Originally Posted by Trainwreck

I followed your links and this is what Maurice Newman compalined about, a quote from an ABC radio program:



Statements coming out of sceptics mouths as similar to saying "pedophilia is good for children". If you "deny" the alarmist theory then you are no better than somone supporting pedophilia. Now I reckon that clearly links climate denial to pedophilia.

As I suggested in my prevous post, you won't admit that though.


What is more telling than the ABC denial (chortle) printed at the end of the article, if this other response from the ABC on the matter:




The complaint was dismissed not because ther was NO harm or offence, but because the harm and offence was justified - presumably meaning the they accept their was harm and offence.


Those Tim Lambert blogs you post are shockingly bad. He claims he is linking to the article he is debunking, but only links to another one of his own articles. Very poor and shoddy work, not just misleading.

You seem to have missed this bit:

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

The lower quote is from an Australian Press Council judgment on a Delingpole article.

Originally Posted by owedtojoy

Walter Cronkite, legendary anchorman, and Senator Paul Tsongas talk climate change in ... 1980.

Hilarious, the Jason climate model predicted that Washington DC summers would be 9º Centigrade warmer, but didn't say when.

That isn't something a wise man proportioning his belief to the evidence would post.

Originally Posted by Earthling

Hilarious, the Jason climate model predicted that Washington DC summers would be 9º Centigrade warmer, but didn't say when.

That isn't something a wise man proportioning his belief to the evidence would post.

Walter Cronkite interviews a politician. Why is that posted here?

Why is it apparently OK for alarmists here to post:

Non-expert opinion
Links to newpaper articles
Links to blog opinion

But not for sceptics?

Originally Posted by Trainwreck

Walter Cronkite interviews a politician. Why is that posted here?

Why is it apparently OK for alarmists here to post:

Non-expert opinion
Links to newpaper articles
Links to blog opinion

But not for sceptics?

People can post anything within the rules of the site ... just don;t expect a free pass from me when you post tripe.

I don't expect people to rely on journalistic comment for their facts ... but on the science papers or science quotations referred to in any article or blogpost.... if a person is a true "sceptic", they should always be checking. As I have often pointed out out, the self-styled "sceptics" are the most gullible on the thread, and accept without question any that remotely favours their case.

The Cronkite video (besides its intrinsic interest as a historical document) debunks two specific points often made on the thread - that concern about global warming is something novel, like a UN "world government" plot (from 1989 or even 1996) - as I pointed out here before - President Lyndon Johnson was the first major statesman to draw attention to it in the 1960s, and Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was the first to voice a warning in a public speech.

The other myth is that in the 1970s climate scientists were exclusively concerned with global cooling. That is clearly not the case if a scientist (Dr Gordon McDonald) was giving evidence to a Senatorial committee in 1980 about anthropogenic global warming.

Since this video is hated so much, I take great delight in posting it again. It does not get everything right, but we should not expect it to. What is surprising is how much of it is spot on.

At present, we cannot simulate accurately the details of regional climate and thus cannot predict the locations and intensities of regional climate changes with confidence. This situation may be expected to improve gradually as greater scientific understanding is acquired and faster computers are built.

That was written in 1979.
33 years later, no change.

Originally Posted by Trainwreck

Walter Cronkite interviews a politician. Why is that posted here?

Why is it apparently OK for alarmists here to post:

Non-expert opinion
Links to newpaper articles
Links to blog opinion

But not for sceptics?

Odious can post all the tripe he wants to and then repost it two or three times, "just don;t[sic] expect a free pass from [him] when you post [what he considers to be] tripe."

The blogger Watching the Deniers produces an overview of Australia's record-breaking heat wave.



https://watchingthedeniers.wordpress...#comment-26656

Coldwave killing people in Russia, Britain, and the US


Written by JoNova | January 23 2013

If a few weeks of extreme heat suggest CO2 is causing a catastrophe, then don’t a few weeks of Siberian record-breaking cold suggest the opposite?*