Climate Research.

        > >I agree that Kinne seems like he could be a deFreitas clone. However, what
        > >would be our legal position if we were to openly and extensively tell
        > >people to avoid the journal?

        > >Tom.

        > >Michael E. Mann wrote:
        > >>Thanks Mike
        > >>It seems to me that this “Kinne” character’s words are disingenuous, and
        > >>he probably supports what De Freitas is trying to do. It seems clear we
        > >>have to go above him.
        > >>I think that the community should, as Mike H has previously suggested in
        > >>this eventuality, terminate its involvement with this journal at all
        > >>levels–reviewing, editing, and submitting, and leave it to wither way
        > >>into oblivion and disrepute,
        > >>Thanks,
        > >>mike

      • john byatt says:

        Put it in your own words eric , how it is censorship?

      • john byatt says:

        let me guess how eric”s explanation starts ” in other words”

        eric if i buy a load of crap food at woolies and tell all my friends not to shop there any more , that is not censorship,

      • Nick says:

        Eric, dredging up those stolen emails again from his ethical void…what have you got? Nothing. Just your naivety. ‘Shooting fish’? You cite one case which you think might be a ‘shot’…one case. In the fifteen years of stolen email,FOIA manages to drag up a few cases of scientists complaining about papers getting published or cited…wow!! I mean,wow!!

        A paper that directly challenges another is scientific debate. The opposing of a journalist and a politician is not. It is routine for authors to review work critical of their own…that’s part of the debate within science. The editor decides what is published, but authors in sufficient number can influence a journals choice of editor,and fellow authors,too,can do so. In de Freitas’ case,his co-authors resigned in protest at the poor standards he kept.

        You have no barrel,no fish and no gun,just egg on your face as usual.

      • Nick says:

        ‘Co-editors’ not co-authors.

    • john byatt says:

      had to laugh, most of the questions to Bernadi relate to “are NZ’ers now shagging sheep since the gay marriage laws?

      • Eric Worrall says:

        I think Bernadi is a d*ckhead – I’m a strong supporter of the right to gay marriage, the state has no business interfering in someone’s love life.

        My concern though is the weird way you guys address this issue – the fact you think it is right to try to deny airtime to people who represent a significant public view, because you think they are wrong.

      • john byatt says:

        Bill is about addressing the problem of AGW and how to deal with it .

        Bill has to keep himself to the facts.

        Bernadi can spruik any crap he has picked up from the climate retards without having to justify them,

        that is false balance

      • Mark says:

        I think you’ll find they were doing that before the recent changes.🙂

      • Nick says:

        It’s not that I ‘think’ Bernardi is wrong…I know he is wrong,and I know he is backed by the IPA and motivated to dissemble.

        His scribbling on CC are generic industry bullshit. They do not rise to the level of a ‘significant public view’…they are not publicly generated views but instead are coal industry ‘talking points’ …Bernardi’s talking points are manufactured and framed,and claimed to be significant by their disingenuous creators.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        It’s not that I ‘think’ Bernardi is wrong…I know he is wrong,and I know he is backed by the IPA and motivated to dissemble. They do not rise to the level of a ‘significant public view’…they are not publicly generated views but instead are coal industry ‘talking points’ …Bernardi’s talking points are manufactured and framed,and claimed to be significant by their disingenuous creators.

        And thats a reason in your view to try to stifle his right to have is say in public? Do you really think the right way for a democracy to run is to block people who you think are in the pay of your political opponents from having their say?

        Have you any idea how dangerous it is for a democracy to stifle opposition voices, regardless of whether you think they’re in the pay of the bad guys?

        Democracy is fragile – without some level of good will and sense of fair play between all parties, even the ones you don’t like, it collapses. One day your opponents will be in control, will have the power to stifle the voices of your friends. You better hope they treat you more fairly than you want to treat them, because if you have created laws and precedents which make it possible to stifle the voices of your political opponents, these laws could be turned against you.

        Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

      • Nick says:

        Bernardi is not opposition spokesperson on climate or environment. He’s a frigging olympic rower with a bee in his bonnet about homosexuality. He may think he has an opinion,but his writing on climate proves it’s a poorly copied version of someone elses…

        He will be belligerent and misleading on just about any topic because he’s an ass,and he has been misled. I want to spare him the humiliation😉

        Don’t worry,the ABC appreciate his freak-show qualities…but we will learn nothing from him. Meanwhile an opportunity for an exchange of quality views has been lost to chatter.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        Hey as I said before, I think Bernardi is a d*ckhead.

