ABC Science Show Identifies Paedophiles

On November 24, Robyn Williams intoned to his audience on ABC's The Science Show, "if I told you that pedophilia is good for children, or asbestos is an excellent inhalant for those with asthma, or, that smoking crack is a normal part and a healthy one of teenage life, you'd rightly find it outrageous. Similar statements are coming out of inexpert mouths again and again, distorting the science".( of global warming )

Click to expand...

Garpal Gumnut said:

Thus begins Maurice Newman , a former Chairman of the ABC, in his defence against the increasingly politicised ABC stance on Climate and Left Agendas in general.

Read the full article here.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/abc-clique-in-control-of-climate/story-e6frgd0x-1226538612935

So, if you don't go with the flat earth mob on weather, you are as bad as a paedophile.
Think again Robyn Williams. What a dreadful statement.

Particularly from an organisation, the ABC with a very close bond with the BBC, itself under the microscope for paedophilia which is proven.

One can see how the Jesuits extracted confessions from poor innocent bastards during the counter Reformation.

Power does corrupt, and absolute broadcasting power in the hands of a leftist clique, corrupts absolutely.

gg

Click to expand...

ABC clique in control of climate
BY: MAURICE NEWMAN From: The Australian December 18, 2012 12:00AM 77 comments
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size
Print

LAST month in this newspaper, I wrote an irreverent piece, "Losing Their Religion As Evidence Cools Off", illustrating how the global warming establishment was like a religion, replete with the structure, scripture and financial resources required to promote a faith-based movement and how it is losing disciples as the truth wears off.

I don't know about other readers, but at the ABC, for those with the religion it hit a nerve.

On November 24, Robyn Williams intoned to his audience on ABC's The Science Show, "if I told you that pedophilia is good for children, or asbestos is an excellent inhalant for those with asthma, or, that smoking crack is a normal part and a healthy one of teenage life, you'd rightly find it outrageous. Similar statements are coming out of inexpert mouths again and again, distorting the science". My article was given as an example of an anti-scientific position.

Really? Questioning climate science is like advocating pedophilia, abetting mesothelioma and pushing drugs to teenagers? Well yes, according to the ABC's science man. Stephan Lewandowsky, a guest on the program, asserted that those with a free market background were, according to his research, more likely to be sceptical of science. As well as climate science, "they are also rejecting the link between smoking and lung cancer; they are rejecting the link between HIV and AIDS", the professor said. Happily, it was extremely difficult to detect people on the "Left side of politics who are rejecting scientific evidence".

Click to expand...

Williams confirmed that after "a learned lecture" by one of the world's most famous scientists, bankers remained unconvinced.

So there you have it. No more proof needed. Free marketers, bankers and science contrarians are simply despicable flat earthers. Best to keep away from them.

Ordinarily it should be unnecessary to object to such appalling commentary. It should have been automatically withdrawn. But no. An ABC response used sophistry to satisfy itself "that the presenter Robyn Williams did not equate climate change sceptics to pedophiles". Tell that to his listeners.

Global warming is today more about politics than it is about science. If flawed evidence fails, coercion and character assassination is deployed. No slur is too vicious, nor, as we saw with the BBC's 2006 seminar of the "best scientific experts", which despite strenuous attempts to resist freedom of information requests were finally revealed to be mainly NGOs and journalists, no deceit is too great.

Lubos Motl, a climate commentator and string theory physicist, said about the ABC's Science Show: "We used to hear some remotely similar (Czech) propaganda programs until 1989 ... but the public radio and TV simply can't produce programs that would be this dishonest, manipulative, hateful and insulting any more".

This is not the first time I have provoked the public wrath of the ABC's climate change clique, but it is the first time I have publicly responded to it. It is important that I do.

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.

Click to expand...

While most company chairs would find the tenor of my talk unremarkable, Jonathon Holmes, the presenter of Media Watch, was so angry "he could not concentrate". He found it an inappropriate forum for such remarks. I was interviewed by PM and teased as to whether I was a "climate change denier or not as obvious as that?" As a further censure, that night Tony Jones read a statement on Lateline saying: "Tonight, ABC management responded to Mr Newman's speech, saying it stands by the integrity of its journalists and its processes."

Journalistic integrity? Encouraging the leadership to achieve higher standards is to question its integrity? Surely wanting to improve performance is an elementary objective for any organisation, but rather than take on board the challenges I outlined, management decided to put a distance between us.

Holmes ("ABC Bias - Fact or Fiction", The Spectator Australia, December 1, 2012) says ABC staff may, in certain circumstances, see the editor-in-chief's interventions as interference. This describes an organisational culture not fully at home with authority and criticism.