        But if I tried to exclude everyone I thought was a d*ckhead from my TV screen, there wouldn’t be much left to watch.

    • Mark says:

      “trying to censor the message is one of the more disturbing aspects of this whole debate.”

      Yes there is a strong totalitarian urge running through the movement. Had to smile at this: “He has a long running association with the notorious Heartland Institute”. Reminiscent of the 1950’s. “Are you or have you ever been a associated with Heartland?”.

      • Nick says:

        Have you ever been associated with Heartland, Mark? It’s a reasonable question to ask of anyone,given their history and function. They are a fake charitable dirt unit funded by tobacco,oil and far-right carpetbaggers. Secretively funded,secretively funding fake experts…it’s their operational model,Humpty.

        It’s absolutely of relevance to the electorate to know where Bernardi gets his anti-science talking points. Would you like to give a reasoned argument against that?

      • astrostevo says:

        Thing is the Heartland Institute has all the credibility of the Flat Earth society and a similar understanding of the actual empirical facts and reality. All they and Bernardi have is the stale old canards that have been debunked thousands, even millions of times. If someone believes the Earth is flat with the Sun orbiting us not vice-versa, the evolution is false and Biblical creation literally true or that the Earth isn’t overheating as a consequence of human Greenhouse Gas Emissions then, no, they don’t deserve to be heard in serious circles. Just like you don’t give equal time to a maths teacher and a dim student who insists that Pi =exactly 3.

      • Mark says:

        Have you ever been associated with Communist Party, Mr Chaplin? It’s a reasonable question to ask of anyone,given their history and function. They are a fake party funded by Moscow,the Comintern and left-wing foreigners. Secretively funded,secretively funding fake politicians, unions and Hollywood executives…it’s their operational model.

        It’s absolutely of relevance to the electorate to know where Hollywood gets its anti-American talking points.

      • Nick says:

        LOL Mark,superficial as ever.

        Do want to answer the question? Is it reasonable to want to know the funding sources of those who seek to influence the drafting of legislation? Hint: it’s not a Left/Right thing,so don’t feel obliged to go there again.

        Are you in favour of large anonymous donations to political parties and lobby groups? Corporate donations?

      • Mark says:

        Not superficial Nick. A serious point made in a flippant way because a serious point made in a serious way seems redundant here.

        And the point? That the alarmist movement has heavy undertones of McCarthyism about it with the view that being merely associated with this or that group is reason enough to reject views and to actively seek to silence those views. Mr X is associated with organisation Y therefore he ought to be censored. Its anti-democratic in its purest form. Its also arrogant in the extreme. It assumes that others shouldn’t be exposed to these views because they aren’t smart enough, unlikely you, to be able to discern the truth. The ‘others’ have to be spoon-fed the one truth because they’re just a little slow, dontcha know.

        Bob Hawke predicted that Keating would win in 1993 because, Hawke said, the people rarely got it wrong and were able to discern the truth from the cant. Hawke had a high opinion of the Australian people. I’d doubt that you or most of the alarmist movement would share that opinion.

        As to your question. I’m utterly in favour of full disclosure of all political donations including those from the union movement. I’m also completely in favour of full openness about which lobby groups meet with which politicians and what is discussed.

        But I see no need for private organisations such as Heartland or Greenpeace or WWF to have to disclose their sources of funding. Fine if they want to but not a requirement. Private citizens who want to fund private organisations should be able to do that in private. This is especially so when the brownshirts in the green movement want to use funding information not as information for evaluation purposes but as levers to try to attack the funders.

        If Mr X wants to fund organisation Y because he likes their stance on issue Z and wants to help ensure those views on Z are heard, its nobodies business but X and Y.

        One of the differences between you and I is our faith in humankind. I don’t accept that scientists working for organisation Y have views on issue Z because that’s where the money is. I think they have those views and then work for the places where those views will be funded. A sceptic is never going to get a job at Greenpeace, n’est pas. I’ve never said that consensus scientists are in it for the fortune although I think some are seduced by the fame. And equally I don’t think sceptic scientists are sceptics because they are paid to be so. I have a much higher opinion of people than that.

      • john byatt says:

        any institution granted a tax free status should have to disclose sources of funding,

        heartland does not pay tax,NFP

      • Eric Worrall says:

        Mark, Nick doesn’t have the flexibility to consider this in a remotely objective way.

        He thinks that stifling the voices of “deniers” is fair and reasonable, because they’re the bad guys.

        He believes his subjective views are objective reality – he can’t distinguish between the two.

      • BBD says:

        So objecting to the subversion of democracy and the distortion of public policy by vested interest is intolerant?

        Dearie me.

        Mark and Eric, you are capitalist lackeys🙂

      • Nick says:

        The voices of deniers are broken records. There’s been a decade of your useless mindless nay-saying. I’m more than familiar with the arguments and talking points. I don’t need to hear any more of the stuff…but I am waiting for something new from you.

        Am I confusing the subjective and the objective? No.That’s your job,and you handle it well. My ‘subjective’ views,Eric,are just mundane realities…interest directed funding exists,its potential to corrupt is documented for centuries….that’s not a subjective issue. Bernardi has published a GW screed with footnotes that proudly display his dependence on the IPA,whose funding is concealed,for content and ‘argument’…that is not a subjective matter. It’s in B&W!

        Mark runs into problems with condoning concealment of funding sources to private lobbyists…he forgets that all of these privateers seek to influence public policy,influence the content of legislation and thereby steer social and environmental courses for all. I would have thought that would be easy to see. It’s simply axiomatic that money seeks outcome. That is not subjective opinion.

        In the case of Heartland it took Gleick’s civil disobedience to uncover funders and some of the crap H gets up to in the name of charity and education. We found among other things that Bob Carter is a liar,and that Craig Idso [a Watts go to] is junk sci for hire. That H directed funding to Aus and NZ,and Watts. Secret money for the ‘grass roots’. it is vitally important to know who is pulling strings in a system of string pulls, If Heartland is doing ‘good’ work,let their backers own it and come forward…LOL

        It is routine in the US to buy your bit of democracy secretly through using taxation structure to conceal your funders. It is unacceptable,and anathema to democracy,which is limited enough already….but hell you freedom lovers would know that,eh?

        .

      • Eric Worrall says:

        You missed my point as you often do Nick. It SIMPLY DOES NOT MATTER if some of the people are paid lackeys. Once you start excluding people because you don’t like their POV, or think they are funded by people you don’t like, where does it end? What happens when the people you offend with your abuse of power gather enough political support to do the same to you?

        Consider the APC – what if say (hypothetically!) Andrew Bolt convinced Abbott to make him chairman of the APC after the election? Obviously I have a different view of Bolt’s personality to you, but lets go with your view of Bolt, for the sake of making my point. What if Bolt stuffed the APC with his own lackeys? Where would that leave freedom of expression in Australia?

      • Nick says:

        You still believe in that science is subjective,obviously. That makes sense because acknowledging correction is not for you…..there is a strong urge to pretend the science is subjective where it is not,because the economic response–a social ‘conversation’– is difficult and will be ‘resolved’ with compromise. Physics is uncompromising. SLR will not be persuaded to relent by appeals to envisioned hardships and sacrifice. OHC cannot be wished away by misdirection over ARGO,when SLR continues.

        ‘It simply does not matter if some people are paid lackeys’,provided they are disclosed as such I don’t want rich individuals,and companies which are not voters buying access to my legislators ears without FULL and TIMELY transparency.

        Exclude these people until they reveal their funding. Exclude Marc Morano because CFACT does not reveal its donors [also because he is a f***ing liar objectively] Seriously,people like Morano make a mockery of the freedom they enjoy,and exploit their connection and access to power to bash scientists every day. Scientists are not employed,as Morano is, to throw shit every hour,they have obligations to pursue research projects. It is an unequal battle on PR terms,and one in which scientists are often not aware they are in,until a newspaper comes out with some spun-up crap. Remember Phil Watson’s paper on SLR? When the piece comes out in the Australian,Watson finds that his voice is marginalised,and another bloke is delivering ‘expert’ commentary on his paper…the misrepresentation was such that Watson’s employer wrote officially to the paper demanding corrections. They were ignored. Who has the freedom there,eh?

        Paid lackeys…..Bob Carter was presented,and presented himself, as independent and not in receipt of funding from industry lobbyists…. we all know how that turned out. Mark thinks that his trust in humanity is well-placed.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        You still believe in that science is subjective,obviously. That makes sense because acknowledging correction is not for you…..there is a strong urge to pretend the science is subjective where it is not,because the economic response–a social ‘conversation’– is difficult and will be ‘resolved’ with compromise. Physics is uncompromising. SLR will not be persuaded to relent by appeals to envisioned hardships and sacrifice. OHC cannot be wished away by misdirection over ARGO,when SLR continues.