ABC editorial policies require a diversity of perspectives to be presented so that "over time no significant strand or belief is knowingly excluded or disproportionately represented". They also speak of "a balance that follows the weight of evidence". But who does the weighing? Who re-weights and when? Or is it set and forget?

Click to expand...

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.

I retain a deep affection for the ABC. But, like the BBC, there are signs that a small but powerful group has captured the corporation, at least on climate change.

It is up to the board and management to rectify this.

Maurice Newman is a former chairman of the ABC

Click to expand...

Ladies and gentlemen it’s time to get serious. Both Williams and Lewandowsky are ignoring the scientific evidence, denigrating their opponents, destroying rational conversation and honest discussion before it can even start. We can’t let them get away with this.

They are paid public servants who use taxpayer funds to push their personal ideology. It has to stop.

Robyn Williams, what you do is not science. It’s crass tribal warfare.

Stephan Lewandowsky, skeptics base their arguments on evidence. You are in denial. We don’t deny AIDS or that smoking causes cancer, and we never have. Your tactic of deliberately seeking out a few nutters (or fakes) to interview, then besmirching the names of serious commentators is blatant, obvious and documented.

Name-calling in order to suppress debate

The class of people who use regulations to control others, rather than persuasion and voluntary competition, have resorted to name calling for years to suppress the free and fair debates that they cannot win. Now they are employing that technique in other areas.

What they road-tested on skeptics, they now use in the wider political debate against their political opponents ”” such as Tony Abbott and Alan Jones. With each success they are becoming more loud, aggressive, and obnoxious.

The mainstream media makes this cheap tactic successful. As long as they promote these anti-science, baseless smears as if they were serious commentary the media is the problem.

When are the MSM going to stop treating the names as serious content, because they are so transparently untrue and designed simply to smear opponents? Indeed, when are the MSM going to stop being complicit or even active partners in the name calling? Perhaps we could start with demonstrations at ABC offices…

You can complain to the ABC here: http://www.abc.net.au/contact/complain.htm

Click to expand...

Julia said:

There are a few programs I strictly avoid on Radio National, but none more than the odious Robyn Williams with his religious fervour about climate change on his so called "Science Show". He should consider renaming it.

Click to expand...

http://joannenova.com.au/

Maurice Newman fights back: No slur is too vicious for Robyn Williams and the ABC...

...Questioning climate science is like advocating pedophilia, abetting mesothelioma and pushing drugs to teenagers? Well yes, according to the ABC’s science man. Stephan Lewandowsky...

...Newman points out this is more politics than science: No deceit is too great. Character assassination is the name-of-the-game and he found comments from a skeptical scientist who once lived under a communist regime to be apropos.

Lubos Motl, a climate commentator and string theory physicist, said about the ABC’s Science Show: “We used to hear some remotely similar (Czech) propaganda programs until 1989 … but the public radio and TV simply can’t produce programs that would be this dishonest, manipulative, hateful and insulting any more”.

The ABC Charter is clear, it is supposed to represent all Australians..

Click to expand...

Julia said:

Is the John Doyle who is replacing Fran Kelly on Radio National's Breakfast program that same John Doyle who was half of that duo which was supposed to be funny?

Never thought I'd be keen for Ms Kelly to get back, but after a few days of Mr Doyle, I can't wait for her return.

Click to expand...

Logique said:

What are John Doyle's (Roy Slaven) qualifications to host a current affairs program on the national broadcaster, read taxpayers dollar. Other than being ideologically 'sound' in ABC terms, and looking sufficiently grave whilst in a tinnie with guru Flannery on the Darling River.

What other candidates were considered.

Click to expand...

Australian Press Council said:

Adjudication No. 1555: Blair Donaldson and others/The Australian (December 2012) Document Type: Complaints Outcome: Adjudications Date: 20 Dec 2012
The Press Council has considered a number of complaints about an article by James Delingpole in The Australian on 3 May 2012, entitled, "Wind farm scam a huge cover-up".

...

Three people submitted separate complaints to the Council. The complaints about inaccuracy related to the article’s assertions about adverse medical impacts, the alleged size of subsidies under the certificate scheme and it being a "kind of government-endorsed Ponzi scheme". They also related to the article’s allegations that court orders had been sought by a named law firm to prevent public comment by people with wind farms on their property, and that the wind farms “produce very little power”. It was also complained that the article was gravely offensive by including a quote attributed to an unnamed sheep farmer that the "wind-farm business is bloody well near a pedophile ring. They're f..king our families and knowingly doing so".

...

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. It was fully justifiable in the public interest to convey the intensity of feeling by some opponents of wind farms but that goal did not require quoting the reference to paedophilia.

Click to expand...