        Like I said, you confuse objective reality with subjective reality.

        Reality is objective, but our interpretations of it are subjective – we are frequently wrong. The scientific method is an effort to make this interpretation self correcting, to ensure evidence trumps assumption and subjective interpretation.

        My argument is essentially that such a correction is required in the field of climate science – that theory and evidence have diverged.

      • Nick says:

        I don’t think you understand the science and observations sufficiently to hold a valid view that rejects AGW and knows what is subjective in the field…. my evidence is your posting throughout this blog.

        Hold your view if you must. Yet we will still point out that theory and observation are not in disagreement,and we will point out the ways that you contrive your position. And the ways others contrive to feel entitled to debate what is actually not debatable.

        It is possible to have a robust discussion about time frames,feedbacks and regional outcomes within the science. That goes on daily in the science literature. It is not possible for someone like Bernardi to bring anything about that science discussion to Q&A…he is a know-nothing,objectively. He wishes to reject the science,of which he is ignorant and not equipped to challenge,to serve the apparent demands of his economic and social beliefs.

      • BBD says:

        My argument is essentially that such a correction is required in the field of climate science – that theory and evidence have diverged.

        Eric, based on the tripe you post here – and on which I have regularly commented – you have only the weakest notions of the science. Worse, your head has been filled up with distortions by climate liars who you inexplicably trust in preference to actual scientists.

        The result is a mess. You are wrong on virtually every topic you attempt. It should be funny when you get up on your hind legs and pretend to know better than the pre-eminent researchers in all fields of Earth System science. But it’s not. It’s just irritating.

      • Mark says:

        “He [Nick] thinks that stifling the voices of “deniers” is fair and reasonable, because they’re the bad guys.”

        Yes Eric.

        I know its a generalisation that will be sometimes wrong in specifics , but as a rule the adage that the right think the left is wrong while the left think the right are evil does apply here.

        I’ve never been able to put my finger on a good reason for it, but there does seem to be this innate tendency on the left to assume that, because they are smart, educated and well-read(in their mind), their views and conclusions are inherently correct. Therefore anyone who disagrees with those conclusions must be either ignorant of the facts or wilfully ignoring the facts for evil purposes.

        Under those circumstances, its but a small step to thinking that censoring those people is not only desirable but indeed the right thing to do. And then we aren’t a million miles from it seeming perfectly reasonable that democracy can be temporarily suppressed so that those holding the correct views can do what’s necessary.

        Democracy is a fragile thing. We have no experience in modern times of a stable liberal democracy being overthrown and therefore don’t know what it would take to do it. But we have two good examples in the ancient world and neither was pretty.

      • john byatt says:

        It is people like you trying to frame climate change as a left versus right debate by ignoring facts.

        fact

        03 April 2013
        A new national survey released today shows that 72% of Australians believe humans are contributing to climate change, with over a quarter surveyed reporting they are now more certain of this than they were one year ago.

        I have just read the coalition direct action plan, it may be next to useless but Hunt is committed to action of AGW, Yes the coalition does have a large number of deniers they are all within the sub species, example http://uknowispeaksense.wordpress.com/2013/01/23/our-idiotic-politicians-john-forrest/

        It is the sub species within the right wing who deny the science

        creationists and fundamentalists

        conspiracy theorists

        economic growth at all costs proponents

        Most of my friends are right wing in politics but most of them like me understand that we need action on climate change

        Cory ” the climate always changes , i accept that.

        Cory ” the climate is not changing”

      • john byatt says:

        The extreme right attacking the right for falling for the carbon hoax

        http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2013/05/abbott-confirms-his-action-on-climate.html

      • Mark says:

        John,

        My post was about the urge to censor. Your response has precisely nothing to do with that. Oh well.

        I wondered why you didn’t link to this survey then I found it. Oh, its done by WWf….no wonder you didn’t link. Don’t worry, I’m sure the swarm will avert their eyes.

        Only 72% think man is contributing to climate change? Struth, even I think man is contributing something. 72% seems a fail that they’re trying to dress up as a win.

        FYG, the debate isn’t about whether the climate is changing or even about whether man is contributing (although there is a debate about the quantum of the contribution). The debate is about what will happen in the future, when it will happen, what we should do about it and whether we should do anything now.

      • john byatt says:

        You can only give one link mark

        and this is why you did not link then?

        This national survey, commissioned by WWF and conducted by AMR Research of 1,295 Australians,
        found that among these Australians who are ‘more certain’, the number one factor strengthening
        this view is extreme weather events.*

        http://www.amr-australia.com/

      • john byatt says:

        Mark”as a rule the adage that the right think the left is wrong while the left think the right are evil does apply here”

        and I just tore that up for arsepaper .

      • Nick says:

        Mark, if the debate is no longer essentially about the science,but is about the response,why send numpty Bernardi on to the telly to dispute the science?

        Q&A is infotainment. It is not the venue for discussion about science,it is just interjectory froth bringing unconnected people together. Attack dog Bernardi is without useful communication or expertise skills other than aggression and a lack of shame…send him on to muddy the waters,poison the well. The issue is actually censored by repeatedly deploying unqualified people to publicly discuss it !

    • Eric, you’re twisting of the comments made in the article is revealing. Nobody is talking about censoring, just requesting a robust and honest debate.

      Is your climate denialism so fragile that you cannot ask an honest question or uphold the standards of honesty you require of others?

      • Watching the Deniers says:

        Thanks Blair – I’ve never advocated censorship, however I question the wisdom of giving a megaphone to people who deny basic science. Whether that be climate, evolution or the effectiveness of vaccines it is important to avoid framing it as a debate – especially when one side has no evidence.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        If you believe your opponents have no evidence, then use their public appearance to expose them to ridicule.

        what you call “not giving a megaphone” I call a policy of deliberate censorship – deliberately working to deny people a public voice because they disagree with your beliefs.

        Its a dangerous path to tread Mike. And one I’m surprised you support – given your open policy towards people with divergent views posting on your blog.

      • BBD says:

        Eric

        The problem with “debating” fake sceptics live is that their technique works better than the measured, caveatted honesty of science.

        Fake sceptics almost invariably Gish Gallop. Immediately, their interlocutor is buried in a great mass of lies and misrepresentations each one of which must be individually rebutted and there’s no time live on TV.

        Which is why the fake sceptics Gish Gallop and why their dishonesty is a problem and why, by and large, televised “debate” with climate liars should be avoided.

        This is the problem we all face when dealing with monstrous bad faith, Eric.

      • john byatt says:

        the creationist gish gallop

      • Eric Worrall says:

        The problem with “debating” fake sceptics live is that their technique works better than the measured, caveatted honesty of science.

        Fake sceptics almost invariably Gish Gallop. Immediately, their interlocutor is buried in a great mass of lies and misrepresentations each one of which must be individually rebutted and there’s no time live on TV.

        Then focus on one lie – exposing one lie, an important one, in a way which is easy to check, is enough to shed doubt on the rest of what they have to say.

        That is why IMO “hide the decline” derailed Copenhagen. That one email was probably more important than the rest of the Climategate archive combined – and it inspired some culture😉.

      • Nick says:

        ‘Hide the decline’ of course is a Big Lie of pseudo-skeptic manufacture…are you sure you want to press that point?

        You been given plenty of info to check. You never do. You’ve been hand-held through the science position but reject as ever. All mouth and no trousers,Worrall.

      • BBD says:

        It’s impossible, in live debate, to focus on any one lie when the liars continually switch tracks to prevent exactly this destructive focus.

        The audience simply gets the impression that there is controversy. Only those few in the audience with experience of climate liars and their tactics understand that the controversy is faked. The majority is fooled and the liars achieve their main objective: to create the impression that there is doubt and debate over the basics of climate science.

        You know this as well as I do, Eric.

      • BBD says:

        Hide the decline – a perfect example of a fake controversy.

        “Climategate” – a fake controversy (the clue is in the name).

        What does Eric do when confronted with the truth about climate liars and their unpleasant ways?

        Points to a…
        🙂

      • Eric Worrall says:

        It’s impossible, in live debate, to focus on any one lie when the liars continually switch tracks to prevent exactly this destructive focus.

        Nonsense – if you want to focus on a point, you keep returning to that point. People do that all the time in debates.

        … The majority is fooled and the liars achieve their main objective: to create the impression that there is doubt and debate over the basics of climate science. …

        I’ll give you Richard Müller’s answer to this point.

        Oh, you know, this is really unfortunate, because right after Katrina, 2005, people said “We can now expect a whole bunch of more storms”. In the next year, not a single hurricane hit the U.S.”

        When people exaggerate, they try to come up with dramatic examples to convince the public. That’s the wrong way to go. You have to respect the public. You have to give them the honest truth and not the exaggerated truth. People now feel as if they’ve been misled.

        We aren’t winning the climate debate – you guys are losing it.

      • Nick says:

        Not Muller again? You never did check whether his sketch of post-Katrina has any basis in reality. Who was running around saying we’ll have more storms? AR4 2007 did not say that. No one in NOAA.

        Maybe just understandably distressed southern US folks in the media were saying ‘more storms’…

        Really,Muller’s anecdote is too obviously just catchy and self-serving.

      • BBD says:

        Eric, this is rubbish as you, of all people, must know perfectly well:

        Nonsense – if you want to focus on a point, you keep returning to that point. People do that all the time in debates.

        Even here, in a written format, it has proved impossible to pin you down over your repeated misrepresentations of paleoclimate behaviour.

        And now you are trying to force the discussion away from the point – which is the difficulty of “debate” with climate liars – by introducing further irrelevancy.

        You are a climate liar. Sic probo.

    • Sou says:

      Oh Eric, has WTD banned you from posting? No? Has Q&A refused to let Bernardi on the show? No?

      Has Anthony Watts stopped me from posting? Yes! He’s also blocked my tweets, and I wasn’t even following him. Is that what you mean by censorship?

      Here you go, this is just for you Eric..

      • Nick says:

        Likewise I get banned from Bolt and Blair,or have content clipped…. the glass-jawed bullies have no shame,and their readers no redress. Good old Rupert!

        Rupert was down here for worship at the IPA’s 70th bash,where all the usual lickspittles from industry and COALition lined up to hear the old bastard. Some have complained faintly about the unique voting rights that his family enjoys,despite their actual stake in News…. some folk are more equal than others.

        Eric and Mark cheer on the feudalists in a self-debasing display of credulity. You are a menace to yourselves as much as to others.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        What has Watts’ possible misbehaviour got to do with this issue?

        If Watts is being naughty, does that justify you pulling dirty tricks as well? Is the cause of democracy advanced by tit for tat attempts to suppress the freedom of expression of your opponents?

      • Nick says:

        What dirty tricks are ‘we’ pulling Eric? It’s not ‘dirty’ to debunk you and protest that you are not real skeptics and have no real authority to lend a discussion. You are not banned here.

        Watts is a hypocrite and no one should be unaware of every sorry detail of his hypocrisy. It speaks directly to his bad faith. Likewise, News Ltd’s bully boy bloggers rank hypocrisy is sick-making…utterly wretched. They are alarmists,cheats,cherry-pickers and liars of the first order, and you have bought a fair slice of their inverted reality.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        Nick, what is the practical difference, in terms of outcome, between censoring people who are known deniers, and not allowing them on air because that in your opinion would create a false balance?

      • Nick says:

        Would you allow anti-vaccination people to be represented on Q&A? It’s the same with anti-AGW bleaters…do you allow them to wave the Lu paper around claiming this trumps CO2, when_it_simply_objectively_does_not!? All the audience gets to see is does/does not bandied back and forth…science is not a 30 minute debate, it’s an evolving conversation that leaves crap ideas like Lu’s behind.

        Bernardi’s little anti-AGW publication is dull and stupid and third-hand chum. The man even claims to remember global cooling being discussed at primary school in the 1970s. He turned 10 in November 1979!

        How the hell have we confused promoting wrongness and denial for freedom of expression? Physics ain’t free to dress to the right or left!

      • Eric Worrall says:

        Would you allow anti-vaccination people to be represented on Q&A?

        Absolutely – because that is a lie which should be exposed.

      • Sou says:

        Eric won’t admit that neither he nor Bernardi are being censored. He’s in denial again. He is just building another strawman. And now he’s even falsely accusing me of censoring people.

        I’ve only had to ban one person from my website – and he’s been banned from so many websites it’s a joke. He was spamming the thread with silliness and I mean multiple posts every few minutes without a pause for breath or to let anyone else in. All nonsense posts at that.

        He wasn’t banned for his opinions he was banned for spamming behaviour.

      • Sou says:

        does that justify you pulling dirty tricks as well?

        I haven’t pulled any dirty tricks. Another false allegation from Eric. Maybe he’s suffering an attack of denier delusion.

      • Sou says:

        Is the cause of democracy advanced by tit for tat attempts to suppress the freedom of expression of your opponents?

        Eric, what tit for tat attempts to suppress freedom of expression are you talking about? None from me that’s for sure.

        I have no idea how Eric’s mind works some of the time. I get his science denial, that’s just classic conservative white male denialism. Warped mental models stuff mixed with the fear factor of the conservative brain.

        But as for making these personal allegations – that’s too weird for a regular denier. He’s definitely an oddball.

      • Nick says:

        Eric,anti-vaccs lie was exposed long ago. It is a dead issue,no matter that some hippies disagree. Health department web sites have the refutation,that’s all the airing the issue needs.

        Just because a live-debate chat show wants a gold-plated point of ‘contention’,you’d give the cranks more oxygen to air a dead issue.

        If Bernardi and McKibben want to talk economics and adaption all well and good,but if Berni goes bone-headed denial, cut to something else.

      • zoot says:

        Yes Erric, there must be balance! How very post-modern of you.
        Whenever a photo of the earth’s globe is shown we must have dissenting flat earthers to point out the planet doesn’t really look like that. To not include them would be censorship.
        Any documentary about the mission to the moon must include the opinion of every flake who believes it was faked or else we will be denying free speech.
        All programs which reference the heliocentric theory must include the people who believe the Earth is the centre of the universe, and those who can prove the universe is actually inside the earth. No more shall they be silenced.
        Whenever there is a discussion of nuclear energy we must start from first principles – are we really sure atoms exist??? It’s only the Atomic Theory, not like it’s been proved or anything.
        Lysenko must be given equal time with Darwin etc etc et bloody cetera.

      • Tony Duncan says:

        Eric,

        if you ARE concerned about censorship then It IS relevant what Watts, and CO. do. I have been banned form two denier sites for doing EXACTLY what you describe. the owners of the other blog became frustrated with my insistence on making them back up assertions that have been clearly shown to be wrong.
        And the other denier sites I have commented on almost always have followers who try to drown my points with ad hominem. I ONLY comment when the post makes an absolutely ridiculous claim that I am at least as familiar with as the blogger.
        NO ONE here is saying that Richard Lindzen should be banned form Commenting on climate change, or Pat Michaels, or any number of people who are QUALIFIED to speak on this issue.
        Do you REALLY think that a debate should include people who have no qualifications to discuss the issue and who have such a minority view? I assume you don’t think there should be debates about whether the earth is flat or whether the moon landing was faked, or if slavery should be brought back, or that Woman should be denied the vote and the right to work outside the home?
        The major media outlets only have a limited amount of time (24 hrs a day I think) to present information.
        1/5th of the worlds population lives under communism, should there be debates with Chinese communists promoting benevolent authoritarian control under modified marxist principles? How about the censorship Lyndon LaRouche faces> Why have the media stopped debating Obama’s kenyan birth, and Muslim religion?

    • With respect, I’d always understood ‘false balance’ to be about misrepresenting proportions rather than anything else. My aim is not to silence any particular view, rather it’s about wanting an accurate sense of where that view sits in the scheme of opinions.

      If a scientific field is evenly split between two views, then to have equal time for each view can represent that debate well. If it’s something where the numbers of supporters on either side are rather different, then it can create a false impression that the numbers are more equal than they are, intentionally or not.

      In the community in general the numbers are more-or-less even regarding the existence of anthropogenic climate change; even if it’s two-to-one or something it’s not a huge distortion to present one person on each side to speak for each. In the community of scientists who study climate professionally, belief in AGW is almost unanimous, which is why the word ‘consensus’ gets thrown around. And the scientific community in general – when we include non-climatologists too – is somewhere between those two positions.

      Me, I think anyone is free to disagree with anything they want. Where people like me who are worried about climate change get antsy is when we think the spread of opinion of climatologists is being represented, accidentally or not, more like the spread of opinion amongst the general community. We think that leads to a false sense of security. We’d rather see the general community as concerned as the climatologists, and we worry that presenting it as a 50-50 thing does the opposite.

  4. john byatt says:

    I asked Bill if he thought that the soon to be blue Arctic will have any impact on political action to address carbon emissions

    • astrostevo says:

      Good question. I’ve asked :

      “Given Australia’s “Angry Summer” and the recent record 2012 Arctic sea ice melt and hitting 400 ppm CO2 – and ‘New Scientist’ magazine reporting a study showing Antartica melting ten times faster than previously thought; do our pannelists think the reality of Human Induced Global Overheating reality might mug Tony “Climate change is cr*p & Co2 weightless” Abbott’s election campaign?”

      • Watching the Deniers says:

        And I’ve asked: “To the panel: Given 97% of climate scientists agree humanity has changed the atmosphere, should the media stop facilitating the (false) idea there is debate about the science? People who question the Earth’s orbit around the sun aren’t given such attention. Why is this any different? Sceptics take note: Bob Carter, Richard Lindzen and Ian Plimer are just three names, not the 1000s who agree with the consensus”

  5. Nick says:

    Infotainment only: a bout between a committed journalist and a Liberal boofhead. One will have some of the facts ,the other a showbag of plastic novelties from the Watts/Morano/IPA stable.

    I sourced Bernardi’s laughable 2007 musings on AGW,entitled ‘Cool heads Needed on Global Warming’…dull, stupid and entirely cut and pasted from someone else’s ‘work’. He misattributes to Churchill the ‘Pants of Truth’ observation that belongs to Twain.

    He gets deliberately confused about the ozone hole and global warming,repeating the lie of the morphingto climate change

    Further recycled bullshit about having read up about the issue follows.Malthus/Ehrlich/Club of Rome…all routinely presented in rejectionist half-truth. Probably from the IPA.

    Then he simply bullshits the line that Mark–really,every lazy rejectionist zombie– has coughed up:

    “I remember as a student at school [note redundancy,unless he wanted to claim he was not home schooled] in the 1970s we were being warned about an imminent ice age after three preceding decades of falling temperatures!

    Given that Bernardi was born in November 1969,this is very likely an invention! Would he really have been told anything at all in the curriculum at kindie? LOL. He would have been in 4th grade at the end of the 1970s! What a complete fake!

    He follows with more generic swill; Paul Reiter/ warming on Mars/climate is always changing/ are-we-so-arrogant-as-to-think-humans-are the-only-cause-of-CC…tick off the strawmen and red herrings,provided by Plimer and the IPA.

    The guy’s a crackpot,and a second-rate denier,and tonight will be entirely predictable. McKibben will laugh at him,and Bernardi will call him arrogant and misanthropic.

  6. EoR says:

    But Labor and the LNP unanimously agree on the science of global warming. So clearly Corey will be supporting Bill tonight. Of course, that agreement is anathema to the mainstream media’s narrative of vast doubt and confusion. In fact, I had to go to the Port Macquarie News to find a report of how 100% (I assume the Greens and the other independents also support the science, if not, it might only be 97%) of parliamentarians agree with climate scientists.

  7. Chris O'Neill says:

    As long as Tony Jones is there, Bernardi should have a fair bit of trouble putting up anti-scientific crap.

  8. astrostevo says:

    The Q&A facebook page is discussing this now with Deniers coming out in force there.

  9. Sou says:

    Too many links so my post got censored .

    In the meantime, this one’s for Eric.

  10. Sou says:

    Is anyone else here going to see Bill McKibben in Melbourne on Friday night? (I know most of you probably live elsewhere.)

    It’s a long, long time since I’ve been to an event like this. I hope I don’t revert to my late adolescent mildly activist persona on Friday evening.

  11. catweazle666 says:

    Meanwhile, French Alpine resorts are open for skiing in June for the first time in history.

    OK, don’t bother telling me – IT’S THE GLOBAL WARMING!

  12. rational troll says:

    Oh Mark, I wonder if you still stand by Hawk’s assertion that the people rarely get it wrong and are able to discern the truth?

    Let’s play a game of spot the bullshit?

    • Mark says:

      Yes, I have faith in the good sense of the Australian people as did Hawke. Evidence?
      The latest polls.

      • zoot says:

        Glad you have faith in the Australian people’s good sense in not voting Tony Abbott into the Lodge in 2010. Nice to know you agree they did the right thing.

      • Mark says:

        Yep…in 2010 they decided that neither side was worthy of a majority. That seems about right to me.

        But just a follow-up on that. Hawke did say rarely wrong. He thought they’d got it wrong in 1980.

      • Chris O'Neill says:

        “He thought they’d got it wrong in 1980.”

        I presume he thought they got it wrong in 1990 too. Hawke was just lucky with the vote distribution.

      • Mark says:

        Yeah well maybe. but the interview I saw was talking about election outcomes and he was saying that the only time the loser would have made a better government than the winner was 1980.

      • Chris O'Neill says:

        “the interview I saw was talking about election outcomes”

        That’s funny. I thought you wrote about Hawke’s faith in the good sense of “the Australian people”. Must have been a slip of the keyboard.

  13. rational troll says:

    Chris beat me to it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: